thedailyblog--2020-02-16--Dr Liz Gordon: 2020

Dr Liz Gordon: 2020

In January my friend Professor Kathleen Quinlivan had a celebration in her name at the University of Canterbury .
It was fantastic , and she was as sharp and wonderful as ever .
A week later she died .
Two of my friends have passed away already this year .
My optimism that such a cool year as 2020 might mark a turning point for the world is already sagging , in the headlong rush towards multiple diaspora , white supremacism and authoritarianism .
Kathleen was talking at that final session about why schools are as they are : authoritarian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by so many people to change them .
This is such a crucial question , because the culture of our schools is a huge contributor to the social culture .
With National set on using ‘ angry white males ’ to win the election ( OMG did you see Simon Bridges at Ratana Pā pitting the working classes against beneficiaries – talk about shades of the 1990s ) , we can see how schools produce those people , by brutal practices , competition , no civics education , little relevant history and a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ got into yet another battle on Neighbourly about how we talk about each other .
The ‘ scumbag ’ discourse I have mentioned before was widely on display a few weeks ago , when one of my neighbours had their garage broken into and a group of kids did donuts in the RSA car park at Templeton .
Many of my neighbours down here are frighteningly punitive , the name-calling is obnoxious .
The kids have to be taught a lesson !
These responses are visceral and vicious .
I mildly said that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ offensive , and unleashed hell onto my own head , which was très amusant !
Kathleen was also interested , right until the end of her life in the question : “ how do people become the people they are ?
” .
There are multiple answers : we are made by our social , economic and cultural contexts ; by our family and community values ; by our individual instincts and pathways .
We are nature and nurture , but in my view , in terms of our attitudes , much more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not be ignored , in 2020 , that the politics of race has once again raised its ugly head .
Even in New Zealand .
And , that by exploiting the binaries : worker v beneficiary ; good v bad ; white v brown and , who knows , gay v straight , pro- versus anti-choice , National is setting up a race war for the election .
And it is looking to be the year , again , of the man .
Angry males , legs wide , astride the stage , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It is OK that academic women earn between $ 200,000 and $ 400,000 less across their lifetime than male peers , that the pay gap has not died or even withered much , that Māori land taken unfairly stays in white hands , that we continue the headlong rush to ruining the planet , that parliament will once again elect only 40 % of female MPs or less , and that the showing in local body elections and among Mayors is much worse .
So , you might say , same old @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a particular white male hegemony becomes a populist mantra ( I know SB is Māori , but his target audience is not ) here , influencing the election outcomes , all those struggles will be set back further , and once more those of us supporting and protecting social equality and human rights for all will be on the streets .
I have regained a small sliver of optimism this week over Bob Jones dropping the defamation action against Renae Maihi .
I am not sure how it played out .
Perhaps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on a hiding to nothing .
But , possibly , in hearing how his attempts at so-called humour were received by Māori and women , he may possibly have gained some insight into how his ‘ jokes ’ could have material effects on others .
Maybe not – there was no apology , no comment at all ( but the lawyers probably wouldn ’ t have let him , in case he became liable for huge costs , which will undoubtedly be claimed ) .
Jones famously has his own jet , purchased @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flight for refusing to remove his headphones during the safety briefing .
Probably all he has to talk to is the empty seat in front .
It is not surprising his views are a little bonkers .
More surprising , though , that any newspaper will publish them .
Is that all it takes , then , to be rich and white and male , to have even the daftest views published in the mainstream media ?
The onset of 2020 and the absence of change and , to be honest , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with some ease , has put me in an activist mood .
51 % of wealth , power and voice for women !
51 % of the seats in parliament at this election for women ( 50 % will do ) !
Manspreading should be illegal , defined as taking up the space of others , usually in confined spaces , by spreading ones legs as wide as possible , in order to assert mastery over others or the environment .
Race and gender , power and politics , these are the things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ensure that alternative voices are heard .
Dr Liz Gordon is a researcher and a barrister , with interests in destroying neo-liberalism in all its forms and moving towards a socially just society .
She usually blogs on justice , social welfare and education topics .

In January my friend Professor Kathleen Quinlivan had a celebration in her name at the University of Canterbury. It was fantastic, and she was as sharp and wonderful as ever. A week later she died. Two of my friends have passed away already this year. My optimism that such a cool year as 2020 might mark a turning point for the world is already sagging, in the headlong rush towards multiple diaspora, white supremacism and authoritarianism.
Kathleen was talking at that final session about why schools are as they are: authoritarian, punitive and uniform, despite efforts by so many people to change them. This is such a crucial question, because the culture of our schools is a huge contributor to the social culture. With National set on using ‘angry white males’ to win the election (OMG did you see Simon Bridges at Ratana Pā pitting the working classes against beneficiaries – talk about shades of the 1990s), we can see how schools produce those people, by brutal practices, competition, no civics education, little relevant history and a tolerance for bullying.
Over Christmas I got into yet another battle on Neighbourly about how we talk about each other. The ‘scumbag’ discourse I have mentioned before was widely on display a few weeks ago, when one of my neighbours had their garage broken into and a group of kids did donuts in the RSA car park at Templeton. Many of my neighbours down here are frighteningly punitive, the name-calling is obnoxious. The kids have to be taught a lesson! These responses are visceral and vicious. I mildly said that I found the use of the s-word offensive, and unleashed hell onto my own head, which was très amusant!
Kathleen was also interested, right until the end of her life in the question: “how do people become the people they are?”. There are multiple answers: we are made by our social, economic and cultural contexts; by our family and community values; by our individual instincts and pathways. We are nature and nurture, but in my view, in terms of our attitudes, much more nurture than nature.
It now cannot be ignored, in 2020, that the politics of race has once again raised its ugly head. Even in New Zealand. And, that by exploiting the binaries: worker v beneficiary; good v bad; white v brown and, who knows, gay v straight, pro- versus anti-choice, National is setting up a race war for the election.
And it is looking to be the year, again, of the man. Angry males, legs wide, astride the stage, pronouncing that ‘their’ values rule. It is OK that academic women earn between $200,000 and $400,000 less across their lifetime than male peers, that the pay gap has not died or even withered much, that Māori land taken unfairly stays in white hands, that we continue the headlong rush to ruining the planet, that parliament will once again elect only 40% of female MPs or less, and that the showing in local body elections and among Mayors is much worse.
So, you might say, same old, same old… But if the re-assertion of a particular white male hegemony becomes a populist mantra (I know SB is Māori, but his target audience is not) here, influencing the election outcomes, all those struggles will be set back further, and once more those of us supporting and protecting social equality and human rights for all will be on the streets.
I have regained a small sliver of optimism this week over Bob Jones dropping the defamation action against Renae Maihi. I am not sure how it played out. Perhaps his lawyers simply told him he was on a hiding to nothing. But, possibly, in hearing how his attempts at so-called humour were received by Māori and women, he may possibly have gained some insight into how his ‘jokes’ could have material effects on others. Maybe not – there was no apology, no comment at all (but the lawyers probably wouldn’t have let him, in case he became liable for huge costs, which will undoubtedly be claimed).
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
Jones famously has his own jet, purchased when Air NZ kicked him off a flight for refusing to remove his headphones during the safety briefing. Probably all he has to talk to is the empty seat in front. It is not surprising his views are a little bonkers. More surprising, though, that any newspaper will publish them. Is that all it takes, then, to be rich and white and male, to have even the daftest views published in the mainstream media?
The onset of 2020 and the absence of change and, to be honest, a fear that National may win the election with some ease, has put me in an activist mood. 51% of wealth, power and voice for women! 51% of the seats in parliament at this election for women (50% will do)! Manspreading should be illegal, defined as taking up the space of others, usually in confined spaces, by spreading ones legs as wide as possible, in order to assert mastery over others or the environment. Race and gender, power and politics, these are the things that will define 2020. We must ensure that alternative voices are heard.
Dr Liz Gordon is a researcher and a barrister, with interests in destroying neo-liberalism in all its forms and moving towards a socially just society. She usually blogs on justice, social welfare and education topics.


thedailyblog--2020-02-17--Burning Down The House: Will The Greens Be The Death Of The Left?

CAN THE GREENS get themselves back on track ?
Once a political party has made the decisive turn towards identity politics is there anything short of electoral disaster capable of inducing a change of direction ?
There are two problems here .
The first relates to ideology , and is at least theoretically fixable .
The second is about the political praxis of identity politics – how Greens actually perform politics .
Sadly , to fix that you ’ d need a neutron bomb .
[ A particularly nasty kind of nuclear device that kills people , but leaves structures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Walker is a British comedian whose alter-ego , Johnathan Pie , has gained a worldwide audience by addressing the follies of – well – just about the whole cast of characters encompassed by the United Kingdom ’ s manifold political catastrophes .
One of Walker ’ s latest offerings depicts the dire consequences for Pie ( supposedly a journalist covering politics for one of the big television networks ) that flow from his innocently allowing a participant in a pro-Brexit rally to take a selfie with him .
It is a chillingly funny @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the New Zealand Green Party as it is to the increasingly “ woke ” workplaces of the UK media .
The toxic culture satirised in Walker ’ s vignette is the inevitable result of interpreting events through the severely distorting prism of identity .
Once embarked upon , this journey proceeds towards its inevitable denouement in utter organisational disintegration and failure .
One of the very first local instances of organisational collapse brought on by identity politics was the New Zealand University Students Association ( NZUSA ) .
Beginning in the late 1970s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minority persuaded NZUSA to restructure itself to reflect the growing strength of the so-called “ New Social Movements ” – especially Feminism , Anti-Racism and Gay Liberation .
NZUSA “ Vice-Presidents ” proliferated accordingly , and the May and August meetings of the organisation became ideological battlegrounds where the identarians fought to wrest control of the student movement from the Marxist Left .
With every passing year , NZUSA drifted further and further away from its core functions until , in the early-1990s , the entire “ politically correct ” ( originally a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the champions of “ ordinary ” ( i.e .
conservative ) students .
A very similar fate awaited the highly successful aid organisation , CORSO , which was taken over by Maori nationalists and transformed into an instrument for advancing the early-1980s movement for “ Maori Sovereignty ” .
Unsurprisingly , the tens-of-thousands of Pakeha donors who had built CORSO weren ’ t having a bar of it .
They voted with their feet – and , more importantly , with their chequebooks .
CORSO ’ s new managers received these defections as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ racism – even on the political Left .
They may well have been right , but being politically correct wasn ’ t enough to save CORSO .
Similar challenges assailed the trade union movement , but the entrenched power of the traditional Left was more than equal to the task of stopping the identarians in their tracks .
It took Bill Birch and the National Party to destroy what identity politics couldn ’ t dent .
Interestingly , by the time the Employment Contracts Bill became law in 1991 , a great many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ already made their peace with the hegemonic ambitions of the neoliberal economic and political order .
The latter was only too happy to see the activist energy formerly devoted to smashing capitalism diverted into building iwi corporations , placing upper-middle-class women on the boards of New Zealand ’ s biggest companies , and seizing the commercial opportunities of the pink dollar .
What is truly surprising about the Greens is how long a party more-or-less constructed out of the new social movements of the 1960s and 70s was able to resist the centrifugal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long as the battle to save the global environment remained the central focus of the party , and so long as in fighting for the environment the Greens were willing to pit themselves against its deadliest foe – Global Capitalism – then the other social movements , while important , were unwilling to dilute the political potency of the party ’ s prime directive : Save the Planet !
In this respect , they were assisted immensely by the charismatic leadership of individuals like Rod Donald , Jeanette Fitzsimons , Sue Bradford , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tanczos .
These individuals could not , however , hold at bay forever the claims advanced on behalf of Te Tiriti , gender equality and the rainbow agenda .
Neither was it possible to drown out forever the siren song of parliamentary power , nor the ideological compromises necessary for its acquisition .
If the Tangata Whenua , Third Wave Feminism and the Rainbow Community could make their peace with the realities of neoliberal globalism , then why not Green Environmentalism ?
Could the Greens be argued out of their present , deeply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yes .
Never before in human history has the need to resist environmental despoliation been more urgent or self-evident .
If Capitalism is not defeated , then the fate of humankind is sealed .
The evidence admits of no other conclusion : uncompromising resistance to the capitalists ’ wilful destruction of the biosphere is the only rational political choice .
A strong leader would have little difficulty in making out this case to a movement whose prime directive is – Save the Planet !
And , therein , lies the problem .
Organisations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ logic of identity politics become viciously intolerant of anything even remotely hinting of strong leadership .
Nothing twists together the component strands of identarian culture faster than the prospect of a single individual taking back control of the political narrative .
And , almost always , those strands end up being twisted around the offending individual ’ s neck .
What this process fosters is not leadership , but the very worst sort of “ palace politics ” .
All trust is lost ; every back becomes a target ; nothing strong or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the hard-won wisdom of experience is dismissed with a snappy “ Okay , Boomer !
” For the Green Phoenix to be reborn , the funeral pyre so patiently assembled by its identity politicians over the course of many fractious years – but with growing intensity over the past three – first has to be ignited .
The terrible probability , of course , is that , in setting themselves on fire , the Greens will end up immolating the hopes and aspirations of the whole progressive movement .
And with the time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ short , that would be a crime .

CAN THE GREENS get themselves back on track? Once a political party has made the decisive turn towards identity politics is there anything short of electoral disaster capable of inducing a change of direction? There are two problems here. The first relates to ideology, and is at least theoretically fixable. The second is about the political praxis of identity politics – how Greens actually perform politics. Sadly, to fix that you’d need a neutron bomb. [A particularly nasty kind of nuclear device that kills people, but leaves structures standing. – C.T.]
Tom Walker is a British comedian whose alter-ego, Johnathan Pie, has gained a worldwide audience by addressing the follies of – well – just about the whole cast of characters encompassed by the United Kingdom’s manifold political catastrophes. One of Walker’s latest offerings depicts the dire consequences for Pie (supposedly a journalist covering politics for one of the big television networks) that flow from his innocently allowing a participant in a pro-Brexit rally to take a selfie with him. It is a chillingly funny piece of satire – as applicable to the New Zealand Green Party as it is to the increasingly “woke” workplaces of the UK media.
The toxic culture satirised in Walker’s vignette is the inevitable result of interpreting events through the severely distorting prism of identity. Once embarked upon, this journey proceeds towards its inevitable denouement in utter organisational disintegration and failure.
One of the very first local instances of organisational collapse brought on by identity politics was the New Zealand University Students Association (NZUSA). Beginning in the late 1970s, the student movement’s activist minority persuaded NZUSA to restructure itself to reflect the growing strength of the so-called “New Social Movements” – especially Feminism, Anti-Racism and Gay Liberation.
NZUSA “Vice-Presidents” proliferated accordingly, and the May and August meetings of the organisation became ideological battlegrounds where the identarians fought to wrest control of the student movement from the Marxist Left. With every passing year, NZUSA drifted further and further away from its core functions until, in the early-1990s, the entire “politically correct” (originally a left-wing term) structure was demolished by the champions of “ordinary” (i.e. conservative) students.
A very similar fate awaited the highly successful aid organisation, CORSO, which was taken over by Maori nationalists and transformed into an instrument for advancing the early-1980s movement for “Maori Sovereignty”. Unsurprisingly, the tens-of-thousands of Pakeha donors who had built CORSO weren’t having a bar of it. They voted with their feet – and, more importantly, with their chequebooks. CORSO’s new managers received these defections as proof positive of the pervasiveness of Pakeha racism – even on the political Left. They may well have been right, but being politically correct wasn’t enough to save CORSO.
Similar challenges assailed the trade union movement, but the entrenched power of the traditional Left was more than equal to the task of stopping the identarians in their tracks. It took Bill Birch and the National Party to destroy what identity politics couldn’t dent. Interestingly, by the time the Employment Contracts Bill became law in 1991, a great many of those engaged in identity politics had already made their peace with the hegemonic ambitions of the neoliberal economic and political order. The latter was only too happy to see the activist energy formerly devoted to smashing capitalism diverted into building iwi corporations, placing upper-middle-class women on the boards of New Zealand’s biggest companies, and seizing the commercial opportunities of the pink dollar.
What is truly surprising about the Greens is how long a party more-or-less constructed out of the new social movements of the 1960s and 70s was able to resist the centrifugal forces inherent in identity politics. So long as the battle to save the global environment remained the central focus of the party, and so long as in fighting for the environment the Greens were willing to pit themselves against its deadliest foe – Global Capitalism – then the other social movements, while important, were unwilling to dilute the political potency of the party’s prime directive: Save the Planet!
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
In this respect, they were assisted immensely by the charismatic leadership of individuals like Rod Donald, Jeanette Fitzsimons, Sue Bradford, Keith Locke, Sue Kedgely and Nandor Tanczos. These individuals could not, however, hold at bay forever the claims advanced on behalf of Te Tiriti, gender equality and the rainbow agenda. Neither was it possible to drown out forever the siren song of parliamentary power, nor the ideological compromises necessary for its acquisition. If the Tangata Whenua, Third Wave Feminism and the Rainbow Community could make their peace with the realities of neoliberal globalism, then why not Green Environmentalism?
Could the Greens be argued out of their present, deeply compromised, political orientation? Theoretically, yes. Never before in human history has the need to resist environmental despoliation been more urgent or self-evident. If Capitalism is not defeated, then the fate of humankind is sealed. The evidence admits of no other conclusion: uncompromising resistance to the capitalists’ wilful destruction of the biosphere is the only rational political choice. A strong leader would have little difficulty in making out this case to a movement whose prime directive is – Save the Planet!
And, therein, lies the problem. Organisations which have fallen victim to the self-consuming logic of identity politics become viciously intolerant of anything even remotely hinting of strong leadership. Nothing twists together the component strands of identarian culture faster than the prospect of a single individual taking back control of the political narrative. And, almost always, those strands end up being twisted around the offending individual’s neck. What this process fosters is not leadership, but the very worst sort of “palace politics”. All trust is lost; every back becomes a target; nothing strong or inspirational is permitted to survive; and the hard-won wisdom of experience is dismissed with a snappy “Okay, Boomer!”
For the Green Phoenix to be reborn, the funeral pyre so patiently assembled by its identity politicians over the course of many fractious years – but with growing intensity over the past three – first has to be ignited. The terrible probability, of course, is that, in setting themselves on fire, the Greens will end up immolating the hopes and aspirations of the whole progressive movement.
And with the time remaining to save the planet so very short, that would be a crime.


thedailyblog--2020-02-19--Paula Bennett’s attack on NZ First

Paula Bennett’s attack on NZ First

So hold the phone … Paula Bennett is accusing the Prime Minister of refusing to face up to the issue around photos of a former NZF functionary meeting with a journalist turning up on Not-WhaleOil , claiming also that Winston ’ s statements in relation to this make him unfit to continue serving as Deputy PM .
Without wanting to endorse something of a Yakov Smirnoff approach to politics and the media [ “ In capitalist ordinaria , media photographs politicians … in Soviet NZ First-istan , politicians photograph YOU ” , has a certain ring to it ] , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to have been a dumb idea to brag about from a tactical perspective , and looks little more than lashing out due to a lack of actual power otherwise … … I find Bennett ’ s remarks extraordinary .
If this is to be her defining ethical test for office-holding , then I think we can fairly ask at what point it was that the National Party suddenly decided that passing material to WhaleOil [ Not-WhaleOil or otherwise ] was the sort of high crime and misdemeanour for which a Cabinet member could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was at some juncture *well* after then-Prime Minister John Key ’ s office was snapped sending information – including material obtained via the SIS – to WhaleOil in order to attack political rivals such as then-Leader of the Opposition , Phil Goff .
Bennett served as part of that administration ; I do not recall her having such ethical scruples then ?
Particularly given her defining series of acts during that trajectory of her career – at least , the ones not built out of attempting to coat-tail on Outrageous Fortune – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from her ministerial area of responsibility about critics , in order to try and shut them up .
You can ’ t call that “ leaking ” information , to be fair – because it was really more going outside with a waterblaster and daring anybody who spoke up within shooting range to see if they fancied feeling lucky , punk .
As I recall , Bennett basically bragged about doing all of this at the time .
I also don ’ t seem to recall Bennett being especially critical of Judith Collins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being caught out repeatedly engaged in some grubby business … was to not just threaten to , but *actually go ahead with* the disclosure of confidential information held in her ministerial capacity and pertaining to the family of the Parliamentary Press Gallery journalist who ’ d then drawn her ire through honest reporting .
Followed by threatening to do so more and repeatedly , til the hostile ( honest ) reporting stopped .
Collins , to be sure , did eventually apologize – although I suspect rather strongly that this was more driven @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the *entire Parliamentary press corps* in the midst of a should-have-proven-fatal thirty-scandal pileup , was probably not a smart survival move , rather than much in the way of genuine principled remorse .
It was certainly in accordance with some of the ‘ rules ’ for venomous political conduct she shared with Cameron Slater , which we found out about thanks to Dirty Politics .
Now , again .
I ’ m not meaning to sanction nor support what whomever “ we ” is has done with regard to photographing a former functionary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cafe , and then sending the photo etc .
to Not-WhaleOil .
I think it was a questionable move that would likely garner little-to-no actual benefit for the Party ; while instead making the organization and its cohorts look rather more Mafia-like and shifty than an array of undecided voters presumably already think that they are .
If you were the sort of person to be swayed by a photo and captioning like that , to believe that the whole thing was a massive and conspiratorial beat-up on NZ First … then you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ photograph was produced .
And if you weren ’ t , then you probably weren ’ t the sort of person thinking all that much nor all that hard about this donations quagmire [ which , I might add , has currently produced 4 National-linked arrests , to 0 NZF ] anyway … meaning the net impact of this mini-scandal-within-a-scandal is to put it back in the forefront of your political viewscreen for another week running .
Although whether rightly or wrongly , one of the things that *most* annoys me about this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ somehow enabled Bennett to seek out a most unseemly pulpit from which to protest *well* too much , from the top of some pile of skulls and political corpses conveniently disguised as “ The High Ground ” .

So hold the phone … Paula Bennett is accusing the Prime Minister of refusing to face up to the issue around photos of a former NZF functionary meeting with a journalist turning up on Not-WhaleOil, claiming also that Winston’s statements in relation to this make him unfit to continue serving as Deputy PM.
Without wanting to endorse something of a Yakov Smirnoff approach to politics and the media [“In capitalist ordinaria, media photographs politicians … in Soviet NZ First-istan, politicians photograph YOU”, has a certain ring to it], not least because the whole thing seems to have been a dumb idea to brag about from a tactical perspective, and looks little more than lashing out due to a lack of actual power otherwise …
… I find Bennett’s remarks extraordinary. If this is to be her defining ethical test for office-holding, then I think we can fairly ask at what point it was that the National Party suddenly decided that passing material to WhaleOil [Not-WhaleOil or otherwise] was the sort of high crime and misdemeanour for which a Cabinet member could and must be impeached.
Presumably, it was at some juncture *well* after then-Prime Minister John Key’s office was snapped sending information – including material obtained via the SIS – to WhaleOil in order to attack political rivals such as then-Leader of the Opposition, Phil Goff.
Bennett served as part of that administration; I do not recall her having such ethical scruples then?
Particularly given her defining series of acts during that trajectory of her career – at least, the ones not built out of attempting to coat-tail on Outrageous Fortune – included her own disclosure of confidential information from her ministerial area of responsibility about critics, in order to try and shut them up.
You can’t call that “leaking” information, to be fair – because it was really more going outside with a waterblaster and daring anybody who spoke up within shooting range to see if they fancied feeling lucky, punk. As I recall, Bennett basically bragged about doing all of this at the time.
(Some of Bennett’s much more recent actions in relation to a certain Jamie-Lee Ross are also of direct relevancy here; and shows that the stench of hypocrisy about her is not so much “rank” as “first rank fire, second rank fire” – that is to say, “weaponized” and well-drilled into the bargain)
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
I also don’t seem to recall Bennett being especially critical of Judith Collins when the latter’s reaction to being caught out repeatedly engaged in some grubby business … was to not just threaten to, but *actually go ahead with* the disclosure of confidential information held in her ministerial capacity and pertaining to the family of the Parliamentary Press Gallery journalist who’d then drawn her ire through honest reporting.
Followed by threatening to do so more and repeatedly, til the hostile (honest) reporting stopped.
Collins, to be sure, did eventually apologize – although I suspect rather strongly that this was more driven by realizing that attempting to take on the *entire Parliamentary press corps* in the midst of a should-have-proven-fatal thirty-scandal pileup, was probably not a smart survival move, rather than much in the way of genuine principled remorse. It was certainly in accordance with some of the ‘rules’ for venomous political conduct she shared with Cameron Slater, which we found out about thanks to Dirty Politics.
Now, again. I’m not meaning to sanction nor support what whomever “we” is has done with regard to photographing a former functionary meeting with a prominent journalist in a cafe, and then sending the photo etc. to Not-WhaleOil.
I think it was a questionable move that would likely garner little-to-no actual benefit for the Party; while instead making the organization and its cohorts look rather more Mafia-like and shifty than an array of undecided voters presumably already think that they are.
If you were the sort of person to be swayed by a photo and captioning like that, to believe that the whole thing was a massive and conspiratorial beat-up on NZ First … then you probably already believed that before any such photograph was produced.
And if you weren’t, then you probably weren’t the sort of person thinking all that much nor all that hard about this donations quagmire [which, I might add, has currently produced 4 National-linked arrests, to 0 NZF] anyway … meaning the net impact of this mini-scandal-within-a-scandal is to put it back in the forefront of your political viewscreen for another week running.
Although whether rightly or wrongly, one of the things that *most* annoys me about this recent development is how it’s somehow enabled Bennett to seek out a most unseemly pulpit from which to protest *well* too much, from the top of some pile of skulls and political corpses conveniently disguised as “The High Ground”.


thedailyblog--2020-02-19--RNZ Must Have No Dogs In The September Fight.

RADIO NEW ZEALAND needs to reflect very carefully about the position in which it now finds itself .
If it fails to alter its present course , there is a real possibility it will find itself accused of serious political bias .
As a public broadcaster , RNZ simply can not afford to be seen to have its own dog in the September 19 fight .
Fair and balanced reporting is of huge importance when your radio network is funded by the taxpayer .
In an election year , moreover , fairness and balance are absolutely critical to the maintenance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , nearly all of the accusations of bias are coming from Winston Peters and the NZ First Party .
This is only to be expected , given that RNZ ’ s reporting has inflicted serious damage on Peters and his colleagues .
Lending credence to the latter ’ s accusations , however , is a photograph of Guyon Espiner , one of RNZ ’ s senior journalists , chatting amiably with Lester Gray , a former president of the NZ First Party .
Looking at the photograph , it is very difficult not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Espiner ’ s damaging revelations about the NZ First Foundation .
The release of this photograph – taken , according to Peters , by a member or supporter of NZ First – to The BFD ( successor to the Whaleoil blog ) has not only alarmed RNZ , it has put it on the defensive .
The idea that a journalist and his source may themselves come under scrutiny is being widely interpreted as a thoroughly sinister development .
The mainstream news media has had much less to say about the failure of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his source .
Tauranga is pretty much “ ground zero ” when it comes to NZ First ’ s historical support base .
Why , then , would a former television journalist , with a very familiar face , choose to wander about in full public view with a former NZ First president and candidate ?
Why not meet privately , indoors , safe from prying eyes – and cellphones ?
As for casting the whole episode as sinister , well , that particular charge is simply without merit .
It is well-established @ @ @ @ @ @ @ person ’ s photograph in a public place , with or without their knowledge and/or consent , is not a criminal offence .
If you are foolish enough to parade your connections in a Tauranga shopping centre ’ s carpark , then you should not act all hurt and surprised when that fact is recorded .
Nor should the mainstream news media be at all surprised that the photograph ended up on The BFD blog .
Cameron Slater , of Dirty Politics fame , has publicly acknowledged his legal and personal connections with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Winston Peters oldest and most trusted legal advisers , Henry has also stood by Slater .
Is this the explanation for what appears to be a decisive shift in the political allegiances of Slater and his colleagues from the National Party ( which couldn ’ t distance itself fast enough from its favoured blogger following the publication of Nicky Hager ’ s book ) to NZ First ?
Such a shift would go a long way to explaining the rumours that NZ First is being assisted by one of Slater ’ s closest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lusk .
A hard-bitten political operator , Lusk would have needed no instruction when it came to gathering intelligence on the two journalists responsible for revealing the closely-guarded secrets of the NZ First Foundation .
The involvement of somebody like Lusk would certainly explain The BFD ’ s photograph of Stuff Reporter , Matt Shand .
Recognising Espiner and Gray would not have been difficult .
In that location , however , Shand was unlikely to be recognised by anyone not closely associated with the NZ First Foundation story .
That Tauranga shopping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in it than Dallas ’ s Dealey Plaza !
The demonisation of The BFD is yet another problematic aspect of RNZ ’ s coverage .
Conservative blogs have every bit as much right to present their ideas to voters as liberal and left-wing blogs .
In my time as a political commentator , I have contributed material to daily newspapers owned by Rupert Murdoch , and a weekly business publication edited by a devotee of Ayn Rand .
So , when Cameron Slater invited me – along with a clutch of other non-right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pay-walled section of Whaleoil , I did not refuse .
Similarly , when The BFD was launched , I agreed to contribute to its pay-walled “ Insight ” section .
Nothing builds up one ’ s understanding of the Right like writing for their publications !
And , although I have always been scrupulous to submit material I would happily see posted on The Daily Blog , or my own Bowalley Road , I ’ ve never once been censored .
In an environment where the idea that there might be two sides @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those with whom you profoundly disagree have a story to tell , is dismissed as giving fascists a free-pass , it is not easy to make a stand for fairness and balance in journalism .
It is vital , however , that RNZ tries .
On its “ Mediawatch ” programme , broadcast last Sunday morning ( 16/2/20 ) RNZ featured an interview with Ollie Wards from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation ’ s “ Triple-J ” youth-oriented radio station .
Among many other observations , Wards ventured the opinion that “ holding the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aspect of the public broadcaster ’ s remit .
There would appear to be a great many RNZ journalists who agree wholeheartedly with Wards ’ characterisation of their role .
That does not , however , make it right .
In a parliamentary democracy , it is not the news media which is entrusted with the role of holding the government to account , but the Opposition .
They are the people elected to scrutinize the executive and ensure that government ministers are doing their jobs .
They do this on behalf of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ every three years , with the ultimate responsibility for holding governments to account .
Nobody elected Guyon Espiner or Matt Shand to hold their government to account .
Indeed , those gentlemen are not accountable in any meaningful political sense for the potentially decisive influence they are so well-positioned to exert on the electoral process .
The role of the news media ( especially the publicly owned news media ) is to assist the voters in the critical task of holding their representatives to account – not to do the job for them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power to give voters the truth , the whole truth , and nothing but the truth .
It means unearthing the facts , as many as possible , and then contextualising them in a fair and balanced way .
It does not mean extracting only those facts that serve an individual journalist ’ s purposes , and using them to manipulate the voters ’ understanding of what a party has , or hasn ’ t , done .
Winston Peters is encouraging voters to think of RNZ as belonging to “ The Media @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see it as a politically partisan institution with its own , vicious attack-dogs in the electoral fight .
If he succeeds , it will be , and probably should be , the end of public radio in New Zealand .

RADIO NEW ZEALAND needs to reflect very carefully about the position in which it now finds itself. If it fails to alter its present course, there is a real possibility it will find itself accused of serious political bias. As a public broadcaster, RNZ simply cannot afford to be seen to have its own dog in the September 19 fight. Fair and balanced reporting is of huge importance when your radio network is funded by the taxpayer. In an election year, moreover, fairness and balance are absolutely critical to the maintenance of public confidence.
For the moment, nearly all of the accusations of bias are coming from Winston Peters and the NZ First Party. This is only to be expected, given that RNZ’s reporting has inflicted serious damage on Peters and his colleagues. Lending credence to the latter’s accusations, however, is a photograph of Guyon Espiner, one of RNZ’s senior journalists, chatting amiably with Lester Gray, a former president of the NZ First Party. Looking at the photograph, it is very difficult not to identify Gray as the source of Espiner’s damaging revelations about the NZ First Foundation.
The release of this photograph – taken, according to Peters, by a member or supporter of NZ First – to The BFD (successor to the Whaleoil blog) has not only alarmed RNZ, it has put it on the defensive. The idea that a journalist and his source may themselves come under scrutiny is being widely interpreted as a thoroughly sinister development.
The mainstream news media has had much less to say about the failure of a supposedly experienced political journalist to protect his source. Tauranga is pretty much “ground zero” when it comes to NZ First’s historical support base. Why, then, would a former television journalist, with a very familiar face, choose to wander about in full public view with a former NZ First president and candidate? Why not meet privately, indoors, safe from prying eyes – and cellphones?
As for casting the whole episode as sinister, well, that particular charge is simply without merit. It is well-established in law that the taking of a person’s photograph in a public place, with or without their knowledge and/or consent, is not a criminal offence. If you are foolish enough to parade your connections in a Tauranga shopping centre’s carpark, then you should not act all hurt and surprised when that fact is recorded.
Nor should the mainstream news media be at all surprised that the photograph ended up on The BFD blog. Cameron Slater, of Dirty Politics fame, has publicly acknowledged his legal and personal connections with the lawyer Brian Henry. One of Winston Peters oldest and most trusted legal advisers, Henry has also stood by Slater. Is this the explanation for what appears to be a decisive shift in the political allegiances of Slater and his colleagues from the National Party (which couldn’t distance itself fast enough from its favoured blogger following the publication of Nicky Hager’s book) to NZ First?
Such a shift would go a long way to explaining the rumours that NZ First is being assisted by one of Slater’s closest political allies from the Whaleoilyears, Simon Lusk. A hard-bitten political operator, Lusk would have needed no instruction when it came to gathering intelligence on the two journalists responsible for revealing the closely-guarded secrets of the NZ First Foundation. The involvement of somebody like Lusk would certainly explain The BFD’s photograph of Stuff Reporter, Matt Shand. Recognising Espiner and Gray would not have been difficult. In that location, however, Shand was unlikely to be recognised by anyone not closely associated with the NZ First Foundation story.
That Tauranga shopping centre appears to have had more shooters in it than Dallas’s Dealey Plaza!
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
The demonisation of The BFD is yet another problematic aspect of RNZ’s coverage. Conservative blogs have every bit as much right to present their ideas to voters as liberal and left-wing blogs. In my time as a political commentator, I have contributed material to daily newspapers owned by Rupert Murdoch, and a weekly business publication edited by a devotee of Ayn Rand. So, when Cameron Slater invited me – along with a clutch of other non-right commentators – to contribute to a new pay-walled section of Whaleoil, I did not refuse. Similarly, when The BFD was launched, I agreed to contribute to its pay-walled “Insight” section. Nothing builds up one’s understanding of the Right like writing for their publications! And, although I have always been scrupulous to submit material I would happily see posted on The Daily Blog, or my own Bowalley Road, I’ve never once been censored.
In an environment where the idea that there might be two sides to every story, and that even those with whom you profoundly disagree have a story to tell, is dismissed as giving fascists a free-pass, it is not easy to make a stand for fairness and balance in journalism. It is vital, however, that RNZ tries.
On its “Mediawatch” programme, broadcast last Sunday morning (16/2/20) RNZ featured an interview with Ollie Wards from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s “Triple-J” youth-oriented radio station. Among many other observations, Wards ventured the opinion that “holding the government to account” was a vital aspect of the public broadcaster’s remit. There would appear to be a great many RNZ journalists who agree wholeheartedly with Wards’ characterisation of their role. That does not, however, make it right.
In a parliamentary democracy, it is not the news media which is entrusted with the role of holding the government to account, but the Opposition. They are the people elected to scrutinize the executive and ensure that government ministers are doing their jobs. They do this on behalf of the voters – the people charged, every three years, with the ultimate responsibility for holding governments to account. Nobody elected Guyon Espiner or Matt Shand to hold their government to account. Indeed, those gentlemen are not accountable in any meaningful political sense for the potentially decisive influence they are so well-positioned to exert on the electoral process.
The role of the news media (especially the publicly owned news media) is to assist the voters in the critical task of holding their representatives to account – not to do the job for them. That means doing everything within its power to give voters the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. It means unearthing the facts, as many as possible, and then contextualising them in a fair and balanced way. It does not mean extracting only those facts that serve an individual journalist’s purposes, and using them to manipulate the voters’ understanding of what a party has, or hasn’t, done.
Winston Peters is encouraging voters to think of RNZ as belonging to “The Media Party”. He wants them to see it as a politically partisan institution with its own, vicious attack-dogs in the electoral fight. If he succeeds, it will be, and probably should be, the end of public radio in New Zealand.


thedailyblog--2020-02-20--Little’s Hate Speech Laws Will Destroy This Government.

ANDREW LITTLE has confirmed that the Coalition Government will announce changes to New Zealand ’ s free speech laws before the election .
Clearly , Jacinda Ardern has not been able to persuade her Justice Minister that introducing “ hate speech ” laws is a sure-fire election loser .
Or , perhaps the Prime Minister also believes that attacking freedom of speech is an election-winning strategy .
The timing of Little ’ s announcement is interesting .
It points to a dramatic weakening in the position of Labour ’ s coalition partner , NZ First .
For the first time @ @ @ @ @ @ @ October 2017 , Winston Peters finds himself and his party dependant on the good will and protection of the Prime Minister .
The Serious Fraud Office ’ s decision to launch an investigation into the NZ First Foundation has prompted multiple demands for Jacinda to stand Peters down for the duration .
She has been called “ weak ” for refusing to discipline her Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister – and he is very aware of the political rewards that would flow to the Prime Minister if she decided to give in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she did give in , Peters knows that any threat to “ pull the plug ” on the Coalition in retaliation would be met with a cool “ go on then ” .
Being seen to have forced a snap election over the SFO investigation would seal NZ First ’ s fate .
The electorate would punish Peters and his party mercilessly .
Jacinda and the Greens , on the other hand , could present themselves to the country as the principled and courageous defenders of “ clean ” politics .
What would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ First could end up being the making of his erstwhile coalition partners .
All of which adds up to a radically changed power dynamic on the Beehive ’ s Ninth Floor .
From here on out , what Jacinda and her “ progressive ” colleagues want , Jacinda and her “ progressive ” colleagues are going to get .
Three weeks ago Peters would have shaken his head coldly at the very thought of introducing anti-hate speech legislation prior to the election .
Today , he has bowed his head meekly and walked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ handbrake ” has been released .
Returning to my earlier speculation about Jacinda ’ s actual position on hate speech , I can ’ t help recalling how strongly she reacted to the pain and suffering of Christchurch ’ s Muslim community .
I am minded , also , of her passionate advocacy for her own “ Christchurch Call ” .
In the bitter aftermath of the Christchurch Massacre , the Prime Minister promised New Zealand ’ s immigrant communities her protection .
Tougher gun laws were Step One .
A ban on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Two .
Insensitive though it may seem to even pose the question : how will the electorate respond to what the Prime Minister ’ s opponents will undoubtedly characterise as an attack on New Zealanders ’ freedom of speech ?
At more than twelve month ’ s remove from the terrible events of 15 March 2019 , will Jacinda ’ s inspired “ They Are Us ” formula be enough to turn aside the free speech defenders ’ counterattack ?
Those in the Prime Minister ’ s professional and personal entourages will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to move against hate speech is not only the right thing to do , but that it will also reap Labour a rich harvest of votes – not least from New Zealand ’ s 57,000 Muslims .
The brutal question which must be asked , however , is whether or not winning the support of the 1 percent of New Zealanders who subscribe to the Muslim faith can sensibly be counted as an unqualified addition to Labour ’ s overall Party Vote ; or whether it will be more than offset by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Labour ’ s restriction of free speech ?
The next , equally brutal question is : “ Where will those votes go ?
” The obvious , and worrying , answer is : “ They will go to the Right.
” It is one of the greatest tragedies of contemporary “ left-wing ” politics : that its practitioners have allowed themselves to become identified , irretrievably , with the suppression of free speech .
Most particularly , with the suppression of the free speech of persons identified as “ right wing ” , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nazis ” and “ fascists ” .
Worse still , they have secured this “ de-platforming ” by threatening to unleash violence and disorder if these individuals are permitted to speak .
They have thus supplied local government , university and corporate leaders with the “ health and safety ” justification for shutting these speakers down .
Free speech advocates refer to this tactic as “ The Thug ’ s Veto ” .
Little ’ s reaffirmed commitment to introducing legislation aimed at curbing hate speech will , therefore , be received by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ upon their personal liberties .
Labour and its Green allies will be accused of using the power of the state to demonise and silence their political opponents .
The Right will not take this lying down .
It is , however , doubtful whether Little has given much thought to what making bitter enemies of the entire Right might lead to .
While National and Act – especially Act – will be content to fight the issue at the level of abstract principle , those further along the right-wing spectrum will not hesitate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ legislation with those it is intended to protect .
The very white supremacists the Left has vowed to extirpate will present Little ’ s laws as proof positive of the Labour/Greens ’ surrender to the demands of multiculturalism in general – and of Islam in particular .
Such linkages can only pose a grave threat to the safety of all New Zealand ’ s immigrant communities .
The very ugliness that hate speech laws are intended to hide will be even more openly and defiantly displayed .
And this , sadly , is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speech legislation all fail to appreciate .
That people can not be forced into abandoning their erroneous , hurtful and/or dangerous opinions .
They can only be argued out of them .
Does Andrew Little truly believe that hate speech laws would have stopped Brenton Tarrant ?
His murderous rampage was inspired not by the rantings of some fool on 4Chan , but by his close study of the centuries-long struggle between Islam and Christianity in the Middle East , North Africa and Europe .
Are the hate speech laws to be set @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of history ?
Will they extend to banning trips to the European battlefields where the Ottoman armies were checked by Christian knights ?
And if they are , how will that help to persuade people that what Little is proposing is anything more than the thin edge of the wedge of totalitarianism ?
Our current laws forbid the incitement of actual physical harm , and will punish those who wilfully defame their fellow citizens .
Attempting to pass laws against the giving of offence , however , is a fool ’ s errand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ laws will only encourage and intensify it .
Harm can not be prevented , but it can be healed .
Building trust and amity between peoples is achieved by starting conversations – not by shutting them down .

ANDREW LITTLE has confirmed that the Coalition Government will announce changes to New Zealand’s free speech laws before the election. Clearly, Jacinda Ardern has not been able to persuade her Justice Minister that introducing “hate speech” laws is a sure-fire election loser. Or, perhaps the Prime Minister also believes that attacking freedom of speech is an election-winning strategy.
The timing of Little’s announcement is interesting. It points to a dramatic weakening in the position of Labour’s coalition partner, NZ First. For the first time since the Coalition’s formation in October 2017, Winston Peters finds himself and his party dependant on the good will and protection of the Prime Minister.
The Serious Fraud Office’s decision to launch an investigation into the NZ First Foundation has prompted multiple demands for Jacinda to stand Peters down for the duration. She has been called “weak” for refusing to discipline her Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister – and he is very aware of the political rewards that would flow to the Prime Minister if she decided to give in to his critics’ demands.
If she did give in, Peters knows that any threat to “pull the plug” on the Coalition in retaliation would be met with a cool “go on then”. Being seen to have forced a snap election over the SFO investigation would seal NZ First’s fate. The electorate would punish Peters and his party mercilessly. Jacinda and the Greens, on the other hand, could present themselves to the country as the principled and courageous defenders of “clean” politics. What would undoubtedly be suicide for Peters and NZ First could end up being the making of his erstwhile coalition partners.
All of which adds up to a radically changed power dynamic on the Beehive’s Ninth Floor. From here on out, what Jacinda and her “progressive” colleagues want, Jacinda and her “progressive” colleagues are going to get. Three weeks ago Peters would have shaken his head coldly at the very thought of introducing anti-hate speech legislation prior to the election. Today, he has bowed his head meekly and walked away. The Coalition’s “handbrake” has been released.
Returning to my earlier speculation about Jacinda’s actual position on hate speech, I can’t help recalling how strongly she reacted to the pain and suffering of Christchurch’s Muslim community. I am minded, also, of her passionate advocacy for her own “Christchurch Call”. In the bitter aftermath of the Christchurch Massacre, the Prime Minister promised New Zealand’s immigrant communities her protection. Tougher gun laws were Step One. A ban on hate speech could very easily be Step Two.
Insensitive though it may seem to even pose the question: how will the electorate respond to what the Prime Minister’s opponents will undoubtedly characterise as an attack on New Zealanders’ freedom of speech? At more than twelve month’s remove from the terrible events of 15 March 2019, will Jacinda’s inspired “They Are Us” formula be enough to turn aside the free speech defenders’ counterattack?
Those in the Prime Minister’s professional and personal entourages will be adamant in their insistence that being seen to move against hate speech is not only the right thing to do, but that it will also reap Labour a rich harvest of votes – not least from New Zealand’s 57,000 Muslims. The brutal question which must be asked, however, is whether or not winning the support of the 1 percent of New Zealanders who subscribe to the Muslim faith can sensibly be counted as an unqualified addition to Labour’s overall Party Vote; or whether it will be more than offset by the defection of those New Zealanders opposed to Labour’s restriction of free speech? The next, equally brutal question is: “Where will those votes go?”
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
The obvious, and worrying, answer is: “They will go to the Right.”
It is one of the greatest tragedies of contemporary “left-wing” politics: that its practitioners have allowed themselves to become identified, irretrievably, with the suppression of free speech. Most particularly, with the suppression of the free speech of persons identified as “right wing”, or, more ludicrously, as “Nazis” and “fascists”. Worse still, they have secured this “de-platforming” by threatening to unleash violence and disorder if these individuals are permitted to speak. They have thus supplied local government, university and corporate leaders with the “health and safety” justification for shutting these speakers down. Free speech advocates refer to this tactic as “The Thug’s Veto”.
Little’s reaffirmed commitment to introducing legislation aimed at curbing hate speech will, therefore, be received by right-wing New Zealanders as a direct assault upon their personal liberties. Labour and its Green allies will be accused of using the power of the state to demonise and silence their political opponents.
The Right will not take this lying down.
It is, however, doubtful whether Little has given much thought to what making bitter enemies of the entire Right might lead to. While National and Act – especially Act – will be content to fight the issue at the level of abstract principle, those further along the right-wing spectrum will not hesitate to link Little’s hate speech legislation with those it is intended to protect. The very white supremacists the Left has vowed to extirpate will present Little’s laws as proof positive of the Labour/Greens’ surrender to the demands of multiculturalism in general – and of Islam in particular. Such linkages can only pose a grave threat to the safety of all New Zealand’s immigrant communities. The very ugliness that hate speech laws are intended to hide will be even more openly and defiantly displayed.
And this, sadly, is the problem which the advocates of hate speech legislation all fail to appreciate. That people cannot be forced into abandoning their erroneous, hurtful and/or dangerous opinions. They can only be argued out of them.
Does Andrew Little truly believe that hate speech laws would have stopped Brenton Tarrant? His murderous rampage was inspired not by the rantings of some fool on 4Chan, but by his close study of the centuries-long struggle between Islam and Christianity in the Middle East, North Africa and Europe. Are the hate speech laws to be set wide enough to capture the wrongful interpretation of history? Will they extend to banning trips to the European battlefields where the Ottoman armies were checked by Christian knights? And if they are, how will that help to persuade people that what Little is proposing is anything more than the thin edge of the wedge of totalitarianism?
Our current laws forbid the incitement of actual physical harm, and will punish those who wilfully defame their fellow citizens. Attempting to pass laws against the giving of offence, however, is a fool’s errand. Far from eliminating offensiveness, such laws will only encourage and intensify it. Harm cannot be prevented, but it can be healed. Building trust and amity between peoples is achieved by starting conversations – not by shutting them down.


thedailyblog--2020-02-21--Israel’s insatiable territorial ambition

For over 70 years , the Zionist enterprise has been taking its daily toll on Palestinian life , limb , liberty and land .
Israel ’ s territorial ambition in regard to land is insatiable .
There are many ways in which the Zionist regime takes control of , and annexes , Palestinian land in the areas it militarily-occupies .
There is the designation of land as ‘ nature reserves ’ , the taking over of it by the Israeli military for , what Israel describes as , ‘ firing zones ’ and , of course , the Occupation settlements @ @ @ @ @ @ @ left of the Palestinian homeland .
The Israeli Occupation announced , in January , the creation of seven new Israeli ‘ nature reserves ‘ in Area C of the Occupied West Bank with Defence Minister , Naftali Bennett , declaring that , Area C of the occupied West Bank “ belongs to Israel ” .
According to the Jerusalem Post , thi also includes the growth of 12 already-established nature reserves .
Bennett , referring to the more than 60 % of the West Bank that was left under Israeli control through the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that , “ We are embarking on a real and immediate battle for the future of the Land of Israel and the future of Area C. ” As Ramzy Baroud , writing in the Middle East Monitor reminds us , “ do not let the confusing logic of the Oslo Accords fool you ; all Palestinians , in all parts of the occupied West Bank , East Jerusalem , and the besieged Gaza Strip , are under Israeli military control as well.
” According to the Israeli anti-Occupation movement , Peace Now , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reserves ’ sit upon privately-owned Palestinian land .
Israel forbids Palestinians the right to cultivate their own land , as Peace Now ’ s Hagit Ofran explained to the AFP news agency : “ If it ’ s a nature reserve , then you can uproot their trees and tell them they need a special permit for any agricultural activity.
” The Israeli military exercises a suffocating degree of population control that , with no regard for well-being , is so thorough it suppress every aspect of Palestinian life , freedom of movement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ water .
The extent of the repression is relentless .
Last month , according to the Israeli newspaper , Haaretz , Israeli Occupation forces seized “ the only vehicle available to a medical team that provides assistance to 1,500 Palestinians living inside an Israeli military firing zone in the West Bank.
” It is utterly foreign to Zionist ideology for Israel , as the belligerent Occupying power , to ensure adequate medical access to the communities it rules , even though the Fourth Geneva Convention obliges it so to do .
Palestinians suffering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the international community , which does little to invoke international law in their defence .
Israel Occupied the West Bank , East Jerusalem and Gaza , with the determination that it would exercise permanent control of the territories it had seized .
This included repopulating many areas with its own citizens as settlers , reinforced with accompanying ‘ security ’ , ‘ buffer ’ and ‘ firing ’ zones , denying Palestinian access .
The “ firing zones ” are purportedly for Israeli Army training purposes but , as the people trapped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any military training taking place within them .
Many illegal Jewish settlements have established themselves in these ‘ firing zones ’ over the years , a clear giveaway of Zionist strategy .
According to the Office for the UN Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs ( OCHA ) in Palestine , around 5,000 Palestinians in 38 communities , live precariously within the “ firing zones ” .
In 1967 , Israeli ethnic cleansing forced the removal of approximately 300,000 Palestinians .
The victims included Palestinian Bedouins , who continue to suffer under colonialist-minded Israeli rule @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hebron Hills and elsewhere .
What is more , the Palestinian Authority ( PA ) has abandoned the Palestinians living in ‘ Area C ’ , expecting them to rely on Israel ’ s unjust ‘ legal ’ system , to fight for their basic rights .
According to the United Nations , on top of the scarcity of water , Palestinians , under Israeli Occupation , have to endure daily “ confiscation of property , settler violence , harassing by soldiers and movement restrictions , including access to their own land.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , such harsh “ conditions contribute to a coercive environment that creates pressure on Palestinian communities to leave these areas.
” The Kohelet Policy Forum that Naftali Bennett was addressing , as referred to above , opened with a video message from US Secretary of State , Mike Pompeo , asserting the US view that the Occupation settlements “ don ’ t inherently violate international law.
” The US Ambassador to Israel , David Friedman , also addressed the Forum , supporting Pompeo and announcing a new US position regarding around 200 Israeli @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jerusalem , which asserts that they do not violate international law .
Friedman went even further , adopting the extreme Zionist position of an Israeli right to “ live in Judea and Samaria ” and praising US President Trump ’ s recognition of Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem and even the Syrian Golan Heights .
Meanwhile , an update on the Israeli Occupation in respect of the whole of last year was published , revealing that nearly 700 Palestinian buildings ( including homes ) in Occupied Palestine had been demolished by Israel , 300 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Most of the areas the Israeli Army has allocated to the settlements are the result of bringing together enclaves and non-contiguous territory , such as farmland that even Israel recognie as private Palestinian land .
But that has no relevance under military Occupation because , in the end , stealing land and the plunder that accompanies it take precedence over every other principle .
The settlers do as they please , and the supposedly responsible Occupation simply stands by and allows it .
A detailed example of this process is available regarding the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Occupation and colonisation of the West Bank is enjoying increasing support from New Zealand ’ s ‘ traditional ally ’ , the United States , it is to be hoped that this country will maintain its commitment to the upholding of international law .
There is reason for concern , however , regarding our Foreign Affairs Minister ’ s attitude towards Israel .
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade ( MFAT ) safe travel advisory warns would-be visitors of the threat of terrorism “ throughout Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arson and knife attacks in populated centres , including Jerusalem and Tel Aviv , “ resulting in deaths and injuries.
” The travel advisory also warns of Palestinian missile-firings and , in the only reference to Israeli violence , notes that “ acts of terrorism anywhere in Israel may lead to military intervention in Gaza and the West Bank .
Nowhere does MFAT mention Israeli air strikes , incursions into Gaza , shelling of Gaza farmland and the constant Israeli Army use of live fire , rubber-coated steel bullets , stun grenades and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Gaza or the West Bank .
Neither is there any mention of the huge number of Palestinians killed and wounded almost daily in Israeli attacks and home invasions .
MFAT tells its readers that on “ 18 March 2018 , an Israeli security guard was stabbed and killed in the Old City of Jerusalem.
” Adding that , “ Israeli police fatally shot the attacker.
” But there is no mention of the far more frequent wanton Israeli violence against the people it militarily occupies .
The Israeli human rights group , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ February a nine-year-old Palestinian boy , Malek Issa , was shot by the Israeli police .
The boy was wounded after getting off his school bus in Issawiya and going to the next door grocery to buy something to eat .
He was hit in the eye with a rubber-coated steel bullet , causing serious injury to his skull .
He faces permanent blindness in the wounded eye .
Malek ’ s family and friends are at his side in hospital , praying for his recovery .
Gush Shalom informs us that “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police use violence , enforce roadblocks and carry out arbitrary arrests in a residential neighbourhood of more than 20,000 people .
The group tells us that Palestinians are forced to live with a level of bullying and violence that creates “ a daily reality of dread and fear.
” When will MFAT acknowledge this ongoing reality ?

For over 70 years, the Zionist enterprise has been taking its daily toll on Palestinian life, limb, liberty and land. Israel’s territorial ambition in regard to land is insatiable. There are many ways in which the Zionist regime takes control of, and annexes, Palestinian land in the areas it militarily-occupies. There is the designation of land as ‘nature reserves’, the taking over of it by the Israeli military for, what Israel describes as, ‘firing zones’ and, of course, the Occupation settlements, encroaching ever further into what is left of the Palestinian homeland.
Nature reserves
The Israeli Occupation announced, in January, the creation of seven new Israeli ‘nature reserves‘ in Area C of the Occupied West Bank with Defence Minister, Naftali Bennett, declaring that, Area C of the occupied West Bank “belongs to Israel”. According to the Jerusalem Post, this also includes the growth of 12 already-established nature reserves. Bennett, referring to the more than 60% of the West Bank that was left under Israeli control through the Oslo Accords, went further, announcing that, “We are embarking on a real and immediate battle for the future of the Land of Israel and the future of Area C.” As Ramzy Baroud, writing in the Middle East Monitor reminds us, “do not let the confusing logic of the Oslo Accords fool you; all Palestinians, in all parts of the occupied West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the besieged Gaza Strip, are under Israeli military control as well.”
According to the Israeli anti-Occupation movement, Peace Now, some 40% of the ‘nature reserves’ sit upon privately-owned Palestinian land. Israel forbids Palestinians the right to cultivate their own land, as Peace Now’s Hagit Ofran explained to the AFP news agency: “If it’s a nature reserve, then you can uproot their trees and tell them they need a special permit for any agricultural activity.”
Firing zones
The Israeli military exercises a suffocating degree of population control that, with no regard for well-being, is so thorough it suppress every aspect of Palestinian life, freedom of movement, education and even access to clean water. The extent of the repression is relentless. Last month, according to the Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, Israeli Occupation forces seized “the only vehicle available to a medical team that provides assistance to 1,500 Palestinians living inside an Israeli military firing zone in the West Bank.” It is utterly foreign to Zionist ideology for Israel, as the belligerent Occupying power, to ensure adequate medical access to the communities it rules, even though the Fourth Geneva Convention obliges it so to do. Palestinians suffering under this foreign military dictatorship feel betrayed by the international community, which does little to invoke international law in their defence.
Israel Occupied the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza, with the determination that it would exercise permanent control of the territories it had seized. This included repopulating many areas with its own citizens as settlers, reinforced with accompanying ‘security’, ‘buffer’ and ‘firing’ zones, denying Palestinian access. The “firing zones” are purportedly for Israeli Army training purposes but, as the people trapped by them know, they seldom see any military training taking place within them. Many illegal Jewish settlements have established themselves in these ‘firing zones’ over the years, a clear giveaway of Zionist strategy.
According to the Office for the UN Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) in Palestine, around 5,000 Palestinians in 38 communities, live precariously within the “firing zones”. In 1967, Israeli ethnic cleansing forced the removal of approximately 300,000 Palestinians. The victims included Palestinian Bedouins, who continue to suffer under colonialist-minded Israeli rule in the Jordan Valley, the South Hebron Hills and elsewhere. What is more, the Palestinian Authority (PA) has abandoned the Palestinians living in ‘Area C’, expecting them to rely on Israel’s unjust ‘legal’ system, to fight for their basic rights. According to the United Nations, on top of the scarcity of water, Palestinians, under Israeli Occupation, have to endure daily “confiscation of property, settler violence, harassing by soldiers and movement restrictions, including access to their own land.” Again, according to the United Nations, such harsh “conditions contribute to a coercive environment that creates pressure on Palestinian communities to leave these areas.”
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
Settlements
The Kohelet Policy Forum that Naftali Bennett was addressing, as referred to above, opened with a video message from US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, asserting the US view that the Occupation settlements “don’t inherently violate international law.” The US Ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, also addressed the Forum, supporting Pompeo and announcing a new US position regarding around 200 Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which asserts that they do not violate international law. Friedman went even further, adopting the extreme Zionist position of an Israeli right to “live in Judea and Samaria” and praising US President Trump’s recognition of Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem and even the Syrian Golan Heights.
Meanwhile, an update on the Israeli Occupation in respect of the whole of last year was published, revealing that nearly 700 Palestinian buildings (including homes) in Occupied Palestine had been demolished by Israel, 300 of them destroyed in Jerusalem alone.
Most of the areas the Israeli Army has allocated to the settlements are the result of bringing together enclaves and non-contiguous territory, such as farmland that even Israel recognises as private Palestinian land. But that has no relevance under military Occupation because, in the end, stealing land and the plunder that accompanies it takes precedence over every other principle. The settlers do as they please, and the supposedly responsible Occupation simply stands by and allows it. A detailed example of this process is available regarding the settlement of Kedumim. As the Israeli Occupation and colonisation of the West Bank is enjoying increasing support from New Zealand’s ‘traditional ally’, the United States, it is to be hoped that this country will maintain its commitment to the upholding of international law.
There is reason for concern, however, regarding our Foreign Affairs Minister’s attitude towards Israel. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) safe travel advisory warns would-be visitors of the threat of terrorism “throughout Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories”. MFAT warns of explosive devices, arson and knife attacks in populated centres, including Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, “resulting in deaths and injuries.” The travel advisory also warns of Palestinian missile-firings and, in the only reference to Israeli violence, notes that “acts of terrorism anywhere in Israel may lead to military intervention in Gaza and the West Bank. Nowhere does MFAT mention Israeli air strikes, incursions into Gaza, shelling of Gaza farmland and the constant Israeli Army use of live fire, rubber-coated steel bullets, stun grenades and tear gas against peaceful protesters, either in Gaza or the West Bank. Neither is there any mention of the huge numbers of Palestinians killed and wounded almost daily in Israeli attacks and home invasions.
MFAT tells its readers that on “18 March 2018, an Israeli security guard was stabbed and killed in the Old City of Jerusalem.” Adding that, “Israeli police fatally shot the attacker.” But there is no mention of the far more frequent wanton Israeli violence against the people it militarily occupies. The Israeli human rights group, Gush Shalom has reported that on 15 February a nine-year-old Palestinian boy, Malek Issa, was shot by the Israeli police. The boy was wounded after getting off his school bus in Issawiya and going to the next door grocery to buy something to eat. He was hit in the eye with a rubber-coated steel bullet, causing serious injury to his skull. He faces permanent blindness in the wounded eye. Malek’s family and friends are at his side in hospital, praying for his recovery. Gush Shalom informs us that “on a daily basis” the Israeli police use violence, enforce roadblocks and carry out arbitrary arrests in a residential neighbourhood of more than 20,000 people. The group tells us that Palestinians are forced to live with a level of bullying and violence that creates “a daily reality of dread and fear.”
When will MFAT acknowledge this ongoing reality?


thedailyblog--2020-02-23--We all deserve better than New Zealand First

It ’ s a sad irony that the wizened politician Winston Peters is the one who allowed Jacinda Ardern the current opportunity to form a Government coalition while also limiting her ability to oversee a properly transformational government .
The most recent instances of questionable behaviour by New Zealand First highlight the party ’ s predeliction for playing loose , and there ’ s been a pattern of behaviour that ’ s been tolerated throughout this electoral term .
There ’ s an argument that with the most recent revelations of hidden electoral donations , due process should allow the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before judgments are made – on the other hand , there ’ s a smoking gun – Winston was involved in the establishment of the New Zealand First Foundation , which secretly channeled donated funds to the party , packaged into small amounts so they were under the statutory threshold but which cumulatively should have been declared .
Media outlets have been careful to say that the donors didn ’ t break any laws , though in similar dodgy donation deals from the National Party , where the judicial process is further developed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ donations and the donors , have been charged .
So even while there ’ s still due process to run its course in the donations scandal , there are risks for Jacinda Ardern in being perceived as weak against Winston and New Zealand First , because the failure of Jacinda to stand up to Winston over the dodgy donations sits in a broader distasteful context .
Shane Jones practicing target shooting with automatic weapons of murder .
Shane Jones and other New Zealand First contacts lobbying for forestry contracts while presiding as Minister @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the unethical and corrupt ( ? )
practices we ’ ve become aware of .
NZ First MP ’ s behaviour is often boorish , rude and offensive , bizarre , unhinged and/or unfathomable ( Shane ’ s bursting into song at the Fifty Shades of Green rally , Winston playing Radio Gaga instead of answering media questions ) .
While high profile politicians elsewhere around the world , such as Boris Johnson and Donald Trump display equally bizarre behaviour , the New Zealand First power to veto progressive policies from the Labour @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gains to further their own political prospects means the regressive , retrograde and conservative policies of NZF dominate -overpower- the potential for public good , forward looking , structural reform for New Zealand more widely .
In the post-election Coalition negotiation arm wrestle/lolly scramble , New Zealand First secured their own policy gains such as the Provincial Growth Fund so they could play pork barrel politics up and down the country .
But at the same time , they preserved the power to veto more progressive initiatives from Labour and the Greens .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Peters has the power – the country is being held to ransom by his conservative coalition minority party .
New Zealand First is the tail wagging the dog and biting the dog , and everyone else too .
Because both National and NZ First are embroiled in election donation scandals , there ’ s some argument for reform of electoral funding .
The crony capitalism that New Zealand First practices so well , with its electoral donations from sectoral interests and revolving door of MPs , lobbyists and advisors leading to policy vetoes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ full tax-payer funding of party political campaigns at election time , say some .
Without full state funding , parties are dependent on donors – who will want favourable policies in return .
Parties can ’ t be trusted to declare donations and will try to hide in whose interests they are voting .
The solution , the argument goes , is to remove dependence on private sector funders and fund election campaigns with taxes .
That might avoid the impression of vested interests buying votes , but it won ’ t stop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , social , political or personal interests coincide with policy beneficiaries , against wider public and environmental good .
In the case of a New Zealand First veto of fisheries regulations to protect endangered species for example , even if they ’ re not receiving electoral donations from Talley ’ s ( which Shane Jones has ) , his past , present or future interests in the fishing industry mean he ’ s likely to oppose necessary restrictions or controls .
Similarly with forestry , and other sectors .
I haven ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ donations from forestry companies , but their own attempts to secure contracts for planting trees as part of the NZF initiated “ Billion Trees ” programme show what happens when self-interest coincides with potential commercial gain .
Election donations to NZF from the horse racing industry or property developers , leading to tens of millions of dollars of subsidies , tax breaks , investments , and favourable policies , might be saved with full tax-payer funded election campaigns , but that doesn ’ t guarantee that personal rewards discontinue , or that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public interested .
An MP or party , by nature occupies a place on the political-economic spectrum and will continue to represent the interests therein , whether they receive direct , declarable donations or not .
What we need is a higher calibre of politician , not just more robust funding mechanisms .
Even with tax-payer funded elections , catering to special interest pleading and favours can be motivated by MP ’ s self-interest , future-oriented incentives , networks and other connections , and shared world view .
They say failure is an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The political game NZ First plays shows they claim credit for policies successfully secured but they also master the self-promoting gloating social media meme every time they subvert a Labour or Green policy promise .
This week the memes are about their veto of the proposed Green Party Electric Vehicle subsidy .
Previously they proudly claimed credit for preventing the implementation of Capital Gains Tax ( though Jacinda ’ s pledge to never support the tax in her time as leader was inexplicable ) .
They ’ ve held up fisheries reform @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NZ First claims credit for every policy they secure and every Coalition or support party policy they prevent .
As we get nearer to the election , the stakes get higher .
NZ First are already quick to make policy promises , to court conservative policy audiences ( for example agriculture ) , to distinguish their policy agenda from Labour or the Greens .
The gloves are off .
In this trienium , NZ First have been both the giver of supreme power to Jacinda Ardern and the Labour Party , but also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been secured for NZ First donors , and Labour/Green aspirations have been humiliated and thwarted .
According to current polling , NZ First may not secure enough votes to return to power .
NZ First aren ’ t to be trusted .
We can ’ t afford to have power in New Zealand First ’ s hands ( or National ’ s either ) .
A Labour/Green Government willing to go further , faster with reform without the constraints of NZ First are essential if we are to address the problems of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be so much better off without their crony capitalism , though dealing with the greed of capitalists would still be a challenge to face if we really want transformation toward greater equality that citizens deserve .

It’s a sad irony that the wizened politician Winston Peters is the one who allowed Jacinda Ardern the current opportunity to form a Government coalition while also limiting her ability to oversee a properly transformational government.
The most recent instances of questionable behaviour by New Zealand First highlight the party’s predeliction for playing loose, and there’s been a pattern of behaviour that’s been tolerated throughout this electoral term. There’s an argument that with the most recent revelations of hidden electoral donations, due process should allow the Serious Fraud Office to complete its investigation before judgments are made – on the other hand, there’s a smoking gun – Winston was involved in the establishment of the New Zealand First Foundation, which secretly channeled donated funds to the party, packaged into small amounts so they were under the statutory threshold but which cumulatively should have been declared. Media outlets have been careful to say that the donors didn’t break any laws, though in similar dodgy donation deals from the National Party, where the judicial process is further developed, both the facilitators of the undeclared donations and the donors, have been charged. So even while there’s still due process to run its course in the donations scandal, there are risks for Jacinda Ardern in being perceived as weak against Winston and New Zealand First, because the failure of Jacinda to stand up to Winston over the dodgy donations sits in a broader distasteful context.
Shane Jones practicing target shooting with automatic weapons of murder. Shane Jones and other New Zealand First contacts lobbying for forestry contracts while presiding as Minister of Forestry. These are some of the unethical and corrupt (?) practices we’ve become aware of. NZ First MP’s behaviour is often boorish, rude and offensive, bizarre, unhinged and/or unfathomable (Shane’s bursting into song at the Fifty Shades of Green rally, Winston playing Radio Gaga instead of answering media questions). While high profile politicians elsewhere around the world, such as Boris Johnson and Donald Trump display equally bizarre behaviour, the New Zealand First power to veto progressive policies from the Labour and Green parties, while banking policy gains to further their own political prospects means the regressive, retrograde and conservative policies of NZF dominate -overpower- the potential for public good, forward looking, structural reform for New Zealand more widely.
In the post-election Coalition negotiation arm wrestle/lolly scramble, New Zealand First secured their own policy gains such as the Provincial Growth Fund so they could play pork barrel politics up and down the country. But at the same time, they preserved the power to veto more progressive initiatives from Labour and the Greens. So who has the power? Winston Peters has the power – the country is being held to ransom by his conservative coalition minority party. New Zealand First is the tail wagging the dog and biting the dog, and everyone else too.
Because both National and NZ First are embroiled in election donation scandals, there’s some argument for reform of electoral funding. The crony capitalism that New Zealand First practices so well, with its electoral donations from sectoral interests and revolving door of MPs, lobbyists and advisors leading to policy vetoes and bias, should be reformed through full tax-payer funding of party political campaigns at election time, say some. Without full state funding, parties are dependent on donors – who will want favourable policies in return. Parties can’t be trusted to declare donations and will try to hide in whose interests they are voting. The solution, the argument goes, is to remove dependence on private sector funders and fund election campaigns with taxes. That might avoid the impression of vested interests buying votes, but it won’t stop politicians supporting policies where their own commercial, social, political or personal interests coincide with policy beneficiaries, against wider public and environmental good.
In the case of a New Zealand First veto of fisheries regulations to protect endangered species for example, even if they’re not receiving electoral donations from Talley’s (which Shane Jones has), his past, present or future interests in the fishing industry mean he’s likely to oppose necessary restrictions or controls. Similarly with forestry, and other sectors. I haven’t seen any evidence that NZF was receiving donations from forestry companies, but their own attempts to secure contracts for planting trees as part of the NZF initiated “Billion Trees” programme show what happens when self-interest coincides with potential commercial gain. Election donations to NZF from the horse racing industry or property developers, leading to tens of millions of dollars of subsidies, tax breaks, investments, and favourable policies, might be saved with full tax-payer funded election campaigns, but that doesn’t guarantee that personal rewards discontinue, or that the MPs suddenly become impartial, benevolent or public interested. An MP or party, by nature occupies a place on the political-economic spectrum and will continue to represent the interests therein, whether they receive direct, declarable donations or not. What we need is a higher calibre of politician, not just more robust funding mechanisms. Even with tax-payer funded elections, catering to special interest pleading and favours can be motivated by MP’s self-interest, future-oriented incentives, networks and other connections, and shared world view.
They say failure is an orphan, but success has many fathers. The political game NZ First plays shows they claim credit for policies successfully secured but they also master the self-promoting gloating social media meme every time they subvert a Labour or Green policy promise. This week the memes are about their veto of the proposed Green Party Electric Vehicle subsidy. Previously they proudly claimed credit for preventing the implementation of Capital Gains Tax (though Jacinda’s pledge to never support the tax in her time as leader was inexplicable). They’ve held up fisheries reform, conservation promises, welfare reform. NZ First claims credit for every policy they secure and every Coalition or support party policy they prevent.
As we get nearer to the election, the stakes get higher. NZ First are already quick to make policy promises, to court conservative policy audiences (for example agriculture), to distinguish their policy agenda from Labour or the Greens. The gloves are off. In this trienium, NZ First have been both the giver of supreme power to Jacinda Ardern and the Labour Party, but also the brake on that power. Gains have been secured for NZ First donors, and Labour/Green aspirations have been humiliated and thwarted.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
According to current polling, NZ First may not secure enough votes to return to power. NZ First aren’t to be trusted. We can’t afford to have power in New Zealand First’s hands (or National’s either). A Labour/Green Government willing to go further, faster with reform without the constraints of NZ First are essential if we are to address the problems of the modern age. We’d be so much better off without their crony capitalism, though dealing with the greed of capitalists would still be a challenge to face if we really want transformation toward greater equality that citizens deserve.