Hard News: Nasty
114 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last
-
I should have said, Craig, were you directly affected? The late 80's - whilst being spectacular for me, personally, in terms of sex and drugs etc etc and fantastic, globally, for music and fab hair and wondrous outfitting, were bloody shitty and drab times economy wise, everywhere in the world. A lot of people were hurting. I spent all of 87 and 88 in the UK - GRIM - back to NZ for three months - GRIM - back to the UK for 89 and Switzerland in 90 and then back here - GRIM - where I have remained ever since. Fascinating I hear you say. Well, let me tell you, everything that Wesley and Trotter says is true. Bastards sucked the life out of the world, IMHO. Please, please, please do not let them do it again. Because if National win the election this time, I am once again personally affected. Why? Because Mallard's generosity to Kindergarten teachers is about to be pissed all over, once again IMHO.
-
And yes, Joanna, Trotter has always been hot.
-
I was going to weigh in on this discussion about the core values of the two main parties, but the more I thought about it, the less sure I became.
It used to be that National was to the 'right' of Labour. But the 70s and 80s flipped that, creating the need to measure left and right in more than one dimension. Social and economic dimensions are popular choices. So you make a score for how much they believe in government control in the economy and one for how much they believe in government control of other aspects of life, assign weightings to each score and calculate and overall left-right score (although it's not really left-right anymore). On that, Labour in the 80s could be shown to be to the right of Muldoon on the economic dimension, but to the left in the social. The overall score could actually have been the same. Clearly the policy was almost diametrically opposite, so that shows the uselessness of the left-right dichotomy.
Now even making a choice about their respective positions along those dimensions is problematic. More dimensions are needed, and when they start getting really specific it's not entirely clear whether one is the more natural position of either party, so giving it a 'left or right' tag starts becoming meaningless. I would even struggle to place myself on such a chart (or n-dimensional space, more like), much less parties which won't tell you their policies. Do I favor high or low inflation? Actually, I don't care. In fact for most economic questions I don't care. On the social issues I do care, but neither party represents my position, nor appears to differentiate themselves from the other. They all say they're x-friendly, where x is any group, and the manifestation of that is almost entirely in the economic policy, whether they really do care.
Thinking further through it, I start to wonder if such placing is even a worthwhile task. The answers to some questions are so highly nuanced and situational that very small differences in wording will flip my position.
So the whole thing comes down to sweeping generalizations and trust. Either party will actually do whatever they think is necessary at the time, whatever their deliberately vague promises were. And the battle for the government becomes engendering trust that what you will do will not be too far from public opinion, unless it's really necessary. That unless is important since it's almost guaranteed to happen. But the 3 year term means they've got enough time to work on convincing people that it really was necessary (or hope they forget).
Which again sums up representative democracy for me. It's not about voting for specific policy at all. That's just a carrot dangled during election year. In truth it's about trust and sweeping generalizations, prejudice and belonging. The party which can bundle all of that will tend to win.
It's extremely hard to hold onto the trust for long periods, simply because given enough time you'll do something that fucks off almost everyone at least once.
For me, Labour finally lost it when they banned BZP. It's not like I want BZP, it's just that it's symbolic of the vote grabbing suckup to old people living in whatever part of the South Island it is that Jim Anderton represents which shouldn't impact on Auckland, but does anyway, that I can't stand. Next might be something I really do care about.
For Maori it may have been the F&S Bill. For hippies it might have been the GE thing. Eventually it all starts to hurt, and people just want change, even if it's unknown and possibly worse. I mean National will probably be even more into banning liberties, confiscating Maori land and letting farmers introduce whatever they want into the ecosystem, but at least they never said any different.
So, in summary, I actually don't know what the core values of either party are. To me they're a Grand Old Coalition with leadership that changes every 6 years or so, and the minor parties that are grudgingly allowed to exist are the only ones for whom core values means anything.
-
Not to dumb down the conversation or anything, but did anyone else read the article in last month's Metro and go "Damn, Chris Trotter was kinda hot in 1981"?
Not particularly...
I should have said, Craig, were you directly affected?
Um, you mean spending a good chunk of my time in a part of the world (the Eastern Bay of Plenty) that seems to get the sharp end of every stick? You bet your bippy. In the end, Jackie, being poor sucks arse regardless of where, or when, you're up against it and I get rather impatient with the nostalgic mythology that New Zealand was some kind of Eden before the 1984 general election. I guess it was if you were white, well-educated and middle-class (and being a heterosexual with a penis didn't do any harm either); the reality of life for my family was a little more complex.
-
I guess it was if you were white, well-educated and middle-class (and being a heterosexual with a penis didn't do any harm either);
That's a surprisingly large demographic in NZ.
-
I get rather impatient with the nostalgic mythology that New Zealand was some kind of Eden before the 1984 general election.
I certainly would not suggest that, Craig.
-
A party's values are important sure, but they don't always appear to guide what they do and can often obscure intentions. The fourth Labour government is a case in point however I'm of the school that sees many of the decisions as creatures of necessity not of malevolent and secret intent.
But what about what National does, has done, may do? Of what it may do, we know very little thanks to Key's me-too strategy. Of what it has done recently and what it tends to do in government we know plenty. In recent times this includes reneging on promises to cut the super surcharge, enacting the ECA, introducing market rents and cutting benefits. Also, to be fair, National has done some good things even when its rhetoric suggested otherwise - on the one hand the fiscal envelope, on the other significant progress settling Treaty claims.
Does Key stand for more of this? Does he stand for less and/or different policies? Who can tell? Will there be tax cuts? Will there be a closer relationship with the US? Will he cut GST on petrol or was that just policy-on-the-hoof a la the complementary medicines scandal?
Again, at the risk of seeming very partisan, I like Key but don't trust him. I don't trust him not because I think he's deceptive, I don't trust him because he's not giving me anything to judge him by and I think we've all had enough of governments (of whatever hue) doing whatever they want. I also wonder if he's had anything like enough experience?
-
Ben: "I was going to weigh in on this discussion about the core values of the two main parties, but the more I thought about it, the less sure I became."
Me too. Fun discussing it though.
CR: "... didn't the Labour Government actually increase their majority in 1987? Don't think that was all down to boobs who were thoroughly bamboozled by the Rogernomes"
You may be too young to remember (heh heh), but in my unsubstantiated opinion, things were different before 1987. People weren't boobs, but in general they were more trusting of politicians than they are now. They were more likely to believe parties stood for certain values. Voters actually read printed manifestos (political scientists ran them through SPSSX as a measure of ideological position) and people even joined political parties! These things have changed and it's partly because of that 1987 election where a Govt was voted in on one set of policies and implemented another agenda, working as quickly as possible to outmaneuvre dissent. Then I think that became a trend among various other governments, parties and party hoppers. I make no judgement about the goodness or badness or otherwise, and I certainly don't want the 80s back, that's just how it is.
Given the fluidity of parties' policies over time I have no idea why people now align themselves to particular political parties at all. When I ask this question of the different shades of partisan I come across, often they say it's the "core values" or "core principles". But so far no-one has been able to explain to me what these core values are.
Personally I think it's a moving feast. We just have to accept it's harder work to find someone to vote for these days and that once they're in we'll need to keep a close watch on them.
-
Well, happily we have MMP, so as long as we can make sure no one party can govern alone we might be able to mitigate any bait and switch tendencies.
So the theory goes at least.
-
. . . in general they were more trusting of politicians than they are now. They were more likely to believe parties stood for certain values.
I remember the '87 election TV coverage - the largely Pasifika crowd at Labour's Mangere HQ cheering the result in Remuera as it recorded its highest-ever Labour vote.
When I ask this question of the different shades of partisan I come across, often they say it's the "core values" or "core principles".
Seems that those who can mouth that kind of fundamentalist nonsense with a straight face are the only ones left who join political parties.
-
Ben: "Well, happily we have MMP, so as long as we can make sure no one party can govern alone we might be able to mitigate any bait and switch tendencies."
Yes, I think that's been the biggest impact on NZ politics in the last decade. A party can no longer assume that winning more seats than any one other party will give them the Government. They'll probably be dependent on the Maori seats and one or more parties getting above the 5%. And the minor parties know they have to win concessions or face annihilation in the following general election.
-
I like MMP - I like that people like Nandor and Sue Bradford can stroll the corridors of power with all the others. And the joy about being partisan? You always know who your party vote will be for. Fickle, I am not.
-
WH,
Seems that those who can mouth that kind of fundamentalist nonsense with a straight face are the only ones left who join political parties.
Part of developing a coherent worldview is linking political intuitions to empirical outcomes. Unfortunately, "values" are a vague proxy for statements of what people are actually trying to achieve.
I think its better to clearly articulate our political objectives and the means we propose to use to achieve them than to blandly equivocate that politics implicates values, that everyone has values, and that therefore all political views are equally meritorious.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2157197,00.html
-
Unfortunately, "values" are a vague proxy for statements of what people are actually trying to achieve.
I'd suggest that any 'values' which Labour or National claim to stand for are deliberately ambiguous. The traditional idea of joining a political party in order to make a difference has been superseded by the professionalisation of politics. The mindset exemplified by Tony Blair despises political amateurs, e.g. activists and demonstrators, and would ultimately extend political representation only to party members.
It was Brash's supine acquiesence to the the McCully-inspired 'mainstream' hogwash - something he plainly couldn't have believed but was was wiilling to compromise himself by endorsing - that killed any remaining respect I might have held for him.
Key appears to realise that such phoney stated 'values' offer no real political advantage. John Howard was elected in 1996 without revealing anything substantial about his intentions. In his first two terms, when dissident views were aired by MPs from his own party, he would claim that the Australian Liberal Party was a 'broad church', with room for diverse opinions. Behind the scenes he successfully worked to disendorse all who disagreed with his narrow line.
Whether Key intends in government to preside over a 'broad church' which encompasses both Katherine Rich and Murray McCully remains to be seen.
-
Broad church? LOL, a lovely oxymoron. So everyone who goes to a mosque, synagogue, temple or is secular is excluded? That does seem to sum Howard up quite nicely.
-
It was Brash's supine acquiesence to the the McCully-inspired 'mainstream' hogwash - something he plainly couldn't have believed but was was wiilling to compromise himself by endorsing - that killed any remaining respect I might have held for him.
I can just imagine him thinking "Do family values really have to be mainstream?"
-
My 'values' are that govts should strengthen the whole community, not just the privileged few. In my 30 odd years voting, National IMHO did only what was required to get re-elected.
Bolger did well with implementing the Treaty settlements but Labour 84-87 set the standard breaking down the privilege that had steadily built up over the earlier decades. However, the downside of all that was the burnt earth policies that followed, with National generally looking after its mates first then the rest of us as the country rebuilt.
Clark et al have tried to address the resulting deficits, social, education, health, infrastructure etc., but not boldly.
As well, competency is another core value. Compare the current team with Ruth's 'Mother of all Budgets', most of which had to be unwound over the next 2-3 years. National over the last few years has hardly been a team.
-
Meanwhile you'd think the last thing any political party would want is to be on the receiving end of an upheld Advertsing Standards Authority complaint - especially when the subject is Kiwisaver, and you've been making noises recently about shonky finance companies, investment advisors and flat out loan sharks (whose adverts seem to be all over every Asian and PI media outlet in town).
Then again, what the hell do I know? I don't know if truth in advertising is a core value, a principle or an ideological construct. But I sure think it's a damn smart move on the party of any political party that wants to run a character campaign.
-
OK, I should be precise and say the decision was handed down by the Advertising Standards Complaints Board.
-
WH,
I'd suggest that any 'values' which Labour or National claim to stand for are deliberately ambiguous.
That's at least partially because statements of benign intent become even less controversial at higher levels of abstraction. I believe that families are important and that everyone should be given a fair chance...
The traditional idea of joining a political party in order to make a difference has been superseded by the professionalisation of politics.
I tend to think that knowledge is important in politics. Although experts don't have intrinsically superior values, they can offer more effective solutions to the problems that society confronts. I suppose one of the problems lies in the fact that expertise cannot be easily separated from pre-existing normative outlook. A related problem is that you can find an expert to say just about anything.
Whether Key intends in government to preside over a 'broad church' [...] remains to be seen.
Yeah. I hope English and Key do a good job when given their chance.
-
I don't know if truth in advertising is a core value, a principle or an ideological construct.
Me neither - but when the social welfare arms of some churches - e.g. the Baptist City Missions - are doing more to support the victims of loan sharks than the current Minister of consumer affairs, it's certainly an interesting question.
-
Although experts don't have intrinsically superior values, they can offer more effective solutions to the problems that society confronts. I suppose one of the problems lies in the fact that expertise cannot be easily separated from pre-existing normative outlook.
Perhaps so, but I don't think politicians are those particular experts. Their expertise is not in solving problems, it is in manufacturing them. And they certainly do manufacture them for pre-existing normative outlooks, unless they are totally fringe.
-
merc,
Who is the Ad Agency for this Kiwi Saver campaign?
-
Who is the Ad Agency for this Kiwi Saver campaign?
Well, the link I supplied links through to the full decision (in RTF format), and contains this gem:
No advertising agency was used in the creation or production of this advertisement.
Hum... so a case of our taxes stil hard at work, producing inaccurate and deceptive party propaganda? (To be clear: I don't really care if parties want to flush their money down the proverbial crapper, but I'd rather not have it done at public expense thanks.) Reminds me of a wonderful line from a Peter Cook/Dudley Moore sketch "I think I have, yes, and I think I can probably repeat them almost perfectly. I know my mistakes inside out." :)
-
merc,
I asked because copywriters are bound by the Fair Trading Act and the Commerce Commission to not make false claims regarding guarantees.
Also conspiracy alert, http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10460445Prime West chairman Ross Jewell said yesterday the facility was busy until the end of the year and after that there were two "pencil bookings" for productions.
The nature of these was confidential.I wonder if the re-shoot will be pencilled-in for here?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.