The end of Ruthenasia

61 comments on “The end of Ruthenasia ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Sacha 1

   21 May 2021 at 8:20 am

   Nowhere near enough to undo the harm.

   https://twitter.com/kumararepublic/status/1389064342272839688
   • Sacha 1.1

     21 May 2021 at 8:21 am

     A whole lot to undo..

     https://twitter.com/mrJeffHowell/status/1395283837144338432
     • Ad 1.1.1

       21 May 2021 at 8:43 am

       To respond to Mr Howell, the previous government:

       • built Kiwibank,Kiwisaver and NZSuper which have done more for us than the BNZ ever did

       Currently this government has:

       • Turned NZTA into something far larger than MoWorks ever were
       • saved public housing from destruction
       • renationalised polytechs

       And plan to:

       • renationalise the health system
       • decarbonise the entire economy to net zero emissions

       And clearly the legacy that Clark and Cullen started continues in much stronger for with Ardern and Robertson.

       Legacy is just fine.
       • RedLogix 1.1.1.1

         21 May 2021 at 8:53 am

         Yes. This site is perfect experimental evidence that humans are far more likely to react to negative than positive events – even when the good is far more likely to endure and be of long term benefit.

         It was a light bulb moment, some years back, when I realised I was addicted to pressing the outrage button – but the doomer alarmism I was wallowing in was taking me (and everyone around me) in precisely the wrong direction.
         • GreenBus 1.1.1.1.1

           21 May 2021 at 10:01 am

           Great honesty RL and a very relevant statement for Kiwi's in general although there is plenty to complain about. Do we dare dream of a brighter future?
           • In Vino 1.1.1.1.1.1

             21 May 2021 at 8:06 pm

             Certainly not the 'brighter future' that John Key's government lied about.
         • Patricia Bremner 1.1.1.1.2

           21 May 2021 at 12:15 pm

           Bless, and then this positive government came RL, to be honest many of us were spiraling into despair under JK and c/o

           I am soo happy, but they, Jacinda and Grant, admit this is a beginning of a 3+ year effort. More grist to their elbow.

           At nearly 80 I hope I live to see all this enacted.
       • weka 1.1.1.2

         21 May 2021 at 8:54 am

         Build more roads rather than build more houses?
         • Sacha 1.1.1.2.1

           21 May 2021 at 8:58 am

           Priorities. Now, about that decarbonisation..
           • weka 1.1.1.2.1.1

             21 May 2021 at 11:20 am

             Next year, plenty of time.
         • Patricia Bremner 1.1.1.2.2

           21 May 2021 at 12:17 pm

           No Weka. Rail and houses as I understood it.
           • McFlock 1.1.1.2.2.1

             21 May 2021 at 3:32 pm

             something like $85mil for Hillside to make carriages can't go too far wrong.
           • weka 1.1.1.2.2.2

             21 May 2021 at 6:47 pm

             I was responding to Ad's comment about NZTA vs MoW.
       • Chris 1.1.1.3

         21 May 2021 at 10:08 am

         "And clearly the legacy that Clark and Cullen started continues in much stronger for with Ardern and Robertson."

         Cullen was responsible for introducing stand downs in the late 80s. Clark went on doing to benefits what Bolger/Shipley/Richardson had done before her. Then after that Labour supported Key's further attacks on benefits when Bennett was minister. If you think yesterday's budget was a continuation of the Clark and Cullen legacy then you're attempting to rewrite history.
         • Ad 1.1.1.3.1

           21 May 2021 at 11:09 am

           Clark and Cullen softened rather than reversed the structural adjustment New Zealand went through.

           The Ardern Robertson government has expanded the role of the state more than we have seen in multiple decades.

           Historians from left and right lenses agree with that.
           • Chris 1.1.1.3.1.1

             21 May 2021 at 11:49 am

             That's because most historians from left and right, just like most of the NZ population, didn't understand what axing the special benefit meant, what the 2007 amendment Act did or what a Labour opposition voting in support of a welfare Bill headed by Paula Bennett represented.
             • ghostwhowalksnz …

               21 May 2021 at 12:28 pm

               " what the 2007 amendment Act did"

               The 2007 Social Security Amendment Act was soley about war amputees.

               Perhaps you are referring to the Key governments Social Security (New Work Tests, Incentives, and Obligations) Amendment Act 2010.
               • Chris …

                 21 May 2021 at 1:18 pm

                 No, this one here.

                 https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2007/0020/latest/DLM408545.html

                 Clark's government was responsible for changing the statutory purpose of social welfare from meeting need to work-testing people, including the disabled and carers of children. She had no respect for the poor.
                 • ghostwhowalksnz …

                   21 May 2021 at 3:41 pm

                   You mean this

                   Purpose

                   The purpose of this Act is—

                   (a)to enable the provision of financial and other support as appropriate—

                   (i)to help people to support themselves and their dependants while not in paid employment; and

                   (ii)to help people to find or retain paid employment; and

                   (iii)to help people for whom work may not currently be appropriate because of sickness, injury, disability, or caring responsibilities, to support themselves and their dependants:

                   (b)to enable in certain circumstances the provision of financial support to people to help alleviate hardship:

                   Wheres the kick in the teeth of the poor …
                   • Chris …

                     24 May 2021 at 10:22 am

                     Have a look at the other three quarters of the section, as well as the following section which contains the principles (sections 3 and 4 of the 2018 Act), and then play spot the difference with what it replaced, which is this:

                     "An Act to provide for the Payment of Superannuation Benefits and of other Benefits destined to safeguard the People of New Zealand from Disabilities arising from Age, Sickness, Widowhood, Orphanhood, Unemployment, or other Exceptional Conditions; … to provide such other benefits as may be necessary to maintain and promote the Health and General Welfare of the Community"
           • Phillip ure 1.1.1.3.1.2

             21 May 2021 at 12:55 pm

             The clark years were hell…I was a sole-parent at the time…an uncaring clark stigmatised the poorest..with her definitions of the 'desrerving poor'..and the 'undeserving poor (those in work)'..she did nothing for the poorest..for nine long fucken years..

             And winz treated sole-parent like dirt..

             Also funny how nobody these days notes that bolger was the p.m. when richardson created the underclass ..has he been sanitised in some way..?.he was donkey-doo-deep in that exercise in political cruelty..is it sexism that sees richardson carrying the can all by herself..?
     • Sacha 1.1.2

       21 May 2021 at 9:52 am

       I was thinking of this comment from Descendant of Smith yesterday:

       While they have painted this as reversing Ruth's mother of all budgets and correcting the wrongs of that budget they are either stupid, liars, naive or all three.

       Ruth Richardson's changes.

       1. $20-00 per week off – fixed belatedly after Helen Clark's Labour Government put it back on NZS only
       2. Youth rate for under 18 year old's extended to 24 – not fixed
       3. Aligning benefit rates away from 60% of the average wage to CPI increases – not fixed
       4. Compensation for the years of neglect and indebtedness that have occurred as people were forced to apply for advances on their benefit to meet costs that should have come from a decent benefit rate- zilch

       Benefit rates used to be the same as NZS – 3 above was the most damaging of all the changes.

       The least they could do is back-date and give everyone a lump sum or clear their benefit debt so they can receive the full amount that they need to survive.

       NZ Superannuation is $437 per week for a single person. Compare that with the single rate trumpeted in these benefit changes. Long way to go.
       • Foreign Waka 1.1.2.1

         21 May 2021 at 3:35 pm

         NZ Super is

         Single, living alone $436.94 abatement if you work above $ 160 pw: $418.09

         = $ 1893.40 (see below – shortfall of $ 1,699.60)

         Both partners qualify (combined) $672.22 if either works above $ 160 pw $634.52 = $ 2913 per month (not working), shortfall (housing taken out for partner $3,593 plus $1209 = $4802) $ 1889.00

         Poverty is defined as households living at below 60% of the national median income. Pensions are just on the cusp of that.

         https://www.expatistan.com/cost-of-living/country/new-zealand

         Summary of cost of living in New Zealand

         • Family of four estimated monthly costs: NZ$6,929
         • Single person estimated monthly costs: NZ$3,593
         • Cost of living in New Zealand is more expensive than in 85% of countries in the World (13 out of 78)

         https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_New_Zealand
         • Sacha 1.1.2.1.1

           21 May 2021 at 4:45 pm

           Single person benefit rate that Labour are high-fiving themselves for? $315 per week.
           • Descendant Of Smith 1.1.2.1.1.1

             21 May 2021 at 4:58 pm

             Single, living alone $436.94 abatement if you work above $ 160 pw: $418.09

             NZS isn't income tested unless an underage partner is included – though this current labour government got rid of that cause you know it's fairer they said to make the underage partner get a much lower benefit instead. Someone had a fit of pique over all those mail order 22 year old brides getting NZS when in fact the underage partner is often caring for the older partner or is unwell themselves.

             The S tax rate you refer to is I think the rate paid if you are still paying off a student loan. Nothing to do with income.

             My point is that they haven't fixed anything until benefit rates and NZS are the same again.
             • RedBaronCV …

               21 May 2021 at 6:23 pm

               Benefit rates and NZ super could be aligned but until they are I don't really see any fairness argument around paying a younger partner benefit rates not NZS.

               Basically if you do pay NZS it becomes discrimination on the grounds of marital basis and it favours a group that are likely to be largely male, who have been able to work over a whole lifetime, when wages discriminated in favour of males not to mention super schemes and the like. I don't think the rest of the community has any obligation to pay for a caregiver for this cohort at a better rate than a caregiver for any single person. Plus where there are substantial age gaps it can encourage lifelong benefit dependency for the younger partner.
               • Descendant Of Smith …

                 21 May 2021 at 11:03 pm

                 You re missing the point. There would be very few cases in this situation – they would be outliers. On the other hand the majority of cases would be as described – near retirement partners who are either ill themselves or caring for an ill older partner.

                 The change unfairly impacts on the working class and Maori who often have lesser life expectancy and don't get NZS for very long anyway if they even reach 65.

                 What you are saying is that because Ruth cut benefits we should now cut these people. That's the wanky fairness argument Labour proffers. It's also the puritan argument.

                 Why oh why would we make low income people poorer except to appease those who will never need it. Consider too the working partner has been supporting two people on a low income leading up to 65. They are unlikely to be in a strong financial position – if they were they wouldn’t qualify.
                 • RedBaronCV …

                   23 May 2021 at 12:27 pm

                   No I'm not missing the point. There will be no argument from me that NZS and benefits have a general bias against low paid and Maori because of historic income levels and age expectancy. Nor that Ruth cut benefits.Nor that it is not easy getting a job over 60.

                   But there are single people nearing retirement who are ill and would receive a benefit rather than NZS and have no at home carer on NZS – why should they be discriminated against? Should they be getting super and if not why not? Equally there are single people who are over 65 and ill whose carer would be relying on a lessor income than NZS? Again why are they being discriminated against? And bear in mind that should the ill partner die then the carer loses NZS eligibility and winds up on another benefit.

                   So yes there are overall unfair settings out there but why should there be positive discrimination only towards the one small group who have possibly relied on a traditional version of relationships which is being paid for by others whose situation is even less fortunate?

