Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
__John Key's comment that the elevation of Goff is hardly a sign of renewal
...
Unless Key appoints some of his bright new things to cabinet then his own team will smell about as fresh the proverbial week old snapper.__Indeed - anyone who's thinking of putting Tony Ryall, the Smiths Lockwood and Nick, Murray McCully and Maurice Williamson on his front bench can't be too snippy about "renewal"
No spring chickens, I'm sure (though is 43 that old?), but there surely has to be a difference between those who first saw Parliamentary action under Bolger (Nick Smith, Tony Ryall), and those who first saw it under Muldoon (Goff).
-
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.”
-
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.
-
One question: can someone explain to me what exactly Judith Tizard ddi or didn't do that causes so many people to deride her so much?
This is one example that springs to mind.
Another example closer to Russell's heart.
-
you'd think I could have fixed up the typo when cross posting :-(
-
__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.”
-
if Goff becomes Labour leader today, is he Prime Minister?
No.
-
Peseta Sam Lotu'Liga
I take it, that for the next 3 (or more!) years, Peseta Sam Lotu'Liga will be to Peseta Sam Lotu'Iiga what John Keys is to John Key and Helen Clarke was to Helen Clark.
-
given the coverage from the media so far is along the lines of Key running a minority Govt, EXACTLY like Labour was...
There was that story, as you quote, but I believe most of the stories have been referencing minister outside cabinet, which I anticipate is the accurate statement of affairs. It doesn't differ from the arrangement over the last three years, but it does differ from how that was initially described (largely required by Winston's promise not to go into government with either National or Labour). After a week or two (maybe a little longer) everyone admitted that he was in the Government and life went on.
-
I wonder what happens if it turns out that something really does change because of them?
John Key, if appointed as PM in the interim, would continue in a caretaker capacity, while negotiations between the parties worked out who would have suffiecient support to be PM. If Key then got the numbers, he would cease acting in a caretaker capacity; if Goff(?) did, he'd be appointed and take over.