By Chris Trotter*
With the end of the year racing towards us, the temptation is strong to review the twelve months just gone. Some political journalists even go as far as issuing awards for the best and the worst of the nation’s political players. Others channel their inner schoolmarm and award grades, or marks out of ten. But, away with all such malarky! What most interests the politically aware is not the past, but the future. Never is this more true that when the new year fast approaching is an election year.
I would be remiss, however, not to reference the most jarring political event experienced by New Zealanders in 2022 – the occupation of Parliament Grounds. The full significance of this episode has only become clear with the benefit of hindsight. It intensified a prejudice against ordinary New Zealanders which, already strong, has since become a badge-of-honour among a distressingly large percentage of the political class. Before the Occupation, ignoring the wishes of the Great Unwashed could still elicit feelings of unease among “progressive” MPs. After the Occupation it became a positive duty.
How else to explain the outpouring of official concern at the amount of misinformation and disinformation coursing through the veins of the body politic? So swollen had these “rivers of filth” become that the Security Intelligence Service was prevailed upon to issue a booklet identifying the tell-tale signs of potentially lethal radicalisation in the boy next door. Concerned citizens were even given a number to call. 0800-STASI perhaps? It was all of a piece, however, with the melodramatic “Fire and Fury” documentary produced by Stuff’s Paula Penfold. In it, the time-honoured traditions of journalistic balance were jettisoned in favour of journalism which travels in (if not at) the direction of the Government.
Clearly, democracy – unguided by the morally superior members of the political and academic mandarinate – can degenerate very quickly into the terrifying mobocracy that unleashed arson and violence in Parliament Grounds. These feelings of personal vulnerability, aroused among parliamentarians and journalists by the Occupation’s fiery end, were both palpable and novel. For the first time in decades they had been made aware of just how destructive those excluded from the nation’s political discourse could become – if sufficiently provoked.
The historical precedent for this outrage and anguish can be found in the reaction of “respectable” politicians and journalists to the rioting and looting that broke out in New Zealand’s four main centres in the summer and autumn of 1932 – when the Great Depression was at its deepest. The NZ Herald’s cartoonist, Gordon Minhinnick, captured the disgust of the newspaper’s middle-class readers by depicting the rioters as rats erupting from the sewers. The governing conservative coalition responded to the violence by passing the draconian Public Safety Conservation Act. Unconstrained by entrenched electoral clauses, the Reform and United parties were also moved to postpone the general election scheduled for 1934 until 1935.
As the Labour Party confronts the New Year, it will not only struggle to move beyond its now visceral mistrust of the Occupiers, but also of the third of the country who believed their anti-vaccination mandate grievances worthy of a hearing. There will be some among Labour’s ranks who feel keenly the irony of a supposedly working-class party living in terror of the actually existing proletariat, but most of the party’s members and MPs will dismiss the whole notion that the people Trevor Mallard turned the sprinklers on were working-class.
Certainly, they were very different from the ageing, Pakeha, blue-collar trade union delegates who turn up to Labour Conferences, or the loyal Pasifika workers who sit beside them. What Labour has forgotten, however, is that barely 10 percent of private sector workers any longer belong to a trade union. The world that the Employment Contracts Act made in the 1990s – and which Labour has never seen fit to unmake – changed the New Zealand working-class no less thoroughly than Thatcherism and Reaganism changed the British and American working-classes. Driven from the political stage, they have wandered into strange pastures and swallowed strange fruits. The degree to which these abandoned and marginalised workers are able to surprise the contemporary parties of the centre-left can be summed up in just two words: ‘Brexit’ and ‘Trump’.
‘Idiot Savant’, the hard-working blogger behind “No Right Turn” asks rhetorically: “Why won’t Labour keep its promises?” His favoured explanation is that the party has become too beholden to the lobbyists and donors that keep it solvent. He’s right, of course, but there’s much more to the problem than that. Labour is vulnerable to lobbyists, and increasingly dependent on wealthy donors, for the very simple reason that it is deeply fearful of ever again becoming a mass party – most particularly, a mass party of today’s working-class.
Such a party would be economically radical and socially conservative – precisely the opposite of the entity Labour turned itself into by embracing the more-market ideas of the Reserve Bank and Treasury in the 1980s. A key aspect of that transformation was the catastrophic defection of the tens-of-thousands of Labour members who did not sign-up for Rogernomics. But the dramatic reduction in the size of the Labour Party was a feature, not a bug, of the neoliberal transformation. Having a lot of members is more-or-less a guarantee of having a lot of trouble.
It used to be the case that New Zealand’s political fault-line ran not between National and Labour, but squarely down the middle of the Labour Party itself. Up until 1984, the really big arguments concerning New Zealand’s economic and social future were those that took place between the right and left wings of the Labour Party. But, when Rogernomics caused Labour to split in 1989, it lost virtually all of its left-wing members to Jim Anderton’s NewLabour (later the Alliance). That was critically important, because although it has gone largely unnoticed and unreported by this country’s political journalists for the last 30 years, the transformations of 1984-1993 relocated the nation’s political fault-line to the left of both National and Labour where, ever since the demise of the Alliance and NZ First, there is only the swirling and inchoate rage of unrepresented rebels in search of a cause.
