thedailyblog--2020-10-21--Election aftermath: an ideological analysis

The dust has cleared .
New Zealand ’ s electoral map and parliamentary chamber have changed decisively .
Labour Red prevails and is able to legislate without impediment .
Is this a victory for the Left ?
Is a transformative policy programme likely ?
Is the Right in disarray ?
My answers here will be “ sort of ” , “ not really ” and “ partly ” , respectively .
These judgments arise from the following argument .
There are two ideological axes running at right angles to each other .
The economic axis runs from Marxism , socialism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ libertarianism .
These ideological positions stretch from Left to Right , the various standpoints in between span across the centre ( as in centre-Left , centrist , centre-Right ) .
The other axis incorporates moral issues and social rights in relation to race , culture , gender , sexual orientation , alcohol/drug use and religious belief .
Here , the continuum stretches from radical social liberalism to extreme moral conservatism .
Some journalists , commentators and naïve activists define Left and Right according to the second axis rather than the first .
For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do so here .
The two axes form a quadrant which allows us to ideologically position political parties and politicians .
Evaluation of their performance can proceed on this basis .
On the second axis , election results are crystal clear .
Most politicians and voters are committed social liberals on homosexual rights , same sex marriage , civil unions , abortion , women ’ s rights , church and state , secularism and so on .
True , transgender autonomy and cannabis law reform remain contentious issues , but moral fundamentalism has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gone , the New Conservatives received only 1.5 % of the popular vote .
By contrast , Labour and the Greens , whose MPs are mostly social liberal , received a combined 56.6 % of the popular vote , before specials .
Clearly , this is positive news for social liberal progressives , but it does not constitute a Left victory .
Well-off , National-lite voters who went over to Jacinda in droves are not on the Left end of our economic axis .
Their voting decisions arose from the well-founded belief that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kept New Zealand safe and relatively secure .
Now , this sense of security also reflects economic self-interest .
The National-lite switchers knew that an effective public health response , notwithstanding the lockdowns , would keep their investments safe too .
Our Prime Minister is acutely aware of this .
Anything more than a minimal rise in the top income tax rate , any suggestion of a wealth tax then those new Labour supporters will be gone .
Remember that critical moment in the election campaign when Jacinda drew away from wanting a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the National-lites own more than one property and happily manipulate the tax deductibility associated with property investment .
For Labour , governing on the basis of national unity means keeping these people in the tent .
Meanwhile , out on the economic right , the ACT party channels the ghost of Ayn Rand—income tax cuts , corporate tax cuts , austerity programmes and a moratorium on the minimum wage is selfish and heartless .
It is also more extreme on the economic Right than , say , the Green ’ s wealth tax @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the economic Left .
Along the economic axis , the right-wing vote is fragmented , but this could change once the National Party reorganises itself .
The Green ’ s economic policies are furthest to the Left and reflect the worldwide eco-socialist commitment to low-carbon , New Deal policies .
This is where a Left transformation programme should start .
It won ’ t come from the government or the Labour caucus .
Rather , Chloe Swarbrick ’ s extraordinary campaign in Auckland Central is the template .
Build an activist milieu around @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a sense of injustice against the political status quo .
I am reminded here of the Alliance ’ s Auckland regional-local body victory in 1991 and Sandra Lee ’ s successful Auckland Central campaign in the 1993 general election .
With 10 MPs and ready media access , the Green ’ s should build their activist base across the country for 2023 .
Labour will need the Greens if the National-lites prove to be fair weather friends .
The key priority for Màori politics is to combine axes one and two i.e.
, @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1984 , the historic injustices of colonialism converged with the neoliberal decimation of the Maori working class .
These two factors together are why Màori statistics in health , employment , housing and prisons are so horrific .
A centrist Labour government does not have the capacity to deliver solutions without alienating the National-lites .
I was thus heartened by the Màori Party ’ s challenge to Labour ’ s Màori seat hegemony .
In sum , the ideological pattern of the 2020 election result looks like this .
Secular social liberalism prevails @ @ @ @ @ @ @ axis is quite bourgeois and a long way from Green , New Deal transformation .
However , the parliamentary numbers and Swarbrick ’ s Auckland Central campaign provides opportunities for progressive activists .
Mobilise new supporters around an eco-Left programme and pull the centre to the Left .
National and Act can twist in the wind .

The dust has cleared. New Zealand’s electoral map and parliamentary chamber have changed decisively. Labour Red prevails and is able to legislate without impediment. Is this a victory for the Left? Is a transformative policy programme likely? Is the Right in disarray? My answers here will be “sort of”, “not really” and “partly”, respectively. These judgments arise from the following argument.
There are two ideological axes running at right angles to each other. The economic axis runs from Marxism, socialism and social democracy to neoliberalism and market libertarianism. These ideological positions stretch from Left to Right, the various standpoints in between span across the centre (as in centre-Left, centrist, centre-Right). The other axis incorporates moral issues and social rights in relation to race, culture, gender, sexual orientation, alcohol/drug use and religious belief. Here, the continuum stretches from radical social liberalism to extreme moral conservatism. Some journalists, commentators and naïve activists define Left and Right according to the second axis rather than the first. For reasons of clarity, I will not do so here.
The two axes form a quadrant which allows us to ideologically position political parties and politicians. Evaluation of their performance can proceed on this basis. On the second axis, election results are crystal clear. Most politicians and voters are committed social liberals on homosexual rights, same sex marriage, civil unions, abortion, women’s rights, church and state, secularism and so on. True, transgender autonomy and cannabis law reform remain contentious issues, but moral fundamentalism has been electorally defeated. NZ First has gone, the New Conservatives received only 1.5% of the popular vote. By contrast, Labour and the Greens, whose MPs are mostly social liberal, received a combined 56.6% of the popular vote, before specials.
Clearly, this is positive news for social liberal progressives, but it does not constitute a Left victory. Well-off, National-lite voters who went over to Jacinda in droves are not on the Left end of our economic axis. Their voting decisions arose from the well-founded belief that Labour’s COVID management strategy had kept New Zealand safe and relatively secure. Now, this sense of security also reflects economic self-interest. The National-lite switchers knew that an effective public health response, notwithstanding the lockdowns, would keep their investments safe too. Our Prime Minister is acutely aware of this. Anything more than a minimal rise in the top income tax rate, any suggestion of a wealth tax then those new Labour supporters will be gone. Remember that critical moment in the election campaign when Jacinda drew away from wanting a fall in house prices? Many of the National-lites own more than one property and happily manipulate the tax deductibility associated with property investment. For Labour, governing on the basis of national unity means keeping these people in the tent.
Meanwhile, out on the economic right, the ACT party channels the ghost of Ayn Rand—income tax cuts, corporate tax cuts, austerity programmes and a moratorium on the minimum wage is selfish and heartless. It is also more extreme on the economic Right than, say, the Green’s wealth tax and the guaranteed minimum income policies on the economic Left. Along the economic axis, the right-wing vote is fragmented, but this could change once the National Party reorganises itself.
The Green’s economic policies are furthest to the Left and reflect the worldwide eco-socialist commitment to low-carbon, New Deal policies. This is where a Left transformation programme should start. It won’t come from the government or the Labour caucus. Rather, Chloe Swarbrick’s extraordinary campaign in Auckland Central is the template. Build an activist milieu around voter enrolment and electorate issues and harness a sense of injustice against the political status quo. I am reminded here of the Alliance’s Auckland regional-local body victory in 1991 and Sandra Lee’s successful Auckland Central campaign in the 1993 general election. With 10 MPs and ready media access, the Green’s should build their activist base across the country for 2023. Labour will need the Greens if the National-lites prove to be fair weather friends.
The key priority for Màori politics is to combine axes one and two i.e., economic rights and cultural rights. From 1984, the historic injustices of colonialism converged with the neoliberal decimation of the Maori working class. These two factors together are why Màori statistics in health, employment, housing and prisons are so horrific. A centrist Labour government does not have the capacity to deliver solutions without alienating the National-lites. I was thus heartened by the Màori Party’s challenge to Labour’s Màori seat hegemony.
In sum, the ideological pattern of the 2020 election result looks like this. Secular social liberalism prevails. The so-called centre on our economic axis is quite bourgeois and a long way from Green, New Deal transformation. However, the parliamentary numbers and Swarbrick’s Auckland Central campaign provides opportunities for progressive activists. Mobilise new supporters around an eco-Left programme and pull the centre to the Left. National and Act can twist in the wind.


