Archive
From TV’s “The Nation” – Patrick Gower and James Shaw have a heart-to-heart
.
.
Saturday, 12 August – On TV3’s ‘The Nation, Patrick Gower interviewed the Green Party’s remaining co-leader, James Shaw;
.
.
For a while, the interview was low-key, with Gower exercising old school journalistic professionalism. It’s as if someone slipped him a nice camomile tea laced with a couple of shots of bourbon and just a smidgeon of valium.
The interview progressed well, with James Shaw being somewhat irritatingly ‘coy’ about the Green’s campaign re-set. Gower kept his frustration in check as Shaw did the dance of the Seven Veils, but without the peeling-away of said veils.
Then, at 6:10 into the interview, there was this jaw-dropping exchange between Gower and Shaw;
Patrick Gower: Well, an important aspect of that is what Metiria Turei’s venture around this benefit fraud was all about, which was empowering the disenfranchised. Now, where do they sit — those people that she tried to reach, or, as you’ve argued, did reach now they’ve seen someone who’s stood up for them slapped down and destroyed, effectively? What message does that send to those people that you were trying to reach that this is what happens when someone speaks up for you?
James Shaw: Yeah, Patrick, I have to say that’s been a huge personal concern for me is — what message does that send? And so it is a really important part of our campaign that the people that have come forward over the course of the last four weeks in response to Metiria’s campaign who said, ‘Finally, I feel like there’s someone in the House of Representatives who actually represents me,’ we are going to be speaking directly to those people and say, ‘The Green Party is here for you. We still stand for you.’ And it is our goal to end poverty. I mean, Metiria herself said that is was always bigger than her.
Patrick Gower: Yeah, but what do those words mean when what they see is she stood up for them and she was taken down by her own party in some senses? You guys didn’t stand behind her.
James Shaw: Patrick, we absolutely stood behind her. She had the full support of me, the caucus, the party executive. I mean, we had thousands of volunteers all over the country.
Now – what’s wrong with Gower’s comments?
Why – when listening/reading his words – does one feel rising nausea and anger?
And why does the word “hypocrisy” ring loud?
Perhaps I’ve crossed over into a Parallel Universe… Bernie Sanders is still President of the United States, right?
.
.
.
References
Mediaworks/TV3: The Nation – Patrick Gower interviews James Shaw (video)
Scoop media: The Nation – Patrick Gower interviews James Shaw (transcript)
Previous related blogposts
Some background info for Guyon Espiner
Time to speak up for Metiria Turei!
Time to speak up for Metiria Turei! (Part Rua)
The most grievous betrayal of all – two so-called “Green” MPs who should know better
Metiria Turei has started something
.
.
.
.
Acknowledgement for cartoon:
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 13 August 2017.
.
.
= fs =
Journalist blocks TDB Blogger
.
.
On 2 August, The Daily Blog’s administrator – Martyn Bradbury – published a story on Gerry Brownlee accusing Mediawork’s journalist Patrick Gower of being a “cheerleader for Labour”;
.
.
If that message truly came from National minister Gerry Brownlee, I thought it was a ‘Trumpian’ example of childish stupidity. An intemperate ‘tweet’ from a naive, newly elected, fresh-faced member of Parliament could be excused on the basis of inexperience.
But a senior politician of Brownlee’s record should know better. He has been in Parliament for two decades.
I sought out Gower’s Twitter account to make precisely that point.
When I access Patrick Gower’s twitter account – @patrickgowernz – this is what I found:
.
.
A close up of the message informing that I had been ‘blocked’ by Mr Gower;
.
.
I was a little surprised.
Three years ago I ran a series of blogposts on Gower’s own intemperate twitter posts and media comments on Laila Harré and the electoral accommodation between the Mana Movement and the fledgling Internet Party;
.
.
.
.
The three stories above were highly critical of Gower’s attacks on the Mana-Internet alliance. In my view Gower’s on-going vendetta was a naked attempt to influence the 2014 election.
As I wrote in August of that year;
It seems obvious that Gower has a personal thing against Mana and Kim Dotcom.
His most recent utterances on 29 July made that perfectly clear, when he has again stated,
“And David Cunliffe has repeatedly and pointedly refused to rule out working with Internet-Mana to form a Government.”
At every opportunity, Gower has repeatedly demanded Cunliffe rule out working with Mana-Internet.
Why?
When a journalist demands that a political party make a definitive policy statement to rule out a potential coalition partner is not reporting the news – it is a naked attempt to influence it.
It is one thing to ask a party leader who they will/won’t deal with, post-election. That is a perfectly legitimate question to ask.
But to pressure a party leader to rule out a potential coalition partner?
Gower has stepped beyond the bounds of what is acceptable journalism. It is not his job to dictate to any party leader who they should/shouldn’t coalesce with. His job is simply to report their decisions.
The rest is up to us, the people to evaluate that information.
Pull your head in, Paddy.
I was unaware up until 2 August that Gower had – at some point – blocked my access to his Twitter account.
Think about that for a moment. A journalist’s job is to present information to the public. It is their paid role; their raison d’être.
I can understand if Gower declines to allow me to post comments on his page. It’s his Twitter account; he sets the rules (within Twitter’s own Terms and Conditions). I have no argument with that.
But his action to block a person from even reading what he has written strikes me as totally contrary to what a journalist should be. Journalists should never decide who can and can’t read their material. (Which raises an interesting side-issue on pay-walled journalism.)
Gower’s action poses some interesting questions;
Who else has Gower blocked?
How on Earth can a seasoned journalist feel so threatened by a blogger that probably 99.99% of the population does not read?
What will Gower’s employers do if they expect him to interview me on a breaking story that I may be privy to – and I decline?
Is this professional behaviour from a seasoned journalist?
And how will Gower react if a public figure blocks him from their Twitter or Facebook account?
Gower’s blocking of me suggests that he has taken my criticisms badly. Which is ironic, considering the harsh criticism that Gower has dished out to Hone Harawira, Kim Dotcom, Laila Harré, et al.
Not a good look, Mr Gower.
Heat. Kitchen. Door.
.
.
.
References
Wikipedia: Gerry Brownlee
Twitter: Patrick Gower
TV3: Opinion – Dotcom does Key a Winston favour
Other Bloggers
The Daily Blog: Martyn Bradbury – Twitter Watch – Witness Gerry Brownlee’s petty & dangerously paranoid attack on Patrick Gower
Previous related blogposts
Patrick Gower – losing his rag and the plot
Waiting for Gower’s Twittering of indignation
How biased is the media? A Patrick Gower case study
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 3 August 2017.
.
.
= fs =
Election ’17 Countdown: The Strategy of Ohariu
.
(Or, “It’s only ‘hypocrisy’ when the Left do it!“)
.
.
The Labour-Green New Deal
On 14 February, the Left finally woke up to the realities of MMP. A deal was brokered and the only possible, logical outcome arrived at;
.
.
The Radio NZ story is correct; Dunne retained the Ōhāriu electorate by only 710 votes.
.
.
Had Green voters given their electorate vote to the Labour candidate, Virginia Andersen would have won Ōhāriu by 2,054 votes and National would have lost one of their coalition partners.
With the subsequent loss of Northland to Winston Peters in March 2015, National would have lost their majority in Parliament and would have had to either rely on NZ First for Confidence and Supply – or call an early election.
A major victory for the Left (and all low-income people in our community) would have been the abandonment of National’s state house sell-of. (Current state housing stock has dropped from 69,000 rental properties in 2008 to 61,600 (plus a further 2,700 leased) by 2016.)
National has sold off 7,400 properties. Meanwhile, as of December last year, there were 4,771 people on the state house waiting list;
.
.
Had Dunne been ousted from Ōhāriu in 2014 our recent history would have been completely altered. Anyone who believes that the Labour-Green accomodation was a “dirty” deal might ponder the ‘rights’ and ‘wrongs’ whilst spending the night in a car or under a tarpaulin. Preferably in winter.
Green Party co-leader, James Shaw, rightly pointed out the obvious;
“I think New Zealanders will understand that, in an MMP environment, it makes perfect sense for us to not stand a candidate in Ōhāriu. Ōhāriu has a significant impact on the makeup of Parliament.
Not standing in Ōhāriu increases the chances that we will be in a position to change the government in September – it’s as simple as that.
I would actually argue that we’re being more transparent here by actually simply saying we’re not going to and it’s within the structure of the memorandum of understanding with the Labour Party that we signed last year, where we actually held a press conference saying that we were going to work together to change the government.”
Shaw has rejected any suggestion that this is a “dirty deal”. Again, he is correct. the Greens and Labour are simply working by the rules of MMP as National determined in 2012/13, when then-Dear Leader Key refused to eliminate the “coat-tailing” provision.
Shaw should have thrown the description of a “deal” right back at critics such as right-wing blogger and National Party apparatchik, David Farrar, and TV3’s faux-moralistic Patrick Gower. Shaw’s response should have been hard-hitting and ‘in-your-face’,
“Damn right it’s a deal. Those are the rules set by National and we play by them. If people don’t like it, take it up with the Tories.”
Some context
In 2012, National followed through on an earlier government committment to conduct a review into the MMP electoral process. The Commission called for submissions from the public, and over 4,600 submissions were duly made on the issue. (This blogger made a submission as well.)
As a result, the Commission made these findings;
The Commission presented its final report to the Minister of Justice on 29 October 2012 with the following recommendations:
-
The one electorate seat threshold [aka “coat-tailing”] should be abolished (and if it is, the provision for overhang seats should also be abolished);
-
The party vote threshold should be lowered from 5% to 4% (with the Commission required by law to review how the 4% threshold is working);
-
Consideration be given to fixing the ratio of electorate seats to list seats at 60:40 to address concerns about declining proportionality and diversity of representation;
-
Political parties should continue to have responsibility for selecting and ranking candidates on their party lists but they must make a statutory declaration that they have done so in accordance with their party rules;
-
MPs should continue to be allowed to be dual candidates and list MPs to stand in by-elections.
The first two recommendations were a direct threat to National’s dominance in Parliament, and then-Minister of Justice, Judith Collins rejected them outright;
.
.
Key offered a mealy-mouthed excuse for not accepting the Electoral Commission’s report;
“If you’re really, really going to have major change to MMP you’d want to have either consensus or to put it to the people. It’s not a matter of blame – it’s just a range of views out there.”
Yet, submitters had been fairly clear in their views and failure to obtain “concensus” from the smaller parties in Parliament said more about their own self-interests than public-interest.
A NZ Herald editorial pointed out;
All of National’s present allies, Act, United Future and the Maori Party, take the same view of the single electorate entitlement and all but the Maori Party have benefited from it at some time. Self-interest may be their underlying motive…
[…]
National seems not to want to disturb the status quo because it discounts its chances of finding stable coalition partners under the simplified system proposed.
So the hundreds of thousands of taxpayers’ dollars spent on the MMP Review; seeking submissions; listening to submitters; and providing the Report to Parliament was all an utter waste of money.
The “coat-tailing” provision would be set to remain because without it National would find it harder to find potential coalition allies, and therefore govern.
It also meant that all political parties now have to play by the same rules, or else be disadvantaged.
(Hypo)Crit(ic)s
— Gower
Patrick Gower (with Jenna Lynch sharing the byline) writing for TV3 News was obviously having a bad coffee-day with this vitriolic comment, condemning the Labour-Green accomodation;
Labour and the Greens have just done the dirtiest electorate deal in New Zealand political history – and it is all about destroying Peter Dunne.
The tree-hugging Greens will not stand in Ōhāriu to help the gun-toting former cop Greg O’Connor win the seat for Labour.
This is dirtier than most electorate deals because for the first time in recent history a party is totally giving up on a seat and not running rather than standing but giving a ‘cup of tea’ signal for its voters to go for a minor party candidate.
The degree of hypocrisy to Gower’s comment is breath-taking.
Note that he suggests that it is preferable to “giving a ‘cup of tea’ signal for its voters to go for a minor party candidate” rather than withdrawing a candidate and openly declaring an accomodation.
In effect, a journalist has advocated for “open deception” rather than transparency. Think about that for a moment.
Gower antipathy to left-wing parties using current MMP rules is not new. Three years ago, Gower made a scathing attack on Hone Harawira and Laila Harré over the alliance between the Internet Party and Mana Movement;
.
.
By attacking parties on the Left who choose to work together (but not parties on the Right), Gower is either displaying crass ignorance over how MMP works – or undisguised political bias.
I will not be surprised if Gower eventually ends up as Press Secretary for a National minister.
Postscript: Re Gower’s comment that “for the first time in recent history a party is totally giving up on a seat and not running“.
This is yet more ignorance from a man who is supposedly TV3’s “political editor”. Political parties often do not yield a full slate of candidates in every electorate.
In the 2014 General election there were 71 electorates; 64 general and seven Māori electorates;
.
.
The Green party had only 57 candidates out of 71 electorates. Notice that even National did not offer candidates in every electorate.
Only Labour fielded a candidate in all 71 electorates.
So as usual, Gower’s political knowledge is disturbingly lacking. Or partisan. Take your pick.
— Farrar
Soon after the Greens announced their accomodation deal, National Party apparatchik, pollster, and right-wing blogger – David Farrar – was predictable in his criticism. Cheering for Patrick Gower, Farrar wrote;
…Labour and Greens have spent years condemning deals where National stands but tells supporters they only want the party vote, and now they’ve done a deal where they don’t even stand. I don’t have a huge issue with them doing that – the issue is their blatant hypocrisy.
They’re so desperate to be in Government they’ll put up with that, but the irony is that if Winston does hold the balance of power and pick Labour, he’ll insist the Greens are shut out of Government.
Yet, in 2011 and 2014, Farrar had different thoughts on deal-making when it came to electoral accomodations;
This is sensible and not unusual. Off memory most elections there have been some seats where ACT doesn’t stand a candidate to avoid splitting the centre-right electorate vote. One of the nice things about MMP is that you can still contest the party vote, without needing to stand in an electorate.
And,
I think Epsom voters will vote tactically, as they did previously. But the choice is up to them. National may say we are only seeking the party vote in an electorate – but they still stand a candidate, giving voters the choice. Epsom voters are not controlled by National. If they don’t want to tactically vote, then they won’t. All National will be doing is saying we’re happy for people to vote for the ACT candidate, as having ACT in Parliament means you get a National-led Government.
So, according to Farrar, it’s ok that “ ACT doesn’t stand a candidate to avoid splitting the centre-right electorate vote“. He describes it as “one of the nice things about MMP“.
So as long as a deal is presented dishonestly – “All National will be doing is saying we’re happy for people to vote for the ACT candidate, as having ACT in Parliament means you get a National-led Government” – then that’s ok?
Both Labour/Greens and National/ACT have presented electoral accomodations – but in different ways.
One was transparent.
The other was doing it with a “wink, wink, nudge, nudge”.
It is unreasonable and hypocritical to support one side to exploit current MMP provisions to their benefit – whilst expecting others to work to a different set of rules. Perhaps Mr Farrar should look at how National/ACT presents their accomodations to the public – or else do away with the coat-tailing provision altogether.
Ōhāriu Green Voters
Following the 2011 General Election, I noted that Green voters had failed to make full use of strategic voting under MMP;
Dunne’s election gave National an extra coalition partner and his win therefore assumes a greater relevance than a “mere” electorate MP. In effect, 1,775 Green voters sent John Key a second Coalition partner, after John Banks.
And again, post-2014;
Some Green supporters are either woefully ignorant of MMP – or have been smoking to much of a certain herb. Or, gods forbid, they are so desperate to remain ideologically pure in their principles, that they are willing to allow a right wing candidate to be elected, rather than supporting a candidate from another party on the Left.
In Ōhāriu (as well as other electorates) Peter Dunne was returned to office because Green Party supporters cast their electorate votes for Green candidate Tane Woodley, instead of the Labour candidate. Preliminary election results for Ohariu yield the following;
ANDERSEN, Virginia: (Labour)11,349*
DUNNE, Peter: (United Future) 12,279*
WOODLEY, Tane: (Greens) 2,266*
Had supporters of the Green Party given their electorate votes to Viriginia Andersen, Peter Dunne would have been defeated by 1,336* votes.
The Greens need to get it through to their supporter’s heads that giving their electorate votes to their own candidates is a waste of effort and an indulgence we cannot afford.
When elections are close-fought and majorities slim, such indulgences cannot be tolerated, and the Greens need to educate their supporters quick-smart, if we are to win in 2017.
(*Note: figures above were preliminary and not final results.)
If there was an element of frustration and anger in my comments above, it was a ‘face-palm’ moment. The poorest families and individuals in New Zealand have paid the price by enduring two terms of National because Green voters chose to indulge themselves by casting both votes for the Green candidate, rather than strategic vote-splitting.
I can understand affluent, propertied Middle Class voting for self-interest.
I find it less palatable that Green voters cast their ballots for some bizarre feeling of political purity. That is selfishness in another form.
Beneficiaries being attacked by a souless government; people living in cars, garages, rough, or crammed three families into one home; people suffering as social services are slashed, will find it hard to understand such selfishness.
In the United States, blue-collar workers voted for a populist demagogue. The workers who voted for Trump believed that the Left had abandoned them.
We dare not allow the same despair to flourish in our own country.
If politics is a contest of ideas; a battle of ideology; then strategy counts.
The Greens have woken up to this simple reality.
.
.
.
References
Radio NZ: Green Party will not stand in Ōhāriu
Electoral Commission: Official Count Results – Ōhāriu
Radio NZ: Winston Peters takes Northland
Radio NZ: Thousands of state houses up for sale
Housing NZ: Annual Report 2008/09
Housing NZ: Annual Report 2015/16
Fairfax media: Samoan family stuck in makeshift, mosquito-ridden tent – ‘through no fault of their own’
Ministry of Social Development: The housing register
Radio NZ: Labour-Greens deny deal over Ohariu seat
NZ Herald: Political Roundup – Embarrassing but strategic deal for the Greens
Electoral Commission: 2012 MMP Review
Electoral Commission: What people said on the MMP Review
Electoral Commission: The Results of the MMP Review
NZ Herald: Govt rejects recommendations to change MMP system
NZ Herald: Editorial – National too timid on MMP review
Electoral Commission: Financial Review
Radio NZ: Collins defends not trying for changes to MMP
Scoop media: Minister’s response to MMP review a travesty – Lianne Dalziel
NZ Herald: Editorial – National too timid on MMP review
TV3 News: Patrick Gower – Labour-Greens do double dirty deal in Ōhāriu
Electoral Commission: Electoral Commission releases party and candidate lists for 2014 election
Kiwiblog: The double dirty deal in Ohariu
Kiwiblog: Marginal Seat deals
Kiwiblog: National’s potential electoral deals
Additional
Electoral Commission: 2017 General Election
Other Blogs
The Standard: The coat-tail rule and democracy (2014)
Public Address: Government votes not to improve MMP (2015)
The Standard: Greens stand aside in Ōhāriu
Previous related blogposts
Patrick Gower – losing his rag and the plot
Judith Collins issues decision on MMP Review!
Judith Collins – Minister of Talking Crap
Letter to the Editor: Mana, Internet Party, Judith Collins, and “coat-tailing”
Letter to the Editor – Dom Post editorial off into LaLaLand
John Banks: condition deteriorating
The secret of National’s success – revealed
Election 2014 – A Post-mortem; a Wake; and one helluva hang-over
2014 Election – Post-mortem Up-date
Post mortem #1: Green Voters in Electorates
.
.
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 17 February 2017.
.
.
= fs =
How biased is the media? A Patrick Gower case study
.
.
Isn’t it interesting that Patrick Gower – who made his partisan feelings crystal clear on Twitter on 29 May with this extraordinary outburst;
“Lalia Harré – you make me feel sick by how you are rorting MMP http://www.3news.co.nz/Opinion-Hone-and-Dotcoms-grubby-deal/tabid/1382/articleID/346334/Default.aspx#ixzz334vE4jKO Same goes for your pals Hone, Dotcom, Minto and Sykes.”
– is also the same one who interviewed Laila Harre on Saturday, 22 November, on TV3’s “The Nation”? What measure of neutrality did “The Nation’s” producer, Tim Watkin, believe that Gower possessed, to run that interview?
Quite simply, any reasonable individual would have arrived at the conclusion that Gower should have disqualified himself and the role given, instead, to the highly talented Lisa Owen.
Notice how Gower was very well behaved during the interview, when face-to-face with Harré?
But once Harré was off the set and he was with the panel (Mike Williams and Matthew Hooton), the gloves and mask came off and Gower’s vitriol issued forth;
“… She blamed Labour there, she blamed the Greens, she blamed the National Party, she blamed the media, she blamed Georgina Beyer, although she did say-“
“… I think there’s two words for what we saw over there, before and that’s called in denial. Hmmph!”
“… She’s not going to go in with the Greens, she’s betrayed them. Labour won’t have a a bar of her. No chance of Laila Harré coming back to Parliament. And that’s why you see this sort of denial from her. She’s got it horribly, horribly wrong and she still can’t admit it.”
It should be noted that neither Williams (an ex-Labour President) nor Hooton (a right-wing commentator) could possibly comment impartially on the Mana-Internet Alliance. Both Labour and the Right had a unified agenda to smash Mana-Internet at the election (See: 2014 Election – Post-mortem Up-date). There was simply no attempt at balance with the panelists or the the host-interviewer (Gower).
What is abundantly clear is that Gower seemed to lack a certain inner fortitude to say the things he did to the panelists, to Harré’s face.
This was part of an ongoing, unrelenting onslaught against the Left. The same dirty media that saw right-wing, self-professed “media personalities” appointed to host political debates, despite public opposition and cries of partisanship;
.
.
There was good reason for public disquiet over Mike Hosking hosting one of the election leadership debates. His political allegiance was already well known;
.
Hosking: “As I see it, all things considered we are doing pretty bloody well. We box above our weight.
“We have bright prospects for the future, so long as you keep them [National] in Government.”
An example of media bias was clearly shown over the issue of two holidays by two party Leaders. As I wrote on 24 July;
The recent non-story on David Cunliffe’s three day holiday should be proof-positive that the mainstream media (msm) is fixated on pumping out as many “bad news” reporting as can be generated by a headline-seeking; advertising-driven; lazy corporate-media system.
We’re all aware that whilst Cunliffe took a three day break (I’m surprised he bothered to come back, instead of telling this country to go get f- – – – – !), our illustrious Dear Leader was off on a ten-day holiday, sunning his pale, $55 million arse, on a Maui beach in Hawaii.
Whilst the media did indeed mention that salient fact (albeit in passing), it was taken as a given that the leader of a party polling 50%-plus in the polls is entitled to a holiday.
Meanwhile, the leader of a mid-twenties-polling (?) Party is – it was hinted – not entitled to any such break.
The subtext was blindingly obvious; success breeds reward. In this case, a warm, sunny Hawaiian beach.
And failure means you don’t deserve a single damn thing, so get-back-to-work-peasant!
(See: When the mainstream media go feral: A tale of two holidays)
Perhaps the most outrageous, recent political “hatchet job” was the Herald’s character assassination scheme launched against David Cunliffe, using unproven (and later discredited) allegations from immigrant-businessman, Donghua Liu. The story behind Liu’s shonkey allegations; a 13 year old letter; and information strategically released by National minister, Michael Woodshouse, to Herald and TV3 journos, was nothing less than a disturbing abuse of ministerial power and media influence. (See: The Donghua Liu Affair – The Players Revealed)
When a party leader continually receives bad press (eg; condemnation over taking a 3 day break; the colour of the scarf he wore; a manufactured “scandal” regarding a 13 year old letter, etc) what is the mainstream media telling this country?
At one stage the level of attacks against Cunliffe descended into pettiness and farce when, on TV3, on 24 July, TV3’s Tova O’Brien ran this report on their 6PM News bulletin, about Key’s face appearing – photo-shopped – on the cover of the “Rugby News“;
.
.
“So once again the blue team gets one over the red team. Yes, it’s cringey, but it’s left Cunliffe looking whingey.”
(See: When the mainstream media go feral: the descent into sheer farce, according to Tova O’Brien)
As I pointed out on 30 July,
Despite the fact that the story was ostensibly about Key getting his face photo-shopped onto a magazine and scoring some free election-year publicity – a supposedly well-educated, “impartial” journo still managed to somehow insert a childish comment about David Cunliffe. That’s despite the fact that Cunliffe’s comments were much more restrained and measured than the criticism made by Winston Peters in the same video.
So there we have it, folks. Even when the story is about John Key – a silly little journo still managed to turn it into a swipe at David Cunliffe.
Such was the mainstream stream leading up to the election on 20 September.
Returning to Patrick Gower, there are three questions I would like to pose to him;
1. Why is it that Gower condemned the Internet-Mana alliance as “sickening” – but not the ACT-National deal in Epsom, with the same intensity?
2. Or the National-NZ First-Maori Party deal to endorse Labour’s Kelvin Davis over Hone Harawira in Te Tai Tokerau?
3. Why was Dotcom’s funding of Mana-Internet such a big deal worthy of condemnation – but millionaires funding National and ACT is barely noted, in passing, if at all?
Otherwise, Patrick, this is not impartial, intelligent journalism.
It’s not even close.
Postscript1 (Brick-bat)
Note to MSM journos, sub-editors (those remaining), current affairs/news producers, et al) – ok, we get the “Stuart Little” reference,
.
.
Ho, ho, ho.
But enough already.
It was funny for the first thirty seconds. Now it’s just lame.
Message to journos: don’t be lame. It’s not cool.
Postscript2 (Bouquet)
For an excellent interview with a political leader (whether Labour, National, Greens, whatever), check out TVNZ’s Q+A today (22/23 November), where veteran reporter/interviewer, Heather du Plessis-Allan interviewed new Labour Leader, Andrew Little. This is how an interview should be conducted; the host asks the questions; the guest is given time to respond, without interuption.
All TV/radio hosts take note.
.
References
Twitter: Patrick Gower
Pundit: Tim Watkin
TV3: Laila Harre stepping down as Internet Party leader
TV3: “The Nation” Panel – Patrick Gower, Mike Williams & Matthew Hooton
Fairfax Media: Labour claims Hosking’s biased
NZ Herald: Media – Hosking plugs car and Key
NZ Herald: Donghua Liu’s new statement on Labour donations
TV3: David Cunliffe owns up to getting it wrong
TV3: Stuart Little, leader of the Opposition?
TVNZ: Q+A 22/23 November
Previous related blogposts
Mike Hosking as TVNZ’s moderator for political debates?! WTF?!
The Donghua Liu Affair – The Players Revealed
When the mainstream media go feral: A tale of two holidays
When the mainstream media go feral: the descent into sheer farce, according to Tova O’Brien
2014 Election – Post-mortem Up-date
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 24 November 2014
.
.
= fs =
MSM under-mining of new Labour Leader already begun?
.
.
It did not take long.
In fact, on the same day that Andrew Little won the Labour leadership*, the first media reporter was already asking if he would be stepping down if Labour failed to lift in the all-important polls.
On Radio NZ’s Checkpoint, the usually uber-sensible, Mary Wilson asked these gormless questions of Andrew Little,
@ 4.35
Wilson: “And in terms of your accountability though, if at the end of 2016, there is no movement [in the polls] there is no change, what happens then?”
@ 4.47
Wilson: “Is there any point during the next few years where you will say, ‘Ok, this hasn’t worked; I haven’t done what I set out to achieve; I’m leaving’.”
@ 5.00
Wilson: “And if you’re not there by the end of 2016, would you step aside?”
Now bear in mind that Radio NZ is not part of the ratings-driven, advertising-revenue-chasing corporate MSM of this country – but still those questions were put to Little.
How long before the corporate MSM – sensing sensational headlines and potential advertising revenue – begin baying for blood and drafting stories which begin to portray Little in a negative light?
It was the relentless attacks on Cunliffe from all quarters of the MSM (including non-commercial Radio NZ) which contributed to under-mining his leadership in the eyes of the voting public.
The public’s perception of a political figure is determined largely by how he is portrayed by the media. Fairness and accuracy can play little part in reporting stories targetting a political figure. As the Donghua Liu Affair, in the NZ Herald showed with disturbing clarity, even a non-story can be spun in such a way as to totally destroy a man’s credibility and reputation.
Note: As an aside, in defending the Herald’s story on the 13 year old Donghua Liu-Cunliffe letter, Editor Tim Murphy stated in June this year (in an email to this blogger), that “We fully expect further details to come will show the Herald’s earlier reporting to have, as we have known throughout, been accurate and soundly based“. Nothing further has been produced by the Herald to back up it’s assertions since it was forced to make retractions on 25 June.
The Donghua Liu Affair was part of an ongoing, targetted, smear campaign against David Cunliffe. The non-story, involving a 13 year old letter; a non-existent $100,000 bottle of wine; and an alleged, yet-to-be-discovered, $15,000 book, painted Cunliffe as untrustworthy, and the Labour Party as dodgy.
The new Labour leader will have to keep his wits about him and use every media-related connection and employ the best possible media minders to counter an MSM that can no longer be trusted to report the basic truth. With the likes of Patrick Gower and Mike Hosking competing to be the “baddest bad asses” on the Media Block, accuracy and truth play third-fiddle behind egos (#1) and ratings (#2).
TV3’s Patrick Gower has already had a ‘go’ at Little’s victory, referring to the democratic selection process as “the great union ripoff”;
“It’s a backdoor takeover by the unions. Simply, Andrew Little would not be Labour leader without the unions. He is the unions’ man; Little is a union man, and the unions have got their man into Labour’s top job.”
The TV3 on-line article is bizarre in itself with TV3’s “Online Reporter”, Dan Satherley, reporting TV3’s Political Reporter, Patrick Gower’s, utterances. Journalists interviewing each other?
They just can’t help themselves. In an ‘Interstellar‘-quality vacuum of any meaningful news reporting, media-hacks like Gower will blather on about any silliness that enters their heads. Far be it for him to actually interview Andrew Little and ask him questions like;
What’s on your agenda if you become Prime Minister?
What’s your point-of-difference to National?
What do you hope to achieve, legislation-wise, in the First 100 Days of a government you lead?
You know, real questions that real journalists used to ask, in real interviews, with real people.
At the same time, the same brickbat used to beat the MSM around it’s collective head should be generously applied to the Labour Party hierarchy’s backside.
When Labour president Moira Coatsworth made this statement in the NZ Herald, congratulating Andrew Little;
Labour president Moira Coatsworth, who announced Mr Little’s victory, said he would lead a reinvigorated party into the 2017 election campaign.
“Andrew has the leadership skills and the vision to win the trust of New Zealanders and take Labour to victory in 2017. I have no doubt he will go on to become a great Labour Prime Minister who builds a stronger, fairer and more sustainable New Zealand.”
– it was the same gushing enthusiasm she voiced for David Cunliffe last year;
“The Labour Party congratulates David Cunliffe on his win. David has been elected by a robust and democratic process and has won on the first round with a clear majority. This gives him a strong mandate as leader and he has the full support of the Labour Party.
[…]
David Cunliffe has the leadership skills and the vision to win the trust of New Zealanders and take Labour to victory in 2014. I have no doubt he will go on to become a great Labour Prime Minister who builds a stronger, fairer and more sustainable New Zealand.”
– and before that, David Shearer, in 2011;
“I congratulate both David and Grant and look forward to working closely with them as we build towards a Labour victory in 2014.
David and Grant bring a fresh approach; a breadth of skills and a strong commitment to rebuild for a Labour win in 2014.”
The repetitive nature of Labour’s revolving-door leadership leaves the voting public scratching it’s collective head, wondering WTF?! As I blogged on 2 October;
If the Labour caucus don’t support their own leader – especially when times are tough – why should they expect the voting public to take their leadership choices seriously? After all, with four leaders gone in six years, it would appear to be a temporary position at best.
And earlier, on 25 September, I wrote to the NZ Herald;
If Labour keeps changing it’s Leader after every defeat, then I put the following questions to them;
1. How will a Labour Leader gain experience, if they’re dumped every couple of years?
2. How can the public be expected to get to know a Labour Leader, and develop trust in that person, if their presence is fleeting and disappear before we get to know him/her?
3. How will a Labour Leader learn to handle victory, when s/he first won’t be allowed to understand defeat? Humility is learned in failure, not success.
I also pointed out in the same letter-to-the-editor;
The Greens have leaderships that are stable and long-term, irrespective of electoral success or failure. That is because the Party has faith and confidence in their leadership choices.
Even pro-National columnist for the NZ Herald, John Armstrong stated the obvious on 18 November;
“The public should warm to him. But that will take some time.”
Meanwhile, on the day that Andrew Little won the leadership contest, John Key made this astute observation;
“What this process has shown is that there are deep divisions within the party, they’re a long way away from agreeing with each other or even liking each other.
Andrew Little has the task of unifying a group of individuals who historically have shown they have very low levels of discipline.”
He has a point. Labour’s lack of internal discipline is in stark contrast to National’s public facade of unity. Both parties have their own factions – but National is the one that has succeeded in keeping in-fighting private and behind closed doors.
There is a weird irony to this. Labour is supposedly the party that espouses an ideology of collective action whilst National is the party of unfettered individualism.
Yet it is the Nats who work collectively and collegially for their number one goal: power. Any factional agitation and cat-spats for dominance is kept well away from the public and media gaze.
By contrast, Labour appears to be a party of rugged individualists that would make ACT look like an Ohu commune from the 1970s.
Labour could do well do learn from their rivals.
The alternative is more dissent and dis-unity within Labour; more leadership changes; and a National government stretching into the 2020s, with Max Key taking the reigns of Prime Ministership from his father, and assuming the dynastic role of “Little Leader”.
Personally, I prefer a “Little Leader” to emerge from a Labour-led government, and not a future National regime.
Andrew Little’s success will be our success as well.
.
* Disclaimer: This blogger is not a Labour Party member, nor has any preference who should be Leader of that party.
** Acknowledgement to Curwen Rolinson for his perception and pointing this out on his Facebook page.
.
References
Radio NZ: Little man for the job of Labour’s big rebuild
Radio NZ Checkpoint: Little says narrowness of his win not a problem (audio)
NZ Herald: Donghua Liu’s new statement on Labour donations
TV3 News: Gower – Little’s victory ‘the great union ripoff’
NZ Herald: ‘He has the vision to win the trust of New Zealanders’ – Andrew Little elected Labour leader
Interest.co.nz: David Cunliffe wins Labour leadership contest, defeating Grant Robertson and Shane Jones
Scoop Media: Labour Party President congratulates new leadership team
NZ Herald: John Armstrong – Andrew Little’s first job – drown out Winston Peters
MSN News: Labour is still divided – Key
Te Ara Encyclopedia: Communes and communities
Facebook: Curwen Rolinson
Previous related blogposts
Letter to the editor: the culling of Cunliffe
The Donghua Liu Affair – The Players Revealed
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 21 November 2014
.
.
= fs =
No More. The Left Falls.
.
We cannot be beaten down
Because we are down already.
We can only rise up
and if you should beat us down,
We will rise again. And again. And again…
And when you tire of beating us down,
We will rise up once again,
And look our Oppressor in the eye,
and say, ‘Rise up with us, brother,
for you may yet share our pain’.
– FM
.
As passions settle, disappointment wanes to something approaching tolerable, and we start to look at things a bit more rationally, it’s time to review the last few days, weeks, and months…
Without a doubt, it is safe to say that the Left never expected expected the two results of the Election Night figures.
- That National would score so highly, at 48.06%, (Specials still to be counted)
- That the Left would fare so poorly that even NZ First’s credible 8.85% result would make no appreciable difference to National’s success.
Once again, it appears that the Non-Voters – traditionally mostly Labour or left supporters – gifted National the government for a third term;
Roughly a million people didn’t show up to vote for Saturday’s election, making it one of New Zealand’s worst turnouts in the last century.
An estimated 77.04 per cent of enrolled voters took part in the election, slightly higher than the 74.2 per cent turnout in 2011, which was the worst in percentage terms since before women got the right to vote in 1893.
This year’s result still ranks as the third-worst turnout in the last 100 years, with the number of non-voters almost tallying to the number of votes that went to National.
The estimated results are based on the 2,405,652 votes received before voting closed, which includes nearly 300,000 special votes that are yet to be counted.
Interestingly, in the same Fairfax article, Victoria University politics professor Jack Vowles said,
“A small increase in turnout is what we would expect. There’s been a downward trend of turnout for some time, so any increase shows something has changed.”
My suspicion is that the polarising effect of John Key may have motivated more people to engage in voting. My own experience lends some credence to this, with past non-voters this year keen to engage in the electoral system. In plain english, Key has pissed off people to such a degree that they expressed their feelings through the ballot.
Unfortunately, the Left was in no position to focus this anger in any meaningful way. Young people chanting in unison, ‘Fuck John Key‘, may have been fun and cathartic – but it ultimately failed to translate into valuable votes.
Meanwhile, I offer my post-mortem, observations, and views of events…
David Cunliffe
I am not one to pick and choose Party leaders – especially for Labour. Besides which, I’ve always been more interested in policy factors than pretty faces.
However, I will offer my ten cents + 15% GST worth.
Has it ever occurred to the Labour caucus that replacing your Leaders after every electoral loss is counterproductive? I offer three reasons for this assertion;
1. How do you test your Leader in the fires of adversity, if you keep replacing him (or her) after each electoral loss? If your Leader is proven in victory – but unknowable in defeat – are you not missing a vital measure of the man (or woman)?
2. Replacing your Leader after each defeat sends a curious message to the public. It suggests that you’ve made a mistake with your Leadership selection. In which case, if/when you choose a new Leader to replace Cunliffe – is that a mistake as well? If you have no faith in your Leader, even in dire adversity, why should we – the voting public?
3. It takes years for a Leader to become known and familiar to the public. Years to gain their trust. If you keep rotating your Leadership, you are in effect putting an Unknown Quantity before the public who will never get a chance to assess the man (or woman).
It took three terms for the public to get to know Helen Clark. After which she led three consecutive Labour-led governments.
For god sakes, learn from history.
Or be consigned to it.
David Shearer
I understand David Shearer’s simmering anger. I really, really do. If I was in his shoes, I would’ve gone ‘thermo-nuclear’ by now.
But he does himself and the Labour Party no favours with his behaviour in front of the media.
Shearer has every right to be angry. But dignity and self-discipline is a far better course of action than publicly under-mining his Leader. After all, when/if he assumes the Labour leadership again, he would expect a modicum of public loyalty shown to him.
Two words: Kevin Rudd.
Hone Harawira
The more times I met Hone Harawira, the more times I have been thoroughly impressed with this man. The word ‘mana’ was created to describe his real personality- not the isolated snippets chosen by the media to portray him as a “mouthy brown boy”.
Hone was condemned – mostly by the Right and a headline-seeking media and commentariat – for the ‘crime’ of having a rich benefactor.
Meanwhile, the National Party has a plethora of rick benefactors – and no one bats an eyelid.
Unfair? Of course it is.
But that’s New Zealand in the 21st Century. As a society, it seems we left fairness behind when we allowed ourselves to be tempted by neo-liberalism’s promises of “aspirationism” and shiny consumer goods.
Men and women like Hone Harawira still exist in our fair, if considerably less-than-100%-Pure, country. But their values and notions of fairness, decency, and helping one-another is something that the public view with suspicion as a quirky notion from last century (much like Queensbury rules when two men engaged in fisticuffs) – and which an increasingly cynical, lazy, and politically-captured media treat with disdain and derision.
The media subtext of Hone’s relationship with Kim Dotcom was simple; “You can be a ‘champion of the poor’ as much as you like. We’ll write patronising (if somewhat racist) stories about you to paint you as a loud-mouthed radical engaging in ‘envy politics’.”
But the moment Hone’s Mana Movement got all cashed up, things changed.
National is allowed money.
Even Labour.
NZ First and the Greens rely on branding for success.
But parties representing the poor? No way. The rule from On High was simple: You want to represent the Poor and the Powerless? Fine, but you stay poor and powerless.
Hone broke that rule.
John Key
Key’s victory speech was par-for-course, and well scripted for him by his tax-payer funded spin-doctors and media minders. The speech was a mix of humility and delight in his victory.
Part of Key’s election night victory speech referred to “serving all New Zealanders”,
“I can pledge this to you, that I will a government that governs for all New Zealanders.”
In fact, it seemed a re-hash of his 2011 victory speech,
“I will lead a government that serves the interests of all New Zealanders…”
Key’s sentiments were repeated in a John Campbell interview on 22 September, (the interview is worthwhile watching) where he spoke at length about his concerns for the most vulnerable in our society. He pledged a third term Key-led government to improve their lives.
Trouble is –
- His government has spent the first two terms doing very little about rising child poverty,
- tax cuts have benefitted the most well off,
- Increases in GST, prescription charges, and others costs-of-living have impacted on the poorest,
- Inequality has increased,
- Wages have fallen even further behind Australia
If Key failed to address the lot of the poor in the first six years of his governance – why should we take his word for the next three? Especially as National has lined up new legislation to further cut back worker’s rights; the Employment Relations Amendment Bill.
Marginalising workers’ rights will not reduce poverty; create jobs; or lift wages. It will only maximise profits for companies at the expense of workers.
As the editorial for the Otago Daily Times stated on 22 September,
“But while he is rapidly becoming one of this country’s most ”popular” prime ministers, there remains a gulf before he can go down in history as a ”great” prime minister. If that is Mr Key’s ambition, he is going to have to show that his role is, indeed, to serve all New Zealanders.
He and his Cabinet will have to strive to care for families, to try to ensure the poor are supported and not consigned to a demeaning and destructive underclass future. As well, alongside pursuit of economic development, this Government is going to have to protect the environment.”
Talk is cheap.
Actions count. So far, we’ve seen precious little of it.
I look forward to being proved wrong.
Kelvin Davis
The day after Election Night, my feelings were running high and my views coloured by my passions. I may have written some things that, as my passions cooled, I reflect more wisely on matters in the clear light of day.
Not so with Kelvin Davis.
I stand by my initial statements;
Davis did not “win” Te Tai Tokerau. It was “gifted” to him as a dirty little rort, when John Key, Winston Peters, and the Maori Party told their supporters to vote for Davis, over Hone Harawira.
This was a disgusting, shabby example of dirty politics.
Kelvin Davis is “Labour” in name only and, like Peter Dunne and David Seymour, he should not forget who his political patron really is: John Key. Davis is John Key’s errand boy.
Who knows – one day Key may call in the debt David owes him?
“For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul?”
Kim Dotcom
Kim Dotcom has been vilified and made the scape-goat of the election by many. As if Hone Harawira’s defeat has validated the views of the Right Wing, and those who see Kim Dotcom as the villain of the piece.
I offer a counter-view, and one I believe equally as valid.
Let us not forget a few pertinent facts about Dotcom;
- He was allowed entry into New Zealand by John Key’s government.
- Dotcom has committed no crime in this country. He has yet to be tried for copyright infringements – a civil matter, not a criminal offense. And his convictions in Germany happened when he was 19 years old – a time when young people often fall foul of the law with drugs, alcohol, violence, driving offenses, teen pregnancies, etc. He is no criminal “mastermind”, despite the obsessive rantings of the Right. Dotcom’s past criminal record is only an affront to Right Wingers because he supports the Left.
- Dotcom was instrumental in uncovering the fact that the GCSB had illegally spied on eighty eight New Zealand citizens or Permanent Residents. Until then, we had no idea what had been happening under successive Labour and National governments.
- Dotcom has also uncovered the very real likelihood that the NSA/GCSB has been engaging in mass surveillance in this country – despite protestations to the contrary by our Prime Minister (not noted for his scrupulous honesty) and the former GCSB director Sir Bruce Ferguson (under whom illegal spying had been taking place for years).
- And Dotcom uncovered John Banks’ own dishonest activities regarding his election financial returns, resulting in the former ACT minister’s conviction and resignation from Parliament.
Kim Dotcom’s real ‘crime’ has not been copyright infringement.
His real ‘crime’ has been to turn his back on his fellow millionaires and political elites – the Oligarchs for whom power is the oxygen that sustains them – and to give financial support to one of the few people in this country to threaten their privileged positions: Hone Harawira.
For the Right Wing – and the infantile lackeys who act as their on-line henchmen by constantly posting anonymous message demonising Dotcom – this was an intolerable situation. They could barely tolerate Hone Harawira’s existence. But as long as Hone was one lone voice in the political wilderness, he was left alone. Kelvin Davis’ previous attempts to unseat Hone came to nothing.
But when radical left-wing politics and Big Money became entwined, Hone Harawira became a threat that could no longer be ignored by the Establishment.
First, some in the media responded. The venom dripped from this typical comment on social media, and was only less overtly spiteful in the mainstream media;
.
.
Because Big Money funding the National Party is not “rorting MMP”.
The vendetta – and that is precisely what this was – culminated in National, NZ First, and the Maori Party rushing at the last minute to endorse Labour’s Kelvin Davis;
.
.
.
Harawira’s fall was compounded by the ‘Moment of Truth’, on 15 September, failing to deliver certain promises made and hyped by Dotcom. Ironically, it was not sufficient for New Zealanders to learn that were were living in a Surveillance State and all our meta-data was being collected by shadowy agencies. It was not enough to realise that our on-line and telephone privacy was a thing of the past.
We wanted the ‘dirt’ on John Key. That’s where the real sensationalistic headlines lay for the MSM. That would sell several million bucks worth of advertising to the punters.
And when Dotcom failed to deliver – stymied by legalities, I am informed – the media and noisy aspects of the public turned on him. Being spied on by the State was apparently nowhere as bad as being denied a good political drama. We wanted Reality TV, made real, in our lounges, and our insatiable appetite for sensational gossip to be sated.
When that was denied us, we turned – like children denied access to our favourite TV programme or ‘grounded’ from internet access for 24 hours – on he who had promised us so much. We howled with rage and had Dotcom lived in our village, the good people would have gathered up their pitchforks and torches and made for his hut.
However, this is the 21st Century. We don’t do pitchforks and blazing torches any more (OSH would have a fit!). The mob is more sophisticated now. We do lynchings on-line and in the media.
Far more effective.
Fewer blood stains to wash out.
It has been said that part of our peculiar national psyche is something called ‘The Tall Poppy Syndrome’. In this case the tall poppies were two men who dared challenge the Establishment, and were cut down for their troubles. This time, though, it did not happen in secret, behind closed doors, concocted by shadowy figures.
It happened in full public view.
If you think this happens only in movies, in America, and the good guy(s) always win – think again.
It happened here. We just witnessed it. And the good guys didn’t win.
Not this time.
See also: Brand Kim Dotcom: what has changed?
Labour
One thing that Labour apparently excels at is self-mutilation. As a fund-raiser, it could make truckloads of cash by catering to certain folk with BDSM inclinations. One hour of a good, hard flogging, $250. Humiliation and discipline – $150 per half hour. (So I’m reliably informed…) Ok, so you have to wear a lot of sticky leather or rubber gear, but hey, it’s all for a good cause, right?!
Since Labour’s loss on election night, Labour MPs have been more vocal and active than all their last campaigning over the past six months. None it it, though, any good. Airing the party’s “dirty laundry” is an act that beggars belief.
If Labour MPs believe that their current media appearance on Radio NZ, TV3, TV1, et al, are doing them any good – let me disabuse them of that belief. It is self-destructive.
It is self-harm on a party-political scale. It is sheer, unmitigated stupidity.Attentions Messrs Shearer, Goff, Hipkins, et al – the public are watching.Whoever leads the Party – whether it be Cunliffe or X – will be accepting a poisoned chalice that would fell a totara.
It makes the Labour Party look like a bunch of self-serving fools or witless muppets – take your pick.Is there any wonder why Labour keeps losing? Let me spell it out.
After each election defeat – 2008, 2011, 2014 – Labour indulges in public self-flogging and blood-letting. There is nothing remotely subtle or civilised or clever about the unpleasantness that follows.
It turns people off in droves.It turns voters away from Labour.
Three years later – another defeat.
Repeat cycle.
At this rate, Labour will become a third-rate Party, supplanted by the Greens which will become the main Opposition Party – and ultimately, along with NZ First (or it’s successor under Ron Mark) – lead the next Coalition Government.
This is how a once proud, proactive political party becomes an ossified institution, and ultimately irrelevant to peoples’ lives. Think – Alliance, post 2002.
To all Labour MPs, take my advice: STFU. Listen to your Leader (whether you support him or not) and keep your mouths closed. Sort your sh*t out in private, and in public, smile a Happy Face.
Otherwise, you can kiss your chances goodbye for 2017.
Media
The media pack is in full hunt. Their quarry – David Cunliffe.I swear TV3’s Patrick Gower was salivating at the prospect of doing a “Nosferatu” on Cunliffe’s neck;
“Labour is in crisis tonight with leader David Cunliffe apparently refusing to give up the leadership, despite the party’s humiliating election defeat…[…]So Labour is now in a civil war, with Mr Cunliffe trying to gag MPs.[…]The five potential contenders show just how fractured Labour is. The caucus has atomised and another leadership spill is the last thing it needs.”
Labour MPs have emerged from a seven-hour crisis meeting – and leader David Cunliffe is still refusing to go.After presenting the party’s new chief whip Chris Hipkins and his junior Carmel Sepuloni, he gave a short statement, but refused to say what happened in the meeting.His MPs have given him a bloody nose with their choices.
“Labour needs to face the question of its leadership, nothing more. If Mr Cunliffe is going to appeal over the heads of his caucus to the membership and affiliated unions who elected him last year, he must imagine he can continue to lead a team that has little confidence in him. This will do Labour no good, as surely its members and unions now see.It is in the nation’s interest that the party finds a new leader quickly.”
They simply haven’t announced it to the public.
Stuart Nash
Some commentators (media, political, and blogs) are still adhering to the fiction that Stuart Nash “won” the Napier seat. Election night results, however, paint a different picture entirely;
McVICAR, Garth: (Conservatives) 7,135
NASH, Stuart: (Labour) 14,041
WALFORD, Wayne: (National) 10,308
Contrast to the 2011 result:
NASH, Stuart: (Labour) 13,636
TREMAIN, Chris (National) 17,337
See where Tremain’s 7,000 votes went three years later?
Nash has now hinted he is “not ruling out” throwing his hat into the ring for an up-coming leadership challenge. If true, Nash’s colossal ego has outstripped his common sense entirely. He is deluded if he really believes he won his seat on his own merits. An extra 405 votes is not a mandate when his ‘success’ was predicated on his opponant’s vote being split by another right-wing candidate.
.
The heading of this piece is wrong. It’s not, “No More. The Left Falls.”
It should read,
.
The Left Falls, No More.*
.
* With acknowledgement to a recent BBC movie, about a certain quirky time travelling hero in a blue box.
.
References
Electoral Commission: Election Results — Overall Status
Fairfax media: Voter turnout near record low
Youtube: Fuck John Key! [New Zealand Revolution]
TV3: Former GCSB boss denies Snowden’s claims
Maori TV: Key wants Harawira to lose Tai Tokerau seat
NZ Herald: Hone’s call to arms after Winston backs Kelvin
Fairfax Media: Hone Harawira accuses Maori Party of sabotage
Electoral Commission: Election Results — Napier
Wikipedia: 2011 Election – Napier
Radio NZ: Tussling starts for Labour’s top job
TV3: National Party wins third term
John Key: 8 November 2008 – Victory Speech
Campbell Live – Monday September 22, 2014
National: Employment Relations Amendment Bill – Second Reading Speech
Otago Daily Times: John Key’s opportunity
TV3: Labour Party in civil war over leadership
Fairfax media: Cunliffe emerges from crisis meeting still in charge
NZ Herald: Editorial – Labour needs a new leader, nothing more
Radio NZ: Labour MPs agree to review campaign
Previous related blogposts
She saw John Key on TV and decided to vote!
The secret of National’s success – revealed
Patrick Gower – losing his rag and the plot
Waiting for Gower’s Twittering of indignation
Other blogs
Why chanting “fuck John Key” is a battle cry not profanity
Brand Kim Dotcom: what has changed?
Hang tight everyone – Marama Davidson campaign reflection
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 19 September 2014
.
.
= fs =
Waiting for Gower’s Twittering of indignation…
.
.
Key has made his call; deals with ACT and Peter Dunne are in – a deal with the CCCP (Colin Craig’s Conservative Party), is out;
.
.
Now we can look forward to TV3’s political commentator, Patrick Gower, posting tweets of outrage at Key’s machinations – just as he did two months ago. On 29 May, Gower was scathing at the alliance between Mana and the Internet Party;
.
.
.
Will Gower make the same expressions of outrage at National?
What are the odds?
Postscript
It seems obvious that Gower has a personal thing against Mana and Kim Dotcom.
His most recent utterances on 29 July made that perfectly clear, when he has again stated,
“And David Cunliffe has repeatedly and pointedly refused to rule out working with Internet-Mana to form a Government.”
At every opportunity, Gower has repeatedly demanded Cunliffe rule out working with Mana-Internet.
Why?
When a journalist demands that a political party make a definitive policy statement to rule out a potential coalition partner is not reporting the news – it is a naked attempt to influence it.
It is one thing to ask a party leader who they will/won’t deal with, post-election. That is a perfectly legitimate question to ask.
But to pressure a party leader to rule out a potential coalition partner?
Gower has stepped beyond the bounds of what is acceptable journalism. It is not his job to dictate to any party leader who they should/shouldn’t coalesce with. His job is simply to report their decisions.
The rest is up to us, the people to evaluate that information.
Pull your head in, Paddy.
.
References
Radio NZ: Deals show contempt, says Labour
TV3: Opinion – Dotcom does Key a Winston favour
Previous related blogposts
Patrick Gower – losing his rag and the plot
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 29 July 2014.
.
.
= fs =
When the mainstream media go feral: A tale of two holidays
.
.
The recent non-story on David Cunliffe’s three day holiday should be proof-positive that the mainstream media (msm) is fixated on pumping out as many “bad news” reporting as can be generated by a headline-seeking; advertising-driven; lazy corporate-media system.
We’re all aware that whilst Cunliffe took a three day break (I’m surprised he bothered to come back, instead of telling this country to go get f- – – – – !), our illustrious Dear Leader was off on a ten-day holiday, sunning his pale, $55 million arse, on a Maui beach in Hawaii.
Whilst the media did indeed mention that salient fact (albeit in passing), it was taken as a given that the leader of a party polling 50%-plus in the polls is entitled to a holiday.
Meanwhile, the leader of a mid-twenties-polling (?) Party is – it was hinted – not entitled to any such break.
The subtext was blindingly obvious; success breeds reward. In this case, a warm, sunny Hawaiian beach.
And failure means you don’t deserve a single damn thing, so get-back-to-work-peasant!
When you look at the Tale of Two Holidays, it is glaringly obvious how differently the media – and certain ego-driven political commentators who shall remain nameless – reported both events. The public must have been scratching their heads, wondering, What-The-F**k?!
Even right-wing political commentator and National Party cadre, Matthew Hooton, remarked on the apparent contradiction on 21 July, on Radio NZ’s political panel;
“The Prime Minister was away for ten days at his bach or his holiday home. As you say, it seems terribly unfair and Labour people are very angry with the media because they say ‘here’s the Prime Minister goes away for ten days and our leader get’s sick for two days and goes skiing for three days and then get’s criticised’
[…]
… to be completely crass about about this, if the CEO of Coca Cola and there’s the CEO of Pepsi Cola, and one of them’s sale’s are increasing making great profits, and the other one’s got a whole lot of product recalls underway and sales are down and they’re in a shambles, then the first CEO get’s to go on holiday and the other one doesn’t.”
The media’s unhealthy fixation on Cunliffe left me wondering…
.
.
from: Frank Macskasy
to: Dominion Post <letters@dompost.co.nz>
date: Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 11:16 PM
subject: Letter to the editor.
The editor
Dominion Post.
There has been public disquiet that the mainstream media appears to be unfairly treating the leader of the Labour party, David Cunliffe.This disquiet appears to have been confirmed by the recent attention and disparaging remarks by political reporters and commentators on Cunliffe’s three day holiday in Queenstown.
The same disparaging remarks were not directed at Prime Minister John Key, who himself took a ten day holiday – three times as long! – in Hawaii, at the same time.
Or the recent Donghua Liu “story”, where Mr Liu claimed he paid $100,000 for a bottle of wine to Labour – and then had to retract his allegations. No apology to Cunliffe was forthcoming, I noticed.
It appears to be different rules of reporting by the media when it comes to both men.
Of course, the media will respond that Labour is low in the polls and criticism by political commentators reflects that.
The irony is that constant negative stories by the media, including focusing on trivia (Cunliffe’s red scarf!!) and smear campaigns, feeds into Labour’s low poll rating. It is a ever-descending vicious circle.
Wouldn’t it be a fine idea if the media simply reported the news, instead of making it up and generating sensationalistic headlines, just to sell advertising space?
Far be it for me to tell the media how to do their job. I’m just an ordinary citizen who has to hear this kind of garbage day after day.
-Frank Macskasy
[address and phone number supplied]
.
There is another reason why it seems bizarre that the media made such a fuss over Cunliffe’s three day break.
It’s common knowledge that Key takes his holidays in Hawaii. Which is an odd way for a Minister of Tourism to show his endorsement of the local tourism industry, and is something I’ve blogged about in the past. As usual, the mainstream media never considered it worthy of consideration.
But it seems to have been a different story when David Cunliffe dared take three days off – supporting local businesses in the process – and all hell broke loose.
The campaign against Cunliffe was no better highlighted than the Herald’s recent Doinghua Liu Affair*, when an immigrant businessman made several allegations against David Cunliffe. Of those allegations, one (about a $100,000 bottle of wine) was retracted; one (about a supposed $15,000 book) remains unproven by any evidence; and the other two appear to have been overt attempts by Mr Liu to “curry favour” with a previous Labour minister.
Yet, the allegations were given wide prominence, even though,
- there was very little (if any) actual evidence presented – it was all hear-say based on one man’s claims,
- the Herald has pointedly refused to make public Mr Liu’s written statements, despite making public a copy of a letter signed by Cunliffe in 2003,
- no apology, for the mis-reporting of the now-discredited $100,000 bottle of wine, has been forthcoming.
Then again, perhaps the purpose of the Donghua Liu Affair was not to report the news – but to manufacture it, and in the process unfairly damage a reputation and undermine a party’s election campaign…
.
.
from: Frank Macskasy
to: Sunday Star Times <letters@star-times.co.nz>
date: Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 10:31 AM
subject: Letter to the editor.
The editor
Sunday Star Times.
John Key takes a ten day holiday in Hawaii and David Cunliffe takes a three day break in Queenstown – and the media go nuts over Cunliffe. All because of one unattributed “letter” from an anonymous individual claiming to be a “senior Labour party official”.
For all we know, the letter could have originated from the National Party’s dirty tricks team and hyped by certain TV3 and Herald commentators.
The Donghua Liu Affair was another sensationalised story based on one man’s unsubstantiated allegations – one of which has been retracted through lack of evidence.
Cunliffe addressed a family violence conference in Auckland and one tiny portion of his speech was taken utterly out of context by a headline-seeking media desperate for a sensational story. His full statement – which is rarely reported – “I’m sorry for being a man right now because family and sexual violence perpetrated overwhelmingly by men”
The true meaning of Cunliffe’s speech was lost in the subsequent media-generated hysteria.
Meanwhile, John Key refuses to apologise to crime-victim, Tania Billingsley for the shocking way in which the government botched the apprehension of the alleged perpetrator. Key says, “I don’t make apologies unless there’s a serious reason for me to do that.”
Evidently sexual violence is not a “serious” matter for the PM?
Key feels he can get away with such an outrageous comment because he knows full well that the media is fixated, with pack-like mentality, on David Cunliffe.
The public are not well-served by such poor “news” manufacturing.
-Frank Macskasy
[address and phone number supplied]
.
The concerted attacks on Cunliffe do indeed reek of a “pack mentality”; the kind of schoolyard or workplace bullying that takes place when a group recognises someone who, for whatever reason, is constrained in hitting back.
In Cunliffe’s case, he can’t “hit” back at the media. Not without adding fuel to the hysterics from the likes of Garner, Gower, Henry, Armstrong, et al.
In John Armstrong’s case, the man is simply so wedded to his mates in the National Party that, on the same day Donghua Liu made his allegations, the Herald columnist called for David Cunliffe to step down as leader of the Labour Party;
.
.
The fact that there was little actual evidence of wrong-doing was not a matter Armstrong considered. Indeed, if one carefully reads Armstrong’s diatribe, one curious truth becomes apparent; at no point does he mention that Cunliffe’s letter to Immigration NZ was written in 2003 – eleven years ago;
.
.
Unless one had an eidetic memory, no human being on Earth could possibly recall signing a letter written over a decade ago.
Of course, it suited Armstrong’s purpose to omit the date. To any reader unfamiliar with the full details of the story, taking the letter out of it’s historical context gave Armstrong’s column validity that it barely deserved. It suited the Herald’s agenda to undermine the Labour leader. And it fitted like a hand-in-glove the collective media pack-attack on Cunliffe.
The entire issue became a Monty Pythonesque-style farce when, on 22 July, when Patrick Gower reported on David Cunliffe’s exasperation with a media obsessed with finding fault with him;
.
David Cunliffe owns up to getting it wrong
.
Political Editor
.
And it is a long list – there is his apology for being a man and his apology for taking a holiday. There is even an apology for the scarf he has been wearing.
“I am being straight up – things I could have done better, things that I will do better.”
The Labour Party is in a crisis at just 26.7 percent in the latest 3 News-Reid Research poll.
“So David Cunliffe Cunliffe voluntarily makes multiple ‘mea culpas’ about what can only be described as pretty minor issues…”
Pretty. Minor. Issues.
Those “pretty minor issues” are the “issues” which TV3, NZ Herald, and other media outlets have been fixated upon for the last few months – and now Gower is criticising Cunliffe for raising those very same issues?!
This is what I call manufactured news. Manufactured news made worse when a political figure is boxed into a corner to address them, thereby validating the synthetic nature of said “news”.
No wonder that Cunliffe said in the same video;
“I am determined that I will be extremely careful about the way I put things going forward…”
Just what the public needs; politicians fearful of saying plainly and clearly what’s on their minds because they are wary of their remarks being taken out of context; twisted; and hyper-sensationalised, by an increasingly tabloid-style media in this country.
We have been poorly served by the media which is more interested in ratings and selling advertising rather than reporting events. As matters stand, we may see politicians self-censoring, thereby pressuring political journalists/commentators to generate even more of their own asinine, manufactured ‘stories’, with ever-more lurid headlines.
Fifteen months ago, John Key expressed his frustration at what he perceived as media hounding. He retaliated;
“What I should have done, and what I will be doing in the future, is saying, well, the member needs to put that down to me in writing, and I’ll be doing that to the journalists as well.
‘Cos if you want perfection of everything I have done, two, three, four, five years ago, I will get you all that information for you, but I’ll get you the whole lot and give it to you.”
Perhaps the Labour leader might consider that mainstream media are no longer merely news-gathering and reporting organisations. They are selling advertising to earn revenue to return a dividend to shareholders.
As such, the mainstream media has it’s own agenda and reporting the news is no longer as profitable as it once was. “News” now has to be “packaged” and delivered to “consumers”. The “packaging” is now more important than the content.
Bear that in mind, Mr Cunliffe; you are being “packaged” for media consumers in whatever manner will sell the product (advertising).
My advice to David Cunliffe; refuse to be “packaged”. Develop a strategy for ignoring “pretty minor issues“. Treat the next smear campaign that rises in the same way that Key treats such matters; with casual disdain.
And give the Gowers and Garners and Henrys of the media circus a simple message; “if you want to talk with me, fine. But if it’s about “holidays” or “scarves” or non-existent $100,000 bottles of wine – don’t expect any co-operation from me when you’re vying for information. Because I’m just as likely to give it to your competitors instead.”
So stay aloof and don’t buy into being “packaged” by the media.
It seems to work for Key.
Meanwhile, lest we forget this shameful episode…
.
.
from: Frank Macskasy
to: NZ Herald <letters@herald.co.nz>
date: Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:22 PM
subject: Letter to the editor.
The editor*
NZ Herald
It is now nearly one month since your editorial, “Cries of bias will not stop reporting”, where the NZ Herald tried – to no avail – to justify it’s campaign of lurid allegations and sensationalised headlines against Labour leader, David Cunliffe.
So where are we now with the Donghua Liu Affair?
Claims of a $100,000 bottle of wine – retracted.
Claims of a $15,000 book – still not proven.
Claims of a Yangtze River boat-trip and $2000 donation to a rowing club – shown to be one businessman’s ineffectual efforts to ‘curry favour’ with then-Minister, Rick Barker. (One doubts that a free feed and two grand donated to a rowing club would “buy” much in the way of favours from a Backbencher, much less a Crown Minister.)
Where does that leave your paper which has promised “further revelations”? Where is the “evidence” promised by the Herald?
And why have Donghua Liu’s “signed statements” still not been made public so we may judge for ourselves as to the value of his claims?
This has been a shameful, sordid episode from the Herald and will be long remembered by many as an example why journalists rank low on surveys of trusted professions – just marginally above used-car salesmen, politicians, telemarketers, and prostitutes (no offence intended to the latter two).
Indeed, the public will have every justification in treating with total scepticism any future story involving David Cunliffe (or any other senior Labour politician).
This has not been the Herald’s finest moment.
-Frank Macskasy
[address and phone number supplied]
.
* Note: the matter of the Herald’s reporting of the Donghua Liu Affair is now a subject of a Press Council complaint, laid by this blogger, as well as OIA lodgements with the offices of the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, and Minister for Immigration.
.
References
Radio NZ: Nine to Noon – Political commentators Matthew Hooton and Mike Williams
NZ Herald: Donghua Liu’s new statement on Labour donations
NZ Herald: John Armstrong: Cunliffe’s resignation may be in order
NZ Herald: David Cunliffe wrote letter supporting Liu’s residency bid
Radio NZ: Ministers accused of bullying Turei
TV3: David Cunliffe owns up to getting it wrong
Previous related blogposts
John Key, Minister for Tourism, MIA
The Donghua Liu Affair – Damn lies, dirty tricks, and a docile media
The Donghua Liu Affair threatens to unravel – PM and NZ Herald caught up in a dirty trick campaign?
The Donghua Liu Affair – the impending final act and curtain-fall in this smear-campaign
The Liu Affair: The first step to a complaint to the Press Council
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 24 July 2014.
.
.
= fs =
Patrick Gower – losing his rag and the plot
.
.
When I first read Patrick Gower’s comments on Twitter;
.
.
– I was gobsmacked.
For a moment I considered that his account had been hacked and hijacked by ACT-On-Campus agitators.
Then I read several further “tweets” from the TV3 journalist;
.
.
This was not the work of a “hacker”.
More like a hack.
Note Gower’s comments,
1.
“Lalia Harré – you make me feel sick by how you are rorting MMP http://www.3news.co.nz/Opinion-Hone-and-Dotcoms-grubby-deal/tabid/1382/articleID/346334/Default.aspx#ixzz334vE4jKO Same goes for your pals Hone, Dotcom, Minto and Sykes.”
I trust that Gower will not be surprised if Ms Harré declines any further interviews with him? After all, Laila’s compassion would not allow her to make poor Patrick “feel sick“.
2.
“No I’m not OK with it. It’s not OK. Rorting MMP is not OK.”
No, Patrick. A strategic alliance between two political parties is not a “rort”. It is making full use of the rules of MMP – as this current government has itself endorsed and used on at least two occasions.
Secondly, it is not a “rort” because the strategic co-operation is out in the public domain, for all to see. Including the voters of Te Tai Tokerau.
It is up to voters to determine if it is a rort or not.
I would add that this strategic co-operation was done more openly; more transparently than the *nudge,nudge, wink, wink* “cuppa tea” meeting between John Key and John Banks, in an Epsom coffee shop, on 11 November 2011. And far more open and upfront that the sham candidacy of National Party candidate, Katrina Shanks, in Ohariu in the 2011 Election.
Was the Alliance – set up in 1991 between the NewLabour Party, Mana Motuhake, Greens, and Democratic Party (a fifth party, the Liberals, joined later) – also a “rort”?
Or was it a what it was – a strategic alliance of small parties to adapt to the rules of the then-electoral system of First Past the Post?
The rules of MMP were not decided by Lalia Harré, Hone Harawira, Kim Dotcom, John Minto, or Annette Sykes. They can only use what they have been given.
3.
“I want coat-tailing to go. I want politicians to stop rorting MMP.”
Fine. But I really think you should take that up with John Key and Judith Collins.
They are the ones who decided to keep the “coat tailing” provisions.
They are the ones who rejected the recommendations of the Electoral Commission to eliminate the “coat tailing” rule and reduce the threshold for Parties from 5% to 4%. But they refused. Why? Because the “coat-tailing” rule suited them very nicely.
When a governing party decides to preserve a provision in an electoral system because it increases their chances of winning more seats, or gaining seats for prospective allies – that is a “rort”.
It is also known as gerrymandering.
Blaming two tiny political parties who, between them have one seat in Parliament, and are using the MMP system as it has been presented to them – is just too asinine to take seriously.
Gower shows himself to be the village idiot, with an over-inflated sense of self-worth, is he does not understand this simple truism.
4.
“I fight those deals too.”
“Lets fight these deals together.”
Really?
And here I was, thinking that you were a political journalist reporting the news – not making it or judging it.
Aren’t you supposed to present the facts to us, and leave the evaluation to us, Joe and Jane Public?
Or are we too thick to be able to form our own opinions without journalists now telling us what and how to think?!
If you want to do a Campbell Live or Paul Henry style of story-telling – get your own show, Mr Gower. Then we can keep the differentiation between real reporting and advocacy journalism.
5.
“Nobody in politics will – all are too greedy for power.”
Really?!
Funny thing about that, Mr Gower – all those “greedy for power” were elected to office by us, the People. If you have a problem with that – take it up with the voters who put those politicians into office. I’d like to see Patrick Gower make a tweet, for example;
“Voters of Epsom – you make me feel sick by how you are rorting MMP …Same goes for your pals, the voters in Ohariu.”
I could see your employers having ‘kittens‘ if you tried to slag off tens of thousands of potential viewers with such a shotgun-style delivery of abusive criticism, eh?
What really annoys me about such a cynical state that “Nobody in politics will – all are too greedy for power” is that it is patently untrue. It is a generalisation based on nothing except your own personal experiences and cynical outlook on life.
Because, really, what is the alternative?
Democracy is be the worst form of political system – except all the others, as some famous bloke said a while ago.
By your cynicism you are simply perpetuating the feeling of alienation that pervades our society and helping to further voter disengagement rather than doing anything positive to improve the system.
Maybe I’m missing something here?
Perhaps trying to increase disengagement – especially with parties on the Left – is your real agenda?
6.
“It is about standards. Somebody has to hold the line”
I guess it’s easier to maintain “standards” and “hold the line” when it’s two small parties, with one MP between them – rather than the governing party in power, with fiftynine MPs, and the full force of the State behind them?
That’s the ‘trick’, Paddy, start small, on the little guy. And if you can beat him up, move on to the next little guy. But whatever you do – don’t take on the Big Boys, Paddy. Because you know they’ll kick your flabby arse from one end of this country to the other.
7.
“@RusselNorman Yes. But now it is time for the Greens to show some backbone and rule out working with the Mana-Dotcom rort. Why won’t you?”
Ah, and here we have it – the nub of it all.
This is not about “rorting” MMP. Or keeping “standards“. Or “holding the line“. Or any other lofty ideals.
Nah.
This is about keeping a Labour-Green-Mana-Internet Party(-NZ First?) coalition government from taking power post September 20th.
Because if the Greens (and Labour) were foolish enough to follow Gower’s suggestion – that would effectively lock out any chance of a new government forming, thereby throwing out Key and his cronies.
Bear in mind that when National did their dirty deal in Epsom with John Banks – Gower did not call on Key “ to show some backbone and rule out working with the ACT-Banks rort”. (If he did, I must have missed it.)
That is what this is all about. All this self-righteous, indignant chest-thumping – to keep National in power and prevent a left-wing government taking office.
How else does one explain the volume of hysteria associated with two tiny political parties that barely register 2% (collectively!) in the polls?
Answer? Because it threatens the established system and those who maintain it and profit by it.
Gower has seriously damaged any credibility he might have had.
By his own words, he has disclosed his agenda.
.
References
Twitter: Patrick Gower
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 1 June 2014.
.
.
= fs =
Review: TV3’s The Nation – “Let them eat ice cream!”
.
.
In the last three years I have been truly outraged and sickened only twice when watching a current affairs/documentary programme. The first was Bryan Bruce’s “Inside Child Poverty“, broadcast back on 22 November 2011.
Bryan presented the viewer with a country of increasing child poverty, disease, low-quality housing; and growing inequality that few of us (except hardcore ACT and National supporters) would have believed possible in a wealthy country like New Zealand. Especially a country which once prided itself on egalitarianism, fairness, and looking after those less fortunate than the privileged Middle Classes.
The second time was just recent – watching TV3’s current affairs programme, The Nation, on 24 May. The one word that came to mind as I watched the episode was: revulsion. Not revulsion at the fact that our once proud egalitarian nation is now one of the most unequal on the face of this planet – but revulsion at the injection of humour in interviews; panel discussion, and levity between the hosts, Lisa Owen and Patrick Gower.
.
Hosts for TV3’s “The Nation”, Lisa Owen and Patrick Gower
.
I am not even referring to Patrick Gower “interviewing” Ben Uffindell, editor of the satirical blogsite, The Citizen. Though one certainly has to question why this segment was deemed worthy of insertion? What was the point of suggesting that children living in poverty – many of whom go to school without food (or are given “food” that is of dubious nutritional value); no shoes; no rain coats; or lacking other items which Middle Class families take for granted – would find it funny to be given ice cream or a South American animal?
.
.
I recall a legend of someone else trying to “make light” of the plight of the poor. That person suggested cake, in lieu of ice cream.
The highly talented Mr Uffindell has never been invited to comment on other pressing issues and problems confronting our country. So why start with inequality and associated problems with child poverty? A question I posed to The Nation, via Twitter;
.
.
So why is levity suddenly the order-of-the-day when poverty and inequality is under the media microscope?
Because we are “just laughing at ourselves” some might say?
No. We are not “laughing at ourselves”. We are laughing at the thought of children, living in poverty, being given free ice cream and llamas.
We are not “laughing at ourselves”. We are laughing at children and families living in poverty – at their expense.
That is the difference.
Funnily enough, there was certainly no humour on The Nation (10 may) when ACT’s Jamie Whyte proposed a flat tax policy. Where was the mirth? The satirical hilarity? Where was the wink-wink-nudge-nudge repartee between The Nation’s hosts?
Any humour must have been lost amongst the rustling sound of $100 bills been eagerly counted…
On top of which, was Torben Akel’s piece on “fact checking” looking at whether or not inequality in New Zealand has increased;
.
.
“But first, a bit of good old fashioned fact-checking“, said Patrick Gower, as he introduced Torben Akel’s piece. A pity, then, that no one at The Nation bothered to “fact check” Akel’s reporting.
Bill English stated in the above video,
“Income inequality has not got worse. In fact we’re one of two developed countries where the OECD has recently as yesterday have said it’s stable since 1994. And in fact in the last few years there’s some indications it’s fallen slightly.”
Torben Akel asked for evidence to back up English’s claims;
“What we got was a page lifted from a new OECD report with a graph showing income inequality here in 2010 was less than it was in the mid nineties.”
So the “new” OECD report was based on data, taken in the midst of the Global Financial Crisis and resulting Recession?! Data that was four years old?!
Akel continued with this – and here is the relevant bit;
“As for what had happened in the last few years, we were directed to the Ministry of Social Development’s household incomes report, released last July. And specifically, this graph, which shows why the Beehive [is] so sure our income gap isn’t growing.”
A cover of the Report flashed on our television screens;
.
.
The document above is Bryan Perry’s Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2011. It used data from Treasury to assess child poverty in this country;
“To calculate disposable income Statistics New Zealand uses the Treasury’s tax-benefit microsimulation model (Taxwell1) to estimate tax liabilities for individuals and benefit units. The resulting personal disposable incomes are summed to give disposable household income. Disposable household income is sometimes referred to as net income or after-tax cash income.”
– p25
“The Treasury has also developed a set of weights for use with its HES-based tax-benefit microsimulation model, Taxwell. The Taxwell weights include the number of beneficiaries as one of the key benchmarks, in accordance with Treasury’s primary use for the HES in the Taxwell model. Treasury’s Taxwell weights therefore provide a better estimate, for example, of the number of children in beneficiary families, although to achieve this there has been a trade-off with achieving other benchmarks…”
-p33
“We know that the estimates using Statistics New Zealand’s weights consistently under-estimate the number of beneficiaries compared with the administrative data. Generally, the estimates using the Treasury’s Taxwell weights are closer to the administrative data, but the sampling error from the HES can still lead to either or both weighting regimes under- or over-estimating the population numbers. “
-p128
The relevance of all this?
As reported back in February, Treasury had under-estimated the level of children living in poverty, as Bernard Hickey wrote on the 28th,
“Treasury and Statistics said in a joint statement they had double counted accommodation supplements in estimates of household disposable income between 2009 and 2012, which meant incomes were over-estimated by NZ$1.2 billion and the number of children in families earning less than 50% of the median income was under-estimated by 25,000.”
For those who want to read the actual Media Statement from Treasury, can be found here: Media Statement: Data error prompts process improvements. Refer to the table headed “Miscalculation – Scale – Key statistics affected”.
Bryan Perry’s revised report can be found here: Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2012 Revised Tables and Figures
27 February 2014. In it, he states,
“The revised trend-line figure is 32.9 compared with 32.7 [Gini Co-efficient] before the corrections. The trend line is still flat.”
.
.
(The Gini Co-efficient measures inequality, with the higher the value, the lower the equality in income.)
The”trend line” may still be “flat”, but I submit to the reader that for a family on low income; paying exorbitant rent; in a cold, damp house, with very little food in the pantry and fridge – it matters very little.
What does matter is that since 1984, before the Neo-Liberal “revolution”, the Gini Coefficient was only 28.
It is now 37.7.
We are going in the wrong direction.
So not only are National’s claims not backed up by evidence; not only has data been found to be incorrect; but also Torben Akel and The Nation’s research team missed the obvious; inequality has worsened since 1984.
Falling home ownership rates are another indicator which confirm increasing inequality in this country (and throughout the rest of the world).
The Nation’s comedic episode continued with this exchange between hosts Lisa Owen and Patrick Gower, and panellists, author Max Rashbrooke, and right-wing commentator and National Party cadre, Matthew Hooton;
Lisa Owen: “Let’s change to a lighter note. The Civilian Party. Let’s be clear. That was a bit of fun. It was tongue in cheek, if anyone’s confused about that out there. Do we need this in an election year. Do we need some humour?”
Max Rashbrooke: “Oh I think, absolutely. I mean it’s great to see Ben do his thing with the Civilian [Party].
If there’s a problem though, it’s that some of his policies which he puts out as satire, are actually quite close to reality. I mean he talks about we should tax the poor, more. Well actually, if you add up income tax and gst, people on low incomes are paying pretty much the same proportion of their income in tax as people at the top half. If you added capital gains into that story, the poor are probably paying a bigger chunk of their income than the rich are.”
Patrick Gower: “And, and, I, I agree with you there. Because llamas, in my opinion have been dodging tax for years and years, and until someone moves on that loophole, um…”
[general hilarity ensues]
Then Matthew Hooton had to go spoil it all by getting All Serious again, and witter on about Paradise in Scandinavia with more of his skewed ‘spin’ on those country’s taxation system.
Yup. Poverty and rising inequality. A laugh a minute.
What next on The Nation – point and laugh at people with disabilities?
“Jolly good fun”!
Postscript
TVNZ’s Q+A on 25 May also had Ben Uffindell as a guest. As usual, his wit was on form. The big, big difference between Q+A and The Nation? On the former, he satirised and poked fun at politicians. On the latter, the targets for laughter were children in poverty.
Draw your own conclusions.
.
References
TV3: Inside Child Poverty
TV3: Child poverty doco ‘apolitical’ – filmmaker
TV3: Party calls for free ice-cream and llamas
Twitter: Frank Macskasy/The Nation
TV3: ACT leader steals thunder in minor party debate
TV3: New Zealand’s record on inequality
Ministry of Social Development: Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2011
Hive News: Inequality data error revealed
NZ Treasury: Media Statement: Data error prompts process improvements
Ministry of Social Development: Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2012 Revised Tables and Figures
27 February 2014
Wikipedia: Gini Coefficient
Statistics NZ: 2013 Census – Trend of lower home ownership continues
TV3: Panel – Patrick Gower, Max Rashbrooke and Matthew Hooton
Other blogs
The Standard: Snapshot of a nation: inequality
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 25 May 2014.
.
.
= fs =
“The Nation” – a review
.
.
First off the block for the ‘Battle of the Current Affairs Shows’ is TV3’s The Nation.
The current affairs show has been revamped with a different format and new hosts, Patrick Gower and Simon Shepherd. There is also a political panel, with familiar faces Bill Ralston, Josie Pagani, and Jordan Williams, frontperson for the latest right-winger ‘ginger’ group, The so-called Taxpayer’s Union.
So, how was the first episode?
Not the best, really. It is as if all the experience built up over the last few years have gone out the window, and there were a few irritating “clunkers”.
The main discordance – Patrick Gower. The man is talented, knowledgeable, and (should) know his craft.
But he needs to learn to Shut The F**k Up. Posing question to his guest also means waiting for an answer – not leaping in before the interviewee has even has a chance to complete his/her first sentence. Gower’s non-stop interuption of Cunliffe meant the viewer couldn’t get any idea of what the Labour Leader was trying to get at.
Message to Gower: do you want to know why David Cunliffe shouldn’t be outlining his coalition preferences on your programme?
Answer: Because he wouldn’t be able to articulate it properly without you over-talking him. We’d never get an answer because we’d be hearing your voice instead of his, and any message he’d try to express would be lost in your strident voice continually interupting him.
Next week, Gower will be interviewing John Key. Now, as much as I’m no fan of Dear Leader, I think I’d rather hear him speak than Gower. So learn to pose the question and draw breath whilst your guest responds.
On a vastly more positive note, contrast Simon Shepherd’s interview with Jamie Whyte. This was a measured, professional, almost laid-back style of interview reminiscent of past, by-gone years where the guest’s responses were the central theme of an interview – not the interviewer’s ego.
Simon’s strength lay in his soft-spoken, unexcited style of questioning Whyte (who, I think benefited from Simon’s style). There was definite ‘steel’ reinforcing his laid-back approach. The ‘softly, softly’ approach – and it worked. I was reminded of the BBC’s Hard Talk host, Stephen Sackur.
More of Simon, please.
The panel was a direct rip from TV1’s Q+A, with practically the same characters re-cycycled.
If TV3 is going to pinch another channel’s idea – can we at least have some fresh commentators? There must be more than half a dozen political pundits that TV3 can call on?
Next, the whole “Next Week’s News” seemed a bit of a farce. Not content with a TV current affairs programme being “across” a story (god, I hate that term) – now they’re going one step further and trying to predict stories? It is almost as if The Nation is trying to set the news/current affairs agenda – an uncomfortable step for a news/current affairs programme to take.
Oh well, at least they’re not making up Tweets.
Lastly; what gives with the near all-male line-up of hosts, reporter, and panellists?! Does TV3 have no talented women journalists? And what happened to Rachel Smalley, who really grew into the role?
All up, I rate this 6/10.
Can do – should do – much better.
.
*
.
Other blogposts
The Daily Blog: The Patrick Gower Hour of Power
Polity: Heads, talking
The Standard: A tale of two journalists
Whoar: review:..the nation:..the far-right come out to play..
.
.
= fs =
TV3 journo shows his true colours?
.
.
From an interview in the NZ Herald,
.
4. How often do you drink with politicians?
Hardly ever. I think those days of journos drinking with the politicians are long gone. Either that or the politicians don’t want a bar of me – so it’s probably a bit of both actually…
.
Really, Patrick? You look very chummy with National MP, Nick Smith. Is that you “keeping a professional distance” from politicians?
Which may explain Gower’s botched attempt to interview Labour leader David Cunliffe on The Nation on 1/2 March.
Gower may need to excuse himself from further political interviews with Party leaders as his impartiality is now in severe question.
.
*
.
References
TV3: David Cunliffe admits mistake in attack on PM’s wealth
NZ Herald: Twelve Questions with Patrick Gower
Related Blogposts
.
.
= fs =
The trivialisation of the News and consequences
.
.
Patrick Gower recently wrote on the TV3 website,
“The Labour Party has been putting voters wrong about its baby bonus.
Labour has been deliberately misleading, and in my view dishonest by omission.
On Monday night I told 3 News viewers that under Labour’s $60 a week baby bonus policy, families would get $3120 a year for their baby’s first year.
A simple calculation you might think, of $60 mutiplied by 52 weeks, given David Cunliffe announced in his State of the Nation speech: “That’s why today, I am announcing that for 59,000 families with new-born babies, they will all receive a Best Start payment of $60 per week, for the first year of their child’s life.“
Now most normal people would think that means “all” those parents will get the payment “for the first year of their child’s life”.
But it wasn’t true – not that you would know that from Cunliffe’s speech, media stand-up, the MPs who were there to “help” and all the glossy material handed out to us.
Because buried in the material was a website link that takes you to a more detailed explanation policy.
And on page six of that policy document, in paragraph 3, it revealed the payment would commence at the “end of the household’s time of using Paid Parental Leave, ie. after 26 weeks in most cases.”
So translated, in most cases, the $60 a week payment is not for the first year, but for the second six months.”
.
*
.
References
Dominion Post: Govt spent $500,000 on boozy functions
The Press: Jenny Shipley on Cera review panel
TV3: Opinion: Labour dishonest on ‘baby bonus‘
TV3 News: January 27 6PM Bulletin
Previous related blogposts
.
*
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 1 February 2014.
.
.
= fs =
The Maori Party, the I’m-Not-Racist-Pakeha Party, the Gambling-My-Money-Away Party, and John Key’s Party
.
The Maori Party
.
“Time for the nuclear option, cuz!”
.
TV3’s Patrick Gower had this to say about the Maori Party, on 12 July,
“It needs the nuclear option.
It needs to kick National in the guts and walk away.
[…]
It’s time for Flavell to change the narrative.
He needs to start distancing the Maori Party from National. He needs to start extricating it from the cosy relationship.
He needs to position the Maori party differently – much differently. “Positioning” isn’t enough any more – he needs to make a break.“
Source: TV3 – Opinion: Maori Party must kick National in guts
Yeah, right. After five years of coalition with the Tories, all that the Maori Party has to do is walk away and all is forgiven?!
Never mind the damage they’ve done in the meantime?!
Never mind National’s Key’s rejection of the Waitangi Tribunal claim on water rights, in the light of SOE sales and the privatisation of water.
No. That is simply not good enough. A political party doesn’t simply walk away from it’s responsibilities and track record and expect all to be forgiven at the following election.
The only “gut kicking” and “walking away” will be voters from the Maori Party. As it should be.
God knows that is the only sanction that voters have against political parties that betray their interests.
.
The I’m-Not-Racist-Pakeha Party (1)
.
Source: TV3 – Pakeha Party founder discusses future
.
As of 1pm, 14 July, the so-called “Pakeha Party” had 55,495 “likes” on it’s Facebook page. By contrast, the Conservative Party received 59,237 Party Votes in the 2011 election. That wasn’t enough to win seats in Parliament.
So a vote for any prospective Pakeha Party will be a wasted vote.
Nice one, David; marginalising the racist vote in New Zealand. You’ve done the country a service.
Medal’s in the post.
.
The I’m-Not-Racist-Pakeha Party (2)
.
The Pakeha Party has a website up and running. I haven’t read the whole thing, as I have more important things to do (paint is drying and needs to be studiously watched).
But this bit on their policy page caught my attention. Much of it is badly written gibberish, and is all over the place. But note this bit,
In this modern age to the best of our ability we will abolish all racism and/or separatism within New Zealand setting an example for the rest of the world. We will ensure all races in New Zealand (particularly Maori) who have been a part of forming & establishing New Zealand and it’s history are well preserved, very cherished and heavily promoted wherever & whenever possible. This is a democratic society – the past is the past – no one should be handed anything for free these days based on their ethnicity. No guaranteed seats. No Maori only anything. We all have an equal opportunity in our geographic locations this day in age. To solve our issues we need to give a firm but motivational hand to the poverty stricken in the poverty stricken areas with low trade.
Maori will be “very cherished”…
Awwww, that’s nice.
Just what Maori need. Not a sound economic base upon which to create jobs and build their independence – but to be “cherished”.
Will that involve Mr Ruck and his supporters giving them each a hug and a cuddle?!
And what does “the past is the past – no one should be handed anything for free these days based on their ethnicity” – mean?!?!
What are Maori being “ handed … for free these days based on their ethnicity?!
Is Mr Ruck (or whoever wrote this childish garbage) referring to Treaty settlements? Is he referring to land that was illegally confiscated by the Crown or settlers in the 1800s, and even the early 1900s?
Is he referring to scholarships awarded to Maori youth, to attend University. Scholarships that are paid by IWI and not the taxpayer?
It’s hard to know. He doesn’t tell us. (I guess it can be all things to all people.)
Though if Mr Ruck refers toThe Treaty as “the past is the past“, I wonder if he’d dare say the same thing to our American cuzzies about their Constitution, which was enacted 51 years earlier than the Treaty of Waitangi?
Or would he suggest that the Magna Carta – signed 625 years prior to the Treaty – the basis upon which our judicial and civil freedoms are based on – is also “the past is the past“?
If Mr Ruck and his followers maintain that the Treaty is out-dated – I look forward to them pointing to the document’s expiry date.
It’s fairly obvious that Mr Ruck and his supporters all hold one thing in common – a shocking and tragic lack of understanding of history and only a cursory knowledge the Treaty settlements process. They hold to the erroneous belief that Maori are being handed [land and money] for free.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, said Albert Einstein. For good reason; 55,495 do not know our own history and the acts of violence that stripped Maori of their lands and possesson – and benefitted white colonials in the process.
One Law For All is the Pakeha Party’s slogan.
Excellent.
We can start with returning that which was stolen from Maori.
.
Gambling-My-Money-Away Party (1)
.
SkyCity chief executive Nigel Morrison has been having a bit of a whinge about community and political opposition to an agreement which which see a deal between National and the casino;
Key features of the SkyCity convention centre deal and what KordaMentha estimates they’re worth over 35 years:
* Extension of SkyCity’s casino licence, due to expire in 2021: $65m-$115m
* Additional 230 pokie machines: $95m-$115m*
* Additional 40 gaming tables: $72m-$101m
* More gaming tables that can be substituted for automated table game player stations: $77m-$109m
* Ticket-in, ticket-out and card-based cashless gaming technology on all pokie machines and automatic table games: $84m-$88m
* *Includes allowing up to 17 per cent of pokie machines and automatic table games (in restricted areas only) being able to accept banknotes of denominations greater than $20.
Acknowledgement: NZ Herald – PM defends 35-year SkyCity deal
Morrison’s recent “oh-woe-is-me” whining diatribe rested on his assertion that other gambling creates worse social problems than Skycity,
SkyCity chief executive Nigel Morrison says his casino’s pokies are only to blame for a minuscule amount of gambling harm, instead placing the blame on Lotto and the TAB.
Yesterday a bill allowing SkyCity to install hundreds more pokies and gaming tables and operate until 2048, in exchange for building a $400 million convention centre, passed its first reading 61-59.
It was supposed to be a conscience vote, but MPs voted along party lines, as expected.
Gambling support groups and the Opposition say the move will create more problem gamblers, but the Government has always maintained the economic benefits outweigh any potential harm – and Mr Morrison agrees.
Appearing on Firstline this morning, Mr Morrison said SkyCity’s contribution to gambling harm has been blown “way out of context”.
“We’ve only got 1650 machines, right – there are nearly 20,000 machines in New Zealand.
“If you want to do something about problem gambling, do something about the rest of the machines, do something about Lotto, do something about the TAB – all of which have higher incidences of harm than casino pokies in SkyCity Auckland.”
The Dept of Internal Affairs pointed out, when reporting on problem gambling,
At any given time, between 0.3% and 1.8% of adults living in the community
in New Zealand are likely to score as problem gamblers on standard
questionnaires. This is between about 10,000 and 60,000 people.
Source: Dept of Internal Affairs – Problem Gambling in New Zealand – A Brief Summary
Yet, when it comes to problem gambling for outlets such as Lotto,
Around 20% of adults in New Zealand do not gamble. Most of those who do
gamble play Lotto, which is relatively low risk for problem gambling. It is
likely that fewer than 2% of those who only play Lotto will score as problem
gamblers, even if they play it every week.
Source: IBID
It’s the old “my evil is less than other evils, so that makes me ok” argument. Taking this circular logic to it’s mad conclusion, no one could do anything to address a problem, because someone else will point further down the “food-chain” as being “worse”.
As Morrison himself said,
“The Ministry of Health does a report, and it shows the incidence of harm and problem gambling as a proportion of New Zealand adults is about 0.4 percent – that compares to drinking of 18 percent. The whole perspective of this debate has just been taken way out of context.”
- 1995: $313m
- 1996: $914m
- 1997: $1,883m
- 1998: $1,914m
- 1999: $2,297m
- 2000: $2,858m
- 2001: $3,075m
- 2002: $3,417m
- 2003: $3,805m
- 2004: $4,033m
- 2005: $3,936m
- 2006: $4,104m
- 2007: $3,912m
- 2008: $3,974m
- 2009: $3,879m
- 2010: $3,783m
- 2011: $3,929m
- 2012: $4,244.
“It’s going to be what it’s going to be. It’s not for us to interfere in it – we’re just a corporate citizen trying to go forward in New Zealand.”
Gambling-My-Money-Away Party (2)
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 15 July 2013.
.
.
= fs =
Treasury’s verdict on raising the Minimum Wage? – Part II
.
.
Throughout this election, John Key has been criticising Labour’s policy to increase the minimum wage from $13 to $15 an hour, citing a Department of Labour (DoL) report that such a move would cost the country 6,000 jobs. Key even referred to this in his Leader’s Debates with Phil Goff.
Except… that Treasury has dismissed the DoL’s “claim” by stating that raising the minimum wage “has not been true in the past“.
John Key has been well aware of Treasury’s debunking of DoL’s “claims”, according to a Official Information Act request made by TV3,
.
.
Unless Treasury has become a satrap of Socialist International, it seems pretty hard to dismiss their conclusions. The DoL’s case is not helped by their own contradictions,
“…research from the United Kingdom suggests minimum wages may have no effect on employment, or that minimum wage effects may still exist, but they may be too difficult to detect and/or very small.” Ibid
I believe that the so-called DoL “report” can be safely dismissed as not very intellectually rigorous. And not even half clever.
The government claims that recent taxcuts, last year and in 2009, were “fiscally neutral”. But even this is not true.
National’s first round of tax-cuts, which took effect in April 2009, benefitted high income earners the most. Low income earners recieved very little,
“The cuts are proportional to wages. Those earning $100,000 or more a year will get at least an extra $24 dollars a week. Anyone on the average income of $48,000 a year will get an extra $18 a week, and low income earners will get a $10 a week tax credit.
On a monthly basis, both tax cuts together will see those earning $100,000 pocketing an extra $225, and low income earners an extra $95 a month.” Source
The October 2010 round of tax cuts were just as bad for low income earners, and generous for high earners,
.
.
Those on minimum wage recieved an extra $6.36. Meanwhile someone earning $120,000 benefitted from between $46.08 to $89.04.
With growing inflation reaching a 21 year high, to 5.3%; increasing ACC charges and rates; any gains made by low income earners and those on social welfare and superannuation were quickly eroded.
Little wonder that the end result was a transfer (“trickle up”) of wealth from the poor and middle classes, to the wealthy.
“The report’s 2004 data – the latest available – reveals the richest 10 per cent collectively possess $128 billion in wealth, with median individual wealth of $255,000. In contrast, the poorest 10 per cent collectively possess $17.2b, with median individual wealth of $3200. While the richest 1 per cent held 16.4 per cent of the country’s net wealth, the poorest 50 per cent owned just 5.2 per cent. ” Source
Which, unsurpringly, means we are seeing more headlines like these in our media,
.
.
The Dominion Post article goes on to state,
“Data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development shows New Zealand’s income inequality climbed dramatically in the 1980s and 1990s after sweeping economic reforms and deregulation of labour markets.
Disparities have plateaued since 2000, largely thanks to Working for Families tax credits, bigger pay packets for middle and low-income earners and declining investment returns for the rich.
But the gap between rich and poor still ranked ninth worst in the developed world in 2008.” Ibid
How well have the top richest done in New Zealand?
About this well,
.
.
The top 150 Rich Listers’ wealth grew by 20%.
That’s quite an achievement during one of the worst recessions in recent history. But even that increase in wealth isn’t sufficient for the Rich Listers. They wanted more,
“Jeweller Sir Michael Hill, worth $245 million, told NBR: “Could not the Government give us a little freedom to be able to make common sense decisions for ourselves?”
John McVicar, managing director of a forestry group that puts his family’s worth at $70 million, said economic policy should be based on reducing costs for business and increasing productivity and revenue.
Construction company head Sir Patrick Higgins, worth $100 million, said: “The country needs to address excessive regulation if it is to improve wealth creation.”” Ibid
Although at least one United States think-tank and the “Wall Street Journal” “rank New Zealand as already having the highest level of freedoms for business in the world. The Heritage Foundation’s “index of economic freedom” puts New Zealand fourth overall, with a score of 99.9 for business freedom.”
Clearly, tax cuts and increases in profits have shifted wealth upwards – not shared it around. Certainly the “trickle down” theory now applies only to meteorological services predicting upcoming rain falls.
This “gushing up” of wealth has been written about in the US “New York Times”. A very simple illustration showed where wealth has been accumulating – and who has been missing out,
.
.
Interestingly, the great divergence of wealth, productivity, and incomes started around the late 1970s, early 1980s. It was also about the time that Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were elected into office, and began neo-liberal, “free market” policies commonly referred to as “Reaganomics” and “Thatcherism“.
The New Right were ascendent, and implemented their policies with ruthless efficiciency. Those policies benefitted the rich – to the detriment of the unemployed, low-paid, and middle classes (who were too busy fighting each other to notice what was happening to them them).
New Zealand’s turn for a dose of New Right came only a few years later, when Rogernomics took effect in 1984.
As wealth is accumulated upward (as the NBR so vividly illustrated), the real reason for denying low-paid workers an increase in the minimum wage becomes more apparent; the rich would be forced to share some of that wealth. Their profits would be a little less.
Of course, this doesn’t stop some from gaining some very substantial wage increases,
.
.
How They’re Paid
PRIME MINISTER New salary (backdated to July 1): $411,510. Was: $400,500.
DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER New salary: $291,800. Was: $282,500.
CABINET MINISTER New salary: $257,800. Was: $249,100.
MINISTER OUTSIDE CABINET New salary: $217,200. Was: $209,100.
SPEAKER AND OPPOSITION LEADER New salary: $257,800. Was: $249,100.
BACKBENCHERS New salary: $141,800. Was: $134,800.
.
So remind me again, why we can’t increase the minimum wage? I’ve heard all the nonsensical, reactionary reasons – but they seem more predicated on a pathological disdain for the poor, from uninformed middle class aspirationists, rather than any clear logic.
If New Zealanders want to continue down the road of increasing wealth for the rich; growing disparity in incomes; worsening poverty – this is the correct way to go about it. Our current policies and inequalities will achieve a society where the 1% Haves control most of the wealth; the vast majority remain in poverty or near-poverty; and the middle classes stagnate, blaming those on social welfare (the worst victims of these wretched policies) for their lack of upward mobility.
But the middle classes are looking the wrong way.
This may all sound like extremist left-wing politics. Maybe it is. But I don’t think so. The information I’ve gathered is freely available and easy to gather. The realities are all around us and the media – despite it’s glaring faults and preoccupations with trivia and crime stories – does present us with a view of what’s happening around us.
Many of us just choose not to look.
It’s easier to blame the poor; the unemployed; those of welfare. And yet, if the current economic situation was not as distorted as it currently is – we wouldn’t have so many poor, unemployed, or on welfare.
An increase of $2 an hour would be a step in the right direction. Just ask the Prime Minister – taxpayers are paying him an extra $11,000 a year.
I wonder if paying all our MPs those wage increases will result in any job losses?
.
.
News Archives
Crony Watch
Keeping an eye on dodgy government appointees, crony-by-crony!
Frankly Speaking... 
