Polity: Cold, calculated and cynical
175 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 Newer→ Last
-
Here we go again. Carter claims he "didn’t hear" Key’s offensive comments yesterday. Unlike everyone else in parliament and anyone who's viewed the video on TV or online. It’s not like Key was speaking quietly, was it. In fact he was shouting.
Of course Carter couldn’t do anything about the incident or make Key apologise today because “any offensive comments had to be dealt with at the time of the offence.” Handy.
-
Carter today ruled that he had "carefully" reviewed yesterday's tape, and concluded that Key said "you back the rapists" only once.
I'm not a qualified lip-reader, but what does he say at approx. 55 seconds?
http://www.3news.co.nz/nznews/distant-riot-causes-unrest-at-home-2015111017
Looks to me like he's repeating it. (Once or twice, it should make no difference, except ... the Speaker ruled that it was only once, and so Key did not have to apologise).
-
Here's today's utter fucking horrorshow:
-
simon g, in reply to
In which he says:
"There is no evidence of that remark being repeated".
None that he wanted to see or hear.
-
Rosemary McDonald, in reply to
(By the way the new Australian minister for disability issues has helped with this othering by calling disabled people a burden on the state)
clickety clack, clickety clack...
-
Lucy Telfar Barnard, in reply to
utter fucking horrorshow
A perfect description. Chills of horror is exactly what I felt watching it – to see all those women shut down… If you want to know what rape culture looks like, that’s (one facet of) it.
-
Hilary Stace, in reply to
Speaker totally out of his depth. What a mess.
-
Hilary Stace, in reply to
Those women are so brave and must be so angry. Photo here of them in the foyer together following their walk out or ejections. Interestingly, the article is by one of the press gallery women who is usually very supportive of the PM
-
Angela Hart, in reply to
Speaker totally out of his depth
He's a speaker in name only.
-
Lucy Telfar Barnard, in reply to
Well, if you take the meaning of "speaker" as something that magnifies the volume of sound input elsewhere...
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
Those women are so brave and must be so angry. Photo here of them in the foyer together following their walk out or ejections. Interestingly, the article is by one of the press gallery women who is usually very supportive of the PM
On that note, bias among political journos is quite normal. What’s not so normal is when political journos deliberately repackage their partisanism as impartiality - which effectively makes it a case of journalistic entryism and a cynical shifting of the Overton window.
-
chris, in reply to
I suspect Little was implying ONE decent house each to LIVE in, before bothering about anyone (of any kind of surname) acquiring further houses for profit!
Thanks for the update. Now about those detainees...
-
Lilith __, in reply to
Making a joke of deafness? That’s a really shitty thing to do. There was a deaf MP in the House, and she walked out. Show some respect.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Have sent an email in support of the Speaker….
Mr. Speaker,
Here is the contact details for the appropriate support agencies.
The National Foundation for the Deaf
Please don't link real hearing organisations with this, Rosemary. As Lilith notes, the sole deaf MP was one of the women who walked out.
Given that there wasn't much else to the comment but the bung joke, I've deleted it.
-
So how does the house remove an incompetent and biased speaker?
Serious question, given his/her ability to shape the debate in the chamber, it is important the speaker is unbiased and has a competent understanding of the rules of the house (as well as an ability to hear shouted abuse and read and comprehend the Hansard).
If the speaker is biased in his/her rulings and also incompetent then surely there must be a mechanism to remove him or her.
-
izogi, in reply to
But the thing that confounds me is the possibility that maybe 47% of Kiwis are just as unethical and arrogant as Key and his party. Really? I hope not.
I'm also confounded by some people who constantly apologise and outright mock or insult anyone who disagrees with their chosen ideology (as is rife in Stuff and Herald comment threads for example---you're not with me so you must be "ONE OF THEM"), but I don't think all those 47% of voters are like that based on various friends and family of mine who claim to have voted National for whatever reason. People decide what to vote for on any number of issues, but it doesn't necessarily mean they like everything about what they're voting for. Even with the Dirty Politics stain, maybe partly because of it, the opposition still wasn't exactly doing a fantastic job of showing it could provide a good alternative.
I think a wider issue is possibly that many people are afraid (or unmotivated) to demand quality and integrity from those they do vote for, as if they somehow think that to do so is an implied endorsement of what they might dislike even more.
-
"I’m not seeing the source. It’s like mushrooms. "
Sometimes they clarify things other times they just make you cry, politicians and shrooms.
-
Journalists who've seen the list of crimes attributed to New Zealanders held on Christmas Island say there are no rapists or murderers among them.
Some bad people, sure, but it appears the Prime Minister was making shit up yesterday.
-
Mr Speaker
-
Today in a nutshell, for those just catching up ...
Carter acknowledged that Key yelling "you back the rapists!" at Labour and the Greens yesterday was unparliamentary. But then said that Key couldn't be required to apologise because no one objected at the time. When Opposition MPs pointed out they *had* objected, Carter said they had taken "four and a half minutes" to do so, which was too long. Those four and a half minutes were actually taken up with points of order objecting to the other instances of Key's "backing the rapists" line, which Carter ruled were okay because he'd used the word "if". It was a farce whose only possible purpose can have been to protect Key from having to withdraw and apologise. Then it got really awful. Several female MPs rose to say that as victims of sexual violence, they were offended – Carter started cutting the mic on them and then allowed Marama Davidson (who he'd bullied the day before) to get as fas as "As the victim of a sexual assault ..." before actually expelling her from the House. That was when the walkout happened.
Key told Gower he wouldn't be correcting or apologising for what he said yesterday.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
If the speaker is biased in his/her rulings and also incompetent then surely there must be a mechanism to remove him or her.
The Governor-General? The Ombudsman (when she's not too overloaded)?
-
Seriatim, in reply to
Same subject, matey - caring for those in need.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
In Britain, it only happened to John Trevor in the 17th century because he was done for bribery. The only other known case was Michael Martin, in the midst of the parliamentary expenses scandal.
-
izogi, in reply to
The Governor-General? The Ombudsman (when she’s not too overloaded)?
It's really a question for someone with the right legal expertise for something authoritative, but as far as I can tell this is ruled by sections 12 and 13 of the Constitution Act 1986.
And as I read those two sections, it seems to be that:
* The House elects a speaker immediately upon its first sitting, and immediately on the first meeting after any vacancy.
* The Speaker gets to continue in their job unless they "vacate office" or unless Parliament dissolves or expires.Have I understood this correctly?
Section 13 in particular seems to strongly suggest that the Speaker can't be dumped by others, if I understand its tone, meaning that maybe they have to resign or die. Or are there other ways they could "vacate their office"?
Other than that, dissolve parliament, have a new election and elect a new speaker? If parliament could be convinced to agree to replacement and he didn't want to resign, some kind of informal golden handshake style enticement is probably more likely.
-
If there was a way to get rid of a Speaker, the Nats would have used it on Margaret Wilson.
You could call a vote of no coinfidence, but the party benefitting from bias is hardly going to add their votes.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.