Polity: In defence of the centre
208 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 Newer→ Last
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
So 25% unemployment back then would have had a disproportionally greater knock-on effect.
Possibly but I was thinking the workforce back then also included children plus the fact that many just wouldn't be counted. Its a tricky one to figure but the fact is that neo-lib economics seems to claim 6.5% unemployment balances the supply side of the cost of labour so the thinking may go along the lines of morde unemployment = cheaper labour but as I said up thread, neo-lib economics rarely works the way its proponents believe.
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
No, but it does say: "It’s as if someone were out there making up pointless jobs
Ok, I submit... ;-)
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
I think it probably has more to do with having no motivation (and in fact more or less the exact opposite) to challenge natural human psychology and the existing status quo.
Which is why it often, and unfortunately, takes a Great Depression-grade crisis to push through meaningful change.
-
Rich Lock, in reply to
Which is why it often, and unfortunately, takes a Great Depression-grade crisis to push through meaningful change.
Or a war...
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Or a war…
Or other meaningful change...for the worse.
I'm definitely not excited by the prospect of another Depression. Like a war, it's one of those times we're likely to romanticize after the fact (so long as we win), but at the time it's a real fuck. And there's no guarantee of a "win". It's as likely to lead to regressive austerity as a rethink of capitalism and a new left wing direction. At least, that's what's currently happening, and I don't see any promising signs on the horizon.
-
I suppose I am a bit late with this news but I am so pissed off that I had to post it somewhere.
Dita De Boni @KeepingMum Aug 9
Hi all. In answer to questions, it is true the Herald has discontinued my column as of three weeks from now. Reason given = budgetThe rolling maul of National's road to our insignificance rolls on.
-
chris, in reply to
It's probably worthy of a spot in the Dirty Politics thread all things considered.
-
Corbyn wins in the first round with a clear 59.5% of the vote.
-
Rosemary McDonald, in reply to
Now, I wonder what those defending the centre line will make of this?
We "politically irrelevant" Bus dwellers gave a rather stunned(who would have thunk it?) but resounding cheer at the news this morning. We tried not to get cross at the Natrad newsreader repeating the 'socialist Marx fan' narrative...and pondered on just how our so called 'centre left' in Godzone are going to respond to this.
Understand, please, oh defenders of the centre line....we are over it.
Bring on the Kiwi Corbyn!
-
Rich Lock, in reply to
I wonder what those defending the centre line will make of this?
Well, they'll either STFU and realise that the has an overwhelming mandate from the people they are supposed to be representing, and that they can like it or lump it.
Or they'll unite and conspire to undermine him at every opportunity in order to get back to business as usual at the earliest opportunity.
Head says one is far more likely than the other. Heart hopes otherwise.
-
pondered on just how our so called ‘centre left’ in Godzone are going to respond to this.
Ponder no longer:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11512750
-
Given her record, I'm really encouraged by Pagani's assertion that Corbyn will never be PM.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
David Cunliffe was as far out as Corbyn.
What was his point?
-
Much of the appeal of Corbyn and Sanders (and Trump, in a different way, for that matter) is a long record of speaking honestly and consistently - and their 'outsider' status.
I can't remember where I read it, but none of these candidates have what someone described as the careful, nuanced wariness of other professional politicians. You can have no doubts what they value, and the policies they espouse.
Hilary Clinton? Andrew Little? I just don't know what they really believe, what they truly will fight for.
That's a huge problem for the 'middle way' - the messaging becomes so confused as to be little more than noise. -
Deborah, in reply to
From a speech on pay equity that Andrew Little gave on Friday night - Margaret Long Memorial Speech.
That’s why the next Labour Government will take a lead on pay equity.
We’ll start with urgently working on paying aged healthcare assistants and caregivers fairly, and work out a track to get to a position of pay equity as quickly as possible.
We’d take the lead and work with all stakeholders on making pay equity in that sector a reality.
And we would want to see the principles that inform pay equity available for all working women, and commit to proper enforcement mechanisms.
It turns out that one of the things that Andrew Little will fight for is for low paid working women.
I was in the audience for this speech, and his commitment to this seemed strongly felt and sincere. Of course I would say that, being Labour and all that myself, but nevertheless, I was impressed, and convinced.
-
Stephen Judd, in reply to
the careful, nuanced wariness of other professional politicians. You can have no doubts what they value, and the policies they espouse.
Plain-speaking politicians, unguarded politicians, especially on the left, are liable to be monstered by the right-wing noise machine. As is already happening to Corbyn.
Possibly another reason National are careful to keep Key away from the hard interviewers and confine his media appearances to soft entertainment is that then he doesn't have to use Guarded Politician Mode and spoil the everyman non-politician illusion.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Yes, it's very hard to generalize what works best. I think we have to get over even trying to do that, and take each case on its merits. Even if Corbyn did manage to mobilize more voters, snatch the election, that's not necessarily something that will work here.
Likewise, while it's true that the "right-wing noise machine" will attack Corbyn, it will be interesting to see whether it actually succeeds, and to what extent. It can be harder to drown out a single powerful signal than many smaller signals.
-
Rich Lock, in reply to
I'm really encouraged by Pagani's assertion that Corbyn will never be PM.
Mildly annoyed I didn't stick a lazy £20 on him becoming leader at the originally offered odds of 600/1. Maybe I'll check out what's being offered on him becoming PM.
