Speaker or Parliament

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Speaker or Parliament

BTR

1522 posts

Uber Geek

#153567 1-Oct-2014 15:04

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

Bee

671 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1144890 1-Oct-2014 15:22

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?

Doing your best is much more important than being the best.

Sharesies

Trade NZ and US shares and funds with Sharesies (affiliate link).

MikeB4

18126 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1144905 1-Oct-2014 15:36

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.

nickb800

2699 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1144913 1-Oct-2014 15:52

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

networkn

Networkn
30215 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1144950 1-Oct-2014 16:58

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.

bazzer

3438 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1144958 1-Oct-2014 17:15

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
Inactive user

#1144983 1-Oct-2014 17:38

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.

Geektastic

17690 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1144993 1-Oct-2014 17:57

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.

Bung

5437 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1145003 1-Oct-2014 18:16

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.

kiwitrc

4123 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1145059 1-Oct-2014 19:23

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

Sideface

8445 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1145188 1-Oct-2014 22:34

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

kiwitrc

4123 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1145261 2-Oct-2014 06:36

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.

Bung

5437 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1145278 2-Oct-2014 07:19

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