Elections time. And lo, a blog.

It has been a long absence, but looking at my last two blog posts they have as much relevance now as they did then: the key difference between National and Labour laid out bare, months ago and still holding true. Say what you like about my profligacy, my blog posts age well.

People have to decide whether they are really benefiting from John Key's NZ (many people are - certainly those earning 100s of 1000s). If you have a family income of 100,000 or less, you really need to take a good look at how important a "pretty nice" prime minister is versus real policies that will have a specific and direct impact on your lives. No vague promises about "better for the economy, so better for you..." That always equates to more dosh for the rich. We've been sold that line by various parties for 27 years.

BTW, I don't buy the "oh, this poor government, they've done well with so many disasters this term." Christchurch sums this up.
There's no disaster in Christchurch. It's not that bad. The government doesn't think its too bad. That ruined, joyless city will climb back to its own feet without any help.
How do I know that? Because our government sees no need to put a levy on our country's super rich. That's what you would do if a city, a country, was in dire straits. That is why we have a state. To organise key resources to meet the needs of all in a crisis. But no, more important the rich - again, I mean 100s of 1000s - have their tax cuts.

So yeah, life is pretty bouncy in Aotearoa these last few years, at least for a few - just look at the PM's photo album. He's gonna look back on this time and laugh and smile...
But at election time, the real question is: how are you all feeling?

*

My browser happened to open to the nzherald.co.nz this morning and unfortunately clicked its way on to a Brian Gaynor column. I know, I should have known better, but I began writing a reply and thought, nah, damn - bloggit. It got me, here, so some good came of it.

The gist was that some individuals cheat welfare off the state so there should be no welfare provided by the state. Such sparkling insight. Such genius. The fact that democracies-are expensive, inefficient and allow room for individual immorality - that's what makes them the opposite of authoritarian - doesn't appear to twinkle in the recesses of complacent, well paid commentators of this ilk.
And how about this gem:

"...one of the features of a welfare state is that it creates powerful interests that will fight to the bitter end for their benefits. This includes voting for political parties that protect their interests."

Face-palm. How out of touch are these oldies? Where's Metlifecare when you need them?
Change "welfare state" to "corporatist state" and you have a far closer model for the current NZ system: since 1984. That there are noisy proponents of "welfarism" is just resistance to the prevailing dogma and ideology: typified by the blithe bankerism of the current government - that if govt expenditure is kept small and private wealth massive and consolidated in the hands of the few, all will be as best as possible for all. Monetary feudalism.

This is not empty rhetoric. The same applies everywhere. The Rugby World Cup was budgeted on a shoestring until the opening day disaster - then the National Government threw fat wads of money at it to save face. I have it from sources that 80 paid and drivered buses were on standby doing nothing for each weekend after. Where's the economic efficiency there?
Same with Christchurch. While Japan's government did its job and spent whatever was necessary to house its people after Fukushima, CERA and EQC had months and months of demolitions and inspections on their books because the government would not fund more hours and work. It was horrendous seeing the heads of these two organisations on TV taking the bullet for National, saying they were doing all they could - and they were - because National didn't want to spend money.
Which, shock horror, is exactly what government is there to do.

National, and ACT even more so, are unable to cope with this basic fact. This is why NZ has been drifting for 3 years. This is why the richer are richer, the poorer are poorer. This is why government policies are ineffective and why issues such as superannuation remain unclear. Key and his cohorts don't like the idea of government governing - except to protect and grow their own personal wealth.

That's why commentators such as Gaynor are relics of a time that no longer exists. They still see things as if welfarism rules our society, when anyone with a decent education, or has tried to kick off their adult lives in the last 27 years, knows we are in a corporatist society: because corporatists like Key back to Lange and Douglas have been in government for the last 27 years.
Clark and Cullen put on a few bandaids but did not change the corporatists agenda, but betrayed those hoping for real change - the misperceived middle class who are in far worse straits than statistics would show. They voted for Key, and the rest is history: tax cuts for the rich, GST for the rest, and a slow bleeding of funds from government services like ACC and Education and inaction on basic cost-of-living so the only solution is to "sell them all off."
Who benefits? Banks. Corporate share-trading institutions.

Yeah. Sounds like Welfarism to me.

Lullaby of the Fuzzy-headed Book-Huggers

The Standard flags the keen appraisal of former Greens co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimmons about the real cost and beneficiaries behind National's Emission Trading Scheme. It tallies up to $2 Billion a year in corporate welfare.
The more corporations pollute in the pursuit of their profits, the more we the people pay.

And for those keeping score of who's who as beneficiaries of our taxes: that's,
community education, poor solo mums, retirement fund = bad!
well-to-do MPs, rich polluting companies = good!

Those who warn about climate change and environmental damage are often labelled warm-fuzzies, or tree-huggers, or whatever - but I'm not. I'm a hard-arsed realist. I'm realistic, that money will always be there to be made; people will live and die, societies crumble and reform. But our world, our wildlife - our inheritance and legacy - once lost, that can't be brought back by a fancy fiddling of numbers and a pass around of the hat. That's just reality.

And people like me have been around for ages. For forty years, we've been talking about the environment and limits to growth, ever since the Club of Rome. And every time, Money talks back. And it says. "There are no limits - so long as government doesn't place any limits. We can grow forever. We'll get cleaner, promise - new technology will lead the way!"

It is a sweet lullaby: our fresh-faced economists are taught it in chapter 1 so they can set their impressionable minds at ease and they can get on with the important business of being trained to succeed within the established political and economic order.

Every five, ten years, the same conversation; every time, the same song is sung. Money Talks, and Government fails us, because industry are given no incentive to do anything different. If they paid for their pollution, that would be a good economic incentive to actually start researching and implementing that fabled new technology.

So, ultimately, who are the fluff-headed book-huggers? And who are the realists?

You know, the winged fantails used to be EVERYWHERE when I was a kid. 20 years on.... not so much. I find that sad. Fantails, gone. National Parks, dug up. Water - well, it's already scarce in Australia. That matters to me - enough that I'd like to see some of the considerable wealth of our small country - dollars are literally power in this respect - invested in protecting these things; in ambitions other than making more money that the wider community never benefits from.

And I reckon, maybe there are more of realists like me than the Money in this country is counting on. I reckon that unless they get the facts on the ground right, National might leave a door open. It only takes a small swing... Their reign might be shorter than they think.