thedailyblog--2020-12-13--Dr Liz Gordon:  NZ Initiative runs faster than the speed of light from its Chief Editor

The NZ Initiative is an organisation born from the merger of two neo-liberal business agencies .
Its political position is full-on Adam Smith ( hidden hand of the market etc ) and the Act Party , although it works quite hard to appear neutral , a position generally accepted by the media .
Its members are 70 , mainly large , NZ companies , making up about a quarter of the revenue of Aotearoa .
The organisation has quite a lot to say about social policy , housing and education .
Not surprisingly , education should be more like a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Housing needs deregulation , not regulation .
The poor need social investment , not handouts .
And so on .
Nothing to see here , except right wing social policy .
Like the Act Party , the NZ Initiative is liberal on social issues .
While the organisation is stacked with white males at senior levels ( one senior women ) and there is not a Māori in sight on the staff or board , this just reflects the world they reside in , not deliberate omission .
I am sure there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to as unconscious bias in that world , but there is no ideology of discrimination .
Except… .
The NZ Initiative employed Nathan Smith , formerly of NBR , as its Chief Editor .
And Nathan Smith , it was revealed last week , has some very non-liberal views on social issues .
Smith never hid his views .
They were accessible at his blog , Likebulb ( good luck in finding it , I think it has been taken down ) .
Mark Daadlar reported that Smith had interests in anti-Semitism ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Islamaphobia ( Muslims are to blame ! )
and debunking Covid .
He also was , creepily , an Incel person .
The Wikipedia definition is : Incels , a portmanteau of “ involuntary celibates “ , are members of an online subculture who define themselves as unable to find a romantic or sexual partner despite desiring one .
Discussions in incel forums are often characterised by resentment , misogyny , misanthropy , self-pity and self-loathing , racism , a sense of entitlement to sex , and the endorsement of violence against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ several occasions he railed against ‘ the rules ’ that prevented him engaging in sexual exploitation such as rape and trafficking .
Underlying this is also a deep-seated hatred of women for being sexual but not been freely available to him .
He was a damaged person , it seems .
Smith spent seven years at the NBR ( which should be asking itself some questions ) and has been with the NZ Initiative since February 2020 .
Newsroom states that Oliver Hartwich , the CE , said that the organisation had no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I think this raises three questions : why did it take so long for people to notice ; does the Bill of Rights s.13 apply and what if he had not resigned ?
Can I come right out and say that I bet the women who worked with him knew something was wrong with him .
I strongly doubt the Incel thing could be hidden from women .
Further , misogynist behaviour is so institutionalised into NZ workplaces that it is almost expected , which offered Smith some protection .
As is racism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the extremism that only a small number would have picked up on .
The Bill of Rights states : “ Everyone has the right to freedom of thought , conscience , religion , and belief , including the right to adopt and to hold opinions without interference ” .
This includes in the workplace and everywhere .
At the moment there are no hate speech laws , so while his views might be awful , creepy , scary , strange and sinister to you and me , they were not illegal ( some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advocacy , perhaps ) .
But any decent employment lawyer would note that ( a ) he made no secret of his views ( he wrote a blog , FFS ) , ( b ) he had the right to hold those views under the law , and ( c ) he carried out his work as required and his views did not interfere with this ( the NZ Initiative is carrying out an audit of everything Smith touched to see whether in fact they were tainted by his ideology ) .
So @ @ @ @ @ @ @ followed by Smith ’ s resignation ( which he will no doubt argue was a constructive dismissal ) will no doubt end up in the Employment Court , possibly as a test case of ideological requirements of workers .
This may also collide with the subsequent adoption of any hate speech laws .
Or Smith may just scarper overseas and cut his losses .
In principle I agree with Bomber that using laws to regulate thought and speech is slippery , dangerous and probably impossible .
I do sympathise with the NZ Initiative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tank and harbouring a snake in one ’ s errr … bosom – but on the other hand , they should have done their due diligence on Mr Smith and his beliefs .
There remains the one great shock that someone with Smith ’ s views , hidden in plain sight , was able to hold a senior media position within the New Zealand establishment .
How many more of them are out there ?
Dr Liz Gordon is a researcher and a barrister , with interests in destroying neo-liberalism in all its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ society .
She usually blogs on justice , social welfare and education topics .

The NZ Initiative is an organisation born from the merger of two neo-liberal business agencies. Its political position is full-on Adam Smith (hidden hand of the market etc) and the Act Party, although it works quite hard to appear neutral, a position generally accepted by the media. Its members are 70, mainly large, NZ companies, making up about a quarter of the revenue of Aotearoa.
The organisation has quite a lot to say about social policy, housing and education. Not surprisingly, education should be more like a business with far more control over teachers. Housing needs deregulation, not regulation. The poor need social investment, not handouts. And so on. Nothing to see here, except right wing social policy.
Like the Act Party, the NZ Initiative is liberal on social issues. While the organisation is stacked with white males at senior levels (one senior women) and there is not a Māori in sight on the staff or board, this just reflects the world they reside in, not deliberate omission. I am sure there is plenty of what we nowadays refer to as unconscious bias in that world, but there is no ideology of discrimination.
Except…. The NZ Initiative employed Nathan Smith, formerly of NBR, as its Chief Editor. And Nathan Smith, it was revealed last week, has some very non-liberal views on social issues.
Smith never hid his views. They were accessible at his blog, Likebulb (good luck in finding it, I think it has been taken down).
Mark Daadlar reported that Smith had interests in anti-Semitism (the Jews are to blame!), Islamaphobia (Muslims are to blame!) and debunking Covid. He also was, creepily, an Incel person. The Wikipedia definition is:
Incels, a portmanteau of “involuntary celibates“, are members of an online subculture who define themselves as unable to find a romantic or sexual partner despite desiring one. Discussions in incel forums are often characterised by resentment, misogyny, misanthropy, self-pity and self-loathing, racism, a sense of entitlement to sex, and the endorsement of violence against sexually active people.
Indeed, on several occasions he railed against ‘the rules’ that prevented him engaging in sexual exploitation such as rape and trafficking. Underlying this is also a deep-seated hatred of women for being sexual but not been freely available to him. He was a damaged person, it seems.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
Smith spent seven years at the NBR (which should be asking itself some questions) and has been with the NZ Initiative since February 2020. Newsroom states that Oliver Hartwich, the CE, said that the organisation had no knowledge of Smith’s views. I think this raises three questions: why did it take so long for people to notice; does the Bill of Rights s.13 apply and what if he had not resigned?
Can I come right out and say that I bet the women who worked with him knew something was wrong with him. I strongly doubt the Incel thing could be hidden from women. Further, misogynist behaviour is so institutionalised into NZ workplaces that it is almost expected, which offered Smith some protection. As is racism in all its forms. It is the extremism that only a small number would have picked up on.
The Bill of Rights states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and belief, including the right to adopt and to hold opinions without interference”. This includes in the workplace and everywhere. At the moment there are no hate speech laws, so while his views might be awful, creepy, scary, strange and sinister to you and me, they were not illegal (some of the Incel views bordered on pro-rape advocacy, perhaps).
But any decent employment lawyer would note that (a) he made no secret of his views (he wrote a blog, FFS), (b) he had the right to hold those views under the law, and (c) he carried out his work as required and his views did not interfere with this (the NZ Initiative is carrying out an audit of everything Smith touched to see whether in fact they were tainted by his ideology).
So Hartwich’s instant public repudiation, followed by Smith’s resignation (which he will no doubt argue was a constructive dismissal) will no doubt end up in the Employment Court, possibly as a test case of ideological requirements of workers. This may also collide with the subsequent adoption of any hate speech laws. Or Smith may just scarper overseas and cut his losses.
In principle I agree with Bomber that using laws to regulate thought and speech is slippery, dangerous and probably impossible. I do sympathise with the NZ Initiative – purporting to be a neutral think tank and harbouring a snake in one’s errr … bosom – but on the other hand, they should have done their due diligence on Mr Smith and his beliefs.
There remains the one great shock that someone with Smith’s views, hidden in plain sight, was able to hold a senior media position within the New Zealand establishment. How many more of them are out there?
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--2020-12-13--Jacinda Ardern is in her happy place

Jacinda Ardern is in her happy place

Jacinda Ardern in is her happy place .
She is finishing the year riding high in the polls leading a majority Labour government – the first outright majority government since MMP was introduced in 1996 .
Meanwhile the National Party is in tatters with conservative voters liking the Act leader more than the National leader .
Labour ’ s support is off the back of an overall excellent response to the threat of Covid 19 – and that is deeply appreciated by most .
Ardern has also got rid of those awkward ideas about transformation .
For her they sounded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proved so bothersome in government .
Transformation requires assaults on neo-liberalism but that means a fight with business and farmers and Ardern won ’ t go there .
Instead we have tinkering policies which , for instance , bring our labour regulations closer to countries we like to compare ourselves with .
10 days sick leave for workers for example – something every self-respecting democracy has had for decades .
So transformation is out and “ building consensus ” is in .
And with a consensus we all move at the pace of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ business lobbies and farmers will set the pace for all major policy developments on topics such as taxation , housing , climate change and child poverty .
Aside from the odd positive intervention of David Parker – the only Labour minister to show he is not captured by his officials – and the odd negative intervention from Stuart Nash , Damien O ’ Connor and Trevor Mallard – we can expect little else .
Ardern ’ s happy place is “ building consensus ” via middle-class focus groups with the outcomes mediated by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no capital gains tax , no wealth tax and no effective pressure on animal agriculture which is the blight of all life on the planet and the single greatest cause of climate change – by a country mile .
Ardern ’ s happy place is one without vision , courage , guts , determination , direction or even aspiration .
Her political life has never involved heavy policy lifting – that ’ s for others while she trolls the Women ’ s Weekly covers .
It ’ s a return to the Clark @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1999 with a five-point pledge card .
Once she has implemented those modest changes she spent the next 8 ½ years managing the free market on behalf of the super-rich .
Ardern ’ s happy place is a dead end where incrementalism and hopelessness rule .
It ’ s where the super-rich continue to run the show .

Jacinda Ardern in is her happy place. She is finishing the year riding high in the polls leading a majority Labour government – the first outright majority government since MMP was introduced in 1996. Meanwhile the National Party is in tatters with conservative voters liking the Act leader more than the National leader.
Labour’s support is off the back of an overall excellent response to the threat of Covid 19 – and that is deeply appreciated by most.
Ardern has also got rid of those awkward ideas about transformation. For her they sounded so good on the campaign trail but proved so bothersome in government. Transformation requires assaults on neo-liberalism but that means a fight with business and farmers and Ardern won’t go there. Instead we have tinkering policies which, for instance, bring our labour regulations closer to countries we like to compare ourselves with. 10 days sick leave for workers for example – something every self-respecting democracy has had for decades.
So transformation is out and “building consensus” is in. And with a consensus we all move at the pace of the slowest – in other words big business lobbies and farmers will set the pace for all major policy developments on topics such as taxation, housing, climate change and child poverty. Aside from the odd positive intervention of David Parker – the only Labour minister to show he is not captured by his officials – and the odd negative intervention from Stuart Nash, Damien O’Connor and Trevor Mallard – we can expect little else.
Ardern’s happy place is “building consensus” via middle-class focus groups with the outcomes mediated by business and farmers.
So we have no capital gains tax, no wealth tax and no effective pressure on animal agriculture which is the blight of all life on the planet and the single greatest cause of climate change – by a country mile.
Ardern’s happy place is one without vision, courage, guts, determination, direction or even aspiration. Her political life has never involved heavy policy lifting – that’s for others while she trolls the Women’s Weekly covers.
It’s a return to the Clark era where Helen Clark was elected in 1999 with a five-point pledge card. Once she has implemented those modest changes she spent the next 8 ½ years managing the free market on behalf of the super-rich.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
Ardern’s happy place is a dead end where incrementalism and hopelessness rule. It’s where the super-rich continue to run the show.


thedailyblog--2020-12-14--Be Careful What You Wish For.

Be Careful What You Wish For.

THERE ’ S A CURIOUS disconnect between the Left ’ s support for the Muslim community and its deep-seated mistrust of the security services .
On the one hand , they are demanding that the white supremacists be hunted down and brought to justice – by any means necessary – while , on the other , they are wary of expanding the already extensive powers of the secret state .
The problem , of course , is that it ’ s very difficult to achieve the former without promoting the latter .
It is , however , far from certain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the most consistent themes to emerge from the Left ’ s response to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Christchurch Mosque Attacks is that of the authorities ’ failure to identify and neutralise Brenton Tarrant ’ s terrorist operation .
Unspoken in these critiques ( most probably because those making them are unwilling to acknowledge the full implications of their own demands ) is the expectation that , in order to guard against such a terrible crime ever happening again , the Ardern Government will oversee a significant expansion of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) counter-terrorist capabilities .
But what , exactly , would that look like ?
By what means could the activities of a Brenton Tarrant be detected ?
He had planned his operation with considerable care , always conscious of the need to avoid attracting the attention of the authorities .
He understood the acute vulnerabilities of a democratic society and exploited them ruthlessly .
Most particularly , he took advantage of our system ’ s fundamental assumption that people are motivated by good ( or , at least , not illegal ) intentions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our own realises that it is dealing with someone whose intentions are homicidally destructive – it is far too late .
To its credit , the Royal Commission recognised this core truth of the Christchurch Attacks : that only the intervention of pure chance could have prevented Tarrant from carrying out his deadly mission .
The Left , however , remains unsatisfied .
It refuses to accept that Tarrant was essentially unstoppable .
With all its powers , surely the secret state could have intercepted Tarrant ’ s electronic communications ?
A proper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deep in the white supremacist movement , would have had no difficulty in picking-up on this new member of the gun club ; this obsessive body-builder at the gym ; this traveller with the interesting collection of stamps in his passport .
But , what sort of society would that be ?
A society in which the state is permitted to eavesdrop on any and every communication without the benefit of a judicial warrant , would hardly merit the title of “ democratic ” .
Likewise , any society in which every new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ noted , recorded and reported to the security services by a vast secret network of spies and informants .
A society , in short , bearing a striking family resemblance to the society of the German Democratic Republic ( GDR ) and its state security ( Stasi ) protectors .
Is that really the direction in which the Left would like to see Aotearoa-New Zealand travel ?
The scary thing is that it ’ s not entirely clear that such a society is not the Left ’ s ultimate goal .
Not when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its determination to protect vulnerable groups from its “ hate crimes ” and “ hate speech ” are factored into the equation .
After all , it was the Socialist Unity Party ’ s ( as the GDR ’ s communists called themselves ) fear of fascism , both within the GDR and across the border in the Federal Republic ( West Germany ) that led to the creation of the Stasi and the building of the Berlin Wall .
Is it really too fanciful to suggest that , just as the East @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the recently defeated fascists ’ hateful ideology , so , too , does Aotearoa ’ s diverse multicultural society require protection from the hateful manifestations of white supremacy ?
It is so very tempting to buy into the goals and methods of counter-terrorism when the terrorists are people you despise .
Think back to the early 1960s , when the Black civil rights movement was being beaten , bombed and murdered by the Ku Klux Klan .
Recall the enraging photographs , published in Life magazine , of lounging Southern sheriffs , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ African-Americans would go unpunished by the all-white juries empanelled to determine their guilt or innocence .
Remember the increasingly shrill demands from liberal Americans that the FBI must “ do something ” to shut the Klan down .
The unspoken assurance being that , whatever the “ something ” might be , the FBI would be scrutinised thoroughly only by the federal government ’ s blind eye .
And it worked .
Of course it worked !
Paid informers , midnight abductions , threats of torture , infiltration , disinformation , fostering extreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such tactics always work .
And when the Ku Klux Klan began to eat itself and its members started ratting each other out to the Feds , well , liberal America just set its jaw , shook the FBI Special Agents ’ hands , and murmured “ Well done.
” It is , however , important to remember that although the FBI ’ s Counter-Intelligence Programme ( COINTELPRO ) may have started with the Klan , it didn ’ t end there – no siree !
Having shut down the southern white supremacists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the burgeoning left-wing movement against the war in Vietnam ; the Black Panther Party ; Students for A Democratic Society .
Because , that ’ s the thing about politicised counter-terrorism : it may crack down on the Right out of a sense of duty ; but destroying the Left is something it will always do happily – for the pure pleasure of watching it burn .
Has the New Zealand Left forgotten already the enormous fuss they made about the ill-fated “ Operation Eight ” .
How appalled they all were when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ security services moved against a group of left-wing activists observed training in the Urewera Ranges with semi-automatic weapons and Molotov cocktails ?
Have they forgotten their outrage at the illegal use of surveillance equipment ?
The interception of e-mails .
The heavy-handed raid on Ruatoki ?
Their message to the National Intelligence Community , then , was admirably clear : “ Stop trying to turn New Zealand into a police state !
” Ah , yes , but Operation Eight was directed against the Left ’ s friends and comrades – wasn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what would the response be if the news media broke a story about a group of heavily armed white supremacists undergoing military training in a remote South Island pine forest ?
How many on the Left would complain , I wonder , when scores of heavily-armed and armoured police officers descended on the little Canterbury town of Geraldine to apprehend the fascists ?
Hopefully , the outcry in defence of New Zealanders ’ civil liberties would be just as loud in 2020 as it was in 2007 .
Hopefully , the insistence on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as great .
Every state possesses the means to keep its citizens under strict control .
The democratic trick is to ensure that it receives no encouragement to use them .
If governments are incited to believe the worst of their citizens , then those citizens will not be slow to live up to their masters ’ expectations .
Be careful what you wish for .

THERE’S A CURIOUS disconnect between the Left’s support for the Muslim community and its deep-seated mistrust of the security services. On the one hand, they are demanding that the white supremacists be hunted down and brought to justice – by any means necessary – while, on the other, they are wary of expanding the already extensive powers of the secret state. The problem, of course, is that it’s very difficult to achieve the former without promoting the latter. It is, however, far from certain that the Left understands this.
One of the most consistent themes to emerge from the Left’s response to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Christchurch Mosque Attacks is that of the authorities’ failure to identify and neutralise Brenton Tarrant’s terrorist operation. Unspoken in these critiques (most probably because those making them are unwilling to acknowledge the full implications of their own demands) is the expectation that, in order to guard against such a terrible crime ever happening again, the Ardern Government will oversee a significant expansion of the National Intelligence Community’s (NIC) counter-terrorist capabilities.
But what, exactly, would that look like? By what means could the activities of a Brenton Tarrant be detected? He had planned his operation with considerable care, always conscious of the need to avoid attracting the attention of the authorities. He understood the acute vulnerabilities of a democratic society and exploited them ruthlessly. Most particularly, he took advantage of our system’s fundamental assumption that people are motivated by good (or, at least, not illegal) intentions. By the time a society like our own realises that it is dealing with someone whose intentions are homicidally destructive – it is far too late.
To its credit, the Royal Commission recognised this core truth of the Christchurch Attacks: that only the intervention of pure chance could have prevented Tarrant from carrying out his deadly mission. The Left, however, remains unsatisfied. It refuses to accept that Tarrant was essentially unstoppable. With all its powers, surely the secret state could have intercepted Tarrant’s electronic communications? A proper network of spies and informants, buried deep in the white supremacist movement, would have had no difficulty in picking-up on this new member of the gun club; this obsessive body-builder at the gym; this traveller with the interesting collection of stamps in his passport.
But, what sort of society would that be? A society in which the state is permitted to eavesdrop on any and every communication without the benefit of a judicial warrant, would hardly merit the title of “democratic”. Likewise, any society in which every new face, every unguarded comment, is noted, recorded and reported to the security services by a vast secret network of spies and informants. A society, in short, bearing a striking family resemblance to the society of the German Democratic Republic (GDR) and its state security (Stasi) protectors.
Is that really the direction in which the Left would like to see Aotearoa-New Zealand travel?
The scary thing is that it’s not entirely clear that such a society is not the Left’s ultimate goal. Not when its extreme antipathy to white supremacy and its determination to protect vulnerable groups from its “hate crimes” and “hate speech” are factored into the equation. After all, it was the Socialist Unity Party’s (as the GDR’s communists called themselves) fear of fascism, both within the GDR and across the border in the Federal Republic (West Germany) that led to the creation of the Stasi and the building of the Berlin Wall.
Is it really too fanciful to suggest that, just as the East German working-class sought protection from any resurgence of the recently defeated fascists’ hateful ideology, so, too, does Aotearoa’s diverse multicultural society require protection from the hateful manifestations of white supremacy?
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
It is so very tempting to buy into the goals and methods of counter-terrorism when the terrorists are people you despise. Think back to the early 1960s, when the Black civil rights movement was being beaten, bombed and murdered by the Ku Klux Klan. Recall the enraging photographs, published in Life magazine, of lounging Southern sheriffs, obscenely confident that their murderous suppression of African-Americans would go unpunished by the all-white juries empanelled to determine their guilt or innocence. Remember the increasingly shrill demands from liberal Americans that the FBI must “do something” to shut the Klan down. The unspoken assurance being that, whatever the “something” might be, the FBI would be scrutinised thoroughly only by the federal government’s blind eye.
And it worked. Of course it worked! Paid informers, midnight abductions, threats of torture, infiltration, disinformation, fostering extreme paranoia, deliberately inciting factional strife: such tactics always work. And when the Ku Klux Klan began to eat itself and its members started ratting each other out to the Feds, well, liberal America just set its jaw, shook the FBI Special Agents’ hands, and murmured “Well done.”
It is, however, important to remember that although the FBI’s Counter-Intelligence Programme (COINTELPRO) may have started with the Klan, it didn’t end there – no siree! Having shut down the southern white supremacists, the FBI turned its attention to the burgeoning left-wing movement against the war in Vietnam; the Black Panther Party; Students for A Democratic Society. Because, that’s the thing about politicised counter-terrorism: it may crack down on the Right out of a sense of duty; but destroying the Left is something it will always do happily – for the pure pleasure of watching it burn.
Has the New Zealand Left forgotten already the enormous fuss they made about the ill-fated “Operation Eight”. How appalled they all were when the Police and other elements of the security services moved against a group of left-wing activists observed training in the Urewera Ranges with semi-automatic weapons and Molotov cocktails? Have they forgotten their outrage at the illegal use of surveillance equipment? The interception of e-mails. The heavy-handed raid on Ruatoki? Their message to the National Intelligence Community, then, was admirably clear: “Stop trying to turn New Zealand into a police state!”
Ah, yes, but Operation Eight was directed against the Left’s friends and comrades – wasn’t it? Thirteen years on, what would the response be if the news media broke a story about a group of heavily armed white supremacists undergoing military training in a remote South Island pine forest? How many on the Left would complain, I wonder, when scores of heavily-armed and armoured police officers descended on the little Canterbury town of Geraldine to apprehend the fascists?
Hopefully, the outcry in defence of New Zealanders’ civil liberties would be just as loud in 2020 as it was in 2007. Hopefully, the insistence on the presumption of innocence would be just as great.
Every state possesses the means to keep its citizens under strict control. The democratic trick is to ensure that it receives no encouragement to use them. If governments are incited to believe the worst of their citizens, then those citizens will not be slow to live up to their masters’ expectations.
Be careful what you wish for.


thedailyblog--2020-12-16--Dr Liz Gordon: Can’t bear the gloom? An alternative 2021

Bomber ’ s new year predictions are very depressing .
I ’ ve spent quite enough time being sad in my hobbit hole this year .
Things can be better .
Read on .
Supported by a ‘ make and buy NZ ’ investment strategy , small and medium businesses , often co-operatively owned , spring up all around the country .
The old Bluff smelter site is being progressively transformed into an integrated , techie , tourism and retail space offering ethical products at reasonable prices to New Zealanders , with high quality government and Treaty funding , encouraging @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are increased by 30 % , and beneficiaries in growing regions are encouraged to pitch in as required to pick the crops , in return for generous pay and bonuses on top of benefits .
Thousands of families are pulled out of poverty .
Other job opportunities for those wanting work are developed all over the country , underpinned by high quality training and movement towards qualifications .
New Zealand puts it faith back in its workforce .
The Minister announces a Warp Speed ( apologies for using a Trumpism ) programme to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The aim will NOT be to build Coro Street ( as the current policy appears to be ) , but proper high quality houses with a bit of land , privacy and ( God help us ) parking !
Our social housing programme will be large and transformative .
MSD and OT will be turned , by year ’ s end , into agencies that are on the side of the families and whanau they serve , with a strong ‘ by Maori , for Māori ’ focus .
They will ensure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and development support they need .
No beneficiary will be shamed or denied assistance for being poor .
A rewrite of the Social Security Act will be necessary .
The failure to reform schooling in the last term of the government will be corrected .
Our education performance is declining all the time and this is very correctable .
Tertiary and science policies need some work too .
Waitangi Tribunal hearings are going to influence government policy in all these areas .
New Treaty relationships will be formed based on post-colonial models .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ system will be challenged face-on through policy and practice .
Aotearoa will begin to foster the potential of tangata whenua and all immigrants , regardless of race or gender .
A strong , co-operative , talented , strong society will emerge , which will be cohesive , all of us together .
The Paris Accord will be full steam ahead and all nations sign up to more ambitious targets .
New technologies pave the way for better use of renewal energies at minimal cost .
China decides to adopt a humanist liberal constitution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Joe and Kamala do a pretty good job in unpicking the worst of Trumpism and fostering social cohesion in the USA .
The Proud Boys disband .
Free health care for all .
Strong labour standards .
Still plenty to do there but general environment of good humour abounds .
The pandemic ebbs and death rates fall significantly as the vaccine is administered to at risk groups .
Work starts on a ‘ what works ’ programme to avoid the mishandling of future pandemics , called the Ardern model .
A non-harmful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the recovery path for alcohol and drug addiction , producing healthy and motivated ex-addicts .
I know you old cynics ( and young ones ) are rolling your eyes .
But all of this is possible , if we unlock our own self-imposed political stalemates and start thinking about how to move forward in the world .
In my first blog for 2020 , I wrote : “ Dust off the banners , then , roll out the sneakers and ( for us oldies ) walking sticks .
The Liz manifesto for 2020 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and social justice , the abolition of authoritarian practices wherever they occur , a reformation of all our institutions towards a more just and redistributive society ( no more neo-liberalism ) , gender equality , decolonisation and the formation of a racially just society and saving the planet too ” .
Ww have not made much progress , but the Covid brought many points at which we were able to observe and understand the importance of a trust relationship between individuals and the government , and how it can foster strength in difficult @ @ @ @ @ @ @ harness this to a model of social change .
As John Lennon put it nearly 50 years ago ( 1971 ) , just imagine what we could do if we came together for change as a species .
But now we dare not hope and scoff at those who do .
Perhaps we deserve what we get , then .
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 , @ @ @ @ @ @

Bomber’s new year predictions are very depressing. I’ve spent quite enough time being sad in my hobbit hole this year. Things can be better. Read on.
Economic policy
Supported by a ‘make and buy NZ’ investment strategy, small and medium businesses, often co-operatively owned, spring up all around the country. The old Bluff smelter site is being progressively transformed into an integrated, techie, tourism and retail space offering ethical products at reasonable prices to New Zealanders, with high quality government and Treaty funding, encouraging immigration into the South Island.
Benefits are increased by 30%, and beneficiaries in growing regions are encouraged to pitch in as required to pick the crops, in return for generous pay and bonuses on top of benefits. Thousands of families are pulled out of poverty. Other job opportunities for those wanting work are developed all over the country, underpinned by high quality training and movement towards qualifications. New Zealand puts it faith back in its workforce.
Social policy
The Minister announces a Warp Speed (apologies for using a Trumpism) programme to build state houses in the main centres. The aim will NOT be to build Coro Street (as the current policy appears to be), but proper high quality houses with a bit of land, privacy and (God help us) parking! Our social housing programme will be large and transformative.
MSD and OT will be turned, by year’s end, into agencies that are on the side of the families and whanau they serve, with a strong ‘by Maori, for Māori’ focus. They will ensure that families have the financial, social and development support they need. No beneficiary will be shamed or denied assistance for being poor. A rewrite of the Social Security Act will be necessary.
The failure to reform schooling in the last term of the government will be corrected. Our education performance is declining all the time and this is very correctable. Tertiary and science policies need some work too.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
Waitangi Tribunal hearings are going to influence government policy in all these areas. New Treaty relationships will be formed based on post-colonial models. Eugenic assumptions that still abound in the system will be challenged face-on through policy and practice. Aotearoa will begin to foster the potential of tangata whenua and all immigrants, regardless of race or gender. A strong, co-operative, talented, strong society will emerge, which will be cohesive, all of us together.
International
The Paris Accord will be full steam ahead and all nations sign up to more ambitious targets. New technologies pave the way for better use of renewal energies at minimal cost.
China decides to adopt a humanist liberal constitution and apologises to everyone for past wrongs.
Joe and Kamala do a pretty good job in unpicking the worst of Trumpism and fostering social cohesion in the USA. The Proud Boys disband. Free health care for all. Strong labour standards. Still plenty to do there but general environment of good humour abounds.
The pandemic ebbs and death rates fall significantly as the vaccine is administered to at risk groups. Work starts on a ‘what works’ programme to avoid the mishandling of future pandemics, called the Ardern model.
A non-harmful and non-addictive pill is discovered that transforms the recovery path for alcohol and drug addiction, producing healthy and motivated ex-addicts.
Final comment
I know you old cynics (and young ones) are rolling your eyes. But all of this is possible, if we unlock our own self-imposed political stalemates and start thinking about how to move forward in the world.
In my first blog for 2020, I wrote: “Dust off the banners, then, roll out the sneakers and (for us oldies) walking sticks. The Liz manifesto for 2020 is recognition for all, economic fairness and social justice, the abolition of authoritarian practices wherever they occur, a reformation of all our institutions towards a more just and redistributive society (no more neo-liberalism), gender equality, decolonisation and the formation of a racially just society and saving the planet too”.
Ww have not made much progress, but the Covid brought many points at which we were able to observe and understand the importance of a trust relationship between individuals and the government, and how it can foster strength in difficult times. Now we just need to harness this to a model of social change.
As John Lennon put it nearly 50 years ago (1971), just imagine what we could do if we came together for change as a species. But now we dare not hope and scoff at those who do. Perhaps we deserve what we get, then.
Happy New Year.
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--2020-12-17--Understanding The State We’re In

Understanding The State We’re In

THE INITIAL REVELATIONS of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care are deeply troubling .
For conservative leftists like myself they raise a host of unsettling questions – most particularly about whether the creation of a caring and empowering state is , or has ever been , a realistic objective .
Socialists like to believe that the state will take on the qualities , and take up the causes , of the class that controls it .
A workers ’ state , therefore , would naturally prioritise those issues neglected or made worse by the bosses ’ state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the dark impulses of capitalists driven by selfishness and the desire for power over others .
Children in the care of a socialist state would have nothing to fear .
Leaving aside the obvious rejoinders about Romanian orphanages and Soviet mental hospitals , the sunny optimism of socialist state-builders is predicated on an uncomplicated belief in “ nurture ” over “ nature ” .
Human-beings are held to be infinitely malleable by the social structures in which they are enmeshed .
Such innate drives as they do possess are natural , wholesome @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Subject capitalist social structures to socialist change , and their human occupiers will also be changed – but only in a good way !
What else could socialists believe when their lives were dedicated entirely to restructuring , or even overthrowing , the capitalist state ?
The idea that “ human nature ” might be something more than a capitalist invention : something more than a fable fabricated to normalise the capitalist “ virtues ” of greed , selfishness and domination ; would inevitably raise doubts about the feasibility of the entire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cruel and exploitative impulses within the human animal are as deeply ingrained as its capacity for nurturing , empathy and co-operation , then immediately the question arises : Will institutional change be enough ?
The answers provided by history are not in the least reassuring .
Institutions tend towards hierarchy , and hierarchy rewards certain kinds of behaviours while punishing others .
Manipulation and deceit are especially effective means of advancing oneself up the institutional ladder .
When augmented by narcissism and a general lack of empathy these self-propelling power-tools work even better @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sociopaths than socialists .
Certainly , the bloody history of revolutionary regimes makes that a difficult proposition to refute .
Even when launched with the best of intentions , programmes of radical transformation , and the new institutional structures needed to give them effect , are prone to generating truly ghastly – albeit unintended – outcomes .
Consider the massive post-war migration of Maori from rural to urban New Zealand .
Almost all of the mostly social-democratic policy-makers of the time conceived of this radical demographic shift as a very good thing .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ economically marginalised people , Maori would be integrated into “ modern ” New Zealand society .
The social planners knew that such a dramatic social and economic upheaval was bound to cause problems for Maori families .
The shift from rural to urban would inevitably be a wrench – especially for the young .
Not all Maori parents , it was assumed , would prove equal to the task of managing the transition .
To pick up the broken pieces of these new communities and stick them back together again , the Pakeha @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ children ’ s homes ” , “ special schools ” and “ mental hospitals ” – places where those who were not “ fitting-in ” could have the rough edges sanded-off them .
Coercion , albeit well-intentioned , lay at the heart of these institutions .
Force is not , however , conducive to the sort of positive outcomes socialists are so keen to produce .
Violence , even when deemed necessary and unavoidable , tends to be kept hidden for fear of generating public outrage .
Sadly , the moment an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ held accountable for its “ unattractive ” behaviour , it begins to draw to it those whose predatory , cruel and exploitative impulses flourish under such conditions .
In this way , the institutional willingness to “ be cruel to be kind ” ( in order to facilitate larger and loftier social goals ) combines with the sadistic impulses of individuals to create a perfect institutional shit-storm .
The resulting criminality makes secrecy even more imperative .
It does not take long , however , for sociopaths and psychopaths to find out that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do their worst without fear of serious repercussions .
From these corrupted institutions , other , nominally healthy , state institutions can not help becoming seriously infected .
As the crimes pile up , so , too , do the questions : Who was responsible ?
Why weren ’ t they stopped ?
Who decided to cover it up ?
Somebody must have told someone – why weren ’ t they believed ?
What should we do ?
Well , that one ’ s easy .
What do bureaucrats always do when danger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Or , more precisely , Crown Law covers their arses for them .
The role played by Crown Law in this tragic story of good intentions gone wrong , crimes committed , and cover-ups executed , is , arguably , its most disturbing aspect .
In defence of the New Zealand state and its errant institutions Crown lawyers behaved abominably .
Victims of state abuse , who had come to the courts seeking justice , and some form of compensation for their appalling treatment at the hands of public servants charged with their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ repeatedly re-traumatised by Crown Law .
Briefed to protect the reputation and interests of the state , the Crown ’ s legal teams showed the plaintiffs no mercy .
The unethical nature of these lawyers ’ conduct was not considered relevant .
Abuse victims were seen , simply , as threats to be neutralised .
And they were .
What kind of state requires such service from its servants ?
And , what kind of state servant supplies it ?
An even more disturbing question , from the socialist ’ s point of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of state possible ?
” The answer to that last question may very well be “ No.
” The complex componentry of civilisation , if it is to function effectively , requires a single locus of ultimate authority – along with the human and material resources necessary to enforce its will .
What ’ s more , the state ’ s coercive powers can not be shared : everywhere and always , the state must maintain a monopoly on the use of force .
Immortal and irresistible : is it any wonder that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very particular set of skills ” ?
Not least , the skill that can keep the violence inherent in all state institutions hidden from public view .
A skill which extends , necessarily , to protecting the perpetrators of state violence .
When those involved in meting out violence on behalf of the state are soldiers , police officers and prison guards , most citizens are willing to turn a blind eye .
This is less true when the state servants involved are administrators , doctors , nurses , orderlies , teachers , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more of such people .
What the state knows , however , is that , given power over others – especially children and young people drawn from the poorest and most powerless sections of society – a certain irreducible percentage of those to whom its authority is entrusted are bound to abuse it .
What matters – especially to the socialist – is the precise size of that percentage .
If it ’ s one in a thousand , then a benign state remains a viable proposition .
But , what if its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it ’ s one in ten ?
What if , as Professor Stanley Milgram ’ s grim experiment appeared to confirm more than 50 years ago , fewer than one in ten of us will refuse to inflict pain when instructed to do so by a person in authority ?
In the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care ’ s interim report , released on Wednesday , 16 December 2020 , the astounding figure of a quarter-of-a-million New Zealanders are estimated to have experienced abuse at the hands of their institutional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s 5,000 persons per year , across a country which , for most of that time , had between two and four million inhabitants .
When Air New Zealand Flight 901 crashed into Mt Erebus in 1979 , killing all 257 people on board , it is said that just about every New Zealander had some connection with at least one of the victims .
Imagine , then , how many people must have been aware that something very bad was going on in New Zealand ’ s state and private institutions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need to ask themselves is this : “ If that many people suffered , and so many people knew they were suffering , then why wasn ’ t it stopped ?
” If the best answer they can get turns out to be : “ Because , in the end , citizens do not shape the state .
In the end , the state shapes its citizens.
” Then , perhaps , it is time , even for conservative leftists , to give anarchism a try .

THE INITIAL REVELATIONS of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care are deeply troubling. For conservative leftists like myself they raise a host of unsettling questions – most particularly about whether the creation of a caring and empowering state is, or has ever been, a realistic objective.
Socialists like to believe that the state will take on the qualities, and take up the causes, of the class that controls it. A workers’ state, therefore, would naturally prioritise those issues neglected or made worse by the bosses’ state. Its institutions would never fall prey to the dark impulses of capitalists driven by selfishness and the desire for power over others. Children in the care of a socialist state would have nothing to fear.
Leaving aside the obvious rejoinders about Romanian orphanages and Soviet mental hospitals, the sunny optimism of socialist state-builders is predicated on an uncomplicated belief in “nurture” over “nature”. Human-beings are held to be infinitely malleable by the social structures in which they are enmeshed. Such innate drives as they do possess are natural, wholesome, and not the least bit problematic. Subject capitalist social structures to socialist change, and their human occupiers will also be changed – but only in a good way!
What else could socialists believe when their lives were dedicated entirely to restructuring, or even overthrowing, the capitalist state? The idea that “human nature” might be something more than a capitalist invention: something more than a fable fabricated to normalise the capitalist “virtues” of greed, selfishness and domination; would inevitably raise doubts about the feasibility of the entire socialist project. If the predatory, cruel and exploitative impulses within the human animal are as deeply ingrained as its capacity for nurturing, empathy and co-operation, then immediately the question arises: Will institutional change be enough?
The answers provided by history are not in the least reassuring. Institutions tend towards hierarchy, and hierarchy rewards certain kinds of behaviours while punishing others. Manipulation and deceit are especially effective means of advancing oneself up the institutional ladder. When augmented by narcissism and a general lack of empathy these self-propelling power-tools work even better. Institutions are far better suited to sociopaths than socialists. Certainly, the bloody history of revolutionary regimes makes that a difficult proposition to refute.
Even when launched with the best of intentions, programmes of radical transformation, and the new institutional structures needed to give them effect, are prone to generating truly ghastly – albeit unintended – outcomes. Consider the massive post-war migration of Maori from rural to urban New Zealand. Almost all of the mostly social-democratic policy-makers of the time conceived of this radical demographic shift as a very good thing. Instead of remaining a culturally isolated and economically marginalised people, Maori would be integrated into “modern” New Zealand society.
The social planners knew that such a dramatic social and economic upheaval was bound to cause problems for Maori families. The shift from rural to urban would inevitably be a wrench – especially for the young. Not all Maori parents, it was assumed, would prove equal to the task of managing the transition. To pick up the broken pieces of these new communities and stick them back together again, the Pakeha authorities began to construct a network of “children’s homes”, “special schools” and “mental hospitals” – places where those who were not “fitting-in” could have the rough edges sanded-off them.
Coercion, albeit well-intentioned, lay at the heart of these institutions. Force is not, however, conducive to the sort of positive outcomes socialists are so keen to produce. Violence, even when deemed necessary and unavoidable, tends to be kept hidden for fear of generating public outrage. Sadly, the moment an institution embraces secrecy and refuses to be held accountable for its “unattractive” behaviour, it begins to draw to it those whose predatory, cruel and exploitative impulses flourish under such conditions.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
In this way, the institutional willingness to “be cruel to be kind” (in order to facilitate larger and loftier social goals) combines with the sadistic impulses of individuals to create a perfect institutional shit-storm. The resulting criminality makes secrecy even more imperative. It does not take long, however, for sociopaths and psychopaths to find out that in these irredeemably compromised institutions they can do their worst without fear of serious repercussions.
From these corrupted institutions, other, nominally healthy, state institutions cannot help becoming seriously infected. As the crimes pile up, so, too, do the questions: Who was responsible? Why weren’t they stopped? Who decided to cover it up? Somebody must have told someone – why weren’t they believed? What should we do?
Well, that one’s easy. What do bureaucrats always do when danger threatens? They cover their arses. Or, more precisely, Crown Law covers their arses for them.
The role played by Crown Law in this tragic story of good intentions gone wrong, crimes committed, and cover-ups executed, is, arguably, its most disturbing aspect. In defence of the New Zealand state and its errant institutions Crown lawyers behaved abominably. Victims of state abuse, who had come to the courts seeking justice, and some form of compensation for their appalling treatment at the hands of public servants charged with their care, were deliberately, ruthlessly and repeatedly re-traumatised by Crown Law. Briefed to protect the reputation and interests of the state, the Crown’s legal teams showed the plaintiffs no mercy. The unethical nature of these lawyers’ conduct was not considered relevant. Abuse victims were seen, simply, as threats to be neutralised. And they were.
What kind of state requires such service from its servants? And, what kind of state servant supplies it? An even more disturbing question, from the socialist’s point of view: “Is any other kind of state possible?”
The answer to that last question may very well be “No.” The complex componentry of civilisation, if it is to function effectively, requires a single locus of ultimate authority – along with the human and material resources necessary to enforce its will. What’s more, the state’s coercive powers cannot be shared: everywhere and always, the state must maintain a monopoly on the use of force.
Immortal and irresistible: is it any wonder that the state attract servants with “a very particular set of skills”? Not least, the skill that can keep the violence inherent in all state institutions hidden from public view. A skill which extends, necessarily, to protecting the perpetrators of state violence.
When those involved in meting out violence on behalf of the state are soldiers, police officers and prison guards, most citizens are willing to turn a blind eye. This is less true when the state servants involved are administrators, doctors, nurses, orderlies, teachers, foster-parents and priests. The public expects more of such people. What the state knows, however, is that, given power over others – especially children and young people drawn from the poorest and most powerless sections of society – a certain irreducible percentage of those to whom its authority is entrusted are bound to abuse it.
What matters – especially to the socialist – is the precise size of that percentage. If it’s one in a thousand, then a benign state remains a viable proposition. But, what if its one in a hundred? What is it’s one in ten? What if, as Professor Stanley Milgram’s grim experiment appeared to confirm more than 50 years ago, fewer than one in ten of us will refuse to inflict pain when instructed to do so by a person in authority?
In the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care’s interim report, released on Wednesday, 16 December 2020, the astounding figure of a quarter-of-a-million New Zealanders are estimated to have experienced abuse at the hands of their institutional carers between 1950 and 1999. That’s 5,000 persons per year, across a country which, for most of that time, had between two and four million inhabitants. When Air New Zealand Flight 901 crashed into Mt Erebus in 1979, killing all 257 people on board, it is said that just about every New Zealander had some connection with at least one of the victims. Imagine, then, how many people must have been aware that something very bad was going on in New Zealand’s state and private institutions dedicated to juvenile care.
What socialists need to ask themselves is this: “If that many people suffered, and so many people knew they were suffering, then why wasn’t it stopped?” If the best answer they can get turns out to be: “Because, in the end, citizens do not shape the state. In the end, the state shapes its citizens.” Then, perhaps, it is time, even for conservative leftists, to give anarchism a try.


thedailyblog--2020-12-21--Signs and Portents: Is Middle New Zealand Really Less Racist Than It Used To be?

