Andrea Vance has been a long term close reporter for the National
Party, but she is showing concern:
https://www.thepost.co.nz/a/politics/350062012/nationals-factions-zombie-mps-taliban
The article ends: "Factions thrive where there is weak discipline.
That burden falls on the leader – but even from a position of strength Luxon cannot seem to summon the authority to end even the most
moribund of careers."
Andrea Vance has been a long term close reporter for the NationalChippy on the other hand is worse. He did nothing when he should have, Luxon acted immediately.
Party, but she is showing concern:
https://www.thepost.co.nz/a/politics/350062012/nationals-factions-zombie-mps-taliban
The article ends: "Factions thrive where there is weak discipline.
That burden falls on the leader but even from a position of strength
Luxon cannot seem to summon the authority to end even the most
moribund of careers."
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:It also makes Rich's lies about being politically neutral look silly :)
Andrea Vance has been a long term close reporter for the National
Party, but she is showing concern:
https://www.thepost.co.nz/a/politics/350062012/nationals-factions-zombie-mps-taliban
The article ends: "Factions thrive where there is weak discipline.Chippy on the other hand is worse. He did nothing when he should have, Luxon acted immediately.
That burden falls on the leader – but even from a position of strength >Luxon cannot seem to summon the authority to end even the most
moribund of careers."
That makes the article a nonsense.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Shanan Halbert did not do anything wrong - so your criticism of
Andrea Vance has been a long term close reporter for the NationalChippy on the other hand is worse. He did nothing when he should have, Luxon >acted immediately.
Party, but she is showing concern:
https://www.thepost.co.nz/a/politics/350062012/nationals-factions-zombie-mps-taliban
The article ends: "Factions thrive where there is weak discipline.
That burden falls on the leader but even from a position of strength >>Luxon cannot seem to summon the authority to end even the most
moribund of careers."
That makes the article a nonsense.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
Andrea Vance has been a long term close reporter for the NationalChippy on the other hand is worse. He did nothing when he should have, Luxon acted immediately.
Party, but she is showing concern:
https://www.thepost.co.nz/a/politics/350062012/nationals-factions-zombie-mps-taliban
The article ends: "Factions thrive where there is weak discipline.
That burden falls on the leader but even from a position of strength >>Luxon cannot seem to summon the authority to end even the most
moribund of careers."
That makes the article a nonsense.
On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 20:42:30 -0000 (UTC), TonyThat is a beat up based on serious misinformation and bias.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Shanan Halbert did not do anything wrong - so your criticism of
Andrea Vance has been a long term close reporter for the NationalChippy on the other hand is worse. He did nothing when he should have, Luxon >>acted immediately.
Party, but she is showing concern:
https://www.thepost.co.nz/a/politics/350062012/nationals-factions-zombie-mps-taliban
The article ends: "Factions thrive where there is weak discipline.
That burden falls on the leader but even from a position of strength >>>Luxon cannot seem to summon the authority to end even the most
moribund of careers."
That makes the article a nonsense.
Hipkins is misplaced - he was almost certainly aware of the incident,
but there was no need for him to be involved.
I have previously posted this link, which gives more information: >https://thestandard.org.nz/nationals-very-bad-week/
That gives a link to the report of the Privileges Committee, which
itself includes a copy of the Barrister asked to investigate and
report - a link that interestingly is not given in the various news
media reports.
in particular, the meeting of the Transport and Infrastructure
Committee was on 29 June 2023, from 8am until 8:50 am when the bells
rang to call MPs to the house.
Before the afternoon meeting of the Committee, Rachel Boyack brought
the exchange to the attention of the Labour Chief Whip and
correspondence between the Labour and National Chief Whips followed.
One of the National Whips attended that afternoon session, which may
have assisted prevent further dispute.
Rachel Boyack wrote to the Speaker on 25 July, and Tim van der Molen >responded on 26 July.
The Barrister's report was dated 15 August 2023.
From: >https://thespinoff.co.nz/live-updates/02-08-2023/luxon-backing-mp-accused-of-intimidating-behaviour
we see that on 2 August it is reported: "Luxon was made aware of the
issue within the last few days he said, despite the alleged incident >happening in June." Plausible deniability is often used by National,
but given the involvement of both National Whips on the day the
incident happened, and the formal complaint to the speaker, this is
either a very poor reflection on the National Whips and of van der
Molen, or it is simply yet another Luxon Lie.
Then on 24 August the result of the hearing is published: >https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/national-mp-tim-van-de-molen-found-in-contempt-of-house-of-parliament-for-threatening-behaviour-towards-labours-shanan-halbert/YREMSCEGM5C5ZP763YRCCO7LQY/
and from that:
"Halbert said he had sought to acknowledge the incident with van de
Molen and then through the party whips but they wouldnt acknowledge
there were any issues.
As a junior whip, should an incident come about my one of my team
members, I would act on that and ensure that the incident was resolved
as quickly as possible. And thats not what happened.
I think the National Party certainly should have looked into it
further at the time, understood if there was an incident and resolved
it immediately given staff were in the room at the time.
National Party leader Christopher Luxon said following the decision
van de Molen had been stood down from his portfolios, which included
being spokesman for Building and Construction, Defence and Veterans,
and ACC.
So Luxon hardly acted immediately; and Andrea Vance is clearly
reflecting a lot of National Party concerns that Luxon is not on top
of the job, that he delayed getting involved when it could have been
settled earlier, and that he showed weakness in relation to van der
Molen in supporting him when he must have known such support was not >deserved, but most importantly of allowing him to continue being a
candidate and to remain on the National Party list when he could have
been asked to stop being an MP, and replaced as a candidate.
It is one thing to support an MP, but quite another to see nothing
done from 29 June to 24 August - quite a few in National will be very
pissed off with Luxon, and see the criticism by Andrea Vance as
identifying a real problem for National both in terms of the election
and in terms of whether Luxon would be up to the job of being PM
anyway.
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 01:02:37 -0000 (UTC), TonyI am not and I don't. Shove your sarcasm where it belongs.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 20:42:30 -0000 (UTC), TonyThat is a beat up based on serious misinformation and bias.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Shanan Halbert did not do anything wrong - so your criticism of
Andrea Vance has been a long term close reporter for the National >>>>>Party, but she is showing concern:Chippy on the other hand is worse. He did nothing when he should have, >>>>Luxon
https://www.thepost.co.nz/a/politics/350062012/nationals-factions-zombie-mps-taliban
The article ends: "Factions thrive where there is weak discipline. >>>>>That burden falls on the leader but even from a position of strength >>>>>Luxon cannot seem to summon the authority to end even the most >>>>>moribund of careers."
acted immediately.
That makes the article a nonsense.
Hipkins is misplaced - he was almost certainly aware of the incident,
but there was no need for him to be involved.
I have previously posted this link, which gives more information: >>>https://thestandard.org.nz/nationals-very-bad-week/
That gives a link to the report of the Privileges Committee, which
itself includes a copy of the Barrister asked to investigate and
report - a link that interestingly is not given in the various news
media reports.
in particular, the meeting of the Transport and Infrastructure
Committee was on 29 June 2023, from 8am until 8:50 am when the bells
rang to call MPs to the house.
Before the afternoon meeting of the Committee, Rachel Boyack brought
the exchange to the attention of the Labour Chief Whip and
correspondence between the Labour and National Chief Whips followed.
One of the National Whips attended that afternoon session, which may
have assisted prevent further dispute.
Rachel Boyack wrote to the Speaker on 25 July, and Tim van der Molen >>>responded on 26 July.
The Barrister's report was dated 15 August 2023.
From: >>>https://thespinoff.co.nz/live-updates/02-08-2023/luxon-backing-mp-accused-of-intimidating-behaviour
we see that on 2 August it is reported: "Luxon was made aware of the >>>issue within the last few days he said, despite the alleged incident >>>happening in June." Plausible deniability is often used by National, >>>but given the involvement of both National Whips on the day the
incident happened, and the formal complaint to the speaker, this is >>>either a very poor reflection on the National Whips and of van der
Molen, or it is simply yet another Luxon Lie.
Then on 24 August the result of the hearing is published: >>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/national-mp-tim-van-de-molen-found-in-contempt-of-house-of-parliament-for-threatening-behaviour-towards-labours-shanan-halbert/YREMSCEGM5C5ZP763YRCCO7LQY/
and from that:
"Halbert said he had sought to acknowledge the incident with van de
Molen and then through the party whips but they wouldnt acknowledge >>>there were any issues.
As a junior whip, should an incident come about my one of my team >>>members, I would act on that and ensure that the incident was resolved
as quickly as possible. And thats not what happened.
I think the National Party certainly should have looked into it
further at the time, understood if there was an incident and resolved
it immediately given staff were in the room at the time.
National Party leader Christopher Luxon said following the decision
van de Molen had been stood down from his portfolios, which included >>>being spokesman for Building and Construction, Defence and Veterans,
and ACC.
So Luxon hardly acted immediately; and Andrea Vance is clearly
reflecting a lot of National Party concerns that Luxon is not on top
of the job, that he delayed getting involved when it could have been >>>settled earlier, and that he showed weakness in relation to van der
Molen in supporting him when he must have known such support was not >>>deserved, but most importantly of allowing him to continue being a >>>candidate and to remain on the National Party list when he could have >>>been asked to stop being an MP, and replaced as a candidate.
