Fisking Slack
David Slack blogs:
You may recall the howls of derision in 2005.
How on earth can you be a minister and remain outside the government? they demanded.
That was then, this is now. This morning’s paper tells me:
Mr Key acknowledged yesterday that he was wrong and “in hindsight” it had worked well.
But David is mixing up two different things. The howls of derision wasn’t about having Ministers from other parties outside Cabinet – it was the insane insistence that this meant they were not part of the Government.
As far as I know ACT and United Future will be Ministers outside Cabinet but they are not going to pretend not to be part of the Government.
Incidentally the insistence by NZ First that they were not part of Government was exposed as hollow when the reps on the Boundaries Commission were appointed – one for the Government and one for the Opposition. They were represented by the Government rep.
November 11th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Maybe that was the first indication that Winston had Heilen over a barrel. There couldn’t be any other reason, surely?
November 11th, 2008 at 11:49 am
David Slack’s a sorer loser than H1 and Cullen. He’ll be back to his more urbane leftism in a week or two.
November 11th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
I believe John Key’s rationalisation this morning was that it was the particular character of the foreign minister’s post that was the cause for complaint, but perhaps we’ve moved on to a new one.
If Act, UF and (probably) the Maori Party are “part of the government” then that fact seems lost on Audrey Young, John Armstrong, Tracey Watkins and Paula Oliver, who are all describing John Key’s government as a “minority government” with confidence and supply arrangements. If they were “part of the government” it wouldn’t be a minority government, would it?
Rodney Hide himself directly compared the (then) prospective arrangement to that enjoyed by Winston Peters (although he looked like he might lose his lunch when he said it) and it suits Hide for similar reasons. He can carry on baiting Key in a way that wouldn’t be permissible from a minister who was actually part of Key’s government.
Honestly David, are you going to spend three years being this touchy?
November 11th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Well then none of this makes sense, or alternately, it makes perfect sense and is exactly how it looks.
Hide is outside government, but definitely in government – a minister in government with no influence, or a minister outside government who is actually part of and as equally responsible as government. (sounds like a Winston clause
)
Hmmm.
So why did Key assign him “outside” rather than “inside”. And why was Hide eager to be “outside”.
and what of Douglas – neither an innie or an outtie, but hopefully wielding government stick and responsibility. A kind of covert 007 operative.
To me, and others, it is what it seems to be.
1) Hide has given unequivocal support.
2) Key accepts that support and extends same – as far as his position and loyalties allow.
3) Lefties, including MS Media, are muntas and opinion should be dismissed.
but when, or if, the urine starts to fall, no one wants to be caught asleep with their mouth open.
November 11th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Russel, will the left get over the fact that NZ rejected the ideology of last government? It seems that the howls of outrage that I’m currently seeing are from a group of individuals confused by why they lost.
November 11th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Adam, what on earth does what Russell said have to do with losing?
Agree that Hide might’ve lost his chicken salad at the mention of winston – I can remember shouts of ‘please, no!’ when asked about being in cabinet with winston during the minor leaders’ debate, quite well.
November 11th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
“Honestly David, are you going to spend three years being this touchy?”
Nine years, son.
November 11th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Russel, will the left get over the fact that NZ rejected the ideology of last government? It seems that the howls of outrage that I’m currently seeing are from a group of individuals confused by why they lost.
Eh? Were you by chance reading some other post by someone else and responding to that?
Because I sincerely do not recall emitting any “howls of outrage” when I wrote a long blog post yesterday headed ‘Congratulations, Mr Key’, in which I praised his campaign performance and emphasised his personal mandate.
I was merely addressing David’s amusing rationalisation. I had hoped Kiwiblog commenters might be a little more relaxed in victory, but perhaps that’s not the case. Have you worked out what you’re angry about yet?
It actually appears to me that Hide may have been somewhat put in his place after his disgraceful performance on Sunday. I am sure Key did not enjoy being taunted by a man who got fewer votes than Winston Peters.
November 11th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
The point John Key made was that having a Foreign Minister outside cabinet sent the wrong message to overseas Governments who would find it difficult to accept the credibility of this arrangement. And then of course we had the ridiculous situation in which Winston was Foreign Minister outside a Government that was promoting a free trade agreement with China; a policy that he was opposed to. Being outside cabinet means that a Minister is not bound by collective responsibility; not desirable but just another mutation spawned by the beast called MMP.
November 11th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
“Honestly David, are you going to spend three years being this touchy?”
Nine years, son.
Heh. We’ll see how it’s all travelling in nine months, eh?
November 11th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
“Have you worked out what you’re angry about yet?”
Check my latest post on Poneke. (responding to your remarks on John Ansell)
Once it gets through moderation that is. Sigh.
November 11th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
You can stop campaigning now Wussle, no one is going to pay for it.
November 11th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
“You can stop campaigning now Wussle, no one is going to pay for it.”
Did you see how well his mate Jordan did?? Once again, a good indication of the small bunch of rabble they’re talking for when they use that “we”.
November 11th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Um yeah I think posted that in the wrong thread. Hmmm not sure what happen there.
November 11th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
stephen “Agree that Hide might’ve lost his chicken salad at the mention of winston – I can remember shouts of ‘please, no!’ when asked about being in cabinet with winston during the minor leaders’ debate, quite well.”
You must have watched a different debate than what was on TV. The facts were Winnie was begging to be part of a govt that included Act whilst Rodders wouldn’t have a bar of it, completely ruling out any chance. Maybe you are referring to the public shouting ‘please, no’ to the thought of Winnie back in cabinet.
November 11th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Actually both characterisations are correct.
Technically John Key will lead a minority led Government (i.e. National has less than half the seats in Parliament) but supported in confidence and supply agreements with ACT, United Future and possible the Maori Party.
Consider, it is technically possible (although highly unlikely) for John Key to lead a majority led Government (i.e. National commands more than half the seats in Parliament) and supported in confidence and supply agreements with ACT, United Future and possible the Maori Party.
Consider, it is technically possible a MP from the Labour Party to serve in Cabinet formed by John Key. That does not make the Parliamentary Labour Party part of the Government only the Minister.
Logically, all Governments must maintain the confidence of the House and therefore more than half the votes in Parliament.
Regarding the issue of Ministers outside Cabinet, Dean Knight has a good post in these issues here:
http://www.laws179.co.nz/2008/11/election-08-constitutional-tid-bits.html
The upshot is the Ministers outside Cabinet are part of the Government and are bound collective responsibility subject to any agreement that might narrow the application of the convention. Thus an agreement might narrow the principle to Government policy in relation to the portfolio responsibilities of the Minister outside Cabinet or perhaps include an “agree to disagree” (other than on issues of supply or confidence) provision that would probably require some sort of notice procedure to the Prime Minister. At that point the PM can consider whether the Minister continues to serve or declare the matter a confidence issue or the Prime Minister and Cabinet might look to other MP’s in Parliament to advance the Government’s programme.
Cabinet Rules are not set in stone, how they are interpreted, enforced and applied is in large measure is left to the judgement of the Prime Minister.
November 11th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Russell
Jonathan Boston was quoted as after the 2005 arrangements were sorted out that:
He also labelled the attempt by NZ First to sit with the opposition as making a “mockery of constitutional arrangements”.
And Professor Boston was also quoted on the matter of the role outside cabinet being foreign affairs, specifically:
November 11th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Hmmm:
(1)Party vote was well under the threshold, but
(2) charismatic leader wins electorate so brings 4 friends into parliament, resulting in
(3) 25% over-representation of party in the house, rewarded with
(4) a ministerial role outside of cabinet.
Seems the corruption is no longer the MAIN difference between Act’08 & NZfirst’05, but increasingly it’s the ONLY difference
(Save for policies of course; but we now have substantial case history here showing that a sniff of corruption trumps policies by about 4:1!)
November 11th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
I believe John Key’s rationalisation this morning was that it was the particular character of the foreign minister’s post that was the cause for complaint, but perhaps we’ve moved on to a new one.
Not a new one.
On 22 October 2005 DPF complained that:
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2005/10/the_opposition_foreign_minister.html#comment-144972
Has Key, or either Hide or Dunne, or anyone from the Maori Party stated that if they are ministers outside cabinet, that they will not be in the government, or as Peters stated last time, that they will be members of the opposition?
