Posts by WH
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Yes, last night. I was searching for videos of Norman Kirk but stumbled on this The Grim Face of Power doco about Rob Muldoon and I was glued, I was especially interested by his ‘Meet the People’ meetings.
The left has its share of telegenic leaders. Kennedy is often said to have beaten Nixon on the back of a televised debate. Tony Blair and Bill Clinton were charismatic leaders, and Obama and Elizabeth Warren are too.
This is a painful process because, even though we have the better of many public policy debates, the left's credibility is hard won and easily lost.
-
I really had no desire to discuss the policy at all
I think this is a difficult moment for everyone who wants Labour to do well. Ultimately there are more similarities between us than differences.
dolphins are still going to end up in that net. Dolphins are poor
At the end of the day, all it means is that income is subject to income tax (a CGT in this case). In practice, though, capital gains and investment income are generally the domain of upper income earners.
-
I’m clear enough about the specifics of the policy now, what I’m interested in is the underlying rationale and possible change in philosophy; for me a flat tax that increases the potential burden on the ‘lowest’ members of society doesn’t align with the values I believed Labour represented
This is an unfortunate diversion, but the answer to your question is that capital gains taxes are intrinsically progressive because of the way in which capital gains are distributed throughout society.
In the absence of a capital gains tax, the burden of the tax system falls more heavily on salary and wage earners (i.e., ordinary workers) than it should. The outright manipulation of the tax system by certain kinds of people is fairly well known. We can argue about the electoral effect of a CGT policy, but the arguments in principle are pretty compelling.
Let's put it this way: lowering taxes on capital gains and estates and other forms of investment income was one of the first things George W. Bush did on taking office.
Let's talk about policy on another thread.
-
After three misses in a row, it's hard to take the alleged pros and cons of the prospective leaders seriously. It feels like new wrapping for the same old fish and chips.
Choose whoever you want, but find a way to make it work.
Labour needs to build something, to have its members gather momentum from each others' efforts. The regularity and tone of these leadership contests is not helping.
-
It's interesting to read about the feedback received during the campaign.
I saw Colin James' views about the party's centre-left and 'left-left' factions. It all sounds pretty unappealing. There must be ways to talk about positive change that do not alienate Labour's core constituencies. Is it really true that only 20% of New Zealand men would consider casting a vote for the party?
There is no place for you in this party anymore.
Unless you know something I don't, I think that goes too far.
I think there is further scope for Labour to use widely respected senior figures to support its leader and to influence public debate. It needs more people with the ability and the gravitas to play this role.
Whatever happens, I don't want to hear about personal leadership ambitions and/or infighting for another three years.
-
OnPoint: Sunlight Resistance, in reply to Kumara Republic,
As one of us commented previously, it's like the mirror image of the Big Lie - the truth is so big that the public refuse to believe it, especially if they perceive it to be an obstruction to their picket-fence way of life.
It's always worth talking about the way the media has explained important issues to the public. I'm sure everyone involved in the election (be they journalists or politicians) will evaluate the quality of their contribution in due course.
I'm not sure that challenging the outcome of political debates in terms of media coverage will help the progressive parties, though. If you set up an argument (whether it be about warrantless surveillance or the integrity of public officials) that has undesirable implications (such as voting for an unpopular or controversial figure), there's a risk that people will reject the premises in order to avoid the conclusion.
So yeah, the quality of media coverage is important but progressives need to build support on the back of public trust and work to ensure people have positive experiences of the left over time.
-
OnPoint: Sunlight Resistance, in reply to Andrew Geddis,
maybe it's people like us and what we see as being "correct" who are ... wrong?
The difficulty is that these sorts of problems regularly arise in situations where the right answer is known or where the weight of evidence clearly favours the rejected view.
It's at least worth talking about the possibility that public understanding is being impeded by the ineffective presentation of evidence and countervailing low information commentary.
-
Hard News: Time to Vote, in reply to Joe Wylie,
Bradford aside, I really can't see that he's been punished for straying from the high moral ground. There are people within Labour who should have been squirming at the cheers at ACT HQ over Hone's defeat
To the extent that Harawira is seeking a fair shake for his people I have a degree of sympathy for him. Having said that, there was a certain inevitability about what happened.
I bought a 1970's vintage left wing text on a whim the other day. The preface says that:
This failure of many of our younger activists to understand the art of communication has been disastrous. Even the most elementary grasp of the fundamental idea that one communicates within the experience of his audience - and gives full respect to the other's values - would have ruled out [certain kinds of protest]. [...]
As an organiser I start from where the world is, as it is, not as I would like it to be. That we accept the world as it is does not in any sense weaken our desire to change it into what we believe it should be [but it does mean] working within the system.
-
Hard News: Time to Vote, in reply to Joe Wylie,
Internet Mana's total party vote actually increased, from 24,168 to a provisional 26,539.
I feel for Hone Harawira a bit. It must have been a tough night for him.
-
So would Sue Bradford, who with some justification must be feeling a touch vindicated, be part of that broader left?
Part of the broader left, yes. Consistently contributing towards Labour's goals, no (IMO).
Why would you say she has been vindicated?