By Chris Trotter*
In the normal course of events New Zealand general elections are won and lost in the centre-ground. Even under MMP, the multiplicity of parties is more apparent than real. For the most part, the minor parties are ideological outriders, positioned to the left or right of the more moderate political sentiment pursued by the majors. When National showed signs of losing its taste for economic reform, Act stepped forward to keep it honest. When Labour embraced neoliberalism in the 1980s, it spawned a succession of protest parties: NewLabour, the Alliance, the Greens; to keep the progressive flag flying. It is, therefore, a pretty straightforward exercise to work out who will go with whom after the votes have been counted. Everyone knows that the outriders have only one credible choice of coalition partner.
What makes the NZ First Party such a difficult political proposition is that it is the only party which claims the centre – not the centre-right or the centre-left – as its natural home. Since its foundation in July 1993, NZ First’s consistent pitch to voters has been that National and Labour are fraudulent centrists: pretending to moderation while secretly embracing extremism. Coming from the National Party, the founder and leader of NZ First, Winston Peters, has witnessed at close hand the enormous political effort required to prevent New Zealand’s business and farming interests from bending successive governments’ economic and social policies to their will. Peters knows what a radical undertaking the defence of moderation has always been.
Radicalism of any sort is disruptive, and the sort of radical populist interventions required to thwart the predatory intentions of the Australian banks, big business, the agricultural sector, large public sector unions and iwi-based corporates must entail major disruptions. This explains the unabashed hostility towards NZ First which has become the default position of virtually all the other political parties. They know that any coalition relationship with Peters and NZ First is bound to involve the frequent use of the party’s infamous “handbrake”. NZ First’s participation in government is defined not so much by what it does, but by what it prevents its coalition partners from doing.
The first coalition government of which NZ First was a part illustrates the political dilemma created by the mere presence of a genuinely centrist party. The changes demanded by NZ First were small-scale, but very popular: free doctor’s visits for children under six years old; generous concessions for superannuitants. They were bearable. But, NZ First’s refusal to support any further privatisations of municipally- and/or state-owned enterprises most certainly was not. National’s “dries” could not countenance such a direct challenge to the core tenets of neoliberalism. The successful plot, first to oust Jim Bolger (the coalition’s enabler) and then to dismiss Peters and his party, gave the lie to National’s pretentions to moderation. It also illustrated in the most vivid terms the radically disruptive effect of, in effect, doing nothing.
NZ First’s coalition with Jacinda Ardern’s Labour Party also illustrates the disruptive effect of centrist aspirations, this time from the point of view of a populist party which had quickly become profoundly alarmed at both the inexperience of its senior coalition partner’s ministers, and what its leader and his colleagues were persuaded was the extremism of some of those ministers’ ambitions. It was not long before NZ First was reaching for the handbrake – most notably in relation to Labour’s preference for a Capital Gains Tax. Here, again, we see NZ First’s strong reluctance to disturb the status quo. Tax-free capital gain constitutes a vital part of New Zealand’s small enterprises’ business model. Peters was unconvinced that his Labour colleagues fully grasped the likely consequences – economic and cultural – of introducing a CGT.
Peters’ apprehension concerning the extremism permeating Labour’s parliamentary ranks was subsequently borne out by the eventual release of the He Puapua Report. The fact that the far-reaching recommendations of this guide to New Zealand becoming fully compliant, by 2040, with the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples had been kept from them was bitterly resented by NZ First and its leader.
Had it known about He Puapua, it is likely that NZ First, by campaigning strongly against it, would have remained above the 5% MMP threshold. While it is probable that the 2020 general election would have freed Labour from the need for NZ First’s support, Peters’ mere presence in the House would have strengthened the opposition to Labour’s decolonisation and indigenisation efforts significantly. In these circumstances, Act’s opinion poll support may not have surged so dramatically, and the 2023 electoral battlefield would look quite different.
