Posts by Phil Lyth
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
This geek was curious to know what would happen if, on the first vote, two options were lowest-equal. For example 38 - 38 - 43 with two abstentions.
I understand that while not referred to in the video of Brownlee, there is agreement as to how to proceed if that happens.
-
Legal Beagle: MMP Review - The Proposals, in reply to Idiot Savant,
That's because it can't be answered without knowing the Constitutional Review's answer on the Maori seats.
But in turn that becomes complicated because the terms of reference of that Review don't require a report until Sept 2013. That is far too late in the cycle for any changes for the 2014 election.
The Minister's office did suggest that I could ask questions of the Review panel about how the several processes interface, via the panel's secretariat.
-
The Commission has kicked for touch on the electorate MP/list MP ratio, saying that given current settings it is not going to be a problem before 2026. Back to you, Parliament, they said in effect.
[Background: keeping a minimum of 16 South Island electorates over time increases the number of North Island seats as populations changes, increasing the total electorate seats and reducing the number of list seats available.]
-
Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to Emma Hart,
I am filled with hope, as yet unrequited, that Act On Campus will bring their MP to his senses.
-
the lobbying from all sides was going on almost literally until the last moment
Indeed, it happens in NZ too. On the day of the final vote on Civil Unions, the emails (for and against) were coming in at over 500/hour.
That was the day there was a big rainbow rally on the front lawn of Parliament: the music ended at 1.50pm, the final track being We're Going To The Chapel (And We're Going To Get Married).
-
Why is John Banks still officially on the "undecided" list?
He isn't, "officially". The marriageequality site is privately run, and my feeling is that it is 80%-85% accurate.
-
Meanwhile McQuillan traps the unwary w/ her latest tweet. Be warned.
-
Only a fool argues data with @keith_ng
Only a fool (like me) argues any area of law with @GraemeEdgeler -
The casual reader of this post might infer three things: that MPs arrive at Parliament bringing no life experience with them (which is of course nonsensical); that in 2012 MPs generally do not get involved in work or other experiences while in Parliament; and that while in Wellington they are out of touch with their electorates.
MPs have been engaging outside Parliament for many years. Some things are short-term, less than a day. The Road Transport Association regularly teams up MPs with big-rig drivers for a day, so the MPs can appreciate issues of concern. I've seen MPs getting around their home towns in a wheelchair for a morning, so they can understand accessibility needs.
The Business and Parliament Trust every year places MPs in Business Study programmes - click a link for some recent examples.
And today, MPs are constantly in touch with their constituents. 30 years ago, communication was limited to mail and telegram. Now, with email, internet, blogs, Facebook, Twitter, etc etc, it seems that the challenge for any MP is to get time to themself. I'm surprised at the strange hours of the night that some MPs are posting / tweeting.
Certainly it is important they stay in touch. As new MPs learn every three years, Lambton Quay is not typical of New Zealand.
-
Problems like this one have been fixed at a National level
I don't know that I'd agree with that in practice. The Electoral Commission has published the candidates' returns from the 2011 election.
I took a sample, the first 10 National candidates, electorates Auckland Central to East Coast. They declared just over $158,000. Of that, nearly a quarter, or $37,723, was raffle proceeds declared by Bill English. (Maybe he could get those little old ladies to run raffles for Treasury and get NZ back into surplus.)
$68,976 was declared from the National Party, and a further $23,208 [edit originally and wrongly put figure as $28,188] as 'contributions' via named persons. This appears to be a lawful way of aggregating. For five of the 10 candidates, the only money they declared was from National - and those five include two Ministers and two MPs.
Only $28,188 was declared from named sources. And I am including in that $5000 from the Road Transport Forum which was declared to be 'contributions' and $6000 from 'Hauraki Chambers' to Scott Simpson. I'm assuming they are local lawyers.
But effectively anonymous money is more than triple the identified money in this sample.