Posts by Idiot Savant
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
And on the plus side, at least you're guaranteed material for the next three years.
-
Now all we need is some cheerleaders... Any volunteers, chaps?
This is New Zealand. Rugby players do their own cheerleading - what else is the haka for?
-
Andy: well, if we have a permanent campaign, permanent spending limits might seem justified (and it would save you from the whole problem of a 3-month limit for snap elections that occur in non-election years). And some countries (e.g. the UK) do indeed simply have an annual spending limit for parties as a way of establishing a level playing field. But IMHO 12 months is enough - money spent a year before the poll probably doesn't have that much persistent effect.
-
It's a bit messier if you end up bombing your allies while high. The Canadians were quite pissed about it.
-
Supposedly the US Airforce in WW2 got a lot of meth too.
The USAF today gets a lot of meth. During the initial bombing campaign against Afghanistan they were flying very long-range missions, and prescribed "go" and "no-go" pills to help them cope...
-
And, although Hager strongly disagrees, that its crackdown on independent advocacy in election years is too onerous.
Actually, I think he agrees with this too. In the transcript, he notes that he supports the lower spending limits onthird parties "as long as the definitions are clear that they’re not spending it on their general political advocacy, but on campaigning".
Fortunately, that bit is the most likely to change - the offending subclause (iii) is likely to go - and the bill will be better for it.
-
I should just make it clear that this isn't actually about the Brethren at all. They discovered the exploit, so it bears their name, but there's no suggestion that they're involved in Auckland's local body race.
-
Hmmm. I'm not sure evoking the Brethren is a good idea. And as I/S notes in an update to his No Right Turn blog, this would appear to fall well within the relatively loose restrictions of the Local Electoral Act 2001.
Of course it's legal. So was the Brethren's campaign (except for being naughty about disclosure). At the same time, it also poses serious problems for our electoral system when parties can evade their spending and disclosure restrictions by using a third party and an anonymous negative campaign as a front. If we are to preserve the integrity of our elections and ensure the political equality of all New Zealanders, then Parliament is going to need to look seriously at amending the Local Electoral Act, just as it is currently looking at the Electoral Act.
(And no, it's not supposed to inspire you to vote. In fact, the people who run these campaigns would be more than happy if you didn't. Better that you simply left the running of your city to the rich men (and they are almost all men), just as god intended).
-
Maybe, but they'd also have to cut off its head and bury it face-down at a crossroads.
With holy wafers in its mouth...
Why is it so much easier on Buffy?
-
The Swiss, eh? Just quote the "Third Man" line from Orson Wells at them:
"What have they invented..."the cuckoo clock".
I have it on got authority that they didn't even invent that.
They didn't invent republicanism either, but OTOH they made a pretty good show of kicking out their monarchy way back in the C13th and making sure it never came back to bother them.
And I'll second "California, uber alles".