web analytics
The Standard
Advertising

Where is this Democracy they Speak of?

Written By: - Date published: 11:21 am, December 30th, 2013 - 165 comments
Categories: community democracy, democracy under attack, democratic participation, political alternatives, Politics, social democracy, vision - Tags: , ,

How about if I was to have a right to meaningfully engage in processes of  decision making, roughly to the extent  that potential decisions flowing from any deliberations would impact me? And of course, you’d get to exercise the same level of deliberative power for discussions or proposals that would affect you. A simple ‘rule of thumb’ would suffice for determining any individual’s appropriate levels of input, no? So, if something had nothing to do with you (or me) and would not impact on you (or me), then it follows that we would have no right to participate in any deliberations or discussion around that decision.

Pretty simple this democracy malarkey, then –  fairly basic and doesn’t require any fancy or extra-ordinary intellectual prowess ‘to get’ or to put into practice.

But just to labour the point of how simple it all is, here’s some examples of how democracy works.  I get to decide what shoes I wear today…not you…not the guy next door; just me. The people of a community affected or possibly impacted by some proposal for a new building in their locale get to raise any issues they may have concerning its construction and decide on what happens …not some stranger in some far off location… not some bureaucrat mired in a world of rules and regulations; just them. On larger and broader impacts, such as a coal fired power station or a nuclear power plant being built in our environment, then we all get input insofar as such propositions would, if brought to fruition, affect us all in one way or another. ( note –  examples of this last type would be almost unthinkable in a democracy and never see the light of day. But I’ll leave it there.)

Obviously (but I’m going to spell it out anyway), democratic participation can’t be geared along the lines of some appeal to traditional forms of authority. That would be insanely counterproductive in a democracy.

So, based on that, we can state that in a democracy I can have no right to seek to confer on any other, any right to exercise power over you. Likewise, you simply cannot and do not have any right to impose on me any exercise of power by any third party either. None.

If we did assume such a right, then we’d be creating external authorities that’d take advantage of an implicit right to exercise power over people who may have had no say, or only an inconsequential say, in not only who exercises power but on how they exercise power and on how much power they can exercise.

And that brings us back to the present where any ‘rule of thumb’ for determining individual levels of participation in deciding upon matters that affect us has been effectively amputated. As a result, we are subjected to power, as opposed to being the rightful and democratically empowered wielders of power…

Now, if you believe that our social democratic system of governance has any democratic credentials at all, then would you please answer me this –  “Where exactly is the democracy in this ‘social democracy’ that appears to be neither socialist nor democratic?”

That’s not some piece of  bullshit I’m putting out there just to piss you off on the back of a reasonably held assumption that if you’re reading this, then there’s a fair chance that you’re a social democrat. It’s a question that deserves attention.  Just consider the likes of Russell Brand or Jeremy Paxman who, privileged celebrities that they are, echoed  commonly held sentiments when they, each in their own way and to differing extents, decried the state of ‘social democratic’ governance. Stupidly and dangerously though, they – well,  Russel Brand in particular –  shut the door on democracy as a potential basis for future governance.

It was an odd thing to do. See, I know that we and those who preside over us and our society jump up and down and shout about democracy often enough. But we simply don’t have any.

Regardless, neither Brand nor Paxman, nor any number of disenchanted fellow travellers it seems, can perceive that obvious reality and so call for democracy to be rejected – meaning that they can only be advocating for some form of authoritarianism. What they should really be calling for ( and probably would if they engaged their brains for a second) is a rejection of this social democratic governance system that masquerades as democracy as well as insisting that we shift to democratic means of governance.

Like I said at the top of the post, democracy isn’t a difficult concept to grasp and it doesn’t require specialist knowledge or years of education to be practiced – in fact, illiterate and uneducated people can ‘do’ democracy just as well as the most scholarly…it’s a great leveller in that respect.  Which leads me to wonder then, why aren’t people (like you?) who claim to align themselves with democratic ideas and ideals insisting on it at every turn and railing against all the  non-democratic and anti-democratic systems and structures that stand so obviously behind this thin façade called social democracy?

165 comments on “Where is this Democracy they Speak of?”

  1. Sacha 1

    Reading about the difference between participatory democracy and representative democracy might help.

    Many decisons affect not just those in one vicinity or small group, and humans have evolved various ways to represent those broader interests.

    For example in NZ, Councils are legally required to make sure that land use and urban planning decisions reflect the needs of all citizens including future ones, not just current local residents.

    This doesn’t always work so well when Councils (elected members and staff) fail to articulate and live up to that part of their role, and when stakeholder groups have different levels of access to resources and influence. Auckland’s Unitary Plan process has been a great recent example. Pure participatory democracy without significant investment in access isn’t the answer.

    • Bill 1.1

      Reading about the difference between participatory democracy and representative democracy might help

      Alternatively Sasha, acknowledging that representative ‘democracy’ isn’t exactly democratic and is, in fact, fundamentally anti-democratic (ie, routinely and deliberately disempowering people) might help. To be fair, in spite of your attempt to defend or excuse representative forms of governance as being somehow democratic your comment kind of illustrates the non-democratic nature of councils and centralised authority.

      Meanwhile, what do you mean by “significant investment in access”? Are you suggesting that participatory democracy would be detached from the people utilising it or that representative governance offers greater scope for involvement?

      • Sacha 1.1.1

        People are not equally able to particpate in decisions that affect them, whether they want to or not. Unless you acknowledge the implications of that, you can talk about ‘democracy’ all you like but it won’t produce a better world.

        • Bill 1.1.1.1

          True that some are better at articulating concerns or addressing people and so on. But there is no reason not to develop and refine systems that better enable people with difficulties to participate – none.

          Tell me Sasha, seeing as how you are so dismissive of democracy, what form of authoritarianism is your preference?

          • Sacha 1.1.1.1.1

            There are barriers to involvement beyond talent. But I’m over arguing with someone who must have been wagging during high school social studies.

          • Sosoo 1.1.1.1.2

            It doesn’t seem that Sasha was being dismissive of democracy, rather than noting some of its problems.

            Participatory democracy won’t necessarily solve the problems either. Democracy, as logicians have long known, has conceptual problems in that it’s generally impossible to conjure a group preference out of a collection of individual preferences.

            It seems that much of the complaining about the “will of the people” being frustrated in elections has more to do with this than the perfidy of politicians. Part of the problem is that democratic dogma has taken the place of Christian dogma in our society, so we can’t have a reasonable discussion about its deficiencies.

            You are asking democracy to do something it cannot do. Noting the limitations of democratic systems doesn’t make you an authoritarian, just a realist.

      • Tim 1.1.2

        +1
        I’m guilty of misusing the term ‘representative’ democracy routinely. However I do so because of this naive expectation that elected representatives will actually do what they said they would; that they would adhere to certain principles they’ve espoused; AND that they would be held to account – probably through some form of realistic sanction (so they can’t repeat their fuckups) if they breach the contract.
        As we’ve seen with the current junta (and the various trolls and spin doctors that frequent this place – or should I say ‘space’ – just to be trendy), their interpretation of that democracy is nothing but an elected dictatorship and one that they unwittingly are a party to being the best democracy money can buy.

        But actually I’d go further than that. All this terminology (not just representative versus participatory) is part of the anti-language.
        Democracy is participatory …. ELSE it’s not.
        The anti-language just serves to corrupt just as egos the size of buses, over-ambition, blind faith, the demise of a 4th Estate, a Public Servce that is in effect a Corporate Service, etc., etc. does.

        • Tim 1.1.2.1

          Geee willicuzz. I’m in moderation FFS!
          I feel privileged!
          Definitely a sign. Do I buy my ticket to Uttar Pradesh and (eastern environs now) – or should I wait till the likes of Owen Glenn and other ‘philanthropists’ exit – and where an actual democratic ‘process’ is in play?
          Maybe I should wait – 2014 in NZ could be interesting – there’ll be quite a few Masters of the Universe freaking out and taking a pay cut.

          [lprent: Getting dropped into moderation happens automatically. The most common reason are new users - ie a new email address. They have to have one approved comment, and most of the time I have a look to see if it is from and IP range from someone on the banned fool list first. The second most common reason is that the comment triggers either the automatic or manually entered shit list of the things trolls or spambots do. Or it could be simply something that I consider causes stupid flamewars or boring threads. This is known as the fool trap. For instance like using the word "troll" excessively because ultimately it is only the moderators who will make that call - not you. You are the latter case. ]

          • Tim 1.1.2.1.1

            Thx – good to know some of the triggers – I never liked that term foldy roll really anyway ;)
            You fellas do a mag job btw!

  2. karol 2

    I get the importance of full participatory democracy, Bill. But from the examples you give, it looks to me that it would involve a complicated administrated process in practice.

    Who would decide some things should be decided by group x rather than group y? especially when x & y disagree as to who it impacts?

    • Bill 2.1

      Democratic centralism, social democracy and other more overt forms of authoritarianism need over-arching structures of control to maintain imposed order – not democracy. Maybe you could explain why you believe a ‘complicated administrative process’ would appear to be necessary based on the example I threw out in the post?

      Then, what’s with the ‘group x’ and ‘group y’? Such formulations make absolutely no sense whatsoever. If you perceive a possible impact from some proposition, then you involve yourself in discussion. Obviously, your contribution would be based on the impact you perceive. If your concerns are unfounded, then you’d presumably disengage from on-going discussions or failing that, possibly be ignored by those seeing actual impacts.

      • karol 2.1.1

        Well, I’m more cynical than you, Bill.

        I also have become disillusioned with the full anarchism ideal. I have come to the conclusion that there are some who will not willingly participate, and will always work to skew the system in their favour – I would expect some people would not willingly drop out.

        What if some say your choice of shoes is damaging the local footpaths, or includes environmentally damaging production processes – you produce evidence it does not – on and on it goes – possibly for every little decision with some decisions never actually being achieved.

        • Bill 2.1.1.1

          Well, I’m more cynical than you, Bill.

          Bet you’re not! ;-)

          Anyway, as I said in response to redblooded – you can’t superimpose non-democratic stuff from the present into a democratic scenario and expect any sense to result.

          So in relation to your comment. Who’s local footpaths are they and who builds and maintains them? In a democracy, I’ve probably got some level of involvement in that and so a sense of ‘ownership’ (bad word – hang-over and all that). As such, I’m unlikely to engage in any activity that damages them. And if I do, then I’m answerable to the people I live with and work with every day…and most people are wise enough to not piss off those they are in constant contact with and who they have developed deep and wide-ranging relationships with. (Deeper and more wide-ranging than happens in our alienated present)

          But, beyond the footpaths, who runs the factory that produces the shoes? With no profit motive and a democratic workplace, why would production be based on environmentally destructive practices anyway?

          And so it goes on.

          • Polish Pride 2.1.1.1.1

            With no profit motive and a democratic workplace, why would production be based on environmentally destructive practices anyway?

            I like where your going Bill.

            Food for thought though. I think the purpose or goal of any system we have needs to be defined. Doing that will in my view help provide better context and help answer the how does x work under this new system.

            • weka 2.1.1.1.1.1

              “With no profit motive and a democratic workplace, why would production be based on environmentally destructive practices anyway?”

              Because humans like doing Big Shit sometimes just for the hell of it. Some like doing risky shit. Some don’t even perceive nature as real etc.

              So how does the process work if you have some people wanting to pollute the local river because they found this fun thing to do and consider that more important, and others wanting that not to happen? (the river polluting).

              • Bill

                The river is the commons. And you don’t fuck with the commons if you want to have any kind of life. You’re aware of that bullshit about the so-called ‘tragedy of the commons’? The idea that some guy just saunters in and fucks it all up and no-body says anything to him and no-body kills his livestock that is over exploiting the commons and no-body even ever thinks about burning down his house or just taking him out? That’s not how it works. There is a steady escalation of consequences, democratically arrived at and imposed by his society.

                As for a more separate ‘group’ of people fucking things up, then they’ll do really well when they are cut loose from the inevitable webs of interconnectivity that binds democracies, won’t they…probably as well as the individual facing social ostracisation.

                • weka

                  Unless they happen to be most of the society, or even just a sizeable chunk, in which case cutting loose probably won’t be much of a disincentive.

                  “And you don’t fuck with the commons if you want to have any kind of life”

                  Every human culture on the planet (that I can think of) has fucked with the commons. So are we talking about a social system that has no precedent?

                  • Bill

                    A lot of the ‘fucking with the commons’ can be directly traced to the undemocratic effects of market economics allowing people to be cleared from the land (enclosure, clearances etc) – elevating the acquisition of money and promoting the profit motive while externalising associated costs such as environmental degradation. Not that I’m excusing command economies (also undemocratic economies) that elevated industrial progress over environmental integrity.

                  • Draco T Bastard

                    Every human culture on the planet (that I can think of) has fucked with the commons.

                    Actually, it hasn’t. Throughout history the commons has been well looked after by rules, regulations and culture of care. The only societies where that didn’t happen was societies where the commons was privatised which resulted in the removal of those rules, regulations and culture of care, i.e, capitalism/feudalism.

                    • Colonial Viper

                      Correct. If you look at the American Indians, the Inuit, the Aborigines, they took from the land what they needed to survive and nothing more, and did so with a sense of gratitude and relationship with the land that has long since been lost.

                    • weka

                      Depends on what you mean by fucked with I suppose (and commons for that matter), but care to name 3 societies and I’ll point how where the commons were messed with.

                    • weka

                      “Correct. If you look at the American Indians, the Inuit, the Aborigines, they took from the land what they needed to survive and nothing more, and did so with a sense of gratitude and relationship with the land that has long since been lost.”

                      Not sure about Inuit, but both North American and Australian native peoples caused extinctions of mammals. That fits my definition of fucking with the commons. I agree that relative to say Europeans, native peoples generally have better systems of caring for the commons, but that doesn’t mean they always got it right. It’s also hard to tell to what extent protection of the commons was due to lack of development of civilisations (and good on those people for resisting the urge). Don’t get me wrong, I think there is much that is admirable in those cultures and I think there is a huge amount for westerners to learn about management systems from them, I just don’t agree that they never messed with the collective spaces they were dependent on.

                    • Colonial Viper

                      Those cultures lived in a way which wouldn’t cause their own extinction. That’s the most important distinction between them and us, in my mind.

                      Did they cause the extinction of a few hunted species over their centuries of living on the land? OK, if they did to be blunt, so what? Species extinction is a completely normal process. Has been happening since day dot.

                      The difference of course is that our modern civilisation is causing thousands of species to go extinct per month. And we are now in the midst of an epic, historical species die off.

                    • Sacha

                      “Those cultures lived in a way which wouldn’t cause their own extinction. That’s the most important distinction between them and us, in my mind.”

                      Yes. And we know more now about extinction of fauna and flora and ecosystems. Not so many excuses..

                    • weka

                      None of that really matters in this context CV. The point was that I said that all human cultures have messed with the commons, and others said that’s not true. You can say it doesn’t matter that some peoples caused lots of extinctions, but nevertheless that is messing with the commons.

                      Bill is contending that fucking with the commons is primarily and overwhelmingly a result of undemocratic processes and market economies. I’m saying that I think it’s probably inherent in humans to live beyond the resource base they occupy (I would posit it’s the result of an evolutionary adaptation around being able to use available resources very effectively, that’s proved problematic as our brains got so big). Some cultures learn the limits and adjust, others don’t. I think if we ignore this, then were we to remove the current systems we would risk making serious mistakes. Can we establish systems were the commons are protected and maintained sustainably? Probably. But not by being blind to how humans have done things historically.

                    • Colonial Viper

                      Which is exactly why I referred to those traditional cultures. I feel that Bill is saying that capitalist and consumerist values have driven out traditional values of thrift – even those common in the west after the Great Depression, let alone those of native cultures.

                      Look, a village of 500 people is going to leave an ecological footprint. A total global human population of 10M people is going to leave an ecological footprint.

                      Of course, what we have now is massively huger than that.

                      Yes, human beings in history often did end up living beyond the resource base that was immediately available.

                      Famines and plagues usually sorted that out. Cycles of population growth and decline (i.e. births and deaths) based on the quality of the harvest are things that we have simply mostly forgotten about as part of the top 10%.

                    • Draco T Bastard

                      Not sure about Inuit, but both North American and Australian native peoples caused extinctions of mammals. That fits my definition of fucking with the commons.

                      Far too narrow a definition. As CV says, species go extinct all the time so that’s not really a problem. The problem comes when the rate of extinction is pushed into what is an industrial level of elimination due to the society.

                      It’s also hard to tell to what extent protection of the commons was due to lack of development of civilisations (and good on those people for resisting the urge).

                      They were civilised. They may not have been industrial civilisations but they were still civilisations.

                      I just don’t agree that they never messed with the collective spaces they were dependent on.

                      Of course they altered the natural state of the environment around them. That happens with all life but they also worked to fit within as well.

                      The Tragedy of the Commons states that a common field will be over grazed resulting in tragedy (the collapse of the field, the death of the animals and then the death of the people) but that’s is not what happens. I recall reading of a Scandinavian culture that used common fields for its herds. There are strict rules about grazing and moving the herds through different fields so that the fields and the animals are kept in good condition. Those rules were enforced by the villagers and not through a police force or government.

                      Then there’s the reality that we see with private ownership where over grazing is common, herds kept in such condition as to require that a large percentage of the herds have to be put down they’re so sick. Where streams become so polluted that they can no longer be drunk out of or swam in. This is the private ownership that is supposed to prevent these things from happening but, like most of economic theory, it was just pulled out of someone’s arse to justify private ownership and not actually based upon reality.

                      The other problem that most people don’t want to talk about is over population. We cannot live within the natural environmental limits if we keep expanding the population no matter how well we look after the environment.

