Hard News: Moron y Moron
187 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 Newer→ Last
-
I can celebrate my obvious scottish heritage with a batch of ginger kisses.
-
Re: Tau's press release
Don't they have any real work to do in parliament?
Ahem.......I will be contributing hippy humus and pita bread.
-
Sigh, hippie.
-
Freudian slip there, Kowhai?
-
Hippy, lippy, snippy, dippy; see right round to the humus again...
-
So is the plate supposed to have stuff on it then? ;-)
On the issue of Henare's interesting proclamation that Mallard has been given a "portfolio promotion":
Mallard was no 7 in the Cabinet rankings (front bench) and is now no 10 (second bench). The portfolios Mallard has picked up have National shadows who are ranked 26 (Broadcasting, Jonathan Coleman), 28 (Labour, Kate Wilkinson), and 5 (Environment, Nick Smith, who also holds Conservation & Climate Change, while Mallard does not). So it's dubious for National to claim that the new portfolios are promotions (with the highly arguable exception of Environment) when they value them so lowly in their own caucus.
Quite apart from this, it's well known that Sport and RWC are great junket portfolios (even when our teams lose). I can't imagine Mallard's new responsibilities will include expectations that he go to every major sporting event NZ competes in...
-
So is the plate supposed to have stuff on it then? ;-)
Not if you're a lesbian! ;-)
-
See, I don't care if two grown men had a fisticuffs, and I certainly don't give a toss whether Mallard got sacked or not. And I sure as hell wouldn't give a stuff about the reshuffle either - except I am delighted that Chris Carter is the Minister of Education. I liked Mallard for one reason only - he got us kindergarten teachers pay parity with Primary. Good man. Steve Maharey? Oh dear, not good from an ECE point of view. But Chris Carter? He'll do us, thanks very much.
-
Sorry InternationalObserver, I don't get the joke there, maybe I'm a bit dense tonight?
Jackie, I have similar hopes of Carter. Mallard had a real affinity for ECE (or as close as we've ever got anyway), partly as a result of some strong ECE advocates who had influenced him earlier in life. Maharey just didn't seem to "get it". Carter has real possibility.
It will be interesting to see how Carter handles the current negotiation rounds for primary and secondary too. I get the impression Maharey has been quite hands off.
-
Sorry InternationalObserver, I don't get the joke there, maybe I'm a bit dense tonight?
Me either...
-
So it's dubious for National to claim that the new portfolios are promotions (with the highly arguable exception of Environment) when they value them so lowly in their own caucus.
Margaret, I think the real question is what value Clark places on them - and if those portfolios are trivial, I guess all the talk about the environment and broadcasting as a meduim of 'identity building' has been more than usually hollow poli-speak. Not do I think Labour's union allies would be pleased by the notion that labour isn't a frightfully important portfolio to the incumbent government.
One other think I'm surprised hasn't drawn more attention: Mallard conspicuously did not lose his associate finance role. Guess his hopes of becoming Finance Minister one day aren't completely dead, regardless of what Lila Haare thinks.
-
No-one's dense here, except me. My humour can be quite obscure. The above quip was based on something a lesbian flatmate of mine used to say. But you didn't flat with her so I'll just STFU. </cue:- tumbleweed>
-
Somewhere in this pointless morass there's a link to the Herald story reporting some doolally story about Tommy Lee and Kid Rock having a scuffle. Apparently because these luvvies who hold a weird positiion of privelige for having shagged Pammy Anderson deserve a different test of criminality than the average American criminal (not sure what the stats are but read…African American who can't afford a defense or PR consultant).
In some way a) the American system of justice seems to have precedence in the mind of partisans of a Labour persuasion - rather than our own Westminster System b) if we're going to rely on TV and celebrity to guide our understanding of events I highly recommend the late night show that screened late on Tuesday - not sure of the channel - based on CCTV camera footage of violent crime. According to British police the camera doesn't lie. Whether charges are laid or not by a complainant or victim - it doesn't matter if the unbiased eye is trained on the incident. In the Henare assault by Mallard it has nothing to do with Henare. Mallard confessed on national TV. Henare is unlikely to want to pursue it further - why not: let's start a list:
- He was the victim. He's humiliated. 'Oops there goes my mana.'
- He's a twat too - and not an elected member of Parliament - he was whipped in Te Atatu running under the National colours (he entered Parliament tagging for NZ First).
- He may also be culpable - tie grabbing is not very dignified. Actually it was probably intended to be a demeaning act.Charge them both.
Expell them both.Balance preserved. Justice served.
To bad neither can be voted out of Parliament. I know…it's a list thing.
Every single person charged with a minor offence in the district court who has been convicted for a minor disorder should appeal their conviction or cite the ' lobby of parliament privilege' defence…"I'm sorry, it was stupid…what's my reward".
-
and not an elected member of Parliament - he was whipped in Te Atatu running under the National colours (he entered Parliament tagging for NZ First).
Balls, David. I didn't vote for MMP (and still prefer STV), but was definitely was on the losing end of that vote, but really get impatient with the nonsense that list members aren't 'real' members of Parliament.
Or are you saying people who cast party votes for National - and enough of them to put Tau in - don't count either?
-
But Chris Carter? He'll do us, thanks very much.
Yes, a primary teacher I was talking to yesterday is positively excited about his appointment.
-
Anyone know anything about Mana?
Only what I saw on Eating Media Lunch a year or two back, but I think that was a different kind of mana.
-
I could be wrong. Anyone know anything about Mana?
The people who constantly crap on about their 'mana', generally don't have any with me. It's a bit like the famous non-definition of jazz: If you have to be told what it is, you're never going to get it. :)
Yes, a primary teacher I was talking to yesterday is positively excited about his appointment.
A sense of 'finally one of us'? Pretty much everyone I know in the primary and early-childhood sector feels that successive governments talk a good game, but when push comes to shove it's always secondary and tertiary who get the serious attention and resourcing. Don't know if that fair - and I certainly don't have enough years left to master the Byzantine ins and outs of educational politics - but that's the sense I get.
-
Craig, I wasn't arguing that the portfolios are trivial, just that it is kind of weird for National people to be arguing that they are a promotion when they value them lowly themselves.
Let's look at how Mallard's three new portfolios were ranked by Labour, in Dec 2006:
- Broadcasting - Steve Maharey, no. 4 in Cabinet
- Labour - Ruth Dyson, no. 11 in Cabinet
- Environment - David Benson-Pope, no. 14 in Cabinet
(I'm assuming here that the Herald article has listed the ministers in cabinet ranking order btw, apologies if they have not!)So again, two of the three of the portfolios were held by people with lower cabinet rankings than Mallard now has (no. 10). And somehow I don't think Broadcasting was the reason Maharey was at no. 4.
All of this said it will be very interesting to see how Mallard handles the labour portfolio. There are some key issues coming up in terms of whether the Govt continues to raise the minimum wage, and whether they adopt Darien Fenton's member's bill on independent contractors. Also I am curious about how Mallard's labour role might interact with Carter's education role, given that the primary and secondary teachers' negotiations seem to be turning into a possible major industrial dispute.
-
I will be contributing hippy humus and pita bread.
You'll be contributing organic dead leaves and dirt?
I'm all for gardening, but I was hoping for some food...
Craig, I wasn't arguing that the portfolios are trivial, just that it is kind of weird for National people to be arguing that they are a promotion when they value them lowly themselves.
Personally I think that Mallard should have lost his warrant, so where his ranking is at the table doesn't particularly matter to me. He still has a seat and responsibility for half-a-dozen things, which doesn't feel like an appropriate 'demotion' for having a stoush.
But I think it'd be fair to say that in general Labour would rank broadcasting, labour, and environment higher than National.
-
Oh come on.
For most of the 1990s, both Labour and Environment were held by National front benchers - Labour first by Birch until 1993, then later by Bradford under Shipley (can't remember who had it in between).
Environment was held by Upton - again, a front bencher.
It seems a bit desperate to argue they can't be promotions because National doesn't value them as highly as Labour.
That said, I don't think he's been promoted. But I sure as hell don't think he's been demoted.
-
For most of the 1990s, both Labour and Environment were held by National front benchers - Labour first by Birch until 1993, then later by Bradford under Shipley (can't remember who had it in between).
Well as Margaret points out, it wasn't broadcasting that made Maharey number 4, in much the same way it wasn't tertiary education that made Cullen number 2, or Arts and Culture that made Clark number 1.
Saying that a party is more 'into' a portfolio because the minister that happens to have it is highly ranked ignores the fact that ministers get more than one portfolio.
Upton held four other portfolios. Bradford had energy, industry, tertiary education and defence. Birch was... finance wasn't he?
-
__I will be contributing hippy humus and pita bread.__
You'll be contributing organic dead leaves and dirt?
I'm all for gardening, but I was hoping for some food...
Luckily for Kowhai, hummus has multiple spellings from different dialects - humus, hommus, etc are all valid.
Which I'm normally not (quite) pedantic enough to point out, except it reminds me of some priceless graffiti from Sydney:
Scrawled on the wall "God hates homos" and added in another hand "But he loves taboulleh". -
Rob, I've moved on from National's view of the portfolios and am trying to point out that even if you look at how Labour has valued them in the recent past they were not highly valued in and of themselves (meaning, without the influence of other portfolios that the person held eg Maharey, Birch).
Gotta love that graffiti Jeremy, thanks for putting a smile on my dial :-)
-
Birch was... finance wasn't he?
If you believe certain people, Birch's primary job function was to keep Satan sweet, and dispose of the exsanguinated kitten corpses without anyone noticing.
-
To take up the definition of "mana": I'm broadly in agreement with Craig, though for slightly different reasons.
The primary definition of "mana" is "respect owed".
Of course, that immediately raises the question of how one gets respect -- answers to which are culturally specific and lead to a fair amount of disagreement (depending on whether we place higher priority on physical strength, intelligence, knowledge, charisma, social role fulfilled, or group represented -- all of which have varying contributions to make). But in fact we don't need to answer that question in order to measure "mana", because we can instead define or quantify "mana" operationally, as the probability that, when you ask someone to do something, they will actually do it (instead of e.g. suggesting you do something biologically impossible). And yes, that does mean that no-one can simply assert that they have mana; it resides instead in how others respond to them.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.