|
roarshark posted:Oh no, my colours. What would they be, exactly? I'll go right ahead and project because when you say "the Greens' typical leave-out-the-actual-context nonsense", it kind of invites the reader to conclude that you think this "leave-out-the-actual-context nonsense" is specific to the Greens and the way they conduct themselves. quote:While you're at it, please continue to have no idea about how sensitive parliament is about spending taxpayers money after the absolute fiascos we've all seen in the past few years, and somehow tie that together with a rage at the government at "not getting their act into gear". So sensitive they literally couldn't prepare for an elected MP so that she would be able to do her job properly, despite having three months to do it (perhaps even longer if Smith had paid adequate attention to the party lists) and despite it being their primary statutory function?
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 10:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 04:10 |
|
|
Pigeon Shamus posted:I'll go right ahead and project because when you say "the Greens' typical leave-out-the-actual-context nonsense", it kind of invites the reader to conclude that you think this "leave-out-the-actual-context nonsense" is specific to the Greens and the way they conduct themselves. The Greens are better at it than most, except perhaps Winston First. I'll go right ahead and project that you vote left, though? Pigeon Shamus posted:So sensitive they literally couldn't prepare for an elected MP so that she would be able to do her job properly, despite having three months to do it (perhaps even longer if Smith had paid adequate attention to the party lists) and despite it being their primary statutory function? Yeah, you should spend some time understanding how parliamentary process works. There are strict guidelines as well as many layers of you know, law. It's not even Smith's job or in his jurisdiction to allocate funds to something like this. It's the purvue of Parliamentary Services - who came under considerable fire with the last government and what they passed through it. Please feel free to rage against Smith though, its fairly hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 11:38
|
|
|
roarshark posted:
Go right ahead. quote:Yeah, you should spend some time understanding how parliamentary process works. There are strict guidelines as well as many layers of you know, law. It's not even Smith's job or in his jurisdiction to allocate funds to something like this. It's the purvue of Parliamentary Services - who came under considerable fire with the last government and what they passed through it. I am fully aware that there is law at play here and I am fully aware that the Parliamentary Services have guidelines and regulations in place to control how money is spent. And while I wasn't just 'raging' against Smith (hence my frequent references to "them" and "they" and "their primary statutory function", which generally is used to refer to a group of people or a body within Parliament), he and Parliamentary Services have had three months to sort this out, and if they needed to take it to Parliament or whatever to amend the Speaker's Directions they've had at least a week to do so. Further, he doesn't need to wait a half a month to get the advice of the PCS, if that's what he's worried about - Schedule 2 s1 of the Parliamentary Services Act states that the PCS or its chairperson can call a meeting at any time. Lockwood's cack-handed approach to this whole affair is stupid but fairly incidental to what are some serious procedural questions. A deaf MP shouldn't have to wait months to be able to adequately do their job, and they shouldn't be forced to pay from their own pocket to be able to adequately do their job. It's all well and good that Parliamentary Services is tight on the purse strings and that they can't spend money Smith didn't or couldn't allocate in the budget for the Parliamentary Services he's required to make under s8 of the PSA - but it doesn't make sense to suggest that a deaf MP should be required to wait for several months for Parliamentary Services to resolve their hand-wringing about whether they can afford to splurge on a necessity for that MP to adequately represent her voters and those with her disability.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2012 12:28
|
|
|
Pigeon Shamus posted:"And while I wasn't just 'raging' against Smith (hence my frequent references to "them" and "they" and "their primary statutory function", which generally is used to refer to a group of people or a body within Parliament), he and Parliamentary Services have had three months to sort this out, and if they needed to take it to Parliament or whatever to amend the Speaker's Directions they've had at least a week to do so. Right, so you weren't "just" raging against Smith when you said: Pigeon Shamus posted:If Smith had been forward thinking enough (he is the one who sets the budget, after all - PCS only 'advises' him) .. then you were clearly not understanding how parliamentary services works. Besides, look at today's reporting, its not the technology that's the problem, its the hours. Whoopsy daisy, looks like the Greens left out the actual facts again. How unlike them. The Greens could have handled this situation much better - put everything in place and then appealed to parliament and the public to have it sorted - but no. Instead, they go on a rage against the government and make themselves look like absolute dickheads. It's no wonder Clark did deals with everyone else apart from them when they behave in such a way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2012 08:40
