It’s been an interesting lead-up to New Zealand’s election so far, and it’s made me ponder a few things.
What do politicians think of the ‘ordinary’ voter? There has been a bit of a sneaky deal done between two of our right-wing parties- National, the incumbents and ACT, a dreadfully dysfunctional bunch of far-right wannabees. These people have one chance of getting into parliament and that one chance realistically hangs on whether or not John Banks (an ex-National MP) can get himself elected in Epsom, one of the central Auckland seats. It’s all to do with MMP and elected candidates or electoral percentages. For ACT to get into parliament they need Banks to be returned, or to capture at least 5% of the nation’s vote (and as they are currently polling point zero something percent there seems little likelihood of getting anybody in ob THAT!!) So why my question? It seems a deal has been done (over a cup of tea?) that National will undersell and undermine their own candidate and urge National voters to cast their votes instead for ACT. Bugger that! I wish to vote for the person or party that presents me with the best policies and will best represent my views and fulfill my expectations. I do not wish to vote for the person I am told to vote for. Does that mean I would NOT vote according to my feelings because I’m being bullied? Probably not, IF the candidate made more sense than this disgraceful racist buffoon does. (Little wonder the biggest Pacifica city in the world didn’t want him as mayor any more!! Pity that these views WILL appeal to many in the electorate.)
Where are the thinking parts of people’s brains at a time like this? In the light of the ‘tapegate’ furore in Britain involving the invasion of people’s privacy by the media via bugging of cell-phone conversations, there is an “inadvertent” recording made of conversation between Prime Minister John Key and ACT hopeful, John Banks at a cafe over a ‘cup of tea’! Can this bloody idiot even remotely entertain the thought that people will believe it was ‘inadvertent’? I think not!
And now the Prime Minister is saying he will not make the contents of the recorded conversation public. Why ever not? He and his wee friend were in a public place and by extension whatever they said is public, surely! Did they whisper? Did they hold hands over mouths so as not to be lip-read? Did they exclude other members of the public from the cafe during the tete-a-tete? Did they ban the media? No to all of those, so why on earth block publication of the text? Maybe John #1 said to John #2 it was perfectly OK with him to make racist comments as part of his election promises! Of course it DOES fall in line with John #1’s attitude towards the voting public of New Zealand- almost the mushroom principle in action- “keep them in the dark and feed them on shit”!
In a Herald poll recently they asked whether it was OK for politicians to ‘bend the truth’? (Is that the same as LYING? It is in my book) The options were ‘Yes’, ‘No’ and ‘Only If It Serves The Greater Good’. The ‘Yeses’ scraped together a comparatively small number of votes, and the ‘Noes’ received by far the majority, but what concerned me was the percentage of the polsters who said it was OK ‘if it served the common good’!!! For God’s sake, a lie is a lie is a lie! How can it serve the ‘common good’, particularly when it is told by a politician, someone I’m sure NO-ONE would buy a used car from!!! Of course the poll was taken only after it was established that several lies had already been told to the voting public (sorry, truth’s had been bent.)
It annoyed, no, it disgusted me that the National Party would use the rebuild of Christchurch as an election promise. It doesn’t matter which party is the government, the government is bound to play a major role in the rebuild of the earthquake ravaged city.
The Greens say they will partially fund the Auckland CBD rail loop by taking money from Transmission Gully. I for one am becoming increasingly anti-Auckland by continuing instances of the rest of the country paying for Auckland infrastructure justified by the argument that it’s good for the country! I have seen NO examples locally of wonderful growth spin-offs from Auckland spending on roads, rail, or bridges!
And by “taking money from Transmission Gully” are they saying that project is a dead issue for them? And why? Because its construction may threaten a stream? Surely a viable arterial motorway out of the nation’s capital is an absolute necessity?
And just to wrap this rant up, it never ceases to make me wonder how a smarmy, duplicitous dipsomaniac who repeatedly shows his contempt for the media in general and correspondents who ask for direct answers in particular can be rising up the polls as quickly as he is. It is nothing to do with his party because no-one knows who his party are!!! I guess it’s a matter of saying outrageous things and you will appeal to outrageous people who don’t like the other outrageous bastards as much!!
I could probably carry on in a similar vein for some time but I’m just getting a wee bit too depressed thinking what the body politic’s views are of we, the great un-washed, the voter. Oh well, I might as well go out and sell my body or pan for some gold- I’m as likely to get as much doing that as I am going to get after the election, pretty much regardless of WHO is returned to power!