Finlay MacDonald is outraged in today's SST. How dare National take on Labour's role of the Nanny! How dare they go along with Helen Clark and the Green's anti-smacking bill even after a referendum result of 88% gave him the mandate to reverse it! How dare Key put up tobacco taxes!
So many things that Labour could be promising to do in the next election are now under threat - the drinking age, the driving age, cell phone use, pub closing times, folic acid in bread - will there be any nappy unpinned, any freedom left unfettered by the time Labour arrive to govern?
Indeed, why vote in Labour, when National are doing Labour better than Labour?
What's a principled party like Labour to do when National take over it's political morals?
Well, Finlay suggests, it's enough for a principled party like Labour decide to abandon it's principles and reinvent itself as an enlightened libertarian alternative.
He spits that out as a empty threat, of course. He's only half serious, because as much fun as Labour would have being liberal to spite National, they realise that the huge voting block called "welfare recipients" they have done their best to enlarge over the years will not vote Labour merely to indicate an appreciation of the irony.
No, they don't appreciate irony, they appreciate Jerry. "Show me the money".
Say it like you mean it Labour : S h o w - m e - t h e - m o n e e y y.
There's the formula for re-election, and Finlay doesn't need to fume over how left National is of Labour, because as hard as he tries to be outraged by their Nanny State Policies, you can tell he's just loving those policies.
Despite their rhetoric [on personal freedom], the government's first instinct is to distrust the individual and or his ability to make sensible choices"
Oh, poor Finlay, a left winger forced to outline right wing ideology, and then attack National for failing to live up to it. More irony. Because when Labour doesn't live up to that ideal, it's calling "doing their job". Then it's balancing the freedom of the individual with a need to protect society from those that cannot accept personal responsibility; to protect us from ourselves.
Yes, there's some noble left wing principle in there based on just how good the state can look after people who, through no fault of their own, cannot look after themselves.
No fault of their own, because free education doesn't educate. Free medical doesn't make them healthy, and free money (benefits) doesn't make them spendthrift.
But cheap booze and cigarettes does make them dangerous. Dangerous to others, dangerous to themselves. So put the tax up. How come free good things don't lift people out of poverty, but cheap bad things put them there?
So let's dispense with any battle of ideology next election. National doesn't have any, and Labour will find it too difficult to change it's spots.
The whole political battle will be reduced to new taxes in one area and new rebates in another area. It will be "Show me the money" because who could trust National on what they promise, unless it's policy written in a local CTU office?
Labour will simply differentiate itself by picking a different set of rebates.
Maybe it can become the anti-prohibition party? Reduce taxes on booze and alcohol, and put up the price of water, new cars, property tax and cappuccinos.
In a once largely classless society, the last 10 years of politics have been slowly rebuilding the divisions so we can get back to arguing on problems we thought we solved a long time ago. Is this the curse of MMP, or just the MP, under Turia? With the Greens and ACT sitting by on the sidelines, you have to take your hat off to the Maori Party for having such a strong influence on National.
So, I'll leave Finlay to rant against the Nanny State, as I do not disagree with him on the major points. And I'll leave this post with a thought of my own:
I was wondering the other day if we cross bred National and Labour do we get Helen Key or John Clark? Well, he is a bit of a dagg.
So many things that Labour could be promising to do in the next election are now under threat - the drinking age, the driving age, cell phone use, pub closing times, folic acid in bread - will there be any nappy unpinned, any freedom left unfettered by the time Labour arrive to govern?
Indeed, why vote in Labour, when National are doing Labour better than Labour?
What's a principled party like Labour to do when National take over it's political morals?
Well, Finlay suggests, it's enough for a principled party like Labour decide to abandon it's principles and reinvent itself as an enlightened libertarian alternative.
He spits that out as a empty threat, of course. He's only half serious, because as much fun as Labour would have being liberal to spite National, they realise that the huge voting block called "welfare recipients" they have done their best to enlarge over the years will not vote Labour merely to indicate an appreciation of the irony.
No, they don't appreciate irony, they appreciate Jerry. "Show me the money".
Say it like you mean it Labour : S h o w - m e - t h e - m o n e e y y.
There's the formula for re-election, and Finlay doesn't need to fume over how left National is of Labour, because as hard as he tries to be outraged by their Nanny State Policies, you can tell he's just loving those policies.
Despite their rhetoric [on personal freedom], the government's first instinct is to distrust the individual and or his ability to make sensible choices"
Oh, poor Finlay, a left winger forced to outline right wing ideology, and then attack National for failing to live up to it. More irony. Because when Labour doesn't live up to that ideal, it's calling "doing their job". Then it's balancing the freedom of the individual with a need to protect society from those that cannot accept personal responsibility; to protect us from ourselves.
Yes, there's some noble left wing principle in there based on just how good the state can look after people who, through no fault of their own, cannot look after themselves.
No fault of their own, because free education doesn't educate. Free medical doesn't make them healthy, and free money (benefits) doesn't make them spendthrift.
But cheap booze and cigarettes does make them dangerous. Dangerous to others, dangerous to themselves. So put the tax up. How come free good things don't lift people out of poverty, but cheap bad things put them there?
So let's dispense with any battle of ideology next election. National doesn't have any, and Labour will find it too difficult to change it's spots.
The whole political battle will be reduced to new taxes in one area and new rebates in another area. It will be "Show me the money" because who could trust National on what they promise, unless it's policy written in a local CTU office?
Labour will simply differentiate itself by picking a different set of rebates.
Maybe it can become the anti-prohibition party? Reduce taxes on booze and alcohol, and put up the price of water, new cars, property tax and cappuccinos.
In a once largely classless society, the last 10 years of politics have been slowly rebuilding the divisions so we can get back to arguing on problems we thought we solved a long time ago. Is this the curse of MMP, or just the MP, under Turia? With the Greens and ACT sitting by on the sidelines, you have to take your hat off to the Maori Party for having such a strong influence on National.
So, I'll leave Finlay to rant against the Nanny State, as I do not disagree with him on the major points. And I'll leave this post with a thought of my own:
I was wondering the other day if we cross bred National and Labour do we get Helen Key or John Clark? Well, he is a bit of a dagg.
Comments
Post a Comment
Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.