National MPs staging walk out is cleverly malicious politics

By   /   December 5, 2018  /   30 Comments

TDB recommends Voyager - Unlimited internet @home as fast as you can get

…the low ratings and threat of being rolled this summer has lit a fire under Bridges and he is pulling stunt after stunt, because he’s got nothing to lose now.

Very clever and malicious politics to walk out on mass by National – to everyone who doesn’t follow Parliament closely it will seem like a crisis point…

…the low ratings and threat of being rolled this summer has lit a fire under Bridges and he is pulling stunt after stunt, because he’s got nothing to lose now.

This looks like a grave injustice by mean Trevor who is protecting Jacinda from being asked the hard questions on a criminal. The truth of course is that it’s just a malicious stunt that makes threatens the order of the House, but the average voter won’t appreciate that.

 

***
Want to support this work? Donate today
***
Follow us on Twitter & Facebook
***

30 Comments

  1. youngsuffrajet says:

    Spot on Martyn. The national party is trying to grab headlines and to be seen as “the victim” to what it claims to be preferential treatment by the speaker. Oh, the poor wee diddums – what will they think of next?

    On a more analytical or perhaps humorous note, most of SB’s colleagues followed him, like lambs to the proverbial slaughter that SB is driving head-long into but like the true anti-loyalists they are, most drifted back into the chamber deserting the man they apparently pay homage to.

    For all the JLR is or might be, at least he exposed the true culture of this party and all its bullying ways. They even have a spin doctor advising them what to say when asked by the media about claims of bullying.

  2. Nitrium Nitrium says:

    Yeah essentially quite clever politicking from Simon. He gets much needed cameras on him, sound bites, media attention etc, all positively feeding his base and winning over the “PC gone mad” crowd which speaks to everyone except the woke left. He won’t be losing sleep over any of this, indeed quite to the contrary.

    • bert says:

      When National were the 4 headed monster and David Carter( the most bias speaker of all time) protected Key and English, most N.Z’s didn’t see the erosion of their income, affordability of home’s, corruption etc etc etc.
      N.Z. under this coalition is now faced with the task of trying to undo the destruction of our infrastructure, trying to bring wages and salaries into the 21st century and in general trying to make the lives of ALL N.Z’s better. Clearly some people in N.Z. just don’t want that to happen.

      National’s internal polling has them at 41% which is why the ineffective Bridges is playing games. It’s going to be a very long Christmas for Bridges and he’s going to end up with a very sore neck.
      We are truly blessed to have a cohesive Government that has compassionate and strong leadership. 7% preferred Primeministership doesn’t win you any friends and until the nutjob rightwingers get their head around the math, 41% and no friends tells you exactly why they are in the doldrums. You can’t bully or protest or lie your way out of the doldrums, so as MJOLNIN quite succinctly puts it…

      “Fuck off National. You are irrelevant.”

      • Michelle says:

        Yes they (national) are becoming irrelevant we just need the so called bourgeoise here in our country to wise up cause it is not all about them its about all of us.

  3. Mjolnir says:

    So they walked out? I bet it didn’t make a blind bit of difference to New Zealander’s lives, especually tge working poor who will nevrr live in their own home. The homeless will never stage a walkout of a House . Having four walls and a roof is a luxury will never have.

    Fuck off National. You are irrelevant.

  4. Trevor Sennitt says:

    46% in the polls . I do not think they need to do to much to get support from the voting public. As the voters see the falsehoods feed to them by the 3 headed monster that has come together they will reveal how disjointed they are.

    • bert says:

      Hey Trevor, the voters saw 9 years of falsehoods by a four headed monster( one was a DWTS defacto) and clearly even Nationals voting base are jumping ship, 41% and dropping. Clear evidence of how brilliantly this coalition is doing.

    • Mjolnir says:

      So you’re not a fan then, Trevor, I take it? You prefer rising house unaffordability, homelessness, degraded social services, depressed wages, the rise of the Working Poor (come on, mate, need I go on??)??

      Your lot, National, had their nine years to make things better. They did – but only for the propertied middle class, big business, and themselves.

      I repeat, National can go fuck off. They have become irrevant to the majority of New Zealanders. Why do you think Key bailed on his own party?? Because he saw the writing on the wall, and it wasn’t a love letter to be sure.

    • Michelle says:

      which voters trev the poor ones or the bourgeoise

    • Michelle says:

      We just had 9 years of falsehoods trev 9 years of bull kaka and false promises the 3 head monster cant be any worse than the 4 head monster cause 3 of the heads in the four head monster got the chop chop
      and that factor speaks for itself. And the Maori head took the Maori party out that speaks for itself it says our Maori people had had enough they were sick and tired of all the bull coming out of the 4 head monsters and said haere ra on ya bike mate.

  5. mosa says:

    Shame they all just didn’t keep walking into the nearest landfill where all the shit gets buried.

  6. Marc says:

    On this matter, I think that the Speaker, the Duck with a Robe, was over sensitive, and overly protective of Jacinda, and thus overreacted. Simon Bridges could have been called to order, and asked to rephrase his question or so, but immediately throwing him out, that was bizarre. This Speaker is as biased as the last one was, sorry to say this, but it is the truth.

    • bert says:

      The speaker only responded to the bully boy comments. Political commentators all agree that Bridges and Brownlee were responsible for their own demise. Can’t blame the speaker for the attacks made on his integrity. If M.P’s behave in a disorderly behaviour, then they must take personal responsibility. To then blame, shows their guilt. Should the speaker have reacted differently, absolutely not. Imagine the impact if he had not sent them from the chamber?
      Bridges behaviour shows he is under immense pressure and his churlish and unprofessional behaviour was a disgrace.

      • Marc says:

        What ‘bully boy comments’? Bridges only asked a question about Jacinda Ardern and whether she had washed her hands of something, here the text of the Hansard:

        “Hon Simon Bridges: Has she entirely washed her hands of anything to do with the Sroubek fiasco, and is she ducking and diving to get out of its way? [Speaker stands] Oh, here comes the protection.

        SPEAKER: No—the Leader of the Opposition will leave the House.

        Hon Simon Bridges withdrew from the Chamber.

        Hon Gerry Brownlee: Struck a raw nerve.

        SPEAKER: He will be followed by the shadow Leader of the House.

        Hon Gerry Brownlee withdrew from the Chamber.”

        Link to Hansard for Wednesday 5 Dec. 18:
        https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/combined/HansD_20181205_20181205

        • bert says:

          So “here comes the protection” and “stuck a raw nerve” weren’t intended to bully the speaker in any way?Both were inferences to bias. Brownlee is a known bullyboy, remember his airport escapade.

          Bridges had spent 8 minutes questioning the PM , the Speaker stated yesterday he let Bridges off lightly for his barrage of questions. And if you know the etiquette of parliament Marc, you will know you cannot question in the third person i.e. “Has “SHE” rather than “to the PM”

          They were both kicked out because they accused the speaker of bias, as others were when they questioned Carter when he was National speaker. Most saw the protection of both Key and English ( particularly the Barclay affair) as the most bias of all time.

          • Marc says:

            Failing to show due respect for the Speaker is in itself not necessarily an offence that warrants instant expulsion from the House, there has been far worse said and done than what Bridges said.

            He could have been reprimanded and put to order in the usual manner, being asked to apologise or so.

            But here Mallard lost his nerves.

            While there is of course some guilt in the conduct of Bridges and Brownlee, the latter did in this case also hardly give rise for being instantly thrown out either, albeit he showed disrespect.

            Mallard over reacted.

            He gave Bridges and Nats oxygen to have this reported on by One News as headline news.

            The public will not care about details and get the impression, the Speaker is biased.

            Perhaps one all, not a good look for all participants.

  7. Pete says:

    It’s just the death throes of a leadership.

  8. Andrew says:

    By low ratings, you mean the recent low rating which was ahead of Labour?

  9. Jays says:

    Simon Bridges is a dead man walking and pretty hopeless to boot, but it.sure as eggs looks to me like Mallard is running interference for Adern.
    Adern is weak and that has been exposed by the likes of Curran, Twyford and Davis being utterly appalling.
    Her only minister that is performing well right now is Robertson who would make a better PM IMO.

  10. Mike the Lefty says:

    As usual Stuffy.com got it wrong.
    Bridges was not told to leave the house because he was attacking the government.
    He was told to leave the house because he repeatedly ignored the Speaker’s requests to not ask his questions in the second person (you) which is a long-standing requirement of the house.
    If you use the second person either in debates or asking questions you are technically addressing the Speaker and Bridges knows that, but he kept on doing it anyway and paid the price.
    And of course his shadow Brownlee followed him like a sheep.
    That’s the truth of the matter, but you wouldn’t know that from the stuffyourheadupyourarse.com reports.

  11. Michelle says:

    Many said john was weak too but he managed to ruin our country for 9 years with his bumbling way of talking and explaining things then nek minute he was gone why? cause he wanted to spend more time with his family yeah right! he knew we had had enough of him and all his proverbial bullshit so he left before we got rid of him and cause he didn’t want to be unpopular.

  12. Tom Gardner says:

    What got lost in this schemozzle was the fact of the PM appearing to protect/defend Lees-Galloway, and that this is what the pubic will presume. She should have sacked him days ago; every day she dos not prolongs the running sore, and is a gift to the opposition.

    Sroubek needs to be on the first flight to Prague the day he comes out of jail.

  13. Michelle says:

    The problem with the four headed monster it was two faced

  14. simonm says:

    I don’t get to storm off in a huff and take the afternoon off at my workplace. I trust they’ll have their salaries docked.

  15. Duncan says:

    The only problem with Mallard is he is too soft on these opposition gabbling giblets.
    Name them, with a suspension of three months whereby members are docked of any salary and restore some order to proceedings.
    There is too much at stake and too much to do to resuscitate NZ to waste time dealing with these fools inciting disorder in the house.

  16. youngsuffrajet says:

    Trevor you, like the nationals, do not have a moral compass, nor any true sense of what really happened for nine years under national – just read the above comments.

    But more importantly, you don’t get it. You and your ilk accept without question the mantra of the nationals in the false but brainwashed belief that the economy was stronger under them. Answer this – how did you benefit from the so-called strong economy under national? Finally, like others before me have pointed out – get your figures right.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.