Lefter | Left wing politics & New Zealand

Lefter #25 ~ A New Labour Party

April 6, 2010 by emweb

I was at a Locally Left meeting in Grey Lynn last year when I could contain myself no longer. “What does Labour actually stand for?” I asked Labour list MP Phil Twyford. “I don’t know any more.”

He didn’t appear to either. He couldn’t answer.

It’s not his fault – it’s Labour’s fault.

Back in the 1930s, it was really clear what Labour was and what the party stood for. Now Labour is ‘National Lite’ or ‘Slightly Left National’.

Which do you prefer? Well, I hate both.

We all know Labour is well on track to lose the next election. It seems like Phil Goff and his ill-advisors are the only people who don’t know. As I’ve said before, I know people who know Phil Goff and they say he’s intelligent and a really nice guy. Great. So what? Prove it, Phil, to me and everyone else. Because so far you haven’t even begun to, and this is a huge disappointment.

But I can tell you what Labour needs to do. It’s actually pretty plain.

1/ Stop pretending you’re going to win the next election.

You’re not. National can tighten the screws on society a lot more before New Zealanders cry ‘uncle’. They’re still hoping for that big tax or business break that’s not going to come.

Mr ‘Get Along With Everybody’ hasn’t had any real issues he’s had to publicly deal with yet. He hasn’t even been put to the test. This is partly because the opposition is pathetic, partly because two of the most potentially vociferous opponents are part of the government (yes, that’s ACT and the Maori Party), and partly because Key is adept at playing Mr Nice Guy in public while leaving the dirty work (which will only increase) to MPs like Brownlee and Bennett. So people actually believe he’s doing a good job. Which is incredible to anybody who can see what’s really going on, but that’s not more than a few of the voters. Yet.

2/ Work out what Labour’s vision is for New Zealand. At the moment, Labour doesn’t have one.

If Labour does have a vision, what is it? Why can’t I explain it? Worse, why can’t Labour explain it? Because it doesn’t have a vision. If it does, it doesn’t make sense, for even people inside Labour don’t know what it is or how to put it across.

So go back to the drawing board and create that vision.

Face it: Labour was rubbish in the last term, spending all its energy on turf protection and reactionism instead of creating real policy people could understand they could benefit from. This is what happens when there’s no vision.

3/ Sell the vision. Some people will hate it – at least at first. Accept this is how it will be. This is how it should be. Wear your colours and be proud. Give us something meaningful to fight for.

For example, Scandinavians accept they pay high taxes because they understand the benefits in their societies.

A capitol gains tax will patently solve lots of New Zealand’s export and business investment problems, but many Kiwis will squeal like stuck pigs at the prospect. But because they’re used to the passive and traditional investment in property does not mean it’s good. So harden up.

Be brave, Labour. It really does beat ‘pathetic’. Work on making it clear what Labour’s vision means and how it’s good for me, and for you, and for all the other ordinary New Zealanders.

4/ Win the election after the next one.

Simple, really.

Category Commentary, Left, New Zealand, Politics, Thought | Tags: | No Comments
Lefter #24 ~ the New Zealand economy

March 17, 2010 by emweb

Back in ye olde distante past-ey, I had a couple of quite different jobs, one after the other, sticking at each for just over a year. This was in the late ’70s and early ’80s, in Auckland.

I started, and they told me what my wage was, when I’d be reevaluated, and what the wage rise would be at that point. They told be what the promotions available were, and what the wages were if those posts were obtained. I could see my working life stretching out before me, and figure out what I’d be earning. I could plan my life – what I’d buy, and even when I might possibly look at buying a house. (Of course, I quit and went to Europe.)

When I got back to New Zealand, everything had changed. We were supposed to negotiate our own contracts. The unions were pretty much smashed. The bozo sitting beside me picking his nose and faffing about could be earning twice what I earned because he was better at talking to the director, or promoting himself. There were no more regular wage rounds because the boss knew it was best to ignore them.

My immediate department head could be on three times my salary – or the same.

