Discussion:
Zoomin' along with The Mother of Parliaments
(too old to reply)
Tony
2021-08-31 22:14:05 UTC
Permalink
James Christophers <***@gmail.com> wrote:
Even yer Eton 'n Oxford toff has moved on from 1349.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/virtual-parliament-uk/2020/04/21/373ccf08-83d1-11ea-81a3-9690c9881111_story.html
"I am enormously grateful to many who are as traditionalist as I am who have
accepted these constraints.” - (Leader of the House of Commons, Lord
President of the Council, and hard-right AfD wonk, Jacob Rees-Mogg.)
And why not here?
Simply because the parliament of this country has yet to agree that democracy
by "zoom" is OK. And until they do we need to be very careful to ensure our
democratic system is secure. Unlike Rich I care about democracy.
John Bowes
2021-08-31 22:28:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Even yer Eton 'n Oxford toff has moved on from 1349.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/virtual-parliament-uk/2020/04/21/373ccf08-83d1-11ea-81a3-9690c9881111_story.html
"I am enormously grateful to many who are as traditionalist as I am who have
accepted these constraints.” - (Leader of the House of Commons, Lord
President of the Council, and hard-right AfD wonk, Jacob Rees-Mogg.)
And why not here?
Simply because the parliament of this country has yet to agree that democracy
by "zoom" is OK. And until they do we need to be very careful to ensure our
democratic system is secure. Unlike Rich I care about democracy.
If Keith wants us to be more of a little Britain than we are, why doesn't the rambling fool fuck off back their?
James Christophers
2021-08-31 23:36:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Even yer Eton 'n Oxford toff has moved on from 1349.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/virtual-parliament-uk/2020/04/21/373ccf08-83d1-11ea-81a3-9690c9881111_story.html
"I am enormously grateful to many who are as traditionalist as I am who have
accepted these constraints.” - (Leader of the House of Commons, Lord
President of the Council, and hard-right AfD wonk, Jacob Rees-Mogg.)
And why not here?
Simply because the parliament of this country has yet to agree that democracy
by "zoom" is OK.And until they do we need to be very careful to ensure our
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 is that the quality of debate might also be reduced, as there is less opportunity for spontaneity or intervention, which can be important ways through which details are teased out and ministers held to account. Hybrid proceedings as under the current system in the UK Commons offer a middle ground . You'll be familiar with these; if not, there are online descriptions worth a look. Overall, then, I'd have thought that since the upholding of the democratic process is the primary requirement, the hybrid arrangement would be amenable to all concerned during the current crisis.
Tony
2021-09-01 00:42:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Even yer Eton 'n Oxford toff has moved on from 1349.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/virtual-parliament-uk/2020/04/21/373ccf08-83d1-11ea-81a3-9690c9881111_story.html
"I am enormously grateful to many who are as traditionalist as I am who have
accepted these constraints.” - (Leader of the House of Commons, Lord
President of the Council, and hard-right AfD wonk, Jacob Rees-Mogg.)
And why not here?
Simply because the parliament of this country has yet to agree that democracy
by "zoom" is OK.And until they do we need to be very careful to ensure our
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 is that the
quality of debate might also be reduced, as there is less opportunity for
spontaneity or intervention, which can be important ways through which details
are teased out and ministers held to account. Hybrid proceedings as under the
current system in the UK Commons offer a middle ground . You'll be familiar
with these; if not, there are online descriptions worth a look. Overall, then,
I'd have thought that since the upholding of the democratic process is the
primary requirement, the hybrid arrangement would be amenable to all concerned
during the current crisis.
As I suggested, I am not opposed to such measures but they must be agreed by
the house at some stage before iimplementation which is one of the reasons I am
opposed to such a deal at this time.
The process must be robust and we should look at best overseas practice of
course.
But let us not rush into it - yes I know you are not saying that but some are.
Rich80105
2021-09-01 01:05:51 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 31 Aug 2021 19:42:04 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Even yer Eton 'n Oxford toff has moved on from 1349.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/virtual-parliament-uk/2020/04/21/373ccf08-83d1-11ea-81a3-9690c9881111_story.html
"I am enormously grateful to many who are as traditionalist as I am who have
accepted these constraints.� - (Leader of the House of Commons, Lord
President of the Council, and hard-right AfD wonk, Jacob Rees-Mogg.)
And why not here?
Simply because the parliament of this country has yet to agree that democracy
by "zoom" is OK.And until they do we need to be very careful to ensure our
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 is that the
quality of debate might also be reduced, as there is less opportunity for
spontaneity or intervention, which can be important ways through which details
are teased out and ministers held to account. Hybrid proceedings as under the
current system in the UK Commons offer a middle ground . You'll be familiar
with these; if not, there are online descriptions worth a look. Overall, then,
I'd have thought that since the upholding of the democratic process is the
primary requirement, the hybrid arrangement would be amenable to all concerned
during the current crisis.
As I suggested, I am not opposed to such measures but they must be agreed by
the house at some stage before iimplementation which is one of the reasons I am
opposed to such a deal at this time.
The process must be robust and we should look at best overseas practice of
course.
But let us not rush into it - yes I know you are not saying that but some are.
By all means lets not rush it. The Washington Post article posted by
James Christophers was dated April 21, 2020. How much longer do you
think the parties need?
James Christophers
2021-09-01 01:36:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 31 Aug 2021 19:42:04 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Even yer Eton 'n Oxford toff has moved on from 1349.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/virtual-parliament-uk/2020/04/21/373ccf08-83d1-11ea-81a3-9690c9881111_story.html
"I am enormously grateful to many who are as traditionalist as I am who have
accepted these constraints.鈥? - (Leader of the House of Commons, Lord
President of the Council, and hard-right AfD wonk, Jacob Rees-Mogg.)
And why not here?
Simply because the parliament of this country has yet to agree that democracy
by "zoom" is OK.And until they do we need to be very careful to ensure our
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 is that the
quality of debate might also be reduced, as there is less opportunity for
spontaneity or intervention, which can be important ways through which details
are teased out and ministers held to account. Hybrid proceedings as under the
current system in the UK Commons offer a middle ground . You'll be familiar
with these; if not, there are online descriptions worth a look. Overall, then,
I'd have thought that since the upholding of the democratic process is the
primary requirement, the hybrid arrangement would be amenable to all concerned
during the current crisis.
As I suggested, I am not opposed to such measures but they must be agreed by
the house at some stage before iimplementation which is one of the reasons I am
opposed to such a deal at this time.
The process must be robust and we should look at best overseas practice of
course.
But let us not rush into it - yes I know you are not saying that but some are.
By all means lets not rush it. The Washington Post article posted by
James Christophers was dated April 21, 2020.
Zackly, which is precisely why have posted it all of 16 months since it was published, since when there will have been a continual global awareness of it among those whose duty and self-interest require a check be kept on such information. Why? Because it is carried on so many of the major international channels operating out of and sourcing from the UK, most if not all of which are received and monitored by our own major news outlets, but is not readily amenable to being ruthlessly monetised to the same unremitting degree as most of the rest of New Zealand.
Post by Rich80105
How much longer do you think the parties need?
To delay even further?
John Bowes
2021-09-01 01:40:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 31 Aug 2021 19:42:04 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Even yer Eton 'n Oxford toff has moved on from 1349.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/virtual-parliament-uk/2020/04/21/373ccf08-83d1-11ea-81a3-9690c9881111_story.html
"I am enormously grateful to many who are as traditionalist as I am who have
accepted these constraints.鈥? - (Leader of the House of Commons, Lord
President of the Council, and hard-right AfD wonk, Jacob Rees-Mogg.)
And why not here?
Simply because the parliament of this country has yet to agree that democracy
by "zoom" is OK.And until they do we need to be very careful to ensure our
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 is that the
quality of debate might also be reduced, as there is less opportunity for
spontaneity or intervention, which can be important ways through which details
are teased out and ministers held to account. Hybrid proceedings as under the
current system in the UK Commons offer a middle ground . You'll be familiar
with these; if not, there are online descriptions worth a look. Overall, then,
I'd have thought that since the upholding of the democratic process is the
primary requirement, the hybrid arrangement would be amenable to all concerned
during the current crisis.
As I suggested, I am not opposed to such measures but they must be agreed by
the house at some stage before iimplementation which is one of the reasons I am
opposed to such a deal at this time.
The process must be robust and we should look at best overseas practice of
course.
But let us not rush into it - yes I know you are not saying that but some are.
By all means lets not rush it. The Washington Post article posted by
James Christophers was dated April 21, 2020. How much longer do you
think the parties need?
That was during an early variant of Covid Rich. Something imbeciles like you miss!
Tony
2021-09-01 02:41:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 31 Aug 2021 19:42:04 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Even yer Eton 'n Oxford toff has moved on from 1349.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/virtual-parliament-uk/2020/04/21/373ccf08-83d1-11ea-81a3-9690c9881111_story.html
"I am enormously grateful to many who are as traditionalist as I am who have
accepted these constraints.� - (Leader of the House of Commons, Lord
President of the Council, and hard-right AfD wonk, Jacob Rees-Mogg.)
And why not here?
Simply because the parliament of this country has yet to agree that democracy
by "zoom" is OK.And until they do we need to be very careful to ensure our
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 is that the
quality of debate might also be reduced, as there is less opportunity for
spontaneity or intervention, which can be important ways through which details
are teased out and ministers held to account. Hybrid proceedings as under the
current system in the UK Commons offer a middle ground . You'll be familiar
with these; if not, there are online descriptions worth a look. Overall, then,
I'd have thought that since the upholding of the democratic process is the
primary requirement, the hybrid arrangement would be amenable to all concerned
during the current crisis.
As I suggested, I am not opposed to such measures but they must be agreed by
the house at some stage before iimplementation which is one of the reasons I am
opposed to such a deal at this time.
The process must be robust and we should look at best overseas practice of
course.
But let us not rush into it - yes I know you are not saying that but some are.
By all means lets not rush it. The Washington Post article posted by
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 you think
the PM should mandate it?
John Bowes
2021-09-01 04:47:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 31 Aug 2021 19:42:04 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Even yer Eton 'n Oxford toff has moved on from 1349.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/virtual-parliament-uk/2020/04/21/373ccf08-83d1-11ea-81a3-9690c9881111_story.html
"I am enormously grateful to many who are as traditionalist as I am who have
accepted these constraints.鈥? - (Leader of the House of Commons, Lord
President of the Council, and hard-right AfD wonk, Jacob Rees-Mogg.)
And why not here?
Simply because the parliament of this country has yet to agree that democracy
by "zoom" is OK.And until they do we need to be very careful to ensure our
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 is that the
quality of debate might also be reduced, as there is less opportunity for
spontaneity or intervention, which can be important ways through which details
are teased out and ministers held to account. Hybrid proceedings as under the
current system in the UK Commons offer a middle ground . You'll be familiar
with these; if not, there are online descriptions worth a look. Overall, then,
I'd have thought that since the upholding of the democratic process is the
primary requirement, the hybrid arrangement would be amenable to all concerned
during the current crisis.
As I suggested, I am not opposed to such measures but they must be agreed by
the house at some stage before iimplementation which is one of the reasons I am
opposed to such a deal at this time.
The process must be robust and we should look at best overseas practice of
course.
But let us not rush into it - yes I know you are not saying that but some are.
By all means lets not rush it. The Washington Post article posted by
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 you think
the PM should mandate it?
It's Rich mate. The question isn't needed Rich rubber stamps everything his glorious misleader does!
James Christophers
2021-09-01 05:57:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 31 Aug 2021 19:42:04 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Even yer Eton 'n Oxford toff has moved on from 1349.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/virtual-parliament-uk/2020/04/21/373ccf08-83d1-11ea-81a3-9690c9881111_story.html
"I am enormously grateful to many who are as traditionalist as I am who have
accepted these constraints.鈥? - (Leader of the House of Commons, Lord
President of the Council, and hard-right AfD wonk, Jacob Rees-Mogg.)
And why not here?
Simply because the parliament of this country has yet to agree that democracy
by "zoom" is OK.And until they do we need to be very careful to ensure our
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 is that the
quality of debate might also be reduced, as there is less opportunity for
spontaneity or intervention, which can be important ways through which details
are teased out and ministers held to account. Hybrid proceedings as under the
current system in the UK Commons offer a middle ground . You'll be familiar
with these; if not, there are online descriptions worth a look. Overall, then,
I'd have thought that since the upholding of the democratic process is the
primary requirement, the hybrid arrangement would be amenable to all concerned
during the current crisis.
As I suggested, I am not opposed to such measures but they must be agreed by
the house at some stage before iimplementation which is one of the reasons I am
opposed to such a deal at this time.
