Posts by BenWilson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Muse: That Book, The Ban That Isn't,…, in reply to Russell Brown,
Isn't an issue for me. Wishart is so reckless and agenda-driven that I wouldn't be holding out a lot of hope for "insight" from any of his work.
I'm not so sure. He says "All she wanted was to tell her story so that others would learn how people slip into an abusive lifestyle, and to shed light on the twins murders.". Any information could be insightful, regardless of whether Wishart is pushing some conservative agenda (as he so often does), because the people involved have kept so silent. It is investigative journalism, something we're always clamoring for. Pity it's people like Wishart doing it, but something about him must have appealed to King - perhaps it's just that he would dare to take her seriously and give her a voice.
My main problem is that I can't get interested in the story itself. There's altogether too much news about horrors, FFS some baby was found in a plastic bag in a stream today.
-
Hard News: #NetHui: it's all about you, in reply to Russell Brown,
I had to acknowledge to myself that I was basically trolling a lot of the time at Kiwiblog. Didn't seem right.
Yes, it's an infectious attitude, that I've opted to quarantine myself from.
-
Hard News: #NetHui: it's all about you, in reply to 81stcolumn,
On a sadder note I’d finally plucked up courage to go to an OGB and got permission, but you put it on a Thursday – conspiracy I say !!!
Come for a bit. There's always coffee on Friday morning, u know!
-
Legal Beagle: Referendum Fact Check #1, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
Yup, I doubt there will be too much "play the ball and not the man" arguments when it comes to that revelation, it will be "sub the man, and hope no one notices he was ever here". Well done, Bomber!
-
He could be that clever, but I doubt he's really driven by money. For him it's what it is for most authors, the desire for as many people as possible to read them. I highly doubt he would like having his books taken from shelves, considering the cost of print, the effect it will have on his future chances of publisher backing, etc. But the moral outrage isn't something I see him disliking, he would never have chosen the subject if he was scared by the idea of it.
But I'm almost talking myself around to thinking the Facebook page isn't so bad after all, because of this. This does appear to be something the nation really wants to discuss, and if the moral panic drives the discussion into the foreground and enables some NZers to actually take account of King's words, however outraged they are by them, that's possibly not so bad. It's a learning experience for the mob, too. Be careful what you mob against, you may end up promoting it!
-
Legal Beagle: Referendum Fact Check #2:…, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
The Nazi Party never received a majority.
Yes, I shouldn't say Hitler received majorities. It was in a coalition arrangement that he became the Chancellor. But the Nazi party wasn't some tiny party hovering around the threshold. They got over 33% in 1932, that's in the same ballpark as both National and Labour have both endured within the last 10 years. A threshold would not have stopped them, and in the end, nothing could stop them except violence.
-
Legal Beagle: Referendum Fact Check #2:…, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
However, the point remains that a 5% threshold could have stopped some of the fractiousness from getting representation in the legislature.
Not could. Would certainly have. But the important question seems to me "would that have been better or worse?". I doubt it would have made a lick of difference, Hitler was brought in by huge majorities, and if he hadn't been, it's quite likely he might have seized power anyway, as he eventually did, even though democracy actually installed him.
I guess fractiousness doesn't seem to me to be such a bad thing to represent. If society is fractured, then you can't unfracture it by eliminating the smaller influences from the political process. All you've done is set up a situation where leadership can act decisively because they can safely ignore a reasonable percentage of interests. I used to be a much bigger fan of decisive leadership than I am now.
-
While there are arguments against the single seat exception, that it makes Parliament more disproportionate is not one of them.
It certainly does not make it more disproportionate for the party that attains a single seat, unless that party gets considerably less of the party vote than required for one electorate. As you say, for them, it makes it more proportionate.
But there is an argument that allowing parties to become proportionate on the strength of a single seat, while others with potentially higher support fail out because they don't get a seat, is disproportionate. The question is really where to lay that blame - is it the threshold, or the exception to the threshold? I personally think it's the threshold. Removing the exception would certainly eliminate more parties from parliament.
-
The pre-World War II electoral system in Germany was a pure proportional system (i.e. list vote only) with no threshold. It led to an incredibly fractured Parliament.
It's a big call to blame the incredibly chaotic times in that country at that time on the electoral system. I expect it was incredibly fractured because their entire society was incredibly fractured, there was constant revolt, numerous uprisings, political assassinations, large angry violent factions clashing in the streets, popular racist conspiracies, Great Nations maneuvering outside the borders with vast armies, an intense anger at the outcome of WW1, hyperinflation, sanctions, and an enormous stockmarket collapse. I doubt any system would have done much better.
-
The thing that I most dislike about this kind of moral panic is the way that it's mighty counterproductive. Way to give the book a whole lot of free publicity.
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 575 576 577 578 579 … 1066 Older→ First