thedailyblog--2020-05-23--The economy is the electoral battleground but society is its casualty

I ended the week feeling sorry for Simon Bridges .
By all accounts he is a decent person but being leader of the Opposition was always going to be tough .
Against Jacinda Ardern whose communication skills are legion , and whose confidence in front of the media gives her a strong lead on any competition , Bridges looked fumbling and inadequate .
The polled public , his party and the media apparently thought so too .
As news of the National Party leadership coup broke this week , we saw photos of Nikki Kaye and Todd Muller besieged by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new set of targets .
Here ’ s Nikki Kaye getting into a taxi , here ’ s Todd Muller walking down a hallway with his wife .
Here are a dozen cameras in Muller ’ s path .
Here ’ s Simon Bridges walking into judgement , and subsequently , Paula Bennett and Simon trying to hold face in front of that same ruthless media lens .
In modern day politics , media confidence is everything .
You can be a great guy , with huge principles and a proven compassionate track @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Little , but if you can ’ t hold your own in the press , you ’ re toast .
Poor Simon even bumbled his way through his final press conference yesterday as he conceded public defeat to an almost complete unknown contender .
Muller ’ s first speech as National Party leader , in contrast , was confident and measured , he barely fumbled .
He touched off all the segments of the constituency who might have been economically affected by Covid-19 –that ’ s everybody- and in doing so kept the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the economy .
“ This election will be about the economy .
The economy in your community ” he said , “ your job , your main street , your marae , your tourism business , your local rugby league club , your local butcher , your kura , your netball courts , your farms , your shops and your families.
” There was a nice bit of appeal to local loyalties , the iconic sports communities of interest , the local butcher ( suicidal , possibly bankrupt , destroyed by lockdown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tokenism to Maori votes ( “ your marae and kura ” ) , your farms ( National ’ s core constituency ) .
But these are real people and real issues so ticking them off will push buttons for voters .
Muller seems to have a better speech writer than Simon Bridges , even if he ’ s just out of the same old privileged white male mould .
The appointment of this new National Party leader hasn ’ t had the same dignity and dynamism as when Andrew Little resigned to allow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has taken the spotlight off Jacinda and Covid-19 , so already – even if as a distraction- is having a positive effect for National .
National Party voters who give credit to Jacinda ’ s Covid-19 management will see their conservative social and economic views reflected in Muller ’ s opposition to abortion , cannabis and euthanasia , even though Simon Bridges was conservative too .
And after Simon Bridges ’ bumbling through Covid-19 , for some voters leaning toward Labour in recent polls , having a leader who isn ’ t Bridges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back .
Strategically , Muller is smart enough also to know that oftentimes the election is so close that it ’ s Winston Peters , not the voters who determines who forms a Government , and so has not yet ruled him out as a future Coalition ally .
Indeed , Tracey Martin today warned that Labour shouldn ’ t take New Zealand First support for granted .
West Coast MP Maureen Pugh who Simon Bridges famously dismissed in a taped phone call to Jamie-Lee Ross as “ fxxken useless ” , said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Muller as leader .
She thinks it will be good for the West Coast , with mining and hydro-schemes likely to gain his support unlike under Labour and the Greens .
The National Party ’ s conservative , economy-first policy platform -and workers and environment second- is likely to be consolidated in response to Covid-19 , so we should expect renewed positioning in favour of big business and extractive industries from Muller .
It may also result in Labour ’ s conservative guard doubling down on their own positions , and see Damian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and remote voters .
It ’ s a constituency that New Zealand First also curries favour with ( especially with the Provincial Growth Fund ) so there may well be a tight contest for the rural-centre ground .
Meanwhile , on the left , commentators have been dissatisfied with the Budget ’ s failure to deal with a list of pre-Covid-19 problems made worse by its economic effects .
The perceived failures include welfare reform ; an absence of a universal basic income and a universal basic services safety net ; for dealing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feeding hungry kids , but doing little for their hungry parents ; for abandoning migrant workers ; and for failing to have a vision for sustainable post-Covid-19 tourism .
There was no empowerment of Maori to foster tino rangatiratanga or kawanatanga , and no prison or welfare reform .
The consensus is that while the Budget was sound public administration for the times , in which New Zealand has been fiscally well placed to withstand and respond , it ’ s a management Budget , not one of leadership , despite the leadership @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crisis .
The Labour Government has had to respond to huge challenges with the coronavirus crisis – but there ’ s a failure to implement their own plans , and a failure to articulate a ‘ big post-Covid-19 ’ vision .
There was no vision for tourism , sustainable transport or regenerative agriculture in face of Covid-19 and climate change .
It ’ s not a reform Budget .
It ’ s not a transformation or a revolution despite the potential and the promises .
Chris Trotter and others say that would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would raise the ire of right wing commentators , and middle ground voters and destroy Labour ’ s support .
But Labour ’ s election was built on the promise of better , of transformation , of courage – and despite the mandate for change in both popular support and the crisis at hand , it ’ s an opportunity squandered .
This was a budget that deals with economics more than socio-economics .
A budget that deals with economics as usual more than political-economic reform .
Sadly , it ’ s not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well-being is likely to have declined due to Covid-19 , and a focus on its equitable attainment is more important than ever .
That , seems like a dream of more innocent times .
Todd Muller ’ s criticism of a lack of skill and depth in Labour ’ s Cabinet , “ Labour ’ s 17 empty chairs ” will resonate with many on the right , and some on the left .
And while Jacinda ’ s visit to empty tourism venues in Rotorua at the end of the week in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and tourism calls for her to become the sector ’ s Minister , despite her superpowers , she can ’ t be Minister of Everything .
Grant Robertson delivered his Budget speech with observations on experiencing the economic carnage during the 1980s and ‘ 90s .
A period of economic suffering and ruthless government that many of us recall .
However , those who don ’ t learn from history are doomed to repeat it .
Without a big plan to deal with the destabilising effects of existing and increasing inequality and poverty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ destruction – including biodiversity loss and climate change , whether it ’ s a Labour or National led Government elected in September , it seems we ’ re doomed to more of the same .
Those who don ’ t change where they ’ re heading , end up where they going .
Both Labour and National will be concentrating on the economy .
But there ’ s not enough evidence of the investment and the change we need to avoid more poverty , suicide , inequality and social and economic pain .