Labour is likely to lose next year’s election because it has become little more than New Zealand’s alternate governing party. New Zealanders lucky enough to live in their nation’s comfort zones will turn to Labour when National appears to have exhausted itself, and to National when Labour fails to impress. The only task which mainstream voters set themselves is determining which of National or Labour is most likely to administer the status quo efficiently and effectively. In the face of a Labour Government struggling to cope with record inflation, a cost-of-living crisis, and all the other side-effects of the Covid-19 pandemic, National’s hopes of reclaiming the Treasury Benches are, justifiably, high.
And that swirling mass of unrepresented and cause-less rebels: unimpressed by National and Labour, or their respective outriggers, Act and the Greens; what will they do in 2023? In the absence of a truly charismatic populist leader (sorry Winston) most of them will abstain from the electoral process altogether. Overall turnout is likely to be well down in next year’s election. An abstention rate of 25 percent is not inconceivable.
Not that National or Labour will care all that much. They have seen what the Deplorables can do when they get angry. They have no desire to see what they could make of Aotearoa-New Zealand if they ever got organised.
*Chris Trotter has been writing and commenting professionally about New Zealand politics for more than 30 years. He writes a weekly column for interest.co.nz. His work may also be found at http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com.
143 Comments
Good article CT. Strident warning bells on the state of our democracy are hard to ignore. One has to ask why a political party in NZ would be "deeply fearful of ever again becoming a mass party – most particularly, a mass party of today’s working-class" Considering that this group has to be the vast majority of voters, albeit not particularly wealthy, why are they not interested in serving the people of this country? When all our political parties are only interested in pandering to the wealthy and privileged then we are in great danger of losing our democracy completely.
why are they not interested in serving the people of this country
Casting my mind back, part of me wonders whether this really ever existed.
In the 1800s, the crown needed a willing population of settlers to help solidify and develop its new holding in the South Pacific, that it got almost for free.
In the 1900s, it needed fresh bodies to uphold its existence through multiple wars.
Then everyone got accidentally prosperous in the years following.
Now, we have bills we can't uphold, and everyone working in the own self interests.
A lot of my gut feels the "servitude" the state gave the population was tied a lot more to shared values tied to religious observance, and democracy is merely a game to help people feel they have some sense of agency in the country.
I think it is clear that many, if not all, who are in Government (I originally wrote in "serve", but they clearly don't really) believe they are a superior form of the species and therefore they are right by virtue of their position and ego. I would guess that this has been a long standing problem, but surely there are those who get there who are genuinely trying to serve the people? Or am i just being naive?
In the end though we do get to vote. But to the point CT makes about the protesters; somewhere in all the hype I recall hearing or reading that an estimate was that a third of the country supported the key items being protested about. I thought at the time that that would provide an opportunity for a petition to the Governor General to sack the Government and call an early election? But alas it appears for all their acclaimed smarts, it seems not one of those protesters thought to do that. Imagine if a petition with a million signatures calling for the sacking of the Government and and early election landing on the GGs desk? What choice would she have had? It would have been a great test of our electoral system and a extremely important lesson for all Kiwis in how our system works.
We now have far too many professional career politicians of academic background. Once upon a time political parties presented to each electorate candidates with previous experience(s) in livelihood. Accountants, lawyers, engineers, farmers, military, education, transport, construction to name just some. That experience was not only offered, it had to have had some measure of success to be recognised and consequently it largely was found to make worthwhile and meaningful contribution to the art of government. Instead today politics has become to some, just a standalone career and that is attractive because if you can stick around a bit, it is without doubt a high earner.
There is a lot of weirdos with agendas, trying to liberalise their fancy. Stacking the votes in their favour and fronted by a semi-normal person. Willie J is a prime example. Labour/green parties especially from what I have seen. These people should not be near the halls of power... just imagine if we had nuclear capability.
A bit of conflict in there, surely? You want ACT to inflict policies on the average joe so that the average joe can find out how bad that will be for the average joe. Ok so what happens to the average joe while that experiment is being conducted or are they just crash test dummies in the first instance? Have a read of your post again, and rethink.
'Why are they not interested in serving the people of this country? When all our political parties are only interested in pandering to the wealthy and privileged then we are in great danger of losing our democracy completely.'
The renting class and the owning class have nothing in common, to borrow from the IWW manifesto. Those who occupy Labour seats in Parliament are chosen by property owners, are themselves property owners, and will never represent the interests of the masses whom Labour once sought to serve.
Have another read of MPs' wealth and property interests:
https://www.parliament.nz/media/9105/register-of-pecuniary-and-other-sp…
https://www.parliament.nz/media/9902/summary-of-amendments-to-annual-re…
The electorate has already turned against the government I would say, even more than the polls are indicating. There is irony here as in 2020 the electorate turned justifiably, dramatically and severely against National because it did not have its house in order. Far from it in fact. Now Labour presents as a house divided with perception that the faction of the 15 Maori members of caucus are running the whole damn shooting box. They are strong, the rest are weak. How could have the extraordinary attempt to transgress accepted democratic process in order to clandestinely pass entrenchment of three waters occur if the Labour Party had control of all of its caucus. Additionally it is obvious now that if Labour is to retain power next year then they will need to be in hard coalition with the Greens and the Maori party, that is they will sit in cabinet. Given the Labour government of today is already breaking ranks how is the electorate to accept that they can control such an assortment of ideologies and ambitions and at the same time, conduct a stable government.
Mobocracy. Nice.
The many different types of people at Parliament just wanted to be heard and wanted a dis-proportionate impact on the political process. That they were allowed that shows clearly the breakdown in democracy and the rights of common good. This is the progression that progressives are so passionate about.
Also the worst government in living memory claimed another title with the appointment of the worst Police Commissioner in living memory. He looked like a lost child.
Indeed. Old wine in new bottles.
I think there are two common misconceptions about our electoral process which keep us flip-flopping between two largely identical establishment parties, and therefore making no real progress:
- the idea that you can "vote somebody out" (you can only vote somebody else in)
- the idea that voting for a party who doesn't make it into parliament is a "wasted vote"
So what we'll end up with is a bunch of people who aren't actually voting for National, they're just trying to "vote Labour out", and don't want to "waste their vote" on a minor party.
We need to change our mindsets.
Personally I wish that the ballot contained a no confidence option - that is no confidence in any party, it's policies or the leader. If a party can't gain a majority then they should scrap their polices and their leader until they do. Personally I believe NZ should set a series of goals / policies by referenda which the government of the day can't change. They can only tinker around the edges (maybe).
Your ballot does have the no confidence option.
ALCP, Social Credit, TOP, Communists, Outdoors Party, New New Conservatives, Libertarianz, United Future and so on...
Take dice into the booth with you and express your discontent randomly.
This will scare MPs way more than not voting.
A vote of no confidence as you put it when we've had a 2 majority party political landscape for almost as long as recorded history is just being a drama queen.
I reckon you're the sort that will abstain from "wasting" your vote on the ideal smaller party, until such time as they gain a few seats, and then you're all on board claiming you supported them from the beginning.
Thanks for the ad hominem attack - I must be making you uncomfortable. You would be wrong - I do vote for a smaller party but recognize that it is in effect a vote for the winning party - as nothing will change. If the system was done in such a way so that as soon as a certain percentage was reach for no confidence the election would be considered null and void - this would quickly sharpen the politician's mind to offer real policy rather than vague, ill-conceived and unrealistic policy which just wastes money and does not achieve to the desired goals. Currently NZ has policy that lasts as long as the current government is in power - change in government change in policy - more money wasted.
Politicians are professional liars whose most basic lie is to claim they care what the public thinks of them, but they never do. No confidence only works against people who may actually care.
Politicians fear losing. Trick the current lot into thinking you are may be for [insert nut-job political party here] by voting, much more effective.
Recall election day, evening time, the leader had been thrown out of a pub for disorderly conduct. Appearing before a judge he pleaded rather eloquently that he was greatly concerned that a conviction would have a very negative impact on his career prospects, in politics. But he did celebrate that they had then beaten all the same, some other party that had had, as a plank, transcendental flying and acknowledged his party hadn’t been able to match that for weirdness.
Our "Let them eat cake!" moment is not far away.
Holding the baubles of Power when that happens, whoever that is, is not a position to be envied
As this article suggests, we've already had a glimpse from the front lawn, and for a refresher, just watch the news tonight of many other similar places - the USA, included.
We are all in the same overcrowded, sinking boat.
I disagree the turnout could be a record high, you need to get off the couch and get the Labour government out before you do not even have a couch left to sit on. The masses are going to be totally pissed by the time the 2023 election rolls around, the pain is just getting started.
Policies announced so far seem to be "repeal this" and "repeal that". All good stuff but what (eg) will they do about the people in motels? Haven't seen anything that translates into a "housing policy" - after seeing what happened to Labour with Kiwibuild they will be reluctant to go hard on anything like that. (Eventual) tax cuts seem to be the cure-all. Be interesting to see what comes next. Maybe cut the cost of govt down with a swingeing benefit cut al a Ruthnasia and Jenny. Betcha they wont's campaign on THAT one ....
Didn't Luxon say (after the Liz Truss debacle) that National wouldn't be removing the 39% tax bracket. I think now their tax policy is to index the brackets to CPI - which I suspect Robertson will do shortly to take the wind out of their sails. Hence, National would be sensibly reluctant to say anything about any of their policy plans prior to the May 2023 budget being released.
