A couple of days ago Fran O'Sullivan called John Key "New Zealand's conservative leader". On No Minister (I'm sorry, can't find the post).
Case in point is the anti-smacking legislation. I see in the Dom Post today that a father has been fined for belting his daughter. No indication that harm was done, but, it's illegal. Back when I was a child, it was very common for boys mostly to be sent off to the office for "the strap", where they would most likely be belted more vigorously than this girl had been.
Yet it is now politically incorrect to support belting, and it seems our "conservative" party even voted for the abysmal legislation that would have criminalised most of our parents.
To me, that legislation was the major test as to whether or not National and John Key knew about basic conservative principle of limiting the power of government to intervene in the family when there is no harm being done. They failed.
A real conservative leader would be saying right now that all recent legislation that has been introduced by the Labour Government that has gone against the will of the people (anti-smacking) or was rushed through without real thought as to the implications (ETS & EFA) will be repealed. Instead, all we hear is a defending silence.
Related Links: What John Key can learn from Sarah Palin
Ten Conservative Principles
But unfortunately New Zealand's conservative leader John Key would rather indulge his crush on Obama, than directly mix it by contesting Helen Clark with a clear agenda of his own.I commented then that John Key was not a conservative and over the last few days I've been thinking on the absurdity of this assumption. I think it rests on another assumption, that there is choice in politics. It is natural to assume that if one major party is one way, then in order to give balance and choice, that the other major party is another way. But has anyone seen any sort of differentiation from National showing how they will be different from Labour over the last year or so?
Case in point is the anti-smacking legislation. I see in the Dom Post today that a father has been fined for belting his daughter. No indication that harm was done, but, it's illegal. Back when I was a child, it was very common for boys mostly to be sent off to the office for "the strap", where they would most likely be belted more vigorously than this girl had been.
Yet it is now politically incorrect to support belting, and it seems our "conservative" party even voted for the abysmal legislation that would have criminalised most of our parents.
To me, that legislation was the major test as to whether or not National and John Key knew about basic conservative principle of limiting the power of government to intervene in the family when there is no harm being done. They failed.
In his bones, the National leader is more aligned with the McCain/Palin world view, but he lacks the courage to make the case for policy clarity.I disagree.In his bones, Key is a liberal, far more aligned to the policies such as the ETS which is now law, which will allow people who know how to make money off shares to transfer their expertise into this area.
A real conservative leader would be saying right now that all recent legislation that has been introduced by the Labour Government that has gone against the will of the people (anti-smacking) or was rushed through without real thought as to the implications (ETS & EFA) will be repealed. Instead, all we hear is a defending silence.
Related Links: What John Key can learn from Sarah Palin
Ten Conservative Principles