What’s In a Name?
That which we call a steaming pile of horseshit
By any other word would smell as foul.
Cullen is preparing “validating” legislation to legalise his party’s theft of public money. Note that this is not “retrospective” legislation because retrospective legislation is bad and therefore it must be called something else.
“Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” - George Orwell, Politics and the English Language, 1946.
A couple of other things to note from the NZ Herald story: All of the commentary is being done by Michael Cullen. This is a sure sign of guilt. When Helen Clark does something good, she takes the glory. When she does something indefensible Cullen gets to play clean up. Remember in 2001 when the Prime Minister issued a “don’t sell” notice for Air New Zealand (out of cluelessness rather than malice this time)? She disppeared and Cullen got to play sweeper because the Prime Minister can do no wrong.
A few days ago, Clark was whining that the Auditor-General was “changing the rules after the event”. (See my original post.) I pointed out at the time that he was doing no such thing. “Changing the rules after the event” is, however, something Labour is quite adept at when it benefits their own. When Harry Duynhoven broke the electoral rules in 2003 his seat should have been declared vacant. Since Labour ministers can do no wrong, retrospective legislation was passed and the constitutional niceties such as a by-election were brushed aside.
There is also mention in the story that the new “it’s not retrospective, it’s just backwards-looking*” legislation will be worded so as to derail my High Court case. Separation of powers is another constitutional nicety that Labour can do without. Don’t like a Court decision? A swift bit of legislation and it never happened. Can anyone say “Foreshore and Seabed”? Of course, separation of powers is designed to prevent corruption. Since Labour ministers can do no wrong it is clearly unnecessary.
*In more ways than one.
Links: 1) NZ Herald story (Labour Shifts the Goalposts).
2) Politics and the English Language, essay by George Orwell.
August 14th, 2006 at 10:55 pm
So part of the Bill of Rights 1688 will no longer apply?
August 14th, 2006 at 11:36 pm
Think on this Cullen - an incoming non labour government decides to revalidate the now previous legislation adding that a breach carries the potential of a 5 year jail term, the overspend is repayable with interest and all MPs party to the original decision and the validating legislation will have their parliamentary pension cancelled,. In one go you bankrupt the labour party, remove virtually the entire complement of labour MPs and a fair number of others from parliament who then have to earn an honest living without even having to waste taxdollars on imprisioning the guilty. Still like retropective, validating legislation Cullen - bring it on
September 5th, 2006 at 11:04 am
Fucking hell Rumpole, I’d be sorely tempted to vote for the party that promised that.
July 30th, 2007 at 1:05 am
/index. /index.
September 6th, 2007 at 8:48 am
insurance claims homeowners insurance of homeowners
May 31st, 2008 at 12:46 am
a screw loose,