Posts by Che Tibby
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hands up who knows what a "sham foreign exchange transaction" is
heh. trick question.
it's a tautology, innit?
-
In fact if I were designing government there would be only documentation and no elected representatives at all, just propositions that would be voted on directly, with civil servants getting hired or fired on their implementation.
maybe we will all get ponies after all.
-
So they not technically liars in the sense Che seems to interpret the word. They're just half-truthers to a massive degree which IMHO is much the same.
well... the *last* thing you want is a government who dogmatically follows something written during the course of a heated election campaign. the policies need to be mellowed down to practicalities, and applied sensibly, which all governments tend to do.
if not only because risk-averse public servants have to implement them.
the accusation of 'liars' is a little partisan.
-
I'm sure the academic you refer to had a different idea of what a promise means.
not at all. he explicitly stated that the statistical low ebb for "promise-keeping" was the 4th labour government...
i just wanted to disagree that policy manifestos were unnecessary. they are provided, and they are adhered to, in general. there is some... "mobility" in their application by governments, but this doesn't mean that they shoud be neglected during campaigning in lieu of trusting newly appointed ministers to do the right thing.
-
@ben, those are examples of policy implementation though, regardless of the outcomes.
if you have an example of election policy not being implemented, i'd love to hear them.
-
ummm.. could a moderator please ask russell to not use a sentence like that last one?
i think i was just a little sick in my mouth.
-
They're also bloody vague, and seldom followed. I know they're how it should work, but they just never are.
untrue. a nzl academic recently published(? was heard on na.trad) something demonstrating that up to 90% of "promises" made by "politicans" are kept.
the remaining promises were things like "everyone gets a pony".
i agree that the policies are often adapted to sit circumstances, or watered down. but they're still followed.
-
Which is how it has to be - what would be the point of human representatives if we were actually voting on policy documents.
jesus... i'm genuinely shocked at that.
policies are a manifesto of what you can expect from that government. without it you might as well just vote for the candidate you think is best at working on the fly.
-
I have this recurring nightmare in which I'm the only person who ends up votig
well... voting is voluntary. even if zero citizens voted you can guarantee the candidates and their families will.
you could end up with an nzl government, as you indicate
-
heh. john safran has a great rant in his "versus god" show where he accused catholics of attending churches that look like a marilyn manson video.
i laughed. a lot.