thedailyblog--2020-06-09--Dr Liz Gordon – Now let’s eliminate racism (and other isms too, why not?)

So we ’ ve eliminated the Covid .
We have won the battle , although not , it must be said , the war .
With around 120,000 new cases per day worldwide , cases beginning to increase again in the USA ( Make America Viral Again ) , Brazil ’ s Bolsonaro now issuing edicts that daily numbers will not be released because they are so high ( such an indictment on his terrible leadership ) and big rises in India and other countries , the danger is not diminishing at all in the world .
The enemy is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all the government ’ s actions .
Now we have , temporarily or permanently , sent the Covid packing , we now need to look at that other , much older virus , that lives permanently in the human psyche and causes endless damage .
That is the virus of dominance , with its side effects of a sense of superiority over ‘ others ’ ( whichever other it is ) , bullying , the use of force to uphold one ’ s position and the codification of racial and sexual domination through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Despite all humans now alive on earth deriving from the mitochondrial DNA of one woman , who lived around 200,000 years ago in Africa , we are not all treated equally .
Successive waves of colonialism and capitalism have divided us by wealth , region , power , status and position .
The niceties of difference are familial , local , regional , national and international .
Each one of us is constrained into roles created for us .
We are taught rules as children which pass down prejudices from one generation to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other oppressions are not ‘ out there ’ but happen every day and act to keep people in their ( lowly ) places .
For my generation , the baby boomers , much of our lives has involved unlearning the lessons of our youth .
When I was growing up , colonialism was presented to me as an almost unmitigated good , with a few unfortunate episodes therein .
We , the British Empire , had taken on and civilised the world !
We were the cleverest , best , most transformative society @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never set on us !
Go us !
During my education at a so-called good school in the UK , no attention was paid at all to the colonised .
History , we were told , was for the victors .
If you wanted to wallow with the natives , go and study social anthropology ( snigger ) .
This brutalist interpretation of the past itself reflected and perpetrated the distorted ideologies of colonialism , entrenching the values into all the colonised societies .
At its extreme there was denial that whole peoples @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Australia , deemed uninhabited ) , that treaties had legal status ( the Wi Parata case in 1877 , NZ ) and that indigenous owners had rights to their own lands ( innumerable ) .
And don ’ t even get me started on the role of the church in producing a properly domesticated population for the colonisers .
It is hopeful that in the teaching of NZ history in schools , the truth about colonialism here will be told .
The uprisings over George Floyd may be the start ( resumption @ @ @ @ @ @ @ internationally against the post-colonial world and its gross inequalities of all kinds .
The socially , economically , sexually and racially oppressed must stand together throughout the world and deny the oppressor ’ s ideology .
This will need to happen a bit at a time .
The role of police forces is a fine topic here in Aotearoa , with Māori more likely to be arrested , charged , convicted and imprisoned compared to pakeha in the same situation .
We are not strangers to police brutality , racially or sexually .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Minnesota to George could never happen here ?
We do not .
We know it could .
Another topic already in play is the vexed issue of pay equity .
Why do we pay all our women less than and our Māori and Pasifika women even less again ?
It goes back simply to the under-valuing of women and others .
This must be changed .
By changing minds if possible , but also by legislation that clearly outlaws the discriminations from which our businesses profit .
Let ’ s get organised then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change .
It is not far away .
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 .

So we’ve eliminated the Covid. We have won the battle, although not, it must be said, the war. With around 120,000 new cases per day worldwide, cases beginning to increase again in the USA (Make America Viral Again), Brazil’s Bolsonaro now issuing edicts that daily numbers will not be released because they are so high (such an indictment on his terrible leadership) and big rises in India and other countries, the danger is not diminishing at all in the world. The enemy is at the gates. I fully support all the government’s actions.
Now we have, temporarily or permanently, sent the Covid packing, we now need to look at that other, much older virus, that lives permanently in the human psyche and causes endless damage. That is the virus of dominance, with its side effects of a sense of superiority over ‘others’ (whichever other it is), bullying, the use of force to uphold one’s position and the codification of racial and sexual domination through theory and practice over extended periods.
Despite all humans now alive on earth deriving from the mitochondrial DNA of one woman, who lived around 200,000 years ago in Africa, we are not all treated equally. Successive waves of colonialism and capitalism have divided us by wealth, region, power, status and position. The niceties of difference are familial, local, regional, national and international. Each one of us is constrained into roles created for us. We are taught rules as children which pass down prejudices from one generation to another. The sexisms, racisms and other oppressions are not ‘out there’ but happen every day and act to keep people in their (lowly) places.
For my generation, the baby boomers, much of our lives has involved unlearning the lessons of our youth. When I was growing up, colonialism was presented to me as an almost unmitigated good, with a few unfortunate episodes therein. We, the British Empire, had taken on and civilised the world! We were the cleverest, best, most transformative society there had ever been! The sun never set on us! Go us!
During my education at a so-called good school in the UK, no attention was paid at all to the colonised. History, we were told, was for the victors. If you wanted to wallow with the natives, go and study social anthropology (snigger). This brutalist interpretation of the past itself reflected and perpetrated the distorted ideologies of colonialism, entrenching the values into all the colonised societies.
At its extreme there was denial that whole peoples existed (the ‘terra nullus’ of Australia, deemed uninhabited), that treaties had legal status (the Wi Parata case in 1877, NZ) and that indigenous owners had rights to their own lands (innumerable). And don’t even get me started on the role of the church in producing a properly domesticated population for the colonisers.
It is hopeful that in the teaching of NZ history in schools, the truth about colonialism here will be told. The uprisings over George Floyd may be the start (resumption, perhaps, or new battle) internationally against the post-colonial world and its gross inequalities of all kinds. The socially, economically, sexually and racially oppressed must stand together throughout the world and deny the oppressor’s ideology.
This will need to happen a bit at a time. The role of police forces is a fine topic here in Aotearoa, with Māori more likely to be arrested, charged, convicted and imprisoned compared to pakeha in the same situation. We are not strangers to police brutality, racially or sexually. Do we think that what happened in Minnesota to George could never happen here? We do not. We know it could.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
Another topic already in play is the vexed issue of pay equity. Why do we pay all our women less than and our Māori and Pasifika women even less again? It goes back simply to the under-valuing of women and others. This must be changed. By changing minds if possible, but also by legislation that clearly outlaws the discriminations from which our businesses profit.
Let’s get organised then, for the next generational fight for change. It is not far away.
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--2020-06-10--Taking Back Our Eyes

Taking Back Our Eyes

WHY IS AUSTRALIA so keen to bring the finance ministers of the “ Five Eyes ” together ?
Since when did the intelligence gathering and sharing arrangement launched nearly 70 years ago as the UK-USA Agreement start morphing into an economic and military alliance ?
More importantly , how long has Canberra been anticipating New Zealand ’ s participation in this transformation ?
Clearly , the promoters of what is looking more and more like ANZUS 2.0 are not particularly worried that such a policy would jeopardise our relationship with China .
Indeed , alienating China from New Zealand may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the whole exercise .
Canberra clearly believes that if Beijing is ready to impose a heavy economic cost on Australia for its unwavering allegiance to the United States , then Wellington , too , should be prepared to endure the lash of Chinese displeasure .
And make no mistake , Canberra is paying a price .
Its food exports to China are being impeded and the Chinese Government is warning its citizens to avoid visiting Australia on account of its deep-seated racial antagonism towards Asian peoples .
This warning will damage not only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thanks to Covid-19 ) but it will also choke off the multi-billion-dollar flow of Chinese fee-paying students to Australia ’ s schools and universities .
These are merely the preliminaries , however , should Australia persist in its determination to be the best deputy-sheriff Uncle Sam has ever had .
New Zealanders often express concern at their own country ’ s growing economic dependence on the Chinese market .
Our economic vulnerability pales , however , when set alongside the Australian mining industry ’ s reliance on China ’ s apparently insatiable appetite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exports .
A full-scale boycott of Australian coal , copper , bauxite and iron-ore would plunge the Australian economy into an even deeper recession .
What reward is Canberra hoping to receive in return for jeopardising its economic future ?
Why is it so keen to take up such an exposed position in the “ New Cold War ” which is fast intensifying between the Peoples Republic and the so-called “ Quad States ” – the USA , Japan , Australia and India ?
Has the rise and rise of China awakened all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Yellow Peril ” ?
The existential fears which fuelled the frankly racist “ White Australia Policy ” which lasted from federation in 1901 until well into the 1970s .
And if that is the driving force behind Canberra ’ s reckless willingness to put at risk Australia ’ s own vital economic interests , then how does it expect the USA to make good the loss of its Chinese buyers ?
The crucial feature of a declining power is its diminishing capacity to offer a credible quid pro quo for its friends @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was New Zealand ( a nation of barely one million in 1914 ) prepared to sacrifice upwards of 12,000 of its young sons for the greater glory of the British Empire in World War I ?
The cynical answer : because the primary produce importers on London ’ s Tooley Street were willing to take everything Britain ’ s South Seas “ farm ” could send them .
Not to put too fine a point upon it , we traded blood for butter .
A Devil ’ s bargain , no doubt , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ labouring under the illusion that the USA will absorb all its vital mineral exports should China decline to receive them ?
Does the Australian Government really believe that America ’ s own mining industry is just going to sit back and let Australian imports flood their markets and drive down their prices ?
The United States is a mature , almost post-industrial , capitalist economy .
It passed through the phase through which China is currently passing more than a century ago .
Australia ’ s much-vaunted “ luck ” stems from it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supply the needs of a rapidly industrialising Asia .
Overwhelmingly , for the last 40 years , that has meant China .
What has Washington told Canberra about the region ’ s geopolitical future that has made Australian politicians so willing to court the ire of Beijing .
What does Scotty Morrison know that we don ’ t ?
The name of the “ Quad ’ s ” new geopolitical initiative , the “ Indo-Pacific Strategy ” , offers a pretty big clue .
Simply recall that , until very recently , all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their allies was about their “ Asia-Pacific Strategy ” .
The shift in focus , from East to South Asia , from China to India , points to the overall direction of travel of Anglo-Capitalism in the twenty-first century .
With China stubbornly refusing to follow the same path as the Soviet Union ; with Tibet , Xinjiang , Hong Kong and Taiwan significantly failing to replicate the fates of Ukraine , Georgia , the “ stans ” and the Baltic states ; with Beijing forging ahead to reclaim its historical primacy in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arrived for the Five Eyes powers to sink their talons into yet another vast population of peasants .
For India , what came around in the seventeenth century is about to come around again .
The politics required for the Five Eyes powers to pull this off isn ’ t pretty .
Remember the BRIC countries ?
( Brazil , Russia , India and China ) Remember the Anglo-capitalists ’ alarm at the emergence of a bloc determined to step out of the shadow of its individual members ’ tragic histories ?
Where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – like the USA and the UK – are ( mis ) ruled by far-right populists hellbent on leading their people back into the steely embrace of the imperialists .
The survivors , China and Russia , are now – according to the Five Eyes powers – Public Enemies 1 and 2 .
And so , at last , we can answer the question of why the Australians are so determined to ensure that every last one of the Five Eyes are on the same economic ( i.e .
ideological ) page .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ one ( and , yes , they ’ re looking at you Jacinda and Grant ) breaks ranks by declining to see China as an enemy .
How vital it is that no member state draw attention to the fact that the planet can not possibly sustain the massive carbon investment required to turn India into another China .
It was the “ Asia-Pacific Strategy ” that fouled the lungs of Planet Earth .
The “ Indo-Pacific Strategy ” threatens to bring on a fever that will stop her heart .
We should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ London that we are taking back our eyes – the better to find and follow an independent foreign policy path .
If remaining in the Anglo-Saxon alliance means embracing a far-right version of populism already indistinguishable from incipient fascism ; if it requires New Zealand to join its “ allies ” in repeating all the horrors of Anglo-Capitalism ’ s imperial past ; then we must have nothing to do with it .

WHY IS AUSTRALIA so keen to bring the finance ministers of the “Five Eyes” together? Since when did the intelligence gathering and sharing arrangement launched nearly 70 years ago as the UK-USA Agreement start morphing into an economic and military alliance? More importantly, how long has Canberra been anticipating New Zealand’s participation in this transformation? Clearly, the promoters of what is looking more and more like ANZUS 2.0 are not particularly worried that such a policy would jeopardise our relationship with China. Indeed, alienating China from New Zealand may be one of the key objectives of the whole exercise.
Canberra clearly believes that if Beijing is ready to impose a heavy economic cost on Australia for its unwavering allegiance to the United States, then Wellington, too, should be prepared to endure the lash of Chinese displeasure. And make no mistake, Canberra is paying a price. Its food exports to China are being impeded and the Chinese Government is warning its citizens to avoid visiting Australia on account of its deep-seated racial antagonism towards Asian peoples. This warning will damage not only the Australian tourist industry (already stricken thanks to Covid-19) but it will also choke off the multi-billion-dollar flow of Chinese fee-paying students to Australia’s schools and universities.
These are merely the preliminaries, however, should Australia persist in its determination to be the best deputy-sheriff Uncle Sam has ever had. New Zealanders often express concern at their own country’s growing economic dependence on the Chinese market. Our economic vulnerability pales, however, when set alongside the Australian mining industry’s reliance on China’s apparently insatiable appetite for the Lucky Country’s mineral exports. A full-scale boycott of Australian coal, copper, bauxite and iron-ore would plunge the Australian economy into an even deeper recession.
What reward is Canberra hoping to receive in return for jeopardising its economic future? Why is it so keen to take up such an exposed position in the “New Cold War” which is fast intensifying between the Peoples Republic and the so-called “Quad States” – the USA, Japan, Australia and India? Has the rise and rise of China awakened all the old atavistic Australian fears of the “Yellow Peril”? The existential fears which fuelled the frankly racist “White Australia Policy” which lasted from federation in 1901 until well into the 1970s. And if that is the driving force behind Canberra’s reckless willingness to put at risk Australia’s own vital economic interests, then how does it expect the USA to make good the loss of its Chinese buyers?
The crucial feature of a declining power is its diminishing capacity to offer a credible quid pro quo for its friends’ and allies’ loyalty.
Why was New Zealand (a nation of barely one million in 1914) prepared to sacrifice upwards of 12,000 of its young sons for the greater glory of the British Empire in World War I? The cynical answer: because the primary produce importers on London’s Tooley Street were willing to take everything Britain’s South Seas “farm” could send them. Not to put too fine a point upon it, we traded blood for butter. A Devil’s bargain, no doubt, but a profitable one!
Is Canberra labouring under the illusion that the USA will absorb all its vital mineral exports should China decline to receive them? Does the Australian Government really believe that America’s own mining industry is just going to sit back and let Australian imports flood their markets and drive down their prices? The United States is a mature, almost post-industrial, capitalist economy. It passed through the phase through which China is currently passing more than a century ago. Australia’s much-vaunted “luck” stems from it being handsomely endowed and strategically located to supply the needs of a rapidly industrialising Asia. Overwhelmingly, for the last 40 years, that has meant China. What has Washington told Canberra about the region’s geopolitical future that has made Australian politicians so willing to court the ire of Beijing. What does Scotty Morrison know that we don’t?
The name of the “Quad’s” new geopolitical initiative, the “Indo-Pacific Strategy”, offers a pretty big clue. Simply recall that, until very recently, all the talk among the Five Eyes and their allies was about their “Asia-Pacific Strategy”. The shift in focus, from East to South Asia, from China to India, points to the overall direction of travel of Anglo-Capitalism in the twenty-first century. With China stubbornly refusing to follow the same path as the Soviet Union; with Tibet, Xinjiang, Hong Kong and Taiwan significantly failing to replicate the fates of Ukraine, Georgia, the “stans” and the Baltic states; with Beijing forging ahead to reclaim its historical primacy in the region; the time has apparently arrived for the Five Eyes powers to sink their talons into yet another vast population of peasants. For India, what came around in the seventeenth century is about to come around again.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
The politics required for the Five Eyes powers to pull this off isn’t pretty.
Remember the BRIC countries? (Brazil, Russia, India and China) Remember the Anglo-capitalists’ alarm at the emergence of a bloc determined to step out of the shadow of its individual members’ tragic histories? Where are they now? Brazil and India – like the USA and the UK – are (mis)ruled by far-right populists hellbent on leading their people back into the steely embrace of the imperialists. The survivors, China and Russia, are now – according to the Five Eyes powers – Public Enemies 1 and 2.
And so, at last, we can answer the question of why the Australians are so determined to ensure that every last one of the Five Eyes are on the same economic (i.e. ideological) page. Why it is so important that no one (and, yes, they’re looking at you Jacinda and Grant) breaks ranks by declining to see China as an enemy. How vital it is that no member state draw attention to the fact that the planet cannot possibly sustain the massive carbon investment required to turn India into another China.
It was the “Asia-Pacific Strategy” that fouled the lungs of Planet Earth. The “Indo-Pacific Strategy” threatens to bring on a fever that will stop her heart.
We should inform Canberra, Washington, Ottawa and London that we are taking back our eyes – the better to find and follow an independent foreign policy path. If remaining in the Anglo-Saxon alliance means embracing a far-right version of populism already indistinguishable from incipient fascism; if it requires New Zealand to join its “allies” in repeating all the horrors of Anglo-Capitalism’s imperial past; then we must have nothing to do with it.


thedailyblog--2020-06-11--Absent Friends – Labour knows what needs to be done to win, but not how to make it happen

WINNING IN SEPTEMBER should be a doddle for Labour .
The successful campaign strategy virtually writes itself .
Draw together a comprehensive plan for economic recovery post-Covid .
Indicate the Government ’ s general direction of travel by announcing creative solutions to the problems which will , inevitably , arise over the next 100 days .
Maintain a “ relentlessly positive ” approach by insisting , in the spirit of 2017 , “ We can do this !
” Unfortunately , the biggest problem confronting Labour isn ’ t recognising what needs to be done ; it ’ s working @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For the best part of 30 years , Labour ’ s caucus hasn ’ t needed to draw together a comprehensive economic plan .
In 1984 , the plan that came to be known as “ Rogernomics ” was handed to them , ready-made , by Treasury .
Labour and National have dutifully followed Treasury ’ s plan ever since .
So rock-solid has the neoliberal consensus become in New Zealand that both of the major political parties have forgotten how to think in any other way .
When either one of them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they simply ask Treasury .
Prior to 1984 , in the years when both Labour and National were mass parties boasting hundreds-of-thousands of members , policy advice was largely sourced in-house .
What could not be obtained from members tended to be supplied by key interest groups .
National could rely on Federated Farmers , the Employers Association and the Chambers of Commerce .
Labour had the trade unions , schoolteachers and university staff , liberal churchmen , voluntary-sector workers , and elements of the Manufacturers Association .
The secret to successive National @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matter of stealing Labour ’ s policies , watering them down , and then introducing them as their own .
This complex process of producing economic and social policy even had a name : “ Pluralism ” .
Society was presented as a multitude of competing “ power centres ” which the pressure of regular electoral contests forced into the self-reinforcing negotiation of political compromises .
Viewed historically , pluralism was an indisputably progressive system .
It guaranteed that the interests of workers and their families were both protected and advanced , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ investors and employers could keep pace , and which afforded them the time required to adapt .
In this way “ evolution ” forestalled “ revolution ” .
Obviously , pluralism represented everything which the followers of what we now call neoliberalism detested .
In their estimation , the only “ power centres ” which merited the state ’ s protection were those which protected the rights and interests of the market .
Rogernomics thus set about the systematic dismantling of just about every competing centre of power in New Zealand society .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ system in which the formulation of economic and social policy became the preserve of private think tanks and a state apparatus re-configured to serve the interests of capital exclusively .
Their objective , largely achieved , was to leave all those seeking an alternative to neoliberalism with literally no viable means of either thinking it up , or making it happen .
You see the problem here ?
The Covid-19 Pandemic has exogenously generated ( i.e .
in the way the asteroid-Earth collision influenced the dinosaurs ! )
a critical need for new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Unfortunately , the only institutions capable of formulating such policies are intellectually incapable of thinking outside the neoliberal box .
The ideas of neoliberalism permeate not only the advice flowing into National ’ s caucus from the “ Right ” , but also the advice flowing into Labour ’ s caucus from the “ Left ” .
Neither the trade unions , nor the universities ; the churches nor the not-for-profit sector ; have anything to offer , policy-wise , that even remotely resembles a detailed and comprehensive alternative to the status-quo .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ probably the most heterodox policy package presented to a New Zealand government in the last 30 years : the report of the Welfare Expert Advisory Group .
What happened to this radical , sector-wide suite of reforms ?
It was almost completely ignored .
Carmel Sepuloni , the Social Development Minister , simply couldn ’ t summon-up the independence of mind required to over-rule her MSD advisers – for which her colleagues were no doubt profoundly grateful .
What on earth would they have done if she had !
Because it would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and a general reluctance to challenge official advice is behaviour peculiar to Carmel Sepuloni .
The same could be said of just about every minister in Jacinda Ardern ’ s cabinet – including Jacinda herself .
She and her senior colleagues cut their political teeth in an environment where the neoliberal foundations of social and economic policy were regarded as immovable .
Those who suggested otherwise , like Jim Anderton ’ s Alliance , and the Green Party under Rod Donald and Jeanette Fitzsimons , were treated like embarrassingly eccentric family members : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Certainly , anyone within Labour ’ s ranks foolish enough to suggest that neoliberalism might have had its day – like David Cunliffe – inspired only the rolling of eyes and grinding of teeth among their colleagues .
Like that asteroid , however , the Covid-19 crisis has brought on one or two changes .
As both the Prime Minister and her Finance Minister have made clear in recent weeks , the need for a comprehensive policy reset is now urgent .
Facing unemployment levels not seen since the darkest days of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Coalition Government is reaching back , through its own history , for the inspiration needed to confront the vast challenges ahead .
What they are discovering , however , is that Rogernomics ’ most pernicious legacy – at least in Labour – is the extraordinary damage it inflicted on the party ’ s intellectual and moral capacities .
Never has the left-wing faction of the party which departed with Jim Anderton in 1989 been needed so desperately .
Never has the absence of the alternative thinking it would have encouraged been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is as vital to the health and progress of parties as it is to the general welfare of societies .
I have this on the authority of no less an expert than Matt McCarten – who served as chief-of-staff to Jim Anderton , David Cunliffe and Andrew Little .
Ruminating recently upon the ideological monoculture Labour has become , he told me sadly : “ We should have stayed , Chris .
We should have stayed.
” History , however , seldom offers us second chances .
Notwithstanding Jacinda ’ s need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to find them within her current ranks .
Certainly , she will not discover them in the policy papers passed up by her neoliberal officials .
They won ’ t be found in the glossy submissions of right-wing think tanks and PR firms either .
The challenge confronting the Prime Minister and her colleagues , therefore , is to somehow muster the intellectual forces needed to move Labour ’ s admirably simple campaign strategy from the lofty realm of theory into the gritty world of practice .
Never was the old saying more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for every good person to come to the aid of the party.
” Especially those with democratic socialist ideas !

WINNING IN SEPTEMBER should be a doddle for Labour. The successful campaign strategy virtually writes itself. Draw together a comprehensive plan for economic recovery post-Covid. Indicate the Government’s general direction of travel by announcing creative solutions to the problems which will, inevitably, arise over the next 100 days. Maintain a “relentlessly positive” approach by insisting, in the spirit of 2017, “We can do this!”
Unfortunately, the biggest problem confronting Labour isn’t recognising what needs to be done; it’s working out how to make it happen.
For the best part of 30 years, Labour’s caucus hasn’t needed to draw together a comprehensive economic plan. In 1984, the plan that came to be known as “Rogernomics” was handed to them, ready-made, by Treasury. Labour and National have dutifully followed Treasury’s plan ever since. So rock-solid has the neoliberal consensus become in New Zealand that both of the major political parties have forgotten how to think in any other way. When either one of them wants to know what to think, they simply ask Treasury.
Prior to 1984, in the years when both Labour and National were mass parties boasting hundreds-of-thousands of members, policy advice was largely sourced in-house. What could not be obtained from members tended to be supplied by key interest groups. National could rely on Federated Farmers, the Employers Association and the Chambers of Commerce. Labour had the trade unions, schoolteachers and university staff, liberal churchmen, voluntary-sector workers, and elements of the Manufacturers Association. The secret to successive National Governments’ extraordinary longevity was simply a matter of stealing Labour’s policies, watering them down, and then introducing them as their own.
This complex process of producing economic and social policy even had a name: “Pluralism”. Society was presented as a multitude of competing “power centres” which the pressure of regular electoral contests forced into the self-reinforcing negotiation of political compromises. Viewed historically, pluralism was an indisputably progressive system. It guaranteed that the interests of workers and their families were both protected and advanced, but only at a speed with which capitalist investors and employers could keep pace, and which afforded them the time required to adapt. In this way “evolution” forestalled “revolution”.
Obviously, pluralism represented everything which the followers of what we now call neoliberalism detested. In their estimation, the only “power centres” which merited the state’s protection were those which protected the rights and interests of the market. Rogernomics thus set about the systematic dismantling of just about every competing centre of power in New Zealand society. Its straightforward purpose was to create a system in which the formulation of economic and social policy became the preserve of private think tanks and a state apparatus re-configured to serve the interests of capital exclusively. Their objective, largely achieved, was to leave all those seeking an alternative to neoliberalism with literally no viable means of either thinking it up, or making it happen.
You see the problem here? The Covid-19 Pandemic has exogenously generated (i.e. in the way the asteroid-Earth collision influenced the dinosaurs!) a critical need for new and imaginative economic and social policies. Unfortunately, the only institutions capable of formulating such policies are intellectually incapable of thinking outside the neoliberal box. The ideas of neoliberalism permeate not only the advice flowing into National’s caucus from the “Right”, but also the advice flowing into Labour’s caucus from the “Left”. Neither the trade unions, nor the universities; the churches nor the not-for-profit sector; have anything to offer, policy-wise, that even remotely resembles a detailed and comprehensive alternative to the status-quo.
Just consider the fate of what is probably the most heterodox policy package presented to a New Zealand government in the last 30 years: the report of the Welfare Expert Advisory Group. What happened to this radical, sector-wide suite of reforms? It was almost completely ignored. Carmel Sepuloni, the Social Development Minister, simply couldn’t summon-up the independence of mind required to over-rule her MSD advisers – for which her colleagues were no doubt profoundly grateful. What on earth would they have done if she had!
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
Because it would be a mistake to think that policy orthodoxy and a general reluctance to challenge official advice is behaviour peculiar to Carmel Sepuloni. The same could be said of just about every minister in Jacinda Ardern’s cabinet – including Jacinda herself.
She and her senior colleagues cut their political teeth in an environment where the neoliberal foundations of social and economic policy were regarded as immovable. Those who suggested otherwise, like Jim Anderton’s Alliance, and the Green Party under Rod Donald and Jeanette Fitzsimons, were treated like embarrassingly eccentric family members: people to be endured – not heeded. Certainly, anyone within Labour’s ranks foolish enough to suggest that neoliberalism might have had its day – like David Cunliffe – inspired only the rolling of eyes and grinding of teeth among their colleagues.
Like that asteroid, however, the Covid-19 crisis has brought on one or two changes. As both the Prime Minister and her Finance Minister have made clear in recent weeks, the need for a comprehensive policy reset is now urgent. Facing unemployment levels not seen since the darkest days of the Great Depression, the Labour component of the Coalition Government is reaching back, through its own history, for the inspiration needed to confront the vast challenges ahead.
What they are discovering, however, is that Rogernomics’ most pernicious legacy – at least in Labour – is the extraordinary damage it inflicted on the party’s intellectual and moral capacities. Never has the left-wing faction of the party which departed with Jim Anderton in 1989 been needed so desperately. Never has the absence of the alternative thinking it would have encouraged been more telling.
Pluralism, you see, is as vital to the health and progress of parties as it is to the general welfare of societies. I have this on the authority of no less an expert than Matt McCarten – who served as chief-of-staff to Jim Anderton, David Cunliffe and Andrew Little. Ruminating recently upon the ideological monoculture Labour has become, he told me sadly: “We should have stayed, Chris. We should have stayed.”
History, however, seldom offers us second chances. Notwithstanding Jacinda’s need for new ideas, she is unlikely to find them within her current ranks. Certainly, she will not discover them in the policy papers passed up by her neoliberal officials. They won’t be found in the glossy submissions of right-wing think tanks and PR firms either.
The challenge confronting the Prime Minister and her colleagues, therefore, is to somehow muster the intellectual forces needed to move Labour’s admirably simple campaign strategy from the lofty realm of theory into the gritty world of practice.
Never was the old saying more true: “Now is the time for every good person to come to the aid of the party.” Especially those with democratic socialist ideas!


thedailyblog--2020-06-11--Contracting out Foreign Affairs to New Zealand First is an embarrassing copout

While the world is speaking out in condemnation of Israeli plans to annex vast swathes of Palestinian land in the Occupied Palestinian Territories the New Zealand government ’ s silence is deafening .
To the best of our knowledge the current government has NEVER spoken out against the racist policies or brutality of Israel , even in 2018 when Israeli snipers were killing unarmed Palestinian protesters , many of them children , through the Israeli blockade fence around Gaza .
It seems the Prime Minister is happy to contract out foreign policy to New Zealand First and then wash her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Israel ’ s daily cruelty towards Palestinians continues unchallenged .
The previous National-led government had a much more principled policy and co-sponsored United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 which condemned Israel ’ s flagrant violations of international law .
New Zealand has moved from being part of the solution – pressure on Israel – to being part of the problem itself – international silence which means complicity with Israel ’ s criminal behaviour .
PSNA wrote to the Prime Minister again yesterday on this – that letter follows .
New Zealand government silence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New Zealanders Following the letter we sent to you on 26 May , to which we have not received a reply , events have begun to move quickly and there is mounting pressure on Israel from around the world to abandon its plans for the annexation of Palestinian land in the Occupied Palestinian Territories .
• • The Palestinian Authority has withdrawn from all co-operation agreements with Israel and says Israel alone is responsible , as the occupying power under international law , for the safety and security of Palestinians .
• Jordan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that with the proposed annexation Israel is on a course for “ massive conflict ” with his country .
• Similar warnings have come from the United Nations , the European Union , the Arab League , Canada , Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates • Jewish voices have also been raised against annexation with many prominent Jews in the United Kingdom saying annexation would “ inflame tensions locally and cause regional destabilisation ” • Jewish Voices for Peace in the US and Alternative Jewish Voices in New Zealand are two of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ annexation .
• In Israel itself a large march of Jewish and Palestinian citizens protested together in the centre of Tel Aviv last weekend with former US presidential candidate Bernie Sanders beaming in to say “ The plans to annex any parts of the West Bank must be stopped .
The occupation must be ended and we must work together for a future of equality and dignity for all people in Israel and Palestine .
The only future is a shared future , ” The New Zealand government ’ s public silence is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spoke out firmly and publicly against Israeli breaches of international law – for example through co-sponsoring United Nations Security Council resolution 2334 in December 2016 which said Israel ’ s settlement building on occupied Palestinian land constituted a “ flagrant violation ” of international law and had “ no legal validity ” .
It demanded Israel stop such activity and fulfil its obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention .
In contrast your government ’ s silence is deafening .
Your silence will be welcomed by the Israeli leadership as it prepares to thumb @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be condemned by those who seek peace based on justice in the Middle East .
Silence is not an option .
The time to speak out is now when pressure from New Zealand can have its greatest effect in concert with the international community .
Making a whimper of protest after the deed is done would be a tragedy for New Zealand ’ s integrity and international standing .
It would be a failure of moral leadership .

While the world is speaking out in condemnation of Israeli plans to annex vast swathes of Palestinian land in the Occupied Palestinian Territories the New Zealand government’s silence is deafening.
It’s embarrassing.
To the best of our knowledge the current government has NEVER spoken out against the racist policies or brutality of Israel, even in 2018 when Israeli snipers were killing unarmed Palestinian protesters, many of them children, through the Israeli blockade fence around Gaza.
It seems the Prime Minister is happy to contract out foreign policy to New Zealand First and then wash her hands while the murder and mayhem of Israel’s daily cruelty towards Palestinians continues unchallenged.
The previous National-led government had a much more principled policy and co-sponsored United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 which condemned Israel’s flagrant violations of international law.
New Zealand has moved from being part of the solution – pressure on Israel – to being part of the problem itself – international silence which means complicity with Israel’s criminal behaviour.
PSNA wrote to the Prime Minister again yesterday on this – that letter follows.
John Minto
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
National Chair PSNA
Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa
10 June 2020
Jacinda Ardern
Prime Minister
Parliament Buildings
Wellington
Kia ora Ms Ardern,
New Zealand government silence on annexation is an embarrassment to decent New Zealanders
Following the letter we sent to you on 26 May, to which we have not received a reply, events have begun to move quickly and there is mounting pressure on Israel from around the world to abandon its plans for the annexation of Palestinian land in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
The Palestinian Authority has withdrawn from all co-operation agreements with Israel and says Israel alone is responsible, as the occupying power under international law, for the safety and security of Palestinians. Jordan’s King Abdullah II has said that with the proposed annexation Israel is on a course for “massive conflict” with his country. Similar warnings have come from the United Nations, the European Union, the Arab League, Canada, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates Jewish voices have also been raised against annexation with many prominent Jews in the United Kingdom saying annexation would “inflame tensions locally and cause regional destabilisation” Jewish Voices for Peace in the US and Alternative Jewish Voices in New Zealand are two of many other Jewish groups speaking out against annexation. In Israel itself a large march of Jewish and Palestinian citizens protested together in the centre of Tel Aviv last weekend with former US presidential candidate Bernie Sanders beaming in to say “The plans to annex any parts of the West Bank must be stopped. The occupation must be ended and we must work together for a future of equality and dignity for all people in Israel and Palestine. The only future is a shared future,”
The New Zealand government’s public silence is an embarrassment.
The previous National-led government spoke out firmly and publicly against Israeli breaches of international law – for example through co-sponsoring United Nations Security Council resolution 2334 in December 2016 which said Israel’s settlement building on occupied Palestinian land constituted a “flagrant violation” of international law and had “no legal validity”. It demanded Israel stop such activity and fulfil its obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention.
In contrast your government’s silence is deafening.
Your silence will be welcomed by the Israeli leadership as it prepares to thumb its nose at international law but will be condemned by those who seek peace based on justice in the Middle East.
Silence is not an option. The time to speak out is now when pressure from New Zealand can have its greatest effect in concert with the international community. Making a whimper of protest after the deed is done would be a tragedy for New Zealand’s integrity and international standing. It would be a failure of moral leadership.
Please respond urgently.
Nā,
John Minto
National Chair
Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa


thedailyblog--2020-06-11--On The Seattle Commune

On The Seattle Commune

So for the past day or so , I ’ ve been watching developments in the Seattle “ Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone ” .
It ’ s kinda amazing .
Basically , after the Seattle police pulled out [ apparently abandoning a station in the process ] , Anarchists and Anarcho-Communists pulled *in* , and set up some sort of commune in the vicinity – and then started quasi-fortifying it with barricades and attempts at recruiting a militia .
I predicted at the time that it was probably going to play out rather like the abortive uprising/commune from Les Miserables @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perhaps somewhat optimistic .
As with many putative revolutionary efforts … the leadership proved somewhat unstable .
By which I mean , the tenure of one of the lead organizers running the show lasted approximately six hours – ending when they were repeatedly accused of domestic violence by former partner ( s ) via twitter … followed by said organizer announcing their intent to vacate the office ( and planet ) in an act of not-exactly-revolutionary suicide .
[ although as far as I am aware , they did not viably undertake this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off twitter – which is good , because the stated justification of their feeling unable to improve from being an abuser is .. pretty pessimistic ] Said tenure may have been brief , but it could not be termed boring – with a perhaps unexpected announcement about how “ the homeles [ sic ] [ … ] took away all the food ” , and therefore required urgent donations of soy-based sustenance [ I ’ m not kidding , that ’ s literally what they were after ] “ anything to help us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ note that they ’ d only had ‘ communism ’ for two days and were *already* starving .
Although all of that drama can not *hope* to hold a candle to this morning ’ s intriguing development … the emergence of a local AirBNB landlord/rapper and associates , who promptly declared themselves to be the new “ police ” , and started implementing policies of ‘ stop-and-frisk ’ , and gratuitous beat-downs for potentially minor offending .
It ’ s not quite the Committee of Public Safety … but the “ People ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be an interesting demonstration of the implicit principle around revolutions eating their own dreams for the second course .
Particularly as it appears that the man variously ( if somewhat sensationally-exotically ) referred to as “ The Warlord of CHAZ ” , or by his first name – Raz .. appears to have been a vocal initial advocate and proponent of the ‘ revolutionary ’ ‘ secession ’ of the Autonomous Zone in the first place .
Sadly , however , all good things must come to an end … and as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have announced their intent to move in and reclaim the commune formerly known as CHAZ .
In theory you *could* suggest ( in keeping with the spirit of these weeks ) that they felt moved to act due to a black man and assorted associated militia now running things , rather than a ‘ mostly harmless ’ group of anarcho-larpers – although I think it may have a little more to do , in practice , with the reports that the “ People ’ s Force ” of Raz of CHAZ , had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other locals and their businesses , as well as , you know , assaulting people in the street for looking suspicious or filming them .
Which means that , I suppose , you could *also* allege ( in keeping with the spirit of these times ) that the underlying reason for the sudden Seattle PD interest in retaking the CHAZ – is because they absolutely *hate* having competition in these spheres .
The police , after all , are a tangible expression of the concept of a state enjoying a theoretically exclusive monopoly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a rather curious thing to watch various persons on twitter suddenly come to grips with the notion that a localized abolishment of police may well create a vacuum into which steps something that ’ s like the police but actually somehow *worse* and less accountable to its subjects .
Although I must confess – I wasn ’ t expecting the development and the collapse of this entire thing to take place so rapidly , nor so … bathotically , over a few days in mid-June 2020 .
With deference to some of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ revolutionary uprisings of the past 200 years or so , it really does put one in the mind of that excellent aphorism of Marx – “ Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear , so to speak , twice .
He forgot to add : the first time as tragedy , the second time as farce.
” We could , perhaps , term this the 20th Brouhaha of L ’ Raz d ’ Washington .

So for the past day or so, I’ve been watching developments in the Seattle “Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone”. It’s kinda amazing.
Basically, after the Seattle police pulled out [apparently abandoning a station in the process], Anarchists and Anarcho-Communists pulled *in*, and set up some sort of commune in the vicinity – and then started quasi-fortifying it with barricades and attempts at recruiting a militia.
I predicted at the time that it was probably going to play out rather like the abortive uprising/commune from Les Miserables … but it appears that this was perhaps somewhat optimistic.
As with many putative revolutionary efforts … the leadership proved somewhat unstable. By which I mean, the tenure of one of the lead organizers running the show lasted approximately six hours – ending when they were repeatedly accused of domestic violence by former partner(s) via twitter … followed by said organizer announcing their intent to vacate the office (and planet) in an act of not-exactly-revolutionary suicide. [although as far as I am aware, they did not viably undertake this, and are still alive – if off twitter – which is good, because the stated justification of their feeling unable to improve from being an abuser is .. pretty pessimistic]
Said tenure may have been brief, but it could not be termed boring – with a perhaps unexpected announcement about how “the homeles [sic] […] took away all the food”, and therefore required urgent donations of soy-based sustenance [I’m not kidding, that’s literally what they were after] “anything to help us eat” … prompting one associate to note that they’d only had ‘communism’ for two days and were *already* starving.
Although all of that drama cannot *hope* to hold a candle to this morning’s intriguing development … the emergence of a local AirBNB landlord/rapper and associates, who promptly declared themselves to be the new “police”, and started implementing policies of ‘stop-and-frisk’, and gratuitous beat-downs for potentially minor offending. It’s not quite the Committee of Public Safety … but the “People’s Force” is certainly turning out to be an interesting demonstration of the implicit principle around revolutions eating their own dreams for the second course.
Particularly as it appears that the man variously (if somewhat sensationally-exotically) referred to as “The Warlord of CHAZ”, or by his first name – Raz .. appears to have been a vocal initial advocate and proponent of the ‘revolutionary’ ‘secession’ of the Autonomous Zone in the first place.
Sadly, however, all good things must come to an end … and as of this afternoon, the Seattle PD have announced their intent to move in and reclaim the commune formerly known as CHAZ.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
In theory you *could* suggest (in keeping with the spirit of these weeks) that they felt moved to act due to a black man and assorted associated militia now running things, rather than a ‘mostly harmless’ group of anarcho-larpers – although I think it may have a little more to do, in practice, with the reports that the “People’s Force” of Raz of CHAZ, had started going around demanding protection money from other locals and their businesses, as well as, you know, assaulting people in the street for looking suspicious or filming them.
Which means that, I suppose, you could *also* allege (in keeping with the spirit of these times) that the underlying reason for the sudden Seattle PD interest in retaking the CHAZ – is because they absolutely *hate* having competition in these spheres. The police, after all, are a tangible expression of the concept of a state enjoying a theoretically exclusive monopoly on violence.
It certainly has been a rather curious thing to watch various persons on twitter suddenly come to grips with the notion that a localized abolishment of police may well create a vacuum into which steps something that’s like the police but actually somehow *worse* and less accountable to its subjects.
Although I must confess – I wasn’t expecting the development and the collapse of this entire thing to take place so rapidly, nor so … bathotically, over a few days in mid-June 2020.
With deference to some of the rather more … impressive communes and failed revolutionary uprisings of the past 200 years or so, it really does put one in the mind of that excellent aphorism of Marx –
“Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.”
We could, perhaps, term this the 20th Brouhaha of L’Raz d’Washington.


thedailyblog--2020-06-13--Israel’s knee-on-neck Occupation of Palestine

From 26 May to 9 June , inclusive , Israel committed 41 Gaza ceasefire violations , 14 of which comprised Israeli Navy attacks on Palestinian fishing boats .
One person in Gaza died of wounds inflicted in 2018 in a March of Return protest .
Over the period , Israeli forces conducted as well as Constant , daily , Israeli Occupation destruction of homes and businesses , agricultural sabotage , raids and oppressive population control continued to be inflicted far too many to recount here .
Just one violation from each day must suffice : Jerusalem – the Israeli Occupation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ destroy his home in Silwan – or be forced to pay an extortionate sum to the Israeli Occupation demolition squads , who would otherwise be sent in to do it .
Hebron – dawn , Israeli Occupation forces ordered a halt to the dawn Call to Prayer at the Al-Ibrahimi Mosque , interfering with the number of people being allowed in , and even forcing out other worshippers who had gathered to pray in the outer courtyards .
Jerusalem – Israeli police officers , in the Old City of Jerusalem , shot dead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they claimed to believe , had been carrying a weapon .
The murdered man , 32-year-old Iyad el-Hallak , was shot while making his way to an Old City special-needs school , at which he attended .
Israeli police had ordered him to stop and , because he hadn ’ t obeyed them , shot him ten times , leaving him on the street , bleeding to death .
Later , the Israeli police transferred Iyad ’ s body to the Abu Kabir Forensic Institute where , as admitted by pathologists in 2009 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and others , without the consent of their families .
Israel claims they ended the practise in the 1990s .
The reason for Iyad ’ s transfer was not made clear .
The police also raided Iyad el-Hallak ’ s home in the Wadi Joz neighbourhood , where they interrogated his family who , in no uncertain terms , informed them that Iyad would never have been armed and that “ he wasn ’ t capable of harming anyone ” .
Jerusalem – the Israeli Occupation forced two people , Ahmed Mohammed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Imad , to destroy their home – or otherwise be forced to pay an extortionate sum to the Israeli Occupation and still lose their home .
Ramallah – Israeli forces , near Kafr Malik village , firing rubber-coated steel bullets , stun grenades and tear gas canisters , wounded 15-year-old villager , Rasem Soliman Ghanimat Arrat , and then abducted him .
Gaza – the Israeli Army , accompanied by reconnaissance aircraft , made an incursion east of the al-Shuja ’ iya neighbourhood , bulldozing and laying waste to land .
Nablus – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tear gas canisters at people trying to defend their land , when settlers from the Givat Runin settlement outpost entered the outskirts of Burin village and attacked the house of Maher Salah al-Najjar .
The settlers also set fire to farmland near the house .
Jericho – Israeli forces destroyed five homes and two livestock shelters in the Bedouin community of Deir Hajlat .
Hebron – Israeli Occupation forces destroyed a house in Beit Ummar that the owner , Ali Muhammad Al-Alami , had built to replace one on the same site that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the year before .
Jerusalem – Israeli forces uprooted a number of fruit trees and destroyed a shed , in the Jabal al-Mukabir neighbourhood .
Nablus – the Israeli Army , firing rubber-coated steel bullets , stun grenades and tear gas canisters , invaded the village of Asira , in support of Occupation settlers raiding local farmland .
Jerusalem – evening , an Israeli Occupation settler in the Old City , violently assaulted and hospitalised a 9-year-old girl , Maryam Yasser Nageib , as she played outside her home .
Israeli Army destroyed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and eight children .
Dozens of soldiers , police and City Council personnel of the Jerusalem district of Ras al-Amoud surrounded the home of the Hijazi family after isolating both it and the entire area .
The soldiers then forced out the family .
The UK , New Zealand ’ s Five Eyes partner , while a practising supporter of normal relations , including arms trading with Israel is forced , nevertheless , by the presence of so much evidence to admit that Israel routinely commits war crimes .
The UK ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ responses to questions are revealing : “ settlements are illegal under international law ” , “ We condemn any incidence of violence by settlers against Palestinians ” .
The FO could not deny the murder of a Palestinian man by Israeli forces – it simply noted that “ this was a criminal matter which would be a matter for the Israeli Government.
” On the shooting dead of an unarmed 15-year-old by Israeli forces , the FO response was : “ We continue to stress the importance of the Israeli security forces providing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in particular the need to protect children , and urge restraint in the use of live fire.
” Note that what the so-called ‘ Israeli security forces ’ are enforcing is a foreign military dictatorship over Palestinian lives .
No Western political leader has ever acknowledged the right to security for Palestinians .
Israel imposes what it calls ‘ closed firing zones for military training ‘ , in order to displace Palestinians and cut them off from their pastoral land .
When asked about this , the FO replied : “ we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of military firing zones in the Occupied Palestinian Territories , as well as the continued demolition of Palestinian property by Israeli authorities and evictions of Palestinians from their homes ” .
When the Israeli Occupation Military Order 1797 was raised at Question Time in the UK Parliament , the FO responded : “ Officials from our Embassy in Tel Aviv have repeatedly raised our concerns about the increase in demolitions of Palestinian properties in Area C of the West Bank and in East Jerusalem.
” Asked about the Israeli Army ’ s blockading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said : “ We remain concerned about restrictions on freedom of movement within the West Bank , including to and from East Jerusalem , and between Gaza and the West Bank.
” Asked about the damage done by Israeli forces to mobile Palestinian latrines , the UK ’ s Foreign Ministry not only did not deny the Israeli crime but also expressed concern over the “ continued demolition of Palestinian property by Israeli authorities ” which , it admitted was , as it put it , “ in all but the most exceptional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ International Humanitarian Law.
” The FO Parliamentary answer went on to acknowledge Israel ’ s plunder of Palestinian water , saying “ we have also previously stressed the need to take immediate and practical measures to ensure fair distribution of water in the West Bank.
” When asked what representations the UK Government had made to the Government of Israel about reports of the destruction of livestock pens and waterlines belonging to the al-Ras al-Ahmar and al-Baq ’ a Bedouin communities in the Northern Jordan Valley , the FO replied : “ While @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reports , we urge both sides to avoid taking actions which make peace more difficult to achieve .
In all but the most exceptional of circumstances demolitions are contrary to International Humanitarian Law .
The practice causes unnecessary suffering to ordinary Palestinians and is harmful to the peace process.
” Asked about the proposed Israeli annexation of the West Bank in Palestine , the reply was : “ The UK position is clear : any unilateral moves towards annexation of parts of the West Bank by Israel would be damaging to efforts to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law.
” When pressed , the British Government can not deny Israel ’ s systemic violations of international humanitarian law , and yet it continues to cover for Israel .
Its unjustifiable attempts to undermine the BDS movement have failed in British courts .
Last year , it announced the intention to ban local councils from boycotting products from Israel , declaring that “ Locally imposed boycotts can roll back integration as well as hinder Britain ’ s export trade and harm international relationship.
” The UK ’ s declaration of war against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to account is morally and legally untenable .
It reveal , furthermore , the deep-seated influence that the Zionist lobby holds in the highest levels of Western governments , particularly in the US and the UK .
Is this influence the reason for the New Zealand Government ’ s silence since Security Council Resolution 2334 ?
In a news media release , John Minto , National Chair of the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa ( PSNA ) , commenting on our Government ’ s silence regarding the Israeli-US proposed annexations , wrote : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to contract out foreign policy to New Zealand First and then wash her hands while the murder and mayhem of Israel ’ s daily cruelty towards Palestinians continues unchallenged.
” He also made the point that international silence “ means complicity with Israel ’ s criminal behaviour ” .
The PSNA wrote to the Prime Minister on 10 June reminding her , among many other things , that : “ Your silence will be welcomed by the Israeli leadership as it prepares to thumb its nose at international law but will be condemned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ justice in the Middle East.
” The letter concluded with the reminder that : “ The time to speak out is now when pressure from New Zealand can have its greatest effect in concert with the international community .
Making a whimper of protest after the deed is done would be a tragedy for New Zealand ’ s integrity and international standing .
It would be a failure of moral leadership.
” On 11 June , after a BDS call for a boycott of Israeli products sold in a supermarket in Alsace , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to compensate BDS following a government indictment accusing the movement of incitement to discrimination .
In its ruling , the court ruled that the French Government “ had no sufficient basis for its indictment and was in violation of freedom of expression ” , explaining that a boycott was not necessarily incitement to discrimination .
The court ordered the French Government to pay each of the activists about US $ 8,000 in damages and awarded them their legal costs .
This decision could set a precedent and should be yet another spur for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ While the great powers and their hangers-on keep silent and quietly allow Israel to continue committing its crimes against humanity , they do so in contravention of court rulings and international law .
Unable to deny the crimes that Israel commits , political leaders choose silence as a cover to appease the Zionist lobby .
Enough !
New Zealand must defend its right to independence before it is too late .

Murderous and destructive Israeli Occupation regime
From 26 May to 9 June, inclusive, Israel committed 41 Gaza ceasefire violations, 14 of which comprised Israeli Navy attacks on Palestinian fishing boats. One person in Gaza died of wounds inflicted in 2018 in a March of Return protest. Over the period, Israeli forces conducted 104 raids on Palestinian towns and villages, as well as UN refugee camps. Of these, 4 6 involved home invasions – 20 of them conducted at night.
Constant, daily, Israeli Occupation destruction of homes and businesses, agricultural sabotage, raids and oppressive population control continued to be inflicted – far too many to recount here. Just one violation from each day must suffice:
26 May
Salfit – Israeli forces issued destruction orders against ten wells in al-Zawiya.
27 May
Jerusalem – the Israeli Occupation ordered resident, Nasser Siyam, to destroy his home in Silwan – or be forced to pay an extortionate sum to the Israeli Occupation demolition squads, who would otherwise be sent in to do it.
28 May
Hebron – dawn, Israeli Occupation forces ordered a halt to the dawn Call to Prayer at the Al-Ibrahimi Mosque, interfering with the number of people being allowed in,and even forcing out other worshippers who had gathered to pray in the outer courtyards.
2 9 May
Jerusalem – Israeli police officers, in the Old City of Jerusalem, shot dead an unarmed, autistic Palestinian who, they claimed to believe, had been carrying a weapon. The murdered man, 32-year-old Iyad el-Hallak, was shot while making his way to an Old City special-needs school, at which he attended. Israeli police had ordered him to stop and, because he hadn’t obeyed them, shot him ten times, leaving him on the street, bleeding to death. Later, the Israeli police transferred Iyad’s body to the Abu Kabir Forensic Institute where, as admitted by pathologists in 2009, organs were harvested from dead Palestinians, and others, without the consent of their families. Israel claims they ended the practise in the 1990s. The reason for Iyad’s transfer was not made clear. The police also raided Iyad el-Hallak’s home in the Wadi Joz neighbourhood, where they interrogated his family who, in no uncertain terms, informed them that Iyad would never have been armed and that “he wasn’t capable of harming anyone”.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
30 May
Jerusalem – the Israeli Occupation forced two people, Ahmed Mohammed Suleiman Mashahra, and his brother, Imad, to destroy their home – or otherwise be forced to pay an extortionate sum to the Israeli Occupation and still lose their home.
31 May
Ramallah – Israeli forces, near Kafr Malik village, firing rubber-coated steel bullets, stun grenades and tear gas canisters, wounded 15-year-old villager, Rasem Soliman Ghanimat Arrat , and then abducted him.
1 June
Gaza – the Israeli Army, accompanied by reconnaissance aircraft, made an incursion east of the al-Shuja’iya neighbourhood, bulldozing and laying waste to land.
2 June
Nablus – the Israeli Army fired stun grenades and tear gas canisters at people trying to defend their land, when settlers from the Givat Runin settlement outpost entered the outskirts of Burin village and attacked the house of Maher Salah al-Najjar. The settlers also set fire to farmland near the house.
3 June
Jericho – Israeli forces destroyed five homes and two livestock shelters in the Bedouin community of Deir Hajlat.
4 June
Hebron – Israeli Occupation forces destroyed a house in Beit Ummar that the owner, Ali Muhammad Al-Alami, had built to replace one on the same site that had been destroyed by the Israeli Army the year before.
5 June
Jerusalem – Israeli forces uprooted a number of fruit trees and destroyed a shed, in the Jabal al-Mukabir neighbourhood.
6 June
Nablus – the Israeli Army, firing rubber-coated steel bullets, stun grenades and tear gas canisters, invaded the village of Asira, in support of Occupation settlers raiding local farmland.
7 June
Jerusalem – evening, an Israeli Occupation settler in the Old City, violently assaulted and hospitalised a 9-year-old girl, Maryam Yasser Nageib, as she played outside her home.
9 June
Israeli Army destroyed the Jerusalem home of a disabled mother and eight children. Dozens of soldiers, police and City Council personnel of the Jerusalem district of Ras al-Amoud surrounded the home of the Hijazi family after isolating both it and the entire area . The soldiers then forced out the family.
Permanent UN Security Council member admits Israel’s repetitive human rights violations
The UK, New Zealand’s Five Eyes partner, while a practising supporter of normal relations, including arms trading with Israel is forced, nevertheless, by the presence of so much evidence to admit that Israel routinely commits war crimes. The UK’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FO) responses to questions are revealing: “settlements are illegal under international law”, “We condemn any incidence of violence by settlers against Palestinians”. The FO could not deny the murder of a Palestinian man by Israeli forces – it simply noted that “this was a criminal matter which would be a matter for the Israeli Government.” On the shooting dead of an unarmed 15-year-old by Israeli forces, the FO response was: “We continue to stress the importance of the Israeli security forces providing appropriate protection to the Palestinian civilian population, in particular the need to protect children, and urge restraint in the use of live fire.” Note that what the so-called ‘Israeli security forces’ are enforcing is a foreign military dictatorship over Palestinian lives. No Western political leader has ever acknowledged the right to security for Palestinians.
Israel imposes what it calls ‘closed firing zones for military training‘, in order to displace Palestinians and cut them off from their pastoral land. When asked about this, the FO replied: “we continue to be concerned by the impact of military firing zones in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, as well as the continued demolition of Palestinian property by Israeli authorities and evictions of Palestinians from their homes”.
When the Israeli Occupation Military Order 1797 was raised at Question Time in the UK Parliament, the FO responded:“Officials from our Embassy in Tel Aviv have repeatedly raised our concerns about the increase in demolitions of Palestinian properties in Area C of the West Bank and in East Jerusalem.” Asked about the Israeli Army’s blockading of Palestinian roads, the FO simply said: “We remain concerned about restrictions on freedom of movement within the West Bank, including to and from East Jerusalem, and between Gaza and the West Bank.”
Asked about the damage done by Israeli forces to mobile Palestinian latrines, the UK’s Foreign Ministry not only did not deny the Israeli crime but also expressed concern over the “continued demolition of Palestinian property by Israeli authorities” which, it admitted was, as it put it, “in all but the most exceptional of circumstances . . . contrary to International Humanitarian Law.” The FO Parliamentary answer went on to acknowledge Israel’s plunder of Palestinian water, saying “we have also previously stressed the need to take immediate and practical measures to ensure fair distribution of water in the West Bank.”
When asked what representations the UK Government had made to the Government of Israel about reports of the destruction of livestock pens and waterlines belonging to the al-Ras al-Ahmar and al-Baq’a Bedouin communities in the Northern Jordan Valley, the FO replied: “While we have not made representations on these reports, we urge both sides to avoid taking actions which make peace more difficult to achieve. In all but the most exceptional of circumstances demolitions are contrary to International Humanitarian Law. The practice causes unnecessary suffering to ordinary Palestinians and is harmful to the peace process.”
Asked about the proposed Israeli annexation of the West Bank in Palestine, the reply was: “The UK position is clear: any unilateral moves towards annexation of parts of the West Bank by Israel would be damaging to efforts to restart peace negotiations and contrary to international law.”
When pressed, the British Government cannot deny Israel’s systemic violations of international humanitarian law, and yet it continues to cover for Israel. Its unjustifiable attempts to undermine the BDS movement have failed in British courts. Last year, it announced the intention to ban local councils from boycotting products from Israel, declaring that “Locally imposed boycotts can roll back integration as well as hinder Britain’s export trade and harm international relationship.”
The UK’s declaration of war against all efforts to bring the Zionist regime to account is morally and legally untenable. It reveals, furthermore, the deep-seated influence that the Zionist lobby holds in the highest levels of Western governments, particularly in the US and the UK. Is this influence the reason for the New Zealand Government’s silence since Security Council Resolution 2334? In a news media release, John Minto, National Chair of the Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA), commenting on our Government’s silence regarding the Israeli-US proposed annexations, wrote: “It seems the Prime Minister is happy to contract out foreign policy to New Zealand First and then wash her hands while the murder and mayhem of Israel’s daily cruelty towards Palestinians continues unchallenged.” He also made the point that international silence “means complicity with Israel’s criminal behaviour”.
The PSNA wrote to the Prime Minister on 10 June reminding her, among many other things, that: “Your silence will be welcomed by the Israeli leadership as it prepares to thumb its nose at international law but will be condemned by those who seek peace based on justice in the Middle East.” The letter concluded with the reminder that: “The time to speak out is now when pressure from New Zealand can have its greatest effect in concert with the international community. Making a whimper of protest after the deed is done would be a tragedy for New Zealand’s integrity and international standing. It would be a failure of moral leadership.”
EU court finding in BDS v French Government case
On 11 June, after a BDS call for a boycott of Israeli products sold in a supermarket in Alsace, the European Court of Justice ordered France to compensate BDS following a government indictment accusing the movement of incitement to discrimination. In its ruling, the court ruled that the French Government “had no sufficient basis for its indictment and was in violation of freedom of expression”, explaining that a boycott was not necessarily incitement to discrimination. The court ordered the French Government to pay each of the activists about US$8,000 in damages and awarded them their legal costs. This decision could set a precedent and should be yet another spur for us to unite against Zionist separatism.
End the silence
While the great powers and their hangers-on keep silent and quietly allow Israel to continue committing its crimes against humanity, they do so in contravention of court rulings and international law. Unable to deny the crimes that Israel commits, political leaders choose silence as a cover to appease the Zionist lobby. Enough! New Zealand must defend its right to independence before it is too late.


thedailyblog--2020-06-14--Statues not the only edifices to fall?

Statues not the only edifices to fall?

There are so many images that define the weirdness of our times .
The ominous orange skies of Australia ’ s bushfires seem a more innocent age ago – when all we apparently had to worry about were climate change and species extinctions .
Suddenly , subsequent images were of motorways empty and deserted of traffic -unheard of , shocking in what they revealed about the disruption of everyday life .
Toilet paper rushes , queues of ‘ socially distanced ’ people outside supermarkets .
Fork-lifts loading bodies into refrigerated trucks .
Mass graves .
A cop with his knee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s neck .
Trump holding a bible .
Looting of shops and an angry expose of an unequal American dream .
Crowds of thousands , bowed on one knee to honour George Floyd and the victims of racist systems and racist acts everywhere .
Other images stick with me too – shed sized piles of dead pigs , collateral damage from the corporate food system that treats animals as commodities and waste – and , as victims of a disrupted supply chain , inconvenient lives to be disposed of , via ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but – drowning them in firefighting foam or turning up the heat until they cooked to death – over hours .
At home , the photos of stunned and despondent Sky City workers meeting their own fates as waves of ‘ rightsizings ’ and redundancies decimate their ranks .
These are the faces of capitalism .
Casino capitalism treats the world ’ s fortunes like something to be gambled and hedged .
Real casinos and the elite horse racing industry get concessions from governments to promote gambling , ( and animal cruelty ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We import immigrant workers to do our precarious dirty work , hard labour , cleaning hotel toilets for leisurely tourists or picking fruit , jobs kiwi didn ’ t care for , until now .
But the immigrant workers themselves are now dispensable , left to their own devices , from hero to zero in the blink of an eye , invisible and uncared for by state welfare services and even the ‘ kindest ’ of governments .
‘ They ’ re ‘ others ’ -second class non-citizens , political footballs , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We ’ ve achieved a non-victory of sorts here in NZ though , as the new Police Commissioner Andrew Coster , admits the trialed Armed Response Team style of policing has no social licence .
“ It ’ s not the sort of policing New Zealanders find acceptable ” .
But it ’ s an argument that should never have been had .
Ask Maori communities how they find policing – especially armed policing , ( and JustSpeak did ) , and you ’ ll find they felt targeted , vulnerable , exposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authority who was not their own .
But as the death-by-cop killing of George Floyd found , cops don ’ t have to have guns to be brutal .
Those images of the American cops pushing the elderly protester were brutal enough .
But to walk past him as he lay on the ground bleeding from the head showed the illegitimacy of brute force and violent state power .
Apparently police aren ’ t trained to diffuse aggressive situations , or to deal even with elderly aggressive protagonists , other than through violence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New Zealand says “ imagine if , instead of armed police , we had teams of mental health and de-escalation specialists ready to help , 24/7 ” .
“ Wouldn ’ t that be safer communities together ” .
Wouldn ’ t that be better policing , policing we all could trust ?
Where mental health problems had a mental health response .
How about policing that people of all colours could respect , a society that even poor brown people could have a stake in , be represented by , believe in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that has mana to Māori ?
Not a ( post ) colonial militia continuing to express an oppressive , illegitimate rule of someone else ’ s law .
That many first convictions for Māori men are in response to suspected cannabis possession , a victimless and socially unjustified ‘ crime ’ but which puts many onto a path of future ‘ criminalisation ’ , makes police force even less legitimate .
Because in NZ , even before the Armed Response Team ‘ initiative ’ , young Māori men were more likely to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , convicted and incarcated than their pakeha counterparts .
Between 2009 and 2019 two-thirds of people shot by the police were either Māori or Pasifika .
The Minister of Police , Stuart Nash , is just not credible when he says the New Zealand police force isn ’ t racist , though the Minister of Justice , Andrew Little , more compassionate and with a clearly broader understanding of the expression and effects of structural racism , says ‘ everything has to change ’ .
It ’ s hard to see how that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , historically , and currently , shapes race -and class relations – themselves expressions of power .
Māori are already more likely to be poor with poorer education and health status than white New Zealanders or white New Zealand immigrants .
Māori are more likely to suffer in an economic downturn .
Unemployed migrant workers are pawns in New Zealand First populist posturing .
The shakedown from lockdown is more likely to benefit the already well-off , and bigger companies , than those already on the margins .
Black Lives Matter protests around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of unity and solidarity .
But protesters and protestations are still directed from the outside looking in .
No legitimate representative democracy should really need reminding that its indigenous and other minorities matter .
The revisionist desire to pull down statues of colonisers , oppressors and tyrants , is a rally against victors ’ justice and victors ’ versions of history .
A history that is still racist in the making .
A history that continues to reduce the life prospects for some groups more than others , based on ethnicity .
Bushfires @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stock , the COVID-19 pandemic , the treatment of animals in agriculture – and in the wild , the mistreatment of indigenous ecosystems and of indigenous people , all over the world .
These are the manifestations of our economy .
Profit is built on keeping costs low and extracting value at others ’ expense .
It ’ s an economy built on alienation and exploitation of nature and of all living things .
It ’ s built on systematic brutality , slavery , indentured labour , wage oppression , and disregard for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the displacement of first peoples and their own political and economic systems , the commodification and use of their labour , the erosion of their traditional structures of law and lore .
Our quality of life and the private property system and political regime , the coffee and cocoa in our cups , the bananas on our plates – the meat and the fruit , the transportation networks , the oil in our cars and the palm oil in our food , are all the results of extraction , subjection and domination via @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s all political .
Despite the rush to return to the economy of pre-Covid-19 , statues are not the only edifices we should seek to dismantle .

There are so many images that define the weirdness of our times. The ominous orange skies of Australia’s bushfires seem a more innocent age ago – when all we apparently had to worry about were climate change and species extinctions. Suddenly, subsequent images were of motorways empty and deserted of traffic -unheard of, shocking in what they revealed about the disruption of everyday life. Toilet paper rushes, queues of ‘socially distanced’ people outside supermarkets. Fork-lifts loading bodies into refrigerated trucks. Mass graves. A cop with his knee fatally pinned against a prone black man’s neck. Trump holding a bible. Looting of shops and an angry expose of an unequal American dream. Crowds of thousands, bowed on one knee to honour George Floyd and the victims of racist systems and racist acts everywhere.
Other images stick with me too – shed sized piles of dead pigs, collateral damage from the corporate food system that treats animals as commodities and waste – and, as victims of a disrupted supply chain, inconvenient lives to be disposed of, via ‘humane slaughter’, which was anything but – drowning them in firefighting foam or turning up the heat until they cooked to death – over hours. At home, the photos of stunned and despondent Sky City workers meeting their own fates as waves of ‘rightsizings’ and redundancies decimate their ranks.
These are the faces of capitalism. Casino capitalism treats the world’s fortunes like something to be gambled and hedged. Real casinos and the elite horse racing industry get concessions from governments to promote gambling, (and animal cruelty), but not for their workers. We import immigrant workers to do our precarious dirty work, hard labour, cleaning hotel toilets for leisurely tourists or picking fruit, jobs kiwi didn’t care for, until now. But the immigrant workers themselves are now dispensable, left to their own devices, from hero to zero in the blink of an eye, invisible and uncared for by state welfare services and even the ‘kindest’ of governments. ‘They’re ‘others’ -second class non-citizens, political footballs, as usual. Racism and expediency combined.
We’ve achieved a non-victory of sorts here in NZ though, as the new Police Commissioner Andrew Coster, admits the trialed Armed Response Team style of policing has no social licence. “It’s not the sort of policing New Zealanders find acceptable”. But it’s an argument that should never have been had. Ask Maori communities how they find policing – especially armed policing, (and JustSpeak did), and you’ll find they felt targeted, vulnerable, exposed, and at the mercy of an authority who was not their own. But as the death-by-cop killing of George Floyd found, cops don’t have to have guns to be brutal.
Those images of the American cops pushing the elderly protester were brutal enough. But to walk past him as he lay on the ground bleeding from the head showed the illegitimacy of brute force and violent state power. Apparently police aren’t trained to diffuse aggressive situations, or to deal even with elderly aggressive protagonists, other than through violence. As a JustSpeak poster here in New Zealand says “imagine if, instead of armed police, we had teams of mental health and de-escalation specialists ready to help, 24/7”. “Wouldn’t that be safer communities together”. Wouldn’t that be better policing, policing we all could trust? Where mental health problems had a mental health response.
How about policing that people of all colours could respect, a society that even poor brown people could have a stake in, be represented by, believe in perhaps? How about a police force that has mana to Māori? Not a (post) colonial militia continuing to express an oppressive, illegitimate rule of someone else’s law. That many first convictions for Māori men are in response to suspected cannabis possession, a victimless and socially unjustified ‘crime’ but which puts many onto a path of future ‘criminalisation’, makes police force even less legitimate.
Because in NZ, even before the Armed Response Team ‘initiative’, young Māori men were more likely to be suspected, stopped, apprehended, arrested, convicted and incarcated than their pakeha counterparts. Between 2009 and 2019 two-thirds of people shot by the police were either Māori or Pasifika. The Minister of Police, Stuart Nash, is just not credible when he says the New Zealand police force isn’t racist, though the Minister of Justice, Andrew Little, more compassionate and with a clearly broader understanding of the expression and effects of structural racism, says ‘everything has to change’.
It’s hard to see how that change might come when political economy itself, historically, and currently, shapes race -and class relations – themselves expressions of power. Māori are already more likely to be poor with poorer education and health status than white New Zealanders or white New Zealand immigrants. Māori are more likely to suffer in an economic downturn. Unemployed migrant workers are pawns in New Zealand First populist posturing. The shakedown from lockdown is more likely to benefit the already well-off, and bigger companies, than those already on the margins.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
Black Lives Matter protests around the world are encouraging for their show of unity and solidarity. But protesters and protestations are still directed from the outside looking in. No legitimate representative democracy should really need reminding that its indigenous and other minorities matter. The revisionist desire to pull down statues of colonisers, oppressors and tyrants, is a rally against victors’ justice and victors’ versions of history. A history that is still racist in the making. A history that continues to reduce the life prospects for some groups more than others, based on ethnicity.
Bushfires and drought, workers treated like surplus stock, the COVID-19 pandemic, the treatment of animals in agriculture – and in the wild, the mistreatment of indigenous ecosystems and of indigenous people, all over the world. These are the manifestations of our economy. Profit is built on keeping costs low and extracting value at others’ expense. It’s an economy built on alienation and exploitation of nature and of all living things. It’s built on systematic brutality, slavery, indentured labour, wage oppression, and disregard for life. It’s based on the displacement of first peoples and their own political and economic systems, the commodification and use of their labour, the erosion of their traditional structures of law and lore. Our quality of life and the private property system and political regime, the coffee and cocoa in our cups, the bananas on our plates – the meat and the fruit, the transportation networks, the oil in our cars and the palm oil in our food, are all the results of extraction, subjection and domination via systematic oppression of people and of places. It’s all political.
Despite the rush to return to the economy of pre-Covid-19, statues are not the only edifices we should seek to dismantle.


thedailyblog--2020-06-14--Dr Liz Gordon – Should we have stayed?

Dr Liz Gordon – Should we have stayed?

Quoting Matt McCarten last Friday , Chris Trotter posits that “ we should have stayed ” in the Labour Party in 1989 , after neo-liberal policies swept through the party like a coronavirus .
This is all very well to say , but I think Matt/Chris might by now have forgotten what it was like then .
I was on the National Executive at the time of the split .
Prime Minister Lange used to appear at the Council seemingly utterly defeated , with virtually every single one of Labour ’ s policies having been bowled over by neo-liberal reform @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any policy questions .
It was pitiful to watch him .
The tension at every meeting was palpable .
At national conferences , especially the famous one where Anderton stood for the presidency and narrowly lost ( I can ’ t remember now if it was 88 or 89 ) , people huddled in corners , in breakout rooms or wherever they could find , in small groups , plotting and planning .
Good people screamed at each other .
Do you remember the version of the ‘ Red Flag ’ that we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was penned by lovely Dion Martin ) , so sarcastic of the new Labour elite : The cloth cap and the working class For we are Labour ’ s Avant Garde And we are educated By tax reductions we have planned And just to show we ’ re still sincere In our defence , we were young !
The scenes around that time were both exciting and also disturbing .
I think the scars of the time have largely healed now , but perhaps not completely .
But I want to know how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the plan have been ?
Labour was deeply unpopular coming up to the 1990 election – would we have used that electoral rout to try and change the direction of the party ?
But those left in caucus after the 1990 election were all neo-liberal central , weren ’ t they ?
What purchase could we have made ?
Also , who would have done the work of the Alliance , including forcing change towards MMP ( a movement led significantly by Rod Donald and the Alliance ) producing an enduring alternative on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Greens ’ stewardship of that role ) and keeping alive leftist policies , especially by always opposing neo-liberalism ?
Even by 1999 , when the Labour Party finally got into power again , it had barely added a human face to its neoliberal orthodoxy .
In many ways it was deeply conservative .
Were we expected to stay there , as an unwanted rump on the left , spouting the same old things and getting the same old response ?
Excuse my language , but bugger that !
Without NewLabour I think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ walked away from politics .
I don ’ t think Jim Anderton had a chance of turning that caucus around from within .
They just hated him ( do you remember the old annex where they put him , far , far , away from the centres of power ? )
.
So just sayin ’ , Chris and Matt , that I still don ’ t see a viable pathway we could have gone down by staying in Labour then .
But that does not mean we should not engage now , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been very impressed with Labour ’ s reaction to the pandemic , and of the need to ‘ spend ’ their way out of it .
I only wish that some of that spending had been used to raise incomes before an economic support package was so desperately needed .
What if benefits and wages had been boosted while there was still a booming tax base to pay for it ?
I think there is the political will for change within that caucus .
There are certainly some good people who want change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even Robertson .
There is massive amounts of work going on in the government and public sector to support change and has been for some time .
The only question left is whether Labour can both design the pathways and have the courage of their convictions to implement them .
They need to look to their past , to other countries and to innovative opportunities for change .
That is what this election will be about .
Dr Liz Gordon is a researcher and a barrister , with interests in destroying neo-liberalism in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ socially just society .
She usually blogs on justice , social welfare and education topics .

Quoting Matt McCarten last Friday, Chris Trotter posits that “we should have stayed” in the Labour Party in 1989, after neo-liberal policies swept through the party like a coronavirus. This is all very well to say, but I think Matt/Chris might by now have forgotten what it was like then.
I was on the National Executive at the time of the split. Prime Minister Lange used to appear at the Council seemingly utterly defeated, with virtually every single one of Labour’s policies having been bowled over by neo-liberal reform. He would not/ could not answer any policy questions. It was pitiful to watch him. The tension at every meeting was palpable.
At national conferences, especially the famous one where Anderton stood for the presidency and narrowly lost (I can’t remember now if it was 88 or 89), people huddled in corners, in breakout rooms or wherever they could find, in small groups, plotting and planning. Good people screamed at each other. Do you remember the version of the ‘Red Flag’ that we lefties sung (I am sure it was penned by lovely Dion Martin), so sarcastic of the new Labour elite:
The cloth cap and the working class
As images are dated
For we are Labour’s Avant Garde
And we are educated
By tax reductions we have planned
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
To institute the promised land
And just to show we’re still sincere
We’ll sing the Red Flag once a year.
In our defence, we were young! The scenes around that time were both exciting and also disturbing. I think the scars of the time have largely healed now, but perhaps not completely.
But I want to know how we could have stayed. What would the plan have been? Labour was deeply unpopular coming up to the 1990 election – would we have used that electoral rout to try and change the direction of the party? But those left in caucus after the 1990 election were all neo-liberal central, weren’t they? What purchase could we have made?
Also, who would have done the work of the Alliance, including forcing change towards MMP (a movement led significantly by Rod Donald and the Alliance) producing an enduring alternative on the left (whatever you think of the Greens’ stewardship of that role) and keeping alive leftist policies, especially by always opposing neo-liberalism?
Even by 1999, when the Labour Party finally got into power again, it had barely added a human face to its neoliberal orthodoxy. In many ways it was deeply conservative. Were we expected to stay there, as an unwanted rump on the left, spouting the same old things and getting the same old response? Excuse my language, but bugger that!
Without NewLabour I think many of us would have eventually just walked away from politics. I don’t think Jim Anderton had a chance of turning that caucus around from within. They just hated him (do you remember the old annex where they put him, far, far, away from the centres of power?).
So just sayin’, Chris and Matt, that I still don’t see a viable pathway we could have gone down by staying in Labour then. But that does not mean we should not engage now, all those years later.
I have been very impressed with Labour’s reaction to the pandemic, and of the need to ‘spend’ their way out of it. I only wish that some of that spending had been used to raise incomes before an economic support package was so desperately needed. What if benefits and wages had been boosted while there was still a booming tax base to pay for it?
I think there is the political will for change within that caucus. There are certainly some good people who want change: Ardern, Little, Woods, even Robertson. There is massive amounts of work going on in the government and public sector to support change and has been for some time.
The only question left is whether Labour can both design the pathways and have the courage of their convictions to implement them. They need to look to their past, to other countries and to innovative opportunities for change. That is what this election will be about.
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.