web analytics
The Standard
Advertising

Revolting young

Written By: - Date published: 8:54 am, June 14th, 2013 - 400 comments
Categories: class war, human rights - Tags: , , ,

Bernard Hickey asked such an interesting question on Twitter that it’s worth a post and discussion here:

hickey-question

400 comments on “Revolting young”

  1. One Anonymous Knucklehead 1

    1. How do you know they haven’t already?
    2. If you have to ask the question you probably won’t understand the answer.

  2. vto 2

    The “young” will and have revolted by simply melting away into other spheres.

    It is a quiet revolt but it is surely happenning. The baby-boomers can squeal and fight all they like over tax revenue – I get the feeling that everybody else (the ‘young’) have given up and ignore the whole set-up.

    So, it’s all yours baby-boomers. Whatcha gonna leave for us?

    • karol 2.1

      Baby boomer here;: been opposing the inequalities, divisiveness and attacks on the poor. The governments haven’t been acting on my behalf.

      Agreed though, the way things are going, a lot of boomers have benefited and increasing numbers of the young are getting screwed.

      I don’t actually have a lot to leave anyone, and many younger people have a helluva lot more.

      Let’s put the blame where it truly lies, with the neoliberal elites, whatever their ages.

      • geoff 2.1.1

        Let’s not over simplify the matter either, karol.

        This may not be you but statistically is is far more likely that if a person is a baby boomer then the effects of neoliberal policies are much more likely to be less harmful to that person than someone from a younger generation. In fact for many boomers the policies have been beneficial as they see their asset prices increase and their tax burdens drop.
        I believe this has occurred largely because most politicians are 45yrs or older and they vote for policies in their self-interest.

        • karol 2.1.1.1

          I agree, geoff. Boomers are more likely to have benefited from the situation, and things are getting more difficult for increasing numbers of young people.

          But even amongst politicians, Hone Harwira & Sue Bradford are boomers. Many boomers who are strongly anti-”neoliberal” probably have not found a place in the bigger (allegedly) left wing parties.

          Ultimately the underlying problem is not age, but the “neoliberal” values of the wealthiest and most powerful.

          And many attacking boomers use as a major argument the fact that young people can no longer afford to get on the housing ladder. The problem is the values that have resulted in the competition to get on said “housing ladder’ plus the focus on buying as the thing everyone should be aiming for.

          But many of the anti-boomers then tend to ignore, or marginalise the people most harmed by these values, those on low incomes who are just looking for affordable rents and a living age.

          And many of us older renters are feeling the insecurity of a future retirement on fixed income, where housing prices continue to inflate.

          PS: Op ed piece by Don Blair in today’s Herald:

          As long as safe, appealing and affordable housing is available to all who can afford it, people should be indifferent as to whether they own or rent their home. In most cases, renting is a much more affordable option (according to the 2012 Housing Europe Review, only 40 per cent of people in Germany own their home).

          The drive for ownership might make good sense in a fairness and equity argument, but is often bad economic policy waiting to happen, and can be socially disastrous.

          As an American, I have firsthand experience of how wrong the push for home ownership can go. Having been raised to believe that a good down payment was a key to financial security, I watched many friends and family members lose 30 per cent or more of their home’s value in the 2007-8 market correction; for many, the loss represented the entire value of the initial down payment, plus improvements.

          • Populuxe1 2.1.1.1.1

            “But even amongst politicians, Hone Harwira & Sue Bradford are boomers.”
            And both of them enjoy considerably more income and influence than the vast majority of generations x an y, and the millennials

          • geoff 2.1.1.1.2

            Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough. The reason many boomers are somewhat to blame is because they tolerate or vote for parties that implement those policies because they know they will benefit from them and either don’t understand or aren’t bothered that those policies will be harmful to many others.

            Regarding housing…. although there is a cultural push to ‘own your own home’, at least part of the reason people strive to do so is that they can escape from high rent prices. Even with a large mortgage you can argue that you will eventually accrue some benefit from paying all that money out rather than having the money simply flowing to the pockets of a landlord.
            It can’t be understated either that owning a property gives you a much greater feeling that you are not simply prey to forces outside of your control, ie fluctuating rent prices, getting booted out of your house etc. I don’t think it is valid to argue that the reason house prices have shot up is because people are merely under the influence of a ‘must own home!’ meme. The reality is that there is an accommodation shortage (at least in Auckland) which has developed because of the myriad effects of market forces ideology on all aspects of our housing system.

            The reason I’m pointing all this out is because there is the tendency for people to claim that we’ve all had the wool pulled over our eyes by the elites but that is simply not true. In my view, the most cynical you could be about it is to assume that the policies have organically developed such that they still benefit about half the population, which means they will be voted for.

      • Tim 2.1.2

        “Let’s put the blame where it truly lies, with the neoliberal elites, whatever their ages.”

        That’s true Karol – it’s just that it was all those (neo-lib) Boomers that kicked the whole thing off this time round. It’s not surprising therefore that we all cop the flack for it.

        • Tim 2.1.2.1

          Oh, and neo-liberalism might just disappear up its own arse given time, because the environment it relies on is not sustainable. The problem is that we’re all sick of waiting round for it to do so of its own accord.

        • karol 2.1.2.2

          Actually, Thatcher, Regan and Roger Douglas who kicked off the “neolib” revolution were a generation older than boomers. Many boomers did what they could to resist those changes from above, but unsuccessfully. Boomers in NZ & the UK had been part of activism for a more socialist society until Thatcher et al decided to put a stop to it.

          The neolibs in the UK and NZ spearheaded a strong push towards individualist values of US capitalism – a strong wave of US-anisation globally followed. Prior to that, many young people in the UK had been more inclined towards collective processes, with strong support of unions, especially those from working class backgrounds. In NZ there was a bit more of a mix of UK socialism and US individualism prior to “neoliberalisation”. But, basically a lot of boomers here had left wing, collectivists, anti-materialist, anti-competitive values.

          • Tim 2.1.2.2.1

            Yea that’s true now I think about it, however there were a helluva lot of my generation (or near to it) that embraced it here – and I see them still hard at it. It’s hard not to regard them as treacherous (certain past MPs/heads of regional councils, destroyers of broadcasting, those that once professed left-wing idealism right up until the time they discovered the benefits of company-supplied AMEX Gold, etc)

            • karol 2.1.2.2.1.1

              Yes, there were always the treacherous boomers. I worked mostly in education, and most of my friends and colleagues voted Labour when I was living in the UK during Thatcher’s time. Some never gave up and are still active in left wing organisations. Some resisted neoliberalism for a while, then gave up and focused on furthering their careers.

              Most of my immediate family were in business, and more supportive of “neoliberalism”, in both my parents and siblings’ generations.

              I learned that it wasn’t enough to focus on the local and organise collectively, trying to bring about change from “below”. There needs to be a way to tackle the power of the elites with their ruthless “top-down” processes.

              • There is a way, but it is based on reason, not need. It involves the law of the law, not the hollow public policy that the state calls law.

  3. Ancient Ruin 3

    Every time I hear the cry of ‘political correctness gone mad’ or ‘poor us, protect our interests’ etc from the BB’s I see the eroding of an entrenched and establised position of power. All in good time, all in good time….

  4. Smith 4

    They won’t – the impending grey tsunami will keep political representation firmly vested in shaky hands.

  5. Sanctuary 5

    I have twelve friends living in Sydney, five in Melbourne, two in New York, one in San Francisco, and three in London. The youngest is but 26 or 27, the oldest not yet 40. unlike their baby boomer parents, few seem to have much intention of returning to N.Z. There will be no revolution in this country, it has been cancelled due to lack of interest.

    The ultimate irony for the baby boomers – the Peter Pan generation whose vanity has made so petrified at the thought of their extinction – is they will likely die lonely and alone in crumbling, underfunded rest homes with their children and grandchildren growing up somewhere else. And they’ll have no one to blame but themselves.

    • karol 5.1

      How is this different from those of us boomers who spent a lot of time living overseas? Is it a matter of numbers?

      • handle 5.1.1

        Moving overseas is not a temporary jaunt anymore. Young people are smart enough to see when NZ deserves them back.

        • karol 5.1.1.1

          When I went overseas, I thought I was going for good. it wasn’t a temporary jaunt. I was gone for 2 decades. Many others of my generation are still overseas.

          But,as I said, it may be the numbers going that way have increased.

          • handle 5.1.1.1.1

            It’s the motivation, not the numbers.

          • karol 5.1.1.1.2

            Muldoon was a lot of THE motivation for me and others to leave, as was Rogernomics for many. How has that fundamentally changed?

            • handle 5.1.1.1.2.1

              They are not leaving for political reasons. Better work and lifestyle prospects overseas. Friends who are scattered around the world already, who you can connect with instantly any time. Seeing yourself as a world citizen is a different mindset.

              • weka

                I bet they’ll want to come back when the shit hits the fan with PO, CC and the real GFC.

              • karol

                Actually, Id say, when I left NZ I considered myself to be more of a world than an NZ citizen.

                • Populuxe1

                  Quite a feat to see yourself as a world citizen before you’ve even ventured into the world, but whatever

                  • handle

                    That newfangled internet changes things, pop.

                    • Rogue Trooper

                      beetlebombs along quicker than the Model T.

                    • Populuxe1

                      Pretty sure the internet wasn’t around when Karol went to the UK, handle

                    • handle

                      Yes, there is a difference between being constantly in touch with friends and colleagues around the world, and reading a foreign newspaper or following a cause.

                  • karol

                    Well, what a surprise! We can be born in one country, but have an interest, via various communicative technologies, in what’s happening in the rest of the world.

                    Are you not concerned for workers’ earning slave wages or dying of starvation in other countries, even if you haven’t been there?

                    • Populuxe1

                      What I have learned from international travel and greatly improved information systems is that I would be very arrogant to assume I understood all the cultural pressures happening in a society without seeing it, researching it, and knowing people who live in it before I passed judgments on what the problem was.

                    • Colonial Viper

                      I guess we’re all more arrogant than you

                    • karol

                      Some people don’t understand the cultures and practices that exist in their own country.

                      In my travels,back in apartheid days, I met white South Africans who said no-one could judge apartheid if they hadn’t lived in South Africa.

                      When I lived in Stockwell, there were riots going on down the road in Briton. I saw more of the riots on TV than firsthand. Mostly I saw the aftermath. Some Afro-Caribbean and white English people in the area had different interpretations from each other. Margaret Thatcher said the rioters were criminals and thugs.

                  • Is New Zealand not in the world, Populuxe1?

                    Just what grouping we identify with is contingent. There’s no reason apart from particular socialisation practices, so far as I can see, why the nation state should take precedence. Belief in human rights, for example, may well require a sense of world citizenship.

                    • Populuxe1

                      Much of what constitures human rights in our interpretation of the world is a western eurocentric construct

                    • No doubt.

                      But that doesn’t affect the discussion about being a world citizen, does it?

                      I was using concern for human rights – however they might be socially constructed, eurocentrically or not – as an example of what might constitute identifying as a world citizen or identify a sense of world citizenship.

                      Having the sense of being a world citizen is presumably more than simply travelling around the world, isn’t it? Lots of people travel around but very much feel they remain a nation-state citizen. Many New Zealanders still identify primarily with New Zealand and not the world, in terms of citizenship, after their OEs or other travel.

                      A sense of ‘world citizenship’ may or may not be a ‘good thing’ (e.g., because of its eurocentric bias or whatever) but that’s not the issue. The issue is whether or not it is possible to identify as a world citizen without travelling beyond your country.

                      I don’t see why that would be impossible.

        • Foreign Waka 5.1.1.2

          “Young people are smart enough to see when NZ deserves them back” If this is the attitude, I suggest that they stay were they are, NZ with its finite resources and small communities need people who have the frontier spirit. Always has. There are plenty of immigrants, equally if not better educated who are happy to settle here and contribute. The difference is, that they don’t have a entitlement gene.

    • ak 5.2

      Onnit Sanc. They sold their parents’ hard-wrought souls to the Thatcher/Reagan/Douglas scum for a handful of silver and dove lemming-like into the hell of selfish hedonism. Now they while away their few remaining dissipated minutes playing ponzi bingo with their own children’s future. Now and again an Aaron Gilmore flashback to their past emerges, so they squash it with haste and return to their own John Key present: listlessly and mindlessly tapping support for their ancient animal racism and oppression. Lost, bewildered, dying alone in a cold vault: lashing out in fear at a progressive optimism and humanity that they can never comprehend.

      • karol 5.2.1

        yeah, ak. You have me and many friends and colleagues summed up nicely..

        • ak 5.2.1.1

          God, not you karol, nor anyone here. Sincere apologies for not specifying.

          • Foreign Waka 5.2.1.1.1

            Have you got some excellent writing for the generation X? With the hedonism taken to a new level, bandaged with new names there ought to be room for comment.
            “It is only a step from boredom to disillusionment, which leads naturally to self-pity, which in turn ends in chaos.”Manly Hall

      • rosy 5.2.2

        Who are ‘they’ ak? Are ‘they’ your own parents or grandparents? And do all in those age groups share the same values despite different social and cultural backgrounds, and variations in life experience?

        And the progressive optimism you speak of – is that the prerogative of only your own age group? and do all (apart from Aaron Gilmore*) share it?

        *I reckon though, that Aaron Gilmore typifies a lot of ‘progressive optimism’ – optimism in his own progression that is.

        • ak 5.2.2.1

          Sorry Rose, no of course not. The vast majority of my nearest and dearest vote tory: it’s for that very manipulation and suppression of essential goodness that I hold “them” most culpable. And “they” most certainly don’t comprise any or all here present (including the burts and Gosmans among us). Believe me, “they” are a distinctly separate breed that I have had the dubious privilege of observing closely over decades. Certainly, search for good in all; but never underestimate the capacity for utter inhumanity and cruelty in some.

      • Puddleglum 5.2.3

        Reagan – born 1911
        Thatcher – born 1925
        Douglas – born 1937

        None of them ‘baby boomers’. I’d also like to know the breakdown of the age of people who voted for each of them. In any event, it seems likely that their electoral victories owed as much to people born prior to the ‘baby boom’ than during it.

        It’s too easy to make theories ‘on the fly’.

        • Colonial Viper 5.2.3.1

          neoliberalism was born as an active political economic force in the early 1970′s. Milton Friedman himself was born pre WWI, in 1912.

          However, baby boomers were crucial in building and sustaining the power of neoliberalism through the 1980s and 1990′s.

          Today a vast amount of wealth lies with those in the 50′s and 60′s age range even as those under 30 are being fucked over (essentially their own children and grandchildren), and they are still working hard to corner even more of the wealth for themselves. Yes, they are boomers.

          • karol 5.2.3.1.1

            Some baby boomers, plus many people in generations older than boomers, were crucial in building neoliberalism in the 80s and 90s. Not the whole generation, and probably a minority of such. In the FPtP days, neoliberal governments usually didn’t get the majority vote. Many boomers also strongly led the opposition to the neoliberal changes. There’s a lot of wealth among some 50 and 60 year olds. Others in that age range have far less.

            And now, in my 60s, I see many young people owning a helluva lot more than I do. I see acquaintances well younger, not boomers, accumulating houses for renting and wealth accumulation. I have had landlords for my little rental studio apartment, who are a couple of generations younger than me.

            The 1970s was a time of strong moves to the left among the general public, with boomers leading the protests and anti-materialist activism, and attempts to move society towards a more cooperative and less competitive direction.

            Agisim by any other name is still agism.

  6. Interesting… this is something I (re-)posted on TDB today. It fits in very well with Bernard Hickey’s tweet-post; http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/06/14/greed-is-good/

    With the Reserve Bank now considering raising deposits on homes to 20%, this will impact on first house-buyers (despite the BS from Dear Leader), whilst leaving established property owners (especially speculators) untouched.

    In fact, this will help speculators, as they’ll have less competition from first home buyers.

    The Nats are hell bent at doing anything but actually addressing the critical problem developing in this country.

    Expect more young NZers to look overseas for their future.

    • ianmac 6.1

      Perhaps a Capital Gains tax might help more to contain house price rises?

      • Saccharomyces 6.1.1

        Capital gains tax will do nothing to reduce house prices, if anything it will raise prices. Most likely it will also increase rents.

        • Colonial Viper 6.1.1.1

          It’s good if it raises house prices, more revenue to close the Government deficit with.

          If it increases rents, that more taxes for the Government too. Great!

          • Herodotus 6.1.1.1.1

            The government receives this revenue once the property is sold. A cgt has been postulated could cause properties not being trade so regularly.
            Cgt will not suppress property values on its own. Pity many are falling for this isolated fix ( john minto et all )
            http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10890114
            Why did property ownership blossom in the 50′s and beyond ?
            With the capitalising and using family benefits to assist in deposits made it easier for 1st home owners to enter the market. Currently it is almost impossible to enter but extremely easy for people to own multiple properties. And if you can look at the entry point
            http://www.realestate.co.nz/residential/apartment/auckland/manukau-city/flat-bush
            The solution is multi layered and requires both local and central govts to co ordinate the fixes. The market has not failed in relation to the property market , what has failed is the tax distortions that have been allowed to give a few major advantages.

    • ropata 6.2

      national’s supine policy is to continue to encourage waves of immigrants and foreign speculators to bid up the price of Auckland property thus enriching national voters.

  7. karol 7

    Some of the young are revolting. I see them on demonstrations and voicing their views in various platforms and locations. The question is, how to get more to join them?

    The “neoliberal” revolution was successful because it had multiple inter-related fronts, all giving the same message: in the realm of politics, education, the MSM and popular culture.

    The left needs to be active in all realms.

    Look for instance how the advance forces have desensitised young and old to the surveillance society: on facebook, on numerous TV dramas like NCIS, Strike Back, etc, etc, where the “good guys” pursue the “bad guys” using invasive digital technologies, and watching the pursuits live on big screens.

    All these realms need to be constantly exposed and new approaches and values need to be constantly dicsussed and promoted.

    • Populuxe1 7.1

      Or perhaps the direction of the discourse has changed completely and your ambitions and methodologies seem increasingly those of the 20th, if not the 19th century, while the debates rage on facebook and twitter

  8. fatty 8

    There will be no revolt through the political system.

    Gen X and later have taken individualism (which emerged as part of the baby-boomer protest movements) and multiplied it by 10. Shutting the world out and de-politicising their life is their form of revolt.
    Gen X and later have never had a political voice, and they certainly don’t now. Greens and Mana give them a voice. Sadly, ACT and National resonate with youth just as much, because they promote the individual over society. Labour is Labour. Labour have no concept of image, and they fail to understand the power of image in a neoliberal world

    • handle 8.1

      Younger people are too smart to put their faith in political action when they see the number of older voters growing and the poor quality of political leaders now.

      • Foreign Waka 8.1.1

        Mistake number 1…
        Mistake number 2: indifference
        Mistake number 3: self is more important than the community
        Mistake number 4: Someone will act instead of you

    • karol 8.2

      fatty, so you accept the “neoliberal” terms of engagement via the politics of image, rather than working to undermine those terms and change the way politics is done?

      • fatty 8.2.1

        not really. I accept that the politics of image dominates, this is due to neoliberalism, but also to our hyper-connected world and technological advancements. There are few positives from this and multiple negatives. However, the only way to reverse neoliberalism (or better, replace it with a whole new system) cannot be achieved without playing the neoliberal image game. To do this is difficult as its easy to become the issue one is fighting against. The greens do it fairly well, look at the way they dress, their personal image, their collective image, their attempts to depoliticise political action etc. Image is very powerful for the Greens, as much as it is for ACT and National. Its also where Labour are about 2 decades behind.

        So to answer your question, to overcome or replace neoliberalism we have to beat the neoliberals at their own game, but at the same time limit the way the neoliberals use imagery. This is different from accepting it.

        • karol 8.2.1.1

          Very good answer, fatty. It does indicate a fine line to be negotiated between working with the politics of imagery to go beyond it to a better politicos, and becoming sucked into it.

    • Populuxe1 8.3

      What a load of crap – you obviously are not generation x, so you don’t get to speak for us with your idiotic generalisations. They haven’t shut out the world, we’ve gone into cyberspace and we haven’t politicised, we’ve specialised and diversified. It was the baby boomers who closed us out of “society” in the first place, so have the decency to hurry up and die so we can get on with it. Also, Young Labour seems plenty active to me, so again more talking out your arse.

      • Colonial Viper 8.3.1

        It was the baby boomers who closed us out of “society” in the first place, so have the decency to hurry up and die so we can get on with it.

        Seems like you have successfully taken the concept of selfish individualism and multiplied it by 10

      • fatty 8.3.2

        Pop.

        I am from Gen X, and I wasn’t speaking for us, I was speaking about us. When I said we shut out the world, I meant we shut ourselves off (and yes, have been forced out) from the political world. I do think that individualisation has increased massively with the younger generations, but this is not due to any failings of Gen Xers. I believe that a generation doesn’t define itself, but instead a generation is created by the one before. Gen X is a product of neoliberalism – not pretty overall. The babyboomers were created by the war generation, etc. We are heading down an ugly looking path.

        It was the baby boomers who closed us out of “society” in the first place

        Yes, I agree. That was my point when I said – “Gen X and later have never had a political voice, and they certainly don’t now.”
        Gen X have been politically marginalised for the simple fact that there is a massive population bulge above us, so I agree with you again when you say have the decency to hurry up and die so we can get on with it

        Also, Young Labour seems plenty active to me, so again more talking out your arse.

        Young people’s involvement with Labour is decreasing in comparison to 30/40 years ago. I don’t see them as a party with a long term future in 20 years time.

        Overall pop, I agree with you. I have been on here before and got into a very long debate with people who I otherwise always agree with. But I’ve come to understand that for some unknown reason, an age cohort cannot be seen as receiving structural privileged over another age cohort.
        If you read the postings from some on here, when discussing generational inequality, they will often ignore structural forces (such as changes in education, tax, wages, employment, property etc) and just individualise the argument. Those same commenters will do the opposite when it comes to race or gender. If I, as a Pakeha, said “there is no advantage to being Pakeha because I know Maori who earn more than me and own more property than me, and the government aren’t giving me special consideration” …then I’d be told I am unable to see my own privilege which comes from structural oppression. That structural argument is a valid argument, but if you try to do that by examining how different age cohorts have benefited from economic policies and political ideologies, then you’d get branded as ageist.

        Its hardly worth the argument. You can take ethnicity, gender or sexuality and have an acceptable argument of structural oppression. But try to take suggest that structural oppression has affected generations differently, and the argument will become individualised.

        I get that many boomers got screwed by neoliberalism. So did many Pakeha, but that doesn’t mean we can’t point out and acknowledge that neoliberalism has given an advantage to Pakeha.

        • Rogue Trooper 8.3.2.1

          well-written.subscription.

        • Colonial Viper 8.3.2.2

          Young people’s involvement with Labour is decreasing in comparison to 30/40 years ago. I don’t see them as a party with a long term future in 20 years time.

          90% of Young Labour today are university students, 90% of them seem to be studying pol sci, and 90% of them seem to have a fascination for getting a job in Parliamentary Services.

          This is certainly NOT a Young Labour which is representative of the wider youth of NZ, but basically represents young people attending Auckland or Victoria University.

          • Populuxe1 8.3.2.2.1

            Are you going to accuse them of elitist snobbery with your wild generalisations? Do you have figures for this or are you simply pulling things out of your orrifice? I doubt you have a clue what motivates “the wider youth of NZ” however you are choosing to define that. I suspect you just want to monopolise political activism because you have nothing else going on.

            • Rogue Trooper 8.3.2.2.1.1

              do you

            • Arfamo 8.3.2.2.1.2

              Yep. Everything wrong with the way the world is is invariably the fault of the gormless & selfish generation before ours. I well remember explaining this to my father in the early 80′s when his solution was for everyone to have to spend a bit of time in the services. And so it will eventually be with the generation of Pop’s offspring.

            • Colonial Viper 8.3.2.2.1.3

              Are you going to accuse them of elitist snobbery with your wild generalisations?

              Did I miss that out?

              Yes, too many Young Labourites, particularly those more senior in the organisation, tend to look down on young people who are in the trades, those young people who have never been to university, those young people who are unemployed school leavers, those young people from the regions and rural NZ, those young people who profess to have more socially conservative attitude towards – well, anything – etc.

              That is what you meant by “elitist snobbery”, in Young Labour right Pop?

              • Populuxe1

                Are you in a party youth wing, CV? No. Fuck off.

                • Colonial Viper

                  On this narrow issue, I’m right and you’re wrong. Live with it.

                  Are you in a party youth wing, CV? No. Fuck off.

                  99% of people under 30 are not in a youth party wing, Pop. That’s part of what I am saying.

                  • Populuxe1

                    “On this narrow issue, I’m right and you’re wrong. Live with it.”
                    Only if you bring better evidence than “because I say so and I am the great and all powerful CV”

                    “99% of people under 30 are not in a youth party wing, Pop. That’s part of what I am saying.”
                    Which still means you don’t have any direct knowledge of what youth wings do these days, and just because they are not members doesn’t mean they don’t have contact/interraction – many do, and many are influenced to vote based on the activism of youth wings. You can shove your head back up your arse now.

        • geoff 8.3.2.3

          If you read the postings from some on here, when discussing generational inequality, they will often ignore structural forces (such as changes in education, tax, wages, employment, property etc) and just individualise the argument. Those same commenters will do the opposite when it comes to race or gender. If I, as a Pakeha, said “there is no advantage to being Pakeha because I know Maori who earn more than me and own more property than me, and the government aren’t giving me special consideration” …then I’d be told I am unable to see my own privilege which comes from structural oppression. That structural argument is a valid argument, but if you try to do that by examining how different age cohorts have benefited from economic policies and political ideologies, then you’d get branded as ageist.

          This.

        • karol 8.3.2.4

          I agree that increasing numbers of young people are finding life a struggle. It was somewhat easier when my generation left school. However, it wasn’t equally easy for all, and the first work years of most boomers’ lives was on pretty meagre incomes.

          There have been some structural changes since I was young re tax and education. However, the most significant structure is still in place, and has been strengthened: that of socio-economic divisions and inequalities. When I left school, education, career prospects and access to property ownership were far easier for middleclass white men than for women or Maori of Pacific people.

          Higher education was predominantly a middleclass white male activity. And for women of my generation, there weren’t very many career prospects, beyond teaching, nursing and social work, or factory or retail work (depending largely on class background). And such jobs were expected to support women mainly until they got married. Now I see more women with a wider range of opportunities and career expectations, although we’re still a long way from gender equality in the career structures.

          I think the reason many of us boomers react the way we do is because the impact of intergenerational differences are being exaggerated to the point where boomers are blamed for everything that is wrong today. It is made to sound like THE structural division that udnerlies all others. And it’s done in an emotive and highly personalised way (see ak @ 10.30am), whereby boomers are all painted as having certain negative personality traits that are making life hard for all younger people. That’s in spite of your rationalisation that all generations are shaped by the historical context (key word “shaped”, but along with a range of other factors), resulting in some negative qualities all round.

          Socio-economic background still has THE major influence, with “race”/ethnicity also playing a strong role. Children of well-off boomers have more prospects, opportunities and advantages, than the majority of working class, and many lower middle-class boomers had during their work lives. This is especially so for Maori and Pasifika boomers who’ve had a life of struggle.

          And the anti-boomer arguments usually totally ignore how agism kicks in when people, especially women, get into their 50s. Yes, there are those in their 50s and 60s who are sitting pretty on some prime high status jobs. However, they are not the majority, and anyone who loses their job in their 50s soon learns that it is more likely that younger people will be the ones to get the jobs that are going.

          I’ve seen women in my current workplace, on a fairly middling income after decades of work, become marginalised as younger people, most often young men, are given seniority.

