Posts by Russell Brown
-
Hard News: Political Idol, or whatever…, in reply to Chris Waugh,
1: Just what, precisely, is the difference between these three? They all seemed to be saying the exact same thing. They, Robertson especially, also seemed to endorse each other.
They have to endorse each other. That's vital.
But I thought the answers to the SkyCity question were interesting.
Jones: Dislike the deal, but I’m not going to wade in on a contract.
Robertson: We reserve the right to change gambling laws if we need to, even if that means paying the compensation agreed to by National.
Cunliffe: Fuck ’em.
-
Hard News: Political Idol, or whatever…, in reply to Matthew Poole,
Because he’s the one who’s put himself out front for a senior role in a coalition, perhaps? Met hasn’t been the one talking about being Minister of Finance, which is traditionally given to the DPM.
Yes, that's why. There may be a conversation for the Greens to have in that.
-
Hard News: Political Idol, or whatever…, in reply to Jonathan Ibell,
Played fine for me, too – how’s this?
Brilliant. Thank you.
-
Hard News: Political Idol, or whatever…, in reply to Chris Waugh,
Amazingly enough, that video played perfectly for me. And that was a nice moment, especially the looks on Shane’s and David’s faces.
Exactly.
-
Hard News: Political Idol, or whatever…, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
Hum… I might have to watch it a couple more times, but the whole exercise struck me as more insubstantial than Forbes and Native Affairs usually is.
I confess, I was watching more for style than content. Although the different flavours of answer to the SkyCity question were interesting.
-
Hard News: Political Idol, or whatever…, in reply to Dave Patrick,
Apparently, calling the Cunliffe for Leader twitter account “idiotic” means you’re endorsing Cunliffe
Yeah, it's definitely a troll account. And read that way, less idiotic. It might turn out to be entertaining.
-
Yay. And now David Cunliffe's announcement gets the opera treatment:
Still better, this amazing Game of Thrones-themed Australian election campaign rap featuring Julian Assange. Yes, you did read that right:
-
Field Theory: Boos 'n' All, in reply to Geoff Lealand,
Enjoy! We still have the Super 15 trophy.
But not, I fancy, the incumbent All Black No. 6 ;-)
-
Hard News: So long, and thanks for all…, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
Even more crazy talk: Perhaps we all would have gotten used to the idea that it’s not Ragnarok if (shock! horror!) the Government of the day occasionally can’t pass bills. FFS, isn’t this what MMP was supposed to do?
Same as per what I said to Bart. Apart from Labour + Jim, no agreement we’ve seen has guaranteed the passage of anything beyond confidence and supply.
Actually, that’s not true: the Maori Party’s agreement was clearly based on a repeal of the Seabed and Foreshore Act, so it did additionally bind the government to that. But that’s in the nature of negotiated agreements. Nothing has ever bound support parties to voting for every bill the government puts up. Ever.
-
Hard News: So long, and thanks for all…, in reply to Bart Janssen,
I personally can’t wait for the day where each and every piece of legislation must garner wide support from multiple parties who each represent multiple views. And that may mean Laboour/National one day and Labour/Green/Mana another day. Yes fewer laws would be passed but I don’t see that as a bad thing.
Huh? That’s pretty much what the support arrangements have been all along!
They’re not coalitions. Except for Labour + Progressives they’ve all been formal support agreements on confidence and supply. The former is about the legitimacy of actually governing and the latter is the right to raise a Budget. They’re both essential to any intention of governing for three years. No government sets out on a plan without ensuring it has the right to govern.
They do not mean that the support parties have to vote with the government on everything, and we’ve seen the minor parties exercise that right repeatedly. Or, in the case of Peter Dunne and the GCSB bill, not.