Posts by Marc C
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Polity: Custard, in reply to andin,
In this instance I was not so much thinking of the die hard Nat voters, they will rather vote ACT or NZ First when unhappy, perhaps earlier on also have considered the Conservatives. But there appear to have been a fair few former Labour voters, who changed their vote in 2008, and some have stuck with voting the Nats (under a not so hard line, socially and economically "liberal" John Key) since then.
By now, surely some of them must have had regrets, and must start seeing the writing on the wall. They may eventually come and vote Labour again, even if they just want to get rid of the present lot in government.
-
Polity: Custard, in reply to oga,
I am under the impression that is the only "strategy" Labour does presently have and follow, simply hoping the government will stuff up enough and in time for the next general election, so the tired, disillusioned National voters will in some numbers go and vote Labour, simply to have a change and to give them a chance again, to perhaps do it better.
But this may only result in a one term government, unless they can then offer competency and real solutions.
This "strategy" will most certainly not get the already disillusioned and disconnected "missing million" out and vote, they will simply not bother, as it is more of the same. But there is the only potential to get more votes, in my humble view, to tap into the percentage of so far non voters, besides of those who switched from Labour to Nats in last elections, to get the numbers and win the election.
So far this "strategy" does not seem to work. All the hand-wringing and attacks on the government, when it comes to homelessness, child poverty and housing un-affordability, this is stuff that will only affect some existing voters, and many that are affected tend to rather try and adjust (as renters in crowded conditions) than go and take a political stand and vote, as they may simply not have enough trust in the alternative on offer.
-
Polity: Custard, in reply to Alfie,
National's divisive politics promoting inequality and extreme greed should be an easy target for a modern party of the left. But only if that party embraces genuine left-wing values. There's never been a better time for Labour to offer New Zealanders a real alternative instead of a watered down more of the same.
The slogan "Vote Labour... because we're not National" will never be a vote winner.
Yes, I agree, they still seem to be too afraid to offer a clear direction, under Handy Andy (sounds much better than "Angry Andy"). If taking up too progressive ideas, the Shearers, Goffs and Nashs will growl, if they take on something more like the Nats, others will growl, so we get the mediocre middle of the road to nowhere "direction", which does not help at all, as poll results have shown us.
Some interpreted the last major poll as having turned the tidy, where Labour went up a percentage point or two, but that slight rise, after the MoU, that could have had all kinds of reasons, as the Greens support dropped at the same time, and nothing much changed at all.
Unless Labour gets over 35 to perhaps even 40 percent of support, we are likely to get a fourth term for the Nats, which I think can only be avoided by Labour being bold and bringing us real alternative solutions, not this mediocre stuff that does not excite anybody at all. When going "Nat Light", the voters will in their majority tend to vote the true Nats, than the soft version, I fear, and others will simply not bother at all, to go voting. We are back to where we were before and after the last elections then, and I bet we will get another Labour leader after that, just who may it be then?
-
Polity: Custard, in reply to izogi,
"I more or less agree with everything Rob's said, but pointing to deficiencies and incompetence in the government is such an easy thing in recent times. It all gets reported, and then the next day comes. I routinely run into people who are sick of the government, but they're sick of all politicians because what Rob's described is, to them, what government is, no matter who's running things. They go out and vote anyway, usually for the status quo because change would be more of a risk, or because it's the devil they know, or something like that."
Yep, you more or less have said what I felt like saying, or rather writing here.
It is easy to point fingers, at a government slowly dismantling itself, through incompetence and being asleep at the wheel, for getting into a desperate situation now, as they relied on the Christchurch rebuild, a short lived dairy milk powder boom and immigration to stimulate "growth". They did only a patchwork of other things, and are about to leave a train-wreck of an economy, hence they are so afraid, too afraid to put some controls on immigration and the annual overflow into Auckland, which puts immense pressures on housing, infrastructure and various social, education and health services.
What people will ask is: What alternative is Labour, or are Labour and Greens going to offer, to get us out of this? With land and house prices in Auckland having reached the sky as a vague limit, how can an alternative government build affordable housing, without hurting anyone, i.e. the ones owning homes and land, being loaded with mortgage debt, who will crumble under the pressure, should their equity in their properties drop in value, and should they be left with massive debt to pay off over the years?
The state owned land may be there in some places, but sticking the homeless and poor into multilevel small units, thus using land efficiently, will only create the new, future slums of tomorrow.
We know that Kiwi Build was rubbished, because the costs that Labour talked about last election, would not even pay for the land to buy for the homes. So what miracle will solve this housing crisis in Auckland? And with a building boom we usually have demand increase costs on supplies and labour also, hardly a good basis to build cheap homes.
To really change the market situation and create affordable housing in sufficient numbers, massive intervention would be needed, which will inevitably lower house prices and hurt some people. Those seem to be the same people Labour desperately tries to win as future voters (the centre of the spectrum).
And better health and education services will mean more spending, more investment, higher costs, hence only payable by higher taxes for some, again likely to hit some that Labour tries to win as future "middle New Zealand" voters.
