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.

A Portrait of How Far We're Right

Tipping my hat to a couple of great "Left-wing" sites. I use the inverted commas, because "lefty" is thrown around like that means these commentators want a command economy and everyone doled out the same few cents from a bulging public purse. I've never read anything from either The Standard or Tumeke that suggests this is the case.

If they, like many of us, are pulling "left", it is because the "centre" of an intelligent, responsible government presiding over a mixed economy, was abandoned by our government 25 years ago. In 1984, the 4th Labour government (which was not "left" at all) decided the best course of action for managing the complications of a modern economy was to not manage it at all. This government and its successors have progressively sacrificed the principle that they are there to act on our collective behalf, in favour of the idea that as long as there is more money in the economy ("growth") that is an inviolate good, and makes life better for everyone.

This transfer of power away from Democracy towards Capital - the wealthy, at the expense of everyone else - was prescribed from 1972, in Samuel Huntingdon's "Crisis of Democracy", and it has been in process ever since.

The real effect of these "free market" principles have been to open society to the law of the jungle. It is feudal; it is like the wild west. But instead the power isn't with those with the army or the bigger gun. It's the bigger chequebook. Money is power. Literally you can tell where you stand in a capital-dominant society like ours, by comparing your bank-balance with that of whatever individual/organisation you're up against.

Democracy is supposed to be the balance for this. But because government accepts profit and growth as some lower common denominator that is good for everyone, they do not intervene with "red tape and regulations" - you know, safeguards. All that annoying stuff that the last Labour government started putting back in place, and National is cutting away. Or "streamlining", making "efficiency gains", or whatever crap the media swallows and spits out on our screens.

Hey - democracy is slow. It is inefficient. It is costly. But it is cheaper to combine our money and empower our government to act on housing, food, communications, energy, water, clothes, insurance - keeping the cost of living down - than it is for us as individuals to throw our cents around in a market dominated by corporate millions.
Without democracy, the only real "law" of the market is that the individual/corporation with the bigger chequebook always gets his way. As Tumeke reminds us.

Of course, people are persuaded by the idea of tax savings, tax cuts, yada yada. And you know what? Fair enough. The vast majority of people are being taxed too much, from the money they need to support themselves. It's power they need to save and expend how they choose. A real choice society.
But less tax for them does not need to come at the cost of a responsive, well-funded democracy. Because the way our economy is structured, there is a small cluster of individuals and corporations that are being taxed nowhere near enough.

I've crapped on enough for one day, but here's the Standard's post. It talks about how John Key, the prime minister of our democracy, is being spat on by the money in our society, cheer-led by Rodney Hide, Roger Douglas, Act and their corporate backers.
I wouldn't say John Key is weak, so much as he is vulnerable. He is vulnerable because he relies entirely on his support staff for political advice. He doesn't know anything about democracy, or why a cabinet room is not the same is a board room. Why we are not "NZ Inc". He comes from a banking background, so many eminently "logical" ideas about manipulating numbers for profit make sense to him without any conception of the consequences of exactly the same policy of say, oh, the last 25 years. It's be no surprise if he's suffering from impostor syndrome.

And this government is full of both crowds - the Bennetts, Tolleys, Wilkinsons, Brownlees - like those little plastic cows whose heads nod when you tap them, their knees buckle when you press the right button. They have no clue, except what will get them fed and watered and praised.
Then there're the ideologues: English, Williamson, Ryall & co, who have been sitting on the opposition benches so long, talking to themselves and their same rich friends, they don't realise the rules of the last decade don't apply any more. Their ideology, their free market has been proven broken. 2008's Financial Crisis was not just a cough - it was a heart attack, and the system has been thrust up on life-support, shuffling around until those with all their wealth and prestige invested in it can restructure so when the global economy collapses, they're not under it.
NZ's ostrich approach to Copenhagen and emissions just shows how far our government is stuck in the 90s. There is an ever-growing realisation that, uh, yeah- the Club of Rome was right: there are limits to growth. If Lord Stern of Benford says "We might all have to go vegan to save the planet", there's no point saying "he's trying to ruin our economy!" More sensibly, take that as a measure of how much ground we have to make up with other measures or some brilliant new-fandangled technology. Because man-made or cyclical, global warming is still gonna get us.

I'm reminded of the Portrait of Dorian Gray. It's like this extreme right ideology was painted for Roger Douglas in 1984, gorgeous, perfect; handed over to Ruth Richardson in the Nineties, where the painting picked up some strong vain lines and ghastly knowing eyes; under Michael Cullen it matured, remained superior, silvered, with the first signs of decay...
Of course none of these governments uncovered the portrait to look on it, less they lose its power.

So now Key and English are carrying it around, cheered on by National party triumphalism, maybe actually believing they're full of fresh, invigorating ideas. While under the cover, the painting - their ideology - has sickened and wrinkled into some jaundiced old ghoul.
There are signs around the world, mostly beneath the government level, that this has been noticed. It remains to be seen whether NZ opens its eyes, or continues to suffer under the beast riding its back.

Breakfast with Marie Antoinette

Is there a worse experience in the country than waking up to Paul Henry?

I mean, there you are, in your gown, a bit of toast, turn the TV on - and IT's on the screen.

Pure accident of course. And I know, everyone knows, it's scarcely worth mentioning. But he just happened to be leading a segment that perfectly captured everything that is so odious about him.

He was talking about the referendum on MMP.

John Key of course mumbled something not too loud about holding the referendum pre-election, and so Henry (ex National Party candidate) championed it as the inviolate virtue "keeping his promise to the NZ Public."

Honestly, the only policies I can remember from Key and National was cycleway and super-fast broadband. Everything else was maybes, mumbling and "we'll have that discussion when...".

Henry was interviewing the excellent electoral and constitutional expert Jonathan Boston from Victoria University (my alma mater), which was home to an MMP review working group when the electoral system came up for review in 2000.

I actually sat in on the session where Professor Boston made a submission for improvements that year - the discussion went very much as you'd expect between an expert with a PhD from Oxford and a dozen party politicians who don't know pol-sci from that thing where old people get shaky hands.
It is an indelible failing of our political system that the people voted to represent us have very little understanding of democracy or constitutional power. It makes them very vulnerable to persuasive "common-sense" and "pragmatism" from rich people promising to make us all richer. If we just make them even richer first.

Paul Henry is, of course, both: both wealthy and thinks a constitution is something you need for a good Friday night.

Actually, he gave Professor Boston a fairly good platform to say what he wanted, which was the least we can ask. Boston made it very clear that any problems with MMP can be fixed within MMP. I would add - it is crucial to add - that to see if MMP works, you have to compare and contrast with what it was fixing: that is First Past the Post (FPP). And on the balance, and by the standards set out by the Electoral Reform Commission, it has been a raging success.

At creating a more representative, more legitimate form of democratic government.

Regression to FPP or it's bastard nephew, Supplementary Member (SM), will result in less democracy. In our society, there is an undeniable and necessary conflict between democracy and capitalism. The Big Money in our country just want it even more their way.

That is why National are pushing for it. That is why wealthy lobbyists are building war-chests and PR campaigns for it.

That said, it is likely that there are many people who are not wealthy who have developed frustration with MMP. With the confusion. The threshold. The Maori seats. The number of well-paid MPs.

And I say to them: if you are struggling, in our society, with mortgages and rent, rising energy and phone and food costs, it is very easy to work out what is in your best interest: More democracy.

MMP is good democracy, but it can be made better. SM is less good. FPP is not good at all.

And if you still find it hard to work out what's in your best interest, remember Paul Henry. Because he is NOT a democrat. He is an autocrat - even an aristocrat, our own squealing, honking, wine-sipping Marie Antoinette. He and his pals live on the fat of our land, he pollutes our airwaves and gets paid for it and broadcasts his personal point of view as if only it makes sense.

"Because New Zealanders are stupid," he said this morning, "most of the people out there are stupid." And he believes that, because we go along and vote stupid and make our own lives harder.

2011 is plenty of time to show him who's stupid.