Multiple polls point to a change of government. Is National passing the sniff test? Do voters really want ACT's 'real change' or a handbrake? The Caucus podcast ask what a centre-right government might look like
National's decision to collapse a select committee meeting to make some sort of point may or may not be good politics. But it is bad for our parliamentary processes and long term constitutional culture.
Why is the Crown fighting a court case it knows it is very unlikely to win? Because doing so stops it from having to face cases it really would prefer not to deal with.
[Update: see important revisory note at post's end!]
Today the right thing was done for two individuals by public officials who were not forced into doing so. Let's just take a moment to savour an occasion when things worked the way they should.
Sir Geoffrey Palmer and Dr Andrew Butler propose that New Zealand should have a written constitution. If you're in Dunedin this Wednesday night, come along to the Museum and hear why.
A couple of interesting developments - one on the other side of the world and one here at home. Turns out that the UK's Parliament is still sovereign (who knew?). And I think Gareth Morgan should be given more praise than scorn for wanting to inject some thinking into New Zealand's political scene.
The Department of Corrections was doing what the courts told it was the law. The courts were wrong about that, so now the Department of Corrections owes prisoners compensation. That's exactly how our law is supposed to work.
Stuart Nash is trying to make political hay out of Nikolas Delegat's crime and punishment. The problem is, in doing so he's calling for the undermining of New Zealand's constitutional arrangements. That's ... not a good thing.
If the Trans-Pacific Partnership becomes an Agreement, New Zealand will become bound by a set of "Investor State Dispute Settlement" procedures. What are these, and why should anyone care?
The saga of family carers for the severely disabled is still being written, despite Parliament's attempts to put a full stop on it. It makes for a really interesting constitutional tale.
The Government's seemingly never-ending constitutional review has finally delivered its report. Which is a good excuse for me to go back and test how accurate my predictions about its content were.
John Key is claiming that the party with the most seats after the next election has a "moral mandate" to govern. Well, you would expect him to think that, wouldn't you?
Our constitutional arrangements work on an implicit bargain - the principle of comity - that the Courts and Parliament don't mess with each other's turf. I think that bargain just got broken.
Fear of terrorists - real or imagined - has against triumphed in the US as the Obama Administration has been forced to concede the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks will be tried by military court, in Guantanamo, thereby breaking two major Obama election promises.
Would electing a serving police officer be a valuable addition to a local authority, or a threat to our very constitution? Whatever your view, you're too late ...