Tag Electoral politics

Nobody does money like New Labour

Mar­ina Hyde on New Labour’s rela­tion­ship with money:

It is dif­fi­cult to think of a more per­fect test­a­ment to New Labour’s intel­lec­tual shal­lows. On the eve of the most deadly ser­i­ous budget in dec­ades, Gor­don Brown posts a You­Tube video in which he announces he has sched­uled some inquiry — pre-empting debate about MPs’ ­expenses. It might as well have been cap­tioned “I can haz bathplug?”.

MPs’ expenses are a cross-party blight, of course. But when his­tor­i­ans come to assess this edi­fy­ing period for our demo­cracy, they may well remark upon what a pity it was that cer­tain mem­bers who were so fas­ti­di­ous about their per­sonal out­go­ings were so prof­lig­ate and laissez-faire with the pub­lic purse. Olympic over­spends, a couple of wars – they waved through the lot while per­us­ing the John Lewis elec­tric­als catalogue.

New Labour just looked like … well, small-time crooks is the expres­sion … And in the end, it’s the small­ness of these people that you can’t get away from.

Must-read from George Monbiot

hezel_blearsIf you read noth­ing else about polit­ics today read this:

George Mon­biot: Just what exactly do you stand for, Hazel Blears — except election?

For some con­text in the lead up to this piece check out No Right Turn’s links on the mat­ter.

Arabic press on Israeli elections

Arabic press on Israeli elec­tions:

Mazin Hammad in Qatar’s Al-Watan

Regard­less of who will win, the dif­fer­ences between the right, left and centre [of Israel’s polit­ics] are not clear for those who closely watch the elec­tion from out­side. They all pounce on Palestinian blood.

Rashid Hasan in Jordan’s Al-Dustur

The vic­tory of extrem­ists, with [Likud Party leader Ben­jamin] Net­an­yahu in the lead, would mean that the situ­ation — i.e. the set­tle­ment and the so-called peace pro­cess — will return to square one … The Israeli state was built on mas­sacres and gen­o­cides com­mit­ted by Zion­ist gangs … There­fore, it is not strange if extrem­ists win.

Let Netanyahu Win

Gideon Levy, writ­ing for Haaretz:

Net­an­yahu would offer some­thing else. First, he is a faith­ful rep­res­ent­at­ive of an authen­tic “Israeli” view — an almost com­plete dis­trust of Arabs and the chance of reach­ing peace with them, mixed with con­des­cen­sion and dehu­man­iz­a­tion. Second, he will finally arouse the world’s rage towards us, includ­ing that of the new U.S. admin­is­tra­tion. Sadly, this may be the only chance for the kind of dra­matic change that is needed.

Noam Chomsky: What Next? The Elections, the Economy, and the World

Noam Chom­sky dis­cusses the mean­ing of President-Elect Barack Obama’s vic­tory and the pos­sib­il­it­ies ahead for real demo­cratic change at a speech last week in Boston.

A word of thanks to National and ACT voters

Just a quick word of thanks to all those National and ACT voters out there in NZ, espe­cially those who were in a “mood for change,” because now you’ve got it. A gov­ern­ment of rad­ical right-wingers, many proven untrust­worthy in the 80s and 90s, ready to turn New Zea­l­and upside down and shake.

Almost everything I said New Zea­l­and can expect is right there in National and ACT’s sup­ply and con­fid­ence agree­ment:

A huge increase in pris­ons and prison pop­u­la­tion, under “three strikes” law, where some­body con­victed three times goes to jail for life. You only need com­pare the U.S. or even New Zea­l­and to some­where like Nor­way or Fin­land, where crime and incar­cer­a­tion rates are well below ours, to know that this is about appeas­ing the sad­ists and the hang ‘em high bri­gade rather than actu­ally redu­cing crime and mak­ing NZ a bet­ter place.

You get Rod­ney Hide as Min­is­ter of Local Gov­ern­ment, which means local coun­cils are going to have Hide’s dis­cred­ited ideo­logy — that all is bet­ter if it’s privately owned — shoved down their throats (think privat­ised water and roads).

You get Heather Roy as Min­is­ter of Con­sumer Affairs, which means in prac­tice that you’ll have a min­is­ter look­ing after the affairs of busi­ness at the expense of consumers.

There’s ACT’s “Tax­payer Bill of Rights Bill,” a rad­ical Liber­tarian policy that would cap gov­ern­ment spend­ing to what it is now and tie it to infla­tion plus pop­u­la­tion growth. This is designed to make any­thing fun­ded col­lect­ively by the tax­payer inad­equate, so that people lose faith in demo­cratic pub­licly fun­ded ser­vices and turn to the private sec­tor. The ulti­mate aim being to trans­fer wealth from the hands of the many to the hands of the few, by way of profits.

The private sec­tor will now get to review gov­ern­ment policy with a mind, no doubt, to privat­isa­tion, luc­rat­ive con­tracts for cronies and the cut­ting of social pro­grammes (edu­ca­tion, health, etc.). Again, all ulti­mately aimed at trans­fer­ring wealth from the pub­lic realm into private hands, by way of profits. You won’t see the pub­lic being able to review the way the private sec­tor spend profits of course.

And, poten­tially the most dev­ast­at­ing, going with ACT’s anti-science pos­i­tion: the killing off the Emis­sions Trad­ing Scheme. As No Right Turn writes:

Look­ing at the terms of ref­er­ence, they’re going right back to the start, includ­ing “hear[ing] com­pet­ing views on the sci­entific aspects of cli­mate change” and look­ing at whether we should do any­thing about it any­way (and of course float the idea of a car­bon tax to fur­ther delay things). In other words, repeat the entire policy pro­cess of the past fif­teen years (which has included sev­eral select com­mit­tee invest­ig­a­tions, as well as a national interest ana­lysis [PDF]), only in a more politi­cised con­text, with a politically-dictated out­come on the sci­ence. After fif­teen years, we’re right back to square one.

Mean­while, energy and indus­trial emis­sions — which were going to be covered by the ETS from Janu­ary 1 2010 — will be free to rise, and pol­luters will con­tinue to be allowed to exter­n­al­ise the cost of their pol­lu­tion. And we will be pick­ing up the tab for all of it.

The only thing left for them to do is to declare that they’d like to send more of our sol­diers off to Afgh­anistan to be killed in another futile immoral war led by the only nation in the world to have attacked another coun­try with nuc­lear bombs.

There’s going to be a lot of hurt for a lot of people’

Oh New Zea­l­and, what have you done? Roger Douglas on elec­tion night fan­tas­ising about the man­date he thinks he has:

We have to make some changes and there’s going to be a lot of hurt for a lot of people.

What a cheek, com­ing from the scoun­drel who lied his way into gov­ern­ment in the eighties, unleash­ing an eco­nomic revolu­tion without a demo­cratic man­date, selling off New Zealand’s resources and dev­ast­at­ing our demo­cracy by strip­ping away gov­ern­ment con­trol over the flow of cap­ital, effect­ively hand­ing over the keys of demo­cracy to private investors who can choose at any time to sink the country’s eco­nomy by mov­ing cap­ital out of the coun­try if gov­ern­ment policy is not con­du­cive to their “busi­ness needs.”

2008 NZ election: garbage in, garbage out

In a rep­res­ent­at­ive demo­cracy it’s not democracy’s pur­pose to pro­duce good gov­ern­ment but to pro­duce rep­res­ent­at­ive gov­ern­ment. While I don’t expect much in the way of demo­cracy from rep­res­ent­at­ive demo­cracy1 enough New Zeal­anders voted against their interests on Sat­urday to elect into gov­ern­ment a mul­ti­mil­lion­aire mer­chant banker Prime Min­is­ter and his self-interested fat cat accom­plices, includ­ing some of those who wreaked havoc on the New Zea­l­and eco­nomy in the eighties and nineties. As a res­ult New Zeal­anders can expect, amongst other things, a nas­tier soci­ety, a less fair soci­ety, more crime, more pris­ons, lower wages, more involve­ment in futile and immoral wars, a decline in the envir­on­ment and less demo­cracy. Garbage in, garbage out.2

As you can tell, I’m over the moon that enough New Zeal­anders had, shall we say, the con­fid­ence to vote National (and ACT!) on Sat­urday. They must have missed my memo.

Notes:
  1. New Zealand’s cur­rent vot­ing sys­tem requires the form­a­tion of a coali­tion rep­res­ent­ing a major­ity of voters to form a gov­ern­ment. While this is some­thing to be rel­at­ively proud of com­pared to the more com­mon sys­tem of plur­al­ity vot­ing, which requires only that a group receive the largest bloc of votes to form a gov­ern­ment, we still end up with an extremely lim­ited form of democracy.

    While there are things we could do to improve our vot­ing sys­tem, such as mov­ing away from hav­ing two large parties and get­ting rid of the absurd 5% threshold which can dis­en­frachise hun­dreds of thou­sands of voters, there’s no get­ting away from the inher­ent prob­lems of rep­res­ent­at­ive demo­cracy, such as the tyranny of simple major­ity rules (let alone plur­al­ity rules) and the fact that vot­ing for people to rep­res­ent your interests is the least effect­ive means of apply­ing polit­ical power and argu­ably a con­tra­dic­tion; no one can truly rep­res­ent your power and interests for you. You can only have power by exer­cising it and you can only truly know what your interests are by involving your­self in the attend­ance of them.

    In any case, I don’t think it’s any coin­cid­ence that the self-described demo­cra­cies of the world using plur­al­ity vot­ing sys­tems are some of the least equit­able, the largest arms deal­ers and the largest pol­luters. []

  2. A fam­ous com­puter axiom mean­ing that if invalid data is entered into a sys­tem, the res­ult­ing out­put will also be invalid. []

I can vote!

I thought I couldn’t vote because I haven’t lived in New Zea­l­and for over three years but I was hav­ing a poke around elections.org.nz and, as a cit­izen, I don’t have to have lived in New Zea­l­and in the past three years but just have passed through.

Can’t believe I nearly missed the chance to vote: you can down­load vot­ing papers here if you’re enrolled over­seas and you can fax them home (before 8th Novem­ber, 7PM NZ time).

Please don’t let our democracy slip away NZ

There are a myriad of reas­ons I hope you don’t vote National this Sat­urday, such as their record on selling off the coun­try or their keen­ness to send Kiwi kids off to get killed in illegal wars to curry favour, but if there’s just one reason it’s this: our democracy.

National wants to take away one of the things I’m most proud of about our coun­try, our pro­por­tional elect­oral sys­tem, MMP.

Rep­res­ent­at­ive demo­cracy,” to my eyes, is a con­tra­dic­tion in terms and one day I hope we put this little step­ping stone behind us and move onto the greener pas­tures of par­ti­cip­at­ory demo­cracy, but in the mean time a rep­res­ent­at­ive one is what we have and the move to MMP has made it enorm­ously more effect­ive as a demo­cracy and given many more people a right­ful say in the run­ning of the country.

It’s some­thing to be proud of and some­thing I’ve really missed while liv­ing here in Bri­tain. I have no doubt that if Bri­tain and the U.S. had pro­por­tional vot­ing sys­tems, such as MMP, the Bush/Blair gang would never have been able to launch a war of aggres­sion — the “supreme war crime” — against Iraq. And they may even have avoided the dereg­u­la­tion that led to the credit crunch.

If National gets their way we’ll go back to an undemo­cratic sys­tem where people who man­age to gain power in parties like Labour and National can impose their nar­row agen­das on the rest of us at our expense. All the other really import­ant things such as the eco­nomy, the envir­on­ment and peace will cease to be mat­ters up for debate. This is why the mat­ter of demo­cracy is so important.

You know what to do. Keep New Zea­l­and demo­cracy safe on Sat­urday, vote for some­body else.