No consistency needed

Written By: - Date published: 10:40 am, June 26th, 2008 - 12 comments
Categories: child discipline, john key, national - Tags:

Colin Espiner’s just posted an entry headed “National’s position on smacking confusing”.

It is – but only if you’re expecting philosophical consistency. Key’s 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.

For the time being, this is National’s strategy: consistently brand Labour as wasteful, arrogant, out of touch and so on. To hell with the reality or the detail. Key’s support for the referendum has little, if anything, to do with the issue itself. It’s simply about branding Labour and (particularly) Clark:

…quite frankly the behaviour of the prime minister smacks of arrogance and waste…

Strikes me that the arrogance is actually found in a party who are so disdainful of the electorate that they a) sincerely believe they deserve to run the country without providing a comprehensive policy platform and b) consistently patronise voters with empty slogans and catchphrases.

12 comments on “No consistency needed ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. AndrewE 1
    26 June 2008 at 11:18 am

    It doesn’t seem too confusing to me.

    1. They helped to pass it.
    2. A large section of the NZ public wants a referendum on it.
    3. National supports the public having it’s say.

    I don’t see why there is so much angst about having this referendum. The PM has assured us that NZ supports the legislation. A referendum would settle this matter once and for all. Let’s do it and move on.

  2. Steve Pierson 2
    26 June 2008 at 11:21 am

    AndrewE. Labour support the public having it’s say too.

    Ministry advice is that say should be had seperate from the general election

    [Tane: Steve, FFS, learn to use apostrophes.]

  3. Bryan Spondre 3
    26 June 2008 at 11:21 am

    “Now, just because a few fundementalist Christian groups led by Larry Baldock appear to have forced a referendum on the matter, Key appears to be trying to jump on the populist bandwagon. Well, he can’t have it both ways – either he thinks the law is a good one, or he’s changed his mind. I’m keen to hear which it is.”

    This looks like a tactical error on John Key’s part. Wouldn’t he have been better keeping quiet and letting Labour take the flak ?

  4. Bryan Spondre 4
    26 June 2008 at 11:25 am

    Steve: “Labour support the public having it’s say too.”

    Hasn’t the public already had it’s say through the original select committee process ? Why are we wasting any time and money on re-litigating an issue thats already been talked to death because a few deluded christians in Mt Roskill want to hit their kids with leather belts? I’m with Helen on this one, push it back after the election and maybe the god botherers will give up.

  5. Steve Pierson 5
    26 June 2008 at 11:32 am

    Well. Yeah, I agree with that too. But the law is that if you get enough signatures you get a CIR. Labour supports that law, so they support them getting a CIR, just not on top of the election.

  6. Matthew Pilott 6
    26 June 2008 at 11:34 am

    Not often I say this, but Hear Hear, Mr Spondre. (although if the citizens call for a referendum, the crown is oblligated to have one. Hence Labour’s support of it)

    As I said on another thread, if Key wasn’t involved in S59 he’d be playing the populist, saying National would listen to any referendum, blah blah, blah. He can’t though, so he’s saying that he’ll take the logical approach and see how the law is working.

    So the only inconsistency here is that National can’t take an anti-policy, anti-debate and anti-rationality lightweight populist soundbyte stance as is their norm, because Key was involved in the first place!

  7. Bryan Spondre 7
    26 June 2008 at 11:39 am

    ” The referendum papers would be differently coloured (see Appendix 2 for examples) and there would be a matching coloured ballot box for each referendum. Voters would be instructed, after completing the three voting papers, to place each voting paper in its respective ballot box.

    Robert Peden
    Chief Electoral Officer ”

    After reading the memo you linked to Steve I think there is even more reason to hold the CIR as a separate postal ballot. With the potential for EFA based result challenges to be an issue in the coming election we don’t need the additional complicating factor of sorting out the inevitable ‘misfiled’ voting papers.

  8. Vanilla Eis 8
    26 June 2008 at 11:41 am

    Holy crap, I agree with Bryan.

    Whats most frustrating is that Key is coming out in support of a referendum before it has even been confirmed that there are enough signatures to require one. The Select Committee Office will be checking them over the next month or two – if they fall short, there won’t be enough time for Family First to gather the required number and re-submit in time for the election.

    Key could at least have some respect for the process rather than jumping the gun and accusing Labour of trying to screw the public.

  9. Bryan Spondre 9
    26 June 2008 at 11:42 am

    Thanks Matthew, don’t worry I’ll be giving you plenty of reasons to call me a ‘partisan hack’ again shortly 🙂

  10. Quoth the Raven 10
    26 June 2008 at 8:19 pm

    I’m also in agreement with Bryan. Unbelievable.

  11. Linda Axford 11
    27 June 2008 at 10:45 pm

    I don’t know why Key isn’t being supportive of this bill since he voted for it. If he wants some sort of integrity he should leave it at that and confirm to the public why he voted for it instead of harping on about ‘what NZers want’.

    aladin

Links to post