Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: The Politics of Absence, in reply to Russell Brown,
The younger Labour MPs are doing the right thing, working hard in their electorates
Clare Curran isn't one of a "younger Labour MP" working hard in her electorate?
Checks ... I guess not. But she's not that much older than Twyford.
Who are the young Labour MPs working hard in their electorates? I can think of Kris Fa'afoi and Chris Hipkins as "young" Labour electorate MPs, are there others?
-
This sense of electoral vacancy was particularly exaggerated last Friday, when the Prime Minister of New Zealand spent an hour hosting a radio show on which – because there’s an election campaign on – he was legally forbidden to discuss politics.
Not 'because there's an election on'. He couldn't do it at any stage. As part of news or current affairs it would be allowed; otherwise it's permanently banned.
-
Legal Beagle: Now it's up to you, in reply to JLM,
An extra piece of information that will help me make my mind up whether to stay on or go to the election night party.
Yeah, we'll know all we're going to know about the referendum very early in the night.
-
Legal Beagle: Now it's up to you, in reply to amymac,
Forgive my ignorance ...
so once we've all voted - how do 'they' decide? Um.On the day of the election, the advance votes cast in the referendum will be counted by the returning officer.
Some time over the following week or so, the votes actually cast in the referendum at polling booths will be counted by the returning officer. Scrutineers will not be permitted to be present, although the count in each electorate will be conducted with a JP present (chosen somehow, by someone unknown) .
The results will be forwarded by the returning officers to the Electoral Commission, who will add them up and announce the result when the final election count is announced. The formal announcement will be the result. If at least 50% of votes announced to have been cast for the first question are in favour of the "keep MMP"option, this will trigger the Electoral Commission review. There does not appear to be a method of simply asking for a recount.
It's up to the next Parliament to decide what to do with the result. They don't have to do what the Electoral Commission recommends. They don't have to hold another referendum if "change" wins the first question. They could hold a referendum between MMP and an option that didn't win the second question. But I imagine they'll abide the result.
-
Legal Beagle: On Cats and Coro, in reply to Islander,
This obviously doesn't apply to paid election broadcasting – right?
Paid election advertising may only air after writ day and may only be paid for by the taxpayer dollars we provide through the broadcasting allocation.*
*candidates may pay for their own after writ day, but it all counts toward their $25k spending limit. It can't endorse the party, or oppose another candidate.
-
OnPoint: Set it on fire, then, in reply to Sacha,
However I have yet to hear why compulsory student association membership so [disappoints] the young men of Act. In real terms.
Then I encourage you to read the submission ACT on Campus made on the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill.
-
OnPoint: Set it on fire, then, in reply to Kyle Matthews,
I think we’ve had this discussion with Graeme before – no that doesn’t justify torture I think is his answer.
Yep.
The “more people may die overall as a result of allowing torture” argument is just the icing on the cake.
-
OnPoint: Set it on fire, then, in reply to Paul Williams,
I know from the mid-90s when I was more actively involved, there were estimates that 60 per cent of students at some universities were involved in clubs/socs for instance.
I'm pretty sure those will still exist. Indeed, the Vic Debating Society is older than the Vic Students' Association.
-
OnPoint: Set it on fire, then, in reply to George Darroch,
Hyperbole much? An association with an opt-out clause doesn’t really fit what you’ve described.
Hyperbole? No. It was a statement in response to an implicit claim that democracies could do anything because they were democracies. My response had nothing to do with the general debate about VSM, but was directed at an assertion about the nature of democracy.
[which the following also is]
And, in any case rights always conflict. Always. There are no such things as fundamental rights, rather ones with stronger claims on individuals and society.
I disagree. For example, I do not consider that the right of any person to life, could ever outweigh the right of any terrorist not to be tortured. The right not be tortured is an absolute right. No-one can ever lawfully torture another. Ever.
Name a circumstance, no matter how outlandish, and I will proclaim that a democratic state could not legitimately torture someone in it.
[back to VSM]
The right to meaningful democratic participation in the institutions that govern you, and the institutions that you participate in is one such right, a right that is discarded or ignored by VSM proponents.
This is based on a false premise, namely, that CSM provides meaningful democratic participation in the institutions that govern students. You'd need to back this up, because I haven't seen any evidence for it of late.
It also ignores the possibility that meaningful democratic participation in the institutions that govern students could be provided in a way which does not infringe freedom of association: the university council and every other university board could be elected 50:50 by the faculty and student body (or 1/3 each by the faculty, students and alumni, or whatever). You just do not need a students' association, compulsory or not, to have meaningful democratic participation. If anything, a separate students' association could be seen as a means of separating students from the institution, rather than including them in it.
-
OnPoint: Set it on fire, then, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
Being a representative in a duel sounds dangerous.
I’d second that…
The job of a second in a duel was to do what they could in order to avoid the duel ever needing to take place. They'd meet with the second of the other side, and try to find a solution (apology, whatever) that would satisfy the honour of both sides. Not all that unlike lawyers :-)