sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

What our history really teaches us, writes Chris Trotter, is that the politicians who most often win New Zealand elections, are the ones who promise Kiwis to keep as much as possible about their country exactly the same

Public Policy / opinion
What our history really teaches us, writes Chris Trotter, is that the politicians who most often win New Zealand elections, are the ones who promise Kiwis to keep as much as possible about their country exactly the same
d
David Seymour.

By Chris Trotter*

David Seymour is on to something with History. Shrewd use of the past can enhance the political campaigns of politicians battling in the here and now.

Knowing this, the Leader of the Act Party is seeding the idea that the National Party has a history of “campaigning from the right, and then governing from the left”. On the five occasions the National Party has defeated and replaced a Labour Government, Seymour alleges, it has failed to scrap its predecessor’s socialist reforms.

It isn’t difficult to discern why Seymour is advancing this line of argument. One of the abiding features of New Zealand’s MMP electoral system is its propensity to pile up seats for the parties of the centre, National and Labour, while denying the more overtly ideological (that is to say, policy-driven) parties the parliamentary seats required for anything more than a supporting role. The long-term effect of MMP has been to condition the voting public into looking upon the smaller parties as “also rans”. Useful for applying pressure on the major parties when they are failing to perform in opposition, but best left to the tender mercies of the ideologically-driven at election time.

From an historical perspective, the voting public can hardly be blamed for declining to reward the also-ran parties with too many seats. The first MMP election (1996) allocated 44 seats to the National Party and 17 seats to NZ First. In other words, nearly a third of the resulting coalition government was made up of NZ First MPs. This made for a particularly fractious partnership, the longevity of which was, from the get-go, extremely doubtful. As the Lakota Native Americans used to say: “Too few to win, too many to die.” No one was surprised when the coalition broke apart well short of the 1999 election.

And yet, a replication of those 1996 coalition percentages would appear to be exactly what Seymour and his team are seeking in 2023. He is asking conservative New Zealanders to vote sufficient Act members into Parliament to ensure that National cannot simply brush aside their policy priorities. To convince them of the need to do this, he is reaching back into New Zealand’s political history.

But, does he have a case? Does history confirm that National does indeed campaign from the right when it’s in opposition, only to govern from the left when it’s in government? The answer to this question is ….. complicated.

Certainly, one could make the case that the National Party leader, Sid Holland, was only able to defeat the First Labour Government, in 1949, by first promising to leave the essentials of Labour’s welfare state in place. In saying that, however, it is important to note that National’s pledge to undo Labour’s reforms, which had formed a crucial part of its appeal to the electorate in 1938, 1943 and 1946, had also been a crucial factor in its succession of electoral defeats.

Seymour needs to accept that if National had continued to refuse to accept that New Zealanders had no intention of losing their welfare state, then his party would likely have ended up in the same position as the conservative parties of Sweden: political losers for decade after decade.

What National did with the power in won in 1949, by accepting the welfare state, was to make damn sure it was not further extended. The fight Holland picked with the Watersiders' Union, and the successful struggle he waged against the most militant elements of the trade union movement, shoved “Overton’s Window” sharply to the right. Holland’s and National’s vindication in the snap election of 1951, in which National won 54 percent of the popular vote, intimidated the Labour Party to such an extent that it would not be in a position to hold power for more than three years until the general election of 1984.

The other thing National did between 1949 and 1957 was make damn sure that Auckland became a city of cars, motorways and dormitory suburbs on the American model. The plans presented to Labour by the radical planners of the Ministry of Works in 1946 would have transformed Auckland into a city on the Scandinavian model: a state-designed and constructed network of public apartment complexes, connected by a comprehensive public transport system featuring light-rail and cycleways. If capitalists drive cars, and socialists ride trains, then National’s 1949 win proved to be an unequivocal capitalist victory!

Seymour is on firmer ground when he castigates National for perpetuating Labour policies following the defeat of the 1957-1960 government of Walter Nash. Between them, Labour’s Finance Minister, Arnold Nordmeyer, and its Trade & Industry Minister, Phil Holloway, set forth an ambitious plan to diversify and modernise the New Zealand economy. National’s Prime Minister, Keith Holyoake, saw no good reason to abandon Labour’s plan. Although the machinations of a young back-bencher, Robert Muldoon, did force him to tear up the already-signed contract for a massive cotton-mill in Nelson.

That same Robert Muldoon also gives the lie to Seymour’s claims about National governing from the left in the aftermath of its stunning landslide victory over Labour in 1975. It was, after all, Muldoon who scrapped the scheme that was set to become one of the greatest socialist achievements in this country’s history – the Third Labour Government’s New Zealand Superannuation Scheme. Had the scheme proceeded as planned, New Zealand’s current appalling infrastructure deficit would not exist. Nearly 50 years after he killed the scheme, Muldoon’s ruinously expensive pay-as-you-go replacement scheme still hangs like an albatross around the necks of young New Zealanders.

No doubt Seymour would counter that Muldoon ended up running New Zealand “like a Polish shipyard”, making him “the best leader Labour never had”. But Muldoon was never a socialist, he was only ever an idiosyncratic Keynesian who had somehow failed to receive the memo explaining the international conservative movement’s decisive break with the Keynesian post-war consensus. (Maybe that’s because the memo somehow fell into Labour’s hands!)

Labour’s adoption of neoliberalism via “Rogernomics” renders what remains of Seymour’s historical schema nonsensical. Since 1990, New Zealand’s economic, social and political settings have been robustly bi-partisan. Such reforms as have been passed never posed the slightest threat to the neoliberal status-quo. Paid Parental Leave, Working For Families, the re-creation of a state-owned bank, and minor tinkerings in the workplace-relations space, were measures that could just as easily have emerged from a shrewdly-led liberal/conservative government. That’s because they tend to make capitalism work more, not less, efficiently. They’re good for business.

Sadly for Seymour, History is not on his, or Act’s, side. National has dominated post-war New Zealand politics not by governing from the left, but by positioning itself in such a way as to render any argument for a radical left alternative to the status-quo vaguely ridiculous. National’s first victory, like Labour’s, was its defining moment. 1951, and all that, destroyed Labour as a driving and decisive working-class-based force in New Zealand society. And, National’s car-centric Auckland contributed the oily icing on New Zealand capitalism’s cake.

Paradoxically, about the only eventuality that could reconstitute a genuine left-wing movement in New Zealand would be the election of a National-Act government pledged to implement David Seymour’s reactionary agenda of gutting the welfare state, further engorging the rich, and upping the exploitation of the wage-earning workforce.

What History really tells us about New Zealand politics is that Kiwis will only vote for radical change in the direst of circumstances. And that the politicians who most often win our elections, are the ones who promise voters to keep as much as possible about their country exactly the same.


*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.

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.

111 Comments

Yes, don’t scare the sheeple by saying what you really intend to do. Looking at you Ardern and Co. 

Up
24

One would be better off reading He PuaPua than the Labour election manifesto.

Up
22

I never saw any Labour manifesto published last election - all about Covid nothing about Co-Governance 

Up
23

It is nonsense to say 'Robert Muldoon also gives the lie to Seymour’s claims about National governing from the left in the aftermath of its stunning landslide victory over Labour in 1975. It was, after all, Muldoon who scrapped the scheme that was set to become one of the greatest socialist achievements in this country’s history – the Third Labour Government’s New Zealand Superannuation Scheme. Had the scheme proceeded as planned, New Zealand’s current appalling infrastructure deficit would not exist. Nearly 50 years after he killed the scheme, Muldoon’s ruinously expensive pay-as-you-go replacement scheme still hangs like an albatross around the necks of young New Zealanders.'

There was nothing socialist about Roger Douglas's compulsory contributory superannuation savings fund. It was Robert Muldoon who scrapped it and gave us the more obviously socialist tax-funded universal pension that we still enjoy today, unfortunately in limited form because of the reluctance of the present and previous governments to tax the rich, especially their land. Here's Keith Rankin:

https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL2202/S00026/unemployment-insurance.htm

Up
2

Agree. His attempts to control inflation with 'Price and Wage freezes' and state funded 'Think Big' projects were the envy of the hard left governments everywhere. Virtually bankrupted the country though.

Up
1

But Chris, many would argue NZ is in the direst of circumstances? 
Excellent article, many thanks.

Up
4

Enjoyed it too. As touched on, you have to really question whether NZ has ever had the electorate size, maturity and attitude to get the best delivery out of  MMP. Apart from the Greens, with the advantage of a well recognised international associated profile, no minor party has established a solid footing. Without National’s help in Epsom, ACT would have disappeared, as United finally did. NZ First’s presence reliant solely on the leader.

Up
4

I don't think it's really the size so much as voters expect to be handed the best possible options, rather than demanding them. Instead we have the political equivalent of Netflix.

It really does seem strange that we still have a democracy that's basically monopolized by marketing machines rather than something that's actually derived from the citizenship. Then again the majority of people invariably succumb to emotionally driven populism rather than something a lot more evidence based.

If people actually mobilised properly they'd get more of what they want in short order. 

Up
9

It's all about the money. You can only mobilise with Money.

Up
0

"Then again the majority of people invariably succumb to emotionally driven populism rather than something a lot more evidence based."

 

If you treat modern politics as a product (which it is) rather than a contest of ideas, then it's all about the sizzle and not the steak.

Thus you can comfortably scrub "the majority of" from your initial statement and it remains entirely accurate.

Up
2

Crikey Chris , " engorging the rich , and upping the exploitation of the wage-earning workforce "  ... dude , that's exactly what Ardern & Robbo have been doing since 2017 ...

.... do you honestly not see that ?

Up
30

Are these going to help the poor.

Mortgage interest deductibility, the bright-line test, and Residential Tenancies Act changes would go.

Bring back 90-day trials.

Get rid of so-called Fair Pay Agreements.

etc.

And he hates the animals as much as the poor.

Nullify changes to live animal export bans

 

Up
11

... except for the ban on live animal exports  ... yes  , repealing all those Labour policies will help the poor ... and you left out the ban on offshore gas & oil exploration  ... another idiotic policy which ultimately loses us jobs & energy supplies ... so , yes  ...

