Double strength spin from Armstrong

Published by Marty G on July 4, 2009 at 5:17 pm in health.1 Comment

Former journalist John Armstrong runs National’s line on health today:

The Cabinet’s loosening of rules on district health boards farming out non-urgent surgical operations to private hospitals is the logical step to take for a Government trying to get more from less…Monday’s decision is a step towards public and private providers eventually competing for the health dollar, thereby (in theory at least) providing more operations more cheaply through increased efficiency and higher productivity.

Such blind praise built on no actual evidence. The most important statement in that quote is the bit in brackets – “in theory”. Well, neo-lib ideology dressed as ‘theory’ has been telling us the private sector is this wonderful, flawless deliverer of efficiency for decades. We’ve yet to see it.

 Armstrong dismisses opponents of greater privatisation with:

The few plaintive cries from the likes of the senior doctors’ union focused on the likelihood of already-scarce medical staff drifting away from public hospitals to better pay and conditions in private ones.

Yeah, what would the doctors know about what’s good for healthcare? No wonder National broke it’s promise to listen to the doctors when making decisions. Then, out comes the old saw:

The Clark Government effectively doubled the money going into health services during its nine-year tenure. Labour delivered in terms of primary care for the young and the old, but it struggled to cut waiting times for operations.

Um. No.

In Budget 1999, National budgeted $6.8 billion for health. In Budget 2008, Labour budgeted $12.4 billion. An 83% increase. If that’s ‘effectively double’, well, let’s just be happy Ryall and Armstrong aren’t structural engineers. Anyway, that’s only the beginning. The population has grown over 12% and there has been nearly 30% inflation since 1999. Take them into account and the increase is only 24%.

On top of that, the aging population increases the demand per head (can’t find a disaggregated number on that), health sector inflation has run higher than general inflation, and there’s a constant cost of new medical innovations, which mean better outcomes for the same number of procedures, and the effective funding increase was even smaller than that. Labour had to put in a huge amount of money just to keep per person services at the same levels and make small but important improvements.

Labour focused on putting the money where it counts – into primary health. No, it’s not sexy and it’s not as easily countable but primary health is where you invest to keep if you want the best bang for your buck, if you want maximum value for money in achieving the health system’s purpose – keeping as much of the population as healthy as possible.

Unfortunately, politics gets in the way. Ryall knows that it’s the waiting lists that get attention from the likes of Armstrong. So the money goes out of primary health and into electives. It’s like buying more ambulances to put at the bottom of a cliff by cutting spending on fence maintenance at the top. It’s dumb. But if you’re looking for a political win, not for improvements to the population’s health level, that’s what you do.
- Marty G

Show pony

Published by Eddie on July 4, 2009 at 3:00 pm in john key.8 Comments

Fran O’Sullivan, who championed National most ardently in Opposition, has become disillusioned with Key as PM. She savages him today, saying he has a “deep need” to be “Mr Popularity”:

Prime Minister John Key’s practised inclination – crack a few jokes about daughter Steffie usurping his credit card and/or messing up her en suite and son Max telling dad there would have been more upside if he had been an All Black and/or how he has got a tad porky since entering politics – still gets laughs when he ventures about the country.

It worked also for Key this week when he pulled out the “Steffie and the chequebook” gag again at the launch of the new New Zealand Global Women network at the University of Auckland Business School…

Key’s rampant good humour suitably seduced those present that he was taking seriously their stated aims to increase the leadership opportunities for “their members” through building a diverse, supportive and well-connected network that extends from New Zealand on to a global stage…

Get real sisters. Key’s impromptu gushing was so notably light on commitment to what matters for most women that frankly little of a factual nature resonated…

Ministers in Key’s own Government have disestablished the Labour Department’s pay and employment equity unit and scrapped two other investigations aimed at improving the pay rates of female social workers at Child Youth and Family and female school support workers who are demonstrably getting less than male peers.

The rationale offered by State Services Minister Tony Ryall that such investigations would “generate an additional form of remuneration pressure that is unaffordable in the current economic and fiscal environment” is so deeply insulting to women that he should have been slapped down by his leader.

Where is the commitment from Key’s Government to eradicating the 12 per cent gender pay gap?

Key’s female appointments: Melissa Lee to challenge for Mount Albert; the Christine Rankin nonsense; and the increasing morass growing around Paula Bennett does not help the perception of women leaders…

All hat and no horse is the term they would use in Texas. Key talks a big game and ingratiates himself with people but doesn’t deliver. I’m reminded of another article I saw a while back in a business magazine describing a chamber of commerce breakfast with Key:

Have I told you the one about the tie Max bought me?

Have I told you the one about the tie Max bought me?

So, he soothed us, charmed us, and encouraged us, but he stopped short of inspiring us. Why? Because he didn’t even pretend to be interested in the views of the business people and government officials present. 10 to 15 minutes of Q+A would have Key a good sense of the ‘mood’ of our Wellington business community. How else does this man of the people, know the people?

Both audiences saw the same thing. Key’s good at the funny family guy schtick and people are prepared to be disarmed by that. Key’s even good at talking about the issues facing New Zealand, which is nice. But there’s nothing more. There’s no solutions from him. Despite the fact these are business audiennces, there’s absolutely no interest from him in learning about their concerns and ideas. It’s all show and no substance, and it’s not going to change.

