This is a quote from Judy Kirk addressing the National Party northern regional conference on the matter of the EFA,
I don't think it's a damned good idea, Mike Williams; I think it stinks and I think you and your party should be ashamed of yourselves and what you have done to this democracy. You're not prepared to fight with us on ideas. You'd rather break all conventions and ram through anti-democratic legislation. Well you will fail.
Can you guess which part of the quote had me choking?
You're not prepared to fight with us on ideas.
Just which ideas would they find to fight over?
- That the purpose of government is to equalise people's incomes and outcomes?
- That the purpose of government is to use taxpayer's money to do what the private sector can and should do?
- That the purpose of government is to usurp private property rights when it suits?
- That the purpose of government is to intervene in the social and moral spheres of New Zealander's lives when it sees fit?
Now those debates would be worth hearing. But they could never occur between National and Labour whose prescription for government is the same.
Mum jailed for letting a 10 year old go for a walk
46 minutes ago
5 comments:
OK, so apart from Libertarianz,
Which registered political party would qualify to fight with ideas?
ummm...
You are right - None!
Lawrence.
Lindsay, that's simply rubbish
National's policies and approaches are crystal clear.
They have already committed to
* revise the tax cuts to reward those who work had and succeed
* in the medium term, to move as much as possible into the private sector
* to reintroduce private property rights
* to repeal section 59
What you're missing, Lindsay, is that National is on 60% and ACT on 5%. National is saying what needs to be said to win government. And the most important thing that needs to be said, which Kirk actually said, is that Labour is corrupt and undemocratic. National has promised to reintroduce democracy (why they will fck about with a Royal Commission who knows!) and will remove corruption.
Once the centre-left are in government, and have restored democracy, then we can argue about the larger policy settings. But to say there is no difference between the centre-leftists in National, and the hard-leftists in Labour is simply wrong.
(and yes, Lindsay, as you well know, the policies of both "Left wing" Obama and "centre-left" Hillary Clinton are far to the right of both ACT and National)
Anon, I'm not sure your points are "crystal clear".
The Nats have "committed" to 'repeal' section 59? Have they? It was Key's support that ensured the passing of the Bradford bill. I don't recall his spurning that of late.
"Revise" the tax cuts? Well, yes, they'll give us a bit more back compared to Cullen, but that's hardly complimentary.
Move "as much as possible" to the private sector? How much is "as much as possible"? Might only be minuscule.
"Reintroduce private property rights"? If only. But that can't be done until they abolish the RMA .. and I can't see Nick Smith et al running with that. Merely fiddling won't change a thing, except introduce even more legislation.
If National promised to do away with the RMA, it would get my vote this year, such would be its importance to economic growth.
(Sorry, somehow missed the last bit):
You won't like it, but there *is* little difference between Labour & National, save for a few tax percentage points.
(Oh, and a sackful of feminazis - but as the male NatWets are about as bad, one pretty much cancels the other out!) :)
Anon
Is "crystal clear" the same as;
"No if's, no buts, no maybe's ...
will be gone by Christmas"
Now, who said that?
National, Labour, Act etc are all the same.
They are quibbling over the arrangement of deck chairs on the Titanic.
Lawrence
Post a Comment