according to your own words it may reasonably be called an attack on process, but calling it an attack on democracy is just silly nonsense. Personally I have no problems with their use of the process. Labour left the country in a real mess, and National (the democratically elected government) is getting on with the job.

Faster please.

“…..Had Don Brash won the election before last, National would have done almost exactly the same things. And don’t pretend they wouldn’t have…..”

Are you serious?

Don Brash as PM would have passed a bill circumscribing third party free speech in election year? Or an anti-smacking law? Or an ill-considered Emissions Trading Scheme? Don Brash would have been looking at banning foods in schools and banning light bulbs and shower heads?

Don Brash would have presided over a continuation of RMA and LGA strangulation of development in NZ; and a property price bubble and record distortions in investment patterns supported by private overseas borrowing and monetary and fiscal policy incompetence?

MATE. The fact that we didn’t get a Don Brash government is one of the unrecognised “what might have been” tragedies of NZ political history. Imagine: Tax cuts, especially tax cuts on business. Freed-up development and a housing construction boom and affordable houses, no lunatic property investment “bubble”; investment money going into productive activity like it should have all along, and productivity increases putting the economy on a sound footing for the future……..NZ’s finance companies still standing, having wisely invested in areas other than in a property bubble that didn’t happen.

Talk about NZ having been responsibly managed and now only being unluckily affected by fallout from “Wall Street”; is 100% false. It would have been true though, under the circumstances I have just described.

Two wrongs don’t make a right.

And the ultimate in rant and cant was to watch your mob wax hysterical about changes to the bail laws and then troop meekly in to the Ayes Lobby to vote for it. Didn’t even have the courage of their own ‘convictions’ to vote No.

Labour is a wasted space getting wasted.

This is a great contrast with Helen’s government. Not only did she refuse to change her policy in the face of overwhelming arguements as to its stupidity (as well as general public disapproval), but bagged any other party that did so as “flip-floppers”. Now am I the only one who actually likes the idea of a government listening to the people it is supposed to represent and being prepared to adjust some of its policy if better alternatives are brought up.

I think more than small businesses will be interested in this law – it wouldn’t surprise me if most employers (including government departments) adopted this scheme as part of a standard employment contract. The unions hate it, but I think they will come round when they realise that it will only be used against employees who are not performing within the first 6 months, have trouble getting out of bed, are lazy etc. Call it a long-term interview…

If you have ever changed jobs, it does take some time to come up to speed with a new one. Good employers will realise this and if they provide the right training to new staff, they should be happy with them within the probationary period provided the worker has the right attitude.

If the boss is a w*nker, then the worker would be happy to leave and move to another job. With employers willing to give people a shot, there should be more opportunities for the low-skilled to find a job they are good at and get satisfaction from. The power to hire and fire goes both ways. Bosses who don’t provide the right incentives to keep staff in low skilled areas – because they can more easily find work elsewhere – will have to up their game as well.

I think thats called a win-win.

I agree there’s a refreshing lack of spin. But “make law in haste, repent at leisure” is something Labour were guilty of and I suspect National may also prove to be. In John Key’s shoes I would have said to the unions and Labour “you’re right, this deserves consultation but we can’t afford to muck round till sometime next year [for the reasons you've enumerated, sr] so I’m cancelling that nice long holiday you all take over Christmas. You can have a couple of weeks off – you know, like the workers you claim to represent – and I’ll see you all back here the week after New Years for Select Committee hearings”.

Either we get well-drafted legislation or at least National score two points – one for having shown themselves open to consultation and another for wedging Labour.

May I suggest that, in order to make up for this obvious faux pas, you quickly do a story on how the 90-day probationary period is going to put hundreds of thousands of workers out of a job, and cause mass starvation amongst their children.

Labour are almost irrelevant. And they hate it.

The reasonable justification as to why is less a political one than a moral one. The debate was conducted last year. National campaigned on this issue and was elected. The bill was duly passed.

Critics have pointed out that the haste is being seen as unparliamentary. Political bloggers are quick to hold this government to account as they did the last administration when urgency was used. The difference is that NZ is currently seeing a rise in unemployment as layoffs reach a recent high. Many workers are finding themselves jobless, and in need of new employment.

The passage of this bill is a part of the remedy and should not have been held up in procedure. The measure is as unpalatable as it is necessary in today’s economic times. Businesses need to be encouraged to hire, and this bill removes a major disincentive for small businesses to take a chance, right at the time the country needs these businesses to take this very chance.

There are those who do not like these provisions, nor the manner in which they were implemented, but a recently unemployed person who how has a chance to prove his or her value to a small employer that they otherwise would not have had will see the benefit. This fix is needed now, as is the building of state houses.

This government is not spinning it’s way out of problems. I can only hope it continues.

On the other, they’re to be condemned for doing it in an unnecessary rush and, in so doing, retaining the tradition of passing hastily drafted law with insufficient consultation.

And I’ve yet to hear a reasonable justification as to why.

If Labour had won, and for the sake of argument pushed through other bills under urgency, people here would be raving and frothing about the Communists trampling on democracy. Not allowing any sort of scrutiny or public input to the bills shoved through is undemocratic, no matter what side of the illusory political divide is doing it, but coz it’s National the pundits here applaud. Let’s just say the Greens as part of their coalition agreement with Labour had demanded urgency on the teaching bill. It’s not science fiction to imagine that’d happen. There’d be no end of swearing, and ad hominem abuse, and ranting about watermelons and Maoism and authoritarian Communo-fascism. And there’d be Chris Trotter, blathering on in ten dollar words and quoting people you’d never heard of, telling us that red fascism was in fact democracy.

For the record, I voted National for half of my vote. I was sick of those hypocritical Trotskyite losers too. I am just saying that I hope these same people who blast Labour give National hell when THEY fuck up. And National will. Stand by for the ad hominem abuse, Senor, for daring to speak your mind.

That is one fired up lady. Key obviously is a bloody good leader and motivator.

One subject discussed was the keeping of election promises and how the electorate still remembers Bolger’s reneging on promises – one error Nicky told me Key will never make.

May that policy continue.

Interesting comment too that Parliament is not allowed by law to sit on Sundays and the imitation commies wouldn’t work on Saturdays.