John Key on Breakfast
I think John Key might have just won the election.
Just watching John Key on Breakfast with Alison Mau he was devastatingly savage on highlighting Clarks omission and played up Owen Glenns significance to Labour as counters to Clarks need to be fair to her Minister. If Helen is unable to pull something out of the bag today, this will stick.
If I were Helen I'd go to the public today saying that the ETS was vital legislation, so vital that you will take the issue of sustainability to the electorate when you announce the election rather than rely on NZ First support which when considering the full revelations of late would undermine the credibility of this Parliament. If she doesn't pull something really good out, I think Winston's demise could well infect Helen. Phil Goff just got two steps closer to being the leader of Labour in 2009.
posted by Bomber @ 7:31 am
13 comments
13 Comments:
If I was Helen i'd wait till November 8. You got tax cuts starting in a month, You will have passed your ETS, and there will be time to claw back a lead.
On current polls National are almost governing alone. National say they are going to have an ETS (and yes the devil is in the detail) so there is little to distinguish the parties. Why would she call an election so far behind in the polls?
If she calls an election, she ends the priviledges committee hearing (which looks like she is covering for Winnie) and the matter is fresh in peoples mind.
I still think Labour has more chance the further away the election is.
You are right, I'm not suggesting a snap election, just that she will put the ETS to the electorate to get a mandate.
I think she will pass it. It was their major goal for the year, and to not achieve it might be seen as a failure.
When are Labour going to play the so called 'neutron bomb'?
When are Labour going to play the so called 'neutron bomb'?
Hooten mentioned it last weekend in his column, but I am wondering when what else Key had to say at the cocktail party will surface, will it all be put out in the 6 weeks of the election.
So its an 'October Surprise'?
Heh.
I wonder why so many people say there are no more issues of confidence and supply to be faced by this government?
A motion of No Confidence can, as I understand Mr McGee, be proposed at any time and is quite normal when their 'majority' is thought to be gone! Strikes me we could have on as soon as next Tuesday! Followed by a disolution by the GG. That would, to a greatextent, suit Mr. Peters, who needs to not only avoid a SFO prosecution but also a PSC censure if he is to have ANY future in NZ Politics.
I wonder why so many people say there are no more issues of confidence and supply to be faced by this government?
A motion of No Confidence can, as I understand Mr McGee, be proposed at any time and is quite normal when their 'majority' is thought to be gone! Strikes me we could have on as soon as next Tuesday! Followed by a disolution by the GG. That would, to a greatextent, suit Mr. Peters, who needs to not only avoid a SFO prosecution but also a PSC censure if he is to have ANY future in NZ Politics.
I think you will find any motion like that needs full agreement of those present
Bomber, the cabinet manual reads
"6.55 In some cases, the confidence of the House may be unclear, for example, in the case of a change in coalition arrangements. The incumbent government will need to clarify where the confidence of the House lies, within a short time frame (allowing a reasonable period for negotiation and reorganisation). The caretaker convention applies in the mid-term context only when it becomes clear that the government has lost the confidence of the House."
Where is LOL and the child? Shouldn't they be here crowing about Labour's 37% in the polls and the massive sea change that's about to happen?
Probably over at the Standard pretending that this whole shit storm is actually really good for Labour....
I'd hope that most people who don't vote for Peters wouldn't waste too much time on the Peters thing one way or the other. It simply isn't relevant to them (or me, being one of them).
Clark isn't reposnsible for what Peters does any more than Shipley was reposnsible for what Alamein Kopu did.
I'd hope no thinking person would determine a vote for any party OTHER than NZ First based on anything Peters did or didn't do.
Clark isn't reposnsible for what Peters does any more than Shipley was reposnsible for what Alamein Kopu did.
Riiiiiiight, because Alamain Kopu was Shiply's Minister of Foreign Affairs.
I'd hope no thinking person would determine a vote for any party OTHER than NZ First based on anything Peters did or didn't do.
