Jim Hopkins: Rogerneers replace Rogernomes in land of nambification

I blame the economy. That's the real problem.

If it weren't for the economy, cigar smokers would still be cherooting away in a Castroesque haze and ladies with Bette Davis eyes would still be languidly inhaling their cork-tipped De Reskes while seductively dropping cocktail olives down their cleavage for gentlemen to retrieve.

If it weren't for the economy, bars would still be saxophonic places of ennui and appetite; the true home of lonely dreams measured out in empty glasses and a wistful wisp of wanton smoke.

If it weren't for the economy, we could still have Manhattan in Putaruru and close encounters of the midnight kind, fuelled by the same wondrous aphrodisiacs - cigarettes and alcohol - that have been the debaucher's friend ever since Sir Walter Raleigh first met Pocohontas in a smoky bar in downtown Gitchigummi.

Mind you, these days old Walt would probably be gazing into the primal eyes of Hiawatha, and murmuring something seductive like, "Is that a tomahawk in your teepee, or are you just pleased to see me?" before dashing off to Little Big Horn for a quick civil union.

Just apropos of that, it's probably a good thing to have civil unions and smoking bans on the agenda in the same week - and the wicked, detestable (taxpaying) smokers should probably thank the gays for coming out of the closet, 'cos, pretty soon, that'll be just about the only place left where they're allowed to savour a sinful ciggy.

And the weedsuckers will need a bit of room to wave their vile, nicotine-stained fingers around, will they not? It would be a nightmare if their hot-ends set fire to an oppressed minority's hairdo.

We'd need a law against it. Or more accurately, another law against it. Since we've got more than enough already.

And all thanks to the economy. If you want to blame anything for the current epidemic of wowserism and nambification, blame the economy, folks.

That's why the politicians have been debating civil unions all week, with much passion and intellectual rigour, it must be said. Well, as much intellectual rigour as you'd expect from a gaggle of obedient party hacks, many of whom couldn't get a job as paving slabs in the real world.

Notwithstanding such limitations, they've all been fulminating and postulating and agitating like there's no gommorah; some insisting that we'll all be like the residents of that doomed city if the bill is passed, others dismissing such assertions as homothrowbic phobacks.

For opponents, civil unions are the thin end of a forbidden wedge and clear evidence of the Gummnit's intention to make this country Gaytearoa.

For supporters, championing the right of homosexual persons to enjoy a Clayton's marriage is a pink badge of courage. Oddly enough, though, the bill's supporters seem less confident of our consciences than they are of their own, since they've decided there'll be no referendum on this matter.

That might be okay if we had a Parliament that was prepared to properly curb its own ability to impose decisions on the rest of us by categorically refusing to deal with conscience issues under urgency. It might be acceptable to ram party policy through in this manner, but it shouldn't apply in cases where MPs are supposedly free to reach their own conclusion.

And it might be okay if we had parties who were true to their word. Take the Greens (preferably off to a sweatshop in China) - if anyone should refuse to debate conscience issues under urgency, it's this consultation-mad bunch of list loonies.

Here's a party that says it wants everyone to have a say on everything - roads, buildings, genetic modification, you name it. And, since they're not answerable to any electorate anywhere, the least they could do is honour their own principles.

But no. The consultation junkies voted for urgency and against a referendum, quite content to impose their own virtue by exercising a veto on voters. These piousniks should stop polluting Parliament and devote their lives to something sensible - like saving sharks.

It won't happen, of course. They'll keep on reformng away and deciding what's good for us, just like the rest of our fretful legislators.

And the thing that keeps them fretting is the economy. They can't touch it, you see.

Say what you will about the reforms of the 80s and 90s, the fact is they haven't been scrapped. Sure, there's been a bit of tinkering, some fiddling with workplace stress and suchlike and a few extra taxes, but they're just a downpayment on next year's votes.

Generally speaking, the economy's off-limits to reformers.

The great transformation we know as Rogernomics has basically survived unscathed.

Well, this isn't good enough. Meddlers don't go into Parliament simply to bank their salaries - and expenses. They go there to change things.

Like where we smoke and who we "marry" and stuff like that. So what we've got is a bunch of frustrated Rogernomes who've mutated into Rogerneers, all busily engineering society as they see fit.

If Rogernomics meant radical economic reform, today's Rogerneering means equally radical social reform. Like it or lump it.

Bring back nationalisation, that's all I can say.