Island Life: Let's be Frank
94 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last
-
Ooh - first one to register as David SLack gets to ask the question!
-
Looking at the minor parties, it's interesting that RAM got 79,000 votes in the ARC elections and only 405 in the general election. I guess people are very wary of wasting their vote nowadays.
Though I have seen people give passionate defences of why they vote Alliance, for instance?
-
if Goff becomes Labour leader today, is he Prime Minister?
No.
-
Meanwhile, 'State TV' could save some serious Colmar Brunton money next time:
The Muffin Break chain is claiming a third election victory for its bean poll.
The poll - in which 120,000 customers cast a coffee bean vote for their preferred party - picked National to win, with a 12 per cent lead over Labour, had the Greens as the third largest party and predicted the demise of NZ First.
The bean poll put National on 44 per cent (actual vote 45.5 per cent), Labour 32 per cent (33.8 per cent), Greens 11 per cent (6.4 per cent) and NZ First 4 per cent (4.2 per cent).
-
__After a week or two (maybe a little longer) everyone admitted that he was in the Government and life went on.__
Que? Did Clark ever stop referring to herself as running a "minority government"? And that seems to be how all the gallery commentators are referring to Key's new arrangement too.
I really thought so, though don't have direct proof. Certainly, I think that they knew and accepted that Winston was a member of the Government, through perhaps not New Zealand First.
I wrote this over at kiwiblog, but it seems sensible to put it here [if only so David can have his say :-)]
Jonathan Boston was quoted as after the 2005 arrangements were sorted out that:
“NZ First is part of a four-party coalition government. They and United Future are part of the Government by virtue of their leaders having ministerial warrants and serving as part of the executive. End of story.”
He also labelled the attempt by NZ First to sit with the opposition as making a “mockery of constitutional arrangements”.
And Professor Boston was also quoted on the matter of the role outside cabinet being foreign affairs, specifically:
“There are probably hardly any matters, except of the most limited sort of domestic nature, where the minister of foreign affairs does not have some responsibility to represent the Government’s policy position internationally. It could be biosecurity, defence, trade, diplomatic relations, health pandemic, ecological issues, climate change or any number of things.”
-
you'd think I could have fixed up the typo when cross posting :-(
-
The bean poll put National on 44 per cent (actual vote 45.5 per cent), Labour 32 per cent (33.8 per cent), Greens 11 per cent (6.4 per cent) and NZ First 4 per cent (4.2 per cent).
Green voters apparently drink almost twice as much coffee as the rest of the population. Which raises the question - do Muffin Break use fair trade coffee? Their web site doesn't mention it at a quick glance (which probably means "no").
-
Muffin Break's caramel slice is to die for, though.
-
Green voters apparently drink almost twice as much coffee as the rest of the population.
All the Greens I know drink ghastly flower infusions which, laughably, they call 'tea.'
-
I can certainly remember getting shitcanned all round on Kiwiblog 3 years ago for saying that the Winston arrangement was not farcical or an assault on democracy. DPF pitched in heartily.
But I'd much rather they 'saw the error of their ways' than insisted on being wrong. If this keeps happening then the transition to National will be totally painless.
-
I've known Greens, that drink methadone.
Ah but that's cos they started on the greens :)
-
I can certainly remember getting shitcanned all round on Kiwiblog 3 years ago for saying that the Winston arrangement was not farcical or an assault on democracy. DPF pitched in heartily.
He did, although it was pretty consistent with the line he is running now.
He is not a fan of coalition arrangements where the minor party can attack the major one from outside cabinet, but the major problem he had with the arrangement at the time was that Winston Peters, Minister, member of the Executive Council, official representative of the New Zealand Government overseas, Her Majesty's foreign minister for New Zealand, was claiming he was not a member of the Government, and indeed claiming that he was a member of the opposition.
[Winston had intended (I'm not sure whether he actually did) to write to the Speaker asking that he and New Zealand First be seated with the opposition (the Greens taking up Labour's flank, for some reason, I think because their position was close to the government).]
DPF said in 2005:
Winston may well have been Foreign Minister in a National Government. But I am not objecting to that particularly. What I am certain would never have happened with National is creating this fiction that you can be a Minister and an Opposition MP. It’s nuts.
DPF is now arguing:
The howls of derision wasn’t about having Ministers from other parties outside Cabinet - it was the insane insistence that this meant they were not part of the Government.
As far as I know ACT and United Future will be Ministers outside Cabinet but they are not going to pretend not to be part of the Government.
You may be surprised by it, but in 2005 DPF was deriding the claim that Winston was not part of the Government. In 2008 he is claiming in 2005 that he derided the claim that Winston was not part of the Government, and is saying that the difference between what happened then and now is that no-one is now pretending that someone who is a minister is not part of the Government.
How has his view changed? Has Peter Dunne claimed that he will be members of the opposition? Is Rodney asking that the ACT members should sit on the opposition benches? If DPF defends that, there might be a point.