I'll pop my Fisking hat on for a second, and take a couple of lazy swipes at that article.
Quoting the post-election Lord Ashcroft analysis: "Labour's loyal core vote", and her later assertion that the "Ashcroft analysis shows Corbyn has been elected by activists more concerned about validating their anger and feeling good about themselves".
Well, firstly I'd be vary wary of taking his stated conclusions at face value, as he's hardly a disinterested impartical bystander and has a vested interest in interpretations favouring a certain view. On Sunday after the results came out, David Cameron said something along the lines that there could no longer be consensus on core issues between the parties (i.e. austerity, mainly). So there's clearly a strong impulse among the Tories to pull Labour in close (to the right) to minimise resistance to their agenda. The Ashcroft analysis would be part of that - get the message out that Labour lost because they weren't 'Austerity' enough for the electorate, and drown out any other interpretation that doesn't fit that interpretation.
Secondly, the implication there (and the message that Establishment Labour seem desperate to believe) is that the three quid Johnny-come-latelys saw an oppportunity to vent their frustration/stir up mischief, and took it. But the figures don't bear that out.
UK Labour's official figures. Scroll down to the first table. The first column is full members - i.e. the fully paid-up 'loyal core vote' (the second and third columns are (I think) the three-quidders. Not sure of the difference between 'registered' and 'affiliated'). Full members pay a lot more, and although there was a minor post-election full membership sign-up surge in May/June (before the leadership contest got rolling), it's reasonable to assume that the vast majority of these are deeply committed long-termers.
Just looking at these members - Corbyn's vote share smashes any of the other candidates by over 2:1 (and he's nearly got more that all three of the other candidates combined).
So, Josie: if, as you say "Labour's base has indulged itself" (rather than leaving internal politics to the big boys and girls, and not worrying it's pretty little head), here's the question: why do you think that is? Why haven't they managed to convince their own core supporters - the people who are actually already clearly listening to them highly intently, to vote for them? Don't you think that's odd? Something worth exploring in more detail, perhaps? Rather than just dismissing them as a bunch of self-indulgent brats who won't take their medicine?
-
I think affiliated is the unions. Supporters is the 3 pound public.
-
Rich Lock, in reply to
I think affiliated is the unions. Supporters is the 3 pound public.
I'd sort-of unthinkingly assumed the Union votes would be as fully registered members. A friend who's a member told me before the election that there's a lot of top-down driven block-voting by the unions in these elections.
So if the LH column doesn't include the union vote, but is entirely individual core members, that actually makes things worse.
-
I have read claims that the whole supporters voting thing was pushed strongly from the right of labour, as it weakened the strength of the union vote, only it turned out supporting voters were even less interested in the right of labour than unions.
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
I believe the block vote was abolished and individual union members got to vote as affiliates?
-
Just to be absolutely clear I’ve got this straight. The culmination of a Masters and a Doctorate in Political Science is a perpetuation of this traditional visualisation of the political spectrum as a dualistic linear continuum.
Though we could just as easily substitute ‘left’ for the word ‘compassionate’ and ‘right’ for the word ‘selfish’ in terms of the simplicity in which these issues are presented, I’ll stick with the terminology provided.
So the basic plan is to move a traditionally left wing party further to the right in order to gain power and then either
a) reneg on the more rightward pledges, having mislead the voters and by virtue of having won Governance, tug the population back in the lefterly direction for which they didn’t vote while retaining power and getting reelected?
b) stick with it and govern in a more right leaning capacity, offering even less of a distinction between Labour and National and dragging the country further right in the process.
Moving forward, someone inextricably linked to the Labour party decided it would be a good idea to publish this shift further afield as a series of Dear John letters to the readership of this left leaning blog rather than publishing these same pieces proposing a shift right at somewhere like Kiwiblog where they might actually win some votes?
-
BenWilson, in reply to
The culmination of a Masters and a Doctorate in Political Science is a perpetuation of this traditional visualisation of the political spectrum as a dualistic linear continuum.
Heh! I can tell you the culmination of a few weeks work tossing the NZES data backwards and forwards was that I was actually unable to find a significant second dimension. About 85% of the difference between all of the candidates party vote choice modelled on their political opinions came down to the first principal axis, along which the two main parties lay, and which was divided along unsurprising left-right cliches.
However, I also slowly realized another obvious thing, in hindsight, that the questions themselves were also dominated by that division, so any other outcome was unlikely. Out of 72 odd questions, only 1 pertained to environmentalism, for instance, so the Green voters were naturally barely distinguishable from the Left generally. The NZF party had the most 2nd dimension distinction, particularly since it was almost dead-center in the main axis.
I'd love to find other strong dimensions, but it's going to take more questions, more surveys. As it stands, there is pretty much a left right blobby space aligned almost exactly how you'd think...
If you're interested, I can send you an email of the report I did on this. I'm not really ready to chuck this research online yet. Same comment goes for anyone else interested.
-
chris, in reply to
However, I also slowly realized another obvious thing, in hindsight, that the questions themselves were also dominated by that division
Yeah that’s the limitation there, that political compass that was doing the rounds a few years back had far more to offer if only our surveys had been less one dimensional. Definitely send it along Ben!
Post your response…
This topic is closed.