Hard News: We interrupt this broadcast ...
372 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 11 12 13 14 15 Newer→ Last
-
Rich Lock, in reply to
You don’t remember the last time National held the reins?
In this country? Actually, no. We only arrived in 2003. But yeah,
Ruthanasia yadda yadda yadda.I've made my feelings about tory pollies very clear on this forum on a number of occasions. I don't want them in power.
But. hypothetically, if Labour got into power/managed to form a government this time round, what's going to happen? Well, they're not exactly looking like a well-oiled mean lean governing machine at the moment, so most likely they'll flail around incompetently for three years, getting savaged at every turn by the opposition and the public, and then National will get in in 2014 and do what they're going to do next term anyway.
Also, in my (UK skewed) experience, Labour parties in power have proved themselves very good at passing lite-blue laws in areas like policing, social policy, etc. Not necessarily as bad as Teh Evil Tories, but not exactly my cup of tea, either. The Labour parties in both NZ and the UK have drifted quite a fair way rightwards of where I, personally, would like them to be.
If my menu choice is boiled dead rat or raw dead rat, I think I'd rather stick with the nice leafy green salad.
-
As a PS, it ocurred to me that the current Labour opposition have, on several occasions, voted for legislation drafted and put forward by the Nats, as has been extensively discussed over the last three years on this forum. CERA and skynet, for example.
What's the point of voting agains the tories, if what you end up with is....tories?
-
Kracklite, in reply to
That’s been a major motive for my anger with Labour, apart from their astonishing incompetence, over these last few years.
To quote William Congreve’s ‘The Mourning Bride’:
“Heav’n has no Rage, like Love to Hatred turn’d,
Nor Hell a Fury, like a Woman scorn’d.”There seems to have been no repressive, anti-democratic legislation that they have not made a major show of wringing their hands over… and then voted for, no inquiry they would have “liked” to have seen… but never followed up. Shane Jones’ romping with Destiny’s blackshirts is just the latest episode in their cynical pursuit of the chimerical “Waitakere Man”.
I simply do not see Labour as the champion of liberal principles any more. Only expediency, which is why even their latest policies smack of something their focus groups told them are useful, in marketing-speak, as “Unique Selling Propositions”.
Now that the worst of the Luddites (especially Kedgley) are leaving, and because they’ve behaved like functioning adults, the Greens look like getting both my party and electorate votes.
-
Oh, ffs. The Labour Party is, sadly, the opposition. They have a choice, often, of supporting legislation in exchange for some concessions, or else losing and having bad legislation passed anyway.
The Labour Party has generally preferred to try and get things done, instead of making stands on principle.
Take the CERA legislation. No one, and I mean no one, has fought harder to keep the government on the straight and narrow over Canterbury than the Christchurch Labour MPs, and in particular, I have to say, Brendon Burns. (& that goes back to before the quakes, to the ECan takeover.) For all that the Greens made fine speeches, on the ground it has been Dyson, Dalziel, Clayton, and Burns that have actually been holding Gerry accountable.
So I don't have much time for that kind of aggrieved idealist complaint.
-
Joe Wylie, in reply to
I simply do not see Labour as the champion of liberal principles any more.
So, Peter Fraser jailing conscientious objectors and introducing peacetime conscription wasn't the last straw? While I'd be the last to deny Goff's shortcomings, on a good day he's a vastly better man than that fawning and jingoistic old weasel.
-
No one, and I mean no one, has fought harder to keep the government on the straight and narrow over Canterbury than the Christchurch Labour MPs,
Then kudos to them, but what has that meant in policy for the broader party?
Rather than Goff giving his bloody stupid and dogwhistling to the racists “Nationhood” speech, perhaps is he… and the party could articulate a commitment to democratic, liberal principles, around which they will orient their policies. I despise the libertarian “objectivists” as plutolators (sorry, that’s a portmanteau of “Plutocrat” and “Idolator”), but I do believe in the right to dissent and Goff’s own support for legislation and police action that has been actively repressive is deeply disturbing to me.
I do accept that there have been some people rounded up who are reckless, seditious and dangerous, but I am very disturbed by legislation that enables abuse of power and the fact is that more than just a few dangerous people have been rounded up – there has been a trend to general harassment of dissidents and invasion of privacy and curtailment of rights to dissent… and simple, brutal physical assault and intimidation of ordinary citizens that has happened and has been enabled by laws passed to suppress “terrorism”.
Likewise, legislation against file sharing has been disturbing, and Labour has been too weak-kneed… or just too ignorant.
So I don’t have much time for that kind of aggrieved idealist complaint.
Akshully, I think that idealist issues eventually and inevitably translate into real and immediate issues. They don’t exist in a separate realm forever.
“It couldn’t happen here because we’re good people and we wouldn’t let that happen” is an abiding myth of New Zealand and I think that we should abandon it right away, so the use of “idealist” as a term of dismissal” is… naive, I think.
Joe, really, so Phil’s not as bad as Fraser? “At least X’s not as bad as” has always been a weak argument. Should I have to explain why? Really?
Try this as a thought experiment: append the phrase “At least X is not as bad as…” to a scale of statements or laws that are repressive of freedom of dissent (I don’t just mean expression – anyone can say anything quite safely as long as no-one hears) in some way and see how much nausea you feel.
This is also predicated, I might add, on the assumption that the Labour Party, as an institution, is the only opposition. I do not believe, that as an institution, that it is the only possible opposition. Maybe their time has passed. Maybe there's another institution that can take their role. There is no divine right, no linear continuity guaranteed for one party.
-
On Christchurch issues, what the hell do you mean ``in terms of broader policy’’. This is the broader policy, this lived, day to day experience of interaction with EQC, with CERA, with the Minister.
-
DexterX, in reply to
on the ground it has been Dyson, Dalziel, Clayton, and Burns that have actually been holding Gerry accountable.
Good point and well done Labour.
-
Joe Wylie, in reply to
“Not as bad as” has always been a weak argument.
Weak!
O give us a fondle of that jailbait political muscle tone!While I'd rank Dalziel and Cosgrove somewhat ahead of Dyson and Burns in dealing with the grubby issues that Keir's raised, I'm hardly going to let my contempt for Mallard & Jones prevent me from engaging with those in the party who are prepared to put themselves on the line. No-one's demanding that anyone toe some kind of party line as a condition of engagement.
Should your world be similarly rocked, I can only wish that your idealism translates into engagement rather quicker than inevitably. Because you'll bloody need it, along with all the political help you can muster.
-
Kracklite, in reply to
I agree - the individual MPs seem to have done an excellent job - but where is this represented in party policy? What has the party to say about the constitutional outrage of CERA, a lowly minister's "right" to overrule legislation at his perceived convenience? The fact that the party cannot put together an argument that encompasses a consideration of constitutionality is either indicative of a deep moral deficit or an assumption that we don't care about such things.
I am aghast that no-one has articulated a vision of a constitution for New Zealand.
I believe strongly that this National-led government, with its manifold abuses of power (which has been most symptomatic in their abuse of urgency in parliament) has made the issue of constitutionality paramount, and I am amazed that no-one has decided that actually discussing the concept, if not the need for an actual document and supreme bill (after a dedicated and lengthy process) is necessary.
I'm disappointed - but not surprised - that no-one is even talking in terms of the principles of constitutionality and democracy. National certainly isn't - but I expect no better (a fantasy I have is that the old American Republican Party might) - and if they won't, then the opposition should, especially since urgency has been so abused in this term.
MMPs good, but it's not enough. The debate needs to be more fundamental, and more serious.
-
Kracklite, in reply to
Should your world be similarly rocked, I can only wish that your idealism translates into engagement rather quicker than inevitably.
What’s that? Anticipatory schadenfreude?
Because you’ll bloody need it, along with all the political help you can muster.
Actually, I really hope it doesn’t come to that. Are you hoping that it does? If so, that seems petty of you.
In any case, if it happens, it won’t be a matter of choice.
And I’ve known fairweather friends and I’ve found that fairweather friends aren’t friends.
those in the party who are prepared to put themselves on the line.
I agree, more than you think - but again, I ask, how much influence do these principled individuals have on party policy... and party voting?
-
Actually, I really hope it doesn’t come to that. Are you hoping that it does? If so, that seems petty of you.
Of course course I don't, silly.
