Posts by Idiot Savant
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: This Is Not A Complicated Issue, in reply to Russell Brown,
No. Smith is the responsible minister. He convenes the meeting.
Absolutely. He's chair of the PSC, and so calls the meetings. Arguably, given Parliament's failure to appoint new members to the PSC, he's the only person who can call meetings (or maybe not - see schedule 2.1(2) of the Parliamentary Services Act; membership currently does consist of the people specified in s18, but they're outside their time period. Though that would mean that they're inquorate. Argh!)
-
Hard News: Name That Food Blog, in reply to Robyn Gallagher,
It is indeed better with a Z.
-
Noms.
(as in "nom nom nom")
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
Maybe Labour should adopt a more transparent mechanism that puts the leadership and list decisions in the hands of ordinary members?
Can anyone provide a convincing reason why not?
Because it would mean an end to this sort of machine politics. Which in turn would be bad for Labour's machine politicians. So a "democratic" party ends up being an oligarchy to benefit its leadership, not its members.
(How do you change Labour's constitution anyway? Do some grassroots members want to try?)
-
OnPoint: Spending "Cap" is Fiscal Anorexia, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
(I think current teaching and nursing graduates would love to have the same entry-level salary as a backbench MP. Currently a hair under $135K, IIRC.)
$141K. They put it up just before the election.
-
OnPoint: Spending "Cap" is Fiscal Anorexia, in reply to Tom Semmens,
Firstly, Private organisations are not subject to the OIA (and they don't leak) so they help salve the paranoid imagination of the likes of Steven Joyce.
But the moment they become "Boards of Trustees constituted under Part 9 of the Education Act 1989" they are.
-
The count of referendum votes is a lot easier than the count of general election ballots: the usual protections of traceable ballot papers weren't imposed
I noticed this when I was voting, and it freake dme out. Why did they dispense with such a basic protection?
-
It really just comes down to Public Address Rule One: Don't be a dick.
Which is what it all comes down to anyway.
I don't have comments anyway, so its not so much of an issue for me. But I won't be blogging about politics on the day (though I might do a post about my voting experience), and I won't be tweeting about it either. This will be helped significantly by my rule about Not Blogging On Weekends.
-
Hard News: Criminalising Journalism, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
That's actually complete self-serving bullshit. I'm going to go vote tomorrow, and probably split my vote. Key is as entitled to solicit "strategic voting" as anyone else (and they do), but what I do tomorrow is not a "travesty of democracy" but "exercising my democratic right, without giving a flying fuck what anyone else thinks about it".
The travesty isn't split voting, the travesty is soliciting votes for a party which you intend to radically change after people have voted for it. If you did that with an ordinary product, it would be false advertising, and the Commerce Commission would come down on you like a ton of bricks. It speaks volumes about the character of Key and Banks that they think its OK in politics.
(Really, if politicians don't want us to think they're alllying scumbags, they should try not acting that way for a change)
-
Muse: The Very Odd Future According to…, in reply to Keir Leslie,
(I am kind of curious as to the legal position. It would seem to me that Beggs is pretty on point here. ( Baigent too I guess.) And that would appear to suggest that there should be legal recourse available.)
A legal solution would require someone with standing to take a case. Which can only be the BDO. Who have already clearly decided that its not worth their while to fight it.
Sadly, ordinary citizens have no-one to enforce our right to a city council which respects freedom of speech.