                    • weka

                      You both seem to be saying that the commons can be messed with so long as it doesn’t get to the point of interferring with human society. I disagree (nature has inherent value), but I also note that the cultures you held up as examples generally don’t experience themselves in that top of the food chain, God given right kind of way.

                      I agree about population.

                      “They were civilised. They may not have been industrial civilisations but they were still civilisations.”

                      I’m using the term as used by the anti-civ crowd, who draw distinctions between societies (with civilised people in them) that are tribal and generally live within their limits, and societies that just keep growing and eventually collapse.

                      CV, I don’t think thrift is the key defining quality of those cultures’ relationship with the commons. It’s that they had/have a relationship with the commons where they are part of it. There is a distinct difference between that and say Eurocentric cultures that see the natural world as a storage of resources to be used. Saying that extinctions don’t matter is part of that, because it makes us blind to the incredible complexity of interrelationships that make up ecosystems of which we are a part.

                      Leaving an ecological footprint is a modern idea from peoples who see themselves as separate from nature. It’s a useful idea in that it helps us see where we are fucking up, but it’s not a good basis for sustainability in the long term.

                • red blooded

                  So, you don’t fuck with the commons, but do endorse vigilante “justice”.

                  Who decided on this series of outcomes, Bill? How were they decided upon? Were they consistent with outcomes for others in the past (or in the next village)? And what if the person arguing passionately that this guy’s house should be burnt down has another motive (maybe (s)he wants access to the land, or just a better view from her/his house). Is this OK?

                  Who does the burning? Do people volunteer? Or maybe they group together and pump up their sense of righteousness by mob energy.

                  (Besides, I thought you were arguing in another answer that there would be no more private property under your model. If that’s the case, how did this guy get his own house, stock etc? And if they’re not his own, what does he care what your mob does to them?)

                  • Bill

                    Cute how you jump to the top end of gradually escalating consequences democratically decided upon by a community of affected people to make a half arsed point about vigilantism ;-)

                    And it’s obvious my comment was in relation to the myth peddled about the ‘tragedy of the commons’…

                    Anyway, your comment is just too badly confused, sunk in authoritarian mentality and generally misanthropic for me to be bothered with.

              • Polish Pride

                I’m sure you will have other examples and feel free to throw them into the mix.
                In my view the starting point comes down to do no harm to others (common law etc.)
                Pollution of rivers is not something that is acceptable now in my view. In such a society the goal would be to find alternative technological solutions or finding alternative ways of doing things so there is no need to pollute as there is today.
                Remove money from the equation and you remove the biggest barrier to finding such solutions in my view.

                Polluting a river for shits and giggles impacts on other users enjoyment of the river and therefore would be a no go …..unless perhaps those same ones wanting to pollute have a way to also clean up the mess. Alternately (and this is getting a little bit out there) if there was demand for polluting the river then society might need to designate areas of the river for this and put in place a technological solution to return the river to its original state so as not to impact other river users.

                • weka

                  “Polluting a river for shits and giggles impacts on other users enjoyment of the river and therefore would be a no go”

                  Yes, but the point being argued is how you ensure that without an authoritarian system backed by force.

                  “Alternately (and this is getting a little bit out there) if there was demand for polluting the river then society might need to designate areas of the river for this and put in place a technological solution to return the river to its original state so as not to impact other river users.”

                  Far from being out there, I think this is more akin to what many in NZ already think, sans the tech solution, which we like in theory but seem unable to put into practice in the short and medium terms. On the otherhand there is a sizeable minority, myself included, who would never agree to designating some rivers as ripe for polluting. So again, how to reconcile this in the system Bill is proposing?

                  • Bill

                    If you can no longer externalise costs via market mechanisms and if you are no longer driven by the profit motive above all others….then what is compelling people to set up needless envionmentally damaging industry?

                    What industry do you think a society would reasonably require that would be environmentally damaging and that people would engage in when there is no compulsion to earn money to extract basic and necessary goods from the market economy?

          • Tim 2.1.1.1.2

            I’m more cynical than the both of you put together! No you’re NOT! YES I AM so!
            Am too Am too! :p

      • weka 2.1.2

        If I might suggest, some of the things you are writing about probably seem self-evident to you Bill, but not to others. Some further explanation might be needed.

        Karol’s example makes sense to me, so let’s tease this out. It came up yesterday: who gets to decide if someone is not able to work or if someone is shirking? Where conflict might arise is where someone who pays taxes feels they get to have a say in whether someone else receives welfare.

        Another example: you want to buy shoes at the local importers. Your neighbour objects because the shoes are made with slave labour. Is the neighbour excluded from the process because your buying shoes has no direct impact on them? Where is the line?

        A third example: currently councils enforce the building code, set by central govt. If that is disestablished, who gets to have a say in how a building gets built? What if no-one cares to turn up and later the building falls down and kills someone who wasn’t even around at the time of construction (eg a child born later)?

        Maybe I’m missing something, but I am curious to see how this pans out. I do agree with some of the principle you put forth, re direct participation in what affects us, but I also think that it is more complex when you look at the pragmatics.

        • Polish Pride 2.1.2.1

          “Where conflict might arise is where someone who pays taxes feels they get to have a say in whether someone else receives welfare.”

          This is a very common theme for many posters on Whaleoil.

        • Bill 2.1.2.2

          How can you possibly have slave labour in a democracy? At what point did we extract our brains in order that we couldn’t construct decent buildings any more? As for taxes and welfare…you’re assuming everyone is still locked into the job demands of a market economy? Shirking? If individuals ‘take advantage’ of their peers (their community/society) or don’t make a recognisable contribution (and that is not necessarily work btw) then experience informs me that their peers will utlise a fair armoury of tactics/methods to pull them into line. Last resort is social ostracisation. And that is no little thing to be treated lightly.

          • weka 2.1.2.2.1

            “How can you possibly have slave labour in a democracy?”

            Imports.

            “At what point did we extract our brains in order that we couldn’t construct decent buildings any more?”

            Building safety isn’t an absolute, it’s a compromise between many things (cost, material availability, geography/climate, design, time etc). Humans have always built buildings that fail at some point. You have evaded my question: what happens when someone not involved at the time decisions were made/not made gets hurt. Also, at the time the decision is made, what happens where you have disagreement about how the building should be constructed? Not saying the current system is better by any means, but my point is not irrelevant.

            “As for taxes and welfare…you’re assuming everyone is still locked into the job demands of a market economy?”

            No, I’m not, at all. I’m assuming that there is still a degree of collective responsibiltiy for some things and that taxes (hang-over word, would be happy with a substitute) is one way of managing that.

            “Shirking? If individuals ‘take advantage’ of their peers (their community/society) or don’t make a recognisable contribution (and that is not necessarily work btw) then experience informs me that their peers will utlise a fair armoury of tactics/methods to pull them into line. Last resort is social ostracisation. And that is no little thing to be treated lightly.”

            I’m not talking about someone who is shirking. I’m asking who gets to decide what shirking is? How does that work in the democratic process?

            • Bill 2.1.2.2.1.1

              Imports from a non-democratic (market?) economy? That’s the same as inserting non-democratic stuff from the present into the scenario (incidentally, instantly making it a non-democratic scenario) and then trying to figure out how a democracy would deal with it…makes no sense in terms of gaining insight/understanding.

              Moving on….as you say, things have been going wrong after the fact since for-ever. Don’t quite know why the bar should suddenly be raised so impossibly high. As for disagreements over construction methods/materials etc – they get resolved at the point where everyone involved agrees that they can (at least) ‘live with it’ or where a synthesis of best possible solutions is formed.

              Contribution is difficult to define. I can only relay from personal experience from time spent living in a workers/housing collective, that a persons contribution was based on a sense from everyone else that they were contributing. Maybe worth mentioning that when the division between work and leisure is diminished, it’s pretty fucking difficult to not contribute.

              • weka

                “As for disagreements over construction methods/materials etc – they get resolved at the point where everyone involved agrees that they can (at least) ‘live with it’ or where a synthesis of best possible solutions is formed.”

                Well, yes. So I am asking how that works in the democratic process.

                “Contribution is difficult to define. I can only relay from personal experience from time spent living in a workers/housing collective, that a persons contribution was based on a sense from everyone else that they were contributing. Maybe worth mentioning that when the division between work and leisure is diminished, it’s pretty fucking difficult to not contribute.”

                Might I suggest that the collective you were in were a relatively like minded lot when it came to democracy and concepts of contribution? I’m thinking more of communities that have a more diverse range of philosophies.

                I still have the feeling that you are evading teh core questions, and are instead putting up reasons why those questions are irrelevant. I’m not disagreeing with your basic premise (haven’t got a point of agree/disagree), I’m still just trying to see how it would work. Disagreement is a pretty basic human experience and I’d like to see how that might be managed within the system you are proposing.

                • Bill

                  The community I was a part of was actually a fairly eclectic mix of people with no common philosophy or shared political ideal.

                  Decision making and overcoming or seeing past disagreements has no blue print per se. It’s practice. Over time systems and techniques get developed and honed. I know that consensus doesn’t work and tends towards minority rule if it’s used all of the time. But then, some decisions demand consensus because of their impact. Other decisions simply need enough people to be in agreement and to possess the necessary skills or energy to bring to fruition. Yet other decisions need no consultation whatsoever. And between those three scenarios lie a plethora of other situations that require subtly altered decision making processes to be brought to bear.

                  The bottom line is that anyone affected has meaningful/effective input into processes. There are various ways to do that and no book that lays it all out in nice neat steps.

                  • karol

                    Yes, I can see that working reasonably well in a housing collective. But that existed within a fairly organised wider system.

                    I still don’t see how it can exist in the near to medium term future, in a complex and diverse society.

                    Your prior condition seems to be a totally different society than the one we are living in – but changing it to the kind of one you favour, is in the realm of highly speculative, and not something I can see happening soon.

                    I have in mind some of my wider whanau that would not even consider working towards that sort of society – they’d do the equivalent of Key sneering at Russel Norman re printing money. And those rellies are fairly centrist – centre right liberals, and not the sort that would actively work to ensure that your ideal society is brought about.

                    Myself, I be happy with a more collectively organised society, with more processes that are democratic, while also having various checks and balances.

                    • Bill

                      You seem to be suggesting that order was only possible because some counter and pre-existing order existed. I’m confused as to why an antagonistic wider order is preferable to one that is an extension of, or in tune with order predicated on democratic practices…or why you think order based on democratic principles can’t flourish and spread and serve as inspiration for others to quit presently constrained conditions.

                  • weka

                    “The community I was a part of was actually a fairly eclectic mix of people with no common philosophy or shared political ideal.”

                    So there was no shared committment to community? Or certain kinds of decision making processes?

            • Polish Pride 2.1.2.2.1.2

              As far as contribution goes this is where perhaps society should have a say in what activities equal contribution. E.g. Arts yes sure (and thats a pretty wide scope). Quality checking TV programmes from the comfort of your sofa? probably not. But examples are good. Again though a lot of it will come back to what the accepted goal of the system is or should be.
              In such a system though it is possible to have a key goal of the system to be to free people from having to work. In this instance you may very quickly reach a point where the numbers willing to contribute outstrips the jobs required, even with reduced hours or days of work.

              • karol

                Well, I think a fully participatory democratic society would mean most of one’s time would be taken up with the decision making processes for the society – understanding each possible initiative, researching it, etc. little time left for one’s own endeavours & interests.

                Myself, I’d rather delegate some of the decision making processes, have a high degree of transparency of processes, delegates that are accessible to questions, critiques & consultation, a community-based media with knowledgeable people critiquing various areas of endeavour, etc.

                • Bill

                  Well, I think a fully participatory democratic society would mean most of one’s time would be taken up with the decision making processes for the society…

                  You might think so, but it doesn’t actually work out that way in reality. What happens is that you involve yourself with issues that concern you – not everything that’s underway. And sure, there’s an onus to inform people who you think might be affected by something your planning.

                  There’s also the fact that many issues unfold as discussions that are no more draining (quite the opposite in fact) than everyday discussions about the latest soap.

  3. red blooded 3

    Bill, I think we have to recognise that there are/have been various forms of authoritarianism and power imbalances in all social structures that we as humans have managed to come up with so far. Yes, we should look critically at our social and political systems and yes, we should continuously strive to improve them, but we need to talk about concrete ideas and suggestions, not just rhetoric. That’s where Russell Brand opts out and to be honest I think that’s where your post opts out somewhat, too. It’s fine to say what you want to change FROM and why, but what do you want to change TO, and how?

    Plus, some statements need reevaluation:
    “So, based on that, we can state that in a democracy I can have no right to seek to confer on any other, any right to exercise power over you. Likewise, you simply cannot and do not have any right to impose on me any exercise of power by any third party either. None.”

    Does this mean we say goodbye to any rule of law? I wish I was still idealistic enough to believe in the purity of the anarchist ideal, but I don’t.

    • Bill 3.1

      I thought I gave a fairly succinct basis for what I’d prefer in terms of governance. If you want real life accounts of how it works, then I could take up many, many inch columns with first hand examples. That would be kind of tedious though. I’m sure you have the mental capacity to walk yourself through possible scenarios in a world that has embraced basic fundamentals of democratic governance. It will only wind up as a confusing mess if you project or extrapolate non-democratic dynamics from the present and attempt to have them lay out in a democratic future. So, for example, the house build example I gave is simple. But if you overlook the fact that the economy would also be democratic in a democracy and therefore private land ownership and speculative building projects a thing of the past, then you’ll struggle to square impossible circles.

      And no, the denial of third party authority doesn’t mean an end to any ‘rule of law’ – it obviously just means an end to the admin or execution of law being placed in the hands of external, over-arching authority.

      • weka 3.1.1

        I know you think you are being clear, so let’s assume that there are some real dummies here, myself included. I don’t get it, not all of it at least. Why would private ownership of land not exist? eg if everyone in my area decided they wanted private ownership.

        If there is no private ownership of land, then is there no private ownership of other things?

        • Bill 3.1.1.1

          Private ownership is predicated on the existence of a market economy. No other economy is coming to mind right now that would allow for or encourage private ownership. I can’t see how it would be possible for people to re-establish private ownership as any type of norm in a democratic economy. Of course, people would still have ‘things’…I assume that even most non-market tribal societies are full of people with various possessions.

          • weka 3.1.1.1.1

            “Private ownership is predicated on the existence of a market economy”

            Sorry, but I don’t even know what that means in the context of this conversation*. If true democracy is a thought experiment, and we are being asked to use our imaginations to conceive of how that might work, then why can I not imagine a situation where a group of people democratically decided to have private land ownership?

            Tribal societies… can’t think of any that don’t use authority in some form, so not sure we can look there for examples.

            *when do you date the start of market economies btw, just so I can get a historical reference point when considering other cultures.

            • Bill 3.1.1.1.1.1

              How the hell do individuals raise the necessary means to establish private ownership (of land) in the absence of a market economy? What other trading mechanism will be in play and that establishes a $$$ value for land that can then be bought, traded and speculated on?

              Maybe we could say around 200 years for the ‘modern’ industrialised market economy? You could, I guess, look back further to the enclosures or ‘fencing of the commons’ and people making exclusive claims to land through use of force etc (Kings and nobility…)

              • weka

                Why does private land have to cost alot? Who said it would have to be bought, traded, speculated on? I think you have fallen foul of your own rules here Bill. I’m not suggesting we look at changing private land ownership within the current system to within a democratic one. I’m saying I can’t see any reason why a group of people within a rohe couldn’t decide, democratically, to have private land ownership. I’m quite open to being wrong about this, but haven’t seen a rationale yet for why I am.

                “Maybe we could say around 200 years for the ‘modern’ industrialised market economy? You could, I guess, look back further to the enclosures or ‘fencing of the commons’ and people making exclusive claims to land through use of force etc (Kings and nobility…)”

                Does that mean there was no private land ownership outside of that time and place?

                In a democracy who gets to decide what land is used how by whom?

                • Bill

                  Beyond a very notional ‘this is mine’ that is agreed to among those concerned, I simply can’t see how anyone would raise the resources to invest in any land ownership scheme…or what their motivation for attempting to would be. Private space is fine (wondering is that more along the lines of what you are meaning when you refer to ‘private ownership’?)

                  As to land use, anyone impacted by any potential land use gets a say in the land use. In practical terms, it’s reverted to being the commons again. Not that that should be mistaken as a ‘free for all’…a banal example… within our community, we’ve decided that *that* piece of land should be used for growing food. Those people interested, involve themselves and come to various decisions around food production. For arguments sake, I’m not involved at all and’Julie’ is tending the cauliflowers and garlic this year. I want a cauliflower? I don’t just pop out and pick one – not until ‘Julie’ has okayed the commencement of harvesting.

                  As for private ownership of land in any given historical period, I’m not knowledgeable enough on what historically constituted any right to private land use to say or when something we might recognise today as private ownership popped up.

                  • weka

                    We obviously have very different ideas about what private land ownership is.

                    Beyond a very notional ‘this is mine’ that is agreed to among those concerned, I simply can’t see how anyone would raise the resources to invest in any land ownership scheme…or what their motivation for attempting to would be. Private space is fine (wondering is that more along the lines of what you are meaning when you refer to ‘private ownership’?)

                    I don’t agree it’s ‘very notional’. How humans have negotiated land use and land care is something that goes back millenia and is integral to all sorts of cultures. It predates any concept of market economies. Like I said, if we aren’t using current society as a frame of reference, I can’t see any reason why a group of people couldn’t collectively and democratically decide to allow private ownership eg this piece of land between river x and river y is now under the control of these 5 people. Nothing to do with raising money to ‘buy’ or sell it.

                    The reason it’s not notional is because most people want and need security. Granted, the current way we manage land entitlement is hugely problematic on lots of levels. I don’t see how that makes all land ownership per se bad.

                    btw, if government no longer exists, isn’t all ownership ‘private’?

                    • Bill

                      I meant – were you suggesting a notional ownership – not…oh, anyway. Security and privacy etc are fine…ownership that comes with some $ given right to do what you want isn’t. And as i keep saying, without a market economy there are no drivers or incentives for private ownership.

                    • karol

                      And yet a market economies, and private ownership arose out of a non-market economy society/ies? The drivers will always be there for some who want to gain an advantage over others.

                    • Bill

                      And the drivers were guns and a commitment to ‘total war’ – ie, elimination or cleansing. And it came from the ‘god given right’ for some men to do as they saw fit in the name of the god they had imagined and that had then created them after his image and granted to them, dominion over ‘his’ creation….(hardly a basis of or for democracy)

                      I mean, it was a nice number if you could pull it off. And it’s pulled off to this day to such a remarkable extent that when it was laid out in 101 terms on this blog, the crucial and rather simple underpinnings appeared to fly over the head of most people.

                  • karol

                    Well, I think the guns and Christian civilising mission of Christian-based colonisation was late to the game of undemocratic, hierarchical, and oppressive societies.

                    The fact that some of us don’t agree with your specific vision of how society can be restructured, doesn’t mean we support such “civilising missions”.

                    More that we disagree on the solutions. I just don’t see your ideal society as being anything that can be achieved in the short to medium term (certainly not this century), given what I’ve seen of the underlying values and approaches of some people in our world.

                    I’ve said it before (and in response to your 101 post): I was very much into collective ways of operating personally and politically in the 60s and 70s – early 80s. I also had the idea that if we started local, and provided a model and core of an egalitairan, collective way of organising, the practice would spread.

                    While many of us were seriously going about such ways of organising, the neocons were already well on the way to developing and implementing their multi-pronged (so called) neoliberal agenda – using their power from above, and permeating the media, education, politics, culture etc.

                    That’s a very powerful MO to counter. Unless we look seriously at the operations of power from above and ways to counter it, as well as from below, the oppressive powers will prevent any grass roots initiative from gaining much of a foothold.

                    You berate us for not taking on board (uncritically accepting) your 101 post underpinnings. I say, you haven’t taken on board my and other responses to that – basically we disagree.

                    From where I’m sitting, some very valid responses to your 101, seem to have “flown over your head”.

                    We do seriously need more democratic political processes. But we also need to be realistic about what can be achieved. Most importantly is keeping in mind the reasons for wanting democratic processes – to end the oppressive domination of powerful groups over others.

      • red blooded 3.1.2

        “If you want real life accounts of how it works, then I could take up many, many inch columns with first hand examples. That would be kind of tedious though.”

        Not half as tedious as spending countless hours per week (day?) investigating whether I want to have a say in the local building code (I have no particular expertise, but hey! I certainly have a great sense of style that others should benefit from!), the parameters of the primary school curriculum and allocation of health funding… And then who evaluates my input, balances it up against the input of others and actually ends up deciding and actioning a decision? And please don’t tell me that there will be consensus – the health example alone should be enough to suggest that sometimes even the most ethical person is going to be influenced by self-interest. I live with a significant health condition and even though I know that there are people living with and dying from worse conditions, I cannot honestly say that I wouldn’t try to funnel research funds and treatment options towards dealing with my problems. Or are you going to tell me that if I wasn’t a product of this society and its values then I would be prepared to sacrifice my self interest and live with limitations that I could in some way angle resources towards alleviating? Because if that is your view it is sweet, idealistic and naive.

        “And no, the denial of third party authority doesn’t mean an end to any ‘rule of law’ – it obviously just means an end to the admin or execution of law being placed in the hands of external, over-arching authority.” – Um… I think you’ll find that this is pretty much what is meant by ‘rule of law’. You may not agree with all of NZ’s laws, the oppositional model of our court system, the Code of Practice of the police… Fine. Nobody here is arguing that our current system can’t be improved. However, if you are basically arguing for a return to “village” (or tribal) law, then I can’t agree with you. All of the allegations that can be made about our current system (institutional racism/sexism, unfairness, unintended consequences, roughness) have some truth to them, but at least with “third party authority” and “the admin or execution of law being placed in the hands of an external, overarching authority” there is some opportunity to investigate, evaluate and hold people and institutions to account. That also allows for informed debate and improvement. If there are no such institutions and every instance of violence or other offence against fellow citizen(s) is decided on a case-by-case basis by those who decide they have an interest, then basically we have mob “justice”. That’s the kind of justice that saw women burnt as witches. (Except even then there was the “authority” of the church at work.)

        I think I’m going to say again, what you are calling “true democracy” is what I used to yearn for in my anarchist youth. I was always a bit unsettled when asked to give an example of a society that functioned (or had functioned) in this way, though.

        An interesting (if somewhat esoteric) discussion.

        • Sacha 3.1.2.1

          “a return to “village” (or tribal) law”

          Exactly – works really well for a small group of people who all know each other. Otherwise our ancestors found out really fast they needed better ways.

          “what you are calling “true democracy” is what I used to yearn for in my anarchist youth”

          And discussing it is proving no more illuminating than arguing with spotty neoliberals.

          • weka 3.1.2.1.1

            I think what Bill is doing with this post is challenging our current notions of what democracy is, and positing what real democracy is and why we don’t work towards it (or recognise or desire it). I agree with Bill that we can’t get there from here if we try and imagine democracy in our current situation.

            So size of population is an issue, but does that not just point to the problem being that we have centralised things too much and this is what prevents democracy?

            “Otherwise our ancestors found out really fast they needed better ways.”

            Such as?

          • Polish Pride 3.1.2.1.2

            true democracy is interesting provided you can find a way to avoid mob rule. The problem in my view is how and where do you draw the lines.
            Example go back 10 years and put gay marriage on the table as a change to law. Lets say on a straight (pardon the pun) 70% are opposed to the idea. The problem is that it doesn’t even effect 90% of them. So how do you avoid the majority being able to tell someone what they can and can’t do through direct democracy when the actions in question have no impact on those same individuals.
            The same would go for those who want to use cannabis right now.

            • Bill 3.1.2.1.2.1

              But your sexuality is none of my business. Therefore I have no legitimate say on your relationships. Also, your overlooking the appeal to (religious?) authority implicit to the idea of marriage.

        • Bill 3.1.2.2

          The local building code? You mean like a code of standards that is overseen and administered by a bureaucracy or some such? Doesn’t exist and cant exist if your seeking to preserve democracy. Scarey for some I know, but those skills and knowledges that people possess (materials, good/bad designs etc) allied with common sense and aesthetics….?

          And you other centrally administered bureaucracies shackled by market demands? Don’t exist. Are there people wanting to dedicate themselves to particular fields of research? Cool. Are they going to be stymied by market allocation of resources etc? Nope. Is there likely to be more people following their desire to be a brain surgeon or some such than at present? Probably. Will the market throw up barriers and road blocks to them pursuing their goals? No.

          So, without the imposition of the market, we’d probably have better and more widespread areas of research being carried out by more highly skilled/trained and motivated people.

          On the law and order front, can I suggest you take into account that the degree of alienation currently experienced by most people these days will have diminished or disappeared altogether and that any ‘breaking of the law’ is likely to be something that directly affects the people you live with and work beside every day. And the peasants in medieval England administered the law just fine on their own. Of course, maybe we’ve degenerated since then.

          As an aside, it wasn’t they who were responsible for witch burnings etc and there’s documentation of the authorities routinely having to pay up to $10 to secure an interrogator/executioner….who was, of course, treated as an out-cast by locals.

          Back to your query on input. Those participating in the discussion evaluate your contribution. And if it’s worthwhile and relevant, then it’ll no doubt have legs and even fly. Not always though. Life is a learning process and mistakes are made and potentially valuable contributions dismissed or overlooked sometimes.

          • weka 3.1.2.2.1

            The reason we have a building code now is because we build buildings that are bigger and potentially more dangerous than in the past, and are certainly more complex and beyond the scope of traditional builders. So if in the democracy we are talking about a return to more simple building methods, then I agree. But if we are going to build x stories high etc, then I don’t see how the locals can do that without agreed to standards.

            • Colonial Viper 3.1.2.2.1.1

              Let’s do an experiment in building standards de-regulation and see how that turns out…

        • Polish Pride 3.1.2.3

          “And then who evaluates my input, balances it up against the input of others and actually ends up deciding and actioning a decision?”

          Trained experts in the field in question. So for the Building code, perhaps a builders council/ forum/panel

          • Bill 3.1.2.3.1

            Nothing wrong in seeking out expertise or specialist knowledge to aid (the plural) you in coming to a decision. But it’s you – not some external agency, that arrives at all decisions and actions all plans. Otherwise your back to be being subjected to power instead of wielding it.

            • Colonial Viper 3.1.2.3.1.1

              A lot of people are simply happy to vote the “right person” in and leave them to it mate. Maybe it’s just the patriarchy or whatever, but there is a lot of relief that someone else is going to take charge and sort out the mess. And, if they fuck up you can always sledge them.

              • Bill

                If people don’t want to participate in certain, or even most decisions then that’s up to them. But they can’t then expect to turn around and say that *this guy* represents us all and is the sum total of our ceded decision making rights. No group with half a brain would accept *this guy* and his magnified power as legitimate.

                (cue overwhelming force of arms and fear of god and eternal damnation….patriarchy)

                • Colonial Viper

                  “No group with half a brain would accept *this guy* and his magnified power as legitimate.”

                  Apart from the populations of every western OECD country, you mean. Without being snide, its incredibly difficult to get people to even make a peep when their work or privacy rights are being undermined. You’re speaking of a different cultural system of values and socialising than most people have ever experienced. Does it have democratic benefits? Yes. It also requires people to accept far more responsibility as actual citizens.

                  That requires a kind of socialisation and individual responsibility which the Left does not encourage, and which of course popular culture and the MSM has stamped on.

      • Polish Pride 3.1.3

        Bill bear in mind that many people do not have the time or head space to think some of these concepts through as to how something today might work differently under an improved or new system. Examples as people have them are good.
        I have been thinking about this sort of thing for the past 3 years so am happy to help in this area. Examples from the current system also helped throw up challenges for resolution in a new one.

        (Not saying you need to put them up. I am saying if people have specific examples put them out by all means).

  4. Sacha 4

    Who gets to uphold my “right to meaningfully engage in processes of decision making” in your world, Bill?

    • Bill 4.1

      You and the people you are engaging with Sasha. Again – these are people you live with and work beside every day….people you share common concerns with who are impacted by the same things you’re impacted by – not strangers.

      • Sacha 4.1.1

        A tiny village in other words. Enjoy your idealism.

        • Polish Pride 4.1.1.1

          “A tiny village in other words. Enjoy your idealism.”

          Sacha this isn’t a simple topic. You are talking about potential systemic change. Don’t be so simplistic in your approach. A critical mind in this arena is a good thing. It helps highlight and resolve issues that might arise.

          Who gets to uphold my “right to meaningfully engage in processes of decision making” in your world, Bill?

          In my view this would a constitution to give you the right in the first instance. This would be backed by a senate function whose responsibility it is to ensure that any new law do not contravene the constitution and would veto any that do. As everyone would have the same rights I don’t see where a situation would arise where your right to meaningfully engage in processes of decision making would be questioned. I realise that won’t be an entirely acceptable answer but give me a strawman and I’ll work through it.

        • Bill 4.1.1.2

          Lets notionally say 150 people is an optimum number of people engaged and making day to day decisions that affect them in a given geographical area. Those 150 will have multiple and layered connections to multiple other groups of (say) 150-ish people.

          And if we consider one person, it’s obvious they would belong to many societies that they flit in and out and through depending on what they are engaged in at any given time.

          At their geographical home they are engaged variously with some or all of the other 149 people who live there. When they attend the equivalent of a university or other training institution, they are involved in the societies that comprise that institution.

          Anyway, pretty soon the naturally arising order that’s generated from simple initial conditions gives rise to a dynamic and integrated whole that involves hundreds of thousands of people and many inter-related (sometimes temporary) societies.

          But you prefer dictatorship.

          • Sacha 4.1.1.2.1

            “But you prefer dictatorship”

            When did you stop beating your wife?

          • karol 4.1.1.2.2

            Sorry, Bill, you are into the realms of fantasy.

            While you are busy building such networks (in a society that does not yet exist), there will be others working their butts off to ensure that it cannot become widespread – and also, to ensure that all the little collectives can be taken over to be used (or abused) for the benefit of the anti-democrats.

            I’d rather look at practical ways to ensure a more accountable, consultative transparent system than the one we’ve got, with eyes wide open about the fact there will be many who will never agree to a collectively organised stateless society. one with various checks and balances against domination by the powerful few.

            • Bill 4.1.1.2.2.1

              If you and others were to form a functioning housing collective tomorrow that embraced democratic values, no-one would stop you. And if you also formed as workers collective that embraced democratic values, no-one would stop you. (These things aren’t so uncommon)

              And if the people from one housing/workers collective form bonds with those in others….no-one will stop you.

              And since you would have a deep sense of ‘ownership’ and no shareholders and, if set up intelligently, no wage bill and therefore a potential competitive advantage over capitalist ventures, it’s not as though you’d sell it to some capitalist enterprise at some later date.

              And when the likes of your rellies or whoever realise that your quality of life just doesn’t compare to theirs, then they’ll emulate what you’ve been doing.

              • karol

                Hmmm… you know, Bill. if you put it that way…. I won’t be rushing to join a collective. In fact – I don’t really want to.

                I’m happy living in a rented studio – fairly humble, but serviceable. And I get a lot of uninterrupted time to do the researching, writing, discussions I am interested in, going to the places & events I choose, etc.

                I’ve always chosen to live in (mostly meagre) circumstances most of my rellies would turn their noses up at. I’ve yet to see them rushing to copy my lifestyle.

                I’ve lived in shared rental accommodation when I was younger. These days, I know very few who would be interested in a collective arrangement, especially not in my age group, and/or with a similar enough outlook on life.

                I would be interested in more collective arrangements for the organisation of the community and the wider society – the work place etc. And more consultation, transparency, accountability.

                The thing is. You’ve got a living arrangement that suits you and that you like – that you are committed to. Why do you assume everyone else would choose the same given a free choice? Isn’t that like saying everyone should choose to live the way you do? – kind of a contradiction.

                • Bill

                  Here’s the thing. We already know that living in (notionally) nuclear family arrangements with even a modest western lifestyle is consuming far more in the way of resources and creating far more pollution than the planet can accommodate….not to mention that the extraction and subsequent manufacturing of those resources relies on the almost complete immiseration of billions.

                  But as long as we’re content….

      • greywarbler 4.1.2

        @Bill
        Sometimes strangers can bring in a breath of fresh air, an objectivity, there is an advantage in their lack of connectedness with all the power lines of the society. They are hoped to be not compromised elected people or just community leaders because it is perceived that links need to be broken, because there have been too many little deals, cover ups etc.

        The police sometimes do this – break the bonds of seniority within the organisation so that a new appointee for a top job with experience is brought in.

        It is hard to be hard and fast about ways of providing leaders. I like to see NZs get top jobs here. I get tired of the seeming obssession with looking overseas all the time. And new policy being based on what they are doing overseas, and talk about best practice deciding what law is to control us and set parameters. I see a lack of willingness to study and draw up on our own laws to tackle our own problems. We have our own intelligent and experienced people.
        But we must also be prepared for outsiders to add useful expertise and overview.

        Some strangers, on some occasions, can add a new perspective, line of thinking, and be unencumbered from local lobbyists and power groups who have created road blocks to considering and presenting people with a different vision, different possibilities.

  5. Tracey 5

    What is the different between democracy and politics?

    More and more I find politics to be about the puppeteers and cannot help but think of platos cave

  6. McFlock 6

    I’ve finally figured out my nagging worry about governance by referenda and other participatory democracy issues: The problem with a participatory democracy is that crowds are stupid. Individual people are generally fine, but crowds of shoppers, protestors, fans, or stockbrokers tend towards “boom and bust”, and other cycles of extreme collective behaviour. They need external brakes/dampers.

    call it a byproduct of my days in crowd control, but that’s why I prefer an imperfect representative democracy.

    • Colonial Viper 6.1

      The problem with a participatory democracy is that crowds are stupid. Individual people are generally fine, but crowds of shoppers, protestors, fans, or stockbrokers tend towards “boom and bust”, and other cycles of extreme collective behaviour. They need external brakes/dampers.

      And traditional Tories would agree with you 100%. That’s why you need those who are fit to rule in charge of the thronging, impatient, unwashed masses.

      • Martin 6.1.1

        yes they are stupid. that is the role of TV
        stupid and entertained people won’t cause problems.
        You see if the French had TV, Louis and Marie would have kept their heads
        as would have their fellow aristocrats.

        • Colonial Viper 6.1.1.1

          No, TV is only one factor, and a relatively recent one (i.e. post 1960). However, the transition from a print/text based culture to a more superficial image based one is pervasive and problematic.

          Systematic forms of disinformation, propaganda and “manufacturing consent” were developed for pushing the USA population into WWI, and those same experts then went to work for corporations on Madison Avenue.

          Transforming within just a few years in the 1920s cigarette smoking from a dirty habit that only skanks, abandoned and fallen women did, to an activity that every classy, independent, and strong minded young lady practiced in public is an example of the power (magic) that these experts wield.

          The Left has no idea: getting more and better facts out to people is a laughable and losing strategy.

          • greywarbler 6.1.1.1.1

            Didn’t Labour shoot themselves and us in the foot when they gave up on the idea of a dedicated public service channel. That would have put on political discussions (commercially so unentertaining) for people who cared about our country and wanted to think about its direction and events. And watch its shows and give its creatives a regular venue. But now we have people revelling in ‘reality’ shows. Cartoons are where we get stuff satiristic and informative.

            Labour gave up the tremendous advantages of mass presentation of views and news for information as well as interest. Petty thinkers of the left have left us without this media type and don’t seem to be able to change from the petty mindset so it goes on. All they aspire to is to be hens picking up bits of ideas from the ground, a bit of policy here and there, but not many useful eggs.

            • karol 6.1.1.1.1.1

              gw, I have been pondering on the viability of starting an online morning (and evening?) radio show, that would comment on current events and include some interviews with significant people?

              Any widespread support for this? It shoud be cheap to do in financial terms – but maybe expensive in terms of time commitment.

              • lprent

                I’d find that worth supporting

                • karol

                  Well so would I. I would also be interested in contributing to it as a researcher. It would need the involvement of some people with specific skills. This would include some people with leadership and motivational skills, as well as the people to actually front as hosts of the online radio show & conduct interviews.

                  • just saying

                    Would it be possible for it to be nation-wide, or just localised?
                    I’d support it, but have no particular skills.

                    • karol

                      I would have thought, being online, it’d be possible and best nation wide. That would increase the pool of participants and material covered.

                      It also means that it would require a couple of people who strongly participate in nation-wide networks.

                      i reckon research and fact checking would be useful contributions.

                    • greywarbler

                      Sounds good – there are people who come on TS and who have started their own blogs, and do research AND try hard to be factual who would no doubt be interested.

                      At present I only listen to Radionz and find them pretty good overall, but I pass on occasional criticisms in the hope that they will keep up standards. I think there are many people dedicated to good public radio there.

                      The way that talk back radio manage contentious opinions, perhaps to the operator, is to cut them off. There would have to be some sort of control through a group that has a mission statement to guide them, and can limit a Kyle Chapman, an anti Peter Jackson activist or an anti-union.
                      Maybe there is a way around these problems of access. Limited time etc.

                    • weka

                      “i reckon research and fact checking would be useful contributions.”

                      Finding out what proportion of intended audience have/don’t have adequate/cheap internet to listen would be a good place to start. And where those with access are.

          • Martin 6.1.1.1.2

            True, CV before TV we still had advertising as you mention. Edward Bernays is the culprit for making tobacco acceptable for women.
            prsuming getting more and better facts out was the raison detre in the first place.

      • McFlock 6.1.2

        Look at the stockmarket. That’s 100%, immediate and direct participation in action. Look at any crowd – the flow of people, the eddies and currents they make, and so on.

        An ideal representative democracy isn’t about being in charge of that, it’s about slowing things down so that people can have a considered reaction to the wider focus, rather than just what happens immediately next to them (or in the couple of days previously).

        Basically, you’re trusting the same people who drove themselves off economic and climate cliffs to not make things worse when they’re given more immediate control. Bold move.

    • Bill 6.2

      Referenda are not any expression of participatory democracy. And democracy most certainly does not run on some kind of herd mentality – that’s what our present system does and encourages.

    • KJT 6.3

      I’ve finally figured out my nagging worry about governance by a small group of politicians and other representative democracy issues: The problem with a representative democracy is that politicians are stupid. Politicians can be fine people, but put them in power and they tend to “boom and bust”, group think, capture by interest groups, corruption and arrogance, and other cycles of extreme behavior.

      They need external brakes/dampers.

      Call it a byproduct of my days in leading people and getting the best out of them. That’s why I prefer a real democracy.

      Fixed it for you McFlock!

      • karol 6.3.1

        What kind of external brakes/dampers do you have in mind?

        Wouldn’t taking the private funding out of electioneering be a start?

        • KJT 6.3.1.1

          Definitely.

          My preference would be State funding. An equal amount for any party with more than a minimum number of paid up individual members.

          And Swiss style binding referenda.

          Like you, I think that more democracy is something we should always be working towards.

          However, as we have seen recently, it is easy for a New Zealand Government, with its absolute power, to quickly dismantle any steps towards Democracy.

          • Colonial Viper 6.3.1.1.1

            More powers and roles for local democratic organisations. Like local elected power and water boards. Protect the commons democratically and locally.

          • McFlock 6.3.1.1.2

            I’d do binding referenda on constitutional issues, but not the daily issues of governance.

            I certainly don’t think that the current regime (in all senses of the word) is perfect, but I do think there is a balance between a government that folows the wishes of the people and a government that is micromanaged to death by referenda.

  7. Tracey 7

    If tge masses receive genuinely disseminated information they will make profoundly sensible decisions.

    sadly the educated are some of the most willing to digest and disseminate pr spin propaganda call it what you will. They sit smugly believing themselves intellectually superior yet all the while they are the unpaid dupes of the mega wealthy. Journalists are a good example of this phenomenon

    • Colonial Viper 7.1

      If tge masses receive genuinely disseminated information they will make profoundly sensible decisions.

      Sorta. Bernays however figured out a century ago that falls well short – people are emotional and irrational creatures first and foremost.

      Information/facts has got to be about 1/3 the mix

      Another 1/3 has got to be an emotional and human energy

      Another 1/3 has got to be a vision of what it is we want to achieve, whether it is something in a years time or something in 10 years time.

      sadly the educated are some of the most willing to digest and disseminate pr spin propaganda call it what you will.

      Yes. Some very smart, thoughtful people backed Roger Douglas all the way. They liked the theory of the new economics, they knew that they would do personally very well out of the new economics, and frankly, they were just sick to death of Muldoon’s state run economics.

      This was another one of Bernay’s great breakthroughs – you seduce the intellectual and academic class into your thinking frameworks and social priorities. And McCarthyism got rid of those hard core socialists in schools and universities who didn’t go along with it.

  8. Martin 8

    Democracy?! What!?
    Where!?
    How?

    oh, you mean this kleptomaniac plutocracy.

  9. adam 9

    Come on Bill, totalitarianism means people can have a good moan and not take responsibility for themselves or there actions. It works for many because they can wring there hands and go, silly people. The right don’t give a fuck, as long as they get to keep there power – there happy.

    And that the rib bro – you want people to be empowered and make their own decisions, both individual and collectively- your f*&ed. No seriously, look how fast it dropped to, “people are stupid” “utopian” “in an ideal world” “it ok for everyone else” “vigilant rule!!” “what about shirkers?” Me.me.me…

    Is it me or is this site full of people who really should go vote national? Why, because they think that the Eisenhower era was an economic high point/golden age – and they want that recreated. They are not interested in changing the processes or positions of power – it’s to bloody hard. It hurts to think about it, and maybe they might have to do something. Better to moan and abuse those who even mention real democracy. So Bill in that vain – you traitor to the working class, how dear you ever mention they could have a semblance of power over there own lives.

    • weka 9.1

      ““what about shirkers?””

      You appear to not have comprehended what I actually said (I most definitely didn’t say “what about shirkers?”), which makes me wonder how closely you have read what other people said too.

    • karol 9.2

      So it’s either totalitarianism – selfish and irresponsible, or it’s participatory democracy where everybody gets a say in decision making?

      So on the one hand you want us all be able to (selfishly?) make our own choices within the collective decision-making processes, but when people say their choice wouldn’t be for the same arrangement you choose (for us), they are being selfish and irresponsible? And you go into aggressive attack mode.

      The contradictions are falling over themselves so much, it hurts my head.

      • Sacha 9.2.1

        Stupid often hurts.

      • adam 9.2.2

        I believe we live in a totalitarian society, and that we always have done so in one form or another – this just happens to be a benign version. I also believe, that the days are numbered on it being benign. If we choice to keep going down the same path, then we are looking at a new totalitarianism which will include some sort of serfdom, or outright slavery.

        So am I grumpy – bloody ah – am I completely discouraged by the left/right dived which is solidifying into sold clumps of there own version of dystopia – sure am.

        What I want is simple – people to try it. Just a little – baby steps, try brining participatory democracy into your political lives one little bit at a time.

        Yes weka I picked out that point to rattle your cage, not a nice word is shirker and even nastier when your disabled and are been called one. It’s one term that gets under my skin – and I’ll admit, I tuned out once you used it.

        Oh and Sacha are you a Green by any chance?

        • weka 9.2.2.1

          “Yes weka I picked out that point to rattle your cage, not a nice word is shirker and even nastier when your disabled and are been called one. It’s one term that gets under my skin – and I’ll admit, I tuned out once you used it.”

          If you had read what I actually said you would have seen that I was asking how accusations of shirker could be dealt with, and was speaking from personal experience (of being accused). But by all means go ahead with your holier than thou approach that eliminates the need to communicate effectively and see how far that gets you in creating participatory democracy,

      • Bill 9.2.3

        On the left hand of social democracy, there is state centric totalitarianism. On the right hand there is corporatism. In other words, social democracy preserves the necessary initial conditions for either of those two state of affairs. And it will fall or tend to either the left or to the right again as it has in the past under the pressure of extreme crisis….and fuck knows we have enough of them stacking up. You okay with that or simply in denial?

        • karol 9.2.3.1

          Bill, to me it is you who are in denial. I don’t see your grass roots, organise and hope, collectivisation as ending the dominance of powerful groups. In the short term to medium term, your approach will open the door to far worse forms of domination. You OK with that?

          I would prefer to aim for democratic socialism, rather than social democracy, but social democracy is more achievable in the short term. We need to develop practical and achievable ways of holding the powerful elites and corporate in check, and to dismantle their power – no easy task.

          We don’t live in a totalitarian state yet, though we are getting frighteningly close.

          PS: Is it just me and my Chrome browser, or is it TS that makes commenting here the last couple of days a real struggle – very slow in responding to every key stroke.

          • Bill 9.2.3.1.1

            In the short term to medium term, your approach will open the door to far worse forms of domination.

            Care to explain how nascent but potentially deepening and broadening forms of democratic governance involving ever more people (with presumably, less tolerance or acceptance of undemocratic expressions of governance) opens the door to far worse forms of domination?

    • Bill 9.3

      This traitor to the working class still hasn’t seen a single commenter who would presume to defend this system of governance we have, attempt an answer to either of the two very simple questions I asked in the post…which were (to paraphrase) – where is the democracy in the present set up and (since none will be identified) why aren’t you demanding democracy in the stead of authoritarianism?

      So yeah….lots of mental energy spent on attacking propositions that would seek to deliver democratic governance and no fucking concern at all over our current realities….very much – ‘I’m alright Jack’

      • weka 9.3.1

        That’s unfair. You presented something that wasn’t explained particularly well so of course there is going to be lots of questioning.

        “This traitor to the working class still hasn’t seen a single commenter who would presume to defend this system of governance we have”

        As noted, much of the discussion looks like an attempt at understanding what you actually mean. I still don’t have a clear enough picture to say yea or nay. The people that were outright anti might have responded better with a more complete and clear explanation of what you are proposing.

        Question 1: I ignored the question of where is the democracy currently because if I had said something like an easy comparison with countries that don’t allow women to vote with my right to vote demonstrates a sliver of democracy, I’m pretty sure an ideological and probably largely semantic debate would have broken out that would have gone nowhere and would have substantially detracted from what I thought was the real purpose of the post. The question appeared to be a set up designed to prove the rest of your post, so there didn’t seem to be much point in responding to it.

        Question 2 “why aren’t you demanding democracy in the stead of authoritarianism?”… firstly, I reject the absoluteness of that statement (that people live in either one or the other absolutely), and second, I don’t see democracy as being something that is demanded. Demanded from whom exactly? Thirdly, I think the reasons are so fucking obvious that I didn’t think they needed going into.

        I’m disappointed. I was looking forward to you posting on this at some point. I feel that the comments I made in good faith were largely answered with either ideology (everything is the market economy’s fault), or were just avoided. It was hard to take the conversation anywhere useful, so we just went round and round in circles.

        I’m sure that there are lots of people who would prefer what we have now to even looking at what you are suggesting, but I don’t think that is everyone here on ts and I’m not willing to be lumped in with your idea that everyone is just out for themselves.

        • weka 9.3.1.1

          btw, I think much of the problem in this thread is due to your post being broadly theoretical and people here wanting more detail and pragmatics.

          In the first paragraph you talk about the rule of thumb being easy*. I understood the concept immediately and thus next went to ‘how would this work in reality?’. I don’t think we’ve had a decent discussion about that yet, but it is a valid concern and one that needs looking at for the process to be explored further. Otherwise you are asking us to just take your idea on faith.

          *that people have the right to participate in decisions that directly affect them and no right to participate in decisions that don’t affect them.

        • Bill 9.3.1.2

          Hey Weka. You attempted to query. I was referring to those who have gone to some lengths to dismiss democracy or ideas about democracy (while simultaneously getting all het up about ecan, Brownlie and Christchurch).

          And I can’t see how I (or anyone) can do more than suggest basic ground rules for what has to be satisfied before a system of governance can be considered democratic.

          And I wasn’t attempting to avoid your questions, but when they are along the lines of people doing stuff just for the hell of it (the messing rivers example) then it’s like being asked to consider how democratic governance would deal with a Vogon Constructor Fleet…y’know, things don’t ‘just happen’ out of the blue…there are drivers and incentives and motives…and from my perspective, it’s legitimate and necessary to examine what those motivations, incentives etc are and what might be producing them to determine whether x, y or z would reasonably be expected to happen under different conditions.

          • weka 9.3.1.2.1

            Fair enough, and re the rivers I was vague on the detail because I was thinking of a specfic situation but didn’t want to talk about that. In broad terms it’s someone very wealthy doing something because they want to not because the market forces them to make a living that way. As far as I can tell the incentives are largely personal. I could shorthand it to boys with their toys, but I don’t mean that in a derogatory way (inventiveness is a useful characteristic). I think this is something humans do (do shit for the love of it), and historically there are cultural restrictions to prevent them from getting out of hand. I was curious to see how that would work in what you were proposing. If you wanted something more specific, then just ask.

            But there were many other instances where I raised legitimate issues and had them largely dismissed either ideologically or avoided. The building issue is an obvious one. Again, I think one of the problems here is that you are talking in broad theoretical terms whereas I go straight to the nitty gritty of how it could work. I’m not doing that to diss what you are saying, I’m doing it to explore the potential.

            Re everyone else, I think you have assumed that people know what you are talking about. I don’t think enough people do. And when the conversation gets loaded with jargon terms at the expense of open and inclusive conversation, it’s hard to see how we could get anywhere. Sure you are going to get some people who outright reject what you are proposing. But that wasn’t everyone in this thread, and it’s just plainly inaccurate for you to imply that it was.

            In fact, we could use this very thread as a practice ground for what you are talking about… a decision needs to be made on whether to look at adopting participatory democracy. How can we make that decision (given it affects everyone here)?

      • karol 9.3.2

        So yeah….lots of mental energy spent on attacking propositions that would seek to deliver democratic governance and no fucking concern at all over our current realities….very much – ‘I’m alright Jack’

        Bill that is really unfair, and off target.

        The thing is, I’d rather be looking at ways to deliver more democratic governance, and especially ways to counter the powerful reach of the corporates and powerful elites. And I have posted several times about my concerns about the undemocratic state of our current governance.

        The thing is, to me you have offered an alternative that seems unworkable and achievable in the short to medium term – meanwhile increasing damage is being done to too many people. If you posted directly about the problems with our current state of governance specifically, and asked for people’s solutions, you’d get a different kind of response. And I would love to see how others would change our current system.

        You seem to have a bit of a “either your with me or you’re against” me approach.

        • weka 9.3.2.1

          All fair enough karol, except that I think he was specifically wanting to avoid talking about how to get there from here and instead to focus on the concept. I think it would work better if that was stated upfront, then it would be clearer what the intent of the post was.

          In that sense I think talking about the concept without getting bogged down in how to make the transition is worthy, because we have so few models of alternatives to the current situation. I like your idea of how to make change form what we have now too, but I also think that activists often lack clarity or cohesion on where to head. It makes sense to have a post dedicated to one vision.

          • karol 9.3.2.1.1

            I understand, weka. And while I can see that focusing on the concept and possibilities has value, Bill is also arguing about his vision as being needed to be subscribed to now, or else we are colluding with totalitarianism.

            For myself, I’m more interested in what we can practially do now to counter the elites, the powerful and begin building something more democratic.

            • weka 9.3.2.1.1.1

              I didn’t like the either/or shit either.

              I think what Bill is proposing IS a direct counter to the power-over culture (if I have understood correctly). eg where he talks about how to form work/life collectives. Those are very powerful ways of both undermining the elite controlled culture and building something new. But we need all the good strategies I think and insulting your naturally allies seems not a particularly useful one.

            • Bill 9.3.2.1.1.2

              You really confuse me karol. On the one hand you say you want to build something more democratic (maybe less undemocratic would be a more accurate term insofar as democracy is like pregnancy…it either there or it’s not).

              Regardless, when I state the fact that no-one and nothing currently prevents the formation of workers collectives (democratic workplaces) or housing collectives (democratically controlled housing alternatives) you state straight up that you have no desire for such things and, strangely to my mind, start alluding to some authoritarian bent on my part for writing something about democracy.

              • weka

                There are very real things that prevent worker/housing collectives of the kind you mean from being formed. Otherwise they would be happening.

                • karol

                  Ah weka – you just said much more succinctly, what it took me a long time to state in a much longer comment – yes, exactly.

                • Bill

                  “There are very real things that’…yeah, of course there are (lack of financial resources, opportunity, a lifetime of conditioning etc). I should have been more specific, and said something like there are no legal barriers…

              • karol

                No, you are misinterpreting me, Bill.

