All posts in category Politics

The political impact of Kiwiblog

Aftwer yesterday’s post on The impact of political blogs related to a discussion at The Standard I asked similar questions on Kiwiblog,..

What is the impact of political blogs in NZ? Is it increasing or declining? Why?

To what extent are the views of the active blogging community representative of, or different from, the average NZ voter?

Is it fair to say that bloggers tend to have views that are more “extreme” than the norm?

What do Kiwiblog participants want to achieve from your contributions here? Or is it just an entertainment, a pastime?

Responses contrasted with those at The Standard, where there was more hope of influencing politics (and particularly the Labour Party) on the left. Kiwibloggers seemed to see it more as a pastime with little or no outside influence.

This is from a commenter point of view.  Mr Kiwiblog David Farrar has many politicval connections and degree of political credibility, and his posts on Kiwiblog are widely read and taken notice of. He also has a wider media profile, having written newspaper columns, participates on radio segments and is sometimes interviewed in TV coverage of politics.

Some authors at The Standard have some wider respect (like Anthony Robins) but overall  at an author level The Standard is viewed with less credibility because many posts there are obvious political attack attempts by authors cloaked in anonymity.

They claim that it’s not the identity that matters, it’s the argument, but there are frequent over the top wolf weepers by the pseudonyms with questionable connections so that substantially dilutes the overall blof credibility.

Kiwiblog comments:

Kea

For me it is about the exchange of ideas and the chance to see how other people think on various issues. I never really expect to change any bodies ideas, but at least we can all get some insight into the oppositions thoughts.

Griff

The whole point is you get to make fun of nutters or expose the reality gaps that produce nuttery
its fun and makes me laugh
to see their mental contortions to hold conflicting “facts” in their heads
:lol:
KB Griffs idea of comedy better than sitcoms

Monique Watson

The impact and influence of political blogs in New Zealand will increase as the political left declines. The influence of the left will decline because it’s no longer needed. Anyone can get on a computer and put their message out there, whereas traditionally the left has been a voice for minorities and the misbegotten. They’ll lessen their influence. Apart from the workers voice which I fully support but when the labour vote becomes a fully blown vehicle for socialism you’ve got to draw the line. Which will sadden tits like Griff no end.

nasska

1) Impact will wax & wane depending on where we’re at in the election cycle.

2) Views are probably a little more extreme than average…..if someone can barely be bothered to vote they’re not going to spend a lot of time on a political forum.

3) I come here (& other blogs) to learn & keep informed. That said, if there wasn’t an entertainment factor the medium would become boring very quickly.

graham

I suspect the impact of political blogs in NZ is bugger all, to be frank. How many people in NZ actually choose to dedicate a decent amount of time to reading and analysing political blogs? (Forget those people who might just browse occasionally). I suspect it will be a very tiny number – the majority of Kiwis are probably far more interested in rugby, so-called ‘celebrities’, the best fishing/swimming/barbeque spots, and DIY.

Manolo

The impact of NZ political blogs is zero, a fat big zero.

Mary Rose

>What is the impact of political blogs in NZ?

Kiwiblog had its 9,000th user registration in November.Pretty impressive, but you don’t get 9,000 people commenting every day.
And as a percentage of the population….
If it gets 10,000 visitors a day, again, that’s top end figures for any blog, but a small per centage of the population.
And you can’t add 10,000 for KB, 12,000 for Whale Oil, 5,000 for The Standard, as some of those will be people who’ve read all three.

>To what extent are the views of the active blogging community representative of, or different from, the average NZ voter?

Political blogs attract people who are more interested in politics/world affairs than the average voter.

>Is it fair to say that bloggers tend to have views that are more “extreme” than the norm?

More opinionated, perhaps. You have to enjoy a debate and not be afraid of being rubbished by people who don’t share your views. Blogs aren’t a place for the thin-skinned or delicate of disposition!

hj

They are a place where ideas can synthesize and spread particularly when they are blocked out of the elite controlled media. Neither the media nor our political parties mirror exactly the value of ideas, just the ones chosen by vested interests or the elites.
A good example is radio nz’s silence on the findings of the Savings Working Group re house prices and high immigration/ tax breaks for property investors.

graham (responding to hj)

I agree that blogs are a good place for ideas to be mooted, discussed, and debated – but at the end of the day, that’s it. How much of what is discussed on this blog, or indeed ANY blog, ever translates into ACTION? Some of the more active blogs with motivated members MAY occasionally manage to get people along to a rally or two, but that’s about it.

