PAUL LITTLE
As much commentary has been spent on Simon Bridges’ accent, if that’s the right word for it, as on his principles and policies, if that’s the right word for them.
There hasn’t been a National Party leader this much fun to listen to since Sir Keith Holyoake.
Distinguished language expert Elizabeth Gordon has opined the way Bridges speaks is a forerunner of the way our language is changing.
He is the voice of the future. “Voice of the future” is, of course a good thing for a leader to be, but not in this sense. If Bridges really does have the accent of the future, then there is still time — we can do something about it before it’s too late.
Parents, teach your children to speak so that they can be understood and so that those who are listening to them can do so with a straight face. It’s only polite.
There is another problem with the way Bridges’ talks. It’s that, secure in the knowledge he will not win the next election, he can afford to say anything he wants, no matter how reckless.
No need for responsibility, no chance he will have to follow through on anything he promises, no accountability for anything he does. Heaps of fun for a mischief-making seat-warmer and his party, not so much for the rest of us, especially given that some people are bound to believe what he says because of blind party fidelity.
The National leadership non-tussle has already provided a diversion from other more serious matters, such as whether an Australian interviewer was rude to our Prime Minister.
Jacinda Ardern brushed off reporter Charles Wooley’s chunder-inducing conception question with her now familiar sangfroid.
By the way, I’ve seen a lot of reporters, but I’ve seldom seen one so unattractive.
Equally disturbing was Wooley’s defence his producer would have fired him if he hadn’t asked the question. Given that attitude it’s not hard to see why Australia found the reality of its own female Prime Minister so hard to deal with and let her be hounded from office.
Our Prime Minister, it is to be hoped, has been concentrating on more important matters, such as the progress of her Government, which, coming up to six months since the election, amounts to not very much.
A lot of sausages have been sizzled, beautiful noises have been made and hearts have been won.
But houses have not been built, immigration numbers have barely changed, children have not been lifted out of poverty, mentally ill people have not been kept out of jail. The list goes on.
Critics have no doubt been poised waiting for the Government to do something wrong.
The rest of us are just waiting for them to do something.
Similarly distracting from serious matters has been man-child Donald Trump’s claim he would have acted heroically had he been at the Parkland shooting — by running into the scene even if unarmed and . . .and . . .well, he just would have, that’s all.
This from a man who dodged the draft five times.
What’s saddest about that is not the transparent falsehood, nor the inadequacy of his response to a crisis, nor the vainglorious posturing, but that it distracted people from the message of the teenage Parkland massacre survivors who have shown true heroism by rising above their trauma and attempting to turn it into something positive by mobilising support for gun control.
The world should salute their courage, while regretting the almost inevitable failure of their cause, thanks to their country’s lack of leadership.
You probably get as much spam in your inbox as I do, but I bet you don’t often get spam as good as this example that I received this week. It began: “Hey guys, my name is Richard! I’m a professional writer and I’m going to change your lifes once and for all . . .”
There hasn’t been a National Party leader this much fun to listen to since Sir Keith Holyoake.