Wednesday, September 27, 2017

ALL CONTEMPT AND NO RESPONSIBILITY


Now here’s an interesting article;

Māori have 'gone back like a beaten wife to the abuser',defiant Marama Fox says [Maori TV, www.stuff.co.nz]

Oops, and here’s another;

Te Ururoa Flavell won't be part of a Māori Party revival [ELTON RIKIHANA SMALLMAN, stuff.co.nz]

Well, the Maori Party has been booted out of the New Zealand parliament, in last weekend’s general election.  And wait . . . the leaders are ripping into their own voters!

For my international readers, let me set some context before I go any further.  We had a general election on Saturday.  New Zealand’s proportional representation system (MMP) gives us two votes (two ticks on the ballot paper); one for your preferred MP (Electorate Vote), and the other for your preferred party (Party Vote).  To complicate things further, the country has two, parallel electoral roles; 

  • the general role, where the country is divided into 64 electorates for all New Zealand voters,
  • the Maori role, where the country is divided into 7 Maori electorates for Maori voters or voters of Maori descent.
Voters can vote in either role, but must choose which role they wish to vote in by registering in one or the other before the election.  Traditionally, the Maori Party has contested only the seven Maori seats in the Maori role.  However, anyone can vote for the Maori Party in the general role by giving it their “Party Vote.”  The Party Vote is crucial, because for any party to sit in parliament, that party must secure 5% of the vote or win at least one electorate seat.  While Maori could win seven electorate seats, they could have “topped up” those seats with a higher percentage party vote.  However, the Maori Party reached none of the two thresholds, and is thus now consigned to the political wilderness for the next three years.  So, how did that happen?

Well, Maori Party Co-Leader, Marama Fox, is bemoaning the fact that Maori voters have sided with the mainstream Labour Party again, as they did before the Maori Party was formed.  Labour NZ contested and won all seven seats in the Maori role, thereby sending the Maori Party back to obscurity.  A bitter Fox likened the Maori shift back to Labour, “like a beaten wife [gone back] to the abuser.”  Maori Party Co-Leader, Te Ururoa Flavell, was equally resentful;

“[Flavell] said Māori may have shot themselves in the foot by going with Labour.  If it does turn bad for Māori voters, Flavell said don't call him for a shoulder to cry on.  ‘I hope they don't wake up tomorrow and start shaking their heads, saying, I feel sorry for you, because I don't want to hear it.’”

Call me old fashioned, but it’s incredibly bad form for politicians to slam into their support base – even if what they say is the truth.  Astute political leaders shrug off such political shifts by praising democracy then using words like, “We’ll have to do better next election.”  Kicking Maori, the way Fox and Flavell have done, shows remarkable immaturity, naivety and a distinct lack of political shrewdness.

Frankly, I have no sympathy for Fox and Flavell (pictured above); the Maori Party sold its soul for a few crumbs.  It was invited into government by the ruling National Party - when National had no need to do so.  I think it's fair to say that, the National Party is the party representing the New Zealand establishment; the wealthy, the business leaders, the civil servants and the corporations.  So the invite by National was a brilliant piece of counter-thrust politics; a stroke of John Key genius.  Maori were lulled into thinking they would secure more progress for the Maori people by being in government than in opposition.  In reality, the right-wing National government silenced the most radical party in parliament by wooing them with trinkets and false promises.

Well my friends, when you bed with the devil, there’s always a price.  I think voter shift back to Labour had nothing to do with the Jacinda Ardern effect.  I think Maori voters punished the Maori Party for cuddling up to the right-wing hacks.  Maori voters clearly perceived no value from the relationship with the monetarists.  All those years of spreading their cheeks for the National Party, and what was to show for it?  Maori are still over-represented in prisons, in obesity, in unemployment, in poverty and in domestic abuse figures. No sign of any change there soon.

On Duncan Garner's AM Show this morning, a whining Fox tried to explain what had been acheived by cuddling up to the establishment.  She bleated that every Law passed while Maori were part of Government had Treaty of Waitangi clauses in it. Well, big deal!  If I was a disenfranchised Maori voter, living on the breadline, I wouldn't see the value either!  I'd also stick two fingers up at the party which was supposed to represent me. I think that, sadly, the Maori Party in recent years has represented the Maori establishment - who really benefit from lucrative Treaty settlements - rather than the average Maori in the street.  No wonder Maori went back to Labour!