I expect Ardern to spend up large over the next few years in a desperate bid to win back votes. Failing to regain momentum, she might quit NZ politics entirely for "family reasons" and move to the global stage.
Losing an election at homebase will irreversibly damage brand Ardern and make it harder for her to someday become Saviour-General of the UN. We can't let her destruction of NZ's middle class go in vain.
And here I thought the worst was over for NZ when John Key resigned in 2016.
Our politicians and public sector lack both expertise and integrity - something we don't talk about because it is too awkward to do so.
Luxon getting steamrolled by reporters on public media for not having a clear policy position has more to do with the conflicting interests pulling his strings in the background than his own chops as a party leader.
The reporters are busy holding Luxon to account for policy for an election that's 12 months away because it means they don't have to apply the blowtorch the actual government we have and their huge stuff-ups, policy walk-backs, spin and outright fabrications about things like entrenchment.
Journalism and the art of 'speaking the truth to power' is a lost art when you're more interested in only speaking your own truth to one particular party at any given time. No wonder they are among the least trusted of all professions. Little to do with misinformation and everything to do with their abject failure at holding the government to account.
Fair point but the major opposition party has dropped the ball on keeping the government accountable as well. National is struggling to present itself as a suitable alternative to the current lot in matters such as productivity, healthcare and education.
Forget fully costed policies, I can barely understand where Luxon stands on key issues. Talks big about "unleashing NZ's productivity" and then the very next second commits to scrapping hurdles on housing speculation.
I don't want another Labour Government but National have got some policies that will hurt our social fabric. (Namely their housing policy).
TOP are intriguing but some of their policies are unpalatable - the land tax being just one, but there is much to like which is a shame. If TOP opted for a CGT and DTI over land tax I'd really consider them as a viable alternative to ACT / National.
I yearn for the day when people hold the government we actually have to the same level of criticism they hold National to.
Let's be frank: National's policies in this area are gobshite, but the Labour track record on this over the last five years has been awful, and in a way that ruins and destroys the lives of the people most reliant on the government to provide housing for them. They've ruined Rotorua to the point where they now want kudos for cleaning it up. And the biggest bait and switch in political history saw thousands of home owners waiting on the sidelines for affordable housing that they were never going to get.
Voting to continue that is verging on reprehensible. There really is no legitimate choice for a morally-based voter to make in this regard.
I think it is important to acknowledge though,as slow as it was to happen,extended brightline,removal of mortgage interest deductions but allowing them still on new builds that add to supply and foreign buyer bans are steps that help steer the economy away from relying on housing.Thats why,given the likely change of government I am extremely interested in putting Luxon under the blow torch.Reversing of those policies should not be on the agenda.Rotorua was ruined before the motels...investors went in and cleaned that town up,leaving no affordable housing,creating the situation we have now.When you have people come in and buy and sell the same house for ever increasing amounts,having to increase rents to match the values,whilst peoples incomes remain the same,you are going to cause issues...chickens are coming home to roost,it required a global pandemic to finally cause the reset required,we must not let the ponzi run away again.The policies enacted, now have an opportunity to work now we have reducing prices...we should now add DTI's that decrease over a period down to an agreed amount over time.make housing about a roof over folks heads,not an tradeable international commodity.
I vote ACT. They are a lot further to the right than I sit but there are some policies that I totally agree on, so I'll take the good with the bad. Plus unless they're governing alone, there may be some moderation to the left slightly to find a good sweet spot.
Then there's the level of relevant experience in their members which instils confidence in their capabilities.
Removal of import tariffs, introduce flat income taxes. Scrapping the RMA and introduce a fit for purpose development legislation, GST sharing with councils, increasing the superannuation age. Gang controls, youth crime measures. They've got some interesting ideas on health care. Four year terms. Electronic income management for long term beneficiaries who have subsequent children while on benefits.
I don't agree with:
Bringing back 90 day trials, interest deductibility. Removal of brightline. Immigration. Their "student education account" policy is a bit daft, I can see this will allow people who put their kids in private schools to take funding away from public schools to offset against their private fees.
I didn't realise we had that many import tariffs still. On their tax policy - it's not quite flat - two separate brackets but a whole lot of rebates too that I can't make sense of (the rebates are required in order to meet the headline "A Tax Cut for Everyone");
In order to ensure that every earner would receive a tax cut, ACT would also create a new Low and Middle Income Tax Offset (LMITO), starting in fiscal year 2022/23. This tax offset would be worth $800 per annum for all earners earning between $12,000 and $48,000. It would gradually grow at a rate of 8% from $0 per year for taxpayers earning $2,000 to the full $800 for taxpayers earning $12,000. At incomes above $48,000, the offset would abate at a rate of 8%, reaching $0 at an income of $58,000.
The RMA - well. the reform has already started - which I assume ACT would scrap. But their four or five bullet points to improve the system are so vague as to not really give a good understanding of their reforms. For example, restricting objections to immediate neighbours only is pretty much the current way 99% of all consents operate. And many development projects (i.e., mining; ocean dredging; airport extensions, etc.) don't quite fit that kind of criteria. But, that's not to say I fully support the current direction at all!