Time for Labour to listen

Published by Marty G on July 4, 2009 at 11:50 am in labour.13 Comments

I have to disagree with my comrade ayb on his post calling for Labour to come up with a more detailed program. Though I understand the desire to see Labour come up some new and inspiring left-wing agenda, now is not the time.

Sure, maybe Phil Goff should come out with his own version of being ‘ambitious’ for New Zealand. Maybe Phil Goff should be more forcefully expressing Labour’s principles of a fairer and more equitable society. But this is not the time for Phil Goff to come up with solutions. It’s time for Labour to listen.

I mean, the whole reason they got turfed out last year was because people felt they’d stopped listening. Their job now is to engage and reconnect with New Zealanders. Labour wasn’t elected to government, and it’s not their job to come up with John Key’s solutions for him.

The desire to solve the country’s problems from opposition is a strong one. But the country will be better served by holding National account for their mistakes, and listening to the public. And when 2011 rolls around, then lay out an alternative vision to take into the election campaign.

Pay equity video

Published by The Standard on July 3, 2009 at 3:30 pm in sexism and workers' rights.8 CommentsTags: , , , , .

A short video from the NZEI from Tuesday’s pay equity rally at Parliament.

There are also a bunch of photos on flickr from the CTU, EPMU and TEU.

Go the Yanks!

Published by The Standard on July 3, 2009 at 2:00 pm in international and us politics.26 Comments

So we’ve got a government of incompetents, ideologues, and sloths. At least things are going better in America. The Democrats now have a super-majority in the Senate:

The Republicans are imploding. Their ineffectual anger is getting so ugly they’re turning off anyone sane:

Abandoning a winner

Published by Zetetic on July 3, 2009 at 1:37 pm in national/act government.12 CommentsTags: , .

Government’s put out this press release:

“Finance Minister Bill English has welcomed news that the Budget operating deficit of $7.2 billion for the 11 months to May 31 is lower than the forecast $8.4 billion…

Most of the $1.2 billion variance was due to higher-than-forecast investment gains by the NZ Superannuation Fund and ACC”

Yup, the NZSF made $1.2 billion in April and May. About 10% in two months. Sure glad they cut those contributions. Don’t want to keep on making huge profits. Lucky to have such financial geniuses running the country.

Labour lolz

Published by Marty G on July 3, 2009 at 12:48 pm in blogs, humour and labour.33 CommentsTags: , .

I reckon Red Alert, the Labour MPs’ blog, has been a huge success. It’s great to see MPs unscripted and it’s good for them to get the instant public reaction in the comments.

It’s also a bit of a political risk. When you’re allowing instant, uncensored public reaction you can’t hide from criticism and you will be held to account for your statements. That level of risk is something I could never imagine them allowing even a year ago.

Still, it seems to be working for them. Trevor Mallard, in particular, is a born blogger. His posts reveal he’s got real smarts, which is missed when the media just wants to focus on his (too frequent) outbursts.

Anyway, the point of this post is to point you to this caption contest post where Trev takes the piss out of Chippie (Chris Hipkins). Hilarious.
- Marty G

Private member’s ballot

Published by Eddie on July 3, 2009 at 12:28 pm in Parliament, environment and supercity.0 Comments

The Left continues to have luck with the private member’s bill ballot, getting both of the bills drawn today just like a couple of weeks back (well, not so much luck, most of the bills in the ballot are from the Left).

Metiria Turei’s Marine Animals Protection Law Reform Bill was drawn, which while worthy wouldn’t be my top environmental priority if I were putting in a bill with a 10% chance of being drawn. Still, it will be tough for the Right to reflexively vote it down. So it might just get to select committee.

The other Bill is Phil Twyford’s Local Government (Protection of Auckland Assets) Amendment Bill. Quoting NRT, “[it] amends the Local Government Act 2002 to forbid any Auckland local authority (including the Auckland Transitional Authority) from selling or otherwise disposing of scheduled Auckland local body assets such as Watercare, ARTA and Ports of Auckland.” Twyford explains in more on Red Alert.

The idea is to stop the Banks-led cabal of businessmen that National and ACT are trying to gerrymander into power from selling Aucklander’s public assets. It will also set the scene for asset sales to be a major issue at the super-council election next year.

Since it will obviously be voted down by the Right, it won’t achieve the first aim but it should do the second.

I would have liked to see a private member’s bill specifically for a referendum before any Supercity is created. I assume both the Greens and Labour will try to insert it in the bill currently before select committee and maybe Twyford will include it in his bill (I acknowledge National might just use the financial veto on it even though it would only cost a couple of million).

A “Charter for Blackmail and rent-seeking by Maori interests”

Published by Eddie on July 3, 2009 at 12:21 pm in labour, maori party, national and racism.15 Comments

Further to my post yesterday, a reader sent in this quote from 2004:

Mr English’s view was not [National's] official line. As expressed by strategist Murray McCully, it is that the bill is a “charter for blackmail and rent-seeking by Maori interests”.

Let’s be clear. National opposed the Foreshore & Seabed Act because they thought it gave Maori too many rights. This race-baiting strategy suited their electoral interests at the time. Now that it suits their electoral interests to get onside with the Maori Party their tune has changed.

This change of position is to be welcomed, but their current attempts to rewrite history should be met with derision.

[PS, Danyl, good post. I agree with you that the F&S Act may have been the least worst option given the circumstances - I'm not naive about the political realities the Labour Government faced at the time. But I stand by my view that the F&S Act was tainted with betrayal and cowardice, and that it should now be replaced with something better.]

Elucidate

Published by Zetetic on July 3, 2009 at 10:15 am in corruption, crime, john key and national/act government.28 CommentsTags: .

The woman has dropped her criminal complaint over Worth. Says she is satisfied now the scumbag has lost his career. Police are expected to drop the investigation. 

Now, can we (pretty please) know why a minister in our government lost his job? Can Key, just for a day, pretend to give a damn about transparency and open government?

[Looks like TV3 has a pretty good idea - "Mr Key received an email from the complainant about the alleged incident. 3 News said it had seen the email ... details in the email went some way to explaining why Mr Key lost confidence in him"]

Bill sez: ‘pay cuts for youse’

Published by Eddie on July 3, 2009 at 8:20 am in Unions, bill english, education, health, john key, national/act government, public services, wages and workers' rights.84 Comments

bill-smilingYesterday in Question Time, Bill English sent a message loud and clear to teachers, police, doctors, nurses, and all other public servants (’frontline’ or not): under National, you’ll be getting pay-cuts, don’t expect cost of living adjustments, watch as your pay-packet buys less and less.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government has stated a number of times that it would honour those agreements that were entered into in pay rounds before the change of Government. I have seen reports that, for instance, senior doctors received a 4.25 percent pay increase [1.25% after-inflation] on 29 June. Alongside their automatic moves up the scale, this amounts to a total pay rise of $11,000 a year for senior doctors. Nurses received a 4 percent increase [1% after-inflation] in March, alongside automatic progressions. Under his or her contract, the average nurse is receiving a pay increase of around $6,000 a year. In the current climate, most New Zealanders are receiving little or nothing extra. No one should take those pay increases as an indication of settlements in the near future. They are legally binding agreements that the Government will stick to, but we have made it clear that that kind of pay rise is no longer sustainable.

He practically dares doctors, nurses, and teachers to do something about it:

The fact is that turnover rates in the public sector have dropped to historical lows…Nurses and teachers would be regarded by the public as having among the most secure jobs in the economy right now

In other words, ‘why should we pay you more if the supply of your labour is secure?’

National are buying themselves a fight here. Teachers and medical professionals have huge public support, their skills are in international demand, and they are well-organised because they’re well-educated enough to know the union makes them strong. If they can’t even give cost-of-living adjustments, the Nats will face strikes and the flow of professionals to Australia (where they’re actually investing in health and education to help them through the recession, not using the recession as an excuse for running them down).

Once again, we see that Key was serious when he said he “would love to see wages drop“, and we see, as predicted, that he was full of crap when he promised higher incomes for doctors.

MAF investigation report released

Published by rocky on July 3, 2009 at 6:00 am in animal welfare.15 Comments

MAF has released the final report of their investigation into the pig farm owned by former Pork Board Director Colin Kay, exposed on the Sunday programme in May.

As all those who knew anything about the Animal Welfare Act and subsidiary Codes of Welfare predicted, the farm in question has been found to be operating within the law. SAFE’s reasoning for wanting to keep the focus on intensive pig farming in general rather than some sideshow about the supposed “rogue farm” has been validated.

The veterinarian commissioned by MAF concludes in his report:

While the present tone of public sentiment maybe strongly disapproving of intensively housed and reared pigs, the fact is that I found no evidence on this property of non-compliance with or breaches of the Animal Welfare (Pigs) Code of Welfare (2005)” in it’s current form.

The Director of MAF Enforcement states in the Final Information Report:

A lot has been said recently through the media and the general community around the practice of farming pigs intensively. I make no comment as to the morality or otherwise for such a practice other than to state that where a code of welfare in the circumstances is being complied with then that it is the law and enforcement agencies would be foolhardy unless there are numerous other culpable practices occurring, to suggest any criminal liability could be attached to those who are at the time responsible for the animal’s care.

And concludes:

Given there were no breaches of the Act or the Code of Welfare (Pigs) 2005 identified when the Investigator and veterinarian inspected the premises on the 19 May 2009 there is no value or justification in progressing this matter further.

It is therefore my recommendation that the matter now be closed.

It would be unfair to attack MAF for their conclusions. They make no judgment about the ethics of intensively confining pigs, as that is not their job. They are law enforcers, not law makers, and must therefore simply uphold the law as it currently stands.

Both Minister of Agriculture David Carter, and Prime Minister John Key have publicly stated that the conditions on the farm were concerning, and that they would act if the practice was found to be widespread. MAF’s investigation report has a great analysis of the law as it currently stands and therefore why these practices are currently legal. It will be interesting to see the government’s response to this report.

The Minister has previously stated that his preferred option is to wait for NAWAC’s review which will most likely begin some time before the end of the year. There are a few concrete reasons why I disagree with him, the most important of which is that the Animal Welfare Act 1999 in its current form has loopholes that need to be tidied up. Those loopholes are what allow the current (Pigs) Code of Welfare to exist, despite breaching principles in the over-arching Act.

