Posts by James Liddell
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
James: I really think busting a blood vessel about a "secret agenda" being pushed by wannabe Rommels is absurd.
Craig, nowhere in my posts have I accused anyone of a secret agenda. That was Idiot Savant. I have questioned why it needs to be passed under urgency and why this wasn't previously signalled when Mr Key had plenty of opportunities to do so. If circumstances have changed and it's necessary to do it urgently now, then Mr Key (and Ms Wilkinson) should tell us why. I'm all ears.
Oh, James, given that I'm listening to Goff's incandescence at the "consitutional outrage" of legislation being passed under urgency, I'd love some senior political reporter to tote up how much legislation was passed on his watch -- and with his support -- without select committee scrutiny and public submission. How about retrospectively sanitising MP's unlawful electioneering with public money?
I share your concerns about the overuse of urgency. Just because I used to work for them doesn't mean I have to agree with everything they did in Government. I don't.
-
Try following those linky things, James.
Yes, and you will note that not once in the story to which I had linked did Ms Watkins mention that this move had not previously been signalled / included in the "100 day plan". You can accuse me of pedantry, but don't you think that's something worth saying? Especially if you're a senior political reporter?
It's not up to journalists to critique the government - that's the role of the opposition. Journalists are then meant to report both the government and opposition viewpoints and if you read the story I've linked to you'll see that's exactly what's happened.
Can someone let them know that, then? Because it frequently doesn't work that way.
P.S. I hadn't seen the story to which you linked, Danyl. And I agree, that it is a good piece of reporting. Coincidence that it's an agency story?
-
Are the DNA-storage laws being pushed through in the urgency package as well?
Not sure. I haven't read anything that says they will be, but we'll find out when the legislation is tabled and urgency accorded. Surely they're not stupid (or contemptuous) enough to think this doesn't need to go to Select Committee. But then again...
And it notably wasn't mentioned in the speech from the throne. This was a stealth policy, designed to be sprung on us by surprise and rammed through under urgency before anyone could object. The Douglas-Richardson blitzkrieg all over again. It's a very bad start, and it suggests an utterly contemptuous attitude towards democracy.
I would say that there's going to be one hell of a shit fight about the way this has been introduced, but then again I guess we can't expect the journos to stop their collective John Key handjob and return to their keyboards to write much about this.
It's time for Andrew Little to step up and earn his title as the anointed one. What a gift for him.
-
Full-time, or only for ceremonial occasions?
I think Wilson might have worn one at the last state opening.
I don't think she did, but I could be mistaken. Memory is a little fuzzy after three years.
Guess we'll find out this afternoon whether he intends to keep wearing it.
-
Wow. How awesomely progressive of them, helping low-income workers by shifting wealth upwards a bit more slowly than they'd previously planned, because the inequities of that plan were just too obvious.
John giveth with one hand and taketh away with the other.
I don't remember the 90 days fire at will law ever being mentioned in the same sentence as the first 100 days. Not even yesterday when Key was talking about the pre-Christmas urgency agenda Cabinet had signed off.
-
I think it will be interesting to see how the new Speaker manages thing, will he fall back to that much detested quiz master manner of old or what
I must admit being very dissapointed on our last Speaker but who would want the job, it is hardly surprising that they mostly need to be dragged screaming to the chairWell he's brought back the wig.
If this morning's session was anything to go on (and I hope it won't be), this Parliament could be a farce. The new Leader of the House has no idea about protocol (such as moving a motion and then speaking to it) and had to be helped through it by Dr Cullen via a prolonged series of points of order. You'd think after being shadow Leader you'd pick up a few things. The Speaker apparently made a couple of rulings that no one realised were rulings. And his deliberatley slow enunciation is going to piss off members and regular viewers. But let's hope these are only teething problems.
I for one am going to miss Margaret's shrill "Awww-duh! It's becoming impossible to hear in here!"
-
I know a good builder.... one who cares :)
Heh. I'll vouch / second that nomination. Now, where's the homebrew...?
-
thanks for clarifying. i've been lucky to experience (at a distance removed) reasonable advisors. i've colleagues who have not. :)
no worries. there is an interesting range of personality types in our role, that's for sure.
and i guess it does sometimes depend on the officials with whom you're dealing :)
-
afaik they're contracted on the proviso they could be laid off at any time. reallocation of portfolios for example.
tenuous and high-flying existance that ministerial staffing.
Yep. our contracts are explicit that we're employed up until the point our Minister loses his / her warrant (i.e. resigns, is sacked etc.) Or they decide they don't like you. At that point, employment is terminated immediately.
And we don't get redundancy per se, but a notice period from the day of termination. Ministerial Services (DIA) can require us to work during that notice period (e.g. at a job in DIA) although this would be unlikely.
i think you'll find that "political advisers" held by minsters are actually *extremely* powerful gatekeepers in relation to their typical age and experience.
It depends on the Minister and the relationship they have with their advisor. Some are, some aren't.
-
I'm trying to be fair to Mark - it may not be his fault - but any lawmaker who thinks 10 year olds should be in the dock in adult court - let alone in jail - for petty theft should go find some tin pot nation to become dictator of and save us from themselves.
Myself and a couple of other people spoke to the Select Committee, and we all got the impression (it was not hard to get) that Mark honestly believes his Bill is the way to deal with all young offenders. Because, ya know, he was a little s*hit when he was younger, he joined the army, and it straightened him out. Apparently all that these kids need is a bit of structure and discipline. (Brought to them, of course, by District Court judges).