I ended the week feeling sorry for Simon Bridges. By all accounts he is a decent person but being leader of the Opposition was always going to be tough. Against Jacinda Ardern whose communication skills are legion, and whose confidence in front of the media gives her a strong lead on any competition, Bridges looked fumbling and inadequate. The polled public, his party and the media apparently thought so too.
As news of the National Party leadership coup broke this week, we saw photos of Nikki Kaye and Todd Muller besieged by the press. The media had a new set of targets. Here’s Nikki Kaye getting into a taxi, here’s Todd Muller walking down a hallway with his wife. Here are a dozen cameras in Muller’s path. Here’s Simon Bridges walking into judgement, and subsequently, Paula Bennett and Simon trying to hold face in front of that same ruthless media lens.
In modern day politics, media confidence is everything. You can be a great guy, with huge principles and a proven compassionate track record, like David Shearer or Andrew Little, but if you can’t hold your own in the press, you’re toast. Poor Simon even bumbled his way through his final press conference yesterday as he conceded public defeat to an almost complete unknown contender.
Muller’s first speech as National Party leader, in contrast, was confident and measured, he barely fumbled. He touched off all the segments of the constituency who might have been economically affected by Covid-19 –that’s everybody- and in doing so kept the focus on Labour’s portrayed weakness, the economy. “This election will be about the economy. The economy in your community” he said, “your job, your main street, your marae, your tourism business, your local rugby league club, your local butcher, your kura, your netball courts, your farms, your shops and your families.” There was a nice bit of appeal to local loyalties, the iconic sports communities of interest, the local butcher (suicidal, possibly bankrupt, destroyed by lockdown and supermarket competition?), some tokenism to Maori votes (“your marae and kura”), your farms (National’s core constituency). But these are real people and real issues so ticking them off will push buttons for voters. Muller seems to have a better speech writer than Simon Bridges, even if he’s just out of the same old privileged white male mould.
The appointment of this new National Party leader hasn’t had the same dignity and dynamism as when Andrew Little resigned to allow Jacinda’s ascension. But it has taken the spotlight off Jacinda and Covid-19, so already – even if as a distraction- is having a positive effect for National.
National Party voters who give credit to Jacinda’s Covid-19 management will see their conservative social and economic views reflected in Muller’s opposition to abortion, cannabis and euthanasia, even though Simon Bridges was conservative too. And after Simon Bridges’ bumbling through Covid-19, for some voters leaning toward Labour in recent polls, having a leader who isn’t Bridges, may be enough to pull them back. Strategically, Muller is smart enough also to know that oftentimes the election is so close that it’s Winston Peters, not the voters who determines who forms a Government, and so has not yet ruled him out as a future Coalition ally. Indeed, Tracey Martin today warned that Labour shouldn’t take New Zealand First support for granted.
West Coast MP Maureen Pugh who Simon Bridges famously dismissed in a taped phone call to Jamie-Lee Ross as “fxxken useless”, said she’s pleased to see Todd Muller as leader. She thinks it will be good for the West Coast, with mining and hydro-schemes likely to gain his support unlike under Labour and the Greens. The National Party’s conservative, economy-first policy platform -and workers and environment second- is likely to be consolidated in response to Covid-19, so we should expect renewed positioning in favour of big business and extractive industries from Muller. It may also result in Labour’s conservative guard doubling down on their own positions, and see Damian O’Connor continuing to court rural and remote voters. It’s a constituency that New Zealand First also curries favour with (especially with the Provincial Growth Fund) so there may well be a tight contest for the rural-centre ground.
Meanwhile, on the left, commentators have been dissatisfied with the Budget’s failure to deal with a list of pre-Covid-19 problems made worse by its economic effects. The perceived failures include welfare reform; an absence of a universal basic income and a universal basic services safety net; for dealing with business relief not people; for feeding hungry kids, but doing little for their hungry parents; for abandoning migrant workers; and for failing to have a vision for sustainable post-Covid-19 tourism. There was no empowerment of Maori to foster tino rangatiratanga or kawanatanga, and no prison or welfare reform. The consensus is that while the Budget was sound public administration for the times, in which New Zealand has been fiscally well placed to withstand and respond, it’s a management Budget, not one of leadership, despite the leadership we know Jacinda can show in a crisis.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
The Labour Government has had to respond to huge challenges with the coronavirus crisis – but there’s a failure to implement their own plans, and a failure to articulate a ‘big post-Covid-19’ vision. There was no vision for tourism, sustainable transport or regenerative agriculture in face of Covid-19 and climate change.
It’s not a reform Budget. It’s not a transformation or a revolution despite the potential and the promises. Chris Trotter and others say that would be too much to expect – real reform would raise the ire of right wing commentators, and middle ground voters and destroy Labour’s support. But Labour’s election was built on the promise of better, of transformation, of courage – and despite the mandate for change in both popular support and the crisis at hand, it’s an opportunity squandered. This was a budget that deals with economics more than socio-economics. A budget that deals with economics as usual more than political-economic reform. Sadly, it’s not even a well-being budget. In fact well-being is likely to have declined due to Covid-19, and a focus on its equitable attainment is more important than ever. That, seems like a dream of more innocent times.
Todd Muller’s criticism of a lack of skill and depth in Labour’s Cabinet, “Labour’s 17 empty chairs” will resonate with many on the right, and some on the left. And while Jacinda’s visit to empty tourism venues in Rotorua at the end of the week in some ways addresses Kelvin Davis’ weakness and tourism calls for her to become the sector’s Minister, despite her superpowers, she can’t be Minister of Everything.
Grant Robertson delivered his Budget speech with observations on experiencing the economic carnage during the 1980s and ‘90s. A period of economic suffering and ruthless government that many of us recall. However, those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Without a big plan to deal with the destabilising effects of existing and increasing inequality and poverty, and the unsustainable impacts of environmental destruction – including biodiversity loss and climate change, whether it’s a Labour or National led Government elected in September, it seems we’re doomed to more of the same. Those who don’t change where they’re heading, end up where they going. Both Labour and National will be concentrating on the economy. But there’s not enough evidence of the investment and the change we need to avoid more poverty, suicide, inequality and social and economic pain.


thedailyblog--2020-05-24--Is Matthew Hooton’s Pro-PRC Positioning Rubbing Off On Muller?

So here ’ s a curious thing .
A few days ago , Matthew Hooton wrote what can only be described as an obsequiously pro-PRC column for the Herald [ this was the ‘ Chinese Taipei ’ one comparing Taiwanese independence to the Chatham Islands attempting to secede from New Zealand and proclaiming itself the real government of the entire country ] .
Now , just prior to Todd Muller ’ s victory over Simon Bridges , Hooton put out a piece which appeared *Suspiciously* similar to Muller ’ s remarks in his first speech as National ’ s new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this was no accident , nor plagiarism – but rather a case of shared authorship .
Hooton had been Muller ’ s sotto-voce comms guy for much of his Leadership campaign .
Not that I seem to recall this being openly disclosed by Hooton before he started going in to bat for Muller and/or against Bridges , but not my point .
Which is , instead , to note that Hooton has a reasonable degree of influence over what the new National Party leader says in public .
Which may , perhaps , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for New Zealand to re-open the border with the People ’ s Republic of China , “ concurrently ” with our working to re-open the border with our closest neighbour , trading partner , and traditional ally of Australia .
Personally , if we were going to be doing this with anyone else other than Australia , I would have thought that it made more sense to be looking at resuming relatively normal-ish interactions with countries that ’ ve actually demonstrably got the virus completely under control … like Taiwan … but for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be keen upon pushing for that .
Anyway , to sum up – we can reasonably infer from Hooton ’ s column that he ’ s pretty pro-PRC .
And seems to think that openly standing up for New Zealand ’ s interests when the PRC pushes us to , say , *not* have a lockdown etc .
… is negative conduct to be castigated and eschewed .
He ’ s got a point that there ’ s a potential economic cost associated with such actions , and that Winston ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as I put it at the time , a case of playing bull-rush in a China-shop .
[ Which I don ’ t necessarily disagree with doing either , but that is another story for another time ] But going out of his way to insistently denigrate Taiwan as “ Chinese Taipei ” and roll the PRC ’ s preferred line upon that and other subjects – is going rather further than sensible , pragmatic ‘ realpolitik ’ considerations .
It ’ s repeating outright propaganda , to the interest of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then a few days later , Hooton ’ s highest-profile local client , the new leader of the National Party , starts pushing a similar line around re-engaging with China by opening the border etc .
as a top priority .
[ And certainly , this would help restore the situation the Chinese embassy was pushing for at the start of the crisis – wherein they vocally opposed our closing of the border to the PRC and other countries in the first place ] We have known for some time now that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effort to get its point of view into our politics , courtesy of Prof Brady ’ s “ Magic Weapons ” paper and other such occurrences .
In light of this , I think it is a legitimate question to ask what degree of influence Hooton and his associates had over Muller ’ s remarks and subsequent ( geo ) political positioning over the weekend .

