Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Legal Beagle: Infrequently asked questions, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
I’m picking no. All the sitting parties can trace their history back to an MP that left National or Labour.
Not the Greens (so far as I know): Green members got into Parliament in 1996 as dual members of the Green Party and the Alliance. The sitting MP who came with them was not a Green Party member.
So, has any party bootstrapped their way into an MMP parliament without the help of a sitting MP switching parties?
I assume you mean: has any party gotten into Parliament by getting under 5% but winning an electorate has gotten in anyway. No. The only parties to have been in Parliament despite not having won 5% at an election are: New Zealand First, United(/Future), ACT, Jim Anderton's Progressives, the Māori Party, and Mana (and the various parties of defecting MPs). All of these had previous MPs in them, although in the case of ACT, they weren't in Parliament in the term before they got elected (but they also got over 5%).
-
Legal Beagle: Infrequently asked questions, in reply to Simon Lyall,
Also what consent does a party need before adding somebody to their list? Could a minor party start adding random people into their list to attract votes.
They could not. In respect of each list candidate, a party's list nomination must be accompanied by "a statement in a form provided by the Electoral Commission, signed by the candidate, and confirming the candidate's consent to the nomination."
-
Legal Beagle: Infrequently asked questions, in reply to Simon Lyall,
can somebody be on 2 separate lists?
No.
-
These people ... may have no taxable income.
Or taxable income that's below the repayment threshold. Or non-taxable income (e.g. via capital gains). And charging interest could encourage that lot to pay up.
-
In effect, isn't what Phil Goff and Labour promise is that they will borrow to invest in energy companies and Air New Zealand?
-
Hard News: Ante Up, in reply to Russell Brown,
Or if you have an existing Sky dish you get a $99 Freeview satellite decoder and plug it in.
Yeah. The satellite decoders are cheaper that the terrestrial ones.
-
Legal Beagle: Referendum Fact Check 4:…, in reply to Paul Campbell,
I assume the greens voted something like “it’s getting late, this has taken ages and we’re only up to number 30, all those in favour of throwing those last 31 names on the party list in alphabetical order ….”
ACT did the same thing. I think its a bad look. At the very least they should pull names out of a hat so it doesn't look all defeatist.
-
Legal Beagle: Referendum Fact Check 4:…, in reply to NBH,
Does anyone know what happens in that case?
Yes. Although I'm a little offended by the inclusion of the words "does anyone know" :-) Because even if I didn't, I'd totally find out. Plus I did.
1, The other people on the list whose names haven't been published by the Electoral Commission, but who are on the official list will get into Parliament.
2. In the event that even then there aren't enough, some seats in the House will go unfilled until the next election. This is sometimes called "underhang".
-
Speaker: Doing the right thing on retirement, in reply to Raymond A Francis,
I not sure that was how it super was sold to us, people my age feel we have been taxed as a form of compulsory saving for our old age and that we have an entitlement to that, don’t forget we told/thought we would get it when we turned 60
It's not my fault someone has lied to you, but Super has never operated like that :-)
Although the Cullen Fund was a start at part of it. -
Speaker: Doing the right thing on retirement, in reply to BenWilson,
I just have to dissent on that one. I'm not Maori, but from a short-lived line, both grandfathers copped it before 60. It brings home the disparity of this kind of benefit, yet another one skewed towards people who have the good fortune and treatment to actually live that long.
Skewed toward people who may need it? When people get older and frail, they may be incapable of work and unable to look after themselves financially. I support helping such people. Were your grandfathers like this when they died? Should you die before 65/67, would you expect to be?
We don't pay taxes to save for our retirement, we pay taxes in part to support those incapable of supporting themselves, whether it is because age or infirmity or disability. We do this not because we necessarily expect something in return, but because we would want the same done for us were our circumstances to change. People who do not become sick do not need a sickness benefit; those who are not severely disabled usually don't need a disability benefit, those who do not reach old age usually don't need an old-age pension. Would you oppose limiting disability support to those with disabilities if you had a family history of low rates of disability, and were unlikely to personally benefit?