By Rose Patterson*
Recently I sat beside a Green MP at an event who, much to my astonishment, scoffed when the presenter mentioned John Key’s indication of wanting to tackle poverty this term.
If politicians, advocacy groups and commentators on the left want to work on solutions for poverty and inequality, the more extreme among them need to a) stop thinking the right would eat the poor if they could, and b) change up their stale narrative about how poverty came to be.
These changes need to happen before the left can even start thinking about working with the right (or probably more accurately, the centre) on how to tackle it.
The bleeding hearts bleated on about inequality and poverty for the whole election campaign, yet they didn’t get voted into power. Key could ignore poverty if he wanted to, and yet has made it a priority in his third term. Whether that’s a cynical move to buy votes is immaterial.
Here is an opportunity for the left to work constructively with government, and yet many (not all) on the left scoff at it.
This is frustrating because as someone from the left who has an insight into the political right, I know both sides care about poverty and inequality.
Granted, they have very different ideas on how to solve the problem, and the right are more accepting that there will always be some level of inequality (not to be confused with poverty) in society.
Some on the left, however, need to get better at challenging their own narratives about how the problem came to be in the first place.
Condensed down to its simplest form, their story goes like this: the economic reforms of the 1980s, and capitalism in general, has made the rich richer at the expense of the poor.
The reasons the right get frustrated with this narrative are manifold, but here is just one.
When people point the finger at people who have worked hard, and tell them that their success is making the poor even poorer, whether that is true or not, they stop listening.
I understand that on balance, people who do well in life got a better start, but there exists the presumption that this wealth was stolen, not created.
If anything, we need to take a long-term view and seriously tackle equality of opportunity through education.
The reality in the meantime, however, is that people who have made the most of what life has given them don’t want to hear they are evil capitalists exploiting the poor. Most are just trying to make a good life for their own families.
If the left really wants to make a difference to reducing inequality and poverty, before even debating solutions, it is time for those who hold stale narratives to change it up. Stop assuming the right is out to exploit the poor.
--------------------------------------------------------
Rose Patterson is a research fellow at the NZ Initiative
27 Comments
Many people in many organizations tow the party line regardless of whether it makes sense or not. Eg Would womans refuge take in a man when he was being abused by his wife and wanted to get away from her/ her family? I doubt it.
Your article asks whether those in the Left would work constructively towards a solution. The answer to that will reveal what the true motivation is.
So when people say that The Accomodation Supplement is effectively a subsidy for landlords, and that Working for Families is a subsidy for business owners, are they of the right or the left? Because either way those that benefit from it don't want to listen regardless of what side the message is coming from. Equally, those that make their income in a way that is not taxed is much as wage earners tend not to be receptive to the idea that they are supposed to be contributing to the nation like everyone else.
If anything, we need to take a long-term view and seriously tackle equality of opportunity through education.
Does this mean that the New Zealand Institutes position on funding tertiary education has changed rather dramatically?
" idea that they are supposed to be contributing to the nation like everyone else."
I consider that a failure philosophy.
I kno wyou think that means personal failure but that's exactly the wronger than wrong thinking I'm talking about.
Keep your socialist BS to yourself.
You'll have to put your biased opinion aside DH......you are viewing it from one person receiving and one person taking......
If you want a better system then look at the tax system, why the tax system is there and in who is the largest benefactor having the tax system there in the first place??.......
It seems to me that people in poverty/low income are the same people who want the system there for themselves.....yet it is the system that keeps them poor and on low income.......and the biggest benefactors are the Government and bureaucrats so they want to keep the system there and forever expanding so that most people can't see the wood for the trees.
Education is needed but the current education system is a failure......it'll give you some silly intitials after your name......but in reality everybody needs the letters JOB.....or EMPLOYED......
The education system is a failure at all levels......simply because it fails to teach that there is a system in the first place......and so then there is no discussion on whether the system could have an alternative to the staus quo.......how many academics have any meaningful debate on the system......they simply don't they just advocate adjustments to the status quo on any given cause that society is experiencing at the time.....hardly academic is it??
I don't think using this sort of language is going to help your campaign...
"The bleeding hearts bleated on about inequality and poverty for the whole election campaign"
Yes, all sides should sit down and work out a solution, but you are asking 1 side to accept the others views without any concessions the other way.
Frankly ,National really do not care a jot about anything other than keeping power at almost any cost. Many of the followers just want to get on and make as much money as they can with no social conscience. Most do not even want to apply any logic to the plight of those at the other end.
Can anyone justify obtaining (earning-no?) an income of tens of thousands of dollars a week as the result of hard work?
Greed is good. Yeah right.
Very succinct article which goes pretty much to the crux of why Labour/Greens did so poorly at the election. I for one (a former Labour voter) got thoroughly sick of the hand-wringing poverty rhetoric which really constantly puts the blame on anyone who's worked hard and completely ignores many facets what is a complex issue.
Superficial and naive, even for in New Zealand these days.
Rose, did the centrists ever sit down and discuss equal pay for women? The rights Rose and her generation enjoy were earned with blood on the streets. You may not know it but there have been Naval machine guns on Lambton Quay to break strikes, even in Godzone.
