Friday, 14 August 2009

Quote of the day: On the Nats [updated]

National isn't just Labour Lite, it's Labour Zero - same taste but no sugar, in a different coloured can.”
…………………………………………………- Liberty Scott

From high taxing nanny state to... high taxing pragmatism
    The National-led government was elected in New Zealand on a platform of less tax, less government, and less nanny statism. Theirs was to be a pragmatic government, free of leftist ideological social engineering. Nine months and one budget on, we still have a high taxing nanny state. Pragmatism, it seems, is not all it’s cracked up to be.
    The current government campaigned against the overweening powers of the ‘nanny state’ Labour government, and declared that a ban on inefficient light bulbs and plans to restrict shower pressures (for environmental reasons), would be overturned. It has done so. However, it now appears that the trade-off for canning these restrictions is going to mean giving up rights to use your cell phone while driving. Minister of Justice Simon Power has also indicated that alcohol will be taxed more highly and become more difficult to sell and purchase.
    Ultimately, this reflects a value judgment. The new government reasons that it is somehow better than the last government at making decisions about which goods and services should be restricted. Apparently incandescent light bulbs are a matter of freedom and choice, when and where you use a cell phone is not. This is hardly less government.
    Somehow this pragmatism has become a compliment in New Zealand politics. Pragmatic people are thought to be practical, issue focused, and not distracted by abstract theory. This reflects New Zealand’s tradition of political anti-intellectualism.  Yet without the theory, or an ideological framework from which to work, how can we measure decisions? Where are the standards against which to measure the efficacy of policies? Without first principles, how can objectives be worked out and implemented?
New Zealanders may dislike ideology, but fashionable pragmatism in politics is far more dangerous. It makes short term public opinion the only standard against which to gauge policy quality or desirability. Indeed, that is pragmatism: trading the desirable to gain the achievable. And in politics, the achievable is often that which wins votes.
    The current government is likely to press forward and restrict more freedoms, but the freedoms they are now examining are genuine nanny state stuff that have a real effect on the lives of most adults.

Top stuff, Luke.  Well said.


  1. Yes, excellent.

    PC, you've never been backward in expressing your contempt for the Nats. My own natural instinct has been to prefer them over the envy-ridden left/Labour. But for the record I'm shifting towards your position. Truly unimaginative, pragmatic & gutless. And ACT? So disappointing. Helengrad had to go, and I'm glad it's gone but NZ ain't going in any new direction, despite the smiling faces.

    - Sam P

  2. Yeah. I voted National purely (and unsuccessfully) to keep Labour's Ruth Dyson out in my constituency. I wasn't expecting much from them, but they are still managing to disappoint me.
    I also used my party vote for ACT in the hope that they would be a positive influence on National. What a waste of a vote that was.
    The sad thing is, I think I'd still end up voting the same way today.

  3. Stevew

    You'd still end up voting the same way today? So, in effect, you have learned nothing. Oh well. Keep to that standard and you'd have earned exactly what you deserve!

    Paraphrasing the Nats (should be known as the Natzis): NZ the way you want it, one vote at a time.


  4. I think you missed my point, LGM


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.