thedailyblog--2020-06-30--Dave Macpherson: Mental Health is still holding its breath

Over the last few days my partner has been helping and supporting a Nelson mother who ’ s mentally unwell son – known to be at high risk of suicide , and supposedly under the care of Nelson Marlborough DHB mental health services , has twice disappeared from that care .
His mother is naturally extremely concerned , and is left wondering why her son ’ s carers didn ’ t learn from their first mistake and seem incapable of running a mental health system where patient safety is paramount .
North of Cook Strait , a Matamata father , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been fighting Waikato DHB over the death of his son while in the compulsory care of their mental health services – the notorious Henry Bennett Centre .
Ray Thomassen ’ s son Rhys , was taken out on leave as part of a group of patients escorted by too few staff to meet the DHB ’ s own requirements .
He had earlier taken off from a similar group and , although found on that occasion , had threatened to suicide if he was enabled to abscond again .
Even the DHB ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ incident review ’ highlighted a litany of failures by the DHB mental health leadership and responsible staff .
One wonders what a more independent and objective Coroner ’ s inquest will find .
Again , as my own family and the Nelson mother did , Rhys ’ father is also wondering why this country ’ s mental health leadership seem incapable of running a system that prioritises patient safety .
These two cases are very much the tip of the iceberg as far as horror stories about terrible outcomes from poor care in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and all DHBs have their fair share of such stories .
What is worse is that they are also highly similar to the horror stories that were coming out of DHB mental health services under the previous , unlamented , National Government .
While the Government has quite rightly budgeted a large chunk of cash to address a myriad of mental health issues , it has unfortunately failed to drive through systemic and leadership change – leaving the same inmates in charge of the same asylum ( to use a perhaps non-PC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Government ’ s justifiable recent focus on the Covid-19 response , some of the oomph temporarily went out of this issue for a few months .
But every suicide , and every high suicide risk situation will bring the issue further back to the fore .
In response to the lack of real change in the mental health area , a group of suicide-bereaved whanau members from Waikato has recently contacted Health Minister David Clark ( while he ’ s still in that role ) , demanding an independent review of the leadership @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mental health sector , and an implementation plan for the changes that the Government ’ s funding decisions supposedly have kicked off – something that is overdue in all areas .
Dave Macpherson – TDB mental health blogger & Former Waikato DHB Elected Member whose son was killed by public health negligence .

Over the last few days my partner has been helping and supporting a Nelson mother who’s mentally unwell son – known to be at high risk of suicide, and supposedly under the care of Nelson Marlborough DHB mental health services, has twice disappeared from that care.
His mother is naturally extremely concerned, and is left wondering why her son’s carers didn’t learn from their first mistake and seem incapable of running a mental health system where patient safety is paramount.
North of Cook Strait, a Matamata father, also supported by our whanau, has been fighting Waikato DHB over the death of his son while in the compulsory care of their mental health services – the notorious Henry Bennett Centre.
Ray Thomassen’s son Rhys, was taken out on leave as part of a group of patients escorted by too few staff to meet the DHB’s own requirements. He had earlier taken off from a similar group and, although found on that occasion, had threatened to suicide if he was enabled to abscond again.
Unsurprisingly Rhys’ known suicide risk became a terrible reality.
Even the DHB’s own, inadequate, ‘serious incident review’ highlighted a litany of failures by the DHB mental health leadership and responsible staff. One wonders what a more independent and objective Coroner’s inquest will find.
Again, as my own family and the Nelson mother did, Rhys’ father is also wondering why this country’s mental health leadership seem incapable of running a system that prioritises patient safety.
These two cases are very much the tip of the iceberg as far as horror stories about terrible outcomes from poor care in Aotearoa/New Zealand’s mental health system, and all DHBs have their fair share of such stories.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
What is worse is that they are also highly similar to the horror stories that were coming out of DHB mental health services under the previous, unlamented, National Government.
While the Government has quite rightly budgeted a large chunk of cash to address a myriad of mental health issues, it has unfortunately failed to drive through systemic and leadership change – leaving the same inmates in charge of the same asylum (to use a perhaps non-PC turn of phrase).
Given the Government’s justifiable recent focus on the Covid-19 response, some of the oomph temporarily went out of this issue for a few months. But every suicide, and every high suicide risk situation will bring the issue further back to the fore.
In response to the lack of real change in the mental health area, a group of suicide-bereaved whanau members from Waikato has recently contacted Health Minister David Clark (while he’s still in that role), demanding an independent review of the leadership and structure of that DHB’s mental health sector, and an implementation plan for the changes that the Government’s funding decisions supposedly have kicked off – something that is overdue in all areas.
We’re still holding our breath.
Dave Macpherson – TDB mental health blogger & Former Waikato DHB Elected Member whose son was killed by public health negligence.


thedailyblog--2020-06-29--Labour Will Not Win With A Yeah-Nah Strategy

“ TRIANGULATION ” – Bill Clinton loved it ; Tony Blair loved it ; Gerhard Schroeder loved it .
Hell !
– Since the 1990s , all God ’ s social-democratic children have loved it !
Question is : will Jacinda Ardern and Grant Robertson declare their love for it by adopting a tax policy that hovers harmlessly halfway between National ’ s “ no new taxes ” and the Greens just-released policy of welfare reform and making the wealthy pay their fair share ?
Given the Prime Minister ’ s rather snooty comments about the Greens making “ some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gains to be expected from their two new steps of Income Tax and their proposed Wealth Tax , I would say that Labour ’ s getting ready to triangulate like crazy .
Which , if true , should be filed under : “ Extraordinarily Short-Sighted and Disappointing Decisions Political Parties Have Made.
” Labour can not win this election by playing it safe .
If it tries it will fail .
We are not living in the 1990s – when , as Helen Clark liked to say , “ a rising tide lifts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2020 , when tens-of-thousands of New Zealanders , and millions more around the world , are staring down the barrel of the most devastating economic downturn since the 1930s .
This is no time to play Goldilocks : triangulating frantically to produce a set of policies that are “ just right ” .
This is a time for the righteous language of the Gospel of Matthew ( 5:37 ) “ But let your communication be , Yea , yea ; Nay , nay : for whatsoever is more than these cometh of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unequivocal in its communication with the electorate .
Either it has a plan to prevent their fellow New Zealanders from falling off the economic cliff , or it doesn ’ t .
Either it has a fiscal policy equal to the task of funding that plan , or it hasn ’ t .
Either it will task the citizens of today with stepping-up to their responsibilities , or it will kick the can down the road for future generations to deal with – just as National does .
Maybe that ’ s why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Morning Report ?
Because the Greens policy announcements on welfare and tax have made the whole triangulation process ten times more difficult .
For the tactic to work , the distance between the two political poles needs to be relatively modest .
When the whole political colour-chart is made up of boring shades of grey it ’ s hard for the voters to get all that excited .
Who ’ s going to die in a ditch for dark- as opposed to light-grey ?
That ’ s the beauty of triangulation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the range of electoral choices – not expanding them .
Giving voters real and exciting options only complicates matters .
But that is exactly what the Greens have done .
They have borrowed from the Welfare Expert Advisory Group ’ s report to produce a radical programme of income-support which , if properly presented , has the capacity to get young , poor voters up off the couch and into the polling booths .
It has also borrowed fiscal ideas from TOP – The Opportunities Party – to construct an alternative to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing so they have aggressively expanded the distance between the Right and the Left – replacing all that National and Labour grey with a dazzling in-rush of primary colours : red , blue , and bright , bright green .
Poor Jacinda : I ’ m pretty sure that her own , and Grant ’ s , preference was to approach the looming economic crisis in the spirit of a military surgeon charged with deciding who should be categorised as walking wounded ; who should be treated immediately ; and who is clearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grim spirit of battlefield triage : heart-wrenching but unavoidable .
But now , with the Greens promising to keep all those without adequate paid employment afloat , being seen to allow whole sectors of the economy to simply bleed-out in a corner , while Labour ’ s surgeons struggle bravely to save what sectors they can , will start to look pretty damned heartless .
Especially when – as they always do – the National Party will borrow every last dollar they can lay their hands on to avoid raising taxes ( except @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) leaving the matter of debt repayment for the poor schmucks of some future government to sort out .
From Labour ’ s point-of-view , the most scary aspect of the Greens ’ radical renaissance is that it may not stop at welfare and tax reform .
What if , between now and the General Election on 19 September they unveil their own version of the Green New Deal ?
What if they offer the voters something pretty close to a complete re-prioritisation of all the activity that makes up the New Zealand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the widespread hope of people all over the world that the Covid-19 Pandemic will stimulate a fundamental rethink about where we are and where we ’ re going ?
What then ?
My sense of Labour ’ s campaign strategy , to date , is that it was all supposed to hinge on presenting Jacinda and her colleagues as compassionately competent pragmatists .
The contrast with National : willing to promise anything and risk everything for political power ; was supposed to make people opt for the safer pair of hands .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ not inspirational ones .
If the Blues are threatening to push the country into the red , then grey doesn ’ t seem so bad .
It all depended , of course , on the Greens not being able to rise above their interminable squabbles over human identity .
Seeing their hapless coalition partners as woke and out of touch with Covid-19 ’ s grim realities , Labour was hoping that voters would glance in their direction , register their disappointment , and turn back to Labour .
Frustratingly , the risk is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the voters will register Labour ’ s all-too-obvious intention to play it safe and , disappointed , turn to the Greens for policies worth voting for .
If Jacinda is wise , she will reposition Labour quite a bit further to the left than she was planning to originally .
The resulting triangle might look a bit lopsided , but a left-leaning red-green triangle has a lot more going for it than a boring and blurry blue-grey triangle that robs progressive voters of the will to live .

“TRIANGULATION” – Bill Clinton loved it; Tony Blair loved it; Gerhard Schroeder loved it. Hell! – Since the 1990s, all God’s social-democratic children have loved it! Question is: will Jacinda Ardern and Grant Robertson declare their love for it by adopting a tax policy that hovers harmlessly halfway between National’s “no new taxes” and the Greens just-released policy of welfare reform and making the wealthy pay their fair share? Given the Prime Minister’s rather snooty comments about the Greens making “some fairly heroic assumptions” about the fiscal gains to be expected from their two new steps of Income Tax and their proposed Wealth Tax, I would say that Labour’s getting ready to triangulate like crazy.
Which, if true, should be filed under: “Extraordinarily Short-Sighted and Disappointing Decisions Political Parties Have Made.” Labour cannot win this election by playing it safe. If it tries it will fail. We are not living in the 1990s – when, as Helen Clark liked to say, “a rising tide lifts all boats” – we are living in 2020, when tens-of-thousands of New Zealanders, and millions more around the world, are staring down the barrel of the most devastating economic downturn since the 1930s.
This is no time to play Goldilocks: triangulating frantically to produce a set of policies that are “just right”. This is a time for the righteous language of the Gospel of Matthew (5:37) “But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.”
Labour needs to be equally unequivocal in its communication with the electorate. Either it has a plan to prevent their fellow New Zealanders from falling off the economic cliff, or it doesn’t. Either it has a fiscal policy equal to the task of funding that plan, or it hasn’t. Either it will task the citizens of today with stepping-up to their responsibilities, or it will kick the can down the road for future generations to deal with – just as National does.
Maybe that’s why Jacinda sounded so grumpy on this morning’s Morning Report? Because the Greens policy announcements on welfare and tax have made the whole triangulation process ten times more difficult.
For the tactic to work, the distance between the two political poles needs to be relatively modest. When the whole political colour-chart is made up of boring shades of grey it’s hard for the voters to get all that excited. Who’s going to die in a ditch for dark- as opposed to light-grey? That’s the beauty of triangulation: it’s all about limiting the range of electoral choices – not expanding them. Giving voters real and exciting options only complicates matters.
But that is exactly what the Greens have done. They have borrowed from the Welfare Expert Advisory Group’s report to produce a radical programme of income-support which, if properly presented, has the capacity to get young, poor voters up off the couch and into the polling booths. It has also borrowed fiscal ideas from TOP – The Opportunities Party – to construct an alternative to the electorally radioactive Capital Gains Tax. In doing so they have aggressively expanded the distance between the Right and the Left – replacing all that National and Labour grey with a dazzling in-rush of primary colours: red, blue, and bright, bright green.
Poor Jacinda: I’m pretty sure that her own, and Grant’s, preference was to approach the looming economic crisis in the spirit of a military surgeon charged with deciding who should be categorised as walking wounded; who should be treated immediately; and who is clearly beyond help. Economic policy-making in the grim spirit of battlefield triage: heart-wrenching but unavoidable.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
But now, with the Greens promising to keep all those without adequate paid employment afloat, being seen to allow whole sectors of the economy to simply bleed-out in a corner, while Labour’s surgeons struggle bravely to save what sectors they can, will start to look pretty damned heartless. Especially when – as they always do – the National Party will borrow every last dollar they can lay their hands on to avoid raising taxes (except, of course, the regressive GST) leaving the matter of debt repayment for the poor schmucks of some future government to sort out.
From Labour’s point-of-view, the most scary aspect of the Greens’ radical renaissance is that it may not stop at welfare and tax reform. What if, between now and the General Election on 19 September they unveil their own version of the Green New Deal? What if they offer the voters something pretty close to a complete re-prioritisation of all the activity that makes up the New Zealand economy? What if they give expression to the widespread hope of people all over the world that the Covid-19 Pandemic will stimulate a fundamental rethink about where we are and where we’re going? What then?
My sense of Labour’s campaign strategy, to date, is that it was all supposed to hinge on presenting Jacinda and her colleagues as compassionately competent pragmatists. The contrast with National: willing to promise anything and risk everything for political power; was supposed to make people opt for the safer pair of hands. That meant “solid” policies – not inspirational ones. If the Blues are threatening to push the country into the red, then grey doesn’t seem so bad.
It all depended, of course, on the Greens not being able to rise above their interminable squabbles over human identity. Seeing their hapless coalition partners as woke and out of touch with Covid-19’s grim realities, Labour was hoping that voters would glance in their direction, register their disappointment, and turn back to Labour. Frustratingly, the risk is now that the opposite will occur: the voters will register Labour’s all-too-obvious intention to play it safe and, disappointed, turn to the Greens for policies worth voting for.
If Jacinda is wise, she will reposition Labour quite a bit further to the left than she was planning to originally. The resulting triangle might look a bit lopsided, but a left-leaning red-green triangle has a lot more going for it than a boring and blurry blue-grey triangle that robs progressive voters of the will to live.


thedailyblog--2020-07-01--Why Todd Muller – and National – Are Toast.

TODD MULLER is toast .
All the signs are there .
The weird contradictions contained in his own public statements .
The constant leaking of damaging information from inside his own caucus .
The obvious delight of former colleagues as they lower their lifeboats and pull away from National ’ s sinking ship .
The party ’ s been here before .
Unfortunately , it was in 2002 .
Just think about Paula Bennett ’ s bravura exit performance .
Dancing up a storm with Tom Sainsbury – as if to say : “ You always thought Tom was exaggerating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the boy never even got close !
” There was something very P.J .
O ’ Rourke about Bennett ’ s departure : something subversively liberating .
When right-wingers turn out to have a sense of humour strong enough to make even hard-bitten lefties chortle , it says something very reassuring about our common humanity .
Though some of us are loathe to admit it , we are all much more the same than we are different .
One of O ’ Rourke ’ s most memorable lines was : “ First @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we got all the votes .
Now we ’ ve got all the power !
” Bennett ’ s celebration boogie , in anticipation of Muller ’ s failure to win O ’ Rourke ’ s electoral trifecta , has about it the same bracing honesty .
Speaking of her hardcore National colleagues , she once told a startled journalist : “ We didn ’ t come to Wellington to fuck spiders !
” And wasn ’ t that the truth ?
Muller ’ s lack-lustre and self-contradictory performances offer conclusive proof that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into competence .
National ’ s new boss has Janet Wilson handling his media and Matthew Hooton writing his speeches .
Both are highly professional political and public relations specialists , and Muller is lucky to have them .
But , they can ’ t be Leader of the Opposition for him .
It was exactly the same with David Cunliffe .
Not even Matt McCarten , a.k.a “ Mattiavelli ” , could transform the ambitious climber who deposed David Shearer into a credible alternative prime minister .
In the end , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do what it takes to get it .
Also needed is a clear idea of what to do with “ all the power ” once you ’ ve got it .
This is where Muller falls short .
Quoting Mickey Savage is all very well , but when a traditional Catholic talks about “ applied Christianity ” – what , exactly , does he mean ?
It ’ s something which , I suspect , Muller ’ s evangelical Christian colleagues would also like to know .
Their right-wing , fundamentalist version @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taking a very different stance on a broad range of social issues from the one so clearly favoured by Muller and his liberal allies .
A couple of months back , David Cormack ( another PR maven ) offered up his own take on National ’ s Christian conservatives : “ There is a large bloc in National of Christians with some pretty extreme views .
They ’ re not traditional Christian National Party folk , but more fire and brimstone .
Muller is a traditional National Party Christian , he voted No @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and third reading , he voted No on all three readings of the euthanasia bill .
But he is considered not right wing enough by the large Christian bloc.
” “ All of the highly conservative Christian MPs want to fight their very own culture wars here in NZ ; think GOP level .
Staunchly pro-Israel , really strongly anti-abortion , anti-women and gay rights .
They want to fight the ‘ Marxism ’ that they believe has infested our schools , universities and even Labour ( ! )
” Contrast these hardline @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Muller in his Te Puna hometown address in mid-June .
Beautifully crafted by Hooton , the speech enunciated a set of values radically at odds with the proudly reactionary beliefs of Chris Penk and his comrades .
Reading that speech , Muller ’ s opponents in the National caucus must have wondered whether their party was any longer big enough for the both of them .
On the one hand stands Muller ( and Hooton ) eager to keep the two main political parties committed to delivering the same neoliberal lines ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emphasis ) that have bound the precious “ median voter ” to the aspirations of the broad centre of New Zealand politics for the best part of four decades .
On the other hand stand what might best be described as the “ radical conservatives ” .
Their principal objection to the existing neoliberal order is its acceptance of what they see as the immoral and socially-destructive consequences of the cultural revolution of the 1960s and 70s .
With some justification , they see identity politics as intrinsically hostile to the unequal distribution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Take patriarchy out of the capitalist equation and , in the view of the radical conservatives , it will fall .
These are not the sort of ideas to earn more than a curl of Nikki Kaye ’ s upper lip .
Rightly , she foresees the wholesale rejection of such an avowedly sexist National Party by the overwhelming majority of middle-class Pakeha women .
Indeed , it was to forestall such a radical-conservative deviation into Trumpland that the coup against Simon Bridges was mounted .
That it succeeded only because the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from shafting Bridges and Bennett than from saving them , merely reinforces the scale of the dysfunction currently besetting the National Party .
Such dysfunction is essentially ineradicable by anything other than the annihilation of one of the two contending factions .
This is , after all , what happened in the Labour Party when the Rogernomes and their careerist enablers made it more-or-less impossible for the left faction to remain within the party without surrendering their most deeply held convictions .
For National ’ s radical conservatives , the path to this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ defeat on a par with the disaster of 2002 .
The principal victims of such a strategy would be the party ’ s liberal faction .
In Lenin ’ s famous phrase , it would lead to “ fewer – but better ” National MPs .
A solid foundation of radical conservative patriarchal Christian capitalists upon which National ’ s electoral recovery can be built .
You see now why Todd Muller is toast !
Also clear , is why so many National women are now determined to give their votes to Jacinda @

TODD MULLER is toast. All the signs are there. The weird contradictions contained in his own public statements. The constant leaking of damaging information from inside his own caucus. The obvious delight of former colleagues as they lower their lifeboats and pull away from National’s sinking ship. The party’s been here before. Unfortunately, it was in 2002.
Just think about Paula Bennett’s bravura exit performance. Dancing up a storm with Tom Sainsbury – as if to say: “You always thought Tom was exaggerating, didn’t you? Nah, the boy never even got close!” There was something very P.J. O’Rourke about Bennett’s departure: something subversively liberating. When right-wingers turn out to have a sense of humour strong enough to make even hard-bitten lefties chortle, it says something very reassuring about our common humanity. Though some of us are loathe to admit it, we are all much more the same than we are different.
One of O’Rourke’s most memorable lines was: “First we got all the money. Then we got all the votes. Now we’ve got all the power!” Bennett’s celebration boogie, in anticipation of Muller’s failure to win O’Rourke’s electoral trifecta, has about it the same bracing honesty. Speaking of her hardcore National colleagues, she once told a startled journalist: “We didn’t come to Wellington to fuck spiders!” And wasn’t that the truth?
Muller’s lack-lustre and self-contradictory performances offer conclusive proof that a political leader cannot be manged into competence. National’s new boss has Janet Wilson handling his media and Matthew Hooton writing his speeches. Both are highly professional political and public relations specialists, and Muller is lucky to have them. But, they can’t be Leader of the Opposition for him.
It was exactly the same with David Cunliffe. Not even Matt McCarten, a.k.a “Mattiavelli”, could transform the ambitious climber who deposed David Shearer into a credible alternative prime minister. In the end, the person has to want the job enough to do what it takes to get it. Also needed is a clear idea of what to do with “all the power” once you’ve got it. This is where Muller falls short. Quoting Mickey Savage is all very well, but when a traditional Catholic talks about “applied Christianity” – what, exactly, does he mean?
It’s something which, I suspect, Muller’s evangelical Christian colleagues would also like to know. Their right-wing, fundamentalist version of the Christian message would see National taking a very different stance on a broad range of social issues from the one so clearly favoured by Muller and his liberal allies. A couple of months back, David Cormack (another PR maven) offered up his own take on National’s Christian conservatives:
“There is a large bloc in National of Christians with some pretty extreme views. They’re not traditional Christian National Party folk, but more fire and brimstone. Muller is a traditional National Party Christian, he voted No on the abortion bill’s second and third reading, he voted No on all three readings of the euthanasia bill. But he is considered not right wing enough by the large Christian bloc.”
According to Cormack:
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
“All of the highly conservative Christian MPs want to fight their very own culture wars here in NZ; think GOP level. Staunchly pro-Israel, really strongly anti-abortion, anti-women and gay rights. They want to fight the ‘Marxism’ that they believe has infested our schools, universities and even Labour (!)”
Contrast these hardline views with the gentle conservatism set out by Muller in his Te Puna hometown address in mid-June. Beautifully crafted by Hooton, the speech enunciated a set of values radically at odds with the proudly reactionary beliefs of Chris Penk and his comrades. Reading that speech, Muller’s opponents in the National caucus must have wondered whether their party was any longer big enough for the both of them.
On the one hand stands Muller (and Hooton) eager to keep the two main political parties committed to delivering the same neoliberal lines (albeit with some relatively minor differences in emphasis) that have bound the precious “median voter” to the aspirations of the broad centre of New Zealand politics for the best part of four decades.
On the other hand stand what might best be described as the “radical conservatives”. Their principal objection to the existing neoliberal order is its acceptance of what they see as the immoral and socially-destructive consequences of the cultural revolution of the 1960s and 70s. With some justification, they see identity politics as intrinsically hostile to the unequal distribution of power and wealth under patriarchal capitalism. Take patriarchy out of the capitalist equation and, in the view of the radical conservatives, it will fall.
These are not the sort of ideas to earn more than a curl of Nikki Kaye’s upper lip. Rightly, she foresees the wholesale rejection of such an avowedly sexist National Party by the overwhelming majority of middle-class Pakeha women. Indeed, it was to forestall such a radical-conservative deviation into Trumpland that the coup against Simon Bridges was mounted. That it succeeded only because the erratic Judith Collins anticipated taking more satisfaction from shafting Bridges and Bennett than from saving them, merely reinforces the scale of the dysfunction currently besetting the National Party.
Such dysfunction is essentially ineradicable by anything other than the annihilation of one of the two contending factions. This is, after all, what happened in the Labour Party when the Rogernomes and their careerist enablers made it more-or-less impossible for the left faction to remain within the party without surrendering their most deeply held convictions.
For National’s radical conservatives, the path to this annihilation solution is clear: engineer a defeat on a par with the disaster of 2002. The principal victims of such a strategy would be the party’s liberal faction. In Lenin’s famous phrase, it would lead to “fewer – but better” National MPs. A solid foundation of radical conservative patriarchal Christian capitalists upon which National’s electoral recovery can be built.
You see now why Todd Muller is toast! Also clear, is why so many National women are now determined to give their votes to Jacinda.


thedailyblog--2020-07-01--Let’s please save KiwiSaver from the axe

The NZ Institute have recently come out swinging the axe for KiwiSaver in a new report that suggests NZ ’ s rainy day fund could help solve economic pain of Covid-19 .
The language is somewhat sensationalized , for example , the author of the report is quoted saying : “ How many folk know that the Government still spends about $ 1 billion a year on KiwiSaver subsidies even though rigorous evaluations of the scheme ’ s performance found it to be a complete flop ?
“ Without providing any reference for those “ rigorous evaluations of the scheme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ goes on to say : “ At the very least , KiwiSaver subsidies are a luxury we can ’ t afford right now and they should cease.
” The report ’ s author is an ex-Treasury econometrician who has been of part of a group of like-minded economists whose analysis of the available data between 2006-2010 form the basis of at least 6 Treasury papers and articles .
The latest , published in the New Zealand Economic Papers in 2017 , and also based on data pre 2010 is named “ KiwiSaver and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Using the same limited and out-of-date data sources , two other commentators have also weighed in .
In Rob Stock ’ s March article , Call to suspend 800 million KiwiSaver subsidies during COVID crisis , they claim : “ KiwiSaver was always “ a solution for a problem which did not exist… Subsidising KiwiSaver was a silly idea at the best of times .
It becomes even sillier at the worst of times….What we should be doing is allowing people with KiwiSaver to take out $ 2000 a month providing they give @ @ @ @ @ @ @ income , or have been laid off because of coronavirus.
” This urge to ensure that the small retirement savings that low income people have accumulated in KiwiSaver are eroded pre-retirement is very strange considering the timing – in early 2020 , just as sharemarkets were tanking .
The long-term consequence on the distribution of income for future retirees is ignored .
Particularly worrying is the situation of those in their late 50s and early 60s who have lost jobs and are the least likely to be re-employed or to be able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there will be cases where early access to KiwiSaver is justified and sensible , but in a well-functioning society such cases should be rare , even in a crisis .
There are other options to drawing on KiwiSaver balances – including better income support in the welfare system , and increasing availability of low- and no-interest loans from not-for-profit microfinance providers .
The Commission for Financial Capability ’ s sorted.org.nz provides online advice , and Financial Mentors offer free services throughout New Zealand .
The more substantive issue is the animosity to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to subsidise saving and the implicit idea that KiwiSaver was a mistaken policy that has been proven ‘ not to work ’ .
The Treasury-based body of work is entirely founded on the idea that KiwiSaver should be judged on whether it has increased saving .
This is too big an issue to cover here but suffice to say it overlooks for example that the form of saving is important too .
In terms of their own criterion for success , the Treasury-based studies show that about one third of KiwiSaver funds can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ however , they frame it “ that only about one third of KiwiSaver funds can be attributed to new saving.
” Leaving aside criticisms of the methodology , this finding scarcely supports the conclusion that KiwiSaver has been “ a complete flop ” .
Today , one third of the over $ 57 billion that has been accumulated in KiwiSaver accounts represents a significant gain in individuals ’ retirement savings .
The authors could have more usefully said : “ It is amazing that as much as one third of KiwiSaver funds appears @ @ @ @ @ @ @ always going to be offsets especially as many old-fashioned employer-based schemes were either closed , redesigned or switched into KiwiSaver .
KiwiSaver means that we have a much more inclusive policy that utilises the advantages of work-based saving while not excluding those not in paid work .
Of course , in the early years of KiwiSaver , many people not in paid work joined with the kickstart and may not have made many personal contributions yet .
That doesn ’ t mean in the next 40 years it ‘ hasn ’ t worked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about these studies : KiwiSaver only started mid-way through 2007 , and any data based on only the very early years can ’ t realistically be used to judge a long-term savings scheme with a 40-year horizon .
”

Dr Susan St John and Claire Dale
The NZ Institute have recently come out swinging the axe for KiwiSaver in a new report that suggests NZ’s rainy day fund could help solve economic pain of Covid-19. The language is somewhat sensationalized, for example, the author of the report is quoted saying:
“How many folk know that the Government still spends about $1 billion a year on KiwiSaver subsidies even though rigorous evaluations of the scheme’s performance found it to be a complete flop?“
Without providing any reference for those “rigorous evaluations of the scheme’s performance”, he then goes on to say:
“At the very least, KiwiSaver subsidies are a luxury we can’t afford right now and they should cease.”
The report’s author is an ex-Treasury econometrician who has been of part of a group of like-minded economists whose analysis of the available data between 2006-2010 form the basis of at least 6 Treasury papers and articles. The latest, published in the New Zealand Economic Papers in 2017, and also based on data pre 2010 is named “KiwiSaver and the accumulation of net wealth”,
Using the same limited and out-of-date data sources, two other commentators have also weighed in. In Rob Stock’s March article, Call to suspend 800 million KiwiSaver subsidies during COVID crisis, they claim:
“KiwiSaver was always “a solution for a problem which did not exist… Subsidising KiwiSaver was a silly idea at the best of times. It becomes even sillier at the worst of times….What we should be doing is allowing people with KiwiSaver to take out $2000 a month providing they give us a certificate that they have reduced income, or have been laid off because of coronavirus.”
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
This urge to ensure that the small retirement savings that low income people have accumulated in KiwiSaver are eroded pre-retirement is very strange considering the timing – in early 2020, just as sharemarkets were tanking. The long-term consequence on the distribution of income for future retirees is ignored. Particularly worrying is the situation of those in their late 50s and early 60s who have lost jobs and are the least likely to be re-employed or to be able to repair their balance sheets.
Of course, there will be cases where early access to KiwiSaver is justified and sensible, but in a well-functioning society such cases should be rare, even in a crisis. There are other options to drawing on KiwiSaver balances – including better income support in the welfare system, and increasing availability of low- and no-interest loans from not-for-profit microfinance providers. The Commission for Financial Capability’s sorted.org.nz provides online advice, and Financial Mentors offer free services throughout New Zealand.
The more substantive issue is the animosity to the use of ‘taxpayer’ money to subsidise saving and the implicit idea that KiwiSaver was a mistaken policy that has been proven ‘not to work’. The Treasury-based body of work is entirely founded on the idea that KiwiSaver should be judged on whether it has increased saving. This is too big an issue to cover here but suffice to say it overlooks for example that the form of saving is important too.
In terms of their own criterion for success, the Treasury-based studies show that about one third of KiwiSaver funds can be attributed to new saving. Disparagingly however, they frame it “that only about one third of KiwiSaver funds can be attributed to new saving.” Leaving aside criticisms of the methodology, this finding scarcely supports the conclusion that KiwiSaver has been “a complete flop”. Today, one third of the over $57 billion that has been accumulated in KiwiSaver accounts represents a significant gain in individuals’ retirement savings.
The authors could have more usefully said:
“It is amazing that as much as one third of KiwiSaver funds appears to be new saving. There were always going to be offsets especially as many old-fashioned employer-based schemes were either closed, redesigned or switched into KiwiSaver. KiwiSaver means that we have a much more inclusive policy that utilises the advantages of work-based saving while not excluding those not in paid work. Of course, in the early years of KiwiSaver, many people not in paid work joined with the kickstart and may not have made many personal contributions yet. That doesn’t mean in the next 40 years it ‘hasn’t worked’. We must be very modest about these studies: KiwiSaver only started mid-way through 2007, and any data based on only the very early years can’t realistically be used to judge a long-term savings scheme with a 40-year horizon.”


thedailyblog--2020-07-02--‘We must act now over gender-based violence,’ Dame Meg tells PNG

OPEN LETTER : From Dame Meg Taylor to the people of Papua New Guinea via the PNG Institute of National Affairs .
I write this as a Papua New Guinean and a daughter of this nation .
I believe in the rights of women .
I believe that the Constitution of the Independent State of Papua New Guinea , the Mama Lo , safeguards the place of women in our nation .
I understand the strengths and limitations of our cultures and customs .
It is with this in mind that I must acknowledge , at the outset , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , sisters and girls that make-up the silent majority that serve our families and communities on a daily basis .
READ MORE : The harrowing picture that tells a thousand words about tragedy As will be the case with many Papua New Guineans today , I too have followed with deep regret and great sadness the stories surrounding the brutal death of a young girl and mother – Ms Jenelyn Kennedy .
Hers was a death so violent that it brought me to my knees .
And yet , hers is not a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the frequency of cases like hers is why I have decided to pen this letter today .
I believe that our society has reached a pivotal juncture where we must determine for ourselves if we , as a nation , will stand by and continue to tolerate these acts of horrendous violence or if we will take a stand and make a commitment towards real societal and behavioural change .
We need to dig deep into our hearts and minds and ask ourselves – how many more vicious and violent deaths need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wake up to this serious social issue ?
How can we , as individuals and communities , stand up for and speak out on violence against women – violence in all forms .
How can we encourage women to speak up ?
How can we encourage men to speak up with no fear of retribution – of payback ?
So blinded by complacency ?
Have we become so blinded by complacency , truly believing and trusting of the values that we as Christians share – love , respect , humility and generosity towards @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and our related silence are demonstration of our disrespect and disingenuousness towards our Christian faith .
It calls into question how our society values women and girls .
I firmly believe that women are the core of all societies – women birth life , they are the primary caregivers in all families , the conduit of societal teachings and values , the very core of all economies .
To look at our society today , I can not help but ask : what kind of country are we building for the future generation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abused and killed and where families know about abuse and torture and say nothing .
This is exactly what is happening on a daily basis in our country .
In the most part , where we have failed is that my generation and the mothers and fathers of today have not guided our children , especially our sons , and instilled in them the values of caring , hard work and the honouring of family and community .
We have not instilled in our sons the primary values of respect .
We make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for our sons whilst our daughters , from a very young age , carry burdens of responsibility .
When there is violence against women we settle the situation with compensation payments but we do little or nothing at all to help young families seek help and heal .
Laws are part of our solution to protect those who are assaulted and attacked but that is not enough .
The responsibility rests with every citizen .
Our behaviour and our attitude and how we fashion the society we want to live in will deliver @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and obligation We have a duty and obligation to invest in the future of our country and the only way we can be assured of a safe place , is to invest in our children .
We have many good and decent people who want the best for our society and our future .
We have so many kind and generous people who help others and work to build a better home .
Indeed , power and money has bred a new culture of greed and entitlement in pockets of our society – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are not accountable for what they do .
This is not right .
Don ’ t let the death of this young woman Jenelyn and others who have died in such circumstance be in vain .
Do your bit each day .
Our shame is everybody ’ s shame and we carry this burden until we are rid of it .
This country – our nation of a thousand tribes – is made up of each one of us and we are each responsible for how we live and how we care and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Guinea , we are better than this .
We can be a strong and confident people , but it will take a whole of society effort for all of us to stand up and be counted .
Carry our shame and be rid of the brutality and violence toward women .
We can do this , all together .
Let ’ s speak up , speak out and be a form of strength in our communities as we advocate for change in our societies and homes .
At the end of the day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the Kumul can only be magnificent and proud when both wings are strong – we need each other – this is all we have .
This open letter has been republished from Asia Pacific Report with permission .
David Robie is editor of APR .

OPEN LETTER: From Dame Meg Taylor to the people of Papua New Guinea via the PNG Institute of National Affairs.
I write this as a Papua New Guinean and a daughter of this nation.
I believe in the rights of women. I believe that the Constitution of the Independent State of Papua New Guinea, the Mama Lo, safeguards the place of women in our nation.
I understand the strengths and limitations of our cultures and customs. It is with this in mind that I must acknowledge, at the outset, the women of my homeland; the mothers, sisters and girls that make-up the silent majority that serve our families and communities on a daily basis.
READ MORE: The harrowing picture that tells a thousand words about tragedy
As will be the case with many Papua New Guineans today, I too have followed with deep regret and great sadness the stories surrounding the brutal death of a young girl and mother – Ms Jenelyn Kennedy. Hers was a death so violent that it brought me to my knees.
And yet, hers is not a death of an extraordinary nature. Indeed, the frequency of cases like hers is why I have decided to pen this letter today. I believe that our society has reached a pivotal juncture where we must determine for ourselves if we, as a nation, will stand by and continue to tolerate these acts of horrendous violence or if we will take a stand and make a commitment towards real societal and behavioural change.
We need to dig deep into our hearts and minds and ask ourselves – how many more vicious and violent deaths need to happen in our homeland before we wake up to this serious social issue? How can we, as individuals and communities, stand up for and speak out on violence against women – violence in all forms.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
How can we encourage women to speak up? How can we encourage men to speak up with no fear of retribution – of payback?
So blinded by complacency?
Have we become so blinded by complacency, truly believing and trusting of the values that we as Christians share – love, respect, humility and generosity towards each other? These acts of violence and our related silence are demonstration of our disrespect and
disingenuousness towards our Christian faith. It calls into question how our society values women and girls.
I firmly believe that women are the core of all societies – women birth life, they are the primary caregivers in all families, the conduit of societal teachings and values, the very core of all economies.
To look at our society today, I cannot help but ask: what kind of country are we building for the future generation when women and girls are tortured, abused and killed and where families know about abuse and torture and say nothing. This is exactly what is happening on a daily basis in our country.
In the most part, where we have failed is that my generation and the mothers and fathers of today have not guided our children, especially our sons, and instilled in them the values of caring, hard work and the honouring of family and community.
We have not instilled in our sons the primary values of respect. We make excuses and we go the extra mile for our sons whilst our daughters, from a very young age, carry burdens of responsibility.
When there is violence against women we settle the situation with compensation payments but we do little or nothing at all to help young families seek help and heal.
Laws are part of our solution to protect those who are assaulted and attacked but that is not enough. The responsibility rests with every citizen. Our behaviour and our attitude and how we fashion the society we want to live in will deliver this homeland of ours.
A duty and obligation
We have a duty and obligation to invest in the future of our country and the only way we can be assured of a safe place, is to invest in our children.
We have many good and decent people who want the best for our society and our future. We have so many kind and generous people who help others and work to build a better home.
Indeed, power and money has bred a new culture of greed and entitlement in pockets of our society – people who walk all over others and are not accountable for what they do.
This is not right. Don’t let the death of this young woman Jenelyn and others who have died in such circumstance be in vain. Do your bit each day. Our shame is everybody’s shame and we carry this burden until we are rid of it.
This country – our nation of a thousand tribes – is made up of each one of us and we are each responsible for how we live and how we care and protect women and girls.
Papua New Guinea, we are better than this. We can be a strong and confident people, but it will take a whole of society effort for all of us to stand up and be counted. Carry our shame and be rid of the brutality and violence toward women. We can do this, all together.
Let’s speak up, speak out and be a form of strength in our communities as we advocate for change in our societies and homes. At the end of the day we must hold strong to the fact that the Kumul can only be magnificent and proud when both wings are strong – we need each other – this is all we have.
Dame Meg Taylor, DBE
Suva, Fiji
This open letter has been republished from Asia Pacific Report with permission. David Robie is editor of APR.


Defending The Revolution

THE GREAT PROLETARIAN CULTURAL REVOLUTION , the very name unfurls like a crudely painted red banner .
Most people , if they have heard of it at all , picked up most of what they know from documentaries in which the Cultural Revolution rates only a few minutes of critical historical scrutiny .
What those who grew to adulthood in the years following Mao Zedong ’ s death in 1976 will never understand , however , is the sheer disruptive energy of Maoism .
Mao ’ s “ Little Red Book ” ; his fanatical “ Red Guards ” ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Revolution ; left an entire generation of leftists deeply scarred .
Not only in China , but across the entire world .
Recent developments on the left of politics , however , are stirring painful memories of Mao ’ s Cultural Revolution .
On college campuses , in particular , grey-bearded observers are witnessing the same inflamed political passions ; the same terrifying group-think ; the same reckless determination to tear down the entire cultural inheritance of the past ; that characterised the Cultural Revolution .
What distinguishes the present ideological extremism from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the opaqueness of its ultimate purpose .
The prime mover – and prime beneficiary – of the Cultural Revolution was Mao himself .
Cui bono ?
– who benefits ?
– from the present “ woke ” revolt ?
Following the abject failure of Mao ’ s “ Great Leap Forward ” ( essentially an attempt to achieve the modernisation of China ’ s economy through acts of sheer collective will ) the “ Great Helmsman ” of the People ’ s Republic found himself increasingly side-lined by the more pragmatic members @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Central Committee .
The leader of these “ revisionists ” , Deng Xiaoping , famously summed up his approach by citing the ancient Chinese proverb : “ It matters little whether a cat is black or white , so long as it catches mice.
” To recover his supremacy , both within the party and the country , Mao needed to mobilise a force powerful enough to challenge Deng and his revisionist comrades .
With towering cynicism , Mao chose as his battering-ram the first generation to have grown up under Communist rule @ @ @ @ @ @ @ revolution ” .
The unquestioning loyalty of these young people to the man who had made it possible for China to “ stand up ” was directed against what Mao called “ The Four Olds ” : Old Customs , Old Culture , Old Habits and Old Ideas .
China , said Mao , was in danger of sliding back towards the untruths and injustices of the past .
This could only be prevented by mass struggle .
“ To rebel is justified ” , Mao proclaimed .
The time had come to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Communist Party which had fallen under the thrall of bourgeois ideas .
Mao ’ s young “ Red Guards ” needed little encouragement to attack Mao ’ s revisionist enemies .
Hardly surprising , when his “ Little Red Book ” offered the following words of inspiration : “ The world is yours , as well as ours , but in the last analysis , it is yours .
You young people , full of vigor and vitality , are in the bloom of life , like the sun at eight or nine @ @ @ @ @ @ @ placed on you.… The world belongs to you .
China ’ s future belongs to you.
” The consequences of unleashing the young against the old ; of elevating ideological rigor above reasoned debate ; and of setting the present against the past ; was a decade of unprecedented social stress and tension , interspersed with explosions of murderous mob violence and tragic material destruction .
More than 30 years after its final suppression by the People ’ s Liberation Army in the mid-1970s , the legacy of the Cultural Revolution lingered on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , artistic treasures and historical monuments laid waste .
Visiting China in 2008 , I was deeply saddened by the personal testimonies vouchsafed to me by the victims of those terrible ten years .
Not the least injured by Mao ’ s Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution were the young Red Guards themselves .
Seldom in human history has a generation been so cruelly used and cast aside .
It wasn ’ t only the youth of China who suffered as a result of the Cultural Revolution .
Mao ’ s reassurance that “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the imagination of thousands of young people in the West who had lost faith in the United States-led capitalist system that encouraged endless consumption at home while dealing out death and destruction to the people of Vietnam .
The young people who led the Youth Revolt of the late-1960s in the West took heart from the Maoist anthem “ The East Is Red ” – seeing their own surging street battles magnified a thousand-fold in China ’ s teeming cities .
It is one of history ’ s vicious ironies that the only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ young revolutionaries of East and West was the triumph of a form of capitalism ten times more ruthless and exploitative than the one they were rebelling against .
Deng Xiaoping survived the Cultural Revolution , and very soon his ideologically agnostic cats were teaming-up with all manner of running-dogs .
Likewise in the West , where , by the end of the 1970s , the managed capitalism which had delivered three decades of unprecedented prosperity was being traded-in for the “ freedom-loving ” neoliberal capitalism we know today .
One could argue that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ changes amounted to a revolution – of sorts .
If that was the case , then the resurgence of ideologically-inspired intergenerational conflict that we are witnessing today is explained .
Mao Zedong , just like Joseph Stalin before him , considered it most unwise to let the members of his own revolutionary generation keep alive the traditions of dissent , mass organisation , and lively political debate which had made the overthrow of the previous system possible .
Keeping these traditions alive , he argued , was an open invitation to the forces @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from within .
Better by far to undermine and discredit the revolutionary values of the past by unleashing against them carefully formulated and entirely contradictory ideas deliberately inculcated in a younger generation of officially-sanctioned “ rebels ” .
By adopting this profoundly cynical and supremely manipulative strategy of fomenting intergenerational strife , Mao restored himself to absolute power .
Is Neoliberalism hoping to do the same ?
Preserving capitalism by taking a leaf out of the little red Maoist playbook ?

THE GREAT PROLETARIAN CULTURAL REVOLUTION, the very name unfurls like a crudely painted red banner. Most people, if they have heard of it at all, picked up most of what they know from documentaries in which the Cultural Revolution rates only a few minutes of critical historical scrutiny. What those who grew to adulthood in the years following Mao Zedong’s death in 1976 will never understand, however, is the sheer disruptive energy of Maoism. Mao’s “Little Red Book”; his fanatical “Red Guards”; the whole terrifying experience of the Cultural Revolution; left an entire generation of leftists deeply scarred. Not only in China, but across the entire world.
Recent developments on the left of politics, however, are stirring painful memories of Mao’s Cultural Revolution. On college campuses, in particular, grey-bearded observers are witnessing the same inflamed political passions; the same terrifying group-think; the same reckless determination to tear down the entire cultural inheritance of the past; that characterised the Cultural Revolution. What distinguishes the present ideological extremism from the excesses of Maoism, however, is the opaqueness of its ultimate purpose. The prime mover – and prime beneficiary – of the Cultural Revolution was Mao himself. Cui bono? – who benefits? – from the present “woke” revolt?
Following the abject failure of Mao’s “Great Leap Forward” (essentially an attempt to achieve the modernisation of China’s economy through acts of sheer collective will) the “Great Helmsman” of the People’s Republic found himself increasingly side-lined by the more pragmatic members of the Chinese Communist Party’s Central Committee. The leader of these “revisionists”, Deng Xiaoping, famously summed up his approach by citing the ancient Chinese proverb: “It matters little whether a cat is black or white, so long as it catches mice.” To recover his supremacy, both within the party and the country, Mao needed to mobilise a force powerful enough to challenge Deng and his revisionist comrades.
With towering cynicism, Mao chose as his battering-ram the first generation to have grown up under Communist rule: literally the “children of the revolution”. The unquestioning loyalty of these young people to the man who had made it possible for China to “stand up” was directed against what Mao called “The Four Olds”: Old Customs, Old Culture, Old Habits and Old Ideas. China, said Mao, was in danger of sliding back towards the untruths and injustices of the past. This could only be prevented by mass struggle. “To rebel is justified”, Mao proclaimed. The time had come to “bombard the headquarters” of a Communist Party which had fallen under the thrall of bourgeois ideas.
Mao’s young “Red Guards” needed little encouragement to attack Mao’s revisionist enemies. Hardly surprising, when his “Little Red Book” offered the following words of inspiration:
“The world is yours, as well as ours, but in the last analysis, it is yours. You young people, full of vigor and vitality, are in the bloom of life, like the sun at eight or nine in the morning. Our hope is placed on you.… The world belongs to you. China’s future belongs to you.”
The consequences of unleashing the young against the old; of elevating ideological rigor above reasoned debate; and of setting the present against the past; was a decade of unprecedented social stress and tension, interspersed with explosions of murderous mob violence and tragic material destruction. More than 30 years after its final suppression by the People’s Liberation Army in the mid-1970s, the legacy of the Cultural Revolution lingered on in families torn apart, careers destroyed, artistic treasures and historical monuments laid waste.
Visiting China in 2008, I was deeply saddened by the personal testimonies vouchsafed to me by the victims of those terrible ten years. Not the least injured by Mao’s Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution were the young Red Guards themselves. Seldom in human history has a generation been so cruelly used and cast aside.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
It wasn’t only the youth of China who suffered as a result of the Cultural Revolution. Mao’s reassurance that “to rebel is justified” also caught the imagination of thousands of young people in the West who had lost faith in the United States-led capitalist system that encouraged endless consumption at home while dealing out death and destruction to the people of Vietnam. The young people who led the Youth Revolt of the late-1960s in the West took heart from the Maoist anthem “The East Is Red” – seeing their own surging street battles magnified a thousand-fold in China’s teeming cities.
It is one of history’s vicious ironies that the only reward for all the exertions of the young revolutionaries of East and West was the triumph of a form of capitalism ten times more ruthless and exploitative than the one they were rebelling against. Deng Xiaoping survived the Cultural Revolution, and very soon his ideologically agnostic cats were teaming-up with all manner of running-dogs. Likewise in the West, where, by the end of the 1970s, the managed capitalism which had delivered three decades of unprecedented prosperity was being traded-in for the “freedom-loving” neoliberal capitalism we know today.
One could argue that, in both cases, these dramatic changes amounted to a revolution – of sorts. If that was the case, then the resurgence of ideologically-inspired intergenerational conflict that we are witnessing today is explained.
Mao Zedong, just like Joseph Stalin before him, considered it most unwise to let the members of his own revolutionary generation keep alive the traditions of dissent, mass organisation, and lively political debate which had made the overthrow of the previous system possible. Keeping these traditions alive, he argued, was an open invitation to the forces of counter-revolution to subvert the new order from within. Better by far to undermine and discredit the revolutionary values of the past by unleashing against them carefully formulated and entirely contradictory ideas deliberately inculcated in a younger generation of officially-sanctioned “rebels”.
By adopting this profoundly cynical and supremely manipulative strategy of fomenting intergenerational strife, Mao restored himself to absolute power. Is Neoliberalism hoping to do the same? Preserving capitalism by taking a leaf out of the little red Maoist playbook?


thedailyblog--2020-07-04--Cannabis Referendum’s Volatile Polls Show Every Vote Will Count – As Scientologists and Uncle SAM Ex

Cannabis Referendum’s Volatile Polls Show Every Vote Will Count – As Scientologists and Uncle SAM Exposed Behind Bob’s “Nope” Campaign

With no public education campaign and widespread confusion over what the referendum will do , it is perhaps unsurprising to see such volatility in opinion polls .
What is perhaps more surprising is that the cannabis referendum result could be decided by the least powerful and most disenfranchised members of society .
And what should horrify everyone is that foreign interests and religious charlatans are actively working for the Nope campaign fronted by Family First .
Two cannabis referendum polls were released this week , with one putting Yes in the lead and the other showing the opposite , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Last Monday a poll released by Horizon had the Yes campaign in the lead , at 56 per cent intending to vote Yes compared to 42 per cent voting No .
But TVNZ ’ s Colmar Brunton poll , released the same day , had Yes trailing at 40 per cent versus 49 per cent for No .
Crucially however , both polls had the Yes campaign tracking upwards .
The trend is on our side .
The Horizon poll found stronger support from women compared to men , and young compared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters were most likely to vote Yes .
The Horizon poll also showed especially strong support for reform among Maori .
This makes sense , as Maori have traditionally borne the worst of overzealous drug law enforcement and can also see the economic opportunities a positive referendum result would generate .
My reading of both polls is that , if anything , TVNZ ’ s Colmar poll is conservatively worded and may tend to produce a more conservative result .
The opposite may be the case with Horizon ’ s poll , conducted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ medicinal cannabis licence .
It is important to remember that neither poll asked the question that will be asked in the referendum ( which will be : “ Do you support the proposed Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill ?
” ) .
They asked their own , rather different , questions .
If we average both polls , we are dead even .
It ’ s a 50:50 split .
As I ’ ve been saying to anyone who would listen , whether or not you vote could make the difference .
With @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stuck on the bottom , who tend to not vote , more power and influence than ever before .
My hunch is many non-voters would tend to vote Yes , if they voted this time .
I suspect the Nope campaign knows this too .
So watch out for provocateurs discouraging voting – “ a waste of time ” , “ they ’ ll never do it ” , “ they ’ re so corrupt ” , etc – and question who the act of not voting really helps .
In this case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ referendum , deciding to not vote can only help the prohibitionists working for the No campaign .
With support among intending voters tied , not voting effectively means casting a vote for No .
Not voting increases the likelihood that prohibition will remain the law ; that young and disadvantaged people will be unfairly targeted ; that youth will be blighted by criminal convictions ; that criminal justice approach will win over a health-based approach ; that police will keep arresting thousands of New Zealanders .
For ever .
That is the aim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and revisionist propaganda , the Say Nope to Dope campaign .
Say Nope to Uncle SAM and Religious Weirdos Fronted by Family First ’ s Bob McCroskie , it turns out the Nope campaign is actually backed by well-funded US lobbyists and the Church of Scientology .
The Daily Blog ’ s Martyn Bradbury has the story here ( Cough , cough – like TDB pointed out , American Christian Right funding NZ referendum ) .
I had been hearing the rumours all year .
TVNZ then reported our Government is rightfully @ @ @ @ @ @ @ process – namely , Uncle Sam telling Kiwis how to vote in the cannabis referendum .
Smart Approaches to Marijuana ( or SAM ) has been behind most of the unsuccessful US campaigns fighting cannabis law reform and trying to lock states into futilely continuing prohibition .
It turns out they are also behind the Say Nope to Dope campaign fronted by the awful Bob McCroskie .
Even National ’ s Shane Reti said he is “ not enthusiastic for foreign interests to be interfering in domestic policy ” .
It gets worse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nope campaign is also backed by the Church of Scientology .
Not just casual support – they are actively involved .
Their front organisation ’ s website , Drug Free World Aotearoa-NZ , encourages visitors to book explanatory sessions with their counsellors / mind-control fanatics .
And even worse .
Russell Brown also discovered former National Party drugs spokesperson Paula Bennett had called a public meeting in Auckland to discuss “ drug reform ” in February this year at which she handed out Scientology pamphlets to the audience .
While Minister under the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approved giving public money to Drug Free Ambassadors , another Scientology front , for 130,000 copies of an anti-drugs brainwashing booklet they distributed to New Zealand schools .
While officially denying any funding from overseas , it is obvious Say Nope has a large enough budget to run nationwide billboards for the past year , widespread internet ads , full page newspaper ads , and so on .
I wish the Yes campaign had their level of funding !
These revelations came out after the two polls above were conducted , so the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yet known .
I ’ d be surprised if many people would knowingly associate with this lot now .
We have become aware that the more people know about the referendum ’ s proposed Bill , the more likely they are to vote Yes .
If they do not know much about it , they are more likely to vote No .
Messages that resonate especially well with fence-sitters tend to emphasis the controls built into the referendum ’ s Bill .
These include the R20 age limit , the ban on advertising @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and produce types , limiting use to private spaces not in public , and that drug-driving will still be prohibited .
Employers want assurance workplace safety issues won ’ t be affected ( they won ’ t ) .
People also appreciate that medicinal access will be easier and cheaper when cannabis is properly legal , and that NZ ’ s version of legalisation will benefit local communities and promote participation by non-profits and social enterprises .
There will be no Big Cannabis in New Zealand .
Our main task , therefore , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Bill and what it does , without needing to go hard convincing people it is right .
They will come to that decision on their own .
You can help by talking to your family and friends – have that difficult conversation you ’ ve been putting off – and try setting a goal of getting at least one non-voter to enrol and vote Yes in the referendum .
Remind them they can just vote for the referendum and don ’ t have to vote in the election too , if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If we all convince at least one non-voter to vote Yes , we ’ ll win this comfortably .
Enrol at vote.nz .
From this coming election , anyone aged over 18 can now enrol and vote right up to voting day , and on voting day itself .
Voting booths will also be in places like Supermarkets , so it has never been easier to vote – and every vote will make a difference !
If you want to help more , make a donation to Make It Legal at Givealittle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Yes On Our Terms campaign by making a donation here .
They have just successfully fought off 50 complaints organised by Bob ’ s Nopers and now need your support to keep the Yes campaign ads running .
Chris Fowlie is the CEO of Zeacann Limited , a medicinal cannabis producer ; co-founder of the New Zealand Medical Cannabis Council ; president of the National Organisation for the Reform of Marijuana Laws NZ Inc ; developer of the CHOISE model for cannabis social equity ; co-founder of The Hempstore Aotearoa ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; cannabis blogger for The Daily Blog , and court-recognised independent expert witness for cannabis .
The opinions expressed here are his own .

With no public education campaign and widespread confusion over what the referendum will do, it is perhaps unsurprising to see such volatility in opinion polls. What is perhaps more surprising is that the cannabis referendum result could be decided by the least powerful and most disenfranchised members of society. And what should horrify everyone is that foreign interests and religious charlatans are actively working for the Nope campaign fronted by Family First.
Two cannabis referendum polls were released this week, with one putting Yes in the lead and the other showing the opposite, but both showing support for Yes tracking upwards.
Last Monday a poll released by Horizon had the Yes campaign in the lead, at 56 per cent intending to vote Yes compared to 42 per cent voting No. But TVNZ’s Colmar Brunton poll, released the same day, had Yes trailing at 40 per cent versus 49 per cent for No.
Crucially however, both polls had the Yes campaign tracking upwards. The trend is on our side.
The Horizon poll found stronger support from women compared to men, and young compared to Boomers. Green Party and ACT voters were most likely to vote Yes.
The Horizon poll also showed especially strong support for reform among Maori. This makes sense, as Maori have traditionally borne the worst of overzealous drug law enforcement and can also see the economic opportunities a positive referendum result would generate.
My reading of both polls is that, if anything, TVNZ’s Colmar poll is conservatively worded and may tend to produce a more conservative result. The opposite may be the case with Horizon’s poll, conducted for Helius Therapeutics, which holds a medicinal cannabis licence.
It is important to remember that neither poll asked the question that will be asked in the referendum (which will be: “Do you support the proposed Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill?”). They asked their own, rather different, questions.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
If we average both polls, we are dead even. It’s a 50:50 split.
Every vote will count.
As I’ve been saying to anyone who would listen, whether or not you vote could make the difference. With polls evenly split, this gives folk stuck on the bottom, who tend to not vote, more power and influence than ever before.
My hunch is many non-voters would tend to vote Yes, if they voted this time. I suspect the Nope campaign knows this too. So watch out for provocateurs discouraging voting – “a waste of time”, “they’ll never do it”, “they’re so corrupt”, etc – and question who the act of not voting really helps.
In this case, at this election, with this referendum, deciding to not vote can only help the prohibitionists working for the No campaign.
With support among intending voters tied, not voting effectively means casting a vote for No.
Not voting increases the likelihood that prohibition will remain the law; that young and disadvantaged people will be unfairly targeted; that youth will be blighted by criminal convictions; that criminal justice approach will win over a health-based approach; that police will keep arresting thousands of New Zealanders. For ever.
That is the aim of those purveyors of spite, misinformation, and revisionist propaganda, the Say Nope to Dope campaign.
Say Nope to Uncle SAM and Religious Weirdos
Fronted by Family First’s Bob McCroskie, it turns out the Nope campaign is actually backed by well-funded US lobbyists and the Church of Scientology.
The Daily Blog’s Martyn Bradbury has the story here (Cough, cough – like TDB pointed out, American Christian Right funding NZ referendum). I had been hearing the rumours all year.
TVNZ then reported our Government is rightfully concerned about foreign influence in our election process – namely, Uncle Sam telling Kiwis how to vote in the cannabis referendum.
Smart Approaches to Marijuana (or SAM) has been behind most of the unsuccessful US campaigns fighting cannabis law reform and trying to lock states into futilely continuing prohibition.
It turns out they are also behind the Say Nope to Dope campaign fronted by the awful Bob McCroskie.
Even National’s Shane Reti said he is “not enthusiastic for foreign interests to be interfering in domestic policy”.
It gets worse. Russell Brown has since discovered their Nope campaign is also backed by the Church of Scientology. Not just casual support – they are actively involved. Their front organisation’s website, Drug Free World Aotearoa-NZ, encourages visitors to book explanatory sessions with their counsellors / mind-control fanatics.
And even worse. Russell Brown also discovered former National Party drugs spokesperson Paula Bennett had called a public meeting in Auckland to discuss “drug reform” in February this year at which she handed out Scientology pamphlets to the audience. While Minister under the previous National Government, Paula Bennett also approved giving public money to Drug Free Ambassadors, another Scientology front, for 130,000 copies of an anti-drugs brainwashing booklet they distributed to New Zealand schools.
While officially denying any funding from overseas, it is obvious Say Nope has a large enough budget to run nationwide billboards for the past year, widespread internet ads, full page newspaper ads, and so on. I wish the Yes campaign had their level of funding!
These revelations came out after the two polls above were conducted, so the impact on support for Nope is not yet known. I’d be surprised if many people would knowingly associate with this lot now.
Awareness leads to support
We have become aware that the more people know about the referendum’s proposed Bill, the more likely they are to vote Yes. If they do not know much about it, they are more likely to vote No.
Messages that resonate especially well with fence-sitters tend to emphasis the controls built into the referendum’s Bill. These include the R20 age limit, the ban on advertising and marketing, the controls on potency and produce types, limiting use to private spaces not in public, and that drug-driving will still be prohibited. Employers want assurance workplace safety issues won’t be affected (they won’t).
People also appreciate that medicinal access will be easier and cheaper when cannabis is properly legal, and that NZ’s version of legalisation will benefit local communities and promote participation by non-profits and social enterprises. There will be no Big Cannabis in New Zealand.
Our main task, therefore, is to simply increase awareness and understanding of the Bill and what it does, without needing to go hard convincing people it is right. They will come to that decision on their own.
You can help by talking to your family and friends – have that difficult conversation you’ve been putting off – and try setting a goal of getting at least one non-voter to enrol and vote Yes in the referendum. Remind them they can just vote for the referendum and don’t have to vote in the election too, if that’s what turns them off.
If we all convince at least one non-voter to vote Yes, we’ll win this comfortably.
—
Enrol at vote.nz. From this coming election, anyone aged over 18 can now enrol and vote right up to voting day, and on voting day itself. Voting booths will also be in places like Supermarkets, so it has never been easier to vote – and every vote will make a difference!
If you want to help more, make a donation to Make It Legal at Givealittle, and help the NZ Drug Foundation’s Yes On Our Terms campaign by making a donation here. They have just successfully fought off 50 complaints organised by Bob’s Nopers and now need your support to keep the Yes campaign ads running.
—
Chris Fowlie is the CEO of Zeacann Limited, a medicinal cannabis producer; co-founder of the New Zealand Medical Cannabis Council; president of the National Organisation for the Reform of Marijuana Laws NZ Inc; developer of the CHOISE model for cannabis social equity; co-founder of The Hempstore Aotearoa; resident expert for Marijuana Media on 95bFM; cannabis blogger for The Daily Blog, and court-recognised independent expert witness for cannabis. The opinions expressed here are his own.


thedailyblog--2020-07-04--Dr Liz Gordon – Border games

Dr Liz Gordon – Border games

When the National Government appointed Peter Gluckman as the Prime Minister ’ s Chief Science Advisor , it could not have known that the position would be for life .
That Gluckman would become the Putin of Science Advice , popping up here , there and everywhere to give his views as if he were still , and forever , Chief Science Advisor .
And Helen Clark still Prime Minister .
And Rob Fyfe still head of an airline .
Of course , what I am referring to is the document issued under the names of all three via the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Informed Futures , which is based at the University of Auckland .
Reading online it is clear to see that the think tank is Peter Gluckman , transported from his previous role , and indeed his previous , previous role , into a new research centre ( read : cost centre for raising research funds ) .
Peter Gluckman is the epitome of an academic patriarch .
Wherever one spots him , he has a little group of people around him , listening to him .
He is NOT a conversationalist , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I agree with him , other times not .
But that is not the point , is it ?
The point is that he looks to influence by hurling thunderbolts of brilliance at agencies .
There have been moments of brilliance .
Some people did great research raising significant questions about Housing New Zealand ’ s policies on methamphetamine contamination in state housing .
As Chief Science Advisor , Gluckman parlayed this research into an excellent report which led to a crucial change in policy and practice .
But it was mostly all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a network of science advisors in government agencies , that network lacked leadership and was undeveloped until recently .
The new Chief Science Advisor is a very different sort of person .
Professor Juliet Gerrard is a behind-the-scenes organiser who speaks softly and takes her responsibilities very seriously , especially in relation to marshalling advice on the pandemic .
The CSA website notes : “ Juliet ’ s vision for the role centres around four qualities : rigour , inclusivity , transparency and accessibility .
She aims to create a trusted bridge between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , back to the document which is the topic of this blog .
Do not be confused by the title of this document as a “ conversation piece ” .
It may have emerged from a conversation between the three authors but it neither opens up a conversation nor provides much in the way of solutions .
It expounds .
It is not a research-based piece either .
There are no references .
It came out of the heads of the three people .
It was said to be ‘ peer-reviewed ’ by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t .
Peer review relates to a process of understanding a research piece within the context of a field of research .
As I said , it was not a research piece so peer review was not possible .
Is it a brilliant piece ?
The answer is no .
There is nothing much new in it .
The basic thesis is that closing down our borders is much easier than opening them up again .
But open them up we must , at some stage .
If I had written this piece @ @ @ @ @ @ @ barely have blinked .
This is all about the authors , not the content .
I am sure that the Government ’ s science advice networks , researchers and contractors are heavily into working through the scenarios for re-opening .
I am also certain that , for the time being , people want to stay in New Zealand ’ s Covid-free bubble .
The trouble with this paper is threefold .
One , it purports to be a research paper from a think tank , but is not .
Second , it appears @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conversation between the three authors , perhaps over a power lunch or something , but uses their names , not the quality of their thought , to give it prominence .
Finally , as I keep saying , the Covid is a highly political pandemic , and this is a highly political think piece .
The battle over re-opening , the economic versus the health , will be played out on the election field .
This piece has given ammunition for National to critique the government ’ s approach .
You can hear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that even Helen Clark , guru of the Labour movement , is urging the government to hurry up and find ways to re-open the borders .
I sometimes use this blog to report research findings .
When I do so I am always clear to separate my opinions from research .
I was therefore shocked to read about the Gluckman et al piece , shockeder ( one needs a neologism now and again ) to read it and realise it was just an opinion piece , not a research report and absolutely kerfuffled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ onto the media , who would lap it up as if God said it .
In my view , this report is practically an abuse of power , and certainly a slap in the face for the Government .

When the National Government appointed Peter Gluckman as the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, it could not have known that the position would be for life. That Gluckman would become the Putin of Science Advice, popping up here, there and everywhere to give his views as if he were still, and forever, Chief Science Advisor.
And Helen Clark still Prime Minister. And Rob Fyfe still head of an airline. Of course, what I am referring to is the document issued under the names of all three via the think tank Koi Tū: The Centre for Informed Futures, which is based at the University of Auckland. Reading online it is clear to see that the think tank is Peter Gluckman, transported from his previous role, and indeed his previous, previous role, into a new research centre (read: cost centre for raising research funds).
Peter Gluckman is the epitome of an academic patriarch. Wherever one spots him, he has a little group of people around him, listening to him. He is NOT a conversationalist, but an expounder of knowledge. Sometimes I agree with him, other times not. But that is not the point, is it? The point is that he looks to influence by hurling thunderbolts of brilliance at agencies.
There have been moments of brilliance. Some people did great research raising significant questions about Housing New Zealand’s policies on methamphetamine contamination in state housing. As Chief Science Advisor, Gluckman parlayed this research into an excellent report which led to a crucial change in policy and practice. But it was mostly all about him. Although he set up a network of science advisors in government agencies, that network lacked leadership and was undeveloped until recently.
The new Chief Science Advisor is a very different sort of person. Professor Juliet Gerrard is a behind-the-scenes organiser who speaks softly and takes her responsibilities very seriously, especially in relation to marshalling advice on the pandemic. The CSA website notes: “Juliet’s vision for the role centres around four qualities: rigour, inclusivity, transparency and accessibility. She aims to create a trusted bridge between science, society and government.”
Anyway, back to the document which is the topic of this blog. Do not be confused by the title of this document as a “conversation piece”. It may have emerged from a conversation between the three authors but it neither opens up a conversation nor provides much in the way of solutions. It expounds.
It is not a research-based piece either. There are no references. It came out of the heads of the three people. It was said to be ‘peer-reviewed’ by David Skegg. But it wasn’t. Peer review relates to a process of understanding a research piece within the context of a field of research. As I said, it was not a research piece so peer review was not possible.
Is it a brilliant piece? The answer is no. There is nothing much new in it. The basic thesis is that closing down our borders is much easier than opening them up again. But open them up we must, at some stage. If I had written this piece for The Daily Blog, you would barely have blinked. This is all about the authors, not the content.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
I am sure that the Government’s science advice networks, researchers and contractors are heavily into working through the scenarios for re-opening. I am also certain that, for the time being, people want to stay in New Zealand’s Covid-free bubble.
The trouble with this paper is threefold. One, it purports to be a research paper from a think tank, but is not. Second, it appears to have literally come out of a conversation between the three authors, perhaps over a power lunch or something, but uses their names, not the quality of their thought, to give it prominence.
Finally, as I keep saying, the Covid is a highly political pandemic, and this is a highly political think piece. The battle over re-opening, the economic versus the health, will be played out on the election field. This piece has given ammunition for National to critique the government’s approach. You can hear Mr Whitebread now, telling the electorate that even Helen Clark, guru of the Labour movement, is urging the government to hurry up and find ways to re-open the borders.
I sometimes use this blog to report research findings. When I do so I am always clear to separate my opinions from research. I was therefore shocked to read about the Gluckman et al piece, shockeder (one needs a neologism now and again) to read it and realise it was just an opinion piece, not a research report and absolutely kerfuffled that these authors would dump this piece onto the media, who would lap it up as if God said it. In my view, this report is practically an abuse of power, and certainly a slap in the face for the Government.