tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post4083782956703911378..comments2024-03-29T17:12:19.648+13:00Comments on Bowalley Road: Is Labour Finished?Chris Trotterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09081613281183460899noreply@blogger.comBlogger68125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-50856301970647157292015-06-25T19:11:56.977+12:002015-06-25T19:11:56.977+12:00Projection of trends – graphically – is a very uns...Projection of trends – graphically – is a very unsound mathematical practice.Guerilla Surgeonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03427876447124021423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-51007629384535605582015-06-25T15:34:26.389+12:002015-06-25T15:34:26.389+12:00Someone posted a graph a few months ago showing La...Someone posted a graph a few months ago showing Labour's support going back over the decades. While support for Labour has waxed and waned it has followed a long term downward trajectory which if maintained will see Labour leave mainstream politics some time in the 2030s. As things are going now there is no reason to think Labour won't continue to follow a trend it has obeyed for a lifetime.<br /><br />New Zealand society has fundamentally changed, especially over the last five years, and become more childish and unintellectual and as sociological surveys have shown, lacking a sense of community affiliation to an extent not found in almost any other society. The National party remains a party of guilds, but many fundamental social changes make Labour, down to its name, no longer connect with substantial segments of mainstream society.<br /><br />There is much talk about Labour and "reform". Procedural reforms could help Labour, such as having the caucus select the leader, but the basic problem is almost unreformable: the membership. Being a member of the Labour party was once a normal thing in the mass membership days. Now it is a fringe thing and the average New Zealander would take someone to be a crank if they spoke of their joining. When becoming a member of a political party becomes an abnormal act, it is not surprising its small membership is very different from the people it wishes to represent and govern.<br /><br />While there are good people in the Labour party, I have found too many Labour members, more so the younger ones, to too often be fanatical, arrogant, ignorant of economics, spiteful and even hateful people. The quality of Labour councillors and MPs has deteriorated and seeing a Labour spokesman on TV literally smirking every time they criticise the government does nothing to engender support. "Reform" can't make bad people become good, and the incompetent become competent. We can only hope Labour is replaced by something better sooner than later, and its more troublesome members don't jump ship to debase that party too.<br /><br />The intense reaction to "Progress" was a case of "protesting too much" out of fear of Labour being displaced by new centre-left politics. Splits don't always work out, we know the New Labour party as an example, but how will the party react if it only gets 22% in 2017? 19% in 2020?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-27023526963357569732015-06-21T17:56:54.969+12:002015-06-21T17:56:54.969+12:00Ah, the famous reality. As in TINA. The only "...Ah, the famous reality. As in TINA. The only "reality" is the laws of physics. Other stuff, particularly with regard to society, we can change if we have the will. The appeal to "reality" should be a logical fallacy equivalent to the argument from antiquity :-). Because to some extent as you right wingers always tell us when you're trying to give us hope for a future, reality is what we make it.Guerilla Surgeonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03427876447124021423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-83528379234238472272015-06-19T18:06:51.930+12:002015-06-19T18:06:51.930+12:00Guerilla Surgeon:
On some it has been imposed on ...Guerilla Surgeon:<br /><br />On some it has been imposed on others it has been choice. Regardless, it is reality and it's not going to reverse itself any day now. The point of Chris's article was that Labour policy makers have to wake up and face this reality and address the needs of these people, rather than a tiny minority who are still in unions (mostly teachers these days)<br /><br />Davo: I remember it well. If you call 60K "top earning" well, poor you. 60K, even at that time was barely middle class. And when you cite income rather than salary you're including beneficiaries, pensioners and part timers. Even then the average salary was about 45K, the point is these people on 60K+ were not 'the rich' by any means. If I recall Helen owned four properties at that time. Nice little earners no doubt, especially if she could slip them in under the LAQC rules...<br /><br />Andrew<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-81337550998230906842015-06-19T10:51:25.945+12:002015-06-19T10:51:25.945+12:00The most prevalent political theme from industrial...The most prevalent political theme from industrialisation until now, would have to be the virtue of individualism and free enterprise. The building of the NZ Liberal Party, and later the NZ Labour Party was in response to the inequality and hardship that developed from maintaining laizze fairre principles in earlier eras. <br /><br />The following points were written in 1896 as demonstrating what united the Liberal movement at the time. <br /><br /><i><br />I. That taxation shall be just in its incidence, and fairly placed on the shoulders of those best able to bear it.<br /><br />II. That the land laws of the country shall assist and encourage the occupation of the lands of New Zealand by an independent body of settlers, free from the curse of private landlordism.<br /><br />III. That justice shall be done to the workers of the colony by labour legislation which shall minimise, and, if possible, abolish the evils of individualism and unfair competition.<br /><br />IV. That in the interests of the producers of this country, the rate of interest shall be lowered to a fair amount. </i><br /><br />The movement based on Gladstone’s principles of empowering individuals was committed to using the state to protect the empowerment of all against the predatory self-interest of the few. <br /><br />After the beloved Balance and Seddon Governments, the first decades of the 1900's saw the return of the righteousness of a market determinism. The unwillingness of later generations of Liberals to accept that free enterprise was flawed eroded support for the party and recreated the economic conditions the party had been united in opposition to. <br />The rise of the Labour party was again, as a response to the reappearance of housing unaffordability, joblessness, predatory finance and employment practices, poverty and extremes of wealth that marked ‘free-market’ eras. <br /><br />There has always been a niche for a party that has espoused individualism and free enterprise, just as the adherence to this ideology produces a need for something else. <br />Those engaged in successful business or will always have a tendency to success to their own efforts while dismissing those in poverty for being deservedly so. Neither a Global Financial Crisis, Housing unaffordability, disgraceful levels of child poverty, nor the mass exodus of hundreds of thousands of kiwis in search of work has broken the resolve of Labour to cling to the free-market promises that have performed so dismally.Lozhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12064567381918975446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-28352763587494330972015-06-18T23:44:06.118+12:002015-06-18T23:44:06.118+12:00@ Anon 13.35
Selective memory there. When Helen g...@ Anon 13.35<br /><br />Selective memory there. When Helen got in they increased the tax on those earning in excess of $65,000/yr. Bearing in mind that the average income at that time was $30,000/yr and anyone on $50,000 or more were the top earners. Incidentally, Helen's Govt. was not genuine Labour but was Gnatlite.<br /><br />How many of our current crop in Parliament are Baron Landlords? Property Developers? Go and find out. <br /><br />You also studiously ignore the people who do the cleaning, the burger-flipping, who toil away in the shops putting up with ignorant pricks all day on the minimum wage. What about the workers on wages who toil away for all those "Tradies" you quote? What happens to them all when the housing market collapses in Auckland? It has to as it is unsustainable as it is now. They are the people who need a Union to protect them. Davo Stevensnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-58044902137615333302015-06-18T18:07:59.941+12:002015-06-18T18:07:59.941+12:00The paradigm is not necessarily modern, but has be...The paradigm is not necessarily modern, but has been imposed. I guarantee some of these people quite like working in the way you suggest. But I also guarantee there are many who would like a little bit more security of income. I notice most of those you mention are actually skilled tradespeople as well. They have a damn sight easier than the less skilled, and have traditionally been – plumbers chippies sparkies et cetera small business owners. At least my plumber certainly has been and he looks about 103. So maybe some of their parents were union members but many of them not so much. But much of this is the result of government policy of privatising everything, so that they can take up and lay off people whenever they feel like it, and don't have to give them the benefits traditionally given to government workers.Guerilla Surgeonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03427876447124021423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-7686983209255474392015-06-18T13:35:57.033+12:002015-06-18T13:35:57.033+12:00Gerrit: It was actually the current National gover...Gerrit: It was actually the current National government that closed the tax loophole for landlords under the old LAQC scheme. The result was that 'the rich' were paying a larger share of the tax burden than they had under the previous Labour government. ( I suppose Clark and Cullen both being property Barons and landlords in their own right was pure coincidence...) Similarly it was the Clark government that spitefully increased tax rates as soon as they got into power. And exactly who did that impact? Not the wealthy - because they just rearranged their affairs to avoid paying it. It was the middle class salary earner who was hit. So in the eyes of the middle class, National is the party of fairness and Labour is the party of government largess and hypocrisy.<br /><br />Guerilla Surgeon: I've been a professional engineer for 40 years and I'm still waiting for that downturn, so that I eventually have time to build my boat! The thing that you and many on the Left have failed to notice is that today 'The Workers' are also 'The Businessmen'. Your paradigm is 100 years out of date. Look around New Zealand's roads during working hours. It is crammed full of small business owners: Plumbers, Chippies, Sparkies, Tilers, Roofers, Gib stoppers, Drain layers, Garden maintenance people, and a hundred other trades I couldn't even name. Most are sole props or owners of limited companies and have business cards calling themselves directors. Their fathers were union members but this generation are aspiring entrepreneurs. Moving onward and upward. They are also National Party voters.<br /><br />Andrew<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-69251432398056401972015-06-18T12:38:57.422+12:002015-06-18T12:38:57.422+12:00You're right about Charlie Chaplin GS. He did ...You're right about Charlie Chaplin GS. He did live in a Workhouse at one point in his life according to his biography.<br /><br />Gerrit: That's fine for you but as GS says, that is where you are at. We all tend to look at life from the position we are in. <br /><br />When some-one is negotiating a job they are not going to go for good wages and conditions when there is 100 others lining up for the job. They will take whatever is offered. That is where they need a Union to support them. Most employers at that level do not negotiate in good faith.<br /><br />Davo Stevensnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-74100310100329600982015-06-18T07:40:44.913+12:002015-06-18T07:40:44.913+12:00Gerrit. People in your position are fortunate. But...Gerrit. People in your position are fortunate. But if there is a sudden downturn in the need for engineers, you are in the shit. Many people today pretty much work at whim. They don't have your qualifications – and for Christ sake don't say "they should get them" – partly because the law of supply and demand says that if they did you may well be out of a job. Or at least on very low wages. You've obviously never worked at the lower end of the labour market, for a small firmware joining a union is the kiss of death. Large firms don't mind quite so much because they'd rather not negotiate with thousands of people. But even so, the unions have been weakened by legislation so it's more difficult for them to negotiate. Particularly these days when the bosses can refuse to negotiate in good faith. So compulsory unionism necessary to cover those people in particular, who want to join but are intimidated into not doing so.<br />Davo. The Tudors and Stuarts hated and feared the poor much as the one percent do today. And they realised that private charity was not enough to control them. It was all about control. There was a rabid fear of rebellion.<br />Even if the churches are the main support of the poor in the US today, which I'm a bit sceptical about, it's partly because they have tax-free charitable status. Which of course means that everyone except the rich you don't seem to pay taxes there, supports them. But I think you'll find that most of the money donated to churches goes to building buildings and other prestige projects rather than to the poor.<br />Incidentally, I have a vague memory that Charlie Chaplin was once in a workhouse. They weren't abolished until the late 1920s I do believe.Guerilla Surgeonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03427876447124021423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-58490268688334230492015-06-18T06:07:57.940+12:002015-06-18T06:07:57.940+12:00Anon @ 18.10.
Since when has taxation been compre...Anon @ 18.10.<br /><br />Since when has taxation been comprehensive (one could even say it is not compulsory)? it all falls on the workers shoulder. Add compulsory union fees as an extra burden?<br /><br />Do corporate pay their fair share? No. Do religious owned business pay their fair share? No. Do trust owned business pay their fair share? No. The list goes on, including Maori IWI owned businesses, not paying their full wack.<br /><br />Labour wants to add CGT as another burden on the worker. Jeez, can Labour become just a tiny bit more relevant to the worker (and I included SME owners in this category) to at least try and survive?<br /><br />Can we please have some policies from Labour that actually helps the worker? We have Len Brown as the Labour representative in Auckland and if he is a model (and god forbid Goff carries on where Brown will leave off) of how Labour will govern in the future, Labour will never get to 30% of the vote.<br /><br />Tolling of roads to pay for new infrastructure? Who does that hurt the most? The bleeding (literally) worker. Why don't Labour come out with policies to close tax loopholes for corporate and trust owned business to pay for the new infrastructure? Labour is light blue in colour not red. <br /><br />So Labour, create policies that helps the worker and stop bringing out policies that hits the worker at every and all opportunities. For that is the direction to head towards where survival as a political party lies. Not compulsory unionism. Compulsory unionism is a dead dog. Wont win any votes at all, simply outsources to a third party all the policies that Labour, as the workers representative, should be enacting anyway. Gerritnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-87401458895773671022015-06-17T21:55:58.328+12:002015-06-17T21:55:58.328+12:00Yes GS the Tudor and Stuart Kings did bring in the...Yes GS the Tudor and Stuart Kings did bring in the Poor Laws. Partly because if the poor revolted they tended to lose their heads and I am reliably informed that it is a serious health hazard!<br /><br />Even in the US the churches are the main supporters of the poor and not surprisingly they in turn are supported by the Middle Class not the rich. <br /><br />Even in Victorian times they had "Workhouses" for the poor (read Slave labour). Brendan, go and read Charles Dickens, his stories were of contemporary life in the mid 1800's.<br /><br />Davo Stevensnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-28636907431098971352015-06-17T18:10:09.148+12:002015-06-17T18:10:09.148+12:00If unions are marvelous for the workers, why do th...<i>If unions are marvelous for the workers, why do they need compulsion to join?</i><br /><br />For the same reason taxes are compulsory. The free-rider problem.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-154503629803114512015-06-17T17:43:18.453+12:002015-06-17T17:43:18.453+12:00Davo Stevens,
You are still talking like an old u...<br />Davo Stevens,<br /><br />You are still talking like an old unionist. The question remains, if unions are so good, why don't people join?<br /><br />Making it compulsory is not going to make unions any better for their members. What difference will compulsion make to the union organisers? Nothing I propose. All it means is we go back to a monopoly situation in regards who can represent the workers with organisers not having to work very hard.<br /><br />Having once been a shop steward in the old engineers union, i can tell you sorry tales of lack lustre union organisers hiding their incompetence behind compulsion for workers to join the union. <br /><br />For the last 20 years (? - since compulsion was done away with) most individuals have been negotiating successfully their own contracts.<br /><br />I don't have a boss, self employed engineer. Have the best of both world, when the fish are biting I go fishing, when I have orders to get out the door I work all the hours I need to at a single stretch to keep the customer satisfied. <br /><br />You have my backing as far as the scourge of corporate welfare is concerned. That is a policy that Labour should be addressing. <br /><br />For the yoke of burden on the workers and self employed is corporate feudalism. The sooner that is abolished and replaced with entrepreneurial capitalism, the better. Even throw socialism in the governance of that.<br /><br />That is the direction Labour should be creating policies, not the backwards step of compulsory unionism.<br /><br />But I don't think the calibre of politician in Labour (or National, Greens and NZ First for that matter) can overthrow the corporate feudalism we suffer from today.<br /><br />And I include in the corporate feudalism, all local and state owned organisations that operate outside of the control of the voters. case in point the Port of Auckland giving the most useless Auckland City Council the middle finger.<br /><br />Thar sort of crap should be addressed by Labour policies. <br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /> Gerritnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-77262127726449298462015-06-17T14:26:03.009+12:002015-06-17T14:26:03.009+12:00Brendan I agree with much of what you said. Weird ...Brendan I agree with much of what you said. Weird though that may sound. Today's politicians aren't the best. But you can't get away from politicians. Life is just politics by another name. Just the scale is different. On the other hand, politicians have in the past delivered a more just and fair society. The Labour Party of the 1930s for instance. And family neighbours and community, has been shown not to work. Why do you think the Tudor and Stuart kings introduced the Poor Laws? They realised that private charity simply isn't enough. Essentially, even in those days of conspicuous consumption, rich people were too mean.Guerilla Surgeonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03427876447124021423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-55379401980993632482015-06-17T14:17:41.295+12:002015-06-17T14:17:41.295+12:00@ Gerrit; Workers have been conditioned to believe...@ Gerrit; Workers have been conditioned to believe the "Free Market" bullshit today. So, for Unions to work they will need to be compulsory. <br /><br />Since the mid 1980's when Unions were destroyed, why is it that wages have not increased? Why is it that people must work 80 hours a week to make their Landlord's rich? Why is it that the CEO's on average get 370 times the lowest pay in a company? <br /><br />The Unions made sure that at least a part of the profits generated by the workers went to the workers and not into some overseas bank account. Those workers spent their money on the local economy so the shops took on more workers who in turn spent their money locally and so the economy grew. If the "Free Market" is so bloody good why is our economy flatter then the Canterbury Plains?<br /><br />If you don't want to join a Union that's you're choice but you MUST NEGOTIATE YOUR OWN FACILITIES, not take advantage of all the things that Unions have negotiated for in the past. Those little things you take for granted like; tea breaks, lunch breaks and a lunch room to enjoy it in, toilets and washrooms and so on. No, Unions are still important if not more so today.<br /><br />For some-one who was in business for most of my adult life and employing many people, I made sure that the workers I employed were paid sufficiently to meet all their living needs and have some surplus. Hells Bells! I was successful and never went broke and neither will your boss. Why should my tax money go in corporate welfare paid via workers allowances and accommodation costs? Davo Stevensnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-45315770813948543482015-06-17T07:03:03.398+12:002015-06-17T07:03:03.398+12:00"One of the few decent politicians remaining ..."One of the few decent politicians remaining in the Labour party, he reminds me of those old drinkers you see haunting a new bar because they used to go to the pub that was there before."<br /><br />Brilliant line from Frankie Boyle in the Guardian. An excellent left-wing comedian. Although I don't think there are any right wing comedians. (Someone did an article about that, I must look it up.)Guerilla Surgeonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03427876447124021423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-53521129509877453922015-06-16T18:58:57.017+12:002015-06-16T18:58:57.017+12:00The lesson of history is that if we look to Politi...The lesson of history is that if we look to Politicians to create a fair and just society we will always be disappointed. They have feet of clay just like the rest of us. Are they not fallible human beings elected from amongst our ranks regardless of which party platform they support?<br /><br />The problem with politics today, is that it has become reduced to ‘not frightening the horses’. Under this banner it is impossible to articulate anything of substance, or appear to be motivated by a bedrock belief in anything.<br /><br />Belief in anything other than ‘individual rights’ or culturally approved causes is deemed to be dangerous.<br /><br />We have become the blind led by the bland.<br /><br />Business as usual will continue right up until it doesn’t. At that time we will realize how useless and misplaced out trust in politicians has been, and we will be thrown back upon our own resourcefulness, our family, neighbours and community – which is how life functioned for everyone right up until about 100 years ago, and still does in most countries outside of the Western world.Brendan McNeillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02741263914308842497noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-43356322978996489982015-06-16T15:43:08.906+12:002015-06-16T15:43:08.906+12:00Davo Stevens,
If unions are marvelous for the wor...Davo Stevens,<br /><br />If unions are marvelous for the workers, why do they need compulsion to join? Surely the rewards and benefits derived from belonging to a union would negate the need for compulsion? Problem I see with the current union stucture is that their ideology is anchored in the 1950's.<br /><br />Demographically the workers (and employers) have moved on from the 1950's. However if compulsory unionism was enacted, I would be one of the first to start and join the Claytons Union Of Uninterested Workers. For a dollar gold coin I will issue anyone with a Claytons Union Ticket. There you are compulsory unionism sorted.<br /><br />The Labour party welded to a 1950's union based ideology is not going to survive. Nor will the unions backing them unless both parties move into the 21st century. If we look a the US union movement, they are very progressive in the working with employers (and in some cases actually being the employer of labour for hire (especially in the trades - electrical, plumbing,construction, etc.,etc.) The unions carry out the training and certification of apprentices with the backing of employers. <br /><br />Gerritnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-86646930816839858772015-06-16T12:43:35.516+12:002015-06-16T12:43:35.516+12:001.Funny - all the evidence stacking up (from econo...1.Funny - all the evidence stacking up (from economists mind) that unfettered markets do a bad job and still they cling to their mantras of low taxes, free trade, small government. :-)It's like a religion, accepted purely on faith. Evidence be damned eh?<br /><br />2. Easy point my arse. I was talking about Europe's loss of faith in democracy leading to Fascism, not Hitler's foreign policy - which wasn't stopped by dictatorships either I might add - tho. Mussolini is said to have thought about it.<br />3.Vague talk about democracy not being the answer without any prescription for what replaces it is bullshit anyway. What DO you want in its place anyway? And how successful have non dictatorships been in meeting the aspirations of their people in the past 100 or so years? Guerilla Surgeonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-66680388359324748872015-06-16T12:36:43.883+12:002015-06-16T12:36:43.883+12:00Anonymous@13.11
It's your argument that's...Anonymous@13.11<br /><br />It's your argument that's worth squat. <br /><br />The Nazis succeeded in Germany because not enough people cared enough about democracy.<br /><br />And they succeeded in Europe for a not dissimilar reason.<br /><br />The moral is that you have to care about democracy and be prepared to defend it. You don't do this by NOT voting.Victornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-2998454930854371202015-06-16T07:28:59.141+12:002015-06-16T07:28:59.141+12:00"A report by five IMF economists dismissed “t..."A report by five IMF economists dismissed “trickle-down” economics, and said that if governments wanted to increase the pace of growth they should concentrate on helping the poorest 20% of citizens."<br /><br />WHAT a change!Guerilla Surgeonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03427876447124021423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-4987460507420618262015-06-15T14:45:38.252+12:002015-06-15T14:45:38.252+12:00The problem with Labour is its complete detachment...The problem with Labour is its complete detachment from the average New Zealander. In the hands of the unions, the party is unable to articulate policies that represent aspiring, middle-call New Zealanders.<br /><br />Past leaders like David Cunliffe and David Shearer were perceived as elite socialists, preaching to the masses from their high pulpit. On the other hand, the current leader Andrew Little seems to be owned by the unions, the organisations that elected him. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-27822813417495617282015-06-15T13:11:47.311+12:002015-06-15T13:11:47.311+12:00"That's what they were saying in the 1930..."That's what they were saying in the 1930s. How well did that turn out?"<br /><br />You realise that you screwed your own argument, right? The democracies had literally years in which they could have stopped Hitler at a minimal cost. Hitler himself was amazed that they let him go on for so long without doing squat. Democratic sclerosis was one of the prime causes of WW2. <br /><br />Thanks for the easy point. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3753486518085091399.post-28086141568519152322015-06-15T08:38:52.133+12:002015-06-15T08:38:52.133+12:00NZ quietly becomes diverse society
As revolutions ...NZ quietly becomes diverse society<br /><i>As revolutions go, it could hardly have been quieter. I don't recall the Government making a policy announcement to the effect that New Zealand would be opening its doors to the world. There was no great debate, no public meetings. It happened incrementally and largely without fuss.</i><br /><br /><i>By and large, however, New Zealanders have absorbed the newcomers without conflict or tension, confirming our reputation as tolerant, easy-going people.</i><br />http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/opinion/columnists/karl-du-fresne/7392080/NZ-quietly-becomes-diverse-society<br /><br />Or maybe they got the message "if you speak up you'll get done" and if they had looked inside their human mind they would have found a little peice of software that says "yes people like me I like and those unlike me make me flinch". And now (perhaps) they look at the world (NZ) with a feeling of cognitive dissonance but they can't really elucidate those feelings. One thing they know (however) is that those Labour party types belong with this phoney new world.<br />And they might not be wrong:<br /><br /><i>SWG Report:<br />The Government’s role<br />Clearly, there are serious questions to be asked about New Zealand’s economic policy and how we got into this mess. Why was it not better designed and managed, and more focussed, coordinated and strategic? Did the electorate simply get what it voted for, without realising what was really happening, or have New Zealanders not been well served over the years?</i><br /><br /><i>On other government policy issues, SWG recommendations include:<br />- A much more strategic and integrated approach to policy generally.<br />- Serious consideration of the impact of the level and variability of immigration on national saving, and the impact that this might have on the living standards of New Zealanders. There are indications that our high immigration rate has pushed up government spending, house prices and business borrowing.</i><br />http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/reviews-consultation/savingsworkinggroup/pdfs/swg-report-jan11.pdfUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15607028751724602829noreply@blogger.com