Foolish games

108 comments on “Foolish games ”

• Comments are now closed

1. QoT 1

   31 January 2013 at 8:41 pm

   These foolish games are tearing me apart.

   *cough*
   • Rogue Trooper 1.1

     1 February 2013 at 2:07 pm

     polished
2. Lanthanide 2

   31 January 2013 at 8:47 pm

   NZ First abstained anyway, and Winston said they would in advance, thus making their ploy rather unlikely to work.
   • Eddie 2.1

     31 January 2013 at 9:29 pm

     are you sure? The maths doesn’t add up:

     121 MPs – 62 for, 52 against leaves 7

     3 are in Vladivostok, o vote because no proxies. Leaves 4.

     Footage also shows a smattering of empty seats, that’s your other four.
     • Eddie 2.1.1

       31 January 2013 at 9:31 pm

       unless the tweet i saw of the count was wrong and the reporter just totalled all the parties for and against and excluded nzf, forgetting the missing mps couldn’t vote.

       nonetheless, it could have worked without NZF had enough Nats been missing.
       • Bright Red 2.1.1.1

         31 January 2013 at 9:36 pm

         “And Labour had support for its protest challenge, with the Green Party, Mana and New Zealand First backing Mallard as the new Speaker. They too said they had not been informed about Carter’s nomination.

         “The fact is we were consulted about Mr Mallard, we were never consulted about Mr Carter,” said NZ First leader, Winston Peters.”

         http://tvnz.co.nz/politics-news/david-carter-wins-speaker-vote-despite-opposition-5330430
3. Eddie 3

   31 January 2013 at 8:51 pm

   song titles and puns are the lazy headline writer’s goldmine.
   • Rogue Trooper 3.1

     1 February 2013 at 2:09 pm

     pyrite
4. The Al1en 4

   31 January 2013 at 8:52 pm

   “Can’t they focus on stuff that matters to the people they want to vote Labour, rather than this bullshit?”

   A vanity vote.
   Glad he failed in his attempt to snatch himself a legacy from the jaws of recent mediocrity.
   Labour summed up by their own failed motion.
   And on a day the great ‘revival’ once again stalled in the polls.
   Epic work, caucus.
5. mickysavage 5

   31 January 2013 at 8:54 pm

   It seemed to have been a ploy. Brendan Horan popped up and proposed a secret vote and indicated that he had fed it through the “usual channels”. This level of understanding was way beyond Brendan’s comprehension levels and so I believe that he was persuaded to do this by members of other parties. The Greens were being principled so I presume it was either my lot or Hone and I doubt Hone would think it was appropriate.

   Whoever it was this was really stupid. I do not care what vote it is, I want every MP’s vote to always be public.
6. KhandallaViper 6

   31 January 2013 at 9:51 pm

   Lord Trevor of Wainouimata.
   Mmmmm….has a certain ring to it!

   Seriously though folks…..

   this type of silly opportunistic destructive behaviour is a mirror of how they dumped Parker and inserted Shearer in Nov 2011.
   Even at the Elllerslie Conference in November I recall Trevor trying to use some obscure/obtuse procedural point to argue against the 60/40 motion. The boy is so sharp he cuts himself.

   Spare us.
7. Pete 7

   31 January 2013 at 10:06 pm

   Foolish games? Is that a variant of playing silly buggers?
8. Tiresias 8

   31 January 2013 at 10:17 pm

   Certainly comes across as childish and petty. Ooooh we weren’t consulted. Watch me stamp my foot.

   A simple statement that National broke with both courtesy and tradition by not going through the usual civilised motions and getting approval for Carter’s nomination but accepting Carter anyway would have been adult and sensible. Now both sides of the House have potentially politicised the Speaker and his rulings, which is a dangerously slipperly slope to get on to.
9. The Fan Club 9

   31 January 2013 at 10:42 pm

   I don’t think Speakers may be removed from office by motion of the House. Deputy Speakers may per Standing Orders, but there is no such provision for the Speaker, and McGee makes no mention of such a possibility. I think this post is simply factually wrong, and should be amended.
10. tc 10

    31 January 2013 at 11:04 pm

    Come on it’s all about Trevor.

    More sterling well thought out work from the mallarfia, good to see they’re working on the important stuff.
    • David H 10.1

      1 February 2013 at 9:42 am

      They need to tell him that he is NOT wanted to represent where ever it is he haunts these days. And it’s dumb stunts like these, that make people say FFS not again. And then either not vote, or vote elsewhere. No wonder Labour is Flat-lining. If it was a patient in Hospital it would be on a Deathwatch!
11. blue leopard 11

    31 January 2013 at 11:11 pm

    Hang on, How does this fit in with what Winston had to say re an unprecedented move of National’s to select a speaker without conferring with the other parties first?
    • Yawn 11.1

      1 February 2013 at 7:21 am

      The old guard consulted him on Mallard…. before they consulted Labour’s caucus.
      • CV - Real Labour 11.1.1

        1 February 2013 at 8:44 am

        That’s what I call real teamwork: trusting Winnie ahead of trusting your own Labour MPs.
    • blue leopard 11.2

