Posts by Rich of Observationz
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
No, the point is that public policy isn't single issue.
-
No, I'm saying that if people want 100 MPs (or to be able to beat their children and so on), they should vote in a parliamentary majority at an election that favours that policy.
-
Speaker: So NZ First gets another list…, in reply to Steve Curtis,
If "the people" felt that strongly about saving 0.005% of public spending, ensuring that a government would struggle to appoint sufficient competent and experienced ministers to do their job of ensuring public policy agendas are those of the elected government rather than the permanent public service and reducing the diversity of parliament, then they could have voted for one of the parties (NZF, 100 MP party, Bill & Ben) who favoured reducing the number of Mps.
-
Speaker: So NZ First gets another list…, in reply to Sam M,
It was designed that way. The basis, I think, is that the proportionality at the time of election is no longer relevant for the next three years and voters in a by-election are entitled to have their choice reflected in parliament.
If by-election results were compensated for on the list, then one might as well not have by-elections - the party holding the seat could simply nominate a new candidate in a similar fashion to what happens when a list MP departs parliament.
-
Speaker: So NZ First gets another list…, in reply to Keir Leslie,
Interestingly, British MPs can't resign - there is an archaic procedure by which they apply for an "office of profit under the crown" which disqualifies them from sitting in parliament, creating a vacancy.
I'd just suggest thi:. If Peters did not resign as a list MP (he just said that he definitely will, BTW) then he would take his seat as MP for Northland on election. As such, he would be no longer be able to vote or do anything else in parliament as a list MP, as such dual capacity is not allowed. Doesn't that mean he just vacated the seat in the same way as if he made himself ineligible?
(Probably not, given the Parliamentary Privileges Act, but it's a thought).
(But would he get to draw a double salary?)
-
Envirologue: Hook, Line and Sinker –…, in reply to ,
Trout tastes fine to me, when I go overseas and can thus buy it. And NZers are happy to eat hoki, which tastes slightly off even when it's fresh.
-
Envirologue: Hook, Line and Sinker –…, in reply to ,
why do we need a license to catch trout?
To pay for the trout hatchery to breed them?
Why aren't trout farmed and sold commercially in NZ? It's not like they're a native species that needs to be protected.
-
You could have a no-motor-boats rule in some areas? So you can catch fish off the beach, or from a kayak, which would slow people down a bit
-
I suspect that this might be less that the US won't deal with the country but that the receiving countries won't accept a barcode printed on someone's computer as valid postage and expect a proper stampy thing duly licked and stuck to the parcel.
We don't have an option to print your own stamps in NZ, do we?
-
Out of interest, and I’m not attacking you here, have you had this lawyered at all?
I’m wondering how you expect anyone using your service to be bound by the license agreement. My very rough understanding around “click-wrap” license agreements is that they take effect by swapping adherence to the agreement for a license to use copyright material in a manner that would otherwise be infringing. But viewing a web page isn’t a copyright infringement (transient reproduction).
IANAL, so I'd be really interested to hear another view.
I’d be a bit concerned that if a large number of websites and newspapers did this (and if it works, why not?), the reaction of Gradgrind and Gradrind Limited (as in nearly all NZ employers) would be to truncate internet access at work.