Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 01 Sep 2021 15:52:45 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony Post by Rich80105 Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 01 Sep 2021 01:51:33 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony Post by James Christophers Post by Tony Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 31 Aug 2021 19:42:04 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot
On Wednesday, 1 September 2021 at 10:14:11 UTC+12, undefined
Post by James Christophers Post by Tony
Even yer Eton 'n Oxford toff has moved on from 1349.
"I am enormously grateful to many who are as traditionalist
accepted these constraints.é¥? - (Leader of the House of
President of the Council, and hard-right AfD wonk, Jacob
And why not here?
Simply because the parliament of this country has yet to agree
by "zoom" is OK.And until they do we need to be very careful to
democratic system is secure. Unlike Rich I care about democracy.
You both care but each in your own notably divergent ways ;-)
Certainly the potential difficulty in an all-virtual parliament
quality of debate might also be reduced, as there is less
spontaneity or intervention, which can be important ways through
are teased out and ministers held to account. Hybrid proceedings
current system in the UK Commons offer a middle ground . You'll
with these; if not, there are online descriptions worth a look.
I'd have thought that since the upholding of the democratic
primary requirement, the hybrid arrangement would be amenable to
during the current crisis.
As I suggested, I am not opposed to such measures but they must
the house at some stage before iimplementation which is one of
opposed to such a deal at this time.
The process must be robust and we should look at best overseas
But let us not rush into it - yes I know you are not saying that
By all means lets not rush it. The Washington Post article posted
James Christophers was dated April 21, 2020. How much longer do you
think the parties need?
Obviously it is a decision for more than the governing parties or do
the PM should mandate it?
If that's what it takes, yes, provided standing orders permit.
But do they?
And if any particular person does not know then perhaps silence on the
is appropriate for that person. Until and unless someone with
Meanwhile I urge caution and no more running at the mouth.
Once more not aimed at you, just those that are keen to lead us into
And this article covering the reason why Parliament did not meet by
"Labour could technically run Parliament in any way it sees fit, but
generally decisions about the House are made on a near-consensus
basis by the Business Committee meaning Labour and National have to
Ardern said she was disappointed that option had been rejected by the
We were absolutely willing to make ourselves available for the
scrutiny that yes we need to provide, Ardern said.
We're asking the public to do things differently, and I think that
Parliament needs to do things differently too. You will have seen the
proposal - I think it met the needs of accountability and scrutiny but
in an online platform that means we dont put staff at risk and those
involved in the convening of Parliament.
However, she was not willing to once-again ask the Speaker to suspend
the House without agreement from other parties.
So I will participate, despite the fact that I totally disagree with
the position they have taken.
I don't care what the article says.
The PM was hell bent on a direction that the leader of the opposition disagreed
with, as was her right, and in this case, her duty.
Hardly hell bent; but Ardern has been properly mindful of the need for
consensus and the desirability of following tradition in relation to
the government making itself avaialble for appropriate scrutiny - that
the 'decisions' by Collins have reduced the ability for the Opposiion
to call the government to account. Yes Collins is entitled to her
opinion' and for those and her actions she is answerable to the law,
to the National Caucus and ultimately to the voters of New Zealand. An
early casualty has been the demotion of Chris Bishop, who was
apparently in reasonable negotitations that were torpedoed at the last
minute by Collins - Bishop took care to stick to his new role and to
be as non-confontational as possible - some have speculated that he is
positioning himself as a future leader . . .
Collins has a number of duties - in putting her own position and
opposition so stridently to the fore, she appears to forget that she
has an obligation to her party to demonstrate to New Zealanders that
they do have reasonable alternatives to consider at the next election.
Post by Tony
All is a waste of time until the legal position (satnding orders) is clarified.
Which part do you want clarified? Yes the goverment could legislate to
give the Opposition no rights at all, but that would be self-defeating
- they know that at some stage in the distant future they may be in
opposition themselves, but more importantly it is a good convention to
not push legislation through that does not have a good consensus of
all parties - they have more important priorities with the work
relating to the Covid pandemic . . . apparently Judith Collins puts
other things first . . .
honest. No other priority is as high. I am staggered that anybody would not