thedailyblog--2020-07-31--Mike Treen’s speech to Alternative Aotearoa conference

I want to address a sort of big question because clearly the system is breaking down .
What is that system that is breaking down ?
Can we do a system reset by tinkering with that system or is a more fundamental change necessary ?
What is the nature of that change and how do we get there ?
All in ten minutes of course .
We went through a big crisis in this system which we cal capitalism in the 1930s and through World War Two .
And then we had three decades of seemingly uninterrupted growth and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get better , generally .
That generally inequality would be muted , that generally jobs would be guaranteed , that generally health care would be extended , that generally education would get more accessable .
For three decades it seeemed like people ’ s rights would get a bit better , for Māori , for women , for gay people .
A little bit better , a little bit better each decade .
Then we entered a period of crisis in the late 1970s and early 1980s and there was a reset done @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since then has not been able to deliver in the same way .
In fact , for a generation now things have actually gotten worse .
Our living standards , real wages and housing are worse than they were a generation ago .
This system no longer works .
This system can no longer deliver improvements decade after decade , generation after generation .
This sytem is breaking down It is not the pandemic alone that is causing this .
The system has inner cycles and laws that were setting the stage for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The decade of the 90s hadrelatively strong growth as the system recovered again from a crisis .
Normally you have a crisis in the system and ( the economy ) goes down before it bounces back .
That is the way capitalism has worked for almost 200 years .
Every decade it goes down and up .
But the revolutionary part of capitalism was that the upturns generally were stronger than the downturns .
Overall there was growth .
Overall this is a system of growth .
Overall , this is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ generally improves wealth in society .
The distribution of that wealth is another thing .
But now we have a situation where the system is unable to generate the wealth people need to live well .
Or it is generating that wealth , but it is being captured by a smaller and smaller percentage of our society and can ’ t be distributed because they are holding on to it .
But the growth that is endemic to the system , the growth that gives it its revolutionary character , has become a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have 3 % growth every year for 30 years it doubles the system .
So the system has doubled in size every 30 years .
We can not double the size of an extractive , exploitative system every 30 years because the planet can not sustain it .
So the system has become incompatible with the life of the planet .
This system , which has a name , it ’ s called capitalism , has become incompatible with the life of the planet .
So we need to devise measures that transition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with it .
For example whilst I have been impressed by many of the Green Party ’ s policies over recent weeks and months to do with the climate and adressing poverty , I think there is a fundamental problem with what the government is doing ( to fix climate change ) because they are relying on a mechanism that toys with the system .
The Emissions Trading Scheme is trying to use prices to signal people to do the right thing .
But no .
They are not going to do the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to trick them into doing the right thing .
You have to force them into doing the right thing in a more direct manner .
So I have a five point programme .
These are most important and urgent things we need to do .
They don ’ t necessarily require system change for most of them to achieve but can get us moving in the right direction .
We have to begin by empowering people .
We can ’ t do anything without empowering people .
Empowering unions , empowering communities at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ got to begin there .
How do we empower these communities ?
How do we empower unions ?
How do we empower organisations in all of these fields which are wanting to do the right thing ?
How do we make them stronger and able to empower citizens ?
1 ) We should begin with Jobs for All .
It used to be almost an obligation of the government that everyone had a job .
As I grew up , anytime that unemployment ticked above one or two percent , the government intervened @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or ten thousand people .
They just did it .
Every railway workshop in the country was a working-class university .
You went there , knocked on the door and you got a job .
Very soon you were an electrician , or a plumber , or just a worker .
But you got a job .
Yes New Zealand Rail “ lost ” $ 200 million a year , but so the fuck what .
Every significant working class community had its own working class university where people could get jobs and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do that again .
We should be able to put the pieces back together to do that sort of thing again .
Yes , Jobs for All .
We should begin with jobs where the community does an audit .
Every community should do an audit of their needs – cultural needs , social needs , health needs , connection needs , food needs .
Can you procduce food ?
Can you cook food ?
Can you share the resources ?
Can you produce the energy you need ?
Can you share @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an audit on what their needs are .
The central government ’ s job is to deliver so that those communities can solve their own problems from the grass roots up , not from the top down .
So Jobs for All , resource the communities to do it .
This is just basic .
Everyone .
A Living Wage for every single person .
The official policy of Labour and the Greens and the CTU ( Council of Trade Unions ) is that the minimum wage should be two-thirds of the average @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wage and that makes sense .
The Government says it is supports a Living Wage , right ?
Does it tell the companies it owns that they should do that ?
NZPost ?
Does New Zealand Post , 100 % owned by the New Zealand government pay a Living Wage ?
No , it does not .
So it ’ s not just contractors ( it should be extended to ) .
Who the hell owns the health boards ?
Do the health boards give a Living Wage to all their staff ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ they rob them of their annual leave entitlements ?
Yes they do , they owe them $ 650 million in annual leave entitlements .
Does the government fund them to allow them to do that ?
No they do not .
If the government supports a Living Wage for all it must fund those people to pay it .
Not just contractors but companies and institutions that they control must pay a Living Wage .
I grew up in Pamnure and GI ( Glenn Innes ) in the state house communites ( and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a home for life , they couldn ’ t throw you out of it , they couldn ’ t evict you .
It didn ’ t matter what your income was .
You got one for life .
But you could move to a different suburb if you wanted .
I lived in a state house my entire life until I left school and it never occurred to me that you would want to buy one .
That seemed an extraordinarily stupid thing to do .
I eventually did but in a sense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to do it .
We stopped creating communities .
When they built Panmure and GI , they didn ’ t build a slum they built a working class community .
Everyone had jobs .
We had institutions .
We had parties and unions .
Working class communities were created .
( Public ) Housing wasn ’ t something only the desperately poor or refugees got .
If you create a system where only the desperately poor or refugee gets you create a system that breeds resentment – “ They are getting something I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ m living in a garage.
” “ Why can ’ t I get a home ?
” You are right .
You are living in a gargae and you do have a right to a home .
The government , at a minimum should be building ten thousand social homes every year until we eliminate homelessness and poverty in this country .
We have 300,000 temporary migrants in New Zealand .
We are not going to , and can not deport 300,000 people .
There are a whole buch of students and so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what the outgoing Minister of Immigration calls “ normally resident ” New Zealanders .
That means they have renewed their visa again and again , children have been born and going to school here , They may have partners .
But they have never been allowed to transition .
They have been brought on these recycled temporary visas .
Theirs are not essential skills , actually they are essential skills but not important enough to transition to permanent residence .
They were brought here on a lie .
Deception .
They have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hundreds of thousands of dollars .
Fees they needed for courses .
Fees they have given to Immigration New Zealand .
They have been cheated and lied to and they deserve to be able transition to permanent residency immediately if they want to .
They have made this country their home .
And we have to allow them to stay if they want to .
We can not throw them out .
The final thing is that we have created a system — capitalism is a system of commodity production for profit .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ values on everything else .
They tried to impose it on education and health .
They imposed it on ( government-owned companies ) New Zealand Post , on KiwiRail , on Air New Zealand , on public services like transport and so on .
In fact , it is law , you have to rip people off and seek a profit .
Like Meridian Energy which was recently caught spilling water to hike prices .
An extraordinary example of cheating ( to make a profit ) .
They just lied .
They have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s the law .
We have to de-commodify things more and more .
We have to de-commodify sectors of education they have commodified like the early childhood sector .
We have to de-commodify the health sectors that have been commodified like the aged care sector .
Who decided that aged care would be made into a for-profit business ?
No sane person in this country would make that decision .
But it has been allowed to happen .
We need to de-commodify things more and more .
We don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ although I represent a thousand workers there ) .
If we are supporting businesses through a period of crisis then we need to look at how we can do things differently .
How we can produce food and feed ourselves differently .
How we can produce houses and house ourselves .
How we can deliver health care .
We have got to be able to do all of it differently .
Not base everything on the pursuit of profit and selfish needs but on the basis of solidarity and support for one another @

I want to address a sort of big question because clearly the system is breaking down. What is that system that is breaking down? Can we do a system reset by tinkering with that system or is a more fundamental change necessary? What is the nature of that change and how do we get there? All in ten minutes of course.
We went through a big crisis in this system which we cal capitalism in the 1930s and through World War Two. And then we had three decades of seemingly uninterrupted growth and the appearance that in each decade things would get better, generally. That generally inequality would be muted, that generally jobs would be guaranteed, that generally health care would be extended, that generally education would get more accessable. For three decades it seeemed like people’s rights would get a bit better, for Māori, for women, for gay people. A little bit better, a little bit better each decade.
Then we entered a period of crisis in the late 1970s and early 1980s and there was a reset done to the system.
But the system since then has not been able to deliver in the same way. In fact, for a generation now things have actually gotten worse.
Our living standards, real wages and housing are worse than they were a generation ago. This system no longer works. This system can no longer deliver improvements decade after decade, generation after generation. This sytem is breaking down
It is not the pandemic alone that is causing this. The system has inner cycles and laws that were setting the stage for a new crisis before the pandemic hit.
The decade of the 90s hadrelatively strong growth as the system recovered again from a crisis. Normally you have a crisis in the system and (the economy) goes down before it bounces back. That is the way capitalism has worked for almost 200 years. Every decade it goes down and up. But the revolutionary part of capitalism was that the upturns generally were stronger than the downturns. Overall there was growth. Overall this is a system of growth. Overall, this is a system of improving productivity. Overall it generally improves wealth in society. The distribution of that wealth is another thing.
But now we have a situation where the system is unable to generate the wealth people need to live well. Or it is generating that wealth, but it is being captured by a smaller and smaller percentage of our society and can’t be distributed because they are holding on to it.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
But the growth that is endemic to the system, the growth that gives it its revolutionary character, has become a threat to the planet. If you have 3% growth every year for 30 years it doubles the system. So the system has doubled in size every 30 years. We cannot double the size of an extractive, exploitative system every 30 years because the planet cannot sustain it.
So the system has become incompatible with the life of the planet.
This system, which has a name, it’s called capitalism, has become incompatible with the life of the planet.
So we need to devise measures that transition beyond this system and not just tinker with it.
For example whilst I have been impressed by many of the Green Party’s policies over recent weeks and months to do with the climate and adressing poverty, I think there is a fundamental problem with what the government is doing (to fix climate change) because they are relying on a mechanism that toys with the system. The Emissions Trading Scheme is trying to use prices to signal people to do the right thing. But no. They are not going to do the right thing. You are not going to trick them into doing the right thing. You have to force them into doing the right thing in a more direct manner.
So I have a five point programme. These are most important and urgent things we need to do. They don’t necessarily require system change for most of them to achieve but can get us moving in the right direction.
We have to begin by empowering people.
We can’t do anything without empowering people.
Empowering unions, empowering communities at the very bottom.
We’ve got to begin there. How do we empower these communities? How do we empower unions? How do we empower organisations in all of these fields which are wanting to do the right thing? How do we make them stronger and able to empower citizens?
1) We should begin with Jobs for All.
It used to be almost an obligation of the government that everyone had a job.
As I grew up, anytime that unemployment ticked above one or two percent, the government intervened. The railways started employing another five or ten thousand people. They just did it. Every railway workshop in the country was a working-class university. You went there, knocked on the door and you got a job. Very soon you were an electrician, or a plumber, or just a worker. But you got a job.
Yes New Zealand Rail “lost” $200 million a year, but so the fuck what. Every significant working class community had its own working class university where people could get jobs and get training.
We should be able to do that again. We should be able to put the pieces back together to do that sort of thing again.
Yes, Jobs for All. We should begin with jobs where the community does an audit. Every community should do an audit of their needs – cultural needs, social needs, health needs, connection needs, food needs. Can you procduce food? Can you cook food? Can you share the resources? Can you produce the energy you need? Can you share this energy? Every community can do an audit on what their needs are. The central government’s job is to deliver so that those communities can solve their own problems from the grass roots up, not from the top down.
So Jobs for All, resource the communities to do it.
2) A living wage for all.
This is just basic. Everyone. A Living Wage for every single person. The official policy of Labour and the Greens and the CTU (Council of Trade Unions) is that the minimum wage should be two-thirds of the average wage which is similar to the Living Wage and that makes sense.
The Government says it is supports a Living Wage, right? Does it tell the companies it owns that they should do that? NZPost? Does New Zealand Post, 100% owned by the New Zealand government pay a Living Wage? No, it does not. So it’s not just contractors (it should be extended to).
Who the hell owns the health boards? Do the health boards give a Living Wage to all their staff? No, they do not. Do they rob them of their annual leave entitlements? Yes they do, they owe them $650 million in annual leave entitlements. Does the government fund them to allow them to do that? No they do not. If the government supports a Living Wage for all it must fund those people to pay it. Not just contractors but companies and institutions that they control must pay a Living Wage.
3. Housing as a right
I grew up in Pamnure and GI (Glenn Innes) in the state house communites (and One Tree Hill), You had a home for life, they couldn’t throw you out of it, they couldn’t evict you. It didn’t matter what your income was. You got one for life. But you could move to a different suburb if you wanted. I lived in a state house my entire life until I left school and it never occurred to me that you would want to buy one. That seemed an extraordinarily stupid thing to do. I eventually did but in a sense it was the system that forced me to do it.
We stopped creating communities. When they built Panmure and GI, they didn’t build a slum they built a working class community. Everyone had jobs. We had institutions. We had parties and unions. Working class communities were created.
(Public) Housing wasn’t something only the desperately poor or refugees got. If you create a system where only the desperately poor or refugee gets you create a system that breeds resentment – “They are getting something I’m not.” “I’m living in a garage.” “Why can’t I get a home?” You are right. You are living in a gargae and you do have a right to a home.
The government, at a minimum should be building ten thousand social homes every year until we eliminate homelessness and poverty in this country.
4) End migrant worker exploitation
We have 300,000 temporary migrants in New Zealand. We are not going to, and cannot deport 300,000 people. There are a whole buch of students and so on but probably half of them are what the outgoing Minister of Immigration calls “normally resident” New Zealanders. That means they have renewed their visa again and again, children have been born and going to school here, They may have partners. But they have never been allowed to transition. They have been brought on these recycled temporary visas. Theirs are not essential skills, actually they are essential skills but not important enough to transition to permanent residence.
They were brought here on a lie. Deception. They have been billed and cheated out of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. Fees they needed for courses. Fees they have given to Immigration New Zealand. They have been cheated and lied to and they deserve to be able transition to permanent residency immediately if they want to.
They have made this country their home. And we have to allow them to stay if they want to. We cannot throw them out.
5) Decommodify meeting human needs
The final thing is that we have created a system — capitalism is a system of commodity production for profit. They have tried to impose those system values on everything else. They tried to impose it on education and health. They imposed it on (government-owned companies) New Zealand Post, on KiwiRail, on Air New Zealand, on public services like transport and so on.
In fact, it is law, you have to rip people off and seek a profit. Like Meridian Energy which was recently caught spilling water to hike prices. An extraordinary example of cheating (to make a profit). They just lied. They have to maximise their profits by selling commodities. It’s the law.
We have to de-commodify things more and more. We have to de-commodify sectors of education they have commodified like the early childhood sector. We have to de-commodify the health sectors that have been commodified like the aged care sector. Who decided that aged care would be made into a for-profit business? No sane person in this country would make that decision. But it has been allowed to happen.
We need to de-commodify things more and more. We don’t actually need McDonald’s (although I represent a thousand workers there). If we are supporting businesses through a period of crisis then we need to look at how we can do things differently.
How we can produce food and feed ourselves differently. How we can produce houses and house ourselves. How we can deliver health care. We have got to be able to do all of it differently. Not base everything on the pursuit of profit and selfish needs but on the basis of solidarity and support for one another.


thedailyblog--2020-08-02--Vote ACT for a shattered economy

Vote ACT for a shattered economy

Do you want more family distress and even deeper child poverty ?
Vote ACT .
Do you want the economy to contract drastically , foodbanks to be swamped with demand for food , hospitals unable to cope with third world diseases of cold and damp houses ?
Vote ACT .
Do you believe that all people need is an incentive to work and if taxes are cut jobs will magically appear ?
Vote ACT .
Treasure modelling shows that Child poverty is on the rise in the COVID-19 crisis .
But instead of increased spending on welfare ACT would cut @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That ’ s right , ACT propose deeply contractionary policies at the bottom of the worse recession since the Great Depression .
Among a raft of austerity measures that surely no sane economist would endorse ACT would .
Abolish benefits changes in Families package $ 220m .
ACT would take $ 2.4 billion from families living on income already beneath the breadline .
Overall cuts to government spending exceed $ 7 billion .
The bogey of debt one day crippling our children appears to justify the most severe cuts to families already drowning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , government spending will be cut far further so that the budget is balanced or in surplus and debt repaid .
Ruth Richardson tried this in 1991 and the deficit doubled because the economy shrank so much .
The policies are so ill conceived it is perhaps a bad idea to give them any air-time .
But voters who are disillusioned with National appear to be flocking to ACT .
They need to take a hard look at their disastrously contractionary recipes for poverty that are exactly the opposite of what is needed @

Do you want more family distress and even deeper child poverty? Vote ACT. Do you want the economy to contract drastically, foodbanks to be swamped with demand for food, hospitals unable to cope with third world diseases of cold and damp houses? Vote ACT.
Do you believe that all people need is an incentive to work and if taxes are cut jobs will magically appear? Vote ACT.
Treasure modelling shows that Child poverty is on the rise in the COVID-19 crisis. But instead of increased spending on welfare ACT would cut incomes of those with children severely. That’s right, ACT propose deeply contractionary policies at the bottom of the worse recession since the Great Depression.
Among a raft of austerity measures that surely no sane economist would endorse ACT would.
Abolish Winter Energy Payment $505 m
Abolish BestStart $477m
Abolish $25 benefit increase $ 672m
Abolish WFF changes $510m
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
Abolish benefits changes in Families package $220m. ACT would take $2.4 billion from families living on income already beneath the breadline. Overall cuts to government spending exceed $7 billion.
The bogey of debt one day crippling our children appears to justify the most severe cuts to families already drowning today.
While taxes will be cut, government spending will be cut far further so that the budget is balanced or in surplus and debt repaid. Ruth Richardson tried this in 1991 and the deficit doubled because the economy shrank so much.
The policies are so ill conceived it is perhaps a bad idea to give them any air-time. But voters who are disillusioned with National appear to be flocking to ACT. They need to take a hard look at their disastrously contractionary recipes for poverty that are exactly the opposite of what is needed.


