Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.


BTR



1490 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 447


Topic # 153567 1-Oct-2014 15:04
Send private message

Just watching a video during my lunch break today and came across the below video and my understanding is that the speaker of the house is meant to be impartial to any party and is supposed to treat everyone in the house equal however in the video he is clearly not.

Surely if a speaker is deemed to be favouring a person/party they should be removed from that position...



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwIO1v4YXRU



Your thoughts?




---

 

Full time IT Manager, part time gamer & part time grease monkey. 

 

 

 

Certifications : Apple ACHT, Apple ACDT,  Apple ACPT, Sonicwall CSSA, Ruckus WISE Guy, Allied Telesis CAI & CASE

 

Youtube Channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmFzRr2KofyrHV6t36pdC_w

 

 


Create new topic

Bee

593 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 109


  Reply # 1144890 1-Oct-2014 15:22
Send private message

And yet, going back thru history the speaker is almost always selected from members of the governing party...

If you wanted a real impartial speaker why wouldn't you get a random (yet qualified!) person from the street?

13563 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6358

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1144905 1-Oct-2014 15:36
One person supports this post
Send private message

The Speaker of the House is Elected by all PM's at the beginning of each Term. The Speaker controls the House and is neutral. The Speaker is 3rd in the hierarchy following the Governor General and Prime Minister.




Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

 

The great divide is the lies from both sides.

 

 


 
 
 
 


2073 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 367

Trusted

  Reply # 1144913 1-Oct-2014 15:52
2 people support this post
Send private message

The fact that the speaker comes from the ruling isn't necessarily the problem - rather it rests on the individuals knowledge of parliamentary procedure and willingness to stand up to our political leaders. 

David Carter << Lockwood Smith

18714 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5356

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1144950 1-Oct-2014 16:58
Send private message

My understanding is that the PM Provides this from his list of MP's which in this elections case meant they were 1 short to lead alone, thus requiring Act or UF to partnership.

3290 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 209

Trusted

  Reply # 1144958 1-Oct-2014 17:15
Send private message

networkn: My understanding is that the PM Provides this from his list of MP's which in this elections case meant they were 1 short to lead alone, thus requiring Act or UF to partnership.

I don't think that's the case.

From the parliament website: "The Speaker’s vote is included in any party vote cast and the Speaker votes in a personal vote..."

I think Act and United Future are just there for a buffer and to keep up good relations.

ckc

321 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 107
Inactive user


  Reply # 1144983 1-Oct-2014 17:38
Send private message

If there's a by-election in the next three years, or they lose a seat after special votes are counted, then they might need either ACT or United Peter. I think that's why they're doing it. Shut them out now with a slim majority and they might not back your crucial bills if the worst happens.

But also, MPs electing the speaker is immaterial, because the ruling party/coalition will favour their man, and so you just end up with the speaker the government wants.

12133 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3947

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1144993 1-Oct-2014 17:57
Send private message

BTR: Just watching a video during my lunch break today and came across the below video and my understanding is that the speaker of the house is meant to be impartial to any party and is supposed to treat everyone in the house equal however in the video he is clearly not.

Surely if a speaker is deemed to be favouring a person/party they should be removed from that position...



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwIO1v4YXRU



Your thoughts?


My school debating team was more interesting.

These guys are paid plenty of money: they should spend more time sorting out bigger problems than indulging in infantile point scoring by way of who complied with antediluvian debating regulations that probably serve little, if any, purpose.





2597 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 363


  Reply # 1145003 1-Oct-2014 18:16
Send private message

bazzer:
networkn: My understanding is that the PM Provides this from his list of MP's which in this elections case meant they were 1 short to lead alone, thus requiring Act or UF to partnership.

I don't think that's the case.

From the parliament website: "The Speaker’s vote is included in any party vote cast and the Speaker votes in a personal vote..."

I think Act and United Future are just there for a buffer and to keep up good relations.


In the past the Speaker lost his vote so in 1993 the Nats offered Labour's Peter Tapsell the job so they would retain their 1 seat majority without having to depend on Winston's vote.

4123 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 842
Inactive user


  Reply # 1145059 1-Oct-2014 19:23
Send private message

Jeez aren't you guys over f%*ing politics yet?

4355 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2655

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1145188 1-Oct-2014 22:34
Send private message

kiwitrc: Jeez aren't you guys over f%*ing politics yet?

 


That's exactly what the ruling party wants us to do - fall asleep for the next three years until the next election.
"The country's in the very best of hands"  Yeah Nah
Politics should be a continuous process, not just a triennial circus.




Sideface


4123 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 842
Inactive user


  Reply # 1145261 2-Oct-2014 06:36
Send private message

Sideface:
kiwitrc: Jeez aren't you guys over f%*ing politics yet?

That's exactly what the ruling party wants us to do - fall asleep for the next three years until the next election.
"The country's in the very best of hands"  Yeah Nah
Politics should be a continuous process, not just a triennial circus.


I can see your point, Labour were just a bit unlucky I guess, especially considering how swimmingly they are going as opposition.

2597 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 363


  Reply # 1145278 2-Oct-2014 07:19
Send private message

Only the 1M voters that didn't bother will know.

Create new topic



Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.