Written By: - Date published: 11:35 am, May 17th, 2008 - 190 comments
Categories: election 2008, polls -
Tags: fairfax media poll, national, polls
As we all know the latest Fairfax poll has shown a huge lead for the National Party. Now I’m of the opinion it’s probably a rogue poll and we could argue that point (and methodology, and trends, etc) until the cows come home but I’m interested in something else. If this poll was hypothetically the final count on election day it would mean National would have a clear mandate to govern alone.
This surprises me because National has provided very little policy and hasn’t distinguished itself much in terms of anything but “time for a change” rhetoric. In fact the bulk of the reasons I hear people claim they want a National government is because they don’t want a Labour one and outside of unfounded rhetoric I don’t hear much reason why.
We have a lot of intelligent and thoughtful rightwing commenters on this site and I figure they might be able to elucidate something for me. If you are one of these commenters what I want you to tell me is this:
You’ll be voting for National come election day. What will you be voting for them to change and what have you seen from them that leads you to believe they’ll make that change?
And I’ll say again I’m not interested in banal mutterings about “Klark” and “Helengrad”. I want to know what you will be voting for, not against.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
In answer to your disingenuously phrased question: I think parents should have the right to give their children a light smack. Nothing more.
Now what exactly do you MEAN by a “light smack”. Hand only or can I use a hairbrush or wooden spoon? On what part of the body? How often? Can I do one good hard one, or six lighter ones? Can I leave a red mark, and have I committed an offense if I leave a slight bruise? How many times per week? At what age? Different standards for boys and girls? … I could go on.
The point is that it is quite wrong in PRINCIPLE to even attempt to define an acceptable level of hitting a child. What we have done is treat assault on children exactly the same as an assault on an adult. ie ALL touching is potentially an offense, but in PRACTISE we leave it to the legal system implement a minimum threshold below which it takes no interest. Which is exactly what has happened.
That’s the other thing I don’t get: you proudly point out that no-one has been prosecuted for a light smacking and yet seem to think that anyone who would do so is a monster.
Now you and I may well be able to reach a consensus on what an acceptable light smack may be, but we both know that NZ has a long history of parents who have given children shocking thrashings… and nobody ever did anything about it because the law gave a quasi-excuse for it. And we would BOTH agree that these people are monsters. And not all of them belong in our past. There are still plenty of parents in this country who for either twisted religious or backward cultural reasons fervidly believe in their RIGHT to hit their children.
Now you may wish to persist in claiming that you to have the right to hit your children, because you know how to tell the difference between a light smack and a thrashing. But be aware that in principle it puts you into the same camp as those who cannot.
The two things are completely different in much the same way that social democracy and communism allegedly are (I may still need to be convinced that the last two are actually different).
So you have trouble distiguishing between social democracy and communism. OK…so what was the difference between a light smack and a thrashing again?
Regarding scandal, there’s the perception that both major parties are playing dirty at the expense of the things they ought to be doing: running the government and being a loyal opposition. I think a game theoretic approach is useful here, due to the EFA’s influence on the result.
I’ll just ignore for the purpose of this discussion the merits of either side’s claims: presume that both National’s allegations of corruption and scandal and Labour’s counter-allegations of big money support, flip-flops and politicking by focus-group are about evenly matched and justified. It’s probably not so, but that’s another argument.
Both parties have been playing a tit-for-tat strategy (one could argue it’s been a grim trigger too), which, without forgiveness, as IB has mentioned above inevitably leads to a race to the bottom. The only way to normalise relations between the two main parties is for one or other to forbear from attacks long enough for the other to, without losing face, cease attacks and move on. It’s too late for either party to change to a strategy including forgiveness now before the 2008 election; in Labour’s case it would be seen as conceding, and in National’s it would be seen as a sign of softness. I think it’s fair to say that National are responsible for introducing this strategy, though both parties have clearly continued it. Labour’s attempts to forgive and `move on’ have with some justification been seen as them not wanting to dwell on their own failings, and have made National even more strident.