thedailyblog--2020-08-02--Policy, promises and praxis

Policy, promises and praxis

Personality matters more than policy in the political age where parties are clustered at the extreme centre .
Just ask Andrew Little .
There ’ s nothing wrong with his personality , but without much initial change in policy , the Labour Party leadership swap before the last election , made all the difference to Labour ’ s fortunes .
The rest they say , is history – even if it ’ s unfolding in a way we would never have imagined .
Remember those heady days as the Jacinda-juggernaut took form .
Crowds at party events featuring Jacinda , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no promises too ambitious – light rail to the airport and beyond Westgate within ten years .
A hundred thousand new Kiwibuild homes ; An end to double-bunking in prisons ; An end to punitive welfare sanctions .
An end to child poverty !
After nine years in Opposition , and more than thirty years of neo-liberalism , the pathologies of society were clear , and Labour were all-out promising nobly to address their symptoms , like chopping off the heads of the Hydra , regardless of whether they would actually be in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Winston Peters , -but only on issues with his support , in a position to govern , they were .
The promises continued with the ‘ Year of Delivery ’ , except it didn ’ t deliver .
Even after a full suite of working parties and inquiries , the same problems have been diagnosed , solutions have been tabled , but change is slow – the neo-liberal tree is being trimmed and shaped , but not fundamentally transformed .
Now there ’ s the Covid crisis , more immediate , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as existing problems needing change .
And for many , it ’ s churlish to judge for failures when so much of the Covid response seems to have been a success .
The Labour Party will be judged not by what it promised and failed to do , but by how it responded to the unexpected .
More to the point , the Labour Party will be judged by what Jacinda did .
It ’ s Jacinda ’ s Government , Jacinda ’ s Party and Jacinda who carries the weight of public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and even a type of religious faith , who needs policies ?
And in fact , latest polls show the support for Jacinda is now such a broad church that policies may be counterproductive .
Where does Jacinda stand on euthanasia or cannabis reform – key issues at referendum at this election ?
We may never know .
Some from those campaigns bemoan her silence , seeking an indication of leadership .
Though there ’ s a political risk with indications of where she stands .
If she doesn ’ t specify @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a liberal , humanitarian ‘ general direction of travel ’ she can ’ t be ( mis ) judged .
She won ’ t alienate people with other views if she keeps her own views close to her chest .
But “ where are the other policies ?
” people ask .
“ Know us by our deeds ” , the Time magazine read in its headline accompanying Jacinda ’ s beatific front-page picture even before Covid-19 .
While it ’ s argued that the active interventionist response to Covid has taken voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hard to tell which of the current deeds trying to keep the country afloat with lashings of cash , are a Government Covid response , ‘ delivery ’ , or political party electioneering .
This weekend it was Megan Woods with some energy sector tinkering , Shane Jones with around $ 40million for Chatham Islands tourism ( good luck ) , and Eugenie Sage with another predator free Hauraki Gulf Island .
A Labour Party meme doing the rounds shows the Party ’ s July “ to do ” list – make apprenticeships @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a Southland school lunch pilot programme , paid parental leave extended to 26 weeks , new fast-track infrastructure rules , water infrastructure , Covid recovery plans , pay equity legislation , renewable energy scoping work – “ Keeping NZ moving ” .
Which are essential Covid-19 responses , or expedient vote winning concessions ?
Does that distinction even matter ?
( There ’ s a similar issue with New Zealand First and the Provincial Growth Fund , though at that Party ’ s hands , it all seems much tawdrier and cronyistic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ socialists now , but most of us are definitely Keynesians .
As we face the rush into the 2020 election , Labour have learned it ’ s easier to make promises in a long opposition than it is to deliver them in a short three years .
Chances are , there will be another three years to come , with or without a Coalition .
Jacinda says she ’ s too busy dealing with Covid-19 to worry too much about the election .
It ’ s a high-minded position , and can afford @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be largely decided by that response .
Overall , Jacinda has a clear mandate for action .
But we ’ re still waiting for a coherent ideological vision , a framework for a post Covid economy and society , and components within it .
What broader vision of animal welfare , trade and economic redistribution does the pork-glut to food banks sit within ; what framework of justified intervention , do cash funds to allow tourist operators to run empty boats , measure against ?
So far there have been budgets for businesses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
What about tax redistribution ?
How to achieve economic intergenerational equity when the cost of recovering from Covid-19 will fall on the future ?
Where will public health sit as a priority against the economy in the future ?
What lessons will we take from Covid-19 for climate change – our nuclear free moment ?
Against the backdrop of growing US-Chinese tensions , is our lock-step with the Five Eyes alliance a risky default ?
Is it just business as usual for the Labour Party and future Governments in the global economy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been so unprecedented much of the ( admirable ) response has been an ad hoc type of praxis .
( Ad hoc like sacking Ian Lees-Galloway at one extreme and Kurt Taogaga at the other – but not much kindness there ) .
But now is our chance , there ’ s no time for gardening , we already needed root and branch change to address poverty , homelessness and personal debt – and moreso to withstand Covid and the oncoming storm .
To not use this opportunity and mandate for fundamental @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
However , some of the most radical change proposed , like fast track consenting processes , threatens to undermine democracy , rather than to strengthen it .
The Labour Party says it will release its election policies closer to the event .
But many voters already know where their loyalties -and votes- will lie .
In the rush to respond to Covid-19 , and with three crazy years governing , there may have been little time for Labour to reconceptualise a new way of doing business , society and the environment , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Party – David Parker , Damian O ’ Connor and Stuart Nash , there was an appetite to do so .
Just as shovel-ready projects have been the ones to get traction in this ‘ political window of opportunity ’ , we need a compelling shovel-ready plan to respond to the unprecedented pathway of uncertainty and opportunity ahead .
It ’ s not just the individual policies worth hoping for , but a systematic red/green-path for the future .
Covid-19 has highlighted both the need for , and the reality of constant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ global uncertainty , the future is already unfolding .
The scale of imminent disruption is somewhat obscured by the wage subsidy , by lag in the unfolding of events .
William Davies said “ to experience a crisis is to inhabit a world that is temporarily up for grabs ” .
Civil society has ideas about what ‘ grabs ’ might be possible in a post-Covid world – a Green New Deal for example .
Jacinda ’ s proven to be a great leader – will she follow ?

Personality matters more than policy in the political age where parties are clustered at the extreme centre. Just ask Andrew Little. There’s nothing wrong with his personality, but without much initial change in policy, the Labour Party leadership swap before the last election, made all the difference to Labour’s fortunes. The rest they say, is history – even if it’s unfolding in a way we would never have imagined.
Remember those heady days as the Jacinda-juggernaut took form. Crowds at party events featuring Jacinda, grew by the day. There were no promises too ambitious – light rail to the airport and beyond Westgate within ten years. A hundred thousand new Kiwibuild homes; An end to double-bunking in prisons; An end to punitive welfare sanctions. An end to child poverty! After nine years in Opposition, and more than thirty years of neo-liberalism, the pathologies of society were clear, and Labour were all-out promising nobly to address their symptoms, like chopping off the heads of the Hydra, regardless of whether they would actually be in a Government position to deliver.
Thanks to Winston Peters, -but only on issues with his support, in a position to govern, they were. The promises continued with the ‘Year of Delivery’, except it didn’t deliver. Even after a full suite of working parties and inquiries, the same problems have been diagnosed, solutions have been tabled, but change is slow – the neo-liberal tree is being trimmed and shaped, but not fundamentally transformed. Now there’s the Covid crisis, more immediate, and as politically demanding – and rewarding, as existing problems needing change. And for many, it’s churlish to judge for failures when so much of the Covid response seems to have been a success.
The Labour Party will be judged not by what it promised and failed to do, but by how it responded to the unexpected. More to the point, the Labour Party will be judged by what Jacinda did. It’s Jacinda’s Government, Jacinda’s Party and Jacinda who carries the weight of public trust.
With such loyalty, confidence, and even a type of religious faith, who needs policies? And in fact, latest polls show the support for Jacinda is now such a broad church that policies may be counterproductive. Where does Jacinda stand on euthanasia or cannabis reform – key issues at referendum at this election? We may never know. Some from those campaigns bemoan her silence, seeking an indication of leadership. Though there’s a political risk with indications of where she stands. If she doesn’t specify what she stands for, other than a liberal, humanitarian ‘general direction of travel’ she can’t be (mis)judged. She won’t alienate people with other views if she keeps her own views close to her chest.
But “where are the other policies?” people ask. “Know us by our deeds”, the Time magazine read in its headline accompanying Jacinda’s beatific front-page picture even before Covid-19. While it’s argued that the active interventionist response to Covid has taken voters to the left, it’s hard to tell which of the current deeds trying to keep the country afloat with lashings of cash, are a Government Covid response, ‘delivery’, or political party electioneering. This weekend it was Megan Woods with some energy sector tinkering, Shane Jones with around $40million for Chatham Islands tourism (good luck), and Eugenie Sage with another predator free Hauraki Gulf Island.
A Labour Party meme doing the rounds shows the Party’s July “to do” list – make apprenticeships free, boost pay for ECE teachers, a Southland school lunch pilot programme, paid parental leave extended to 26 weeks, new fast-track infrastructure rules, water infrastructure, Covid recovery plans, pay equity legislation, renewable energy scoping work – “Keeping NZ moving”. Which are essential Covid-19 responses, or expedient vote winning concessions? Does that distinction even matter? (There’s a similar issue with New Zealand First and the Provincial Growth Fund, though at that Party’s hands, it all seems much tawdrier and cronyistic). We may not all be socialists now, but most of us are definitely Keynesians.
As we face the rush into the 2020 election, Labour have learned it’s easier to make promises in a long opposition than it is to deliver them in a short three years. Chances are, there will be another three years to come, with or without a Coalition. Jacinda says she’s too busy dealing with Covid-19 to worry too much about the election. It’s a high-minded position, and can afford to be, when the election will be largely decided by that response. Overall, Jacinda has a clear mandate for action.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
But we’re still waiting for a coherent ideological vision, a framework for a post Covid economy and society, and components within it. What broader vision of animal welfare, trade and economic redistribution does the pork-glut to food banks sit within; what framework of justified intervention, do cash funds to allow tourist operators to run empty boats, measure against? So far there have been budgets for businesses, but what about funding for people? What about tax redistribution? How to achieve economic intergenerational equity when the cost of recovering from Covid-19 will fall on the future? Where will public health sit as a priority against the economy in the future? What lessons will we take from Covid-19 for climate change – our nuclear free moment? Against the backdrop of growing US-Chinese tensions, is our lock-step with the Five Eyes alliance a risky default? Is it just business as usual for the Labour Party and future Governments in the global economy and foreign affairs?
The Covid crisis has been so unprecedented much of the (admirable) response has been an ad hoc type of praxis. (Ad hoc like sacking Ian Lees-Galloway at one extreme and Kurt Taogaga at the other – but not much kindness there). But now is our chance, there’s no time for gardening, we already needed root and branch change to address poverty, homelessness and personal debt – and moreso to withstand Covid and the oncoming storm. To not use this opportunity and mandate for fundamental change would be a tragically wasted moment. However, some of the most radical change proposed, like fast track consenting processes, threatens to undermine democracy, rather than to strengthen it.
The Labour Party says it will release its election policies closer to the event. But many voters already know where their loyalties -and votes- will lie. In the rush to respond to Covid-19, and with three crazy years governing, there may have been little time for Labour to reconceptualise a new way of doing business, society and the environment, even if, with the dries in the Party – David Parker, Damian O’Connor and Stuart Nash, there was an appetite to do so. Just as shovel-ready projects have been the ones to get traction in this ‘political window of opportunity’, we need a compelling shovel-ready plan to respond to the unprecedented pathway of uncertainty and opportunity ahead. It’s not just the individual policies worth hoping for, but a systematic red/green-path for the future. Covid-19 has highlighted both the need for, and the reality of constant change.
Indeed, with recession and global uncertainty, the future is already unfolding. The scale of imminent disruption is somewhat obscured by the wage subsidy, by lag in the unfolding of events. William Davies said “to experience a crisis is to inhabit a world that is temporarily up for grabs”. Civil society has ideas about what ‘grabs’ might be possible in a post-Covid world – a Green New Deal for example. Jacinda’s proven to be a great leader – will she follow?


thedailyblog--2020-08-03--MUST READ: The Third Referendum

MUST READ: The Third Referendum

JACINDA ARDERN ’ S STRATEGY for this election is now clear .
She will be inviting New Zealanders to vote in three referendums .
The referendum on Cannabis .
The referendum on Euthanasia .
And the referendum on her government ’ s handling of the Covid-19 Pandemic .
Otherwise known as the General Election , this third referendum will be presented as an opportunity to endorse the course Jacinda has set for the country .
While a reasonable amount of doubt surrounds the outcome of the first and second referendums , the outcome of the third is regarded as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ Captain Jacinda ” and her Labour crew will be urged to “ stay the course ” and sail the good ship New Zealand safely home .
Many on the Left , caught up in the excitement of a prospective electoral victory so emphatic that Labour may be in a position to govern alone , are imploring the party to seize the time and enact the most comprehensive reform of New Zealand institutions since 1984 .
All the things the Left was hoping for : the “ transformation ” promised by Jacinda @ @ @ @ @ @ @ become possible in a House of Representatives dominated by Labour and the Greens .
Really ?
How much is the New Zealand Left ( as it used to be understood ) willing to bet ?
Which of those institutions that , historically , have been thought of as “ progressive ” ( left-wing political parties , the trade unions , universities , the teaching profession , tertiary student bodies and the arts community ) will step up to insist that Jacinda and her ministry enact a genuinely transformative programme ?
Let ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It is a sad – but entirely fair – question : Do any left-wing parties still exist in New Zealand ?
Over the course of the past thirty years , the number of political organisations dedicated to the full emancipation of working people and their families and committed to an unequivocally internationalist and anti-imperialist foreign policy , has shrunk uncomfortably close to zero .
In the 1990 general election , two such parties – the NewLabour Party and the Greens – between them accounted for a very respectable 12 percent of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Three years later , those same two parties , now united in the Alliance , won 18.21 percent support ( 350,063 votes ) and two parliamentary seats .
( A remarkable feat under the then prevailing First-Past-the-Post electoral system ! )
By 1990 , Labour , which had once been included among the parties of the New Zealand Left , could no longer be accounted such .
Following the policy “ revolution ” unleashed by David Lange and Roger Douglas , the party had shrunk very rapidly to the point where it could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The split which gave rise to NewLabour in 1989 left it smaller still .
Perhaps the best that can be said of Labour in the years following 1984 is that it remained relatively progressive on social issues .
On the all-important issues of working-class emancipation , redistributive economic justice and anti-imperialism , however , it had shifted decisively to the right – and remains there .
The secret of Labour ’ s survival as a viable political party , and the reason why so many New Zealanders still think of it as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it being the party people vote for to keep the much more recognisably right-wing National Party out of government .
It is this core electoral function which gives it so much political gravity .
Inevitably , all its smaller rivals become either orbiting moons ( the Greens ) or are spun off into the inter-stellar darkness ( New Labour ) .
In other words , Labour , like National , is defined almost entirely by what it is not .
The moment either party abandons this essentially negative function – as Labour did @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did between 1990 and 1993 – they are instantly perceived as threats .
Those deemed responsible for turning their parties “ rogue ” are either removed or tamed .
New Zealand democracy , in its essence , is about the voting public enforcing political restraint .
Politics as a process of driving radical economic and social change is a once-in-a-lifetime experience .
All those other “ progressive ” institutions – unions , universities , students associations , the arts – drew their social and economic power from the radical changes ushered in by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For fifty years these bastions of progressivism acted as the guarantors of the social-democratic reforms that gave rise to the Welfare State .
It was precisely because they served as social-democracy ’ s bodyguards that the instigators of the neoliberal counter-revolution of the 1980s and 90s , like so many Mafia hit-men , made it their business to take them out of the picture .
What are the unions of today ?
Fighters for the rights and living-standards of their members ?
Hardly !
Today ’ s union is a structure filled with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bosses whilst perched on the backs of workers who have never been so carelessly exploited – nor so indifferently defended .
And the universities ?
Do they still act as havens for inquiring minds ?
Are they the fiercely independent guardians and disseminators of their civilisation ’ s canonical truths ?
Not really .
Today ’ s university is a white-anted corporate ruin which is only prevented for collapsing into post-modern sawdust by all the neoliberal termites holding hands .
Students are paying customers – nothing more .
And the Artists ?
What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only the rich can afford to listen to , and from which the state ’ s cultural commissars have extracted every last drop of power and pity .
In the immortal words of the Kiwi poet A. R. D. Fairburn : “ The mushroom grows in the open ground ; the toadstool under a tree.
” What else can Jacinda do in a political environment so bereft of imagination and courage but seek a continuance ?
If she trades upon the extraordinary personal qualities that she has , miraculously , carried with her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then I , for one , will offer no criticism .
In the absence of the great collectivities upon which the historic Left relied to enrich the poor and make the weak strong , progressive New Zealanders are left with an intelligent , kind , brave , and very competent young woman .
To the question posed in the Third Referendum : Should Jacinda stay at the helm of our ship of state – yes or no ?
I ’ ll be standing on my desk and shouting : “ Oh captain , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ”

JACINDA ARDERN’S STRATEGY for this election is now clear. She will be inviting New Zealanders to vote in three referendums. The referendum on Cannabis. The referendum on Euthanasia. And the referendum on her government’s handling of the Covid-19 Pandemic. Otherwise known as the General Election, this third referendum will be presented as an opportunity to endorse the course Jacinda has set for the country. While a reasonable amount of doubt surrounds the outcome of the first and second referendums, the outcome of the third is regarded as a “dead cert” by most voters. “Captain Jacinda” and her Labour crew will be urged to “stay the course” and sail the good ship New Zealand safely home.
Many on the Left, caught up in the excitement of a prospective electoral victory so emphatic that Labour may be in a position to govern alone, are imploring the party to seize the time and enact the most comprehensive reform of New Zealand institutions since 1984. All the things the Left was hoping for: the “transformation” promised by Jacinda but countermanded by Winston Peters; will become possible in a House of Representatives dominated by Labour and the Greens.
Really? How much is the New Zealand Left (as it used to be understood) willing to bet? Which of those institutions that, historically, have been thought of as “progressive” (left-wing political parties, the trade unions, universities, the teaching profession, tertiary student bodies and the arts community) will step up to insist that Jacinda and her ministry enact a genuinely transformative programme? Let’s examine each of these collectivities in turn.
It is a sad – but entirely fair – question: Do any left-wing parties still exist in New Zealand? Over the course of the past thirty years, the number of political organisations dedicated to the full emancipation of working people and their families and committed to an unequivocally internationalist and anti-imperialist foreign policy, has shrunk uncomfortably close to zero.
In the 1990 general election, two such parties – the NewLabour Party and the Greens – between them accounted for a very respectable 12 percent of the popular vote (219,086 votes). Three years later, those same two parties, now united in the Alliance, won 18.21 percent support (350,063 votes) and two parliamentary seats. (A remarkable feat under the then prevailing First-Past-the-Post electoral system!)
By 1990, Labour, which had once been included among the parties of the New Zealand Left, could no longer be accounted such. Following the policy “revolution” unleashed by David Lange and Roger Douglas, the party had shrunk very rapidly to the point where it could no longer be considered a mass party. The split which gave rise to NewLabour in 1989 left it smaller still.
Perhaps the best that can be said of Labour in the years following 1984 is that it remained relatively progressive on social issues. On the all-important issues of working-class emancipation, redistributive economic justice and anti-imperialism, however, it had shifted decisively to the right – and remains there.
The secret of Labour’s survival as a viable political party, and the reason why so many New Zealanders still think of it as “left-wing”, is due to it being the party people vote for to keep the much more recognisably right-wing National Party out of government. It is this core electoral function which gives it so much political gravity. Inevitably, all its smaller rivals become either orbiting moons (the Greens) or are spun off into the inter-stellar darkness (New Labour).
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
In other words, Labour, like National, is defined almost entirely by what it is not. The moment either party abandons this essentially negative function – as Labour did between 1972 and 1975, and National did between 1990 and 1993 – they are instantly perceived as threats. Those deemed responsible for turning their parties “rogue” are either removed or tamed. New Zealand democracy, in its essence, is about the voting public enforcing political restraint. Politics as a process of driving radical economic and social change is a once-in-a-lifetime experience.
All those other “progressive” institutions – unions, universities, students associations, the arts – drew their social and economic power from the radical changes ushered in by the first and second Labour governments. For fifty years these bastions of progressivism acted as the guarantors of the social-democratic reforms that gave rise to the Welfare State. It was precisely because they served as social-democracy’s bodyguards that the instigators of the neoliberal counter-revolution of the 1980s and 90s, like so many Mafia hit-men, made it their business to take them out of the picture.
What are the unions of today? Fighters for the rights and living-standards of their members? Hardly! Today’s union is a structure filled with well-remunerated officials holding convivial negotiations with the bosses whilst perched on the backs of workers who have never been so carelessly exploited – nor so indifferently defended.
And the universities? Do they still act as havens for inquiring minds? Are they the fiercely independent guardians and disseminators of their civilisation’s canonical truths? Not really. Today’s university is a white-anted corporate ruin which is only prevented for collapsing into post-modern sawdust by all the neoliberal termites holding hands. Students are paying customers – nothing more.
And the Artists? What have they become? Idiots telling tales only the rich can afford to listen to, and from which the state’s cultural commissars have extracted every last drop of power and pity. In the immortal words of the Kiwi poet A. R. D. Fairburn: “The mushroom grows in the open ground; the toadstool under a tree.”
What else can Jacinda do in a political environment so bereft of imagination and courage but seek a continuance? If she trades upon the extraordinary personal qualities that she has, miraculously, carried with her into the office of Prime Minister, then I, for one, will offer no criticism. In the absence of the great collectivities upon which the historic Left relied to enrich the poor and make the weak strong, progressive New Zealanders are left with an intelligent, kind, brave, and very competent young woman.
To the question posed in the Third Referendum: Should Jacinda stay at the helm of our ship of state – yes or no? I’ll be standing on my desk and shouting: “Oh captain, my captain, yes, stay!”


thedailyblog--2020-08-03--Dr Liz Gordon: The damage continues

Dr Liz Gordon: The damage continues

Damaged billboards ?
Really ?
The fact that Judith Collins got a big media boost for stating the bleeding obvious , namely that missing election hoardings are the work of opponents , is a good example of the state of electoral politics currently .
I mean , how on earth did she work that out ?
Mind you , there have been other reasons .
I remember in the 2002 election , Laila Harre ’ s beautiful visage was the target of ( I suspect ) students , probably male , carefully carved out while the rest of the hoarding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media approached her about this , she was , for the first time I remember , practically speechless !
Still , it is unlikely that some kind of lookist fad is the reason for National ’ s hoardings being missing .
The damage just keeps rolling on for National .
Matthew Hooten ’ s resignation , which he prefaced by saying he could not justify being away from his family for another seven weeks , was the clearest message anyone could give that the ship was sinking .
The fact that he then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ baloney .
As the rats desert the ship , they do not call back over their shoulder “ I still have faith in you ” .
Hooten ’ s action was moderately damaging to National , and he might just end up being yet another long-term casualty of the implosion of the party .
Am I the only one out there wishing for some policy ?
Does this make me so old-fashioned ?
I am interested in hearing from Labour how we might move from the pandemic-plagued state to the end of neo-liberalism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ National anything – one single material , justifiable thing – that they might have to offer a post pandemic Aotearoa .
In the absence of debate about the issues facing New Zealand ( and goodness knows there are enough of them ) , we are reduced to silly scraps and sordid scandals ( nice bit of alliteration there ) .
Oh yes , did I mention sloppy slogans ?
On my way to swimming I pass two New Conservative Party ( whoever they are ) billboards .
The first reads “ Prisoners Voting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a question mark there in theory , but not in practice .
But why ?
What is so important about this issue that it gets on your billboards ?
The second billboard reads : “ 3 Stage Sentencing Yes Please ” .
I have been a justice campaigner for years and I have never heard of 3 stage sentencing .
Perhaps hung , drawn and quartered ?
Please explain , as Pauline Hanson might say ( look it up , if you don ’ t get the allusion ) .
No wonder @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these billboards – what else would you do with them ?
Oh to have something to talk about that is not Covid or the personal failings of our leaders ( and their parties ) .
Give us a good policy stoush , go on .
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 .

Damaged billboards? Really? The fact that Judith Collins got a big media boost for stating the bleeding obvious, namely that missing election hoardings are the work of opponents, is a good example of the state of electoral politics currently. I mean, how on earth did she work that out? Mind you, there have been other reasons.
I remember in the 2002 election, Laila Harre’s beautiful visage was the target of (I suspect) students, probably male, carefully carved out while the rest of the hoarding was left in place. When the media approached her about this, she was, for the first time I remember, practically speechless! Still, it is unlikely that some kind of lookist fad is the reason for National’s hoardings being missing.
The damage just keeps rolling on for National. Matthew Hooten’s resignation, which he prefaced by saying he could not justify being away from his family for another seven weeks, was the clearest message anyone could give that the ship was sinking. The fact that he then said that National could still win was baloney. As the rats desert the ship, they do not call back over their shoulder “I still have faith in you”. Hooten’s action was moderately damaging to National, and he might just end up being yet another long-term casualty of the implosion of the party.
Am I the only one out there wishing for some policy? Does this make me so old-fashioned? I am interested in hearing from Labour how we might move from the pandemic-plagued state to the end of neo-liberalism. I am interested in hearing from National anything – one single material, justifiable thing – that they might have to offer a post pandemic Aotearoa.
In the absence of debate about the issues facing New Zealand (and goodness knows there are enough of them), we are reduced to silly scraps and sordid scandals (nice bit of alliteration there). Oh yes, did I mention sloppy slogans? On my way to swimming I pass two New Conservative Party (whoever they are) billboards. The first reads “Prisoners Voting No Thanks”. Yes, there is a question mark there in theory, but not in practice. But why? What is so important about this issue that it gets on your billboards?
The second billboard reads: “3 Stage Sentencing Yes Please”. I have been a justice campaigner for years and I have never heard of 3 stage sentencing. Perhaps hung, drawn and quartered? Please explain, as Pauline Hanson might say (look it up, if you don’t get the allusion). No wonder someone has daubed swastikas on many of these billboards – what else would you do with them?
Oh to have something to talk about that is not Covid or the personal failings of our leaders (and their parties). Give us a good policy stoush, go on.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
Dr Liz Gordon is a researcher and a barrister, with interests in destroying neo-liberalism in all its forms and moving towards a socially just society. She usually blogs on justice, social welfare and education topics.


thedailyblog--2020-08-05--Does the Left know how to fix Capitalism?

IT IS PERFECTLY NATURAL , when people see a system failing , that they should want to fix it .
By the late-1970s and early-1980s it was pretty clear to everyone that the post-war economic miracle had stalled , and that all the usual remedies had been tried and had failed .
Voters were in the market for something new , something that hadn ’ t been tried .
They were hungry for an alternative .
Young New Zealanders who have grown up in the neoliberal era of low inflation , small and weak private sector unions , and low-to-stagnant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ imagine an annual inflation rate of 14 percent with wage rises to match .
Economic policies have hardly changed in 35 years , so the idea of prime ministers and finance ministers flailing about in search of a solution to rampant price and wage inflation will strike those who have never experienced the collapse of a long-standing policy consensus as bizarre .
What would also strike them as unusual is just how energetically New Zealand society examined and debated the alternatives put forward to replace the failing post-war consensus .
Even though today @ @ @ @ @ @ @ global financial crisis – an event which tested neoliberal ideas and practices to destruction – there has been nothing like the lengthy period of public discussion and disputation that preceded the dramatic reforms of the Fourth Labour Government .
That there was so much public discussion : so many features in the newspapers , lengthy magazine articles and prime-time documentaries ( the most famous being Milton Freidman ’ s staunchly monetarist “ Free to Choose ” series ) is indisputably because the most vociferous arguments in favour of change were coming from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had largely dictated the policies of Western states since 1945 , represented capitalism ’ s grudging compromise with the social-democratic aspirations of the men and women who had lived through the years of depression and war .
Ordinary people were demanding a better life , and western politicians , all too aware that if they refused to meet their citizens ’ demands the Soviets would be quick to tell them why , thought it best to give the voters what they wanted .
The problem , especially for the capitalists of the English-speaking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had worked too well .
With the power of the trade unions growing , and the rate of profit falling , capitalism was in trouble .
Worse still , a “ revolution of rising expectations ” , beginning in the 1950s and 60s , had , by the 1970s , led to previously marginalised and/or suppressed groups – blacks , women , gays and lesbians – demanding their own fair share of space on the social , economic and political stage .
Left to itself , conservative intellectuals argued , social-democracy was generating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consenting to its own dissolution .
The time had come to fight back .
And what a fightback it was .
Crucial to the success of the Capitalist counter-revolution was the middle-class fear of being forced to surrender its economic and social privileges to groups long-considered inferior – most especially the working-class and people of colour .
Trade union militancy and black assertiveness , the most radical manifestations of social-democracy ’ s culture of enablement and emancipation , were to become the unacknowledged drivers of middle-class support for the capitalist fightback .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , economic and political equality for middle-class women , regardless of race or sexuality ; did not seem particularly high .
After all , it had worked before .
Were there left-wing alternatives to the Keynesian post-war settlement ?
Of course there were !
Did they enjoy the same encouragement and support as the alternatives put forward by conservative intellectuals and right-wing think tanks ?
Of course not !
The “ More Market ” side of the debate patted the capitalist cat just the way it liked – from its head to its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stroking it in the opposite direction ended up getting very badly scratched .
In the ten years that have elapsed since the global financial crisis , much has been written about the deficiencies and failures of neoliberalism .
Alternative economic ideas have been advanced by thinkers and politicians from all around the world .
Unfortunately , the critics of neoliberalism have achieved nothing like the cut-through achieved by the critics of Keynesianism in the 70s and 80s .
The careful creation of an intellectual climate for change ; the constant publication of detailed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and seeding of the political ground that prefaced the policy revolutions unleashed by Margaret Thatcher , Ronald Reagan and Roger Douglas ; none of these have been replicated by the Left .
Hardly surprising when one considers the extreme disparity in resources between the individuals and groups advocating neoliberalism , and those promoting more equitable alternatives .
Having billionaires as backers really does help !
Even with the powerful incentive of the Covid-19 Pandemic , the development of a convincing alternative to the status-quo remains pitifully ( and , given the rapid advance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Ninety years ago , the father of public relations , and author of the ground-breaking book “ Propaganda ” , Edward Bernays , wrote : “ Only through the active energy of the intelligent few can the public at large become aware of and act upon new ideas.
” Few would dispute that the Left , today , are few in number .
Is their failure to make the public aware of and act upon the manifest failures of the present system attributable to their lack of active energy and intelligence ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Left ’ s ideas have become , almost entirely , those of the historically compromised middle-class ?

IT IS PERFECTLY NATURAL, when people see a system failing, that they should want to fix it. By the late-1970s and early-1980s it was pretty clear to everyone that the post-war economic miracle had stalled, and that all the usual remedies had been tried and had failed. Voters were in the market for something new, something that hadn’t been tried. They were hungry for an alternative.
Young New Zealanders who have grown up in the neoliberal era of low inflation, small and weak private sector unions, and low-to-stagnant income growth will find it difficult to imagine an annual inflation rate of 14 percent with wage rises to match. Economic policies have hardly changed in 35 years, so the idea of prime ministers and finance ministers flailing about in search of a solution to rampant price and wage inflation will strike those who have never experienced the collapse of a long-standing policy consensus as bizarre.
What would also strike them as unusual is just how energetically New Zealand society examined and debated the alternatives put forward to replace the failing post-war consensus. Even though today’s 20-somethings have lived through the global financial crisis – an event which tested neoliberal ideas and practices to destruction – there has been nothing like the lengthy period of public discussion and disputation that preceded the dramatic reforms of the Fourth Labour Government.
That there was so much public discussion: so many features in the newspapers, lengthy magazine articles and prime-time documentaries (the most famous being Milton Freidman’s staunchly monetarist “Free to Choose” series) is indisputably because the most vociferous arguments in favour of change were coming from the Right.
Keynesian economic orthodoxy, which had largely dictated the policies of Western states since 1945, represented capitalism’s grudging compromise with the social-democratic aspirations of the men and women who had lived through the years of depression and war. Ordinary people were demanding a better life, and western politicians, all too aware that if they refused to meet their citizens’ demands the Soviets would be quick to tell them why, thought it best to give the voters what they wanted. The problem, especially for the capitalists of the English-speaking world, was that the post-war compromise had worked too well.
With the power of the trade unions growing, and the rate of profit falling, capitalism was in trouble. Worse still, a “revolution of rising expectations”, beginning in the 1950s and 60s, had, by the 1970s, led to previously marginalised and/or suppressed groups – blacks, women, gays and lesbians – demanding their own fair share of space on the social, economic and political stage. Left to itself, conservative intellectuals argued, social-democracy was generating demands that capitalism could only meet by consenting to its own dissolution. The time had come to fight back.
And what a fightback it was. Crucial to the success of the Capitalist counter-revolution was the middle-class fear of being forced to surrender its economic and social privileges to groups long-considered inferior – most especially the working-class and people of colour. Trade union militancy and black assertiveness, the most radical manifestations of social-democracy’s culture of enablement and emancipation, were to become the unacknowledged drivers of middle-class support for the capitalist fightback. The price: a promise of full social, economic and political equality for middle-class women, regardless of race or sexuality; did not seem particularly high. After all, it had worked before.
Were there left-wing alternatives to the Keynesian post-war settlement? Of course there were! Did they enjoy the same encouragement and support as the alternatives put forward by conservative intellectuals and right-wing think tanks? Of course not! The “More Market” side of the debate patted the capitalist cat just the way it liked – from its head to its tail. Those foolhardy enough to try stroking it in the opposite direction ended up getting very badly scratched.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
In the ten years that have elapsed since the global financial crisis, much has been written about the deficiencies and failures of neoliberalism. Alternative economic ideas have been advanced by thinkers and politicians from all around the world. Unfortunately, the critics of neoliberalism have achieved nothing like the cut-through achieved by the critics of Keynesianism in the 70s and 80s. The careful creation of an intellectual climate for change; the constant publication of detailed proposals for reform; the extraordinary preparation and seeding of the political ground that prefaced the policy revolutions unleashed by Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and Roger Douglas; none of these have been replicated by the Left.
Hardly surprising when one considers the extreme disparity in resources between the individuals and groups advocating neoliberalism, and those promoting more equitable alternatives. Having billionaires as backers really does help!
Even with the powerful incentive of the Covid-19 Pandemic, the development of a convincing alternative to the status-quo remains pitifully (and, given the rapid advance of climate change, dangerously) slow.
Ninety years ago, the father of public relations, and author of the ground-breaking book “Propaganda”, Edward Bernays, wrote:
“Only through the active energy of the intelligent few can the public at large become aware of and act upon new ideas.”
Few would dispute that the Left, today, are few in number. Is their failure to make the public aware of and act upon the manifest failures of the present system attributable to their lack of active energy and intelligence? Or, is it simply because the Left’s ideas have become, almost entirely, those of the historically compromised middle-class?


thedailyblog--2020-08-05--Mainstream media desperately pump corporate “business as usual” messages to swamp and sideline alter

Mainstream media desperately pump corporate “business as usual” messages to swamp and sideline alternative voices

Mainstream media have always pumped up corporate voices to crowd out alternatives and this last week they have been at it harder than usual .
Stuff has headlined Helen Clark calling for privatising of quarantine with the aim to bring in more people to meet corporate needs while the New Zealand Herald is trumpeting John Key saying we need to reopen the border and let in ‘ rich ’ Americans who want to build a house .
Just a normal week ’ s work .
Meanwhile in a nausea-inducing move the Ardern government has put chief co-ordinator of the corporate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , on the government payroll to provide advice and guidance on the covid response .
This is the same corporate media , and their political representatives , which chanted “ there is no alternative ” as successive government privatised public assets , destroyed local industries , smashed unions , undermined public services , ripped apart the welfare state , enriched the mega wealthy and drove tens of thousands into poverty from 1984 .
Now the corporate sector are worried the rule of the rich could be destabilised by the coronavirus pandemic and they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ business as usual ” with its myriad social , environmental and economic problems .
Ongoing poverty and inequality are necessary for the rich to continue to enrich themselves at our expense .
So alongside amplifying the voices at the big end of town the mainstream corporate media are doing their best to stifle and sideline alternative voices .
For example the Alternative Aotearoa seminar held on 25 July was ignored – not a paragraph in any mainstream media .
There were no headlines calling for full employment , a decent state house-building programme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is increasing at twice the rate Labour are building state houses ) or the rebuilding of our health system .
The wide range of national organisations and the rich vein of alternative possibilities was sidelined and disregarded .
Better to champion the pathetic voices of the mega rich via John Key than assist a wider debate about alternatives to “ business as usual ” .
Expect to see more of this desperate corporate pumping of “ business as usual ” from the likes of the Herald and Stuff in the coming months as @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Mainstream media have always pumped up corporate voices to crowd out alternatives and this last week they have been at it harder than usual.
Stuff has headlined Helen Clark calling for privatising of quarantine with the aim to bring in more people to meet corporate needs while the New Zealand Herald is trumpeting John Key saying we need to reopen the border and let in ‘rich’ Americans who want to build a house. Just a normal week’s work.
Meanwhile in a nausea-inducing move the Ardern government has put chief co-ordinator of the corporate response to the pandemic, Rob Fyfe, on the government payroll to provide advice and guidance on the covid response.
This is the same corporate media, and their political representatives, which chanted “there is no alternative” as successive government privatised public assets, destroyed local industries, smashed unions, undermined public services, ripped apart the welfare state, enriched the mega wealthy and drove tens of thousands into poverty from 1984.
Now the corporate sector are worried the rule of the rich could be destabilised by the coronavirus pandemic and they are desperate to get back to “business as usual” with its myriad social, environmental and economic problems. Ongoing poverty and inequality are necessary for the rich to continue to enrich themselves at our expense.
So alongside amplifying the voices at the big end of town the mainstream corporate media are doing their best to stifle and sideline alternative voices. For example the Alternative Aotearoa seminar held on 25 July was ignored – not a paragraph in any mainstream media.
There were no headlines calling for full employment, a decent state house-building programme (currently the state house waiting list is increasing at twice the rate Labour are building state houses) or the rebuilding of our health system.
The wide range of national organisations and the rich vein of alternative possibilities was sidelined and disregarded. Better to champion the pathetic voices of the mega rich via John Key than assist a wider debate about alternatives to “business as usual”.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
Expect to see more of this desperate corporate pumping of “business as usual” from the likes of the Herald and Stuff in the coming months as they fight valiantly for the rich.


