Table of Contents
The Labour Party is appropriately named. They supposedly (‘used to’) represent the workers who labour to earn a crust. Labour is largely funded by the unions; the organisations which DO represent those who provide the labour. It has become apparent in recent weeks that Labour is in labour concerning the release of policy and they seem to need a very long gestation period to introduce new policy ideas.
Perhaps the political pillow talk at the caucus get-togethers failed to fire, therefore the embryos of ideas were not born. An embryo usually refers to the first stages of pregnancy, which is often discussed with a doctor. Labour has just made this easier, as the one policy they have released is three free doctors’ visits, i.e., on the public teat. What this means is that you and I, the taxpayers, are paying not only for our own visits, but contributing to everyone else’s as well. These economic whiz-kids have yet to learn the most basic economic theory: NOTHING in life is free.
Then there’s their second so-called policy that they have labelled the New Zealand Future Fund. The purpose of this fund is to take dividends from some Crown assets and distribute them to businesses – the aim being job creation. This idea was unveiled last October but when it comes to details we, like Labour themselves, are none the wiser. Unbelievably, we evidently are not going to know details until AFTER the election. According to Labour there are two reasons for this: the first is they will need to take advice and, secondly – and this is the kicker – because of Treaty obligations.
Reason number two gives a real clue as to who would, in effect, be running their coalition. It would be either the Māori Party or Windbag Willie (Jackson) and his Māori caucus or both. What a frightful idea! The Treaty would be front and centre of absolutely everything. The result would be inertia. Nothing would get done beyond payments to the likes of Ngāi Tahu. Wellington train services would have to be expanded to cope with the influx of newly appointed public service paper shufflers, plus beneficiaries who receive welfare payments rather than salaries earned in the workplace. The mind boggles at the thought of the resultant chaos.
As David Farrar said on Kiwiblog when referencing the lack of detail, “This is really treating the voters as gullible idiots. They’re claiming they can’t give details because of Treaty obligations. The real answer is that they know their numbers don’t add up. They think if they give no details before the election, then they can’t be scrutinised on their credibility”. This nonsense is a classic illustration of how to lose an election. They need to go back to school under Erica Stanford’s new secondary curricula and enrol in year-11 where maths will be mandatory along with English and (real) science.
Chris Hipkins believes we don’t really care about the details re the Future Fund. What an abjectly ignorant little prat! This is one of his party’s cornerstone policies and he expects that we will blindly vote for it because supposedly we are not interested in the details. Knowing that the project is subject to Treaty obligations, we are very much interested. We would also be keen to know if their entire government programme would likewise be subject to Treaty propaganda. Don’t expect a straight answer to that question.
Let’s look at the other side of the aisle, the governing coalition. While falling short of the expectations of the majority who gave them their vote at the last election, they have made some moves recently that, to the optimists among us, might signify a more hopeful direction of travel. One is the winding back of Treaty references in legislation. Another is the new secondary curricula referenced above. There’s the bill to ensure that English is the country’s first language and finally making a start on the long overdue meaningful cuts in the public sector. The fuel for food deal with Singapore is a world first. Then there’s the scrapping of the ridiculous university free-fees scheme.
All of these moves suggest a nod to the right-wing voter base. I am wondering if they have been deliberately held off until nearer the election for precisely that reason. Whatever the motivation is, a ‘better late than never’ approach is certainly welcome. There is a lot more to be done in these and other areas but a start is a start. The gap between the left and the right in some major areas is certainly widening, making who to vote for an easier proposition. No matter what ends up being put forward, the reality is we cannot risk having the country being governed by a cohort of racist Māori politicians. That is why, with or without any of the above, the current coalition must be re-elected.
