Another day

34 comments on “Another day ”

• Comments are now closed

1. cleangreen 1

   17 October 2017 at 5:14 pm

   Yep I heard that to.

   So the board know what they want, and Winston said (reportedly) to say that he “cannot give a firm time when all ‘negociations’ are completed and NZF can annouce their ‘consenus’ as there are other political parties to consider as well.”

   The interesting part was Winston saying “other parties will need to be consulted on before we finalise” to me seems to mean that Winston is referring to the greens being part of his party’s final agreements.

   I hope that they all get it soted and get into the coalition.
   • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1

     17 October 2017 at 5:24 pm

     other parties will need to be consulted… means the Greens…

     Yeah, my confirmation bias was screaming about that too. I told it to shut up and expect disappointment one way or another.
     • red-blooded 1.1.1

       17 October 2017 at 9:09 pm

       “Other parties” is lawyer speak for “other people”. W’s a lawyer. Try not to read too much into it.
   • lprent 1.2

     17 October 2017 at 5:33 pm

     The full video of the standup is in the link.

     You can tell that Peters is a bit knackered. He wasn’t having his usual fun with them.

     Edit: fixed the link (damnit) https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/97944031/live-waiting-for-winston-peters
     • cleangreen 1.2.1

       17 October 2017 at 5:57 pm

       Yes, I can imagine he has been battered around by the MSM and others so long he deserves a break.
       Thanks for the link.
2. Pete 2

   17 October 2017 at 5:56 pm

   “No real story tonight for the media. However I’m sure that they will invent one…”

   Snap!

   http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/election/2017/10/lloyd-burr-watching-nz-first-s-bizarre-behaviour.html

   When the Pulitzer Prizes for Journalism are handed out I’ll be able to say I was there, I saw the masterpiece unfolding.
3. Anne 3

   17 October 2017 at 5:59 pm

   Vernon Small wonders if the sticking point is the make-up of the government and the ministerial posts (I paraphrase him) rather than ‘policy’ consensus, but he doesn’t want to say so because he knows the public will be less inclined to accept this waiting game if its the latter. In other words the board want him to go back and try and squeeze more out of negotiations.

   It’s going to look very bad for NZ First if it turns out their board is playing silly buggers and holding everything up.
   • Anne 3.1

     17 October 2017 at 6:23 pm

     Oops… I mean ‘former’ not latter.
4. Pete 4

   17 October 2017 at 6:02 pm

   Just heard Gower say, “They’ve got practically nowhere by the sound of it.”

   1 His listening is no good or …
   2 His negativity is really good or …
   3 He can’t guess details so he gives a summary guess.

   Desperation journalism: got nothing to say, make something up and say it.
   • Ed 4.1

     17 October 2017 at 6:23 pm

     The solution for Gower

     Turn him off.
     • ianmac 4.1.1

       17 October 2017 at 6:58 pm

       Done
   • One Anonymous Bloke 4.2

     17 October 2017 at 6:30 pm

     Paddy “I am the story” Gower is ill-equipped for this circumstance. The fact that his opinion has currency at all is a shame.

     Nothing against him personally.
   • AB 4.3

     17 October 2017 at 7:34 pm

     The poverty of discourse from the media in this situation reinforces what is commonly said about them – they’re interested in the game not the issues.
     If the game stops for a few weeks they have nothing to say and it drives them mad.
5. rhinocrates 5

   17 October 2017 at 6:38 pm

   For a laff. The Nothing Crisis.
   • Richard Christie 5.1

     18 October 2017 at 11:25 am

     I thought Myra Hindley was dead, not working for CNN.
6. weka 6

   17 October 2017 at 7:08 pm

   Cross posting from DR. In case anyone was wondering, NZ First is an Incorporated Society (like the Green Party), and is run by a committee. I’m not sure why they keep using the word ‘board’ but I guess they can call it anything they like.

   See here.
   • Enough is Enough 6.1

     17 October 2017 at 9:13 pm

     Umm I suggest you look at the New Zealand First rules. Its a public document on the Incorporated Societies website.

     Yes they are an Incorporated Society, and yes they do have a boad constituted under their rules.

     The media were probably referring to Winston calling it a board, but in actual fact they are correct.
   • veutoviper 6.2

     18 October 2017 at 8:51 am

     weka, New Zealand First is an Incorporated Society but is NOT run by a committee, but by a Board as reported. I don’t know what your link is to, but it does not work for me.

     I will try to keep this simple:
     1. As a non-profit organisation NZF is registered as an Incorporated Society under the Incorporated Societies Act 1908 – presumably because of its status as a non-profit organisation, and primarily for tax and related matters including protection of members from debts etc.

