It's Election 2008 and our MPs show us "How not to listen". With 273,000 signatures collected (target 300,000) John Key manages this:
Oh, and does anyone remember how excited the anti-whaling people got when they had 12,000 signatures? The same number of protesters against the EFB and less than 5% of the signatures collected for the s59 referendum.
Related Links: SST, 27 Jan 2008, page A3 (Article not online yet)
The Anti-Smacking Petitions
Petition explanation sheet
If there is demonstrated evidence that good New Zealand parents are convicted for lightly smacking a child, then I will act to change the law. But at this stage, I haven't seen enough evidence of thatand Sue Bradford, to prove she is totally NOT on the ball says:
I don't think it's really about hitting children at all, for many people it's part of a campaign to get the National Party elected.They either don't listen, are so biased in their thought patterns they are incapable of listening. Consequently, they show no understanding of the concerns of those against the Green Party's social engineering. And in the case of Sue Bradford, comes across sounding paranoid - now every-thing against the Greens is no doubt a National Party Conspiracy.
Oh, and does anyone remember how excited the anti-whaling people got when they had 12,000 signatures? The same number of protesters against the EFB and less than 5% of the signatures collected for the s59 referendum.
Related Links: SST, 27 Jan 2008, page A3 (Article not online yet)
The Anti-Smacking Petitions
Petition explanation sheet
With those words, Key demonstrates perfectly why a vote for National is a vote for more of the same.
ReplyDeleteMeet the new gang--same as the old gang.
KG - considering Key voted FOR the bill, his offer to change it if given the chance and presented evidence it is not working as intended, is somewhat significant. For him to go all out against it now makes him look like a flip-flopper. You may disagree with it outright, but the issue "demonstrated evidence that good New Zealand parents are convicted for lightly smacking a child" is a more important element. If this isn't the case, then why bother with a Claytons bill?
ReplyDeleteI'm not interested in weasel words--84% of Kiwis were against the bill and Key voted forit, thus demonstrating his contempt for the will of the majority of New Zealanders.
ReplyDeleteWhy would anybody trust him to behave in a more principled fashion if the Nats became the government?
He blew it.