THERE ARE SIGNS and there are portents – if you know how to read them .
Fifteen years ago it was easy to predict how New Zealanders would react to Don Brash ’ s infamous Orewa speech .
Public antipathy to the Treaty of Waitangi registered strongly in opinion surveys .
Hatred for all things Maori was widespread across “ Middle New Zealand ” .
Not overtly ( except among trusted family and friends ) but disguised beneath its equally bitter hatred for what amounted to the same thing – welfare beneficiaries and gangs .
Political parties , wary ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ race card too obviously , had worked out that they could derive just about as much electoral benefit by beating-up on Maoridom ’ s body-doubles .
Everybody knew exactly who the politicians were talking about , and just about everybody played along .
Ronald Reagan had kicked it off twenty-five years earlier with his inflammatory speeches about “ Welfare Queens ” .
Conservative Americans had no trouble decoding the Gipper ’ s language : “ Welfare Queens ” were shorthand for African-Americans taking criminal advantage of White Americans ’ generosity .
New Zealand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The political emphasis ( from both major parties ) on beneficiary fraud : on “ welfare cheats ” criminally gaming the welfare system ; was intended to ( and did ) persuade Middle New Zealand that they were being taken for a ride by “ these people ” .
They were , of course , willing to concede that there were cases of genuine hardship : decent New Zealanders ( a.k.a Pakeha ) who really did need the community ’ s help ; but not many .
Some of the most powerful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of resident-initiated referenda on the creation of Maori wards for district and regional councils .
Local politicians foolhardy enough to recognise the case for special Maori representation very soon found their efforts rolled back by huge majorities .
The vehemence with which proposals for Maori wards were rejected by Pakeha voters was matched only by the vehemence of their rejection of the Treaty when polled .
The near unanimity of these rejections pointed strongly to the depth of racial animus in Middle New Zealand .
They had learned how to mask their racism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but given the chance to express it safely and anonymously through the ballot box the results were unequivocal .
The silver lining which redeemed all these grim storm clouds was the strong geographical element to Middle New Zealand ’ s racist impulses .
The animosity towards Maori was concentrated in rural and provincial New Zealand .
The nearer you got to the centre of New Zealand ’ s largest cities , the more attenuated the racism of Pakeha New Zealanders became .
Notwithstanding the growing strength of this urban liberalism , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the big cities – most especially South Auckland – that Don Brash ’ s 2005 bid to assuage Middle New Zealand ’ s hunger for racial rectification was ultimately halted .
Even so , as the Duke of Wellington said of the Battle of Waterloo : “ It was a damn near-run thing !
” The key question thrown up by the extraordinary results of the 2020 general election , therefore , is : “ Is Middle New Zealand less racist than it used to be ?
” Did Jacinda Ardern ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Five Million ” , and the colour-blind nature of the pandemic , put a temporary stop on the deeply embedded racism of Middle New Zealanders – even in Ilam and Rangitata ?
Or , has natural demographic attrition thinned out the ranks of the provinces ’ aggressive racists to the point where the attitudinal shifts of the past forty years have acquired a permanent and decisive electoral heft ?
Sadly , the signs and portents from the Sixth Labour Government are all pointing in the opposite direction .
A decisive shift in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has characterised so much of New Zealand history would , presumably , be measurable in the quantum of prejudice still directed towards beneficiaries .
If Maori and Pacifica in the grip of poverty and homelessness were becoming recognisable to Pakeha New Zealanders as fellow citizens in need , then surely Jacinda and her Finance Minister would have felt safe in authorising a Christmas bonus for all those voters on benefits .
That they have point-blank refused to contemplate such a gesture suggests that Pakeha are still a long way from making this solidaristic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Politik website , the Labour Party currently enjoys an embarrassment of riches on the polling and focus-group front .
Jacinda and her colleagues know more about what New Zealanders are thinking than any party in the last twenty years .
That they are unwilling to risk the ire of the hundreds of thousands of voters they have lured away from National , by handing out extra cash to beneficiaries , strongly suggests that the warm glow of unity which Covid kindled has cooled considerably .
That the prejudices of Middle New Zealand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this Christmas season is further attested to by the Labour Government ’ s ever-so-careful stepping away from its earlier commitment to criminalising hate speech .
They may also be receiving worrying feed-back from those tasked with devising the new ( and compulsory ) New Zealand History curriculum .
Certainly , a long period of public consultation has been promised before the new programme is rolled out in 2022 .
More than enough time , perhaps , for a whole pack of sleeping racist dogs to wake up and start barking ?
That ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : there ’ s little point in paying attention to some while studiously ignoring others .
Those who insist that the pernicious influence of New Zealand ’ s colonial history continues to permeate the present state of Maori-Pakeha relations , would surely be unwise to proceed as if the influence of colonisation carries no contemporary political weight .
If there are no signs of Pakeha racism diminishing significantly , then the portents for this government doing very much to advance a serious policy of decolonisation would appear to be decidedly unfavourable .

THERE ARE SIGNS and there are portents – if you know how to read them. Fifteen years ago it was easy to predict how New Zealanders would react to Don Brash’s infamous Orewa speech. Public antipathy to the Treaty of Waitangi registered strongly in opinion surveys. Hatred for all things Maori was widespread across “Middle New Zealand”. Not overtly (except among trusted family and friends) but disguised beneath its equally bitter hatred for what amounted to the same thing – welfare beneficiaries and gangs. Political parties, wary (until Brash!) of playing the race card too obviously, had worked out that they could derive just about as much electoral benefit by beating-up on Maoridom’s body-doubles. Everybody knew exactly who the politicians were talking about, and just about everybody played along.
Ronald Reagan had kicked it off twenty-five years earlier with his inflammatory speeches about “Welfare Queens”. Conservative Americans had no trouble decoding the Gipper’s language: “Welfare Queens” were shorthand for African-Americans taking criminal advantage of White Americans’ generosity. New Zealand conservatives were fast learners of this game. The political emphasis (from both major parties) on beneficiary fraud: on “welfare cheats” criminally gaming the welfare system; was intended to (and did) persuade Middle New Zealand that they were being taken for a ride by “these people”. They were, of course, willing to concede that there were cases of genuine hardship: decent New Zealanders (a.k.a Pakeha) who really did need the community’s help; but not many.
Some of the most powerful signs and portents came in the form of resident-initiated referenda on the creation of Maori wards for district and regional councils. Local politicians foolhardy enough to recognise the case for special Maori representation very soon found their efforts rolled back by huge majorities. The vehemence with which proposals for Maori wards were rejected by Pakeha voters was matched only by the vehemence of their rejection of the Treaty when polled. The near unanimity of these rejections pointed strongly to the depth of racial animus in Middle New Zealand. They had learned how to mask their racism by unloading it onto racially identified proxies, but given the chance to express it safely and anonymously through the ballot box the results were unequivocal.
The silver lining which redeemed all these grim storm clouds was the strong geographical element to Middle New Zealand’s racist impulses. The animosity towards Maori was concentrated in rural and provincial New Zealand. The nearer you got to the centre of New Zealand’s largest cities, the more attenuated the racism of Pakeha New Zealanders became. Notwithstanding the growing strength of this urban liberalism, it was in the “brown” suburbs of the big cities – most especially South Auckland – that Don Brash’s 2005 bid to assuage Middle New Zealand’s hunger for racial rectification was ultimately halted. Even so, as the Duke of Wellington said of the Battle of Waterloo: “It was a damn near-run thing!”
The key question thrown up by the extraordinary results of the 2020 general election, therefore, is: “Is Middle New Zealand less racist than it used to be?” Did Jacinda Ardern’s inspired rhetoric about the “Team of Five Million”, and the colour-blind nature of the pandemic, put a temporary stop on the deeply embedded racism of Middle New Zealanders – even in Ilam and Rangitata? Or, has natural demographic attrition thinned out the ranks of the provinces’ aggressive racists to the point where the attitudinal shifts of the past forty years have acquired a permanent and decisive electoral heft?
Sadly, the signs and portents from the Sixth Labour Government are all pointing in the opposite direction. A decisive shift in public attitudes away from the racism that has characterised so much of New Zealand history would, presumably, be measurable in the quantum of prejudice still directed towards beneficiaries. If Maori and Pacifica in the grip of poverty and homelessness were becoming recognisable to Pakeha New Zealanders as fellow citizens in need, then surely Jacinda and her Finance Minister would have felt safe in authorising a Christmas bonus for all those voters on benefits. That they have point-blank refused to contemplate such a gesture suggests that Pakeha are still a long way from making this solidaristic identification.
According to Richard Harman of the Politik website, the Labour Party currently enjoys an embarrassment of riches on the polling and focus-group front. Jacinda and her colleagues know more about what New Zealanders are thinking than any party in the last twenty years. That they are unwilling to risk the ire of the hundreds of thousands of voters they have lured away from National, by handing out extra cash to beneficiaries, strongly suggests that the warm glow of unity which Covid kindled has cooled considerably.
That the prejudices of Middle New Zealand appear to be in rude good health this Christmas season is further attested to by the Labour Government’s ever-so-careful stepping away from its earlier commitment to criminalising hate speech. They may also be receiving worrying feed-back from those tasked with devising the new (and compulsory) New Zealand History curriculum. Certainly, a long period of public consultation has been promised before the new programme is rolled out in 2022. More than enough time, perhaps, for a whole pack of sleeping racist dogs to wake up and start barking?
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
That’s the thing about signs and portents: there’s little point in paying attention to some while studiously ignoring others. Those who insist that the pernicious influence of New Zealand’s colonial history continues to permeate the present state of Maori-Pakeha relations, would surely be unwise to proceed as if the influence of colonisation carries no contemporary political weight. If there are no signs of Pakeha racism diminishing significantly, then the portents for this government doing very much to advance a serious policy of decolonisation would appear to be decidedly unfavourable.


