Wednesday, August 03, 2005

Questioning a curmudgeon

Q: Will a National-led minority Government be fundamentally different to the present Labour-led variety?
A: No. On every fundamental point of policy, you could hardly slide a sheet of blue policy paper between their respective positions. See.

Q: So why does everyone get so excited when National goes up in the polls?
A: Because after six years of her bossing around the sheeple, a lot of people have had enough of Madame Helen.

Q: But voting her out won't fundamentally change anything policy-wise?
A: No, it won't. People generally vote to get governments out, rather than to put new governments in. That doesn't stop new governments thinking they have a 'mandate' of course. And it doesn't stop people exciting themselves over the prospect of seeing new faces in the same old offices, even if they are doing pretty much the same old things.

Q: You don 't sound very excited at the prospect yourself .
A: Well spotted youngster.


Cartoon by Richard McGrail, courtesy The Free Radical
[NOTE: Clicking onthe cartoon will open a legible versi0n thereof. :-) ]

5 Comments:

Blogger James said...

Libertarians hold the position that there is no fundamental difference between the two major parties & while I agree on a philosophical level, I think practically the difference could be huge. A labour-led government will be significantly more willing to reduce our freedoms - hence our prosperity. This matters to me.


The electoral success of some leaders like Thatcher or even Reagan led to substantial reforms that have lasted and certainty not been turned back by the Left.
Brash is no Bolger. He's more amendable to a libertarian viewpoint than any other national leader I can think of in some time. So I think he is worthy of libertarian support - not on philosophical grounds, but that he clearly represents a better alternative.

8/03/2005 01:30:00 pm  
Blogger PC said...

Blimey, I agree with James. Almost.

I have few problems with your comments on Dr Don, as I've said before my problems are with 1) the rest of his caucus, and 2) the lack of any fundamental policy difference to Hard Labour.

Given the lack of decent caucus support for anything that might frighten the horses -- anything in other words that might threaten them keeping their jobs for three more years -- I strongly suspect that Brash in government would be more Hubbard than Thatcher. Sadly.

8/03/2005 01:47:00 pm  
Anonymous Ruth said...

"I think practically the difference could be huge. A labour-led government will be significantly more willing to reduce our freedoms - hence our prosperity. This matters to me."

The difference is *not* huge. The NZ economy is one of the most deregulated and prosperous in the Western World. NZX up 70% in 18 months, no property market implosion, no bear coming out of hiding as been touted continuously by bloggers with a political axe to grind (Bhatnagar springs to mine - now even he has shut up).

Rather than repeating mindless brainless mantras you need to look for signs that mean something e.g. widespread and continuing falls in company profits, a credit squeeze, a collapsing NZ dollar, low or negative economic growth, bad words from the RBNZ. In the meantime I've made more money in the past 3 years than at any other time in my life.

Sorry if you don't understand me again folks.

8/03/2005 04:03:00 pm  
Anonymous Ruth said...

I meant 'mind' and 'as *has* been touted'. *

8/03/2005 04:05:00 pm  
Blogger James said...

"mindless brainless" um okay aren't you saying the same thing twice?

Are you solely attributing our current prosperity to Labour's policies? I wouldn't, but would rather see it as an combination of various trends (world economy bouncing back after Asian crisis etc)

Anyway, the statement that NZ is one of the most deregulated and prosperous in the Western World is true but many in Labour have fought this deregulation trend for decades. Why can't you accept that perhaps a conservative government might just accelerate reforms?
At least PC gave reasons for his doubt, good ones at that.
I might add that serious reform usually takes place only when absolutely necessary (pre-Thatcher Britain was economically crippled in many ways)

8/03/2005 09:15:00 pm  

Post a Comment

Respond with a polite and intelligent comment. (Both will be applauded.)

Say what you mean, and mean what you say. (Do others the courtesy of being honest.)

Please put a name to your comments. (If you're prepared to give voice, then back it up with a name.)

And don't troll. Please. (Contemplate doing something more productive with your time, and ours.)

<< Home