thedailyblog--2020-07-13--MUST READ: Has the National Party Become a Threat to National Security?

DOES THE NATIONAL PARTY now constitute a threat to New Zealand ’ s national security ?
The recent conduct of persons belonging to the National Party suggests strongly that winning the forthcoming election has become an objective to be secured at any cost .
National Party members and supporters no longer appear to regard the existence of legal and/or moral prohibitions as a good enough reason not to engage in actions likely to cause serious harm to New Zealand citizens – if that is what it takes to win .
Under these circumstances , wouldn ’ t the country ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assess the threat of a rogue National Party supporter deliberately restarting the community transmission of Covid-19 as high ?
Patrick Smellie , writing in the Herald on Sunday ( 12/7/20 ) sets out National ’ s predicament with clinical precision : “ Only two things can now save Todd Muller and the National Party from the growing likelihood of a crushing defeat at the September 19 election .
“ Only one of them is in their control .
“ The uncontrollable element is the potential for a severe enough pre-election Covid-19 outbreak to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would change the current political dynamic , in which the Government ’ s broad success in keeping the virus at bay is fuelling its stratospheric poll ratings and overriding the political damage caused by the tendency for a few New Zealanders quarantined in hotels to break out of their gilded cages for a trip to the shops .
“ Another lockdown would be a massive blow to the optimism and emerging economic confidence that comes from hoping we can live somewhat normal lives while the rest of the world is in chaos .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that NZ should be following Australia ’ s lead ?
“ A lockdown , even if only regional , would also postpone election day , giving National more time to regroup .
“ If one part of the country can ’ t vote , then the whole country can ’ t vote.
” Smellie is to be faulted only for his inability ( or unwillingness ) to think the unthinkable .
Because , of course , the re-commencement of Covid-19 ’ s community transmission is very far from being an “ uncontrollable element @ @ @ @ @ @ @ individual or organisation is capable of arranging for the virus itself ( everything is available on the Dark Web – if the price is right ) to be released .
Or , alternatively , of smuggling-in someone infected with the virus ( luxury yacht meets powerboat outside the 12 mile limit ) and allowing them to move freely among unsuspecting New Zealanders – becoming the sort of “ Super-Spreader ” responsible for throwing the Australian city of Melbourne back into lockdown .
“ Oh , come on !
” , I hear you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t that bad !
This is paranoid political partisanship at its worst.
” To which I would reply : “ Mate , you haven ’ t being paying attention !
” Let ’ s just read the media release written by Michelle Boag announcing her resignation from the National Party : “ The last few days have underscored for me the unhealthy relationship I have developed with politics .
For 47 years , I have devoted much of my professional and personal life to supporting the Party that for me has always represented @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , reward for effort , self-reliance and compassion .
Unfortunately , this passion has put me on a self-destructive path .
This was confirmed for me as I wrote to Michael Heron QC last night to advise him that towards the end of June I had sent several emails to Michael Woodhouse comprising notification of a small number of then-new Covid19 cases .
My decisions to share this information were wrong , driven by my distorted view that providing that information would help the National Party to hold the Government to account .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ helpful , and it is time that the National Party and I parted ways.
” I suppose we should be grateful that , at the end , Boag was granted a small measure of self-awareness .
Not enough , seemingly , for her to openly concede the extraordinary breach of public trust ( and quite possibly the law ) which her unauthorised release of confidential patient data represented – but at least there was something .
Boag is very far from being alone on that “ self-destructive path ” .
Many National Party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it before her – and with her .
What leads them there is what drove the retired army officers who founded the National Party , way back in 1936 : an abiding fear of “ the wrong people ” taking control of New Zealand ’ s destiny .
To prevent that from happening : or , if it ’ s already happened , to end it as swiftly as possible ; has always been the National Party ’ s raison d ’ être .
To destroy the capacity of “ the wrong people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shaping this country ’ s future , the First National Government ( 1949-1957 ) led by Sid Holland ( a former member of the far-right New Zealand Legion ) was willing to engineer a crippling industrial dispute on the wharves , declare a state of emergency , and abrogate the democratic rights and freedoms of New Zealanders for 151 days .
To hold the crucial “ marginal provincial seats ” he required to retain office , the National Party Prime Minister , Rob Muldoon , made sure that the planned New Zealand tour @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Springbok rugby team would proceed .
He was confident that the 56 days of angry demonstrations the tour was bound to provoke , and the deep social divisions they were bound to open up , would secure him sufficient votes – in the towns and cities where they counted most – to win the 1981 general election .
Throwing their country into civil strife , and damaging its economy , is nothing new for National .
The preparedness to do whatever it takes to keep the wrong people in their place ( i.e @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been part of the party ’ s DNA for 84 years !
And , from National ’ s perspective , the case is easily made .
If something isn ’ t done to rip away the huge public support Jacinda Ardern ’ s handling of the Covid-19 crisis has won – both for herself and for Labour – then National will lose the election .
If that happens , then there is a real possibility of Labour and the Greens ushering in the “ transformation ” which , for the past three years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and NZ First in the Coalition Government has been able to keep at bay .
Unfortunately , that sort of luck can not be relied upon forever .
If 19 September brings a Labour-Green victory , then the wrong people , with the wrong policies , will be returned to power at precisely the wrong time .
On Sunday morning , Todd Muller ’ s deputy , Nikki Kaye , described to Q+A ’ s Jack Tame , her friend and mentor ’ s , Michelle Boag ’ s , extreme distress at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ She was in tears ” , Kaye protested .
“ We are talking about human-beings here !
” If history is any guide , however , not everyone in and around the National Party is quite so prone to Kaye ’ s sentimentality .
Michelle Boag did what she did to help National win .
It wasn ’ t enough .
More is required .
POSTSCRIPT : Just as I was finishing this post the news broke that the Serious Fraud Office is investigating Labour for possible breaches of the Electoral Act @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the “ more ” has already arrived .
– C.T .

