Government by knee-jerk

22 comments on “Government by knee-jerk ”

• Comments are now closed

1. TightyRighty 1

   31 January 2010 at 3:18 pm

   EFA
   • Sam 1.1

     31 January 2010 at 3:38 pm

     Congratulations, there are now only 23 more letters of the alphabet to learn! You can do it!
     • TightyRighty 1.1.1

       31 January 2010 at 4:50 pm

       typical leftie response. paint everyone who doesn’t agree with you as ignorant. so tired
       • Sam 1.1.1.1

         31 January 2010 at 5:26 pm

         Well yours was a typical un-related tory reply so get over yourself.
         • TightyRighty 1.1.1.1.1

           31 January 2010 at 10:27 pm

           No sam. my comment was in regard to knee jerk actions performed by the last labour government that eddie defended, rightly or wrongly. I’m glad to see that you are not as over yourself as you would like me to be over myself. tiresome is what you are.
           • felix 1.1.1.1.1.1

             31 January 2010 at 10:44 pm

             So the EFA was a populist measure, cynically designed to ride a wave of public sentiment?
             • TightyRighty …

               1 February 2010 at 8:41 am

               Felix you know the answer to that. it was a knee jerk response to “chinless scarf wearers” cynically designed to repress a wave of public sentiment and tip the playing field in the incumbents favour.
             • felix …

               1 February 2010 at 12:34 pm

               So there was going to be a wave of public sentiment and Labour cunningly repressed it before it happened?

               And would this future wave of sentiment be on the side of the chinless scarf wearers or against them? Very hard to tell from your comment.

               Really not seeing much of a connection to the type of policy-making described in the post. I suspect your first comment was a knee jerk of sorts. It kinda reads like “GGGHHHHAAA BLUURRR LABOUR!!!!”
           • Sam 1.1.1.1.1.2

             1 February 2010 at 12:15 pm

             Right, so, fixing loop holes that allows millions of dollars to be donated anonymously to political parties, a move that was supported by a large number of political scientists, is a knee jerk reaction akin to that of John Key’s constant political ADHD in a desperate attempt to market National as having a “finger on the pulse”, as it were?

             Despite National changing very little of the EFA and the sky not falling contrary to the Granny’s headlines, this is still clearly a big issue for you – and you say that I’m the tiresome one, sheesh!
     • travellerev 1.1.2

       31 January 2010 at 11:13 pm

       Fuck, that was hilarious.‘:lol:’
2. Policy Parrot 2

   31 January 2010 at 3:56 pm

   To be fair, this was a private members bill (Simon Bridges) that was gaining support. It might seem crass to some given the timing, but it was a political no-contest to adopt it as a Government bill. It makes them look like they are doing something.

   Meanwhile, Rome burns whilst Nero amuses the mob.
   • Eddie 2.1

     31 January 2010 at 7:12 pm

     yeah the politics of the thing are in no doubt. It’s just the actual point that’s missing.
   • Scribe 2.2

     2 February 2010 at 2:33 pm

     I think it’s important to point out that Simon Bridges was already promoting this bill before the last couple of high-profile cases of animal cruelty, including Wellsford. It might be populist, but it isn’t as knee-jerk as some would believe.
3. prism 3

   31 January 2010 at 5:58 pm

   Yeah waste of politicians’ and parliament’s time. Comments on recent 3 strikes law from those studying crime were that harsher laws are unlikely to be followed by the thought – this is going to cost me more time than before. They act on impulse and hatred of whatever, a desire to punish, teach someone a lesson etc.
4. Rob Carr 4

   31 January 2010 at 8:19 pm

   Whilst penalties for all other crimes are so high it should probably be higher. At the moment it is way out of proportion to other crimes. For that reason I understand the need to increase the penalty so it is seen as “a real crime”. Rather than just a regulatory issue.

   I personally would rather they reduced all the other penalties to match it and focus on prevention and rehabilitation instead but that is unlikely to happen in the near future.

   I think the very much more core issue here is to alter the way these things are prosecuted because so few actually go to trial or just receive a fine. We need some more effort on fixing this issue rather than just increasing penalties but it is at least a start. I am somewhat worried National is just supporting the bill to avoid doing this and also to justify higher penalties on other crimes.
5. richard 5

   31 January 2010 at 9:12 pm

   I couldn’t imagine a single MP voting against this – why would you? However it is a fairly hollow gesture. Would haver a much greater impact if it was combined with resourcing of MAF to carry out the animal wellfare role that they are actually supposed to carry out. Also funding for the SPCA who, as a charity with no public funding, will have to spend tens of thousands to bring before the courts any alleged offender that might be subject to this legislation.
6. George D 6

   31 January 2010 at 9:39 pm

   MAF and SPCA prosecute some tiny percentage of their complaints. Telling them to actually prosecute would be a good idea.

   I’d actually challenge the Greens to vote against this, just to make the point.
   • lprent 6.1

     1 February 2010 at 2:11 am

     I’d agree. Except the police should get involved in the prosecutions. They have the legal capability, which they also appear to have an internal policy not to exercise.

     The SPCA is a voluntary organization that deliberately doesn’t have state funding. They should be able to concentrate their resources on the cases at the edge of the legal bounds to ensure that the boundaries are clear. The police should work on the clearcut cases.

     MAF has two issues. Firstly they don’t have the resources. I think that there are only a handful of animal welfare officers. Secondly they have an inherent conflict of interest in many cases.
7. Gooner 7

   31 January 2010 at 10:41 pm

   You’re spot on. It is a kneejerk. Just like the dog microchipping law is/was.
8. Zaphod Beeblebrox 8

   31 January 2010 at 11:15 pm

   So will it be three dog bites and you your dog gets locked away forever? Or is it that your dog will be banned from wearing their gang patches in public? Then again if your dog makes too much noise can we get its kennel crushed? But then again the dog can’t use the defence of provocation to defend itself.

   Are there any other populist cliched quick fix catchy solutions we can come up with?
   • BLiP 8.1

     1 February 2010 at 12:06 am

     The dog’s obviously a bludger – if we were to name and shame, you know, publish its name, income, list of benefits received to date, and current living situation all other dogs tempted to bite children would stop.

Links to post

1. Gabriella Turek: posted on 31 January 2010 at 6:36 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS