It is about time we stopped pussyfooting around and advocated and implemented the destruction of any dog and breed of dog that is considered dangerous in New Zealand. No one is allowed to carry around a loaded gun and these dogs are just that. The defenseless children are the premanent victims of this outrageous situation. If you love dogs and have to own one get an intelligent but obedient retired working dog. And rid New Zealand of these dangerous weapons
Red Alert
Archive for the ‘democracy’ Category
Become an MP – lose your right to comment on policy
Posted by Trevor Mallard on January 11th, 2012I’m slowly working my way back from the summer break. Not spending much time looking at blogs but had my attention drawn to one by a green who uses the psudenom Zetetic on the Standard.
He starts off by stating the obvious – that the next Labour government must focus again on employment – but then denies the right of members of the Labour Party to have policy ideas on how do do some things better and to discuss them.
He doesn’t like the idea that I suggest it is worth thinking about the tax benefit interface as we develop policy. And that every now and again I link to speeches and articles that have a different approach.
He suggests a conspiracy with John Pagani who I haven’t seen for nearly a month and haven’t had a conversation with for three.
And he suggests that Labour MPs should only be allowed to have one post a week. Channelling Whaleoil.
Well I’ve got news for Zetetic – people in Hutt South elected me and they didn’t do it with the expectation that a person who prefers to be anonymous would dictate what I say and how often.
Inside the sausage
Posted by Clare Curran on January 4th, 2012I’ve had a bit of contact with Birgitta Jónsdóttir. Would like more. She’s an advocate for open government. And I agree with her view that it is essential to make” the process of lawmaking more transparent and accessible for everyone who cares to know or contribute”.
Birgitta is an advocate for more direct democracy and some of her views are quite radical. I think they’re worth thinking about and discussing. I think the way we practice politics needs to change. I’ve never made a secret of that. It’s threatening to politicians and the parliamentary structures. But while there’s a lot of good in our existing structures, and most MPs work damn hard and are committed to what they do, there’s also a lot of bullshit that goes on.
People know that. I agree that MPs need more direct accountability. The review of MMP will no doubt throw up a few ideas. Constitutional change is inevitable in New Zealand. It’s a matter of when.
Having a real debate about how we could improve our democracy for New Zealand’s sake is surely a good thing.
Here’s a start. Birgitta wrote this piece in The Guardian in November 2011
The Dutch minister of internal affairs said at a speech during free press day this year: “Law-making is like a sausage, no one really wants to know what is put in it.” He was referring to how expensive the Freedom of Information Act is, and was suggesting that journalists shouldn’t really be asking for so much governmental information. His words exposed one of the core problems in our democracies: too many people don’t care what goes into the sausage, not even the so-called law-makers, the parliamentarians.
If the 99% want to reclaim our power, our societies, we have to start somewhere. An important first step is to sever the ties between the corporations and the state by making the process of lawmaking more transparent and accessible for everyone who cares to know or contribute. We have to know what is in that law sausage; the monopoly of the corporate lobbyist has to end – especially when it comes to laws regulating banking and the internet.
The Icelandic nation only consists 311,000 souls, so we have a relatively small bureaucratic body and can move quicker then in most countries. Many have seen Iceland as the ideal country for experimentation for new solutions in an era of transformation. I agree.
Iceland’s experience is fairly extreme. But their response to crisis has some lessons for us all.
I like the analogy of the sausage. Especially given it’s summer and we’re all eating a few no doubt
Re-thinking Red Alert
Posted by Clare Curran on December 29th, 2011As signalled in a previous post, I’m having a bit of a re-think about Red Alert. In particular, how to build on its strengths and address some of the issues that have arisen in the last couple of years.
In the last term of parliament, Red Alert was a bit of an experiment in how NZ Labour politicians could communicate directly with the public and have some honest conversations about policy, issues of the day and expound our thoughts in general.
