I can't disagree with much of that however I do hope that you'll now have a piece on how 'liberals' have captured the media and public discourse. Academics, the judiciary and state servants have run. roughshod over public debate and the mainstream media have prevented right of centre ideas a platform.
Bryce, you may be right that ACT’s pivot to cultural politics was a cynical play for political advantage. I kinda feel it was. You could make the same argument perhaps about Seymour’s End of Life legislation.
Sincere or not, ACT’s promotion of the Treaty Principles Bill did challenge a monopoly of another sort. I’m referring to today’s strengthening monopoly on Treaty Truth.
Thinking Kiwis who are discomforted by, as you say, the rise and rise of Māori rights are rightfully sceptical of declarations that the Treaty was NZ’s founding document. It was never intended to be so. It was a contract through which a reluctant British Crown consolidated the legality of bringing British law to bear on a lawless country . Likewise, suggestions that the Treaty Principles Bill sought to radically redefine the Treaty are profoundly concerning. Do you mean the Treaty which has been so comprehensively and radically redefined by Māori sovereignty monopolists that the rangatira signatories of 1840 would scarcely recognise it?
The poliical elite i.e. all parties and there enablers say to ordinary NZ'ers ...."Be grateful for the things we do for NZ" so hypocritcal and corrupt when they put pen to paper. We all have to grin and bare their dispicable behaviour and I mean AOG.
Generally an ACT supporter and fan of David Seymour's obvious intellect and calm, verbal eloquence. However I've noticed a recent pattern of what appear to be very poorly drafted ACT bills with wording that seriously compromises David Seymour's stated goals. For example the Regulatory Standards Bill that should have been a shining example of good legislation was almost the opposite, with poor definitions and unjustified exceptions that appear to be there just for political convenience, such as not rocking the tribal boat. Part of the problem I suspect is that David does not have the necessary mongrel to cut through objections, particularly coming from National. So ACT may well have similarly caved in to push back with regards breaking up the supermarket duopoly etc. But there is also some truth in scaring off potential new competitors, particularly when quite frankly the risk (including all chums together cronyism) vs reward of investing in tiny NZ is right on the edge. If David Seymour had the combative yet charismatic abilities of a Winston Peters, without the what's in it for Winston aspect, I suspect it would be different.
As ever, I plead: would (could) someone with a better brain than mine propose a solution - how can we get the parties to select candidates with the necessary intelligence and moral integrity, and how to so inform 'we the people' that we know how to identify them and so vote them in.
I can't disagree with much of that however I do hope that you'll now have a piece on how 'liberals' have captured the media and public discourse. Academics, the judiciary and state servants have run. roughshod over public debate and the mainstream media have prevented right of centre ideas a platform.
Hear, hear.
Sinaloa Seymour is right up there with the best cartel guardians in the business. He is a bloody disgrace.
Bryce, you may be right that ACT’s pivot to cultural politics was a cynical play for political advantage. I kinda feel it was. You could make the same argument perhaps about Seymour’s End of Life legislation.
Sincere or not, ACT’s promotion of the Treaty Principles Bill did challenge a monopoly of another sort. I’m referring to today’s strengthening monopoly on Treaty Truth.
Thinking Kiwis who are discomforted by, as you say, the rise and rise of Māori rights are rightfully sceptical of declarations that the Treaty was NZ’s founding document. It was never intended to be so. It was a contract through which a reluctant British Crown consolidated the legality of bringing British law to bear on a lawless country . Likewise, suggestions that the Treaty Principles Bill sought to radically redefine the Treaty are profoundly concerning. Do you mean the Treaty which has been so comprehensively and radically redefined by Māori sovereignty monopolists that the rangatira signatories of 1840 would scarcely recognise it?
The poliical elite i.e. all parties and there enablers say to ordinary NZ'ers ...."Be grateful for the things we do for NZ" so hypocritcal and corrupt when they put pen to paper. We all have to grin and bare their dispicable behaviour and I mean AOG.
Generally an ACT supporter and fan of David Seymour's obvious intellect and calm, verbal eloquence. However I've noticed a recent pattern of what appear to be very poorly drafted ACT bills with wording that seriously compromises David Seymour's stated goals. For example the Regulatory Standards Bill that should have been a shining example of good legislation was almost the opposite, with poor definitions and unjustified exceptions that appear to be there just for political convenience, such as not rocking the tribal boat. Part of the problem I suspect is that David does not have the necessary mongrel to cut through objections, particularly coming from National. So ACT may well have similarly caved in to push back with regards breaking up the supermarket duopoly etc. But there is also some truth in scaring off potential new competitors, particularly when quite frankly the risk (including all chums together cronyism) vs reward of investing in tiny NZ is right on the edge. If David Seymour had the combative yet charismatic abilities of a Winston Peters, without the what's in it for Winston aspect, I suspect it would be different.
Bravo Bryce - I'd love to see you debate David Seymour - I'm sure Sean Plunkett would like to be in on that lol
And where are we heading with water corporation built own public assets.
As ever, I plead: would (could) someone with a better brain than mine propose a solution - how can we get the parties to select candidates with the necessary intelligence and moral integrity, and how to so inform 'we the people' that we know how to identify them and so vote them in.
An excellent piece, thank you.