                I said I have no desire to join a housing collective (at least at the present). Actually, it may be easy in your part of the world, but in Auckland, it’s hard enough for many people to find reasonably priced housing of any kind near one’s work. I would be open to a unit in some sort of housing collective, rather than private renting if there was suitable accomodation in the vicinity of my work, and people to do it with – not very likely.

                I’m NOT A fan of private home ownership – actually, if I ever need to go into a retiremnt village, I’d prefer one that is collectively organised – not much hope of that on the horizon.

                Practically, the whole idea just seems unworkable for me at this stage, and I am fairly content to be renting.

                I would like a more collective approach in my workplace – but I have little control over that – I could go on at length about that, but that would mean identifying my work, and by extension my offline identity. And at 60+yrs my choices of places to work (and live) are very limited. It does, however, impact on my views on the ways we could work to change the practical arrangements.

                I have worked in a self-managing team (within a fairly hierarchical system) in the past, and that is my preference. There are better more democratic possibilites even within a hierarchical system – though decentralisation of organisations would also help with that. It’s not possible today and it has changed for the worse in my current job – all stuff totally beyond my direct control from the grass roots – it involves top down change as well as grass roots change.

                Well, Bill, it does seem kind of controlling and badgering in the way you berate anyone who won’t accept your approach in its entirety – not so much authoritarian, as counter to your argument for everyone having input towards achieving some kind of negotiated consensus. Your approach seems to be to be to put heavy pressure on me to live the way you have decided I should. It does seem to contradict you idea of participatory democracy – you don’t seem to be that open to other people’s views.

                I don’t think it’s like pregnancy at all – and in that way you are skewing the argument in your terms. I think your vision of everyone joining collectives in all areas of their life now or in the near future, is impractical. It also will not achieve the aim of ending plutocracy. This needs to be attacked in a multi-pronged way – via the media, popular discourse, political discourse and policies, etc – by targeting the top down arrangements as well as through grass roots coollective approaches.

                And I have been pretty consistent in my overall approach in this thread and past discussions.

                I do think there are ways to work towards more democratic arrangements that will more realistically achieve the aims over ending the oppressive dominance of the few over the many.

                I also think complete participatory democracy is just unachievable in the near to medium future, while any change towards more democratic processes will relieve some pressure on the lives of many people.

              • just saying

                I find it strange that you don’t see the contradiction that Weka and Karol are talking about, Bill.

                We’ve had this discussion before (though a while ago now). Like you, I spent a few years living on a commune, but though I wouldn’t have missed the experience for the world, I didn’t come away with such idealism. I’d like to know more about the specific experience that you had because my experience was of power struggles and differentials, beneath a veneer of equality. (Though obviously it was more equal and democratic than the outer society). Also, of a lot of time tied up talking and arguing about matters of mutual interest. Hierarchical systems are shitty but you’ve got to admit, they are usually extremely streamlined by comparison.

                I’m also in a collective now, one with far better systems for democratic decision-making and preventing power imbalances. But what you describe sounds much closer to utopia than the time-consuming, difficult, sometimes infuriating, (or worse, boring) work of a collective, of my experience.

                Also, we are all deeply encultured with hierarchical thinking, even when we are consciously trying to live differently. You seem to think that just enacting the type of system you describe would just wash that away, but with the best will in the world (and most people don’t have any will right now for the sort of radical change you have sketched) it’s just not that simple. Changing decades of conditioning, even knowing how to do that, and recognising it when you aren’t…….much more difficult and complicated. If you’ve had an experience in which it all came naturally I’d genuinely like to know more about it.

                • adam

                  But isn’t the point to try it! Sorry I know the written word comes over as harsh to many, but the point – fundamentally is to try a different approach. And if you start using democratic tools and methodology, then you might just feel empowered.

                  And yes, contradictions are everywhere, but look past the reaction and put into action. Like I said – is it to much to ask? I’m getting more frustrated when people dismiss and take offence and use one word here, or one word there to dismiss the whole thing – so yes back to my original point.

                  If you do nothing and accept this state of affairs your a totalitarian at worst, a enabler of totalitarianism at best. Hence why the either/or and yes you might not like that – but the reality is we are walking eyes wide shut into a period of totalitarianism which seems to getting more brutal, and more repressive. If NZ is number one for freedom in the world, then the world is going to hell in a hand basket.

                  • weka

                    “If you do nothing and accept this state of affairs your a totalitarian at worst, a enabler of totalitarianism at best.”

                    What makes you think that any of us here commenting ‘do nothing and accept this state of affairs’?

                    I’m also curious why you think js was being dismissive. I see them opening up the conversation via gently challenging Bill’s response to myself and karol and via enquiry. Their point about wanting to know more about how the collective Bill was in worked is spot on. It’s perfectly reasonable to want this level of detail.

                    • Bill

                      The post was about peoples’ attitude to authoritarianism and their recognition (or otherwise) of democracy. The workers/housing collective I was a part of was democratic…but so what? The post laid out the most basic of bars of what must be reasonably satisfied if something….anything… lays claim to being democratic.

                      And basic broad examples were thrown in of how decisions get approached in the case where democracy is evident.

                      I thought it was a fairly simple, obvious and not particularly controversial post. Guess I was wrong.

                    • karol

                      Well, the problem for me is that you leap between the macro & the micro and have an absolutist approach to democractic governance happening today.

                      In an individual collective I can understand it operating pretty well.

                      But from there to social democracy and governance of a society is a big leap. So much more complicated.

                      Social democracy tends to have incorporated a fair amount of compromise with existing power structures, based on the realistic perception that a shift to full democratic socialism will not happen over night. It has a gradualist approach, using systems, eg unions, within capitalism to shift things towards more representation of workers, low income people etc, resulting in systems and policies in their interests. The original aim of social democracy was to gradually shift towards more democracy.

                      There is the danger, as has happened in recent decades, that the gradualism gets so watered down that it has been co-opted and nullifed by the corporates.
                      But I see no easy way to full democracy, apart from an ongoing struggle and keeping in mind the goal – a society free from the oppression of one or more groups of people by another.

                      To me, saying there is no democracy other than total participatory democracy, means there is no way forward. It skews the debate in one direction and all then becomes just too hard.

                      I would aim for a fair amount of representation and consultation, with roles delegated to some to represent others at a regional and national level. To me that is not succumbing to authoritarianism, but negotiating what is possible. To me it’s more about “democratic” processes, that enable as much participation by the people/population as possible.

                      Left wing parliamentary representatives tend to have lost sight of the main goal and have succumbed to the corporate dominance of politics as game, with short term goals and winning at all costs.

                      I would want things like tight caps on election campaign spending, a re-instating of stronger grass roots representation and consultation: e.g. in the structure of Auckland super city and the processes of governance in Christchurch.

                      I would also go for more decentralisation of governance processes, especially in Auckland – this removes access to decsion making too far from the grass roots.

                      But your framing of the debate, didn’t make it easy to put forward what I see as the way forward. It just looked like setting up a series of impossibilities.

                    • Bill

                      I don’t expect democracy today Karol. If it is ever going to happen, it will only be by dint of a process of change….not the 100 odd years that social democracy has taken though. It’s obviously not the way forward.

                      Anyway, strange that where I say this current system is undemocratic (and sure, it goes through spells of being less undemocratic and more undemocratic) in order that we can perceive what needs to be done and what needs to be challenged, you call that self same state of affairs democratic.

                    • weka

                      You know how you said there are no legal impediments to forming work/housing collectives? Doesn’t the current version of ‘democracy’ allow that? So for instance, say the shit is hitting the fan and Key stages a military coup and we now have no form of representative democracy at all. Do you think what you propose would still have no barriers at the legal/state level? This is what I don’t get about your either/or, absolutist approach. It seems much easier to go in the direction you want from within a relatively liberal ‘democracy’ than say a fascist state.

                    • karol

                      Bill, I have frequently stated that there is a lot about our current state of governance that is undemocratic. I am not in the least compalcent about it’s state.

                      And I’m pleased to see you also recognise it won’t happen overnight.

                  • karol

                    Surely js is doing something as part of a collective. Your “either your with us totally, or your against us” approach undermines your whole argument.

                    And you are over stating it to push that for-us-or-against-us line, by saying we live in a totalitarian regime – we live in a plutocracy, that is increasingly becoming less democratic and veering more in the direction of totalitarianism.

                    • Bill

                      Can’t see the ‘with or against’ nonsense. It’s simply that you’re either a democrat or your not. And yes, I’m basing that on the contention…one you disagree with… that you can no more be ‘a bit’ democratic than you can be ‘a bit’ pregnant. If you could, then even the most heinous of modern dictatorships could lay claim to levels of democratic credibility and shut the door to any advances for democracy.

                    • karol

                      Bill: Can’t see the ‘with or against’ nonsense. It’s simply that you’re either a democrat or your not.

                      Bill, your second sentence is exactly doing the with or against thing. You seem to only want me to participate int he discussion on your terms.

                      I say – look at what democracy is trying to achieve. It’s an on-going struggle. You are hanging too much on a word. There is a vast amout of difference between NZ governance, and that of the extreme oppression by the 3rd reich, or Stal1nism.

                      You are shutting the door to advances, in my view, by not accepting that there are ways forward that involve struggling within the currnt system.

                    • karol

                      On reflection, I differ from you, Bill in my interpretation of “democracy”

                      Your interpretation seems to be a bit individualistic – fot you, it all goes back to every individual having a say in every decision that impacts on them.

                      For me, it’s about the diverse groups in society having equal say on issues that impact on them – having an equal voice in the governance.

                      “democracy” comes from the collective “demos” – “the people”. And my working definition of it has always been “of the people, by the people, for the people”: not of each indivdual, for each individual, by each individual.

                      At the moment certain sections of society have more say in its governance than others – especially the corporates, the wealthy, the privileged middle classes – and on certain issues impacting on the benificiaries, the low paid, disabked, women, LGBT people, Maori/Pasifika etc, those groups don’t have enough say.

                      For me a fully representative and consultative system, open to critique by all sections of society, is democratic. And we need a democratic media to enable that, not dominated by corporate interests, etc.

                      We have far less of that than we should – so it’s not just about electing MPs or councillors, it’s about putting policy out for consultation; it’s about all groups having an equal voice in critiquing, protesting, lobbying, debating etc.

                    • Bill

                      So, you want to refer to people only in terms of groups and…hmm, not sure how much of a cynical dismissal and put down of people outside any groupings was intended when you throw the loaded term ‘individualistic’ out there… Anyway, these ‘groups’ or ‘sectors’ or whatever – they’re functionally democratic are they? Or do they adopt the cult of democratic centralism or democratic pluralism implied by your comment?

                  • just saying

                    Adam, were you replying to me?

                    Like I said in my comment – I am doing it.

                    It may have seemed that I was excessively cynical talking about the frustrations and problems, but I assumed the fact that I’m part of a collective, and I spend a lot of time working at the kinds of democratic processes that Bill has partially described, would show that I do believe it is worthwhile. I just feel a bit frustrated when these kinds of things are presented as being easier than I find them to be. I think that kind of sets people up for disappointment, and before long, giving up on them – like those infomercials for exercise equipment that promise super-fitness from just three minutes of exercise a day – the machines end up in the shed within a couple of weeks!

                    If there is an easier way of doing it, I’d like to find out about it.

                    • adam

                      No JS I was not writing in response to you, it was just were I hit reply. And weka, when I write I write not just for those who have written above, but for others who haven’t written above as well.

                      And as I said, try it – just try using it in your endeavorers. You might just be surprised.

                    • weka

                      Again, I ask you, what makes you think people here are not already doing it?

                • karol

                  Yes, my experience of collective organisation is that there is a tendency for some individuals to dominate.

                  There’s an underlying problem of the ways humans operate in groups, and these need to be accoutned for.

                  • KJT

                    That is not always a bad thing. It depends on the motivations and competence of the leaders.

                    And how well the rest of the group keeps them on task.

                    I’ve always liked the idea that some Polynesian cultures had.

                    The leader was picked by the group for a given situation.
                    A navigator at sea, a warrior when at war, a cook for making the feast, a talking Chief/Orater for ceremonial occasions.
                    They had respect, but not necessarily any power, outside the appropriate situation.

                    Unlike our situation where we put the most glib talker, in charge of everything.

                    • Colonial Viper

                      Yep and a chairing system can be very effective as well. The chair doesn’t necessarily have any formal power – but ensures that decision making process is followed, that everyone gets their say, and no individual ‘glib talking bankster’ or other person with formal power, gets to run the table in their way. Or just use the ol’ speaking staff heh.

                • Bill

                  I walked into an established group that possessed an institutional memory with regards good systems and processes. They’d been arrived at through trial and error.

                  De-conditioning was a necessary, ongoing and, for some a difficult process running in parallel to all other systems and processes. Basically – and I’m going to be very basic here – that involved recognising and working through shit attitudes, belief systems etc that had built up over years as received bias from various quarters (eg – the normalisation of sexism, acceptance of patriarchal perspectives etc).

                  People like me found the decision making processes and the various social mechanisms for dealing with potential conflict etc very easy to accept and adapt to….but like I said, I walked into a place with maybe 15 – 20 years worth of institutional memory and practice to call on.

                  New groups comprised of people coming from *here*? Yeah, hard row to hoe even if everyone recognises and accepts they’ve got some pretty serious shit floating around in their heads and commits to dealing with it. The development of effective processes and systems for dealing with various fallouts resulting from any hang-overs from *this* society and its norms and biases takes time. I guess mistakes will inevitably be made and bad systems or processes will need to be re-evaluated, changed or abandoned until good ones are arrived at.

                  • just saying

                    Do you have to be so patronising, Bill?

                    De-conditioning was a necessary, ongoing and, for some a difficult process..

                    Just for some huh?

                    Still none the wiser about those “effective” systems and processes.

                    • Bill

                      Yup. Just for some. I mean, how difficult do you reckon it is/was for children who’d arrived there and who proceeded to assimilate the mores of the dominant culture they were surrounded by on (for those being home schooled) a 24/7 basis? Their real difficulties came later in life if or when they hit the wider world to suddenly discovered they hadn’t been equipped with defenses for a lot of the ‘dog eat dog’ and ‘fuck you’ bullshit they encountered.

                      You seriously want a run down of the mores, systems, processes, legal basis etc? Then get in touch instead of expecting a veritable essay in the comments section of a post that was principally concerned with the fundamental basic conditions that would need to be satisfied by any system of governance before it could be considered as credibly democratic.

    • Polish Pride 9.4

      +1

  10. Tracey 10

    Jaques ellul wrote good stuff on the intelligent sucking up propaganda and spitting it out to anyone who would listen.

    For all those who dont think nats act and conservs are the answer, neither is labour. Anyone who thinks labour is the answer have forgotten the question

    • Colonial Viper 10.1

      Thanks a lot for this lead.

    • KJT 10.2

      Unfortunately, and sadly, way too many on the left, as well as the right, of politics, have arrogant and dictatorial tendencies.

      It puzzles me that we let such flawed individuals have so much power over our lives.

      The enthusiasm, from the rest of us, when any measures are taken to restrict politicians power over us and head towards more democracy, such as MMP, shows that most people are sick of being dictated to, by a bunch of barely competent bullshit artists in Parliament.

  11. Philj 11

    Xox
    Democracy is the fig leaf covering the real deal. Power, greed and the Corporatocracy. Big money rulz NZ! You only think it’s a Democracy. I prefer to use more accurate terms, Demockary, Dumocracy, or my current favorite, Dumocruptcy.

  12. Tim 12

    I’ll have another go at a comment (see initial comments above 1.1.2 etc) because not only do I regularly misuse the term representative democracy – which often isn’t, but I think I also put in participatory when I meant representative in that spiel.

    Surely participation by the electorate should be more of a goal (one that is difficult to meet) by our elected representatives. Instead, it’s something they seem to despise – which is one reason people feel disempowered and cynical towards politicians.
    – Instead of empowering councils for example, they seek to cenralise power and implement ‘commissioners’
    – Instead of encouraging participation in the democratic process, they seek to limit (such as depriving prisoners of voting rights)
    – Instead of encouraging individuals to be politically active within a collective, and attempting to represent the voices of various minority groups, they seek to homogenise, creating ‘un-people’ (such as the poor/beneficiaires/children/etc.) on one hand, whilst elevating non-people (such as the corporation) to person status (limited liability, etc.)
    – Human Rights are routinely suppressed and abused (no worries if legislation breaches our limp HRA or ToW – the State rulz; various ridiculous PCA decisions are left unchallenged allowing creeping totalitarianism by state agencies; we encourage children and youth – and indeed spouses – to be treated as possessions
    – Laws are passed ‘under urgency’ dressed up as expediency and remain in place way past their used by date – select committees are just so damned inconvenient after all.
    -The list goes on and power corrupts until it becomes absolute (which is what we’re seeing under the current elected junta)

    Democracy is messy, unpredictable and inconvenient. It’s MEANT to be!

    Seems to me this debate is not actually making progress because it’s seen in an X versus Y context, whereas one would hope that the elected representatives we empower could remain conscious of those they represent (not just an amorphous mass, but also its various minority interests) in a way that means they embrace various participatory structures (local/regional bodies, select committees, etc.)

  13. Polish Pride 13

    might have to borrow this and expand on it at a later date if thats ok. You have summed up many of the problems very nicely.

Links to post

Important links

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Alpaca Metropolitan – On The Left Special!
    ...
    On the Left | 21-10
  • Video Against Poverty
    Schoolgirls in Kalimpong, West Bengal, India.  Photo / Julie Zhu This is week two of my givealittle.co.nz campaign Video Against Poverty and I'm more than 2/3 of the way to my goal of $2600.00.  This has been totally unexpected and is a really...
    Notes from the edge | 21-10
  • Why I’m Left
    I’m Left all the way down to my bones. My bone marrow is made up of lots of microscopic Karl Marx mustaches. It’s partly why I’m so curmudgeonly. When I was born I was brought home from the hospital to...
    Tangerina | 21-10
  • Don’t cough on me
    It used to be acceptable to go to work or travel with a cough or the flu. That’s been changing over the last 10-20 years, and people who cough and sniffle in public are increasingly treated like people who smoke in the...
    Lance Wiggs | 21-10
  • Some might just come by train.
        As a Waikato girl by birth, Aucklander by nature, and living in Hamilton by choice, I’ve long being a supporter a regular train gig chugging the willing and the weary between the hustle and pace of Auckland and...
    Politically Corrected | 21-10
  • Why I’m Left: happiness, solidarity and community
    (For our opening week, we asked all our contributors to think about why they’re On The Left, and what the next three years holds for the left, the government, and New Zealand.) I’m Left all the way down to my...
    On the Left | 21-10
  • Curiosity’s historic comet photo
    Photo Credit: Curiosity on Mars – NASA Rover Opportunity Views Comet Near Mars. According to NASA: NASA’s Mars Exploration Rover Opportunity captured images of a comet passing much closer to Mars than any previous known comet flyby of Earth or Mars....
    Open Parachute | 21-10
  • Ireland in the 21st century – Christchurch WEA course, Sat, Nov 1, 1-4.30...
    One of Ireland’s many ‘ghost estates’, built during the ‘Celtic Tiger’ fake-boom; these buildings are a haunting symbol of early 21st century Ireland Saturday 1 November, 1 – 4.30 pm The twenty-first century began with, officially at least, a great...
    Redline | 21-10
  • Ireland in the 21st century – Christchurch WEA course, Sat, Nov 1, 1-4.30...
    One of Ireland’s many ‘ghost estates’, built during the ‘Celtic Tiger’ fake-boom; these buildings are a haunting symbol of early 21st century Ireland Saturday 1 November, 1 – 4.30 pm The twenty-first century began with, officially at least, a great...
    Redline | 21-10
  • Gough Whitlam: 1916 – 2014
    A Mighty Totara has Fallen: Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam paying his respects to the late NZ PM, Rt. Hon. Norman Kirk, during his Lying-in-State at Parliament Buildings, Wellington. Wednesday, 4th September, 1974. (Photo by John Miller.) A BIG MAN IN EVERY...
    Bowalley Road | 21-10
  • DAY OF ACTION 8 NOVEMBER 2014
    Auckland, Hamilton, Raglan, Tauranga, Rotorua, Gisborne, New Plymouth, Napier, Palmerston North, Levin,Wellington, Nelson, Christchurch, Timaru, Dunedin, Invercargill. Need a reason to march on 8 November? Check out Professor Jane Kelsey’s latest blog. Updates on what is on where: Auckland – speakers include...
    NZ – Not for sale | 21-10
  • The Security Council and free trade
    Last week, New Zealand won a seat on the United Nations Security Council. And over the weekend the New Zealand business community made it clear what they wanted from the position:A business director says New Zealand's new seat on the...
    No Right Turn | 21-10
  • World News Brief, Tuesday October 21
    Top of the AgendaU.S. Army Drops Weapons to Kurdish Forces...
    Pundit | 20-10
  • National’s failure on housing
    A year ago National passed the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act 2013. In his speech introducing the bill, then-Housing Minister Nick Smith laid down some clear targets: It is an ambitious agreement, and sets out a plan to...
    No Right Turn | 20-10
  • ECAN, Fed Farmers and Dairy NZ – Plotting to reduce water quality
    What does National’s resounding election win mean for our rivers? As we found in our review of the Government’s water quality framework, we have serious reasons to doubt their commitment to ‘maintain or improve our waterways’. Our concerns are growing...
    Gareth’s World | 20-10
  • A new left-leaning blog
    I am pleased to announce the launch of a new blogsite catering for those who want something more than the fare currently being offered by left-leaning sites like The Daily Blog and The Standard....
    Imperator Fish | 20-10
  • Ebola and the criminal passivity of the Great Powers
    The presidents of Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea, three Ebola-stricken West African nations, made urgent pleas for money, doctors and hospital beds.  The UN Ebola envoy said 20 times more was needed to counter the epidemic.  The U.S. director of...
    Redline | 20-10
  • New Zealand, ISIL, and suspicious behaviour
    The government has announced a review of how New Zealand might deal with foreign fighters in the future in response to what is happening currently in Iraq and Syria. There are some interesting titbits in the press release in terms...
    On the Left | 20-10
  • Out of Zionism: interview with Israeli anti-Zionist historian Ilan Pappé
    One of our links is to the excellent Le Mur des Oreilles site, which contains interviews with Palestinian figures, Israeli anti-Zionists and a range of cultural and political figures talking about the Palestinian cause and the importance of actions such...
    Redline | 20-10
  • Out of Zionism: interview with Israeli anti-Zionist historian Ilan Pappé
    One of our links is to the excellent Le Mur des Oreilles site, which contains interviews with Palestinian figures, Israeli anti-Zionists and a range of cultural and political figures talking about the Palestinian cause and the importance of actions such...
    Redline | 20-10
  • Swearing about swearing the oath
    Yesterday, I was swearing. Swearing the Parliamentary oath, that is. But, under my breath, I was also quietly swearing about the archaic, colonial form of that oath and its inappropriateness for today’s Aotearoa New Zealand. To be permitted to speak...
    frogblog | 20-10
  • Gordon Campbell on the latest TPP leaks
    The release by Julian Assange on Wikileaks of the draft Trands Pacific Partnership chapter on intellectual property – including drug patents – contains some pretty disturbing evidence about what’s still on the table. The leaked drafts pertain to the May...
    Gordon Campbell | 20-10
  • Access: Art and disability: a festival
    The three-day InterACT 2014 Disability Arts Festival kicks off tomorrow at Auckland's Corban Estate and, in its fourth year, provides an intriguing mix of established artists and joyous, unbridled inclusion.One one hand, there are the gala nights on Thursday and...
    Public Address | 20-10
  • Prison abolition – part of creating a just, equal, peaceful society
    Protest at Paremoremo in 2012 over what lawyer Peter Williams described as ‘inhumane’ conditions by Val Morse I want to acknowledge all the people who have done time inside, been arrested or assaulted by the police, whether here or elsewhere....
    Redline | 20-10
  • Prison abolition – part of creating a just, equal, peaceful society
    Protest at Paremoremo in 2012 over what lawyer Peter Williams described as ‘inhumane’ conditions by Val Morse I want to acknowledge all the people who have done time inside, been arrested or assaulted by the police, whether here or elsewhere....
    Redline | 20-10
  • Members of the public stop donating to the SPCA over position on 1080
    Steve Atwood that posted this letter to the SPCA on Facebook the other day. Steve is a great guy and takes some brilliant wildlife photos. We have republished Steve’s letter to the SPCA with his permission. Dear SPCA, I write...
    Gareth’s World | 20-10
  • The struggles of everyday life
    A photo of Asher (right) face-to-face with a cop, taken at a protest outside the Labour Party Conference in 2007, following the so-called “terror raids”, taken by Simon Oosterman. (For our opening week, we asked all our contributors to think...
    On the Left | 20-10
  • West Auckland new network consultation
    Consultation for the West Auckland portion of the new network is now underway. This follows the consultations for Pukekohe/Waiuku, Warkworth, Hibiscus Coast and South Auckland. The consultation runs from today till Monday 1st December. It’s a consultation I’ll be following...
    Transport Blog | 20-10
  • The gerrymanders and National’s 2017 constraints
    Parliament is back in business with National in charge to a degree not seen since first-past-the-post “parliamentary dictatorship” days — thanks to three successful gerrymanders and one failed one. Two of the successful gerrymanders were National’s contrivances to get its...
    Colin James | 20-10
  • Ocean heat storage: a particularly lousy policy target
    The New York Times, 12 December 2027: After 12 years of debate and negotiation, kicked off in Paris in 2015, world leaders have finally agreed to ditch the goal of limiting global warming to below 2 °C. Instead, they have...
    Real Climate | 20-10
  • Sanctions and bombs: how the UN and western powers committed mass murder in...
    This article first appeared in revolution magazine’s Middle East bulletin MidEast Solidarity, issue #1, Spring 2001. It looks at the division of labour between the United Nations and western imperialist powers in committing mass murder in Iraq in the 1990s;...
    Redline | 20-10
  • Sanctions and bombs: how the UN and western powers committed mass murder in...
    This article first appeared in revolution magazine’s Middle East bulletin MidEast Solidarity, issue #1, Spring 2001. It looks at the division of labour between the United Nations and western imperialist powers in committing mass murder in Iraq in the 1990s;...
    Redline | 20-10
  • Luke Harding and the spy as editor
    Originally published at Overland I was writing a chapter on the NSA’s close, and largely hidden, relationship with Silicon Valley. I wrote that Snowden’s revelations had damaged US tech companies and their bottom line. Something odd happened. The paragraph I...
    Bat bean beam | 20-10
  • I quite like beer, the rugby no so much
    Phil Quin put a post up yesterday chiding Grant Robertson for what he sees as an overly cautious approach to political messaging and urging him to be more warlike in his phraseology because New Zealanders clearly have a deep, deep...
    Pundit | 20-10
  • Speech from the Throne: State Opening of Parliament, 21 Oct
    Speech – Governor General Following the General Election, a National-led Government has been formed with a majority in the House on confidence and supply. Confidence and supply agreements have been signed between the National Party and, respectively, the ACT Party...
    Its our future | 20-10
  • Gordon Campbell on the latest TPP leaks
    Column – Gordon Campbell The release by Julian Assange on Wikileaks of the draft Trands Pacific Partnership chapter on intellectual property including drug patents – contains some pretty disturbing evidence about whats still on the table.Gordon Campbell on the latest...
    Its our future | 20-10
  • United Nations: friend or foe?
    Many well-intentioned people still see the United Nations as some kind of alternative to imperialism. Below we’re reprinting an article that first appeared in issue #2 of MidEast Solidarity (Autumn 2002), the Middle East bulletin of revolution magazine. The anti-imperialist...
    Redline | 20-10
  • United Nations: friend or foe?
    Many well-intentioned people still see the United Nations as some kind of alternative to imperialism. Below we’re reprinting an article that first appeared in issue #2 of MidEast Solidarity (Autumn 2002), the Middle East bulletin of revolution magazine. The anti-imperialist...
    Redline | 20-10
  • Every day’s a rainy day
    Sarah’s cat, Carina *nb* This is a repost from Sarah’s site writehanded.org. This week, my best friend – otherwise known as a slightly rotund adopted moggy called Carina – decided that she would enjoy no less than three visits to...
    On the Left | 20-10
  • 10 Key Facts about Labour’s Leadership Election
    Plans are proceeding for the Leadership Election, and at this stage I thought it might be useful to have a heads-up on some of the key aspects from the perspective of members:...
    Labour campaign | 20-10
  • SellShed shedding money?
    This is not how you are meant to do it: Online seller SellShed starts up The seven-person firm has invested hundreds of thousands of dollars building a website and free iPhone app and was now on the hunt for “smart...
    Lance Wiggs | 20-10
  • John Key on Iraq: A timeline
    No New Zealand forces to Iraq, says Key. Stuff, 18 June 2014: Prime Minister John Key has ruled out sending special forces soldiers to Iraq as the United States mulls options in response to the unfolding crisis there. Speaking in...
    No Right Turn | 20-10
  • New Fisk
    With US-led strikes on Isis intensifying, it’s a good time to be a shareholder in the merchants of death...
    No Right Turn | 20-10
  • Carbon News 20/10/14: Chile’s carbon tax, soil SOS and more pressure on d...
    Chile’s new tax could open carbon doors for NZ Chile’s new carbon tax potentially offers New Zealand an opportunity to offset some of its own agricultural greenhouse gas emissions, says economist Dr Suzi Kerr. The $US5-a-tonne carbon tax slipped into...
    Hot Topic | 20-10
  • National doesn’t care about crime by the rich
    National likes to make a lot of noise about benefit fraud. Meanwhile, they've buried a report into the social costs of economic crime:At the beginning of last year the then Minister for the SFO, Anne Tolley, was reported as saying...
    No Right Turn | 20-10
  • New kiwi blog
    On The Left - a collective of lefties....
    No Right Turn | 20-10
  • Habemus Parliament
    So, a month after the election, we finally have a Parliament. Good. meanwhile, people seem to be noticing that the associated ceremony - white wigs, fancy dress, oaths of allegiance to a foreign monarch - isn't very kiwi (and tomorrow,...
    No Right Turn | 20-10
  • Damning report on Ruataniwha dam numbers
    When I presented my submission to the Board of Inquiry on the Tukituki Catchment Proposal I compared the proposed 83 metre high Ruataniwha dam with the Clyde Dam and noted the risk of cost blowouts in the construction process.  The...
    frogblog | 20-10
  • NZ elite win seat at UN Security Council – don’t celebrate, organise!
    Among its past services at the top table of the UN, New Zealand chaired the sanctions committee on Iraq; their sanctions killed at least a million Iraqis, half of them children by Philip Ferguson The New Zealand elite is slapping...
    Redline | 20-10
  • NZ elite win seat at UN Security Council – don’t celebrate, organise!
    Among its past services at the top table of the UN, New Zealand chaired the sanctions committee on Iraq; their sanctions killed at least a million Iraqis, half of them children by Philip Ferguson The New Zealand elite is slapping...
    Redline | 20-10
  • A mighty totara has fallen across the Tasman
    The New Zealand Labour Party expresses deep sadness at the death of former Australian prime minister Gough Whitlam, aged 98. “Today a great totara has fallen across the Tasman,” Labour’s Acting Deputy Leader Annette King says....
    Labour | 21-10
  • Note to National: Must deliver on child poverty
    John Key and his Government will be held to its promise to make child poverty a priority, Labour’s Acting Deputy Leader Annette King says. “In its priority-setting speech today the Government stated child poverty would be a major focus for...
    Labour | 21-10
  • New Analysis show Government cut tertiary education funding
    New analysis done by the Green Party today shows the Government has made cuts to funding of tertiary education since 2008.Figures compiled by the Parliamentary Library show that between 2009 and 2015 Government funding to Tertiary Institutions dropped by 4...
    Greens | 21-10
  • Students doing it tough as fees rise again
    The Government is making it increasingly difficult for Kiwis to gain tertiary education as fees continue to rise and access to student support becomes even more restricted, Labour’s Tertiary Education spokesperson Chris Hipkins says. “Steven Joyce is shutting a generation...
    Labour | 20-10
  • Key misled New Zealand on Iraq deployment
      John Key was misleading New Zealanders prior to the election when he ruled out New Zealand special forces being deployed to Iraq, says Labour Defence Spokesperson Phil Goff.  “Post-election he has cynically disregarded that by saying that deployment of...
    Labour | 20-10
  • Swearing about swearing the oath
    Yesterday, I was swearing. Swearing the Parliamentary oath, that is. But, under my breath, I was also quietly swearing about the archaic, colonial form of that oath and its inappropriateness for today’s Aotearoa New Zealand. To be permitted to speak...
    Greens | 20-10
  • Damning report on Ruataniwha dam numbers
    When I presented my submission to the Board of Inquiry on the Tukituki Catchment Proposal I compared the proposed 83 metre high Ruataniwha dam with the Clyde Dam and noted the risk of cost blowouts in the construction process.  The...
    Greens | 20-10
  • Church congratulated on child poverty stand
    The efforts by the bishops of the Anglican Church to ensure that the issue of child poverty is not forgotten is a call to all New Zealanders to take action, says Labour’s Interfaith-Dialogue Spokesperson, Su’a William Sio.   “I think...
    Labour | 19-10
  • Labour names Review Team
    Labour’s New Zealand Council has appointed Bryan Gould as Convenor of its post-General Election Review.  He will be joined on the Review Team by Hon Margaret Wilson, Stacey Morrison and Brian Corban (see further biographical details here). The Review Team...
    Labour | 19-10
  • Labour backs urban development plans
    Auckland Council’s plan to set up an urban development agency is to be applauded and central government should get behind it to make it a success, Labour’s Auckland Issues spokesperson Phil Twyford says. Auckland Council CEO Stephen Town has indicated plans...
    Labour | 18-10
  • New Zealand can be rightly proud of seat on Security Council
    Gaining a seat on the United Nation’s Security Council shows the sort of standing that New Zealand has in the world and the quality of the long campaign that we ran over nearly a decade, says Foreign Affairs spokesperson David...
    Labour | 16-10
  • NZ has opportunity on UN Security Council
    New Zealand has an opportunity to make a major contribution to the strengthening of international law and institutional capacity through its upcoming two-year tenure on the United Nations Security Council, Green Party spokesperson on global affairs, Dr Kennedy Graham said...
    Greens | 16-10
  • MPI still dragging the chain over causes of food bug
    The Ministry of Primary Industries’ release of Environmental Science and Research’s initial reports regarding the sources of a nasty stomach bug will be little comfort to the 127 people affected by it, Labour’s Food Safety spokesperson Damien O’Connor says. “This...
    Labour | 16-10
  • Treasury officials should try working without food
    The Green Party is challenging Treasury officials to work for a week without eating properly, in light of their advice to Government that a food in schools programme is not needed."Treasury's advice was that providing food for children in schools...
    Greens | 15-10
  • Councils need to better protect our drinking water
    Environment Canterbury (ECan) is proposing several variations to its regional land and water plan that will allow for increased nutrient and other pollution from irrigation and intensive agriculture on the Canterbury Plains. Commissioners are hearing submissions on Variation 1 to...
    Greens | 15-10
  • National needs to commit to making NZ workers safe
    The National Government must do more to help make New Zealand workplaces a safer place to work in, Green Party industrial relations spokesperson Denise Roche said today.Data released by Statistics New Zealand today showed that workers in the fishing and...
    Greens | 15-10
  • Key commits to deployment before consultation or analysis
    John Key’s offer to consult Opposition parties on whether to deploy New Zealand forces against ISIS looks increasingly like a PR exercise only, says Labour’s Defence spokesperson, Phil Goff. “The presence of New Zealand’s Chief of Defence Force at a...
    Labour | 15-10
  • National must end ideological opposition to raising income
    If John Key is serious about tackling child poverty he must approach it with an open mind, and overcome his ideological block to raising incomes as a solution, the Green Party said today.Papers released to Radio New Zealand today show...
    Greens | 14-10
  • Pentagon links climate change and terrorism
    Yesterday the Pentagon launched a plan to deal with a threat that “poses immediate risks to national security”; one that “will affect the Department of Defense’s ability to defend the nation”. It wasn’t referring to Ebola or ISIS. It was...
    Greens | 14-10
  • Four Nominees for Labour’s Leadership
    As at 5pm today four valid nominations had been received for the position of Labour Leader, as follows: Andrew Little(nominated by Poto Williams and Iain Lees-Galloway) Nanaia Mahuta(nominated by Louisa Wall and Su’a William Sio) David Parker(nominated by Damien O’Connor...
    Labour | 14-10
  • Green Party calls for consultation over terrorism law changes
    The Green Party has today written to the Prime Minister asking him to engage in wider consultation prior to changing any laws as a result of the recently announced terrorism law reviews, said the Green Party today. In a letter...
    Greens | 14-10
  • MPI must name product and supermarket chain
    The Ministry of Primary Industries must name the product responsible for severe gastroenteritis affecting people around the country, and the supermarket chain distributing it, Labour’s Food Safety spokesperson Damien O’Connor says. “The Ministry seems to be more concerned about protecting...
    Labour | 13-10
  • John Key dishonest about reasons for wanting to change terrorism law
    John Key is misleading the public to push through terrorism law changes under urgency, the Green Party said today. On Sunday, John Key stated that it is not illegal for someone to fight overseas for a terrorist group, such as...
    Greens | 12-10
  • Law changes shaping up to be worse than first thought
    The Prime Minister needs to be up front about exactly what changes he is planning to make to the Employment Relations  Amendment Bill, Labour's spokesperson on Labour Issues Andrew Little says.Interviewed on Q&A yesterday John Key said he did not...
    Labour | 12-10
  • Rapists, not Tinder, the threat to women
    Blame for rape and sexual assault should only ever be laid at the door of the perpetrator, not dating services or the actions of women themselves, Labour’s Associate Police spokesperson Kelvin Davis says. “Tinder is not the problem and women...
    Labour | 09-10
  • Safer Journeys For People Who Cycle
    You have a rare opportunity to tell the people who are making the decisions on cycling how to make it better. The Cycling Safety Panel is seeking feedback on their draft recommendations for improving the safety of cycling in New...
    Greens | 08-10
  • Subsidising more pollution will undermine water clean-up plan at Te Waihora...
    In 2010, NIWA found Canterbury’s Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere had the worst nutrient status of 140 lakes around New Zealand that it measured. In 2011, the National Government committed to spending $15 million across the country through the Fresh Start for...
    Greens | 08-10
  • Adding value not herbicides
    The HT swedes, and other brassicas, might seem like a good idea to farmers struggling against weeds but like the GE road, is this the path we want our agriculture to be treading? The Federated Farmers President, Dr William Rolleston...
    Greens | 07-10
  • ‘Blame the Planner’ bizarre approach to child poverty
    The National Government is stooping to a bizarre new low in blaming "planning processes" for poverty and inequality, after spending six years doing nothing about either the housing market or child poverty, the Green Party said today. Finance Minister Bill...
    Greens | 07-10
  • Media Advisory
    MANA Leader, Hone Harawira will not be available to speak with media today regarding his release “Recount Just One Step To restoring Credibility”. He is however available for media comment tomorrow, Tuesday the 8th of October, all media arrangements are...
    Mana | 07-10
  • RECOUNT JUST ONE STEP TO RESTORING CREDIBILITY
    “I have applied for a judicial recount of the votes in the Tai Tokerau election because it is one step in trying to restore credibility to the electoral process in the north, and, I suspect, in all other Maori electorates...
    Mana | 07-10
  • MANA SEEKS TAI TOKERAU RECOUNT
    The MANA Movement is supporting Leader Hone Harawira’s application for a judicial re-count in the Te Tai Tokerau electorate for the 2014 general election. President Lisa McNab says there are a number of serious issues of concern regarding the ability...
    Mana | 07-10
  • MANA to fight mass privatisation of state housing
    Announcements over the past 12 hours from the Minister responsible for Housing New Zealand, Bill English, and Minister for Social Housing, Paula Bennett, make clear the government’s intention for the mass privatisation of state housing. This comes during the middle...
    Mana | 07-10
  • Journalists have right to protect sources
    Legal authorities must respect the right of journalist Nicky Hager to protect the source of his material for his Dirty Politics book under Section 68 of the Evidence Act, Acting Labour Leader David Parker says. “It is crucial in an...
    Labour | 06-10
  • It shouldn’t take the Army to house the homeless
    National’s move to speed up its state house sell-off shows it is bankrupt of new ideas, says Labour’s Housing spokesperson Phil Twyford. “National has been in office for six years, yet the housing crisis has got worse every month and...
    Labour | 06-10
  • Government must lift social housing supply, not shuffle the deck chairs
    National's decision to shift the state provision of housing to third parties is a smokescreen for the Government decreasing the provision of affordable housing, the Green Party said today."What National should be doing is increasing the supply of both social...
    Greens | 06-10
  • Election 2014 – the final count
    While we have to wait for the final booth level counts we can now see how well we did in the specials and look at electorate level data. First off special votes (and disallowed/recounted votes etc). There was a change...
    Greens | 06-10
  • We need more houses, not Ministers
    The Government’s decision to have three housing Ministers will create a dog’s breakfast of the portfolio and doesn’t bode well for fixing the country’s housing crisis, Labour’s Housing spokesperson Phil Twyford says. “New Zealanders need more houses, not more Ministers....
    Labour | 05-10
  • MANA’S CHALLENGE TO THE 51st PARLIAMENT
    Ten years ago I led 50,000 Maori on the historic FORESHORE AND SEABED MARCH from Te Rerenga Wairua to the very steps of this parliament, in a march against the greatest land grab in the history of this country –...
    Mana | 03-10
  • Is this really necessary?
    No one denies chief executives should be well paid for their skills and experience, but it is the efforts of all employees which contribute to company profits, Labour’s Acting Leader David Parker says. “Salaries paid to chief executives come at...
    Labour | 02-10
  • Lyttelton Port workers also deserve pay rises
    Hard slog by Lyttelton Port workers contributed to strong financial growth for the company and they deserve to be rewarded for their work as much as its chief executive, says Labour’s Acting Leader David Parker. “Lyttelton Port chief executive Peter...
    Labour | 02-10
  • Māori Party must seek guarantees on Māori seats
    Labour is calling on the Māori Party to ensure protection of the Māori seats is part of its coalition deal with National which is being considering this weekend, Labour’s Māori Affairs spokesperson Nanaia Mahuta says. “For the third consecutive term,...
    Labour | 02-10
  • Donaghys job losses another blow to Dunedin
    The loss of 30 jobs from Donaghys rope and twine factory is yet another blow to the people and economy of Dunedin, says Dunedin South Labour MP Clare Curran. “Donaghys was founded in 1876; the company has survived two world...
    Labour | 02-10
  • Dairy price fall shows urgent need to diversify
    The overnight drop in milk prices shows New Zealand’s overreliance on the dairy industry puts our economy in a vulnerable position, says Acting Labour Leader David Parker. “Dairy prices fell 7.3 per cent overnight and have almost halved since February....
    Labour | 02-10
  • Tasks aplenty for new Health Minister
    One of the first jobs for the new Minister of Health must be to provide an honest and transparent report into surgery waiting times and exactly how many Kiwis are not having their health needs met, Labour’s Health spokesperson Annette...
    Labour | 02-10
  • OIA protocols and official advice ignored to hide Child Poverty
    It might not seem so now, but child poverty was a major election issue. What a pity we did not have the full debate. In that debate it would have been very helpful to have seen the Ministry of Social...
    The Daily Blog | 20-10
  • Previewing the 4 candidates for Leader of the Labour Party
    The extraordinary outbursts by Shearer last week highlights just how toxic that Caucus is. Shearer was on every major media platform as the ABC attack dog tearing into Cunliffe in the hope of diminishing Cunliffe’s support of Little by tearing...
    The Daily Blog | 19-10
  • GUEST BLOG: Kate Davis – the sudden explosion of ‘left’ blogs
    Time to Teach or more people will suffer from P.A.I.D. Political And Intellectual Dysmorphia.I was on the Twitter and a guy followed me so of course I did the polite thing and followed him back. He wrote a blog so...
    The Daily Blog | 19-10
  • Ego vs Eco
    Ego vs Eco...
    The Daily Blog | 19-10
  • We can’t let the Roastbuster case slip away
    Those of us (like me) left with hope that the police would aggressively follow through on the large amount of evidence on offer to them (let’s not forget they forgot they even had some at one point) in the Roastbusters...
    The Daily Blog | 19-10
  • Food, shelter and medicine instead of bombs and bullets
    The on-going conflict across the Middle East – due in large part to the US-led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq – has created another humanitarian crisis of biblical proportion. The essentials of life are desperately needed in Iraq and Syria...
    The Daily Blog | 19-10
  • The politics of electorate accommodations
    National’s electorate accommodations with ACT and United Future were a big factor in it winning re-election. Interestingly, there is another electorate accommodation scenario whereby the centre-left could have come out on top, even with the same distribution of party votes....
    The Daily Blog | 19-10
  • Why you should join the TPPA Action on 8 November
    On 8 November 2014, thousands of Kiwis will take part in the International Day of Action to protest the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA). The rally cry for us is TPPA – Corporate Trap, Kiwis Fight Back. Why should you join...
    The Daily Blog | 19-10
  • GUEST BLOG – Patrick O’Dea: no new coal mines
    Green Party and Mana Party policy is “NO NEW COAL MINES!” Auckland Coal Action is trying to put this policy into action on the ground. ACA after a hard fought two year campaign waged alongside local residents and Iwi, in...
    The Daily Blog | 19-10
  • Comparing Police action – Hager raid vs Roast Buster case
    This satire had the NZ Police contact TDB and threaten us with 6months in prison for using their logo.   The plight of Nicky Hager and the draconian Police actions against him has generated over  $53 000 in donations so...
    The Daily Blog | 18-10
  • Malala Yousafzai, White Saviour Complexes and Local Resistance
    Last week, Malala Yousafzai was the co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. Since her exposure to the worldwide spotlight, her spirit, wisdom and strength have touched the hearts of people everywhere. However, there have been cynics who have argued that...
    The Daily Blog | 18-10
  • Jason Ede is back – but no media can interview him?
    Well, well, well. Jason Ede, the main figure connected to John Key’s office and the Dirty Politics black ops is back with a company with deep ties to the National Party. One thing you can say about the right –...
    The Daily Blog | 18-10
  • GUEST BLOG: Curwen Rolinson – Leadership Transitions In Other Parties: A ...
    As cannot have escaped anyone’s attention by now, the country is presently in the grips of an election and campaign that will help determine the fate of the nation for years to come. It’s gripping stuff – with clear divides...
    The Daily Blog | 17-10
  • SkyCity worker says she faces losing her house
    SkyCity worker Carolyn Alpine told the company annual shareholder’s meeting today that she faced the prospect of losing her house because the company had cut her shifts from two a week to one without consultation. The solo mother, has worked...
    The Daily Blog | 17-10
  • Greg O’Connor’s latest push to arm cops & 5 reasons not to
    I was wondering at what point within a 3rd term of National that Police Cheerleader Greg O’Connor would start trying to demand cops be armed. O’Connor must have thought to himself, ‘if bloody Key can get us and the GCSB vast new...
    The Daily Blog | 16-10
  • You can’t have crisis without ISIS
    So the new scary bogeyman ISIS might have chemical weapons that the US secretly found in Iraq, but America didn’t want to expose this find because the WMDs were actually built and made by the US and Europe, the two powers...
    The Daily Blog | 16-10
  • NZ WINS UN SPIN THE BOTTLE! Privately sucking up to America for a decade me...
    Oh, we are loved! Little old NZ, the 53rd state of America after Israel and Australia, gets to sit at the adults table for the special dinner party that is the UN Security Council. How delightful, a decade of privately...
    The Daily Blog | 16-10
  • MEDIA BLOG – Myles Thomas – A World Without Advertising
    Non-commercial broadcasting and media. It’s a solution for all manner of problems ailing our tender nation… voter engagement, unaccountable governance, apathy, stupefaction, public education, science in schools, arts appreciation, cultural cringe… But no-one could’ve guessed that non-commercial media might solve...
    The Daily Blog | 16-10
  • March against war – 2pm Saturday 25th October
    March against war – 2pm Saturday 25th October...
    The Daily Blog | 16-10
  • Whack a mole as US govt foreign policy
    Whack-A-Mole was a popular arcade game from my youth.  It consisted of a waist high cabinet with holes in the top. Plastic moles seemingly randomly pop out of these holes. The purpose of the game was to hit as many...
    The Daily Blog | 16-10
  • In Paean of Debt
    This week is ‘Money Week’. It’s an opportunity to promote to the middle classes, and anyone else who will listen, the virtues of wise ‘investment’. The aims are to promote the mystical (and indeed mythical) virtues of saving for the...
    The Daily Blog | 16-10
  • The last 48 hours – Poverty denial, war denial and unapologetic abuse of ...
    The bewildering speed of events that simply end in Key shrugging and proclaiming he doesn’t really give a shit is coming think and fast as the Government suddenly appreciate the full spectrum dominance they now enjoy. Here is Radio NZ...
    The Daily Blog | 16-10
  • GUEST BLOG: Pat O’Dea – Mana 2.0 Rebooted
    Internationally the news is that Evo Morales of Bolivia won big with Left Wing policies But what are the chances that the Left will make a resurgence in this country? As the internecine struggles between the Left and the Right...
    The Daily Blog | 15-10
  • The Blomfield IPCA letter – Has Dirty Politics leaked into the NZ Police ...
    It’s difficult to know what to make of the IPCA letter to Matthew Blomfield over Slater’s continued insistence that the hard drive taken from Matthew wasn’t stolen.  Slater has selectively cherry picked the Police referring back to his claim that Blomfeild perjured...
    The Daily Blog | 15-10
  • ​Media release: Rail and Maritime Transport Union – Auckland move for K...
    The Rail and Maritime Transport Union is questioning a KiwiRail proposal to progressively relocate its Zero Harm personnel from Wellington to Auckland. “The purpose of the Zero Harm team is to drive KiwiRail’s performance in health and safety.  Rail is a...
    The Daily Blog | 15-10
  • Amnesty International – Friend request from an IS militant
    There’s always that one person, that one Facebook friend, usually a musician or event promoter, who, when you so foolishly accept their friend request, will completely inundate your news feed with copious event invitations and promotions. The person who, despite...
    The Daily Blog | 15-10
  • NZ should follow the UK and recognize the Palestinian state
    Over the past two weeks, the United Kingdom and Sweden have made headlines through their decisions to recognize the state of Palestine. They are hardly the first nations to do so. Indeed, 134 countries have, in various ways, given formal...
    The Daily Blog | 15-10
  • The Discordant Chimes of Freedom: Why Labour has yet to be forgiven.
    WHY DOES THE ELECTORATE routinely punish Labour and the Greens for their alleged “political correctness” but not National? It just doesn’t seem fair. Consider, for example, the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007 – the so-called “anti-smacking legislation” –...
    The Daily Blog | 15-10
  • Hosking or Henry – Which right wing crypto fascist clown do you want to w...
    So Mediaworks are finally going to make some actual money from their eye watering contract with Paul Henry by launching a new multi-platform Breakfast show over TV, Radio and internet. This is great news for Campbell Live who have dodged...
    The Daily Blog | 14-10
  • Families need more money to reduce child poverty
    Prime Minister John Key is mistaken to rule out extending the In Work Tax Credit to all poor children (The Nation 11th Oct) and Child Poverty Action Group challenges government advisors to come up with a more cost effective way...
    The Daily Blog | 14-10
  • GUEST BLOG: Kelly Ellis – Don’t shit on my dream
    Once were dreamers. A large man, walks down the road and, even from 200 yards there’s light showing between his big arms and bigger body. It’s as if he’s put tennis balls under his arms. Two parking wardens walk out...
    The Daily Blog | 14-10
  • Labour and ‘special interests’
    The media narrative of Labour is that it is unpopular because it’s controlled by ‘special interests’. This ‘special interests’ garbage is code for gays, Maoris, wimin and unionists. We should show that argument the contempt it deserves. The next Labour...
    The Daily Blog | 14-10
  • Housing; broken promises, families in cars, and ideological idiocy (Part Ru...
    . . Continued from: Housing; broken promises, families in cars, and ideological idiocy (Part Tahi) . National’s housing development project: ‘Gateway’ to confusion . Perhaps nothing better illustrates National’s lack of a coherent housing programme than the ‘circus’ that is...
    The Daily Blog | 14-10
  • Here’s what WINZ are patronisingly saying to people on welfare when they ...
    Yesterday, a case manager from WINZ called to tell me that I needed to “imagine what I would do if I did not have welfare”. I replied “Well, I guess if I couldn’t live at home, I would be homeless.”...
    The Daily Blog | 14-10
  • David Shearer’s ‘no feminist chicks’ mentality highlights all that is...
    Mr Nasty pays a visit Shearer’s extraordinary outburst last night on NZs favourite redneck TV, The Paul Henry Show, is a reminder of all that is wrong within the Labour Caucus right now… He said the current calls for a female or...
    The Daily Blog | 13-10
  • Greenpeace 1 – Shell 0
    Greenpeace 1 – Shell 0...
    The Daily Blog | 13-10
  • GUEST BLOG: Kate Davis – A Tale Of Two Cities
    Sunday was surreal. I went for a drive and ended up in a different country. It wasn’t intentional but those days of too many literally intertextual references seldom are. There is no doubt that the Sunday drive this week had...
    The Daily Blog | 13-10
  • Key raises terror threat level to justify war in Iraq and now the SIS need ...
    Have we learned nothing from rushing into war? It’s embarrassing Key has raised our terror threat from ‘very low’ to ‘low’ so he can justify military action in Iraq. Watching him pimp for an American war is as sick as...
    The Daily Blog | 13-10
  • Socialism? in France; Austerity in Europe
    On Sunday I stumbled upon this recent New York Times column The Fall of France by Paul Krugman. Then I caught BBC’s Newsnight interview with France’s ‘Socialist’ Prime Minister Manuel Valls. Krugman notes that the Socialists came to power on an anti-austerity mandate, but completely squandered their opportunity...
    The Daily Blog | 13-10
  • So Snowden and Greenwald were right – again – NZ Embassies spying for A...
    Well, well, well. What do we have here… NZ embassies involved in covert intelligence work for US – reportsNew Zealand’s embassies have been involved in covert intelligence gathering work on behalf of the United States, a fresh batch of classified...
    The Daily Blog | 13-10
  • GUEST BLOG: Curwen Rolinson – Why David Parker *isn’t* a credible choic...
    The one electoral contest this year that a Labour leader is sure to win heated up over the weekend with the late entry of Finance Spokesman (and interim caretaker leader) David Parker into Labour’s leadership race. I’d blogged late last...
    The Daily Blog | 13-10
  • Fran O’Sullivan’s extraordinary column
    Note how the carefully constructed flow chart above ignores the mainstream media’s complicity with Slater and Dirty Politics    I am no fan of Fran O’Sullivan’s politics and would argue long into the day against her on many of the...
    The Daily Blog | 13-10
  • Final salute to Cunliffe
    Final salute to Cunliffe...
    The Daily Blog | 13-10
  • David Cunliffe’s statement
    I am today announcing that I have decided not to nominate for the 2014 Labour Party leadership contest. It has been a hard decision to make but it is one that I believe is in the best interests of the...
    The Daily Blog | 13-10
  • Cunliffe to quit leadership race – the losers are the Labour Party member...
    That’s all folks   And so ends the first ever Labour Party member/affiliates choice for leadership. David Cunliffe is standing down at 2pm and is supporting Andrew Little instead. What a perverse turn of events. Cunliffe was punished by an angry Labour leadership forced...
    The Daily Blog | 13-10
  • Want to see new Nu Zilind? Read the comments section of Andrea Vance’s co...
    Andrea Vance is no stooge. She is one of the few mainstream media voices who has challenged power and authority, her latest column on the outrageous attempts by Key to use fear mongering to  spook the sleepy hobbits into war...
    The Daily Blog | 12-10
  • Humanity calling Government – anyone with empathy home?
    On Friday night groups of Invercargill activists and plain ole people who care took part in the 14 Hours Homeless event – sleeping out in the balmy southern climate on cardboard and couches at our Salvation Army Citadel. It’s a...
    The Daily Blog | 12-10
  • Labour, leadership and White blokes
    David Shearer said on TV3’s The Nation this weekend that he appreciated the support Labour’s received from Maori and Pacific communities over the last few elections, but that it was important to again, secure the votes of ordinary white blokes...
    The Daily Blog | 12-10
  • Wrong priorities in media coverage of Ebola crisis
    The experts have told us that there is very little likelihood of a serious Ebola outbreak in any Western nation – unless the virus changes so that it can be spread through the air rather than just via bodily fluids....
    The Daily Blog | 12-10
  • John Key uses the same old warmongering recipe
    Less than three weeks after the election Prime Minister John Key wants New Zealand to join a war in the Middle East and extend the powers of our US-focused spy agencies the SIS (Security Intelligence Service) and the GCSB (Government...
    The Daily Blog | 12-10
  • Speech from the Throne brings welcome focus on children
    Today’s speech from the Throne confirms the Government’s focus on children, youth and their families in the areas of health, education, youth employment, poverty alleviation and Whānau Ora; now the challenge is to ensure every child in New Zealand...
    Scoop politics | 21-10
  • John’s Job Fairs no fix for unemployment and poverty
    “John Key has clearly been looking to the US for his latest bright idea on dealing with employment issues,” says Auckland Action Against Poverty coordinator Sue Bradford. “Job fairs where the desperately unemployed queue in their corporate best to compete...
    Scoop politics | 21-10
  • Speech From the Throne Foreshadows More Corporate Welfare
    Responding to the Governor General’s Speech from the Throne, which outlined that the Government’s intentions for the next Parliamentary term would include further Business Growth Agenda initiatives, Taxpayers’ Union Executive Director Jordan...
    Scoop politics | 21-10
  • Green MP to speak at panel on Rainbow Mental Health
    Hamilton, New Zealand: Recently re-elected Green Party MP Jan Logie will be a guest speaker at a panel on the mental health of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Trangender, Takataapui and Intersex people taking place on November 1st as part of the...
    Scoop politics | 20-10
  • Evidence Supports GE Moratorium
    Federated Farmers spokesman Graham Smith's call for a 'rethink' on release of GeneticallyEngineered organisms is misguided, and instead it is time for a formal moratorium on GMOs in the environment.(1)...
    Scoop politics | 20-10
  • Chatham Rise mining could have impact on whales and dolphins
    Wellington, 21 October 2014--Mining phosphate on the Chatham Rise, off the east coast of New Zealand’s south island, could potentially have many impacts on marine mammals like whales and dolphins, the Environmental Protection Agency was told today....
    Scoop politics | 20-10
  • Council endorses Nanaia Mahuta as the next Labour leader
    Te Kaunihera Māori, the Māori Council of the New Zealand Labour Party, have passed a resolution to endorse the Hon Nanaia Mahuta as the next leader of the Labour Party...
    Scoop politics | 20-10
  • Kaumatua to organise petition to end Maori seats
    Ngapuhi kaumatua David Rankin has announced that he will be organising a nationwide petition to seek support from Maori voters to end the Maori seats. “These seats are patronising”, he says. “They imply we need a special status, and that...
    Scoop politics | 20-10
  • Announcing a New Voice for The Left
    Josh Forman is pleased to announce the creation of a new force on the Left of politics in New Zealand....
    Scoop politics | 20-10
  • Public services held back by poor workplace culture
    A new report by Victoria University’s Centre for Labour, Employment and Work shows that public servants are working significant unpaid overtime to ensure the public services New Zealanders value are able to continue....
    Scoop politics | 20-10
  • iPredict New Zealand Weekly Economic & Political Update
    Andrew Little’s probability of being the next leader of the Labour Party has reached 70% and Jacinda Ardern is favourite to become his deputy, according to the combined wisdom of the 8000+ registered traders on New Zealand’s predictions market, iPredict....
    Scoop politics | 20-10
  • Prison Drug Treatment Unit marks a milestone
    Christchurch Men’s Prison’s Drug Treatment Unit (DTU) celebrated the completion of its 50th six month Drug and Alcohol Programme today, with the graduation of a further twelve offenders....
    Scoop politics | 20-10
  • Security Council seat a chance for NZ to empower women
    The UN Women National Committee Aotearoa New Zealand (UN Women NCANZ) welcomes New Zealand winning a seat on the United Nations Security Council and is calling on New Zealand to use its position to proactively promote effective implementation of the...
    Scoop politics | 20-10
  • Waipareira and ACC sign Partnership
    Waipareira and The Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) have signed a Memorandum of Understanding at Whanau Centre, Henderson – marking a special day for the West Auckland Urban Maori organisation....
    Scoop politics | 20-10
  • Humanitarian aid desperately needed in Iraq and Syria
    Global Peace and Justice Auckland is calling on the government to provide humanitarian funding for non-aligned NGOs (non-governmental organisations) in the Middle East rather than give any support whatever for the US-led military campaign in the area....
    Scoop politics | 19-10
  • Court Judicial Decision: Dotcom v The USA: 17 October 2014
    The United States of America is seeking the extradition of Messrs Dotcom, Batato, Ortmann and Van Der Kolk. The matter has been before the Courts on numerous occasions, and no further recitation of the facts is needed....
    Scoop politics | 19-10
  • Marshall Island poet speaks at UN climate summit
    “The fossil fuel industry is the biggest threat to our very existence as Pacific Islanders. We stand to lose our homes, our communities and our culture. But we are fighting back. This coming Friday thirty Pacific Climate Warriors, joined by...
    Scoop politics | 19-10
  • Many tourist car accidents preventable
    Simple steps could dramatically reduce the number of accidents involving tourists, says the car review website dogandlemon.com ....
    Scoop politics | 19-10
  • RainbowYOUTH: 25 Years, 25 More
    In 1989, a group of young people in Auckland got together to form a support group for LGBTIQ youth. They called it Auckland Lesbian And Gay Youth (ALGY). After 25 years, several location changes, a name change, a brand reboot...
    Scoop politics | 19-10
  • Outdated Oath shows need for Kiwi Head of State
    MPs are sworn in today and New Zealand Republic has written to MPs asking them to talk about why 121 New Zealanders elected by the people of New Zealand and standing in the New Zealand Parliament swear allegiance to another...
    Scoop politics | 19-10
  • Council shouldn’t revenue grab from windfall valuations
    Auckland Council should state clearly they will not try and capture revenue as a result of the latest valuations and needs reminding that the City’s skyrocketing property values doesn’t change the level or cost of Council’s services, says...
    Scoop politics | 19-10
  • EPMU endorses Andrew Little for Labour leadership
    The National Executive of the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union unanimously endorsed Andrew Little for the role of Labour leader, at a meeting held yesterday. “I have been speaking to our workplace delegates at forums across the country over...
    Scoop politics | 19-10
  • World Food Day promotes Agroecology not GE technology
    The UN has stated that agroecology is a major solution to feeding the world and caring for the earth....
    Scoop politics | 19-10
  • Labour Names Review Team
    Labour’s New Zealand Council has appointed Bryan Gould as Convenor of its post-General Election Review. He will be joined on the Review Team by Hon Margaret Wilson, Stacey Morrison and Brian Corban....
    Scoop politics | 19-10
  • Contenders for Labour leadership debate for first time
    The contenders for the leadership of the Labour Party debated for the first time on TV One’s Q+A programme today....
    Scoop politics | 19-10
  • UN Ambassador Jim McLay on TV One’s Q+A programme
    New Zealand's United Nations Ambassador Jim McLay on TV One’s Q+A programme....
    Scoop politics | 18-10
  • The Nation: RSA President BJ Clark & Ian Taylor, New NZ Flag
    Lisa Owen interviews RSA President BJ Clark and tech innovator Ian Taylor about changing the NZ flag...
    Scoop politics | 18-10
  • The Nation: RSA President BJ Clark & Ian Taylor, New NZ Flag
    Lisa Owen interviews RSA President BJ Clark and tech innovator Ian Taylor about changing the NZ flag...
    Scoop politics | 18-10
  • Lisa Owen interviews Foreign Minister Murray McCully
    Murray McCully says New Zealanders can expect a 5-10 year engagement against Islamic State if we join military action in Iraq and the government will take that “very carefully into account”...
    Scoop politics | 18-10
  • Lisa Owen interviews Julia Gillard
    Julia Gillard says there is “sufficient evidence” to fight Islamic State and does not think it will increase the risk of a domestic attack...
    Scoop politics | 18-10
  • NZ businesses to make child abuse a priority conversation
    Many leading New Zealand businesses have partnered with national child advocacy organisation Child Matters to participate in the fourth annual ‘Buddy Day’ - New Zealand’s only child abuse prevention awareness day....
    Scoop politics | 17-10
  • Tribunal decision significant for SMEs
    The Human Rights Review Tribunal decided this week in favour of an employee’s right not to work on Saturdays for religious reasons. The decision may still be appealed but the Director of the Office of Human Rights Proceedings, Robert Kee,...
    Scoop politics | 17-10
  • On The Nation this weekend
    This weekend on The Nation… New Zealand has been elected to the United Nations Security Council, but what happens next? Lisa Owen interviews Foreign Minister Murray McCully from New York about our goals for reform, what America wants from us...
    Scoop politics | 17-10
  • 1000+ supported by Te Arawa Whanau Ora
    Over 1000 individual whānau members are leading happier, healthier, more successful lives as a result of eight passionate and committed Māori organisations working at the coalface to help whānau find success....
    Scoop politics | 17-10
  • Nomination for Board Members Now Open
    CRF’s objective is to create opportunities for people from refugee backgrounds to lead fulfilling lives and contribute to every area of New Zealand society. It is an organisation that undertakes advocacy work using the strengths-based approach,...
    Scoop politics | 16-10
  • Anglican Family Care Otago staff to take industrial action
    Social workers, family workers and support staff working for Anglican Family Care in Dunedin and South Otago will take industrial action after their employer refused a pay increase that would keep up with the rising cost of living....
    Scoop politics | 16-10
  • Use UN Security Council role to overcome inaction and injust
    Amnesty International welcomes New Zealand winning a seat on the UN Security Council and is calling on New Zealand to use the role to ensure the body lives up to its role of safeguarding global peace and security....
    Scoop politics | 16-10
  • Grisham’s ‘child porn’ comments ignorant
    World-renowned author John Grisham has come under fire by advocacy group Stop Demand Foundation, for comments it says trivialises the global child sex abuse trade....
    Scoop politics | 16-10
  • Latest leak of TPPA intellectual property text confirms risk
    On the eve of the latest (non)round of negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) yet another version of the intellectual property has found its way to Wikileaks ....
    Scoop politics | 16-10
  • New Zealand awarded UN Security Council seat
    International aid agency Oxfam New Zealand welcomes New Zealand’s election to the United Nations Security Council, saying it gives an extraordinary opportunity to make a lasting contribution to international peace and security and improve the lives...
    Scoop politics | 16-10
  • 40 more jobs lost to cheap imports
    40 more jobs lost to cheap imports Another New Zealand manufacturer is closing its doors, giving the lie to the idea that we have a “rock star” economy or any strategy for jobs growth. Wellpack is a paper bag manufacturer...
    Scoop politics | 16-10
  • Pink Batts manufacturer to cut Christchurch jobs
    Pink Batts manufacturer to cut Christchurch jobs 29 roles are to be cut at the Christchurch manufacturing facility of Tasman Insulation, the company which manufacturers the iconic Pink Batts brand of products. The company is proposing to consolidate its...
    Scoop politics | 16-10
  • Kellogg cereal donations help the Sallies feed those in need
    Kellogg New Zealand commits 64,000 serves of breakfast cereal during World Food Day Coinciding with World Food Day this year, Kellogg New Zealand and The Salvation Army are reaching out to less fortunate Kiwis with the donation of 64,000 serves...
    Scoop politics | 16-10
  • National Slips, Labour Hits Lows
    National fail to get post-election bounce but leaderless Labour Party crash to lowest ever support...
    Scoop politics | 16-10
  • NZ parents hope for more than just happy and healthy babies
    Auckland, 16 October 2014 – What do expectant mums and dads hope for their children? According to new research from Growing Up in New Zealand , a baby’s health and happiness may be high up on the list, but today’s...
    Scoop politics | 16-10
  • NZPI backs Minister’s affordable housing stance
    NZPI backs Minister’s affordable housing stance NZPI is supportive of Hon. Dr Nick Smith’s, efforts to use the RMA as a mechanism for taking the heat out of the housing affordability challenge in New Zealand. “As Minister for Environment...
    Scoop politics | 16-10
  • Prime Minister’s OIA Admision Disturbing
    The Taxpayers’ Union is calling for answers after it was revealed on Radio New Zealand’s Morning Report that the Prime Minister’s office routinely flouts its obligations under the Official Information Act. Taxpayers’ Union spokesman, Ben...
    Scoop politics | 16-10
  • NZDIA forum press release
    NZDIA forum press release Wellington - The New Zealand Defence Industry Association, with the support of the NZ Defence Force and the Ministry of Defence, will be holding a two-day international forum on October 21-22 at the Michael Fowler Centre...
    Scoop politics | 15-10
  • BPW NZ calls fashion industry to account
    The New Zealand Federation of Business and Professional Women (BPW NZ) joins the call for action on the use of skinny models and mannequins as it is directly affecting the self-esteem and health of many of our young people....
    Scoop politics | 15-10
  • Electoral Commission introduces Extra Touch for Blind NZers
    The Electoral Commission was presented with the Extra Touch Award by the Association of Blind Citizens of New Zealand (Blind Citizens NZ), in recognition of its successful implementation of Telephone Dictation Voting ahead of its commitment to do so by...
    Scoop politics | 15-10
Public service advertisements by The Standard

Current CO2 level in the atmosphere