This is politics not justice and fairness in the playground. The right has never given an inch in social justice. I think theidea of the right as centrism is self-delusion. Somehow New Zealand isnt like the rest of the world?
Look at all the social and justice legislation that has created the New Zealand we are proud of and how much was enacted by Labour (including the Reform party). Labour is called that for a reason.
Lets judge the sincerity after 3 years. Are the alcohol ,tobacco, pharmaceutical and food & Grocery Council etc going to let the government do the necessary?
While yes early Labour can look back on a proud history of acheivements, I am not so sure they are [seen at least that way by ppl] hugely relevent today and that is an issue for Labour. Swinging off the left aka Michael Foot is one sure way to spend a decade+ in the political wilderness.
Today, the lobbyists, and big business are indeed a worry, they have huge collective clout and money. Now while I tend to dislike unions they were a counter-balance to the above and hence are needed, but certianly under-appreciated by many.
regards
Which Party came up with Kiwisaver?
Working for Families?
interest free student loans
free doctors visits?
Regional economic development
Originally: govt housing
Ballot farms& orchards for returned servicemen
large infrastructure projects
full funding for Universities & Health Boards?
national would never come up with these 'interventionist' ideas
unfortunately Labour got captured by the Social Engineering Brigade ...
... the " Social Engineering Brigade " who have captured NZ Labour are predominately academics ...
Of the current contenders for the leadership , only Andrew Little would have any inkling of how business owners and ground level staff feel ... David shearer would be a close second to him ....
... but Parker , Robertson and the former Cunny , are so far distanced from ordinary folk , that they're in no position to know what's feasible to achieve in the real world , as opposed to their socialist nirvana dreams ...
not just academics but fanatics/fundamentalists. They have a religious-like faith of "how things should be" and are going to try and make things fit to that.
I think I'd rather put an Iman in charge, it's the same process but at least their playbook was designed and test for goverance
... one of the frequent criticisms of David Cunliffe was that he possessed the " messiah " complex ... not an endearing trait to the public at large ....
Parksy is a nice enough guy , albeit so dull he makes Bill Rowling look like " Champagne Charlie " ....
... Robbo is a smart enough gentleman ... who loves rugby , beer & the blokes .... well , who amongst us doesn't , huh !
... and that leaves Andrew , with more than a little chance to pull it off ( down Robbo , down boy ! ) ... probably the best of an indifferent bunch ...
The porblem is "When people point the finger at people who have worked hard, and tell them that their success is making the poor even poorer, whether that is true or not, they stop listening"
Its not so much fingers being pointed at those who have worked hard is it?
Consider just how the rich get their income these days. From speculative hedge funds? and tend to pay little tax? So how many of the rich are like Steve Tindle and run a real business? and how many simply throw their money at a hedge fund manager and expect a 20%+ tax free return? Or buy property expecting a huge capital return? So how many of these ppl some point their fingers at acrtually benefit NZ and how many are actually parasitic?
"stale narratives"
indeed, here it seems is another one.
regards
If you throw your money at a property, then you've had to develop that money some how. How? and if you're the type throwing money at things, then (like Fonterra) eventually it starts to catch up with you.
The returns for hedge funds etc are an issue, as is foreign property buying. The returns in those localised areas are _CLEARLY_ inflationary, yet government & RBNZ tries to control "inflation" by taxing and increasing interest on exactly the wrong areas (the middle and poor, and the leveraged business people). Just how is increased inflation on a mortgage-free property supposed to be contained by such measures? introduce CGT or OCR rises, and everyone elses costs&rent go up - giving the people with the most disposable income more money to throw around (inflationary).... while depriving those investing and building with exposure to more costs (harming them) BUT not only that they are having to be cost-conscious unlike their rich peers so must pass on those costs (inflationary).
It's such a scam, almost as bold as "trickle-down", that the legitimacy of the people involved in oversight needs to be examined with the thoroughness that courts used on leaky-homes council sign offs. "I was following orders" is not acceptable excuses
Steve Tindle (you mean Stephen Tindall?), "real business"?? I blame him for the state we're in now. He put lots of small business out of business, reducing everybody's spending power in the process. He's responsible for our low wage economy. And don't tell me he's helping Kiwis. A friend of mine had a great product, tried to sell it to Stephen Tindall. He would pay her less than what it cost her to proiduce. It was a good product though, so her sourced some cheap crap in China instead. My friend went bust and back onto the dole.
Yes few people are very wealthy, In NZ especially. That leaves influence in NZ from wealthy interests overseas and also note that it is dollars that talk not the numeric number of people holding them. Wealth is not egalitarian.
The "trickle up" process has benefitted the 1% exponentially over the last 30 years. They are remote from our world,immensely powerful and employ talented people to look after their interests. Along with this the middleclass with their aspirations for material comfort and maybe "success" have had some crumbs to keeps the aspiration alive. The wheel of the cycle is kicked into motion when the comforts of the middles class are disturbed-when that dream is stagnant then going backwards. Aspiration is a huge factor in whether you continue to play the game or knock the board over.
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.