Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
They thought that everything should go back to FPP because of all the terrible minority parties (those awful greens! and ACT!) that MMP let in... So I wouldn't be so sure.
I have never felt MMP was a shoo-in. Probably the inside running, but far from a sure thing.
Although I would note that ACT basically spent a number years in Government under First-Past-the-Post. The major difference is that this time, we get to see them try to do it. The factions fight in public, rather than presenting a fait accompli to the public as the united party position like they did in the 80s. ACT's MPs had much more sway under first-past-the-post than they have ever had under MMP.
-
400 words!
I knew I could do it :-)
-
What does the qualifier "corruptly" mean in that context?
No-one really knows. It may mean the same thing it meant to Taito Philip Field (corruptly accepting a bribe is illegal). When the Court of Appeal gets back to us, I might remember to let you know =)
-
Doesn't say much that the company didn't know about treating either. #fail
No-one seems to.
95bFM and others a holding a concert - "Post the Vote" - $10 entry, but free for people who vote in the Auckland Elections.
If only they read section 126 of the Local Electoral Act...
-
If one is inclined to vote negatively on the STV portion of the ballot, is it better to rank every candidate, so the ones you _least__ like are positively placed last, or is it better to simply not put a number next to them at all?
It is better to rank them all.
-
What next, are we to learn that John Boscawen never was interested in lightly smacking children's bottoms; that its all been bravado, in-order to look sensible?
I'm pretty sure that's the case.
I may be confusing him with Roger Douglas, but at least one, if not both never smacked their kids and think there are better ways, just don't think parents who choose to smack should be considered criminals.
-
Now they are reliving their grief all over again, and still have no apology from that man.
I understood they had had an apology at the time, but haven't had an apology for the recent recurrence of its being made public.
-
A comment on this post? I thought we all somehow and unknowingly agreed that this wouldn't happen?
=)
-
I have my own David Garrett Backbenches story:
This one time, after Backbenches, maybe the second time I met him, David Garrett and I were talking about law and order policy - perhaps name suppression, or three strikes (or both?) - and he said something like "I don't really know you and I don't know why I'm telling you this" and then mentioned that he had received a discharge without conviction for something in the past that he wasn't particularly proud of and had gotten name suppression.
I only remembered when the Tonga thing came out (and had forgotten about the name suppression bit until yesterday), but it seemed a while ago and I didn't see that it affected his position as an MP so hadn't said anything about it to anyone until yesterday. Still not sure I do now, either.
-
Media law guru ... has posted on this, and seems happy to relate details of what Garrett revealed.
While noting that he himself was breaking the law in doing so.