“Moral mandates”, “mass medication”, and Mayors vs Ministers

6
0

.

“Moral mandates”

.

Nats look to 2014 governing options

Acknowledgement: Fairfax Media – Nats look to 2014 governing options

.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

What was that about “moral mandate”, Dear Leader?

Key said the largest party had the “moral mandate” to govern.

“If National was to go out there and poll 46 per cent or 47 per cent – very similar to the result in 2011 – and not form the Government I think there would be outrage in NZ.”

So Key now believes in large numbers and percentages?

Interesting.

Because he certainly paid no heed to the Will of the Electorate when the majority (up to 75% in some polls)  opposed partial privatisation of   State assets.

Nor did Key pay any attention to  the finer points of the results of the  2011 election.  The majority of Party Votes  went to  parties opposing  asset sales,

.

National , ACT, United Future Party Votes Labour, Greens, NZ First, Maori Party, Mana, and Conservative Party votes

National – 1,058,636

Labour – 614,937

ACT – 23,889

Greens – 247,372

United Future – 13,443

NZ First – 147,544

Maori Party – 31,982

Mana – 24,168

Conservative Party* – 59,237

TOTAL – 1,095,968

Total – 1,125,240

.

So even though the Conservative gained no seats in Parliament (*because of the 5% threshold),  they gained over double the electoral-support for ACT. The Conservative Party, it should be noted, opposed asset sales.

It certainly did not matter to Dear Leader on the issue of public opposition to asset sales. He was more than willing to ignore the majority of New Zealanders who opposed his privatisation agenda.

Key’s claim that “morally” he should lead the next government post-2014 because National may be the largest Party  in Parliament – he should remember one thing;  size doesn’t always count.

Key’s assertion  on having a so-called “moral mandate” to govern post-2014, is  obviously a  message directed at  Winston Peters.

His message to Peters  is simple – ‘if we’re the biggest party, then we are the rightful government. And we will push this meme in the public consciousness which will make life difficult for you if you don’t co-operate’.

This is the kind of deviousness which National’s party strategist (taxpayer funded, no doubt) has come up with, to ensure a third term for John Key.

It now falls upon Peters to see if he’ll cave to pressure from the Nats.

Other Blogs

The Standard:  Moral mandates

The Pundit:   On coming first, yet losing

*

.

“Mass medication”

.

Radio NZ logo - Jim Mora's 4-5 Panel Edwards Boag

.

A curious event took place on Monday 1 July on Radio NZ’s Jim Mora’s panel…

His guests that afternon were left-wing, Labour supporter, Dr Brian Edwards and right wing, National supporter, Michelle Boag.

One of the topics of discussion was fluoridation of  urban water supplies. As is usual on issues like this, the debate became passionate.

But curiously, it was the position taken by each guest, Brian Edwards and Michelle Boag, that I found curious.

Usually, a left-winger will argue from a position of Collective action and responsibility. Like the issue of Food in Schools, the Lefts supports the stance that raising children, and ensuring their well-being, is a community responsibility.

The Right usually argues from a position of Individual choice  and responsibility. On the issue of Food in Schools, the Right reject any notion of collective responsibility and instead hold to  total parental responsibility as a default position.

I expected the same in the fluoridation debate between Brian and Michelle – only to find their positions reversed.

Brian was advocating from a Libertarian position of individual choice. He opposed flouridation.

Michelle was supporting the Collectivist position for a socialised benefit. She supported flouridation.

Their debate can be heard here:

Quicktime - Radio NZ - Jim Mora - 1 July 2013

Such complex creatures we humans are…

.

Mayors vs Ministers

.

Eqypt is not the only country wracked with coup d’états.

On  30th March 2010, National seized control of Environment Canterbury, postponing elections, and three weeks later appointing seven, un-elected Commissioners to run the body. The new Commissioners  were vested with new powers to  implement regional plans for Canterbury that could not appealed to the Environment Court (except to the High Court on points of law).

Roger Young, a trustee of the Water Rights Trust,  suggested one of the prime movers for central government seizing control of ECAN was the vexed problem of water rights in the Canterbury region,

After the commissioners’ own recommendations for a mixed member governance model at ECan post-2013 were ignored by the government, we see ECan now as simply a puppet to the bidding of a government which appears determined to increase irrigation and intensive farming in Canterbury despite the first order priorities in the Canterbury Water Management Strategy.

The slow pace of change behind the farm gate means that we will still have rising stocks of dirty water at a level that will haunt Cantabrians for decades.”

Acknowledgement: NBR – ECan ‘just a puppet to government bidding

The Canterbury Central Plains Water project is a half-billion dollar project, and National Ministers wanted to ensure that the money was spent according to their agenda. As we all know, farmers tend to vote National.

Three years later, and National has extended it’s power in the Canterbury region  “to oversee the Council’s consents department”. We are told that this was by invitation by the CCC.  I am reminded of puppet regimes that, once installed by a Super Power (former-USSR, US, China, etc) , duly “invited” their sponsor to send troops to help prop up the proxy government.

Was the Christchurch City Council “persuaded” by Gerry Brownlee to  “invite the Minister for Local Government, Chris Tremain, to put in place a Crown Manager to oversee the Council’s consents department“? Were there back-room dealings where Mayor Bob Parker was issued an ultimatum by Brownlee;

‘Invite us to take over; save face; and save your arse at the up-coming local body elections – or we’ll take over anyway; you have egg on your face; and Lianne Dalziel takes over as Mayor in October – Your call.’

Is that the discrete conversation that took place between Bob Parker and Gerry Brownlee?

I suspect so.

Central Government: 2

Local Government: nil

Another recent announcement had John Key confirming central government’s support for Auckland Council’s rail loop and other transport plans.

Len Brown was, understandably, ecstatic. Christmas has come early for the Auckland Mayor,

I am delighted the government has agreed to support this project

I want to acknowledge Aucklanders for being very clear in their support for this project.”

However, the Nats are not ones to offer something without expecting something else in return,

.

City's shares eyed for rail

Acknowledgement: NZ Herald – City’s shares eyed for rail

.

So central government will pay up a few billion bucks to upgrade Auckland’s transport system – but the Nats expect Auckland City to privatise their community owned assets?

Cheeky buggers.

Draw: 1 all

When it comes to Nanny State, National out-performs the previous Labour government in spades. Labour hardly ever engaged to this degree of interference in local government affairs.  Executive power under National is growing, and impacting more on our lives.

With National intending to increase the powers of the GCSB and force telecommunications companies to store and hand over data to police and the spy agencies, the state’s influence in our lives grows day by day.

By comparison, Labour was practically a hands-off, “libertarian” style government.

*

References

Sharechat.co.nz:  Environment Canterbury elections cancelled as commissioners appointed (30 Match 2010)

Fairfax Media: Environment Canterbury commissioners named (22 April 2010)

Ministry for Primary Industries:  Government funding for Central Plains Water Irrigation (18 Feb 2013)

NBR: ECan ‘just a puppet to government bidding’ (14 March 2013)

Interest.co.nz:  Auckland Mayor celebrates Government’s agreement to support rail loop (26 June 2013)

NZ Herald:  City’s shares eyed for rail (1 July 2013)

Interest.co.nz: PM Key says IANZ decision to strip Christchurch Council of consenting power is ‘unprecedented’ (1 July 2013)

Christchurch City Council:  Council to invite Crown Manager to oversee consenting  (3 July 2013)

.

.

= fs =

6 COMMENTS

  1. I’m curious, with all this ‘moral mandate’ floating around.

    After elections, is there not a ‘Moral duty’ for the two highest polling parties to seek for form government? Surely the public interest would be best served by a government more representative of the public will?

    Our current partisan ideologies seem to completely undermine the duty of our elected leaderships, to act diplomatically in our collective interests?

    Our two largest parties seem all too willing to maintain the current status quo, endless shrewd barracking & unprincipled opposition! It leaves us second to a leadership with one eye on the polls & the other on the party bank balance…..pisses me off!

  2. Edwards is a flaky left on economic matters, but he knows that mass medication is not democratic. That’s a core principle, not really about libertarianism.

    The “right”, like Boag, has inherited mass fluoridation medication as an agenda item. They window-dress it as concern for the public health, but it’s really about who they are opposing: the success of grass roots activists is absolutely anathema to the conservative corporatist status quo. Democracy is the last thing on the minds of the established power elite.

  3. I’m with Edwards. I’m not ok with the ethics of mass medication forced on a non consenting population. However access for all to free public health services should be the cornerstone of a caring and equal society. This should include dental services for all, at any age. Remember school dental clinics?

    And, I guess folks have heard of fluoride toothpaste? Almost hard to avoid toothpaste without fluoride in it.

  4. That because the Nats are all communists. Yeap you heard me right – The old saying Capitalism for the poor and Communism for the rich – rings true for the Nats.

    Reasons the National party are a true modern communist party.

    They are ideological ridged
    They are self absorbed
    They look after there class interests
    They talk economic double speak at the drop of a hat
    They spy on any opposition
    They default to the leader
    They use New speak and twist words to suit there agenda
    And the real reason they are a modern communist party – They misquote Marx.

  5. In small doses, there’s nothing wrong with flouride in the water. Or chlorine for that matter. It’s like anything else, it’s dosage that counts.

    I’m surprised that Edwards talk the anti-side and Boag was pro on the issue. I would’ve thought it’d be the other way round.

    Regards Auckland – Key realises from the Nat’s focus group polling that they’re on a hiding to nowhere by opposing Brown’s Council initiatives. Brownlee is just trying to get a bit more of his own plan through at the same time.

    Len should hold firm on this. The Nats will cave eventually.

    – Re Key’s “moral mandate” crap. He’s panicking.

    So much for not ever going into coalition with Peters. Opportunistic prick.

    • Fluoride when utilised as a preventive of tooth decay is by topical application rather than ingestion so to basically poison the entire water supply for all other consumptive uses just to enable access to flouride is like chartering a whole container ship to transport one car – just plain overkill – I also don’t support the fact that NZ sources fluoride as sodium fluoride from aluminium smelters and fertiliser plants in India

Comments are closed.