networkn:

 

Her people management skills have long been one of her weaknesses, and despite having some promising MP's join the ranks at the second election, those people haven't developed much. 

 

Same problem National had post-2017. You poll so low on blow-back that you lose most of the juniors doing their time and the lifers end up making up a bigger portion of your talent pool.

Those in the lower positions eventually wise up to the fact that their careers might be over before they make it anywhere near cabinet - the competent professionals will be able to transition back into similarly well-paid work but for others it will be the best paying gig they ever had and some may not go quietly. 

Let's see what the damage is in the next poll. 

marmel:

I think a major issue Labour has always had is they only have 2-3 really competent MP's, or at least it appears that way. So when someone makes a complete mess there isn't really anyone to hand it on to, I mean how many portfolios can Chris Finlayson actually manage? It is also concerning that despite 5 years in government that situation with the MP's does not appear to have improved at all.

pab:
I think you mean Chris Hipkins. Chris Finlayson is a former MP representing the National Party. He was IMHO a competent MP though.

Don't tell me that Chris Hipkins has now also been appointed as Chris Finalyson in addition to all his other roles! 

GV27:

 

pab:
I think you mean Chris Hipkins. Chris Finlayson is a former MP representing the National Party. He was IMHO a competent MP though.

 

Don't tell me that Chris Hipkins has now also been appointed as Chris Finalyson in addition to all his other roles! 

 

Heh, that's kinda amusing :)

GV27:

 

pab:
I think you mean Chris Hipkins. Chris Finlayson is a former MP representing the National Party. He was IMHO a competent MP though.

 

Don't tell me that Chris Hipkins has now also been appointed as Chris Finalyson in addition to all his other roles! 

 

Yeah, that's the Chris I was meaning.

Well, it's taken a bit, but we got there in the end, a Royal Enquiry into the handling of our Covid Response. This absolutely needed to happen. Not as a witch hunt but as an opportunity to learn from what mistakes we may have made, and solidify the parts of our response which were correct and appropriate.

networkn:

 

Well, it's taken a bit, but we got there in the end, a Royal Enquiry into the handling of our Covid Response. This absolutely needed to happen. Not as a witch hunt but as an opportunity to learn from what mistakes we may have made, and solidify the parts of our response which were correct and appropriate.

 

While I applaud the announcement as being something we definitely need to look into, this has me concerned:

There were several aspects considered not within the inquiry’s scope, including clinical decisions made by clinicians or public health authorities during the Covid-19 pandemic, how and when measures in response to Covid-19 were implemented in particular situations and vaccine efficacy.

I'm keen to know what falls under this as it appears it could be quite broad and there were certainly specific situations where what we were told was happening was not in fact happening. It would be a shame if there things in here that warranted a second look that will ultimately be off-limits for a Royal Commission.

GV27:

 

networkn:

 

Well, it's taken a bit, but we got there in the end, a Royal Enquiry into the handling of our Covid Response. This absolutely needed to happen. Not as a witch hunt but as an opportunity to learn from what mistakes we may have made, and solidify the parts of our response which were correct and appropriate.

 

 

While I applaud the announcement as being something we definitely need to look into, this has me concerned:

 

There were several aspects considered not within the inquiry’s scope, including clinical decisions made by clinicians or public health authorities during the Covid-19 pandemic, how and when measures in response to Covid-19 were implemented in particular situations and vaccine efficacy.

 

I'm keen to know what falls under this as it appears it could be quite broad and there were certainly specific situations where what we were told was happening was not in fact happening. It would be a shame if there things in here that warranted a second look that will ultimately be off-limits for a Royal Commission.

 

 

First rule of politics isn't it, never order an enquiry if you don't already know the outcome.

I was appalled yesterday with Willie Jackson's interview and his "your people" remarks. If the shoe had been on the other foot and Jack Tame had gone "your people", Jacks head would be on a spike for his "racist slurs", yet somehow Willie Jackson seems immune.

As for the polls, we are simply too far out from an election for them to have much meaning other than a general gauge of the mood of the nation. Is it that National / Act are doing well connecting to the public with their policies and leadership appeal, or is it a case of "anyone but Ardern" creeping in and National/Act benefiting from that sentiment. I suspect its more of the latter and only a bit of the former for National but I suspect for Act, Seymour is seen as less of an extremist and broadening his appeal as a viable partner.

sen8or:

 

I was appalled yesterday with Willie Jackson's interview and his "your people" remarks. If the shoe had been on the other foot and Jack Tame had gone "your people", Jacks head would be on a spike for his "racist slurs", yet somehow Willie Jackson seems immune.

 

I may be naive but I got the impression Jackson was talking about the people at TVNZ rather than referring to a racial grouping.

GV27:

 

While I applaud the announcement as being something we definitely need to look into, this has me concerned:

 

There were several aspects considered not within the inquiry’s scope, including clinical decisions made by clinicians or public health authorities during the Covid-19 pandemic, how and when measures in response to Covid-19 were implemented in particular situations and vaccine efficacy.

 

I'm keen to know what falls under this as it appears it could be quite broad and there were certainly specific situations where what we were told was happening was not in fact happening. It would be a shame if there things in here that warranted a second look that will ultimately be off-limits for a Royal Commission.

 

 

Oof, that's a huge thing to have excluded. The efficacy of vaccines should be excluded, but as you say, the potential exists that self-interest could twist the entire response into the parts that were excluded. Having said that, 2024 is such a long way away, there is a reasonable chance Labour won't be in power and anything that reflects badly on them will be shrug of the shoulders. 

networkn:

 

Oof, that's a huge thing to have excluded. The efficacy of vaccines should be excluded, but as you say, the potential exists that self-interest could twist the entire response into the parts that were excluded. Having said that, 2024 is such a long way away, there is a reasonable chance Labour won't be in power and anything that reflects badly on them will be shrug of the shoulders. 

 

I also read as its looking at the "health" response they won't be looking at any measures the RBNZ or other monetary institutions took either

JPNZ:

 

I also read as its looking at the "health" response they won't be looking at any measures the RBNZ or other monetary institutions took either

 

I'd feel better about this if RBNZ hadn't been saying things that aren't strictly true to select committees and allowed to review their own response internally, which is a pretty low form of scrutiny in the scheme of things.

But best wait until the full terms of reference are announced.