     2. This short quote from Wikipedia explains this best:

     “In New Zealand an incorporated society is a group of at least 15 people who have applied for registration under the Incorporated Societies Act 1908.[1][2]
     Once registered the Society constitutes a distinct legal entity which provides protection to members from debts, contracts etc. In return, members do not have a personal financial interest in the property or assets (if any) owned by the society.”

     3. Section 6 of the Incorporated Societies Act 1908 sets out the matters to be included in the rules of the Incorporated Society but in general terms only – eg tne name of the society, its objects, its registered office, how people become members, how the society will be governed, etc.

     4. Neither section 6 or the rest of the Act set a particular format for governance or names.titles of officers, etc. In other words, the Act does not set in stone titles such as “Committee” vs “Board”.
     Link to full Act – http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1908/0212/latest/whole.html

     5. As Enough is Enough said, you can see all documents registered by New Zealand First – including its Rules – on the Incorporated Societies website here. http://www.societies.govt.nz/cms/customer-support/learn-about-our-online-services/banner_template/SOCAGENT

     6. NZF’s ‘Rules’ are in fact contained in their Constitution. BUT the above site does not appear to show NZF’s latest 2016 version of their Constitution . Naughty, naughty!

     7. Here is a link to their latest Constitution in PDF form registered with the Electoral Commission in 2016 for the purposes of the 2017 election.
     http://www.elections.org.nz/sites/default/files/parties/rules/2016_nzf_constitution_as_amended_at_2016_convention.pdf

     8. As you will note, this is a very detailed legal document. Part III covers “Board of NZF” (not Committee) and Part V covers “Directors”, their roles, how they are elected etc.
     • weka 6.2.1

       18 October 2017 at 9:42 am

       Thanks!! That’s brilliant. Don’t know why that stuff is so hard to find (same with the Green Party docs).

       My link was also to the Societies website (an older NZF document, they obviously don’t use permanent URLs, which is daft).

       Would it be fair to say NZF chose to call it a board?
       • veutoviper 6.2.1.1

         18 October 2017 at 10:30 am

         This stuff is hard to find? You’re joking!

         The NZF stuff took me a few minutes only. Googling “New Zealand First Board” produced the Electoral Commission PDF of NZF’s Constitution as the fourth item in their list.

         Googling “NZ Incorporated Societies “similarly took me to the Inc Societies website and then entering “New Zealand First” in their Search Register took me to the NZF registered documents. And also an instant link to the Act.

         Ditto – NZ Greens. Googlng “Green Party New Zealand Constitution” brought up links to their Constitution as the first three items (and also their Standing Orders). https://www.greens.org.nz/page/constitution

         BUT – in my quick skim of the Constitution I could find no mention of ‘Committee’ or ‘Board’ – only Executive. So I don’t know where you got ‘Committee ‘ from.

         Would it be fair to say NZF chose to call it a board?

         In my experience over quite a few years of several Inc Societies (as a elected voluntary/unpaid member/ Chair) , and their governance, Board was/is the norm and/or preference these days rather than Committee.

         ‘Board’ implies, or has the perception of, greater separation and clarity between the roles of governance and day-to-day management of an organisation in the view of many legal experts in the field of governance.
         • weka 6.2.1.1.1

           18 October 2017 at 10:46 am

           You have to know what documents to look for. Great that you had that knowledge, I didn’t, so I had to trawl through multiple docs on the Societies website.

           I can’t find the piece about the Committee, it’s on the NZF docs on the Societies website but I don’t remember which doc (I looked at a few). Feel free to find it yourself seeing as how its so easy 😉

           (to understand the workings of the GP, you need more than the Constitution and Standing orders. I’m betting that’s true for all parties. I think it would be better if all documents were held in the same place).
           • weka 6.2.1.1.1.1

             18 October 2017 at 10:48 am

             oh, and if NZF don’t want people making mistakes about how they operate, they can be more transparent. Same applies to the Greens.
7. Drowsy M. Kram 7

   17 October 2017 at 7:40 pm

   The Right Honourable Winston Peters may not be the Father of the House, but he is our longest-serving parliamentarian, and canny to boot. It would be difficult for him to prop up the John Key legacy party – not really a political party at all, more a bunch of corporate shills/liars.

   And Winston knows the National party leadership really resent having to rely on him, and would shaft NZ 1st at the first opportunity. For example, imagine the ‘bought and paid for’ media frenzy blaming Winston for triggering a new general election within 18 months.

   The bachelor lifestyle suits National; their behaviour in partnerships has been poor, and their record of genuine partnerships for the good of all NZers is awful.
8. Cinny 8

   17 October 2017 at 8:11 pm

   To everyone who is working so very hard to create a government that we can all have faith in and be proud of, thank you.
   • Ed 8.1

     17 October 2017 at 8:20 pm

     +1
9. Thinkerr 9

   18 October 2017 at 6:46 am

   I’ve been trying to think what I’d do if I was Winston.

   If I go into coalition with National, I’d be worried they’d shaft me again, and I’d be the junior coalition partner.

   With Labour, I’d be a bit better off, but still I’d have to give away some of the power I currently enjoy as kingmaker. And, I’d have those pesky Greens hanging around, like it or not.

   So, I’d go for the cross benches and a confidence & supply with National.

   Apart from machinery, no-one could introduce legislation without my say-so. I could cherry pick what I like from right and left, especially if it was in my policy, too. And for everything I approved of theirs, they’d have to approve one of mine.

   I’d have to endure Bill & Steven (and Paula) getting the titled positins and proclaiming a 4th National government, but that would only last until the budget was being prepared, and then they’d realise that Cabinet Room in the Beehive was just a think-tank. The real Cabinet Room is the NZ1st caucus. That would wipe the smirk off their faces…

   And, no coalition agreement.

   And the public? I’d explain to them that this decision represents the closest outcome to what they voted for, with roughly the same support for left and right.
   • Ed 9.1

     18 October 2017 at 7:09 am

     If I were Winston, I think I would do the same.

     I certainly be very wary of national. They would just be waiting to stab him in the back.

     And what would you do if National or Labour then said ‘we’ll have another election?”
   • Gristle 9.2

     18 October 2017 at 11:45 am

     NZF having C and S arrangement with Labour gives NZF the same result, ie being able to cherry-pick legislation they would support. And they wouldn’t have to endure Bill & Steven (and Paula.)

     But that cherry-picking of legislation is limited by:
     1. The Government can veto legislation that it identifies as having a budgetary impact (eg extending paid parental leave.) So being able to introduce and get opposition support for legislation does not automatically mean that it gets to move to becoming enacted; and additionally,

     2. The Government can make any piece of legislation a C and S issue, and by doing so trigger the C and S support agreement that is struck with NZF.

     The benefits of going into a C and S agreement with any Government does not necessarily the freedoms you are promoting. Further, C and S agreements can be struck with Labour or National.

     Noting that if NZF was to withdraw its C and S from one Government at some point before the next General Election, it could provide it to the other party which could form a new Government (without the need to go to a General Election.)
10. Ffloyd 10

    18 October 2017 at 7:15 am

    Billy Liar looks very chipper this morning after having had a ‘Good talk’ with Winston. Does make me feel a bit uneasy. If Winston turns right that s us down the gurgler. If he thinks he can keep national under control he might like to think again.
11. Nick 11

    18 October 2017 at 7:45 am

    trust us said english, bennet, joyce, collins, smith, coleman …..a tui billboard if ever there was one.
12. Stuart Munro 12

    18 October 2017 at 8:28 am

    “Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow creeps on this petty pace from day to day.”

    It might be tolerable if the time sacrificed were truly in the service of representative democracy – but Kissingerian diplomacy with the Devil really doesn’t do it for me.
13. Adrian 13

    18 October 2017 at 10:13 am

    Reason and commonsense say it should be Labour, but the longer the talking goes on it may be National.
    Peters may be exhibiting all the hallmarks of a battered bride.. ” It will be different this time…he can change.. if I stay with him I can make it happen ”
    Yeah, that always turns out well, eh.
14. Ffloyd 14

    18 October 2017 at 11:21 am

    It will be a hollow victory for both of them if he goes with National. Everything points to Labour being the compatible party. They appear to have aligning aspirations for the health and wellbeing of New Zealand and all its people. National not so much. So if he sells out I wonder if he’ll get more than a shilling. I sometimes wish Labour/Greens would just pull the plug and use the next three years to consolidate and put up policies that will get NZ out of the more and lead us back to an egalitarian society.
15. Michelle 15

    19 October 2017 at 1:00 pm

    The gnats are looking a tad happy today. I just hope its just them acting as I know they are very good at acting with 9 years to perfect it. Lets hope we aren’t in for 3 more years of the same shert. If trust is one of the main factors for a swing to the gnats then Winstone has shown he still hasn’t learnt from recently being burnt and his party will suffer the same as all the others. He campaigned on change and he needs to have some honour and stick to his guns he also knows the majority of NZders want change.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS