Sunday, February 24, 2008

Going Bact To ACT

Over at Farrar's place there has been a mild interchange between Adolf and BlairM over his assertion that National's policies are the same as those of Labour.

My Photo

Here's his last comment:-

"Adolf… You really are a mindless party stooge aren’t you? And accusing me of being an ACToid is silly. I’m a current financial member of the National Party. I want to see National do well. But I caution the folks in charge that they are not going to get there by offering the same policies as Labour. Do you really think that Labour are just going to lie down and take it? Did they do that last time? No, and no.

The point of being involved in politics, as I repeat ad nauseum, is to CHANGE THINGS. I really really want to know what Key would change. Please. Pretty please. With sugar on top. What would they change Adolf? Do tell us. I can’t figure it out."

I get tired of hearing this mindless claim and I'm surprised to hear it from Blair, who people who know him tell me is a pretty bright spark. (It's almost as silly as the claim that president Bush lied about WMD in Iraq.)

So, here are just a few differences of which I'm aware - and I'm not active or known in party circles.

1 Less taxation along with reduced government spending. You can count on a reduction in the number of 'managers' in the health system and the number of PR flacks in the public service.

2 A more aggressive approach to dealing with young crims. (recently announced)

3 A far more innovative approach to underachieving school leavers.
(recently announced)

4 The repeal of the Electoral Finance Act.

5 The repeal of the Anti-smacking Act

That's just for starters with nine months of campaigning to go before the election.

Blair does not seem to realise that I and many other people are more interested in the character and moral fibre of the government than we are in individual policies. I'm voting National because I think they are better quality people in all respects than the scurrilous gang of shysters which is Labour, Dunne and NZ First. I trust them to produce good policy for all New Zealanders, all the time, not just in the heat of an election campaign.

Rodney Hide was right when he called for the return of those ACT members who flocked to National chasing after Dr Brash. Well Blair, Dr Brash is gone so I reckon the best way you can advocate for the 'different' policies you want is to go back and help rejuvenate ACT. You've got nine months to do it.

Then you can campaign as a coalition partner on specific policies and tell the voters which of those are bottom line policies for a coalition deal with National.

I really don't see how you will help National currently by asking them to prematurely reveal their policies for Labour to steal.


David said...

5 The repeal of the Anti-smacking Act
Has this been announced, officially? Somewhere that you can quote?

I'd love to see it. Because as far as I'm aware, it hasn't happened yet -- and desperately needs to.

I have been arguing this area on Poneke's blog:

Dave said...

can think of another thing Blair would like to change. Its a word beggining with G.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

david, your memory is not very good. John Key stated publicly at the time of his temporary rapprochement with Clark over this bill that '...if it comes to pass that good parents are punished by this bill we will repeal it...' or words to that effect. Shouldn't be too hard to find but I haven't got the energy to go looking. My memory is clear and that was the clincher for me.

David said...

Adolf, you are right. I do remember that. But it is a big "if". There is plenty of room for interpretation there. (Just like Cullen's 4th test for tax cuts: no increased inequality.)

I haven't heard him say: "Right, this police action against the guy in Christchurch who flicked his son's ear proves good parents are being punished... so National is committed to repealing this bill." Have you?

I think he needs to. It's one area where 80% of NZ will agree with him (and the other 20% would never vote National anyway)!

KG said...

I agree with David here--Key left himself too much wriggle-room for my liking.
What the hell is wrong with saying something like "80% of New Zealanders opposed this bill and therefore we will repeal it"?

David said...

The other thing that bothers me, is that Key capitulated in the first place. I thought that was totally unnecessary, unwanted by the electorate, and didn't result in better legislation.

To overcome that, like KG, I think he needs to come out with an unequivocal statement that the Anti-Smacking Bill will be repealed. (And I don't think most sensible parents would oppose it being replaced with Chester Borrows version. That would silence those who would use "ok to bash kids" labels on people philosophically opposed to the Bradford bill.)

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

David, if I were you I think I'd wait until the whole story is in on the Christchurch alleged ear flicker. I reckon there will be much more to it than meets the ear. You must try and learn to see a bigger picture than this policy or that policy. There is far more to politics than that.

John Key used what you call 'capitulation' to catapault himself into the public consciousness as a statesman like Prime Minister in waiting. Have you noticed where he currently sits in the preferred PM polls? Your so-called capitulation was the foundation for his current rating.

David said...

Sorry, Adolf, but on this small matter we will disagree. What you think helps in the "statesmanship" department, I see as "self-serving" and spineless.

I would rather have a PM with principles that he's prepared to clearly enunciate and stand up for, that one who looks for what can generate the most political capital for him.

He's definitely better than our present Fuhrer. But I'll be very sad if we end up with a Bolger-type government that "tweaks" the edges. We need far more than that to make NZ a place that is more attractive to live in than Oz.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

david, patience dear boy, patience. Al Qaeda plan their battles 25 years at a time. Surely you can wait nine months?

Anonymous said...


Can you tell me, why John Key and National voted IN FAVOUR of the anti-smacking bill?

It was the reason I left the National Party and have begun supporting Act (not because I favour smacking, but because I see it as government intervening in our homes).

Richard M