Quote of the day

‘We don’t mind it being more expensive if we get results. The most expensive programmes we have are those where we churn out millions of dollars every year, thinking we’re having an impact when either we don’t or we don’t know.’ . .

‘We often spend money on a service where about 100% of it doesn’t work. So if we can get a return of 5% or something that is working, then we’re well ahead.’ Bill English

6 Responses to Quote of the day

  1. Andrei says:

    More technocratic babble from Bill English.

    He was MIA on the abomination marriage issue, and what’s the bet he will be MIA on euthanasia?

  2. homepaddock says:

    Bill is true to his faith. He has been public about his opposition to euthanasia and he was not MIA on his belief in the sanctity of marriage. Only a little of what any MP says or does is reported, that you didn’t see or hear much of what he said and did doesn’t mean he didn’t say or do it.

  3. Andrei says:

    sorry if I’m snarky but the reason why Bill English, who I supported at the time, failed as leader of the opposition is because he does not lead from the front.

    He voted according to his “faith” as you put it on the Marriage thing but when confronted by the media was clearly uncomfortable and almost evasive in his responses.

    He did not speak in the debates, whereas he should have (if he aspires to be a leader) have lead the opposition voices.

    And I’m sure he will vote to keep the status quo on euthanasia – in your link he says as much but failed to take the opportunity presented by the question to explain why he would vote that way.

    An opportunity missed to lead from the front.

    I am resigned to the fact that this terrible thing will come to pass, suspected that it would end up on the agenda this parliamentary term and said as much before the election.

    And the debate will be one sided, as was the marriage one because there will be no politician with the balls to stand up to the baying mob.

    Bill English should be that politician.

  4. homepaddock says:

    Andrei – write to him and tell him.

  5. JC says:

    Edmund Bourke has the right of it..

    “Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”

    Now, as to whether Bill English should be proselytizing his belief or judgement Burke continues..

    “Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices, ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not member of Bristol, but he is a member of parliament. If the local constituent should have an interest, or should form an hasty opinion, evidently opposite to the real good of the rest of the community, the member for that place ought to be as far, as any other, from any endeavour to give it effect.”

    In short English may, in his best judgement on such matters as euthanasia believe that the good “of the whole” is best served by recording his position but not to the extent of shouting it to the rooftops.

    Indeed we the people would be pretty dumb to require much eloquence from BE on this when by simply being a practicing Catholic he is shouting in a deafening roar the millennia of Catholic teaching on such subjects. There is no ambiguity here, no shirking on his position, but he is also an MP in a working democracy where there are many positions that need deliberation and probably a majority position taken that will please some but not others.


  6. Andrei says:

    Indeed we the people would be pretty dumb to require much eloquence from BE on this when by simply being a practicing Catholic he is shouting in a deafening roar the millennia of Catholic teaching on such subjects.

    Oh JC – On matters of social policy – Abortion, Gay Marriage and Euthanasia being examples of such issues in recent times the debate is on the matter of public good not one of “Catholic Teaching”

    And this is where the debate should be conducted – will the public benefit by these changes or will these changes be detrimental. I suggest the later is the case.

    Of course I would also say, personally speaking, that Church (rather than Catholic) teaching on these matters is what it is because the Church has been granted wisdom in matters pertaining to the welfare of the individual which flows onto being for the public good.

    One of the more scurrilous aspects of political discourse in these enlightened times is to dismiss religious input into public debate as being in some way invalid – all of which is highly reminiscent of the Bolsheviks and their marginalization of the Church

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: