thedailyblog--2020-10-05--On Judith Collins’ Curious Posturing At Her Rendezvous With The Other JC

A wise man once noted that the essence of successful political presentation was authenticity .
Once you could fake that , you ’ d got it made .
Now , as applies Judith Collins ’ apparently entirely unscripted and totally sincere church-visit en-route to vote over the weekend … well , reasonable minds may differ as to whether the above quote applies .
Many are certainly suggesting that the motivation for Collins ’ apparent Conversion On The Road To Oblivion ( via way of Clevedon ) is to head off the prospective growth of the New Conservatives , Advance NZ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tend to be big on ‘ politicized Christianity ’ in pursuit of an Evangelical-esque appeal .
Because while these vehicles are unlikely to hit five percent apiece – every percent they DO get comes at National ’ s likely expense .
Particularly due to the prospect of various splinters of National ’ s own base decamping ( or simply staying home ) due to their possible lack of desire to support a leader who ’ s voted in favour of abortion and euthanasia .
But that ’ s not what I ’ m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ read elsewhere those sorts of analysis for the strategic impetus for WHY Collins may have chosen to engage in a performative posture of prayer en-route to a polling place ( in Kohimaramara , oddly enough ) .
Rather , it ’ s the very concept itself – that of public piety in politics – which interests me here .
Despite the aspirations of pretty much every party I ’ ve mentioned thus far ( National , the New Conservative party , and Advance NZ , for those of you playing at home ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that much like America .
And by this , I do not just mean that religion is a far less active and overt portion of our public life here than it is over there – the quantitative metric .
There ’ s also something qualitatively different about it , as well .
While it ’ s definitely and demonstrably true that we have American-style Evangelicals operating here – including prospectively within our next Parliament assuming one of their number beats a certain Seventh Day Adventist in Botany later this year ( that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ respectively ) ; we also have always had something else , as well .
Older style , and dare I say rather ‘ left-wing ’ strands of Christianity that are unafraid of taking directly political stands on things which affect their parishioners and the broader country .
Michael Joseph Savage famously described the work of the visionary First Labour Government as being ‘ Applied Christianity ’ .
The Methodist Church here regularly overtly opposes neoliberal developments , such as the TPPA .
For comparison , the most prominent Methodist saliency in American politics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Bush .
This is not to suggest , either , that community-oriented and economically progressive religious bodies are unknown across the Pacific ( or , for that matter , across the Tasman – which has its own Evangelical Christian political projection within the corridors of power ) .
Only that those groups tend to be marginalized and shoved/crowded out both in the popular imagination , as well as the political hublands of power , by the more happy-clappy or otherwise ‘ performative ’ ( seemingly at the expense of substance ) varieties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tend to think that EVERYBODY suffers .
Both because the more ‘ right-wing ’ amenable Christianities tend to have some rather funny ideas which thence find forceful expression through the political system ( some might say ‘ infliction ’ ) ; and as a direct result of all of this , the ‘ crowding out ’ effect continues apace .
So whether you ’ re secular or religious , there ’ s something to be concerned about .
People come to think that the ONLY form of religion in politics is the right-wing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of these by those not keen on the ( neoliberal/neocon ) right , and an increase in support for the ( neoliberal/neocon ) right by genuinely religious people who think that this is now the only legitimate political expression for their beliefs .
We ’ ve seen this in India , wherein the BJP has sought quite effectively to ‘ monopolize ’ the political expression of Hinduism – an effort that has occasionally lead to bad theology being promoted upon occasion ; and also to a certain level of people reacting to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ancestral faith , or seeking to redefine it in opposition to the BJP ‘ brand ’ .
Which , not coincidentally , also occasionally leads to some rather bad theology .
All of which brings us back to Collins ’ stunt on Sunday .
Now , as I have said – there is some debate as to just how ‘ authentic ’ Collins ’ performative piety in fact was , upon that day .
On the one hand , everybody seems to agree ( other than Collins – which is perhaps unsurprising ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political career been this overt about her faith .
On the other hand , Collins herself counters this by claiming that she ’ s always had it as a guiding principle , citing the remark in her 2002 maiden speech : “ I believe in God , and I believe that every human being is created with free will to do either good or evil.
” Which is … not exactly a heavily Christian perspective , to my mind , even if some important fundaments are there .
Fundaments , I would argue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and which , importantly , do not actually directly qualify what Good or Evil actually are other than words upon the page .
And that goes to the heart of why I ’ m feeling so iffy about this whole thing .
Because it is , in the most literal sense , “ virtue signalling ” .
And , with what is meant by the term in its idiomatic context – a potential lack of actual , tangible , deeply-held ‘ virtue ’ to be signalled .
Instead replaced merely by the words @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so as to disguise the lack of substance .
Which is also a bit of a risk , because again – some may then have their perception that ALL religious expression in politics is like this .. performative in a pantomime sense rather than rolling its sleeves up to be performative in a potent one ; and others may take the opposite view – that as it is ‘ genuine ’ expression , this means that all that goes with it is suddenly sanctified into the bargain .
Because , as we all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ – not the two-letter sign-off Judith Collins has begun appending to all her tweets these past few weeks .. presumably entirely coincidentally ) was obviously all about supporting small business and deferring the Rendering Unto Caesar with a temporary tax-cut so as to stimulate the economy .
Now don ’ t get me wrong .
I do think that there ’ s a place – and quite a strong one – for religion in our public sphere .
Partially this is because , as a religious fundamentalist zealot , I would be entirely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contrary .
But also because it enables one to get a better sense of who a politician ( or a voter , an institution ) actually is and what they really stand for .
Politics , as with religion , is about the immanentization of values out into our mortal world .
And I quite like that we know who the potentially-fringe Evangelical sorts are BEFORE we might vote for them and find out the hard way through their conduct in office – precisely because they tend to directly tell us that this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Which does not mean that religious values , religious expression in our politics is above criticism , above contention , above reproach .
I mean , both Tony Abbott and Simon O ’ Connor would hardly be criticized for being ‘ inauthentic ’ with their religious adherence – both were , if memory serves , in-training to become Catholic Priests prior to their lives in politics .
However , as applies Tony Abbott ’ s recent remarks about how Covid-19 should effectively be allowed to go unchecked because of the cost of preserving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ myself and the Rev .
Rolinson were rather chagrined that this apparent lack of regard for life in favour of coin was coming from a man so vocally “ Pro-Life ” in his other political enthusiasms .
Similarly , when Donald Trump had protesters cleared from near a Washington D.C. church so as to carry out a bible-wielding photo-op – I think many quite justifiably looked in askance at this Election-year ( re- ) discovery of America ’ s majority symbolism .
Noting the degree of divergence between what ’ s actually in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s generally conducted himself both in politics and in personal life .
Trump ’ s maneuver is quite relevant for Collins , however – as what he had sought to do , was portray Christianity , Christian Values in America as being under attack , under threat , under siege during the waves of protest and rioting going on over there at the time .
Positioning himself , perhaps , as a self-appointed ‘ Defender of the Faith ’ [ a title more usually held by the Kings of England … @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , despite the well-known Protestant allegiance of these men ; Prince Charles , interestingly enough , is considering amending this to “ Defender of the Faiths ” , plural ] – and disregarding all of those people of the faith in question who were actively participating in the collective outrage as to America ’ s race-relations situation at the time .
Collins may have anticipated that she ’ d receive a wave of criticism for her gesture on Sunday – and factored that into her calculations .
She ’ d have seen the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her sudden frequency of “ As a Christian … ” remarks in the course of the Leaders ’ Debates .
She ’ d know that being photographed in an about-as-stereotypically- “ Prayer ” posture as you can possibly get would generate criticism .
And that sentiment – of people attacking both her for acting in a religious manner in politics , as well as the occasional opposition to religion in our politics full stop – is part of the ‘ mobilization ’ strategy .
It portrays both Collins – and , via surrogate-proxy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ victim ’ .
As being under siege due to the perceived ‘ incompatibility ’ of her pointedly declared faith and politics .
And therefore , in addition to garnering her some sympathy from certain sorts of Christian voter ( who may , themselves , feel a bit under glowering cloud due to their adherence , from time to time ) , also positions her as both sword and shield against this negativity .
In the same way that you find people in America ( and , to be fair , here too ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ order to “ trigger the Libs ” ( regardless of whether he or they are almost an opposite to what the voter would usually prefer ) – so , too , may you find some rallying behind Collins in order to “ trigger the Sickulars ” , the left , the “ Woke ” ( and thus , apparently , the Reserve Bank ) or whatever it is this week .
Having said that , there are other possibilities to consider .
I know , better than many , how a sudden outpouring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in fact be quite genuine .
It is for the same reason that there are rarely to be found many ‘ Atheists in Foxholes ’ .
Perhaps Collins ’ prayer prior to voting on Sunday was , as somebody on Twitter put it , a “ Hail Mary ” .
The real test of this , is the extent to which the religiosity in question persists after the the cessation of the immediate crisis correlate with its promulgation .
Whether , following the Election , we still see Collins conducting herself in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or perhaps ‘ confused for ’ ) as religious .
That might not be such a bad thing , as it happens .
It would be good if the implicit coterminity between Collins and Bill English – extended beyond the prospects for an unsuccessful election result ( the 2002 one , I mean ) , and on to some of the man ’ s values .
The same ones which saw him describe our prisons as a “ moral and fiscal failure ” during the same term which saw Judith Collins wanting to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ double-bunking for ‘ deterrent value ’ ( well , more what would likely come with the double bunking as the deterrent value ) .
In line with the Hindu axiom – “ Hands that help are holier than lips which [ merely ] pray ” , it is the actual conduct that goes beyond the prayer via which commitment to religious values ( in politics or without ) ought be meaningfully assessed .
Although there is one further consideration Collins may wish to bear in mind .
Last week , a day or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump invited a Hindu Priest to the White House to carry out a puja for peace and protection .
It would not seem beyond the bounds of possibility that this prayer was answered – in a rather more general sense than had perhaps been intended by the President .
Or , phrased another way – Collins may find that endeavouring to call upon ( the ) God ( s ) may lead to Divinity Answering .
And doing so in a manner that serves a Plan , an intent , other than one @ @ @ @

A wise man once noted that the essence of successful political presentation was authenticity. Once you could fake that, you’d got it made.
Now, as applies Judith Collins’ apparently entirely unscripted and totally sincere church-visit en-route to vote over the weekend … well, reasonable minds may differ as to whether the above quote applies. Many are certainly suggesting that the motivation for Collins’ apparent Conversion On The Road To Oblivion (via way of Clevedon) is to head off the prospective growth of the New Conservatives , Advance NZ , and other such fringe-right parties who tend to be big on ‘politicized Christianity’ in pursuit of an Evangelical-esque appeal. Because while these vehicles are unlikely to hit five percent apiece – every percent they DO get comes at National’s likely expense. Particularly due to the prospect of various splinters of National’s own base decamping (or simply staying home) due to their possible lack of desire to support a leader who’s voted in favour of abortion and euthanasia.
But that’s not what I’m here to talk about. You can read elsewhere those sorts of analysis for the strategic impetus for WHY Collins may have chosen to engage in a performative posture of prayer en-route to a polling place (in Kohimaramara, oddly enough).
Rather, it’s the very concept itself – that of public piety in politics – which interests me here.
Despite the aspirations of pretty much every party I’ve mentioned thus far (National, the New Conservative party, and Advance NZ, for those of you playing at home) inter alia, New Zealand is not that much like America. And by this, I do not just mean that religion is a far less active and overt portion of our public life here than it is over there – the quantitative metric. There’s also something qualitatively different about it, as well.
While it’s definitely and demonstrably true that we have American-style Evangelicals operating here – including prospectively within our next Parliament assuming one of their number beats a certain Seventh Day Adventist in Botany later this year (that’s Christopher Luxon and Jami-Lee Ross, respectively); we also have always had something else, as well. Older style, and dare I say rather ‘left-wing’ strands of Christianity that are unafraid of taking directly political stands on things which affect their parishioners and the broader country. Michael Joseph Savage famously described the work of the visionary First Labour Government as being ‘Applied Christianity’. The Methodist Church here regularly overtly opposes neoliberal developments, such as the TPPA. For comparison, the most prominent Methodist saliency in American politics of recent times was probably George H.W. Bush.
This is not to suggest, either, that community-oriented and economically progressive religious bodies are unknown across the Pacific (or, for that matter, across the Tasman – which has its own Evangelical Christian political projection within the corridors of power). Only that those groups tend to be marginalized and shoved/crowded out both in the popular imagination, as well as the political hublands of power, by the more happy-clappy or otherwise ‘performative’ (seemingly at the expense of substance) varieties.
And in THAT situation, I tend to think that EVERYBODY suffers. Both because the more ‘right-wing’ amenable Christianities tend to have some rather funny ideas which thence find forceful expression through the political system (some might say ‘infliction’); and as a direct result of all of this, the ‘crowding out’ effect continues apace. So whether you’re secular or religious, there’s something to be concerned about. People come to think that the ONLY form of religion in politics is the right-wing iteration – leading to a negative perception of these by those not keen on the (neoliberal/neocon) right, and an increase in support for the (neoliberal/neocon) right by genuinely religious people who think that this is now the only legitimate political expression for their beliefs.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
We’ve seen this in India, wherein the BJP has sought quite effectively to ‘monopolize’ the political expression of Hinduism – an effort that has occasionally lead to bad theology being promoted upon occasion; and also to a certain level of people reacting to the BJP by either distancing themselves from their ancestral faith, or seeking to redefine it in opposition to the BJP ‘brand’. Which, not coincidentally, also occasionally leads to some rather bad theology.
All of which brings us back to Collins’ stunt on Sunday.
Now, as I have said – there is some debate as to just how ‘authentic’ Collins’ performative piety in fact was, upon that day. On the one hand, everybody seems to agree (other than Collins – which is perhaps unsurprising) that she has never before in her political career been this overt about her faith. On the other hand, Collins herself counters this by claiming that she’s always had it as a guiding principle, citing the remark in her 2002 maiden speech: “I believe in God, and I believe that every human being is created with free will to do either good or evil.” Which is … not exactly a heavily Christian perspective, to my mind, even if some important fundaments are there. Fundaments, I would argue, shared with many other religions – and which, importantly, do not actually directly qualify what Good or Evil actually are other than words upon the page.
And that goes to the heart of why I’m feeling so iffy about this whole thing. Because it is, in the most literal sense, “virtue signalling”. And, with what is meant by the term in its idiomatic context – a potential lack of actual, tangible, deeply-held ‘virtue’ to be signalled. Instead replaced merely by the words, the forms, the exterior-perceptible symbols so as to disguise the lack of substance. Which is also a bit of a risk, because again – some may then have their perception that ALL religious expression in politics is like this .. performative in a pantomime sense rather than rolling its sleeves up to be performative in a potent one ; and others may take the opposite view – that as it is ‘genuine’ expression, this means that all that goes with it is suddenly sanctified into the bargain. Because, as we all know, JC (the *other* JC – not the two-letter sign-off Judith Collins has begun appending to all her tweets these past few weeks .. presumably entirely coincidentally) was obviously all about supporting small business and deferring the Rendering Unto Caesar with a temporary tax-cut so as to stimulate the economy.
Now don’t get me wrong. I do think that there’s a place – and quite a strong one – for religion in our public sphere. Partially this is because, as a religious fundamentalist zealot, I would be entirely hypocritical if I suggested anything to the contrary. But also because it enables one to get a better sense of who a politician (or a voter, an institution) actually is and what they really stand for. Politics, as with religion, is about the immanentization of values out into our mortal world. And I quite like that we know who the potentially-fringe Evangelical sorts are BEFORE we might vote for them and find out the hard way through their conduct in office – precisely because they tend to directly tell us that this is what they are, themselves.
Which does not mean that religious values, religious expression in our politics is above criticism, above contention, above reproach. I mean, both Tony Abbott and Simon O’Connor would hardly be criticized for being ‘inauthentic’ with their religious adherence – both were, if memory serves, in-training to become Catholic Priests prior to their lives in politics. However, as applies Tony Abbott’s recent remarks about how Covid-19 should effectively be allowed to go unchecked because of the cost of preserving the lives of the elderly … both myself and the Rev. Rolinson were rather chagrined that this apparent lack of regard for life in favour of coin was coming from a man so vocally “Pro-Life” in his other political enthusiasms.
Similarly, when Donald Trump had protesters cleared from near a Washington D.C. church so as to carry out a bible-wielding photo-op – I think many quite justifiably looked in askance at this Election-year (re-)discovery of America’s majority symbolism. Noting the degree of divergence between what’s actually in said book and building and the way Trump’s generally conducted himself both in politics and in personal life.
Trump’s maneuver is quite relevant for Collins, however – as what he had sought to do, was portray Christianity, Christian Values in America as being under attack, under threat, under siege during the waves of protest and rioting going on over there at the time. Positioning himself, perhaps, as a self-appointed ‘Defender of the Faith’ [a title more usually held by the Kings of England … and ironically referring to the *Catholic* Faith, despite the well-known Protestant allegiance of these men; Prince Charles, interestingly enough, is considering amending this to “Defender of the Faiths”, plural] – and disregarding all of those people of the faith in question who were actively participating in the collective outrage as to America’s race-relations situation at the time.
Collins may have anticipated that she’d receive a wave of criticism for her gesture on Sunday – and factored that into her calculations. She’d have seen the commentary from various vectors in relation to her sudden frequency of “As a Christian … ” remarks in the course of the Leaders’ Debates. She’d know that being photographed in an about-as-stereotypically-“ Prayer” posture as you can possibly get would generate criticism. And that sentiment – of people attacking both her for acting in a religious manner in politics, as well as the occasional opposition to religion in our politics full stop – is part of the ‘mobilization’ strategy. It portrays both Collins – and, via surrogate-proxy, Christianity – as being the ‘victim’. As being under siege due to the perceived ‘incompatibility’ of her pointedly declared faith and politics. And therefore, in addition to garnering her some sympathy from certain sorts of Christian voter (who may, themselves, feel a bit under glowering cloud due to their adherence, from time to time), also positions her as both sword and shield against this negativity.
In the same way that you find people in America (and, to be fair, here too) voting for Trump or other Republicans in order to “trigger the Libs” (regardless of whether he or they are almost an opposite to what the voter would usually prefer) – so, too, may you find some rallying behind Collins in order to “trigger the Sickulars”, the left, the “Woke” (and thus, apparently, the Reserve Bank) or whatever it is this week.
Having said that, there are other possibilities to consider. I know, better than many, how a sudden outpouring of religiosity during a difficult time can in fact be quite genuine. It is for the same reason that there are rarely to be found many ‘Atheists in Foxholes’. Perhaps Collins’ prayer prior to voting on Sunday was, as somebody on Twitter put it, a “Hail Mary”.
The real test of this, is the extent to which the religiosity in question persists after the the cessation of the immediate crisis correlate with its promulgation. Whether, following the Election, we still see Collins conducting herself in a manner that might be thought of (or perhaps ‘confused for’) as religious.
That might not be such a bad thing, as it happens. It would be good if the implicit coterminity between Collins and Bill English – extended beyond the prospects for an unsuccessful election result (the 2002 one, I mean), and on to some of the man’s values. The same ones which saw him describe our prisons as a “moral and fiscal failure” during the same term which saw Judith Collins wanting to escalate this failure via shipping-crate cells and double-bunking for ‘deterrent value’ (well, more what would likely come with the double bunking as the deterrent value).
In line with the Hindu axiom – “Hands that help are holier than lips which [merely] pray”, it is the actual conduct that goes beyond the prayer via which commitment to religious values (in politics or without) ought be meaningfully assessed.
Although there is one further consideration Collins may wish to bear in mind.
Last week, a day or so prior to his Covid-19 circumstance, Trump invited a Hindu Priest to the White House to carry out a puja for peace and protection. It would not seem beyond the bounds of possibility that this prayer was answered – in a rather more general sense than had perhaps been intended by the President.
Or, phrased another way – Collins may find that endeavouring to call upon (the) God(s) may lead to Divinity Answering. And doing so in a manner that serves a Plan, an intent, other than one’s own.