It is one thing to support an MP, but quite another to see nothing
done from 29 June to 24 August - quite a few in National will be very >>>pissed off with Luxon, and see the criticism by Andrea Vance as >>>identifying a real problem for National both in terms of the election
and in terms of whether Luxon would be up to the job of being PM
anyway.
If Luxon is not suitable to be a PM then how on earth did Ardern and Chippy >>get
there? Both inferior intellects and both bigger liars.
Accusations of serious misinformation and bias are not trivial, Tony,
and we should take them seriously
I appreciate that you may be upset at the National Party people
keeping Chris Luxon in the dark about this incident from 29 June to a
few days before 3 August, but I see no reason why you should think
Chris Luxon lied about that - I am prepared to believe him; is there
anything you know to believe differently?
The Barristers Report seems to have been responsibly prepared and asFrom you.
accurate a report as would be expected; the Privileges Committee seems
to have operated as could be expected, the National Party Whips, and
then Luxon do seem to have underestimated the seriousness of the
incident - or perhaps they had a bias to believe van den Molen, but
that does not relate to serious misinformation, just poor judgement.
Andrea Vance has summarised factual issues quite well, but it is clear
what are presented as fact and what are her personal opinions. We are
not yet at the stage where opinions in our media need to be vetted and >approved by a possible future government more to your liking than the
current government, but I see no bias in the decisions of the
Privileges Committee - it contained members from a number of political >parties, but there does not seem to have been any dissent over its
findings.
So where is the serious misinformation and bias, Tony?
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 20:42:30 -0000 (UTC), TonyThat is a beat up based on serious misinformation and bias.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Shanan Halbert did not do anything wrong - so your criticism of
Andrea Vance has been a long term close reporter for the National >>>>Party, but she is showing concern:Chippy on the other hand is worse. He did nothing when he should have, Luxon >>>acted immediately.
https://www.thepost.co.nz/a/politics/350062012/nationals-factions-zombie-mps-taliban
The article ends: "Factions thrive where there is weak discipline.
That burden falls on the leader but even from a position of strength >>>>Luxon cannot seem to summon the authority to end even the most
moribund of careers."
That makes the article a nonsense.
Hipkins is misplaced - he was almost certainly aware of the incident,
but there was no need for him to be involved.
I have previously posted this link, which gives more information: >>https://thestandard.org.nz/nationals-very-bad-week/
That gives a link to the report of the Privileges Committee, which
itself includes a copy of the Barrister asked to investigate and
report - a link that interestingly is not given in the various news
media reports.
in particular, the meeting of the Transport and Infrastructure
Committee was on 29 June 2023, from 8am until 8:50 am when the bells
rang to call MPs to the house.
Before the afternoon meeting of the Committee, Rachel Boyack brought
the exchange to the attention of the Labour Chief Whip and
correspondence between the Labour and National Chief Whips followed.
One of the National Whips attended that afternoon session, which may
have assisted prevent further dispute.
Rachel Boyack wrote to the Speaker on 25 July, and Tim van der Molen >>responded on 26 July.
The Barrister's report was dated 15 August 2023.
From: >>https://thespinoff.co.nz/live-updates/02-08-2023/luxon-backing-mp-accused-of-intimidating-behaviour
we see that on 2 August it is reported: "Luxon was made aware of the
issue within the last few days he said, despite the alleged incident >>happening in June." Plausible deniability is often used by National,
but given the involvement of both National Whips on the day the
incident happened, and the formal complaint to the speaker, this is
either a very poor reflection on the National Whips and of van der
Molen, or it is simply yet another Luxon Lie.
Then on 24 August the result of the hearing is published: >>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/national-mp-tim-van-de-molen-found-in-contempt-of-house-of-parliament-for-threatening-behaviour-towards-labours-shanan-halbert/YREMSCEGM5C5ZP763YRCCO7LQY/
and from that:
"Halbert said he had sought to acknowledge the incident with van de
Molen and then through the party whips but they wouldnt acknowledge
there were any issues.
As a junior whip, should an incident come about my one of my team
members, I would act on that and ensure that the incident was resolved
as quickly as possible. And thats not what happened.
I think the National Party certainly should have looked into it
further at the time, understood if there was an incident and resolved
it immediately given staff were in the room at the time.
National Party leader Christopher Luxon said following the decision
van de Molen had been stood down from his portfolios, which included
being spokesman for Building and Construction, Defence and Veterans,
and ACC.
So Luxon hardly acted immediately; and Andrea Vance is clearly
reflecting a lot of National Party concerns that Luxon is not on top
of the job, that he delayed getting involved when it could have been >>settled earlier, and that he showed weakness in relation to van der
Molen in supporting him when he must have known such support was not >>deserved, but most importantly of allowing him to continue being a >>candidate and to remain on the National Party list when he could have
been asked to stop being an MP, and replaced as a candidate.
It is one thing to support an MP, but quite another to see nothing
done from 29 June to 24 August - quite a few in National will be very >>pissed off with Luxon, and see the criticism by Andrea Vance as
identifying a real problem for National both in terms of the election
and in terms of whether Luxon would be up to the job of being PM
anyway.
If Luxon is not suitable to be a PM then how on earth did Ardern and Chippy get
there? Both inferior intellects and both bigger liars.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:You have not been identified any part of what I have said that is misinformation, untrue, or biased.
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 01:02:37 -0000 (UTC), TonyI am not and I don't. Shove your sarcasm where it belongs.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 20:42:30 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:That is a beat up based on serious misinformation and bias.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Shanan Halbert did not do anything wrong - so your criticism of
Andrea Vance has been a long term close reporter for the National >>>>>>Party, but she is showing concern:Chippy on the other hand is worse. He did nothing when he should have, >>>>>Luxon
https://www.thepost.co.nz/a/politics/350062012/nationals-factions-zombie-mps-taliban
The article ends: "Factions thrive where there is weak discipline. >>>>>>That burden falls on the leader but even from a position of strength >>>>>>Luxon cannot seem to summon the authority to end even the most >>>>>>moribund of careers."
acted immediately.
That makes the article a nonsense.
Hipkins is misplaced - he was almost certainly aware of the incident, >>>>but there was no need for him to be involved.
I have previously posted this link, which gives more information: >>>>https://thestandard.org.nz/nationals-very-bad-week/
That gives a link to the report of the Privileges Committee, which >>>>itself includes a copy of the Barrister asked to investigate and
report - a link that interestingly is not given in the various news >>>>media reports.
in particular, the meeting of the Transport and Infrastructure >>>>Committee was on 29 June 2023, from 8am until 8:50 am when the bells >>>>rang to call MPs to the house.
Before the afternoon meeting of the Committee, Rachel Boyack brought >>>>the exchange to the attention of the Labour Chief Whip and >>>>correspondence between the Labour and National Chief Whips followed. >>>>One of the National Whips attended that afternoon session, which may >>>>have assisted prevent further dispute.
Rachel Boyack wrote to the Speaker on 25 July, and Tim van der Molen >>>>responded on 26 July.
The Barrister's report was dated 15 August 2023.
From: >>>>https://thespinoff.co.nz/live-updates/02-08-2023/luxon-backing-mp-accused-of-intimidating-behaviour
we see that on 2 August it is reported: "Luxon was made aware of the >>>>issue within the last few days he said, despite the alleged incident >>>>happening in June." Plausible deniability is often used by National, >>>>but given the involvement of both National Whips on the day the >>>>incident happened, and the formal complaint to the speaker, this is >>>>either a very poor reflection on the National Whips and of van der >>>>Molen, or it is simply yet another Luxon Lie.
Then on 24 August the result of the hearing is published: >>>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/national-mp-tim-van-de-molen-found-in-contempt-of-house-of-parliament-for-threatening-behaviour-towards-labours-shanan-halbert/YREMSCEGM5C5ZP763YRCCO7LQY/
and from that:
"Halbert said he had sought to acknowledge the incident with van de >>>>Molen and then through the party whips but they wouldnt acknowledge >>>>there were any issues.
As a junior whip, should an incident come about my one of my team >>>>members, I would act on that and ensure that the incident was resolved >>>>as quickly as possible. And thats not what happened.
I think the National Party certainly should have looked into it >>>>further at the time, understood if there was an incident and resolved >>>>it immediately given staff were in the room at the time.
National Party leader Christopher Luxon said following the decision
van de Molen had been stood down from his portfolios, which included >>>>being spokesman for Building and Construction, Defence and Veterans, >>>>and ACC.
So Luxon hardly acted immediately; and Andrea Vance is clearly >>>>reflecting a lot of National Party concerns that Luxon is not on top
of the job, that he delayed getting involved when it could have been >>>>settled earlier, and that he showed weakness in relation to van der >>>>Molen in supporting him when he must have known such support was not >>>>deserved, but most importantly of allowing him to continue being a >>>>candidate and to remain on the National Party list when he could have >>>>been asked to stop being an MP, and replaced as a candidate.