thedailyblog--2020-12-22--Dr Liz Gordon: How I won the election (in the voice of Donald Trump)

The following is an absolutely truthful account of the systems Trump has used ( and will use ) to try and secure a second term .
Note it is , to an extent , also a timeline .
Folks , there ’ s no need at all to spend all that time and money campaigning to elect the President of the United States .
No .
Make your voting system work for you and you can always win .
Here is my infallible guide to winning elections , and how I won the 2020 election .
• Limit voting opportunities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stop everyone who is in prison or in other institutions from voting .
They are all mad and vote Democrat , which proves they are mad .
The poor often don ’ t vote so reinforce that by making it as hard as possible for them , physically and psychologically .
Don ’ t do anything to stop the Covid 19 .
Some will die , others stay at home to protect themselves .
All of this is good .
Oh yes and start purveying the message that if I don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because of Democrat fraud .
2 .
Make sure people who would vote against me don ’ t vote Stop this obscenity of mail-in voting .
Every one of these suckers is fraud !
If people can not walk on their own two feet and queue for hours then they should not be allowed to vote .
Oh yes , and make sure that there are few voting stations , mainly located in wealthy areas .
And make it rain for those who have to wait two , three or four hours to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Proud Boys are there with their guns .
No shooting , mind , but plenty of fear .
Remember to say with absolute certainty that , in a fair election , Donald Trump will win .
3 .
Tell everyone ( and repeat ) that if I don ’ t win , the election will be fraudulent This is absolutely crucial .
When I went in on one of my famous real estate deals , I first made sure the neighbourhood was run down , rents were low and there was a high @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clean it all up .
What I am saying is that you have got to lay the groundwork .
Every vote from a Democrat was a fraud , every vote for me was absolutely right .
Everybody loves me .
I am the best President ever .
4 .
After voting , allege fraud in voting and counting in every ‘ swing ’ state The election outcome was stolen by fraud .
In particular , millions of votes were changed by those voting machines , partisan counters and just fraud , fraud , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ steal .
We are in particular concentrating on six stolen states .
We will bring evidence of fraud so huge that the results will be overturned .
Fraud , remember that .
5 .
Use the courts to change the outcomes by recounts and removing bundles of votes Dead people voted , bundles of votes were stolen , others put in instead .
The voting machines were tampered with by Hugo Chavez , who has been dead for years but we all know that Venezuelan Commies live forever .
We have filed 51 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The courts are corrupt .
Rudy Giuliani is a champion .
Now you know why I spent so much time stacking the Supreme Court .
It ’ s payoff time big , honey .
I won this election and that is how my colleagues will see it too .
They have turned me down ?
WHATTTT ?
?
The traitors !
Stop the steal .
Oh well , I still have a trick or two up my sleeve .
7 .
Ask States to put Trump electors onto the College even though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know we have this electoral college thing here in the USA .
Each state puts a number of people forward ( by size of state ) to vote on 14 December .
But in those six states where the vote was stolen , the politicians must intervene and ensure the College is made up of Trump voters .
Stop the steal !
Voter fraud !
I won !
The popular vote is wrong , those states are mine .
Oh No .
The Electoral College voted for Biden .
Fraud !
8 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ !
The mighty state of Texas brought forth a case to disallow the votes of four states at the electoral college – enough to give me the win .
The Supreme Court ( boy I regret putting my people on that , they have gone rogue ) decided that Texas did not have standing to demand that four other states lose their right to participate in the election of a President .
Those jelly-legged , lily-livered cowards !
Well , I am being forced to use my Executive powers to seize the paraphernalia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of options .
Bring in the military , impound the voter machines .
I WILL be President for the next four years .
I won .
It ’ s not fair .
I might appeal directly to the Supreme Court , ‘ cos they love me .
Everybody loves me .
On January 6th , Congress meets to ratify the votes and , I tell you now , Congress is not gon na ratify the vote – they are going to chuck out this fraudulent election and declare me , ME !
, @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A .
Make America Great Again !
11 .
Just keep on being President .
But if that fails , well I tell you what – I am going to set up an alternative presidency .
And , let me tell you , Mar-a-lago is a much prettier place than that ugly old white house .
We are going to rule from Florida and , come 2024 , I will be back , even as if I never left .
Dr Liz Gordon is a researcher and a barrister , with interests in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moving towards a socially just society .
She usually blogs on justice , social welfare and education topics .

The following is an absolutely truthful account of the systems Trump has used (and will use) to try and secure a second term. Note it is, to an extent, also a timeline.
Folks, there’s no need at all to spend all that time and money campaigning to elect the President of the United States. No. Make your voting system work for you and you can always win. Here is my infallible guide to winning elections, and how I won the 2020 election.
Limit voting opportunities to maximise votes for me
First, stop everyone who is in prison or in other institutions from voting. They are all mad and vote Democrat, which proves they are mad. The poor often don’t vote so reinforce that by making it as hard as possible for them, physically and psychologically. Don’t do anything to stop the Covid 19. Some will die, others stay at home to protect themselves. All of this is good.
Oh yes and start purveying the message that if I don’t win the election, it will be because of Democrat fraud.
2. Make sure people who would vote against me don’t vote
Stop this obscenity of mail-in voting. Every one of these suckers is fraud! If people cannot walk on their own two feet and queue for hours then they should not be allowed to vote. Oh yes, and make sure that there are few voting stations, mainly located in wealthy areas. And make it rain for those who have to wait two, three or four hours to make their vote. Make sure the Proud Boys are there with their guns. No shooting, mind, but plenty of fear.
Remember to say with absolute certainty that, in a fair election, Donald Trump will win.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
3. Tell everyone (and repeat) that if I don’t win, the election will be fraudulent
This is absolutely crucial. When I went in on one of my famous real estate deals, I first made sure the neighbourhood was run down, rents were low and there was a high crime rate. I would offer the clean it all up. What I am saying is that you have got to lay the groundwork. Every vote from a Democrat was a fraud, every vote for me was absolutely right. Everybody loves me. I am the best President ever.
4. After voting, allege fraud in voting and counting in every ‘swing’ state
The election outcome was stolen by fraud. In particular, millions of votes were changed by those voting machines, partisan counters and just fraud, fraud, fraud all the way. Stop the steal. We are in particular concentrating on six stolen states. We will bring evidence of fraud so huge that the results will be overturned. Fraud, remember that.
5. Use the courts to change the outcomes by recounts and removing bundles of votes
Dead people voted, bundles of votes were stolen, others put in instead. The voting machines were tampered with by Hugo Chavez, who has been dead for years but we all know that Venezuelan Commies live forever. We have filed 51 court cases and are losing them all. The courts are corrupt. Rudy Giuliani is a champion.
6. Appeal
Now you know why I spent so much time stacking the Supreme Court. It’s payoff time big, honey. I won this election and that is how my colleagues will see it too. They have turned me down? WHATTTT?? The traitors! Stop the steal. Oh well, I still have a trick or two up my sleeve.
7. Ask States to put Trump electors onto the College even though Biden won the state
Well, you know we have this electoral college thing here in the USA. Each state puts a number of people forward (by size of state) to vote on 14 December. But in those six states where the vote was stolen, the politicians must intervene and ensure the College is made up of Trump voters. Stop the steal! Voter fraud! I won! The popular vote is wrong, those states are mine. Oh No. The Electoral College voted for Biden. Fraud!
8. Bring in the mighty state of Texas!
The mighty state of Texas brought forth a case to disallow the votes of four states at the electoral college – enough to give me the win. The Supreme Court (boy I regret putting my people on that, they have gone rogue) decided that Texas did not have standing to demand that four other states lose their right to participate in the election of a President. Those jelly-legged, lily-livered cowards!
9. Direct action
Well, I am being forced to use my Executive powers to seize the paraphernalia of voter fraud. I have lots of options. Bring in the military, impound the voter machines. I WILL be President for the next four years. I won. It’s not fair. I might appeal directly to the Supreme Court, ‘cos they love me. Everybody loves me.
10. Payback day – January 6
On January 6th, Congress meets to ratify the votes and, I tell you now, Congress is not gonna ratify the vote – they are going to chuck out this fraudulent election and declare me, ME!, the re-elected President of the US of A. Make America Great Again!
11. Just keep on being President.
But if that fails, well I tell you what – I am going to set up an alternative presidency. And, let me tell you, Mar-a-lago is a much prettier place than that ugly old white house. We are going to rule from Florida and, come 2024, I will be back, even as if I never left.
Happy New Year, everyone!
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--2020-12-22--On Damien Grant On Damien Grant On Covid-19, Hindsight, And Playing Russian Roulette With A Semi-Aut

