Really? Are you more likely or less likely to vote National because of him?
^
Let's take his most recent remarks:
^
"I believe in a tolerant and inclusive New Zealand." (If this means the state being uninterested in people's race, sex, sexual orientation, religion or lack of, then fine, but hell it sounds like platitudes if he isn't making it clear).
^
"I believe in a society therefore for the benefit of all New Zealanders" (Which means what exactly? You live for the benefit of everyone else? From each according to her ability to each according to his needs? You DO know where that comes from don't you?
^
"I think that the future New Zealand must be a New Zealand that everyone has a stake in" (Own shares? Own land? or what John? a wooden stake?)
^
"One of the huge advantages of having Bill English as my wing man. . . is he has huge experience" (Doing what? Seriously, name his most significant political achievement and most significant policy advance while in government?)
^
"The fact I was given an education by the state and lucky enough – and I think hopefully motivated enough –to go on and have a successful career" (Yes John, it's all down to luck isn't it? Perpetuate the myth held by the lumpen proletariat and perpetuated by the left that a successful career isn't about brains, hard work and sacrificing time and effort for the reward, it's luck - like winning lotto eh bro? It's not fair that some fellas got all that luck and we aint eh? You gotta redistribute the proceeds of your luck. Using the word motivated as secondary and conditional did little to help that)
^
"If I could make a difference for anybody in New Zealand it would be to give that opportunity to other young New Zealanders who find themselves in a disadvantaged position." (Go on John, it's called education and culture change. You could always spend money on an education foundation, but for now it would help if you tackled the mediocrity that passes for education in so many parts of the country. This means tackling nihilistic envy-ridden culture, bureaucracy and unions. Lockwood Smith wouldn't, Ruth Richardson proposed doing so in 1987, but will you?
^
Key represents the National Party's fundamental problem. It does not at all have at its base a philosophical foundation for viewing New Zealand and what it values. The Labour Party does, because deep deep down if you scratch enough, you'll find it - it's called Marxism - the inherent belief that the poor have been robbed by the middle and upper income earners, and that most people are unable to make the best choices for themselves in many areas, and need to be looked after. I think the National Party isn't that different.
1 comment:
Doing what?
English has huge experience at failing.
Post a Comment