by frog
According to the wonderful TheyWorkForYou website these five quotes have been Bob Clarkson’s scintillating and sum contribution to parliamentary debate since 21 August:
- (17 Oct 2007) Interjection : “Bureaucratic!”
- (10 Oct 2007) Interjection : “Tell us the end of the story.”
- (19 Sep 2007) Interjection : “Force?”
- (22 Aug 2007) Interjection : “A bit like the Labour Government.”
- (21 Aug 2007) Interjection : “Yes, I did, actually.”
Keep it up Bob. The people of Tauranga are counting on you.
Published in Parliament by frog on Wed, November 14th, 2007
Tags: Bob Clarkson, parliamentary debate
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
This is a little snarky, frog.
Bob’s had a busy time of late outside Parliament pointing out shoddy practice in the area of leaky homes.
And he’s got a primary question in the House today.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
According to the National Party website, Bob Clarkson, Associate Spokesman for Building & Construction and Associate Spokesman for Housing, has issued the grand total of three media releases this year – on 14 February, 9 May and 9 November.
And until today, he had asked one primary Oral Question in Parliament this year, also on 9 May. That must have been a very busy day indeed for Bob.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Well at least he hasnt completely fucked up the country like Sue Bradford.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Wow Nick, how did Sue manage to do that? And people accuse the Greens of over-reacting and hyperbole. Sheesh!
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Chris Auchinvole is not much better
Gneral Debate (7 Nov 2007)
Interjection: “Many of them.”
New Zealand Bill of Rights (Private Property Rights) Amendment Bill – Second Reading (7 Nov 2007)
Interjection: “Did he do it?”
Income Tax Bill – Third Reading (25 Oct 2007)
Interjection: “Which means?”
Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill – Third Reading (24 Oct 2007)
Interjection: “For a year.”
Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill – In Committee (23 Oct 2007)
Speech expand: “I thank my colleague Mr Worth for the perceptive and kind remarks he made, during his speech, about the presence of myself and Mr Finlayson on the Justice and Electoral Committee. It is a select committee that is a pleasure to be part of, not so much for the …”
External links
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
In the interest of fairness, I include the following contributions from George Hawkins, Dover Samuels and Brian Connell over the same period:
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Frog
Can we have a post detailing the “outstanding” contributions of Keith Locke? as I would like to compare him with Bob Clarkson, I suspect they add the same value to the house.
I often hear Locke speak in the house and for the life of me I cannot work out what the man is saying or what he is driving at.
As far as I can see Locke offers nothing to the house and is more an object of ridicule than anything else (certainly as far as Cullen is concerned)
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
Well obviously that is in the eye of the beholder BB, but going by TheyWorkForYou we can see that:
* His last 5 appearances in the house were 3 speeches, 1 question and 1 interjection. Surely you must agree that that is a more substantial contribution record than 5 interjections.
* His 5 most recent appearance in the house was 6 Nov 2007, which indicates that he has been much more active than bob whose 5th most recent appearance was 21 Aug 2007.
Obviously it is not just about quantity and frequency of contribution, obviously it is quality of contribution that counts.
Assessing the quality of Locke’s contributions is in the eye of the beholder, but if you want an expert impartial view, what about Herald political editor Vernon Small who made Locke his “Backbencher of the Year” in 2002. Surely that indicates that he has added value to the house.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=3048199
L ike or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Big bro:
I could tell you stories about who Cullen ridicules, but I don’t think it really says much about Keith’s quality as an MP that other MPs don’t take him seriously. Most of that is because Keith actually seriously considers the implication of so-called anti-terrorism laws on regional issues. Part of the reason the whole regional “terrorism” issue was such caused such a fuss in newspapers and on TV is that none of the people who passed the laws on the matter had even considered that the laws could be applied to dissent within New Zealand. If considering highly pertinent problems with laws is a way to become ridiculed in Parliament, I hope more MPs make themselves objects of ridicule in the future.
If you want to measure an MP’s quality, I’d suggest you compare the amount of speeches, bills, (both proposed and passed) committee assignments, ministerial responsibilities, and meaningful questions in the house.
Keith consistently comes out pretty well on these fronts.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)