Hard News: The Solemnity of the Day
146 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
Sacha, in reply to
Russell's the publisher. I guess that means Zuckerberg is too?
-
merc,
Hey EC, I'm all grown up, I can handle it.
-
In previous elections there have been multi-party television debates on topics such as education, health, the economy etc which highlighted skills (or not) in the rest of the party apart from the leaders. Only Kathryn Ryan on NinetoNoon has attempted this, and these sessions have been quite enlightening. Pity we don't have more public broadcasting.
-
Pity we don’t have more public broadcasting.
Everytime a citzen says 'Pity we don’t have more public broadcasting' there is a little troll somewhere that falls down dead
-
JLM,
The day is so solemn, apparently you can't even talk about the weather in public!
-
The last hurrah of the golden hoarding...
Jacinda Ardern’s billboard on Bond Street (Kingsland)? It’s been graffitied – with lots of little yellow love-hearts.
I saw an article in The Herald (I think) that used a pic of that as an example of hoarding defacement - personally I thought it was a nice loving touch - gratified not graffitied!
-
Martin Lindberg, in reply to
The day is so solemn, apparently you can't even talk about the weather in public!
I heard that no alcohol may be served or sold starting tomorrow Friday at 6pm until doors close at 7pm Saturday. Also, all telcos are shutting down their networks to prevent communication that might influence voters.
-
Back on planet Earth, I've just called last orders on comments to my politics-adjacent MUSE posts. Will turn them off lunchtime-ish tomorrow and reverse the flow when I can be arsed on Sunday morning-ish. (Going to a multi-party party on Saturday night, so don't anticipate being up at sparrow fart.)
Not that hard. Nobody's free speech being crushed.
-
Russell: Idle curiousity, but is there any particular reason the PAS main banner ad is currently a 'Vote for change/give MMP the boot' ad?
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
Russell: Idle curiousity, but is there any particular reason the PAS main banner ad is currently a ‘Vote for change/give MMP the boot’ ad?
DoubleClick, aka Google Ad Services.
-
Russell: Idle curiousity, but is there any particular reason the PAS main banner ad is currently a ‘Vote for change/give MMP the boot’ ad?
Money :) I'm not sure if PAS is good value for their advertising buck though. I hope Russell is screwing them anyway.
-
Homebrew drop something incredible.
“Long term memory, the enemy of popular politics.” – Todd Ross, my Green candidate in Mangere. Although we don’t have to remember much for this video to ring entirely true. Caravan park at 2:18 is my neighbourhood, and it remained til the late 2000s, when the owner died.
-
Hebe, in reply to
Wink(le) wink(le)
-
izogi, in reply to
It would be great to see the Greens and Labour or Natonal and Act talking about how they would manage the economy together in an MMP government. Instead we get the pretence of FPP and the prospect of a government with no practical constraints.
In a leaders' debate context, I've been thinking it'd be really really interesting to see head-to-head debates between leaders of the smaller parties and the bigger parties. Debates with more than two people are often messy and confusing, and I'd like to just see more leaders' debates and more combinations of two people arguing points, including at least one chance for someone like Russel Norman or Metiria Turei or Don Brash go up debating against (or conversing with) John Key or Phil Goff or each other without interference. I can't imagine Key or Goff in particular would ever go for it, though, thanks to all the stuff about being seen on the same level as someone they'd rather was perceived as less. Instead we have the media umpires trying to decide how much air-time each leader deserves and whether they're allowed to argue with each other according to their FPP-based tiered positioning, positioning particular leaders in front of the public before they've even said anything.
-
I should have been more clear, I should have said "perception" of National's economic management abilities. It is a pretty common trope across the world for right wing parties - which doesn't mean it is true, but it is often believed
-
Thanks to Sciblog's Gareth Renowden for this Bonzo Dog Doo Dah Band " No matter who you vote for"
-
Chris Waugh, in reply to
I’m not sure how it seems from afar but this government has been specifically clueless on that front
If the view from my small corner of Beijing counts as afar, then that's exactly how it seems.
