Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
3. The MMP referendum. National wants desparately to return to a system where the largets minority gets to rule absolutely over everyone else. To aid this outcome, there are NO SPENDING LIMITS on the referendum...or on any organisation that wants to campaign for...whatever. The way is clear for Peter Shirtcliffe and his deep-pocket mates to try to frighten the bejesus out of everyone - again.
There have never been spending limits in any government referendum in New Zealand ever. Keith Locke proposed a binding referendum on a republic that had no spending limits, and far less transparency than National's MMP referendum.
There are spending limits on organisations campaigning for things. The limit on National campaigning for election is $2.4m. The limit on the Exclusive Brethren campaigning for a National election victory is $0.
-
The idea that "having someone for dinner" literally means that is pretty weak.
And if he'd said "having someone for dinner" you might have a point. What he said was:
'The good news was that I was having dinner with Ngati Porou as opposed to their neighbouring iwi, which is Tuhoe, in which case I would have been the dinner.'
-
The dilemma now is, if what you want is proportional representation (by whatever scheme), how do you vote in a referendum between AV and FPP?
You vote for AV. And then push for a change to multi-member electorates in the future, when it won't seem like such a big deal, 'cos people are used to voting with numbers instead of ticks.
-
I hope that come the referendum, people will remember the British example. And not remember it in the muddled way Peter Shirtcliffe seems to be interpreting it
And they're still denying that Scotland and Wales have MMP. MMP with regional lists, yes, but MMP nonetheless:
"It is not known yet whether the proposed system would include top-up list MPs as in the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales but it is clear Britain doesn't want New Zealand-style MMP," [Hunt] said.
-
All bets are that we're about to see this principle bite pretty hard this week, when Justice Bill Wilson offers his resignation in the wake of the report of the Judicial Conduct Panel on his repeated failure to declare that he owed a quarter of a million dollars to his business partner Alan Galbraith – and to recuse himself from cases argued by Galbraith.
The affair went up a notch when retired judge Sir Edmund "Ted" Thomas alleged in a complaint to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner, Sir David Gascoigne, that Justice Wilson made up a "fictitious" story to avoid disclosure.
The Panel doesn't appear to have thought much of Sir Edmund's claims...M
1. There isn't a panel yet. The Judicial Conduct Commissioner doesn't appear to have thought... that some aspects needed to go to a panel.
2. You quote from DPF on this, without considering the rejoinder:
Finally, I hope my prediction that "the very decision to recommend that a Judicial Conduct Panel is required would deeply undermine Justice Wilson's position" turns out to be completely wrong. For the reasons admirably laid out by Richard Cornes here, "The constitutional imperative of judicial independence requires that no judge should be hounded from their court on the basis of media pressure."
I'd extend that claim to cover the "new media", and suggest to my fellow denizens of the blogosphere that it is far too early to call for "Justice Wilson to resign and return to practising as a lawyer" (something he cannot do, as a judge of the High Court, in any case). Let's allow justice to be seen to be done, even to a Justice.
-
Ok, so our MMP needs some improvement, but this is patently ridicolous. LD 22% of the vote (so far) and 7% of the seats. Right?
Whatthe?
Yeah.
Labour got to govern with 35% in 2005. How fair is it that the Conservatives won't get to govern with 36%?
-
As the only Westminster jurisdiction with significant experience of proportional representation...
Really?
1. I'm not sure you'd call five elections "significant experience".
2. Richard Shaw ignores Scotland.
And Ireland, Malta, Australia (the Senate), Japan and many many others.
-
Right, time to go vote. Destiny etc..
The Destiny Party's in the UK, now? Bishop Tamaki certainly gets around.
-
That wasn't apparent, and I really was offended by your comparison of this forum with him and Wishart. They've actively vilified and harassed many people. Wishart in particular has blighted lives. He's a horrible little bully.
I really don't think an off-colour joke about a newspaper front page comes close to that. It made me doubt your good faith.
At the risk of continuing this beyond all reason, I would note that my 'humourous' contrast with Whale, was not about the joke, but about the link. You'd found something worse than bestial porn, but were still prepared to link to it.
However, I am sorry for the offence I've caused you.
-
It's an absurd description of an absurd front page. Was that not absolutely, utterly, 150% obvious?
Well, the first time it was obvious. But then it was repeated, and it was like - hey, you weren't listening when Charlie Brooker said it, I want to make sure you all realise how bad this picture of David Cameron on the Sun is. As bad as bestial porn.
The way Charlie put it wasn't funny either, but with the descriptor "embarrassingly lame" it was obvious he was being Charlie and deliberately shocking. Second time not so much. Yes it was a joke, but it was a really really unfunny one - on about the same level as "I saw the front page of the Sun and felt like I'd been raped". Would that have gone down well here? Even though it's obviously a joke?
That said, my WhaleOil dig was also obviously a joke...
Did I actually think it was literally "unspeakably hideous"? No, of course not. I was using hyperbole to a humorous end. It really is a very common thing that people do.
I can see humour and hyperbole there.
I just think that humour of the sort that invokes bestial porn (particularly in political debate) is really bad for civil society. If we start down that road, birthers and whoever will have something to hang their hats on. People will talk about others stealing elections, or being cancerous and corrosive, and public buy-in in the democratic process will suffer.
The true purpose of political argument is not to convince others but to be convinced by others. When people start seriously talking about political enemies rather than political opponents, and comparing - even humorously - their 'enemies' to pornographers this will never happen.