-
You may be surprised by it,
Surprised is not the word- can you draw us a diagramme?
-
Ah but that's cos they started on the greens :)
Artichoke is a gateway, I keep saying that.
-
Wait, wait... you're saying that DPF's derision is unchanged from 3 years ago? Ah yes:
He did, although it was pretty consistent with the line he is running now.
I wonder if Key thought of this tack after Hide dissed him?
-
DPF seems to have got Zeligged into this picture. I was writing about the organ grinder.
Let's go back: according to the DomPost, Key said that he was "wrong" and in hindsight it had worked well.
So.
Wrong about what? What was wrong then, and right now? -
Wrong about what? What was wrong then, and right now?
Prior to 2005, it was accepted that executive collective resposibility ("__cabinet__ collective resposibility" doesn't quite fully describe it), meant that ministers outside cabinet, and even parliamentary under-secretaries were bound to follow (and not publicly speak against) cabinet decisions.
In 2005 the Government proposed to change this, creating a new type of executive position - the minister outside of cabinet from a party supplying support on motions of confidence and supply. This minister would only be subject to collective responsibility is the areas of his ministerial portfolio, and would be free to speak out against Government decisions in other areas.
John Key (apparently - it was led by Don Brash and Gerry Brownlee, who were in charge at the time) was opposed to this constitutional innovation, which involved a substantial weakening of the priniciple of executive collective responsibility.
He now considers that this change has in practice worked fine, and is happy to continue it; although he might still be unhappy in using this innovation in the foreign affairs area
[perhaps for the reasons elided by Professor Jonathan Boston?]:
“There are probably hardly any matters, except of the most limited sort of domestic nature, where the minister of foreign affairs does not have some responsibility to represent the Government’s policy position internationally. It could be biosecurity, defence, trade, diplomatic relations, health pandemic, ecological issues, climate change or any number of things.”
-
And just to complete the matter: what was wrong then and is still wrong now?
Claiming that being a member of the Executive Council does not make one a member of the executive. That charade lasted a couple of weeks, tops, necessitated by Winston Peters' pre-election promise not to join either National or Labour in government.
Being a minister means you are in government, and it means you are not in opposition.
-
All the flip-flopping from the Nats aside (and this is just the start people, they'll flip flop constantly from now on), does anyone else feel a little pang of hope that it will all combust before long? Dunne and Hide are already sniping at each other and they haven't even been sworn in as Ministers yet, and in response (Don)Key just keeps smiling inanely....
And add a Maori Minister into the mix...the NeoCons just won't cope with that at all, surely?
Let the scrapping begin and may the next 3 years fly past with not too much damage being wreaked in the meantime... -
Zeligged
LOL - may it enter common usage
-
And, naturally, I meant "alluded". How on Earth did that happen?
-
Let the scrapping begin and may the next 3 years fly past with not too much damage being wreaked in the meantime...
Y'know, even as someone who leans Green and wishes politics, outside of logistics, was about inspiring - and enabling - a populace to realise their latent abilities, I can understand the anger and frustration that the above statement must evoke in the hearts of committed National supporters.
I think it's the least we can do to give the new team a chance. I'm aware that past behaviour is the best indicator of future behaviour but times change and ideologies can be usurped on the altar of pragmatism and, fingers crossed, compassion and intellectual rigour.
I reckon John Key is a tabla rasa and we, as a vocal citizenry, have every chance of shaping future policy to encompass a more holistic worldview. He would love us to like him and the time may be right to encourage/bully the new PM into doing the right thing. Especially on the coat tails of the Obama phenomenon.
Or maybe I'm a bit drunk.
-
yeah fair enough Michael, but I'm a cynic. John Key seems a nice well-meaning guy but remarkably naive. My memories of the early 1990s are just too fresh but I apologise. Or maybe I'm just drunk too :)
I think he probably really does want to do the right thing by all New Zealanders (except the poor ones who didn't manage to get out of their state house upbringings and the gay ones of course), but I just really do fear there are others pulling his string who don't share his apparent altruism.
But only time will tell. -
I'm aware that past behaviour is the best indicator of future behaviour but times change and ideologies can be usurped on the altar of pragmatism and, fingers crossed, compassion and intellectual rigour.
The 4th and 5th Labour governments being an excellent case in point.
-
But he also professes to want to help bad teenagers to turn good by bolloxing them at boot camps
Yes, it's policies like that that make me cynical about him! On Sunday the other night, he extolled the virtues of his encouraging mother, who encouraged him to work hard and move up the ladder. Fine. But what about the hundreds of Kiwi kids who don't have such mothers or fathers? Is the answer really to send them to boot camp to have the shit kicked out of them and damage what's left of their fragile self esteem? He's just speaking weasel words. Well-meaning weasel words but weasel words nonetheless. And extremely naive ones.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.