It was a bit ad hoc, which was largely a strength as the blog is pretty widely acknowledged as being real and honest. The voices on Red Alert are MPs. They aren’t paid staff. That should continue.
However, there’s always room for improvement and here’s a few preliminary thoughts from me. I welcome your constructive input.
I’ve been given a new portfolio called Open Government, perhaps a first for any major political party as a formal portfolio. I’ve been doing a bit of research and will write a piece in the next couple of weeks about the portfolio, its importance and what it can achieve. It’s unusual to have an opposition portfolio which doesn’t match up to a Government Ministry. It should be noted that the National Government is most unlikely to actively promote open government, despite Bill English doing some good work in pushing for more open data in the public sector. Red Alert will be a vehicle for demonstrating how a Labour Government would promote Open Government.
Red Alert is no longer an experiment. It’s now part of the fabric of political discourse in this country. It may have also changed things a bit. I’d like to see Red Alert and Labour’s strong presence generally in social media become more focussed. As I see it our purpose is two-fold.
First, to continue to engage in direct conversation with New Zealanders about our thoughts and ideas. Second, for the medium to be a tool to build campaigns.
I’d like to see us concentrate more on the second. It will require more effort to work collaboratively across the political spectrum with those we can work with. It requires building more skills. And tolerance of differences.
However, there are some challenges. The biggest, as I see it, is those who would deliberately use underhand and hostile tactics to undermine attempts to demonstrate open-ness and a different way of engaging with New Zealanders. Red Alert’s tolerance will not extend to them.
Honest debate and disagreement is one thing. It’s an important part of democracy. Personal attacks, abuse and pack behaviours designed to destroy new voices and new ideas and a different way of engaging are another.
Red Alert is a vehicle for Labour’s caucus to communicate directly with New Zealanders. We know and welcome the scrutiny and sometimes criticism from the mainstream media. We also welcome the engagement with bloggers and commentators in the new media environment provided by the internet.
I believe that there should be consistency with new media in the rules and protocols applied to mainstream media. Red Alert is just one of those new mediums. We are not journalists. Nor should we ever presume to be. But we have responsibilities in how we communicate. And we can show an example.
The voices on Red Alert are of elected politicians. People who believe that the only way to make change happen is to make it happen. I believe that that if politicians are seen to do things differently, then New Zealanders can begin to have more faith in us.
It’s worth considering that around a third of eligible New Zealanders didn’t vote in the last election. For any party. That’s something we should all be grappling with.
Migrants and Nation building
Posted by Raymond Huo on December 5th, 2011My “open arm welcome” endorsement for a rival candidate has met with a polite and reasoned resistance from a prominent Chinese community leader.
Steven Young, former president of NZ Chinese Association commented in his Facebook on November 3, 2011 that:
“Raymond Huo’s opened armed welcome to his new Parliamentary colleague across the house comes dangerously close to identifying the Chinese here as sojourners in residence with Confucian characteristics.”
Other commentators on Facebook went further, in reply to Mr Young’s statement, one commentator said (SIC):
“If I’d known at the time that the second marker for my Honours dissertation was pro-death penalty and anti-gay marriage, I might not have put in that image of that statue of Liberty/goddess of Democracy dominatrix licking her giant ice cream cone.”
Another commentator echoed Mr Young’s view by saying (SIC):
“These overseas chinese migrants who are getting into NZ govt seats, have no bloody idea of nzchinesefullstop, its all themselves and they have there own agenda!”
The confession from me I guess was that I did say something very positive about National candidate and now MP-elect Dr Jian Yang, who – like me – is from the mainland China.
Those relatively new Chinese migrants (who arrived in the early 2000s) made up 71% of the NZ Chinese community which are different in many ways from New Zealand’s 5th or 6th generation of Chinese settlers like Mr Young and the other two commentators.
The early Chinese settlers came to NZ under harsh conditions (consider the racially discriminatory Poll Tax legislation). But they proved to be role models in the long process of accommodation, acculturation and assimilation and eventually became successful Kiwi-Chinese.
They paved the way, in many aspects, for future arrivals including Dr Yang and myself. Sadly and inevitably, it appears to be a gap between those modern ‘sojourners’ (who “have no bloody idea of nzchinesefullstop”) and the “local Chinese” (like Mr Young and the two commentators). How to bring the two together is a question and a mission.
National’s selection of Dr Yang was a careful and reasoned one. Not only has he got the required calibre (to be fair to his Chinese competitors within National Party I won’t comment further), he also positioned himself well in serving the wider community as a conduit between Chinese and the wider community.
His sympathetic position to capital punishment and his anti-gay marriage stance (according to article by Derek Cheng in the NZ Herald, November 2, 2011) largely reflects his background and view of those newly migrated Kiwi-Chinese he represents.
It is worth pursuing whether they became National supporters because they share the same values of the party or are just following a trend but that is beyond the scope of this article. Their collective characteristics, culture and mentality are however something new, if not unknown, to this country.
We as candidates from different political spectrums disagree on many policies but do share a sense of obligation in helping Kiwi Chinese integrate.
My personal view is that it is wrong for a Chinese migrant to come to NZ but end up only sticking to “Chinatown”, literally or in a cultural sense, and only eat Chinese and read/speak Chinese and mingle with Chinese people. Why bother to come to New Zealand if it is the case?
In that sense their being a “sojourner” is not welcome here.
Regarding immigration, I agree to what DPF said on Kiwiblog (22 Nov 2011) that it “should be colour-blind. Individuals should be assessed against criteria such as education, skills, wealth and ability to settle and assimilate in New Zealand.” Ability to settle is one of the determinant factors for such assessment.
Rome was of course not built overnight. It takes time to adapt, appreciate and integrate. Therefore Dr Yang and I being ethnic MPs (should I make it this time) are working towards the same goals. They will not become sojourners if they regard themselves as part of New Zealand, share the responsibility and contributing towards a brighter future.
It is equally important for ethnic candidates to lead by example that campaigning is about debating the policy, not about personality. For ethnic communities it is more important to have a clean and positive campaign (I will blog on this separately). That way we will encourage ethnic community members – with many of whom coming from a non-democratic regime – to participate in our democracy and our nation building process.
Talking about open govt
Posted by Clare Curran on November 18th, 2011Grant and I had a few things to say outside parliament today as we announced the release of Labour’s Open Government policy.
Not a flash PR video. Just a couple of real pollies telling you how we want things to be. The Labour way.
It’s time to be more open
Posted by Clare Curran on November 18th, 2011It’s no secret that many New Zealanders are cynical about politics and politicians.
For three years, Labour has done its best to do things differently and try different ways to bring politics and people closer together.
Red Alert is an example of that. Phil Goff took his caucus out to regional New Zealand to reconnect with New Zealanders. Most Labour MPs regularly use social media tools to build stronger relationships with people.
Today, Labour released its first Open Government policy. It’s a first for New Zealand because it was developed out of an open policy making process involving New Zealanders.
In 2010 Labour trialled OpenLabourNZ, a new way of Labour engaging with communities to seek their input by using new technologies and methods to increase participation drawing on similar processes used in Australia, the US and the UK. This policy is the distilled outcome of OpenLabourNZ.
It commits to producing a comprehensive “Open Government Charter”, based on a set of principles developed by Labour MPs in consultation with members of the public. It’s an important start.
People deserve to know the democratic process around parliamentary law making is sound. Hence, transparency of political offices is the core principle in the Open Government policy.
We believe New Zealanders understand a balance must be struck between transparency and accountability, on the one hand, and the need for the provision of “free and frank advice” to guide effective government and to protect the security and commercially sensitive aspects of advice.
But increasing people?s trust in the political process can only be guaranteed by ensuring a more open government. We believe that wherever possible; open is best.
