By Chris Trotter*
Editor of “The Daily Blog”, Martyn Bradbury, has posted his thoughts on how the Left might best rebuild its strength. As one of the very few media personalities capable of organising a live political exchange between genuine ideological opponents that does not immediately degenerate into a pointless shouting match, Bradbury’s thoughts on this subject merit serious consideration. Having read his post, however, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the sheer scale of the Left’s problems have decisively defeated Bradbury’s analytical powers.
Certainly, to suggest – as Bradbury does – that any serious reconstruction of left-wing prospects is possible while the Labour Party continues to be led by Chris Hipkins strikes this observer as utterly fanciful. Hipkins nurtures a truly visceral dislike of those who see Labour as something more than an a straightforward electoral adjunct to the party’s parliamentary caucus. The idea that Labour should function as a sort of political Petrie-dish, producing all manner of new and interesting ideas, is not one with which Hipkins has ever conspicuously associated himself. In both Opposition and Government, he has ranged himself alongside Helen Clark’s legacy of realism and technocracy.
As Prime Minister, Hipkins’ instincts were those of someone wedded to the status quo. His point-blank refusal to even countenance changes that already enjoyed significant voter support is what made a Labour win in 2023 impossible. While he remains at the wheel of its most important electoral vehicle, the Left is going nowhere.
In the immediate aftermath of Labour’s catastrophic electoral drubbing, Bradbury had no difficulty grasping the urgent necessity of Hipkins’ replacement. What has happened since to bring The Daily Blog to the point of backing Hipkins’ retention? The most likely explanation is that, within the Labour caucus, there is no coherent factional pressure for change. Kieran McAnulty may be lean, but he does not appear to be all that hungry. He says he’s not interested in the top job – and, for the time being at least, we must take him at his word.
But, if we would search in vain for a “Marshal’s Baton” in any of the Labour caucus members’ knapsacks, then evidence of any coherent movement for change across the party’s organisation will, almost certainly, also be lacking.
The truth is, the “Clarkist Faction”, led, from the moment they all entered Parliament together in 2008, by Grant Robertson, Chris Hipkins and Jacinda Ardern, was simply too successful. Not only in the sense of producing two prime ministers and one finance minister, but also in wiping out every vestige of countervailing ideological and personal power. That Labour’s much reduced caucus voted unanimously to keep “Chippie” on as leader says it all. And, if there’s no alternative in the caucus, then there is also no alternative that matters in the party. Over 15 years, the Clarkists transformed Labour into a neoliberal monoculture. There’s no point looking for red-hot chilli-peppers in a paddock planted with potatoes.
Unless they’re all hiding in Labour’s Māori caucus. As Tangata Whenua, Labour’s Māori MPs were not subjected to the same ruthless culling that befell the Clarkists’ Pakeha opponents. Moreover, with the return of Willie Jackson to Parliament (this time as a Labour MP) they acquired a mover-and-shaker of sufficient strength to persuade the Clarkists to keep out of their way. Certainly, it is no accident that the only genuinely radical policies to make tangible gains under the Sixth Labour Government, came out of the Māori caucus.
In the absence of those gains, the level of animus against the Labour Government would have been appreciably less intense. What both Ardern and Hipkins allowed to happen between 2020 and 2023 was something that, historically, successive “settler governments” – of both the Left and the Right – have always understood must never be allowed to happen. Namely, that Pakeha New Zealand becomes convinced that its power and status is under threat from a concerted and transformative assertion of indigenous rights. Left and Right can fight each other over many issues in New Zealand, but never over how far the accommodation of Māori needs and grievances should be allowed to proceed. On that question, the boundaries must be agreed – and enforced – by both sides.
Labour’s crucial blunder in this regard was allowing the He Puapua Report to be brought into the world. When its contents – which Labour did its best to keep secret – finally saw the light of day, and Pakeha New Zealand saw the plan to radically re-constitute their realm incrementally, but irreversibly, and without democratic validation, into a “Te Tiriti Centric” nation, the die was cast. Especially when Hipkins, declining to draw the lesson from Helen Clark’s unequivocal rejection of the Court of Appeal’s findings in relation to ownership of the seabed and foreshore, refused to engage in a similar auto da fé over co-governance.
And so New Zealand is now in the hands of a very similar set of cultural and political forces to those over which Don Brash would have presided had Clark not passed the Seabed & Foreshore Act, and (therefore) lost the 2005 General Election. The editor of The Daily Blog describes the National-Act-NZ First Coalition as “the most right Government ever elected” – an absurd claim, as anyone familiar with the governments of Bill Massey, Sid Holland and Rob Muldoon will attest – but it is a government that believes itself culturally and politically obligated to reaffirm that the winners of the Land Wars; the creators of modern New Zealand; are still the people calling the shots.
Racist? Indisputably. White Supremacist? Arguably. But the only way to make this Government’s response something other than a full-throated defence of colonisation is to encourage Christopher Luxon to take the lead in launching a genuine constitutional debate. Quite understandably, Māori are not that keen to put the Treaty and its core principles up for discussion. But, the time when these issues can be kept safely insulated from “the ravages of extreme opinion” has passed. By all means let us have a war – but let it be a war of words.
As always, when the great issues of the day are to be decided, the political fault line does not run between National and Labour, it runs between the conservative and unimaginative elements of the Labour Party and their more open-minded and adventurous comrades. If the next three years are to see something more than a closing of Pakeha ranks against the challenge of the new Aotearoa, then, somehow, the Left has to acquire the strength and sensitivity to rescue Labour from its conservative shadow. Only then will Labour, ably assisted by the Greens and Te Pāti Māori, be in a position to rescue Pakeha New Zealand from itself.
*Chris Trotter has been writing and commenting professionally about New Zealand politics for more than 30 years. He writes a weekly column for interest.co.nz. His work may also be found at http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com.
121 Comments
The Labour party need to take a good hard look at themselves and work out what they're actually about.
Are they a workers party, or a social justice party? They certainly seem to be putting a disproportionately greater amount of priority into the latter, trying to legitimise themselves by being the former. And sucking at it.
Thanks for reminding us to be kind though (whilst simultaneously driving larger divides across multiple parts of society). I was beginning to wonder why being a prick to everyone around me wasn't panning out!
The electorate certainly spoke last October and in so doing emphatically declared Labour was offering neither policy nor performance that was acceptable. That is a consistent problem for incumbent governments as their record is proven and in this case stark and unpalatable. On the other hand the opposition’s credentials and prospects may be fairly criticised, but nothing about those outcomes, is yet on record. Be that as it may throughout Labour’s six years it was obvious the earlier nine years in opposition had provided scarcely any forward planning, policy of substance that is. Consequently in 2017 they had the appearance of a bunch of bunnies in the spotlight and from there they seemed to neither catch up nor catch on. The lack of substance, the publicity, the smokescreen of the floss and flim flam of Ardern, was never going to last and when it finally washed away, Labour’s plight and weaknesses were exposed and starkly so.
The lack of substance, the publicity, the smokescreen of the floss and flim flam of Ardern, was never going to last and when it finally washed away, Labour’s plight and weaknesses were exposed and starkly so.
And the only real rebuttal of all this was accusative cries of 'misogyny'. We're a very immature nation.
Yep, it was hilarious. People were stating the obvious. She was useless. Many knew it then, most people now understand it. The cries of 'misogyny' were pathetic. If woman of intelligence and competence was similarly accused as Ardern was, then that would be different. However, it was not the case.
Yep, it was hilarious. People were stating the obvious. She was useless. Many knew it then, most people now understand it. The cries of 'misogyny' were pathetic. If woman of intelligence and competence was similarly accused as Ardern was, then that would be different. However, it was not the case.
Unfortunately you saw people of power and influence in different spheres (public sector, media, academia) also suggest the same thing - that the great unwashed were incapable of judging the performance of Ardern and the ruling elite. Those who suggested disapproval - even when objectively comparing stated and actual outcomes - were tar-brushed with being anti-woman, anti-Maori, anti-everything that NZ and civil society represents. This is still happening.
Minimum wage went up a lot under the previous government, we now have one of the highest min wages in the world. They did a lot for housing, not just building state houses but also insulation, tenancy rules, etc. they added a public holiday and increased sick leave. Lower income workers did fairly well under labour IMO.
What is it with political analysts, including political journalists? This entire article is a demonstration of the shallowness of the type of ideological political thought we see everywhere these days.
After most elections where an incumbent party is booted out on its ear we hear the statement "they lost touch with the electorate". Doesn't matter what side of the aisle they were.
But the truth is this is an extremist analysis, restrained and blinkered by ideological traditions. The question that is never considered is 'what is democracy?' The answer seems to be unpalatable for analysts and politicians alike.
That answer should be easy for anyone as it is in reality quite simple. Any government's sole purpose is to serve the population of the country. All of them, not just vested interest groups. To be constrained from doing what is best for the people of the country by the lobbying or threats and intimidation of banks and big corporations is in effect to commit treason against the people.
How should Labour rebuild?The answer is very simple; go back to representing the working classes of the country. Go back to making sure that jobs exist that pay decent wages, that employment conditions are good. Build an environment that supports the creation of companies that can afford to pay their workers a decent and fair wage.
Valid points but the worker landscape has altered significantly. You know longer have the large let’s say cloth capped very large working blocs of voters. Freezing workers, wharfies, rail workers, seamen, shearers and on.Modernisation, automation, market change has overtaken and displaced a great amount of hands on manual labour etc.
