Posts by Matthew Littlewood
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
here is urgent business for the government to attend to, to protect NZ from the worst of the recession. Now that we've all done our civic duty and ticked some boxes, the government will change. I would expect the left to at least try to help come up with some answers to what should be done. The sooner it is clear what the left's position is, the sooner it can be either followed by National or ignored, and the sooner we'll start getting some feedback on just how sensible they are at running the country. I've personally been quite alarmed at the complacency felt by many here about this crisis, as though all's well cause we've got Michael Cullen. All is not well, and we don't have Cullen any more either. What we need now is answers, ideas, real thinking cap time. Anger is useless.
You know, I'd agree with that. The current economic climate means a real knuckling down and some good, hard thinking about what's needed. It will require a robust left, even in opposition. And it will mean some soul-searching from all parties involved. And that might go double from National, who have sleptwalked throughout this campaign with no real set ideas besides some bullet-point policy statements. The people have (more or less) given them the mandate. Now it's their time to show us.
"They voted for hope, they voted for action, and they voted for results." *pause* *more adulation* "They voted for a better life for all New Zealanders." *pause* *deathly silence*" etc
Matthew: I was mentally graphing the Party loyal responses to Key speech. The falling away of excitement was distinct as the speech went on. The glimpses of the audience was anything but animated as it went on and down. A good successful speech for winners goes up a notch, up another notch, then crescendo!!!! Like sex I guess.Indeed- which is what Obama's oratory achieved during the week.
If we're analysing it from a theatrical point of view, Key's was a poor speech, delivered with a leaden thud. I mean, there was no sense of timing- a good speech & drama teacher would've hammered him for it. It was quite passionless for someone who's just become Prime Minister of his country.
-
An addition to the previous post:
Craig, out of curiosity, what sort of National government would you like to see in terms of a "vision thing"- how would you like them to manage the economy, social services, etc?
I ask this because Key mentions he's got a "100 day plan" (it would've been nice to hear more about this earlier in the election, I frankly got tired of bullet-point policies throughout the campaign)- so, if you were National's policy adviser, and given a full mandate, where would you take it? Ideally. Bear in mind this is a "dreams are free" pass, as we all know there are going to be compromises along the way.
It's a sincere question btw- I enjoy your posts, even when I don't agree with the viewpoint held.
And at least next time with Winston gone we (hopefully) won't have a major party which uses immigrant-baiting as a part of its campaign platform (this time it wasn't so strong, fortunately). That always angered me about the party. He had the potential to be something much, much better.
-
Not sure what the ODT and Waikato Times look like, but given that they're part of the Fairfax stable I won't be holding out too much hope.
A bit of a correction there- the ODT, for all its faults (and how much time have you got to list them? ) is still an independant newspaper. As for its leanings, well, it's hard to say. I say this as someone who's done bits and pieces for them over the years, but it's a strange paper- perhaps the most absurdly parochial "met" imaginable. I don't mean this in a harsh way, but sometimes it's like a very slick community newspaper. Which merely means they clearly know that's what their readers want, and what suits them best. And they definitely fill the mandate of serving their community.
Seeing Roger Douglas back in parliament scares me enough to (almost) wish that Winston Peters was still there. Jesus. Did you see him? It was like Night of the Living Dead. Still, I expect him to be no more than a figure of derision, even in the National caucus. He won't be getting any plum jobs that's for sure.
So we can be thankful for small mercies. That said, as other board members have indicated it's more the influence ACT may have on National that I'm worried about. And it's what Douglas represents that I find untennable. Still, I'll see what happens...
And I have to say that was probably the least inspiring and smarmiest "acceptance" speech I've heard. Okay, granted, we recently had one of the greatest this week in Obama's but Key's....it was less an acceptance speech than a powerpoint motivational presentation. The way he dreq it out was like pulling teeth, too. And although it wasn't that long, it sounded like it went on forever.
Helen's was very good- forceful, but graceful, and (as always with her) in command. I think once the dust has settled we can be very thankful, on the whole for what they've done for the country. There were areas I wished they showed more leadership in (particularly in the environment, and I really wish that they put the squeeze on the private education and health sector when they had the opportunity back in '02), but on the whole, they've left the country largely better off, particularly in terms of (despite what National says) education, state assets, employment rate and a few others (RB outlined it in his first post). And best of all, we never sent troops to Iraq.
On a side note, I've always been impressed by the fact that when it came to the arts, Clark put her money where her mouth was, and held onto the Ministerial position.
But now that Clark has stepped down, who will be the leader? I expect it will be Cunliffe, which should piss off Goff no end, but be good for the party on the whole- firstly, because he's because not a product of the Rogernome era, and more in line with the new "centre-left" of the party, but most importantly, he's a tough, no-nonsense take-charge guy.
Another good thing for Labour is that although they got hammered in the electorate vote this time around (losing many of the "swing seats"), they rejuvinated their list, and there's a lot of new MPs in their caucus this time around. And many of them are relatively young buggers, or in the case of Sean Plunkett-lookalike Grant Robertson, future high fliers.
That said, it could be 6 years hard yakker for Labour at this rate. Unless, of course, National actually goes with ACT, in which case, I expect them to implode within three years. John Key has been given a "centrist" mandate, and he better remember that.
But still, I'd be lying if I wasn't disappointed with the result- it's just I'm not surprised. I really, really wanted the Greens to get more this time around. That's been the biggest letdown- my only hope is that they hammer National on the environmental and social welfare issues as much as they can- that's why I voted for them.
And even though both the SFO and the Police found nothing substantial on Winston Peters at all, the guy's histrionics and hypocricy made him a liability, and one that ended up costing Labour on the night, too.
That said, it was a surprisingly subdued "concession" speech from him tonight. On the one hand, it was more than time for him to go. On the other hand, I will miss him for his entertainment value....someone should get him his own show. Pronto.
As for the coverage- I thought it was great to see Linda Clark back on our screens, she was very, very sharp but Duncan Garner was an utter, utter shambles. Maharey was pretty good, considering the bind he was in, too.
-
Btw- when I refer to "inanity", I am of course, excusing the wonderful Media 7 team from that accusation. Their coverage, of course, will be thoughtful, considered and enlightening.
-
Voted!
It was steady but not crowded at our polling place - mind you, with only three booths, it was pretty damn small, so it wouldn't have stood many more people. I didn't spot anyone wearing party rosettes, but I wasn't looking. I was encouraged by the number of parents with small kids and young people who were there, although I reckon that's a function of the area we're in more than anything. Still good to see.
Lucy, are you part of Brownlee country (aka Illam) perchance? I've voted in three general elections, and this is the first time I know my electorate vote won't be won by the guy I voted for. I spent half my life in Hodgson country (aka Dunedin North), so to move from one strangehold to another is quite striking.
Anyway, this is the second time I've voted Greens in party vote (will I regret that? I'm not sure...) after voting Labour in '05. No real voting stories to hand except to say damn it's easy, isn't it- the coverage of US elections seemed to suggest that in some areas it was akin to an endurance sport just being able to get to your booth and pull the level/tick the box/touch the screen.
And here's another thing- it never fails to baffle me how byzantine the arrangements are for just voting over there. Surely for a national election it would make sense to y'know, have the same process everywhere in the country.
Here's it's just ticking a piece of paper twice. Easy, isn't it? Gorgeous weather outside, too, which hopefully means people will bother to turnout.
Now it's a matter of waiting a few hours. If I'm going to watch any television election coverage, I think I'll need to start drinking first. The sheer inanity that's going to be spouted on the night (by both the politicians and the "host") will drive me to it either way.
I do wonder whether we'll see John Campbell in hologram form though. That would be awesome.
-
Sorry for the double post, but taking it back to the original Herald editorial, something needs to be addressed. Namely, what the hell does the below comment even mean?
Labour's hopes rest now on some cataclysmic occurrence, an event resounding enough to shatter the current template.
So they are suggesting that the results of their particular poll are so authorative that in order for them to be wrong, something "cataclysmic" has to occur. And what exactly would that be? That every National supporter suddenly dies in an earthquake? Seriously, that editorial is really bizarre.
-
If there were no threshold where is the cut-off point?
If someone gets just one vote they get a seat? of course not, it would be like getting rid of parliament all together and we don't do anything until the majority of the country agrees. There has to be some cut-off point so how do we determine that?Exactly. I think the threshold is always going to be somewhat arbitrary, but it's absolutely necessary to have one.
5 percent is probably about right, but then again,it's offset by the fact that a number of parties- ACT, United, Progressives, maybe even the Maori Party, won't make it despite winning electoral seats. So I've found the current compromise somewhat flawed, but it'd tough to perfect.
-
<quote>
Ahh, Grand Coalition...[....]
On one hand it would put an end to the constant bickering and endless accusations of corruption and skulduggery in an effort to bring down the government of the day in order to gain power but how would it prevent cronyism and blatant abuse of power?
Damn it, we would have to have a pretty powerful and independent fourth estate to counter a near totalitarian state and we just don't seem to have that in any shape or form.
<quote>Yeah, that's my take on it too, if I'm honest. In theory, it could work, but it would require a pretty strong watchdog-like persistence from not just the fourth estate but from other independent channels too.
Incidentally- and this makes NZ's recent inclusion in that stupid article about "dirty election" in Foreign Policy even more nauseating- according to the World Transparency Index, NZ is no. 1 along with Denmark and Finland, in terms of openness and lack of corruption. I suppose the country's small size may have something to do with it, but it's an encouraging fact, anyway.
-
Matthew, I was aware, and am also aware that the NZ MMP system was very largely based on the German model. I don't see a grand coalition as bizarre. What is bizarre is the refusal to accept the idea, to insist on party politics unto the death. Particularly now when what looks like the biggest political challenge during my lifetime is unfolding simultaneously. A strong bipartisan and centrist leadership is actually vitally needed now, not the pissly wrangling with the likes of Peter Dunne, Winston Peters and Rodney Hide that we are going to get.
If blame for this lack of commonsense must be leveled, it unfortunately finds it's way to most of us. We're the ones who insist on the quite arbitrary splitting of massive blocks of votes into parties, when the intention of representative democracy is actually that you have human beings with individual discretion in Parliament, not blind followers of party whips. The insistence on partisan arguments over everything from the trivial to the colossally important is stupidity that we only find it hard to see because it's at such a high level.
Yes it was a fascinating film. Not for insights into history, since McNamara doesn't seem to understand any of it. The insight is into HIM and how such an obviously clever person can be so damned wrong. It's an insight into power and technocracy.
Cheers for that post. Sincerely.
I think "bizarre" was perhaps the wrong term to use in a way- I mean it in the sense of "peeking behind the curtain to find out what's really theer."
If we are honest, there will be politicans from both the Labour and National parties which aren't separated that much in terms of policy and ideology outlook. There will, of course, be others who most certainly are.
But to acknowledge that openly with the formation of a "grand coalition" -and I think what happened in Germany is that certain ministers from the incumbent SPD party agreed to join it, while others did not, so even in its "grand" form, there were some compromises- would really throw a spanner in the works as to how a lot of people do view party politics. It'd be interesting to wonder whether it would ever come to that in NZ though.
You're right about the Fog of War- like many of Errol Morris's films, it's about the relationship which people can have with the truth- and how it stands up to other people's take on the same events.
-
Hardly. It reminds me totally of Robert McNamara's Mea Culpa in Fog of War in which he totally misses the point at every turn and the most guilt he can possibly concede over Vietnam was that it was handled badly. The idea that he as Secretary of State could have actually opposed the war before it began, and at every escalation point, and every sick order he executed, seems not to have occurred to him at all.
Off topic here, but that's a fascinating film isn't it? Errol Morris is one of my favourites, and the Fog of War shows why, because although yes, its subject engages a strange form of denial, there's a part of him which seems to all to willingly acknowledge that denial.
More to the point, it's astonishing someone who could be so clear-headed about much of the current geopolitical situation (and there seem to be a myriad of indirect cirticisms laid at Gulf War II throughout although it is never mentioned explicitly), could, as you say, be caught up so badly in virtually every wrong decision in the mid-part of the Vietnam War.
There's that really bizarre juxtaposition of archival recordings where he agrees with Kennedy that operations should be cut back, and then seems to capitulate to opposite demands when Johnson comes in.
It's an incredible film- put together with a real sense of care, and possessing a really intense, noirish quality throughout. The whole Bay of Pigs segment was just gobsmacking.
As for coalition wrangling, the one partnership that is always ruled out seems to me one of the most natural - Labour and National. Then there would be centrist government with absolutely no influence from minor parties required, and the will of 80%-odd of the people would be represented. But as a nation we're too stuck in our memory of the Westminster system to even think of that possibility, and instead squeal in an insane way about how crazybad it is that minor parties could hold the balance of power. The ONLY reason they even CAN hold the balance of power is because we insist that they do.
Not sure if you were already aware of this, but such a deal was struck in the last German elections (who also have a form of MMP). The two leading parties SPD and CDU, didn't have a significant "minor party" voting bloc to stave off the other, so they ultimately ended up forming some sort of bizarre, compromised "grand coalition" between oneanother.
As for the Herald's singleminded and rather cynical anti-MMP editorialising, does there seem to be any real feeling for change of the electoral system amongst the general public? Maybe I'm not on the pulse, but I don't seem to feel it.
As long as STV never becomes the preferred method for electoral voting. God, what a disasterous system that is-especially for minor parties. There is some sense in mayoral elections, where it's all about getting the "top candidate", however.