Posts by Kyle Matthews
-
Point A is; replacing money onshore with scraps of paper is New Zealand currency lost.
I fail to see why electoral law should make people make good business decisions. If people spend their money badly in any commercial or private arrangement, that's their tough luck. We don't tell other people not to take their business offshore if that's where business is good, we shouldn't do it for people running for election.
Point B is; you presume, just as I contrarily presume, neither of us are certain, but you're living in it.
Or you could go find it here.
Point C is; the entire and complete role of democratic government is to tailor the governing of a country to the people and not vice versa.
And the people would like to have the ability to know who's spending money on elections. Our old electoral law had this, our new electoral law has it. Lots of other countries have it.
The tenuous Point C(ii) is, as weighted by the example mentioned on page 7 whereby voters are reactionarily voting against their spouses, hence their prime motivation for their votes are spouses, whose existance supersedes the influence of advertising. Relegating much of the election result to the status of a large scale domestic. A factor not contributed to by limits on advertising.
Having just been through an election, I don't think it was decided by domestic disputes. Tenuous would be a generous description for your argument.
Point D is, NZ enforces a system that favors established political parties, discriminating against startup parties on the basis that no matter how much money campaigners are willing to throw at them, they will not be eligible for more campaign advertising without more campaigners. they will not be able to get more campaigners without more advertising.
That's silly. If you take away spending limits, it's not going to be new parties that are going to have buckets more money to spend, it's existing parties. National, Act and Labour, all parties already in power and able to reward big donors with policy will rake it in. Adjusting the law would have the opposite effect to what you're desiring.
-
Tell me as a father you don't see things a little differently than when you occupied Registry!
My son is 10 and I still have three or four years to pay off my student loan. You better believe allowances and tertiary funding is stuff that I think about.
-
Tell me as a father you don't see things a little differently than when you occupied Registry! I still think free tertiary education, with allowances, ought to be the goal, but it's slipped down my list of priorities now headed by more and better early childhood education and better special ed.
To me lack of allowances for students is still the most glaring problem in government funding of programmes. It's discrimination made possible through a discourse which gained prominence in the 1990s about public/private benefit of tertiary education, and which everyone brought into, including us. We missed the big picture and fought battles by never seeing the war going on around us properly.
After that, community healthcare and mental health funding, and then probably an increase in benefits.. Funding to bring fees down would be 5th or 6th. It's complex and the old and current models aren't working.
-
sadly still no technical specs on the Freeview web site (at least none that I can see).
I thought there was a year moratorium on competition on set-top boxes. An exclusive contract for the first year or something. Is that over yet?
-
Could be her views have changed somewhat... mine have, not radically, but the priorities have certainly reordered.
Up against the wall!
-
I had a few brief interactions with her through student politics and remember her as engaging and smart.
I thought she looked familiar. Massey-Albany president in the mid-90s. I remember her being a nice person, but either her position on tertiary education has changed, or she's going to avoid that sector.
-
moral: B should have spent his money offshore.
Ah yup. What's your point?
moral: recycle advertisements
I would presume that the electoral law would deal with pre-spending in some way. If it was as easy as saying "oh no, we spent 20 million last year, we're only putting all the advertising up now" then it wouldn't be a very good law.
moral: Despite friendship, people won't jeopardize their lives to publicly support what they believe in.
I fail to see how this is the fault of the electoral laws. If people are going to be vengeful because other people support electoral candidates, then your problem is with those people.
As much fun as that sounds Kyle, the appeal is somehow tainted by already knowing that bingo, that person spent $12,000.
OK. I miss your point here.
-
What if it's two weeks after an election, and three years before the next?
As far as I know, we don't restrict election-type campaigning outside of the election period.
-
Well that's crappy.
-
How about none? Somehow, there are any number of large cultural and sporting events every year that stagger on without their own minister.
Well I'd be happy with none. But one would be better than two.
Also not needed, Minister for Lord of the Rings, as much as it was a very cool title, and anything to do with that silly sailing race.