Friday, September 25, 2009

Sue’s legacy

Sue Bradford reminds me a little of Tim Barnett. Both politicians were very effective, listened to people, pissed off the Christian Right, and were easy to get hold of – even though both knew that some of the core values held and promoted I did not agree with. But they would always listen. Both championed members bills and got the Government to adopt them.

The difference between the two of them was that Bradford never had any constituents as she was elected of the back of the list. Her problem was that, unlike the Maori Party and the current Green leadership, she had a distaste for the Right of politics, picked a certain battle at the wrong time and lied about it. Her legacy is the anti-smacking legislation. That legacy and her lefty persuasions was one of the main reasons she was never going to co-lead the Green Party, and, like Barnett, was never going to be a Minister in a Labour-led government. Some have said that Barnett was the most effective MP that never got to be minister. Bradford would come pretty close had she been a little more honest.

Although she worked really hard, the anti-smacking legislation did nothing significant apart from pissing people off and creating more work for parliamentarians,the Electoral Commission, CYFS, the police and people on both sides of the debate such as Family First, Larry Baldock and and Barnardos. Kids are still getting killed. Kids are still getting smacked. Police are doing nothing more than administering parliamentary intent and writing more reports as a result of the anti smacking legislation. Welfare still needs reform.

But now Sue Bradford can put that MA in Chinese she has to good use. Or she can do a PhD.

Oh, and for those of you who are interested, you may remember Bradford got threatened via Twitter a few weeks ago. Henk Van Helmond, whom I outed as the Twitter threatener, has just put up a post with the "real reason Sue Bradford quit", erroneously claiming that his death threat – which the police were investigating – was one of the reasons.




Anonymous Anonymous said...

The sad fact is that regulations like the Anti-smacking bill only affect the law-abiding citizens. Education is far more effective... and much more expensive to set up... which is why the Sue Bradfords get away with the ridiculous law-making/amending that we see.
Educating people how to be parents is placed in the "too hard" box...

October 4, 2009 at 1:55 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

Powered by Blogger

Clicky Web Analytics