Posts by Matthew Poole
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: The non-binary council, in reply to Stephen Judd,
past form on large public sector IT projects does not encourage
This. I actually do believe that e-voting can be done properly, even at the national level in a country like NZ with a superb reputation for running elections well. However, it would need to be resourced like our national reputation was on the line, rather than just something as pedestrian as our democracy, and I have precisely zero faith that the current lot would provide anything like the necessary resources. The other lot would if the Greens have a Cabinet stake, but Labour don't exactly have an impeccable reputation for upholding the very highest principles of participatory democracy so it would need a very powerful Green caucus to make sure things were done properly.
Verifiability by the laity is desirable, but it is sufficient for many people if external auditors can be appointed from outside the government to attest to the security of the system. If every major party plus the Law Commission and the Human Rights Commission were given a suitable sum of government money to contract their own auditor(s) from anywhere in the world, that would go a long way to providing assurance that the system had been done properly.
-
Hard News: The non-binary council, in reply to Paul Campbell,
I’m a little bit surprised one can run for a district one doesn’t live in, that doesn’t seem right to me, especially for local elections
In a city with multiple districts it's a bit much to expect people to only stand for the area in which they live, particularly since the vagaries of district boundaries could see them become ineligible to stand for the area they've represented for years if they happen to have been living at the outskirts and the boundaries change.
Since we don't do electorates or wards on any firm geographical basis, a residence requirement has all kinds of potential to force long-term elected representatives out of office purely because of a bureaucratic decision. How is that helpful or right? -
Cracker: Lundy and Me., in reply to Islander,
I think the remote location bit still applies
I believe it's a 30km radius from the courthouse, for rather self-evident reasons, and I know people who have been summonsed for the Manukau District Court while resident closer to the Auckland High Court. Auckland is a challenge because some unfortunates (I think including myself) fall within 30km of all the city's courts.
-
Cracker: Lundy and Me., in reply to Ian Dalziel,
With all the armchair relitigators (self included), I suspect they will have a hard time finding members for a jury that haven’t already spent time speculating, or been exposed to theories, on this case…
If the prosecution decides to revise the timeline to a late-night/early-morning event, that will change an enormous number of things. Bain II was pretty much a prosecutorial replay of the previous trial, complete with the transcript testimony of the accused himself. Changing the time of the murder in Lundy means a completely new prosecution. It would certainly challenge preconceptions.
-
On the result particularly, I’m very sorry to see Richard Northey (my erstwhile councillor) replaced by what appears to be a vacuous, lying, oxygen thief. Krum campaigned loudly on outright lies about the Unitary Plan (as noted by Transport Blog in the post Russell linked). She also managed to be ranked lower than Aaron Gilmore on National's 2011 list, which speaks volumes.
I want to try and engage with her and encourage her to actually tackle the copious evidence in favour of an intensified Auckland (especially since she claims to want affordable housing; presumably not in her ward, though) and high-quality public transport, but I’m just not sure where to start on someone whose contribution to the UP debate was aimed at watering it down and based on lies.
-
The more unhappy the Council makes Orsman, the happier I am.
-
Hard News: When a riot went on, in reply to Russell Brown,
I don’t think the riot was ever going to be what destabilised that government
No. It was destabilised right from the outset.
-
Legal Beagle: The Review of Standing Orders, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
Changes to Standing Orders are done by consensus, and usually by unanimity.
IOW, it's extremely unlikely that the current regime will acquiesce to the removal of the financial veto given that its existence has allowed them to nuke private members' bills that they find offensive.
-
Who introduced the Financial Veto into Standing Orders, Graeme? Was it Labour giving with one hand while taking with the other? Or is this odious concept a National creation?
-
Cracker: Lundy and Me., in reply to Lilith __,
One of the difficulties with murder cases as I understand it is that it’s almost always a one-off, an exceptional situation the killer is in, which won’t be repeated.
Frequently also domestic, and with the killer either present when the police show up or, if they're not, readily identified and quite willing to plead guilty. Actual whodunnit murders aren't all that common in this country.