                   I'd have also phased out NZS for partners under say 50 over a few years – no reason to support them at any level.
           • Foreign waka 1.1.2.1.1.2

             21 May 2021 at 9:27 pm

             Sacha -That would definitely be below the 60% median income. Any government setting a living allowance that low must have a mandate (?). It is good that it was increased but given the amount you need to actually live not vegetate, it signals that the expectation is, that people either work until they fall into the grave or move in with others to save money. Retirement homes would not take them. Health costs for elderly are higher and not getting treated for any ailment that festers will most likely lead to their dead. So essentially not that far away from the work houses of Victorian England. The underlying thought process seem to prevail.
   • greywarshark 1.2

     21 May 2021 at 10:31 am

     edit
     Looking at the picture above I thought 'the farmer and his wife' – that's National's way of running NZ. . Looked up – yes both from farms, Ruth became lawyer.

     Jim from Wikipedia:
     Before entering politics, he farmed in the Waikato area and was involved in Federated Farmers, a nationwide agricultural association. Bolger won election to Parliament in 1972, and subsequently served in several portfolios in the Third National Government.

     And Ruth was from a wealthy farming family in Taranaki with past political representation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Richardson
     (This from Wikileaks dossier, see below – CLASSIFIED BY: JOSIAH H. BEEMAN, AMBASSADOR.) She mentored Jenny Shipley also.

     RICHARDSON, WHO ALSO HAD A FARMING BACKGROUND (ALBEIT A WEALTHY ONE), TOOK A SHINE TO SHIPLEY AND BECAME HER MENTOR AND GODFATHER. RICHARDSON HELPED PAVE THE WAY FOR SHIPLEY'S ELEVATION – https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/wikileaks-cable-a-bio-of-new-pm-jenny-shipley/KJA6WUBAJAJCWVKB3VNG6CNFUQ/

     And this from 'Ruthanasia' was interesting:
     https://thestandard.org.nz/the-end-of-ruthenasia/#comment-1793999
     Bolger said that his "electoral honeymoon lasted seventeen hours". So he immediately summoned Don McKinnon, Bill Birch and Ruth Richardson to Wellington. The partly state-owned Bank of New Zealand required an immediate injection of capital to avoid insolvency as a result of the poor performance of a NZ$2.8bn loan portfolio in Australia. The bank held 40 per cent of the commercial paper (loans to businesses) in New Zealand.

     How fascinating that Australia looms again in another of our deciding defeats!
     • greywarshark 1.2.1

       21 May 2021 at 10:44 am

       I picked up the wrong link above for Ruthanasia! Should be –

       https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruthanasia
2. Ad 2

   21 May 2021 at 8:37 am

   If they can get through all the massive moves they've done in 5 years, we can see the kind of country we'd get from more and more over the remainder of the term and towards 2026.

   It's the last and best performing Labour government in the world.
   • Rosemary McDonald 2.1

     21 May 2021 at 9:41 am

     It's the last and best performing Labour government in the world.

     Seriously? You have to concede the competition ain't up to much.
     • Ad 2.1.1

       21 May 2021 at 11:18 am

       That would be an operating definition of leadership.
   • cricklewood 2.2

     21 May 2021 at 9:43 am

     'It's the last and best performing Labour government in the world'

     I'll hold judgement on that, the proof will be in the pudding and so far there has been a real struggle with delivery on the big ticket policies…

     That said if the measure is Covid response and increases to housing values and emergency 'housing' costs then yes would happily give a gold medal…
     • Ad 2.2.1

       21 May 2021 at 11:18 am

       It's us and a few of the Scandies left in terms of combining strong state intervention and strong democracy and strong civil rights.

       Those MPs currently proudly reifying the term 'socialist' aren't doing so because they have some deep affiliation to the proletariat. Any reference back to such a definition would make tepid comparison.

       Usefully this government isn't responding to the needs of New Zealand out of some faint historic echo of socialism or Marxism or whatever, but out of practical responses to the size and specificity of the needs that present.
   • greywarshark 2.3

     21 May 2021 at 12:20 pm

     I hope it's not the last Labour government in the world and I hope you are right about best performing and that it gradually ups its moves and withstands the attacks it will undoubtedly receive. It will have to box clever all the way, as the saying goes.
3. DukeEll 3

   21 May 2021 at 9:36 am

   bit weird NZ governments are taking 20th century approaches to solving 20th century problems when we are 20% into the 21st century.

   Fran O Sullivan column nailed it, why aren't we looking for modern solutions to intergenerational problems
   • Incognito 3.1

     21 May 2021 at 9:39 am

     You forgot to nail the link to your comment 🙁
   • lprent 3.2

     21 May 2021 at 10:29 am

     …why aren’t we looking for modern solutions to intergenerational problems

     I’m pretty well-read in politics, economics, and history. I don’t know of any ‘modern solutions’ that have been tested and are known to work over decades.

     I prefer not to have the kids in my extended family tested on like guinea pigs as the generations behind mine (like my partner and her friends in the 1990s were) by the complete failure of supply-side economics, trickle down benefits, and neoliberal strategies that failed them.

     What some people like Fran seem to forget is that there are two sides to an economy. There is no point in getting a fast growth rate for companies and people with capital, if the cost in it is that it decreases the opportunities for people to grow the skills to sustain it.

     In NZ you can mark the failure of experiments like Ruthenesia by the diminution in widespread skills inside our population economy, our export of kiwis scarred by the experience, and our need to import grunt labour and skills to replace them.

     The advantage of ’20th century’ solutions is that they are known to work, and where the bugs are with them. It is better to figure out how to diminish the flaws in an existing system that to take the desperation tactic of experimenting with untried systems.

     Does that answer your ‘question’?
     • Rosemary McDonald 3.2.1

       21 May 2021 at 11:28 am

       I don’t know of any ‘modern solutions’

       I stumbled across this the other day…I was pretty sure it was a hoax…but no. These techsperts truly believe that this should/could be the next stage human evolution and will, amoungst other benefits, ease or end inequities in health, education etc and mitigate environmental damage.

       I would be interested in your opinion on this.

       https://horizons.gc.ca/en/2020/02/11/exploring-biodigital-convergence/

       It is better to figure out how to diminish the flaws in an existing system that to take the desperation tactic of experimenting with untried systems. Which was exactly my response to the abovelinked.
       • lprent 3.2.1.1

         21 May 2021 at 3:04 pm

         A lot of the things in that speculation are coming through.

         For instance this morning at 0900 I was having a morning coffee at home in a video meeting whilst in a 30 minute meeting on the collect project with 5 others in various parts of the UK and US. Same on tuesday morning at 0800 for 30 minutes with a different facet of the same project. For me, this is now routine and allows my project 'team' to be pretty much anywhere. The main constraint is simply timezones and when people sleep.

         In the biological sphere, the two leading (>90% effectiveness in real world studies) vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna in active use against covid-19 are both mRNA vaccines created by assembling the genetic code to get our bodies protein generating protien markers for out immune system to train on. This would have been just too expensive and unreliable to do a decade ago.

         That all being said – trying to predict when and what will be available in even a few years is damn near impossible. You certainly can't plan on it. Only idiots would plan on inflicting it on whole populations unless it was an act of desperation.

         The path that lead to both of these developments started at least 2-3 decades ago. I was using remote work running a software development team in the late 1990s (I went to work once a month – the rest was online). But trying to do that internationally was bloody hard because the latency was really only allowed text – not voice or video. Now I can barely detect latency.

         I seem to remember that the full sequencing of a RNA virus was also pretty recent (doesn't say here). But the first mRNA vaccines were only started being worked on for the MERS virus in 2015.

         However, the development we see now for both of these things wasn't clear back in the late 90s.

         Planning based on possible technologies of policies is a fools game.

         It is like saying currently planning on carbon sequestration to save our butts from climate change in the 1990s – when now in 2021 there still haven’t been a successful large scale test that it works.

         If in the 1960s predicting that fusion energy would power the world in the 21st century – when we still haven’t had a successful large test that last more than seconds.
   • Gabby 3.3

     21 May 2021 at 5:11 pm

     Well that's laissez faire capitalism out of the reckoning then.
4. Incognito 4

   21 May 2021 at 9:49 am

   Ruth Richardson wanted growth at all cost and decided that beneficiaries needed to pay the price.

   Grant Robertson wanted welfare and wellbeing of beneficiaries at all cost and decided that growth has to pay the price.
   • Sacha 4.1

     21 May 2021 at 9:53 am

     Robertson 'at all cost'? Dreaming.
     • Chris 4.1.1

       21 May 2021 at 10:33 am

       Totally. The only thing Robertson wants at all cost is political expediency. A bit of spending on welfare benefits suits right now.
   • Stuart Munro 4.2

     21 May 2021 at 10:12 am

     A lot of the touted 'growth' over the last few decades has been technical. A focus on productive growth instead of dodgy accounting around real estate and migration stands a good chance of achieving pretty good real results – catchup is always easier than breaking new ground – half the secret of the tiger economies.
     • Foreign Waka 4.2.1

       21 May 2021 at 3:49 pm

       The paradigm revolves around increased consumption. Naturally its an finite system as we see with the environment being depleted and ruined because of the human race still stuck in the dinosaur mind and not willing to combine and look at a complete different way to conduct society within the resources available. Some just cant get enough, some need to exercise power over others, some are only happy if they have more than they ever need, others are just plain sadistic. This is the god everybody is praying to. Unless we universally change religion, nothing will stop this to play out in a logical conclusion.
       • Stuart Munro 4.2.1.1

         21 May 2021 at 4:13 pm

         A lot of truth there – but the transition to a more sustainable paradigm, if conducted intelligently, would also be expressed as 'growth' by the crude tools favoured by economists. Even Robert's eat local initiative would show up as growth, at least until it measurably impacted supermarkets.
   • lprent 4.3

     21 May 2021 at 10:22 am

     Ruth Richardson wanted growth at all cost and decided that beneficiaries needed to pay the price.

     It was noticeable that the growth happened a decade later – largely as a result of diminishing some of the most severe edges of austerity under a Labour-led government.

     The beneficiary cuts at a time of Ruthenesia and in its aftermath or significiant economic restructuring caused the whole economy to drop into stagnation with severely limited growth. There was constrained or minimal countervailing infrastructure development so there were limited jobs to move from. The tax cuts to the wealthier weren’t used for anything useful. They just fuelled the initial speculative housing market without causing significiant housing being put in.

     It was a classic case of ideological economic stupidity causing exactly the same effects that it was reputed to prevent. This is a common pattern in political systems throughout history.
     • greywarshark 4.3.1

       21 May 2021 at 10:55 am

       Could it have happened if there had been mandatory papers that were published, which required expected outcomes to each revolutionary economic and social action which I think would have reduced if not prevented malformation?

       It seems it was all zealous certainty and choosing the facts to build a lovely path to economic growth and 'prosperity'. As my Dilbert cartoon depicts – hopefuls with glazed eyes after seeing sign saying This Way to Piles of Wealth walking to a cliff.
   • Tricledrown 4.4

     21 May 2021 at 10:32 am

     Incognito the 1990s ie Ruthenasia was 9 years of of yo yo growth National gave tax cuts 6 months out from each election growth peaked around elections then for the other 2 1/2 years the economy stagnated or declined over 9 years growth averaged less than 1% under National inflation averaged more than 1% effectively Zero growth with high longterm uunemployment.The 1996 election bribe working for families was in response to even lower wage growth than 1% per annum because of the ECA. My wife's wages were cut by 1/3 because Unions were not allowed to bargain effectively.

     The only reason National got 9 years instead of 6 was because of Winston Peter's and Jim Andertons misogynist bullying with in the Alliance .
     • greywarshark 4.4.1

       21 May 2021 at 10:59 am

       Well that is interesting about Jim A and Winston Tricledrown. I noticed myself how uninterested he was to meet his supporters when he visited our town. Seems he was firmly set in his luge sled shooting along his way and others around were 'extras' on the scene.
     • Stuart Munro 4.4.2

       21 May 2021 at 12:26 pm

       Did not the white butterfly have something to do with it too?
   • woodart 4.5

     21 May 2021 at 2:27 pm

     growth WONT pay a price. pretty much every dollar that goes into benifits(not counting super here)is spent the next week, in the country, not taken offshore for holiday spending. business in NZ should be thinking clearly about the extra dosh that will be spent from beneficiaries. pretty sad that some on here dont get that.
     • Cricklewood 4.5.1

       21 May 2021 at 7:41 pm

       Bingo… the best way to stimulate an economy is to put money in the bottom, its nearly all spent often locally and then flows upwards…

       Taxcuts at the top end or freeing up capital always leads in the top end getting richer money flowing into unproductive assets ie housing, overseas holidays or even saved. With the meerest morsel maybe trickling down…
5. tc 5

   21 May 2021 at 10:33 am

   What's not been surprising is the lack of factual analysis in favour of rhetoric and spin in granny.

   Stuff appears to have done a much more even handed job. Not that I follow either in depth.
6. Tricledrown 6

   21 May 2021 at 10:47 am

   The ANZ's chief economist said it was a good budget tackling inequality which needs addressing as the well off have done very well under Covid.
7. peter sim 7

   21 May 2021 at 8:44 pm

   I thought a it bit "rich" for richardson to claim it was a cheap shot to have a go at her infamous words by robertson.

   She said it, did it, and ruined lives of thousands of new zealanders.

   Not once did the natz ever try to rectify the damage, only to promote more misery and hopelessness.

   The natz deliberately dumped us kiwis in ordure and left us there. Wall street trader ethics rule. Ask gordon gecko (shonkey).

   Covid hits and arrogant know all "business leaders" are pleading for tax payer money?

   Ok maybe bolger has a point the nz economy was in a painful place at that time. Every thing else got better but keeping and increasing more misery seems a silly response t t"the mother of all budgets".
8. coreyjhumm 8

   22 May 2021 at 12:17 pm

   Labours to some extent abolishing (softly) the economic consensus of the last four decades and the screams from the dogmatic followers of it are hilarious .

   They called labour commies and socialists and attacked labour with every dirty trick in the book for decades when Labour agreed with the economic consensus so when labour ditches the economic consensus, their insults have no impact because they call labour this anyway so people are like "yeah yeah well of course they'd say that , they always say that"

   I sometimes wonder if we didn't have mmp would more have been done to overturn the economic consensus because a lot of the time parties are trying to out center each other so they don't need a king maker, and with all the lefty's splitting into different camps theres been no powerful left wing pressure group inside labour forcing things through and voting on manifesto policies internally

   But then I look around the world and I don't think turning away from neoliberalism would have happened until now regardless of the electoral system because of the growth in the 90s /00s that third way polis were riding high on

   Anyway. These insults are overused and no longer mean anything, so lol to the neolibs and new right… The show's over
   • greywarshark 8.1

     22 May 2021 at 12:38 pm

     I've read that thought about MMP and it concreting in a status quo making swift changes like Rogernomics unlikely again. And as you say there is a splintering of the left vote particularly with minor parties. (Famous one in France with Le Pen pere, nearly getting in decades ago, because of left vote split amongst 16 tiny parties affecting the main vote.) However if MMP is kept with a high enough threshhold I think 4% would be lowest to go, and others also go for that figure) then it enables better assessment of the weight of each political persuasion.

     But capitalism is so strong, and finding a lovely theory like neolib and reverting to the powerful free market so privateers can reign, any political system is under attack. Especially in our cowtopian world, where we can be cowed by thoughts of nowhere to send our butter. How to insure against that? Heigh ho, the gummint turned round and milked the people.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS