Will post on Wilson business at some stage, on the failures of the Chief Justice and especially the current A-G.
Speaking in the urgent debate on the issue I made an aside in which I drew attention to the UK constitutional arrangements whereby the Attorney General is not a Cabinet Minister. And the fact that for a short time in recent history that was the case in New Zealand. I was suggesting there might be some advantage in that approach when I saw the look on Charles Chauvel’s face. Talk about dirty.
Nothing wrong with having ambition. Charles certainly wants to be A-G and a Cabinet Minister and both at the same time.
And the chances are that he will be at the end of next year.
Go Charles!
Maybe the peerage would make up for it!
Troll ban Trevor
What possibly makes you think Labour have any chance of winning the 2011 election? Labour’s Great polling? Goff’s popularity in the polls? Taking GST off fruit and Veg (saving the wealthy $0.13 per day? There is nothing anywhere that suggests Labour have any chance of winning the 2011 election.
Or is a bit of John Keys sunny positive optimism now rubbing off on you Trevor?
I’ve had a very good look at recent polling Monty. No partner for Nats except the Maori Party who know they would be finished if they were the sole support party. You should grab some of the I-predict odds before the punters wake up to how close it all is.
Monty – seen the movie The Inside Job? There’s a lot more fall-out yet to hit NZ from the corruption of the US financial corporates.
And who would be Labour’s coalition partners? The progressives? NZ First? Are you saying you want Winston back?
Oh, Labour could talk to the Maori Party in the first place
Yee haa! – Next year will be sweet!
!
This is only a half serious post so im sure you will forgive me if i ask an off topic question: Why did Labour split it’s vote at one point in the committee stage of the Rugby World Cup 2011 empowering bill? Obviously its because you disagreed on parts of it, but isnt it customary to hold a caucus vote, decide what the caucus wants and then vote togeather?
I think it is good the AG is in Cabinet as they are more likely to get a greater understanding of various Government Bills etc. That better informs their duty to disclose any inconsistencies with the Bill of Rights. Not certain how it impacts on other aspects of the role.
I do understand however the argument to keep the AG at an arm’s length to make things less matey.
However in Labour’s case I don’t think Mr Chauvel is someone too scared to say what he really thinks if he needs to.
@ CV – What happened to the “last cab off the rank”?
@ Nick -we expected a conscience vote as the part involved liquor licensing. That is why vote split – people have range of views.
“What happened to the “last cab off the rank”?”
They’re illegally occupying the rank until it’s confirmed that the National government baubles of state are better than the trinkets and beads given by Captain Cook.
I would prefer the 2011 Labour government to not engage and/or deal with the maori party.
They are too divisive, racist and untrustworthy to be considered partners, even for supply and confidence.
Chris – that was a different time, and Phil Goff is a different leader.
Plus I’m guessing the Maori Party (not the MPs, the actual party) is pretty tired of swallowing National Crow. So that is different too.
Al1ens – I think its time for Labour to mend bridges and rebuild relationships. If Labour doesn’t fully grasp the complexities and nuances of MMP, but instead maintains an FPP mindset, it will be seriously disadvantaged.
Other players for 2011: Greens? Peters? Who else?
I think it’s time that Labour publically told the maori party to get stuffed, to send a clear message to voters in the maori electoral seats that they can’t get a bet each way and hope for ministers in a Labour government.
Because of them suppoerting rubbish Nat polices, that have coincidentally disadvantaged their own support base, we have had to endure this shoddy government for three years.
It’s time to state it’s two ticks or nothing.
Of course it won’t happen, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t.
NB an FPP mindset will destroy any NZ political party today. Not really a great way ahead for Labour, you know.
Labour can’t mend bridges and build relationships with the Maori Party while Tariana Turia is running the show. They can have individual relationships with MP members and supporters, but until Turia vacates the political scene there is little chance of any formal arrangement. It doesn’t matter who is the leader, Turia seems to have a profound hatred towards Labour born, I suspect, as much out of her own past intransigences as anything else. Sad, but that’s the way it appears to me.
Well Anne I think you hit the nail on the head there; it is about creating a rich network of links with people in the MP, and then waiting to see where the cards fall in 2011.
Labour’s going to kick butt Anne!
!
“NB an FPP mindset will destroy any NZ political party today.”
Absolutely, which is is why I never suggested acting in that way.
Two ticks is the only election cry that should be heard, unless in an unwinnable seat where the party vote message is king.
The maori seats are all winnable, and a no surrender attitude should be policy.
“And the chances are that he will be at the end of next year.”
That was not a pig that flew low over Dunedin just then, I think it was a Spitfire” definitely had a Merlin motor
@CV 10:38am
Agree totally. There are aspects of the 2011 election which will be in the lap of the gods, but if they(?) are willing to smile on Labour then anything is possible.
Random Student
I suspect NOT being in Cabinet gives the AG a greater chance of understanding the proposed Bills and legal implications.
Being inside Cabinet will mean lots of wasted hours of internal lobbying politicking and ideologically driven decision-making.
How about not being in Cabinet and also not having other portfolio responsibilities, ie not advocating for particular bills? That should make the AG more independent from spearheading the policy, party and political work for getting bills through, and also help focus the AG on scrutinising proposed bills and other legal issues or implications.
Hmm, sorry Charles, not helping here if you wanna be AG and a Minister
Wishing there is an edit function.
Should have thought a bit more before sending off the previous comment.
Btw, there are also ministers outside cabinet – do those ministers have (primary) responsibility for the policy development and for shepherding bills through the House?
Anne – what about my prediction?
@Tories – Labour , ra ra ra!
!
I think the interview by Kathryn Ryan on RNZ of Finlayson (A-G) this morning, suggests some problems with the A-G being in cabinet. The undercurrent seemed to be that Finlayson was not happy with cabinet’s decision on the undemocratic policies towards CERRA, ECAN & the Rugby World Cup enabling act. He got very tetchy and kept saying what happened in cabinet, stayed in cabinet, so he couldn’t explained the processes that led to these policies.
Ah thanks for that. Wasn’t aware of this morning’s interview. Now downloading the mp3 file.
The point is to ensure the role and function of the AG should not be compromised.
off topic deleted Trevor
Cabinet Collective Responsibility applies to ministers outside cabinet as well, so just removing the position of A-G outside cabinet wouldn’t help.
@Trevor –