Posts by Idiot Savant
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Whereupon they form their own micro-party, convince the voters of Stupidville to keep electing them despite their having left the Nats/Labour, get a nice job as Minister-outside-Cabinet and allow their ignorant pomposity to reach whole new levels.
I'm sure there's a TV comedy in that...
-
Be fair, I/S - if Labour was doing it the same would apply. No MP will subject themselves to the requirements they demand from the populace
Sure. But I think we both agree that its arrogant and hypocritical.
If National believed in this bill, they'd let the public sack them at any time in their first 90 days in office. But that's about as likely as them recusing themselves for a conflict of interest when voting on their own tax cuts.
-
Sadly, the bill won't apply to national's MPs. But they wouldn't dare subject themselves to the same standards they want to impose on everybody else.
-
Could we burn effigies of John Key and Rodney Hide, too?
If you feel like it; it's a free country. Just remember to bring a fire extinguisher in case ti gets out of hand.
-
Isn't it too early to riot on the streets yet?
Yes. But its never too early to toast marshmellows.
-
I/S highlights abuse of urgency by the National government, then shoots at foot by saying that no comparable abuse took place in the previous Labour government. The Labour government undertook urgency to pass legislation immediately prior to the election, this was an unjustifiable abuse for party political ends as there were no impending deadlines that could not be met by a post-election government.
As I said: go away, read 15 years of Hansard, and come back when you have an informed opinion.
Those bills got select committee hearings. Using urgency to get bills through their final sages before a break - or an election - isn't an abuse. Using urgency to ram serious policy through without a select committee through is.
-
That's it, I'm barricading Molesworth Street.
I believe its traditional to set fire to things as well. Maybe a protest BBQ?
-
I saw on the news last night (TV3 6pm) that the tax changes will not help people at all who are earning below $45K, but already receiving WFF.
And just to put that it context: about 75% of New Zealanders earn less than $45 K a year.
If we're going to have tax cuts now that the economy is shot, can I at least get some pie while everything goes to hell?
No. Under National, only the rich get pie. This is what they call "an incentive" (though what for is unclear).
-
Are we also beginning to see the beginnings of the terrible fixes the Maori Party are getting into?
Yes. In particular, I wonder how it will play amongst the Maori Party's base that their "representatives" voted to feather their own nests while voting against offsetting National's de facto hike of taxes on the poor with tax credits.
-
It's opposition's job to oppose. If that means countering urgency with a filibuster, then that's how it has to happen.
Not under MMP. It's the opposition's (to use the archaic, FPP term) to advocate their own position. This is not necessarily the same as opposing.
As for Craig, I think it would be nice to see the non-government parties standing up against this abuse of the Parliamentary process (and to all the trolls who are going to crawl out of the woodwork whining about Labour's use of urgency, fuck off. Or, more politiely, "go and read 15 years of Hansard to look at how urgency is used and abused, and come back when you have an informed opinion on the matter, rather than whatever crap you picked up from DPF's sewer". Not all urgency is the same, and there's a world of difference between e.g. using urgency to get a bill to committee or pass it through its final stages (fine), or pass your tax bill so that it can all be in place by April 1 (fine), and using to to pass serious non-financial policy without any select committee stage (not fine)).
To get back to the point: National stood up for parliamentary process in 2005 by making the House unamangeable in response to Labour summarily collapsing a member's day so Michael Cullen could go to dinner. That was a Good Thing. And it would be a Good Thing as well if the current non-government parties did the same to defend the Parliamentary process now. Yes, the government gets to set policy. But it should not be allowed to bypass select committee and public scrutiny while doing so.