Comments on: Dom Post on Speaker

By: Ian Llewellyn

Ian Llewellyn — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 11:04:35 +0000

David you continue to attract a certain audience of very angry people, and I hesitate to even intervene in the nasty stuff that is said.
But to say ministers should get up and answer questions over defamatory, unsubstantied slurs on people is a stretch.
The blog you refer to and say has the right to have questions answered about the questions it raised also accused a minister of rape and a massive conspiracy to hide that.
Your blog and your comment writers linked to that with some glee.
I have been unable to find any truth to these allegations.
If you think it is true, you and whale oil should lay a complaint with the police, but it appears it was all just made up.
When caught out the blog claimed it had been the subject of a conspiracy from the Beehive. This was nonsense.
If it was me I would sue for some of the filth that is being spilled, but luckily for you guys those who have been defamed think blog land is irrelevant
This sort of follows the nasty stuff spread around Peter Davis. Does your audience even know yet that it was all lies?
There is a sort of lesson here, you can repeat a lie over and over, but you will never make it true except for those who really want to believe it

[DPF: Ian - I think you are confusing some different things. The video being referred to in the House was filmed by TVNZ and had a fisherman state he perjured himself before a select committee. I can think of few things more important to be investigated, and that is what both the Dom Post and myself were referring to - such serious allegations deserve serious answers. The blog aspect just happened to be the medium the video was made public - but it was a TVNZ interview.]

By: Buggerlugs

Buggerlugs — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 07:29:24 +0000

Fuck the Dom Post – they never kicked up about it in the last nine years.

By: side show bob

side show bob — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 05:58:07 +0000

Let the lefty bastards eat cake.

By: georgedarroch

georgedarroch — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 04:00:09 +0000

377 Contents of replies
[...]

(2) The reply to any question must be concise and confined to the
subject-matter of the question asked, and not contain—
(a) statements of facts and the names of any persons unless
they are strictly necessary to answer the question, or
(b) arguments, inferences, imputations, epithets or ironical
expressions, or
(c) discreditable references to the House or any member of
Parliament or any offensive or unparliamentary expression.

In particular, section 2 (b) would disqualify a very large number of answers in the last parliament.

By: georgedarroch

georgedarroch — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 03:55:27 +0000

“So what the damn hell did you say about it at the time Georgie??”

As much as I’m saying now. I described it as an insult to democracy. I also emailed Wilson on several occasions to ask that ‘addressing the question’ actually meant addressing it in a substantive and non-insulting way. She blathered on about precedent, and gave a narrow interpretation of the standing orders, to which I replied that I didn’t care about precedent, and I wanted the spirit of the orders followed rather than the letter.

The Greens were often criticising Labour on this issue too – but Labour weren’t interested in listening to their critics at all. I hope National change things, but I’m not hoping too much. I’ll have enough to criticise National for, I don’t want to have to bitch about this issue as well!

By: LUCY

LUCY — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 02:26:24 +0000

Although I sincerely hope we can get some order and adult conduct back into parliment, Rebaiter is right. During Labours time in office the MSM thought it was amusing and enjoyed it when the polies dished the dirt and the opposition couldnt get straight answer to a serious question. Now they want a greater degree of relevancy.

By: Redbaiter

Redbaiter — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 01:55:36 +0000

“We already know that Labour didn’t.”

So what the damn hell did you say about it at the time Georgie??

By: Redbaiter

Redbaiter — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 01:54:23 +0000

What a farce. Where were the protests during Labour’s tenure? Now all of a sudden ‘addressing the question’ draws comment?? After nine years of Labour’s bullshit, suddenly National needs to buck up?? What a useless partisan rag that Dominion is. Go broke you useless propagandizing bastards, and hurry up about it. A disgrace to journalism.

By: georgedarroch

georgedarroch — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 01:18:49 +0000

So, will National answer questions?

We already know that Labour didn’t.

By: Graeme Edgeler

Graeme Edgeler — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 00:53:34 +0000

In practice it is a farce. Names are called, tempers fray and points of order are endlessly relitigated. As we saw today, with stupidity over electing the Deputy Speaker.

No. That wasn't endlessly re-litigated. Cullen took a point of order. The Speaker ruled in his favour, and then proceeded to ignore the fact that he had just ruled in his favour. Cullen then called him on it. This is an important principle. The points of order (and their re-litigation) referred to by the DomPost were frequently not of such a nature.

By: PhilBest

PhilBest — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 00:52:06 +0000

Oh, I don’t know, is there anything noble and virtuous that is observed by conservative governments that is actually reciprocated by the socialists once they are back in power again?