I was thinking about blogging about that recent Herald Digipoll and then decided against it thinking – what’s the point? Every pundit has advice for David Cunliffe so I don’t need to get in on that action particularly because I don’t even understand the point of polls. (I’m lying, I understand the political point of them). That saying, I don’t think that the poll shows that Labour would get 37.7% if the election were held today. I think it shows that 37.7% are open to voting for Labour because they are and have been dissatisfied with National.
Over at Dimpost Danyl could tell us what this poll means in the context of other polls. David Farrar has provided an explanation. The Daily Blog are still probably having a party as you read this and Imperator Fish is probably be upto his usual mischief. Speaking of Imperator Fish – he tweeted the link to this Herald article written by one Damien Rogers and I read it. And then I got angry. And then I said "well he is from Massey". And then I realized I knew this Damien and didn’t connect the dots and felt bad so I deleted my tweet. I’m sorry I said that. I was angry. But now 6 hours have passed I’ve decided to write about it instead of making personal attacks which is generally not my style and is bad. Bad Lamia! But I was in my defense policy class at the time when I was fighting with 5 Army guys as to why women should be allowed in combat while they were telling me about how they will not reduce standards for women. I was in a bad place at the time.
Apparently the Labour party is “waging war for gender equality and minority rights”. If you want to see the make up of women and minority see QOT’s blog on the numbers. Labour is by no means doing THAT much better than National. So if Labour is waging war (which it is not) then it rightly should. Because women and minorities don’t have anyone else fighting their wars. As The Egonomist pointed out in their podcast a few weeks ago, where would Labour be without women? The answer: nowhere. They would not exist. It would be like saying the Greens are waging war against polluters and they should stop because most people don’t care. They have a constituency and that constituency does care. If the Greens didn’t fight for the environment, Green supporters would be very upset. Women and minorities traditionally support Labour BECAUSE LABOUR SUPPORTS THEM. Sorry I’m yelling. Grrr.
After he attacks the Labour leadership for being so women and minority friendly (I am both so yes, this is personal and yes, I am taking it personally), he then goes on to give advice on the center. I have already blogged about what I think of the so-called center so I wont rehash that.
Here’s the thing. This is exactly the reason why there are less women in positions of leadership in the public service. Because we are made to think that women can only think about their own vaginas and nothing else. Women can’t think about defense policy and economic policy (a guy once told me I can’t believe you said “current account deficit” out loud, do you even know what that means? I do but who cares right?). If a woman wins a seat, it’s because she is a woman and not that the membership voted for her and because she is capable of representing. At least the thought is women can't think about abortion and the economy at the same time. So if she is talking about abortion, she must be sacrificing her economic thought brain cells. In my case it's ethnic affairs (even though I probably understand economics more than ethnic affairs, I'm brown so I must know all there is to know about ethnic affairs.)
There are a lot of discussions around what kind of voters Labour should try to get? Should it be the disenfranchised? The beneficiaries? Women? Minorities? Who? I will be the first one to admit that there are policies that Labour back that are not popular with the generic ‘middle class white male’. Abortion, euthanasia, marriage equality, gender pay gap, paid parental leave are things that maybe white males do not care about. But someone has to think about them. If it is the Labour Party so be it. I fully believe they can do that and fix the economy at the same time. We all know that the Ministry of Women’s Affairs will not be asked to comment on the economy so Treasury can go implement its big boys policies (Yes, I know the Treasury is full of intelligent women) and the country can keep doing the same thing it’s been doing since 1984 and we can all calm down and stop worrying that the womenfolk are taking over.
Once again, I apologise to Damien about my deleted tweet. I have met him (he may not remember me) and he is a nice guy. But respectfully, he is wrong on this.
Thursday, September 26, 2013
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
I did not vote for George.
If you have seen my tweets or know anything about me you know that I pretty much despise the Monarchy. I don’t really see the point of it and perhaps naively, I think that New Zealand becoming a Republic wouldn’t be much of a hassle. Over the last few days there has been a lot of talk about the Queen because the PM was visiting her as a guest at Balmoral. Much has been made of the fact that this hasn’t happened before and this is an example of how close John Key is with the Royal family (i.e. visits by Prince William etc).
I am a deeply cynical person and I think this is a very clever PR exercise by the family who are fast losing their relevance even in Britain. Most Britons that I have come into contact with do not have strong feelings about the Monarchy one way or the other. It’s almost out of laziness that they continue to hold onto the Monarchy (which is arguably why New Zealand hasn’t been rid of it either). The British Royal family has had pretty good PR in the last 5 or so years. William’s wedding/marriage followed by baby has pretty much removed all the bad will from the Charles/Diana years. But I think they are acutely aware that countries such as New Zealand, Australia and Canada do not have any particular reason not to be a Republic. I am sure they are aware of the surveys that are routinely conducted on our feelings towards being a Republic. They know that the conversation is happening. I think John Key is an easy target. He loves this stuff plus it is also good PR for him and when he comes back he is going to do their PR for them by stamping out any conversation about NZ being a Republic.
As with MMP, marriage equality and nuclear free campaigns, we can lead the way despite being a small country. We can be the country that Canada and Australian governments look to when they think about being a Republic or we can be the country they use as an example of why the Monarchy is just fine. At the end of the day we can be apathetic about this. Our system of checks and balance is not very robust. We do not have a written constitution for the judiciary to use when interpreting the laws. Parliament is supreme and there’s virtually no separation between the executive and the legislative branches. We can be apathetic or we can think about ways we can strengthen our democracy while becoming a Republic in the process.
Maybe I am being offensive to those Kiwis who can trace their ancestry to Britain. But I can’t tiptoe around those feelings when the idea of an undemocratic head of state repulses me so much. In the end what I’m saying is that so what if John Key got driven around by the Queen. She is just a person with a very good PR team. Why should we be swayed by that when we can be the intelligent nation that seeks to be an example of what stronger democratic mechanisms look like?
I am a deeply cynical person and I think this is a very clever PR exercise by the family who are fast losing their relevance even in Britain. Most Britons that I have come into contact with do not have strong feelings about the Monarchy one way or the other. It’s almost out of laziness that they continue to hold onto the Monarchy (which is arguably why New Zealand hasn’t been rid of it either). The British Royal family has had pretty good PR in the last 5 or so years. William’s wedding/marriage followed by baby has pretty much removed all the bad will from the Charles/Diana years. But I think they are acutely aware that countries such as New Zealand, Australia and Canada do not have any particular reason not to be a Republic. I am sure they are aware of the surveys that are routinely conducted on our feelings towards being a Republic. They know that the conversation is happening. I think John Key is an easy target. He loves this stuff plus it is also good PR for him and when he comes back he is going to do their PR for them by stamping out any conversation about NZ being a Republic.
As with MMP, marriage equality and nuclear free campaigns, we can lead the way despite being a small country. We can be the country that Canada and Australian governments look to when they think about being a Republic or we can be the country they use as an example of why the Monarchy is just fine. At the end of the day we can be apathetic about this. Our system of checks and balance is not very robust. We do not have a written constitution for the judiciary to use when interpreting the laws. Parliament is supreme and there’s virtually no separation between the executive and the legislative branches. We can be apathetic or we can think about ways we can strengthen our democracy while becoming a Republic in the process.
Maybe I am being offensive to those Kiwis who can trace their ancestry to Britain. But I can’t tiptoe around those feelings when the idea of an undemocratic head of state repulses me so much. In the end what I’m saying is that so what if John Key got driven around by the Queen. She is just a person with a very good PR team. Why should we be swayed by that when we can be the intelligent nation that seeks to be an example of what stronger democratic mechanisms look like?
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
Parliament didn't kill my idealism
I’ve gone on a number of job interviews in the public service in Wellington. What I’ve noticed is that the questions are largely the same. They start with “Can you tell us about a time…” and end with something that will demonstrate the ability to show leadership, work within teams, respond to crisis, time management skills, work-life balance, professionalism, an assurance that the workplace will not be brought to disrepute, and the ability to employ critical analysis skills.
For the last week I’ve been wondering whether these criteria apply to those who hold the highest public office – our representatives in Parliament. They seem to be able to get away with a great deal without consequences and still hold on to their jobs (this applies to all sides of the House). If civil servants pulled half the stunts that Parliamentarians do, they would be sacked. Being elected by the people means that, sacking is only possible via elections. But it seems the public as the boss are rather kind. They are rather lenient.
My advice to Labour candidates – please try to adhere to the standards that you are going to impose on hundreds and thousands of public servants when you take office. Which standards you ask? See Paragraph 1.
Good luck to all candidates and to the caucus, party members, and unions - hope you get the outcome you wanted and if not, hope you find a way to accept it anyway.
For the last week I’ve been wondering whether these criteria apply to those who hold the highest public office – our representatives in Parliament. They seem to be able to get away with a great deal without consequences and still hold on to their jobs (this applies to all sides of the House). If civil servants pulled half the stunts that Parliamentarians do, they would be sacked. Being elected by the people means that, sacking is only possible via elections. But it seems the public as the boss are rather kind. They are rather lenient.
My advice to Labour candidates – please try to adhere to the standards that you are going to impose on hundreds and thousands of public servants when you take office. Which standards you ask? See Paragraph 1.
Good luck to all candidates and to the caucus, party members, and unions - hope you get the outcome you wanted and if not, hope you find a way to accept it anyway.
Friday, August 30, 2013
The mythical place known as 'the Center'
My master’s program has some incredible people with incredible backgrounds and its being taught by even more incredible people with incredible backgrounds but that’s a different blog. But everyone here is fascinated by what I used to do. Politics is not straight forward in America and affecting change here is like dropping a 1 cent penny in the Potomac River. Not so in New Zealand. They ask me what I did in my two jobs and when I tell them, they are genuinely amazed by how much I got to do. The one recurring question I get asked is “So is the Labour Party like the Democrats?” In terms of a short answer, I guess yes, but if I am being honest, Labour is nothing like the Democrats and neither is National.
There are a lot of stuff this National Government has put up with/supported that even Democrats would consider too ‘socialist’. Working for families, the public healthcare system, ACC, Welfare (yes I know they have completely gutted it but…) and many other policies that Democrats would be scared to even talk about. (By the way, socialism is a term that is thrown around to be synonymous with social democracy. I have not the heart nor the patience to teach Americans what socialism is although you would think that at this level of education they would know!)
So it comes back to the question of – what is the center? Dr Duncan Grant has written an article in the Herald in which he argues Labour has to move to the center to win the election. They could move to the "far left" but what is that? Do they have to be “center left”? Or do they have to be just center? So far John Key has gotten away with calling the current National government a ‘moderate center right” government but their actions speak louder than words. While they haven’t removed existent key social development and economic policies, which may be considered “left”, they have trimmed, hedged, and hollowed policies and legislation wherever they can to stamp their ideological mark. But the New Zealand center is different to the American center so they can’t be like the Republicans. Hell they can’t even be like the democrats. Their ideological mark for purposes of New Zealand is to the right. But it is how they have marketed it that gives us the feeling that it is “center”. It is language and nothing else.
The center moves. The center is whatever we say is the center. The center is whatever we can convince the media to say is the center. There is no center. It’s a made up universe where presumably one can find unicorns. It does not exist. On a piece of paper sure, in reality - no.
The issues of the next election will be the economy. It will be jobs but not just jobs, it is wages too. It will be the overall health of the country, which looks frail. Despite the razzle dazzle of GCSB, sky city laws, changes to the employment laws, changes to the RMA, Tony Ryall’s colourful announcement of more doctors, people are on long waiting lists, people who are on welfare for whatever reason are poor and there is a lack of jobs for them to go to, people cannot afford houses, people rent in houses that are less than adequate, and employees have lost rights. Well, all of us New Zealanders have lost rights with the enactment for various justice legislations and now GCSB and TICS. Are these left issues? Do only people on the left care about child poverty? Labour can be accused of focusing on gay marriage, abortion, and euthanasia but unlike this Government, Labour has been capable of focusing on more than one thing in opposition. Even with considerable less resources than the Government, it has pointed out the state of our housing situation, pointed out that a lack of capital gains tax unfairly targets income earners, pointed out child poverty is something that can be measured and can be fixed, pointed out the fact that the government’s welfare reform hasn’t changed public spending (we just spent it on selling shares instead of looking after our most vulnerable), pointed out the holes in our education system of which there are many, pointed out that asset sales are a failure and harmful in the long run. These are not left issues. These ARE the issues and Labour must tackle all of these issues in Government.
I agree this is Labour’s election to lose. The Government is not in a favourable position and even with the high they had in 2011 they have a 1 vote majority in the House and 4 vote majority on good days. If we make this about Labour and National, yes there is a large gap, but if it’s between the left and the right, the center occupies a sliver that anyone can take. This election the center will be somewhere else. This is not the same center as in the 2005 and 2008 election. People voted for NZ First in 2011 because they wanted them in opposition. I have a feeling that people will not vote of NZ First because they will not want them in Government.
I have given this advice before and I give it again. Whoever the leader is of the Labour party has one shot to get rid of this National Government. John Key will call you names, the media will say you are too left, but you are going to have to find a way to speak on the issues that people right now care about. Lucky for you, you know what they are.
There are a lot of stuff this National Government has put up with/supported that even Democrats would consider too ‘socialist’. Working for families, the public healthcare system, ACC, Welfare (yes I know they have completely gutted it but…) and many other policies that Democrats would be scared to even talk about. (By the way, socialism is a term that is thrown around to be synonymous with social democracy. I have not the heart nor the patience to teach Americans what socialism is although you would think that at this level of education they would know!)
So it comes back to the question of – what is the center? Dr Duncan Grant has written an article in the Herald in which he argues Labour has to move to the center to win the election. They could move to the "far left" but what is that? Do they have to be “center left”? Or do they have to be just center? So far John Key has gotten away with calling the current National government a ‘moderate center right” government but their actions speak louder than words. While they haven’t removed existent key social development and economic policies, which may be considered “left”, they have trimmed, hedged, and hollowed policies and legislation wherever they can to stamp their ideological mark. But the New Zealand center is different to the American center so they can’t be like the Republicans. Hell they can’t even be like the democrats. Their ideological mark for purposes of New Zealand is to the right. But it is how they have marketed it that gives us the feeling that it is “center”. It is language and nothing else.
The center moves. The center is whatever we say is the center. The center is whatever we can convince the media to say is the center. There is no center. It’s a made up universe where presumably one can find unicorns. It does not exist. On a piece of paper sure, in reality - no.
The issues of the next election will be the economy. It will be jobs but not just jobs, it is wages too. It will be the overall health of the country, which looks frail. Despite the razzle dazzle of GCSB, sky city laws, changes to the employment laws, changes to the RMA, Tony Ryall’s colourful announcement of more doctors, people are on long waiting lists, people who are on welfare for whatever reason are poor and there is a lack of jobs for them to go to, people cannot afford houses, people rent in houses that are less than adequate, and employees have lost rights. Well, all of us New Zealanders have lost rights with the enactment for various justice legislations and now GCSB and TICS. Are these left issues? Do only people on the left care about child poverty? Labour can be accused of focusing on gay marriage, abortion, and euthanasia but unlike this Government, Labour has been capable of focusing on more than one thing in opposition. Even with considerable less resources than the Government, it has pointed out the state of our housing situation, pointed out that a lack of capital gains tax unfairly targets income earners, pointed out child poverty is something that can be measured and can be fixed, pointed out the fact that the government’s welfare reform hasn’t changed public spending (we just spent it on selling shares instead of looking after our most vulnerable), pointed out the holes in our education system of which there are many, pointed out that asset sales are a failure and harmful in the long run. These are not left issues. These ARE the issues and Labour must tackle all of these issues in Government.
I agree this is Labour’s election to lose. The Government is not in a favourable position and even with the high they had in 2011 they have a 1 vote majority in the House and 4 vote majority on good days. If we make this about Labour and National, yes there is a large gap, but if it’s between the left and the right, the center occupies a sliver that anyone can take. This election the center will be somewhere else. This is not the same center as in the 2005 and 2008 election. People voted for NZ First in 2011 because they wanted them in opposition. I have a feeling that people will not vote of NZ First because they will not want them in Government.
I have given this advice before and I give it again. Whoever the leader is of the Labour party has one shot to get rid of this National Government. John Key will call you names, the media will say you are too left, but you are going to have to find a way to speak on the issues that people right now care about. Lucky for you, you know what they are.
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
Americans then, Americans now - Syria
I have been listening to the Texas version of talkback radio and I must say I prefer it to Newstalk ZB and Radio Live and the likes. While the people are absolutely cray (there is no other words to describe it), for some reason that kind of crazy talk sounds normal in Texas. It doesn’t seem to behoove Kiwis.
There are lots of crazy opinions floating about namely that many don’t believe Assad is actually behind the chemical weapons attack. There is a belief that the rebels (ie Al Qaeda) are behind it and therefore the US has no business going into another war. There’s also the minor detail of the need for Congressional approval before any action can be taken. The recurring phrase I’m hearing as justification against military action is “look how Iraq and Afghanistan turned out, why are we going into war again!”
This is extraordinary. I was in the United States between 2001 and 2003, living in the Midwest, and I remember that opposition to either war (Afghanistan and Iraq) was seen as not supporting the troops, un-American and un-patriotic, and downright evil. At the very least you had to declared that you “supported the troops” to prevent the Vietnam like treatment of soldiers but that movement effectively silenced opposition to war. It is odd to see that people have finally woken up to the idea that those wars may have not been the greatest response to the terrorism/WMD ‘threat’ at the time.
In all honestly I don’t have a position on what should happen in Syria except that something should happen. How can I? I don’t get the intelligence briefings. I don’t understand what is actually happening on the ground. All I know that are the images of the lifeless bodies. I know THAT is unacceptable. The fact that chemical and biological weapons even exist is a terrifying thought. Where valuable scientific resources should be geared towards finding cures for AIDS and cancer, our society makes weapons to kill children.
What is happening in the Middle East is a complicated situation with no easy answers in the short term. What fascinates me is how Americans are reacting to this situation now compared to 10 years ago. They have war fatigue and they are tired of losing. They believe their military is spread thin, they don’t believe they are going to win this and they have very little faith in the information they are getting from their leaders. I don’t know if the blind trust they used to have in their President is gone because they don’t trust Obama specifically or if that trust was ruined by Bush but it certainly isn’t there now.
There are lots of crazy opinions floating about namely that many don’t believe Assad is actually behind the chemical weapons attack. There is a belief that the rebels (ie Al Qaeda) are behind it and therefore the US has no business going into another war. There’s also the minor detail of the need for Congressional approval before any action can be taken. The recurring phrase I’m hearing as justification against military action is “look how Iraq and Afghanistan turned out, why are we going into war again!”
This is extraordinary. I was in the United States between 2001 and 2003, living in the Midwest, and I remember that opposition to either war (Afghanistan and Iraq) was seen as not supporting the troops, un-American and un-patriotic, and downright evil. At the very least you had to declared that you “supported the troops” to prevent the Vietnam like treatment of soldiers but that movement effectively silenced opposition to war. It is odd to see that people have finally woken up to the idea that those wars may have not been the greatest response to the terrorism/WMD ‘threat’ at the time.
In all honestly I don’t have a position on what should happen in Syria except that something should happen. How can I? I don’t get the intelligence briefings. I don’t understand what is actually happening on the ground. All I know that are the images of the lifeless bodies. I know THAT is unacceptable. The fact that chemical and biological weapons even exist is a terrifying thought. Where valuable scientific resources should be geared towards finding cures for AIDS and cancer, our society makes weapons to kill children.
What is happening in the Middle East is a complicated situation with no easy answers in the short term. What fascinates me is how Americans are reacting to this situation now compared to 10 years ago. They have war fatigue and they are tired of losing. They believe their military is spread thin, they don’t believe they are going to win this and they have very little faith in the information they are getting from their leaders. I don’t know if the blind trust they used to have in their President is gone because they don’t trust Obama specifically or if that trust was ruined by Bush but it certainly isn’t there now.
Monday, August 26, 2013
Labour Leadership - an excuse to rant
So after a 20 month battle with the polls, David Shearer resigned as leader of the Labour Party. I’ve worked for David and Phil Goff and I know being Leader of the Opposition is extremely challenging. While everyone likes to think it is hilarious to call Russell Norman the Leader of the Opposition, he does not face nearly as much scrutiny as a Labour leader does. And perhaps that is how it should be. Phil Goff and David Shearer faced a lot of criticism and they knew it would come with the job. Leader of the Opposition is a position that is necessary for democracy and when one takes it on, one takes on a huge responsibility. That said, David Shearer was elected to Parliament in 2009 and in a very short time he tackled one of the hardest public service jobs out there and I believe he did so honourably.
Where to now?
We have 3 people vying to be the new Leader of the Opposition and while I have opinions on all three, having worked in the Leader’s office while they have been MPs, what I think about them as people hardly matters. So I won’t be dishing out any secrets here. I do think however, that this is the last chance Labour has before the election to get the leadership right. In the lead up to the election people will love some policies and they will hate some. Some issues will be more interesting than others. Gaffes may define an election or they may be forgotten. How all of these matters are handled by the leader will be the defining aspect of the election.
For those in the left, this is an important election. We will have had 2 terms of a National Government enacting policies that are less than palatable. Whether it was the GCSB, the Sky City deal, the Hobbit deal, the erosion of workers’ rights, the erosion of our environmental responsibility, the lack of any economic growth that is measurable, deplorable state of income inequality, the fact that child poverty is even a slight concern let alone now a major problem, there are plenty of issues for us to fight and win on. Whoever becomes the leader must take on this responsibility knowing that they carry this burden on their shoulders. John Key can accuse Labour of being left wing. He will do that no matter who the leader is. What he thinks really doesn't matter.
I note that there has been a lot of discussion on the voting of the new leader. The ‘right wing’ blogs are busy calculating who has what percentage of the power. I won’t be voting on the leader and frankly I don’t really care who has how much power. I think it’s pretty amazing that anyone other than the caucus has power. I’m not a hard core unionist but I know enough history to know that if they want to have a say in how the leader of the major left wing party is chosen they will have it by votes or by other channels. This at least is transparent. I commend it. They are also weighing in on the people themselves. Matthew Hooton was practically going to have an aneurysm yesterday (has someone checked up on him?). The general voting public doesn't spend time reading blogs (it will be a miracle if more than 1 person reads this), they are too busy struggling to create a better life for themselves and their children. Hidden amongst the 270,000 children living in poverty is a sleeping artist who could only dream of studying art in France. While the Government can't provide that, it can invest more in the arts here in NZ (this is an example not a policy expectation). We shouldn't all have to study engineering to contribute to society (yes, this is a dig at Steven Joyce).
I digress.
Basically my hope is that the candidates remember for the next 3 weeks what the big picture is and what needs to be achieved in 2014 no matter what the outcome. While I am excited for an open campaign, it should be one that allows the activists, the supporters, the members, and the caucus to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and get straight to work on September 16 for whoever the leader is. There is no way the public will put up with another internal struggle, a staff ‘re-shuffle’, a gimmick with no value. But there are plenty of substantive issues that we in the left need to fight for and we need someone to be the face of that fight.
I am what they call a millennial. Someone who has left New Zealand reluctantly in search of a brighter future somewhere else after 5 years of disappointment. I want to come home and I want a good reason to do it.
Where to now?
We have 3 people vying to be the new Leader of the Opposition and while I have opinions on all three, having worked in the Leader’s office while they have been MPs, what I think about them as people hardly matters. So I won’t be dishing out any secrets here. I do think however, that this is the last chance Labour has before the election to get the leadership right. In the lead up to the election people will love some policies and they will hate some. Some issues will be more interesting than others. Gaffes may define an election or they may be forgotten. How all of these matters are handled by the leader will be the defining aspect of the election.
For those in the left, this is an important election. We will have had 2 terms of a National Government enacting policies that are less than palatable. Whether it was the GCSB, the Sky City deal, the Hobbit deal, the erosion of workers’ rights, the erosion of our environmental responsibility, the lack of any economic growth that is measurable, deplorable state of income inequality, the fact that child poverty is even a slight concern let alone now a major problem, there are plenty of issues for us to fight and win on. Whoever becomes the leader must take on this responsibility knowing that they carry this burden on their shoulders. John Key can accuse Labour of being left wing. He will do that no matter who the leader is. What he thinks really doesn't matter.
I note that there has been a lot of discussion on the voting of the new leader. The ‘right wing’ blogs are busy calculating who has what percentage of the power. I won’t be voting on the leader and frankly I don’t really care who has how much power. I think it’s pretty amazing that anyone other than the caucus has power. I’m not a hard core unionist but I know enough history to know that if they want to have a say in how the leader of the major left wing party is chosen they will have it by votes or by other channels. This at least is transparent. I commend it. They are also weighing in on the people themselves. Matthew Hooton was practically going to have an aneurysm yesterday (has someone checked up on him?). The general voting public doesn't spend time reading blogs (it will be a miracle if more than 1 person reads this), they are too busy struggling to create a better life for themselves and their children. Hidden amongst the 270,000 children living in poverty is a sleeping artist who could only dream of studying art in France. While the Government can't provide that, it can invest more in the arts here in NZ (this is an example not a policy expectation). We shouldn't all have to study engineering to contribute to society (yes, this is a dig at Steven Joyce).
I digress.
Basically my hope is that the candidates remember for the next 3 weeks what the big picture is and what needs to be achieved in 2014 no matter what the outcome. While I am excited for an open campaign, it should be one that allows the activists, the supporters, the members, and the caucus to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and get straight to work on September 16 for whoever the leader is. There is no way the public will put up with another internal struggle, a staff ‘re-shuffle’, a gimmick with no value. But there are plenty of substantive issues that we in the left need to fight for and we need someone to be the face of that fight.
I am what they call a millennial. Someone who has left New Zealand reluctantly in search of a brighter future somewhere else after 5 years of disappointment. I want to come home and I want a good reason to do it.
Saturday, August 17, 2013
10 Questions for the PM
I know that the GCSB is all but a Dunne deal but as one of those concerned voters who is not an expert in the area (like 99.99% of all voters) I still have some lingering questions. Is there a journalist out there who wants to ask these questions on our behalf? I acknowledge that some of these questions have been asked. But I'd like to see them asked again.
1. What is the motivation for rushing this legislation through? ie. Why is there no time for an enquiry? Why are there not more discussions to ensure bi-partisan support for a piece of legislation that has such huge constitutional significance? [A little history lesson: When the Criminal Proceedure Bill went through which overhauled the justice system, the then Justice Minister Simon Power sought extensive consultation with the Opposition which was carried on by Minister Judith Collins].
Is it a- because the GCSB messed up in 88 cases and they are trying to close of legal liabilities b-because the Govt has made promises to foreign governments to cooperate c-have we been asked by foreign govt to enact these legislastions (+TCIS) if yes, then what was the nature of those negotiations ie what do we get in return?
2. John Key said that these powers were needed to thwart future terrorist attacks like the Boston bombing. Why with all the powers that the intelligence agencies of the United States has, were they not able to prevent those attacks?
3. The threats to New Zealand are classified. Fair enough. The operations of GCSB are also classified. Fair enough too. The oversight of the agency rests with the Prime Minister. Ok, acceptable. On what basis then, are New Zealanders meant to hand over these powers – blind trust in John Key and ALL future Prime Ministers?
4. For whatever reason whether it was confusion or honest mistake or deliberate disregard of the law, the GCSB has made mistakes, what steps is the Government taking to reform the organization to prevent future mistakes/confusion/disregard for the law or is that classified too?
5. In what ways are the GCSB systems superior to other Government agencies which will ensure they will not go down the same path as ACC, MSD, Immigration NZ, CYFs etc etc in terms of our private information that the GCSB inevitably will collect? If so, will they be sharing those secrets with other agencies if not, why not?
6. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. What happens if you DO have something to hide which is not illegal? We hide things from our family, friends, co-workers all the time. Why would we want the Government know about our personal life or is John Key saying that we have no right to hold have anything personal anymore?
7. We retrospectively changed the legislation when the Police conducted video surveillance that was contrary to the law, we are now changing the legislation because the GCSB has done something contrary to the law (whether by mistake/confusion/disregard). How can the public have confidence in the rule of law when the perception is that law doesn’t apply to those who enforce the law?
8. The Prime Minister has claimed that the Law Society, the Human Rights Commission, Dame Salmond, the Privacy Commissioner, the former head of GCSB, Constitutional expert Sir Geoffrey Palmer are wrong on their analysis and he is right. The advice on which he has formed that opinion is presumably classified. In the absence of that, if the public cannot have confidence in the above people/institutions on this matter, can they have confidence on them on any other matter and if not, is the Prime Minister suggesting that we take his word on every matter and would he find that notion acceptable if anyone else other than himself was Prime Minister? Would he have that faith in any other Prime Minister? What about in a Labour led government?
9. Who was the willing seller and who was the buyer in the Dunne/Key GCSB deal? What was sold and what was bought?
10. The legislation does not prevent the information from being shared with foreign agencies. The PM has provided no explicit assurances that it will not be shared. New Zealanders are fundamentally opposed to that, given the recent revelations on how the information is stored and used. Presumably however, in exchange for this information sharing we are getting something in return. What is it? (This is related to Q1)
I personally believe that the PM has backed himself into a corner where he now cannot back down without looking foolish. This is the part where in an argument a party will realize they are wrong but to save face will continue the same argument. It happens. But I feel the time has come where the shaming of the PM is less important than stopping this law from passing. Hysterical name calling of the PM will only strengthen his resolve. We need to give him an out. He needs an out that would be reason for this to not go through other than all the reasons that are already out there regarding why it shouldn’t. It needs to be something else. I suggest that all of the smart and intelligent people out there are need to sit down and think about how we can give the PM an out that will make him stop and reconsider without losing his dignity.
1. What is the motivation for rushing this legislation through? ie. Why is there no time for an enquiry? Why are there not more discussions to ensure bi-partisan support for a piece of legislation that has such huge constitutional significance? [A little history lesson: When the Criminal Proceedure Bill went through which overhauled the justice system, the then Justice Minister Simon Power sought extensive consultation with the Opposition which was carried on by Minister Judith Collins].
Is it a- because the GCSB messed up in 88 cases and they are trying to close of legal liabilities b-because the Govt has made promises to foreign governments to cooperate c-have we been asked by foreign govt to enact these legislastions (+TCIS) if yes, then what was the nature of those negotiations ie what do we get in return?
2. John Key said that these powers were needed to thwart future terrorist attacks like the Boston bombing. Why with all the powers that the intelligence agencies of the United States has, were they not able to prevent those attacks?
3. The threats to New Zealand are classified. Fair enough. The operations of GCSB are also classified. Fair enough too. The oversight of the agency rests with the Prime Minister. Ok, acceptable. On what basis then, are New Zealanders meant to hand over these powers – blind trust in John Key and ALL future Prime Ministers?
4. For whatever reason whether it was confusion or honest mistake or deliberate disregard of the law, the GCSB has made mistakes, what steps is the Government taking to reform the organization to prevent future mistakes/confusion/disregard for the law or is that classified too?
5. In what ways are the GCSB systems superior to other Government agencies which will ensure they will not go down the same path as ACC, MSD, Immigration NZ, CYFs etc etc in terms of our private information that the GCSB inevitably will collect? If so, will they be sharing those secrets with other agencies if not, why not?
6. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. What happens if you DO have something to hide which is not illegal? We hide things from our family, friends, co-workers all the time. Why would we want the Government know about our personal life or is John Key saying that we have no right to hold have anything personal anymore?
7. We retrospectively changed the legislation when the Police conducted video surveillance that was contrary to the law, we are now changing the legislation because the GCSB has done something contrary to the law (whether by mistake/confusion/disregard). How can the public have confidence in the rule of law when the perception is that law doesn’t apply to those who enforce the law?
8. The Prime Minister has claimed that the Law Society, the Human Rights Commission, Dame Salmond, the Privacy Commissioner, the former head of GCSB, Constitutional expert Sir Geoffrey Palmer are wrong on their analysis and he is right. The advice on which he has formed that opinion is presumably classified. In the absence of that, if the public cannot have confidence in the above people/institutions on this matter, can they have confidence on them on any other matter and if not, is the Prime Minister suggesting that we take his word on every matter and would he find that notion acceptable if anyone else other than himself was Prime Minister? Would he have that faith in any other Prime Minister? What about in a Labour led government?
9. Who was the willing seller and who was the buyer in the Dunne/Key GCSB deal? What was sold and what was bought?
10. The legislation does not prevent the information from being shared with foreign agencies. The PM has provided no explicit assurances that it will not be shared. New Zealanders are fundamentally opposed to that, given the recent revelations on how the information is stored and used. Presumably however, in exchange for this information sharing we are getting something in return. What is it? (This is related to Q1)
I personally believe that the PM has backed himself into a corner where he now cannot back down without looking foolish. This is the part where in an argument a party will realize they are wrong but to save face will continue the same argument. It happens. But I feel the time has come where the shaming of the PM is less important than stopping this law from passing. Hysterical name calling of the PM will only strengthen his resolve. We need to give him an out. He needs an out that would be reason for this to not go through other than all the reasons that are already out there regarding why it shouldn’t. It needs to be something else. I suggest that all of the smart and intelligent people out there are need to sit down and think about how we can give the PM an out that will make him stop and reconsider without losing his dignity.
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
Campbell Live and Democracy - 50 Shades of Political Participation
It has been a while since I have blogged mostly because my previous employment didn't allow me to. But now that I am going to be a poor uni student living in my parents' basement (metaphorically of course), I figure its time for me to do something other than be perpetually outraged at friends and family. I moved to Austin on Saturday but haven't stopped following the GCSB/Snapper/Child abuse saga in between my jet-lagged naps.
There have now been two episodes in New Zealand on the public perception of the GCSB. I must say I was quite surprised that people were 1) willing to be on TV talking about it and 2) had a position either way. A New Zealand journalist posted on FB wondering if people who were outraged about John Key had even read the bill. Even though I am a politics nerd and a legislation geek, apart from the offensive section, I admit I have not read the whole bill. Nor as a voting citizen I believe I should have to! There is plenty being written about it and plenty being talked about it and I think I am smart enough to come up with a pretty intelligent position without reading the Bill itself. I can also understand the Parliamentary processes under which it is being passed i.e. with a 1 vote majority and in a very short amount of time. I can see that the select committee submissions are largely critical and that is enough for me to have an idea that his is not a good thing. I have taken the time to read what Thomas Beagle and the Law Society have had to say about it and I have read Dame Anne's piece in the Herald.
I commend Campbell Live for taking on issues like Child Poverty, Christchurch Earthquake and now GCSB, issues that the Government wants to fix via good PR rather than substantive policy work. Issues that ARE political because ideology dictates outcomes. There is an attitude within the current government that because of the election outcome, there is a carte blanche to do whatever they please. The recent polls aren't helpful either. They only seek to reinforce the government's position and weaken the opposition's resolve. I am not a polls analyst nor do I have some kind of radical position on the way they are done or how often or the purpose. But there is no doubt that they contribute to the confidence not only of those who govern but the voters as well.
Coming back to my original point which the readers might not yet see, I think that it is great that Campbell Live is canvassing the views of the ordinary people. I don't think that every person has to be an expert. We don't have to be an expert to vote. I think this is great for encouraging public engagement, which is really important in a healthy democracy.
There have now been two episodes in New Zealand on the public perception of the GCSB. I must say I was quite surprised that people were 1) willing to be on TV talking about it and 2) had a position either way. A New Zealand journalist posted on FB wondering if people who were outraged about John Key had even read the bill. Even though I am a politics nerd and a legislation geek, apart from the offensive section, I admit I have not read the whole bill. Nor as a voting citizen I believe I should have to! There is plenty being written about it and plenty being talked about it and I think I am smart enough to come up with a pretty intelligent position without reading the Bill itself. I can also understand the Parliamentary processes under which it is being passed i.e. with a 1 vote majority and in a very short amount of time. I can see that the select committee submissions are largely critical and that is enough for me to have an idea that his is not a good thing. I have taken the time to read what Thomas Beagle and the Law Society have had to say about it and I have read Dame Anne's piece in the Herald.
I commend Campbell Live for taking on issues like Child Poverty, Christchurch Earthquake and now GCSB, issues that the Government wants to fix via good PR rather than substantive policy work. Issues that ARE political because ideology dictates outcomes. There is an attitude within the current government that because of the election outcome, there is a carte blanche to do whatever they please. The recent polls aren't helpful either. They only seek to reinforce the government's position and weaken the opposition's resolve. I am not a polls analyst nor do I have some kind of radical position on the way they are done or how often or the purpose. But there is no doubt that they contribute to the confidence not only of those who govern but the voters as well.
Coming back to my original point which the readers might not yet see, I think that it is great that Campbell Live is canvassing the views of the ordinary people. I don't think that every person has to be an expert. We don't have to be an expert to vote. I think this is great for encouraging public engagement, which is really important in a healthy democracy.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Simple Explanations
Those who know me well know that I love politics. Not just domestic politics and not even just International events. For me politics is a manifestation of human behaviour in a larger more flamboyant scale. And I do love studying human behaviour because after all it is human actions that make up life. If you know me we, you also know that I believe the biggest fight of our generation wont be the war against terrorism or drugs, it won't be the fight for civil rights, it will be the right to information. Lack of information drives poor choices and poor choices leave people helpless and in a weaker position to their counterparts.
Last night I was watching a tv show (Backbenches) and a very respected professor said this:
"I’ve got no particular sympathy for Gaddafi but it’s not a morality play; a lot of it is just Americans distracting the world from the fact that the Saudis, to whom they gave $20 billion, are now rolling through Bahrain putting down the rebellion there. And that of course is conveniently dropped out of the news. And point of fact, America doesn’t want any regime to change in the Middle East however dictatorial as long as it’s in their pay. Gaddafi wasn’t of course and he is dispensable. He is a wonderful distraction from what is really going on."
This quote summarises why in 2003 I wrote to my my then local paper in West Lafayaette, Indiana against the US led invasion of Iraq. The U.S. talks the civil rights talk but it walks the self interested resources requirement (oil) walk. The U.S. support for Saudi Arabia is the one reason the Middle East continues to languish in the Middle Ages. While we sit in our comfortable homes, thousands of miles away watching CNN with our superiority complexes of having civil and political rights, we can take little comfort in knowing that eventually the Middle East WILL have those rights that we take for granted but there is much more bloodshed to come and we are the complacent enablers. We are selfish people and is it any wonder that so are our leaders. Individual human behaviour magnified times a gizzilion.
Last night I was watching a tv show (Backbenches) and a very respected professor said this:
"I’ve got no particular sympathy for Gaddafi but it’s not a morality play; a lot of it is just Americans distracting the world from the fact that the Saudis, to whom they gave $20 billion, are now rolling through Bahrain putting down the rebellion there. And that of course is conveniently dropped out of the news. And point of fact, America doesn’t want any regime to change in the Middle East however dictatorial as long as it’s in their pay. Gaddafi wasn’t of course and he is dispensable. He is a wonderful distraction from what is really going on."
This quote summarises why in 2003 I wrote to my my then local paper in West Lafayaette, Indiana against the US led invasion of Iraq. The U.S. talks the civil rights talk but it walks the self interested resources requirement (oil) walk. The U.S. support for Saudi Arabia is the one reason the Middle East continues to languish in the Middle Ages. While we sit in our comfortable homes, thousands of miles away watching CNN with our superiority complexes of having civil and political rights, we can take little comfort in knowing that eventually the Middle East WILL have those rights that we take for granted but there is much more bloodshed to come and we are the complacent enablers. We are selfish people and is it any wonder that so are our leaders. Individual human behaviour magnified times a gizzilion.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
John Key does not need the gay vote
I do not believe that John Key is a principled man. He might live by certain principles but just because he smiles and waves, perches on a wall to talk to tourists or calls an election 10 months out, does not make him a principled man. He is the Right Honourable Prime Minister of New Zealand and the Leader of the National Party but his stance on gay rights in New Zealand coupled with his unguarded outburst in Parliament about beneficiaries has finally what led me to believe that this man lacks principles. John Key was voted into Parliament and as Prime Minister with not only support but he continues to have the support of the public 2 years after the election. I don’t think that John Key has been instrumental in any measurable changes to the lives of Kiwis, yet the Kiwis love him.
This is a free country. We are entitled to love whomever we please even if that person happens to be John Key. The public adulation for this man is translated into polls and and these are touted by the Prime Minister in his jabs to the Opposition and are used as legitimising factors by the rest of his caucus. Unfortunately not everyone has the right to legitimately love whomever they please. While Civil Unions are legal in New Zealand, no thanks to the Prime Minister or a majority of his Cabinet, gay couples are not allowed to adopt children and they are not allowed to get married. Somehow religious people own marriage and no one else is allowed to have it unless of course they do it according to the will of the religious people. Here’s my problem with John Key – He thinks that by not rolling back gay rights that people fought to have he is doing them a favour and he should be entitled to the votes as a result. When asked if he would vote for the Civil Union bill now, he refused to answer. John Key is not only on the wrong side of history, he is proudly so. He is a straight guy with a wife and children who has no problem depriving others of the same right.
On Backbenches last week Chester Borrows (MP for Whanganui) said on the hero parade:
I’m not in support of a hero parade. Well, I am in support of a hero parade but I don’t think that’s a hero parade because actually they’re not heroes…Heroes are people like Willie Apiata. Heroes are people who have done something… I don’t think a hero is someone who wears leather shorts singing YMCA down Queen Street.
While John Key has no control over Borrows and he can say whatever he pleases, Mr Key is certainly not providing the kind of leadership that I would expect when it comes to gay rights in the year 2011.It’s not that anyone who happens to be gay is a hero by virtue of being gay, but what Mr Borrows doesn’t realise that it is a lot harder for someone to actually publicly assert they are gay when we continue to live in a homophobic society. Gay people don’t have a choice but to be gay. Apiata, heroic no doubt, chose to be in the military. I don’t need to comment on the attitudes that people have when talking about homosexuality or the language that is repeatedly used when talking about about gay men and women in many parts of this country. Homophobia is alive and well in New Zealand despite being a comparatively liberal country in many aspects. One only has to look at the recent news events to know that gays are still seen as peripherals in society rather than active members. I suppose heroism is a subjective concept but if one has to walk down the street without hiding who they are even though many have a unjustifiable negative view of who they are, then that person is a hero in my book.
As the law stands now, if one person in a gay relationship has a child, that child can grow up in that household and no one can do anything about it. But the other parent who in all other aspects is that child’s parent would have no legal rights over that child. Similarly gay parents are not ‘trusted’ to adopt children. We allow kids to grow up in unstable homes, homes that provide poor nutrition, single parent homes but two people of the same gender are not allowed to legally raise kids. That is unfair and surely Mr Key knows this to be true.
I am only writing this because as a straight person, I don’t want to be the white male who looking back 60 years form today regrets not fighting for the civil rights of blacks and women. I don’t want to be on the wrong side of history. I don’t want to have to explain to my future gay grandkids why I didn’t say anything when the government of the day blatantly made light of the plight of gay people. I don’t want to be the person that uses my faith as an excuse to make others feel like second class citizens.
If Mr Key wants gays to vote for him, he should fight for their equal rights under the law. But Mr Key is not going to do that because he doesn’t need the gay vote to win an election. So if he did make changes to his policies to take a stand for gay rights, he would have to do so on principle and not for votes. And John Key is not a principled man.
This is a free country. We are entitled to love whomever we please even if that person happens to be John Key. The public adulation for this man is translated into polls and and these are touted by the Prime Minister in his jabs to the Opposition and are used as legitimising factors by the rest of his caucus. Unfortunately not everyone has the right to legitimately love whomever they please. While Civil Unions are legal in New Zealand, no thanks to the Prime Minister or a majority of his Cabinet, gay couples are not allowed to adopt children and they are not allowed to get married. Somehow religious people own marriage and no one else is allowed to have it unless of course they do it according to the will of the religious people. Here’s my problem with John Key – He thinks that by not rolling back gay rights that people fought to have he is doing them a favour and he should be entitled to the votes as a result. When asked if he would vote for the Civil Union bill now, he refused to answer. John Key is not only on the wrong side of history, he is proudly so. He is a straight guy with a wife and children who has no problem depriving others of the same right.
On Backbenches last week Chester Borrows (MP for Whanganui) said on the hero parade:
I’m not in support of a hero parade. Well, I am in support of a hero parade but I don’t think that’s a hero parade because actually they’re not heroes…Heroes are people like Willie Apiata. Heroes are people who have done something… I don’t think a hero is someone who wears leather shorts singing YMCA down Queen Street.
While John Key has no control over Borrows and he can say whatever he pleases, Mr Key is certainly not providing the kind of leadership that I would expect when it comes to gay rights in the year 2011.It’s not that anyone who happens to be gay is a hero by virtue of being gay, but what Mr Borrows doesn’t realise that it is a lot harder for someone to actually publicly assert they are gay when we continue to live in a homophobic society. Gay people don’t have a choice but to be gay. Apiata, heroic no doubt, chose to be in the military. I don’t need to comment on the attitudes that people have when talking about homosexuality or the language that is repeatedly used when talking about about gay men and women in many parts of this country. Homophobia is alive and well in New Zealand despite being a comparatively liberal country in many aspects. One only has to look at the recent news events to know that gays are still seen as peripherals in society rather than active members. I suppose heroism is a subjective concept but if one has to walk down the street without hiding who they are even though many have a unjustifiable negative view of who they are, then that person is a hero in my book.
As the law stands now, if one person in a gay relationship has a child, that child can grow up in that household and no one can do anything about it. But the other parent who in all other aspects is that child’s parent would have no legal rights over that child. Similarly gay parents are not ‘trusted’ to adopt children. We allow kids to grow up in unstable homes, homes that provide poor nutrition, single parent homes but two people of the same gender are not allowed to legally raise kids. That is unfair and surely Mr Key knows this to be true.
I am only writing this because as a straight person, I don’t want to be the white male who looking back 60 years form today regrets not fighting for the civil rights of blacks and women. I don’t want to be on the wrong side of history. I don’t want to have to explain to my future gay grandkids why I didn’t say anything when the government of the day blatantly made light of the plight of gay people. I don’t want to be the person that uses my faith as an excuse to make others feel like second class citizens.
If Mr Key wants gays to vote for him, he should fight for their equal rights under the law. But Mr Key is not going to do that because he doesn’t need the gay vote to win an election. So if he did make changes to his policies to take a stand for gay rights, he would have to do so on principle and not for votes. And John Key is not a principled man.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)