      1 February 2013 at 6:18 pm

      Nope, I’m referring this:

      There is another aspect of the transition that cannot be overlooked. Given the importance of the role of the Speaker as Parliament’s man or woman, we were deeply disappointed that the Government chose not to involve all political parties in any of the background considerations regarding the selection of a new Speaker. We are committed to a well-organised and effective democratic parliamentary process. We would have contributed constructively and thoughtfully to a dialogue around the selection of a new Speaker, which has been the long tradition of this Parliament. We want this House to work and to work well in the interest of our democracy. So it is our view that it would have been consistent with the values and spirit of our democracy for the Government to engage with other parties over the appointment of a new Speaker. This was not done, and there remains outstanding any explanation as to why it was done this way—or even to have a debate today on this very unprecedented selection process. ~ Winston Peters

      January 31st 2013 Parliament

      [emphasis mine]

      i.e. That the Government didn’t involve other parties.

      I read Labour’s activities (of putting up another speaker) as attempting to emphasize &/or mitigate this travesty.

      Appalling that Labour didn’t tell their own colleagues, yet isn’t there a bigger story here?
      Or is the Government beyond reproach these days??
12. The Fan Club 12

    31 January 2013 at 11:19 pm

    Basically Speakers are normally chosen by the Gov’t and then run by the other parties in a sort of vaguely consensus driven but not really way. Key didn’t bother — or did so in an offensively cursory way, I dunno — and so Labour (fair enough) saw an opportunity for a spot of advantage by running Mallard, and talking to the other parties in an attempt to outflank Key.

    Why not, Speaker’s a traditional role surrounded by traditional gamesmanship and cleverness. But anyway they lost, and Labour & the Greens shook hands with Carter and said fair play. Winston, on the other hand, saw a chance to start needling and looking oppressed and such, and went on a rather petty rant.
13. vto 13

    1 February 2013 at 7:16 am

    The biggest fool is always the one who does not know he is a fool, namely David Carter.

    Waffling shit about respect for great tradition blah blah fucking blah. The prick shits all over this particular tradition and shows it absolutely zero respect by firstly tearing up democracy in Canterbury so his constituents can steal what they couldn’t legitimately acquire and secondly by not following the tradition of consulting other parties on the speaker.

    David Carter shows no respect.

    David Carter gets no respect.

    He is just your typical white bread rich white boy christc college inherited money privilege average man. Average or less. Actually the average man in the street I would back over Carter to stand up for what is right and wrong. What a c%#t.

    And you know, the above assessment lines up with his early political days in some halls around Chch and his arrogant, smarmy, deceptive ways and nasty put-downs of people, with little intellect to back up his ways.

    David Carter = Belowaverage Man
    • The Al1en 13.1

      1 February 2013 at 7:23 am

      He should use that on his cv as a reference. 😆
      • King Kong 13.1.1

        1 February 2013 at 9:49 am

        Says the man who can’t afford a car.
        • The Al1en 13.1.1.1

          1 February 2013 at 10:37 am

          Again 😆

          I can even afford to give you a smile, king chi(u)mp 🙂
    • Keeping Stock of Vipers 13.2

      1 February 2013 at 12:36 pm

      He is just your typical white bread rich white boy christc college inherited money privilege average man. Average or less. Actually the average man in the street I would back over Carter to stand up for what is right and wrong. What a c%#t.

      Actually vto, Carter is an old boy of St Bede’s, along with Clayton Cosgrove and Damien O’Connor
      • mac1 13.2.1

        1 February 2013 at 2:05 pm

        And along with Peter Dunne and Gerry Brownlee. I am an old boy, too. St Bede’s was not a ‘private school’ in the moneyed sense. Sons of West Coast miners mixed with scions of North Canterbury dynasties.

        The school motto is “Fide et Opere.” This translates as “By faith and by good works.” I would hope that the second part of the motto has been translated into actuality by these ex- Bedean parliamentarians. Something has to be in the water of the Dirty Mary, the creek that runs at the back of the College, for this many MPs to come from one school!
        • Rogue Trooper 13.2.1.1

          1 February 2013 at 2:19 pm

          man, could I tell you some stories from under the Redwood round Daniels Road going down on Dunedin Street (wonder if the bark of the open pipes Big Block still echoes?), oh, and then there was car sex…and the big villa before Belfast…and Macs Black…oh and those couple of naughty nurses who raised my temperature…used to overnight at Sturrocks after Holy Trinity
          • mac1 13.2.1.1.1

            1 February 2013 at 2:28 pm

            “oh, and then there was car sex…” Ah, rogue trooper, what memories that brings.

            I became a teacher specialising at one time in Health and especially Relationships including use of condoms etc. I used to tell the boys in my classes that I was very committed to good sex education since all that I received as a school boy (taught by nuns and priests) was this one bit of advice from a woman journalist of all people.

            “Beware of cars, boys. They are bedrooms on wheels.”

            They all agreed that a little more knowledge would have been a good thing.
            • Rogue Trooper 13.2.1.1.1.1

              1 February 2013 at 2:48 pm

              good friend is a sexual health nurse up here. sadly we have some dreadful stats for STI’s
              (wasn’t all my doing) Seriously though, it’s not looking good. Did you read of the unrecognized health implications apparently from toxoplasmosis? (I was Recreation Officer at BIR’s Unit briefly, seriously, it was an occupational allied role, and also aided in physio department; that’s where I aquired my health politics / professional capture “bias” from, and years in disability support,TIL for ABI) After years of competent, or above, experience, even with my *convictions*, I am unable to return to the field now as risk management rules, and I can’t stand politics :). (ironically, was an R.N CSM colleague (close, yet no cigar) who was found to be funding her lifestyle to the extent of about 100K from the clients trust funds) One of the many life experience reasons I’m such a rogue…(+ as you can imagine, when I turned the critical gaze upon the professionalization of Nursing in Stage 1″ Socio-economic determinants” paper, they wouldn’t accept my essay (I already held an A- / B+ undergraduate degree (in guess what?) 🙂 said I had to rewrite it, and being the old dog that I am, I accepted my A average passes in the other papers cocked my leg, and went back to fixing buses, maybe you saw me in the Redbus breakdown 4-Wheel drive. So naughty…if I hadn’t already been released I’d be getting aroused about now 🙂
    • yeshe 13.3

      1 February 2013 at 2:02 pm

      Maybe I shouldn’t say it, but, horribly, he reminds me of Richard Nixon. Ooops,there, I’ve said it.
      • Hami Shearlie 13.3.1

        1 February 2013 at 11:48 pm

        We’ve been saying it for years as well, Yeshe, and we all know what happened to “Tricky Dicky”!!!!
    • Blue 13.4

      1 February 2013 at 2:22 pm

      ” his arrogant, smarmy, deceptive ways and nasty put-downs of people, with little intellect to back up his ways” Now be fair, it sounds just like Trevor Mallard (without the psychopathic tendency for violence)
14. Jane 14

    1 February 2013 at 8:14 am

    Looks like this is the plan to pry Mallard out of his seat on the cabinet bench after they win the election. Is an old ploy, if you can’t demote of fire someone then promote them out of the way.
15. One Tāne Huna 15

    1 February 2013 at 8:15 am

    Unbefuckingleivable.

    Stupid, petty, puerile, posturing, pathetic.

    So bloody angry!
    • tc 15.1

      1 February 2013 at 9:17 am

      that could be the mallarfia’s slogan
16. tracey 16

    1 February 2013 at 9:02 am

    It shows that sometimes some MP forget we pay them, they are our paid servants, not there to embark on self aggrandizement.

    If Mr Mallard and a few others remain on the front bench of the opposition benches post reshuffle then mallard et al will still be driving the truck… and it is heading toward a very steep cliff.

    Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result.
    • Anne 16.1

      1 February 2013 at 10:28 am

      Mallard is not on the front bench.
      • tracey 16.1.1

        1 February 2013 at 2:07 pm

        Sorry, I meant trying to run the show…
17. SpaceMonkey 17

    1 February 2013 at 9:17 am

    Good one Labour… once again they demonstrate a complete inability to stay on target, focussed on the topics that matter. Every shenanigan like this means one less minute/hour/day that they could be hammering home the failings of this inept National Government.

    Politics is just a f**king game to these guys… colossal egos engaged in a perpetual w**kfest with each other. NZ needs real representation and until the Labour hierarchy get this notion, they can be assured of a diminishing share of the vote.
18. felixviper 18

    1 February 2013 at 10:45 am

    I don’t really care about the silly game, but Mallard as Speaker?

    FFS.
    • mac1 18.1

      1 February 2013 at 2:29 pm

      Poachers make the best game keepers, they say.
19. Rich 19

    1 February 2013 at 11:20 am

    If Mallard wants to retire from politics, why doesn’t he just do it.

    With Lance Armstrong and all the other elite cyclists who took drugs (e.g, all the elite cyclists) retiring, there should be room for a middle aged larger bloke in top level competition.
20. chris73 20

    1 February 2013 at 12:30 pm

    What I don’t get and I’d like someone to explain it to me is why is Trev in the position hes in?

    If you look at McCully you may not agree or like what he does or how he operates but the guy is smart, hes got a few brain cells.

    I look at Trev and I just think to myself “this is the best Labour can come up with?”

    There are some intelligent people in Labour (I’m guessing) so how/why is Trev still there?

    I’d run through his litany of cock ups but not really worth it is it…
    • The Fan Club 20.1

      1 February 2013 at 12:54 pm

      Are kidding? McCully’s career highlights include a spectacular failure to restructure MAF, and a resignation in 99 over unlawful payments. He’s a clown too. Mallard, for all he’s supposedly useless, would appear to be a damn sight better at playing the game than any of you guys.

      Still waiting for the correction on the Speaker’s term of office — it’s pretty inept to not get that one right.