thedailyblog--2020-10-06--Dr Liz Gordon: The long way around: a personal story

Bear with me , as I talk about some things I have never discussed publicly before… .
The truth will set me free .
In a post a couple of months ago , Chris Trotter rethought the exodus of many of us from the Labour Party in 1988 .
He thought that we should have stayed and fought it out from the inside out .
Many of our group have since returned to the Labour Party , as members or even as MPs .
I have not .
I have not voted Labour since 1987 .
My own view , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time would have been intolerable .
The tensions between the various factions were nigh on intolerable .
I used to feel sick at every party meeting I went to .
When the split was close , I was on the National Executive of the party , and was closely watched in terms of what I would do .
When Anderton declared he was going to start a new Party , I was under pressure to remain in Labour , but decided in all conscious to go with the new .
This was a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hate the policies of the fourth Labour Government .
I still hate them today as they have formed the basis of the growth of social and economic inequality we have seen over more than 30 years .
Our society is much worse than it was because of those policies .
The road we trod was hard .
It was full of conflicting ambitions , marginalisation and ultimately betrayal .
I spent six years as an Alliance Member of Parliament .
A long time ago now .
I was a much better academic than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nevertheless enjoyed my time in Parliament and was proud of many of our achievements .
The split was a terrible thing , a disaster , and probably did not need to happen .
I had few friends in Parliament outside the Alliance ( and only a few of them – the lovely Laila Harré , my dear friend , remains the best of them ) .
My other friends there were the late Helen Duncan , teacher , unionist and Labour MP , and the late Brian Donnelly of New Zealand First , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the smoking habit .
When I did te reo Māori classes in Parliament I enjoyed the company of a range of MPs , and made a surprising friendship , mild as it was , with Wyatt Creech , who so enraged me as Minister of Education , but with whom I enjoyed practicing te reo .
At the time Labour MPs were mostly distrustful of their Alliance colleagues .
Relationships were arm ’ s length , to say the least .
The Labour leadership treated the Alliance , except from Jim Anderton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a strong ally .
It did not get much better in government , either , at least for me .
Since 2002 I have voted Māori Party , Mana and Greens .
I have voted for Megan Woods since she was first elected , and I have always liked her a lot .
I have known Duncan Webb and have worked with him .
He is a good bloke .
I have met Jacinda at many events and have always loved her passion .
I always feel with her a pull of affection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know Grant Robertson quite well and he is special to me as a child of a prisoner come good .
In recent times , my liking and respect for Andrew Little , in particular , has grown up like a flower coming into bud , over his justice work .
In short , I suddenly have found that there is a group of senior Labour Party members for whom I have a significant degree of affection and liking .
I love their approach but have always been held back by their failure , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beyond neo-liberalism .
Tonight I sat among a phalanx of sneering Nats , egging Judith on in her campaign to belittle Jacinda .
They were disgusting , frankly , and further firmed up my allegiances .
I have thought long and hard about my vote .
While the courageous and principled Green MP , Catherine Delahunty ( who also became my friend ) , was in Parliament , I voted Green , and did so also last time .
Strategically I still think I should vote to the left of Labour , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any left left ( this is not a typo ) .
But my decision about this year ’ s vote is more than that .
I attended the leader ’ s debate last night in Christchurch , and I admired Jacinda ’ s approach and was proud of her .
I mixed with current MPs and former Labour colleagues , and I firmed up my decision made tentatively at the weekend .
It is not that I think Labour has yet shed all its neo-lib roots , but I do think it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Megan Woods , Party vote Labour .
I will get me to a polling place post haste .
I am putting my eggs in the Labour basket .
May they bear the fruit of a new tomorrow .
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 .

Bear with me, as I talk about some things I have never discussed publicly before…. The truth will set me free.
In a post a couple of months ago, Chris Trotter rethought the exodus of many of us from the Labour Party in 1988. He thought that we should have stayed and fought it out from the inside out. Many of our group have since returned to the Labour Party, as members or even as MPs. I have not. I have not voted Labour since 1987.
My own view, in response was that staying at that time would have been intolerable. The tensions between the various factions were nigh on intolerable. I used to feel sick at every party meeting I went to. When the split was close, I was on the National Executive of the party, and was closely watched in terms of what I would do. When Anderton declared he was going to start a new Party, I was under pressure to remain in Labour, but decided in all conscious to go with the new.
This was a policy driven decision. I came to hate the policies of the fourth Labour Government. I still hate them today as they have formed the basis of the growth of social and economic inequality we have seen over more than 30 years. Our society is much worse than it was because of those policies.
The road we trod was hard. It was full of conflicting ambitions, marginalisation and ultimately betrayal. I spent six years as an Alliance Member of Parliament. A long time ago now. I was a much better academic than I ever was a politician, but nevertheless enjoyed my time in Parliament and was proud of many of our achievements. The split was a terrible thing, a disaster, and probably did not need to happen.
I had few friends in Parliament outside the Alliance (and only a few of them – the lovely Laila Harré, my dear friend, remains the best of them). My other friends there were the late Helen Duncan, teacher, unionist and Labour MP, and the late Brian Donnelly of New Zealand First, a lovely man. Both basically died of the smoking habit. When I did te reo Māori classes in Parliament I enjoyed the company of a range of MPs, and made a surprising friendship, mild as it was, with Wyatt Creech, who so enraged me as Minister of Education, but with whom I enjoyed practicing te reo.
At the time Labour MPs were mostly distrustful of their Alliance colleagues. Relationships were arm’s length, to say the least. The Labour leadership treated the Alliance, except from Jim Anderton, as a necessary evil rather than a strong ally. It did not get much better in government, either, at least for me.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
Since 2002 I have voted Māori Party, Mana and Greens. I have voted for Megan Woods since she was first elected, and I have always liked her a lot. I have known Duncan Webb and have worked with him. He is a good bloke. I have met Jacinda at many events and have always loved her passion. I always feel with her a pull of affection and caring. I have got to know Grant Robertson quite well and he is special to me as a child of a prisoner come good. In recent times, my liking and respect for Andrew Little, in particular, has grown up like a flower coming into bud, over his justice work.
In short, I suddenly have found that there is a group of senior Labour Party members for whom I have a significant degree of affection and liking. I love their approach but have always been held back by their failure, yet, to tip the political balance beyond neo-liberalism.
Tonight I sat among a phalanx of sneering Nats, egging Judith on in her campaign to belittle Jacinda. They were disgusting, frankly, and further firmed up my allegiances.
I have thought long and hard about my vote. While the courageous and principled Green MP, Catherine Delahunty (who also became my friend), was in Parliament, I voted Green, and did so also last time.
Strategically I still think I should vote to the left of Labour, but I don’t think there is any left left (this is not a typo). But my decision about this year’s vote is more than that. I attended the leader’s debate last night in Christchurch, and I admired Jacinda’s approach and was proud of her. I mixed with current MPs and former Labour colleagues, and I firmed up my decision made tentatively at the weekend. It is not that I think Labour has yet shed all its neo-lib roots, but I do think it is trying to do so.
Electorate vote Megan Woods, Party vote Labour. I will get me to a polling place post haste. I am putting my eggs in the Labour basket. May they bear the fruit of a new tomorrow.
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--2020-10-06--Victory in defeat for Kanak independence movement in latest referendum

While pro-independence Kanak supporters rued another defeat in the second referendum on independence for New Caledonia at the weekend , it was even narrower than the loss two years ago .
Now there is a real prospect of a win in 2022 .
“ The path to independence and sovereignty is inevitable , ” pledges the Front de Libération Nationale Kanak et Socialiste ( FLNKS ) – the umbrella group of the pro-independence parties and the struggle will go on .
Roch Wamytan , president of New Caledonia ’ s parliamentary Congress and a key leader of the FLNKS ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will press for the third referendum in two years ’ time – and even later if needed .
• READ MORE : Independence for Kanaky : A media and political stalemate or a ‘ three strikes ’ Frexit challenge ?
• New Caledonia rejects independence again , but Kanak vote gains ground • Stefan Armbruster of SBS reports on the referendum result • Non for now … New Caledonia rejects independence from France – in pictures If there is a third defeat , “ we ’ ll talk , and we ’ ll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the overall “ oui ” vote by more than 3 percent – even in some pro-France strongholds in Noumea and the Southern province , the Kanak camp is confident over its long-term prospects as the demographics of a growing youth share of the population becomes more favourable .
However , Les Nouvelles Calédoniennes , the territory ’ s “ loyalist ” -owned sole daily newspaper , greeted the referendum results more critically , declaring that they showed “ Caledonian society was more divided than ever , both on a geographical and community level @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time to 46.74 percent in provisional results , compared to 43.6 percent in the November 2018 referendum – a result that shattered most predictions of a crushing “ non ” vote .
Record turnout With all ballots tallied from the territory ’ s 304 polling stations , the “ no ” vote on Sunday won with 53.26 percent .
The turnout was a record 85 percent for a vote in New Caledonia – 4 percent more than the referendum in 2018 .
Results in the three provinces were split along traditional lines , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” vote advanced .
In the mainly white bastion of the Southern province that includes the capital Noumea , the yes vote was 29.19 percent compared with 25.88 percent in 2018 .
In the Northern province , was 77.9 percent yes ( compared to 75.83 percent ) and 22.11 percent no .
In the Loyalty Islands , the vote was 84.27 percent in favour of independence ( 82.18 percent in 2018 ) and 15.73 percent against .
Macron ‘ grateful ’ to voters French President Emmanuel Macron said he was grateful to New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He welcomed the referendum result with a “ deep feeling of gratitude ” in a speech from the Élysée Palace .
However , he also said it was up to the various political groups in New Caledonia to draw up their vision of the future of the territory that was colonised by France in 1853 .
Macron said that both yes and no supporters would need to consider the consequences of the final referendum giving a different verdict than what they had wanted .
The independence referendum on Sunday was under the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decolonisation effort aimed at settling tensions in the 1980s – known as “ les Evenements ” – between indigenous Kanaks seeking independence and closer ties with their Pacific neighbours and New Caledonians wishing to remain within France .
‘ Huge victory ’ for Kanaks “ It ’ s a huge victory among the Kanak independentistes , ” said economics Professor Catherine Ris of the University of New Caledonia .
“ They were expecting an increase in the vote but not so high and I think it ’ s a big victory for them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , she said New Caledonia was important to France and she expected Paris to remain committed to the territory even if it eventually opted for full independence .
Luc Tutugoro , a New Zealand resident Kanak advocate for a Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific ( NFIP ) , was among many who have welcomed the referendum result but warned pro-independence Kanaks would need to work harder towards 2022 .
“ We are creeping towards Kanak sovereignty , ” he told Asia Pacific Report .
“ Work on the abstentions will be the key @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a true and authentic dialogue , no matter what the result of the third and last referendum will be .
“ As Kanaks we will never give up or renounce our sovereignty .
There is a referendum because we have been and are still colonised by France.
” Earlier this year , Alexandre Dayant , a research fellow at Australia ’ s Lowy Institute , predicted demographics would play a large part in the referendum .
Demographic insights Writing for The Interpreter , Dayant indicated that a study of local demographics and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into the potential outcome of the upcoming ballot ” .
The study included an analysis of the correlation between the results of the 2018 referendum per communes and the spreading of ethnic groups across the territory .
“ The results [ were striking ] … At the municipal level , the correlation coefficient – the statistical relationship connecting two variables – between the Kanak vote and the independence vote was 96.1 percent .
“ Those who called themselves ‘ European ’ by and large voted against independence , with a correlation coefficient of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Caldoches and those classified by ISEE ( New Caledonia ’ s Institute for Statistics and Economics studies ) in the category ‘ Other communities and not declared ’ , correlated by as much as 89 percent to vote no to independence .
“ Finally , the people of Wallis and Futuna , true to their role of being a balancing force in New Caledonian ’ s politics , had a correlation coefficient of 57.2 percent voting no to independence.
” This pattern appears to be borne out this year too and is likely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
However , Dayant offers a caveat : “ Despite a strong correlation in 2018 , not all Kanaks are pro-independence , and not all non-Kanaks are loyalists.
” Minister due in Noumea French Overseas Minister Sebastien Lecornu is due in New Caledonia later this week for a three-week stay to follow up on Sunday ’ s independence referendum when a majority voted to stay with France , reports RNZ Pacific .
The minister will spend two weeks in isolation in line with the territory ’ s policies which have kept if free @ @ @ @ @ @ @ RNZ quotes Les Nouvelles Calédoniennes as reporting that he would be isolating at a yet undisclosed place and not at a government-run hotel .
Lecornu will meet key leaders from all sides in the political future debate .

David Robie also blogs at Cafe Pacific
While pro-independence Kanak supporters rued another defeat in the second referendum on independence for New Caledonia at the weekend, it was even narrower than the loss two years ago. Now there is a real prospect of a win in 2022.
“The path to independence and sovereignty is inevitable,” pledges the Front de Libération Nationale Kanak et Socialiste (FLNKS) – the umbrella group of the pro-independence parties and the struggle will go on.
Roch Wamytan, president of New Caledonia’s parliamentary Congress and a key leader of the FLNKS’ Union Calédonienne, vows the independence lobbying will press for the third referendum in two years’ time – and even later if needed.
If there is a third defeat, “we’ll talk, and we’ll figure something out”.
By boosting the overall “oui” vote by more than 3 percent – even in some pro-France strongholds in Noumea and the Southern province, the Kanak camp is confident over its long-term prospects as the demographics of a growing youth share of the population becomes more favourable.
However, Les Nouvelles Calédoniennes, the territory’s “loyalist”-owned sole daily newspaper, greeted the referendum results more critically, declaring that they showed “Caledonian society was more divided than ever, both on a geographical and community level”.
The yes vote climbed this time to 46.74 percent in provisional results, compared to 43.6 percent in the November 2018 referendum – a result that shattered most predictions of a crushing “non” vote.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
Record turnout
With all ballots tallied from the territory’s 304 polling stations, the “no” vote on Sunday won with 53.26 percent. The turnout was a record 85 percent for a vote in New Caledonia – 4 percent more than the referendum in 2018.
Results in the three provinces were split along traditional lines, but in each case the “yes” vote advanced.
In the mainly white bastion of the Southern province that includes the capital Noumea, the yes vote was 29.19 percent compared with 25.88 percent in 2018.
The status quo vote dropped to 70.81 percent.
In the Northern province, was 77.9 percent yes (compared to 75.83 percent) and 22.11 percent no.
In the Loyalty Islands, the vote was 84.27 percent in favour of independence (82.18 percent in 2018) and 15.73 percent against.
Macron ‘grateful’ to voters
French President Emmanuel Macron said he was grateful to New Caledonian voters for rejecting independence from France.
He welcomed the referendum result with a “deep feeling of gratitude” in a speech from the Élysée Palace.
However, he also said it was up to the various political groups in New Caledonia to draw up their vision of the future of the territory that was colonised by France in 1853.
Macron said that both yes and no supporters would need to consider the consequences of the final referendum giving a different verdict than what they had wanted.
The independence referendum on Sunday was under the Noumea Accord, part of a three-decade decolonisation effort aimed at settling tensions in the 1980s – known as “les Evenements” – between indigenous Kanaks seeking independence and closer ties with their Pacific neighbours and New Caledonians wishing to remain within France.
‘Huge victory’ for Kanaks
“It’s a huge victory among the Kanak independentistes,” said economics Professor Catherine Ris of the University of New Caledonia.
“They were expecting an increase in the vote but not so high and I think it’s a big victory for them and that makes them confident.”
However, she said New Caledonia was important to France and she expected Paris to remain committed to the territory even if it eventually opted for full independence.
Luc Tutugoro, a New Zealand resident Kanak advocate for a Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific (NFIP), was among many who have welcomed the referendum result but warned pro-independence Kanaks would need to work harder towards 2022.
“We are creeping towards Kanak sovereignty,” he told Asia Pacific Report. “Work on the abstentions will be the key focus for the future – as well as a true and authentic dialogue, no matter what the result of the third and last referendum will be.
“As Kanaks we will never give up or renounce our sovereignty. There is a referendum because we have been and are still colonised by France.”
Earlier this year, Alexandre Dayant, a research fellow at Australia’s Lowy Institute, predicted demographics would play a large part in the referendum.
Demographic insights
Writing for The Interpreter, Dayant indicated that a study of local demographics and past voting patterns “offers an insight into the potential outcome of the upcoming ballot”.
The study included an analysis of the correlation between the results of the 2018 referendum per communes and the spreading of ethnic groups across the territory.
“The results [were striking] … At the municipal level, the correlation coefficient – the statistical relationship connecting two variables – between the Kanak vote and the independence vote was 96.1 percent.
“Those who called themselves ‘European’ by and large voted against independence, with a correlation coefficient of 91.7 percent. For their part, Caldoches and those classified by ISEE (New Caledonia’s Institute for Statistics and Economics studies) in the category ‘Other communities and not declared’, correlated by as much as 89 percent to vote no to independence.
“Finally, the people of Wallis and Futuna, true to their role of being a balancing force in New Caledonian’s politics, had a correlation coefficient of 57.2 percent voting no to independence.”
This pattern appears to be borne out this year too and is likely to have an impact too in 2022.
However, Dayant offers a caveat: “Despite a strong correlation in 2018, not all Kanaks are pro-independence, and not all non-Kanaks are loyalists.”
Minister due in Noumea
French Overseas Minister Sebastien Lecornu is due in New Caledonia later this week for a three-week stay to follow up on Sunday’s independence referendum when a majority voted to stay with France, reports RNZ Pacific.
The minister will spend two weeks in isolation in line with the territory’s policies which have kept if free of any local transmission of covid-19.
RNZ quotes Les Nouvelles Calédoniennes as reporting that he would be isolating at a yet undisclosed place and not at a government-run hotel.
Lecornu will meet key leaders from all sides in the political future debate.


