I thought this was a pretty good summary of the Profumo affair. A lot of the BBC Witness programmes are damned good actually.
Which would make them more likely to overhang...
TBH I was completely unable to follow your logic. To start with you say that NZF will get only 4% and then you say they'll be in parliament.
Dunne was part of the Douglas-Prebble-Caygill faction of Labour and departed as they lost power, not "left" in a way many people would mean it.
Labour or the Greens winning additional electorate seats is very unlikely to alter the outcome of the election; they seem in no danger of failing to hit the threshhold or gaining an overhand. P.S. "more electorates" for the Greens would be 1 - your ...
Proportionality is calculated when the final vote count of the general election is completed, it is not recalculated or reassessed during the parliamentary term. So if there was a by-election in Ōhariu in which a candidate beat Dunne that candidate's party...
They get one extra MP so does Labour.
So you're saying Labour will get a 7.5% increase? Also Mana on 1% is not picking up anything from anywhere. Basically you're saying there'll be a 2% swing against the right (assuming a right of National, ACT and the Conservatives - it's a 4.5% swing if you...
Oops - switch the Māori Party list and electorate count around in my results, the totals are all correct tho. Bad tired fingers! :)
Also huh II? 63 = Nat 60 + Māori 3 is less than 64 = Nat 59 + UF 1 + ACT 1 + Māori 3
Huh? National has 60 seats, the Greens have 14 seats in that scenario (59 and 14 in the real world). BTW Saint-Laguë calcs are easy as - you can play with scenarios to your heart's content :)
Here you go Quotients 119 and 120 (Labour and Nat respectively) were 121 and 122 in the real results because ACT and UF had 45 and 80.
Ugh no. Currently: National: entitlement: 59 made up of 41 electorate + 18 list Labour: 34 = 23 +11 Green: 14 = 0 +14 NZF: 8 = 0 + 8 Māori: 3 = 0 + 3 (note this is a 1 seat overhang, their Saint-Laguë entitlement is actually 2) Mana: 1 = 1 + 0 ACT: 1 = 1 +...
Actually the two seats currently held by Dunne and Banks would be distributed to other parties – one to National one to Labour. I can post the Saint-Laguë table if you're interested.
Surely it matters most whether something is ethical, not whether it's legal. If this shows us that governments are making unethical things legal, and it sure looks that way, then it's a chance to lobby for law changes.
Actually it says: statutory time limit for any prosecution has expired which is quite different from any effect of the Limitations Act.
I don't see the connection between corruption (which is illegal) and street prostitution (which is entirely legal). Also, there is nothing wrong with Dotcom giving money to Banks' mayoral campaign (well except for showing a poor judgment of character), ...
Fortran writes, Dotcom may have done his own cause quite some damage, now that he known to be associated with Banks. I'm pretty sure that was already well known. Silly fat German. Good to know that you have the arguing style of a 6 year old and are racist ...
Why are you shouting?
Yes.
There is a difference between judgments of criminality (which is what we're discussing) and civil matters (like mental health). The usual contrast, that I've heard anyway, is "beyond reasonable doubt" vs "balance of probabilities". In effect it means that ...
Eddie writes, He knows who the donors are and has to declare that he got $1,000 from each of them. The problem, in part, is that the Local Electoral Act doesn't require that you provide information about donors, it requires information about donations. ...
tsmithfield writes, On that basis, the donor might request that the donation be received anonymously, because they want to remain anonymous. I think that the donor would request that the recipient find a way to receive the donation in a way which will make...
I think this is the right analogy: Friday: at a fundraising meeting John meets Chris and Ana, both say they're planning to donate and will drop a thousand off over the weekend. Saturday: on the way back from brunch John finds an envelope containing $1,000 ...
TheContrarian writes, when there are real, proper and not stupid, reason to dislike Banks. Ooooo - let's make a list! Mine would start in the early 90s when he was Minister of Police at a time their culture was just sickening and roll forward through ...
TheContrarian writes, So I guess we should also dislike Goff because he owns a Harley and that is damaging to everyone else. Well I usually dislike him for what he did to Education in the late 80s, although being in the Douglas faction within Labour ...
TheContrarian writes, is there any evidence Banks even owns a helicopter? I can’t find any. Try the original Campbell Live story, about 02m12s.
RedLogix writes: Electoral law has changed since then TC. Banks' return was made under different legislation (Local Electoral Act</a) from Peters' (Electoral Act). The returns and donations rules for local government and general elections have never been ...
There were three other $25k "anonymous" donations - maybe he considers those worth hiding.
Is it beyond reasonable doubt that Banks couldn't be totally sure which two of the five were from Dotcom?
Or give him the chance to say that he didn't know which of all of the $25k donations were from Dotcom, so each was individually anonymous. That may meet the test for "anonymous" donations in the Local Electoral Act.
Recent Comments