I believe that political activists find Facebook and other social media to be far more useful tools, from what I have heard (but not personally observed).

Manolo

I share graham’s opinion: This is a place for discussion and debate, but that’s the end of it.
The NZ populace will never pay any attention to what is said here o any other political blog.

I tend to agree with many of these points, political blogs are discussion forums but with little influence in wider media and beyond.

Political discussion takes place across social media, as well as blogs it happens on news site comments, Twitter, Facebook and elsewhere. Political blog commenting is a small part of a much greater media, and beyond that many (probably most) people take little or no interest in most politics.

There has been further Standard discussion at

by Pete George on January 16, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in Politics
Tagged , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on January 16, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/01/16/the-political-impact-of-kiwiblog/

Left good, right bad

A guest post at Whale Oil initiated an interesting discussion in a right wing blog -  Reclaiming the Left – by a Labour party member. One claim received a lot of attention:

Boiled down to its absolute core, the difference between left and right is this: leftists believe in altruism and the collective, rightists believe that selfishness is morally right.

Leading the argument against this was ‘Alex’ (a different Alex to a Green supporter who comments across different blogs):

Now this sort of shit makes my blood boil.

This equating leftism with “altruism” and rightism with “selfishness” is the heart of the leftist problem in NZ and elsewhere. It gives rise to the leftist ever so annoying sense of moral superiority; and to the anti-democratic attitude held by someone them that anyone opposed to leftism must be inherently “bad”, and therefore there is no obligation to accord to the opposition the basic rights of not interfering with property, not personally abusing people, allowing them the opportunity to express a different opinion.

As a “rightist”, I’m totally against selfishness — whether it be beneficiaries who think themselves entitled to lifelong benefits without even trying to work, or upper income people who think it’s ok to engage in dodgy “tax minimisation” schemes when everyone else has to cop it.

The essential difference is that rightists believe in empowering individuals, individual responsibility as the cornerstone of society, that the state’s power should be limited, and that legislative action should be limited to situations where it is necessary to protect other peoples’ tangible rights or (in exceptional cases) where there is demonstrable evidence that only the State can avoid or mitigate some tangible mischief (as opposed to social engineering).

When and if the leftists in this country actually start to respect the centre-right, acknowledge that their viewpoint is legitimate and reasonable, and that voters are not stupid fools who take up this “dog whistling” (as if leftists never engage in such rubbish) hook, line and sinker, only then will the left finally be in a position to contribute to this democracy.

While the last paragraph ignores the fact that ‘the left’ has and does contribute to our democracy it highlights something I frequently see on left leaning blogs – the claim that those on the right are ignorant and wrong and having the left in power is essential for the good of the country.

More comments on the left versus right theme…

Phronesis:

The left is opposed to altruism. Altruism is when you FREELY give something you have to someone else. The left wish to TAKE from those who have and give to those who vote for them. Altruism is a core value of the right and is demonstrated by the sort of charitable giving that you see in America. The left hates this because they don’t believe that the wealthy and successful should get to choose what cause gets their money.

Mr_V4:

I should actually reword what you have written to:

“Boiled down to its absolute core, the difference between left and right is this: leftists believe in altruism using other peoples money, rarely their own. Rightists believe in a freedom to choose where they spend the fruits of their labour”.

Timboh:

Statistical evidence was recently released about the type of person more likely to donate to charities or do charitable work. Not surprisingly the most likely backed by evidence are politically right leaning people.

GregM

As long as the left continues to assert that anyone who does not agree with them is “selfish”, they will continue to be irrelevant.

Wallsingham:

The left is inclusive of all. The right apparently sees ‘haves’ or racial exclusivity.

I’ve seen it claimed a few times that “the left is inclusive of all”, but it is usually contradicted by those who don’t agree are excluded, whether they are on the right or not.

