Te Parti Maori will be the left blocks Achilles heel . They will become ever more radical to attract their voters and so ever more scary to the swing voter.
Heaven help us if a coalition of these rogues gets back in. We need a true statesman like Seymore to lead NZ out of apartheid and into democracy again....someone who is not swayed by votes but is truthful and sincere and has the best interests of New Zealanders at heart.
I'd have to disagree that Hipkin's ideological principles are indistinct. Hipkins as Minister of Education presided over grotesque academic slides of numeracy and literacy. His ideological principle in this instance at least seems clear - to produce a generation of uneducated voters, hopefully dependant on state aid for life.
I commend the Nats for using up their political capital driving costs out of the public service. Yes, they have made mistakes but those mistakes pale in comparison to those in power the previous six years. The last government blew their political capital wastefully.....just like a lot of taxpayer funds.
I do not think they will, nor will any party, have the public service operating efficiently and cost effectively.
This government is not driving costs out of the public service, it is making it ineffective so many of its current functions can be contracted out and privatised to the benefit of donors to National, ACT and NZ First.
So do tell me, what were the more than extra 10,000 public service personnel doing?
Thats not teachers, policemen, nor doctors and nurses....that is bureaucrats we are talking about....what benefit did they add?
I think the government, no matter who is in power, are terrible at getting value for money, whether thats internally or using external contractors to do the job. I see a lot of local government waste but can only imagine how much worse it is further up the food chain.
What examples do you have that current functions are being contracted out to donors? Were you upset that people contracted to the last government increased their wealth exponentially?
Many of those bureaucrats you so casually dismiss had been busy on a wide range of tasks and projects that have been binned by the current mob. Think of all the legislation, such as RMA reform, water, environment scrapped without sound replacement policies.
What you are saying is that it was taking more than 10,000 extra of them to do this, even though the government engaged external consultants to do a lot of the work and already had swathes of policy people.
Most of the policies needed scrapped because they were terrible and didn't achieve what was best for the country as a whole.
I agree, we need sound replacement policies but why throw good money after bad and continue to forge ahead with poor policy?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of the current rabble in parliament no matter which side they sit on, but the last government took waste and incompetence to a level that our great grandchildren will be paying the bill for.
The Nats had spent the previous 30-odd years mithering about the RMA without making the reforms. At least Labour's did the work. By the way the 10,000 is spread over the whole public service. All those dreaded back office people who make things happen for those at the front. Whole sectors of private industries have been thrown into chaos as a result.
If you remember they couldn't change it because the other parties within their coalition and the opposition wouldn't agree to change. No the 10,000 do not include Teachers, Nurses, Doctors nor police. I'll ask you this question, did the governments services increase exponentially during that period or did they get worse? Everything I have seen appears to be that things got worse which means that the people employed were not adding value, which won't be their fault, but falls at the feet of the people at the top, in this case the Minster themselves.
Efficiency is desirable. But since your taxes do not pay for any of those bureaucrats, what do you care if some public services are a little inefficient. It might amount to "digging ditches and filling them in again," so it is good to make the bureaucrats do something of public benefit, not just "police". True. But their salaries, when they spend, are how you and I get income without having to take bank credit.
Aim your critique of government accurately. It is not the civil service that is the problem, it is lack of government investment in infrastructure supporting high quality public services and poor policy that creates bulls*t jobs in the public AND private sector. Every rentier you know is a waste of space, public or private sector.
What rubbish, our taxes pay the costs of government and there hasn't been a government for more than 30 years that tried to spend our money as though it was
Private companies that have too many bullsh*t jobs go broke because they forget they have to increase profit to cover for those jobs.....Governments don't tend to because they have a captive customer base who have no other choice who they pay for those services. The only way of changing a government is to vote them out
Grandkids never pay the bill dude. All government spending is already paid for when the government spends. Tax return is a redemption operation, not a "pay for". It is the tax liability (not tax receipt) that creates demand for the currency. Insatiable demand. The government can always provide. You cannot run out of your own I.O.U. (NZ$ are by Law I.O.U's of the NZ State — "Gov. owes you redemption for payment of one unit of tax liabilities or fees fines or levies of the state.")
Fundamentally nothing else drives demand for NZD, but nothing else needs to, or, if you like, "trust" does a little — trust the government will put you in proverbial jail if you fail to pay your tax liabilities. But it is not really trust per se, is it? It's just brute fact of the matter concerning State power.
All government net spending is "our grandkids" income and savings. It's the exact opposite of what you think. Government net spending equals non-government sector savings to the penny. An accounting identity.
If around 20% net government injection (aka. "the deficit") is saved (which it is, people have insatiable savings desires) then there is no pressure on prices. Government creates inflation when it pays higher than market price for things, or when it raises the own price of the currency (aka. the interest rate) or when policy creates unemployment and welfare dependency which the State indulges (needlessly — there is no good reason for unemployment, the government by policy design created all unemployment in NZ$ (people seeking to exchange their goods or labour for the tax credit) and can also by policy eliminate all unemployment in NZD. Shows you the labour market is an unfair game. There is no proper labour market correction possible when the cause of unemployment is the monopolist.
Labour-Green NZ did not comprehend this, but the Tories are far worse with austerity for the poor and welfare for the rich.
Can you tell me why poverty stats tend to go down when the Nats are in but rise under Labour?
In any case, thankfully you are not my accountant, although I'm sure Mark Bryers would be happy to use someone with such wonky economics skills.
Governments borrow money....otherwise why would out interest bill currently be more that any of our ministries to run? We borrow from offshore, and we sell government bonds as well to cover shortfalls and to inject money into the economy to increase economic activity. There is no interest to pay on an IOU.
Human beings working for public purpose are not costs. They are our real benefit. The government cannot run out of NZ dollars, they create the currency. The cost of a public service is labour employed for public purpose not now available in the private sector. But examine how much bullshit work exists in the private sector and you will realize the public service sector is on balance an enormous benefit to our economy, not a cost. Taxes do not pay for public servants, it;'s the other way around. No one can pay a dime in tax before the government spends (or licenses banks to lend).
The problem with Labour isn't Hipkins. Hipkins, like Ardern before him, is an ideological void who is simply doing his best to balance the interests of the various factions of his party. I'd even say he is an excellent leader of the Labour party and I suspect the reason no-one wants to topple him is because they know that no-one else could do a better job.
The Labour party of old simply isn't going to come back.
The Labour Party I joined in 1976 had a very good understanding of the hopes and aspirations of ordinary people for their lives and that of their children. The LEC's were made up largely of these strugglers committed to make this a better society. The Party now appears to me to be made up of university graduates with little, if any, understanding of life's strugglers. If your argument is that Hipkins reflects this head only commitment to everyday struggles then I realize why I, and most of my mates, took our hearts and commitment elsewhere and left the Party.
I've got an alternative, perhaps complementary narrative for you. It is not the "traditional party" that is unpopular, it is the Neoliberal. Traditional conservatives at least had largess when it came to capitalist cronyism, which albeit regressively propped up monetary economies (i.e., all state tax-driven economics). Traditional Labour Party supported... wait for it... labour! Who would've known with digging way back into history books? This is still highly popular, by definition, most people are still working class, we literally cannot ever afford to go full rentier feudal capitalism in NZ — we do not have the army and CIA to do that neocolonialism sh*t. Our current "Labour Party" are neoliberal wankers and do not know how to support the working class with anything more than lying words. They could be popular, but those career Labour politician are only in it for the money and PMC careerist cushion. Total ℭ𝔘𝔑𝔗𝔰.
A thousand apologies for the cusswords. But some form of violence is called for in NZ, and we'd better keep it to intellectual violence, not physical.
So long as the left collectively, particularly Labour, continue to thump the tub of social justice ie equity, they are unlikely to gain any traction, as most NZers find the way this has been forced upon them by the last government to be completely bonkers. Equal opportunity means all get an equal share of resources; some will rise to the top, others won't. Equity means resources are shared based on need in an attempt to level the playing field. The two need to work in tandem to achieve social change; neither will do so on its own. There are several elephants in the room here, one of which is that ALL people of whatever race or ethnicity are not equal in any sense - there is no one-size-fits-all. So even if you level the playing field as per equity, many will still fail to make the grade.
David Seymour's Bill has given Te Pati Maori plenty of rope but they are unlikely to use it wisely. An ascendant Maori Party will give National a second term which they barely deserve given their failure to give a boost to public infrastructural investment and their lack on action on school attendance.
I have read and understood Te Tiriti and the history and breaches of Te Tiriti and the process of colonialism. Have you?
Have you really understood it from a position other than the colonisers lens?
Te Tiriti established a country where two sovereign nations could live together. Maori are Tangata Whenua and you are likely Tangata Tiriti. Maori are the indigenous people of NZ and Te Tiriti protects their right to live and flourish as Maori in their homeland. The whole Maori are benefiting narrative means what exactly?? What are your measures for supporting your assertion that Maori are benefiting? You do not provide any substance ergo you are deceiving yourself.
When you say Maori are just NZers you are like Seymour verbalising the erasure of the special status of the indigenous people? Such a typical colonial tool. And who benefits from the erasure of the special status of the indigenous people?
Lastly, Mearns - Scottish? I would have thought that a Scotsman would have an understanding of colonialism since the Scots were brutally colonised by the English.
Seymour is the divisive, racist. You have been seduced by his libertarian speak ‘everyone is equal’, ‘we are all NZers’. You need to do your homework on which race is benefiting from this so called ‘apartheid’ you speak of, and tell us who and how? Maybe even do some homework on Te Tiriti and the history of Crown breaches. If you value truth and sincerity and are not swayed by populism then do some homework.
Oh dear...it is you who have been deceived. You need to do some reading of the Treaty and the Kohimarama meeting to understand the treaty. Who is benefitting??? Now??? Maori are benefitting due to racist ruling of this and previous governments making Maori special, They are not. Maori are just New Zealanders...no more and no less. Anything more is racist as you well know.
Your fundamental flaw is that you deal in propaganda, not facts. Two parties to Te Tiriti. One party is now seriously disadvantaged in terms of health, housing, employment and education. The war on Māori from this coalition government is to remove a significant obstacle that limits the extent to which rentier financiers are able to rape and pillage our natural resources and loot our public institutions. Seymour is working for them.
Ask yourself why one party are now disadvantaged? Since all of New Zealanders have been given equal opportunity (although Maori have been given many privileged opportunities not given to the rest of the NZ population) why have some Maori along with other New Zealanders risen to the top? Hard work, cultural neutrality, honesty hard work , a desire to give back to their country, and a desire to do well. so do not tell me they are disadvantaged. There is no war on Maori...the war is on New Zealand. 186 ethnic cultures, all trying to do well, why would Maori get all this advantage. Two parties to The Triti....yes....and Maori were so grateful to have the Queen as their monarch. Only those who have become dependent on handouts are dragging Maori ststs down...lets all learn to be great New Zealanders again.
You are clearly blind to the process of systemic discrimination - advantageous to the majority and disadvantageous to the indigenous populations. I say populations because every indigenous people touched by colonialism is in the same boat.
Clearly you are not engaging with the history of colonialism and specifically the history of NZ post Te Tiriti. You are full on rolling out the stereotypes attached to indigenous people from the racist handbook…how else can they be in this disadvantaged position when we are all equal! Implying laziness or lack of intelligence or initiative.
I am now certain that you are trading on propaganda and have little interest in understanding the process of colonisation.
Your lack of understanding fully demonstrated again when you say ‘dependent on handouts are dragging Maori stats down’ - poor health outcomes are not unique to people on the benefit! If you did some reading you might see a correlation between colonisation and poor outcomes for indigenous people.
I hoped that you would step out some examples/evidence of Maori benefiting, but you avoid it. Perhaps because you haven’t got any!
Thanks for allowing me to reveal your lack of learning and understanding and wealth of libertarian and racist thoughts. It has been a pleasure.
Te Parti Maori will be the left blocks Achilles heel . They will become ever more radical to attract their voters and so ever more scary to the swing voter.
Heaven help us if a coalition of these rogues gets back in. We need a true statesman like Seymore to lead NZ out of apartheid and into democracy again....someone who is not swayed by votes but is truthful and sincere and has the best interests of New Zealanders at heart.
I'd have to disagree that Hipkin's ideological principles are indistinct. Hipkins as Minister of Education presided over grotesque academic slides of numeracy and literacy. His ideological principle in this instance at least seems clear - to produce a generation of uneducated voters, hopefully dependant on state aid for life.
I commend the Nats for using up their political capital driving costs out of the public service. Yes, they have made mistakes but those mistakes pale in comparison to those in power the previous six years. The last government blew their political capital wastefully.....just like a lot of taxpayer funds.
I do not think they will, nor will any party, have the public service operating efficiently and cost effectively.
This government is not driving costs out of the public service, it is making it ineffective so many of its current functions can be contracted out and privatised to the benefit of donors to National, ACT and NZ First.
So do tell me, what were the more than extra 10,000 public service personnel doing?
Thats not teachers, policemen, nor doctors and nurses....that is bureaucrats we are talking about....what benefit did they add?
I think the government, no matter who is in power, are terrible at getting value for money, whether thats internally or using external contractors to do the job. I see a lot of local government waste but can only imagine how much worse it is further up the food chain.
What examples do you have that current functions are being contracted out to donors? Were you upset that people contracted to the last government increased their wealth exponentially?
Many of those bureaucrats you so casually dismiss had been busy on a wide range of tasks and projects that have been binned by the current mob. Think of all the legislation, such as RMA reform, water, environment scrapped without sound replacement policies.
What you are saying is that it was taking more than 10,000 extra of them to do this, even though the government engaged external consultants to do a lot of the work and already had swathes of policy people.
Most of the policies needed scrapped because they were terrible and didn't achieve what was best for the country as a whole.
I agree, we need sound replacement policies but why throw good money after bad and continue to forge ahead with poor policy?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of the current rabble in parliament no matter which side they sit on, but the last government took waste and incompetence to a level that our great grandchildren will be paying the bill for.
The Nats had spent the previous 30-odd years mithering about the RMA without making the reforms. At least Labour's did the work. By the way the 10,000 is spread over the whole public service. All those dreaded back office people who make things happen for those at the front. Whole sectors of private industries have been thrown into chaos as a result.
If you remember they couldn't change it because the other parties within their coalition and the opposition wouldn't agree to change. No the 10,000 do not include Teachers, Nurses, Doctors nor police. I'll ask you this question, did the governments services increase exponentially during that period or did they get worse? Everything I have seen appears to be that things got worse which means that the people employed were not adding value, which won't be their fault, but falls at the feet of the people at the top, in this case the Minster themselves.
Efficiency is desirable. But since your taxes do not pay for any of those bureaucrats, what do you care if some public services are a little inefficient. It might amount to "digging ditches and filling them in again," so it is good to make the bureaucrats do something of public benefit, not just "police". True. But their salaries, when they spend, are how you and I get income without having to take bank credit.
Aim your critique of government accurately. It is not the civil service that is the problem, it is lack of government investment in infrastructure supporting high quality public services and poor policy that creates bulls*t jobs in the public AND private sector. Every rentier you know is a waste of space, public or private sector.
What rubbish, our taxes pay the costs of government and there hasn't been a government for more than 30 years that tried to spend our money as though it was
Private companies that have too many bullsh*t jobs go broke because they forget they have to increase profit to cover for those jobs.....Governments don't tend to because they have a captive customer base who have no other choice who they pay for those services. The only way of changing a government is to vote them out
Grandkids never pay the bill dude. All government spending is already paid for when the government spends. Tax return is a redemption operation, not a "pay for". It is the tax liability (not tax receipt) that creates demand for the currency. Insatiable demand. The government can always provide. You cannot run out of your own I.O.U. (NZ$ are by Law I.O.U's of the NZ State — "Gov. owes you redemption for payment of one unit of tax liabilities or fees fines or levies of the state.")
Fundamentally nothing else drives demand for NZD, but nothing else needs to, or, if you like, "trust" does a little — trust the government will put you in proverbial jail if you fail to pay your tax liabilities. But it is not really trust per se, is it? It's just brute fact of the matter concerning State power.
All government net spending is "our grandkids" income and savings. It's the exact opposite of what you think. Government net spending equals non-government sector savings to the penny. An accounting identity.
If around 20% net government injection (aka. "the deficit") is saved (which it is, people have insatiable savings desires) then there is no pressure on prices. Government creates inflation when it pays higher than market price for things, or when it raises the own price of the currency (aka. the interest rate) or when policy creates unemployment and welfare dependency which the State indulges (needlessly — there is no good reason for unemployment, the government by policy design created all unemployment in NZ$ (people seeking to exchange their goods or labour for the tax credit) and can also by policy eliminate all unemployment in NZD. Shows you the labour market is an unfair game. There is no proper labour market correction possible when the cause of unemployment is the monopolist.
Labour-Green NZ did not comprehend this, but the Tories are far worse with austerity for the poor and welfare for the rich.
Can you tell me why poverty stats tend to go down when the Nats are in but rise under Labour?
In any case, thankfully you are not my accountant, although I'm sure Mark Bryers would be happy to use someone with such wonky economics skills.
Governments borrow money....otherwise why would out interest bill currently be more that any of our ministries to run? We borrow from offshore, and we sell government bonds as well to cover shortfalls and to inject money into the economy to increase economic activity. There is no interest to pay on an IOU.
Human beings working for public purpose are not costs. They are our real benefit. The government cannot run out of NZ dollars, they create the currency. The cost of a public service is labour employed for public purpose not now available in the private sector. But examine how much bullshit work exists in the private sector and you will realize the public service sector is on balance an enormous benefit to our economy, not a cost. Taxes do not pay for public servants, it;'s the other way around. No one can pay a dime in tax before the government spends (or licenses banks to lend).
As a lapsed member of the Labour Party my view is until the party gets rid of Hipkins it won't win again.
The problem with Labour isn't Hipkins. Hipkins, like Ardern before him, is an ideological void who is simply doing his best to balance the interests of the various factions of his party. I'd even say he is an excellent leader of the Labour party and I suspect the reason no-one wants to topple him is because they know that no-one else could do a better job.
The Labour party of old simply isn't going to come back.
The Labour Party I joined in 1976 had a very good understanding of the hopes and aspirations of ordinary people for their lives and that of their children. The LEC's were made up largely of these strugglers committed to make this a better society. The Party now appears to me to be made up of university graduates with little, if any, understanding of life's strugglers. If your argument is that Hipkins reflects this head only commitment to everyday struggles then I realize why I, and most of my mates, took our hearts and commitment elsewhere and left the Party.
I've got an alternative, perhaps complementary narrative for you. It is not the "traditional party" that is unpopular, it is the Neoliberal. Traditional conservatives at least had largess when it came to capitalist cronyism, which albeit regressively propped up monetary economies (i.e., all state tax-driven economics). Traditional Labour Party supported... wait for it... labour! Who would've known with digging way back into history books? This is still highly popular, by definition, most people are still working class, we literally cannot ever afford to go full rentier feudal capitalism in NZ — we do not have the army and CIA to do that neocolonialism sh*t. Our current "Labour Party" are neoliberal wankers and do not know how to support the working class with anything more than lying words. They could be popular, but those career Labour politician are only in it for the money and PMC careerist cushion. Total ℭ𝔘𝔑𝔗𝔰.
A thousand apologies for the cusswords. But some form of violence is called for in NZ, and we'd better keep it to intellectual violence, not physical.
Hear hear!
So long as the left collectively, particularly Labour, continue to thump the tub of social justice ie equity, they are unlikely to gain any traction, as most NZers find the way this has been forced upon them by the last government to be completely bonkers. Equal opportunity means all get an equal share of resources; some will rise to the top, others won't. Equity means resources are shared based on need in an attempt to level the playing field. The two need to work in tandem to achieve social change; neither will do so on its own. There are several elephants in the room here, one of which is that ALL people of whatever race or ethnicity are not equal in any sense - there is no one-size-fits-all. So even if you level the playing field as per equity, many will still fail to make the grade.
Well stated
It would be good if your writing was based on actual facts and evidence to support your assertions. Just being opinionated is not good enough.
Bryce, I hope you are proud that your work is attracting more and more awful racist fuckwits every time. Maybe it should tell you something?
David Seymour's Bill has given Te Pati Maori plenty of rope but they are unlikely to use it wisely. An ascendant Maori Party will give National a second term which they barely deserve given their failure to give a boost to public infrastructural investment and their lack on action on school attendance.
John Strevens
I have read and understood Te Tiriti and the history and breaches of Te Tiriti and the process of colonialism. Have you?
Have you really understood it from a position other than the colonisers lens?
Te Tiriti established a country where two sovereign nations could live together. Maori are Tangata Whenua and you are likely Tangata Tiriti. Maori are the indigenous people of NZ and Te Tiriti protects their right to live and flourish as Maori in their homeland. The whole Maori are benefiting narrative means what exactly?? What are your measures for supporting your assertion that Maori are benefiting? You do not provide any substance ergo you are deceiving yourself.
When you say Maori are just NZers you are like Seymour verbalising the erasure of the special status of the indigenous people? Such a typical colonial tool. And who benefits from the erasure of the special status of the indigenous people?
Lastly, Mearns - Scottish? I would have thought that a Scotsman would have an understanding of colonialism since the Scots were brutally colonised by the English.
None of this is relevant to what I said. I did not comment on the treaty. I was just commenting on the Maori party reaction to Seymour's Bill.
And to get rid of the racist way NZ is being ruled currently. Seymore knows what to do....hopefully we will give him the right to do it.
Seymour is the divisive, racist. You have been seduced by his libertarian speak ‘everyone is equal’, ‘we are all NZers’. You need to do your homework on which race is benefiting from this so called ‘apartheid’ you speak of, and tell us who and how? Maybe even do some homework on Te Tiriti and the history of Crown breaches. If you value truth and sincerity and are not swayed by populism then do some homework.
Oh dear...it is you who have been deceived. You need to do some reading of the Treaty and the Kohimarama meeting to understand the treaty. Who is benefitting??? Now??? Maori are benefitting due to racist ruling of this and previous governments making Maori special, They are not. Maori are just New Zealanders...no more and no less. Anything more is racist as you well know.
Your fundamental flaw is that you deal in propaganda, not facts. Two parties to Te Tiriti. One party is now seriously disadvantaged in terms of health, housing, employment and education. The war on Māori from this coalition government is to remove a significant obstacle that limits the extent to which rentier financiers are able to rape and pillage our natural resources and loot our public institutions. Seymour is working for them.
Ask yourself why one party are now disadvantaged? Since all of New Zealanders have been given equal opportunity (although Maori have been given many privileged opportunities not given to the rest of the NZ population) why have some Maori along with other New Zealanders risen to the top? Hard work, cultural neutrality, honesty hard work , a desire to give back to their country, and a desire to do well. so do not tell me they are disadvantaged. There is no war on Maori...the war is on New Zealand. 186 ethnic cultures, all trying to do well, why would Maori get all this advantage. Two parties to The Triti....yes....and Maori were so grateful to have the Queen as their monarch. Only those who have become dependent on handouts are dragging Maori ststs down...lets all learn to be great New Zealanders again.
You are clearly blind to the process of systemic discrimination - advantageous to the majority and disadvantageous to the indigenous populations. I say populations because every indigenous people touched by colonialism is in the same boat.
Clearly you are not engaging with the history of colonialism and specifically the history of NZ post Te Tiriti. You are full on rolling out the stereotypes attached to indigenous people from the racist handbook…how else can they be in this disadvantaged position when we are all equal! Implying laziness or lack of intelligence or initiative.
I am now certain that you are trading on propaganda and have little interest in understanding the process of colonisation.
Your lack of understanding fully demonstrated again when you say ‘dependent on handouts are dragging Maori stats down’ - poor health outcomes are not unique to people on the benefit! If you did some reading you might see a correlation between colonisation and poor outcomes for indigenous people.
I hoped that you would step out some examples/evidence of Maori benefiting, but you avoid it. Perhaps because you haven’t got any!
Thanks for allowing me to reveal your lack of learning and understanding and wealth of libertarian and racist thoughts. It has been a pleasure.
Racist bullshit.