Sunday, October 09, 2005

Why and how can any party to the RIGHT of Labour contemplate ANY agreement that allows smorgasbord lawmaking?

What's in it for them?

There seems to be something wrong about the way it is reported Clark is being allowed to contemplate her coalition. At the moment Labour does not have a majority. Just because she can cobble together a grouping that will vote a certain way at certain times should not be taken as a proxy for that grouping(s) representing 'how the electorate wanted Parliment to operate'.

Why would there be any circumstances (excepting of course international/national crisis) where a party would effectively stand aside from a Policy that was a direct misalignment of that Party's own mandate and mission.

Why would any politician with any integrity let Clark cherry pick her way through the next Parliament? What's in it for them? OK so you get a Families Commission, but you also had to stand aside while the Civil Union Bill became law and Prostitution was made lawful - to highlight the paradoxical pieces of social law enacted in the last Parliment.

Have we voted for smorgasboard lawmaking by the highest Court in the land?

Just because Clark has no scruples and will do 'whatever' to govern for an historic third time; no one else should feel it is an honourable course.

To my mind as the largest party she should be allowed to form a minority Government and have to eat what she kills along the road. That is how the electorate voted. No deals - just go hard.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Use of sedition law causes stir in Singapore blogging community
Singapore, wary of alienating its Muslim Malay minority, has cracked down hard on two men who posted racist remarks on the Internet, but the move caused concern in the growing community of bloggers.
Find out how to buy and sell anything, like things related to private road construction on interest free credit and pay back whenever you want! Exchange FREE ads on any topic, like private road construction!