The bullying in Mallard's department continues. "BE KIND". Yeah Right
Printable View
Maybe but there sure is smoke.
Some half-decent words from simon on one the best finance ministers NZ has had:
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/michael-c...last-testament
He seems to be talking more about the real issues these days which is nice.
Should have done more of that rather than go on tax cuts, "the economy" and practically nothing else.
Just when you thought things couldn't get any worse, wonder if todays UMR poll will mean another leadership change and calls for Simon Bridges to be brought back in caretaker role.
Caucus putting on a brave face but must be tearing itself apart.
I'm here to help.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/unprec...3DRX766MSGITQ/
I'm here to help.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/unprec...3DRX766MSGITQ/
Link Blue Skies, Link. Who is surprised! Collins is an antiquated matriarch old school matron cannibal squid model imo stuck in the distant muldoon era. Bring back Buck, I mean simon,im sure he's learnt not to diss Jacinda at the wrong time:).
NZ Herald.'Unprecedented' poll result as Act leader David Seymour overtakes National leader Judith Collins in new UMR poll.2 hours ago
Judith at it again.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/polit...-a-martyr.html
Not happy about the woman coming back from Syria.
No idea what she would have done but have a rant anyway.
Playing to some sector of her dwindling support base.
She was born here and International law says you can't (you can't make a person stateless). The kids are Kiwis too because she is (was) when they were born.
Re Australia, she was given citizenship so they can take it away.
Not as simple as some simple people would like people to think.
Citizenship can be revoked by the country of birth. Let's face it, we got 'owned' yet again. We know Australia's modus operandi in these situations. We could have revoked her citizenship before Australia did, but we didn't. Now we're stuck with a known associate of a terrorist organisation who hasn't lived in NZ since age six, along with her children. We now have a very expensive on-going security threat to deal with, that was made in Australia. Well done New Zealand.
"Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has been given assurances from Australia that it won't "arbitrarily" cancel citizenship of those who are also New Zealand citizens, without first discussing it. "
Yeah, right!
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/polit...in-future.html
We are a responsible country doing the right humane thing for a woman and her two childen.Aus is not, it has totally abandoned them, thats not a modern , civilised country. thats callous and cruelty.
How if that makes them stateless?
In 2006 NZ became a party to the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness
We did so with the following statement
Declaration:
"[New Zealand] declares that in accordance with
paragraph 3 of article 8 of the Convention New Zealand
retains the right to deprive a person of his New Zealand
citizenship on the following grounds, being grounds
existing in New Zealand law at the present time:
the person has, while a New Zealand citizen and while
of or over the age of 18 years and of full capacity,
(a) Acquired the nationality or citizenship of another
country by any voluntary and formal act, and acted in a
manner that is contrary to the interests of New Zealand; or
(b) Voluntarily exercised any of the privileges or
performed any of the duties of another nationality or
citizenship possessed by him in a manner that is contrary
to the interests of New Zealand."
So we could have dropped her as a citizen if we had done it before Aussie but it is now too late under our law.
Australia never signed - they don't give a toss really.
She was given those assurances - they mean nothing but just what do you think she (or Judith) can do about it?
Let's face it, you, I and the Govt know that Aussie will discuss it but the discussion will go something like - "we are doing it, discussion over, get stuffed if you don't like it".
Before we (mostly) all rush to what seems to be the default outrage setting, just a quick cursory check shows there are 2 innocent vulnerable children being overlooked here, a 2year old and a 5 year old who are both NZ citizens.
I don't believe any decent person here would refuse to offer them refuge from the extreme trauma & suffering they must have experienced, even if they weren't NZ citizens.
So before we rage at the govt over another difficult & complex issue, we have a moral & a legal obligation to take this family back & its a real shame Judith Collins is so desperate she has to appeal to & exploit the worst traits in human nature, fear, anger, selfishness & ignorance to shore up her fading leadership. This is not the National Party of Bill English or John Key.
Further it appears the young mother a 19 year old at the time, on seeing first hand the reality didn't match the seductive recruitment propaganda, may have had second thoughts and attempted to pull out of crossing into Syria & return home, but was stymied by the group she was travelling with. I can understand that with a group as brutal as ISIS.
And really does anyone believe she & her 2 children pose more of a threat to NZ'ers than some of the anti-vaxers we find here or the gang members being sent back from Aussie ?
I don't think so.
Save your outrage for the anti-vaxers, & the deeply cynical Aussie politicians who are abusing NZ'ers human rights by deporting them.
https://www.govt.nz/browse/passports...z-citizenship/
Nothing to stop NZ from revoking her citizenship.
She will not be eligible to be granted a passport, nor will she likely be granted access to any foreign country even if she possessed a passport.
Her life and that of her Syrian born (as I understand it) children in NZ will be tightly controlled by our security services.
Poor wee Judith - people are being 'malicious and nasty' to her.
Pots and kettles come to mind.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/polit...-williams.html
You need to go back to school for comprehension - she was referring to the malicious & nasty way her comments about Poto ‘I represent South Auckland Maori & Pacific Islanders’ Williams were misrepresented. Her comments - not her, savvy?
As for Poto’s daughter concerned about her mother’s safety, I have yet to read anything more pathetic from a politician attempting to milk sympathy & attention even while she (Poto) showed she could not care less about police safety & gun violence.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political...-poto-williams
Judith makes a big noise about the money spent on the programme for drug addiction - supposedly paying the Mongrol Mob when National did the same.
She got a roasting in question time yesterday.
She is just so useless! Why can't we have a real opposition? Democracy needs a functioning opposition.
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/polit...d-2-reach.html
Blimy, the disfunction & shambles continues, no accountability, no reset, no lessons learnt, no refresh, what a disappointment.
Dinosaurs, what else can you say.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/...-in-goodfellow
Absolute despair in NZ. A hopeless, incompetent, corrupt government driving radical left wing policies and separatism via their plan to upend our democracy and 'co-govern' with the Maori tribal elites....and there is no opposition. National couldn't get rid of Goodfellow? After all the debacles around candidate selections & the terrible election result....and they can't get rid of Goodfellow!!??!!??!! Meanwhile 'Muldoon in drag' continues to cement her position, even though it will end up in disaster with another big defeat in the next election.
If you want change in the National party, best to tell the pollsters you support ACT and prefer Seymour as PM. Eventually National will have to act and get rid of 'Muldoon in drag' before it is too late.
Meanwhile in National disunity reigns
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politi...ZQCLRXK2BKYZE/
"One source told the Herald that Collins "completely lost it" at Bishop. Another source described her tirade as "f***ing ballistic"."
I think it was a mistake not to allow a conscience vote on this issue. Agree the 3 MPs mentioned are National’s top performers and demoting any of them would be a huge mistake.
I think she should be asking the finance & health spokesmen what they have been doing. I never see anything from them
Wrong. National needs to do a hell of a lot more between now and the election, other than simply getting rid of Collins. That alone is not going to do it. I voted Labour last election, but as I have previously said, I am less than happy about some of their recent initiatives/decisions (not including their management of covid). But right now, National gives me absolutely nothing to vote for either. If they don't pull some rabbits out of the bag soon, they have no hope of getting my vote, or the vote or any disillusioned Labour voters.
Not entirely sure how I feel about ACT, but at this point in time I think my son is right - they will pick up the votes from people "stuck in limbo" with no clear winner in terms of who to vote for. Both Labour and National need to seriously think about that.
Of course it will wear thin. Time does that to alll politicians, but she's still got a heap of brownie points at this stage with no threat in sight. National needs to get a new leader in place now. No use waiting till just before the election. They've got a couple of real possibilities in their ranks. And - apart from the leader - Labour aren't in the hunt.
The only deadbeat is Whaleoil in Drag. She is the one who is knifing and spraying to try and maintain her grip on power, and she doesn't care how many elections she loses as long as she stays there.
If she can destroy all internal challengers and up and comers in the National caucus then she will. It is a scorched earth policy will will set the party back a decade. Get her out, she is still the same toxic 'dirty politics' person she has always been, the leopard doesn't change its spots. She can only talk tough - is not quick enough between the ears but has borrowed Muldoon's grin and deploys it liberally...that's about all she has got, that and utter ruthlessness.
Collins was unhappy with the way some MPs had publicly suggested they were less than supportive of the caucus' decision to vote against a ban on conversion therapy.
Collins allegedly unloaded on one of the most high-profile detractors, Covid-19 spokesman Chris Bishop.
Basically saying Judith lost it in a caucus meeting ripping into Chris Bishop and dressing down the other MPs that were unhappy about the caucus decision to not allow conscience votes on the conversion therapy bill. It is known that Nicola Willis, Chris Bishop and Erica Stanford may have wanted to vote in favour of it. I think ACT were much smarter voting for it to go in for a 2nd reading without promising support beyond that.
Thanks Dobby & Iceman, I thought as much.
Bit of 'throwing stones in glass houses'. Apart from shows of loyalty & unity never bothering Judith too much in the past, she's just adding to the damage.
A quiet word would have been the way to handle it rather than a humiliating showdown in front of caucus.
The sort of thing not easily 'moved on from' as am sure she would like to think.
Big ego's involved & she must be feeling her leadership vulnerable & on increasingly shaky ground.
“in this country it is found good, from time to time, to kill one Admiral to encourage the others.”
So. thin ranks become even thinner! Is there any talent left in this party?
:confused:
Mr Muller was persuaded to challenge for the leadership and assured of support / votes by a group of MPs. At a time when polls were indicating a problem for National. Seems like he was not reluctant. The support and votes promised would have made it look like a shoo in. Until their choice turned out to be a lemon. Some of the support group are well known and now high profile. Good for them, they are working hard. But in my mind there will always be a ? over them due to that flawed judgement.
So Bishop now loses the 'Shadow Leader of the House' role so he can concentrate on his shadow Covid-19 gig.
Punishment!
So during the last election, Judith was saying that she was all for NZ embracing digital technology and she was the person for it.
But then she says that a digital parliament isn't a good idea during level 4 so she flys south from the centre of the Delta outbreak to appear in Parliament in person.
She is an essential worker like a supermarket worker so can travel - except it is very hard to stack shelves via Zoom.
What a joke she is. Politics got in the way of common sense.
LOL - you got him there, me thinkth!
But it is unbelievable that Cindy thought she can, with the ever ready $300k+ taxpayer paid legal fee Mallard on the ready, shut down Parliament so she does not have to answer to we, the People via our MPs.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/...OOWT433EQWDIE/
"How can the Prime Minister meet with a dozen journalists in her daily press conferences but then claim it is unsafe to answer questions from MPs?
The New Zealand Parliament website states: "The Speaker's first duty as Speaker is to lay claim to all the privileges of the House, especially to freedom of speech".
When Mallard shut parliament MPs lost their freedom of speech."
The Speaker closing Parliament was outrageous. Having sat in Parliament and participated in Zoom meetings as a director, a virtual meeting is no substitute for an in-person Parliament.
Our Parliament has never before been unilaterally shut by the Speaker. Open Democracy reports that 31 authoritarian governments have used Covid to shut or limit parliaments. Now the list is 32 countries.
Trying to implement a video conference for a large number of participants with varying levels of technical skill & connectivity in an adversarial environment is challenging at the best of times, let alone without a plan during a pandemic. A plan should have been developed by now, surely? If not, it's time to get one.
Why her?
Surely it is job of the government’s & Trevor ‘freeloader’ Mallard to effectively set up and manage a proper system?
