Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Legal Beagle: Mana update, in reply to bmk,
Interesting as I drove through Whangarei this morning three different cars had a party flag being flown from them. Is that allowed?
It is not.
I got a blue party leaflet in the mail today. Even though it was in Wellington, I'm not sure that's allowed either.
edit: I should check before concluding conclusively, that the party flags were party flags, and not, for example a Tino rangatiratanga flag.
-
Legal Beagle: Mana update, in reply to Craig Young,
If Party A wins, then it’ll probably be seen as being on the way back. If Party B wins, then it will have won its first major test
If Party B wins, then Party B may stand in other 'native' electorates in November, splitting Party C's vote and allowing Party A to do better overall.
-
Legal Beagle: Mana update, in reply to Craig Young,
No-one seems to be extrapolating this to other Maori electorates, currently held by the Maori Party. One wonders why…
Extrapolating what?
We have no real idea what will happen.
Whoever wins, you will be able to make a credible argument that it is a good thing for both Labour and the Maori Party.
-
Graeme, a question you will no doubt be able to answer is this. Will you have to turn comments to this thread off at midnight?
Well, I won't be...
Everyone, please avoid using the words "National", "Green", "Mana", and "Maori" (among others) on the Internet for the next 17 hours and 39 minutes.
-
Indeed, I'm so non-confident about making a decision, that I'm not even prepared to say it will be close.
It may be close. Hone could win by 10%+, Kelvin Could win by 10%+.
But feel free to make predictions of your own.
-
Southerly: Tower Insurance Have Some Bad…, in reply to Che Tibby,
I'm pretty sure I couldn't read a script stapled to my head.
-
Heaps of parties not currently in Parliament got funding. The Alliance got $20k, The Pirate Party got $20k etc. Every party - registered or not - that applies, must get some allocation (i.e. that's what the law says). How could I know you were asking me to explain why NZF was different to the other parties outside Parliament when you were using it as an example of a party outside Parliament?
-
Legal Beagle: Voting Referendum: Jus' Sayin', in reply to 3410,
Thank you. That wasn’t too hard, was it? :)
That was your question?!
I still wouldn't read it that way. I just offered that as information because I'd offered someone else the same information in reply to a question on the kiwiblog thread.
-
Legal Beagle: Voting Referendum: Jus' Sayin', in reply to 3410,
Thanks. Bitchy, circular, wilful obtuseness was just what I was looking for.
I'm not sure there's much more that I could say in answer to that question: how is it that they're eligible? The law says they are.
Why? Because Parliament has banned everyone form paying for party political advertising on Radio and TV, and at some point they decided that people should be allowed some ads, but these were limited to a level of public funding that went along with it.
Do we consider that parties outside parliament shouldn't be able to contest elections, or shouldn't be able to advertise on TV while parties in parliament can? Of course not, so they get a small chance, which, to be honest, probably isn't much better. The whole system is appalling.
If you're asking specifically why NZF got so much more than other parties outside parliament, then ... that's because they got quite a few votes at the last election, and are polling better than the other non-parliamentary parties, and indeed, better than some of the parliamentary parties.
-
Hard News: We are all Twitter, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
But “they” couldn’t injunct Slater to stop revealing suppressed names?
They pretty much did. That’s basically what a suppression order is.
He just ignored it. As indeed others could have over the identity of the Darren Hughes complainant.