Comrade_Tweek

2006-01-13T15:25:00.000-08:00

I can relate...

2006-01-12T12:30:00.000-08:00

The Fighting Man

It has been alleged that Marx coined the saying “Those who fail to remember history are doomed to repeat it.” To which it is said that Engels added the quip “First as tragedy and later as farce.”

Issues such as free verses fair trade or the role of the state and the community in economic and social affairs have been fervently debated and discussed previously and many of the arguments propounded by their advocates or opponents then are the same or similar to those being put forward now.

The sad thing is that people tend not to take an active interest in history or indeed in political or social issues. I hold the opinion that if you take time to remember your history you develop a more complete and comprehensive picture of where you might want to go in the future.

I’m reminded of how much people live in ignorance of the past every day as I travel on Red Bus into the Christchurch Bus depot and past ‘Tommy Taylor Courts’ which are on the corner of Brougham Street and Walton Road. As I read my weighty tomes on various topics, I sometimes hear my fellow passengers question as to whom Taylor was and why there are a block of apartments named after him.

Thomas Edward (Tommy) Taylor was an ‘Independent (Radical) Liberal’ and was the Junior MP for Christchurch City and later became the MP for Christchurch East (now Wigram) during the 1890s and 1900s. He was a prohibitionist, which was a major issue in New Zealand during the latter 19th and early 20th Centuries. In addition, he was also a major proponent for women’s rights and welfare and labour reform in Victorian/Edwardian New Zealand.

Taylor’s championing of those rights, as well as his impulsive manner, constantly brought him into conflict with other political notables of that era, in particular Richard ‘King Dick’ Seddon. Taylor thought that Seddon’s approach on a number of matters was half hearted and reluctant (for example, Seddon did not support women’s suffrage and the reason that the relevant legislation passed in 1893 had a lot to do with a political miscalculation on Seddon’s part in addition to the vigorous campaigning of Kate Sheppard and the Woman’s Temperance Movement) and as a result, Taylor frequently criticised Seddon and his Government for their lack of reforming zeal.

Although, his impulsiveness and lack of compromise often led him into conflict, Taylor never flitched from the belief that the reforms that he proposed such as; free secondary education, the introduction of technical colleges, the reform of mental and penal institutions, cottage homes for orphans, vocational guidance, land reform and better conditions for old-age pensioners and workers would have dramatic benefits for the great majority of people.

It was this belief that eventually caused Taylor to break with the Liberals and align himself increasingly with the burgeoning Labour movement and its representatives. Although, not a socialist, Taylor recognised that the Liberals were incapable of implementing many of those reforms and that the future for progressive legislation lay elsewhere, a sentiment that he expressed to Red Fed Organiser, Bob Semple in a letter just prior to his death.

Taylor died at the tragically young age of 49 of a perforated gastric ulcer on 27 July 1911. He had been Mayor of Christchurch since April of that year. At his funeral procession 50,000 people lined the streets of the city.

Sadly, there has only been one book ever published on Taylor. Simply titled ‘The Fighting Man,’ it was written by Nellie Frances Hayman Macleod and was first published in 1965.

I remember people like Tommy Taylor and their beliefs and convictions every time people (mostly Student Executive members) come into my office and tell me about how we need to accept legislation and reforms that are ‘second best.’ I thank God (even though I’m an atheist) that people like Taylor, Sheppard and company kept their ‘eyes on the prize.’ That prize being a better and more inclusive world for all.

If they did not have their eyes fixed firmly on that prize, the rights that we have now would never have come into being.

Links: Tommy Taylor – Dictionary of New Zealand Biography

2006-01-11T14:10:00.000-08:00

Strange Things in Strange Places

It’s so quiet here at work. What with the University presently being inhabited with a small number of staff and a smaller number of students, one could hear the proverbial pin drop. With that in mind, plus having some spare time over my lunch break, I thought that I might write a book review to start off the New Year.

Book Review: ‘Tomorrow Comes the Song: A Life of Peter Fraser’ by Michael Bassett with Michael King

It strange what you find sometimes in the most unexpected places and I certainly did not expect to find this biography of Labour’s second (and war-time) Prime Minister, Peter Fraser in the Oamaru Warehouse during the Christmas break. But, there it was, nicely nestled between the romantic fiction, the DIY guides, the cook books and the fitness and exercise books as part of the Warehouse’s post Christmas ‘Big Red’ Book Sale.

I must admit that my opinion of Peter Fraser has been somewhat jaundiced due to my considerable exposure to the Lee mythology in my misspend youth and my copious reading since of New Zealand history and social science. However, ever eager to learn more about Fraser, I brought the book for the princely sum of $9.95.

I’m given to understand that originally the book was to be written by Michael King. However, due to King’s increasing illness at the time, he was unable to complete the research and drafting with the result that Michael Bassett took over the research and wrote the drafts.

Firstly, I need to be honest and state that I don’t like Michael Bassett. However, that being said, I respected his work as an historian. I own several of his earlier books on Third Party Politics and the Third Labour Government (written while he still subscribed to social democratic views and opinions) and found them useful and reasonably well written.

But, I am disappointed in this book. While, the book does develop Fraser as a fuller person based on his experiences and achievements, it does not measure up to Barry Gustafson’s 1986 biography of Michael Joseph Savage, 'From the Cradle to the Grave' nor to Erik Olssen’s 1977 biography of John A Lee.

Actually, it told me no more about Fraser’s ability and characteristics than I already knew. The book confirmed Fraser as a dour and somewhat puritanical person, who disliked risqué humour, disapproved of sex outside of marriage and was a teetotaller. However, I also knew that he was a hardworking, intelligent and able MP, Minister and Prime Minster who quickly adapted to being placed in new and demanding situations, such as becoming Prime Minister in 1940 on the death of Savage at the beginning of World War Two.

The book also glossed over other ‘disquieting’ aspects of Fraser's personality. It does not dwell on the authoritarian and dictatorial traits that he constantly exhibited when dealing with his Labour Party colleagues, it makes only passing reference to Fraser’s somewhat Machiavellian role in the 1930s antagonisms between John A Lee and Savage. Lastly, it eulogises the relationship between Fraser and Fintan Patrick Walsh (the nearest that New Zealand ever had to a corrupt Jimmy Hoffa type Union Leader), which allowed both of them to virtually ‘rule’ the Labour movement through fear and strong arm tactics during the 1940s.

(I’m always reminded of two comments made about Fraser during this period by Labour MP’s in relation to his dominance over both the Labour Party and the Government. The first was the observation ‘that when Peter Fraser smiled, it was like moonlight flickering over tombstones.’ The second was ‘that if Fraser asked how the wife and kids were then you were serious trouble,’ which related to Fraser’s habit of starting conversions with pleasantries about family life before grilling and deriding an unfortunate MP).

Then, there is the issue of Bassett’s apparent loathing toward Michael Joseph Savage (Labour’s First Prime Minister), who Bassett portrays as a person of exceptionally limited ability and intellect, who loved adoration to the extent that he allowed his colleagues, namely Fraser, to take the blame for misjudgements and unpopular decisions and seldom showed them any loyalty. The problem with this description is, as Gustafson makes clear in his biography of Savage, that it is simply not accurate. However, Bassett is even more scathing about Robert (Bob) Semple, who he describes as a ‘vainglorious windbag.’

Bassett also obviously feels the need to justify his increasingly right wing behaviour and political outlook, especially as a Minister in ‘that Labour Government’ during the 1980s, as littered throughout the book are ‘snide’ comments in relation to the foolishness of the economic and social policies of the First Labour Government. Obviously, it was a novel experience for Bassett to learn about politicians who actually thought that people needed to be listened to, respected and treated with honesty – the First Labour Government actually delivered on its manifesto commitments. (Sorry, that was my snide comment).

Lastly, there is the sentence structure and proof reading. Like most people, I’ve sped through sentence construction, misspelling the occasional word and placing commas in places where they should not be placed. However, there are a number of sentences which I was forced to reread several times as they were simply not comprehensible on the first reading.

It is a solid book, nonetheless, which presents Fraser more as a person and demonstrates his considerable abilities. However, it could have done with the added panache (and balance) of an historian like King.

2005-12-14T11:36:00.000-08:00

...And, who said that the Unions were militant??

Unions fail to confront Govt over Air NZ plans

Press Release: New Zealand Alliance Party
10 December 2005

Rather than confront the Government over Air NZ plans to shut-down its heavy engineering aircraft repair operations, unions have turned to an anti-union accounting firm to come up with a cost-saving scheme at the expense of workers' conditions.

The Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union (EPMU) and the Aviation and Marine Engineers Association (AMEA) have put up a plan that would save only half of the 600 jobs that would be lost if the engineering work was outsourced off-shore.

Not only would more than 300 jobs disappear, the workers who remain would have to take a major wage cut and yet still be expected to do the same or more work.

Instead of making concessions, the Alliance says the unions should be waging a campaign to force the Government, which owns 82 per cent of Air NZ, to take full control of the airline and ensure the engineering repair facilities are kept open.

Alliance co-leader Len Richards says the unions have buckled under to the blackmail of the company, which is cynically using the threat of a complete closure of the repair workshops to extract "voluntary" concessions from the workers.

The unions have hired Michael Stiassny of the accountancy firm Ferrier Hodgson who has come up with a plan that will mean far-reaching changes in work conditions in the hope that enough money can be saved to convince the company to save 300 engineers' jobs.

The Alliance says Mr Stiassny is not known as a workers' champion. He specialises in company restructuring and insolvency. He chairs the Board of the lines company Vector and Auckland's corporatised water company, Metrowater. He also holds directorships in a number of other companies including Metlifecare, a major player in the aged care industry currently under attack in a corporate takeover bid by the Australian McQuarrie Bank.

He told the NZ Herald it was "phenomenal" and an "amazing surprise", to see "how far the [union] delegates and members have moved on labour reform". It is "unusual", he crowed, "to see a union make those ... deliverables" and Air NZ should take advantage of these concessions.

Andrew Little, the national secretary of the EPMU, described the accountants' plan as a viable alternative, but in selling workers' conditions in return for an unenforceable undertaking that some jobs will be saved, Mr Little and the unions are playing right into the company's hands, Mr Richards says.

The company that Mr Stiassny works for is known as a "corporate undertaker", having dealt with several high profile company receiverships. In one, a so-called "Phoenix" scheme in 1998, a stevedoring company went into receivership and then arose from its own ashes under a new name.

"This was done to cheat laid-off wharfies out of their holiday and redundancy pay," Mr Richards says. "The wharfies, through the liquidator, successfully sued Ferrier Gibson for nearly $2 million. To think such a company would act in the interests of Air NZ engineers, as Andrew Little obviously does is, at the very least, the height of naivety."

Only a few days before the presentation of the union concessions to Air NZ, the company said that even a 25 per cent cut in labour costs for the engineers would not be enough to save their jobs.

"In fact Air NZ said only across-the-board concessions from all 2100 engineering workers could see some of the heavy engineering jobs saved. Air NZ management said even changes in shift patterns, removal of penal rates and an 'hours bank' to manage the work load would not be cheaper than outsourcing," Mr Richards says.

The Alliance says the loss of our country's heavy aircraft repair capacity would be a major blow to our strategically important transport infrastructure. The Labour-led government should act in the interests of the people who elected it and protect the 600 jobs at risk while ensuring New Zealand continues to have a viable national airline.

"Privatisation of transport has been a disaster for New Zealand as has been seen in the fiascos dogging the railways and bus companies. An integrated, planned transport system is only possible through public ownership and democratic control," Mr Richards says.

The Alliance is calling on the unions to consider an Argentinean-style occupation of the workshops in both Auckland and Christchurch.

"Such an occupation would win wide community support. It's not only about the job losses. These workshops are assets owned by the people of New Zealand and should remain so."

ENDS

Links: Len Richards - Newssoc

2005-12-09T16:27:00.000-08:00

Iraqi Doctors Beaten and Arrested in Haditha Hospital
Sabah Ali (30/10/2005)

Dr. Walid Al-Obeidi, the director of Haditha General Hospital and Dr. Jamil Abdul Jabbar, the only surgeon in the Haditha area were arrested for a week, very badly beaten and threatened to face the same treatment in the future by the American troops.

Dr.Walid said “they arrested me in my house in front of my family, covered my eyes, and tied my hands to the back on Oct 5 2005 morning, during the last attack on Haditha (360 kilometers west of Baghdad). They occupied the hospital for 8 days and made it their office. The first day they beat me on my eyes, nose, back, hands, legs... My face was covered with blood .When they removed the tie I could not see. They investigated me until the afternoon. I realized later that I was arrested in the hospital store. Then they tied my hands to the front, and left me for two days. I was moved then to the pharmacy department. They accused me of treating terrorists, and asked for their names.

I told them that I treat patients regardless of their identity, according to my oath as a doctor; even if they were national guards (which we actually I did) or American soldiers. And any way, if I do not want to treat the insurgents, I have no choice, because they were armed and masked. I would do anything they tell to do. Few days later, one of the soldiers came in the room, did not say anything, kicked me again on my face and left”.

Dr. Jamil, a surgeon for 20 years, was arrested and very badly beaten. When we met him, 22 days later, his face was still blue. His nose was broken, and a big opening in his head: “They beat me on my eyes and nose, kicked me with boots under my chin. One of them threatened me if I do not talk after he counts to three, he would shoot me. He began counting, after three he turned the gun upside down and hit me on the back of my head. For days I could not move or see. They threatened us of abusing our families. For some reason they took my picture while I was bleeding, I could hear the camera click”.

Both doctors were threatened if they do not talk, they would receive the same treatment in the future. They were warned of passing any information of the arrest to the media. They were asked who wrote the hostile slogans against the American on the opposite wall of the hospital? What are the names of the insurgents they treated? and what are the bodies’ pictures in the hospital computer?

Dr.Walid said he does not know who wrote on the wall outside the hospital, what the names of the insurgents are, because they were masked. He explained that the dead bodies’ pictures were of unknown people whose bodies were found after the fighting. “We can not keep these bodies forever; we do not have enough cold boxes. So, after two months, we take their pictures and bury them, so that whenever some one from their families comes to ask we show the pictures of the dead bodies”.

The UN, the international HR organizations, WHO, Doctors sans frontiers…and all who it may concern are called upon to do some thing to help these, and other Iraqi doctors, and to prevent similar treatment in the future. Dr.Walid and Dr. Jamil believe that they may face the arrest and beating in the future. They demand that the American troops stop occupying the hospital and destroying it every time the attack Haditha. They also believe that the Iraqi authorities are incapable of protecting them.

2005-12-08T16:11:00.000-08:00

Bewarned Dipshits Abound!

Apparently, ‘Progressive Essays’ was a cruel joke designed to lure people (left-wingers) into thinking that he/she/it was a left-winger whilst, using selected speeches from people such as Hitler, to justify their comments. As he/she/it notes,

“This blog was started as an experiment to examine
this phenomenon. What would happen if someone began writing under a
"progressive" byline, with progressive being the acceptable name of socialism in
these post-communist days, but with the twist of using only Nazi and fascist raw
material?….Obviously a little editing would be required to transform 1930-type
issues into post-millenium situations, but surely they'd recognise the Nazi
"blood and soil" and environmental motifs, the rabid anticapitalist and
anti-free market ideologies of Nazism and fascism and even a piece of
Mein-bloody-Kampf? Or would these "leftist" pillars that actually so pervade
"rightist" ideology obscure the references too much for them to identify the
likely authors?”

He/her/it is quite gleeful in regards to their ability to ‘put one over on the left’ and how this shows that some of us have Nazi Sympathies;

“…Joe Hendren, a "noted" fascist historian, didn't recognise the fascist
literature, BlogGreen liked the greenie aspects of Nazi ideology and CutFoldGlue
finds the whole thing to be very in tune. They may feel free now to reassign
Progressive Essays into a different slot on their blog rolls.”

Apparently, the proof of showing Nazi or totalitarian sympathies appears to be: 1) listing Progressive Essays as Left, based I suspect, on reading a couple of their 'edited' postings or maybe as a result of reading other people’s listings or 2) on the basis of welcoming Progressive Essays to the world of blogging, as BlogGreen generously does to most people.

However, the joke could be on him/her/it as they appear to assume that firstly, people continuously read their blog and secondly, that no response to their postings signifies an acceptance of their points of view. Surely, it would have been better for their experiment if they had pulled either me, or Joe or BlogGreen or someone from the left into agreeing with them?

However, it is a good lesson for me to be more careful in my listings, as I had listed PE as left judged on reading two blog postings (why he/she/it was in the blog sphere and their follow up posting on Iraq). I had not been back to their site and, therefore, missed his/her/it’s follow up blogs until today. (Memo to self: I will now regularly read those blogs that I list).

However, it also really fucks me off because I dislike deception. I like people who are honest about what they believe and open in what they say. For example, while, I don’t agree or support those comments from Aaron Bhatnagar, Grant Tyrell or David Farrar, I respect their right to express their points of view as an important part of a democracy.

Somehow, I feel that PE might be closer to those that he borrowed the comments from than he/she/it thinks, as anyone who has researched the Weimar Republic knows that deception and double handedness were the Nazi’s favourite traits.

2005-11-30T09:03:00.000-08:00

MSP on trial for anti-weapons protest (Tuesday 29 November 2005)
Morning Star

SCOTTISH Socialist Party MSP Rosie Kane will appear at Edinburgh Sheriff Court today and on Thursday in relation to a protest outside the Scottish Parliament that saw the road blocked by a mock-up of a Trident submarine.

The protest took place on March 10 2005 and ended when police moved in to cut out the protesters who had chained themselves inside the submarine. A total of 10 protesters will appear in court, all of them members of the Trident Ploughshares organisation and Scottish CND.

Ms Kane will plead not guilty, citing international law that rules weapons of mass destruction such as Trident as illegal because of the non-discriminatory way in which people would be killed if they were to beused.

"Instead of putting 10 people on trial, Scotland should applaud the anti-nuclear protesters for the tireless campaign that they have waged over the years to disarm the British state's weapons of mass destruction," she said.

2005-11-29T11:48:00.000-08:00

Life without Arnold

When I was a kid in the 1970s, I used to watch Happy Days. In the mid 1970s, programmes such as Happy Days, Get Smart, MASH and Doctor Who were compulsory viewing. Back then on the black and white television that my parents owned, John Pertwee’s Doctor fought plastic figurines with squeaky voices, while the Fonz remained a minor character next to Richie Cunningham. Star Wars was still some way in the future, and a large great white shark was just about to make its starring debut in a film titled appropriately enough as “Jaws."

I was reminded of my 70s childhood with a posting by Tristan of ‘About Town’ about the death of Pat Morita at age 73 over the weekend. While Tristan and people of his age associated Pat with Mr Miyagi of the Karate Kid, I had more vivid and older memories of him as Arnold, owner of the restaurant and youth hangout ‘Arnold’s’ on Happy Days. (By the time that he appeared as Mr Miyagi, I had become a rather cynical teenager in the 1980s and, as a result, the Karate Kid was completely lost on me).

I am quietly saddened by Pat Morita’s death. Coming, as it did, on top of the deaths of a number of other memorable ‘pop’ icons from my childhood; people such as James Doohan, better known as Chief Engineer, Montgomery Scott (Scotty) of the star ship Enterprise, Don Adams or Secret Agent 86 of Control and Bob Denver, first mate Gilligan of the ‘Minnow’. With every one of their deaths, it seems as if a small part of my childhood slips away with its memories of a seemingly happier time when ice blocks were only 5 cents, a 20 cent mixture would last an afternoon and when it only cost 95 cents to go to the pictures.

Of course, it wasn’t all ‘coming up’ roses as I was also reminded yesterday as I was listening to a music review from Jim Page of the Washington Post, in which he named 1974 as the worst year for popular music. He noted the following songs, ‘The Night Chicago Died’, ‘Billy, Don’t be a Hero’ both by Paper Lace (shuttering begins), ‘You’re having my Baby’ by Paul Anka (longer shutter), Seasons in the Sun by Terry Jacks (violent shuttering) as candidates for songs that needed to be buried in a dark vault and best forgotten. From the vantage point of thirty years later, I can honesty agree with him (when you are 7 or 8, most songs are just fun). Of course, from the same vantage point there are also a number of other songs that I would also willingly send into the darkness of any vault.

However, the 1970s with its bad songs, its purple, orange and brown coloured clothes, its television shows and its actors like Pat Morita and Don Adams is dead. It is gone and they are gone. They exist no more except in television repeats or in photographs or in my memory.

I feel that a little part of me has died as well.

2005-11-25T11:48:00.000-08:00

Tweek of the Week (25 November 2005)

Tough...tough...tough...rich pickings indeed…

George W and his best friend, Tony Blair rate a mention. Firstly, for the admission that George and Tony had discussed George's desire to take ‘military action’ against the Al Jazeera network and, two for a man who can declare war on others and singluarly force economic ruin on his nation, he appears to be incapable of opening a door. Tony gets another mention for letting his Attoney General lose on the British media and threatening them with the Official Secrets Act if they revealed George’s dirty little secret (about the bombing, not about the door).

The Catholic Church get an honorable mention. They have just released a report (21 paragraghs long) in which the Church justifies its decision not to allow active (or indeed passive) gays in the priest hood. This is despite a book by Father Donald Cozzens that 40 percent of priests were estimated to be gay. It’s good to know that under the enlightened leadership of Pope ‘Ratzinger', the Church continues to march boldly and fearlessly into the past...a lot like the New Right.

