I’d assumed he referred to Neville Chamberlain. I was just trying to work though that analogy, but it turns out I can’t.

Ummmmm…?!?! David, what makes you think it was tongue in cheek? (I was just reading the National Party founding principles and cannot find a single one which has been implemented in the last year)

http://www.nightcitytrader.blogspot.com

Power had said that the lawyers were ripping the system off so he needed some basis to show he was right

Ahem… In my nomination of John Whitehead for Public Servant of the Year I said “To speak truth to power requires courage. To tell him what he wants to hear requires Margaret Bazley”

Glad to see the legal fraternity agreeing. Upon reflection I’d go furtehr and say it was a broad and unjustified slur against an entire profession based on the actions of a few of its members. No different to the left wing blog commenters who cherry pick a few extreme comments from Kiwiblog and then characterise it as “the sewer” despite the fact that many people of considerable wisdom and eleoquence lend us the benefit of their input.

GPT is correct, the report was sensationalised. Bazely knew what Power wanted and had to stretch the bounds of hearsay to be able to include any real criticism of the legal profession. It seems, however, that she found ample evidence of the LSA’s failings. But Power had said that the lawyers were ripping the system off so he needed some basis to show he was right.

Ironically, Power was himself a Duty Solicitor, and if a duty solicitor then probably a legal aid lawyer, in Palmerston North.

The only massive rort is that legal aid lawyers are paid less than they were in 1990. Not less in real terms or percentage terms but less per hour.

For that matter name one other profession or government department that is still operating on a 1990 pay scale?

To answer my own question the only rort that might be proven and be massive is in Treaty area but I doubt that is what most punters think about when the legal aid question arises.

And her report was sensationalised. It identifed a (through fair means or foul) a small but significant group of lawyers who rip off the system (which is ironic given the system rips every competent lawyer off) but went on to say that LSA was hopeless, lawyers were underpaid and undertrained.

The irony was that she gave the law society a suggested 3 years to “clean up” a mess that she failed to identify beyond anecdote and hearsay and that the LSA (the contractor ) has never addressed (save for one case).

Still, as you note, lawyers are not the most popular species (unless you’re in the shit) so what the hell – fuck ‘em they’re not going to change the course of an election.

I do only to a small extent. But still, the other winners made sense, but seriously why would the winner here be Turia? I can perhaps understand from a Maori Party point of view, but that’s a pretty small minority. She got publicity for the Maori Party without disgracing herself? Anyone?

Whether you like her politics or not she has managed to work constructively with a party that traditionally hasn’t had the strongest relations with her constituents.

Manolo why do you call him John Neville Key?

Never assume those who comment are representative of the overall readership

I do only to a small extent. But still, the other winners made sense, but seriously why would the winner here be Turia? I can perhaps understand from a Maori Party point of view, but that’s a pretty small minority. She got publicity for the Maori Party without disgracing herself? Anyone?

Neville Key won 60% of the vote.

Bazley did not expose legal aid problems. She quoted some highly defamatory rumours that she heard and represented them as fact. She did not actually find out the facts, nor did she put the allegations to the aggrieved individuals.

I hear the collective Manukau Bar is busily drafting defamation proceedings and I wish them every success.