The process must be robust and we should look at best overseas practice of
course.
But let us not rush into it - yes I know you are not saying that but some are.
By all means lets not rush it. The Washington Post article posted by
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 you think
the PM should mandate it?
If that's what it takes, yes, provided standing orders permit.
Tony
2021-09-01 06:51:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 31 Aug 2021 19:42:04 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Even yer Eton 'n Oxford toff has moved on from 1349.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/virtual-parliament-uk/2020/04/21/373ccf08-83d1-11ea-81a3-9690c9881111_story.html
"I am enormously grateful to many who are as traditionalist as I am
who
have
accepted these constraints.鈥? - (Leader of the House of Commons,
Lord
President of the Council, and hard-right AfD wonk, Jacob Rees-Mogg.)
And why not here?
Simply because the parliament of this country has yet to agree that democracy
by "zoom" is OK.And until they do we need to be very careful to ensure our
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 is that the
quality of debate might also be reduced, as there is less opportunity for
spontaneity or intervention, which can be important ways through which details
are teased out and ministers held to account. Hybrid proceedings as under the
current system in the UK Commons offer a middle ground . You'll be familiar
with these; if not, there are online descriptions worth a look. Overall, then,
I'd have thought that since the upholding of the democratic process is the
primary requirement, the hybrid arrangement would be amenable to all concerned
during the current crisis.
As I suggested, I am not opposed to such measures but they must be agreed by
the house at some stage before iimplementation which is one of the reasons
I
am
opposed to such a deal at this time.
The process must be robust and we should look at best overseas practice of
course.
But let us not rush into it - yes I know you are not saying that but some are.
By all means lets not rush it. The Washington Post article posted by
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 you think
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 matter
is appropriate for that person. Until and unless someone with knowledge can
advise.
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 the void.
James Christophers
2021-09-01 07:52:35 UTC
Permalink
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 net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Even yer Eton 'n Oxford toff has moved on from 1349.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/virtual-parliament-uk/2020/04/21/373ccf08-83d1-11ea-81a3-9690c9881111_story.html
"I am enormously grateful to many who are as traditionalist as I am
who
have
accepted these constraints.鈥? - (Leader of the House of Commons, Lord
President of the Council, and hard-right AfD wonk, Jacob Rees-Mogg.)
And why not here?
Simply because the parliament of this country has yet to agree that
democracy
by "zoom" is OK.And until they do we need to be very careful to ensure our
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 is that the
quality of debate might also be reduced, as there is less opportunity for
spontaneity or intervention, which can be important ways through which details
are teased out and ministers held to account. Hybrid proceedings as under the
current system in the UK Commons offer a middle ground . You'll be familiar
with these; if not, there are online descriptions worth a look. Overall, then,
I'd have thought that since the upholding of the democratic process is the
primary requirement, the hybrid arrangement would be amenable to all concerned
during the current crisis.
As I suggested, I am not opposed to such measures but they must be agreed by
the house at some stage before iimplementation which is one of the reasons
I
am
opposed to such a deal at this time.
The process must be robust and we should look at best overseas practice of
course.
But let us not rush into it - yes I know you are not saying that but some are.
By all means lets not rush it. The Washington Post article posted by
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 you think
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 matter
is appropriate for that person. Until and unless someone with knowledge can
advise.
Direct, first-hand knowledge of New Zealand constituitonal law and procedure is indicated. So far there is plainly none to be had in this forum otherwise it would surely have been evident by now. Again, although I have added some further external input and detail in hope of helping to clarify and broaden the discourse, this has not proved sufficient to sustain or advance it.

So, as conversation originator and proposer, I am perfectly content for this thread now to expire.
Rich80105
2021-09-01 10:08:35 UTC
Permalink
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 net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Even yer Eton 'n Oxford toff has moved on from 1349.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/virtual-parliament-uk/2020/04/21/373ccf08-83d1-11ea-81a3-9690c9881111_story.html
"I am enormously grateful to many who are as traditionalist as I am
who
have
accepted these constraints.鈥? - (Leader of the House of Commons,
Lord
President of the Council, and hard-right AfD wonk, Jacob Rees-Mogg.)
And why not here?
Simply because the parliament of this country has yet to agree that democracy
by "zoom" is OK.And until they do we need to be very careful to ensure our
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 is that the
quality of debate might also be reduced, as there is less opportunity for
spontaneity or intervention, which can be important ways through which details
are teased out and ministers held to account. Hybrid proceedings as under the
current system in the UK Commons offer a middle ground . You'll be familiar
with these; if not, there are online descriptions worth a look. Overall, then,
I'd have thought that since the upholding of the democratic process is the
primary requirement, the hybrid arrangement would be amenable to all concerned
during the current crisis.
As I suggested, I am not opposed to such measures but they must be agreed by
the house at some stage before iimplementation which is one of the reasons
I
am
opposed to such a deal at this time.
The process must be robust and we should look at best overseas practice of
course.
But let us not rush into it - yes I know you are not saying that but some are.
By all means lets not rush it. The Washington Post article posted by
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 you think
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 matter
is appropriate for that person. Until and unless someone with knowledge can
advise.
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 the void.
Two starting points:
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/covid-politics-parliament-and-accountability-1
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/parliamentary-rules/standing-orders-2020-by-chapter/
Rich80105
2021-09-01 11:29:37 UTC
Permalink
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 net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Even yer Eton 'n Oxford toff has moved on from 1349.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/virtual-parliament-uk/2020/04/21/373ccf08-83d1-11ea-81a3-9690c9881111_story.html
"I am enormously grateful to many who are as traditionalist as I am
who
have
accepted these constraints.鈥? - (Leader of the House of Commons,
Lord
President of the Council, and hard-right AfD wonk, Jacob Rees-Mogg.)
And why not here?
Simply because the parliament of this country has yet to agree that
democracy
by "zoom" is OK.And until they do we need to be very careful to ensure our
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 is that the
quality of debate might also be reduced, as there is less opportunity for
spontaneity or intervention, which can be important ways through which details
are teased out and ministers held to account. Hybrid proceedings as under the
current system in the UK Commons offer a middle ground . You'll be familiar
with these; if not, there are online descriptions worth a look. Overall, then,
I'd have thought that since the upholding of the democratic process is the
primary requirement, the hybrid arrangement would be amenable to all concerned
during the current crisis.
As I suggested, I am not opposed to such measures but they must be agreed by
the house at some stage before iimplementation which is one of the reasons
I
am
opposed to such a deal at this time.
The process must be robust and we should look at best overseas practice of
course.
But let us not rush into it - yes I know you are not saying that but some are.
By all means lets not rush it. The Washington Post article posted by
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 you think
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 matter
is appropriate for that person. Until and unless someone with knowledge can
advise.
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 the void.
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/covid-politics-parliament-and-accountability-1
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/parliamentary-rules/standing-orders-2020-by-chapter/
And this article covering the reason why Parliament did not meet by
virtual (eg Zoom) has been posted before:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300394240/covid19-nz-parliament-to-sit-this-week-after-national-and-act-reject-virtual-option

From that article:
"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
agree.

Ardern said she was disappointed that option had been rejected by the
Opposition.

“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 don’t 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.”
Tony
2021-09-01 20:52:45 UTC
Permalink
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 net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Even yer Eton 'n Oxford toff has moved on from 1349.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/virtual-parliament-uk/2020/04/21/373ccf08-83d1-11ea-81a3-9690c9881111_story.html
"I am enormously grateful to many who are as traditionalist as I am
who
have
accepted these constraints.鈥? - (Leader of the House of Commons,
Lord
President of the Council, and hard-right AfD wonk, Jacob Rees-Mogg.)
And why not here?
Simply because the parliament of this country has yet to agree that
democracy
by "zoom" is OK.And until they do we need to be very careful to ensure our
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 is
that
the
quality of debate might also be reduced, as there is less opportunity for
spontaneity or intervention, which can be important ways through which
details
are teased out and ministers held to account. Hybrid proceedings as
under
the
current system in the UK Commons offer a middle ground . You'll be familiar
with these; if not, there are online descriptions worth a look.
Overall,
then,
I'd have thought that since the upholding of the democratic process is the
primary requirement, the hybrid arrangement would be amenable to all
concerned
during the current crisis.
As I suggested, I am not opposed to such measures but they must be
agreed
by
the house at some stage before iimplementation which is one of the reasons
I
am
opposed to such a deal at this time.
The process must be robust and we should look at best overseas practice of
course.
But let us not rush into it - yes I know you are not saying that but
some
are.
By all means lets not rush it. The Washington Post article posted by
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 you think
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 matter
is appropriate for that person. Until and unless someone with knowledge can
advise.
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 the void.
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/covid-politics-parliament-and-accountability-1
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/parliamentary-rules/standing-orders-2020-by-chapter/
And this article covering the reason why Parliament did not meet by
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300394240/covid19-nz-parliament-to-sit-this-week-after-national-and-act-reject-virtual-option
"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
agree.
Ardern said she was disappointed that option had been rejected by the
Opposition.
“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 don’t 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.”
Just rhetoric.
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.
All is a waste of time until the legal position (satnding orders) is clarified.
Rich80105
2021-09-01 23:36:44 UTC
Permalink
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 net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Even yer Eton 'n Oxford toff has moved on from 1349.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/virtual-parliament-uk/2020/04/21/373ccf08-83d1-11ea-81a3-9690c9881111_story.html
"I am enormously grateful to many who are as traditionalist as I am
who
have
accepted these constraints.鈥? - (Leader of the House of Commons,
Lord
President of the Council, and hard-right AfD wonk, Jacob Rees-Mogg.)
And why not here?
Simply because the parliament of this country has yet to agree that
democracy
by "zoom" is OK.And until they do we need to be very careful to ensure our
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 is
that
the
quality of debate might also be reduced, as there is less opportunity for
spontaneity or intervention, which can be important ways through which
details
are teased out and ministers held to account. Hybrid proceedings as
under
the
current system in the UK Commons offer a middle ground . You'll be familiar
with these; if not, there are online descriptions worth a look.
Overall,
then,
I'd have thought that since the upholding of the democratic process is the
primary requirement, the hybrid arrangement would be amenable to all
concerned
during the current crisis.
As I suggested, I am not opposed to such measures but they must be
agreed
by
the house at some stage before iimplementation which is one of the reasons
I
am
opposed to such a deal at this time.
The process must be robust and we should look at best overseas practice of
course.
But let us not rush into it - yes I know you are not saying that but
some
are.
By all means lets not rush it. The Washington Post article posted by
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 you think
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 matter
is appropriate for that person. Until and unless someone with knowledge can
advise.
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 the void.
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/covid-politics-parliament-and-accountability-1
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/parliamentary-rules/standing-orders-2020-by-chapter/
And this article covering the reason why Parliament did not meet by
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300394240/covid19-nz-parliament-to-sit-this-week-after-national-and-act-reject-virtual-option
"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
agree.
Ardern said she was disappointed that option had been rejected by the
Opposition.
“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 don’t 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.”
Just rhetoric.
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.
All is a waste of time until the legal position (satnding orders) is clarified.
John Bowes
2021-09-02 00:35:12 UTC
Permalink
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 net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Even yer Eton 'n Oxford toff has moved on from 1349.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/virtual-parliament-uk/2020/04/21/373ccf08-83d1-11ea-81a3-9690c9881111_story.html
"I am enormously grateful to many who are as traditionalist as I am
who
have
accepted these constraints.鈥? - (Leader of the House of Commons,
Lord
President of the Council, and hard-right AfD wonk, Jacob
Rees-Mogg.)
And why not here?
Simply because the parliament of this country has yet to agree that
democracy
by "zoom" is OK.And until they do we need to be very careful to ensure
our
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 is
that
the
quality of debate might also be reduced, as there is less opportunity
for
spontaneity or intervention, which can be important ways through which
details
are teased out and ministers held to account. Hybrid proceedings as
under
the
current system in the UK Commons offer a middle ground . You'll be
familiar
with these; if not, there are online descriptions worth a look.
Overall,
then,
I'd have thought that since the upholding of the democratic process is
the
primary requirement, the hybrid arrangement would be amenable to all
concerned
during the current crisis.
As I suggested, I am not opposed to such measures but they must be
agreed
by
the house at some stage before iimplementation which is one of the
reasons
I
am
opposed to such a deal at this time.
The process must be robust and we should look at best overseas practice
of
course.
But let us not rush into it - yes I know you are not saying that but
some
are.
By all means lets not rush it. The Washington Post article posted by
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 you think
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 matter
is appropriate for that person. Until and unless someone with knowledge can
advise.
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 the
void.
