Andrew Geddis
banner
acgeddis.bsky.social
Andrew Geddis
@acgeddis.bsky.social

Aotearoa NZ based with occasional thoughts on things and views on others.

Political science 47%
Law 33%

SOMEONE is trying to become the main character in the trending pie discourse by giving wrong answers only ... slow-cooked Sumatra-style beef isn't even on this list!!!
the list of best pies, and this is not debatable, goes:

1. key lime
2. lemon meringue
3. cherry
4. pumpkin
5. persimmon

people who disagree deserve to be interned for the rest of their natural lives in an underground prison camp

Reposted by Andrew Geddis

the list of best pies, and this is not debatable, goes:

1. key lime
2. lemon meringue
3. cherry
4. pumpkin
5. persimmon

people who disagree deserve to be interned for the rest of their natural lives in an underground prison camp

Some political parties will literally disestablish entire layers of local government rather than go to therapy (for their entrenched racism)
Regardless of kayfabe comms and Nat equivocation in media, ACT always says the thing to its red-faced griefer audience

Reposted by Andrew Geddis

Regardless of kayfabe comms and Nat equivocation in media, ACT always says the thing to its red-faced griefer audience

I am slightly nervous that no-one has told @duncanwebbmp.bsky.social that I am an idiot with the political nous of a cat chasing the red dot from a laser pointer …

This might be of interest to you @newsroom.co.nz ...
Some of the information in this book excerpt is either distorted or flat out wrong.

According to the survey, 58% of journalists are women, not "two out of every three". The average journalist is 45.8 years old, and they are not "mostly aged in their 20s or 30s" newsroom.co.nz/2025/11/24/j...

Reposted by Andrew Geddis

Some of the information in this book excerpt is either distorted or flat out wrong.

According to the survey, 58% of journalists are women, not "two out of every three". The average journalist is 45.8 years old, and they are not "mostly aged in their 20s or 30s" newsroom.co.nz/2025/11/24/j...

"WITH RESPECT, my learned colleague's submissions are pure cope ... "

Sure - the problem (of course) is the process of establishing it and skewing the ToR (to try and avoid NZ First being involved) means that any critical findings (normal or not) will be questioned. Also, some of the Inquiry's questions on the economic response have been ... loaded, shall we say.

They'll just Chat-GPT it ...

Oh, sure, THAT Royal Commission concluded that. But we've got another, BETTER Royal Commission cooking up a report that will BLOW THE LID OFF THE CONSPIRACY!!!

I honestly think that this is the only way Peters and Seymour will be able to get past the Regulatory Standards Act contretemps …
least insane dutch TV show

Reposted by Andrew Geddis

least insane dutch TV show

When the Greens had to vote for the Party Hopping law ‘cos they blindly agreed to support all the Labour-NZ First deal points (🤭), they made it very clear that they were swallowing a dead rat when casting their votes in the House. NZ First on the Regulatory Standards Bill? Not so much …

Much of AoNZ's professional managerial class right about now ...

Some opposition MP should put a "Regulatory Standards Act Repeal Bill" into the biscuit tin, approach the NZ First backbench MPs to sign on in support of it, and then see what happens if it gets pulled from the lottery ... NZ First didn't promise not to vote to repeal it once enacted!
Winston Peters vows to repeal Regulatory Standards Bill; David Seymour hits back
"We did our best to neutralise its adverse effects and we will campaign at the next election to repeal it," Peters told Radio Waatea.
www.rnz.co.nz

Note that it is to examine the actions taken IN THE PERIOD AFTER NZ FIRST LEFT GOVERNMENT... (as if these can be separated out from the overall policies adopted when COVID first arrived).

Yes, yes ... of course we can have complete confidence in the report findings of this inquiry set up for nakedly partisan purposes, given terms of reference designed to avoid criticism of a currently-governing party, and from which multiple professionals have run a mile. Why on earth would you ask?
Covid Inquiry hit by yet another top-level resignation
Inquiry boss quits only months into the job - the second executive director to resign this year
www.stuff.co.nz

If my University tried to make me do this, I would (i) not; and (ii) force them to fire me (after I use every possible tactic to delay that outcome); and (iii) burn the place to the ground on my way out as there would be no reason for it to continue to exist.
Every future imagined by a tech company is worse than the previous iteration.

(Also … guess who has finished his exam marking duties?)

Ōtepoti - it’s alright here …

IDK if the Government is still thinking about putting a 4-year parliamentary term up for a vote at the 2026 election, but if it is then it's also doing its best to sink any chance of the proposal passing.
How a 'loophole' resulted in 11-day submission period on fast-track amendments law
Labour leader Chris Hipkins said the decision "infringed on the rights" of the public to take part in the process.
www.rnz.co.nz

Strongly suspect Trump is gonna get a real-time lesson in the concept of "nominal rigidity" ... aka "when prices go up, they stay up". How long till we get executive orders purporting to require grocery items be sold for less?
Trump scraps tariffs on beef and other imports in bid to lower grocery prices
His abrupt retreat from his signature tariff policy on so many staples key to the American diet is significant, coming days after an election drubbing.
www.stuff.co.nz

Yes. But they couldn’t be recognised as a party in parliament (need 6 members) and couldn’t tell tell the Speaker anyway as that triggers the party hopping law. So - technically independents in the House, but can do whatever they want outside.

In relation to Donna Awatere-Huata and Darlene Tana, the MP's "distorting" action was quitting the party (which automatically made them independent MPs, which "distorted" proportionality). In the present case, it would have to be something like "acted so against the TPM that we HAD to expel them".

Anyway - general point is that I don't think applying the party hopping law is a done deal ... it's certainly far, far more complex/uncertain than was the case with Darlene Tana. And ... I'm spent.

Meaning that the party leader will have to claim that while it was the party's actions that caused the immediate "distortion" in proportionality, the MPs actions left the party with no option but to do this. Will that claim fly? It would be somewhat interesting to see!

However, more problematically is the fact that the change in proportionality is not the direct result of how the MPs concerned have acted ... it's because of the party's actions in expelling them. So, this is different to previous uses of the law, where the MP concerned resigned from the party.

There's a technical argument that they can't believe there is "distortion" as reducing TPM's caucus to 4 has made its share of parliamentary representation MORE proportionate ... but I think this is literalist nonsense (see reference to proportionality as "determined at the last general election")

And then there is the requirement that the leaders must "reasonably believe that the MP concerned has acted in a way that has distorted, and is likely to continue to distort, the proportionality of political party representation in Parliament as determined at the last general election."