Posts by WH
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
We could have some really interesting conversations about the importance of plausible and charismatic leadership, compelling policy options, valence voters, effective media management and so on. No-one's denying the crucial role these factors play.
There will inevitably be differences among the leftist and centrist supporters of a progressive / social democratic movement. I'd be happy if this conversation led only to a recognition that major political parties need to attract support from voters with a range of backgrounds and views (notwithstanding that political parties play an important role in shaping and framing public debate).
As things stand, Labour needs the support of voters who are currently leaning towards National. There's more than one way to win an election, but, as the UK Fabians explain, there's no getting around the basic logic.
-
Yes, in normal times, appeals to the centre, whatever the fuck that might be, probably prevail.
While I can't speak to centrism, the term "centre left" is a widely understood shorthand for a popular set of policies and attitudes about mixed market capitalism, regulation and the redistribution of income. It's a broad term that readily encompasses the approaches of the New Zealand and UK Labour parties.
Politics is the process by which we share society with those with whom we disagree. The centre left's emphasis on democratic decision-making and good governance is a source of lasting strength and should be celebrated as such. I don't accept that politics gets muddled as it moves to where the people are.
Without wishing to comment on or locate Bernie Sanders within this debate, this sums up the shortcomings of approaches that value ideological purity ahead of the views of actual voters.
-
I enjoyed reading George Monbiot's article and would quickly add the following:
- I think the bar chart Rob provided is really important;
- the centre-left emphasises the way in which majoritarianism lends legitimacy to change. The tension between authenticity and the allegedly compromised character of the centre-left is too often based on a failure to account for the views of other voters;
- revolutionary and radical ideologies tend to overlook the way in which incremental, trust-led change can overhaul systems over time and thereby open the Overton window;
- The enthusiasms of motivated voters give little insight into how a political movement will fare under sustained media scrutiny.
-
By way of postscript, I'm sorry if that came off a little harsh. I should emphasise that I've always enjoyed reading Stephen's many careful and considered comments on PA and have a lot of time for what he has to say.
-
To put it another way, it’s more useful to talk about whether actions and words are racist in effect, than whether people are racist (and implicitly damned) in their hearts.
I think you're confusing ideas around disparate impact discrimination and racism, which differ in important ways. If you're going to abandon the claim that Labour is deliberately engaging in racist conduct in order to start framing your argument in terms of the unintentional unequal impact of Labour's policies, you really do owe Phil Twyford an apology.
I take your position to be that otherwise innocent policies and discussions pertaining to blanket restrictions on foreign investment in housing are racist because such policies will have a disparate impact on New Zealand's residents and citizens. I think the basic incoherence of this idea has its origins in your nebulous use of language. Despite what you appear to believe, it's no small thing to publicly call the shadow Minister for Housing a racist. Obviously, I'd be disappointed if the impetus behind Labour's housing proposals were blunted in this way.
Finally, I'm dealing with a potential shadow issue of my own (it's not you Stephen). I'll take this up with Russell privately and will, unfortunately, really have to leave it there this time.
-
We’ve discussed Auckland’s housing market and the extent of foreign ownership of New Zealand’s economy on many occasions here. This is part of a story that goes back past the 1990 sale of Telecom to Bell Atlantic and Ameritech. I find it remarkable that statistical methods that clearly show an unexpected amount of foreign investment activity are being used to obscure the social and economic consequences of that investment. Short of a crash, this is not a trend that is going to stop on its own.
Phil Goff recently said:
I would die in a ditch to give people of whatever ethnicity the same rights as New Zealand residents. But I have a very clear view that people from overseas should not be investing in the New Zealand market.
I think that’s a pretty easy thing to understand if you’re inclined to make the effort, and I’m wary of the way in which unsubstantiated allegations of racism can damage reputations and subvert discussion of what in this case are critical issues. Whilst acknowledging that racism itself is by far the more prevalent and pressing concern, I think more care is needed.
Putting foreign ownership and ethnicity entirely to one side, my personal view is that we have some very serious and potentially irreversible mistakes with respect to our housing market.
-
Feel free to have this discussion here, I’d just appreciate if you avoid directly implying that I personally owe the Labour Party anything as a member of the tribal left (which I am, but you know, I have this other tribe too that I don’t have a choice about)
I’ve probably already said more than was needed and agree that you don’t owe Labour any special duties. In short, though, I think Phil Twyford’s efforts around housing are important to New Zealand’s wellbeing and make sense without the ugly secondary meanings being imputed to them.
I'm not completely at ease discussing identity but would like to believe that we're collectively working towards a more inclusive future. WH out.
-
National has often minimised the importance of foreign ownership and quite deliberately delayed the collection of the information needed to gauge the numbers of homes being sold to overseas buyers. In the absence of official figures, property industry spokespeople were quick to characterise Labour’s provision of an admittedly inexact metric (which indicated that foreign purchases were much greater than the 10% figure sometimes given) as a form of race-baiting. This struck me as tendentious and self-serving.
I mentioned the ubiquity of discussion about the rise of China because its capacity and willingness to invest in New Zealand is already significant and is only likely to increase. I’m sure you agree that New Zealanders need to be able to discuss this issue, and I’m happy to do this in ways that take account of the sensitivites and difficulties this raises for New Zealand’s much valued ethnically Chinese population (many of whom, of course, have been here for generations).
As you’ve essentially alleged that Labour’s motives in raising this issue are cynical and perhaps even racist, I can’t accept that this conversation should take place elsewhere or with someone of another ethnic group. Although this is a privately-run forum, your contribution forms part of (and indeed influences) an important national conversation.
As I said previously, I’m mindful of the risks this conversation raises and remember what New Zealand can be like. I’m also aware that our collective and reciprocal sensitivities around ethnicity can disrupt and distort discussion that might otherwise be worthwhile.
In any event, I will respect your request and leave this there - do feel free to respond to/rebut what I've said if you think it appropriate to do so. I trust things are going well with you in London.
-
In other words, Tze Ming, the rent is too damn high.
-
It’s unfortunate that the lack of accurate statistics around the structure of home ownership in New Zealand has moved the focus of this particular discussion from residency and citizenship to race and ethnicity. The underlying issue, it seems to me, is that our housing supply has come to be seen as a source of easy profits by investors and that this is undermining our quality of life.
While I acknowledge the risks in the approach taken in Labour’s analysis, the danger to New Zealand’s social and economic wellbeing that is our housing market has been ignored by our political elite for almost 15 years. This doesn’t strike me as a Keith Ng/Deborah Coddington sort of a moment and I think you’ve done Phil Twyford and the Labour Party a disservice.
As a New Zealander living in the UK, you’re probably already aware that London has problems around housing affordability and foreign ownership of residential property that many Aucklanders would recognise. This is from today’s Guardian:
"[Property expert Henry Pryor added]: “Can we tackle this absurd practice of selling scarce new homes in London or Cambridge to investors in China? First we need to agree that we should – perhaps through some sort of residency test as they have in Singapore, but even if we do so it’s worth remembering that 36% of people living in London were born outside the UK, according to the 2011 census.”
Two final points:-
* First, the topics of globalisation and the rise of China as an economic power/net investor have dominated political discourse for the last two decades. It’s the kind of thing people are going to have views about.
* Second, New Zealand needs to re-appraise what its housing is really for. In my opinion, the New Zealand housing stock should advance the goal of housing New Zealand residents for the lowest proportion of their salaries and wages compatible with the health of the sector. Unrestrained residential property investment does not tend to advance that goal.