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/covid-politics-parliament-and-accountability-1
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/parliamentary-rules/standing-orders-2020-by-chapter/
And this article covering the reason why Parliament did not meet by
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300394240/covid19-nz-parliament-to-sit-this-week-after-national-and-act-reject-virtual-option
"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
agree.
Ardern said she was disappointed that option had been rejected by the
Opposition.
“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 don’t 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.”
Just rhetoric.
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.
All is a waste of time until the legal position (satnding orders) is clarified.
Your most sensible post for ages Rich. Well done :)
Rich80105
2021-09-02 00:01:16 UTC
Permalink
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 net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Even yer Eton 'n Oxford toff has moved on from 1349.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/virtual-parliament-uk/2020/04/21/373ccf08-83d1-11ea-81a3-9690c9881111_story.html
"I am enormously grateful to many who are as traditionalist as I am
who
have
accepted these constraints.鈥? - (Leader of the House of Commons,
Lord
President of the Council, and hard-right AfD wonk, Jacob Rees-Mogg.)
And why not here?
Simply because the parliament of this country has yet to agree that
democracy
by "zoom" is OK.And until they do we need to be very careful to ensure our
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 is
that
the
quality of debate might also be reduced, as there is less opportunity for
spontaneity or intervention, which can be important ways through which
details
are teased out and ministers held to account. Hybrid proceedings as
under
the
current system in the UK Commons offer a middle ground . You'll be familiar
with these; if not, there are online descriptions worth a look.
Overall,
then,
I'd have thought that since the upholding of the democratic process is the
primary requirement, the hybrid arrangement would be amenable to all
concerned
during the current crisis.
As I suggested, I am not opposed to such measures but they must be
agreed
by
the house at some stage before iimplementation which is one of the reasons
I
am
opposed to such a deal at this time.
The process must be robust and we should look at best overseas practice of
course.
But let us not rush into it - yes I know you are not saying that but
some
are.
By all means lets not rush it. The Washington Post article posted by
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 you think
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 matter
is appropriate for that person. Until and unless someone with knowledge can
advise.
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 the void.
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/covid-politics-parliament-and-accountability-1
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/parliamentary-rules/standing-orders-2020-by-chapter/
And this article covering the reason why Parliament did not meet by
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300394240/covid19-nz-parliament-to-sit-this-week-after-national-and-act-reject-virtual-option
"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
agree.
Ardern said she was disappointed that option had been rejected by the
Opposition.
“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 don’t 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.”
Just rhetoric.
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 . . .
Tony
2021-09-02 00:17:55 UTC
Permalink
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 net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Even yer Eton 'n Oxford toff has moved on from 1349.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/virtual-parliament-uk/2020/04/21/373ccf08-83d1-11ea-81a3-9690c9881111_story.html
"I am enormously grateful to many who are as traditionalist as I am
who
have
accepted these constraints.鈥? - (Leader of the House of
Commons,
Lord
President of the Council, and hard-right AfD wonk, Jacob
Rees-Mogg.)
And why not here?
Simply because the parliament of this country has yet to agree that
democracy
by "zoom" is OK.And until they do we need to be very careful to
ensure
our
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 is
that
the
quality of debate might also be reduced, as there is less
opportunity
for
spontaneity or intervention, which can be important ways through which
details
are teased out and ministers held to account. Hybrid proceedings as
under
the
current system in the UK Commons offer a middle ground . You'll be
familiar
with these; if not, there are online descriptions worth a look.
Overall,
then,
I'd have thought that since the upholding of the democratic process
is
the
primary requirement, the hybrid arrangement would be amenable to all
concerned
during the current crisis.
As I suggested, I am not opposed to such measures but they must be
agreed
by
the house at some stage before iimplementation which is one of the reasons
I
am
opposed to such a deal at this time.
The process must be robust and we should look at best overseas
practice
of
course.
But let us not rush into it - yes I know you are not saying that but
some
are.
By all means lets not rush it. The Washington Post article posted by
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
you
think
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 matter
is appropriate for that person. Until and unless someone with knowledge can
advise.
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 the void.
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/covid-politics-parliament-and-accountability-1
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/parliamentary-rules/standing-orders-2020-by-chapter/
And this article covering the reason why Parliament did not meet by
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300394240/covid19-nz-parliament-to-sit-this-week-after-national-and-act-reject-virtual-option
"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
agree.
Ardern said she was disappointed that option had been rejected by the
Opposition.
“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 don’t 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.”
Just rhetoric.
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 . . .
Collins' first priority is as leader of the opposition to keep the government
honest. No other priority is as high. I am staggered that anybody would not
understand that.
The government could not legislate to give the opposition no rights at all,
what a stupid staetement. It would never actually happen and is probably
unlawful. Would you like them to try to do that, eh?
John Bowes
2021-09-02 00:44:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
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 net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Even yer Eton 'n Oxford toff has moved on from 1349.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/virtual-parliament-uk/2020/04/21/373ccf08-83d1-11ea-81a3-9690c9881111_story.html
"I am enormously grateful to many who are as traditionalist as I
am
who
have
accepted these constraints.鈥? - (Leader of the House of
Commons,
Lord
President of the Council, and hard-right AfD wonk, Jacob
Rees-Mogg.)
And why not here?
Simply because the parliament of this country has yet to agree
that
democracy
by "zoom" is OK.And until they do we need to be very careful to
ensure
our
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 is
that
the
quality of debate might also be reduced, as there is less
opportunity
for
spontaneity or intervention, which can be important ways through
which
details
are teased out and ministers held to account. Hybrid proceedings as
under
the
current system in the UK Commons offer a middle ground . You'll be
familiar
with these; if not, there are online descriptions worth a look.
Overall,
then,
I'd have thought that since the upholding of the democratic process
is
the
primary requirement, the hybrid arrangement would be amenable to all
concerned
during the current crisis.
As I suggested, I am not opposed to such measures but they must be
agreed
by
the house at some stage before iimplementation which is one of the
reasons
I
am
opposed to such a deal at this time.
The process must be robust and we should look at best overseas
practice
of
course.
But let us not rush into it - yes I know you are not saying that but
some
are.
By all means lets not rush it. The Washington Post article posted by
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
you
think
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 matter
is appropriate for that person. Until and unless someone with knowledge can
advise.
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 the
void.
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/covid-politics-parliament-and-accountability-1
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/parliamentary-rules/standing-orders-2020-by-chapter/
And this article covering the reason why Parliament did not meet by
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300394240/covid19-nz-parliament-to-sit-this-week-after-national-and-act-reject-virtual-option
"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
agree.
Ardern said she was disappointed that option had been rejected by the
Opposition.
“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 don’t 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.”
Just rhetoric.
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 . . .
Collins' first priority is as leader of the opposition to keep the government
honest. No other priority is as high. I am staggered that anybody would not
understand that.
Keeping the government honest resembles the trials of Sisyphus. Though it sounds like an excelent punishment for Ardern in the afterlife...
Post by Tony
The government could not legislate to give the opposition no rights at all,
what a stupid staetement. It would never actually happen and is probably
unlawful. Would you like them to try to do that, eh?
It's Rich, Tony. Stupid statements are his stock in trade along with lying!
Rich80105
2021-09-02 02:06:16 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 01 Sep 2021 19:17:55 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
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 net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Even yer Eton 'n Oxford toff has moved on from 1349.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/virtual-parliament-uk/2020/04/21/373ccf08-83d1-11ea-81a3-9690c9881111_story.html
"I am enormously grateful to many who are as traditionalist as I
am
who
have
accepted these constraints.鈥? - (Leader of the House of
Commons,
Lord
President of the Council, and hard-right AfD wonk, Jacob
Rees-Mogg.)
And why not here?
Simply because the parliament of this country has yet to agree that
democracy
by "zoom" is OK.And until they do we need to be very careful to
ensure
our
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 is
that
the
quality of debate might also be reduced, as there is less
opportunity
for
spontaneity or intervention, which can be important ways through which
details
are teased out and ministers held to account. Hybrid proceedings as
under
the
current system in the UK Commons offer a middle ground . You'll be
familiar
with these; if not, there are online descriptions worth a look.
Overall,
then,
I'd have thought that since the upholding of the democratic process
is
the
primary requirement, the hybrid arrangement would be amenable to all
concerned
during the current crisis.
As I suggested, I am not opposed to such measures but they must be
agreed
by
the house at some stage before iimplementation which is one of the
reasons
I
am
opposed to such a deal at this time.
The process must be robust and we should look at best overseas
practice
of
course.
But let us not rush into it - yes I know you are not saying that but
some
are.
By all means lets not rush it. The Washington Post article posted by
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
you
think
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 matter
is appropriate for that person. Until and unless someone with knowledge can
advise.
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 the void.
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/covid-politics-parliament-and-accountability-1
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/parliamentary-rules/standing-orders-2020-by-chapter/
And this article covering the reason why Parliament did not meet by
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300394240/covid19-nz-parliament-to-sit-this-week-after-national-and-act-reject-virtual-option
"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
agree.
Ardern said she was disappointed that option had been rejected by the
Opposition.
“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 don’t 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.”
Just rhetoric.
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 . . .
Collins' first priority is as leader of the opposition to keep the government
honest. No other priority is as high. I am staggered that anybody would not
understand that.
It makes her refusal to agree to meetings where the Opposition could
probe more into the work of other Ministers even more
incomprehensible.
Post by Tony
The government could not legislate to give the opposition no rights at all,
what a stupid staetement. It would never actually happen and is probably
unlawful. Would you like them to try to do that, eh?
Parliament can agree to a lot of things - on this it is not desirable
to to pass legislation that does not have broad agreement from
Opposition parties - what part of that do yu not understand?
Tony
2021-09-02 03:18:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 01 Sep 2021 19:17:55 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
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 net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Even yer Eton 'n Oxford toff has moved on from 1349.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/virtual-parliament-uk/2020/04/21/373ccf08-83d1-11ea-81a3-9690c9881111_story.html
"I am enormously grateful to many who are as traditionalist as
I
am
who
have
accepted these constraints.鈥? - (Leader of the House of
Commons,
Lord
President of the Council, and hard-right AfD wonk, Jacob
Rees-Mogg.)
And why not here?
Simply because the parliament of this country has yet to agree
that
democracy
by "zoom" is OK.And until they do we need to be very careful to
ensure
our
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 is
that
the
quality of debate might also be reduced, as there is less
opportunity
for
spontaneity or intervention, which can be important ways through
which
details
are teased out and ministers held to account. Hybrid proceedings as
under
the
current system in the UK Commons offer a middle ground . You'll be
familiar
with these; if not, there are online descriptions worth a look.
Overall,
then,
I'd have thought that since the upholding of the democratic process
is
the
primary requirement, the hybrid arrangement would be amenable to all
concerned
during the current crisis.
As I suggested, I am not opposed to such measures but they must be
agreed
by
the house at some stage before iimplementation which is one of the
reasons
I
am
opposed to such a deal at this time.
The process must be robust and we should look at best overseas
practice
of
course.
But let us not rush into it - yes I know you are not saying that but
some
are.
By all means lets not rush it. The Washington Post article posted by
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
you
think
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 matter
is appropriate for that person. Until and unless someone with knowledge can
advise.
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
the
void.
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/covid-politics-parliament-and-accountability-1
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/parliamentary-rules/standing-orders-2020-by-chapter/
And this article covering the reason why Parliament did not meet by
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300394240/covid19-nz-parliament-to-sit-this-week-after-national-and-act-reject-virtual-option
"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
agree.
Ardern said she was disappointed that option had been rejected by the
Opposition.
“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 don’t 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.”
Just rhetoric.
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 . . .
Collins' first priority is as leader of the opposition to keep the government
honest. No other priority is as high. I am staggered that anybody would not
understand that.
It makes her refusal to agree to meetings where the Opposition could
probe more into the work of other Ministers even more
incomprehensible.
No it does not, that is just silly.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
The government could not legislate to give the opposition no rights at all,
what a stupid staetement. It would never actually happen and is probably
unlawful. Would you like them to try to do that, eh?
Parliament can agree to a lot of things - on this it is not desirable
to to pass legislation that does not have broad agreement from
Opposition parties - what part of that do yu not understand?
Everything, you are wrong. They cannot "legislate to give the Opposition no
rights at all". That is what you wrote and that is wrong, they cannot do that,
why would you want that? I think I know why. YUour true motives are showing.
Rich80105
2021-09-02 04:04:27 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 01 Sep 2021 22:18:20 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 01 Sep 2021 19:17:55 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
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 net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Even yer Eton 'n Oxford toff has moved on from 1349.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/virtual-parliament-uk/2020/04/21/373ccf08-83d1-11ea-81a3-9690c9881111_story.html
"I am enormously grateful to many who are as traditionalist as
I
am
who
have
accepted these constraints.鈥? - (Leader of the House of
Commons,
Lord
President of the Council, and hard-right AfD wonk, Jacob
Rees-Mogg.)
