Posts by Paul Williams
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I can't believe no-one has responded to Ian's story, which is very funny and perfect for a sunny afternoon.
Paul, thanks for alerting me to my error.
I just read the story, I bet all kids wish to have done what Stuart did. Fantastic, thanks Ian.
-
Russell, thanks for your compliments of Judith. If nothing else, she deserves a public defence.
But more than this, I agree with your assessment that Judith was an important contributor to Labour because of her enviable networking skills. I was briefly on the campaign trail with Helen (in Rimutaka) last week and was reminded what a force of nature she is, but she doesn't have the easy touch Judith does. That Clark recognised Judith's talents and her connections to particular communities is really no different to Clark's recognition of Winnie Laban's unique social network and cultural-skill set.
Also, I had some great dealings with her, albeit some years ago, while in the Labour Research Unit. Judith and Ruth Dyson particularly were always genuinely encouraging and thankful to the researchers in a way that not all other members were. For instance, Ross Robertson seemed incapable of remembering anyone's name despite being equally incapable of operating independently.
I'm sorry Auckland Central's gone National and don't begrudge Nicki Kaye, although I hope that Labour can win it back in '11.
-
Taking the conversation back a little to the consideration of fixed terms, can I commend the following story to you; the Telegraph, hardly a highbrow daily, is campaigning for the sacking of the current NSW Labor government... pity about fixed four year terms but!
-
Well firstly if they have dna evidence that you have handled some of the goods then fair enough, they have detected prima facie evidence of wrongdoing. However in practice the cost of dna testing means it will never come up in such cases, the police will rely on the old standbys of informants and fingerprints.
Peter, if you collect DNA from someone only ever arrested but never charged nor convicted for receiving under the scenario I proposed earlier, I don't see how there's a prima facie case at all?
If I've understood your argument, you're saying that if charged and convicted and then sampled for some earlier comparable offence, Police might have reason to interview (but I'm not sure that this is a prima facie case per se).
But in the initial scenario, I'd argue that the current definition of actus reus is compromised by National's proposals i.e. pawn shop currently has unregistered goods, Police interview individual with earlier arrest only for selling/recieving unrelated goods. To my mind at least, this kind of investigation could breach the principals of natural justice and the presumption of innocence.
This is however, something I'd welcome more qualified views on (not that I suggest only criminal lawyers should have a view) because an arrest or charge doesn't not determine guilt therefore my logic might be flawed.
-
__But the two could be linked. I've long believed (off the top of my head) that when ppl feel 'their team' is going to lose they don't go out and vote. In that way they're absolved of feeling like 'a loser'. Illogical I know, but if they don't vote then they don't have to worry about being aligned with the losing team.__
So, any empirical, peer-reviewed data to back that up? Look, I can pull theories out of my arse too: In Auckland, it was a damn nice day. How many people decided to go to the beach, catch up on some gardening or so forth? Buggered if I know.
Hey, lets not dismiss the validity of new thinking based on experience, even personal experience, Craig. I'm every bit the empiricist but you can't adduce empirical evidence for everthing and there's a place for intelligent speculation.
I think there's something in the notion that people could have stayed away feeling it was pointless to vote Labour. It's never been my mode of operation, but most people aren't nearly as engaged in politics as you or anyone here. The low turnout needs more analysis to make out this idea, but there's enough of a decline to suggest it's worth considering.
-
Mikaere, thanks for your candor.
My reference to 1996 was about the way Labour reacted to NZF going with National despite feigning interest in governing with Labour. I recall the night of Winston dramatic announcement - what a completely self-indulgent wanker he was/is.
After too long spent in low-level factional infighting, they regrouped and gelled into a very effective Opposition that exploited the weak National/NZF government. It seemed to me, and I was briefly working with the Research Unit, that Labour's sense of common purpose and policy agenda solidified around an incredibly competent front bench.
I sense that Labour will again quickly regroup. The simple and effective transfer to Goff and King plus the new intake is a perfect platform. I hope the Greens feel similarly energised as you seem to suggest they are, they ran a great campaign.
-
Seconded, but what can be done about it?
Cancel your sub?
But seriously, at kiwiblogblog, a commentator called redlogix, observed that the NZHerald had entirely neutered itself as a potential critic of Key/National having been so biased in its coverage of National. He was right.
I suspect it's because the Herald feels far more money can be made by being having copy supplied by NZPA and running advertorials. News, unbiased reporting of polics, investigative journalism; nah, too hard!
-
Somehow, I managed to survive nine years of my less than favourite party without undue trauma. Democracy's like that.
Craig, my reaction to this statement is in two parts.
1. Fair enough. It's true the world still spins and much of your life, which is in fact influenced by as many non-political matters as it is by political ones, may be unaffected.
2. For some, a change of government can be more significant. Potentially immediately so, and I don't mean the Pre Secs. National will fund heceptin, that's going to be well received by many, but I remain concerned about low-income earners and the unemployed.
Cheers. In some ways, the Green campaign was as much internal as it was external, in that it seemed to develop an increased sense of cohesiveness.
Mikaere, like Labour in 1996? I don't mean to be provocative, but I'm sorry Nandor's no longer in the party. Please don't feel the need to respond or divulge any deep-dark-party-secrets, I simply think he was a great voice for a particular constituency.
What I find interesting is Goff is now saying that any modifications to the EFA should be done with cross-party support.
I think, tactically at least, Goff needs to be seen to be different from the former leadership. Whether the new National/Act/UF/Maori goverment is able or willing to compromise is another matter.
If the Herald wants insight into who played a role in chilling debate in the election, they need only look in the mirror.
Nicely put Steve.
-
Around fixed election dates, the question as Giovanni has put it is what then happens if you 'snap' early, come the actual election date?
Kyle/Giovanni,
In NSW, fixed means fixed so long as you have confidence and supply. If you lose that and the other mob can't form a government, an election is called. But so long as you have confidence and supply, you can't call an election inside the four years.
If you lose confidence and supply and the Governor calls an election, the subsequently elected government has a full four year term contingent upon retaining confidence and supply.
-
Oh and Mikaere, congrats on your part in running a great campaign.