Trottermania and revolution

Chris Trotter reveals some of the thinking of the revolutionary left in his latest post Making It Stop: Taking Stock Of 4 February 2016, With Some Thoughts About The Way Forward.

First he thanks the organisers of Thursday’s TPPA protest in Auckland.

To Jane Kelsey and Barry Coates I can only say thank you. Demonstrations like the one I marched in on Thursday don’t just happen. They are the product of hours and days and years of hard work, during which people fight not only against loneliness and fatigue, but against the insidious thought that their unceasing efforts might all be in vain.

Observing the glowing faces of Jane and Barry, as they rode down Queen Street on the afternoon of 4 February 2016, it was their selfless commitment to battling on, heedless of setbacks and against all odds, that brought tears to my eyes. Once again, thank you.

One of the features of the protest was the re-emergence of Hone Harawira and the Mana Movement, fighting for Maori sovereignty despite Harawira and others making ignorant or deliberately false claims about it – see Harawira versus TPPA.

Jane Kelsey has been a long time anti-trade political activist who has been working with the Labour Party with their move to a more anti-TPPA stance – see Kelsey briefing Labour on TPPA.

Involved in uniting Kelsey with Labour was Andrew Little’s chief of staff Matt McCarten, who happens to have had close connections with the Mana Party.

Barry Coates was number 17 on the Green Party list for the 2014 election. Recently number 16 Marama Davidson replaced Russel Norman in Parliament so Coates is next in line to be an MP. Here’s his Green candidate profile.

Back to Trotter:

BUT, NOW WHAT? In which direction should the energy generated by the 4 February protest actions be turned?

He suggests a few ongoing protest actions. Then:

The extent to which these core messages have already entered the public’s consciousness has unpleasantly surprised the TPPA’s supporters.

I think he may be overestimating how much the public knows or cares about the TPPA, and there are ample indications the media can see through their spin and have started to call them on it.

Radio NZ, One News and Newshub all showed how little the core messages had entered the protesters’s consciousness let alone the wider public.

They were taken aback at the size and vehemence of the Auckland protests and will already be working on ways to unpick the picture Jane Kelsey and her comrades have embroidered so vividly on the public mind. The Government’s and big businesses’ counter-offensive will have to be met, held, and rolled back.

The comrades versus big business – that’s the core message about what’s driving the TPPA opposition.

I know someone who went to a meeting last week featuring Comrade Kelsey. They genuinely hoped to be informed about the TPPA. They were gobsmacked about how sour and substance-less the messages were.

Strategically, the struggle is between the progressive/patriotic forces operating within the twelve signatory states, and the defenders of the transnational corporations. Obviously, this puts the “Pro” forces at a serious disadvantage. Far from being able to pass themselves off as promoters of the public good, they will emerge from the contest as the big corporations’ fifth columnists, committed to defeating the patriots fighting to prevent the agreement’s ratification.

The people versus the corporations again.

John Key and his Government thus risk entering election year as a collection of figurative “Quislings”, guilty of conspiring against the national interest on behalf of entities without countries, morals or scruples.

If this perception can be driven deep into the electorate’s mind, then National’s chances of re-election will be nil.

Trotter’s comrades dream. It’s a dream they also had last term, with asset sales instead of the TPPA, that became a nightmare when the reality of the election result hit home.

More importantly, the victorious coalition of Labour, the Greens and NZ First will be swept into office with a broad mandate to take on a corporate plutocracy that has ruled without challenge for far too long.

Wonderful. And the world will be rescued from evil at last.

For the first time in over 30 years, there will be a mass political movement dedicated to putting itself “upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus” of the neoliberal machine – and making it stop.

Except this time Labour seem to have decided to fight for the Mana space on the far left, after their worst election result in living memory in part due to a voter reaction against the Internet-Mana.

Comrades were convinced that Internet-Mana would hold the deciding votes after the last election,  and the glorious revolution would be realised.

But instead they crashed, and burned Labour.

Trotter seems to think Labour-Mana is a winning combination along with the Greens and NZ First. I wonder what Winston thinks of all this, he’s politically very astute.

Not long ago Trotter tweeted a link to his post:

Some thoughts on Thursday’s anti-TPPA demo. Has the “Missing Million” woken up?

The ‘missing million’ dream was another failure last election. The ones who vote saw through it.

This seems like just another swing between Trottermanic and Trotterdepressive.

What’s missing is 21st century reality.

Previous Post
Leave a comment

115 Comments

  1. Iceberg

     /  6th February 2016

    “the insidious thought that their unceasing efforts might all be vain”

    He should have stopped there.

    Reply
  2. Blazer

     /  6th February 2016

    ‘Jane Kelsey has been a long time anti-trade political activist ‘…this has been debunked but you keep regurgitating it.

    Reply
    • She is a key member of the Action Resource Education Network of Aotearoa (Arena), and is actively involved in researching and speaking out against the World Trade Organisation, the International Monetary Fund, free trade and corporate-led globalisation.

      “Researching and speaking out against” trade related political issues sounds like anti-trade political activism to me.

      I went to one of Kelsey’s meetings last week to hear her for myself. She lacked substance, she was misleading (either deliberately or ignorantly), and she attacked the Government. I’ve been to quite a few political meetings, and that was a one-side political attack meeting.

      Reply
      • Blazer

         /  6th February 2016

        All those organisations should be accountable.So called ‘free’ trade is bandied about as a panacea for nations,yet it does not exist anywhere.I think it was Bjmarsh who posted her quote re her position on trade the other day on this blog.Straight from her mouth,would seem a more reliable source than adding 2 and 2 and getting 3.

        Reply
    • Kelsey’s Auckland Uni bio:

      Jane Kelsey is one of New Zealand’s best-known critical commentators on issues of globalisation and neoliberalism. She has taught at the University of Auckland since 1979, specialising in socio-legal studies, law and policy and international economic regulation.

      She speaks against neoliberalism, globalisation and trade agreements. That’s one sided political activism.

      She had a speaking tour last week that was openly political activism.

      She was prominent in the TPPA protest on Thursday. That was political activism.

      Reply
      • Blazer

         /  6th February 2016

        ‘She speaks against neoliberalism, globalisation and trade agreements. That’s one sided political activism.’….logic suggests that those who speak in favour of those topics are also ‘one sided political activists’!Why should those topics not be subject to critique?

        Reply
        • If they only speak in favour and they don’t consider pros and cons and evaluate their balance then yes, that would make them one sided political activists.

          I would hope that most law professors would be more willing to give balanced assessments of things political than Kelsey does.

          Reply
          • Rob

             /  6th February 2016

            “I would hope that most law professors would be more willing to give balanced assessments of things political than Kelsey does.” The only problem is, most will only see them as balanced when that assessment fits their view or agenda.

            Reply
            • Rob

               /  6th February 2016

              Should read ‘when the final assessment fits their view or agenda.’

            • Yes, but you’d hope to see at least a reasonable attempt to look at all aspects of an issue in a semi-balanced way.

              Kelsey seems to research things to find what’s bad and doesn’t appear interested in what could be good.

            • Rob

               /  6th February 2016

              Yes, but you’d hope that from all sides not just the left. Perhaps she sees no good in it.

          • Blazer

             /  6th February 2016

            your hope would be misplaced…watch the award winning movie Inside Job.

            Reply
            • kiwi guy

               /  6th February 2016

              Your Venezuela comrades have trashed their economy – 700%+ inflation this year, NZ could look forward to the same Marxist treatment from Kelsey et al if they got control.

            • Blazer

               /  6th February 2016

              the U.S sanction strangulation they use on regimes that do not toe their capitalist line always has ramifications on nations like Venezuela that stand up to them.The TPPA if ratified will be another bloc to utilise.

            • Rob

               /  6th February 2016

              Kg doesn’t understand what he talks about. Merely quotes figures from right wing loon sites and believes every word.

            • David

               /  6th February 2016

              If US sanctions are bad and the cause of Venezuela’s problems, doesn’t that make trade with the US the solution?

            • Rob

               /  6th February 2016

              So they should be allowed to bully others into agreement? The US has raped South America for over a century.

    • Iceberg

       /  6th February 2016

      I read Kelsey in the 90’s in which she tirades against the trade orthodoxy. Where the fuck have you been you blinkered ignoramus.

      Reply
      • Blazer

         /  6th February 2016

        Her actions are not criminal…you would think they were the way you rant.

        Reply
        • Iceberg

           /  6th February 2016

          You get called out your crap, so you change the hat on the strawman and have another crack. Fuck off.

          Reply
          • Blazer

             /  6th February 2016

            her bio doesn’t mention trade specifically…’economic regulation’..so small wonder she examines trade agreements.

            Reply
          • Rob

             /  6th February 2016

            “Fuck off.” You’re an arsehole whose only go to is abuse obviosly.