-
Kracklite, in reply to
Glad to hear it. Try not to give the impression that that is how you do feel.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
Now that the worst of the Luddites (especially Kedgley) are leaving, and because they’ve behaved like functioning adults, the Greens look like getting both my party and electorate votes.
I can see where you’re coming from, but what if by some freak of politics the National candidate wins the seat because the Labour candidate’s vote gets cannibalised? It’s a case of be careful what you wish for… mind you, it'd be far more of an issue under FPP.
We all know Goff’s Labour has serious issues with itself, and I think at the very least it needs to man up, and do a Michelle Boag on those who don’t know when to quit. Or maybe the Alliance could merge with the Labour/Green ranks if it can’t get back into Parliament on the Alliance banner.
-
O give us a fondle of that jailbait political muscle tone!
OK, a clever little sneer. I can’t say much in response for legal reasons.
I’ve been involved in a matter that has had serious personal financial legal and career repercussions. I am not at liberty to speak of it. I use a pseudonym partly because of it. In the end I came out on top, but I know what it means to put something on the line for the sake of principle and suffer years afterwards as a result.
So yeah, I think I know a little of what I speak about.
-
Joe Wylie, in reply to
And a very good night to you too Sir.
-
Kracklite, in reply to
Well, I’m afraid that I see the Alliance as an historical footnote at best.
Yes, objectively speaking, a Tory government is, by whatever quantum one chooses, worse than a Labour-led government. However, is a single-term Labour-led government is only marginally better than one more term of a Key-led* National-led government? In any case should a Labour-led government be the permanent ideal? Maybe the time has passed and the Labour Party as an institution is no longer fit? Maybe someone else deserves a chance to carry the torch of liberalism? The environment matters, since the economy, as it has been said, is a wholely-owned subsidiary of the ecology and maybe, once the Greens overcome their Luddism (fingers crossed into non-Euclidean geometries), they might be the inheritors in the long run?
*Key’s one virtue – inadvertent as it is – is his populism. He won’t do something that makes him visibly unpopular and will back down under pressure. I’m afraid that asset sales will go ahead, but I’m not assured that a Goff-led Labour party with no guiding principles wouldn’t decide that they were necessary in its one term of government, considering his own flip-flops over the last few years.
-
We all know Goff’s Labour has serious issues with itself, and I think at the very least it needs to man up, and do a Michelle Boag on those who don’t know when to quit.
Agree totally. If only it had been done in 2008-9. Fingers crossed for early 2012 and maybe I'll vote for them in 2014, whoever the new leader might be. I'm thinking of Dr Evil, a lever, a trapdoor, a flaming pit and Mallard the first to drop.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
As it stands, the Greens under Russ Norman seem to be the closest to a Lib-Dem movement in NZ. Certainly not Peter Dunne, he's more of a Blue Dog/PMRC type at best. As radical as the Mana Party are, they at least allow non-Maori into their ranks, unlike the Maori Party which has turned out to be a lackey of the 'brown table'.
-
Kracklite, in reply to
The Mana party’s situation is… interesting. I’m not sure or not whether I should be surprised that they’ve scored so lowly in the polls so far. On one hand, there are a lot of disaffected people out there (hello me) looking for receptacles for their votes, but on the other hand, it does take time for a party to establish itself, so maybe, if they survive, they might become a force in the next election.
I’m not going to make predictions or judgments from now on, just observe, or make comments I know to be of little value. There’s certainly a lot to be learned, just when we thought that this was going to be a boring election – not because of what happens in November, but because of what emerges and hints at longer-term changes in the landscape.
I’m kinda intrigued by this:
http://podcast.radionz.co.nz/sat/sat-20111105-0810-ravi_batra_predictions_and_politics-048.mp3
Professor of economics at Southern Methodist University, Dallas, and the author of the 2008 book, The New Golden Age: The Coming Revolution against Political Corruption and Economic Chaos. (48′06″)
Not so confident that the timetable will be followed, and not so sure that the “Passionless People”/“Fretful Sleepers” are likely to be so active, but the forces indicated might upset a few predictions.
-
DexterX, in reply to
An insightful view - What happens when productivity goes up and wages don't.