thedailyblog--2020-10-21--Yes or No, the roadmap for cannabis reform

New Zealand has voted on the world ’ s first national cannabis referendum .
NORML ’ s Chris Fowlie explains how cannabis law reform will happen whatever the result .
Supporters of sane and sensible cannabis reforms – who of course voted Yes !
– face an anxious next couple of weeks waiting for the result , but they should take some comfort and confidence from what we know so far .
Overseas polls have consistently under-reported the true level of support given in the privacy of a voting booth .
I would not be surprised if polls here under-reported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the referendum opinion polls here put the result on a knife edge .
Yet in hindsight these polls overestimated support for the conservative National Party , and they failed to pick Chloe Swarbrick would win the seat of Auckland Central .
Chloe has been the most prominent promoter of the Yes vote , so it ’ s encouraging to see that work did not hurt her popularity , and may in fact have helped her chances of winning .
Meanwhile the main promoters of No – the National Party and in particular @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were rewarded with a drop in support .
While Chloe flipped Auckland Central from blue to green , Smith lost the Nelson seat he had held since 1996 .
The preliminary result for both referendums will be announced after the formation of the Government ( expected next week ) , on Friday 30 October .
The final result will be announced Friday 6 November .
The delay in counting votes in the referendum is not something I ’ m concerned about – the Government just didn ’ t resource the Electoral Commission to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if NZ votes Yes ?
If the result is a majority in favour of Yes , Labour will introduce the Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill and has pledged to support it passing into law .
There will be opportunities during the select committee stage for anyone to have their say and propose changes and improvements .
Those who wanted changes – such as increased plant limits , or lowered purchasing limits , or new licensing requirements – can argue their case then .
I ’ d expect some changes to the Bill given @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Government has pledged that no core features would be watered down .
They will introduce the Bill that was voted on .
The proposed rules allow limited home cultivation by adults aged over 20 , and establishes a legal framework for production and retail that favours non-profits and social enterprises , and prohibits international trade or foreign controlled entities .
Passage of the law might take up to a year , then another year for regulations and licensing , so we could expect New Zealand ’ s legal adult-use market to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the legal market is predicted to generate around $ 1 billion annually in sales taxes and levies , the bulk of which would be funnelled into local health and education services .
We can expect a blip in cannabis use among older people , but use is expected to drop among youth .
What happens if NZ votes No ?
If the result is a majority in favour of No , Labour has said the Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill will not be introduced to Parliament .
But that doesn ’ t mean @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the vote was about whether or not you supported a specific piece of draft legislation called the Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill .
A “ no ” vote to that Bill doesn ’ t also mean no to everything else .
It was non-binding , after all !
We would still have a progressive Labour-led government , with opportunities for policy and legislative reform , and as Helen Clark has noted there will be a more representative parliament containing a number of MPs who could table a private member ’ s bill .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ moved over to supporting decriminalisation or other iterative steps in that direction , and we must hold them to that .
Opportunities to amend our drug laws include formalising the failed decriminalisation that is predicated on police discretion that they fail to use , or use in racist ways ; expanding medicinal access to make prescriptions easier and products more affordable ; and allowing patients to grow their own cannabis .
Labour could also allow the private member ’ s bill by National ’ s health spokesperson Dr Shane Reti , already drawn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first reading and go to select committee .
That bill would expand the Medicinal Cannabis Scheme to let doctors issue medicinal cannabis ID cards to patients , who could then use the cards to purchase a variety of cannabis-based products from pharmacies , with no actual prescription required .
This would be a huge improvement on the current scheme and taking the liability off doctors would potentially widen access to thousands more people , while allowing cheaper over-the-counter products .
Further examples that would have dramatic impacts on drug law enforcement could include @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s recommendation to remove the Misuse of Drugs Act ’ s reverse onus of proof ( that breaches NZ ’ s Bill of Rights ) by presuming the accused is guilty until proven innocent ; • remove the presumption of supply that charges people as dealers if they possess over some arbitrary amounts ( 1 ounce , 10 plants , or 100 marijuana cigarettes ) ; and • reform for pipes which while openly sold in many stores carry a sentence for possession of up to 1 year imprisonment and a record that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ syringe ” .
The bottom line is that a majority No vote would reflect concerns about the draft Bill , rather than opposition to other reforms .
The Nopers readily admitted the failings of the current law , so we ’ re all in agreement that criminal prohibition must end .
That ’ s why cannabis law reform can and should happen , regardless of the result of the referendum .
Chris Fowlie is the president of the National Organisation for the Reform of Marijuana Laws NZ Inc ; developer of the CHOISE @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Zeacann Limited , a cannabis science company ; co-founder of the New Zealand Medical Cannabis Council ; co-founder of The Hempstore Aotearoa ; resident expert for Marijuana Media on 95bFM ; cannabis blogger for The Daily Blog , and court-recognised independent expert witness for cannabis .
The opinions expressed here are his own .

New Zealand has voted on the world’s first national cannabis referendum. NORML’s Chris Fowlie explains how cannabis law reform will happen whatever the result.
Supporters of sane and sensible cannabis reforms – who of course voted Yes! – face an anxious next couple of weeks waiting for the result, but they should take some comfort and confidence from what we know so far.
Overseas polls have consistently under-reported the true level of support given in the privacy of a voting booth. I would not be surprised if polls here under-reported true support for voting Yes.
Prior to the referendum opinion polls here put the result on a knife edge. Yet in hindsight these polls overestimated support for the conservative National Party, and they failed to pick Chloe Swarbrick would win the seat of Auckland Central.
Chloe has been the most prominent promoter of the Yes vote, so it’s encouraging to see that work did not hurt her popularity, and may in fact have helped her chances of winning.
Meanwhile the main promoters of No – the National Party and in particular their hopeless Noper MP Nick Smith – were rewarded with a drop in support.
While Chloe flipped Auckland Central from blue to green, Smith lost the Nelson seat he had held since 1996.
The preliminary result for both referendums will be announced after the formation of the Government (expected next week), on Friday 30 October. The final result will be announced Friday 6 November.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
The delay in counting votes in the referendum is not something I’m concerned about – the Government just didn’t resource the Electoral Commission to do it any quicker.
What happens if NZ votes Yes?
If the result is a majority in favour of Yes, Labour will introduce the Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill and has pledged to support it passing into law.
There will be opportunities during the select committee stage for anyone to have their say and propose changes and improvements.
Those who wanted changes – such as increased plant limits, or lowered purchasing limits, or new licensing requirements – can argue their case then. I’d expect some changes to the Bill given what happened during the campaign but note the Government has pledged that no core features would be watered down. They will introduce the Bill that was voted on.
The proposed rules allow limited home cultivation by adults aged over 20, and establishes a legal framework for production and retail that favours non-profits and social enterprises, and prohibits international trade or foreign controlled entities.
Passage of the law might take up to a year, then another year for regulations and licensing, so we could expect New Zealand’s legal adult-use market to be established in 2022-23.
In time, the legal market is predicted to generate around $1 billion annually in sales taxes and levies, the bulk of which would be funnelled into local health and education services. We can expect a blip in cannabis use among older people, but use is expected to drop among youth.
What happens if NZ votes No?
If the result is a majority in favour of No, Labour has said the Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill will not be introduced to Parliament.
But that doesn’t mean reform would be off the agenda – the vote was about whether or not you supported a specific piece of draft legislation called the Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill.
A “no” vote to that Bill doesn’t also mean no to everything else. It was non-binding, after all!
We would still have a progressive Labour-led government, with opportunities for policy and legislative reform, and as Helen Clark has noted there will be a more representative parliament containing a number of MPs who could table a private member’s bill.
During the referendum campaign, the Nopers moved over to supporting decriminalisation or other iterative steps in that direction, and we must hold them to that.
Opportunities to amend our drug laws include formalising the failed decriminalisation that is predicated on police discretion that they fail to use, or use in racist ways; expanding medicinal access to make prescriptions easier and products more affordable; and allowing patients to grow their own cannabis.
Labour could also allow the private member’s bill by National’s health spokesperson Dr Shane Reti, already drawn from the ballot, to have a first reading and go to select committee.
That bill would expand the Medicinal Cannabis Scheme to let doctors issue medicinal cannabis ID cards to patients, who could then use the cards to purchase a variety of cannabis-based products from pharmacies, with no actual prescription required.
This would be a huge improvement on the current scheme and taking the liability off doctors would potentially widen access to thousands more people, while allowing cheaper over-the-counter products.
Further examples that would have dramatic impacts on drug law enforcement could include:
implement the Law Commission’s recommendation to remove the Misuse of Drugs Act’s reverse onus of proof (that breaches NZ’s Bill of Rights) by presuming the accused is guilty until proven innocent;
remove the presumption of supply that charges people as dealers if they possess over some arbitrary amounts (1 ounce, 10 plants, or 100 marijuana cigarettes); and
reform for pipes which while openly sold in many stores carry a sentence for possession of up to 1 year imprisonment and a record that states “possession of a needle or syringe”.
The bottom line is that a majority No vote would reflect concerns about the draft Bill, rather than opposition to other reforms. The Nopers readily admitted the failings of the current law, so we’re all in agreement that criminal prohibition must end.
That’s why cannabis law reform can and should happen, regardless of the result of the referendum.
—
Chris Fowlie is the president of the National Organisation for the Reform of Marijuana Laws NZ Inc; developer of the CHOISE model for cannabis social equity; CEO of Zeacann Limited, a cannabis science company; co-founder of the New Zealand Medical Cannabis Council; co-founder of The Hempstore Aotearoa; resident expert for Marijuana Media on 95bFM; cannabis blogger for The Daily Blog, and court-recognised independent expert witness for cannabis. The opinions expressed here are his own.


thedailyblog--2020-10-21--It’s Time For Some “Earnest Struggle”

It’s Time For Some “Earnest Struggle”

