Monday, September 4, 2017

Put it out of its misery

I thought it was a pretty clear sign the current government is losing this election battle when it announced its intention to increase paid parental leave, only a year after vetoing an increase in paid parental leave on the grounds of expense.

However, the scent of desperation is now even stronger.  Today National announced a war on methamphetamine and the criminal gangs behind its distribution, just like it did back in 2009.  Maybe they're thinking we all have short memories and don't notice when the government's so bereft of ideas it starts recycling its old ones?

Of course, like all other governments' wars on drugs, since National announced that war on P back in 2009, P has become cheaper and more ubiquitous - hence 2017's announcement of a war on P.  Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it, I guess - but, hopefully, NZ's voters have learned a little from the history of the last nine years and won't repeat it this month.


Psycho Milt said...

I guess a shout-out is also due to English and Bennett telling us it's good NZ doesn't have a written constitution because it allows the government to choose who it's going to allow to have human rights. National's always had supporters with a soft spot for fascism, but it's rare to see them appealed to quite so directly. Anyone who'd vote for these worn-out no-hopers to continue another three years in power must have a bizarrely wrong idea of why you shouldn't vote for other parties.

Anonymous said...

This just shows how delusion is self-reinforcing.

Noel said...

Governments have been saying they are going to deal with gangs since Muldoons infamous drinking bout with gang members.
Little has been achieved and those radicalising gangs continue their anti social activities threatening innocent members of society.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Noel, I'm afraid you're right.

The Veteran said...

PM ... it's an interesting question. You can argue that preventative detention by its very nature is in breech of 'human rights' but society seems quite relaxed about that. Is there too much of a difference between the concept of preventative detention and saying that the purveyors of class A drugs causing untold misery and death should be treated differently also?

If this makes it into the House as an amendment to the Crimes Act it will be interesting to see how the Parties stack up on the issue. Just where to human rights start and stop?

Psycho Milt said...

To me it's a straightforward "Those who would given up essential liberty..." issue. Even worse, it's trashing human rights in the interests of maintaining social hypocrisy over drug use. I think the parties will stack up on fairly predictable lines over this - just look at which parties think human rights are worth protecting and which are hypocritical about drugs. My money would be on ACT and the Greens opposing it, with the other parties either supportive or reluctant to express opposition outright.