By Chris Trotter*
The lessons to be learned from the UK election and (hopefully) applied next year in New Zealand are relatively simple.
First, if you have a popular leader, then do everything you can to keep her.
Second, if you have an unpopular leader, your chances of winning – even when many of your policies are supported enthusiastically by a majority of the electorate – are dismal.
Third, securing the neutrality (if not the open support) of the mainstream news media is an absolutely vital component of any successful election campaign.
Fourth, do not appear to be hedging your bets on the issues that matter most to voters – tell the truth and shame the Devil, or, at least learn to lie as persuasively as he does.
Fifth, do not, under any circumstances, give Israel and its supporters cause to view you as an existential threat.
Insisting, as many aggrieved leftists in the UK and around the world are currently arguing, that Boris Johnson’s big win had nothing to do with Jeremy Corbyn is just plain wrong. Journalists who travelled with Labour Party candidates and canvassers from one rainy doorstep to the next heard the same message: “I’m not voting for your party while Corbyn remains its leader.” Opinion polls confirm these eye-witness accounts.
Upwards of 40% of former Labour voters gave Corbyn as the reason for their defection. Fewer than 20% nominated the party’s stance on Brexit.
Whatever the causes – and we’ll get to those – Corbyn was neither liked nor trusted by a huge number of British voters. Given the way modern election campaigns are conducted, that level of unpopularity is likely to prove fatal.
If your leader’s face is being thrust in voters’ faces every day on every platform: television, social media, the press; and that face reminds them of an irritable geography teacher, then you have a problem. If a great many people are further convinced that the irritable geography teacher is a fanatical socialist, a supporter of terrorism, and an antisemite, then you’ve got an even bigger problem. And if, on top of all these handicaps, the perception exists that your leader has always backed Brexit – but lacked the courage and honesty to say so – then you’ve got an insurmountable problem.
Oh, what the British Labour Party would have given for a leader like Jacinda Ardern! And, oh, how grateful the NZ Labour Party must be to have her – especially now that any nagging doubts it might have harboured about refusing to embrace “Corbynista” radicalism have been well-and-truly allayed.
Labour’s strategists, having seen how little it mattered that Boris was caught telling the most outrageous fibs (and hiding in refrigerated lorries!) will be reassured that their instincts about Jacinda have been proved correct. If your own side loves their leader to bits, and even your opponents secretly warm to her empathy and positivity, then nothing more is needed. Flood every media platform with Jacinda’s face, and her most affective video clips, sit back, and wait for the votes to roll in.
It would be unfair to suggest that Simon Bridges resembles Jeremy Corbyn. Whatever else he may look like, Bridges most emphatically does not look like an irritable geography teacher. The Brylcreemed bodgie drummer of a West Auckland rock-band, maybe, but never a teacher! However unfair, Bridge’s “optics” just don’t work – not even with National Party voters. He may not be disliked as heartily as Corbyn, but with so many New Zealanders unable to see in him a credible prime minister, it is going to be a very steep uphill struggle for National in 2020.
Bridges can, however, take comfort from the fact that he will not, like Corbyn, fall victim to the unrelenting hostility of the New Zealand news media. Some of National’s present policies may raise the occasional eyebrow on the New Zealand Right, but the MP for Tauranga does not strike the average Kiwi editor as a raving fascist, whose fanatical supporters have turned the National Party into a Nazi Party front, and who constitutes a clear and present danger to the national security of New Zealand.
Substitute “hard-line Marxist” for “raving fascist” and you have a pretty good steer on the way in which the British news media presented Jeremy Corbyn to its viewers, listeners and readers. The whole of the media, mind, not just the usual right-wing suspects in the Murdoch press.
Indeed, the most serious damage done to Corbyn came not from The Sun or The Telegraph, but from The Guardian and the BBC.
After Corbyn’s showing in the 2017 General Election, the British Establishment understood that deploying The Sun and The Telegraph was no longer enough. It would take the liberal-left columnists of The Guardian and the state broadcaster’s “neutral” professionals, to fatally wound the Left’s accidental champion.
Any objective assessment of Corbyn’s politics would, of course, position him comfortably on the left of Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson’s Cabinet - somewhere alongside Anthony Wedgewood-Benn and Barbara Castle. Similarly, Corbyn’s organisational backers in the left-leaning “Momentum” currently exercise no firmer grip on the Labour Party “machine” than did Tony Blair’s “NewLabour” apparatchiks for the best part of two decades! “Hard-Line Marxists” should be (and are) made of considerably sterner stuff! Certainly, they tend not to waste so much of their time participating in democratic elections.
But if Corbyn’s mildly social-democratic domestic policies would have occasioned barely a shrug in Norway, Denmark or Finland, the same cannot be said of Israel’s response to his “anti-imperialist” foreign policies. As a life-long supporter of the Palestinian cause and a staunch foe of Zionism, Corbyn was not a figure the Israeli national-security apparatus could afford to ignore. A Corbyn-led Labour Government, especially one empowered to abandon the UK’s nuclear deterrent, would have become a beacon for every young idealist in the Western World. That same Government, if it threw its weight behind the “Boycott, Disinvestment, Sanctions” (BDS) movement, would have unquestionably constituted an existential threat to the State of Israel’s survival.
One can only marvel at the success of the campaign to brand Corbyn – a man raised in the vibrant Jewish intellectual culture of the London Left – an antisemite. Not only did it fatally weaken Corbyn, but in attempting to respond to the charges laid against him, the Labour Party effectively debarred itself from any and all future criticism of Zionism, the State of Israel and/or the Israeli Government’s government policies towards the Palestinians. Research scheduled to be published in the New Year will expose the processes by which the antisemitism charge was indelibly branded into Corbyn’s forehead – and by whom. By then, however, it will be too late. The threat to Jerusalem has already been neutralised.
If Labour wants to win next year, then the “learnings” it should take from the UK General Election of 12/12/19 are pretty straightforward: do not embrace any policies even vaguely threatening to the neoliberal order – including its principal defenders in the mainstream news media. Or Israel. Labour should also thank its lucky stars that in 1993 New Zealand adopted proportional representation. Had the UK done the same, then Jeremy Corbyn would today be the first minister in a coalition government composed of Labour, the Scottish Nationalist Party and the Liberal Democrats.
For National, the learnings are more sobering. The sort of person the party needs to lead it to victory in 2020 should look a lot more like Winston Peters than Simon Bridges. Because, when you think about it, Boris Johnson is a politician cut from very much the same cloth as our own conservative populist. Both men believe fervently in the stars of their personal destinies. Both admire Winston Churchill. Both subscribe to “One Nation” Toryism. Both have become experts at whittling-down their ethics and stretching-out the truth. And, crucially, both of these ambitious political rascals are infuriatingly easy to forgive.
So, perhaps Jacinda should also thank her lucky stars that, heading into Election Year, it is Labour that has the populist mojo – not National.
*Chris Trotter has been writing and commenting professionally about New Zealand politics for more than 30 years. His work may be found at http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com. He writes a fortnightly column for interest.co.nz.
153 Comments
Chris, call it what it is...Soyamun IS a fascist in a blue suit, what else would you call someone who happily fronts a policy called Taskforce Raptor? On UK Labor...has anyone thought to consider that the party elected to purposefully lose the election that if they had fought to win AND won would be and I virtually guarantee this...the election that effectively leads to the break up of the Union and an utter cluster f**ck of a exit from the EU? Who would want to win with those prospects on the horizon? I am saying they threw the election and will standback as the Tories make a disaster of things...then the real backlash against the tories will see things change dramatically in the UK.
Gang's and organised crime present a difficult challenge, one that the coalition are entirely failing to manage with gang numbers up 20-30% under this govt. Gangs primarily predate the poor, living in lower socio economic areas far from the leafy green suburbs that left wing politicians, their academic mates, media luvvies and you inhabit. The let-them-eat-cake catch-and-release approach of the coalition to managing crime hurts our countries poorest the most. Bridges was a crown prosecutor who has been involved with 100's of criminal cases - both the ones that make it to court and the ones that don't. Is there anyone in parliament who has more direct experience of criminal activity in NZ? I am going to trust his judgement more than your's or the perennial failure Little's.
People join gangs willingly. They are not forced; they can leave. Why do they join organisations that promise violence and trouble with the law and alienation from the general public? Because they are desperate to belong. It is a need for love. Maybe the NZ establishment wants a society that is fragmented? The govt just throws more benefits at these problems but does not actually tackle them by strengthening the family unit.
Young men join gangs due to their tribal, violent instincts and desire for power and reward without work. Same as has always motivated young men towards violence and revolution. Love has nothing to do with it. Their is nothing worthy or noble or sympathetic about it. They are organisations that exist to predate and exploit innocents in our society increasing the misery of all they interact with, rapacious thugs who lack empathy for anyone not in their tribe. Eg 20-30% of gang members are recorded child abusers.
While I agree with you on taking personal responsibility, it's not nearly as simple as that. If you are young and Maori growing up in rural NZ, you have the deck stacked against you. Load's of risk factors, low decile schools and few, if any, role models. 65% of NZ's jail population are Maori and Pacifica men. It's a disgraceful stat. Young men join gangs for a variety of reasons, but mostly they feel locked out society. I consider myself a reasonable person and I've become quite resentful of the use of Maori imagery to promote brand New Zealand, the international arrivals at our airports through to the Orr at the RBNZ (try spotting a brown face there). Even Australia put's indigenous applicants to the front of the queue on state jobs and spends more per capita on indigenous affairs.
What you are suggesting, policies to manufacture equality of outcomes, is the absolute worst way to try and run any society, because the only way to achieve it is by unfair practices that ham-string higher achievers - and they won't tolerate it as voters and if forced on them they will leave making the country worse off. Equality of opportunity is what really matters. Maori 'culture' enabled by apologists that promote abrogation of personal responsibility does massive harm to Maori, giving them favored status and subsidies in 100 ways is equally destructive. Compare for example their stats vs much higher achieving Pacific Island Immigrants. The difference is in the culture of personal responsibility. Blaming others for your failures and waiting for handouts just makes you a life long failure and loser - which is obvious when you see recent immigrants who have had to learn english quickly rising to outperform Maori.
You've missed my point completely Foyle and those quota's already exist (female board quota's for example). Why would recent immigrant arriving to NZ have the same rights as the indigenous people who were colonised? It's not about handouts, it's about education, role models and access to good quality education. You also generalise a lot about Maori. I'm actually not a fan or quota's, welfare and I advocate personal responsibility. You appear to generalise Maori as lazy welfare beneficiaries and that's not the case.
Ka Pai Ehoa, you have some really interesting points to contribute, as usual in NZ its hard to discuss anything without being bullied by the opposing party. On Mr Orr, it may come as a surprise but he is of Cook Island decent. Here is a link to an article about him.
https://e-tangata.co.nz/korero/adrian-orr-our-31-billion-dollar-man/
I agree, after all Maori are only the other half of the Ti Tiriti right? I was listening to Jim Bolger, former PM on RNZ during the week talking about pathways of excellence that was a programme run out of Waikato Uni and the spectacular results it acheived. Many of my Maori compatriots have gone on to do truly inspiring things with their lives, sometimes I feel quite 'run of the mill' by comparison but I have always admired their willingness to take time to make sure everyone is in the waka, if possible, benefiting everyone, if you get my drift? Its my current thought that neo liberalsim simply makes people selfish and greedy, there must be a better way.
Yes it's quite counter the western capitalist culture. Far more focus on consensus building and for the long-term rather than the short-term. Maori are generally humble and shy away from leadership (a few notable exceptions). It feels like the western resouce driven capitalist model is hitting the buffers. Any way, you sound like a good sort 4thE, NZ is a better place with people like you in it.
Quotas, as another awful expression of identity politics, are toxic. Bestowing legal privilege based on things you can't work to change - parentage (ethnicity) or genitalia is just evil and regressive. This is the 21st century not the 19th. Those 'colonised' were all dead 150 years ago and to give special rights, privilege and status based on who your great great great great grandparents were is beyond farcical. Rapidly worsening negative stats for Maori over last 2-3 generations suggest coddling, infantalizing and abrogating responsibility for personal attainment (the "bigotry of low expectations") by sanctioning 'victimhood' has actually hurt them terribly, condemning increasing numbers to empty lives at the bottom. Stats are inherently generalized, and clearly indicate that Maori are much more likely to be criminals or beneficiaries than other ethnicities in NZ. It seems pretty clear that it's because so many have bad parents - something extensive welfare has created, and which the state is incapable of substituting for (it takes 100000 hours of care to raise a kid). As Thomas Sowell said: "Welfare helps politicians, not the poor"
So what's your substitute for welfare? And do you seriously not get what effect colonization has on native people? It's not a surprise that the outcomes we're seeing are repeated worldwide. It's not because they've been mollycoddled or because they can't take personal responsibility, it's because they've been systematically dicked and the cultural response from people like you is to punish them. Seriously though, what's your wonderful solution that is going to fix everything?
