Posts by Jan Farr
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Thanks Rich. I'm not sure how democratic the US primaries are really - the candidates are a thin bunch - pretty much self-selected by wealth or their ability to raise it. Candidates like Jesse Jackson, or Obama, for example, are rare and dynasties are relatively common.
UK Lib Dems and Greens - OK - but how effective are their systems? People voting for people they may not have the faintest clue about. In my opinion the danger is - although the Greens website says this isn't so - that you end up with pretty faces, smooth talkers and stars.
-
Can we get back to Rich o O's brilliant idea of one person one vote, ad infinitum. Please demonstrate - or give examples its successful operation.
-
Or - Rich - are you promoting meeting stacking in preference to organising. That's certainly how the Nazis did it - and how Richard Prebble thumped the guts out of Auckland Central in the late 80s.
-
Can you suggest a better system?
One member, one vote?
Eventually though, aren't you going to have to trust the people you elect - allow them to take some responsibility, or is our life going to be an endless procession of polling booths. We wouldn't get a hell of a lot done. I can certainly think of better ways to spend my life.
-
So the Labour process is that:
- the head office choose a candidate, with overridable input from the local party
- the elected candidates (who become MPs) choose the leader
- the leader appoints the head officeThat right?
To be a little less cynical Rich o O, and from my quick reading of the Labour Party's Constitution and Rules it's more like this: voters choose the MPs, the elected MPs choose their leader (who of course is also elected by the voters.) For selection of candidates, the New Zealand Council (18 elected positions and one appointed Gen Sec) choose a team of three with three votes. The electorate has four votes - one of which is the vote from the floor. If people in the electorate get themselves organised they can certainly overturn the NZ Council's rep's vote. Can you suggest a better system?
-
*cough* Well, I get rather bored with whats-her-face on Checkpoint I'm just waiting for someone to just snap and tell her, "I didn't give you the answer you want the first dozen times you screeched that incredibly stupid leading question, so why don't you fuck off?"
Craig - I know what you mean - I suppose I might find it endearing of the person who snaps as well - but in the end we'll probaby just have to acknowledge that what's rather endearing to me is boring to you and possibly vice versa.
-
0.9% is the optimum solution, apparently.
Thanks 3410. I think I've been over-salting.
-
as far as I can tell it's the last consistent public service broadcaster left in any medium in this country,
Totally agree and I hasten to add that I do listen to it - and to backtrack a little - even Morning Report - because Plunkett, in spite of his bullying and his biases is a well informed and interesting interviewer. Kathryn Ryan on the other hand bores me stiff with her girlish self-consciousness and her questions that border on the bleeding obvious.
-
Laidlaw should come with a health warning, though. May cause drowsiness. Do not operate heavy machinery.
Yes but I'm so boring I occasionally find him electrifying.
-
Oh, come on. The Herald is clearly a Nat lapdog, but RNZ? Endangering your credibility with that claim.
I have detected a shift to the right in Radio NZ in recent years with Sean Plunkett leading the charge, of course. But Kathryn Ryan does her best to keep up and Jim Mora chooses some strange 'Act-lite' companions in his four to five slot. The only people I can really be bothered listening to these days are Kim Hill, Chris Laidlaw and Mary Wilson - who seems to attack all comers like an endearing foxie on speed.