Foxy it doesn't matter if they are blue collar or white, or technology being introduced or what ever. That's just deflection and obfuscation. Government's are still in place to serve and provide for the people of the country. Not to cow tow to big banks and corporations.
"Market" changes is about companies being lazy and exporting jobs in search of easy dollars. The introduction of technology is about improving productivity, but that also creates new types of jobs. In some respects technology should mean more can be done faster and cheaper, but looking at our roading infrastructure I wonder if that is true?
But consider your comment; "Modernisation, automation, market change has overtaken and displaced a great amount of hands on manual labour etc." Why then do we need to be importing workers?
Because there's been a sort of gutting of certain sectors of our kinetic workforce, and misallocatiom of our indigenous labour force. So we have higher concentrations of people in certain areas, competing wages there lower, wearing the increased costs of local labour inflation in areas there is a deficit in. We are trying to funnel migrants into these gaps, albeit haphazardly, because some of our sector shortages are occuring many places.
Technology and market changes forced some of the gutting, as well as changing cultural values.
Agree Pa1nter about the skill gutting. There is also this. Where there is a grown number of people with no skills in making stuff, but excellent roles in telling you you can or can't make stuff. And expect high incomes and get it.
re ... "Valid points but the worker landscape has altered significantly."
Indeed it has.
Successive anti-worker, pro capitalist, governments have successively whittled down the rights of workers to organize.
Nice try ... trying to suggest that only those involved in "hands on manual labour" have the right, or need, to organise. Neo-liberal dogma. No more, no less.
Organized labor seeks to balance the less desirable elements of capitalism by ensuring profits are shared with the people actually contributing to those profits.
Successive governments worldwide, following the Taft–Hartley Act 1947, have bowed to the wealthy to pass laws that restrict, and in some cases prohibit, workers from organizing. Adding to this was corporate media that sold the 'union are bad' message and the 'unions create unemployment' message from their pulpits. The net result is that workers have lost considerable bargaining power and workers have become 'price takers' rather than 'price setters' in terms of 'selling' their labor.
A simple example of this is that you have no idea what the person beside you earns and most employers insist you never ask. Thus changing jobs becomes one of the few ways to figure out what you're worth. Does this make for efficient labor markets? Nope!
It also encourages unviable businesses to operate for far longer then they should as the business can only turn a profits by keeping wages low. But at some point - far later than they should have - such businesses go bust or close down because nobody will work for the low wages that are offered. And who picks up the tab? Usually the tax payer.
All unions are firmly of the view that incompetent unproductive people who do the absolute minimum to avoid dismissal should be paid exactly this same as exceptional hard/smart working ones who contribute above & beyond to the organisations survival & success.
And vice versa.
The same goes for any business, unionised or not. You don't know what the person next to you is earning. It is a nonsense to believe that most businesses pay their most productive workers better. Most businesses will pay the minimum they can get away with, productive worker or not. And it gets worse. The most desperate for a job (think solo mums, very young and older near retirement, recently redundant or unemployed) get paid the least and are often the most dedicated. (I have seen enough payroll data to know this for a fact.)
Chris appears to be still trying to have a bob each way with his beloved Left; many of his recent columns have been far more insightful into NZs zeitgeist.
And this - "Racist? Indisputably. White Supremacist?" - is simply disgraceful & unworthy of his enlightened intellect. It completely ignores the blatant ethnic racism embedded in the 2020-23 Labour Govt & driven by Jackson & He Puapua.
“When people get used to preferential treatment, equal treatment seems like discrimination.” Thomas Sowell
So true, this complaining of racists can all be sheeted back to Jacinda. She lied a lot, including the following howlers:
i) She would govern for all New Zealanders. This was a lie.
ii) She said that Maori had special status and therefore had additional rights. This was a lie, a very unfortunate and dangerous one.
iii) She then proceeded to implement some of these new 'rights' and called everyone that did not agree, a racist. Another lie.
The unfortunate thing is, we cannot take back the lies Jacinda told and reverse this issue without taking certain actions. It must be done by reversing the advantages that some people now have, which are ill-gotten and need to be removed. This will cause great anger for some people, but, the fact is that is must be done, and it is being done.
But Maori do have a special status. National wrote a statement highlighting that back in 2010 in support of the UNDRIP.
https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/national-govt-support-un-rights-dec…
The statement in support of the declaration:
- acknowledges that Maori hold a special status as tangata whenua, the indigenous people of New Zealand and have an interest in all policy and legislative matters;
It effectively says they have interest in their lands, and should have a contribution into political matters, and they do, having a higher representation than their total share of the population in a democratically elected government. It says nothing about having separate systems and services for them because they are somehow more equal than others. It also says nothing about them having a vote that counts more in democratic elections than others. The statement is also completely non-binding and all it would take would be for the govt to say, we longer agree with this statement, and that would be that. It would be gone. I think that was the original idea, agree with it, but it is non-binding so has no effect on anything rather, it is symbolic in nature. Jacinda and co took it to mean something quite different. That is where the problems started.