          And, in this context, it’s hard not to take the following kinds of comments personally – can’t be just brushed aside as a “metaphor”:

          , so I agree with you again when you say, have the decency to hurry up and die so we can get on with it

          That is pretty much what my mother got shouted at her in the street when she was in her late 70s/80s. She (born decades before boomer days) was told by some young people, “You’re getting too old. You should just die.”

          To me, that comment is just plain nasty, and is dripping with generations-old agism. It undermines the more valid arguments, about how things are getting increasingly tough, for an increasing proportion of younger people.

      • Foreign Waka 8.3.3

        Now this is the statement that says it all. “so have the decency to hurry up and die”?
        In cyberspace or what? Are you on earth or floating in some imaginary fantasy created by gadgets you cannot put down as otherwise boredom will get you?

        • fatty 8.3.3.1

          hurry up and die

          That statement is, of course, not to be taken literally.
          It is used to point out how Gen X will have limited political voice until boomer numbers come down. It is not wishing death upon anyone, it is pointing out how a statistical bulge marginalises the next generation

          • Foreign Waka 8.3.3.1.1

            I appreciate that it is not to betaken literally, however there is some responsibility in making statements. As they say, it is the thought that counts. Generation X has the same voice as all others, belief me. Mostly it is none. Example: MMP referendum – baby boomers have voted, legally, in full force and what has happened? On the referendum re Asset sales, the PM said that it will not matter as he sees this as non binding. Now, I reassure you that the baby boomers do not appreciate having their and their parents (grandparents etc) hard won freedom taken away. Same with the legislation that is in the house regarding employment law. Even the Employer federation is iffy. Is Gen x and beyond interested in these oh so mundane issues? And yet, these are the very foundation the Baby Boomer Generation is trying to preserve. Not just for them but for future generations.

            • fatty 8.3.3.1.1.1

              In general, young people have little interest in parliamentary democracy. There are only 2 parties who offer younger people any real change – the greens and mana. But the younger people get told they are extreme weirdoes. This message often comes from strange sources (even Norman claimed that Mana’s policies were from the 80s & 90s – that was the moment I promised to never give greens a vote until Norman goes).

              And yet, these are the very foundation the Baby Boomer Generation is trying to preserve. Not just for them but for future generations.

              There is nothing left to preserve. Employment went to the shitter in 1991, then again in 2000. There is nothing left to protect. Say Labour/greens/mana get in for 6 years.
              What do you think employment legislation will look like? Then National will get back in and shift it again for another 6 years.
              The more you think about where we’re at and where we’re heading, it becomes a logical decision to remove oneself from politics and wait for the older generation to die off.
              Remember, the boomers created Gen X. If it makes yourself feel better, you can go down the pull yourself up by your bootstraps route, but that will just marginalise younger people further.
              If you want to know why young people are politically apathetic, read the comments in this post with a critical perspective.

              • karol

                the boomers created Gen X.

                That is giving god-like powers to boomers, and seems like a distorted version of Marx’s:

                “Men make their own history but not in circumstances of their own choosing.”

                Of course, on a base level, gen ex’s were the result of Boomers’ sexual activities.

                But in terms of the way people’s personalities, behaviours and values develop, people of any generation are “created” by a complex range of interacting factors. These include the natural environment, technologies available, social activities, on-going inter-generational and intra-generational interactions, and all kinds of unintended consequences. Also influecned by ones’ social, educational and occupational affiliations.

                for Marx, of course the circumstances differed according to whether a person was part of the ruling or subject class; usually strongly influenced by one’s parents’ class position.

                • fatty

                  I think its fair to say that boomers created Gen X, in the same way that the war generation/silent generation created the boomers.

                  All of these factors you have listed are arguably created, shaped or produced by each generation – These include the natural environment, technologies available, social activities, on-going inter-generational and intra-generational interactions, and all kinds of unintended consequences. Also influecned by ones’ social, educational and occupational affiliations.

            • Rogue Trooper 8.3.3.1.1.2

              then it would be advisable BBG did not vote for Tory ‘fiscal conservatives’.

  9. Sosoo 9

    They’re too busy texting and looking at facebook on their mobiles.

    • Populuxe1 9.1

      Does it occur to you that some of that texting and facebooking is of a political nature. “You stupid kids get offa my lawn!”

      • Colonial Viper 9.1.1

        yeah it really scares the powers that be when you decide not to Like their facebook page.

        • Populuxe1 9.1.1.1

          Confirms you have a limited grasp on the extent of social media

          • Colonial Viper 9.1.1.1.1

            Confirms that social media has a limited grasp on the extent of reality

            • Populuxe1 9.1.1.1.1.1

              Confirms that YOU have a limited grasp on the extent of reality and the role of social media within it. Or you can swear never to post here again because that would be acknowledging the impact of social media on political discourse.

              • Colonial Viper

                negligible to zero according to Shearer’s office, and I presume he must know

                • Populuxe1

                  Captain Mumblefuck? You are taking the piss, aren’t you? See what the Greens are doing

      • Foreign Waka 9.1.2

        Well, your comments really just confirms that the Boomer generation has to hold on a little longer…

        • Arfamo 9.1.2.1

          Who can blame Gen Xers for not feeling connected to politics in any way. Surely they would have to be the most completely economically & politically brainwashed generation in our history? They have grown up in a selfish, individualistically competitive environment forced on them by greedy, self-serving politicians and lobbyists the world over. There is no serious or thoughtful political analysis or debate in the mainstream media which is full of meaningless fluff and sensationalist trivia. Many would have no idea there are other alternatives or what they are.

          • Rogue Trooper 9.1.2.1.1

            generalization; I know many politically-aware Gen X, yet,many more who are not; seduced.

          • Populuxe1 9.1.2.1.2

            Jeez, why don’t you just call gen x a bunch of luftmenschen who need to get some blut und boden under their feet.

  10. johnm 10

    Just my bob’s worth :-)
    When I came to New Zealand in 1980 it was paradise for young people. There was virtually full employment and wages/salaries were more than adequate. My wife and I had a combined income of $18000 a year and we easily saved a deposit of $10000 within a year to deposit on a house. We bought a 20 year old house on a very big well developed section close to the city centre of Wellington for $32000!!! (These are the days before housing was turned into a get rich with capital gains using other people’s money monopoly sport which has ruined it for young people now.) That set up was worth working for by golly gosh!

    Now? If we arrived in 2013? Unemployment and low wages a ruthless attitude to workers and housing that’s almost impossible to buy due to the over inflated value supplied by cheap fiat money from foreign banks and endless speculator activity which governments refuse to stop with a proper capital gains tax. This situation is not worth working for you could hardly do worse than get out to Australia where at least they pay you decent money and if you’re an Australian Citizen they believe in looking out for you.

  11. Adrian 11

    The young have been disengaged for a while but things may be changing. In the Kaikoura electorate there is for the first time in decades a Young Labour branch with a very healthy membership.
    Most change does not suddenly erupt but starts very small and builds incrementally.

    • mac1 11.1

      Why the Kaikoura electorate, Adrian, that it should reactivate some of our young? What is it in the pure artesian Blenheim water? What factors?

      I’d suggest the fact that the Kaikoura electorate is one of the poorest regions in New Zealand for wages. It is also small enough for the young to connect more easily. It also has a strong motivator in the quality of the young people involved. There is also a strong tradition of being involved in local groups and taking action locally as a result of history and geography.

      What factors can be discovered and then built on to aid the young to regenerate the energy and spirit of earlier generations that can be channelled into political and social action?

      You said, “Most change does not suddenly erupt but starts very small and builds incrementally.” Very true locally where a vision planted literally in 1975 with one vineyard in Marlborough has grown into a 250,000 tonne wine industry.

      • pollywog 11.1.1

        Engage through social media. txt bomb cell phones.

      • Colonial Viper 11.1.2

        “Why the Kaikoura electorate, Adrian, that it should reactivate some of our young? What is it in the pure artesian Blenheim water? What factors?”

        The leadership of just 2-3 extremely capable young people communicating with others is what has made the difference in Kaikoura. It’s that simple.

        • mac1 11.1.2.1

          Oh, I agree, CV. I know those involved. I just hope that simple answer can be replicated by others with those skills and motivation, which is why I raised the issue.

          Motivation comes from hope that things can change, faith that sustains the work, and charity that sees this work is wider than our own interests.

  12. Olwyn 12

    The creation of divisions between baby boomers and the young is not a lot different from creating divisions between the working poor and the unemployed – it keeps us at each other’s throats rather than uniting against the real enemy. For starters, some boomers were not advantaged by Rogernomics but were in fact ruined by it. And as to those with property, it is simply harder to wrest property off of people when they already have it than it is to institute conditions that prevent them from getting it. People were encouraged for a couple of decades to believe that salvation was just around the corner, “no gain without pain” etc, and it is only quite recently that the real game, the concentration of wealth into few hands, has shown up in sharp relief. It is this practice that we should be opposing, not each other.

    • Bill 12.1

      Quite agree Olwyn. Something too many people tend to overlook is that many young people voted for the likes of Thatcher. Older people tended to value the welfare state and were a part of the ‘post war’ consensus on state/social arrangements.

      That’s not to say that no older people voted in parties that peddled neo-classical economics when there was still a choice. And that’s not to say that older people haven’t tended to gain a comparitive advantage over younger people in the scatter brained scramble for material security that’s come off the back of 30 odd years of governments dancing neo-classical jigs.

      But the cliff edge we’ve been jostled towards is a cliff edge no matter our age or, with caveats, degree of material accumulation. Now, we can carp and bitch at one another if we like – blame this generation or that generation. But accelerating downwards at 10m/s squared (as it were) is going to be feeling exactly like plummeting at 10m/s squared when we go over. And we all go over. There are no parachutes. There are no anti-gravity devices. Just an inter-generational dash to the rocks after this present hard place.

      • Colonial Viper 12.1.1

        But accelerating downwards at 10m/s squared (as it were) is going to be feeling exactly like plummeting at 10m/s squared when we go over. And we all go over. There are no parachutes. There are no anti-gravity devices. Just an inter-generational dash to the rocks after this present hard place.

        Yeah but some of us (nations/individuals) will be plummeting from a 3m cliff, others from a 30m cliff.

      • Puddleglum 12.1.2

        Exactly Olwyn and Bill.

        The age issue is a red herring.

        Also, there’s a difference between cohort effects and ageing effects. As this study of voting in Australia between 1966 and 2001 found (see pp. 280-281 especially), those born 1945-1960 were more likely to vote ALP than for the Coalition than were there parents. The ‘age dividend’ for voting for the Coalition if you were over 60 went from 8-9% in the 1966 election to 24-25% in the 2001 election. This may have been partly because of Howard’s favourable policies for older people but also because of the more progressive socialisation of those growing up in the late 1950s, 1960s and 70s.

        Also, many studies have found growing narcissism in younger people in ‘the West’ over the past several decades (though there is some debate around the edges of this research) and greater acceptance of right wing values associated with individualism. That lines up with the survey reported in The Guardian to the effect that the group most likely to be anti-benefits and anti the NHS were those in the youngest voting age group (despite being more likely to be receiving it).

        There’s also a paradox in the research on young people – they often claim to be ‘sorted’ and optimistic about their personal life prospects but, at the same time, pessimistic about the world’s prospects and, most alarmingly and paradoxically (if their self reports are to be believed), suffering from increasing rates of mental illness, risk taking, etc..

        In all of that context, the baby boomers versus Gen X and Y ‘debate’ is just not relevant or worth pursuing, in my opinion. It’s divide and conquer stuff.

        The point is to unite against the very policies that now make life so difficult for many young people, many middle-aged people and many older people.

        • Rogue Trooper 12.1.2.1

          Yep.

        • Populuxe1 12.1.2.2

          So you choose to willfully ignore that the baby boomers had a significant head start in securing the lion’s share of economic equity and the political influence to maintain their grip on it? How baby boomer of you.

          • Clockie 12.1.2.2.1

            All of the baby boomers?

            • Populuxe1 12.1.2.2.1.1

              If you own a house or a car you already have more equity than I do. If you had a free education you have less debt than I do

              • Clockie

                My wife and I have worked hard all our lives, in my case since I left school at seventeen. We have a modest home worth about 350K a 1996 Nissan Cefiro which is getting to the point of being a liability rather than an asset and we owe about 100K.

                I’m assuming you’re about 35. At your age I was earning 15K a year self employed because unemployment was running at better than 10%. I was supporting a wife and two pre schoolers on that. We had just managed to squeeze into a modest first home and were paying a mortgage on that at, wait for it, 20%. Still reckon all my generation have had it easy?

                I suspect you will now read me a lecture on how if we’re not better off it’s all our fault because, as members of the baby boom generation we were on a road paved with gold.

                • Populuxe1

                  Do you want a medal based on your ability to achieve all of that under conditions considerably easier than those my generation has inherited? Wages are lower, unemployment is higher, the banks aren’t lending and there is a real estate shortage. Cry me a river, build a bridge and get over it.

                  • Clockie

                    For all that you accuse others of not reading or thinking, you’re not too flash at it yourself are you? All the statistical information exists to prove that the eighties and nineties were no easier for many of my generation than this decade is for yours. But you’re determined to make it an inter-generational fight and turn it into a blame game. You must have interesting conversations around the dinner table with your parents.

                    News flash. In the eighties and nineties real wages were going down (certainly for much of that period), The real cost of living was going up all the time. Banks were lending, at huge interest rates and from memory official unemployment peaked at just over 13%, but it was generally recognised that the real figure was much higher. Driving through many small towns and even main streets in our major cities was very depressing. Many shops closed, paint peeling, public works falling behind, roads cracking up and not being repaired. The reality is that out of the last 35 yrs of my adult life, the only time that the recessional clouds really seemed to lift were between approximately 2001-2006. There was a gradual improvement in the statistics for about 4-5 years before that but it took a fair while to show up as an improvement in prospects for most working people.

                    And if it’s good enough for you to say cry me a river to me, then it’s fair enough for me to tell you to do the same, Yes?

          • Puddleglum 12.1.2.2.2

            No, I don’t choose to ignore that.

            I’ll try to make my position as clear as possible: One of the main reasons I’m so strongly opposed to what has happened since the 1980s is because of its effects on those born into the world it has created. Yes, it harmed people immensely at the time, but my long term concern is that it has so effectively depleted the social processes required to ensure that new-born members of our society get what they need in order to live lives that are vital and fulfilling.

            It’s quite obvious that different age cohorts have different material, social, ideological, etc. experiences and prospects. As Marx said, we can’t choose the world we’re born into.

            It’s also clear that the ‘baby boom’ generation were the beneficiaries of the structural changes (e.g., that formed the post – WWII economic boom, the spread of the welfare state, free education, etc.) that occurred in the preceding generation.

            It’s self-evident that baby boomers had the advantages of those policies and people born later did not as they were exposed to the ‘reforms’ of 1984 onwards.

            My main concern with the ‘Baby Boomers versus Gen Y and Gen X’ framing of inequality is not that it highlights an inequality of effects of neoliberalism; it’s the reverse. To me, it seems to hide the dimension upon which those inequalities are distributed and asserts that it was some attack on a particular generation. It wasn’t – despite the fact that one generation saw their prospects vanish as they approached them.

            I don’t think Douglas (not a baby boomer), for example, particularly had it in for people born in the 70s or 80s – he wasn’t discriminating against them, in particular. He was, if we want to use that ‘discriminatory’ language, discriminating against everyone born from that point onwards, from here to eternity. That kind of shows that it is not a particular generation being discriminated against but something more important: A structural shift in society itself.

            The same goes for the big increase in negative statistics for Maori at the same time. It wasn’t because Maori, in particular, were being targeted (although you can never discount the degree of racism that underpins policy development – e.g., privatising parts of the public sector first that have higher Maori participation because ‘they are only Maori’ and won’t be able to put up a fight). Neoliberal reforms always impact most on those with the least power in society – that includes the next generation.

            Those groups most vulnerable to suffer under the neoliberal reforms of course include those who never received the benefits of what existed prior to those reforms.

            What I would ask is why does this mean that the enemy is the baby boomers rather than neoliberalism?

            In the same way, is the enemy for women the patriarchy or is it men? Is the enemy for Maori Pakeha or colonialism and its continuing effects?

            Also, I’d like to know the evidence that baby boomers – as a group – have supported neoliberal policies and resisted attempts to overturn them (e.g., in voting trends).

            • karol 12.1.2.2.2.1

              Very good analysis, Puddleglum.

              Neoliberal reforms always impact most on those with the least power in society – that includes the next generation.

              When there is a reconfiguration happening in society, it is always important to consider the power dynamics: And power often doesn’t rest with the “majority” or biggest block in society. It is most available with those that have the resources and structural power to start with.

              • Populuxe1

                “It is most available with those that have the resources and structural power to start with.” which would predominantl be the baby boomers for having been around longer. And by failing to recognise the collective equity of that generation by continuing to push this “blame neoliberalism” shtick, you are sort of missing Marx’s point.

                • Well, if it is not neoliberalism that is the issue (‘to blame’) then the baby boomer problem will, indeed, solve itself.

                  They will die off.

                  Then the world will be a better, more just place irrespective of the continuation of neoliberal policies. Their ‘collective equity’ will inevitably distribute amongst the remaining Gen Xers, Yers and whoever comes next. All subsequent generations will then be on a level playing field and intergenerational equality will be restored.

                  And, yes, the (current? historical?) collective equity of the boomer generation may well be greater than the collective equity of the Gen Xers or Yers (when they reach a similar age to the current boomers to counteract age-related distortions in the comparison). First, there will be more boomers at their current ages than there will be of those who follow.

                  Second, some of the privatisation ‘windfalls’ clearly went to a relatively few number of people who were late pre-boomers, early boomers (and more who were born even earlier) rather than Gen Xers and so would massively improve the collective equity of that generation.

                  Third, boomers as a group did not accumulate student debts and may have been able to enter the housing market at propitious time (though there have been continual recurrences of housing booms – even one now).

                  Then again, there were also costs not experienced by Gen Xers and Yers – e.g., long periods of unemployment for significantly larger proportions of the working age population than today (in the late 80s and through to the mid-90s which would have affected those boomers who were in their ‘peak’ earning years), higher interest rates (taking a greater proportion of income to service) and stricter initial borrowing conditions for mortgages (e.g., higher required deposits). There were also ‘costs’ (or less generous benefits) relative to the pre-boomer generation (e.g., the age 60 retirement age introduced in the 70s pushed up to 65 by 2001, in time for baby boomers to start retiring some time after that – began in 2010 if 1945 is the start of the boomer generation).

                  Also, some 250,000 or so boomers had emigrated by 1991 pursuing prospects overseas, for reasons not unlike Gen Xers and Yers today?

                  Further, much of the equity of the boomers is tied up in houses. In that context, it’s interesting what effect an ageing population will have on house prices and on the ‘release’ of that equity:

                  International evidence suggests that population ageing will have a negative impact on real estate prices (Stephenson, 2006), although whether this will apply to New Zealand is uncertain. Slower population growth may mean lower residential investment, slower growth in prices, and less speculative volatility in the housing market. These are all likely to fluctuate with ups and downs in population growth, as they have done historically.

                  House prices may also become more aligned with personal and household incomes, as in other countries. With slower labour force growth, demand for labour may lift incomes, perhaps leading to higher house prices (assuming there is not an over-supply of housing).

                  Irrespective of the impact on capital values, housing wealth poses difficulties for the asset-rich and income-poor. People needing to access their housing wealth for retirement income can either trade down homes or release home equity via financial contracts such as reverse mortgages. As a result, one might expect further development, promotion, and understanding of equity release products in New Zealand.

                  The release of that equity will go to Gen Xers and Yers (as a collective grouping, of course/ Some Xers and Yers may not reap that benefit but the generation as a whole will) and so, in some ways, the boomers’ tied up equity is like a savings scheme for the next generation with investment in the housing market. It could produce a rapid lift in the collective equity of Gen Xers and Yers. The good news is that Xers and Yers may not need to wait for boomers to die to start harvesting their collective equity.

                  Could you direct me to the source of the figures you are using on the relative (current? historical?) equity levels by generation? What year cut-offs does the source use to identify different generations? (Might be important given that the changes did not all happen at once, so it may be that some early Gen Xers actually were not much more disadvantaged than late boomers, etc.).

                    • Thanks very much Populuxe1 for the links.

                      However, they don’t seem to provide the information I thought you might be familiar with.

                      The first link, written in 2000, concerns the issue of whether or not baby boomers have sufficient savings for retirement and points out that, contra other claims that they lack savings for retirement, they have equity in their homes (unsurprisingly, older boomers have significantly more equity than younger boomers). That is, it is pointing out what I noted, that reverse equity loans will likely be used by boomers to release equity in their homes to fund their retirements.

                      However, the link had no information as to whether this amounted to a relatively greater or lesser proportion of national equity as compared to other generations (i.e., are boomers holding a disproportionate amount of the nation’s equity, as I thought was being suggested – presumably after age-related causes/life cycle factors have been controlled for).

                      The second link, written in 2004, was talking about British retirees’ spending habits. It did mention that:

                      With a good chunk of the nation’s wealth in their grasp and more political clout than any other group, pensioners are a force to be reckoned with.

                      A ‘good chunk’ is obviously significant but it’s hard to say whether it is a disproportionately large share. At that time (2004), of course, a newly retired person would be 65 years old and would have been born in 1939 so would not normally be classified as a baby boomer. The pensioners discussed in the article would have been born even earlier as they were already well-retired.

                      It did, however, note that,

                      For every pensioner struggling with poor health or a paltry income there are others who are not only fit, but who have a good looking bank balance and few qualms about forgetting the kids’ inheritance to buy themselves a good time.

                      This is the ‘SKI’ joke, popular amongst retirees – ‘spending the kids inheritance’. Not nice, perhaps, if you’re expecting that inheritance, though many of those missing out would be mid to late baby boomers and early Gen Xers.

                      The article also finishes by discussing baby boomers themselves who, at that time, were only the anticipated ‘incoming wave’ of retirees arriving about 7 years from that time. It had this to say,

                      It is this which baby boomers will have to come to terms with if they are to wield the influence their numbers merit, says Mr Harkin. So far, their vanity means that’s not happening.

                      “They fear being part of a club called ‘the old,” he says. “They frankly don’t want to be around their peers.”

                      To me, this quotation suggests that baby boomers, at least in the UK, lack the cohesiveness to vote for their collective interests – because they are attitudinally averse to seeing their interests as being at one with ‘the old’.

                      I struggle to see how such sources allow you to pivot towards claims about how the baby boomers, as a generation, have harnessed the political system to their advantage or have amassed a disproportionate amount of equity to themselves.

                      Are there any official statistics you know of about equity levels by age or such like? I’ve been looking but can’t track them down on the Statistics New Zealand site.

    • fatty 12.2

      The creation of divisions between baby boomers and the young is not a lot different from creating divisions between the working poor and the unemployed

      I disagree.
      The way I see it, intergenerational inequality is not like that at all.
      The division between the working poor and the unemployed is created and perpetuated by the elite as a way of shifting blame. In addition, the hatred towards unemployed is fostered by neoliberal discourses: individual responsibility; laziness; dependency; self-made person etc.

      In contrast, discussion on intergenerational inequality, that I’ve seen, comes from the younger generations who have been excluded at a structural level from employment, property political voice etc. (I agree that the the explanations for generational inequality often use neoliberal buzzwords, but that occurs for all types of inequality)

      I see intergenerational inequality as being similar to gender inequality and ethnic inequality. When the issue is discussed, those from the boomer generation will individualise the issue. ‘I’m a boomer and I’m not rich’ is very similar to I’m Pakeha but I don’t own land or I’m a guy, but I know loads of women that earn more than me.

      If a Pakeha, or a male individualise the issues of racism and sexism, then I’d call those people racist or sexist. So when a boomer individualises generational inequality…what’s that?
      When someone on here claims that feminism or culturalism is a myth that is created by the elite as a diversion from economic inequality, they get told they are sexist or racist.

      I’m a Pakeha male who owns no land and earns shit money, but I can see the structural inequalities and I speak out against them. Perhaps the boomers from the left can speak out and acknowledge structural limitations faced by younger generations, rather than ignoring their position of privilege by individualising the issue.

      I didn’t want to re-hash this argument, but fuck it, someone has to right?
      Just as many people on the left had to have racial and gender structural limitations drilled into their heads before they acknowledged it, it seems the left is still blind to the way our ideologies have changed historically to advantage one cohort of the population.

      Is it any surprise that there are few Gen X or younger on this blog?
      Just as it was all old man Pakeha talk before Karol and QOT shifted the discourse, perhaps if boomers were more reflective on their own position, there might be a few more young people getting involved in politics.

      Don’t think of generational inequality as trying to replace economic inequality. Think of generational inequality as another concept to be used when we think of intersectionality (alongside gender, ethnicity, sexuality etc).
      Nobody is claiming all boomers had it easy, or benefited from neoliberalism. Instead the point is that neoliberalism has disproportionately affected Gen X and later, particularly in regards to economic issues

      • Rogue Trooper 12.2.1

        more good analysis.seduction and subscription.

      • Olwyn 12.2.2

        Firstly I agree that the generation coming of age in the eighties and nineties did indeed get the sharp end of the deal with student loans, being shut out of home ownership, etc. But the thing is, these conditions were inflicted upon us all – most people who voted Labour in 1984 did not vote for them. They were conditioned to a world of full employment, adequate housing, etc, and mostly assumed that after certain large problems, like government debt, etc, were dealt with, we would return to a similar equilibrium. This didn’t happen, but even as recently as the Clark years, the thought was still entertained that “a maturing market economy” would deliver some level of social justice. Even Bolger, who ultimately sacked Ruth Richardson, had notions of building “social capital.” We were subjected to what was essentially an economic coup, with the compliance of our business leaders and governments, which still shows no signs of abating. Rail against the old because they haven’t lost out as badly as you have and guess what? They will turn the blow torch on them for your satisfaction but without any benefit flowing back to you. The real battle is not against the old per se, but against neo-liberalism.

        • fatty 12.2.2.1

          But the thing is, these conditions were inflicted upon us all

          True, but that has never been the point of the discussion, its just a defensive response that the privileged always put forward.
          You know how neoliberalism disproportionately affects Maori. Well, some Maori are richer than some Pakeha.
          You know how neoliberalism disproportionately affects women? Well, some women earn more money than some men.
          This leads us to:
          You know how some Gen X’s are wealthy and some boomer are poor. Well, neoliberalism has disproportionately affected Gen X and younger.

          The interesting thing about neoliberalism is that boomers fail to understand how and why they benefited by a system that is designed to make the rich richer and the poor poorer….after all, as they’ll claim, most boomers have never been ‘rich’.
          The key to uncovering how neoliberalism has benefitted boomers is to look at when it came in, and why is it going out now. Its easy to say that neoliberalism is going out of fashion now because its failed us, GFC etc. But I think its also to do with when boomers were at the peak of their earning potential. In the mid 1980s, when neoliberalism was introduced, the older boomers were 30-35, and the younger ones were just beginning their careers. By 2010, older boomers are hitting retirement, and younger boomers aren’t far off.
          Neoliberalism is all about the individual and user pays. That’s a great idea if you have just finished free tertiary study, have a stable job, are well on your way to paying off & owning property, and have no intention of funding the education and housing of the next generation….enter neoliberalism (framed as freedom of course).
          Just coincidence that neoliberalism lasts for the same era when boomer’s are at the peak of their earning potential? Doubt it.
          Neoliberalism is an economic system that oppresses people who cannot work, are out of work, or have limited resources. So it only got voted in because it suited the strengths of the boomers (the statistical bulge) for a limited period of time.
          Its a selfish ideology that suited the largest cohort of society for a period of time. Just because you are in that cohort, does not mean you benefit from neoliberalism, or that you wanted it, or that groups outside the cohort don’t sometimes benefit from it. Nobody is saying that, all that is being said is that neoliberalism has benefited boomers disproportionately.

