A fighting liberal

122 comments on “A fighting liberal ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Colonial Viper 1

   1 June 2013 at 2:11 pm

   I suspect that having a “gutsy fighting spirit” is an attribute in of itself which attracts the classic Labour voter. Battlers love to see a battler in action.
   • Nordy 1.1

     1 June 2013 at 2:25 pm

     Of course it’s not the first, and it won’t be the last time a left wing politician asserts the culpability of Key for the corruption and ‘for the 1%’ apprach of his government. What is new is the that the tide has turned, and therefore the message has some resonance outside the beltway.

     Couple that with some of the MSM finally getting off the NACT ‘cheerleading bandwagon’, and the time is right for this type of direct and head-on and sustained assualt on the carefully constructed myth of ‘that nice guy’ John Key.

     What I am looking forward to seeing is a planned and sustained political ‘attack’ on Key and his ministers for their deception, outright lies and continuing fiscal and managerial incompetence.
     • Matthew Whitehead 1.1.1

       1 June 2013 at 5:58 pm

       Can we please stop calling the political class the “beltway”? We don’t have a circle motorway around Wellington, and pundits wouldn’t live there even if we did.

       The MSM is still on the National bandwagon, they just realise they have to favour them with selective or horse-race coverage now rather than outright cheerleading

       Got to agree about a sustained attack for their various ethical violations. Painting the government as corrupt is not exactly a stretch and it’ll resonate far more than “labour and the greens are loony lefties”.
       • Rich 1.1.1.1

         1 June 2013 at 8:28 pm

         +1 This is not America.

         (The other reason for not mentioning a beltway is that it might give the NACT/Fletchers axis the idea that they could pour an awful lot of money and concrete into a tunnel from Seatoun to Eastbourne).
       • Colonial Viper 1.1.1.2

         1 June 2013 at 11:14 pm

         I use the term Beltway Labour to describe the particular kind of Labour in central Wellington who have never welded a seam, never shovelled a tonne of gravel, never been 100m underground, never required hearing protection at work, never tried to raise a family on $400/week. A Labour who is more comfortable in boardrooms and glass storied office blocks than speaking to people in a rural pub or a meeting in a provincial town.
         • Mister big 1.1.1.2.1

           1 June 2013 at 11:33 pm

           You mean all of them, except Damien O’Connor?
   • IrishBill 1.2

     1 June 2013 at 2:25 pm

     I suspect that having a “gutsy fighting spirit” is an attribute in of itself which attracts the classic Labour voter. Battlers love to see a battler in action.

     That’s my thought too. The worst mistake that Labour could make would be to think that they’ll win back the battlers with a culturally rightward tack.
     • Red Rosa 1.2.1

       1 June 2013 at 2:36 pm

       +1
     • rosy 1.2.2

       1 June 2013 at 8:06 pm

       +2

       Key stands in parliament calling Labour the devil-beast and accuses them of building a ‘far-left’ coalition while Nact is so sensibly centrist…. hah!

       It’s great to see someone call Key out on his crony, corrupt capitalism that is marginalising the democratic rights of ordinary people. Labour needs to get onboard – at least show their policies are mainstream in other democratic countries rather than simply taking the blows from Key.
       • Anne 1.2.2.1

         1 June 2013 at 9:30 pm

         Labour appears to still think that ignoring the smears and ‘taking the blows’ is good politics. Did it work for them between 2005 and 2008? NO. Did it work for them between 2008 and 2011? NO. Will it work for them between 2011 and 2014? NO.

         End of story.
   • paul andersen 1.3

     1 June 2013 at 9:03 pm

     yes , norman has the fighting spirit that whatshisname ,the labour leader seems to lack.
     • Rhinocrates 1.3.1

       1 June 2013 at 9:36 pm

       The facepalm would cause a concussion. Shearer/Robertson are terrified of losing the “soft” NACT vote by saying anything indistinguishable from what they think they want to hear, but is even more terrified of attracting eight hundred thousand roof painters. My flabber is ghasted – or would be, because ennui has taken over.
     • xtasy 1.3.2

       1 June 2013 at 9:49 pm

       Exactly, and the media now tend to speak to Norman first, when there are issues to be addressed, for which they want the opposition’s opinion and position.

       Shearer is rather bland and dull in front of the cameras, which does not help his struggle with speaking coherently and decisively.
2. Penny Bright 2

   1 June 2013 at 2:28 pm

   I am ABSOLUTELY opposed to corrupt CRONY CAPITALISM!

   A very good speech Russel Norman. Well done.

   ‘Shonky’ John Key, ex-Wall St banker (STILL a shareholder in the Bank Of America), is clearly working in the interests of overseas investors – his bank$ter and corporate mates.

   WAKE UP Kiwis!

   Protecting our democracy from crony capitalism – speech by Dr Russel Norman at AGM Green Party 2013

   http://www.greens.org.nz/speeches/protecting-our-democracy-crony-capitalism-speech-dr-russel-norman-agm-green-party-2013?fb_action_ids=615659575113405&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=aggregation&fb_aggregation_id=288381481237582

   Penny Bright
   ‘Anti-corruption/anti-privatisation’ campaigner

   2013 Auckland Mayoral candidate
   • TheContrarian 2.1

     1 June 2013 at 3:06 pm

     GOOD FOR YOU PENNY! WHY DON’T YOU TELL US WHAT YOU REALLY THINK?!
     • Paul 2.1.1

       1 June 2013 at 3:11 pm

       Ridiculous her if you see fit, but Penny can claim be thing that I doubt few enough NZers can do at present.
       She cares enough of the plight of many vulnerable and impoverished peels to do and say something.
       You remind me of a school bully, who tries to shut down opinion by mocking the person brave enough to say anything.
       Before you continue to behave in such a manner, please tell us all what you do to make a better world for such people.
       • TheContrarian 2.1.1.1

         1 June 2013 at 3:18 pm

         I’m not mocking Penny for her beliefs, I am making light of her proclivity towards SHOUTING CAPS!
         • Paul 2.1.1.1.1

           1 June 2013 at 3:19 pm

           So you would agree that NZ needs more folk like Penny?
           • TheContrarian 2.1.1.1.1.1

             1 June 2013 at 3:24 pm

             Not really, she’s rather hysterical in my opinion.
             • Matthew Whitehead …

               1 June 2013 at 5:59 pm

               She certainly has her style, but she’s got the right idea on most things.
             • prism …

               1 June 2013 at 6:27 pm

               Te Contrarian
               You remind me of a saying I’ve got on on my frig. The time for sensible discussion has passed, now is the time for senseless bickering.

               Penny knows that it’s important to step out of our comfortable she’ll-be-right persona and get into active discussion followed by intelligent, strategic action. WARNING- some people may find that her capitals and dedication offend. She doesn’t but puts me to shame.
               • weka …

                 1 June 2013 at 11:07 pm

                 “The time for sensible discussion has passed, now is the time for senseless bickering.”

                 Priceless. THANKS prism.
             • paul andersen …

               1 June 2013 at 9:06 pm

               if you dont like the use of caps, STAND FURTHER BACK FROM THE SCREEN.
         • paul andersen 2.1.1.1.2

           1 June 2013 at 9:07 pm

           if you dont like the use of caps, STAND FURTHER BACK FROM THE SCREEN.
           • QoT 2.1.1.1.2.1

             1 June 2013 at 10:52 pm

             How exactly would that work?

             And a word to the wise: lprent really, really hates people getting shouty and capslocky.
           • tamati 2.1.1.1.2.2

             2 June 2013 at 1:43 am

             This is how I feel about all capitals people!

             http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3677F6Ji1k8
       • Jimmie 2.1.1.2

         1 June 2013 at 7:26 pm

         Can you rephrase your post in simple english? Was hard understand very to…..
3. DS 3

   1 June 2013 at 2:37 pm

   The Greens aren’t liberal (at least not economically). ACT, back in the days before they were taken over by social conservatives, were liberal. Liberal means pro-free market, pro-autonomous individual; as such, it’s a right-wing position.
   • Pascal's bookie 3.1

     1 June 2013 at 2:48 pm

     Yawn. Liberal just means pro-liberty. A ‘free’ market doesn’t necessarily make for a more free population.
     • DS 3.1.1

       1 June 2013 at 3:03 pm

       I’m hardly a supporter of the free market. I’m just pointing out that Liberalism, as an ideology, is right-wing free-market and socially tolerant. It should not be used as a synonym for Left, even though Left-wingers are often socially Liberal.
       • Pascal's bookie 3.1.1.1

         1 June 2013 at 3:27 pm

         Yep, and I’m disagreeing with that.

         Everyone is a variety of liberal these days, they differ in means. People who don’t think free markets increase freedom and oppose then for that reason, are still Liberals.

         There is a reason Classical Liberals are called that. Modern liberalism draws from Rawls and others, and says that in order to increase net liberty you need things like, for example, wealth redistribution, access to education and heathcare and all those other things.
       • Matthew Whitehead 3.1.1.2

         1 June 2013 at 6:10 pm

         Actually the greens do support markets that are freer than they are currently, if being free means being fair to the individuals as well. The problem with so-called “free market agreements” is that they are either between countries that are already wealthy if they are relatively fair, or they exempt many key markets or are selectively used to pressure wages downwards. That’s not getting into several key assumptions of “free market theory” that are violated by countries or political movements claiming to believe in free trade- such as completely open borders for immigration.

         There’s often the assumption that because we on the left oppose perverse incentives in the market that we actually believe in command economies or other rubbish strawperson theories. Speaking for myself at least, I feel that when there is no socioeconomic cost to free economic behaviour, it’s fine for the government to butt out until such a cost emerges. The problem is that we’ve let such behaviour run entirely rampant and there’s so much of it to stamp out that the government isn’t seen as a fair broker if it digs too deeply into any one area.

         And as Pascal’s Bookie points out, classical liberalism doesn’t own the word liberal any more, and theories of social equity have begun to dominate the thought space in that area now that we have some very highly developed countries that don’t just have to worry about economic issues.
   • Dan1 3.2

     1 June 2013 at 2:49 pm

     Liberal has two almost opposite meanings:
     As from my computer dictionary!
     1. open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values: they have more liberal views toward marriage and divorce than some people. (ie as applied to Norman above)
     2. favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms: liberal citizenship laws.
     3. (in a political context) favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform: a liberal democratic state. (ie less government interference: Liberterians, Tea Party, Act Party, some of the national Party).

     I have always felt reasonably liberal on most issues but to be compared to the Liberal Party in Australia or Lindsay Perigo in NZ, I am at the other end of the spectrum!
   • IrishBill 3.3

     1 June 2013 at 2:50 pm

     Don’t be pedantic. Anyway “Fighting Social Democrat” doesn’t have quite the same ring to it.
     • Dan1 3.3.1

       1 June 2013 at 2:59 pm

       Irish, I am in agreement! I was responding to DS. Good speech by Norman. Whenever I talk to Labour MPs, my comment is to front foot things; get some policy out there; don’t keep the powder dry until later.
       Turei and Norman are very positive front people. There are none of the shifty eyes of Key and English.
       • IrishBill 3.3.1.1

         1 June 2013 at 3:10 pm

         Sorry I was replying to DS.
         • North 3.3.1.1.1

           1 June 2013 at 4:39 pm

           It’s in the area of “contranym” as I just found out via Google. One word with two virtually opposite meanings. It’s been that way at latest since the sociopathic crooks Douglas and Prebble.

           Worries me that while ShonKey Python to his advanatge talks a “broad church” we find ourselves having to argue about a dual usage for Christ’s Sake.

           Surely we know where we’re at, don’t we ?
       • muzza 3.3.1.2

         1 June 2013 at 3:29 pm

         There are none of the shifty eyes of Key and English.

         That would be due to, the lack of track record, as only being MP’s, and co-leaders.

         Very easy to make big noises, when you’re not in a position to do anything other than, make big noises!

         Unless you’re David Shearer, who can’t even manage to make any noise at all, that doesn’t leave him sounding/appearing like an oxygen thief, playing politician!
         • Paul 3.3.1.2.1

           1 June 2013 at 3:32 pm

           Yup, can’t imagine Shearer making a speech anything like that.
           In either content or with the same integrity and passion.
           • Colonial Viper 3.3.1.2.1.1

             1 June 2013 at 5:29 pm

             And furthermore, I think that Norman would not have simply read that pre-prepared speech out, he would have written significant chunks of it himself.
   • weka 3.4

     1 June 2013 at 2:59 pm

     The Greens aren’t liberal (at least not economically). ACT, back in the days before they were taken over by social conservatives, were liberal. Liberal means pro-free market, pro-autonomous individual; as such, it’s a right-wing position.

     In NZ, traditionally, the word liberal has belonged to the left eg I grew up in a (white, middle class,) liberal family ie one that was progressive in a way associated with left wing (not conservative) politics eg homosexual law reform, reproductive rights etc.

     ‘Liberal’ in the US means what you think it means.

     As far as I can tell this is why in NZ the likes of Perigo use the term ‘libertarian’ rather than liberal.

     When I read Irish Bill’s title, it didn’t even occur to me that he meant libertarian.
     • DS 3.4.1

       1 June 2013 at 3:06 pm

       The US uses Liberal as a synonym for Left. We don’t, except possibly in matters of social policy.
       • IrishBill 3.4.1.1

         1 June 2013 at 3:13 pm

         I’ve used the term “liberal” to describe a particular kind of leftie for a long time and never been misunderstood.
       • tamati 3.4.1.2

         1 June 2013 at 4:30 pm

         If you want to get technical, liberal shouldn’t have a capital ‘L” as it isn’t a proper noun. It is used as a name (and hence has a capital) in Australia to describe their center-right party, whose current leader (and soon to be PM) certainly isn’t a classical ‘liberal’.

         The economist has a good article about the true liberalism.

         http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21578660-young-britons-have-turned-liberal-both-socially-and-economically-politicians-need-get
         • Pascal's bookie 3.4.1.2.1

           1 June 2013 at 5:35 pm

           True scotsman more like. 🙂
     • tamati 3.4.2

       1 June 2013 at 4:33 pm

       Homosexual law reform and reproductive rights aren’t really a domain of the “left”.
       • Pascal's bookie 3.4.2.1

         1 June 2013 at 5:36 pm

         Apart from the fact that on both issues in every modern democratic country you care to name, the left and right will line up along similar lines. It must be one hell of a coincidence.
         • tamati 3.4.2.1.1

           1 June 2013 at 6:29 pm

           David Cameron supports gay marriage and Julia Gillard opposes it, which one is from the left and which one is from the right?

           It’s probably easiest to define those who support gay marriage as “the future” and those who oppose it as “the pre-dead”. The old left-right paradigm is pretty antique these days!
           • Pascal's bookie 3.4.2.1.1.1

             2 June 2013 at 8:11 am

             left and right are notoriously hard to define, but extraordinarily well understood and widely used. It’s a bit of a paradox for sure, but people know what is meant, and are pretty consistent about them. They are useful terms.

             I find that people who claim they are old hat and whinge about it are outliers who don’t quite fit in with how the left and right break down in their own polity. That’s fine. But it’s mostly bad luck for them.

             On Cameron and Gillard, true, but also irrelevant.

             Both leaders are in trouble for a start. More telling is looking back through history, ( as recent or as far back as you like), and see how the left and right voted on bills, or where the activists come from on each side of the issue, and what happens in comment sections on left and right wing blogs on those issues.

             No bother even checking really eh?
             • pollywog …

               2 June 2013 at 1:57 pm

               Haven’t quite figured the whole left right out thing yet.

               I think i swing around a bit but not even sure of that…
               • Colonial Viper …

                 2 June 2013 at 2:05 pm

                 The whole left/right scale is a bit of a one dimensional description approaching the point of over simplified uselessness.
                 • Pascal's bookie …

                   2 June 2013 at 8:21 pm

                   Thing is though, it’s used a lot. That’s the definition of useful.

                   People know what it means even if it’s really hard to articulate what’s going on.

                   There’s no point in doing it (and I suspect you’ll agree) but I’d wager that if you went out with a long list of policies and asked a large number of people to say whether each policy was left or right wing, you’d get a pretty high consistency around the way each policy was scored.
       • Clockie 3.4.2.2

         1 June 2013 at 5:37 pm

         I think you’ll find that certainly in NZ and I suspect other western countries also it has been certain pockets of the left that have championed those causes until they became politically acceptable across a broader reach of the spectrum.
       • Matthew Whitehead 3.4.2.3

         1 June 2013 at 6:16 pm

         When the right wing starts believing in social liberty again they can start arguing that women’s and queer rights aren’t a left wing issue. Until then the onus is on those right-wingers who do believe in personal rights do have to bear the burden of overcoming that stereotype and of convincing their friends that rights for everyone are the way to go.
   • TheContrarian 3.5

     1 June 2013 at 3:06 pm

     That’s classical-liberalism
   • paul andersen 3.6

     1 June 2013 at 9:10 pm

     rubbish, liberals get very anal and uptight and abandon the free market when property values are threatened.
4. Phaedrus 4

   1 June 2013 at 2:38 pm

   I suspect the Greens will attract significant proportion of the non-voters in 2011, the ones who stayed home because they didn’t see Labour as a viable alternative to National. I’d also suggest that the country has been waiting for this speech, although it was probably Labour that they were waiting for. This may be the pivotal point leading to the eventual eclipse of Labour as the main opposition party, replaced by the Greens, who know what they stand for and are not afraid to articulate this.

   As a long term Labour member I must say that my vision is developing an increasingly green tinge and I suspect that this will intensify. The pity is that there are some very talented Labour MPs, but the Labour string pullers seem to have little idea of how to use their talents, and how to stake out a solid and definite position, e.g. Labour believes in….. and these are our policies to bring this about.

   However, as was the case under Phil Goff, I really don’t know what Labour believes. It’s time they took a leaf from Norman’s book and spoke from the heart with passion, not just peddling stuff that policy analysts believe will negate National.

   The Greens are defining the battleground with speeches like this, and with the NZ Power policy (surely Labour will have seen the positive outcomes from taking this definite stand), and the effect of this is clear – National has been forced to pull out the 2013 version of the dancing cossacks and devil beasts, as they have no other answer, once ideological catch phrases are negated.
   • Anne 4.1

     1 June 2013 at 6:03 pm

     As a long term Labour member I must say that my vision is developing an increasingly green tinge and I suspect that this will intensify. The pity is that there are some very talented Labour MPs, but the Labour string pullers seem to have little idea of how to use their talents, and how to stake out a solid and definite position…

     Never a truer word hath been spoke.

     When you try to get this message across to your local LEC and find yourself (effectively) told to shut up and stop complaining then it becomes hard to raise any enthusiasm.
   • xtasy 4.2

     1 June 2013 at 10:06 pm

     “The pity is that there are some very talented Labour MPs, but the Labour string pullers seem to have little idea of how to use their talents, and how to stake out a solid and definite position, e.g. Labour believes in….. and these are our policies to bring this about.”

     Yes, right, but I think it is not so much that the string pullers do not have any idea of how to use the talents of those Labour MPs you refer to, rather it seems they want to keep them on a leash, so they do not get too much profile and traction by being outspoken.

     The old guard have the problem of still seeing themselves too much as ex ministers, as office holders who worked with the business and other sectors, and they are too mindful of upsetting those, as they perceive them as important and powerful.

     Also I have the impression that Jacinda Ardern for instance is not allowed to speak as freely about social policy issues as she may like to.

     Under the last Labour led government certain policies were introduced to put more pressures on sole parents, sickness and invalid’s beneficiaries, to make more efforts to return to work. That was of course not as strong a push as the Nats are now applying, but it was dressed up in nice words like wanting to “support” and “assist”.

     Also they abolished the Special Benefit, and replaced it with the capped Temporary Additional Support, which leaves many in situations they cannot survive on.

     Labour’s old guard have their hands dirty in some affairs, and if younger ones like Ardern speak up and criticise the present government too firmly, this could back-fire on Labour, that is what they fear.

     The present Principal Health Advisor for MSD, Dr David Bratt, a rather right-wing kind of person, who compares benefit dependence to drug dependence, he was also appointed under a Labour government minister by the way!

     So it is refreshing to hear Norman hold a very good speech and call a spade a spade. Do not expect Shearer or even Robertson to come up any time soon with such strong words as Russell Norman used today.
5. Paul 5

   1 June 2013 at 2:49 pm

   That’s why National are so scared of the Greens..hence the devil beast language
   • xtasy 5.1

     1 June 2013 at 11:14 pm

     At the end of the TV3 news at 06 pm today (just before 07 pm) the newsreader announced, that John Key had phoned in during their broadcast, to tell them what his position was.

     Yes, indeed, the Prime Minister calling into leading media news, in reaction to them broadcasting bits about Norman’s speech at the Christchurch conference of the Green Party, that is a clear sign that he is damned worried and furious!
6. Paul 6

   1 June 2013 at 3:01 pm

   “Well we’ve got news for SkyCity: unlike other political parties we didn’t take your campaign donations and we didn’t go to your corporate box at the rugby; your tools of crony capitalism don’t work with us because we work for the people of New Zealand and if the people of New Zealand tell us to turn off the tap on your blood money, then we bloody well will.”
   Wonderful.
   • Treetop 6.1

     1 June 2013 at 4:53 pm

     More to come tomorrow from Turei. Both Green Party Co – leaders are intelligent.
7. Colonial Viper 7

   1 June 2013 at 3:38 pm

   Hmmm any chance Norman’s speech was filmed and will make it to Youtube?
   • weka 7.1

     1 June 2013 at 4:37 pm

     Having a look but am guessing they’re too busy today to get things up.

     Norman is tweeting…

     Thinking of my neighbours in Wellington today w the big slip. J Key don’t even think of suspending democracy in Wgtn.

     https://twitter.com/RusselNorman

     Keep it up Russel.
   • weka 7.2

     1 June 2013 at 4:39 pm

     A copy of the speech

     http://www.greens.org.nz/speeches/protecting-our-democracy-crony-capitalism-speech-dr-russel-norman-agm-green-party-2013
8. North 8

   1 June 2013 at 3:51 pm

   Norman’s speech excites in me boyhood memories of winter nights around the kitchen table in a freezing timber village in the South Waikato. In the morning the remaining contents of the teapot frozen. Warm as toast from the wood range, regaled late into the night with maternal grandmother’s and mother’s personal accounts of ’51, protests in the Domain, my uncle beaten up by two detectives outside the Station Hotel and kicked all the way to Customs Street, Basham the bastard horse-mounted cop from Onehunga batoning skulls in Myer’s Park, the Upper Queen Street Chinese greengrocer taking the bloodied in the front door administering a tot and hustling them out the back door, the Depression.

   The philosophical instruction was never direct but it was there alright. The dignity and pride and power of the working class.

   To hell with the smiling scabs and the careerist traitors and back to the future ! As I type this I look to the panel on the right of my monitor which recommends me to NZ On Screen – In a Land of Plenty – Someone Else’s Country – Patu ! – Bastion Point the Untold Story.

   WTF’s gone wrong ? We’ve been heisted and it looks like we don’t even care.
   • Colonial Viper 8.1

     1 June 2013 at 5:22 pm

     Oh, there are those of us who care, a great deal.
     • Clockie 8.1.1

       1 June 2013 at 5:39 pm

       Not enough.. 🙂
     • Clockie 8.1.2

       1 June 2013 at 10:40 pm

       Just realised ambiguous. Meant not enough people not that you don’t care enough, sorry..
       • Colonial Viper 8.1.2.1

         1 June 2013 at 11:17 pm

         np
   • Clockie 8.2

     1 June 2013 at 5:30 pm

     “WTF’s gone wrong ? We’ve been heisted and it looks like we don’t even care.”

     ++1. Couldn’t agree more. (Nearly) all of us (there are always class traitors) who were brought up in working class families can relate stories similar to the ones you’ve just told. They informed our political consciousness as we grew up and learned a thing or two ourselves. I’ve tried to pass on some of that heritage to my kids but I fear too many people have failed to do so as they have become “aspirational” or succeeded and left behind those who didn’t succeed. It’s a pity the same battles have to be fought repeatedly by successive generations. Weak people fail to remember that the “price of freedom is eternal vigilance.”
     • prism 8.2.1

       1 June 2013 at 6:42 pm

       Weak people – I feel that’s a bit harsh. What many of us haven’t understood is that social gains are not secure and stable, but can be withdrawn. I thought we were in upward progress, and never imagined the old slave-trading mentality could take over again. Basically the idea that profit is everything and to ensure that ordinary people are treated fairly is dangerous and anti-trade and will undermine the economy.

       What we need to understand is that understanding politics and taking part in the discussion daily and not leaving it to others except once each three years is essential. It should be talked about over the dinner table or the knees in front of tv instead of sport. Our children need to learn how to manage their democracy so it remains viable and fair, and that certainty of future progress towards reasonable living standards is not guaranteed.
       • Colonial Viper 8.2.1.1

         1 June 2013 at 6:46 pm

         There is a new wrinkle to the tales to be told as well – resource and energy depletion is acting as an increasing drag on the world economy. The 20th century was a story of ever cheaper and ever more plentiful physical resources. That time is over. Practical skills, ability to get along and work together with people, to stay fit and healthy: these are the best ways to stay ahead of this curve.
         • prism 8.2.1.1.1

           1 June 2013 at 7:05 pm

           CV +1
           • Jenny 8.2.1.1.1.1

             1 June 2013 at 10:15 pm

             CV +2
             • AmaKiwi …

               1 June 2013 at 11:23 pm

               CV: “Practical skills, ability to get along and work together with people, to stay fit and healthy: these are the best ways to stay ahead of this curve.”

               No, CV. We’ll join the Yanks in their holy crusade to scavenge the last remnants.

               In six days God created the heavens and the earth. On the seventh day we bulldozed it.
               • Colonial Viper …

                 2 June 2013 at 12:29 am

                 We should be careful lest we are the ones who end up scavenged and carrion…
       • uke 8.2.1.2

         1 June 2013 at 7:33 pm

         I also think “weak people” is a bit harsh. But one of the lessons of the last 25 years is surely that we must learn to remember better.

         Where has the collective memory of NZ Depression experiences gone? As far as I know there are a grand total of two NZ non-fiction history books on the Depression (both by Tony Simpson). Compare this with the endless stream of NZ war books.

         Cultivating NZ’s working-class and trade union history will make people stronger in the task of resisting neoliberalism and right-wing authoritarianism.
         • karol 8.2.1.2.1

           1 June 2013 at 7:47 pm

           John A Lee wrote about the 20s and 30s in NZ.
           • uke 8.2.1.2.1.1

             2 June 2013 at 8:39 am

             Lee’s “Simple on a soapbox” and “The Scrim-Lee papers”, if that’s what you are referring to, are both good. But strictly speaking they’re more about Lee’s political career than the Depression.

             His novels – “Children of the poor”, “Delinquent Days” and “The Hunted” – are vivid pictures of pre-welfare state NZ. But who reads them these days? How many people under 30 even know who John A. Lee was? To really function as collective memory, such material needs to be adapted and updated for new generations, talked about, kept alive.

             Chris Trotter does this occasionally with his column – but who else?
             • karol …

               2 June 2013 at 8:43 am

               Um…. The Standard posts of the original Standard pages from 1938?
               • uke …

                 2 June 2013 at 11:11 am

                 Yes, indeed. That is good to see and I thank The Standard for this. Also the Labour history Project and Auckland Labour History Group (thanks aspasia).

                 But I would still contend that the Left is suffering a major collective memory loss. Political and social ommentary on presentday NZ society usually refers to the past only in the most general ways.
             • aspasia …

               2 June 2013 at 9:56 am

               Who else? The Trade Union History Project and the Auckland Labour History Group.
               Support & enquiries for the Auckland group can go to [email protected].

               Next event in Auckland:
               Friday 14 June, 2013 12:00-3:00pm WG808, L8, Sir Paul Reeves building
               AUT University, Mayoral Drive, Auckland City.

               Speakers include:
               Gay Simpkin, B&LHG Associate and Auckland Labour History Group secretary
               The ALHG Oral History Project

               Dr Joce Jesson
               Auckland Labour History Group,The Strike, 1912: Recording and Remembering, Creating Popular Culture?

               RSVP to [email protected] .There is no charge for this event. Attendees must rsvp by 9am, 12 June for catering purposes
         • AmaKiwi 8.2.1.2.2

           1 June 2013 at 11:11 pm

           “Where has the collective memory of NZ Depression experiences gone?”

           or the memory of the 2007-2009 crash? Banks and governments didn’t change anything, which is why the global economy is again on the edge of the cliff.
     • North 8.2.2

       1 June 2013 at 8:56 pm

       Fucking eloquent there Clockie !
       • Clockie 8.2.2.1

         1 June 2013 at 9:40 pm

         I try. 🙂 Seriously, I know I don’t have all the answers, but I was born in the late 50’s and spent a lot of time with my grandparents as a kid. They were all born before 1910 (the oldest in 1901) and went through the hard years that John A Lee wrote about. *

         They were not very talkative people but when they spoke it was to good effect. In a very few, rare phrases I would get a picture of the kind of privation, oppression, humiliation and anger they and their class of people experienced right through until things started to improve with the early programmes of the first Labour Government. It was quite something to see these normally quiet people getting briefly passionate and animated with blazing eyes as they told personal anecdotes to illustrate a political point.

         They would occasionally remind me and anyone else who was listening to always remember that battles which had been fought and won could always be lost and that the boss class would always try to remove the rights and conditions that the Labour movement had wrested from them.

         It’s been interesting watching their descendants and how they’ve turned out over the decades. Some are strong and determined and know how the world turns and remember what the oldies said and pass it on to their kids, others a bit venal, out for themselves and satisfied that “anyone can succeed like them if they try” and others who think that it’s all easy peasy and nothing to worry about as long as the All Blacks are winning, until suddenly something goes wrong and someone’s sick or loses a job or has a disabled kid who can’t foot it in the world…

         *Wikipedia: Lee..wrote his first novel, Children of the Poor — the book was largely autobiographical, and was a considerable success. The book argued that poverty generated crime and vice, and that only a socialist program could solve society’s problems.

         Norm Kirk spoke and wrote along exactly the same lines about the people and the conditions they lived with in his home turf of Woolston in Chch.

         One of the functions of the Labour Party, through people like Lee and Kirk and Lange, was to act as an institutional memory for the working class but sadly, they have really ceased to do that for at least a generation now in my humble opinion.

         I guess I’ll get attacked for saying that but frankly, fuck it..
         • Rhinocrates 8.2.2.1.1

           1 June 2013 at 9:43 pm

           No, I’m glad that you said it. A child of the 60s myself, I remember Norman Kirk and David Lange, and remember that Bill Rowling was a good man. They were Labour. ABC is not.
           • North 8.2.2.1.1.1

             2 June 2013 at 1:30 pm

             ABC = All ‘Bout Career.
9. Lefty 9

   1 June 2013 at 4:46 pm

   Capitalism is always about governments looking after their cronies (otherwise known as the ruling class).
   The difference between this capitalist government and some of the previous ones is they are more overt about it.
   There is an almost refreshing honesty about how this government openly administers the system for benefit of their friends and takes an ax to any group, law, tradition or process that impedes this.
   Politics in this country are largely about what group of capitalists will have their people in government.
   Helen had her favourite little capitalists.
   And Russel is constantly reminding us the Greens have their own favoured group of green growth capitalists whom they would favour if they had the power to do so.
   • Matt 9.1

     1 June 2013 at 5:09 pm

     As Bill Maher said about Democrats vs. Republicans, they’re all in bed with special interests, but the Republicans are in bed with somewhat scarier ones.
   • weka 9.2

     1 June 2013 at 11:21 pm

     “And Russel is constantly reminding us the Greens have their own favoured group of green growth capitalists whom they would favour if they had the power to do so.”

     Citation needed. And make sure it shows that Norman would give preference to his mates and colleagues over other people with the same green qualifications.

     Sure, any party in parliament in NZ at this time has to support capitalism. But there is a difference between crony capitalism and capitalism that at least allows conventional democracy. It’s scarey that some on the left can’t see that.
     • Colonial Viper 9.2.1

       2 June 2013 at 1:36 pm

       The “Green Growth” meme needs to be shown for what it is – false hope for the middle classes and unsustainable on a finite planet.

