We have bottom lines, but not real bottom lines.
1) More power to the Commerce Commission. Big deal...
2) A 10-year health plan. That means nothing.
3) Reforming lobbying. That's hardly a thing. It means a lot, or little, or nothing, but it's hard to be against it.
4) Bottom trawling. It's an odd one because it's not one of life's great issues in a world of war, terror, and white bread prices.
5) Keeping the Climate Change Commission. Once again, big deal.
I'd agree to all of that to shut them up and get on with running the country.
The Government is littered with do-gooder, go nowhere departments. The Climate Commission makes literally no difference to anything. They have no teeth, they just recommend stuff, like a coroner or Privacy Commissioner.
So what are we left with?
The land tax is not a bottom line. The universal income is nowhere to be seen.
In very general terms this would appear to make them much more appealing to a wider selection of voters.
Is anyone actually against any of their actual bottom lines?
Can National revisit their potential accommodation with them? They were ruled out because they sounded barking mad, turning everyone into a beneficiary. Now they aren't.
If National needs six votes, are they the end of the world? Are they for example any more extreme than New Zealand First's opposition to the India FTA or ACT's stand on not breaking up supermarkets?
If you accept them at their word they are a classic middle-of-the-road type operation. Ironically, they're so middle-of-the-road there appears no real need for them.
Was their extreme tax position simply an attention grab? Will turning out to be bland on the bottom lines mean their support now fades, given they stand for stuff pretty much everyone stands for?
How do you disagree with a 10-year health plan, whatever that is?
They are either suckers, or manipulators, or Machiavellian, but for those who flocked to them to see major reform, it ain't happening.
Their "get in the tent first" approach is way smarter, but in being now overtly nondescript, have they blown their chances of getting into the tent at all?
Mike Hosking is a New Zealand television and radio broadcaster. He currently hosts The Mike Hosking Breakfast show on NewstalkZB on weekday mornings - where this article was sourced.
4) Bottom trawling. It's an odd one because it's not one of life's great issues in a world of war, terror, and white bread prices.
5) Keeping the Climate Change Commission. Once again, big deal.
I'd agree to all of that to shut them up and get on with running the country.
The Government is littered with do-gooder, go nowhere departments. The Climate Commission makes literally no difference to anything. They have no teeth, they just recommend stuff, like a coroner or Privacy Commissioner.
So what are we left with?
The land tax is not a bottom line. The universal income is nowhere to be seen.
In very general terms this would appear to make them much more appealing to a wider selection of voters.
Is anyone actually against any of their actual bottom lines?
Can National revisit their potential accommodation with them? They were ruled out because they sounded barking mad, turning everyone into a beneficiary. Now they aren't.
If National needs six votes, are they the end of the world? Are they for example any more extreme than New Zealand First's opposition to the India FTA or ACT's stand on not breaking up supermarkets?
If you accept them at their word they are a classic middle-of-the-road type operation. Ironically, they're so middle-of-the-road there appears no real need for them.
Was their extreme tax position simply an attention grab? Will turning out to be bland on the bottom lines mean their support now fades, given they stand for stuff pretty much everyone stands for?
How do you disagree with a 10-year health plan, whatever that is?
They are either suckers, or manipulators, or Machiavellian, but for those who flocked to them to see major reform, it ain't happening.
Their "get in the tent first" approach is way smarter, but in being now overtly nondescript, have they blown their chances of getting into the tent at all?
Mike Hosking is a New Zealand television and radio broadcaster. He currently hosts The Mike Hosking Breakfast show on NewstalkZB on weekday mornings - where this article was sourced.
8 comments:
What about their Treaty policies? I can see major implications with those.
The TOP /Opportunity fiasco has run its race and will not feature meaningfully this election whereas the growing public understanding of splitting your lawful personal votes this election is now widely understood.
To return the current Coalition simply;
Electorate Vote National , Party Vote ACT or NZF
They are Fabian’s, & once they’re in we won’t be able to get them out! Fabian’s are as bad as communists. Socialism with a side of social justice- because if you work hard or sacrifice today so you can have a bit more tomorrow then they take your tomorrow off you and redistribute it to the slackers of yesterday.
If you’re one of the oppressed you deserve endless charity until the charity becomes your right in life (while removing your dignity- but you don’t notice).
If you’re not white your ancestors were oppressed which makes you oppressed- never mind that everyone has ancestors who were oppressed or enslaved at various points in history.
The Fabian’s are just plain stupid and evil.
A vote for top is a vote of madness
I tend to agree with Basil when he says that TOP "has run its race and will not feature meaningfully this election." The novelty has worn off and people at large have come to realise that TOP is a flash in the pan with very little substance.
The three great fallacies that define woke consciousness are, first, that being a victim makes you morally superior to other people; second, that this superiority can be inherited; and third, that this superiority is unaffected by your actions — thus you can be a bully and a tyrant, and still remain morally superior to other people because your ancestors were victims.
Even though, without land tax and the dependent UBI, TOP is merely a shell, when you hold it to your ear you can still hear a faint voice whispering “ Free money if you vote for me”
Yes for TOP to abandon its two main economic policies which were based on supporting that party's moral principles relating to reducing inequality = namely land tax to pay for a universal basic income = is equivalent to the party saying it has principles but is happy to abandon them in the name of more money and power for the party. Which makes them like our other politicians so who needs them
Fabian dilettantes
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.