Just to confirm Rob- are you endorsing the idea that Bernie Sanders is an extremist not a social democrat? If so, could you perhaps explain that a bit, as I believe you are closer to the US political scene than us muggles?
I agree that redistribution seems like a good idea to people when it isn’t seen as taking any off your plate.
However, the left also have to come in to fix structural imbalances, because the steady as she goes, no need to change anything conservatism is a bad idea in the face of changing circumstances.
Rob if you haven’t got anyone in the Labour Party who could make a statement about doing politics of hope, or so openly and unashamedly back diversity and multi-culturalism, or talk about sunny ways or a new kind of kinder politics go and get them.
yes the same way that Boag got the candidate from central casting, or a better more Labour way.
Stop looking over your shoulder so afraid of the Greens and Corbyn, and find someone who is able to be genuinely decent and inclusive as leader. Little hasn’t said anything that has precluded himself from that yet.
Also perhaps if the current lot don’t work a lot harder, find a few more people who are able to snap a lot harder at the heels of ministers and highlight the failings of departments. There is failure and blame to be had in government. Stop trying to prove that this doesn’t mean anything and Corbyn didn’t mean anything and sheet the former home, repetitively in every news report. Good work on justice, outside that department too.
There are a lot of Kiwis who remember when Labour was anti-nukes and anti-apartheid and kept us out of war in Iraq. Those are Corbyn minimums- but how many of your current front bench would be happy with that?
You'll have noted that the first thing Trudeau has done has stopped Canadian air-strikes
Still, however much of a silver fox Corbyn is, there are a few noticeable differences to Trudeau yeh?
Margaret Mahy, Sheryl Jordan, Joan de Hamel, Elsie Locke, Gaelyn Gordon...
The Pacific is an area of interest for China surely. New Zealand at the least is an attractive place for some of its wealthier and moderately wealthy citizens to send their children or purchase property or take a holiday.
I have re-read Tze Ming Mok's original post and it is an angry one about the betrayal of Chinese New Zealanders by Labour. This was my initial and angry gut reaction too.
There is no consideration, though, of global politics- the enormous influence that even a small slice of one the great powers wealth could have on us. It's very late in the piece to be thinking about this granted, but this too is a valid thing to consider.
It is just as valid to be concerned about this as it is to be concerned about Pharmac and IP through the TPPA.
From this debate, which has been enthralling, I have taken the following lessons:
1) Our country (and the British social order which it follows) has always had a racial hierarchy, but some of us are not happy to face that reality. The statistics show this painfully clearly.
2) We have enormous and differing anxieties about what our country may be in a post-commonwealth world and have a leadership vacuum in this regard.
3) It is likely that China (the country, the civilisation) also has a racial hierarchy and no one has talked about this much, as we assume people like us as a country and darling of the former Brit Empire.
4) While we are in this public morass where genuine public conversation has been largely suppressed, avoided or differed, other more dynamic and powerful countries are already attempting to make decisions about our future.
5) The poor have been abandoned by politicians and have increasingly weak influence on our national conversation. It is not clear, though, that our society no longer feels a moral duty for greater equality or to guarantee a minimum existence to its weakest members.
6) If Labour wants to ever have a mandate to govern it will have some serious butt kissing to do.
7) This so far has been one of the rare successful attempts to change the political narrative and get media attention in New Zealand by Labour in 7 years.
8) This is a bad and polarising backdrop to consider how our multi-culturalism will continue to work.
9) Why hasn’t anyone asked Bic Runga what she thinks?
10) Will this be forgotten by next weekend?
Wish Danyl, Russel, Keith and Tze Ming Mok would get together and start the equivalent of a newspaper or a TV station with enormous amount of access.
I've been enormously conflicted about this.
1) China's ability to be a big fish and increase its influence over New Zealand, the speed at which this happens and our concept of ourselves as a nation thinking ahead 30-50 years, and not being tied to WWII and the 1970s nostalgia. Is it racist to worry about the social effects of increasing political and financial influence with Chinese banks opening and us being (or perhaps having been) so dependent on the Chinese dairy market?
2) Labour's ability to govern for the poor. See the article above. Those guys don't need any extra problems. Same as beneficiaries under the current government.
3) Racism doesn't matter unless it aligns with National Party interests. Who is making a stink about the low rate of Polynesian home purchases or as above the health, overcrowding and other issues? That is seriously racist and I'd like to think that anyone who is principled about being anti-racism would make that an issue.
4) Culture change. What are the essential principles we aren't going to trade away?
See here TPPA, Saudi farms and Casino deals which are government lead and things like attitudes to women, smoking and other forms of social change over the last 30 years which are influenced by immigrants from countries with different values.
I had a conversation with about women in tech and the low uptake of coding jobs by qualified women (IE a big gender disproportion in the tech sector in the US) and I had a chap from overseas who couldn't understand why it was important. Which some people in NZ may think, but attitudes are such now it couldn't be said publicly or assumed to be the 'commonsense' held by all.
5) Racism=power imbalances among groups?
I feel that there is a lot more than racism in this and there are many reasons to be angry in different directions. For a lot of people growing up in New Zealand who are not able to buy their own home to see the Mitt Romney's of China
("Why do you spend $100 on beer while you can save it and spend it on your house one day?" Mr Li asked.
"There are so many other Kiwis who can afford to buy their houses. Why don't those people work harder to earn more, save more and then they can buy? To me, it's very fair. Excuse my language but only losers think it's not fair. My money didn't fall on me from the sky. I am not ashamed of being richer than those people who don't work hard and blame others for their own failures. This is what I value."
along with other investors being shown the welcome mat is very irritating. This is not being angry with China or Chinese, but with the policy of the government which has policy settings directly to the detriment of its citizens which advantages some of the 1% foreigners.
Anyway I don't know how I think about this, but I know that the people who do are setting the agenda. See how quickly Don McKinnon, the New Zealand China Council, Chester Borrows told us that having this debate was damaging.
Labour was praised by the PRC president for the actions of Norm Kirk's government. It also signed the free trade agreement. I hope it knows what it is doing.
On a technical level it could be produced fairly cheaply. But you wouldn’t be able to employ 22 people on proper salaries to make it, so you’d need to get a bit creative about how you went about things.
80 odd K subscriptions at $10 a year would be a start perhaps? Unless those petition numbers were BS. With some on a higher kick in, with a show sponsor and regular advertising, Netflix or someone also kicking in. A potential audience of 300K plus on the rescreens surely would be a tasty looking carrot for any streaming service looking for credibility. John C? Some instant cred.
Though I suppose they would then piss off all the numerous Nat supporters, which isn’t such great business…though Campbell’s audience is wider than just left/right.
If you got a streaming company with enough views breaking investigative stories the other media would have to pick it up.
In a thread related topic- how expensive would a solely web based show funded by someone like NetFlix or some such be for Mr Campbell?