       Year on year % growth simply cannot be maintained on a limited resource base, even if you greenwash it. The growth we need now needs to be in terms of qualitative improvement of peoples lives, not quantitative increase in production and consumption.
10. karol 10

    1 June 2013 at 6:10 pm

    Excellent speech. I’ve never been that keen on Norman. He’s a bit too centrist for my liking. But good on him for calling National out for it’s anti-democratic, crony capitalist ways. Norman is my idea of a liberal – basically for individual rights and a fair go for all, not very radical left.
    • AmaKiwi 10.1

      1 June 2013 at 11:15 pm

      If Key “retires”, can you imagine Shearer or Robertson taking on Judith Collins?

      Squashed like ants.

      Go Russel, spokesperson for those of us in opposition.
    • Jenny 10.2

      2 June 2013 at 12:03 am

      Hi Karol, will there any debate at the AGM on the wisdom or not of whether the Green Party should go into coalition with Labour.

      Which way will the Green Party go?

      I see that Russel Norman, as reported by Andrea Vance says that he has no bottom lines for post-election negotiations. Does this mean that the Green Party could give up their opposition to mining the Denniston Plateau, and Deep Sea Oil drilling, possibly even fracking to get cabinet positions?

      http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/8743975/Norman-Greens-can-govern-with-Labour
      • Jenny 10.2.1

        2 June 2013 at 1:03 pm

        Climate Change the elephant in the room. I wonder if Meteria Turei will let the dreaded two words escape her lips today.
    • Clockie 10.3

      2 June 2013 at 1:55 pm

      Is it fair to expect either Norman or the Greens to be “very radical left”? I don’t think the party has ever claimed an orientation of being more than mildly centre left, although obviously they have sometimes attracted individuals (eg Sue Bradford) who would be well to the left of the official party ideology and most of the rank and file membership. The fact that she failed to win a leadership position spoke volumes in my opinion. They are a progressive party which believes in practical solutions to issues of social justice. In the meantime that’s good enough for me given the limited options available. The Wikipedia article gives a good breakdown on what the Greens are about and as someone who currently supports them I found nothing in that definition that surprised me or raised any concerns.
11. prism 11

    1 June 2013 at 6:22 pm

    I thought that Russel sounded strong, firm and on the mark with no feeling that he was just nit picking or fault finding. Refreshing.
12. Jimmie 12

    1 June 2013 at 8:45 pm

    The main point from Norman’s speech today is the perception that we now have a ‘leader of the opposition’ and a ‘ghost leader of the opposition’ – and I would say that Norman is looking a lot more alive and kicking compared to Shearer struggling to stay relevant and secure in his position.

    I would say the outcome from this weekend’s conference will be that the Nat’s will retain their current support in the polls but Labour will lose support to the Greens.

    This speech today was as much about robbing Labour of its relevance as it was about attacking John Key.

    Back in April at the joint release of the NZ Power policy a message was sent to the voting public that at long last they could look at L&G as equal partners in Parliament. (John Armstrong’s Siamese twins?)

    However Norman is trying to get a leg in front from this conference – position the Greens as the strong attacking party while Shearer’s Labour waffles around in the background. (And hopefully an extra boost in the polls)

    How will Labour respond?
    • Rhinocrates 12.1

      1 June 2013 at 9:40 pm

      The problem is, perhaps, that a lot of people still only perceive the Greens as viable as secondary coalition partners with Labour, so while Labour is so hopeless, they don’t look worth the gamble either.

      Russel and Metiria are doing a damned good job nonetheless, not terrified of focus groups.
13. Saarbo 13

    1 June 2013 at 9:15 pm

    More from Norman’s speech today:

    “We’ve got news for SkyCity: unlike other political parties we didn’t take your campaign donations and we didn’t go to your corporate box at the rugby.

    “Your tools of crony capitalism don’t work with us … and if the people of New Zealand tell us to turn off the tap on your blood money, then we bloody well will.”

    Norman is in a league of his own, Key started his 2014 campaign with “The Devil Beast” bull shit and Norman has just cleverly rubbed Keys imbecilic crap right back in his face.

    I’m picking that the Greens will lift significantly on the 247k votes that they got in 2011…Go Greens.
14. Yes 14

    1 June 2013 at 9:28 pm

    Oh come on guys this is a snippet of the speech. He said John keys was like Muldoon. FFS Russel didn’t come to new Zealand until 1997. What would he know!

    Russell will continue to attack labours voting base. When are you going to wake up to what he is doing!

    All i am trying to do Is seriously wane you. Why do you give the greens so much space on here when you are the voice of labour!
    • Tim 14.1

      1 June 2013 at 9:44 pm

      “Why do you give the greens so much space on here when you are the voice of labour!”

      Past Tense:

      as in
      Why do you give the greens so much space on here when you are the voice OF WHAT labour ONCE WAS.
    • marty mars 14.2

      1 June 2013 at 10:05 pm

      “All i am trying to do Is seriously wane you.”

      Yes indeed you are.
    • handle 14.3

      1 June 2013 at 10:09 pm

      Forewaned is forearmed.
      • IrishBill 14.3.1

        1 June 2013 at 10:12 pm

        “foreamed”
        • handle 14.3.1.1

          1 June 2013 at 10:46 pm

          framed
      • Clockie 14.3.2

        1 June 2013 at 10:12 pm

        It’s not the waning that bothers me so much as the possibility he’ll try to give us a waxing.
    • Saarbo 14.4

      1 June 2013 at 10:31 pm

      Maybe the “e” should be a “k”
    • QoT 14.5

      1 June 2013 at 10:54 pm

      What would he know!

      Are you familiar with the concept of “books” and “Google”?
      • weka 14.5.1

        1 June 2013 at 11:03 pm

        I hear that Norman also went to this place called a university and studied something called political science for many years.
        • AmaKiwi 14.5.1.1

          1 June 2013 at 11:18 pm

          But he never threw mango peels to starving children.
    • Pascal's bookie 14.6

      2 June 2013 at 11:58 pm

      Lol.

      Ol’ 128derp thinks this site is the ‘voice of Labour.’
15. gnomic 15

    1 June 2013 at 10:28 pm

    Good on yer Ruzza! Anyone who calls out the smirking or latterly scowling weasel for the undesirable he is deserves approbation. Needs to be more of it, as without the Teflon weasel factor what have the Nats got? English, a proven electoral loser. Brownlee, seems he needs a minder just to pop out for lunch in Newmarket. Why would that be? The Crusher. Please, spare us. Paula the puppet? Pass the sick bag. And what’s the message? Roads and more roads, all on borrowed money. Sprawl, more suburban sprawl. Ratepayers subsidise developers to throw up more shoddy housing over good agricultural land. And let’s gut the conservation estate with mining, rather contrary to the tourism brief. Unless tourism is to consist of shipments of ‘high value’ consumers of casino and brothel services. As it might well do in a third world county.

    It is rather sad that the working class have lost any awareness of the struggles of the past. Martin Eden, where are you now?

    The crux of the issue: there is not going to be a reversion to the years of eternal growth, for any number of reasons. Therefore the Labour Party needs to get a new plot, or become irrelevant, at best just another flavour of the neo-liberal conspiracy. I’m afraid that when I hear David Parker say that the last fiscally irresponsible government in New Zealand was under Muldoon, I despair of Labour. As well as being ideologically destitute, it’s factually incorrect The Clark government was irresponsible in its electoral bribes, and as for this current shower, is there still capital punishment for treason, betrayal of the people of the nation?
16. RedLogix 16

    1 June 2013 at 10:57 pm

    My 2 cents worth:

    In truth I’ve long believed that while Labour is the proud heritage of the left; the Greens are it’s future. Within a generation, maybe even sooner, it could be Labour who is the minor party… unless it is willing to completely reform it’s internal processes.

    http://thestandard.org.nz/2c-on-the-leadership/#comment-415887
17. xtasy 17

    1 June 2013 at 11:35 pm

    Does anybody remember John Key and what the slogan for the last election was? Have you ever heard of the “Brighter Future”?

    Does anybody care to get a grip of what that may all have been about, and who was behind this, as the “Bringer of Light”, kind of the one who wanted to bring us a “brighter future”?

    Perhaps add one and one together, by looking at the interpretations below!

    There is one called “Lucifer”, who has a name and a meaning. Few may suspect it, as the government and its leader are good experts at shrouding much and using smoke and mirror tactics.

    While all are up in arms about Key using the term “Devil Beast”, who really is he himself? Is he not really that “Lucifer” known so well to people with some religious understanding?

    Indeed, the Devil may be the “shining one”, the “bringer of a brighter future” himself. Read up on the “fallen angel” and other stuff below. Have a read and join the dots together.

    You are about so have a true revelation:

    From Wikipedia:

    “Lucifer (/ˈluːsɪfər/ or /ˈljuːsɪfər/) is the King James Version rendering of the Hebrew word הֵילֵל in Isaiah 14:12. This word, transliterated hêlēl or heylel, occurs only once in the Hebrew Bible and according to the KJV-influenced Strong’s Concordance means “shining one, morning star, Lucifer”.[1] The word Lucifer is taken from the Latin Vulgate,[2] which translates הֵילֵל as lucifer,[3][4] meaning “the morning star, the planet Venus” (or, as an adjective, “light-bringing”).”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer

    Also the Latin dictionary (online:

    Lucifer – meaning:

    “morning star| day star| planet Venus; bringer of light”

    http://www.latin-dictionary.org/lucifer
18. UpandComer 18

    2 June 2013 at 10:56 pm

    Corrupt government? I love how the left considers anything that involves ‘money’ and ‘getting things done’ and ‘someone not in the Labour party’ as a formula entailing automatic corruption.

    John Key has been great because successful business people respect him, will work with him, and he isn’t afraid to cut through red tape to get benefits for NZ. Note the benefits for NZ. Not like Labour which cuts through red tape only when it is of benefit to itself, a la the electoral finance act, Mike Williams board appointments, and Taito Phillip Field, etcetera ad infinitum.
    • Colonial Viper 18.1

      2 June 2013 at 11:25 pm

      and he isn’t afraid to cut through red tape to get benefits for NZ.

      selling out our legal protections, increasing poverty and gambling amongst struggling Aucklanders, and giving a sweet heart deal to SkyCity international shareholders.
      • rosy 18.1.1

        2 June 2013 at 11:33 pm

        and he isn’t afraid to cut through red tape to get benefits for NZ.

        Shipments of produce held up at borders.
19. Wayne (a different one) 19

    5 June 2013 at 1:12 pm

    “He’s a strong gutsy politician” – Yeah Right!

    “Please give me back my flag” – wimp!
20. tracey 20

    5 June 2013 at 1:19 pm

    Maarten Wevers, the former head of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet wrote the report that just absolved Perata, Foss and English. Should I be reading anything into that?

    In 2012 he was appointed a Knight Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit (KNZM) the first CE of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet to have been recognised in this way.

    Inote he was appointed in 2004 when Clark was PM. On that basis can much be read into that position impacting the report?

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS