Posts by 3410
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
The Law says they are eligible. Has since its inception.
The law could say something else, but it doesn't.
Thanks. Bitchy, circular, wilful obtuseness was just what I was looking for.
-
Graeme,
How is it that parties not currently represented in parliament (ie New Zealand First) are eligible for election broadcasting funding? -
Not really getting why it isn't front-page news.
I guess one bottle of wine is a tragedy; hundreds of millions of dollars is a statistic.
-
Why isn't Campbell Live "across" this?
Too complex for tv?
I just don't get the deafening silence from almost all quarters.
Even No Right Turn has nothing...
-
Auckland Council chief executive Doug McKay implies that something can be done about this.
The projected $450 million over the next eight years, he said, would go into the council's long-term plan next year and be subject to consultation.
Mr McKay said the council would be "all ears" to IT experts and all projects would include a business case.
True?
-
We have a result!
Except that it was Orsman who wrote the original article. Better than a slap in the face with a wet fish though.
Why isn't Campbell Live "across" this?
-
Well, you're just one blog commenter, Andin, and like lawyers, I can provide you with another one that will give you a counterview.
;) -
Why is it that so many Ministers in the current government seem allergic to expert advice or evidence?
Politicians of the right often see themselves as the "deciders" - it is a different model of leadership and power. Refer George Lakoff, etc.
It's worse than that. The whole concept of expertise means that some opinions are more valuable than others. This undermines their ideology of the primacy of the individual, so must be resisted.
-
I guessed that. Does that mean you can say any more?
-
RB,
care to expand on this?