Posts by Rich of Observationz
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Chaucer spelt it quainte and kent amongst other versions.
-
I was inspired by listening to Billy Bragg the other week.
One of his points was that, at the Battle of Naseby, the rights of Parliament versus the English King was settled, but the rights of Parliament versus the people have never been so settled.
Two things arise from that:
- the actual royals, as opposed to their viceroys, realise that if they push the envelope too far, the chopping will (metaphorically) restart. (As indeed it did for James II). As a result, they avoid controversy - as evidenced by the fact that no monarch since Queen Anne has refused a Royal Assent.- we lack for the means for the people to control and restrain Parliament
A Governor General is not a suitable form of control and restraint. Their role is not a judicial one (despite our last three having been judges). Any actions they take will inevitably be coloured by their personal politics.
This was true in the case of Kerr; Australia was not in a state of imminent political collapse, the government having several months left to organise Supply - Kerr's personal belief that the Whitlam government was inimical to the interests of the "Western Alliance" largely dictated his actions.
I feel that gubernatorial intervention (should it become more popular) will always follow this model: if a G-G agrees with a political act, they will decline to intervene (with impeccable justification). If they disagree, they might be moved to act (to the horror of the proponents of the act).
An enforceable code of rights has the great advantage of being capable of objective judgment - and tested by those for whom objectivity is a career requirement.
-
I had a look through The Standard and came across this post:
It is worth noting that nearly every piece of legislation protecting New Zealand workers, while supported by Labour, has actually been driven by the Alliance and the Greens. As the Alliance no longer exists I’d suggest voting Green is the best way to truly support Kiwi families...
If they're really Labour funded then I think a demand for money back might be in order.
-
So the cops didn't come on stage and arrest Bjork for the assault on photographer rap? She so should get busted - zero tolerance for violence, I say.
I saw Billy Bragg at the SFBH warm-up gig on Wednesday. He was excellent - was making jokes about opening for RATM at the BDO. Also, one could watch the show while enjoying a cold pint of Macs Pilsner in a real glass.
(For those that might at this point suggest I'm an old git for not going to festivals, I'm going to Kiwiburn on the 1st Feb and Luminate 08 after that.
-
And I think that it's unlikely that the Standard are being paid to do it.
I think it would be unbelievably stupid if that were the case - so unlikely, but you never know.
You'd think that the parties would send out a memo on this, stating that nobody is to post on political topics on party/parliamentary time without being fully compliant in terms of declarations, etc. I'd even go further and suggest that any staffers make full disclosure even on projects in their own time.
-
I don't ever post under my real name because of shit like this. Does Sam Morgan not believe in the idea of boundaries between work and home life? In the very unlikely event that I went for a job there, I'd create an anodyne MySpace page in my real name to fulfill the "engagement in the internet" criteria. With entries like "Too busy to write, just finished 96 hour shift down't pit and then bought my boss a meal to thank him for being such a wonderful person".
It's entirely right that I can legally post anonymously. If any site considers my writing to be unacceptable, they can spike it. It's equally right that if I was ever silly enough to spend actual money on domain names and the like, both the Electoral Commission and the Internet authorities would want my details - so that if I'm a front for a party or whatever, that stands a chance of coming out.
The anology is rego plates. Bikes don't need them, cars do and trucks need the name and address painted on the door.
-
If any of the authors of The Standard are being paid to write it, then I'd say their publication of their views is "commercial" and the 'blog exemption wouldn't apply.
And so it bloody shouldn't. *If* it were true, it would be the Labour party circumventing their spending cap by sponsoring unattributed propaganda. If any evidence of this emerged, I'd expect a prosecution.
-
Could you point me towards The Standard's registration as a third party
"The Standard" is a personal blog, isn't it. Personal, non-commercial, and (in the dumbest piece of drafting ever - next thing you know they'll use the word W0Ot in legislation) in the form of a "blog".
-
Russell - great minds thinking simultaneously :-)
-
I'm not sure why Cameron Slater of dontvotelabour.org has a problem with publishing his details to comply with the law, when he's quite happy to make them available through a WhoIs search:
admin_contact_name: Cameron Slater
admin_contact_address1: xxxxxxxx
admin_contact_address2: Howick
admin_contact_city: Auckland
admin_contact_postalcode: 1705
admin_contact_country: NZ (NEW ZEALAND)
admin_contact_phone: xxxxxxxxThey should have drafted the law so that an accurate whois entry constituted compliance.
The other thing they *should* have done is required an actual disadvantaged political party to file a complaint in order for any prosecution, so that if people want to deliberately challenge the law, they'll just be ignored.