Up
16

If we find offshore oil or gas it then it takes at least another ten years to production. By then fusion may work, China may have invaded.

Up
2
Up
0

If we manage to invent sustained fusion, you can expect that it will take multiple decades to commercialise it....     We are going to need to crack that secret or go back to the 1850's once the cheap energy is gone.

Up
4

If China isn't still under lockdown at that point.

Hard to man the amphibious landing craft when your apartment door is welded shut. 

Up
3

Apparently the more we help the wealthy, the better off the poor are. Old school Trickle-down ideology, and folk who never grew out of admiring Ayn Rand. 

Up
12

... the more Ardern & Robbo have tried to help the poor , the more its backfired , and conversely helped the rich get richer ...

Up
15

It has helped a few lower tier motel owners....... its kept police busy and the guys who install ram raid bollards have work.   People who run family conferences are going great guns.

Up
4

The shovel ready projects have provided an absolute bonanza for the Orange Road Cone factories.

Up
5

No the Christchurch Earthquake Rebuild did that.  

Up
5

Have they actually tried to help the poor, though? How does giving the RBNZ the go ahead to massively overstimulate the housing market while saying "people expect the value of their primary asset to go up" look like helping the poor? Choosing to perpetuate high housing costs doesn't seem like a focus on the poor.

They don't seem to have had much policy that was actually oriented toward helping the poor. Perhaps Healthy Homes and the tenancy act changes - which still lag countries that provide renters much better protection, e.g. areas of Europe.

It's been a common complaint from even their own followers that they're too close to National to be of any use to the actual poor.

Up
9

Exactly. Both parties share more similarities than differences.

Vote National for a bit more landlord welfare and for regressive social policies.
Vote Labour for a few more bones thrown to the poor (comparatively) and slightly more progressive social policies.

Personally I'm going to look elsewhere next election.  

 

Up
10

Its going to rich hunting for ACT and the Greens who will be used by the voters to try to pull/push the main parties a bit to the left or right respectively, meaning that for about 80% of the voters they will not get what they voted for, NZ POlitics is looking more German each election cycle.

Up
1

I am a right voter BUT I do agree, in my experience trickle-down only works on the lower levels of a sheep truck, and its not a nice trickle down.    Yet to see much that truely helps children rise out of poverty, In Africa families pay to send kids to school and really try.... here school is almost free and families not doing enough to keep kids in class.....     we need to keep kids at school then training in trades...... Uni is not the answer for many (especially we loans required) but the families need to want education

 

 

 

Up
9

If people actually believed the welfare state was a bad thing, they'd vote to get rid of it for themselves too. But they only ever seem to vote for cuts for others, the "bad" folk.

Up
3

I am not voting for cuts, but I do want more effective spend.   I am not sure having health boards along racial lines is going to be more effective, can someone present where this has worked internationally? 

Up
13

Yeah, two separate issues.

Up
1

Likewise I don't agree with race based core services, but Maori rank poorly in health stats, is it not essential to tackle this to achieve "effective spend"?  I think people hear "Maori" and instantly trash the idea, when it's a small part of the overall change.

  • UK has 42 health boards for 67m.  New Zealand has 21 DHBs for 5m.
  • UK has 11 water authorities for 67m. New Zealand has 67 for 5m.  

People who are defending the DHB's and against 3 Waters (Groundswell) are obviously okay with the above numbers and are part of our wasteful spend problem.  

Up
10

The UK comparisons are certainly interesting, thanks.

Makes me think however that a performance and cost-per-capita comparison would also be good.

Up
3

Yes we had way to many DHBs and way to many councils with virtually no one on council with an engineering degree or any knowledge of infrastructure lifecycle management.   Wellington is a case study in lack of professional engineering representation on council, or perhaps council not understanding what professional engineers where telling them.

maybe we need to simplify the message....... 

"The water and sewage system, NO WORKEE !"

 

 

Up
2

Watercare is a good case study in getting the engineers to run things. Finally making good progress on addressing the long-deferred necessary maintenance and investment since they've been financially and politically separated from the council. No more taking money for waters and spending it elsewhere.

Up
2

Wellington is a classic example.  Wellington Water handles the city's reticulation network, and Greater Wellington Regional for the bulk network.  99% of the country has adopted standard of AS4087, which determines the spacings and qty of bolts for each flanged connection.  GRWC has post retirement guys running the show, still stubbornly insisting on BS4504 (British Standard) for everything new.  Everything is 3x the price of something off the shelf, and 20+ weeks.  And they're happy with that, because they maintain their little empire.  

Up
0

There are a lot more than 3 NHS trusts. You might want to check your figures, most sources have ~220.

Up
1

Oh you're right.  I did a very lazy Google search and I chose some dodgy numbers. 

  • 219 trusts including 10 ambulance trusts.  
  • They call the health boards ICB's over there, and there's 42 of them in England for 55m people.  

https://www.england.nhs.uk/integratedcare/integrated-care-in-your-area/

Up
0

Nzdan, I think you are on to something. I have always been a Nat voter up until the last election. What this Govt is doing is making decisions which is called Governance, something that has been lacking with the Nats. Their philosophy has always been to look after those who are doing well and that will trickle down to those who aren't. I was always a firm believer in this but as I get older I see the inconsistency in this thought.

I certainly don't profess to know the answer and the discontents of our society add more confusion. Most try to do the best they can but many never succeed so it is up to those who do well to pay for the rest. That's tribal thinking. We are a modern multi cultural tribe, Social Democracy.

Up
4

Be careful what you wish for.  The UK model has 251 NHS trusts, and hundreds of other health bodies in the mix.

check out the chart at https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/chart/the-structure-of-the-health-and-…

Up
0

So NHS trusts are effectively hospitals, mental health, ambulance and community health centers.  How many of these do we also have in New Zealand, in relation to our population size? If we have 20, then we're on par per capita with the UK.  

Up
0

The problem with health statistics is that health is pretty much a direct consequence of chosen lifestyle. So if we are to single out groups who rank poorly in these statistics we need to acknowledge the cause, but also that these groups are not unique in making poor lifestyle choices. 

What the real problem is, and a separate Maori Health authority will not fix it, is accessibility to services when they are needed. Changing peoples lifestyle choices may be affected by education, but there is already plenty of that out there now, and people still make the poor choices. But when those choices come back to bite, then health services being available is the necessary requirement. And as we know from recent reporting that these services are sadly lacking right across the country, especially in the regions.

I don't think a comparison with the UK is necessarily very helpful as also in comparison NZ's population is widely distributed as opposed to clustered in large cities. This puts a big wrinkle in the 'accessibility' issue.
 

Up
0

Worked in South Africa for years. Referring to racially based Health Systems. NZ will be the same. The race controlling it will get the benefits.

Up
2

I hear a few things from my South African colleagues.  The ANC are not competent to run the country over there, but it's a long bow to draw to suggest the same will happen here.  There's a big difference between racial co-governance and a racial liberation movement.  

Up
3

What about Trickle-up.

Up
0

Thanks for alerting me to them being pro live export. This will possibly change my vote away from ACT, although an alternative isn't clear. Green is a nonstarter.

Up
0

You noticed it too.

CT trying to write a balanced logical interpretation of things, but couldn't hold in his true feelings any longer, and in the last couple of sentences goes all emotional and shows us what he really feels.

Up
4

CT showed his true colours in that nasty little spray at ACT ...

... as Tee says : at least David Seymour has announced policies , some of them very good ones ... but , not all ... nevertheless , there's no hidden agenda ...

Ardern has been as " transparent " as a  concrete block  ... she never campaigned on 3 waters , co-governance  , banning gas exploration  ...

Up
14

David Seymour has announced policies

I watched him on Q+A on Sunday.  It's a really good interview - he can think on his feet and his demeanor is really calm and respectful.  He doesn't 'talk down' as if we're a bunch of children out here who just can't grasp the complexities facing governments.  All that I really like.

But mostly he talked about policy reversals, as opposed to new ideas/policies.  What he'd get rid of in the first 100 days of coalition (Zero Carbon Act; 3 Waters; Māori Health Authority; Fair Pay Agreements; section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act) and what Labour canned that ACT would bring back (3 Strikes and 90-day trials).

One new idea he talked about was a referendum on co-governance and the place for Te Tiriti in our constitutional arrangements.  Good idea, but a very wide ranging issue, so not sure how one could design simple yes/no questions for a referendum around it.  Maybe a two or three-staged referendum would work.  If I were them I'd be designing that in a way that can be well understood by the public prior to the next election.

TOP for example are discussing an economic Bill of Rights, part of which would encapsulate the idea that basic income is an economic, universal right for all citizens.

Time we moved forward on the hard nuts to crack. The tools of governance need to change with the times.    

Up
7

Nobody has ever disputed what Mr Trotter's opinions are. They have been the same for the last 30 or 40 years. Of course he will have a go at any political leader who promotes policies he finds repugnant. As he has done consistently all these years.

Up
3

That's right Kate, it's all about trying to find a balance. Unfortunately every election is like a lottery.

Up
1

All that weight on the left foot for all those years, a habit of balance. Mighty handy on a starboard tack though.

Up
4

funny I saw him as more weight on the rail.....

Up
0

It is human nature to dislike change. But these days change can come from the right as well as the left: for example Brexit and Charter schools.  Few organisations are more conservative than a trade union. 

Up
5

All trade unions, including the PSA, Education and Health organizations, Business NZ...

Up
4

I'm trying to remember whether Chris has published a similar retrospective on Labour & the Lefts long propensities to campaign on anti Opposition rhetoric while keeping secret their agenda & policies they know wouldn't get an electoral mandate. 

Rogernomics & Co-Governance are 2 examples

 

Up
26

Rogernomics & Co-Governance are 2 examples

I guess it depends on how one describes co-governance. Co-governance of natural resources has been a hallmark of recent Waitangi Tribunal settlements (Whanganui River, Te Urewera forest, etc.) but both Lab/Nat have progressed these co-governance models - and of course, not just recent ones, as the Ngai Tahu settlement more or less set the way in terms of pounamu resources.

But if you are speaking of the model of co-governance as proposed in the He Puapua report, that report was written in response to a work programme arising from the Key National Government's signing up to the UN Declaration on Indigenous Rights back in 2010. 

And not as if all of its ideas have been pursued by the Labour Government.  What has and hasn't is explained here;

https://www.rnz.co.nz/programmes/the-detail/story/2018795469/what-is-he-puapua 

But on the Rogernomics issue, you are dead right.  I just re-watched the Lange-Muldoon televised debate - and Lange discussed absolutely nothing about what they would do with the economy - aside from the broad intention to reduce debt and get us out of recession.  No specifics at all - and definitely no mention of sell off public assets as a means to reduce that borrowing. Pretty interesting.

 

Up
1

Sorry don't want to appear to be trolling you Kate, but in my opinion Lange was just another politician who made stuff up as they went along. He had a good heart and wanted the best but had no idea of how to go about it. Bit like Key signing the declaration you mention. Did he plan that? or was that some thing that came along?

The Co-governance issue is still to be seen as effective particularly around pest control of vast areas of indigenous forest.

Up
3

Happy to be trolled on here!  It's a very good point you make about make it up as-you-go governance. 

Initially in 2007, NZ did not sign the UN Declaration on Indigenous Rights.  The reason why/speech given to the UN General Assembly is linked here (scroll down for Rosemary Banks/New Zealand). 

When Pita Sharples was made Minister of Māori Affairs in 2010, he set about finding a way/argument that would counter those local concerns about the declaration not being in line with our existing legislation and institutions (the Treaty of Waitangi Act in the main).  Here's Pita explaining that bit of history.

So, no Key's government didn't stumble its way through that per se but in reading Pita's account you'll see that they did not want to take credit for it - and had hoped it would 'go under the radar' of the general public;

I was lucky to be the one in a position to persuade the government, and to go to the UN to make the announcement. But why did I have to secretly sneak out and do it? Why was it not planned, and why was the whole of New Zealand not jumping up and down and proud that we were going to sign the Declaration?

Once committed though, the UN has follow-up/implementation requirements.  Hence,  He Puapua.  

You cannot govern successfully by stealth - as it all comes out in the wash, as my mother used to say :-).

Up
0

NZ did not intend to & does not have to follow up & implement UNDRIP beyond it's previously existing constitutional framework.

https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/national-govt-support-un-rights-dec…

"Will Māori get a veto right on government decisions?

The Treaty of Waitangi continues to be the basis for the Crown-Māori relationship.  In some instances this does involve mutual agreement on proposals, notably Treaty claim settlements, but right of veto is not conferred."

He Puapua is an academic & activist historical revisionism overeach construct of "give them an inch & they'll take a mile"

Up
2

Well that link is a lovely bit of PR slip-sliding away!   

"Give them an inch and they'll take a mile" - yes equally as applicable to the settler/immigrants, eh, but in real, physical terms.

And the colonial government were so much worse in the US - treaty after treaty after treaty after treaty after treaty... broken.

Revisionist history. Sheesh.

Up
0

This is the best explanation of the ToW rights & obligations I've ever found, now a century old.

https://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-NgaTrea-t1-g1-t1.html

A long way from He Puapua 

Up
2

Wonderful historical link.  An amazingly intelligent, prescient man.

Yes, in my quick read of our UN representative's speech to the general assembly, the Treaty of Waitangi was one of the main reasons that the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was (initially) not signed by NZ.  It was assessed by government as being incompatible with our own domestic law.

The Key government changed their mind on that when Pita Sharples presented a paper that debunked/defused that initial assessment (the second link in explanation).

Did they do that simply for political gain with Te Pati Māori coalition partner - perhaps.  Regardless, the implications of that decision mean that NZ will be expected to make progress in good faith on the rights described in the declaration.  Non-binding yes, but not meaningless or of no consequence. 

Not that He Puapua is a government document or has been ratified in any way, nor is it binding in any way. I read it as possible paths forward to implement the spirit of the rights conferred/discussed in the UN Declaration.

David Seymour, for example suggested putting co-governance ideas to the electorate in a referendum-type process.  Sir Geoffrey Palmer suggested wording for a proposed formal constitution.  There are many ways to evolve our constitutional/governance arrangements for improved checks and balances; social cohesion; etc.  

Up
0

"Paradoxically, about the only eventuality that could reconstitute a genuine left-wing movement in New Zealand would be the election of a National-Act government pledged to implement David Seymour’s reactionary agenda of gutting the welfare state, further engorging the rich, and upping the exploitation of the wage-earning workforce."

I agree - it will probably get worse before it gets better for the most vulnerable and working poor - who currently have no political representation in NZ. Everyone that is concerned with our extremely dirty economy has also been abandoned.  Maybe something interesting will rise from the ashes like in the 1920s and 30s.  Interesting times.  

Up
4

True. The only two choices voters have had in recent elections are: the landlords, speculators and wage-suppression party or the labour unions, public officials and woke party.

One favours a section of voters that exploit the vulnerable, the other's virtue-signaling policies prove counterproductive and instead hurt the vulnerable.

Up
6

They've both turned out to be quite the helpers of speculators, sadly. Neither very much incentivising productive enterprise.

Up
6

Looking at the state of the Republicans in the USA and the Tories in the UK, why do people believe that right wing parties would ever have their best interests at heart. Yes Labour have disappointed, but we need to be very careful when considering a coalition between ACT and a National party containing Christian fundamentalists like Luxon and Simon O'connor. I am starting to see why the younger generation are so taken with the Greens. If high house prices and cheap credit didn't make us happy, perhaps greater social justice and a cleaner, healthier environment will?

Up
23

A thousand times this. National/ACT (particularly the latter) work on this basis: A millionaire, a tradie and a down and out go into a cafe - the owner sets down a plate of 10 biscuits on the table in front of the 3 of them - quick as a flash the rich guy scoops up nine of them and then whispers to the tradie (whilst pointing at the down and out guy) - ''watch that bloke, he's going to steal the last biscuit''.

Up
25

Seymour got his OE working as a policy stooge for the Manning Centre, a Canadian right-wing populist think-tank most known for its conferences that feature racist speeches, MAGA hats and guests whole-heartedly downplaying the risks of unrestricted gun ownership.

Then he worked for another Canadian think-tank (FCPP) that has gone on record to question climate change science.

Up
11

Ardern got her OE working for Tony Blair & the International Union of Socialist Youth.

What was your point again ?

Up
19

He's talking about Seymour, not your beloved Ardern.  

Up
1

I question climate change science, is that not allowed? It doesn't mean I deny reality or do not care about the environment.

There is a name for societies where things cannot be questioned. 

Up
17

Aotearoa ?

Up
12

Here, I'll help you. In this context 'questioned' is often a euphemism for 'denied man-made climate change'. 

Up
5

Can't get in the way of the ROI...

https://www.scmp.com/business/banking-finance/article/3184521/top-banke…

I'd also add, we need more Maori doctors to go and work in the Maori communities pakeha will not go. East Cape, Northland etc, try getting a pakeha GP into there.

Up
2

Do you think the Maori graduates will go and work in those areas? Some will but not universally. If you look at the recent Maori graduates, some are primarily European but have identified as Maori to get through the lower admissions bar set for entry. The irony is several have attended private schools and have well educated parents (tertiary qualified). In contrast, an Indian whose family work in a corner dairy still is required to meet the open assessment for entry. Go figure.

Up
9

Cheetah it doesn't work like that, that's the angry pakeha understanding - lower bar, easier course load etc.

Every Maori applicant under an MAPAS scheme (i can't speak for pacifica) is interviewed and has to show both a strong connection to their whakapapa and how they will use their degree. You absolutely do not find a forgotten Maori aunty and waltz into med school. It's this kind of ignorance that is really disappointing. MAPAS students have parents on the Maori Land Registry, are connected to their whenua and have a passion to improve outcomes for Maori.

Go and look at the primary care providers/GP clinics in the East Cape.

Up
6

With you there, Te Kooti.

And I'd add that a Māori student of any profession can work to improve Māori outcomes anywhere in NZ. Tribal rohe exist everywhere, not just in Northland.

 

Up
0

I have had very few Pakeha GPs in NZ. Mostly Indian and Chinese, my last GP was a Cook Islander. All excellent doctors, I don't really care what race my health professionals are, I just want them to be competent and caring.

To get more Maori doctors we need schools to encourage more Maori students towards academic excellence, at my kids school they used to take Maori kids out of some maths lessons to go to Kapa Haka. Culture is important, but these kids shouldn't have to choose between their culture and their grades. I raised this once and was told (not by a Maori) that individual achievement is a colonial mindset.

But surely even collective societies need specialists and highly trained individuals for the benefit of the wider group. (e.g Tohunga and Rangatira). 

Up
7

All cultures have portions who pursue individual excellence. Anyone who says anything different is lying or uninformed. My wife's great great great grandfather was the last properly trained Maori priest in the South Island. Took a lot of individual excellence to get thet achievement.

Up
1

As a secondary school teacher, and one piloting the new NCEA standards. I can tell you there is an assertion coming from higher up that Māori just seem incapable of adapting to (racist) things like regular old Western Maths and Science, the alternative is to teach (everyone) matauranga Māori instead. There is already a huge emphasis on lifting Māori achievement in schools, well particularly the ones I have taught in... the problem also is the Māori world view is largely religious and often incompatible with Western ideals of truth.

Up
2

https://schoolinreviews.com/pisa-results-published-in-dec-2019-which-countries-score-the-highest-and-why/

Achievements in Maths and Science are not led by Western Countries. It is bizarre that Science is seen as "Western" when many of the founding ideas and principles originated in the Middle East and the Far East. Polynesians originated in Taiwan, Taiwan is in the top ten for Science and Maths. Some vested interest groups are telling Maori kids that modern education is racist, whilst their Asian cousins dominate the global educational league tables. 

Up
3

Precisely; thank you Waikatohome.

If anything 'Western' culture is one of constant, expanding and changing ideas and there is a strong history of being intentionally influenced by other cultures as this is just what Westerners have always romanticized. What we are seeing, is Western culture in NZ absorbing and reinventing Māori culture. Once again the good ideas will be kept, the undesirable will be shunned, ignored or outright denied. There is no going back from here even if the desire were there. 

Up
0

That does fit into the Critical Race Theory narrative, where the world is arranged to a western view and therefore if you hold a different view you are disadvantaged and need support (don't tell the successful Asian countries this).

Of course, this is nonsense. 

But I don't think that the problem is, as you say,  'is the Māori world view is largely religious and often incompatible with western ideals of truth.' 

The problem is that many people's world views are really a world view with a small 'w', because of the localism of their culture/religion etc. are not based around universal truths that are common to all people anywhere in the World. 

And this small worldview syndrome is present in almost all religions, and cultures, whether it be western, eastern etc.

 

Up
2

How dare they question something!

Up
2

He gets my vote then !!!

Up
0

Please explain why a Canadian group would wear MAGA hats. MAGA refers to America, United States of. Not the two continents.

Up
0

Same reason folk were wearing them at the occupation of Parliament grounds. Sometimes social media algorithms feed them content that was originally targeted at an American audience, and once they're tempted into the rabbit hole, down they go.

Up
1

I think you will find it stood for Make Ardern Go Away.

Up
3

Please replace 'social justice' with 'equality of opportunity' and I'm there with you. 

Social justice in its current form is a toxic, racist, dumpster fire. 

Up
16

"Social justice in its current form" is  considered to mean equality of outcomes, irrespective of individual efforts and personal choices. Which is why it will ultimately fail, ignoring human nature and fairness.

 

Up
19

It's given us our tremendously expensive universal pension bill, over 50% of our welfare budget. And welfare subsidies to landlords and speculators.

Up
5

Hence all the ongoing fairness complaints on this & other forums for years about Super being paid to a) those who don't need it but who paid for it via taxes & b) those who need it but didn't pay for it because they couldn't be bothered working & lived on welfare.

Remember also that we taxpayers pay for our parents Super, as they paid for our grandparents. So, each generation is relying on the next one to support their elderly - hopefully we all brought up our kids with a sense of responsibility

Up
5

Makes good sense in a reciprocal society. The reciprocity is the piece that's been a bit MIA in recent times.

Up
0

But they didn't pay for it by taxes!!!  Average life expectancy = 82.  17 years pension at $20k/yr per person.  That's 34 years of a median salary earner's ($60k) entire PAYE.  

Way to contradict yourself too, you say you paid for it by taxes, but then in your second paragraph "each generation is relying on the next one"...so what is it?

Up
1

I intended my second paragraph to ensure that the first was understood correctly however some will choose to misinterpret it.

I paid $200k income tax in my last year of full time work, a lot more over the previous 45 years.

Up
1

So why do you need a pension?  If 45 years ago you were told the pension would be means tested, would anything have changed? 

What people usually say is "well if you means test the pension, there's no incentive to save.  People will just spend their savings so they don't get means tested out of getting a pension".  Okay cool, people will retire without rental properties freeing up titles for homes and quit their jobs freeing up career advancement opportunities and money will be spent in the economy instead of being a lazy term deposit.  

Up
2

The pension was means tested when I started work in 1972 (up to Muldoon 1977).

And we always had to assume that it would not be there when we got older, in fact several NZ Govts told NZdrs to ensure they planned to provide for themselves in their old age, hence the ongoing focus on property investment as the only real low risk inflation adjusted option (especially after the 1987 sharemarket crash which exposed the NZX cowboys).

Up
1

Also, think of the ratios.  Baby Boomers (by name) were born into large families, 6+ kids per family?  So 6 kids grew up to support at most 2 parents and 2 grandparents Super (if they didn't succumb to war).  Well today those Boomers now need to be supported by people from predominately 2 children families.  

6 kids supporting 4 adults Super becomes 2 kids supporting 6 adults Super.  

Up
1

Nope. 

"New Zealand's period total fertility rate was at least 3.5 births per woman during 1946–65, and at least 3.0 births per woman during 1945–72."

https://datainfoplus.stats.govt.nz/Item/nz.govt.stats/272b6b97-671e-4d8…

 

Up
1

Seymour is not wanting to keep New Zealand the same.  He wants to get rid of rule by the unelected elite.  Who claim to be Maori.

 

Up
13

"voters [want] to keep as much possible about their [perception of the] country exactly the same" [my additions]

Yes I think the majority spend a little too much of their time trying to hold on various aspects and perceptions of the past despite the impracticality and the detriment to everything else. The housing ladder is probably the biggest but another example is wanting to keep our old lollies going despite us not actually buying enough of them to make it commercially viable. We are generally willing to be lied to to keep the perceived reality alive. What we really get chasing this is short term fixes ("temporary" programmes), cooked stats and blindness to problems of neo-liberalism.

Nothing is more effective at keeping the past alive than welfare. Faced with the reality of the system not keeping everyone prosperous instead of doing the hard thing of correcting the system we can just pay people to stay home so the rest of us can keep believing and it also help subsidise the existing system. WFF and accommodation supplements keep the poorer half able to pay rents so landlords to cover mortgages and as much as we moan about it we will take actions to keep our big business alive and dominant in their markets if they are ever threatened (Fletchers is going to keep the GIB business and there will still only be two supermarkets and four big banks gouging us when regulators are finished).

Up
5

David Seymour, to his credit, has made his voice heard. 

Up
23

And this is why all we need is at one or maybe two hung parliaments starting next year and the general election. 

Time for a cleanout.

Up
2

Looking back on the last couple of decades, which CT's history review avoids, I think Seymour is correct.

JK coming into power on the back of saying he would reverse HC Labours compact city methodology to make housing more affordable, reneged on that, even when it was the perfect opportunity to make a reset at the bottom of the GFC cycle.

Labour on the other hand under Ardern also promised to make housing more affordable and as to their Command and Control nature, made changes, which have only made housing less affordable.

Nationals failure was not unwinding Labours more Govt. policy and putting in better less Govt. policy.

Labour's failure is to put in more of the wrong type of policy. Labour think the reason their policies are not working, is not because they are wrong, but because they are not doing more of them fast enough.

The best time for implementing the best policies for a stable economy going forward will be at the bottom of this cycle, and I can't see either Labour or National as being capable of doing that, given they both have been responsible for having to ride the boom and bust cycle.

However, I'm not convinced any other party has the ability let alone the full answer to make it happen. Add on top of that an MMP system which in many cases is giving us the worst type of policy compromise, ie policy that works for no one.

Hmmm, what to do, what to do?

Up
5

Let's be real, everyone just votes for whoever is going to benefit them the most or give them more of what they want - whether that's tax cuts, more benefits, legalised drugs or whatever (of course hidden behind a veneer of "I totally vote for what's good for society and put myself second").

At least with ACT they are somewhat transparent around what they stand for and hope to implement, as opposed to Labour who seem to have benefitted the rich more than any "right wing" party ever could have done over the last few years (all while implementing a bunch of policies they never seemed to campaign on).

Better to be punched in the face than stabbed in the back. 

Up
16

Seymour's criticism of National also applies to Labour where they haven't dismantled national's policies that were put in place. Indeed it is almost universal in NZ that new Government's generally do not endeavour to undo stuff that the previous Government did.

Up
0

And yet the opposition's mantra is, 'that once we will get into power we will fix the present Govt. policies.'

And the present Govts mantra is, 'the reason everything (still) is getting worse is that we have inherited the last Govts. mess.'

Every present Govt. seems to miss the irony in that the next Govt. after them will be using the same criticism of them, as they are presently using on others.

Up
1

I was looking at ACTs policy page,couldn't find anything on transport,but did find this gem from 2020.

Replace petrol taxes with a road pricing system

ACT Party

Why

ACT says traffic congestion is a handbrake on economic growth and contributes to higher levels of pollution and road crashes. But it says petrol taxes are not an effective way to address this problem and unjustly punish owners of vehicles with poor fuel economy.

ACT says replacing the fuel excise with road pricing would encourage drivers to drive at non-peak times or use alternative transport, which would reduce congestion.

How

ACT would replace the fuel excise, including the Auckland regional fuel tax, with a user pays system of road pricing on new and existing roads.

The road pricing system would be modelled on the GPS-based system being introduced in Singapore.

Up
0

Not quite the same perspective however I have pointed out before that AFAIK the only realistic option to ensure hybrids & EVs to pay their fair share of the roads is replace fuel tax with RUCs. So probably best to move every vehicle onto RUCs.

Up
0

You know what contributed to pollution? Fossil fuel exploration...

Act wants to cook you in an oven. 

Don't vote act.

Even if you dont believe humans are the main cause of rapid climate change, we are still running out of petrol in 50 years time... Any political group saying we should increase reliance on this Finite energy source, rather than a massive focus on seeking alternatives should be instantly ignored. 

 

 

 

 

Up
0

What is this hysterical nonsense. Every party, from National under Key to Labour under Ardern, has accepted the need for road pricing as part of congestion reduction in Auckland.

I'd rather ignore the people who act like these sorts of issues don't come with real costs that aren't going to felt in places like Grey Lynn, Herne Bay and so on, while the people there demand radical action like banning this, that and the other. After all, it won't affect them, so why should they care about the people it does affect?

Up
0

Yeah, nice CT. As good as it gets from you, albeit with a limp on the left. I think what we're witnessing is a terminal decline in the democratic way of rule. After a hundred & something years in this country, everyone who can't really do anything worthwhile now works for the govt. And for a lot of the the others(?) well, they teach by the look of it. And they can't even do that properly. Only 10% of the population actually does anything that creates real wealth. Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot that's not allowed these days.

Labour's command & control communications strategy is in need of a reset. Ardern has lost interest. She has her eyes on bigger goals. Poor ol Robbo doesn't quite know what to say. He's still using his Year 1 economics journals. Hipkins looks buggar'd. Who wouldn't be after what he's had to do. And the rest? Sorry, I've forgotten their names. They just do as they're told.

The real war is the civil war going on inside our own countries & cultures. The Russian-Ukraine thing is actually a conflict within the west, when you think about it. When will we wake up from being woke?

Up
4