Island Life: Let's be Frank
94 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last
-
Key reckons the difference is that Winnie was Foreign Affairs and that should never be outside Cabinet. Whatever.
I had a nasty thought on the way to work this morning:
1. John Key has said he won't have Douglas in Cabinet.
2. Act and National seem to have an in principle agreement that Act with have Ministers outside of Cabinet.
Do you see where I'm going with this?
Although frankly (boom boom) I think it'd be a mistake on Key's part which would take the shine off his honeymoon. I guess we'll know by this time next week...
-
Hopefully it will allow the greater elements of ACTs fuckwittedness to be ignored.
I don't know what frightens me more: surpassing the USA in draconian and ineffective "law & order" (vindictiveness) policy, or pursuing 1930's economic policy (did Douglas just stop reading economic textbooks written post-war? Galbraith must be spinning...)
-
Key reckons the difference is that Winnie was Foreign Affairs and that should never be outside Cabinet
I liked Plunketts question in response: "so no minister outside cabinet will have bilateral talks with foreign governments?" (something like that).
Key: <long pause> "No".
I wonder if he realises NZ has about 40 tax treaties with other nations? Probably not - doesn't sound like any of them have been paying attention for the last few years.
But I guess I can hope that means Dunne won't be Minister of Revenue....
-
Meanwhile, anyone ever heard the words "I was wrong" pass Goerge Walker Herbert Bush's lips?
-
surpassing the USA in draconian and ineffective "law & order" (vindictiveness) policy
Surpassing?
California three-strikes - three felonies, and third conviction is life with 25 years non-parole.
ACT's three-strikes - three serious violent offences, and third conviction is life with 25 years non-parole.
Argue it's stupid (the definition of serious violent offences includes the offence provision under which people would be charged for lightly smacking their kids), but how you get to surpassing the USA is somewhat a mystery.
[Also, California has the death penalty]
-
Meanwhile, anyone ever heard the words "I was wrong" pass Goerge Walker Herbert Bush's lips?
That could be a killer slogan: "John Key - Better than Bush".
-
Mr Key acknowledged yesterday that he was wrong and "in hindsight" it had worked well.
What's wrong with this?
Yes, I opposed it. I didn't think it would work well. It can. Why would I oppose it as an option now? Do I look like an idiot who can't evaluate evidence?
It's far superior to the alternative, with which we've had some experience: "having coalition ministers outside cabinet has always been XYZ Party policy."
Superior, not least because it is honest.
-
Having heeded Craig's repeated exhortations to get over it and look on the bright side, I was about to note on the other thread that, finally, it will be us calling hypocrisy at every turn and holding the government up to impossibly high standards, knowing full well that that the realities of being in government require compromise and occasionally flat out bad behaviour. Finally we could tally up an endless list of petty 'scandals', invariably with a '-gate' suffix, to rub in the faces of government supporters. Finally, it would be our turn to scoff and mock, rather than half-heartedly defend the actions of those whose policies we broadly (though so rarely entirely) support, but whose actions in the real world so rarely live up to even modest ethical standards.
I just didn't realise it would only take three days for it to kick in.
-
What's wrong with this?
Depends how frequently it happens. Should it happen often, which is the point of the post, then a voter might be forgiven for wondering whether they voted for a party with new policies, or just a party which takes longer to come around to the policies that were right in the first place.
What follows from that is a further question: how good will they be at getting it right in a timely fashion? Will they know how to respond with the right idea when new circumstances arise?
-
That could be a killer slogan: "John Key - Better than Bush".
OK, set myself up for that one. Nice clean shot, Signor Tiso. But I don't resile from my view that Foreign Affairs and Trade are two portfolios that should not be held by political TARDISes.
Should it happen frequently, which is the point of the post, then a voter might be forgiven for wondering whether they voted for a party with new policies, or just a party which takes longer to come around to the the policies that were right in the first place.
Don't know the lie of the land in the leafy avenues of Devonport, but in my neighbourhood nobody voted for a radical ideologue whose motto was 'my way or go play tag with the truck on the highway".
-
Jeez Craig. Where do I imply otherwise? I'll add emphasis, then:
which takes longer to come around
-
But I don't resile from my view that Foreign Affairs and Trade are two portfolios that should not be held by political TARDISes.
