Posts by Matthew Poole
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
added six extra offences to the list of serious offences (basically: underage sex
Including sex with someone between the ages of 12 and 16. Tooooootally something against which society is in desperate need of protection. But I guess it helps make up the numbers.
-
Hard News: Political Idol, or whatever…, in reply to Russell Brown,
Stephen Franks, who was deftly retained by the Green Party
Whoever thought of using Franks is a genius. As a former Act MP he cannot simply be dismissed as a tool of the simpering lefty establishment.
-
Hard News: Political Idol, or whatever…, in reply to llew40,
But who gets to decide what is a ‘good’ deal or not
Not tampering with the principle of parliamentary sovereignty would be a good starting benchmark. Easily followed, and ought to be obvious why it's a benchmark. If the deal can't stack up without trying to force future parliaments to adhere to the current parliament's views on acceptable regulation, it's so shady it's pitch black.
-
Hard News: Political Idol, or whatever…, in reply to BenWilson,
It might teach the corporations not to be so greedy in future.
Precisely. If the deal is only worth doing by way of an "unconstitutional" (inasmuch as such is possible in this country) attempt to bind future parliaments, the deal is probably not worth doing.
-
OnPoint: BTW, the NZ Police can use…, in reply to Idiot Savant,
So, is it worth both encrypting and signing? If so, what’s the preferred order?
Depends what you’re after. Signing validates the integrity of the message and verifies the sender. Encryption is, well, encryption.
Encrypting then signing puts the signature in the clear, allowing it to be viewed by anyone (or stripped off entirely by "them"). Signing then encrypting verifies the clear-text message, and any tampering with the encrypted message will result in the message failing to decrypt.
Signing means the recipient knows who the sender was. Encryption provides no verification of the sender, which may or may not matter. If your aim is to send a deniable tip to a journo, don’t sign. If you want the journo to know that it’s proof of your bona fides, do sign.
-
Hard News: Political Idol, or whatever…, in reply to Kyle Matthews,
Sky City are spending lots of money on building a convention centre in return for umpteen years of stupid gambling laws
And in return for their licence not being put up for public auction when it runs its term in 2021 or whenever it is. The returns from that auction may well have been vastly higher than the taxpayer money not spent on building a convention centre.
As for compensation, I quite liked Russell summary of Cunliffe’s response: “Fuck’m”. They supped with the Key devil, and as a consequence they deserve to be left out in the cold when a government that actually believes in parliamentary sovereignty is next elected.
-
Hard News: Political Idol, or whatever…, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
I always like the Opposition to be an effective check and balance on the Government of the day.
Word. Particularly since I don't think you're thrilled about the current government's willingness to stomp all over procedural checks and conventional balances.
-
Hard News: Political Idol, or whatever…, in reply to Keir Leslie,
Grant Robertson was the chair. He’s not a neo-liberal.
A’ight. Obviously got the wrong impression from things I’d read.
-
Hard News: Political Idol, or whatever…, in reply to Andre,
Got to start somewhere. A revision of the 00s' continuation of the 80s is more likely under a leader who supports the apology for the 80s. Robertson is, from what I can gather, an unabashed member of Labour's neolib faction, whereas Cunliffe is much clearer on the significant hurt that the neoliberal idiotology has inflicted on NZ.
-
Hard News: Political Idol, or whatever…, in reply to Andre,
Cunliffe seems to have drawn a mark in the sand at least. Shame it’s taken thirty years to reach this point where Labour may represent the working classes again rather than the upper-middle-classes who seem to have been their primary focus over that time.
Labour finally apologised last year for the destruction that resulted from their policies in the 1980s. I saw that as a real turning point. The contenders for leadership need to be quizzed on their commitment to honouring that apology.