thedailyblog--2020-10-07--There is no alternative – We need a Green New Deal Now

Capitalism had been through a period of growth in state intervention following the Great Depression and World war Two .
But a crisis developed in the mid-1980s that seemed to be associated with government spending facilitated by money printing that led to “ stagflation ” – high inflation and stagnant growth at the same time .
Throughout the capitalist world tax cuts for the rich simply meant cutting welfare and degrading public services like health and education .
Public housing became unavailable and private housing turned into a speculative commodity out of reach of ordinary working people now dependent on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rights and cutting real wages were deemed to be needed to prevent inflation ever coming back .
Of course , there would be inequality and obscene displays of wealth accumulation but that was the price needed to restore economic growth and create jobs .
“ Greed is Good ” became their mantra .
New religious dogmas were imposed in the language of economic theory to justify this direction .
One of these was the alleged need to permanently run government budget surpluses .
Combined with tax cuts for the rich the end result @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by starving the state of needed expenditure on welfare , education , social infrastructure , and workers wages .
One result of this approach was that in New Zealand for 18 years after the 1990 budget cut welfare benefits by up to 25 % both Labour and National governments would only increase them by the consumer price index .
This meant benefits halved in value in relation to average wages while housing costs sky-rocketed .
National Superannuation , however , kept its relationship to the average wage and was , therefore , protected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the lie of the deserving and undeserving poor .
Widespread misery and homelessness was a consequence for people on benefits .
A conscious decision was made by both governments to ignore the obvious misery being inflicted .
Conscious decisions were made to prioritise repayment of debt over protecting the least fortunate in society .
In some ways the debt was actually privatised as many working people were forced into debt slavery to survive as a consequence .
Today , the low government debt has allowed the government to more easily go into debt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keep functioning during the crisis .
But this is not a justification for denying people the right to basic entitlements in the past .
Today we have the “ undeserving ” rich being bailed out while the poor remain denied decent benefits or access to social housing Today the wealthy owners of land , finance , and businesses are rewarding themselves still further at the government ’ s expense through inflated prices for shares and property and dividend payments and share buybacks .
For the one percent in society , the system increasingly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ financial assets to speculate with rather than on actually producing things of value in terms of meeting needs .
Of course , these forms of wealth accumulation were made effectively tax free .
But the promised trickle down in wealth to create jobs and incomes of course never happened .
It was always a lie .
Today , the most basic institutions of the state have been hollowed out to such a degree that delivering the basics we need is not guaranteed .
This was true for health services across the globe and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prepare for the pandemics that we had been warned would be coming with increasing frequency as a consequence of capitalism external conquest and degradation of nature .
In New Zealand , we actually have dodged a bullet time and time again .
But we have a chance to look for a new way forward .
The new way forward must be based on an economic plan that puts people and jobs before profit and the planet and its health before growth .
We can , for a period get away with simply printing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ priorities than those of the past .
But there will be a limit to that before inflation returns .
That means we must also begin taxing those in society who have spent generations not paying their fair share .
We could begin with a special tax on wealth held by households with assets over $ 50 million as a special Covid-19 emergency fund .
We could simply work out what they would have paid if they had been workers – say at least 20 % .
That seems fair to me .
Any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ planet first would then prioritise lifting the incomes of the unemployed and sharing the work that is available without loss of pay so everyone could have a job if they want one .
We should begin a process of guaranteeing a job for everyone who wants one .
That could begin next year with everyone who leaves school being guaranteed a job at a living wage , further education or apprenticeship .
Housing education and health care would exist as of right and the job of the government is ensuring those rights as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and finance would be public services owned by the government and governed by a democratic plan involving the workers in these and having empowered communities deciding their own needs and priorities..
The government would then prioritise policies that create a genuine clean , green New Zealand rather than the rather degraded version that exists now .
That would be a truly transformational Green New Deal and it could start the day after the election .

Capitalism had been through a period of growth in state intervention following the Great Depression and World war Two. But a crisis developed in the mid-1980s that seemed to be associated with government spending facilitated by money printing that led to “stagflation” – high inflation and stagnant growth at the same time.
Nearly the entire economics profession and official opinion-makers were won to the view that free-markets and free-trade were the obvious solutions. “ Trickle-down economics ” became the new mantra with tax cuts on businesses and the wealthy in society “as a means to stimulate business investment in the short term and benefit society at large in the long term.”. Turning publicly-owned services into private profit-seeking businesses became an essential part of the process. If the business couldn’t be privatised for some reason it was subject to the same market-driven profit-seeking principles anyway.
Throughout the capitalist world tax cuts for the rich simply meant cutting welfare and degrading public services like health and education. Public housing became unavailable and private housing turned into a speculative commodity out of reach of ordinary working people now dependent on private landlords. Unemployment, limiting union rights and cutting real wages were deemed to be needed to prevent inflation ever coming back. Of course, there would be inequality and obscene displays of wealth accumulation but that was the price needed to restore economic growth and create jobs. “Greed is Good” became their mantra.
The political and economic leaders who imposed these policies transitioned into and out of politics and business leadership roles but with a single ideology to promote markets and profits. The former leader of both the National and Act parties, Don Brash went from private business to the Reserve Bank, to parliament, to private business again. John Key went from private business to Prime Minister and back to business as chairman of the ANZ Bank and director of many companies. Former Labour Party leaders and MP’s are usually not that different.
New Zealand is a tiny country on the edge of the world with the population of a medium-sized city anywhere else, yet our “leaders” insist on being paid the same as business leaders and politicians in the biggest and richest countries. In my view, the setup is simply corrupt.
New religious dogmas were imposed in the language of economic theory to justify this direction. One of these was the alleged need to permanently run government budget surpluses. Combined with tax cuts for the rich the end result was that surpluses could only be achieved by starving the state of needed expenditure on welfare, education, social infrastructure, and workers wages.
One result of this approach was that in New Zealand for 18 years after the 1990 budget cut welfare benefits by up to 25% both Labour and National governments would only increase them by the consumer price index. This meant benefits halved in value in relation to average wages while housing costs sky-rocketed. National Superannuation, however, kept its relationship to the average wage and was, therefore, protected.
Both Labour and National bought into the lie of the deserving and undeserving poor.
Widespread misery and homelessness was a consequence for people on benefits. A conscious decision was made by both governments to ignore the obvious misery being inflicted. Conscious decisions were made to prioritise repayment of debt over protecting the least fortunate in society. In some ways the debt was actually privatised as many working people were forced into debt slavery to survive as a consequence.
Today, the low government debt has allowed the government to more easily go into debt to help the banks and big companies keep functioning during the crisis. But this is not a justification for denying people the right to basic entitlements in the past. Today we have the “undeserving” rich being bailed out while the poor remain denied decent benefits or access to social housing
Today the wealthy owners of land, finance, and businesses are rewarding themselves still further at the government’s expense through inflated prices for shares and property and dividend payments and share buybacks.
For the one percent in society, the system increasingly focussed their attention on accumulating property and financial assets to speculate with rather than on actually producing things of value in terms of meeting needs. Of course, these forms of wealth accumulation were made effectively tax free.
But the promised trickle down in wealth to create jobs and incomes of course never happened. It was always a lie.
Today, the most basic institutions of the state have been hollowed out to such a degree that delivering the basics we need is not guaranteed.
This was true for health services across the globe and it means that nearly everywhere failed to prepare for the pandemics that we had been warned would be coming with increasing frequency as a consequence of capitalism external conquest and degradation of nature.
In New Zealand, we actually have dodged a bullet time and time again.
But we have a chance to look for a new way forward.
The new way forward must be based on an economic plan that puts people and jobs before profit and the planet and its health before growth.
We can, for a period get away with simply printing more money to fund new and different priorities than those of the past. But there will be a limit to that before inflation returns.
That means we must also begin taxing those in society who have spent generations not paying their fair share. We could begin with a special tax on wealth held by households with assets over $50 million as a special Covid-19 emergency fund. We could simply work out what they would have paid if they had been workers – say at least 20%. That seems fair to me.
Any government that puts the people and the planet first would then prioritise lifting the incomes of the unemployed and sharing the work that is available without loss of pay so everyone could have a job if they want one.
We should begin a process of guaranteeing a job for everyone who wants one. That could begin next year with everyone who leaves school being guaranteed a job at a living wage, further education or apprenticeship.
Housing education and health care would exist as of right and the job of the government is ensuring those rights as soon as possible.
Transport, energy and finance would be public services owned by the government and governed by a democratic plan involving the workers in these and having empowered communities deciding their own needs and priorities..
The government would then prioritise policies that create a genuine clean, green New Zealand rather than the rather degraded version that exists now.
That would be a truly transformational Green New Deal and it could start the day after the election.


thedailyblog--2020-10-08--MUST READ: National’s Little Helpers Have A Cunning Plan