Four year terms are great - should have been done ages ago. Not as keen on raising the age of super. I think means-testing might be more appropriate as it is more targeted to need.
But, good on you for having read through what they have proposed. And good on them for proposing something! Doing better than their coalition counterpart!
A land tax of some sort is unavoidable to my mind given economic uncertainty the world over. At the moment, PAYE is the largest percentage of government revenue, with GST next, then company tax. In a severe economic downturn, all of these major sources of income are vulnerable (GST somewhat less so, but if people don't have excess income to spend...). That's where a land tax comes in - it's fixed, not vulnerable to decline (even if land values plummet, one simply adjusts the percentage charged) as land is always owned by someone - and like rates, land tax is unavoidable. Many landholders have large savings and equity investments as well - and most are likely to also have jobs at the more secure end of the employment spectrum.
Hence, to my mind, land tax is going to be a part of our future, regardless of public opinion.. And so it should be, if economic security matters.
Kate, you say many land owners have large savings and most have jobs. You are implying that they therefore can pay a land tax. Tell us then how the rest of the land owners without large savings or jobs would be able to pay a land tax?
Imposing a tax that people can't pay is how revolutions start.
Technically you are correct. However, the Government has decided what the net amount should be and the PAYE comes out of all sources for obvious reasons.
Let's say the Government decided they don't want to take PAYE out of benefits, they're not suddenly going to give beneficiaries the difference are they?
As per the TOP proposal, the tax switch is from PAYE to land. So most working home/land owners without significant other savings or equity investments would find the new tax neutral, if not beneficial. The sector that is vulnerable to such change is superannuants with no jobs and no savings, but who own their own home. TOP's proposal provides for tax deferral until a change of ownership.
https://www.top.org.nz/affordable-housing-policy
And for landlords, they propose to;
- Remove the current Bright Line Test and allow tax deductibility of interest for landlords, which is replaced by the land value tax
So the government will borrow to make up for the delayed receipt of the land tax. Borrowing from the future to fund current spending is something we should be trying to reduce.
In your proposed rent controls (did you submit your petition?) do you allow an increase in rent to pass these costs on to the renters?
I think over time the unintended consequence of a significant land tax will be to further concentrate the ownership of land to the truly wealthy.
Borrowing from the future to fund current spending is something we should be trying to reduce.
That is indeed an argument FOR a land tax. Reliance on PAYE is borrowing on the future of the working class majority - made even worse with rental costs well above the ability of those renting to pay (denying them the ability to save) - and THAT requires the government to borrow (from the future, as you say) to pay the accommodation supplements!!!! More than $3 billion per annum to supplement land owners!
You really need to get real in terms of seeing the world and our rentier economy for what it is.
And no, an unintended consequence of a land tax will not see land further concentrated in the hands of the wealthy. Quite the opposite - if we give first home buyers an ability to save AND still pay rent in the meantime, land ownership will be available to the working class masses.
And, yes, my rent control proposal was presented to Parliament and has been referred to the Petitions Committee - and I'm working with a number of determined/influential groups.
You've got to let go of the status quo, Beanie - as it isn't working for current generations. Homelessness, emergency housing and accommodation supplements are all on the rise. A circuit breaker is needed.
Plus somewhere, minus somewhere ? It is a Zero sum game, especially during recession. Tax revenues can go up only in a growing economy and during that phase, tax is not a major concern among the population. During recession, the Government has to come to the rescue with tax concessions, etc.
Yes, where is the party that will speak up for ordinary working-class folk? Answer: it doesn't exist because the working class doesn't vote anymore.
And as Chris said yesterday, the three things you need to get into power are money, money and money. In this day and age, maybe crowd funding is the way to go for a working-class party, rather than wealthy donors.
One big policy with TOP is UBI. It sounds great, everyone receives $16k per year, woohoo!
Then the price of everything goes up to absorb people's ability to pay e.g. rents go up $5k p.a., grocery shop goes up $5k p.a.. utilities go up $3k p.a.. It's called a universal pricing signal, which will result in inflation. Same number of people competing for goods, sure, but increased ability to pay a bit like our housing market.
No political representation during a period of extreme economic unsettlement and declining living standards will result in fresh parties taking the field.
The question is whether these parties can build enough alternative media engagement to defeat the establishment or to take the 5% threshold.
To draw from the article
"In the absence of a truly charismatic populist leader (sorry Winston) most of them will abstain from the electoral process altogether."
So I expect a freshy with a nice eloquent, angry leader would have a shot, otherwise forget it. I can't think of anyone, so they must still be out there in the wild, growing up.
No doubt Jacinda will be endorsed by various celebrities like Meghan Markle who she has a strong bond with and the sheep of NZ will lap it up.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/jacinda-ardern-appears-in-trailer-…
Can't agree that the "swirling mass of unrepresented and cause-less rebels" will be the cause of a low turnout. There have been a number of posters here and elsewhere who wouldn't fit that description but for the very first time are questioning the effect of voting for the least worst vs abstaining.
