Asian Flu
April 29th, 2005 at 7:14 am by David FarrarI really should stop linking to items on the Greens’ blog, because well deep down I do actually want to wipe them out 
However they have pointed out Winston’s hypocrisy so well, I can’t resist a link. Winston is trying to scare-monger that by 2022 there will be more Asians than Maori (which is not what the stats say anyway), and the Greens point out that this is not consistent with his calls in the past for Maori to see themselves as New Zealanders first, Maori second.
In another blog item, the Greens claim credit for getting Civil Unions passed. Certainly their support was needed, but so was the support of those liberal National and ACT MPs who voted for it. No one party can claim credit for getting the law passed.
No tag for this post.
April 29th, 2005 at 7:50 am
The reality is that increase in immigration for NZ is a lot more Asians. The days of British and Irish immigration are over becuase they now have successful economies whereas NZ most successful export are our own citizens with almost 20% of NZers now overseas. We will have to make this country that much more attractive for that and swingeing income tax cuts will be a useful start to lure our graduates back.
Vote:April 29th, 2005 at 9:57 am
The way ACT are going they are going lose quite a number of votes. We do not need the amount of immigration we have got now. Zero immigration would be ideal and if we have a possible recession/depression that will happen. One Asian family of four was granted permission to immigrate here and this number increased to 28 with all the extended family. One reason for immigration is that it further stimulates the economy. Maoris, Islanders and European already here can stimulate the economy.
Vote:April 29th, 2005 at 10:38 am
Hey David: I was getting at the point that the Greens were the only party to vote for it as a matter of party policy, but, sure, liberal National and Act MPs (well, the ones who stuck to their liberal principles, rather than find silly reasons for opposing it – i.e. Don Brash and Stephen Franks) were also vital to the Civil Union Bill passing into law.
Which raises the whole issue of conscience votes, which I find very peculiar: how come parties can come to uniform views on education, race relations, health, the economy, etc, but not on whether to pass laws to make sex workers safer or to give same sex couples similar legal recognition to married couples? What makes moral/social issues different? Isn’t law always a question of morality?
Vote:April 29th, 2005 at 10:47 am
Isn’t law often a question of immorality? Two redlight related murders in the last few weeks is not a sign that street workers lives are getting safer. There will be more. Going for the easy options does not solve the problem but inevitably it will crop somewhere else bigger.
Vote:April 29th, 2005 at 10:50 am
The thing that worries me as a Labour activist is that we took the shit for the legislation, and others either a) try and take the credit, or b) attack us for being “PC” while supporting “PC” things that we do, like CU.
Vote:April 29th, 2005 at 11:06 am
Frog’s point about conscience votes and party policy incited some blog posts a few months back – asking questions about whether we should have conscience votes in areas where parties have policy, etc:
Vote:http://leftandlefter.blogspot.com/2004/11/conscience-voting-continued.html
has the links to the other posts in it too
April 29th, 2005 at 11:18 am
Jordan’s point is quite right. It’s odd that the Clark government is attacked as PC for pursuing legislation that only came into being because of the votes of MPs from the same parties doing the PC-accusing (mostly, I’m thinking Act and National here).
Vote:April 29th, 2005 at 12:09 pm
On the issue of why some votes are free and some are not, it is basically pragmatism. Having no whipping at all on any issue makes it very hard for a Government to function well. The US shows the dangers of no strong whipping.
However issues of I suppose personal morality are such that whipping your MPs to say vote for euthanasia when they fervently believe otherwise is just going to create huge resentment.
On the PC front, you have a number of angles. There are many within National who were against CUs and do see that as part of the Govt being too PC. There are others like me who supports CUs, but do regard the Govt as too PC in other areas such as Maori spiritualism etc.
Basically what is PC varies with the beholder. I’ve been accused of being too PC on a few occassions!
Vote:April 29th, 2005 at 2:54 pm
Which illustrates nicely what a meaningless load of dribble the whole “PC” thing is. The use of the term PC says more about the users beliefs than the subject referred to.
Vote:April 29th, 2005 at 3:36 pm
When are those so called Liberals of the Opposition parties going to wake up. There is no such thing as a conscience vote for Labour they are getting sucked in to aid that Party’s Social agenda and sending out false signals as to what they stand for.
Vote:April 29th, 2005 at 5:11 pm
To be a Liberal would require the denial of quite a bit of reality wouldn’t it or is it just a postponement of the inevitable?
Vote:April 29th, 2005 at 5:52 pm
To be a Liberal in the true original sense of the word is to be fully in accordance with reality and to move with it.Socialists on the other hand try to live in spite of the facts of reality and it should come as no suprise that they fail to bring about the world of plenty for everyone that they claim to want for the people.
Vote:April 29th, 2005 at 6:05 pm
Good answer James, what about a liberal in the theological sense?
Vote:April 29th, 2005 at 7:12 pm
Liberal in a theological sense? In-fighting over whose imaginary friend said what is of little importance outside the various god clubs.
Vote:April 29th, 2005 at 9:42 pm
But it does affect politics.
Vote: