National Party leader Simon Bridges offering nothing but destructive criticism about the Budget.
National Party leader Simon Bridges offering nothing but destructive criticism about the Budget.
Cries of "what's in it for me" don't go down well with me. National Party leader Simon Bridges' reaction to the "Wellbeing Budget" was particularly telling.
"What's in it for me?" he plaintively asked, pretending to be speaking for "average families" when the subtext was plain: the rich, himself included,were perceived to have missed out.
Like his predecessor and mentor John Key, Bridges brings a certain shine to the job; but where Key's was high-sheen gloss, Bridges is more oily stain.
Whichever patina they smear over it however, my view is the common denominator is that neither really gives a hoot about the poor or the sick or the aged.
So a Budget that delivers a huge boost for mental health, pegs welfare benefits to wage increases, aims to seriously reduce child poverty and saves poorer folk from having to "donate" school fees is one that leaves Bridges and his ilk cold.
Cue the "what about me" mantra. Oh, how hard it must be to be wealthy and not be given even more on your platter.
Moreover, again like Key, Bridges arguably demonstrated a complete lack of moral compass when announcing details of the Budget prior to its official presentation.
Yes, some data processor in Treasury mucked up, and one of National's snoops happened to hit upon a legal way to reveal said details in advance. But as leader of the opposition Bridges, like every parliamentarian, has a duty of care to protect the office, which very much includes keeping confidential matters under wraps.
Knowing the information was confidential, and disclosing it regardless, without permission, is a breach of confidence, hack or no.
Nor was "public interest" a defence in this case, since the Budget was due to be presented in two days' time, at which point anyone could debate it in full; releasing partial details early hardly served the public interest.
That didn't stop Bridges crowing about how they'd done nothing illegal, and that it was "entirely appropriate" to release the details they'd fished.
No, Simon, it wasn't. There was nothing "appropriate" about it.
My view is it was a spoiled brat reaction: if you're not giving me anything, I'm going to ruin your party.
At least when Labour were in opposition, they offered constructive criticism of National's policies – though their inability to penetrate the Key trademark glossy shrug and quip meant they often failed to make a hit.
In contrast all Bridges offers is destructive criticism – harping about things that didn't get money, while knowing full well there's only so much to go around and it's how it's prioritised that matters.
Bruce Bisset
Business has many legs it can stand on, and frankly doesn't need more at taxpayer expense. Besides, as Shane Jones pointedly reminded wealthy folk this week, they've had their present thanks to NZ First torpedoing the proposed Capital Gains Tax.
People only have two legs, at best, and they can become so wonky and wobbly a person can end up on their backside in no time flat. They often need help to get up, and to stay standing.
And as even some business leaders are acknowledging now, if you help people become safer, more resilient better-resourced citizens, everyone – including business – benefits.
If Key the "smiling assassin" were a dog, he'd be a dobermann. Bridges, prone to fits of random bad-tempered barking that impress no one, is a chihuahua.
To make itself relevant again National needs to breed a better-quality dog.
■ Bruce Bisset is a freelance writer and poet. Views expressed are the writer's opinion and not the newspaper's.
