You end by saying this country cannot endure 'such polorization' in order to move forward. My retort would be to point out that the troika have produced this, along with every racist ginger group like Hobsons pledge and the TPU who are determined to drive a wedge between Maori rights and Pakeha fears. My own view is this country is moving rapidly to the right and as an individual I will not engage respectfully with the likes of Luxon, Willis, Collins, Seymour, Chhour, Van Velden, Peters, Jones, Costello, et al as they rip apart any semblance of restoring a more egalitarian society that the previous administration was attempting to achieve. This country is moving in completely the wrong direction if harmony and a collective spirit us a possible endgame.
Thanks for the comments, Mike. I can anticipate one of my right-leaning readers making much the same kind of comments, but with the names of left-wing politicians substituted for the right-wing ones you've named. That would make a nice symmetry, illustrating my point. All the best. Grant
Except I don't subscribe to the idea that my six is their nine! And the litmus test is listening to how those politicians on the right address interviewers versus those on the left. 'What I'd say to you' is obfuscation is its most bald form. There is a clear option in NZ between inclusion and exclusion. In barely a year we have seen a vindictive approach to tearing down almost everything Labour had done to redress the imbalance of power and wealth (not nearly enough in my book) and replacing this scorched earth policy with nothing. I'm beginning to sense that your forum operates on a 'devils advocate' premise, and for what purpose I'm not entirely sure.
The method in my madness, Mike, is to be inclusive of differing political opinions. I read your other comment, by the way, which has some great critical points, and so that's very welcome. If another reader wants to respond with a differing opinion, then that's fine. It's debate. And I too get annoyed with Luxon's 'what I'd say to you is...' but it's just a habit he has.
If you think the Ardern government was harmonious then I’d be interested in how you’d define the word. Labour introduced a raft of separatist projects which, rightly, was rejected by the majority. The coalition has not even restored the status quo. But Labour’s even greater sin was incompetence. But, as Grant says, “views may differ” or wtte.
When you speak of separatist policies I'm presuming you're referring to issues such as 3 waters and the Maori branch of Whatu Ora amongst others. 3 waters was misrepresented by groups such as Hobsons Pledge and TPU along with a partisan branch of the media as Maori attempting to 'steal' water from the rest of the country when kaitiakitanga and manakitanga along with cogovernance was the real issue, that, along with sharing the enormous cost of nationwide water infrastructure repairs through everyone's taxes. In the case of Maori Health independence Te Tiriti o Waitangi guarantees Maori the right to self determination and to act where they feel their best interests are served. The empirical evidence regarding Maori health outcomes within a Eurocentric system are very poor and this was an attempt to address that, again as a European I didn't stand to lose anything from this initiative. I do not subscribe to Mr Seymours view that we are all equal in New Zealand. Even a cursory reading of our history since 1840 shows that Maori have never been treated as equal signatories and have been on the back foot in almost every land claim settlement. Harmonious in my understanding is of one accord, coexisting. I'm not a champion of the economic path Ms Arderns government took under Grant Robinson, but in terms of her approach to informing the country of what was happening especially during Covid, the country knew she was the best person and voted historically as a result.
In broad terms I am in favour of a government that seeks to put in place policies that address the needs of most people, whilst also recognizing the institutional disadvantages that have oppressed our treaty partner. I see no evidence that the track the troika is taking us down will serve anyone other than vested interests of the already wealthy.
I read it at the time - and commented - and have just refreshed. It’ll be interesting to read what history has to say about PM Ardern. The Covid enquiry will also be interesting. I think she’ll be found wanting, unlike Helen Clark who played her hand well and still does. You might have to remind Mr Friend of your rules about abuse. If he wants to show disrespect he’ll have to find another forum.
I just reread our conversation back then! You were right to interject that it wasn't all due to 'matters beyond their control'. I hope to have a major piece out on that topic in a UK periodical in the new year.
Mike's comment didn't cross my line, as it wasn't insulting or abusive, I thought. But I do encourage us all to treat opponents with the same respect we'd like to receive ourselves.
