Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Less than 7 hours to go!
-
Sadly, all the debate about this seems to be happening on Facebook, but consensus seems to be that the possibility is real, and the question is whether there are enough MPs who are up for it to make a difference.
-
Note also this determination by the Business Committee on 21 March 2012:
Agreed, That during the committee stage of Part 2 of the Alcohol Reform Bill there be one debate, with the questions on the three clauses (9 to 11) being put separately at the conclusion of the debate.
(SO 299(1)(c))
One of the technical points I didn't get into, was that after discussing each part, (or each clause) and after voting on each proposed amendment, the Committee of the Whole has a vote on whether that part or clause should remain in the bill. That certainly hasn't happened yet with the clauses which regulate the alcohol purchase age.
-
Legal Beagle: Alcohol Game Theory, in reply to Paul Rowe,
If MPs are ignoring the recommendation (one based upon evidence) and giving themselves a ‘gripping hand’ (so to speak) aren’t they just sinking to faith-based, rather than evidence-based legislating?
We do not require members of Parliament to adopt evidence-based policy, nor voters to cast evidence-based votes :-)
-
Legal Beagle: Alcohol Game Theory, in reply to Paul Rowe,
1. The MMP referenda offers a good system of two votes: Do you prefer a change to the age at which alcohol can be purchased? If no, status quo, if yes, there is a vote between the split age and the 20 age limit. I wonder if this system was considered?
Because it's a bad system for a vote like this. It was only a good system for the MMP referendum because it was a non-binding first referendum. Recall that had we voted for change, there would have been a further referendum later. Without that further option (between the status quo and the top other choice), the system would be somewhat broken.
-
Legal Beagle: Alcohol Game Theory, in reply to Brent Jackson,
Couldn't this also be done with three votes. Those in favour of 18 Yes, other No. Those in favour of split Yes, other No. Those in favour of 20 Yes, other No. I guess they'd also need to clearly stipulate that an MP could only vote Yes in one of the 3 options.
Personally I'd allow MPs to vote yes for more than one option.
It could, although that may have slightly more obvious tactical voting opportunities.
-
So what would I propose they do?
I'd would hold three votes:
*one between 18 and 20,
*one between 18 and split age
*one between 20 and split ageIf any option wins both votes it is part of (which seems likely, although isn't assured), then it is the favoured option, and should be included in the final bill.
-
Hard News: Media3: Where harm might fall, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
let’s be frank… does Todd Akin’s “legitimate rape” fuck-wittery deserve such protection simply because it’s “political speech”?
Yes it does.
As does Harry Hammond's sign in the UK which read "Jesus Gives Peace, Jesus is Alive, Stop Immorality, Stop Homosexuality, Stop Lesbianism, Jesus is Lord" should not have resulted in a hate speech conviction, with fines and court costs of £695.
I also think I disagree that a line has to drawn with hate speech. I'm not sure that follows at all. We seem to have okay for the last 162 years with laws that only go so far as discouraging calls to violence.
-
Hard News: Media3: Where harm might fall, in reply to Russell Brown,
No. But that’s what the Commission’s paper is very explicitly not proposing. It says that political speech requires the highest degree of protection.
That might be what the Commission's paper says, but the Commission's draft bill does not. It only says:
In exercising its functions, the tribunal must have regard to the importance of freedom of expression.
Nothing about the importance of political speech, or about it being worthy of the "highest degree of protection" at all. I like to think that the courts/tribunal would anyway, but I'd like to think that the Courts in the UK would too, and that's not working out so well.
-
Legal Beagle: Strange bedfellows, in reply to tussock,
Wait, is Winston saying the changes to the system are undemocratic because people haven’t had a chance to vote on them (an undemocratic process of change) or undemocratic because they reduce the democratic nature of our future electoral system (an relatively undemocratic outcome)?
I believe both. Winston opposes change without a referendum, and would oppose the change (e.g. to reduce the threshold) if it went to a referendum.