Written By: - Date published: 9:27 am, June 27th, 2008 - 46 comments
Categories: cartoons, child discipline, john key -
Tags: mike moreu, smacking referendum
A good cartoon by Mike Moreu this morning about Key’s confusing stance on the smacking referendum.
Though of course, as a_y_b pointed out yesterday, this approach isn’t at all confusing if all you’re trying to do is to win an election by accentuating and exploiting negative perceptions of your opponent.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
Sorry Anita, Should have made myself more plain, they are asking a question of the country which is the raison d’etre for the petition. from there they would hope to launch an attack on the legislation (hopeless in my view). Anyone signing this will know what it’s about. They assume that a lot more people agree with them. Big assumation, I’d say given the recent stats put out.
I agree, the last question is appalling as they couls twist it to mean just about anything even if we all answer yes.
Brownie, if Labour get back in I suspect they’ll have a late referendum and then Clark will dump it all in Goff’s lap!
If Labour wins and both petitions clear the threshold, then both referenda are held and gain majority support, then Labour will argue
a) The legislation as it stands does not criminalise a smack as part of good parenting.
b) That child abuse is bad and they will do everything they can to stop it.
Then they will go on with whatever they were doing before the referenda.
I completely agree, but the forms and convention have to be observed even if you and I disaggree and think they are valuless and pointless.
GS – LMAO nice one
Brownie,
As it happens I think CIR should have huge value to us as a society and a parliamentary democracy.
I think the use of poorly drafted questions undermines their usefulness. I’m disgusted by parliament’s contempt for them when parties treat them as a part of a parliamentary game rather than considering them as a way of developing a genuine engaged democracy. That disgust transfers to organisations which, similarly, use them to game the parliamentary system rather than for the purpose for which they were designed.
You?
gobby sorry for the late response – it’s pretty obvious that the referendum is an attempt to embarrass Clark and Bradford et-al and remind people that the law was enacted in the first place.
Don’t shoot the messenger, but the reason the referendum idea got traction is because sufficiently enough people were annoyed by this.
This could be because they don’t understand the issues, or they feel taht they are well enough qulaified to raise their own kids as they see fit, and that the law change affects this. I really don’t know. Actually do not care.
However, the existence of the need is what interests me.
I suggest that the call for a referendum, reflects a general dissatisfaction with the way this has been handled.
That is largely down to those who handled it in the first place. It was a strategic mess, and may have been the thing that sunk Labour’s election prospects.
For those who do not like that idea, I suggest they stop trying to victimise or belittle those people who are dissatisfied and go back to basic and get in touch with the mood of the country instead of trying to intellectualise their way out of the situation.
Because most people are not intellectuals, and are certainly not career politicians, they are just ordinary types struggling to feed and raise their kids in a world which they feel has increasingly gone to the dogs.
Except that the two questions asked by the referenda linked to on this page aren’t poorly drafted. One has been quite specifically designed to have a ‘no’ answer and the other a ‘yes’ answer.
IMO, CIR have two problems:
1.) the average person doesn’t have a clue as to how to run a country and most assuredly hasn’t read the required information needed to make informed decisions. The latter is why the usual right-wing assertion that ‘you know how best to spend your money, not the government’ is complete BS and nothing but a red herring.
2.) The organizations that put together the questions for the referenda usually have their own agendas that are different from what they’re telling the people signing the petition. This can be seen in these two referenda which, quite simply, have meaningless questions.
can you see why people may get hacked off if you say (as you imply above) we are taking your money because you are too stupid to understand how to use it?
This cartoon shows the rot started at the Herald when they did away with their jester, and hired a tame Australian to do the job instead.
Kiwis have a proud history of political cartooning (not having studied it in depth I guess I’m mainly thinking of David Low and what I remember growing up).
Cartoons are effective. A great way to make a simple comment and show the emperor without clothes.
No where did I say or imply that anyone was stupid. What I said was that most people don’t have the information needed to make informed decisions on how to spend the money needed to run the country. That’s not stupidity, that’s ignorance and ignorance is curable if the ignorant have the time and inclination to become informed.
I used to think that way as well (yes, I was even a National voter) then I thought about it a bit and started doing some research into how parliament worked, how our money was spent and when that turned into a second full time job and there was no way I could keep up with everything that was going on I realised that there was a very good reason we had a central government that spent our money – they’re better at it because they have better information available to them.
Stupidity is when you believe you can make better decisions without knowing anything about why the decisions are even being made.
Remember also that most government spending is what people want but can’t afford themselves. People want a road system, so we pool our money through the government and build one. Education the same. Health can be seen through this prism or as a form of collective insurance. The rest of what the Government does is essentially a redistribution of income that goes a small way to countering the inequities inherent in captialism.
Tax is the price of a civilised society.
(and remember that a healthy educated workforce is good for the wealthy as well as the poor – you could get big tax cuts if the government didn’t pay for health and education systems but you wouldn’t be able to get healthy, skilled workers for your business)