Lyndon Hood - Inner crybaby, Lower Hutt

Monday, September 05, 2005


It took this to make me realise how viscerally I don't want National to win this election.

I didn't spend this last term hating National's tone and the bulk of their actual constructive suggestions to have them become the Government now.

Especially since they have, by my count, maybe five policies.

1) Tax cuts.

2) Let's pretend everyone is white.

And, where a is a variable indicating some particular policy area:

3) We have announced a clear plan regarding a (although at least to other plans that may or may not be similar have been announced around the same time), and our budget allows us to spend not more than half of what you might reasonably expect it will cost.

And then we'll throw in some extra as well, like more police with extra law and order spending that was earmarked for the abolition of parole and wasn't enough even then.


4) We assert that the current government has done badly as regards a. We will hold an enquiry after the election.

I suppose it's quite reasonable to sound middle-of-the-road of you don't actually say what you are going to do.

Which isn't to say Labour hasn't been releasing a whole lot of late policy this last week or so. But it's generally been, 'we will do much the same, only a bit more so'. National has gotten deeply into the habit of disavowing anything its ministers might have said before last month, so theirs tend to be shorter on detail and bigger on surprises.

Combine this with the general chaos surrounding policy announcements, and I have to do some serious mental squinting to work out how such a noticeable number of people seem to think Brash is doing a good job.

Of course, it's possible they're just bored of Labour.

Anyhow, if people are going for that shit, it's difficult to know how to respond. Which brings me to ...

National's Service Cuts

Or, since National're obviously in no hurry to say what they are - though they sometimes respond to direct questions about, say, DOC - perhaps 'National's Shadowy Service Cuts'. Something sinister like that.

How about we all call them that from now on? Keep away from the T**-word. The right-wing bloggers can stay on-message, so why can't we? Be like them! Don't let a conscience and a sense of perspective get in the way of victory!

Cullen came out swinging on this one today, summarising a lot of people's vague and/or concrete suspicions. I imagine that people have given up on the generals of the tax debate and vote for their wallet, but you never know. Every little bit helps.

And when I say 'vote for their wallet', that is of course excluding and extra costs of services or lack of pay rises that might ensue.

Cullen's stuff here and here (powerpoint). Evaluate it if you dare. I'm keen to see Key's response, if only to find out if he just says "oh not it isn't" like he did with transport.

We're talking several of billions. Wasteful spending wasteful schmending.

Other Campaign News

  • Don Brash told the Dom Post that National will only be keeping Working for Families until they think of something else to do. Which, among other things, means that their tax calculator is based on some very short-term assumptions. Or, to look it another way, is lying.

  • I suspect that Labour use of Clark's parliamentary leader fun for their pledge card is allowed. Not that I've minutely inspected the rules or the card. It's certainly not the obvious monument to brazen rule-origami that was the Working for Families campaign. I do find it amusing that Stephen Franks is laying a complaint, considering what his leader put out earlier in the campaign.

  • The other day at the fruit and vege market I saw a big dog walking along with a "Party Vote Labour" coat on. Then, around when it vanished into the crowd, along came a hairy little dog with a "Party Vote Labour" coat on. That was kind of cute.

    And this morning I got handed one of those controversial pledge cards by Trevor Mallard himself. Consider me reached, I guess.