Posts by Isaac Freeman
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: The Next Labour Leader, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
I think they’re more “stymied” by the bizarre misapprehension that they can go out and trash the Greens and Maori Party then expect them to come running, tails a wagging, whenever they snap their fingers.
Well, quite.
I think the thing is, though, that there's a natural tendency to perceive newer political groups as heretics within the same movement rather than engage with them as truly distinct. It requires less mental effort, and it sometimes turns out to be true. From within the bubble, it's probably hard to tell the difference between Jim Anderton and Tariana Turia. Likewise, when all your discourse is about Left and Right, it's hard to see why the Greens aren't either.
Labour's strategy towards other parties is perfectly comprehensible for a party that really doesn't understand who it's dealing with.
But it’s interesting how far “don’t be a dick” can get you in grown up politics.
As in life. And much of not-being-a-dick rests on accepting that other people have agendas beyond being your friend or your enemy.
-
Hard News: The Next Labour Leader, in reply to Emma Hart,
Though this might have been easier if the Greens had stayed a one-trick Environment party.
I'm not sure they ever were that, in the trees-and-flower-and-chirping-birds sense of "environment". If liberals are about freedom, conservatives are about stability and progressives are about equality, then Greens are about sustainability. That has social and economic aspects as well as physical ones.
Sorry to pick on one sentence. I bet you knew when you typed it that someone would pounce on it.
Both Labour and National would very much like for the Greens to be the tree-hugging party. Likewise they'd like New Zealand First to be the old-people party instead of having a broader nationalist agenda, and ACT to be the low-tax party instead of... whatever the hell they are now.
If anything, it's easier for National to deal with the Greens than Labour. Nobody is pretending that the current National platform is remotely sustainable, so there's no need nor point in grappling with fundamental values. It's just a matter of picking some projects that National doesn't care about, such as home insulation and cycle tourism. When Labour people try to talk to Greens, they're stymied by the misapprehension that they already share the same values and speak the same language.
-
Hard News: Last Words, in reply to martinb,
I think Labour, being a broad organisation has some people that don’t realise they have to earn every vote, and a lot of sincere capable hard working people who do.
Yes, quite right. There are some great, sensible and sincere people in the Labour Party. I'm heartened when their voices are heard.
-
Hard News: Last Words, in reply to Steve Barnes,
A vote against Labour is as good as a vote for National and these people are dangerous.
This is the part I think is a mistake. There's no box on the ballot paper for "against Labour". Neither are there sections for "Left and "Right". Each party has its own values, policies and culture.
I voted for the Greens because their values, policies and culture better matched what I want from New Zealand than any other party. I'd like them to do whatever works to advance their values, policies and culture. Despite the history, I think they'd get further working with Labour than National, but if that's not an option I'd rather they work with National to get something small achieved than sit on their hands for three years.
As far as I can tell, Maori Party voters feel the same way, as do New Zealand First voters, United voters and Conservative voters. Back in the days when ACT had discernible values and policies, I'm sure they were the same. I don't know enough about Mana yet, but if they're serious about getting things done they'll also work with whoever can advance their causes in whatever political environment they find themselves in.
Thankfully, Labour is capable of recognising this reality in practice. I find Winston Peters' politics odious, but I'm glad Helen Clark was able to form a government with NZ First, because I preferred that outcome to having Don Brash as Prime Minister.
-
Hard News: Last Words, in reply to Kracklite,
Since everyone else is doing it:
We are? Well, then...
Greens
Kennedy Graham
MMP
STVin that order.
-
I've considered Labour carefully at every election since I turned eighteen, and been convinced to vote for them. I know a bunch of good people in the Labour Party, generally like their policies, and admire Helen Clark and Michael Cullen. But when it comes down to it, there's something about the culture of the Labour Party that bothers me.
I find it mostly in the pervasive Labour attitude towards the Greens. I see a party with a distinct political tradition, extremely capable leadership and a commitment to decent, honorable politics. Labour people I speak to seem to see them only as the party that steals "Left" votes that rightfully belong to Labour.
I take exception to the notion that my vote belongs to anybody but me.
-
I agree with the general sentiment of Christchurch people on the film: too soon for me. I'm glad it's been made, and perhaps there's an audience for it elsewhere, but it'll be a fair few years before I'd watch it myself.
My girlfriend Kate said she'd like to see a documentary that explained more about the geology of the quakes. That I'd watch. I'd also watch a documentary about the past and future of planning for earthquakes.
While a large part of it is just not wanting to revisit traumatic events, I think there's also a sense that it's not a good time to obsess about the past. What I'm hungry for is information about the future, which there's precious little of.
-
After the September earthquake, I rather lost hope for Christchurch. I like heritage buildings as much as the next Cantabrian, but the discussion at every public forum seemed to move inexorably to the topic of nineteenth century mortar. The only future we had on offer was a titanic struggle between heroic tweedy heritage architects and evil postmodernists driving bulldozers through lovely churches. Eventually the architects would win, and we could all settle back into our traditional pastime of debating what colour tiles should next be installed in our desolate city square.
For all its devastation, the February earthquake gave me a lot more hope for the longer-term future. Whatever happens, staying the same is no longer an option for Christchurch.
When there's been a big disruptive event, we naturally want to know when things will be "back to normal". When the event is even bigger and more destructive, we want to know when the "new normal" will be established. But there's no before and after for normal. There'll never be a time when we can look back and identify the point at which normal started again. Change accumulates, and I'd rather live in a city that knows it.
-
The thing is, the Yamato wasn’t just any battleship. It was the pride of the fleet, and promoted by the wartime government as the very symbol of an aggressive modern Japan. Yamato was an ancient name for Japan, and for the dominant Japanese ethnic group. Its sinking was a crucial symbolic moment in the war, and it's been freighted with cultural significance ever since, perhaps more so even than Hiroshima.
Thus, the 1970s Battleship Yamato anime, in which the battleship is sent on a final mission to save the world, has layers of meaning for the Japanese. It plays with disturbing imagery, and it questions the popular image of a redeemed Japan emerging from the ashes of war. It’s one of the most popular anime series ever made.
Erm… end lecture. The live action remake does look crap, of course.
-
Hard News: The witless on the pitiless, in reply to Che Tibby,
"Theocrat" works. "Totalitarian" not so much, I think: it's basically the word you use when you want to talk about Hitler and Stalin at the same time.
"Islamist" I find misleading. There are plenty of moderate democratic Islamists who really shouldn't be tarred with the same brush any more than Angela Merkel should be compared with the Ku Klux Klan.
Personally, I favour the term "Zealot", although it perhaps lacks the visceral impact of "fascist".