Hard News: Popular Paranoiac Politics
171 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 7 Newer→ Last
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
The questions reminded me the those notorious “free personality tests” which were a ploy to get you in a room to hassle you into buying a Scientology book. So long as you are only asked how close to perfection you are (and display normal human modesty), then the form is designed to make you feel stink about yourself.
I recall many years ago being stopped by a Scientology recruiter on Queen Street and allowing myself to be subjected to their personality test. The man got increasingly irritated at my insistence on answering the questions in a cheery, confident and optimistic fashion. I became increasingly amused by him.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
There is certainly enough unhinged money sloshing around to bankroll a spoiler campaign next year. I wonder if a dry redneck party might deny Winston enough votes to be a potential swinging coalition partner for Labour (much like Bob Jones' role in 1984)?
Didn't a certain theo-con eat into John Banks' mayoral vote?
-
Muriel Newman is downplaying her pseudo-history fancies in the Herald today.
But, this being the internet, the truth is still out there:
While our government appears to hold tightly onto the view that Maori are tangata whenua (with even the stories of the early Moriori occupation that our generation was taught in school having almost disappeared), local and international research is now painting a different picture of the early history of New Zealand.
Claims have been made that New Zealand was discovered from as early as 600BC by Phoenician, Indian, Greek and Arab explorers. In fact, claims of these visits help to explain the existence in the South Island of the fossilised remains of rats that have been carbon dated at 160 BC - more than 1,000 years before Maori!
There are further claims that before Maori arrived in New Zealand settlements had already been established, by the Waitaha, the peace-loving fair skinned ancestors of the Moriori, by Chinese miners, and by the Celts.
As I noted in a post at the time, she was also claiming that Maori were resisting the global Genographic project because they wanted to cover up evidence that other races were here centuries before them.
-
Muriel Newman is downplaying her pseudo-history fancies in the Herald today.
And as I've seen with my own eyes, trying to take on Finlayson with truthiness is bringing a toothpick to a machete fight. Whatever else you say about him, he does take serious arguments seriously but you can't wing it. And, yes, Muriel -- Chris does know how to use Google. Deal with it.
-
Russell says that my liberation blog post about Don Brash invokes ‘the word “principles” to characterise the former National Party leader’s motivations’. This is an accurate reading of my post, but of course some caveats or further unpacking of this idea of “Brash as a principled politician” are probably necessary. What I was trying to convey was this idea that many on the right of politics feel that National’s current economic orientation is driven by pragmatism and moderation. It’s harder to characterize the Don Brash’s campaign critique of National’s orientation to the foreshore and seabed issue, and my feeling is that Brash’s Orewa speech was much more focused on economic issues, with just a few nodes to the foreshore and seabed debate thrown in, rather than an in depth critique of it (even though some news media hyped up this aspect up).
Also, the use of terms like principled and populist probably need quite a bit of unpacking to understand New Zealand politics. In my view Don Brash the politician is actually a very interesting mix of radicalism, populism, and principled and opportunistic politics. This to me is one of the key themes of his time as National Party leader, and is particularly clear from reading Nicky Hager’s Hollow Men expose. The whole Hager story is essentially how “Brash the Principled” became “Brash the Populist Opportunist”. What is now frequently forgotten is that throughout Brash’s time as leader he actually oversaw the ditching and de-emphasizing of virtually all of the National Party’s more neoliberal and rightwing policy, and instead (despite traditionally being rather socially liberal) Brash started to emphasize and strengthen National’s more socially conservative policies. Essentially he ditched his principled politics in favour of more populist vote-winning stuff around ethnicity. Now in 2010 he’s more interested in returning to the principled neoliberalism (with a dash of populism thrown in around issues of ethnicity).
-
with even the stories of the early Moriori occupation that our generation was taught in school having almost disappeared
But when, oh when, will she investigate the even more sinisterly politically-correct disappearance of phlogiston and Lamarckian evolution from our curricula?!?!
-
Just what then is New Zealand's leading Internet-based think tank?
Pick between The Standard and Kiwiblog.
Oh, sorry, I thought you said septic tank
-
nzlemming, in reply to
One year they had Jim Hopkins and Kerre Woodham.
I call bullshit. The Earth would not have stood the strain.
-
A friend of mine is a bean-counter in the Auckland corporate scene and he reckons the word among that crowd is that Brash is keen to get back in to politics. The recent Orewa-2 speech was a bit of kite flying, it'd seem.
It is pretty odd that the neoliberal diehards are unhappy. National and ACT are in power and odds-on faves to hose in next year, yet they still whine ? Surely they'd be happy with how things are and take a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" approach ?
-
In my view Don Brash the politician is actually a very interesting mix of radicalism, populism, and principled and opportunistic politics.
In other words: genuinely nuttily right-wing, but still cherished hopes of being elected?
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Yes, Coddington seems to have lifted her game dramatically this year.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
I don't get why he didn't just ask to be in the ACT party. Surely there's a huge gap now? Mind you, it would be shameful to have once been the head of the National Party, and to end up scrapping with Rodney Hide over who gets to be King of Act.
-
David Winter, in reply to
There is actually an interesting bit of science behind Newman's "2000 year old rat bone" factoid. There really were bones dated to be that old (they were Kiore bones, so you'll have to imagine how the Celts fit into this scheme yourself) but it turns out there was a systematic error in the way the first radiocarbon dates were measured. All the bones measured before ~1995, including samples taken from dated archeological, were older than the first archeological evidence for Maori in New Zealand (around 850 years ago). All subsequent dates have been more recent than that the same cut-off.
The last nail in the coffin for the old rats was a recent study from Landcare, which is available as open access paper. They looked at new bones form the same sites as the "pre-Maori bones" and at rat-gnawed seeds and found no dates earlier than the first archeological evidence.
You know, just in case you were wondering.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Yes, Coddington seems to have lifted her game dramatically this year.
From the gutter to the cellar? Oven-fresh cookies for everyone!
-
Good heavens, Russell. You and Deborah Coddington appear to be on the same page, judging from today's Herald! And there are enough raving right fruitcakes in the twilight zone to make a Mad Moo/ I'm A Tea Pot Party a very interesting proposition indeed. However, what if it ends up resurrecting New Zombie First? Sock con twilight voters and activists tend to be highly prehensile when it comes to economic policy, which Brash and Newman don't seem to realise.
I would dearly love to publically strangle Chris Trotter so the post-paleolithic left could be rid of him too, for that matter.
Craig Y
-
Oven-fresh cookies for everyone!
For me, they are only a sometimes food. Nom, nom!
-
I suppose it shouldn't be surprising, given his Vicar-of-Bray principle-free populism, but I was bemused to see Peter Dunne nailing his colours to the mast in pandering to the anti-1080 crowd.
It's depressing how many minor party contenders there are for The Party That Science Forgot. -
So, for the sake of argument…
If you were a right-wing squillionaire who was disappointed at the poor showing and low influence of your chosen right-of-National-party….
Might you not find it worthwhile to spend a small pittance on funding a extreme-right-of-National party… not because you think it’s got a shit-show of being elected, but just to make your chosen party seem less extreme (and maybe bleed off a few genuine nutters too)?
-
Lilith __, in reply to
Just what then is New Zealand's leading Internet-based think tank?
I think you might be writing on it ;-)
-
Paul Williams, in reply to
Yes, Coddington seems to have lifted her game dramatically this year.
I agree. Her column was reasonable, that's a significant improvement on previous ones.
On a slightly different tangent; what is it with all these has-beens and retreads in the media? Newman, Peters, Brash? I say they should fuck off and let new people get on with it. There's plenty of new, comparatively young political talent to be bothered giving print space to these idiots.
-
Lucy Stewart, in reply to
Mind you, it would be shameful to have once been the head of the National Party, and to end up scrapping with Rodney Hide over who gets to be King of Act.
Shameful wouldn't be the half of it. And there's a good chance the position he took while head of National poisoned the well with the real ACT free-market true-believers, anyhow.
-
One probable side-effect of the fellow traveller effect would be that Newman and Brash might find that the Tea Pot Party fills up with weirdos like Trevor Loudon, the Citizens Initiated Referenda drones, assorted godbots and any remaining conspiracy theorists in squawkbackland. Entryism, anyone?
Craig Y
-
After my public/online spat with the Celtic New Zealand crowd a few years back I now get sent pictures of pre-Māori artefacts, presumably to convince me of the wrongness of my views. I'm not allowed to place them online for you all to look at, and I wouldn't want to, either; the cognitive dissonance required to interpret rock formations and concretions as the carvings of some advanced and global superculture might kill those of you who haven't spent four years getting used to ingesting the wacky on a daily basis.
-
Paul Webber, in reply to
just to make your chosen party seem less extreme (and maybe bleed off a few genuine nutters too)
There’s more to it than making National look good or siphoning off nut cases. Under MMP you need a coalition partner because no party gets more than 50% of the party vote. National needs a right-of-National party or a non-Labour centre party with which it can govern.
When MMP was first adopted, National should have split into a Conservative Party (country and Kings College Old Boys) and a Liberal Party (to compete against the centre-left in the cities).
But they didn’t split and therefore National has to rely on the monster raving loonie parties for support. But ACT has failed on the right and United has withered in the centre. And Winston is grandpa non grata even if he returns from the wilderness.
So National needs another party of somewhat similar philosophy (or at least with some popular support and a lust for power) to emerge and quickly.
Whilst I don’t think there’s a place in NZ politics for a home-grown Tea Party (Manuka Party?), surely there is a place for a liberal party. Economically conventional like National but reformist rather than conservative. Greener than National without the return-to-feudalism of the Greens. Not socially conservative like Brash and his brethren. Compassionate for the community without Labour’s reflex ritual of brother-unionist-against-capitalism. Where is that party?
-
Matthew Littlewood, in reply to
It is pretty odd that the neoliberal diehards are unhappy. National and ACT are in power and odds-on faves to hose in next year, yet they still whine ? Surely they'd be happy with how things are and take a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" approach ?
Much in the same way that Alliance imploded before 2002, I guess. Although that was more dramatic- they won three times the vote in 1999 than ACT (about 9 percent to ACT's 3 percent in 2008), and it seemed to be a single issue- namely the decision whether or not to support SAS involvement in Afghanistan--that finally did for them. Although the leadup to the notorious split was undoubtedly more complex than that, for sure.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.