LIKE THE EXCLUSIVE BRETHREN in 2005 , the Taxpayers ’ Union is poised to launch a well-funded , last-minute attack on the Greens .
According to Richard Harman ’ s Politik website , the right-wing , anti-tax , lobby group is about to send a personalised letter to every homeowner whose property is valued at more than a million dollars .
The letter “ explains ” how the Green ’ s proposed 1 percent Wealth Tax on property valued at more than one million dollars will apply to them .
As Harmon makes clear in his post , the cost @ @ @ @ @ @ @ big as this is , almost certainly , beyond the means of the Taxpayers ’ Union .
When questioned by the veteran broadcaster and journalist about the source of the sizeable funds required , the Union would say only that the money had been raised in response to a special appeal for financial support .
Harmon also makes clear that the Taxpayers ’ Union has registered itself with , and obtained all the required approvals from , the Electoral Commission .
The latter has duly authorised the Union to spend up to $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against the Greens ’ tax policy .
Naturally , any campaign directed primarily at the Greens will likely be of considerable benefit to National and Act .
But , since the letter makes no direct appeal for its recipients to support either of those parties , the cost of critiquing the Greens ’ Wealth Tax can not be deducted from the spending caps of the campaign ’ s principal beneficiaries .
Like the Exclusive Brethren before them , the Taxpayers ’ Union is taking full advantage of the fact that there is nothing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and groups from attacking the enemies of their friends .
Viewed from the perspective of the 2020 General Election as a whole , the intervention of the Taxpayers ’ Union confirms the Right ’ s growing sense of desperation that the campaign is slipping away from them .
With hundreds of thousands of voters having already cast their ballots in favour of the Labour Party , the opportunity to turn around all those former National voters who have shifted their allegiance to the Labour leader , Jacinda Ardern , grows smaller by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ internecine squabbling that has re-emerged within National ’ s ranks , and the widely shared opinion that Judith Collins has become her own ( less than brilliant ) campaign manager , and the readiness of outsiders to do something – anything – to stop the rot is easily understood .
For most strategic thinkers on the right , the only viable path to victory for National is over the dead body of the Green Party .
If the Greens can be driven below the 5 percent MMP threshold , and the so-called “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approaching 10 percent , then a combined tally of National and Act votes of around 45 percent should be enough to reclaim the Treasury Benches .
Assuming Act stands firm on 8 percent , National need only lift its Party Vote to around 37 percent for it to be “ Game On !
” .
So , the 84,000 vote question is : “ What will it take to shift that many voters from Labour ’ s column to National ’ s before 17 October ?
” The Taxpayers ’ Union ( and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) is betting that the prospect of having to pay a Wealth Tax of $ 10,000 ( on a $ 2 million property ) will be enough .
They are confident that people with that sort of asset base are smart enough to know that while a Labour Party able to govern alone might be trusted to keep its promise not to introduce a Wealth Tax , a government could not .
The Taxpayers ’ Union is confident that , in the cold light of day , those asset-rich/cash poor voters will come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the only safe vote is a vote for National or Act .
The bet is also that , as anxiety about the Wealth Tax percolates through the wider electorate it will shave just enough off the Greens Party Vote to send them below the threshold .
How sweet a victory that would be !
Labour would find itself in exactly the same position as National in 2017 : holding a clear plurality of the Party Votes cast , but , stripped of its Green ally , commanding insufficient seats in the House @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Presumably , all those who denounced this outcome as unfair – unconstitutional even – just three years ago , would bite their tongues in 2020 .
There are , however , two important factors working against the Taxpayers ’ Union and its Sugar-Daddies winning their wager .
The first is that the National Party ’ s “ bucket ” , in which it is hoping to collect the voters bailing out of Labour , may have a hole in it .
As fast as all those asset rich/cash poor liberals dribble back to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social conservatives and angry evangelicals may be dribbling out a hole in the base of National ’ s big bucket and into the little pails of the New Conservative Party and Advance NZ positioned directly underneath .
Judith Collins can kneel and pray until Doomsday , but it won ’ t erase her name from the list of those who voted in favour of liberalising New Zealand ’ s abortion laws .
The second factor is driven by left-wing solidarity – something which , to be fair , the leading lights of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to know a great deal .
If , over the next few days , Labour ’ s pollsters discover that the Right ’ s desperate strategy is working , then Labour has only to let the information percolate through the Left and wait for its more radical adherents to draw the obvious conclusion .
That the best way to help Jacinda and Labour to retain power is to cast a Party Vote for the Greens .
What ’ s more , if the situation were to become really and truly hairy , then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it be known that if Labour ’ s supporters in Auckland Central have a strong desire to poke the Taxpayers ’ Union and their secret backers in the eye , then they should think seriously about giving Chloe Swarbrick their Electorate Vote .
Every New Zealander who wants progressivism to be given three more years and a fighting chance , owes Richard Harman a hearty vote of thanks .
Forewarned is forearmed .
The Taxpayers ’ Union and its backers ( whose identity is legally required to be revealed after the election ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there is a better-than-even chance that their “ Hail Mary !
” attempt to fly under the radar will end up harming , not helping , the National Party and Act , we would be most unwise to dismiss their strategy as hopeless .
As the Right repeatedly fails to grasp the power of solidarity ; we on the Left are far too prone to underestimate the terrible power of selfishness .
If the Right ’ s plan looks like it ’ s working , every Baby Boomer who has ever voted for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exactly what they have to do .
Because , if the Greens go down , so , too , does the Left .

LIKE THE EXCLUSIVE BRETHREN in 2005, the Taxpayers’ Union is poised to launch a well-funded, last-minute attack on the Greens. According to Richard Harman’s Politik website, the right-wing, anti-tax, lobby group is about to send a personalised letter to every homeowner whose property is valued at more than a million dollars. The letter “explains” how the Green’s proposed 1 percent Wealth Tax on property valued at more than one million dollars will apply to them.
As Harmon makes clear in his post, the cost of sending a direct mail shot as big as this is, almost certainly, beyond the means of the Taxpayers’ Union. When questioned by the veteran broadcaster and journalist about the source of the sizeable funds required, the Union would say only that the money had been raised in response to a special appeal for financial support.
Harmon also makes clear that the Taxpayers’ Union has registered itself with, and obtained all the required approvals from, the Electoral Commission. The latter has duly authorised the Union to spend up to $338,000 on its “political campaign” against the Greens’ tax policy.
Naturally, any campaign directed primarily at the Greens will likely be of considerable benefit to National and Act. But, since the letter makes no direct appeal for its recipients to support either of those parties, the cost of critiquing the Greens’ Wealth Tax cannot be deducted from the spending caps of the campaign’s principal beneficiaries. Like the Exclusive Brethren before them, the Taxpayers’ Union is taking full advantage of the fact that there is nothing in the Electoral Act which prevents individuals and groups from attacking the enemies of their friends.
Viewed from the perspective of the 2020 General Election as a whole, the intervention of the Taxpayers’ Union confirms the Right’s growing sense of desperation that the campaign is slipping away from them. With hundreds of thousands of voters having already cast their ballots in favour of the Labour Party, the opportunity to turn around all those former National voters who have shifted their allegiance to the Labour leader, Jacinda Ardern, grows smaller by the day.
Throw into the mix the internecine squabbling that has re-emerged within National’s ranks, and the widely shared opinion that Judith Collins has become her own (less than brilliant) campaign manager, and the readiness of outsiders to do something – anything – to stop the rot is easily understood.
For most strategic thinkers on the right, the only viable path to victory for National is over the dead body of the Green Party. If the Greens can be driven below the 5 percent MMP threshold, and the so-called “Trash Vote” pumped up to something approaching 10 percent, then a combined tally of National and Act votes of around 45 percent should be enough to reclaim the Treasury Benches. Assuming Act stands firm on 8 percent, National need only lift its Party Vote to around 37 percent for it to be “Game On!”. So, the 84,000 vote question is: “What will it take to shift that many voters from Labour’s column to National’s before 17 October?”
The Taxpayers’ Union (and whoever is bankrolling its direct mail shot) is betting that the prospect of having to pay a Wealth Tax of $10,000 (on a $2 million property) will be enough. They are confident that people with that sort of asset base are smart enough to know that while a Labour Party able to govern alone might be trusted to keep its promise not to introduce a Wealth Tax, a Labour-Green government could not. The Taxpayers’ Union is confident that, in the cold light of day, those asset-rich/cash poor voters will come (albeit reluctantly) to the conclusion that the only safe vote is a vote for National or Act. The bet is also that, as anxiety about the Wealth Tax percolates through the wider electorate it will shave just enough off the Greens Party Vote to send them below the threshold.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
How sweet a victory that would be! Labour would find itself in exactly the same position as National in 2017: holding a clear plurality of the Party Votes cast, but, stripped of its Green ally, commanding insufficient seats in the House of Representatives to form a government. Presumably, all those who denounced this outcome as unfair – unconstitutional even – just three years ago, would bite their tongues in 2020.
There are, however, two important factors working against the Taxpayers’ Union and its Sugar-Daddies winning their wager.
The first is that the National Party’s “bucket”, in which it is hoping to collect the voters bailing out of Labour, may have a hole in it. As fast as all those asset rich/cash poor liberals dribble back to National, an equal number of disillusioned social conservatives and angry evangelicals may be dribbling out a hole in the base of National’s big bucket and into the little pails of the New Conservative Party and Advance NZ positioned directly underneath. Judith Collins can kneel and pray until Doomsday, but it won’t erase her name from the list of those who voted in favour of liberalising New Zealand’s abortion laws.
The second factor is driven by left-wing solidarity – something which, to be fair, the leading lights of the Taxpayers’ Union cannot be expected to know a great deal. If, over the next few days, Labour’s pollsters discover that the Right’s desperate strategy is working, then Labour has only to let the information percolate through the Left and wait for its more radical adherents to draw the obvious conclusion. That the best way to help Jacinda and Labour to retain power is to cast a Party Vote for the Greens. What’s more, if the situation were to become really and truly hairy, then all Jacinda needs to do is let it be known that if Labour’s supporters in Auckland Central have a strong desire to poke the Taxpayers’ Union and their secret backers in the eye, then they should think seriously about giving Chloe Swarbrick their Electorate Vote.
Every New Zealander who wants progressivism to be given three more years and a fighting chance, owes Richard Harman a hearty vote of thanks. Forewarned is forearmed. The Taxpayers’ Union and its backers (whose identity is legally required to be revealed after the election) may be desperate, and even though there is a better-than-even chance that their “Hail Mary!” attempt to fly under the radar will end up harming, not helping, the National Party and Act, we would be most unwise to dismiss their strategy as hopeless. As the Right repeatedly fails to grasp the power of solidarity; we on the Left are far too prone to underestimate the terrible power of selfishness.
If the Right’s plan looks like it’s working, every Baby Boomer who has ever voted for Values, NewLabour and/or the Alliance knows exactly what they have to do. Because, if the Greens go down, so, too, does the Left.


thedailyblog--2020-10-11--Dr Liz Gordon: You can’t always get what you want

Ideally , how democracy works is that you vote for what you want and , writ large , you get it .
It is not a perfect model even if everyone sticks to that fundamental tenet .
In practice , of course , the reality is far different , for three main reasons : • Political parties manipulate their messages and their tactics to try and get more votes than their policies would attract on ‘ interest ’ grounds alone .
This perennial issue was pursued by Machiavelli , of course , but also considered at length by the Italian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imprisoned for his opposition to Mussolini .
How do you get people to support a regime that basically limits their own power and works against their interests ?
The answer is to persuade people that your party understands and is in line with their interests .
In short , use Crosby/Textor techniques to ensure what you campaign on is a ‘ dog whistle ’ for people who would not otherwise vote for you .
The downside of this is that if you get caught being less than authentic , or even are suspected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will work against you .
Collins ’ prayer moment was , however in line with her beliefs , crass and badly handled .
It grated .
People believed she prayed to attract votes .
Talking about grating and crass , a New Conservative candidate has reported receiving intimidation and death threats throughout his campaign for spouting his Brash-like ‘ one law for all ’ ( meaning dishonour the Treaty , of course ) policies .
In Taranaki , FFS .
What did he expect ?
He is now bravely going where no sane @ @ @ @ @ @ @ platform to speak out against the death threats and blatant intimidation he has received ” .
Honestly , what do you expect for trampling on history ?
At least it has given him something to talk about on the hustings .
2 : People try to affect the outcome by voting tactically .
People may try to use their votes to influence a particular outcome .
This might be , for example , “ I voted for X Party to make sure that Y Party has a coalition partner ” .
Or , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Auckland Central to ’ save ’ the Greens .
These are valid approaches , but you may not get what you want in voting this way .
In terms of the Chloe vote , however , this makes political sense because , if the Greens were below the 5 % threshold , and Labour ’ s vote fell a little , we could end up with a National/Act majority .
Labour should definitely dog whistle that a strategic vote in Auckland Central offers a teensy bit of insurance to Labour against this happening @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Labour Party , historically find this hard to do .
3 : All sorts of barriers are put in people ’ s way to prevent them voting , if at all , in their own interests .
I just love the early voting booths all over the place which are , of course , intended ( along with enrolment up to and including election day ) to make sure that as many people as possible vote .
The other side of this coin , though , is that hard to reach voters may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more vulnerable to falling into the traps of point 1 above .
I do think that National has been running a strategy to attract the votes of certain groups who are historically low turn-out voters , to wit , Pasifika ( especially Samoan origins ) and Christian voters ( i.e .
those with strong Christian beliefs who want to vote on those beliefs ) .
The list is undoubtedly longer than this , too .
However , such tactics may backfire , because people are not stupid ( see point 1 above ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may be a growing minority of voters with extreme rightist views in New Zealand .
The move leftwards by Act has opened up space on the right for Advance NZ and the New Conservatives to slug it out for 2-4 % of the vote .
This could become a problem in future elections ( but not yet this one ) , as MMP opens the door for such groups to enter parliament and influence policies .
I really like that , this last week in particular , Labour has announced a lot of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dear to my heart .
The most substantive is the commitment to continue on the justice reform programme .
But there are others .
Isn ’ t it strange how things emerge during elections ?
Labour has announced it will ban conversion therapy , the practice of trying to make gay people straight .
I am not sure that making it an offence is the way to go , though , as it may merely drive the practice further underground or make martyrs of ‘ converters ’ if arrested .
Having written all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but is not always so ( except for Daily Blog readers , of course , who have a superior understanding of politics ) , merely underlines the crying need for one more crucial policy : comprehensive civics education in our schools .
That , in practice , might mean that New Zealanders at last vote for what they want , and get it .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ education topics .

Ideally, how democracy works is that you vote for what you want and, writ large, you get it. It is not a perfect model even if everyone sticks to that fundamental tenet. In practice, of course, the reality is far different, for three main reasons:
Political parties manipulate their messages and their tactics to try and get more votes than their policies would attract on ‘interest’ grounds alone.
This perennial issue was pursued by Machiavelli, of course, but also considered at length by the Italian Communist, Antonio Gramsci, who was imprisoned for his opposition to Mussolini. How do you get people to support a regime that basically limits their own power and works against their interests? The answer is to persuade people that your party understands and is in line with their interests. In short, use Crosby/Textor techniques to ensure what you campaign on is a ‘dog whistle’ for people who would not otherwise vote for you.
The downside of this is that if you get caught being less than authentic, or even are suspected of being less than authentic, this will work against you. Collins’ prayer moment was, however in line with her beliefs, crass and badly handled. It grated. People believed she prayed to attract votes.
Talking about grating and crass, a New Conservative candidate has reported receiving intimidation and death threats throughout his campaign for spouting his Brash-like ‘one law for all’ (meaning dishonour the Treaty, of course) policies. In Taranaki, FFS. What did he expect? He is now bravely going where no sane person would go, using “his platform to speak out against the death threats and blatant intimidation he has received”. Honestly, what do you expect for trampling on history? At least it has given him something to talk about on the hustings.
2: People try to affect the outcome by voting tactically.
People may try to use their votes to influence a particular outcome. This might be, for example, “I voted for X Party to make sure that Y Party has a coalition partner”. Or, for example, voting for Chloe in Auckland Central to ’save’ the Greens. These are valid approaches, but you may not get what you want in voting this way. In terms of the Chloe vote, however, this makes political sense because, if the Greens were below the 5% threshold, and Labour’s vote fell a little, we could end up with a National/Act majority. Labour should definitely dog whistle that a strategic vote in Auckland Central offers a teensy bit of insurance to Labour against this happening. But parties, and especially the Labour Party, historically find this hard to do.
3: All sorts of barriers are put in people’s way to prevent them voting, if at all, in their own interests.
I just love the early voting booths all over the place which are, of course, intended (along with enrolment up to and including election day) to make sure that as many people as possible vote. The other side of this coin, though, is that hard to reach voters may often be disengaged from politics and therefore more vulnerable to falling into the traps of point 1 above. I do think that National has been running a strategy to attract the votes of certain groups who are historically low turn-out voters, to wit, Pasifika (especially Samoan origins) and Christian voters (i.e. those with strong Christian beliefs who want to vote on those beliefs). The list is undoubtedly longer than this, too. However, such tactics may backfire, because people are not stupid (see point 1 above).
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
On the other hand, there may be a growing minority of voters with extreme rightist views in New Zealand. The move leftwards by Act has opened up space on the right for Advance NZ and the New Conservatives to slug it out for 2-4% of the vote. This could become a problem in future elections (but not yet this one), as MMP opens the door for such groups to enter parliament and influence policies.
I really like that, this last week in particular, Labour has announced a lot of policy, some of which is quite dear to my heart. The most substantive is the commitment to continue on the justice reform programme. But there are others. Isn’t it strange how things emerge during elections? Labour has announced it will ban conversion therapy, the practice of trying to make gay people straight. I am not sure that making it an offence is the way to go, though, as it may merely drive the practice further underground or make martyrs of ‘converters’ if arrested.
Having written all this, which should largely be obvious but is not always so (except for Daily Blog readers, of course, who have a superior understanding of politics), merely underlines the crying need for one more crucial policy: comprehensive civics education in our schools. That, in practice, might mean that New Zealanders at last vote for what they want, and get it.
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.


Polarising politics

It ’ s the time of the triennium when all you want to talk and hear about is politics – and the last thing you want to hear and talk about is politics .
You definitely have to check your audience .
Friendships and relationships are tested , especially with the cannabis and euthanasia referenda .
Partisan politics is so polarising – increasingly in this election ’ s trend where the bell curve is highly centred around two main parties .
You ’ re either team Jacinda or you ’ re not .
That in the last One News Colmar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % of respondents did not have Jacinda as their preferred Prime Minister shows we are still a divided nation , bizarre , considering Judith Collins received support of around 23 % in that poll , and there is really no-one else .
Still , there ’ s a lot of heat in the Judith and Jacinda show , even though the minor parties on the margins are those with most to distinguish them .
Judith Collins is doing a surprising job of keeping going in the face of ridicule , overwhelming odds , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and ambivalence – not always just from within her own party .
With friends like Denise Lee , who needs enemies .
There ’ s one thing ( among many ) you can say about the Labour Party under Jacinda Ardern , that there is never any sign of disloyalty .
Contrast that with the era of Phil Goff , David Shearer and David Cunliffe , it ’ s clear that unity and devotion within your own party is a precondition for devotion from outside it .
Judith ’ s run at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to rally the troops or to articulate her authentic political voice to wider public appeal .
What she has articulated is a mixed bag – her laughable attempts to be PC by referring to her Samoan husband ; the second home owned in a family trust ; her car collection – including a BMW , an MGB and a jaguar ; she “ loves gold ” .
She ’ s adamant that she ’ s getting asked for “ lots of selfies ” - the new mood-of-the-nation meter ?
, -and at least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Judith ’ s “ been having a lot of fun ” , she repeats , but she may also enjoy going to the dentist .
The bizarre church visit , the lonely and abandoned cheese rolls , the staged walkabout , the optometrists who declined her Ponsonby Road visit because they ‘ didn ’ t want the political sideshow in their glasses shop ’ – Judith is no media darling .
Maybe that ’ s why she got the flack for the gauche rent-a-crowd display in Ponsonby , a practice of enlisting supporters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ far and wide .
Winston reckons he ’ s the only one who doesn ’ t prop up his visits with legions of supporters – which is perhaps true when he no longer has legions of supporters to enlist .
This weekend , Judith ’ s been on a trail scaremongering about a potential Green-Labour wealth tax .
As if that would be a bad thing .
But it has led to Jacinda – distracted from her own Wellington rally of supporters – arguing that she won ’ t be distracted , by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the scaremongering dice ” , and at pains to dismiss any prospects of a wealth tax proposed by the Greens .
If you love gold and have lots of cars , maybe it affects you .
But it ’ s hard to see how the “ Team of Five Million ” will be able to pay off the Covid-19 wage subsidy debt , and achieve a more equitable redistribution of wealth , a more equitable society , if the Labour Party is too scared to tax for the redistribution that ’ s necessary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Jacinda said “ we can all campaign on long lists of policies and ideas ” , ( as they did last time , and even though the ideas this time have been pretty tame , and the referenda are the most progressive elements of this election ’ s agenda ) .
“ But you truly get to know a Government when disasters strike ” .
Though as Jacinda is Labour ’ s greatest asset , that ’ s like a reverse argument ad hominem – attributing the credit due to the individual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know that Jacinda ’ s human instincts ( and “ as a mum ” ) , are competent , calm and comforting , but for the Labour Party itself , it ’ s pretty much business as usual .
In Wellington ’ s speech , Jacinda referred to the ‘ progressive ’ policies of extended free lunches in schools , and having Matariki a public holiday .
But lunches are no substitute for a decent wage and affordable accommodation , and imagine if all Sir Michael Joseph Savage had given us was a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state .
We ’ ve come to admire Jacinda for her many strengths and intuitive , articulate , and natural appeal .
She takes the public with her where she wants to go – literally , but she ’ s so crippled by that support – in both physical walkabouts when she ’ s out on the street – when she is truly mobbed , but also in that it seems to have cramped both her political room to move , and her articulated vision .
There are no more promises of transformation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in today ’ s speech , are more modest than existing targets .
Jacinda is careful to remind us that Labour will not achieve perfection ( Kiwibuild , light rail , poverty , welfare reform , prison reform and more ) , and sometimes they will get it wrong .
Commentators observe the risks in a personality-strong , policy-light devotional politics that ’ s short on delivery but high on expectation .
But given the fears people genuinely held about coronavirus , many voters want – and got a saviour .
Jacinda ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ debate , that changing Government now , would lead to instability , and uncertainty , is a compelling one .
National ’ s claim to be a strong , better team , is not credible , even though the strength of Jacinda ’ s team is represented by the One .
Most voters have more faith in Jacinda alone than they do in the whole National Party .
But then , reading the comments on news media sites , there are strong , even visceral , views , against Labour , that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 13-14 % undecided , who may be ‘ shy Tories ’ ( if I was a Tory , I ’ d be pretty shy about it too ) , and could add support to National , this election looks like a shoe-in for Labour .
The Greens have positioned themselves in social media memes as “ In Government with Labour ” , you can have ‘ two for the price of one ’ , a balance of healthy greens with your red meat diet .
Next week , I ’ ll welcome a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ welcome The Opportunities Party and the Maori Party in there too ) .
Then I ’ ll be happy to talk politics again , or maybe not at all .

It’s the time of the triennium when all you want to talk and hear about is politics – and the last thing you want to hear and talk about is politics. You definitely have to check your audience. Friendships and relationships are tested, especially with the cannabis and euthanasia referenda. Partisan politics is so polarising – increasingly in this election’s trend where the bell curve is highly centred around two main parties. You’re either team Jacinda or you’re not. That in the last One News Colmar Brunton public opinion poll, around 50% of respondents did not have Jacinda as their preferred Prime Minister shows we are still a divided nation, bizarre, considering Judith Collins received support of around 23% in that poll, and there is really no-one else. Still, there’s a lot of heat in the Judith and Jacinda show, even though the minor parties on the margins are those with most to distinguish them.
Judith Collins is doing a surprising job of keeping going in the face of ridicule, overwhelming odds, weak policy analysis and proposition, hostility and ambivalence – not always just from within her own party. With friends like Denise Lee, who needs enemies. There’s one thing (among many) you can say about the Labour Party under Jacinda Ardern, that there is never any sign of disloyalty. Contrast that with the era of Phil Goff, David Shearer and David Cunliffe, it’s clear that unity and devotion within your own party is a precondition for devotion from outside it.
Judith’s run at the election has hardly enabled her much time to rally the troops or to articulate her authentic political voice to wider public appeal. What she has articulated is a mixed bag – her laughable attempts to be PC by referring to her Samoan husband; the second home owned in a family trust; her car collection – including a BMW, an MGB and a jaguar; she “loves gold”. She’s adamant that she’s getting asked for “lots of selfies”- the new mood-of-the-nation meter?, -and at least some requests to sign her book. Judith’s “been having a lot of fun”, she repeats, but she may also enjoy going to the dentist. The bizarre church visit, the lonely and abandoned cheese rolls, the staged walkabout, the optometrists who declined her Ponsonby Road visit because they ‘didn’t want the political sideshow in their glasses shop’ – Judith is no media darling. Maybe that’s why she got the flack for the gauche rent-a-crowd display in Ponsonby, a practice of enlisting supporters to political walkabouts that’s used far and wide. Winston reckons he’s the only one who doesn’t prop up his visits with legions of supporters – which is perhaps true when he no longer has legions of supporters to enlist.
This weekend, Judith’s been on a trail scaremongering about a potential Green-Labour wealth tax. As if that would be a bad thing. But it has led to Jacinda – distracted from her own Wellington rally of supporters – arguing that she won’t be distracted, by National’s “last roll of the scaremongering dice”, and at pains to dismiss any prospects of a wealth tax proposed by the Greens. If you love gold and have lots of cars, maybe it affects you. But it’s hard to see how the “Team of Five Million” will be able to pay off the Covid-19 wage subsidy debt, and achieve a more equitable redistribution of wealth, a more equitable society, if the Labour Party is too scared to tax for the redistribution that’s necessary.
Also at the rally in Wellington, Jacinda said “we can all campaign on long lists of policies and ideas”, (as they did last time, and even though the ideas this time have been pretty tame, and the referenda are the most progressive elements of this election’s agenda). “But you truly get to know a Government when disasters strike”. Though as Jacinda is Labour’s greatest asset, that’s like a reverse argument ad hominem – attributing the credit due to the individual, to the collective. We certainly know that Jacinda’s human instincts (and “as a mum”), are competent, calm and comforting, but for the Labour Party itself, it’s pretty much business as usual.
In Wellington’s speech, Jacinda referred to the ‘progressive’ policies of extended free lunches in schools, and having Matariki a public holiday. But lunches are no substitute for a decent wage and affordable accommodation, and imagine if all Sir Michael Joseph Savage had given us was a day off, instead of the welfare state. We’ve come to admire Jacinda for her many strengths and intuitive, articulate, and natural appeal. She takes the public with her where she wants to go – literally, but she’s so crippled by that support – in both physical walkabouts when she’s out on the street – when she is truly mobbed, but also in that it seems to have cramped both her political room to move, and her articulated vision. There are no more promises of transformation, and some targets portrayed as aspirational in today’s speech, are more modest than existing targets.
Jacinda is careful to remind us that Labour will not achieve perfection (Kiwibuild, light rail, poverty, welfare reform, prison reform and more), and sometimes they will get it wrong. Commentators observe the risks in a personality-strong, policy-light devotional politics that’s short on delivery but high on expectation. But given the fears people genuinely held about coronavirus, many voters want – and got a saviour. Jacinda’s closing point in the second leaders’ debate, that changing Government now, would lead to instability, and uncertainty, is a compelling one. National’s claim to be a strong, better team, is not credible, even though the strength of Jacinda’s team is represented by the One. Most voters have more faith in Jacinda alone than they do in the whole National Party. But then, reading the comments on news media sites, there are strong, even visceral, views, against Labour, that defy rationality and evidence.
Notwithstanding the 13-14% undecided, who may be ‘shy Tories’ (if I was a Tory, I’d be pretty shy about it too), and could add support to National, this election looks like a shoe-in for Labour. The Greens have positioned themselves in social media memes as “In Government with Labour”, you can have ‘two for the price of one’, a balance of healthy greens with your red meat diet. Next week, I’ll welcome a Greens-Labour Government (though I’d welcome The Opportunities Party and the Maori Party in there too). Then I’ll be happy to talk politics again, or maybe not at all.