I have slept on this, and now that I have a new day before me and I can perhaps view things in their proper perspective, can I say:
Christine Rankin as families commissioner? W T monkey-fighting F is this insanity?
And she was offered the children’s commissioner position before that? (Can’t find a linky for this, it was in the Dom Post yesterday.)
For the furriners who have made the mistake of reading this far:
* Take the most divisive public argument in recent NZ history, the so-called “anti-smacking legislation” that removed the defence of reasonable force for prosecutions of physical abuse of children
* Add the most divisive and despised civil servant in the last couple decades, the brash overconfident wonder who took our social safety net provider and ran it gleefully into the ground in the bad old 90s, under a welfare-is-bad National government; she was of course on the side of the reactionaries in the smacking argument
* Serve hot!
Says Ms Rankin: “We need to stop being politically correct.”
*head smash wall – repeat until fade*
12 thoughts on “No, Seriously?”
Comments are closed.
What about the obvious explanation? That they want to break the Families Commission and do not care whether people will hate one of their appointees?
From that perspective the decision makes perfect sense.
I wish this were the most notable local news for me but unfortunately I live within spitting distance of where they want to put the Waterview motorway expansion.
I figured we’d have at least a year before National started to show its true colours, obviously I was wrong.
Mike Sands is completely right – this decision makes perfect sense if you consider that National’s goal here would be to dis-establish the families commision.
And Bartok – serves all you people right for voting Labour all these years…
Mike: yep. It’s just… argh. It’s just so *shameless*. I think that’s what gets me, the audacity of it. Someone in there is laughing at us. They offered her Children’s Commissioner? My god, just google Christine Rankin and Children’s Commissioner and you find the most vicious invective from Rankin directed at Cindy Kiro. It’s just another reminder that we’re in for a bumpy ride with this government.
Andrew: I’ve been trying to engage with that whole thing but, being the blinkered wellingtonian I am, it hasn’t taken. Care to give me the three-sentence summary? (And, right with you on the true colours.)
See, I don’t even understand Scott’s comment at Bartok. This is my level of Auckland-related ignorance.
I don’t understand Scott’s comment either, unless it’s a jab that National is now trying to make us suffer for not embracing them as we should.
The main issue is that where they want to put this motorway, not even including the added number of houses that will be demolshed, will pave over a large amount of green space and parks in the city. As anyone who comes to Auckland quickly realises, we really need to keep *some* open green spaces here, and not just cover them with more roads and suburbs…
Also, the issue was “settled” to most people’s satisfaction years ago, so this is getting a lot of people riled since they weren’t expecting it.
Well, do you think they’d be putting a motorway through a safe National seat, Morgue?
Oh please, Auckland is far too effete to have such a thing as a “safe National seat”.
Actually, a safe National seat would be just as likely to see a motorway plowed through it.
It’s marginal seats that are the ones that were (and still are, even under MMP) pandered to by current governments.
However, Mt Albert has no history as marginal seat – it’s been solidly Labour voting, both electorate and party, for many electoral cycles.
I’d say it’s a safe bet that National doesn’t think it’ll win the upcoming by election, hence no attempt to delay or sugar coat today’s motorway announcement.
It’s a pretty safe bet that National wants to choke off the Families Commission. Then again, what’s it ever really done? It only got set up a few years ago to keep Peter Dunne voting the right way. I mean, I’m not happy about this, but they could have given her something that really mattered, y’know? Plus, the other bloke they appointed at the same time is at least as scary, but you’re hearing dick about him.
http://publicaddress.net/default,5879.sm#post5879 – best comment on it so far.
Jack – hee! I liked Russell Brown’s bit as well. Also good: your point about the relative irrelevance of the Families Commission.
But its the theatre of it that gets me. The symbolism here is both mighty strong and terribly discomfiting. There’s something smug and vindictive about it, that they’re willing to take some PR lumps just so they can have the satisfaction of riling folk up.
And while I’m thinking about this… I don’t buy any of the conspiracy theories that have been (playfully?) suggested that the Rankin appointment is to draw attention while other changes are made. That’s just a bit too clever-clever to fit with my view of this government.
I don’t think it would be too ‘clever-clever’ for this government. These are the hollow men, remember, and their lessons have been learned from the eight years of fear and distraction of the BushII empire.
So, unseemly as it may sound, the possibility that Rankin’s appointment is as an ongoing distraction can’t be discounted. What we all, and the media, will have to watch out for is that if ever Rankin does a controversial press release or some other announcement, we need to look very carefully at what else the government does on the same day.
Because, sure as hell, the possibility exists that they can ask Ranking to say something inflamatory to distract the Opposition and the media while to do something else on the sidelines.