MacDoctor has a good post on asset sales:
That is not the case, though, for assets sales. Regardless of whether you agree with them or not, there is no doubt that National explicitly stated EXACTLY what they intended to do after the election. Labour also diligently campaigned against asset sales so that the position of both sides was made abundantly clear. It is therefore not possible for voters to say that they were unaware of National’s intentions. Moreover,National has built a sizable portion of its economic recovery plans into this policy – it is not a mere addition that can be dispensed with. Much of National’s manifesto revolves around the sales. To remove asset sales from National’s plans would be to extensively revise their manifesto and, frankly, commit political fraud. They would be saying one thing and doing something radically different.
Meanwhile, I notice a fellow putting up a petition asking for a “binding referendum”. (No link, for reasons that will become apparent.)
When I saw that someone was doing that, my thought were:
a) clearly someone missed the election and
b) well, isn’t that typical!
It reminds me very much of those who “protested” at George Bush’s reinauguration. What exactly were they protesting? The will of the people? Sorry, freedom of speech is one thing, but when all the speech is done and people vote, the result is the result. We may not like it, but we all have to live with it. Like Bush’s election, the issue of asset sales was throughly debated – there can be no question that everyone in New Zealand knew the alleged downsides of National’s plan, and that Labour was opposed to the sales.
(Thanks to Labour, many people no doubt think that National will do more than their rather modest plan, but that only makes the point stronger.)
Well, someone went on this fellow’s blog and suggested he actually pay attention to the election result.
His response? Called the guy a traitor.
I see that comment’s gone now.
No links for bullies.
Written by scrubone
Comments Off