DOES THE NATIONAL PARTY now constitute a threat to New Zealand’s national security? The recent conduct of persons belonging to the National Party suggests strongly that winning the forthcoming election has become an objective to be secured at any cost. National Party members and supporters no longer appear to regard the existence of legal and/or moral prohibitions as a good enough reason not to engage in actions likely to cause serious harm to New Zealand citizens – if that is what it takes to win. Under these circumstances, wouldn’t the country’s national security apparatus be well-advised to assess the threat of a rogue National Party supporter deliberately restarting the community transmission of Covid-19 as high?
Patrick Smellie, writing in the Herald on Sunday (12/7/20) sets out National’s predicament with clinical precision:
“Only two things can now save Todd Muller and the National Party from the growing likelihood of a crushing defeat at the September 19 election.
“Only one of them is in their control.
“The uncontrollable element is the potential for a severe enough pre-election Covid-19 outbreak to require a lockdown.
“A lockdown would change the current political dynamic, in which the Government’s broad success in keeping the virus at bay is fuelling its stratospheric poll ratings and overriding the political damage caused by the tendency for a few New Zealanders quarantined in hotels to break out of their gilded cages for a trip to the shops.
“Another lockdown would be a massive blow to the optimism and emerging economic confidence that comes from hoping we can live somewhat normal lives while the rest of the world is in chaos. When did you last hear someone complain that NZ should be following Australia’s lead?
“A lockdown, even if only regional, would also postpone election day, giving National more time to regroup.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
“If one part of the country can’t vote, then the whole country can’t vote.”
Smellie is to be faulted only for his inability (or unwillingness) to think the unthinkable. Because, of course, the re-commencement of Covid-19’s community transmission is very far from being an “uncontrollable element”. With sufficient motivation, any individual or organisation is capable of arranging for the virus itself (everything is available on the Dark Web – if the price is right) to be released. Or, alternatively, of smuggling-in someone infected with the virus (luxury yacht meets powerboat outside the 12 mile limit) and allowing them to move freely among unsuspecting New Zealanders – becoming the sort of “Super-Spreader” responsible for throwing the Australian city of Melbourne back into lockdown.
“Oh, come on!”, I hear you say, “The Nats aren’t that bad! This is paranoid political partisanship at its worst.” To which I would reply: “Mate, you haven’t being paying attention!”
Let’s just read the media release written by Michelle Boag announcing her resignation from the National Party:
“The last few days have underscored for me the unhealthy relationship I have developed with politics. For 47 years, I have devoted much of my professional and personal life to supporting the Party that for me has always represented the ultimate kiwi values of hard work, reward for effort, self-reliance and compassion. Unfortunately, this passion has put me on a self-destructive path. This was confirmed for me as I wrote to Michael Heron QC last night to advise him that towards the end of June I had sent several emails to Michael Woodhouse comprising notification of a small number of then-new Covid19 cases. My decisions to share this information were wrong, driven by my distorted view that providing that information would help the National Party to hold the Government to account. In fact it was harmful, not helpful, and it is time that the National Party and I parted ways.”
I suppose we should be grateful that, at the end, Boag was granted a small measure of self-awareness. Not enough, seemingly, for her to openly concede the extraordinary breach of public trust (and quite possibly the law) which her unauthorised release of confidential patient data represented – but at least there was something.
Boag is very far from being alone on that “self-destructive path”. Many National Party MPs, members and supporters have trodden it before her – and with her. What leads them there is what drove the retired army officers who founded the National Party, way back in 1936: an abiding fear of “the wrong people” taking control of New Zealand’s destiny. To prevent that from happening: or, if it’s already happened, to end it as swiftly as possible; has always been the National Party’s raison d’être.
To destroy the capacity of “the wrong people” to play a decisive role in shaping this country’s future, the First National Government (1949-1957) led by Sid Holland (a former member of the far-right New Zealand Legion) was willing to engineer a crippling industrial dispute on the wharves, declare a state of emergency, and abrogate the democratic rights and freedoms of New Zealanders for 151 days.
To hold the crucial “marginal provincial seats” he required to retain office, the National Party Prime Minister, Rob Muldoon, made sure that the planned New Zealand tour of Apartheid-era South Africa’s racist Springbok rugby team would proceed. He was confident that the 56 days of angry demonstrations the tour was bound to provoke, and the deep social divisions they were bound to open up, would secure him sufficient votes – in the towns and cities where they counted most – to win the 1981 general election.
Throwing their country into civil strife, and damaging its economy, is nothing new for National. The preparedness to do whatever it takes to keep the wrong people in their place (i.e. out of power!) has been part of the party’s DNA for 84 years!
And, from National’s perspective, the case is easily made. If something isn’t done to rip away the huge public support Jacinda Ardern’s handling of the Covid-19 crisis has won – both for herself and for Labour – then National will lose the election. If that happens, then there is a real possibility of Labour and the Greens ushering in the “transformation” which, for the past three years, only the presence of Winston Peters and NZ First in the Coalition Government has been able to keep at bay. Unfortunately, that sort of luck cannot be relied upon forever. If 19 September brings a Labour-Green victory, then the wrong people, with the wrong policies, will be returned to power at precisely the wrong time.
On Sunday morning, Todd Muller’s deputy, Nikki Kaye, described to Q+A’s Jack Tame, her friend and mentor’s, Michelle Boag’s, extreme distress at precipitating such a destructive political scandal. “She was in tears”, Kaye protested. “We are talking about human-beings here!”
If history is any guide, however, not everyone in and around the National Party is quite so prone to Kaye’s sentimentality. Michelle Boag did what she did to help National win. It wasn’t enough. More is required.
Much more.
POSTSCRIPT: Just as I was finishing this post the news broke that the Serious Fraud Office is investigating Labour for possible breaches of the Electoral Act in 2017. It would seem that the “more” has already arrived. – C.T.


thedailyblog--2020-07-13--ACT NZ – To the simple minded all things are simple

The true believers will nod in agreement .
Government ’ s spending is too high and taxes are too high .
Cut the first even more than the second and we will be speedily on the way to the Nirvana of a return to surpluses and fiscal rectitude , despite COVID .
All that is needed an incentive for the poor to work while social insurance is the answer to middle income unemployment .
“ This election and Covid-19 present New Zealanders with an opportunity to change their future and create a fair , modern employment insurance scheme , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and third-ranked candidate , Nicole McKee ” .
Some bits of ACT ’ s reasoning are fair enough when they say “ Short-term job loss is likely to become a feature of modern life as work becomes more fragmented and people move in and out of jobs more frequently .
“ Our welfare system is due for a serious overhaul .
It imposes a one-size-fits-all solution that works for no-one .
It fails people trapped in long-term dependency… It fails to address the realities of a modern economy.
” But ACT ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ safety net , and their “ fair , modern employment insurance scheme ” is a chimera designed to deceive .
There is no gender analysis , no moral hazard analysis , and no distributional analysis .
It sits inside their dry as dust economic policy of tax cuts and spending cuts and balanced budgets reminiscent of Ruth Richardson on steroids .
Rather inconsistently Act proposes “ Income tax rates remain unchanged ” and “ 0.55 percent of the tax paid would be allocated to a ring-fenced employment insurance fund.
” This fund would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to gross earnings of $ 109,000 .
Lucky the few who can point to a consistent income for two and half years because only they can enjoy a full 26 weeks insurance support .
“ On the loss of employment , a taxpayer can claim 55 percent of their average weekly earnings over the previous 52 ( or fewer ) weeks .
The maximum yearly payable amount is $ 60,000 .
Insurance can only be claimed for one week for each five weeks the person has worked , up to a maximum of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has worked continuously for only one year could claim up to ten weeks ’ employment insurance.
” According to ACT the ‘ worthy ’ working middle class must at all costs maintain their superiority- as they have “ paid high taxes for years ” When they lose work “ they get little back in benefits ” and what a huge calamity it would be for them to drop to the existing unemployment benefit and face “ the stigma associated with welfare created by long-term beneficiaries who have made it a lifestyle choice.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reveals the heart of ACT .
Oh the faux outrage now that the middle class discover how miserable the welfare system actually is .
How could they possibly be treated as if they were just a ‘ welfare beneficiary ’ ?
How appealing it might look that ACT can come to the rescue .
How predictable all this is to a weary welfare sector unable to make any progress on the fundamental issues of welfare reform with the Labour coalition government .
Let ’ s go back to that average wage earner on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in tax .
Do they currently really “ pay generously into a scheme that does not support them adequately if they unexpectedly lose their job ” ?
In an ACT fantasy world all taxes are theft from hard-done by workers so it costless to reallocate or ‘ ring fence ’ some of the existing tax as if that tax is not needed for health , education , security and the myriad of other things the state provides .
A mother recently returned to work or someone who has recovered from illness or accident @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insurance entitlement , if they have any , very quickly .
Doubtless , they and others whose insurance runs out will be so , so grateful to ACT when they discover that “ they can move to Jobseeker Support and Electronic Income Management would apply .
( Under Electronic Income Management , a benefit is issued on an electronic card and restrictions on alcohol , gambling , and tobacco expenditure apply . )
” Wait a minute isn ’ t ACT the right-wing libertarian party ?
Are they seriously considering monitoring freedoms of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Th social insurance scheme is supposed to be fair “ because people get paid out in proportion to what they pay in , rather than a flat benefit rate regardless of their outgoings or previous tax contributions.
” But that tax money has already been spent .
To make this operational it can apply only for future contributions and is hardly the answer to the immediate COVID crisis “ Our scheme would also be fiscally-neutral , paying for itself with automatically adjusted premiums and savings on benefits .
Hang on a minute- what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we didn ’ t have the COVID recession we still would not have a stash of unspent tax revenue .
Just who are the “ many independent economists ” that were consulted and have been used by ACT to imply endorsement ?
Make no mistake this is pure ACT policy .
Any apparent generosity to middle income workers will be paid for with fiscal austerity .
Reading the background document we find benefits will be slashed .
The COVID increase of $ 25 per week , the winder energy payment , Best Start @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will benefit changes in Families Package and the WFF increases .
With other moves SAVINGS of $ 7.6 billion are expected by 2024 .
Be afraid be very afraid .

The true believers will nod in agreement. Government’s spending is too high and taxes are too high. Cut the first even more than the second and we will be speedily on the way to the Nirvana of a return to surpluses and fiscal rectitude, despite COVID. All that is needed an incentive for the poor to work while social insurance is the answer to middle income unemployment.
“This election and Covid-19 present New Zealanders with an opportunity to change their future and create a fair, modern employment insurance scheme,” says ACT’s Employment Spokesperson, and third-ranked candidate, Nicole McKee”.
Some bits of ACT’s reasoning are fair enough when they say
“Short-term job loss is likely to become a feature of modern life as work becomes more fragmented and people move in and out of jobs more frequently. “Our welfare system is due for a serious overhaul. It imposes a one-size-fits-all solution that works for no-one. It fails people trapped in long-term dependency… It fails to address the realities of a modern economy.”
But ACT’s propositions are to further reduce the welfare safety net, and their “fair, modern employment insurance scheme” is a chimera designed to deceive. There is no gender analysis, no moral hazard analysis, and no distributional analysis. It sits inside their dry as dust economic policy of tax cuts and spending cuts and balanced budgets reminiscent of Ruth Richardson on steroids.
Rather inconsistently Act proposes “Income tax rates remain unchanged” and “ 0.55 percent of the tax paid would be allocated to a ring-fenced employment insurance fund.” This fund would insure 55% of previous earnings up to gross earnings of $109,000. Lucky the few who can point to a consistent income for two and half years because only they can enjoy a full 26 weeks insurance support.
“On the loss of employment, a taxpayer can claim 55 percent of their average weekly earnings over the previous 52 (or fewer) weeks. The maximum yearly payable amount is $60,000. Insurance can only be claimed for one week for each five weeks the person has worked, up to a maximum of 26 weeks per claim. Someone who has worked continuously for only one year could claim up to ten weeks’ employment insurance.”
According to ACT the ‘worthy’ working middle class must at all costs maintain their superiority- as they have “paid high taxes for years” When they lose work “they get little back in benefits” and what a huge calamity it would be for them to drop to the existing unemployment benefit and face “the stigma associated with welfare created by long-term beneficiaries who have made it a lifestyle choice.” That phrase “a lifestyle choice” reveals the heart of ACT.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
Oh the faux outrage now that the middle class discover how miserable the welfare system actually is. How could they possibly be treated as if they were just a ‘welfare beneficiary’? How appealing it might look that ACT can come to the rescue. How predictable all this is to a weary welfare sector unable to make any progress on the fundamental issues of welfare reform with the Labour coalition government.
Let’s go back to that average wage earner on $69,000 paying $13, 720 in tax. Do they currently really “pay generously into a scheme that does not support them adequately if they unexpectedly lose their job”? In an ACT fantasy world all taxes are theft from hard-done by workers so it costless to reallocate or ‘ ring fence’ some of the existing tax as if that tax is not needed for health, education, security and the myriad of other things the state provides.
A mother recently returned to work or someone who has recovered from illness or accident on redundancy will use up their employment insurance entitlement, if they have any, very quickly. Doubtless, they and others whose insurance runs out will be so, so grateful to ACT when they discover that
“ they can move to Jobseeker Support and Electronic Income Management would apply. (Under Electronic Income Management, a benefit is issued on an electronic card and restrictions on alcohol, gambling, and tobacco expenditure apply.)”
Wait a minute isn’t ACT the right-wing libertarian party? Are they seriously considering monitoring freedoms of the displaced they pretend to defend?
Th social insurance scheme is supposed to be fair “because people get paid out in proportion to what they pay in, rather than a flat benefit rate regardless of their outgoings or previous tax contributions.” But that tax money has already been spent. To make this operational it can apply only for future contributions and is hardly the answer to the immediate COVID crisis
“Our scheme would also be fiscally-neutral, paying for itself with automatically adjusted premiums and savings on benefits.
Hang on a minute- what are these savings on benefits? If we didn’t have the COVID recession we still would not have a stash of unspent tax revenue. Just who are the “many independent economists” that were consulted and have been used by ACT to imply endorsement?
Make no mistake this is pure ACT policy. Any apparent generosity to middle income workers will be paid for with fiscal austerity. Reading the background document we find benefits will be slashed. The COVID increase of $25 per week, the winder energy payment, Best Start and KiwiSaver subsidies will all go as will benefit changes in Families Package and the WFF increases. With other moves SAVINGS of $7.6 billion are expected by 2024.
Be afraid be very afraid.


thedailyblog--2020-07-16--Auckland Central: The Importance of Acting Strategically.

JUST WHEN YOU ’ RE THINKING Labour ’ s activists have become smart , caring and ( almost ) wise ; they prove themselves to be anything but .
A pseudonymous contributor to The Standard , Te Reo Putake , has seized the opportunity created by Nikki Kaye ’ s resignation to demand that the Greens pull Chloe Swarbrick from the Auckland Central race .
“ The choice for the Greens is tricky ” opines TRP .
“ They really do need to max out their party vote , but they also do need to get their heads around MMP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ party only.
” We will deal with the absurd contradiction at the heart of this statement presently .
Meantime , let ’ s allow him/her/them/it to finish their thought : “ The Greens should do the right thing by voters in Auckland Central and give the nod to the Labour candidate.
” Whew !
Where to begin !
First-off , let ’ s dispose of TRP ’ s nonsensical assertion that the Greens “ are a list party only ” .
A “ list party only ” might make sense in a country @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of proportional representation has been in place for a long time .
But , New Zealand is not one of those countries .
For most of its history , New Zealand operated a single-member , constituency-based , first-past-the post ( FPP ) electoral system .
Even after a quarter-of-a-century of mixed member proportional representation ( MMP ) this country ’ s political culture still ranks Electorate MPs well above List MPs .
Any political party that declined to field electorate candidates would simply not be recognised as a serious political player .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ then he/she/they/it have no business posting political commentaries on an allegedly serious political website like The Standard .
I strongly suspect , however , that TRP knows very well that a list-only party in New Zealand is an electoral nonsense .
But , if that is the case , then TRP ’ s Standard post can only be seen as yet one more unsettling example of Labour ’ s political arrogance .
Let ’ s offer this political naïf a small tutorial on the strategic possibilities of the Auckland Central contest .
Obviously @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much more important nationwide contest between the parties of the Left and Right .
This battle is likely to be a much more closely fought , now that Judith Collins is leading the Right , than would have been the case had either Simon Bridges or Todd Muller been the National Party leader facing-off against Jacinda Ardern .
A wise Labour Party ( one less concerned with getting its trade union lawyer mates into Parliament ) would , therefore , already be considering the ramifications of such a close fight .
A crucial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ weighing the advantages and disadvantages of taking out the “ insurance policy ” of ceding Auckland Central to the Greens .
It needs careful thought because a close contest would confront progressive voters with a dilemma .
They would be torn between giving their vote to Labour – clearly in need of every vote it could get – and party-voting Green , just to keep it in the parliamentary arena .
But , with the Greens hovering perilously close to the 5 percent MMP threshold , there ’ s the real possibility that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up being wasted .
That possibility is doubly damaging : not only because it encourages progressives to vote Labour rather than Green , but also because it is likely to cause “ deep greens ” ( the sort of folk who used to vote for Nandor Tanczos ) to question the point of voting at all .
Either way , the Green vote would be suppressed , making the prophecy of its failure to clear the 5 percent MMP threshold self-fulfilling .
It just amazes me that Labour Party activists like TRP can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if they ’ re unable to recognise the threat posed to the overall progressive vote by not helping the Greens , then they will also be unable to see the clear strategic advantage of ceding Auckland Central to Chloe .
Let ’ s just walk through the argument .
Jacinda tips the wink to her Auckland Central supporters , suggesting obliquely that they might like to give Chloe a helping-hand .
Instantly swept away is the fear that the Greens might fall just below the MMP threshold .
( Imagine if they ended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vote ! )
Now a Green presence in Parliament is assured and Labour has a reliable coalition partner .
What ’ s more , the deep greens now have a very good reason for party-voting Green – not just in Auckland Central , but all over the country .
Far from being suppressed , the Green Party vote is maximised – along with the influence of progressive New Zealanders generally .
In the face of a now reinvigorated Left , it is the turn of the supporters of the Right to become demoralised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ together , are still a few percentage points short of a winning total ?
Would it not then be time to consider reviving Winston Peters ’ fortunes ?
With the looming prospect of Labour and the Greens careening-off into the next triennium in a souped-up Prius without a handbrake , National ’ s numbers might take a tumble .
And what would that mean TRP ?
That ’ s right , it would dramatically increase the likelihood of Helen White – No .
50 on Labour ’ s List – joining Chloe in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Greens to heed your advice , and pull Chloe out of the race , Labour may , or may not , retake Auckland Central .
There would , however , be an increased chance that no Greens would be joining Helen White on the Opposition benches .
By acting strategically , however , Labour dramatically increases its chances of a second term ; supplies itself with a reliable and progressive coalition partner ; wins enough support to bring Helen White in on the List ; and makes sure the Greens most popular MP @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her .
If you ever wondered why it is better to give than to receive , TRP , now you know .
It ’ s because when you give , the value of the benefits you receive in return is almost always greater than the worth of the original gift .
I sincerely hope Claire Czabo and her comrades down at Labour Party HQ in Wellington have a word with the people at The Standard .
Just a little pep talk about loose lips not only sinking ships , but also deep-sixing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ partners .

JUST WHEN YOU’RE THINKING Labour’s activists have become smart, caring and (almost) wise; they prove themselves to be anything but. A pseudonymous contributor to The Standard, Te Reo Putake, has seized the opportunity created by Nikki Kaye’s resignation to demand that the Greens pull Chloe Swarbrick from the Auckland Central race.
“The choice for the Greens is tricky” opines TRP. “They really do need to max out their party vote, but they also do need to get their heads around MMP and recognise that they are a list party only.”
We will deal with the absurd contradiction at the heart of this statement presently. Meantime, let’s allow him/her/them/it to finish their thought: “The Greens should do the right thing by voters in Auckland Central and give the nod to the Labour candidate.”
Whew! Where to begin! First-off, let’s dispose of TRP’s nonsensical assertion that the Greens “are a list party only”.
A “list party only” might make sense in a country where a pure, list-based, system of proportional representation has been in place for a long time. But, New Zealand is not one of those countries. For most of its history, New Zealand operated a single-member, constituency-based, first-past-the post (FPP) electoral system. Even after a quarter-of-a-century of mixed member proportional representation (MMP) this country’s political culture still ranks Electorate MPs well above List MPs. Any political party that declined to field electorate candidates would simply not be recognised as a serious political player.
If TRP doesn’t know this, then he/she/they/it have no business posting political commentaries on an allegedly serious political website like The Standard. I strongly suspect, however, that TRP knows very well that a list-only party in New Zealand is an electoral nonsense. But, if that is the case, then TRP’s Standard post can only be seen as yet one more unsettling example of Labour’s political arrogance.
Tactics? Strategy? TRP doesn’t have a clue!
Let’s offer this political naïf a small tutorial on the strategic possibilities of the Auckland Central contest.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
Obviously, it will take place amidst the much more important nationwide contest between the parties of the Left and Right. This battle is likely to be a much more closely fought, now that Judith Collins is leading the Right, than would have been the case had either Simon Bridges or Todd Muller been the National Party leader facing-off against Jacinda Ardern. A wise Labour Party (one less concerned with getting its trade union lawyer mates into Parliament) would, therefore, already be considering the ramifications of such a close fight. A crucial part of that process, would be weighing the advantages and disadvantages of taking out the “insurance policy” of ceding Auckland Central to the Greens.
It needs careful thought because a close contest would confront progressive voters with a dilemma. They would be torn between giving their vote to Labour – clearly in need of every vote it could get – and party-voting Green, just to keep it in the parliamentary arena. But, with the Greens hovering perilously close to the 5 percent MMP threshold, there’s the real possibility that a vote for the Greens could end up being wasted. That possibility is doubly damaging: not only because it encourages progressives to vote Labour rather than Green, but also because it is likely to cause “deep greens” (the sort of folk who used to vote for Nandor Tanczos) to question the point of voting at all.
Either way, the Green vote would be suppressed, making the prophecy of its failure to clear the 5 percent MMP threshold self-fulfilling.
It just amazes me that Labour Party activists like TRP can’t see this. Because, if they’re unable to recognise the threat posed to the overall progressive vote by not helping the Greens, then they will also be unable to see the clear strategic advantage of ceding Auckland Central to Chloe.
Let’s just walk through the argument.
Jacinda tips the wink to her Auckland Central supporters, suggesting obliquely that they might like to give Chloe a helping-hand. Instantly swept away is the fear that the Greens might fall just below the MMP threshold. (Imagine if they ended up with 4.9 percent of the Party Vote!) Now a Green presence in Parliament is assured and Labour has a reliable coalition partner. What’s more, the deep greens now have a very good reason for party-voting Green – not just in Auckland Central, but all over the country. Far from being suppressed, the Green Party vote is maximised – along with the influence of progressive New Zealanders generally.
In the face of a now reinvigorated Left, it is the turn of the supporters of the Right to become demoralised. What if National and Act, together, are still a few percentage points short of a winning total? Would it not then be time to consider reviving Winston Peters’ fortunes? With the looming prospect of Labour and the Greens careening-off into the next triennium in a souped-up Prius without a handbrake, National’s numbers might take a tumble.
And what would that mean TRP? That’s right, it would dramatically increase the likelihood of Helen White – No. 50 on Labour’s List – joining Chloe in the House of Representatives!
Were the Greens to heed your advice, and pull Chloe out of the race, Labour may, or may not, retake Auckland Central. There would, however, be an increased chance that no Greens would be joining Helen White on the Opposition benches. By acting strategically, however, Labour dramatically increases its chances of a second term; supplies itself with a reliable and progressive coalition partner; wins enough support to bring Helen White in on the List; and makes sure the Greens most popular MP is in the House of Representatives with her.
If you ever wondered why it is better to give than to receive, TRP, now you know. It’s because when you give, the value of the benefits you receive in return is almost always greater than the worth of the original gift.
I sincerely hope Claire Czabo and her comrades down at Labour Party HQ in Wellington have a word with the people at The Standard. Just a little pep talk about loose lips not only sinking ships, but also deep-sixing the trust and confidence of potentially vital coalition partners.


thedailyblog--2020-07-16--Judith Collins – still a typical low-rent conservative – more a Muldoon than a Key

I was looking back at three blogs I ’ ve done on Judith Collins in earlier years and can ’ t see any reason to change my assessment of her politics .
From 2014 in the wake of her apology for misleading the country over use of her ministerial position to promote her husband ’ s Oravida : For someone who worships Maggie Thatcher ’ s memory it must have been a shock for Justice Minister Judith Collins to have to apologise to the Prime Minister and the rest of us yesterday .
Instead she ’ s is a typical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disguised by weak self-discipline .
In what I ’ ve read of her reported tweets she comes across as nasty and snide rather than shrewd or intelligent , small-minded and cheap rather than bold or decisive .
Collins would be a deeply polarising figure as a National Party leader or a Prime Minister – more of a Muldoon than a Key and it ’ s likely that just as many National Party members as the rest of us would have been delighted at the Prime Minister giving her a dressing down today .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ revelations she presented a police rort as a vindication of her role as Minister of Police : Media reports confirmed by police show that five police officers – one a senior commander – were disciplined for rorting the crime figures in Counties Manukau in recent years .
They did this apparently by wrongly classifying 700 crimes between 2009 and 2012 as either “ incidents ” – which aren ’ t recorded in crime statistics – or as crimes other than burglaries when they were burglaries .
This happened when their local MP – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Minister of Police .
Collins was thrilled with the reduction of burglaries in her electorate and trumpeted this in her electorate newsletter – called Collins ’ Courier – which boasted about a 36.7 per cent drop in recorded burglaries from 2009-10 to 2010-11 .
It seems local Counties-Manukau police were trying to please their new boss and have her bask in the warm glow of the safer local community she was helping create for her constituents .
Where Collins is deeply implicated in this rort on the public is that she was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nothing – precisely nothing – about it .
She made no public comment ; didn ’ t correct the figures for us mere mortals ; didn ’ t apologise to her local constituents ; didn ’ t seek a wider review to ensure other police districts weren ’ t also under-reporting burglaries .
She was content to allow this misleading impression of crime in her local area to go unchallenged .
She didn ’ t even pass this information on the incoming Minister of Police Anne Tolley .
She left us for suckers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Collins that she would regulate “ alcopops ” the woman whose political heroine was Maggie Thatcher caved in to corporate pressure : If you ever wanted confirmation that government policy is made by politicians in closed-door meetings with corporate lobbyists rather than on the floor of parliament then the government decision to back down on regulating alcopops is proof positive .
This week Justice Minister Judith Collins caved in to the booze industry and decided not to regulate the most socially damaging alcohol products – alcopops or RTDs ( ready to drink ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) Commission ’ s proposed tax increase which would have pushed the price of RTDs up by 10 % .
Two years later the government appeared ready to at least regulate the strength of these drinks .
Collins proposed setting a maximum alcohol content of 5 % for RTDs to bring them closer to the alcohol level in beer rather than the up-to-8 % level typically sold everywhere .
The industry reacted with loud complaints that this would be in breach of transtasman trade agreements .
The government scoffed at the attack but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ announced the alcohol level would be set at 6 % .
Still not good enough for the booze barons who secured a closed-door meeting with the Minister ( Collins ) and got her agreement the industry would be allowed to set its own rules for the size and strength of these lethal products .
Lethal indeed as the number of young New Zealanders killed through alcohol poisoning , alcohol-related car crashes and violent incidents testify .
Crusher Collins may have the balls to pick on boy racers but she ’ s gone weak @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Who knows what went on in the Minister ’ s office – was her backdown associated with threats of withdrawing funding from National at the next election ?
Or was it a nod and a wink for a bigger donation next time ?
Either way young , vulnerable New Zealanders are the losers .

I was looking back at three blogs I’ve done on Judith Collins in earlier years and can’t see any reason to change my assessment of her politics.
From 2014 in the wake of her apology for misleading the country over use of her ministerial position to promote her husband’s Oravida:
For someone who worships Maggie Thatcher’s memory it must have been a shock for Justice Minister Judith Collins to have to apologise to the Prime Minister and the rest of us yesterday.
Instead she’s is a typical low-rent conservative with her intense personal dislikes disguised by weak self-discipline. In what I’ve read of her reported tweets she comes across as nasty and snide rather than shrewd or intelligent, small-minded and cheap rather than bold or decisive.
Collins would be a deeply polarising figure as a National Party leader or a Prime Minister – more of a Muldoon than a Key and it’s likely that just as many National Party members as the rest of us would have been delighted at the Prime Minister giving her a dressing down today.
Also from 2014 in the wake of revelations she presented a police rort as a vindication of her role as Minister of Police:
Media reports confirmed by police show that five police officers – one a senior commander – were disciplined for rorting the crime figures in Counties Manukau in recent years. They did this apparently by wrongly classifying 700 crimes between 2009 and 2012 as either “incidents” – which aren’t recorded in crime statistics – or as crimes other than burglaries when they were burglaries.
This happened when their local MP – Justice Minister Judith Collins – was also the Minister of Police.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
Collins was thrilled with the reduction of burglaries in her electorate and trumpeted this in her electorate newsletter – called Collins’ Courier – which boasted about a 36.7 per cent drop in recorded burglaries from 2009-10 to 2010-11.
It seems local Counties-Manukau police were trying to please their new boss and have her bask in the warm glow of the safer local community she was helping create for her constituents.
Where Collins is deeply implicated in this rort on the public is that she was told about the false figures but did nothing – precisely nothing – about it. She made no public comment; didn’t correct the figures for us mere mortals; didn’t apologise to her local constituents; didn’t seek a wider review to ensure other police districts weren’t also under-reporting burglaries.
She was content to allow this misleading impression of crime in her local area to go unchallenged. She didn’t even pass this information on the incoming Minister of Police Anne Tolley.
She left us for suckers.
From 2012 after bold talk by Collins that she would regulate “alcopops” the woman whose political heroine was Maggie Thatcher caved in to corporate pressure:
If you ever wanted confirmation that government policy is made by politicians in closed-door meetings with corporate lobbyists rather than on the floor of parliament then the government decision to back down on regulating alcopops is proof positive.
This week Justice Minister Judith Collins caved in to the booze industry and decided not to regulate the most socially damaging alcohol products – alcopops or RTDs (ready to drink).
The government rejected the (Law) Commission’s proposed tax increase which would have pushed the price of RTDs up by 10%. Two years later the government appeared ready to at least regulate the strength of these drinks. Collins proposed setting a maximum alcohol content of 5% for RTDs to bring them closer to the alcohol level in beer rather than the up-to-8% level typically sold everywhere.
The industry reacted with loud complaints that this would be in breach of transtasman trade agreements. The government scoffed at the attack but then backed off the 5% and announced the alcohol level would be set at 6%. Still not good enough for the booze barons who secured a closed-door meeting with the Minister (Collins) and got her agreement the industry would be allowed to set its own rules for the size and strength of these lethal products.
Lethal indeed as the number of young New Zealanders killed through alcohol poisoning, alcohol-related car crashes and violent incidents testify.
Crusher Collins may have the balls to pick on boy racers but she’s gone weak at the knees facing the booze barons.
Who knows what went on in the Minister’s office – was her backdown associated with threats of withdrawing funding from National at the next election? Or was it a nod and a wink for a bigger donation next time?
Either way young, vulnerable New Zealanders are the losers.


thedailyblog--2020-07-16--Dr Liz Gordon – Racial politics now: Collins as the new Brash

On her very first day as Leader of the Opposition , Judith Collins positioned herself on the Donald Trump end of ethnic politics .
“ Is there something wrong with being white ?
” Whether considered historically , socially or politically , this was an extraordinarily dumb question ( but perhaps a clever dog whistle ) .
It will come to reverberate across the rest of her career , no matter how that goes .
It is what she will be known for , particularly if later reinforced by policy or practice .
Briefly on the history .
The bracketing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ second world war , when Hitler essentially wanted to create a world ruled by Aryans , the pure white elite of Europe in particular .
Everyone was to be judged on their ethnic , religious and social characteristics .
A militarised dictatorship built of fear would rule the land .
There was so much wrong with Hitler ’ s vision that the whole world went to war on it .
Eugenic theories of white superiority were widely held at the time ( not the least in NZ , Sir Truby King having as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
These were put aside in opposing the bigger threat but have never really gone away .
More recent in time and space , the Mosque killings were carried out for resurgent eugenic reasons and the Black Lives Matter movement for decolonisation goals .
With that distant and proximate historical positioning , Collins is clearly ( and provocatively ) asking the wrong question .
It is tone deaf socially , too .
What a time to be going around defending whiteness .
It makes me embarrassed to be pakeha !
Is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allowed us to colonise Aotearoa ( and got a lot more/less than they bargained for ) ?
Must we live forever in racial hierarchies , repeating the mistakes of the past ?
And politically… oh , spirit of Don Brash , speaketh through your new vessel , Judith Collins .
What a time in the history of Aotearoa to promote and enable white supremacism !
Is she prepared to split us along racial lines à la Trump in the hope of that way winning the election ?
Is this what is being set @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for racial politics and I have no doubt that the Exclusive Brethren will be gearing up for donations of ideas , manpower ( literally men ) and dollars .
Or perhaps I am being over-fanciful .
Perhaps she just means it is OK to be white , and brown and everything else .
I have met her a couple of times and she is intelligent and personable over a cup of tea , a long way from the rants of Hitler and Trump .
But Brash runs a white supremacist organisation called Hobson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said to be a nice person too .
Well , if National is going to go down that road , there will be angst everywhere .
How many votes are in the political expression of ‘ what ’ s wrong with being white ’ is anyone ’ s guess .
Jacinda and the team will need to strongly articulate an alternative politics of diversity equals strength .
This is the crucial issue of our time ( again ) and it is one that we must win .
Dr Liz Gordon is a researcher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ destroying neo-liberalism in all its forms and moving towards a socially just society .
She usually blogs on justice , social welfare and education topics .

On her very first day as Leader of the Opposition, Judith Collins positioned herself on the Donald Trump end of ethnic politics. “Is there something wrong with being white?”
Whether considered historically, socially or politically, this was an extraordinarily dumb question (but perhaps a clever dog whistle). It will come to reverberate across the rest of her career, no matter how that goes. It is what she will be known for, particularly if later reinforced by policy or practice.
Briefly on the history. The bracketing event was, of course, the second world war, when Hitler essentially wanted to create a world ruled by Aryans, the pure white elite of Europe in particular. Everyone was to be judged on their ethnic, religious and social characteristics. A militarised dictatorship built of fear would rule the land.
There was so much wrong with Hitler’s vision that the whole world went to war on it. Eugenic theories of white superiority were widely held at the time (not the least in NZ, Sir Truby King having as his key goal to save white babies). These were put aside in opposing the bigger threat but have never really gone away.
More recent in time and space, the Mosque killings were carried out for resurgent eugenic reasons and the Black Lives Matter movement for decolonisation goals. With that distant and proximate historical positioning, Collins is clearly (and provocatively) asking the wrong question.
It is tone deaf socially, too. What a time to be going around defending whiteness. It makes me embarrassed to be pakeha! Is that what Māori expected from us when they allowed us to colonise Aotearoa (and got a lot more/less than they bargained for)? Must we live forever in racial hierarchies, repeating the mistakes of the past?
And politically… oh, spirit of Don Brash, speaketh through your new vessel, Judith Collins. What a time in the history of Aotearoa to promote and enable white supremacism! Is she prepared to split us along racial lines à la Trump in the hope of that way winning the election? Is this what is being set up? There is always a constituency for racial politics and I have no doubt that the Exclusive Brethren will be gearing up for donations of ideas, manpower (literally men) and dollars.
Or perhaps I am being over-fanciful. Perhaps she just means it is OK to be white, and brown and everything else. I have met her a couple of times and she is intelligent and personable over a cup of tea, a long way from the rants of Hitler and Trump. But Brash runs a white supremacist organisation called Hobson’s Choice, and he was said to be a nice person too.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
Well, if National is going to go down that road, there will be angst everywhere. How many votes are in the political expression of ‘what’s wrong with being white’ is anyone’s guess. Jacinda and the team will need to strongly articulate an alternative politics of diversity equals strength. This is the crucial issue of our time (again) and it is one that we must win.
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--2020-07-15--The Judith Collins-Led National Party: Be Scared – Be Very Scared.

