Friday, December 01, 2006

National's new line up and it's slide back to Labour's philosophical heartland

Political correctness portfolio is gone, I’m not too upset about that, Wayne Mapp didn’t know what to do with it – and the concept of political correctness is essentially not talking about things that are “forbidden” by the political zeitgeist. In other words, wanting to abolish all laws that are race specific or funding that is racially driven. I somehow think National doesn't know how to handle this.
^
Of the rest? I've ignored those who are ok - business as usual, nothing to get concerned about...
^
Bill English in Finance – well I look foreward to his genius giving us cutting edge economic policies, or John Key writing it all. Go on Bill, impress me - if you can take on Cullen and win, I'll changed my view of you.
^
Nick Smith remains of course, looking after climate change no less. So wait for the new tax and intervention policies from him. He is also spokesman on building and construction. Why? Authoritarian tosser.
^
Judith Collins is spokeswoman for family affairs (besides welfare and veterans' affairs without the apostrophe). Again why? What is she going to do for families? PLEASE abolish the Families Commission and Commissioner for Children's roles. That would be delightful, then wind up the portfolio. So I wait.
^
Murray McCully for Foreign Affairs? So he wants to travel, or you want him out of the way. However, sport and recreation? Leave well alone -that portfolio is unnecessary.
^
Lockwood Smith for Immigration and Revenue. The man who wouldn't confront the teachers' unions when he had the chance - sleepwalking his way to retirement. Courage isn't his forte for several reasons.
^
Wayne Mapp for Defence and Auckland issues? No, you are better than Judith Tizard (but then so is my niece). Auckland doesn't have special issues that require intervention.
^
Chris Finlayson on arts culture and heritage. Should be a brief portfolio, but will it be? (oh Shadow Attorney General, Treaty negotiations - now these matters).
^
Tim Groser for trade. Excellent choice and frankly the only one.
^
Lindsay Tisch. Tourism, small business and racing? Tourism should really just be wound up, it is simply the services sector. Small business? Why small business? Shouldn't it be part of commerce? Racing is just a joke - I'd resign from that Lindsay - nobody needs it.
^
Pansy Wong for ACC and ethnic affairs. ACC is fine, but what is an ethnic affair? I know it is why it exists, but I'm damned if my Scottish parents are going to get much from this.
^
Splitting Maori Affairs between Georgina and Tau is interesting, but then why not? Having two people dedicated to this area can't be bad.
^
Paul Hutchinson has Tertiary Education, Research, Science & Technology/CRIs, but also disability issues? hmmm.. Children? Why is there policy on children? THAT is insidious, but then Hutchinson is a bit of a prick.
^
Richard Worth for economic development. Well given that the Alliance created that portfolio, it ought to go too - what could he possibly do?
^
Kate Wilkinson for consumer affairs and labour/industrial relations. Clearly not a high priority to do anything about labour laws with someone so lowly ranked, but apparently quite smart.
^
Eric Roy for outdoor recreation? Give me a break. Unless it is about legalising outdoor shagging on private property, this has little value. It's about private property rights.
^
Sandra Goudie has internal affairs and senior citizens (!). Senior citizens is another waste of damned time. Stop balkanising people into minority groups - treat us all as individuals! Sandra did oust Jeanette Fitzsimons from Coromandel though, which is something worth celebrating.
^
Nicky Wagner has youth affairs, another seriously dud portfolio
^
However, the Women’s Affairs portfolio is back, with Jackie Blue. Presumably the Nats wont be getting rid of that utterly useless Ministry. It is a Ministry of collectivist feminism, to lobby for funding for women’s health (fuck testicular and prostate cancer, and the lower life expectancy for men), women’s education (girls are doing better than boys though hmm), women’s justice system (men are many times more likely to be in prison than women – it can’t be because it’s their fault because the same doesn’t apply to Maori men does it?), etc etc.
^
The state should not be sexist, it certainly should not have a Ministry that is, by definition, sexist. The Ministry of Women’s Affairs will not help National advance policies consistent with its principles – it hires people who overwhelmingly are pro-Labour. It should go. Other departments do not consult it unless they are similarly ideologically inclined (in which case why bother?), or are told to. MWA, you see, would typically take the view that anything that affected people without much money would hit women harder, and that somehow a policy should do something about it.
^
Indeed it should – it should abolish the Ministry of Women’s Affairs, donate the funding in one whole year to Women’s Refuge then give the rest back (as part of a widespread cut in government) in tax cuts. Jackie Blue said "Without any doubt, National will be putting together policies that benefit all New Zealanders, but we will want to make sure that women are not disadvantaged in the process." I guess it is ok if men are then is it? Given she is against hospital vending machines with unhealthy foods and drinks, I am not optimistic that she'll be anything other than a tweedledum to Pete Hodgson. Another school prefect.

2 comments:

Tezza said...

In another blog, Not PC, Key has been named John-Boy Key. And the name so aptly fits. In one week he has undone all Brash’s good work.

Why are people going to vote for another centrist government when they already have one? People don’t want more of the same.

Brash nearly won the last election, not because of potential tax cuts, but because people could see a marked difference between Labour and National; the marked difference being the one-law-for-all policy and the reversal of political correctness.

Now John-Boy comes along with this statement:

“I think political correctness is a side show”

Does this mean he thinks the anti-smacking bill that is soon to be passed, yet 85% of New Zealanders oppose it, is also a sideshow? That is clearly political correctness at work – punish the majority to protect a few. While I agree with Liberty Scott that Wayne Mapp didn’t know what to do with the PC problem, there must be some governmental body or mechanism to reverse it.

John-Boy says he wants to instill a new culture where individuals become responsible for their own destinies. How is he going to do this when government departments and educational institutions foster the opposite? How is he going to motivate people to work hard when we have equal-employment-opportunities employers who don’t give their jobs to the most qualified? How is he going to create individual thought and the creation of new ideas when students and educators are forbidden to speak freely?

I agree that we need this new culture, but that is going to be impossible to create without some anti-political-correctness mechanism to enable a new culture to form.

Then John-Boy came out with this statement:

“We need to celebrate the different cultures that immigrants bring with them to New Zealand.”

Does this mean we should celebrate the burka and Islamic oppression of women? Where does he stand on this one?

John-Boy is taking the safe, politically-correct road which will lose him the election.

In my opinion, the next election will not be won on economic issues, it will be won on cultural values; people are tired of the nanny state that does nothing more than create victims.

Kane Bunce said...

Why does it not surprise me to see so many rubbish portfolios? Or that National continue the nation's apostrophes abuse (putting them where they don't belong or not putting them where they do belong)? Nor would it surprise me if they continued the nation's comma abuse (the same as apostrophe abuse, but with commas instead).

Why are people going to vote for another centrist government when they already have one? People don’t want more of the same.
Indeed. By trying to out-Labour Labour they will fail and go back to the 2002 low of 22%. Or even lower maybe.

John-Boy says he wants to instill a new culture where individuals become responsible for their own destinies. How is he going to do this when government departments and educational institutions foster the opposite?
Indeed. And unless he copies the Libertarianz he will fail at his goal of "instilling a new culture where individuals become responsible for their own destinies".

In my opinion, the next election will not be won on economic issues, it will be won on cultural values; people are tired of the nanny state that does nothing more than create victims.
Yes. At this rate other parties will gain votes due to both Labour and National. It is a shame the Libertarianz (actually liberty based) and ACT (apparently liberty based only really partially there) won't gain as much as the less liberty based parties if history is anything to go by.