Critical point you have completely missed is that Cindy is happy to front to a dozen or more reporters everyday but is not prepared to front Parliament? Hypocrisy & spin management at its most obvious - and you support it?
It's not that simple. When you have large numbers of people streaming video concurrently the potential issues are magnified. You need to ensure that each member has adequate bandwidth and a low latency connection, that the equipment being used to access the service is secure and capable of maintaining the connection, that the software being used is the same version across each member accessing the conference, that remotely provisioned tech support is available and can connect to a members device should an issue arise, that there are processes and policies in place for managing the video conference in the same manner as an in-person session of parliament is conducted (e.g. how do you discipline a member on a video conference? How do you terminate their connection if they go overtime?) These are just a tiny few of the huge number of issues that can arise.
Providing remote tech support is no walk in the park either, let alone in real time, remotely, in a high pressured environment.
They need a plan first.
It shouldn't be that difficult, and certainly watching on Parliament TV yesterday it was obvious that zoom could have catered for the proceedings perfectly well. Collins was just playing politics. I'm surprised that the usually sensible David Seymour sided with her. As the attached article asks 'could an in-person parliament accomplish anything that a digital parliament can't?' The article's author concludes the answer is more or less it would not.
Digital committee meetings should not become common-place, but in circumstances where travel or p to p meeting is difficult they can be very useful. You lost a few points and gained absolutely zilch there Judith.
Attachment 12914
1) Isn't the reasoning around switching to a Virtual Parliament about not bringing MP's in from all over the country, i.e. the movement of MP's around the country during Lockdown ?
i.e. the PM fronting journalists who are already in Wellington irrelevant.
2) Govt departments already do this during Lockdown, using Zoom meetings & conference calls daily instead of even senior management flying to Wellington for meetings etc.
3) Whats the problem re the technology or the planning ? They already use Zoom with multiple participants without any problems.
Firstly, let me be clear: my statements are from a technical support perspective, not whether Judith is correct or not.
Government departments do not conduct meetings at the same scale nor with the same procedural requirements as parliament does. A parliamentary session is like trying to keep a group of rowdy 3 year olds on task, not a small number of professionals, so the experience and controls required to execute this are quite different.
You may think that they do not have issues conducting meetings with multiple participants, but they do, and these issues are addressed by technical support staff as well as the end-user training already provided.
These departments also do not use Zoom as their primary technology platform for video conferencing, so do we change to that platform? What happens if one participant wants to use a different platform because their cousin recommended it? (Yes, that does happen) Who supports this? Do we stay with the existing MS Teams service? Who provides support during the session? Do we have enough staff to provide support? Do the participants all have enough bandwidth (some use cellphone connections, not fibre)?
Based on my personal technical experience establishing and supporting this type of environment, I've already highlighted a number of issues in the provision of the service and support in the post above, and there are numerous additional over and above these. All of these issues must be addressed beforehand to enable a smooth digital based session to be conducted, and this should have already been completed.
What scale? We are not talking about the full parliament. This is about select committee meetings, which are relatively small groups - maybe 10 to 12 members. Surely they can hold the occassional virtual meeting when circumstances dictate. Yes - you have highlighted the odd problem, but that's life - and you can be assured that real-life face to face meetings will have problems that are just as big - if not bigger, like missing a flight, or airport fogged in, etc.
Interesting week ahead.
Rumblings started up regarding Simon Bridges replacing Judith Collins after Judith's explosion in Caucus, brittle & defensive performance on breakfast TV & debacle around using Zoom. ( backfired horribly when so many employees, elderly & even school kids having to use zoom every day, & Australian parliament ).
Who would be the better caretaker, Bridges or Collins?
Many starting to think Bridges, he looks more relaxed & likeable than he has for years.
Apart from a very diminished core of supporters, Collins seems to be alienating so many with her brittleness, & intense angry exchanges, stress getting to her & the false smiles just make it worse.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/hea...lockdown-rules
Gosh, Judith is all class, isn’t she !