And in my (extensive) experience on blogs the rightish blogs are more likely to accommodate comment from across the spectrum (this Whale Oil post is an example of that).

Leftish blogs like Red Alert, The Standard, Dim Post seem to be far less tolerant of anyone deemed to be from ‘the other side’. It’s more common for these leftish blogs to actively attack commenters personally and try and exclude comment they take exception to.

I think too much is made of left versus right. It is a not a war that can ever be won. Claiming one side is right and the other wrong is political arrogance and ignorance.

Most people are closer to the centre than to the extreme left or right, and most people have a blend of leftish and rightish views.

Those who see themselves as ‘left’ or ‘right’  seem to hate the concept of centre based views that look at any issue on it’s merits rather than straightjacketed by an ideology based approach.

And like it or not in a democratic country views from across the political spectrum need to be allowed, and all shades of politics needs to accommodated.

by Pete George on January 14, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in Politics
Tagged , , ,

Posted by Pete George on January 14, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/01/14/left-good-right-bad/

The asset sales mandate, and how the Green Machine may steamroll Labour

Chris Trotter snorts at the no-mandate anti asset sale argument in Mandate given at last election.

Any political party racking up such a total is entitled to claim a very strong electoral mandate for all its policies.

National’s claim to a specific mandate for its asset sales programme is, accordingly, very strong. The policy was announced nearly a year before the election and was subjected to the intense scrutiny of not only the parliamentary opposition, but also the news media and a broad cross-section of civil society.

If Prime Minister John Key’s Government doesn’t have a mandate to proceed with its privatisation policy, the word no longer has any political meaning.

Whale Oil has highlighted this in Trotter on the intellectual dishonesty of the asset sales petition.

Despite all that there are some people who believe that an electoral mandate should be gazumped by a referendum that had public monies poured into it by the Green party in order to buy signatures. There are many, many referenda that have been put forward that have been ignored by politicians. Why should this one be any different.

I doubt that the Green and Labour strategists give a toss about mandates.

The hijacking of the referendum process is a cynical misuse of taxpayer money to extend  election campaiging through the duration of the term.

They will know the referendum won’t stop National’s MOM policy from progressing (as much as the financial situation allows it). My guess is that they plan to use the referndum as a springboard into election year campaigning. Or at least that’s the Green strategy, Labour may be simply floundering along following the Green lead.

This raises another issue. If a Labour-Green government takes over next term even if as expected Greens have less MPs their far superior political nous is likley to put them in a very strong position. It will start in the coalitiion negotiations, where Labour will be desperate to get back into power. But Greens, while obviously keen to at last make it into Government, may be in a formidable “take us or leave it” position.

Provided Greens at least maintain current levels of support and current political smarts no matter the balance of MPs is expect a Labour-Green government to be strongly influenced and possible dominated by the Greens.

by Pete George on January 11, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in Politics
Tagged , , , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on January 11, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/01/11/the-asset-sales-mandate-and-how-the-green-machine-may-steamroll-labour/

The Standard and Labour authoritarism and censorship

Labour message control and manipulation of comments and commenters at The Standard took a new turn yesterday when ‘moderator’-in-chief lprent (Lynn Prentice) overrode how one of the blog authors dealt with a dig at them – deletion of some subsequent comments and warnings to desist – and banned commenter Morrissey for four weeks.

And later the ban was doubled – seemingly as an afterthought and due to the actions of someone else.

It started when commenter Morrissey posted a dig at the author (QOT) of a post on Wednesday evening –

QOT initially responded…

Tell you what, I’ll give Morrissey a little warning, but leave this one up there. And bookmark it for future reference.

But this evolved during the day to…

[QoT: I invite others to refrain from responding to Morrissey on this thread henceforth.]

…and then a final warning followed by a banning…

[QoT: Morrissey, your hurt feelings because I don't like your hero's contemptible actions do not make your comments relevant to this thread. This thread is not going to devolve into another circlejerk about Julian fucking Assange. Stick to the topic or fuck off. Final warning.]

[lprent: too slight - as in I can't see ANY relevance. Looks like a deliberate hijack to me targeted off topic to attack one of my authors. Whilst QoT is having fun, I'm not. 4 week ban to discourage any repitition of this behaviour. ]

The banning is not unusual at The Standard (although lprent has been lately displaying increasing signs that his iron fingers run what is purportedly a ‘collective’ of authors).

Also in what is a trademark of Standard moderator ‘braveness’ after Morrissey was banned a number of his comments were deleted and replaced with attacks and attempts at ridicule – QOT knew she could do this without being challenged by someone she had banned.

She may have learned this from  the blog master lprent who often attacks people where he knows they can’t respond.

But wait, there’s more

But remarkably, when a friend of Morrisey posted a supporting comment, not only were they censored and banned for four weeks as well, but Morrisey’s ban was doubled – for something that may have had nothing to do with him.

And oddly this severed head was displayed at the entrance to yesterday’s (10th January) ‘Open Mic’ (the name of their supposed open forum is becoming a tad ironic).

Kiki 1
6 January 2013 at 10:10 pm

Morrissey: “I Shall Return”

[deleted]

As the French would say, quelle hypocrisie. Certainly, I am not without fault, but surely we should all be worried that someone as crude and vicious as QOT is able to set herself up as some kind of moral arbiter.

This message has been solicited and published by me as an act of support for my colleague and friend Morrissey.

[lprent: Oh piss off. The policy is clear on self-martyrdom offences

Abusing the sysop or post writers on their own site – including telling us how to run our site or what we should write. This is viewed as self-evident stupidity, and should be added as a category to the Darwin Awards.

Morrissey was acting like a complete arsehole. But he isn't the only one who can do that.

Oh and see that other nice self-martyrdom offence....

Generally wasting a moderators time is just not a good idea. We’re there to deal with isolated problems. People persistently sucking up our voluntary time won’t like the results.

Since you're such a friend then please explain to him that you just got a two month ban and collected him another another month. I'm uninterested in people acting like complete fuckwits and wasting my time.

Besides, after he e-mailed with some pathetic idea about what constitutes "defamation", I had another look at the first comment he left for QoT on her post. Seeing it again just got me even more irritated with the pretentious dildo. ]

  •  karol 1.2

    As an aside: I’m just puzzled by the date on the above comment.

    •  bad12 1.2.1

      Ah it might be a warning to ALL, could have sworn when i looked this morning that the first 3 comments were from ‘Jenny’,

      Course if your in the ‘chair’ you probably get to move things about…

Yes, the first comments were originally from Jenny but the banning has been presumably moved from an earlier thread, and promoted to the top of yesterday’s general forum thread. It looks like the date has been tweaked to achieve this.

This does appear to be a warning that not only is criticism of blog authors severely frowned on, but showing any support of banned commenters is a banning offence – and people can be banned (in this case a ban was doubled) because of the actions of others.

The Standard collective appears to be becoming ruled by an increasingly authoritarian ‘leader’.

This has parallels in the Labour Party.

Labour and The Standard integrity

Labour’s Red Alert blog is best known for it’s suppression of unwanted comment. It has become a farce, with a handful of regular commenters rolling a few tumbleweeds. Many people (including Labour Party members) report being banned.

Last month several commenters at The Standard said they would cease commenting due to pressure from Clare Curran to stop criticisng David Shearer.

This created a flurry of indignation at attempts at Labour censorship at The Standard. And there have been accusations that while the Labour membership voted at their recent conference for more democratic processes in the party it appears tha David Shearer and his caucus supporters are asserting more authority from the top.

It’s quite ironic that in parallel more heavy handed banning, censorship and ‘behaviour modification’ plus much more obvious displays of draconian leadership are apparent at The Standard.

Not just the leader and the sysop

This mode of message control and messenger targeting runs deeper than party leader and blog sysop.

Some participants a The Standard often join in the ‘moderation’. Weka pointed out early in the banning thread:

Also of note is that you’ve forgotten that it’s against ts rules to attack authors esp in their own threads.

In the same thread the accusations of misogny aimed at Morrissey expanded:

Populuxe1 3.4

Antisemitic, misogynistic, what next?

 felixviper 3.4.1

I’d wager he’s not all that keen on gay dudes either, but it’s just a hunch.

Populuxe1 3.4.1.1

I sensed as much – see you all in the death camp, guys.

 Morrissey 3.4.1.1.1

Another swing and a miss. You’re not clever enough to do this, my friend. You just look desperate.

I admit my nasty little message to QOT was unacceptable, but you are going way out on a limb. You know, I’m sure, that there’s a special place in Hell for Malicious Liars.

felixviper …

Nah, I don’t think I’m far off the mark. The various strains of bigotry tend to be found in close proximity to one another.

It is also against the rules at The Standard to flame and provoke, but some regular trolls there have a free licence to harrass with virtual impunity. Malicious liars? ‘Felix’ has a longstanding habit of unsubstantiated accusations to try and manoevre people he chooses to eliminate from discussions into bans.

And this continues on another thread…

felixviper 9.1
11 January 2013 at 12:51 am

Oh look, another creepy stalker turning up just to leave off-topic sexist abuse for QoT.

It’s like this morning all over again.

Another day, another victim in the sights.

Labouring under free speech

Parties can allow or (try to) suppress free speech and discussion as much as they like. Their party, their rules.

Or as seems to be the case, their leader, their dictation of who can speak about what.

Blogs can censor and ban as much as they like, and they can encourage or attack a diversity of comments as much as they like.

Or as seems to be the case, his blog, his dictation of who can speak about what.

The Standard and Red Alert are widely seen as the online forums associated with the Labour Party. Red Alert is run by Labour MPs, The Standard is run by Labour Party members, and Labour has directly interfered with commenting there.

Both blogs seem to be mirroring Labour leadership in authoritarian behaviour enforcement, censorship and message control.

by Pete George on January 11, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in Politics
Tagged , , , , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on January 11, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/01/11/the-standard-and-labour-authoritarism-and-censorship/

Dictating Labour democracy

In a new system of democracy the Labour caucus is having a supposedly secret vote on leadership in February. If forty percent or more of caucus support a leadership vote then the whole membership gets to vote for their party leader – if more than one MP puts themselves forward.

But there are indications this is sham democracy. The party conference last year initiated a more democratic leadership selection process, but it looks like the current leadership is openly abusing this.

The ‘Te Reo Putake’ pseudonym is being used as a caucus voice at The Standard. It has stated in a post comment…

The issue is settled, CV. The conference votes to dramatically change the process, but as caucus is the trigger for a wider vote and caucus is not going to make that happen, Shearer will be leading the party to some sort of a victory in a couple of years.

That implies that caucus is already whipped on what is supposed to be a secret ballot and will not give membership a chance to have it’s vote and it’s say.

Just after the conference vote for more membership involvement in leadership selection David Shearer squashed his main presumed opponent, David Cunliffe, demoting him to the back bench and removing him from spokesperson roles.

Since then it sounds as if caucus has effectively been whipped in what is supposed to be a secret process.Lack of unequivocal caucus loyalty to current leadership has obvious potentially drastic consequences, as per the Cunliffe warning. Cunliffe was supposedly punished because he wouldn’t pledge total support for Shearer in February.

Te Reo Putake also stated…

The Feb vote will not only confirm the current leadership, it will confirm the strength of the democratisation process that was formalised at conference.

That’s an open and farcical snub of party democracy. It’s a pretty blatant “stuff you” to the rank and file who are trying to have more democratic say in their party.

This follows the post election leadership contest where party rank and file clearly favoured David Cunliffe as leader but caucus overrode the membership and installed David Shearer.

The LP and the Greens will be able to go into coalition knowing that they both have genuine support in their parties, expressed democratically.

The Labour leadership/Te Reo Putake are either totally ignorant of democratic processes or are brazenly trying to convince their members that their dictatorial actions are somehow something wonderful and that all is well in Labour.

The reason I say this post is irrelevant is because the voting public don’t read the Standard (more’s the pity). They will elect the next government despite the whingeing. Sorry to have to inject some reality into the proceedings, but that’s life.

Labour leadership either are convinced, or are trying to convince, that the voting public can’t see the crap and will vote for Labour/Greens.

But most don’t buy the bullshit.

Saarbo
8 January 2013 at 2:55 pm

TRP,

Like many over the Christmas period, I have been speaking to people who I don’t normally speak to. I spoke to a number of people who voted for National in 2008 and 2011 but have now become disillusioned, reality has hit them…National are useless. These people are looking for alternatives.

As a Labour member it was sad to note that all of the people I spoke to, none saw Labour as the alternative party to vote for…the main reason is because people simply don’t trust the group that are leading Labour caucus. When I told people that I have become a member of The LP, I received a myriad of responses. None of the responses were positive. This surprised me as many of the people I spoke to were public servants. The perception of Labour is very negative, some of this is to do with a very slick PR campaign by National but also Shearers 2012 performance, the fact that the Greens continually trump Labour in the MSM on the big issues, and the Greens appear to be well run and with unity (this by comparison shows how badly Labour is being run).

You are also wrong about what most of the members are thinking, in our branch most of the members are not impressed with Shearer’s performance over 2012 and also unimpressed with the way Shearer has treated Cunliffe after the conference.

You talk about injecting some reality into the proceedings, quite frankly you have no idea about reality. I suspect TRP that you are operating on hope and optimism rather than reality. In my view as a relatively new member (but a long time Labour Supporter), your attitude is a symptom of what is wrong with Labour. The absolute arrogance by a small clique that Labour are going to walk into power in 2014. Well given my anecdotal evidence you (and the small elite clique leading Labour) are dreaming.

Labour leaders seem to think they have The Standard under control and isolated, and they have the next election in the bag (albeit needing Greens).

I suspect the disgruntlement is much more widespread, and the more the membership is treated with disdain and disgraceful abuse of party democracy the wider the despair will grow and damage the party.

 

by Pete George on January 9, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in Politics
Tagged , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on January 9, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/01/09/dictating-labour-democracy/

Asset petition – democratic farce

As reported at Stuff the asset sale petition looks like achieving it’s target:

New Zealanders will have their say on asset sales this year after a petition to force a referendum reached the 300,000 signatures needed, campaigners say.

Since April, a coalition including Grey Power, the Council of Trade Unions, the Green Party and Labour have been collecting signatures for the petition.

They need 10 per cent of all registered voters, or approximately 310,000 people, to sign to force a referendum.

Grey Power national president Roy Reid said the group had collected more than 340,000 signatures, allowing for a percentage of signatures that did not meet the requirements under the Citizen Initiated Referendum Act.

After checking the figures at the end of 2012, Mr Reid was confident they now had the numbers to push through the referendum.

The last CIR on smacking resulted in 85% opposition being ignored by politicians.  This referendum will be as easy to ignore. The first float or two may well have happened before the referendumk is held.

This will make the whole CIR option even more farcical than it has been.

It’s not democracy

The asset sale petition is an insult to people’s democracy. The CIR system has been hijacked off citizens by political parties and groups with politcal agendas (Grey Power and unions). The Green Party in particular have been using parliamentary resources and funding to run what is effectivekly a poitical campaign.

The Green Party prides itself on it’s internal democratic systems. On an internal level the Greens practice democracy well.

But external to their own party the Greens have become adept at misusing democracy to promote their own agendas, as is evident by their hijacking of CIR.

Greens use flaws in democracatic processes to try to impose their own minority views on the majority. But they are not alone, other parties do this too.

The biggest problem with democracy in New Zealand is not the systems we have, it’s how they are abused and manipulated by political parties.

CIR and MMP are designed by politicians and misused by politicians.

But there’s no easy solution to this. Most people and groups of people proposing “people’s democracy” initiatives don’t actually think in terms of making things more democratic, they are blinded by their own agendas and want to manipulate democracy to achieve their own goals.

I don’t think politicians will give up their power and their hold on the democratic processes easily.

So I think the only way of people taking ownership of democracy is to set up small scale democractic systems, prove them and then grow them, where the only agenda is finding the best balance of democracy and leadership/governance.

“Do you support the Government selling up to 49 per cent of Meridian Energy, Mighty River Power, Genesis Power, Solid Energy and Air New Zealand?”

by Pete George on January 4, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in Politics
Tagged , , , , ,

Posted by Pete George on January 4, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/01/04/asset-petition-democratic-farce/

Electorate MP responsibilities

How should an MP prioritise their responsibilities? Should they work for the electorate, party, the country or themselves?

They are elected by the people of their electorate but some (possibly many) of their votes will have been more for the party than the persdon.

I’d like to find out what people think of what are the most important duties and responsibilities of an MP.

Some of an MP’s main responsibilities are…

  • Electorate
  • Country
  • Party leader
  • Party policies
  • Party ideologies
  • Self and family

And how should they prioritise what is most important?

For example…

20% Electorate
40% Country
5% Party leader
20% Party policies
5% Party ideologies
10% Self and family

What do you think?

by Pete George on January 3, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in Politics
Tagged , ,

Posted by Pete George on January 3, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/01/03/electorate-mp-responsibilities/

List MP responsibilities

How should an MP prioritise their responsibilities? Should they work for the party, the country or themselves?

They are elected by the people of their electorate but some (possibly many) of their votes will have been more for the party than the persdon.

I’d like to find out what people think of what are the most important duties and responsibilities of an MP.

Some of an MP’s main responsibilities are…

  • Country
  • Party leader
  • Party policies
  • Party ideologies
  • Self and family

And how should they prioritise what is most important?

For example…

40% Country
10% Party leader
30% Party policies
10% Party ideologies
10% Self and family

What do you think?

by Pete George on January 3, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in Politics
Tagged ,

Posted by Pete George on January 3, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/01/03/list-mp-responsibilities/

National’s asset sales

Yesterday’s NZ Herald editorial suggests that National should be able to proceed with it’s Mixed Ownership Model sale of shares in power State Owned Enterprises.

Editorial: Sales stalled long enough by water case

Treaty has no business in company ownership

Assets that generate hydro or geothermal electricity are unquestionably in the government sphere. Privatisation, whether full or partial, is a debate between different views of the public interest. It is not a Treaty issue. Iwi and hapu that can establish customary rights to part of a river or a geothermal reservoir may deserve recompense from users of the resource, but those rights would apply whether the users are private companies, state-owned enterprise or the hybrid now proposed.

Government under the Treaty can surely decide what to do with assets it has built. A year of discussion has been enough.

The comments (and their ‘Like’ counters) indicate there is still a lot of opposition to this. Although it’s difficult to judge the numbers the ‘Likes’ of anti-asset sale comments run at about 75% compared to pro sale comments.

(It’s impossible to know whether comment ‘Likes’ are indicative of general opinion,  or biased by deliberate campaigns to stoke one side or that one side of a debate are more likely to show their opinion).

The first two comments are typical:

Observer2

Privatisation has indeed been a debate between different views of the public interest. The result of this debate is plain.The minority mandate won by National at the last election provides no justification for disposing of such valuable state assets. An overwhelming majority of Kiwi’s do not want hydro and power sources built up over many decades sold or partially sold by this or any Government.

- 128 likes

South

Yes, a year is long enough and enough money has been wasted over court cases etc. Get on with the sales and get some money to spend on more important things.

- 41 likes

And the last comment on the front page, while more extreme, is ‘liked’ exactly the same as the first.

Adam

This treasonous act against generations of taxpayers, stealing critical infrastructure currently owned by all citizens, for the sole purpose of further enriching the privileged elite, must be stopped by any means necessary, even if we have to enlist a taniwha.

- 128 likes

That probably just shows that if people are ‘voting’ against the sales don’t care about the level of rhetoric used.

As is normal with NZH comments the numbers supporting subsequent pages drop off considerably, and the ration is closer to 66% against, 33% for.

And a third page comment seems to

Mike

Actually most polling of the issue suggests around 60% do not want to sell.

Mike’s 4 ‘likes’ are similar to most levels of support on the third page.

What this doesn’t compare is opinion on the editorial comment itself, which has no comparable ‘like’ (or dislike) option.

All this shows that the asset sale debate is going to continue this year, with the final step in an attempt by some Maori to stop the sales via the courts, the Government proceeding with a share float or two, and the petition driven by Greens and Labour maybe making a statement, albeit futilely.

by Pete George on January 3, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in Politics
Tagged , ,

Posted by Pete George on January 3, 2013

http://yournz.org/2013/01/03/nationals-asset-sales/

Promoting positive politics for 2013

I see a lot of negativism on political blogs, along with anger, abuse, despair, unrealistic ambitions based on narrow ideologies. Many people with an interest in politics seem to see a glass seven eights empty, and the one eight of water they can see is dirty.

Last century polarity politics, where one side must defeat the other, is self defeating.

Progress is made with a positive approach. I’ll do more to promote positive politics.

Colin James has written his final ODT colum for 2012 – Looking on the bright side into 2013 (not yet online). He also looks at the dark tunnel of the political world.

The can’t-be-done crowd treats issues as problems. Public service policy people and politicians think this way because they then feel needed to fix them. Treating issues as options and opportunities — the can-be-done line — invites aspiration and energy.

Here’s a parallel: pitying victims risks locking them in victimhood; backing them as survivors makes more of their futures.

The victim mentality has wormed into our thinking about our country and prospects. We see what’s wrong or missing more than what’s on offer.

In the political blogosphere the right and the left seem to think not enough is done of what they want and too much of what they don’t want is done.

Both hard right and hard left think government will ruin the country (or is currently ruining it) unless their far more extreme ideas are implemented.

I don’t agree with that, I think our country is doing ok – but it could do better. And the way to do better is to have a more positive view, and to look at more positive ways of adrerssing things and doing things.

This means overcoming the political tunnel vision that seems to confine and blind too many in politics.

Sure, there are negatives that need addressing, there is crap that needs confronting, there are problems with no easy or quick solutions.

But we need a more positive political approach.

And that can happen from both the top – with strong positive leadership – and it can be pushed and promoted from the grass roots. Positive people need to promote themselves and their ideas more. If enough people see the benefits this can overwhelm much of the negativity.

And Colin James looks to the bright side, the light beyond the politicfal tunnel vision.

Here’s a New Year resolution for 2013: look on the bright side every now and then (though as a realist, not Pollyanna). There is a bit to see there.

The New Zealand habit is to look on the gloomy side and to see something small, smug and stifling. Half a million ex-New Zealanders have shaken that habit for life in Australia.

Yet realistic bright-side lookers can do things here faster and more freely than in most other places. That’s why there are many entrepreneurs here, a few of them world leaders.

—

…we have some big pluses.

We have abundant water, food-catching and growing capacity and energy in a world short of water and food and unevenly endowed with energy. We have lots of space. We are distant from mayhem. (Boat people don’t bother us.)

We have very low corruption, one the most stable democracies, generally good institutions and the rule of law. We have a voice in world affairs much louder than our size warrants. We have by world standards a good education system.

We are, many of us, entrepreneurs in the broad sense: inventive (think Weta Digital, the top firm in the world for digital film imaging) and creative (Gareth Farr’s “Mad Little Machine” was my 2012 standout).

We are generally peaceable: we made the extraordinary journey from a monoculture to a bicultural society without mayhem.

We have a great brand, best said as fresh/safe/natural.

Of course, there are negatives, not least that we don’t have a “spike” city in which highly creative people congregate in numbers and drive innovation and economic and artistic success. Our elites scarper abroad. Our supply lines are long and tenuous. Our brand is fraying. We are often stiflingly small-minded.

But the positives far outweigh the negatives. To many foreigners New Zealand is highly desirable, stacked with opportunity and good living.

To me New Zealand is highly desirable, stacked with opportunity and good living.

To live better, to make the most of opportunities, we need to desire better.

One way to do this is to shake off the last century petty politics and promote a more inclusive, tolerant, dynamic positivism.

Polarity politics, where one side must defeat the other, is self defeating. Out with the ‘woe is me’ wowsers.

In 2013 I will address negatives that I see. But I’ll do as much as I can to promote positive politics. Our cup is seven eights full of possibilities.

by Pete George on December 31, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Politics
Tagged , ,

Posted by Pete George on December 31, 2012

http://yournz.org/2012/12/31/promoting-positive-politics-for-2013/

« Older Posts
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 74 other followers