Posts by linger
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hobbit (v):
Kiwi version of "Bobbitt"
... in a portmanteau with hobble, for extra LOSE.
-
Back on the census ethnicity question:
A response of "Pakeha" or "New Zealander" is still a response that can be used to tell us something about ourselves as a nation. The problem is, it is a potentially ambiguous response, and an analyst can't tell exactly what you meant by it.
So the census question's list should include some explicit statements of some of the meanings that might be included by such a choice, e.g. and perhaps most usefully given the "identification" basis used for ethnicity,
"I do not consider any ethnic label to be an important part of my identity". -
THEY'RE FUCKING ACTORS! WITH PUBLICISTS AND AGENTS!
That could be read 2 ways Craig ;-)Actually, it reads more like at least 3-ways. 8-)
-
@Sacha: Hide's "acting" on info might not be expected ... except that it's exactly what we do expect as regards ACTing.
-
What desire do they satisfy?
A desire for accuracy? (Such descriptions are almost certainly not based solely on the specifics of this court case.)
-
Surely a false analogy, Craig?
With Cameron, party affiliations are relevant to the enabling of his criminal behaviour. (NB: no direct involvement or approval by his father is implied in this statement, or by Sacha's comment.)By contrast, in what way is Amanda's drug conviction politically connected to her father?
-
@Kyle:
One solution suggests itself: make the party membership requirement proportional to the size of the party list. Thus, a party fielding only a handful of candidates would need only 500 members (as at present), while a party wanting to field 100 candidates would need 10000. -
Tom: I don't think the answer is a fixed term limit for MPs, exactly. There should be some way of retaining the services of talented people (such as - in recent years - Anderton, Birch, Clark, Cullen, Tanczos) for as long as they are able and willing to do the job.
Would a better solution would be to require that any given MP should periodically (say, once every 3 terms?) have to stand for election in an electorate, without the backup of a list placement?
Actually, no - that would favour members of major parties at the expense of small parties that depend solely on the list.
So what we would need instead to address the problem you've identified is some direct way for voters to influence parties' list rankings.
-
... and then proceed to get absolutely hammered.
-
where "can't stand" actually means "can't recognise"?