Little Lashes Out

You know when Andrew Little is feeling trapped by a more superior mind than his when he lashes out, makes personal attacks and gets red-faced to deflect from the issues at hand.

That had been his modus operandi throughout Labour’s first term when (now retiring) National MP Nick Smith, with his forensic questioning approach in the House, used to flabbergast Little when he was Justice Minister. I miss those exchanges and Little’s unease when he was completely out of his depth.

He still is. But without anchor Winston to pull him back from his madness, he is now going full retard and don’t spare the horses, spending Kiwis’ hard-earned money without a care in the world, planning be damned.

But back to the present.

National’s Dr Shane Reti’s fairly routine question in a recent health select committee of why there is no business plan for Little’s staggeringly exorbitant (my words) health restructuring, was met with “you’re being cute”, which means clever or shrewd often in an underhanded manner.

Excitable Little did a rant for a minute or so, during which time Reti also asked for one outcome (or more) he can name from the restructure. There was nothing forthcoming from Little apart from an embarrassing outburst which indicated he was running for cover while firing shots at Reti for asking a perfectly reasonable question.

A bit like the media and labour’s response to Collins’s innocent question about He Puapua of ‘racist, racist’, designed to shut down queries.

I have heard Transport Minister Michael Wood refer to “lack of business plan” or “business plan does not stack up” when justifying why roading projects CAN’T go ahead (and we are all destined to walk or cycle everywhere with our children and groceries onboard). But that’s another sad, sad story.

Labour refer to ‘best practice’ when rejecting a project, but do not apply it to projects they do intend to implement. Curiouser and curiouser.

The following day in the House, fairly predictably, Reti asked Little the same questions. Either stupidity or arrogance saw Little forced to answer ‘no’, when asked if he could name ONE HEALTH OUTCOME to justify the huge spend.

Why are the media not on to this? Are they not concerned at this complete disregard for economical use of the money Adrian Orr’s been diligently printing in his back office during his lunch hours? The money which we already owe and our great, great-great, great-grandchildren will still be paying back?

Or are they more fixated on the $50 million Ardern has generously gifted to them with certain stipulations like supporting her Maori sovereignty plan, with no questions? And by default treating National like something the cat dragged in.

Ardern’s reference to ‘poor health outcomes’ for Maori to justify completely handing over control and veto power of health to Maori using our money does not stack up.

Also the other old chestnut, ‘partnership’, cunningly introduced over the years by those with the most to benefit and NOT IN THE ORIGINAL TREATY, is a problem.

A partnership is an arrangement between two or more people to oversee business operations and share its profits and liabilities.

In this unique version of ‘partnership’ the majority give Maori (just over 15% of population) complete control, with veto power over health delivery which 85% of the rest of us pay for.

Are people not a little concerned about this?  Also Little has said, like him, that Maori don’t have a business plan yet.

And he has already given them the green light?

The planned transfer of control of DOC land (from Ardern’s once-secret He Puapua document) to Maori control also horrifies me.

I remember as a child travelling with my family up north on holiday. We kids from the back seat could always easily identify Maori land as it was the paddocks covered with thistles.

Jesus wept.

Please share this article so that others can discover The BFD