Speaker by Various Artists

Read Post

Speaker: Identification strategy: Now it’s personal

195 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 Newer→ Last

  • BenWilson, in reply to TracyMac,

    And even if second-generation Ethnicity X tends to vote a certain way, why on earth would you go out of your way to alienate them even more? On such stupid grounds?

    Well in marketing speak I guess you'd call it segmentation. If a group is not disposed to buy your products, then a lot of effort/money can be wasted on trying to win them. You target the likely new buyers, and aim to keep the current ones loyal (that's probably even more important because they cost less to keep - so you aim to understand the drivers of "churn", what it is that they're really worried about).

    Of course the problem is that this is not some abstract product that you can buy or not on whim. The product is political control itself, the bargaining of the interests of one group over another. So it is indeed very cynical. But I don't think there's any doubt that it has worked very well for National so far.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10633 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Danyl Mclauchlan,

    the data isn’t as robust as you’d like. On the other hand, it’s all there is.

    yep. by comparison try looking for disabled people as a subgroup.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19683 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson, in reply to Sacha,

    Indeed. We don't have the luxury to not make decisions based on weak information when weak information is all we've got. Because refusing to make a decision is itself a decision, and it's also based on the same weak information. You quite literally can't avoid making a hell of a lot of decisions on weak information. I'd go so far as to say most of our daily decisions are made that way. Any decision with a moderate degree of complexity sets up a research problem that can be quite colossal. But we still have to act now. Or not act, which is just a different kind of act.

    What we can do to make the information better is demand it. In the meantime, we use what we have.

    Stepping down from the abstract, it is a conscious decision that we make not to track the origin of the money that form the vast bulk of our nation's capital. China is nowhere near so foolish - you have to prove to them that you're a local to buy property there, and that's not a club it's easy to get into. We can say that it's a default position or something, but I don't buy into that school of thought. Land ownership is just too important to be anonymous because it literally sets the stage for our lives. It literally dictates who can do what, where. It literally has been the most hotly contested part of human resource control since the beginning of time. Of course people are interested in who is owning what, who is buying what, because it transforms the world around them. Our land is quite literally a very large part of our identity, our self-image, our aspirations, our economy, our way of life. It's not just Maori who feel that way. It's everyone on the planet who likes a roof over their head and a secure food supply.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10633 posts Report Reply

  • Steve Curtis, in reply to Russell Brown,

    I’m fairly sure that’s not our spellchecker. I think it’ll be your American-made web browser.

    Are you assuming its 'American' ,because of your belief that Americans 'spell funny'. They could be Canadians.
    This meme has revealed deeper xenophobia than we thought.

    After all , who knew 'Australians' are the brains behind Google Maps
    http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2014/03/you-are-here-the-australians-who-built-google-maps-and-changed-the-world-forever/

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 314 posts Report Reply

  • nzlemming, in reply to Russell Brown,

    I’m fairly sure that’s not our spellchecker. I think it’ll be your American-made web browser.

    Well, bother. You may be right. I’m using Firefox and I’ve told it to use NZ English first, then English, then US English if it really has to. Still getting the correction, though.

    [edit] Aha! Not only do you have to set your language/locale preferences, you have to separately add the dictionary.

    Waikanae • Since Nov 2006 • 2930 posts Report Reply

  • Jim Cathcart,

    From across the Tassie, "Have the property wars become racism’s new frontier?" Even a reference to Edward Said.

    http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/dl-opinion/have-the-property-wars-become-racisms-new-frontier-20150713-gialms

    Since Nov 2006 • 228 posts Report Reply

  • Kumara Republic,

    How much has changed since 2005?

    Asian Vote - Keith Ng (via the Listener)

    The southernmost capital … • Since Nov 2006 • 5416 posts Report Reply

  • Ianmac,

    One way to prove the Labour data/conclusions wrong is to publish accurate date to rubbish said claims.
    Or, you cannot prove a proposition to be wrong unless you produce contrary accurate data.

    Bleneim • Since Aug 2008 • 135 posts Report Reply

  • Tze Ming Mok, in reply to Kumara Republic,

    Historical footnote: In 2005, 47% of the 'Asian' people polled by National in a private study were going for Labour, 40% for National. No sub-group breakdown available as far as I know.

    SarfBank, Lunnin' • Since Nov 2006 • 154 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson, in reply to Tze Ming Mok,

    Everyone loved Auntie...until they didn't.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10633 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Steve Curtis,

    and New Zealanders built Firefox and Chrome.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19683 posts Report Reply

  • Lucy Telfar Barnard, in reply to Tze Ming Mok,

    If we want to figure out the impact of foreign PRC buyers – or more to the point, foreign anyone buyers – on the housing market without the straight up government data, you should probably just do a large-scale sample survey on house buying with a lot of ethnic minority oversampling.

    There is another way, though it would rely on another real estate data leak, and that is to apply the same methodology Rob Salmond used to data from some NZ city that doesn't have a property bubble but which has sufficient resident ethnically Chinese New Zealanders to provide numbers. If you looked at the proportion of names by apparent ethnicity there, it might give some indication of cultural propensity/accessibility to property-buying.
    There would be a segment of the market left out, in that most migrants settle in Auckland, but an additional allowance could be made based on census-based estimates of the proportion of migrants of different national origins who settle in Auckland.
    You'd take the 39% of Auckland buyers with "PRC-sounding names", and subtract the proportion of comparison city(s) buyers with "PRC-sounding names", and then subtract an estimated number of new migrants of PRC-origin likely to have bought property, and the percentage left after that would be a better indication of the participation of PRC-based buyers in the Auckland market than is the 30% left after "39%-9% Chinese population".

    But it would require more leaked data.

    Of course, the best measure would be, y'know, a foreign buyers register. I'm overseas at the mo. and missed the start of this furore, but wouldn't a bit of patience with the IRD scheme also answer the question, without having to indulge in inciting racial hatred?

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 580 posts Report Reply

  • WH,

    It’s unfortunate that the lack of accurate statistics around the structure of home ownership in New Zealand has moved the focus of this particular discussion from residency and citizenship to race and ethnicity. The underlying issue, it seems to me, is that our housing supply has come to be seen as a source of easy profits by investors and that this is undermining our quality of life.

    While I acknowledge the risks in the approach taken in Labour’s analysis, the danger to New Zealand’s social and economic wellbeing that is our housing market has been ignored by our political elite for almost 15 years. This doesn’t strike me as a Keith Ng/Deborah Coddington sort of a moment and I think you’ve done Phil Twyford and the Labour Party a disservice.

    As a New Zealander living in the UK, you’re probably already aware that London has problems around housing affordability and foreign ownership of residential property that many Aucklanders would recognise. This is from today’s Guardian:

    "[Property expert Henry Pryor added]: “Can we tackle this absurd practice of selling scarce new homes in London or Cambridge to investors in China? First we need to agree that we should – perhaps through some sort of residency test as they have in Singapore, but even if we do so it’s worth remembering that 36% of people living in London were born outside the UK, according to the 2011 census.”

    Two final points:-

    * First, the topics of globalisation and the rise of China as an economic power/net investor have dominated political discourse for the last two decades. It’s the kind of thing people are going to have views about.

    * Second, New Zealand needs to re-appraise what its housing is really for. In my opinion, the New Zealand housing stock should advance the goal of housing New Zealand residents for the lowest proportion of their salaries and wages compatible with the health of the sector. Unrestrained residential property investment does not tend to advance that goal.

    Since Nov 2006 • 783 posts Report Reply

  • WH,

    In other words, Tze Ming, the rent is too damn high.

    Since Nov 2006 • 783 posts Report Reply

  • Tze Ming Mok, in reply to WH,

    It’s the kind of thing people are going to have views about.

    Yes, and in terms of my own personal interests in my ethnic community’s self-respect and safety, there will be two kinds of views.
    a) non-racist ones.
    b) racist ones.

    I do Phil Twyford and the Labour Party a disservice? I actually now believe that, as Keith pointed out earlier on Twitter, this is not some gaffe, this is what they wanted. They are happy to make this about race, to get votes from racists. Maybe it’ll work.

    Think about how much would it have cost them to *not* make this about race. Not anything. And how much did it cost *you* for them to have, as they did, make it about race? Again, not anything. How much did it cost me? My family? Those 126,000 Chinese Aucklanders? A lot. Like I said, this is personal, and it looks more and more like it was a calculated public sacrifice. I understand that there are those on the Left who wish this would just go away and me and Keith and all those other people would just take a deep breathe and focus on the important issues. I understand that. But maybe you should go and tell someone else that. Go tell someone who isn’t Chinese. It’s not really the right moment.

    SarfBank, Lunnin' • Since Nov 2006 • 154 posts Report Reply

  • jh, in reply to Stephen Judd,

    I just wrote and cancelled my regular donation to the party with the message that it can restart when we have three clear months without race-baiting or hippy punching.

    Funny because I've been thinking of joining. I'd like to support a party that is realistic about the effects of foreign investment and immigration on New Zealanders. I think we should have a choice between globalists and nationalist. Globalists claim immigration benefits everyone [Peter Sutherland] but this isn't borne out but personal experience or the Savings Working Group, the Australian Productivity Commission (ours wears a muzzle), or Treasury, or Paul Krugman so I feel justified in maintaining that view.
    Up until 1975 people from the U.K and Ireland had free entry to NZ. Up until 1965 Australians piled into NZ. I think we should choose migrants for their (genuine) skills but also when it comes to easy come and go it should be on a territorial basis where (for the common people) it is a fair swap. So if there is a nice country in Africa we go there and they come here. The problem is that the world isn't like that, most countries are overpopulated and poor with a rich minority so we end up getting the worst of both worlds.
    Yes people come here from the UK, however Labour (UK) ramped up immigration "to rub the rights noses in diversity" Britain is changing beyond recognition.
    In NZ (1986)policy changes were made on the basis that while it was something New Zealanders may not have wanted the "infusion of new elements" was deemed to have been "of immense value to the country". The goal however, was not to add condiments it was based on the (outdated) Standard Social Science Model which gave us anti-racist ideology (to break the hegemony of the Anglo-Saxon population). What's more muffled voices (the Savings Working Group - "a great bunch of thinkers") say the policy choice of increased immigration has done us no good.
    While we are to welcome truckloads of migrants and enjoy minority status in China 91% are of one ethnicity. Also "More than 94 per cent of Chinese permanent residents and more than half of those with NZ citizenship told University of Auckland researchers that they felt a greater sense of belonging and identified more with their country of origin than New Zealand."
    Maori were not consulted over immigration policy

    This glossing over of Maori opposition is consistent with the
    procedure of elites generating policy from above and imposing it on
    the people below. The report was a fait accompli, and the Minister’s
    restricted discourse with Maori leaders after the fact, gave an illusion
    of democratic consultation. The select committee hearings on the Bill
    were also a charade. Of the 75 submissions made to the committee, 73
    opposed the Bill. The two submissions in favour were made by
    immigration consultants, the people who earned substantial fees from
    processing immigration papers for clients wanting to get into New
    Zealand.

    Please Labour give us a clear choice. Somebody bat for New Zealanders.

    Since May 2007 • 103 posts Report Reply

  • JacksonP, in reply to Tze Ming Mok,

    Go tell someone who isn’t Chinese. It’s not really the right moment.

    Hear, hear.

    I don’t feel inclined to add much to this except my support for Tze Ming, Keith, and others who are exposing this for what it is. It feels like a giant step backwards.

    Aren’t we better than this?

    Auckland • Since Mar 2011 • 2448 posts Report Reply

  • jh,

    It doesn’t help that local Chinese are the link, the apologists and beneficiaries of real estate purchases from PRC.
    It would help is they differentiated themselves – I suspect ethnic nepotism (psychological tests show people prefer people like themselves). My friends wife is Singaporian Chinese and she is “as mad as hell” about mainland Chinese buying real estate there.
    Tourism is important to New Zealand yet if you look who is driving the buses it is Kiwi driver Japanese guide; Chinese driver, Chinese guide. A very visible manifestation of the benefits of immigration.

    Since May 2007 • 103 posts Report Reply

  • jh, in reply to JacksonP,

    Aren’t we better than this?

    yes but the world is spotty.

    Since May 2007 • 103 posts Report Reply

  • WH,

    National has often minimised the importance of foreign ownership and quite deliberately delayed the collection of the information needed to gauge the numbers of homes being sold to overseas buyers. In the absence of official figures, property industry spokespeople were quick to characterise Labour’s provision of an admittedly inexact metric (which indicated that foreign purchases were much greater than the 10% figure sometimes given) as a form of race-baiting. This struck me as tendentious and self-serving.

    I mentioned the ubiquity of discussion about the rise of China because its capacity and willingness to invest in New Zealand is already significant and is only likely to increase. I’m sure you agree that New Zealanders need to be able to discuss this issue, and I’m happy to do this in ways that take account of the sensitivites and difficulties this raises for New Zealand’s much valued ethnically Chinese population (many of whom, of course, have been here for generations).

    As you’ve essentially alleged that Labour’s motives in raising this issue are cynical and perhaps even racist, I can’t accept that this conversation should take place elsewhere or with someone of another ethnic group. Although this is a privately-run forum, your contribution forms part of (and indeed influences) an important national conversation.

    As I said previously, I’m mindful of the risks this conversation raises and remember what New Zealand can be like. I’m also aware that our collective and reciprocal sensitivities around ethnicity can disrupt and distort discussion that might otherwise be worthwhile.

    In any event, I will respect your request and leave this there - do feel free to respond to/rebut what I've said if you think it appropriate to do so. I trust things are going well with you in London.

    Since Nov 2006 • 783 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown, in reply to jh,

    Tourism is important to New Zealand yet if you look who is driving the buses it is Kiwi driver Japanese guide; Chinese driver, Chinese guide. A very visible manifestation of the benefits of immigration.

    I don't really get your point and I'm not sure of its relevance.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22749 posts Report Reply

  • Tze Ming Mok, in reply to WH,

    Feel free to have this discussion here, I'd just appreciate if you avoid directly implying that I personally owe the Labour Party anything as a member of the tribal left (which I am, but you know, I have this other tribe too that I don't have a choice about).

    SarfBank, Lunnin' • Since Nov 2006 • 154 posts Report Reply

  • WH,

    Feel free to have this discussion here, I’d just appreciate if you avoid directly implying that I personally owe the Labour Party anything as a member of the tribal left (which I am, but you know, I have this other tribe too that I don’t have a choice about)

    I’ve probably already said more than was needed and agree that you don’t owe Labour any special duties. In short, though, I think Phil Twyford’s efforts around housing are important to New Zealand’s wellbeing and make sense without the ugly secondary meanings being imputed to them.

    I'm not completely at ease discussing identity but would like to believe that we're collectively working towards a more inclusive future. WH out.

    Since Nov 2006 • 783 posts Report Reply

  • Danielle, in reply to jh,

    It would help i[f] they differentiated themselves

    You don't mean that the way it sounds, right?

    Charo World. Cuchi-cuchi!… • Since Nov 2006 • 3828 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown, in reply to Danielle,

    It would help i[f] they differentiated themselves

    You don’t mean that the way it sounds, right?

    Ugh. I should have gone with my gut a long time ago and excluded jh's single-issue immigration-trolling.

    It is done now.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22749 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.