THE TRUE MEASURE of Neoliberalism ’ s victory is the extent to which the Left now expects someone else to make the revolution .
I listened this morning while Janet McAllister , from Child Poverty Action Group , did her best to guilt-trip Jacinda Ardern into ending child poverty .
Labour ’ s mandate is unequivocal , Janet reassured Morning Report ’ s listeners , everyone ’ s in favour , so “ let ’ s do this ” .
The CPAG spokeswoman ’ s faith was little short of biblical : “ Ask , and it shall be given @ @ @ @ @ @ @ find ; knock , and it shall be opened unto you.
” Oh , that political change were so simple !
Let ’ s pick apart Janet ’ s political pitch .
CPAG ’ s analytical frame – “ Child Poverty ” – is , not to put too fine a point upon it , a con .
A well-meaning con , to be sure , but a con none the less .
Why ?
Because , as that wry old Communist , Don Franks , noted on Twitter just the other day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t work.
” And , of course , he ’ s right .
Society doesn ’ t impose poverty on children , it imposes poverty upon their parents .
So , when the demand is made to end child poverty , those making it are actually demanding an end to poverty itself .
A worthy goal , but also a problematic one , since the problem it addresses – economic and social inequality – encompasses the entire battleground between the Left and the Right .
Now , being lumped-in with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something the good folk at CPAG are all that keen on .
They are perfectly aware that if they made their pitch all about lifting wages and raising taxes , the flow of donations would dry up almost immediately .
That ’ s why they frame their political narrative around child poverty .
It ’ s about all those poor little children without warm , dry houses ; without shoes ; without school-lunches .
Because who , out there in middle-class-land , is hard-hearted enough to refuse to help these poor wee mites @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is : the very same people who deny their parents a decent wage ; whack up the rent on their freezing-cold hovels ; and resist any attempt to make them pay their fair share of tax .
( An astonishing number of whom have , over the past fortnight , cast their Party Vote proudly for “ Jacinda ” and the Labour Party ! )
So , Janet , when you tell RNZ ’ s middle-class audience that everyone wants to end child poverty , you ’ re right – and you ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emotional shock of a deprived child , everyone ( or just about everyone ) wants to do something to help .
But , when they discover what “ doing something to help ” is going to cost them , well , that ’ s when they stop being willing to cry : “ Let ’ s do this !
” In fact , that ’ s when they end up feeling just a wee bit manipulated ; a wee bit conned ; and a whole lot convinced that “ ending child poverty ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : “ Let ’ s do Socialism !
” I ’ m pretty sure Jacinda ( aided , as always , by her trusty pollsters and focus-group moderators ) worked this out some time ago .
Which is why , in her case , ending child poverty has become less of an urgent priority and more of a work in progress .
The Finance Minister , Grant Robertson , will also have been given the message ( in his case by Treasury ) that the Prime Ministers ’ promises , if kept , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on a great many very powerful toes .
“ Are you absolutely sure , Minister , ” his advisers will purr , “ that the PM really intends to be that … courageous ?
” There will be plenty of readers bristling about now , and demanding to know , from no one in particular , exactly what Trotter is suggesting .
Is he saying that the Left should simply give up on poverty and inequality ?
No , he most emphatically is .
What he is proposing , is that the Left @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : organise !
If Jacinda were to switch on Morning Report and , instead of CPAG ’ s Janet McCallister cheekily borrowing her own election slogans , hear the RNZ newsreader describing the 20,000-strong anti-poverty march that had wound its way through the streets of South Auckland the night before , how do you think she would react ?
What would Grant Robertson ’ s response be when he heard a grab from the passionate speech delivered to the marchers by the Green Party ’ s Ricardo Menendez March , in which he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Universal Benefit of $ 400 per week ?
I strongly suspect they ’ d be texting each other within 30 seconds with the same message : “ We ’ ve got to do something about this !
” Relying on top-down solutions to entrenched economic and societal problems is never a good idea .
Liberal Americans may have celebrated when the US Supreme Court overturned Jim Crow legislation in the Deep South and guaranteed American women the right to terminate their pregnancies .
Conservative Americans , however , were spared the trial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their prejudices challenged and defeated , democratically , in their state legislatures .
Legal victories are very different from democratic victories .
The former are won in courtrooms , the latter on the streets and in the polling-booths .
American conservatives were not daunted by Supreme Court activism , they were educated by it .
And the lesson they learned was simple : Stack the Court with your own activists .
Frederick Douglass ( 1818-1895 ) the former slave and leading abolitionist , understood the crucial role of organisation and action in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is how he summed it up : “ Let me give you a word of the philosophy of reform .
The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims have been born of earnest struggle .
The conflict has been exciting , agitating , all-absorbing , and for the time being , putting all other tumults to silence .
It must do this or it does nothing .
If there is no struggle there is no progress .
Those who profess to favor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who want crops without plowing up the ground ; they want rain without thunder and lightning .
They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters .
This struggle may be a moral one , or it may be a physical one , and it may be both moral and physical , but it must be a struggle .
Power concedes nothing without a demand .
It never did and it never will .
Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be imposed upon them , and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows , or with both .
The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.
” Douglass spoke those words in 1857 , and in the intervening 163 years they have lost neither their power , nor their urgent wisdom .
The New Zealand Left should commit his words to memory , and take his message to heart .

THE TRUE MEASURE of Neoliberalism’s victory is the extent to which the Left now expects someone else to make the revolution. I listened this morning while Janet McAllister, from Child Poverty Action Group, did her best to guilt-trip Jacinda Ardern into ending child poverty. Labour’s mandate is unequivocal, Janet reassured Morning Report’s listeners, everyone’s in favour, so “let’s do this”. The CPAG spokeswoman’s faith was little short of biblical: “Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.” Oh, that political change were so simple!
Let’s pick apart Janet’s political pitch. CPAG’s analytical frame – “Child Poverty” – is, not to put too fine a point upon it, a con. A well-meaning con, to be sure, but a con none the less. Why? Because, as that wry old Communist, Don Franks, noted on Twitter just the other day: “Children are poor because they don’t work.” And, of course, he’s right. Society doesn’t impose poverty on children, it imposes poverty upon their parents. So, when the demand is made to end child poverty, those making it are actually demanding an end to poverty itself. A worthy goal, but also a problematic one, since the problem it addresses – economic and social inequality – encompasses the entire battleground between the Left and the Right.
Now, being lumped-in with the forces of the Radical Left is not something the good folk at CPAG are all that keen on. They are perfectly aware that if they made their pitch all about lifting wages and raising taxes, the flow of donations would dry up almost immediately. That’s why they frame their political narrative around child poverty. It’s about all those poor little children without warm, dry houses; without shoes; without school-lunches. Because who, out there in middle-class-land, is hard-hearted enough to refuse to help these poor wee mites? The answer, of course, is: the very same people who deny their parents a decent wage; whack up the rent on their freezing-cold hovels; and resist any attempt to make them pay their fair share of tax. (An astonishing number of whom have, over the past fortnight, cast their Party Vote proudly for “Jacinda” and the Labour Party!)
So, Janet, when you tell RNZ’s middle-class audience that everyone wants to end child poverty, you’re right – and you’re wrong. When confronted with the emotional shock of a deprived child, everyone (or just about everyone) wants to do something to help. But, when they discover what “doing something to help” is going to cost them, well, that’s when they stop being willing to cry: “Let’s do this!” In fact, that’s when they end up feeling just a wee bit manipulated; a wee bit conned; and a whole lot convinced that “ending child poverty” is just a polite way of saying: “Let’s do Socialism!”
I’m pretty sure Jacinda (aided, as always, by her trusty pollsters and focus-group moderators) worked this out some time ago. Which is why, in her case, ending child poverty has become less of an urgent priority and more of a work in progress. The Finance Minister, Grant Robertson, will also have been given the message (in his case by Treasury) that the Prime Ministers’ promises, if kept, would likely prove very expensive and tread on a great many very powerful toes. “Are you absolutely sure, Minister,” his advisers will purr, “that the PM really intends to be that … courageous?”
There will be plenty of readers bristling about now, and demanding to know, from no one in particular, exactly what Trotter is suggesting. Is he saying that the Left should simply give up on poverty and inequality? No, he most emphatically is not . What he is proposing, is that the Left does what the Left used to do: organise!
If Jacinda were to switch on Morning Report and, instead of CPAG’s Janet McCallister cheekily borrowing her own election slogans, hear the RNZ newsreader describing the 20,000-strong anti-poverty march that had wound its way through the streets of South Auckland the night before, how do you think she would react? What would Grant Robertson’s response be when he heard a grab from the passionate speech delivered to the marchers by the Green Party’s Ricardo Menendez March, in which he reaffirmed his party’s commitment to a Universal Benefit of $400 per week? I strongly suspect they’d be texting each other within 30 seconds with the same message: “We’ve got to do something about this!”
Relying on top-down solutions to entrenched economic and societal problems is never a good idea. Liberal Americans may have celebrated when the US Supreme Court overturned Jim Crow legislation in the Deep South and guaranteed American women the right to terminate their pregnancies. Conservative Americans, however, were spared the trial they truly feared: that of having their prejudices challenged and defeated, democratically, in their state legislatures. Legal victories are very different from democratic victories. The former are won in courtrooms, the latter on the streets and in the polling-booths. American conservatives were not daunted by Supreme Court activism, they were educated by it. And the lesson they learned was simple: Stack the Court with your own activists.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
Frederick Douglass (1818-1895) the former slave and leading abolitionist, understood the crucial role of organisation and action in the fight for freedom and equality. This is how he summed it up:
“Let me give you a word of the philosophy of reform. The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims have been born of earnest struggle. The conflict has been exciting, agitating, all-absorbing, and for the time being, putting all other tumults to silence. It must do this or it does nothing. If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation are men who want crops without plowing up the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters.
This struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, and it may be both moral and physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”
Douglass spoke those words in 1857, and in the intervening 163 years they have lost neither their power, nor their urgent wisdom. The New Zealand Left should commit his words to memory, and take his message to heart.


thedailyblog--2020-10-21--Dr Liz Gordon: The best kind of problem to have

Can a party win too many seats ?
Is a majority in Parliament a blessing or a potential disaster ?
The rule of thumb operating since at least 1984 is that parties should have at least half their MPs involved in the executive work of government .
The Executive is all those involved in the Cabinet and working under the rules of Cabinet collective responsibility .
For the uninitiated , these means that whatever happens in Cabinet , all Ministers are bound by the outcome .
A handy little tool , but morally inferior to consensus !
In order to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ revolt ( backbenchers opposing decisions of Cabinet at caucus level ) , the conventional wisdom is that the Cabinet ( and its various Ministers outside of Cabinet , and under-secretaries ) should always be able to outvote backbench members .
This is crucial in a time of policy dispute within a party .
Of the 1984 Labour Government , Colin James correctly wrote : In 1984-87 an inner group of five ministers , plus Lange , could command the cabinet , using shock tactics ; the cabinet commanded the Labour caucus ; the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had , from 1984-87 , effectively a one-party state , controlled from the top and incorporating top officials in the key ministries .
But Jacinda has made it clear that she intends to govern by consensus , and will therefore rarely use the ‘ fish and chip brigade ’ approach .
And if the heart of that consensus is her own MPs , then the more the merrier .
There is a risk to the leadership only if they diverge from the stated programme in some radical way .
That said , there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ huge Labour caucus can be utilised during this term .
There are only so many places on select committees and the available spaces are going to have to be spread thinly to give everyone a place .
Having new backbenchers loping around with nothing to do is not a good idea , especially not for team-building purposes .
Backbenchers need to be kept busy and engaged .
Is there a potential solution for the ‘ team of 64 ’ ?
Just a few thoughts .
Starting from the top , there is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cabinet to 24 ( even if it will be a bit squished on the 8th floor – they should consider moving to a larger room , also a symbolic move ) .
There are two reasons : the government has a large and ambitious programme ; and it needs to demonstrate gender and cultural representation .
Thus 12 women , 3-4 Māori and other groups .
In addition , the last term saw six ministers outside of Parliament – three Labour , three Greens .
These are useful people : highly engaged in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , without the right to attend Cabinet .
Six of these MPs seems like a good number , and will bring the total number of Ministers to 30 .
As an aside , there is no definitive answer to whether the Greens should join the government as full coalition partners .
I think , on balance , they should join and Labour should welcome them in .
But I worry that the Greens will not be treated with the respect a Coalition partner should receive , namely three good Cabinet placings including Deputy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the latter position for her own Deputy , but treating the Greens well now will improve their loyalty later , if testing times emerge ( as they will ) .
So that leaves just over 40 government ( Labour and Greens ) backbenchers to Chair and be members of select committees .
There are around 12 such committees , plus a number of business committees , so a dozen more people can be rewarded with Chairs and each MP should be on 1-2 committees .
With 35 MPs and no ministerial responsibilities , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do the business of the House , and , you never know , having to work harder may bring about a more cohesive caucus .
So these are the issues facing Jacinda and other leaders as they work to construct a parliament that enables Labour to implement its programme .
What to do about all the other problems , such as dealing with such a grumpy , bullying opposition ( if their performance on the hustings was anything to go by ) , I do not know .
No I will not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I don ’ t know most of them well enough .
But I note there is plenty of talent , old and new .
When I had a little go I was stumped by not wanting to demote some people while wanting to promote a lot of others .
Hah !
I am glad it is not my role .
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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Can a party win too many seats? Is a majority in Parliament a blessing or a potential disaster? The rule of thumb operating since at least 1984 is that parties should have at least half their MPs involved in the executive work of government. The Executive is all those involved in the Cabinet and working under the rules of Cabinet collective responsibility. For the uninitiated, these means that whatever happens in Cabinet, all Ministers are bound by the outcome. A handy little tool, but morally inferior to consensus!
In order to protect against the possibility of a caucus revolt (backbenchers opposing decisions of Cabinet at caucus level), the conventional wisdom is that the Cabinet (and its various Ministers outside of Cabinet, and under-secretaries) should always be able to outvote backbench members.
This is crucial in a time of policy dispute within a party. Of the 1984 Labour Government, Colin James correctly wrote:
In 1984-87 an inner group of five ministers, plus Lange, could command the cabinet, using shock tactics; the cabinet commanded the Labour caucus; the Labour caucus commanded the Parliament. We had, from 1984-87, effectively a one-party state, controlled from the top and incorporating top officials in the key ministries.
But Jacinda has made it clear that she intends to govern by consensus, and will therefore rarely use the ‘fish and chip brigade’ approach. And if the heart of that consensus is her own MPs, then the more the merrier. There is a risk to the leadership only if they diverge from the stated programme in some radical way.
That said, there needs to be consideration of how the huge Labour caucus can be utilised during this term. There are only so many places on select committees and the available spaces are going to have to be spread thinly to give everyone a place. Having new backbenchers loping around with nothing to do is not a good idea, especially not for team-building purposes. Backbenchers need to be kept busy and engaged.
Is there a potential solution for the ‘team of 64’? Just a few thoughts.
Starting from the top, there is a clear case for expanding the size of Cabinet to 24 (even if it will be a bit squished on the 8th floor – they should consider moving to a larger room, also a symbolic move). There are two reasons: the government has a large and ambitious programme; and it needs to demonstrate gender and cultural representation. Thus 12 women, 3-4 Māori and other groups.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
In addition, the last term saw six ministers outside of Parliament – three Labour, three Greens. These are useful people: highly engaged in Cabinet work and bound by collective responsibility, without the right to attend Cabinet. Six of these MPs seems like a good number, and will bring the total number of Ministers to 30.
As an aside, there is no definitive answer to whether the Greens should join the government as full coalition partners. I think, on balance, they should join and Labour should welcome them in. But I worry that the Greens will not be treated with the respect a Coalition partner should receive, namely three good Cabinet placings including Deputy PM. Jacinda will obviously yearn for the latter position for her own Deputy, but treating the Greens well now will improve their loyalty later, if testing times emerge (as they will).
So that leaves just over 40 government (Labour and Greens) backbenchers to Chair and be members of select committees. There are around 12 such committees, plus a number of business committees, so a dozen more people can be rewarded with Chairs and each MP should be on 1-2 committees. With 35 MPs and no ministerial responsibilities, National will still have plenty of people to do the business of the House, and, you never know, having to work harder may bring about a more cohesive caucus.
So these are the issues facing Jacinda and other leaders as they work to construct a parliament that enables Labour to implement its programme. What to do about all the other problems, such as dealing with such a grumpy, bullying opposition (if their performance on the hustings was anything to go by), I do not know.
No I will not choose my dream cabinet in this blog. I don’t know most of them well enough. But I note there is plenty of talent, old and new. When I had a little go I was stumped by not wanting to demote some people while wanting to promote a lot of others. Hah! I am glad it is not my role.
Dr Liz Gordon is a researcher and a barrister, with interests in destroying neo-liberalism in all its forms and moving towards a socially just society. She usually blogs on justice, social welfare and education topics.


