 |
| Right On A Roll: If the 200,000 former National voters, most of them women over 45 years-of-age, who crossed over to Labour in recognition of Jacinda’s management of the Covid-19 emergency, begin to waver, then the shape of the battle-lines will change dramatically. Instead of a cake-walk to victory, this election will become a knife-fight for political survival. |
THIS IS SERIOUS now. Judith Collins is leading the National Party back into electoral contention. Against all the appearances of just a fortnight ago, Labour’s 50 percent fortress is proving to be alarmingly vulnerable. Jacinda could lose this.
If the 200,000 former National voters, most of them women over 45 years-of-age, who crossed over to Labour in recognition of Jacinda’s management of the Covid-19 emergency, begin to waver, then the shape of the battle-lines will change dramatically. Instead of a cake-walk to victory, this election will become a knife-fight for political survival.
In the light of Collins’ two pretty good Leaders’ Debate performances, it is highly likely that the wavering has already begun. What’s more, if it’s picked up by Colmar Brunton’s and Reid Research’s pollsters, then the pace and scale of that wavering will only increase. The trickle of Nats returning to the fold, will become a flood. By Election Day the two main parties could be duking it out for the prize of a percentage beginning with 4. If that is where the two major parties do end up, then the share of the Party Vote won by Act and the Greens will be critical to the election’s outcome.
In this situation, the Right has the advantage. National deserters returning to the fold will come, overwhelmingly, from Labour. What that is likely to precipitate is a stampede back to Labour by left-leaning voters who’d made a strategic decision to support the Greens. That would be the very worst thing they could do, of course, but it won’t stop them. Their panic-driven determination to rally-round Jacinda, to protect the Queen, will drown out the voice of political rationality. If this sudden surge from the Greens to Labour is too large, then it’s all over. Driven below the 5 percent MMP threshold, the Greens’ inadequate share of the Party Vote will be redistributed among the successful parties. National and Act, together, will have more than enough seats to form a government. Labour will be out.
The truly terrifying aspect of this grim scenario is that there is so very little that Labour can do to defend itself. It is important to recall that in 2017, with “Jacindamania” in full-swing, Labour could attract no more than 37 percent of the Party Vote. That was 7 percentage points shy of National’s 44 percent. The raw political arithmetic of these results is not encouraging. Even with the more progressive remnants of NZ First in its pocket, Labour’s 2020 numbers – sans National’s deserters – will struggle to add up to more than 40 percent.
It gets worse. Labour, in its pride, has ruled out a deal in Auckland Central. So, unlike National and Act, if Labour’s numbers end up being even marginally fattened by “strategic” Green voters returning to the fold, then that extra fat could kill its chances of re-election stone-dead. By contrast, Act can fall below the 5 percent threshold without denying its National Party ally the additional seats needed to govern. Perhaps it’s time for Labour to ask itself exactly how badly it wants Helen White to beat Chloe Swarbrick?
Labour’s strategists’ dreams about building an unbeatable “centrist coalition” out of the professional-managerial middle-class and the upwardly-mobile working-class: a broad electoral alliance from which the extremes of right and left could be shaken-off; were always ridiculously optimistic. The idea of a new kind of politics, accessible to “progressive New Zealanders”, but not to the backward-looking National Party, always grossly over-estimated the middle-class’s willingness to share. That those same strategists assessed the poorest and most marginalised New Zealanders as being permanently alienated from electoral politics, left Labour with no Plan-B. If all it takes to woo back National’s 200,000 deserters are a few well-rehearsed zingers from Judith Collins, then from whence can Labour possibly hope to replace them? Unfortunately, there’s no “progressive” answer to that question.
Surely, there must be something Labour can do to hold its Covid Converts in place? Yes, there is, and it can be summed-up in a single word: “Fear.” Jacinda and her colleagues need to pivot away immediately from their current message of rather complacent optimism, and towards the imminent threat of a National-Act programme of ruthless economic austerity. Scare the bejesus out of the nurses and teachers Judith Collins is forever appealing to. Make them feel the fear of cuts and lay-offs as Paul Goldsmith – egged-on by David Seymour – plays Edward Scissorhands with public health and education. Make all those 45+ women hear, in their mind’s ear, the demented cackle of Collins on election night as she discovers how many of her sisters have fallen for her “Nice Judith” routine.
