thedailyblog--2020-09-20--Dr Liz Gordon: Governing alone in the MMP environment

There has not been a one-party government in New Zealand since 1993 .
It was a crap government , led by Jim Bolger but determined to continue the strong neo-liberal path opened up by Labour ( 1984 and 1987 ) and confirmed by their own National Government ( 1990 , the mother of all budgets , make the rich richer and the poor poorer ) .
Those four elections rained terrible policies down on the heads of New Zealanders .
Let us make it clear that people voted for MMP because they hated the vagaries of one party government , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their backs on the people and just do whatever they wanted .
And we are still paying the cost for those neoliberal times .
Not everyone – just the bottom 90 % who are all worse off .
That ’ s right .
You and I .
There have been good majority governments in the past , and bad ones .
The best were probably the 1935 and 38 Labour governments .
The worst were probably in the 1950s and 1970s , dreadful bullying National governments .
The 1951 waterfront strike .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ job it was expected to do from 1996 .
It mainstreamed voices that were never heard before .
We got the gold card out of New Zealand First .
Paid parental leave out of the Alliance .
Environment sustainability out of the Greens .
It brought us Act , and then marginalised it .
There are no big winners under MMP , although the voice of social democracy , the Alliance , was lost .
Those of us on the Left have to decide between whether to vote for Labour , and by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or to support the Greens , thus potentially voting for a coalition government , or even risking a wasted vote .
It needs to be said that the Greens have not covered themselves in glory during this campaign .
I am hard-pressed to find any positive policy reason to vote for them , and the shadow of the Green School funding error hangs over their heads .
They appear to have nothing extra to offer .
As I have voted Green for several elections ( interspersed with forays into Internet and Mana @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my vote , and others like me , might be the death knell for the Greens .
I am still pondering this .
In case it needs to be said , I will continue to strongly support Megan Woods as my electorate MP .
I like Megan ( a lot ) as a person , support her personal values and think she has been a wonderful Minister .
I feel lucky that she is mine to choose .
I love Jacinda too , and Grant , and Andrew Little as my friends .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ majority government Labour will not deliver all – or even a majority – of those things I hope for .
So , my vote is between the MMP savvy one as the Greens , and where my heart currently lies as a majority FPP type government for Labour .
My personal likes and loves are getting in the way of my political experience , which says ’ never again a majority government ’ .
Three weeks out , I am undecided about how I will use my party vote .
Labour or Greens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ receive your views on what I should do .
Please note this is very significant for me .
I have not voted Labour since 1987 .
33 long years .
But I might change now .
I might vote Labour .
What else is there for someone like me ?
Can such a vote deliver a move to the society I want ?
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ topics .

There has not been a one-party government in New Zealand since 1993. It was a crap government, led by Jim Bolger but determined to continue the strong neo-liberal path opened up by Labour (1984 and 1987) and confirmed by their own National Government (1990, the mother of all budgets, make the rich richer and the poor poorer).
Those four elections rained terrible policies down on the heads of New Zealanders. Let us make it clear that people voted for MMP because they hated the vagaries of one party government, when such governments were able to turn their backs on the people and just do whatever they wanted. And we are still paying the cost for those neoliberal times. Not everyone – just the bottom 90% who are all worse off. That’s right. You and I.
There have been good majority governments in the past, and bad ones. The best were probably the 1935 and 38 Labour governments. The worst were probably in the 1950s and 1970s, dreadful bullying National governments. The 1951 waterfront strike. And so on.
MMP has done the job it was expected to do from 1996. It mainstreamed voices that were never heard before. We got the gold card out of New Zealand First. Paid parental leave out of the Alliance. Environment sustainability out of the Greens. It brought us Act, and then marginalised it. There are no big winners under MMP, although the voice of social democracy, the Alliance, was lost.
Those of us on the Left have to decide between whether to vote for Labour, and by doing so potentially support a one-party majority, or to support the Greens, thus potentially voting for a coalition government, or even risking a wasted vote.
It needs to be said that the Greens have not covered themselves in glory during this campaign. I am hard-pressed to find any positive policy reason to vote for them, and the shadow of the Green School funding error hangs over their heads. They appear to have nothing extra to offer. As I have voted Green for several elections (interspersed with forays into Internet and Mana Parties), the potential loss of my vote, and others like me, might be the death knell for the Greens. I am still pondering this.
In case it needs to be said, I will continue to strongly support Megan Woods as my electorate MP. I like Megan (a lot) as a person, support her personal values and think she has been a wonderful Minister. I feel lucky that she is mine to choose. I love Jacinda too, and Grant, and Andrew Little as my friends. I am just worried that as a majority government Labour will not deliver all – or even a majority – of those things I hope for.
So, my vote is between the MMP savvy one as the Greens, and where my heart currently lies as a majority FPP type government for Labour. My personal likes and loves are getting in the way of my political experience, which says ’never again a majority government’. Three weeks out, I am undecided about how I will use my party vote. Labour or Greens. I would be very happy to receive your views on what I should do. Please note this is very significant for me. I have not voted Labour since 1987. 33 long years. But I might change now. I might vote Labour. What else is there for someone like me? Can such a vote deliver a move to the society I want?
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
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--2020-09-22--Dr Liz Gordon – A little poem for the age

I heard that a woman had sent Ricin to the President To sprinkle on his Big Mac , perhaps .
@ @ @ @ @ world stopped , And I thought how wonderful it would be… But NO – take @ @ @ @ @ not wish deadness even on an enemy of humanity What I do wish , though @ @ @ @ @ , That at one of his rallies without masks or care Where he brings together @ @ @ @ @ That the wave of infection he has spurned Sweeps right over , in and through @ @ @ @ @ Trump to get the virus To feel his breath depleted , as have so many @ @ @ @ @ , perhaps in hospital , Perhaps for weeks , and then recover .
And then @ @ @ @ @ that little spark of humanity Dr Liz Gordon is a researcher and a barrister , @ @ @ @ @ in all its forms and moving towards a socially just society .
She usually blogs @ @ @ @ @ and education topics .

I heard that a woman had sent Ricin to the President
To sprinkle on his Big Mac, perhaps.
Just for a moment the world stopped,
And I thought how wonderful it would be…
But NO – take that thought away
I will not wish deadness even on an enemy of humanity
What I do wish, though, that at a rally,
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
His maskless, defiant, racist, nonsense rallies
That at one of his rallies without masks or care
Where he brings together those who will not think
That the wave of infection he has spurned
Sweeps right over, in and through him.
I want Mr Trump to get the virus
To feel his breath depleted, as have so many others
To be quite sick, perhaps in hospital,
Perhaps for weeks, and then recover.
And then lose the election
And save that little spark of humanity
Of compassion, that Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Offered to a country, possibly now forever lost.
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--2020-09-23--Dr Liz Gordon: Ten belated thoughts about last night’s debate

1 : My first thought was “ What has happened to Judith Collins ’ s face ?
” I have met her on a number of occasions .
I have never seen anything like that twisted smirk on her face .
And it was uncannily like Muldoon in his later years .
Has she been possessed by the malign spirit of ole Rob ?
Surely these facial ticks are not a deliberate strategy – they are very off-putting .
2 : Loved Jacinda ’ s big baggy jacket but I agree with commentators that she looked tiny inside it .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ time , I think .
3 : I agree that the placing of the podiums ( podia ?
I don ’ t think so ) and the camera angles were very bizarre and seem to be designed to film Judith as if she was looming over Jacinda .
Very creepy , given aforesaid facial gymnastics .
4 : I also agree that John Campbell was not on good form .
A cousin of mine was a famous actor who never went on stage with fewer that 3 large G and Ts in him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but I could only manage one without falling over ) , and mostly took scripts that had him drinking more gin onstage ( mind you , he came to a bad end ) .
But perhaps one gin before , and one during , the show might have enlivened John .
I suppose not possible in this dour age in which we live .
5 : I resent the view that it is only worn out old boomers that would watch a show in that format .
I am a woob myself and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everyone .
If they had held it in a graveyard , it may have been more apt .
6 : Of course Muldoon had his appeal , and was elected three times , and most voters now would not remember him , so perhaps this is about reincarnating an old model of populist politics ( hopefully without the sexism and racism of those days ) .
7 : It was all so old , wasn ’ t it ?
Jacinda on working with the poor and young families , increasing wages and so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that mainly benefit the wealthy ) .
Environmental protection versus unrestrained production .
Bring the gin , FFS .
8 : What is with National ’ s new government department to handle the border ?
This is just neo-liberalism – privatise the service and regulate it with a new agency .
Labour should be going hard on this , I reckon .
I do not think that New Zealander ’ s want quarantine to become a profit leader for the private sector .
9 : Are we in the middle of a pandemic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into the foreseeable future ?
There was virtually no discussion on the Covid and the scariness , second wave outbreaks , a third of a million cases a day and a million deaths worldwide .
The pandemic has not gone and needs excellent political management on an ongoing basis .
Didn ’ t hear much .
10 : A great deal of thought ( or gin ) needs to go into the next two debates .
Maybe they should all be sat around a table .
Maybe the big questions should be asked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needs to delve into what the parties really believe .
Are they just the same at heart ?
What is leadership really about ?
I thought the closing statements should really have been the opening ones .
I am not a broadcaster , but there must be a better way !
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 .