Today I released our Open Government Policy in Wellington with my colleague Grant Robertson, who has supported me and helped with its development. Many of my colleagues have been actively involved in taking this policy through to fruition today. I thank them. It’s a big step for Labour.
It’s the start of a change in the way government and politics is conducted. I think for the better.
Foreign Affairs = more than trade
Posted by Maryan Street on October 21st, 2011You could be forgiven for thinking that our only interest in other countries under this government, is how much money we can make out of them.
Yesterday, at an NZIIA seminar at Victoria University, I released our Foreign Affairs policy. MurrayMcCully had given the opening speech and every country or region he mentioned was couched in terms of our Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with them, an emerging FTA with them, the desirability of an FTA or other bilateral economic agreement with them and how well we were doing because of them.
Don’t get me wrong – I am a great supporter of FTAs as long as we don’t concede our sovereignty and they can be negotiated in a more open way which engages the non-government sector as well. But for Labour, Foreign Affairs is also about peace, security, conflict resolution, disarmament, multilateralism, human rights, climate change, environmental protection and restoration, disaster relief, good governance and democratic representation, and most importantly, people to people exchanges and relationships.
Without a viable and secure planet, all the global supply chains you can think of count for nothing.
Our independent foreign policy is a source of great pride for us. It has been most enhanced in our history by great Labour Prime Ministers: Peter Fraser, Norman Kirk, David Lange and Helen Clark. We will build on that tradition.
We will bring human rights and a commitment to multilateral international decision-making back to the fore again. They have been languishing on the back burner under the National government.
Have a look at the policy – comments are welcomed.
Oh – and for those who wonder why there is no mention of Afghanistan – that is simply because our position on that is well known, has been well reported and has been the same since late 2005. In case you have missed it (!) : Labour would not have sent the fourth rotation of SAS troops back to Afghanistan. The SAS should no longer be deployed there. A Labour government will bring them home. We will progressively withdraw our Provincial Reconstruction Team as well, in an exit strategy worked out in consultation with other forces with whom we are working in Bamyan. The fight can only be won in Afghanistan if the government there wins the hearts and minds of the people. That hasn’t happened. Time to come home.
Occupy Red Alert
Posted by A Guest Poster on October 21st, 2011Dr David Clark is the Labour candidate for Dunedin North
I have been intrigued by the swift spread of the ‘Occupy’ movement. It’s already a world-wide phenomenon. While its purpose has not clearly been articulated in the media, it’s got me thinking.
Campbell Jones offers as plausible an explanation and statement of purpose for the movement as any I’ve seen. His Dom Post article is worth a read. Here’s a taster:
The Occupy movement is, however, not only about economic and political forces, but equally about ideas. It objects not only to the remarkable inequalities between and within countries, but also challenges the ideas that have up until now sought to justify those inequalities.
The movement is fighting the idea that unregulated capitalism somehow benefits everyone, and argues instead that it is a system involving systematic inequality that principally serves the interests of a small elite.
Truth is, it is difficult to escape markets in the modern world. New Zealand sells dairy and other produce in the international market. Within New Zealand, buying and selling (a market) is our preferred method of distributing goods and services.
Markets have been working – more or less – since the caveman. (Routine profiteering in markets is relatively new, but that’s another story). Markets are created to efficiently solve distribution issues. But let’s not forget that they are a human construct, to solve human problems.
And markets are not the only solution.
Markets have no intrinsic sense of fairness. A simple market-economy would allocate the bulk of health and education resources to the highest bidder – likely those with the largest inherited wealth. And most people don’t think that’s fair.
If we accept that all people should have free access to decent healthcare and a reasonable level of education, it is because we think everyone should have the opportunities that this brings, and because we think our whole society benefits from it.
In the case of healthcare and education, we decide that a market cannot allocate these resources fairly, and so we find another method of allocating them – according to need.
Yes, the Occupy movement is drawing attention to the way in which resources are unevenly distributed, and the way in which they serve entrenched interests. But the movement is also reminding us that markets are not the only way in which resource allocation questions can be answered. (Think rapid redistribution of wealth during the French Revolution, for example.)
We should never think that markets are the only option. And if we think a market is the right option for any given question, we should always ask how it is set up, and whose interests it is designed to serve. These things can be changed.
In many if not most situations, markets make excellent servants – but terrible masters.
Democracy in action
Posted by Clare Curran on September 28th, 2011Started getting tweets and emails last night about how people could make submissions to the truncated select committee on the Video Camera Surveillance Bill.
Because of the swiftness of the process, the normal democratic process was not able to be followed.
I was approached by someone at around midnight and asked whether I could lodge their submission. Which of course I did this morning.
In the absence of an electronic process (which is now available I understand) I told people via twitter and facebook they could send submissions directly to me and I would lodge them. I’ve had a steady stream all day.
Keep them coming tonight people. This is democracy in action. It may be flawed. But it’s yours.
Update: email me clare.curran@parliament.govt.nz
Or any of your MPs. That’s what we’re here for
Happy Suffrage Day from National?
Posted by Carol Beaumont on September 18th, 2011On the eve of Suffrage Day it is worth contemplating the track record of National in terms of progress for NZ women. I tried on Thursday to explore this with the Minister of Women’s Affairs. You can judge for yourself. I believe NZ women deserve better than this. Tomorrow, on the 118th anniversary of Suffrage Day, the day we celebrate the acheivement of those who fought for and won the vote for women, I will be announcing Labour’s Women’s Policy. The policy is comprehensive and builds on Labour’s proud record of working for real equality, real choice and real opportunity for women.
Message to women – the numbers say it all
Posted by Carol Beaumont on September 5th, 2011Continuing a well established pattern the latest National list continues to sideline women. Are there no competent women out there who share National’s philosophy?
If we compare the National and Labour lists by gender this is what we find – in the first 10 positions National has 2 women, Labour has 4; in the first 20 positions National has 5 women, Labour has 8; in the first 30 positions National has 7 women, Labour has 12; in the first 40 positions National has 10 women, Labour has 16; in the first 50 positions National has 14 women, Labour has 21. So National has women in 28% of the first 50 places and Labour 42%.
Women make up just over 50% of the population so I accept that Labour needs to work harder to increase the number of women in our Caucus. But at any given point in our political history Labour has led National in terms of representation of women in Parliament. Fighting for real equality for women is part of Labour’s core values and there is no doubt we have delivered consistently in this area with strong leadership from Labour women MPs.
In comparison this National Government has failed to deliver for women. In fact National has an appalling record in areas like progressing pay equality (closing the Pay and Employment Equity Unit, failing to act on pay investigations and cutting funding to the EEO Trust) and violence against women (cutting successful programmes and creating less secure funding for those delivering successful programmes like Girls Self Defence, leaving the Domestic Violence Bill languishing on the order paper). A number of legislative and policy changes have disproportionate negative effects on women (reducing access to the Training Incentive Allowance, 90 days fire at will provisions, meagre increases to the minimum wage and cuts to Adult and Community Education). Where are the strong voices advocating for women in the National Caucus? The current Minister’s priority seems to be increasing the number of women on Company Boards. This is important and I support greater representation of women everywhere (including in the National Caucus) however I don’t think this initiative is really the most burning issue for the many NZ women who are struggling to make ends meet.
A matter of privilege
Posted by Clare Curran on September 5th, 2011At the beginning of August I laid a complaint with the Speaker Lockwood Smith asking him to refer Steven Joyce to the parliamentary Privileges Committee for having deliberately misled (ie lied to) parliament in answering a written question more than two years ago.
The complaint was that he had deliberately misled the House. It’s a very serious matter. I take it seriously. I hope all MPs and Ministers do. You can lose your Ministerial portfolio and even your job for doing so.
The Speaker has since replied to me saying that he has determined that no question of privilege is involved.
He doesn’t have to give reasons.
For an understanding of why I laid the complaint and the seriousness of the issue read here and here. And here.
The letter that Joyce lied about was important because it implied the government held opinions on the structural separation of Telecom and that they were being communicated to Telecom well before the tender process had begun on the ultrafast broadband project.
Well before Telecom had been named as being the successful bidder for the broadband project. Well before Telecom had announced it would structurally separate if it won the UFB; and well before pre-emptive legislation was brought before parliament on that issue (before the contract was announced).
Sound weird? And suspicious? Well yes it is.
This is a very big government project. A large amount of taxpayers money is involved. Steven Joyce has not been straight with the public throughout the process.
He has a track record of negotiating government contracts in great secrecy and getting the outcomes he wants with little or no transparency for the taxpayers. He fought for two years to keep that letter from the public arena once the DomPost discovered it existed.
I can’t challenge the Speaker’s decision. My concern is that if it’s okay to mislead (lie to) parliament about an issue this important, what else is it okay for this government to lie about? And get away with?
I have lodged a Notice of Motion with the Clerk of the House to refer the issue to the Privileges Committee which I will attempt to move next Tuesday in the House.
Aid to Libya – what about the Horn of Africa?
Posted by Maryan Street on August 26th, 2011A few days ago, John Key announced that NZ would be giving “millions” to the National Transitional Council representing the rebels in Libya, ahead of UN recognition of the NTC and any request from them for such aid.
What the hell is this about? Libya is an oil-rich country. The UN is right now moving to lift the freeze on Libyan assets to the tune of $US1.5 billion, so why does the NTC need money from NZ? Who is pulling Key’s strings here? And did he tell his Foreign Affairs Minister? Where is the money coming from? Are we going to cut even more of the aid programmes in the Pacific to divert money to a country which doesn’t need it? These questions need answering.
Don’t get me wrong – I think we should assist Libya as it moves towards democracy, even if it is not as we know it. They will need assistance by way of training people in the maintenance of the rule of law, the establishment of accountable public structures which are transparent to the people, governance matters, etc. That’s where we can help.
And while John Key is distributing unnecessary largesse to an organisation which has yet to get full international recognition, Murray McCully has been dragging his heels in disbursing aid promised 6 weeks ago to the relief effort in the Horn of Africa. Children are dying by the thousands from the worst drought in 20 years and a call on our aid budget in this respect is legitimate and compelled by any humanitarian impulse.
But McCully has dicked about with disbursing this money – only just an hour or two ago, putting out a release that says he has made the decision on which NGOs will get the $1million promised 6 weeks ago. Provoked by bad press. How principled. What about the $1million promised to the World Food Programme? When did that get paid, if it has been?
Not good enough, Murray.
Politics should be about ideas
Posted by Chris Hipkins on August 23rd, 2011Politics should be a contest of ideas. Increasingly it’s becoming more and more focused on tactics and personalities. More column inches have been devoted to analysing whether Labour’s tax policies have moved our poll ratings than have been devoted to detailing what the policies actually are and whether they’re a good idea or not. Plenty of publicity has been given to John Key’s Rugby World Cup forays, much less attention to the fact that under his watch unemployment has sky-rocketed and the cost of living is rising at the fastest rate in over 21 years.
But that’s the reality. We can complain about it, or we can get out there and redouble our efforts to promote the ideas we believe in. I want to be part of Labour government after this year’s election because I think we’ve got the best ideas for turning our economy around, giving hard-working Kiwis a break, and securing a brighter future for our country.
I hate comparisons between politics and sport, but there is one analogy with sport that I do find useful from time to time. In politics, as in sport, it’s important to “leave it all out on the field”. We compete fiercely with our opponents, we think our ideas are better, and we think we’re better able to manage the challenges we face. But we should never forget that our opponents are also driven by decent intent, however misguided we may think that they are.
Nobody is entitled to power, or to claim ownership of a particular constituency. In a democracy, it’s a right that has to constantly be earned. Likewise, I think it shows total contempt for voters to declare the electoral race all but run before the starting whistle has even been blown. There are still three months to go before polling day, and I, along with my colleagues, intend to campaign for the ideas and values that Labour represents right up to the last hour. This one is too important.
Why we’re supporting this Bill
Posted by Chris Hipkins on August 18th, 2011Today the Labour Party is taking the unusual step of supporting the National Government passing a Bill through all stages of Parliament’s process under Urgency. We’ve been pretty critical of National’s use of Urgency to avoid select committee scrutiny so I think it’s important we explain why we’re supporting its use in this instance.
In 2008 a major re-write of the Police Act was passed by the previous Labour government. It’s a big and complex piece of legislation and mistakes were made. Under the law, if someone is discharged or found not guilty of a crime, their photographs and fingerprints have to be destroyed by Police, but if they are found guilty, they’re kept on file.
Inadvertently, the law was changed to prevent the Police retaining the photos and fingerprints of young people where they were dealt with by the Youth Court rather than the District Court. In other words, even if the young person was found ‘guilty’ by the Youth Court the Police would have had to destroy their photographs and fingerprints.
This needed to be fixed under Urgency because once the mistake was publicly known young offenders who had been convicted using identifying information the Police had stored could have had grounds for appeal.
The Bill that Parliament is currently passing effectively restores the status quo. It reverses a law change that was made by accident, without debate, without select committee scrutiny, and without anyone even knowing it was happening.
The Green Party and the M?ori Party are voting against the Bill currently before Parliament. Some of their arguments are based on process; that Urgency creates bad law and the Bill deserves select committee scrutiny. As I’ve noted above, on balance I don’t accept that in this case and think there is a legitimate case for Urgency.
But some of the arguments being raised in opposition to the Bill raise wider policy issues. I agree that these are legitimate debates, but this is not the appropriate time to raise them (I would also note that when the substance of the law was being debated, neither the Greens nor the M?ori Party felt sufficiently strongly about the issues at the time to even speak about them and that part of the original Bill was passed unanimously).
As I’ve said, I don’t like the use of Urgency to pass laws in a hurry without proper debate and scrutiny. It should only be used in exceptional circumstances. In this instance I think Urgency is warranted.
Morality tale #1
Posted by Clare Curran on August 14th, 2011Have come across some interesting pieces in the last couple of days on the issues arising from the UK riots.
The first was written by Peter Oborne, the Daily Telegraph’s chief political commentator.
He writes:
Something has gone horribly wrong in Britain. If we are ever to confront the problems which have been exposed in the past week, it is essential to bear in mind that they do not only exist in inner-city housing estates.
The culture of greed and impunity we are witnessing on our TV screens stretches right up into corporate boardrooms and the Cabinet. It embraces the police and large parts of our media. It is not just its damaged youth, but Britain itself that needs a moral reformation.
Read the rest here. He’s not very complimentary about politicians from both sides of the political spectrum.
Fair enough. We are all accountable. And politicians need to try to practice what they preach, while remembering that they too are human and subject to frailty.
But as Oborne writes, the double standards are extraordinary:
The Prime Minister showed no sign that he understood that something stank about yesterday’s Commons debate. He spoke of morality, but only as something which applies to the very poor: “We will restore a stronger sense of morality and responsibility – in every town, in every street and in every estate.” He appeared not to grasp that this should apply to the rich and powerful as well.
The tragic truth is that Mr Cameron is himself guilty of failing this test. It is scarcely six weeks since he jauntily turned up at the News International summer party, even though the media group was at the time subject to not one but two police investigations. Even more notoriously, he awarded a senior Downing Street job to the former News of the World editor Andy Coulson, even though he knew at the time that Coulson had resigned after criminal acts were committed under his editorship. The Prime Minister excused his wretched judgment by proclaiming that “everybody deserves a second chance”. It was very telling yesterday that he did not talk of second chances as he pledged exemplary punishment for the rioters and looters.
These double standards from Downing Street are symptomatic of widespread double standards at the very top of our society.
Someone tweeted this piece last night saying that what Peter Oborne has written is the moral compass for our time. I reckon there’s something in that.
Hat tip: LM
Democracy denied by smug Nats
Posted by Chris Hipkins on August 12th, 2011Earlier this year Phil Goff and I accepted a petition signed by almost 6,000 Kiwis concerned about the government’s cuts to compensation to those suffering from work-related hearing loss. Thanks to National, people with hearing impairment are the only group of New Zealanders required by law to demonstrate a particular percentage of disability before rehabilitation will be offered under the ACC scheme.
At yesterday’s Transport and Industrial Relations Select Committee meeting National members voted en-bloc to report back the petition of Louse Carroll and 5857 others to the House without hearing a single piece of evidence. That’s undemocratic and a slap in the face to all those who sought to have their concerns heard by their House of Representatives.
Having actively discriminated against those with hearing loss, the National government is now turning a deaf ear to their concerns. They aren’t even willing to allow them to come to Parliament and have their say. That’s frankly disgraceful. If almost 6,000 people were willing to take the time to sign a petition to Parliament, the least their elected representatives can do is allow them the courtesy of a hearing.
Taking the voters seriously
Posted by A Guest Poster on August 9th, 2011Jordan Carter is a Wellington-based candidate on the Labour list
The Herald carried an interesting column by John Gardner on Friday last week. He was talking about a desire to see political parties treat voters like adults, in the wake of the terrorist attacks in Norway last month.
His piece is part of a broader argument that political parties are out of touch with what most people think and how most people feel, detached by culture and language and focus from the people they claim to represent.
He hits on a point that isn’t often made: the people IN THE SYSTEM have to change it. There isn’t going to be a magical change in how politics work without the politicians agreeing it needs to change. The system has so much inertia in it that it could carry on for a long time as it is, with rare exceptions.
Those exceptions tend to be big, noisy ones. The New Zealand example is the outburst that followed Don Brash’s Orewa speech in 2004. That showed what happens when an elite moves far further than public opinion – and then someone in the system breaks ranks and calls out the gap.
As a second-time candidate, I am all too keenly aware that people’s view of politics is pretty dismal. I hate that about the job: it is occasionally and by turns embarrassing, frustrating and demoralising.
I’m not in politics to carry that on, but to change it.
A good way to start turning the system around is for individual MPs and candidates to take voters seriously. To listen to their concerns, their issues, openly and honestly: and to respond with empathy and concern, and with a determination to get things right in addressing the issues people have.
Most MPs actually do this pretty well, whatever side of the House they sit on.
There’s a second vital step where we in Labour need to do better. It’s connecting that individual openness, humility, empathy and determination to solve problems with the party’s overall image, practice and strategic approach.
We have done that extremely well recently with the launch of our tax policy. #ownourfuture has done bloody wonders for the issues people are talking about, the challenge they are putting on MPs and candidates from our party and others to define a credible vision for the future. We had a big policy proposal that would help address some deep-seated problems New Zealand faces.
Labour needs to behave that way across the board. If there is one thing I would ask of all my fellow candidates and future colleagues in the Labour caucus, it is to take the voters seriously, all the time. Our party is damaged when we don’t portray that ideal in everything we do.
And if there’s one thing I’ll keep doing as part of the Labour campaign, it is arguing for big policies that make a real difference in people’s lives, and that are open, honest and up front with the challenges that the country faces – and the fact that sorting it out isn’t going to be painless.
