Comments on: Speaker Elections

By: thedavincimode

thedavincimode — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 22:45:27 +0000

In 2004 National rejected the nomination of Labour candidate Margaret Wilson.

Shrewd judgement there.

By: gravedodger

gravedodger — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 22:38:38 +0000

Remind me again, how did the “consultation” on the nomination of the shrieking, totally biased, out of her depth, inadequate, disgraceful Margaret Wilson go.

By: WineOh

WineOh — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 22:18:08 +0000

Precious-Pup from Labour and hand wringing about not being consulted. I don’t think he’ll be as good as Lockwood Smith, but given that the Govt still has the numbers to appoint Carter anyway its pointless for Labour to be crying foul on this. That said, it does seem a bit petty from the Nats to not at least make the conventional “consultation” in government… which tends to mean “we’ve made up our mind already, but have to be seen to go through a process to get feedback.”

By: Paulus

Paulus — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 21:50:24 +0000

Surely Winston would be the best Speaker.
Only thing is that he talks with false tongues.

By: lastmanstanding

lastmanstanding — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 21:48:20 +0000

Pete George Good point about company boards. Our Pollies should aspire to be good governors. They means they follow the principles of good governance as laid out by the Securities Commission in 2001 and endorsed by the FMA.

Sadly I look at the 120 odd in the House and dont see even one individual who is capable of following the 9 Principles of Good Governance.

Instead I see a rag tag bunch of misfits with no leadership ability no direction and a selfish self interested me me me attitude.

I have voted both Labour National and ACT in the past. At present none of the parties represent me and none of their members have the standards of governance ethics or morals that meet the standards I expect.

So the report card from Lastmanstanding to his employees reads.

Must do better
Must try harder
Must govern for the people.

Or you get a FAIL

By: Pete George

Pete George — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 21:25:20 +0000

I posted about the speaker selection yesterday - Choosing a speaker National shouldn't have the assignment of MP responsibiities like Speaker dictated by other parties, but they seem to have dealt with the replacement of Lockwood with a bit of unneccesary arrogance and provocation.

By: Pete George

Pete George — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 20:50:21 +0000

David Carter is no Lockwood Smith…

No.

But just-appointed-speaker Lockwood Smith was no Lockwood Smith either.

By: Pete George

Pete George — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 20:48:10 +0000

Funny Manolo, but as usual you’re misrepresenting reality.

The top priorities of all MPs should be
- representing the people of the country
- running the country

Nearly half parliament screaming anarcho-punk and nearly half singing “Up yours, we’ll do as we please” seems a nutty way to try and run a country.

I doubt there are many successful company boards who would start the year with a shitfight of abuse and denigration amongst themselves, led by the chairman.

By: BeaB

BeaB — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 20:46:14 +0000

These clowns have forgotten why we are paying them.
Do they really think taxpayers appreciate these stupid, timewasting political games?
What a pathetic lot.

By: Dean B

Dean B — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 20:34:40 +0000

interesting that in the hansard for the previous speaker election which David links to, only two of the MPs involved are still in the House, Peters and Dunne. Quite a turnover.

By: David Garrett

David Garrett — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 20:30:38 +0000

David Carter is no Lockwood Smith…

By: Manolo

Manolo — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 20:14:27 +0000

Oh, no. All MPs should hold hands and sing kumbaya as suggested by P.G., proponent of extreme caution and moderation on all things.

By: Rick Rowling

Rick Rowling — Tue, 29 Jan 2013 20:07:55 +0000

the gloves in a sense are off,” he said

Whoa, we got a bad-ass here!