OJBs Web Site: Blog Page

Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

Add a Comment (Go Up to OJB's Blog Page)

Can We Trust Them?

Entry 827, on 2008-08-05 at 22:00:11 (Rating 3, Politics)

Can we trust our politicians to do what they told us they would do and to do what is really best for the country? No. Thank you, that is the end of this blog entry.

Not really, I want to explore this idea a bit more, especially in relation to the latest political storm here in New Zealand relating to the possible sale of assets if/when the National party wins the next election. They won't commit to anything beyond their first term in power (3 years) which is fair enough, but are they planning on asset sales after that? After the latest revelations that seems like it might be true.

Why would anyone sell Kiwibank? It has been a real success, both in its own right by attracting customers (they are currently gaining 2000 per week) and by keeping the other banks (almost all of which are owned overseas) a bit more honest regarding their services and fees.

I can only imagine 3 reasons anyone would want to sell this useful, government owned asset: first, they have ideological reasons for doing so, even though logic shows that they shouldn't; second, they have some special relationship with the other banks who might be pressuring them in some way to sell off Kiwibank; and third, they are just unbelievably stupid. Of course, there is no reason to believe the strategists in the National party would be limited to just one of these vices, its certainly possible that all three apply.

Don't think I am specifically targeting National here as being untrustworthy. I'm not very impressed with Labour's performance recently and I wouldn't trust many of the smaller parties much either. Actually, I should correct that because the smaller parties are more trustworthy if only because you know where you are with them. For example, you can virtually guarantee that Act would follow a crazy right wing philosophy and you know they would sell off assets. I would never vote for them but at least I know what they stand for. You can't be so sure of the more centrist parties like National and Labour.

So I don't offer any any voting advice here, just to be aware of what is going on behind the scenes and to look at the good and bad in all the parties. And remember that tactical voting is part of the fun of an MMP system!

Comment 18 (1601) by SBFL on 2008-09-02 at 20:52:06: (view earlier comments)

I did not avoid your question (man I am getting sick and tired of you unfairly accusing me of avoiding your questions (incl other posts obviously) - is this your way of looking like you are 'winning' the debate? How childish and desperate!). You seem to have avoided reading my earlier comment from which your question came form. In comment 14 I clearly state the social-engineering agenda. Do you not know what this means?

Your excuse for Labour putting through legislation that they did not campaign on (aka "secret agenda") speaks for itself.

You're splitting hairs on the SOE's.

Comment 19 (1609) by OJB on 2008-09-03 at 10:08:13:

OK, sorry about that accusation, which wasn't correct in this case. Reading back I see you were talking about broad philosophies, not policies. But a social engineering agenda shouldn't really be a surprise to anyone because all parties have these. More specifically are you talking about the anti-smacking, emissions trading, and that sort of thing?

Comment 20 (1625) by SBFL on 2008-09-18 at 19:03:29:

Appreciate the recant, you got me irked earlier for sure.

No, no I was talking about policies (philosophies in action?). Yes social-engineering being anti-smacking, civil unions, smokefree bars, prostitution reform, amongst others no doubt. I really don't recall Labour campaigning on these issues, but I do recall seeing many letters to the editor complaining about how Labour's intentions were only revealed after they were voted in. Perhaps you can provide an election manifesto or previous policy document that at least indicates they were thinking about making the changes they did with those new laws? (In case you mention it, I am aware anti-smacking was initiated by the Green Party)

Comment 21 (1627) by OJB on 2008-09-18 at 21:56:54:

So you see all of those things as being social engineering. It seems to me that just about everything a government does in the area of social policy (which is surely a reasonable part of a government's job) might be social engineering.

I would have to look back through Labour's policy statements before the last election to know whether they were mentioned or not. At least they are within the philosophy of what we would expect from them. Also, as you point out, labour is only one part (admittedly the biggest part) of the government.

Comment 22 (1635) by SBFL on 2008-09-19 at 20:09:18:

It's generally accepted as being such by the general population.
Nothing like the extent of the current govt.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

To add a comment: enter a name and email (both optional), type the number shown above, enter a comment, then click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.