It is one thing to support an MP, but quite another to see nothing
done from 29 June to 24 August - quite a few in National will be very >>>>pissed off with Luxon, and see the criticism by Andrea Vance as >>>>identifying a real problem for National both in terms of the election >>>>and in terms of whether Luxon would be up to the job of being PM >>>>anyway.
If Luxon is not suitable to be a PM then how on earth did Ardern and Chippy >>>get
there? Both inferior intellects and both bigger liars.
Accusations of serious misinformation and bias are not trivial, Tony,
and we should take them seriously
I appreciate that you may be upset at the National Party people
keeping Chris Luxon in the dark about this incident from 29 June to a
few days before 3 August, but I see no reason why you should think
Chris Luxon lied about that - I am prepared to believe him; is there >>anything you know to believe differently?
From you.
The Barristers Report seems to have been responsibly prepared and as >>accurate a report as would be expected; the Privileges Committee seems
to have operated as could be expected, the National Party Whips, and
then Luxon do seem to have underestimated the seriousness of the
incident - or perhaps they had a bias to believe van den Molen, but
that does not relate to serious misinformation, just poor judgement.
Andrea Vance has summarised factual issues quite well, but it is clear
what are presented as fact and what are her personal opinions. We are
not yet at the stage where opinions in our media need to be vetted and >>approved by a possible future government more to your liking than the >>current government, but I see no bias in the decisions of the
Privileges Committee - it contained members from a number of political >>parties, but there does not seem to have been any dissent over its >>findings.
So where is the serious misinformation and bias, Tony?
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 04:47:08 -0000 (UTC), TonyWhilst forgiving your English incompetence I suggest that you should actually support your posts with evidence. None provided so far.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:You have not been identified any part of what I have said that is >misinformation, untrue, or biased.
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 01:02:37 -0000 (UTC), TonyI am not and I don't. Shove your sarcasm where it belongs.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 20:42:30 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:That is a beat up based on serious misinformation and bias.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Shanan Halbert did not do anything wrong - so your criticism of >>>>>Hipkins is misplaced - he was almost certainly aware of the incident, >>>>>but there was no need for him to be involved.
Andrea Vance has been a long term close reporter for the National >>>>>>>Party, but she is showing concern:Chippy on the other hand is worse. He did nothing when he should have, >>>>>>Luxon
https://www.thepost.co.nz/a/politics/350062012/nationals-factions-zombie-mps-taliban
The article ends: "Factions thrive where there is weak discipline. >>>>>>>That burden falls on the leader but even from a position of strength >>>>>>>Luxon cannot seem to summon the authority to end even the most >>>>>>>moribund of careers."
acted immediately.
That makes the article a nonsense.
I have previously posted this link, which gives more information: >>>>>https://thestandard.org.nz/nationals-very-bad-week/
That gives a link to the report of the Privileges Committee, which >>>>>itself includes a copy of the Barrister asked to investigate and >>>>>report - a link that interestingly is not given in the various news >>>>>media reports.
in particular, the meeting of the Transport and Infrastructure >>>>>Committee was on 29 June 2023, from 8am until 8:50 am when the bells >>>>>rang to call MPs to the house.
Before the afternoon meeting of the Committee, Rachel Boyack brought >>>>>the exchange to the attention of the Labour Chief Whip and >>>>>correspondence between the Labour and National Chief Whips followed. >>>>>One of the National Whips attended that afternoon session, which may >>>>>have assisted prevent further dispute.
Rachel Boyack wrote to the Speaker on 25 July, and Tim van der Molen >>>>>responded on 26 July.
The Barrister's report was dated 15 August 2023.
From: >>>>>https://thespinoff.co.nz/live-updates/02-08-2023/luxon-backing-mp-accused-of-intimidating-behaviour
we see that on 2 August it is reported: "Luxon was made aware of the >>>>>issue within the last few days he said, despite the alleged incident >>>>>happening in June." Plausible deniability is often used by National, >>>>>but given the involvement of both National Whips on the day the >>>>>incident happened, and the formal complaint to the speaker, this is >>>>>either a very poor reflection on the National Whips and of van der >>>>>Molen, or it is simply yet another Luxon Lie.
Then on 24 August the result of the hearing is published: >>>>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/national-mp-tim-van-de-molen-found-in-contempt-of-house-of-parliament-for-threatening-behaviour-towards-labours-shanan-halbert/YREMSCEGM5C5ZP763YRCCO7LQY/
and from that:
"Halbert said he had sought to acknowledge the incident with van de >>>>>Molen and then through the party whips but they wouldnt acknowledge >>>>>there were any issues.
As a junior whip, should an incident come about my one of my team >>>>>members, I would act on that and ensure that the incident was resolved >>>>>as quickly as possible. And thats not what happened.
I think the National Party certainly should have looked into it >>>>>further at the time, understood if there was an incident and resolved >>>>>it immediately given staff were in the room at the time.
National Party leader Christopher Luxon said following the decision >>>>>van de Molen had been stood down from his portfolios, which included >>>>>being spokesman for Building and Construction, Defence and Veterans, >>>>>and ACC.
So Luxon hardly acted immediately; and Andrea Vance is clearly >>>>>reflecting a lot of National Party concerns that Luxon is not on top >>>>>of the job, that he delayed getting involved when it could have been >>>>>settled earlier, and that he showed weakness in relation to van der >>>>>Molen in supporting him when he must have known such support was not >>>>>deserved, but most importantly of allowing him to continue being a >>>>>candidate and to remain on the National Party list when he could have >>>>>been asked to stop being an MP, and replaced as a candidate.
It is one thing to support an MP, but quite another to see nothing >>>>>done from 29 June to 24 August - quite a few in National will be very >>>>>pissed off with Luxon, and see the criticism by Andrea Vance as >>>>>identifying a real problem for National both in terms of the election >>>>>and in terms of whether Luxon would be up to the job of being PM >>>>>anyway.
If Luxon is not suitable to be a PM then how on earth did Ardern and Chippy >>>>get
there? Both inferior intellects and both bigger liars.
Accusations of serious misinformation and bias are not trivial, Tony,
and we should take them seriously
I appreciate that you may be upset at the National Party people
keeping Chris Luxon in the dark about this incident from 29 June to a
few days before 3 August, but I see no reason why you should think
Chris Luxon lied about that - I am prepared to believe him; is there >>>anything you know to believe differently?
From you.
The Barristers Report seems to have been responsibly prepared and as >>>accurate a report as would be expected; the Privileges Committee seems
to have operated as could be expected, the National Party Whips, and
then Luxon do seem to have underestimated the seriousness of the
incident - or perhaps they had a bias to believe van den Molen, but
that does not relate to serious misinformation, just poor judgement.
Andrea Vance has summarised factual issues quite well, but it is clear >>>what are presented as fact and what are her personal opinions. We are
not yet at the stage where opinions in our media need to be vetted and >>>approved by a possible future government more to your liking than the >>>current government, but I see no bias in the decisions of the
Privileges Committee - it contained members from a number of political >>>parties, but there does not seem to have been any dissent over its >>>findings.
So where is the serious misinformation and bias, Tony?
Your reluctance or inability to support your serious accusationsSee above. Provide some evidence and no more rhetoric please.
merely points out your fundamental dishonesty or desperation. try
again, Tony, or apologise.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 04:47:08 -0000 (UTC), TonyWhilst forgiving your English incompetence I suggest that you should actually >support your posts with evidence. None provided so far.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:You have not been identified any part of what I have said that is >>misinformation, untrue, or biased.
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 01:02:37 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:I am not and I don't. Shove your sarcasm where it belongs.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 20:42:30 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:That is a beat up based on serious misinformation and bias.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Shanan Halbert did not do anything wrong - so your criticism of >>>>>>Hipkins is misplaced - he was almost certainly aware of the incident, >>>>>>but there was no need for him to be involved.
Andrea Vance has been a long term close reporter for the National >>>>>>>>Party, but she is showing concern:Chippy on the other hand is worse. He did nothing when he should have, >>>>>>>Luxon
https://www.thepost.co.nz/a/politics/350062012/nationals-factions-zombie-mps-taliban
The article ends: "Factions thrive where there is weak discipline. >>>>>>>>That burden falls on the leader but even from a position of strength >>>>>>>>Luxon cannot seem to summon the authority to end even the most >>>>>>>>moribund of careers."
acted immediately.
That makes the article a nonsense.
I have previously posted this link, which gives more information: >>>>>>https://thestandard.org.nz/nationals-very-bad-week/
That gives a link to the report of the Privileges Committee, which >>>>>>itself includes a copy of the Barrister asked to investigate and >>>>>>report - a link that interestingly is not given in the various news >>>>>>media reports.
in particular, the meeting of the Transport and Infrastructure >>>>>>Committee was on 29 June 2023, from 8am until 8:50 am when the bells >>>>>>rang to call MPs to the house.
Before the afternoon meeting of the Committee, Rachel Boyack brought >>>>>>the exchange to the attention of the Labour Chief Whip and >>>>>>correspondence between the Labour and National Chief Whips followed. >>>>>>One of the National Whips attended that afternoon session, which may >>>>>>have assisted prevent further dispute.
Rachel Boyack wrote to the Speaker on 25 July, and Tim van der Molen >>>>>>responded on 26 July.
The Barrister's report was dated 15 August 2023.
From: >>>>>>https://thespinoff.co.nz/live-updates/02-08-2023/luxon-backing-mp-accused-of-intimidating-behaviour
we see that on 2 August it is reported: "Luxon was made aware of the >>>>>>issue within the last few days he said, despite the alleged incident >>>>>>happening in June." Plausible deniability is often used by National, >>>>>>but given the involvement of both National Whips on the day the >>>>>>incident happened, and the formal complaint to the speaker, this is >>>>>>either a very poor reflection on the National Whips and of van der >>>>>>Molen, or it is simply yet another Luxon Lie.
Then on 24 August the result of the hearing is published: >>>>>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/national-mp-tim-van-de-molen-found-in-contempt-of-house-of-parliament-for-threatening-behaviour-towards-labours-shanan-halbert/YREMSCEGM5C5ZP763YRCCO7LQY/
and from that:
"Halbert said he had sought to acknowledge the incident with van de >>>>>>Molen and then through the party whips but they wouldnt acknowledge >>>>>>there were any issues.
As a junior whip, should an incident come about my one of my team >>>>>>members, I would act on that and ensure that the incident was resolved >>>>>>as quickly as possible. And thats not what happened.
I think the National Party certainly should have looked into it >>>>>>further at the time, understood if there was an incident and resolved >>>>>>it immediately given staff were in the room at the time.
National Party leader Christopher Luxon said following the decision >>>>>>van de Molen had been stood down from his portfolios, which included >>>>>>being spokesman for Building and Construction, Defence and Veterans, >>>>>>and ACC.
So Luxon hardly acted immediately; and Andrea Vance is clearly >>>>>>reflecting a lot of National Party concerns that Luxon is not on top >>>>>>of the job, that he delayed getting involved when it could have been >>>>>>settled earlier, and that he showed weakness in relation to van der >>>>>>Molen in supporting him when he must have known such support was not >>>>>>deserved, but most importantly of allowing him to continue being a >>>>>>candidate and to remain on the National Party list when he could have >>>>>>been asked to stop being an MP, and replaced as a candidate.
It is one thing to support an MP, but quite another to see nothing >>>>>>done from 29 June to 24 August - quite a few in National will be very >>>>>>pissed off with Luxon, and see the criticism by Andrea Vance as >>>>>>identifying a real problem for National both in terms of the election >>>>>>and in terms of whether Luxon would be up to the job of being PM >>>>>>anyway.
If Luxon is not suitable to be a PM then how on earth did Ardern and Chippy
get
there? Both inferior intellects and both bigger liars.
Accusations of serious misinformation and bias are not trivial, Tony, >>>>and we should take them seriously
I appreciate that you may be upset at the National Party people
keeping Chris Luxon in the dark about this incident from 29 June to a >>>>few days before 3 August, but I see no reason why you should think >>>>Chris Luxon lied about that - I am prepared to believe him; is there >>>>anything you know to believe differently?
From you.
The Barristers Report seems to have been responsibly prepared and as >>>>accurate a report as would be expected; the Privileges Committee seems >>>>to have operated as could be expected, the National Party Whips, and >>>>then Luxon do seem to have underestimated the seriousness of the >>>>incident - or perhaps they had a bias to believe van den Molen, but >>>>that does not relate to serious misinformation, just poor judgement.
Andrea Vance has summarised factual issues quite well, but it is clear >>>>what are presented as fact and what are her personal opinions. We are >>>>not yet at the stage where opinions in our media need to be vetted and >>>>approved by a possible future government more to your liking than the >>>>current government, but I see no bias in the decisions of the >>>>Privileges Committee - it contained members from a number of political >>>>parties, but there does not seem to have been any dissent over its >>>>findings.
So where is the serious misinformation and bias, Tony?
See above - did you read the material at the links I gave?See above. Provide some evidence and no more rhetoric please.
Your reluctance or inability to support your serious accusations
merely points out your fundamental dishonesty or desperation. try
again, Tony, or apologise.
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 06:57:41 -0000 (UTC), TonySarcasm removed.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 04:47:08 -0000 (UTC), TonyWhilst forgiving your English incompetence I suggest that you should actually >>support your posts with evidence. None provided so far.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:You have not been identified any part of what I have said that is >>>misinformation, untrue, or biased.
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 01:02:37 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:I am not and I don't. Shove your sarcasm where it belongs.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 20:42:30 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:That is a beat up based on serious misinformation and bias.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Shanan Halbert did not do anything wrong - so your criticism of >>>>>>>Hipkins is misplaced - he was almost certainly aware of the incident, >>>>>>>but there was no need for him to be involved.
Andrea Vance has been a long term close reporter for the National >>>>>>>>>Party, but she is showing concern:Chippy on the other hand is worse. He did nothing when he should have, >>>>>>>>Luxon
https://www.thepost.co.nz/a/politics/350062012/nationals-factions-zombie-mps-taliban
The article ends: "Factions thrive where there is weak discipline. >>>>>>>>>That burden falls on the leader but even from a position of strength >>>>>>>>>Luxon cannot seem to summon the authority to end even the most >>>>>>>>>moribund of careers."
acted immediately.
That makes the article a nonsense.
I have previously posted this link, which gives more information: >>>>>>>https://thestandard.org.nz/nationals-very-bad-week/
That gives a link to the report of the Privileges Committee, which >>>>>>>itself includes a copy of the Barrister asked to investigate and >>>>>>>report - a link that interestingly is not given in the various news >>>>>>>media reports.
in particular, the meeting of the Transport and Infrastructure >>>>>>>Committee was on 29 June 2023, from 8am until 8:50 am when the bells >>>>>>>rang to call MPs to the house.
Before the afternoon meeting of the Committee, Rachel Boyack brought >>>>>>>the exchange to the attention of the Labour Chief Whip and >>>>>>>correspondence between the Labour and National Chief Whips followed. >>>>>>>One of the National Whips attended that afternoon session, which may >>>>>>>have assisted prevent further dispute.
Rachel Boyack wrote to the Speaker on 25 July, and Tim van der Molen >>>>>>>responded on 26 July.
The Barrister's report was dated 15 August 2023.
From: >>>>>>>https://thespinoff.co.nz/live-updates/02-08-2023/luxon-backing-mp-accused-of-intimidating-behaviour
we see that on 2 August it is reported: "Luxon was made aware of the >>>>>>>issue within the last few days he said, despite the alleged incident >>>>>>>happening in June." Plausible deniability is often used by National, >>>>>>>but given the involvement of both National Whips on the day the >>>>>>>incident happened, and the formal complaint to the speaker, this is >>>>>>>either a very poor reflection on the National Whips and of van der >>>>>>>Molen, or it is simply yet another Luxon Lie.
Then on 24 August the result of the hearing is published: >>>>>>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/national-mp-tim-van-de-molen-found-in-contempt-of-house-of-parliament-for-threatening-behaviour-towards-labours-shanan-halbert/YREMSCEGM5C5ZP763YRCCO7LQY/
and from that:
"Halbert said he had sought to acknowledge the incident with van de >>>>>>>Molen and then through the party whips but they wouldnt acknowledge >>>>>>>there were any issues.
As a junior whip, should an incident come about my one of my team >>>>>>>members, I would act on that and ensure that the incident was resolved >>>>>>>as quickly as possible. And thats not what happened.
I think the National Party certainly should have looked into it >>>>>>>further at the time, understood if there was an incident and resolved >>>>>>>it immediately given staff were in the room at the time.
National Party leader Christopher Luxon said following the decision >>>>>>>van de Molen had been stood down from his portfolios, which included >>>>>>>being spokesman for Building and Construction, Defence and Veterans, >>>>>>>and ACC.
So Luxon hardly acted immediately; and Andrea Vance is clearly >>>>>>>reflecting a lot of National Party concerns that Luxon is not on top >>>>>>>of the job, that he delayed getting involved when it could have been >>>>>>>settled earlier, and that he showed weakness in relation to van der >>>>>>>Molen in supporting him when he must have known such support was not >>>>>>>deserved, but most importantly of allowing him to continue being a >>>>>>>candidate and to remain on the National Party list when he could have >>>>>>>been asked to stop being an MP, and replaced as a candidate.
It is one thing to support an MP, but quite another to see nothing >>>>>>>done from 29 June to 24 August - quite a few in National will be very >>>>>>>pissed off with Luxon, and see the criticism by Andrea Vance as >>>>>>>identifying a real problem for National both in terms of the election >>>>>>>and in terms of whether Luxon would be up to the job of being PM >>>>>>>anyway.
If Luxon is not suitable to be a PM then how on earth did Ardern and >>>>>>Chippy
get
there? Both inferior intellects and both bigger liars.
Accusations of serious misinformation and bias are not trivial, Tony, >>>>>and we should take them seriously
I appreciate that you may be upset at the National Party people >>>>>keeping Chris Luxon in the dark about this incident from 29 June to a >>>>>few days before 3 August, but I see no reason why you should think >>>>>Chris Luxon lied about that - I am prepared to believe him; is there >>>>>anything you know to believe differently?
From you.
The Barristers Report seems to have been responsibly prepared and as >>>>>accurate a report as would be expected; the Privileges Committee seems >>>>>to have operated as could be expected, the National Party Whips, and >>>>>then Luxon do seem to have underestimated the seriousness of the >>>>>incident - or perhaps they had a bias to believe van den Molen, but >>>>>that does not relate to serious misinformation, just poor judgement.
