It was Sue Bradford's last day in parliament today. She'll always be remembered for S59. A recent referendum in New Zealand returned a whopping 87.4% vote in favour of decriminalising smacking. The Prime Minister John Key ignored the result - worse than that, he actually determined before the vote results were in, that he wouldn't change the law. Here's the background to why, and what the 87.4% can do to get him to change the law and an assessment of the real role that Sue played in the "smacking debate".
Passions ran high on the topic of smacking with one politician (Sue Bradford) taking the lead role in the media and politics on the issue. She is widely held out to be the acrchitect and driver of the push to criminalise smacking. I don't believe that to be the case - she was just the front person. I'll explain why at the end of this post. Opposition to Sue's bill was vocal and ranged from the far right and across the political spectrum.
A vote of anything where 87.4% of a poll or referendum vote in one way could indicate several things . . .
- a leading question (one that skews the voting toward a preferred result)
- a low voter turnout (that reduces the validity of the data gathered) or
- a groundswell of public opinion captured relatively accurately
So why did John Key deliberately ignore the masses in what would normally be political suicide? I mean it would have been soooo simple just to say - "OK, I respect 87.4% of you. It's quite clear what you all want - a law change. We'll listen to you and the law will be gone by
There is a widely held belief that the voter holds the power in a democracy. This is a fallacy deliberately perpetuated by the people who DO hold the power. Politics is a game of smoke, mirrors and make-believe and this is one of the reasons that I believe democracy is an inherently evil structure. As Shakespeare and many others have alluded to more eloquently than me, people come on the stage for a season and "do their stuff", making a lot of noise, gaining attention, fame and a degree of influence. But politicians are actually beholden to the real power-brokers behind the scenes and in time (like Sue) they all move on.
The general population is mesmerised by the so called issues of the day, and gets caught up in the arguments, conflicts, political, financial and philosophical nothings that the mainstream media dish up for us. Behind the scenes though deals are already done. Decisions are already made. Bigger issues are being brewed, managed and decided well out of the glare of the public eye.
On changing the smacking law, John Key knows that Larry (Baldock) is a "nice guy". They entered parliament together, even respect and like each other but John is PM and Larry is out. Larry, even with 87.4% has no power over John. John has assessed (No, actually I believe has actually said . . . ) that the "other guys" will make more trouble for him than the 87.4% of nice guys. THAT "possums", is the "key" to understanding John Key and why he didn't just change the law!
If I was John Key, and I wanted to stay as PM more than one term, I too would have sweet-talked the public, and not changed the law either. The "other guys" are nasty, committed and will fight to the death. They have generations of commitment and have the support of people in very powerful places - not just in New Zealand - but to the depths of the United Nations and the globalisation movement (yes, this is the stuff that conspiracies are made of).
To the well-meaning people supporting Larry Baldock and his new referendum to make a referendum compulsory - forget it. You have already won the moral victory but you just don't have the power and being Mr & Mrs nice guy about it, you never will! If I was John Key I would be secretly hoping that Larry will actually do another referendum, because that would tie Larry up for another year or two and I would then have the 87.4% all busy doing silly stuff again while I could do real deals with the powerful others. Sorry to be so brutal about it Larry!
The March people are going to have a go at rallying behind democracy on 21st November 2009, in Auckland. These guys are good guys I'm sure and I say to them go for it - keep the issue alive, but you have to get real - a march of even 1,000,000 people is not going to change things unless you can generate power. You've already got more than 1,000,000 people on a referendum already! What are you going to achieve? A march is just noise. A referendum is more noise. Letter writing or questions in the house are just more noise. There's nothing wrong with noise, but noise will simply never change the law. Power does, and big money is always behind real power.
So here is my advice to the people who DO want the law changed. Get serious and fight in the ring - not the side shows. The ring is the private office of John Key that is open to the business leaders and international moneymen (and ladies) that really have the power and who actually make the decisions.
To Larry Baldock, first, I respect your commitment and work over the anti-smacking thing. You have achieved a major battle victory in the hearts and minds of Kiwis that will outlast the anti-smacking issue itself. Congratulations. I respect your passion to change society. You are an honest and humble man but it is beholden to you, as the moral leader of the decriminalisation of smacking to front up and get serious.
All you have to do is to walk into John's office and tell him that the gloves are off and that the war is just beginning. Then tell him that you will hit him were it hurts and that you and your people are much more committed and more powerful and way more influential than the "others".
But are you really ready to get down and dirty and make John more afraid of you than Sue and her cohorts? I suspect that you are not. So does John - so far anyway - and that's why he hasn't changed the law. Change that Larry, and John will change the law before your eyes and you will be a real force in central New Zealand politics (in or out of parliament) as long as you live!
Now - to Sue Bradford. Sue has retired from politics now, but John still won't change his mind. The issue has nothing to do with Sue and never has. One minute Sue was there poking her head and her mantra into every camera she could find, the next, she's out but the dynamics in the smacking debate are just the same! And the reason? Sue was just the front person.
The deal-makers and power-brokers are always behind the scenes with anything that involves power and money. Prime Minister Robert Muldoon as with any small country leader was beholden to the global elite. In fact I know that toward the end of his reign his resistance to co-operating with the international bankers in some dastardly plots caused him personal anguish. Following politicians obliged, to the detrament of the country but the point is that all politicians are only front people.
Prime Minister Helen Clark, while a strong political leader in her own way was ultimately a front person for international interests. Her team of like-minded (mainly women) cohorts developed very powerful influencers in virtually every area of New Zealand society - from education to the arts, religion to finances and more. Her real power came from much more than her charismatic leadership - for decades she knew and worked with those with real power.
So, good work Sue. Your days on the national political stage appear to be over but others will always be there to take up the cause.
To those interested in the truth, always dig deeper. Continually ask probing questions especially if your understanding comes from the noisy sources - polticians, sales people, the constant babble in the media "talking heads" and know-it-alls who are fullof themselves and their own agendas.
Rarely is anything as it seems in such quarters.
Tagwords: referendum, smacking, sue bradford
