If that’s the case then does your model give us a better sense of what the swing nationally could mean or is that casting too long a bow?
I haven't gone nearly that far. Simple math, not full analysis :-)
The having to orally confirm your name aloud thing was new last time.
It was added into the Electoral Act by the Select Committee during an amendment law making other changes. It appears to have been a concern about the effect EasyVote cards had had on the process of voting. Before EasyVote cards, voters obviously had to ID themselves to polling staff. EasyVote cards weren’t legislated for (the Electoral Commission just decided they’d be a good idea to include in the voting pack thing), and this meant a change to how voting occurred, people could just hand over the card. Some National MPs are kind of republicans on this, and would, I think, like photo ID to be required, but they get pushed back hard on that by the Electoral Commission and other parties. This was what they got instead.
The Select Committee’s explanation was:
Confirmation of identity
We recommend the insertion of new clause 24 to amend section 167, to require each voter to verbally give or verbally confirm their name when being issued voting papers. If a person could not do this because they did not understand English or have a physical disability, they could use gestures or the assistance of a person accompanying them. This provision would address our concern about people not explicitly confirming their identity before voting, particularly those with an EasyVote card, who are not currently required to identify themselves verbally.
There has been no subsequent law change, but in the review of the 2014 election, the Select Committee noted:
Requirement for voter to verbally confirm their name
For the 2014 general election, Parliament enacted a new requirement for voters to verbally confirm their name before being issued with a voting paper. This process provided for additional confirmation from the voter about their identity as well as ensuring the accuracy of the marking of the roll. We would like to see the commission ensure that this requirement is being consistently followed by issuing officers at future elections. If it was not possible for a voter to verbally confirm their name because of disability or language difficulties, they could confirm their name by writing it or by affirming with gestures that their name as presented on the EasyVote card was correct.
source: SC Review of 2014 election
Benefit levels were quite deliberately set below subsistence level.
Still at this level, right (or is that just without kids)? Labour never reversed Richardson's benefit cuts, and still haven't promised to.
Do we have a separation of powers problem here?
The Army has an obligation to investigate allegations of war crimes.
The Police also have jurisdiction.
There may be a problem here (perhaps predetermination?) but I don't think it's a separation of powers issue. Investigating crimes is the job of the executive.
Wayne Mapp has posted on Pundit revealing that he was one of the sources for the book.
Wayne Mapp has posted on Pundit that he has been interviewed by Jon Stephenson. He does not say he was one of the sources for the book.
(He may well be, but he has not said he is in that post)
The follow-up questions at Keating’s press conference were the first sign the tactic was working (short-term, at least): the assembled journalists kind of forgot to say “So General, no dead people then?”.
He quite clearly stated there were dead people. He said they were all insurgents, one killed by the SAS, the others by the helicopter under direction from the SAS ground air controller.
Kathryn Ryan said RNZ had discovered a NYTimes report from 2010 – two days after the abortive raid reported in Hit and Run. That report named the same two villages as the book, which suggests that the Defense Department’s “Look… over there… another village” claim is complete and utter bollocks.
This is not a new discovery. The article is footnoted in Hit & Run.
Sorry Graeme, but you have to forgive those of us who hold a cynical view of “independent” enquiries set up by this government and see them as a convenient way of brushing serious issues under the carpet.
You may note that I'm suggesting an investigation is the most important thing.
Have any of the countries where you’re suggesting non MP police investigate war crimes actually successfully done so?
None I know of. But I haven't looked very far. I suspect none of the war crimes investigations carried out by MPs in other countries included allegations against a former Chief of Defence and Governor-General, the current Chief of Defence, the current Chief of the Army, and the Deputy Chief of the Army.
The police prosecution service’s consistent abdication of action on many political matters in recent decades seems highly material. Wouldn’t trust them to put out a fire in a rubbish bin, let alone conduct an investigation into something authority-challenging like this.
Well, the other possible organisation in New Zealand that I can think of are military police. If you have another suggestion of who could conduct the criminal investigation New Zealand is required to conduct, I would welcome hearing it.