There isn't the space here, nor do I have the time, to try and bring to light what it means to be born Maori in a rural community in New Zealand. You don't just "move on"and dismiss what happened 150 years ago - European New Zealanders and Maori signed a binding partnership to share in New Zealand's future. That contract was breached relentlessly over the following 150 years - both in principle and legally. We will all benefit if we can improve the fortune and prospect of Maori - why don't you try lifting us up rather than the survival of the fittest approach you advocate. We need to break the cycle and it requires education, role models and opportunity.
If people don't understand colonisation, they need only visit other Countries where it has occurred. Go see it in Ireland, Wales and Scotland as a good start...white people colonised by white people with horrendous effects. By the way you'll see signs with two or three languages on them and a proud indigenous culture as well. Got the picture yet NZ...so racist.
Fundamentally gangs today largely are the consequence of decades and generations of failed socio-economic policy. The disenfranchisement of too many of the middle and lower classes. The impacts of the 'free market' economy and the pillaging of jobs that did not require academic qualifications but still offered a reasonable standard of living and possibly a career path, and for many Maori, the rampant pillaging of their land through underhanded colonial practices despite policies to the contrary. Task Force Raptor is just another elitist response to proletariat rebellion.
Excuse making and enablement of this type only exacerbate the problem. My ancestors being disposed from the land 170 years back (highland clearances) has zero impact on me. Grownups have to own their own choices and outcomes. We have essentially full employment at the moment - jobs for anyone who makes the basic effort required - and non-academic tradesmen frequently earn >$100k with 10-20 years experience. What has really screwed Maori in NZ is welfare that has enabled the infantalization and irresponsibility of young Maori adults, failing to grow-up and become responsible in their community has lost stigma. The lazy listless existence that they fall into as a result makes them self-loathing and miserable - huge Maori youth suicide is a result. Welfare is cancer.
My family history is largely the same as yours, but to argue that is too speciously simple and ignores human psychology. Yes a small number, ourselves included, CHOOSE not to be hindered by our familial past. But most people do not or cannot do this, and many Maori remain rooted in their whakapapa.
Taking the Maori issue first. When the vote was first given in NZ it was based on landholding. The problem then was that the largest group of land owners where Maori, so the colonial Governments set out to actively dispossess Maori of their tribal lands. The truth and consequences are well document through the Waitangi Tribunal. The consequences are a people with an agrarian culture being disconnected from their culture and tikanga, and virtually being forced to become urban to be able to earn a living. As a result there grew a certain antipathy towards all thing 'pakeha'. this was assisted by more than a few atrocities committed by colonial militias. (Conveniently in this debate atrocities committed during inter tribal wars are generally forgotten) this antipathy is now multi-generational and is today being additionally boosted by the political movement that sees the Treaty of Waitangi as a pot of gold, at least for Maori elites. Thus angry Maori youth have children they are not fit to parent, and who resort to drugs, crime and violence like their parents, and a part of this picture are the gangs.
For the rest the introduction of Rogernomics, or the 'free market' economy pillaged jobs mostly at the bottom of the pile. these jobs were the ones that people leaving school with no or few qualifications could get into at a reasonable level of pay. these jobs were exported leaving nothing for many school leavers, and even older workers who lose their jobs for a variety of reasons. This compounded the Maori problems identified above but brought a lot of others into the picture. So we have an angry world of disenfranchised people, who the elites just want to stomp down with their jackboots!
This is over simplified but there it is.
These was a tonne of injustice done to Maori in 19th and early 20th century, just as there was to the ancestors of pretty much everyone the whole world over, injustice was rampant. But you can't fix the injustices of history by creating new injustice now - screwing over one group of citizens to advantage based on a genetic pretext. The transition from poor 1970's overbearing statism to prosperous 2000's NZ was hard on many, but is now long past. We are enjoying full employment where basically anyone who wants a job can get one - if they show up to work reliably. Is there any evidence that pushing Maori culture to fore is actually producing better outcomes for Maori? Do Maori integrating into Australia do better on average than in NZ?
I disagree. Race-based discrimination in NZ is almost entirely gone. We all have friends and workmates with a wide variety of ethnicities. NZ is extremely egalitarian so if you are failing in this society it is on you, and to some extent your parents if they failed to educate you, you get the same access to opportunities as everyone else, and even if your childhood was awful you can fix it as an adult.
So when roughly was the turning point at which race-based discrimination in NZ almost entirely disappeared? I'd be fascinated to know.
"Director General of Health Dr Ashley Bloomfield agreed. "We have now some quite good evidence that racism at a range of levels does determine access, experience and outcomes in the healthcare system," said Bloomfield.", from the following
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/113917099/racist-health-system-…
And differentiation in how Maori are treated in the justice system. From first contact with police (less likely to be offered diversion or precharge warning) to sentencing (more likely to be convicted/imprisoned to within jails (paucity of rehabilitation being offered)
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/justice-system-getting-real…
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/84346494/new-zealands-racist-jus…
That's just scratching the surface on how the deck is stacked.
Would you ever tell your children that they are never going to be as good at maths as their (insert preferred ethnicity) classmates? Humans need to be pushed to achieve their best.
Blaming others when you fail just sets you up for further failure and ultimately misery. Pushing the victimhood narrative strips individuals of agency and erects psychological barriers inimicable to their development - comfortable lazy excuses to make failure and under-performance OK. It does tremendous lasting damage to the people you want to help and inevitably diminishes their achievements. The identitarian left is hobbling the people they ostensibly want to help.
So what just cut support ties and thrown back into the cold? Many argue that they have a right to blame others as they have caused them harm and therefore to fail. The language itself was nearly exterminated through the education system. I see plenty of good come from providing support through various iwi that creates opportunity for young Maori people to make a decent go of it in the contemporary setting. Sure not everyone becomes a scholar but it provides opportunity that generations before have missed out on.
Seems to me you have the typical lazy Maori prejudice many NZers have.
The majority of Maori are somewhere on the spectrum from doing OK to great in NZ, only about 8% unemployed, but they are heavily over-represented amongst the failures, 6x as many criminals and ~80% single mums (~35% for rest of population). I think the best way to improve things is to motivate lower socio-economic kids and their parents to do well at school. Rewards kids and parents financially the better they do. Pocket money for kid, lifestyle boost for parents. A few $1000/year per kid would be far far cheaper than being the welfare/incarceration ambulance at the bottom of the wasted education cliff and a lifetime of cost to the taxpayer. And if all the kids in low decile schools were so motivated then the culture of those schools would become one of striving rather than pulling down those who try.
No. Maori benefit from rediscovering their identity and strong family ties. They benefit from being allowed to blend traditional values with modern education and technology not cash handouts. I don't think you have in the slightest any idea on the intangible value of culture to a community. Your idea of cash bonuses is laughable at the least
Your faith-based assertion that it's all about culture has been tried for the best part of a generation. The stats aren't improving, it isn't working. Traditional maori values and huge education system focus on Maori culture show little sign of saving people at the margins - the endless cases of child abuse that come out of kids raised by whanau is a case in point, not something we see much of in other NZ ethnicities. We have other models that provably work for the rest of the community, eg Pacific Island families in NZ; Mum and Dad working together to raise the kids and a lot of structure and involvement and effort to raise the kids well. Madness is trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
So your cash handout strategy is working as intended? Culture is everything in society. It dictates how we treat one another. Take for example culture within an organisation in a business context. The leadership create and nurture culture. Bad culture = poor morale, poor staff retention and limited productivity. Good culture = good morale, good staff retention and improved productivity. Not hard to understand.
I notice your other comment regarding pacific island folk. So you're saying that Maori parents don't both work? And that Pacific Island communties don't have the same issues all other communities at the fringe experience?
I really think the way they report statistics on ethnicity in NZ is flawed, likely based more on skin-tone than ethnicity. Many Maori have equal if not more European ancestry, but if dark skinned, they are reported likely as Maori. I've got 5 mixed race grandchildren - three very fair, one a bit dark and one a lot darker. If asked, they'd all say part Maori, part European but how do you think they'd be classified by race for statistical purposes on that basis? I've never seen a form, or any statistical reporting with mixed race options. So, if you tick two boxes (Maori and NZ European), then how are you counted by stats?
I suggest to anyone who thinks they are Mr Know it all where gangs are concerned, if they haven't, watch the movie "The Dark Horse". Watch it for the performance of Wayne Hapi who was a gang member, and plays one. You just might begin to understand that behind all of that are people, broken people mostly, just trying to belong somewhere and to something. The great clobbering machine will do nothing to address the why of gangs, but that is what has to be addressed.
Simon is not a fascist, in fairness. He's not possessing of great character or integrity, but he is no fascist.
In fact, the last thing National have shown themselves to be is nationalist in any form. They've been the most eager to see NZ sold out from under NZers, based on their track record, and the keenest to give away wealth from natural resources with no benefit flowing to NZers (fresh water).
The closest Simon has ever come to fascism is his cringe worthy kowtowing to the Communist Party of China recently.
Bridges isn't a fascist as that would require him having something resembling a backbone. He's more like a slimy used car salesman or sleazy real estate agent, for sale to the highest bidder may they be CCP or radical right wing or big business. He has no values other then the mighty $.
We can learn to be more aware of the barrage of propaganda from the media. Everybody should read Noam Chosmky's "Manufacturing Consent" in high school to reduce the effectiveness of the tactics and provide people with the necessary lenses to minimise the democracy corrupting effects of media manipulation. Corbyn was constantly the target of smear and character assassination campaigns, which seemed to work despite the methods often being contradicting or irrelevant.
Here's an example of the media attacking Corbyn from both sides of multiple arguments: https://youtu.be/VF4CwfIWm00
Here's Noam Chomsky talking about Corbyn: https://youtu.be/edicDsSwYpk
The centrist Blair was the only Labour leader to win an election in the last 45 years. But the hard left are capable of a literally insane level of self-delusion, and believe that when failing hard by being too far left for the electorate the thing you really need to do is double down and go further left - like they did in NZ 2011, 2014 to worsening election results, and like they are doing now in USA with 2nd and 3rd place Sanders/Warren likely consigning Democrats to another election loss (Biden being unlikely to go the distance).
Yeah, that's ironic isn't it.
I think, had there been no leadership change in the UK Conservative party, Teresa May would have struggled to get re-elected. UK Labour's refusal to work with her to get Brexit over-the-line was a tactical mistake. Same goes for the legislative obstructionist tactics of the US Democrats, it is likely to return Trump.
The population generally wants government to make progress - no matter whether that progress is directly to their liking. No one enjoys stalemate.
Interestingly, despite the commentariat caterwauls here on this site, the reasons why people voted against UK Labour were 1) leader and 2) stance on Brexit: https://i.imgur.com/wT1kbBr.jpg Left leaning economic policies were far, far less of a factor.
Not quite right. The reasons why they lost, in order of importance.
1) Absolutely relentless media smears, lies and attacks from every part of media on the planet. Particularly the BBC and the "liberal" Guardian. 2) The Blairites still lurking in the Labour Party sticking the knife in on a daily basis. 3) The extremely powerful Israeli propagandists (hasbara) around the world attacking from every angle. Finally, Brexit. He had to try and appease those in his own party, but this was fatal. The majority of those who voted to leave would be core Labour who are sick of being shafted by politicians.
Corbyn was the first decent and honest politician in many decades. Certainly the first who actually cared about people.
Brexit resulted from increasing interference by the Evil Union in domestic affairs mirrored across Europe with similar results - Yellow Vests in France, Catalonia, Italy's political chaos and the AFD in Germany neutering Merkel and the European Court of Injustice bias against anything threatening the commission. Should Donald increase pressure on EU in the form of tariffs and a crack in the ECB's monetary stuff ups cause international money markets to wreck havoc on the Euro the collapse of the EU may follow much quicker than foreseeable. This whole mess will become very ugly and those responsible or perceived to be will feel the wrath of their electors in tangible ways and it will hurt.
Ocelot, I can assure you that the barrage of propaganda went both ways. Boris and Theresa were both subject to daily character assassination and ridicule. It's funny though, I never seen anyone showing sympathy for the level of hate and ridicule that Theresa May was subject too.
I have been left of centre my whole life in most areas. But I cannot stomach the utter hypocrisy of the lefts constant pleas to victimhood anymore. I have seen all my Labour voting friends inflict daily abuse online at Tory voters and politicians.
In the UK, media and social media abuse is the norm. Tabloid harassment is the norm. I don't like it, it's disgraceful but to pretend that only one side do it, is a nonsense. They are both as bad as each other.
No you can't "assure" anyone that it went both ways. I can give you a very long list of examples of deliberate anti Corbyn propaganda that was on the BBC, in the Guardian, and every other media outlet in the UK on a daily basis. You will struggle to find a trickle of anti Bojo propaganda in the mainstream media. Don't count social media. They don't control that. Yet.
Feel free to give me examples of anti Bojo in the mainstream. For every one you might find I'll find ten that target Corbyn.
... yup . . No one knew where he stood on Brexit ... he had a golden opportunity back when PM Theresa May called a snap election ... anti-Brexit fervour was red hot then ... he could've positioned Labour as a vote to remain in the EU ... but he didn't grab that chance ... his fault for lack of clarity , lack of guts ...
Heck what was the referendum then, if not a democratic process. A vote by the north of London, against the London establishment and immigration as well. Any party that then decided to veto Brexit, or even weasel about it, was going against democracy and was always going to be on the end of a furious backlash from the Brexit voters and those regions of the electorate. That is exactly what has happened to Labour and exactly what they deserved.
Corbyn was certainly unpopular among some but it was Brexit fatigue that lost them the election. Even remainers wanted to move on. The working class leave voters in the north and midlands blamed the EU and immigration for their plight rather than the previous 9 years of Tory austerity and the Blair government before that.
I saw a woman interviewed by Channel 4 in a northern marginal who said she switched from Labour to Conservative because "they've done nothing around here for us for years". The Conservatives had been in power for 9 years!
I do not understand the eulogising of Jacinda Ardern's supposed leadership. Certainly she has popularity, as John Key had, but popularity is not the same as leadership. Was Key - for all his popularity - a leader? He has never seemed to me to have a principled bone in his body, and his successors - without the cover of Key's affability - are in plain daylight repugnant. Is Ardern a leader? Or is she simply adept, like Key, at a kind of emotional signalling? Leadership is about mettle - applied to more than one's personal presentation.
Ardern want's to be everyone's friend and avoids conflict like crazy. Understandable, but makes for a terrible leader and manager - which is what the job of being PM is all about. Endless parade of appalling failures by her Ministers with entirely supine response from Ardern, she's an empathetic emoting face on camera, but no leader.
Does she need to be a leader? Just leave Andrew Little and James Shaw to work away quietly achieving whatever their aims are. Far better to have her waffle and smiling PR as a distraction from those making hard and therefore unpopular decisions. I don't blame her - the trouble may be a lack of talent in her cabinet but that is no reason for Ms Ardern to attempt to make all the decisions herself (heaven forbid). Howeveer if she does want to be re-elected she needs some decisions - the public is getting tired of every issue being kicked down the road into another report from another committee.
Jesus, is this what the left wingers have come down to in this country? They are soo hard labour that they are willing to have some unelected person in charge of making significant changes to the country because their so-called leader isn’t a leader at all. Good times definitely seem to have created weak men in this country :)
She has amazing leadership abilities to my mind. You have to be a leader to take on the leadership mantle a couple of months out from an election and arm yourself with a 'Let's Do This' campaign slogan. What better to mobilise the troops?
Then managing to negotiate her way into forming a government with two diametrically opposed minor parties - pure tactical brilliance. And the country hasn't looked foolish in the eyes of the rest-of-the-world for being led by a relatively inexperienced 30 year old - quite the opposite - we're a beacon of hope for the style of leadership so many are looking for in their own countries from the next generation of world leaders.
Leadership is no longer about "mettle" in the vein of Thacherism (i.e., the Iron Lady). Radical, ideological (re)direction isn't what electors are looking for - neither do they want the status quo. They want collaboration, not mettle - collaboration being an ability to move forward and effect change, coupled with sincerity and compassion in recognition of the fact that the world is a divided and unfair place. So, a negotiator who can bring disparate sides together as a means to make progress, is to my mind what Ardern has proven herself more than capable of.
Just think of the many actions of governance by the Coalition that the National Party have also backed and you'll get my drift on the style of leadership of Jacinda Ardern.
Point is: we're all in this together.
Ardern negotiated squat. Winston never had any intention of going with National - he'd surreptitiously launched personal legal proceedings against them before election and was after utu. Ardern has never demonstrated any competence in management or negotiation, in fact quite the opposite when you look at how NZF is riding roughshod over the coalition and nothing positive happening in international relations. Labour surged in polls when Ardern took over only because Greens were melting down over support of Meteria Turei's fraud that came out the same week. Green+Labour vote did not change significantly. She was aided by a highly supportive media talking her up (62% NZ media in 2014 self identified as left vs 16% right, a 4:1 ratio, election same year was 4:5 left:right, so media 5x higher proportion of left wing than general public, there is huge left wing bias in journalism) There is also the well known 'honeymoon' factor - Labour's support dropped again in first poll post election as greens picked up again, Labour picked Ardern's appointment date to capitalize on that.
nothing positive happening in international relations.
You obviously don't have a lot of int'l friends and relations - all those I know have come to place NZ on a bit of a pedestal, most particularly because they believe our government is not captured by special interest and corporate money.
Neither do I see NZF riding roughshod over the coalition. If they were we'd not have had the oil/gas exploration ban; nor the implementation of the Zero Carbon Act; nor the changes to firearms laws; nor the dumping of the 90 day trial; nor the minimum wages rise; nor the implementation of many social/welfare initiatives, such as the baby bonus, first year free tertiary, banning of rental agency fees, etc. etc.
What I see is that the coalition partners are all getting their own individual top policy priorities implemented by Cabinet. They are all winning.
I agree that a lot of forrins view our PM favorably - so long as they are of the left, but the PM's personal branding operations aside the attitudes and policies of foreign govts towards us is a different matter. I can't recall any positive developments in NZ's international relations under Ardern, (probably there are some), but I do remember that she has managed to annoy the leadership of Australia (Manus island) US (some dumb comment about Trump) and China (Huawei 5G ban) for no benefit - itself pointing to her immaturity. If you haven't got something nice to say don't say anything is of much greater benefit than needlessly annoying them. Don't poke the bear. Clark and Key maintained and developed far better relationships.
Kate, when our family wants to avoid any task, they say "Let's do this". Collaboration is part of MMP; it is no particular quality of Ardern's. I do not believe she is a 'beacon of hope' for a style of leadership desired elsewhere in the world. She, like Macron or Trudeau in their first years, comes with a youthful, apparently accessible face of promise - but little more known substance than an instagram post. Voters may not be looking for radical ideological redirection but, in my experience, thoughtful citizens and the educated young seek more than displays of empathy in environments of growing, often extreme, uncertainty in social values, geopolitical and environmental rupture, and in family and personal prospects. Political leadership in this unfolding age will take great mettle - principled conviction - whether in a force for steadiness or for change. I see a reliance on emotional projection, and see this as insufficient.
I agree this is a time of extreme, uncertainty in social values, geopolitical and environmental rupture.
And this coalition government have taken major steps to reduce environmental harm; major steps toward reversing social inequity; and relatively behind the scenes, but nonetheless firm steps in terms of instilling our values/opinions in geopolitical matters.
I'm curious as to what kind of radical steps you think we need to take?
Kate, the two umbrella issues requiring political mettle (and I see these as the two issues on which this government was elected) are housing and immigration. On these trail a host of social and business ills. Neither the health our economy nor that of our society has need for tens of thousands of low-skilled immigrants in low-value, often low-principled, employment. We have direct experience of these via volunteering: people with no more than primary education, little or no English, and the ambition to work in a nail-bar or liquor store. Surely, if growth is an objective, it should be growth in GDP per capita, lifting family well-being. Yet GDP per capita drifts with its keel in the air. More people, no better-off. Wealthier immigration, along with the direct import of overseas funds (still easy to accomplish), further underpins property price inflation - itself a direct cause of poverty and homelessness, of which we have plenty to be ashamed of. I suggest that issues such as our infrastructure deficit, ill-health, educational non-achievement, criminality, waste of talent here and its loss overseas, continuing environmental degradation, even our culture of fair-go and neighbourly assistance, and much more, would all benefit substantially from principled, rigorous, disciplined attention to housing delivery and immigration policy.
On housing - would you have had them introduce a capital gains tax?
What they have done is banned foreign buyers of residential property; banned RE agents charging fees to tenants; required LLs to make their products healthy for the inhabitants; restricted rent rises to once yearly; dumped the requirement for HNZ to return a profit to the government (and made huge capital injections by way of new borrowing by the SOE); laid the groundwork for a coherent, whole-of-government housing policy going forward (the merger of 3 institutions into one).
On immigration - would you have them can the immigration points system altogether?
On immigration, they have regulated low-value PTIs out of our int'l education marketplace; reset the parent category rules to attract and retain high-value skilled immigrants to our shores; clamped down on exploitation of migrant workers; amended/tightened significantly the post-study work rights; added building occupations to the skills shortage list and dumped a number of low-skill/bogus categories from it.
I still don't know what 'mettle' (i.e., big ticket, bold changes) you want applied on these issues.
In each case, look for the vested interests in maintaining the roots of current social failure and break them. On housing: address the systemic and structural barriers to affordable contemporary housing: from local government through to building systems and suppliers. New Zealand houses are built like garden sheds and priced, from the ground up, like palaces. On immigration, two things: get the companies that want cheap immigrant labour to contribute to the costs of it - which currently fall on society - and so show that it's requisite and of value. Many employers (and I'm a business owner and investor) would find they didn't need immigrant labour after all. Many such claims are sham and the businesses worthless. Where that's the case, the country would be better off without them. The first benefit, where new employees are required, should be to our Pacific neighbours. Also address overseas student education, which, as a consultant to Victoria asserted to me recently, is not about education but about immigration for one party and fees for the other. Enough for one day.
The Labour-led govt is not doing very much to rein in immigration. Numbers are sky high and RNZ reported today that NZ Bus has brought in 32 drivers this year from overseas on Essential Skills Work Visas...
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/405601/concern-nz-bus-hired-migrant…
Can NZ Bus really not find 32 people who can be trained to drive buses? It was a job that friends of mine used to do as university students. It’s hardly rocket science… and in those days drivers had to give change to most passengers as well, whereas now it’s automated.
I think what most of us imagine "Essential Skills" to be does not include driving buses…
And this is happening under a Labour-led govt! It is shameful for a party whose origins lie in protecting work and conditions for the working class.
Modern Israel was established perfectly lawfully.
If you don't like the colonisation of the West Bank, blame the Palestinians. They were given the opportunity to return to the pre-1967 borders, but the PLO wasn't interested in peace - then and now they want to wipe Israel from the map and drive the Jews into the sea (the ones they don't kill, that is).
And talk of ethnic cleaning is just Jew-hating rhetoric. There are plenty of Arabs in Israel, enjoying the full benefits of citizenship. In fact, they have some privileges that most Jewish Israelis do not - like not having to serve in the military.
.
Aren’t Zionist expansionists driving the Palestinians into the sea? How is the PLO going to drive a nuclear power into the sea? Your shrill accusation of Jew hating does disservice to the many people who identify with Jewish culture as opposed to Illegal and immoral Zionist expansion at the expense of the Palestinian people.
The PLO can't wipe Israel of the map and drive Jews into the sea - they want the Arab powers and Iran to do it for them.
The point is though, Israel could utterly destroy the West Bank and Gaza and drive all Palestinians into the sea, but they don't want to do it.
The Palestinians, on the other hand, do want to destroy Israel and kill the Jews/drive them into the sea. They make no secret of that. It has always been their desire, and they have never renounced it.
You want peace and justice for the Palestinians? Start with removing Fatah and Hamas from the equation, and let the Palestinian people enjoy the opportunities presented to them.
Abba Eban's words are as true now as when he uttered them 40-odd years ago: " The Palestinians never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity".
True it was 'Legal' in the sense that a whole lot of powerful nations banded together to push it on the Palestinians, and ultimately law is made by those with the guns to force the issue. I support Israel, and it's continued existence because you can't fix the wrongs of 70 years back today and they are a good democracy that looks after the welfare and happiness of their citizens well (unlike some of their neighbours) , but the methods of it's founding were pretty egregiously unjust to the Palestinians, and the behavior of Jewish founders of Israel was terrible, they were terrorists.
Don't think Jeremy wouldsupport this
"Netanyahu vows unity government’s 1st move will be Jordan Valley annexation"
PM holds crucial meeting with rival Gantz on potential coalition, after calling on him to make use of ‘unique opportunity’ posed by US’s settlement policy shift
It's all good.
Love a Loser
That sounds a terrible assumption.
Week before and 2,400 km round the south. Found PM described with emotions ranging from gentle mocking to sharp criticism, bitter criticism.
Nothing better, no one volunteered support of her or her govt policy.
Love the malapropism.
