Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Legal Beagle: A matter of conscience, in reply to Tim McKenzie,
It must have been someone else, then. I think it was on Public Address, but I can't find it
Craig is a fan, I think.
-
Legal Beagle: A matter of conscience, in reply to Lilith __,
Graeme, I understand your point, but I wonder if it's necessary to drag gods into this debate.
I used God because of the historical basis of most of our conscience issues. The temperance movement was strongly rooted in Christianity. The reason that issues around alcohol have been conscience issues is because of this. Most MPs who were compelled by their consciences to vote a particular way on "conscience" issues, in New Zealand historically and in the United Kingdom as well, we doing so out of religious conviction.
-
Legal Beagle: A matter of conscience, in reply to Tim McKenzie,
And because MMP gives parties more influence over who gets into Parliament, it gives them more influence over how their MPs vote in Parliament.
In theory, yes.
But New Zealand has only rarely had members of Parliament cross the floor, under MMP or FPP. It happens all the time in the UK under FPP, but our Parliament has simply proved too small* to allow it to happen.
*there are probably other factors, but I think size is the major one.
-
Legal Beagle: A matter of conscience, in reply to Tim McKenzie,
I vaguely remember you (or it may have been someone else) quoting part of Edmund Burke's famous speech to the electors of Bristol
I don't think I've ever quoted Burke, although I don't think I'm really speaking against him here.
-
Legal Beagle: A matter of conscience, in reply to BenWilson,
As far as I’m concerned, every vote is a conscience vote, my own included, and parties do not enhance democracy at all, for that reason.
I'm trying to draw a distinction between personal votes, and conscience votes. I think there is a place for conscience votes, being votes on which MPs are only accountable to themselves/God, and other votes, on which their parties, supporters, and voters generally can and should hold them to account.
-
Legal Beagle: A matter of conscience, in reply to Tim McKenzie,
Now consider that Australian voters got John Howard out of Parliament (under PV, I believe) immediately after he’d been Prime Minister for eleven years.
Australian voters? I think you mean Bennelong voters, and boundary and demographic changes.
-
Legal Beagle: A matter of conscience, in reply to Tim McKenzie,
Holly Walker said she would vote according to her party's position on the issue. She didn't know what her party's position would be, because it was still in development, and wouldn't be finalized until after the election.
That's how it seems to work. A lot of conscience issues are really only issues of conscience for those who hold a firm opinion in one particular direction.
Death Penalty opposition, or slavery abolition are intensely personal moral positions for those who wanted change. Support for the death penalty, and support for slavery, or more recently support for alcohol liberalisation aren't usually moral positions. Many people who opposed Sunday trading did so for moral reasons, but the reverse isn't true; support for Sunday trading didn't come from people who were morally opposed to a ban, it came from people who didn't think morals came into it.
My thesis is that many of the issues now treated as conscience issues, simply aren't any more, at least for the vast majority of MPs and voters.
-
OnPoint: Student Loans are Loans (Duh.), in reply to Hebe,
My understanding is that if a student loan were not repaid by the time the student (or former student) died, it would come out of their estate like any other debt.
Your understanding is mistaken. This is a major reason why one might conclude a student loan isn't really a loan.
-
Legal Beagle: Semi-Random election law thoughts, in reply to Keir Leslie,
I may be misreading, but it looks to me that the Electoral Commission is recommending the removal, not just of the right for scrutineers to wear rosettes, but also for anyone. Which would also extend to people doing turn out on election day, presumably.
Yes. They are suggesting precisely that. Lots of people get annoyed, apparently. Maybe some people feel some pressure to vote for those who ferried them to the polling booth? I don't know.
-
It seems that (after a week :-) the NZ Herald has discovered the Electoral Commission's report too.