The many in the missing million are again not being reached, or not interested enough to make the difference, so there lies the challenge, to present a valid, competent alternative, that will get voters to vote, that make the difference, all else is just jumping around in joy while Rome is burning, but forgetting your own home will burn with it.
-
Quote: "When Robert reached 15, the State tossed the angry teenager out of care. He had been denied not only human rights, but culture and identity. He often relates how as an institutionalised child he never heard of the All Blacks.
As a young man in the late 1970s he lived under the auspices of the NZ Society for the Intellectually Handicapped (which later became the IHC) where he led what is likely to have been the first ever strike by people with intellectual disability. They wanted to be treated as adults, make their own decisions, and be paid for their work. This activism became the basis of the People First self-advocacy movement in New Zealand."
Sounds like the right kind of person in the right place.
-
The sad fact with shocking cases like Ashley is, that we now have a highly risk averse public, that is the majority of people, who have been outraged by media reports where things went terribly wrong. This is then at the top of the news, and often involves people with a history of mental illness, some with also alcohol and drug abuse, and with at times serious troubles with the law.
Hence the public has in its majority adopted the view, that it is better to keep persons that are considered a risk, whether to themselves or others, or both, put away in some kind of controlled environment or rather confinement.
Add the anti social brainwashing of many years, perhaps decades now, where people are encouraged to look after "number one", are told to compete for everything, to "pull up their sleeves", and to work hard and earn their living, in short neoliberalism and what comes with it, and we have few people prepared to pay any extra taxes for better social and health services, including on disability services.
The government is rather focused on keeping a tight lid on spending, as per capita expenditure in health, education and so has actually remained stagnant or even dropped, and things like offering people tax cuts is more important (to them and most out there), than to actually help in such complex cases.
I have seen enough of various other people struggling to even just get access to needed community mental health services, only ending up with seeing a psychiatrist or fill-in person maybe once a month, to pick up another script for some medication.
The crisis teams focus only on very extreme crisis cases, and are stressed out to the maximum, often also having high staff turnover.
Putting persons like Ashley into appropriate, community based support environments would cost, and the government does simply not seem to be prepared to spend more. Those that are concerned are a minority, and as that means a small number of potential voters, so the persons in charge of the purse strings and running the show are not interested on changing much.
Under this government many "fringe groups" have been further marginalised, and we see it with the homeless situation, particularly here in Auckland. It is the non voters or perhaps opposition voting minorities the government does not bother catering for, and they are the price for the better part of the middle class still doing relatively well, and those struggling with keeping up with rents or house prices, to enjoy the status quo or even new tax cuts in the near future.
I know this is not encouraging, but my observation is, in general society has become more heartless and selfish, weighing up every aspect of their individual's lives, what benefits themselves, before anyone else.
At the same time they let the population grow to "boost" the economy, which means we will have even greater needs by more people, including many new migrants, for the future. The price that will come with all this will be huge, but so far, Key and his government do not give a damn, he will retire after this or a fourth term, and leave it for someone else to tidy up. We are heading into becoming another more anti social society, like they exist elsewhere in the world, a dog eat dog society.
-
I have been counting the dead so to say, this year, and it shocks me. Bowie, Prince, Muhammad Ali, who will be next? It reminds me of my own mortality, and that of all of us, it really scares me, something seriously, how we will all end up there, ashes to ashes so to say.
There comes the question what is life all about, and is there not some reason for religion and faith?
This is soul searching stuff, really seriously soul searching stuff, that I go through this year, we must be here for a purpose and for some good, or we may as well not bother anymore.
RIP Ali, I knew you as Cassius Clay when I was little, even my somewhat racist father respected the man, same as Louis Armstrong and the runner Owens who proved the Nazis wrong during the Berlin Olympics.
I have greatest respect for people like Ali, he has shown us how good humans can be, despite of first being a boxer, not so kind to his competitors.
We need peace on earth, we never needed it more, as present generations have forgotten the past great wars, we are at risk of committing another major folly, that could destroy us all.
-
Access: The Universal Basic Income and…, in reply to Hilary Stace,
A very disappointing result, I must say, but the Swiss tend to be conservative, so there is not such a great surprise about this there.
I see the major issue with a UBI being that people would expect to have some commitment asked of all the people entitled to it, such as a citizen kind of responsibility and duty to do at least voluntary work. That could tilt the opinion to have more favour a UBI.
And as usual, I fear it was not sufficiently explained, so most thought, it is a handout for no effort, which most will reject.
I fear in New Zealand the vote would not be any different, perhaps even worse, given the poor standard of informedness our MSM offer us.
-
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Alfie,
How refreshing, some commentators writing in the MSM still have a conscience and principles. "Comments are now closed", I read, so this debate was shut down early, I wonder why.
-
"Homelessness accelerates between censuses"
http://www.otago.ac.nz/news/news/otago613529.html
"At least one in every 100 New Zealanders were homeless at the latest census in 2013, compared with 1 in 120 in 2006, and 1 in 130 in 2001, say University of Otago, Wellington (UOW) researchers."
I wonder whether John Key can quote another scientist that may give him and his government a better report and that he can use then to dismiss this study.