- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Wednesday, August 10, 2005

If I was standing for Auckland Central...

The key message would be:
I'm asking only for your electorate vote so we can get rid of the useless, time-serving, lacky, Judith Tizard
elect someone with a long-term plan to solve Auckland's transport crisis
will have that plan as the sole non-negotiable item for joining a government.

Oh, and all the other socially liberal stuff you would expect with the only fascistic items being of a nationalistic rather than conservative rationale.

The last item about government is pertinent if the polling is very close - as it is now - when forming a workable coalition may come down to the wire and thus gives some parties and members disproportionate power relative to size.

Controversial issues would be dealt with by having ambiguous images and slogans. Eg:
The drugs policy ad/billboard/poster would be a picture of a guy (maybe the candidate?) giving a girl a shottie near-kiss (the smoke just visible), extreme close up at 45 degree angle in black and white with the scary stencilled block words in blood red along the bottom: "STRONG ON DRUGS"

Asking for the electorate vote only for an independent electorate/regional-specific agenda is what MMP should be all about. Yes, it will cause an over-hang in parliament if everyone does it - but the electorate is the real winner.

And just so we're clear: the current dollops of election year transport funding will be frittered away as it always is without any long-term plan in place - and it isn't. Whose fault? The "Minister for Auckland." She is an insult to the collective dignity of the electorate.


At 11/8/05 10:27 am, Blogger Simon Pound said...

Having lived in the AK Central electorate for five years, I'd say that statement 'an insult to the collective dignity of the electorate' is stinging criticism indeed.

Not a lot of dignity to go around in AK central.

At 11/8/05 11:39 am, Blogger t selwyn said...

Having lived here for 10 years (longer I believe than Tizard) that was a measured understatement.

The only time I met her she breezed into my shop, glad-handed, put on her fake smile, said something vapid and left without displaying a shred of either intelligence or sincerity. I suspect that would be the same experience of people no matter what the setting she was in.

There's a reason she is the chief hand-bag carrier for the PM and yet not in cabinet: she is a useless light weight with little respect from even her peers.

By her own admission she is "no great thinker or doer" (from a Metro interview from memory).

Why do we have to have her as an MP?


Post a Comment

<< Home