1: My first thought was “What has happened to Judith Collins’s face?” I have met her on a number of occasions. I have never seen anything like that twisted smirk on her face. And it was uncannily like Muldoon in his later years. Has she been possessed by the malign spirit of ole Rob? Surely these facial ticks are not a deliberate strategy – they are very off-putting.
2: Loved Jacinda’s big baggy jacket but I agree with commentators that she looked tiny inside it. Cool outfit but wear something gorgeous next time, I think.
3: I agree that the placing of the podiums (podia? I don’t think so) and the camera angles were very bizarre and seem to be designed to film Judith as if she was looming over Jacinda. Very creepy, given aforesaid facial gymnastics.
4: I also agree that John Campbell was not on good form. A cousin of mine was a famous actor who never went on stage with fewer that 3 large G and Ts in him (really large – they were yummy but I could only manage one without falling over), and mostly took scripts that had him drinking more gin onstage (mind you, he came to a bad end). But perhaps one gin before, and one during, the show might have enlivened John. I suppose not possible in this dour age in which we live.
5: I resent the view that it is only worn out old boomers that would watch a show in that format. I am a woob myself and thought it brought out the worst in everyone. If they had held it in a graveyard, it may have been more apt.
6: Of course Muldoon had his appeal, and was elected three times, and most voters now would not remember him, so perhaps this is about reincarnating an old model of populist politics (hopefully without the sexism and racism of those days).
7: It was all so old, wasn’t it? Jacinda on working with the poor and young families, increasing wages and so on. Judith on tax cuts (that mainly benefit the wealthy). Environmental protection versus unrestrained production. Bring the gin, FFS.
8: What is with National’s new government department to handle the border? This is just neo-liberalism – privatise the service and regulate it with a new agency. Labour should be going hard on this, I reckon. I do not think that New Zealander’s want quarantine to become a profit leader for the private sector.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
9: Are we in the middle of a pandemic that is likely to affect our wellbeing into the foreseeable future? There was virtually no discussion on the Covid and the scariness, second wave outbreaks, a third of a million cases a day and a million deaths worldwide. The pandemic has not gone and needs excellent political management on an ongoing basis. Didn’t hear much.
10: A great deal of thought (or gin) needs to go into the next two debates. Maybe they should all be sat around a table. Maybe the big questions should be asked, rather than unanswerable ones. John needs to delve into what the parties really believe. Are they just the same at heart? What is leadership really about? I thought the closing statements should really have been the opening ones. I am not a broadcaster, but there must be a better way!
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.


Debate without substance

Anyone expecting a clash of philosophy and policy ideas between Jacinda Adern and Judith Collins on television last evening was bound to be disappointed .
The government ’ s COVID management results were undeniable , especially by world standards .
The most recent poll numbers reflected that – even after the viral resurgence in Auckland .
Large chunks of well-heeled soft National voters had shifted to Labour , a trend illustrated by recent poll numbers in Auckland Central .
Many of Nicky Kaye ’ s supporters from the last election shifted their preferences to Labour ’ s Helen White and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government wants this bloc of voters to stay on board .
Raising the top tax rate from 33 % to 39 % for those earning more than $ 180,000 would hardly affect these people .
And their conscience will be salved by supporting the government ’ s proposed minimum wage increase .
So , for Labour strategists , it ’ s steady as it goes – foreground the low COVID numbers , the Prime Minister ’ s crisis management credentials and the wage subsidy largesse .
There must be no controversial policies suggesting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Got to keep those former National voters sweet ( remember 1987 ? )
.
From this perspective , the television party leader debate had to be boring and inconsequential .
Indeed , modest ratings are preferable—Jacinda ’ s regular Facebook addresses already have cut-through , no need to over-emphasise the television exchanges with Judith .
National desperately want those National voters back .
One last policy roll of the dice , let ’ s go for broke—tax cuts for the middle and upper-middle income earners .
Maybe this will shift those stubborn poll @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had only one option as the first televised debate drew near .
Go hard , go early , rattle the Prime Minister , get under her skin , damage her credentials as leader .
Create controversy , get people talking after the event—do anything to bring those soft National voters back home .
So , what happened ?
Well , both sides achieved their objectives to a certain extent .
The exchanges were dull , trite , soundbite-driven and truncated by the format .
Between regular ad breaks and John Campbell ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ short timespans to enunciate their policy proposals and vision for New Zealand .
Nothing to worry about here for Labour strategists then .
At the same time , Judith Collins ’ energetic counter-punching approach would have pleased her supporters .
She never let up , although it would have been turgid viewing for neutral observers .
In boxing parlance , Jacinda took some punishment in the “ discussions ” on poverty , tax and housing ( for reasons I will consider shortly ) .
At the end , though , Jacinda Adern ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ references to the Christchurch mosque attacks , the White Island tragedy and the global pandemic subtly reminded viewers of the Prime Minister ’ s leadership in trying times .
In certain policy areas , the Prime Minister was inherently vulnerable to Judith Collins ’ attacks and unable to counter-argue effectively .
The “ child poverty ” issue is a good example .
This phrase is a misformulation , if very young people are struggling , then their older siblings , parents and grandparents are also likely to be in trouble .
Poverty is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ secure income and capital assets .
The government has not addressed this reality through a properly tax-funded public housing policy .
Kiwi-build was premised on a bound-to-fail private-public investment model and the recently announced tax changes will bring minimal extra revenue .
Unsurprisingly , therefore , child poverty persists despite good intentions , and Judith Collins has an opening .
On such matters , the leaders ’ responses to Auckland City Missioner Chris Farrelly was telling .
He referred to income inadequacy and wealth inequality—but only the former was considered .
For Jacinda @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the minimum wage .
For Judith Collins , abolition of the Resource Management Act was the solution .
None mentioned entrenched and worsening inequality between rich and poor .
Roughly speaking , three social categories of wealth prevail—the “ haves ” , the “ have nots ” and the “ have yachts ” .
The latter group is too politically powerful to allow open criticism from major political leaders .
The plight of the “ have nots ” can be the subject of sympathy , concern and support without altering their social status @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seriously catered for in the battle for party votes .
Consequently , in a major televised leader debate , any call from a community leader to redress structural inequality will fall on deaf ears .
So , there we have it .
No exploration of fundamental national issues—leader references to climate change were desultory at best .
As the campaign continues , Labour will be hoping for more turgid and boring television exchanges among the party leaders , a fine victory for the All Blacks against Australia in a full stadium and a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ day .
Judith Collins and the National Party will be hoping for a giant government scandal or cock-up and/or a preventable resurgence of COVID-19 .
If none of these possibilities transpire , the net result will be a coronation for one side and near oblivion for the other and no real macro-economic plan beyond borrow and hope .

Anyone expecting a clash of philosophy and policy ideas between Jacinda Adern and Judith Collins on television last evening was bound to be disappointed. The government’s COVID management results were undeniable, especially by world standards. The most recent poll numbers reflected that – even after the viral resurgence in Auckland. Large chunks of well-heeled soft National voters had shifted to Labour, a trend illustrated by recent poll numbers in Auckland Central. Many of Nicky Kaye’s supporters from the last election shifted their preferences to Labour’s Helen White and the Prime Minister. Nationwide, the government wants this bloc of voters to stay on board. Raising the top tax rate from 33% to 39 % for those earning more than $180,000 would hardly affect these people. And their conscience will be salved by supporting the government’s proposed minimum wage increase. So, for Labour strategists, it’s steady as it goes – foreground the low COVID numbers, the Prime Minister’s crisis management credentials and the wage subsidy largesse. There must be no controversial policies suggesting the redistribution of wealth and privilege. Got to keep those former National voters sweet (remember 1987?). From this perspective, the television party leader debate had to be boring and inconsequential. Indeed, modest ratings are preferable—Jacinda’s regular Facebook addresses already have cut-through, no need to over-emphasise the television exchanges with Judith.
National desperately want those National voters back. One last policy roll of the dice, let’s go for broke—tax cuts for the middle and upper-middle income earners. Maybe this will shift those stubborn poll numbers. Against this background, Collins had only one option as the first televised debate drew near. Go hard, go early, rattle the Prime Minister, get under her skin, damage her credentials as leader. Create controversy, get people talking after the event—do anything to bring those soft National voters back home.
So, what happened? Well, both sides achieved their objectives to a certain extent. The exchanges were dull, trite, soundbite-driven and truncated by the format. Between regular ad breaks and John Campbell’s interruptions, the contenders were given ridiculously short timespans to enunciate their policy proposals and vision for New Zealand. Nothing to worry about here for Labour strategists then. At the same time, Judith Collins’ energetic counter-punching approach would have pleased her supporters. She never let up, although it would have been turgid viewing for neutral observers. In boxing parlance, Jacinda took some punishment in the “discussions” on poverty, tax and housing (for reasons I will consider shortly). At the end, though, Jacinda Adern’s stature was undamaged. Her concluding references to the Christchurch mosque attacks, the White Island tragedy and the global pandemic subtly reminded viewers of the Prime Minister’s leadership in trying times.
In certain policy areas, the Prime Minister was inherently vulnerable to Judith Collins’ attacks and unable to counter-argue effectively. The “child poverty” issue is a good example. This phrase is a misformulation, if very young people are struggling, then their older siblings, parents and grandparents are also likely to be in trouble. Poverty is structurally entrenched within families and communities without secure income and capital assets. The government has not addressed this reality through a properly tax-funded public housing policy. Kiwi-build was premised on a bound-to-fail private-public investment model and the recently announced tax changes will bring minimal extra revenue. Unsurprisingly, therefore, child poverty persists despite good intentions, and Judith Collins has an opening. On such matters, the leaders’ responses to Auckland City Missioner Chris Farrelly was telling. He referred to income inadequacy and wealth inequality—but only the former was considered. For Jacinda Adern, income adequacy required increases to the minimum wage. For Judith Collins, abolition of the Resource Management Act was the solution. None mentioned entrenched and worsening inequality between rich and poor. Roughly speaking, three social categories of wealth prevail—the “haves”, the “have nots” and the “have yachts”. The latter group is too politically powerful to allow open criticism from major political leaders. The plight of the “have nots” can be the subject of sympathy, concern and support without altering their social status. The “haves” must be seriously catered for in the battle for party votes. Consequently, in a major televised leader debate, any call from a community leader to redress structural inequality will fall on deaf ears.
So, there we have it. No exploration of fundamental national issues—leader references to climate change were desultory at best. As the campaign continues, Labour will be hoping for more turgid and boring television exchanges among the party leaders, a fine victory for the All Blacks against Australia in a full stadium and a nationwide Level 1 not long before polling day. Judith Collins and the National Party will be hoping for a giant government scandal or cock-up and/or a preventable resurgence of COVID-19. If none of these possibilities transpire, the net result will be a coronation for one side and near oblivion for the other and no real macro-economic plan beyond borrow and hope.


