Posts by Peter Martin
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I note that at one stage and quite recently,National ( hat tip Gerry Brownlee) had no real problems with the parliamentary spending bill,other than wanting a shorter election period.
One can only wonder the why of this change in policy.
Hon Bill English: If a publication of a similar nature to the 2005 pledge card produced by the Labour leader’s office were to be released in the final 6 weeks of the election campaign next year by the parliamentary Labour leader’s office, provided it did not state “vote for me” would it be legal under the bill tabled by him yesterday?
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I think it would be treated in almost exactly the same way as this public advertisement put out by Mr English in 2002 on parliamentary spending, which he subsequently tells us was completely inappropriate and immoral. I might further note that Mr Eagleson was the person who told us that what National sought was to extend the current bill.
Gerry Brownlee: I have in my possession a document that sets out the fact that National was happy for a rollover, provided it would lead to a much shorter election period. I seek leave to table that document, along with the document of Mr Eagleson.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection?
Documents not tabled.
Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that the effect of the Labour Party’s policy on electoral reform, for the first time ever done on a purely partisan basis, is that private citizens and organisations will be heavily and tightly restricted on what they can spend rebutting Labour’s propaganda but the Labour Government will have at its disposal millions for Government advertising, and that all MPs’ expenditure has been exempted from tight electoral spending rules, meaning that taxpayers’ dollars will be sprayed around everywhere in Labour’s cause and privately raised money will have to be very carefully restricted?Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: What I can confirm, thanks to the very helpful intervention by Mr Gerry Brownlee, is that Labour’s position is exactly the same as National’s on the parliamentary spending bill, except that National members want a shorter period of time for electoral spending because they have so much money in their pockets they cannot spend it if the limitations in that regard start on 1 January. They have been caught out by their own front bench on this question
-
all I'm saying is that scholarships should go on merit and that merit should be assessed in a non-corruptable way
Kevin...would you be so good as to indicate how scholarships are awarded currently...and why those who assess them and the system are corrupt?
-
<quoute> And am I really the only person who got through the 2005 campaign feeling as if our politics has gotten a little too 'American' for comfort?</quote>
No,and yer spot on. Politics is getting very tribal with common ground being the antithesis of electioneering and policy.
I trust no party here had any 'advisors' about last time...
-
Oh the study as published in the Lancet was strong enough. The Johns Hopkins study has been well scruitinised...
http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/231587/4/
The study has been extrapolated to indicate that now there would be some 1.2 million deaths. This number closely parallels other estimates...
http://www.samefacts.com/archives/the_war_in_iraq_/2007/06/the_deaths_in_the_pottery_barn.php
-
I don't think, infact I am sure the US did not anticipate Al Qaeda showing up in Iraq the way they did
Odd,given that Cheney said on June14,2004 that "he (Saddam Hussein ) had long established ties with al Qaeda.". This was backed up by Bush two days later and led to a poll indicating 57 percent of Americans surveyed believed that Iraq was helping Al Qaeda before the war, including 20 percent who believed Iraq was linked to the Sept. 11 attacks.
There is no evidence to indicate that Al Qaeda would put any effort into fighting anyone in Afghanistan. The Taliban however...
-
Iraqi casualties down more than 75% from 3500 in Nov 06 to 804 in Sep 07.
Are the dead being counted now? Who is doing the counting?
US casualties down from 126 in May 07 to 36 in Sept 07 despite more troops on the ground and an increased operational tempo.
According to the Iraq Casualties Site, these are the yearly numbers of death of US military personnel in Iraq:
Year US Deaths
2003 486
2004 849
2005 846
2006 822
2007 839And on it goes...
-
The Left, generally, have always been hell-bent on proving the neo-cons incorrect in invading Iraq.
Somehow I think pointing out that, over a million Iraqi have died...millions are on the run...and the place is dysfuntional to an ungovernable degree , is worth an effort.If only to find out what the 'neo-cons' feel would be correct about the invasion and occupation.
-
If you are looking for bad news on Iraq, you will find it. If you are looking for postive news, it's also there. Depends which side of the fence your are on.
Is the fence keeping me in...or out?
I would love to see some links to some 'positive' Iraqi news.
-
It seems the GOVN8R has pimped one hummer of his to run on biofuel and another on hydrogen....which just leaves the remaining three...
-
Yes. We are on our way. And yes,it does feel good.
I too think England will get past Samoa. In fact, I hope they get through to beat Wales...which,I am told ,would have them meeting the AB's. Unfinished business there.
It seems that the six nation countries are going to need the pool matches . How disappointing have they been.Is that competition so weak or is rugby weak at present in the northern hemisphere?
And playing with the sun on their backs ( and fowards) makes for a great buildup here. The timing is just right.