Posts by Trevor Nicholls
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to linger,
gerrymandering
Oops you're right. (Have you ever lived in America?)
Fortunately that never really happened in this country but yes it could, with political appointments to the judiciary and electoral commission.
Historically, despite occasional huge majorities for one side or the other, electoral boundaries in NZ have always been drawn by balanced committees, haven't they?
-
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to bmk,
Yes, the system can be gamed. I guess that is the solitary advantage of FPP, it's hard to see how that could be gamed.
I'd like to see the threshold disappear. I'd also suggest that for a party to appear on the party voting paper it has to field electorate candidates across the country (maybe not in every seat, but at the very least a majority of them). Some legal requirement that prevents a party campaigning against its own electoral candidate would be nice but I can't imagine how it could be enforceable.
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to st ephen,
we're running out of other ways to transfer public value to private individuals
The common-wealth is becoming invested in fewer and fewer hands. It's like the class system only even worse.
-
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to bmk,
if a party wins more electorate seats than they were entitled too
If a party wins electorate seats then they are entitled to them. That's democracy for you.
-
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
I really get that the government isn't shaking down to your taste
The Sanctimonious Craig isn't confined to the Conservative Party, clearly.
Craig, please enlighten me, is someone righteous like you happy to have someone as your current party leader and prime minister who lies as freely and frequently as John Key does?
-
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
No, it really isn't
OK, truth or dare. Are you happy with a party leader and prime minister who lies as freely and as frequently as your current party leader and prime minister?
-
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to Henry Barnard,
And is the purpose of this `airing' to ram home to the rest of the party that they cannot function with him as leader?
I think the last four words are superfluous.
I have to say that as of this moment, I have more respect for Cunliffe than I do for most of the Labour party caucus.
-
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to bmk,
Health has amazingly stayed out of the headlines for the last 6 years
Only if you're healthy. You might get a more negative response from the chronically ill or chronically disabled.
-
Such a demonstrable inability to compromise is a really bad look for a party in the MMP system.
-
Speaker: An Open Letter To David Cunliffe, in reply to mark taslov,
I understand the purpose of the tax, it’s the leeway for collateral damage that eludes. It’s the emphasis on revenue collection at the possible expense of anyone at all, even just a single individual, for whom that money might make a big difference, that has me lost. When did that person stop mattering?
I think you need to stop considering one policy in a vacuum. One option (apparently considered sensible by prominent members of the National caucus) is to avoid taxing capital gains and to cut access to benefits instead. Go along with that and you're in the position of disadvantaging a tangibly significant number of the "lowest" members of society for the sake of not disadvantaging a tiny number of "potential" impoverished property traders. It's not sensible.