and this? Read more »
and this? Read more »
The parliamentary precinct is a funny complex.
There are many floors and many windows that allow people to look from into ministerial offices.
I know of one minister who was observed by a large number of opposition MPs who were having a drink several stories above and opposite the minister. The minister was chatting up a staffer and failed to realise he could be seen. Read more »
Not a stellar start from the new Labour team at question time.
Paula Bennett answering about the success of getting beneficiaries to sort out outstanding warrants with the coppers or lose your benefit. Sue Moroney leaps up to ask how it helps them get a job? It was a stupid irrelevant question which Bennett bats away to which Moroney raises a point of order and subjects herself to another healthy smack across the chops.
Question 1 was a let down…David Cunliffe said he would pants down John Key and in the end we never got see even a hint of his y-fronts.
Cunliffe’s supporters will be wondering just exactly what has happened.
Labour and those who oppose are constantly banging on about the fact that the GCSB Bill will be passed “with a single vote” or passing it with “a wafer thin majority”.
This is ridiculous. Patently and demonstrably ridiculous.
Are they seriously suggesting that this is not democratic? It would appear that they are, they go on and on and on about it…watch parliament…speaker after speaker uses the lines “passed with a single vote” or passing it with “a wafer thin majority”. Read more »
One long sledge here from the Prime Minister against Grant Robertson who featured in a post yesterday pimping a story…he tried to use parliament to pimp the story again…and got slammed.
Note when John Key uses a phone for a prop that Jami-lee Ross and Simon Bridges are sledging away hard telling John Key to slow down because Shearer is having trouble understanding the concept. Read more »
Felix Marwick has had a little tanty on the NewstalkZB website. It is obvious who he is aiming his article at, since I am about the only person calling out the media for their sooky-lala over-reaction.
I’m flattered Felix, a whole article just for me. Time for some fun.
The Press Gallery’s been the news rather than reporting the news over the last week or so and it seems that’s ruffled some peoples’ sensibilities. We’ve raised a hue and a cry over the treatment of our colleague, Fairfax journalist Andrea Vance, by Parliamentary services and the Henry Inquiry, and it seems there are those who feel we’ve become a little self absorbed.
In fact there are some who’ve labelled us whiny, self-obsessed, and out of touch with the public.
Yep because you are.
Granted, I accept there will be many who have little time for my profession. Annual trust and respect surveys make it clear that for many of you your esteem for us is somewhere at the level whale poo ends up. We’re not popular. I’m fine with that. That’s not what we’re here for.
Whale poo…snigger Read more »
There is now a groundswell of opposition to the blatant politicking of the media, making up for a lack-lustre opposition.
Their willingness to be the story is back-firing.
Yesterday I posted an email from a reader who felt frustrated enough to send a message to Patrick Gower via this blog.
One of the commenters also had some good points:
I have sent this to the Dom Post. I doubt whether they will print it. It is nice to hear other people agreeing with my sentiments.
No Andrea Vance, if you are mad as hell, it is wrongly so. I would suggest , however, that you are probably rubbing your hands with glee “all the way to the bank”. Read more »
Trevor Mallard has a problem…yes, I know….but not that kind…his problem is he appears to have breached Parliament’s standing orders:
406 Contempt of House
(1) The House may treat as a contempt any act or omission which—
(a) obstructs or impedes the House in the performance of its functions, or
(b) obstructs or impedes any member or officer of the House in the discharge of the member’s or officer’s duty, or
(c) has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such a result.
(2) In deciding whether or not to treat any act or omission as a contempt, the House may consider—
(a) the conduct of any person taking part in parliamentary proceedings:
(b) the nature of any action taken against any person on accountof that person’s actions when taking part in parliamentary proceedings.
Parliament helpfully lists what a contempt is: Read more »