The voters' choice is spoiled

OPINION: Call me an under-motivated voter. Thus far, I gather, I'm being asked to choose between a party that wants to make me have ugly light bulbs, and a party that – once again – has welfare mothers in its sights.

A quick assessment of my home's light fittings tells me most will have to go if traditional light bulbs are banned. The expense of replacing them would be considerable, and for what? Has anyone seen the snotty skies over Asia lately? And will one Wellington home make such a difference in this entire planet's rush to destruction?

It may have done good things, but I'm now tired of this Government's social experiments and implicit moralising.

I don't remember it being voted in on the back of a public clamour for civil unions, or legalisation of prostitution, or demanding anti-smacking laws in a fit of hysterical moral panic.

Still less do I remember anything about light bulbs being mentioned. But we get these things anyway; we barely missed out on voluntary euthanasia as well; and the world is not a great deal better for it that I can see.

I noted in some amusement, however, the way Labour politicians partied with prostitutes at Parliament when they celebrated the anniversary of the legalising of their trade recently.

They set an example to us all.

Meanwhile, real things go on – big things to do with the economy that flummox me, and big things to do with the way most people live.

The weather is giving us hell. Property values are sliding, and negative equity awaits those who panicked and bought when values were absurdly high. Finance companies are crashing, and the rich men behind them are, as usual, well prepared in advance with trust funds. You can't pin the rich down, any more than you can Winston Peters.

So help me, Antonie Dixon, the samurai sword slasher who's just been convicted of murder again, has lawyers who want to appeal again – despite his online bragging about his violent deeds. Legal aid seems to be a cot case. Is there any major trial that isn't being appealed? What are we supposed to think – that the system works?

The health system is still eternally cash-strapped, and women with breast cancer have had to fight to get less Herceptin to treat them than they believe they need. Schools are still struggling to educate kids, many of them Maori, who are reluctant to engage with the "knowledge economy".

ALL OF this seems more important to me than how many hideous light bulbs I have in my house. It also seems more important than picking on solo mothers, one of the least of our real worries.

Yes, there are too many of them, but there are also way too many fathers unworthy of the name. Why are young women continuing to bear children to them? Why do they see the future in such narrow, fatalistic terms? And what are we doing about that?

National leader John Key focused on "work obligations" for beneficiaries in a speech this week, and plans to make parents on the DPB return to work or job training once their youngest child turns six. Any malingering bludgers will of course have another child just before that happens. They're not stupid.

As sure as crocuses in spring, the Nats turn to solo mothers. Why don't they focus on the slobs who wangle ACC for ingrown toenails, or chubby businessmen who wilfully have costly heart attacks?

Do they think it's a picnic looking after small children on next to nothing a week?

Mr Key will let beneficiaries earn $20 more a week before they're taxed than they do now, as an incentive to get back to work and off welfare. Maybe he thinks $20 buys a lot. Like the Queen, he probably never carries cash. It's a quaint thought.

Like him, I'm the child of a solo mother who did it hard, and who had to work, because there was no DPB when I was a kid. She was poor all her life, and her punishment was life itself.

Appealing as the thought may be, there's no gallantry in pointing the finger at women like her. And there's certainly no vote in it from me.