Key and Clark on Aid
publicaddress.net reports the following interesting point of difference between the leaders of Labour and National:
If you suddenly had a billion dollars, what would you spend it on? asked Tearaway magazine of Mr Key and Miss Clark.
Helen said she’d give it to “development agencies offering education and opportunity and campaigns against HIV and AIDS in developing countries.”
John said he’d quite like “a jet, a personal jet.” And he’d donate some to charity.
John, John, you’re not following the cue cards! Will you get it right the next time you’re asked?
‘Next time’ came yesterday, when Wammo put the same question to him. Either John is sticking to his guns, and being his own man, or he’s alert to the perils of inconsistency. “Well I told Tearaway I’d like a private jet,” he laughed. “Who wouldn’t?”
“Really?” asked Wammo, “You know, Helen gave all hers to charity.”
“That’s nice,” said Candidate Key in a rather hurt and vulnerable little voice. Awkward questions seem to strangle his vocal chords. The same thing happened when he was first asked that Springbok tour question. But he was off balance for only a moment. Back he came with a good left cut: He reminded Wammo of the substantial amount he gives to charity already. He wondered how much Helen gives.
It’s a free country. John Key has the right to decide for himself whether to spend his money on a private jet and of course we have the right to decide for ourselves whether we would like that in a Prime Minister.
I certainly don’t. And I’d find it hard to see how any faithful biblical ethic could be construed to justify it.
I’m a bit sick of the way there’s some unwritten lore that expects the church to sit on the fence politically, partly in order not to upset the masses (I guess there’s a pun for you) and partly in order not to upset its income stream. It doesn’t seem very faithful. I know it emerges out of a desire to have critical distance from the State, but we seem to have forgotten how to express the ‘critical’ whilst perfecting the ‘distance’.
If this doesn’t get through to people, I’m not sure what does. I don’t think we should all vote Labour by any means, nor do I believe the old left and its ideological captivity have it right. But I’m equally certain that blue is very uncool.
Amusing it had to be a billion to have a sense of realism, too…it seems our politicians are able to speak knowledgeably from a secure position of wealth.
And for an amusing historical reflection on gifts and giving, see the last few paragraphs of this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml
Facebook comments: