Posts by Matthew Poole
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
The 1999 referendum question on law and order was similarly annoying.
Yes, I'm embarrassed to admit that I voted yes on that one. I'll put it down to being 20 and voting for the first time, and not quite so careful in analysing that kind of question. These days it'd get an automatic no, though a "WTF kind of question is this?!" would be closer to the truth.
-
I'm 79% in alignment with Labour, 75% in alignment with the Greens and NZ First. Which feels about right, in terms of my politics, but I do feel rather dirty about the NZ First thing. Thankfully I have no alignment with them on immigration :)
-
I support or oppose either outlawing gangs or making membership of gangs an aggravating factor in sentencing
ARGH! I fucking hate questions like that. I'm strongly opposed to outlawing gangs, being something of an absolutist on the whole freedom of association thing, but quite like the idea of membership being an aggravating factor. Am I allowed to wish a slow, painful death on the fuckwit who drafted that question?
-
I said back during the primaries that if anything is guaranteed to turn your into a babbling, malnourished chronically sleep-deprived zombie stand for President of the United States.
In some ways it's amazing that McCain has made it through alive. And given that Dubbyah's known as a POTUS who likes to be in bed by 10 (as contrasted with Clinton's midnight oil), the campaign trail must've been utterly brutal for him.
Be interesting to see what kind of work habits come into the next White House. Clinton was known for working into the small hours but then not starting until 9, whereas Bush-the-Second is in bed early but gets his national security briefing around 7. -
Oh, absolutely, convention says that the GG doesn't refuse assent. But they do have the power to do so, and if they were presented with legislation that sought to abolish requirements for elections, or allow arbitrary executions in the streets, they would be quite entitled to refuse it assent. That it doesn't happen speaks as much to the general reasonableness of legislation that must pass through a multi-party system as it does to the power being symbolic.
And the Commander-in-Chief has similarly symbolic placement, but equally real power. You buck the chain of command when things have gone all to hell. The GG exists as a symbolic check on the power of the Legislature, but that symbolism must include some symbolic muscle. It's all theoretical, because I just cannot envisage a situation where the GG would have to mobilise the military to evict a rogue parliament, but that doesn't mean it's a scenario that should be discounted entirely.
If we do a formal constitution, and decide the GG hasn't even the symbolic power to refuse assent, then I damn well demand a bicameral legislature!
-
Craig, the Political Compass might help you work that out. As the author observes, the US doesn't do proper liberals, they only do varying shades of conservative. Palin's scarily authoritarian, though.
The NZ 2008 compass is interesting. Labour's getting kinda far to the right, but for a "Nanny State" they're distinctly middle-of-the-line as far as authoritarian tendencies go. Your favourite right-wing parties actually look to disinterested outsiders to be far more interested in asserting the state's dominance, it seems. -
Wrong & wrong. (and exactly the reason we need a written constitution)
The GG does *not* have the power to refuse assent.
Says who? The Governor General's website disagrees with you, and I'll take their word over yours, thanks very much. That it's a power that hasn't been exercised in three centuries doesn't make it any less valid. The Americans haven't overthrown a national government in over 230 years, but that doesn't mean the second amendment is irrelevant.
The armed forces and police are required to act within the law and take direction from the elected government.
Part of that law says that the GG has all the powers of the Commander-in-Chief of the defence forces, and another part says that the Commissioner of Police serves at the GG's (not the PM's) pleasure. Yes, the GG acts on the advice of the PM in making that appointment, but the GG is the person who appoints and dismisses the Commissioner. I'll grant that the GG likely has no actual power (I couldn't see anything in the Policing Act) to give orders to the Commissioner, but when you control the military the Police are something of a footnote.
So, you were saying? Remember, just because it's unusual doesn't mean it can't happen. It's the law. But you do raise a good case for having a written constitution ;)
-
I could be wrong, and often am, but re your calculations for the Maori Party, I'm pretty sure you don't actually get list MPs if you have an overhang, by definition. List MPs top you up to the level of MPs you should get based on the percentage of your vote.
Yeah, that's about right. List seats vs electorate seats is an either/or kinda thing. If you get 1.75% of the party vote (which is roughly one seat) and you win an electorate, you only get one seat total.
Overhang comes in when you get more electorate seats than is equivalent to your percentage of the party vote, a la the Maori Party this time around. It cannot happen in reverse. -
codifying the powers of the Governor-General and clarifying that they have no power to refuse assent
That's a very dangerous road to tread. It may be generally symbolic, but the GG's power to refuse assent is a final check on potential outrages by the Legislature. Don't forget that the armed forces and the police ultimately work for the GG, not the PM. Them's quite a few guns (though far fewer than the number in private hands, I know) with which to be trifling.
If the Legislature managed to self-corrupt within a single term, and could achieve the super-majority required to overturn the term limits and other such electoral requirements, the GG's refusal to assent to the legislation is the last stand before the country turns to civil war. I know it's an incredibly theoretical situation, but having someone who can tell the Legislature to GAGF if they present a particularly odious bill is important. Trust not the pollies, for they are self-interested.
-
Don, the Fed's move isn't all bad. It will make NZD more attractive, which will ease the exchange rate pain somewhat. However, it's easy foreign money that got NZ into credit strife in the first place.
One thing that really bemuses me is the people who think that Labour should go because the recession was forecast yonks ago, but still happened. As if, somehow, Helen and Michael have a snowball in hell's chance of actually make the slightest difference to the global economy.