Home »
Posts filed under No Right Turn
Every now and again the planets align in such a way that we agree with something Idiot/Savant at No Right Turn has written.
Today is one of those days. Under the heading Time to defend the presumption of innocence Idiot/Savant blogs:
I accept that rape cases are difficult to prove. This change will make them remarkably easier. If Labour gets its way, there will be a lot more convictions for rape. And a lot more of them will be of innocent people. We presume innocence because we believe it is far better for the guilty to go free than for the innocent to be punished. Labour clearly does not believe that any more.
A party which does not believe in and will not defend the presumption of innocence does not deserve your vote. All they deserve is your contempt. If they retain this policy, you should not vote Labour.
In its haste to appeal to female voters, Labour has overreacted. The policy proposed by Andrew Little will create far more legal problems than it will solve, and it highly likely to result in innocent people being jailed. In the meantime, it will be interesting to hear what other parties, and especially the Green Party think of Andrew Little and Labour's proposal. There may yet be other parties to add to Idiot/Savant's "do not vote for" list.
We don't often agree with Idiot/Savant at No Right Turn, but one is seldom left in doubt as to his opinion. And he has launched into the Labour Party this afternoon; under the headline Dear Labour, I don't work for you I/S opines:So, following this morning's post about David Cunliffe's finding his spine on Iraq, I received an email from Rob Egan, "Senior Strategic Communications Advisor" in the Office of the Leader of the Opposition, who assured me that Cunliffe didn't focus group his position and that "the release was not delayed pending “testing” but was released as logistics allowed."Right, so Cunliffe isn't a focus-group led mollusc, just so useless and lacking in political instincts that he can't say what he thinks on an important issue without having to effectively retract his original position within 24 hours. Glad we cleared that up. Meanwhile, there's this bit:
I realise that the speed of social media means that misunderstandings can arise rapidly, and that part of the value of blogging is that it captures reaction quickly and without mediation, but I would really appreciate it if get in touch with me about any serious concerns you have such as this. You can reach me by phone or email most of the time.
To which I've already tweeted my response: Dear Labour: I don't work for you. I don't work for anyone. I voice my own views. If you don't like them, you can go fuck yourself.
Once again, David Cunliffe has given different responses to the same question on different days. Idiot/Savant may not have been right about Labour's use of focus groups with regard to troops to Iraq, but he is right on the money in criticising the mixed messages from the party's leader.One day we may find out what David Cunliffe really stands for.
Idiot/Savant from No Right Turn has ripped into the Labour Party over its plans to outlaw coat-tailing:
On Firstline this morning, Labour's David Cunliffe promised to introduce legislation to scrap the "electorate lifeboat" provision of MMP within his first hundred days in office:
“The incoming Labour-led government under my leadership would, within our first 100 days in office, initiate moves to repeal this part of the Electoral Act.
“National has supported a widely discredited electoral rule which skews the democratic process to its own political ends. The New Zealand public can see through that,’’ said David Cunliffe.
I think this is a terrible change. The one MP rule is a vital safeguard which ensures representation of smaller parties. Without it, our Parliament would be much less representative than it is at present (unless it was balanced by a removal of the 5% threshold) - and therefore much less democratic.
It doesn't help that there's the usual enormous helping of hypocrisy from Labour on this.Despite their claims to have been "principled and consistent" on the issue, they quietly gifted Coromandel to the Greens in 1999; their opposition is more recent, and based entirely on a desire to rob National of potential coalition partners. And in order to do that, they're willing to make our Parliament less representative and rob their fellow citizens of a democratic voice. It is immoral and undemocratic - but its what happens when you get professional politicians who view the electoral system as a game to be rigged to their advantage, rather than a framework to maximise democratic representation and responsiveness.
I/S is dead right about Labour's hypocrisy on this issue, even though he downplays it by only mentioning Coromandel. Labour of course gave Jim Anderton a leg-up in Wigram election after election after election by standing a series of Neville Nobodies against the former Labour Party president. Here's a potted summary of how that dirty deal worked:
By the late 1990s, Labour under Helen Clark had largely purged itself of the influence of Roger Douglas. Realising that the cost of a split in the left-wing vote was a continued National government, the two parties agreed to form a coalition for the 1999 elections. Anderton became Deputy Prime Minister after National lost the election. He was also given the newly created post of Minister of Economic Development, which had an emphasis on job creation and regional development initiatives.
Towards the end of the parliamentary term Anderton came into conflict with the Alliance's administrative wing. Party president Matt McCarten and his allies claimed that the Alliance had become too close to Labour, and that it should take a less moderate path; Anderton replied that some moderation was required for the Alliance to accomplish any of its goals. There were complaints that Anderton was too dominant in the party's decision-making and over the fact that he supported the government's stance on the bombing of Afghanistan, while the executive and wider membership opposed it. Eventually, Anderton and three other MPs left the Alliance, establishing the Progressive Coalition, later renamed the Progressive Party. In order to get around the Electoral Integrity Act, which had been passed largely because of Anderton's complaints about waka jumping, Anderton technically remained the Alliance's parliamentary leader until the writ was dropped for the 2002 election.
In the election, Anderton was returned to Parliament, and the Progressives took the Alliance's place as Labour's coalition partner. Although Anderton won his electorate, the small amount of support the Progressives received (1.4% of the party vote) was enough for only one other Progressive – deputy leader Matt Robson – to enter Parliament. Anderton gave up the deputy prime minister's post to Minister of Finance and Labour deputy leader Michael Cullen. He remained Minister of Economic Development, and also held other ministerial portfolios. He ranked third in Cabinet, behind Clark and Cullen.
In the runup to the 2005 election Anderton renamed his party "Jim Anderton's Progressive Party". However, he was the only Progressive returned to Parliament by a narrow margin after many left-wing voters voted for Labour to prevent a National government from being elected due to a split on the left. He became Minister of Agriculture, Minister for Biosecurity, Minister of Fisheries, Minister of Forestry, Minister Responsible for the Public Trust, Associate Minister of Health, and Associate Minister for Tertiary Education.
The 2008 election saw a swing to the right, with National winning approximately 45% of the party vote to Labour's 34%. Anderton retained his seat but the Progressives' share of the party vote remained low, at less than one percent.[3] In a move described as "unorthodox" by the New Zealand Herald, Anderton announced that he would remain in coalition with Labour in opposition. He said that a priority for the Progressives would be to support better access to dental care.[4]
Yes; even in Opposition, Labour and Anderton were joined at the hip and were one in everything but name. We remember well the farce in 2002 when the Alliance split (to be led by none other than Laila Harre), and Helen Clark used every excuse in the book plus a few more to justify Anderton's position, and to avoid an early election. It was a farcical time.But wait; there's more. There was also a time when Peter Dunne was useful to Labour, so Labour's candidates in Ohariu didn't try too hard. Dunne was rewarded with Ministerial roles when he supported Helen Clark and Labour in the post-election wranglings after the 2005 General Election, even though his supporters were expecting him to support National, and have nothing to do with Winston First.So Labour has been more than happy to deal with coat-tailing MP's in the past, and based on present polling, it will need coat-tailing MP's this year if David Cunliffe is going to form a government. Then, of course, he's going to use the majority accorded to him by the dirty deal with coat-tailing MP's to change the Electoral Act to outlaw coat-tailing.Idiot/Savant is dead right. This is indeed an "enormous helping of hypocrisy" from Labour and its leader. But why would we expect anything else?
