Chris Carter - Visionary or Idiot

The latest developments in the Labour Party saga of Chris Carter MP and his leadership have really been fun to watch. Not because I like to see Phil Goff sweat a little bit but about how dim witted he really can be at times. I bet he is kicking himself that he did’t turf Carter weeks ago when he had a prime opportunity.

I’m no fan of Carter. He plays the gay card too often and runs like a scared child when the heat comes on. I mentioned before in a blog that I don’t care if he is gay. He may win a by-election and retain Te Atatu, but there is plain evidence out there to show what happens to independent MP’s who sit on the back benches. Taito Phillip Field, Gordon Copeland, who once stood and then lost it all.

Was Carter an idiot for doing things the way he did. Writing a letter and delivering it to the press corps, but addressing the envelope in his own handwriting. Twit. Denying it when confronted then admitting it. Fool. But what I cannot fathom here is that he contends that there are others in the caucus that support him and yet he was thrown out by a unanimous vote of the caucus. My line of thinking would be that if there were supporters the vote would not be unanimous.

Is this though part of an underlying leadership challenge? If it is it is a poorly executed one. National went through two in pretty rapid succession and still managed to take out an election in a relatively short space of time. But was that good politics or bad placement. By bad placement I mean, the wrong person up front. Part of the reason behind Goff’s poor polling is that for the most part people have no confidence in his leadership ability. Leading a political party is different to leading a government and that’s what it comes down to in my mind.

I have to laugh a little at the comments made by political commentator John Armstrong from todays Herald. “The blunt truth is that Goff survives as leader simply for lack of a suitable alternative”. That is true. Who do you put up front? Mallard? The Speaker tolerates him more than anything. King is as useful as Goff. Cunliffe may be the only alterative but his full leadership is yet to be demonstrated. But then you don’t have much left who could not only lead the party but lead a government.

When you look back at past Prime Ministers, like them or not they demonstrated a leadership quality that made them stand out at that time. David Lange, Rob Muldoon, Jim Bolger, Jenny Shipley, Helen Clark and John Key. The same could not be said for Don Brash, Bill English, Mike Moore, Jeff Palmer and the current top two for Labour. I just don’t see PM there.

Even now, with a leadership change I don’t see Labour winning the election failing some catastrophic meltdown of National’s coalition and them mis-reading significant policy. Well…worse than they have already done on Mining and the taxation moves.

But I do see them being a challenge in 2014. The issue then becomes who will make the challenge for Labour. Who has that look around them that they could inspire people to say ‘hey, lets vote for them because I think they have a leader that can take this country in a good direction’. I look at Trevor Mallard, Annette King, Pete Hodgson, Ruth Dyson, Clayton Cosgrove, and I don’t see that. I see in a few years, 2 terms or so Charles Chauvel, Jacinda Ardern, David Parker, and someone who I see rising soon is Darren Hughes. He is someone I see now with that potential.

I will give this for Carter. He spoke his mind and he spoke plainly last night and will likely sit out the back for the remainder of this parliamentary term as an independent MP. He spoke with a confidence that is somewhat a symptom of there being some truth to his statements and some justification behind the bravado. The damage to Labour has already been done. Armstrong said "Carter's assertion that most Labour MP's don't think Goff is up to winning next year's election is especially damaging. Whether true or not, the public will believe it simply because it is absurd to think that Labour MP's had their doubts". Denial is a dangerous Labour party disease. Clark and Cullen both had it at times when they could afford it less.

So is Carter the mist in which another will strike? It is very possible. It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the coming weeks and how much they can claw back from National before the year ends.

Drink Driving

Todays announcment by the government about revisions to the drink driving laws will of course bring stern rebuke from a corner of society that has little regard for others on the road, but more about how they feel and the power they perceive they have when completely wiped off the planet drunk.

And that is where my point of view mostly comes from.

Yeah I could easily draw on my religious background and say zero levels for all, in fact, booze becomes illegal in New Zealand, aswell as smokes, but I'm not going to do that, because I believe in a firm separation of church, ANY church and state.

But I think that regardless if it creates a new class of criminals in New Zealand and further increases our prison population, but then what is it doing? No punishment encourages crime. Look at the school situation. Look at the home. Discipline gone out the window and so have societies values.

Are we allowing a plea of temporary insanity to those who drink, drive and kill by not reducing the limits and increasing the consequences? I think we need to look at all quarters of society in terms of those who drink responsibly and dial a cab or have a designated driver. But there is that corner of society, young and old who don't give a toss about others and become lethal weapons on the roads with no control over what they do.

I've been a designated driver. I have gone out with a group of mates, all of them adults plastered beyond belief. One of them tried to take the keys to the van off me. I locked them in the boot compartment. I still cannot comprehend the attraction to getting so rip roaring drunk that within 1km of the venue, you've power vomed twice. My logic just can't comprehend the attraction.

Ultimately, my desire to see drink driving tolerance down to 0% is this. I do not want a police officer knocking on my door late one night saying my wife has been killed by a drunk driver. And I'm sure the reverse would be true. If I were a police officer, how would I address that to a family? Sorry, your loved one has been killed by someone who didn't have the decency to be responsible with alcohol, got in their car, drove to fast, and decided to take out your loved one...but they are in hospital right now...being treated and may survive.

Ultimately the person makes the choice (however impaired) to drink and place themselves in this situation. Someone mentioned alcohol doesnt kill people, people kill people. I'm totally down with that. Guns are tools which people use to kill. A gun dosen't leap up and suddenly go off and kill someone. A person has to make the choice to use the gun to kill.

I am not advocating a ban on guns or alcohol, but I believe that they are better suited to a safe and secure use...and I do not believe the road is an acceptable place for alcohol or those who have consumed alcohol. Sure, drink yourself stupid all you want...just have the decency to not get behind a wheel while your drunk. Is that such a bad thing to ask?