Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Legal Beagle: The Teapot Moan Scandal…, in reply to izogi,
What’s the point of difference, given that they both trace back to Party campaigning?
Mostly, because it's the National Party is being sued, not John Key or any other Member of Parliament.
-
Legal Beagle: The Teapot Moan Scandal…, in reply to Steve Barnes,
The Taxpayer…. of course…
Not for that one. Seriously, if you've evidence that's the plan, then release it. That would be outrageous.
-
Speaker: The Future, in reply to John Palethorpe,
Dunne's done, I think. I can't see that 750 majority increasing and the manner in which Labour, NZF and others coordinated in 2014 could be repeated.
Whom is Labour running against him? Does this factor into your conclusion at all?
-
Maori
Will the Maori Party be able to continue its role as everyone’s coalition partner if they lose any more seats?
This one’s easy: no.
The Māori Party only has one electorate. If they lose that, they’re not in Parliament.
Also, the Māori Party cannot *continue* a role as everyone’s coalition partner.They have only ever been a coalition/confidence&supply partner of National. Maybe they could start, though?
-
Legal Beagle: The flag referendum:…, in reply to Alfie,
Does this count as journalism? Seriously?
Yes.
-
Polity: On tour with The Boss, in reply to Rob Salmond,
Leaders of the Opposition have had this fund for a while. It can be used for preparation-to-be-PM across any policy area, not just foreign policy and economics. It's only available to the leader of the largest opposition party, although there may be other facilities I'm unaware of for leaders of other parties.
Overseas travel by other non-Ministers can be met out of a party's general funding allocation (ie the money used to fund staff, pledge cards etc.) if approved by the Speaker.
The special Leader of Opposition overseas travel fund is up to $150000.
-
Polity: On tour with The Boss, in reply to George Darroch,
I'd be rather interested to hear from either of those two about their experience on the inside.
Well, except you're not going to hear of their experience. If Sia or Andrew (or Rob) had, for example, experienced their leadership calling a waiter a c***, there's no way it would appear in a post about their experience on the inside, while they're still inside.
-
Legal Beagle: New Zealand's most racist law, in reply to peteremcc,
Second, Muriel Newman was the deputy leader of ACT during the foreshore and seabed debate, when ACT DID vociferously argue against the legislation on the basis of the protection of private property rights:
Well, that's one way of looking at it, but here's Richard Prebble saying:
"Labour could say the foreshore, like the Queen's Chain, belongs to us all and no claim will be considered. ...
And here's Stephen Franks saying:
"I will be asking the ACT caucus, on Tuesday, for confirmation that we would vote with the Government if it brought in a package along the following lines:
· The law should confirm that foreshore and seabed are the Crown's, or held on grant from the Crown.
· That there is no future customary right in foreshore and seabeds.
ACT was all over the place on the proper response to Ngati Apa.
-
Legal Beagle: New Zealand's most racist law, in reply to Tinakori,
Graeme’s post is a classic example of berating our ancestors for not having the same world views that we do.
That's probably fair.
I will note that my bigger concern is the criminal offences that remain. I have a concern about the powers, but it's not as big.
-
Legal Beagle: New Zealand's most racist law, in reply to B Jones,
peaking of decades, it’s been customary since the mid 80s to consult with Maori when you make policy changes that affect them. I’m assuming Graeme and Trevor M have a process in mind for doing that?
Radio New Zealand has just published a story, currently headlined Maori Party backs call to change 'racist' law.