Comments on: Upton on Lockwood

By: lofty

lofty — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:09:19 +0000

@Tassman….what the hell are you on about????

Strange person!

By: Tassman

Tassman — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 04:56:13 +0000

I totally agree. Those so called power pushers hiding behind the security of parliamentary priveleges that have given them the right to call cheap shots and ridicules, especially in front of an ochestrated media; if you want a real gentleman fight, then put your money where your mouth is. My backyard is available or anywhere in the neighbourhood would do.

So come on then, let’s see what ya got behind that motor mouth of yours huh!

Guess I’ll be waiting for the Police, SAS squad, instead….

By: tvb

tvb — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 04:16:44 +0000

I am surprised you are speculating about Labour’s next Speaker, the possibility simply does not exist. I assume they will chose their Assistant Speaker when the time comes, if it comes.

By: PaulL

PaulL — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 03:31:43 +0000

I’m very interested in the content on Lockwood, and generally agree with the analysis.

I’m also very interested in the tail end of that article – talking about S26N and the requirements for governments to do a serious job of talking about future costs of their programs on society. DPF, you didn’t mention that at all, but I would have thought the retirement income aspects of that would have been very interesting to you.

By: side show bob

side show bob — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 03:01:44 +0000

Pete George

“lets assume Liarbore win in 2014″

“I think that’s a good assumption”, whats the bet Pete’s a grief counsellor, has to be to be that delusional.

Smith is light years ahead of the white witch and the wine and cheese minister, shit parliament was a three ring circus when these fools took to the chair. Lockwood brings some decorum to the joint, long may he rein.

By: OldNews

OldNews — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 01:41:21 +0000

We should follow the model used in NSW for the speaker of their Legislative Assembly. A secret ballot of all MPs.
This would mean that the person elected is clearly “Parliament’s Man”.
Now this might lead to some stupid results. For example, if you recall the vote in 1996, Hunt may well have won on a secret ballot over Kidd, which would have been a tradgedy. Kidd is clearly the best Speaker in recent times. Smith might catch up, but is still in Kidd’s shadow. Hunt on the other hand is unfairly credited with being better than Wilson. Both were bad, but an serious analysis will show Hunt was the worst Speaker in NZ history.

By: Willie_Escaped

Willie_Escaped — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 01:28:17 +0000

Is there a reason why we can’t elect the Speaker seperately as a control on party politics?

Assuming a return to FPP… one vote for a representative, and one vote for the Speaker of the house.

By: Pete George

Pete George — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 01:14:06 +0000

“Let’s assume Labour win in 2014.”

I think that’s a good assumption to make at this stage. The way things are now National are looking good and Labour are looking hopeless for 2011, National would have to stuff up big time to lose it and Labour would have to start to look like a viable alternative.

But after two terms the incumbent should be getting a bit jaded and vulnerable, and by rights the opposition should have had time to recover and rebuild. It doesn’t mean Labour will win in 2014, but they should have the upper hand if their personnel and policies are politicking good enough, and National don’t maintain an unusual level of support.

By: Inventory2

Inventory2 — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 01:02:30 +0000

DPF said “Let’s assume Labour win in 2014.”

No DPF, let’s assume no such thing. The way the Labour MP’s and their acolytes continue to behave in the wake of an electoral shellacking just a year ago suggests that six years will not be anywhere near enough for genuine repentance.

By: John Ansell

John Ansell — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 00:55:04 +0000

What a disgrace that we should think it revolutionary for a Speaker to act with integrity.

All Speakers are offered a knighthood. Yet only Lockwood Smith, it seems, will have earned his knighthood for his actions since becoming Speaker, not merely for becoming Speaker.

These Nats certainly are teaching Labour some valuable lessons about ethics. Sadly, I doubt whether Labour would have noticed.

By: Lipo

Lipo — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 00:50:10 +0000

I can tell you exactly what will happen when there is a change of government. You do not have to be a brain surgeon.
Labour will install some flunky Speaker that has a direct phone line to the Prime Ministers office and may as well be listed #2 on the Cabinet Roster
New Speaker will direct Labour ministers to answer however they like. It happened before with Hunt & Wilson and I can’t see any reason why things would change

The biggest laugh I have will be National supporters including DPF thinking it will all be different from now on. Get real!!

By: Fisiani

Fisiani — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 00:18:52 +0000

Why assume that Labour will ever get back in power? Just because we have always had cycles of political change does not predict the future. It is an assumption but not a given inalienable right. Why assume that the Labour party will remain intact. After several electoral defeats it may well self destruct in factionalism.
Shocking????. Impossible????
The past cannot predict the future. Just ask the Kiwi punters who lost over $7 million at the Melbourne Cup. The winner was indeed Shocking.

By: transmogrifier

transmogrifier — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 23:37:33 +0000

Also, I don’t hold any hope of Labour, if and when they regain power, continuing with a strong Speaker. If there is one thing Labour is not good at, it is encouraging internal debate and promoting accountability.

By: transmogrifier

transmogrifier — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 23:28:48 +0000

Quite frankly, I’m appalled that previous Speakers were so permissive. I never paid much attention in the past, but I think it is the basic tenet of democracy that the people governing us actually explain what they are doing and why. I never though much of Smith, but good for him. Long may it continue.