And if John wants to stops Ministers-outside-Cabinet from having to have bilateral treaty discussions with other nations, Revenue needs to be added to that list. We currently have 35 Double Tax Agreements with other countries, and I believe a 36th was concluded earlier this year but isn't yet in force. Revenue is about the busiest department in terms of negotiating treaties with other countries, certainly far, far busier than MFAT.
-
Who would you prefer David
A man capapable of admitting mistakes and being prepared to pick the good parts from his opposite numbers policiesOr Ms Clark's " I have no regrets" and ramming fairl major consitutioal changes through parliment using urgency
-
I think people might be a little peeved that Mr Key won an election by bagging the previous government and the day after being elected...
the public books "are not that bad"
Ministers outside cabinet are ok
this along with
Kiwibank being ok, Kiwisaver ok
and the list goes on...
I can understand why ACT supporters might be a little peeved with the new Labour government headed by John Key -
Hey David, how about "in hindsight" you admit YOU were wrong David - about how well the Greens would do. Effusive and enthusiastic you were on Backbenchers last week; talking up their campaign and how well they're going to do - I think 9 percent was bandied around.
While we're at, where is Bomber "I swear a lot and the kids like me but really I'm full of crap" Bradbury, who said similar things?
-
I was wrong.
Might be less wrong on on specials, but still wrong.
-
Speaking of specials, does anyone know how long it usually takes to get them sorted?
-
Perhaps something from Mr Brownlee about our light bulbs?
Maybe the EFA might be kept in place? With some rebranding - and with the creation of a level playing field for all third parties especially inclusive of the union movement - the same degree of policy debate in 2008 (none) might be present in 2011.
-
My hindsight is totally unimportant except to the cat. John Key's hindsight suggests lack of foresight and that is from someone whose opinions do matter- a lot.
-
Meh. There have been some full and frank, though usually polite, exchanges of views in this household about the potential worth of the National-led government, but using the 'Minister outside cabinet' device was not one of the points up for discussion. It was unusual last time around, but the device does seem to work. Most of our constitutional and parliamentary arrangements are a matter of convention, built up over time through practice and incremental change. This is just one of those incremental changes.
I don't recall Key campaigning on 'no Ministers outside Cabinet.'
-
but how you get to surpassing the USA is somewhat a mystery.
Fair point: I was in a rush. Here's the nuance of where my tiny mind had gone.
Of the 50 States in the Union, 24 have some form of 3 strikes rule.
While the death penalty is in the federal (and military) toolbox, only 34 States have it on their books, and at any given time a number of them will have a moratorium.
We have a tool called preventative detention that has been criticised by the UNHCR, but is 'tolerated' in the majority. Personally I think it's a good compromise given the checks and balances in our system.
This allows ongoing detention of violent offenders for reasons of public safety: so it can be strongly argued we already have the tool we need, it is just that we want to instruct the judiciary to apply it more often.
On this basis, and taking into account NZ is now up there in terms of incarceration (we're in the company of countries like Bahrain and Israel), we are could be coming close to becoming the most draconian western democracy in proportional (if not absolute) terms.
-
Who would you prefer David
A man capapable of admitting mistakes and being prepared to pick the good parts from his opposite numbers policiesIf there had been more time spent looking at ( or bothering to show up) policies whilst they were in select commitee meetings etc instead of practising the art of (wasting time) the filibuster then perhaps one may have discovered many problems didn't exist. Mr Brownlee has this to perfection, I guess I could compliment here, but I wont. I imagine Key will even suggest Helen was a good PM, now that would be interesting.
-
Hey David, how about "in hindsight" you admit YOU were wrong David - about how well the Greens would do. Effusive and enthusiastic you were on Backbenchers last week; talking up their campaign and how well they're going to do - I think 9 percent was bandied around.
……I was wrong.
Might be less wrong on on specials, but still wrong.Hey, here's a thought, though: I was right on the money about the Libertarianz vote.
-
Also the Bill and Ben party could have been the 10,000 votes in central Auckland that Judith was missing. How do we find out where those votes came from?
-
ramming fairl major consitutioal changes through parliment using urgency
Such as?
Electoral Finance Act - no.
Supreme Court Act - no.You're not talking about the Local Government Act, are you?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.