thedailyblog--2020-10-22--The Twilight Of Boomer Power

The Twilight Of Boomer Power

THE DAILY BLOG ’ S Editor , Martyn ( Bomber ) Bradbury , is characterising the decisive 2020 election result as the Twilight of Boomer Power .
Martyn , and all those who share his view , had better hope not .
Baby Boomer votes played a critical role in Labour ’ s historic victory .
Moreover , as New Zealand ’ s most electorally diligent demographic , they are likely to play an equally critical role in the next .
Under these circumstances , dancing on the grave of Boomer power strikes me as a sub-optimal strategy for holding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For clarity of analysis , it is important to remind readers that the age-range encompassed by the term Boomer stretches from those born in the year following the end of World War II , 1946 , to those born at the very end of the post-war surge in fecundity in the mid-1960s .
In other words , a Baby Boomer can be anybody between the ages of 55 and 75 .
Or , to put it another way : the first Boomers came into this world to the crooning of Frank Sinatra ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Beatles .
We are a singular generation .
Those who pay attention to the ads on television will have noticed a strange shift in the marketing strategy of the corporations promoting retirement villages .
Where once the ad-men conjured up visions of silver-haired ladies and gentlemen settling into their final years amid fine china and roses , they are now making their pitch to what look like slightly wrinkled versions of sixties-era hippies and rockers .
The soundtrack , once Mantovani and his Orchestra , is now The Who and The Rolling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ telling the advertising gurus that the Boomers are preparing to grow old as they grew up – disgracefully .
There ’ s a political side to all of this that it would be most unwise for younger generations of voters to ignore .
It is , perhaps , best illustrated by a meme sent to me recently by a friend .
It depicts a young woman from the Swinging Sixties standing in front of a Mini Minor motor car .
The text reads : Your Grandma wore : Mini Skirts , Hot Pants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no Bra .
Listened to : Led Zeppelin , The Beatles , Hendrix , Janis Joplin and The Stones .
Designed : Fashion you are still wearing today .
Drank : G and Ts and shots , came home at four am , and still went to work .
You will never be as cool as your Grandma .
Boomer hubris ?
Of course !
But it does make the point that the generation raised in the years of plenty turned out to be very different from the generation raised during the years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
All that generation wanted to do when the shooting stopped was find a job , get married , buy a house , and start a family .
( Although , not always in that order ! )
Their children , however , took all of their parents ’ hard won opportunities and affluence for granted , and went off in search of something more .
Not all of them gave up when the rules of the game changed abruptly in the 1980s .
And even the ones who did can still remember @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for something beyond your grasp .
Some of us are reaching still .
Could that “ reaching ” have played a part in Labour ’ s astonishing victory ?
I think it did .
I think Jacinda reminded many Boomers of their younger selves .
I think they contrasted her courageous handling of the Covid-19 Crisis with their own cowardly failure to meet the moral challenge of Neoliberalism .
Where they had simply taken the corporate money and run , Jacinda faced down the “ economy first ” brigade with , of all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transcendence in that brave display : a moment of – dare I say it ?
– transformation .
It reminded many of them of things they had forgotten .
Like the sheer size of the anti-Vietnam War mobilisation of 1971 .
Like the political electricity crackling across the first United Women ’ s Convention in 1973 .
Like the lonely thrill of seeing the Riot Squad advance with batons drawn in the anti-Apartheid protests of 1981 .
Like the passage of the Homosexual Law Reform Bill in 1986 , and the Nuclear-Free New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even remember the evening of Saturday , 25 November 1972 , when New Zealanders , after 12 long years , shrugged off the blues and turned their country red .
I certainly remember it .
Sitting in my parent ’ s kitchen , watching the portable TV set , drawing a red star by every electorate that fell to Labour , and a blue swastika alongside every National win .
And how , by the end of the night , the Special Election Lift-Out section of theEvening Post , sellotaped to the kitchen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of red stars .
Thinking to myself : this is new ; this is something I haven ’ t seen before .
I was sixteen .
Nobody will convince me that in kitchens all over New Zealand , last Saturday night , there weren ’ t thousands of 16-year-olds looking at their devices and feeling that same shiver-up-the-spine as their country , very deliberately , turned a page .
That they ’ re out there fills me with hope .
But , I would be lying if I didn ’ t admit also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ study by the University of Cambridge indicates that : “ Young people are less satisfied with democracy and more disillusioned than at any other time in the past century.
” The reason ?
That ’ s easy .
Their disillusionment has grown out of their steadily deteriorating socio-economic situation vis-à-vis the two generations that came before them .
It ’ s the Millennials , those born between 1981 and 1996 , who feel most aggrieved .
And why wouldn ’ t they ?
When the Baby Boomers were their age , in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the nation ’ s wealth .
Today , Americans aged 25-40 hold just 3 percent !
For those disposed to light a match , there is fuel aplenty here to set democracy ablaze .
That would be a tragedy , because the sort of people who set democracies ablaze do not offer hope – only hate .
Our democratic vote can be put to multiple uses .
In dangerous times , it can be used as a shield .
In times like these , of opportunity , it can also be used as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ future .
But our votes can also be used as weapons : to punish and to harm political “ enemies ” of all kinds .
But , when they are used in this way , history shows that the weaponisers suffer every bit as much harm as their intended victims .
Political vengeance is a poor substitute for progressive policy .
Giving up on democracy means giving up all hope of a better future .
Martyn Bradbury is right about the Boomers : twilight does beckon them , as their long reign approaches @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into “ that good night ” ( which awaits us all ! )
I , as someone born right in the middle of the Baby Boom generation , would implore the younger generations to give my fellow Boomers one more chance to “ rage , rage , against the dying of the light ” .
One last opportunity to demonstrate the wisdom of the poet , Robert Browning , who declared : “ Ah , but a man ’ s reach should exceed his grasp , Or what ’ s a heaven for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yet unborn , I invite you to reach out your hands to those who , for a few , brief , shining moments , allowed themselves to believe that there is “ something more ” .
Because , sixteen , thirty-two , sixty-four : don ’ t we all , as New Zealanders , deserve the chance to say : “ This is new .
This is something we haven ’ t seen before .
”

THE DAILY BLOG’S Editor, Martyn (Bomber) Bradbury, is characterising the decisive 2020 election result as the Twilight of Boomer Power. Martyn, and all those who share his view, had better hope not. Baby Boomer votes played a critical role in Labour’s historic victory. Moreover, as New Zealand’s most electorally diligent demographic, they are likely to play an equally critical role in the next. Under these circumstances, dancing on the grave of Boomer power strikes me as a sub-optimal strategy for holding together Jacinda’s winning coalition.
For clarity of analysis, it is important to remind readers that the age-range encompassed by the term Boomer stretches from those born in the year following the end of World War II, 1946, to those born at the very end of the post-war surge in fecundity in the mid-1960s. In other words, a Baby Boomer can be anybody between the ages of 55 and 75. Or, to put it another way: the first Boomers came into this world to the crooning of Frank Sinatra; the last to the pop poetry of The Beatles.
We are a singular generation. Those who pay attention to the ads on television will have noticed a strange shift in the marketing strategy of the corporations promoting retirement villages. Where once the ad-men conjured up visions of silver-haired ladies and gentlemen settling into their final years amid fine china and roses, they are now making their pitch to what look like slightly wrinkled versions of sixties-era hippies and rockers. The soundtrack, once Mantovani and his Orchestra, is now The Who and The Rolling Stones. Clearly, the psychographics are telling the advertising gurus that the Boomers are preparing to grow old as they grew up – disgracefully.
There’s a political side to all of this that it would be most unwise for younger generations of voters to ignore. It is, perhaps, best illustrated by a meme sent to me recently by a friend. It depicts a young woman from the Swinging Sixties standing in front of a Mini Minor motor car. The text reads:
Your Grandma wore: Mini Skirts, Hot Pants, Go-Go Boots, Bell-Bottoms, and no Bra.
Listened to: Led Zeppelin, The Beatles, Hendrix, Janis Joplin and The Stones.
Drove: Mini Cars.
Rode on: Fast motor bikes and scooters.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
Smoked: Slim cigarettes.
Designed: Fashion you are still wearing today.
Drank: G and Ts and shots, came home at four am, and still went to work.
You will never be as cool as your Grandma.
Boomer hubris? Of course! But it does make the point that the generation raised in the years of plenty turned out to be very different from the generation raised during the years of global economic depression and worldwide war. All that generation wanted to do when the shooting stopped was find a job, get married, buy a house, and start a family. (Although, not always in that order!) Their children, however, took all of their parents’ hard won opportunities and affluence for granted, and went off in search of something more. Not all of them gave up when the rules of the game changed abruptly in the 1980s. And even the ones who did can still remember what it’s like to reach for something beyond your grasp. Some of us are reaching still.
Could that “reaching” have played a part in Labour’s astonishing victory? I think it did. I think Jacinda reminded many Boomers of their younger selves. I think they contrasted her courageous handling of the Covid-19 Crisis with their own cowardly failure to meet the moral challenge of Neoliberalism. Where they had simply taken the corporate money and run, Jacinda faced down the “economy first” brigade with, of all things, kindness.
There was a transcendence in that brave display: a moment of – dare I say it? – transformation. It reminded many of them of things they had forgotten. Like the sheer size of the anti-Vietnam War mobilisation of 1971. Like the political electricity crackling across the first United Women’s Convention in 1973. Like the lonely thrill of seeing the Riot Squad advance with batons drawn in the anti-Apartheid protests of 1981. Like the passage of the Homosexual Law Reform Bill in 1986, and the Nuclear-Free New Zealand legislation in 1987.
Some may even remember the evening of Saturday, 25 November 1972, when New Zealanders, after 12 long years, shrugged off the blues and turned their country red. I certainly remember it. Sitting in my parent’s kitchen, watching the portable TV set, drawing a red star by every electorate that fell to Labour, and a blue swastika alongside every National win. And how, by the end of the night, the Special Election Lift-Out section of theEvening Post, sellotaped to the kitchen wall, had become a veritable galaxy of red stars. Thinking to myself: this is new; this is something I haven’t seen before. I was sixteen.
Nobody will convince me that in kitchens all over New Zealand, last Saturday night, there weren’t thousands of 16-year-olds looking at their devices and feeling that same shiver-up-the-spine as their country, very deliberately, turned a page. That they’re out there fills me with hope. But, I would be lying if I didn’t admit also to feelings of dread.
A recent study by the University of Cambridge indicates that: “Young people are less satisfied with democracy and more disillusioned than at any other time in the past century.” The reason? That’s easy. Their disillusionment has grown out of their steadily deteriorating socio-economic situation vis-à-vis the two generations that came before them. It’s the Millennials, those born between 1981 and 1996, who feel most aggrieved. And why wouldn’t they? When the Baby Boomers were their age, in the US, they held 21 percent of the nation’s wealth. Today, Americans aged 25-40 hold just 3 percent! For those disposed to light a match, there is fuel aplenty here to set democracy ablaze.
That would be a tragedy, because the sort of people who set democracies ablaze do not offer hope – only hate.
Our democratic vote can be put to multiple uses. In dangerous times, it can be used as a shield. In times like these, of opportunity, it can also be used as a tool – to build a better future. But our votes can also be used as weapons: to punish and to harm political “enemies” of all kinds. But, when they are used in this way, history shows that the weaponisers suffer every bit as much harm as their intended victims. Political vengeance is a poor substitute for progressive policy. Giving up on democracy means giving up all hope of a better future.
Martyn Bradbury is right about the Boomers: twilight does beckon them, as their long reign approaches its end. But before they go into “that good night” (which awaits us all!) I, as someone born right in the middle of the Baby Boom generation, would implore the younger generations to give my fellow Boomers one more chance to “rage, rage, against the dying of the light”. One last opportunity to demonstrate the wisdom of the poet, Robert Browning, who declared: “Ah, but a man’s reach should exceed his grasp, Or what’s a heaven for?”
In the name of generations yet unborn, I invite you to reach out your hands to those who, for a few, brief, shining moments, allowed themselves to believe that there is “something more”.
Because, sixteen, thirty-two, sixty-four: don’t we all, as New Zealanders, deserve the chance to say:
“This is new. This is something we haven’t seen before.”


thedailyblog--2020-10-23--Election 2020: Green Party Negotiation Team Sets Its Terms of Reference

The Green Party has settled on its negotiation team , agreeing to who will represent the party ’ s members when considering the shape and outcome of talks with the incoming Labour-led Government .
The negotiating team has a similar make up to the group that considered the merits of negotiations with Labour post the 2017 General Election .
The group , called Tatau Pounamu , a Negotiation Consultation Group , has also settled on its terms of reference , giving a guideline for how it will settle on a final decision on what the Green Party ’ s relationship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Tatau Pounamu ’ s terms of reference proposes a consensus be sought , and , if that fails , then a 75 percent vote of the Tatau Pounamu group in favour will be required “ to carry a proposal that alters the status quo ” .
The terms of Tatau Pounamu agreement state : “ All decisions concerning the negotiations , including what agreement , if any , would be taken to a Special General Meeting ( SGM ) will be taken by the combined membership of Tatau Pounamu.
” “ Decisions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this is not possible it will be by vote , with at least 75 % of votes in favour to carry a proposal that alters the status quo.
” “ Only members of Tatau Pounamu selected by the three-petal approval processes are involved in decision-making.
” The group consists of 16 Green members , including some MPs , ex-MPs , and the upper echelons of the Green Party who have existing positions in the hierarchy .
Significant among them are Gwen Shaw ( General Manager ) , Roland Sapsford , John Ranta .

The Green Party has settled on its negotiation team, agreeing to who will represent the party’s members when considering the shape and outcome of talks with the incoming Labour-led Government.
The negotiating team has a similar make up to the group that considered the merits of negotiations with Labour post the 2017 General Election.
The group, called Tatau Pounamu, a Negotiation Consultation Group, has also settled on its terms of reference, giving a guideline for how it will settle on a final decision on what the Green Party’s relationship with Labour in Government will look like.
Tatau Pounamu’s terms of reference proposes a consensus be sought, and, if that fails, then a 75 percent vote of the Tatau Pounamu group in favour will be required “to carry a proposal that alters the status quo”.
The terms of Tatau Pounamu agreement state: “All decisions concerning the negotiations, including what agreement, if any, would be taken to a Special General Meeting (SGM) will be taken by the combined membership of Tatau Pounamu.”
“Decisions will be reached by consensus. When this is not possible it will be by vote, with at least 75% of votes in favour to carry a proposal that alters the status quo.”
“Only members of Tatau Pounamu selected by the three-petal approval processes are involved in decision-making.”
The group consists of 16 Green members, including some MPs, ex-MPs, and the upper echelons of the Green Party who have existing positions in the hierarchy. Significant among them are Gwen Shaw (General Manager), Roland Sapsford, John Ranta.
The Green’s negotiating team incudes: TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
The membership of the Ihu (the team that are talking directly with Labour’s leader Jacinda Ardern and her negotiating team are: Wiremu Winitana James Shaw Marama Davidson Tory Whanau.


thedailyblog--2020-10-23--Dr Liz Gordon: A garden of Eden in a poisoned, mangled world

The gift of being able to live in a Covid-free community can not be underestimated .
It is an exceptional blessing .
As someone in that age group who could be at risk of a bad outcome if I caught the Covid , it is an inestimable delight to be able to venture out into the community pretty well knowing that I will not catch that virus .
That gift is a rare one today , as the unmistakable signs emerge of a large second wave of the virus in Europe , Russia and the Americas .
And the huge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in India .
Etc .
Yesterday , there were nearly 444,000 new cases reported worldwide , a one-day record .
More than five million people are currently known to have the virus , and the number may be double that .
As we have been reminded this week , some of those infected people are fortunate enough to make their way to these shores for one reason or another .
Some of them arrive infected and infect other people along the way .
The odds of a repeat of the Russian crew infection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the virus getting out into the community also increases by the same or a lesser amount .
Siouxsie Wiles ’ “ Emmental cheese ” model is a convincing explanation of how layers of protection can prevent community transmission .
It also makes it clear that it is our own behaviour that matters .
Before the election , a view was doing the rounds that we were being unbearably nannied through the frequent reminders to wash your hands/keep social distance / wear a mask / sign in and so on .
Some think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on a Covid free environment .
We have done so well in all but eliminating ( for the time being ) the Covid in our community that we are in danger of forgetting that there is a risk at all .
But this is definitely a false security .
The risk is building day by day , case by case , and it is only our border precautions that prevents us being positively bombarded by little coronavirus nodules .
We are in the middle of a full-blown pandemic of a sneaky little virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ long term health , whether it feels like it or not .
In short , the price of our current liberty is eternal vigilance .
The continual reminders for us to take every care are not annoying nannying , but prudent advice amidst the certainty that the tricky virus will arrive back into our community again .
As indeed it has this week .
How far it spreads will be up to us .
New Zealand is being looked upon with envy by other countries where a twin breakdown of political will and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new normal .
We should celebrate , in a careful , socially distanced way , our current status , but not flout it or forget that we are not safe .
Become like the Emmental cheese , adding slices of your own protection to plug the holes .
We have proved twice now that we can be Covid free in the community .
But the fight is not over with these two victories .
It is barely starting .
Dr Liz Gordon is a researcher and a barrister , with interests in destroying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ towards a socially just society .
She usually blogs on justice , social welfare and education topics .

The gift of being able to live in a Covid-free community cannot be underestimated. It is an exceptional blessing. As someone in that age group who could be at risk of a bad outcome if I caught the Covid, it is an inestimable delight to be able to venture out into the community pretty well knowing that I will not catch that virus.
That gift is a rare one today, as the unmistakable signs emerge of a large second wave of the virus in Europe, Russia and the Americas. And the huge tsunami that just rolls on and on in India. Etc.
Yesterday, there were nearly 444,000 new cases reported worldwide, a one-day record. More than five million people are currently known to have the virus, and the number may be double that.
As we have been reminded this week, some of those infected people are fortunate enough to make their way to these shores for one reason or another. Some of them arrive infected and infect other people along the way. The odds of a repeat of the Russian crew infection is increasing every day. The odds of the virus getting out into the community also increases by the same or a lesser amount. Siouxsie Wiles’ “Emmental cheese” model is a convincing explanation of how layers of protection can prevent community transmission. It also makes it clear that it is our own behaviour that matters.
Before the election, a view was doing the rounds that we were being unbearably nannied through the frequent reminders to wash your hands/keep social distance / wear a mask / sign in and so on. Some think it is unacceptable to make these demands on a Covid free environment.
We have done so well in all but eliminating (for the time being) the Covid in our community that we are in danger of forgetting that there is a risk at all. But this is definitely a false security. The risk is building day by day, case by case, and it is only our border precautions that prevents us being positively bombarded by little coronavirus nodules.
We are in the middle of a full-blown pandemic of a sneaky little virus that can also be deadly and affect long term health, whether it feels like it or not.
In short, the price of our current liberty is eternal vigilance. The continual reminders for us to take every care are not annoying nannying, but prudent advice amidst the certainty that the tricky virus will arrive back into our community again. As indeed it has this week. How far it spreads will be up to us.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
New Zealand is being looked upon with envy by other countries where a twin breakdown of political will and ability to control the virus is the new normal. We should celebrate, in a careful, socially distanced way, our current status, but not flout it or forget that we are not safe.
Become like the Emmental cheese, adding slices of your own protection to plug the holes. We have proved twice now that we can be Covid free in the community. But the fight is not over with these two victories. It is barely starting.
Dr Liz Gordon is a researcher and a barrister, with interests in destroying neo-liberalism in all its forms and moving towards a socially just society. She usually blogs on justice, social welfare and education topics.


thedailyblog--2020-10-25--Dr Liz Gordon: Passion, caution and the Covid

My sister , as both my avid readers will know , was forced to return to the UK in June to reinhabit her flat and her life .
With Covid numbers low at the time , and summer upon the UK , it seemed like a reasonable move , even though we did not know when she , not a NZ citizen , would be able to return to this country that she so loves .
Now , with winter looming and Covid surging , she is forced to yearn , from a depressing distance , to be here .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ some of the international media is saying about Jacinda ’ s leadership .
Prospect magazine , for example , has called Jacinda “ the God of small steps ” , noting that an innate caution and economic conservatism has limited , and will continue to limit , a reform agenda .
A refusal to significantly raise income tax rates , ruling out wealth taxes and significant self-imposed controls on further borrowing all limit the economic possibilities of reform .
The Prospect article notes that some of these are self-inflicted limits : Meanwhile , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s modest levels of Covid-induced public debt , forecast to peak at around at 50 per cent of GDP , which—for comparison—is around half of the ratio the US and the UK are now looking at , is nonetheless dominated by the supposed need to slash borrowing .
This is a reasonable summary of Labour ’ s economic policy , and it would certainly be imprudent to think there will be huge new spending unless there is a significant boost in tax take from higher wages or more people in the workforce .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and you can see what it looks like .
Self-limiting .
An economic prison of our own making .
And yet , and yet… There is passion in this government .
That ’ s why I changed my vote this time .
It is true I would have liked to have seen a policy blueprint for change .
A “ manifesto ” that would act as the bible and map for the new government .
But I voted Labour without that ( I did like some of the policy they managed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which , if implemented properly , should save money , not be a drain on the public purse ) .
In Sunday ’ s SST , it was suggested that it is not so much policy , but having good people in charge , that is important .
There is a bit of ‘ trust us , we know what we ’ re doing and you like us , don ’ t you ’ about the new Labour Government .
In the Steve Kilgallon article in the SST , Jacinda scoffs at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her right wing voters by changing Labour policy , claiming that people voted for Labour ’ s policy so that is what they wanted : They voted for the plan , they know exactly who you are , and I think there is a difference when you vote in your second term … they know who you are , they expect you to keep being who you are and keep rolling on.
” She distinguished between the overall policy programme , which might be extremely moderate , against the “ courage to follow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ right ” .
So while we have a historic 1935 style outcome to the election , a big need for change , and passionate people in charge and so very much to do to roll back the damage caused by the neo-liberal tsunami , it is already clear there will be significant limits to reform in this term .
Ever hopeful , I do like to think that maybe some of these self-imposed barriers will melt away in the forthcoming months and years .
Perhaps successes in some fields will lead to innovations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s confidence as an agent for good social change will grow .
More likely , it will be a frustrating couple of years .
Yesterday , the one-day total of new Covid cases worldwide exceeded half a million , a new record .
There is no sign of abatement ( only 4 days ago I wrote about the ‘ new ’ record of 444,000 , immediately superceded ) .
This is the current battle raging now that will take much of the energies of the government for the next year or two .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ however passionate in terms of social goals , keeping the NZ community Covid free is the government ’ s first focus , and one I strongly agree with .
Some of these other questions will have to wait for another day .
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 .

My sister, as both my avid readers will know, was forced to return to the UK in June to reinhabit her flat and her life. With Covid numbers low at the time, and summer upon the UK, it seemed like a reasonable move, even though we did not know when she, not a NZ citizen, would be able to return to this country that she so loves. Now, with winter looming and Covid surging, she is forced to yearn, from a depressing distance, to be here.
It was she who pointed out what some of the international media is saying about Jacinda’s leadership. Prospect magazine, for example, has called Jacinda “the God of small steps”, noting that an innate caution and economic conservatism has limited, and will continue to limit, a reform agenda. A refusal to significantly raise income tax rates, ruling out wealth taxes and significant self-imposed controls on further borrowing all limit the economic possibilities of reform. The Prospect article notes that some of these are self-inflicted limits:
Meanwhile, the public discussion about New Zealand’s modest levels of Covid-induced public debt, forecast to peak at around at 50 per cent of GDP, which—for comparison—is around half of the ratio the US and the UK are now looking at, is nonetheless dominated by the supposed need to slash borrowing.
This is a reasonable summary of Labour’s economic policy, and it would certainly be imprudent to think there will be huge new spending unless there is a significant boost in tax take from higher wages or more people in the workforce.
So that’s the caution side, and you can see what it looks like. Self-limiting. An economic prison of our own making. And yet, and yet… There is passion in this government. That’s why I changed my vote this time. It is true I would have liked to have seen a policy blueprint for change. A “manifesto” that would act as the bible and map for the new government. But I voted Labour without that (I did like some of the policy they managed to announce, such as the justice work, which, if implemented properly, should save money, not be a drain on the public purse).
In Sunday’s SST, it was suggested that it is not so much policy, but having good people in charge, that is important. There is a bit of ‘trust us, we know what we’re doing and you like us, don’t you’ about the new Labour Government.
In the Steve Kilgallon article in the SST, Jacinda scoffs at the view that she has to appease her right wing voters by changing Labour policy, claiming that people voted for Labour’s policy so that is what they wanted:
They voted for the plan, they know exactly who you are, and I think there is a difference when you vote in your second term … they know who you are, they expect you to keep being who you are and keep rolling on.”
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
She distinguished between the overall policy programme, which might be extremely moderate, against the “courage to follow an unpopular policy knowing it’s right”.
So while we have a historic 1935 style outcome to the election, a big need for change, and passionate people in charge and so very much to do to roll back the damage caused by the neo-liberal tsunami, it is already clear there will be significant limits to reform in this term.
Ever hopeful, I do like to think that maybe some of these self-imposed barriers will melt away in the forthcoming months and years. Perhaps successes in some fields will lead to innovations in others. Perhaps the government’s confidence as an agent for good social change will grow.
More likely, it will be a frustrating couple of years. Yesterday, the one-day total of new Covid cases worldwide exceeded half a million, a new record. There is no sign of abatement (only 4 days ago I wrote about the ‘new’ record of 444,000, immediately superceded). This is the current battle raging now that will take much of the energies of the government for the next year or two.
However cautious the government economically, and however passionate in terms of social goals, keeping the NZ community Covid free is the government’s first focus, and one I strongly agree with. Some of these other questions will have to wait for another day.
Dr Liz Gordon is a researcher and a barrister, with interests in destroying neo-liberalism in all its forms and moving towards a socially just society. She usually blogs on justice, social welfare and education topics.


thedailyblog--2020-10-27--Recognising Palestine should be the first step for our new Minister of Foreign Affairs

Recognising Palestine should be the first policy announcement of our new Foreign Minister after they are announced next week .
Successive New Zealand governments have claimed to take an “ even-handed ” approach to the Middle East but this is untrue .
We have extensive bilateral arrangements with Israel but minimal interaction with Palestinians .
In making this appeal we are endorsing the call from Sh ’ ma Koleinu – Alternative Jewish Voices for New Zealand to recognise Palestine as a state .
Palestine is already recognised as a state by 138 member countries of the United Nations and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The final settlement of the Middle East conflict will be found through negotiations based on international law and United Nations resolutions but this is impossible at present because of the extreme imbalance of power between Israel and Palestinians .
How could there be a settlement based on justice if Israel and the US are on one side of the table and Palestinians on the other ?
Recognising Palestine as a state will be an important step in helping redress the imbalance and preparing for peace – a situation which will benefit both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be the mark of the progressive government Labour claims to be and a welcome break from the contracting out of Foreign Affairs and Defence to New Zealand First in the previous term when Winston Peters was Minister of Foreign Affairs and Ron Mark was Minister of Defence .
During the last term Israeli brutality persisted unabated , the racist Nation State law was enacted and the intention to unilaterally annex the West Bank was announced while the government turned a blind eye .
The most significant step taken by a New Zealand government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the previous National government co-sponsoring United Nations Security Council resolution 2334 .
Labour can surpass this by recognising Palestine as a state entity in the first 100 days of the new government .

Recognising Palestine should be the first policy announcement of our new Foreign Minister after they are announced next week.
Successive New Zealand governments have claimed to take an “even-handed” approach to the Middle East but this is untrue. We have extensive bilateral arrangements with Israel but minimal interaction with Palestinians.
In making this appeal we are endorsing the call from Sh’ma Koleinu – Alternative Jewish Voices for New Zealand to recognise Palestine as a state.
Palestine is already recognised as a state by 138 member countries of the United Nations and the government should push this number to 139.
The final settlement of the Middle East conflict will be found through negotiations based on international law and United Nations resolutions but this is impossible at present because of the extreme imbalance of power between Israel and Palestinians.
How could there be a settlement based on justice if Israel and the US are on one side of the table and Palestinians on the other?
Recognising Palestine as a state will be an important step in helping redress the imbalance and preparing for peace – a situation which will benefit both Palestinians and Israelis.
Recognising Palestine would be the mark of the progressive government Labour claims to be and a welcome break from the contracting out of Foreign Affairs and Defence to New Zealand First in the previous term when Winston Peters was Minister of Foreign Affairs and Ron Mark was Minister of Defence.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
During the last term Israeli brutality persisted unabated, the racist Nation State law was enacted and the intention to unilaterally annex the West Bank was announced while the government turned a blind eye.
The most significant step taken by a New Zealand government to support Palestine in a generation was the previous National government co-sponsoring United Nations Security Council resolution 2334.
Labour can surpass this by recognising Palestine as a state entity in the first 100 days of the new government.


thedailyblog--2020-10-28--A Leap Of Faith – In Labour’s Direction Of Travel.

“ A LEAP OF FAITH ” , that ’ s what Greens co-leader Marama Davidson is said to have scribbled on her note-pad .
She ’ s quite right .
Entering into negotiations with a Labour Party that doesn ’ t need you is , indeed , a leap of faith .
Davidson and her co-leader , James Shaw , are betting everything on Jacinda Ardern and her colleagues being serious about “ rebuilding better ” in the wake of Covid .
They are hoping that by aligning their party with Labour ’ s efforts , the progressive alliance required @ @ @ @ @ @ @ centre-left will be ready , three years from now , to advance the Green agenda much further and faster .
It ’ s called “ taking the long view ” , and Davidson and Shaw should be applauded for demonstrating such an impressive degree of political maturity .
How much easier it would have been to recommend taking up residence on the cross-benches to the Green Party membership .
Not only would moving into Opposition absolve the Greens of all responsibility for making this government work , but it would also allow them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believed to be the moral high ground .
But , it would not be the moral high ground .
That title belongs to the place where people with very different ideas and priorities nevertheless agree to make a positive and co-ordinated effort to advance their common objectives .
These people are committed to making as much progress as possible in a political environment consistently hostile to making any progress at all .
The moral high ground is not the place where increasingly incendiary slogans are shouted , it ’ s the place where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over fundamentally conservative voters to the planet ’ s cause .
Not all conservatives , of course , but enough of them to make a third electoral victory for the centre-left in 2023 a viable project .
At the very heart of this project lies the insight vouchsafed to me by my late uncle , the Revd .
Peter Marshall .
In the finest liberal Presbyterian tradition , he argued that : “ Humankind is neither wholly corrupt , nor wholly unredeemable.
” Most people are susceptible to reasoned arguments persuasively presented .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to an unequivocal proposition can be worn down by constant – and principled – presentations .
I ’ ve seen this happen many times over the years .
Throughout the 1970s , a solid majority of New Zealanders subscribed to the notion that sport and politics didn ’ t mix .
At the beginning of 1981 most Kiwis wanted the Springbok Tour to proceed .
By 1984 , however , public opinion had shifted decisively against any further contact with Apartheid-era South Africa .
A similar shift in public opinion occurred in relation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 800,000 people signed a petition asking Parliament to reject the Homosexual Law Reform Bill .
Five years later most New Zealanders struggled to recall what all the fuss had been about .
It ’ s long , slow , patient work , this wearing-away of entrenched opposition , but history is unequivocal in judging it to be the most effective means of bedding-in change .
It ’ s what Jacinda Ardern means when she argues that the only change worth having is “ change that sticks ” .
If conservative New Zealanders require @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fulfil this country ’ s commitment to fighting climate change , then convince them .
That won ’ t happen if all the Greens do is shout at them , and/or damn them as enemies of the planet .
It might happen , however , if someone is willing to make the case for change in the way most likely to make change happen .
The ‘ someone ’ best placed to do that in the newly-elected Parliament is James Shaw .
Presumably , that ’ s why Jacinda Ardern is offering to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Those members of the Green Party who would rather their parliamentary representatives adopted a purely oppositional stance – from the cross-benches – should consider how that will look to the broader electorate .
In the minds of many voters it will lump them in alongside the National Party , which , in an attempt to lure back its lost rural and provincial voters , will very likely take up a position hostile to all meaningful attempts to respond to climate change .
Nothing could assist National more effectively in this reactionary endeavour @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Nothing helps the Right ’ s effort to portray the Greens as a party of dangerous extremists like behaving like a party of dangerous extremists !
Moreover , for those rural and provincial voters disposed to support “ Jacinda ” , the unrelenting negativity of National and the Greens will lead them to conclude that they are merely obverse sides of the same extremist coin .
The only winners in this scenario would be Jacinda and Labour : the voices of moderation and reason .
Another reason for the Green Party membership @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” with Labour is the likelihood of climate change itself making the most compelling arguments for radical and comprehensive reform .
If the rising number and increasing seriousness of extreme weather events are allowed to set the scene for “ Middle New Zealand ” , then the Greens , in partnership with Labour , can present themselves as the party of solutions – not the pedlars of problems .
Sometimes , reality should simply be allowed to speak for itself .
In spite of it being a horrible example of corporate-speak , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ turn out to be the key to Labour-Green relations over the next three years .
James Shaw and Marama Davidson – in sharp contrast to Winston Peters and Shane Jones – campaigned in 2020 as Labour ’ s staunch and reliable ally .
They were rewarded with an increased share of the Party Vote .
It would be a colossal mistake to execute a 180-degree turn away from that strategy .
By marching alongside Labour , the Greens will be marching in step with the majority .
And just because that majority rewarded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2020 , doesn ’ t mean that it will feel obliged to do the same in 2023 .
If the Greens spend the next three years proving themselves trustworthy , then the chances of them being entrusted with more power by the electorate in 2023 must , surely , be greater than if they spend all that time attacking Jacinda ’ s government and shouting themselves hoarse ?

“A LEAP OF FAITH”, that’s what Greens co-leader Marama Davidson is said to have scribbled on her note-pad. She’s quite right. Entering into negotiations with a Labour Party that doesn’t need you is, indeed, a leap of faith. Davidson and her co-leader, James Shaw, are betting everything on Jacinda Ardern and her colleagues being serious about “rebuilding better” in the wake of Covid. They are hoping that by aligning their party with Labour’s efforts, the progressive alliance required to secure a third term for the centre-left will be ready, three years from now, to advance the Green agenda much further and faster.
It’s called “taking the long view”, and Davidson and Shaw should be applauded for demonstrating such an impressive degree of political maturity. How much easier it would have been to recommend taking up residence on the cross-benches to the Green Party membership. Not only would moving into Opposition absolve the Greens of all responsibility for making this government work, but it would also allow them to declaim without restraint from what they believed to be the moral high ground.
But, it would not be the moral high ground. That title belongs to the place where people with very different ideas and priorities nevertheless agree to make a positive and co-ordinated effort to advance their common objectives. These people are committed to making as much progress as possible in a political environment consistently hostile to making any progress at all. The moral high ground is not the place where increasingly incendiary slogans are shouted, it’s the place where progressives have the best prospect of winning over fundamentally conservative voters to the planet’s cause. Not all conservatives, of course, but enough of them to make a third electoral victory for the centre-left in 2023 a viable project.
At the very heart of this project lies the insight vouchsafed to me by my late uncle, the Revd. Peter Marshall. In the finest liberal Presbyterian tradition, he argued that: “Humankind is neither wholly corrupt, nor wholly unredeemable.” Most people are susceptible to reasoned arguments persuasively presented. Even those who start out holding fast to an unequivocal proposition can be worn down by constant – and principled – presentations.
I’ve seen this happen many times over the years. Throughout the 1970s, a solid majority of New Zealanders subscribed to the notion that sport and politics didn’t mix. At the beginning of 1981 most Kiwis wanted the Springbok Tour to proceed. By 1984, however, public opinion had shifted decisively against any further contact with Apartheid-era South Africa. A similar shift in public opinion occurred in relation to LGBTQ rights. In 1986 over 800,000 people signed a petition asking Parliament to reject the Homosexual Law Reform Bill. Five years later most New Zealanders struggled to recall what all the fuss had been about.
It’s long, slow, patient work, this wearing-away of entrenched opposition, but history is unequivocal in judging it to be the most effective means of bedding-in change. It’s what Jacinda Ardern means when she argues that the only change worth having is “change that sticks”.
If conservative New Zealanders require further convincing about the steps required to fulfil this country’s commitment to fighting climate change, then convince them. That won’t happen if all the Greens do is shout at them, and/or damn them as enemies of the planet. It might happen, however, if someone is willing to make the case for change in the way most likely to make change happen. The ‘someone’ best placed to do that in the newly-elected Parliament is James Shaw. Presumably, that’s why Jacinda Ardern is offering to make him her Minister for Climate Change.
Those members of the Green Party who would rather their parliamentary representatives adopted a purely oppositional stance – from the cross-benches – should consider how that will look to the broader electorate. In the minds of many voters it will lump them in alongside the National Party, which, in an attempt to lure back its lost rural and provincial voters, will very likely take up a position hostile to all meaningful attempts to respond to climate change.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
Nothing could assist National more effectively in this reactionary endeavour than a strident and ultra-radical Green Party. Nothing helps the Right’s effort to portray the Greens as a party of dangerous extremists like behaving like a party of dangerous extremists! Moreover, for those rural and provincial voters disposed to support “Jacinda”, the unrelenting negativity of National and the Greens will lead them to conclude that they are merely obverse sides of the same extremist coin. The only winners in this scenario would be Jacinda and Labour: the voices of moderation and reason.
Another reason for the Green Party membership to support a collegial “co-operation agreement” with Labour is the likelihood of climate change itself making the most compelling arguments for radical and comprehensive reform. If the rising number and increasing seriousness of extreme weather events are allowed to set the scene for “Middle New Zealand”, then the Greens, in partnership with Labour, can present themselves as the party of solutions – not the pedlars of problems. Sometimes, reality should simply be allowed to speak for itself.
In spite of it being a horrible example of corporate-speak, the expression “direction of travel” may turn out to be the key to Labour-Green relations over the next three years. James Shaw and Marama Davidson – in sharp contrast to Winston Peters and Shane Jones – campaigned in 2020 as Labour’s staunch and reliable ally. They were rewarded with an increased share of the Party Vote. It would be a colossal mistake to execute a 180-degree turn away from that strategy. By marching alongside Labour, the Greens will be marching in step with the majority. And just because that majority rewarded Labour with the ability to govern alone in 2020, doesn’t mean that it will feel obliged to do the same in 2023.
If the Greens spend the next three years proving themselves trustworthy, then the chances of them being entrusted with more power by the electorate in 2023 must, surely, be greater than if they spend all that time attacking Jacinda’s government and shouting themselves hoarse?