      Suppose the only thing this did was tie up Nat resources for an afternoon, and force Shearer to negotiate with the Greens/NZ First/Dunne/whoever. Isn’t that a worthwhile outcome? It isn’t like anybody who isn’t in the game would even know this happened. (And if they’d got Mallard in that would have been a real coup; apart from anything else the National whips would be heavily disgraced and probably have real trouble maintaining internal credibility.)
      • quartz 20.1.1

        1 February 2013 at 1:01 pm

        Is that you trev?
      • chris73 20.1.2

        1 February 2013 at 1:13 pm

        Well McCully as chief strategist for National appears to be doing a better job than Trevs doing for Labour (unless you don’t think winning elections is important)

        Lessee of the top my head:

        the Heineken beer bottle incident
        the homophobic attacks on chris finlayson
        trademe ticket scalping
        assaulting other politicians (I’m prepared to forgive that one)
        treatment of cunliffe

        anyone think of any else?
        • quartz 20.1.2.1

          1 February 2013 at 1:21 pm

          2011 decision to chase marginal seats.

          Campaign period bike race with blogger.

          Boob jokes on facebook.
        • The Fan Club 20.1.2.2

          1 February 2013 at 2:29 pm

          McCully was also involved in such sparkling moments of Nat history as “Don Brash” and “Bill English” and “Jenny Shipley”. He’s not actually that good. (Not that Trevor’s a super star, but if he’s pulling the strings he’s a damn sight better, than, ooh Cunliffe.)

          Mallard also made a lot of the running on Collins/ACC, and is by all accounts a perfectly competent shadow leader of the house.
          • chris73 20.1.2.2.1

            1 February 2013 at 6:13 pm

            You mean Don Brash that take over after Nationals shellacking and almost managed to take the next election?
      • tc 20.1.3

        1 February 2013 at 1:15 pm

        ‘Suppose the only thing this did was tie up Nat resources for an afternoon..’

        I wouldn’t call them resources, just placeholders doing as told. The real talent and drive doesn’t sit in parliament but lurks beyond dictating the agenda.
        • CV - Real Labour 20.1.3.1

          1 February 2013 at 1:19 pm

          Insightful.
    • tracey 20.2

      1 February 2013 at 2:08 pm

      McCully is a bully and he knows where bodies are buried… Mallard will know of a few too
21. Adrian 21

    1 February 2013 at 1:34 pm

    Oh,Shut the fuck up. If it had come off it would have been biggest bloody nose the Nats had had in the house in 4 years and would have highlighted how their incompetence is a direct result of their arrogance. Even the papers would have torn them a new arsehole, not to mention how having our own referee might have evened things up a bit.
    • quartz 21.1

      1 February 2013 at 1:44 pm

      Surely you joke, Adrian. Nobody outside of Labour’s inept strategy team could possibly believe that. That said, you seem to be taking it very personally…
    • Lightly 21.2

      1 February 2013 at 2:05 pm

      you did see the bit when the gallery laughed at the idea of Mallard as a speaker, didn’t you?

      If he had won, solely because National was duped into not being fully present, they hardly would have greeted that as a good thing.

      And then there would have been a no confidence vote in him immediately.
      • The Fan Club 21.2.1

        1 February 2013 at 2:23 pm

        You can’t fucking no confidence a Speaker, you idiot. They sit until resignation or the next election. And if Mallard had won the gallery would have loved it. Best story of the year so far, Nat incompetence, Parliament’s hilarious idiosyncrasies, and guaranteed good copy for the next forever.
        • quartz 21.2.1.1

          1 February 2013 at 2:38 pm

          You should probably spend some time outside of the precinct, Trev’s Fan Club. People don’t like Mallard and they don’t like all this politics as in-joke stuff. The Nats know that and would have eviscerated Labour for it. Sure a few in the gallery might have played in nice for a start but many would point out that this was going to go down like a cup of cold sick with the electorate.

          And if you don’t think the government could make the life of a usurping speaker untenable then you’re not the big time player you seem to think you are.

          One more thing. Labour’s never confirmed this strategy and I’ve not seen anyone else but the Standard posit it. But you and Adrian have made it clear you believe it was in play. Do you know something the rest of us don’t?
          • The Fan Club 21.2.1.1.1

            1 February 2013 at 2:51 pm

            People don’t know who the fuck Mallard is. If you don’t care about politics-as-in-joke, you won’t care who the Speaker is. If you’re a voter and you do care, and someone tells you Labour pulled a swifty and got their guy in the Speaker’s chair it’s fifty-fifty you’ll think it’s a laugh.

            It’s not usurping, it’s having the numbers in the room, every pol knows that’s legitimate, and the Nats are no exception. Do you have any idea how embarrassing this would be for the Nats? Outwitted on Parliamentary practice (entirely fairly) and the Whips couldn’t get the numbers in the room? Brownlee and the Whips would have so much egg on face it wouldn’t be funny.

            Playing tricky games with the Speakership election is pretty much traditional. Tapsell. It’s part of Parliament’s rich tapestry, and no one thinks it’s unacceptable.

            Finally, how can the Government make the Speaker’s life miserable? Mallard would play it straight, to be clear, but if the Government started attacking the Speaker, the Speaker could slaughter them. The Government needs a fairly quick, fairly open House, and not to get screwed in Question Time. The Speaker can deny them those things. And it’s not like anyone outside the precinct would even have a clue what was going on.
            • One Tāne Huna 21.2.1.1.1.1

              1 February 2013 at 2:55 pm

              This is the same Trevor Mallard who can’t sell tickets without the media making a song and dance over it? You underestimate the level of contempt in which he is held. Perhaps you’ve spent too long in the beltway.
              • The Fan Club …

                1 February 2013 at 3:01 pm

                The same Mallard who’s banging Jane Clifton, who’s probably the foremost parliamentary reporter of her generation? I think you overestimate the contempt in which he’s held. Perhaps you’ve spent too long in the Beltway?

                Let’s be serious: if Mallard was Speaker the gallery would think it was a hoot, the Nats would be very embarrassed, he’d settle down and do a competent job, and then probably retire at the next election. There’s plenty precedent for Speakers not from the government ranks, and there’s plenty precedent for sharp practice in elections for Speaker. In the end, no one really cares.
                • Lightly …

                  1 February 2013 at 3:35 pm

                  “foremost parliamentary reporter of her generation” Which generation is that?

                  The Nats would never accept a speaker who got there by subterfuge (they would do a no confidence motion – as they did against Wilson , except this time they would have the numbers)

                  Neither would Armstrong, Watkins, Small, Edwards, or James – and that’s your press gallery right there.

                  Oh, and the public would see it as Labour playing dirty again because you can bet that National would beat Labour in the spin game following a Mallard election.
                  • The Fan Club …

                    1 February 2013 at 4:53 pm

                    It’s not subterfuge, ffs. There’s no rule requiring notice of motion. If the Nats want to win a vote in the House, it’s up to them to get the numbers, it’s not up to Labour to do the Nats’ Whips’ job for them. That’s why the Whips exist, for god’s sake. Losing a vote because one lot has fewer people in the chamber than the other lot is pretty much the classic Westminster parliamentary loss.

                    I don’t think the motion of no confidence in Wilson was in order, and even if it passes, there’s no provision to unseat the Speaker on a no-confidence motion.
                    • One Tāne Huna …

                      1 February 2013 at 5:50 pm

                      Get out of the way you miserable hack: you’ve spent too long “playing” “the game”.
                  • CV - Real Labour …

                    1 February 2013 at 9:08 pm

                    Foremost indeed. For fucks sake our democracy’s Fourth Estate is in dire straits if that is true.
                • One Tāne Huna …

                  1 February 2013 at 5:44 pm

                  Um, I don’t live in the beltway. In layman’s terms, I’m nobody. I don’t give a fuck who he’s “banging” – that you advance it as some sort of bona fides is pathetic. Embarrassing, in fact; perhaps I touched a nerve. Diddums.
                • Murray Olsen …

                  1 February 2013 at 8:53 pm

                  Is “banging” the fashionable term among you guys? I suppose it’s better than rooting, but whatever you call it, wtf does it have to do with his (lack of) worth as a politician?
                  I liked the bit about him retiring though.
            • Anne 21.2.1.1.1.2

              1 February 2013 at 9:49 pm

              Playing tricky games with the Speakership election is pretty much traditional. Tapsell.

              How many times has TFC been caught out talking bullshit now?

              After the 1993 election, the National Party had a majority of only one seat. The appointment of the Speaker, therefore, presented a problem – if National selected a Speaker from among its own ranks, as was traditional, it would lose its majority, since the Speaker was not permitted to vote at that time. Therefore, Prime Minister Jim Bolger decided to offer the Speaker’s position to a member of the Labour Party, thereby retaining the crucial vote. Tapsell was the person chosen by Bolger for this role.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Tapsell_%28New_Zealand_politician%29

              Oh, and btw… I remember it clearly. Labour was consulted and agreed to Tapsell taking the position before the final decision was taken.
        • Lightly 21.2.1.2

          1 February 2013 at 3:30 pm

          National put forward a motion of no confidence in Wilson in 2006 (they withdrew it before a vote, if memory serves). http://tvnz.co.nz/content/797304/425825.xhtml

          There was also one in 1980.

          You idiot.
          • The Fan Club 21.2.1.2.1

            1 February 2013 at 4:48 pm

            (a) if the Speaker ruled it out of order it wouldn’t be heard, and (b) even if it had passed, it doesn’t mean the Speaker’s unseated, it just means the House has no confidence.
            • IrishBill 21.2.1.2.1.1

              1 February 2013 at 7:58 pm

              You may be right procedurally, I’m no expert on the minutiae of the house, but I doubt that the situation would be tenable. It would force National into creating chaos and they would have blamed it on Labour. Given the fact they have both greater resources and a more highly skilled media team, I’d pick that Labour would take the greatest hit.

              Even if Labour didn’t take the biggest hit they would be dedicating limited resources to defending this play that would have significant opportunity cost elsewhere. In my opinion the debacle would also contribute to an increase in enrolled non-vote in 2014 as the public were further alienated by a parliament fixated on playing elite games in Wellington.

              Rather than trying to bite of more than they can chew with this kind of bullshit Labour should be spending its energies on doing proper diligence on their housing policy so the leader has some good clean lines on it.

              It was a stupid play, Fan Club, and it shows exactly the blinkered, short-sighted, and house-focused strategic view that has blighted the party for the last four years. It would have wrecked Shearer just as he’s getting traction and you’re very very lucky it didn’t come off. You should be thankful Labour was saved from itself.