On Damien Grant On Damien Grant On Covid-19, Hindsight, And Playing Russian Roulette With A Semi-Automatic Aimed At One’s Own Foot

Like a diminishing quotient of New Zealanders , I have the occasional expectation of finding something enthusing and enlightening in my Sunday newspaper .
I also expect there is Damien Grant .
Sunday ’ s Star Times was no exception , and his column therein makes for frankly bizarre reading .
In it , he sets out at some length , and by his own admission , just how repeatedly wrong he was at seemingly every turn about Covid-19 .
I give him credit for that , it ’ s rarely an easy thing to do to admit to being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as I say , about just about everything .
Although what he THEN does , is spend the last few paragraphs attempting to justify how despite all that he had aforementioned … he was not , in fact , wrong – but rather , everybody else ( i.e .
the no-doubt ‘ collectivist ’ Government of New Zealand and all in favour of Her ) was instead .
By this stage , I have basically come to the conclusion that Damien Grant is being a contrarian – particularly when he writes , although @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I mean … he ’ s a libertarian , over the age of 15 ; who is working in an industry whose key characteristic is the ongoing failure of private individuals and capitalist enterprises .
That is literally his bread and butter , and he somehow thinks “ MORE OF THAT KIND OF THING !
” Oh wait , I think I just reasoned my way to why a liquidator might want MOAR CAPITALISM .
Disregard that bit ..
Anyway , I can ’ t fathom why on EARTH a man would write @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Consistently Wrong At Every Turn On Covid-19 ” , specifically emphasize that he was opposing highly informed expert opinion that was correct , presumably partially because it was “ collectivist ” … And then conclude by saying that because of “ fat tail risk ” [ effectively the risk of catastrophic negative consequences as the result of an ( in ) action ] , New Zealand shouldn ’ t have done all the stuff that made us a success – i.e .
should have acted as if Grant was right … every single @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the other times .
Now yes , sure , ‘ risk of really bad thing happening ’ is an acceptable thing to factor into calculations when it comes to what one intends to do facing a complex and changing situation .
Hence , one assumes , why those EXPERTS GRANT ACKNOWLEDGES WERE RIGHT WHEN HE WASN ’ T .. DID SO .
But straight-up … why is it that his definition of ‘ risk of things going VERY badly ’ is restricted to “ the economy might do rather poorly ” , rather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” .
The very linchpin of Grant ’ s analysis – that one should not do the thing that might lead to Really Bad Thing Happening – ALSO militates that one should not do … a rather large array of things other than what New Zealand did .
[ i.e .
exactly what Sweden , the UK , USA , etc .
etc .
etc .
decided to do instead , largely in evidently futile bids to stave off economic slowdowns ] The evidence from overseas is pretty clear about this : those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proper lockdown and/or other rather serious measures [ open question as to whether you count Taiwan as having ‘ serious measures ’ – although I suspect Grant wouldn ’ t be keen on theirs.. ] … have wound up with BOTH a ) a public health crisis AND b ) an economic injury of notable proportions .
Why ?
Turns out that even when you DON ’ T lockdown .. people don ’ t go out and spend money so much , wind up taking time off work , and other things that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , again , what ’ s the real ‘ fat tail ( ed ) risk ” here ?
That we wind up with both a ) what Grant ’ s concerned might have happened thanks to our successful pandemic response [ i.e .
economic impairment ] AND b ) what Grant hasn ’ t considered [ i.e .
significant health impairment ] From where I ’ m sitting , Grant can go on about playing Russian Roulette all he likes – but NOT adopting the stratagem New Zealand did is tantamount to playing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not one .
In fact , it ’ s worse than that .
Going down Grant ’ s “ we shouldn ’ t have done [ whatever it is at any given stage of the pandemic ] ” approach … we ’ d have been playing Russian Roulette with a semi-automatic instead of a revolver .
New Zealand , by contrast – by doing , it would appear , the literal opposite of what Grant thought was a good call at every step of the process up to and including ‘ Hindsight ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pin .

Like a diminishing quotient of New Zealanders, I have the occasional expectation of finding something enthusing and enlightening in my Sunday newspaper. I also expect there is Damien Grant.
Sunday’s Star Times was no exception, and his column therein makes for frankly bizarre reading. In it, he sets out at some length, and by his own admission, just how repeatedly wrong he was at seemingly every turn about Covid-19. I give him credit for that, it’s rarely an easy thing to do to admit to being even somewhat wrong. Let alone, as I say, about just about everything.
Although what he THEN does, is spend the last few paragraphs attempting to justify how despite all that he had aforementioned … he was not, in fact, wrong – but rather, everybody else (i.e. the no-doubt ‘collectivist’ Government of New Zealand and all in favour of Her) was instead.
By this stage, I have basically come to the conclusion that Damien Grant is being a contrarian – particularly when he writes, although probably not just restricted to that sphere
I mean … he’s a libertarian, over the age of 15; who is working in an industry whose key characteristic is the ongoing failure of private individuals and capitalist enterprises. That is literally his bread and butter, and he somehow thinks “MORE OF THAT KIND OF THING!”
Oh wait, I think I just reasoned my way to why a liquidator might want MOAR CAPITALISM. Disregard that bit ..
Anyway, I can’t fathom why on EARTH a man would write a column about “How I Was Consistently Wrong At Every Turn On Covid-19”, specifically emphasize that he was opposing highly informed expert opinion that was correct , presumably partially because it was “collectivist” …
And then conclude by saying that because of “fat tail risk” [effectively the risk of catastrophic negative consequences as the result of an (in)action], New Zealand shouldn’t have done all the stuff that made us a success –
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
i.e. should have acted as if Grant was right … every single time … particularly the times that contradicted the other times.
Now yes, sure, ‘risk of really bad thing happening’ is an acceptable thing to factor into calculations when it comes to what one intends to do facing a complex and changing situation.
Hence, one assumes, why those EXPERTS GRANT ACKNOWLEDGES WERE RIGHT WHEN HE WASN’T .. DID SO.
But straight-up … why is it that his definition of ‘risk of things going VERY badly’ is restricted to “the economy might do rather poorly”, rather than “THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE MAY DIE”.
The very linchpin of Grant’s analysis – that one should not do the thing that might lead to Really Bad Thing Happening – ALSO militates that one should not do … a rather large array of things other than what New Zealand did. [i.e. exactly what Sweden, the UK, USA, etc. etc. etc. decided to do instead, largely in evidently futile bids to stave off economic slowdowns]
Because it’d be WORSE.
The evidence from overseas is pretty clear about this: those countries that DID NOT engage in a proper lockdown and/or other rather serious measures [open question as to whether you count Taiwan as having ‘serious measures’ – although I suspect Grant wouldn’t be keen on theirs..] … have wound up with BOTH a) a public health crisis AND b) an economic injury of notable proportions .
Why? Turns out that even when you DON’T lockdown .. people don’t go out and spend money so much , wind up taking time off work , and other things that aren’t great for economy
So, again, what’s the real ‘fat tail(ed) risk” here ? That we wind up with both a) what Grant’s concerned might have happened thanks to our successful pandemic response [i.e. economic impairment] AND b) what Grant hasn’t considered [i.e. significant health impairment]
From where I’m sitting, Grant can go on about playing Russian Roulette all he likes – but NOT adopting the stratagem New Zealand did is tantamount to playing with a gun with five bullets , not one.
In fact, it’s worse than that.
Going down Grant’s “we shouldn’t have done [whatever it is at any given stage of the pandemic]” approach … we’d have been playing Russian Roulette with a semi-automatic instead of a revolver.
New Zealand, by contrast – by doing, it would appear, the literal opposite of what Grant thought was a good call at every step of the process up to and including ‘Hindsight’
… instead chose to remove the firing pin.