Certainly, Act’s implacable opposition to serving alongside Peters and his colleagues in a National-Act-NZ First coalition government lends strength to the argument that political parties determined to keep the actions of a multi-party government within the parameters of public tolerance cannot avoid having a decisive impact on its conduct.
A National-led government committed to a purely ameliorative programme vis-à-vis infrastructure, housing, health and education would, surely, welcome the support of a similarly inclined NZ First? That the National leader, Christopher Luxon, has, to date, had so little to say on whether he would, or would not, welcome Peters’ participation in a coalition government, suggests strongly that his party’s ambitions fall well short of the grandiose. Unfortunately for Luxon, the same cannot be said for the ambitions of David Seymour and Act.
Act’s radicalism may yet prove its undoing. Were Peters and NZ First to retire to the cross-benches, promising their support for any confidence motion in a National-Act minority government (in much the same way as the Greens promised their support for a Labour-Alliance minority government back in 1999) Luxon would become New Zealand’s next prime minister. The downside of this arrangement would be that he and his party would be governing as hostages to Act’s extreme policy agenda.
While NZ First could vote for those items on National-Act’s agenda enjoying majority support, and for which it had also campaigned, this would not be the case when it came to Act’s hardline economic and social policies. As the time for National-Act to present their first Budget drew near, the question of whether Peters’ promise of confidence also included “supply” would become increasingly acute.
Were NZ First to say “This far – but no further!” and join with Labour, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori in voting down a cruel austerity Budget, a new election would have to be called. With Act having demonstrated what it is made of, Peters and NZ First might humbly invite the electorate to provide National with a less extreme coalition partner. One not so determined to force unkind and unwanted policies down the electorate’s throat.
Of course, all the pundits will opine that any party forcing a snap election so soon after a general election will be punished mercilessly by the voters. It is possible, too, that if given the option of a second crack at getting the country back on the right track, the electors might opt for Labour-Green-Te Pāti Māori. Then again, a great many of those same electors, marvelling at the political magic of the Great Centrist Showman, might give him exactly what he asks for – thereby confirming the radical consequences of doing as little as possible and as much as necessary.
*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.
116 Comments
I'd argue that in some regard, it's David Seymour & his party that have given Winnie new life. He presents himself as the only credible handbrake on what could potentially turn out to be one of the more extremely tilted governments that New Zealand has encountered.
Can anyone build a credible argument that a Nat/Act coalition would be any less polarising than Lab/Green/TPM? I've always found New Zealand most pleasant when everything is well balanced, and wonder how many people will be casting a tactical vote for moderation this year.
Trotter writes that 'The first coalition government of which NZ First was a part illustrates the political dilemma created by the mere presence of a genuinely centrist party. The changes demanded by NZ First were small-scale, but very popular: free doctor’s visits for children under six years old; generous concessions for superannuitants.'
Those 'generous concessions for superannuitants' were hardly small-scale. Peters and NZ First demanded (and ultimately got) the end to the surcharge on NZ Super paid by recipients with other incomes. That sabotaged an understanding between National and Labour that NZ Super, intended as a universally available safety net for old folk without private means, was, without a tax on the wealthy, becoming unsustainable as the population aged.
Peters is the wrecker who has made NZ Superannuation, though still available to all over 65 including all who have no need of it, miserly and inadequate for those who depend on it.
We need now to increase New Zealand Superannuation to at least a tax-free $800 a week, keep it universally available, but put everyone who signs up for it on a flat tax rate of 50% on all other income, including the imputed income of living rent-free in one's own home.
" I've always found New Zealand most pleasant when everything is well balanced". This is your perspective of what well balanced is. Older generations accumulating wealth by rising property prices while the dream of owning a home dissolves in front of the younger generation, is to younger generations not well balanced.
For what its worth. I think the next government run by Luxon will be the last of the moderate governments. All he will do is remove the removal of interest deductibility in an attempt to reinflate the property market. Real incomes will continue to decline and social issues will get worst. The government that follows will probably be hard left.
