Anti-Smacking debate cranking up again

Mr Tips posted earlier today on John Key's impressive political nouse. And as Peter S says on at DPF's:

The offer of mediation of a reasonable solution that is also acceptable to the public is a threat to Labour on several fronts.

First- if it works, then National has effectively sidelined Labour on this issue, because the option would give a level of consensus (NZ1, UF, National, Act, Greens & the Maori party) that could work without Labour support.

Second, if Labour & the Greens reject the proposal it makes them look really bad in the face of a reasonable opposition.

Both ways National wins & Labour losees.

Oh, and Bradford gets to look stupid either way give her statements about withdrawing the bill. Which is an added bonus.

Meanwhile, those who would ban smacking obliviously continue firing into their own ranks. Here's No Right Turn:

There's a lot of talk in the papers this morning about National wanting a "compromise" over the anti-smacking bill. But personally, I see nothing to compromise over. The brute fact is that John Key and his fundamentalist Christian mates want bad parents to be able to continue to assault their children. We don't.

Yes, make yourself and those you support look more and more like fringe lunatics that want to criminalise and ban smacking. Because only bad parents (that being most NZ parents) smack their children. Even Helen Clark and Sue Bradford aren't saying that because they know what the political fallout will be. So they pretend that they don't want to ban smacking while working towards banning smacking.

John Key's strategy here is brilliant. Force the anti-smackers to either compromise with wording that will protect good parents and allow light smacking or make them come out and say they want to ban smacking outright and therefore have to reject any proposal he might make.

Just brilliant.