People of NZ

From

Auckland alive as 20,000 empty investment properties while 40,000 don’t have homes. People go hungry while supermarkets lock the dumpsters full of unsold food.

Production of the things we need to survive is already done by workers – so workers should control their distribution and consumption. It’s that simple.

There is already enough of everything for everyone. Let’s let everyone have what they need.

No explanation of how it might work, except through the goodness of everyone and their willingness to share equally.

There’s nothing to stop Emmy (except perhaps for property and money) starting up a commune and putting their ideals into practice, proving them on a small scale before risking the whole country.

:

New Zealand’s  account, with a new curator each week. This week, say hi to Emmy ().

‘Buy American’ and ‘Hire American’ Directives

The Trump administration is proceeding with more election promises, in this case to toughen up on immigrant workers and on imports.

Trump claims wide support, more jobs available and higher wages for Americans are sure to be popular, but support for higher prices that are likely to result has not been polled.

At this stage it only involves reviews to look at measures that could be taken.

Wall Street Journal: Trump Expected to Bolster ‘Buy American’ and ‘Hire American’ Directives

President Donald Trump will sign an executive order in Wisconsin on Tuesday directing a government-wide review aimed at putting new teeth back into decades-old “Buy American” and “Hire American” directives.

The 220-day review process, which could lead to additional executive orders and possibly legislation, will focus on preventing foreign workers with H-1B visas from, as one senior administration official put it, “undercutting American labor at less cost,” which the official labeled as “an abuse” of the current system.

“This is a clear statement from the president of the United States to shore up some of these abuses,” the official continued. The goal, the official said, is ensuring that “everyone can have a realistic path to economic success and full employment.”

The order will call for a review by federal agencies aimed at stricter enforcement of immigration and other laws governing the entry of workers into the U.S.

Cheap immigrant labour has benefited US employers and business, but has impacted on American unemployment.

In addition to the visa program, federal agencies will be asked to review and minimize the use of waivers and exceptions to Buy American policies as well as assess the degree to which waivers included in free-trade agreements have hurt American workers.

If those waivers, which are part of trade agreements with nearly 60 countries, are deemed to have put the U.S. at a disadvantage, as administration officials believe to be the case, those deals are likely to be renegotiated, the official said.

That could take quite a while to do, and re-negotiations may work both ways, not all in favour of the US.

The White House touted broad public support for the directives, pointing to a November 2016 poll by the Mellman Group showing 74% of respondents supporting the use of American workers and materials in publicly financed products.

That’s not a surprise, but I don’t know if people were also polled on whether they supported higher prices for goods or higher taxes to pay for more expensive public projects.

The order also will demand the use of American-made steel in publicly financed infrastructure and other construction projects. It clarifies that steel slab imported from and primarily constructed in foreign countries but finished in the U.S. won’t meet that directive.

Publicly funded projects only, so Trump companies could still build hotels with imported steel? See HOW DONALD TRUMP DITCHED U.S. STEEL WORKERS IN FAVOR OF CHINA:

Newsweek investigation has found that in at least two of Trump’s last three construction projects, Trump opted to purchase his steel and aluminum from Chinese manufacturers rather than United States corporations.

Throughout his campaign, Trump has maintained that some controversial decisions for his companies amounted to nothing more than taking actions that were good for business, and were therefore reflections of his financial acumen. But, with the exception of one business that collapsed into multiple bankruptcies, Trump does not operate a public company; he has no fiduciary obligation to shareholders to obtain the highest returns he can. His decisions to turn away from American producers were not driven by legal obligations to investors, but simply resulted in higher profits for himself and his family.

Another case with Trump saying ‘do as I say, not as I do’.

 

Earthquake repairs and immigrant workers

There are obviously a lot of rebuilding and repairs required after the Culverden, Kaikoura, Seddon and Wellington earthquakes. This will require workers. Who is available?

The building industry is already stretched as house building increases to meet demand, although there may be some wind down in Christchurch that can move north.

New Zealand doesn’t have a large pool of road rebuilding workers on standby.

It would take years to train up youth and the unemployed, even if there were enough capable and willing to do this sort of work.

So will we have to look to immigrant workers to help out again? Some think this will be essential.

RNZ: Wanted: 1000 workers to rebuild earthquake-hit roads

Construction bosses say at least 1000 workers will be needed to rebuild roads and buildings after last week’s earthquakes.

Scott Mathieson, of recruitment and immigration firm Working In, said those skills were already scarce in New Zealand.

He was already looking for more workers from the Philippines, he said.

He guessed repairing the earthquake-damaged roads and buildings would need more than 1000 extra workers.

“Most employers feel they’ve tapped out the local resource, so a good proportion of that will have to come from overseas to get the job done on time.”

He said “definitely hundreds” of migrant workers would be needed.

The Building Construction Industry Training Organisation said the industry was caught short on skilled workers after the global financial crisis.

It was struggling to fill gaps created by the building boom.

Chief executive Warwick Quinn said thousands more construction workers were already needed over the next five years – before last week’s destructive earthquakes.

“It’s all of the people right through the supply chain, its not just people on the ground, its the oversight, its the management… They are highly technically skilled people and the sector’s struggling to find those.”

Can current contractors cope with the workload?

Civil Contractors New Zealand boss Peter Silcock agreed hundreds if not thousands of workers would be needed.

As the Canterbury rebuild tapered off, contractors could cope, he said.

Infrastructure New Zealand chief executive Stephen Selwood said major contractors and the government were already talking about forming an alliance to speed up the work.

“I think there’s months of work here. It would be great if it could be done quicker, but I would be expecting early new year at best.”

There may be enough civil contracting companies, but are there enough workers available?

Mr Selwood said other major projects, like Transmission Gully, would go ahead as planned, but maintenance and renewal jobs could be delayed as resources were put into earthquake work.

Local potholes may grow. I know that Dunedin resources are already moving up to North Canterbury, and are already causing delays here.

More on lazy workers/journalists

In his daily round up yesterday Bryce Edwards focussed on Workers versus migrantsDo we need immigrant workers because New Zealand’s unskilled workers are lazy and on drugs?

In this he referred to my post on this yesterday:

But have the Prime Minister and his colleagues been unfairly reported on this issue? According to blogger Pete George it’s not clear that John Key even said some of the words attributed to him, and “it appears to me that some journalists have cherry picked and embellished comments made and have created a week long story out of it” – see: Are lazy journalists drug addled?

However, it seems likely that the National Government has an orchestrated line about the deficiencies of local workers. The Minister of Immigration, Michael Woodhouse has made similar comments.

But my post shows that neither Woodhouse nor Key  used phrases like “drug addled” AND “to lazy” that were subsequently attributed to them and promoted in media stories and interviews.

And Edwards seems to be assuming that it “seems likely” that the Government has “an orchestrated line about the deficiencies of local workers”.

It is actually widely believed that there are a core of unemployed people who are virtually unemployable, or simply won’t or can’t hold down a job for any length of time.

Anyone working in the field of education, work skills and work finding sees examples of this.

But this doesn’t excuse journalists misquoting politicians to stoke up contentious stories.

And back in April, Bill English made some very strong statements about New Zealanders looking for jobs – especially “young males”, saying they are “pretty damned hopeless” and “can’t read and write properly” – see Jo Moir’s Bill English describes some Kiwis looking for work as ‘pretty damned hopeless’.

What Bill English said is sadly quite correct. Helping some of the difficult to employ write CVs can be quite challenging. An alarmingly high proportion of those in prison are illiterate.

But Edwards makes the same mistake, referring to “New Zealanders looking for jobs – especially young males” but the article he links to at Stuff says:

…some Kiwis hunting for work are “pretty damned hopeless” and “can’t read and write properly”.

There is a distinct difference between “some Kiwis” and “New Zealanders looking for jobs”.

I don’t think Edwards is drug addled and looking at how active he is in media he certainly doesn’t seem to be lazy.

But he is echoing the mistakes of media when he misrepresents what politicians have actually said.

Politicians are usually very careful with what they say and how they say it. It can be difficult extracting open and up front assessments from them. That’s an ongoing challenge for journalists.

But that doesn’t excuse making up dramatic stories by embellishing and over-emphasising and sensationalising and generalising what politicians say.

Are lazy journalists drug addled?

There seems to be a divide between what Immigration Minister Michael Woodhouse and Prime Minister John Key have said about New Zealand workers, and what media and critics are saying. This was highlighted on Q & A yesterday.

What Michael Woodhouse said a week earlier on Q & A.

I think what you’ve done is presuppose that money is the only barrier to people moving to work. Now, what we know and what we’ve said and listened to employers about is that that is one of many barriers.

Geography is definitely one. Skills, attitude, recreational drug and alcohol all prevents some of our young New Zealanders from gaining work.

Woodhouse has cited five reasons preventing “some of our young New Zealanders from gaining work“.

Key has since been heavily criticised for I have had a listen to the RNZ item and Guyon Espiner introduced it with:

The Prime Minister admits high immigration is putting strains on the country’s infrastructure but John Key says the Government will continue to bring in a large number to fill in jobs. He says this partly because many employers can’t get New Zealanders to do the work due to problems with drugs or work ethic, or that they can’t move to where the jobs are.

After some discussion Key said:

“We bring in people to pick fruit under the RSE (Recognised Seasonal Employer) scheme, and they come from the islands, and they do a fabulous job. And the government has been saying ‘well, OK, there are some unemployed people who live in the Hawke’s Bay, and so why can’t we get them to pick fruit’, and we have been trialling a domestic RSE scheme.

“But go and ask the employers, and they will say some of these people won’t pass a drug test, some of these people won’t turn up for work, some of these people will claim they have health issues later on. So it’s not to say there aren’t great people who transition from Work and Income to work, they do, but it’s equally true that they’re also living in the wrong place, or they just can’t muster what is required to actually work.”

Espiner responded:

Isn’t that a major failing for New Zealand, if what you are saying is right, that these people are too drug addled, or frankly, I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but basically too lazy is what you’re saying, they can’t get their act together.

Key:

Well what I’m saying to you is that, just go and ask an employer because I ask employers all the time, and we transition lots of people off Work and Income into work, but when you ask the question about why is there this group versus this demand, even in some reasonably low skilled jobs, it’s often they’re not in the right location, so they’re living in Northland and we need the work somewhere else, and that’s genuine, you can understand that, or they don’t have the skills, or there are these other wider issues, they’ll turn up for a while and then they won’t last there.

Key said that “lot’s of people” transition to work, and he cited location, skills and “these other wider issues”.

“Drug addled” and “too lazy” where Espiner’s words, not Key’s.

Jessica Mutch introduced yesterday’s coverage of Are some young NZers too lazy to do the work migrants will do? saying that what Woodhouse had said “sparked some debate” and that Woodhouse had made some “interesting remarks”. Woodhouse was quoted.

Mutch then said:

Prime Minister John Key followed up the next day saying the Government had to bring in migrants to fill the jobs because many young New Zealanders had a poor work ethic or a drug problem.

I haven’t seen any evidence of Key saying it like that.

Q & A then showed some street interviews in Wellington and showed a variety of responses, including:

Interviewer: We hear people saying that people, especially young people, don’t have a good work ethic, too lazy to work, drug problems…

Young person 1: Oh I’d love a job.

Young person 2: Some people don’t want to hire us because we’ve got criminal convictions.

Young person 1: I’ve got no one to watch my dog, that’s why I don’t, I’ve got no job.

Then three people were interviewed.

  • Hew Dalrymple, farmer and vice chairman of Federated Farmers Maize and Forage
  • Tony Stevens, one of three co-conveners of Stand-up, the young wing of the CTU
  • Calvin Fisher from the Amalgamated Workers Union

Dalrymple:

My experience has been, especially through the squash industry and harvesting squash, the comparison between the different crews that work behind the harvesting machines is dramatically different.

And probably, I’ll be honest, the biggest problem with the, what I’d describe as perhaps the people that don’t want to come to work is the lack of attendance. So the foreign work crews will be probably fifty and up to a hundred percent more productive. They earn very good money.

And that money is equally available to anybody that’s doing this manual labour.

He says that the best earn over $1000 in the hand per week, and $800-1000 in the hand is common.

The local crews you might end up with ten behind the squash harvester one day, five the next day. We can’t  operate our businesses like that.

Mutch:

Basically what you’re saying is that Kiwi pickers just aren’t reliable, they don’t turn up and they’re not as respectful.

Dalrymple:

No, some are, so I generalised with that, of course there’s exceptions to the rule, but unfortunately the system that’s in place at the moment is putting people out in that type of work that don’t want to be there in my opinion.

That sounds like an issue that deserves examination but it was not on the Q & A agenda.

Mutch switched to Fisher…

Calvin I want to bring you in on this as well, you’ve put Kiwi workers to some of these farmers, what’s been your experience? What have many of the farmers you’ve spoken to prefer, do they prefer the foreign workers or are they happy to employ New Zealanders.

Fisher: Well it really is a mixed bag…

…and he went on the say that the nature of agricultural work had changed markedly with bigger gangs now required.

Then Mutch switched to Stevens with the issue she was determined to pursue:

Tony I’ll bring you in on this, the Government coming out this week  saying Kiwis are drugged up and too lazy to work…

No, that is what media has said, not the Government.

…what’s you’re experience, what’s your reaction to those comments?

Stevens: Hugely concerned by those comments. You’ve got to think about how we as young people and young workers are receiving that message from out highest office.

Actually it’s a message from media who appear to be misrepresenting what the Government has said.

This is our Prime Minister and Employment Minister basically describing entire generations as being hopeless and on drugs.

That overstates and generalises even more than media.

You know it’s already hard enough to try and enter the labour market as a young worker without having these you know these negative almost ingrained stereotypes so we go in to a job interview and employers already have this perception of us. It makes it very difficult.

I largely think it’s untrue, there are pockets of young workers that may be like that, but um I think that to really make blanket statements about entire generations really doesn’t give us a lot of hope in our Government.

There are plenty of valid criticisms and complaints that can be levelled at the Government.

But I have major concerns if someone representing young workers misrepresents what was actually said so much.

Fisher came in:

I want to pick up on Tony’s comments, I think the generalisation from the Minister was just disgraceful.

Back to Stevens:

Mutch: Tony at the end of the day they have to turn up for work consistently, they have to be drug free, for these examples here are they creating a bad impression for everyone else?

Stevens: Um, yeah, possibly, um but I think it’s still again an over generalisation of an entire workforce.

Stevens then went on to generalise about exploitation of immigrant workers.

Unless I’m missing something said by Woodhouse or Key or the Government it appears to me that some journalists have cherry picked and embellished comments made and have created a week long story out of it.

This has been carried on by Q & A, and interpretations claims made by Stevens in particular have been repeated and not questioned.

This is poor from the media and poor representation of young workers by Stevens if he misrepresents what has been said by Government ministers so much.

I don’t think journalists like Espiner and Mutch are lazy or drug addled, but they appear to me to be misrepresenting what politicians have said, seemingly determined to make stories that are inaccurate and unjustified.

There are important issues around work ethics, immigrant workers, exploitation of workers and unemployment. These have been poorly served by this coverage.

Q & A:

 

Labour: average worker $100k Kiwisaver cut

Andrew Little and the Labour party is claiming that the National Government “will reduce the average worker’s retirement savings by $100,000 over their working life”. They don’t seem to have thought this attack through very well and offer no solutions.

The claimed loss is due to reduced Government handouts for Kiwisaver. What the Government has been doing since Helen Clark and Michael Cullen were in power is tax workers, and then give some workers some of that back in a subsidy that the was tied up until they reached retirement age (currently 65).

New analysis shows National’s constant cuts to KiwiSaver will reduce the average worker’s retirement savings by $100,000 over their working life, Leader of the Opposition Andrew Little says

“The former Labour Government launched KiwiSaver nine years ago today to boost the country’s savings and ensure all New Zealanders have a nest egg in their retirement.

“National has gutted KiwiSaver.

They haven’t taken any money off workers or their Kiwisaver accounts.

Since coming to office it has made five separate cuts to the scheme:

• Taxed employer contributions

• Halved the maximum Member Tax Credit from $1042 to $521

• Halved the Member Tax Credit rate from $1 for every dollar saved to 50c

• Reduced employee/employer contributions from 4 per cent to 3 per cent

• Abolished the kick-start payment

So everyone in Kiwisaver is still getting handouts, they have just been reduced. In part this is because the uptake of Kiwisaver was well ahead of predictions and the cost to the Government was much greater than expected.

“Analysis by the Parliamentary Library (attached) shows a worker on the average wage joining the scheme today will have total contributions of $3500 after their first year. That would have been $6700 without these cuts.

According to that under the original terms of Kiwisaver they would have been given back $3200 in the first year. That would be tied up until their retirement.

“After their first year, the average worker misses out on $2,200 a year in contributions. That adds up to $100,000 the average worker will miss out on if they retire after 45 years’ work. That’s a big slice of their nest egg.

And it amounts to a big slice of taxpayer money when totalled up over all those getting Kiwisaver subsidies.

This press release from Little is only criticism of National, it doesn’t offer any alternative policy from Labour.

There is a post on this at The Standard – National costs you $100,000 from your retirement fund. Wayne comments:

Lets assume the calculations are correct. It is obviously true that if the taxpayer subsidy for each Kiwisaver account is reduced, the final amount saved in each account will be less.

I recall the reason why the changes were made, which was primarily because the uptake rate was much higher then anticipated by Treasury in part due to the size of the taxpayer subsidy. It also meant the cost to the govt finances was much higher then Treasury estimated, and at a time when we were in the middle of the GFC. This meant money being extracted from the economy and put into long term savings at the very time when current consumption was the need, or in other words the requirement was economic stimulus.

So Labour has now done the calculations of the impact of the changes for an account that lasts 49 years, fair enough. But it does raise the obvious question, will Labour restore all the subsidies for KiwiSaver, at a cost to govt expenditure of probably around $500 million, maybe more?

Ropata responded:

Is that what you tell yourself when cheering on the theft of billions from hard working kiwis?

FFS you RWNJs are short sighted idiots and have fucked over NZ time and time again

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10465138

Theft of billions? All workers are taxed. Those who can afford Kiwisaver deductions get handouts from the Government – they get some taxpayer’s money back.

Ropata:

It’s funny how all the Nat Party policies have a short term benefit to the wealthiest 1% and a long term cost to the long suffering NZ taxpayer.

Kiwisaver handouts benefit probably the wealthiest 50% the most. Reducing the subsidies reduces that.

National must answer for their regressive policies that have worsened inequality in New Zealand and thrown thousands into poverty. that is the “real question” IM(NS)HO

Kiwisaver subsidies have nothing to do with the poverty issue, except that money that could potentially be spent on the poorest is benefiting middle and upper income earners – and Little and Ropata are complaining that this has been reduced!

Andrew Little:

“Figures released this week show growing inequality under this Government. National’s KiwSaver cuts are making inequality worse by making it harder for middle New Zealand to save.”

Kiwisaver does nothing to address the poorest – including those who are already retired and ineligible, those not working and ineligible, and the poorest workers who can’t afford to tie some of their earnings up for decades in Kiwisaver.

This is a poorly thought through attack by Little that offers no solutions.

 

 

‘Pretty damned hopeless’ – English

 

Bill English has prompted an outrage after referring to Kiwi’s available for work as “pretty damn hopeless” at a Federated Farmers meeting.

This came up in Question Time in Parliament today.

10.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all his statements?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes, in the context in which they were made.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Does he stand by the statements made to a meeting of Federated Farmers that there is “a cohort of Kiwis who now can’t get a licence because they can’t read and write properly and don’t look to be employable—you know, basically, young males” and that a lot of Kiwis available for work are, in his words, “pretty damned hopeless”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, and I welcomed the presence of the member who strode to the front of the Federated Farmers meeting and sat there showing complete attention to everything I said, for about 20 minutes.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Does he stand by his statement that one of the reasons why immigration is “a bit more permissive” is that, in his words, Kiwis are “pretty damned hopeless”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think the member is mixing a couple of different statements there. I referred to the common—[Interruption] Well, the Government is at the sharp edge of this every day, and I referred to the common response from New Zealand employers that many of the people on our Ministry of Social Development list will not show up to the jobs they are offered and will not stay in the jobs that they are offered. If the member has not heard that from dozens of New Zealand employers, he is out of touch.

From what I’ve heard it’s common for employers to have difficulty in finding reliable committed workers.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Why, after 8 years of the National Government, has he written off a whole cohort of young men as unemployable because they cannot read or write properly, and what message does it send young New Zealand men that they need to be replaced by migrant workers because, in his words, they are “pretty damned hopeless”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government has certainly not written anybody off. In fact, we have poured hundreds of millions into raising the level of educational achievement, job training for young New Zealanders, and individual supervision for every sole parent under the age of 20. Labour left young New Zealanders in such bad shape that even with that investment we still have so much more to do. And if the member cannot handle a realistic description of the problems we are dealing with, then he is out of touch.

Labour MPs let rip on Twitter, and it seems via media – Lees-Galloway via NewsHub:

Mr Lees-Galloway, Labour’s workplace relations spokesman, says Mr English’s comments at the meeting were a “disgrace”.

“It shows the Government has given up on our young people and have no faith in their own education system.

“Bill English is the Deputy Prime Minister. It’s his job to give young Kiwis hope, not dismiss them as hopeless,” Mr Lees-Galloway says.

He believes Mr English’s aspersions against workers are an indictment of National’s record on training and education.

Kiwi workers ‘hopeless’ – English

And ‘NATWATCH’ was quick to follow up at The Standard: Kiwi workers are pretty damned hopeless – says Bill English

National are now so convinced of their invulnerability that they have taken to actively insulting us – Kiwi workers ‘hopeless’ – English

The Newshub reported is quoted, then:

Fuck you young males! You couldn’t make this stuff up.

No, you couldn’t make it up.

But a number of comments on the thread acknowledge that English has a point. There’s a significant number of young people in particular who are pretty damned hopeless when it comes to working reliably.

“Care for people rather than the economy”

There was an interesting line up on Q & A this morning, with a repeated theme of people versus corporations and the economy.

First Tim Groser was interviewed on the Government view on the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement.

Then Labour leader Andrew Little was interviewed, also about the TPPA. He said things like “our moral duty is to protect the interests of New Zealand citizens”, “we will legislate to protect New Zealanders” and “I’ve got to make judgement calls on what’s the best interests of New Zealand and New Zealanders”.

On the panel were two who were pro-TPPA – international relations specialist from Auckland Uni Dr Stephen Hoadley and Government Relations Consultant Charles Finney.

Also on the panel was Helen Kelly, President of Council of Trade Unions, who was against the TPPA, seeing it as corporations versus people/workers.

If you think the economy is just existing for corporations and they should be able to do whatever they like  without Governments actually being able to put in restrictions or make laws that are in the the interests of New Zealand people then you might say that these sorts of deals are ok.

Curiously, following this, there was an interview of someone also pushing people versus the economy lines. Greg Presland has posted about this at The Standard.

Anat Shenker-Osorio on the creation of left metaphors

Communications Anat Shenker-Osorio has some simple messages for Labour in its quest for Government.  The left’s strongest advantage is its care for people rather than the economy and the message that will resonate is a positive one emphasising the care of people and the environment.

For unions she proposed that it should be emphasised that they are not somewhat dated third parties but a collection of people.

“We have a better brand.

“Our brand is that we love people and we are on the side of people and we are on the side of the nation and we just need to stop having the argument about who loves the economy best.”

If you want a flavour of her approach to politics and her scathing critique of the current infatuation of some with “middle ground” or “third way” politics then the video below provides this. Basically her message is that the left should engage the base, persuade the middle rather than cater to them and if it is not alienating the right it is not doing things properly.

Shenker-Osorio is in New Zealand to give a talk to the CTU Conference.

So Q & A had a triple hit on people versus the economy:

  • A staunch Unionist
  • A Unionist who has become leader of the Labour Party
  • A communications expert, researcher and political pundit 

Anat Shenker-Osorio is a communications expert, researcher and political pundit whose one-of-a-kind work is challenging the way dozens of organizations and political figures talk about the most pressing issues of our time.  She’s the author of the acclaimed book“Don’t Buy It: The Trouble with Talking Nonsense About the Economy.”

http://www.asocommunications.com/html/

What Little, Kelly and Shenker-Osorio all failed to acknowledge (and possibly understand) is that a healthy economy is good for workers and for people in general. There is a very close relationship between the health of the economy and the well being of and opportunities for people.

Playing the economy versus people line might fools some of the people some of the time but most of those people may be the ideological players rather than the voters.

Incidentally I wasn’t very impressed with Shenker-Osorio but you can make up your own mind if you missed her this morning on Q & A:

Video: Expert advice for the political left (7:54) 

Anat Shenker Osorio, an expert in the science of linguistics who helps left wing or progressive organisations to help them target their political conmunication.

Shenker-Osorio

For a mass, revolutionary workers party

Dave Brown has a Red rave, at the end of which he says:

Make the bosses pay! Smash austerity! The CGT is a Speculator Tax! Dump GST! A Living wage! Jobs for All! Free education (like Germany)! Free Health! Massive state rental build! A living Universal Basic Income or Social Wage (UBI) to end precarite and reward unpaid labour! Stop benefit bashing! Dump Parker’s Pension Plan! Retirement age at 60! Abolish the GCSB and the SIS! NZ out of ANZAC, ANZUS, TPPA, NSA and the UN!

Such immediate economic and democratic demands fought for by workers will be met with outright hostility by the ruling class. This would force workers to engage in strike action and occupations, and to form workers councils and self-defence militias.

When the imperialist monopolies send in the US Marines to enforce the TPPA and stop workers taking power we will need an organised peoples’ army to send them packing and elect a Workers Government to socialise the land, banks and corporations, and implement a plan for a socialist economy.

For a mass, revolutionary workers party and program!
For a Socialist Aotearoa in a Socialist Federation of the Pacific!

Their numbers are so low they aren’t a democratic threat (although they did try to use Mana and Dotcom to get the balance of power) but it’s interesting to see that there are a few “revolutionaries” raving around the fringes.