Posts by George Darroch
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I’m saying they don’t have the same factional control over selection processes
Are you sure?
Mythologising any of New Zealand's (or Britain's) political parties isn't helpful. They all have faults. These faults are either constraints, or things they succeed in spite of. For parties which are rejected by 9 in 10 voters it's probably the latter.
-
Here’s an example. A range of changes are proposed to New Zealand’s workplaces, which are intended to make our lives healthier and less accident prone. I am not an expert in this area but assume that it will go some way towards this objective.
This will improve lives and decrease the cost to New Zealand. It will also impose some cost on employers. That cost has been lobbied against vigorously, and MPs including Judith Collins are now publicly asking for the bill to be weakened.
I am quite confident that this weakening will occur. I am also confident that it will come at no political cost to the Government. Opposition parties will deliver speeches in Parliament, unions will make press releases and statements, and none of this will create more than ripples. More New Zealanders will be injured and experience worse health, and some employers will have more money than they would otherwise.
What would you do differently? How would Waitakere Man / Waikanae Woman be convinced that this is an issue worthy of their emotional energy, and then that this emotional energy should be directed against the Government and for a particular opposition party?
-
Hard News: The epitome of reason, in reply to Sacha,
your #3 does not apply to the Greens, right?
It should.
-
Agree with most of what Danyl has said, but not this:
Whereas left-wing parties are still engaged in the endless wing civil-war over ideological purism. MPs get safe seats – or list positions – based on fealty to factions within the party or affiliates, like the unions, instead of their ability to win electorates or get voters to vote for their parties.
Ideological coherence typically has little to do with those who emerge from the unions or within Parliament (staffers, insiders) and who are selected as candidates.
-
I'll also put this out there; it's been on David Farrar's puddle and Rob Salmond's blog, and deserves another showing. Worth the hour of your life, if you do any kind of political campaigning, or want to understand those people who do. It's basically a documentary.
-
I think Matthew is fundamentally right. Most New Zealanders are happy with their lives. If they; are white, older, own their dwelling, or earn $70 or more, then they are even more likely to be satisfied with their lives. Most people live good lives – even if a large minority do not.
All politics is essentially the perception that things could be ‘better’, and that it is possible to make it so.
It has been interesting to watch child poverty rise to the top of the political agenda. It was initially a fringe issue, with people like Sue Bradford and Hone Harawira the loudest voices. In the last two years organisations such as CPAG and UNICEF have gained considerable traction, as Campbell Live put the issue in the living rooms of hundreds of thousands of other New Zealanders, and the Greens were able to mainstream the issue through posing it as central to the legitimacy of the government. It was starting to pose a problem to the Government, but had not gained sufficient coherence as a ‘political’ issue to move votes. Pre-budget Labour was still on 25%, the Greens on 10%.
That’s the challenge: how to put large and serious issues in which the government is failing or underperforming – on any objective measure – to the public in such a way that they are presented not as petty politicking but as issues of general concern. And then bring that attention back to the political parties that presented the issue in the first place.
-
Is this a ‘climate change budget’, or a ‘child poverty budget’? My early guess is that it isn’t, but that there will be small ($1-10m) token initiatives in either.
The other big question for me: will the NZDF get $400m+ to buy new jetplanes? (C-17 or A400 heavy freight vehicles).
-
“The laser beam projects a powerful image of New Zealand. I believe my design is so powerful it does not need to be discussed.”
Not everyone is taking it seriously, the Independent notes.
-
Like Bevan, I think we’re capable of doing several things at once. I’d like to see a new flag.
But I’ll probably vote against change, because I don’t trust this process. I’m particularly concerned that there appear to be a lack of people with an understanding of design and a clear visions about how that design might relate to our present and future – which might be very different and present radically different ways of life.
Of all the designs submitted so far, this is the one that most compels me: “Matariki at midnight”.
Matariki signifies remembering the past and new beginnings. It is put against a black background representing midnight, the start of a new day. This can remind us to look always to the future. Black also symbolises strength and unity (as it does in the nation’s sporting colours). The stars acknowledge our past; they are the red and white of the British forming the constellation, Matariki. This constellation was used by Polynesian explorers for navigation, with this on our flag all New Zealanders might find their way home.
It’s clear, it’s bold, and it’s not derivative – something that a plethora of shoehorned koru on Royal blue backgrounds fail.
Edit: Someone on twitter suggested making the stars larger. I'd agree with that.
-
As for Gallipoli…
Gallipoli is the name of a 1981 film starring Mel Gibson as a plain but heroic man in tragic circumstances. It was an interesting and exciting film, based loosely on historical facts. These things made it useful for teaching in Australian high schools.
By the mid 1990s the events portrayed in this film and several others were well known, and the children of the 1980s were adults themselves. By the 2000s, their understanding was orthodoxy, reinforced by the calibrated pronouncements of heads of the armed forces, and of the Howard Government which was interested in establishing its legitimacy as a bearer of a proud historical antecedent. So solemn ceremonies commenced.
If it had not been for the fact that New Zealand troops fought alongside Australian ones, then this would have remained a largely Australian way of remembering war.
