Daniel’s Election 2011: United Future
This is the fifth part of a nine part series, Daniel’s Election 2011. For the first part on the Green Party, click here. For the second part on the Mana Party, click here. For the third part on New Zealand First, click here. For the fourth part on the Labour Party, click here. If you’re coming to this after others have been posted, go down to the bottom at the comment section – you’ll be after the trackbacks.
United Future is like a woman who is so horny she’ll have sex with anyone. United Future is so eager to be in Government that they’ll go with anyone. They do, however, have a surprising number of policies.
I am not exactly quiet about the fact I don’t see anthropogenic climate change as likely to be reality. However, I think that if you are going to openly say the theory is accurate, you need to say what you’re going to do about. Effectively, United Future’s policy on Climate Change is “We’ll promote <insert generic adjective> policy on the matter”. I don’t see how this is helpful, nor do I see how policy written like that is going to help someone decide whether a vote in that direction is a good one. It’s not exactly a situation you want to be going for the benefit of the doubt.
Ban it. That’s United Future’s response to any thing that can be vaguely considered to be a drug. That’s what we saw with Kronic, and that’s what we’ll see with pretty much everything. While that’s not necessarily a bad thing, you really need to look at each situation individually. Peter Dunne’s response to drugs is not always a good one.
I am far from the sort of person likely to go down to the local tinny house, but I think drugs need to be looked at on an individual basis. Sure, Kronic they probably made the right decision. I saw people go off the edge on Kronic, so I’m really not saying banning Kronic was a bad thing. What I am saying is tarring everything with one brush isn’t a good idea.
United Future has said they are in support of allowing Income Sharing. That’s basically where a housewife would be considered to earn 50% of what her husband earns (or the opposite way around. Can’t ignore that, or I’ll have rampant feminists on my back hehe) for taxation purposes. So, if someone’s husband (or wife) earns $100,000, and their partner does not work, they both are considered to earn $50,000. In that case, under the current taxation system, the family would pay $17,570. Currently, a person earning $100,000 would pay $25,735 tax. That’s more than $8,000 that would be saved by that family.
Surely, this is a good thing. Families should not be punished for having a parent looking after their child. In fact, they should be encouraged to do so. This is an excellent idea.
Treaty of Waitangi
United Future starts with a key error in their policy on the Treaty of Waitangi. They say that it is the founding document of this country. The fact is, that is not true at all. It is one of the documents that was a foundation for New Zealand, but is far from the one founding document. What about the Declaration of Independence, signed about a year before the Treaty of Waitangi? Where does that come in?
Having said that, their policy on the Treaty of Waitangi is not that bad. They commit to the 2014 treaty claim deadline, which is brilliant. They also want to remove the Maori Electorate Seats. They made an excellent point that it was said in the 1986 Royal Commission on the Electoral System that Maori Electorates need to be abolished. They were right then, they are certainly right now.
If you want to check out United Future’s full policy, head over to http://www.unitedfuture.org.nz/treaty-of-waitangi/.
Posted on November 11, 2011, in Daniel's Election 2011, New Zealand Politics and tagged climate change, Daniel's Election 2011, Declaration of Indepedence, drugs, Election 2011, Income Sharing, Kronic, Peter Dunne, taxation, treaty claims, Treaty of Waitangi, United Future. Bookmark the permalink. Leave a comment.