Hard News: Metiria's Problem
333 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 14 Newer→ Last
-
kiwiwolf, in reply to
Or Mrs English
-
Not only clean slate legislation, but a 10 year statute of limitations on such electoral issues
-
Just because a whole lot of well-to-do types are putting the boot into MT over her "criminality" doesn't mean that the consequences at the polling booth won't be positive for the Greens. Heck, there was an immediate boost in support after her initial revelations. So the spiteful nonsense that's been hurled in her general direction lately might actually rake up even more support from sympathetic quarters.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Or Mrs English
Who?
-
Henry Barnard, in reply to
Earlier, section 72 has a heap of rules about determining a person’s place of residence. I’ll submit to legal expertise and may have mis-read, but I cannot see where the flexibility is. 72 says your place of residence is where you make your home for family or personal relations, or for domestic or personal reasons. Section 83 then says you have to provide that place of residence when you register.
I’m not a legal expert so would also be grafeful for a little clarity here: Doesn’t the fact that the rules say that you can declare your place of residence as the place where you make your home for “personal” reasons pretty well provide for the kind of “flexibility” referred to? What counts and doesn’t count as a “personal” reason for declaring a particular place your home? Could it be as simple as it’s the place where you wish to call your home? Wouldn’t the fact that you wanted to support a friend count as a “personal” reason?
And if this is the case, then isn't all this talk of electoral fraud almost defamatory and the only people who are guilty are those making such an allegation?
-
izogi, in reply to
I assumed the 'personal reasons' clause was more for making legally-required enrolment possible for those whose situation is something like "I'm homeless and transient and have to say I live somewhere even though it's impossible to place", but you might be right. My opinion's worthless in comparison with someone familiar with how this actually gets legally interpreted, though.
-
Henry Barnard, in reply to
Yes, I saw that on Pundit. I have asked him for clarification because, to my untutored reading of the relevant section ("A person resides at the place where that person chooses to make his or her home by reason of family or personal relations, or for other domestic or personal reasons") it seems to me that there is profound ambiguity in this clause. It seems to read as saying that one can call a place The-place-of-one's-residence if one chooses to regard it as one's home for "personal reasons". In other words, `home is where the heart is' and not where one actually resides in the ordinary sense of the word. And if Turei's heart was in the last place she lived where her friend was standing for election, then surely she perfectly free to choose to call that her home, and therefore her residence for electoral purposes.
I wonder, too, if the folk who drafted this clause didn't have precisely these sorts of issues in mind but/and, more particularly, to allow people who might never have resided (in the ordinary sense of the word) in a place but whose turangawaewae might be elsewhere to declare that place as their home and, hence, their place of residence.
I await Andrew's response with bated breath.
-
martinb, in reply to
Double Dipton, Oravida, signing a painting for charity...my gosh when did they annoint St. Matthew?
-
martinb, in reply to
There was a great quote at the end of that interview which basically said- it's a basically a non-event.
The tragedy around this is that while a lot of Labour voters obviously got the point (and not all obviously) not all did. There has been a long overdue move away from stigmatising the poor and there needs to be more.
See the reaction that she dared to be political while on a benefit! A poor person!
-
I've gained a lot of respect for Metiria from this. I think she probably knew it would be a shitstorm and a personal trial -- maybe she underestimated how much of one, I don't know. But she wanted to change the conversation, and maybe she has, a little bit. I was really impressed by her attitude in interviews -- not caving to the 'but you broke the law!!' and sticking to her broader point. It's made me much more likely to vote Green because it shows real guts and integrity (ironically, in a way...). After reading their online policy page I thought 'what the hell do they actually wanna do?', but I'm forced to give them credit for a bit more spine now. I'm also impressed that her co-leader, who's struck me as a bit of a glib corporate type, has publicly and immediately backed her up.
On the broader question of whether anyone's changed their mind about welfare and the stigmatisation of beneficiaries, I suspect not. It'd be interesting to see a poll on this broken down into 'respondents who have ever had to visit a WINZ office to ask for something' and 'respondents who have never had to deal with WINZ'. I can't imagine anyone who's had to deal with their chronic bad faith and incompetence would judge someone harshly for not giving every detail.
-
Sacha, in reply to
might actually rake up even more support from sympathetic quarters
The electoral problem for their MOU partner is it's most likely to come from Labour's own left flanks, not increasing the overall left bloc vote beyond some previous non-voters whose current motivation levels have to last another 7 weeks.
-
Emma Hart, in reply to
I wonder, too, if the folk who drafted this clause didn't have precisely these sorts of issues in mind but/and, more particularly, to allow people who might never have resided (in the ordinary sense of the word) in a place but whose turangawaewae might be elsewhere to declare that place as their home and, hence, their place of residence.
The thing about the underlying ethos of the Electoral Commission is that they want to make it as easy as possible for people to vote. They have zero interest in making life difficult for people whose living situations are fluid or difficult or unusual, and if that means also not bothering chasing up a handful of people who've maybe registered in the electorate next door because it's marginal and their isn't, or the thousands of students still registered in their parents' electorates, they don't care.
-
I think I've worked out why most of the parliamentary centre-right is keeping schtum on this issue- it probably has to do with the cumulative total of centre-right MPs donged for dodgy dealings, which wouldn't look good in an election year, so they've delegated the task to centre-right bloggers and media hacks.
Perhaps we should provide a corrective memory jog for this occassion? Incidentally, I'd certainly defend Metiria on the so-called 'benefit fraud' issue, as she was only trying to provide for her child, but enrolling elsewhere seems to be electoral fraud. She's probably wise in not expecting a ministerial portfolio.
-
Alastair Thompson, in reply to
Yes. The electoral address issue is a non-issue, and yet it seems its being made into the primary one. Looking back from overseas at this tempest in a teacup I just feel a sense of despair. There is something terribly wrong with our political discourse. Sanctimony on steroids.
-
Here's a little list of disgraced National and ACT MPs during the tenure of the Key and English administrations:
Richard Worth
David Garrett
Aaron Gilmore
Claudette Hauiti
Mark Sabin
Pansy Wong
Nick SmithNote that the latter is still there and hasn't even been dumped from Cabinet despite repeated mishaps.
-
Dennis Frank, in reply to
something terribly wrong with our political discourse. Sanctimony on steroids.
The Shakespearean frame applies, plus the old christian morality plays. Character is destiny (folk wisdom) so the emergence of a character flaw switching a political trajectory of a leader from one pathway to the future to another quite different one fascinates the audience. Remember we have several generations now who were constantly brainwashed by tv melodramas as they grew up. I suspect around half of them still watch that crap too.
Democracy is a lowest common-denominator design. Then there's the nature part of human nature: emotional intelligence. Intellect has no part to play when folks are trying to figure out who to trust.
-
Shaun Lott, in reply to
But voter fraud? Even fraud to cast a throwaway vote? Unless you actually were trying to make some political statement in which case you'd have made a thing about it back then.
Yes, exactly this. It turned the narrative of youthful need into one of political game-playing.
-
An annotated version of the above, with reasons for their departures- or nondepartures, as the case may be:
Here’s a list of centre-right National and ACT MPs who have resigned over the last nine years- and two who haven’t- and why they have done so:
1.Richard Worth- allegations of sexual harrassment
2.David Garrett- past identity theft of dead infant
3. Aaron Gilmore- harrassment and intimidation of others
4. Claudette Hauiti- misuse of parliamentary charge card, claimed expenses after announcing departure from Parliament
5. Mike Sabin- alleged assault complaint
6. Pansy Wong- misused parliamentary travel perk after her husband conducted private business on a visit to China*7. Nick Smith- contempt of court (March 2004); defamation cases (1999,2005); ACC conflict of interest (2012)
**8. Todd Barclay- employment dispute, clandestine recordings*Note that the latter is still there and hasn’t even been dumped from Cabinet despite repeated mishaps. **Yes, why is he still in Parliament? …Prime Minister??
Adds up after a while, doesn’t it?
-
Steve Todd, in reply to
Becouse it’s the McGillicuddy Serious Party she was voting for. That was basically a vote of no confidence.
She appears to have been living in the Eden electorate, was registered in Mt Albert, and stood as a candidate in New Lynn, so could not have voted for herself, in any event.
I know she was young and silly, and having a bit of fun, in 1993; she basically accepted that last evening when she had no answer to John Campbell as to why she didn’t register in New Lynn so she could at least vote for herself, rather than for her friend in a third electorate. As the item “faded to black”, her voice indicated that she was as bemused about that as John was.
Regardless, I now agree with Alistair Thompson upthread – “the electoral address issue is a non-issue”. Where she was living, and with whom, while claiming the DPB, is what is relevant.
Also, it should be noted that the relevant Act in force on polling day, Saturday 6 November 1993, was the Electoral Act 1956, as amended.
-
mark taslov, in reply to
however the way has been done will inflict massive damage on the Green Party’s prospects in this election.
Do you see their numbers dropping back below 2014 levels? Since Tuesday Winston appears all but forgotten by the left. The assumption seems to be that Labour will now waltz in to gain discretionary control of the next Government. However If we end up with a relatively balanced 3 way negotiation (as would be the case according to current polling) will blocking Metiria from cabinet remain a Labour bottom line. As someone just said elsewhere:
Labour bringing an FPP knife to an MMP gunfight. Hoping nobody notices.
Which is not to say that Jacinda's announcement doesn't make sense as a campaign position.
-
Let's not forget that Todd Barclay is a "very, very young man" (to quote Judith Collins), and this was Exhibit A in his defence, from Collins, Bill English, Paula Bennett and others.
He is, of course, so young that he is older than Metiria Turei was at the time of her sins. A point ignored by approximately everybody who condemns her and asks us to leave poor little Todd alone.
(I wouldn't usually bother to state the obvious - there are sundry other glaring differences between their cases, none favouring Barclay - but when the Herald is publishing deranged editorials like today's, the obvious may have to be restated).
-
. Intellect has no part to play when folks are trying to figure out who to trust.
We're not living in the wild anymore despite the efforts of the past few decades by those with power and influence to turn back centuries of civilising us all. So intellect has a really important part to play in the placing of trust.
But hey! we could always turn the clock back, there's a lot of people who seem to think they can, just by living in their intellectually constructed past. -
James Littlewood*, in reply to
Hahahahahaha! The Greens wouldn’t know class if it bit them on the backside. Typically self-righteous of them though.
Seriously? I don't think that's very fucking funny.
-
izogi, in reply to
The thing about the underlying ethos of the Electoral Commission is that they want to make it as easy as possible for people to vote. They have zero interest in making life difficult for people whose living situations are fluid or difficult or unusual
This even shows up in the legislation if reading between the lines. The best example I can think of is section 82 which mandates that it's compulsory to enrol if eligible. But 82(6) then states that anyone who applies for registration is not liable for prosecution. ie. If you're found to be breaking the law, you can simply register and not be prosecuted. The law only cares about people who consciously continue to break it after being "reminded".
-
Dennis Frank, in reply to
intellect has a really important part to play in the placing of trust.
So you can prove this is true by applying it to how voters will decide if Metiria Turei can be trusted to tell the truth nowadays, when they are wondering if voting green is a mistake. Explain to us how intellect plays a really important part in their decision. Or maybe you can't?
Most people decide if someone is trustworthy by reading their body language (facial expression primarily), supplemented by intuition and gut instinct - all part of their emotional intelligence.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.