When this government cuts the health budget in real per capita terms and denies it, when this government goes full climate change denial, when this government cancels social housing and built infrastructure builds because Labour, when this government refuses to explicitly condemn Israel's genocidal actions and illegal occupation of Palestinian territories while spouting about the need to respect international rule of law, when this government takes actions that are the opposite of what is needed to help bring the planet back from the breach (six of nine fundamental planetary thresholds breached, global resource use is the level that needs a planet 1.7 times bigger than Earth) it is a sure bet we will be worse off in the future.
You say: "A lesson from the rise of populism is that it doesn’t pay to dismiss the values or perceptions of people who question or resist orthodox policies and opinions. If large numbers of people feel as if no one’s paying attention to them – no matter how they express themselves – then trouble will brew. People notice and get especially riled by hypocrisy."
Do you know how Brexit was won? It was by sowing racist, negative attitudes towards Europeans and telling lies about how much Europe was "stealing" from the UK.
It's become a highly effective playbook.
I agree that in most and ordinary cases, it's important to listen and "reach across the aisle" in common dialogue and for the shared interests of a people/nation, but pray tell where that line is when one encounters bad faith operators with their own agenda - and who have no actual interest in making things better for the majority.
For example, many who cultivated, paid for, and donated to Brexit politicians reputedly had Russian money behind them, and that of oligarchs with an interest in seeing Britain leave the EU.
Incidentally, UK is a broken country now - and even the majority of those who voted Brexit recognise it was a poorly made call.
Really good question. Most NZers would probably vote against NZ becoming a state of the commonwealth of Australia. Their reasons for refusing it would (in reverse) be similar to the reasons given for UK leaving the EU (self-determination, control, unique culture, etc). So NZers could take their desire for independence seriously, while dissuading people from any racist overtones. Refusing to take Leavers seriously was an acknowledged reason why Leave won. I agree that there was dishonesty and interference behind the Leave campaign, but that's no reason for ignoring or dismissing those who wanted to leave. To the contrary, it means trying harder.
I don't think it can ever be valid to draw a line between 'ourselves' (whoever that includes) and fellow citizens whose votes (and lives) are of equal value, just because we disagree – unless we really don't believe in democracy after all.
I'd have voted Remain, if I could have. And I agree that it's turned out to be a bad choice for the UK. Remain campaigners could have tried harder to understand their opponents. Too late now, but one can learn a lesson for next time.
History has plenty of examples of how efforts to ignore or suppress disagreeable ideas doesn't make them go away – and may instead intensify them. The history of religious dissent is instructive – and grim. After too much bloodshed, the different sects learned to get along together. You mention some very difficult and scary examples. But, again, so long as people are acting within the law, what else (besides persuading and admonishing, with maybe a bit of shouting) would you propose doing? Foreign and corporate influences are always a worry too, I agree.
I can't see things getting any better for the vast majority of NZers while Luxon ignores reality, Nicola Wills makes unreasonable demands and Shane Reti seems incapable of telling Health NZ to actually fix the failed health system.
I applaud you for reminding us that in a Democracy it is necessary to listen to differing points of view. Yet you seem to assert your support for the previous government that made a determined effort to stiffle free speech when it disagreed with their political agenda. You can't have it both ways.
33 billion dollars on roads while not funding critical and essential services with multiple crisis and threats looming is madness. Both parties do so little and waste so much on their pet projects and ideologies it’s just patently obvious they should not be in Government or should hold social licence for the majority of the country or environment at all. Wasting time, money and our lives appears to be the MO of institutions while behaving illegally and irresponsibly constantly. It’s true self interest and crony capitalism at its worse and has been endangering (particularly the vulnerable) us all for decades. Truly disgraceful along with being totally illegal to the extent of crimes against humanity including TORTURE as adjudged by the UN going unpunished. Why so little in legacy and mainstream NZ media? There are massive problems for most and these clowns are as utterly hopeless as the last. Albeit not as tediously long doing everything wrong in a free and equal (?)country …..yet. We literally enslave people (women and children) here and yet not a peep.
You end by saying this country cannot endure 'such polorization' in order to move forward. My retort would be to point out that the troika have produced this, along with every racist ginger group like Hobsons pledge and the TPU who are determined to drive a wedge between Maori rights and Pakeha fears. My own view is this country is moving rapidly to the right and as an individual I will not engage respectfully with the likes of Luxon, Willis, Collins, Seymour, Chhour, Van Velden, Peters, Jones, Costello, et al as they rip apart any semblance of restoring a more egalitarian society that the previous administration was attempting to achieve. This country is moving in completely the wrong direction if harmony and a collective spirit us a possible endgame.
Thanks for the comments, Mike. I can anticipate one of my right-leaning readers making much the same kind of comments, but with the names of left-wing politicians substituted for the right-wing ones you've named. That would make a nice symmetry, illustrating my point. All the best. Grant
Except I don't subscribe to the idea that my six is their nine! And the litmus test is listening to how those politicians on the right address interviewers versus those on the left. 'What I'd say to you' is obfuscation is its most bald form. There is a clear option in NZ between inclusion and exclusion. In barely a year we have seen a vindictive approach to tearing down almost everything Labour had done to redress the imbalance of power and wealth (not nearly enough in my book) and replacing this scorched earth policy with nothing. I'm beginning to sense that your forum operates on a 'devils advocate' premise, and for what purpose I'm not entirely sure.
The method in my madness, Mike, is to be inclusive of differing political opinions. I read your other comment, by the way, which has some great critical points, and so that's very welcome. If another reader wants to respond with a differing opinion, then that's fine. It's debate. And I too get annoyed with Luxon's 'what I'd say to you is...' but it's just a habit he has.
Cheers.
If you think the Ardern government was harmonious then I’d be interested in how you’d define the word. Labour introduced a raft of separatist projects which, rightly, was rejected by the majority. The coalition has not even restored the status quo. But Labour’s even greater sin was incompetence. But, as Grant says, “views may differ” or wtte.
When you speak of separatist policies I'm presuming you're referring to issues such as 3 waters and the Maori branch of Whatu Ora amongst others. 3 waters was misrepresented by groups such as Hobsons Pledge and TPU along with a partisan branch of the media as Maori attempting to 'steal' water from the rest of the country when kaitiakitanga and manakitanga along with cogovernance was the real issue, that, along with sharing the enormous cost of nationwide water infrastructure repairs through everyone's taxes. In the case of Maori Health independence Te Tiriti o Waitangi guarantees Maori the right to self determination and to act where they feel their best interests are served. The empirical evidence regarding Maori health outcomes within a Eurocentric system are very poor and this was an attempt to address that, again as a European I didn't stand to lose anything from this initiative. I do not subscribe to Mr Seymours view that we are all equal in New Zealand. Even a cursory reading of our history since 1840 shows that Maori have never been treated as equal signatories and have been on the back foot in almost every land claim settlement. Harmonious in my understanding is of one accord, coexisting. I'm not a champion of the economic path Ms Arderns government took under Grant Robinson, but in terms of her approach to informing the country of what was happening especially during Covid, the country knew she was the best person and voted historically as a result.
In broad terms I am in favour of a government that seeks to put in place policies that address the needs of most people, whilst also recognizing the institutional disadvantages that have oppressed our treaty partner. I see no evidence that the track the troika is taking us down will serve anyone other than vested interests of the already wealthy.
Hi Max. Thanks for your comment. On the Ardern government, I'd refer back to my post on "why Labour lost"...
https://grantduncanphd.substack.com/p/why-labour-lost
Cheers.
I read it at the time - and commented - and have just refreshed. It’ll be interesting to read what history has to say about PM Ardern. The Covid enquiry will also be interesting. I think she’ll be found wanting, unlike Helen Clark who played her hand well and still does. You might have to remind Mr Friend of your rules about abuse. If he wants to show disrespect he’ll have to find another forum.
I just reread our conversation back then! You were right to interject that it wasn't all due to 'matters beyond their control'. I hope to have a major piece out on that topic in a UK periodical in the new year.
Mike's comment didn't cross my line, as it wasn't insulting or abusive, I thought. But I do encourage us all to treat opponents with the same respect we'd like to receive ourselves.
Cheers
???
When this government cuts the health budget in real per capita terms and denies it, when this government goes full climate change denial, when this government cancels social housing and built infrastructure builds because Labour, when this government refuses to explicitly condemn Israel's genocidal actions and illegal occupation of Palestinian territories while spouting about the need to respect international rule of law, when this government takes actions that are the opposite of what is needed to help bring the planet back from the breach (six of nine fundamental planetary thresholds breached, global resource use is the level that needs a planet 1.7 times bigger than Earth) it is a sure bet we will be worse off in the future.
Great critique, thanks Andrew!
Hi there and nice to meet you, Grant.
You say: "A lesson from the rise of populism is that it doesn’t pay to dismiss the values or perceptions of people who question or resist orthodox policies and opinions. If large numbers of people feel as if no one’s paying attention to them – no matter how they express themselves – then trouble will brew. People notice and get especially riled by hypocrisy."
Do you know how Brexit was won? It was by sowing racist, negative attitudes towards Europeans and telling lies about how much Europe was "stealing" from the UK.
It's become a highly effective playbook.
I agree that in most and ordinary cases, it's important to listen and "reach across the aisle" in common dialogue and for the shared interests of a people/nation, but pray tell where that line is when one encounters bad faith operators with their own agenda - and who have no actual interest in making things better for the majority.
For example, many who cultivated, paid for, and donated to Brexit politicians reputedly had Russian money behind them, and that of oligarchs with an interest in seeing Britain leave the EU.
Incidentally, UK is a broken country now - and even the majority of those who voted Brexit recognise it was a poorly made call.
Thanks,
Tui
Hi Tui
Really good question. Most NZers would probably vote against NZ becoming a state of the commonwealth of Australia. Their reasons for refusing it would (in reverse) be similar to the reasons given for UK leaving the EU (self-determination, control, unique culture, etc). So NZers could take their desire for independence seriously, while dissuading people from any racist overtones. Refusing to take Leavers seriously was an acknowledged reason why Leave won. I agree that there was dishonesty and interference behind the Leave campaign, but that's no reason for ignoring or dismissing those who wanted to leave. To the contrary, it means trying harder.
I don't think it can ever be valid to draw a line between 'ourselves' (whoever that includes) and fellow citizens whose votes (and lives) are of equal value, just because we disagree – unless we really don't believe in democracy after all.
I'd have voted Remain, if I could have. And I agree that it's turned out to be a bad choice for the UK. Remain campaigners could have tried harder to understand their opponents. Too late now, but one can learn a lesson for next time.
Cheers.
Grant
History has plenty of examples of how efforts to ignore or suppress disagreeable ideas doesn't make them go away – and may instead intensify them. The history of religious dissent is instructive – and grim. After too much bloodshed, the different sects learned to get along together. You mention some very difficult and scary examples. But, again, so long as people are acting within the law, what else (besides persuading and admonishing, with maybe a bit of shouting) would you propose doing? Foreign and corporate influences are always a worry too, I agree.
I can't see things getting any better for the vast majority of NZers while Luxon ignores reality, Nicola Wills makes unreasonable demands and Shane Reti seems incapable of telling Health NZ to actually fix the failed health system.
Fair critical comments, Dave!
I applaud you for reminding us that in a Democracy it is necessary to listen to differing points of view. Yet you seem to assert your support for the previous government that made a determined effort to stiffle free speech when it disagreed with their political agenda. You can't have it both ways.
I have been critical of the previous government, Sean.
https://grantduncanphd.substack.com/p/why-labour-lost
And I support your right to criticise them too! Cheers.
33 billion dollars on roads while not funding critical and essential services with multiple crisis and threats looming is madness. Both parties do so little and waste so much on their pet projects and ideologies it’s just patently obvious they should not be in Government or should hold social licence for the majority of the country or environment at all. Wasting time, money and our lives appears to be the MO of institutions while behaving illegally and irresponsibly constantly. It’s true self interest and crony capitalism at its worse and has been endangering (particularly the vulnerable) us all for decades. Truly disgraceful along with being totally illegal to the extent of crimes against humanity including TORTURE as adjudged by the UN going unpunished. Why so little in legacy and mainstream NZ media? There are massive problems for most and these clowns are as utterly hopeless as the last. Albeit not as tediously long doing everything wrong in a free and equal (?)country …..yet. We literally enslave people (women and children) here and yet not a peep.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Kath. Are you the same person as the candidate for the Women's rights party in 2023? Cheers.
Yes I was Grant.