Today, it may be the easiest it’s ever been to say that sort of thing.
Let’s start with Labour leader Chris Hipkins. Who, I think, said one of the most arrogant things I’ve heard any politician say.
This happened yesterday. When he was talking about pretty much the only policy his party has been able to come up with since it was turfed out of government at the last election.
The future fund. Which would use some of the profits from our state-owned enterprises to invest in new start-up businesses.
Chris Hipkins has been saying that Labour’s not going to be announcing any new election policies until after next week’s budget. Until it has a better handle on the government’s finances before promising things the country can’t afford.
Yesterday, he went next level. This was after he said earlier in the week that he wouldn’t be giving any more detail about Labour’s future fund policy until after the election.
He almost sounds like he knows he’s got no show of forming the next government and doesn’t want his people putting too much work into policies and things that won’t go anywhere.
I genuinely think that’s what he and Labour are starting to sound like.
Because, after the election, they won’t be needed.
But that’s not the worst bit.
Yesterday, when he was asked if he thought voters might want to know more about the future fund before the election, he said New Zealanders don’t really care about the detail.
This is in relation to which state owned enterprises would have to contribute some of their profits to the future fund if Labour formed the next government and put this policy in place.
When he was asked about that, Hipkins said New Zealanders don’t really care about those key details.
He said: “I don't think the public really care which companies are going to go in or not. I think the public care about the fact that we’re going to keep state assets and National’s going to sell them.”
The arrogance.
And, at the same time as we’ve got the Labour leader trotting out that nonsense, we’ve got MPs debating a bill that defines the meaning of man and woman.
That one’s courtesy of NZ First, which says it’s fighting “cancerous social engineering” and “woke ideology”.
Do you think, in the grand scheme of things, pointless legislation like that really matters?
And, on top of that, public service minister Paul Goldsmith has told government departments they’ve got until the end of next month to make sure they prioritise the English version of their names over the Te Reo version.
It beggars belief, doesn’t it? The arrogance of telling us to wait until after the election for policy details because, apparently, that’s not important to us.
And the pointlessness of a law defining what a man is and what a woman is; and the pointlessness of government departments having to change their logos because some people can’t handle a bit of Te Reo.
All of the examples I’ve just given tell me that our politicians have absolutely no idea what’s important to us.
John MacDonald is the Canterbury Mornings host on Newstalk ZB Christchurch. This article was first published HERE
The future fund. Which would use some of the profits from our state-owned enterprises to invest in new start-up businesses.
Chris Hipkins has been saying that Labour’s not going to be announcing any new election policies until after next week’s budget. Until it has a better handle on the government’s finances before promising things the country can’t afford.
Yesterday, he went next level. This was after he said earlier in the week that he wouldn’t be giving any more detail about Labour’s future fund policy until after the election.
He almost sounds like he knows he’s got no show of forming the next government and doesn’t want his people putting too much work into policies and things that won’t go anywhere.
I genuinely think that’s what he and Labour are starting to sound like.
Because, after the election, they won’t be needed.
But that’s not the worst bit.
Yesterday, when he was asked if he thought voters might want to know more about the future fund before the election, he said New Zealanders don’t really care about the detail.
This is in relation to which state owned enterprises would have to contribute some of their profits to the future fund if Labour formed the next government and put this policy in place.
When he was asked about that, Hipkins said New Zealanders don’t really care about those key details.
He said: “I don't think the public really care which companies are going to go in or not. I think the public care about the fact that we’re going to keep state assets and National’s going to sell them.”
The arrogance.
And, at the same time as we’ve got the Labour leader trotting out that nonsense, we’ve got MPs debating a bill that defines the meaning of man and woman.
That one’s courtesy of NZ First, which says it’s fighting “cancerous social engineering” and “woke ideology”.
Do you think, in the grand scheme of things, pointless legislation like that really matters?
And, on top of that, public service minister Paul Goldsmith has told government departments they’ve got until the end of next month to make sure they prioritise the English version of their names over the Te Reo version.
It beggars belief, doesn’t it? The arrogance of telling us to wait until after the election for policy details because, apparently, that’s not important to us.
And the pointlessness of a law defining what a man is and what a woman is; and the pointlessness of government departments having to change their logos because some people can’t handle a bit of Te Reo.
All of the examples I’ve just given tell me that our politicians have absolutely no idea what’s important to us.
John MacDonald is the Canterbury Mornings host on Newstalk ZB Christchurch. This article was first published HERE
4 comments:
The weird thing is that our judiciary need to have the words man and woman defined for them. Also that the bill isn't just waved straight through.
As for the use of English names, it should have been done two years ago. That would have been listening to what those that voted them in.
As for Hipkin's comment, he is probably correct for most of us.
The politicians know that we all want democracy restored in NZ, but they play their games pretending that we are more concerned about the cost of living, and other short term issues.
The longer term issue, is NZ divided by race.
Mamdani gets it, he’s balanced the New York Coty budget in a matter of months and improved the public good all in one fell swoop. NZ could do with more economically literate politicians like this guy.
Maybe John, you also don't know what's important to NZ voters when you so easily dismiss the importance of English names in Govt agencies and legalising the description of a man and a woman. Putting tereo name first is just virtue signalling because the purpose of naming anything is to make it easy to identify it, and as we all understand English, it is the logical choice. In a normal world, the definition of a man or a woman, would be easy. But in our current world the judiciary and some deluded citizens need it spelt out for them. Hence the legislation
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.