So here’s a curious thing. A few days ago, Matthew Hooton wrote what can only be described as an obsequiously pro-PRC column for the Herald [this was the ‘Chinese Taipei’ one comparing Taiwanese independence to the Chatham Islands attempting to secede from New Zealand and proclaiming itself the real government of the entire country].
Now, just prior to Todd Muller’s victory over Simon Bridges, Hooton put out a piece which appeared *Suspiciously* similar to Muller’s remarks in his first speech as National’s new Leader.
As it turned out, this was no accident, nor plagiarism – but rather a case of shared authorship. Hooton had been Muller’s sotto-voce comms guy for much of his Leadership campaign. Not that I seem to recall this being openly disclosed by Hooton before he started going in to bat for Muller and/or against Bridges, but not my point. Which is, instead, to note that Hooton has a reasonable degree of influence over what the new National Party leader says in public.
Which may, perhaps, explain why Todd Muller started loudly pushing for New Zealand to re-open the border with the People’s Republic of China, “concurrently” with our working to re-open the border with our closest neighbour, trading partner, and traditional ally of Australia.
Personally, if we were going to be doing this with anyone else other than Australia, I would have thought that it made more sense to be looking at resuming relatively normal-ish interactions with countries that’ve actually demonstrably got the virus completely under control … like Taiwan … but for obvious reasons, I doubt that Hooton would be keen upon pushing for that.
Anyway, to sum up – we can reasonably infer from Hooton’s column that he’s pretty pro-PRC. And seems to think that openly standing up for New Zealand’s interests when the PRC pushes us to, say, *not* have a lockdown etc. … is negative conduct to be castigated and eschewed.
He’s got a point that there’s a potential economic cost associated with such actions, and that Winston’s exchanges with the Chinese Embassy here are, as I put it at the time, a case of playing bull-rush in a China-shop. [Which I don’t necessarily disagree with doing either, but that is another story for another time]
But going out of his way to insistently denigrate Taiwan as “Chinese Taipei” and roll the PRC’s preferred line upon that and other subjects – is going rather further than sensible, pragmatic ‘realpolitik’ considerations. It’s repeating outright propaganda, to the interest of a state other than this one.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
And then a few days later, Hooton’s highest-profile local client, the new leader of the National Party, starts pushing a similar line around re-engaging with China by opening the border etc. as a top priority. [And certainly, this would help restore the situation the Chinese embassy was pushing for at the start of the crisis – wherein they vocally opposed our closing of the border to the PRC and other countries in the first place]
We have known for some time now that the PRC has made a considered and cogent effort to get its point of view into our politics, courtesy of Prof Brady’s “Magic Weapons” paper and other such occurrences.
In light of this, I think it is a legitimate question to ask what degree of influence Hooton and his associates had over Muller’s remarks and subsequent (geo)political positioning over the weekend.


thedailyblog--2020-05-24--Dr Liz Gordon – Todd Muller and the chamber of secrets

We have learned a lot about Todd Muller ( who , like you , I had never heard of a week ago ) in the past few days .
He is a quiet man and a high achiever in his own way .
Actually , he reminds me of David Shearer , who quietly headed the Labour Party a few years ago , before quietly slipping off back to war-torn Sudan , which he apparently found far preferable and much easier than the corridors of power .
Each to their own .
The boy Todd Muller had been at Hogwarts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sat quietly at the table and passed the salt when asked .
He was a pleasant boy , if slightly bland .
The girls all liked him for his kindness .
But he had a breaking point .
It came when the head Slytherinian , Simon Bridges , did some things that were so yucky that even the Slytherins turned against him .
Muller put aside his rice pudding and had a bit of a think .
So he promised the members of Slytherin house that there would be no more nastiness .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ by its trademark nasties but by being good and fair .
All nasties would be banished under the desk and kept hidden .
Hypnotised by this novel approach , the takeover of Slytherin occurred .
All the little Slythers clapped their hands like mad and made faces at the Gryffindors , where Hermione Ardern was the most popular girl in the school .
She gave them a little wave and then ignored them .
She had more important things on her mind .
Meanwhile , back in the Great Hall , the Slytherin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Seymour ) stepped up his haunting .
He estimated that Muller ’ s intervention would cause all the nasties to flee from the Slytherins and seek refuge with he-who-shall-not-be-named in the ACTic All of this was grist to the mill for the Baron , who has long laboured to raise his own army on the right flank , but for whom the pickings have been sparse .
All for one and one for all , he cried , thinking that he might get two others to fight in his corner come the day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deputy , Bennett , planned revenge on the mild-mannered marauder from across the corridor .
He is nice , they said , in damning terms , as if there is nothing worse in the whole of Hogwarts .
But as they said it , they were very disappointed and began to think about leaving school at the end of term .
Muller has promised the slightly puzzled men ( and a few women ) of Slytherin that he can save their places at the table ( at least some of them ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ know what else to do .
Some unkind people started calling him ‘ a loaf of stale white bread ’ , but he points out quite logically that it is Bridges who is toast .
Meanwhile Gryffindor House goes from strength to strength .
They are touted as the ones who had driven the Dark Lord from their doors by good and enlightened management .
They were contrasted with the Bolsonaros who had let the forces of darkness roam free in the streets , causing death and misery .
They were contrasted with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like “ be alert ” but no longer wanted to protect the people .
And the people were scared and wary of venturing out , lest they be caught .
And another week in the life of the lockdown at Hogwarts Schools has passed – a particularly eventful one .
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 .

We have learned a lot about Todd Muller (who, like you, I had never heard of a week ago) in the past few days. He is a quiet man and a high achiever in his own way. Actually, he reminds me of David Shearer, who quietly headed the Labour Party a few years ago, before quietly slipping off back to war-torn Sudan, which he apparently found far preferable and much easier than the corridors of power. Each to their own.
The boy Todd Muller had been at Hogwarts for a number of years but always sat quietly at the table and passed the salt when asked. He was a pleasant boy, if slightly bland. The girls all liked him for his kindness.
But he had a breaking point. It came when the head Slytherinian, Simon Bridges, did some things that were so yucky that even the Slytherins turned against him.
Muller put aside his rice pudding and had a bit of a think.
So he promised the members of Slytherin house that there would be no more nastiness. That Slytherin would regain its popularity not by its trademark nasties but by being good and fair. All nasties would be banished under the desk and kept hidden.
Hypnotised by this novel approach, the takeover of Slytherin occurred. All the little Slythers clapped their hands like mad and made faces at the Gryffindors, where Hermione Ardern was the most popular girl in the school. She gave them a little wave and then ignored them. She had more important things on her mind.
Meanwhile, back in the Great Hall, the Slytherin Ghost (known as the Bloody Baron Seymour) stepped up his haunting. He estimated that Muller’s intervention would cause all the nasties to flee from the Slytherins and seek refuge with he-who-shall-not-be-named in the ACTic
All of this was grist to the mill for the Baron, who has long laboured to raise his own army on the right flank, but for whom the pickings have been sparse. All for one and one for all, he cried, thinking that he might get two others to fight in his corner come the day.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
Meanwhile, Bridges and his loyal deputy, Bennett, planned revenge on the mild-mannered marauder from across the corridor. He is nice, they said, in damning terms, as if there is nothing worse in the whole of Hogwarts. But as they said it, they were very disappointed and began to think about leaving school at the end of term.
Muller has promised the slightly puzzled men (and a few women) of Slytherin that he can save their places at the table (at least some of them). They believe him because they do not know what else to do. Some unkind people started calling him ‘a loaf of stale white bread’, but he points out quite logically that it is Bridges who is toast.
Meanwhile Gryffindor House goes from strength to strength. They are touted as the ones who had driven the Dark Lord from their doors by good and enlightened management. They were contrasted with the Bolsonaros who had let the forces of darkness roam free in the streets, causing death and misery. They were contrasted with the Trumps and Borises who said things like “be alert” but no longer wanted to protect the people.
And the people were scared and wary of venturing out, lest they be caught. And another week in the life of the lockdown at Hogwarts Schools has passed – a particularly eventful one.
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--2020-05-25--National’s Army Is On The Move

National’s Army Is On The Move

THE TRICK IN POLITICS , as in war , is to know where your enemy is today – not where he was yesterday .
An even more useful trick is knowing where he will be tomorrow .
The Daily Blog ’ s editor , Martyn Bradbury , is certain that the Jacinda Ardern-led Government ’ s current political position is unassailable .
In justification , he points to the most recent state-of-the-parties polling and ( with even more emphasis ) to Ipsos ’ s just-released polling on “ the issues ” .
All of these surveys show Labour in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opponent .
Were the General Election to be held this week , Labour would be returned by a landslide .
Unfortunately , the General Election is 120 days away .
The National Party ’ s new leader , Todd Muller , is similarly perceived by Martyn as representing no serious threat to Jacinda ’ s dominant political position .
His inspired meme equating Muller ’ s “ desperate ” leadership coup with Gollum ’ s last-minute acquisition of “ The Precious ” above the all-consuming fires of Mount Doom , speaks to his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might be , National ’ s defeat has become inevitable .
The question I would put to Martyn is simple : If defeat is inevitable , then why not let Simon Bridges carry the can ?
Why would the National Party caucus , along with the National Party Board , risk a player as highly regarded as Muller by committing him to a fight he can not hope to win ?
Surely , if Muller represents the best interests of his party – ideologically as well as electorally – then the smart move @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the process of rebuilding , which defeat on the scale anticipated by Martyn would necessarily entail ?
Martyn may well respond that Muller ’ s job in 2020 is the same as Mike Moore ’ s in 1990 : to “ save the furniture ” – i.e .
to forestall the utter collapse of his party ’ s vote and keep it at least vaguely competitive for future political contests .
This is not an implausible explanation , but I believe the true answer lies elsewhere .
What the “ save the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the danger posed to National ’ s long-term future by Simon Bridges ’ leadership .
Over the course of the 27 months Bridges led the National Opposition , the sense of unease among both party members and supporters regarding its direction of travel was palpable .
Moderate conservatives across the country became convinced that the Simon Bridges-Paula Bennett-led National Party was veering further and further to the right .
Concern that a far-right faction , drawing its inspiration from Donald Trump ’ s Republican Party , was growing in strength led first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Reclaiming control of National became an urgent priority for those convinced that a sudden lurch towards Trumpism would make the party unelectable .
Far from seeing Todd Muller as some sort of Gollum figure , National Party centrists began looking forward to his elevation as the return of the king .
The centrists win would have come a lot sooner had they not had to contend with the lingering and very sour aftertaste of 2017 .
Winston Peters decision – against all precedent – to spurn the party holding the largest number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ coalition of the losers ” left a great many National Party members and voters feeling bitter and vengeful .
They were looking for someone to inflict serious harm on Labour ; someone to make Jacinda Ardern suffer ; someone to drive a stake through Winston Peters ’ heart .
Simon Bridges was that someone and , who knows , had the Covid-19 Pandemic not come along , he might have delivered .
What the Covid-19 crisis made increasingly clear to National members and supporters , however , was that a win by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lot more than the humiliation of Jacinda and her Labour Party .
There was something else lurking at the back of Bridges ’ policy positions – something unpleasant .
The National Party he led wasn ’ t asking people to use their votes as tools , he was urging them to use their votes as weapons .
As the implications of this shift began to sink in , National ’ s numbers began to collapse .
Simon Bridges was seen as hopelessly out of step with the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Covid-19 crisis .
With each of his tone-deaf utterances more-and-more former National voters began to contemplate the unthinkable prospect of actually voting Labour .
Which is how the electoral battlefield looked immediately prior to Todd Muller ’ s coup .
It would be most unwise , however , to assume that it will look the same in 120 days ’ time .
A week or so ago I wrote emotionally about Labour “ coming home ” .
Grant Robertson ’ s Budget Speech made it clear that his party had moved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which have guided it since 1984 .
No matter how great the imaginative effort required , it behoves the Left to put itself in the shoes of the ordinary , decent National Party voter now that Simon ’ s gone and Todd is in charge .
For a great many of them it will also seem as if their party , the party of Keith Holyoake , Jim Bolger , John Key and Bill English , has “ come home ” to its core values .
Over the course of the next 120 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ National ’ s erstwhile supporters will follow suit must be regarded as very high .
The easy victory over a Bridges-led National Party that Martyn had every cause to anticipate just a few days ago is no longer in the offing .
Our enemy ’ s position has changed .
His numbers are swelling .
A forced march to the left and an audacious outflanking manoeuvre can now be expected .
Slap in a fresh clip , comrades .
We have a fight on our hands .

THE TRICK IN POLITICS, as in war, is to know where your enemy is today – not where he was yesterday. An even more useful trick is knowing where he will be tomorrow. The Daily Blog’s editor, Martyn Bradbury, is certain that the Jacinda Ardern-led Government’s current political position is unassailable. In justification, he points to the most recent state-of-the-parties polling and (with even more emphasis) to Ipsos’s just-released polling on “the issues”. All of these surveys show Labour in a commanding political position vis-à-vis their National Party opponent. Were the General Election to be held this week, Labour would be returned by a landslide.
Unfortunately, the General Election is 120 days away.
The National Party’s new leader, Todd Muller, is similarly perceived by Martyn as representing no serious threat to Jacinda’s dominant political position. His inspired meme equating Muller’s “desperate” leadership coup with Gollum’s last-minute acquisition of “The Precious” above the all-consuming fires of Mount Doom, speaks to his conviction that regardless of who its leader might be, National’s defeat has become inevitable.
The question I would put to Martyn is simple: If defeat is inevitable, then why not let Simon Bridges carry the can? Why would the National Party caucus, along with the National Party Board, risk a player as highly regarded as Muller by committing him to a fight he cannot hope to win? Surely, if Muller represents the best interests of his party – ideologically as well as electorally – then the smart move would be to hold him in reserve for the process of rebuilding, which defeat on the scale anticipated by Martyn would necessarily entail?
Martyn may well respond that Muller’s job in 2020 is the same as Mike Moore’s in 1990: to “save the furniture” – i.e. to forestall the utter collapse of his party’s vote and keep it at least vaguely competitive for future political contests. This is not an implausible explanation, but I believe the true answer lies elsewhere. What the “save the furniture” explanation misses is the seriousness of the danger posed to National’s long-term future by Simon Bridges’ leadership.
Over the course of the 27 months Bridges led the National Opposition, the sense of unease among both party members and supporters regarding its direction of travel was palpable. Moderate conservatives across the country became convinced that the Simon Bridges-Paula Bennett-led National Party was veering further and further to the right. Concern that a far-right faction, drawing its inspiration from Donald Trump’s Republican Party, was growing in strength led first to murmurings, then to outright plotting. Reclaiming control of National became an urgent priority for those convinced that a sudden lurch towards Trumpism would make the party unelectable. Far from seeing Todd Muller as some sort of Gollum figure, National Party centrists began looking forward to his elevation as the return of the king.
The centrists win would have come a lot sooner had they not had to contend with the lingering and very sour aftertaste of 2017. Winston Peters decision – against all precedent – to spurn the party holding the largest number of parliamentary seats in favour of a “coalition of the losers” left a great many National Party members and voters feeling bitter and vengeful. They were looking for someone to inflict serious harm on Labour; someone to make Jacinda Ardern suffer; someone to drive a stake through Winston Peters’ heart. Simon Bridges was that someone and, who knows, had the Covid-19 Pandemic not come along, he might have delivered.
What the Covid-19 crisis made increasingly clear to National members and supporters, however, was that a win by Simon Bridges and his backers would deliver a lot more than the humiliation of Jacinda and her Labour Party. There was something else lurking at the back of Bridges’ policy positions – something unpleasant. The National Party he led wasn’t asking people to use their votes as tools, he was urging them to use their votes as weapons.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
As the implications of this shift began to sink in, National’s numbers began to collapse. Simon Bridges was seen as hopelessly out of step with the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders’ support for Jacinda’s handling of the Covid-19 crisis. With each of his tone-deaf utterances more-and-more former National voters began to contemplate the unthinkable prospect of actually voting Labour.
Which is how the electoral battlefield looked immediately prior to Todd Muller’s coup. It would be most unwise, however, to assume that it will look the same in 120 days’ time.
A week or so ago I wrote emotionally about Labour “coming home”. Grant Robertson’s Budget Speech made it clear that his party had moved beyond the neoliberal economic and social settings which have guided it since 1984. No matter how great the imaginative effort required, it behoves the Left to put itself in the shoes of the ordinary, decent National Party voter now that Simon’s gone and Todd is in charge. For a great many of them it will also seem as if their party, the party of Keith Holyoake, Jim Bolger, John Key and Bill English, has “come home” to its core values.
Over the course of the next 120 days, the chances that tens-of-thousands of National’s erstwhile supporters will follow suit must be regarded as very high. The easy victory over a Bridges-led National Party that Martyn had every cause to anticipate just a few days ago is no longer in the offing. Our enemy’s position has changed. His numbers are swelling. A forced march to the left and an audacious outflanking manoeuvre can now be expected.
Slap in a fresh clip, comrades. We have a fight on our hands.


thedailyblog--2020-05-25--A welcome welfare package – same needed for existing beneficaries and migrants

The government ’ s new Covid Income Relief payment is a welcome step forward .
The payments are for 12 weeks from June 8 when the current wage subsidy stops for most employees .
A $ 490 tax-free payment for those working 30 hours or more a week and $ 250 for those working 15-29 hours a week .
The plusses are that : • It is accessible for anyone who loses tier job between March 1 and 30 October because of Covid-19 impact .
• The amount paid is considerably more generous than the current maximum single employment benefit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ those 25 and older who qualify whatever type of job you lost .
• It is accessible even if your partner has a job and earns up to $ 2000 a week .
• It is accessible to students who have lost jobs without impacting other student support payments .
• It is not accessible to people on an unemployment benefit if they lost their job before March 1.This maintains the deplorable “ deserving ” and “ undeserving ” poor categories that seem to exist in the welfare system .
Around 145,000 were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 43,500 have applied since then .
Most of the second group can apply for the income relief payment but not the pre-existing group .
We are being less generous than Australia which double payments for all beneficiaries .
These beneficiaries , half of whom have existing ongoing health issues , have any income above $ 80 a week taken off them at the rate of 70 cents in the dollar .
The denial of benefits to those who have partners earning a modest income also abates at a rate of 70 cents in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
These policies are simply punitive and encourage the break up of partnerships , and discourage the desire to work .
This is the time to eliminate this punitive system .
• An important group to have missed out on support are the migrant workers who have proved themselves so essential to the functioning of New Zealand society .
Many are now in a desperate position because they have lost jobs and can ’ t get home .
They also need access to a benefit for at least 12 weeks .
A significant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New Zealanders because they have been working here for a decade or more and have raised a family entirely in New Zealand .
They should have a speeded-up process of residency granted to allow them to stay permanently .
We should take the 12-week breather to redesign our welfare system to make it much more universal and generous .
We need to support people through difficult periods without punitive restrictions on working extra hours or living with a partner .
A tax-free payment like that being implement could be made permanent and open @ @ @ @ @ @ @ circumstance .
I discuss one such system in a previous blog .
But systems like that need tax systems that tax all income including wealth .
That needs to be the next stage of the recovery plan for New Zealand .

The government’s new Covid Income Relief payment is a welcome step forward. The payments are for 12 weeks from June 8 when the current wage subsidy stops for most employees.
A $490 tax-free payment for those working 30 hours or more a week and $250 for those working 15-29 hours a week.
The plusses are that:
It is accessible for anyone who loses tier job between March 1 and 30 October because of Covid-19 impact.
The amount paid is considerably more generous than the current maximum single employment benefit of $250 net a week for those 25 and older who qualify whatever type of job you lost.
It is accessible even if your partner has a job and earns up to $2000 a week.
It is accessible to students who have lost jobs without impacting other student support payments.
The disappointments are:
It is not accessible to people on an unemployment benefit if they lost their job before March 1.This maintains the deplorable “deserving” and “undeserving” poor categories that seem to exist in the welfare system. Around 145,000 were receiving a benefit before March 20. 43,500 have applied since then. Most of the second group can apply for the income relief payment but not the pre-existing group. We are being less generous than Australia which double payments for all beneficiaries. These beneficiaries, half of whom have existing ongoing health issues, have any income above $80 a week taken off them at the rate of 70 cents in the dollar. The denial of benefits to those who have partners earning a modest income also abates at a rate of 70 cents in the dollar over $80 a week. These policies are simply punitive and encourage the break up of partnerships, and discourage the desire to work. This is the time to eliminate this punitive system.
An important group to have missed out on support are the migrant workers who have proved themselves so essential to the functioning of New Zealand society. Many are now in a desperate position because they have lost jobs and can’t get home. They also need access to a benefit for at least 12 weeks.
A significant number of these are “defacto” New Zealanders because they have been working here for a decade or more and have raised a family entirely in New Zealand. They should have a speeded-up process of residency granted to allow them to stay permanently.
We should take the 12-week breather to redesign our welfare system to make it much more universal and generous. We need to support people through difficult periods without punitive restrictions on working extra hours or living with a partner.
A tax-free payment like that being implement could be made permanent and open to everyone who is in a difficult circumstance. I discuss one such system in a previous blog.
But systems like that need tax systems that tax all income including wealth. That needs to be the next stage of the recovery plan for New Zealand.


thedailyblog--2020-05-27--Why does Carmel Sepuloni bother to get out of bed in the morning?

Well there you have it .
Two Labour Party ministers confirming yet again , if any confirmation was necessary , that Labour remains as mired in neo-liberalism as it ever was in the 1980s .
Side by side Finance Minister Grant Robertson and Social Development Minister Carmel Sepuloni , with straight faces , announced that newly unemployed New Zealanders in fulltime work before 1 March would receive a tax-free weekly benefit of $ 490 for 12 weeks .
This compares to a maximum $ 250 – taxed – for people over 25 on the existing jobseeker benefit .
As many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ once more dividing people on low-incomes into the “ deserving poor ” and the “ underserving ” poor .
Middle-class level welfare for the victims of Covid 19 compared to unliveable “ bludger ” level welfare for those struggling at the bottom .
It mirrors what the Helen Clarke Labour government did in 2005 when it introduced Working for Families which has tax credits for children with a parent in employment but specifically and deliberately denies the same payment to the children of beneficiaries .
Once again Labour withholds essential government support from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked why this relatively generous untaxed payment of double the money available for someone unemployed before 1 March compared to the thin gruel of the “ jobseekers benefit ” for those unemployed before 1 March Grant Robertson says it is to “ cushion the shock of being newly unemployed through no fault of their own ” .
The immediate implication is that sole parents raising children have themselves to blame when a relationship breaks up .
It ’ s too awful to even consider as a response .
Behind the scenes now Labour @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : “ We didn ’ t want to do it this way but New Zealand First wouldn ’ t agree ” , repeating the messages from Labour MPs in 2005 : “ We wanted to do more for beneficiaries but Helen and Michael ( Helen Clarke and Michael Cullen ) wouldn ’ t let us ” .
Gutlessness personified .
For 30 years the poorest New Zealanders have been kicked in the teeth repeatedly by Labour which prefers to fund an army of support at the bottom of the cliff rather than fix @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Social Development Minister Carmel Sepuloni – why does she bother getting out of bed in the morning ?

Well there you have it. Two Labour Party ministers confirming yet again, if any confirmation was necessary, that Labour remains as mired in neo-liberalism as it ever was in the 1980s.
Side by side Finance Minister Grant Robertson and Social Development Minister Carmel Sepuloni, with straight faces, announced that newly unemployed New Zealanders in fulltime work before 1 March would receive a tax-free weekly benefit of $490 for 12 weeks. This compares to a maximum $250 – taxed – for people over 25 on the existing jobseeker benefit.
As many commentators have pointed out the government is once more dividing people on low-incomes into the “deserving poor” and the “underserving” poor. Middle-class level welfare for the victims of Covid 19 compared to unliveable “bludger” level welfare for those struggling at the bottom.
It mirrors what the Helen Clarke Labour government did in 2005 when it introduced Working for Families which has tax credits for children with a parent in employment but specifically and deliberately denies the same payment to the children of beneficiaries.
Once again Labour withholds essential government support from those who need it most.
When asked why this relatively generous untaxed payment of double the money available for someone unemployed before 1 March compared to the thin gruel of the “jobseekers benefit” for those unemployed before 1 March Grant Robertson says it is to “cushion the shock of being newly unemployed through no fault of their own”. The immediate implication is that sole parents raising children have themselves to blame when a relationship breaks up. It’s too awful to even consider as a response.
Behind the scenes now Labour MPs will be whispering to key people: “We didn’t want to do it this way but New Zealand First wouldn’t agree”, repeating the messages from Labour MPs in 2005: “We wanted to do more for beneficiaries but Helen and Michael (Helen Clarke and Michael Cullen) wouldn’t let us”. Gutlessness personified.
For 30 years the poorest New Zealanders have been kicked in the teeth repeatedly by Labour which prefers to fund an army of support at the bottom of the cliff rather than fix the fence at the top.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
As for Social Development Minister Carmel Sepuloni – why does she bother getting out of bed in the morning?


Holding the Centre

THE PROBLEM WITH CENTRISTS is that , practically by definition , they shy away from extremes .
It ’ s the quality that most encourages voters to trust them .
The quality that makes people feel safe .
Unfortunately , it is also the quality most likely to bore people rigid .
If a politician wishes to promote safe policies , then it is absolutely vital that he does so in an interesting and engaging way .
If your brand of politics is boring , then you have to be anything but .
So far , Todd Muller has come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his politics .
Not a good start .
In fact , compared to Jacinda Ardern ’ s first few days as leader of the Labour Opposition , Muller ’ s gaffe-prone performances have constituted an excruciating tutorial in how not to play the game of politics .
Who could forget the day Jacinda emerged from the Opposition caucus-room as Labour ’ s new leader to greet the assembled media .
Hers was a performance so faultless , so accomplished , so crackling with energy and sheer , draw-dropping competence that seasoned professionals were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ however , before offering brief , two-word responses to her performance like : “ holy shit !
” , “ fucking hell !
” , and “ bloody unbelievable !
” That some political commentators have uttered exactly the same words in response to Muller ’ s performances should not be considered a good thing .
In Jacinda ’ s case the journalists were responding to how astonishingly good she was ; in Todd ’ s they were registering precisely the opposite !
Muller ’ s problem is that he lacks Jacinda ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Ardern understands that most people are drawn to traditional values and common sense ideas .
Far from seeing this as a sign of their intellectual weakness , however , she treats it as proof of their ethical strength .
It ’ s an insight which allows her to infuse the great rounded hump of the bell-curve with heroic purpose .
By characterising people ’ s conventional reactions as the only serious , morally-defensible options available , Jacinda makes the ordinary extraordinary .
Just think of her inspired “ They are Us ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It resonated so powerfully because it expressed to perfection the instant identification with the unjustly attacked that is hard-wired into the human animal .
Ardern understands the enormous power of common human emotions .
Her ability to unleash them ; to in effect mobilise the ordinary ; is what makes her such a formidable politician .
Ardern ’ s description of herself as a “ pragmatic idealist ” , and her commitment to being “ relentlessly positive ” , encapsulate perfectly her determination to not only make Labour ’ s middle-of-the-road brand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but also to make it honourable .
If Muller is to have the slightest hope of becoming competitive in this election , then he has to get his head around all this – and quickly .
Conservatism , in its proper sense of reflecting the organic social bonds linking the past ( our parents ) the present ( ourselves ) and the future ( our children ) will always enjoy a pronounced advantage over those political movements dedicated to altering the status quo .
In politics , no less than in physics , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And when , for whatever reason , it is overcome ; when things are changing way faster than most people like ; then promising to make them stop will , almost always , be the winning offer .
What does that mean in practical political terms ?
That Muller doesn ’ t appear to know should be scaring the bejesus out of his promoters .
That he didn ’ t immediately reassure voters , calmly and with fatherly conviction , that he understood fully the need – without in any way endangering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Covid-19 virus – to do everything required to bring New Zealand ’ s perilous economic situation under control , is problematic – to say the least .
Above all else , Muller ’ s approach to the electorate needs to be relaxed and informal – intimate even .
As an avid reader of American political history , he should have no difficulty recalling the way Franklin Roosevelt communicated with the American people during the Great Depression .
What could be more relaxed , informal and intimate than a “ fireside chat ” ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jacinda or her government directly , he merely has to present the electorate with a credible plan for economic recovery .
He doesn ’ t have to point to Phil Twyford ’ s , David Clark ’ s and Kelvin Davis ’ s failures , he simply has to draw people ’ s attention to how much still remains to be done .
And all the time , in the finest small-c conservative tradition , he has to subtly remind voters of how well the country has fared under past National governments ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can bring to bear immediately ; of the historically reliable instincts of practical and successful businessmen and women and how vital these will be in securing a prosperous future for New Zealand ’ s children .
None of those objectives will be achieved by standing in an empty Legislative Chamber , booming out trite phrases to Q+A ’ s Jack Tame , and gesticulating wildly to thousands of startled New Zealanders sipping tea in their living-rooms .
It is debateable whether Muller and his advisers understand the danger they and the National Party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a moment for the quiet and reassuring counsel of a small-c conservative political centrist .
The critical question , however , is which politician is currently playing that role ?
Who has mastered the art of relaxed , informal and intimate political communication ?
Who will soon announce her intention to mobilise the expertise of New Zealand ’ s most practical and successful businessmen and women ?
Who , like so many “ ordinary ” people has a toddler with a future to protect ?
Is it Todd Muller – or Jacinda Ardern @

THE PROBLEM WITH CENTRISTS is that, practically by definition, they shy away from extremes. It’s the quality that most encourages voters to trust them. The quality that makes people feel safe. Unfortunately, it is also the quality most likely to bore people rigid. If a politician wishes to promote safe policies, then it is absolutely vital that he does so in an interesting and engaging way. If your brand of politics is boring, then you have to be anything but. So far, Todd Muller has come across as every bit as uninspiring as his politics. Not a good start.
In fact, compared to Jacinda Ardern’s first few days as leader of the Labour Opposition, Muller’s gaffe-prone performances have constituted an excruciating tutorial in how not to play the game of politics.
Who could forget the day Jacinda emerged from the Opposition caucus-room as Labour’s new leader to greet the assembled media. Hers was a performance so faultless, so accomplished, so crackling with energy and sheer, draw-dropping competence that seasoned professionals were reduced to stunned silence. Not, however, before offering brief, two-word responses to her performance like: “holy shit!”, “fucking hell!”, and “bloody unbelievable!” That some political commentators have uttered exactly the same words in response to Muller’s performances should not be considered a good thing. In Jacinda’s case the journalists were responding to how astonishingly good she was; in Todd’s they were registering precisely the opposite!
Muller’s problem is that he lacks Jacinda’s ability to make moderation come alive. Ardern understands that most people are drawn to traditional values and common sense ideas. Far from seeing this as a sign of their intellectual weakness, however, she treats it as proof of their ethical strength. It’s an insight which allows her to infuse the great rounded hump of the bell-curve with heroic purpose. By characterising people’s conventional reactions as the only serious, morally-defensible options available, Jacinda makes the ordinary extraordinary.
Just think of her inspired “They are Us” comment following the dreadful events in Christchurch. It resonated so powerfully because it expressed to perfection the instant identification with the unjustly attacked that is hard-wired into the human animal. Ardern understands the enormous power of common human emotions. Her ability to unleash them; to in effect mobilise the ordinary; is what makes her such a formidable politician. Ardern’s description of herself as a “pragmatic idealist”, and her commitment to being “relentlessly positive”, encapsulate perfectly her determination to not only make Labour’s middle-of-the-road brand of social-democratic politics interesting and exciting, but also to make it honourable.
If Muller is to have the slightest hope of becoming competitive in this election, then he has to get his head around all this – and quickly. Conservatism, in its proper sense of reflecting the organic social bonds linking the past (our parents) the present (ourselves) and the future (our children) will always enjoy a pronounced advantage over those political movements dedicated to altering the status quo. In politics, no less than in physics, inertia is a difficult state to overcome. And when, for whatever reason, it is overcome; when things are changing way faster than most people like; then promising to make them stop will, almost always, be the winning offer.
What does that mean in practical political terms? That Muller doesn’t appear to know should be scaring the bejesus out of his promoters. That he didn’t immediately reassure voters, calmly and with fatherly conviction, that he understood fully the need – without in any way endangering New Zealanders’ extraordinary victory over the Covid-19 virus – to do everything required to bring New Zealand’s perilous economic situation under control, is problematic – to say the least. Above all else, Muller’s approach to the electorate needs to be relaxed and informal – intimate even. As an avid reader of American political history, he should have no difficulty recalling the way Franklin Roosevelt communicated with the American people during the Great Depression. What could be more relaxed, informal and intimate than a “fireside chat”?
Muller doesn’t need to attack Jacinda or her government directly, he merely has to present the electorate with a credible plan for economic recovery. He doesn’t have to point to Phil Twyford’s, David Clark’s and Kelvin Davis’s failures, he simply has to draw people’s attention to how much still remains to be done. And all the time, in the finest small-c conservative tradition, he has to subtly remind voters of how well the country has fared under past National governments; of the expertise he and his colleagues can bring to bear immediately; of the historically reliable instincts of practical and successful businessmen and women and how vital these will be in securing a prosperous future for New Zealand’s children.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
None of those objectives will be achieved by standing in an empty Legislative Chamber, booming out trite phrases to Q+A’s Jack Tame, and gesticulating wildly to thousands of startled New Zealanders sipping tea in their living-rooms.
It is debateable whether Muller and his advisers understand the danger they and the National Party are in. Yes, this is a moment for the quiet and reassuring counsel of a small-c conservative political centrist. The critical question, however, is which politician is currently playing that role? Who has mastered the art of relaxed, informal and intimate political communication? Who will soon announce her intention to mobilise the expertise of New Zealand’s most practical and successful businessmen and women? Who, like so many “ordinary” people has a toddler with a future to protect?
Is it Todd Muller – or Jacinda Ardern?


thedailyblog--2020-05-28--Poisonous Legacy: Why George Floyd Could Be Choked While The Whole World Watched.

LOOK HARD at this image .
Think about what it depicts .
Ask yourself how one human-being could behave so brutally when so many eye-witnesses – and very soon millions of people online around the world – were there to watch him do it .
Then ask yourself why he didn ’ t care .
In this photograph , lifted from a video taken at the scene , the Minneapolis police officer whose knee is choking the life out of George Floyd , registers the presence of witnesses with a mixture of surprise and annoyance .
The fact that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the cellphone recording his actions – strongly suggests that he is aware of what is happening .
Most people , caught in a similarly compromising position would respond by removing their knee from the suspect ’ s neck .
The man was in handcuffs .
He posed no threat to the officer or anybody else .
The witnesses present could hear the man protesting that he couldn ’ t breathe .
So , presumably , could the officer .
So , why didn ’ t he remove his knee ?
Why didn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ answer lies in the culture of American law enforcement .
In all but the smallest communities , US police officers are encouraged to view their fellow citizens as the enemy .
This is true even of white citizens , who will be shown scant respect unless the socio-political context of their encounter with law enforcement , and/or their possession of all the accessories of high social status , indicate a more deferential demeanour might be in order .
In the absence of these warning markers , however , blank indifference to the rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ considered mandatory .
Anything less would convey an impression of softness and weakness : displays of which could quickly lead to a potentially fatal loss of police authority .
With African-Americans , the need for maximum rigor on the part of law enforcement has always been a given .
On the central question of equal treatment under the law , all of American history conspires against people of colour .
Their role in the development of American capitalism – and of capitalism globally – may have been crucial .
One can not picture @ @ @ @ @ @ @ picturing the cotton fields of Mississippi !
But , the great tragedy of African-American history is that it is equally difficult to explain the global dominance of American capitalism without acknowledging the racial segmentation of the American working-class .
With racial prejudice forever forestalling working-class unity , anti-capitalism has never found any enduring purchase on the soil of the United States .
As long ago as the 1830s it was apparent to dispassionate observers of the American Republic that “ free ” white American males ( the only people then vested with political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the United States with chains every bit as strong as those which burdened its black slaves .
The loyalty of the poorest white farmer and/or factory worker was in large measure guaranteed by his understanding that at least two categories of human-being would always occupy a more degraded position than himself in the socio-economic hierarchy : women and blacks .
Nowhere is this crucial political understanding more clearly spelled out than in the 1857 judgement of the Chief Justice of the United States , Roger Taney , who ruled against the legal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Scott , to secure equality of treatment under the Constitution of the United States .
“ The question is simply this : Can a negro , whose ancestors were imported into this country , and sold as slaves , become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States , and as such become entitled to all of the rights , and privileges , and immunities , guarantied by that instrument to the citizen ?
” The Chief Justice ’ s answer was an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think… that [ black people ] are not included , and were not intended to be included , under the word “ citizens ” in the Constitution , and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States .
On the contrary , they were at that time [ of America ’ s founding ] considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings who had been subjugated by the dominant race , and , whether emancipated or not , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them.
” Taney ’ s ( along with six more of the nine Supreme Court justices ’ ) judgement stated more honestly than anything written before , or since , White America ’ s true feelings towards Black America : “ It is difficult at this day to realize the state of public opinion in relation to that unfortunate race , which prevailed in the civilized and enlightened portions of the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Independence , and when the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted… .
They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order… ; and so far inferior , that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect ; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.
” It could hardly be stated more plainly : African-Americans have no rights which the white man is bound to respect .
In very large measure the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chief Justice Taney ’ s ( himself a slaveowner ) crushing judgement .
And though , by the victory of the Union armies , the slaves were freed , recognised as citizens of the United States , and guaranteed the equal protection of the laws , their victory was short-lived .
Barely a decade after the war ’ s end , the relentless roll-back of African-American rights had begun .
On the ground , where it counted , most white Americans found it more expedient to enshrine the prejudices of Roger Taney than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s “ better angels ” .
It required terror , of course , this denial of African-American rights : terror and the connivance of local law enforcement .
Between them , the Ku Klux Klan , the local sheriff and the officials down at the county courthouse reduced those African-Americans still living within the borders of the defeated Confederacy to a new form of servitude .
It would be another 100 years before the civil rights won in the Civil War were again afforded the meaningful protection of federal authority .
Perhaps predictably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to reclaim their lost political , social and economic rights struck fear into white Americans .
Across the whole of America this time , the prospect of giving up their privileged status – even if its surrender would greatly enhance the ability of all Americans to pursue happiness more successfully – was enough to drive working-class whites into the arms of , first , George Wallace , then Richard Nixon , and ultimately Ronald Reagan .
Is it drawing too long a bow to suggest that in the aftermath of the Civil Rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ formerly assigned to the Ku Klux Klan was assumed by local law enforcement ?
The Black Lives Matter movement would not say so .
If he had not been silenced forever by a Minneapolis cop , it is likely that George Floyd would not say so .
Not when practically every day in the United States police officers pay deadly tribute to Chief Justice Taney ’ s poisonous legacy .
Demonstrably , it is the opinion of American law enforcement that African-Americans are indeed members of an inferior order .
So far inferior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any white police officer is bound to respect ; and that African-Americans might justly and lawfully be put to death – even when the whole world is watching .

LOOK HARD at this image. Think about what it depicts. Ask yourself how one human-being could behave so brutally when so many eye-witnesses – and very soon millions of people online around the world – were there to watch him do it. Then ask yourself why he didn’t care.
In this photograph, lifted from a video taken at the scene, the Minneapolis police officer whose knee is choking the life out of George Floyd, registers the presence of witnesses with a mixture of surprise and annoyance. The fact that he is looking directly into the lens of the cellphone recording his actions – strongly suggests that he is aware of what is happening.
Most people, caught in a similarly compromising position would respond by removing their knee from the suspect’s neck. The man was in handcuffs. He posed no threat to the officer or anybody else. The witnesses present could hear the man protesting that he couldn’t breathe. So, presumably, could the officer. So, why didn’t he remove his knee? Why didn’t he stop?
Part of the answer lies in the culture of American law enforcement. In all but the smallest communities, US police officers are encouraged to view their fellow citizens as the enemy. This is true even of white citizens, who will be shown scant respect unless the socio-political context of their encounter with law enforcement, and/or their possession of all the accessories of high social status, indicate a more deferential demeanour might be in order. In the absence of these warning markers, however, blank indifference to the rights and opinions of their fellow citizens is considered mandatory. Anything less would convey an impression of softness and weakness: displays of which could quickly lead to a potentially fatal loss of police authority.
With African-Americans, the need for maximum rigor on the part of law enforcement has always been a given. On the central question of equal treatment under the law, all of American history conspires against people of colour. Their role in the development of American capitalism – and of capitalism globally – may have been crucial. One cannot picture the cotton mills of Lancashire without also picturing the cotton fields of Mississippi! But, the great tragedy of African-American history is that it is equally difficult to explain the global dominance of American capitalism without acknowledging the racial segmentation of the American working-class. With racial prejudice forever forestalling working-class unity, anti-capitalism has never found any enduring purchase on the soil of the United States.
As long ago as the 1830s it was apparent to dispassionate observers of the American Republic that “free” white American males (the only people then vested with political power) were bound to the idea of the United States with chains every bit as strong as those which burdened its black slaves. The loyalty of the poorest white farmer and/or factory worker was in large measure guaranteed by his understanding that at least two categories of human-being would always occupy a more degraded position than himself in the socio-economic hierarchy: women and blacks.
Nowhere is this crucial political understanding more clearly spelled out than in the 1857 judgement of the Chief Justice of the United States, Roger Taney, who ruled against the legal attempt by the freed slave, Dred Scott, to secure equality of treatment under the Constitution of the United States.
According to Taney:
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
“The question is simply this: Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all of the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guarantied by that instrument to the citizen?”
The Chief Justice’s answer was an unequivocal “No”.
“We think… that [black people] are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word “citizens” in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time [of America’s founding] considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them.”
Taney’s (along with six more of the nine Supreme Court justices’) judgement stated more honestly than anything written before, or since, White America’s true feelings towards Black America:
“It is difficult at this day to realize the state of public opinion in relation to that unfortunate race, which prevailed in the civilized and enlightened portions of the world at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and when the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted…. They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order…; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.”
It could hardly be stated more plainly: African-Americans have no rights which the white man is bound to respect. In very large measure the American Civil War was fought to nullify Chief Justice Taney’s (himself a slaveowner) crushing judgement. And though, by the victory of the Union armies, the slaves were freed, recognised as citizens of the United States, and guaranteed the equal protection of the laws, their victory was short-lived. Barely a decade after the war’s end, the relentless roll-back of African-American rights had begun. On the ground, where it counted, most white Americans found it more expedient to enshrine the prejudices of Roger Taney than to give heed to Abraham Lincoln’s “better angels”.
It required terror, of course, this denial of African-American rights: terror and the connivance of local law enforcement. Between them, the Ku Klux Klan, the local sheriff and the officials down at the county courthouse reduced those African-Americans still living within the borders of the defeated Confederacy to a new form of servitude. It would be another 100 years before the civil rights won in the Civil War were again afforded the meaningful protection of federal authority.
Perhaps predictably, the spectacle of African-Americans reaching out to reclaim their lost political, social and economic rights struck fear into white Americans. Across the whole of America this time, the prospect of giving up their privileged status – even if its surrender would greatly enhance the ability of all Americans to pursue happiness more successfully – was enough to drive working-class whites into the arms of, first, George Wallace, then Richard Nixon, and ultimately Ronald Reagan.
Is it drawing too long a bow to suggest that in the aftermath of the Civil Rights Struggle (1954-1980) the terroristic role formerly assigned to the Ku Klux Klan was assumed by local law enforcement? The Black Lives Matter movement would not say so. If he had not been silenced forever by a Minneapolis cop, it is likely that George Floyd would not say so. Not when practically every day in the United States police officers pay deadly tribute to Chief Justice Taney’s poisonous legacy.
Demonstrably, it is the opinion of American law enforcement that African-Americans are indeed members of an inferior order. So far inferior, that they have no rights which any white police officer is bound to respect; and that African-Americans might justly and lawfully be put to death – even when the whole world is watching.