Chebbo was right about voting out requires voting in and put like that the choices are a bit sickening.
Yeah, that quote from Chris is way off the mark. The number of folks camping out on Parliament grounds wouldn't even have filled SKY Stadium. The vast majority of NZers saw that collection of rabble rousers as a mixture of the unhinged, sprinkled with a good dose of wayward vandals.
And as for anti-vaxxers - you just need to look at the stats for those who queued to get vaccinated.
Chris Trotter is trying to project the 'nutter mentality' infesting the US onto NZ - and it just hasn't hit here - and likely never will.
One can happily be in support of vaccines as a general premise but be heavily against having peoples’ job security abolished by government mandate/gross overreach of power.
This in itself doesn’t make one anti-vax, as much as people jump to said conclusion, it simply makes them against the governments decision around the implementations of vaccine mandates, and the real virus that spread after, being where employers nationwide imposing vaccine requirements for both hiring and keeping employees in vastly more sectors than those covered in the covid legislation
Private sector employers imposed mandates for exactly the same reason government did - to hope to maintain a minimum workforce, particularly amongst the essential-worker/workplaces at a time when many employees were off with COVID.
It was really just common sense business management. And thank God we never had containers full of dead bodies awaiting processing and burial. We really don't appreciate how awful the sudden death toll was for so many countries overseas because we never experienced it.
For that reason alone, the Jacinda Ardern government should be thanked for their Covid strategy and execution. The other inconveniences and errors (learning curve) are excusable because of the number of lives saved. It is difficult to act in the face of such enormous crisis, without making a few errors. The courage to face the pandemic should be applauded.
Agreed. And because we got onto the first wave quickly and assertively, our vaccine orders were delayed on humanitarian grounds, as so many other countries were in such dire, immediate need. When the vaccines did arrive, the roll out was brilliant - in my experience. Took a while to get the RAT tests in, but again - once they were here, they we free AND freely available.
NZ was a standout, even though so many NZers seemed to be so critical.
Hats off to all the essential workers - we owe them a lot.
The media described them as trouble makers, nazis, white supremecists, Qanoners and flat earthers etc etc. I never even a rudimentary survery of folks approximate ideas present at the site.
I wouldnt say vast majority, my ancedote is many people I talked to expressed sympathy for the protestors.
I went and had a look for myself at the protest after the media rhetoric, couldnt find any white supremicists or nazis though.
The numbers werent huge because the rest of us have jobs but were in general agreement that the vax mandate had no scientific basis, which has turned out to be true.
Effectiveness at preventing transmission was not tested by Pfizer, everyone was repeating an assumption. Looking at the risk factor vs age the correct response with hindsight probably would have been to vax over 30s only with warnings of Myocarditis risk for people in their 30s.
I never once saw the relative risk factor for hospitalization from covid being 3.0-3.5x in the media, I had to find it myself while in MIQ for work purposes.
Later we learned more time between the shots was much safer, oh well!
Of particular concern were the lack of options for those who took one dose, had a strong negative reaction and even long term health effects but couldnt obtain an exemption such was the strangle hold over the health profession.
I really enjoy reading CT articles. Love the sarcasm in this one, e.g.:
"Clearly, democracy – unguided by the morally superior members of the political and academic mandarinate – can degenerate very quickly into the terrifying mobocracy that unleashed arson and violence in Parliament Grounds."
Must try and remember "mobocracy", could apply to the kids, all sorts of things.
It is important to have academics like CT to help retain our collective memory of relevant events, sometimes long past.
Agreed. First encountered in the 80s when my mother ( a stalwart Labourite) gifted me a subscription to a monthly I think, edition which either was his publication or he was the regular lead columnist. Followed ever since, largely because I appreciated his fondness and knowledge of history and he draws some good facts and conclusions from there and knows how to base and weigh up an argument pretty effectively.
"The degree to which these abandoned and marginalised workers are able to surprise the contemporary parties of the centre-left can be summed up in just two words 'Brexit' and 'Trump'" Why use two words when one word - corruption - will do? Viva deplorables.
"Suitcases of cash, luxury holidays and secret accounts: Qatar bribery scandal rocks Europe
The unprecedented bribery investigation has shaken the Brussels establishment to the core as it implicates legislators, non-governmental organisations and foreign powers, prompting soul-searching in the European parliament.
...A globetrotting Italian union boss-turned-politician has emerged as the kingpin in a sprawling international investigation into allegations that Qatar and Morocco sought to bribe EU legislators to influence policy and used a network of non-governmental organisations to hide the corrupt dealings."
https://www.ft.com/content/e3bfd079-5cc7-4f64-9db6-941ca9d5c3d0
We're about to lurch to the right under ACT. They will gain a bigger share than polls suggest, and Seymour will out-manoeuvre Luxon like the Maori caucus does Ardern. Pay attention to what is in ACT's policy stable as there is a good chance a lot of it will see the light of day.
Perhaps we should start with their (lack of) policy regarding climate change, then let's watch the rentier class grow even richer and and disenfranchised and disengaged become poorer and poorer.
You think you've a problem with gangs and crime now, wait till that gap grows even bigger.
ACT are the absolute pits when it comes to NZ politics
What like labours lack of policy around Co-governance?
You did not answer me on the last thread, try now where is it please ?
https://www.labour.org.nz/maori-manifesto
All they have done is brought this to the fore, it has been there for as long as the treaty has. It is not something that should be left to the tyranny of the majority to decide.
Do you think Maori willingly signed up to what they got? Because I most certainly don't
not something that should be left to the tyranny of the majority to decide
Thats an interesting statement, would explain a lot of recent Labour party behaviours.
I imagine in your world the Supreme Court of NZ would be excluded a say as well?
Chris - this is why the Labour party will splinter after the 2023 election!
So how does giving Maori co-governance over their Taonga translate to a loss of democracy in NZ?
Article 2 of the treaty:
The Queen of England agrees to protect the chiefs, the subtribes and all the people of New Zealand in the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship over their lands, villages and all their treasures.
How do you solve the the problem if water is one of their treasures?
Water is one of their treasures, but not the pipes and pumps and treatment plants that deliver clean water to houses.
Are you saying that because water is "Maori's" treasure, that nobody else can have it? Will I get spear tackled by a man wearing a Piupiu the next time I collect raindrops on my tongue? I put water in the washer bottle of my car the other day, do you want it back?
They are not going to own any of the infrastructure.
I think the term co-governance implies sharing.
I wonder what it is about the average kiwi that they want to shirk their obligations under the treaty.
Imagine them jumping up and down if they sold their house for a million, but the purchaser turned up with $10 and said sorry bud that's all you are getting, take me to court for the difference. So you do but find the court and all the structures of the legal system are run by the purchasers family...
Did I say anything about them owning infrastructure? All I'm saying is you refer to water being Taonga in a discussion, the pipes aren't Taonga. It's like saying Maori should have a say in how bottled water is sold.
Aside from land confiscations, which Apirana Ngata claimed (in his conclusion) were actually part of the law when Maori ceded sovereignty and violated authority (is actually a Maori custom "revenge, plunder to avenge a wrong"), everything else is sellers remorse. It would be like me chasing the current owner of my grandfather's first home, because he sold for 20% below value in 1970 and now it's worth $2m.
https://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-NgaTrea-t1-g1-t1.html
What are pipes if they aren't infrastructure?
Its nothing like them having a say in how bottled water is sold. What is wrong with them having a say in how water is managed in our rivers and oceans?
Have you read any of the findings of the Waitangi tribunal? I suggest you do, though I doubt you will. Half the historians in the tribunal are white if that helps.
I think you'll find that the crown broke a lot of the principals of contract & trustee law in their dealings with Maori, so its not simply a case of sellers remorse.
This is an extract from the article that you reference:
The Government placed in the hands of the Queen of England, the sovereignty and the authority to make laws. Some sections of the Maori people violated that authority. War arose from this and blood was spilled. The law came into operation and land was taken in payment. This it self is a Maori custom—revenge, plunder to avenge a wrong. It was their own chiefs who ceded that right to the Queen. The confiscations cannot therefore be objected to in the light of the Treaty.
So you are saying in this particular case Maori customary law applies, but in all other cases British law applies, by way of the Treaty.
I would say that the land wars were instigated by the settler government as a means to confiscate land, as at the time Maori owned 80% of the north Island and didn't want to sell anymore.
How is no climate change policy better? Because the global warming hysteria just political posturing. It's essentially a woke religion dressed up as science. The Paris accord is non binding. The CO2 sensitivity or TCR is currently estimated to be 1.8 degrees per doubling of CO2, but it's constantly being revised down over the decades. Some scientists estimate it might be as low as 0.5 degrees per doubling which would make CO2 virtually irrelevant to the climate. It's irresponsible for a leader to sacrifice the economy on the basis of such weak evidence, simply to score virtue signalling brownie points.
It's happening, are you blind!? And it's happening because for decades we have kicked that can down the road. We will not be able to 'adjust' for it in the end.
You remind of that meme of the dinosaur who looks up to see a meteor heading their way and cries out "oh no, the economy".
I was one of the 500,000. voters that left National last election after 50 years of the blue team.
I am very happy with the move and have done better under the red team.
2.5 GDP
Farmers doing better than the ever have.
Very low unemployment.
Not sure what Kiwi,s are moaning about they just need to get on with it.
All I see in Luxton is another smart ass corporate just like Key who will just sell young kiwi,s future out to the highest bidder.They don,t understand the imports of having family,s in there own homes.
Give me someone that cares about people every time.
