Posts by Marcus Neiman
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Go Anglophonic Liberalism!
-
Rich: You perhaps forgot to mention abolishing the NZ Herald, or at least breaking its local monopoly...
While I agree that FPP needs to go, I think you will find that there are (relatively modest) campaign limits for local government elections.
The problem is that due to the lack of a party system communicating information about the quality of candidates, in battles between unknowns and celebrities (ie. the failed national politicians, successful businessmen) the latter will normally always win - regardless of their lack of qualities beyond recognition.
However, the local parties in Auckland (C&R and City Vision) for the reasons I described above, are generally failing to produce the driven, intelligent, and creative politicians who might coordinate affordable and effective public transport, pursue affordable housing, make the place look pretty, etc.
Thus we need a party system, new parties, and central government to get over its fear of a powerful Auckland. This could only happen when the groups in power in Auckland and Wellington are aligned. With Labour in power in Wellington and centre-left in power in Auckland City and the ARC there is a chance now - but I am not holding my breath.
-
Notwithstanding central government's apathy and fear towards Auckland, there certainly is a problem in terms of the quality of local government in Auckland. At the level of elected representatives, voters are faced with the Cits and Rats/Nats types whose twin obsessions are hosting mega-events and limiting rates, or City Vision/Labour Party hacks whose years of ladder climbing have drained them of any real drive, creativity, or willingness to challenge a Labour-led central government.
Meanwhile, as Mr. Judd alludes to, there is a real lack of confidence in the leadership of the NZ (central and local) public bureaucracy to not intellectually challenge those who would run the country/city "as a business", rather than a democracy.
In Auckland we are seeing years of deference to businessmen as actors in public life and the mediocrity of the market as mechanism for making decisions of public concern.
-
In so far as class is salient to National's recent attempt at agenda-setting, National's ambition is the alieviation of the guilt of middle class voters - through appealing to middle class morality of self-help and charity - it is not as if the party seriously sees the working/post-working class as a problem per se.
-
Somehow I think the split between the parties is more one of prefered service deliverers rather than the (re)mobilisation of class.
National is for the private sector and, watch for it, certain religious organisations - Labour is for the state and secular community groups. Neither is talking about the touchstone of class politics - the explicit redistribution of income and wealth to low income earners - and are rather talking in terms of particular needs.
-
"As a consumer and a taxpayer..."
It sounds like you might be interested in taking some form of collective action - I understand that there is an association out there that you may be interested in... although they may not be quite so enthusiastic about your views on multiculturalism...
-
" Isn't that why we vote Labour?' Of course, I doubt they're so stupid as to think the National Party is going to offer them anything better (selling the backs of their babies heads for corporate sponsorship space to pay for their breakfast perhaps?)"
Of course though the National Party is after the votes of "I can't give give you justice, but I can give you a hug" inclined of the middle class, who, as Bob Tuwiliger once noted, have guilty consciences that might occaisionally lead them to vote Democratic (read Labour), but who all other things being equal want a Republican/Nat to lower taxes, brutalise criminals, and generally rule over them like a king. The concerns and hopes of the "underclass" are entirely irrelevent in the proposition.