            Reply
            • kiwi guy

               /  6th February 2016

              You and Blazer are awesome, good examples of why the Left crashes and burns at election time.

      • Rob

         /  6th February 2016

        I was told by one of your ilk that abuse and name calling are pretty much the exclusive ground of ‘lefties’ on sites such as the Standard and Daily Blog and the ‘right doesn’t need to resort to this kind of tactic. “Where the fuck have you been you blinkered ignoramus.” Kind of shoots down that theory.

        Reply
      • artcroft

         /  6th February 2016

        Without any actual evidence or facts to support him or her, Blazer’s only option is to deny the truth. Better than Trotter though, Trotter’s just an idiot.

        Reply
  3. Rob

     /  6th February 2016

    “Without any actual evidence or facts to support him or her, Blazer’s only option is to deny the truth.” And what truth would that be. The so called ‘facts’ you keep presenting about the TPPa are nothing of the sort. They are speculation and nothing but.

    Reply
  4. Oliver

     /  6th February 2016

    I’m not a fan of Trotter but I think he’s right about the missing million have now been woken up. John Key won last election because there was no opposition and a million people were so disillusioned with dirty politics revealed in Hagers book that they just refused to take part. But through the ashes we have a new night in shinning armour and that is Andrew little. He’s the guy that will get the million back into voting. The left is building momentum off the back of dissatisfaction with the TTP, flag change, housing crisis, growing inequality, and John Key himself.

    Reply
    • alloytoo

       /  6th February 2016

      I think that those that refrained from voting last election are more likely to return this government, vote for stability over the rabble on display on Thursday.

      Reply
      • Oliver

         /  6th February 2016

        It’s early days. One thing that’s promising is that Labour finally have a leader that can challenge Key. And this is coming from someone who is not a Labour supporter.

        Reply
        • I was hoping Little would step up to the leadership role but I’ve been very disappointed with him. I don’t think he’s cutting the mustard.

          Which is bad news for Labour and for our politics in general. There’s no question that Key has been a relatively popular leader (which opponents seem to hate) but he’s been made to look better than he is by a series of Labour leader failures.

          Reply
          • Rob

             /  6th February 2016

            They need someone with charisma which is definitely lacking in the party ranks. Popular perhaps but a bit to bland for my liking.

            Reply
          • Blazer

             /  6th February 2016

            ‘Cause little by little we gave you everything you ever dreamed of
            Little by little the wheels of your life have slowly fallen off
            Little by little you have to give it all in all your life
            And all the time I just ask myself why you’re really here’…Oasis.

            Reply
        • alloytoo

           /  6th February 2016

          I also thought Kelvin Davies had potential, then there was his Australia debacle.

          Reply
    • Chasing people who have never voted or who have given up voting has always been a low reward strategy. Taking votes off your main opponent is the most fruitful. But Labour seem to be moving to compete with Green and Mana votes, which does nothing to improve the left bloc vote.

      Reply
      • Oliver

         /  6th February 2016

        Any evidence that it’s a “low reward strategy”. Get voters to change party’s is much more difficult, isn’t it?

        Reply
        • No, not the crucial swing voters who often change. I’ve voted for four parties so far this century.

          Reply
        • kiwi guy

           /  6th February 2016

          “Get voters to change party’s is much more difficult, isn’t it?”

          Labour has successfully got lots of their voters to switch to the other side.

          Reply
        • Pantsdownbrown

           /  6th February 2016

          New Zealand elections are nowadays won in the centre.

          Extreme left wingers like Rob, Oliver and Blazer (and those on the far right) can spout as much nonsense as they like as it won’t make any difference at all as the voters around the centre of the political divide will decide the govt. Trotter only preachers to the converted and whilst John Key continues to sit in the centre he holds all the cards come election time.

          Reply
          • Oliver

             /  6th February 2016

            John Key centre? I’ve never laughed so hard PDB.

            Reply
            • Pantsdownbrown

               /  6th February 2016

              Your failure to realise that this National govt sits in the political centre shows why your political smarts are the equivalent of ‘zero’. It is also why Key will continue to hover up the centre votes along with the majority of right-wing votes.

            • @ Oliver & Pantsdown – here’s how crazy our system has become IMO.

              I reckon John Key is actually slightly Centre-Left, insomuch as he maintains a Mixed “Free” Market-Social Welfare system, although he must pretend to be ‘Centre’ – as if there’s any such thing – or even Centre-Right to pander to the fantasies of many of his constituents, especially those doing very well indeed economically out of the system, at the expense of the low-waged, under-employed and unemployed (workers in abatement) left behind by the “Free” Market component of it (which is not free at all but regulated in favour of supply).

