Labour govt 2020-23

[BlackPeter]

BP, don't assume what I don't know.

I take that communication theory is not your major? Have a crack at it and you will find out that any communication is impossible without making assumptions about what the recipient does or does not know :

Having said that ... I don't know to which alleged assumptions (sic) your sentence is referring to, i.e. I can't possibly answer ...

Your post illustrates that you don't see the slippery slope Ardern and those who advocate Identity Politics take us. Laws that discriminate according to race are a terrible idea. Once you do that extremists from either side can take it where they like. Apartheid was to keep separate, and do so by discriminating by race. Look where that led.

I suppose (damn - again) that we agree that Adern is quite good in making promises without fulfilling them. I give you as well that instead of solving the problems she promised to solve prior to the elections (housing, child poverty, ....) she started instead a lot of new initiatives which she did not mention prior to the elections, and which might have a quite significant impact on our life and on the country. I agree as well that this impact might well turn out to be quite negative and difficult to reverse (more bureaucracy and yes, more racism - or at least changed racism to govern the country). So - yes (or no in the sense of your above statement), I do see what you might want to call a slippery slope.

NZ has walked a fine line on this for many years. I, personally would argue there is no further need for the Maori Roll and seats in the House. When they were implemented there was a case for it, as many Maori would have relied on their Chiefs and kaumatua to vote for them. That is no longer the case.

You lost me here. The Maori roll is just an extension to the otherwise regional electorate system. The purpose is to make sure that the people who want to have a Maori candidate are able to vote for one (and have a chance to get this candidate into parliament) ... similar as the people in e.g. Christchurch typically will vote for a Christchurch candidate.

The Maori roll might make the system slightly more complicated, but it does not give Maori any additional vote or undue influence. Given that they do have a particular status in the country and given that they are in most parts of the country in the minority (I.e. would not get a Maori candidate if they wanted one) - what exactly is the problem?

Has nothing to do with chiefs voting for them ...

Ardern is an intellectual light weight who has no clue how dangerous she is. Andrew Little likewise. Ardern is even more dangerous as she is disingenuous and cynical in the extreme. NZ has had a masterclass in propaganda from her, that's her strength. That's it. A walking, talking mouthpiece.

I would not call her a "light weight" - but, as most other people there are areas where she is strong and other areas where she is less strong. She is good in communicating the things she wants to communicate but quite inept in implementing them (however I am not sure whether this is because she is not able to or not willing to).

I think - given the right team she might make a quite good PM, and lets face it - given the alternative she still might be the best PM NZ can have.

I agree however that there are clear risks given the currently proposed legislation. It is either dangerous as you said, or it is very poorly communicated, which would be surprising.

Well, lets better try to get an opposition on the row which is worth its money. Currently there is only a void I can see apart from a bunch of diehard rednecks and back-knifers who - standalone - will never win the next or any other election.

Better be nice to the liberal wing National did cut off - shall we?

[jonu]

I take that communication theory is not your major? Have a crack at it and you will find out that any communication is impossible without making assumptions about what the recipient does or does not know :

Having said that ... I don't know to which alleged assumptions (sic) your sentence is referring to, i.e. I can't possibly answer ...


I suppose (damn - again) that we agree that Adern is quite good in making promises without fulfilling them. I give you as well that instead of solving the problems she promised to solve prior to the elections (housing, child poverty, ....) she started instead a lot of new initiatives which she did not mention prior to the elections, and which might have a quite significant impact on our life and on the country. I agree as well that this impact might well turn out to be quite negative and difficult to reverse (more bureaucracy and yes, more racism - or at least changed racism to govern the country). So - yes (or no in the sense of your above statement), I do see what you might want to call a slippery slope.


You lost me here. The Maori roll is just an extension to the otherwise regional electorate system. The purpose is to make sure that the people who want to have a Maori candidate are able to vote for one (and have a chance to get this candidate into parliament) ... similar as the people in e.g. Christchurch typically will vote for a Christchurch candidate.

The Maori roll might make the system slightly more complicated, but it does not give Maori any additional vote or undue influence. Given that they do have a particular status in the country and given that they are in most parts of the country in the minority (I.e. would not get a Maori candidate if they wanted one) - what exactly is the problem?

Has nothing to do with chiefs voting for them ...



I would not call her a "light weight" - but, as most other people there are areas where she is strong and other areas where she is less strong. She is good in communicating the things she wants to communicate but quite inept in implementing them (however I am not sure whether this is because she is not able to or not willing to).

I think - given the right team she might make a quite good PM, and lets face it - given the alternative she still might be the best PM NZ can have.

I agree however that there are clear risks given the currently proposed legislation. It is either dangerous as you said, or it is very poorly communicated, which would be surprising.

Well, lets better try to get an opposition on the row which is worth its money. Currently there is only a void I can see apart from a bunch of diehard rednecks and back-knifers who - standalone - will never win the next or any other election.

Better be nice to the liberal wing National did cut off - shall we?

Very restrained BP....kudos.

You assumed I didn't understand apartheid. I understand it very well.

Regarding the Maori seats, do some research around their historical origins and you might better understand what I was saying about the representation that was needed in the 19th Century.

If you think the Maori seats don't currently have undue influence under MMP, consider Helen Clark losing all of them to NZ First and her subsequent downfall. Consider why Ardern is kowtowing to Maori at every opportunity in an effort to keep the Maori Party at bay.

Good to note you have finally seen through Ardern's BS at any rate. I hope there are many more doing the same.

[Bjauck]

...
The Reserve Bank delivers this purpose through its mandate of operating monetary policy to maintain low and stable inflation and contribute to maximum sustainable employment, promoting a sound and efficient financial system, meeting the public’s cash needs, and overseeing effective payments systems...

In his Matariki New Year address I presume his remit just covers "consumer" price inflation and excludes House Price inflation, which has been anything but low and sits like a exclusive house at the edge of cliff waiting for globally warmed oceans to make it tumble down.

[Bjauck]

BP, don't assume what I don't know. Your post illustrates that you don't see the slippery slope Ardern and those who advocate Identity Politics take us. Laws that discriminate according to race are a terrible idea. Once you do that extremists from either side can take it where they like. Apartheid was to keep separate, and do so by discriminating by race. Look where that led.....

Back over the centuries those who made good use of "Identity politics" were the old establishments, often the rightists and the reactionaries. They were the ones who claimed to identify racial and sexual characteristics and then proceeded to keep those same "identified" groups in the place they had in mind for them.

During wars and social upheavals, the establishment of course made good use of identity politics to label and characterise their enemy groups so that propaganda could be directed to whip up their intended audience into a feverish reaction.

Is it just the identity politics (actually I think more correctly it should be called counter-identity politics) of those groups who are now trying to counter and eradicate the inherited identity, previously imposed on them by past elites, that you object to?

[peetter]

Back over the centuries those who made good use of "Identity politics" were the old establishments, often the rightists and the reactionaries. They were the ones who claimed to identify racial and sexual characteristics and then proceeded to keep those same "identified" groups in the place they had in mind for them.

During wars and social upheavals, the establishment of course made good use of identity politics to label and characterise their enemy groups so that propaganda could be directed to whip up their intended audience into a feverish reaction.

Is it just the identity politics (actually I think more correctly it should be called counter-identity politics) of those groups who are now trying to counter and eradicate the inherited identity, previously imposed on them by past elites, that you object to?

I am pretty sure he is saying that doing any policies based on race is backwards and return back to racism.

[jonu]

Back over the centuries those who made good use of "Identity politics" were the old establishments, often the rightists and the reactionaries. They were the ones who claimed to identify racial and sexual characteristics and then proceeded to keep those same "identified" groups in the place they had in mind for them.

During wars and social upheavals, the establishment of course made good use of identity politics to label and characterise their enemy groups so that propaganda could be directed to whip up their intended audience into a feverish reaction.

Is it just the identity politics (actually I think more correctly it should be called counter-identity politics) of those groups who are now trying to counter and eradicate the inherited identity, previously imposed on them by past elites, that you object to?

Your last paragraph is pretty hard to take seriously. DYOR on Identity Politics and its links to Post-modern Marxism.

[Panda-NZ-]

Consider why Ardern is kowtowing to Maori at every opportunity in an effort to keep the Maori Party at bay.

Yes the "maori party" would never have existed without those seats. Probably a good thing.

Having parties based on race should have died out a century ago.

[Bjauck]

Your last paragraph is pretty hard to take seriously. DYOR on Identity Politics and its links to Post-modern Marxism.

So you are happy to accept the identity delineated and previously imposed by vested interests. I now understand now that you want to rely on politics based on identity. It is the politics based on reaction to imposed identity that you are against.

[jonu]

So you are happy to accept the identity delineated and previously imposed by vested interests. I now understand now that you want to rely on politics based on identity. It is the politics based on reaction to imposed identity that you are against.

No.

Your first two paragraphs at least made a reasonably coherent argument and held elements of truth, even if stereotyping, bigotry and racism better suited the description.

I absolutely do not want to rely on politics based on identity, or "imposed identity". Those fixated on claiming victim status according to race, gender and what ever colour of the rainbow they can separate is what Identity Politics is about. Along with the assumption that because someone is of the same race/grouping they can represent others of the same race/grouping. The whole thing is a perverse form of bigotry and stereotyping.

Again, DYOR on the links between Post-modern Marxism and Identity Politics. Join the dots. Nothing good will come of it. It may well destroy Western civilisation, which is exactly what the Post-modern Marxists set out to do after WW2 when they knew the Soviet Union wouldn't manage it.

The West is a long way from perfect and certainly needs economic reform. Strangely, it is the Socialist interventions of Reserve Banks around the world causing most of the economic problems. This has had the effect of serving unfettered Capitalists very well and made things even more inequitable. Identity Politics is not the answer.

[Bjauck]

...
The West is a long way from perfect and certainly needs economic reform. Strangely, it is the Socialist interventions of Reserve Banks around the world causing most of the economic problems. This has had the effect of serving unfettered Capitalists very well and made things even more inequitable. Identity Politics is not the answer.

"Socialist" interventions have always existed - with monarchs/governments imposing taxes and regulations whenever they thought circumstances or treasury warranted them.

Certainly the mix between fiscal and monetary interventions need fine tuning. The way that interest rates are set in NZ is deficient imo as asset price inflation has been given relatively minor importance. That can magnify disparity.