WHOEVER E-MAILED MARK RICHARDSON on Wednesday morning ’ s AM Show was right : Judith Collins scares me .
For the first time since National ’ s caucus replaced Don Brash with John Key , the party has chosen a leader who can win .
The new Leader of the Opposition is a clear-sighted defender of the neoliberal order who is prepared to give when she needs to give , and takes no prisoners when she doesn ’ t .
Collins is articulate , shrewd and possesses a disarming ( if somewhat cruel ) sense of humour .
Those on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ major electoral turn-off will , almost certainly , be proved wrong .
She has what it takes to manoeuvre Jacinda and Labour onto the defensive .
And , as everybody knows : explaining is losing .
Like Act ’ s current collection of strategists , Collins understands that delivering neoliberalism straight leaves voters with a sour taste in their mouths .
It goes down much better when fizzed-up with lashings of law-and-order rhetoric – along with generous splashes of “ culture wars ” liqueur .
That Collins , herself , happily owns up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , only adds an extra kick to her political cocktail .
It ’ s this political ambiguity that makes National ’ s new leader so dangerous .
Collins does not belong to the crazy Christian Right faction of her caucus , but neither is she a member of the Nikki Kaye , Amy Adams , Chris Bishop “ soppy liberal ” wing of the party .
( Although she may , from time-to-time , be found voting alongside them . )
For a long while now this ambiguity has constituted an unhelpful obstacle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rejecting her as too left , and the left dismissing her as too right , she has fallen repeatedly between the two stools .
But now , with both factions severely discredited , being a little bit country and a little bit rock-n-roll has proved to be no bad thing at all .
When pitted against Jacinda , however , it ’ s Collins ’ neoliberalism which is likely to prove most deadly .
Labour ’ s leader has never been that strong on economic issues , and of late she has taken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her keynote speeches .
Collins and her propaganda team will seize upon these as proof of Labour ’ s reversion to type , and will do everything they can to cast Jacinda as an old-fashioned borrow-and-spend socialist .
That the Prime Minister has never been anything of the kind will only make it harder for her to present a clear alternative to Collins ’ orthodox economic prescriptions .
In debating terms , governments are required to present the affirmative case .
It ’ s their job to sell an argument to the audience @ @ @ @ @ @ @ easier .
As the negative team , all they have to do is rip the government ’ s case apart .
If that case isn ’ t a strong one to begin with , and if the person making it fails the passionate commitment test , then guess who wins the debate ?
( Hat-tip to Prof. Wayne Hope for this analogy . )
Up until now , Labour ’ s strategists have thought it wisest to offer only the broadest of policy commitments .
While National was led by Simon Bridges and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Jacinda ’ s handling of the Covid-19 crisis has elevated her to the status of national saviour , and with Bridges and Muller idiotically concentrating their fire on Covid-19-related glitches for which the Government could hardly be held responsible , Labour ’ s lead over National in the polls remained substantial .
In the glow of Jacinda ’ s success , a detailed manifesto seemed unnecessary .
The election of Collins as National ’ s leader renders Labour ’ s broad-brush strategy politically untenable .
She is far too clever to repeat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Labour and its leader will not be faulted for their handling of the public health emergency precipitated by Covid-19 ’ s arrival in New Zealand .
Instead , Collins will concentrate her fire on Jacinda ’ s alleged failure to present a coherent and detailed recovery plan for a New Zealand economy devastated by the impact of the virus .
She will attribute this “ failure ” to the weakness of Labour ’ s team , contrasting the Ardern-led Government ’ s paucity of talent with what she will insist is her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ All of Collins ’ cruel humour will be unleashed on Labour ’ s lesser vessels .
Social media will be flooded with painfully funny memes and attack videos .
Jacinda and Labour can counter Collins in one ( or both ) of two ways .
The first relies upon the Prime Minister ’ s superlative communication skills .
If the Prime Minister can parry Collins ’ attacks by making the voters laugh at her , then the Opposition ’ s strategy will fail .
Rather than become angry or defensive in the face @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make fun of the thinking behind her criticisms .
If she can expose the emptiness of National ’ s claims of superior competence and strength , for example , or make a joke out of her own government ’ s failures ( KiwiBuild ! )
then the Leader of the Opposition will herself become an object of mirth and scorn .
If Jacinda is able to embarrass her opponent severely , then there is every chance Collins will reveal her dark side .
That would be “ Game Over ” .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is for Labour to give Jacinda a comprehensive and popular recovery package to defend .
The Prime Minister is a quick study and , as she demonstrated during the Level 4 Lockdown , has an impressive ability to master voluminous and complex detail .
Properly briefed , and personally committed to the message she has been asked to deliver , Jacinda performs magnificently .
Indeed , those occasions when her performances have tended towards the less magnificent , are those occasions when she has been given too few details to work her magic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was able to laugh Collins off the stage argue passionately for a Jeremy Corbyn-style “ For the Many , Not the Few ” election manifesto , then Labour ’ s leader would be unstoppable .
Herein lies the problem which Collins ( who has already demonstrated her leadership qualities by doing what Todd Muller lacked the guts and gumption to do – sack Michael Woodhouse and replace him with Dr Shane Reti ) is bound to exploit throughout the election campaign .
Confronted with a whole host of critical policy choices ( most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the New Zealand economy ) Labour has proved itself woefully indecisive .
In almost every circumstance , the party simply defaults to the orthodox Treasury line .
Boldness and imagination is not to be expected from this government – and Judith Collins knows it .
Throughout its term , Labour has failed to do what Michael Joseph Savage ’ s government did : introduce radical and comprehensive changes and then spend every waking political hour for the next three years explaining to the voters why they were worth keeping .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jacinda the task of selling even a mildly radical recovery plan in just 6 weeks – although if anybody can do it , she can .
With considerable justification , however , Collins is betting that such a recovery plan is beyond the capacity of the 2020Labour Party .
Presumably , that is why she told RNZ ’ s Kathryn Ryan that National has some “ mildly radical ” plans of its own .
You can bet your bottom dollar they will not be mildly radical left-wing plans !
Which is why we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Collins-led National Party – very scared .