Labour’s strategists, having seen how little it mattered that Boris was caught telling the most outrageous fibs (and hiding in refrigerated lorries!) will be reassured that their instincts about Jacinda have been proved correct. If your own side loves their leader to bits, and even your opponents secretly warm to her empathy and positivity, then nothing more is needed. Flood every media platform with Jacinda’s face, and her most affective video clips, sit back, and wait for the votes to roll in.
affective
/əˈfɛktɪv/
Learn to pronounce
adjectivePSYCHOLOGY
relating to moods, feelings, and attitudes.
"affective disorders"
denoting or relating to mental disorders in which disturbance of mood is the primary symptom.
having seen how little it mattered that Boris was caught telling the most outrageous fibs
You can see this already being reflected in National's strategists here.
But yes, quite incredible the disparity in how dishonest and nonfactual the Conservatives went in their electioneering.
“The point of modern propaganda isn't only to misinform or push an agenda. It is to exhaust your critical thinking, to annihilate truth.” - Gary Kasparov
I think you are missing something.
Missing the mood of the people.
People connect, if what is said is in the same direction of what they feel, accepting of exaggerations.
People will not tolerate something, if what is said is known/felt to be wrong.
The worst lie is the real estate one. When the real estate guy lies, lies to you, you know it's a lie, and the real estate knows it's a lie, and the real estate guy knows you know it's a lie.
That will pretty much end anything.
In the UK the disparity was quite remarkable:
It looked just at every paid-for Facebook ad from the three main UK-wide parties run over the first four days of December:
- for the Conservatives, it said that 88% (5,952) of the party's most widely promoted ads either featured claims which had been flagged by independent fact-checking organisations including BBC Reality Check as not correct or not entirely correct.
- for the Lib Dems, it said hundreds of potentially misleading ads...
- for Labour, it said that it could not find any misleading claims in ads run over the period...
So quite the different scale.
I agree that lies on both sides should be called out. Which election lies from 2017 are you specifically referring to?
- The Kiwibuild pricing which was repeatedly challenged as being unreasonable. It was immediately changed following the election despite Labour insisting the figures were sound during the campaign.
- The constant claims that National had 'cut funding' despite spending increasing with each successive budget.
That's before you get into the actual delivery of the policies, many of which were fantastical to begin with. Light Rail by 2020? This is going to be the world's fastest roll-out of a transport network ever. But I would agree that's more a case of 'bait and switch' and not 'outright lies' such as the above.
'Cut funding' where / for what? Was it a cut per capita?
KiwiBuild - build prices went up? Or definitions of reasonable changed?
Agree a couple of those where the effort seems to have been a bit desultory that they need to find their courage and determination and act. Getting Twyford out of anything important seems to be an important first step towards those.
I would argue that the bigger "lie" was misleading statements on immigration followed by record levels of immigration. They'd technically argue they didn't promise to reduce volumes, but certainly plenty of statements were made, including Little's to "take a breather" while waiting for infrastructure to catch up.
Overall I would prefer we have sincere statements where there is real intent and effort to achieve, even if they fail, to blatant Tory-style propaganda on social media etc.
They did promise to reduce volumes - they named figures. They're still on their website
https://www.labour.org.nz/immigration
"In total, these changes are estimated to reduce net migration by 20,000-30,000. Without these changes there would be up to 10,000 more houses needed and up to 20,000 more vehicles on our roads annually. Our immigration system will be regularly reviewed to ensure it is functioning well."
From memory NZ First went for something stupid like 10K.
Reading the English language, the promise is "these changes", not the estimated effect. So the question is whether they have implemented those changes.
However, I counted also the election trail rhetoric which was more powerfully stated too (e.g. my reference to Little's statements). So I myself extended the scope beyond those changes promised on the website.
Labour spread their lies and propaganda via their grass roots movement, which, I might add, in the UK, is a veritable army. I know this because several of my friends, ex school friends, work colleagues etc are members. My facebook and twitter newsfeeds were flooded daily with hate, absolute hate and propaganda from the left, i'm not sure I even know any Tory voters! The image that Labour attempted to sell for Corbyn was that he was the last honest man in Britain and some kind of Saint, as this was supposed to be the antidote to the "dirty Tories" and "Blair spin". So sure, the official Labour adverts were honest and above board, but the grass roots movement coming out of the Momentum group was just as nasty and underhand. I saw Labour friends organising to threaten, abuse and defame. And of course, I couldn't say a thing, because had I, I would have been harassed and hounded off the internet as a Tory-sympathiser. Which I am not by the way, I voted to block a Tory MP. However, the truth doesn't matter anymore, the UK has gone full tribal division and both sides are tearing shreds off the other.
The price of Kiwibuild was not deliverable at the price they repeated over and over again to anyone who would listen was doable. They repeatedly said National 'cut' health funding. Neither of these things were true. Ergo, lies. Unless people can just promise any old bullshit with zero basis in reality, and your argument is that's somehow less dishonest?
All possibly true Chris, but it doesn't explain the Lib-Dems utter failure. They were the mildly left of centre/remain party and they got a kicking. As for relying on polls to give you a read on what policies people support, think again. With another failure by pollsters to anticipate an anti-progressive landslide, it is obvious that ordinary people are too scared to give their true opinions thanks to the very visible harassment of people who don't believe in the progressive agenda.
Too much focus on the person CT, and while it maybe true to an extent, remember that to vote for the Tories was also a vote for Brexit. So ask why the Lib-Dems failed too? They didn't want to quit the Eurozone. Was it too hard to get on a platform of creating jobs for Brits without the risk of them being stolen by immigrants flooding across non-existent borders? Is it too hard to admit the modern 'free market' economic model is failing the people, and a new solution needs to be found?
I think the UK election was to a large degree decided by revulsion at mechanations of Remainers in parliament leading up to the election. Tradespeople in NZ earn much more than they do in UK - not competing with eastern european workers. Remainers predominantly belong to the economically protected classes who's jobs depend on english fluency and tertiary academic qualifications. Open borders give them cheap laborers that make servicing their lifestyles cheaper. Working class are the ones that suffered, and so quite sensibly voted leave. As in NZ Labour no longer represent the working class.
Borris won on one message, three words
get brexit done
its a bit like trump , people say one thing then behind closed doors or in the polling booth they vote for what they really think.
its the same here for NZ first and why they get over 5% each time as they are seen as the party that is anti immigration
and I have no doubt they will get in again
I think you may be right re NZF. Take a walk anywhere in NZ and you will quickly see that the woke SJW types are noisy but well and truly outnumbered by the Silent voters which is why politicians dislike referenda. I'd say there's a good chance that the Marijuana referendum will be a 'No'.
In 2017, some here (supposedly swing voters) saw Ardern as the messiah who was going to deliver homes for all. Two years later, they still cling to hope while FHB are now priced out of many regional centres as well as the Auckland they couldn't afford under the Nats.
So, perhaps Jacinda should also thank her lucky stars that, heading into Election Year, it is Labour that has the populist mojo – not National.
No, they do not. It is Winston Peters that holds the populist mojo in NZ and we are coming into an election year. In about 3 months time Winston will start throwing his toys out of the cot - picking fights with his coalition partners. He will probably pitch a beefed up version of the hard line on gangs rhetoric and so by November position NZFirst as a viable opposition party.
A prediction for 2020 ... Winnie distances himself from the Greens particularly... and also Labour ... but treads a fine line not to bring down the coalition ...
... exhibit A : Labours backtracking on roads ! .... against the Greens desire to get vehicles off the roads ... Robertson is now flagging an increase in infrastructure spending , reopening the Gnats roads of national significance programme ...
The hand of NZF in there , somewhere ?
How? It makes them look like idiots. They delayed work programmes for two years, pointlessly, only to pull them out of the drawer once National started getting traction for nothing happening. It was the same with their cancer care announcement - it only came once National started scoring points on it. Otherwise, they were happy to sit there and claim the credit for being fiscally prudent by not delivering on their campaign promises.
Soyman ought to say " hey , about time you lot recognized the need for infrastructure spending , you cancelled all our projects " ...
.. then follow that up by imploring the electorate " Kiwibuild was a complete failure .. . Can you trust Labour to build anything ... we get it done .... Labour pontificates ! "
Labour primarily scrapped road plans that National had planned but had not funded (in their election budget).
Now this undermines National's ability to deliver their economic and infrastructure policy in 2020.
National have set a debt target of 20% GDP, a contrast to the historic aim of 10-15% under Joyce. This policy puts core crown debt to 21.5% in 2021/2022. So for National to meet their debt targets and also deliver infrastructure promises, they either have to raise taxes or privatize Crown assets. There aren't many Crown assets left to privatise, and there is no recession to justify doing so this time around. Selling assets simply to pay for more assets isn't going to play that well with the electorate. Why should NZ give up Pharmac or ACC just for a few mroe roads?
They will also struggle to raise taxes, because they have absolutely hounded the govt for raising taxes on petrol, National can't really tax consumption as they normally would so their only options are income tax or corporate tax. Both poisonous to their voter base.
It is (as you note) cynical politics from Labour, because it undermines National's ability to deliver their platform. They can't do all three of:
1. Lower taxes
2. Achieve debt targets
3. Fund infrastructure projects
So National are now pretending that their own economic policy is a sign of economic incompetence when Labour do it, and are having to really walk the line to do so...
Further to this, now see Bridges having to awkwardly label Labour's infrastructure spending as "an election year bribe" while he himself tries to jump up and say National will be the "party of infrastructure" and introduce more tax to be so: Source: Warning, Granny Herald link.
So will Simon add more tax or more debt to try to outspend Labour on infrastructure now?
Meanwhile, National is now adopting KiwiBuild (albeit they'll get rid of the label).
To me the strategies over the coming year are clear. The COL will say it needs more time to implement its policies. National will say that New Zealanders are fundamentally fair, gave the COL a chance, but failed to show competence and it's time to back a party that can get things done. There doesn't need to be a big policy gap, just a perception that only one can actually implement. I support neither. ACT is the party for me now as the COL were always untrustworthy, then the Nats joined them by colluding on the Gun laws and Carbon Zero.
You may be right that neither National (their previous terms in government) nor Labour will get much done. National might advertise that they will, but... So it could depend on electorate memory, successful propaganda etc. IF (biggish if) Labour gets enough done in the next 9 months then Simon will likely continue to struggle.
I don't mind ACT either save for the fact their libertarianism seems rather loosely held.
If this coalition want to finish the initiatives/work they have set up in this first term - they need to formulate a strategy that sees them working together further into the future - not point scoring against one another.
All gang up in opposition to National is the way they collectively need to go. That will suit NZ First and to my mind is key to getting them back into Parliament.
Really? NZF's core premise is that they swing both ways. To side with the left pre-election could split their vote and leave them sub 5%. Mind you, given this government has been a disaster, it would be pleasing to see Winston tie himself to it permanently and go down with the ship. He has been brilliant in knobbling it so far but we can't trust him to look after the Boomers as well as he has done so far.
The largest contingent of boomers/OAPs that vote for Winston have grandchildren that they know are finding it hard. Hence, Labour would be their favoured coalition partner - unless of course National come out with similar positive policies targeted at youth/young families.
Not something I knew anything about but a very small amount of google makes it clear you are misleading again Rick: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterview_Connection
Seems National sensibly questioned the early ~$3billion NZTA tunnel solution and saw it revised to a road + tunnel solution at close to half the projected cost. They then fast-tracked the project. Seems you've got an axe to grind as usual, and don't have much interest in balance/truth.
"pretty straightforward: do not embrace any policies even vaguely threatening to the neoliberal order – including its principal defenders in the mainstream news media" Yep, this statement encapsulates how I feel, pretty much depressed and angry with the state of modern day politics. Corbyn was rare. He actually had the wherewithal to effect real change.
"But if Corbyn’s mildly social-democratic domestic policies would have occasioned barely a shrug in Norway, Denmark or Finland,"
Hardly! Thinking the Scandinavian nations are socialist is a left wing trope.
Today they are low corporate tax regimes with a really strong sense of nationalism. The Danes make immigrants take a course and pass a test in Danish before they're let loose on society and have recently cut welfare benefits. The Finns are building nuclear power stations and don't let in ME immigrants. The Norwegian economy has been entirely bankrolled by it's oil wealth and is staunchly nationalist. The Swedes operate an education voucher system whereby schools have to compete in a free marketplace for pupils.
The real tragedy here is that the cult of personality is so pervasive and Chris is endorsing it. I remember once reading that Abe Lincoln would never have been elected in a modern era. Apparently not great to look at and a terrible speaking voice. It's a tragedy when superficiality reigns over substance.
CT has also overlooked the marketing campaign, exemplified by the Love Actually themed 'Let's get it done' vid....
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.