Posts by Sacha
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Rip It Up: A history of us, a…, in reply to Russell Brown,
What a bizarre way to run things!
But the smell of gum!
-
Hard News: Cabinet and the Reeferendum, in reply to Simon Armstrong,
Chlöe Swarbrick MP calling a twitter user a coward for voicing their point of view
Do you have a link for that?
-
Murray Cammick and Chris Bourke natter with Kim Hill (53m clip).
-
Hard News: Rip It Up: A history of us, a…, in reply to Russell Brown,
Fortunately their servers were ready.
-
Has anybody written about NZ's local righties borrowing the 'gummy bears' theme from North Americans?
-
Hard News: Cabinet and the Reeferendum, in reply to BenWilson,
But the coalition does have the power to muck up the framing hard enough that it’s just not quite going to cross the threshold.
They do seem to have a natural flair for fucking up framing.
-
Peter Dunne is not impressed.
-
Speaker: The economics of shit speech, in reply to BenWilson,
everything gets re-shared, reshaped, repeated, etc on blogs and social media
Paywalls thwart that.
-
Speaker: The economics of shit speech, in reply to Moz,
Wreck Small Speakers on Expensive Stereos
right there with Large Rock on a Camper Van in my local fave names list..
-
Andrew Geddis is kind of relaxed about this whole 'binding' business.
So, while it is true that any bill endorsed by the voters at the referendum may be changed by MPs before being enacted into law, so too can (and has) an existing Act endorsed by the voters at a referendum. If there is a difference between the two situations, then it is once again a politico-moral one; can it be demonstrated that in practice the former is more likely to occur than the latter?
Which means that I’m simply not all that upset about the Government’s chosen process here. I’d have preferred the “legislate, then let the people endorse” process as a simpler, tidier and more publicly discursive one. However, the difference between that ideal and the proposed model really isn’t that great.