The era of the moderates will span from 1990 to 2026. Roger Douglas was the the last guy with the spine to make changes.
Good point, if it becomes obvious that Labour have no chance will Labour supporters go NZF instead? Or even National supporters who are scared of ACT? Of course National will still choose ACT if they don't need NZF.
It is a bit disturbing that the media haven't pointed out how bad ACT could be for NZ. Extreme right are much more damaging than extreme left, at least the extreme left have good intentions...
He borrowed to rebuild chch.
If you think that schools ,hospitals and roads have improved in any way shape or form in that last 6 years then you are dreamin.
I would have a bridge to sell you but due to increased compliance costs, H&S, and Iwi remuneration you couldn't afford it..
Nope, read up what actually happened .
https://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/business/the-rebuild/70084887/how-muc…
And according to this 2016 RBNZ report, the total rebuild cost was estimated to be $40b ($16b each for residential/commercial and $7b for infrastructure). By September 2015, insurers had paid out $26b.
https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/hub/-/media/project/sites/rbnz/files/publicati…
They are planning to lay off 23% of the public service, reduce income tax over the 48k threshold by 30-40% (increase it by 60% for earnings under 14k threshold), get rid of anything with climate change in the name, build more prisons and spend more on the defence force.
What would an extreme right NZ political party look like to you?
Nope. What they'll do is close down Police Stations, Fire Stations, Schools and Clinics. Teachers can conduct lessons remotely via Skype and won't be remunerated for any costs. Fire Fighters will take turns at who takes the truck home and if there's a call out they'll tiki-tour around the suburbs picking everyone up on the way.
Winston has to hang on to the anti mandate as well as his traditional blue rinse brigade. A tough ask, the first lot are very fickle, a new issue could pop up before the election, they may decide Winnie is paid by Bill Gates, or just that voting is part of the "system".
His traditional base, not sure they will be happy with some of the candidates,or policy aimed at attracting the former.
Winston has to hang on to the anti mandate
Seems to be flying under the radar as an ongoing issue - plenty of jobs from health to transport and logistics still require a vaccine pass.
It was disappointing that so many people went to Wellington and not a single elected representative would go out and talk to them. They didn't need to agree with them, but to treat them like a basket of deplorables was disappointing. Mind you, the same 120 people see nothing wrong with the 5% threshold either.
When i read the headline I thought we were referring to the incumbent government.
Even Labour's tax policy was completely underwhelming yesterday- after months of Hipkins stating - just wait for our tax policy- I was shocked there was so little in it.
Whilst I'm no fan of Wealth taxes at least TPM and the Greens went big and bold and of course ACT and National's policy of indexing the tax brackets creates hope for low income earners that they wont be paying 30c in the dollar on every wage increase.
It felt like yesterdays announcement was a case of being the last to release their policy and all the good ideas had been stolen.
Indexing the income tax brackets to inflation is an absolute necessity though. It should be the first priority change for each and every political party. Not doing so is just a pure rip off to collect more tax via inaction/slight of hand.
Ridiculous that Labour didn't add that into their mix (or did they and did I miss it)?
Then one needs to improve the CPI measure to improve its reliability. The point is they move with CPI inflation so that one is not worse off should wages stay the same. NZ is likely to be a low wage, low-wage-growth economy forever. It's mainly the public sector union settlements that are presently adding to better wage growth. That cannot go on forever.
Delivering tax tweaks and reinstating interest deductibility are going to cost the Crown ~$2-3 billion in its first year.
I believe a tax cut (reduction in Crown revenue) won't be appreciated by the likes of S&P and Moody's considering NZ Treasury is already forecasting a $7b deficit in the current fiscal year.
National have put not timeframe on reinstating tax deductability. They know if they actually do it they will face a similar situation to Liz Truss' govt in UK. The problem is, they need the disenfranchised landlords to vote for them so they can't come out and actually say the reinstatement is not feasible.
Luxon has already been found out to be lying about policies before they are even in govt (4 lanes to Northland anyone?). I'm surprised the landlord class are buying his shit on this. I guess when you want something to be true is sort of clouds your judgement as to whether it actually is true.
And his reversal on the Medium Density Residential Standards mandate. This is after all the politiking and moaning on RMA plans being a barrier to new development. If that is his position he should just state that he wants to intensify all the rural residential lifestyle blocks on the outskirts of the city - hence the need for roads, roads, roads. Better to be upfront and honest.
I don’t see a path to success for him if ACT are true to their word. Winnie couldn’t form a coalition with Labour as his supporters would skin him alive leaving only National unless Luxon rules him out. Will be very interesting how it actually plays out if NZF gets to 5%.
I mean its hard seeing Winny forming a coalition with both the greens and TPM. Could happen though. Make environmental concessions to the Greens and make Maori concessions to TPM without touching the core structure of the taxation system. Then there is a path.
Winny forming a govt with National will require David Seymour and Act basically becoming a lapdog. I don't know if David would stand for this. He will not be representing the interests of his voter base by entering into this sort of arrangement.
Maybe we end up with a hung government.......
There in lies the heart of the problem. At a time New Zealand is deeply challenged economically, socially, you name it, the forthcoming election is looking to provide a great deal of instability in government, be it to the left or right. The re-emergence of WP & NZF, as being potentially in parliament , has really exacerbated that prospect. WP maintained a good relationship with Helen Clark’s government, but otherwise has produced too often, scandal and discord which I would wager will replay next time if NZF should be re-elected. The electorate should carefully weigh that up before giving NZF any vote at all.
It would be argued that Winston Peter's has caused more damage to NZ than any other politician in NZ history... Except Ardern and maybe Shipley
His Baubles include
6 years of Ardern madness thanks to his personal issues with Simon Bridges and supporting National
Very little achieved as foreign minister
The billions wasted and not accounted for with that "fund for mates"
9 Years as a useless Deputy PM.
Mind you I'd vote for him ahead of TPM or Greens. ... And labour.
That's why I can't vote for National, Labour, NZF, Greens or TPM (or ACT), I am voting for a basically centrist party that supports the young, a centrist progressive party to get NZ moving. The youth are our future and we don't want to much change with a sensible tax switch solution.
I'm sure there are a number of people in this in this predicament including me. I'm likely to do the party vote for Winston First but constituency vote is another animal. Need to look at the previous two general election results. Inclined towards the new farmers party if they have a new Pymouth/Taranaki candidate.
I would argue the opposite. I voted for NZF as National was stale and another three years would have been hopeless especially with the covid issue that developed. Their comments in opposition only reinforced that view with many.
Like National, Labour always likes doing its stealth agenda so needed a check.
For the first term I got the result i hoped for.
The relatively good approach to covid which the population agreed with and gave labor a majority in that second term. Without his balance labor did its little side agenda and has now come unstuck. That's on the voters not Winston.
The Ministry of foreign affairs, as it was at the time, was rebuilt under Winston and actually, he related well to the old and old school players in the world. That I know for a fact.
By proxy he is guilty of the most damage to NZ by any government.
But he, like we, didn't know that Jacinda would turn into a power-hungry dictator, who was soft on crime and her cabinet. I genuinely feel sorry for Hipkins, as he is a convincing prime minister, but he will never be able to wash off the pungent stain of Ardern.
Her border controls were found to be illegal.
Her vaccine mandates stopped following the science as of December 2021. A leader must balance restrictive policies with the greater public good.
"The podium of truth"- “single source of truth” are quotes that Putin would be proud of. To have a NZ prime minister telling people to not look at data, not look at what is happening globally, don't look at the statistics and only listen to her... was a very very sad state of affairs. No one was "permitted" to form or voice their own opinions, without being cast out as a nutjob by the Jacindamania crowd.
"NZ prime minister telling people to not look at data, not look at what is happening globally, don't look at the statistics and only listen to her"
That's not how I recall it happening. I recall anyone who questioned the "nutbars" was classed as a Jacindamaniac or part of the sheeple.
"No one was "permitted" to form or voice their own opinions, without being cast out as a nutjob by the Jacindamania crowd"
Many were cast out as a nutjob because they were nutjobs and not by the Jacindamania crowd but by the majority of ordinary citizens.
Opinions were rife everywhere as I recall. Including the most extreme nonsense spouted by nutjobs saying Covid was (pick and choose your favourite QAnon narrative:
an international conspiracy initiated by Bill Gates/NWO/UN/WEF/US/the west/the east/"the elite"/China/etc...etc... to inject mind control nanobots/sterilising agents to control birth rates/tracking devices/etc... etc...
Good point. Unusual for a career politician to fall on their sword. On the other hand, I don't think it's common for a female prime minister to have a young child, so parenting was likely top of mind also. No doubt she had two taps on the shoulder, one from the Labour party letting her know her position was untenable, and one from overseas corporations offering work.
I certainly don't spare a thought for the Anti-vaxx crowd, but the way she treated kiwi's that were overseas was despicable and embarrassing. I tried to imagine what it might have been like if the US or UK banned their own citizens from returning home.
I for one was immensely proud of NZ's vaccine up take, which once started, was swifter to reach 90% than any other country. At that point the gates should have opened, especially with the emergence of the very weak but very infectious omicron strain, but alas the science was ignored, and many inane rules remained for months and years to follow.
Nah! The whole cabinet has to take the responsibility. Ardern was only the figurehead. Listen to Hipkins' mother - he was brought up woke.
AND - don't forget he responsibility of all of us who 'bought' the whole package and voted them in a second time! They are venal and corrupt - we are suckers!
Had a look at their policies;
https://www.nzfirst.nz/2023_commitments
Interesting - in the main specific/targeted at Northland region and the disgruntled COVID crowd. I didn't even realise we still had vaccine mandates - quite nonsensical really if those teachers, nurses, police officers etc. who refused the vaccine are still unable to return to work.
I didn't even realise we still had vaccine mandates
Absolutely we do! A lot of government jobs still require it, things like corrections and social services. Then consider that any company that supports these ends up having to have them by default eg IT consultants, logistics, ports.
Labour has a mandate to govern but unfortunately cannot join the dots on the professions you mentioned as a way to alleviate shortages.
Part of today's announcement Kate: She said workplaces could continue to require vaccination as part of their work health and safety plans. Te Whatu Ora, which manages hospitals, would continue to require staff in some areas were vaccinated for Covid-19, she said.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/300949503/live-last-remaining…
I'm going to take a stab and say that most interest.co commenters have typically made a well-reasoned and mostly educated decision on who they will vote for and why - covering the political spectrum - and have done so for many years now.
What's deeply concerning is that many of these same commenters are bamboozled on what, why and how this time around!
We've been reduced to picking through the remains of policies / people and politics to find even a smidgeon of a decent idea that's good for the majority of the country - with almost as many cons to the pros for even the merest morsel - frankly, the worst position the country has ever been in when it comes to choosing our "leaders"
I'm not a political animal, and have no real way of becoming one before this election, but what resonates with me is I think we need real-world practitioners in roles of importance (not Party zealots) and people who don't salivate at the thought of being in office and the power it brings - which rules nearly everyone I've heard comment publicly from any of the established parties out...
At this stage, I'm leaning towards TOP, as they've said the least absurd and self-serving things to date...
Same leaning toward TOP here - and I'd like to see an analysis of the composition of Parliament in the event Raf takes Ilam and TOP gets 4% of the party vote. I suspect both of the two majors would choose them as a coalition partner if in doing so they would only need that one coalition partner to govern. That would make sense as both Labour and National would be able to stop the bleeding off of voters to the other minors currently in Parliament.
Fair assessment
I can’t remember an election where so many of my family and friends are so uncertain of who to vote for
most don’t like the direction of where Labour has taken us, I think in times to come Jacinda will know has the Prime Minister who divided the country
My Elderly sister said the other day She could never vote for Labour but she doesn’t like Luxon so she is going to vote for ACT
when I told her about some of ACTs radical policies she was alarmed and said no I don’t agree with those policies, she could turn to Winston
Unfortunately Labour is taking us down the wrong track, National are lacking any long term vision and really just want to repeal some of Labour,s policies ACT are too far to the right
Belt up for an interesting election
ACT and NZF do at least have solid common ground in their opposition to wokeism in NZ institutions. They probably both agree that woke policies need to be rolled back. On that topic, here are two very relevant interviews conducted by Rodney Hide. The first is with Professor Elizabeth Rata who’s speaking about postmodernism and the ideological war being waged inside NZ universities, and the second is with economist Ewen McQueen who’s written a book “One Sun in the Sky” that strongly challenges dual sovereignty ideas that’ve been imagined by the Waitangi Tribunal.
I imagine this is an attempt at 'sealioning' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning, however 'identity politics' is where you may like to start your googling/gpt-ing.
Re: Woke definition; Woke ideology goes by several names, postmodernism, critical theory, critical race theory, and social justice. I think this woman perfectly articulates it. The authoritative definition probably comes from Helen Pluckrose & James Lindsay's book “Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity—and Why This Harms Everybody,”. “Wokeness is a fusion of the critical theory school of neo-Marxism, which is a form of identity politics, and radical activism that has a very particular worldview that separates the world into liberationists versus oppressors or oppressed versus oppressors,”
Hi Kate, “social justice” isn’t what it sounds like. I doubt there’s a single person in NZ who disagrees with egalitarianism, equal opportunity, and the notion of justice in any context. But the phrase “social justice” refers to a toxic ideology linked to the peculiar academic theories of Michel Foucault and Jacques Derrida.
Two philosophers I've enjoyed reading (but a bit 'heavy' for my liking). I wouldn't peg either of them having anything to do with social justice (as I define social justice). Foucault is best know for his discussion of the relationship between knowledge and power - whereas Derrida is found to be more a linguist with a bent toward political philosophy.
Both have been labelled post-modernists - a label which both rejected.
But social justice - I think of it as a more recent concept/movement, perhaps gaining more prominence as a political stance after the Occupy Movement
Aligns as well with (for example) 'Black Lives Matter' - and here's the type of NGO-related work done under the social justice banner;
It's definitely on the left of the political spectrum.
Social Justice is a defined ideology. It seeks to characterize people not as individuals but as members of marginalised or oppressive groups using the ADRESSING (acronym) model. Oppression then becomes a blue-chip asset that people proudly carry on their shoulder. It’s an asset because it entitles them to privileges in society. Social Justice theory therefore is the opposite of resilience. It’s very closely related to Derrida’s ideas around power dynamics of superiority and subordination. Foucault’s contribution is the rejection of logic reasoning and objective truth. To me personally, my guiding lights are the ancient philosophers like Socrates and modern ones like Karl Popper who defined what knowledge is and where it actually comes from. I find particularly Foucault’s refutation of objective truth as being absolutely repulsive to every fibre of my being.
Thanks Fat Pat. I've studied Postmodernism and Critical Theory so am familiar with the concepts. I'm still non the wiser as to whether I'm woke or not or examples of woke policies and why they are woke. If being woke and postmodernism are interchangeable I think I am probably woke but maybe not. How do I find out?
Post-modernism - a late 20th-century movement characterized by broad skepticism, subjectivism, or relativism; a general suspicion of reason; and an acute sensitivity to the role of ideology in asserting and maintaining political and economic power.
The way I look at it is that modernity gave us the scientific method (the Baconian method). Mysticism and religious revelation were replaced with reason and experimentation. Knowledge became catalogued into the various sciences. There was a belief that all of societies ills and problems could be solved through the sciences - and that science led to universal truths. Then Thomas Kuhn came along and wrote the Structure of Scientific Revolutions - and with it there was a turn toward post-modern thought - an idea that scientific consensus goes through paradigm shifts. Orthodox economics (i.e., from the modern period), for example, seems to me to be going through one of those paradigm shifts. Additionally, society became more accepting of other knowledges (other than the Enlightenment/modern period derived knowledges).
I think we're all post-modern - not that modernity has finished - as post-modern is just a sub-set era within modernity.
Woke to me has become a word used to convey some kind of social conspiracy - to put down others in the service of one's own political view. No one would be against being awake/woke to new ideas and changes - except perhaps those who label others 'woke'. To my mind anyone who calls others 'woke' in the derogatory fashion used today is either a fuddy-duddy, a Christian fundamentalist, a bigot or a Trumpist - perhaps a combination of all? :-).
Kate the antiquated Baconinan method is either incorrect, or at best incomplete as an explanation for the scientific method. Empiricism and inductivism are fundamentally not methods that create new knowledge. An apple falling on one’s head does not reveal the theory of gravity. Rather, the more accurate and recent view of epistemology is Popperian. Specifically, knowledge evolves through conjecture and criticism. Also, the way that you’ve personally defined woke is not only inconsistent with its meaning, but your definition renders woke ideology immune from criticism.
Great discussion, thanks! As I view/interpret the philosophy of science, I agree regards Popper's important contribution regards falsification - no problem with that theory, but to falsify one can still turn to the basics/traditions of the Baconian method, inductive reasoning and empiricism (Popper's view on methodology) to do just that.
In layman's terms - what I interpret Popper as saying is: we cannot lay claim to 'universal truths' using the Baconian method (i.e., the theme/belief of modernity, e.g., Comte's positivism in particular), but we can come to know for certain what is not true through empirical falsification.
To my mind, there is as yet no consensus/articulated theory of 'woke' ideology - it's in the what-you-want-it-to-be conceptual form - and may very well turn into some kind of well researched/documented, unique ideological premise.
As for my favourite, current political science theory, this is what I teach as the seminal piece on the case for globalisation having moved into the most prominent/centrist political ideology of our time;
https://www.academia.edu/15618282/Ideologies_of_globalization
At the end, he articulates a thought-process, categorising emerging ideologies to the left and right of globalism. And he's since expanded on two varieties of globalism: pre-911 market globalism (where NZ is) and post-911 imperial globalism. Also really interesting considerations.
You might have already read it, but if not - given your interest in philosophy and politics - you'll really enjoy it I think.
Best wishes - and keep contributing :-)!
I agree Kate. Great discussion. I haven't seen that "ideologies of globalisation" but I'll check it out now :). If you want to check out Popper I'd highly recommend David Detusch's "The beginning of infinity". The book is beautifully optimistic and was a pleasure to read. It's almost a homage to Popperian thought, and it's far more approachable than Popper's original works which I find hard going. Deutsch actually dives deep into empericism, inductivism there. Falsifiablitly isn't so much a method to create new knowledge, but one of the perhaps three methods to assess the validity of a theory.
Winston Peters is a blessing for the establishment, the wiser and more cunning are well aware of it. The foolish, the ideological and the uncooth despise him. He is given disproportionate media coverage and attention for a reason. When he passes, the system will struggle immensely to handle illiberal anger at what is imposed on us by the Regime.
Winston Peters is the gatekeeper of illiberal forces within New Zealand. He is given free permission to skillfully sell his patronage to the unacceptable anger of the proles around any issue, only to never deliver when in Office. He ran against non-white migration in 1996 and did nothing. He ran on similar issues as well as opposing the Maori money machine in the mid 2000s. He is a cunning, capable influence peddler who understands how to play his audiences and deliver in directed tactical ways for his donors.
The reality is that he is the pressure valve for all the immense social engineering efforts imposed on our society. The sooner he dies or is senile, no longer able to blow off steam for the Regime, the better. He singlehandly prevents the rise of a genuine economically left, socially conservative party. For a man of so many talents, he is very similar to his namesake, a vainglory fool marked by a dogged career of failures while still an immensely capable charismatic leader.
He depends on establishment media, namely legacy media for his influence. The consensus position on establishment media since March 15, 2019 is there is no discussion of immigration policy which might encourage opposition to immigration on any grounds.
He knows the game he plays. An anti-immigration ticket would be very popular, you just frame it in terms of the economic impact of wageslave importation on workers here.
The view of Act as being "extreme" is the red herring.
What they're trying to do is wind back the clock, and unwind these destructive changes that have been implemented over the last 2 parliamentary terms.
Whereas we know National will just try to fluff around the edges and continue mostly with the status quo.
The only truly radical platform Act have is maybe their Treaty policy, and arguably this should be viewed via the same lens as i stated above.
Their tax policy is an extreme change to the government's revenue, and they also want to increase spending in other areas, but they haven't told us how they will pay for it (other than "tax welfare churn", "corporate welfare" and "wasteful government expenditure"):
Fiscal initiatives include a two-rate income tax system to phase the five existing thresholds into two by 2025/26, with those earning up to $70,000 paying 17.5 percent income tax and those earning anything above paying 28 percent income tax.
It also includes a carbon tax refund that redirects government revenue from the Emissions Trading Scheme to taxpayers instead of being reinvested into climate-focused policies, estimated to give each person roughly $200 over the years 2024-2027.
Other policies include introducing a low- and middle-income tax credit, abolishing the bright-line test, reversing the interest deductibility changes, and abolishing the income insurance scheme.
In the justice area, ACT wants to increase the adult prison system capacity back to its 2017 levels by resourcing Corrections to incarcerate a further 2000 adults by 2026/27.
On health, it wants to increase capitation grants paid to GPs for every patient under their care by around 13 percent. In education, ACT would introduce a $250 million fund for principals to reward teachers.
The party would also increase operating defence spending to 2 percent of GDP.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/489935/act-alternative-budget-high…
I heard David Seymour speaking about Treaty issues and a lot of what he said made sense and was very respectful toward Māori and Te Tiriti as well. I think where the Treaty is concerned I'm an "originalist" in the same sense as many of the constitutional scholars in the US are "originalists" - and I kind of got this same impression where DS was concerned.
And I'm an originalist based on the Māori text - not the English version. I think re the latter we should toss it out as it was not the document signed by the rangatira.
From the most recent polls it looks like a National/Act govt. NZF would have seats in parliament but not be able to be an effective handbrake on austerity policies or further sale of state asset policies.
As others have pointed out, a Labour voter looking at the recent polls would want to vote tactically and vote for NZF to put a handbrake on the austerity freight train that looks to be rolling into town.
I own property and turkeys don't vote for Christmas so I won't be voting for the Greens, the Maori Party or Labour again in my lifetime. I feel sorry for all the people that will be collateral damage as the pendulum swings but not sorry enough to prevent me from trying to save myself from a yearly wealth tax and the financial ruin that would bring. It's difficult enough to pay the rates.
I have some faint hope that Luxon will be intelligent enough to realise that he can ensure 12 years of National party rule if he plays it straight down the centre. Playing it down the centre, coupled with productivity gains from increased R & D investment and encouragement of new productive industry would be sufficient with the addition of some redistributive policies (low interest govt loans for new housing, green energy grants etc) to patch NZ together and get us back on the road to prosperity and fairness for all.
If Act get sufficient traction to impoverish more voters by redistributing income to the top 1 % then the left lunatics will be voted back in and NZ will deteriorate into an impoverished little apartheid state.
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.