Andrea Vance has summarised factual issues quite well, but it is clear >>>>>what are presented as fact and what are her personal opinions. We are >>>>>not yet at the stage where opinions in our media need to be vetted and >>>>>approved by a possible future government more to your liking than the >>>>>current government, but I see no bias in the decisions of the >>>>>Privileges Committee - it contained members from a number of political >>>>>parties, but there does not seem to have been any dissent over its >>>>>findings.
So where is the serious misinformation and bias, Tony?
Everything I have posted has come from the links which I gave - the
link from The Standard gives a number of links including the
Privilege Committee report.
See above - did you read the material at the links I gave?See above. Provide some evidence and no more rhetoric please.
Your reluctance or inability to support your serious accusations
merely points out your fundamental dishonesty or desperation. try
again, Tony, or apologise.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 06:57:41 -0000 (UTC), TonySarcasm removed.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 04:47:08 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Whilst forgiving your English incompetence I suggest that you should actually
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:You have not been identified any part of what I have said that is >>>>misinformation, untrue, or biased.
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 01:02:37 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:I am not and I don't. Shove your sarcasm where it belongs.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 20:42:30 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:That is a beat up based on serious misinformation and bias.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Shanan Halbert did not do anything wrong - so your criticism of >>>>>>>>Hipkins is misplaced - he was almost certainly aware of the incident, >>>>>>>>but there was no need for him to be involved.
Andrea Vance has been a long term close reporter for the National >>>>>>>>>>Party, but she is showing concern:Chippy on the other hand is worse. He did nothing when he should have, >>>>>>>>>Luxon
https://www.thepost.co.nz/a/politics/350062012/nationals-factions-zombie-mps-taliban
The article ends: "Factions thrive where there is weak discipline. >>>>>>>>>>That burden falls on the leader but even from a position of strength
Luxon cannot seem to summon the authority to end even the most >>>>>>>>>>moribund of careers."
acted immediately.
That makes the article a nonsense.
I have previously posted this link, which gives more information: >>>>>>>>https://thestandard.org.nz/nationals-very-bad-week/
That gives a link to the report of the Privileges Committee, which >>>>>>>>itself includes a copy of the Barrister asked to investigate and >>>>>>>>report - a link that interestingly is not given in the various news >>>>>>>>media reports.
in particular, the meeting of the Transport and Infrastructure >>>>>>>>Committee was on 29 June 2023, from 8am until 8:50 am when the bells >>>>>>>>rang to call MPs to the house.
Before the afternoon meeting of the Committee, Rachel Boyack brought >>>>>>>>the exchange to the attention of the Labour Chief Whip and >>>>>>>>correspondence between the Labour and National Chief Whips followed. >>>>>>>>One of the National Whips attended that afternoon session, which may >>>>>>>>have assisted prevent further dispute.
Rachel Boyack wrote to the Speaker on 25 July, and Tim van der Molen >>>>>>>>responded on 26 July.
The Barrister's report was dated 15 August 2023.
From: >>>>>>>>https://thespinoff.co.nz/live-updates/02-08-2023/luxon-backing-mp-accused-of-intimidating-behaviour
we see that on 2 August it is reported: "Luxon was made aware of the >>>>>>>>issue within the last few days he said, despite the alleged incident >>>>>>>>happening in June." Plausible deniability is often used by National, >>>>>>>>but given the involvement of both National Whips on the day the >>>>>>>>incident happened, and the formal complaint to the speaker, this is >>>>>>>>either a very poor reflection on the National Whips and of van der >>>>>>>>Molen, or it is simply yet another Luxon Lie.
Then on 24 August the result of the hearing is published: >>>>>>>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/national-mp-tim-van-de-molen-found-in-contempt-of-house-of-parliament-for-threatening-behaviour-towards-labours-shanan-halbert/YREMSCEGM5C5ZP763YRCCO7LQY/
and from that:
"Halbert said he had sought to acknowledge the incident with van de >>>>>>>>Molen and then through the party whips but they wouldnt acknowledge >>>>>>>>there were any issues.
As a junior whip, should an incident come about my one of my team >>>>>>>>members, I would act on that and ensure that the incident was resolved >>>>>>>>as quickly as possible. And thats not what happened.
I think the National Party certainly should have looked into it >>>>>>>>further at the time, understood if there was an incident and resolved >>>>>>>>it immediately given staff were in the room at the time.
National Party leader Christopher Luxon said following the decision >>>>>>>>van de Molen had been stood down from his portfolios, which included >>>>>>>>being spokesman for Building and Construction, Defence and Veterans, >>>>>>>>and ACC.
So Luxon hardly acted immediately; and Andrea Vance is clearly >>>>>>>>reflecting a lot of National Party concerns that Luxon is not on top >>>>>>>>of the job, that he delayed getting involved when it could have been >>>>>>>>settled earlier, and that he showed weakness in relation to van der >>>>>>>>Molen in supporting him when he must have known such support was not >>>>>>>>deserved, but most importantly of allowing him to continue being a >>>>>>>>candidate and to remain on the National Party list when he could have >>>>>>>>been asked to stop being an MP, and replaced as a candidate.
It is one thing to support an MP, but quite another to see nothing >>>>>>>>done from 29 June to 24 August - quite a few in National will be very >>>>>>>>pissed off with Luxon, and see the criticism by Andrea Vance as >>>>>>>>identifying a real problem for National both in terms of the election >>>>>>>>and in terms of whether Luxon would be up to the job of being PM >>>>>>>>anyway.
If Luxon is not suitable to be a PM then how on earth did Ardern and >>>>>>>Chippy
get
there? Both inferior intellects and both bigger liars.
Accusations of serious misinformation and bias are not trivial, Tony, >>>>>>and we should take them seriously
I appreciate that you may be upset at the National Party people >>>>>>keeping Chris Luxon in the dark about this incident from 29 June to a >>>>>>few days before 3 August, but I see no reason why you should think >>>>>>Chris Luxon lied about that - I am prepared to believe him; is there >>>>>>anything you know to believe differently?
From you.
The Barristers Report seems to have been responsibly prepared and as >>>>>>accurate a report as would be expected; the Privileges Committee seems >>>>>>to have operated as could be expected, the National Party Whips, and >>>>>>then Luxon do seem to have underestimated the seriousness of the >>>>>>incident - or perhaps they had a bias to believe van den Molen, but >>>>>>that does not relate to serious misinformation, just poor judgement. >>>>>>
Andrea Vance has summarised factual issues quite well, but it is clear >>>>>>what are presented as fact and what are her personal opinions. We are >>>>>>not yet at the stage where opinions in our media need to be vetted and >>>>>>approved by a possible future government more to your liking than the >>>>>>current government, but I see no bias in the decisions of the >>>>>>Privileges Committee - it contained members from a number of political >>>>>>parties, but there does not seem to have been any dissent over its >>>>>>findings.
So where is the serious misinformation and bias, Tony?
support your posts with evidence. None provided so far.
Everything I have posted has come from the links which I gave - the
link from The Standard gives a number of links including the
Privilege Committee report.
The links do not contain anywehere near enough evidence to support your silly >conclusions.
See above - did you read the material at the links I gave?See above. Provide some evidence and no more rhetoric please.
Your reluctance or inability to support your serious accusations
merely points out your fundamental dishonesty or desperation. try >>>>again, Tony, or apologise.
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 19:52:17 -0000 (UTC), TonyIt works for me. You have not linked your comments to any particular cite.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 06:57:41 -0000 (UTC), TonySarcasm removed.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 04:47:08 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Whilst forgiving your English incompetence I suggest that you should >>>>actually
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:You have not been identified any part of what I have said that is >>>>>misinformation, untrue, or biased.
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 01:02:37 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:I am not and I don't. Shove your sarcasm where it belongs.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 20:42:30 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:That is a beat up based on serious misinformation and bias.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Shanan Halbert did not do anything wrong - so your criticism of >>>>>>>>>Hipkins is misplaced - he was almost certainly aware of the incident, >>>>>>>>>but there was no need for him to be involved.
Andrea Vance has been a long term close reporter for the National >>>>>>>>>>>Party, but she is showing concern:Chippy on the other hand is worse. He did nothing when he should >>>>>>>>>>have,
https://www.thepost.co.nz/a/politics/350062012/nationals-factions-zombie-mps-taliban
The article ends: "Factions thrive where there is weak discipline. >>>>>>>>>>>That burden falls on the leader but even from a position of >>>>>>>>>>>strength
Luxon cannot seem to summon the authority to end even the most >>>>>>>>>>>moribund of careers."
Luxon
acted immediately.
That makes the article a nonsense.
I have previously posted this link, which gives more information: >>>>>>>>>https://thestandard.org.nz/nationals-very-bad-week/
That gives a link to the report of the Privileges Committee, which >>>>>>>>>itself includes a copy of the Barrister asked to investigate and >>>>>>>>>report - a link that interestingly is not given in the various news >>>>>>>>>media reports.
in particular, the meeting of the Transport and Infrastructure >>>>>>>>>Committee was on 29 June 2023, from 8am until 8:50 am when the bells >>>>>>>>>rang to call MPs to the house.
