thedailyblog--2020-10-15--The Team of Five Million Becomes Team Leviathan – On The Impending Coronation Of Our First MMP Monar

The Team of Five Million Becomes Team Leviathan – On The Impending Coronation Of Our First MMP Monarch

[ Author ’ s Note : I started penning this piece in early August .
Events on the ground have , as they say , shifted quite considerably since then – we ’ ve had a Second Lockdown , and some of the lustre on Labour may have worn off ever so slightly as exhibited via their collapse down to only just being able to govern alone on most polling .
Yet I still think that the core sentiments are applicable .
So I ’ ve picked it back up again , where I left off … ] I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at University .
Largely because I failed it ( before , to be sure , then going and arguing my way to a pass … literally lawyering my way into law-school ) .
What it was on , was a pretty well-known New Zealand constitutional case – Fitzgerald vs Muldoon .
If you weren ’ t around in 1975 , the facts of the matter were thus : The Rowling Labour government had instituted a compulsory national savings scheme , National had campaigned on rolling it back in favour of a universal superannuation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ad ) … and when the latter won , they did exactly that .
Via Rob Muldoon issuing a press statement and declaring that was what was happening – rather than , say , the more usual process of putting a bill through Parliament first .
One plucky teacher , however ( for some reason , it ’ s often teachers who do this kind of thing ) , refused to recognize this – and kept sending his Compulsory National Savings deductions into the IRD anyway , who kept dutifully returning them .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s name , then proceeded to sue the Prime Minister over the matter .
And , to the surprise of many … he won .
It was held that Muldoon was in violation of the 1688 Bill of Rights – specifically , section 1 : “ That the pretended power of suspending of laws , or the execution of laws , by regal authority , without consent of Parliament , is illegal : ” Now , I won ’ t bore you with how my 17 year old self endeavoured to argue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the wrong upon this matter ; nor the economic argument for why a pension scheme rather than a saving scheme was actually pretty socially just in 1975 .
And will instead skip ahead to what one of my American colleagues recently said upon the matter when I explained the case to him – namely , that Muldoon was demonstrably not acting with the “ pretend power [ … ] of regal authority ” , because quite clearly if the nation re-aligns itself like that following your issuing a statement , the power being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It is genuine .
It ’ s a little more complex than that in actual constitutional legal terms , but never mind that for now .
Why am I mentioning all of this ?
Because sometimes , it seems , there are few things new under the Sun .
A few days ago , it was announced that somebody was once again suing the Government alleging of executive overreach .
In this case , the claim is that our Covid-19 Lockdown protocol was legally invalid .
That Ashley Bloomfield overstepped his authority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Prime Minister made declarations with presumed legal force via press-conference .
Except that ’ s not really what ’ s interesting about this .
What is – to me , anyway – is the reaction that the suit ’ s been getting , as expressed both through our media and in the voices of ordinary New Zealanders .
There ’ s been some dissenting from this , to be sure , usually from people who ’ re lawyers or constitution-enthusiasts , or avowed opponents of the Government … yet in the main @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their shoulders at the suit as they have overtly sneered at it .
And that ’ s understandable .
The Lockdown worked .
It ’ s proven significantly popular , even ( perhaps especially ) with the benefit of hindsight .
Many of us actually wanted it to go much further while it was on .
So when somebody sues the Government over it , explicitly claiming that they don ’ t care “ how necessary ” the Lockdown turned out to be – we , collectively , raise an eyebrow and wonder @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appropriate priorities in order .
It probably helps , too , that one of the major implicit defendants in all of this , is one of the more well-regarded political figures in living memory – with a pretty incredible 82 % of Kiwis feeling they can trust Jacinda per this week ’ s Colmar Brunton poll .
There ’ s no similar polling effort that I ’ m aware of to assess Dr Bloomfield on a comparable basis , but if there were , I feel pretty confident in asserting that he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And the current crisis in Victoria as well as the ongoing shambles in America mean that all we have to do is look at the World section of the paper to see why the Lockdown being “ necessary ” is not an irrelevant consideration .
Yet while it is inarguable that the circumstances around the Covid-19 Crisis have built the pyre … the flames which have risen thereupon have seemingly taken on a life of their own .
The Crisis may still be raging elsewhere , and is thankfully at bay here – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is in large measure more truly designated the positive reputation of Ardern , continues to surge .
It ’ s possible to read this , to be sure , as people concerned and anxious about their future choosing to place their trust in a figure who ’ s managed a decent job of steering us through the calamitous crises of the recent past .
It ’ s also probable that the utter implosion of the National Party through their own invidious internal democracy has left Labour as the major force for stability in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three years ago when Jacinda ascended to the leadership , for a few reasons ) .
Whatever it ’ s based on , the net impact is that our upcoming Election has been transformed from a potentially fraught democratic contest between two major blocs … into an effective coronation .
Well , a post-facto formalization of the coronation that has implicitly already occurred .
The salient ‘ democratic ’ element to it is basically us collectively deciding whether we can really be bothered with Winston for another three years , and perhaps The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and ‘ biofuel ’ [ or , if you prefer , NOS ] respectively .
This , in spite of the fact that a little less than three decades ago we demanded the comprehensive reform of our electoral system so that never again would we have the one-party rule of majority-government .
But if there ’ s an election involved , no matter how symbolic it may be – why do I then call it a ‘ coronation ’ ?
Because judging by the significantly unfavourable reactions to the Lockdown lawsuit , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ come to the conclusion that we actually don ’ t mind the idea of a single figure , perhaps two , exercising that kind of power ( provided that it works ) .
It verges on ‘ regal authority ’ , some might say .
And you know what ?
I ’ m actually pretty OK with this .
We have found ourselves the proverbial ‘ good dictator ’ or ‘ good monarch ’ which [ Author ’ s note – that ’ s as far as I got back in August .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ . ]
I call it a ‘ Coronation ’ – because this ‘ Good Monarch ’ is the one that we have chosen .
The one that we have decided , most of us anyway , we would really quite like to continue to be … well , just what a monarch is .
Something like the Queen in Chess ( although in Jacinda ’ s case , she has the weakness of the Labour Party of being their King upon the board also ) .
Wherein the reason that the Queen piece @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Queen represents the Nation , the Spirit of the People .
It would be entirely inappropriate to term this the ‘ Figurehead ’ – as it is a piece with quite considerable and capacious *actual power* .
Also why a certain associate of mine has argued that Muldoon was not in violation of the 1688 Bill of Rights Act – for Muldoon ’ s power was most definitely not “ pretend ” !
He held a press conference , and the law de facto changed around his words .
However , I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a far more archaic sense than we would often think of such a thing today .
In the old days – indeed , it is right there in the earlier Germanic conceptions of the ceremony – the King was an elective position .
Under ‘ Democracy ’ – Your Vote Counts .
Under Feudalism – Your Count Votes .
And it was a matter of a personal loyalty , a personal engagement between the electors and the figure vying for the position .
Who could say , looking at the crowds of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the town-hall meetings ’ aftermath to snap their personal selfie with our near-sainted Prime Minister – that there is not at the very least the simulacra of such a personal relationship , personal engagement .
We feel , especially in New Zealand , as if we know many of our representatives directly – that clip from The Simpsons wherein an outraged Australian man goes to his local MP … and then both go to the Prime Minister … and everybody is on a first-name basis , literally talking in-person ?
That is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is one of the things which renders our form of democracy something more sacred , more pure than the American loosely fitting equivalent .
And yet – what this picture is ‘ missing ’ is a pseudo-aristocratic ‘ middle class ’ .
And by that I do not mean “ middle class ” in the economic sense – I mean what it used to mean , some two to three hundred years ago , if not more .
The layer in the cake between the Monarch and the People .
The Middle-Management of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ obstructionism that this ‘ middle-management ’ term would more modernly , customarily imply .
This is not to say that they do not exist , of course – only that the last six months have rendered them increasingly irrelevant in practice .
Who are they ?
Well , they are the people who seem to believe that they are ‘ born to rule ’ .
The National Party , for example , the self-declared ‘ natural party of government ’ .
The Media , too , contains more than a few self-appointed scions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ , the gate-keepers , the key-shelvers who must be appeased if not downright assuaged upon the pursuing pathways of the road-network to power .
That is partially , I presume , why for some months mid-way through this year there was both such frank incomprehension and active tearing down of the Prime Minister ’ s putative popularity by these sorts .
Because they at first subconsciously and thence self-consciously came to realize that they had been .. marginalized .
There was now a direct line between the Prime Minister ( and never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the People .
Both in terms of the appeal , the emotional resonancy – but also in terms of speaking directly to the nation during the 1 pm press conferences .
As somebody put it , we all collectively felt reassured by Jacinda and Dr Bloomfield as a sort of ersatz ‘ Mother ’ and ‘ Father ’ of the Nation .
[ In essence , I would actually say that it is the Dumezilian 2nd and 1st functions respectively – the Warrior-Aristocracy / Monarch , and the Priestly / Academic castes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rather than what would otherwise be connoted by a Mother and Father of the Nation – a Queen and King … but I digress ] So , for weeks it seemed , we had a situation of the poll results being frankly disbelieved .
An almost embarrassed tone by media reporting upon them .
The succession of “ Rogue Polls ” , as National put it .
Because this was Not How Things Were Supposed To Go .
It turned out that the Nats were not , in fact , the true ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nor were the Media the genuine ‘ Anointers ’ .
It was as if Napoleon had taken the Crown from the hands of the Pope and placed it upon His own head .
And therefore , the constant attempt on the part of both some Media and the other , official Opposition – to force their way back into proceedings , barge their way back into not merely relevancy , but actual , active saliency into the bargain .
At the time , I speculated that this would have the opposite-to-intended impact , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ looked for .
Recalling the 2014 Campaign , when Dirty Politics came out and was all the Media could talk of in their harrying of the Key-led administration then in power … it was precisely this which helped to tip the scales ever further in National ’ s determined favour .
New Zealanders like an underdog , and have an innate sense of fairness , fair play .
So when we all collectively saw John Key being seemingly harrassed ( however righteous that scrutiny actually was ) , many people therefore concluded that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And rallied behind the then-incumbent Prime Minister and his colleagues as a result .
The pudding , in short , was over-egged , and the Government ’ s critics wound up with egg upon our collective faces as a result .
It happens .
It especially happens when we are playing the pop-cultural version of Canute – endeavouring to stand against and thence turn back the onrushing , indefatigable Tide .
There is another factor , as well – albeit a closely related one .
During the course of Simon Bridges ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what we saw was a terrier yapping at the pant-leg of democracy .
And that became the ‘ democracy ’ , in practice .
Instead of Her Majesty ’ s Loyal Opposition , we were treated to the choleric spectacle of “ Opposition For Opposition ’ s Sake ” .
And seemingly upon the most spurious and flimsy of matters .
It got so bad that when Todd Muller took over , one of his first acts as part of his ‘ sales pitch ’ was that he would be bringing to an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in our Parliament .
Which lasted all of five minutes before we saw a spate of National functionaries capitalizing upon a literally imaginary homelessness problem ( as in , not our real homeless problem – an imaginary homeless man being housed in a real hotel , I mean ) , the ethnic surnames of New Zealanders returning to quarantine here , and the improper use of a position of trust with an emergency service provider … amidst inter many alia .
The National Party also then demonstrated its effusively strong enthusiasm for Democracy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a little more than two months .
You could perhaps be forgiven for presuming that all this ‘ practice ’ at voting for their figurehead meant they were warming up for the big one later this year ( the General Election , I mean – not the internal party contest for who gets to replace Judith Collins and have a crack at the next one ) .
Although the fact that National MPs seemingly kept taking their lead from their new leader ( s ) and undermining the leader would appear to suggest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in “ struggling together ” than they are in struggling together .
All things considered – if a relatively strong level of support for the National Party is thought to be vitally necessary to our Democracy … it is difficult indeed to blame the ordinary voter for thusly concluding that this oppositional “ democracy ” thing may , in practical terms , be a bit overrated .
Now some may suggest that this is dangerous .
Certainly , a few voices in the media stated as much , saying that because they did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ getting a negative response from their audience – that this was a stifling effect upon their freedom to report as they saw fit … an effective pillow ‘ pon the face of our democracy .
We saw this particularly following a certain 1 pm press conference where the Prime Minister was relentlessly harangued on some matter she ’ d already answered in pursuit of a ‘ gotcha ’ moment .
And I say “ we saw this ” , because we quite literally did – it was all broadcast live .
And people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spectacle .
What did this result in ?
Media claiming that it was our fault for being unimpressed – that we didn ’ t understand how a press conference was “ supposed ” to work , and that we should stop broadcasting the pressers so that the only accountings of what happened which voters would get … would be the media ’ s own reporting of what happened , shorn of all context and just a gutsful of ‘ Gotchas ’ all the way down .
This is NOT to attempt to suggest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a Government , especially during a crisis scenario – such as that we ’ ve implicitly been grappling with for seemingly all of 2020 .
It ’ s just to state the obvious : that what people saw , from both the Opposition and the Media , often seemed much more like a vested interest in tearing down the Government rather than helping it to meaningfully do better in its execution .
Is it any wonder that we progressively began to tune these voices out ?
‘ Jacinda Under Fire ’ became @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who ’ d felt themselves unfairly critiqued , complained about , harassed , harangued , beleaguered , blamed , and battered .
We really did start to empathize and identify with this evidently hard-working figure apparently surrounded by idiots and egotists upon a daily basis .
Except it was not only the vehicle of our major putative Democratic Alternative that turned out to be a clown car .
It was also what they were actually endeavouring to push for most of that time that fit that description .
During a period of significant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ National and various voices in the Media instead pushed for opening the borders or ‘ having the conversation ’ about what an ‘ acceptable ’ death-rate would be relative to the economic harms of continuing to ensure our populace are kept safe .
To say it was unpopular ( except with a certain narrow sector of the business world and , apparently , certain universities who are seemingly entirely dependent upon masses of foreign students to be economically viable ) , would be an understatement .
But they kept at it It was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to move away from such short-sighted rhetoric , under Collins of all people , and even then they STILL semi-frequently descend into “ whatever Labour is for , we want the opposite !
” style contrarianism .
We also STILL occasionally hear from the “ Plan B ” advocates , along with other such fringe voices who ’ ve all-of-a-sudden discovered an enthusiasm for Swedish Social Democracy .. but only for the certain style of “ interventionism ” that ’ s delivered greater restrictions than present New Zealand for markedly inferior virus control @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during those months , you could read their rhetoric as being pig-headed and pig-eared ( in the form of a purse ) stubbornness ; a lack of flexibility and responsiveness because they ’ re both out of touch and not used to having people question the economic Received Wisdom which has prevailed here since the mid-1980s .
More cynically , as well as more recently , you could interpret their actions as being driven out of a desire for “ Power for Power ’ s Sake ” ; a willingness to say or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scepter and the crown .
Ironically , exactly what many people would find most repugnant about a certain sort of monarchy – or , more aptly , a tyrant .
And a petty , tin-pot tyrant certainly would seem to aptly encapsulate their present leadership in both style and ( lack of ) substance .
If you want something “ Dangerous ” for our democracy – for our society !
– that , I would humbly submit , is it .
Therefore , while you can argue that it ’ s “ dangerous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the direction we are electorally – wherein a system expressly designed to ensure that there would never again be absolute / majoritarian governance is now prospectively going to deliver us up exactly that – I am not sure that I agree .
In this instance , anyway .
And that ’ s for one very simple reason .
The idea that a lack of choice is dangerous – requires that there actually be a lack of choice .
This situation is not that .
Rather , it is precisely that there IS choice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party , one leader .
The opposition to this sentiment – and you mark my words , the Mike Hoskings and Leighton Smiths of this world shall be absolutely breathless in their turmoil of an “ It Can ’ t Happen Here ” piquant texture and flavouring – is effectively tantamount to suggesting not that absolutism or ‘ monarchy ’ should be avoided for its own sake … but rather that democracy in and of itself is a bad idea because it may , every so often , produce a rather remarkable out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ view could just as easily be affixed to Donald Trump … and yet I don ’ t think that ’ s right either .
Not least because Judith Collins is presently doing an admirable job of demonstrating just why Trumpian pseudo- “ populism ” is rather ill-fitted and seemingly quite seriously unpopular here in little old Lilliputian New Zealand .
But also because , properly considered , the Jacinda phenomenon is , in essence , the mirror image of Trump – and that is why everything is exactly the other way around .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ right is not mutually exclusive with being popular – and that populism can be the wind in a progressive ship ’ s ( flying boat ) wings .
There are valid reasons , to be sure , to lack a certain enthusiasm for Labour governing entirely upon its own – and this helps to explicate just why the two horse race at this year ’ s Election is apparently between Labour and Labour-Greens for the Government .
But to bring things back to the jurisprudential matters which provided the active inspiration for this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first Lockdown , and that most curious of statements by its presumptive prosecutor that it did not matter whether the lockdown was ‘ necessary ’ , only that it was pro-forma legal … While , again , there are legitimate and valid reasons for looking into the legality of state actions here in New Zealand ( and we should be thankful that we have a system , a society wherein such a thing can take place with relatively swift expedition , it would seem ) ; it also feels that various of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ things are less concerned with heading off some illusory Road to Fascism – and more with actively diverting us down the Road to Freedumb .
In the American sense .
Where all manner of strange and counterproductive proscriptions as well as prescriptions are left inviolate due to a slavishly hidebound adherence to certain ‘ letters of the law ’ ( quite literally judiciously reinterpreted to suit ) and a largely feigned fear of Tyranny .
As in , the historical specter of the King of England , rather than the currently-festering , present-day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the person ( or should we perhaps phrase – ‘ persona non grata ’ ) of the President .
Not just the income-bent one , either .
A situation which has sadly come to its ultimate fruition through precisely the kind of internal and internecine division into multiple semi-literally armed camps that Jacinda as a sort of ‘ grand uniter ’ [ capable , it would seem , not only of welding together coalitions – but also of drawing votes from both Labour and even National ’ s usual supporters ] is again @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too , speaks toward Jacinda as a Hobbesian figure – an avatar of the collective pooling of our individual sovereignties .
An Over-Sovereign , if you will [ Chhatrapati ] – a monarch .

[Author’s Note: I started penning this piece in early August. Events on the ground have, as they say, shifted quite considerably since then – we’ve had a Second Lockdown, and some of the lustre on Labour may have worn off ever so slightly as exhibited via their collapse down to only just being able to govern alone on most polling. Yet I still think that the core sentiments are applicable. So I’ve picked it back up again, where I left off … ]
I’ll always remember my first Law test at University. Largely because I failed it (before, to be sure, then going and arguing my way to a pass … literally lawyering my way into law-school). What it was on, was a pretty well-known New Zealand constitutional case – Fitzgerald vs Muldoon. If you weren’t around in 1975, the facts of the matter were thus: The Rowling Labour government had instituted a compulsory national savings scheme, National had campaigned on rolling it back in favour of a universal superannuation (the famed ‘Dancing Cossacks’ ad) … and when the latter won, they did exactly that. Via Rob Muldoon issuing a press statement and declaring that was what was happening – rather than, say, the more usual process of putting a bill through Parliament first.
One plucky teacher, however (for some reason, it’s often teachers who do this kind of thing), refused to recognize this – and kept sending his Compulsory National Savings deductions into the IRD anyway, who kept dutifully returning them. Fitzgerald, for that was the teacher’s name, then proceeded to sue the Prime Minister over the matter. And, to the surprise of many … he won. It was held that Muldoon was in violation of the 1688 Bill of Rights – specifically, section 1: “That the pretended power of suspending of laws, or the execution of laws, by regal authority, without consent of Parliament, is illegal:”
Now, I won’t bore you with how my 17 year old self endeavoured to argue that Muldoon was *not* in fact in the wrong upon this matter; nor the economic argument for why a pension scheme rather than a saving scheme was actually pretty socially just in 1975. And will instead skip ahead to what one of my American colleagues recently said upon the matter when I explained the case to him – namely, that Muldoon was demonstrably not acting with the “pretend power […] of regal authority”, because quite clearly if the nation re-aligns itself like that following your issuing a statement, the power being exercised is obviously not “pretend”. It is genuine. It’s a little more complex than that in actual constitutional legal terms, but never mind that for now.
Why am I mentioning all of this? Because sometimes, it seems, there are few things new under the Sun. A few days ago, it was announced that somebody was once again suing the Government alleging of executive overreach. In this case, the claim is that our Covid-19 Lockdown protocol was legally invalid. That Ashley Bloomfield overstepped his authority by enacting the Lockdown, and that the Prime Minister made declarations with presumed legal force via press-conference.
Except that’s not really what’s interesting about this.
What is – to me, anyway – is the reaction that the suit’s been getting, as expressed both through our media and in the voices of ordinary New Zealanders.
There’s been some dissenting from this, to be sure, usually from people who’re lawyers or constitution-enthusiasts, or avowed opponents of the Government … yet in the main, Kiwis have not so much shrugged their shoulders at the suit as they have overtly sneered at it.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
And that’s understandable. The Lockdown worked. It’s proven significantly popular, even (perhaps especially) with the benefit of hindsight. Many of us actually wanted it to go much further while it was on. So when somebody sues the Government over it, explicitly claiming that they don’t care “how necessary” the Lockdown turned out to be – we, collectively, raise an eyebrow and wonder if the bloke’s got his appropriate priorities in order.
It probably helps, too, that one of the major implicit defendants in all of this, is one of the more well-regarded political figures in living memory – with a pretty incredible 82% of Kiwis feeling they can trust Jacinda per this week’s Colmar Brunton poll. There’s no similar polling effort that I’m aware of to assess Dr Bloomfield on a comparable basis, but if there were, I feel pretty confident in asserting that he’d be doing well, too.
And the current crisis in Victoria as well as the ongoing shambles in America mean that all we have to do is look at the World section of the paper to see why the Lockdown being “necessary” is not an irrelevant consideration.
Yet while it is inarguable that the circumstances around the Covid-19 Crisis have built the pyre … the flames which have risen thereupon have seemingly taken on a life of their own. The Crisis may still be raging elsewhere, and is thankfully at bay here – but the popularity of Labour, which is in large measure more truly designated the positive reputation of Ardern, continues to surge. It’s possible to read this, to be sure, as people concerned and anxious about their future choosing to place their trust in a figure who’s managed a decent job of steering us through the calamitous crises of the recent past. It’s also probable that the utter implosion of the National Party through their own invidious internal democracy has left Labour as the major force for stability in our politics (something unthinkable a mere three years ago when Jacinda ascended to the leadership, for a few reasons).
Whatever it’s based on, the net impact is that our upcoming Election has been transformed from a potentially fraught democratic contest between two major blocs … into an effective coronation. Well, a post-facto formalization of the coronation that has implicitly already occurred. The salient ‘democratic’ element to it is basically us collectively deciding whether we can really be bothered with Winston for another three years, and perhaps The Greens – acting as ‘handbreak’ and ‘biofuel’ [or, if you prefer, NOS] respectively. This, in spite of the fact that a little less than three decades ago we demanded the comprehensive reform of our electoral system so that never again would we have the one-party rule of majority-government.
But if there’s an election involved, no matter how symbolic it may be – why do I then call it a ‘coronation’ ?
Because judging by the significantly unfavourable reactions to the Lockdown lawsuit, we’ve collectively and in the main come to the conclusion that we actually don’t mind the idea of a single figure, perhaps two, exercising that kind of power (provided that it works). It verges on ‘regal authority’, some might say.
And you know what? I’m actually pretty OK with this. We have found ourselves the proverbial ‘good dictator’ or ‘good monarch’ which [Author’s note – that’s as far as I got back in August. Everything which follows is more recent re-view.]
I call it a ‘Coronation’ – because this ‘Good Monarch’ is the one that we have chosen. The one that we have decided, most of us anyway, we would really quite like to continue to be … well, just what a monarch is. Something like the Queen in Chess (although in Jacinda’s case, she has the weakness of the Labour Party of being their King upon the board also). Wherein the reason that the Queen piece is the most powerful – is because the Queen represents the Nation, the Spirit of the People. It would be entirely inappropriate to term this the ‘Figurehead’ – as it is a piece with quite considerable and capacious *actual power*. Also why a certain associate of mine has argued that Muldoon was not in violation of the 1688 Bill of Rights Act – for Muldoon’s power was most definitely not “pretend” ! He held a press conference, and the law de facto changed around his words.
However, I also term this a ‘Coronation’ in a far more archaic sense than we would often think of such a thing today. In the old days – indeed, it is right there in the earlier Germanic conceptions of the ceremony – the King was an elective position. Under ‘Democracy’ – Your Vote Counts. Under Feudalism – Your Count Votes. And it was a matter of a personal loyalty, a personal engagement between the electors and the figure vying for the position. Who could say, looking at the crowds of people who have flocked into the streets and the town-hall meetings’ aftermath to snap their personal selfie with our near-sainted Prime Minister – that there is not at the very least the simulacra of such a personal relationship, personal engagement. We feel, especially in New Zealand, as if we know many of our representatives directly – that clip from The Simpsons wherein an outraged Australian man goes to his local MP … and then both go to the Prime Minister … and everybody is on a first-name basis, literally talking in-person? That is also the Kiwi way. And it is one of the things which renders our form of democracy something more sacred, more pure than the American loosely fitting equivalent.
And yet – what this picture is ‘missing’ is a pseudo-aristocratic ‘middle class’. And by that I do not mean “middle class” in the economic sense – I mean what it used to mean, some two to three hundred years ago, if not more. The layer in the cake between the Monarch and the People. The Middle-Management of Empire. With all the unresponsivenesss and obstructionism that this ‘middle-management’ term would more modernly, customarily imply.
This is not to say that they do not exist, of course – only that the last six months have rendered them increasingly irrelevant in practice. Who are they? Well, they are the people who seem to believe that they are ‘born to rule’. The National Party, for example, the self-declared ‘natural party of government’. The Media, too, contains more than a few self-appointed scions and arbiters of what is ‘proper’ , the gate-keepers, the key-shelvers who must be appeased if not downright assuaged upon the pursuing pathways of the road-network to power.
That is partially, I presume, why for some months mid-way through this year there was both such frank incomprehension and active tearing down of the Prime Minister’s putative popularity by these sorts. Because they at first subconsciously and thence self-consciously came to realize that they had been .. marginalized. There was now a direct line between the Prime Minister (and never mind even most of her party) and the People. Both in terms of the appeal, the emotional resonancy – but also in terms of speaking directly to the nation during the 1 pm press conferences. As somebody put it , we all collectively felt reassured by Jacinda and Dr Bloomfield as a sort of ersatz ‘Mother’ and ‘Father’ of the Nation. [In essence, I would actually say that it is the Dumezilian 2nd and 1st functions respectively – the Warrior-Aristocracy / Monarch , and the Priestly / Academic castes, to speak a little figuratively; rather than what would otherwise be connoted by a Mother and Father of the Nation – a Queen and King … but I digress]
So, for weeks it seemed, we had a situation of the poll results being frankly disbelieved. An almost embarrassed tone by media reporting upon them. The succession of “Rogue Polls”, as National put it. Because this was Not How Things Were Supposed To Go. It turned out that the Nats were not, in fact, the true ‘natural aristocracy’ after all. And nor were the Media the genuine ‘Anointers’. It was as if Napoleon had taken the Crown from the hands of the Pope and placed it upon His own head. And therefore, the constant attempt on the part of both some Media and the other, official Opposition – to force their way back into proceedings, barge their way back into not merely relevancy, but actual, active saliency into the bargain.
At the time, I speculated that this would have the opposite-to-intended impact, the converse effect to that which was looked for. Recalling the 2014 Campaign, when Dirty Politics came out and was all the Media could talk of in their harrying of the Key-led administration then in power … it was precisely this which helped to tip the scales ever further in National’s determined favour. New Zealanders like an underdog, and have an innate sense of fairness, fair play. So when we all collectively saw John Key being seemingly harrassed (however righteous that scrutiny actually was), many people therefore concluded that it was some sort of unfair beat-up. And rallied behind the then-incumbent Prime Minister and his colleagues as a result. The pudding, in short, was over-egged, and the Government’s critics wound up with egg upon our collective faces as a result. It happens. It especially happens when we are playing the pop-cultural version of Canute – endeavouring to stand against and thence turn back the onrushing, indefatigable Tide.
There is another factor, as well – albeit a closely related one.
During the course of Simon Bridges’ latter tenure as National Party Leader, what we saw was a terrier yapping at the pant-leg of democracy. And that became the ‘democracy’, in practice. Instead of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition , we were treated to the choleric spectacle of “Opposition For Opposition’s Sake”. And seemingly upon the most spurious and flimsy of matters.
It got so bad that when Todd Muller took over, one of his first acts as part of his ‘sales pitch’ was that he would be bringing to an end exactly this kind of performative pantomimicry in our Parliament. Which lasted all of five minutes before we saw a spate of National functionaries capitalizing upon a literally imaginary homelessness problem (as in, not our real homeless problem – an imaginary homeless man being housed in a real hotel, I mean) , the ethnic surnames of New Zealanders returning to quarantine here, and the improper use of a position of trust with an emergency service provider … amidst inter many alia.
The National Party also then demonstrated its effusively strong enthusiasm for Democracy by having its second Leadership election in a little more than two months. You could perhaps be forgiven for presuming that all this ‘practice’ at voting for their figurehead meant they were warming up for the big one later this year (the General Election, I mean – not the internal party contest for who gets to replace Judith Collins and have a crack at the next one). Although the fact that National MPs seemingly kept taking their lead from their new leader(s) and undermining the leader would appear to suggest that they’re vastly more interested in “struggling together” than they are in struggling together.
All things considered – if a relatively strong level of support for the National Party is thought to be vitally necessary to our Democracy … it is difficult indeed to blame the ordinary voter for thusly concluding that this oppositional “democracy” thing may, in practical terms, be a bit overrated.
Now some may suggest that this is dangerous. Certainly, a few voices in the media stated as much, saying that because they did not feel free to criticize Ardern without getting a negative response from their audience – that this was a stifling effect upon their freedom to report as they saw fit … an effective pillow ‘pon the face of our democracy. We saw this particularly following a certain 1 pm press conference where the Prime Minister was relentlessly harangued on some matter she’d already answered in pursuit of a ‘gotcha’ moment. And I say “we saw this”, because we quite literally did – it was all broadcast live. And people weren’t particularly enthused by the spectacle. What did this result in? Media claiming that it was our fault for being unimpressed – that we didn’t understand how a press conference was “supposed” to work , and that we should stop broadcasting the pressers so that the only accountings of what happened which voters would get … would be the media’s own reporting of what happened, shorn of all context and just a gutsful of ‘Gotchas’ all the way down.
This is NOT to attempt to suggest there’s no place for scrutiny of a Government, especially during a crisis scenario – such as that we’ve implicitly been grappling with for seemingly all of 2020. It’s just to state the obvious: that what people saw, from both the Opposition and the Media, often seemed much more like a vested interest in tearing down the Government rather than helping it to meaningfully do better in its execution. Is it any wonder that we progressively began to tune these voices out? ‘Jacinda Under Fire’ became a sort of avatar-cum-apotheosis for every elector who’d felt themselves unfairly critiqued, complained about, harassed, harangued, beleaguered, blamed, and battered. We really did start to empathize and identify with this evidently hard-working figure apparently surrounded by idiots and egotists upon a daily basis.
Except it was not only the vehicle of our major putative Democratic Alternative that turned out to be a clown car. It was also what they were actually endeavouring to push for most of that time that fit that description. During a period of significant success for our home-grown elimination strategy, National and various voices in the Media instead pushed for opening the borders or ‘having the conversation’ about what an ‘acceptable’ death-rate would be relative to the economic harms of continuing to ensure our populace are kept safe. To say it was unpopular (except with a certain narrow sector of the business world and, apparently, certain universities who are seemingly entirely dependent upon masses of foreign students to be economically viable), would be an understatement. But they kept at it
It was only relatively recently that National finally chose to move away from such short-sighted rhetoric, under Collins of all people, and even then they STILL semi-frequently descend into “whatever Labour is for, we want the opposite!” style contrarianism. We also STILL occasionally hear from the “Plan B” advocates, along with other such fringe voices who’ve all-of-a-sudden discovered an enthusiasm for Swedish Social Democracy .. but only for the certain style of “interventionism” that’s delivered greater restrictions than present New Zealand for markedly inferior virus control.
At best, as applies National during those months, you could read their rhetoric as being pig-headed and pig-eared (in the form of a purse) stubbornness ; a lack of flexibility and responsiveness because they’re both out of touch and not used to having people question the economic Received Wisdom which has prevailed here since the mid-1980s. More cynically, as well as more recently, you could interpret their actions as being driven out of a desire for “Power for Power’s Sake” ; a willingness to say or do absolutely anything in pursuit of the scepter and the crown. Ironically, exactly what many people would find most repugnant about a certain sort of monarchy – or, more aptly, a tyrant. And a petty, tin-pot tyrant certainly would seem to aptly encapsulate their present leadership in both style and (lack of) substance.
If you want something “Dangerous” for our democracy – for our society! – that, I would humbly submit, is it.
Therefore, while you can argue that it’s “dangerous” for us to be moving in the direction we are electorally – wherein a system expressly designed to ensure that there would never again be absolute / majoritarian governance is now prospectively going to deliver us up exactly that – I am not sure that I agree. In this instance, anyway. And that’s for one very simple reason.
The idea that a lack of choice is dangerous – requires that there actually be a lack of choice. This situation is not that. Rather, it is precisely that there IS choice, and people are overwhelmingly choosing one party, one leader.
The opposition to this sentiment – and you mark my words, the Mike Hoskings and Leighton Smiths of this world shall be absolutely breathless in their turmoil of an “It Can’t Happen Here” piquant texture and flavouring – is effectively tantamount to suggesting not that absolutism or ‘monarchy’ should be avoided for its own sake … but rather that democracy in and of itself is a bad idea because it may, every so often, produce a rather remarkable out come.
Some might opine that this view could just as easily be affixed to Donald Trump … and yet I don’t think that’s right either. Not least because Judith Collins is presently doing an admirable job of demonstrating just why Trumpian pseudo-“populism” is rather ill-fitted and seemingly quite seriously unpopular here in little old Lilliputian New Zealand. But also because, properly considered, the Jacinda phenomenon is, in essence, the mirror image of Trump – and that is why everything is exactly the other way around. Proving, I suppose, that being right is not mutually exclusive with being popular – and that populism can be the wind in a progressive ship’s (flying boat) wings.
There are valid reasons, to be sure, to lack a certain enthusiasm for Labour governing entirely upon its own – and this helps to explicate just why the two horse race at this year’s Election is apparently between Labour and Labour-Greens for the Government. But to bring things back to the jurisprudential matters which provided the active inspiration for this piece – the legal challenge to the first Lockdown, and that most curious of statements by its presumptive prosecutor that it did not matter whether the lockdown was ‘necessary’ , only that it was pro-forma legal …
While, again, there are legitimate and valid reasons for looking into the legality of state actions here in New Zealand (and we should be thankful that we have a system, a society wherein such a thing can take place with relatively swift expedition, it would seem); it also feels that various of the people most up in arms about such things are less concerned with heading off some illusory Road to Fascism – and more with actively diverting us down the Road to Freedumb. In the American sense. Where all manner of strange and counterproductive proscriptions as well as prescriptions are left inviolate due to a slavishly hidebound adherence to certain ‘letters of the law’ (quite literally judiciously reinterpreted to suit) and a largely feigned fear of Tyranny. As in, the historical specter of the King of England, rather than the currently-festering, present-day proclivities of their pseudo-democratically empowered despot in the person (or should we perhaps phrase – ‘persona non grata’) of the President. Not just the income-bent one, either. A situation which has sadly come to its ultimate fruition through precisely the kind of internal and internecine division into multiple semi-literally armed camps that Jacinda as a sort of ‘grand uniter’ [capable, it would seem, not only of welding together coalitions – but also of drawing votes from both Labour and even National’s usual supporters] is again a diametric opposite to.
That, too, speaks toward Jacinda as a Hobbesian figure – an avatar of the collective pooling of our individual sovereignties. An Over-Sovereign, if you will [Chhatrapati] – a monarch.
Or, in short:
Leviathan Is Coming


thedailyblog--2020-10-18--Dr Liz Gordon: A new society

Dr Liz Gordon: A new society

Well I am pretty happy today .
This is indeed a historic election result .
And I am feeling optimistic .
It feels like it may have felt in 1935 .
Or 1938 .
At that time , a great Labour victory was tempered by the gathering storm clouds of war .
This time it is the raging Covid , a pandemic that is unlikely to go away soon .
The rimu house I am sitting in is testimony that the first Labour government did not let war interfere with its core programme .
Built in 1940 , my dry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a large section .
It was built by the state for working families , but also to improve the society as a whole .
I am not in the habit of picking apart speeches , especially delivered in the heat of election night .
But I was very struck by one comment that Jacinda made : that Labour would be governing for all New Zealanders .
This comment can be read in so many ways , but I am choosing today to put it within the most optimistic framework of the first Labour @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at from today ’ s perspective .
that government did not hit the mark on racial and gender politics , nor on the Treaty .
One nation does not , and should not , mean everybody is the same .
From that perspective , we will be looking for a ‘ whole of nation ’ , not a ‘ one nation ’ response .
The distinction is very important .
Under 35 years of neo-liberalism we have been encouraged to believe that certain sectors of society must be privileged in order for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ trickle down ’ economics .
Feed the horse ( I don ’ t know why it is always a horse ) lots of oats , and the horse benefits massively .
And out the end comes out lots of waste , that is available for the sparrows to peck at .
The other thing you have to do is make the sparrows want to eat the poos .
You thus cut off their other food sources ( in practice slash benefits and allow wages to fall ) .
It is undeniable that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in New Zealand , many years after the model has been discredited .
The rich are still getting richer , the poor have stabilised their incomes only because of government intervention , ninety percent of NZers are worse off than 30 years ago ( Max Rashbrooke has been running the figures on this for years ) , yadda yadda .
We need a better economic model , and that , in my mind , is the one nation model that Labour must adopt .
Instead of being a mild departure from the norm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to power under the old corporate model with Chris Luxton , this government needs an economic sea-change .
If Labour in 1984 could introduce such an unpopular and destructive policy , then surely this Labour government can take the people with it to a neo-Keynesian model for the future .
This intellectual work needs to be done forthwith and rigorously .
I have already seen numerous press releases from organisations demanding progress be made urgently on this and that .
If we get the model right , so much else will follow .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ will require the reformation of the state sector , including our guiding economic orthodoxies .
There is plenty of evidence that the shape and structure of our government agencies ( not to mention what goes on in some of them ) is not fit for purpose .
We have lost , possibly forever , two huge income earners : export education and tourism .
In my view there are myriad opportunities for alternative export industries .
New Zealand has a fantastic name internationally at present which can be built on .
I am @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perhaps helping the development of thousands of smallish artisan industries using local products and local people in co-operative movements .
Among other industrial models .
Having reformed the state and the private sector , society should partially heal itself .
Nevertheless , we should not ignore the learnings from the mosque attacks , that there is a small minority ( probably around 1 % ) of extreme right wing people in New Zealand who want to promote hatred and division .
We need to promote strongly a society that is inclusive but rests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and wrongs of the past ; care about the well-being of everyone , and in particular those who face barriers to full social and economic inclusion ; shed our racist , sexist , class-riven past for a better future .
This will require many changes , but above all a fit for purpose education system , which I do not think we have achieved as yet .
All of this within a framework of environmental sustainability , which all of these changes should promote .
A better us , a better country , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ today .
For those who share this vision , I refer to JFK ’ s inaugural speech : “ ask not what your country can do for you , ask what you can do for your country.
” Tātou , tātou e. 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 .

Well I am pretty happy today. This is indeed a historic election result. And I am feeling optimistic. It feels like it may have felt in 1935. Or 1938. At that time, a great Labour victory was tempered by the gathering storm clouds of war. This time it is the raging Covid, a pandemic that is unlikely to go away soon.
The rimu house I am sitting in is testimony that the first Labour government did not let war interfere with its core programme. Built in 1940, my dry, spacious home has four bedrooms and a large section. It was built by the state for working families, but also to improve the society as a whole.
I am not in the habit of picking apart speeches, especially delivered in the heat of election night. But I was very struck by one comment that Jacinda made: that Labour would be governing for all New Zealanders.
This comment can be read in so many ways, but I am choosing today to put it within the most optimistic framework of the first Labour government. Only better, because looked at from today’s perspective. that government did not hit the mark on racial and gender politics, nor on the Treaty. One nation does not, and should not, mean everybody is the same.
From that perspective, we will be looking for a ‘whole of nation’, not a ‘one nation’ response. The distinction is very important. Under 35 years of neo-liberalism we have been encouraged to believe that certain sectors of society must be privileged in order for the rest to prosper. We have practiced ‘trickle down’ economics.
Feed the horse (I don’t know why it is always a horse) lots of oats, and the horse benefits massively. And out the end comes out lots of waste, that is available for the sparrows to peck at.
The other thing you have to do is make the sparrows want to eat the poos. You thus cut off their other food sources (in practice slash benefits and allow wages to fall).
It is undeniable that we are still practicing trickle down economics in New Zealand, many years after the model has been discredited. The rich are still getting richer, the poor have stabilised their incomes only because of government intervention, ninety percent of NZers are worse off than 30 years ago (Max Rashbrooke has been running the figures on this for years), yadda yadda.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
We need a better economic model, and that, in my mind, is the one nation model that Labour must adopt. Instead of being a mild departure from the norm, so that National can leap back to power under the old corporate model with Chris Luxton, this government needs an economic sea-change. If Labour in 1984 could introduce such an unpopular and destructive policy, then surely this Labour government can take the people with it to a neo-Keynesian model for the future.
This intellectual work needs to be done forthwith and rigorously. I have already seen numerous press releases from organisations demanding progress be made urgently on this and that. If we get the model right, so much else will follow.
It is a huge job, that will require the reformation of the state sector, including our guiding economic orthodoxies. There is plenty of evidence that the shape and structure of our government agencies (not to mention what goes on in some of them) is not fit for purpose.
We have lost, possibly forever, two huge income earners: export education and tourism. In my view there are myriad opportunities for alternative export industries. New Zealand has a fantastic name internationally at present which can be built on. I am looking for government led ideas industries, perhaps helping the development of thousands of smallish artisan industries using local products and local people in co-operative movements. Among other industrial models.
Having reformed the state and the private sector, society should partially heal itself. Nevertheless, we should not ignore the learnings from the mosque attacks, that there is a small minority (probably around 1%) of extreme right wing people in New Zealand who want to promote hatred and division. We need to promote strongly a society that is inclusive but rests upon specific values: resolve the inequities and wrongs of the past; care about the well-being of everyone, and in particular those who face barriers to full social and economic inclusion; shed our racist, sexist, class-riven past for a better future. This will require many changes, but above all a fit for purpose education system, which I do not think we have achieved as yet.
All of this within a framework of environmental sustainability, which all of these changes should promote. A better us, a better country, a better world. All is possible today. For those who share this vision, I refer to JFK’s inaugural speech: “ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” Tātou, tātou e.
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--2020-10-18--Arson and plunder ruin Palestinian olive harvest

Since the Palestinian missile-launching from Gaza , reported on 15 September , Israeli forces have been hard at it trying to provoke more such acts of armed Resistance from the beleaguered territory but with almost utter failure .
The people in Gaza are suffering unprecedented poverty , as UNWRA head Philip Lazzarini warned on 12 October .
Now forced to sift through piles of rubbish in search of food , the population is beginning to sink into an externally-imposed sense of despair .
Israel has been subjecting Gaza to a brutal blockade since 2007 .
From 16-29 September , inclusive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gaza .
Targets included , for the most part , fishing boats and agriculture .
Israeli forces also made five waste-laying incursions into Gaza over the period , barging in and out of the defenceless community as , and whenever , they pleased .
October dawned — and still there were no more missile-firings from Gaza , until Israel had launched another nine more attacks , up to and including 4 October .
The next day , starting at 9am , Israeli forces launched attacks on Palestinian farmland and then , at 22:00 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ missile towards the Green Line — just one .
Well that was it , Israel was delighted and responded immediately with two air strikes on east Rafah , as well as opening fire on farmland at 22:15 .
From then on , Israel kept on pounding Gaza , inflicting 18 more ceasefire violations up to and including 10 October .
On 11 October there was , for that day , welcome relief from these attacks but any hope that it might continue was shattered the very next day — and then again , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bank , the Israeli Army joined forces in support of Occupation settlers setting fire to crops on Palestinian farmland .
So far this month , the Israeli Army and settlers , between them , have destroyed hundreds of Palestinian olive trees and also violently obstructed olive harvesting .
Not content with that , the settlers have also been plundering the Palestinian olive harvest for themselves .
This month , up to and including 13 October , there have been 61 home invasion raids in West Bank towns , villages and UN refugee camps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Although the verdict in the Julian Assange extradition case has been deferred until the beginning of next year , the evidence presented in his Defence has quite clearly demonstrated that there is no case for him to answer .
The trial itself was a travesty , with the Court choosing to isolate Assange , locking him in a glass box through which he was unable to communicate with his legal team .
The whole aim of the trial , and of Assange ’ s brutal health-compromising imprisonment , has been to make him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Prosecution depends upon creating the impression that WikiLeaks places lives in danger .
An award-winning German investigative journalist , John Goetz , testified at Assange ’ s extradition hearing with evidence that , contrary to US Government claims , WikiLeaks had , in fact , redacted names from US classified documents , where the lives of informants would have been at risk .
The New Zealand investigative journalist , Nicky Hager , also gave evidence for the Defence , standing up well to prosecutor James Lewis QC and refuting his accusations that Julian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of diplomatic cables without care or consideration .
Far from placing lives in danger , WikiLeaks does the very opposite exposing , as it does , where the real danger to lives and freedom of speech originates .
The vital role that WikiLeaks has played in defending human rights and respect for the principle of a fully-informed public , can readily be seen in the case of German citizen , Khalid El-Masri , who gained his freedom , thanks to the publishing by WikiLeaks of US Government cables revealing US interference in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CIA .
El-Masri described how he had been seized at the Macedonian border and held incommunicado , while being brutally abused for over three weeks .
Masked thugs dressed in black , handcuffed and blindfolded him at Skopje Airport and handed him over to a CIA inquisition team .
The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights confirmed that El-Masri had been , among other things , severely beaten and sodomised with an object ( See Treatment at Skopje Airport : 205 ) .
The Court found his treatment to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ European Convention on Human Rights .
On day nine of the hearing , El-Masri came to give evidence for the Defence but Judge Vanessa Baraitser ruled against him giving testimony and the Prosecutor for the US , James Lewis QC , told the Court that the US did not want the findings of the Strasbourg Court to be presented , the excuse being that the US had not had input in the case .
Daniel Ellsberg — the former United States military analyst , famous for releasing the Pentagon Papers , a top-secret @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Vietnam War , also gave evidence in defence of Assange , informing the Court , in an eight-page written statement , how the WikiLeaks revelations had informed the world of the truth behind US action in Iraq and Afghanistan , just as they had done previously regarding the Vietnam War .
Highly revealing interviews with Ellsberg , and others , in this regard can be seen in the video A sense of justice .
In February 2018 , Westminster Chief Magistrate , Lady Emma Arbuthnot , rejected arguments against an arrest warrant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention had called “ unreasonable ” and “ disproportionate ” .
She even declared that there was “ no evidence ” to support Mr Assange ’ s legitimate fears that he could be sought by US prosecutors .
At this point , it is necessary to introduce the neo-Conservative group , the Henry Jackson Society ( HJS ) .
Lady Arbuthnot ‘ s husband , Lord James Arbuthnot , as Global Research informs us , “ with links to the British military and intelligence establishment , was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Society ( HJS ) , a pressure group with a strongly anti-Assange agenda .
Lord Arbuthnot has hosted and Chaired events for the HJS at the House of Lords and , for a long while , sat on its “ political council ” .
The HJS hostility to Assange is extreme , having referred to him as “ bonkers and paranoid ” .
Another close associate , and financial beneficiary of HJS , is Priti Patel , the current UK Home Secretary , who will sign off Assange ’ s US extradition if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the HJS Political Council from 2013 to 2016 .
“ Staunchly pro-Israel ” , as the Times of Israel described her , Patel flew to Washington , in July 2013 , as a delegate at a forum organised by the Israel lobby group AIPAC , followed by an HJS event in the US Congress .
In 2010 , she was appointed as a parliamentary officer of the Conservative Friends of Israel ( CFI ) , which BBC Channel 4 has described as “ beyond doubt the most well-connected and probably the best @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In 2017 , as International Development Secretary , Priti Patel visited an Israeli military field hospital in the illegally-Occupied Golan Heights and turned to her Department for advice on the possibility of giving aid to Israeli military field hospitals in the Occupied territory .
In October 2019 , she visited Washington DC to meet William Barr , the US Attorney General in charge of the Assange case , as head of the Department of Justice .
Together they signed the Cloud Act , an agreement that makes it easier for American and British @ @ @ @ @ @ @ electronic data related to their investigations .
In July , Assange ’ s Defence team raised concern in Court that Barr may be using Assange ’ s extradition case in the UK for political ends .
The British Foreign Policy observer and news analyst , Declassified UK , has previously revealed that in 2019 , the former Home Secretary , Sajid Javid , who certified the initial US extradition request for Assange , attended six secret meetings organised by the American Enterprise Institute ( AEI ) .
AEI , which has been running @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2010 , also has close ties with the US intelligence community .
Following 22 days of testimony , the closing arguments for the Prosecution and Defence will be presented in November and , on 4 January , Judge Vanessa Baraitser will make her judgement .
As John Pilger notes , “ Julian Assange ’ s extradition would mean that journalists anywhere in the world are bound by US laws.
” Just as the witnesses and evidence for the Defence have demonstrated , this trial is very much about the public right to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state and corporate interests to hide the truth of their criminal behaviour in their quest for absolute power .
The company we keep To date , we have had no response from Green Party co-leader James Shaw concerning our appeals over his insulting comments regarding the Boycott , Divestment and Sanctions movement ( BDS ) although he has continued to send us appeals for donations .
Likewise , apart from one Green Party voluntary worker who assured us they would try to get a response from someone in the Green Party , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supporters need to know just where the Greens stand on this issue .
The recent government , with avid New Zealand First party involvement in Defence as well as Foreign Affairs , has steered a course solidly in league with our Five-Eyes partners .
This alliance is driven by powers that have stood in support of Israel , defending the Zionist regime from criticism and providing cover for its crimes against humanity .
The UK , for example , is right now deepening its military relationship with Israel .
In Wales , Israel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with British rescue services , has been showing off its Hermes 900 drone .
What hasn ’ t been made public is that this drone was first deployed during Israel ’ s blitz on Gaza in the summer of 2014 .
The company ’ s representatives were closely involved in that offensive , as the Israeli Air Force has acknowledged .
An earlier version of the Elbit drone – a Hermes 450 – ‘ identified ’ four Palestinian children playing on a beach on 16 July 2014 , labelling them as ‘ Hamas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ being targeted and killed by a missile fired by the Israeli military .
The following year , the British Government sanctioned the export of £387million-worth of weapons exports to Israel .
The Five Eyes allies have adopted a devious and dishonest pretence of ‘ evenhandedness ’ towards the Israeli Occupation and its long-suffering victims .
The UK , although describing US President Trump ’ s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel ’ s capital “ unhelpful ” , Britain soon began to make use of the US Embassy there .
The UK even has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the West Bank !
Last year , the Royal Air Force hosted a training exercise in the UK in which RAF Typhoon jets flew with Israeli F-15 warplanes .
There can be no doubt that the UK Government is solidly with Israel but the nation ’ s news media stay quiet regarding the increasing level of involvement that , in recent years , has also included joint naval exercises and the sharing of signals intelligence .
BDS is one non-violent way of defending Palestinian human rights .
Moreover , support for it also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ respect for rules-based international understanding , peace and security .
For too long , the principles won for us all by the Fourth Geneva Convention have been callously dismissed and violated .
The turn towards a safer , more honest and open world depends on every single one of us .
Deep state commitment by Defence and Foreign Affairs to aggressive alliances must be ended .
In New Zealand , a door is about to open that could lead to a meaningful change of policy – but that will require all the influence @ @ @ @ @ @

Since the Palestinian missile-launching from Gaza, reported on 15 September, Israeli forces have been hard at it trying to provoke more such acts of armed Resistance from the beleaguered territory but with almost utter failure. The people in Gaza are suffering unprecedented poverty, as UNWRA head Philip Lazzarini warned on 12 October. Now forced to sift through piles of rubbish in search of food, the population is beginning to sink into an externally-imposed sense of despair. Israel has been subjecting Gaza to a brutal blockade since 2007.
From 16-29 September, inclusive, Israel had launched 56 attacks on Gaza. Targets included, for the most part, fishing boats and agriculture. Israeli forces also made five waste-laying incursions into Gaza over the period, barging in and out of the defenceless community as, and whenever, they pleased.
October dawned — and still there were no more missile-firings from Gaza, until Israel had launched another nine more attacks, up to and including 4 October. The next day, starting at 9am, Israeli forces launched attacks on Palestinian farmland and then, at 22:00, the Gaza Resistance fired a single missile towards the Green Line — just one. Well that was it, Israel was delighted and responded immediately with two air strikes on east Rafah, as well as opening fire on farmland at 22:15. From then on, Israel kept on pounding Gaza, inflicting 18 more ceasefire violations up to and including 10 October. On 11 October there was, for that day, welcome relief from these attacks but any hope that it might continue was shattered the very next day — and then again, the day after.
Heartbreaking loss of olive harvest
In the West Bank, the Israeli Army joined forces in support of Occupation settlers setting fire to crops on Palestinian farmland. So far this month, the Israeli Army and settlers, between them, have destroyed hundreds of Palestinian olive trees and also violently obstructed olive harvesting. Not content with that, the settlers have also been plundering the Palestinian olive harvest for themselves. This month, up to and including 13 October, there have been 61 home invasion raids in West Bank towns, villages and UN refugee camps, 44 of them at night.
Assange update
Although the verdict in the Julian Assange extradition case has been deferred until the beginning of next year, the evidence presented in his Defence has quite clearly demonstrated that there is no case for him to answer. The trial itself was a travesty, with the Court choosing to isolate Assange, locking him in a glass box through which he was unable to communicate with his legal team. The whole aim of the trial, and of Assange’s brutal health-compromising imprisonment, has been to make him appear to be a threat. The Prosecution depends upon creating the impression that WikiLeaks places lives in danger.
An award-winning German investigative journalist, John Goetz, testified at Assange’s extradition hearing with evidence that, contrary to US Government claims, WikiLeaks had, in fact, redacted names from US classified documents, where the lives of informants would have been at risk. The New Zealand investigative journalist, Nicky Hager, also gave evidence for the Defence, standing up well to prosecutor James Lewis QC and refuting his accusations that Julian Assange had published the entire un-redacted contents of diplomatic cables without care or consideration.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
Daniel Ellsberg and Khalid El-Masri
Far from placing lives in danger, WikiLeaks does the very opposite exposing, as it does, where the real danger to lives and freedom of speech originates. The vital role that WikiLeaks has played in defending human rights and respect for the principle of a fully-informed public, can readily be seen in the case of German citizen, Khalid El-Masri, who gained his freedom, thanks to the publishing by WikiLeaks of US Government cables revealing US interference in a judicial inquiry into his kidnapping by the CIA. El-Masri described how he had been seized at the Macedonian border and held incommunicado, while being brutally abused for over three weeks. Masked thugs dressed in black, handcuffed and blindfolded him at Skopje Airport and handed him over to a CIA inquisition team. The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights confirmed that El-Masri had been, among other things, severely beaten and sodomised with an object (See Treatment at Skopje Airport: 205). The Court found his treatment to be in violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
On day nine of the hearing, El-Masri came to give evidence for the Defence but Judge Vanessa Baraitser ruled against him giving testimony and the Prosecutor for the US, James Lewis QC, told the Court that the US did not want the findings of the Strasbourg Court to be presented, the excuse being that the US had not had input in the case. Daniel Ellsberg — the former United States military analyst, famous for releasing the Pentagon Papers, a top-secret Pentagon study of US Government policy during the Vietnam War, also gave evidence in defence of Assange, informing the Court, in an eight-page written statement, how the WikiLeaks revelations had informed the world of the truth behind US action in Iraq and Afghanistan, just as they had done previously regarding the Vietnam War. Highly revealing interviews with Ellsberg, and others, in this regard can be seen in the video A sense of justice.
Justice?
In February 2018, Westminster Chief Magistrate, Lady Emma Arbuthnot, rejected arguments against an arrest warrant issued in respect of Assange, which the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention had called “unreasonable” and “disproportionate”. She even declared that there was “no evidence” to support Mr Assange’s legitimate fears that he could be sought by US prosecutors. At this point, it is necessary to introduce the neo-Conservative group, the Henry Jackson Society (HJS). Lady Arbuthnot‘s husband, Lord James Arbuthnot, as Global Research informs us, “with links to the British military and intelligence establishment, was working closely with the neo-conservative Henry Jackson Society (HJS), a pressure group with a strongly anti-Assange agenda. Lord Arbuthnot has hosted and Chaired events for the HJS at the House of Lords and, for a long while, sat on its “political council”. The HJS hostility to Assange is extreme, having referred to him as “bonkers and paranoid”.
Priti Patel
Another close associate, and financial beneficiary of HJS, is Priti Patel, the current UK Home Secretary, who will sign off Assange’s US extradition if ordered by the Court. She sat on the HJS Political Council from 2013 to 2016. “Staunchly pro-Israel”, as the Times of Israel described her, Patel flew to Washington, in July 2013, as a delegate at a forum organised by the Israel lobby group AIPAC, followed by an HJS event in the US Congress. In 2010, she was appointed as a parliamentary officer of the Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI), which BBC Channel 4 has described as “beyond doubt the most well-connected and probably the best funded of all Westminster lobbying groups.”
In 2017, as International Development Secretary, Priti Patel visited an Israeli military field hospital in the illegally-Occupied Golan Heights and turned to her Department for advice on the possibility of giving aid to Israeli military field hospitals in the Occupied territory. In October 2019, she visited Washington DC to meet William Barr, the US Attorney General in charge of the Assange case, as head of the Department of Justice. Together they signed the Cloud Act, an agreement that makes it easier for American and British law-enforcement agencies to demand the handover of electronic data related to their investigations. In July, Assange’s Defence team raised concern in Court that Barr may be using Assange’s extradition case in the UK for political ends. The British Foreign Policy observer and news analyst, Declassified UK, has previously revealed that in 2019, the former Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, who certified the initial US extradition request for Assange, attended six secret meetings organised by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). AEI, which has been running a campaign against WikiLeaks and Assange since 2010, also has close ties with the US intelligence community.
Judgement
Following 22 days of testimony, the closing arguments for the Prosecution and Defence will be presented in November and, on 4 January, Judge Vanessa Baraitser will make her judgement. As John Pilger notes, “Julian Assange’s extradition would mean that journalists anywhere in the world are bound by US laws.” Just as the witnesses and evidence for the Defence have demonstrated, this trial is very much about the public right to be informed, versus the determination of powerful state and corporate interests to hide the truth of their criminal behaviour in their quest for absolute power.
The company we keep
To date, we have had no response from Green Party co-leader James Shaw concerning our appeals over his insulting comments regarding the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS) although he has continued to send us appeals for donations. Likewise, apart from one Green Party voluntary worker who assured us they would try to get a response from someone in the Green Party, we still have heard nothing. Green Party supporters need to know just where the Greens stand on this issue. The recent government, with avid New Zealand First party involvement in Defence as well as Foreign Affairs, has steered a course solidly in league with our Five-Eyes partners. This alliance is driven by powers that have stood in support of Israel, defending the Zionist regime from criticism and providing cover for its crimes against humanity. The UK, for example, is right now deepening its military relationship with Israel.
In Wales, Israel’s Elbit Systems, in collaboration with British rescue services, has been showing off its Hermes 900 drone. What hasn’t been made public is that this drone was first deployed during Israel’s blitz on Gaza in the summer of 2014. The company’s representatives were closely involved in that offensive, as the Israeli Air Force has acknowledged. An earlier version of the Elbit drone – a Hermes 450 – ‘identified’ four Palestinian children playing on a beach on 16 July 2014, labelling them as ‘Hamas militants’, which led to them being targeted and killed by a missile fired by the Israeli military. The following year, the British Government sanctioned the export of £387million-worth of weapons exports to Israel. The Five Eyes allies have adopted a devious and dishonest pretence of ‘evenhandedness’ towards the Israeli Occupation and its long-suffering victims. The UK, although describing US President Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital “unhelpful”, Britain soon began to make use of the US Embassy there. The UK even has a few troops stationed in Israel and the West Bank! Last year, the Royal Air Force hosted a training exercise in the UK in which RAF Typhoon jets flew with Israeli F-15 warplanes.
There can be no doubt that the UK Government is solidly with Israel but the nation’s news media stay quiet regarding the increasing level of involvement that, in recent years, has also included joint naval exercises and the sharing of signals intelligence.
BDS is one non-violent way of defending Palestinian human rights. Moreover, support for it also demonstrates recognition of the need to restore respect for rules-based international understanding, peace and security. For too long, the principles won for us all by the Fourth Geneva Convention have been callously dismissed and violated. The turn towards a safer, more honest and open world depends on every single one of us. Deep state commitment by Defence and Foreign Affairs to aggressive alliances must be ended. In New Zealand, a door is about to open that could lead to a meaningful change of policy – but that will require all the influence in Parliament we can muster.


thedailyblog--2020-10-18--Of Negotiations, Opportunities and an Obligation to Voters to Govern

There ’ s a mood circulating among some circles that it would end badly for the Green Party in 2023 should it negotiate a part within a now-powerful Labour-led government .
The argument goes ; that should the Greens negotiate roles within the new Government , that their voice and policies would be watered down , rendered irrelevant by the large , expanded , Labour Party .
That Labour ’ s success in being able to govern alone would mean the Green Party ’ s place and purpose would be seen to be irrelevant .
It boils down to a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seen as mediocre .
But the counter-argument suggests : should the Green Party bow to the above narrative – to shy away from an opportunity to assert its core environmental and climate policies , to abandon the ability to inject itself into the new Executive Government ’ s priority policy settings – then it would relegate itself into legislative insignificance and potential political oblivion by 2023 .
It would also pay-waste to the ministerial experience , gains and momentum that its members of Parliament established during the 2017-20 term .
It can be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Red-Green tag-team works .
Unlike Winston Peters ’ New Zealand First , the Greens have experienced an increased share of electoral and party list support , despite one-spectacular own goal , and despite being in government as a smaller party within the 2017-20 Labour-led Government .
That is redefining MMP history .
Traditional Green support ( that withdrew in large numbers during the 2017 election campaign ) returned in part in 2020 perhaps to assist their Green Party to survive .
The effect : the Green Party avoided the sub-five percent dry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chloe Swarbrick ’ s impressive win in Auckland Central .
As such , the Greens have made history , defining a maturing of New Zealand voter behaviour where , as a third party , have increased voter support after presiding over significant ministerial portfolios in partnership with a large party-led government .
The Greens should avoid the cautious , strategic trap .
Should the Greens shy away from negotiating , then they will likely commit themselves to a future of legislative irrelevance .
That scenario would see its natural partner party Labour – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate change sensitive leader – hoover up good and sound Green Party policy and make it its own .
It appears , Labour does not want to do that .
Labour leader and Prime Minister , Jacinda Ardern , indicated on election night and over the weekend , her wish to embark on consensus building .
Her call on Sunday to Greens co-leader James Shaw set out a pathway ahead toward negotiations .
While refusing to get ahead of herself on the elements of discussions between Labour and the Greens , she clearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around policy , and use common ground as a basis of dialogue .
Those are strong negotiation points that the Green leadership , caucus and membership can leverage from .
Also , both Labour and the Greens share a need to cement in a consensus-driven red-green bloc , a movement of significance , that could reshape Aotearoa New Zealand society , policy-sets , and the political and economic environment for the next two Parliamentary terms .
This was a bloc of significance in determining the make-up of Government in 2017 , it played @ @ @ @ @ @ @ connection to environmentalism in 2020 , and will prove absolutely necessary once Labour ’ s main opponent , the National Party , re-invents itself to campaign as match fit and as a centre-right cabinet-in-waiting in future election cycles .
This , one get ’ s a sense , is what drives the Prime Minister ’ s pursuit of consensus building at a time of absolute power .
That , in turn , offers the Green negotiators a powerful lever beyond what the numbers would suggest – ie ; mutual interest .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election result is the zenith of its political successes .
Labour is not a broad-tent party .
In Jacinda Ardern , it has exceptional leadership .
In Grant Robertson , it has solid , assuring , strategic financial leadership .
It has a deep and deepening pool of political talent in ministers that stretch well beyond the top-five .
It has a ministerial line up that now has significant ministerial experience .
It has a pool of caucus members ready to express their commitment to Executive Government representations .
One gets the strong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the politicians , with the policy sets… for this time .
Interventionism , Keynesian economics shaped for the 2020 decade , and a Government with the energy to get things done .
The most enduring criticism of the Ardern-led Government is the pace of incrementalism .
And that , is something that the challenges of these times can demand be addressed .
It is also an idiosyncrasy of which the Green Party can challenge with considerable honest broker-ship .
One gets a sense that the elements of a unified red-green bloc could well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ potentially 2023-2026 .
Labour ’ s Prime Minister , Jacinda Ardern ’ s post-election media stand-ups demonstrate she knows this .
Jacinda Ardern ’ s wish to build consensus across the centre-centre-left , acknowledges the success of the Green Party ’ s election campaign .
She also has indicated an interest to have discussions with the Maori Party should special votes shore up its election night win in Waiariki .
Her comments appear to signal to Maori that the Ardern-led Labour Party wants to work with , and cooperate with , every Maori @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into Parliament .
So is the host of Green Party MPs really reluctant to join their successes with Labour ’ s landslide ?
While significant debate is occurring within the party ’ s membership – again that should the Greens enter into a coalition , then that will end badly for them in 2023 – the Green leadership has indicated an eagerness to negotiate .
Co-leaders James Shaw and Marama Davidson have been clear , there is much work yet to do beyond what they achieved during the 2017-20 term ( despite New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and are keen to have their ministers and caucus talent play their rightful part .
Additionally , Chloe Swarbrick ’ s impressive performance winning Auckland Central demands recognition of significance .
A strong signal of resolve and commitment to the generation Swarbrick represents , would be to promote her to the executive so as to initiate her to the demands of ministerial politics and governance .
One get ’ s the sense Chloe will become a highly significant element of future governments , and now would be the perfect time for her to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after specials , with a slightly expanded caucus ( potentially including the impressive activist Steve Abel ) the Greens can definitely broker relevancy on party-based constituency issues , principles , while rolling their collective sleeves up to develop policy throughout the term .
Indeed with a larger slice of a Parliamentary Service research budget , the Green caucus can truly embrace opportunities for fact-based environmental activism , and work with like-minded ministers to get real gains for their voters , members , and Aotearoa New Zealand .
Such opportunity does not call for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opportunity is reality , the dangers are , at this time , abstract .
With political planning , such perceived dangers can be rendered irrelevant and relegated to very last-century thinking .
After all , voters do vote for a party ’ s policies on the understanding that should they be able to inject those policies into government then real change will be achieved .
To shy away from that democratic mandate would be an abuse of the support that the Green Party has been given .

Analysis by Selwyn Manning.
There’s a mood circulating among some circles that it would end badly for the Green Party in 2023 should it negotiate a part within a now-powerful Labour-led government.
The argument goes; that should the Greens negotiate roles within the new Government, that their voice and policies would be watered down, rendered irrelevant by the large, expanded, Labour Party. That Labour’s success in being able to govern alone would mean the Green Party’s place and purpose would be seen to be irrelevant.
It boils down to a resistance to govern for fear of being seen as mediocre.
But the counter-argument suggests: should the Green Party bow to the above narrative – to shy away from an opportunity to assert its core environmental and climate policies, to abandon the ability to inject itself into the new Executive Government’s priority policy settings – then it would relegate itself into legislative insignificance and potential political oblivion by 2023. It would also pay-waste to the ministerial experience, gains and momentum that its members of Parliament established during the 2017-20 term.
It can be argued, the Greens have proven that the Red-Green tag-team works. Unlike Winston Peters’ New Zealand First, the Greens have experienced an increased share of electoral and party list support, despite one-spectacular own goal, and despite being in government as a smaller party within the 2017-20 Labour-led Government. That is redefining MMP history.
Let’s examine that phenomenon.
Traditional Green support (that withdrew in large numbers during the 2017 election campaign) returned in part in 2020 perhaps to assist their Green Party to survive. The effect: the Green Party avoided the sub-five percent dry horrors and indeed secured a generational-shift with Chloe Swarbrick’s impressive win in Auckland Central.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
As such, the Greens have made history, defining a maturing of New Zealand voter behaviour where, as a third party, have increased voter support after presiding over significant ministerial portfolios in partnership with a large party-led government.
The Greens should avoid the cautious, strategic trap. Should the Greens shy away from negotiating, then they will likely commit themselves to a future of legislative irrelevance. That scenario would see its natural partner party Labour – under Jacinda Ardern, an environmentally and climate change sensitive leader – hoover up good and sound Green Party policy and make it its own.
It appears, Labour does not want to do that.
Labour leader and Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, indicated on election night and over the weekend, her wish to embark on consensus building. Her call on Sunday to Greens co-leader James Shaw set out a pathway ahead toward negotiations. While refusing to get ahead of herself on the elements of discussions between Labour and the Greens, she clearly indicated an intention to develop a consensus around policy, and use common ground as a basis of dialogue. Those are strong negotiation points that the Green leadership, caucus and membership can leverage from.
Also, both Labour and the Greens share a need to cement in a consensus-driven red-green bloc, a movement of significance, that could reshape Aotearoa New Zealand society, policy-sets, and the political and economic environment for the next two Parliamentary terms. This was a bloc of significance in determining the make-up of Government in 2017, it played a significant part in Labour’s connection to environmentalism in 2020, and will prove absolutely necessary once Labour’s main opponent, the National Party, re-invents itself to campaign as match fit and as a centre-right cabinet-in-waiting in future election cycles.
This, one get’s a sense, is what drives the Prime Minister’s pursuit of consensus building at a time of absolute power. That, in turn, offers the Green negotiators a powerful lever beyond what the numbers would suggest – ie; mutual interest.
It’s likely, Labour knows the 2020 election result is the zenith of its political successes.
Labour is not a broad-tent party. In Jacinda Ardern, it has exceptional leadership. In Grant Robertson, it has solid, assuring, strategic financial leadership. It has a deep and deepening pool of political talent in ministers that stretch well beyond the top-five. It has a ministerial line up that now has significant ministerial experience. It has a pool of caucus members ready to express their commitment to Executive Government representations. One gets the strong sense it is the party, with the politicians, with the policy sets… for this time. Interventionism, Keynesian economics shaped for the 2020 decade, and a Government with the energy to get things done. The most enduring criticism of the Ardern-led Government is the pace of incrementalism. And that, is something that the challenges of these times can demand be addressed. It is also an idiosyncrasy of which the Green Party can challenge with considerable honest broker-ship. One gets a sense that the elements of a unified red-green bloc could well sustain voter enthusiasm through this term and potentially 2023-2026.
Labour’s Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern’s post-election media stand-ups demonstrate she knows this.
Jacinda Ardern’s wish to build consensus across the centre-centre-left, acknowledges the success of the Green Party’s election campaign. She also has indicated an interest to have discussions with the Maori Party should special votes shore up its election night win in Waiariki. Her comments appear to signal to Maori that the Ardern-led Labour Party wants to work with, and cooperate with, every Maori MP that the Maori electorate voters send into Parliament.
So is the host of Green Party MPs really reluctant to join their successes with Labour’s landslide?
It appears not.
While significant debate is occurring within the party’s membership – again that should the Greens enter into a coalition, then that will end badly for them in 2023 – the Green leadership has indicated an eagerness to negotiate.
Co-leaders James Shaw and Marama Davidson have been clear, there is much work yet to do beyond what they achieved during the 2017-20 term (despite New Zealand First’s centre-right hand-break) and are keen to have their ministers and caucus talent play their rightful part.
Additionally, Chloe Swarbrick’s impressive performance winning Auckland Central demands recognition of significance. A strong signal of resolve and commitment to the generation Swarbrick represents, would be to promote her to the executive so as to initiate her to the demands of ministerial politics and governance. One get’s the sense Chloe will become a highly significant element of future governments, and now would be the perfect time for her to engage in that journey.
Meanwhile, after specials, with a slightly expanded caucus (potentially including the impressive activist Steve Abel) the Greens can definitely broker relevancy on party-based constituency issues, principles, while rolling their collective sleeves up to develop policy throughout the term. Indeed with a larger slice of a Parliamentary Service research budget, the Green caucus can truly embrace opportunities for fact-based environmental activism, and work with like-minded ministers to get real gains for their voters, members, and Aotearoa New Zealand.
Such opportunity does not call for reticence. In other words, the opportunity is reality, the dangers are, at this time, abstract. With political planning, such perceived dangers can be rendered irrelevant and relegated to very last-century thinking.
After all, voters do vote for a party’s policies on the understanding that should they be able to inject those policies into government then real change will be achieved. To shy away from that democratic mandate would be an abuse of the support that the Green Party has been given.


thedailyblog--2020-10-18--The new government has a blank page to write on

The positives of this election are obvious : – Working people gave a near 60 % majority to a Labour-Green government .
Some modest promises like 10 days sick leave and continuing minimum wage increases can be banked going forward .
– The conservative NZ First brake on this previous government was removed and the party probably eliminated for good .
– Labour supporters gave a clear indication that they have reservations about the lack of policy and direction from Labour during the election campaign by giving electorate seats to the Green ’ s and Maori Party , both of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the environment .
– The National Party became a reactionary rump and its venomous leader makes zero progress during the campaign .
By running a campaign almost devoid of policy the government has given its supporters a blank page upon which we need to write our concerns and needs , and those of the planet we live on , into a policy for our mutual survival .
Unions and social movements involved in fighting against the problems that capitalism creates – from unemployment to degraded rivers – need to work together to impose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a future for working people and the planet that doesn ’ t reproduce the degradation of both that happens now .
The most important first steps we need this government to proritise are : – Jobs for everyone who wants to work to rebuild the country for a post-Covid world – A living income for those who can ’ t work with individualised entitlement .
– A pathway to residency for those caught in New Zealand who have made this country their home .
– All new spending directed towards transitioning the economy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as practically possible .

The positives of this election are obvious:
– Working people gave a near 60% majority to a Labour-Green government. Some modest promises like 10 days sick leave and continuing minimum wage increases can be banked going forward.
– The conservative NZ First brake on this previous government was removed and the party probably eliminated for good.
– Labour supporters gave a clear indication that they have reservations about the lack of policy and direction from Labour during the election campaign by giving electorate seats to the Green’s and Maori Party, both of which have stronger policies for workers and the environment.
– The National Party became a reactionary rump and its venomous leader makes zero progress during the campaign.
By running a campaign almost devoid of policy the government has given its supporters a blank page upon which we need to write our concerns and needs, and those of the planet we live on, into a policy for our mutual survival.
Unions and social movements involved in fighting against the problems that capitalism creates – from unemployment to degraded rivers – need to work together to impose policies on this government that can create a future for working people and the planet that doesn’t reproduce the degradation of both that happens now.
The most important first steps we need this government to proritise are:
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
– Jobs for everyone who wants to work to rebuild the country for a post-Covid world
– Make the minimum wage a living wage
– A living income for those who can’t work with individualised entitlement .
– A pathway to residency for those caught in New Zealand who have made this country their home.
– All new spending directed towards transitioning the economy to a net-zero carbon future as soon as practically possible.