Legal Beagle: All is Forgiven, or: The Happy Consensus
69 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last
-
yup - the right response to the national front's bile is not to shut them up - but more speech, call them on their crap publicly - those people out demonstrating at NF marches are the real heroes, they understand
You don't shut people up and lock them in a corner, you let the sun shine in
-
Could we raise the bar as to what constitutes a national party at least? You'd think that a reasonable number of paid up members would be a honest prerequisite and weed out some of the fringes (and I say that as a lifelong holder of fringe political ideas).
The bar is currently set at 500 members, which is a lot harder then it sounds. There are only 19 registered parties, which is not an enormous number. And at least four of them (the two jokes, the Family and Pacific parties) are almost certain to disappear by the next election.
(Sorry, this is part of my geekdom. Not to mention something I contribute to on wikipedia)
-
You don't shut people up and lock them in a corner, you let the sun shine in
Vampires flee the sun.
Speakign of which, has anyone seen Roger Douglas in daylight recently?
-
Could we raise the bar as to what constitutes a national party at least? You'd think that a reasonable number of paid up members would be a honest prerequisite and weed out some of the fringes (and I say that as a lifelong holder of fringe political ideas).
As much as it would be nice to have an independent review board of the wacky fringes, not sure it is possible, with that whole human rights thing being slightly compromised. [redacted]
Turns out the McGillicuddys disappeared after 1999. Sorry, I didn't notice for some reason. Must have been lack of equitable funding.
-
The bar is currently set at 500 members, which is a lot harder then it sounds.
You can, however, stand as an electorate candidate for an unregistered political party, which is what I intend to do next year.
As an art project.
-
I don't see why you would. The amount of money donated to Greenpeace, some of which goes to the Vote for the Environment Campaign, which ranks the parties on environmental policies and tends to give the Greens the highest score isn't figured into how much they get.
Because some people view politicians as lying, worthless, two faced, ammoral wind-bags and think their subsequent election is at best a necessary evil. These people prefer to engage in politics in ways that do not involve handing money directly to politicians, but they still vote.
-
How about this?.
No Party is allowed to spend more than 5% more than the median amount spent by all parties.
Think about it.
When your head stops hurting from the unfathomable variables you will see that if this were a law it would be totally stupid and unworkable, therefore in keeping with all other electoral funding law.
Anyway, it doesn't matter because we are all Ignorant apparently. -
Graeme, I meant editorials of the major dailies around election time. In 1987 they were supportive of Labour, not surprisingly, but very rarely since.
1987 Labour were left wing?
Turns out the McGillicuddys disappeared after 1999. Sorry, I didn't notice for some reason. Must have been lack of equitable funding.
They got tired. And as my ex-flatmate and local candidate pointed out, it became difficult to come up with stupid shit that was weirder than some of the things that some of the mainstream parties were coming up with.
-
Um - at least one of the McGillicuddys is currently in parliament, a party leader no less
-
These people prefer to engage in politics in ways that do not involve handing money directly to politicians, but they still vote.
Sure.
I'm just not sure why this means I should include money given to MoveOn.org in assessing the amount of money Obama received in donations.
-
speaking of art projects .... years ago state servants got 2 weeks off with pay if they ran for parliament .... but the deposit for an election was way less than 2 weeks pay at the time .... we had visions of 1000 people changing their name to "Rob Muldoon" and running in Tamaki ...
-
Um - at least one of the McGillicuddys is currently in parliament, a party leader no less
So there is! It's not easy being green. Guess she wasn't part of the 'Great leap Backwards' movement then.
-
we are all Ignorant apparently
and don't forget "venal"
-
This was compared to strapping a chicken to a table, shooting it at point-blank range with a shotgun, and concluding "shotguns kill chickens".
In order to test this, I went out into my formerly well chickened yard with my faithful 12 gauge and conducted some experiments:
- point-blank, chicken restrained - successful kill, meat not suitable for consumption due to excessive shot content
- 10m, chicken restrained, successful kill, again excessive shot content, possibly smaller choke could be considered in future
- 20m, chicken restrained, successful kill
- 50m, chicken restrained, successful kill on second shot
- point-blank, chicken unrestrained, successful kill, see above on shot content
- 20m, chicken unrestrained, successful kill
At this point experiments had to be abandoned as remaining chickens were cowering in coop, and were thus no longer capable of individual targetting.
I would however conclude that "shotguns kill chickens" although they are not perhaps an optimal method should one wish to eat the meat.
-
Rich: yes, the metaphor leaves a little to be desired. It breaks down because chickens are not usually invisible, equipped with ECM, or hunted in the dark at maximum range.
-
Nuclear armed, radar stealthed chickens dive bombing at Mach 5 vs sharks with frikk'n lasers.
-
I'm just not sure why this means I should include money given to MoveOn.org in assessing the amount of money Obama received in donations.
Which you can't do, because George Soros' $millions only come with one vote attached.
Assessing a candidates popularity based on their campaign budget/$2000 is not real accurate, because the popularity is both their positives and the other candidates negatives.
-
Well, I didn't want to pick on anyone, but it was Keir:
Thanks for the clarification, but I have to say that Keir's much more nuanced statements didn't seemed to be saying that he opposed the idea of equal caps. It was just about the logic of raising them without raising allocations. I took that to mean that he presumed very high caps would be about as unfair as no caps, in favor of the parties with wealthy support.
-
his name was Rodney Donald, his name was Rodney Donald...
Post your response…
This topic is closed.