Before the afternoon meeting of the Committee, Rachel Boyack brought >>>>>>>>>the exchange to the attention of the Labour Chief Whip and >>>>>>>>>correspondence between the Labour and National Chief Whips followed. >>>>>>>>>One of the National Whips attended that afternoon session, which may >>>>>>>>>have assisted prevent further dispute.
Rachel Boyack wrote to the Speaker on 25 July, and Tim van der Molen >>>>>>>>>responded on 26 July.
The Barrister's report was dated 15 August 2023.
From: >>>>>>>>>https://thespinoff.co.nz/live-updates/02-08-2023/luxon-backing-mp-accused-of-intimidating-behaviour
we see that on 2 August it is reported: "Luxon was made aware of the >>>>>>>>>issue within the last few days he said, despite the alleged incident >>>>>>>>>happening in June." Plausible deniability is often used by National, >>>>>>>>>but given the involvement of both National Whips on the day the >>>>>>>>>incident happened, and the formal complaint to the speaker, this is >>>>>>>>>either a very poor reflection on the National Whips and of van der >>>>>>>>>Molen, or it is simply yet another Luxon Lie.
Then on 24 August the result of the hearing is published: >>>>>>>>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/national-mp-tim-van-de-molen-found-in-contempt-of-house-of-parliament-for-threatening-behaviour-towards-labours-shanan-halbert/YREMSCEGM5C5ZP763YRCCO7LQY/
and from that:
"Halbert said he had sought to acknowledge the incident with van de >>>>>>>>>Molen and then through the party whips but they wouldnt acknowledge >>>>>>>>>there were any issues.
As a junior whip, should an incident come about my one of my team >>>>>>>>>members, I would act on that and ensure that the incident was resolved >>>>>>>>>as quickly as possible. And thats not what happened.
I think the National Party certainly should have looked into it >>>>>>>>>further at the time, understood if there was an incident and resolved >>>>>>>>>it immediately given staff were in the room at the time.
National Party leader Christopher Luxon said following the decision >>>>>>>>>van de Molen had been stood down from his portfolios, which included >>>>>>>>>being spokesman for Building and Construction, Defence and Veterans, >>>>>>>>>and ACC.
So Luxon hardly acted immediately; and Andrea Vance is clearly >>>>>>>>>reflecting a lot of National Party concerns that Luxon is not on top >>>>>>>>>of the job, that he delayed getting involved when it could have been >>>>>>>>>settled earlier, and that he showed weakness in relation to van der >>>>>>>>>Molen in supporting him when he must have known such support was not >>>>>>>>>deserved, but most importantly of allowing him to continue being a >>>>>>>>>candidate and to remain on the National Party list when he could have >>>>>>>>>been asked to stop being an MP, and replaced as a candidate.
It is one thing to support an MP, but quite another to see nothing >>>>>>>>>done from 29 June to 24 August - quite a few in National will be very >>>>>>>>>pissed off with Luxon, and see the criticism by Andrea Vance as >>>>>>>>>identifying a real problem for National both in terms of the election >>>>>>>>>and in terms of whether Luxon would be up to the job of being PM >>>>>>>>>anyway.
If Luxon is not suitable to be a PM then how on earth did Ardern and >>>>>>>>Chippy
get
there? Both inferior intellects and both bigger liars.
Accusations of serious misinformation and bias are not trivial, Tony, >>>>>>>and we should take them seriously
I appreciate that you may be upset at the National Party people >>>>>>>keeping Chris Luxon in the dark about this incident from 29 June to a >>>>>>>few days before 3 August, but I see no reason why you should think >>>>>>>Chris Luxon lied about that - I am prepared to believe him; is there >>>>>>>anything you know to believe differently?
From you.
The Barristers Report seems to have been responsibly prepared and as >>>>>>>accurate a report as would be expected; the Privileges Committee seems >>>>>>>to have operated as could be expected, the National Party Whips, and >>>>>>>then Luxon do seem to have underestimated the seriousness of the >>>>>>>incident - or perhaps they had a bias to believe van den Molen, but >>>>>>>that does not relate to serious misinformation, just poor judgement. >>>>>>>
Andrea Vance has summarised factual issues quite well, but it is clear >>>>>>>what are presented as fact and what are her personal opinions. We are >>>>>>>not yet at the stage where opinions in our media need to be vetted and >>>>>>>approved by a possible future government more to your liking than the >>>>>>>current government, but I see no bias in the decisions of the >>>>>>>Privileges Committee - it contained members from a number of political >>>>>>>parties, but there does not seem to have been any dissent over its >>>>>>>findings.
So where is the serious misinformation and bias, Tony?
support your posts with evidence. None provided so far.
Everything I have posted has come from the links which I gave - the
link from The Standard gives a number of links including the
Privilege Committee report.
The links do not contain anywehere near enough evidence to support your silly >>conclusions.
Yet you cannot identify one conclusion that is not so supported . . .
You may think bullshitting is all that is needed, Tony, but that
doesn't work for either Luxon or you . . .
See above - did you read the material at the links I gave?See above. Provide some evidence and no more rhetoric please.
Your reluctance or inability to support your serious accusations >>>>>merely points out your fundamental dishonesty or desperation. try >>>>>again, Tony, or apologise.
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 19:52:17 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 06:57:41 -0000 (UTC), TonySarcasm removed.
<lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 04:47:08 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Whilst forgiving your English incompetence I suggest that you should >>>>actually
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:You have not been identified any part of what I have said that is >>>>>misinformation, untrue, or biased.
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 01:02:37 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:I am not and I don't. Shove your sarcasm where it belongs.
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 20:42:30 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>><lizan...@orcon.net.nz> wrote:That is a beat up based on serious misinformation and bias. >>>>>>>>If Luxon is not suitable to be a PM then how on earth did Ardern and >>>>>>>>Chippy
Rich80105 <Rich...@hotmail.com> wrote:Shanan Halbert did not do anything wrong - so your criticism of >>>>>>>>>Hipkins is misplaced - he was almost certainly aware of the incident,
Andrea Vance has been a long term close reporter for the National >>>>>>>>>>>Party, but she is showing concern:Chippy on the other hand is worse. He did nothing when he should >>>>>>>>>>have,
https://www.thepost.co.nz/a/politics/350062012/nationals-factions-zombie-mps-taliban
The article ends: "Factions thrive where there is weak discipline.
That burden falls on the leader – but even from a position of >>>>>>>>>>>strength
Luxon cannot seem to summon the authority to end even the most >>>>>>>>>>>moribund of careers."
Luxon
acted immediately.
That makes the article a nonsense.
but there was no need for him to be involved.
I have previously posted this link, which gives more information: >>>>>>>>>https://thestandard.org.nz/nationals-very-bad-week/
That gives a link to the report of the Privileges Committee, which >>>>>>>>>itself includes a copy of the Barrister asked to investigate and >>>>>>>>>report - a link that interestingly is not given in the various news >>>>>>>>>media reports.
in particular, the meeting of the Transport and Infrastructure >>>>>>>>>Committee was on 29 June 2023, from 8am until 8:50 am when the bells
rang to call MPs to the house.
Before the afternoon meeting of the Committee, Rachel Boyack brought
the exchange to the attention of the Labour Chief Whip and >>>>>>>>>correspondence between the Labour and National Chief Whips followed.
One of the National Whips attended that afternoon session, which may
have assisted prevent further dispute.
Rachel Boyack wrote to the Speaker on 25 July, and Tim van der Molen
responded on 26 July.
The Barrister's report was dated 15 August 2023.
From: >>>>>>>>>https://thespinoff.co.nz/live-updates/02-08-2023/luxon-backing-mp-accused-of-intimidating-behaviour
we see that on 2 August it is reported: "Luxon was made aware of the
issue within “the last few days” he said, despite the alleged incident
happening in June." Plausible deniability is often used by National,
but given the involvement of both National Whips on the day the >>>>>>>>>incident happened, and the formal complaint to the speaker, this is >>>>>>>>>either a very poor reflection on the National Whips and of van der >>>>>>>>>Molen, or it is simply yet another Luxon Lie.
Then on 24 August the result of the hearing is published: >>>>>>>>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/national-mp-tim-van-de-molen-found-in-contempt-of-house-of-parliament-for-threatening-behaviour-towards-labours-shanan-halbert/YREMSCEGM5C5ZP763YRCCO7LQY/
and from that:
"Halbert said he had sought to acknowledge the incident with van de >>>>>>>>>Molen and then through the party whips but they wouldn’t acknowledge
there were any issues.
“As a junior whip, should an incident come about my one of my team
members, I would act on that and ensure that the incident was resolved
as quickly as possible. And that’s not what happened.
“I think the National Party certainly should have looked into it >>>>>>>>>further at the time, understood if there was an incident and resolved
it immediately given staff were in the room at the time.” >>>>>>>>>
National Party leader Christopher Luxon said following the decision >>>>>>>>>van de Molen had been stood down from his portfolios, which included
being spokesman for Building and Construction, Defence and Veterans,
and ACC.
So Luxon hardly acted immediately; and Andrea Vance is clearly >>>>>>>>>reflecting a lot of National Party concerns that Luxon is not on top
of the job, that he delayed getting involved when it could have been
settled earlier, and that he showed weakness in relation to van der >>>>>>>>>Molen in supporting him when he must have known such support was not
deserved, but most importantly of allowing him to continue being a >>>>>>>>>candidate and to remain on the National Party list when he could have
been asked to stop being an MP, and replaced as a candidate. >>>>>>>>>
It is one thing to support an MP, but quite another to see nothing >>>>>>>>>done from 29 June to 24 August - quite a few in National will be very
pissed off with Luxon, and see the criticism by Andrea Vance as >>>>>>>>>identifying a real problem for National both in terms of the election
and in terms of whether Luxon would be up to the job of being PM >>>>>>>>>anyway.
get
there? Both inferior intellects and both bigger liars.
Accusations of serious misinformation and bias are not trivial, Tony, >>>>>>>and we should take them seriously
I appreciate that you may be upset at the National Party people >>>>>>>keeping Chris Luxon in the dark about this incident from 29 June to a >>>>>>>few days before 3 August, but I see no reason why you should think >>>>>>>Chris Luxon lied about that - I am prepared to believe him; is there >>>>>>>anything you know to believe differently?
The Barristers Report seems to have been responsibly prepared and as >>>>>>>accurate a report as would be expected; the Privileges Committee seems
to have operated as could be expected, the National Party Whips, and >>>>>>>then Luxon do seem to have underestimated the seriousness of the >>>>>>>incident - or perhaps they had a bias to believe van den Molen, but >>>>>>>that does not relate to serious misinformation, just poor judgement. >>>>>>>
Andrea Vance has summarised factual issues quite well, but it is clear
what are presented as fact and what are her personal opinions. We are >>>>>>>not yet at the stage where opinions in our media need to be vetted and
approved by a possible future government more to your liking than the >>>>>>>current government, but I see no bias in the decisions of the >>>>>>>Privileges Committee - it contained members from a number of political
parties, but there does not seem to have been any dissent over its >>>>>>>findings.
So where is the “serious misinformation and bias“, Tony? >>>>>>From you.
support your posts with evidence. None provided so far.
Everything I have posted has come from the links which I gave - the >>>link from The Standard gives a number of links including the
Privilege Committee report.
The links do not contain anywehere near enough evidence to support your silly
conclusions.
Yet you cannot identify one conclusion that is not so supported . . .
You may think bullshitting is all that is needed, Tony, but thatIt works for me. You have not linked your comments to any particular cite. As for Luxon, he may or may not be a good Prime Minister but we are soon to find out.
doesn't work for either Luxon or you . . .
Chippy has already failed any test of that sort just like his predecessor.
See above - did you read the material at the links I gave?See above. Provide some evidence and no more rhetoric please.
Your reluctance or inability to support your serious accusations >>>>>merely points out your fundamental dishonesty or desperation. try >>>>>again, Tony, or apologise.
On Tue, 29 Aug 2023 04:03:41 -0000 (UTC), TonyI do not bullshit, I tell yhe truth, something you cannot stomach.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:are just not very self-aware. At least you admit you indulge in
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 19:52:17 -0000 (UTC), TonyIt works for me. You have not linked your comments to any particular cite. >Bullshitting may work for you in some circumstances, but perhaps you
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 06:57:41 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Sarcasm removed.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 04:47:08 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Whilst forgiving your English incompetence I suggest that you should >>>>>>actually
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:You have not been identified any part of what I have said that is >>>>>>>misinformation, untrue, or biased.
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 01:02:37 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:I am not and I don't. Shove your sarcasm where it belongs.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 20:42:30 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:That is a beat up based on serious misinformation and bias. >>>>>>>>>>If Luxon is not suitable to be a PM then how on earth did Ardern and >>>>>>>>>>Chippy
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Shanan Halbert did not do anything wrong - so your criticism of >>>>>>>>>>>Hipkins is misplaced - he was almost certainly aware of the incident,
Andrea Vance has been a long term close reporter for the National >>>>>>>>>>>>>Party, but she is showing concern:Chippy on the other hand is worse. He did nothing when he should >>>>>>>>>>>>have,
https://www.thepost.co.nz/a/politics/350062012/nationals-factions-zombie-mps-taliban
The article ends: "Factions thrive where there is weak discipline. >>>>>>>>>>>>>That burden falls on the leader but even from a position of >>>>>>>>>>>>>strength
Luxon cannot seem to summon the authority to end even the most >>>>>>>>>>>>>moribund of careers."
Luxon
acted immediately.
That makes the article a nonsense.
but there was no need for him to be involved.
I have previously posted this link, which gives more information: >>>>>>>>>>>https://thestandard.org.nz/nationals-very-bad-week/
That gives a link to the report of the Privileges Committee, which >>>>>>>>>>>itself includes a copy of the Barrister asked to investigate and >>>>>>>>>>>report - a link that interestingly is not given in the various news >>>>>>>>>>>media reports.
in particular, the meeting of the Transport and Infrastructure >>>>>>>>>>>Committee was on 29 June 2023, from 8am until 8:50 am when the bells >>>>>>>>>>>rang to call MPs to the house.
Before the afternoon meeting of the Committee, Rachel Boyack brought >>>>>>>>>>>the exchange to the attention of the Labour Chief Whip and >>>>>>>>>>>correspondence between the Labour and National Chief Whips followed. >>>>>>>>>>>One of the National Whips attended that afternoon session, which may >>>>>>>>>>>have assisted prevent further dispute.
Rachel Boyack wrote to the Speaker on 25 July, and Tim van der Molen >>>>>>>>>>>responded on 26 July.
The Barrister's report was dated 15 August 2023.
From: >>>>>>>>>>>https://thespinoff.co.nz/live-updates/02-08-2023/luxon-backing-mp-accused-of-intimidating-behaviour
we see that on 2 August it is reported: "Luxon was made aware of the >>>>>>>>>>>issue within the last few days he said, despite the alleged >>>>>>>>>>>incident
happening in June." Plausible deniability is often used by >>>>>>>>>>>National,
but given the involvement of both National Whips on the day the >>>>>>>>>>>incident happened, and the formal complaint to the speaker, this is >>>>>>>>>>>either a very poor reflection on the National Whips and of van der >>>>>>>>>>>Molen, or it is simply yet another Luxon Lie.
Then on 24 August the result of the hearing is published: >>>>>>>>>>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/national-mp-tim-van-de-molen-found-in-contempt-of-house-of-parliament-for-threatening-behaviour-towards-labours-shanan-halbert/YREMSCEGM5C5ZP763YRCCO7LQY/
and from that:
"Halbert said he had sought to acknowledge the incident with van de >>>>>>>>>>>Molen and then through the party whips but they wouldnt acknowledge >>>>>>>>>>>there were any issues.
As a junior whip, should an incident come about my one of my team >>>>>>>>>>>members, I would act on that and ensure that the incident was >>>>>>>>>>>resolved
as quickly as possible. And thats not what happened.
I think the National Party certainly should have looked into it >>>>>>>>>>>further at the time, understood if there was an incident and resolved
it immediately given staff were in the room at the time. >>>>>>>>>>>
National Party leader Christopher Luxon said following the decision >>>>>>>>>>>van de Molen had been stood down from his portfolios, which included >>>>>>>>>>>being spokesman for Building and Construction, Defence and Veterans, >>>>>>>>>>>and ACC.
So Luxon hardly acted immediately; and Andrea Vance is clearly >>>>>>>>>>>reflecting a lot of National Party concerns that Luxon is not on top >>>>>>>>>>>of the job, that he delayed getting involved when it could have been >>>>>>>>>>>settled earlier, and that he showed weakness in relation to van der >>>>>>>>>>>Molen in supporting him when he must have known such support was not >>>>>>>>>>>deserved, but most importantly of allowing him to continue being a >>>>>>>>>>>candidate and to remain on the National Party list when he could have
been asked to stop being an MP, and replaced as a candidate. >>>>>>>>>>>
It is one thing to support an MP, but quite another to see nothing >>>>>>>>>>>done from 29 June to 24 August - quite a few in National will be very
pissed off with Luxon, and see the criticism by Andrea Vance as >>>>>>>>>>>identifying a real problem for National both in terms of the election
and in terms of whether Luxon would be up to the job of being PM >>>>>>>>>>>anyway.
get
there? Both inferior intellects and both bigger liars.
Accusations of serious misinformation and bias are not trivial, Tony, >>>>>>>>>and we should take them seriously
I appreciate that you may be upset at the National Party people >>>>>>>>>keeping Chris Luxon in the dark about this incident from 29 June to a >>>>>>>>>few days before 3 August, but I see no reason why you should think >>>>>>>>>Chris Luxon lied about that - I am prepared to believe him; is there >>>>>>>>>anything you know to believe differently?
From you.
The Barristers Report seems to have been responsibly prepared and as >>>>>>>>>accurate a report as would be expected; the Privileges Committee seems >>>>>>>>>to have operated as could be expected, the National Party Whips, and >>>>>>>>>then Luxon do seem to have underestimated the seriousness of the >>>>>>>>>incident - or perhaps they had a bias to believe van den Molen, but >>>>>>>>>that does not relate to serious misinformation, just poor judgement. >>>>>>>>>
Andrea Vance has summarised factual issues quite well, but it is clear >>>>>>>>>what are presented as fact and what are her personal opinions. We are >>>>>>>>>not yet at the stage where opinions in our media need to be vetted and >>>>>>>>>approved by a possible future government more to your liking than the >>>>>>>>>current government, but I see no bias in the decisions of the >>>>>>>>>Privileges Committee - it contained members from a number of political >>>>>>>>>parties, but there does not seem to have been any dissent over its >>>>>>>>>findings.
So where is the serious misinformation and bias, Tony?
support your posts with evidence. None provided so far.
Everything I have posted has come from the links which I gave - the >>>>>link from The Standard gives a number of links including the >>>>>Privilege Committee report.
The links do not contain anywehere near enough evidence to support your >>>>silly
conclusions.
Yet you cannot identify one conclusion that is not so supported . . .
You may think bullshitting is all that is needed, Tony, but that
doesn't work for either Luxon or you . . .
bullshitting.
I did not cite many urls - if you had read them you would see thatI never claimed I cannot read, Why do you have to lie? Eh? Why do you have to lie? ANswer, you infantile cretin.
they support my post. Claiming you cannot read will not work, Tony . .
.No - fact! Only fools and you would not know that. They are goneburgers and good riddance.
As for Luxon, he may or may not be a good Prime Minister but we are soon to >>find out.
Chippy has already failed any test of that sort just like his predecessor. >More bullshitting opinion?
See above - did you read the material at the links I gave?See above. Provide some evidence and no more rhetoric please.
Your reluctance or inability to support your serious accusations >>>>>>>merely points out your fundamental dishonesty or desperation. try >>>>>>>again, Tony, or apologise.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:are just not very self-aware. At least you admit you indulge in
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 19:52:17 -0000 (UTC), TonyIt works for me. You have not linked your comments to any particular cite. Bullshitting may work for you in some circumstances, but perhaps you
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 06:57:41 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Sarcasm removed.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 04:47:08 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Whilst forgiving your English incompetence I suggest that you should >>>>>actually
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:You have not been identified any part of what I have said that is >>>>>>misinformation, untrue, or biased.
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 01:02:37 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:I am not and I don't. Shove your sarcasm where it belongs.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Aug 2023 20:42:30 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:That is a beat up based on serious misinformation and bias. >>>>>>>>>If Luxon is not suitable to be a PM then how on earth did Ardern and >>>>>>>>>Chippy
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Shanan Halbert did not do anything wrong - so your criticism of >>>>>>>>>>Hipkins is misplaced - he was almost certainly aware of the incident, >>>>>>>>>>but there was no need for him to be involved.
Andrea Vance has been a long term close reporter for the National >>>>>>>>>>>>Party, but she is showing concern:Chippy on the other hand is worse. He did nothing when he should >>>>>>>>>>>have,
https://www.thepost.co.nz/a/politics/350062012/nationals-factions-zombie-mps-taliban
The article ends: "Factions thrive where there is weak discipline. >>>>>>>>>>>>That burden falls on the leader but even from a position of >>>>>>>>>>>>strength
Luxon cannot seem to summon the authority to end even the most >>>>>>>>>>>>moribund of careers."
Luxon
acted immediately.
That makes the article a nonsense.
I have previously posted this link, which gives more information: >>>>>>>>>>https://thestandard.org.nz/nationals-very-bad-week/
That gives a link to the report of the Privileges Committee, which >>>>>>>>>>itself includes a copy of the Barrister asked to investigate and >>>>>>>>>>report - a link that interestingly is not given in the various news >>>>>>>>>>media reports.
in particular, the meeting of the Transport and Infrastructure >>>>>>>>>>Committee was on 29 June 2023, from 8am until 8:50 am when the bells >>>>>>>>>>rang to call MPs to the house.
Before the afternoon meeting of the Committee, Rachel Boyack brought >>>>>>>>>>the exchange to the attention of the Labour Chief Whip and >>>>>>>>>>correspondence between the Labour and National Chief Whips followed. >>>>>>>>>>One of the National Whips attended that afternoon session, which may >>>>>>>>>>have assisted prevent further dispute.
Rachel Boyack wrote to the Speaker on 25 July, and Tim van der Molen >>>>>>>>>>responded on 26 July.
The Barrister's report was dated 15 August 2023.
From: >>>>>>>>>>https://thespinoff.co.nz/live-updates/02-08-2023/luxon-backing-mp-accused-of-intimidating-behaviour
we see that on 2 August it is reported: "Luxon was made aware of the >>>>>>>>>>issue within the last few days he said, despite the alleged incident
happening in June." Plausible deniability is often used by National,
but given the involvement of both National Whips on the day the >>>>>>>>>>incident happened, and the formal complaint to the speaker, this is >>>>>>>>>>either a very poor reflection on the National Whips and of van der >>>>>>>>>>Molen, or it is simply yet another Luxon Lie.
Then on 24 August the result of the hearing is published: >>>>>>>>>>https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/national-mp-tim-van-de-molen-found-in-contempt-of-house-of-parliament-for-threatening-behaviour-towards-labours-shanan-halbert/YREMSCEGM5C5ZP763YRCCO7LQY/
and from that:
"Halbert said he had sought to acknowledge the incident with van de >>>>>>>>>>Molen and then through the party whips but they wouldnt acknowledge >>>>>>>>>>there were any issues.
As a junior whip, should an incident come about my one of my team >>>>>>>>>>members, I would act on that and ensure that the incident was resolved
as quickly as possible. And thats not what happened.
I think the National Party certainly should have looked into it >>>>>>>>>>further at the time, understood if there was an incident and resolved >>>>>>>>>>it immediately given staff were in the room at the time.
National Party leader Christopher Luxon said following the decision >>>>>>>>>>van de Molen had been stood down from his portfolios, which included >>>>>>>>>>being spokesman for Building and Construction, Defence and Veterans, >>>>>>>>>>and ACC.
So Luxon hardly acted immediately; and Andrea Vance is clearly >>>>>>>>>>reflecting a lot of National Party concerns that Luxon is not on top >>>>>>>>>>of the job, that he delayed getting involved when it could have been >>>>>>>>>>settled earlier, and that he showed weakness in relation to van der >>>>>>>>>>Molen in supporting him when he must have known such support was not >>>>>>>>>>deserved, but most importantly of allowing him to continue being a >>>>>>>>>>candidate and to remain on the National Party list when he could have >>>>>>>>>>been asked to stop being an MP, and replaced as a candidate. >>>>>>>>>>
It is one thing to support an MP, but quite another to see nothing >>>>>>>>>>done from 29 June to 24 August - quite a few in National will be very >>>>>>>>>>pissed off with Luxon, and see the criticism by Andrea Vance as >>>>>>>>>>identifying a real problem for National both in terms of the election >>>>>>>>>>and in terms of whether Luxon would be up to the job of being PM >>>>>>>>>>anyway.
get
there? Both inferior intellects and both bigger liars.
Accusations of serious misinformation and bias are not trivial, Tony, >>>>>>>>and we should take them seriously
I appreciate that you may be upset at the National Party people >>>>>>>>keeping Chris Luxon in the dark about this incident from 29 June to a >>>>>>>>few days before 3 August, but I see no reason why you should think >>>>>>>>Chris Luxon lied about that - I am prepared to believe him; is there >>>>>>>>anything you know to believe differently?
From you.
The Barristers Report seems to have been responsibly prepared and as >>>>>>>>accurate a report as would be expected; the Privileges Committee seems >>>>>>>>to have operated as could be expected, the National Party Whips, and >>>>>>>>then Luxon do seem to have underestimated the seriousness of the >>>>>>>>incident - or perhaps they had a bias to believe van den Molen, but >>>>>>>>that does not relate to serious misinformation, just poor judgement. >>>>>>>>
Andrea Vance has summarised factual issues quite well, but it is clear >>>>>>>>what are presented as fact and what are her personal opinions. We are >>>>>>>>not yet at the stage where opinions in our media need to be vetted and >>>>>>>>approved by a possible future government more to your liking than the >>>>>>>>current government, but I see no bias in the decisions of the >>>>>>>>Privileges Committee - it contained members from a number of political >>>>>>>>parties, but there does not seem to have been any dissent over its >>>>>>>>findings.
So where is the serious misinformation and bias, Tony?
support your posts with evidence. None provided so far.
Everything I have posted has come from the links which I gave - the >>>>link from The Standard gives a number of links including the
Privilege Committee report.
The links do not contain anywehere near enough evidence to support your silly
conclusions.
Yet you cannot identify one conclusion that is not so supported . . .
You may think bullshitting is all that is needed, Tony, but that
doesn't work for either Luxon or you . . .
As for Luxon, he may or may not be a good Prime Minister but we are soon to >find out.
Chippy has already failed any test of that sort just like his predecessor. More bullshitting opinion?
See above - did you read the material at the links I gave?See above. Provide some evidence and no more rhetoric please.
Your reluctance or inability to support your serious accusations >>>>>>merely points out your fundamental dishonesty or desperation. try >>>>>>again, Tony, or apologise.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 114:50:46 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,336,169 |