              My advice to Labour is to take a lesson from the Greens and start focusing on getting the basics right. You’re delusional if you think you’ve got the chops for the big plays before you get the fundamentals sorted.
              • The Fan Club …

                2 February 2013 at 2:34 am

                Of course I’m right on the procedure, I’m just reciting McGee and Erskine May.

                If you don’t know that a Speaker can’t be unseated by a motion of the House, and you don’t know that it is well within the opposition’s rights to put a government to a division on a motion if they think they can win, without warning the government whips, why on earth should I trust your views on what National can or can’t do as a matter of Parliamentary practice?

                Admit it, you guys don’t know how the House works and are just flailing in a rather embarrassing attempt to attack the Labour Party.

                (In practice, of course, Mallard never had a hope. But suppose he had won, and he takes the chair. The first call is to the Government. What do they say? Because they have to hit their lines straight away, within seconds of the election. The next call is to Shearer, then Turei or Norman, then Peters, all singing Mallard’s praises, then to Dunne, Banks, and Horan, who are hardly credible political figures. Then the House stands adjourned for two weeks, and Shearer and Mallard lead the evening news.

                In a fortnight’s time, the House sits, and the Nats can either wage an incredibly difficult and destructive campaign to unseat Mallard [i.e. it will be fought out in the Supreme Court, or worse, the G-G will be dragged in, and either way the House will not function for the duration of the crises], or they can accept him. If they do fight, they will not be able to move forward a single item of business until Mallard is gone, and I think it is impossible to remove him, so I would say they are risking losing a term of legislation. They won’t fight.)

                Finally, Irish, if you don’t understand that the incumbent almost always loses in this set up, you should not be talking about politics. (But I guess given you seem to think it’s ok to run your mouth without understanding the Speaker’s office, or, you know, the basic Westminster rule that the side with more votes wins divisions, then yeah.)
                • Colonial Viper …

                  2 February 2013 at 2:43 am

                  The Fan Club rules on who is good enough to speak! All obey The Standard’s new Speaker!
                  • the sprout …

                    2 February 2013 at 7:38 am

                    😆
                • One Tāne Huna …

                  2 February 2013 at 6:29 am

                  “…house-focused strategic view..”

                  Just don’t get it, do you, Fan Boy? Irish summed it up in just four words, and still you blither on is blissful denial.
                  • IrishBill …

                    2 February 2013 at 7:37 am

                    What One Tāne Huna said.
                    • RedLogix …

                      2 February 2013 at 8:55 am

                      In a way I can see that for someone close to the Beltway like TFC seems to be, the ‘Mallard hijacking the Speaker’s role’ idea must have some appeal.

                      After all National has been routinely arrogant and hi-handed around democratic and Parliamentary convention throughout their term; the opportunity to get one back on them must seem like pretty good karma.

                      But outside the Beltway IB is absolutely right; it would go over with voters like the original cup of cold sick.
                  • Te Reo Putake …

                    2 February 2013 at 9:04 am

                    Ahem, at the risk of being seen as wilfully contrarian, The Fan Club is correct in so many ways. Not only does TFC have the parliamentary procedures right, the Mallard move appears to have struck a chord with voters, if the conversation I overheard in a large factory donko yesterday is any guide. A group of print workers at the next table to mine were having a laugh at how well Labour played the speaker election, then moved on to ask, and I quote, “what’s wrong with Key?”. That wasn’t a question asked in support of the PM, it was an enquiry into his health.

                    MP’s shouldn’t be chastised for trying their best in the house any more than the AB’s could be criticized for playing rugby on a rugby field. The snide responses to TFC are not merited.
                    • One Tāne Huna …

                      2 February 2013 at 9:13 am

                      Yes, you’re absolutely right, how could I be so stupid. After all, it’s all about who one bangs, isn’t it?
                    • Te Reo Putake …

                      2 February 2013 at 9:18 am

                      Don’t apologise to me, OTH! Your lovemaking failures are none of my business.
                    • One Tāne Huna …

                      2 February 2013 at 9:25 am

                      “…none of my business”.

                      Funny, that’s exactly what I thought when Fan Boy mentioned Jane Clifton.
                    • just saying …

                      2 February 2013 at 9:33 am

                      MP’s shouldn’t be chastised for trying their best in the house any more than the AB’s could be criticized for playing rugby on a rugby field.

                      That’s the whole point TRP. Unlike rugby, parliamentary politics is not a game. Parliament has power over all our lives. MPs treating it like a grand game is insulting.

                      TFC’s views appear to mirror those of the leadership team, and are symptomatic of the arrogant, small-minded, out of touch, and elitist attitude, that so many of us here object to. This kind of approach turns everyday people into nameless, faceless pawns, to be manipulated, played with, and carelessly sacrificed, for the benefit and amusement of the big boys.
                    • Olwyn …

                      2 February 2013 at 9:40 am

                      You’ve hit the nail on the head Just Saying. Well said!
                    • Te Reo Putake …

                      2 February 2013 at 9:56 am

                      Rugby isn’t a game, it’s a business. So’s most sport these days, so it’s a pretty apt analogy, IMHO. And the arrogance you talk about can be found in spades in rugby as the grassroots game is sacrificed to pay for the elite.

                      However, I accept what you say is a genuine risk; isolation from real life can lead to some amazing arrogance from parliamentarians. Rodger Douglas screeching “I’m entitled” always springs to mind. The point I was making is that the speaker election appears to have connected with workers if the small sample I overheard is a guide. So why criticise Labour for getting it right?

                      Anyway, I look forward to the post putting the boot into the arrogant, small-minded, out of touch, and elitist Greens who voted for Mallard as speaker. Won’t be long now ….
                    • CV - Real Labour …

                      2 February 2013 at 10:03 am

                      Anyway, I look forward to the post putting the boot into the arrogant, small-minded, out of touch, and elitist Greens who voted for Mallard as speaker. Won’t be long now ….

                      Just inexperience on the part of the green Greens. You shouldn’t be too hard on them.
    • SpaceMonkey 21.3

      1 February 2013 at 2:13 pm

      “…would have highlighted how [National’s] incompetence is a direct result of their arrogance.”

      Disagree. It would’ve done nothing of the sort. Labour should be focussing on the issues and stating what they’re going to do differently from National, not wasting time with this sort of stunt.
    • Elizabeth Bourchier Real Labour 21.4

      1 February 2013 at 2:42 pm

      “Adrian”
      That may well have been the short term play out if events within the beltway.
      Did you think how it would play out with many members, given the divisions in the party ?
      • Olwyn 21.4.1

        1 February 2013 at 2:55 pm

        Elizabeth, I think you have hit upon an important point. Clark won people over. It is true that she did not win everyone over, but she won enough people over to win elections for nine years. Among supporters, she was affectionately known as Aunty Helen, or just Aunty. The present lot have not done that, but they keep presupposing that they have, and doing things that only work if you have. For example, you modify your position when you have already established one and galvanised people around it, you do not set out with a pre-modified position. Similarly, this speaker stunt might have looked like a real lark if they were riding high in the polls and on the verge of bringing the government down. Without such conditions in place however it just looks like playing silly buggers.
        • The Fan Club 21.4.1.1

          1 February 2013 at 3:04 pm

          Olwyn, it was not exactly affectionate. It was a rather ironic joke referring to her lack of personal warmth and her iron control over the Party apparat, rather like Uncle Joe…

          (Yours, someone who burst into tears when Helen resigned.)
          • Olwyn 21.4.1.1.1

            1 February 2013 at 3:20 pm

            In the circles that I move among it was used affectionately, perhaps initially by riffing off the ironic use that enemies made of it. And I also cried when she resigned. However, my point was that she managed to galvanise people. That some of us cried when she resigned is evidence of this.
            • Anne 21.4.1.1.1.1

              1 February 2013 at 3:40 pm

              some of us cried when she resigned.

              I guessed it was coming so I went to bed. Couldn’t even face seeing and hearing her resign – at least not on election night.

              As for The Fan Club: he/she is a troll! Anyone who suggests she had no personal warmth clearly never knew her or anything about her. She was full of personal warmth as anyone who has ever been associated with her can testify.
              • Anne …

                1 February 2013 at 4:28 pm

                Further to my 3:40 comment:

                Part of the reason (I suspect) her warmth was not so apparent in her public persona is because she knew it would be misrepresented by an antagonistic, NAct-leaning media pack as… weakness, instability or something equally as pernicious.
              • Anne …

                1 February 2013 at 4:38 pm

                Oops: I apologise to TFC. He/she may not be a t—l. (escaping moderation) I misread his/her 21.4.1.1

                Even so, it surprises me that TFC was not aware of Clark’s personal warmth.
                • RedLogix …

                  2 February 2013 at 9:54 am

                  Yes. I only met her once (working in the Beehive late one weekend) and without giving anything away I can testify that the encounter was a hoot.
        • CV - Real Labour 21.4.1.2

          1 February 2013 at 3:10 pm

          Those who still didn’t like Clark, certainly still respected her (apart from the haters and wreckers of course). She had the charm and charisma to win over most people in most audiences.
          • Rhinocrates 21.4.1.2.1

            1 February 2013 at 4:00 pm

            I didn’t “like” Helen Clark the PM, but neither did I dislike her – it was irrelevant I’m not sure if she wanted to be “liked” anyway (I suspect that if I had met Helen Clark the human I might have liked her – someone I know who has worked with her does like her). I respected her competence greatly then and I miss it now.

            That attribution of competence, which seems like faint praise isn’t. Politics is hard. I can’t find the attribution, but there was someone who laughed at Dwight Eisenhower’s presidential ambitions – not because they thought that he would be bad at the job, but that the former SCAFE’s (Supreme Commander, Allied Forces, Europe) who had been used to people obeying and implementing orders in a war would then have to depend on people who were incapable – and who had no intention – of doing either.

            Key’s supposed “likeability” has always been a repulsive smarminess to me, but he’s run a team and relied on his marketers well. I also disagree – purely on semantic terms – with those who say that every minister has been incompetent. They haven’t; Ryall, Joyce, English and even Bennett have all done exactly what was required of them by the party and its sponsors. They’re all awful, but they do what their constituents require. For all the talk of dissent and rivalry within National, it’s never made the headlines.

            Shearer can’t even manage the crude efficiency of Key; his authority is tenuous, he has no core principles, he’s a poor communicator, his party base is alienated and even the ABC club aren’t inspired to put themselves out in public to support him.

            That is actually what is most telling: for all their antipathy to Cunliffe, Shearer’s supporters in caucus are still not presenting themselves as a team supporting the next PM, let alone a government in waiting. Goff and King are vaguely professional, but Mallard’s a joke, Chippy’s… well, I can only say that I never met him, but I did step in him once… and all of them look like opportunists sailing under a flag of convenience.

            Shearer’s supporters said that his experience working for the UN made him a great team builder. Well, he hasn’t done that and a club is not a team. The ABCs find him “useful”, but they’re not loyal, not committed to him – look how lazy they are.

            Contrast that with Helen Clark, who made former rivals Michael Cullen and even Douglas’ Mini-Me, Goff, into not only supporters, but assets.

            The current Labour caucus is devolved so far that its sole focus, its sole performance indicator, is whether it serves the caucus, or even less than that. The one thin thread of hope that I have is not that the whole caucus will see that it needs a parliamentary leader who supports and communicates Labour values, but that enough junior and low-listed MPs realise that they could lose their meal tickets at Bellamy’s.
            • CV - Real Labour 21.4.1.2.1.1

              1 February 2013 at 5:08 pm

              +1 Smith and Collins are also very competent National Ministers. It’s a mistake to underestimate Key’s Cabinet.
            • The Fan Club 21.4.1.2.1.2

              1 February 2013 at 5:19 pm

              Comparing Shearer now, to Clark in 99, is hugely misleading. At this point in Clark’s tenure she was still pretty much engaged in open warfare with Goff/Cullen/King etc.
              • Anne …

                1 February 2013 at 6:47 pm

                Bollocks TFC. They went to Helen Clark expressing their concern over the disappointing leadership poll results. What’s more I’m pretty sure it happened sooner in Clark’s tenure. There was no open warfare. All behaved as mature adults are expected to behave.
              • Olwyn …

                1 February 2013 at 6:48 pm

                I made just one point about her; that she was able to galvanise people, which I think is in most cases needed for electoral success on the left of the spectrum.
            • VivaciousViper 21.4.1.2.1.3

              1 February 2013 at 10:06 pm

              @ Rhinocrates, I never liked Clark either,much because of her term as health
              minister and her policies,which were more right wing than left wing,mum and
              i used to have some terrible rows over Clark, mum was a hard line Clark
              believer and you dare not say anything against Clark, mum was an active
              labour person,sadly passed on,but boy i remember her defence of Clark.
              I never voted for Labour while Clark was in power because of my own political principles,but i have to hand it to Clark she knew how to run a tight ship and because
              of that i admired in that way.
              I actually e-mailed Clark and let her know how i felt about her turning her back
              on the people and unless she included the people she would loose badly in the
              election and that is what happened, i felt no sympathy for her tears, at all.
22. Afewknowthetruth 22

    1 February 2013 at 4:40 pm

    Daffy Duck Mallard, the idiot Minister of Energy who told us Peak Oil would not be until 2067. Only 60 years out.

    How could anyone vote for the idiot for any reason?
    • Robert Atack 22.1

      1 February 2013 at 7:07 pm

      I think the clown said 1937?
      “It will be somewhere with a number that begins with 203 …” see Campbell Live 22 March 05 @4:57 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTDgYIWu0nA
      ops sorry to many facts.
      • Robert Atack 22.1.1

        2 February 2013 at 6:02 pm

        2037 … not that anyone would have noticed )
23. Robert Atack 23

    1 February 2013 at 7:30 pm

    Do nothing Parker wrote a letter to the late Dr Peter Lloyd in 2006 saying peak would be between 2021 – 2067 http://oilcrash.com/articles/parker01.htm

    The scariest is a letter from the fat one dated 1June 2010 “The Government’s position on peak oil, therefore, continues to be that oil production will not change significantly until 2030, or some date beyond this”
    GB

    I asked Pete if he would sign this letter ….. http://oilcrash.com/articles/hodgson.htm ………today
    He said NO

    Yet Helen said quite clearly in 2006 that ‘we’ were close to if not already there http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxIp5h0Xtuc Then she oversaw the lie that is the oil/energy/growth dependent ponzi saving scam Kiwi Saver ..
    Yeah go Labour
    Yeah go all politicians
    And Yeah go all the fools that think voting for these fucking liars is going to do anything good.
24. Coronial Typer 24

    2 February 2013 at 9:09 am

    I’m sorry I think Mallard would have made a great Speaker.

    He knew the rules, he knew the bodies, he’d slept with everyone.

    Would have ruled like Caligula.
    • Rogue Trooper 24.1

      2 February 2013 at 6:10 pm

      thats a Six and over the stands!

Links to post

1. Wave goodbye to another 200 jobs « The Standard: posted on 1 February 2013 at 9:21 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS