Posts by 3410
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
And since when does voting against legislation that you don't support constitute "bad faith"?
-
I'm going to guess this.
-
Soße-Regenbogen
Das ist kühl.
-
I feel ashamed that I have let such an interesting and frankly amazing sporting contest go by without mention.
The cricket world cup? ;)
But yeah, go the Breakers.
-
It’s possible that if Labour hadn’t voted for it, the government would have pulled the improvements and due to them voting against it would be worse law.
Yes, it would be worse law, but not "due to [Labour] voting against it"; due to National introducing it and garnering enough support to have it passed.
(But yeah, Kyle, totally agree that it's not black-and-white).
-
What I'm picking up, notably from Lianne Dalziel's comments on Red Alert, is that Labour's Chch MPs got some sort of concession they felt was vital for their constituents. What I'm hazy on is what the concession was, and what consequences they feared from voting against.
That may be so, but if the act is seriously faulty, how is that Labour's fault?
If Labour is against something then they should vote against it, and when the shit hits the fan they can say "National did that, and that's why you should vote for us, not them".
-
Besides, what does voting for legislation that you disagree with get you?
On the one hand, it gets you a few meagre compromises from the govt. (and they'll very quickly learn to factor such "compromises" into future legislation).
On the other hand, you've just pissed away any legitimacy in complaining about any future negative consequences of the act.
How is that a good deal?
-
uh, no. Only if the government fails to get a majority on a confidence or supply motion is that true. It's possible (and has happened) for the government to fail to pass legislation without bringing about an election.
Okay, sure, it's possible, but in the normal state of affairs a govt. that can not pass its legislation is circling the drain, which is to say that by far the most normal situation will be that Labour, when in opposition, can not stop a Nat. bill by opposing it. That's a fact. How can it follow that they should therefore not vote against it?; they'd end up voting for all govt. legislation.
-
It would not have stopped the bill.
I keep hearing this argument, but I just do not get it.
For starters, if ever that were not the case, the govt. would therefore no longer have the confidence of the House and would have to call an election.
-
Hang on. The statistical comparison was copied, not the text, per se.