Most people I have talk to will not be going back to the Blue team so not sure what makes them think they are in a good position.
Give me someone that cares about people every time.
I think the facade of Ardern caring has well and truly fallen by the wayside. Too much legislation shoved through without any public consultation, and without regard for the public who voiced their opposition e.g many many of the countries district councils. The current Labour party are fragmented and many are no longer believing in their leader due to the state of things, perhaps they have grown a conscience and are through with being yes men and women under the threat of making a 'career limiting move'. As previously mentioned above in the comments, this country has a systemic fundamental issue in the voting public of thinking that if you dont vote red then you must HAVE to vote blue, which is both illogical and untrue. I think we will see a much greater vote for ACT this election and also a greater show for other smaller parties that will surprise many, as the majority see through both the blue and red as being for their own self-interests of greater agendas and not for the voters who they are supposed to represent.
The damage was done from the GFC with JK and Nationals laundered money.
Agree with you it was dumb for the red team to print money which pushed the Housing market higher.
The real responsibility for this lyes with the reserve bank who allow this all to happen.
Now they are so cleavers they are going to fix it with a recession.
Pretty sure, like it or lump it, all of NZ is about to find out. Suggest as a harbinger, when Mr Trotter a shrewd, versed and steadfast campaigner for the left side of politics, heads the caption to his column here as “A New Government” then that is damn well putting the writing on the wall.
Shouldn't that read "a shrewd, versed and steadfast gaslighter for the left".
It is not the lack of representation for "the workers" (in itself a Marxist invented division among us) that is the problem. It is the lack of representation of decent people throughout all the layers of society.
To me, we have a choice between green fascists, red fascists and blue fascists, all intent on forcing their views upon us on the spurious basis that somehow "they know best" what is good for us. Bugger listening to the people, they should just do as they are told.
Tis a sad business.
I would like to congratulate the Labour Party led by Cindy.
It was a difficult task but you managed to alienate the average hard working New Zealander, the young ones, the middle class, and the business community. I talk to people from all walks of life and you are not popular these days.
As Chris put it in this article "Labour is likely to lose next year’s election".
I would go as far to say as "Labour will lose next year’s election" !
Well Labour are certainly cannoning down the slippery slope now, infighting and self preservation to the fore. National need do nothing more than observe the force of gravity at work. Still Luxon has much to learn. Grasp of detail and explaining it, is still much work in progress. And just in the way of being ultra petty, from an old fashioned perspective that is, if you are going to go to the trouble of presenting an obvious studio photo shot portrait, for heavens sake, if you are going to the trouble of wearing a tie, make sure you get it and your collar properly put together first. At least Winston knows how to do that.
Only when the spring is wound down, does the pendulum rest vertical. In not even three years National has regrouped, reformed their errant ways and progressed. On the other hand Labour is disintegrating. Just wish I didn’t have to vote for either of them, but the former is a far better prospect for stable government now than a coalition of divergent, unruly and competing entities intent on racial divide.
Sorry to burst your bubble, the racial divide was always there, its just that the average NZer was not aware of it, or chose to ignore it in the hope that Maori would assimilate to being European in their outlook because of the power of the majority.
The Maori world view is quite different to the European world view, but if you are only involved with Maori at a cursory level you would not know.
Whether you like it or not, and Luxon knows this, co-governance will become more common, as it is the only way a lot of the intractable problems of the treaty can be solved.
I recall back in 2018 I was at the Airport waiting for my flight. Some serious looking dude put his hand out at me. Was taken aback until I saw someone with a Slenderman like posture walking past escorted by 2 police officers and tailed by another serious looking dude. Our beloved Prime Minister.
Pretty sure all the voting could be done on an App these days. Your mobile number is unique to you and the voting could be as secure as your internet banking. This would save a whole lot of money and also the results could be available 5 minutes after the cut off time to vote instead of having to wait up all night for the counting process. Better for the planet as well, all that wasted paper and people driving about looking for a polling station. The current process is way out of date. I guess we need to wait a few more years for the remainder of the non smart phone oldies to die off.
I suppose if you're keen on the idea of a population in the tens of millions, foreigners again allowed to buy up houses and become our landlords, if you don't give a toss about the environment and/or climate change you might want to vote ACT.
I don't want any of that, along with a number of other terrible ideas they have as well
Remember: 2020 saw the Nats fall off their horses on their way to the election.
As they imploded, everyone was frightened that the Greens/groans would be the party with the balance of power in a new left-of-centre govt. So, many of the people voted Labour to keep the groans out of power. Which they succeeded in doing, by the way. And many of these folk were provincially based Kiwis, if my memory serves me.
Meanwhile, Jacinda boldly rode down the new Transmission Gully highway on her beautiful white charger & saved the besieged nation from the worst virus in living memory. Or so they were told.
Epilogue: Then the people saw for themselves what had really been going on. Treasonous deeds by minority races were afoot, none of which were part of the govt's 2020 election manifesto shown to the people.
Then the people's eyes were opened.
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.