Posts by Idiot Savant
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Again, I'm going to take issue with your analysis. Fairness means different things to different people.
Yes, it does - and the post you are responding to acknowledges that. At the same time, the version of fairness subscribed to by the vast majority of people in this country is not the right's narrow procedural definition, but a more substantive one which looks at outcomes as well as procedure. And that, for example, is why kiwis overwhelmingly support free education and free healthcare - because we understand that user pays mean payers use, and everyone else misses out. And we regard that - the exclusion of people from a vital social good, with a consequent effect on their life chances and quality - to be unfair.
ACToids and Libs beg to differ, of course. But I think their combined 3.7% of the vote last election shows how popular their narrow view of fairness is.
-
Surely fairness is not a concept exclusive to any political perspective - they just disagree about what is fair and what is not.
Sure - but the concept of fairness broadly (but not exclusively) held in New Zealand is a left-wing one, focused on substance rather than mere process, and favouring the little guy over the Big Corporate.
(And that's why John Key's origins were such a strong selling point for him. Because he is an example of that fairness in action)
-
The dominance by National governments post-war is not merely a symptom of the FPP electoral system. It also possibly reflects other features of the Kiwi psyche, such as conservatism, a dislike of interfering governments, and a distrust of outsiders.
Sure, but a) FPP is a very important part of that story (remember, no party has won a majority since 1951); and b) that psyche has changed dramatically in the last 30 years. The generation which gave National that dominance is dead or dying. And the psyche of those who have taken their place has been largely shaped by the Revolution and its terrible effects.
I simply don't believe we can make any reliable statement about where on the political spectrum NZers sit as a group. Other than somewhere between John Minto and Garth George.
Sure we can. That's what polling is for. I'm not denying diversity, but at the same time there are widely (but by no means universal) values and ideas which feature large in our national conversation and our political tradition. And those values - fairness, egalitarianism, the state as a solution not the problem - favour the left over the right.
-
I/S graphs the effect on the Super fund.
No no no. The Labour Research Unit graphs the effect on the Super fund; I steal it.
-
What's eventualism?
"Jam tomorrow"
-
Kyle: yes, but... one of the reasons the pendulum could swing so widely under FPP was the disconnection of politicians from those they represented. No-one (well, no-one other than Bob Jones and Roger Douglas) voted for NeoLiberalism, but because we had an unfair electoral system, it happened anyway.
New Zealand is a naturally left-wing country. Our fundamental values - fairness and egaliatrianism - are values of the left. Our default policy setting since the 1890's has been to see government as a solution, rather than the problem to be ovecome. That may be born of pragmatism - we used government as a tool becuse there were no other tools available - but its still quite antiethical to right-wing ideology.
MMP allows that to reveal itself. Its not a permanent majority for the left - the current government disproves that - but because governments are now accountable to the people in a way they never were under FPP, they will have to respond to that push. The upshot is that the pendulum can swing further to the left than the right - subject of course to the moderating influence of coalition partners.
Case in point: the present government. This is as good as it gets for National under MMP. They don't have an absolute majority (and I don't think we'll ever let anyone get one), but they have as good as, with easy support from ACT should they wish to pursue a radical right-wing agenda. But they can't do it, because they want some hope of being re-elected. And the same will apply if they get a second term; any attempt to restart the revolution will see them lose the next election, both because they'll lose some support, and because other parties will refuse to enable that agenda.
Oh, how that must burn...
MMP means No More NeoLiberalism. Which is precisely why they want to get rid of it.
-
It's also testament to how Labour's pragmatic eventualism (re)established gradual change as the accepted model.
And redefined the political centre. Working For Families, Kiwisaver, and anti-privatisation are now political facts National has to accept (or change only very, very gradually).
-
Same applies to PPPs. Govt can borrow at a lower rate than business. If it makes sense for business to borrow and invest in public infrastructure, why not for government?
Because voters might look at only the debt side of the balance sheet, without seeing the productive asset that debt has bought.
And that's all there is to it. PPPs are just an expensive way for the government to pretend its not borrowing.
-
<I>All the real work is done by the reduced operating allowance. It's impact will be felt more and more as time goes on.</I>
Yup. particularly in health and education, which combined need an extra $1.25 billion a year just to stay level.
This will mean the 90's sinking cap all over again, the deferral of maintenance, the underfunding of public services for a decade. But doing it this way means they don't have to announce they're doing it.
-
That's not entirely fair - Upper Hutt has redeeming qualities.
Name three.
(Sorry, had to be done)