People regularly lost their jobs simply because they had talked their wages up too much to be tenable. In my firm, the useless or timid negotiators stayed the longest. The rest were out there like sharks, getting continuous promotions and spending more time on ‘negotiating’ and self promotion than on working.

Just look at Telecom to see what effect this has had. Because now, many of these people run things.

And now we consider ourselves a ‘low wage economy’, compared to Australia. Australia still has powerful unions. All of New Zealand’s deregulation was supposed to ‘empower’ bosses. It’s empowered them to run bad businesses because greed was allowed to become the driving factor.

Now these bosses have even more of the situation they dreamed of – a National Government.

It’s been disappointing, though, even to them. New Zealand businesses cannot plan for their futures, with the result being a crisis of confidence and worse, either shutting down or moving offshore.

I went to a fascinating discussion the other day, run by the newly resurgent NZ Fabian Society. The talk, which was presented at an obscure if surprisingly plush chiropractic college in Ellerslie (and yes – I don’t know why, for both counts), was presented by Ganesh Nana (Wellington-based economist with BERL Forecasts), Selwyn Pellett (wealthy entrepreneur), John Walley (CEO of the Manufacturers and Exporters Association) and economic commentator Rod Oram.

Pellett and Walley both stated this wasn’t a matter of left and right. I’m not sure Walley would have even bothered to make that statement a year ago (I could be wrong, but I assume it would be accepted he was of the right, back then).

All were terrific speakers, and all had something to say. Considering the political and economic span they represented, I found it notable they all pressed the same four points:

1/ New Zealand needs leadership. It doesn’t have it.

2/ NZ’s currency needs to be regulated.

3/ We need a Capitol Gains Tax (of which, more later) and;

4/ An economic crisis is coming. We can manage our way down through it, but if we ignore it, it will be more calamitous than we seem able to imagine.

Anyway, back to the Capitol Gains Tax. Why should you pay a tax on property transactions? Many reasons:

• NZers borrow money from banks to buy property as we perceive that as being the safest option. This is almost inevitably from Australian banks, as they own most of the ‘NZ’ banks. Tellingly, they’ve all made huge profits in the ‘recession’. Australian banks made a third of their income ‘offshore’ (from Australia, that is). So we’re making Australia richer. And the interest we bank is used for Australian investment, not for NZ investment.

• Banks here therefore lend happily to home buyers, but not to businesses for business development or expansion, or R&D.

• Buying property artificially raises the price of property, making it harder for people to buy homes to live in. A house changes hands four times in a decade, say. It’s sold for $300,000, then $400,000, then $550,000, all for the same house. Crazy. Capitol Gains Tax would put a curb on the market.

• Property transactions do not benefit the NZ governments (and therefore, us), because there’s no tax or other levy on them.

• Worse, unscrupulous Kiwis use property as a sink for tax and GST write-offs. So even less tax arrives in government coffers.

One idea mooted at the presentation was overall tax reform that actually benefits the country and does not tinker with GST. I got the impression these four guys could work out a proper tax reform in a week – how come the government task force did such a bad job of it?

Oh yeah, Don Brash was involved. [Oh, I take that back, seems he wasn’t.]

The Fabian Society is worth a look, by the way. I know there have been some notably bad Fabians but there have also been some notably great ones. The Fabian Society has the opposite of the Anarchist ‘direct action’ ethos. It promotes left wing thought by discussion and dissemination of knowledge. So it can lead to fascinating insights if well managed, as this inaugural event patently was. And if good speakers are presented. Once again, tick.

I look forward to more. Check out the forthcoming presentations by the Fabians in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch.

Category Commentary, Left, New Zealand, Politics, Thought | Tags: , economy | 3 Comments
Lefter #23 ~ The New Republic & the New Flag

March 4, 2010 by emweb

There’s talk of New Zealand becoming a republic. Now even some WII veterans are saying it’s time to move on, and some even agree it’s time to ditch our ridiculous flag.

That Union Jack in the corner drives me nuts. It’s irrelevant – a historical footnote, sure. Mention it in history books, then.

Worse, our flag looks like Australia’s. What’s the point of that? Aren’t we all 100% sick of being mistaken for Australians out there in the big wide world? I sure am.

But anyway, back to the republic. While I welcome any moves to become one, and a truly independent sovereign nation at that (which we act like, but technically we’re not), one thing I don’t get is all this agonising over ‘who would be the head of state’!

That’s rubbish. What’s the Prime Minister? Why would we need a largely symbolic heard of state (king, queen, president, CEO, oil baron …) with no real governing power anyway? It’s ridiculous.

“A republic is a form of government in which the head of state is not a monarch and the people (or at least a part of its people) have an impact on its government.” That’s from Wikipedia. Does that not sound like New Zealand?

Further, “The word ‘republic’ is derived from the Latin phrase res publica, which can be translated as ‘a public affair’.”

Machiavelli divided governments into two types: principalities ruled by monarchs and republics ruled by their peoples. He should have known.

So why on earth do we need a titular someone over the top of the person who is patently at the helm (or playing at it, as is the case with John Key) of the country?

It’s simple. We don’t. Can’t we think of something else to throw money at that’s worth nothing, does nothing, has no impact on the country’s affairs and is mostly ceremonial?

We sure as hell can – we can add an ugly architectural excrescence to Auckland’s waterfront for a sport which is declining in popularity, and whose followers don’t actually care what we build on the waterfront as long as they have a clear path to puke into the harbour after wasting their money on copious amounts of NZ lager.

Of course, if Labour was in power, the same amount that would be erstwhile wasted on a ceremonial Grand Poobah on a social service, or education, or health. Because a ‘president’ of NZ would just be a highly paid honorary position for one underserving crony or another.

We do need a new flag.

We do need to be a republic – it’s time New Zealand grew up.

But we don’t need a ‘head of state’ when we already have a Prime Minister.

It’s really simple, and really obvious.

Category Commentary, Left, New Zealand, Politics, Thought | Tags: | 3 Comments
Lefter 22 ~ God

January 10, 2010 by emweb

The start of a new year and a new decade seems as good a time as any to look at God, and religion.

I consider religion the result of failures by human beings to acknowledge and do anything about their own problems.

I flatly reject that we need a Judeo-Christian (or any other superstition-related, artificially constructed) framework to make us, or keep us, morally worthwhile beings. This is a crock.

Conversely, I consider most religions, especially in their more fundamentalist guises, to be anti-human, as they seek to artificially curb and counter so many frankly human traits we should be embracing. Do we expect tigers not to act like tigers? Cows not to act like cows?

I am a morally good person. I help people. I am courteous (mostly). I do not lie. I do not steal. I do not lend money for profit. I do not speculate. I am trustworthy. I even let cars in when I’m driving (that’s rare, for New Zealanders).

I don’t need any God bogeyman to keep me in line. If you do, get some help. It’s pretty clear to anyone with a modicum of perception what is right, and what is wrong.

And while I have met many, many Christians, I can count the‘good Christians’ amongst those on one hand. Without using all the fingers.

Typically, Christians in my experience are narrow-minded, sanctimonious, ignorant and judgmental, especially about those things they know least about.

And the same goes for most other religious practitioners I have met, including all you smug Buddhists who focus on yourselves above all else. And maybe I have just had really bad luck (which I sincerely doubt), but that’s been my experience.

Christianity at least has something in common with the left. Looking at the Bible, it’s pretty clear Jesus had some left-wing and humanist principles. It’s possible this was made into a religion just to get people to accept it, considering the deep state of ignorance many may have been in a couple of thousand years ago, but wow, did it ever get out of hand!

Also like the left, it’s been easy to get Christians arguing amongst themselves and splitting up into ever more squabbling and disparate factions.

Partly this is because the Bible is such a mess – all those different sources, the several translations it’s been through, the clearly schizophrenic relationship between the Old Testament (an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth) and the New (love your neighbour, forgive transgressors) which puts them entirely at odds with each other. Not to mention the different takes on even the same stories (try reading the resurrection accounts, for example) … it’s hardly surprising it has been virtually impossible to follow and enact, in any meaningful and consistent way, the Christians’ holy book.

(I hope you have gathered I have read considerable amounts of the Bible, and books about religion. File under ‘know your enemy’.)

But even the Ten Commandments, which you’d think even an idiot could follow, have proved impossible to most Christians.

“Thou shalt not kill” … seems pretty clear. Can anyone misread that? So how can there be Christians in the armed forces? Crikey, there are even ministers in the armed forces. That serves as a great and shining example as to just how flawed Christianity appears to outsiders.

The commandments start so:

I am the Lord your God (who is? Fine, whatever.)

You shall have no other gods before me (how many are you allowed ‘after’? Are they the dollar god and the profit god?).

Then:

1/ You shall not make for yourself an idol (cuts out reality TV, doesn’t it? And calling bit-players on small-country soap operas ‘stars’).

2/ You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God (define ‘wrongful’. It really depends on your viewpoint).

3/ Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy. (Sure. Shut the malls, then. I’m all for it.)

4/ Honour your father and mother (even if they’re child-abusing arse holes? Like hell.)

5/ You shall not murder (seems fair. But once again, if someone attacks your kids, a human would retaliate …)

6/ You shall not commit adultery (seems fair, if you married in a Christian church. Widespread evidence to the contrary notwithstanding).

7/ You shall not steal (I can think of many examples in which stealing would be morally correct).

8/ You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour (what about the bloke two doors up?).

9/ You shall not covet your neighbour’s wife (sounds ridiculously difficult in many circumstances. And it excludes women – are they allowed to covet their neighbours’ husbands? Doesn’t sound fair at all!)

10/ You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbour. (But yeah, can’t help thinking their TV is better than mine. Does that make me a sinner? I’m not going to do anything about it. Besides, our entire Western Civilisation’s – and increasingly, the East’s – economic system is built on just that).

I think it’s pretty clear these commandments have had their (violent, bloody and ineffectual) day.

Likewise, the Biblical 7 deadlies are: Lust, Gluttony, Greed, Sloth, Wrath, Envy, and Pride.

Yet if gluttony was a sin, where does that leave the US? The US has huge rates of obesity and consumes most of the world’s resources. Yet if the contender for office isn’t Christian, forget it.

Lust helped me have kids; did it not work for you?

Wrath … why did the US invade Iraq, again?

Sloth – um, what about the ‘holidays’? Originally called ‘Holy Days’.

Greed and envy fuel the economy of the world. Always have.

And pride we are told is good – we’re supposed to be proud of our achievements and proud of our kids and proud of our country and proud of our All Blacks and blah blah blah.

I cannot understand why a civil society like ours can’t have secular aims we should all attempt to hue to.

Mine would be:

1/ We should not kill

2/ We should respect our planet

3/ We should respect the living

4/ We should respect the past

5/ We should endeavour to be honest and fair

6/ We should value virtue before profit

7/ We should endeavour to help those in need

8/ We should not steal the honestly acquired property of another
9/ We should consider the opinions of others, as they should consider ours

10/ We should honour and protect these precepts for all humans.

No God required. And we should learn these at school. And your comments are welcome.

Category Commentary, Left, New Zealand, Politics, Religion, Thought | Tags: , Religion | 1 Comment
Lefter 21 ~ What does ‘Labour’ mean?

November 3, 2009 by emweb

As I feared, it appears Labour MPs and party members have accepted the mindset that Labour will lose the next election in two years, and that’s how they’ll change from the Old Guard, starring Phil Goff, and move on to something we can believe in.

If the Old Guard had any balls, they’d start doing something about this now and set up a future Labour, as I’ve said before.

But it’s unlikely. Pride must triumph for a decent fall to result, I fear. So we’ll suffer another term of National because of this stupidity – National happily privatising NZ services to both make them more expensive for users, to depreciate their utility and to line the pockets of National’s wealthy dependents and speculators.

And then Labour will have to buy them all back, at even greater cost, to get services running again. But what will National’s cronies care for this? Nothing – it’s a license to print money, after all.

When I really think about it, I don’t actually know what the Labour Party stands for any more. Do you? To me, currently, it looks like an ineffectual left wing of the National Party.

This may sound harsh, especially as Labour was responsible for a lot of good over its three terms. But Labour was also responsible for some embarrassingly pedestrian miss-steps. And who can forget the ghosts of Labour c1980s? We can’t forget because, like a slap in the face, that arch right-winger Roger Douglas is back in parliament under his true colours, leering at us and cackling like Muldoon.

Meanwhile, National’s business supporters wait in hope for the True Blue moves they’ve been dreaming of. These will let them ‘compete’ more (shorthand for ‘make more money with less regulation’). And the farmers await their National nirvana too; they’re already asking for cuts to welfare benefits to save money to lower the currency so they can sell at even better rates, while charging those same disadvantaged New Zealanders more for second grade, home-market agri-produce due to their pecuniary god called ‘export requirements’.

Will their hopes be fulfilled? Not while John Key remains fixated on his personal popularity. But he can’t have it both ways. The dam will break.

Meanwhile, it’s enough to make any caring human quail. It also brings back other ghosts – of the 1920s and ’30s, when Labour first rose towards power, and when Wellington and the farmers used to entrain people into Auckland to beat up unionists and break strikes. Farmers had to get their produce to market and, unfortunately for them, a lot of it had to pass through Auckland. And boy, they just couldn’t get Auckland wages low enough, could they? All this while the business owners sat in their Remuera hills and pulled strings.

Back then, it was damn clear what Labour stood for. Labour literally stood for those who laboured – the eight-hour day, non-dangerous workplaces, better conditions, fair wages, equity and rights.

But now it feels like Auckland against the rest again. That Auckland comprising suburbs of workers and unemployed, anyway. And it’s up to MPs like Phil Twyford and Jacinda Ardern to rally the cause.

But what’s the cause, Labour? Without clear branding, you’re lost. If you can’t tweet it in 140 characters (or at least, tweet a link), you don’t exist.

And we won’t be getting a new manifesto from Phil Goff and co.

Category Commentary, Left, New Zealand, Politics, Thought | Tags: , democracy, Left, right, values, What does Labour stand for? | 1 Comment
Lefter 20 ~ Marie Antoinette & John Key: the politician as celebrity

October 21, 2009 by emweb

In Voltaire’s Bastards: The Dictatorship of Reason in the West, by John Ralston Saul, (Penguin 1993), the author discusses how Marie Antoinette became the first star in the modern sense of the word. He wrote “She was never really the Queen of France. That was merely her role. She played queen.” (My italics.)

This ditzy Austrian had a huge influence, unfortunately, despite being dragged from her carriage by a mob and, eventually, murdered. The leader as star has become de rigueur for the Western world.

Since then, it’s possible to become a star for practically anything, and often, curse it, for practically nothing. In Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture (Schwartz 2005), author Ariel Levy discusses (among many other things) how Paris Hilton, the cUS$28 million dollar heiress to the Hilton hotel fortune, actually became famous for a leaked (?) tape of her having sex. “The net result of these adventures in amateur pornography was that Paris Hilton became one of the most recognisable and marketable female celebrities in the country.”

This would once have been perceived as disgusting. At the very least, as troubling. Not that long ago, she would have become a disgraced exile.

If only. Nowadays, maybe she should run for office.

At least she can talk fairly coherently.

Nowadays, our politicians, at least at their worst, find it necessary to act as if they, too, are stars. If only they thought it necessary to act like responsible leaders. Even Obama, who I have some respect for, succumbs to guest spots on talk shows. At least he (and his advisors, I presume), dictate what he says on Letterman and its ilk.

Unlike our own ‘leader’ who mumbled through some partially inaccurate, risible crap about New Zealand at the behest of the Letterman shows’ producers.

Anything for the limelight.

For we have, as New Zealand Prime Minister, John Key, a colourless individual at the best of time blessed, thanks to venality and greed, with a considerable fortune. And very little else. He doesn’t speak well, apparently makes decisions on poll results and plays politics like a boy trying to stay in with all the bullies while still being perceived as Mr Nice Guy by the other pupils. That he was the best the National Party could offer speaks volumes for the type of people in the party. Worse, it speaks volumes for anyone who voted for the schmuck.

New Zealand is a country, Mr Key. It comprises people. It’s not a medium-to-large business. And it doesn’t need an uncharismatic bore to pretend at being its star. If the uncharismatic bore did some Prime Ministering, things might be different. Or does that interfere with swanning about as a c-grade celeb?

For, despite an utter lack of charm or even an attractive simplicity, our Key just can’t resist a TV camera. He’s drawn to it like a moth to a tungsten light bulb. His performance on American TV was pure embarrassment. If he had good advice he wouldn’t have done it. Key patently does not get good advice, unlike his Labour predecessors.

If he’d had any nerve at all, Key would have insisted on saying what he wanted to say, to promote his image and his country, but no, the lure of a TV spot at any cost proved irresistible. He just did what was expected, as any gauche and third-rate plenipotentiary from a vassal state would have.

Then Key cut short his US travels to appear in Samoa after the devastating quake. Coincidentally, the beach he inspected was close to where he had stayed, in considerable luxury, just a short time before.

I would like to imagine he was in the island state from some kind of concern. Concern for the people of Samoa, not for the luxury resort business he has so enjoyed.

But I suspect he was there for a different reason.

The TV camera.

Category Commentary, Left, New Zealand, Politics, Thought | Tags: , John Key embarrasses his country | 2 Comments
Lefter 19 ~ Going to Prison

September 23, 2009 by emweb

In New Zealand, currently, there is some disquiet about our exceedingly high ranking of numbers imprisoned. We rank well above many other Western-style democracies. New Zealand seems to be throwing people into prisons at an unprecedented rate.

The prison population was too high under Labour (a slightly left party that has been in power for three terms until ousted last year by the more right wing National Party). However, it’s now higher still, and National’s response has been to build prisons from shipping containers and to make more prisoners share rooms.

This is so typical of the difference in right versus left philosophies, I just have to comment.

The left (again, and understandably, generalising) tends to look at why people commit crimes, and tries to target resources accordingly. Not that this was super-effective under nine years of labour. But the left generally believes that people are good, although guidance can be called for.

But the right, generally, thinks people are bad. The right therefore prefers to capture and punish offenders, rather than try and figure out why they are offending. You can tell somebody is right wing as soon as they start spouting off about locking people up, and getting certain people off the streets, and about ‘punishment’.

The difference is illuminating. Philosophically, the left is saying ‘as people, how can we assist other people to be/do better?’ while the right is saying ‘criminals are other. As so they are beyond redemption; they should be segregated from normal society.’

The left’s efforts get characterised as those of a ‘nanny state’. Anyone against the left eagerly seizes on such catchphrases and they get repeated so much, any real meaning soon becomes lost.

But what do the right’s efforts get characterised as? Perhaps the left just isn’t as good at one-liner denigrations.

(Perhaps it should be.)

But that’s beside the point. New Zealand has a high prison population because we have large disenfranchised minorities, and because the gap between rich and poor has been growing quickly over the last two decades.

Just as wealthy people seem to be much more preoccupied with securing themselves and their property, they also seem to be much less willing to look at the possible causes of high offending rates. Partly because they are, themselves, partly responsible.

I’m not defending criminal activity, by the way. I find violent crime utterly abhorrent. Physical violence immediately denies a victim their human rights. It’s prehistoric.

But yes, it’s very effective. When you have nothing, or you have a drug habit, or when you’re bored out of your mind, it’s a relatively obvious and immediate option.

So expect National to keep throwing people into every more crowded jails as they protect the farmers, the landed gentry and the business-owning classes from the other, while promising ‘better’ (as in lower) conditions that can be forced upon workers because of high unemployment.

Does it make you feel proud?

Category Commentary, Left, New Zealand, Politics, Thought | Tags: , Aotearoa, crime, democracy, John Key, Left, New Zealand, prison, punishment | 2 Comments
Lefter 18 ~ I choose

September 14, 2009 by emweb

I promised to reveal my own political bent more fully. I’ve been thinking about this for a long time. I could sum it up in one word, but that word is so often grossly misrepresented that I would be doing myself – and you – an injustice.

So I do it in several words, and you can draw your own conclusions.

I place myself on the left, but many who are firmly to the left either do not consider me to be left at all, or consider me deluded. This is due to my having no doctrinaire Marxism or even residual Marxism in my makeup at all. So they find that difficult.

Even left wingers often choose (or worse, don’t choose) to blindly follow a doctrine.

I choose not to blindly follow a doctrine.

I’ve never been a communist. I do agree with many aspects of Socialism – ie, that since the state is a social construct, it should have a regard for the wellbeing of the people inside that state.

I’ve never been right wing. In other words, I do not consider the common man to be placed there for me to exploit and make financial gains from, and to rule with laws. (And besides, I too am a common man.)

But here’s where I differ from most left-wingers: I refuse to accept (or try to refuse to accept) any impetus directed at me without examining it first.

I fundamentally believe in my own right to consider, then accept or reject, any directive that comes my way.

I know – I would be useless in an army. That’s as it should be – and as it should be for any thinking individual. No armies, no wars.

Sometimes I do decide to accede to directives, that’s true. Even to ‘leadership’ for given periods. I am a very loyal person, once I decide to assign that loyalty. I also consider that to be my right. But don’t ever expect me to follow blindly, because I don’t.

So, often I decide to follow societal or legal directives, but I always try and consider them first. How will they effect me? How will this effect others? What will happen if I don’t? If I do?

I view the world as a set of systems. Some systems, on the face of it, are ‘legal’ systems and some are not. Each has its advantages and each has its disadvantages. Each can have moral justifications in different circumstances. I believe in examining everything that comes my way and deciding for myself whether I take part or not. In other words, I refuse to accept a ‘legal’ system over an ‘illegal’ system at face value; ‘just because’ one is one, and the other is ‘other’.

In this way I do not need to suffer guilt if I decide to do something ‘illegal’. I choose, having considered the pluses and minuses and the possible impacts on myself and those around me. And I have to accept any consequences that I am, hopefully, fully aware of.

Legal systems often have the same array of advantages and disadvantages as illegal systems. For example: if I choose to run a business under the laws of the state, I am accepting certain restraints on how I can trade. Like constraints on profit, since I have to pay taxes (which I do willingly, BTW). I can’t undertake fraud, larceny and indulge in stand-over tactics on competitors if I want to exist inside this system. If I do, I am subject to punitive measures mandated by the state. But I am ‘allowed’ to wreck the business prospects of competitors using the many legal means available, depending on how astute and rapacious I am. (A fact I find disturbing.)

Or I can decide to do something illegal. Advantages are no taxes and no restraints, and possible instant gratification. Disadvantages include incarceration, and other punishments, if caught, as well as social and societal disapproval.

(Those are very broad examples.)

Basically, I believe that I have the ability and the intellect to choose what I do, having considered why I would do it. Do you have this belief?

This individually human philosophy is considered anathema by many regimes. It has been thoroughly repressed by states both left and right …

Historically there have been many examples of my philosophy working. When it works, it’s brilliant – no repression. Pure freedom. Thoughtful cooperation.

Of course, I am also a realist. I choose to live in New Zealand; essentially it’s a centre-conservative nation. I choose what I follow and what I don’t follow. I choose which structures to take part in. In some instances I choose to actively further various societal aims, on committees and in volunteer capacities, for example.

In other words, my beliefs don’t mean I drive on the wrong side of the road. That would be stupid and dangerous.

My personal political beliefs are well developed, sound and heartfelt.

I think; I choose.

Category Commentary, Left, New Zealand, Politics, Thought | Tags: , Left, New Zealand left politics right Labour National the world, what is 'left wing'?, workers | 3 Comments
Lefter 17 ~ Locally Lefter

August 24, 2009 by emweb

I went to another Locally Left meeting last night, in Grey Lynn. The Locally Left series is organised by Barbara Ward and Labour MP Phil Twyford. Twyford is co-ordinating the Not Yours To Sell campaign to get some democracy into the Supercity *initiative and to safeguard Auckland’s assets.

*‘Initiative’ is probably the wrong word.

Anyway, last night’s meeting was interesting in that Green Party MP Sue Bradford was a guest speaker, along with Twyford and Rhema Vaithianathan, an economist who lectures at Auckland University.

Sue, of course, put up the bill to stop people smackin’ their kids. For God’s sake, why would people want to smack their kids? I’ve been leery of Christians for a long time – but now it’s worse, because now I can’t help seeing them as a bunch of crazed child-beaters. Go you.

I feel like putting signs up outside kindergartens: ‘Come In And Smack Our Kids!’ You could get the kids’ Christian parents to sign permission slips or something. Fun for Christians all over the country. It’s sure to be a popular bonding exercise for them. But I digress.

It was good to hear Bradford refer to herself as Left Wing. It’s not often you hear that from a Green, and to those of us who have always seen a Green/Labour coalition as a good fit, this was heartening. (In fact, Bradford is a former Labour Party member.) Of course, Sue being Left doesn’t mean the rest of her eco-party is. More’s the pity. Yes, we want green policies. But we also want to know where else you stand. Clearly, rather than coincidentally.

Actually, there are many of us who saw Labour/Green/Maori as a natural fit, but whoa, has that picture ever been queered. I hate to think it’s true (but suspect it is) but it seems Tariana Turia’s spat with Helen Clark was what led The Maori Party towards a deal with the devil – I mean, with National. Pure spite. Trouble is, that might all blow up (deservedly so) with this Rodney Hide “I’ll quit, waah waah” rubbish. You have to admit it’s interesting seeing National nail its policies to the masthead of its rightmost partner, and against Maori, which has more voters than ACT.

As if we didn’t see that coming.

But if these political dealings really do come down to personalities, as is so often the case in this little country’s culture, and people really do let personal animosities effect policy long-term, which in turn has ramifications for all New Zealanders (and yes, it’s bloody pathetic), then it’s hard to imagine Labour members being all that happy having any kind of agreement with a Maori Party that climbed all too glibly into bed with National, despite it being obvious to all concerned it was never going to be a happy union.

Meanwhile, economist Rhema Vaithianathan is an absolute breath of fresh air. Here’s just one of many of her gems from last night: Vaithianathan said John Key runs NZ like a medium-to-large enterprise and not like a country.

Absolutely right, he does. And by that, I mean ‘absolutely Right’!

I reckon Vaithianathan could plot out a whole new economic policy for New Zealand that would see low unemployment, high productivity and general well being as priorities, along with suitable curbs to the avarice of our business buzzards. She’s a real find. For goodness sake, sign her up, somebody. Anybody! She should be on Labour’s list. High up on Labour’s list.

Phil Twyford was his usual urbane self, handling issues with aplomb, yet registering enough emotional engagement we could see he spoke from the heart. Meetings like this show there’s still strength in Labour, but I retain a visceral fear Labour may not even come close to winning the next election.

I seem to hand out challenges to Labour Party leader Phil Goff in Lefter, don’t I? So here’s another one, Mr Goff: rather than lose the next election, then get rolled by your former supporters, how about starting work on setting up a refreshed Labour Party that can win? And carry us into the future?

Because you have the brains, the personality and the experience to do it.

That would be a much more positive legacy.

There’s long-term thinking for you.

(And sorry, I got side-tracked by New Zealand issues again. Back to the bigger picture next time. Promise.)

Category Commentary, Left, New Zealand, Politics, Thought | Tags: , Locally Left in Grey Lynn | No Comments

Older Entries

Newer Entries