Votes before lives for Key

33 comments on “Votes before lives for Key ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Tanz 1

   2 January 2011 at 7:02 pm

   Yes, despicable, once again, Key ignores the popular, majority view. Anything for power. All the same, why didn’t Labour make this change while they were in office? The drinking age should never have been lowered in the first place, another National outcry (I remeber back then, this was a very unpopular move). The more things change, the more they stay the same. Democracy? Pass me a Tui.

   More lives will be lost, as you say. Can Key and Joyce live with that?
   • RedLogix 1.1

     2 January 2011 at 7:07 pm

     And why didn’t National make this change in the 90’s? Or maybe the 4th Labour govt in the 80’s?

     In fact come to think of it it must be Muldoon or Holyoake’s fault….surely. Hell even King Dick Seddon could have the finger pointed.
     • Tanz 1.1.1

       2 January 2011 at 7:12 pm

       It is up to the govt of the day to make changes, they do make the laws, after all, especially the ones that the populace never voted for. Speaking of Holyoake, can we have him back now? He is just what we need, and have, for ages. What a Christmas present that would be! I wish.

       Happy New Year.
       • Marty G 1.1.1.1

         2 January 2011 at 7:16 pm

         Holyoake’s reign can be summed up with ‘relatively benign neglect’. His failure to do anything to prepare NZ’s future while just riding on high commodity prices helped set the scene for the disasters of muldoonisn and neoliberalism
         • Tanz 1.1.1.1.1

           2 January 2011 at 7:23 pm

           He is right up there with Michael Joseph Savage and David Lange.We’ll be lucky to see the likes of them again. The best NZ ever had, bar one.
           • Marty G 1.1.1.1.1.1

             2 January 2011 at 7:27 pm

             what did he do that was so great?
             • Tanz …

               2 January 2011 at 7:32 pm

               He had integrity, was as honest as the day is long, listened to the majority and had a Christian worldview. Long gone, sadly missed. He is revered, even by Key (going by what I’ve seen in the media…).

               In Holyoake’s time, crime was nill, our doors were left unlocked, boyracers did not exist, drugs and drinking were not a problem…and that’s for starters. and did what he promised, with no nasty surprises.
               • Logie97 …

                 2 January 2011 at 7:54 pm

                 Revered by Key?
                 Key was just born. Key told the world he wasn’t interested in politics even in the ’80s.
                 Let’s see – For starters
                 No boy racers – only Hot Rods terrorising shoppers in Queen Street Friday and Saturday nights.
                 No drinking problems – only the 6 o’clock swill,
                 Nil Crime – only commissioned and built Paremoremo.
               • Marty G …

                 2 January 2011 at 7:55 pm

                 so, you can’t name a single thing he did.
                 • jcuknz …

                   3 January 2011 at 7:52 am

                   Perhaps the essence of his reign was that he did little or nothing rather than being a stirrer stiring up discontent so that the next mob would reverse everything? My only memory of those days of politics in the early single channel TV was a reporter doing a wonderful impression of him after interviewing him as he left for an overseas trip. naturally it never went to air 🙂
                 • the pink postman …

                   3 January 2011 at 1:50 pm

                   Other than sending our kids as cannon fodder in Vietnam.
               • bbfloyd …

                 3 January 2011 at 10:24 am

                 holyoak also managed to make a fortune from being prime minister. buying cheap farmland a, and then having major highways rerouted to go through land he had acquired. using inside knowledge of future rezoning laws to buy up seemingly worthless land that now has an industrial area parked on it. oh yes, he was as honest as the day is long alright…

                 drugs and drinking were not a problem? which plane were you living on at the time? our drinking problems were well entrenched by then. we were still doing the “we don’t talk about that stuff” then.

                 and, making a virtue of the fact that technology had not brought us cars that would go as fast as they do today is just plain naive.

                 crime was nill? refer to “we don’t talk about that stuff”. in fact, there was a lot of crime as a percentage of population. remember, of course, that our cities had only just started to fill up with migration from rural areas (and pacific islands)just starting to build momentum.

                 in fact, holyoak’s time as prime minister can be catagorised by the word
                 ‘inaction”. his government managed to do no more than maintain the status quo, and we are living with the results of a decade of his short sighted, self serving, do nothing administration.
               • the pink postman …

                 3 January 2011 at 1:57 pm

                 Well Tanz by explaining that he had “Good Christian values tells me why I distrusted him. If there is one thing worse than the “Good Tory” its the self confessed Christian.
                 they have betweenn them bought horror ,hardship and unhappiness on to millions of working class people .
       • Zorr 1.1.1.2

         2 January 2011 at 7:16 pm

         I would have to say that, at the end of the day, what is past is past and all we can attempt to do is learn from it and move forward. I would be equally disappointed in Labour if they now came in to power and also ignored the evidence by refusing to lower the drink-driving level. However, currently, the ball is in John Key’s court as he is the leader of the ruling government and has the power to make the change.
         • Tanz 1.1.1.2.1

           2 January 2011 at 7:20 pm

           I pretty much agree with that, Zorr. It just proves that once again, Key is more interested in exhibiting personal power and that annoying ”we know best’ attitude he often exudes, even in the face of popular opinion, than listening to the voice of the people and doing the right thing. Very sad, and rather weak, as well. I can’t believe I ever voted for him, but never again.
           • Zorr 1.1.1.2.1.1

             2 January 2011 at 7:32 pm

             As always, until a more suitable option comes along, party vote Green and electorate vote to the most deserving.
             • Tanz …

               2 January 2011 at 7:46 pm

               Party vote the Kiwi Party, electorate vote whoever. Not a wasted vote, a protest vote.
               • MrSmith …

                 3 January 2011 at 7:14 am

                 The Kiwi party: go easy Tanz , if you want to protest get out in the street but don’t waste your vote on these fruit loops.
   • tsmithfield 1.2

     3 January 2011 at 10:38 am

     Tanz “…Key ignores the popular, majority view. Anything for power.”

     These two sentences directly contradict each other.
     • bbfloyd 1.2.1

       3 January 2011 at 1:53 pm

       ts.. not if you factor in the amount of positive pr the national party will get courtesy of the liquor lobby’s largesse. they may figure that outweighs any public backlash. assuming the public get the full story to start with.. highly unlikely.
2. SPC 2

   2 January 2011 at 11:56 pm

   There is little evidence that those in the 50-80 blood alcohol level area have a significant impact on the road toll.

   The number of people who died in road accidents with this level (and no other factors such as drugs) is very low. The impact is overstated because of blood tests of those at accidents – but these occur afterwards (the level lowers with time) and the blood alcohol at the time of the accident would have been higher (over 80).

   The only real case for lowering the amount is to prevent people from going over 80 which a lower legal limit at 50 might achieve. The appropriate compromise is to lower the level to 50 but have the 50 to 80 level as a fine offence.

   Criminalising people for going over 50 is to target the wrong people.

   The biggest gains are in the better targeting of repeat offenders who go over 80.

   PS The quiet new year was because those over 18 had access to controlled drinking environments and were informed of club and bar policy of excluding those who pre-loaded. If that policy was extended to all year around the current policy would work much better.
   • the pink postman 2.1

     3 January 2011 at 2:03 pm

     There is plenty of scientific and medical evidence that tell us that even one drink of alchohol can slow down reactions. The best law is no drinking and driving. Is it not possible for a person not to drink now and then?
     • SPC 2.1.1

       3 January 2011 at 8:13 pm

       Medication and lack of sleep will have more impact on driving than drinking up to 50 … .

       As for being unable to have a can or a bottle or a glass and drive afterwards – that just shows how extremist the whole campaign gets when it targets moderate drinkers when we know the major problem is repeat offenders who drink well over the current limit.
3. Irascible 3

   3 January 2011 at 5:50 am

   Does anyone think that Key’s interests in the liquor industry held in his transparent blind trust might have had something to do with his pressuring of Joyce??
   • jcuknz 3.1

     3 January 2011 at 8:01 am

     Naturally there has to be a conspiracy 🙂 Rather than basic common sense, instead of the emotionalism that this thread starts with, as put by SPC. It is like the reduction of the speed margin from 10 to 5km over for the holiday period … sounds good but we are still heading to equal last years total for road deaths. One must feel sorry for Sup Paula Rose having to deal with the idiots in NZ.
4. tsmithfield 4

   3 January 2011 at 10:43 am

   There is all sorts of things we could do that would significantly reduce road deaths. For instance we could make the speed limit 20kph. However, there needs to be evidence that doing so will make a meaningful difference without overly impinging on freedom and convenience. I don’t think the evidence is there with the current limit.

   As I understand it most alcohol related deaths are from those well over the limit. Also, it is an inaccurate assumption to assume that the majority push the current limit to the max. It is likely that most take a cautionary approach because they don’t want to exceed the limit so are actually well under.
5. Treetop 5

   3 January 2011 at 11:45 am

   Blocking lowering the drink drive limit is interference by government officials in road policing as far as I am concerned.

   Who is the expert here, road police or Key on safer roads?

   Why is Key not listening to the experts?

   Why is Ryall listening to Key?
   • Treetop 5.1

     3 January 2011 at 11:49 am

     Error

     Why is Joyce not listening to Key?

     I have been focused on health all morning. But Ryall also has input into the lowering of the speed limit due to the carnage from drink driving.
     • Treetop 5.1.1

       3 January 2011 at 1:33 pm

       Why is Joyce listening to Key?

       Ignore 5.1 please.

Links to post

1. The Standard: posted on 2 January 2011 at 4:47 am
2. Rik Tindall: posted on 2 January 2011 at 5:04 am
3. Save Our Water: posted on 2 January 2011 at 5:30 am
4. Gabriella Turek: posted on 2 January 2011 at 5:47 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS