(no subject)

[labellementeuse]

Five Things I Think About The National Party Leadership Thing:

1. I am, on the whole, relieved Brash has finally resigned. On the one hand, Brash continuing to lead the Nats might have been the one thing that would have guaranteed their defeat next election. On the other hand, I hate the man. And less personally, Brash said he'd resign if he lost the 2005 election - they lost and he didn't. He repeatedly campaigned against Labour's so-called disrespect for the instituton of marriage - while having an affair (again, natch.) He gave a speech at Orewa which set back (in my opinion) bilateral race relations in NZ, inciting and validating anti-Maori and anti-Treaty sentiment by encouraging the fantasy of the Maori privilege. (Which, god. Don't you think if there were Maori privilege their health, education and economic statistics would be less depressing? Idiots.) He's also a hopeless politician, has frequently been corrected on his party's policy and is IMO a hopeless party leader and unable to take criticism.The latest, as most of you probably know, is a book released containing a whole bunch of emails that are apparently very embarassing from a politcal perspective, revealing all kinds of corruption and so on. So, you know, goodbye, Don, you won't be missed.

2. Speaking of The Hollow Men, what's that you say, Nicky Hager? The Nats used the leader's budget for advertising very similarly to the way you've been complaining Labour did? My goodness! How shocking.

3. I want to disclaim at this point that I'm not and have never been a big fan of Nicky Hager - although apparently he's a lovely guy face to face, I just can't get over the Corngate thing. On the other hand, come on, I'm supposed to react negatively to an expose of corruption and party politics within the Nats? Please, i'm not made that way. Scoophas some info here and there's more about everywhere. It's all the NZ political blogs are talking about, ha-ha.

4. I'm also interested that the big Exclusive Brethren hoo-ha in the book also seems to smear John Key, who is going to be the next leader of the Opposition (which, yeah, we all picked about a hundred years ago, but me and blademistress were rooting for Bill English anyway. You can do it, Bill: lead national to its greatest electoral defeat! Again!) Anyway, I expect Key will stick around anyway. I'm a little disheartened by this because Key is just young enough for me to count him as a New Conservative and god, I cannot stand the Young Conservatives. They are self-entitled unsympathetic supercilious brats who, because they were raised with every opportunity in the world, cannot conceive of someone not being able o do just as well as they did through anything but lazinss - or natural stupidity, which of course should be punished, probably by burning at the stake.

Yeah, I'm a little vehement about them. Blech. Anyway, since Key grew up in a much-vaunted state house in Christchurch - with headlines like "Christchurch state house boy makes good!" because, you know, being from state housing is just like being a youth criminal! Anyway anyway, I probably can't complain about him being entitled but, you know. I also think the very bright have this same problem - I got out of state housing / made a million bucks / funded my university on scholarship / whatever, why can't everyone else? Which to me fundamentally misses the point - it's not whether or not everyone can or can't, it's that some people don;t and they are not by virtue of that less valuable.

Anyway AGAIN, 5. David Slack linked to a quiz on Key's conscience voting record (it has the answers at the end) which is kind of interesting if a little schizophrenic; he voted against the CUB (black mark!) but for the relationships statutory references (equal treatment of all relationships including de facto and same sex under the law: I suppose this is less surprising since he's younger) and against the gender clarification, hich would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman. The possible explanation for this is that he was against the CUB on second-class citizen grounds. Otherwise it's mostly unsurprising - he wants lots of tax write-offs for businesses, what a shocker, and he voted to control street prostitution in Manakau and to liberalise shop trading on Easter.

I can only hope that under Key's leadership national will go back to being all about the money, because nobody likes tax cuts, right? Right? oh god.

Comments

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

Anyone who is strongly involved in a political party in their youth tends towards an inflated opinion of their own worth and that of their ideas.

Absolutely - I for example think I'm the greatest thing since sliced cheese and everyone should agree with me constantly - but that wasn't really what I meant. (i also, by the way, think that youth in general is arrogant, especially bright talented and university educated youth, which frequently are the kinds of youth that have time to waste on politics. on the other hand, at least they care about something.) I was referring to young conservatives' policies which I see to be motivated by lack of empathy - tax cuts, all their economic policy. young conservatives do tend to be more socially liberal though except the ones who are also young christians. My experience with young conservatives is that they think anyone who does not succeed deserves to suffer - teenage mums, solo parents, people on the dole - and that is what I was referring to.

[mandor700.livejournal.com]

I don't necesarily feel that empathy has much correlation to political leanings, you can get all sorts on both sides of the table.

But just because I'm difficult: While we can do everything in our power to discourage teenage motherhood (duct-taping Tariana's mouth closed included) you still come down to peoples choices in the end. So, if we were a state which did everything it could to discourage this sort of thing (insert measures here), which we are far from doing, if a teen still becomes pregnant of their own volition is it not their problem?

[nzlemming.livejournal.com]

No, it's still our problem in that:
a) we will probably be paying her a benefit of some description
b) we will probably be trapping her in a low income situation
c) statistically, low income homes have more health issues, and we will be paying for that
d) statistically, her child will be more likely to wind up on the wrong side of the 'justice' system and we will pay for his/her crime, capture, trial and sentence
e) a human being is wasted

If we don't have any state intervention, the problem will be worse. You may want to ascribe fault to one who puts herself in such a position, but don't pretend it's only her problem.

[mandor700.livejournal.com]

But the problem is how much of the responsibility should the state have to bear? Having removed all the factors which could potentialy be responsible for creating such a situation, who should be held responsible?

[nzlemming.livejournal.com]

To steal a certain comment, that wasn't the question asked. ;-)

The responsibility may be hers (in part - it takes two to tango) but the problem is still society's in the long term.

You want to say "you got yourself pregnant, out into the street with you! It's your responsibility!"?

I don't want to live in a country that is a) that short-sighted or b) that compassionless.

[mandor700.livejournal.com]

Nor do I but I don't want to live in a society in which the state presumes such a wide mandate.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

A wide mandate to... help people out when they're in trouble? Um, what?

[mandor700.livejournal.com]

By hobbling successful members of that society who have done well for themselves through no fault of their own?
My question is that in an environment where factors that create these problems, poverty, violence, etc are removed, should the state still feel a responsibility to a person who goes off the rails?

[nzlemming.livejournal.com]

What "successful members" are hobbled by the DPB (for example)?

And the fact is that your question is hypothetical in the extreme, as these factors are not going to be removed however much we think it's a good idea. Not without an even wider mandate for government to pry into people's lives.

I realise you're young and every thing looks black and white, Ben, but you really need to think a little harder about how reality impacts on your theory.

YOu also need to realise that Ayn Rand is not a viable option.

[mandor700.livejournal.com]

I think you misunderstand, my argument here is that everything is far from black and white. I am a Labour supporter, but I accept that there are plenty of valid arguments for conservative as well as liberal policies.

[nzlemming.livejournal.com]

A Labour supporter? Well, your posts on this thread would hardly bear that out, so yes, I have misunderstood you.

But you haven't answered my question so I'll rephrase it:
What tid you mean by "By hobbling successful members of that society who have done well for themselves through no fault of their own?"?
because it doesn't make any sense.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

By hobbling successful members of that society who have done well for themselves through no fault of their own?

I presume you're referring to taxation here, and the only response I can really give to that is that only a very small fraction of taxes go towards the DPB and other benefits, etc. By far the majority of our spending is on things like health, education, road works, and so on, from which, i think you will agree, all but the most extremely wealthy members of our society can decline to use (the ones so wealthy they pay for private education and health care - and can afford a helicopter! Even then, airstrips...)

My question is that in an environment where factors that create these problems, poverty, violence, etc are removed, should the state still feel a responsibility to a person who goes off the rails?

That's a nonsense question. It's pointless debating about a utopia when such does not exist. And for the record, I still think the answer to that question is yes.