WhaleOil and Cactus Kate sometimes have blog-posts under the "random impertinent question" label, where they cast a cynical eye over issues of the day. We're not quite as cynical as either or both the Cactus or the Whale, so we're just going to pose ONE question which is both random and impertinent!
Here's a little scene-setter. Labour MP and aspiring leader Darren Hughes has drafted a Private Member's Bill to lower the legal blood-alcohol rate from 0.08 milligrams to 0.05 milligrams per millilitre of blood.
So here comes the question; if Darren Hughes was so concerned about drink-driving, and the legal blood-alcohol rate being too high, why did he do nothing about it during the nine years that Labour was in government, when it would have been pretty much guaranteed to become law?
Does anyone else here have just a teensy bit of doubt about Hughes' motives here? The term "grandstanding" comes to mind for us ...
2 comments:
I think you could look at practically any issue and ask the same question. Let's look at wht really got Labour excited, Electoral Finance, Retrospective Spending, Bankruptcy-inducing railway and anti-smacking.
Finance company rorts - nada. Welfare dependency - nada pay issues for doctors - nada. Education reform - nada no, the only thing they seemed turned on by were issues that had direct financial gain got the Labour party, or which might look good on Helen's CV so she could get her UN job post-NZ.
This is exactly the same as the anti smacking legislation. Has that stopped children being killed, of course not, all that has occurred is that it has just become more difficult for good parents to control their children. Will lowering the limit to .05 prevent road deaths. Of course not those who drink to excess and then drive will continue to do so whilst those who are responsible will have their freedom curtailed even more by Government interference and legislation.
Post a Comment