WHOEVER E-MAILED MARK RICHARDSON on Wednesday morning’s AM Show was right: Judith Collins scares me. For the first time since National’s caucus replaced Don Brash with John Key, the party has chosen a leader who can win. The new Leader of the Opposition is a clear-sighted defender of the neoliberal order who is prepared to give when she needs to give, and takes no prisoners when she doesn’t. Collins is articulate, shrewd and possesses a disarming (if somewhat cruel) sense of humour. Those on the left who dismiss her as a major electoral turn-off will, almost certainly, be proved wrong. She has what it takes to manoeuvre Jacinda and Labour onto the defensive. And, as everybody knows: explaining is losing.
Like Act’s current collection of strategists, Collins understands that delivering neoliberalism straight leaves voters with a sour taste in their mouths. It goes down much better when fizzed-up with lashings of law-and-order rhetoric – along with generous splashes of “culture wars” liqueur. That Collins, herself, happily owns up to being a “social liberal”, only adds an extra kick to her political cocktail.
It’s this political ambiguity that makes National’s new leader so dangerous. Collins does not belong to the crazy Christian Right faction of her caucus, but neither is she a member of the Nikki Kaye, Amy Adams, Chris Bishop “soppy liberal” wing of the party. (Although she may, from time-to-time, be found voting alongside them.) For a long while now this ambiguity has constituted an unhelpful obstacle to her advancement. With the right rejecting her as too left, and the left dismissing her as too right, she has fallen repeatedly between the two stools. But now, with both factions severely discredited, being a little bit country and a little bit rock-n-roll has proved to be no bad thing at all.
When pitted against Jacinda, however, it’s Collins’ neoliberalism which is likely to prove most deadly. Labour’s leader has never been that strong on economic issues, and of late she has taken to including a few anti-neoliberal flourishes in her keynote speeches. Collins and her propaganda team will seize upon these as proof of Labour’s reversion to type, and will do everything they can to cast Jacinda as an old-fashioned borrow-and-spend socialist. That the Prime Minister has never been anything of the kind will only make it harder for her to present a clear alternative to Collins’ orthodox economic prescriptions.
In debating terms, governments are required to present the affirmative case. It’s their job to sell an argument to the audience. Opposition parties have it a lot easier. As the negative team, all they have to do is rip the government’s case apart. If that case isn’t a strong one to begin with, and if the person making it fails the passionate commitment test, then guess who wins the debate? (Hat-tip to Prof. Wayne Hope for this analogy.)
Up until now, Labour’s strategists have thought it wisest to offer only the broadest of policy commitments. While National was led by Simon Bridges and Todd Muller this was a sound strategy. Jacinda’s handling of the Covid-19 crisis has elevated her to the status of national saviour, and with Bridges and Muller idiotically concentrating their fire on Covid-19-related glitches for which the Government could hardly be held responsible, Labour’s lead over National in the polls remained substantial. In the glow of Jacinda’s success, a detailed manifesto seemed unnecessary.
The election of Collins as National’s leader renders Labour’s broad-brush strategy politically untenable. She is far too clever to repeat Bridges’ and Muller’s mistakes. Labour and its leader will not be faulted for their handling of the public health emergency precipitated by Covid-19’s arrival in New Zealand. Instead, Collins will concentrate her fire on Jacinda’s alleged failure to present a coherent and detailed recovery plan for a New Zealand economy devastated by the impact of the virus. She will attribute this “failure” to the weakness of Labour’s team, contrasting the Ardern-led Government’s paucity of talent with what she will insist is her own stronger and more competent government-in-waiting. All of Collins’ cruel humour will be unleashed on Labour’s lesser vessels. Social media will be flooded with painfully funny memes and attack videos.
Jacinda and Labour can counter Collins in one (or both) of two ways. The first relies upon the Prime Minister’s superlative communication skills. If the Prime Minister can parry Collins’ attacks by making the voters laugh at her, then the Opposition’s strategy will fail. Rather than become angry or defensive in the face of Collins’ jibes, Jacinda needs to make fun of the thinking behind her criticisms. If she can expose the emptiness of National’s claims of superior competence and strength, for example, or make a joke out of her own government’s failures (KiwiBuild!) then the Leader of the Opposition will herself become an object of mirth and scorn. If Jacinda is able to embarrass her opponent severely, then there is every chance Collins will reveal her dark side. That would be “Game Over”.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
The second way to counter Collins’ attack-lines is for Labour to give Jacinda a comprehensive and popular recovery package to defend. The Prime Minister is a quick study and, as she demonstrated during the Level 4 Lockdown, has an impressive ability to master voluminous and complex detail. Properly briefed, and personally committed to the message she has been asked to deliver, Jacinda performs magnificently. Indeed, those occasions when her performances have tended towards the less magnificent, are those occasions when she has been given too few details to work her magic with.
Of course, if Jacinda was able to laugh Collins off the stage and argue passionately for a Jeremy Corbyn-style “For the Many, Not the Few” election manifesto, then Labour’s leader would be unstoppable.
Herein lies the problem which Collins (who has already demonstrated her leadership qualities by doing what Todd Muller lacked the guts and gumption to do – sack Michael Woodhouse and replace him with Dr Shane Reti) is bound to exploit throughout the election campaign. Confronted with a whole host of critical policy choices (most particularly on the future shape and direction of the New Zealand economy) Labour has proved itself woefully indecisive. In almost every circumstance, the party simply defaults to the orthodox Treasury line. Boldness and imagination is not to be expected from this government – and Judith Collins knows it.
Throughout its term, Labour has failed to do what Michael Joseph Savage’s government did: introduce radical and comprehensive changes and then spend every waking political hour for the next three years explaining to the voters why they were worth keeping. It’s a bloody big ask to set Jacinda the task of selling even a mildly radical recovery plan in just 6 weeks – although if anybody can do it, she can. With considerable justification, however, Collins is betting that such a recovery plan is beyond the capacity of the 2020Labour Party. Presumably, that is why she told RNZ’s Kathryn Ryan that National has some “mildly radical” plans of its own.
You can bet your bottom dollar they will not be mildly radical left-wing plans! Which is why we should all be scared of a Judith Collins-led National Party – very scared.


thedailyblog--2020-07-17--It’s time for a jobs guarantee in New Zealand

For three decades after World war Two New Zealand had virtually no official unemployment .
Central and local government agencies as the biggest employer could simply expand hiring to meet any cyclical unemployment that emerged .
The Railway Workshops were working-class universities in most major cities that you could go to if you wanted to learn a trade .
City councils would be encouraged to start their own green job projects to clean up and fix cities that were financed by central government if needed .
Seasonal and casual work could be picked up on the wharves or in freezing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for public transport , power generation and distribution , telecommunications , roading .
The Ministry of Works was world-famous for its dam building expertise and created New Zealand ’ s hydro-system .
This public sector was deliberately dismantled and destroyed in an episode of economic vandalism by the Labour and National government in the mid 80s and early 90s .
An economic dogma was adopted that claimed that the pursuit of private profit by private enterprise was always superior to any form of public service .
This led to the massive wave of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the Railways , BNZ , Telecom , energy companies .
Some state services became profit seeking State-Owned Enterprises ( SOEs ) like NZ Post .
Others like Air NZ and Kiwi Rail .
have had to be bailed out and brought back into majority public ownership .
But the rules that govern these companies remain profit-seeking above all else .
These same policies came very close to being implemented in the health and education sector as well when the 1990 National government adopted its first budget with those declared goals .
However @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the very young was left to be taken over by profit-seeking companies rather than expand the existing public sector .
In the current crisis we have the absurd situation of the government-owned companies continuing to behave like profit-maximising private companies and sacking as many workers as they think will help achieve that goal .
We also have the absurd situation of the central government allowing local governments to sack thousands of staff and “ balance their budgets ” rather than be given the resources they need to maintain services and even expand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debts of local government and health boards and SOEs should be taken off their books and taken over by the central government .
They can then be refinanced at the virtually zero rates a central government can achieve .
The local governments and local communities can then draw up an economic recovery plan that ensures everyone has a job in the Green New Deal needed to transition away from capitalism and its commodity consuming fetishism to a society based on human solidarity and social needs .
Then we can ensure everyone has access @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a job as a right .

For three decades after World war Two New Zealand had virtually no official unemployment.
Central and local government agencies as the biggest employer could simply expand hiring to meet any cyclical unemployment that emerged.
The Railway Workshops were working-class universities in most major cities that you could go to if you wanted to learn a trade.
City councils would be encouraged to start their own green job projects to clean up and fix cities that were financed by central government if needed.
Seasonal and casual work could be picked up on the wharves or in freezing works.


thedailyblog--2020-07-19--The art of walking forward

The art of walking forward

New Zealand politics hadn ’ t been noted for its volatility over the last few decades – at least back until the 1980s , but last election ’ s Meteria Turei bombshell and Green Party resignations , Andrew Little ’ s withdrawal as Labour ’ s leader , and Jacinda ’ s arising , created a dynamic and interesting election .
The historic events of the last three years and Jacinda ’ s ease of handling murder , mayhem , plagues and disaster made it look like Labour were a shoe-in for 2020 , maybe even governing alone .
Even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ National leader Simon Bridges , it seemed maybe this year ’ s election would be a tame affair .
By accounts , Muller was a nice man .
Though nice as he may be , questions are raised how he could then oversee the breach of quarantining Covid-19 patients ’ privacy and fail to own and admit his and other Ministers ’ involvement and knowledge in it .
In his first speech as leader , Muller appeared to be trying to appeal to softer National voters , to emulate or affect a politics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lead .
And then , in his first speech on home turf after becoming National ’ s leader , Muller talked about Te Aroha , the town of love , and he mentioned love nine times .
He talked about noticing socioeconomic disparities in rural Waikato as a youngster .
So far , so “ see I ’ m like Jacinda too , but a better economic manager ” .
He quickly learnt that you can ’ t ‘ out-Jacinda , Jacinda ’ .
She ’ s got the market covered when it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Muller couldn ’ t compete with the heat in the political kitchen either .
And while the charitable response to Muller ’ s break-down has been that ‘ politics is a nasty business ’ – and surely it is – watch the media like a pack of hounds baying for blood – it takes more than an assumption of kindness or ‘ being a nice man ’ , it clearly takes a certain kind of impervious ruthlessness , to survive , let alone succeed or excel .
Judith ‘ the Crusher ’ Collins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jacinda ’ s songbook .
She ’ s confident enough in her own beliefs and her own ideologies to carry not just her own luggage ( and baggage ) , but to do it with chutzpah .
She is apologetic to no-one for her views , her past , her ambition , her policies , her eye on the end prize , or her decisiveness .
She ’ s definitely not sorry for not being a man ( to paraphrase another former opposition leader – David Cunliffe ) , and she ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assumedly , privileged , either .
The fact that she doesn ’ t doubt herself means that those on the right are less likely to doubt her either .
As decisive as she has been , already she must have offered some redemption for despondent National supporters , she ’ s the party ’ s Lazarus , bringing the party back from the dead .
Confidence counts for so much in politics – if you don ’ t believe in yourself , voters won ’ t believe in you either .
Attack is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seems to be a less effective strategy for Winston Peters over time .
And confidence is key to handling the media .
Muller ’ s equivocation was a bit part of his downfall .
He equivocated because he was not honest , and the media could smell his weakness .
Judith Collins , on the other hand , admits of few vulnerabilities – though her sadness at the loss of her pet cat Minnie , and admiration of Jacinda ’ s hair are frailties we can forgive .
In his Te Puna speech @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poet Alan Curnow ’ s poem ‘ the art of walking upright ’ .
He invoked the famous line ‘ Not I , some child born in a marvellous year , will learn the art of walking upright here ’ .
He said it was his personal passion that every one of us in our time , not some distant year , can truly stand upright here .
Thing was , Muller himself was unable to stand upright and admit or defend the dirty politics that was – and has been – at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In his own ‘ The trick of standing upright ’ building on Curnow , Northland doctor and poet , Glen Colquhuon says ‘ The trick of standing upright here , is the trick of using both feet .
One is for holding on , one is for letting go.
’ But at every step we take , we are falling .
Judith Collins has probably arrested the immediate falling of the National Party .
She ’ s managing to stand on both feet .
With her self-confidence and media competence , she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a pale imitation of Jacinda .
She ’ s confident and self-defined enough , to not even try .
National ’ s expectations may have been low after the last few months of ‘ bungling ’ by Simon Bridges and then Todd Muller .
The party will be happy that they have a bold , walking , talking leader .
Judith has had a great run in the media , and so far has been getting the sort of press needed to convince centre-right voters and the business community she and National have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a media subtext – while there were reports this weekend about the new National Party infrastructure policies , and photos of Crusher with a drill , erecting billboards , ruling out working in coalition with New Zealand First , Jacinda ’ s media headlines told how she ’ d made time to meet her impersonator .
“ Jacinda may be kind ” , this says , “ but the Crusher is getting down to business , with all steely competence ” .
There is just enough sense and vision in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Island ‘ Golden Triangle ’ ‘ economic powerhouse ’ , creating Australasia ’ s most dynamic region , enough money in infrastructure plans , and enough resonance in ripping up rather than tinkering with the RMA , that powerful business voters will be pleased .
But with the infrastructure policies announced yesterday that focus on huge toll-funded motorway projects and threaten SkyPath , and plans to suspend SuperFund contributions , it ’ s a regressive and reckless package .
These policies and a potential National government will inevitably take us backwards .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s no wonder .
And as Franklin D Roosevelt said , “ …a conservative is a ( wo ) man with two perfectly good legs , who …has never learned to walk forwards at all ’ .

New Zealand politics hadn’t been noted for its volatility over the last few decades – at least back until the 1980s, but last election’s Meteria Turei bombshell and Green Party resignations, Andrew Little’s withdrawal as Labour’s leader, and Jacinda’s arising, created a dynamic and interesting election. The historic events of the last three years and Jacinda’s ease of handling murder, mayhem, plagues and disaster made it look like Labour were a shoe-in for 2020, maybe even governing alone.
Even after Todd Muller’s coup on National leader Simon Bridges, it seemed maybe this year’s election would be a tame affair. By accounts, Muller was a nice man. Though nice as he may be, questions are raised how he could then oversee the breach of quarantining Covid-19 patients’ privacy and fail to own and admit his and other Ministers’ involvement and knowledge in it.
In his first speech as leader, Muller appeared to be trying to appeal to softer National voters, to emulate or affect a politics of kindness following Jacinda’s successful lead. And then, in his first speech on home turf after becoming National’s leader, Muller talked about Te Aroha, the town of love, and he mentioned love nine times. He talked about noticing socioeconomic disparities in rural Waikato as a youngster. So far, so “see I’m like Jacinda too, but a better economic manager”.
He quickly learnt that you can’t ‘out-Jacinda, Jacinda’. She’s got the market covered when it comes to authentic compassionate leadership. But Muller couldn’t compete with the heat in the political kitchen either. And while the charitable response to Muller’s break-down has been that ‘politics is a nasty business’ – and surely it is – watch the media like a pack of hounds baying for blood – it takes more than an assumption of kindness or ‘being a nice man’, it clearly takes a certain kind of impervious ruthlessness, to survive, let alone succeed or excel.
Judith ‘the Crusher’ Collins dispenses with any attempts to sing by Jacinda’s songbook. She’s confident enough in her own beliefs and her own ideologies to carry not just her own luggage (and baggage), but to do it with chutzpah. She is apologetic to no-one for her views, her past, her ambition, her policies, her eye on the end prize, or her decisiveness. She’s definitely not sorry for not being a man (to paraphrase another former opposition leader – David Cunliffe), and she’s not sorry for being white – or assumedly, privileged, either. The fact that she doesn’t doubt herself means that those on the right are less likely to doubt her either. As decisive as she has been, already she must have offered some redemption for despondent National supporters, she’s the party’s Lazarus, bringing the party back from the dead.
Confidence counts for so much in politics – if you don’t believe in yourself, voters won’t believe in you either. Attack is sometimes the best defence – although that seems to be a less effective strategy for Winston Peters over time. And confidence is key to handling the media. Muller’s equivocation was a bit part of his downfall. He equivocated because he was not honest, and the media could smell his weakness. Judith Collins, on the other hand, admits of few vulnerabilities – though her sadness at the loss of her pet cat Minnie, and admiration of Jacinda’s hair are frailties we can forgive.
In his Te Puna speech, Todd Muller quoted the New Zealand poet Alan Curnow’s poem ‘the art of walking upright’. He invoked the famous line ‘Not I, some child born in a marvellous year, will learn the art of walking upright here’. He said it was his personal passion that every one of us in our time, not some distant year, can truly stand upright here. Thing was, Muller himself was unable to stand upright and admit or defend the dirty politics that was – and has been – at the diseased heart of the National Party.
In his own ‘The trick of standing upright’ building on Curnow, Northland doctor and poet, Glen Colquhuon says ‘The trick of standing upright here, is the trick of using both feet. One is for holding on, one is for letting go.’ But at every step we take, we are falling. Judith Collins has probably arrested the immediate falling of the National Party. She’s managing to stand on both feet. With her self-confidence and media competence, she is her own woman, and not a pale imitation of Jacinda. She’s confident and self-defined enough, to not even try. National’s expectations may have been low after the last few months of ‘bungling’ by Simon Bridges and then Todd Muller. The party will be happy that they have a bold, walking, talking leader. Judith has had a great run in the media, and so far has been getting the sort of press needed to convince centre-right voters and the business community she and National have something worth voting for. Already there’s a media subtext – while there were reports this weekend about the new National Party infrastructure policies, and photos of Crusher with a drill, erecting billboards, ruling out working in coalition with New Zealand First, Jacinda’s media headlines told how she’d made time to meet her impersonator. “Jacinda may be kind”, this says, “but the Crusher is getting down to business, with all steely competence”.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
There is just enough sense and vision in the new National Party policies for a North Island ‘Golden Triangle’ ‘economic powerhouse’, creating Australasia’s most dynamic region, enough money in infrastructure plans, and enough resonance in ripping up rather than tinkering with the RMA, that powerful business voters will be pleased.
But with the infrastructure policies announced yesterday that focus on huge toll-funded motorway projects and threaten SkyPath, and plans to suspend SuperFund contributions, it’s a regressive and reckless package. These policies and a potential National government will inevitably take us backwards. The Crusher is a conservative so it’s no wonder. And as Franklin D Roosevelt said, “…a conservative is a (wo)man with two perfectly good legs, who …has never learned to walk forwards at all’.