Planet Rugby Forum

Mr Mike wrote:

guy smiley wrote:

deadduck wrote:

guy smiley wrote:The last sentence of that article sums things up...

despite what you read in here it seems even the mainstream media think the PM is outperforming the opposition. I’ve been led to believe it’s a circus, a disaster unrolling.

Speaking of the circus, still no comment from the cheer squad about an ex PM from the conservative side of the fence being weapons grade destroyed over business dealings. Imagine a Labour figure had been involved in the Mainzeal fiasco. This place would be chock full of pidgeons strutting around shitting everywhere and looking at you sideways like they know things.

She left parliament in 2002...
It's a pretty long bow to draw linking her to the present day Nats - That's why no one is talking about it.

Also, she wasn't the main instigator of the dodgy dealing she was only complicit in it. Not an excuse by any means but it is different.

Thanks for replying

I agree, by the way. It’s too long. I reckon 10 years is long enough myself.

We should all be able to rise above partisanship to enjoy that Parliamentary banter. It was very funny.

JB1981 wrote:Shane Jones seems to have had a bit of a shocker here - attending a meeting and even advocating for something after declaring a conflict of interest. How has he not at least considered how that could be perceived?

https://i.stuff.co.nz/business/11115499 ... g-conflict

guy smiley wrote:

mr bungle wrote:
Guy, rising above partisanship? I preferred when he was telling all how it is on the Australian Politics thread.

I’m here to bring balance to the unbalanced. I’m a pivot for the unhinged. I’m a mere servant for the greater good, a protector for the little guy... sanitiser for the unwashed if you like.

Jacinda Ardern, in wanting to promote female MPs, is still suffering from a Cunliffe hangover

Earlier this year, political journalists were momentarily and uncharacteristically stunned when a familiar face popped up on the bridge between the Beehive and Parliament.

David Cunliffe hasn't even been out of Parliament for two years, yet his messy, brief reign as Labour leader feels like a lifetime ago.

Not so for the Labour Party. While the scars from the Cunliffe years have faded considerably they are far from healed. In fact they provide an explanation for one of the myriad problems facing Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern right now: the lack of women in her Cabinet.

Currently there are just six women in the 19-member Cabinet - one less than in Bill English's Cabinet. Worse: the top ranks of Ardern's ministry are stacked with men, she is one of just three women in the top ten.

Cunliffe's dismal showing at the 2014 election contributed to this problem, as did the endless caucus division that his reign ended with.........................................

Wilderbeast wrote:It’s something for the left to get antsy over. Wouldn’t have thought you’d care?

Enzedder wrote:You're the only one with rhetoric going Dark. I think it's great that people are selected on merit, not whether they have a washer or a tap

guy smiley wrote:Yeah... it’s an issue alright,

https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national ... king-women

In 2017, New Zealand reached its highest place ever in the rankings, for 33 countries, the report said.

Mr Mike wrote:

guy smiley wrote:Yeah... it’s an issue alright,

https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national ... king-women

Yes, as you point out it was an area of real progress under National, I hope the dramatic drop in representation of Women in the Cabinet isn’t symptomatic of a broader malaise in the fight for equality.

In 2017, New Zealand reached its highest place ever in the rankings, for 33 countries, the report said.

UncleFB wrote:

Mr Mike wrote:

guy smiley wrote:Yeah... it’s an issue alright,

https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national ... king-women

Yes, as you point out it was an area of real progress under National, I hope the dramatic drop in representation of Women in the Cabinet isn’t symptomatic of a broader malaise in the fight for equality.

In 2017, New Zealand reached its highest place ever in the rankings, for 33 countries, the report said.

This is something that NZ politics (on either side of the fence) have always been pretty good at (promotion of women).

UncleFB wrote:

Mr Mike wrote:

guy smiley wrote:Yeah... it’s an issue alright,

https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national ... king-women

Yes, as you point out it was an area of real progress under National, I hope the dramatic drop in representation of Women in the Cabinet isn’t symptomatic of a broader malaise in the fight for equality.

In 2017, New Zealand reached its highest place ever in the rankings, for 33 countries, the report said.

This is something that NZ politics (on either side of the fence) have always been pretty good at (promotion of women).

Unsurprised that the neutral/floating voter Dark is trying to make it a shitfight.

Dark wrote:

UncleFB wrote:

Mr Mike wrote:

guy smiley wrote:Yeah... it’s an issue alright,

https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national ... king-women

Yes, as you point out it was an area of real progress under National, I hope the dramatic drop in representation of Women in the Cabinet isn’t symptomatic of a broader malaise in the fight for equality.

In 2017, New Zealand reached its highest place ever in the rankings, for 33 countries, the report said.

This is something that NZ politics (on either side of the fence) have always been pretty good at (promotion of women).

Unsurprised that the neutral/floating voter Dark is trying to make it a shitfight.

I didn't right the article

Gordon Bennett wrote:

Dark wrote:

UncleFB wrote:

Mr Mike wrote:

guy smiley wrote:Yeah... it’s an issue alright,

https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national ... king-women

Yes, as you point out it was an area of real progress under National, I hope the dramatic drop in representation of Women in the Cabinet isn’t symptomatic of a broader malaise in the fight for equality.

In 2017, New Zealand reached its highest place ever in the rankings, for 33 countries, the report said.

This is something that NZ politics (on either side of the fence) have always been pretty good at (promotion of women).

Unsurprised that the neutral/floating voter Dark is trying to make it a shitfight.

I didn't right the article

Thank all that's good that you didn't. You'd need an editor for a start.

Dark wrote:

UncleFB wrote:

Mr Mike wrote:

guy smiley wrote:Yeah... it’s an issue alright,

https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national ... king-women

Yes, as you point out it was an area of real progress under National, I hope the dramatic drop in representation of Women in the Cabinet isn’t symptomatic of a broader malaise in the fight for equality.

In 2017, New Zealand reached its highest place ever in the rankings, for 33 countries, the report said.

This is something that NZ politics (on either side of the fence) have always been pretty good at (promotion of women).

Unsurprised that the neutral/floating voter Dark is trying to make it a shitfight.

I didn't right the article or pick her cabinet.

Just wondered why it doesn't get mentioned much given her rhetoric

booji boy wrote: You didn't wrong the article either so we forgive you.

Tehui wrote:

booji boy wrote: You didn't wrong the article either so we forgive you.

Two wrongs don't make a write.

Tehui wrote:

booji boy wrote: You didn't wrong the article either so we forgive you.

Two wrongs don't make a write.

JB1981 wrote:Shane Jones seems to have had a bit of a shocker here - attending a meeting and even advocating for something after declaring a conflict of interest. How has he not at least considered how that could be perceived?

https://i.stuff.co.nz/business/11115499 ... g-conflict

jambanja wrote:

JB1981 wrote:Shane Jones seems to have had a bit of a shocker here - attending a meeting and even advocating for something after declaring a conflict of interest. How has he not at least considered how that could be perceived?

https://i.stuff.co.nz/business/11115499 ... g-conflict

Considering Clare Curran was sacked for not disclosing a meeting she attended, which had no end result, how has Jones managed to avoid sanction for attending a meeting where he had an admitted conflict of interest, the result of which ended up with a $4.6 million outcome...to an organisation he was involved with

UncleFB wrote:

jambanja wrote:

JB1981 wrote:Shane Jones seems to have had a bit of a shocker here - attending a meeting and even advocating for something after declaring a conflict of interest. How has he not at least considered how that could be perceived?

https://i.stuff.co.nz/business/11115499 ... g-conflict

Considering Clare Curran was sacked for not disclosing a meeting she attended, which had no end result, how has Jones managed to avoid sanction for attending a meeting where he had an admitted conflict of interest, the result of which ended up with a $4.6 million outcome...to an organisation he was involved with

Didn't she not disclose two meetings? Whereas Jones disclosed the meeting and acknowledged the conflict of interest - so the issue is really how much influence he had in the meeting?

JB1981 wrote:

UncleFB wrote:

jambanja wrote:

JB1981 wrote:Shane Jones seems to have had a bit of a shocker here - attending a meeting and even advocating for something after declaring a conflict of interest. How has he not at least considered how that could be perceived?

https://i.stuff.co.nz/business/11115499 ... g-conflict

Considering Clare Curran was sacked for not disclosing a meeting she attended, which had no end result, how has Jones managed to avoid sanction for attending a meeting where he had an admitted conflict of interest, the result of which ended up with a $4.6 million outcome...to an organisation he was involved with

Didn't she not disclose two meetings? Whereas Jones disclosed the meeting and acknowledged the conflict of interest - so the issue is really how much influence he had in the meeting?

That's right. It sounds like he gave assurances when the MoF had concerns over governance. I don't know how influential that was (the info may have been available through other channels if he hadn't been there). For me it's odd that he even participated rather than declaring a conflict and opting out.

UncleFB wrote:

jambanja wrote:

JB1981 wrote:Shane Jones seems to have had a bit of a shocker here - attending a meeting and even advocating for something after declaring a conflict of interest. How has he not at least considered how that could be perceived?

https://i.stuff.co.nz/business/11115499 ... g-conflict

Considering Clare Curran was sacked for not disclosing a meeting she attended, which had no end result, how has Jones managed to avoid sanction for attending a meeting where he had an admitted conflict of interest, the result of which ended up with a $4.6 million outcome...to an organisation he was involved with

Didn't she not disclose two meetings? Whereas Jones disclosed the meeting and acknowledged the conflict of interest - so the issue is really how much influence he had in the meeting?

jambanja wrote:Having watch Shane Jones over the Air NZ thing, he doesn’t strike me as the kind of man who just provides fact and that’s it, he will have an opinion/influence on everything. He strikes me as the forceful almost bullying kind, maybe that’s just me, but I wouldn’t trust him as far as I could throw him. Not a good look either way

jambanja wrote:

jambanja wrote:Having watch Shane Jones over the Air NZ thing, he doesn’t strike me as the kind of man who just provides fact and that’s it, he will have an opinion/influence on everything. He strikes me as the forceful almost bullying kind, maybe that’s just me, but I wouldn’t trust him as far as I could throw him. Not a good look either way

This was in today’s paper and again it doesn’t show Shane Jones in a very good light, I don’t know what type of journalist Hamish Rutherford is but this looks like a typical bully throwing his weight around, this particular bully happens to be responsible for a billion dollars of taxpayers money, doesn’t install much confidence, especially when funding is being granted to things that treasury have advised against

Enzedder wrote:Agreed - he's proving to be an embarrassment for NZ First as well as the Government.

UncleFB wrote:

JB1981 wrote:

UncleFB wrote:

jambanja wrote:

JB1981 wrote:Shane Jones seems to have had a bit of a shocker here - attending a meeting and even advocating for something after declaring a conflict of interest. How has he not at least considered how that could be perceived?

https://i.stuff.co.nz/business/11115499 ... g-conflict

Considering Clare Curran was sacked for not disclosing a meeting she attended, which had no end result, how has Jones managed to avoid sanction for attending a meeting where he had an admitted conflict of interest, the result of which ended up with a $4.6 million outcome...to an organisation he was involved with

Didn't she not disclose two meetings? Whereas Jones disclosed the meeting and acknowledged the conflict of interest - so the issue is really how much influence he had in the meeting?

That's right. It sounds like he gave assurances when the MoF had concerns over governance. I don't know how influential that was (the info may have been available through other channels if he hadn't been there). For me it's odd that he even participated rather than declaring a conflict and opting out.

Isn't the issue with whoever was chairing the meeting and let him stay? If he just provided facts and didn't have an influence on the decision then it would be kosher-ish ... maybe, although it still looks bad.

Ted. wrote:

UncleFB wrote:

JB1981 wrote:

UncleFB wrote:

Considering Clare Curran was sacked for not disclosing a meeting she attended, which had no end result, how has Jones managed to avoid sanction for attending a meeting where he had an admitted conflict of interest, the result of which ended up with a $4.6 million outcome...to an organisation he was involved with

Didn't she not disclose two meetings? Whereas Jones disclosed the meeting and acknowledged the conflict of interest - so the issue is really how much influence he had in the meeting?

That's right. It sounds like he gave assurances when the MoF had concerns over governance. I don't know how influential that was (the info may have been available through other channels if he hadn't been there). For me it's odd that he even participated rather than declaring a conflict and opting out.

Isn't the issue with whoever was chairing the meeting and let him stay? If he just provided facts and didn't have an influence on the decision then it would be kosher-ish ... maybe, although it still looks bad.

Conflicts of interest are often more about perception that reality. If he declared a potential conflict, that is not necessarily deemed a conflict, so I have some sympathy that this is a beat-up. On the other hand, it's always better safe than sorry in these situations and being a NZ First minister, how much can he be trusted?

Gordon Bennett wrote:65k hectares being added to Kahurangi in the Mokihinui. Beautiful area and overdue.

Should get on with dealing with all the residual areas of Stewardship land. This shouldn't be a partisan issue either - resolving the future of stewardship land is likely to free up some land for development as well as securing prime conservation land.

Ted. wrote:
Conflicts of interest are often more about perception that reality. If he declared a potential conflict, that is not necessarily deemed a conflict, so I have some sympathy that this is a beat-up, especially as he withdrew from the decision/vote. On the other hand, it's always better safe than sorry in these situations and being a NZ First minister, how much can he be trusted?

Dark wrote:

Ted. wrote:

UncleFB wrote: Didn't she not disclose two meetings? Whereas Jones disclosed the meeting and acknowledged the conflict of interest - so the issue is really how much influence he had in the meeting?

Conflicts of interest are often more about perception that reality. If he declared a potential conflict, that is not necessarily deemed a conflict, so I have some sympathy that this is a beat-up. On the other hand, it's always better safe than sorry in these situations and being a NZ First minister, how much can he be trusted?

He should have just left the meeting

Not as bright as he proclaims he is.

Still a beat up though.

Ron Mark's is dodgier

Fat Old Git wrote:

Ted. wrote:
Conflicts of interest are often more about perception that reality. If he declared a potential conflict, that is not necessarily deemed a conflict, so I have some sympathy that this is a beat-up, especially as he withdrew from the decision/vote. On the other hand, it's always better safe than sorry in these situations and being a NZ First minister, how much can he be trusted?

It's not just national politics where possible conflicts of interest are raising concerns.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/111228 ... colleagues

booji boy wrote:

jambanja wrote:

jambanja wrote:Having watch Shane Jones over the Air NZ thing, he doesn’t strike me as the kind of man who just provides fact and that’s it, he will have an opinion/influence on everything. He strikes me as the forceful almost bullying kind, maybe that’s just me, but I wouldn’t trust him as far as I could throw him. Not a good look either way

This was in today’s paper and again it doesn’t show Shane Jones in a very good light, I don’t know what type of journalist Hamish Rutherford is but this looks like a typical bully throwing his weight around, this particular bully happens to be responsible for a billion dollars of taxpayers money, doesn’t install much confidence, especially when funding is being granted to things that treasury have advised against

Him and Ron Mark not looking too flash this morning. Reminds me of the shambles NZ First were in their 1st term of Govt with National in 1996. The 'tight five' Tau Henare, Tuku Morgan et al running around thinking they were above the law.

Prior to porngate I quite liked Jones and saw him as an up and comer (no pun intended ) in the Labour Party. But in his second incarnation with NZ First he seems to be very arrogant and oh so convinced of his own intellectual superiority over the critics and naysayers.

TheDocForgotHisLogon wrote:

Gordon Bennett wrote:65k hectares being added to Kahurangi in the Mokihinui. Beautiful area and overdue.

Should get on with dealing with all the residual areas of Stewardship land. This shouldn't be a partisan issue either - resolving the future of stewardship land is likely to free up some land for development as well as securing prime conservation land.

Ted. wrote: Conflicts of interest are often more about perception that reality. If he declared a potential conflict, that is not necessarily deemed a conflict, so I have some sympathy that this is a beat-up, especially as he withdrew from the decision/vote.

On the other hand, it's always better safe than sorry in these situations