Post by Tony
Goldsmith said he was looking the other way at this point so could not be
expected to know whether or not the Speaker was on his feet.
Mallard suggested he should have “used his ears”.
Just the level of brilliance we need from our Speaker, and we got it in spades.
For anybody who cares enough to listyen to the drivel.
I've now read the article and watched the clip - no more than a minor blip in the nation's affairs but a blip that speaks volumes about what both Mallard and Collins have to deal with.
That said and now taking each para in the order it appears:
"Shadow leader of the House Chris Bishop sought leave to move a motion of no confidence in Mallard at the end of Question Time. This failed."
And rightly so since the Speaker was acting with the full support of parliamentary procedure and protocol.
Comment: Bishop, a waggish lout-with-clout, should husband his adolescent energies and spurious parliamentary diversions in favour of more grownup and productive pursuits.
"Mallard said he hadn't heard Bridges’ comment and no one had raised it with him, so there would be no consequences."
Correct, since in the absence of any first-hand awareness or reported complaint, there can be no case to answer.
"Bridges has also found himself in hot water this week with his leader over an attack on Police Commissioner Andrew Coster, who he said was a “wokester”. "Collins told media MPs should keep their attacks to ministers, not public servants.
Collins has it right. In shooting his mouth off, Bridges was completely out of order. But that's by no means the end of the matter...
Comment: On both counts, Bridges demeans and disgraces himself both as parliamentarian and Crown barrister (of all people!) both in parliament and the court of public opinion. He must know better, so shame on him for being so immature as not to have tempered his hot-headed indiscretions. Both he and Goldsmith need to grow up. Both have shown neither is fitted for any kind of higher rank than they now hold in the parliamentary firmament, let alone show they merit the positions they currently occupy and so casually demean.
Frankly, on his previous showings and now this, Goldsmith should return to primary school for remedial studies in second-year sums; and having graduated summa cum laude in these endeavours, progress to NCEA Level 2 'Social Courtesies'. Bridges should prudently consider retiring quietly into undemanding part-time litigation defending smelly unwashed Saturday-night drunks in the Monday morning's magistrate's court. Flippant all this may sound, but on their current showing, what better or higher are these two hopelessly over-promoted buffoons good for?
 National as a party are in extremis, and this latest unedifying cameo shows how and why.
First the 'how": spontaneous outbursts of frustration fomenting to rank indiscipline and disrespectfulness, this due to ineffectual leadership as per its representation in their only shop window that matters - the media. A spent-force party leader in her near-dotage who does little but snipe from the sidelines while appearing detached from those she purports to be leading is no leader of any kind worthy of the description...which brings us to:
...the 'why': National keep megaphoning the sorry truth that they have nothing about them either morally or politically that gives them effective leverage over Labour. Neither have they any convincing policy suggestions sufficiently substantial to express and support their convictions. Ooooops! Errrrr.... convictions? What convictions?
And so it goes...