thedailyblog--2020-03-06--On Trump’s Nixonian “Peace With Honour” In Afghanistan

So over the past few days in Afghanistan , there ’ ve been more than six dozen Taliban attacks and the US has resumed airstrikes against them .
Yet I seem to keep running across people hailing Trump as some kind of visionary diplomatic savant ( as opposed to the *other* kind of savant ) who ’ s scored some kind of history-diverting coup in securing a sort of ‘ peace with honour ’ deal in Afghanistan .
“ Peace with Honour ” , now *there ’ s* a historically resonant phrase .
Trump is often compared to Nixon , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( although with the people making the comparisons generally forgetting that Nixon won re-election despite the allegations against him being well-publicized all throughout the electorate quite some time before polling-day ) ; yet it ’ s that particular ‘ promise ’ of Nixon ’ s that springs to mind now .
Facing an arguably unwinnable war in Vietnam , the American public had understandably soured upon its continued prosecution .
Yet a simple cut-and-run would have been substantively politically unpalatable .
So instead , Nixon ran for the Presidency on a “ pledge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of “ honourable peace ” , which some might have noted was a subtle yet important distinction from his earlier declaration of intent to secure a “ victorious peace ” .
Not that either ambition came with an actual detailed stratagem for its attainment ; prior to winning the White House , the closest he seemed to come to one was vague braggadocio about implicitly threatening via supporting parties the North Vietnamese et co til they stopped gaining ground .
Once in office , he attempted to make good upon this approach through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officially neutral Cambodia , carried out in secret ; a gambit Trump has also tried , including thermobaric-style ) and blustering bombast about massively increased pressure in other areas .
But he also pressed forward with another much more important strand of his strategy – “ Vietnamization ” .
Or , phrased another way , making the war on the ground and its unstaunchable flow of casualties effectively somebody else ’ s problem .
If it had any meaning , Nixon ’ s dictum of an “ honourable peace ” probably just meant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an allegedly “ fighting chance ” as far as the ‘ honourable ’ component went – and when it came to the “ peace ” bit , one could quote the worlds of Ronald Reagan ( ironically , speaking about the then-brewing Vietnam War in 1964 ) – “ Do they mean peace , or do they mean we just want to be left in peace ?
” Much of the American public did , indeed , “ want to be left in peace ” by the Nixon presidency , and understandably so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ *deliver* on his previous pledge of “ peace ” – “ victorious ” , “ honourable ” , or “ otherwise ” – over the four years of his first term in office , didn ’ t seem to significantly harm his electoral prospects in 1972 ; with the run-up to the November election featuring a steady stream of announcements as to the ongoing ‘ progress ’ of peace negotiations , in any case .
These eventually culminated with the Paris Peace Accords signed some four and a half months later , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allied forces from Vietnam .
That ’ s where Nixon ’ s iconically famous phrase of “ Peace With Honour ” actually comes from – his trumpeting of the eventual ‘ success ’ of his Administration ’ s negotiation ( and negotiation-from-30,000-feet ) in late January 1973 a few days before the Acccords ’ signing .
On January 27 1973 , the Paris Peace Accords came into effect .
The ceasefire held for , it appears , less than 24 hours .
However , within two weeks the US Senate would begin its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the increasingly disconcerting revelations from *that* particular low-light of the Nixon Era began to take over the headlines in earnest , the failure of both the War nobody wanted to care about anymore , as well as the Peace With Honour which was supposed to end it with something resembling “ integrity ” , edged ever further out of the public-political consciousness .
Lies , atrocities , and illegal acts carried out far away across the Pacific Ocean seemed far less significant , somehow , than those purportedly engaged in against the American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ruling caste .
Within two years , South Vietnam had effectively ceased to exist ; the Fall of Saigon in late April 1975 also encompassing the last US combat deaths of the War .
Now lest I be misinterpreted … I am not for a moment seeking to draw the more immediately obvious parallel that so often gets trotted out pertaining to Trump and Nixon .
Both men faced Impeachment .
One is still standing afterward ; and it would seem unutterably foolhardy to presume that , barring some seismic shift in American @ @ @ @ @ @ @ successful foreshortening of Trump ’ s time in office via legal means , and with it being only slightly more probable at this late stage that electoral means shall prove any greater or more successful in this endeavour .
Instead , I simply seek to suggest to the various sorts of people I ’ ve seen hailing Trump ’ s ‘ peace with honour ’ in Afghanistan – that what is likely to ensue there is probably not entirely far removed from what Nixon “ achieved ” in Paris with regard to Vietnam @ @ @ @ @ @ @ great flurry of headlines , a certain upswing in cautious optimism from some of those who ( understandably ) want the American ( involving ) war effort there to be at an end , and a much more pronounced positivity from those … enthusiastic sorts for whom Their President Can Do No Wrong .
In real terms ?
Just as with Vietnam – official involvement and boots-on-the-ground will dramatically decrease .
Actual American involvement , in the form of longer-range efforts that don ’ t create so many *American* casualties like drone-strikes and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a ‘ Linebacker ’ , you might call it ) ; as will the under-the-table and downright dodgy efforts and illicit activities that are part and parcel of the Entanglements of Empire in the Back of Beyond .
“ The Great Game ” , it was once called – perhaps this is the Great Videogame , with occasional hints of Minesweeper .
But Trump will be able to proclaim to his public that he ( finally ) fulfilled a campaign pledge , and brought American troops home – he may even ill-fittingly over-inflate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him on a par with Ranjit Singh ( look him up , one of the only rulers to ever win a war there ) .
He ’ ll be able to say – rightly or wrongly – that Americans shall now be “ left in peace ” by the conflict .
Because that ’ s what this was really about .
They don ’ t want a “ cease-fire ” – they just want to cease being fired upon .
An ambition common , also , to just about everybody involved .
Even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some of the more active conflict down the road and via the continuation of warfare via any other means in the local political arenas .
The Taliban , meanwhile , are presumably looking forward to a re-run of the chaotic sequence of events following the withdrawal of Soviet troops in the late 1980s ; that is to say , taking advantage of an increasingly fractious internal situation that they themselves are going to be doing their darndest in many cases to fracture further – to rebuild their rulership back to something approaching pre-2001 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shall move on .
We ’ ve got other “ Peaces ” to turn into mere “ Honorifics ” .
Almost puts one in the mind of a favourite quotation of mine ; from a much earlier cynical Joaquin Phoenix movie – “ ‘ When there is peace , the warlike man attacks himself.
’ That ’ s Nietzsche , and his point is that there really is no peace .
There ’ s always some war , somewhere , with someone .
And there are no winners or losers either .
Just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another day.
” That seems to be Afghanistan these days – in much the same way that Pakistan is not , as other countries are , a state with a military … but rather , a military with a state ; Afghanistan seems less a country having a civil war , than a civil war having a country .
Trump ’ s “ Peace With Honour ” then , is a “ Peace Agreement ” lacking in that most fundamental ingredient : a potentially viable prospect for “ Peace ” .
What it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hot demand in recent weeks – a vast quantity of hand sanitizzer , for the vigorous Washing Hands Of This .
With a similarly vocal cry of “ Out Damned Spot !
” As applies the ineluctable comparison between Nixon ’ s crab- ( rave- ) scuttle out of Vietnam , and Trump ’ s “ dealmaking ” to leave Afghanistan , it is once again abundently clear that while History may not , strictly speaking , repeat – it sure does rhyme .