I think forgiveness will naturally come into the game only if Labour loses the coming election. In that case National would be focussed on raising the standard of debate, much of Labour’s front bench would retire, and both sides would begin to negotiate a new equilibrium based on their new positions. It gets really ugly if Labour wins this election, however. Labour would be inclined to forgive, but that would be short-lived since National would not. Ordinarily National would in this case concede gracious defeat and work on rebuilding, as they did in 2005; but in this case it has the EFA to blame for the defeat, and the bitterness of the loss would make party leadership extremely reluctant to forgive, especially given that they’d have just three short years before another election under the EFA.
Therefore, there’s an irony here: National is the party who `started it’ and the party most responsible for continuing it, but if one’s main concern in this election is simply ending the bickering about scandal, one should vote National because a National victory is the only way of assuring forgiveness and a return to normality. My instinct is that a fair chunk of the electorate understand this on some intuitive level, and this explains two major aspects revealed in this thread: first, the strong swing to National from Labour; and secondly the difficulty those people have in quantifying exactly why they’re changing, and their resort to talking points.
L
But be aware that in principle it puts you into the same camp as those who cannot.
It just doesn’t.
So you have trouble distiguishing between social democracy and communism.
You weren’t to know, but this is the subject of a running gag between myself and a couple of the lefties here who are blessed with a sense of humour, and who don’t take themselves too seriously. I recommend you give that a go, it’ll make you more likable.
Redlogix – you were obviously beaten or abused as a child (judging by your very bitter spat at 5.20pm on Sat)
While this is sad it does not excuse pidgeon holing everybody to fit your distorted, sick view on life.
Billy,
Yes it does.
(That’s a great rebuttal… a masterly “stroke” that wins all arguments. You should use it more often, it could become a running gag.)
Mike,
Ahhh… the dependable old adhom; faithful tool of rightwingers everywhere. I love it when you trot them out, because they are a reliable psychometric diagnostic informing me that I’m pretty damm close to target.
Still want us to believe that you don’t hit your own children?
Red
Despite your belief otherwise not everyone who disagrees with you is a childbeater.
It would interesting to poll those commenting for and against s59 on this site to see who in fact even have their own kids perhaps that would be somewhat enlightening.
I have 3 kids and fully support S59. I could not agree more with Red’s 5.20pm comment.
There is no reason on this green earth to use pain as punishment. A good parent does not hit their kids. Human rights – the right to live without violence – do not stop at the door of the family home.
I would be interested to poll those commenting for and against s59 to see who had been hit as a kid themselves. That would be more telling.
Billy,
I’ll try one last time with a neutral analogy.
You’ve unintentionally taken a ballpoint pen home from work, and the next day this is discovered by some means. Technically you’ve committed theft and your employer would be within rights to terminate you and get the police to lay charges.
Mad eh. All sane people would think that your employers has grossly overreacted.
Now imagine instead it was not just one pen that had lain forgotten in your briefcase, but it was a whole boxful of them. Moreover it turned out you had a whole stash of them at home which you had purloined over many months. Almost everyone would now agree that you had committed theft.
So where is the dividing line in law? How many ballpoint pens do you have the RIGHT to take home, and how often? The answer is of course… none. There is of course no such threshold defined in law… and for obvious reasons. In reality the very FIRST pen that you unintentionally took home was in fact technically theft; you had no defendable right in law to take it.
(In the real world you would likely have a defense under employment law for unreasonable dismissal, but that has nothing to do with the potential theft charge.)
Moreover you could not stand up in Court and claim that you had a RIGHT to steal one pen; it would put you in exactly the same camp as someone who had stolen hundreds.
hs,
Despite your belief otherwise not everyone who disagrees with you is a childbeater.
I’ve made it perfectly clear that I am 100% happy with the idea that the law implements a minimum threshold below which it takes no action. The very common case of the children getting the odd smack or two is of no public interest to prosecute.
But the moment someone claims that they have a RIGHT to hit their children (no matter how moderately), it puts them into the same category as the real childbeaters… for the reasons outlined in my 7:13 post above.
rl: Good analogy. That is exactly the way I understand the criminal law. It doesn’t matter what is the scale. What matters is if the prosecuting authority and the courts consider it to be significant.
The problem comes when you try to put a bar on it. That was exactly the problem with ‘reasonable force’. What in the hell does it mean? That is what both the police and the judges were asking.
It is like trying to say in the law that the barrier between petty theft and serious theft is defined at 1 shilling and sixpence. Something like that used to be in one of the old crimes acts – after decimalization of the currency and a lot of inflation since the dawn of the 20th. From memory it was still there until the last couple of decades.
What is reasonable force? A ‘light smacking’ or a thumping with a piece of alkathene. You say what you think it is, I say you’re wrong, and next thing we’re in the supreme court. That is the problem in law with vacuous phrases like ‘light smacking’
Lew,
My instinct is that a fair chunk of the electorate understand this on some intuitive level, and this explains two major aspects revealed in this thread: first, the strong swing to National from Labour; and secondly the difficulty those people have in quantifying exactly why they’re changing, and their resort to talking points.
A very nicely constructed argument. Persuasive even. Even though your conclusions likely quite hard to prove, it has a resonance because it’s premised on the electorate’s emotional reactivity, something that trumps reason every time.
Its more than just “talking points” thats going on here. Look at how often rightwingers are resorting to terms like: “shamelessly arrogant”, “telling me how to run my life”, or Billy’s great line “condescending smug know-it-all” just above.
This language has one common underlying trope, the obstinate dullard’s grudging resentment of all intellectual endeavour. It’s the same fat underbelly of anti-intellectualism that Massey’s WW1 govt exploited to shutdown anti-war concientous objectors, and a tool the right has depended on ever since.
By discrediting and marginalising informed debate, by shutting down and debasing the role of the intellectual in public life, the right has been able to frame the debate in purely emotional terms…terms on which it is child’s play for dark actors hidden in PR and advertising firms to manipulate outcomes.
This government has been extremely anti-intellectual.
Yes, excellent analogy red. As usual, the standard conservative reaction to social progress is flawed and based solely on fear of change and fear of losing power.
I remember many years ago discussing the concept of rape within marriage with an intelligent pillar of society who was genuinely incredulous that such a concept could be even considered and predicted the end of civilisation if it were ever taken seriously.
More recently (and pertinently) similar fears surrounded the abolishment of corporal punishment in schools. As time goes by and fears fail to materialise, acceptance comes and countless lives are enhanced thereon.
Lew: verrrry interesting theory (ie swing voters motivated by a desire to end “political bickering” – anti PB!), you could be right on the money. Certainly would explain the current polling, which (a reading of this thread would seem to strongly suggest) has surprised even National.
Certainly the high degree of apathy and disdain for politics (eg 70% refusal rates for polls, huge unawareness of election) supports your thesis: depressingly, it’s quite conceivable that around 10% of voters could be motivated by nothing more than a (conscious or subconscious)desire for peace and stability at the top.
How often do we hear; “Aaah, fockin politics. They’re all the fockin same, makes no difference who gets in, why don’t they just have the election tomorrow and get it all over with.” A very short jump to “Who’s in the lead now. They’ll do”.
As you say, National is the party who `started it’ and the party most responsible for continuing it.
This is the obscene irony that galls so deeply: a flip-flopping party bereft of principle profitting from the very muckraking and scandalmongering of which it accuses Labour. The corrupt screaming corruption.
milo,
The sad reality is that a huge chunk of the electorate will vote for National because “John Key is such a nice looking man”.
There is an old saying that goes “Just because you take no interest in politics, does not mean that politics will take no interest in you”. Yet I’ve always been aware that those of us willing to treat politics as a serious and important endeavour are a rahter small minority. Most people have an exceedingly shallow and facile grasp of what is really happening in govt, resorting to cheap slogans and emotive gut responses as a substitute for informed participation. (Just as your one-liner above is a poor substitute for an actual argument.)
You have to ask yourself why. Personally I think it’s because it suits one particular political lobby to have as few people involved as possible. I’ll leave it to you to figure out which one.
This government has been extremely anti-intellectual.
On the face of it that seems like a very odd claim milo. Care to explain?
“Still want us to believe that you don’t hit your own children?”
Yep, you make a comment about old nanny state Gov and get labelled a childbeater. Vintage spiteful lefty crap.
You got the bash alright Red and are a perfect example to people why they should not smack there kids.
Just when I tought I was mastering basic HTML (God, I wish I were a genius).
I will fix that, because it offends my sense of order.
AncientGeek,
Reasonableness is a test used in many contexts in the law. Surprisingly infrequently does it cause problems.
RL,
the obstinate dullard’s grudging resentment of all intellectual endeavour.
So that’s why you’re behaving like such a prig. And using words such as “trope’. You are casting yourself as the intellectual tortured and misunderstood for his enormous brain. Anyone who disagrees with you obviously does so because he or she lacks your genius.
Which makes it like debating a religious fundamentalist. You are trying to be the left’s answer to Ian Wishart, aren’t you, RL?
Your ballpoint pen example is fatuous. In the first example I would not “dishonestly and without claim of right, tak[en] any property with intent to deprive any owner permanently of that property or of any interest in that property’. So I would have committed no crime at all.
Your point seems to be that there are some laws the trivial breach of which will not result in prosecution for pragmatic reasons. If that’s the case, why do you and all your mates refer to anyone who thinks it is OK for a parent to occasionally give a child a light smack as a “child beater’?
[lprent: removed dud copy]
So that’s why you’re behaving like such a prig. And using words such as “trope’. You are casting yourself as the intellectual tortured and misunderstood for his enormous brain. Anyone who disagrees with you obviously does so because he or she lacks your genius.
I thought you would come back with an anti-elitist line like that. Here is my response.
Do I consider myself an intellectual. No. I cannot claim to have the education, experience or talent to place myself into the ranks of those first-rate individuals with the authentic academic background and genuine ability to shape the ideas and movements of our world.
But theirs is a tradition I deeply respect, and standard that they have set which I attempt to follow as best I can. I’ll not apologise for that.
But if you think this merits your contemptuous sarcasm I say, go for it. You are after all, generously providing a real-time example of the point I am making.
Billy,
Your rebuttal is cute, but irrelevant. You have argued that no crime was committed because there was no intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property or interest in it. That is a fair enough defense if the ball-point pen could be returned with no loss to the owner. But what if it you could not? What is you had in fact lost it, used it up or sold it on Trademe?
But how do take back a “smack”? You cannot. Therefore as a rebuttal it fails.
Mike,
Way up above you stated:
- and I do not smack my children, just do not like being told how to raise them.
There are only two logical consequences from this statement:
1. You do not smack your children, but you want the right to be able to do so if you feel like it.
2. You really do smack your children, but you’re just too gutless to admit to it in public.
Either way Mike I’m not here to be “likeable” to you. I’m just going to keep on metaphorically kicking you in the gonads until you crawl away.
Do I consider myself an intellectual. No.
Oh.
I thought you would come back with an anti-elitist line like that.
But part of an elite, obviously. And an elite which is so clever, it can guess my next move.
Fcuked if I know why we’re still talking about ball point pens, but since you’ve asked: if the pen could not be returned to its owner no crime would still have been committed. If I had not exercised reasonable skill and care (see, AG) then I would be liable in negligence for the cost of the pen.
I’m just going to keep on metaphorically kicking you in the gonads until you crawl away.
You really rate yourself, don’t you? Please do not take this as the obstinate dullard’s grudging resentment of all intellectual endeavour. ‘Cause one way or another, we’ve established you’re not an intellectual: just an elitist.
Billy: Reasonableness is a test used in many contexts in the law. Surprisingly infrequently does it cause problems.
So Billy, is this conversion to common sense recent? Like, since January, when you said: Jesus, Lynn. Sounds like a mess. Hopefully everyone understands that “law of common sense’.
http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=995#comment-15407
I certainly hope it’s a conversion Billy, I’d hate to think you were merely opportunistic in your beliefs.
red: I’m just going to keep on metaphorically kicking you in the gonads until you crawl away.
Power to your thighs red! (in a purely metaphorically non-violent way of course – though judging by the size of the metaphorical target, I’m sure any damage will be trifling and inconsequential
)
Billy,
But part of an elite, obviously.
Next move. You accuse me of being “elitist”. Normally you guys avoid this explicit term, because:
1. It places your emotive agenda in plain sight.
2. It’s a rationally weak argument and risky to use because it is so easily rebutted.
The mad irony is that it is the big money interests secretly backing the Tory right who are the real elitists. Read the “Hollow Men” again Billy. The power brokers who run the party you support, have nothing but contempt for the likes of you.
By contrast the Greens (who are the only NZ party with anything close to an authentic intellectual tradition) are deeply committed to grass-roots participation; an exact antithesis of elitism as you would figure it.
Wake up Billy. You are not a stupid man or you would not be here, but you are constrained to act like one because you have been conditioned by the anti-intellectual agenda to fear and scorn the notion of “elitism”.
You are only acting predictably because you acting to type.
r0b,
Sorry to disappoint. Unlike reasonableness, there is no tried and tested legal concept of the law of common sense.
RL,
I am not anti-elitist. I just wonder about people who grandiosely claim to be part of it.
And who says I am a man?
Billy,
if the pen could not be returned to its owner no crime would still have been committed. If I had not exercised reasonable skill and care (see, AG) then I would be liable in negligence for the cost of the pen.
But you cannot “be liable in negligence” for a smack either, as there is no way to offer any meaningful recompense. Therefore it continues to fail as an analogous rebuttal.
And besides it totally evades the main point. Even if we do accept that it might have a defense for the loss of one pen, it would still fail as a defense for the loss of hundreds. The law does not define a threshold for how many pens can be lost and be defendable as “negligence”.
Neither does it, nor should it, define what is an acceptable “light smack”. It relies on prosecuting authorities, judges and juries to do that.
But you cannot ?be liable in negligence? for a smack either, as there is no way to offer any meaningful recompense.
Admit it. You’re making this up as you go along. You cannot be liable in New Zealand for negligence causing personal injury because of the ACC regime. You could be in other jurisdictions. In those jurisdictions, the legal systems consider money to be “meaningful recompense“.
The law does not define a threshold for how many pens can be lost and be defendable as ?negligence?.
Negligence isn’t a defence to a crime. It is a tort.
You are new at this being part of the elite. Right?
Billy,
1. Money would never be considered a meaningful or acceptable recompense for hitting a child in the NZ juridiction, regardless of the ACC regime or not. Distraction.
2. Yes you are correct. Negligence is a tort, so why did you introduce it as a “defense” for the theft in the first place? Distraction.
You have still totally failed to address the question of substance, relying on irrelevant red-herrings instead. Try and focus.
You are new at this being part of the elite. Right?
The Standard had an open position for “pompous self-absorbed pillock”… so here I am
Between all the pointless speculation and accusation about who beats their kids, there are still some interesting comments up in here.
RedLogix: “it’s premised on the electorate’s emotional reactivity, something that trumps reason every time.”
This is pretty much the point of propaganda, and why I study symbolic politics.
[Talking points are] “the obstinate dullard’s grudging resentment of all intellectual endeavour. It’s the same fat underbelly of anti-intellectualism” …
I’ve done some research on populist insider anti-elitism (that is, anti-elitism promulgated by elites to appeal to non-elites), and it’s an ugly business. But pre-prepared talking points like this aren’t the preserve of the right; similar sorts of things are routinely employed by people of all political factions. Using the word `workers’ instead of `union members’ when referring to participants in industrial action is one example; I could list others but I’m sure you’ll know ‘em when you see ‘em.
ak: “How often do we hear; “Aaah, fockin politics. They’re all the fockin same, makes no difference who gets in, why don’t they just have the election tomorrow and get it all over with.’ A very short jump to “Who’s in the lead now. They’ll do’.”
I listen to a lot of talkback, so yeah, I hear this a fair bit. Ironically I’m at least partly of the view that there’s some truth in it: the difference between Labour and National is in absolute ideological and policy terms very slight; it’s really more symbolic than anything.
“This is the obscene irony that galls so deeply: a flip-flopping party bereft of principle profitting from the very muckraking and scandalmongering of which it accuses Labour. The corrupt screaming corruption.”
I figure that if National is found (if they win) to be genuinely is principle-free, policy-light and planning on governing by focus group, they’ll suffer terribly at the hands of an electorate demanding a strong response to a recession. If they stray too far from the moderate pragmatism which even National fans criticise as Labour-lite, I think they’ll suffer bait-and-switch backlash. So I think the only course open to them is to pursue those Labour-lite policies, at least for now.
Then again, I may be misoverestimating the depth of despair with Labour; it may be that Key can do no wrong. But we’ll see.
milo: I’m also keen to hear a justification ofr your statement that Clark’s government is anti-intellectual. It’s roundly criticised as a government run by academics which rests on empty philosophy and suffers from a disconnect from the average kiwi battler. If you believe that, then it seems you’re trying to have it both ways; and if not, well, that’s interesting too. I’m curious.
L
Negligence is a tort, so why did you introduce it as a “defense’ for the theft in the first place?
Didn’t. I was pointing out that, while there was potential for legal action of some sort, no crime had been committed. You misunderstood what I was saying.
The Standard had an open position for “pompous self-absorbed pillock’ so here I am
At last, a sense of humour.
When even Paul Henry on Breakfast this morning derides Bill English as ‘atrocious’ on yesterday’s Agenda, for being ‘unable to give a single straight answer on policy’ you do have to wonder what the right whingers are voting FOR. From this whole thread, I still have no idea how a National government would make my, or anyone’s life better. A $50 to $92 a week tax cut (JK this morning on Sunrise) perhaps? If you believe that, you’ll believe anything! The luxury of being in oppositon, and being able to say anything you like. If the Nats do win, there’ll be some howling in 2009!
I have written a letter of complaint to TVNZ for Paul Henry’s disgusting, blatant bias towards Labour on this morning show.
Add Paul Henry to the list of journos who are pissing off hacks in both camps. Maybe he does have some chops after all.
Yeah, nah.
L
r0b, lew
The government has starved the University sector and public science. Here’s a reference for the University sector. I couldn’t find it, but there are similar problems with the Marsden fund for blue sky research.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4551390a7694.html
The universities have been forced to take many more students at a lower funding rate, been subject to drastic price controls, and forced to meet standards that private providers do not have to meet. Meanwhile, much tertiary sector funding get siphoned off to low value polytechnic courses.
Now Labour is not alone in this. National were also bad. I think New Zealand in general is anti-intellectual. It’s seems to be part of the tall poppy syndrome, but also part of Labour’s desire to focus on the worse off. They don’t seem to think a lecturer should be paid more than a teacher or a nurse. Whether it’s the ministers or the officials, the university sector seems to have been overseen by people who have a low opinion of academics. To me, that is anti-intellectualism.
The PM saw that a vibrant society requires a vibrant arts sector. It also requires a vibrant University sector.
Milo, you sometimes have good points, but you lose them in your foolish rhetoric. What you said was: “This government has been extremely anti-intellectual” – and that is foolish rhetoric.
Could the tertiary sector and public science in NZ use more funding – well of course it could. But the government is moving in the right direction (too slowly as usual). Here’s snips from press releases from AUS (university staff union):
http://www.aus.ac.nz/Media/2007/InvestmentPlans.asp
http://www.aus.ac.nz/Media/2007/hodgson.asp
http://www.aus.ac.nz/Media/2007/OECD-Ed.asp
So Milo, that’s about a million miles from “This government has been extremely anti-intellectual” – don’t you think?
I think New Zealand in general is anti-intellectual.
A bit maybe. People tend to cite academics (that agree with them) in awed tones, and rubbish academics (that disagree with them) as out of touch ivory tower fools who don’t have to work for a living. I do agree that there is far too much of the latter. I suspect that any academic who posted openly in blogs would get the latter response frequently, which is a bit pathetic really.
It also requires a vibrant University sector.
At least we are 100% agreed about that.