Hard News: Time to get a grip
126 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
Andre: Nandor had already retired last election. Denise Roche was the Green candidate for Auckland Central.
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
Yeah, but there are some minority parties that *do* have a real caucus. Well, the Greens. (Ok, maybe ACT have disparate ideas, but I'm sure Rodney would prefer to replace Heather, Roger and the rest with a block voting certificate. Or maybe the Business Roundtable could just be consulted by telephone as to how to cast the ACT vote).
-
James Butler, in reply to
The system Yvette proposed wouldn’t stop, say, Winston having an “advisory board” (at his own expense), but we would’t be paying for the fallacy that there’s an actual caucus he consults.
We also wouldn't be paying for minor parties' workloads according to the proportion of the country they represent, which does seem unfair. Whether it's MPs or some other form of party staffer, surely someone has to do the hard yards.
-
James Butler, in reply to
indolent, blindly loyal list MPs
This is, surely, a matter for voters to give serious consideration to when placing their party vote, rather than a reason to ditch the system. </utopian_fantasy>
-
Idiot Savant, in reply to
Maybe I'm ignorant of party processes but couldn't Labour have reviewed their list post-election so that it reflected their actual preference for next-in-line candidates?
No. section 137 of the Electoral Act 1993 requires that list vacancies be filled from the same party list as the departing member - that is
(D'oh! Beaten to it by Rich!)
-
Rex Widerstrom, in reply to
We also wouldn't be paying for minor parties' workloads according to the proportion of the country they represent
We could still fund staff in accordance to that proportion. But as I said, I'm not endorsing Yvette's suggestion, just pointing out that, if implemented, the only place we'd notice the difference was in the Estimates under "Parliament", certainly not in any measurable output of work or even thought from most list MPs.
serious consideration to when placing their party vote
I wouldn't have liked to have been a loyal Act voter contemplating my choices prior to the last election, given that some of Garrett's true colours had been displayed in that appalling homophobic TV performance: not cast a vote for the party I support, or do so knowing I'm responsible for what that man was obviously about to do. Or slit my wrists.
-
izogi, in reply to
No. section 137 of the Electoral Act 1993 requires that list vacancies be filled from the same party list as the departing member - that is
I think one of the things here is that Labour's list was drawn up when Labour was in government and hoping to remain in government. It made perfect sense (to Labour) to keep all these people on the list so they could stay in government and keep doing whatever they were doing previously, which might have made sense if people actually liked the party enough to vote it back in.
Labour's now in a different situation where it makes more sense to bring in new people, but at the same time it's being stung by the list that had to be drawn up before.
A party definitely shouldn't be able to change its list after an election and there'd need to be caution about how much a party can influence its list members, but maybe all that's needed is a better protocol for individuals on the list to declare early on what they're likely to do post-election depending on the outcomes, and remove themselves afterwards if and when they're definitely no longer interested. If the 5 or so people ahead of Louisa Wall had declared 2 years ago that they'd moved on and weren't interested in returning, perhaps even officially withdrawn themselves from the list, the consequences of an MPs resignation would have been clearer much more quickly and there wouldn't be so much of a media circus around it today.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
I'm not so sure. Some of Tizard's comments last week did come across as petulant and as sour grapes.
And loathe as I am to stand up for Tizzard, she was perfectly entitled to get pissy at Andrew Little running around the media expressing a "preference" for her to stand aside. Who the frak voted for Little again?
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Sure its Breakfast, but it was kind of telling that at the beginning of this term Kaye was put up as one of the ‘Young Guns’ they chat to. She was replaced by Simon Bridges after about 2 weeks.
Well, Blair, I heard she walked because she couldn't face Paul Henry first thing in the morning -- which is a considerable mark of character and good judgement, in my book.
-
Phil Lyth, in reply to
Having worked for list MPs, I can say:
1) They (at least some of them) work damn hard on constituency cases
2) I heard one MP's out-of-Parliament-secretary (OOPS) say, 'My goodness, for years I bagged MPs, but now I see how hard this one works.'Just saying
-
We cannot have failed electorate MPs sneaking back into parliament by the back door
So vitriolic. Such short memories. Judith held Panmure for two terms before shifting to Auckland Central, winning it from Sandra Lee, and holding it for another three terms after that one, before hepatitis, Nikki Kaye, losing the Pt Chev chunk, that media noose, and, yes, four terms of constituency fatigue with her brought it all to an end. I'm not sure how six terms as an electorate MP counts as failure. Just as I'm not sure how "next on the party list" counts as a back-door.
But, it seems, none of that matters when it's Tizard you're writing about. It's years since I worked for her, but I remain fascinated by this media view of her, versus the Judith I know. Yes, she could be frustrating, but no, she wasn't lazy. A couple of things that might contextualise her media personae, or not, depending on how you're feeling:
- As a junior/associate minister, Judith often had to share key announcements with - or give them over to - senior ministers, regardless of how much of the work she'd done. I even remember a couple of instances when initiatives were announced by another minister's office without consultation with us. Diddums? Nah, Judith wasn't bothered by her behind-the-scenes role. It just means she's had to wear the 'ineffective' badge for a long time. But when you've been behind the tightly-closed doors of the Auckland Mayoral Forum (R.I.P.) and seen her bang a few mayoral heads together, then you've really seen something.
- On other occasions, when she did make a bold call in the media, she was admonished from within. Yet, later, the government would follow up on that call. (Example: Infrastructure Auckland.) Kudos to Judith? No - just pass the handbag.
Of course, as one who has taken the best quotes and put them in press releases and articles, I know the power of a great quote, good or bad. "Prime Minister's handbag" was an effective one. So was "chewing on dead rats". I'm relieved Judith still has her wicked sense of humour after all of this.
-
When describing a politician as ‘talented’ is it an evaluation of the subject’s ability to lie convincingly?
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
So vitriolic. Such short memories. Judith held Panmure for two terms before shifting to Auckland Central, winning it from Sandra Lee,
To whom the electorate had been surrendered by a feckless Richard Prebble, who promptly fucked off and, quite deliberately, left scorched earth where his LEC had been.
People tend to forget that.
Edit: I should note that was the period of my brief involvement in electorate politics. I let Paul Rose sign me up because I was appalled by what Prebble had done, and I could see that someone needed to help. David Cunliffe, fresh back from the US (where he’d worked on the last Clinton campaign) was also in the picture.
-
BlairMacca, in reply to
Well, Blair, I heard she walked because she couldn’t face Paul Henry first thing in the morning – which is a considerable mark of character and good judgement, in my book.
She couldn't face the questions of former National candidate Henry in the morning. Boy.
-
Yeah, never mind parliament, should failed MPs be allowed to make careers as broadcasters?
(Seriously, in the UK, TV/radio news would never employ a politician and even current affairs are a bit wary).
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
(Seriously, in the UK, TV/radio news would never employ a politician and even current affairs are a bit wary).
Eh?
Brian Gould had his own talk show. Robert Kilroy-Silk ditto. And the likes of Michael Portillo have regular TV gigs. I'm sure I could make quite a long list if I had time.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
he couldn’t face the questions of former National candidate Henry in the morning. Boy.
No, she couldn’t stomach his relentless twatcockery, or so I've heard. Have you been living in some Fringe-style alternate universe where Paul Henry isn’t a bigoted troll? Back on this planet, might have done public discourse in this country a lot of good if more people (and not only politicians) had pulled the plug on Henry long ago. The only unforgivable sin on breakfast television is dead air.
FWIW, Blair, this National party member of long-standing wasn't terribly distraught when Henry vanished after getting trounced by a trans-gendered ex-prostitute in a highly conservative rural electorate twelve years ago. So was there actually a point to your "former National candidate" routine beyond a bit of distract trolling?
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
That's current affairs. News (which includes breakfast) is different.
-
BlairMacca, in reply to
Not trolling just replying. And you have me misunderstood, I am certainly in the Paul Henry is a nasty bigot camp. I just would have thought for a National newbie it might have been an easy PR exercise which her leader seemed to rejoice in.
-
Robert Fox, in reply to
Correct, someone with Henry's political background could get a Kilroy-Silk type gig in the UK but they would never be considered for the position he managed to hold down with the state broadcaster here for far too long. Also, the moment a news presenter on any of the major networks attempted one of his spitefully puerile outbursts on live TV they would be down the road before you could say broadcasting standards.
-
And now he makes a triumphant return courtesy of Mediaworks to the delighted squealing of his fans...
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/personalities/news/article.cfm?c_id=72&objectid=10716971
So TVNZ 'didn't step up with a good enough offer' What's that about - I thought they'd just sacked him... -
I guess some of Mediaworks $40mln government bailout will go to pay his wages.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
I guess some of Mediaworks $40mln government bailout will go to pay his wages.
Quite possibly – but you really want the Government dictating who media organisations hire? Think about that very carefully before you answer. Meanwhile, I’ve got one more reason to give Three’s news and current affairs content a swerve.
FULL DISCLOSURE: I'm a contributor to Public Address Radio, and thank New Zealand on Air each and every time I submit an invoice for my services.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Correct, someone with Henry’s political background could get a Kilroy-Silk type gig in the UK but they would never be considered for the position he managed to hold down with the state broadcaster here for far too long.
Ah. Gotcha.
But still, he was an unsuccessful candidate, once. I'm really not sure you can deny him the rest of his professional life on that.
-
you really want the Government dictating who media organisations hire
Well, some of us might think that the government is happy to dig into our pockets for a quick $40mln on account of Mediaworks being one of their stauncher supporters. Paranoia and worse, according to the soft-left, of course.
But I think it's a reasonable question whether we should have tighter impartiality rules on mass-media broadcasters. The BBC has the website equivalent of a weighty tome on this subject. That isn't defeating freedom, it's ensuring that certain parties aren't able to pack the media with their supporters.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.