November 11th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
I was merely addressing David’s amusing rationalisation. I had hoped Kiwiblog commenters might be a little more relaxed in victory, but perhaps that’s not the case. Have you worked out what you’re angry about yet?
Now now Russell, there are wankers on both sides of the political spectrum…..
November 11th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Where’s ACT’s over-representation Ratbiter ? They aren’t part of any overhang, surely the one to aim those barbs at is the Maori Party, with a mere 2.5% of the vote and 5 seats. And didn’t NZF get over the 5% threshold in 2005, because Winston did not win a seat. Perhaps the analogy is a little strained. Maybe too, Rodney Hide is more concerned with policy than baubles.
November 11th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Check my latest post on Poneke. (responding to your remarks on John Ansell)
That would be my remarks to John Ansell, who embarrassed himself with a bout of Wishartian purging about , among other things, Helen Clark’s marriage, which is none of his fucking business.
I find John very personable as an individual, but his rant on Poneke did him no credit whatsoever. It showed a real lack of class.
November 11th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Now now Russell, there are wankers on both sides of the political spectrum…..
Now that you mention it, I dread to think what horribly inappropriate metaphor Chris Trotter will conjure next.
November 11th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
“..Heh. We’ll see how it’s all travelling in nine months, eh?..
i would like to claim copyright infringement from browns’ use/theft of my (signature) ‘eh?”..
..does the man have no shame..?
..i mean..i know he’s built a career out of re-filleting..
..but this is a step too far..
and in answer to the question why are the right so uncivil/ungracious/angry in victory..?
..that all comes from the deep fear/anger that drives most of them..
..fearful/angry people find it nigh impossible to express joy..
..let alone basic civility..
but hey..!..russell brown..leave my ‘eh?’ alone..!
..eh..?
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
November 11th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Everyone! The phule has woken up!
November 11th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Thank you Graeme for getting to the heart of the matter. The main issue in 05 was claiming to be a Minister and an Opposition MP.
November 11th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Philu “i would like to claim copyright infringement from browns’ use/theft of my (signature) ‘eh?”..
..does the man have no shame..?”
I think you are right for once. How dare somebody take something that does not belong to them and use it for themself, how dare he impinge your property rights…
Hey now that I think about it, its kinda like you taking my hard earned money and using it to fund your bum lifestyle.. does the man have no shame? EH?
November 11th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
There is a little bit of semantics going on. At the time the whole “Minister Outside Govt” thing was a bit new and weird. The compounding factors were the Foreign Affairs job (which is kind of hard to be outside govt and still do), and the suggestion that you could still be an opposition MP. So I do think that DPF is tiptoeing around this a little, but I also think his characterisation is pretty fair – he originally said he wasn’t all that keen on it, but also noted it wasn’t quite as weird as the Winston Peters deal tried to be. I can see the left attempting to play the moral equivalence argument (no change there), but I guess I can understand it takes a little while to get into the swing of the opposition thing, so probably it is easy to just recycle last week’s attack lines from the other side. Presumably sometime in the next year or so they’ll need to get some new material of their own.
I find it a little unusual that UF and ACT would go with a deal that left them outside govt – I don’t see why they would need to do that. Is there some advantage to this arrangement that I am missing? Is it about the right to disagree – is that precluded if you are inside govt?
November 11th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
like NRT says this is treating the public like adults
http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2008/11/admitting-your-mistakes.html
Of course he sees it as a ‘flip flop’ and david doesn’t.. but I dont care. I dont think there is a absolute truth to it being a bad or a good idea anyway. But I am happy that he isn’t afraid to take the position that might be seen as a flip flop when he thinks it is the best option.
November 11th, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Hence the shouts of ‘please, no!’
November 12th, 2008 at 2:25 am
As long as ACT gets to implement its policies it doesn’t matter whether Rodney Hide is a Minister inside or outside cabinet. Don’t forget that Roger Douglas will also be having a significant influence on the implemented policies of this new Government.
November 15th, 2008 at 10:30 am
Looks like National have managed the coalition set up phase well.
November 22nd, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Have the Leftists stopped crying in their beer yet over the election result?