|
|
|
roarshark posted:Right, so you weren't "just" raging against Smith when you said: Quote some of the things the Greens have been lying about.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2012 09:28
|
|
|
roarshark posted:Right, so you weren't "just" raging against Smith when you said: Yeah, that looks like 'rage' to me, and this all looks focused on just him too - quote:It's all well and good that Parliamentary Services is tight on the purse strings and that they can't spend money Smith didn't or couldn't allocate in the budget for the Parliamentary Services he's required to make under s8 of the PSA - but it doesn't make sense to suggest that a deaf MP should be required to wait for several months for Parliamentary Services to resolve their hand-wringing about whether they can afford to splurge on a necessity for that MP to adequately represent her voters and those with her disability. I also want to note that section 8 of the Parliamentary Services Act states that it's the Speaker who gives "written directions as to both the nature of the services to be provided, under section 7(a), in the next financial year; and the objectives to be achieved by the Service by providing those services" (those services and funding entitlements, unless I am wrong, include a member's support staff - and the hours those staffers can work - under the Speakers Directions) and that PS have to act in accordance with those under s8(2). Further, s14 of that Act states the PSC has only an advisory role (hence the frequent use of language such as "recommends" and "advises"). I am aware the Speaker's Directions imposes limits on the hours for support staff (because they need money to pay them), but this is something the Speaker could have worked out with the PSC months ago because the chairperson can call them at any time (Sch 2 s 1 PSA). If he then needed to take it to Parliament, he should have done so last week when it opened, instead of Parliament messing around with repealing redundant Acts. Of course, if any of this is wrong, please tell me. I have the feeling you won't because you seem to be more interested in being really condescending about the Green Party, which is fine, but it's not exactly conducive to proving your point when all you can say is "you don't understand the law rarr Greens rarr" without actually saying why.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2012 09:39
|
|
|
Ratios and Tendency posted:Quote some of the things the Greens have been lying about. Global warming, obviously.  In breaking not really news, Key's about as popular as polio among Maori - at least those polled by the Te Karere Digipoll between January 6~27. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10785506 edogawa rando fucked around with this message at 09:44 on Feb 15, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2012 09:41
|
|
|
Vagabundo posted:
You know, there's a lot of legitimate things you can say after a poll, any poll, shows you have crazy-low approval ratings among Maori. I'm not sure "we actually increased in strong support from what we can see from Maori" is one of those things.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2012 09:50
|
|
|
Pigeon Shamus posted:You know, there's a lot of legitimate things you can say after a poll, any poll, shows you have crazy-low approval ratings among Maori. Yeah, I'm trying to work that one out. This is probably also a rather catastrophic result for the Maori Party as it stands now, since they'd be their main voter base. But you know, not really news, since everyone already knows that. Also, missed the news this evening, so I didn't realise this had happened. quote:Court overturns Crafar farms sale decision http://business.scoop.co.nz/2012/02/15/breaking-court-overturns-crafar-farms-sale-decision/ This link has the decision on Overseas Investment Office decision of sale of the farms http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1202/S00099/judgment-court-overturns-crafar-farm-sale-decision.htm edogawa rando fucked around with this message at 09:58 on Feb 15, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2012 09:54
|
|
|
Pigeon Shamus posted:I'm not sure "we actually increased in strong support from what we can see from Maori" is one of those things. The way it's phrased makes my head hurt. And yeah, that's not really something you should say after polling 17% on "good leadership of Maori issues" and 88% against a major plank of your policy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2012 09:55
|
|
|
door.jar posted:The way it's phrased makes my head hurt. And yeah, that's not really something you should say after polling 17% on "good leadership of Maori issues" and 88% against a major plank of your policy. I interpreted it as "we have more fanatical maori supporters" So I guess that 17% is hardcore or something.
|
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2012 21:18
|
|
|
Meanwhile, Labour is looking to score points off of the Herald posted:Labour: PM had big hand in radio show http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10785611
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2012 00:28
|
|
|
I don't see this radio show blowing up as big as it could, but it strikes me as bizarre that we've had the Official Information Act since the 1980s and yet MPs still do things like have massive email conversations about how to best avoid blame for something they are pretty sure is going to run afoul of some law. You'd think they'd have adjusted to this thirty-year-old environment of openness by now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2012 01:10
|
|
|
Pigeon Shamus posted:I don't see this radio show blowing up as big as it could, but it strikes me as bizarre that we've had the Official Information Act since the 1980s and yet MPs still do things like have massive email conversations about how to best avoid blame for something they are pretty sure is going to run afoul of some law. You'd think they'd have adjusted to this thirty-year-old environment of openness by now. It's appeared it's blown up a lot more than the Nats would have liked from the looks of it. Labour have been making some inroads with media-related issues, with this and the whole McElrea fiasco, so they might as well keep milking this until it says "moo." But yeah, the Crafar farms fiasco is probably going to overshadow it. It's been a rubbish start to this parliamentary cycle for National and there does seem to be an air of King Kong at the top of the Empire State Building about them at the moment. Also, speaking of emails, I wonder if the McCully emails will ever become public. edogawa rando fucked around with this message at 06:21 on Feb 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2012 02:47
|
|
|
Also Shearer got the boot from his morning segment on TV1 I think. Could it all be related? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2012 02:53
|
|
|
Red_Fred posted:Also Shearer got the boot from his morning segment on TV1 I think. Could it all be related? TVNZ is saying they're returning to a previous format of only having the leader of the opposition on only during election time. Shearer does get a fair bit of TV and radio time elsewhere, but it does appear a bit dodgy when the government-owned broadcaster announces that the leader of the opposition will no longer be appearing on their airwaves regularly while the PM does. It's certainly not the best timing, when the government is taking solid hits on issues relating to allegations of political interference in the media. edogawa rando fucked around with this message at 03:08 on Feb 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2012 03:03
|
|
|
I'm curious what the general opinion of the Ports of Auckland dispute is here. I am a seafarer myself and personally I think all that's going to happen is Tauranga is going to continue to eat Auckland's lunch and only more so when they aren't able to do their jobs... As for the workers, I loving hate wharfies with a passion, but I am actually on their side - it is bullshit they are being forced into these casual positions and their pay so blatantly misrepresented by the opposition. On another note, what is up with the Herald/Stuff coverage of it - so far as I can tell they are actually AGAINST the union? Since when does the media take the side of big business?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2012 04:26
|
|
|
It's the Herald. They do that kind of thing. I think the wharfies are in the right with this one. Sure, it will slightly inconvenience us, but they have their livelihoods at stake and families to think about.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2012 04:53
|
|
|
Is there such a thing as a paper worth reading in NZ or should I just give up hope?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2012 05:00
|
|
|
Two Finger posted:Is there such a thing as a paper worth reading in NZ or should I just give up hope? No and yes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2012 05:04
|
|
|
Two Finger posted:Since when does the media take the side of big business? This is precious.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2012 05:10
|
|
|
I'm more used to them taking the side of the downtrodden worker.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2012 05:21
|
|
|
Prime News is probably one of the better news shows. It runs for 30 minutes, so they have little time to editorialise. You only really get the headlines, but it gets the job done. If a story piques your interest, you can always read up on it elsewhere after getting the cliffnotes version on TV.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2012 05:52
|
|
|
Pigeon Shamus posted:I don't see this radio show blowing up as big as it could, but it strikes me as bizarre that we've had the Official Information Act since the 1980s and yet MPs still do things like have massive email conversations about how to best avoid blame for something they are pretty sure is going to run afoul of some law. You'd think they'd have adjusted to this thirty-year-old environment of openness by now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2012 06:08
|
|
|
I wonder if Bill English will show up to parliament tomorrow. I'm guessing we'll see Steven Joyce to face the questions in his place instead. The gist of it is, English has admitted that he's only guessed the profits from the SOE sales, but in reality, he has no idea. It will also cost us $200million in dividends and a forecast $360million in profits. TV3 reckons it may even wipe out the surplus that English probably guessed would be there by 2015. http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6429541/Govt-says-asset-sales-will-cut-debt Here's TV3's coverage of it if you want a comparison with Stuff. http://www.3news.co.nz/Government-admits-to-guessing-asset-sale-profits/tabid/1607/articleID/243158/Default.aspx Also in a move that surprised absolutely no one, the ACT leader is now John Banks. edogawa rando fucked around with this message at 07:17 on Feb 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2012 06:14