And why not here?
Simply because the parliament of this country has yet to agree
that
democracy
by "zoom" is OK.And until they do we need to be very careful to
ensure
our
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 is
that
the
quality of debate might also be reduced, as there is less
opportunity
for
spontaneity or intervention, which can be important ways through
which
details
are teased out and ministers held to account. Hybrid proceedings as
under
the
current system in the UK Commons offer a middle ground . You'll be
familiar
with these; if not, there are online descriptions worth a look.
Overall,
then,
I'd have thought that since the upholding of the democratic process
is
the
primary requirement, the hybrid arrangement would be amenable to
all
concerned
during the current crisis.
As I suggested, I am not opposed to such measures but they must be
agreed
by
the house at some stage before iimplementation which is one of the
reasons
I
am
opposed to such a deal at this time.
The process must be robust and we should look at best overseas
practice
of
course.
But let us not rush into it - yes I know you are not saying that but
some
are.
By all means lets not rush it. The Washington Post article posted by
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
you
think
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 matter
is appropriate for that person. Until and unless someone with knowledge can
advise.
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
the
void.
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/covid-politics-parliament-and-accountability-1
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/parliamentary-rules/standing-orders-2020-by-chapter/
And this article covering the reason why Parliament did not meet by
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300394240/covid19-nz-parliament-to-sit-this-week-after-national-and-act-reject-virtual-option
"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
agree.
Ardern said she was disappointed that option had been rejected by the
Opposition.
“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 don’t 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.”
Just rhetoric.
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 . . .
Collins' first priority is as leader of the opposition to keep the government
honest. No other priority is as high. I am staggered that anybody would not
understand that.
It makes her refusal to agree to meetings where the Opposition could
probe more into the work of other Ministers even more
incomprehensible.
No it does not, that is just silly.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
The government could not legislate to give the opposition no rights at all,
what a stupid staetement. It would never actually happen and is probably
unlawful. Would you like them to try to do that, eh?
Parliament can agree to a lot of things - on this it is not desirable
to to pass legislation that does not have broad agreement from
Opposition parties - what part of that do yu not understand?
Everything, you are wrong. They cannot "legislate to give the Opposition no
rights at all". That is what you wrote and that is wrong, they cannot do that,
why would you want that? I think I know why. YUour true motives are showing.
In the context of the discussion about enabling parliament to have a
meeting of all MPs during Level 4 Covid lockdown, the government
technically had the ability to enable that - Judith Collins has
implied that if Ardern wanted that she could have made that decision -
but as I pointed out Labour would not do that. You really are being
very silly.
John Bowes
2021-09-02 04:21:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 01 Sep 2021 22:18:20 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 01 Sep 2021 19:17:55 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
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
net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Even yer Eton 'n Oxford toff has moved on from 1349.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/virtual-parliament-uk/2020/04/21/373ccf08-83d1-11ea-81a3-9690c9881111_story.html
"I am enormously grateful to many who are as traditionalist as
I
am
who
have
accepted these constraints.鈥? - (Leader of the House of
Commons,
Lord
President of the Council, and hard-right AfD wonk, Jacob
Rees-Mogg.)
And why not here?
Simply because the parliament of this country has yet to agree
that
democracy
by "zoom" is OK.And until they do we need to be very careful to
ensure
our
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 is
that
the
quality of debate might also be reduced, as there is less
opportunity
for
spontaneity or intervention, which can be important ways through
which
details
are teased out and ministers held to account. Hybrid proceedings
as
under
the
current system in the UK Commons offer a middle ground . You'll be
familiar
with these; if not, there are online descriptions worth a look.
Overall,
then,
I'd have thought that since the upholding of the democratic
process
is
the
primary requirement, the hybrid arrangement would be amenable to
all
concerned
during the current crisis.
As I suggested, I am not opposed to such measures but they must be
agreed
by
the house at some stage before iimplementation which is one of the
reasons
I
am
opposed to such a deal at this time.
The process must be robust and we should look at best overseas
practice
of
course.
But let us not rush into it - yes I know you are not saying that
but
some
are.
By all means lets not rush it. The Washington Post article posted by
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
you
think
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
matter
is appropriate for that person. Until and unless someone with knowledge can
advise.
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
the
void.
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/covid-politics-parliament-and-accountability-1
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/parliamentary-rules/standing-orders-2020-by-chapter/
And this article covering the reason why Parliament did not meet by
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300394240/covid19-nz-parliament-to-sit-this-week-after-national-and-act-reject-virtual-option
"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
agree.
Ardern said she was disappointed that option had been rejected by the
Opposition.
“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 don’t 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.”
Just rhetoric.
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 . . .
Collins' first priority is as leader of the opposition to keep the government
honest. No other priority is as high. I am staggered that anybody would not
understand that.
It makes her refusal to agree to meetings where the Opposition could
probe more into the work of other Ministers even more
incomprehensible.
No it does not, that is just silly.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
The government could not legislate to give the opposition no rights at all,
what a stupid staetement. It would never actually happen and is probably
unlawful. Would you like them to try to do that, eh?
Parliament can agree to a lot of things - on this it is not desirable
to to pass legislation that does not have broad agreement from
Opposition parties - what part of that do yu not understand?
Everything, you are wrong. They cannot "legislate to give the Opposition no
rights at all". That is what you wrote and that is wrong, they cannot do that,
why would you want that? I think I know why. YUour true motives are showing.
In the context of the discussion about enabling parliament to have a
meeting of all MPs during Level 4 Covid lockdown, the government
technically had the ability to enable that - Judith Collins has
implied that if Ardern wanted that she could have made that decision -
but as I pointed out Labour would not do that. You really are being
very silly.
No Rich YOU are being stupid! Silly doesn't describe you. The government had a committee set up during the first lock down that worked well even though you and the idiotic media harassed Bridges for driving down from Tauranga every week. The why that they didn't do it this time speaks volumes to all except fucking Labour loving imbeciles like you Rich and no lies or in fact pointless rhetoric from you will change that!
Rich80105
2021-09-02 04:40:08 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 1 Sep 2021 21:21:49 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 01 Sep 2021 22:18:20 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 01 Sep 2021 19:17:55 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
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
net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Even yer Eton 'n Oxford toff has moved on from 1349.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/virtual-parliament-uk/2020/04/21/373ccf08-83d1-11ea-81a3-9690c9881111_story.html
"I am enormously grateful to many who are as traditionalist as
I
am
who
have
accepted these constraints.鈥? - (Leader of the House of
Commons,
Lord
President of the Council, and hard-right AfD wonk, Jacob
Rees-Mogg.)
And why not here?
Simply because the parliament of this country has yet to agree
that
democracy
by "zoom" is OK.And until they do we need to be very careful to
ensure
our
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 is
that
the
quality of debate might also be reduced, as there is less
opportunity
for
spontaneity or intervention, which can be important ways through
which
details
are teased out and ministers held to account. Hybrid proceedings
as
under
the
current system in the UK Commons offer a middle ground . You'll be
familiar
with these; if not, there are online descriptions worth a look.
Overall,
then,
I'd have thought that since the upholding of the democratic
process
is
the
primary requirement, the hybrid arrangement would be amenable to
all
concerned
during the current crisis.
As I suggested, I am not opposed to such measures but they must be
agreed
by
the house at some stage before iimplementation which is one of the
reasons
I
am
opposed to such a deal at this time.
The process must be robust and we should look at best overseas
practice
of
course.
But let us not rush into it - yes I know you are not saying that
but
some
are.
By all means lets not rush it. The Washington Post article posted by
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
you
think
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
matter
is appropriate for that person. Until and unless someone with knowledge
can
advise.
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
the
void.
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/covid-politics-parliament-and-accountability-1
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/parliamentary-rules/standing-orders-2020-by-chapter/
And this article covering the reason why Parliament did not meet by
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300394240/covid19-nz-parliament-to-sit-this-week-after-national-and-act-reject-virtual-option
"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
agree.
Ardern said she was disappointed that option had been rejected by the
Opposition.
“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 don’t 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.”
Just rhetoric.
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 . . .
Collins' first priority is as leader of the opposition to keep the government
honest. No other priority is as high. I am staggered that anybody would not
understand that.
It makes her refusal to agree to meetings where the Opposition could
probe more into the work of other Ministers even more
incomprehensible.
No it does not, that is just silly.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
The government could not legislate to give the opposition no rights at all,
what a stupid staetement. It would never actually happen and is probably
unlawful. Would you like them to try to do that, eh?
Parliament can agree to a lot of things - on this it is not desirable
to to pass legislation that does not have broad agreement from
Opposition parties - what part of that do yu not understand?
Everything, you are wrong. They cannot "legislate to give the Opposition no
rights at all". That is what you wrote and that is wrong, they cannot do that,
why would you want that? I think I know why. YUour true motives are showing.
In the context of the discussion about enabling parliament to have a
meeting of all MPs during Level 4 Covid lockdown, the government
technically had the ability to enable that - Judith Collins has
implied that if Ardern wanted that she could have made that decision -
but as I pointed out Labour would not do that. You really are being
very silly.
No Rich YOU are being stupid! Silly doesn't describe you. The government had a committee set up during the first lock down that worked well even though you and the idiotic media harassed Bridges for driving down from Tauranga every week. The why that they didn't do it this time speaks volumes to all except fucking Labour loving imbeciles like you Rich and no lies or in fact pointless rhetoric from you will change that!
As far as I am aware Committees of Parliament are able to continue to
meet virtually over the internet, JohnBowes - it is just Parliament
meeting as a whole that Collins doesn't want to use Zoom. It is easy
to see why she doesn;t want to drive from Auckland each week as well -
that didn't go well for Simon Bridges, did it. You may think that
Collins is not doing very well at present, but she is not totally
stupid as you seem to think.
John Bowes
2021-09-02 22:38:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 1 Sep 2021 21:21:49 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 01 Sep 2021 22:18:20 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 01 Sep 2021 19:17:55 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
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
net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Even yer Eton 'n Oxford toff has moved on from 1349.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/virtual-parliament-uk/2020/04/21/373ccf08-83d1-11ea-81a3-9690c9881111_story.html
"I am enormously grateful to many who are as traditionalist as
I
am
who
have
accepted these constraints.鈥? - (Leader of the House of
Commons,
Lord
President of the Council, and hard-right AfD wonk, Jacob
Rees-Mogg.)
And why not here?
Simply because the parliament of this country has yet to agree
that
democracy
by "zoom" is OK.And until they do we need to be very careful to
ensure
our
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 is
that
the
quality of debate might also be reduced, as there is less
opportunity
for
spontaneity or intervention, which can be important ways through
which
details
are teased out and ministers held to account. Hybrid proceedings
as
under
the
current system in the UK Commons offer a middle ground . You'll be
familiar
with these; if not, there are online descriptions worth a look.
Overall,
then,
I'd have thought that since the upholding of the democratic
process
is
the
primary requirement, the hybrid arrangement would be amenable to
all
concerned
during the current crisis.
As I suggested, I am not opposed to such measures but they must be
agreed
by
the house at some stage before iimplementation which is one of the
reasons
I
am
opposed to such a deal at this time.
The process must be robust and we should look at best overseas
practice
of
course.
But let us not rush into it - yes I know you are not saying that
but
some
are.
By all means lets not rush it. The Washington Post article posted by
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
you
think
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
matter
is appropriate for that person. Until and unless someone with knowledge
can
advise.
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
the
void.
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/covid-politics-parliament-and-accountability-1
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/parliamentary-rules/standing-orders-2020-by-chapter/
And this article covering the reason why Parliament did not meet by
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300394240/covid19-nz-parliament-to-sit-this-week-after-national-and-act-reject-virtual-option
"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
agree.
Ardern said she was disappointed that option had been rejected by the
Opposition.
“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 don’t 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.”
Just rhetoric.
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 . . .
Collins' first priority is as leader of the opposition to keep the government
honest. No other priority is as high. I am staggered that anybody would not
understand that.
It makes her refusal to agree to meetings where the Opposition could
probe more into the work of other Ministers even more
incomprehensible.
No it does not, that is just silly.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
The government could not legislate to give the opposition no rights at all,
what a stupid staetement. It would never actually happen and is probably
unlawful. Would you like them to try to do that, eh?
Parliament can agree to a lot of things - on this it is not desirable
to to pass legislation that does not have broad agreement from
Opposition parties - what part of that do yu not understand?