thedailyblog--2020-08-06--75 plus 35 years – the Hiroshima and Rainbow Warrior nuclear rewinds

While the globe struggles to cope with the deadly onslaught of the covid-19 pandemic , communicators , historians , journalists and activists have been deploying innovative ways of marking three nuclear-related anniversaries in barely a month .
Over the next few days , the devastating destruction , cruel loss of life and survivors ’ stories from the world ’ s first and only deployment of nuclear weapons are being remembered in Japan and around the world .
The United States dropping of nuclear bombs on Hiroshima 75 years ago on 6 August 1945 and then on Nagasaki three days later @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than 215,000 people dead .
Thousands more lives were lost in the following years from leukemia , cancer and other diseases caused by the radiation from the weapons .
READ MORE : Another Hiroshima is coming – unless we stop it now With the third anniversary , 10 July 1985 , although only one life was lost – there could easily have been more – the repercussions for New Zealand and throughout the Pacific have also been shattering .
One outrage was a wartime atrocity , claimed falsely that it was carried out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the other was a peacetime atrocity .
The Greenpeace flagship Rainbow Warrior was bombed by French secret agents with the loss of Dutch photojournalist Fernando Pereira .
But the anti-nuclear protest that was meant to be silenced continued courageously , and a decade later France was forced to halt nuclear tests at Moruroa atoll with the last detonation in early 1996 .
One of the champions of the South Pacific ’ s nuclear-free and independence campaigners , Oscar Manutahi Temaru , made an inspirational guest appearance last week in a retrospective webinar about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 35 years on .
The webinar , titled “ The Rainbow Warrior Incident : 35 Years Later ” , featured several protagonists , analysts and authors speaking about the sabotage of the environmental flagship .
It was originally planned as part of an H-France history conference in Auckland but the pandemic forced organisers to go virtual .
Temaru , five times president of French-ruled Polynesia ( Ma ’ ohi Nui ) and the mayor of Faa ’ a , the “ nuclear-free ” airport suburb on the fringe of the capital of Pape @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Four years ago , he told Tagata Pasifika ’ s John Pulu that a half-century legacy of nuclear tests in Polynesia was to blame for the at times toxic relationship with the coloniser .
“ The French government , through its President , General De Gaulle decided to use our country for the French nuclear testing , ” Temaru said .
“ They came down here with their private enterprises – the French army – and they have dismantled the whole life of this country .
They pulled it upside down.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during the Algerian War of Independence he was in the French navy and he was deployed to the conflict at a time when France was conducting its early nuclear tests in the Sahara Desert .
Early years of devastation Temaru was later a customs officer in Tahiti and saw at first hand the early years of the devastation of the military machine in Moruroa and Fangataufa atolls in the southern Gambier islands as they became the new host for French nuclear tests .
France conducted 193 nuclear tests – 46 in the atmosphere @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and 1996 , but the legacy of the testing was still felt for 50 years with the medical and environmental consequences and lawsuits continuing to this day .
Temaru ’ s rallying cry has been to seek independence from France .
With a Cook Islands mother and Tahitian father and having worked on school holidays in freezing works in Auckland , he has long had a strong affinity with the “ independent ” nations of the Pacific and aspires to Tahiti one day becoming a full member of the Pacific Islands Forum .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ nations and the Non-Aligned Movement , the UN General Assembly voted on 17 May 2013 to put the country back on the UN list of non-self-governing territories .
Since then he has been a marked man for vindictive elements in the French establishment who see it is payback time .
In June , he was on a hunger strike over his treatment by the French judiciary .
A prosecutor has seized his personal savings of US $ 100,000 , in an act described as illegal by his defence lawyers , in a case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ undue influence ” .
Last week , his Tavini Huiraatira party launched a petition outside the lawcourts of Pape ’ ete calling for the sovereignty of the Ma ’ ohi Nui people .
The petition , open for a year and expected to be presented to the United Nations and the Pacific Islands Forum , also calls for compensation from France for the damage caused by three decades of nuclear tests .
‘ Scandalous ’ legal action One of the two Tahitian politicians in the National Assembly in Paris , Moetai Brotherson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” , claiming prosecutor Herve Leroy had exceeded his powers .
The judicial controversy is over the local pro-independence station Radio Tefana which the prosecution claim is benefitting his pro-independence party Tavini Huiraata ( People ’ s Servant Party ) , founded in 1977 .
“ As a Mangarevian , I see Oscar Temaru as our only voice for indigenous sovereignty and it starts – as he has said so many times – by making the French accountable for what they have done , ” says Ena Manuireva , an Auckland-based Tahitian researcher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his Mangarevan community , its origin and impact .
“ Temaru has has always fought the same fight – we , the local population , must be the masters of our own destiny .
The French coloniser needs to leave if they don ’ t want to give us independence.
” Manuireva was one of the speakers at the webinar , hosted by Canada ’ s Simon Fraser University of Vancouver with support by Massey University and the University of Auckland is part of a “ France and Beyond ” joint conference of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ George Rudé seminar on French history and civilisation .
A doctoral candidate at Auckland University of Technology ( AUT ) , Manuireva was born in Mangareva ( Gambier ) , the smallest archipelago in Ma ’ ohi Nui in 1967 .
He left the island after the first nuclear test on July 2 , 1966 .
Nuclear panel speakers Key organiser and moderator was Dr Roxanne Panchasi , an associate professor at Simon Fraser University who specialises in 20th and 21st century France and its empire .
She is the author of Future @ @ @ @ @ @ @ France between the Wars and her recent research has focused on French nuclear weapons and testing since 1945 .
Also featured on the panel were : Stephanie Mills , currently director of campaigns at NZEI Te Riu Roa , and Greenpeace ’ s former Pacific nuclear test ban campaigner ; Dr Rebecca Priestley , associate professor at the Centre for Science in Society at Victoria University in Wellington ; and me , a Pacific media educator and director of the Pacific Media Centre-Te Amokura at AUT .
As a journalist , I was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Eyes of Fire : The Last Voyage of the Rainbow Warrior .
• French nuclear tests : ‘ I bury people nearly every day , what was our sin ?
’ • John Pilger ’ s article on the 75th anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing

David Robie also blogs at Cafe Pacific
While the globe struggles to cope with the deadly onslaught of the covid-19 pandemic, communicators, historians, journalists and activists have been deploying innovative ways of marking three nuclear-related anniversaries in barely a month.
Over the next few days, the devastating destruction, cruel loss of life and survivors’ stories from the world’s first and only deployment of nuclear weapons are being remembered in Japan and around the world.
The United States dropping of nuclear bombs on Hiroshima 75 years ago on 6 August 1945 and then on Nagasaki three days later left two utterly destroyed cities and more than 215,000 people dead. Thousands more lives were lost in the following years from leukemia, cancer and other diseases caused by the radiation from the weapons.
READ MORE: Another Hiroshima is coming – unless we stop it now
With the third anniversary, 10 July 1985, although only one life was lost – there could easily have been more – the repercussions for New Zealand and throughout the Pacific have also been shattering.
One outrage was a wartime atrocity, claimed falsely that it was carried out to shorten the Pacific war, and the other was a peacetime atrocity.
The Greenpeace flagship Rainbow Warrior was bombed by French secret agents with the loss of Dutch photojournalist Fernando Pereira. But the anti-nuclear protest that was meant to be silenced continued courageously, and a decade later France was forced to halt nuclear tests at Moruroa atoll with the last detonation in early 1996.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
One of the champions of the South Pacific’s nuclear-free and independence campaigners, Oscar Manutahi Temaru, made an inspirational guest appearance last week in a retrospective webinar about the impact of the Rainbow Warrior bombing 35 years on.
The webinar, titled “The Rainbow Warrior Incident: 35 Years Later”, featured several protagonists, analysts and authors speaking about the sabotage of the environmental flagship.
It was originally planned as part of an H-France history conference in Auckland but the pandemic forced organisers to go virtual.
Temaru, five times president of French-ruled Polynesia (Ma’ohi Nui) and the mayor of Faa’a, the “nuclear-free” airport suburb on the fringe of the capital of Pape’ete, made some challenging comments.
John Pulu’s Tagata Pasifikla report on Oscar Temaru.
Four years ago, he told Tagata Pasifika’s John Pulu that a half-century legacy of nuclear tests in Polynesia was to blame for the at times toxic relationship with the coloniser.
“The French government, through its President, General De Gaulle decided to use our country for the French nuclear testing,” Temaru said.
“They came down here with their private enterprises – the French army – and they have dismantled the whole life of this country. They pulled it upside down.”
Temaru knew what to expect, as during the Algerian War of Independence he was in the French navy and he was deployed to the conflict at a time when France was conducting its early nuclear tests in the Sahara Desert.
Early years of devastation
Temaru was later a customs officer in Tahiti and saw at first hand the early years of the devastation of the military machine in Moruroa and Fangataufa atolls in the southern Gambier islands as they became the new host for French nuclear tests.
France conducted 193 nuclear tests – 46 in the atmosphere – in the 30 years between 1966 and 1996, but the legacy of the testing was still felt for 50 years with the medical and environmental consequences and lawsuits continuing to this day.
Temaru’s rallying cry has been to seek independence from France.
With a Cook Islands mother and Tahitian father and having worked on school holidays in freezing works in Auckland, he has long had a strong affinity with the “independent” nations of the Pacific and aspires to Tahiti one day becoming a full member of the Pacific Islands Forum.
Thanks to strong support of several Pacific nations and the Non-Aligned Movement, the UN General Assembly voted on 17 May 2013 to put the country back on the UN list of non-self-governing territories.
Since then he has been a marked man for vindictive elements in the French establishment who see it is payback time.
In June, he was on a hunger strike over his treatment by the French judiciary. A prosecutor has seized his personal savings of US$100,000, in an act described as illegal by his defence lawyers, in a case which he is being accused of political “undue influence”.
Last week, his Tavini Huiraatira party launched a petition outside the lawcourts of Pape’ete calling for the sovereignty of the Ma’ohi Nui people. The petition, open for a year and expected to be presented to the United Nations and the Pacific Islands Forum, also calls for compensation from France for the damage caused by three decades of nuclear tests.
‘Scandalous’ legal action
One of the two Tahitian politicians in the National Assembly in Paris, Moetai Brotherson, branded the action as “scandalous”, claiming prosecutor Herve Leroy had exceeded his powers.
The judicial controversy is over the local pro-independence station Radio Tefana which the prosecution claim is benefitting his pro-independence party Tavini Huiraata (People’s Servant Party), founded in 1977.
“As a Mangarevian, I see Oscar Temaru as our only voice for indigenous sovereignty and it starts – as he has said so many times – by making the French accountable for what they have done,” says Ena Manuireva, an Auckland-based Tahitian researcher studying the loss of cultural identity among his Mangarevan community, its origin and impact.
“Temaru has has always fought the same fight – we, the local population, must be the masters of our own destiny. The French coloniser needs to leave if they don’t want to give us independence.”
Manuireva was one of the speakers at the webinar, hosted by Canada’s Simon Fraser University of Vancouver with support by Massey University and the University of Auckland is part of a “France and Beyond” joint conference of the Society for French Historical Studies and George Rudé seminar on French history and civilisation.
A doctoral candidate at Auckland University of Technology (AUT), Manuireva was born in Mangareva (Gambier), the smallest archipelago in Ma’ohi Nui in 1967. He left the island after the first nuclear test on July 2, 1966.
Nuclear panel speakers
Key organiser and moderator was Dr Roxanne Panchasi, an associate professor at Simon Fraser University who specialises in 20th and 21st century France and its empire. She is the author of Future Tense: The Culture of Anticipation in France between the Wars and her recent research has focused on French nuclear weapons and testing since 1945.
Also featured on the panel were:
Stephanie Mills, currently director of campaigns at NZEI Te Riu Roa, and Greenpeace’s former Pacific nuclear test ban campaigner; Dr Rebecca Priestley, associate professor at the Centre for Science in Society at Victoria University in Wellington; and me, a Pacific media educator and director of the Pacific Media Centre-Te Amokura at AUT. As a journalist, I was on board the campaign ship and wrote Eyes of Fire: The Last Voyage of the Rainbow Warrior.


thedailyblog--2020-08-07--Reefer Madness follows criticism of cannabis referendum bill

What is driving two academics to criticise the Government ’ s information campaign for the cannabis referendum ?
In a review published in the New Zealand Medical Journal , two members of Auckland University ’ s Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences say the Ministry of Justice has made “ inflated and unrealistic ” claims in their public information campaign .
One of them , Prof Benedikt Fischer , was a member of the Prime Minister ’ s Chief Science Advisor ’ s cannabis expert panel which recently published a summary of information about the effects of voting Yes or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s a really useful , balanced , summary that I thoroughly recommend everyone read and share .
They even produced a video : The cannabis panel ’ s report says it “ did not reach uncontested conclusions or agree on every single point .
But we tried to reach a consensus on as many aspects as possible.
” That consensus has been blown open , with Fischer now saying the “ political promises ” made in the information campaign – to to eliminate the illegal supply of cannabis , restrict young people ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ visibility – were “ unlikely to be achievable as stated ” .
That has created an opening for the Nope campaign to falsely claim a “ win ” .
Aaron Ironside , the former Radio Hauraki jock and recovering drug addict who offers counselling services and is now spokesperson for the Say Nope To Dope campaign , called the review a “ scathing assessment ” that backs his position .
The Nope brigade is a coalition of busy bodies , wowsers and moralists that includes Family First and Bob McCroskie , a bunch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ owners of drug testing companies who stand to lose much of their income , and the US anti-cannabis lobby group SAM , which has lost most cannabis reform campaigns in US states .
Ironside thundered that “ The Government tries to argue through their pamphlet that ‘ the Bill ’ s purpose is to reduce harm to people and communities ’ , but that is purely the view of those lobbying for change.
” This is all a bit rich coming from those moralising propagandists .
They are backed by American anti-cannabis lobbyists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , misinformation , and outright lies .
The Nopers lie when they claim cannabis use among teens will inevitably go up .
In Canada underage use fell by almost half in just one year following legalisation .
That is a roaring success .
They mislead when they say legal products would be stronger .
In fact , potency will be limited .
They twist the facts when they say gangs will just do something even worse .
In fact , police would have much more time to go after them .
They distort @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would inevitably create a “ Big Cannabis ” industry .
In fact , there would be limits on the market size , a ban on all advertising and promotion , and licensing rules that favour small social enterprises and non-profits .
They push propaganda when they say “ Legal marijuana has a kid ’ s menu “ .
In fact , legal cannabis would be restricted to adults over 20 , unlike the current law which allows unfettered access , and products such as gummy bears won ’ t be allowed here .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ call the current approach a “ Smart Approach to Marijuana ” .
We ’ ve all heard the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result .
They expect us to believe them when they say keeping the current failed policy is “ smart ” .
The Nopers are pushing a huge pile of hogwash .
So what is it that now has them all riled up ?
Well , the information sent to voters includes the “ statement of purpose ” contained within @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This is the piece of legislation we are voting on in the referendum .
It will allow adults over 20 to legally use , possess , purchase or grow small amounts of cannabis for themselves .
It won ’ t create a Big Cannabis .
Driving and workplace safety will continue to be regulated separately .
It won ’ t be a free for all .
It is the opposite of the claims made by the Nopers .
The statement of purpose is that the Bill aims to “ reduce the harms associated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , whanau and communities in New Zealand ” .
Yes , that is what has offended Aaron Ironside and his Nopers .
Reducing harm .
Making New Zealand a better place .
Putting health and education first .
These are offensive concepts to the wreckers and haters who want continued prohibition .
After decades of “ Reefer Madness ” hysteria promulgated by the Nopers and their friends , it should be obvious their word can not be trusted .

What is driving two academics to criticise the Government’s information campaign for the cannabis referendum?
In a review published in the New Zealand Medical Journal, two members of Auckland University’s Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences say the Ministry of Justice has made “inflated and unrealistic” claims in their public information campaign.
One of them, Prof Benedikt Fischer, was a member of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor’s cannabis expert panel which recently published a summary of information about the effects of voting Yes or No in the referendum.
It’s a really useful, balanced, summary that I thoroughly recommend everyone read and share. They even produced a video:
The cannabis panel’s report says it “did not reach uncontested conclusions or agree on every single point. But we tried to reach a consensus on as many aspects as possible.”
That consensus has been blown open, with Fischer now saying the “political promises” made in the information campaign – to to eliminate the illegal supply of cannabis, restrict young people’s access to it and limit public visibility – were “unlikely to be achievable as stated”.
That has created an opening for the Nope campaign to falsely claim a “win”.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
Aaron Ironside, the former Radio Hauraki jock and recovering drug addict who offers counselling services and is now spokesperson for the Say Nope To Dope campaign, called the review a “scathing assessment” that backs his position.
The Nope brigade is a coalition of busy bodies, wowsers and moralists that includes Family First and Bob McCroskie, a bunch of conservative small town religious leaders, owners of drug testing companies who stand to lose much of their income, and the US anti-cannabis lobby group SAM, which has lost most cannabis reform campaigns in US states.
Ironside thundered that “The Government tries to argue through their pamphlet that ‘the Bill’s purpose is to reduce harm to people and communities’, but that is purely the view of those lobbying for change.”
This is all a bit rich coming from those moralising propagandists. They are backed by American anti-cannabis lobbyists who are well versed in spreading fear, misinformation, and outright lies.
The Nopers lie when they claim cannabis use among teens will inevitably go up. In Canada underage use fell by almost half in just one year following legalisation. That is a roaring success.
They mislead when they say legal products would be stronger. In fact, potency will be limited.
They twist the facts when they say gangs will just do something even worse. In fact, police would have much more time to go after them.
They distort the truth when they claim any reform would inevitably create a “Big Cannabis” industry. In fact, there would be limits on the market size, a ban on all advertising and promotion, and licensing rules that favour small social enterprises and non-profits.
They push propaganda when they say “Legal marijuana has a kid’s menu“. In fact, legal cannabis would be restricted to adults over 20, unlike the current law which allows unfettered access, and products such as gummy bears won’t be allowed here.
They lie to your face when they call the current approach a “Smart Approach to Marijuana”. We’ve all heard the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result.
They expect us to believe them when they say keeping the current failed policy is “smart”.
The Nopers are pushing a huge pile of hogwash. So what is it that now has them all riled up?
Well, the information sent to voters includes the “statement of purpose” contained within the Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill.
This is the piece of legislation we are voting on in the referendum. It will allow adults over 20 to legally use, possess, purchase or grow small amounts of cannabis for themselves. It won’t create a Big Cannabis. Driving and workplace safety will continue to be regulated separately. It won’t be a free for all.
It is the opposite of the claims made by the Nopers.
The statement of purpose is that the Bill aims to “reduce the harms associated with cannabis use by individuals, families, whanau and communities in New Zealand”.
Yes, that is what has offended Aaron Ironside and his Nopers. Reducing harm. Making New Zealand a better place. Putting health and education first.
These are offensive concepts to the wreckers and haters who want continued prohibition.
After decades of “Reefer Madness” hysteria promulgated by the Nopers and their friends, it should be obvious their word cannot be trusted.