|
|
|
Don't confuse 'just being poo poo at reporting anything' with bias a certain way. Neither side's points have really been debated in the POAL vs Maritime Union coverage at all. They get talking point from key players, then one or two experts who are so biased in a particular way (this varies from story to story) and then name a point in the future at which it could all change and that rounds out the story. It's pretty formulaic. Another good example is the coverage of the Inner City Rail loop, for instance. The only thing that our press seem interested in is the conflicted ideals of Central and National government. The actual Auckland rail proposal has received little to no scrutiny at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2012 06:28
|
|
|
Just watching the news on 3+1 - does anyone really give a flying gently caress about Mallard selling tickets to homegrown on trademe? He bought them, couldn't use them so sold them by auction... if people didn't want to pay more than retail why the gently caress did they? That is how auctions work! It hardly seems like something that should have pre-empted Iran's nuclear development, or the P lab bust, as the first story. It would not have been out of place as the dumb "before you change the channel now that sports is next" story.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2012 07:07
|
|
|
ClubmanGT posted:Don't confuse 'just being poo poo at reporting anything' with bias a certain way. Neither side's points have really been debated in the POAL vs Maritime Union coverage at all. They get talking point from key players, then one or two experts who are so biased in a particular way (this varies from story to story) and then name a point in the future at which it could all change and that rounds out the story. It's pretty formulaic. The business news on 3 is a 5 minute advert for ASB.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2012 07:20
|
|
|
Dead Alice posted:Just watching the news on 3+1 - does anyone really give a flying gently caress about Mallard selling tickets to homegrown on trademe? WEll, him introducing a law that would stop scalpers for big international events then looking like he's scalping was pretty loving stupid of him.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2012 07:27
|
|
|
ledge posted:WEll, him introducing a law that would stop scalpers for big international events then looking like he's scalping was pretty loving stupid of him. Yeah, but it is just "pretty loving stupid" and hardly of any real significance. Oh look, half an hour in and we're getting to the Manawatu gorge, a major issue for the lower north island exacerbated by decades of poor management and cost cutting. Welp, better run the story of the MP looking like a tit before this! e: To be fair, that segment had Brownlee looking like a tit too... Big Bad Beetleborg fucked around with this message at 07:33 on Feb 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2012 07:30
|
|
|
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/6431418/Marryatt-skips-council-debate-to-play-golfquote:Christchurch City Council chief executive Tony Marryatt's decision to leave a council meeting early today to play golf has been supported by the deputy mayor. Taking leave to play in a golf tournament is fine, however it's hilariously ill advised when you're already under fire for golfing on days you claimed to be working and being massively overpaid. In other news someone got a picture of the freshly appointed Government observer snoozing in today's council meeting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2012 07:49
|
|
|
Ratios and Tendency posted:Quote some of the things the Greens have been lying about. See above. The Greens were really complaining about the hours their staff were being paid for, rather than the technology. That's an entirely different kettle of fish, but you can always rely on the Greens to emotionalise everything rather than debate it in a rational way. Combine that with their hilarious support of banning DiHydrogen Monoxide and you've got a barrel of laughs. And let's not forget their awesome taxypayer funded retirement scheme through property. Yes sir, the Greens dont ever lie about anything.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2012 08:01
|
|
|
Dead Alice posted:Yeah, but it is just "pretty loving stupid" and hardly of any real significance. This is the third year he's done it in a row, all the while using taxpayer provided equipment and time to do it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2012 08:03
|
|
|
Vagabundo posted:TVNZ is saying they're returning to a previous format of only having the leader of the opposition on only during election time. Shearer does get a fair bit of TV and radio time elsewhere, but it does appear a bit dodgy when the government-owned broadcaster announces that the leader of the opposition will no longer be appearing on their airwaves regularly while the PM does. It's certainly not the best timing, when the government is taking solid hits on issues relating to allegations of political interference in the media. It's been standard practice for about 10 years. I trust you'll be complaining when the government changes and National get bumrushed out of the same said coverage?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2012 08:05
|
|
|
My  What's this about using tax payer time and equipment? You've never checked your own email on your work computer or taken a break?
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2012 08:13
|
|
|
Dead Alice posted:My I don't bill 'taking a break' to anyone, so no.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2012 08:20
|
|
|
ClubmanGT posted:Don't confuse 'just being poo poo at reporting anything' with bias a certain way. Neither side's points have really been debated in the POAL vs Maritime Union coverage at all. They get talking point from key players, then one or two experts who are so biased in a particular way (this varies from story to story) and then name a point in the future at which it could all change and that rounds out the story. It's pretty formulaic. I just genuinely can't believe that the editor is happy to sign off on the loving drivel they keep putting out. It's insult to injury with the bright red NEWSPAPER OF THE YEAR on every copy of the Herald being sold. It makes me laugh in a really bitter and unhappy way when I read the College Herald because it is almost invariably better written and researched than the loving Herald. roarshark posted:Combine that with their hilarious support of banning DiHydrogen Monoxide and you've got a barrel of laughs. Please tell me you have a link.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2012 08:23
|
|
|
Dead Alice posted:Yeah, but it is just "pretty loving stupid" and hardly of any real significance. I like the Stuff article, in which it points out that the Gorge - a key transport route between the Lower North Island and Hawkes Bay that is currently replaced by a clusterfuck of a backup road in the Saddle Road (that runs through my hometown, but the main detour turning right before the main drag down some residential side-streets hasn't exactly been great for it) - has been closed since August last year and yet the only time it's been visited before today was in September by the Associate Transport Minister and several others electioneering. Six months. I mean, even if Joyce had paid it a perfunctory visit to get a lay of the slip, it would at least look like he was doing something. It's costing the Manawatu a shitload in lost business, but I guess if it's not motorways in Auckland it's not worth the attention. EDIT: roarshark posted:It's been standard practice for about 10 years. I trust you'll be complaining when the government changes and National get bumrushed out of the same said coverage? It should be standard practice period, it's only fair to offer the Opposition Leader and the Prime Minister rights of rebuttal to the other on the broadcasts they frequent. But please, keep insinuating that you're the only one who really understands politics as you always do. Pigeon Shamus fucked around with this message at 08:54 on Feb 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2012 08:23
|
|
|
ClubmanGT posted:I don't bill 'taking a break' to anyone, so no. Sorry, I'm talking about Mallard and trademe in response to Mr Triplepost there, not Marryatt. Pigeon Shamus posted:Saddle Road Big Bad Beetleborg fucked around with this message at 08:29 on Feb 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2012 08:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 04:10 |
|
|
roarshark posted:It's been standard practice for about 10 years. I trust you'll be complaining when the government changes and National get bumrushed out of the same said coverage? You want to point out the part in the post you quoted where I complained about it? I trust you'll learn how to comprehend what you're reading in the near future, you patronising gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2012 08:43
|
|