That was a bloody long flounce. Could have done with some judicious editing, I reckon.
But to do nothing in the face of the Government’s refusal to collect proper data .. is that what you see as a more appropriate response to the Auckland affordability crisis?
But it's not an either-or! "Instead of doing nothing, we should do the only other thing available: a racebaity thing!" I refuse to believe that those were Labour's only options.
Do I need to provide examples of the things that were actually said and done in the “yellow peril” era? Do you actually seriously think this is (your words) “the same”?
As you keep telling us, you're new here, so I'll answer this honestly by saying that I make my living by doing historical research, so no, you don't need to provide examples for me. And no, I don't think this is *exactly* the same, because people are now cannier with their rhetoric, and don't use carpet sweepers, and are less likely to be open eugenicists, and don't put the equivalent of a small line of cocaine in every bottle of Coca-Cola, and all manner of other things which are rather different than they were a century or more ago. But if Labour is going to explicitly frame this as some sort of unwanted Chinese colonisation of New Zealand - and they have, in this instance - then they're using a variant of the same political rhetoric that's been used ever since the White New Zealand era to whip up fear and resentment. It's called a "dogwhistle" for a reason.
Yes, because Swan’s usual neoliberal bollocks is completely representative of the general tenor of the arguments about Auckland’s housing market in this thread. C’mon!
You’re grasping at straws with Lilith’s quote: it doesn’t say that demographic data collection is bad, just that THIS is bad.
what’s the alternative?
Not doing the same old "yellow peril" shit? That's an alternative.
PC in overdrive
I feel like I’m losing my goddamned mind reading this thread.
1. NO ONE is saying that there is not a problem with overseas non-resident investment/speculation in the local property market.
2. NO ONE is saying that collecting demographic data about this issue is a Bad Thing, per se.
3. What people who object to this move by Labour ARE saying is that:
a) The data is suggestive but inconclusive, particularly as the government isn’t really doing diddly to collect *actual* data;
b) Labour has framed the suggestive data in a really racist dogwhistley way. Not the Nats. Not the Crazed Social Justice Warriors of the Left. Not the sheeple. LABOUR.
c) This is objectively not helpful, undermines the principles of the party, and is basically a Dick Move.
4. Saying “this isn’t the real issue” as if we’re all being fooled is pretty annoying, because we KNOW it isn’t the real issue. Labour did this! Not us!
"There aren't any posts about [thing]!"
"There are heaps of posts about [thing], have a look --"
"NOPE. But why aren't you talking about [thing]?"
Weak sauce, dude.
You do it for them by focussing on the method
I haven’t mentioned jack squat about the method (statistics: not my thing). I’m saying that if you know *any* Australian and NZ immigration history this is a dogwhistle that’s been periodically used for over a century in politics and handwaving it away with “that’s just what they WANT you to do, sheeple” is really insulting to the victims of that racist dogwhistling. If you don’t want us to talk about how shitty this is, Labour, DON’T PLAY THE DOGWHISTLE CARD. It’s pretty fucking simple.
you uncritically accepted this framing
The first thing I read on this was Rob Salmond's piece here, yesterday, and I became uncomfortable straight away because the whole "yellow peril" schtick was there, immediately. I felt the vibrations of a dogwhistle coming from Labour before I read anything else, because there are so many historical precedents for this. No one framed it for me; LABOUR did their own framing. The Nats didn't have to do any work.
Here's the thing: you can think that non-resident foreign investment and our lack of regulation are a problem AND, ALSO, AS WELL AS THAT, think that this is racist dogwhistle politics. The two are not mutually exclusive, at all.
("If you're explaining, you're losing" is a quote by Ronald Reagan -- also used by the Turd Blossom himself, Karl Rove, I believe. I guess it means that if your political idea ends up putting you on the explanation-spiral-defensive it isn't a winning strategy.)
Maybe gay marriage will encourage the Americans to illegalise discrimination at the state level, but with the bleating about “state rights” already, I’m not holding my breath.
The ruling makes it a lot harder for states to get away with that, though. That's why it's A Good Thing, in general.