Island Life: A week in the life of that nice Mr Key
147 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
3410,
True.
-
@Matthew
The "waka jumping" legislation that prevented members from staying in Parliament after leaving their Party (Electoral Integrity Act 2001) has expired - hence why Gordon Copeland stayed in Parliament after defecting from the UF list over the Section 59 repeal. Worth is entitled to stay if he wishes, but I highly doubt he would.
-
Shaz,
OT, but funny. Did anyone else see Copeland's mathematical explanation of why he was duty-bound to stay in parliament? SOmething along the lines of, UF polled 0.5%, of which 66% was for the Christian (Copeland) faction of the party, therefore..
-
That's just bloody bizarre. For electorate MPs, obviously they are there because the local punters voted them in, but list MPs are MPs purely by way of a Party construct. If the Party changes the construct, it's completely illogical that the MP can remain.
Oh, wait, we're talking about politics. As you were...
-
Given how easily Parliamentary staff can be sacked, without recourse, I wouldn't be in the least surprised if sexual harassment by MPs is treated as something of a game that nobody really talks about. SSC campaigns notwithstanding.
Having been employed by both Parliamentary Services and Ministerial Services, I can say that both are good employers who view sexual harassment (including by MPs) as a very serious matter.
-
James. Are you sure that applies to list MPs? It just seems wrong. Surely a list MP could be demoted and their seat allocated to the next one on the list and if the MP was expelled from the party they would have no right to retain that seat. or is it just another case of morally wrong but legally right.
On the subject of Goff's involvement, I see it another way.
I suggest Goff approached John Key in a "respectful" manner about the allegation, any Machiavellian machinations at this point being a bit of dirt to keep up the sleeve for future use if Key did nothing. Fact of the matter is Worth seems to have "Done it again" and foiled Goff's insurance plan. In the light of that possible scenario Goff has done what any realistic politician would have done. Getting rid of Worth was never going to be a great prize for the opposition but having Key seen as one who fluffed around on such an issue would have seemed like gold. -
Hi Steve! yeah I'm pretty sure. My understanding is that the list only counts for the purposes of election to the House. Once you're in there, it doesn't matter if the party expels you or otherwise removes you from the list, or you quit the Party: you're an MP and entitled to stay. (Except of course for that little matter of conviction for an offense punishable by 2+ years in the slammer.)
The Electoral Integrity Act 2001 (the waka jumping legislation) changed this so that if an MP was no longer a member of the Party with which they were elected, then they were no longer a Member of Parliament. But that expired in 2005 from a deliberate sunset clause in the Act. Labour introduced a Government Bill at the end of 2005 to reinstate the provisions permanently, but this was defeated at Select Committee. Another victory for common sense. Yeah right.
P.S. Keen for a beer next week?
-
Oh, and I think your reading of the way Goff has played this (and intended to play it) is spot on. :-)
-
No, list MPs are MPs, in their own right.
For example, if ACToids took over the Labour Party caucus (as if that could ever happen!), then the new regime could demote all list MPs with unsound views. Very messy.
The party has enough power already, picking the list positions. Don't give them even more.
-
P.S. Keen for a beer next week?
Busy week. Wednesday is Back Benches Mt Albert election special @ Mac's Neighbourhood Bar in Kingsland and Thursday is Great Blend @ Monte Cristo Room. I expect you to be at both. ;-)
-
I will definitely come along on Wednesday evening; not so sure about Thursday as of yet, but will hopefully make it.
-
Are there any tickets left for Thursday? Russ, anyone?
-
That's just bloody bizarre. For electorate MPs, obviously they are there because the local punters voted them in, but list MPs are MPs purely by way of a Party construct. If the Party changes the construct, it's completely illogical that the MP can remain.
What simon g said above, but also, you could argue that there is a serious problem if a party can't even keep the loyalty of its own MPs i.e. the group of of people the party thinks best represent its ideals.
-
Are there any tickets left for Thursday? Russ, anyone?
I think we can get you in there Steve. Sofie too?
-
You have to, so we can continue our conversation.. :)
-
I suggest Goff approached John Key in a "respectful" manner about the allegation
sigh...
Having been employed by both Parliamentary Services and Ministerial Services, I can say that both are good employers who view sexual harassment (including by MPs) as a very serious matter.
Well, that's something we can agree on. And I'm still shaking my head at people who think sexual harassment allegations are something the Prime Minister's Office shouldn't stay the hell away from, even if for no other reason that to avoid even the hint of a cover up. (Sure, it won't stop the wingnuts but there's no point in trying to rationally engage with the fundamentally irrational.)
If Ministerial/Parliamentary Services aren't the place to go (and thanks to people who took a serious question seriously) who is?
-
Russ. We already have our tickets, I was kind of inquiring for James Liddell. Cheers.
:-) -
Craig, you seem to be confusing operational and governance levels just like Rodney Hide and co have done with the Auckland councils restructuring.
Offering positions in exchange for positions is an abuse of governance power in this case, which is quite different than where an operational employment relationship already existed.
Even the perception of repeated wrongdoing is enough to undermine the post of Minister. Once the game was clearly up and the politics were such that there was no carpet big enough to sweep it under, Key didn't need to wait around to watch things play out with the police and courts.
He does seem to have been making shit up as he goes, which some have noted suggests problems behind the scenes. His office could hardly have been totally inexperienced with this sort of stuff.
Fran O'Sullivan mentions the implications of Worth's role and standing with the local Korean community and the impact on international trade relationships.
Key is not saying so publicly, but the Korean connection is also a factor that played into his decision to "forcibly resign" Worth from his portfolios. With a major bilateral round table occurring in Seoul next week, having a minister the subject of tawdry allegations is not helpful.
-
FFS Craig, don't they do comprehension on your planet?
-
If Ministerial/Parliamentary Services aren't the place to go (and thanks to people who took a serious question seriously) who is?
If Ministers are accountable to the Prime Minister's office, then I wonder what other avenues there might be - other than straight to the police. Given their reluctance to press charges against politicians over the past few years, that hardly sounds like a good option.
-
Russ. We already have our tickets, I was kind of inquiring for James Liddell. Cheers.
Righto, that should be fine too.
-
And now I see the same conversation has already been had on t'other thread about this matter.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.