Animal Welfare should not be a partisan issue, and aside from regulation being inconsistent with a free-market ideology, I do not believe it is a left or right wing issue. From what I can gather, the majority of MP’s in both Labour and National are opposed to intensive factory farming. Unfortunately there is a minority of MP’s in both parties who seem to hold the balance of power on animal welfare issues. Perhaps those who put ethics above economics just don’t see animal welfare as enough of a priority to bother fighting for it. Someone needs to. Now.

100,000th comment

Published by The Standard on July 2, 2009 at 5:20 pm in admin and blogs.31 CommentsTags: .
  • Our first comment was on our second day, August 17th 2007 “Where will it lead? ;)” by trythisone on our third post… who never showed up again.
  • Number 100 was on September 15th, 31 days in, John laughing at Jacqui Dean for wanting to ban dihydrogen monoxide – also known as water.
  • Our thousandth came after 62 days on Oct 16th, Sam Dixon calling the Nats scum.
  • The ten thousandth was Lynn banging on about some computer mumbo jumbo on Jan 23rd 2008, 162nd day.

Now, 688 days in, we’ve hit 100,000… and the winner is (drum-roll)….

felix in typical hectoring form annoying Tim Ellis

Tim,

Care to back up the $70k claim?

And while you’re at it, the $1k claim as well? (I know that one was a wild stab in the dark but I also know you’re miles off btw.)

Also, when does “academia” cross the line into “pseudo-academia”?

So thank you all (except the ones we had to ban). Whether left or right, witty or angry, argumentative or conciliatory, lucid or perplexing, verbose or the soul of brevity, one-offs or regulars, The Standard wouldn’t be The Standard without all of you.

Cheers.
The Standardistas

[PS Marty reckons if the growth pattern holds we'll reach 1,000,000 a few months before the 2014 election -nearly two years for the first 100K, just five for the next 900K. It's enough to give Lynn kittens. Let's try to beat it :) ]

[lprent: bloody hell, I can't bear to think on it. ]

Tax Payer funded hypocrisy

Published by rocky on July 2, 2009 at 4:14 pm in john key.47 CommentsTags: .

Remember the hip-hop tours “scandal” the National Party used over and over and over again to attack the previous Labour-led government? They went as far as to put it in their 2005 election billboards. It was a minuscule amount of money, yet National used it as one of their prime examples of wasteful spending.

Now Prime Minister John Key is taking a tour of the pacific next week on the Air Force Boeing, taking about 70 people with him. Most of the guests have to pay $200 for the flights, and pay for their own accommodation. However John Key has decided to take a hip-hop group on tour with him at no charge, and the taxpayer will foot the bill for their accommodation.

I have no problem with the taxpayer paying for this hip-hop tour, however I do have a real problem with the hypocrisy from the Prime Minister. At first I thought perhaps this was a great sign of John Key being somewhat different from his predecessor, but unfortunately that is not the case.

A quick search of the New Zealand Parliament website reveals four occasions where John Key personally attacked the previous government about taxpayer funded hip-hop tours. 31st August 2004, 1st September 2004, 15th February 2005, and 18th May 2005, the attacks were spread out over almost a year, perhaps indicating how significant an issue John Key believed this was.

So my question to the Prime Minister is this: Now that you have decided there is nothing wrong with taxpayer funded hip-hop tours, will you admit that either you were lying in 2004/2005, or that you were wrong?

So whatcha gonna to do about it then?

Published by all_your_base on July 2, 2009 at 2:00 pm in activism.38 CommentsTags: , .

I reckon there’s a mood developing. People are getting sick and tired of what feels like a government that’s got the country in reverse.

But what they’re looking for is an alternative. Increasingly people are starting to ask of the opposition “So what are you going to do differently?” They’ve asked it in relation to sow crates. They’ve asked it in relation to public servants being banned from protesting.

And I’ve just received Phil Goff’s latest email newsletter and now I’m asking it in relation to Labour’s plan for jobs. Goff says:

Job security is the number one issue for New Zealanders at the moment. My two sons are tradesmen and my daughter works in a government department. Like all parents I am concerned about the effects of the recession on jobs. With unemployment forecast to climb to more than 8 per cent, Labour is focused on keeping Kiwis in work. New Zealanders need more urgent action on jobs from the Government.

I agree the Nats don’t have a clue. Cycleway? Pitiful. McJobs? Short-sighted. But I want to know more than that the Nats are making mistakes, I want to know what Labour would do differently if it got my vote. The thing is, I’m not convinced that the centre will shift Labour’s way by ‘default’. It’s not enough to show us where the government is going wrong. Why not tell us what you’ve got in mind instead?

Maybe you’re waiting for the Right Time™. Maybe you think they’ll nick your ideas. But so what? Neither of these is a good reason to risk squandering the goodwill of a growing number of anti-rightwing activists. It’s pretty clear that National’s honeymoon is over. People are now looking to rally behind a tangible, exciting alternative to a do-nothing Key government. The first thing you need to do is to give them one. The votes will follow.

Six years – for what?

Published by Guest post on July 2, 2009 at 1:10 pm in international and iraq.45 Comments

Six years ago the Neocon Bush administration invaded Iraq, on the pretence of looking for “weapons of mass destruction” (that were never there). Steve Pierson at The Standard covered the Fifth Anniversary, and some aspects of the death and misery caused by the invasion.

Now the Americans are pulling out of Iraq’s cities, they officially “handed over control” to the Iraqi administration on Monday 29 June. Some American forces will remain in cities “to train and advise Iraqi forces”. Most will pull back to bases outside the cities. This process has been accompanied by much celebration and jubilation in Iraq, but there are also fears that this pullout will create a power vacuum that the militias will move to fill – there already seems to be an upsurge in bombings. Most of the issues are covered for example here and here, there is some interesting commentary here.

Obama has set a schedule for further withdrawal, but it is not at all clear what will happen with respect to the “private contractors” (mercenaries) or the 283 American bases (some of them “permanent”) in Iraq.

America should never have invaded in the first place. Yes they overthrew a brutal dictator, no the violence and disruption that followed was worse. It was always about the oil, and the currency in which oil is traded. But given that they are there, I for one am very conflicted about whether they are right to withdraw from the cities now. On the one hand we should be happy that imperial invaders get the boot and Iraqi’s take control. On the other hand the Iraqi administration is weak, and it is likely that factional fighting will inflict further chaos and random violence on an already traumatised Iraqi public. There is an argument that America should stay and fix what it broke, especially in terms of basic infrastructure (power, water, sanitation). This withdrawal has the feel of America abandoning the mess they created. So – I’m undecided, I wonder what others think?
– r0b

Lost in translation

Published by all_your_base on July 2, 2009 at 11:00 am in activism and labour.7 CommentsTags: , .

Dear Labour

I’ll be the first to admit that sometimes my attention span isn’t the greatest. Between Twitter and Facebook and texting it’s frankly a wonder I have time for much of anything else.

I’m mostly in a hurry and I think that’s probably part of the reason I often don’t know what you’re trying to tell me. It’s frequently too long, too complicated or both.

Check out the video I made. It’s put together from clips of three different Obama budget speeches. It’s five minutes long but stick with it (maybe turn off that Blackberry first).

Having watched it just once I suspect you’ll have no problem filling in the gaps below. Give it a go.

  • Obama has _________ a massive deficit.
  • But he has a plan to ___ __ __ ____ by the end of his first term.
  • The budget includes ___ ________ dollars in deficit reductions over the next decade.
  • Despite some tough cuts his budget is an ________ ____-_____ for the future.
  • Because so many americans are just one _______ or _______ _________ away from _________ there’s money for healthcare reform.
  • And because the countries that out-______ America _____ will out-_______ it ________ there’s investment in education.
  • He’s planning on making green energy the __________ kind of energy and sparking the ______________ needed for job creation in related industries.
  • The budget doesn’t raise tax on families making less that $___,000 a year by a ______ ____.
  • __% of working Americans will receive a ___ ___. A ___ ___.
  • He’s not interested in passing the big problems on, he came here to _____ ____.

Now I’m not suggesting you become little Obamas. I’m not suggesting you “dumb down” politics. And I’m not suggesting you replace your (substantial) manifesto with bullet-pointed lists or polished phrases.

I am asking you to acknowledge the competing demands for my attention and perhaps try a little harder to help me understand what you’re saying by packaging it in a way that’s easier to absorb and digest.

I’m guessing there are people out there who feel the same way. If you help them I suspect they’ll help you.

Keep it short and simple
Dear Labour
I’ll be the first to admit that sometimes my attention span isn’t the greatest. Between Twitter and Facebook and texting it’s frankly a wonder I have time for much of anything else.
I’m mostly in a hurry and I think that’s probably part of the reason I often don’t know what you’re trying to tell me. It’s frequently too long, too complicated or both.
Check out the video I made. It’s interspersed clips from three different Obama budget speeches. It’s five minutes long but stick with it (maybe turn off that Blackberry first).
Having watched it just once I suspect you’ll have no problem filling in the gaps below. Give it a go.
<video>
Obama has _________ a massive deficit.
But he has a plan to ___ __ __ ____ by the end of his first term.
The budget includes ___ ________ dollars in deficit reductions over the next decade.
Despite tough cuts his budget is an ________ ____-_____ for the future.
Because so many americans are just one _______ or _______ _________ away from _________ there’s money for healthcare reform.
And because the countries that out-______ America _____ will out-_______ it ________ there’s investment in education.
He’s planning on making green energy the __________ kind of energy and sparking the ______________ needed for job creation in related industries.
The budget doesn’t raise tax on families making less that $___,000 a year by a ______ ____.
__% of working Americans will receive a ___ ___. A ___ ___.
He’s not interested in passing the big problems on, he came here to _____ ____.
Now I’m not suggesting you become little Obamas. I’m not suggesting you “dumb down” politics. And I’m not suggesting you throw out your (substantial) manifesto in favour of bullet-pointed lists or polished phrases.
I am asking you to acknowledge the competing demands for my attention and perhaps try a little harder to help me understand what you’re saying by packaging it in a way that’s easier to absorb and digest.
I suspect there might be people out there who feel the same way. If you help them I suspect they’ll help yo

Cowardice, bigotry and saying whatever it takes

Published by Eddie on July 2, 2009 at 10:00 am in labour, maori party, national and racism.73 CommentsTags: , , , , .

I’ll be glad to see the back of the Foreshore & Seabed Act. For many on the Left, including myself, its been a monument to Labour’s failure of nerve in the face of a campaign by National to exploit the underlying racism of Pakeha New Zealand for electoral gain.

Yes, there was a certain electoral logic to it. Neutralise the issue, appease the bigots, and continue the fight for progressive values in other areas. Still, the Foreshore & Seabed Act could never shake the feeling of cowardice and betrayal it was born in.

Now that the rise of the Maori Party has forced National to change its stance toward Maori from despised minority to desired coalition partner, we have a real opportunity to replace the legislation with something better. And Labour, freed from the fear of backlash from the bigots, can at last play a constructive and progressive role in the debate.

But there’s just this one thing that’s been bothering me. It’s this smug attitude from National and its backers that has them trying to rewrite that dark chapter of our race relations from 2003-2005. In their reading, this was purely a case of Labour shafting Maori, as if it all went on in some kind of political vaccum. The timeline then skips to 2009, where John Key and his new National Party come along and set things right.

Let’s not forget the political context here. This whole mess stems from Labour’s cowardice and National’s bigotry. National, you’ll recall, was the party of Orewa, of Iwi vs Kiwi and of Bill English’s “Beaches for Kiwis” billboards. National voted against the foreshore and seabed legislation because they thought it was too soft on Maori.

In fact, it was John Key who stood up in Parliament and said:

“in National’s view Māori did not own the foreshore and seabed in an exclusive situation. They owned it along with all other New Zealanders, and they have not had anything taken off them.”

There’s no way National have been playing an honest game here. You don’t go from divisive, race-baiting Orewa rhetoric in 2004 (a speech John Key stood right behind) and then suddenly decide you’re on the same page as the Maori Party on the foreshore and seabed just five years later.

That is, unless your choices are driven by pure political calculation. In 2004, Maori were a group that were never going to vote National, but could be used to scare working class Pakeha into ignoring their economic interests and switching over from Labour. In 2009, the Maori Party is an organised political force that National has to court if it wants to remain in power for more than one term.

John Key, the ‘candidate straight from central casting‘, is the perfect man to sell this switch. Tell him it’s racism you need, and he’ll sell you racism with a smiling face. Tell him to woo the Maori Party, and he’ll give up the foreshore and talk about partnership. Each comes to him as naturally as the other.

That’s fine so long as he’s choosing the progressive option, it sure beats the way it used to be. But let’s not kid ourselves about why National’s suddenly changed its tune on the foreshore and seabed.

Excuses excuses

Published by Marty G on July 2, 2009 at 9:20 am in national/act government and unemployment.15 Comments

First, it was ‘we’re going to do everything we can to keep Kiwis in jobs’

Next, it was ‘yeah, OK, we haven’t done anything significant to keep people in jobs (we borrowed a couple of small programmes from the Greens and the unions, though) but who cares? Look, other countries have more unemployed, so, um, hope that makes you feel better when collecting the dole… if you are eligible… which you’re probably not’

Then, ‘yeah, OK, so jobs are going but have you considered that during the last major recession jobs also disappeared and Phil Goff was Minister for Employment at the time?’

Finally, it’s ‘jobs losses? What job losses? It’s Labour’s fault for creating so many jobs in the first place and they weren’t even real jobs, despite the fact that they were providing real livelihoods to real people’:

Hon BILL ENGLISH: New Zealand is dealing with two recessions. One is the coordinated global recession. The other is the New Zealand recession that started in early 2008, which was caused by 10 years of unbalanced policy under the last Government. Many of the people who are losing their jobs today are the unfortunate victims of policy that built economic growth on borrowed money and big Government spending. Those were never sustainable jobs, and it is unfortunate that those individuals and families are now feeling the pain of losing jobs that were not sustainable.

Excuses excuses. If the Nats spent the energy on a jobs package that they have on making excuses and digging up old Goff quotes for their laughable smear campaign we might not be seeing 1100 people a week going on to the dole.

-Marty G

Lovin’ it?

Published by IrishBill on July 2, 2009 at 7:55 am in economy.34 CommentsTags: .

brighter-futureStuff reports that McDonald’s is getting up to $16,000 of taxpayer money per person it recruits from the benefit.

I doubt this per-person maximum is reached that often but it does seem that a lot of public money is going to the extremely profitable fast-food giant (and, presumably, its franchisees) every year.

I’m all for getting people into jobs but, even putting aside the godawful employer behaviour McDonald’s is infamous for, when the government is cutting access to the kind of training and education that would provide us with a skilled and productive workforce, forking out big dollars to subsidise burger-flipping jobs seems like serious economic mismanagement to me.

If this is what John Key means when he bleats on about being “ambitious for New Zealand” I’m not lovin’ it at all.

Just laugh in their faces

Published by Eddie on July 2, 2009 at 5:39 am in Parliament, economy, phil goff and unemployment.26 CommentsTags: .

National is overseeing the most dramatic rise in unemployment on record (yep, 2000 a week is more than the 1980s, more than the 1990s). They’ve got no answers, no ideas. All they can talk about is what Goff said 20 years ago and laugh. Like 2000 people a week losing their livelihoods is some kind of joke. Like they aren’t the ones in government here and now with the responsibility to act.

It’s tempting to get angry when witnessing such a gross and irresponsible dereliction of duty but these people have no shame. My advice to Labour is next time Key and English try this miserable excuse for a distraction just laugh in their faces, laugh at how pathetic they are.

Before there was spin…

Published by Dancr on July 1, 2009 at 9:42 pm in articles.11 Comments

When we talk politics we often use words like positioning, frame, context – words are a vital part of the programme of political communication. Here’s a really interesting thought from US academic Lera Boroditsky, who asks  How does our language shape the way we think?

…patterns in a language can indeed play a causal role in constructing how we think. In practical terms, it means that when you’re learning a new language, you’re not simply learning a new way of talking, you are also inadvertently learning a new way of thinking. Beyond abstract or complex domains of thought like space and time, languages also meddle in basic aspects of visual perception — our ability to distinguish colors, for example. Different languages divide up the color continuum differently: some make many more distinctions between colors than others, and the boundaries often don’t line up across languages.

Does this mean we think about politics differently too?

Definitely not the sewer

Published by lprent on July 1, 2009 at 5:16 pm in blogs and humour.51 Comments
The sewer

The sewer

This post by Scott Yorke over at Imperator Fish amused me. It is such an apt description of the differences between the two major political partisan blogs in New Zealand.

I like to visit The Standard now and then. There’s an occasional gem to be found there, although an angry hectoring tone largely dominates. The main theme is that the Nats are evil bastards who will eat our children if we let them. Contrast this with the most popular Right blog, Kiwiblog, where the evil bastards who will eat our children if we let them are the Left.

Being a dull moderate with no desire to save anyone from being eaten, I find the polemic style of argument tedious. But Kiwiblog also seems to be the domain of a number of seriously mentally ill people with real “issues”. It is my impression that those on the Left in this country don’t generally want to have their opponents killed. Whereas on Kiwiblog there are frequent calls for the death penalty, flogging, and other unpleasant punishments.

So, while I often shake my head at what I find, I don’t tend to leave The Standard’s website wanting to throw up.

The Standard’s site has been down a bit of late. it may be up again by the time you read this, and I hope it is. Where else am I going to steal my material from?

We are a partisan blog given to robust debate between people with differing viewpoints. That is what people come to read and comment on. This causes the growth in the site that gives us our growing pangs of outgrowing our hosts. But we definitely do not tolerate the ’self-regulated’ (ie bullying) behavior of the Kiwiblog comments section. It is commonly known as the sewer for good reason.

Don’t worry Scott, I think that our recent outages are (crosses fingers) over. The new site requires more tuning to speed performance. It is set to being a bit conservative at present. However it will shortly resume full functionality for all of the readers. Umm that sounds a bit like the country during this NACT interregnum.

Feel free to garner intellectual property. But if you had to rely on us for your income, you’d be broke :twisted: We don’t even have a copyright notice.

When spin goes wrong

Published by Marty G on July 1, 2009 at 3:57 pm in media.20 CommentsTags: , .

Richard Long, the main man behind Don Brash’s racist Owera speech is just about the poorest propagandist you get:

“Why only two to a cell? When that suggestion replaced the blackboard menu outside a cafe in Ngaio, Wellington, a few months ago, it was clear the Government had won the “lock them up and throw away the key” argument.

Ngaio is one of those Labour- voting leafy suburbs, adjoining Wadestown, home of the chardonnay socialists. If the liberals cannot win the penal debate in these areas, then they have lost it completely.”

Ok. First, when did a cafe blackboard become a measure of public opinion. Second, when is this guy living? The seventies? Back then Wadestown was a haven of middle class socialism. No more. Back when Long was a young man in the 1920s, Ngaio was working class. No more.

In the Wadestown and Ngaio polling places, National out-polled Labour 3 to 2.  Check out Wellingtonista’s map of Wellington polling places. Wadestown and Ngaio are the blue/grey areas North of the concentration of red in central Wellington:

These are not the liberal suburbs of Long’s fuzzy memories

It’s maybe a trifling thing, but it’s the tip of the iceberg. It’s a pity that there seems to be no standard of fact-checking from the likes of Long who get paid very well to express their opinions in the media.
- Marty G

Foreshore review dead-on

Published by Eddie on July 1, 2009 at 3:16 pm in human rights and racism.105 Comments

The Foreshore and Seabed review panel have reported back with the recommendation that the law be scrapped and people be allowed to attempt to prove ownership rights over the foreshore and seabed in court as they can with any other land.

Good.

Ever since the Government issued a proclamation in 1872 to stop the Native Land Court which had been granting title to blocks of the foreshore in the Firth of Thames to iwi wanting to protect their fisheries and get slice of the gold mining action*, politicians have attempted to satisfy the rednecks by legislating away Maori property rights to the foreshore and seabed.

Let’s hope that’s done with and Maori can now have the same opportunity that anyone else would have to attempt to prove title in court.

They put a bus lane through my heart

Published by The Standard on July 1, 2009 at 1:57 pm in humour.7 Comments

This goes out to all the dispossessed emos of Manners Mall, the forgotten victims of Wellington City Council’s new bus lane:

[Hat tip: the wellingtonista.]

Out of her depth

Published by Eddie on July 1, 2009 at 1:20 pm in unemployment and welfare.11 Comments

I wonder if Patrick Gower could keep a straight face while writing this:

Social Development Minister Paula Bennett has dropped her additional Disability Issues portfolio because Prime Minister John Key wants her to concentrate on the growing numbers of people losing their jobs.

Note his phrasing. Not ‘concentrate on reducing the growing number of people losing their jobs’. In fact, Bennett herself has contributed to the dole queues by several hundred just from sackings in her own ministry. Let alone her total failure to save any significant number of jobs in the wider economy.

The Westie (from Rotorua) straight out of central casting, Paula Bennett has never been anything more than a marketing gimmick. From the start it has been obvious she is hopelessly out of her depth (listen to her try to talk about what she does as minister, it’s like a kid explaining why they haven’t done their homework). This level of incompetence would be disastrous in any minister, let alone the one whose ministry has the biggest budget and is meant to be at the leading edge of the government’s reaction to the recession.

Taking away her other portfolio is a vote of no confidence in her from Key. He’s effectively saying ‘you’re not performing well enough. So I’m going to lighten your load. Last chance to do better’.

Unfortunately, this is a government built on such gimmicks and that is what will save Bennett no matter how badly she continues to perform. Key can’t afford to lose face by admitting Bennett was never up to the role and only got the job because of her image.

The Key government is all about brand over substance. Bennett can continue stuffing up all she wants. She’s part of the Key brand so her job is safe. Pity we can’t say the same for tens of thousands of Kiwis who are going on the dole under her watch.

[Key just invented a new ministry in Question Time saying: 'well, actually Paula Bennett asked to be relieved of responsibility for the Ministry of Disabilities'. Um... the guy doesn't even know that ministries he governs. This just gets worse]

Nats attack workers’ right to protest

Published by Eddie on July 1, 2009 at 11:59 am in activism, democracy under attack, democratic participation, national/act government, public services, sexism and workers' rights.55 Comments

democracy-under-attack
I am outraged to learn that the Department of Labour told its employees they were not allowed attend the pay equity rally at Parliament yesterday.

A leaked email from the department to its staff said:

“Attendance at such a demonstration may well be perceived as crossing the line by criticising a decision of the Government. The attendance of Departmental staff at the rally in whatever capacity, may therefore call into question our role as public servants serving the Government of the day.”

That is absolutely disgraceful and a clear breach of the Bill of Rights and the manager who approved it should resign. Unfortunately, it is a result of a public service management that is afraid of the new Government. The Nats have attacked an undermined public service neutrality from the start (’purchase advisors’, interfering in independent bodies like Pharmac).

Let’s get this straight: this is a democracy. You have the right to protest. That is guaranteed under the Bill of Rights Act. If you want to protest you bloody well should and you shouldn’t ask permission.

But be smart about it to0. Join the union. Then the bosses won’t dare come after you. And if they do, your co-workers will be behind you to help you stand up for your rights.

National Government’s “drum roll” for privatisation

Published by John A on July 1, 2009 at 11:52 am in uncategorized.0 Comments

Fran O’Sullivan had some interesting things to say in today’s Herald on Mark Weldon’s recent address to SOE board members, telling them to develop strategic plans for part-privatisation, first mentioned by Trevor Mallard on Red Alert.

This was the most revealing comment:

Of course, Weldon’s thesis fits exactly with the drum roll the Government is keen to get under way within the business sector to support a wave of partial privatisations after the 2011 election.

But if the drum roll is to get under way – and not be sabotaged by National’s opponents – it needs to be better grounded. On this score, Weldon has not been helpful.

Fran also considered Weldon’s comments had “more than a whiff of self-interest” as the NZ Stock Exchange which he heads would be the main beneficiary of new capital listings.

Mark Weldon was chosen by John Key to head up the Jobs Summit. According to Trevor’s source, the speech was given on behalf of John Key. Presumably it’s Key’s drum that Weldon is beating. As Fran says, he’s in Key’s kitchen cabinet

Somebody should be asking Key what are National’s plans for privatisation if they get a second term in government.

Jam tomorrow

Published by IrishBill on July 1, 2009 at 9:30 am in economy, jobs and john key.21 Comments

I see John Key is promising new ideas to stop job-losses:

We’ve got an economic strategy … and I intend over the next few weeks to spell out my thinking in that area

It strikes me as another one of his vague PR-driven promises.

Like the promise he made in March about the initiatives that never eventuated, from TVNZ:

Prime Minister John Key says there are more economic initiatives planned to help New Zealand through the recession

Or the one Bill English made about the “stimulous package” in February:

The package we are working is a similar kind of stimulus package. Over two years there will be a fiscal impulse of 4 per cent of GDP which is comparable to other countries

Which turned out to be nothing more than a new announcement of old spending.

Or Key’s promises from the job summit:

We think there is some headroom for us to fund some of the initiatives that will undoubtedly come out from the employment summit,”

Like the money for the 9 day fortnight which is now likely to be less than the $35m they gave private schools (and which has saved fewer jobs than the government has already cut, despite their other empty promise about not cutting the public service.)

Or the one he made before the election last year:

I’m campaigning on strengthening our economy, on rising to the challenge presented by tough global conditions, and on delivering greater prosperity to New Zealanders and their families

No comment required.

The truth is that Key has no plans to generate jobs or stimulate the economy. But he knows he needs to be seen to be doing (or at least promising) something or the voters might start feeling betrayed.

As for any actual action on unemployment? Don’t hold your breath.