          Nobody is ‘railing against old people’. Old people suffer as much as younger people do from neoliberalism. Boomers are beginning to understand that now…why else do you think neoliberalism is going out of fashion?

          • Olwyn 12.2.2.1.1

            What I was saying is this: the introduction of this selfish ideology was not announced to the population and put up for their approval. It was brought in by subterfuge. Yes, of course there are selfish baby boomers, but even they did not get to vote on the basis of their selfishness, but on the basis of false advertising.

            • handle 12.2.2.1.1.1

              ‘Subterfuge’ explains one or two electoral cycles at most. Stop voting for parties and politicians when they rip you off. Unless they are mostly ripping off other people you do not care about so much.

              • Olwyn

                Well, 800,000 people did not vote at all last election, some of them probably for just that reason. And people did vote in MMP in hope of curbing the political tendency to campaign on one thing and then do another. You have to remember that at the time people did not have the wisdom of hindsight, as we now have. They voted for Labour again in 1987 in the hope that they would correct the damage they had done. Then they voted for Bolger to get rid of Labour, which with Ruth Richardson as finance minister, amounted to voting their way from frying pan to fire. They tried to vote that lot out in 1996 by voting for Helen, but Winnie chose a coalition with National. And so on. It is not as simple as you seem to think. A lot, of all ages, having given up and gone to Australia.

                • Olwyn

                  I should add that all of these moves were accompanied by howls of “crisis” and “necessity”from our politicians.

          • geoff 12.2.2.1.2

            fatty, you’ve completely nailed it. Really good posts, mate.

          • karol 12.2.2.1.3

            The key to uncovering how neoliberalism has benefitted boomers is to look at when it came in, and why is it going out now. Its easy to say that neoliberalism is going out of fashion now because its failed us, GFC etc. But I think its also to do with when boomers were at the peak of their earning potential. In the mid 1980s, when neoliberalism was introduced, the older boomers were 30-35, and the younger ones were just beginning their careers. By 2010, older boomers are hitting retirement, and younger boomers aren’t far off.

            Are you saying there’s a cause & effect there? In what way? Because they/we, because of our numbers, became a large group of earning consumers?

            Neoliberalism had its roots in the 70s, with a backlash from the elites against the post war rise of the welfare state and shift towards social democracy, or some may say, socialist-type policies. But the “neoliberals, were developing their networks, think-tanks, philosophies, etc, from the late 60s at least.

            1980s was also the time of the rise of the internet – maybe that was the factor that propelled “neoliberalism” into the mainstream of politics?

            Merely saying something happened at the same time as something else, is not evidence of cause & effect.

            • Rogue Trooper 12.2.2.1.3.1

              I do not see reference to “cause and effect” by fatty; implications.

            • geoff 12.2.2.1.3.2

              I think it’s obvious that fatty is saying that the two are causally linked.

              Realistically, karol, there have been economic ideas akin to neoliberalism floating about since well before the 20th century, obviously that’s why they call it neo-classical economics.
              It’s just that when the baby boomer population bulge reached a point in their lives when they didn’t need help from the state, policies which dismantled the state were allowed to flourish by a majority who could now see how they would benefit from them.

              • karol

                Where is the evidence that the majority allowed it to happen. In the UK where I was living, Thatcher never got 50% of the vote. And are you saying the older generations also weren’t involved?

                That is a fairly 2-dimensional analysis, that ignores they way the media promoted neoliberal policies. It ignores they way people make choices, often from the limited range offered to them by people in power. A lot of boomers also strongly supported welfare state provisions and strongly opposed them.

                yes those ideas had been around for a while, but the Chicago School shift, and the ways neoliberalism was sold resulted from a particular flurry of think-tank and other right wing elite activity.

                • Rogue Trooper

                  Yes.Implications

                • fatty

                  I don’t think that linking neoliberalism to people’s life cycle is 2-dimensional at all (it actually adds another dimension), and as Geoff pointed out, I don’t think it is causal.
                  I know there is a generally agreed history of neoliberalism, where there were two teams, one on the left of capitalism and one on the right. As explained on Commanding Heights. That documentary outlines the key players, Keynes and Hayek, and how neoliberalism was imposed. Which I’m not saying didn’t happen, instead, why did it happen then?
                  It could be argued that the neoliberal machine is more powerful, more persuasive, and moke sneaky now than it has ever been before…but neoliberalism is on its way out due to a population shift. As boomers moved into retirement, neoliberalism was always going to fade out and older people’s welfare will begin to re-emergre.
                  If we think that Winston is getting to the end of our political career, we are kidding ourselves, he’s about to hit his prime and his polices will begin to resonate with more voters.
                  We had neoliberalism from 1980-2010, and then we will return to a more caring sort of politics as boomers move into retirement (especially if Gen X and younger continue to shun politics). Overall, this is not a bad thing as leftwing policies should be about caring for vulnerable people.
                  The so called ‘left-wing’ moved away from caring for the vulnerable as babyboomers moved through their working life years (the years when people are less vulnerable to the volatility of capitalism).

          • Puddleglum 12.2.2.1.4

            The key to uncovering how neoliberalism has benefitted boomers is to look at when it came in, and why is it going out now.

            This is very good news fatty. But, what evidence are you thinking of when you make this claim about neoliberalism “going out now“?

            • fatty 12.2.2.1.4.1

              True, its not going out, and won’t be gone for a long time, but anti-neoliberalism sentiment is far more prominent now. For example, Labour introduced the first wave of neoliberalism in 1984, then the second wave of neoliberlism under the guise of ‘third-way’. Now they are pretending to make murmurs.
              Same with the UK, France had a go. The cheerleading for neoliberalism is decreasing in many places in the Western world and the BRICS nations are emerging with slightly different ideas.
              But yeah, its not going out anytime soon

              • I agree that there has been, recently, a questioning discourse about neoliberalism that wasn’t around in the 80s and 90s to anywhere near the same extent. Then, it was all ‘don’t criticise until it’s had a chance’, etc. combined with ‘don’t you know we’re in a crisis!’ Voices of dissent were pretty much marginalised, especially the voices of dissenting economists (Brian Easton wrote about this quite well in his book ‘The Commercialisation of New Zealand‘. You might also be interested in his post on the student debt burden, written in 2002)

                What has astounded me, though, is how discursively well-managed that disquiet has been. It has largely been deferred and deflected in western countries. Political leaders incorporated that discourse (Obama perhaps being the most obvious example, but Hollande and other supposed social democratic leaders in Europe also are examples) but then simply have not delivered; quite the reverse.

                The BRICS states have their own geopolitical reasons for pushing “slightly different ideas” as they need to break the dominance of the existing large economies. I’m not sure those ideas, however, relate to the baby boomer issue.

                • fatty

                  What has astounded me, though, is how discursively well-managed that disquiet has been. It has largely been deferred and deflected in western countries.

                  I just did a big rant below about what I think is one of the main problems the left currently face. I think the link between neoliberalism and identity politics (the social movements of the 60s/70s) is not acknowledged, and that is a reason why neoliberalism has remained hegemonic.

                  The BRICS states have their own geopolitical reasons for pushing “slightly different ideas” as they need to break the dominance of the existing large economies. I’m not sure those ideas, however, relate to the baby boomer issue.

                  Yeah, the BRIC nations avoidance(?) of neoliberalism is not related to western boomers. But I would say that the dominance of the existing large economies is neoliberalism.
                  So why have the BRIC nations not chosen neoliberalism? I think if they had a population bulge from the 20-35 year old range, as was the case for NZ around the 1980s, then they’d go with a more individualised capitalism (although comparing Western countries with BRIC countries is problematic)
                  Cheers for the Brian Easton links, I do like his work

                  • Colonial Viper

                    So why have the BRIC nations not chosen neoliberalism?

                    Russia did, on the advice of the likes of the IMF, World bank and Goldman Sachs after the fall of the USSR. The Ruskies figured it out after a few years, and kicked them out.

                    The likes of Brazil, India and China know what it is liked to be colonised by western powers, and from their history were already on guard and very skeptical.

        • Clockie 12.2.2.2

          I agree with all of what you say Olwyn. I’m a tail end baby boomer born in 1958. But I think that Pop1 and a few others here have overlooked the fact that my cohort were in our twenties and thirties during the eighties and nineties. We found it hard to get started. The older boomers (the so called hippie generation) were in their forties and fifties. Many of them were made redundant and found it very hard to get employed again. This period was arguably one of the longest if not the nastiest periods of recession this country has known. It blighted the lives of many people including many who were baby boomers. As is the case with any generation most people were utterly powerless and just tried to survive. As the new neo-liberal politics took root, there were winners and losers. It was not a case of baby boomers win, every one else loses. The winning and losing was much more indiscriminate than that. My fathers generation were born between the wars (b.1935) came of age in the mid 50′s. They experienced The first real opportunity for working class kids to get a tertiary education, State Advances home loans at (very) low interest rates. Rising wages but still very low inflation. A booming economy and full employment. A guarantee of full Govt Super at age 60, subsidised milk at 4cents a pint (when I was about 8yrs old) and so it went, on and on. We certainly grew up as children in households with those advantages. But by the time we were young adults they were rapidly disappearing in the rear view mirror.

          • lprent 12.2.2.2.1

            I’m a tail end baby boomer born in 1958.

            1959. Joined the workforce full-time in 1981 after university.

            …my cohort were in our twenties and thirties during the eighties and nineties. We found it hard to get started.

            Sure was. For me the only advantage was that university was cheapish (definitely not free). But 15-20% inflation (and nothing like that in wage increases) and the same for interest on mortgages was a definite discouragement to doing anything in the house buying line. Not to mention going back to university to avoid the massive unemployment (and underemployment) amongst my contemporaries in the late 70s and early 80s.

            We spent the 80′s, 90′s, and 00′s just trying to get this frigging country’s debt down to something where paying the interest on government debt wasn’t the major use of my taxes.

            Of course that just means that it has provided these current wastrel arseholes in National an opportunity to create more debt in the pursuit of getting elected on a taxcut bribe for the affluent voter….

            • karol 12.2.2.2.1.1

              I’m a tail end baby boomer born in 1958.

              And here lies one of the problems with separating generations out of the ongoing flow of new-borns. There was quite a bit of social, economic and technological change between 1946 and the early 60s.

              The circumstances into which early and late boomers were born differed quite a bit, in terms of technologies available, and the rise & rise of “youth culture”. And there was no distinct cut-off between earlier & later generations: I had cousins and, later, friends who were born during the war.

              Us early boomers grew up with relatively little material possessions, even in middle-class households: no fridge; no washing machine, evening entertainment reading, radio, card and boardgames; hot water was rationed by the power companies, with staggered switch-offs; etc, etc. And uni education could only be afforded by a few. Wages weren’t very high, and we were brought up to save for things we required, to recycle what we could and generally be frugal.

              Some very good (social security) things between 1946 & 1959 for families, according to Te Ara, but not always so great for women.

              While settled family life was celebrated in the immediate post-war period, what happened in families was sometimes rather different. One person recalled hearing slaps and the cries of children as the pubs released men during the era of 6 o’clock closing. Women sought advice from Women’s weekly columnists about men who were unfaithful, did not provide them with housekeeping money, neglected their children or spent most of their free time with male friends. Rape within marriage and domestic violence occurred in neat, well-vacuumed homes with newly cut lawns as well as in shabby rental accommodation.

              • Clockie

                “And here lies one of the problems with separating generations out of the ongoing flow of new-borns.”

                Just so. My brother born in 1960 and I are “Boomers”. My younger brother born 1965 and sister born 1971 are Gen X. Where precisely does one draw the line when throwing accusations and apportioning blame??

                If it is bigotry to generalise about age, race, gender, religion etc..then why is it perfectly OK to lump an entire generation together and accuse them collectively of inter-generational theft, neglect and vandalism of the planets ecosystem and watering the garden during restricted periods in hot summers, while every other age-group apparently gets a free pass. Talk about highly dubious analysis of an extremely complex situation based on totally erroneous assumptions ..

                • fatty

                  If it is bigotry to generalise about age, race, gender, religion etc..then why is it perfectly OK to lump an entire generation together and accuse them collectively of inter-generational theft, neglect and vandalism of the planets ecosystem and watering the garden during restricted periods in hot summers, while every other age-group apparently gets a free pass. Talk about highly dubious analysis of an extremely complex situation based on totally erroneous assumptions ..

                  Do you really think its bigotry to generalise about age, race, gender and religion? Are you saying that pointing out a structural privilege afforded to one group over another is bigotry? …I don’t.
                  So you think that feminist movements are by nature, bigotry? ..Feminism was and is based on a generalised belief in a patriarchal society.
                  So you think the civil rights movement in the USA was bigotry because it generalised how whites were privileged?…Is pointing out white privilege bigotry? Am I on a radiolive message board?

                  I would say that bigotry occurs when one sits in the privileged group and then says we’re all in this together. Sounds like an echo of Don Brash’s we’re all Kiwis.

                  • Clockie

                    So YOUR’E allowed to generalise about “privileged” groups but not about “oppressed” groups? Who says that’s OK? Just a little rule we made up for ourselves? Bugger that! I challenge your right to criticise en masse ANY group (especially one of which I am a member) without having me or someone like me coming back at you, and frankly, yes, I take it bloody personally.

                    Using a term like “baby boomers” as short hand to stand for particular groups within the baby boomer generation whom you see as parasites or oppressors or a waste of space and lumping them all together is not only insulting but intellectually lazy and dishonest. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it. One good insult deserves another I always say.

                    • fatty

                      So YOUR’E allowed to generalise about “privileged” groups but not about “oppressed” groups? Who says that’s OK?

                      No, you’ve simplified the issue.
                      Anyone can talk about any group at anytime, but one should always be careful about what is said, and from what position it is being said from.
                      When we come from a dominant group or dominant cohort, then we must be aware of our own privilege and power.
                      For example, as a Pakeha I can talk about Maori. I can say that Maori suffer from structural racism in the workplace and are less likely to be employed. However, it would be stupid for me to say that Maori need to pull themselves by their bootstaps if they want to get into the job market.
                      In both instances I have generalised about Maori. One was acceptable, the other was racist

                    • Clockie

                      Think about what you’re saying. It’s not ME that’s simplified the issue. It’s you and your fellow travelers who’ve done that. You can adopt a position where you regard yourself as being part of an oppressor group because of your skin colour if you like. I call that a martyr complex. You didn’t ask to be white. You’ve (presumably) done nothing to further the subjection of the oppressed. You are possibly in as bad a position as many of the oppressed for much the same reason. Do what you like but don’t expect me to follow you.

                    • Populuxe1

                      Check your privilege, Clocky

                    • fatty

                      You can adopt a position where you regard yourself as being part of an oppressor group because of your skin colour if you like. I call that a martyr complex. You didn’t ask to be white.

                      OK, we have completely different views about how power, especially hegemonic power, is held and used by different groups. If you can’t see how white privilege exists, then you will not be able to see how how age groups experience economics and politics differently.

                      You’ve (presumably) done nothing to further the subjection of the oppressed.

                      If we don’t resist and speak out against structural inequalities, especially when a group repeatedly has fingers pointing at them, then as far as I can see, we are furthering the subjugation of that group.

                      You are possibly in as bad a position as many of the oppressed for much the same reason.

                      What is the obsession on here with individualising this debate (which is ironically a neoliberal trait…how unsurprising)
                      For perhaps the 20th time, individualising this argument exemplifies the problem, it is not the answer.

                    • Rogue Trooper

                      White Mans Burden (a great movie too).

                • geoff

                  Stop taking it personally, Clockie.

              • geoff

                Your argument sounds similar to the ones that climate change deniers use, ie choosing convenient cut off years to show that warming hasn’t occurred.

                I think you’re doing exactly what fatty pointed out, taking it personally.

                Cherry picking specific data points, in an attempt to discredit what is essentially a statistical argument, is not valid.

                • Clockie

                  I didn’t choose the years which define the baby boom generation. There is a generally accepted range of years which define the various generations. It is the people like Pop1 and Fatty et al who are using the convenient intellectual shortcut of blaming all of the worlds ills on a group of disparate individuals who represent a huge range of political views and socio-economic backgrounds together as one identifiable lump. They chose the appelation and thence the year range for the group they chose to attack. Grow a brain and don’t be surprised if you get some blow-back when you accuse well meaning, hardworking and generous spirited people of effectively being a blight on humanity. Fuck that!

                  • geoff

                    Can’t help but take it personally, can you? Nobody’s blaming you personally, Clockie.
                    I’m a member of Gen X and I’m happy to recognise the faults of my generation. What makes you think your generation is so fucking special?
                    It isn’t an attack on the characteristics which are generally attributed to baby boomers. It is merely an acknowledgement of the fact there was a big bulge in the population which benefited greatly from social services and then, due to self interest, allowed policies to be implemented that effectively ‘pulled the ladder up’ on the following generations.

                    I’m quite sure any other generation would have acted exactly the same given similar circumstances, that’s just human nature, plain and simple. But if you’re so up your self that you are unprepared to accept that those circumstances occurred then you’re just being a dickhead.

                    • Clockie

                      “What makes you think your generation is so fucking special?”

                      My point, oh slow one, is that we are NOT “fucking special”. We are simply, as Karol rightly said, part of the continuum of human existence. You may choose to recast the argument NOW as only having talked about impersonal historical forces. But there have been quite a few mentions along the way of generalised characteristics of selfishness, venality and implied inter-generational theft of a conscious nature which are quite definitely insulting to the many baby boomers who were not only victims of the neo liberal experiment but worked bloody hard to stop it happening, roll it back when it did happen and in the meantime work every hour that god sends to try to support their gen x and millenial children. If you can’t recognise that then I suggest you’re something of a Roman yourself.

                    • Clockie

                      “I’m a member of Gen X and I’m happy to recognise the faults of my generation.”

                      I’m sure all your generational cohort will thank you for that.

                      In my book, generations don’t have faults. Individuals and human institutions can have faults. It pays to be clear about the distinction between the several things.

                    • Rogue Trooper

                      affirming the consequent.

                    • geoff

                      You may choose to recast the argument NOW as only having talked about impersonal historical forces.

                      Where in this post have I recast my argument?

                      I notice that at no point during this entire comment thread have you actually responded to the guts of the ‘impersonal historical forces’ argument which I, and fatty, have been describing.

                    • Arfamo

                      Geoff, I am curious. While you guys are happily engaged in scapegoating the “baby boomers” for your dissatisfaction with the political and economic environment you find yourselves in (the majority of baby boomers are unhappy with it as well – only those baby boomers [and generation xers] who are doing extremely well out of the system seem to support it) I’m not at all sure what sort of political and economic system you would like to see in place.

                      Can you explain what your preferred political and economic system would look like and how it would work?

                    • geoff

                      Geoff, I am curious. While you guys are happily engaged in scapegoating the “baby boomers” for your dissatisfaction with the political and economic environment

                      You’ve completely missed the point, Arfamo. I have not been engaging in scapegoating. What I have been doing is trying to convey my understanding of what has occurred over the last ~50 years. This has resulted in many, presumably, baby boomers on tehstandrd getting very defensive and failing to engage in the discussion in a mature fashion.

                      I’m not at all sure what sort of political and economic system you would like to see in place.
                      Can you explain what your preferred political and economic system would look like and how it would work?

                      I have discussed at length, across many posts, the changes I would like to see to the NZ politicial/economic system and I’m not about to reel them off here in great detail just to satisfy your curiosity. Suffice it to say that I would like to see NZ bring back many of the ideas that were in place during the youth of the baby boomers, so that future NZers can enjoy the benefits of growing up in a properly progressive country.

                    • Arfamo

                      Fair enough Geoff. Then we are in agreement on what the role of a democratic government should be. And that we do not have such a government, nor any encouraging signs that one will soon be formed.

  13. newsflash..!..young person ‘revolts’ by joining labour party..!

    ..pictures at six..!

    ..phillip ure..

  14. weka 14

    I don’t think we can validly talk about the ‘young’ as one homogenous group.

  15. Generation Zero knows no age
    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=166459856858383&set=a.163064897197879.1073741826.163062643864771&type=1&theater

    Generational arguments are a tear gas smokescreens partially obscuring the class basis of politics.

    Young people’s contribution to the anti-capitalist/anti-neoliberal movements developing around the world are in their idealism and energy. But no generation has a monopoly on political activism or political quiescence.

    It is a fallacy to jump from wealthy babyboomers to impoverished youth. All generations have always been representative of all classes. By definition the life cycle produces a generational bias since youth are not born rich but nor do the vast majority of aged die rich. And against a backdrop of economic booms and busts it APPEARS that age is a significant factor. It is not.

    Pick up your slingshot babyboomers, join your parents who lived through the great depression and a world war so that we would be free to rise up against a Huxleyan Dystopia.

    • Brazilian Youth [protest bus fares] Rising
      http://t.co/sLDGytvQsj

    • rosy 15.2

      It is a fallacy to jump from wealthy babyboomers to impoverished youth. All generations have always been representative of all classes. By definition the life cycle produces a generational bias since youth are not born rich but nor do the vast majority of aged die rich. And against a backdrop of economic booms and busts it APPEARS that age is a significant factor. It is not.

      +1 this

  16. ropata 16

    In reply to Hickey’s question, we saw in pre-WW2 Germany that there was a surfeit of disaffected young males with no work and no prospects. This is also the case in many Middle Eastern countries hence the explosive daily news from that region. If we continue down the path National is heading then we’ll end up with riots (and a vast underclass and omnipresent surveillance) just like England and France.

    But perhaps the Nats prefer the US solution — ship off the surplus males to all points of the globe and promote the interests of the elite through violence.

    • Colonial Viper 16.1

      Greece’s Golden Dawn at 15%

      History returns to Europe

      • Rogue Trooper 16.1.1

        some historical links below (hope the moderators understand; includes one to ‘Blackshirts’)

  17. Rogue Trooper 18

    Test

  18. Rogue Trooper 22

    Black Muslims,
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Muslims , we are seeing an increase in the number of young people representing Islam here in Hastings, particularly among young maori.

  19. Rogue Trooper 24

    Black Mondays
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Monday

    I respect, admire and value Bernard Hickey’s commentary.

  20. BLiP 25

    I doubt New Zealand’s yoof have the gumption to bestir themselves to any form of protest much beyond angry tweets and bleating facebook messages. Then again, if what’s going on in Turkey is at all indicative, our yoof may have revolution forced upon them by the actions of the state . . .

    By now, everyone has heard of the brutal suppression of protests all over Turkey, which began with a peaceful sit-in in Istanbul to protect a hapless apology for a park from demolition. Right by the city’s unofficial centre, Taksim Square, Gezi Park had been slated to become yet another one of the ruling AKP’s signature Ottoman-cum-Disneyland construction projects. It was hardly much of a park, by London standards, but it was one of the last remaining places in the area with a few trees and a bit of room to stroll around. The protesters found the idea of losing that tiny refuge from Istanbul’s urban chaos unbearable . . .

    . . . our authorities are becoming increasingly beligerent (and sneaky) in the imposition of their version of “law and order”. Keep it up, copper.

  21. Rogue Trooper 26

    From “Nihilism : The Root of The Revolution Of The Modern Age.”
    -Eugene (Fr. Seraphim) Rose.

    “In the following pages we shall characterize as “Nihilists” (people) of, as it seems, widely divergent views: skeptics, revolutionaries of all hues, artists and philosophers of various schools; but they are united in a common task. Whether in positivist “criticism” of Christian truths and institutions, revolutionary violence against the Old Order, apocalyptic visions of universal destruction and the advent of a paradise on earth, or subjective scientific labors in the interests of a “better life” in this world – the tacit assumption being that there is no other world- their aim is the same: the annihilation of Revelation and the preparation of a new order in which there shall be no trace of the “old” view of things, in which man shall be the only god there is.”

    ‘The Last Resort’- “call some place paradise kiss it goodbye”.
    -The Eagles.

  22. Rogue Trooper 27

    Contents.
    I. Editors Preface

    II.The Stages of the Nihilist Dialectic
    1.Liberalism
    2.Realism
    3.Vitalism
    4.The Nihilism of Destruction

    III.The Theology and the Spirit of Nihilism
    1.Rebellion:The War against God
    2.The Worship of Nothingness

    IV.The Nihilist Program
    1.The Destruction of the Old Order
    2. The Making of the “New Earth”
    3.The Fashioning of the “New Man”

  23. Rogue Trooper 28

    I. Liberalism
    “The Liberalism that we shall describe in the following pages is not- let us state at the outset- an overt Nihilism; it is rather a passive Nihilism, or, better yet, the neutral breeding-ground of the more advanced stages of Nihilism.
    …The incomopetent defence by Liberalism of a heritage in which it has never fully believed, has been one of the most potent cause of overt Nihilism…”
    http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/nihilism.html
    (ahhh, that was quicker).

  24. AsleepWhileWalking 29

    The Young will revolt by not buying into the massive ponzi scheme we call home ownership. Even if they can actually afford it.

    • ak 29.1

      The Young will revolt by not buying into the massive ponzi scheme we call home ownership. Even if they can actually afford it.

      No, Asleep. Genes will rule as always, and Survival will utterly dominate. Which means they’ll want kids and a garden: in other words Love. Thwarted, they’ll smash the Hatemongers. The sooner the better.

  25. Rosetinted 30

    But sometimes love thwarted, self turns in on itself, gets frustrated and dissatisfied,. turns from itself to unload onto others – sports people hitting others, getting drunk, domestic violence.

  26. pollywog 31

    They’ll just stop paying for stuff and burn shit…

    …change identities, rinse and repeat.

  27. Foreign Waka 32

    The notion for the young generation to stand up and fight would mean that they have to have some knowledge of world history past and present. They need to be able to articulate ideas that benefit the whole of society and have a keen understanding of what any change will mean to their peers of all shades and the environment. In fact the baby boomer generation is actually waiting for this to happen.
    All that can be seen is eyes glued to a screen (any) and fast food being the main stay. Fight is something that happens in cyberspace or overseas. Opinion about what? The newest Apple tablet? So why would the baby boomer generation want to let go? To a future of what? Any Gen x and beyond – please dazzle my mind.

    • Populuxe1 32.1

      That’s exactly the kind of attitude that turns younger generations off having anything to do with baby boomers politically. The smug, arrogant, patronising, know it all, been there done that, get ofa my lawn sneering that comes from people like you. You have no understanding of the discourse so you dismiss it as irrelevant.

      • Foreign Waka 32.1.1

        Brilliant excuse, bravo! How childish. Proof me wrong, still waiting for some mind blowing statement that will show me that a true positive change is looming… besides, you also have to accept that it is the older generations prerogative to challenge the younger one to show definite ideas.

        • Populuxe1 32.1.1.1

          Positive change? See, that’s half the probelm – you are a dinosaur stuck on some historically deterministic utopian linear teleology of social change. There can be no significant “positive” change in the terminal world you have bequeathed us. You don’t get it. We don’t even think that way – we think in terms of anarcho-democratic horizontal and rhizomatic structures, not this silly and redundant replacing of one vertical monopolar social instrument with another over and over again even though clearly it doesn’t work. The social reality is stochastic and interconnected, not this bleating over the heads of a million solitudes, and must be treated pragmatically and ad hoc – no fossil ideologies from the nineteenth century.

          • Clockie 32.1.1.1.1

            Great to see you’ve got it under control. No problems then. Just wait a few years for the (spit) baby boomers (your parents) to totter off and then you can get on with creating this brave new world that’s obviously well-on in the planning..

            • Populuxe1 32.1.1.1.1.1

              You lot never managed to get it all under control, and again you’ve chosen to view what I’ve said through baby boomer blinkers. We don’t want to save the world, we want to survive it. You are desperately trying to cling to obsolete social hierarchies and class consciousness when the discourse has shifted to mediating between identity politics, technology and the environment. Marxism is a useful critical tool, but it’s not actually a solution.

