Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I wanted to see if that ballot paper was as absurd as I remembered it: one question with five choices, one of which was FPP. Of course, it wasn't.
That's my fear over National's current proposal. It appears to be that the second question (if enough people say yes to the first) would be one question with five choices. The ultimate question we're asked should come down to two full proposals e.g. the current system versus an FPP system with 120 MPs and a minimum of 25 South Island seats and Māori seats pegged to the number of Māori on the Māori roll and ... and ... etc.
What ever happened to that? And how old would you have to be to have been asked that question?
As usual, Wikipedia has the answer:
The National government of Jim Bolger proposed the establishment of an elected Senate when it came to power in 1990, thereby reinstating a bicameral system, and a Senate Bill was drafted. Senators would be elected by STV, with a number of seats being reserved for Māori, and would have powers similar to those of the old Legislative Council. The House of Representatives would continue to be elected by FPP.
The intention was to include a question on a Senate in the second referendum on electoral reform. Voters would be asked, if they did not want a new voting system, whether or not they wanted a Senate. However, following objections from the Labour opposition, which derided it as a red herring, and other supporters of MMP, the Senate question was removed by the Select Committee on Electoral Reform, and the issue has not been pursued since.
-
As a post script, I should add that I find the exact process that seems to have been promised in National's policy somewhat odd.
If we're to have (the possibility of) two referendums then they should follow the same process used last time.
The first should ask whether we want a change, and list a bunch of alternatives. And the second (if we said we wanted to consider a change in the first) should pit two fully realised alternatives against each other.
Having the first only ask "do you want a change?" and the second pitting a selection of alternatives against each other makes little sense. The resulting legislation actually working out what form a new system we want might take would still need another vote to actually take effect. Legislation moving to first past the post must pass a referendum, or gain 75% in the House.
The first past the post we're choosing from a list of acronyms might be starkly different from the old one we had.
-
a variety of shadow spokesmen ... would also ask numerous questions which could be asked in one
I suspect that's either the MP (or their researcher) learning from experience that many questions that could be asked as one get answered as one without anywhere close to the information actually sought.
Your questions - wanting a breakdown of waiting lists - might well ave been answered there were 10 families on the waiting list ... when there were also 10 on the B waiting list and a further 10 on the C.
-
Allan Peachey was blathering on in the same way on 3 News last night.
...
my teenage son say Peachey on TV last night "who's that redneck maroon?" was his response...
And my response was "I wonder if Ron Mark's miffed they didn't get him?".
p.s. maroon/moron is pretty funny.
-
Also illegal. You can't supervise people beyond the length of their sentence. Once the X years that the judge ordered them to serve is up, they're free to go, unrestrained and supervised by the state. That's why parole kicks in earlier, you can't start it after the 15 years are up.
Actually - no.
The standard parole conditions apply for a minimum of six months from release - even for those released at the absolute end of their sentence.
Also, extended supervision orders (up to 10 years) are available against certain categories of offender (sex offenders mostly/entirely) which can also extend well beyond any finite sentence (which might be a 7 year maximum for indecent assualt, for example).
But I understand the point you're making. I'm not a fan of "truth in sentencing" as it has thus far been advanced in NZ, but I do think we should adopt American-style (or at least American TV-style) sentences.
Call 6 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years "3 to 6 years' imprisonment", and then we can have the real debate of sentencing.
-
There is however the partial defence of - I forget what it's technically called - blind rage.
The partial defence (that turns a murder rap into manslaughter) is provocation.
The Law Commission has recommended getting rid of it. It largely stems from a time when the death penalty was mandatory for murder and there were some people whom we felt sorry enough for that we didn't think they deserved to die.
-
That's tonne.
You need a sub :-)
-
That MSNBC embedded video looks right tasty, too.
Certainly not YouTube, is it?
-
makes her useless as a vp.
Makes her useless as a VP candidate (if you're looking to use the running mate to shore up support).
It doesn't at all impact on her qualities as VP.
-
it would have been great to see the mad patriarchs in places like Afghanistan forced to deal with that most perfidious of creatures, a woman.
You mean like how they've been dealing with Condaleeza Rice?