Everything, you are wrong. They cannot "legislate to give the Opposition no
rights at all". That is what you wrote and that is wrong, they cannot do that,
why would you want that? I think I know why. YUour true motives are showing.
In the context of the discussion about enabling parliament to have a
meeting of all MPs during Level 4 Covid lockdown, the government
technically had the ability to enable that - Judith Collins has
implied that if Ardern wanted that she could have made that decision -
but as I pointed out Labour would not do that. You really are being
very silly.
No Rich YOU are being stupid! Silly doesn't describe you. The government had a committee set up during the first lock down that worked well even though you and the idiotic media harassed Bridges for driving down from Tauranga every week. The why that they didn't do it this time speaks volumes to all except fucking Labour loving imbeciles like you Rich and no lies or in fact pointless rhetoric from you will change that!
As far as I am aware Committees of Parliament are able to continue to
meet virtually over the internet, JohnBowes - it is just Parliament
meeting as a whole that Collins doesn't want to use Zoom. It is easy
to see why she doesn;t want to drive from Auckland each week as well -
that didn't go well for Simon Bridges, did it. You may think that
Collins is not doing very well at present, but she is not totally
stupid as you seem to think.
As usual your lack of comprehension is writ large Rich! So typical of you that you missed the point and covered up another failure of your totalitarian government!
Tony
2021-09-02 04:51:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 01 Sep 2021 22:18:20 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 01 Sep 2021 19:17:55 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
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 net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Even yer Eton 'n Oxford toff has moved on from 1349.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/virtual-parliament-uk/2020/04/21/373ccf08-83d1-11ea-81a3-9690c9881111_story.html
"I am enormously grateful to many who are as traditionalist
as
I
am
who
have
accepted these constraints.鈥? - (Leader of the House of
Commons,
Lord
President of the Council, and hard-right AfD wonk, Jacob
Rees-Mogg.)
And why not here?
Simply because the parliament of this country has yet to agree
that
democracy
by "zoom" is OK.And until they do we need to be very careful to
ensure
our
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
is
that
the
quality of debate might also be reduced, as there is less
opportunity
for
spontaneity or intervention, which can be important ways through
which
details
are teased out and ministers held to account. Hybrid proceedings
as
under
the
current system in the UK Commons offer a middle ground . You'll
be
familiar
with these; if not, there are online descriptions worth a look.
Overall,
then,
I'd have thought that since the upholding of the democratic
process
is
the
primary requirement, the hybrid arrangement would be amenable to
all
concerned
during the current crisis.
As I suggested, I am not opposed to such measures but they must be
agreed
by
the house at some stage before iimplementation which is one of the
reasons
I
am
opposed to such a deal at this time.
The process must be robust and we should look at best overseas
practice
of
course.
But let us not rush into it - yes I know you are not saying that
but
some
are.
By all means lets not rush it. The Washington Post article posted by
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
you
think
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 matter
is appropriate for that person. Until and unless someone with
knowledge
can
advise.
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
the
void.
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/covid-politics-parliament-and-accountability-1
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/parliamentary-rules/standing-orders-2020-by-chapter/
And this article covering the reason why Parliament did not meet by
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300394240/covid19-nz-parliament-to-sit-this-week-after-national-and-act-reject-virtual-option
"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
agree.
Ardern said she was disappointed that option had been rejected by the
Opposition.
“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 don’t 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.”
Just rhetoric.
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 . . .
Collins' first priority is as leader of the opposition to keep the government
honest. No other priority is as high. I am staggered that anybody would not
understand that.
It makes her refusal to agree to meetings where the Opposition could
probe more into the work of other Ministers even more
incomprehensible.
No it does not, that is just silly.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
The government could not legislate to give the opposition no rights at all,
what a stupid staetement. It would never actually happen and is probably
unlawful. Would you like them to try to do that, eh?
Parliament can agree to a lot of things - on this it is not desirable
to to pass legislation that does not have broad agreement from
Opposition parties - what part of that do yu not understand?
Everything, you are wrong. They cannot "legislate to give the Opposition no
rights at all". That is what you wrote and that is wrong, they cannot do that,
why would you want that? I think I know why. YUour true motives are showing.
In the context of the discussion about enabling parliament to have a
meeting of all MPs during Level 4 Covid lockdown, the government
technically had the ability to enable that - Judith Collins has
implied that if Ardern wanted that she could have made that decision -
but as I pointed out Labour would not do that. You really are being
very silly.
No, you wrote the government could "legislate to give the Opposition no rights
at all".
Sounds like an attempt at circumventing parliamantary process to me. I would
call it insurrection, is that what you want? Yes it looks like it. Won't happen
here though, your kind could never achieve it.
James Christophers
2021-09-02 05:33:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 01 Sep 2021 22:18:20 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 01 Sep 2021 19:17:55 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
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
net
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.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/virtual-parliament-uk/2020/04/21/373ccf08-83d1-11ea-81a3-9690c9881111_story.html
"I am enormously grateful to many who are as traditionalist
as
I
am
who
have
accepted these constraints.鈥? - (Leader of the House of
Commons,
Lord
President of the Council, and hard-right AfD wonk, Jacob
Rees-Mogg.)
And why not here?
Simply because the parliament of this country has yet to agree
that
democracy
by "zoom" is OK.And until they do we need to be very careful to
ensure
our
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
is
that
the
quality of debate might also be reduced, as there is less
opportunity
for
spontaneity or intervention, which can be important ways through
which
details
are teased out and ministers held to account. Hybrid proceedings
as
under
the
current system in the UK Commons offer a middle ground . You'll
be
familiar
with these; if not, there are online descriptions worth a look.
Overall,
then,
I'd have thought that since the upholding of the democratic
process
is
the
primary requirement, the hybrid arrangement would be amenable to
all
concerned
during the current crisis.
As I suggested, I am not opposed to such measures but they must
be
agreed
by
the house at some stage before iimplementation which is one of
the
reasons
I
am
opposed to such a deal at this time.
The process must be robust and we should look at best overseas
practice
of
course.
But let us not rush into it - yes I know you are not saying that
but
some
are.
By all means lets not rush it. The Washington Post article posted
by
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
you
think
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
matter
is appropriate for that person. Until and unless someone with
knowledge
can
advise.
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
the
void.
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/covid-politics-parliament-and-accountability-1
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/parliamentary-rules/standing-orders-2020-by-chapter/
And this article covering the reason why Parliament did not meet by
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300394240/covid19-nz-parliament-to-sit-this-week-after-national-and-act-reject-virtual-option
"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
agree.
Ardern said she was disappointed that option had been rejected by the
Opposition.
“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 don’t 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.”
Just rhetoric.
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 . . .
Collins' first priority is as leader of the opposition to keep the government
honest. No other priority is as high. I am staggered that anybody would not
understand that.
It makes her refusal to agree to meetings where the Opposition could
probe more into the work of other Ministers even more
incomprehensible.
No it does not, that is just silly.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
The government could not legislate to give the opposition no rights at all,
what a stupid staetement. It would never actually happen and is probably
unlawful. Would you like them to try to do that, eh?
Parliament can agree to a lot of things - on this it is not desirable
to to pass legislation that does not have broad agreement from
Opposition parties - what part of that do yu not understand?
Everything, you are wrong. They cannot "legislate to give the Opposition no
rights at all". That is what you wrote and that is wrong, they cannot do that,
why would you want that? I think I know why. YUour true motives are showing.
In the context of the discussion about enabling parliament to have a
meeting of all MPs during Level 4 Covid lockdown, the government
technically had the ability to enable that - Judith Collins has
implied that if Ardern wanted that she could have made that decision -
but as I pointed out Labour would not do that. You really are being
very silly.
No, you wrote the government could "legislate to give the Opposition no rights
at all".
Sounds like an attempt at circumventing parliamantary process to me. I would
call it insurrection
Un-mandated, it might well be treated as a usurpation of the constitutional powers vested in Parliament (think Cromwell). An insurrection, as such, would need to come from the opposer, in this instance Collins and her defeatist rump, but they would be too fearful of its consequences even to dare thinking of it. No worries there, then.
Post by Tony
...is that what you want? Yes it looks like it.
Nakedly begging the question by shooting wet blanks convinces no one but you.
Tony
2021-09-02 06:53:15 UTC
Permalink
James Christophers <***@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thursday, 2 September 2021 at 16:51:55 UTC+12, undefined wrote:
Snipped to comply with Rich's change in topic. You are welcome Rich.
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
The government could not legislate to give the opposition no rights at all,
what a stupid staetement. It would never actually happen and is probably
unlawful. Would you like them to try to do that, eh?
Parliament can agree to a lot of things - on this it is not desirable
to to pass legislation that does not have broad agreement from
Opposition parties - what part of that do yu not understand?
Everything, you are wrong. They cannot "legislate to give the Opposition no
rights at all". That is what you wrote and that is wrong, they cannot do that,
why would you want that? I think I know why. YUour true motives are showing.
In the context of the discussion about enabling parliament to have a
meeting of all MPs during Level 4 Covid lockdown, the government
technically had the ability to enable that - Judith Collins has
implied that if Ardern wanted that she could have made that decision -
but as I pointed out Labour would not do that. You really are being
very silly.
No, you wrote the government could "legislate to give the Opposition no rights
at all".
Sounds like an attempt at circumventing parliamantary process to me. I would
call it insurrection
Un-mandated, it might well be treated as a usurpation of the constitutional
powers vested in Parliament (think Cromwell). An insurrection, as such, would
need to come from the opposer, in this instance Collins and her defeatist rump,
but they would be too fearful of its consequences even to dare thinking of it.
No worries there, then.
Is there anything that gives you molre pleasure than showing off you,
overvalued but underperforming self worth?
You know what I meant, so give it a rest
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
...is that what you want? Yes it looks like it.
Nakedly begging the question by shooting wet blanks convinces no one but you.
I have never done that, is that what your problem is?
Rich80105
2021-09-02 08:31:03 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 01 Sep 2021 23:51:49 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 01 Sep 2021 22:18:20 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 01 Sep 2021 19:17:55 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
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
net
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.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/virtual-parliament-uk/2020/04/21/373ccf08-83d1-11ea-81a3-9690c9881111_story.html
"I am enormously grateful to many who are as traditionalist
as
I
am
who
have
accepted these constraints.鈥? - (Leader of the House of
Commons,
Lord
President of the Council, and hard-right AfD wonk, Jacob
Rees-Mogg.)
And why not here?
Simply because the parliament of this country has yet to agree
that
democracy
by "zoom" is OK.And until they do we need to be very careful to
ensure
our
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
is
that
the
quality of debate might also be reduced, as there is less
opportunity
for
spontaneity or intervention, which can be important ways through
which
details
are teased out and ministers held to account. Hybrid proceedings
as
under
the
current system in the UK Commons offer a middle ground . You'll
be
familiar
with these; if not, there are online descriptions worth a look.
Overall,
then,
I'd have thought that since the upholding of the democratic
process
is
the
primary requirement, the hybrid arrangement would be amenable to
all
concerned
during the current crisis.
As I suggested, I am not opposed to such measures but they must
be
agreed
by
the house at some stage before iimplementation which is one of
the
reasons
I
am
opposed to such a deal at this time.
The process must be robust and we should look at best overseas
practice
of
course.
But let us not rush into it - yes I know you are not saying that
but
some
are.
By all means lets not rush it. The Washington Post article posted
by
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
you
think
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
matter
is appropriate for that person. Until and unless someone with
knowledge
can
advise.
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
the
void.
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/covid-politics-parliament-and-accountability-1
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/parliamentary-rules/standing-orders-2020-by-chapter/
And this article covering the reason why Parliament did not meet by
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300394240/covid19-nz-parliament-to-sit-this-week-after-national-and-act-reject-virtual-option
"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
agree.
Ardern said she was disappointed that option had been rejected by the
Opposition.
“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 don’t 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.”
Just rhetoric.
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 . . .
Collins' first priority is as leader of the opposition to keep the government
honest. No other priority is as high. I am staggered that anybody would not
understand that.
It makes her refusal to agree to meetings where the Opposition could
probe more into the work of other Ministers even more
incomprehensible.
No it does not, that is just silly.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
The government could not legislate to give the opposition no rights at all,
what a stupid staetement. It would never actually happen and is probably
unlawful. Would you like them to try to do that, eh?
Parliament can agree to a lot of things - on this it is not desirable
to to pass legislation that does not have broad agreement from
Opposition parties - what part of that do yu not understand?
Everything, you are wrong. They cannot "legislate to give the Opposition no
rights at all". That is what you wrote and that is wrong, they cannot do that,
why would you want that? I think I know why. YUour true motives are showing.
In the context of the discussion about enabling parliament to have a
meeting of all MPs during Level 4 Covid lockdown, the government
technically had the ability to enable that - Judith Collins has
implied that if Ardern wanted that she could have made that decision -
but as I pointed out Labour would not do that. You really are being
very silly.
No, you wrote the government could "legislate to give the Opposition no rights
at all".
and then explained why they have not and would not do that - you and
your tail-gunner are just being plonkers . . .
Post by Tony
Sounds like an attempt at circumventing parliamantary process to me. I would
call it insurrection, is that what you want? Yes it looks like it. Won't happen
here though, your kind could never achieve it.
Tony
2021-09-02 20:42:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 01 Sep 2021 23:51:49 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Removed for brevity
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
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 . . .
Collins' first priority is as leader of the opposition to keep the government
honest. No other priority is as high. I am staggered that anybody would not
understand that.
It makes her refusal to agree to meetings where the Opposition could
probe more into the work of other Ministers even more
incomprehensible.
No it does not, that is just silly.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
The government could not legislate to give the opposition no rights at all,
what a stupid staetement. It would never actually happen and is probably
unlawful. Would you like them to try to do that, eh?
Parliament can agree to a lot of things - on this it is not desirable
to to pass legislation that does not have broad agreement from
Opposition parties - what part of that do yu not understand?
Everything, you are wrong. They cannot "legislate to give the Opposition no
rights at all". That is what you wrote and that is wrong, they cannot do that,
why would you want that? I think I know why. YUour true motives are showing.
In the context of the discussion about enabling parliament to have a
meeting of all MPs during Level 4 Covid lockdown, the government
technically had the ability to enable that - Judith Collins has
implied that if Ardern wanted that she could have made that decision -
but as I pointed out Labour would not do that. You really are being
very silly.
No, you wrote the government could "legislate to give the Opposition no rights
at all".
and then explained why they have not and would not do that - you and
your tail-gunner are just being plonkers . . .
Irrelevant, what you said was wrong and tantamount to a desire for this
government to remove the opposition What then ? Martial law? That's what you
said and that is what you meant. You are a disgrace and as I have said before
you don't actually care about New Zealanders at all.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Sounds like an attempt at circumventing parliamantary process to me. I would
call it insurrection, is that what you want? Yes it looks like it. Won't happen
here though, your kind could never achieve it.
John Bowes
2021-09-02 22:44:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 01 Sep 2021 23:51:49 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Removed for brevity
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
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 . . .
Collins' first priority is as leader of the opposition to keep the government
honest. No other priority is as high. I am staggered that anybody would not
understand that.
It makes her refusal to agree to meetings where the Opposition could
probe more into the work of other Ministers even more
incomprehensible.
No it does not, that is just silly.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
The government could not legislate to give the opposition no rights at all,
what a stupid staetement. It would never actually happen and is probably
unlawful. Would you like them to try to do that, eh?
Parliament can agree to a lot of things - on this it is not desirable
to to pass legislation that does not have broad agreement from
Opposition parties - what part of that do yu not understand?
Everything, you are wrong. They cannot "legislate to give the Opposition no
rights at all". That is what you wrote and that is wrong, they cannot do that,
why would you want that? I think I know why. YUour true motives are showing.
In the context of the discussion about enabling parliament to have a
meeting of all MPs during Level 4 Covid lockdown, the government
technically had the ability to enable that - Judith Collins has
implied that if Ardern wanted that she could have made that decision -
but as I pointed out Labour would not do that. You really are being
very silly.
No, you wrote the government could "legislate to give the Opposition no rights
at all".
and then explained why they have not and would not do that - you and
your tail-gunner are just being plonkers . . .
Irrelevant, what you said was wrong and tantamount to a desire for this
government to remove the opposition What then ? Martial law? That's what you
said and that is what you meant. You are a disgrace and as I have said before
you don't actually care about New Zealanders at all.
That would then be followed by a state of emergency and cancelation of free elections as has happened so many times in the past by totalitarian governments!
George Black
2021-09-03 00:46:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Bowes
Post by Tony
Irrelevant, what you said was wrong and tantamount to a desire for this
government to remove the opposition What then ? Martial law? That's what you
said and that is what you meant. You are a disgrace and as I have said before
you don't actually care about New Zealanders at all.
That would then be followed by a state of emergency and cancelation of free elections as has happened so many times in the past by totalitarian governments!
This is the communist way and rich is doing its masters biding...
And at some stage the population says "Enough" and liebor has 30 MPs
James Christophers
2021-09-03 02:22:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Black
Post by John Bowes
Post by Tony
Irrelevant, what you said was wrong and tantamount to a desire for this
government to remove the opposition What then ? Martial law? That's what you
said and that is what you meant. You are a disgrace and as I have said before
you don't actually care about New Zealanders at all.
That would then be followed by a state of emergency and cancelation of free elections as has happened so many times in the past by totalitarian governments!
This is the communist way and rich is doing its masters biding...
And at some stage the population says "Enough" and liebor has 30 MPs
That stage has already been and gone.

At the last election the population said "Way more than enough with this bunch of losers!"with the result that National ended up with only 10% MPs more than the disastrous total you fancifully suggest. This dismal failure to convince or impress is now set gruesomely before you for your morbid delectation and delight at every sitting of the House.

But cheer up, George - nothing lasts forever...
John Bowes
2021-09-03 03:09:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by George Black
Post by John Bowes
Post by Tony
Irrelevant, what you said was wrong and tantamount to a desire for this
government to remove the opposition What then ? Martial law? That's what you
said and that is what you meant. You are a disgrace and as I have said before
you don't actually care about New Zealanders at all.
That would then be followed by a state of emergency and cancelation of free elections as has happened so many times in the past by totalitarian governments!
This is the communist way and rich is doing its masters biding...
And at some stage the population says "Enough" and liebor has 30 MPs
That stage has already been and gone.
At the last election the population said "Way more than enough with this bunch of losers!"with the result that National ended up with only 10% MPs more than the disastrous total you fancifully suggest. This dismal failure to convince or impress is now set gruesomely before you for your morbid delectation and delight at every sitting of the House.
But cheer up, George - nothing lasts forever...
Not so Keith! Even Adern is smart enough to admit it was Covid that won that election for them!
James Christophers
2021-09-03 04:01:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Bowes
Post by James Christophers
Post by George Black
Post by John Bowes
Post by Tony
Irrelevant, what you said was wrong and tantamount to a desire for this
government to remove the opposition What then ? Martial law? That's what you
said and that is what you meant. You are a disgrace and as I have said before
you don't actually care about New Zealanders at all.
That would then be followed by a state of emergency and cancelation of free elections as has happened so many times in the past by totalitarian governments!
This is the communist way and rich is doing its masters biding...
And at some stage the population says "Enough" and liebor has 30 MPs
That stage has already been and gone.
At the last election the population said "Way more than enough with this bunch of losers!"with the result that National ended up with only 10% MPs more than the disastrous total you fancifully suggest. This dismal failure to convince or impress is now set gruesomely before you for your morbid delectation and delight at every sitting of the House.
But cheer up, George - nothing lasts forever...
Not so Keith! Even Adern is smart enough to admit it was Covid that won that election for them!
So she may have but that had to do with the nation not wishing - and wisely - then to change horses in midstream. It was leaking, infighting National in all their shameful self-demeaning disarray that was the nail in their coffin, with the always self-serving Key and Goodfellow together being the party's Achille's heel and so, inevitably, its ultimate undoing. Key himself despises the National Party for its cloddish naivety and grovelling obeisance in having selected as its leader the chancer he knows he is and revels in with such relish. He despised them for their hosting him and promoting him in his upward **personal** progress, and he despises them even more today for their current condition that he, thorough his own in-office derelictions, had done nothing to avert, only promote - calculating, slither-tongued spiv that he is and has always been.
Rich80105
2021-09-03 00:50:08 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 15:44:09 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 01 Sep 2021 23:51:49 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Removed for brevity
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
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 . . .
Collins' first priority is as leader of the opposition to keep the government
honest. No other priority is as high. I am staggered that anybody would not
understand that.
It makes her refusal to agree to meetings where the Opposition could
probe more into the work of other Ministers even more
incomprehensible.
No it does not, that is just silly.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
The government could not legislate to give the opposition no rights at all,
what a stupid staetement. It would never actually happen and is probably
unlawful. Would you like them to try to do that, eh?
Parliament can agree to a lot of things - on this it is not desirable
to to pass legislation that does not have broad agreement from
Opposition parties - what part of that do yu not understand?
Everything, you are wrong. They cannot "legislate to give the Opposition no
rights at all". That is what you wrote and that is wrong, they cannot do that,
why would you want that? I think I know why. YUour true motives are showing.
In the context of the discussion about enabling parliament to have a
meeting of all MPs during Level 4 Covid lockdown, the government
technically had the ability to enable that - Judith Collins has
implied that if Ardern wanted that she could have made that decision -
but as I pointed out Labour would not do that. You really are being
very silly.
No, you wrote the government could "legislate to give the Opposition no rights
at all".
and then explained why they have not and would not do that - you and
your tail-gunner are just being plonkers . . .
Irrelevant, what you said was wrong and tantamount to a desire for this
government to remove the opposition What then ? Martial law? That's what you
said and that is what you meant. You are a disgrace and as I have said before
you don't actually care about New Zealanders at all.
That would then be followed by a state of emergency and cancelation of free elections as has happened so many times in the past by totalitarian governments!
Although calling an early election did not go well for Muldoon - can
you recall any government cancelling elections in New Zeaaland without
support of all parties?
John Bowes
2021-09-03 03:08:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 15:44:09 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 01 Sep 2021 23:51:49 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Removed for brevity
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
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 . . .
Collins' first priority is as leader of the opposition to keep the
government
honest. No other priority is as high. I am staggered that anybody would
not
understand that.
It makes her refusal to agree to meetings where the Opposition could
probe more into the work of other Ministers even more
incomprehensible.
No it does not, that is just silly.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
The government could not legislate to give the opposition no rights at
all,
what a stupid staetement. It would never actually happen and is probably
unlawful. Would you like them to try to do that, eh?
Parliament can agree to a lot of things - on this it is not desirable
to to pass legislation that does not have broad agreement from
Opposition parties - what part of that do yu not understand?
Everything, you are wrong. They cannot "legislate to give the Opposition no
rights at all". That is what you wrote and that is wrong, they cannot do
that,
why would you want that? I think I know why. YUour true motives are showing.
In the context of the discussion about enabling parliament to have a
meeting of all MPs during Level 4 Covid lockdown, the government
technically had the ability to enable that - Judith Collins has
implied that if Ardern wanted that she could have made that decision -
but as I pointed out Labour would not do that. You really are being
very silly.
No, you wrote the government could "legislate to give the Opposition no rights
at all".
and then explained why they have not and would not do that - you and
your tail-gunner are just being plonkers . . .
Irrelevant, what you said was wrong and tantamount to a desire for this
government to remove the opposition What then ? Martial law? That's what you
said and that is what you meant. You are a disgrace and as I have said before
you don't actually care about New Zealanders at all.
That would then be followed by a state of emergency and cancelation of free elections as has happened so many times in the past by totalitarian governments!
Although calling an early election did not go well for Muldoon - can
you recall any government cancelling elections in New Zeaaland without
support of all parties?
First time for everything Rich! After all Labour lost in 2017 and had to suck up to Winston (not hard to do to the bauble seeking bastard!) to become government! So it seems Ardern's pretty desperate to have the job she's never had to work for :)
John Bowes
2021-09-03 00:16:42 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 02 Sep 2021 15:42:14 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 01 Sep 2021 23:51:49 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Removed for brevity
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
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 . . .
Collins' first priority is as leader of the opposition to keep the government
honest. No other priority is as high. I am staggered that anybody would not
understand that.
It makes her refusal to agree to meetings where the Opposition could
probe more into the work of other Ministers even more
incomprehensible.
No it does not, that is just silly.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
The government could not legislate to give the opposition no rights at all,
what a stupid staetement. It would never actually happen and is probably
unlawful. Would you like them to try to do that, eh?
Parliament can agree to a lot of things - on this it is not desirable
to to pass legislation that does not have broad agreement from
Opposition parties - what part of that do yu not understand?
Everything, you are wrong. They cannot "legislate to give the Opposition no
rights at all". That is what you wrote and that is wrong, they cannot do that,
why would you want that? I think I know why. YUour true motives are showing.
In the context of the discussion about enabling parliament to have a
meeting of all MPs during Level 4 Covid lockdown, the government
technically had the ability to enable that - Judith Collins has
implied that if Ardern wanted that she could have made that decision -
but as I pointed out Labour would not do that. You really are being
very silly.
No, you wrote the government could "legislate to give the Opposition no rights
at all".
and then explained why they have not and would not do that - you and
your tail-gunner are just being plonkers . . .
Irrelevant, what you said was wrong and tantamount to a desire for this
government to remove the opposition What then ? Martial law? That's what you
said and that is what you meant. You are a disgrace and as I have said before
you don't actually care about New Zealanders at all.
Tony, you technically have the ability to ignore the laws of our
country and commit murder, incite revolution, indulge in corrupt
practices and mis-read every post to nz.general. That you do not do
all of these things is credit to you for a bit of common-sense, and an
awareness of consequences. Do you deny that you are technically
capable of committing a criminal offence?
BULLSHIT! You have however described yourself perfectly Rich! Plus pretty much the government you blindly support :)
Tony
2021-09-03 00:36:07 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 02 Sep 2021 15:42:14 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 01 Sep 2021 23:51:49 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Removed for brevity
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
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 . . .
Collins' first priority is as leader of the opposition to keep the government
honest. No other priority is as high. I am staggered that anybody would not
understand that.
It makes her refusal to agree to meetings where the Opposition could
probe more into the work of other Ministers even more
incomprehensible.
No it does not, that is just silly.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
The government could not legislate to give the opposition no rights at all,
what a stupid staetement. It would never actually happen and is probably
unlawful. Would you like them to try to do that, eh?
Parliament can agree to a lot of things - on this it is not desirable
to to pass legislation that does not have broad agreement from
Opposition parties - what part of that do yu not understand?
Everything, you are wrong. They cannot "legislate to give the Opposition no
rights at all". That is what you wrote and that is wrong, they cannot do that,
why would you want that? I think I know why. YUour true motives are showing.
In the context of the discussion about enabling parliament to have a
meeting of all MPs during Level 4 Covid lockdown, the government
technically had the ability to enable that - Judith Collins has
implied that if Ardern wanted that she could have made that decision -
but as I pointed out Labour would not do that. You really are being
very silly.
No, you wrote the government could "legislate to give the Opposition no rights
at all".
and then explained why they have not and would not do that - you and
your tail-gunner are just being plonkers . . .
Irrelevant, what you said was wrong and tantamount to a desire for this
government to remove the opposition What then ? Martial law? That's what you
said and that is what you meant. You are a disgrace and as I have said before
you don't actually care about New Zealanders at all.
Tony, you technically have the ability to ignore the laws of our
country and commit murder, incite revolution, indulge in corrupt
practices and mis-read every post to nz.general. That you do not do
all of these things is credit to you for a bit of common-sense, and an
awareness of consequences. Do you deny that you are technically
capable of committing a criminal offence?
What irrelevant nonsense, you really do need that appointment, do go and see
the specialist.
What you wrote was wrong and if implemented would be unlawful.
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
Sounds like an attempt at circumventing parliamantary process to me. I would
call it insurrection, is that what you want? Yes it looks like it. Won't happen
here though, your kind could never achieve it.
George Black
2021-09-02 19:51:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony
No, you wrote the government could "legislate to give the Opposition no rights
at all".
Sounds like an attempt at circumventing parliamantary process to me. I would
call it insurrection, is that what you want? Yes it looks like it. Won't happen
here though, your kind could never achieve it.
I wonder if he and his minions have worked out what repercussions follow
such an act.
One victim escapes goes home and half the police force is out there
chasing him.
What do they do if every-one 'detained' gets pissed off and goes home ???
And the parliamentarians who would deny an opposition their inalienable
rights ??
Where are they going to hide for the rest of their lives ??
Rich80105
2021-09-02 20:27:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Black
Post by Tony
No, you wrote the government could "legislate to give the Opposition no rights
at all".
Sounds like an attempt at circumventing parliamantary process to me. I would
call it insurrection, is that what you want? Yes it looks like it. Won't happen
here though, your kind could never achieve it.
I wonder if he and his minions have worked out what repercussions follow
such an act.
One victim escapes goes home and half the police force is out there
chasing him.
What do they do if every-one 'detained' gets pissed off and goes home ???
And the parliamentarians who would deny an opposition their inalienable
rights ??
Where are they going to hide for the rest of their lives ??
I agree that the actions of Judith Collins and David Seymour in
denying the ability of all the Opposition to questions all the
government was somewhat surprising, but if they had no questions to
ask we wil just have to draw our own conclusions - action (or in this
case lack of action) is in this case in the hands of the National and
ACT MPs who were denied that ability; certainly the Government were
wiling to be questioned. The ultimate judgement may however be given
at the next election.
Tony
2021-09-02 20:38:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by George Black
Post by Tony
No, you wrote the government could "legislate to give the Opposition no rights
at all".
Sounds like an attempt at circumventing parliamantary process to me. I would
call it insurrection, is that what you want? Yes it looks like it. Won't happen
here though, your kind could never achieve it.
I wonder if he and his minions have worked out what repercussions follow
such an act.
One victim escapes goes home and half the police force is out there
chasing him.
What do they do if every-one 'detained' gets pissed off and goes home ???
And the parliamentarians who would deny an opposition their inalienable
rights ??
Where are they going to hide for the rest of their lives ??
I agree that the actions of Judith Collins and David Seymour in
denying the ability of all the Opposition to questions all the
government was somewhat surprising, but if they had no questions to
ask we wil just have to draw our own conclusions - action (or in this
case lack of action) is in this case in the hands of the National and
ACT MPs who were denied that ability; certainly the Government were
wiling to be questioned. The ultimate judgement may however be given
at the next election.
You love to deliberately misconstrue what others write, similar habit to your
love of sarcastic abuse.
John Bowes
2021-09-02 22:41:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by George Black
Post by Tony
No, you wrote the government could "legislate to give the Opposition no rights
at all".
Sounds like an attempt at circumventing parliamantary process to me. I would
call it insurrection, is that what you want? Yes it looks like it. Won't happen
here though, your kind could never achieve it.
I wonder if he and his minions have worked out what repercussions follow
such an act.
One victim escapes goes home and half the police force is out there
chasing him.
What do they do if every-one 'detained' gets pissed off and goes home ???
And the parliamentarians who would deny an opposition their inalienable
rights ??
Where are they going to hide for the rest of their lives ??
I agree that the actions of Judith Collins and David Seymour in
denying the ability of all the Opposition to questions all the
government was somewhat surprising, but if they had no questions to
ask we wil just have to draw our own conclusions - action (or in this
case lack of action) is in this case in the hands of the National and
ACT MPs who were denied that ability; certainly the Government were
wiling to be questioned. The ultimate judgement may however be given
at the next election.
So please fail to explain how Collins and Seymour denied the Green and Maori party anything? The party's decided not to attend you fucking imbecile!
Rich80105
2021-09-03 00:48:18 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 15:41:04 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
Post by George Black
Post by Tony
No, you wrote the government could "legislate to give the Opposition no rights
at all".
Sounds like an attempt at circumventing parliamantary process to me. I would
call it insurrection, is that what you want? Yes it looks like it. Won't happen
here though, your kind could never achieve it.
I wonder if he and his minions have worked out what repercussions follow
such an act.
One victim escapes goes home and half the police force is out there
chasing him.
What do they do if every-one 'detained' gets pissed off and goes home ???
And the parliamentarians who would deny an opposition their inalienable
rights ??
Where are they going to hide for the rest of their lives ??
I agree that the actions of Judith Collins and David Seymour in
denying the ability of all the Opposition to questions all the
government was somewhat surprising, but if they had no questions to
ask we wil just have to draw our own conclusions - action (or in this
case lack of action) is in this case in the hands of the National and
ACT MPs who were denied that ability; certainly the Government were
wiling to be questioned. The ultimate judgement may however be given
at the next election.
So please fail to explain how Collins and Seymour denied the Green and Maori party anything? The party's decided not to attend you fucking imbecile!
They denied them the opportunity to participate in a meeting of
Paliament! The requirements of Level 4 and now level 3 lockdown meant
tha only a small number of MPS were able to be present in the chamber
at any one time, even though I believe both Labour and National did
have some leave so that others could enter and participate - even that
process would have required some management to ensure the safety of
both MPs and staff. Labour had no option but to attend - National
were clearly hoping that the government would refuse to meet so they
could (wrongly) claim "ATTACK ON DEMOCRACY," but the government had
enough MPs and relevant Ministers in Wellington to enable them to
meet, subject of course to those strict requirements to minimise covid
risk. You were probably hoping they would attend so you could claim
that they were hypocritical in criticising National and ACT; and you
would have also argued about about the number of MPS allowed from the
smaller parties . . .

As it happens, th ose parties have I suspected benefitted by the
majority of New Zealanders seeing that they acted on principle, that
they demonstrated concern for the health of our nation, and that they
separated themselves from the unkind, uncaring National and ACT
parties. By giving Judith Collins perhaps a little more time than wold
have otherwise be the case, the Green Party, Maori Party and Labour
may well anticipate an increase in policital support as Collins loses
credibility.

Look for yourself here:
https://ondemand.parliament.nz/parliament-tv-on-demand
John Bowes
2021-09-03 03:06:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 2 Sep 2021 15:41:04 -0700 (PDT), John Bowes
Post by John Bowes
Post by Rich80105
Post by George Black
Post by Tony
No, you wrote the government could "legislate to give the Opposition no rights
at all".
Sounds like an attempt at circumventing parliamantary process to me. I would
call it insurrection, is that what you want? Yes it looks like it. Won't happen
here though, your kind could never achieve it.
I wonder if he and his minions have worked out what repercussions follow
such an act.
One victim escapes goes home and half the police force is out there
chasing him.
What do they do if every-one 'detained' gets pissed off and goes home ???
And the parliamentarians who would deny an opposition their inalienable
rights ??
Where are they going to hide for the rest of their lives ??
I agree that the actions of Judith Collins and David Seymour in
denying the ability of all the Opposition to questions all the
government was somewhat surprising, but if they had no questions to
ask we wil just have to draw our own conclusions - action (or in this
case lack of action) is in this case in the hands of the National and
ACT MPs who were denied that ability; certainly the Government were
wiling to be questioned. The ultimate judgement may however be given
at the next election.
So please fail to explain how Collins and Seymour denied the Green and Maori party anything? The party's decided not to attend you fucking imbecile!
They denied them the opportunity to participate in a meeting of
Paliament! The requirements of Level 4 and now level 3 lockdown meant
tha only a small number of MPS were able to be present in the chamber
at any one time, even though I believe both Labour and National did
have some leave so that others could enter and participate - even that
process would have required some management to ensure the safety of
both MPs and staff. Labour had no option but to attend - National
were clearly hoping that the government would refuse to meet so they
could (wrongly) claim "ATTACK ON DEMOCRACY," but the government had
enough MPs and relevant Ministers in Wellington to enable them to
meet, subject of course to those strict requirements to minimise covid
risk. You were probably hoping they would attend so you could claim
that they were hypocritical in criticising National and ACT; and you
would have also argued about about the number of MPS allowed from the
smaller parties . . .
As it happens, th ose parties have I suspected benefitted by the
majority of New Zealanders seeing that they acted on principle, that
they demonstrated concern for the health of our nation, and that they
separated themselves from the unkind, uncaring National and ACT
parties. By giving Judith Collins perhaps a little more time than wold
have otherwise be the case, the Green Party, Maori Party and Labour
may well anticipate an increase in policital support as Collins loses
credibility.
No Rich try this! https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300394706/covid19-nz-mori-party-boycott-inperson-parliament-under-lockdown-express-fury-at-national-and-act-for-rejecting-virtual-option
It was the choice of the two party's to stay away! National and ACT had nothing to do with it you slimy fucking imbecile!
Post by Rich80105
https://ondemand.parliament.nz/parliament-tv-on-demand
Yet another half arsed cite from you Rich. You lied and you fucking well know it!
Gordon
2021-09-02 05:11:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Wed, 01 Sep 2021 19:17:55 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Collins' first priority is as leader of the opposition to keep the government
honest. No other priority is as high. I am staggered that anybody would not
understand that.
It makes her refusal to agree to meetings where the Opposition could
probe more into the work of other Ministers even more
incomprehensible.
In the real world, there are more often than not several points which one
needs to keep in mind.

Jacinda and Judith are having a political spat, a grandstanding
session, as much as doing the job. Remember this is politics we are
talking about.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
The government could not legislate to give the opposition no rights at all,
what a stupid staetement. It would never actually happen and is probably
unlawful. Would you like them to try to do that, eh?
Parliament can agree to a lot of things - on this it is not desirable
to to pass legislation that does not have broad agreement from
Opposition parties - what part of that do yu not understand?
When the heck did Parliament agree on anything? Ah yes, giving themselves a
rise in pay.

I would hope that if the Government was to change the rules of democray that
the back lash would be so swift that the U-turn would be quicker. There is a
process and it should still be followed as much as is possible with Covid
being present. While any Government would like the opposition to vanish they
realise it is not going to happen and probably have in mind boots bein on
the foot.

Parliament is a place of work, so they need to get something sorted as to
how to work in the prsent conditions. Just like every other business in A/NZ
does.
John Bowes
2021-09-02 00:39:37 UTC
Permalink
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 net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Even yer Eton 'n Oxford toff has moved on from 1349.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/virtual-parliament-uk/2020/04/21/373ccf08-83d1-11ea-81a3-9690c9881111_story.html
"I am enormously grateful to many who are as traditionalist as I am
who
have
accepted these constraints.鈥? - (Leader of the House of Commons,
Lord
President of the Council, and hard-right AfD wonk, Jacob
Rees-Mogg.)
And why not here?
Simply because the parliament of this country has yet to agree that
democracy
by "zoom" is OK.And until they do we need to be very careful to ensure
our
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 is
that
the
quality of debate might also be reduced, as there is less opportunity
for
spontaneity or intervention, which can be important ways through which
details
are teased out and ministers held to account. Hybrid proceedings as
under
the
current system in the UK Commons offer a middle ground . You'll be
familiar
with these; if not, there are online descriptions worth a look.
Overall,
then,
I'd have thought that since the upholding of the democratic process is
the
primary requirement, the hybrid arrangement would be amenable to all
concerned
during the current crisis.
As I suggested, I am not opposed to such measures but they must be
agreed
by
the house at some stage before iimplementation which is one of the
reasons
I
am
opposed to such a deal at this time.
The process must be robust and we should look at best overseas practice
of
course.
But let us not rush into it - yes I know you are not saying that but
some
are.
By all means lets not rush it. The Washington Post article posted by
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 you think
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 matter
is appropriate for that person. Until and unless someone with knowledge can
advise.
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 the
void.
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/covid-politics-parliament-and-accountability-1
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/parliamentary-rules/standing-orders-2020-by-chapter/
And this article covering the reason why Parliament did not meet by
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300394240/covid19-nz-parliament-to-sit-this-week-after-national-and-act-reject-virtual-option
"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
agree.
Ardern said she was disappointed that option had been rejected by the
Opposition.
“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 don’t 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.”
Just rhetoric.
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 . . .
But he isn't yet even though he shows more promise than Ardern ever did in the leadup to Winston crowning her!
Post by Rich80105
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.
The media will keep on trashing National at every chance Rich. They want to turn NZ into another socialist cess pit like Venezuela, North Korea and China.
Post by Rich80105
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 . . .
Wrong! She puts NZ first not the chance of another photo op like your saint Ardern of the lying tongue Rich!
James Christophers
2021-09-02 02:24:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Bowes
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 Tony
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 31 Aug 2021 19:42:04 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Post by James Christophers
Post by Tony
Even yer Eton 'n Oxford toff has moved on from 1349.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/virtual-parliament-uk/2020/04/21/373ccf08-83d1-11ea-81a3-9690c9881111_story.html
"I am enormously grateful to many who are as traditionalist as I am
who
have
accepted these constraints.鈥? - (Leader of the House of Commons,
Lord
President of the Council, and hard-right AfD wonk, Jacob
Rees-Mogg.)
And why not here?
Simply because the parliament of this country has yet to agree that
democracy
by "zoom" is OK.And until they do we need to be very careful to ensure
our
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 is
that
the
quality of debate might also be reduced, as there is less opportunity
for
spontaneity or intervention, which can be important ways through which
details
are teased out and ministers held to account. Hybrid proceedings as
under
the
current system in the UK Commons offer a middle ground . You'll be
familiar
with these; if not, there are online descriptions worth a look.
Overall,
then,
I'd have thought that since the upholding of the democratic process is
the
primary requirement, the hybrid arrangement would be amenable to all
concerned
during the current crisis.
As I suggested, I am not opposed to such measures but they must be
agreed
by
the house at some stage before iimplementation which is one of the
reasons
I
am
opposed to such a deal at this time.
The process must be robust and we should look at best overseas practice
of
course.
But let us not rush into it - yes I know you are not saying that but
some
are.
By all means lets not rush it. The Washington Post article posted by
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 you
think
the PM should mandate it?
If that's what it takes, yes, provided standing orders permit. > > 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.
The media will keep on trashing National at every chance Rich. They want to turn NZ into another socialist cess pit like Venezuela, North Korea and China.
Post by Rich80105
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
Post by Tony
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
Post by Tony
But do they?
And if any particular person does not know then perhaps silence on the matter
is appropriate for that person. Until and unless someone with knowledge can
advise.
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 the
void.
https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/covid-politics-parliament-and-accountability-1
https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/parliamentary-rules/standing-orders-2020-by-chapter/
And this article covering the reason why Parliament did not meet by
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300394240/covid19-nz-parliament-to-sit-this-week-after-national-and-act-reject-virtual-option
"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
agree.
Ardern said she was disappointed that option had been rejected by the
Opposition.
“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 don’t 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.”
Just rhetoric.
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 . . .
But he isn't yet even though he shows more promise than Ardern ever did in the leadup to Winston crowning her!
Ardern's promise was evident to those that mattered at the time it mattered. "When preparedness meets opportunity" - one of the unassailable truisms that runs throughout history.
Rich80105
2021-09-01 00:46:25 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 31 Aug 2021 17:14:05 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Even yer Eton 'n Oxford toff has moved on from 1349.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/virtual-parliament-uk/2020/04/21/373ccf08-83d1-11ea-81a3-9690c9881111_story.html
"I am enormously grateful to many who are as traditionalist as I am who have
accepted these constraints.� - (Leader of the House of Commons, Lord
President of the Council, and hard-right AfD wonk, Jacob Rees-Mogg.)
And why not here?
Simply because the parliament of this country has yet to agree that democracy
by "zoom" is OK. And until they do we need to be very careful to ensure our
democratic system is secure. Unlike Rich I care about democracy.
Absolutely, Tony! That is why some Ministers were avaialble in the
House yesterday, and will be today. So who is standing in the way of
the good British example? Would you be happy with a vote of all MPs? -
under Level 3 that could be done in writing or electronically.

Clearly it is unsatifactory for a minority party to frustrate the will
of parliament and the people to have MPs able to address questions to
all Ministers and properly fulfil their duty as an effective and
constructive opposition. What do you see as the way forward, Tony?
Gordon
2021-09-01 02:29:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 31 Aug 2021 17:14:05 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Even yer Eton 'n Oxford toff has moved on from 1349.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/virtual-parliament-uk/2020/04/21/373ccf08-83d1-11ea-81a3-9690c9881111_story.html
"I am enormously grateful to many who are as traditionalist as I am who have
accepted these constraints.� - (Leader of the House of Commons, Lord
President of the Council, and hard-right AfD wonk, Jacob Rees-Mogg.)
And why not here?
Simply because the parliament of this country has yet to agree that democracy
by "zoom" is OK. And until they do we need to be very careful to ensure our
democratic system is secure. Unlike Rich I care about democracy.
Absolutely, Tony!
Gosh Rich agrees with Tony! Well done chaps.
Post by Rich80105
That is why some Ministers were avaialble in the
House yesterday, and will be today. So who is standing in the way of
the good British example? Would you be happy with a vote of all MPs? -
under Level 3 that could be done in writing or electronically.
Clearly it is unsatifactory for a minority party to frustrate the will
of parliament and the people to have MPs able to address questions to
all Ministers and properly fulfil their duty as an effective and
constructive opposition. What do you see as the way forward, Tony?
The Government has been very quick to forward any hard issues to a
committee, let it be so with this issue.

The way it works is that the voters have elected the MPs to the House to
Govern. How they do this is up to them. So, it is up to them to sort out how
to do it under the various lockdown levels. They should act as if the votes
for them depend on this.
Tony
2021-09-01 02:46:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 31 Aug 2021 17:14:05 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Even yer Eton 'n Oxford toff has moved on from 1349.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/virtual-parliament-uk/2020/04/21/373ccf08-83d1-11ea-81a3-9690c9881111_story.html
"I am enormously grateful to many who are as traditionalist as I am who have
accepted these constraints.� - (Leader of the House of Commons, Lord
President of the Council, and hard-right AfD wonk, Jacob Rees-Mogg.)
And why not here?
Simply because the parliament of this country has yet to agree that democracy
by "zoom" is OK. And until they do we need to be very careful to ensure our
democratic system is secure. Unlike Rich I care about democracy.
Absolutely, Tony!
Gosh Rich agrees with Tony! Well done chaps.
Post by Rich80105
That is why some Ministers were avaialble in the
House yesterday, and will be today. So who is standing in the way of
the good British example? Would you be happy with a vote of all MPs? -
under Level 3 that could be done in writing or electronically.
Clearly it is unsatifactory for a minority party to frustrate the will
of parliament and the people to have MPs able to address questions to
all Ministers and properly fulfil their duty as an effective and
constructive opposition. What do you see as the way forward, Tony?
The Government has been very quick to forward any hard issues to a
committee, let it be so with this issue.
The way it works is that the voters have elected the MPs to the House to
Govern. How they do this is up to them. So, it is up to them to sort out how
to do it under the various lockdown levels. They should act as if the votes
for them depend on this.
No Gordon it is not up to them. There standing orders and such and they do not
get tampered with lightly - this could be a way into anarchy.
John Bowes
2021-09-01 04:45:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gordon
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 31 Aug 2021 17:14:05 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Even yer Eton 'n Oxford toff has moved on from 1349.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/virtual-parliament-uk/2020/04/21/373ccf08-83d1-11ea-81a3-9690c9881111_story.html
"I am enormously grateful to many who are as traditionalist as I am who have
accepted these constraints.� - (Leader of the House of Commons, Lord
President of the Council, and hard-right AfD wonk, Jacob Rees-Mogg.)
And why not here?
Simply because the parliament of this country has yet to agree that democracy
by "zoom" is OK. And until they do we need to be very careful to ensure our
democratic system is secure. Unlike Rich I care about democracy.
Absolutely, Tony!
Gosh Rich agrees with Tony! Well done chaps.
Remember Rich is a compulsive serial liar Gordon :)
Post by Gordon
Post by Rich80105
That is why some Ministers were avaialble in the
House yesterday, and will be today. So who is standing in the way of
the good British example? Would you be happy with a vote of all MPs? -
under Level 3 that could be done in writing or electronically.
Clearly it is unsatifactory for a minority party to frustrate the will
of parliament and the people to have MPs able to address questions to
all Ministers and properly fulfil their duty as an effective and
constructive opposition. What do you see as the way forward, Tony?
The Government has been very quick to forward any hard issues to a
committee, let it be so with this issue.
You've got to wonder why they didn't resurrect the committee from the first lock down....
Post by Gordon
The way it works is that the voters have elected the MPs to the House to
Govern. How they do this is up to them. So, it is up to them to sort out how
to do it under the various lockdown levels. They should act as if the votes
for them depend on this.
They probably do mate and it's not looking good for Rich and his glorious leader or her party :)
Tony
2021-09-01 02:45:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 31 Aug 2021 17:14:05 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
Post by Tony
Even yer Eton 'n Oxford toff has moved on from 1349.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/virtual-parliament-uk/2020/04/21/373ccf08-83d1-11ea-81a3-9690c9881111_story.html
"I am enormously grateful to many who are as traditionalist as I am who have
accepted these constraints.� - (Leader of the House of Commons, Lord
President of the Council, and hard-right AfD wonk, Jacob Rees-Mogg.)
And why not here?
Simply because the parliament of this country has yet to agree that democracy
by "zoom" is OK. And until they do we need to be very careful to ensure our
democratic system is secure. Unlike Rich I care about democracy.
Absolutely, Tony! That is why some Ministers were avaialble in the
House yesterday, and will be today. So who is standing in the way of
the good British example? Would you be happy with a vote of all MPs? -
under Level 3 that could be done in writing or electronically.
Clearly it is unsatifactory for a minority party to frustrate the will
of parliament and the people to have MPs able to address questions to
all Ministers and properly fulfil their duty as an effective and
constructive opposition. What do you see as the way forward, Tony?
Already posted, can't you read?
It needs an agreement by parliamant that approves such method and that needs
debate and maybe even a cross party consultation, there has to be a way. Not
merely an edict from the PM which is clearly undemocratic.
The British government did not do it by mandate, they debated it, our
government is afraid to debate it because their motives may well become clear.
Loading...