Posts by Idiot Savant
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I understand that Research New Zealand will be polling on the issue next month.
-
Muse: OFF TOPIC: This Is What Your Brain…, in reply to Emma Hart,
Polling. I want some fucking polling on this.
You could ask some pollsters, get a rough cost, and if its not unreasonably large, run a public pledge drive to fund it.
-
Muse: OFF TOPIC: This Is What Your Brain…, in reply to Kyle Matthews,
Politically, do we think it matters who does it? Should it be a straight, married, National Party female? It seems unfortunate, but it feels likely that the personal life of the person who puts it forward may impact upon whether it passes, and how nasty it gets getting through.
It will get nasty regardless. The bigots will put up their godly howl again, just as they did over Homosexual Law Reform, Civil Unions, and child beating. But it has to be done, and the sooner the better.
As for tactics, a National Party sponsor will likely result in more votes than a Labour one, in that National MPs won't just be able to vote against it because it wasn't put up by them (whereas Labour will naturally support it, with a few notable exceptions, few of whose minds would be changed by loyalty to a fellow MP). It may also be easier to get a National MP to actually put it up; Labour I think requires member's bills to be approved by caucus (which is both sensible and a cowards veto).
-
Muse: OFF TOPIC: This Is What Your Brain…, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
I’m even pretty sure Idiot/Savant has one he prepared earlier. :)
I do indeed:
http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2009/05/for-when-time-finally-comes.html
So, Nikki, Jacinda, how about it? Either of you got a spine?
-
And this is how insurance companies make their money: by taking people's premiums, then wriggling out of paying when disaster strikes. The entire industry is based on the systematic defrauding of their customers.
-
Apparently they're already getting $860,000, thanks to Paula Bennett.
-
Hard News: Bishop Brian: It's worse than…, in reply to Sacha,
I'd like to see journos ask about why the 'church' have had funding applications for their programmes turned down - those agencies must have reasons.
Give me an idea of who they've asked, and I can OIA it.
-
Hard News: We are all Twitter, in reply to BenWilson,
It really doesn't sound that hard.
I didn't say it was hard. I said it cost money, which the Electoral Commission is unlikely to have. They'll be funded for an expected level of electoral crime. But if there are thousands of cases, then they won't be able to enforce the law.
-
Hard News: We are all Twitter, in reply to BenWilson,
I'm not so sure. They could just send fines to as many people as they can easily get, targeting people with the most followers, making the most posts, or the most obvious ones.
They could. But it costs money (money to pay lawyers to get user details out of twitter, money to draft letters, money to file cases, money to settle, money to build the courthouses and pay the judges to decide the extra cases for those who won't). And the Electoral Commission doesn't have any. As for the police, we already know that they don't consider breaches of electoral law to be "real crime".
-
Hard News: We are all Twitter, in reply to Emma Hart,
I suspect it's the nature of Twitter that organising masses of identical tweets in support of your party flooding Twitter on election day might be... a tad counter-productive.
Politicians and their hacks are too thick to understand a "no circulars" sign on my letterbox; I doubt they're bright enough to understand that people hate spam and will gleefully see spammers buried alive in poisonous spiders (or the equivalent at the ballot box)