Then we come to our own little piece of paradise. Winston, a man who irritates the hell out of me, but yet also provides endless entertainment, is proving to be as good a Minister of Foreign Affairs as he was a Treasurer and Deputy PM. Hot on his success at APEC, Winston is now off to Chogm (being held at Malta) before going to visit the British Minister of Defence. Why? Who can say? Certainly, it's not the media, who Winston has been at pains to avoid...probably, because of their treason.

But, in the end, there can be only one 'tweek', or in this case, two. Reports reached me yesterday of two irrant schoolyard bullies who reside in Parliament. It’s not often that I side with Tories, but I agree with Tau Henare’s objection to the Speaker in relation to the disgusting display provided by the Minister of Immigration, David Cunliffe and his friend, Trevor Mallard in relation to a question asked to the Minister by National MP, Patsy Wong; after which Cunliffe mimicked Wong’s accent and Mallard apparently suggested that she take an ‘English language course’.

Well, Wayne Mapp doesn’t need to worry about these two. I wonder if they tell fat chick jokes as well in the House???

Bullies are bullies and they should not be tolerated in the school yard, in the workplace ...or in Parliament.

Tweek(s) of the Week – David Cunliff and Trevor Mallard

2005-11-24T00:21:00.000-08:00

The Sin(s) of Cheapness

It’s seldom that I agree with Matt Mcarten, but I did last night as I watched the Starbucks strike and picket in Auckland.

Starbuck workers, who are represented by the Unite Union, which Mr Macarten ‘leads’ undertook the first strike by Starbuck workers ever, in relation to their conditions of work and their princely rates of pay (mostly $10 per hour) or as one Starbuck worker said the price of approximately 2 cups of Starbuck coffee.

Mcarten made the point that despite Labour’s oft repeated claims that it was protecting workers rights, this was not the case. He noted that the Government was ‘considering’ raising the minimum wage at some point during the next parliamentary term, but was otherwise non committal over the issue. It’s interesting to note that movement in the past in this area has been the result of parties other than Labour making it an issue, the Alliance and the Greens in 1999 and 2002 and (ironically) New Zealand First and the Greens in the recent election.

The lack of protection for low paid and causal workers made me think about the lack of protection that similar workers have had in the past and I was reminded of the low paid and ‘causalised’ working conditions in the late 19th Century. The pitiful wages, long hours and poor conditions led to a public outcry and caused a Dunedin Presbyterian Minister, Rev. Rutherford Wadell to deliver a famous sermon entitled ‘The Sin of Cheapness’ to his parishioners in his church on Walker Street, now Carroll Street, in Dunedin.

When Rutherford Wadell gave his sermon in 1887, he was referring to the ‘sweating’ conditions and low wages of those who worked in the various clothing factories in Dunedin and elsewhere in New Zealand’s 19th Century Victorian society.

Wadell’s comments as well as the comments and reports of others about the conditions of work in Victorian New Zealand led directly to a Commission to investigate these allegations. That Commission concluded that ‘sweating’ was occurring and detailed the detrimental effect such conditions were having on workers (mostly, women and children). As a result, legislation was introduced to ensure that conditions were improved. Further reforms in this area were enacted with the election of the Liberal Government in 1890.

Despite Labour’s 'cooing' about higher wages and increasing protection for workers, nothing much has changed as people employed in casualised, low paying jobs are aware. Under existing Employment legislation, causal workers are not provided with much employment protection, and as a result their wages and conditions remain pitiful. This is exactly the point that Rutherford Wadell was making in 1887. New Zealand’s minimum wage is also well below that of Australia’s, a point that has been made repeatedly by Mr Macarten and later, by John Campbell on ‘Campbell Live’.

If Labour was as bold as its political predecessors, it would move to ensure that workers like those at Starbuck got higher wages and improved conditions by immediately raising the minimum wage and getting rid of the discrimination in legislation that casual workers face

Sadly, I don’t think Labour is that bold - Go the Union!

2005-11-22T10:51:00.000-08:00

A Meeting Of Like Minds

Apparently, there was a minding of like minds yesterday. Individuals from the New Zealand Treasury and the IRD met with members of ACT, National Party members, members of the Business Round Table, the Maxim Institute and a number of other Right Wing thing tanks to talk about the recent Treasury Report and other issues that have arisen since the election. Not surprisingly, there was a consensus about the need to cut state expenditure and flatten the tax rate.

At least, the Right are very open in terms of their agenda, which is a continuation of the economic direction of the 1980s and 1990s. It also gives credence to the view that the recent reports from Treasury are ‘ideologically biased,’ with ACT commenting that the recent Treasury Report was ‘like reading the ACT manifesto.’

The New Right have never given up on the idea of the complete restructuring of the economy and society based on their own narrow set of economic and ideological perspectives. To them, the present Government, as weak in ideals and as tainted by its own Right sympathisers as it is, is a mere blip in the economic radar.

The New Right are not going to give up, regardless of how many election losses are suffered by their respective parties in parliament, nor by how overwhelming the evidence is against their theories. They are completely convinced that they are right (pardon the pun). In effect, they have their own version of historical materialism, only in this version, free market capitalism prevails.

2005-11-21T16:49:00.000-08:00

It’s Hard to be Winston

Hard on the heels of Winston’s recent disagreements with the media at the APEC Conference, comes his allegations about the New Zealand Herald being treasonous. It appears that a recent Herald editorial poured scorn and derision on Mr Peters recent meeting with United States Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice. Mr Peter’s argument appears to be that the Herald did not print his (and one can only assume the correct) account of the meeting with her. Their incorrect reporting or rather editorial basis against him is, he alleges, treason.

I understand that during war, allegations of Treason could see people being imprisoned for long periods of time or even executed. Winston obviously must be upset that people who say nasty things about him are allowed to go free…it’s just a pity that there is not a war on.

Mr Peters must be more than aware that such a state of affairs would never have happened in Benito Mussolini’s Italy…even during peace time.

2005-11-18T00:03:00.000-08:00

Tweek of the Week (18 November 2005)

Another week, another Tweek…

The contenders this week…

Well, we have George and Co hitting back at the Democrats and others in relation to the increasing quagmire that is Iraq (You go Girl Friend!!). We have the French Government considering implemeting draconian laws from the 1950s, as Paris and other towns in France burn (hint: De Gaulle just declared a new Republic when things got too hot for him in the 50s). We also have Tuariki Delamere, a blast from New Zealand First’s past, who could be facing up to 10 charges of fraud. Then, there is the ongoing and strange saga of our new Foreign Minister, Winston Peters which appears to have gained international comment as well as unfortunate local references to Mothers-in-Law.

However, at the end of the day, the one that really tipped my fancy was the rather strange saga of the ACT Party bus. It appears that two young teenage girls having seen the bus abandoned and laid up in a Wellington backyard took it for a joyride, not once, but twice. It was made easier by the fact that the ACT people responsible for the bus left the keys in the ignition.

Important note to ACT people – Do not leave keys in the ignition if you do not intend to use the bus for the next few years…

(Tweek of the Week - The People Responsible for the ACT Bus)

2005-11-17T10:17:00.000-08:00

The Whimpering Treasury….And Other Eerie Tales of the New Right

One cannot but help feel sorry for Treasury. After the glory days of the 1980s and early 1990s, they have been cast once more into the gloom and twilight of the New Zealand economic scene, only emerging now and again to cast dubious reports about the shape and the direction of the New Zealand economy and to scare small children.

It appears that there is an assumption from the popular media, and I am going to be generous to Mark Sainsbury and Co and say that it is only an assumption, that Treasury provides high quality, non-bias advice to the Government. Last night on ‘Close Up,’ Sainsbury was asking why the Government was not going to take the advice from Treasury in relation to its suggestions to cut the top rate of personal tax and reduce government spending. Obviously, Sainsbury noted, since Treasury was saying this, shouldn’t the Government be acting upon it?

This approach adopted by the ‘Fourth Estate’ appeared again this morning on ‘Breakfast’ with an interview between Paul Henry and (sigh) Gareth Morgan. I understand that Maia on Capitalism Bad, Tree Pretty has made postings about her dislike of Gareth Morgan. However, he does more than ‘suck.’ He is very useful to the New Right in that he offers a respectable, but yet extreme point of economic view, which can be trotted out to simply justify economic rationalism to the masses, who largely don’t understand or appreciate economics. This morning was no different, with Morgan starting his analysis by stating that no economist would disagree with the Treasury report.

John Maynard Keynes once observed that if you put 12 economists in a room, they would not agree with each other. Economics, he noted, is not a science; it is a social science with a range of different views and perspectives which tend to determine the economic direction that you take. Some economists start from the perspective of Neo-liberalism, others from neo-Keynesian and still others from Marxist or other radical traditions. What Morgan meant of course was that no economist who agreed with his line of economic thought would disagree with the Treasury Report. And, that is how the Treasury report needs to be approached.

So, are some New Zealanders highly taxed? Yes, some New Zealanders are, but the wrong ones. As a result of tax changes in the mid 1980s, New Zealanders now face a barrage of direct and indirect taxation. Personal tax rates dramatically increased for those on lower incomes. Prior to 1984, beneficiaries did not pay personal tax, after the tax changes in 1986, they did. Tax is deducted from their benefit prior to them receiving it, this is in addition to paying indirect taxes such as GST, they and other low income workers actually faced a tax increase in this period going from virtually nothing to 19 cents in the dollar.

But the real issue is not tax, as New Zealand is not a highly taxed country in OECD terms, the real issue is that New Zealand workers get paid low wages and have bad conditions in comparison with most other Western workers and it has been the economic philosophy pursued by agencies such as the Treasury over the past two decades that is responsible for this state of affairs.

Michael Cullen is very correct when he refers to the Treasury report as an ‘ideological burp,’ it is and it follows in a direct line from previous ‘ideological burps’ from Treasury, such as ‘Economic Management’ in 1984 and ‘Government Management’ in 1987 as well as briefings to incoming Governments in the 1990s, all of which suggested curtailing state spending, benefit cuts etc.

I want to add, that I feel that there is nothing wrong with promoting a distinct ideological agenda, after all the Government should receive contested advice from which to base its policy approach.

The problem with the New Zealand Government is that the advice it receives from Treasury is not only shoddy, but also non-contested. The last time that there was a major state agency that was capable of providing an alternative economic analysis to Treasury was in the 1980s, when the Ministry of Works Planning Department was in existence. It was the old MoW that provided a detailed alternative (Keynesian) report to Treasury’s 1984 Report ‘Economic Management’, which basically said that Treasury’s briefing was seriously flawed. It was the same Planning Department that was first up for the ‘chopping block’ in the Treasury inspired ‘cull’ of state agencies and departments. Treasury for all its posturing about competition really hates it when it comes to contested advice.

The fact is that Governments can choose to take or ignore Treasury’s advice. Governments are, as Muldoon famously observed, elected to govern. In the end, they do not govern on behalf of Treasury, but on behalf of the people who put them there – that’s why parties have policies and programmes. Treasury has an opinion based on its economic and philosophical perspectives which influences its intrepretation of data, unfortunately, others have opinions based on theirs. Treasury needs to get used to being ignored more…

2005-11-15T13:45:00.000-08:00

It’s Not As Red As You May Think…

I’ve been reading ‘A People’s History of England,’ by A L Morton, which was published in 1938 by the New Left Book Club. The New Left Book Club did a line of books covering a range of topics including; politics, history, philosophy, economics, sociology etc for distribution to its members to stimulate debate and discussion in left wing circles.

The interesting thing about the New Left Book Club was that it demonstrated that the Left used to be very vibrant in terms of ideals and philosophies. There was very vigorous debate as to the shape of a ‘socialist’ society. While, some writers anticipated the state playing a dominant part in society, as a means of shifting the balance toward workers and away from capital, there were others who argued that in fact the state itself posed a problem.

However, what tied all of these debates together was the hypothesis that workers, and the community as of large, created the wealth that capitalists took as their own and that only by redistribution (or the elimination of capital) could society truly be free. Freedom, therefore, was not measured by the ability to earn money, but by freedom from earning money and, hence, freedom from the fear of being in poverty.

Mid 20th Century Social Democracy, even though sneered at by revolutionary socialists, accepted that wealth and power did need to be redistributed in society. Their solution was that the state needed to be an active player to ensure that monetary and social gains from capitalism were distributed out to people in the form of higher wages, benefits etc.

The reason that I make these points is that there appears to be reversal in the manner by which even ‘Social Democrats’ now perceive themselves. This was brought home to me in the various debates over the Workers Charter in which various people made the point that it was too radical. The point is that these claims did not come from the Right, but from people supposedly on the Left. Sadly, the modern Labour Party (and the Left) has been very slow to acknowledge a series of principles that it would not have given second thought to endorsing 30 years ago.

Margaret Thatcher once noted that she would be happy if she fundamentally changed society. And, it appears that she and her various acolytes have done so. They have managed to turn back the clock so completely, that we are now discussing the same issues that people were discussing a little over a hundred years ago. But, this turning back has been more far thorough, with the hegemony even affecting the way in which socialists and social democrats perceive themselves.

No where was the right shift in political hegemony more apparent than with the Alliance. I think that it speaks volumes when a party that promoted what was essentially a conservative social democratic agenda was seen as being dangerously left wing by people on the Left.

‘In the Strange Death of Liberal England” written in the early 1930s, George Dangerfield noted that the ‘new’ Liberals of the late 19th and early 20th Century perceived themselves as being radical socially, but also of being economically responsible. He notes that the Liberals did endorse an extension of the State to promote and protect some of the rights that they had promoted – limited state pensions, health care, unemployment insurance – but, that any restructuring of the economy needed to be underpinned by responsible economic theory (a point of view that was shared by some people in the Labour Parties at the time as well).

However, it became very apparent that the Liberals could not have their cake and eat it too. As Dangerfield notes, the Liberals could not extend their agenda because it increasingly conflicted with the needs of capital, against which they were not prepared to advance any further. This led to radical Liberals joining or supporting Labour as a means of promoting further change.

In a recent speech, Michael Cullen made noises about ‘Modern Social Democracy.’ In effect, what he was really referring to was resurrecting the ‘new’ Liberalism of last century, with which Modern Social Democracy has more in common. ‘Modern Social Democracy’ or The Third Way as it has been dubbed, does not really seek a radical change in the way that society might be organised as it is not designed to redistribute either wealth or power. It accepts that the current economic structure (the free market) is correct so long as it can be merely tweaked. It wants to be socially just, as long as it remains economically responsible, which means being economically conservative.

In a past posting on his blog, Tony Milne asked as to whether New Zealand was becoming like Sweden. I think, apologies Tony if I have you wrong, that he was referring to the idea that Labour like the Swedish Social Democrats was becoming the ‘natural party’ of government (hmmm…I’ve heard that phrase somewhere before and used by another Party…nah…it’s gone…). The Swedish Social Democrats, in coalition with other left parties, have been in government, aside from several very short terms in Opposition, almost continuously since 1932. In that time they have dramatically changed the hegemony of Sweden to the extent that the Social Democrats lost significant votes to the Left Party in 1998, when they mooted changes to the nature of the Swedish Welfare State. The hegemonic change in this country has been quite far reaching too, but it has come from the opposite ideological direction.

Philosophically, the modern Labour Party is as close to social democracy as white bait is to a mature fish...

PS: ...Sorry, I meant alligator....

2005-11-14T11:28:00.000-08:00

Tweek of the Week (14 November 2005)

It has been another hard choice for a ‘Tweek of the Week.’

We have George W Bush and the Republicans now saying that even though they were wrong about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, they did not mislead the American public over the matter. Hmmm… unfortunately, it appears that the evidence would suggest otherwise…although, it could be that George is simply just an unthinking dupe for others? Hopefully, Impeachment might be a welcome Christmas gift…it would certainly put George out of his misery….

Then, we have the ‘Governator.’ Big Arnie (now Republican Governor of California) suffered badly in the past week, with all four of his referendum proposals going down to substantial defeat in a popular vote. Apparently, his lack of panache as a legislator have caused splits in the Californian Republican Party, with some Republicans now openly stating that he should go, least the position fall to the Democrats (or the Republicats – I can never seem to remember as they appear very similar). It’s just a pity that he can’t blow his detractors away as he does on the screen…

However, I was talking with my good friend Joe Hendren, after Rod’s funeral last week, and Joe mentioned to me Peter Dunne’s blunder in relation to the cellphone…Hmmm…

I logged onto the United Future website and was informed that “…Peter is one of Parliament's most respected MP's. His intelligent calm common-sense is a much sought-after quality in Parliament….”

It appears that Winston may have competition for the prize of having an over-inflated ego and an inflated sense of self importance…the man is completely crass and richly deserves a ‘Tweek’ (as well as a kick up the ….).

Peter Dunne - Tweek (and Crass Human Being) of the Week

2005-11-10T15:44:00.000-08:00

Living By Each Other’s Happiness – RIP. Rod Donald

I’m still stunned by Rod Donald’s death. I met Rod when we both had the experience of being on the Alliance National Council in the mid 1990s. He was there as co-leader of the Green Party and later as an Alliance/Green MP while, I was there representing the Otago/Southland NLP.

Rod and I differed on a number of issues, although we agreed more than we differed and I was sorry to see him and the Greens depart in 1998. Of course, I’d seen him many times since then, the most recent being at a Banks Peninsular Candidates meeting during the recent election, after which he came over to our little group and cheerfully addressed us all as ‘Comrades’.

I liked Rod and I couldn’t believe that he had died. In a way, even though I’ve been told many times now via the radio and on television, his death still seems unreal.

I was musing over a speech that Charlie Chaplin made in ‘The Great Dictator', it was Chaplin’s first (and I think only talking role) and a section of Chaplin's famous speech reminds me of Rod.

“We all want to help each other. Human beings are like that. We want to live by
each others happiness – not by each others misery…”

Humantarian values are sadly lacking in today's society and Rod belived in those values.

I will miss Rod and I know that the Progressive movement in New Zealand will be weaker because of his passing.

2005-11-10T15:14:00.000-08:00

Late Spring Holidays

Comrade Tweek has been on holiday. Yup, even hard working members of the proletariat deserve holidays some times – God bless good Queen Helen….

I always find it incredibly difficult to write about my holidays. Visions of school essays titled ‘What I did during my Summer Holidays’ come into my mind. Like people are interested in beaches, travelling etc. Though, apparently, some are and, while I like reading well written travel books, my own travels don’t really fascinate me all that much.

It’s like writing about my love life or relationships. I have never tried to foster them (my relationships) onto people and my own observation as to the dire state of my love life seems only really relevant to me. I could write a complete column on my previous relationship and how I discovered that she was an admirer of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi’s and how that, as well as her views on genetic selection, led to us breaking up in short order….and how this short affair has clouded my mind as to women…but, only it hasn’t…I made a bad choice and got out of it.

I’ve always considered that there are more important things happening in the world than my personal wellbeing of course that could just be me and I could make some comments in relation to the difference between the genders…only, I don’t believe that there is that much….

A lot of this is because I’m a serious person and I like having serious conversations about serious issues, triviality was never my thing, although over the years, I’ve got better at it…

So anyway, I have returned and now I’m all set for Xmas…

2005-10-21T11:32:00.000-07:00

Tweek of the Week (21 October 2005)

US Military personnel in Afghanistan (US Psychological Operations Unit)

Not content with helping to whip up fundamentalist extremism in Iraq, the US has now apparently shifted its attentions back to Afghanistan where it has managed to offend even moderate Muslims and breach the Geneva Convention, with a decision by the US Psychological Operations Unit to burn the bodies of two Taliban fighters, whom US troops had killed earlier.

The bodies were arranged to face Mecca (Islam’s Holy City) and then set alight.

This stunt, reminiscent of the Crusades, was used as part of a psychological exercise by the US Psychological Operations Unit to “taunt [the Taliban] to retrieve their dead and fight."

The global security website (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/ca-psyop.htm) notes that …

“Psychological Operations (PSYOP) soldiers use persuasion to influence perceptions and encourage desired behavior. The cornerstone of PSYOP is truth, credibly presented to convince a given audience to cease resistance or take actions favorable to friendly (US) forces.”

I note that this type of ‘persuasion’ has been really successful thus far in the Middle East and Asia and South America and…

Tweek of the Week - US Psychological Operations Unit

2005-10-19T11:23:00.000-07:00

Hitlererian Dictator to Stand Trial…

I was watching Breakfast (that informed journal of intelligent news and information) this morning before leaving for work, when it was mentioned that Saddam Hussein is about to stand trial for a massacre at Dujail. I learnt later that it is a village north of Baghdad where his security forces are alleged to have killed at least 140 people after a failed attempt there on his life in 1982.

Well, good stuff, I thought. He should be put on trial for human rights abuses as should those who acted with and supported him during his bloody reign.

But, wait a moment, those people who supplied Saddam with the armaments and the money and, come to think of it, also sent military and security advisers across to train his army etc and then turned a blind eye and even in some cases condoned it when he committed terrible atrocities against the Kurds, the Iranians and his own people… They’re not standing trial!! They’re helping to run the trial!!! (Sigh)

Why, do I feel that Justice is not going to be served on this occasion?

2005-10-17T18:54:00.000-07:00

And, so they danced with the Devil….

