Posts by Idiot Savant
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
...or an empty house where no-one actually lived, which seems a bit odd. But again, I'm not going to die in a ditch over it.
-
I really think it discourages people from running a little campaign unless they are professional politcals.
For example I might want to put up a website or a few posters advocating an issue or a party.
I'd have to publish my home address ( which is nicely situated for people to throw rocks through my bedroom windows)
The requirement that election advertisements carry a promoter statement with a valid address is not new to the EFA. It was part of the old Electoral Act rules too (what has changed is that it is now clear that it applies to the web - and rightly so - and that you can't hide behind a PO Box or fake address as the Brethren did. That latter might change, and its nothing i'm going to die in a ditch over, but the fact remains: if you wanted to campaign pre-EFA, you had to say who you were and where you got your mail).
-
s/attribution/registration
And s/$1000/$12000, unless you're campaigning against a particular electorate candidate.
-
Now, I know some will put it down to grumpy Labour voters staying home, or the bandwagon effect, or whatever.
I'll throw a few more into the mix: polls which made it seem like it was a foregone conclusion, and parties which hugged their opponents so tightly that it made it seem like nothing was at stake. As 2005 and 1999 showed, people turn out when they think it matters. Key's triumph is based on making people think politics - and him - are irrelevant.
-
I was never really clear on this part of the EFA. If I want to spend up to $12,000 telling people to vote for Party X, I need only include the promoter's address, yes? And, that could mean just including my address?
Have I missed something in that understanding?
Apart from the fact that you can't actually say "vote for Party X" without Party X's approval (and it counting on their spending cap), only the fact that you need your name as well.
Basically, unless you're spending a lot of money (and despitethe right's pretensions, $12,000 is an awful lot of money to almost everyone in NZ), then the law has very little effect on you. It's only a "problem" for those seeking to use their wealth to gain an unfair advantage.
-
The Kiwi Party should find solace in that their single issue is about as popular as legalising cannabis.
Hmm. Maybe the ALCP could start their campaign for the next election by trying to get a referendum on that?
-
Rodney will be, Winston-style, a minister outside Cabinet. And Key will be taking his cue from Helen Clark and running a minority government, with confidence and supply from support from Act.
Which is perfectly sensible. While innovative (internationally speaking), such arrangements seem to be the best at protecting the interests of minor parties, allowing them both power and freedom. They also serve the intersts of the large party, by giving them some distance, and allowing them to call on different parties for different policies.
-
Ministers outside cabinet are subject to cabinet collective responsibility.
Though possibly only within their portfolios, depending on the coalition arrangements in question.
The Cabinet Manual has strong "aggree to disagree" provisions precisely to protect junior coalition partners. And ACT's Ministers may very well be using them in areas where they do not have responsibilities (as for ACT itself, their other MPs aren't bound by CCR, so can can go as feral as they want; witness Ron Mark in the last Parliament...)
-
Re: the numbers. If the Maori Party abstain on a vote, would National be able to pass legislation alone?
Yes, just. But I can't see them doing that on legislation (since they run the "is it good for Maori" ruler over everything and vote accordingly). They might however agree to abstain on confidence and supply in exchange for a few policy concessions and consultation rights. This would devalue ACT's hand, though the neolibeals in national's caucus will strengthen it.
-
These people genuinely seem to regard pre-election undertakings as there to be abandoned.
It's that 80's neoliberal mindset. Democracy is a problem which pevents "necessary" "reforms". The people are just a "special interest group" (as opposed to the rich, or business). Blitzkrieg! Crash through or crash!
Sadly, this means National probably won't have a problem getting urgency.