Posts by DexterX
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Legal Beagle: A four-year parliamentary term?, in reply to Paul Campbell,
it seems obvious to me that they are in a position on this issue where they must excuse themselves from voting on it .... so yes a referendum is the only way to make a change here
this deafeats the position you suggest - say the Nats campaign with a policy that makes specific provision for a four year term and they win - then they will say they have a mandate and just do it - the vast majority of voters may be against it but it happens anyway vis a vis.asset sales.
Shearer in also agreeing on a four year term - playing the reasonable man card or whatever it is he plays - seems like a such dumb arse.
Wouldn't it be classic if the Nats campaigned highlighting their polices as endorsed by David Shearer - if I was running their campaign that's how I would kick it off.
Quack Quack - Ka Boom - What's that silence? David Dead Duck Shearer.
-
Legal Beagle: A four-year parliamentary term?, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
If there was a referendum then give us three options being a two year, three year and four year term and then take the average outcome of that – which would more likely fall in the two to three year option.
That's not how the reserved section is drafted. Some alternative needs the support of at least 50% of voters.What I am saying is that is how I would want a vote on term to work - or voters get to rate the options in order of preference.
I can't envisage that many people other than the MPs want a longer term.
-
Legal Beagle: A four-year parliamentary term?, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
better governed, on average.
What is your/the measure of better government?
-
Legal Beagle: A four-year parliamentary term?, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
Does someone have the evidence to show that UK, France, South Africa, Italy and Germany are better governed than NZ?
Consider the mess the world is largely from lack of regulation of financial markets and the considerable clout of corporations and govt over private citizens - has a longer parliamentary term made it any better for people?
Is there a disadvantage for a shift from a three year to a four year cycle in NZ.
In the last Labour Govt Michael Cullen said, to the Labour Caucus??, some thing along the lines of, "We only want to consider what the voters think in the lead up to an election" – This is basically the only time the major political parties have a real interest in the voter.
My preference is, as a voter, I exercise my choice every three years rather than every four.
I ask myself this - Do I want people like John Banks, Brendan Horan and others sitting on their arse at the taxpayers expense for a longer or shorter term?
There is more to worry about than just the term when you consider the Act - John Banks, Don Brash, John Key, Teapot Saga.
With a longer term the opposition will likely be more fatigued and ineffective.
The politicians are only looking to change for their benefit. The rationale they trot out for supporting the change is crap – planning long term over a three-year cycle as opposed to four – I would consider that a three-year cycle provides more flexibility.
Keep it as it is or failing that reduce it to two years as per Ben's post above.
If there was a referendum then give us three options being a two year, three year and four year term and then take the average outcome of that - which would more likely fall in the two to three year option.
-
Hard News: What did you do yesterday?, in reply to dyan campbell,
Shamefull indeed.
-
Housework, and organised child's play for daughter and her friends - consisted of the "kidz" racing each other in scooters around the common area and also playing Zombie tag - which I understand is a licence to scream louder.
I sat in the studio (basement tool store) playing guitar through a monster pedal board (pet project) with the door ajar so I could keep and eye on them and they could come in and out to chat.
The play culminated in the kids all sitting in the couch in the garage watching a DVD in the mini theatre area created in the basement for the communal benefit of the apartment block's kidz - provided them with pop corn and chilled drink.
my passing thoughts were about how the attitude to “Native Affairs” has changed since the 1960s/70s and the pressures resulting from irresponsible and failing govts and policy settings had resulted in a greater number of people getting hammered – representative of the equality of opportunity the "free" market presents - the high rates of "youth" unemployment scared me and I am more than a little concerned for the future.
-
Hard News: What did you do yesterday?, in reply to Sacha,
you mean Maori and all citizens represented by the Crown (including Maori)?
How accurate - the reported truth is never accurate.
-
The best bit of TV this past week was likely the documentary on Maori TV Nga Tamatoa: 40 Years On. Maori TV are IMHO a lot better than TVs1, 2 & 3.
The “$20 thang” goes to show the level of Asininity (being asinine and a ninny) that exists in mainstream broadcast media –that this saga even registers is a measure of, again IMHO, the flavor of national stupidity just as much as John Key being the PM.
There is no aspirational high water mark that is for real.
-
The advent and prominence of shlock TV is a good reason not to have a TV.
-
Hard News: The Next Act, in reply to Russell Brown,
The trick is to tap that rich vein.
To trap the right sort of "story" one needs the right kind of banana and the monkeys who know how to peel "it".
