Written By: - Date published: 7:34 pm, November 12th, 2008 - 42 comments
Categories: articles, labour, maori party -
Tags:
As we’ve come to expect, a thought provoking piece from Gordon Campbell, who says
…the public may one day come to rue the change they sought on Saturday. But if and when they do, there is no guarantee that a paternalistic Labour would be the only, or best source of relief. The Greens, now that they are finally free from any structural ties to Labour, will be trying hard to supplant them as the most effective opposition party on the left. On industrial relations and beneficiary issues, the Greens have already been making much of the running in recent years. If Labour remains intent on projecting a kinder, more efficient brand of centrism, they could well be overtaken significantly on their left – and the risk will be increased if Act does manage to pull National further to the right.
Labour was a formidable team when last in opposition – tuned in to their networks, activists busy on the ground, and political issues to the fore. Let’s see whether this brave new team can live up to their counterparts of old (and how much of it those who were there before can remember). I’m thinking there will be interesting times ahead! Campbell also makes a good observation regarding the Maori party and their decision whether or not to become part of the government:
…much of Key’s hopes for a wider consensus will depend in the next few days on whether the Maori Party takes the bait, and comes on board with National. Why they would want to do so remains a mystery because being a Minister isn’t a free lunch, and entails wider responsibility for the government to which said Minister belongs….
Update: i’ve just read “The Maori Party has reached a draft agreement with the National Party and will take it to its supporters to consider as soon as this evening.” Hui anyone?
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
Billy the kid – you’re failing to recognise the fact politics is a continuum. It is possible that National will implement an agenda that is considered hard right by most people’s standards but that also leaves ACT and it’s ankle-biters like Clint feeling they have been desexed (as recommended by the SPCA and most competent veterinarians).
If you could just drop this black and white view of the world you’d be in a position to better understand that the left way is the correct way…
(I’m still holding out hope for your late conversion to the side of goodness and light.)
Bill: Go on. Argue that the DPRK is democratic because its name says so.
I dare ya.
L
Lew
you miss my point entirely. I’m not suggesting for a second that the DPRK is democratic. Likewise for the ‘democracy’ that Churchill was referring to.
To spell it out. Representative parliamentary democracy is not democratic because the term democracy is used in the same way that the DPRK isn’t.
I almost can’t parse that last sentence, but it seems what you’re driving at is that a system is not a democracy by virtue of being called so, nor (by extension to the original topic) capitalism by virtue of being called so. At which point we agree. However, this doesn’t lead to the conclusion that parliamentary democracy isn’t democratic – somewhat of an odd contention which, in order to be proven, would need to rest on a conveniently-crafted definition of `democratic’.
In any case, that wasn’t the issue – the issue was that, as bad as capitalism may be, it’s the best we have. And the DPRK is case in point, being the last vestige of the leading implemented alternative.
L
I don’t think our system of governance is very democratic.
I do think we produce and distribute our goods and services using a capitalist model f production and distribution.
I do not think that pointing to Korea or the Eastern Europe of old is a valid argument for supporting capitalism.
Better, much better is possible. Many nascent alternatives are in existence. If a production system built on more equitable foundations than exploitation and driven by motives other than profit ; which distributed goods and services in a more equitable fashion than the market can ever achieve came to be the the accepted way to do things then that would be a good thing would it not?
And here I thought you were talking about global warming. But no its capitalism and how Parliament upholds it. Oh dear. No way am I heading anywhere in such a discussion.
Get use to it Bill because it isn’t going anywhere.
I disagree; I think our system of governance, and by and large most systems of governance in the western world, are very democratic; more so than at any other time and in any other society in history. This isn’t to say they’re perfect, or anything of the sort, but any such judgement is essentially normative, rather than absolute.
The `Korea’ I pointed to is not `of old’ as you say – it’s the North Korea of today. While I agree it doesn’t usually pay to make cheap comparisons to the Eastern and Western blocs, that one is particularly illustrative. I can lecture you a bit on the differences between North and South Korea if you like – I’ve seen them with my own eyes.
I agree that better is possible, and that many nascent alternatives are indeed in existence. But that’s the problem – they’re nascent. The onus is on the champions of heterodoxy to demonstrate that there are clear and specific advantages to supplanting the orthodoxy. Of course it would be good if things were more equitable, were not based on greed and exploitation, etc. But it’s capricious to ask, since the language you use is so loaded. Look, I can be capricious too: how can anything be more equitable than voluntary exchange?
L
L