              Something like that anyhow. Some crazy mixed up thing.

              It may not be a bad thing. Politicians might eventually acknowledge they have very little room to move and are much more alike than different and can just get on with all working together for “consensus democracy”?

            • Pantsdownbrown

               /  6th February 2016

              PartisanZ: My point is that the far-left (including our political novice Oliver) continue to make the mistake that the Key Govt is ‘far-right’ – as you point out this govt is somewhere in the centre with tentacles going left (welfare system expanded since Helen Clark’s govt, free doctor for children extended), and right (90 day bill, tax reductions).

              Whilst the far-left continue to make this mistake they will continue to box at shadows and lose elections.

            • Oliver

               /  6th February 2016

              Here’s a question what “socialist” policies has Key implemented? I can’t think of anything. He has been down grading welfare. And his neo liberal policies make him out doubtbly on the far right.

            • Increasing paid parental leave.

              Increasing benefits (due to kick in this year).

              Just as important is what socialist type policies they have left in place, like interest free student loans and Working For Families.

            • Pantsdownbrown

               /  6th February 2016

              You obviously don’t read too well (no wonder you haven’t read anything about the TPPA), I mention some above……..first NZ government in 43 years to raise benefits – sounds pretty left-wing like to me

            • @ PDB – I think you make very sound points here.

              I believe Oliver and others, including myself sometimes, express very real and legitimate concerns about National’s possible far-right tendencies? Please note the words “possible” and “tendencies”. (Or see my FEMA camps comment yesterday)

              In my recent attempts to be as inclusive as possible – (part of undergoing a personality transplant) – I do honestly see even “shadow boxing” as quite understandable and acceptable: an aspect of “opposition” as it exists now?

              Here’s a possible scenario I do not see as entirely far-fetched. “Everything to be imagined is an image of truth” said William Blake, and, “What is now proved was once only imagined”. Its just a “what if” fantasy … a little bit of Smith’s Dream revisited … a Waitangi Day story …

              A combination of New Flag, TPP, perceived Maori “demands”, “disruption” and “reverse racial privilege”, an increased National majority and consequent “arrogance” plus much more … and the general course of world events leads to the inevitable declaration of New Zealand as a Republic, without sufficient consultative Constitutional reform. The idea of renaming the country Aotearoa-New Zealand is abandoned.

              Te Tiriti O Waitangi is simply declared “null and void” by a government who’s actually prepared to deal with the resulting insurrection – and there would be insurrection – rather than renegotiate a new paradigm which acknowledges and accommodates an agreeable Maori sovereignty.

              With sufficient “spin” applied to the situation – e.g. as has convinced most people the English/Settlers “won” at Ruapekapeka – the popular support for this extraordinary and ‘unconstitutional’ action falls somewhere around 75% “for” and 25% “against”. The population sanctions its own government’s peculiar version of coup d’etat.

              The third Aotearoa-New Zealand Land Wars begin …

              Make a good movie eh?

          • Rob

             /  6th February 2016

            “Extreme left winger” Hahahahahahahaha. Gonna tell me I’m in denial now as well? If nothing else, you’re always good for a laugh pants. Pity you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.

            Reply
            • Pantsdownbrown

               /  6th February 2016

              You’re not listening Rob – I’ve mentioned you are in denial heaps of times on here. The nature of your posts give the game away. Don’t hate yourself though (once you finally ‘man-up’ to your extreme lefty ways), you are good company with fantasists like Hone, Oliver, Blazer, Bradbury, Trotter and the like……

            • Rob

               /  6th February 2016

              Your the one who needs to man up pants. You don’t know me and don’t even begin to think you do. Gives the game away. Ladies and gentlemen, an internet eggspurt psychologist. Hone? lol He’s just a smarmy prat, like you. You need to sort your issues before you tell others they have them pantsdown.

            • Pantsdownbrown

               /  6th February 2016

              Don’t be so angry Rob – just like your father Angry Andy…….

            • Rob

               /  6th February 2016

              Snert

      • @ PG – “Chasing people who have never voted or who have given up voting has always been a low reward strategy. Taking votes off your main opponent is the most fruitful”

        God that’s sad I reckon, isn’t it? If we had any belief in the possible improvement of democracy we would at least be out trying to motivate those people who don’t vote to get involved and exercise their rights.

        “Government” would do this completely objectively, impartially, non-partisan, simply to make democracy more representative, with an ideal of 100% representative, regardless of outcome. We – who are “they” – would do it for the very same young people who we recognise are the ones who don’t participate. This would actually be a good thing to have an “appointed” panel working on!

        The implication, for me at least, is that what we have and call “government” actually isn’t government at all, not really, not as fully as it could be because it isn’t fully representative.

        Real government or “governance” would be deeply concerned about this I reckon.

        Reply
    • David

       /  6th February 2016

      You have a point that there seems to be a fair bit more anger about which may well motivate the left to get out and vote but and its a big but what motivates them to go to the ballot box will motivate the other side to vote too. I cant remember where but there is a study debunking that the missing million are even majority lefties and just as likely to be Key supporters who thought he was a shoe in so slept in on election day.

      Reply
      • I don’t care how they vote. I just want them to vote. I want them to feel included in this society, not excluded from it or indifferent to it.

        Reply
        • kiwi guy

           /  6th February 2016

          BS, if they turned out pro Key you would be cursing them.

          Reply
        • Choosing not to vote is a valid choice. It doesn’t mean exclusion – anyone can choose to include themselves in democracy if they wish, but the shouldn’t have to.

          Reply
          • kiwi guy

             /  6th February 2016

            Exactly, not voting is also exercising your political rights, not that Comrade PartisanZ would be able to grasp such basics of political freedom.

            Reply
          • @ PG – OMG, honestly … OMG … how can you possibly have interpreted my words as meaning I want to “force” them!? It defies belief.

            I believe I’m talking about the difference between fear, indifference and/or ignorance of participation and “informed participation or non-participation”.

            The usual from Kiwi Guy. Pick up on what I didn’t explicitly say. Of course if I had said it I’d be being berated for wasting his time with long comments.

            Reply
          • jamie

             /  6th February 2016

            Of course choosing not to vote is a valid choice.

            But it is also a deeply sad state of affairs that so many people choose it.

            To me it indicates that people either think politics is a waste of time, or that their voice doesn’t matter, or that there’s no-one/nothing worth voting for, or they’re just not interested in the decisions about how our society operates.

            I’m sure there are other reasons people don’t vote, but I don’t think many of them are indications of a healthy system.

            Reply
            • Many people who do vote don’t care about most politics most of the time. It’s just not of interest to most people in their daily lives.

            • jamie

               /  6th February 2016

              I believe that is probably true.

              But at least they are interested enough to have their say every three years.

          • Blazer

             /  6th February 2016

            its a legal requirement in Oz I believe.

            Reply
  5. Alan Wilkinson

     /  6th February 2016

    What a farce. A bunch of fantasists in their fairyland. Like the twerp who threw the dildo they are oblivious to reality and how the world sees them. If they ever wake up they will be suicidal.

    Reply
    • Blazer

       /  6th February 2016

      a bit harsh ,especially coming from someone who used to protest in a helmet and would have been subjected to similar scorn.

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  6th February 2016

        I think it is entirely accurate. Muldoon and apartheid were as different from Key and the TPPA as chalk and cheese. We were dealing with harsh reality, this lot are in make believe and frankly are either intellectually dishonest or just grossly incompetent.

        Reply
        • Blazer

           /  6th February 2016

          do you apply any sincerity ratings to the protesters,as well as gauging the importance of the protest?

          Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  6th February 2016

            The sincere are incompetent and the insincere are dishonest. I had a discussion with an anti TPPA friend yesterday and it became clear she completed misunderstood the meaning of the legal language of the Agreement. And she is a teacher so the chances that most of the protesters had any clue about the matter are zilch.

            To cite G K Chesterton, don’t let people change things they don’t first understand.

            Reply
            • Rob

               /  6th February 2016

              And you understand all the legal language do you? So does Jane Kelsey, more so than you I’d suspect. That’s why we need it put to us in laymans terms. Not all have the time or inclination to do a legal degree to understand the implications fully. You can interpret what you like, how you like. Doesn’t make it correct.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  6th February 2016

              Yep, Kelsey understands it and that makes her dishonest.

            • Rob

               /  6th February 2016

              And I’d say you wouldn’t understand the legalese to the extent she does. Does that make you dishonest as well? Maybe more, misinformed.

            • Blazer

               /  6th February 2016

              you dont understand it,so I suppose that makes you honest1

            • Here, for you two blithering idiots, is the simple language interpretation of the Treaty clause:

              Treaty of Waitangi
              The effect of the Treaty of Waitangi exception is that, provided measures are not used for trade protectionist purposes, TPP will not prevent New Zealand from taking measures it deems necessary to accord more favourable treatment to Māori in respect of matters covered by TPP, including in fulfilment of its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi. The text also specifies that interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi, including as to the nature of the rights and obligations arising under it, shall not be subject to the dispute settlement provisions of the Agreement (Article 29.6).

              Now tell me why Kelsey is supporting the imbecilic Maori protests about it?

    • Rob

       /  6th February 2016

      I know plenty of people who thought you lot were a bunch of dirty useless hippies when you were protesting. They were proven wrong over time. Perhaps you will be to.

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  6th February 2016

        They were immediately wrong and ignorant. There were never 20,000 hippies in Christchurch. Furthermore on both Vietnam and apartheid the well-informed were all on one side. Emotive ignorance was all on the other. Same is true here except roles are reversed.

        Reply
        • @ Alan – I don’t have any right to speak on his behalf, but for my part, aside from just insulting BJ Marsh – who clearly is not an “emotive ignorant” – (and perhaps other Vietnam veterans) – what you say about Vietnam is quite simply untrue. The ‘facts’ utterly refute it.

          There existed in the 60s and early 70s a perfectly “well informed”, widely held and soundly reasoned ‘domino theory’ about the advance of communism through SE Asia and, indeed, its infiltration into Western “Capitalist” nations through the likes of Trade Unions and all sorts of other ‘agencies’.

          There was a very real threat of nuclear war, personal and political reactions to which simply cannot be described as “emotive ignorance”. If the traditional, orthodox, systems justification view in those days was emotive ignorance – as you call it – then today that position is occupied by TPP adherents … by you!

          Fact is: Domino theory proponents were largely correct. Totalitarian regimes all too easily labelled “Communism” took over in Vietnam and Cambodia and look what happened, especially in the latter. Back then the West was ostensibly trying to maintain “democracy” in SE Asia, nowadays we’re trying to impose democracy in the Middle East.

          People like yourself and Kiwi Guy constantly propound a contemporary, modified version of this exact same theory here and now. You hate trade unions. You regularly express a “Leftie” socialist infiltration threat to Liberal Capitalism theory …?

          Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  6th February 2016

            Nonsense from start to finish, PZ, but I haven’t time to detail it. First, soldiers like BJ were doing their job, not political advocacy. Second, the Vietnamese were nationalists and had fought the Chinese for centuries. Third, it was the Americans that contemplated using nuclear weapons to help the French that the Vietnamese were rebelling against.

            That’s all now. I’ve got work to do.

            Reply
            • What you say may be true, but it doesn’t mean there wasn’t a ‘domino theory’. You’ve countered my argument with a completely different argument. Crossed to the other side of the street to continue talking to me.

            • Not just a domino theory. A cold war. Totalitarian regimes, regardless of affiliation. (someone supplied arms to N. Vietnam?)
              Nuclear threat, regardless of who you think offered it …

              Croc after croc really isn’t it?

            • Of course there was a domino theory but it was a croc until Nixon made it come true by flattening Cambodia, removing the neutral King Sihanouk and then leaving Pol Pot to annihilate his people. Similarly in Laos. The point was that the US attempted to invade another country at horrific cost in lives and resources to achieve nothing except destruction. Every fact and logic said no.

            • And you were aware of all this while you were protesting?
              It sounds like the benefit of hindsight to me.

              None of it makes the other viewpoint “emotive ignorance” either? Theirs was the geopolitical strategy of the times, just like American Imperialism including aspects of TPP is today.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  6th February 2016

              Yes, because we read books on the relevant history and attended many seminars before we made up our minds. We took it very seriously, in my case because I was about to be conscripted.

              It was the geopolitical strategy of the US administration, not of the times. NZ gave it a very luke-warm reception and Holyoake responded with the minimum he could. The internal opposition in the US was immense. The universities here ran seminars. If you weren’t there you can’t really visualise the depth of the controversy. In comparison the TPPA analysis is beyond belief trivial and incompetent.

      • kiwi guy

         /  6th February 2016

        Its you muppets, Rob, who are getting proven wrong over time – again and again at election time.

        Reply
        • Rob

           /  6th February 2016

          Move to a white is right country KG, I’m sure you’d be much happier. And I’m sure you fought against apartheid. LOL

          Reply
          • kiwi guy

             /  6th February 2016

            I am already in one – white majority Democratic, Capitalist NZ.

            Why don’t you move to “vibrant” South Africa in solidarity with your black comrades? They certainly seem to have a simple approach to dealing with unwanted immigrants to their country, LOL:

            It sure has been great that you comrades failed to overthrow Western capitalist democracies like the USA, Britain and Australia.

            We would be like China or Russia now, with a history of poverty and mass murder, if you comrades had been successful.

            Reply
            • Rob

               /  6th February 2016

              You’re the one who is constantly complaining, Stop whining and do something about it. Move to Aus, they seem to like booting undesirables.

            • kiwi guy

               /  6th February 2016

              We can give undesirables the boot too, could send you and your little comrades who hate NZ so much to the 3rd World culturally vibrant hell hole of your choice.

              You would be much happier with none of us Evil Whiteys around oppressing(TM) you with our white privilege(TM) tools of democracy, capitalism and high living standards.

            • Rob

               /  6th February 2016

              I don’t feel oppressed at all, you obviously do. Go ahead KG, try giving those you don’t like the boot. You wouldn’t last long you pants pissing coward. All talk, no action.

            • Nelly Smickers

               /  6th February 2016

              Our next door neighbor is South African, and used to drive buses in Joberg towards the end of the aparthied era in the early 90’s

              He was telling us that the owner of the bus company, after receiving a lot of complaints from passengers, called a meeting to explain to the drivers, “that if they were finding it difficult to see people as equal, they just have to consider there are no more black or white people, only blue”

              So, the next day out on his route, he explained to his passengers, “OK you guys, you’re not black or white anymore. Only blue. So light blue get the front seats, dark blue the rear.”

              🙂

            • With all due respect Kiwi Guy – meaning ABSOLUTELY NONE WHATSOEVER – you are a “4 Letter Word beginning with ‘C'” for posting a picture like that and describing it as “a simple approach to dealing with unwanted immigrants”. Forget the reasoned arguments, you’re just a plain C * * * !!!

    • kiwi guy

       /  6th February 2016

      ” Like the twerp who threw the dildo they are oblivious to reality and how the world sees them. If they ever wake up they will be suicidal.”

      Here’s hoping.

      Reply
      • Blazer

         /  6th February 2016

        it was a pink dildo not a black one kg.

        Reply
      • I reckon you are pissed as hell that someone beat you to throwing a dildo at a politician KG. You having used your “Progressive Dildo” insult so often.

        Reply
      • John Schmidt

         /  6th February 2016

        When I heard she was a nurse I thought I would hear something intelligent from her that would explain her actions, was I dissapointed. She justified her actions by repeating the rhetoric she had been fed by Kelsey that is shown to be incorrect by the wording of the TPPA document. She clearly had not read a word of the TPPA certianly not the sections in the document that specifically deal with the concerns expressed otherwise she would have no reason for her actions or having to fly north in the corporate provided airservice. She was also not that articulate nor did she seem the sharpest knife in the draw so what kind of nurse is she.
        With regards to the TPPA and her concerns overall there is the cop out clause that if the benefits are not being realised we can bail and return to our exports being subject to tariffs and we can tit for tat by returning to a tariff based economy. As for the soverignity issue there is nothing that prevents us from behaving like “neighbours at war” by defaulting on the agreement when it suits us as was proposed by Labour during their indecision period. We are not being invaded, so any future government can do what they like with free trade agreements. They are free to use them as toilet paper if they think that is in tbe best interest to NZ. Those wanting to abandon free trade agreements just need to convince the vast majority of NZ’rs to agree with them and vote accordingly at the next election. Good luck with that because most people are usually not that keen on biting the hand that feeds them like the smartphone that the corporates have delivered to them at a price that even the poorest person in NZ is able to have one or the corporates that have delivered flying so that the vast majority of NZ’rs are able to travel anywhere or the corporates that give us incredible cars that even the poorest seem to be able to have, or the corporates that give us amazing TV flat screens that can be found in every household in NZ. The list is endless. This is what Kelsey and the Nurse are against. Ironically the Nurse used a corporate to fly from CHCH to AKL and spoke to all her friends on the free corporate provided FB app using her corporate provided smartphone that is connected to a corporate provided provider, how shocking.

        Reply
        • No, its not shocking at all JS, only your summary of it is perfectly pathetic.

          Of course she should have walked or swum up from Christchurch, contacted her friends by pigeon post or smoke signal and because she has passionately held views she definitely shouldn’t be a nurse or ever own a flat-screen TV.

          By your standards its impossible to oppose anything at all – other than rampant corporate “advancement” – and systems justification steams happily on its way with no safeguards or balances whatsoever. Only this magic materialism is good and if you oppose any part of it you oppose all of it, and if you utilize any part of it your opposition to any part of it is null and void.

          Maxwell Smart: The old “You can talk!” argument again eh? First time I’ve encountered it this week! That might be because its a very weak argument?

          Reply
  6. John Schmidt

     /  6th February 2016

    Neoliberalism the 3rd way taking the best bits of liberalism and socialism and ignoring the worst bits of liberalism and socialism. What is not to like given both liberalism and socialism have both historically failed, the great depression for liberalism, failure of communist states for socialism. What is not to like about the middle road or 3rd way or do some prefer to repeat historical failures as the way of the future.

    Reply
  7. Blazer

     /  6th February 2016

    some ‘3rd way’…Neoliberalism is a small-state economic ideology based on promoting “rational self-interest” through policies such as privatisation, deregulation, globalisation and tax cuts.i.e the failed trickle down theories and the carnage of the GFC,Ayn Rands thoroughly discredited ideology .

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  6th February 2016

      … so discredited it is being applied world-wide to the dismay of the loony Left everywhere. LOL.

      Reply
      • Blazer

         /  6th February 2016

        like where laughing boy…come on put up!

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  6th February 2016

          Here. You haven’t noticed then? So what is Key Derangement Syndrome about?

          Reply
          • Blazer

             /  7th February 2016

            so called KDS exists only in the minds of the myopic who reject any form of dissent from the ‘Washington doctrine’.

            Reply
        • For a “system” born in the 1970s and implemented mostly in the 1980s and 1990s, since discredited in many ways, neoliberalism is getting a bit tired don’t you think?

          “Globalisation mostly is understood as a process of spatial expansion, of world trade, investment, migration flows. This is not wrong. However, it is a one-sided perspective.

          [Because] globalisation also means the globalisation of a certain development model, of political concepts and standards of global governance, of rules, norms and a global language. Therefore, the « Washington Consensus » , the financial policy-package which indebted countries had to accept under the conditionality of the IMF, has been one of the most efficient globalising forces after the liberalisation of global financial markets.

          Monetarism emerged as the hegemonic economic policy concept of the neo-liberal counter-revolution.

          Karl Polanyi described disembedded markets in general as “satanic mills” , pushing labour into misery, nature into environmental destruction, and the monetary system into a malfunctioning state.

          The higher the interest rate and the financial yield, the shorter the perspective of actors on financial markets. Therefore, the counter-movements against the destructive functioning of the satanic mill in order to protect labour (the emergence of the welfare state), nature (environmental regulations) and money (the monetary and financial authorities, i.e. central banks, national and international authorities of supervision etc.) must develop a global and long-term perspective (in response to the markets’ “global horizon” and disregard for “real” national economies)

          In any event, neo-liberal promises of growth and stability, of employment and of wealth have proven to be an insincere ideology, grossly false and responsible for the sufferings of hundreds of millions of peoples around the world”.

          – Elmar Altvater, ‘Post neoliberalism or post capitalism?’ (2008)
          – a longish article but worth a read. An example of thinking globally?

          http://www.alterinter.org/spip.php?article2629

          Reply
          • “Thinking globally” is exactly what neoliberalism and globalisation are supposedly doing. Seems like a damned painful way to go about it?

            Reply
  8. ” I think, and it seems that many foreign economists agree, that Singapore’s absolute rejection of Neoliberalism has been its salvation.

    In a paper on Monetary Policy in East Asia: The Case of Singapore, Bennett T. McCallum says “In light of Singapore’s macroeconomic success over the past 15 years, as discussed by various writers including Devereux (2003), Gerlach and Gerlach-Kristen (2005), McCauley (2001), Parrado (2004), and Rajan and Siregar (2002), it seems apparent that this type of policy regime could be an attractive contender for adoption by other highly open economies” — open economies like ours, in point of fact.

    So why do we remain locked into this Neoliberalism mantra that our politicians keep chanting? I suspect we are suffering from what could be termed “battered country syndrome” and have developed a codependent relationship with our “abusers”, the international, freewheeling money markets.

    You need look no further than the way the media and consumers get excited by a high Kiwi dollar, as if it was some tacit endorsement of our worth by those outside our shores, to see this syndrome in action”.

    – Selwyn Pellett, ‘How Neoliberalism has failed New Zealand’ (paragraphs mine)

    http://www.interest.co.nz/news/42903/opinion-how-neoliberalism-has-failed-new-zealand

    Reply

Leave a Reply to kiwi guy Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: