Posts by Angus Robertson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
The upshot is that, before we start going on about food prices, GST and so on, let's keep our eye on the ball here: Housing cost is the biggest and has risen the fastest.So let's talk about interest rates, not bloody cheese.
How? Seems impossible.
There are 2 big factors for interest rates - global credit restrictions on the world market and Official Cash Rate (OCR) of the Reserve Bank.
The OCR has risen from 5.25% (March 2004) to 8.25% (March 2008). The OCR is set to meet an inflation target band, excessive inflation drives increases. The band is defined by government policy.
-
(Oh, and when National, as it inevitably will, demands to know why the government should be subsidising the network at all, it should be asked then why it's such a fine idea to subsidise a comprehensive fibre-optic communications network to the tune of billions of dollars.)
Because:
A - fibre optic is quantifiably much better than copper, whereas the rolling stock, locomotives and ferries are exactly the same today as they were yesterday.
B - we do not have a fibre optic network, whereas we already own a rail network called On Track (which is the same network we just paid $663 million for). -
Labour will campaign on WFF, Kiwibank/saver etc but I've still got no idea what National will do beyond cut taxes (in line with Labour too)!
National is going to say as little as possible until the last 90 days.
EFA spending limitations are in place for the entire year and violations may be heavily punished - National will spend money to provide policy info when it is most effective. Labours active promotion of WFF, Kiwisaver risks being deemed political campaigning and these booklets if costed as political adverts will hamstring Labour in September onwards.
And more importantly, apart from some wonderful "people-who-like-discussing-politics-on-the-internet", no one really wants to hear any campaigning. 90 days every 3 years is about as much as most people can stand.
-
David,
Apologies. My rebuke was aimed at "those people" who suggested pandering to xenophobia or confronting xenophobia. Of course I see now that this is not your opinion, rather a sentiment of "some nameless people" whose views you chose to publish.
My working assumption is that xenophobia/racism is an irrational response to the adversity caused by immigration. Immigrants drive up rents/house prices & drive down wages causing adversity to low wager earners who do not own property. Racism is merely a symptom and not a cause, I think it would be both pointless to treat the symptom as if it were a cause. Kieths go-hug-a-racist & your "unnamed aquaintances" suggestion of pandering immigration on racial lines do treat only the racism. I do not think they have a hope in hell of working.
I think it is even dangerous to take that approach, because labelling with "massive and unsubstantiated generalizations about a group of people" being deep down racist is a bad thing. Kiwi groups most disadvantaged by the adverse economic factors immigration are our indigenous poor who are unrelated to the immigrant groups - poor whites and poor Maori. I'd expect racism to be strongest amoung these groups and this does gel with my own experiences, but like you I have no hard data. If a "generalization" took hold that one or other of these groups are inherently racist it will become politically possible to consider them our "undeserving poor" - that is never a good thing to happen on so many levels.
I believe than answer lies in mitigating the economic effects of immigration (income disparity & housing costs being the biggies). Removing the cause should lead to the symptom dying a natural death.
-
David,
To clarify: suggestion that anti-immigrant sentiment being tapped by Mr Brown is generated by an innate racism of a substantial number of New Zealanders is one of them "massive and unsubstantiated generalizations about groups of people" that should not be made.
-
But let's not just make up shit in the manner of Mr Brown...
Kieth Ng says he wants to give Mr Brown a hug...
Kieth writes there is a "genuine alienation" reflected in the anti-immigrant sentiment, I agree but think both cause and possible solutions are different.
Kieth refers respectfully to how Obama portrays racism as pervasive. How Obama says that racism of a woman admitting to having private thoughts of being afraid is the same a man lecturing hundreds of people that a race is evil. Kieth says that we need to accept racism as a fragment of all cultures, incurably present. Kieth treats us to a lament of not standing up and protecting a National Front racist. And in conclusion the wisdom imparted is that we should tolerate racists.
I disagree, I think that is all BS. I think there is a difference between a woman making casual remarks and a man making speeches saying a race is evil. I think that Obama is an "elegant" politician dancing his way around the Clinton campaign's smearing. I think that any racism of the serious kind is a minor lunatic fringe (National Front etc.) in New Zealand and that New Zealanders are most definitely not a racist bunch.
I think that genuine alienation is due to the economic effects caused by immigration felt amoung poor New Zealanders and it is this that motivates anti-immigrant feeling. See the link. I think that economic problems caused by immigration can have economic solutions, that economic solutions are far more practical than giving a hug to a racist. For example reduce tax to zero on income under $15,000 - to mitigate some wage disparity and provide shared equity to first home buyers to alleviate some of the cost.
Of course I could be wrong. All racism might be equal, therefore we might be all equally dangerously racist. Dangerous racism might be everywhere with us New Zealanders an inherently racist lot. Show me a survey, some data. And then once the assertion is proven - tell me how this is going to be cured with a hug.
-
Paul,
I also like that cultural diversity, but go over to NZConservative and you'll find that examples of negative cultural diversity take precedence. No one knows us from "Zentiger" and most people do not want to say something that'll set off an argument.
-
In mid-March the House of Lords published a report that found immigration to UK had no impact on GDP per capita.
The economic beneficiaries of immigration are the immigrants, those who own property and high wage earners. The government also gets a nett GDP growth it can boast about and more taxes to spend. Since "a party of those who own property" and "a party of those who want more taxes" are the two main streams of Western politics, all mainstream politicians favor immigration. Any criticism of immigration is deflected with attacks on the character of the critic.
The losers of the immigration equation are low wage natives who do not own property. They get the a*se end of increasing income disparity and see property prices & rents climb out of their reach. And for the purposes of this discussion we will call them close-minded racists who are insufficiently culturally sensitive, but in a nice way like Obama does.
-
Paul Campbell:
But I've had this conversation a bunch of times especially with older or more working class NZers - talking up our cultural diversity, pointing out that it was one of the reasons we moved back - and I hear hesitation in their voices - things have changed and they aren't in control
Did you use the term "cultural diversity"? Because that is hyper politico speak with various contextual, esoteric meanings - it is basically meaningless phraseology. Only in places like here is it acceptable, because agreeing with a poster in this venue infers a known bias and us readers have some recollection of what views you have commented before. Use such language in polite public conversation and it is meaning-less, connotation-loaded drivel to which no polite person will give you anything other than hesitation.
-
It begs the question: Is debating actual facts completely pointless when, according to our learned spin-doctors, it's all about the frequency of keywords?
Each fact represents a new and useful opportunity to reinforce the meme. Each factoid a dangerous trap that may associate the meme with untruthfulness.