Well, it’s out, we now have a Labour/Progressive/United Future and New Zealand First Government with Winston Peters and Peter Dunne as Ministers outside of Cabinet.

Peters, is of course, trying to portray his decision as pragmatic and principled, while Peter Dunne is of course trumpeting his re-promotion back into cabinet as ‘promoting stability’ and ‘commonsense.’ The last time he was a Minister was under Bolger and he was Minister of Revenue then as well.

Already, the political calls are being made. Dunne is promoting a lower company tax rate, a move that Jim Anderton would support, considering the economic flip-flop that he has done over the issue now that the Alliance has ceased to exist as a coherent entity. It remains to be seen as to what other deals and delights Winston will deliver to the Cabinet table and the populace over the next term (assuming that the Government holds together that long). In case, anyone is thinking that Winston might hold fast to his principles, he hasn’t so far, why ruin a prefect run.

On his “I See Red” Blog, Tony Milne, past Labour candidate for Rakaia quotes Helen Clark as stating that the Government will be “… durable, strong, stable and progressive…” Hmmm…I’ve been hearing lots of different definitions of the word ‘progressive’ recently. However, I can’t help agreeing with the Greens, who are obviously disappointed with the way in which the Government has been formulated, and are worried about the Government's future progressive nature.

The one thing that is certain is that this is not a Left Government, a fact that will no doubt please the old ‘Rogernomes’ in the Labour Caucus. Jim Sutton, Annette King and Phil Goff will no doubt be secretly delighted that they do not have to water down some of their policies and that a conservative agenda, particularly on social and economic issues will continue to go ahead.

It does raise the question as to what would the Government have been like if there had been another party to Labour’s Left? The demise of the Alliance as a coherent and cogent political actor has meant that the Greens are the only option that Labour has for a left partner (and not a very left partner at that). With a Left Party and a Green Party supporting Labour, then the road could have been open for a hegemonic shift in the political spectrum of the country. It is less likely now that the right is essentially in bed with a liberal administration in the Asquith meaning of the term.

In one sense, Labour can only blame itself. It set out to destroy the parliamentary left in this country and has largely succeeded. If you don’t have choices, then you have to do a deal with the Devil and doing a deal with the Devil brings its own troubles.

2005-10-17T15:04:00.000-07:00

Pale Pink Peas and (the) Ham….Michael Bassett and the Rewriting of History

I used to admire Michael Bassett. His historical writing and research was excellent and I still refer to his previous works on the Third Labour Government and Third Party politics in New Zealand. However, this admiration has increasingly waned in recent years, not just because of his right wings views, courtesy of him having been a Minister in the Fourth Labour Government (1984 – 1990), but also because those views now tend to cloud his writing so that so, that much else is excluded.

The most obvious is his recent column in the Press, in which he laments the lack of front bench talent of the Government.

“Clark is soldiering on with the remnants of 20 years’ worth of indifferent
candidate selections, and no rejuvenation process in sight…”

Bassett asks why the calibre of Labour’s candidates dropped in the late 1980s? He concludes that it is the fault of those who lifted Clark into the leadership role. It is the fault of the Margaret Wilson/ Ruth Dyson /Maryann Street party presidencies which promoted weak people into positions in the Labour Party caucus to bolster up support for Clark.

He does note and I agree that it is also inevitable that after an administration has been in power for several terms that it starts to become stale. This happened to Labour during the 1940s and to National in the 1960s and 1970s. What often happens is that when the Government is removed from office, resurgence takes place as former Ministers resign from the front bench or retire from parliament and new talent, which has often been languishing on the back bench or outside parliament come forward.

But, let us take up Bassett’s synopsis for further investigation. When we subtract 20 years from today (2005) where do we end up? We end up at 1985, when the Fourth Labour Government, of which Bassett was a Minister, was in power and it is that Government which has set the direction for Labour ever since. Here lays the answer to the questions that Bassett poses.

The real reason for the ‘supposed’ decline of the calibre of Labour MPs was the demise of the Labour Party as a coherent social democratic alternative during the 1980s and the early 1990s due to the factional infighting and desertion of members that occurred during that period. The Labour Party became the scene of an intense and protracted civil war, caused by Mr Bassett and his fellow right wing cronies who decided that social democratic policy and principle was expedient compared to the ideological correctness of the free market.

As the war wore on, each side attempted to get their own supporters elected into positions of power so as to ensure that their principles and policies would remain entrenched. It has also meant that Labour can not return to anything approaching its pre 1984 social democratic ideals, as for every Tim Barnett there is a Darren Hughes. So horribly, the ‘Third Way’ approach adopted by the Party since 1996 is probably as left wing as it is going to get. (Every time, I think of the ‘Third Way’, I think of former British Labour Deputy Leader, Roy Hattersley’s comment that the 'Third Way' was a series of cliques looking for a coherent thought).

Of course, the so-called left of the Labour Party (and now, supposedly in control) were those in the Party’s political centre during the 1980s. They had no strong ideological conviction and were prepared to play 'footise' with both the Left and the Right over issues and governance; this was before the Left departed with Jim Anderton to form the NLP and the Right left with Douglas and Prebble to form ACT.

Further, Labour has, sadly, never really recovered from the dramatic drop in Party membership that occurred in the 1980s.

I note that the people that Bassett admires, Jim Sutton, Trevor Mallard, Annette King et al are right wing leftovers from that Government. Bassett’s real lament appears to be that Clark and Co have placed their own ‘left-wing’ supporters into positions of power. However, given the recent history of the Labour Party that is hardly surprising.

If Michael Basset wants the real reason why there is a decline in the calibre of Labour front bench prospects, all he needs to do is look in the mirror.

2005-10-17T10:50:00.000-07:00

Tweek of the Week (17 October 2005)

Well, it's a bit dull now that the election is over. All the shouting has quietened down and the politicians are into conciliatory mode. I'm hopeful that once the talks are over and then we can see the winners and the losers in this battle - The Greens, sadly, maybe one of the losers.

I thought about giving a Tweek to the incoming German Chancellor, Germany's new Margaret Thatcher, Angela Merkel who has has been essentially neutered by the inconclusive German Election results in that key Ministerial Positions may have to be given to her opponents, the Social Democrats.

However, Joe Hendren's remarks in relation to Alexis Stewart daughter of Bruce Logan, Chairperson of the Maxim Institute, a right wing conservative thinktank that laments the evil permissive society unleashed by the present 'socialist' administration, caught my eye. I can't do any better than to refer people to Joe's excellent blog on the matter and to Russell's Brown equally excellent Blog about Stewart.

Like many in Christchurch, I've been appalled by Alexis's ill-informed comments over the past months in the pages of The Press, so it was very amusing to learn that she and her horrible father are just plain simple cheats and that she appears to simply plagiarise his ill-informed opinions - Tut...tut...are these the right moral standards for today's youth?

Tweek of the Week - Alexis Stewart and Bruce Logan of the Maxim Institute

Postscript: I have just learnt that Brucie really does deserve this Tweek...sad...sad...sad.

2005-10-13T16:18:00.000-07:00

Dancing with the Devil…

It appears that those political discussions that have been occurring between the various parties are drawing to a close and that sometime over the next few days, we can expect an announcement as to the shape of the Government. As well as the details on the various deals that has been struck between the participants.

On the basis of the current media frenzy, it appears that a deal that includes the Greens and (cough…cough…) New Zealand First but, which might exclude United Future and the Maori Party appears imminent. It is uncertain as to what price New Zealand First has extracted from the Government for its support in terms of supply and confidence. It appears that Labour might have been forced to swallow “The Gold Card” for the elderly, as well as a rise in the minimum wage and a renewal of free doctor’s visits for under 6 year olds….hmmm….all well and good and then you go to the other demands for a review of all Treaty clauses in legislation and a commitment to the current seabed and foreshore legislation….that also does not include any other little demands that Peters might be waiting to spring on an unsuspecting Government.

Dealing with Winston is a bit like entering a relationship with the Devil. You never know what moves your partner is going to spring or what hooks the subsequent relationship is going to bring. Only, that there will be hooks (and twists) attached in this relationship. National discovered that to its cost during the late 1990s.

I wonder if Jim Anderton and the Progressives are having similar doubts. For those with long memories, when the Alliance was a going concern in the mid 1990s, it tried a marriage of convenience with Winston, only to learn that he had every intention of jilting them at the altar. Fortunately, they learnt this prior to any ceremony.

I often wonder if some in the Labour Party lament the demise of the Alliance (I know that Jordon does). In proportional representation it pays to have allies you can rely on after all socialists/left social democrats are easier to deal with than xenophobic conservative nationalists. They are also closer to Labour’s own liberal ideals. However, there is no sizeable party to Labour’s left and therefore it has been left with little option but to ask Winston for a waltz.

Like any contract with the Evil One, the ‘devil’ (if you pardon the term) is in the small print. Dance with the Devil at your own risk….

2005-10-10T10:24:00.000-07:00

Tweek of the Week (10 October)

Maybe, it's the crap music and the crap advertisements!!! ...Maybe, it's because of the fact that they are at the forefront of further dumbing down news and information in this country...Maybe, it's because of JJ's webpage (www.radiochick.co.nz) which gives us her enlightened views on political correctness, international affairs and promises us a 'naked JJ'... Maybe, it's because they offer lousy competitions in which people prove that they are willing to do anything for money...(I am referring to Crazy Frog).

But, perhaps because of all these things....The Edge get this weeks 'Tweek.'

The Edge (featuring JJ, Mike and Dom) this week's 'Tweek of the Week.'

2005-10-05T09:55:00.000-07:00

Riddle me this…Do the Money Men believe in Democracy?

Early in the morning, prior to leaving for work, I watch the Business News on Television. The ongoing falls and rises of the stock market and the latest developments in the Business Community provide an informative start to the day as well as something additional to digest with my breakfast.

Often they will bring on Business Analysts to discuss the various and possible outcomes of company mergers and government policies on the market place. These may be ‘independent’ commentators (that is they belong to no particular organisation, but might be contracted to provide advice and or opinion) or representatives of organisations such as NZX (formerly the New Zealand Stock Exchange).

While, a number of their opinions are apparently made with a dispassionate ‘toss of the head,’ they are, anything but dispassionate. Prior to the Election, the NZX Analyst noted that the problem with public ownership was that people had agendas, that they and Governments could be ideologically driven, that Governments and people could be passionate about who or what company owned assets and that this was a distinctly unwelcome thing. This morning, the NZX Analyst commented that businesses were pragmatic in their approach. Unfortunately, the present Government had put itself off side with Business with the unpragmatic approach of some of its policies. The message that I got from these two comments was clear, the Government was not acting pragmatically rather it was ideologically driven, where as, the market was dispassionate about ideology. The Government was extreme and the Market was moderate.

If only this was the case, any serious (or indeed cursory) investigation of the ‘market’ and its various players over the past several decades would establish that they are far more ideologically focused than recent governments. Key individuals and organisations, who claim to speak for the market, oppose labour market reforms and such like not on the basis of accountancy, but on the basis of ‘freedom of association’ or ‘individual choice,’ which are ‘value’ judgments.

This is why I was feeling disturbed about the Greens recent discussion with the Business Community. I got the distinct impression that some in the Greens feel that a compromise might be able to be worked out with the various doyens of the market place. (Hey! We’re not scary!) However, since several of the key players in the ‘market’ are ideologically driven, no such relationship will be gained without one side compromising more than the other. My guess is that the Greens would be forced into compromising rather more than the leadership of Telecom.

This brings me to the nub of my argument; which is that these people just don’t like democracy. Why shouldn’t political parties or Governments have ideological leanings or ‘anti-business’ agendas? what is wrong with it? In a democracy, people should be able to vote for and support those parties and individuals of different shades. It’s not the fault of the political parties if they reflect a diverse range of popular opinion – that’s democracy.

Yet, I get the distinct impression that the NZX analyst feels that society would be better if people and parties just did what they wanted and put forward the reforms that they approved of. Well, there are names for societies like that – they are not called democracies.

2005-10-04T22:24:00.000-07:00

Tweek of the Week ( 1 October)

As promised it's back to Tweek of the Week. This week's Tweek is for last week.

There are a number of people who might qualify for a Tweek over the past week

The petulant Peter Dunne, newly elected MP Bob Clarkson who appears to be obessed with his testicles and Donna who has made a habit of spending other people's money .

However, after much thought I have decided to award a Tweek to:

Taito Phillip Field

While he may have thought that he was doing people a favour, the general impression is that he has attempted to defraud lower income people out of money and homes for his own self interest...

Unfortunately, appearances in politics can be every thing...

2005-10-02T20:24:00.000-07:00

Pictures don't work...

Interesting. Blog pictures don't work at the moment as I've tried several times to upload with no success. So unfortunately, no Tweek of the Week at this time.

2005-09-26T15:17:00.000-07:00

Since it appears to be the fashion....

You are a
Social Liberal
(78% permissive)

and an...
Economic Liberal
(6% permissive)

You are best described as a:

Socialist

Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid

2005-09-26T06:13:00.000-07:00

Deflation….

Well, I’ve been unwinding after the excitement of the past few weeks. There appears to be nothing to do now except wait for the Special votes to finally determine the outcome of the election.

A friend of mine, who has contacts in the National Party, told me that they (The Nats) were hoping that after the counting of the special votes, the Greens would slip below the 5 percent threshold and that National would then be level with Labour in terms of votes cast.

I suspect that this is unlikely for several reasons. One, it depends on the National Party receiving a significantly higher percentage of the Specials in proportion with the other parties and that the other parties don’t increase their votes very much, thus allowing the National Party to pull ahead.

The second reason is that Labour and the Greens in particular, have done well on Specials. In the past two elections, 1999 and 2002, the Greens actually increased their vote after the counting of the Specials allowing them extra MP’s. In the case of 1999, it actually brought the Greens into parliament after they narrowly failed on the Election Night Results. I think that the Greens can feel reasonably confident that the Specials, the bulk of who are overseas voters and students, will keep them in parliament and quite realistically return Nandor.

It seems far more likely, that the Specials might count against parties like United Future, who have not done well in Specials. A bad result for National would be if United Future’s vote when down after the count and the Greens went up. The very worst result for them would be if the Progressives actually increased their vote as well, enough to place Matt Robson back in (I can’t see it, but you never know) and Labour gained another seat.

However, I’m confident that next week there will be a Labour led government and the National Party will have to wait their turn until 2007 or 8. (When, I suspect that they will win).

I’ve been following with interest though, the comments on Span’s blog about the Alliance and whether it could/should pour all its resources into a seat? I think that the more pertinent question is what has happened to the democratic left in this country? And can it be rebuilt?

I think that it probably can, but not under the existing Alliance logo. The democratic Left is now fractioned into so many different groups – With left people involved in The Greens, The Progressives, and The Alliance and of, course, those who simply don’t vote or support any party any longer (New’s Zealand’s participation rate fell yet again). The real trick will be putting Humpty Dumpty back together which I suspect will mean stowing a lot of baggage that has been built up over the decade.

2005-09-15T21:14:00.000-07:00

And so it ends…

So it is now all over, the only thing that remains is to place the little tick beside the relevant party and candidate in the polling poll.

I think that it will be a tight election. I never thought that I would see the day when I would be considering supporting one evil over the other, but considering that the minimal reforms of the past 6 years could be placed at risk, I hope that there is a centre-left (liberal) victory on Saturday evening.

I’ve been to a couple of candidate meetings and decided that I will vote for the Alliance candidate and keep some of my principles intact, but I am still undecided on how my second vote will go – it won’t go to Labour though.

On one hand, I feel I am selling out to fear, as it appears that I may have to base my vote on keeping a Government in because the alternatives are so horrible that I can’t contemplate them returning. In such a tight election, especially with some polls suggesting that the Greens might not make it (unfortunately, the Alliance definitely won’t) then it may be necessary to give my vote to them on the basis that they are closest to the threshold (and my beliefs)…

However, the entire idea behind MMP is that people should not be forced into voting on the basis of fear, that we should be free to vote the way our conscience tells us to. We should not live our lives in fear about what may happen...

Decisions…decisions…

...However, the important thing is to vote…

One piece of consolation though – ACT has flat-lined in all the polls and Epson looks un-winnable for them.

2005-09-14T17:09:00.000-07:00

and a fitting cartoon.... pity, I was too late to snap the billboard...

2005-09-14T14:37:00.000-07:00

It appears that we are not the only country with a close elction race. Though it appears that the Left Party in Germany will do very well - if only Left wingers had the same dedication here...

Germany faces polls deadlock
From Roger Boyes in Berlin

GERMANY is heading for a damaging political stalemate, with opinion polls suggesting the outcome of Sunday’s general election is desperately close.

Gerhard Schröder, the Chancellor, who has been trailing in the polls since calling an early election in May, has narrowed the gap on Angela Merkel, his conservative challenger. Although his Social Democrats are unlikely to win, their late surge could deprive Frau Merkel’s coalition of Christian Democrats and Free Democrats of a majority.

Political analysts fear that if the latest polls are borne out in the election, the rival left and right-wing parties will be forced into an unworkable alliance, leaving Europe with a weak and ineffectively run country at its very heart.
Frau Merkel was adamant yesterday that there should be no such grand coalition. “It would just drive us into a standstill, a stagnant Germany,” she told supporters in her windswept home constituency of Stralsund in eastern Germany.

“She will be like a hotel guest trapped in the door of a lift, the leftwingers on the one side and the radical market reformers on the other,” Der Spiegel said.

The same message is coming from the Social Democrats as well as the small parties, the Greens and the Free Democrats. All would consider themselves losers if a coalition were formed. Herr Schröder would head for retirement since he could never serve under Frau Merkel, and the Greens and Free Democrats would be excluded from government.

Yet the political arithmetic is pointing Germany in this direction. The Christian Democrats would be the biggest party, with 42 per cent of the vote, according to a poll by Emnid released yesterday. But the Christian Democrats do not have enough backing to form a centre-right government with their partner of choice, the pro-business Free Democrats. Together the two parties score 48.5 per cent. That is exactly the same as the total support for the Social Democrats, the Greens and the Left party.

Unless the polls tip in Frau Merkel’s favour over the next three days, the Christian Democrats will have to grit their teeth and rule together with the Social Democrats. The election that was billed as a turning point for Germany — “full steam ahead for change!” was one of Frau Merkel’s slogans — is destined to disappoint the country’s European partners, who urgently want a German economic recovery.

“A grand coalition would be a very bad solution for Germany,” Jürgen Thumann, head of the Federation of German Industry, said. It would, he added, damage the country’s standing as an investment location.

There would also be direct consequences for centre-right politicians across Europe. Nicolas Sarkozy, France’s presidential hopeful, would find it difficult to fight on a platform of change if Frau Merkel, a political ally, was leading a lame coalition.

However, many voters in Germany appear comfortable with the prospect of a grand coalition. Five months ago Germans were convinced it was time for a change, and Frau Merkel enjoyed a 21 per cent lead in the polls. Now they seem to have lost their nerve. Some 36 per cent of Germans say they want a grand coalition.
In part, they have been scared off by the ultra-reformist credentials of Paul Kirchhof, the Christian Democrat candidate for Finance Minister.

There is a feeling too that a grand coalition could produce sensible compromises. The Social Democrats might accept loosening of job protection laws to help to cut unemployment if, in return, the Christian Democrats agreed to set minimum wages in some industries.

There is potential for creative horse-trading but Germany’s problems are deep seated. Moreover, there is no guarantee that a grand coalition could speed reforming legislation in parliament.

The only man who seems to be enjoying the prospect of a grand coalition is Oskar Lafontaine, the left-wing firebrand who used to be Finance Minister under Herr Schröder. Red Oskar, as he is known, is head of the Left Party and would in effect be the leader of the Opposition if the Grand Coalition came to power. He has strong anti-globalisation views.

2005-09-12T10:45:00.000-07:00

Poll Driven Fruitcakes

Well, it’s the final week of the Election Campaign and both the pollsters and the politicians are frantically running around completing their final tasks in the lead up to Saturday’s election.

I hate to have to paraphrase this well-used comment from David Lange; however, I feel that his phrase about “poll driven fruitcakes” is becoming exceedingly relevant in the final week of this election campaign. In the past two days, there have been two new polls both of which show a different result. The first, a Sunday Star Poll shows National with a 7 percentage points lead over Labour. This poll purports to show that the policy mix-ups and the Exclusive Brethren fiasco have not had a negative effect on National, and have improved the party’s poll rating.

The second poll, TV 1’s Colmar-Brunton poll shows National slipping 5 points in light of the Brethren allegations and now has only a two point lead over Labour. This comes after a TV3 poll last week showed Labour with a 9 point lead over National and a Herald-Digi Poll which showed them virtually level. So who, which, what poll is right?

The answer is probably none. Polls are not dependable in terms of the information given and there are a number of variables – Who did they poll? What is the sample size of the poll? Did they poll face to face or by phone? What are the numbers of undecided voters? What the polls do show is a volatile electorate. Though, I suspect that some of it could be voter fatigue.

What appears to be occurring though, is that both of the major parties appear to be driven by polls to a far larger extent that before. In all likelihood due to what they perceive as voter volatility. Each new poll appears to bring a rash of new promises from Labour and National. (Full kudos to the Greens for sticking to their policy). To quote Jim Bolger, it would appear that the only true poll may very well be the one on the night.

