During times of economic slowdown and social uncertainties, we look around for a stabiliser. One such legacy echoed the words of; 'it's not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country. Today in our modern world and the rule of subjective opportunism, the reverse is true.
If you can tell me what Mr Key has done for the ordinary folk during his PM reign, then I'll be grateful because I just can't remember any. All I know during his time the gap between the rich and poor had increased. He had no sense of social responsibilities for the consequences of his monetary economy. Instead he continued to deny the existence of the housing crisis and the fate of those living rough.
In the current state of local affairs, Mr Key is probably the last person you would want to be the PM. And rightfully he resigned as the social consequences of his policies are emerging somewhat to irrepressible standards.
There are competing issues up for grabs targeting the young vote. And fewer spectators than Peters, Adern and Seymour wasted no time in casting their opportunism.
However, like most important issues of so called public debate, the media dictates the terms and decides the outcome. Like Mr Key, they are blind to the social consequences.
Fortuitously, the proposal for the issue of Superannuation has given enough time to prepare for impact. And rather than dodging the bullets, lay the authority down. This is it, it's the right thing to do and the best choice available for a diverse population in time and space.
Neither of the above speculators would dare such a bold decision because they are populous opportunists. And opportunists are not principle leaders. My fellow politicians, it's not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country which is bugger all.
It's possible that social uncertainties can be stabilised by the solid economic performance that impact on jobs, housing and cost of living. But so far, I have failed to substantiate any of Labour's economic policies.
Labour is known for its socialist economic system structured upon the pain of consumers and their ailments. For example, during times of homelessness, folks neglect their health and couldn't hold down a job. Their availability represented by issues such as asthma, bronchitis, obesity etc. had made them easy targets of socialist policies. They form a body of consumer clients for corporate health and care givers providers.
When parents separated, single parent provided the infrastructure for care givers and so on. But where do they get the money to pay for benefits and for services when these social services do not generate any economic profits?
And that leads nicely to the common issue of family violence. What is family violence? The term husband assaulting wife is a marketing social phrase for political capital. It means that violence only exists in the presence of women. It means there is no violence anywhere else in the world except for when women are present around men. And where the two meet that violence occur.
That is how narrow a definition is, but a definition clearly setting men in stereotypical aspect that supports the platform of feminism.
And that family violence is an ideology prompting women's struggle upon the existence of men. It is where men expects to do women a favour by giving support to their struggle for existence whether they are guilty or not.
However, I believe the feminist ideology has attracted violence against women by those fanatics about power and political struggles. It is also blamed on traditional cultures and religions.
Anyone who doesn't like women ruling the home, or doing the washing themselves and react physically, emotionally and mental aggression towards a woman is deservedly blamed for Family Violence.
Now, there is also the psychologically impaired person that may also pose threats to woman. But this type of violence may not be classified as Family Violence.
We know that violence is wider than violence against women. Violence exists anywhere including in the family whether women are present or not. It is a behavioural problem. And this type of violence should not be tainted by the same brush as Family Violence.
The problem behind Family Violence is largely blamed on tradition, culture and religion. But I believe that behaviour problem and own selfish ambition is more of the individual's doing than culture and religion.
The point of course is when violent is defined and sorted that Family Violence may be easier to resolve. There are psycho fanatics and political ideologies as well as the sick.
And of course the most important of all is that kind of subjective love. It is not power or fanatic, it is love sick. It is when this type of love is filtered and transcended that beauty returns to the objective.
Yet you see, the issue of Family Violence is particularly raised during times of electoral campaigns. The capital fetish is cast across the wild to attract social profit. And frankly, taking advantage of issue targeting the sick and vulnerable does nothing to its resolution. Those who take advantage of such ploys for political gain are themselves guilty of Family Violence.
Whether it's Superannuation or Family Violence, fanatic or love sick, a stabiliser is certain to be the principle objective. And I don't expect a populous opportunist to come through. It has to be a principle stand for the sake of stabilising the economy.