Posts by Matthew Poole
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Filtering is a nasty business. If parents want to delude themselves and install filtering software in the hope that it'll actually function with 100% accuracy, thus saving them from the need to do their fucking jobs and be involved in their childrens' internet experience, so be it. Better to take the time to encourage safe browsing habits, and a close relationship such that if the child comes across something they don't understand they'll talk to dad and/or mum about it. But that would require parenting above-and-beyond the call of the television babysitter, and we can't have that.
For the rest of us, fuck that shit! It's not that long ago that Watchdog was blocking non-porn sites that might be offensive to the delicate sensibilities of the fundamentalist Christians whose bigotry was being parodied. Google is replete with examples of outright censorship on the part of companies that run the back-end systems on which filters are based, including AOL blocking the Democrat Party website.
-
We should have a Minister for Pokies
As opposed to a Minister for Porkies, a Cabinet post for which every politician of the two major hues is unquestionably well-qualified. I suspect most of the pollies of the minor hues are also adequately trained to be competent holders of this particular portfolio, but right now Winston seems to be the clear winner of any competence-based appointment process for the portfolio.
-
without looking at your Road Code, do you know how much leeway a driver is supposed to give to a cyclist? I didn't. Don't know if I ever did.
1.5 metres. Which I know from seeing signs on the backs of buses, not from the Road Code. Is it actually a legal requirement? Because the cops don't enforce it (or even obey it). My knowledge of road rules is far better than the average driver who's had their full car licence since the days before the plastic cards, but I don't recall ever having seen anything about cars giving bicycles a set distance. Nobody does it. I don't do it, and I'm very aware of cyclists since I am one myself. Of course, on many roads it's impossible to give them even half that much without being into the opposite lane and its occupant cars.
I agree that the penalties need to be stiffer, but that goes for all manner of road misbehaviour. If you need your licence for your job, and you lose it, well tough. You shouldn't be driving like a fucktard if it's how you make your living. I've a little more sympathy for people who live in the wops and cannot get to work without driving, but for people who live in areas served by public transport they can just fucking deal!
-
Cycling isn't ever going to become a popular, convenient thing to do. I'm fine with that actually.
Meridian Energy begs to differ. And it's not an isolated case.I saw somewhere last week, cannot remember where, a suggestion that one very effective way of discouraging car use would be to make carparks subject to FBT while, at the same time, making subsidised public transport passes FBT-exempt. If companies had to pay tax on the commercial value of CBD carparks that they hand out willy-nilly, they might be rather more circumspect about providing cycling facilities.
Obviously it's not always going to be fair to make carparks taxable, so maybe allow the Commissioner of IRD to designate FBT-imposed areas based on locales that are well-serviced by public transport. The CBDs of all the major cities are the obvious candidates. -
Thanks Graeme. It does make sense, but I just wanted to clarify that our polly tubbies hadn't done summit daft, as is their wont.
I cannot believe that interfering with ballots is only worth six months' jail time. Though I guess that, being a country with a very, very low reported incidence of election fraud, it's probably not really a big deal. If it were rife and the sentence remained at six months I'd be rather more outraged.
-
I don't want to commute over the bridge, but visit friends on Friday night. Will there be a 'ferry' when I want to return home at 2am?
The biggest failing with public transport in Auckland. You cannot use it if you want a late night in town, with the limited exception of the NiteRider buses - which, for quite a few people, aren't even close to "late" enough since the last departure is around 0300. Not to mention their status as Friday/Saturday only services. The rest of the time, if you want a bus or train after about 10 at night, forget it. It's hopeless. Meeting friends for dinner in town? Better have an early departure planned. Late meeting? Forget it (though most folks who have meetings that late get carparks anyway). Shift worker? No hope for the night shift or the late shift, maybe for the early or day shift if you're lucky.
-
A by-election, but everyone else gets to stay.
And if that by-election meant that Act no longer held Epsom? Would Roy still get to stay until the next election, even though the sole reason for her presence would now be gone?
Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that Rodders might be due for a spot of jail time. Act just happens to be a good example of list seats held solely by dint of having won an electorate.
-
Either I have an invisible sign above my head saying 'keep clear" or Auckland drivers are kind hearted. I prefer the latter theory.
As do I. My experience is that most Auckland drivers try to coexist with cyclists. Some of them dislike it, some of them actively hate it, but most of them accept that the roads are there to be shared. I don't recall any truly shocking behaviour from drivers just because I'm a cyclist, and in the instances where I've come off my bike there have always been car drivers who came to my aid.
I'll touch a whole forest at this point, because there are horror stories out there. I think it was the Herald where I saw one guy mention a friend who had been deliberately run off the road by a car while out riding up around Albany, despite the car having plenty of room to get around the cyclist without having to cross into the oncoming lane.
-
Craig, I don't debate that the scenario of a truly lame government has never arisen in this country. That doesn't mean that it can't. If this crap around Winston First's funding had blown up a year ago, we could be watching the erstwhile Foreign Minister and leader of a coalition partner get hauled away in handcuffs, possibly with his heir-to-the-throne deciding that they don't want to support Labour any longer. It's not an entirely abstract possibility. At which point Labour no longer has a majority. It's the risk of coalition government, and that situation comes from proportional representation.
So, how would you resolve that situation when the electoral term is absolutely fixed? When an election may only be held on some particular date, what happens when a government becomes unable to govern? Ignore the fact that it's never happened before. We've only had PR for 12 years, vs a century of FPP, and we've come pretty close a couple of times to a minority government becoming unable to muster votes for motions on confidence and supply.
Oh, and a slightly related question, what happens in the event that the likes of Rodders gets sent up the river? After all, Act's only in Parliament because he's there. Take him away, and then what? A by-election? Potentially (in fact very probably) it would go to another party, and that could totally change the composition of Parliament.
-
That's absolute nonsense, Angus
I'm called Angus now? :P
And if the Government actually lost a matter of confidence or supply, well isn't that democracy? Either form another coalition, or dissolve Parliament and seek a new mandate.
umm, let's see. If the election date is fixed, how can Parliament be dissolved in order to seek a new mandate prior to the fixed date? What happens to the previously-fixed date? Seeing the problem yet? When it's possible for Parliament to be forced to dissolve early, even if it's not likely, it's possible for that carefully-decided pre-set election date to become totally worthless. Do you force the newly-mandated government to do a short term, and adhere to the fixed date? Do you allow them to do an extended term? What's the equitable solution that doesn't make a nonsense of electoral wishes?