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.

Hence the shouts of ‘please, no!’

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?

..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?

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)

Now that you mention it, I dread to think what horribly inappropriate metaphor Chris Trotter will conjure next.

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.

Now now Russell, there are wankers on both sides of the political spectrum…..

Not a new one.

On 22 October 2005 DPF complained that:

Winston may well have been Foreign Minister in a National Government. But I am not objecting to that particularly. What I am certain would never have happened with National is creating this fiction that you can be a Minister and an Opposition MP. It’s nuts.

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?

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!)

Jonathan Boston was quoted as after the 2005 arrangements were sorted out that:

“NZ First is part of a four-party coalition government. They and United Future are part of the Government by virtue of their leaders having ministerial warrants and serving as part of the executive. End of story.”

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:

“There are probably hardly any matters, except of the most limited sort of domestic nature, where the minister of foreign affairs does not have some responsibility to represent the Government’s policy position internationally. It could be biosecurity, defence, trade, diplomatic relations, health pandemic, ecological issues, climate change or any number of things.”

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.

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.