You really do have to wonder why on earth the UN must be involved in indigenous rights and why they cant simply be dealt with through the courts of the relevant nations. UN treaties are usually about matters where there are potential disputes between nations - borders, international fishing, nuclear weapons etc. UNDRIP just seems like left wing meddling.
The UN has no power over anything. The UN was a good idea at the time, how they have no control over anything (see the Russia - Ukraine and Israel - Hamas conflicts). The have nothing to offer. You are quite correct, they are just left wing meddlers these days spouting nonsense about climate issues and other non-issues to try and retain some sort of relevance.
Go back to making sure that jobs exist that pay decent wages, that employment conditions are good. Build an environment that supports the creation of companies that can afford to pay their workers a decent and fair wage.
Agree. When I think back, what Clark's government did for workers - and which has "held" through successive governments - was Working for Families. By any other name a taxpayer subsidy to low-wage employers. All that could be done if you want to run a high immigration/population growth strategy.
Then Ardern's government had to come in and get rid of zero hour contracts (to halt the exploitation of low-wage workers that had flooding our shores);
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/11/zero-hour-contracts-banned-in-new-zealand
And thank goodness Ardern's government passed three minimum wage rises.
Seems to me we made the most substantial wage-rise progress as a result of the COVID lockdown. If you turn off the immigration tap, employers (including government employers) have to increase wages. Labour negotiated some major pay rises in the health and education sectors. The private sector (particularly infrastructure) needs to follow suit.
Hipkins unfortunately succumbed to the public pressure campaign from (largely) the ag and hospitality sector employers and opened the immigration gate - such that they lost total control of the spigot in only a few short months. That's where we are now.
Wages are now not so much an issue as is cost-of-living - but again, it seems from the new government, the solution to that will be increased subsidies (e.g., FamilyBoost);
https://www.national.org.nz/familyboost_childcare_tax_rebate_to_help_families
Cost-of-living can't be addressed by subsidies or insignificant tax breaks. The lion's share of most household budgets is housing/accommodation. If they keep the immigration taps open, we will never solve that supply/demand problem through build-baby-build.
"By any other name a taxpayer subsidy to low-wage employers" - & people who choose to have kids they can't afford funded by people who take responsibility for their themselves & their own.
The reason successive (National under Key) Govts continued WFF is that it's a taxpayer subsidy to maintain lower pressure on employers to increase wages/salaries, making everyone else worse off in the long run.
As with all attempts by Govts to pick winners to subsidise in their own policy & market failures: exhibit A accomodation supplement
Why? Surely its past time for a population policy as many on this site have suggested.
- NZs births are disproportionately distributed in socioeconomic groups who can't afford them because/unless theyre subsidised.
- we're again importing record immigration lowering GDPpc. Our population increased 25% over the last 20 years.
- at the risk of echoing PDK, the worlds population has trebled since WW2 higher birthrates mainly in countries riven by religious & patriarchal dogma & subsistence economic & ecosystems.
- lower population growth rates will constrain the housing ponzi
- & IMO - happy to be challenged - NZ was a better fairer community when it had half our current population (acknowledge that not everyone is old enough to remember that)
Well they want more of those people having kids, all the responsible people are having less kids or no kids since they just can't afford them with our wages and cost of living, expect them to keep piling on subsidies and pumping migration rather than deal with underlying issues right up to the tipping point.
What you're missing is need. WFF + free child care + accommodation supplement is determined by a needs basis. We can argue all day about people that put themselves in positions of need i.e. solo mum of 6 kids, but the need is still there.
Does a Boomer with say 6 rental properties and $2m in the bank need a taxpayer funded pension? They may claim they've paid taxes all their lives, is the Government now running a loyalty rewards scheme? I've paid taxes all my life too, can I get some of that back at the age of 35?
Disclaimer: I have never once claimed any direct welfare payments/tax credits.
Does a Boomer with say 6 rental properties and $2m in the bank need a taxpayer funded pension?
Yes. Every taxpayer pays taxes with a promise that a universal pension will be provided. The amount paid is the same. If you have never contributed in your whole life (a life long beneficiary) or whether you have paid substantial taxes over your entire career, the same amount is paid. It's a simple promise that the government must keep, and if they are too useless to take peoples money under the terms of this promise then they should allow people to opt out or divert the money into a managed fund or equivalent to ensure it is actually there for retirement.
An $18b per year (and growing) promise made on behalf of future taxpayers. Us net-taxpayers today have to shoulder the burden of a much bigger retiring demographic bulge than Boomers had to deal with, while also shouldering the burden of WFF tax credits among other welfare all so all the low income households can manage the rent because landlords borrowed too much.
So forgive me if I think we should break the "social promise" to already wealthy retirees to save the taxpayer money, because the alternative is low income households defaulting on their rent payments/out on the street. Approx $6b p.a. of investment over 30y needed just in 3 waters alone, needs to come from somewhere....
Yeah, but they made the promise, and taxpayers pay tax on the basis of that promise. Taxpayers don't promise losers money to stay and home and do nothing, governments do that to get elected, and if that is the case, then that is their problem. On occasion I have paid more tax in one year that I would get back from 20 years on the pension, so, I fully intend to take that pension when I retire, as I have contributed a lot, and the promise was there.
We also have to remember that the so called 180 billion required for three waters comes from the same people that think it is ok to spend 3 billion on some onshore port facilities to allow two ferries to dock (one at a time). So, I suspect the real cost will be significantly less than the cost estimates provided by the last ship of fools. The current govt have already cancelled around 20 billion of planned useless spending, so between the cancelled projects and the hugely exaggerated cost of water infrastructure I would say the gap between the two is quickly closing.
"So the Government effectively mandated that replacement ferries would have to cost so much.
It is absolutely no surprise that the cost has blown out from $775 million to $3b in just five years. And all this for an Interislander operation that had revenue of just $151m in the last financial year and a surplus of $12m.
That's a stunning figure. The left are complaining that the new Government won't spend $3b on an operation which has revenue of just 5% of that, and profit of 0.4% of the cost."
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2023/12/labours_rail_obsession_to_blame_for_…
You may want to rethink your maths ...
https://www.thepost.co.nz/politics/350132969/kiwirail-ferry-costs-prior…
I see your point. Thanks for paying so much tax, hope you enjoyed the high level of income that came with it and we're sorry you feel aggrieved by it. I pay tax too, nowhere near 20 years pension in 1 year, but enough to keep 2 single pensioners clothed and fed. As for that promise, I think we'll have to take it up at Muldoon's grave.
Anyway I've got nothing to lose if universal super stays, I'll claim it too if I reach 65. But I still think it's bizarre for a trade deficit country like NZ to have full blown non-means tested super while we're struggling to balance the books on deferred maintenance, when you look at Australia on a wealth of resources and trade surpluses still means tests theirs.
I'm not aggrieved by paying so much tax. I did so in the knowledge that longer term I would receive some of it back. If that was not the case, there are a range of things I could have done to avoid the tax and therefore retain the funds. Any change such as this would need to be phased in over a couple of decades. There is no fairness in simply deciding that a certain group of people have managed their lives well. and therefore they need to miss out on something that was previously a certainty, and all those that never planned just carry on as normal. There are probably loads of pensioners around (in Auckland particularly), that have a 1 million dollar house, and 1 million saved away on which they are hoping to earn a living on, and then leave to their family. Over the past few years with interest rates being what they have been, they would have been earning 2% (maybe) on their funds if in the bank, and then their pension over the top, which would be just enough for them to survive. If you take their pension away because they have (say 2 million in assets, assuming that is the limit), then they cannot even afford (most likely) to stay in the family home. This would have the similar effect to the crazy Greens and TPM wealth tax proposal.
Of course we'd get into the nitty gritty. You couldn't just say someone with a $2m house has the means/cashflow to be self sufficient. Mind you, they could always just sell up/downsize. Shame about TD rates but for many those TDs would have been derived from the gains on houses that came with said lowering of interest rates.
You say you could have done a range of things to avoid the tax? Hold up, so not getting a pension when you retire would be a big thing, yet in one year you pay 20 years of pensions in tax, and have no issue letting extra tax dollars slip through? How noble of you, I guess we better keep this loyalty scheme in place.
Most workers people do pay their taxes, it's called PAYE if you didn't know. It's just we need to underwrite a good chunk of our lower income earners with tax rebates so that Landlords can service the ridiculous mortgages many took out. I for one think average rents in this country should be at least $100 per week less, so that a) we have more net tax payers and b) there's more money to go around real productive businesses.
Do you really think not getting a state funded superannuation would change someone's aspirations for success? All the years of earning good money, buying a nice house etc. will just never happen because "why not sit on the dole for 40 years"?
Why should we means test the pension? Well one example is we have approx. $6b p.a. of needed 3 waters investment over the next 30 years. Aging pipes are failing due to deferred investment by previous generations. It's a big costly problem. But I guess we could just print $6b per year for that, and another few billion for hospital upgrades, while keeping the billion or so annual increase in non-means tested superannuation. It's just debt, who cares?
That's the beauty of it. Everyone gets it, you cannot game it, and you don't need an army of useless public servants deciding whether you qualify and trying to hunt down your assets and all that crazy stuff that comes with it. The system is simple, and not broken. That is probably why certain people on the left want to get stuck into wrecking it. Raise the age for sure, but do is slowly and don't do anything ridiculous like let Maori have it at 55 (TPM policy) and everyone else at 65, except for women that live longer so they can have it at 70 (Jake Tame idiocy), and then start comparing peoples jobs and deciding of they work an office job then they had a better life with less wear and tear. That's all just woke BS. It's actually been tried overseas, and of course, it was a failure. Leave the simple stuff alone.
That's the beauty of it. Everyone gets it
Agreed, which I why I support a UBI instead of the various conditional hoops to jump through we have for job seeker, WFF, accommodation supplement and whatever else is available.
Make it simple so everyone knows the rules and redeploy the administrators to something productive.
Correct. It's the landlords that participated in the frivolous bidding up of housing. Leveraging deposits into additional rental properties. It's why the mortgage interest deductibility changes became so painful, because Landlords were so soaked in debt that their mortgage interest costs exceeded any free cashflow. Plus they need the taxpayer to underwrite their tenants income so the mortgages can be paid.
Zombie businesses scalping the need for shelter and providing no other value to society.
"...providing no other value to society. "
Roughly 75% of NZ rentals are provided by private landlords.
Rents are well demonstrated to be set by peoples ability to pay, not by landlords capital, interest, maintenance or other costs in providing the accommodation. Therefore for everyones long run benefit policy efforts would be more effectively directed to raising average income level rather than subsidising tenants (accommodation supplement) & inefficient uncompetitive employers (WFF).
While I understand your perspective Kate, I am concerned that the Social Welfare principle has got out of control.
I do agree that small/new business's could be supported to help them get off the ground, but there needs to be accountability about how they are run and their viability. I agree with KiwiKids about paying people to have kids. I feel there needs to be a lot more responsibility for people in that area, and less expectation on the state to pick up the tab.
But all this goes towards any Government actually creating a structure that supports the creation and sustainment of industry to provide paying jobs for people. This is where national resilience is achieved.
I'm agreed - it has got out of control.
We wouldn't have needed the accommodation supplement had immigration not exploded under successive governments from Clark on. We would not have needed WFF had not wages been suppressed by the immigration explosion from Clark on.
I can offer this new government a $2.4 billion dollar savings per annum tomorrow is they just regulate the rental market. And then they wouldn't need to cancel critical infrastructure needs to move the country forward;
But Finance Minister Nicola Willis announced on Wednesday the Government had declined to provide $1.47b to continue the plan.
That's roughly half of what regulating the rental market would bring in in a single year.
The welfare system has become a direct transfer of public monies to the private sector. So stupid.
And thank goodness Ardern's government passed three minimum wage rises.
Seems to me we made the most substantial wage-rise progress as a result of the COVID lockdown. If you turn off the immigration tap, employers (including government employers) have to increase wages. Labour negotiated some major pay rises in the health and education sectors. The private sector (particularly infrastructure) needs to follow suit.
Sigh, doesn't understand the consequences of increasing the minimum wage without productivity increases... doesn't understand the consequences of forcing employers to increase wages by locking the country down/"turning off the immigration tap" as well... also doesn't understand the public sector "negotiating" doesn't make sense as the beholden party (Labour) agrees with everything as they can just hang all the debt caused by "major pay rises in the health and education sectors" to the unborn NZers of the future... NZ is fked if this sort of "ignore the unintended (or intended) consequences" thinking is prevalent throughout the populous.
Labour didnt lose touch with the electorate. Over the last 3 years they single mindedly focused on dividing the population into classes of people, then set them at war with each other, forcing voters into intractable positions such that now they are irretrievably split along hard ideological lines. This is simply the outcome of Ardern introducing identity politics to NZ, and as the kids say these days, "you f*** around, you find out".
Its unlikely that the damage that Ardern and Labour did to the country's psyche can be undone now. The genie is out of the bottle, and the Greens and TPM wont be putting it back in, ever. We need to accept that we will permanently have 3 party coalitions in the future, with policies driven by the most extreme of the Left/Right.
Left vs Right. Maori vs Non-Maori. Vaccinated vs Unvaccinated. Landlords vs Tenants. Rich vs Poor. Farmers vs Urbanites. Cyclists vs Drivers. Everyone has been divided into groups and set to fighting each other. Its like a class war only its now permeated everything.
re ... "That answer should be easy for anyone as it is in reality quite simple. Any government's sole purpose is to serve the population of the country."
Is it that simple though?
What if the 'population' decide a return to slavery is acceptable?
What should a government do then? Do they not have a duty to educate us and lead us to be better?
(And by "us" I mean the 6% of the population who are swing voters and get to decide who the next government is.)
"What if the 'population' decide a return to slavery is acceptable?"
When we get people who decide to step outside the bounds of what we have pretty much learnt to be common decency, the good question to ask them is what if they are the ones to become the slaves? Besides I feel that a 40 - 60 hour week on the minimum wage is pretty close to being slavery.
No our Government's role is to create the country the people want it to be. Most ordinary people want their country, no matter where they are, to be fair, treating all with decency, and no crime. Class systems, minimum wages and crime mostly come from societal inequities where people believe they are better or more entitled than other, and others get angry and frustrated because they can't get a fair deal. Tribalism in all its forms is BS. There is only one tribe and its called the human race.
Your response overlooks the fact that what is 'fair and reasonable' today, or 'common decency' as you put it, may not be so in the future. Hence the reason I used slavery as an example. Slavery was completely accepted 200 years ago. And even today various forms of slavery are considered completely normal.
With 2000 - 3000 years of learning behind today's standards, including some realisation that religion is just another form of tribalism, I feel that today's drive to treat everyone equitably is a pretty good standard. it may need some tweaking in time. But the thing about seeking power over others is that sooner or later someone bigger comes along to gain power over you, and smack you down. Power is not survival, community is. And community treats everyone fairly.
I said to my old man yesterday "what does the labour party actually stand for?" they've completely lost their identity. Not to mention they let the maori caucus run rampant over them (well Jacinda and some of Hipkins anyway). Bunch of idealists that got booted to the opposite benches and thank goodness for that. Worst government in living memory. At least we got Matariki day and 10 days sick leave - I'll give them that
Na you need to go the opposite way. Remove the threshold completely, or at least down to say 'minimum 2 seats'. This deals with the problem. See [insert minority party holding the balance here] has power because there are no alternatives allowed in. But remove/reduce the threshold and there would be.
E.g New Conservatives as an alternative to Act, TOP as an alternative to NZF etc...
The problem is we have a system which has 2 blocs and only enough room for 1 party in the middle. The 1 party in the middle always gets undue influence as a result.
This "new Aotearoa" will look something like Zimbabwe, or South Africa. Its not something that anyone should be desiring, even Maori.
I hope that TPM keep protesting and arguing for racial apartheid over the next three years so National can go to the election with the slogan "Vote Labour, Get The Maori Party".
Otherwise the white flight to Australia will continue. Heck, its not even white flight anymore, even the recent immigrants have had enough and are looking at sacrificing their permanent residency here and starting over in Australia. There is a whole Facebook group devoted to it.
I like the Zimbabwe idea, we could call ourselves Tangaroadesia. Pakeha have their land confiscated and cannot vote, so we have minority iwi rule. We will take all our land back and pay you a pittance to farm for us. We will rent your houses back to you. We will take your passports so you cannot leave, any discension and it's off to the gulags.
Hi Te Kooti, have you ever lived in Zimbabwe, visited it, or lived even close to it? Do you even know anyone living there or from there?
The "I like the Zimbabwe idea" statement displays astounding ignorance and you can thank your lucky stars that you can sit here in New Zealand sprouting such bullocks as opposed to living in that hellhole.
For heaven's sake, educate yourself. https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2023/country-chapters/zimbabwe
When talk of great leaders surfaces, I'm reminded that most of us probably don't know any. Sure we know, or think we know, the public face of the leader. But do we know what actually happens behind closed doors?
I've met quite a few leaders that didn't agree with the direction their boards set for them. The reasons for disagreement were diverse. It ranged from the philosophical, to assessments of not going far enough, or going too far, and to where scarce resources could most effectively be applied. Of course, any discussion about these disagreements were kept firmly behind closed doors and almost never saw the employees, much less the public, being privy to them.
The great leaders 'suck it up' and come forth presenting a vision almost as if it was their own.
We will see whether Chippy, or Luxon for that matter, are great leaders.
But exactly where they get their vision from is unlikely to ever be 100% theirs - and it is unlikely they 100% agree with the vision. Swallowing dead rats without publicly gagging is core trait of great leaders and we should never - unless we are 'in the room and all the veils are off' - believe a great leader isn't capable of immediately changing their spots.
As one of my mentors said, "Being a CEO is mainly being a good actor."
"I've met quite a few leaders that didn't agree with the direction their boards set for them."
So have I. A few with integrity resigned. While part of it does come with the job very few "sucked it up" long term. It's hard to deliver successfully if your hearts not in it, you & the organisation will both be the better for harmony.
Speaking as a professional chartered director with a couple of decades experience I can say that it's the other way around: the Board sets the entity's purpose, goals & strategy (usually with input from the CEO if appointed), appoints the CEO, manages & holds them to account for delivering it.
If you don't understand the topic it's preferable to ask questions rather than making factually incorrect statements
The CEO is responsible for setting the strategy and is accountable to the Board for delivering it. Did you read the HBR article, it spelt it out in black and white? The Board tests the strategy and monitors performance and is ultimately accountable, but the strategy is the CEO's.
I did read the HBR article. It is opinion. Not law. Further it is american and subject to american law.
Honestly. It is very difficult to believe your claims about being a board member of any serious organisation if you think an american opinion carries legal weight in NZ.
All for righting the wrongs of the past, as long as I'm not going to be severely penalised personally for something someone else did 180 years ago. Like forfeiting part of my vote. I don't think you can call this saving Pakeha NZ from itself - that's a pretty reasonable concern.
I hope Interest will pass this on;but to Chris Trotter - I would like to say Merry Christmas and happy new year Mr Trotter. I look forward to and very much enjoy all your articles on the political scene in NZ. While I don't necessarily agree with all your sentiments, you invariably stimulate very good debate in the forum here, and I very much hope you continue your work. Your experience and history enables you to bring insights that few if any others can communicate, adding colour and depth to your articles.
As a party historically operated to protect the average wage earner, they have done a crap job. The protection of mass Bank Profit via supporting increasingly stupid house prices is a huge negative for their core voting block. As is the creation of the wage and price inflation spiral very negatively effecting low wage, unemployed and the retired. Combine this has to be the greatest sell out in political history. Along the way they have also lost Maori support via TPM, Socialist support thru the Greens, and the Unions must be looking at mass low wage immigration with very jaundice eye.
They are now the party most likely to not exist in the future. #deserved.
“Won the Land Wars”. What a joke. You make it sound like it was an even contest when in fact with a combination of an imported professional British Army with vastly superior numbers and weapons and government legislation the goal of taking Māori land that was not for sale was achieved. Condemning an entire race to permanent poverty. A sick joke Trotter.
I too enjoy CT's articles. As an elder on the left he now brings some maturity to his discussions, which is way more than we can say for his younger colleagues in power for the last 6 years. As someone has already pointed out, Labour bumbled, fumbled & stumbled their way thru 2018 & 2019. Kiwi build was their big signature policy [& failure], then it all changed with the arrival of covid, which happened to be a perfect foil [noise] to create cover for other racially motivated agendas via the Te Puapua document.
Today's Labour Party are run by extreme feminists [& not all of them are women] & their Maori caucus. The Mahuta/Jackson alliance will not fade away either. Expect to hear more from them. Tuku is a reliable source of their current thinking, which involves a combination of Tainui numbers & their usual bullying. From what I have witnessed over the past 4 years the Labour Party are a direct threat to any form of democracy needed for New Zealand's future. Labour are now the anti-democratic party.
What has been great to hear of recent times, are the new Maori voices popping up within the new parliament. This refreshing dialogue will take us much further, & to a better place, than the previous versions will ever do. And I include an important feature of the new democracy: The ability for everyone to do well is a better system by far than the one where a minority of people, based on their birth-right, have the first option of everything. The former has a real future, the latter could lead to a civil war.
For the best part of half a century the NZ government has been addressing the issues seen as unfair by many in this land. I know of no other nation committed to this path or anywhere near it. This is even more unique as the history of humanity is littered with such examples in just about any culture you wish to name over any period you wish to select. Indeed, it was worse, as slavery was as widespread as humanity itself, but sadly, nobody teaches this in today's curriculum. Which is my other pet issue - the illiteracy of today's education system. A story for another day.
"By all means let us have a war – but let it be a war of words."
Before a punch is thrown, a word is almost always said. Words like this article used.
Much of what is said and written does not need to be said and written, or even thought.
Most Maori I know, as well as Winston Peters, Shane Jones, Shane Reti, et al are also on the side of the 'creators of Modern NZ'.
Does that also make them Racist and White supremacists by your definition?
Yet we have a race based party in TMP that promoted on their website the genetic superiority of Maori.
The call to reaffirm democracy of one people one vote is exactly the counter needed to the division and divisiveness that diversity by definition ultimately leads to.
I think what the electorate was objecting to was not a more treaty oriented arrangement per se; it was the attempts at both stealth and an to emplace a political aristocracy that has positions of power by appointment rather than any democratic process, while having no requirement for any expertise (other than political) in the areas they are to govern.
Hearing Keiran McAnulty say on Q+A that what Labour wanted to do didn't meet the strict definition of democracy was the final nail for me: “There are provisions that we have in this country that wouldn’t stand up to a purely academic democratic framework but that’s not how we work in New Zealand.” Reported in the Herald, here.
We don't work in a democratic way here? Really? Anyone alarmed by that?
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.