And because somebody mentioned something about Goff: When watching video of John Key bellowing "Show us the money!", I so desperately wanted to reach through the screen and a good 11,000 km of internet cabling, grab Goff by the scruff of the neck and yell at him to stop grinning like a dimwitted possum caught in headlights and shout back: "Show us the tax system you broke! Show us the economy you ran into the ground! Show us the surplus we left you!"
Meanwhile, later this morning I will walk to a building next to a subway construction site. And my car wasn't allowed on the road yesterday. Because even Beijing's formerly car-obssessed government has realised that in addition to causing air pollution, having everybody stuck in traffic jams is not actually good for the economy, and a good public transport system is actually a necessity. Oh, and doing things that create jobs makes much more sense than putting people out of work then blaming them for their unemployment. Maybe some of those National Party types responsible for transport policy could use a trip over here for a bit of reeducation?
-
Your Twitter stream doesn’t have to be a “political page” for you to be seen to attempt to influence others’ votes on the day. It’s a breach if you post a Facebook status that reads “Woo! Everybody vote for Winston today!” It’s publishing.
Yeah, just like if I say on the way into the polling booth `vote Winston'. But if your twitter stream doesn't attempt to influence voters, you are almost certainly in the clear. If your facebook status doesn't attempt to influence voters, you are almost certainly in the clear*.
The relevant law is section 197 of the Electoral Act. (And people should read the Act, and not just rely on the Electoral Commission. The Electoral Commission can't decide what the Act means. It just decides what it thinks the Act means.) It isn't aimed at people talking about their dogs. It is aimed at people who try and influence voters.
* the one dodgy issue, as I see it, is the comments thing. What if some schmuck puts something illegal on your page? Well, really, I dunno. But I doubt that a court would punish you for that; it seems contrary to the intent of the law. (Unless you were, say, a political party. When they might take a different view. And so that's who the EC are telling to play it safe.)
-
I mean, when Gareth Hughes says he wants to say `I party voted Green today', he knows that it would be an offence for him to say that to a group of voters, right? It isn't like the rules here are new.
(It actually worries me that Hughes doesn't know that --- what do the Greens get up to on Election Day?)
-
Sacha, in reply to
Does saying that you have already voted a particular way ("I voted Green") constitute an attempt to influence another's vote (eg: "you should vote Green")?
-
Sacha, in reply to
It isn't like the rules here are new.
The variety of interpretations of spending rules over the last two terms suggests that we still don't have solid enough rules about what counts to cope with the varying ethical levels of our parliamentarians and parties.
-
Hebe,
I could, in theory, being a member of no party, put ads or posters up on Saturday one-coloured, say, blue, or red, or green, with just the word "vote" on them, or even the colour alone, no word at all, as long as I paid for them. Or could I? That would be an interesting point for a judicial ruling.
-
Does saying that you have already voted a particular way (“I voted Green”) constitute an attempt to influence another’s vote (eg: “you should vote Green”)?
I should suspect so, if it was made by a candidate at an election. Certainly I wouldn’t say it.
And I should say that when I say `influence voters’ I am being imprecise and wrong. The rules for interference (s197(1)(a)) are different from the rules for publishing (s197(1)(g)). Strictly, the parallel prohibition is s197(1)(g)(i), and then there is a more stringent (g)(iii) that forbids the publication of party names. However, there’s a defence around news that mitigates the harshness of that part.
So even if Hughes wasn’t caught by (i), he’d be caught by (iii), which isn’t parallel to the s197(1)(a) rule.
But really, the broad category of actions `talking to strangers about how to vote’ is prohibited on election day, and has been for a very long time.
-
thegirlstefan, in reply to
so, what happens if I stroll around the neighbourhood wearing my "I'm a KEY person" T-shirt before going in to the polling booth at the school across the road to vote?
-
Hans Versluys, in reply to
so, what happens if I stroll around the neighbourhood wearing my "I'm a KEY person" T-shirt before going in to the polling booth at the school across the road to vote?
You'd be better off wearing a t-shirt saying: "I'm a Tool"
Post your response…
This topic is closed.