Posts by chris
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Polity: In defence of the centre, in reply to Sacha,
My examples may be just as cherry-picked and oversimplified as Rob’s, but this is fundamentally my problem with “centrism” or “centre-left politics” as it has been practised by NZ Labour since 2008
Yeah, prior to 2008 things were different. When I think political “centre”. Implementing a surveillance state in which all digital communication is by definition the property of the authorities naturally comes to mind.
she told media that those arrested “at the very least” had been training with firearms and napalm.
Democracy as it's become; the domain of the poser.
-
Polity: In defence of the centre, in reply to BenWilson,
Relevant
Also, interesting. Hopefully he continues.
That begged more questions than it answered for me, particular his asides about New Zealand First:
Conversely, some of the possibly-racist-but-definitely-conservative social policy in New Zealand First would normally be considered right-wing, but the party is currently (unfortunately) considered left-wing.
I have little difficulty distinguishing between racism and xenophobia and it seems pretty clear to me that New Zealand First campaigns on a xenophobic platform which until now I’ve filed under protectionism:
This policy contrasts with free trade, where government barriers to trade are kept to a minimum. In recent years, protectionism has become closely aligned with anti-globalization and anti-immigration.
My attempt to discern whether protectionism is left or right wing have been inconclusive:
Protectionism is not a policy of left or right, it is a policy taken by governments seeking to protect national markets from third party goods.
So I thought I’d examine our history, of the first Labour Government:
The Labour Government came to power in November, reflecting at last the fundamental objections of organised Labour, remained resolutely opposed to all forms of assisted immigration in spite of very considerable lobbying and in spite of the administration’s commitment to the development of secondary industries for which some imported skilled Labour might have been useful.
Of Michael J, Savage:
Low wage countries produced goods more cheaply, thus undercutting efforts to lift living standards in New Zealand. This in turn was connected to SavageÂ’s suspicion of immigrants from third world countries who might be prepared to work for lower wages. Increasingly he believed it would be necessary to protect the New Zealand economy, by ring fencing it with import controls, curbs on interest rates, and raising tariffs. Price controls first used in 1915 would be extended so as to ensure that Labour’s experiment in advanced social welfare would survive. Inflation must be suppressed.
The demand for skilled workers required a solution. In 1946 a few psychiatric nurses were brought out as assisted migrants, and in July 1947 a full assistance scheme began
However it was under National that the Colombo Plan was implemented:
Schemes of student assistance, begun in the 1950s, brought young Asian students to New Zealand. In particular the Colombo Plan attracted Malaysians, Thais and Indonesians. A few married New Zealanders and settled. By 1971 there were almost 3,000 Malaysians in the country.
Then under Norman Kirk:
Dawn raids were a common event in Auckland, New Zealand during a crackdown on illegal overstayers from the Pacific Islands from the mid-1970s to the early 1980s. The raids were first introduced in 1973 by Norman Kirk’s Labour government and were continued by Rob Muldoon’s National government
In my own life, my experience of leftism and its opposite are muddled but, for the most part things seem to hinge on:
"Between 1984 and 1993, New Zealand underwent radical economic reform, moving from what had probably been the most protected, regulated and state-dominated system of any capitalist democracy to an extreme position at the open, competitive, free-market end of the spectrum."
From Labour there were victories such as the nuclear ban, the Homosexual Law Reform Act 1986, and the head scratcher’s such as the introduction of charges for tertiary education equaling 10 percent of tuition costs In 1989 and then 969% increase in fees the following year. Labour privatised or partially-privatised Telecom, Ports of Auckland, Air New Zealand, then National continued this trend selling off Tranzrail, Contact Energy. And anyone with both eyes open will no doubt recall the strident resistance from the opposition when whichever of these Governments was in power floated the prospect of privatising yet another entity. It was under Labour that Civil Unions were introduced, and under National that Same-sex marriage was legalised. Under Labour we invaded Afghanistan and assisted in overthrowing the Iraqi regime, while under National we assist in protecting an Iraqi regime. Labour removed New Zealanders’ right to define what constitutes their own private communication:
private communication—
(a) means a communication between 2 or more parties made under circumstances that may reasonably be taken to indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties to the communication; but(b) does not include a communication occurring in circumstances in which any party ought reasonably to expect that the communication may be intercepted by some other person not having the express or implied consent of any party to do so
National neglected to alter this, but did expand the parameters of (b) with:
16 Section 16 amended (Certain interceptions permitted without interception warrant or computer access authorisation)
(1) In the heading to section 16, delete ““computer””.
but think of the children:
“Given the ubiquity and celebrity of geolocation technologies, an individual has no legitimate expectation of privacy in the prospective of a cellular telephone where that individual has failed to protect his privacy by taking the simple expedient of powering it off,” Brown wrote.
no?
Labour had Ahmed Zaoui, National Has Kim Dot Com.
Though their branding is, red they are not by any significant margin. Hijacking an ideology and supplanting it with a greatest claim: being that familiar brand doesn’t denote left except in an arbitrary relative sense, not when the centre has shifted this far right with nothing in the way of meaningful repeal for decades.
When Labour party fawners like Rob Salmond begin discussing pulling the centre back towards the left, I’d suggest that they may firstly need a microscope to find some leeway between New Zealand Labour and centre (in any objective cumulative sense), and they might find they’re actually already standing on the wrong side of that equation to get any traction using those muscles.
Certainly you can’t get much closer to centre in this climate without disappearing down the ideological rabbit hole, which is fine as long as you’re we’re all being honest. Personally I’d like to hear more about how these terms; left/right, translate to policy.
-
Polity: In defence of the centre, in reply to Rob Stowell,
Roll up, roll up!
Quite coincidentally I've found myself adorned in a very similar waistcoat this evening.
-
Polity: Saudi sheep: Misappropriating…, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
(there’s another upgrade cost, over time…)
Speaking of upgrades or the lack of, watch Doctor Don Brash, Shamubeel Eaqub and Professor Paul Spoonley discuss "Immigration: Are we benefiting?". Roll up and witness them munch on words for 18+ minutes. Watch as they talk up the benefits whilst managing to successfully navigate right around that elephant that is the permanent resident visa4life, which grants the holder these rights:
The holder of any resident class visa is entitled
– to stay in New Zealand indefinitely
– to work in New Zealand or in the exclusive economic zone of New Zealand
– to study in New Zealand
– to receive free or subsidised health care at publicly funded health services.[2]
-to free education at state-run primary and secondary schools, and subsidised fees for domestic students at private schools and tertiary institutions.[3]
-to vote in elections (after one years’ residence).[4][5]
-to receive a social security benefit (after two years’ residence for Jobseeker Support, Sole Parent Support and Supported Living Payment; after ten years’ residence for New Zealand Superannuation; varies for other benefits).
-to sponsor a partner, parents or dependent children during their visa applicationEffective in perpetuity once the visa has been issued, without the visa holder being required to ever set foot in New Zealand again except when choosing to fulfill certain criteria in order to gain eligibility for specific rights; e.g. to vote in elections one must have visited the country within the last 3 years.
Compare this to Australia:
a Resident Return Visa (RRV) facilitates the re-entry into Australia of non-citizen permanent residents. The RRV ensures that only those people who have a genuine commitment to residing in Australia or who are contributing to Australia’s well being, retain the right to return to Australia and remain permanently.
RRVs are usually issued with a validity of 5 years or 3 months. An RRV allows Australian permanent residents to travel from, and return to Australia as often as they wish within the validity of the visa, whilst maintaining their status as permanent residents.
Compare this to Canada:
When you are a permanent resident, you can live outside of Canada, but must live in Canada for at least two years in a five-year period. If you live outside of Canada for longer, you may lose your permanent resident status.
They’re talking up increasing, or at the very least maintaing “human capital”. Though they take a couple of swipes at MP Peters, they square dance around family reunification, they shy away from Godwinstoning the conversation in that they don’t address outlying issues such as benefit fraud, tax evasion etc and the impacts these have on perceptions of productivity. It’s an adept display in sidestepping any of the immigration related issues that NZF and now I suspect Labour are not alone in anecdotally knowing to be happenstance.
And wonder to yourself*, if New Zealand were to follow Australia’s and Canada’s lead and stop conferring these rights in perpetuity to visa holders who need not ever actually be here except to settle up as applicable, if we were to stop conferring this gimme, would we see a marked drop in immigration numbers (given a chief marketing point for our immigration industry is that we offer the cruisiest process to citizen’s rights in the western world)? Could the extra income generated by introducing a system similar to Canada’s cover the shortfall and even benefit society by ensuring that a PR visa is exclusively the domain of those wish to retain some stake in this fine country? And what exactly are the current benefits for incumbents in funding free or subsidised health care etc to those who may not actually choose to live here for any longer than it takes to acquire PR and wait for an operation?
To be fair to the guests it was Michael Parkin leading the conversation.
*Speaking rhetorically, as a ringmaster, of course.
-
Polity: Saudi sheep: Misappropriating…, in reply to Joe Wylie,
Thanks for that knowledge Joe. How would we feel about a rule that only allowed for questions to be asked across the floor?
-
Hard News: Judicial caprice is no way to…, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
I think the harshness is due to the “crime” being something that many people don’t see as illegal (or they have the cognitive dissonance thing going on where they smoke weed themselves but still think it should be banned. This is surprisingly common).
I honestly believe that the quickest way we’d see positive change in this country would be if the cannabis supply to those in positions of influence were to suddenly dry up.
The police have real power here to make a change that would make their jobs more interesting, if they chose to put their feet down on the right targets.
In the past Russell has been fairly critical of members of ALC and NORML members over their shortcomings, and while I understand the frustration, all things considered, they are for the most part simply activists, they are not the invisible difference. It’s the media and politicians who hold the reigns on this, and in all fairness, Russell is – bar none – the most visible pro drug reform media personality out there. Sniff hard enough and be greeted by the aromatic scent of 100s of prominent New Zealanders, prepared to toke the toke but not talk the talk, languishing in his shadow. If they were all suddenly unable to source, who knows what could happen.
There were a lot of myths put about in the eighties about cannabis; that it makes your lazy, that it destroys motivation etc. I never found these to be that accurate, on the contrary I’ve found cannabis makes you more focused, more engrossed in whatever it is that you’re doing, but also that users tend to shy away from confrontation. It’s a comfort zone magnet. As someone who has not partaken of anything (legal or otherwise) for quite some time I’m hounded by a nagging suspicion that ironically the biggest impediment to the decriminalisation of cannabis in New Zealand is the pervasiveness of cannabis in our society.
-
Polity: Saudi sheep: Misappropriating…, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,
Thanks for doing that Sofie, that is awesome. Another bugbear I have, related to protocol, is the indulgence that is members being allowed to ask questions of other members from within their party, as can be seen in that same clip where Jami-Lee Ross asks his party leader John Key about the flag. Surely he could just pop along to John’s office after hours. Perhaps it serves a useful function but from the limited examples I’ve seen it’s only ever been used as a platform for propagandizing in taxpayer time. If I were in opposition I’d be ejected from the house repeatedly on such occasions for heckling them to “get a room”.
On the topic of the flag though, John Key’s Stuff article today: Silver fern on flag would represent who we are. He talks about democracy and seems to have confused our country with a sports team, but he does take great pride in not having worn or flown our flag at the match:
Last Saturday night I wore a New Zealand Rugby Union tie with a silver fern on it.
On my lapel I also wore a silver fern because it, to me, symbolises this country that I love and so proudly serve.
The All Blacks’ jersey had a silver fern on it, and around me were more of them.
Though he’s not the type to wave a New Zealand he does almost appear to have thoughts about this:
Besides, it’s too much like Australia’s, especially when New Zealand is playing against Australia.
Without being able to count the stars, how would people know whose flag anyone was holding?
I don’t know about anyone else, but if I paid $50 to watch a footy match, it’s ideally to watch the game, not the flags, and certainly not to count stars. The flags are for those who feel pride waving them and they tend to know exactly how many stars the flags they’re waving have, because they’re waving them proudly. The fern John is sporting is not a symbol of our country but sports branding, a logo of the sports team the non-star-spotters among us are there to witness. For our Prime Minister, the silver fern, not the New Zealand flag symbolises this country that he loves and so proudly serves. God defend Rugby and so on and so forth.
Most interesting about this article is that at the bottom it reads:
*comments are closed on this story
Any Stuff commentator knows the score, generally, the commenting facility closes and people are unable to add the debate but welcome to read it. In this instance six hours after comments are closed there are no comments to be found which is odd don’t you think? I know I commented, I know Ian commented, I know both our comments passed Stuff’s selective moderation process, they were published and they were viewable until they were closed. Now I’m not sure here if “closed” means “deleted” or “being re-moderated” but one thing is clear to me, we’re no longer just having debate and referenda about the flag, we absolutely have a PM actively campaigning for his choice of flags and the debate…maybe not so much. But long live democracy, and the All Blacks®/ Black Caps® logo. Who knows, if we can’t rinse an emblem from the New Zealand sports industry, perhaps we could pilfer something from the culture industry instead perhaps some NZSO or RNZB fishhooks. At least they don’t seem to be part of registered trademarks.
Whatever eventuates I hope they give that guy more articles because he's a miracle when he's editing himself.
-
Polity: Saudi sheep: Misappropriating…, in reply to Sofie Bribiesca,
Agreed ,good idea, shall I suggest it to them or do you want to?
You are more than welcome to Sofie, it’s not that I’m lazy it’s that it’d take me a week of deep breathing to find the appropriate tone, plus you have rapport.
-
Polity: Saudi sheep: Misappropriating…, in reply to Sacha,
if a supplementary question has more than one part, the Minister only has to answer one. Which predictably is what he did.
Thanks for the knowledge Sacha.
-
Polity: In defence of the centre, in reply to Wildo,
Blair also won because those Tories who weren’t self destructing were hanging themselves in women’s underwear.
Well they weren't killing themselves doing so...I'm not that presumptuous about what goes on in the privacy of one's own home.