Espiner agrees that the election is now all about trust, but he characterises it as trust in economic management. I’d characterise it differently. Recessions aren’t about poor macroeconomic statistics, but about people - people who are going to lose their jobs, and need to fall back on the state in their time of need. The question then is who do we trust to care for the victims (remembering that any of us could end up as one of them), minimise the damage, and ensure they can get on with their lives when the economy picks up again? The people who slashed welfare benefits? Or the people who have maintained them? The people who slashed health spending? Or the people who have expanded it? The people who don’t care about the poor? Or the people who do?
Archive for the 'Aotearoa New Zealand' Category
No Right Turn on the NZ National Party’s plans to gut the Resource Management Act, and take NZ back to the Muldoon years:
How would National change this? Firstly, they would amend the definition of “environment” to include only “natural and physical resources” - so existing rights to amenity values such as peace and quiet, clean air, clean water, or an unimpeded view would cease to exist, while local bodies could no longer seek to protect their social environment by considering e.g. the effects of traffic, or the effects of visual pollution from excessive advertising. Secondly, they would aim to prevent “vexatious and frivolous” objections by allowing the Environment Court to require security for costs before considering any appeal (so no appeals unless you are rich like them). Thirdly, they would replace the existing call in power with a more regularly used “priority consenting” regime, which would see decisions made by a government body rather than an independent board. There’s some other nastiness - removing the Ministerial veto over coastal permits (so effectively the crown won’t own the coast anymore in any practical sense), and establishing an “Environmental Protection Agency” as cover for purging MfE (who National doesn’t trust) - but the driving principle is to shut local communities out of decision making, and prevent anyone - unless they are rich, of course - from mounting any challenge. And the net result will be open slather for developers, and large projects foisted on local communities, just like they were under Muldoon.
No Right Turn on the arbitrary end of all historical Treaty of Waitangi claims.
How can you put an end to seeking redress for breaches of a treaty? It’s an absurd contradiction. Either breaches exist and they need to be investigated and redressed or they don’t exist. Arbitrarily ending the formal process for these investigations to take place is like saying we don’t need courts any more to investigate crimes. In fact it’s like saying you can’t even report crimes any more, let alone have them investigated.
As an aside: the only politicians I know of that don’t deplore democracy are the Greens.
The background story, if you haven’t heard, is that National Party politicians have been secretly taped admitting that they need to say whatever it takes to get elected, then, once in power, they can get their real agenda through of redistributing the New Zealand people’s wealth to a tiny minority of rich. Here’s Bill English’s and here’s Lockwood Smith’s.
What’s remarkable about the Herald’s editorial isn’t simply that it tries to spin the story by pretending National is simply “compromising on its desired policies,” rather than that National is actually lying about its policies so it can drive them through once it’s in power:
The country now knows, if it did not before, that National has compromised some of its policy desires for the sake of its electoral prospects.
It isn’t simply that uncovering a party’s real agenda—something of vital public interest in the run up to an election—is dismissed as ”partisan politics”:
First, it is not fair to release a reporter’s tape or transcript unless … the recording could serve a public interest somewhat more compelling than partisan politics.
It isn’t simply that it admits the means of reporting on politicians is broken:
Second, the publication would damage the gathering of further information. Once bitten, a public figure is twice shy.
It isn’t simply that it admits to keeping secrets:
Nothing revealed from National’s conference sneak so far offers insights to its intentions that could not have been obtained by a journalist trusted to use a private conversation responsibly.
No, what I find remarkable about this editorial is that by putting forward this argument it is openly admitting that it can be trusted by politicians but can’t be trusted by its readers and that it is completely ineffectual in doing the job of reporting politics.
External links:
Gotcha! | 4 August, 2008
Choosing words | 5 August, 2008
Whoops, they did it again | 6 August, 2008
The Herald supports secrecy | 7 August, 2008
Vote for National to lower your wages people.
Recent Comments