-
27-09-2019, 08:53 PM
#271
Dirty even lower, attack politics.Bridges is dragging decency down and his moral compass if he ever had one has gone trumpian. Breaking his own reccoed amendment standing, lol. The fact he has got his whole party to defy the laws and unleash their attack ads shows this person is digging a deeper hole in a cesspit of his own filth in his quest for power. The last thing this country needs.
"When MPs reviewed these Standing Orders in 2017, they agreed that this particular attempted control on public commentary risked “making Parliament seem out of touch and wary of criticism” and so removed it. But beyond this, the reviewing MPs “could not reach agreement about a relaxation of the rules for official television coverage” and so no further changes were made.
And who was opposed to further relaxation of these rules? Well, according to Labour’s Chris Hipkins in the House yesterday – with National’s Gerry Brownlee agreeing – it was then governing National Party. And who was a member of the Committee that reviewed the Standing Orders? A young tyro by the name of Simon Bridges.
And who then recommended that the House adopt the amended Standing Orders, which continued to prohibit the use of TV footage for political advertising? Have a watch here and see (hint: it was Simon Bridges).
"When MPs reviewed these Standing Orders in 2017, they agreed that this particular attempted control on public commentary risked “making Parliament seem out of touch and wary of criticism” and so removed it. But beyond this, the reviewing MPs “could not reach agreement about a relaxation of the rules for official television coverage” and so no further changes were made.
And who was opposed to further relaxation of these rules? Well, according to Labour’s Chris Hipkins in the House yesterday – with National’s Gerry Brownlee agreeing – it was then governing National Party. And who was a member of the Committee that reviewed the Standing Orders? A young tyro by the name of Simon Bridges.
"And who then recommended that the House adopt the amended Standing Orders, which continued to prohibit the use of TV footage for political advertising? Have a watch here and see (hint: it was Simon Bridges)."
Why political attack ads will have to stop using footage from parliament
-
27-09-2019, 09:58 PM
#272
Originally Posted by Joshuatree
Dirty even lower, attack politics.Bridges is dragging decency down and his moral compass if he ever had one has gone trumpian. Breaking his own reccoed amendment standing, lol. The fact he has got his whole party to defy the laws and unleash their attack ads shows this person is digging a deeper hole in a cesspit of his own filth in his quest for power. The last thing this country needs.
"When MPs reviewed these Standing Orders in 2017, they agreed that this particular attempted control on public commentary risked “making Parliament seem out of touch and wary of criticism” and so removed it. But beyond this, the reviewing MPs “could not reach agreement about a relaxation of the rules for official television coverage” and so no further changes were made.
And who was opposed to further relaxation of these rules? Well, according to Labour’s Chris Hipkins in the House yesterday – with National’s Gerry Brownlee agreeing – it was then governing National Party. And who was a member of the Committee that reviewed the Standing Orders? A young tyro by the name of Simon Bridges.
And who then recommended that the House adopt the amended Standing Orders, which continued to prohibit the use of TV footage for political advertising? Have a watch here and see (hint: it was Simon Bridges).
"When MPs reviewed these Standing Orders in 2017, they agreed that this particular attempted control on public commentary risked “making Parliament seem out of touch and wary of criticism” and so removed it. But beyond this, the reviewing MPs “could not reach agreement about a relaxation of the rules for official television coverage” and so no further changes were made.
And who was opposed to further relaxation of these rules? Well, according to Labour’s Chris Hipkins in the House yesterday – with National’s Gerry Brownlee agreeing – it was then governing National Party. And who was a member of the Committee that reviewed the Standing Orders? A young tyro by the name of Simon Bridges.
"And who then recommended that the House adopt the amended Standing Orders, which continued to prohibit the use of TV footage for political advertising? Have a watch here and see (hint: it was Simon Bridges)."
Why political attack ads will have to stop using footage from parliament
You must have been a grizzly little seedling.
Last edited by fungus pudding; 27-09-2019 at 10:03 PM.
-
02-10-2019, 12:55 PM
#273
So Bridges is completely untrustworthy and has scored an own goal here. He really is copying trump and that aussie PM. He is bringing his own party down into disrepute which is a shame, there are/were some good people there.
-
09-10-2019, 06:57 PM
#274
Simon has a mantra “the poor hard working New Zealand taxpayer” and his party
continues to push for more tax cuts.
The latest debacle as a result of his predecessors desire to reduce costs and tax is the report on the NZTA. https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/116...-its-customers
Now the poor hard working taxpayer is to be threatened with a fine of $3000 if his children leave high school without future further training.
westerly
-
10-10-2019, 01:17 AM
#275
Thanks and this is great example of why the Govt instigated many reviews finding neglect and cost cutting from the previous govt.
-
14-10-2019, 11:09 PM
#276
I see that Mister Luxon, formerly of Air New Zealand, is reported to be gathering support as a National Party candidate, and even as a potential leader.
Can this be true?
-
15-10-2019, 05:59 AM
#277
Originally Posted by GTM 3442
I see that Mister Luxon, formerly of Air New Zealand, is reported to be gathering support as a National Party candidate, and even as a potential leader.
Can this be true?
That's a peculiar question. Of course it can be.
-
15-10-2019, 05:08 PM
#278
Oh dear! One imagines that that won't do much for morale in caucus.
-
15-10-2019, 05:14 PM
#279
Originally Posted by GTM 3442
Oh dear! One imagines that that won't do much for morale in caucus.
?????? Why is that?
-
10-11-2019, 05:28 PM
#280
Originally Posted by fungus pudding
?????? Why is that?
You're a National MP with big political ambitions.
You've put in the time and effort - stood in a safe Labour electorate, been rewarded with a marginal electorate, made a decent showing - maybe even won it, been rewarded with a safe National seat, you make it onto the party list, you get a shadow portfolio, you ask the patsy questions, you defend the indefensible, you swallow all the dead rats that come your way, you're an undersecretary, then a secretary, then a junior minister, then a senior minister, and then . . . .
The party helicopters in Don Brash. . . . or John Key. . . or Mister Luxon. . .
As a Senior Figure in the party, as a Senior Minister in the government - bang! wham! you've just hit the glass ceiling.
Your career path now ends at Deputy Prime Minister.
As they ask on TV - "How do you feel. . . "
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Bookmarks