So over the past few days in Afghanistan, there’ve been more than six dozen Taliban attacks and the US has resumed airstrikes against them. Yet I seem to keep running across people hailing Trump as some kind of visionary diplomatic savant (as opposed to the *other* kind of savant) who’s scored some kind of history-diverting coup in securing a sort of ‘peace with honour’ deal in Afghanistan.
“Peace with Honour”, now *there’s* a historically resonant phrase. Trump is often compared to Nixon, for reasons that should probably be obvious (although with the people making the comparisons generally forgetting that Nixon won re-election despite the allegations against him being well-publicized all throughout the electorate quite some time before polling-day); yet it’s that particular ‘promise’ of Nixon’s that springs to mind now.
Facing an arguably unwinnable war in Vietnam, the American public had understandably soured upon its continued prosecution. Yet a simple cut-and-run would have been substantively politically unpalatable. So instead, Nixon ran for the Presidency on a “pledge” (as he put it) of “honourable peace”, which some might have noted was a subtle yet important distinction from his earlier declaration of intent to secure a “victorious peace”. Not that either ambition came with an actual detailed stratagem for its attainment; prior to winning the White House, the closest he seemed to come to one was vague braggadocio about implicitly threatening via supporting parties the North Vietnamese et co til they stopped gaining ground.
Once in office, he attempted to make good upon this approach through escalating bombings (including of sites in officially neutral Cambodia, carried out in secret; a gambit Trump has also tried, including thermobaric-style) and blustering bombast about massively increased pressure in other areas. But he also pressed forward with another much more important strand of his strategy – “Vietnamization”. Or, phrased another way, making the war on the ground and its unstaunchable flow of casualties effectively somebody else’s problem.
If it had any meaning, Nixon’s dictum of an “honourable peace” probably just meant attempting to give the South Vietnamese military an allegedly “fighting chance” as far as the ‘honourable’ component went – and when it came to the “peace” bit, one could quote the worlds of Ronald Reagan (ironically, speaking about the then-brewing Vietnam War in 1964) – “Do they mean peace, or do they mean we just want to be left in peace?”
Much of the American public did, indeed, “want to be left in peace” by the Nixon presidency, and understandably so. Nixon’s inability to actually *deliver* on his previous pledge of “peace” – “victorious”, “honourable”, or “otherwise” – over the four years of his first term in office, didn’t seem to significantly harm his electoral prospects in 1972; with the run-up to the November election featuring a steady stream of announcements as to the ongoing ‘progress’ of peace negotiations, in any case.
These eventually culminated with the Paris Peace Accords signed some four and a half months later, that secured the near-total withdrawal of US and allied forces from Vietnam. That’s where Nixon’s iconically famous phrase of “Peace With Honour” actually comes from – his trumpeting of the eventual ‘success’ of his Administration’s negotiation (and negotiation-from-30,000-feet) in late January 1973 a few days before the Acccords’ signing.
On January 27 1973, the Paris Peace Accords came into effect.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
The ceasefire held for, it appears, less than 24 hours.
However, within two weeks the US Senate would begin its formal investigation of Watergate; and as the increasingly disconcerting revelations from *that* particular low-light of the Nixon Era began to take over the headlines in earnest, the failure of both the War nobody wanted to care about anymore, as well as the Peace With Honour which was supposed to end it with something resembling “integrity”, edged ever further out of the public-political consciousness.
Lies, atrocities, and illegal acts carried out far away across the Pacific Ocean seemed far less significant, somehow, than those purportedly engaged in against the American People at home, by their own ruling caste.
Within two years, South Vietnam had effectively ceased to exist; the Fall of Saigon in late April 1975 also encompassing the last US combat deaths of the War.
Now lest I be misinterpreted … I am not for a moment seeking to draw the more immediately obvious parallel that so often gets trotted out pertaining to Trump and Nixon. Both men faced Impeachment. One is still standing afterward; and it would seem unutterably foolhardy to presume that, barring some seismic shift in American politics, there shall be any more successful foreshortening of Trump’s time in office via legal means, and with it being only slightly more probable at this late stage that electoral means shall prove any greater or more successful in this endeavour.
Instead, I simply seek to suggest to the various sorts of people I’ve seen hailing Trump’s ‘peace with honour’ in Afghanistan – that what is likely to ensue there is probably not entirely far removed from what Nixon “achieved” in Paris with regard to Vietnam.
That is to say, a great flurry of headlines, a certain upswing in cautious optimism from some of those who (understandably) want the American (involving) war effort there to be at an end, and a much more pronounced positivity from those … enthusiastic sorts for whom Their President Can Do No Wrong.
In real terms? Just as with Vietnam – official involvement and boots-on-the-ground will dramatically decrease. Actual American involvement, in the form of longer-range efforts that don’t create so many *American* casualties like drone-strikes and aerial sorties, shall likely continue (a ‘Linebacker’, you might call it); as will the under-the-table and downright dodgy efforts and illicit activities that are part and parcel of the Entanglements of Empire in the Back of Beyond. “The Great Game”, it was once called – perhaps this is the Great Videogame, with occasional hints of Minesweeper.
But Trump will be able to proclaim to his public that he (finally) fulfilled a campaign pledge, and brought American troops home – he may even ill-fittingly over-inflate his own achievements in Afghanistan to place him on a par with Ranjit Singh (look him up, one of the only rulers to ever win a war there).
He’ll be able to say – rightly or wrongly – that Americans shall now be “left in peace” by the conflict. Because that’s what this was really about. They don’t want a “cease-fire” – they just want to cease being fired upon. An ambition common, also, to just about everybody involved. Even if it means simply deferring and/or duplicating some of the more active conflict down the road and via the continuation of warfare via any other means in the local political arenas.
The Taliban, meanwhile, are presumably looking forward to a re-run of the chaotic sequence of events following the withdrawal of Soviet troops in the late 1980s; that is to say, taking advantage of an increasingly fractious internal situation that they themselves are going to be doing their darndest in many cases to fracture further – to rebuild their rulership back to something approaching pre-2001 levels.
And The World at large shall move on.
We’ve got other “Peaces” to turn into mere “Honorifics”.
Almost puts one in the mind of a favourite quotation of mine; from a much earlier cynical Joaquin Phoenix movie –
“‘When there is peace, the warlike man attacks himself.’ That’s Nietzsche, and his point is that there really is no peace. There’s always some war, somewhere, with someone. And there are no winners or losers either. Just those who are still around to fight another day.”
That seems to be Afghanistan these days – in much the same way that Pakistan is not, as other countries are, a state with a military … but rather, a military with a state; Afghanistan seems less a country having a civil war, than a civil war having a country.
Trump’s “Peace With Honour” then, is a “Peace Agreement” lacking in that most fundamental ingredient: a potentially viable prospect for “Peace”.
What it has instead is a commodity in conspicuously hot demand in recent weeks – a vast quantity of hand sanitizzer, for the vigorous Washing Hands Of This. With a similarly vocal cry of “Out Damned Spot!”
As applies the ineluctable comparison between Nixon’s crab-(rave-)scuttle out of Vietnam, and Trump’s “dealmaking” to leave Afghanistan, it is once again abundently clear that while History may not, strictly speaking, repeat – it sure does rhyme.


thedailyblog--2020-03-07--MUST READ: A crisis is coming – we need a Green New Deal to confront it

The Financial Times has an extraordinary admission in a lead article this week called The Seeds of the Next debt Crisis .
This is an important mouthpiece finance capital in the UK and sometimes they are more honest when speaking directly for their masters ( and don ’ t expect working people to read ) : The shock that coronavirus has wrought on markets across the world coincides with a dangerous financial backdrop marked by spiralling global debt .
According to the Institute of International Finance , a trade group , the ratio of global debt to gross domestic product @ @ @ @ @ @ @ per cent in the third quarter of 2019 , with total debt reaching close to $ 253tn .
The implication , if the virus continues to spread , is that any fragilities in the financial system have the potential to trigger a new debt crisis .
In the short term the behaviour of credit markets will be critical .
Despite the decline in bond yields and borrowing costs since the markets took fright , financial conditions have tightened for weaker corporate borrowers .
Their access to bond markets has become more difficult .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the US Federal Reserve ’ s policy rate of 1.0-1.5 per cent is still higher than the 0.8 per cent yield on the policy-sensitive two-year Treasury note .
This inversion of the yield curve could intensify the squeeze , says Charles Dumas , chief economist of TS Lombard , if US banks now tighten credit while lending has become less profitable .
This is particularly important because much of the debt build-up since the global financial crisis of 2007-08 has been in the non-bank corporate sector where the current disruption to supply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ earnings and greater difficulty in servicing debt .
In effect , the coronavirus raises the extraordinary The inversion of the yield curve always precedes a recession .
10-year US Treasury bonds are now at a record 1.3 % as spooked investors seek a safe-haven .
This is below short term market returns .
It is a vote of no-confidence in the system ’ s future by the class of super-rich bondholders .
Jim Paulsen , chief investment strategist for the Leuthold Group , told the Financial Times the situation was “ scary ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lot of investors have been worried for a while that the bond market knows something that stocks don ’ t , ” he said .
“ Stocks have been foolishly rising , while bonds have been suggesting a more sinister outcome.
” Even before the outbreak of the virus industrial production and world trade had been stagnating and then declining towards the end of 2019 .
Investment growth in the G20 group of the richest countries ( excluding China ) fell from 5 % annually to only 1 % in 2019 .
China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world .
It now has 28 % of world manufacturing output .
This is 10 points ahead of the US who they surpassed in 2010 .
China has accounted for 37 % of world GDP growth since 2008 .
Much of that growth was also sustained by a massive expansion of debt , which doubled from 2008 to 2018 .
Total government , corporate and household debt now stands at over 300 % of GDP .
The shutdown of factories , cities , and restrictions on movement have radically cut production .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finished goods , it is also a vital part of the supply chain for parts and semi-finished goods worldwide .
Shipping from China has collapsed with only half of the expected number being shipped in February , a cut of around 300,000 a week .
China is now the number one market for NZ goods in almost all categories .
We exported $ 17 billion worth of goods and services and imported $ 13 billion worth – trade worth twice that of the US .
But now policymakers are running out of policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
One key tool is the interest rate used by the Central Banks for core lending between it and the commercial banks .
This is now close to zero everywhere and new cuts seem to have minimal impact .
Many governments also maxed out their own debt to deal with the last crisis and further borrowing will simply push interest rates higher , not lower .
Additional direct printing of money will also threaten a new bout of inflation that could further destabilise the system But as can be seen in the Financial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ going as before .
The Financial Times again : Policymakers in advanced countries have over the past week made clear their readiness to pursue an active fiscal and monetary response to the disruption caused by the virus .
Yet such policy activism carries a longer-term risk of entrenching the dysfunctional monetary policy that contributed to the original financial crisis , as well as exacerbating the dangerous debt overhang that the global economy now faces .
The risks have been building in the financial system for decades .
From the late 1980s , central @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conducted what came to be known as “ asymmetric monetary policy ” , whereby they supported markets when they plunged but failed to damp them down when they were prone to bubbles .
Excessive risk taking in banking was the natural consequence .
The central banks ’ quantitative easing since the crisis , which involves the purchase of government bonds and other assets , is , in effect , a continuation of this asymmetric approach .
The resulting safety net placed under the banking system is unprecedented in scale and duration .
Continuing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ private expenditure , thereby elongating an already protracted cycle in which extraordinary low or negative interest rates appear to be less and less effective in stimulating One important difference between the current debt mountain and that of 2008 in much of the world is that corporate debt has increased even more dramatically than other forms of debt – doubling to $ 13 trillion .
Much of this is of doubtful quality and the companies would quickly find themselves unable to service debt if renewed world recession hits or interest rates rise once more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the system has become less stable in recent decades not more stable as wealth has become more centralised into fewer and fewer hands .
We need an emergency response to the coming economic catastrophe that is not just business as usual .
After the 2008 crisis , money was literally printed and handed out to those who had created the mess in the first place .
Banks were effectively nationalised in the UK to save them from collapse .
Even the mighty General Motors in the US was nationalised to save from collapse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t designed to impose democratic socialist control over finance capital and the big capitalist commodity producers and have been reversed whenever the state can once the situation had been stabilised .
The massive expenditures required the state to take over as much of the bad debt as possible to protect the class of financial vampires from their greed and folly .
The cost of that bailout was then imposed on working people through extra taxes and cutbacks on social spending .
As in all capitalist crises , the greed of the big @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of financial assets had led them to reckless over-extend credit .
Debt levels for individuals , corporates and governments kept breaking new records .
But as soon as this debt pyramid started breaking at its weak links ( AIG Insurance in 2008 ) the entire system of credit seized up and there was a cascading series company collapses in the financial sector .
The collapse into a new period of crisis like the Great Depression in the 1930s may have been averted , temporarily , by the bailouts , spending and debt expansion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So a new period of recession or depression we seem to be entering into now is the inevitable result .
The virus is simply the trigger , not the cause .
As soon a new crisis breaks out we should demand that a government that claims to be representative of working people as the current Labour Party-led government does , should put our interests first not the capitalist mismanagers of the system .
That means we need to prioritise the needs of ordinary people to access healthcare , educational opportunities , housing and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insurance companies and commodity producers who were bailed out at the expense of working people the last time capitalism had a generalised crisis of overproduction just over a decade ago .
Doing what we did in 2008 again is not the solution .
Giving money to the already rich to produce more debt and commodities that we often don ’ t need , is not the way out of a crisis of the system .
The system needs to be challenged .
The system needs to be transformed .
The system needs to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on production for human need rather than profit established .
That new system also needs a radically informed and engaged citizenry empowered to make meaningful decisions in their workplaces and communities .
We need a Green New Deal that prioritises people and the planet above the pursuit of profit by the 1 % class of private owners of the monopoly corporations that dominate all economic life .
A Green New Deal can be the step towards the new system we need .
It already has a name .
That system is called socialism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ version .

The Financial Times has an extraordinary admission in a lead article this week called The Seeds of the Next debt Crisis. This is an important mouthpiece finance capital in the UK and sometimes they are more honest when speaking directly for their masters (and don’t expect working people to read):
The shock that coronavirus has wrought on markets across the world coincides with a dangerous financial backdrop marked by spiralling global debt. According to the Institute of International Finance, a trade group, the ratio of global debt to gross domestic product hit an all-time high of over 322 per cent in the third quarter of 2019, with total debt reaching close to $253tn. The implication, if the virus continues to spread, is that any fragilities in the financial system have the potential to trigger a new debt crisis.
In the short term the behaviour of credit markets will be critical. Despite the decline in bond yields and borrowing costs since the markets took fright, financial conditions have tightened for weaker corporate borrowers. Their access to bond markets has become more difficult. After Tuesday’s 50 basis-point cut, the US Federal Reserve’s policy rate of 1.0-1.5 per cent is still higher than the 0.8 per cent yield on the policy-sensitive two-year Treasury note. This inversion of the yield curve could intensify the squeeze, says Charles
Dumas, chief economist of TS Lombard, if US banks now tighten credit while lending has become less profitable.
This is particularly important because much of the debt build-up since the global financial crisis of 2007-08 has been in the non-bank corporate sector where the current disruption to supply chains and reduced global growth imply lower earnings and greater difficulty in servicing debt. In effect, the coronavirus raises the extraordinary
The inversion of the yield curve always precedes a recession. 10-year US Treasury bonds are now at a record 1.3% as spooked investors seek a safe-haven. This is below short term market returns. It is a vote of no-confidence in the system’s future by the class of super-rich bondholders.
Jim Paulsen, chief investment strategist for the Leuthold Group, told the Financial Times the situation was “scary” and hard to ignore. “A lot of investors have been worried for a while that the bond market knows something that stocks don’t,” he said. “Stocks have been foolishly rising, while bonds have been suggesting a more sinister outcome.”
Even before the outbreak of the virus industrial production and world trade had been stagnating and then declining towards the end of 2019. Investment growth in the G20 group of the richest countries (excluding China) fell from 5% annually to only 1% in 2019.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
China has truly become the workshop of the world. It now has 28% of world manufacturing output. This is 10 points ahead of the US who they surpassed in 2010. China has accounted for 37% of world GDP growth since 2008. Much of that growth was also sustained by a massive expansion of debt, which doubled from 2008 to 2018. Total government, corporate and household debt now stands at over 300% of GDP.
The shutdown of factories, cities, and restrictions on movement have radically cut production. But China is not just a producer of finished goods, it is also a vital part of the supply chain for parts and semi-finished goods worldwide.
Shipping from China has collapsed with only half of the expected number being shipped in February, a cut of around 300,000 a week.
China is now the number one market for NZ goods in almost all categories. We exported $17 billion worth of goods and services and imported $13 billion worth – trade worth twice that of the US.
But now policymakers are running out of policy tools to deal with a new crisis. One key tool is the interest rate used by the Central Banks for core lending between it and the commercial banks. This is now close to zero everywhere and new cuts seem to have minimal impact. Many governments also maxed out their own debt to deal with the last crisis and further borrowing will simply push interest rates higher, not lower. Additional direct printing of money will also threaten a new bout of inflation that could further destabilise the system
But as can be seen in the Financial Times report the 1% just keep going as before. The Financial Times again:
Policymakers in advanced countries have over the past week made clear their readiness to pursue an active fiscal and monetary response to the disruption caused by the virus.
Yet such policy activism carries a longer-term risk of entrenching the dysfunctional monetary policy that contributed to the original financial crisis, as well as exacerbating the dangerous debt overhang that the global economy now faces.
The risks have been building in the financial system for decades. From the late 1980s, central banks — and especially the Fed — conducted what came to be known as “asymmetric monetary policy”, whereby they supported markets when they plunged but failed to damp them down when they were prone to bubbles. Excessive risk taking in banking was the natural consequence.
The central banks’ quantitative easing since the crisis, which involves the purchase of government bonds and other assets, is, in effect, a continuation of this asymmetric approach. The resulting safety net placed under the banking system is unprecedented in scale and duration. Continuing loose policy has brought forward debt financed private expenditure, thereby elongating an already protracted cycle in which extraordinary low or negative interest rates appear to be less and less effective in stimulating
One important difference between the current debt mountain and that of 2008 in much of the world is that corporate debt has increased even more dramatically than other forms of debt – doubling to $13 trillion. Much of this is of doubtful quality and the companies would quickly find themselves unable to service debt if renewed world recession hits or interest rates rise once more.
The Financial Times points out that the system has become less stable in recent decades not more stable as wealth has become more centralised into fewer and fewer hands.
We need an emergency response to the coming economic catastrophe that is not just business as usual.
After the 2008 crisis, money was literally printed and handed out to those who had created the mess in the first place. Banks were effectively nationalised in the UK to save them from collapse. Even the mighty General Motors in the US was nationalised to save from collapse. Of course, these nationalisations weren’t designed to impose democratic socialist control over finance capital and the big capitalist commodity producers and have been reversed whenever the state can once the situation had been stabilised.
The massive expenditures required the state to take over as much of the bad debt as possible to protect the class of financial vampires from their greed and folly. The cost of that bailout was then imposed on working people through extra taxes and cutbacks on social spending.
As in all capitalist crises, the greed of the big banks, insurance companies and other holders of financial assets had led them to reckless over-extend credit. Debt levels for individuals, corporates and governments kept breaking new records. But as soon as this debt pyramid started breaking at its weak links (AIG Insurance in 2008) the entire system of credit seized up and there was a cascading series company collapses in the financial sector.
A credit crunch and a deep world recession followed.
The collapse into a new period of crisis like the Great Depression in the 1930s may have been averted, temporarily, by the bailouts, spending and debt expansion but the system was not challenged. So a new period of recession or depression we seem to be entering into now is the inevitable result.
The virus is simply the trigger, not the cause.
As soon a new crisis breaks out we should demand that a government that claims to be representative of working people as the current Labour Party-led government does, should put our interests first not the capitalist mismanagers of the system.
That means we need to prioritise the needs of ordinary people to access healthcare, educational opportunities, housing and jobs above those of the banks, insurance companies and commodity producers who were bailed out at the expense of working people the last time capitalism had a generalised crisis of overproduction just over a decade ago.
Doing what we did in 2008 again is not the solution. Giving money to the already rich to produce more debt and commodities that we often don’t need, is not the way out of a crisis of the system. The system needs to be challenged. The system needs to be transformed. The system needs to be overthrown and a new system based on production for human need rather than profit established. That new system also needs a radically informed and engaged citizenry empowered to make meaningful decisions in their workplaces and communities.
We need a Green New Deal that prioritises people and the planet above the pursuit of profit by the 1% class of private owners of the monopoly corporations that dominate all economic life. A Green New Deal can be the step towards the new system we need. It already has a name.
That system is called socialism. We just need a 21st Century version.


thedailyblog--2020-03-07--MUST READ: Virality and Globalisation: The case of Covid-19

In our mass mediated , digitally connected world the meaning of certain words becomes blurred .
Metaphors and reality are hard to tell apart .
When researchers in my field employ the term ‘ media ecosystem ’ , they are referring to the interconnected array of mass media outlets and social media access points available to users .
Yet , the term is also contradictory ; an ‘ ecosystem ’ is ordinarily comprised of animals , vegetation , geology and the biosphere rather than communication technologies .
A similar conflation of meaning occurs in everyday language .
To say that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or meme has gone ‘ viral ’ attests to the scale and speed of transmission .
This happened when the South Korean ‘ Gangnam Style ’ music video reached one billion views on YouTube in December 2012 .
In the same year , video clips from a short documentary film on child soldiers in Uganda and the activities of militia leader Joseph Kony attracted over 100 million views on YouTube , Vimeo and a ‘ Kony 2012 ’ website operated by Invisible Children Inc .
Since then , mediated viralities of all kinds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ though , only biological viruses could go viral .
Small infectious agents such as bacteria that replicate inside the living cells of any given organism spread to adjacent organisms .
Such agents can , potentially , pass through species barriers , from animal-to-animal and animal-to-human .
Covid-19 or the Coronavirus generates both kinds of virality .
Each must be understood , separately and in tandem , if recent unfolding outbreaks are to be properly evaluated .
Let ’ s start with the ( relatively ) good news .
Biologically speaking , the virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ Spanish ’ influenza pandemic of 1918-20 .
Then , one third of the world ` s population was infected and more than 50 million victims died , many in the prime of life .
By contrast , the 3.4 per cent fatality rate of Covid-19 outbreaks , so far , primarily affects the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions , such as cardio-vascular disease and diabetes .
The rate could well decline as the total number of reported non-fatal cases increases .
Since 1920 , medical knowledge about viral biology , epidemiology @ @ @ @ @ @ @ improved considerably .
Over recent decades the World Health Organisation ( WHO ) and national health authorities have coordinated effective responses to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome ( SARS ) in 2003 and ‘ Swine flu ’ in 2009 .
The former outbreak , with very high infection levels and a 10 percent fatality rate , could have been catastrophic .
This is not to deny that Covid-19 is serious .
The human consequences are , and will be , substantial .
Countries and regions with weak , underfunded health infrastructures may be overwhelmed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quarantines , hygiene initiatives and communication updates will be less available to poor populations with little media access .
In New Zealand , the virus should be manageable , if the spread is not too rapid , and if the fatality rate does not spike because of biological mutation .
Now for the bad news .
As I write , the economic , social and psychological impacts of Covid-19 are magnifying .
The culprit here is globalisation rather than the virus itself .
Human activity is interconnected worldwide .
Regional events , decisions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ connectivity is complex and multifaceted .
Occasional travel between extremely disparate localities contrasts with thick patterns of long-distance migration and international trade .
The impact of distant events , decisions or activities upon local circumstances can be enormous .
Examples include colonisation , world war and world depression .
Of course , none of this is entirely new .
Globalisation has co-evolved with a world-spanning capitalist economic system since about 1500 , when human activities associated with Western imperialism connected the Americas to Africa and Eurasia .
In this context , the outward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ indigenous populations .
Globalisation in its contemporary form , however , has one distinctive feature .
Ideas , goods , information , capital , people and microbes are diffused with unprecedented velocity .
These diffusions are enabled by modern technologies of transport and communication – railways , automobiles , airlines , telephone exchanges , terrestrial broadcasting , cables , satellites , interlinked computers , the internet and social media .
Our lives are shaped by high-speed interacting global networks associated with financial transactions , trade , travel , international politics , media communication @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media representations of a momentous , unfolding event can feed back into the event itself via a global loop encompassing radio , television , Facebook , Google , We-Chat , the twittersphere , blogosphere , specialist web platforms and portable devices .
In these conditions , unexpected and substantial developments will accelerate the generation of feedback loops across multiple global networks .
Such developments may involve military conflict , terrorist atrocities , a massive natural disaster or a pandemic .
A cascade of associated events will expand and further intensify the mediated interplay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not just about fast-moving human interaction , communication and conflict .
It is also an expression of global capitalism .
Transnational corporations , central banks , investment banks , interlinked stock markets and speculative bubbles in shares , property and derivatives cut across national economies and geo-political rivalries .
The whole edifice is inherently fragile , as the spread of Covid-19 has revealed .
Slowdowns of just-in-time global supply chains linking manufacturers in China with importers and retailers worldwide are having multiple effects .
As Chinese workers lose wages and jobs , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forecasts and trim their own workforces .
Countries reliant on Chinese imports will experience balance of payment difficulties .
Dwindling supplies of strategic goods such as semi-conductors , computer chips , plastics , telecommunications hardware and automotive components will curtail much business activity within importing countries .
Declining profit projections for large firms are influencing daily share prices , equity trading patterns and investor mood across the world ’ s major stock markets .
This is damaging for the financial sector .
As Tony Yates observes “ a widespread halt in economic activity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loans putting the viability of banks in question and spreading financial disruption even further ” ( ‘ Post the 2008 crash… ’ , Guardian , 2 March ) .
All of these tendencies , together , heighten the risk of a worldwide financial meltdown .
Already , global capitalism and national capitalist economies are experiencing weak growth and high levels of private debt .
Against this background , real-time viralities of rumour , fear and panic could trigger bankruptcies and bank runs .
Meanwhile , aggregate demand and consumer sentiment fluctuates rapidly .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ holidays , airline profits fall , hotels empty out , tourism operators fold and local tourism economies collapse .
Redundant workers without disposable income can not support local retailers and receiverships increase .
Sensational media headlines and social media clickbait sparks panic buying among consumers worrying about food shortages .
Pictures and videos of shoppers emptying shelves and queuing outside stores go viral .
Resulting increases in panic buying creates the very food shortages that consumers were trying to avoid .
On the preceding analysis , New Zealand is in a difficult situation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of neoliberal economic policies undermined economic sovereignty and increased our vulnerability to global capitalist forces .
Now , in 2020 , the national economy has all but dissolved .
Overseas ownership of urban and seafront property , farmland , forests , agricultural value-chains , tourist businesses and hotels coincides with utter dependence on export markets , especially in China .
Chinese and South East Asian student revenue props up universities , polytechnics and many high schools .
Apart from Kiwibank , our major financial institutions are Australian owned .
The BNZ , ANZ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Coronavirus fall-out according to their own priorities rather than those of the New Zealand government .
Herein lies the difficulty .
Government strategies to contain the spread of Covid-19 have been hampered by our economic vulnerabilities and dependencies .
Thus , really tough restrictions or bans on incoming travel from countries with proven domestic transmission patterns would be economically disastrous .
I am referring to Australia , the United Kingdom and the US , alongside China , Italy , Iran and other countries .
Such an intervention would tank the tourist economy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rates revenue , Queenstown and Rotorua would be virtually ungovernable .
Rising unemployment and social breakdown in our major cities would be the eventual result .
As of now , economic pressures are building on all fronts .
Tourist numbers have dropped , Chinese and other students are not arriving , forestry exports can not enter Shanghai and importer-retailers are receiving less stock from their supply chains .
Domestically , shoppers are deserting downtown Auckland , and many are spooked by social media gossip and lurid front pages .
On Saturday 1 March @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Herald ’ s block-lettered headline ‘ Pandemonium ’ was accompanied by a vivid picture of a full-suited quarantine officer fumigating a train carriage .
Although closer inspection revealed that the photo was taken in Tehran , the local inference was clear – Aucklanders are in panic , supermarkets all over the city are being emptied of canned food , hand sanitisers and toilet paper .
This was more than simple reportage .
A major newspaper was contributing to the mediation of social fear .
How , then , should Jacinda Adern and her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ priorities ?
Well , if my globalisation thesis is correct , our leaders should plan for a worst-case scenario .
Over committing money and resources to tracing cases from overseas is too reactive .
The virus is already here .
The cabinet and health officials should be thinking ahead , proactively , as if they are playing chess against a wily opponent .
National , regional and community health plans should be pre-funded , organised and coordinated , ready to roll out .
Fiscal policies to counteract regional economic downturns should answer to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ budget responsibility rules and all other neoliberal cant .
With historically low interest rates , deficit funding of health infrastructures , cash-strapped educational institutions and local businesses should be paramount .
However , large corporate entities with deep financial reservoirs should not be subsidised .
The government ’ s first priority ought to be the economic livelihood of New Zealand citizens .
On the travel front , all commercial flights to Western Samoa must be cancelled forthwith .
A Covid-19 outbreak there would be impossible to contain , given poor medical facilities and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the population .
Finally , central and local government , health experts , doctors , nurses and media professionals must counter the viralities of fake news , fake remedies and the cyber-bullying of victims with a calm , evidence-based communication strategy .
Our Prime Minister understands this requirement and has done much to quell the mediation of hysteria .
If this performance continues over the coming months as difficulties mount , then she deserves to be re-elected .

In our mass mediated, digitally connected world the meaning of certain words becomes blurred. Metaphors and reality are hard to tell apart. When researchers in my field employ the term ‘media ecosystem’, they are referring to the interconnected array of mass media outlets and social media access points available to users. Yet, the term is also contradictory; an ‘ecosystem’ is ordinarily comprised of animals, vegetation, geology and the biosphere rather than communication technologies.
A similar conflation of meaning occurs in everyday language. To say that an image, phrase, video clip or meme has gone ‘viral’ attests to the scale and speed of transmission. This happened when the South Korean ‘Gangnam Style’ music video reached one billion views on YouTube in December 2012. In the same year, video clips from a short documentary film on child soldiers in Uganda and the activities of militia leader Joseph Kony attracted over 100 million views on YouTube, Vimeo and a ‘Kony 2012’ website operated by Invisible Children Inc. Since then, mediated viralities of all kinds have become commonplace. Before the Internet though, only biological viruses could go viral. Small infectious agents such as bacteria that replicate inside the living cells of any given organism spread to adjacent organisms. Such agents can, potentially, pass through species barriers, from animal-to-animal and animal-to-human. Covid-19 or the Coronavirus generates both kinds of virality. Each must be understood, separately and in tandem, if recent unfolding outbreaks are to be properly evaluated.
Let’s start with the (relatively) good news. Biologically speaking, the virus poses less of a danger than the ‘Spanish’ influenza pandemic of 1918-20. Then, one third of the world`s population was infected and more than 50 million victims died, many in the prime of life. By contrast, the 3.4 per cent fatality rate of Covid-19 outbreaks, so far, primarily affects the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions, such as cardio-vascular disease and diabetes. The rate could well decline as the total number of reported non-fatal cases increases. Since 1920, medical knowledge about viral biology, epidemiology, prevention, quarantines and containment has improved considerably. Over recent decades the World Health Organisation (WHO) and national health authorities have coordinated effective responses to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) in 2003 and ‘Swine flu’ in 2009. The former outbreak, with very high infection levels and a 10 percent fatality rate, could have been catastrophic.
This is not to deny that Covid-19 is serious. The human consequences are, and will be, substantial. Countries and regions with weak, underfunded health infrastructures may be overwhelmed. National and community health campaigns involving quarantines, hygiene initiatives and communication updates will be less available to poor populations with little media access. In New Zealand, the virus should be manageable, if the spread is not too rapid, and if the fatality rate does not spike because of biological mutation.
Now for the bad news. As I write, the economic, social and psychological impacts of Covid-19 are magnifying. The culprit here is globalisation rather than the virus itself. Human activity is interconnected worldwide. Regional events, decisions and activities have global reach. Global connectivity is complex and multifaceted. Occasional travel between extremely disparate localities contrasts with thick patterns of long-distance migration and international trade. The impact of distant events, decisions or activities upon local circumstances can be enormous. Examples include colonisation, world war and world depression. Of course, none of this is entirely new. Globalisation has co-evolved with a world-spanning capitalist economic system since about 1500, when human activities associated with Western imperialism connected the Americas to Africa and Eurasia. In this context, the outward transmission of diseases from western countries destroyed indigenous populations.
Globalisation in its contemporary form, however, has one distinctive feature. Ideas, goods, information, capital, people and microbes are diffused with unprecedented velocity. These diffusions are enabled by modern technologies of transport and communication – railways, automobiles, airlines, telephone exchanges, terrestrial broadcasting, cables, satellites, interlinked computers, the internet and social media. Our lives are shaped by high-speed interacting global networks associated with financial transactions, trade, travel, international politics, media communication and consumer culture.
Consequently, 24/7 media representations of a momentous, unfolding event can feed back into the event itself via a global loop encompassing radio, television, Facebook, Google ,We-Chat ,the twittersphere, blogosphere, specialist web platforms and portable devices. In these conditions, unexpected and substantial developments will accelerate the generation of feedback loops across multiple global networks. Such developments may involve military conflict, terrorist atrocities, a massive natural disaster or a pandemic. A cascade of associated events will expand and further intensify the mediated interplay of feedback loops.
Contemporary globalisation is not just about fast-moving human interaction, communication and conflict. It is also an expression of global capitalism. Transnational corporations, central banks, investment banks, interlinked stock markets and speculative bubbles in shares, property and derivatives cut across national economies and geo-political rivalries. The whole edifice is inherently fragile, as the spread of Covid-19 has revealed. Slowdowns of just-in-time global supply chains linking manufacturers in China with importers and retailers worldwide are having multiple effects. As Chinese workers lose wages and jobs, the likes of Apple and Walmart revise profit forecasts and trim their own workforces. Countries reliant on Chinese imports will experience balance of payment difficulties. Dwindling supplies of strategic goods such as semi-conductors, computer chips, plastics, telecommunications hardware and automotive components will curtail much business activity within importing countries.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
Declining profit projections for large firms are influencing daily share prices, equity trading patterns and investor mood across the world’s major stock markets. This is damaging for the financial sector. As Tony Yates observes “a widespread halt in economic activity could cause insolvencies and defaults on bank loans putting the viability of banks in question and spreading financial disruption even further” (‘Post the 2008 crash…’, Guardian, 2 March). All of these tendencies, together, heighten the risk of a worldwide financial meltdown. Already, global capitalism and national capitalist economies are experiencing weak growth and high levels of private debt. Against this background, real-time viralities of rumour, fear and panic could trigger bankruptcies and bank runs.
Meanwhile, aggregate demand and consumer sentiment fluctuates rapidly. If masses of people cancel or postpone holidays, airline profits fall, hotels empty out, tourism operators fold and local tourism economies collapse. Redundant workers without disposable income cannot support local retailers and receiverships increase. Sensational media headlines and social media clickbait sparks panic buying among consumers worrying about food shortages. Pictures and videos of shoppers emptying shelves and queuing outside stores go viral. Resulting increases in panic buying creates the very food shortages that consumers were trying to avoid.
On the preceding analysis, New Zealand is in a difficult situation. After July 1984, 15 years of neoliberal economic policies undermined economic sovereignty and increased our vulnerability to global capitalist forces. Now, in 2020, the national economy has all but dissolved. Overseas ownership of urban and seafront property, farmland, forests, agricultural value-chains, tourist businesses and hotels coincides with utter dependence on export markets, especially in China. Chinese and South East Asian student revenue props up universities, polytechnics and many high schools. Apart from Kiwibank, our major financial institutions are Australian owned. The BNZ, ANZ, ASB and Westpac will respond to the Coronavirus fall-out according to their own priorities rather than those of the New Zealand government.
Herein lies the difficulty. Government strategies to contain the spread of Covid-19 have been hampered by our economic vulnerabilities and dependencies. Thus, really tough restrictions or bans on incoming travel from countries with proven domestic transmission patterns would be economically disastrous. I am referring to Australia, the United Kingdom and the US, alongside China, Italy, Iran and other countries. Such an intervention would tank the tourist economy and bankrupt entire towns. Without sufficient rates revenue, Queenstown and Rotorua would be virtually ungovernable. Rising unemployment and social breakdown in our major cities would be the eventual result.
As of now, economic pressures are building on all fronts. Tourist numbers have dropped, Chinese and other students are not arriving, forestry exports cannot enter Shanghai and importer-retailers are receiving less stock from their supply chains. Domestically, shoppers are deserting downtown Auckland, and many are spooked by social media gossip and lurid front pages. On Saturday 1 March, for example, the New Zealand Herald’s block-lettered headline ‘Pandemonium’ was accompanied by a vivid picture of a full-suited quarantine officer fumigating a train carriage. Although closer inspection revealed that the photo was taken in Tehran, the local inference was clear – Aucklanders are in panic, supermarkets all over the city are being emptied of canned food, hand sanitisers and toilet paper. This was more than simple reportage. A major newspaper was contributing to the mediation of social fear.
How, then, should Jacinda Adern and her government respond? What are the main priorities? Well, if my globalisation thesis is correct, our leaders should plan for a worst-case scenario. Over committing money and resources to tracing cases from overseas is too reactive. The virus is already here. The cabinet and health officials should be thinking ahead, proactively, as if they are playing chess against a wily opponent. National, regional and community health plans should be pre-funded, organised and coordinated, ready to roll out. Fiscal policies to counteract regional economic downturns should answer to the principle of counter-cyclical Keynesianism. Forget budget responsibility rules and all other neoliberal cant. With historically low interest rates, deficit funding of health infrastructures, cash-strapped educational institutions and local businesses should be paramount. However, large corporate entities with deep financial reservoirs should not be subsidised. The government’s first priority ought to be the economic livelihood of New Zealand citizens. On the travel front, all commercial flights to Western Samoa must be cancelled forthwith. A Covid-19 outbreak there would be impossible to contain, given poor medical facilities and the prevalence of obesity and diabetes among the population.
Finally, central and local government, health experts, doctors, nurses and media professionals must counter the viralities of fake news, fake remedies and the cyber-bullying of victims with a calm, evidence-based communication strategy. Our Prime Minister understands this requirement and has done much to quell the mediation of hysteria. If this performance continues over the coming months as difficulties mount, then she deserves to be re-elected.


thedailyblog--2020-03-08--Family calls for emergency measures on 5th Anniversary of Nicky Stevens death

Monday the 9th of March is the 5th anniversary of our son Nicky ’ s death .
It ’ s a very difficult time for our whanau .
Two days after his father ’ s birthday in 2015 he went missing from The Henry Bennett Centre .
We had repeatedly warned them of the danger .
3 days later he was found in the Waikato River .
Our whanau have had to spend the last 5 years in a very distressing battle with the DHB to get acknowledgement of the unsafe environment and practices that led to our son ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ruled that his death was preventable .
He said that his treatment was well short of what could be reasonably expected and that the deficiencies in his care at the Henry Bennett Centre enabled his death .
We just want to be able to quietly grieve his loss knowing we have done all that we could to prevent a similar tragedy .
But this year ’ s anniversary of his death isn ’ t going to be the quiet reflective one we had hoped for .
There is no peace for us when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or dying in the same ways and due to similar failures by the DHB .
We ’ ve lost patience after repeatedly seeing the ongoing tragedies that could have and should have been prevented .
Instead , we find ourselves gathering together with other families , whose family members have died in similar circumstances to Nicky while in the care of the Waikato DHB or have been put at significant risk to themselves or others .
Pictured .
Ray Thomassen , Jane Stevens and Genevieve Simpson bereaved whanau who have lost loved ones @ @ @ @ @ @ @ So great is the concern of our collective families we jointly wrote to the Government last week calling on them to undertake an urgent inspection into the quality and safety of Waikato DHB mental health services because of the continuing risks to and deaths of patients .
We had no idea at that time that the Chief Ombudsman Peter Boshier had already undertaken an unannounced inspection in September and that his concerns would mirror ours .
Was it coincidence that his damming report came out only a few days after we had sent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We were grateful that he didn ’ t pull any punches in his report , and it gave us some hope that the Government would have to put in place emergency measures to address the deeply concerning issues Chief Ombudsman Peter Boshier identified .
It was shocking to realise that the Waikato DHB ’ s Henry Bennett Centre is currently in breach of the UN Convention against torture but not surprising when you consider that this Convention includes cruel , inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment .
We listened to a radio interview @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was released and could feel the frustration in his voice .
He didn ’ t mince words when he slammed the management of the DHB ’ s mental health services .
He was quite rightly fuming when he expressed his concerns that many of his recommendations from their last inspection of the Waikato facility in 2017 had been ignored .
It ’ s been our experience too that the DHBs response to justified criticism is to either attack , deny or ignore .
It speaks to the culture of leadership still entrenched within @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is addressed we will never see the changes that are needed .
No one is denying that it ’ s a difficult environment given the design and state of the DHB ’ s building , the rise in Meth use , and the lack of funding put into mental health for so long .
But its seems to us the DHB are using these issues and in particular the Meth crisis as yet another excuse .
These issues don ’ t account for the lack of effective leadership and management the Ombudsman put @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t account for the degrading treatment , the unsafe risk assessments , the poor communication , and toxic culture , all of which impact hugely on the health and safety of service users .
What needs to happen now ?
• There needs to be an emergency response to this dire situation – before any more people end up damaged or dead .
And it needs to be a response that ’ s brings together all the stakeholders in this .
Not just the usual mental health industry suspects and not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needs some exceptional leadership and powers to act .
It needs to be able to ask the hard questions and involve service users , staff , whanau .
• It needs to really listen to the affected and the disaffected , and must not blame or bully those who to speak out .
• It needs to come with a budget to make short term changes immediately and it needs to happen now .
That ’ s the message that we want the Minister to hear , given our stake in this we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it as well .
Senior Coroner Wallace Bain , who conducted the inquest into the death of our son Nicky , concluded in his findings that “ the mental health system is in urgent need of being overhauled and significant changes implemented ” This latest report from the Chief Ombudsman echoes those findings .
So on the fifth anniversary of our son ’ s preventable death let Nicky ’ s legacy be that no more people will die because of failures of the Waikato DHB to provide safe , humane and decent care @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in our community .

Monday the 9th of March is the 5th anniversary of our son Nicky’s death. It’s a very difficult time for our whanau.
Two days after his father’s birthday in 2015 he went missing from The Henry Bennett Centre. We had repeatedly warned them of the danger. 3 days later he was found in the Waikato River.
Our whanau have had to spend the last 5 years in a very distressing battle with the DHB to get acknowledgement of the unsafe environment and practices that led to our son’s preventable death.
Coroner Wallis Bain ruled that his death was preventable. He said that his treatment was well short of what could be reasonably expected and that the deficiencies in his care at the Henry Bennett Centre enabled his death.
We just want to be able to quietly grieve his loss knowing we have done all that we could to prevent a similar tragedy. But this year’s anniversary of his death isn’t going to be the quiet reflective one we had hoped for. There is no peace for us when we know people are still being hurt or dying in the same ways and due to similar failures by the DHB. We’ve lost patience after repeatedly seeing the ongoing tragedies that could have and should have been prevented.
Instead, we find ourselves gathering together with other families, whose family members have died in similar circumstances to Nicky while in the care of the Waikato DHB or have been put at significant risk to themselves or others.
Pictured. Ray Thomassen, Jane Stevens and Genevieve Simpson bereaved whanau who have lost loved ones while in the care of the DHB
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
So great is the concern of our collective families we jointly wrote to the Government last week calling on them to undertake an urgent inspection into the quality and safety of Waikato DHB mental health services because of the continuing risks to and deaths of patients.
We had no idea at that time that the Chief Ombudsman Peter Boshier had already undertaken an unannounced inspection in September and that his concerns would mirror ours.
Was it coincidence that his damming report came out only a few days after we had sent our open letter to the Government?
We were grateful that he didn’t pull any punches in his report, and it gave us some hope that the Government would have to put in place emergency measures to address the deeply concerning issues Chief Ombudsman Peter Boshier identified.
Pictured Chief Ombudsman Peter Boshier
It was shocking to realise that the Waikato DHB’s Henry Bennett Centre is currently in breach of the UN Convention against torture but not surprising when you consider that this Convention includes cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
We listened to a radio interview with Peter Boshier the day his report was released and could feel the frustration in his voice. He didn’t mince words when he slammed the management of the DHB’s mental health services. He was quite rightly fuming when he expressed his concerns that many of his recommendations from their last inspection of the Waikato facility in 2017 had been ignored.
It’s been our experience too that the DHBs response to justified criticism is to either attack, deny or ignore.
It speaks to the culture of leadership still entrenched within the DHB and until this underlying problem is addressed we will never see the changes that are needed.
No one is denying that it’s a difficult environment given the design and state of the DHB’s building, the rise in Meth use, and the lack of funding put into mental health for so long. But its seems to us the DHB are using these issues and in particular the Meth crisis as yet another excuse.
Henry Bennett Centre
These issues don’t account for the lack of effective leadership and management the Ombudsman put squarely into the frame. They also don’t account for the degrading treatment, the unsafe risk assessments, the poor communication, and toxic culture, all of which impact hugely on the health and safety of service users.
What needs to happen now?
There needs to be an emergency response to this dire situation – before any more people end up damaged or dead. And it needs to be a response that’s brings together all the stakeholders in this. Not just the usual mental health industry suspects and not done in the shadows.
It needs some exceptional leadership and powers to act. It needs to be able to ask the hard questions and involve service users, staff, whanau.
It needs to really listen to the affected and the disaffected, and must not blame or bully those who to speak out.
It needs to come with a budget to make short term changes immediately and it needs to happen now.
That’s the message that we want the Minister to hear, given our stake in this we are prepared to put the work into it as well.
Senior Coroner Wallace Bain, who conducted the inquest into the death of our son Nicky, concluded in his findings that “the mental health system is in urgent need of being overhauled and significant changes implemented” This latest report from the Chief Ombudsman echoes those findings.
So on the fifth anniversary of our son’s preventable death let Nicky’s legacy be that no more people will die because of failures of the Waikato DHB to provide safe, humane and decent care for those who are the most vulnerable in our community.
Jane Stevens & Dave Macpherson


thedailyblog--2020-03-08--Dr Liz Gordon: Can you be a change agent in parliament?

Parliament spends its time making rules , laws , regulations and pronouncements .
That is what it is for .
It is called ‘ running the country ’ .
When I was there , it felt like the centre of the universe .
But the question needs to be asked , at least in election year , how effective parliament is in bringing about change , especially in terms of large social , economic and environmental questions .
The impetus for asking this question is the untimely and sudden death of Jeanette Fitzsimons on Thursday 5 March .
Jeanette was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a politician , which is a strange thing to say for someone who was involved in national politics for more than 30 years .
I entered parliament at the same time as Jeanette , and we were both Alliance MPs for our first three years .
The first Alliance caucus was an interesting group of people .
Some were firmly embedded in the political world ( Rod Donald , Laila Harre and of course Jim Anderton ) and were familiar with and effective in it .
Some hated the nasty , bullying , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the oppositional culture of ‘ government ’ and ‘ opposition ’ ( and , to an extent , ‘ media ’ ) .
The three academics in the caucus – Jeanette , Phillida Bunkle and I were the best examples of this .
It is not that we could not all make a great speech on our topics of expertise , or chair a meeting etc .
But having the ability to drive through any change in that context was really hard .
In its second term , the Alliance was in Government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enduring wins were few .
Jim got Kiwibank as his political prize for loyalty and Laila won paid parental leave out of sheer grit against cabinet opposition ( at first , until the community endorsed her ) .
The view while one is in parliament that all change stems from there is far from correct .
Nearly all causes with any value start outside parliament and are far ahead of parliamentary debates .
There is much more ability to change lives in the community than in parliament , particularly in the hands-off neoliberal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s think about five issues of contemporary importance : child poverty ; extremist racism in the community ; the extinction of rare species ; the accumulation of the nation ’ s wealth by the wealthy ; and eliminating and redressing sexual abuse ( including the ‘ # MeToo ’ movement ) .
All of these can , in principle , be addressed through parliament .
The first requires a complex mix of transfer payments and other forms of state spending ( health and education ) .
The second needs to be addressed via @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as teaching civics , culture ( s ) and non-violent resolution to all .
The third by stopping feeding 1080 to Kea ( no , no , just joking , I mean by system change to protect the environments of these species ) .
The fourth by effective policies of taxation , fostering of alternative methods of wealth creation and government partnership .
Finally , a more wholehearted approach at all levels to protect victims of sexual abuse .
But , while most of the community want these kinds of change , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them .
So , we end up with highly centrist parties or those to the left that are too nervous of change .
The idea that international capital would pull completely out of New Zealand if we did not follow neo-liberal pathways was a dominant mantra of parliaments from 1984 until I don ’ t know when .
Perhaps still .
In short , the main barrier to parliamentary effectiveness is its own systems and structures , which veer heavily towards a ‘ do nothing ’ inertia .
And the tendency to keep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , of course .
Arghhh .
This is also an explanation of how Jacinta and her colleagues – especially obvious change agents such as Andrew Little , Megan Woods and Tracey Martin ( albeit of NZ First ) – can sound so good , produce such good work but end up making little change , despite goodwill .
Jacinta is best as an international thought-leader and all-round lovely person .
To date , the level of change that she knows is needed has not been matched by reality .
Making a dent in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not enough .
If I could just dwell on Andrew Little for a minute .
His ambition for change in the justice system is boundless , and heaven knows he has support from enormous numbers of organised groups and articulate individuals ( I think this well outweighs the opposition ) .
He has begun to make changes in the prison system .
But it is like putting salt in a huge vat of caramel .
It ends up salty at the top but completely unchanged at the bottom .
Because there is significant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to change , and also because the system itself is very impervious .
More stirring is needed !
All this is to say that I agree with Jeanette Fitzsimons ’ view that community action can be vastly more effective than parliamentary process , and that parliament itself is such a disappointing arena .
I love her quote : “ I have sat here for 13 years weeping at the tragedy of so many people wasting the precious gift of life chasing the mirage of a bigger GDP.
” RIP Jeanette Fitzsimons : a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ person who never gave up her vision for , and work towards , environmental change .
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 .

Parliament spends its time making rules, laws, regulations and pronouncements. That is what it is for. It is called ‘running the country’. When I was there, it felt like the centre of the universe. But the question needs to be asked, at least in election year, how effective parliament is in bringing about change, especially in terms of large social, economic and environmental questions.
The impetus for asking this question is the untimely and sudden death of Jeanette Fitzsimons on Thursday 5 March. Jeanette was, in many ways, anything but a politician, which is a strange thing to say for someone who was involved in national politics for more than 30 years.
I entered parliament at the same time as Jeanette, and we were both Alliance MPs for our first three years. The first Alliance caucus was an interesting group of people. Some were firmly embedded in the political world (Rod Donald, Laila Harre and of course Jim Anderton) and were familiar with and effective in it. Some hated the nasty, bullying, place that parliament is and railed against the oppositional culture of ‘government’ and ‘opposition’ (and, to an extent, ‘media’). The three academics in the caucus – Jeanette, Phillida Bunkle and I were the best examples of this.
It is not that we could not all make a great speech on our topics of expertise, or chair a meeting etc. But having the ability to drive through any change in that context was really hard. In its second term, the Alliance was in Government with Labour, and even then, enduring wins were few. Jim got Kiwibank as his political prize for loyalty and Laila won paid parental leave out of sheer grit against cabinet opposition (at first, until the community endorsed her).
The view while one is in parliament that all change stems from there is far from correct. Nearly all causes with any value start outside parliament and are far ahead of parliamentary debates. There is much more ability to change lives in the community than in parliament, particularly in the hands-off neoliberal age.
For example, let’s think about five issues of contemporary importance: child poverty; extremist racism in the community; the extinction of rare species; the accumulation of the nation’s wealth by the wealthy; and eliminating and redressing sexual abuse (including the ‘#MeToo’ movement).
All of these can, in principle, be addressed through parliament. The first requires a complex mix of transfer payments and other forms of state spending (health and education). The second needs to be addressed via equitable non-punitive schooling systems, as well as teaching civics, culture(s) and non-violent resolution to all. The third by stopping feeding 1080 to Kea (no, no, just joking, I mean by system change to protect the environments of these species). The fourth by effective policies of taxation, fostering of alternative methods of wealth creation and government partnership. Finally, a more wholehearted approach at all levels to protect victims of sexual abuse.
But, while most of the community want these kinds of change, they are prevented by fear from voting for them. So, we end up with highly centrist parties or those to the left that are too nervous of change. The idea that international capital would pull completely out of New Zealand if we did not follow neo-liberal pathways was a dominant mantra of parliaments from 1984 until I don’t know when. Perhaps still.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
In short, the main barrier to parliamentary effectiveness is its own systems and structures, which veer heavily towards a ‘do nothing’ inertia. And the tendency to keep giving the most votes to rightist parties, of course. Arghhh.
This is also an explanation of how Jacinta and her colleagues – especially obvious change agents such as Andrew Little, Megan Woods and Tracey Martin (albeit of NZ First) – can sound so good, produce such good work but end up making little change, despite goodwill. Jacinta is best as an international thought-leader and all-round lovely person. To date, the level of change that she knows is needed has not been matched by reality. Making a dent in issues such as child poverty is just not enough.
If I could just dwell on Andrew Little for a minute. His ambition for change in the justice system is boundless, and heaven knows he has support from enormous numbers of organised groups and articulate individuals (I think this well outweighs the opposition). He has begun to make changes in the prison system. But it is like putting salt in a huge vat of caramel. It ends up salty at the top but completely unchanged at the bottom. Because there is significant resistance within the institutions he is trying to change, and also because the system itself is very impervious. More stirring is needed!
All this is to say that I agree with Jeanette Fitzsimons’ view that community action can be vastly more effective than parliamentary process, and that parliament itself is such a disappointing arena. I love her quote: “I have sat here for 13 years weeping at the tragedy of so many people wasting the precious gift of life chasing the mirage of a bigger GDP.”
RIP Jeanette Fitzsimons: a lovely, gentle, and yet determined person who never gave up her vision for, and work towards, environmental change.
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--2020-03-09--Jeanette Fitzsimons: 1945-2020. An Assessment

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS ’ DEATH brings to a close the political narrative which began with the Tony Brunt Values Party in 1972 .
In its essence , it ’ s been a story about principled expertise , cultural radicalism , and what later came to be known as “ ecological wisdom ” .
Expressed in this truncated way , the most remarkable thing about the period traversed by Fitzsimons ’ political career is that the interwoven strands of New Zealand ’ s green movement did not fray and snap .
Fitzsimons ’ serene personality played a critical role in the Greens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of active involvement .
Political leaders are not always calm and unflappable human-beings .
Indeed , the preferred leadership style in New Zealand is the one that offers the voters hardness and decisiveness in equal measure .
The Greens ’ consensus-based decision-making is often dismissed as woolly-woofterish weakness .
In reality , it is anything but .
Few outside the Green Party appreciate the power of a patiently assembled super-majority – especially when wielded with a serene smile .
An effective political leader requires more than serenity , however , if she is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ count for a great deal – especially in avant-garde minority movements like Values and the Greens .
In this regard , Fitzsimons was a formidable protagonist .
Her scientific training equipped her admirably for the unavoidable and often trenchant debates which her radical environmental and political agendas provoked .
Against the defenders of the status-quo , and especially against the protectors of entrenched corporate interests , expertly marshalled facts and figures were the only rhetorical weapons capable of drawing blood .
Fitzsimons always excelled in this kind of political warfare .
Her other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strengths .
Simply by being born in 1945 , she experienced all of the many benefits of growing up in post-war New Zealand .
What ’ s more , she was perfectly positioned not only to imbibe all the heady cultural brews of the late-1960s , but to make sense of them .
Twenty-seven , and already an academic high-flyer , when Tony Brunt launched the Values Party in 1972 , Fitzsimons was the sort of asset any fledgling political movement was bound to welcome with open arms .
That intellectual heft is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Greens ’ political genealogy .
In terms of Twentieth Century progressivism , her role in Values and the Greens is analogous to that of historical figures from earlier in the century when progressivism – and a certain type of socialism – first gained its political momentum .
She stands firmly in the tradition of such high-minded intellectual reformers as Beatrice Webb in the United Kingdom , and Jane Addams in the United States : women who put their faith in the discoveries of science ( the social-sciences in particular ) and in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rather than in the surging passions of the masses – down in the street .
Not that there was any lack of passion in Fitzsimons ’ love affair with the natural world .
Indeed , it was from the natural harmonies and intricate balances of Nature that Fitzsimons ’ drew her political inspiration .
This always separated her , radically , from those on the traditional Left , who characterised their mission of uplifting the poor and oppressed as a struggle to overthrow and overpower not only the ruling-class , but Nature herself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fitzsimon ( and , honestly , there wasn ’ t much ) was the socialism of gentle folk like the British polymath , William Morris , who drew his inspiration from the organic communities of the Middle Ages .
Not to the feudal aristocrats and their brutal retinues of knights and tax-collectors , you understand , but to the ministering monasteries and abbeys , and , most especially , to the guilds of medieval craftsmen .
Less Karl Marx ’ s post-industrial utopia – more J.R.R .
Tolkien ’ s Shire !
Much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ towards the Greens was born of what they saw as the latter ’ s politically dubious love-affair with what the Germans call the volksgemeinschaft – the “ people ’ s community ” .
In the eyes of these old-fashioned socialists and social-democrats , the Greens organicism smacked of a deeply conservative preference for human subordination to the “ natural order ” .
Certainly , there remains a strong political tendency within the Green ideology , to elevate pre-industrial indigenous cultures over the extractive and oppressive industrial societies of the colonialist-capitalist West .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scorn on the Greens ’ Morris-dancing because it looked silly – they took it as evidence of the Greens ’ dangerous liaisons with all manner of reactionary ideas .
No one who ever visited Fitzsimons ’ organic farm in the Kauaeranga River Valley was left in any doubt about her commitment to treading gently on the earth .
Not even her staunchest critics – left or right – could accuse her of not walking her talk .
If there was a reactionary element to her politics , then it was born of her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s addiction to growth : an entirely justifiable reaction to the havoc which that addiction is unleashing upon the planet ’ s fragile ecosystems .
It was a reaction that went all the way back to the Values Party : to the conviction that so long as Science remains under the control of unaccountable corporations , then its insights and discoveries will inevitably be turned towards violent , perverted , and , ultimately , life-diminishing ends .
As they used to say back around the time the Values Party was formed : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it ’ s a corpse.
” What then , we are left to wonder , did Fitzsimons make of the Green Party in 2020 ?
Did she see it as a source of pride , or as a cause for concern ?
Are those who have come of age , politically , in the years of Capitalism ’ s undisputed triumph more , or less , able to perceive the danger it poses to the future of all living things ?
Do they manifest the same acute ecological wisdom that enabled Jeanette @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than quarter-of-a-century ?
Do they walk lightly upon the earth , as she did ?
Or , do they just talk about it ?

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS’ DEATH brings to a close the political narrative which began with the Tony Brunt Values Party in 1972. In its essence, it’s been a story about principled expertise, cultural radicalism, and what later came to be known as “ecological wisdom”. Expressed in this truncated way, the most remarkable thing about the period traversed by Fitzsimons’ political career is that the interwoven strands of New Zealand’s green movement did not fray and snap.
Fitzsimons’ serene personality played a critical role in the Greens’ political coherence over her three decades of active involvement. Political leaders are not always calm and unflappable human-beings. Indeed, the preferred leadership style in New Zealand is the one that offers the voters hardness and decisiveness in equal measure. The Greens’ consensus-based decision-making is often dismissed as woolly-woofterish weakness. In reality, it is anything but. Few outside the Green Party appreciate the power of a patiently assembled super-majority – especially when wielded with a serene smile.
An effective political leader requires more than serenity, however, if she is to succeed. Knowledge and expertise also count for a great deal – especially in avant-garde minority movements like Values and the Greens. In this regard, Fitzsimons was a formidable protagonist. Her scientific training equipped her admirably for the unavoidable and often trenchant debates which her radical environmental and political agendas provoked. Against the defenders of the status-quo, and especially against the protectors of entrenched corporate interests, expertly marshalled facts and figures were the only rhetorical weapons capable of drawing blood. Fitzsimons always excelled in this kind of political warfare.
Her other great advantage owed nothing to these personal strengths. Simply by being born in 1945, she experienced all of the many benefits of growing up in post-war New Zealand. What’s more, she was perfectly positioned not only to imbibe all the heady cultural brews of the late-1960s, but to make sense of them. Twenty-seven, and already an academic high-flyer, when Tony Brunt launched the Values Party in 1972, Fitzsimons was the sort of asset any fledgling political movement was bound to welcome with open arms.
That intellectual heft is an important part of Fitzsimons’ and the Greens’ political genealogy. In terms of Twentieth Century progressivism, her role in Values and the Greens is analogous to that of historical figures from earlier in the century when progressivism – and a certain type of socialism – first gained its political momentum. She stands firmly in the tradition of such high-minded intellectual reformers as Beatrice Webb in the United Kingdom, and Jane Addams in the United States: women who put their faith in the discoveries of science (the social-sciences in particular) and in the unimpeachable power of official statistics, rather than in the surging passions of the masses – down in the street.
Not that there was any lack of passion in Fitzsimons’ love affair with the natural world. Indeed, it was from the natural harmonies and intricate balances of Nature that Fitzsimons’ drew her political inspiration. This always separated her, radically, from those on the traditional Left, who characterised their mission of uplifting the poor and oppressed as a struggle to overthrow and overpower not only the ruling-class, but Nature herself.
What little socialism there was in Fitzsimon (and, honestly, there wasn’t much) was the socialism of gentle folk like the British polymath, William Morris, who drew his inspiration from the organic communities of the Middle Ages. Not to the feudal aristocrats and their brutal retinues of knights and tax-collectors, you understand, but to the ministering monasteries and abbeys, and, most especially, to the guilds of medieval craftsmen. Less Karl Marx’s post-industrial utopia – more J.R.R. Tolkien’s Shire!
Much of the Traditional Left’s animosity towards the Greens was born of what they saw as the latter’s politically dubious love-affair with what the Germans call the volksgemeinschaft – the “people’s community”. In the eyes of these old-fashioned socialists and social-democrats, the Greens organicism smacked of a deeply conservative preference for human subordination to the “natural order”. Certainly, there remains a strong political tendency within the Green ideology, to elevate pre-industrial indigenous cultures over the extractive and oppressive industrial societies of the colonialist-capitalist West. The Traditional Left didn’t just pour scorn on the Greens’ Morris-dancing because it looked silly – they took it as evidence of the Greens’ dangerous liaisons with all manner of reactionary ideas.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
No one who ever visited Fitzsimons’ organic farm in the Kauaeranga River Valley was left in any doubt about her commitment to treading gently on the earth. Not even her staunchest critics – left or right – could accuse her of not walking her talk. If there was a reactionary element to her politics, then it was born of her scientific and moral rejection of Capitalism’s addiction to growth: an entirely justifiable reaction to the havoc which that addiction is unleashing upon the planet’s fragile ecosystems. It was a reaction that went all the way back to the Values Party: to the conviction that so long as Science remains under the control of unaccountable corporations, then its insights and discoveries will inevitably be turned towards violent, perverted, and, ultimately, life-diminishing ends.
As they used to say back around the time the Values Party was formed: “If this planet’s a corporation, it’s a corpse.”
What then, we are left to wonder, did Fitzsimons make of the Green Party in 2020? Did she see it as a source of pride, or as a cause for concern? Are those who have come of age, politically, in the years of Capitalism’s undisputed triumph more, or less, able to perceive the danger it poses to the future of all living things? Do they manifest the same acute ecological wisdom that enabled Jeanette to hold the party together for more than quarter-of-a-century? Do they walk lightly upon the earth, as she did? Or, do they just talk about it?


thedailyblog--2020-03-09--The only constant in Israeli political leadership is racism towards Palestinians

The post-election debate in Israel has heated up over the weekend .
When the exit polls last week suggested a win for current Prime Minister Netanyahu and his coalition of extreme right-wing political parties , the man was claiming a decisive victory and welcoming the opportunity to pass legislation to stall the bribery and corruption charges he faces .
He was also planning the immediate , illegal , annexation of vast swathes of Palestinian land .
Later in the week the final counting of votes saw him falling three seats short of a majority – his right-wing block has 58 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The misnamed “ centre-left ” block – led by Benny Gantz – has 55 seats and Avigdor Lieberman ’ s party ( sometimes the “ kingmaker ” ) has 7 seats .
Traditionally Lieberman has supported Netanyahu but this soured and Lieberman resigned as Defence Minister in 2018 over a government decision to support a ceasefire in Gaza which Lieberman characterised as “ surrendering to terror ” .
Facing losing his job as Prime Minister and being forced to answer bribery and corruption charges due in court on 17 March , Netanyahu is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ racism towards Palestinians as his go-to argument .
The 55 seats of the so-called “ centre-left ” includes 15 seats won by the Arab list parties .
These are seats held by Palestinians who have Israeli citizenship ( about 20 % of the Israeli population ) Netanyahu has previously attacked any proposal to include the Arab-List parties in a coalition government as “ an existential threat to Israel ” but on the weekend he went a step further saying that the Arab-list seats should not be included in the left block total of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seats that count are those held by Jewish-led parties .
He says the opposition are “ stealing the election ” and stealing votes .
He is inciting the population to reject any government which does not include him as Prime Minister .
All this vile , filthy racism from Netanyahu is predictable and unsurprising .
He has built his political career on creating fear and loathing of Palestinians in the Israeli electorate .
But if Netanyahu is finally removed from the political stage in the coming weeks this should not be seen as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Israeli attitudes towards Palestinians .
Gantz , who could become Prime Minister if he can form a government , has already declared support for annexation of Palestinian land and Lieberman has long supported the excising of a block of Palestinians towns from the state of Israel to make the country more purely Jewish .
Whatever the immediate outcome , the only constant in Israeli political leadership is racism towards Palestinians and the only way forward for the solidarity movement is BDS ( Boycott , Divestment and Sanctions ) against Israel till it abides @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

The post-election debate in Israel has heated up over the weekend.
When the exit polls last week suggested a win for current Prime Minister Netanyahu and his coalition of extreme right-wing political parties, the man was claiming a decisive victory and welcoming the opportunity to pass legislation to stall the bribery and corruption charges he faces.
He was also planning the immediate, illegal, annexation of vast swathes of Palestinian land.
Later in the week the final counting of votes saw him falling three seats short of a majority – his right-wing block has 58 seats in the 120 seat Knesset. The misnamed “centre-left” block – led by Benny Gantz – has 55 seats and Avigdor Lieberman’s party (sometimes the “kingmaker”) has 7 seats. Traditionally Lieberman has supported Netanyahu but this soured and Lieberman resigned as Defence Minister in 2018 over a government decision to support a ceasefire in Gaza which Lieberman characterised as “surrendering to terror”.
Facing losing his job as Prime Minister and being forced to answer bribery and corruption charges due in court on 17 March, Netanyahu is lashing out in all directions, with racism towards Palestinians as his go-to argument.
The 55 seats of the so-called “centre-left” includes 15 seats won by the Arab list parties. These are seats held by Palestinians who have Israeli citizenship (about 20% of the Israeli population)
Netanyahu has previously attacked any proposal to include the Arab-List parties in a coalition government as “an existential threat to Israel” but on the weekend he went a step further saying that the Arab-list seats should not be included in the left block total of seats. According to Netanyahu the only seats that count are those held by Jewish-led parties.
He says the opposition are “stealing the election” and stealing votes. He is inciting the population to reject any government which does not include him as Prime Minister.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
All this vile, filthy racism from Netanyahu is predictable and unsurprising. He has built his political career on creating fear and loathing of Palestinians in the Israeli electorate.
But if Netanyahu is finally removed from the political stage in the coming weeks this should not be seen as a sign of any major change in Israeli attitudes towards Palestinians.
Gantz, who could become Prime Minister if he can form a government, has already declared support for annexation of Palestinian land and Lieberman has long supported the excising of a block of Palestinians towns from the state of Israel to make the country more purely Jewish.
Whatever the immediate outcome, the only constant in Israeli political leadership is racism towards Palestinians and the only way forward for the solidarity movement is BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) against Israel till it abides by international law and United Nations resolutions.