Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Democracy Night, in reply to Richard Grevers,
If we had stuck with FPP in 1996, the formula which determines the number of electorates (based on a South Island quota) would have meant more than 130 MPs by now
Not nearly that many. More than the 99 we had, certainly, but under 120.
-
Economy-related words:
PIIGS, double-dip, Eurozone.
Major events:
Fukushima was big for a while there.
-
Hard News: The Public Address Word of…, in reply to Glen Wright,
Mandate.
you mean to cup of tea?
edit: missed it by that much.
-
Spring.
[or a related wordphrase like Arab Spring, Tahrir, facebook revolution or Uprising.] -
I still say twatcock was gendered :-P
-
Hard News: The Public Address Word of…, in reply to merc,
"Twentyeleven”, because it’s used as one word (the rules!) and the start of using “twenty” to describe the millenium instead of twothousand.
This wasn’t obviously how it was going to go?
It’s not like we said one-thousand-nine-hundred-and (or even nineteen-hundred-and) all that often.
-
p.s. I'm not saying this is other than a bad idea, just that, as I have said previously (here?) ... rumours of the Apocalypse are greatly exaggerated is all.
-
OnPoint: Spending "Cap" is Fiscal Anorexia, in reply to Sacha,
And annual inflation means that a zero spending increase is actually a cut in real terms.
It is inflation indexed.
-
OnPoint: Spending "Cap" is Fiscal Anorexia, in reply to Keir Leslie,
Yes, but a Budget is not an executive thing, it is a Parliamentary thing. ... This proposal is a way of restricting Parliament’s ability to make decisions.
How would this proposal, if enacted, restrict Parliament's ability to do anything at all?
c.f. The Colorado taxpayer bill of rights, which did restrict the ability of the Colorado legislature and Colorado governor to do things.
-
OnPoint: Spending "Cap" is Fiscal Anorexia, in reply to Keith Ng,
It’s about putting in place a rule which says “no matter how much money we have, no matter how well the economy is doing, no matter what the country needs, we should have a smaller government next year”.
I thought it was about saying "we should have a government just as big next year as we have this year."?
edit: noting of course, that the things that government spends money on might have to change (aging population etc.).