Tis a strange time when I completely agree with you. Further to what you have just written, the contemporary left refuse to have an intelligent conversation, even discussion, about their proposals for whatever it is they want, without immediately grasping for the most base personal invective they can find. In the months leading up to the election, the editor of The Spinoff wished to try an experiment in discussing political issues which can sometimes lead to heated arguments within families. She called it 'Arguing with my Mother-in-Law'. My son-in-law Mark Crysell, who is unashamedly a leftie (I would say chardonnay socialist), whom I love dearly, and I would each month pick a topic (for example Capital Gains Tax, and wealth tax) and discuss pros and cons. It lasted two months because the poor moderators at The Spinoff could not cope with the appalling comments - truly ghastly and mostly aimed at yours truly (of course). She had to can it. How immature is this? Mark and I actually never argue, and we ensured we finished every discussion on hope and positivity. But there you go.
Like Deborah I also find it odd that I agree with you. I consider you a stalwart of the Left and read your Substack ( along with Bryce Edwards) to get a more balanced view of the political world. You both strike me as intelligent people with integrity - qualities coexisting less and less often these days.
Also like Deborah I'm appalled by the abuse directed at political commentary in the comments section. Itrstional abuses used to be a " left wing thing" but I see it more and more coming from sympathisers on the right. Maybe it's where our education system has left us.
The Left has abandoned the " working classes" in favour of its mix of " disadvantaged minorities" ( usually identity based ) and beneficiaries. Labour's core support are the intelligentsia ( academia, judiciary, journalists - actually opinionists - and the civil service ) - the very people true socialists despise ( Mao burnt books , Pol Pot sent these people into the fields - or under them). They rely on guilt and need for much of their support.
No major party seems to care for the youth of NZ. The group truly disadvantaged by an unfair tax system, an education system derailed by ideology leaving them ill equipped for the workforce and a culture of entitlement rather than self responsibility. This generation faces the burden of unaffordable housing, high government debt and a responsibility to fund their parents and grandparents retirement and healthcare - along with funding the benefits for the significant number of their own generation unable or unwilling to work.
The Greens pretend to care for the young ( in the same way they pretend to care for the environment). But in reality they represent the same constituency as Labour - just younger. The Greens - the entitled generation from middle class backgrounds - assume the wealthy can pay for it all - without understanding how wealth is actually created.
Unfortunately the major parties on the Right don't exist. We have no far right parties in NZ, National is so " woke" many if its supporters are looking to vote elsewhere. ACT are a true right wing party but have been captured by their donors so avoid real reform and therefore have limited public appeal.
National lack clear beliefs - they are supposed to stand for growth and prosperity, creating an economy that lifts living standards for all. However their support for the middle class ( the new working class) is largely with more benefits ( working for families). They don't appear to even try to slow down the ideological reforms pushed on us undemocratically from within by the left leaning institutions. They don't challenge the institutions that block their policy progress. They avoid the real reform needed to stop our decline as a nation. Maybe it's because some of the required reform is not want its major donors or centre left MPs want.
So where do we go as a nation - to Winston / NZF , our Reform.? A populist who does lots to protect the benefits for the aged and his donors but otherwise just tells us what we want to hear on immigration and Maorification and does very little substantive about it until election time ( even then its largely promises for action on his next term). NZF wouldn't support the Treaty Principle Bill or push for a referendum on the Maori electoral role at this election ( it will be their next term , like it was in 2017). His own Ministry undermined the government with slipping the UNDRIP clause in the India FTA.
The historical, grassroots process of formulating policy that Labour once practised, showcased democracy at its best.
The wonderful English conservative philosopher, Roger Scruton, promoted the same cultural ethos as the primary reason to leave the European Union. That is, English law was/is rooted in Common Law, from the bottom up unlike other European countries where laws were/are proclaimed from the top down. The two systems are anathema to one another.
If Labour ever returned to this philosophy, their credibility would concomitantly reap rewards.
This seems a bit unbalanced. Is it really true that the smug condescension and arrogance is only a fault of the Left?
I read widely across the political spectrum. it seems to me that both sides are guilty of this, especially as one gets further away from the centre. Both Act and Green supporters are equally certain of their views and are inclined to consider their opposites as either naive or evil fools and charlatans.
The centre, in which I would include myself, is being squeezed from both ends. The two parties that essentially cover the centre (one Centre Right, one Centre Left) still get 65% support in the polls. That is better than they got in the first MMP election of 1996 when they were at 60%.
The squeeze is not just a question of percentages, it is how moderates are increasingly disparaged. Both the more Right (ACT) and the more Left (Greens) are increasingly willing to condemn those of moderate views.
The most recent examples being the invective of the supporters of the Treaty Principles Bill. That wasn't just directed at TPM, it was also directed at moderate National. Similarly, at least at its inception, those opposing the Iran and Lebanon wars, even those of moderate views, were virtually accused of antisemitism and being supporters of the Iranian regime. That didn't last long as it became apparent that the war was a serious mistake (to put it mildly).
Map Chris Trotters Top Down Leftism and Jacinda's speech to the University of Bologna [ Add music: "Holy, Holy Holy, Lord God Almighty - as she receives her award]?
I'm nearly 80, have higher degrees and am wealthy. I voted Labour all my life until the last election and I won't be returning to them. Here's an idea from the bottom up. I'd be willing to vote for any party that had a policy that I could voluntarily opt out of receiving super, with the caveat that if my circumstances changed I could opt back in. I keep reading that we can't afford super any longer, but if there were thousands like me did this would it be a gamechanger? My knowledge of economics is almost zero but can anyone out there do the maths??
Tis a strange time when I completely agree with you. Further to what you have just written, the contemporary left refuse to have an intelligent conversation, even discussion, about their proposals for whatever it is they want, without immediately grasping for the most base personal invective they can find. In the months leading up to the election, the editor of The Spinoff wished to try an experiment in discussing political issues which can sometimes lead to heated arguments within families. She called it 'Arguing with my Mother-in-Law'. My son-in-law Mark Crysell, who is unashamedly a leftie (I would say chardonnay socialist), whom I love dearly, and I would each month pick a topic (for example Capital Gains Tax, and wealth tax) and discuss pros and cons. It lasted two months because the poor moderators at The Spinoff could not cope with the appalling comments - truly ghastly and mostly aimed at yours truly (of course). She had to can it. How immature is this? Mark and I actually never argue, and we ensured we finished every discussion on hope and positivity. But there you go.
Just to add, I do find this nonsense from the 'far right' also :)
Like Deborah I also find it odd that I agree with you. I consider you a stalwart of the Left and read your Substack ( along with Bryce Edwards) to get a more balanced view of the political world. You both strike me as intelligent people with integrity - qualities coexisting less and less often these days.
Also like Deborah I'm appalled by the abuse directed at political commentary in the comments section. Itrstional abuses used to be a " left wing thing" but I see it more and more coming from sympathisers on the right. Maybe it's where our education system has left us.
The Left has abandoned the " working classes" in favour of its mix of " disadvantaged minorities" ( usually identity based ) and beneficiaries. Labour's core support are the intelligentsia ( academia, judiciary, journalists - actually opinionists - and the civil service ) - the very people true socialists despise ( Mao burnt books , Pol Pot sent these people into the fields - or under them). They rely on guilt and need for much of their support.
No major party seems to care for the youth of NZ. The group truly disadvantaged by an unfair tax system, an education system derailed by ideology leaving them ill equipped for the workforce and a culture of entitlement rather than self responsibility. This generation faces the burden of unaffordable housing, high government debt and a responsibility to fund their parents and grandparents retirement and healthcare - along with funding the benefits for the significant number of their own generation unable or unwilling to work.
The Greens pretend to care for the young ( in the same way they pretend to care for the environment). But in reality they represent the same constituency as Labour - just younger. The Greens - the entitled generation from middle class backgrounds - assume the wealthy can pay for it all - without understanding how wealth is actually created.
Unfortunately the major parties on the Right don't exist. We have no far right parties in NZ, National is so " woke" many if its supporters are looking to vote elsewhere. ACT are a true right wing party but have been captured by their donors so avoid real reform and therefore have limited public appeal.
National lack clear beliefs - they are supposed to stand for growth and prosperity, creating an economy that lifts living standards for all. However their support for the middle class ( the new working class) is largely with more benefits ( working for families). They don't appear to even try to slow down the ideological reforms pushed on us undemocratically from within by the left leaning institutions. They don't challenge the institutions that block their policy progress. They avoid the real reform needed to stop our decline as a nation. Maybe it's because some of the required reform is not want its major donors or centre left MPs want.
So where do we go as a nation - to Winston / NZF , our Reform.? A populist who does lots to protect the benefits for the aged and his donors but otherwise just tells us what we want to hear on immigration and Maorification and does very little substantive about it until election time ( even then its largely promises for action on his next term). NZF wouldn't support the Treaty Principle Bill or push for a referendum on the Maori electoral role at this election ( it will be their next term , like it was in 2017). His own Ministry undermined the government with slipping the UNDRIP clause in the India FTA.
The historical, grassroots process of formulating policy that Labour once practised, showcased democracy at its best.
The wonderful English conservative philosopher, Roger Scruton, promoted the same cultural ethos as the primary reason to leave the European Union. That is, English law was/is rooted in Common Law, from the bottom up unlike other European countries where laws were/are proclaimed from the top down. The two systems are anathema to one another.
If Labour ever returned to this philosophy, their credibility would concomitantly reap rewards.
This seems a bit unbalanced. Is it really true that the smug condescension and arrogance is only a fault of the Left?
I read widely across the political spectrum. it seems to me that both sides are guilty of this, especially as one gets further away from the centre. Both Act and Green supporters are equally certain of their views and are inclined to consider their opposites as either naive or evil fools and charlatans.
The centre, in which I would include myself, is being squeezed from both ends. The two parties that essentially cover the centre (one Centre Right, one Centre Left) still get 65% support in the polls. That is better than they got in the first MMP election of 1996 when they were at 60%.
The squeeze is not just a question of percentages, it is how moderates are increasingly disparaged. Both the more Right (ACT) and the more Left (Greens) are increasingly willing to condemn those of moderate views.
The most recent examples being the invective of the supporters of the Treaty Principles Bill. That wasn't just directed at TPM, it was also directed at moderate National. Similarly, at least at its inception, those opposing the Iran and Lebanon wars, even those of moderate views, were virtually accused of antisemitism and being supporters of the Iranian regime. That didn't last long as it became apparent that the war was a serious mistake (to put it mildly).
Oh Chris, you old curmudgeon. Do I suspect ‘this gentleman is for turning’
Yes, the peasants are revolting. Of both ilk's. I like the idea of the word 'oaf' coming back into common usage.
Map Chris Trotters Top Down Leftism and Jacinda's speech to the University of Bologna [ Add music: "Holy, Holy Holy, Lord God Almighty - as she receives her award]?
https://copilot.microsoft.com/shares/nBpnC19dP96HQUm9BWG3m
I'm nearly 80, have higher degrees and am wealthy. I voted Labour all my life until the last election and I won't be returning to them. Here's an idea from the bottom up. I'd be willing to vote for any party that had a policy that I could voluntarily opt out of receiving super, with the caveat that if my circumstances changed I could opt back in. I keep reading that we can't afford super any longer, but if there were thousands like me did this would it be a gamechanger? My knowledge of economics is almost zero but can anyone out there do the maths??
you might be interested in this https://martinhardie.substack.com/p/can-internationalism-solve-the-scale