(I have since learnt that the Herald on Sunday had a poll which showed Labour in front 42 to 38 percent).
________________________________________________________

I was watching TV the other night when there was a small segment on “Generation Jones.” Apparently, it is the ‘new thing’ in terms of election voting and "Generation Jones" have been the focus of election campaigns in the US and in Britain. Apparently, the people who made up “Generation Jones” were born in the very late 1950s and early to mid 1960s. They tend to have good disposal incomes and aspirations to reach the top of their professions. Hmmm…they remind me of a similar demographic of twenty years ago. Young people who tended to be born in the late 1950s and early to mid 1960s, who aspired to have high incomes and be at the top of their professions.

It could just be me, but “Generation Jones” sounds suspiciously like grown up “Yuppies”.

2005-09-08T14:31:00.000-07:00

Tweek of the Week - 9/09/2005

It's been a tough week for Gentleman Don. Does he know his party's policy - Forestry, Health, Housing? Does he know about whether fundamentalist Christian sects talked to him about 'helping' the National Party? Are they helping the National Party? Are his shoes on the right feet?

However, it would be too easy to award Don yet another 'Tweek of the Week' (and to kick a man when he's down - Comrade Tweek is a gentleman afterall).

So instead this week's Tweek goes to the Exclusive Brethren.
As the TV One News link notes:

"The Exclusive Brethren leaders don't vote but they are accused of waging a smear campaign against Labour and the Greens.

"The campaign we've put out is not a smear campaign, it is not designed as a smear campaign, it's designed to inform the people of New Zealand the real situation in this country," Simmons said."

....Well, that's fine then. It's not a subjective petty campaign waged by a small sect against the Greens and Labour, it's been given the official okay by God. (I wonder if he will own up to knowing them?)

Tweek(s) of the Week - The Exclusive Brethren
(9 September 2005)

2005-09-07T11:51:00.000-07:00

The Truth is Finally Revealed...

Seen today on the corner of Deans Ave and Riccarton Rd, Christchurch - a large National Party billboard, however Don Brash's face had been removed and replaced with a large colour picture of ........Monty Burns!!!!!!!! EXCELLENT!!!!

2005-09-06T11:12:00.000-07:00

“And a month is an eternity…”

Bren over at Poster Child has been doing some interesting calculations in relation to the latest voting trends. He is predicting a very tight race between the Liberal Left and the Right that would rob any side of a significant majority in parliament. I tend to agree with him.

Unless there is a significant collapse in the votes of either of the major parties to the other, then the election judging by current poll trends will be very tight. It could well be one of the tightest elections since 1957, when Labour won with a one seat majority, after the election of the Speaker.

There are still a number of minor parties which are sitting on the ‘threshold’ of parliamentary representation which may 'tip' the balance. The first is ACT. Aside, from their own questionable “push” poll in Epson, which gave Rodney Hide a one percentage point advantage over sitting MP Richard Worth (the poll also has a five percent margin of error), there have not been any overtures of help or support from National to ACT. This situation has been made harder for ACT with Labour’s decision to encourage their Epson voters to vote tactically and to support Worth, as well as National’s recent decision (salt-rubbing) to start chumming up to Peter Dunne.

The second is, of course Winston Peters. People are predicting a tight race in Tauranga between Peters and the popular National Party candidate. Since New Zealand First is hovering just above the threshold the party’s parliamentary survival may be under considerable doubt; therefore, they need to retain Tauranga.

However, a friend of mine noted that there has been very little New Zealand First election propaganda on Television or on Radio. Since New Zealand First received a significant amount from the Electoral Commission in terms of its broadcasting allocation, it would seem to suggest that they are holding back their advertising until the last week of the campaign.

Therefore, I am very reluctant to count New Zealand First out as Winston is a wily campaigner and he has evaded political death previously.

There is still two weeks to go in what is shaping up to be a photo-finish between the Liberals and the Tories. And, to place it into some perspective it may be apt at this point to remember a quote from the late British Prime Minister Harold Wilson, who observed that '...a week is a long time in politics.’

2005-09-05T11:17:00.000-07:00

Oh…No…Not The Greens As Well??!!

A friend of mine is standing for parliament as an Alliance candidate. He does not expect to win, (that would be rather exception considering the Party’s current polling) rather, he is standing “to show the flag” and promote a set of beliefs and principles that he feels have been recently neglected within the political spectrum.

The other night he was speaking at a public meeting, when he was verbally attacked by Rod Donald, Co-Leader of the Greens. Now, you might very well say, that is the verbal cut and thrust of political debate and “If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.” However, it was not Rod’s attack that worried him (my friend is a criminal lawyer) as much as what Rod had to say.

What Rod had to say was that Alliance candidates were “idealists”, that they were “unrealistic,” that they were “irresponsible.” The Alliance, Rod asserted was raising unrealistic ideals and promoting idealistic policies (he was referring to tax). He and the Greens were realistic, pragmatic and responsible; this was why they were still in parliament and going into coalition with Labour. Another friend of mine had a similar experience when he was attending a Greens meeting with friends of his, during which he heard Rod and Jeanette commit the Greens to being responsible and pragmatic partners for Labour. When asked as to why the Greens were stepping aside from a number of polices such as GE to do a deal, people were told that they needed to “trust” the leadership.

Hmmm…it’s hard to know what to say. I am hopeful that the Greens will not go he same way as the Alliance. I am reminded that Jim Anderton said more or less the same to Alliance members prior to the 1999 Election. He (and Matt Mcarten) poured cold water on those members who queried the wisdom of not openly questioning decisions made by the Labour Party or indeed, even going into coalition with Labour. These members felt that with the volatility of the Alliance vote (it had declined significantly over the past 6 years) that the party needed to re-establish itself as a credible party on the Left. Being in coalition with Labour would damage that renewal by shifting the party to the right as well as tying it to Labour in terms of decisions made by that government – collective responsibility and all. It was far better to strike deals with Labour outside or to mark out several key points that the Alliance would visibly disagree with its coalition partner over.

The fact is that the “agree to disagree” clause is not a protection, especially, when you have parties stating that public disagreements could cause political instability. In Europe, where parties come from different political heritages and are, in most cases, far more politically mature, the ability to campaign on your own issues while remaining in government is seen as a normal state of affairs – not so in New Zealand.
_____________________________________________________________________

Therefore, I agree with the comments made by Joe Hendren on his blog about MMP and the disproportional impact that Winston Peters or Independent MPs, such as Jim Anderton have upon the system.

I can only endorse the following comments by Joe,

“Lets lower the threshold from 5%, but do away with the silly rule that allows those who win one electorate to bring their cronies in with them*. Lets encourage parties to base themselves on clear policy and principles - this is what party votes are meant to be about after all.”

Joe is right, clear policy and principles are what politics should be about. New Zealand’s threshold is also one of the higher in the Western World. Let’s lower the threshold and get parties in that do debate issues and policy. To paraphrase the former Labour MP John A Lee, Politics should not be solely about pragmatism and responsibility, it used to be about idealism and irresponsibility. That's how many of the reforms, such as free health care, free education, labour legislation etc originally came about.

The Greens need to be careful. They may well ask themselves "for what does it profit a person if they gain the world and yet lose their own soul?" They only need to look at Winston Peters and Jim Anderton to answer that question.

2005-09-05T09:28:00.000-07:00

Sorry, with all the excitement about the election I forgot about Tweek of the Week.

Well, it had to happen. A tweek needed to go to Dubyah...it was not difficult.

I am truly appalled at the manner in which George and Co have handed the entire crisis in New Orleans. With the entire infrastructure of the city and surrounding hinterland devastated and with food riots, looting and murder occurring in the streets, only now has US federal help been forthcoming.

I wonder if the situation would have been different if the majority of people left in New Orleans had been wealthy, white Republicans instead of poor desperate blacks?

George W Bush - "Tweek of the Week"
(2 September, 2005)

2005-08-30T13:37:00.000-07:00

It's good to see that the Left remains vibrant elsewhere....

"Live better without nazis" - Red Julia storms Germany
BERLIN, AUGUST 29:

A young German politician, whose bold anti-Nazi protests on aT-shirt and cover-girl looks have made her a national celebrity, has become one of the new Left party’s strongest election campaign weapons. Though only 19, Julia Bonk already has a year’s experience in a regional Assembly, where she began her career in style by wearing a shirt bearing the slogan ‘‘Live better without Nazis’’ to greet the far-right NPD. Pictures of herself on her shirt stole the show from the NPD on their first dayin the Saxony Assembly that landed her on the front pages of 87 German newspapers and won her wide applause. ‘‘We wanted to make a statement that they were not just another party coming inbut an anti-democratic party,’’ said Bonk, who became the youngest state parliamentarian in German history, having left school just three monthsearlier.

The Left party is a month-old merger of the Reform Communist Party of Democratic Socialism, for whom Bonk stood in Saxony, and Left-wing defectors from Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder’s Social Democrats (SPD). It hopes that even though she isn’t standing herself for the national parliament, Bonk will win over young voters, especially in the pivotal eastern battleground, and win back thousands whose protest votes helped the NPD in Saxony last year. ‘‘The far-right has to be tackled head on,’’ she said.

Articulate arguments, abundant confidence and an ability to advocate her party’spolicies belie her age and helped make Bonk a regular guest on a number ofheavyweight political talk shows. ‘‘It’s right and also important that the Leftist forces in Germany are coming together now,’’ she said.

She is studying history and political science at the University of Dresden alongside herfull-time state Assembly job. ‘‘It’s an exciting time for the Left in Germany. When two separate worlds come together, there are some areas where noteverything matches up the way it should,’’ she said. Nicknamed ‘‘Red Julia’’ by German tabloids and called ‘‘Socialism’s prettiest face’’ by the communist Neues Deutschland daily, she got swept into one summerstorm between the PDS and west German Leftists who fused to make her party. She was with ex-SPD Chairman Oskar Lafontaine at a rally when he used a loaded term for foreign workers (Fremdarbeiter) that is widely shunned because it was used by the Nazis.

Bonk and many others in all parties accused Lafontaine offishing for far-right voters. He denied this and even apologised to the Left party Congress on Saturday for ‘‘misunderstandings’’. Bonk has had communication problems herself. Last year she said drugs should be decriminalised, creating an uproar that only abated after her party noted itwas part of their platform. ‘‘It’s funny that a lot of people expect politicians to know the answers to everything,’’ she said. ‘‘It’s not the case’’.

2005-08-28T17:46:00.000-07:00

MMP and Poetic Justice

On one of the right wing blogs, people are being advised to keep the champagne under lock and key, despite a lift in the polls for National. As well they might, for while the polls have shown a lift for National, they are (apart from one poll) still behind Labour. More importantly, National's potential coalition partners (ACT, New Zealand First and United Future) have not improved their poll standings.

Indeed, New Zealand First has actually dropped behind the Greens and is, according to the latest Colmar-Brunton Poll, hovering on the 5 percent threshold. However, and fortunately for them, they have Winston and Tauranga. United Future remains on 2 percent, but, fortunately for them, they have Peter Dunne and Ohariu-Belmont. However, ACT looks like going the same way as the Alliance and the Dodo, with its poll ratings fluctuating between 1 and 2 percent.

So, National is in danger of having no substantial supporting coalition partners in the new parliament. Well, that’s the miracle of MMP and mathematics for you!! You campaign for both the constituency and list votes, drive your potential coalition partners under the threshold and lose….tut...tut...tut…

Though, I feel that there is an element of poetic justice involved in relation to the demise of ACT. It appears that Roger Douglas and other ACT sympathizers conspired with National Party right wingers to help remove Bill English for Don Brash. Their logic appeared sound enough, Brash was a known Monetarist and Supply-sider, importantly he had previously made sympathetic overtures to ACT and it appeared that he might be prepared to cut a deal with them. However, once he had been installed as National Party Leader, Brash steered the party into a more right wing orientation and subsequently ruled out any electoral deals with ACT. All of which had the result of nicely severing ACT from its electoral base and essentially sealing its political fate.

Of course, National isn’t the only major party guilty of trying to kill off its potential partners. In 1996, 1999 and 2002, the Liberal (sorry, Labour) Party tried to do exactly the same. It launched a strong campaign in all these elections (usually in the last week) designed to undermine the second vote preferences of the Alliance and, later in 2002, the Greens. This was despite promises made by Labour to the Alliance in 1999, that it would not do so.

Ultimately, this means that there is no security for Labour on the Left. The demise of the Alliance did not mean that Labour maximised the left vote – which is all important in a proportional system. True, there were/are still the Greens, however; only 7 percent of 1999 Alliance voters in 2002 went to them, 42 percent went to Labour, while the rest tended not to vote. These were/are essentially wasted left votes, which could be used to ensure a real left – centre left government without having to rely on the ‘commonsense’ of Peter Dunne or the ‘xenophobic populism’ of Winston Peters.

It now appears that the Tories having done the same to ACT are facing similar circumstances. Ah well, in this situation, I can’t bring myself to shed a tear…..

2005-08-26T09:08:00.000-07:00

It's time for the first 'Tweek of the Week.'

It's been tough to chose a winner this week as there are so many contenders, Nick Smith and Brian Connell ( It pays to read your policy Guys!!), Donna Awatere (I'm completely innocent) Hutua and the Great Satan himself, George W (How would he know that the Iraqi thing would continue on for so long??).

However, there can be only one and the 'Tweek of the Week' goes to a man who is so gallant that he allows a woman to verbally mutilate him in a debate because she's a woman and he's just an old fashioned gentleman - in the words of the Tui Ad, "Yeah, Right!"

Don Brash - 'Tweek of the Week'

2005-08-25T18:53:00.000-07:00

Why Doesn’t God Just Strike Him Down?

Picked up this little snipet from Democracy Now (http://www.democracynow.org).

"Christian televangelist Pat Robertson set off an international firestorm this week when he called for the assassination of Venezuela's democratically-elected president Hugo Chavez. Robertson made the comment on his TV program "The 700 Club.”

Robertson, who is 75, ran for president as a Republican in 1988. He has often used his show and the political advocacy group he founded, the Christian Coalition, to support President Bush. According to his web site, the TV show, "The 700 Club" has an audience of about one million people. At a news conference Tuesday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was questioned about Roberton's comments.

Robertson's comments were also denounced by the State Department which called them "inappropriate," but the White House has remained silent despite repeated calls for repudiation."

2005-08-24T18:42:00.000-07:00

The legacy of Jim and Matt – Tales of Modern Bushwackers…

Occasionally during the downtimes at work, I go blog hopping. In doing so, I come across blogs with which I don’t agree – that’s the democratic process after all - however, the other day, I came across a blog that was just really annoying for lack of a better word. It was not just the arrogant smarminess of the blog in question, but the sheer absurdity of the argument proposed by the blogger, which was essentially that the Greens might not make it over the 5 percent threshold and therefore Green voters should vote for the Progressive Party (sorry, Jim Anderton’s Progressive Party) as a responsible partner for the Liberal (sorry) Labour Party.

Personally, I think that it is more logical to propose the converse of the argument, which is that people should vote for the Labour Party given the current polling of Jim Anderton’s Progressive Party and the more important fact that there really isn’t much of a policy difference between Labour and the Progressives. Certainly, a number of the themes (anti-drugs, lowering the drinking age etc) emphasised by the Progressives are held by some Labour MP’s such as John Tamhere, Phil Goff et al. Indeed, thinking more about the situation, Jim should really do the decent thing and rejoin Labour.

If there ever was a New Zealand political party built on cult of personality then Jim Anderton’s Progressive Party is certainly it. Even Winston has resisted the urge to call his party Winston Peter’s New Zealand First.

I can image the discussion that occurred in Jim’s Beehive office about changing the name of the party from the Progressive Party to Jim Anderton’s Progressive Party.

Phil Clearwater, Progressive Party General Secretary stands ashen faced in front of Jim. “Jim,” he intones quietly, “We’re not rating. The last poll shows us on 0.3 percent below…”.Clearwater stops and blows his nose before muttering,”The Alliance and the Revolutionary People’s Front.” Jim snarls, “Good God, Phil! You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to work out the problem! Just rename the Party to emphasise me and then we’ll get votes!”

However, I am reminded that the demise of the democratic left in New Zealand is not just the result of the social and economic conservatism of James Patrick Anderton. While Jim has been (rightly) criticised for his role in the Alliance’s demise, it should be remembered that Matt Mcarten is equally responsible. For years, Matt and Jim were political Siamese twins with one using the political virtues of his parliamentary office to snuff out dissent, whilst the other used the various forums of the Alliance to isolate alternative views and build up the Alliance around the cult of Jim’s personality.

So what will Jim and Matt’s legacy be? After Jim’s retirement, the Progressive’s will cease to exist as a coherent entity as they don’t have a mass membership anywhere, except maybe Wigram. More importantly, they just don’t have a political constituency. The Greens proved in 1990 (when they first stood) and in 1999 and 2002 that they do have a significant consistency and I am certain that they will be able to weather any downturn.

I am also certain that there is a Left constituency of 5 percent of voters who believe like I do in free education and health care and in public services which are fully funded through a heavily progressive taxation system, that major assets should be in public hands and that the economy should be democratically controlled and operated for the benefit of all.

Certainly, an analysis of recent election results (1990 – 2002) suggest that a separate left consistency is an actuality in New Zealand and co-exists as a separate entity along side the Green consistency. In most other Western democracies there exists a mass party of the liberal left, a green party and a left party.

I am feeling increasingly disenfranchised at the moment due to the fact that I don’t feel like supporting either Labour or the Greens. While I have sympathy and support for some of the Greens positions, I do not consider them as a party of the left and, I’m certainly not going to waste my support the various sects who argue that if only we could rid ourselves of capitalism and whom promote themselves as the way, the truth and the light…So, I have decided that I am going to support the Alliance as I would rather support something that I believe in and not get it than support something that I don’t believe in and get it…

I’m hopeful that in the near future the democratic left will be able to regroup sans Matt and Jim. Like sour milk they both need to be expunged from the fridge.

2005-08-22T21:39:00.000-07:00

New Zealand Democracy- Signed, Sealed and Delivered

It is just under 12 years since New Zealanders decided that they would opt for a new voting system in the form of MMP rather than the plurality system that they had voted under for the past century. The rationale behind the change was that New Zealand had become a more diverse society and voting habits reflected that diversity.

No longer were people content to vote solely for the two major parties, National and Labour. Rather, they wanted a diverse range of parties going from the right to the left reflecting the multiplicity of political opinion. Yet, 12 years on from 1993 New Zealanders have managed to come back to a system that is very close to the one that they departed from, despite having proportional representation, in which two large parties (National and Labour) compete for the majority of votes having over a matter of years driven smaller parties to the left and right of them to extinction.

Is it the fault of the media? Certainly they have a lot to answer for. While, I’ve been aware that what passes as political commentary and enquiry in New Zealand is pitiful, I’ve become more aware of the shortcomings and superficiality of political reporting as a result of the election campaign. For example, I’ve always disliked Jane Clifton’s political commentary and while she might be passable as a writer, her analysis is often appallingly shallow. It has caused me to wonder how she and many others came to the profession that they are in…

…Scene: Barbie’s house in the late 1960s. Barbie is sitting at her bright pink toy Formica table eating something sweet and saccharine with hundreds and thousands on top. She looks up as her mother enters the room and declares loudly, “People say that I’m an airhead, but I’m going to prove them wrong Mummy!!” Barbie’s Mother well used to her daughter’s tantrums, stops, smiles and pats her on the head. “You’ll see Mummy!” Barbie sniffs, “When I’m grown up I’m going to change my name and be on TV and radio then people will like me.” …maybe not….

Partly, it is the centralising nature of MMP, which was designed to be a stabilising force rather than a radicalising one. This is helped along by the inane unquestioning nature of the majority of New Zealanders. Of course, most Western populations tend to be somewhere in the centre politically, however, only in New Zealand are people told that liking extreme right wing neo-liberal economic policies is normal and liking conservative social democratic policies or principles is abnormal and then appear to accept it, while at the same time lamenting that there is nothing else on the menu.

So what ever happened to the ideal? What happened to the big picture? No longer is it just enough to want something and then work toward it. Rather, the entire purpose of politics appears to be to settle for second best, to just accept the lesser of two evils and nothing else. Hence, a number of people on the left settle for the Greens or for the Labour Party in the safe and sure knowledge that while it is not what they want, they can achieve it. Their mantra appears to be “if you set your sights low, then gains are easy to achieve.”

…And are they? While, the liberal neo-classical ministrations of Labour and the Greens are preferable to the harsh and brutal neo-classical frankness of National and Act, the fact is that the Left has ceased to exist as a coherent force. Instead of getting the representation and political voice that the Left needs and has the numbers (in the outside community) to obtain, it instead vacates the field to others.

Thankfully, the Mother Jones, Ben Tillet’s, Harry Holland’s and co were built of sterner stuff. They realised that the Left needed its own political independence and that the programme and policies that the Left desired could not be achieved by the Liberal Parties (or by Greens) no matter how individually sympathetic some of them were.

It is bad enough to be kicked about by capital, it is worse when we do it to ourselves.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, a piece of good news; the ‘worm’ that mythical television creation appears not to have managed to rescue Peter Dunne this election. In 2002, Peter “Victor Von Frankenstein” Dune managed to bring life to a corpse (United Future) courtesy of the “lightening” wrought by the “magic” worm. This time, however, it appears that the worm was more securely “grounded.”

2005-08-11T03:18:00.000-07:00

Comrade Tweek has arrived!!!!