Ask moderate voters to ask themselves why Collins has suddenly taken to describing herself as a Christian. Exactly to whom is this new, devout, Judith appealing? To which faction of the National Party caucus has this newly-minted Christian Collins sworn her undying loyalty? Do moderate voters really want to see their country pitched into the sort of culture wars that have brought the United States to the brink of civil war? When the voters look at Judith Collins, Labour needs to make them see Donald Trump.
Too much? Not at all. Who do you think National’s going to go after over the course of the next fortnight? Who do they need people to flee from in terror? No, not Labour! National’s target will be the Greens. The party’s message will be brutally simple: the only way to avoid paying a Wealth Tax; the only way to prevent the dairy industry from being destroyed; the only way to preserve your right to free speech; is to Party Vote National. Jacinda couldn’t say no to Winston Peters, the Covid Converts will be told, so can you really see her saying no to Marama Davidson and Golriz Ghahraman?
See how easy it is! Scare the Covid Converts back to National. That will scare the strategic Green voters back to Jacinda. That takes the Greens below the 5 percent MMP threshold. And that’s ‘Game Over’.
So, you know what? Labour’s only real chance of securing re-election is to scare them the hell back.
This essay was originally posted on The Daily Blog of Friday, 2 October 2020.
24 comments:
You've mentioned "progressive" NZ First members (do such things exist?) migrating to Labour. But no mention of the "less-progressive members moving to either Act or National (more likely) and how that would affect the numbers.
Contrary to popular belief, New Zealand First voters are more Red than Blue these days - the collapse in Winston's vote since 2017 has gone to Jacinda.
(New Zealand First voters are disproportionately poor, provincial, and non-white. They're everything ACT - a party of rich urban whites - is not. ACT's revival is from the Nats, who are compensating with returning Jacinda-lovers).
I had to smile. Jacinda has been playing the fear card for the last 6 Covid Months.
Do you really think voters will take her seriously if she trys to crank up more fear based on your hypothesis of what National might do.
I think most thinking NZs will see thru both parties fear of the unknown.
Unfortunately Labour over promised and under delivered for their 3 years.
So promises will mean bugger all for both parties.
I guess it will fall back on who(Jacinda or Judith) will lead us out of the valley of death(Covid) and bring some sort of normality back to NZ.
Among the group of voters I know that are voting left instead of right this month, not one of them has been moved by Collin's leadership in the last two weeks. They do not like her, and the two debates have reinforced that. But two weeks is a long time in politics. She is Christian now, and does believe in miracles.
The most politically stupid thing Ms Ardern has done in recent weeks, is to promise the Christchurch Imam that Labour will implement his desired blasphemy laws right here in New Zealand. To shield Islam from any criticism.
The embrace of Islam, like Christianity, like any ideology is a personal choice, not a condition of birth. Ideas should always be open to critique, even mocking and derision. But no, in an emotional outburst the PM has chosen to rob all New Zealanders of their right to free speech.
In a sane world this one act of hubris should cost her the election. Maybe it will.
Scare tactics designed to get Labour back in. Well done Chris nice move
Good news then.
As far fetched as this might have seemed a few weeks ago, you do make a very good point, Chris. What with that, and the complacency of many who seem to believe that Labour will romp in is dangerous and we could end up with a National-ACT coalition. The stuff of nightmares.
I'm off to vote. Two ticks Labour.
The bigger issue is that the loonies, Advance NZ, seem to have infiltrated many low socio-economic areas that would likely do better from a Labour government; they will be stealing valuable votes from Labour
No chance
Yes, I am poor and provincial, but most of my ancestors are honkies who arrived in these islands in the 19th century.
As an avowed "progressive" longtime NZF voter My party vote is going to The Greens, not Labour.
If I lived in central Auckland I would vote for What's-her-name, the Greeny.
Sad to see Winnie go.
Aotearoa has a great way of life (as Austin Mitchell noted)
https://twitter.com/NZClarke/status/1312664487753740288
Brendon MacNeill wrote:
"The most politically stupid thing Ms Ardern has done in recent weeks, is to promise the Christchurch Imam that Labour will implement his desired blasphemy laws..."
Whether or not promoting this kind of censorship is politically stupid, it is certainly misguided. But it fits with Ms Ardern's general approach, typified by "the Christchurch call", which is to censor and suppress those ideas which she thinks may de-stabilize society or the political system.
"Ideas should always be open to critique, even mocking and derision."
Critique, yes, mocking and derision, no. If we are to have freedom of expression, we need to use that freedom responsibly, or we will lose it. Even if we have no laws against blasphemy we should not lose sight of the fact that blasphemy against the spirit of God is the one unforgivable sin. “I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven."
Labour is not short on policies which infringe upon legitimate freedoms of thought, speech, and action. The latest, which I consider to be no less stupid than the restrictions on freedom of expression, is the proposal to ban "gay conversion therapy". Presumably the proposed law will not extend to prohibiting a paedophile homosexual from employing a therapy to alter his sexual orientation and behaviour, though it is hard to see how such exemptions can sit with the fundamental principle of the law. On the surface, it will proscribe the use of therapy to alter one's sexual orientation or behaviour. That of course is an infringement upon the freedom to choose one's own sexual identity, and in that sense is at odds with the homosexual movement's general insistence on the right to choose and if need be alter one's sexual orientation, characteristics and behaviour.
So the real intention of the law is to advance homosexuality and to protect it from forces that could encourage reversion to heterosexuality.
None of this should come as a surprise. It follows on as part of a natural progression in which same sex marriage marked the tipping point between tolerance, endorsement and encouragement of homosexuality.
Labour and the left would probably get away with this sort of nonsense if they were doing something meaningful about global issues such as climate change, peace and justice, economic deprivation and inequality, homelessness, environmental degradation and so on. But they are doing none of these things. They consistently advance the cause of homosexuality and leave the rest to chance.
Having said that, I will be both surprised and disappointed if it is not the Labour Party which forms a new government at the end of this month. The disappointment will be that while Labour says that it needs another term to carry through its promises to the electorate, I believe that it needs another term to prove to the electorate finally and for all time that it cannot be trusted to serve the real interests of our people.
Personally I thought the nats would win back in 2017 When Winston betrayed his voters by putting the Greens into government. If Bill English hadn't been such a sook taking his bat ball home cos he couldn't be arsed going into opposition, they would be a shoe in.
If Labour is pandering to political Islam, following the example of her old boss Tony Blair. Jacinda will wreck Labour as Blair wrecked the British Labour Party.
Jesus wept, now giving people equal rights and forbidding the religious torture – for that's what it is – of gay people is encouraging and advancing homosexuality? Yes of course, homosexuals of whom I know a few – want nothing more than to encourage people into their "lifestyle". They spend a huge part of their lives recruiting people into homosexuality. That's all part of their "agenda".
Funny that lifestyle thing, because when I ask homophobes to describe it they can't seem to do it without resorting to Without reference gay sex, which apparently is yuck. In actual fact, the "lifestyles" of gay people that I know resemble mine remarkably, except the ones that don't have kids tend to have a little more money. They pay their mortgages, they do their shopping, they go to work, they come home and watch television, and one or two of them go to parent teacher evenings.
For someone who purports to support freedom of expression Geoff Fisher you have a remarkably rigid idea of what it entails. A few minor right wing neo-Nazis deplatformed and you're up in arms, a recognised philosopher deplatformed and there is absolute silence, equality for gay people and for some odd reason its "endorsement" whatever you mean by that.
God help us all, it would seem to be true that "When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression".
Guerilla Surgeon
I am saying that if a homosexual paedophile wishes to have therapy to alter his predilictions, he should be allowed to attempt that. Whether it will be successful for him is another matter.
You would prevent him from doing choosing therapy. I don't know what your agenda is. Perhaps you would rather see him rot in jail for twenty years. Or perhaps you, like others in the "Rainbow Community" see the next step as being legalisation of "consensual" sex between men and young boys.
Either way, this speaks to the moral depravity of the left.
I have a great deal of compassion for paedophiles, homosexual or otherwise, but I also have compassion for their victims, and if any kind of freely chosen therapy can convert these people to more normal sexual behaviour, the I would not prohibit it.
