Posts by Angus Robertson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
These are recordings of US election campaigns and convention speeches, discussions on presidential power and the role of Congress, and the speeches by the actual people from Grover Cleveland in 1892 to John F Kennedy with pitstops for FDR, Harry Truman, Eisenhower and so on. I find it compelling.
Seems these were termed "public address" speeches and recordings were taken so the candidates message could be widely distributed to potential voters. Electronic amplifier systems were adopted early by politicians for their larger rallies and the technology is hence called a PA system. Wonder if publicaddress.net relates to the original meaning or the derivative.
-
Jeremy,
Ya know lets get our Obama on or we’ll look out of touch with the rest of the world.
Okey dokey. Obama has just made a speech disagreeing with those who blame all ills on white people who live in nice surburban neighbourhoods. That it is really a stupid preposturous idea, a form of race-baiting divisive politics he has no time for.
-
<quote>Which pretty much backs up Patrick Cockburn's assertion that Iraq as a nation has ceased to exist.</qoute>
Except that Cockburn implies (by omission) Iraq as a nation had remained intact through the gassing of the Kurds in the 80s and the mass killings of the marsh Shia Arabs in the 90s only to be broken assunder by the American invasion.
-
Is NZ Lager really worth 20c?
I/S
Democracy implies accountability, and we can indeed "hold DHBs accountable" by de-electing them. but when you look at it, there's actually not much they're really accountable for.
They are accountable for ensuring that contracts are awarded in a fair way and carried out in an efficient manner.
In the Hausmann case the contention is that he (a government appointee) colluded with management for privileges to several $million in business. A faction of the Board found this out and have attempted to censure him. If the board did not exist the chances of him being found out are neglible. The fact that Board members are not of the same political bent as each other is beneficial to them fufilling their role, irrespective of who is in government.
Can only endorse the call for removal of the elected Boards if there is an apolitical authority erected to investigate and prosecute the type of corruption that is alleged in this instance and apparent in the Medlab/Labtests fiasco.
-
Who needs Thai? Riverton is home to the best fish and chips, you are a lucky man.
After the town of Gore, we left the main highway and headed towards the ocean.
Technically you turned away from the ocean, climbed up hill and drove across the middle of the Southland plains.
-
If all Labour party voters chose Progressive for their electorate vote a Labour/Progressive government would be almost gauranteed. Splitting a vote that way can give a 60% increase in the value of the vote over someone who votes for the same party & electorate. The fact that the Maori seats do this shows these are the smartest electorates in New Zealand.
-
For what it's worth Krugman is a Bates prize winner and a highly acclaimed economist. He was also right about George Bush. Right from the start. And a long time before almost anyone else in the punditocracy.
Craig,
I agree with you. Paul Krugman has been confidently predicting an imminent reccession for the USA in every year of the Bush presidency since 2002 and so far has got it wrong every time.
Now he has gone and predicted an imminent reccession is upon us, and he might well be correct. But even a stuck clock...
-
Is putting names on campaign material and registration too high a price to pay for transparency?
The question of how the EFA restricts needs to be contextualised with what the EFA legitimises.
In the context of the EFA the answer is yes. Requiring names on campaign material and restrictions of each individual participating in public debate, whilst at the same time allowing secretive $250,000 payments direct to politicians is too high a price to pay on our freedoms.
-
Ah, Angus, so are you saying that the regulation of third parties is okay, as long as the caps are higher?
Yes, as long as the regulation is not more onerous upon third parties than upon political parties regulation is welcome. Every stream of political opinion should have the right to place its views before a nationwide audience, restriction to $120,000 means this cannot happen. Of the figures chucked around over the previous 3 months the guesstimate costing to reach 80% of the electorate is $300,000 - $400,000.
-
So, you're saying that non-political parties should be able to voice their opinions with as much money as they want, because that's what democracy is all about, but if you put them on a ballot paper, then they're a waste of space?
Yes, I am saying that whilst I agree that lobbying a specific issue so that people vote in a way favourable to your lobby is a good thing, I believe that requiring these same groups all put themselves on electoral ballot is a pointless waste of time. These groups will not be campaigning for themselves and will be directing voters to political parties of their preference.
In all likelihood you are right and putting another dozen "parties" on the ballot is all that will happen. It will however mean more spoilage and complexity and more lost votes and more waste and more time at the polling station, none of which is conducive to democracy. What is the payoff that could not be achieved by allowing $2.4 million ($1.0 million + 70 x $20,000) third party campaigns, where all third parties must have 500 members?
I fail to see any payoff in the EFB over previous legislation.