The NZ Herald editorial exposes yesterday's 'big' policy from John Key for what it is - essentially meaningless.
National has been in no hurry to spell out what it might do in power, and probably hopes to keep contentious commitments to a minimum from now to election day.
The writer finishes with this,
Sir Roger's return might wake up their ideas.
Mike Moore wrote about Sir Roger in yesterday's DomPost pretty much along the same lines, describing National as having "no core principles." He concluded,
"ACT may well save Labour. Every time they make a statement, it will put the heat on National who will melt under Labour's blow torch."
Poor National. It is not very happy about offering real political choice. In fact there is little evidence they like the concept of choice. And now they are faced with making one of their own.
About time
8 minutes ago
5 comments:
And now we're just waiting for ACT to announce they go with the biggest party. I've no idea why we say we prefer National. I don't. I prefer neither. I don't really care which one wins. And most of the party doesn't either.
After the shameless way Labour 'stole' so many National policies last election, I'm not surprised that National are not making any big announcements yet. Labour are trying to second guess National and are going to end up with egg on their face.
That said, ACT can only be good for this country in that they will steer National away from being a Labour-lite party and get them to make some real changes.
Any 'blowtorching' of the National Party, consigning John Key and others to many more years in Opposition, is jolly welcome!
Keep up the good work, Sir Roger!
The public seem to understand Key alright. With over 3000 votes, 70% of it agree with Keys proposition to charge crims directly for their attacks on the victims of their crimes.
Sure, it's a small amount, but according to the Sensible Sentencing Trust, the Justice Dept allows just $29.50 of tax payers money for treating victims. This way the crims pay and are seen to be paying out of their own dough. I note too, that Key says it will be the first call on the crims' cheque book.
JC
JC, National's crime surcharge is a 'fiddling' policy. Since 1964 there has been a recognition by the state that there should be compensation for victims of crime. This is catered for in reparation and restitution. If those facets need adjusting so be it but they should be individual to each case. A flat crime surcharge of $50 ignores the varying degrees of seriousness of crime. And it is a paltry amount which Labour is criticising as barely enough to pay for the new unit which will be established to collect and administer the fund. John Key says that cost will in fact be paid for by the Crown. In which case it would be more efficient for the Crown to simply top up whatever it currently makes available for compensation. I have no problem with taxpayer funding going into victim compensation because protecting citizens from crime is a core function of government. If it fails in this primary task then a secondary function of compensating victims is justifiable. Taxpayers won't like this but they should be demanding the state does a better job of protecting them and their families. I am sure most people would choose not to be a victim over being a compensated victim. It would be far, far better to be putting up policies that prevent the creation of more victims.
Post a Comment