Deborah Coddington writes that ACT has assisted the resurgence of Winston First by keeping alive his Law and Order policies. Like Deborah I believe ACT went too far down (and put too much focus on) this particular policy pathway but there was always conservative support within the party to do so. I cannot agree specifically however with her take on certain matters;
Act went populist instead of remaining principled. Take its opposition to the repeal of S59 of the Crimes Act, giving children equal status before the law if assaulted.
A liberal party, which opposes the initiation of force, should have supported this. How can hitting children, or using unreasonable force, be defined as self-defence?
If one wants to argue this from the libertarian/classical liberal perspective the removal of section 59 provides for the state to iniatiate force against adults in a way it previously could not. I would argue we now have more initiation of force; more uneccessary intrusion and intervention. Using unreasonable force against children was illegal. That seems to be forgotten. I supported the status quo although I can sympathise with the idea that smacking children isn't productive.
Act's "Laura Norder" policies are now taken straight from NZ First's pages, so we end up with a (three strikes) legislation that sees an elderly man suffering from dementia caught by this statute and sent to jail.
That's incorrect. It wasn't the three strikes legislation that sent the man to jail. He was sent to (and remains in) jail because nobody else will take him. That could have happened before three strikes. My concern is that indecent assault is on the three strikes list and what that will mean for this type of offender (and possibly many others) further down the track.
It would be ironically perverse if ACT has played a hand in keeping NZ First's election hopes alive and they end up fighting over the same authoritarian and nationalistic vote next year.
(Prediction; NZ First will promise to revive the Death With Dignity bill. That'll garner them a great deal of vote. Voluntray euthanasia is a top priorty at any Grey Power election meeting. That is one policy I wouldn't have minded ACT nicking.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Not sure I agree. The justice system in NZ needs huge reform, and ACT's policies are good ones. If they are popular, then obviously ACT will exploit that in their campaigning. Or would you rather they campaigned on asset sales, a surefire winner with the public? I didn't think so.
Has it helped NZ First? I disagree with this also. If you have a policy, it is on the expectation that people vote for you. If people are voting for NZ First instead, despite a similar policy, then it is not the policy that is keeping them alive, it is something else. Actually, I have this theory that anything ACT supports has driven NZ politics in the opposite direction, but that is another matter entirely.
Not sure I agree either.
If Winston argues three strikes isn't tough enough then good luck to him; this policy has been around ACT since 1997 when Mike Pinkney raised it as a possible policy. ACT hasn't knee-jerked on this.
I agree with Blair too with his second paragraph.
On s59, you can make a very good argument that parental correction is for parents and is not something the state should intervene in, unless there is a criminal offence committed. Smacking is not a criminal offence because if it was there would have been thousands of parents before the courts on it pre repeal and there wasn't.
My prediction: Winston's first revival rage will be against Key's proposed foreshore and seabed giveaway.
It will be a shame if he champions the opposition, but so far of the media and politicians only Chris Trotter and ACT's David Garrett seem to have twigged to the enormity of the handover.
More on Key's treachery here: http://johnansell.wordpress.com/2010/08/02/iwikiwi-the-sequel-and-the-prequel/
Not only do I think Winston ought to campaign on Death with Dignity, I think he should practice it.
Post a Comment