There is a clear line between endorsement and tolerance of homosexuality. When homosexuality brings legal privileges, then it is state endorsement. For example you can bring your homosexual lover into this country as a permanent resident and citizen, but I can not bring in a co-religionist with whom I have had a long and deep spiritual relationship over many decades. The key distinction, as far as the New Zealand state is concerned, is whether or not you engage in homosexual acts together.
So yes, the New Zealand state absolutely endorses and privileges homosexuality. That does not unduly concern me, but it is a reality which can not be honestly denied.
I have not taken up arms over "neo-Nazis deplatformed". That is a false and mischievous allegation. Unlike those on the left I have been entirely consistent in allowing the right of free expression to all.
So, sadly, just more pseudonymous smears from the left in response to frank criticisms.
Guerilla Surgeon:
Under the Crimes Act torture is already illegal in New Zealand. There is no need for a new law to ban it.
You want to prohibit people from choosing to undertake a form of psychological therapy which would change their sexual behaviour. Specifically, you want to prevent them from altering their inclination towards homosexuality. You have to justify that infringement upon human freedom with something of more substance than you have offered here.
The New Zealand state does endorse and privilege homosexuality. For example, a homosexual has the right to bring a sexual partner who is not a New Zealand citizen into this country as a permanent resident. He does not have the same right to bring in a mere friend with whom he has no sexual relationship. So homosexuality is privileged by the New Zealand state, along with other social and personal attributes such as wealth, qualifications, and skills. If the state privileges homosexuality, it is entirely reasonable to assert that it endorses homosexuality. I don't see why anyone would try to deny that is the case.
"A few minor right wing neo-Nazis deplatformed and you're up in arms, a recognised philosopher deplatformed and there is absolute silence.."
What is this "absolute silence"? Are you complaining that you have not heard me express my views on freedom of expression? If so, whose fault is that if not your own? This is silly stuff.
You have signally failed to make a rational case for banning "gay conversion therapy" except to suggest that you yourself dislike the idea of it. In that case you can choose not to undergo gay conversion therapy, but there may well be others, including homosexual paedophiles, who for reasons of their own, may choose it. That should continue to be their right.
"I am saying that if a homosexual paedophile wishes to have therapy to alter his predilictions, he should be allowed to attempt that. "
You are conflating homosexuality with paedophilia. That is as you say both false and mischievous, not to say slanderous. The two are completely different. There is already proper psychological treatment for paedophiles. Amateur religious "conversion therapy" is not necessary – and has been shown not to work.
Where consenting adults put their wedding tackle is none of anybody else's business.
"The key distinction, as far as the New Zealand state is concerned, is whether or not you engage in homosexual acts together."
No. I imagine that heterosexuals who have a sexual and loving relationship can also bring a partner into the country. I imagine that homosexuals cannot bring someone into the country with whom they do not have a loving and sexual relationship – just like heterosexuals. That's equality not privilege. Also comparing apples and oranges. I doubt if anyone in the country is allowed to bring in someone with whom they have a "deep spiritual" relationship no matter who they are.
"but I also have compassion for their victims"
If two people who are consenting adults enter into a loving, sexual relationship, one of them is not a victim. Again, you are conflating paedophilia with homosexuality which is not only wrong but egregiously wrong and wilfully ignorant.
"What is this "absolute silence"? Are you complaining that you have not heard me express my views on freedom of expression? If so, whose fault is that if not your own? "
I was speaking generally, I probably should have said "you people". You made a huge fuss when the neo-Nazis were deplatformed, but when Peter Singer was deplatformed not a word from any of you. All very well to say you support freedom of speech for everyone, but if you protest in favour of neo-Nazis but not in favour of a recognised philosopher what else can I say. Not silly at all.
"Specifically, you want to prevent them from altering their inclination towards homosexuality. "
I would say that the number of people who freely volunteer for this sort of treatment is almost infinitesimally small. Most of them do it under extreme pressure from parents, relations, and church. The evidence is that you cannot in fact change someone's sexual orientation. Not to mention as I said it Christian conversion therapy doesn't work, you really must do some research on this.
Start here:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/how-christians-turned-against-gay-conversion-therapy/390570/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC344257/
Guerilla Surgeon wrote;
"I imagine that heterosexuals who have a sexual and loving relationship can also bring a partner into the country. I imagine that homosexuals cannot bring someone into the country with whom they do not have a loving and sexual relationship – just like heterosexuals. That's equality not privilege."
No, that is privileging sexual relationships over asexual relationships. As you yourself acknowledge asexual relationships do not enjoy the same privilege. There is an entire ideology built on the notion of equality for gays, women, blacks and so on. Yet it is increasingly evident to most of us, including the vast majority of gays, women and blacks who are honest about it, that the farther this doctrine of equality progresses, the more unequal society becomes. The whole project of identity politics conceals a lie of monstrous proportions.
It will seem strange to some that a condition for enjoying the privilege of bringing a partner into the country should be that the partners engage in some definitive form of homosexual union, and it must be hugely problematic for the state agencies charged with administering the system. In the case of heterosexual marriage, the test was simple. Is there sexual intercourse between the partners? A kiss and a hug, erotic touching and stroking do not satisfy the criterion. The conception of a child was all the evidence required that a marriage was genuine and not subject to annulment. But in the case of homosexuals it is necessary to decide what kind of sexual activity qualifies as "equivalent" to sexual intercourse between a man and a woman, and what evidence of it having taken place should be accepted. This is the point at which the whole false concept of "marriage equality" unravels. The two kinds of relationship are fundamentally different. They cannot be equated. So you end up having to privilege homosexual acts over heterosexual acts of a similar kind (for example some kind of erotic arousal through stroking may be considered adequate in the case of homosexuals, but not in the case of a heterosexual couple). The bar arguably becomes lower for homosexuals. But even if it didn't, homosexual relationships are privileged over asexual relationships. So they are still privileged relationships.
It is nonsense to say that homosexuality and paedophilia are "completely different". Think of Oscar Wilde. Think of Dilworth School. Not all homosexuals are paedophiles, but homosexual paedophilia is one variant of homosexuality. So you, Guerilla Surgeon, allow the homosexual paedophile the right to obtain " proper psychological treatment". But you will not allow a homosexual who is not a paedophile the right to alter his orientation and behaviour. You want to ban him from taking that step. Why the double standard? Because one is currently illegal and the other is not? That is a weak argument when it comes to withholding a basic human right.
You wrote: "I was speaking generally, I probably should have said "you people". You made a huge fuss when the neo-Nazis were deplatformed, but when Peter Singer was deplatformed not a word from any of you. All very well to say you support freedom of speech for everyone, but if you protest in favour of neo-Nazis but not in favour of a recognised philosopher what else can I say. Not silly at all."
So you now claim that your comment was not directed at me personally, rather at a vaguely defined group with whom you have chosen to associate me. Unfortunately, the English language allows you to employ such ambiguity. I am not sure if that makes your remarks more or less despicable. Certainly, if you now elect not to say precisely who you are talking about, it becomes almost impossible to rebut the claim. It is just a smear. It means nothing except that you do not have sufficient arguments of merit to advance your case.
The wine industry could lobby for a ban on Alcoholics Anonymous, as an organisation of amateurs who attempt to change the natural prediliction of drinkers for a perfectly legal and pleasant tipple, and point out that more often than not not the alcoholic is driven to the AA by pressure from family, employers and church leaders.
The wine industry won't do that however, because it knows that the attempt would seriously backfire on them.
Does the Rainbow Movement have the same sense of when it might be going just a step too far for the general public? I suspect not. It has progressed by degrees from toleration, through legalisation, to "equality" (civil unions) and endorsement (the redefinition of marriage). Why stop there? Indeed, can it stop there, or is there some inexorable pressure to take the movement to the edge of and over a precipice? The recent history of the Hero Parade suggests that may be the case. Interfering with the freedom of others, and even with the freedoms of members of their own community, may be bringing us close to the point of a backlash. While the balance of political forces in New Zealand is such that this latest demand will most probably be sanctioned by the state, it will also provoke a sense of unease in certain parts of the electorate and the conviction that Tamati Coffey, Grant Robertson and other members of the gay caucus in the House of Representatives are pushing their luck.
Jesus Christ Geoff, the 19th-century cold – they want their ideas back. Your attitude towards gay people is as you say "despicable". No more, no less. Paedophilia has no relation to homosexuality as I said you are ignorant about this. Perhaps wilfully so. You have no right to talk about smears when you smear gay people with the paedophile label. This attitude is frankly disgusting, you have lost all credibility with me, and I shall not be replying to any of your comments in future. You will no doubt be glad to be relieved of the burden of actually having to read some science.
"Dr. Carole Jenny and her colleagues reviewed 352 medical charts, representing all of the sexually abused children seen in the emergency room or child abuse clinic of a Denver children's hospital during a one-year period (from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992). The molester was a gay or lesbian adult in fewer than 1% of cases in which an adult molester could be identified – only 2 of the 269 cases (Jenny et al., 1994)."
As far as the freedom of speech issue goes, it was hyped up by a bunch of extreme right wing people working on behalf of what I consider to be neo-Nazis, supported by a number of "useful idiots". I'm not sure which you were. On reflection, I'm quite happy to direct that comment you are complaining about to you personally. There was absolutely no mention in these columns or anywhere else I could see but particularly in these columns as you post here, about deplatforming of a philosopher whose ideas are repugnant to some. Quite probably you considering your rather dated attitudes towards people who don't behave the way you want them to. Where were you Geoff? AWOL?
"Guerilla Surgeon" may not like it, but the term "homosexual pedophile" has been widely used in the scientific community. For example: "Freund K, Watson RJ. The proportions of heterosexual and homosexual pedophiles among sex offenders against children: an exploratory study. J Sex Marital Ther. 1992 Spring;18(1):34-43. doi: 10.1080/00926239208404356. PMID: 1556756.
The abstract goes on to state "the ratio of heterosexual to homosexual pedophiles was calculated to be approximately 11:1".
As you may notice this study was actually from the twentieth century, not the nineteenth. No doubt "Guerilla Surgeon" would find the authors "despicable", "ignorant" and "disgusting" but none of that invective can change the facts.
Now I presume that "Guerilla Surgeon" and those of his ilk have redefined the word "homosexual" so as to make" homosexual pedophilia" an impossibility. I can live with re-definitions, but they do not alter facts, one of which is that there are men who engage in sexual activity with boys. So my question to "Guerilla Surgeon" was whether he would allow such men to receive therapy aimed at changing their sexual predilictions. Because if he and those of similar mind in the New Zealand government want to ban such therapy I don't see what moral objections would stop them from going on to legalize pedophilia.
After making a gratuitously derogatory comment which appeared to be directed at me, Guerilla Surgeon then shifted his ground, saying he was "speaking generally" but then does a second volte face and, surprise, surprise, acknowledges that the defamatory comments were indeed directed at me personally. But, crucially he advises me "I shall not be replying to any of your comments in future" which means that he gets out of having to come up with any facts to substantiate his ridiculous and quite nasty allegations.
If Guerilla Surgeon was in any way representative of the left, its prospects would be dismal indeed.
I see that as people had been predicting Tamati Coffey lost Waiariki to Rawiri Waititi against the overall trend towards Labour. I would say that a factor in his constituency defeat (he will still have a list seat in Parliament) was that the electors wanted a representative whose first concern was with Maori rather than with LGBTQ politics, and Tamati failed to communicate that message.
LGBTQ representatives remain very well placed after the election with at least 10% of seats in the House spread across most of the large parties, which is more than they might have expected on a strictly proportional basis. As we all know MMP does not deliver social proportionality. But the Waiariki result is a tacit warning to politicians that even when they are able to negotiate their way through the system with great success, they should be wary of allowing their interests to become too far removed from those of the ordinary voter.
Geoff.
1.Guess who is shifting the goalposts? You did not point out that only a tiny proportion of paedophiles were homosexuals. You conflated the two terms. Now you admit that it is only a small proportion and you ignore the fact that by far the majority are heterosexual, and don't seem to mind that.
2. You assume that I would find a scientific conclusion "despicable, ignorant and disgusting." If it's a fairly done scientific piece of research I certainly wouldn't. Don't put words into my mouth please.
3. My original statement was meant generally I then said that I would be happy to have it apply to you, after your replies which seem to confirm the fact that you are a homophobe. If the shoe fits....
Post a Comment