              • Foreign Waka

                This is very funny, “vertical monopolar” “we think in terms of anarcho-democratic horizontal and rhizomatic structures” if this wouldn’t be online I would ask where the hidden camera is.

                • Populuxe1

                  It’s not my fault you have a substandard vocabulary.

                • Pascal's bookie

                  I like how he claims to speak for gen X and below with all this “we” talk, and seemed to claim Young Labour (!) as an example of what he’s talking about. anarcho-democratic horizontal and rhizomatic structures indeed.

                  • Populuxe1

                    Yes, actually – our generation seems a lot better at dealing with diversity and dissent apparently. It may have missed you, but in the matter of marriage equalisation most of youth wings were in agreement. You all play tribal party politics, we seek out commonalities to work from.

                    • Pascal's bookie

                      So are you gen x or young labour generation?

                      Just so as you know, I’m pretty much bang in the middle of gen x, have never belonged to a political party, youth wing or otherwise, and voted for plenty of different ones. Party partisan, I aint.

                • Colonial Viper

                  I definitely think in terms of anarcho-democratic horizontal and rhizomatic structures, why, don’t you?

              • Clockie

                So not only do you speak for all of generation X, you now claim to know exactly what motivates all of the baby boomers and exactly how much “we” as an amorphous bloc have contributed for good or ill to the state of the world during our adult lives. Not only this, you seem to imagine that all of the world’s ill’s can be sheeted home to every member of a single generation born in the twenty year period between (say) 1945-1964 (the last half of whom are considered tail enders and are really a different group to the first decade after the war). Now this generation did not come into their political own until about the late nineties. Nominally they have been in the drivers seat for about twenty years. If you and your generation can “get it all under control” in twenty years I assure you I will be the first to cheer in congratulation as you take your ticker tape parade down Queen St.

                • Clockie

                  @Pop1 “Only compared to you”

                  You are correct. Compared to me you are an arrogant know-all.

                • Populuxe1

                  Do you even read? Or are you just going to ignore the entire thread to spare your poor feelings? Funny, I’ve never known you to be as concientious in recognising the diversity amoung people you don’t like. All right wing capitalists being the same etc

                  • Clockie

                    You’re starting to froth. Just take a deep breath old chap.

                  • Clockie

                    “I’ve never known you to be as concientious in recognising the diversity amoung people you don’t like.”

                    Actually you’ve never known me at all, in any way although you profess to be able to judge individuals on a single sentence. Tell me, who are these “people I don’t like”? In what way have I generalised about them? If I have ever done such a thing, in what way precisely is that different from you generalising about the entire baby boom generation?

                    • Populuxe1

                      Defensive bristling as of a nerve being touched, otherwise you’d just ignore me

                    • felix

                      Actually Pop, what looks defensive is not answering a straight question.

                    • Clockie

                      No, freshly shaved this morning. No answer I see.

                    • Populuxe1

                      People you don’t like? I suppose we could start with anyone you consider right wing, or rather not left wing enough.

                    • Clockie

                      There doesn’t seem to be any shortage of people you won’t abuse. Or people who don’t like you. I wonder if the second could be a consequence of the first?

    • fatty 32.2

      You seem content to continue with this fantasy that politics is the arena for younger people to change the world. But younger people have been shut out of politics for too long, and it will continue for another couple of decades yet.Take off your boomer lens.

      All that can be seen is eyes glued to a screen (any) and fast food being the main stay

      Its a shame you frame Gen X and younger with the same neoliberal rhetoric that was used against the occupy movement.

      Ask yourself why there are no young people on The Standard? If you are struggling to answer that question, get up and walk over to a mirror and ask again.

      So why would the baby boomer generation want to let go?

      When a group is marginalised, something has to occur for them to be included and begin participating (whether that is politics, society, sport or whatever).
      Although standing up for your rights, protesting, fighting for recognition etc are all needed, all of those are not as important as this – those who hold the power and voice must make space for the marginalised.
      The fight for Maori sovereignty, the end of slavery, women’s vote etc all required those with privilege and voice to step aside and create space. Gay marriage has only happened because heterosexual MPs voted for it. The Treaty became relevant because Pakeha people reconsidered history.
      Younger generations will become politically involved when space is provided for them, not by them (more of this).

      And you have the audacity to ask – “So why would the baby boomer generation want to let go?”

      The clueless generation need to look in the mirror

      • Rogue Trooper 32.2.1

        some absolutely Amazing writing by you in this Thread fatty; cohorts holding on for dear life and not moving aside; saving their money for Ryman and Co.

        • fatty 32.2.1.1

          thanks, this gets my blood boiling!
          This argument has been popping up more and more lately, and I think we are often talking on slightly different levels and as a result offense is taken. But its all good debate. I always learn the most from people when I get in heated discussion.
          Its also very difficult comparing generations, society has altered drastically from each generation. Some Gen X’s look back on the boomers era with rose tinted glasses, but we usually just focus on employment opportunities and forget the racism, sexism and exclusion of disabled people, LGBT…plus many more.

          • Foreign Waka 32.2.1.1.1

            No pink colored glasses on my part, I can reassure you. Racism is not a prerogative of a few, I have experienced it first hand. Hunger? Deprivation? yes, I can give you some insight. And no the past was certainly not a lovely memory. But everything you take for granted was fought for.

            • fatty 32.2.1.1.1.1

              Jeeze. What exactly do younger generations take for granted?
              Here are some things Gen X and younger take for granted and don’t question:
              - A lifetime’s debt to become educated.
              - A person should be educated if they want to get a liveable wage.
              - Worker’s are dependent on job creators.
              - Having a job and living in poverty is not unacceptable.
              - Never being able to afford a house is the rule, not the exception.
              - Children in poverty is just one of those things.
              - Decent housing is not a human right.
              - Being unemployed means you have a personal deficiency.
              - Being poor is a choice.
              - Your worth as an individual is defined by the products you buy.
              - For your life to have meaning, you need to consume *this product*

              Is that what was fought for by the previous generations?
              I’m not sure of your point – But everything you take for granted was fought for.
              I made the point that boomers made great advances in identity rights such as LGBT, racism, sexism…but you shot that down.
              What’s your point? What do young people take for granted?

        • Colonial Viper 32.2.1.2

          Spoke to a mate today who is an HT driver, has has just started getting his NZ super…and intends to keep working for another 3 years at least despite being quite comfortably off currently…

          • Foreign Waka 32.2.1.2.1

            Is he afraid that the comfort will be no longer? He is lucky to get any super. This will stop in a few years time and everybody will have to work until the fall over….

          • Rogue Trooper 32.2.1.2.2

            Cohort expectations and familiarities. It’s f*cked-up really; Pop has made some relevant contributions to this debate. Somebody made a comment the other day to the effect there being “ordinary” people and the “intellectuals” (they used the term “intelligent”); while a broad generalization, it does suggest why regime changes often extinguish the “intellectuals” first. I feel for the Boomers that have invested and lost life-savings to finance companies and brokers, but then, sometimes when you reach too far…
            Anyway, many of the ‘hippie’ generation fell in with the establishment eventually, then there was that funny video with Branson and Bono not using their toilets anymore. A man (or woman) is unlikely to be able to even recreationally fish the same quota of snapper soon, this freakin’ economic inmperative, will be the death of them all.

      • geoff 32.2.2

        Another scorcher, fatty! How about a guest post on thestandard from you about this?

      • Foreign Waka 32.2.3

        It is no fantasy that politics ought to be also the arena of the younger generation. How else can you change anything? Younger people have not been shut out just recently but ALWAYS. This was true when the current baby boomer generation grew up as it is today. Why do you think protest marches in the sixties, concerts that provoked the establishment like Woodstock happened? The generation that tried to change the world at the time believed that more freedom, no restrained on anything and “authoritarianism” was the solution. Of cause it wasn’t but it it opened the way to move away from the cold war days. The fall of the Berlin Wall, Perestroika, Market alliances between the west and east, etc… However, greed in the end was the winner really. But this is not the intention of the generation that lived through it. Most worked very hard to give their children a better education. The baby boomer generation will also be the first that was taxed to the hilt betrayed the most and still has to work until they fall into the grave.
        As for your notion that “Younger generations will become politically involved when space is provided for them, not by them” you need to accept that there is enough space but this in itself is a political vacuum if it is not taken up. And this is what my assertion is, that I do not see any generation x filling this vacuum with ideas that are inclusive and not divisive. So I am still waiting for a brainstorm to unfold, for a new world to be interpreted and I do hope that the baby boomers are not starved out before they see anything unfolding.

        • Populuxe1 32.2.3.1

          “you need to accept that there is enough space but this in itself is a political vacuum if it is not taken up.”

          There might be enough space, but it’s a space dominated by terms you insist on imposing. In the area of employment you all rant on about guaranteed long-term jobs without even asking us if we even want long-term jobs (many of us consider it quite natural to go from contract to contract and enjoy developing new skills). You bitch and moan about the brain drain without stopping to consider that we might just like a different context. You chatter about superanuation but care little about the fact we’ll have to pay for it out of a far smaller tax pool. You make assumptions about education without consultating the ones being educated. You keep telling us what we should think but you have no real interest in what we actually do think or how we live our lives.

          • Foreign Waka 32.2.3.1.1

            Really? Did I?

            • Populuxe1 32.2.3.1.1.1

              I was speaking in general of the cohort – no need to sound like butter would melt in your mouth

              • Rogue Trooper

                “wouldn’t”

                • Populuxe1

                  Thank you, mother. Can you change my nappy now :P

                  • Rogue Trooper

                    if you behave yourself and try not to run from both ends. 8-) (it’s wude to poke your tongue out). anyway, the other week It seemed you were speaking on behalf of Gen Y, X. World War Z. go on Pop, amaze me with what cohort you do identify with (credit to you where it is due).

                    • Populuxe1

                      I was the tail end of Gen X, my father is a baby boomer and my mother was a war baby

                    • Rogue Trooper

                      you appear to have acquired considerable learning for one approx. 20 years younger than me then.
                      Thought of you listening to this dialogue the other night;
                      “Hear about our John, Kieran, he’s a gay mon now…oh but John, I bet he’s got a really nice cock”…”can I borrow your nice red biro (baffled husbands are a problem in Gateshead) How much shall I put you down for? for all those poor wee lads who can’t stand up to their missus co’s they know in their hearts they’re as soft as shite.” :-D

              • Foreign Waka

                If you put me in a generalization pot you better get your facts right. This is a rule you cannot run away regardless what generation you want to refer to. You are so enthralled with your own point of view that you have not really read what I wrote.

        • fatty 32.2.3.2

          As for your notion that “Younger generations will become politically involved when space is provided for them, not by them” you need to accept that there is enough space but this in itself is a political vacuum if it is not taken up. And this is what my assertion is, that I do not see any generation x filling this vacuum with ideas that are inclusive and not divisive.

          Young people’s biggest concern is the environment. And what political parties have a plan or policies to overcome this issue? Nobody. The Greens have moved into some sort of eco-capitalism, but that is not going to help much. Nobody can seriously claim that ecological issues will be avoided or solved by continuing with capitalism.
          Despite the way children and youth are portrayed, they are engaged with serious issues, but politics is defined by and for older generations.
          And its amusing that you claim that Gen X are pushing ideas that are exclusive, what about the policies that Gen X and younger have had to live under? And you have the nerve to claim that younger generations need to be more inclusive? Wow.
          Watch this video from a political scientist from Canterbury, she shows how we exclude children from welfare and the elderly have been included into welfare (that’s not to say that all elderly have it easy, but this video shows how effective universal welfare is). Young people want to make the environment central to politics…is that inclusive enough for you?

          So I am still waiting for a brainstorm to unfold, for a new world to be interpreted and I do hope that the baby boomers are not starved out before they see anything unfolding.

          Its happened, and continues to happen. Its called Occupy. Its non-political for a reason. Occupy has made no concrete economic demands for a reason…because both of those systems have excluded and silenced youth.
          If you are waiting for young people to use a system that they have suffered from, you’ll be waiting a long time. Young people are talking, they are asking for inclusiveness, but nobody’s listening.

          • pollywog 32.2.3.2.1

            Like I’ve said before…

            It’s not the economy, stupid…it’s the environment.

            • Rogue Trooper 32.2.3.2.1.1

              Stable-state economics. No environment, no “economics” as we know it Jim.

  28. pollywog 33

    The answer is staring you in the face.

    Engage youth in the way they wish to be engaged.

    Create an online/smart phone based voting option.

    What will revolutionise x’ers and slackers to become more engaged with the political process is to revolutionise the process itself , not the people.

    The space we claim and own is cyber!!!

    • Arfamo 33.1

      What will revolutionise x’ers and slackers to become more engaged with the political process is to revolutionise the process itself , not the people.

      The space we claim and own is cyber!!!

      The space you use is cyber. Same as the rest of us who have embraced it and choose what we use it for. What you use it for, & whether you use it to actually achieve anything worthwhile politically remains to be seen.

      • pollywog 33.1.1

        For starters we will probably need x’er and slacker initiated discussions and possibly petitions to look at creating an online voting option.

        Then a feasibility study to see what that entails and probably a younger generation MP, the likes of Jacinda Ardern or Gareth Hughes to front and push a bill through.

        When and how will the non boomers revolt ?

        The real question is, what should we be revolting about and why?

        The answer, is the status quo that entrenches political power in the boomers by way of marginalising youth and discouraging them from becoming more active in the process by which we elect governments.

        • Arfamo 33.1.1.1

          Pollywog you glibly ignore that the status quo entrenches political power in the wealthy – of whatever generation – and discourages everyone else from becoming more active in the process by which we elect governments. Because no major party offers anything significantly different from the status quo – or if they do, they are unable to convince voters they could form a credible government which would be able to run the country to the benefit of all voters.

          Your complaints about the “baby boomers” being self-interested establishment-led arsoles locking you in to the sick system are the same plaintive cry of the younger generation that was just as stridently advocated in my youth. And you will be equally assertive that this is not simply the case – that you are the start of a political and civil revolution – as we were.

          • pollywog 33.1.1.1.1

            I’m not hating the player (the boomers).I’m hating the game…the political and financial structures they’ve erected to keep the game swung in their favour.

            Its the game we need to change and the rules by which the players have set themselves up to win, irrespective of the changing generations.

            As it stands, the financial system based on unsustainable economies in a world of finite resources and money that is becoming worthless is bound to collapse without needing a revolution.

            The politics and systems needed to ensure that like minds sympathetic to a baby boomer worldview which brought about the collapse is what’s need to ensure the corrupt players don’t usurp power again. That can only happen by effective use and control of social media which gets translated into a process by which we can elect our leaders using on line processes.

            • handle 33.1.1.1.1.1

              It takes more than online voting to get people to vote. Motivation does not happen on its own.

              • pollywog

                It’ll be way easier to motivate youngers to access a secure website and tick a couple of options rather than truck down to a polling booth and tick off a piece of paper.

                Given the choice, what would you rather do ?

                • Arfamo

                  I’d quite happily go with online voting. But who will you vote for?

                  • pollywog

                    Depends who steps up at the time and promotes policies that resonate with me.

                    I’d imagine simplifying the voting process would also simplify the candidtae nomination process.

                    There’s 800 000 potential voters out there looking for someone or something to believe in…who knows who and what that might be ?

                    • Arfamo

                      Depends who steps up at the time and promotes policies that resonate with me.

                      And so it will be for everyone. A party that resonates with you would probably resonate with me as well. But I’d want to ensure they had a team who could run a country well rather than just sloganise.

                    • pollywog

                      They’d just need to be part of a team that could work in coalition with another team and cover all the skills needed to run the country well.

                      Its not about being able to step up and lead on your own. Maybe we’re seeing in Key the last of the charismatic, sloganeering leaders we think can do that. Man…were we wrong!

                      For all Shearer’s mumblefuckery, i think he’s basically an honest guy with his heart in the right place and with a decent team around him could be a competent leader.

                      Unfortunately his team lacks vision and talent but that’s offset by the Greens.That i see there is no room for Winston in the mix is why i think Shearer should, like Key did last time, rule out any coalition with him before the election.

                • Colonial Viper

                  Nope.

                  I’m dead set against online voting. Has no one been paying attention to the information Snowden has released FFS.

                  If you want to participate in the democracy, go through, take time out of your Saturday and do it properly with the rest of your neighbourhood.

                  It’ll be way easier to motivate youngers to access a secure website and tick a couple of options

                  Don’t make the mistake of thinking paper and pen is a major reason why young people can’t be bothered to vote for our current lot of pollies.

                  • pollywog

                    Whats Snowden got to do with it ?

                    Maybe we should go back and ban online banking and ATM’s as well CV?

                    or how about that 1.5 bil IRD overhaul ?

                    • Colonial Viper

                      Be flippant about it if you like. But it doesn’t change the fact that pen and paper aren’t the main reason that young people are less involved in the political process these days.

                    • pollywog

                      Not being flippant. I just fail to see the relevance of Snowden.

                      As to the “fact” that the effort involved in registering/voting by pen and paper isn’t the main reason. Do you have any evidence for it ?

                    • Colonial Viper

                      As to the “fact” that the effort involved in registering/voting by pen and paper isn’t the main reason. Do you have any evidence for it ?

                      Sure. It’s the same system which has always been used, no change there.

                      The fact that there is very little worthwhile for young people to vote for – that’s closer to the nub of the problem.

                    • pollywog

                      Voting for an online option is worthwhile.

                      Field of dreams stuff…Build it and they will come.

                      That would be enough of a revolution in itself and re-evolve how we interact with politics/politicians at the coal face.

                      We voted for MMP and that changed things a little. Taking the next step to voting online will change things a lot.

                  • Arfamo

                    Yes I’m aware that online voting could be monitored and even maybe doctored by a dishonest repressive government CV, but I suspect any government that dishonest could pretty easily find a way to do the same thing with paper votes.

                    Agree with you though that going outdoors and down to a voting booth is a small price to pay for democracy. If someone mobile won’t vote if they don’t have an online option their vote/opinion/strength of commitment to democracy is probably worthless. They’d probably want fries with it.

                    • Colonial Viper

                      but I suspect any government that dishonest could pretty easily find a way to do the same thing with paper votes.

                      NB systematic online voter fraud in our General Election does not need to involve the NZ government of the day or any of our political parties at all.

                      Just someone with access to the vote counting and results compiling systems, either through malicious programming, a botnet, or some other network hack. It would all happen invisibly and could be co-ordinated from half way across the world through a remote terminal.

                    • pollywog

                      Which is why we’d need our own secure server farm based in NZ.

                      Maybe Kim.Com could help :)

                    • pollywog

                      Think of the old, infirmed and the convenience it would offer them ?

                    • Arfamo

                      Gee, how do you think they get on now voting without an online option? They seem to manage really well.

                    • pollywog

                      Oh sure they manage well but they could be managed better….that’s the point.

            • Arfamo 33.1.1.1.1.2

              The politics and systems needed to ensure that like minds sympathetic to a baby boomer worldview which brought about the collapse is what’s need to ensure the corrupt players don’t usurp power again.

              Your continual whinging about the older generation all having the same worldview is completely incorrect, tiresome, and frankly, both childish and a little chilling as it indicates you have a mind easily directed to scapegoating.

              That can only happen by effective use and control of social media which gets translated into a process by which we can elect our leaders using on line processes.

              I look forward to seeing your leaders identifying themselves on twitter and tweeting their policies so you can exercise well-informed voter choices.

    • kiwicommie 33.2

      My generation is divided into those that give a shit and those that don’t. Those getting by are just plugged into their playstation or xbox – and only give a shit when they lose their jobs, and come to see the National utopia for what it really is. Young National supporters and the like are a bunch of right wing so-called libertarians that get daddy to pay for everything from their uni fees, to a new house. You can get those with a soul left to listen, but the rest are just brainwashed, brain dead, drinking Ayn Rand kool-aid, and only capable of being a useful idiot for some company. ;)

      • fatty 33.2.1

        Arfamo:

        What you use it for, & whether you use it to actually achieve anything worthwhile politically remains to be seen.

        It doesn’t remain to be seen at all. You’ve just been keeping your boomer-goggles glued to Parliament TV, and finding out about youth behaviour via fairfax.
        The Occupy movement was created primarily from the younger generations through the internet. Sadly, younger generations have been taught all their life that politics is not the arena from which change can be created. The re-emergence of inequality as a prominent political discourse didn’t come from left wing political parties…it came from Occupy.
        So while you were laughing at young people for staring at tiny LCD screens and pointing the finger at them and saying “whether you use it to actually achieve anything worthwhile politically remains to be seen”…they were busy altering political discourse.

        kiwicommie:

        You have split Gen X into two groups – ‘slackers’ (non-political) and Young Nats (right-wing/libertarian political).
        I agree, but I would also say there is a third group which could be called ‘occupy’ (left-wing, non-political).

        The question should be why is that third group not engaging with ‘left-wing’ political groups? This is not a NZ issue, this is a problem faced around the Western world, and the product was Occupy.
        Ironically, this is exactly what the boomers did in 1968 in Paris. The left wing thought the boomer students would side with the workers struggle, but the left then, as is the case now, was completely oblivious to how they exclude and silence younger generations. The younger generations are repeating history by having different ideas and different demands from the ‘established left’, despite possessing similar values.

        I would also say that being a ‘slacker’ is political action in itself. To remove oneself from the capitalist utopia is surely more revolutionary than joining the Young Nats or ACT On Campus.

        • Arfamo 33.2.1.1

          Fatty, politically, what has Occupy achieved? Nothing. It told us what we already know. You think it was news that so-called left wing and right wing parties have become indistinguishable and all have their noses in the trough? Dreamer. And what have you achieved? Nothing. You sound like a typical keyboard warrior trying to claim vicarious success off the activities and courage of others.

          The hippy generation achieved far more change, notwithstanding that some of them have since joined the wealthy elites and done their best to undo the positive changes that flowed from 60′s and 70′s youth activism.

          Change for the better will happen sometime, somehow, I hope, but I bet you aren’t involved.

          • fatty 33.2.1.1.1

            Fatty, politically, what has Occupy achieved? Nothing.

            Exactly. That was the point of Occupy, to move political action away from politics.
            See how you think the solution is actually the problem?
            Did you really expect Occupy to create change through politics, when it went to great lengths to stay non-political?

            And what have you achieved? Nothing. You sound like a typical keyboard warrior trying to claim vicarious success off the activities and courage of others.

            I’ve noticed that the first form of defense against debate around generational inequality is to individualise the issue. You are the first to move it on to individual achievement, which is a shame (sounds like a neoliberal soundbite…coincidence?). Unfortunately, when you are comparing generational inequality, individual experiences or individual actions are irrelevant.
            What is important is how do generations differ in their opportunities, access to resources and their voice.
            What individuals have achieved is neither here nor there.

            The hippy generation achieved far more change

            I agree, but why was it so easy for youth to create change (both good and bad) in the 1960s/70s. What conditions were different back then, and what is different now?

            • Arfamo 33.2.1.1.1.1

              Fatty, if the point of Occupy was not to ultimately achieve politico-economic change, what was its purpose and what good has it done? I’m afraid I can’t see that it amounted to anything than an organised grizzle about the way the people everywhere are being shafted by the current system which is unsustainable in the long-term. I entirely agree with that. And I’m a baby boomer.

              But until the right party and leaders stump up around the world with a new democratic government representative and economic model that people will vote for, I’m aware that all I can do is express my dissastifaction with the system and vote for change if any party offers a better choice. Which so far is all you can do. Blaming an entire generation before yours for everything wrong is scapegoating.

              What conditions were different back then, and what is different now?
              A pretty healthy economy with good access to UK markets for our primary produce, and successive governments commitments to our parents’ hard-won rights to free education for all, unionised workforce, managed wage rates, regulated banking and markets, and to full employment, and affordable housing.

              • fatty

                Blaming an entire generation before yours for everything wrong is scapegoating.

                Its not like that, every generation has its downsides and upsides, and each generation is created by the context it grows up in. There’s no scapegoating and no blame.

                Fatty, if the point of Occupy was not to ultimately achieve politico-economic change, what was its purpose and what good has it done?

                From what I can see Occupy’s point was to show that both the economic and the political system wasn’t working. The message, as Pop points out below, focused on the 1% and the extreme inequality (as you already knew). But their other message is not only that politics isn’t working, but Occupy wants nothing to do with traditional politics. At local, national and international levels, politics offers no answer.
                Forget political demands, forget established institutions and forget official outcomes. Obama, who was arguably not in the pocket of the establishment, got in and there was no change. Protesting for specific change fails and was not the answer. Plus there were too many conflicting views across the world (there was a stronger libertarian view throughout the USA compared with many other places). The best option is to stop, Occupy, talk and look to create change from the bottom up.

                The outcome has been the development and spread of networks which focus more specifically on localised or prominent issues. It is developing, and it was developed by many existing movements (anti-WTO, anti-globalisation).

                If you were looking for political change, you missed the message.

                Your last point shows all the resources that the boomers had to create change, as well as being a very large group – which gave boomers greater access to political power. Its a shame that the Occupy group have been excluded from politics. Their best option is to pitch a tent and say ‘fuck it, if we make changes via politics, then we just perpetuate the top down model, we’re better to do it from the ground up’.

          • Populuxe1 33.2.1.1.2

            Actually Occupy achieved quite a lot. Talk of the 1% became mainstream. “It told us what we already know.” You use “we” very selectively – Occupy brough the politics of poverty and inequality into the discourse of the comfortable and complacent who previously didn’t give a shit. Suddenly the comfortable learned they were being exploited too. Arguably events in Iceland directly stem from the influence of Occupy, and for some more concrete examples in the US:
            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/16/occupy-wall-street-6-months-later_n_1352752.html

            • Arfamo 33.2.1.1.2.1

              Pop, grow up. You are labouring pointlessly under the simple misapprehension that Occupy somehow suddenly brought the politics of poverty and inequality to light. It was just another symptom of a general malaise that many such as I have seen & railed against for 30 years. Nothing significant has happened to change anything yet. You are confusing a courageous few of your peers suddenly reacting against it with youth suddenly somehow gaining a revolutionary insight. Stop bashing your keyboard about whose fault it is and start doing something positive about changing things.

            • fatty 33.2.1.1.2.2

              Tru Pop, well said.
              Occupy was never about creating political change. As a social movement, it is vastly different to 1970s movements such as feminism and Maori rights.
              No leader, no concrete demands. Although the identity movements in the 1970s were by no means hierarchical with focused demands, Occupy took horizontal organisation and pluralism much further.
              If Occupy came up with specific demands and then met them through politics, then most of the participants would see this as a failure.

              • Arfamo

                No leader, no concrete demands.

                That will be why nothing has changed and Occupy has faded away and is already but a small, insignificant footnote in the history of protest. The thing that amazed me was how bloody few people were involved.

                • pollywog

                  It showed what needed to change and that there is a movement there to be led….babysteps!

                  • Arfamo

                    It showed what needed to change? Jesus. It wasn’t already obvious? I took a great interest in Occupy. It looked like it might be the start of something big in the way that the 60′s and 70′s rebellions were. Then it fizzled out. I blamed facebook, twitter, and i-tunes.

                    • pollywog

                      No brainiac…to some, it wasn’t already obvious.

                      Think of Occupy as being groomed for something bigger.

                      What was so big about the 60′s/70′s protests ? Given the current state of affairs, how effective were they ?

                    • pollywog

                      Well ?…Given 20/20 hindsight what did the 60′s/70′s ‘rebellions’ really achieve?

                      If your generation were so big on change why is it still left to mine and the next generation to finish the job ?

                      Nothing’s fizzled, its just simmering…IMHO.

                    • Populuxe1

                      Most of the 60s and 70s were a bunch of solipsistic twats dropping out to indulge their naive hedonism and bitching about the materialism of their parents which allowed them to in the first place.

                    • Arfamo

                      Were they? I did none of those things. But then my parents weren’t particularly well off or materialistic. I certainly benefited from the things largely Labour governments that our parents’ voted for put in place until some egotistical shyster heading the National Government sent the country into receivership and then some shyster in the Labour Party under the pretence of fixing things screwed everyone except fellow politicians and the wealthy, and basically things have stayed much the same ever since – until John Key added insult to injury.

                      Present a practical political alternative and I’ll vote for it.

              • Rogue Trooper

                fatty, pollywog, Arfamo and Pop,
                was just reading an overview of “The New Digital Age” -Eric Scmidt and Jared Cohen (in the know I’d suggest), by Gaynor, where they suggest political party membership is falling as individuals use technology to make their voices heard, blogs included, a great deal of these voices anti-government, and therefore one of the greatest challenges for governments is this tension between greater political articulation and the maintenance of state security, hence the recent security intelligence agency revelations in The Guardian and China’s closure of much social media. As many of the astute on TS agree, little to be progressed by adherence to the established parties and the status quo. May be power has to be wrenched from their dead (metaphorically speaking) neo-liberal hands. The consumer dictates.Is that not a foundational principle of the ‘free market’?

                • Arfamo

                  That is why I say whether the digital age will change anything for the better politically remains to be seen. The wealthy powerful who drive our governments already have the ability to control the net. Criminals exploit it brilliantly. Corporates and big business have learned to do the same. It is overloaded with good and bad science, good and bad politics, good information, misinformation and disinformation. It may be a major technological tool that functions as a source of political change for the better, or it may simply be another mechanism by which the rich and powerful continue to exploit everyone else, whilst allowing opponents to rail against them and console each other uselessly.

                  These things are always easier to predict in hindsight. I still remember futurists 40 years ago predicting that computers would mean governments everywhere would have to start working out how we would all manage in economies where we worked fewer hours to spread the jobs around, and speculating on what we would all do with that spare leisure time.

                  • pollywog

                    I still remember futurists 40 years ago predicting that computers would mean governments everywhere would have to start working out how we would all manage in economies where we worked fewer hours to spread the jobs around, and speculating on what we would all do with that spare leisure time.

                    Build more prisons run by private enterprise and get into gaming.

                  • Rogue Trooper

                    off the beaten path;
                    Whatever the Way, the Master of Strategy does not appear fast. Of course slowness is bad. Really skillful people never get out of time, and, are always deliberate and never appear busy.

                    Much “exploitation” is now conducted at the ‘beach’. the sound of the ocean.

                    Do not sleep under a roof, carry no money or food. Go alone to places frightening to the common brand of man. Become a criminal of purpose. Be put in jail and extricate yourself by your own wisdom.

                    “Come
                    as you are
                    as you were
                    as I want you to be
                    As a friend
                    As a friend
                    As an old enemy
                    take your time
                    hurry up
                    the choice is yours
                    don’t be late
                    take a rest
                    As a friend”

                • pollywog

                  Traditional Parties of the status quo don’t use social media for membership drives, like what the Civilian attempted though do they ?

                  http://www.thecivilian.co.nz/editorial-why-were-registering-a-political-party/

                  • Colonial Viper

                    Traditional Parties of the status quo don’t use social media for membership drives, like what the Civilian attempted though do they ?

                    Welcome to the Obama 2009 Democratic election campaign

                  • Arfamo

                    Traditional Parties of the status quo don’t use social media for membership drives, like what the Civilian attempted though do they ?

                    Their youth wings may do so, and if they don’t, the parties will try to. Their biggest challenge will be trying to find a way to connect with the self-promoting vacuousness that drives so much of social media and persuading those open to youthy slogan-like thinking to vote for them.

                  • Descendant Of Sssmith

                    What makes you think (Neo)Labour wants to talk to youth – even using The Matrix?

                    Fuck they don’t even want to talk to old unionist punk rockers like me and in the last 35 years have stripped away your incomes, your working conditions, your right to strike, your right to housing, your free education…….

                    I’m just surprised you’re not angrier.

                    • pollywog

                      That’s just it. The revolution in a nutshell.

                      The status quo re: voting booths serves traditional parties of the left and right equally.

                      Last thing either, and their fatcat donors, would want, is a devil they didn’t know.

                    • Colonial Viper

                      FFS if you think that the problem with our democracy and our political leaders is the location of the voting booths in the real or virtual world space, you’ve lost it

                      Last thing either, and their fatcat donors, would want, is a devil they didn’t know.

                      You mean the billionaire factcats who created run and surveil facebook, google, twitter, yahoo! and the backbone infrastructure of the internet? The ones who organised the Tea party and the Obama campaign? They don’t know about the online space?

                      They don’t know about online politics? They defined the very space. Fuck off mate you’re dreaming now.

                    • pollywog

                      Nah champ…i’m afraid your knickers are so bunched up its cut of circulation to your thinking parts.

                      The trick is to set up a secure local space outside of fatcat influence and engage the younger population on political matters there.

                      Whats your solution…Bitchmoan on the internet?

                      How’s that working for ya?

                    • Colonial Viper

                      And thank you, finally, for making my point.

                    • pollywog

                      That point being, if you keep doing the same things expecting a different result, you’re an idiot?

                      That’s hardly revolutionary and simply a repeat of failed babyboomer philosophy…isn’t it?

                    • Arfamo

                      The trick is to set up a secure local space outside of fatcat influence and engage the younger population on political matters there.

                      Whats your solution…Bitchmoan on the internet?

                      How is this any different? You have some vague plan in mind for people of a verified age group to sequester themselves and discuss politico-economic issues without letting anyone older join in, because they won’t be smart enough to use the media and/or they’ll just want to argue, and then explode onto the world with a completely new power structure and system of government which doesn’t involve you getting off your arse?

                      When all you can do is whinge about the one we’ve got and mutter vaguely about change gonna come and in OUR way? Yeah, good luck with that.

                    • pollywog

                      Naturally there’s still some details need fleshing out :)

                      But thanks for the wishes of good luck. I understand it’s hard to cope with the failure of your generation to change the status quo.

                      Just don’t take it as a personal failure and try not to get in the way of real progress towards a revolution in political engagement.

                      K.thnx

                      Btw…of course we’ll let you oldies play, even though you don’t tend to let us.

                    • Arfamo

                      What’s irritating me is the failure of your generation to change the status quo.

                      Plenty of mine have been trying to every election and every poll. The problem is not enough of your lot are involved and available to vote for if they have worked out what’s needed.

            • Puddleglum 33.2.1.1.2.3

              Actually Occupy achieved quite a lot.

              It still is. Currently, there are occupy movements at the heart of the action in Turkey, Bosnia and Brazil. They are a way that (young) people have learnt to take back what powers and processes they can. I think that’s very worthwhile – particularly in non-Western countries, perhaps.

              I admit, though, that I’m not sure what is meant by claims (e.g., by fatty) that occupy is not about politics. It strikes me as being extraordinarily political. ‘Politics’ does not, in my mind, refer solely to ‘electoral politics’ or ‘party politics’ but it does refer to any movement that seeks to rearrange how we interact, come to collective decisions and express ‘values’ (for want of a better word).

              I also think there’s a difference between having a clearly articulated view of how the world works and thinking that that view is the only view or, confusingly, thinking that one (as an individual person) is able to free oneself from having a view or can abstract oneself from acting in conformity with a view (even if you can’t articulate it).

              I’m generally sceptical of claims that ‘pragmatic’ (common sense?) responses to issues that avoid ‘political positions or ideologies’ are possible. Whenever I look at these ‘pragmatic’ responses they almost always align with a particular broad view of human society and economic relations (irrespective of whether or not the proponents of such responses believe they do).

              It is, for example, an ideological position to claim that connectivity, inclusiveness, etc. are (or should be) the basis of collective responding to issues. Complexity theory, resilience theory, actor network theory, intersectionality, postmodernism, poststructuralism – none of these are ideologically neutral theories or notions.

              It is no coincidence, for example, that such ideas have arisen at a time that ‘market’ and ‘exchange’ ideas have permeated the ether for several decades more or less hegemonically. Markets, after all, are inclusive (theoretically), highly interconnected and have no ‘authority’ or contentful rules organising the pattern of exchanges and interactions.

              • fatty

                I admit, though, that I’m not sure what is meant by claims (e.g., by fatty) that occupy is not about politics. It strikes me as being extraordinarily political.

                True, Occupy is all about politics, but it is the failure of politics and its proposed (but very vague) roadmap for change is away from political institutions.
                My claim that Occupy is not political is that Occupy have realised that traditional political institutions are not only ineffective, but are the problem across the whole spectrum, and must be avoided. Arfamo keeps asking (repeatedly) for empirical evidence of political change to justify the claim that Occupy has created change. I keep telling Arfamo (repeatedly) that policy changes are not the primary goal, and to many Occupiers, this would be seen as a failure – if Occupy was credited with altering our tax system by a few percentage points, then that would be the most effective way of countering the message of Occupy.

                ‘Politics’ does not, in my mind, refer solely to ‘electoral politics’ or ‘party politics’

                Agreed, but my claim of Occupy being not political was in relation to Arfamo, who appeared to view the term ‘politics’ as our parliamentary political system.

              • Rogue Trooper

                ‘bracketing’ is possible if one embraces a broad comprehension simultaneously, intuitively, and reads the scriptures. ;) and then relaxes with a nice Chianti or doobie.

        • Rogue Trooper 33.2.1.2

          what happened to ‘left-wing political’ in your analysis fatty?

          • fatty 33.2.1.2.1

            I guess most people would say that the left lost their way economically, which I think so too, but I don’t think there is enough discussion into why. Once we look at all the reasons why the left lost the economic debate, then we can see why the left fails to create change.

            Most would also say that neoliberalism was installed by Hayek, Friedman, Thatcher, Reagan, Douglas etc by taking control of governments and turning their focus towards business to increase inequality. I agree with that too, but I think there were wider issues which not only allowed this to happen, but also accelerated it. In effect, I think that the social movements of the 1970s are part of neoliberalism – I don’t see them as separate.

            Feminism is a good example, and obviously I’m not blaming feminism for neoliberalism, but the shift for women into employment and out of the home was a change to society that I think we all underestimate. Prior to second-wave feminism, it was a male world and the life of women was defined by men, it was oppressive and change occurred. Nobody except some seriously deranged people could say this change shouldn’t have occurred, or that it was a mistake. However, the effects and processes of the change are not explored too closely (Most of us would also argue that not enough change occurred and that gender inequality has a long way to go, but that’s another issue).
            I am not referring to more women in the workplace = less jobs = unemployment = inequality, etc. Although that happened, we shouldn’t focus on that, instead we should ask why did inequality rise then. Why did neoliberlism become popular, and why did social democracy die?
            I think it was partly due to the way neoliberal discourses were embedded in social movements. To look at how feminism and neoliberalism are related, we should look at the underlying discourses of that era – what are the discourses used by both neoliberalism and feminism? Which discourses feature in both, or are there opposing discourses? The conclusion I come to is that the discourses of neoliberalism and feminism shared many similarities: freedom, individual rights, dislike of existing political processes, rhetoric of ‘unleashing the shackles’, decreased government regulation etc.
            The interesting part aspect to this is that the discourses are in general the same, however, the meanings behind the discourses for feminism and neoliberalism were very different. Very similar again for the Maori protest movement – same discourses, but viewed differently through different lens. The outcome of this is that neoliberalism and feminism and other social movements all perpetuated each other.
            Looking back further, I think going back one generation shows us how the discourses resonated with almost everyone in society, including feminists and greedy capitalists. One reason for this is that the individualised discourses of the 1980′s were influenced by the discourses from the 1950s-1970s( when boomers were getting brainwasheds as children) – Rostow’s stages of growth – which is based on a brighter future, technological advancements will improve our lives, drive to modernity, etc. This was the period when children were being brainwashed as children that the future would be all about jet-packs, time machines and leisure time. Boomers were brainwashed by the dream of modernity in a similar way to how recent generations are brainwashed by corporate advertising. Boomers were moving into stage 5 of Rostow’s Theory, whereas we have now finished stage 5 are now realising that there is no stage 6….still on the same path we’ve always been on, but we have got nowhere to go.

            Back to the link between the discourses of identity politics and neoliberalism. Our problem is that they are both interlinked, and the left is trying to undo neoliberalism without undoing feminism etc. Which is great, but is it possible? It is almost impossible for one reason. Labour is now a card-carrying member and advocate of Rostow’s Stages of Growth. Even in the face of environmental collapse, its just full steam ahead to the non-existent stage 6.

            The best metaphors that I’ve heard for this came from Chris Trotter in the last Citizen A. Perhaps the metaphor was for something else, but it shows how the Left are mystified when they get hated on for helping people.

            “Left wing parties never seem to understand this, that conservative governments are patting the cat from the head to its tail, and so the cat very seldom scratches a conservative government. A left-wing government, if it is indeed a leftwing government, tends to try and pat the cat from the tail to the head, and gets clawed, immediately. And so they think the same rules apply to John Key as apparently applies to them, and its just not true.”

            The fur is the dominant ideologies.
            The right wing own the argument because over the past 50 years because since 1999 Labour are stroking the fur the wrong way (for identity politics but against neoliberalism)…whereas the Right stroke the fur the right way (for identity politics and neoliberalism).
            This rant has been a long way of saying that to repeal neoliberalism, but keep identity politics cannot be done without destroying neoliberal discourse. That for me is where the left have lost it and they have zero chance of creating change without a full on attack against neoliberal discourse. Freedom and growth would be where I would start. This does not mean we should forget about identity politics and focus back on class. I think the left needs to include and use all identity groups, empower them and allow them to define their own discourses separately from neoliberism. If we take our eye off feminism and focus on class, then we allow capitalism to rebuild its inherent structural inequalities.
            The other option of course is a whole new paradigm, but altering discourses is difficult enough. A whole new system is laughed at, look at Occupy.

            • Arfamo 33.2.1.2.1.1

              Present the new paradigm. Place its exponents in the political arena. Garner support by whatever means. If it means a more equitable system of government that what we have I’ll vote for it. Until you do that, you are having an academic argument with yourself. Some of my generation would say what is needed is a return of the Labour Party to its original values. I don’t see that happening. The way is clear for another Party to get my vote. Change won’t happen because a particular age group brings it in, it will happen when the majority of people of all ages see a better future for themselves and their children under something different than the current system.

              • fatty

                I explained Occupy’s paradigm here.

                If you want me to simplify Occupy’s paradigm for change:
                Take every comment you’ve posted here, take every suggestion you’ve posted here, do the opposite, and that would be close to Occupy’s paradigm.

                See how out of touch you are with Occupy. What I’m saying here is that Occupy see you as the problem, not the solution.

                • Arfamo

                  No I’m not out of touch with Occupy. What I am saying is Occupy has not continued to occupy. It has achieved nothing. It has not found a way to achieve anything. It does not know exactly what it wants to achieve, or for whom it wants to achieve it. It has not mobilised enough people. Occupy is a feeling, briefly experienced by many who have then shrugged their shoulders and gone back to what they were doing.

                • Colonial Viper

                  Not bad at all fatty.

                  Neoliberalism: leave society behind, there is no society, only individualism will lead to freedom

                  Identity politics: leave the rules of society behind, only individual rights and individual equality of opportunity will lead to freedom

                  Also agree that the Left has become a highly confused, sometimes incongruent mish-mash of economic ideas, too often still neoliberal, almost always capitalist.

                  • Populuxe1

                    “Identity politics: leave the rules of society behind, only individual rights and individual equality of opportunity will lead to freedom”

                    Wow, that just REEKS of privilege. Clearly you have no experience of the kind of subtle and not-so-subtle torments and oppressions that identity politics was a direct reaction to. Lucky you. The failure to acknowledge that society is made up of individuals, cliques and cohorts has always been the achilles heel of the left.

              • Rogue Trooper

                Individualism is the cat basket.
                Stroking Identity Politics Giving ‘em enough rope.
                The criticisms of Rostow in the link are valid and actual.
                Yes, freedom and growth to be critiqued.
                Yes, as Uturn identified, seperate, yet over-lapping spheres of discourse.
                No, the neo-liberal discourse is not being attacked by Labour, or convincingly enough by the Greens. MANA, yes.

                • Populuxe1

                  MANA not so much, not until they address the apparent ideological contradition between indigenous nationalism and socialist collectivism.

                  • Colonial Viper

                    you know what, that’s exactly what some arsewipe said to me about the Mana Party the other day. That he couldn’t support a party which contained such “blatant internal ideological contradictions”.

                    Could’ve knocked me over with a feather.

                    Well, I said to him once I had recovered my feet, best not vote at all then mate, they’re all like that, every single bloody last one of the wretched bastards.

                    • Populuxe1

                      Few would be as contradictory as vesting privilige and customary ownership in Maori based on whakapapa and tangata whenua status versus all things for all citizens being held in common by the state. It’s not as though MANA are rife with equivocators like th eother parties – Even the Greens compromise to reach the broader electorate.

                  • Rogue Trooper

                    vote for Mana Motuhake; Nation? What Nation, unless it’s sport and the NZDF.

            • karol 33.2.1.2.1.2

              fatty, for all you are arguing that feminism was necessary, and paying lip service to the powerful forces from above that were behind a vast network of neoliberal shifts, this is just looking like another left wing attack of feminism as the cause of, or at least part of, neoliberalism and the destruction of the left. You are in good company with boomer Chris Trotter (for all I agree with Trotter on many things, but not on that), and, in aligning yourself with him on this, you expose a highly flawed and contradictory atttack on “boomers” as “individualists” and “identity” ideologues.

              And ultimately, this rant/philosophy, is antifeminist, and shifts the cause from where it really lies: the operation of ppwer-from-above” and the way “neoliberals used what was available at the time, to insert their values into every realm of life. You’re argument is starting to look like a cross-generation masculinist backlash against feminism.

              fatty:

              I think it was partly due to the way neoliberal discourses were embedded in social movements. To look at how feminism and neoliberalism are related, we should look at the underlying discourses of that era – what are the discourses used by both neoliberalism and feminism? Which discourses feature in both, or are there opposing discourses? The conclusion I come to is that the discourses of neoliberalism and feminism shared many similarities: freedom, individual rights, dislike of existing political processes, rhetoric of ‘unleashing the shackles’, decreased government regulation etc.

              Oh, please. This is such a skewed and reductionist and distorted rewriting of second wave feminism, I just despair. I was strongly involved in second wave feminism in London in the late 70s and 80s and spent a lot of time engaging in discussions, reading etc with a range of feminists and texts. And basically, you haven’t a clue about what actually happened.

              The women’s movement in England was strongly embedded in left wing networks and philosophies. Unfortunately it was often distorted by the MSM of the time, and the US more liberal feminist, individualist-based feminism tended to get more airplay. For instance, one of the most influential writers, researchers and theorists among London grass-roots feminists at that time was Sheila Rowbotham, and a quick read of her wikipedia outline points to where she and the majority of second wave Brit feminists come from. Even the “radical feminists” of the time, which put primary emphasis on the oppression of women, worked from a base of socialist princples.

              Rowbotham was especially influenced by Marxist social history as practised by E. P. Thompson and his wife Dorothy.[5] Combining a Marxist analysis with feminism, Rowbotham contends that capitalism not only systematically oppresses the working class, but also particularly oppresses women.[5] In Rowbotham’s view, women are doubly oppressed as they are forced to sell their labour in order to survive, but also forced to use their labour to support their husbands and children.[5] Rowbotham is critical of traditional Marxist history for what she sees as the neglect of such issues as family history, the role of housewives in supporting the economy, sexuality, and maternity.[5
              ...
              In such books as Women, Resistance and Revolution (1972) and Hidden from History (1974), Rowbotham put her ideas into practice by examining the experience of women in radical and revolutionary movements in Cuba, Algeria, Vietnam, China, Russia, France and Britain from the 17th century to the 20th.[6] In Rowbotham’s opinion, working within the established order has never brought women any gains, and only through revolutionary socialist movements have women made any social gains.[6] Rowbotham has argued that though male revolutionaries are willing to accept women as partners as long as the revolution lasts, once the revolution is over, women are expected to return to their traditional roles.[6] In Hidden from History, Rowbotham examined British women’s history from the 17th century to 1930 from a Marxist viewpoint[4] For Rowbotham, the history of British women could best be defined through class oppression, the Industrial Revolution and sexism.[4]

              Collectivist values strongly-permeated the second wave women’s movement: it was in the grassroots, leaderless groups, it’s processes and its aims. All that popular and media propaganda that you (wrongly) refer to as being embedded in feminist “culture”, was strongly opposed within the women’s movement. There was active resistance to all that, especially in the UK women’s movement (think for instance of the anti-fashion dress styles of feminists, so derided in the stereotype of the “uniform” of drab, unsexy, feminists).

              There were also socialist feminists that were very active in the US during second wave feminism, but liberal feminists quickly gained dominance in the mainstream, probably because they supported already existing individualist capitalist values of the US dominant political culture (Betty Firedan et al). International neoliberalisation was also the Americanisation (more truly the US-ianisation) of other English-language countries.

              For a look at how neoliberalism was able to gain such leverage and a strong foothold in the West, read David Harvey’s ” A Brief history of Neoliberalism”. He shows how the movers and shakers of neoliberalism ultimately moved to roll back the left wing gains of the 60s and 70s using whatever tools were at their disposal. The fact that it gained most traction in English language countries is because of the fact it was largely led from the US, and TPTB in the UK, NZ, etc, re-freshed their long-term allegiance to the US. (e.g Thatcher’s “special relationship” with Regan).

              Neoliberalism theory and values, and the way it was put into practice are different things. The “neoliberal” philosophy used whatever it could to promote it’s cause, which, as Harvey shows, was ultimately to reinstate the powers of the elites. And ultimately, very often its restructuring practices contradicted its “free-market”, small government theory. The think tanks had looked at the current state of culture as it was, and bent it to serve its ends. This includes reduction of feminism’s wider goals, splitting US-led liberal feminism from it’s socialist roots, etc.

              You are separating the cause from the means and using it as a masculinist backlash against socialist feminism.

              By throwing your hat in with Trotter’s anti-feminism and anti-Maori-70s-revival, you make your lip service towards feminism, and inter-generational conflict look a little thin.

              But worst of all, you ignore and marginalise what is really important: i.e. how the “neoliberal” ideologues have used power from above, via the media, academia, multinational corporations, political process, etc, to insert their values and propaganda throughout society.

              There is no socialism without socialist feminism, without the collectivist activism of women and men of colour, and without anti-imperialism.

              • just saying

                Great reply Karol.

                It’s frustrating to hear this line repeated over and over.

                The arrogance and assumptions this position is based on are glaring. Members of “identity” groups with an interest in ending discrimination and oppression against them have always formed the majority of people. Females outnumber males by themselves, leaving out all the many other intersecting interest groups. I find the inherent implication that the only oppression that has ever reeaalllly mattered is that perpertrated against the traditional, working class white men really bloody offensive, and the lip service of your apparent support for the changes that women fought (and continue to fight for), is contradicted by the idea that the feminist revolution shared the pernicious attitudes of, and was an integral part of the neoliberal revolution that destroyed social democracy.

                Which begs the question – social democracy for who?

                • karol

                  Thanks, js. Feminism, and especially second wave feminism and beyond is something I know quite a bit about. And I get pretty angry when I see such misinformation about it getting continually recycled. Many sections of the MSM undermined it at the time, and now we get subsequent generations peddling a Disney version of second wave feminism-as “identity-politics”. Time that misleading “identity politics” term was buried along with its “PC” mate.

                • Very interesting karol thanks.

                  ‘Identity politics’ or fighting against (often structural) oppression is imo the opposite of neoliberalism – it isn’t selfish, it isn’t divisive and it isn’t based on maintaining elites. It, at its simplest, is about equality and the neoliberals hate equality.

                  • karol

                    marsman:
                    ‘Identity politics’ or fighting against (often structural) oppression is imo the opposite of neoliberalism

                    I agree that so called “social movements” have been fighting against structural oppression. Somehow, though, the term “identity politics” has become associated with de-politicised individualistic identities. Actually though, feminism, anti-racist and pro LGBTI movements have more to do with collective identifications and politics: it involves groups of people that have been marginalised and oppressed by the categories applied to large sections of the population.

                    80s+ consumer capitalism have focused on consumer practices as ways to construct individual identities: you are what you buy. And this individualisation of what began as a collective identifications and political actions, has thus become undermined the political intent, by the way the term “identity politics” has been used.

                    Actually, even the term “social movements” undermines the original conceptions and practices of feminism, anti-racist, anti-imperialist and other movements. As seen with socialist feminist theory, research and practice, the various oppressions are not just social, they are integrated with economic systems and forms of oppression.

                • Rogue Trooper

                  ahhh, js, but check out what Fiske has to say on what balance of authority ranking, communal sharing, equity matching and market pricing structures a society that motivates the majority of ‘white women’

                • Rogue Trooper

                  “To all the girls Iv’e loved before…”
                  Fiske ; worth a bookmark.

              • Colonial Viper

                I was strongly involved in second wave feminism in London in the late 70s and 80s and spent a lot of time engaging in discussions, reading etc with a range of feminists and texts. And basically, you haven’t a clue about what actually happened.

                The women’s movement in England was strongly embedded in left wing networks and philosophies. Unfortunately it was often distorted by the MSM of the time, and the US more liberal feminist, individualist-based feminism tended to get more airplay

                You described fatty’s concerns in a nutshell, right there.

                The neoliberals picked and chose the aspects and angles that they wanted to promote amongst the wider public and promulgated those at every opportunity.

                - Individualism
                - Giving people the right (and duty) to walk away from (discard) the normal family and community expectations of the day
                - The breaking down of society’s long established traditions, rules and shackles.

                All themes very useful to the ideological changes sought by the neoliberal agenda.

                Traditional family and economic structures, as well as unions, were male dominated and an outdated burden to freedom of the individual.

                It doesn’t matter that fatty and I “don’t have a clue about what actually happened” during “second wave feminism”. Happy to admit that is likely the case, in fact.

                Because neither do 96% of the voters out there, and the media advisors to the neoliberals know that very well.

                • karol

                  CV:

                  The neoliberals picked and chose the aspects and angles that they wanted to promote amongst the wider public and promulgated those at every opportunity. Individualism, giving people the right to walk away from the normal family and community expectations of the day, and the breaking down of society’s rules and shackles.

                  I agree with your statement there, CV. However, somehow fatty was skewing it to sheet the ultimate blame to 60s-70s social movements and “identity politics” of feminism”, and the sum total of boomer existence.

                  I say, it’s necessary to look at the way power-from-above is exerted to undermine any flax roots political movements from below. It was already in operation prior to the 60s, but shifts in communication technologies and media formats and platforms shifting the grounds of the struggle, and making us all potential agents of our own enslavement.

                  The “neoliberal” revolution also coincided with vast international changes in communications, resulting in the intensification of the means of propaganda, and the politics of image, most evident in the 80s: (video killed the political left). Image politics and culture thus came tot infiltrate and intensively permeate all areas of life.

                  The 80s saw a big shift towards technologies of reproduction like video, audio-cassettes etc, followed int he 90s by digitisation. 1980s saw the commodification and recycling of an individualist consumerist and reduced form of feminism – as spear-headed by Madonna and the girl power, etc. Neoliberal values became inserted into our own daily practices of consumption and increasing capabilities for us all to recycle the values that enslave us.

                  • Colonial Viper

                    I read a US piece recently which basically said – “liberals” are very well meaning, but that they hardly ever anticipate the blowback that their good-intentioned initiatives have on society.

                    For instance, women have the right and the capability to become well qualified, excel at any career they want, be paid at the same rate as men for the same work, and to reject traditional expectations of a role as some sort of stay at home parent, AKA “housewife”.

                    BUT this also means absent/over tired parents, children raised by childcare centres, atomised family units, couples under relationship stress who hardly see each other due to different shifts, and employees being paid too little for a single worker to support the household.

                    After all, why would you also want wages high enough for a single parent to support a household when you’ve been consistently pushing for the right for both parents to go out, have an income each, and have any career that they want?

                    Blowback and unintended consequences.

                    • karol

                      CV, @ 10.48 am: You are just going with the liberal feminist and MSM view of the parts of the wider second wave women’s movement that they cherry picked. They were/are often OK with anything that didn’t/doesn’t fundamentally restructure the whole capitalist system.

                      There has long been on-going feminist debates about the role of domestic labour, child care etc. Feminists have long been aware of the dilemma of achieving equality in the workplace and in the home, without restructuring the whole masculinist career structure and capitalist division between the domestic sphere and other areas of life such as the workplace.

                      One angle was the “wages for housework” campaign by a group of radical feminists. Another has been to focus on totally restructuring the whole approach to paid work and industrial-postindustrial systems.

                      As far as the wider feminist movement goes, they have long been aware of a range of consequences – not necessarily unforeseen or “unintended”. Trying to get any serious attention for socialist feminism has been an on-going battle, before, during and after the second wave movement of the 60s and 70s.

                      And in recent times, there’s been quite a bit of feminist research, activism etc. around the problems related to increasing female participation in the workplace: the “double shift”; the way having children creates a conflict between women’s work and home lives; the way so many young single women have bought into the neoliberal post-feminist (feminism is no longer needed) propaganda that young women today can easily “have it all” – career, husband, children – when the whole capitalist system works against that.

                      The reductionist and revisionist view just uses the liberal feminist, pro-capitalist, media-favoured views to beat-up on all feminist activities.

                    • Olwyn

                      This sort of blow back could have been controlled had “the breaking down of society’s long established traditions, rules and shackles” not been so intensive. Some countries in Europe seem to have managed to balance liberal and working class concerns for quite some time. Without such a balance, liberal freedoms readily become working class shackles.

                      At first there were numerous strands to feminism, with quite a few overlaps. Those wanting equal pay and career opportunities, those wanting to be earth mothers, concerned with natural childbirth, long-term breast feeding, etc, and those concerned with gay and lesbian rights, to mention just a few.

                      But by the eighties and nineties, the career version held sway, which of course provided license for coercing working class wives and solo mothers into low-paying, soul-destroying jobs; a far cry from the promised freedom and equality. Along similar lines, when the so-called establishment abandoned its conservatism, attacks on the establishment became indirect attacks on working class men. Which comes in handy when such men have also become an “establishment” target, with manufacturing jobs on the wane, no major war on the horizon and private prisons on the lookout for new clients.

                      In the end, I think we need to distinguish between power and privilege: the powerful reshuffle privilege according to their own interests, not ours. The only way to gain and maintain a balance it to find a way of preventing the accumulation of too much power into too few hands.

                    • Colonial Viper

                      Thanks for rounding out those points, karol. The Right Wing love to take over ideas and labels and twist them around for their own agendas. Meanwhile the Left specialises in fighting over nuances in concepts, academic theory and vocabulary that no one outside the discussion not in the interest groups can follow, or even catch up on.

                  • fatty

                    I agree with your statement there, CV. However, somehow fatty was skewing it to sheet the ultimate blame to 60s-70s social movements and “identity politics” of feminism”, and the sum total of boomer existence.

                    If I did, that wasn’t my intention. I don’t want to apply a blanket blame on identity politics for neoliberalism. I just think that norms in society are produced and reinforced primarily through discourses, mostly hegemonic discourses.
                    And if you ask the average punter to point out the key discourses behind second wave feminism, neoliberalism and other social movements around that time…then the discourses are essentially the same – freedom, individual rights, dislike of existing political processes, rhetoric of ‘unleashing the shackles’, decreased government regulation etc
                    I’m happy to be accused of lumping the discourses of social movements and neoliberalism, because that is my point.
                    But this is not comparable to lumping social movements with neoliberalism. If this is your response, then you don’t understand what discourses are and how they work.

                    • just saying

                      I’m happy to be accused of lumping the some of the discourses of social movements, but not the predominant ones with, neoliberalism, because that is my point.

                      fify with my point.

                      As a feminist during much of the time you are talking about, and as Karol has described, the predominant feminist discourses were socialist and anti-neoliberalism. There were exceptions, but in my experience, they were not the dominant discourses.

                    • Rogue Trooper

                      I agree that karol appears to not always understand her own ‘written discourse’ fatty; “masculinist backlash”? Wotteva.

                • just saying

                  Because neither do 96% of the voters out there, and the media advisors to the neoliberals know that very well.

                  Are you arguing that perception is reality CV?

                  And it’s pretty easy to be nostalgic about the days before “traditions” were “broken down” if said traditions didn’t actually oppress you, and actively privileged you.

                  I’m vehemently opposed to neoliberalism, but my Mum was a virtual indentured skivvy and chattel to my father, and the relative freedom from oppression that I’ve been able to enjoy because of feminism, is no little distraction from some greater cause.

                  • Colonial Viper

                    Are you arguing that perception is reality CV?

                    Perception creates electoral reality. As John Armstrong said today: “And, as oft-stated, perception is everything in politics.” Are you arguing that this is not the case?

                    And it’s pretty easy to be nostalgic about the days before “traditions” were “broken down” if said traditions didn’t actually oppress you, and actively privileged you.

                    Nostalgic? Hardly the point. But you better accept that a loss of the grounding that traditions and societal/community/family structure provides often has wider impacts other than the ones you wanted. If you take the medicine, don’t pretend to be surprised – or deny- that there are adverse effects too.

                    I’m vehemently opposed to neoliberalism, but my Mum was a virtual indentured skivvy and chattel to my father, and the relative freedom from oppression that I’ve been able to enjoy because of feminism

                    I know people married in the 60′s, 70′s and 80′s who had excellent relationships. And some who had rubbish ones. Now, thanks to feminism, women have far more options and opportunities in life, good.

                    However, in the research I see, I can’t see much evidence that women today are any happier or feel better off, relative to either to men in general or to women from several decades ago.

                    • just saying

                      If you take the medicine, don’t pretend to be surprised – or deny- that there are adverse effects too.

                      Freedom from oppression, for any group, does not necessitate adverse effects for that group, the prevailing situation usually dictates these as events do not occur in a vaccuum.
                      However, it is quite possible for there to be a society in which no member is abused or oppressed, or excessively privileged. Should we all (the majority who belong in one or more “identity” group) have waited for the “right time”?

                    • Colonial Viper

                      I’m not saying wait for the right time, or don’t go ahead and do it, or don’t keep pushing for more.

                      I’m saying that people need to have a full and objective assessment of the total impacts of the changes they have sought and have accomplished.

                      As I said, from what I can see in the research women certainly have more “freedom” now than decades ago but that hasn’t translated into more “happiness” now than decades ago.

                      However, it is quite possible for there to be a society in which no member is abused or oppressed, or excessively privileged.

                      In concept, sure. In reality? Please go ahead and name some.

                  • Rogue Trooper

                    personalizations

                  • Populuxe1

                    This reminds me very much of John Pilger and his minions’ attack on marriage equity as a western middle-class distraction from the middle east. This monolithic binary black and white thinking has got to stop because it simply doesn’t reflect reality or fairness. The reality is society consists of overlapping spheres of influence, all of which are worthy of attention.

              • fatty

                Karol, you’ve not only misinterpreted many of my points, but my underlying argument as well.

                Firstly, I’d like to refute a nasty and baseless accusation you’ve just made , I ain’t no Trotter supporter, in fact when I dish out the blame for the Shearer fiasco, I put most of the blame on Trotter. How can you possibly accuse me of throwing your hat in with Trotter’s anti-feminism and anti-Maori-70s-revival? I used a metaphor from him which I admitted that…Perhaps the metaphor was for something else…so I don’t agree with Trotter’s use of the metaphor, I used it to suit my own point (I actually think Trotter used the metaphor in relation to Labour’s stance on whistleblowers). I agree with you that Trotter’s position can be anti-feminism and anti-Maori-70s-revival.

                Secondly, I agree with your general history of feminist movements, but I disagree with basically, you haven’t a clue about what actually happened.
                Your view of second wave feminism is projected through a political economy lens – so you cite David Harvey and your analysis separates feminism from neoliberalism. You frame feminism as good and neoliberalism as bad (which I agree with). However, using a political economy lens limits your analysis.
                I have used a poststrucuralist analysis of both feminism and neoliberalism to look at the discourses which are inherent to both feminism and neoliberalism. So I agree that the actors within second wave feminism and neoliberalism have opposing views and and their desired outcomes oppose each other. But if you look at the discourses of both groups, they are similar and perpetuate each other.
                Feminism is great at deconstructing everything except itself, and that is its weakness. Feminism uses a poststructuralist approach outwardly very effectively, but there is little use of that as a reflective process.
                The aims, demands and values of feminism usually opposes neoliberalism, but the discourses are similar, that is all I’m saying.
                Nancy Fraser explores this here, check pg 107 for the 2nd point within the essay. Fraser discusses how the discourse in feminism resonate with neoliberalism.

                I do find it amusing that when I present a Foucauldian analysis, I get labeled a sexist. Perhaps if you put aside your political economy hat for a second, you might better understand why the social movements lost the economic war despite winning (?) the social war. As long as you hold onto your binary view of economic issue vis-a-vis social issues, you cannot see how they perpetuate each other.

                • karol

                  Well, fatty you have done a very good job of trying to undermine feminism(s). Actually, I have been strongly influenced by postructuralism, especially via Foucauld. But, I find, while that is indeed very good for analysing discourse and the creative workings of power within diverse networks, I have come to the conclusion that it falls short in understanding the impact of power elites. I find David Harvey especially useful as he has taken on board discursive analysis, for instance of some of his examination of popular culture, while incorporating that within a political economy framework.

                  2nd wave feminisms did not use a poststructuralist approach, but were more strongly influenced by neomarxism. Poststructuralism gained more currency among academic feminists throughout the 80s and 90s.

                  In recent years I have been working to try to integrate the most significant aspects of both approaches. Post Marxist theorists like Manuel Castells are also helpful there.

                  I separate the main core of British and European feminism from the more dominant form in the US during the 60s-80s, liberal feminism.

                  You tend to treat feminism as one unified body of work and action. In fact, it is a loose network of theories practices and approaches, of which certain strands get more attention at particular times and places.

                  I have found some of Nancy Fraser’s work, especially on issues of justice etc., to be very useful. But she also is coming form a US standpoint on feminism, that tends to be less grounded in neomarxist theory. I like that she aims to integrate critical theory and poststructuralism.

                  Please point me to a source for the Fraser work that you are referring to, or even a citation for it. I would like to see where she got the evidence for her discursive analysis.

                  • fatty

                    Well, fatty you have done a very good job of trying to undermine feminism(s).

                    You can accuse me (again) of trying to undermine feminism if it makes you feel better.

                    Here’s what I assume we agree on with second wave feminism: It was needed, it was a pluralistic movement which had numerous factions and ideas, overall it was effective in creating change, however, genders remain unequal and more needs to be done.
                    Do we agree on that?
                    The last point is important for me – why are genders still unequal?
                    I look back at the problems faced by the feminist movement back then, and what do you do? – claim I’m trying to undermine feminism. Nice one.

                    I separate the main core of British and European feminism from the more dominant form in the US during the 60s-80s, liberal feminism.

                    Irrelevant.
                    Again you are missing the point of a discursive analysis. Just as you separate neoliberalism from social movements. You are splitting feminism into factions.
                    Yes, social movements and neoliberalism can be separated with a political economy lens. I agree that they are separate and contrasting ideologies with opposing ideals and opposing actors.
                    But put that aside and homoginise them to see which discourses are used by all of them.

                    You tend to treat feminism as one unified body of work and action.

                    Only when using a discursive analysis to look at how their discourses relate.
                    I am aware that feminism has many branches. Just as I am aware that the protest movement era had many branches.
                    To simply homogenise these movements in an historical analysis will limit analysis…just as to not homogenise these movements in a discourse analysis will limit analysis

                  • fatty

                    I linked to this essay of Fraser’s, she wrote a whole book about it I think, but I haven’t read it.
                    There has been more analysis of identity politics and their link to neoliberalism by Bryce Edwards here.
                    Also the work of Elizabeth Rata looks at how neotribalism emerged.
                    Although they don’t go into a deep analysis of the discourses from the protest movements and neoliberalism. They way they link it helps to illuminate how the discourses are essentially the same.

                    • Colonial Viper

                      Many of the aspirations of members of these new social movement could be met, at least in a superficial way but at times in a real and substantial way, without threatening or curtailing the profit accumulation abilities of business in New Zealand. Within the new social movements and the Maori nationalist movement was an ascending and conscious aspiring middle class. Many aspired to new ruling class status, and saw opportunities to use the leadership opportunities in organisations defined by feminist, Maori nationalism or gay politics as a base from which to rise within mainstream political and economic structures. The Fourth Labour Government was adept at uniting and transforming these various strands into a ‘new right’ synthesis

                      From your Bryce Edwards link. Very interesting indeed.

                    • fatty

                      yeah, that was back when Bryce Edwards was writing and releasing some really interesting analysis. I guess most of his work now goes to academic journals and takes 12 months to see the light of day, and only then behind a pay-wall.

                      His point is that the supposedly opposing ideologies over-lapped quite easily, and at superficial level they have many similarities.

                      My point is that if you dig deeper, and look at the discourses which are embedded within both social movements and neoliberalism, they move from having similarities to being almost the same (despite both opposing groups interpreting the discourses differently).

                • karol

                  OK: found it:

                  Looking at p107, without having had time to read the whole thing – thanks for the ref (will read and digest). She is making some bizarre claims that distort timelines, certainly as they unfolded in the UK during the 60s-80s. She seems to be treating neoliberalism and feminism as coming to maturity at the same time, when, in fact, (especially in the UK and Europe) feminism rose and had an impact in the 70s, while neoliberlism rose to prominence and gained tractiON in the UK

                  Scrolling back to p105: She seems to be referring to the dominant liberal feminist strand as in the US, and does not equate to my experience of femisim int he UK. (curiously the section I’m referring to copies and pastes into capitalised gibberish)

                  She seems to be relying on some sweeping generalisations about feminism internationally. (Actually, Sheila Rowbotham’s book on the Century of Women highlights the similarities and differences between the US and the UK as regards issues for women and political responses to that.)

                  Soley using cherry-picked US sources on feminism is always going to be problematic when focusing on historical changes in the latter part of the 20th Century. One of the results of neoliberalisation has been increasing permeation of US values internationally. Prior to the neoliberal revolution, there was a lag between developments in capitalism within the US and those elsewhere. Ditto for the “social” (actually “socio-economic”) movements of the 60s onwards. And in the left in the UK, and to a lesser extent in NZ, there was resistance to those cultural values and related political approaches.

                  You and Fraser are unfortunately using a reductionist, monolithic, revisionist approach to feminism(s), even while acknowledging the different strands that were part of it. Poststructuralist discursive analysis can also be fruitfully applied to yours and Fraser’s arguments.

                  • fatty

                    You and Fraser are unfortunately using a reductionist, monolithic, revisionist approach to feminism(s), even while acknowledging the different strands that were part of it.

                    You have applied a political economic / historical analysis.
                    Forget your facts and figures of second wave feminism for just a few minutes. As long as you keep thinking this way, you will not be able to see the common discourses hidden deep within these ideologies.
                    unfortunately using a reductionist, monolithic, revisionist approach to feminism(s)

                    Yes, its unfortunate and limiting to always do this. But try applying a reductionist, monolithic, revisionist approach to feminism /social movements and you will then see the hegemonic discourses which are also embedded in neoliberalism..

                    Ironically, you use a reductionist, monolithic, revisionist approach to neoliberalism all the time, and as a result you can see the broad discourses in society that propel it. Do the same for feminism.

                    She seems to be relying on some sweeping generalisations about feminism internationally.

                    Yeah, discursive analysis requires that.
                    How many times do you think I’ll have to keep repeating this until you get it?

                • Rogue Trooper

                  on to it fatty, same lack of reflexsiveness I encountered in the nursing profession; none so blind.

              • Rogue Trooper

                so, karol, you agree that “liberal, individualist, feminism got the ‘airplay’, i.e women, dominated other women- horizontal violence.
                Are you not assuming a “masculinist backlash” by fatty; like us all, your written discourse reveals your emotionality.

                • Arfamo

                  Academic one-upmanship arguments don’t resonate with the general population – economic academics saw to that. What is it exactly that you want, how many others want the same thing, what impacts will it have, what adjustments to how things work now will be required, what will the effects of those adjustments be, and how do you plan to achieve what you want are the important questions for me.

                  • Rogue Trooper

                    Those are very good questions;
                    What- ‘needs’ before ‘wants’
                    How many- clearly the ‘democratic majority’ are in error, or ‘following’ consensus.
                    Impacts- conflict / violence (not necessarily against the personal body) is inevitable; Ellul conceded this.
                    Adjustments- paradigm shift
                    Method- emergent.

                    Arche- Demotic (is the only way).
                    Denouement- horizontal (which is synonymous in itself).

                    • Arfamo

                      People still need to resolve in their own minds how much is what anyone does for a living actually really worth. A billionaire CEO who has recently purchased and re-structured a health services company and laid off many staff to increase its bottom line profit is the sole survivor of an executive jet crash, and lies in the wilderness, badly, potentially fatally, injured. Our system currently allows her to be worth a multi-million dollar salary plus benefits because they say her skills generate profits for shareholders and maybe employment for hundreds or thousands of lesser beings so she is worth it. She hasn’t considered ways to retain employees, merely the fastest way to improving the bottom line, destroying the income earning potential of some former employees, but that’s their problem, those are the breaks.

                      She won’t get out of bed or do anything for anyone for less than she’s currently paid, because that’s what she and neolibs consider she’s worth.

                      Now she lies, arms broken, arteries bleeding, in the wilderness, unable to do anything to prevent herself from dying. Along comes a paramedic from her restructured hospital on a hiking trip. He recognises her. Save me, she says – its your duty. No it’s not: I’m on holiday, he says. It’s my choice. I can look at this as a moral or a business issue. How much are you prepared to pay for me to meet your current needs?

                      Whose skills are actually worth the most?

                  • Populuxe1

                    Feeling left out, are we?

                • karol

                  Damn right I get emotional about it, RT. I participated in an intense and multifaceted struggle back int e 70s and 80s. It resulted in the elite’s moving to close us down in ways that the majority of us felt powerless to prevent, no matter how much we were aware of what was happening, and tried to resist. I still retain some of the anger. But now to be accused of being part of the problem – that does too many people a disservice.

                  So I sure do get angry when I see the whole struggle disparaged and a dismissed as on some parts of this thread, albeit with various caveats and pats on the head.

                  Overall. I’d say there is too much disparaging of second wave feminists and other movements of the 60s and 70s, and a failure to see it in context of on-going struggles that pre-existed the time and still continue. The tendency is to explain it in retrospect as some sort of neatly unfolding narrative, rather than one chapter in an ongoing struggle between all sorts of intersecting, overlapping and competing forces But first wave feminists also had that happen. History diminished their struggle to one for the vote, when their struggle was also far more multifacted, with significant political depth and breadth.

                  I also am not assuming so much, as reading the discourse re-a “masculinist backlash”. It often reads to me as yet another younger generation kicking against the parent generation as being the perpetrator of all ills, and especially from a white male perspective..

                  I could go on debating this in detail, but each comment spawns more and there’s other pressing issues to attend to. And you are right. Academic debates are never going to be attended to by the majority.

                  Yes the left, feminists etc, did some things wrong in the 60s-80s. Yes, we can learn from the mistakes, especially in terms of strategy, and in underestimating the power and persistence of the elites. But trying to dismiss us all as failed, individualists etc, does a major disservice.

                  All this has happened before, and will happen again.

                  • Rogue Trooper

                    sadly, yes. as you are aware, my closest, and dearest friend is an experienced feminist and nurse. I told her about this thread and the central theme elucidated by fatty; she, in general, agrees. In the real world, working with teens and young adults, ‘day in, day out’ ;) , when asked or challenged about the gains of the feminist movement, which you know I support in principle, the replies are along the lines of “hairy arm-pits” and the ‘unifom’ clothing (which I value) characterisation you made earlier. This is all very unfortunate, but there you have. Wise to choose our ‘battles’ indeed.
                    Kind Regards, j.

                    • karol

                      Ah, yes. So it goes, RT.

                      I will withdraw from this debate for the moment, but no doubt it will be revisited again in the future. I have other research and topics I’m trying to work on.

                      Ultimately, I enjoy discussions and debates, and usually learn something from them, as well as being spurred to learn more. Social research & history are some of my preoccupations. The researching and writing of history is itself a site of struggle, and people too often get into writing it as a smooth and uncomplicated narrative.

                      The discourses are often in the over-looked daily activities, political organisation, posters, images, popular representations, web pages, and actions, as in the theoretical writings that arise out of them.

                      h/t to your nurse friend – a job that contributes much and is too often under-appreciated.

                  • fatty

                    Cheers for closing off the conversation with the excuse I could go on debating this in detail, but each comment spawns more and there’s other pressing issues to attend to
                    I’m sure the old white leftists used that one on you when you were trying to get your voice into Leftwing discussion.

                    Damn right I get emotional about it, RT. I participated in an intense and multifaceted struggle back int e 70s and 80s

                    That’s the problem with any kind of qualitative, reflective analysis. Its difficult when we are emotionally tied to the issue and have an insiders view.

                    But now to be accused of being part of the problem – that does too many people a disservice.

                    True. If we look at how second wave feminism was fostered with the same discourses which pushed neoliberalism, we might find that all your time and energy actually assisted neoliberalism. That might be a disservice to you. But I’d say its a disservice to all women if we don’t look at why feminism has not produced the results we hoped it would.

                    I also am not assuming so much, as reading the discourse re-a “masculinist backlash”. It often reads to me as yet another younger generation kicking against the parent generation as being the perpetrator of all ills, and especially from a white male perspective.

                    You know what is just as bad as being a racist or sexist?…falsely slinging those accusations on others. Yes, that fucks me off.
                    This discussion started as a general critique of what happened to left wing politics. I understand that the discussion within the Left is a little more than a boomer-centric echo-chamber, traditionally, the Left have not only silencing youth, but also gleefully put the boot in.
                    According to you I know nothing about 2nd wave feminism. Bullshit. You are the one who views the history of 2nd wave feminism from a feminist perspective. That’s as stupid as viewing neoliberalism from a libertarian perspective and claiming ‘nothing to see here, carry on, its OK’.

                    The sad thing is that when the issue of generational inequality is raised, you silence it with the same blindness and the same rhetoric that you’ve spent most of your life challenging.
                    As you fought for women’s rights or Maori rights, I’m sure that those on the Left (old white dudes) tried to shoot down your argument with the false claim that these side issues are a diversion from real issue – class.

                    Karol, your position now is as a gatekeeper of the Left, you now hold voice within the Left (which has accepted ethnic and gender issues as worthy Left values). However, when the younger people point out that there are inherent structural oppression against younger people, as well as silencing of an age cohort following a statistical bulge…you replicate the actions of that stupid old generation that excluded your voice. I’m sure you didn’t have to think too long about the argument and rhetoric you apply to generational inequality, because you spent years fighting against it.

                    I want to leave two points, one regarding generational inequality, the other 2nd wave feminism.

                    The debate on generational inequality is your friend and your tool. Use it, explore it, shape it and announce it. Generational inequality is easily proved, and it can be a powerful illuminator of the problems with neoliberalism. It is not a threat to feminism, it is not a threat to the Left. It is another way to point out gender and economic inequalities.

                    Put simply, I ain’t impressed with the current gender inequalities in society and I know you aren’t either. So if someone deconstructs 2nd wave feminism, that does not mean they are anti-feminist or sexist. Maybe I’m just fucked off that the best option open to most of my friends is to get pregnant and pretend to not know the father. I’ve never scoffed at 2nd wave feminism, but I ain’t gonna avoid looking at reasons why we are in our current situation.

                    I’ll be over on Daily Blog interacting with the Gen Xers. I’ll be laughing at 2nd wave feminism and moaning about greedy old people

              • Populuxe1

                When did feminism cease to be an evolving discourse, karol? You treat it as though it were set and strone and only you and the theorists you approve of have the right to determine or analyse it – like the Pope speaking ex cathedra. You might as well have just pointed the finger and accused fatty of mansplaining or declared it all secret womyn’s business. Also this “collectivism” of yours tends to ignore that the experience of oppression is quite diverse and individual. I’m a white male, sure, but I’m also gay. A brown woman is likely going to be twice as oppressed than you, but you as an educated white woman (yes, I know I’m assuming you’re white) are less oppressed than an uneducated white woman. It’s entirely disengenious that one size fits all. Capitalism also skews things again.

            • Puddleglum 33.2.1.2.1.3

              Thanks to all of the above for a very interesting discussion that I think is getting to the nub of something very important.

              Neo-LIBERALISM is called that for a reason. Liberalism is a particular view of how freedom is to be attained – through the absence of any constraining, institutionalised force on the individual. Liberalism – beyond an analysis of ‘property rights’ – is more or less absent of any contentful prescriptions.

              No-one that I know is in favour of not being free. But there are, of course, other ways of understanding what freedom comprises and how it is generated. I don’t just mean the ‘freedom from’/ ‘freedom to’ debate in political science (both of those are individualistically framed). There is a further option that, I had always assumed, distinguished the ‘left’.

              That option is that freedom, fulfilment and all those very human ‘goods’ are best achieved through ‘autonomous cooperation’ – with both emphasised. Autonomy (the liberal utopia) is achieved within cooperative settings, not individually by being ‘left alone’ to follow your preferences through exchange with no (moral or structural) need to consider consequences on others (‘buyer beware’).

              In some ways it is an act of faith that, given equality and equity, we will find ourselves treating each others’ rights to live in particular chosen ways with respect because we structurally depend upon us all cooperating over substantive, material matters that affect us all. It means that we invest everything in a fully democratic structure (non-hierarchical) and that that structure trumps economic freedom largely because economic activity is almost inevitably a collective matter for humans. Economic freedom cannot trump democracy.

              Part of the issue, of course, is that ‘democracy’ is so incomplete that when it does trump economic freedom it often does so in an arbitrary, cronyistic manner that favours those who dominate the political/economic system (witness the central city re-development of Christchurch). That’s why I understand the impulse behind right wing libertarianism without agreeing with it. Rather than push for greater economic freedom to achieve human freedom, I think it more sensible to push for greater democracy to achieve human freedom (with the option of opting out of one collective and joining another – which apparently happened quite frequently between hunter gatherer bands in many instances).

              The kind of second wave feminism that karol describes (thanks karol!) is sophisticated and ideologically aware. From what I can understand, it realised that both (individual and collective) autonomy and cooperative/collective political practice were needed for women to be fully free. That is an advance for developing a more truly democratic order.

              Yes, neoliberalism co-opted aspects of that but it is hardly a regrettable development from a ‘progressive’ perspective.

              Thanks to all for the efforts put into this thread.

              • Rogue Trooper

                epilogue
                despite the ‘consumption-led’ “economic upturn”- cheaper imports and housing- Westpac economists warn of New Zealanders returning to their high-spending ways,
                particularly OLDER HOUSEHOLDS. Going for broke, I would suggest, in view of what ‘their’ economic freedoms have wrought upon society and the environment; suggesting another brick in the foundation of “inter-generational” conflict (theft) theses.

              • Arfamo

                Isn’t the problem with discussing identity politics that fundamentally all politics is identity politics and the current system simply exploits the confusion of objectives and labels and academic debate that entertains the intellectual elites and just perpetuates itself?

                Where is the well-argued debate in society about what the fundamental role of a democratic government should be, how accountable it should be, what “democracy” really is, (e.g complete freedom on the interent, as advocated by Anonymous – is it ok for paedophiles, terrorists, malignant hackers, criminals, scamsters, to thrive on the net) what the role of a national (and international) economy should be, what change is needed, how that change can be brought about, and (from our own experience) how any gains in freedoms and economic advancement for all can be prevented from simply becoming perverted by those of original high ideals who have achieved power but invariably become seduced and corrupted by it and by their own self-interest and self-preservation.

                We live in interesting times.

  29. pollywog 34

    Is there a need for younger generations to revolt ?

    Yes.

    Do we know what needs revolting against ?

    Yes. The “system” (political and financial)

    Do we know what the most effective form of revolution is that will bring about effective , lasting change ?

    Going by the Arab Springs and Occupy Movements…No, not really.

    Do we want violent revolution, blood in the streets, elites up against the wall, anarchy and populist leaders without a realistic, sustainable vision for a post revolution future ?

    Might be fun in the short term but no, that’s never achieved any real progress.

    What do we need first and fore most before we start revolting willy nilly ?

    Leaders !…where and who are they ?

  30. Rogue Trooper 35

    Come on all of you big strong men
    Uncle Sam needs your help again
    he’s got himself in a terrible jam
    way down yonder in Afghanistan
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBdeCxJmcAo

Important links

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Speaker: On the upland road
    I spent the first two weeks after the release of Nicky Hager’s book Dirty Politics in a state of anger – how dare our elected leaders and their friends treat us like this? How dare they try to control the...
    Public Address | 02-09
  • Is the baseline transport programme actually OK?
    In the Mayor’s proposal for council’s 10 year budget, there is discussion around how two transport programmes will be consulted on early next year once a draft budget has been fully formulated: A programme which is based on the funding envelope...
    Transport Blog | 02-09
  • Put up or shut up
    It has been amusing to watch John Key attempt to wriggle his way out of the Dirty Politics saga. At first he tried to pretend there was nothing going on and even though he hadn't read Nicky Hager's book, claimed...
    The Jackal | 02-09
  • Collins inquiry at best a Band-Aid, a permanent fix is needed
    The Public Service Association (PSA) says the inquiry into Judith Collins’ behaviour must be accompanied by a process to restore...
    PSA | 02-09
  • On arguing by analogy
    Climate blogs and comment threads are full of ‘arguments by analogy’. Depending on what ‘side’ one is on, climate science is either like evolution/heliocentrism/quantum physics/relativity or eugenics/phrenology/Ptolemaic cosmology/phlogiston. Climate contrarians are either like flat-earthers/birthers/moon-landing hoaxers/vaccine-autism linkers or Galileo/stomach ulcer-Heliobacter proponents/Wegner/Copernicus....
    Real Climate | 02-09
  • Unforced variations: September 2014
    This month’s open thread. People could waste time rebunking predictable cherry-picked claims about the upcoming Arctic sea ice minimum, or perhaps discuss a selection of 10 climate change controversies from ICSU… Anything! (except mitigation)....
    Real Climate | 02-09
  • Greens’ commitment to pay equity welcomed by workers
    The Public Service Association (PSA) says the 58,000 workers they represent will benefit from the announcement by the Green Party...
    PSA | 02-09
  • John Key’s Top 69 Lies: Today no. 18 – Capital gains tax will put u...
      Capital Gains Tax Fact Check  The Reality Labour’s CGT only applies to the sale of assets, it will exclude the family home, and will not push up rents. Every New Zealander should pay their fair share of tax. It is...
    Arch Rival | 02-09
  • Guest Author: The Rock Fuels NZ Roastbuster Rape Culture
    - by Jessie Hume . . This is making me feel pretty uncomfortable. Here we have an instance of Jono and Ben posing like “exposed celebrities”. But do you know what I’m seeing? I’m seeing two dudes who basically “roasted”...
    Frankly Speaking | 02-09
  • Dunne won’t read ‘muck-raking’ Dirty Politics
    .   . Full story: Dunne won’t read ‘muck-raking’ Dirty Politics Because as we all know, ignorance is such bliss. Eh, Mr Dunne? . . = fs =Filed under: On A Lighter Note Tagged: Dirty Politics, Peter Dunne...
    Frankly Speaking | 02-09
  • Whale spotted off Wellington
    .   . Full story: Whale spotted off Wellington Shouldn’t that be a “Southern Right Wing Whale”?! . . = fs =Filed under: On A Lighter Note Tagged: Whaleoil...
    Frankly Speaking | 02-09
  • A Not-So-Foreign Country
    The Shadow Of The Past: The only positive aspect of Watergate was the way in which the venerable US Constitution was able to defuse what could have exploded into a full-blown “legitimation crisis”. Is New Zealand’s unwritten and historically untested...
    Bowalley Road | 02-09
  • An admission of failure; too little, too late
    The Prime Minister announced today that if re-elected, after the election, he would look to merge CERA into the department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. This is an admission that the CERA model – authoritarian, dictatorial and deaf to the...
    Rebuilding Christchurch | 02-09
  • Stuart’s 100 #18 A Great South Rd?
    18: A Great South Road? What if Great South Road truly was great? The creation of Great South Road was one of the great formational moves in the early expansion of Auckland. Starting in 1861, some 12,000 soldiers built the...
    Transport Blog | 02-09
  • New Fisk
    Israel’s ‘land for lives’ is theft. Pure and simple...
    No Right Turn | 02-09
  • Waiariki: Marae digi poll has Flavell losing support, Sykes up.
    The Marae digi poll on the Waiariki electorate came out yesterday - for what it's worth. They are notoriously unreliable.  The landline polls are increasingly picking up older householders and skewing to the middle class establishment that still maintain a...
    Tumeke | 02-09
  • Spying on their allies again
    The Intercept has a major new story about the US's intelligence relationship with Turkey, and how the US monitors the Kurds for the Turkish government, even helping them target hit squads. But at the same time as they're spying for...
    No Right Turn | 02-09
  • The Press Debate – tonight, livestreamed on Stuff
    The second big head-to-head between David Cunliffe and John Key will be livestreamed on Stuff from 7pm! The Press leaders’ debate is where Key pulled his “show me the money” quote in 2011. And he’s going to be taking this...
    Boots Theory | 02-09
  • Not business as usual: Key’s leadership style & the bloggersphere
    Two weeks ago I suggested this could turn into New Zealand's first policy-free election; my instinct seems to have been proven correct. While policy debates are still occuring around the fringes, there is no way now that with just two...
    Pundit | 02-09
  • Rock Star or Rock Bottom
    There was a story in the Press yesterday about 14 people sharing a small 3 bedroom house in Hornby after a family of 6 lost their rental and all their (uninsured) possessions in a fire and had to move in...
    Te Whare Whero | 02-09
  • Greens workers policy supported by union movement
    The CTU is supporting the Green Party’s policy launched today focused on improving life for working New Zealanders. Photo:  ...
    CTU | 02-09
  • To drive or not to drive, that is the question: generation Y research
    This is a guest post from Dr Debbie Hopkins, a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the University of Otago – she’s currently doing some research for the NZTA on non-drivers. Read on to find out more and see if you might...
    Transport Blog | 02-09
  • Reclaiming the Third Way & why it’s not a sell-out
    During a visit he made to Melbourne in 2000, I joined some colleagues to sit down for a chat with Dick Morris, the self-proclaimed strategic mastermind who claimed to have single-handedly rescued Bill Clinton's flailing presidency and coined the term...
    Pundit | 02-09
  • The Greens on work and wages
    The Greens released their work and wages policy today, targeted firmly at improving living standards and reducing inequality. The headline policy is an immediate increase in the minimum wage to $16/hour, followed by annual increases to reach $18/hour in 2017....
    No Right Turn | 01-09
  • America, America ….
    We hear a lot about American exceptionalism – what they lead the world in, what they think they lead the world in, and their unshakeable belief in their god-given right to do so.  The USA has the highest per capita ownership of...
    Te Whare Whero | 01-09
  • The caretaker convention and elections
    There was an interesting discussion on Twitter yesterday between Dean Knight and Graeme Edgeler about the caretaker convention and elections. Dean highlighted the fact that Key had a perfect right to call for whatever sort of inquiry he felt like,...
    No Right Turn | 01-09
  • A clayton’s inquiry
    That's the only way to describe John Key's proposed "inquiry" into Judith Collins:An inquiry into the events surrounding Judith Collins' downfall will not examine the relationship between her and Whale Oil blogger Cameron Slater or the Serious Fraud Office investigation...
    No Right Turn | 01-09
  • YahooNZ’s news polls
    Another YahooNZ poll': September 1st"Do you think Dirty Politics is distracting from more important issues this election?" Results at the time of writing this:Yes. absolutely77%  (5622)  No, it's important22%  (1619)   I'm not sure1%  (66)    The capitals on 'Dirty Politics' clearly...
    Te Whare Whero | 01-09
  • Vote Choice: ACT’s Jamie Whyte – a ‘Narrow’ Ally?
    This week, the Vote Choice series looks at Dr Jamie Whyte, the leader of the ACT party, and his views on abortion and decriminalisation. A google search of Whyte and abortion provides little in the way of his opinion but...
    ALRANZ | 01-09
  • Who is Carrick Graham?
    Carrick GrahamIn damage control since their campaign officially began derailing a couple of weeks ago, things took another terrible turn for the National party last weekend. Not only did the corrupt Judith Collins have to resign on Saturday because of...
    The Jackal | 01-09
  • Judith, Cam, and the phantom FB messages
    I see that Judith Collins and Cameron Slater believe the hacker has simply invented Facebook conversations between the two of them. Insitnctively I don;t believe the denials, but I have an idea that could help Collins clear her name. Facebook...
    Polity | 01-09
  • Judith, Cameron, and the phantom FB messages
    I see that Judith Collins and Cameron Slater believe the hacker has simply invented Facebook conversations between the two of them. Insitnctively I don;t believe the denials, but I have an idea that could help Collins clear her name. Facebook...
    Polity | 01-09
  • Matthew Hooton’s dirty tactics
    Outside observers might be watching the National party unravelling and wondering what the hell is going on. This is especially the case with one particular right wing propagandist, Matthew Hooton.At first Hooton’s behaviour might seem a bit strange. He has...
    The Jackal | 01-09
  • Is Petrol cheap?
    I don’t tend to look at the motoring section of the Herald much however every now and then something stands out - often for its comedy value - and that was the case yesterday in an article titled Motoring Mythbusting. The article covers off...
    Transport Blog | 01-09
  • People of Turkey, Ukraine, I salute you!
    For some reason, I seem to be getting a lot of visits from Turkey.  Or perhaps that's just where IP address disguisers are presenting as at the moment.  But I like to thin the Ruritanian nature of New Zealand politics...
    Left hand palm | 01-09
  • The health pillar of good government
    Whatever the result on September 20, John Key will start the next term with diminished personal authority. Our democracy’s health is also diminished. Key’s inch-by-inch retreat to the point where his imagined leftwing conspiracy turned into a rightwing one and...
    Colin James | 01-09
  • Keystone XL: Oil Markets and Emissions
    Estimates of the incremental emission effects of individual oil sands projects like the Keystone XL (KXL) pipeline are sensitive to assumptions about the response of world markets and alternative transportation options. A recent Nature Climate Change paper by Erickson and...
    Skeptical Science | 01-09
  • Union to support Work and Income staff following tragedy
    The Public Service Association (PSA) says today’s shooting at a Work and Income office is a tragedy, and nobody should...
    PSA | 01-09
  • We no longer have a Prime Minister
    Having just listened to an item featuring John Key on Checkpoint (National Radio) I now have to announce that New Zealand has no-one at present performing the proper role of Prime Minister. John Key could not have acted less Prime Ministerial if he had...
    Political Scientist | 01-09
  • We no longer have a Prime Minister
    Having just listened to an item featuring John Key on Checkpoint (National Radio) I now have to announce that New Zealand has no-one at present performing the proper role of Prime Minister. John Key could not have acted less Prime Ministerial if he had...
    The Political Scientist | 01-09
  • Ashburton, 1 September 2014.
    Crime Scene: The murder of two WINZ workers and the wounding of another in Ashburton adds another tragic chapter to New Zealand's grim history of lone men committing multiple murders.I NEVER WENT BACK to Aramoana after the killing. I had...
    Bowalley Road | 01-09
  • Radio NZ: Politics with Matthew Hooton and Mike Williams – 1 September 20...
    . - Politics on Nine To Noon - . - Monday 1 September 2014 - . - Kathryn Ryan, with Matthew Hooton & Mike Williams - . Today on Politics on Nine To Noon, Mike Williams and Matthew Hooton on...
    Frankly Speaking | 01-09
  • Radio NZ: Politics with Matthew Hooton and Mike Williams – 1 September 20...
    . - Politics on Nine To Noon - . - Monday 1 September 2014 - . - Kathryn Ryan, with Matthew Hooton & Mike Williams - . Today on Politics on Nine To Noon, Mike Williams and Matthew Hooton on...
    Frankly Speaking | 01-09
  • John Key’s Top 69 Lies, Today no. 19 – The SkyCity deal doesn’t m...
     SkyCity deal doesn't mean more pokies – Key SkyCity is understood to be seeking law changes allowing 300 to 500 additional pokie machines and wider use of technology which would increase gambling revenue in return for building the $350 million facility...
    Arch Rival | 01-09
  • Will an inquiry make it all better?
    So far, the Dirty Politics book has generated two inquiries. The first is into the release  of information from the SIS to a certain blogger whom we don't name. The second is into Judith Collins' alleged involvement with an alleged...
    Pundit | 01-09
  • We Play Dirty at the Climate Talks Too: New Zealand’s Dirty Politics of C...
    This guest post is by David Tong, an Auckland based community lawyer working on his Master’s in Law on the UN climate talks. He chairs the P3 Foundation and co-chairs the Aotearoa New Zealand Human Rights Lawyers Association, and last...
    Hot Topic | 01-09
  • The trouble with liars
    A group of habitual liars try to get their story straight....
    Imperator Fish | 01-09
  • Photo of the day: Mitre 10′s bike parking
    The other weekend I went to the Mitre 10 Mega in Wairau Road to pick up some building supplies. To my surprise, they’ve put in a bike rack near the store entrance. I’m not sure how much use it’s going...
    Transport Blog | 01-09
  • TEU VICTORIA UNIVERSITY BRANCH NEWSLETTER – SEPTEMBER 2014
      TEU Victoria University Branch Newsletter – September 2014 In this issue: AGM-a-calling: Welcome from the Branch President Ask them Anything: TEU Presidential Election Election Special: Union members could make the difference Election Special: 3 Reasons to Vote Bringing Back Dignity:...
    Tertiary Education Union | 01-09
  • Stumbling towards Power?
    Let's be honest about it.  Labour have absolutely nothing to celebrate just now.The last few days have been fantastic for the left and in particular for a certain Mr D Cunliffe.  But before we get too deliriously joyous, let's face...
    Left hand palm | 01-09
  • There’s Only One Poll That Counts
    “One of the oldest sayings in politics is that there is only one poll that counts – the one on Election Day – and that’s the one that I am focusing on” remarked the MANA Movement candidate for Waiariki, Annette...
    Mana | 02-09
  • Local communities critical to Civil Defence
    Labour will focus on empowering New Zealand communities to be resilient in Civil Defence disasters, says Labour’s Civil Defence spokesperson Clare Curran. Announcing Labour’s Civil Defence policy, she says that Labour will work with schools, voluntary agencies and community groups...
    Labour | 02-09
  • Labour looks to long-life passports, gambling harm review
    A return to 10 year passports and a review of gambling laws are highlights of Labour’s Internal Affairs policy released today. “More than 15,000 New Zealanders signed a petition calling on the Government to revert to the 10 year system...
    Labour | 02-09
  • MANA Movement Leadership stands strong behind Internet MANA relationship
    “There is now, and always will be, a range of views about many issues within our movement and members are free to express them, but Georgina’s views on Kim Dotcom are not shared by the MANA Movement leadership or the vast majority...
    Mana | 01-09
  • Rebuilding the New Zealand Defence Force
    A Labour Government will make it a priority to rebuild the capacity of the Defence Force to carry out the tasks expected of it, says Labour’s Defence Spokesperson Phil Goff. Releasing Labour’s Defence Policy today he said the NZDF has...
    Labour | 01-09
  • Speech to Canterbury Chamber of Commerce
    Today I'm going to talk about our policy package to upgrade and grow our economy and how we turn that growth into a foundation for a decent and fair society. But first I want to address the issue of our...
    Labour | 01-09
  • Commission of Inquiry must have bipartisan support
    The Labour Party is drafting terms of reference for a Commission of Inquiry, Labour’s Shadow Attorney-General David Parker says. “It is abundantly clear there is a need for an independent Commission of Inquiry, chaired by a High Court Judge, into...
    Labour | 01-09
  • Rapid Transit to unclog Christchurch
    Labour will build a 21st century Rapid Transit system for Christchurch, says Labour Leader David Cunliffe. “The long delayed recovery of Christchurch hinges on a modern commuter system for the city. “We will invest $100 million in a modern rail plan...
    Labour | 31-08
  • Labour’s commitment to public broadcasting
    A Labour Government will set up a working group to re-establish a public service television station as part of our commitment to ensuring New Zealand has high quality free-to-air local content. “We will set up a working group to report...
    Labour | 31-08
  • A new deal for the conservation estate
    The health of our economy depends on New Zealand preserving and restoring our land, air, water and indigenous wildlife, says Labour’s Conservation spokesperson Ruth Dyson. Announcing Labours Conservation policy, she said that there will be a comprehensive plan to restore...
    Labour | 31-08
  • Labour’s plan to end homelessness
    Labour has a comprehensive approach to end homelessness starting with the provision of emergency housing for 1000 people each year and putting an end to slum conditions in boarding houses, Labour Leader David Cunliffe says. “Labour believes that homelessness is not...
    Labour | 30-08
  • Labour: A smarter approach to justice
    A Labour Government will improve the justice system to ensure it achieves real public safety, provides equal access to justice and protects human rights, Labour’s Justice spokesperson Andrew Little says. “Our approach is about tackling the root causes of crime, recognising...
    Labour | 29-08
  • Labour to foster Kiwi love of sport and the great outdoors
    A Labour Government will promote physical activity, back our top athletes and help foster Kiwis’ love of the great outdoors by upgrading tramping and camping facilities. Trevor Mallard today released Labour’s sports and recreation policy which will bring back a...
    Labour | 29-08
  • Pacific languages recognised under Labour
    Labour will act to recognise the five main Pacific languages in New Zealand including through the education system, said Pacific Affairs spokesperson Su’a William Sio. Announcing Labour’s Pacific Island policy he said that there must be a strong commitment to...
    Labour | 29-08
  • No healthy economy without a healthy environment
    Labour recognises that we cannot have a healthy economy without a healthy environment, says Environment spokesperson Moana Mackey announcing Labour’s environment policy. “New Zealand’s economy has been built on the back of the enormous environmental wealth we collectively enjoy as...
    Labour | 28-08
  • Better protection, fairer deal for Kiwi consumers
    Tackling excessive prices, ensuring consumers have enough information to make ethical choices and giving the Commerce Commission more teeth are highlights of Labour’s Consumer Rights policy. “The rising cost of living is a concern for thousands of Kiwi families. A...
    Labour | 28-08
  • Media Advisory – MANA Movement Candidate for Waiariki Annette Sykes, Waia...
    Media are advised that this coming weekend, the MANA Movement Candidate for Waiariki, Annette Sykes, will be on the Internet MANA Road Trip within the electorate of Waiariki. Speakers confirmed are Annette Sykes, Hone Harawira, John Minto, Laila Harre and Kim...
    Mana | 27-08
  • Internet MANA – Waiariki Road Trip: 29, 30, 31 Aug 2014
    The Internet MANA Road Trip hits Waiariki this weekend. It would be great if all MANA members in Waiariki could especially attend the public meetings and show their support for our Waiariki candidate Annette Sykes. Confirmed speakers Hone Harawira (except Taupo), Annette...
    Mana | 27-08
  • First home buyers $200 a week better off with Labour
    A couple earning around $75,000 a year would be $200 a week better off buying a two bedroom terraced Labour KiwiBuild home instead of an equivalent new build under National’s housing policy, says Labour Leader David Cunliffe.  “National’s policy to...
    Labour | 26-08
  • Another Day – Another big power profit
    The latest profit announcement from Genesis Energy shows that the power company was sold for a song to the detriment of the country’s power consumers, says Labour’s Energy spokesperson David Shearer. “A net profit of $ 49.2 million follows hard...
    Labour | 26-08
  • Labour embraces the rainbow
    Labour will work hard to ensure all New Zealanders enjoy the freedom to grow up and live their lives in dignity and security. Labour’s Rainbow policy, released tonight in Wellington, focuses on International Relations, Human Rights and Education....
    Labour | 26-08
  • National gets fast and loose with the facts
    In their desperation to make it look as though they are doing something about the housing crisis, National is playing fast and loose with the facts, says Labour’s housing spokesperson Phil Twyford....
    Labour | 26-08
  • Labour will drop power prices for Kiwi families
    New Zealanders will get cheaper power prices under NZ Power, says Labour Leader David Cunliffe. “The electricity market is clearly broken. With falling demand for electricity, prices should be going down. Instead prices are going up and companies are extracting...
    Labour | 26-08
  • Labour: Promoting sustainable tourism
    Ensuring New Zealand’s clean, green status continues to be an international tourism benchmark and reviewing MBIE’s oversight of the tourism sector will be on the radar under a Labour Government. Releasing Labour’s Tourism policy today, spokesperson Darien Fenton said tourism...
    Labour | 26-08
  • Skills shortage a result of National’s complacency
    The fact that there is still a severe shortage of skilled tradespeople, despite a growth in the number of apprentices, is a result of National’s failure to plan and develop the workforce, Grant Robertson, Labour Employment, Skills and TrainingSpokesperson says."The...
    Labour | 26-08
  • How much tax does John Key pay compared to a minimum wage worker?? – Mint...
    MANA Movement Economic Justice spokesperson John Minto is calling for a radical overhaul of New Zealand’s taxation system with calculations showing that a minimum wage worker pays a ten times higher tax rate than the Prime Minister. o Minimum wage...
    Mana | 25-08
  • Labour’s culture of science and innovation
    Labour will create a culture of science and innovation in New Zealand that will be the envy of the world, says Labour’s Innovation, Research and Development spokesperson Megan Woods. “Labour believes that good science lies at the heart of a...
    Labour | 25-08
  • Improving life for our new New Zealanders
    New Zealand’s international standing as a community that encourages and fosters all cultures will be bolstered under a Labour Government with an upgrade of the present Office of Ethnic Affairs to a Ministry. Releasing Labour’s Ethnic Affairs policy, spokesperson Phil...
    Labour | 25-08
  • South Auckland housing crisis
    National’s HomeStart package is nothing more than a political stunt designed to beguile South Auckland voters, said Labour’s Pacific Affairs spokesperson Su’a William Sio. “Few working Pasifika and Maori workers in South Auckland will be able to buy their own...
    Labour | 25-08
  • Home buyer subsidy discredited in Oz
    Treasury advised against National’s policy of ramping up home buyer subsidies after it was discredited in Australia because it pushed house prices even higher, Labour’s Housing spokesperson Phil Twyford says. “Documents released under the OIA (attached) show Treasury advised the...
    Labour | 25-08
  • Nursing hours explain turnover and high-stress culture
    A staff survey supports concerns nursing staff at Dunedin Hospital are under increasing pressure and that the emergency department is in a critical state, says Labour’s Associate Health Spokesperson David Clark.  “An ED nursing survey at Dunedin found that 80...
    Labour | 24-08
  • Underhand tactics prove case for axing donations
    Revelations that schools are using underhand tactics to coerce donations from cash-strapped parents further highlights the need for Labour's plan to increase funding so they aren't dependent on contributions from parents, Labour's Education spokesperson Chris Hipkins says. “By law New...
    Labour | 24-08
  • National applies band-aid to housing crisis
    The Government’s flagship housing announcement is a band-aid approach that will push up prices rather than solve the housing crisis, says Labour Leader David Cunliffe. “House sales to first home buyers have collapsed as a direct result of the Government’s...
    Labour | 24-08
  • Climate change focus on the now for the future
    A Labour Governmentwill put in place a comprehensive climate change strategy focusing on bothmitigation and adaptation, establish an independent Climate Commission andimplement carbon budgeting, says Labour Climate Change spokesperson MoanaMackey."This is about future-proofing our economy. Making the transition to alow-carbon...
    Labour | 24-08
  • Labour’s 21st century transport pledge
    The next Labour-led Government will create a 21st century transport system for New Zealand that promotes the most efficient and sustainable combination of transport options, says Labour’s Transport spokesperson Phil Twyford. “Labour will rebalance the Government's transport spending away from...
    Labour | 23-08
  • Housing under National: the facts
    1.       House prices in Auckland Council valuations indicate Auckland house prices have gone up by one-third over the last three years. (Auckland Council) The average Auckland house price has gone up by nearly $225,000 since 2008, up over $75,000 in...
    Labour | 23-08
  • Labour irons out low income tax issue
    The increasing casualisation of work has led to many New Zealand families being disadvantaged through the tax they pay, Labour Leader David Cunliffe says. "Many low paid workers are having to work two or three jobs to make ends meet...
    Labour | 22-08
  • Cornered Government comes out swinging
    The National Government is so desperate to keep its dead-in-the-water expert teachers policy alive, it has refused to rule out forcing schools to participate through legislation, Labour’s Education spokesperson Chris Hipkins says. “John Key today attacked the Educational Institute for...
    Labour | 22-08
  • Pacific people continue to go backwards under National
    A report from Victoria University highlights the fact that Pacific people are continuing to go backwards under a National Government, said Labour’s Pacific Affairs spokesperson Su’a William Sio.  “The report shows the largest inequality increases were in smoking, obesity, tertiary...
    Labour | 22-08
  • Wellington transport plan needs to keep moving
    The failure of the Transport Agency to properly look at alternatives to the Basin Reserve flyover is not a good reason for further delays to improving transport in Wellington, Labour MPs Grant Robertson and Annette King say. “The Board of...
    Labour | 22-08
  • Labour’s focus on inequality, kids and better job prospects
    Tackling child poverty and removing barriers to people working part time to enhance their prospects of moving into a fulltime job are highlights of Labour’s Social Development policy. Releasing the policy today, spokesperson Sue Moroney said while part-time work was...
    Labour | 21-08
  • Political staff should give answers under oath
    The Inspector General of Security and Intelligence should use her full statutory powers to question witnesses under oath about the leak of SIS information, says Labour MP Phil Goff. “Leakage of confidential information from the SIS for political purposes is...
    Labour | 21-08
  • High dollar, hands-off Govt sends workers to dole queue
    The loss of up to 100 jobs at Croxley stationery in Auckland is devastating news for their families and the local Avondale community, Labour’s Employment, Skills and Training spokesperson Grant Robertson says. “The company’s inability to compete in international markets...
    Labour | 21-08
  • National’s flagship education policy dead in the water
    National’s plan to create executive principals and expert teachers is effectively dead in the water with news that 93 percent of primary teachers have no confidence in the scheme, Labour’s Education spokesperson Chris Hipkins says. “The fact that teachers are...
    Labour | 21-08
  • Dunedin will be a knowledge and innovation centre under Labour
    Dunedin will become a knowledge and innovation centre under a Labour Government that will back local businesses, support technology initiatives and fund dynamic regional projects, Labour Leader David Cunliffe says. “Nowhere has the National Government’s short-sightedness been more apparently than...
    Labour | 21-08
  • Inquiry into SIS disclosures the right decision
    Labour MP Phil Goff says the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security has done the right thing by launching an inquiry into the disclosure of SIS documents about a meeting between himself and the agency’s former director-general. “This inquiry is necessary...
    Labour | 20-08
  • Labour – supporting and valuing carers and the cared for
    Placing real value on our elderly and the people who care for them will be a priority for a Labour Government, Labour Leader David Cunliffe says. Releasing Labour’s Senior Citizens policy today David Cunliffe promised that a Labour Government would...
    Labour | 20-08
  • By Hoki! It’s Labour’s fisheries policy
    A Labour Government will protect the iconic Kiwi tradition of fishing by improving access to the coast, protecting the rights of recreational fishers and reviewing snapper restrictions, Labour’s Fisheries spokesperson Damien O’Connor says. “Catching a fish from the rocks, beach...
    Labour | 20-08
  • Mighty River – Mighty Profits – Mighty hard to swallow
    Mighty River Power’s profit increase of 84 per cent is simply outrageous, says Labour’s Energy spokesperson David Shearer. “Demand for electricity is flat or declining yet the company has made enormous profits. It is the latest power company to celebrate...
    Labour | 19-08
  • Collins’ actions were wrong, not unwise
    John Key’s moral compass remains off-kilter as he cannot bring himself to declare Judith Collins’ actions outright wrong, not simply ‘unwise’, said Labour MP Grant Robertson. “Under pressure John Key is finally shifting his stance but his failure to condemn...
    Labour | 19-08
  • The Daily Blog 2014 progressive voter guide – who to vote for to change ...
    If you want to know how to vote in a way to change this Government,  here is the electorate by electorate guide on how to strategically vote to kick National out of office. There are two votes. Electorate vote and Party...
    The Daily Blog | 02-09
  • Are Cameron Slater and Judiith Collins bare-faced liars?
    . . Are Cameron Slater and Judith Collins both bare-faced liars? Both of them. Liars? Here is why I ask… In the latest revelations, information disclosed by Rawshark/Whaledump to the NZ Herald alleges in further leaked sensitive information from  ...
    The Daily Blog | 02-09
  • What has surprised me most about the Ashburton WINZ shootings
    The terrible deaths at a WINZ office in Ashburton took us all by surprise. Staunch poverty campaigner Sue Bradford commented before the deaths were known and was attacked by waves of twitterarti who knew best. Sue apologised but her wider...
    The Daily Blog | 02-09
  • GUEST BLOG: Kiri Hannifin  – Make domestic violence an election issue
    Violence against women and children continues to be a profound issue in this country.  Despite the stellar efforts of thousands of grass roots workers to support victims of violence every day, we cannot seem to stem the tide. The past...
    The Daily Blog | 02-09
  • Factchecking Key’s Leaders debate claims
    There were so many questionable facts Key threw at Cunliffe in last nights debate that I emailed a few contacts to ask if they were true. Here is the very long list of things Key said that simply were not...
    The Daily Blog | 02-09
  • August Blog stats – TDB closing in on Kiwiblog – our final election con...
    The August blog stats are in, and The Daily Blog retains our position as the largest left wing blog in NZ with 416 374 visits last month and 667 411. Kiwi Blog who has been operating for a decade with...
    The Daily Blog | 02-09
  • GUEST BLOG: Curwen Rolinson – New Zealand First: Coalition of the Willing...
    There is, right now, an absolute metric truck-tonne of misinformation, lies, and willful distortion flying about on social media, in the blogosphere and even in the media and corridors of power about New Zealand First’s coalition position. Some of this...
    The Daily Blog | 02-09
  • Jeremy Wells’ Mike Hosking rant on Radio Hauraki: Today, Judith Collins i...
    Jeremy Wells’ Mike Hosking on Radio Hauraki...
    The Daily Blog | 02-09
  • The Press Leaders Debate – proof a newspaper can kill the internet
    No more beersies for you Mr Key. Seriously – was the Prime Minister drunk during this debate? I am so sickened by what passed as a Leaders debate, I will make this review short and vicious. Everyone involved in putting...
    The Daily Blog | 02-09
  • Voting starts tomorrow!
    On the telly, in the papers, on the Net, billboards on almost every street corner – it’s hard to miss the fact that there’s an election coming up. Everyone’s trying to win your vote on Election Day, September 20, (this...
    The Daily Blog | 02-09
  • Collins inquiry a whitewash before it has even started
    The farce whitewash that Key is trying to push through here for the inquiry into Judith Collins role in a hit on the SFO should enrage any NZer, regardless of how they vote. Whaleoil won’t be forced to appear, it’s...
    The Daily Blog | 02-09
  • Press Leaders Debate – Round 2 – 7pm tonight
    This debate is live in a Town Hall, Key has done well at these in the past, but since the hate politics exposed in Dirty Politics, expect real fury directed at Key. My guess is that Key will attempt to use whatever he...
    The Daily Blog | 02-09
  • MANA hit speed wobbles – why Annette Sykes will win Waiariki
    MANA are my favourites. But of late, their transition from crawling to sprinting has hit some speed wobbles. Hone’s and Pam’s aggressive attitude towards the media recently is very understandable in light of how connected many of the media were to...
    The Daily Blog | 02-09
  • Soz Cam – PaknSave boycott of whaleoil continues – time to start a boyc...
    Cam is so carcinogenic now, not even his mates in the Tobacco Industry are talking to him any longer. I suspect only the Israeli Defence Force propaganda department are paying for content on whaleoil now. Cam says that PaknSave have dropped their problems...
    The Daily Blog | 02-09
  • The Rock Fuels NZ Roastbuster Rape Culture
    This is making me feel pretty uncomfortable. Here we have an instance of Jono and Ben posing like “exposed celebrities”. But do you know what I’m seeing? I’m seeing two dudes who basically “roasted” a woman online (exposed pictures of...
    The Daily Blog | 02-09
  • GUEST BLOG: Kate Davis – Why beneficiaries need advocacy
    There are times when I am wrong. I was wrong recently when someone suggested to me that AAAP should be eligible for government funding to continues its advocacy work. That was before. Before dealing with advocacy on a weekly basis...
    The Daily Blog | 01-09
  • TheDailyBlog September Political Poll Has Been Kicked Off
    The Daily Blog’s August poll has concluded and the September poll has been kicked off, asking readers: What party will you likely vote for at this year’s General Election? You will see this month’s poll in the right-hand sidebar of...
    The Daily Blog | 01-09
  • GUEST BLOG: Kelly Ellis – Jamie Whyte, leave that poor seal alone!
    Worse than showing mere lip service to Rainbow inclusion, ACT leader Jamie Whyte showed stunning arrogance when appeared at a candidates debate on rainbow issues hosted by the Auckland University Students’ Association last Thursday. The stunning hypocrisy was evident as...
    The Daily Blog | 01-09
  • Right wing can’t help but use scum
    Some people have been shocked that the traditional right wing party in New Zealand politics is so deeply embedded with scum like the blogger Whale Oil. We need not be so surprised. It takes a certain type to support the...
    The Daily Blog | 01-09
  • EXCLUSIVE: National’s Ohariu candidate admits contact by Simon Lusk
    . . Wellington, NZ, 31  August – At a meet-the-candidates public meeting in the Rongotai Electorate, National’s Ohariu candidate, Brett Hudson, confirmed that he had been approached by “a mate”, who passed on a message from  National Party operative, Simon...
    The Daily Blog | 01-09
  • Coalition for Better Broadcasting – Auckland Broadcasting Debate 2014
    Coalition for Better Broadcasting – Auckland Broadcasting Debate 2014...
    The Daily Blog | 01-09
  • Petition for Governor General of New Zealand to Investigate all the allegat...
      Now we see the inquiry will be a whitewash, that is secret, won’t be consulted with the Opposition, will have limited scope and will ignore Nicky Hager’s book, we must demand the Governor General step in and demand an...
    The Daily Blog | 01-09
  • Ashburton, 1 September 2014
    I NEVER WENT BACK to Aramoana after the killing. I had been a frequent visitor to the tiny seaside village back in the late 1970s and throughout the 80s. Its tall cliffs and broad beaches providing a colourful backdrop to...
    The Daily Blog | 01-09
  • Checkmate in 1 move – how could Slater have known what was in OIA request...
    And now we get down to the final few moves before checkmate. If the following investigation is right, how could Slater and Collins have known what was in the Secret Intelligence Service Official Information Act request that hadn’t been released...
    The Daily Blog | 01-09
  • The Edge Posts Naked Photos Of Jennifer Lawrence Without Consent
    Today the Edge website – owned by Media Works – published fully naked photographs of Jennifer Lawrence without her consent. It is not OK to publish naked media of any woman without her consent, full stop. It is absolutely disgusting...
    The Daily Blog | 01-09
  • Bomber, Laila and Maggie – a highlight from Auckland Broadcasting Debate ...
    Bomber, Laila and Maggie – a highlight from Auckland Broadcasting Debate 2014...
    The Daily Blog | 01-09
  • Jeremy Wells’ Mike Hosking rant on Radio Hauraki: Today, how good was I i...
    Jeremy Wells’ Mike Hosking on Radio Hauraki...
    The Daily Blog | 31-08
  • Maggie Barry slags Laila Harre & blogger, audience erupt
    The Coalition for Better Broadcasting held their public meeting in Auckland last night and it became a fiery shouting match when Maggie Barry decided to slag Laila Harre and me off. 250 people packed into the Pioneer Hall off High...
    The Daily Blog | 31-08
  • It has to be a full independent public inquiry and Key MUST front
      You know things are bad when images like this start appearing in the media.  It isn’t a ‘left wing conspiracy’ to point out the over whelming evidence of what is clearly a right wing conspiracy! If it looks like a conspiracy, sounds like a conspiracy...
    The Daily Blog | 31-08
  • Political Party social media stats – National playing Dirty Politics on s...
    Interesting data from friend of the blog, Marty Stewart, on social media likes and it shows an interesting question that post Dirty Politics should probably get asked…   …it’s interesting that Key has so many personal followers.  One wonders if...
    The Daily Blog | 31-08
  • The depth of the National rot and the compliance of our news media
    I’m so tired. Aren’t you? I don’t want to read the news anymore. It’s awful and I feel ashamed of it. We live in a country that people all over the world would give an arm, a leg; their life...
    The Daily Blog | 31-08
  • Conservative Party candidate links smacking ban with suicide, sexually tran...
    If Chemtrails, faked moon landings and climate change denial weren’t enough, welcome to your new Minister for Spanking,  Edward Saafi... The anti-smacking law is to blame for youth suicide, youth prostitution and even sexually-transmitted infections, a leading Conservative party candidate...
    The Daily Blog | 31-08
  • A brief word on the canonisation of Matthew Hooton
    Before we all start the canonisation of Matthew Hooton, let’s consider some home truths here shall we? While the Wellington Ruminator Blog, the blog who was previously mates with Judith Collins, now seems to have a crush on Matthew Hooton… …I...
    The Daily Blog | 31-08
  • A brief word on undercover cops in bars
    Dunedin police booze operation labelled ‘creepy’ Undercover police officers drank in Dunedin bars as part of an operation targeting liquor licensing offences. While police said the inaugural operation was a success — with most bars found compliant — the Hospitality...
    The Daily Blog | 31-08
  • Judith Collins press conference
    Judith Collins press conference...
    The Daily Blog | 31-08
  • GUEST BLOG: Angry Lawyer – Collins, Odgers, Williams and legal ethics
    We deserve better lawyers than Judith Collins Three of the worst offenders exposed in Dirty Politics are lawyers: Judith Collins, Cathy Odgers, and Jordan Williams. What Nicky Hager exposed them doing would be out of line for anyone, but from...
    The Daily Blog | 31-08
  • GUEST BLOG: Pat O’Dea – Necessary Defence
    Increasingly climate change is becoming the main fracture line between political parties. Where political parties stand on climate change defines political parties and movements like no other issue. The Mana Movement like the Maori Party it sprang from, came out...
    The Daily Blog | 31-08
  • Why it is all over for John Key
    Image: Melanie D I’ve been confident that National will lose this election and that our focus should be on what a progressive Government needs to establish as its agenda in the first 100 days. Past that point, the establishment pushes back...
    The Daily Blog | 31-08
  • A brief word to everyone who voted National in 2011
    I received this interesting email from a National Party supporter today… …let me say this to anyone who voted National last election – you should be ashamed by what has been revealed and what your vote ended up enabling but...
    The Daily Blog | 31-08
  • EXCLUSIVE: Déjà Vu All Over Again: John Ansell confirms his participation...
      THE MAN BEHIND the Iwi-Kiwi billboards that very nearly won the 2005 election for Don Brash and the National Party has confirmed his involvement in businessman John Third’s and former Act MP Owen Jennings’ campaign to drive down the...
    The Daily Blog | 31-08
  • Public Broadcasting Auckland debate 6.30pm tonight now with Colin Craig &am...
    The Coalition for Better Broadcasting debate on public broadcasting happens tonight at 6.30pm in Auckland at the Pioneer Women’s Hall, High Street, Auckland City.  In the light of Dirty Politics and the manipulation of the media, public broadcasting is more important for...
    The Daily Blog | 30-08
  • Winners & Losers in Collins sacking plus what’s the latest on Slater...
      Make no mistake, there was no way this was a resignation, it’s a face saving way out for Collins, she was sacked.  My understanding is that National internal polls are haemorrhaging and that the powers that be within National...
    The Daily Blog | 30-08
  • Third party propaganda attacks incoming Labour-led government
    . . Further to a report by Daily Blogger, Chris Trotter, on receiving information regarding planned attack-billboards, the following billboard is highly visible to traffic on the southbound lane of the Wellington motorway, just prior to the Murphy St turn-off....
    The Daily Blog | 30-08
  • Labour wins the Internet
    I’m sure I’m not the only one who tried to vote online for the leaders debate and couldn’t because the website was down. The next option was the txt vote, 75c a pop of course. So I’m not surprised that...
    The Daily Blog | 30-08
  • GUEST BLOG: Anjum Rahman – Rotherham and the need to challenge willful bl...
    I haven’t been following the events in Rotterham too closely.  I’ve read about the basic issues and the culture of silence that stopped action been taken even after complaints were made.  That culture of silence is incredibly familiar, and described...
    The Daily Blog | 30-08
  • Review: Hairspray
      Oh Hairspray! What fun! Somehow I managed to miss the movie when it came out, I had no idea really what it was about though I felt it had a vague relation to High School Musical. In retrospect, that...
    The Daily Blog | 30-08
  • Mounting global pressure against Timor-Leste’s ‘death sentence’ media...
    East Timor’s José Belo … courageous fight against ‘unconstitutional’ media law.Image: © Ted McDonnell 2014 CAFÉ PACIFIC and the Pacific Media Centre Online posted challenges to the controversial ‘press law’ nine months ago when it emerged how dangerous this draft...
    The Daily Blog | 30-08
  • GUEST BLOG: Curwen Rolinson – Spies, Lies and When Campaigns Are Fried
    Like most of the rest of the nation’s political classes, I was eagerly affixed to TV One from 12:30 on Saturday afternoon to witness the downfall of Judith Collins.Whenever we witness the crumbling of a titan of the political landscape...
    The Daily Blog | 30-08
  • BREAKING: Whaleoil crushes Crusher
    Judith ends up shooting herself A new email has been released suggesting that Collins was attempting to undermine the head of Serious Fraud Office with the help of far right hate speech merchant Cameron Slater. Unbelievable!   She has been forced...
    The Daily Blog | 30-08
  • BREAKING: Rumours Judith Collins gone at lunchtime
    Brook Sabin first of the mark with rumours Judith Collins is about to resign – PM announcing a statement at 12.30pm… …Paddy follows… …Vance confirms..   …if Collins is gone by lunchtime, it will be because the PM understands the...
    The Daily Blog | 29-08
  • Craig And Mcvicar Have Some Explaining to Do
    The Taxpayers’ Union is calling on Garth McVicar and the Conservative Party to explain how much the Party’s ‘tough on crime’ election slogan will cost. On Monday the Party was added to the Taxpayers’ Union Bribe-O-Meter , but the Conservative...
    Scoop politics | 02-09
  • Political parties to be questioned on needs of children
    Political party representatives will be asked to outline their policies in three key areas relating to the needs of children at a public forum being hosted this Friday by the University of Otago, Wellington (UOW). The event has been co-organised...
    Scoop politics | 02-09
  • Voting Period for 2014 General Election Begins Today
    The first votes for the 2014 general election will be cast today, Wednesday 3 September, as advance voting begins ahead of election day on Saturday 20 September. “Election day is September 20, but if you want, you can vote from...
    Scoop politics | 02-09
  • Independent Epsom Candidates ‘One Strike’ Crime Policy
    Best wishes to all of those who live in Epsom, Mount Eden, New Market, Remuera and of course the rest of New Zealand....
    Scoop politics | 02-09
  • Large majorities of NZ First voters would prefer Labour deal
    67% of those who voted for New Zealand First at the 2011 general election would prefer Labour to lead a coalition government if one is needed after September 20’s general election....
    Scoop politics | 02-09
  • Jointly owned urban development agency for Christchurch
    “Given the strategic importance of the Canterbury rebuild, it is logical that the transition from emergency governance arrangements is overseen by the Prime Minister’s office, but to maintain momentum in the city centre an expert development agency...
    Scoop politics | 02-09
  • Collins inquiry at best a Band-Aid, a permanent fix needed
    Collins inquiry at best a Band-Aid, a permanent fix is needed The Public Service Association (PSA) says the inquiry into Judith Collins’ behaviour must be accompanied by a process to restore the lost trust between Ministers and public servants if...
    Scoop politics | 02-09
  • Association welcomes new Chief Executive
    “The New Zealand Police Association is pleased to announce the appointment of Heather Verry to Chief Executive. Heather picks up the mantle from Chris Pentecost, who recently retired from this position,” Police Association President Greg O’Connor said...
    Scoop politics | 02-09
  • Young Voters Want Politicians to Grow Up
    Young voters want answers to the questions that directly affect them – but it seems as much as anything, they want politicians to grow up....
    Scoop politics | 02-09
  • Climate Voter election debate to get big audience
    Auckland, 2 September 2014 - Tickets to tomorrow night’s first-ever Climate Voter election debate have sold out but an online audience will also get to see the event live....
    Scoop politics | 02-09
  • The Edge show disregard for consent
    The Edge has shown complete disregard for consent, for women’s bodies and in doing so has contributed to the wider issue of rape culture in New Zealand says specialist sexual violence prevention organisation, Sexual Abuse Prevention Network. Yesterday,...
    Scoop politics | 02-09
  • The Rock is Fuelling New Zealand’s Roastbuster Rape Culture
    The Rock are still displaying without-consent images of Jennifer Lawrence and other celebrities online. They are making fun of this without-consent action, saying that she was "asking for it", etc. They appear to be supporting this kind of...
    Scoop politics | 02-09
  • HRLA Condemns Murder of Filipino Human Rights lawyer
    Attorney Rodolfo R. Felicio, a member of the National Union of Peoples Lawyers , was gunned down while working on a land dispute in Rizal, east of Manila. Two caretakers of the disputed land were also injured in the attack....
    Scoop politics | 02-09
  • SFO lays charges for procurement fraud
    Two individuals have been charged in the Auckland District Court today with Crimes Act charges laid by the Serious Fraud Office for alleged fraud against Mighty River Power Limited relating to procurement for the Company’s Southdown power station....
    Scoop politics | 02-09
  • Commitment to lifting wages good for New Zealand
    The Service and Food Workers Union has applauded the Green Party workers’ policy announced today....
    Scoop politics | 02-09
  • Sykes: There’s Only One Poll That Counts
    “One of the oldest sayings in politics is that there is only one poll that counts – the one on Election Day – and that’s the one that I am focusing on” remarked the MANA Movement candidate for Waiariki, Annette...
    Scoop politics | 02-09
  • Winston Peters Shown up by the Civilian Party
    Even the satirical 'Civilian Party' has now offered the Taxpayers’ Union more credible figures for the ' Bribe-O-Meter ' than Winston Peters’ New Zealand First. The Taxpayers’ Union Bribe-O-Meter now includes, National, Labour, the Greens,...
    Scoop politics | 02-09
  • Further criminal investigation into CTV Building collapse
    Police has today confirmed it will be advancing the criminal investigation into the collapse of the CTV building in February 2011....
    Scoop politics | 02-09
  • Greens policy to restore link between effort and reward
    The Green Party’s new workers policy articulates an alternative to wage repression and job insecurity based on restoring the link between effort and reward, according to FIRST Union. The core tenets of the policy include implementing an $18 minimum...
    Scoop politics | 02-09
  • Greens workers policy supported by union movement
    The CTU is supporting the Green Party’s policy launched today focused on improving life for working New Zealanders. “This policy shows the Greens commitment to collective bargaining as the best and fairest way to improve workers terms and conditions. It...
    Scoop politics | 02-09
  • Research Scholarships for Cannabis Treatments
    Medical cannabis research will be boosted by $140 million if the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party is elected on September 20. Pediatric epilepsy treatment will be one of the main priorities for the research scholarships....
    Scoop politics | 01-09
  • Ngai Te Rangi Change to Tribal Elections
    Ngai Te Rangi has begun a postal vote of beneficiaries to change the way representatives are elected to the two Ngai Te Rangi tribal organisations....
    Scoop politics | 01-09
  • Greens’ commitment to pay equity welcomed by workers
    The Public Service Association (PSA) says the 58,000 workers they represent will benefit from the announcement by the Green Party of a commitment to pay equity and to a living wage for core public servants and contractors....
    Scoop politics | 01-09
  • Real People Powering Real Policy
    New Zealanders from all walks of life have helped the Internet Party create a full platform of strong, progressive and realistic policies that will create a better future for everyone, says leader Laila Harré....
    Scoop politics | 01-09
  • University of Canterbury to help with forestry safety
    The University of Canterbury is to launch a new research project to make sure New Zealand’s new forestry roads are safe and are established with minimal environmental impact....
    Scoop politics | 01-09
  • Time to get serious about ending homelessness!
    New Zealand needs a comprehensive set of policies that address the housing and support needs of homeless people as well as significantly increasing the supply of affordable, good quality houses and flats....
    Scoop politics | 01-09
  • Hundreds to join domestic, sexual violence march
    Several social service providers from across New Zealand have come together to call for an end to the epidemic level of domestic and sexual violence in New Zealand....
    Scoop politics | 01-09
  • Students helped with debt repayments
    New Zealand students now living in Australia are being reminded not to ignore their student loan debt as Inland Revenue expands its latest tool to help with repayments....
    Scoop politics | 01-09
  • Launch of GenderNeutral.co.nz website
    GenderNeutral.co.nz are excited to announce the launch of their new website, GenderNeutral.co.nz ....
    Scoop politics | 01-09
  • Factory farming debaters to look chicken in the eye
    MPs participating in a panel discussion about factory farming will come face-to-face with a real live hen, rescued from the claws of the intensive farming industry. Hettie the Hen will demonstrate to the MPs what little space is afforded to...
    Scoop politics | 01-09
  • Leadership stands strong behind Internet MANA relationship
    “There is now, and always will be, a range of views about many issues within our movement and members are free to express them, but Georgina’s views on Kim Dotcom are not shared by the MANA Movement leadership or the...
    Scoop politics | 01-09
  • Personal Statement by Matthew Hooton
    Personal Statement by Matthew Hooton 1 September 2014 For Immediate Release “This morning I made comments on Radio New Zealand’s Nine to Noon programme about an attempt by staff in the Prime Minister’s Office to interfere in the appointment...
    Scoop politics | 01-09
  • The Worm turns down for John Key
    John Key struggled to coax The Worm above the line in Thursday’s Leaders Debate, according to Roy Morgan’s Reactor, the original Worm. John Key struggled to coax The Worm above the line in Thursday’s Leaders Debate, according to Roy Morgan’s...
    Scoop politics | 01-09
  • The Edge Posts Naked Photos Without Consent
    The Edge website, owned by Media Works have published fully naked photographs of Jennifer Lawrence without her consent....
    Scoop politics | 01-09
  • Statement from the Governor-General on Ashburton Shootings
    The Governor-General, Lt Gen The Rt Hon Sir Jerry Mateparae, has expressed his deep shock following the shooting of three people in Ashburton today....
    Scoop politics | 01-09
  • Update on IGIS inquiry into release of NZSIS information
    In recognition of the public interest, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, Cheryl Gwyn, took the unusual step of providing an update during the course of an inquiry and confirmed today that she would be summoning a number of individuals...
    Scoop politics | 01-09
  • An Open Government Plan developed in secrecy
    The State Services Commission sent NZ’s Open Government Action Plan to the international Open Government Partnership (OGP) Secretariat on 31 July. The countries involved in the OGP since its inception - from the UK and US to Indonesia and Brazil...
    Scoop politics | 01-09
  • KiwiRail; another year older and deeper in debt
    That is a lot of money and there are lessons that need to be learnt before we pour in another $1 billion....
    Scoop politics | 01-09
  • Fonterra China Deal Demands Safe Supply Chain
    The future success of Fonterra’s deal to sell infant formula in China [1] requires all milk it uses be safe and for Fonterra to secure its supply chain from contamination by GE DNA and pesticide residues. There is now significant...
    Scoop politics | 01-09
  • HRC praises Auckland mum for speaking out
    Race Relations Commissioner Dame Susan Devoy has praised an Auckland mother of four who went public after humiliating treatment by staff at The Warehouse....
    Scoop politics | 01-09
  • Southern DHB refers disputed issue to Serious Fraud Office
    Following advice from forensic investigation firm Beattie Varley Limited, Southern District Health Board has referred the expenditure at the centre of its long running dispute with South Link Health to the Serious Fraud Office. The parties have been...
    Scoop politics | 01-09
  • The Letter 1 September 2014
    Last night’s TVNZ Colmar Brunton poll puts the left and right 60 MPs each. United and the Maori Party say they will go with the side that gets to 61 MPs. ACT just needs just 1.3% or 28 thousand Party...
    Scoop politics | 01-09
  • Shopping Giveaway Harmless Fun For Kids
    Family First NZ is rubbishing claims by critics including Gareth Morgan that the New World ‘Little Shop’ promotion is harmful for kids, and says that kids should be allowed to be kids. “Children love acting like their parents and pretending...
    Scoop politics | 01-09
  • Red Cross launches employment service for former refugees
    New Zealand Red Cross is encouraging employers to give refugees a fresh startwith the launch of Pathways to Employment, a nationwide work assistance service....
    Scoop politics | 01-09
  • EDS welcomes Labour’s Conservation Policy
    The Environmental Defence Society has welcomed Labour’s Conservation Policy including the key objective of halting the current pattern of indigenous biodiversity decline within ten years....
    Scoop politics | 01-09
  • Poverty is falling and income inequality is not rising
    “A Roy Morgan poll shows that the issue people are most concerned about is income inequality. This just goes to show how the persistent repetition of a lie bewilders the public. Income inequality is not in fact rising. And the...
    Scoop politics | 01-09
  • Rotary NZ responding to Fiji water and sanitation issues
    Clean water and sanitation are vital to health. In Fiji Rotary New Zealand have been targeting 22 communities that are experiencing severe hardship mainly because they don’t have access to clean water for their drinking, cleaning and cooking needs....
    Scoop politics | 01-09
  • Work & Income shooting a Tragedy
    Kay Brereton speaking on behalf of the National Beneficiary Advocacy Consultancy group says; “Two people shot and another wounded, this is a tragedy and our deepest sympathy goes out to the family and whanau of the victims, as well as...
    Scoop politics | 01-09
  • 1080 Poison Deer Repellent not Effective – Farmers
    Four deer have been found dead within a farmer's bush block, after an aerial 1080 poison drop applied with deer repellent. The drop was part of a 30,000 hectare drop across the Northern Pureora Forest Park....
    Scoop politics | 01-09
  • Employment Charter will strengthen migrants’ rights
    Establishing an Employment Charter for construction companies is a critical step to strengthening the rights of migrant workers that are fast becoming the face of the Christchurch rebuild, according to an alliance of union groups. The charter has...
    Scoop politics | 01-09
Images of the election
Public service advertisements by The Standard