Yeah you keep hoping, that's all you have left after Helen has tarred herself with winson's lies.
I'd hope that most people who don't vote for Peters wouldn't waste too much time on the Peters thing one way or the other. It simply isn't relevant to them (or me, being one of them).
Clark isn't reposnsible for what Peters does any more than Shipley was reposnsible for what Alamein Kopu did.
I'd hope no thinking person would determine a vote for any party OTHER than NZ First based on anything Peters did or didn't do.
Must be Funny Friday?
So hey Truth, do you think its OK for our Prime Minister to stand at the sidelines and say nothing while her Foreign Minister tells what she knows to be lies to the NZ public?
Is that OK ever from anywhere on the political spectrum?
Do you really 'seek' 'truth' ?
I was unaware that a confidence vote could be called by anyone at any
time. That doesn't sound right to me. I'm sure it's all in the
Standing Orders somewhere - maybe I'll look for it. I thought if it
wasn't a scheduled confidence vote or a supply (ie. a budget) vote
then the opposition had to seek leave (one objection would sink it).
Now if this isn't true and the opposition can get it on the order
paper there might still have to be a majority in the House to call for
the motion to be put in the first place. The Maori party and NZ First
might abstain on putting the motion - so who knows? And then there's
the actual vote itself and whether they will abstain or whatever. It's
only obvious - and therefore a constitutional issue of confidence - if
the government start losing votes in the House. At that point the
opposition call on the G-G to have an election, saying the government
doesn't have the numbers. Idiot/Savant doesn't answer our particular
question, but intimates the PM could drag it out for a month in this
post:
-------------------
Assume the worst: tomorrow, Helen Clark will bow to the inevitable and
suspend her Minister of Foreign Affairs. In retaliation, he repeats
his grand toy-throwing exercise of 1998 and withdraws his support for
the government. What happens? National's answer is "an election". That
was Clark's answer too in 1998. But the reality is somewhat more
complex.
The fundamental rule of our system of government is
The Queen reigns, but the government rules, so long as it has the
support of the House of Representatives.
Obviously, NZ First withdrawing its support would call the confidence
of the government into question. But it would not mean that it has
clearly lost it (that would require actually losing a confidence vote
in the House). However, confidence would be unclear. In these
circumstances, the Cabinet Manual has the answer:
In some cases, the confidence of the House may be unclear, for
example, in the case of a change in coalition arrangements. The
incumbent government will need to clarify where the confidence of the
House lies, within a short time frame (allowing a reasonable period
for negotiation and reorganisation).
The government would not even need to go into caretaker mode (though
they should be already this close to an election).
How does this work in practice? On 14 August 1998, Winston Peters led
his NZ First colleagues out of a Cabinet meeting over the proposed
sale of Auckland Wellington Airport. A week later, he formally
terminated his coalition agreement with National. Parliament continued
to meet, and it rapidly became clear that National had confidence and
supply from ACT and a few former NZ First members, but it was not
until the next month, on 9 September 1998, that Jenny Shipley formally
confirmed her new governing arrangements by winning a vote of
confidence in the House.
Since 1998, the acceptable timeframe for negotiation has probably
shortened (OTOH, Shipley arguably had confidence for most of that
period, though she had not formally put it to the test). And it is
worth remembering that Parliament expires in just over a month anyway.
Under these circumstances, with an election pending, the window for
negotiation is likely even tighter. Clark would have quite a short
period in which to negotiate and demonstrate confidence, or else we
would simply have the election a bit earlier than planned (though
ironically, exactly when some parties are expecting it, in early
October).
Of course, Clark would also have the option of advising the
Governor-general to dissolve Parliament and call an early election.
That's her sole prerogative as Prime Minister (but see below). But the
point of the above is to argue that she would not have to, if she
could quickly negotiate alternative confidence arrangements and
demonstrate them by winning a confidence vote in the House. Whether
that is possible, and whether it would be worth it, of course, are
other questions entirely.
Post a Comment
<< Home