Wednesday, June 25, 2008

On not smacking Helen

Helen Clark says there's no way the referendum on the anti-smacking law can be held at the same time as the general election since there's just no way it can be organised in time.

For her part, Sue Bradford says she says she is "quite relaxed" about the timing of a referendum because she "respects the democratic process" and the work people went to to get the signatures on the petition.

Why the difference?  Obvious, really.  Whatever the extra cost involved in a later referendum, Clark doesn't want the referendum held at the time of the general election since she doesn't want the election itself to be a referendum on the nanny state -- which is what the anti-smacking law represents to many people, including moi.

And is there "no way" the referendum on the anti-smacking law can be held at the same time as the general election?   Of course not.  Not even Clark believes that.  Not unless she's planning an early election...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Not that the reasoning makes complete sense, mind you, since both Labour and National voted for the anti-smacking-bloody-law, and neither are any less nanny state than the other -- nor are their respective supporters any less deluded.

And National haven't even promised to repeal the damn law, not even if a referendum were successful.  All Key has said if the process under way to force a referendum was successful was it would be something "National would take very seriously."  WTF?

Labels: , , , , , ,

3 Comments:

Anonymous homepaddock said...

Helen Clark doesn't want a referendum with the election because:

a) You don't need to let the people have a say when you know what's best for them.

b) She doesn't care that it will cost more to have a separate referendum because it's only taxpayers' money she's wasting.

c) She knows she's going to lose the election and would rather leave National (and any coaltion partners) to deal with the issue.


d) All of the above.

6/25/2008 10:42:00 am  
Anonymous Sus said...

A correspondent on ZB this morning noted that the appropriate bureaucrats managed the job when Muldoon called his snap election in '84 with a few weeks' notice.

6/25/2008 12:05:00 pm  
Blogger libertyscott said...

Remember 2002 was a semi-snap election as well, Helen was hoping to sideline the Greens and have an absolute majority - Peters and Dunne destroyed that hope.

6/25/2008 09:01:00 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