Trev & H2

Well, now we know what the Bovver Boy was on about last week don't we? I really don't understand this - no, I mean I really don't understand Brian Connell. National have Labour on the ropes like we haven't seen in years and this so called National MP comes out and shoots the party in both feet (and hands and scrotum). Connell - what's he on? 1) He needs a haircut. 2) He has publicly stated that being a National MP is of little importance to him (eh?). Who's fault is this ? Probably National's for picking him in the first place. If he thinks being a National MP is a calling beneath his dignity life should get a whole lot easier for him pretty soon as I can't see him being one for very much longer. All this is very bad for the opposition. Brash's only real appeal is that he is an honest bloke. Take this away (and it certainly has been) and what are you left with? Not much at all really. Unfortunately there is not much waiting in the wings. John Key looks a likely lad but he appears to have been skipping an awful lot of training sessions recently and and is certainly not match fit. If Don goes now all the hard work over the pledge cards and Phillip Field could go down the dunny in days. Mallard must be waiting outside the Headmistress' office to get his merit badge at this very moment.

This, in an oblique sort of way, leads us onto Heather Simpson. There is a rather longer than usual piece (the Herald must think its target audience has the attention span of a decerebrate stick insect for most of what it offers) on the funding of political parties on the comments page. As is my custom, I glanced at the bottom to see who it was written by before I started reading (bad practice this; bit like reading the last page of a whodunnit half way through) and was dismayed to see the author had once worked for the Alliance. Fearing a left wing diatribe (why should I knowingly put myself in a bad mood for the day) I tentatively sallied forth. Turned out to be very interesting. Did you know that the membership of both major political parties is down by 90% compared with several (can't remember how many) years back? The author puts the cause for this as being the state funding of political activity - of any flavour. If parties have a guaranteed source of income they no longer rely on individual member subscriptions/donations. They don't recruit as vigorously as before and membership falls. This in turn makes their allegiance to their fundamental principals less strong. Is Labour still the party of the opressed worker? Patently not. Is National still the party of big business and farming? Maybe not so obviously not. That both major parties are now a different shade of grey around the centre is undeniable. The argument goes that all state funding of poilitcal activity should go and parties raise their funds from recruited party members who will only cough up the folding varities if they are being given what they are promised. The central funding of political parties also bring about objects like Heather Simpson. She is paid for by tax payers dollar and is answerable pretty much only to the Prime Minister. I have long thought that the three most powerful people in the country by dint of their positions and untouchability are Helen Clark, Margaret Wilson and Heather Simpson. I also think they are the country's most dangerous triumverate. I freely admit that I am of the second opinion because I don't like their ideas - not one little bit I don't. If they had ideas I liked I'd think they were good blokes - but they aren't 'cos they don't have a Y chromosome amongst them. Funny that.

Tweet