Hard News: Spring Timing
270 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 11 Newer→ Last
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
Furthermore, Auckland holds a third of the population of NZ. As an administrative proportion of NZ, it is bigger than any state of Australia. It administers a gigantic chunk of NZ’s infrastructure. But collective interest in the politics is way lower.
The political interest in local body politics in NZ (Auckland is no exception) is, at least in part, down to the relative impotence of local government in NZ. Their only taxation authority is rates as permitted by central government, their only legislative authority is that permitted by central government, etc etc. They have no absolute power over anything, not even over their own configuration.
When central government can (and very happily will, as demonstrated by the EDFZ) usurp pretty much any and all powers from local government on a whim, why bother getting invested in local stuff? It's just going to get fucked over by the bastards in the Beehive whenever they don't like how things are going, as we have seen with the current government and its relationships with Canterbury and Auckland. -
SteveH, in reply to
My point was anecdotal. I didn’t really want to make a big deal out of it, other than to say that comparing the behaviour of a national political organization to regional one is suspect, because people don’t think about them in the same way at all.
When I lived in Sydney my perception was that State politics were fairly important to most people, certainly more important than council politics usually are to NZers (Sydney council politics OTOH, seemed fairly irrelevant, having interest levels more like local board politics over here).
-
Sacha, in reply to
I love how the Aussies have "Shires".
-
I did not at any point say that Tasmanians aren’t subject to Tasmanian laws. But NZers are not subject to laws from any higher source than our own Parliament and that is a major point of difference to a state government. The buck stops with Parliament, here.
It wasn't clear to me that you understood Tasmania was a state or that states and feds shared legislative responsibility but otherwise, sure.
Do you want to be specific about what claims I made that you’re disputing? The Commonwealth government collects more than 5 times as much tax as the State government. This is what I meant by it’s comparative importance to people. This cascades down to far more massive influence over all aspects of major government expenditure.
This is a bit of a distraction to the main issue? That said, although the Commonwealth budget shows revenue and expenditure, it may not be obvious that the State's are constitutionally responsible for delivery (defence, foreign affairs, employment being key exceptions) and that the expenditure side of the Commonwealth budget consists of huge Specific Purpose Payments made to the States for delivery. The intergovernmental agreement on the transfer of funds is here and it explicitly notes that:
The Parties recognise that the States and Territories have primary responsibility for many of the service sectors covered by the National Agreements appended as schedules to this Agreement. The primacy of State and Territory responsibility in the delivery of services in these sectors is implicit in the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia and it is not the intention of the Parties to alter the Constitutional responsibility or accountability of the Commonwealth, States and Territories.
Incidentally, while my experience is only in education, over twelve years under both Lib and Lab state and federal governments, I can't think of an instance where these payments have not been made.
The point leading to this discussion was that in Australia, the Greens and Labor aren't best mates and the examples given were of State politics. They could've been federal, although there's only one lower house Green.
I do think this - the similar levels of discomfort between these parties on both sides of the Tasman - is relevant to this thread and the discussion of the NZ political situation but this other stuff, about the respective roles and responsibilities, not so much.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
It’s just going to get fucked over by the bastards in the Beehive whenever they don’t like how things are going, as we have seen with the current government and its relationships with Canterbury and Auckland.
You can add Wellington to the list as well, and it’s not just about Key’s ‘dying city’ remarks either. There seems to be an undercurrent of sour grapes when it comes to relations between NZ’s major urban centres and the current lot in the Beehive.
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
There seems to be an undercurrent of sour grapes when it comes to relations between NZ’s major urban centres and the current lot in the Beehive.
Well, when MP number 2 (and the Minister of Finance) is a sheep farmer from rural Southland who's never actually worked anywhere except the farm and Wellington, and MP number 4 (and the Minister of Everything Else except Christchurch) is a businessman from the 'naki, is it any surprise? The government is dominated by MPs from non-urban electorates, many of whom make money from ownership of farms, so of course they're going to have a provincial mindset that views those dirty city-dwellers with suspicion if not outright disdain. The attitudes towards intensification vs sprawl and better public transport vs more motorways prove that.
-
I was never intending to promise that Labour and Green could not work as a coalition in NZ.
I have my doubts because both parties here seem to express a lot of the same level of emotions and thoughts about similar issues in a proven context where they ultimately tore each other to pieces.
I won't be posting comments on this blog again.
Little kiwis and their ignorant prejudices do not need any factual, historical or even much thoughtful input from an Aussie journalist who has practiced the craft for 50 years. 25 on each side of this gulf of understanding and ignorance. I am gobsmacked by how many NZers go and live and work in Oz and never see what's happening there. Not au revoir... Goodbye -
I was never intending to promise that Labour and Greens could not work as a coalition in NZ.
I have my doubts because both parties here seem to express a lot of the same level of emotions and thoughts about similar issues in a proven context. Historically they ultimately tore each other to pieces in Tasmania.
That one of your correspondents wishes to reduce and demean this... Casting it into the context of Noddy and Big Ears fighting it out over the Mayoralty of Toy Town is simply pathetic.
I won't be posting comments on this blog again.
Little kiwis and their ignorant prejudices obviously do not need any factual, historical or even much thoughtful input from an Aussie journalist who has practiced the craft for 50 years... 25 on each side of this gulf of misunderstanding and ignorance. I am gobsmacked by how many NZers go and live and work in Oz and never see what's happening there.
I love reasoned and informed argument but trans-Tasman xenophobia is just stupid... And far too prevalent.
so it is not au revoir... But goodbye -
Can we go back to first principles here: just why should we believe that the known history of the Australian Labor and Green Parties should have much relevance for the future of the NZ Labour and Green Parties? Might be similar party names; but not the same people.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Come, come, there's no need for theater. Most people are supporting you.
This is a bit of a distraction to the main issue?
Totally. Ozzie's experience might be relevant but surely that can be challenged without generating flounces.
The point leading to this discussion was that in Australia, the Greens and Labor aren’t best mates and the examples given were of State politics. They could’ve been federal, although there’s only one lower house Green.
Indeed, whereas NZ has had significant numbers of them for over a decade. We do actually have our own experiences to go on.
-
Rob Stowell, in reply to
both parties here seem to express a lot of the same level of emotions and thoughts about similar issues in a proven context. Historically they ultimately tore each other to pieces in Tasmania.
Well that’s handed NZ to National for another 6-9 years.
But … as someone who’s voted both Green and Labour, and will contemplate both this time, I see a much larger set of shared values, esp around ‘social justice’ issues, but expanding to the Treaty the environment and the economy. The similarities seem far more important than the differences, which may be why they both feel an occasional need to snipe and carve out niche positions to differentiate themselves.
Of course they could tear each other to pieces. Families fight, politicians have egos, it can get vicious. The left has a tradition of factional fighting, yada yada.
But if they do, their leaders – Cunliffe, Norman, Turei – know damn well they’ll be on the political scrap-heap doublequick, and no redemption. If they don’t have the sense and maturity to work well together, they don’t deserve to govern. -
My understanding is that there are two sorts of Labour activist in NZ: those who would have joined the Greens, but their Aunty wouldn't have a bar of it, and those who would have joined National, but similarly would suffer the wrath of Aunt(ies).
-
BenWilson, in reply to
I like to think that people might be able to learn from history. If Tasmania has a lesson to teach, maybe it can also be learned from.
-
Rob Stowell, in reply to
Yeah. But you don’t need history to work out a meltdown between Labour and the Greens in government would be a major betrayal of both’s voters, sink the careers of their leaders, and could make both parties unelectable for a decade.
No guarantee it won’t happen, but very powerful incentives to make it work.
With no idea of the personalities and policies involved in Taz, or how it unfolded, I’m just unable to comment. But it’s a fairly rural state of half a million. In my probably ignorant stereotype, it’s a West Coast sort’ve electorate – with rural elements, miners and foresters, and a good dose of hippies and “alternatives”.
Ie- not the same profile as NZ.
Totally off topic: I’m dead keen to go to Dark MOFO. Anyone been? -
Paul Williams, in reply to
Indeed, whereas NZ has had significant numbers of them for over a decade. We do actually have our own experiences to go on.
Ben, yup, it’s also useful to recognise that the NZ experience is a variation on a theme that can be observed internationally and across different electoral systems.
I also have to say, as a less active but equally long serving member of this remarkable community, you could consider the way you respond to new and alternative voices (to be really clear, I don't mean your responses to me).
-
Rob Stowell, in reply to
s that the same Labor/Greens that denied Maori there legal ownership of the seabed and foreshore.
Pretty sure the Greens didn't vote for that piece of ... dumb. Is 2014's Labour the same Labour as 2004's?
I hope not. -
BenWilson, in reply to
you could consider the way you respond to new and alternative voices
OK, noted.
-
Hebe,
I have been puzzling about the New Zealand Labour/Green schism for a couple of decades. There are so many similarities in basic principles, yet so much hair-splitting of policy detail.
To me the main difference lies in some Labourites who are entrenched in smokestack industrial-age concepts and thinking, and who refuse to admit the world has changed, and New Zealand society has changed hugely since the 1970s.I wish we could all be nicer to each other -- find the common ground and talk out the differences. That would be true to the spirit of MMP rather than the reluctant and grudging coalitions of the past.
That goes for discussion here too Ben and Phil: PAS works because people, even when they play not-so-nicely, don't keep going and going until they have the last word. Boring and it squashes debate.
-
bmk, in reply to
you could consider the way you respond to new and alternative voices
OK, noted.
Ben - I thought you were perfectly respectful and responded fine. You argued the statement and didn't insult - there are some regulars here who can be actually abusive to newcomers and yet I don't see them called out (or not often).
It's be a real pity if you felt you couldn't comment for awhile for having your tone misunderstood. Already PAS can feel like a shadow compared to the past since so many interesting commentators never comment here anymore.
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
Chaos theory…
New Zealand Labour/Green schism
after The Rupture
who will be Left behind?The full continuum includes:
United Future – Groomed Earth
National – Sold Earth
Conservatives – Square Earth
Act – Bizarro Earth
Labour – Salt of the Earth
Maori – Our Earth
Independent – Promise the Earth
No Vote – Scorched earth
Greens – Heart Earthand other less frequented frequencies.
Lend me your ears …
6 months
that’s all we’ve got
we’ve got 6 months
it isn’t a lot*what’s more they act like light, and smoke, too
mutable particle waveform hybrids
if you know where they are,
you don’t know their speed
but if you know their speed,
ya don’t know where they are at
most of the time they are
neither here nor there…Most importantly
If ya know where you are
everything else
is relative…
*apologies to Mrs Jones little boy David -
linger, in reply to
(Does that leave NZ First as Flat Earth? possibly a label more suiting the Conservatives though.)
-
Tom Semmens, in reply to
To me the main difference lies in some Labourites who are entrenched in smokestack industrial-age concepts and thinking…
Or possibly it’s roots are in people who object to being lectured to like this.
Perhaps the Labour party is, just possibly, an organisation that doesn’t like being patronised by high and mighty middle class tofu eaters impatient with their antediluvian “smokestack industrial-age concepts and thinking”.
Especially when those doing the patronising have never actually been in government, or have a the faintest idea about where jobs for ordinary people might come from once they’ve shut down the smoke stacks, dismantled the industries, tied up half the fishing fleet, reduced the farming effort, stopped all mining, destroyed the transport sector etc etc etc.
Just saying.
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
To me the main difference lies in some Labourites who are entrenched in smokestack industrial-age concepts and thinking,
So some blokes walk into a pub....
The preppies are already there since Lunchtime. They had a meeting.
The Publican announces " next week we are a wine bar, should please everyone" He then notes the TV in the corner has Richie McCaw on screen, turns up the news.
How about that sport eh?
NZ Politics... -
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
It’s be a real pity if you felt you couldn’t comment for awhile for having your tone misunderstood.
It happens all the time on PAS. Ben seemed fine to me too. So many of us lived in parts of Australia and got different things from it, (for me ,to remember anything other than partying is a delight) . One thing I did get was Australians and Kiwis are quite different and terms like "wonk" or "mate" may have completely different meanings to each countryman. I am not sure, but I suspect "wonk" does. Plus as Phil has many years experience as journalist, words could be important to him whereas I would dispute that with some of our journos over here.
Obviously Ben upset Phil. Obviously knowing Ben, I don't think he set out to, challenged though can invite opinion over fact and if the lines get blurred it shouldn't be such a big deal, however.... happens here all the time. Pas responses can be the silent treatment or the arguing one sided treatment and one has to be pretty thick skinned to hang around. That is why I think some have walked away. It is tiring to be constantly told you are wrong when I hoped everyone could have their own opinion no matter how stupid others think it is. -
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
(Does that leave NZ First as Flat Earth? possibly a label more suiting the Conservatives though.)
NZ First is NZ's Earth!
Conservs def Flat Earth.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.