Fox and Flavell’s lack-of-contrition and contempt for their own people is bad enough.  However, their unwillingness to take responsibility for the party’s demise is nothing short of repugnant.  They've taken no responsibility for siding with the neoliberals, taken no responsibility for failing Maori, and taken no responsibility for the real reason Maori voters see a better deal in Labour.  Did the Maori leaders really believe their unholy alliance with the monetarists would have no consequences?!

Why am I also bitter about the Maori Party’s demise?  I'm bitter, because there aren’t enough radical parties in New Zealand’s parliament.  Before the Maori Party went into bed with the devil, I thought they were a party with some good, radical ideals which this country needed.  This country needs radicalism.  We’re not going to turn back 40 years of monetarism with faint hearts and lovely speeches about “values.”  Only radical politics and taxing the rich will put an end to the dreadful consumerism and inequality that has been the hallmark of monetarist economics.  But clearly, New Zealand voters don’t want to hear that.  It might be bad form for a politician to slam into their electorate, but I have no such remit or compunction.  New Zealand voted for a born-to-rule sheepshagger and an extra $20 a week.

Crumbs from the rich man’s table [Luke 16:21].


 Further Reading;



 






Friday, September 1, 2017

LET'S NOT SQUEEZE THE NUTS OF THE VULNERABLE



Now here’s an interesting article:


Hmmm.  And here’s another:


Oh, whoops, and here’s another:


You’re seeing the picture about now I guess.  You have to wonder, why are so many of these stories hitting the New Zealand news right now?  Well, this is Election Year 2017 here in New Zealand, and we go to the polls on 23 September.  So, the main reason these stories are hitting the news now IMHO, is that the opposition Labour Party are using such stories as electioneering.  It’s a little cynical, but frankly, this current right-wing government in New Zealand needs to be severely taken to task on this issue.

And the issue is this: there are vulnerable people in this country who are not being given the help that they need.  The issue is real, and it is not confined to the people referred to in the articles above.  My own experience was entirely consistent with that.  

Now, the “Comments” sections in these stuff.co.nz articles are always fascinating reading.  These are comments that readers can add to the foot of the article, and multiple comments can build up quite an interesting debate.  Of course, there are a few comments from ill-informed, right-wing hacks that decry the radicals.  These hacks say that the issue of benefit cuts is NOT an election issue, and it is to do with our benefits department, WINZ (Work & Income New Zealand), only.

Oh, but it is an election issue.  And here’s why.

It’s fair to say that the culture and policy at WINZ is defined by the government of the day.  And these stories, above, show that there is currently a culture and a policy of trying to scrimp money off our most vulnerable people.  As you can deduce from the articles, the problem is systemic, when previously it was not under the Helen Clark Labour government.  Therefore, it is – at the very least – recent government policy.  So, the logic is that this current National Party, right-wing, heartless government is trying to claw back money from those who need it most.  So, rather than raise the tax rate at the higher income level, it is preferable for this government to target the vulnerable instead.   

All because the rich don’t like paying tax.

It would perhaps be justifiable – if immoral – were the National Party to be honest about the current policy at WINZ: “Well, our rich friends and sponsors – the ones who really support us, not the moaning, middle-class mortgage whores – want us to reduce their tax burden.  Rather than spend money on those who need it, we’re trying to rape and pillage every penny we can from social services, so we don’t have to raise income tax on our wealthy mates.”

But no, instead we see this spin from John Key; “… you can measure a society by how it looks after its most vulnerable”.  John Key was our previous Prime Minister who resigned suddenly, left to holiday in Hawaii and gifted Bill "Dull" English the leadership.

From what you can gauge in the articles above, Key's words are in complete contrast to what his government has ACTUALLY been doing over the last nine years, since those utterances.  Make no mistake; just because Dull English has taken over the reigns, that attitude and policy towards beneficiaries was formulated under Key and continues under English.


Call me old-fashioned, but I thought the definition of a civilised society is that the Haves look after the Have-Nots.  A civilised society does not demonise the vulnerable and deny help to the needy, as this right-wing government constantly does.

All because the rich don’t like paying tax.

Remember, remember, 23rd September; you have a choice, New Zealand.  You can continue to vote for a party that squeezes the nuts of the vulnerable.  You can continue to vote for a party that is morally bankrupt.  Or not.


FURTHER READING:



"Cristiano Ronaldo appears in court on tax charges" [Richard Conway, BBC Sports News]


"The (not so) wonderful world of WINZ" [CLAIRE BROWN,  stuff.co.nz]



John Key  “you can measure a society by how it looks after its most vulnerable”.