Rising productivity and the problem of the concentration of wealthOne needs only need to experience the operation of Employment Law in NZ to see how the situation is stacked against "working people"..
It is quite amazing that the cost of living, the cost of life, is not a part of the equation or even a consideration in our economic system.
-
A classic case of the jobless recovery. And if the workers get uppity about living costs, the ruling class threatens to ship what’s left off to Shenzhen or Guangzhou, further weakening the middle classes and conveniently pinning the blame on 'worker militancy'.
A weakened middle class is an insecure and angry one, and when it’s forced to compete with those below them for jobs, well, blue touch paper gets lit. Middle class collapse was a major factor in the rise of Europe’s dictatorships in the 1930s, most notably the Weimar Republic.
-
Ravi Batra’s pretty Pollyanna-ish about the actual change itself. Maybe he’s thinking of Czechoslovakia, but I’m thinking more of Weimar Germany too. It’s not as bad as things could be here, but in the US, plutocracy in the costume of populism is entrenched – one has to have access to about a billion to think of running for congress, let alone the presidency. Whatever the ethics and practices of individual candidates, their political careers are now almost totally consumed by the pursuit of campaign funds and therefore the contributions of large corporations, and as a result, keeping them happy and generous.
It’s led to an ineffective government, unwilling to tackle real structural problems, but parties making shrill noises about ‘socialism’.
As a case in point, which I think is symptomatic, one can look at the plight of the american space programme. Programmes to replace the space shuttle came and went with depressing regularity: something would be proposed, costs would balloon, then it would be cancelled, but to keep the contractors happy, something new would be proposed, started… costs would balloon and it would be cancelled. Rinse and repeat. In terms of getting people into space reliably, these programmes were failures, but as providers of pork, they were eminently successful, and to the various Representatives, Senators and Governors who wanted federal money flowing into their state, that is all they had to be.
Just recently the “Space Launch System”, has been unveiled and nicknamed the “Senate Launch System” because its actual design has been dictated by senators for Alabama and Utah, where major contractors associated with the old shuttle programme were based. It’s supposed to keep the money flowing to the contractors, but its costs will cannibalise real space science work, it's an overscaled monster, it will fly, if at all, only in several years from now, fly only once every two or three years anyway and nobody has articulated a mission for it.
But it keeps pork flowing into Alabama and Utah.
Meanwhile, Elon Musk’s company Spacex has demonstrated (according to Nasa’s own reports) an ability to develop a launch system for about a third the cost of Nasa in conjunction with the usual contractors (Lockheed Martin, Boeing and ATK)… and of course congress and even the USAF (who is a major purchaser of launch services) are trying to freeze Musk out with funding cuts to independent launch providers and block purchases at inflated costs from Boeing et al.
OK, a pointy-headed, long-winded technical and rather narrow example, but I think it illustrates the dysfunction of crony capitalism and the unwillingness of democratic institutions in their present form to deal with it.
People know something’s wrong, and they’re angry, the existing political system can’t or won’t fix things and we see as a result movements like the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street. It’s an environment in which a very dangerous demagogue could rise.
(Musk, by the way, founded Paypal now has interests in solar power and is the founder of the electric car company, Tesla, which seems to be likely to be successful.)
-
Sacha, in reply to
fingers crossed into non-Euclidean geometries
likes
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
(Musk, by the way, founded Paypal now has interests in solar power and is the founder of the electric car company, Tesla, which seems to be likely to be successful.)
Speaking of Paypal, the other co-founder, Peter Thiel, had his 2c on innovation – that energy policy is largely stuck in the 1950s.
Offshore, PayPal founder and chief executive, hedge fund manager and venture capitalist Peter Thiel penned a monograph for the American National Review which put a shrewd cat among the financial and scientific pigeons.
Thiel made a case for technology having stalled in late capitalist society and real growth stagnating for the past 20 years. He noted that while computers had advanced society, ongoing failure in the energy realm had pulled us back, such that economic growth had never recovered from the 1970s oil crisis. Worse, when technology failed to deliver real growth, financiers tried to manufacture it through leveraging property and equity investments.
Having convinced the reader of this technology slowdown and its impact on growth, Thiel investigated whether government could restart the stalled innovation engine. He concluded they could but lacked the guts to do it.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.