thedailyblog--2020-09-23--Going High, Not Low: An Assessment of the First Leaders’ Debate

THE PEOPLE who awarded the first Leaders ’ Debate to Judith Collins are the people we learned to loathe during Lockdown .
They ’ ve learned nothing from the public ’ s negative reaction to arrogance and aggression in the Time of Covid .
Poor Simon Bridges paid the ultimate political price for lapses much less damaging than Judith Collins ’ on Tuesday Night .
But , fear not , Collins , too , will pay a price for her arrogance and aggression .
Jacinda Ardern , on the other hand , knew exactly what was expected of her in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ position , three weeks out from the general election , is constructed out of the admiration and gratitude of hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders who , more often than not , vote National .
Her calm demeanour at the helm , as she steered her country through the early stages of the global Covid-19 pandemic , was complemented by her ability to project an almost joyful confidence in the steadfastness and solidarity of her fellow New Zealanders .
Nothing she said or did in Tuesday ’ s debate could be allowed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confidence .
Nor did it .
Astonishingly , most political journalists and commentators still don ’ t get this .
Like the snarling pack of newshounds who earned the instant ( and likely permanent ) dislike of those New Zealanders who tuned-in to the 1:00pm media briefings during Lockdown , these others regard arrogance and aggression as indispensable tools of the journalistic trade .
People who are offended by their use are , in their professional opinion , naïve .
They simply don ’ t understand how the news business works .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expected to deliver performances overbrimming with confidence and energy .
Like their colleagues in the print media , they have been trained to communicate with an audience whose average reading age is said to be twelve .
But , as George Orwell makes clear in Nineteen Eighty-Four , the ruthless simplification of language leads swiftly and inevitably to the equally ruthless simplification of thought – the Holy Grail of totalitarian regimes everywhere .
Simplicity in communication is a virtue , but sadly , the contemporary news media is increasingly prone to confuse simplicity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while most New Zealanders responded positively to their Prime Minister ’ s clear command of the complex issues with which her government has had to grapple , the academics who train and educate the young people who emerge from our universities as professional “ communicators ” saw only someone who spoke to her fellow citizens as if they were seated around the cabinet table .
Quelle horreur !
In a democracy – a system of government which confers key decision-making powers upon the people themselves – a prime minister addressed her fellow citizens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ !
How much more effective , according to these academics , were the tactics of the Leader of the Opposition who barked and snapped at her opponent like a demented terrier and addressed the watching voters as if they were intermediate school-children .
With her arched eyebrows and curled lips ; snorts and guffaws ; puerile interjections and belligerent playground taunts ; Judith Collins was held up as the possessor of all the theatrical and rhetorical gifts required of a modern ( or should that be post-modern ? )
political leader .
For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Collins ; and for refusing to treat politics as a blood-sport ; the loser of the first Leaders ’ Debate was declared , by these erudite instructors of tomorrow ’ s journalists , to be the Prime Minister .
Most of the journalists in the Parliamentary Press Gallery concurred .
Jacinda Ardern , they opined , lacked energy .
Why was she so passive ?
Where were the zingers to match her magnificent put-down of Mike Hosking earlier in the day ?
Why didn ’ t this “ superb communicator ” not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expected ?
The clear consensus among the political scribes was that when the Prime Minister next went head-to-head with Judith Collins , she would have to lift her game Even among Jacinda ’ s supporters on the Left there were pockets of disappointment .
Why didn ’ t she crush the crusher ?
Why didn ’ t she , figuratively , slash off the Tory champion ’ s head and hold it aloft , Game of Thrones-style , for her followers to revile ?
Why , when Collins offensively implied that people on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consequential than school-teachers and small business owners , did she not condemn her appalling class prejudice ?
Why didn ’ t she call New Zealand ’ s dirty dairy farmers – dirty dairy farmers ?
Why all the boring centrism ?
Dammit Jacinda you ’ re the leader of the Labour Party – would it kill you to act like it !
Yes , quite probably , it would .
No matter how hard they might wish it were otherwise .
And no matter how obdurately some leftists insist that the voters are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overturn the cities and the rivers/And split the house like a rotten totara log ” [ James K. Baxter ] New Zealanders have never been insurrectionists .
We are socialist renovators – not revolutionaries .
Middle-class New Zealanders , the people Jacinda has to thank for being at 48 percent in the Colmar Brunton poll ( and not 25 percent , like the hapless David Cunliffe ) need to be persuaded to back Labour in a programme of non-terrifying change .
That ’ s why one of the most effective political statements of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ John Campbell ’ s challenge to the Prime Minister over the Capital Gains Tax .
“ At some point , John , ” Jacinda explained , acknowledging Labour ’ s three failed attempts to sell a CGT to the electorate , “ you have to accept that voters don ’ t agree with you.
” From those few , and yes , simple words , former National voters could draw the sort of reassurance they were looking for that their ballots can be safely cast for Labour in 2020 .
They are not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” , but for a leader to construct the sort of “ new normal ” in which they and their families can feel comfortable and secure .
In presenting herself as that sort of political leader : calm , considered , compassionate and constructive ; Jacinda Ardern held her middle-class supporters in place – and won the debate .

THE PEOPLE who awarded the first Leaders’ Debate to Judith Collins are the people we learned to loathe during Lockdown. They’ve learned nothing from the public’s negative reaction to arrogance and aggression in the Time of Covid. Poor Simon Bridges paid the ultimate political price for lapses much less damaging than Judith Collins’ on Tuesday Night. But, fear not, Collins, too, will pay a price for her arrogance and aggression.
Jacinda Ardern, on the other hand, knew exactly what was expected of her in this encounter. Labour’s dominant position, three weeks out from the general election, is constructed out of the admiration and gratitude of hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders who, more often than not, vote National. Her calm demeanour at the helm, as she steered her country through the early stages of the global Covid-19 pandemic, was complemented by her ability to project an almost joyful confidence in the steadfastness and solidarity of her fellow New Zealanders. Nothing she said or did in Tuesday’s debate could be allowed to undermine that precious combination of calm and confidence. Nor did it.
Astonishingly, most political journalists and commentators still don’t get this. Like the snarling pack of newshounds who earned the instant (and likely permanent) dislike of those New Zealanders who tuned-in to the 1:00pm media briefings during Lockdown, these others regard arrogance and aggression as indispensable tools of the journalistic trade. People who are offended by their use are, in their professional opinion, naïve. They simply don’t understand how the news business works.
In the electronic media especially, broadcasters are expected to deliver performances overbrimming with confidence and energy. Like their colleagues in the print media, they have been trained to communicate with an audience whose average reading age is said to be twelve. But, as George Orwell makes clear in Nineteen Eighty-Four, the ruthless simplification of language leads swiftly and inevitably to the equally ruthless simplification of thought – the Holy Grail of totalitarian regimes everywhere. Simplicity in communication is a virtue, but sadly, the contemporary news media is increasingly prone to confuse simplicity with simple-mindedness.
So it was that while most New Zealanders responded positively to their Prime Minister’s clear command of the complex issues with which her government has had to grapple, the academics who train and educate the young people who emerge from our universities as professional “communicators” saw only someone who spoke to her fellow citizens as if they were seated around the cabinet table. Quelle horreur! In a democracy – a system of government which confers key decision-making powers upon the people themselves – a prime minister addressed her fellow citizens as, of all things, decision-makers!
How much more effective, according to these academics, were the tactics of the Leader of the Opposition who barked and snapped at her opponent like a demented terrier and addressed the watching voters as if they were intermediate school-children. With her arched eyebrows and curled lips; snorts and guffaws; puerile interjections and belligerent playground taunts; Judith Collins was held up as the possessor of all the theatrical and rhetorical gifts required of a modern (or should that be post-modern?) political leader. For declining to get down in the gutter with Collins; and for refusing to treat politics as a blood-sport; the loser of the first Leaders’ Debate was declared, by these erudite instructors of tomorrow’s journalists, to be the Prime Minister.
Most of the journalists in the Parliamentary Press Gallery concurred. Jacinda Ardern, they opined, lacked energy. Why was she so passive? Where were the zingers to match her magnificent put-down of Mike Hosking earlier in the day? Why didn’t this “superb communicator” not bark and snap at her opponent as expected? The clear consensus among the political scribes was that when the Prime Minister next went head-to-head with Judith Collins, she would have to lift her game
Even among Jacinda’s supporters on the Left there were pockets of disappointment. Why didn’t she crush the crusher? Why didn’t she, figuratively, slash off the Tory champion’s head and hold it aloft, Game of Thrones-style, for her followers to revile? Why, when Collins offensively implied that people on the minimum wage were so much less consequential than school-teachers and small business owners, did she not condemn her appalling class prejudice? Why didn’t she call New Zealand’s dirty dairy farmers – dirty dairy farmers? Why all the boring centrism? Dammit Jacinda you’re the leader of the Labour Party – would it kill you to act like it!
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
Yes, quite probably, it would. No matter how hard they might wish it were otherwise. And no matter how obdurately some leftists insist that the voters are only waiting for the word “To overturn the cities and the rivers/And split the house like a rotten totara log” [James K. Baxter] New Zealanders have never been insurrectionists. We are socialist renovators – not revolutionaries. Middle-class New Zealanders, the people Jacinda has to thank for being at 48 percent in the Colmar Brunton poll (and not 25 percent, like the hapless David Cunliffe) need to be persuaded to back Labour in a programme of non-terrifying change.
That’s why one of the most effective political statements of the whole evening came in response to John Campbell’s challenge to the Prime Minister over the Capital Gains Tax. “At some point, John,” Jacinda explained, acknowledging Labour’s three failed attempts to sell a CGT to the electorate, “you have to accept that voters don’t agree with you.” From those few, and yes, simple words, former National voters could draw the sort of reassurance they were looking for that their ballots can be safely cast for Labour in 2020. They are not in the market for a “crusher”, but for a leader to construct the sort of “new normal” in which they and their families can feel comfortable and secure.
In presenting herself as that sort of political leader: calm, considered, compassionate and constructive; Jacinda Ardern held her middle-class supporters in place – and won the debate.


thedailyblog--2020-09-24--Workers Fired Because They Asked For Fairness:  Boss Pockets Money – Coward Goes into Hiding

This morning we were supposed to be in Mediation with James Delmont , the boss of Dollar Dealers – the Auckland pawn shop chain .
But he ’ s a no-show .
Apparently , he ’ s made other plans .
Delmont has managed to worm his way out of fronting for sacking two workers during the first COVID 19 lockdown .
The Mediation Service told us at 4pm yesterday they no longer had a mediator available in Auckland .
They offered a zoom conference call instead , with a mediator from Christchurch .
Delmont quickly latched onto this opportunity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or nothing .
Pathetically , the Mediation Service offered him a time seven weeks from now .
When I got back to my office and was told this , I went off my head .
Delmont sacked two workers , without notice , pretending it was a redundancy issue .
He then pocketed their wage subsidy .
This was 20 weeks ago in May .
These workers have been waiting since then to have Delmont attend a mediation and explain his actions .
However , Auckland ’ s Mediation Service are so disorganised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another 7 weeks .
That would mean the workers would have to wait 6 months just to get to the first step .
I have another case where the bosses are taking a worker to mediation .
They got a date within two weeks .
Disgraceful .
I wasn ’ t having any of this crap .
After a very ‘ assertive ’ discussion with the Mediation office , they managed to find a mediator after all .
Although the whole process , since we were advised there was no mediator to then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hours , Delmont said he had made other plans that couldn ’ t be changed .
Really ?
Maybe he had a hair appointment that had opened up .
However , he did find the time to try and contact one of the workers from his cell phone .
He was advised from the start he wasn ’ t permitted to contact a former employee once the legal process commenced .
In the criminal courts it ’ s a crime to contact witnesses .
It ’ s called intimidation .
Of course he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I asked him to explain himself .
Some people like Delmont believe rules and good behaviour don ’ t apply to them .
I met the two workers last night for our prearranged meeting and advised them the mediation was off .
They were obviously very upset .
One hasn ’ t been able to find work during the COVID 19 pandemic , and the other had taken a day off from work to attend the Mediation and wouldn ’ t be able to work today .
Just the cost of getting to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and his ilk who abuse others are oblivious to this reality for working class people these days , and if they did know – they wouldn ’ t give a toss .
After debriefing with the two workers , I realised the case against Delmont and Dollar Dealers is even worse than I thought .
When we first raised the dismissals in May , some unnamed “ HR ” person sent an extensive , elaborate redundancy process they claimed they had used .
Last night the workers tell me nothing of the sort @ @ @ @ @ @ @ employees the company had spoken to about potential redundancies .
Originally , Dollar Dealers said they would pay them the COVID wage subsidy .
This was our tax money , which we gave to bosses so jobs could be protected .
But Delmont told them at their termination meeting that he had changed his mind and he “ would keep the money because he could.
” They got just four days ’ pay in lieu of notice and walked off the job immediately .
Right from the start , I wondered why these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it became clear .
When the lockdown started Dollar Dealers announced all employees would have to use their accrued holiday leave .
Both these women had challenged management ’ s right to do this without consultation .
Shortly after they were told they were being made “ redundant ” .
When my union got involved it became apparent Delmont had concocted an elaborate fabrication that it was a legitimate redundancy due to COVID 19 .
I never believed it , because no business with 69 employees would go through an entire redundancy process @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Especially as their normal monthly staff turnover is three .
Advertising vacancies on SEEK within a month gives the game away .
The women say since my previous Daily Blog article they have received dozens of stories from current and former employees on the outright dishonesty and corrupt practices carried out by this company .
I have asked they send this information to me for future publication .
In summary though , it works like this .
Desperate people come in with family jewellery and other expensive heirlooms to use as collateral for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loan for a fraction of what the items are worth .
After deducting an ‘ administration fee ’ they get charged 35 % interest .
Many can ’ t meet the payment schedule and their goods are forfeited .
They can be then resold for up to ten times the loan made to the former owner .
In the US , they used to call these people the Mafia .
It ’ s legal here .
Skimming through social media pages show the extended Delmont family are clearly part of the ‘ rich @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seems their beautiful lives and privileges have been largely possible through the misfortunes of the poor .
I note all the Dollar Dealer stores are in working class areas , whilst members of the extended Delmont family live in palatial mansions in the leafy suburbs .
When you absorb what types of people would run a business model like that , it ’ s easy to see why Delmont would have no problem sacking two employees and then pretend otherwise .
As you ’ d expect under the COVID 19 climate , business @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dealers is soon to open up a new store in Hamilton .
Our UTU bus should be up and running by then .
We are looking forward to attending the launch party to expose their practices to the good people of Hamilton .
I was always prepared to reach a fair outcome for these workers .
Clearly it ’ s not in Delmont ’ s character to consider that .
I presume that ’ s because his whole life is about taking advantage of other people , so why would he stop now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this morning ( attaching this article ) and amended our claim for the two workers .
We will claim compensation for their normal wages from the time they were sacked ( that ’ s $ 16,000 each in lost wages for the last 20 weeks ) and I will add their normal weekly wage $ 800 a week until this matter is settled .
For the stress and fear he has caused these two women he ’ s going to have to do the right thing and compensate them for $ 10,000 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ monthly interest , he charges his clients .
Workers should never have to pay to get justice from an unscrupulous boss , so he ’ ll get our invoice too .
If you have any information on James Delmont or Dollar Dealers , or would like to help , contact us at justice @ oneunion.org.nz We have our campaign bus ready for action to support a campaign to end exploitation .
We are looking forward to visiting Hamilton for Dollar Dealers ’ opening of their new store .
We would appreciate any koha @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here .
Matt McCarten is the National Director of One Union and a Trustee of UTU For The People .

This morning we were supposed to be in Mediation with James Delmont, the boss of Dollar Dealers – the Auckland pawn shop chain. But he’s a no-show. Apparently, he’s made other plans.
Delmont has managed to worm his way out of fronting for sacking two workers during the first COVID 19 lockdown. The Mediation Service told us at 4pm yesterday they no longer had a mediator available in Auckland. They offered a zoom conference call instead, with a mediator from Christchurch. Delmont quickly latched onto this opportunity, insisting it had to be face-to-face or nothing. Pathetically, the Mediation Service offered him a time seven weeks from now.
When I got back to my office and was told this, I went off my head. Delmont sacked two workers, without notice, pretending it was a redundancy issue. He then pocketed their wage subsidy. This was 20 weeks ago in May. These workers have been waiting since then to have Delmont attend a mediation and explain his actions. However, Auckland’s Mediation Service are so disorganised they blithely decided these workers could wait another 7 weeks. That would mean the workers would have to wait 6 months just to get to the first step. I have another case where the bosses are taking a worker to mediation. They got a date within two weeks. Disgraceful. I wasn’t having any of this crap. After a very ‘assertive’ discussion with the Mediation office, they managed to find a mediator after all.
Although the whole process, since we were advised there was no mediator to then finding one, took less than two hours, Delmont said he had made other plans that couldn’t be changed. Really? Maybe he had a hair appointment that had opened up.
However, he did find the time to try and contact one of the workers from his cell phone. He was advised from the start he wasn’t permitted to contact a former employee once the legal process commenced. In the criminal courts it’s a crime to contact witnesses. It’s called intimidation. Of course he didn’t respond to me when I asked him to explain himself. Some people like Delmont believe rules and good behaviour don’t apply to them.
I met the two workers last night for our prearranged meeting and advised them the mediation was off. They were obviously very upset. One hasn’t been able to find work during the COVID 19 pandemic, and the other had taken a day off from work to attend the Mediation and wouldn’t be able to work today. Just the cost of getting to my office is a burden. Delmont and his ilk who abuse others are oblivious to this reality for working class people these days, and if they did know – they wouldn’t give a toss.
After debriefing with the two workers, I realised the case against Delmont and Dollar Dealers is even worse than I thought. When we first raised the dismissals in May, some unnamed “HR” person sent an extensive, elaborate redundancy process they claimed they had used. Last night the workers tell me nothing of the sort happened. They were the only two employees the company had spoken to about potential redundancies. Originally, Dollar Dealers said they would pay them the COVID wage subsidy. This was our tax money, which we gave to bosses so jobs could be protected. But Delmont told them at their termination meeting that he had changed his mind and he “would keep the money because he could.” They got just four days’ pay in lieu of notice and walked off the job immediately.
Right from the start, I wondered why these two women were targeted. Last night it became clear. When the lockdown started Dollar Dealers announced all employees would have to use their accrued holiday leave. Both these women had challenged management’s right to do this without consultation. Shortly after they were told they were being made “redundant”.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
When my union got involved it became apparent Delmont had concocted an elaborate fabrication that it was a legitimate redundancy due to COVID 19. I never believed it, because no business with 69 employees would go through an entire redundancy process just to make two workers redundant. Especially as their normal monthly staff turnover is three. Advertising vacancies on SEEK within a month gives the game away.
The women say since my previous Daily Blog article they have received dozens of stories from current and former employees on the outright dishonesty and corrupt practices carried out by this company. I have asked they send this information to me for future publication.
In summary though, it works like this. Desperate people come in with family jewellery and other expensive heirlooms to use as collateral for short term loans. They get the loan for a fraction of what the items are worth. After deducting an ‘administration fee’ they get charged 35% interest. Many can’t meet the payment schedule and their goods are forfeited. They can be then resold for up to ten times the loan made to the former owner. In the US, they used to call these people the Mafia. It’s legal here.
Skimming through social media pages show the extended Delmont family are clearly part of the ‘rich and famous’ lifestyle crowd. It seems their beautiful lives and privileges have been largely possible through the misfortunes of the poor. I note all the Dollar Dealer stores are in working class areas, whilst members of the extended Delmont family live in palatial mansions in the leafy suburbs.
When you absorb what types of people would run a business model like that, it’s easy to see why Delmont would have no problem sacking two employees and then pretend otherwise.
As you’d expect under the COVID 19 climate, business is booming for loan sharks. Dollar Dealers is soon to open up a new store in Hamilton. Our UTU bus should be up and running by then. We are looking forward to attending the launch party to expose their practices to the good people of Hamilton.
I was always prepared to reach a fair outcome for these workers. Clearly it’s not in Delmont’s character to consider that. I presume that’s because his whole life is about taking advantage of other people, so why would he stop now.
I’ve written to him this morning (attaching this article) and amended our claim for the two workers. We will claim compensation for their normal wages from the time they were sacked (that’s $16,000 each in lost wages for the last 20 weeks) and I will add their normal weekly wage $800 a week until this matter is settled. For the stress and fear he has caused these two women he’s going to have to do the right thing and compensate them for $10,000. I’m adding the 3% monthly interest, he charges his clients. Workers should never have to pay to get justice from an unscrupulous boss, so he’ll get our invoice too.
If you have any information on James Delmont or Dollar Dealers, or would like to help, contact us at justice@oneunion.org.nz
We have our campaign bus ready for action to support a campaign to end exploitation. We are looking forward to visiting Hamilton for Dollar Dealers’ opening of their new store. We would appreciate any koha to get on the road. Click here.
In solidarity / Nga mihi
Matt McCarten is the National Director of One Union and a Trustee of UTU For The People.


thedailyblog--2020-09-24--True Believers In A False God

True Believers In A False God

WHEN ADOLF HITLER committed suicide on 30 April 1945 , thousands of Germans followed his example .
The most famous copy-cats were Joseph Goebbels and his wife , Magda .
Not only did they take their own lives , but also those of their six children .
The idea of surviving the Fuhrer , being held accountable for everything he , and they , had done , seeing National Socialism overthrown and accepting the inevitable ruin of everything they had hoped for and fought for , was simply too overwhelming for many fanatical Nazis to contemplate .
Good riddance !
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ one response .
But just consider the following excerpt from US writer , Eric Levitz ’ s “ QAnon Is Madness : But Believing It Can Be Rational ” article posted on The Intelligencer website of 23/9/20 : “ Speaking with voters in Wisconsin this month , Time reporter Charlotte Alter heard conspiracy theories from about 20 percent of her interview subjects .
Many of these Wisconsinites were not familiar with QAnon but subscribed to its basic tenets .
Tina Arthur , a small-business owner , told Alter that she was not a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Democrats were in league with a cabal of blood-drinking child rapists and that ‘ if Biden wins , the world is over , basically … I would probably take my children and sit in the garage and turn my car on , and it would be over.
’ ” What the hell is going on , when a businesswoman from the Mid-Western United States is willing to wipe out her entire family rather than face the prospect of living under a Democratic President ?
Because , when all is said and done @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a very far cry from Joseph Stalin , and even the most strident antifa protester is nowhere near as dangerous as the vengeance-seeking soldiers of the Red Army .
How did as many as 20 percent of Americans end up tumbling down this dangerously hallucinatory rabbit-hole ?
According to Levitz , conspiracy theories have much more to offer confused and frightened citizens than may , at first glance , be apparent : “ The tendency toward conspiracism is deeply rooted in the human psyche .
It manifests across time and geography and is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ On an emotional level , human beings tend to find the idea of being threatened by forces beyond their comprehension or control much more upsetting than being threatened by an intelligible enemy .
Social psychologists have found that when fearful people contemplate potential misfortunes , they tend to feel helpless and pessimistic , but when angry people contemplate the same , they feel a sense of optimism and control .
And one simple way to transmute fear into anger is to perceive an evil agent behind whatever development is causing you uncertainty and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we begin to appreciate the powerful psychological insight behind the New Zealand Government ’ s “ Unite Against Covid-19 !
” campaign .
By personifying the virus , transforming it into an “ evil agent ” which New Zealanders could defeat collectively , the Government and the Ministry of Health headed-off the sort of QAnon craziness that has turned so many fearful Americans into gibbering paranoiacs .
The other key factor in this country ’ s success in preventing the widespread uptake of insane conspiracy theories was the regular 1:00pm briefings from Prime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Dr Ashley Bloomfield .
Fear grows exponentially in the absence of timely and reliable information .
New Zealand was , therefore , especially fortunate in having the “ Jacinda and Ashley Show ” .
These two particularly gifted and credible communicators were able to deliver on an almost daily basis the answers and reassurance their frightened fellow citizens were so eager to receive .
Such anger as was generated out of public fear tended to be directed against those who refused to “ unite against the virus ” .
Not only did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impede the disease ’ s spread , but it also served as a useful safety-valve for the tensions occasioned by the extraordinary limitations of individual freedom which the fight against the pandemic necessitated .
The comparison with the United States could hardly be more stark .
Rather than the consistent and uplifting communications of Jacinda Ardern , the Americans were exposed to the constantly changing , often contradictory , messages of President Donald Trump .
Also a formidable communicator , Trump deployed his talent in ways that fed , rather than calmed , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fuelled their anger with hyper-politicised bulletins of unprecedented malignancy .
It would be wrong , however , to suggest that New Zealanders have been unanimous in their acceptance of the measures adopted to “ stamp out ” the virus .
Although upwards of three-quarters of the population have registered either their “ support ” or “ strong-support ” for the Government ’ s handling of the Covid-19 crisis , that still leaves a quarter of the population unconvinced .
Some of these were the sort of hyper-individualists so often found in the upper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of neoliberalism .
Such people ( most of them men ) find the idea of standing in solidarity with the “ sheeple ” abhorrent .
Equally unappealing , from the perspective of these “ One Percenters ” , is the unhelpful example set by the all-too-obvious success of collective intervention .
Well-positioned to communicate their opposition , these Covid sceptics have been unceasing in their efforts to undermine the Government ’ s solidaristic appeals to “ The Team of Five Million ” .
The other pool of scepticism and resistance is fed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s least educated and most marginalised citizens .
With little cause to trust a state which bitter experience has taught them to regard as an alien and hostile entity , these folk remained largely untouched by the Government ’ s campaign against Covid-19 .
In terms of social-psychology , they are precisely the people who feel “ threatened by forces beyond their comprehension or control ” .
Looking for “ an intelligible enemy ” to blame for their shitty world becoming even shittier , they have every reason to believe , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conspiracy theories fed to them by the algorithms of social media and the political predators who so adroitly exploit them .
Once inside the rabbit holes of the conspiracists ; once supplied with the identity of the “ evil agents ” against whom their now inflamed emotions can be directed ; once filled with the optimism and sense of control that makes being angry in the company of like minds so much more bearable than being alone and frightened ; once the hallucinations have become more compelling than reality ; what then is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aren ’ t there ?
Better by far to expand the rabbit hole until in encompasses the whole world .
And if reality reasserts itself : either in the form of the Fuhrer ’ s death and the Red Army ’ s victory ; or in the person of President Biden and a Democratic Party-controlled Congress ; then what is the point of going on ?
Better to grab the kids , administer the poison , and avoid shouldering the unbearable heaviness of being exposed as a true believer in a false god @

WHEN ADOLF HITLER committed suicide on 30 April 1945, thousands of Germans followed his example. The most famous copy-cats were Joseph Goebbels and his wife, Magda. Not only did they take their own lives, but also those of their six children. The idea of surviving the Fuhrer, being held accountable for everything he, and they, had done, seeing National Socialism overthrown and accepting the inevitable ruin of everything they had hoped for and fought for, was simply too overwhelming for many fanatical Nazis to contemplate.
Good riddance! Well, yes, that’s one response. But just consider the following excerpt from US writer, Eric Levitz’s “QAnon Is Madness: But Believing It Can Be Rational” article posted on The Intelligencer website of 23/9/20:
“Speaking with voters in Wisconsin this month, Time reporter Charlotte Alter heard conspiracy theories from about 20 percent of her interview subjects. Many of these Wisconsinites were not familiar with QAnon but subscribed to its basic tenets. Tina Arthur, a small-business owner, told Alter that she was not a follower of QAnon but did believe that the Democrats were in league with a cabal of blood-drinking child rapists and that ‘if Biden wins, the world is over, basically … I would probably take my children and sit in the garage and turn my car on, and it would be over.’”
What the hell is going on, when a businesswoman from the Mid-Western United States is willing to wipe out her entire family rather than face the prospect of living under a Democratic President? Because, when all is said and done, “Sleepy Joe” Biden is a very far cry from Joseph Stalin, and even the most strident antifa protester is nowhere near as dangerous as the vengeance-seeking soldiers of the Red Army. How did as many as 20 percent of Americans end up tumbling down this dangerously hallucinatory rabbit-hole?
According to Levitz, conspiracy theories have much more to offer confused and frightened citizens than may, at first glance, be apparent:
“The tendency toward conspiracism is deeply rooted in the human psyche. It manifests across time and geography and is likely a product of evolutionary pressures. On an emotional level, human beings tend to find the idea of being threatened by forces beyond their comprehension or control much more upsetting than being threatened by an intelligible enemy. Social psychologists have found that when fearful people contemplate potential misfortunes, they tend to feel helpless and pessimistic, but when angry people contemplate the same, they feel a sense of optimism and control. And one simple way to transmute fear into anger is to perceive an evil agent behind whatever development is causing you uncertainty and disquiet.”
With this in mind, we begin to appreciate the powerful psychological insight behind the New Zealand Government’s “Unite Against Covid-19!” campaign. By personifying the virus, transforming it into an “evil agent” which New Zealanders could defeat collectively, the Government and the Ministry of Health headed-off the sort of QAnon craziness that has turned so many fearful Americans into gibbering paranoiacs.
The other key factor in this country’s success in preventing the widespread uptake of insane conspiracy theories was the regular 1:00pm briefings from Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Director-General of Health, Dr Ashley Bloomfield. Fear grows exponentially in the absence of timely and reliable information. New Zealand was, therefore, especially fortunate in having the “Jacinda and Ashley Show”. These two particularly gifted and credible communicators were able to deliver on an almost daily basis the answers and reassurance their frightened fellow citizens were so eager to receive. Such anger as was generated out of public fear tended to be directed against those who refused to “unite against the virus”. Not only did this popular enforcement of the Covid-19 Lockdown impede the disease’s spread, but it also served as a useful safety-valve for the tensions occasioned by the extraordinary limitations of individual freedom which the fight against the pandemic necessitated.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
The comparison with the United States could hardly be more stark. Rather than the consistent and uplifting communications of Jacinda Ardern, the Americans were exposed to the constantly changing, often contradictory, messages of President Donald Trump. Also a formidable communicator, Trump deployed his talent in ways that fed, rather than calmed, his people’s fears, and fuelled their anger with hyper-politicised bulletins of unprecedented malignancy.
It would be wrong, however, to suggest that New Zealanders have been unanimous in their acceptance of the measures adopted to “stamp out” the virus. Although upwards of three-quarters of the population have registered either their “support” or “strong-support” for the Government’s handling of the Covid-19 crisis, that still leaves a quarter of the population unconvinced.
Some of these were the sort of hyper-individualists so often found in the upper reaches of societies dominated by the ideology of neoliberalism. Such people (most of them men) find the idea of standing in solidarity with the “sheeple” abhorrent. Equally unappealing, from the perspective of these “One Percenters”, is the unhelpful example set by the all-too-obvious success of collective intervention. Well-positioned to communicate their opposition, these Covid sceptics have been unceasing in their efforts to undermine the Government’s solidaristic appeals to “The Team of Five Million”.
The other pool of scepticism and resistance is fed by the fear and ignorance of New Zealand’s least educated and most marginalised citizens. With little cause to trust a state which bitter experience has taught them to regard as an alien and hostile entity, these folk remained largely untouched by the Government’s campaign against Covid-19. In terms of social-psychology, they are precisely the people who feel “threatened by forces beyond their comprehension or control”. Looking for “an intelligible enemy” to blame for their shitty world becoming even shittier, they have every reason to believe, and insufficient intellectual resources to refute, the conspiracy theories fed to them by the algorithms of social media and the political predators who so adroitly exploit them.
Once inside the rabbit holes of the conspiracists; once supplied with the identity of the “evil agents” against whom their now inflamed emotions can be directed; once filled with the optimism and sense of control that makes being angry in the company of like minds so much more bearable than being alone and frightened; once the hallucinations have become more compelling than reality; what then is the incentive to stop seeing things that aren’t there? Better by far to expand the rabbit hole until in encompasses the whole world.
And if reality reasserts itself: either in the form of the Fuhrer’s death and the Red Army’s victory; or in the person of President Biden and a Democratic Party-controlled Congress; then what is the point of going on? Better to grab the kids, administer the poison, and avoid shouldering the unbearable heaviness of being exposed as a true believer in a false god.


thedailyblog--2020-09-23--MUST READ: Debate without substance

MUST READ: Debate without substance


thedailyblog--2020-09-27--Where NZ First Went Wrong

Where NZ First Went Wrong

The way a snare works is quite simple .
The more the creature in it struggles .. the tighter the noose becomes .
Had it gone another way , taken another approach , and resisted its instinct to thrash madly against the rope – it could much more easily slip out .
But in its desperation – it does not do that , and consigns itself to its fate .
Now , New Zealand First is no wild animal ( for the most part ) – and we are not yet at the point wherein the Party can safely be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is an old war-horse – and woe betide the man who sneaks up behind a horse unprepared for a good kicking .
That vigour may yet manage to propel the charger across the five percent finish line rather than to the ‘ finished ’ line a few weeks hence .
But last night ’ s Reid Research poll – coming as it does upon the heel of last week ’ s Colmar Brunton and seeming to confirm the party ’ s down in the margin-of-error thickets of circa two percent – should be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ customary bluster about polling for NZF never being accurate ( and I can still hear Winston ’ s words echo in my ears about the 2002 results being out by “ more than a thousand percent ” ) – there was only an 0.1 % difference between the Reid Research poll prediction for NZF immediately prior to the 2017 Election , and their actual result on the night .
So what has happened ?
How has it come to this ?
Well , the simple answer is also simply wrong .
Many people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Research ( as well as the various other previous polling of this cycle ) and conclude that the rising New Conservatives ( on 2.1 % in the Reid Research , 1.6 % in the Colmar Brunton ) and Advance NZ have cannibalized NZF ’ s vote .
Except if we go back through 2014 and 2011 – the Conservatives were able to return reasonably high ( by their standards ) results of 3.97 % and 2.65 % … without eating significantly in to NZ First ’ s vote ( 8.66 % and 6.59 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tempting to presume that New Zealand First has been trading votes with the parties of the right-wing fringe .
In some cases , this is not impossible – although even as applies ACT , I ’ d suspect that their sudden rise is the result of haemorrhaged National support rather than coming at Winston ’ s personal expense .
( This shouldn ’ t be a point of serious doubt , as NZF and ACT are theoretically diametrically opposed on so many core issues … but who knows what goes through the minds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time ) Yet what has actually been occurring is that NZ First has been losing votes to Labour .
As , to be sure , has just about everybody else .
And therein lies the rub .
NZ First ’ s strategy for much of the campaign this year has been to present itself as ‘ in this government but not of this government ’ .
At Cabinet at least partially to prevent Labour ( and the Greens ) from Governing in particular areas .
The proverbial ‘ hand-brake ’ upon our democracy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this is a viable stratagem .
It is possible that , were circumstances different than they are now , that this would even have been a successful prospect for the party .
If this were genuinely a 2002 style situation , for example , a weak National would mean that voters distressed about the terrifying specter of a moderate allegedly-left-wing government would be queueing up in droves to support parties perceived as able to ‘ counter ’ or at least ‘ limit ’ Labour ’ s agenda .
Whatever that “ agenda ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ almost does not matter .
But this is not a 2002 style situation .
It ’ s a 2020 style situation .
A Time of Endings .
And twists in the narrative that keep occurring so we ’ re never quite sure when or where that “ Ending ” may happen to be .
As soon as NZ First chose to go with Labour in 2017 , it made it exponentially harder for itself to present as being “ the outsider ” – it was now going to be part of Government .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a difficult proposition to successfully pull off .
Running *with* the Government as a necessary support partner , however , is quite a different – and , I suspect quite a lot more of a viable – prospect .
It ’ s something the Greens are , arguably , doing right at this minute – and reaping the polling rewards of being about three times as popular as NZ First , and over the 5 % threshold .
In theory – we ’ ll see how things play out on Election Night .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ from 2014 onwards there was a concerted effort inside NZF to move the whole thing ‘ rightwards ’ .
I don ’ t say that this was the dominant perception of members – nor even of everybody with an actual decision-making power inside the tent at that time .
But some pushed for it , arranged things , and that ’ s in part how NZF wound up moving away from its 2011 positioning to be more ‘ center ’ between Labour and National than it had previously been .
And thence , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lines ” showboating from the 2017 campaign presumably got its start .
Attempts to draw in voters from National – a strategy that was doubled down upon once it became more difficult for multiple reasons to get more votes from Labour .
But in 2020 – there are precious few votes to be garnered from National .
They ’ ve already all either left ( whether for Labour or for ACT ) , or are battening down the hatches and clinging on for dear life .
So aiming to win ( soft ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vector for Government restraining – is , at the moment at least , somewhere between a losing wicket and a slow hole to nowhere .
If you like Labour , why would you want to vote for the party that is the self-declared “ handbrake ” upon Labour governance .
If you don ’ t like Labour … you ’ re probably desperately clinging on for dear life pretending that National ’ s actually somewhere in the mid thirties despite an escalating mound of “ ROGUE POLLS ” and Goldsmith accounting to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Greens voter .
The sensible way forward as of several months ago – it ’ s probably too late for this now – would have been to present as the ‘ elder statesman ’ party .
The one that had productively worked with others to produce a strong and stable response to challenging times .
And who had worked overtime in the relevant portfolio sectors ( like Foreign Affairs ) to help augment rather than undermine the Government ’ s core directives .
Because in large measure … all of that ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a shame that it has been de-emphasized : both by deliberate signalling on the campaign trail , and by some of NZF ’ s high-profile actions while in or around Government ( that handbrake thing being quite prominent within them ) .
There would have been meaningful ‘ room for difference ’ as well to prevent the specter of being ‘ absorbed ’ and ‘ eclipsed ’ by Labour – a risk , to be sure , for attempting to run ‘ with ’ rather than ‘ against ’ the dominant party of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the moment – who are presently in a rather better position than NZF – we can see that it is possible to support Labour *and* present a vision that goes further than Labour ’ s in important ways which get noticed by voters .
Not necessarily *positively* noticed by voters , perhaps , but that ’ s the risk you take .
It ’ s not impossible that things will change quite rapidly over the next month , and NZF will somehow perform yet another amazing resurrection from what would otherwise be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I ’ d certainly like to believe that to be the case – but the *good* NZ First , not the rather obstructivist-obnoxious petty- point-scoring-for-petty-point- scoring ’ s-sake would-rather-be-working-with- the-other-guys-anyway side we ’ ve occasionally seen from time to time over the past three years , particularly wearing a quite literally Donald Trump style hat .
Like … literally wearing a Donald Trump style hat .
Because ultimately – it ’ s been that sort of vibe which has been the problem .
I ’ m not talking about giving a voice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that should *never* be a problem .
Although the Public Party is certainly pushing the limits of *that* particular envelope , to be sure .
Rather , it ’ s the attempt to forcibly push a centre-right outrage agenda , by generating one – and fatuous windbaggery breathing hard and heavy so it ’ s so difficult to see all the actual , real positive contribution being made .
It ’ s evident that the ‘ conventional logic ’ inside parts of the party is that this strategy should be working – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Labour to bring in both ‘ conservative ’ Labour supporters and National supporters alike .
But it isn ’ t .
And so , the noose is tightening .
As it has been , really , all year .
NZ First ’ s polling has been progressively tracking downwards for much of this cycle – as , more worryingly , have Winston ’ s Prefered Prime Ministership ratings ( which interestingly tend to be a better predictor of the party ’ s support than polling , some of the time ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Its instinct – at least in some quarters – being to thrash about and ever more dramatically .
Just last week we had talk of “ bringing down the Government ” rather than making use of the “ agree to disagree ” provisions in the Coalition Agreement .
And a range of other previous outbursts that sound more like rival parties on opposite sides of the aisle instead of coalition partners joined at the hip on the Treasury Benches .
And just as we saw with the mechanism of the snare – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acting out its instincts , the noose does not leave its limb .
Instead , it begins to cut off the blood-flow as it constricts in fairly direct consequence .
It ’ s probably too late to do anything about that now .
The only serious question is whether NZ First possesses sufficient strength left in its hindquarters to rip out the snare from its moorings rather than successfully breaking free .
Maybe , just maybe , its leg ( last or otherwise ) can still support it yet .

The way a snare works is quite simple. The more the creature in it struggles .. the tighter the noose becomes. Had it gone another way, taken another approach, and resisted its instinct to thrash madly against the rope – it could much more easily slip out. But in its desperation – it does not do that, and consigns itself to its fate.
Now, New Zealand First is no wild animal (for the most part) – and we are not yet at the point wherein the Party can safely be cut open for a postmortem. It is an old war-horse – and woe betide the man who sneaks up behind a horse unprepared for a good kicking. That vigour may yet manage to propel the charger across the five percent finish line rather than to the ‘finished’ line a few weeks hence.
But last night’s Reid Research poll – coming as it does upon the heel of last week’s Colmar Brunton and seeming to confirm the party’s down in the margin-of-error thickets of circa two percent – should be worrying for them. Despite all the customary bluster about polling for NZF never being accurate (and I can still hear Winston’s words echo in my ears about the 2002 results being out by “more than a thousand percent”) – there was only an 0.1% difference between the Reid Research poll prediction for NZF immediately prior to the 2017 Election, and their actual result on the night.
So what has happened? How has it come to this?
Well, the simple answer is also simply wrong. Many people shall look at tonight’s Reid Research (as well as the various other previous polling of this cycle) and conclude that the rising New Conservatives (on 2.1% in the Reid Research, 1.6% in the Colmar Brunton) and Advance NZ have cannibalized NZF’s vote.
Except if we go back through 2014 and 2011 – the Conservatives were able to return reasonably high (by their standards) results of 3.97% and 2.65% … without eating significantly in to NZ First’s vote (8.66% and 6.59% respectively).
It would be tempting to presume that New Zealand First has been trading votes with the parties of the right-wing fringe. In some cases, this is not impossible – although even as applies ACT, I’d suspect that their sudden rise is the result of haemorrhaged National support rather than coming at Winston’s personal expense. (This shouldn’t be a point of serious doubt, as NZF and ACT are theoretically diametrically opposed on so many core issues … but who knows what goes through the minds of some ACT supporters some of the time)
Yet what has actually been occurring is that NZ First has been losing votes to Labour. As, to be sure, has just about everybody else.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
And therein lies the rub.
NZ First’s strategy for much of the campaign this year has been to present itself as ‘in this government but not of this government’. At Cabinet at least partially to prevent Labour (and the Greens) from Governing in particular areas. The proverbial ‘hand-brake’ upon our democracy.
And some of the time, this is a viable stratagem. It is possible that, were circumstances different than they are now, that this would even have been a successful prospect for the party.
If this were genuinely a 2002 style situation, for example, a weak National would mean that voters distressed about the terrifying specter of a moderate allegedly-left-wing government would be queueing up in droves to support parties perceived as able to ‘counter’ or at least ‘limit’ Labour’s agenda. Whatever that “agenda” may be perceived to be. It almost does not matter.
But this is not a 2002 style situation. It’s a 2020 style situation. A Time of Endings. And twists in the narrative that keep occurring so we’re never quite sure when or where that “Ending” may happen to be.
As soon as NZ First chose to go with Labour in 2017, it made it exponentially harder for itself to present as being “the outsider” – it was now going to be part of Government. Which makes running *against* the Government quite a difficult proposition to successfully pull off.
Running *with* the Government as a necessary support partner, however, is quite a different – and, I suspect quite a lot more of a viable – prospect. It’s something the Greens are, arguably, doing right at this minute – and reaping the polling rewards of being about three times as popular as NZ First, and over the 5% threshold. In theory – we’ll see how things play out on Election Night.
As I have written about before, from 2014 onwards there was a concerted effort inside NZF to move the whole thing ‘rightwards’. I don’t say that this was the dominant perception of members – nor even of everybody with an actual decision-making power inside the tent at that time. But some pushed for it, arranged things, and that’s in part how NZF wound up moving away from its 2011 positioning to be more ‘center’ between Labour and National than it had previously been. And thence, where its self-contradictory series of “Bottom Lines” showboating from the 2017 campaign presumably got its start. Attempts to draw in voters from National – a strategy that was doubled down upon once it became more difficult for multiple reasons to get more votes from Labour.
But in 2020 – there are precious few votes to be garnered from National. They’ve already all either left (whether for Labour or for ACT), or are battening down the hatches and clinging on for dear life.
So aiming to win (soft) National support by presenting yourself as the vector for Government restraining – is , at the moment at least , somewhere between a losing wicket and a slow hole to nowhere.
If you like Labour, why would you want to vote for the party that is the self-declared “handbrake” upon Labour governance. If you don’t like Labour … you’re probably desperately clinging on for dear life pretending that National’s actually somewhere in the mid thirties despite an escalating mound of “ROGUE POLLS” and Goldsmith accounting to the contrary. Or you’re a Greens voter.
The sensible way forward as of several months ago – it’s probably too late for this now – would have been to present as the ‘elder statesman’ party. The one that had productively worked with others to produce a strong and stable response to challenging times. And who had worked overtime in the relevant portfolio sectors (like Foreign Affairs) to help augment rather than undermine the Government’s core directives.
Because in large measure … all of that’s actually rather true, and it is a shame that it has been de-emphasized: both by deliberate signalling on the campaign trail, and by some of NZF’s high-profile actions while in or around Government (that handbrake thing being quite prominent within them).
There would have been meaningful ‘room for difference’ as well to prevent the specter of being ‘absorbed’ and ‘eclipsed’ by Labour – a risk, to be sure, for attempting to run ‘with’ rather than ‘against’ the dominant party of government.
But looking at the Greens at the moment – who are presently in a rather better position than NZF – we can see that it is possible to support Labour *and* present a vision that goes further than Labour’s in important ways which get noticed by voters. Not necessarily *positively* noticed by voters, perhaps, but that’s the risk you take.
It’s not impossible that things will change quite rapidly over the next month, and NZF will somehow perform yet another amazing resurrection from what would otherwise be the dying embers of their funeral pyre. I’d certainly like to believe that to be the case – but the *good* NZ First, not the rather obstructivist-obnoxious petty- point-scoring-for-petty-point- scoring’s-sake would-rather-be-working-with- the-other-guys-anyway side we’ve occasionally seen from time to time over the past three years, particularly wearing a quite literally Donald Trump style hat. Like … literally wearing a Donald Trump style hat.
Because ultimately – it’s been that sort of vibe which has been the problem. I’m not talking about giving a voice to the voiceless – in a democracy, that should *never* be a problem. Although the Public Party is certainly pushing the limits of *that* particular envelope, to be sure. Rather, it’s the attempt to forcibly push a centre-right outrage agenda, by generating one – and fatuous windbaggery breathing hard and heavy so it’s so difficult to see all the actual, real positive contribution being made.
It’s evident that the ‘conventional logic’ inside parts of the party is that this strategy should be working – and should be providing just enough difference from Labour to bring in both ‘conservative’ Labour supporters and National supporters alike. But it isn’t.
And so, the noose is tightening. As it has been, really, all year. NZ First’s polling has been progressively tracking downwards for much of this cycle – as, more worryingly, have Winston’s Prefered Prime Ministership ratings (which interestingly tend to be a better predictor of the party’s support than polling, some of the time).
So it’s running on instinct. Its instinct – at least in some quarters – being to thrash about and ever more dramatically. Just last week we had talk of “bringing down the Government” rather than making use of the “agree to disagree” provisions in the Coalition Agreement. And a range of other previous outbursts that sound more like rival parties on opposite sides of the aisle instead of coalition partners joined at the hip on the Treasury Benches.
And just as we saw with the mechanism of the snare – in situations wherein the animal thrashes about acting out its instincts , the noose does not leave its limb. Instead, it begins to cut off the blood-flow as it constricts in fairly direct consequence.
It’s probably too late to do anything about that now.
The only serious question is whether NZ First possesses sufficient strength left in its hindquarters to rip out the snare from its moorings rather than successfully breaking free.
Maybe, just maybe, its leg (last or otherwise) can still support it yet.


thedailyblog--2020-09-27--There are worse things than lowering the voting age

In last week ’ s leaders ’ game show styled election debate , the two candidates were asked for their views on lowering the voting age .
As expected , National ’ s conservative Judith Collins ruled out extending the franchise to those aged 16 and over , from the current 18 years .
But it was perhaps also predictable that Jacinda Ardern did not support the proposition either .
Liam Hehir says she has correctly read general public opinion , “ She understands that a cautious , even conservative approach will keep her in the Beehive ” .
Surveys @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the correct age to be able to vote .
So there ’ s no widespread mandate for change , especially from those who already have the power .
This will be disappointing to those , especially the young people , who look to Jacinda as a beacon of political equanimity , a political icon , all compassion , empathy and fairness – ‘ the patron saint of progressivism ’ , and those who , inspired by her leadership , want a stake in the political system , and our combined future too .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ voting age outright .
She suggested that when we have civics education in schools , it would be more appropriate to lower the vote .
It doesn ’ t explain though , why civics education would be necessary , for young people to vote at age 16 , but not at 18 .
Nor does it explain why legions of older voters can be trusted with a three-yearly vote , regardless of their political knowledge , education or thinking capacity , but young people with a longer stake in the future , can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t explain what level of civics education might be necessary , and what level of understanding or proficiency is required .
Is it enough to just have civics taught in schools , or should voters have to pass some sort of test ?
And if it ’ s about political and civic understanding , then surely the 16 and 17 year olds who are behind the ‘ Make it 16 ’ campaign and its High Court challenge to lower the voting age , should be eligible , and potentially others , older than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Age in itself is no guarantee of competency , and neither is the mere act of having civics education in schools .
If we had a competency test for political participation , then many of our current voters – and politicians and candidates , would possibly fail , and , given the wisdom of the idealistic and the innocent , some children might make better decisions .
And wouldn ’ t being given the opportunity to vote , be the best civics education you can get ?
Others in opposition to a lower @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vulnerable to the influence of their parents or teachers , and may make mistaken decisions .
There ’ s no age limit on vulnerability or susceptibility to influence , or on making mistakes .
What ’ s a “ correct ” political vote anyway ?
Is a mistake , when one votes for political actors against your own class interests ( say voting for National even though you ’ re a manual labourer , or voting for Labour even when you ’ re a business owner ?
, or because we all have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is it a ‘ mistake ’ to ever not vote Green ) .
And really , what ’ s the worst thing that could happen with a ‘ mistaken ’ vote , when an election outcome is not even dependent on the simple aggregate of everyone ’ s votes , where policies are binding , but more contingent on who can get first past the post by forming a Coalition with a minority party , as in the last election ?
Unfortunately , the reasons for not giving people under the age of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the reasons for not giving the vote to women , or ethnic groups , or to people in prison , or who don ’ t own land .
Denying the vote to these groups , and to young people , is the exercise of power arbitrarily denying fundamental rights to citizens – that equal power , theoretically to democratic participation , in both those who govern us , and in decisions about our future .
Another reason given for not conceding the vote to young people , is that around 1/3 of those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t vote anyway .
A disproportionately high number of young people who already have the ‘ privilege ’ of voting , don ’ t bother – especially those who are Maori , Pasifika and Asian .
Also , recent migrants , young rural people , the low paid and those with low educational achievements , – the already marginalised , are also less likely to vote .
However , given how little an individual vote matters , maybe non-voting is the most rational decision .
It can also be an act of political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than apathy or laziness as sometimes claimed .
Because voting in itself doesn ’ t make much difference , and others feel more effective power is expressed through direct action , to which there is no age limit , many of those young people who already can vote , don ’ t bother , so there ’ s not much harm in extending the franchise further .
There are also other good reasons for giving young people the vote , whether they do or not .
Most likely , new voters will discover @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , systemic power gives voters , and politicians , less power than corporates , and voting is a symbolic act that gives you the impression that it matters , but in fact , the realm of political possibility is more narrow than ever .
We are less political animals than we are economic animals , and our relative power is determined more by our status and situation in the economy , than it is by who we vote to lead us .
And even the Prime Minister ’ s power is circumscribed more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ structures and world trade agreements , than it is by who votes for him or her .
What is worse than lowering the voting age , is perpetuating a myth that voting matters much at all .

In last week’s leaders’ game show styled election debate, the two candidates were asked for their views on lowering the voting age. As expected, National’s conservative Judith Collins ruled out extending the franchise to those aged 16 and over, from the current 18 years. But it was perhaps also predictable that Jacinda Ardern did not support the proposition either. Liam Hehir says she has correctly read general public opinion, “She understands that a cautious, even conservative approach will keep her in the Beehive”. Surveys reveal that most respondents believe 18 is the correct age to be able to vote. So there’s no widespread mandate for change, especially from those who already have the power. This will be disappointing to those, especially the young people, who look to Jacinda as a beacon of political equanimity, a political icon, all compassion, empathy and fairness – ‘the patron saint of progressivism’, and those who, inspired by her leadership, want a stake in the political system, and our combined future too.
Jacinda didn’t reject lowering the voting age outright. She suggested that when we have civics education in schools, it would be more appropriate to lower the vote. It doesn’t explain though, why civics education would be necessary, for young people to vote at age 16, but not at 18. Nor does it explain why legions of older voters can be trusted with a three-yearly vote, regardless of their political knowledge, education or thinking capacity, but young people with a longer stake in the future, can’t. It also doesn’t explain what level of civics education might be necessary, and what level of understanding or proficiency is required. Is it enough to just have civics taught in schools, or should voters have to pass some sort of test? And if it’s about political and civic understanding, then surely the 16 and 17 year olds who are behind the ‘Make it 16’ campaign and its High Court challenge to lower the voting age, should be eligible, and potentially others, older than 18 or even 80 may not. Age in itself is no guarantee of competency, and neither is the mere act of having civics education in schools. If we had a competency test for political participation, then many of our current voters – and politicians and candidates, would possibly fail, and, given the wisdom of the idealistic and the innocent, some children might make better decisions. And wouldn’t being given the opportunity to vote, be the best civics education you can get?
Others in opposition to a lower voting age warn that young people are vulnerable to the influence of their parents or teachers, and may make mistaken decisions. There’s no age limit on vulnerability or susceptibility to influence, or on making mistakes. What’s a “correct” political vote anyway? Is a mistake, when one votes for political actors against your own class interests (say voting for National even though you’re a manual labourer, or voting for Labour even when you’re a business owner?, or because we all have an interest in a healthy environment, is it a ‘mistake’ to ever not vote Green). And really, what’s the worst thing that could happen with a ‘mistaken’ vote, when an election outcome is not even dependent on the simple aggregate of everyone’s votes, where policies are binding, but more contingent on who can get first past the post by forming a Coalition with a minority party, as in the last election?
Unfortunately, the reasons for not giving people under the age of 18 the vote, are reminiscent of the reasons for not giving the vote to women, or ethnic groups, or to people in prison, or who don’t own land. Denying the vote to these groups, and to young people, is the exercise of power arbitrarily denying fundamental rights to citizens – that equal power, theoretically to democratic participation, in both those who govern us, and in decisions about our future.
Another reason given for not conceding the vote to young people, is that around 1/3 of those aged between 18 and 34 don’t vote anyway. A disproportionately high number of young people who already have the ‘privilege’ of voting, don’t bother – especially those who are Maori, Pasifika and Asian. Also, recent migrants, young rural people, the low paid and those with low educational achievements, – the already marginalised, are also less likely to vote. However, given how little an individual vote matters, maybe non-voting is the most rational decision. It can also be an act of political power, an exercise in protest rather than apathy or laziness as sometimes claimed.
Because voting in itself doesn’t make much difference, and others feel more effective power is expressed through direct action, to which there is no age limit, many of those young people who already can vote, don’t bother, so there’s not much harm in extending the franchise further. There are also other good reasons for giving young people the vote, whether they do or not. Most likely, new voters will discover that no matter who they vote for, systemic power gives voters, and politicians, less power than corporates, and voting is a symbolic act that gives you the impression that it matters, but in fact, the realm of political possibility is more narrow than ever.
We are less political animals than we are economic animals, and our relative power is determined more by our status and situation in the economy, than it is by who we vote to lead us. And even the Prime Minister’s power is circumscribed more by global political economy, historic power structures and world trade agreements, than it is by who votes for him or her. What is worse than lowering the voting age, is perpetuating a myth that voting matters much at all.