RedLogix gets it wrong

In a rare post at The Standard RedLogix details ten debatable claims.

John Key will see out five or six terms in office. He will then likely hand over to his carefully anointed National party successor. National will govern uninterrupted. Key is only the dark beginning. We already know most of the reasons why:

1. Key was appointed to run NZ from within his prior role at the the US Fed. He has powerful allies not just within the local establishment, but globally. In a highly globalized world this counts for a lot more than most of us imagine.

No evidence provided, just a claim of an international conspiracy.

Key was selected by the National Caucus as party leader, about sixty MPs. As leader he has been elected by about a million voters three times. That’s a lot of people involved in his ‘appointment’.

2. Thirty five years of neo-liberal dogma that is designed to appeal to the selfish and greedy in us all has eroded the foundations of civil society. 25% of us that were born here with pre-80’s pro-social values have left, and too many of those who have arrived came from countries where they are notably lacking.

It’s highly debatable that “neo-liberal dogma that is designed to appeal to the selfish and greedy in us all” – certainly not us all – and it’s also quite debatable whether it has “eroded the foundations of civil society”.

The second sentence is odd and unsubstantiated.

3. National is funded with a landslide of money. It almost doesn’t know what to do with it all. Labour by contrast can barely afford mailouts to it’s membership.

Apart from obvious exaggerations I don’t think National funding has increased enormously. Labour is just failing to attract funds – unlike the Greens who seem to manage very well proportional to their size.

The Conservative and Internet parties received landslides of money and it didn’t do them many good.

4. The National govt runs an extremely well resourced PR organisation that the left cannot and never will match. Because the left sees itself as reformers, our internal discussions will always be louder and more rambunctious. By contrast the right is always united around the power of money, and will not only stay on message discipline … it will ruthlessly exploit any perceived dissent or weakness the left exposes.

Why couldn’t ‘the left’ have a well resourced PR organisation? Again the Greens seem to manage. Internet-Mana had a very well resourced organisation.

The ‘right’ is not always united around power and money – ACT and Dunne differ from National at times. I’m sure there are differences within National.

Of course they will “ruthlessly exploit any perceived dissent or weakness the left exposes” – and they get plenty of opportunity on a plate. That’s not their fault.

5. At present there is no credible means for the left to effectively convey it’s message to the public. We have been shut down or marginalised, to the point we are pretty much constrained to social media.

That’s utter crap.

Labour and Greens get PR repeated by media. They have access to free post. They have email contact lists. They can go out and have public meetings and go door to door like successful parties have in the past.

They try to do a lot more on social media, just not very well sometimes. That’s no one else’s fault.

They marginalise themselves and then moan about it and blame everyone and everything else.

6. A large fraction of the middle swing voters are fundamentally dubious about ever voting left because they perceive, rightly or wrongly that Labour and the Greens are prone to being captured by ‘PC gone mad’ special interest groups. Yes this is a fraught and nuanced issue … but none of this matters to a segment of the voting public who just hate it at a gut level.

Or going PC mad.

But I think a lot of middle swing voters are happy to have a bit of Green influence, especially on environmental issues. And want to see a credible Labour return.

I think most concern from swing voters is barely disguised socialist policies.

7. At the same time too many of Labour’s senior people seem to have made their peace with the Establishment. And this just leaves another segment of voters uninspired, contemptuous of ‘beltway pollies with their snouts in the trough’, and lacking an option they want to vote for, they stay at home.

And too many of Labour’s rank and file foot soldiers have been deserted. And Labour’s rank and file activists sound like they will never make peace with the Establishment, unless it is transformed into their revolutionary ideal.

8. The continued assault on left wing institutions like unions, workers education, and social entities that once allowed us to organise effectively. Activism from behind a keyboard only takes us a certain distance; it’s weak at turning ideas into reality.

It’s hardly a continued assault. Governments bring in different policies to change with the times, and the remaining unions don’t want to change, and Labour in Opposition is stuck in the middle.

Unions, workers education, and social entities go through the motions of promotion their causes but have lost their drive and sit back blaming everything else.

9. Increasing state surveillance and loss of civil liberties. What has happened to Ambrose, Hagar, Vance and others will continue to chill the public debate.

It’s an issue that requires vigilance and push back but the left overstate the dangers far too much making it easy to ignore their weekly ‘same old’ protest marches.

10. Too many activists on the left repeatedly make the basic mistake of confusing a dislike for John Key and what he stands for … for a lack of respect for his considerable political and managerial skills. It’s really time we stopped making this basic error.

They’ve been making the same mistakes for eight years and if you read through posts and comments at The Standard and The Daily Blog and Public Address there’s no sign of that changing.

They keep trying to make Key look far worse than he is rather than working on being better than they are.

I used to think RedLogix was one of the more intelligent and realistic voices from the left but if he is joining the ‘poor us, it’s everyone else’s fault’ stuck in last century attitude then I don’t have much hope for a centre left recovery from worse than the political doldrums – it’s more like they are in a slow whirlpool and keep paddling with the spiral.

Which is a real shame, because a healthy democracy is best served by strength and positive ambition across the spectrum.

How can you tell if a jet load of left wingers has landed at the airport? The whining continues after the engines have shut down.

RedLogix seems to have become RedLostit. The left has lost it’s heart and soul and purpose and all they have left is lamenting and blame of others.

Previous Post


  1. Henry

     /  24th January 2016

    They won’t learn personal attacks against JK won’t work and neither will pandering to the special interest groups.

    • David

       /  24th January 2016

      The Labour party has been reduced to not much more than a loose collection of special interest groups. Without pandering, they will simply fracture under the slightest pressure.

  2. alloytoo

     /  24th January 2016

    The problem plain and simple is the inability to acknowledge the success of others is due to diligence, hard work and smarts, because to do so means examining your own inadequacies and lifting your own game. The sense of entitlement is so strong that the left cannot fathom (or accept) the obvious, want results: work harder, faster smarter.

    • Blazer

       /  24th January 2016

      what a load of drivel.Access to capital,the old boy network and political patronage are far more important.

  3. Alan Wilkinson

     /  24th January 2016

    As I said before, in an era of rapid change all the Left can do is look backwards and futilely try to obstruct and hold back the tide. Their “Future of Work” merely stares desperately at the non-work options for their departed factory-fodder supporters. They are reduced to obsolete unionists and professional activists and politicians with no links to ordinary working families. Their political model is broken and doesn’t seem fixable.

  4. Timoti

     /  24th January 2016

    And they accuse Wishart of being a nutter. If these lefties are like this now, how will they act after the next probable election defeat? I bet the conspiracy about elections being rigged will resurface. And lets not forget this one ” more people voted left than right. National are in power because of the way MMP is rigged ” LoL, who voted for MMP? And wasn’t it more Righties who voted against MMP? I’m always fascinated by lefties who claim some moral high ground believing more people voted left. They are so thick they don’t get it doesn’t matter.

    • Henry

       /  24th January 2016

      I remember after the last election, there was people saying it was rigged. If Key wins in 2017 (highly likely) They will end up going even more batshit then they are.

  5. “his prior role at the the US Fed”….. yawnnnnnn.

    The Federal Reserves, there is not one but multiple reserve banks with regional roles and an overarching Board of Governors, is not a private entity. Its an organ of the US State, runs independently like our RBNZ and is overseen by Congress. Banks in the US are forced to be members and fund it ” and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System”……

    Key worked for Merrill…. Merrill was mandated to be part of the Fed as it operated as a Bank. Many bankers act as advisors to the various Fed Reserve branches….

    This ongoing BS about the function and ownership of the Fed drives me nuts. But you do a little research and all becomes obvious it is a state entity doing state functions to facilitate the running and stability of the US economy

    • Blazer

       /  24th January 2016

      This was discussed the other day..with do not know what u r talking about.Educate yr self. ..please!

    • jamie

       /  24th January 2016

      That’s fairly selective quoting dave. From the same page:

      “The 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by the Congress as the operating arms of the nation’s central banking system, are organized similarly to private corporations–possibly leading to some confusion about “ownership.” For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year.”

      That seems to be saying that the Federal Reserve Banks ARE at least partially – or perhaps fully, no detail is given – owned by the privately owned banks who are members of the Fed system, and that those privately owned banks receive an annual dividend on their stock in the Fed system.

      • Hi Jamie. i ahve looked in to this before. If you dig in around the Feds website there is more detail. yes it is organised on a company like basis, but the shares are no different in a system sense than the monies that NZ banks have to keep with the RBNZ in NZ. Its a government controlled via the appointed governors and Congress sets its governing principles via legislation. Its a cumbersome model but it ain’t private

        • Blazer

           /  24th January 2016

          Dave reading the Fed site and expecting an objective overview is laughable.THEIR attempts at obfuscation and disinformation do not alter the facts.The Fed is a pet into. ..period.

        • jamie

           /  24th January 2016

          dave, shares are ownership. These particular shares may have some special conditions attached to them but they are still shares and they still pay dividends.

          I’m not suggesting there’s anything sinister about that but saying you have shares in something yet don’t own any of it is arguing that black is white.

          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  24th January 2016

            Ownership denotes control. Those “shares” have no element of control. They are essentially just bonds the Government have forced the subsidiary banks to purchase. The subsidiary banks are under the control of the Fed, not vice versa. There is no private ownership and no vast profits accruing to the non-existent private owners.

          • Jamie, its controlled lock stock and barrel by the US Government. The Government appoints the Governors. Forcing banks to give you money and issuing them a piece of paper is not giving ownership or control, its binding the receiver to your control…

            But we are straying from the point of the piece which was John Key. He was an advisor like lots of other top execs at major banks in the states… nothing weird as implied by RedLogix pieces.

  6. Iceberg

     /  24th January 2016

    The best quote by far in the comments is this beaut from Presland.

    “university educated analytical left because our thought processes and our approach clearly produce the better result”

    Mind boggling lack of self awareness.

    • David

       /  24th January 2016

      That ‘better result’ doesn’t seem to include winning elections then?