Posts by dave crampton
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
If unions don't like the Govts apparent refusal to raise the minimum wage, but want money in the pockets of those on the minimum wage, they could always reduce their union fees by $1.10 to at least assist those who are union members....
And if families on a low income -say, less than $700 per week for a family with two kids, would only go to WINZ and claim their $450 annual food grants when they are skimp.....
-
Matthew Poole said :If you resign, or get fired for misconduct, s60H of the Social Security Act 1964 mandates a 13-week stand-down period before payment of a benefit may commence.
That's rubbish, If you get fired, s60H does not apply.Unemployed means resigning from or otherwise leaving employment, other than by dismissal. Firing is dismissal.
-
Any thoughts on increasing the seat from one to two or three, as well as reducing the threshold?
-
<i>Excuse me; I'm flat out wrong; I apologise; the Maori option is in s76 - 78.
Stil, if we entrench that, then any repeal of s45 would effectively strip maori of any Parliamentary representation. Good luck making that fly.<i>
But the situation you have described is Labour's policy. Entrenchment of the Option but not the seats. tjh Maorio Party has a bil to amend the Maori seats. After some of our comments on the bill the Maori Party has advised that it is changing its bill of to include entrenchment of parts of the Maori electoral option as well as the seats. Good.I've written about that here
http://big-news.blogspot.com/2008/10/bloggers-encourage-maori-party-to-amend.html
-
Interestingly, we kind of have that situation at present.
Exactly. That's why Clark is being duplitious in citing the repeal of entrenchment legislation for not entrenching the option when there are other unstated reasons
-
So, it doesn't actually mean anything because any (entrenchment) legislation can potentially be repealed
Well, that's what Clark said. But, more importantly What Clark didn't say was it is a meaningless entrenchment for another reason. What would happen if the Maori electoral option was entrenched, the Maori seats weren't - and Parliament voted to remove the Maori seats. How much would entrenchment of the Maori option mean then?
-
Refuses to offer as in "votes against", or refuses to offer as in "refuses to vote for"?
Refuses to vote for. Meaning the biggest of the two left/ right factions becomes a minority govt with the MP abstaining on confidence or supply. Busy now, will read rest of comments later.
-
<quote>267 Entrenched provisions
(1)<quote>
Is why if no bottom lines are shifted, not only are the Maori seats not going to be entrenched, but the Maori Party will not be in coalition after the election. In the unlikelihood that it does shift - and themajor coalition partner is the one that shifts its stance on entrenchment - the policy will be effectively worthless unless there is broad based support.But... if no one shifts and there is a hung parliament and the Maori Party refuses to offer confidence and supply, there will be another election unless one of the two main parties extends some ministerial posts to the Maori Party - and guess which party that will most likely be?
-
I don't know why you are questioning why Helen Clark didnt trustOwen Glenn.
Helen Clark knew a donation was made. Owen Glenn told her. If she didn't believe Owen Glenn, but chose to believe Mr Peters, why all the repeated phone calls to seek clarification from Peters?
Helen Clark knew Owen Glenn was telling the truth. But she didnt want us to know she knew that. She didnt want to answer the question from Bill English in Parliament either the day Glenn told Clark of the donation her. So Cullen answered it and denied it. If he knew, as he should have done, he has misled Parliament. If he didnt he should have found out
-
At which point you also have to question whether they knew full well the whole thing would fall over and it was just a campaigning ploy to the conservative masses?
Exactly. They knew full well when they walked into that court room this week that it would fail.So did Bob McCoskrie. I spelled it out pretty damn clearly in an email to the Mayors office and to McCoskrie in response to a reply to an earlier email from both.
The second email was not acknowledged by the Council. Both were sent before the court hearing.