Hooton on Smacking Compromise
May 6th, 2007 at 8:28 am by David FarrarMatthew Hooton backgrounds the smacking compromise, and what it means politically.
No tag for this post.Panicked, the government spent March prancing about, trying to make it go away. It attacked parents who were concerned about the bill – the prime minister smeared them as thrashers and beaters, reminiscent of her vilifying the hikoi marchers as “haters and wreckers”. She considered adopting the bill as a government measure, or forcing it through under urgency, but she couldn’t get the support.
Faced with the inevitability that Clark would move, Key had two options. He could make the most of it, and position himself as the equal of the nation’s leader, or he could risk being associated with the bill’s more rabid opponents, who were advancing towards the steps of parliament. The latter was never a real option for National’s cosmopolitan new leader.
In allowing the compromise, Key threw away an opportunity for his backbenchers to have a field day against Labour and he’s given Cullen an opening to promote whatever inspiring initiatives are in his Budget – but it is doubtful he gave away much more. For all the heat they generate in the short run, conscience issues don’t dominate election campaigns.
What Clark has given up is much more important – the ability to ever again demonise Key as a wolf in sheep’s clothing, the son of Ruth Richardson, the pawn of the religious right.
Such charges – however dishonest, even ludicrous – were to have been the central theme of her re-election strategy next year. Smearing Key was essential to Clark to allow her to use the same crude fear tactics and “Don’t Put It All Risk” slogan with which she so successfully slayed Don Brash in the final week of the 2005 campaign.
Key has acted on his own conscience and judgement. He has done the right thing, and he has been politically smart at the same time, leaving Labour’s planned 2008 election strategy in tatters. He is on his way to the prime ministership. Those who can’t stomach the new, modern National Party he is building can always go and vote for Act.
May 6th, 2007 at 11:22 am
Hooten of course was for John Key from the start. And he used to say so while Don Brash was leader.
Then he went ‘quiet’ for a while. Rumour has it his spine turned to jelly.
No he has found his lost enthusiasm for John Key , he is being very brave in saying JK should be the next PM.
Whats the high horse attitude about demonising Key?
National and ACT used to do the same to Helen.
Remember Helengrad, the childless jibes. and so on.
This is politics and at the top levels its tough . Too bad if you dont like it.
Vote:If this was Australia or the UK Don Brash would have been unmasked far far earlier. Totally unsuited for politics at the top level is being kind.
May 7th, 2007 at 7:51 am
Right. Helen thought let’s help John out, so I can’t smear him again. Set him up to look prime ministerial.
Vote:May 7th, 2007 at 10:11 am
Matthew Hooten needs to stop smoking P and start taking his medication regularly, or the nice doctors will come and take him away.
Vote:May 7th, 2007 at 10:44 am
In response to the comment about labours “crude fear tactics”. Every party does this. All National’s “national standard testing” education policy does is create a fear that New Zealand children aren’t being measured for progress. This is completely untrue of course. Teachers use many ways of measuring childrens progress.
Vote:May 7th, 2007 at 11:03 am
And so the slipping and sliding begins:
Here’s John Key on Close-Up last week:
“… let me say this Mark: if, once the bill is passed if good … parents get criminalised for lightly smacking their children, and I become Prime Minister of New Zealand, we will change the law.”
No ambiguity there. A promise.
Here’s John Key at the weekend, in a speech at Palmerston North:
“If the bill does not work, then I for one, if I am Prime Minister of New Zealand, will work to change it.” (emphasis added)
A subtle but clear change. The promise is now negotiable.
By next year – maybe next week – it will be “up for discussion” or “on the table”, with a nice woolly promise to “review”.
A review that the government’s own amendment has, in fact, already ensured.
Vote:May 7th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
I just checked with National Head Office in Wellington and National will be using the Whips to force National MPs to vote for Bradford’s amended bill.
I would like hear someone in National particularly Michael Hooton how National can justify this considering the way John Key criticised Labour for doing the same thing.
It appears John Key is doing a numbers game. He figures that he will gain more votes from the centre than he will lose from the right. He figures those on the right who are unhappy will have no option but to vote ACT. That may be a miscalculation.
He has ignored National members who contribute their time and money. I was a National member while Don Brash was leader. I hoped to continue and contribute to National. However, shortly after John Key came to power someone sent me an interview John Key did for GayNZ.
John Key, supporter of equality for gays and lesbians
03DEC06 – Jay Bennie
http://www.gaynz.com/aarticles/templates/Political.asp?articleid=1587&zoneid=3
I do not think John Key can expect loyalty from National Party members considering the lack of loyalty he showed to Brash in the above interview.
I did not renew my National Party membership after Key showed what a flip flop he was.
I hope all National Party members who are unhappy with Key using the Whips to help force through this anti family legislation.
Vote:May 7th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
Matthew Hooten needs to stop smoking P and start taking his medication regularly…
Doesn’t seem to have done you a lick of good, Tom.
Vote:May 7th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
LOL Ranapia. These attacks on Key every hour or so are getting tiresome.
Maybe a commenter should escape the internet and actually bite him.
Vote:May 9th, 2007 at 9:56 am
Perhaps Matthew Hooten will stop praising John Key’s astute judgment when he grasps the full impact of his decision to use his party whips to force all National Party members to support Sue Bradford’s flawed anti-family Bill
The consequences of police not using their discretion properly when pursuing a conviction against parent(s) for smacking their child are highlighted in the case of Don and Anne Eathorne who were criminalised for applying what most NZ parents would consider to be “inconsequential force” to a 10 year-old boy for the purpose of corrrection. The Judge acknowleged that the smacks were “benighn” and this was his response to the “question of fact” he addressed in summing up, re the “reasonableness of the force”.
See: Smacking Inconsequential: Police Still Prosecute
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0705/S00121.htm
The amendment Mr Key has agreed to, without apparently consulting his caucus or getting legal opinion, does nothing to alleviate the very real concerns of the tens of thousands of NZ parents who are signing the referendum petitions circulating that call for better protection for parents against proscution and a full inquiry into the real causes of child abuse.
Vote:May 9th, 2007 at 10:13 am
Just spotted this shocker on You Tube on John Key’s deeply flawed and “Peace in Our Time” – Grand Consensus – on Sue Bradford’s deeply flawed Anti-smacking Bill. Does anyone know who’s putting up this material? Perhaps it needs to be checked out by the Chief Censor’s Office.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXE7kVm8s6Q
Vote: