Monday 22 May 2023

National Must Learn To Be Kind – Or Remain In Opposition.

Our sympathy for the poor and disadvantaged is this big. At need, New Zealanders will use their vote as a shield. From preference, they will use it as a tool. But, increasingly, they are refusing to use it as a weapon. Labour grasps the need to “be kind”. Until National does likewise, it will not be the government.

THE POLITICS OF KINDNESS may have left a deeper impression on the New Zealand electorate than is generally acknowledged. Though the nation has not quite arrived at the point of asking: “Jacinda who?”, the speed and thoroughness of the former prime minister’s political eclipse has been remarkable. The temptation, therefore, is to assume that the ideas that characterised her premiership have similarly faded into the background. That the “Politics of Kindness” no longer has electoral currency. But, in George Gershwin’s memorable formulation: “It ain’t necessarily so.”

Certainly, there are strong echoes of Ardernian kindness in Grant Robertson’s sixth budget. The extension of childcare subsidies to two-year-olds, allowing children to ride free on public transport, and, most importantly, the abolition of prescription charges – all point to a still-strong compassionate impulse animating Prime Minister Chris Hipkins’ cabinet. Indeed, the Finance Minister’s strategic preference for borrowing over spending cuts stands athwart the Reserve Bank Governor’s recessionary pathway. In effect, Robertson is demanding to know whether the Governor counts himself among the kind – or the cruel.

Hipkins and Robertson are asking the same question (albeit considerably amplified) of their National Party counterparts. “What will it be, Christopher and Nicola? Responsible compassion, or unkind austerity?” The voters need to know.

Astonishingly, the National leadership replied to Labour’s question immediately, telling the voters that prescription charges would be reinstated by an incoming National Party-led government. Given that Labour’s policy of free prescriptions was the announcement received by the electorate most warmly, National’s pledge to nullify it struck most observers as nuts. It is explicable only if one assumes that Luxon and Willis are convinced that the electorate is counting on them to deliver policy medicine of the bitterest kind. Or, at least, every bit as bitter as Act’s.

Act is fast becoming the biggest single obstacle to National forming a government. It has enlarged its share of the Party Vote almost entirely at National’s expense by arguing that only the Act Party is prepared to manage the New Zealand economy with the rigor it requires. In doing so Act has corralled a significant percentage of those voters who like to use their votes as weapons – primarily against people they perceive as undeserving of the state largesse lavished upon them. They expect any incoming right-wing government to discipline and punish these “parasites”.

National’s problem, assuming it really is planning to get all medieval on the asses of the undeserving poor, is that the women-voters of all ages who deserted it for Labour in 2020, the voters it so desperately needs to win, may not be all that keen to take up their allotted seating in the National-Act Theatre of Cruelty. Contrariwise, if National shows the slightest sign of returning to the “Labour-Lite” days of John Key and Bill English – let alone to “Jacinda’s” Politics of Kindness – then they risk seeing even more of their voters deserting the National mother-ship for Act’s swashbuckling space-cruiser.

Presumably, it was to avoid such damaging descriptions that Luxon and Willis were so quick to announce their intention to restore prescription charges. But, their resolve to be right-wing pirates every bit as scary as David Seymour and his crew turned out to be less-than-adamantine. Within hours, National was walking back its hardline commitment to austerity. Perhaps the holders of Community Services Cards and superannuitants’ Gold Cards could be exempted from paying prescription charges. “Targeted assistance” – that’s what National stands for. That’s what it would be offering.

If only it was that simple. Unfortunately for Luxon and Willis, all that those crucial swing-voters will remember is that, first, National was against abolishing prescription charges, and then, the moment it registered the force of the public backlash, its leaders couldn’t backtrack fast enough. In other words: Luxon’s and Willis’s first response made them sound cruel, and their second made them look weak. Is their anything more pathetic in the world of Sado-politics than a “Dom” too squeamish to wield the whip?

Significantly, this backtrack over prescription charges is very far from being National’s first. Over the past year, Luxon, in particular, has appeared to stumble from one hastily-corrected policy misstatement to the next. The public is perplexed. Is it a case of Luxon having bold right-wing ideas which he simply cannot persuade his timid, more centrist, colleagues to accept? Or, is it simply the Leader of the Opposition talking off the top of his head about matters he is not equipped to discuss, and then having to walk his statements back in the face of unrelenting media questioning and caucus fury?

Regardless of the explanation, the cumulative effect of these gaffes is electorally sub-optimal. Luxon, a man with next-to-no serious parliamentary experience; a man, moreover, who spent a large chunk of the past 20 years living and working out of New Zealand; stands revealed as a man not so much out-of-touch as tellingly unfamiliar with the cues most Kiwis respond to without thinking. His performance is reminiscent of those German soldiers who, during the Battle of the Bulge, were apprehended wearing American uniforms. The GI’s tested these imposters by asking them questions that any genuine American could answer without hesitation. Those who failed the test were shot as spies.

It is Luxon’s ongoing struggle to present himself as an authentic politician that explains his failure to make the sort of steady gains in the preferred-prime-minister polling stakes that are the sure sign of a prime-minister-in-waiting. Even worse, Luxon shows every sign of lacking that “gut feel” for politics that distinguished Rob Muldoon, David Lange, Jim Bolger, Jim Anderton, Winston Peters, Helen Clark, John Key and Jacinda Ardern. Unlike those leaders, he has yet to come up with a political narrative in which not only dyed-in-the-wool Nats, but also a solid majority of ordinary New Zealanders, can see themselves.

Muldoon promised “New Zealand the way YOU want it.”, Bolger talked about restoring the “decent society” following the betrayals of Rogernomics, and John Key held out the promise of “a brighter future” as Labour’s lustre faded. An opposition’s narrative need not be one the whole country can agree with, but it must be one in which most New Zealanders can see themselves living – more-or-less happily.

Jacinda Ardern’s enduring political legacy is that fewer and fewer New Zealanders can see themselves living happily in a society where kindness no longer counts. There was time when Kiwis would vote for bullies – but that time has passed. At need, New Zealanders will use their vote as a shield. From preference, they will use it as a tool. But, increasingly, they are refusing to use it as a weapon. Labour grasps the need to “be kind”. Until National does likewise, it will not be the government.

This essay was originally posted on the website on Monday, 22 May 2023.


John Drinnan said...

Maybe. And National; handling of the prescription fee has been piss poor. But you seem to ignore the number of people who are deeply sceptical about the government claims to kindness, nd how that realates to health. education and crime. A wish for competence is at least as a naive trust in kindness.

Archduke Piccolo said...

Is it a matter of 'being kind' or 'doing the right thing'? Austerity doesn't work - unless you're already rich, in which case austerity happens to other people. The Nats continue to reprise the role of Bourbon kings of France: forgetting nothing and learning nothing. They still don't understand that 'let 'em eat shit' economics is bad economy. They still haven't grasped that the health of an economy depends upon the 'velocity' of money. People won't spend what they don't have.

Jacinda Ardern was and remained herself a Neo-whatever wedded to the neo-Classical economic nonsense that has shackled the western world to globalist kleptocracy thieving from the Commons. The Nat 'leader' has scant sympathy for the poor and disadvantaged. Of course he does: they are the source of the wealth of his buddies. At least Ms Ardern had some heart and some brain, too. Now, had she Helen Clark's strong right fist...
Ion A. Dowman

The Barron said...

Progressive social decorates used to have an awareness of the need for universality. All put in through tax, and all would be rewarded through universal schemes. Obviously, the poor and vulnerable benefit proportionately to their income and circumstances, but the middle classes could also see the state assisting them. This was the covenant that bonded the people to the welfare state and the safety net of universal pensions and assistance.

Nationals first take on the prescription surcharge was political honesty as to the uncaring nature of a National government towards the citizenry, especially a complete disregard for the poor and disabled. Both Luxon and Wallis displayed a lack of political nous, but an unsuitability to govern. However, it is their second attempt at the issue which was even more telling. That was to attack the very concept of universality. Any government assistance must be targeted.

At this stage it is worth noting that it was a Labour government which first introduced the surcharge. This was a betrayal of a century of the labour movements, home and abroad. Robertson should be given credit for addressing this stain on the red rose.

The National Party was clearly taken back by this incarnation of a Labour government not accepting the naturalization of the surcharge. This is why their reaction was all over the place. It settled down though to show the national true colours. Indeed, it is not one they would ever deny. To try to pretend to have some degree of 'kindness', it is to target not universalism. It may be that Robertson has ferreted out this obvious trait to show a contrast.

Targeting not only creates artificial thresholds, but is designed by the right to put a wedge between the middle classes and those that receive benefit. Having created that wedge, it becomes easier to stigmatize those receiving government help. In the case of the surcharge, it is not about receiving help, but being charges for a service. Targeting is usually not cost effective as it requires a bureaucracy to determine the deserving and undeserving and often carries a punitive approach by the state towards the poor and disabled.

It may be wishful thinking on my behalf that means testing and targeting will come up against an concerted Labour campaign to re-establish universalism. But, at least the prescription surcharge betrayal has had some redress.

Jason Barrier said...

You are right Chris and from a purely strategic view National's attempts to 'reclaim' ground on the right lost to ACT are completely baffling and counterproductive to winning an election- because it is a zero-sum game. They need to be competing for Labours piece of the electoral pie by appealing to the middle swing voter with Labour. They must know this but why are they acting as though they don't?

Gary Peters said...

National has to learn how to deal with a very "unkind" media.

I'd really like to see some in depth analysis of the outcomes from ardern's "kind" policies.

From what I see in my area, more poverty, more crime, less productivity the only recipients of that "kindness" are the labour MPs stutting about in taxpayer subsidised cars.

Tom Hunter said...

Well as a RWNJ I've held him in contempt from day one. There's just something very squishy about him - and I don't mean in terms of failing to be sufficiently right wing for me.

No, as you say, there's a quality of cluelessness about his operations as a politician. In that he resembles Don Brash, albeit only a slightly sharper version.

Still, I wouldn't get too cocky in your shoes. First of all I well recall the critical cartoon of Norman Kirk in the 1972 election, "Right down the Middle of the Road". Which is to say that Luxon is playing it safe for the most part, gaffes excluded.

Second, inflation hits the poorest the hardest, and if you combine that with job losses from businesses under interest rate pressure, plus mortgages exploding with rising interest rates (to combat inflation), then that's a triple whammy on none other than the people Labour always claim they care the most about and all these little goodies in the budget don't add up in comparison.


Nice sentiments Chris ... but too late ... "she cried".

Kindness will not dig us out of our collective economic mire/shambles.

Kindness will not pay our mounting bills.

The best we can hope for now is to commence a disciplined programme of economic recovery ... while of course (kindly) ringfencing the benefits for our genuinely needy.

So harden up for the life preserving medicine ... or ... just meekly bequeath to our kids and grand-kids a generation or two of second/third world living standards.

Vote in October for an administration with the political courage to promote economic responsibility.

Our government now spends an historical high of close to 22% of our gdp ... a blowout of over one dollar in every five. Kiwis, lead by a profligate cynical government, have of late (the last 6 years) spent up like there is "no tomorrow."

Newsflash: "Tomorrow has just arrived". All significant economic indicators point to the cliff we are about to drive off.

I do not feel in the least optimistic that the "there is no tomorrow" brigade of the present generation is ready to help steady the ship.

In a "I want it ... and I want it now" society, economic imperatives don't get a look-in.

Kindness of course is laudable and inspirational. Unfortunately this is now a time-expired concept ... and a luxury that we now cannot afford and that is in very short supply.

Kindness will not cut it. A collective co-operative will ...just might.

Suggested gameplan ... a pragmatic-realist's ... survival tactics, include:

: Get another part time paid job

: Give up any idea for now of being able to afford a first home... with mortgage!

: Limit family numbers to two kids.

: Look after your own

: Take up a cheap recreational activity ... fishing?

: Keep up Bowalley Road commentaries promoting economic sanity ahead of mindless kindness.

: Do all of the above while appealing to New Zealander's innate goodwill and national pride.
Paying our own way and not living off credit are our deeply held and precious values when
properly applied, will be the best expression of our own Kiwi collective ... "Kindness".

PS: Please "be kind" ... and don't shoot this messenger ... OK?

Someone had to say it.

David George said...

Allowing feral tenants to terrorise their neighbours is kind? Arbitrarily shoving folk down the hospital waiting lists because of race is kind? Forcing folk out of their jobs, creating "two classes of Kiwis" is kind? Whatever!

It's not the governments business to be kind, or more accurately pretend to be kind, they need to be fair and just, that's it. If they can't do that then get the hell out of peoples lives.

Unknown said...

To be frank, the Government foregoing 620 million dollars over 4 years so that households do not have to pay a co-pay for prescriptions that cannot exceed $100 a week, or less that $2.00 a week maximum over a 12 month period, is hardly an expression of kindness.

Assistance could be targetted in this manner, through community services Cards and Gold Cards for example, but the amount spend on this per year represents 1/8th of Pharmacs Total Budget per year.

What would have been better or kinder, giving all families a $2.00 a week boost, or increasing Pharmacs budget by 12.5%?

Mark Simpson said...

Who know Chris. Maybe Luxon may be a reincarnation of Helen Clark insomuch as, before she became PM, was pilloried as being dour, faceless, academic and lacking in charisma. (Read also Angela Merkel.) Yet the electorate accepted if not warmed to her as time went by for her ability, among other things, to run a tight, competent caucus.
Also, I remember, decades ago, a school principal saying a good staff can carry a poor principal but a good principal can't carry a poor staff.

Anonymous said...

'Kindness' and 'Bullying' are both irritating terms to me -the former rather saccharine and patronising and the latter childish and generalised - both unworthy of intelligent debate. I wish for a different debate, using specific terms and cases. I want a rational well-informed practical functional government before I want a kind one. Various commentators have unpicked the matter of the prescription fees, and it seems there are facts which the media just don't bother to print.

Luxon does not have a good political voice, but if the National Party is not going to replace him - and it's rather late in the day - we had better start focussing on his good points, because he does seem to be at least more honest than the blatantly corrupt lot we have.

oneblokesview said...

The abolition of the $5 prescription charge is nothing to do with kindness!!!!!!!!!

It is another lolly scramble by Labour.
I suggest you read the analysis by Lindsay Micthell.
Where facts gazump this crap about kindness

chris prudence said...

If Willie Jackson and John Tamihere are serious about addressing Maori poverty then this government and the next have to stop paying benefit in cash.Instead of wasting most of their money on booze,smokes and dope and losing control of their lives.Rather they should receive generous food vouchers and hop cards for the next few months.Every dole day beneficiary load up on smokes, alcohol and dope.Money burns a hole in their pockets.Rather than paying the benefit in cash,food vouchers and hop cards should be the norm.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

"Targeting not only creates artificial thresholds, but is designed by the right to put a wedge between the middle classes and those that receive benefit. "

Targeting is also reasonably expensive AFAIK.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

"If Willie Jackson and John Tamihere are serious about addressing Maori poverty then this government and the next have to stop paying benefit in cash.Instead of wasting most of their money on booze,smokes and dope and losing control of their lives."

Jesus wept, racist stereotypes much? Do you have any actual research/information on this? Or did you just drag it out of your bigoted arse?

The Barron said...

MPs in New Zealand do not get tax payers provided cars. Reasonable expenses can be claimed for constituent and Parliamentary business.

John Hurley said...

Immigration is up to John Key levels.
Bernard Hickey asked Grant Robertson about this and whether more money should be spent on state housing and infrastructure. Roberston said there are no plans to make changes.
He said that immigration is necessary to maintain our standard of living.

There is an Australian NZ School of Governance 2016 video of a plenary attended by Bill English. George Megalogenis is speaking and he reveals things never presented in our media: immigration is the fifth pillar of the open economic model. Demand is coming from offshore (Chinese and Indians escaping a degraded environment and overcrowding).

The video freezes after "livability" and after "political ramification" where "Leave" appears briefly.

George Megalogenis Forwards Sam Roggeveen of the Lowy Institute's Our very Own Brexit.

The book argues that the major parties have had declining membership and have evolved into professional organisations (someone called them) "cartels" and that more and more fringe parties are forming around issues. He says that no one cared about the EU until factions in the Conservative Party made it an issue as they were bleeding votes to Ukip.

As a reviewer puts it:
Yet, fears Roggeveen, in their search for power, one party could decide instead to sacrifice one of the vital legs upon which we will need to stand: high immigration levels. This would be our 'very own brexit' - both in the damage self-inflicted to the country as well as the harm for our reputation overseas.

Roggeveen is dismissive of identity as many travel overseas and quotes polls (I'm reminded of Andrea Vances "Immi-What" headline).
Eric Kaufmann argues the exact opposite. He says we should be careful with aggregate data.

One of the key insights of George Megalogenis is that the skilled migration system is behind the extra million people per decade Aus receives as their spending (they don't notice declining livability as they land in Remuera/Fendalton etc) "keeps GDP ticking over".

As the young bus driver said: "everything they tell us is a big lie".
How true.

John Hurley said...

George Megalogenis Foreword Our Very Own Brexitis John Key Through and through

Today, however, the United States and Britain provide counter examples of bloody-mindedness, while our politicians are slaves to opinion polls — a toxic mix. The election of Trump on a platform of bellicose nativism and Britain's vote to leave the European Union are unmistakable declarations of retreat from a phase of globalisation that favours Asia over the North Atlantic. The challenge for Australia is to separate sympathy for our allies from a pragmatic assessment of our national interest as a rich nation in Asia. This phase of globalisation plays to our natural advantages of mining, education and mass migration. There is nothing to be gained by copying America now; on the contrary, even a mild form of Trumpism would take us back at least to the protectionist stasis of the 197os. Our record of 28 years of economic growth without the interruption of a deep recession is a reminder that the open model still works for us. It bears repeating that the United States and Australia sit on opposite sides of globalisation's new divide. Australia's continued prosperity is tied to the very thing that unsettles the United States:
the rise of Asia. Now it might suit Australian conservatives to cuddle up to an unconventional politician like Trump because it drives Labor people crazy, thereby distracting their opponent from the ordinary concerns of swinging voters. But no serious governing party in Australia would entertain a program of high tariffs, immigration restrictions and a Tweetstorm of ridicule against our neighbours. The threat Trumpism poses for Australia is not its literal imitation because we are too small to play bully, even if we wanted to. The danger is that the president actually gets what he wishes for: the replacement of a globalised order of shared interests through trade and migration with one in which strongmen write their own rules.

Anonymous said...

John H... your (off) point is?

John Hurley said...

Anonymous said...

John H... your (off) point is?

That there is an elite consensus on immigration [National and Labour - Brother & Sister] regardless of it's affect on housing, livablity and social cohesion.
In particular I'm curious as to why an enlightening speech at ANZSOG has blank sections. Is it something that isn't meant to be openly discussed. I'm no expert but digital equipment shouldn't fail like that, but you could easily (and roughly) do it on Youtubes video editor.
I don't think what I wrote was unclear.
It wouldn't be the first time elites conspired against the public

“If people had any idea about the scale of these changes,” [Sonya Davis] confided to me early in her first term as MP for Pencarrow,” they’d be horrified. It’s been decided that New Zealand’s future lies in Asia. That’s got massive implications – but most people haven’t a clue. No one asked them and certainly no one’s telling them.”

sumsuch said...

Enjoy the intelligence on this site.

No-Skates said...

To Larry,

Why do the youth have to fix the problems for the people that are still living the high life now?

Can't afford a house off a boomer cause of the arbitrary rules they made? Then change the rules. Millennials are the next big voting block, and they may feel scorned enough to do it.

Not enough workers? There's a bunch of landlords out on wine tours. Maybe they could pay off their mortgages instead of expecting kids to do it for them?

We have enough wealth circulating around the country where the average person can sit comfortably. We will still need to work to keep the lights on and to keep us fed, individually and at a societal level, but this forced austerity to keep a few people insulated from contributing to society is a complete farce.

The cheap hobbies I've been wanting to take up are carpentry and knife making, as well as learn French. But I'm too busy working over the weekend to pay off someone else's mortgage.

John Hurley said...

If you are going to be kind you have to decide to whom?

Therein lies the problem. Ardern would call looking after NZr's "small-minded nationalism" while in a practical sense doing zero for NZrs.

National would be kind to business owners needing staff while promoting migration which in a NZ context results in a lower marginal product for each additional worker such that:

Real wages will fall

Owners of land will benefit

There will be an outflow of ‘native’ labour in search of higher wages in Australia

The economy will be bigger, but average incomes will fall

Resources will flow into low value service production.

Imagine how the future looks from a baby boomer perspective. We accept that we die but would like to think that NZ lives on (that instinct is universal).

George Megalogenis looks at demographic change in parts of Australia and UK and says "these are people who don't see a future for their children in ["New New Zealand"]"

Let's face it, we have a bell-shaped IQ distribution.

Govt investigator caves in to Christchurch’s NIMBYs, giving them ‘Xmas present’ of delaying intensification rules until late ‘23. Don’t like the laws of the land set by Parliament? Just ignore/defy them. Landowners live by their own rules. Easier than taking the vote off renters

There will need to be 5m* in and around Christchurch by the end of this century. So many standalone homes on big sections. They all need to 3-5 stories high. Much, much more needed to get prices and rents to half of what they are now relative to incomes

* 5 million people?

Despite acknowledging on RNZ that immigration is negative at the macro level, Hickey claims to be concerned about urban issues, poverty and climate change while adding that this is about those who will be arriving from offshore.

So you are one of the dummies in a meritocratic struggle who just wants that Kiwi life of yesteryear: you muck around in the backyard, tinker with the car and bag the potatoes. Meanwhile the people in the street all know each other and the outdoor life (a salmon at the Rangitata mouth) is readily accessible .

One of Megalogenis books appears to sum this dilemma up

Australia is in transition. Saying it is easy. The panic kicks in when we are compelled to describe what the future might look like*. There is no complacent middle to aim at. We will either catch the next wave of prosperity, or finally succumb to the Great Recession. What has gone wrong with our politics? And what does our government need to do so that Australia is notglobalisation's next victim?

As above (BH) the future looks bright for the Key Chou and top echelon's of tertiary education whanau and (perhaps) Bob the Builder but you can't take the savannah or need for community out of the human heart.

The YIMBY-Yuppies tend to scoff when I tell them about the 2 year old who cried on entering the Osaka aparto having spent summer days in the NZ garden.

Brian Easton pointed out (as per a Report) that (his estimate) with that level of population growth tourism will have to be 2.5 times it's over-tourismed peak in 2019."Would you even want to live in a country like that?"

Jacinda will be just fine "having a wonderful time somewhere in the Mediterranean"

John and Max will be fine living on an island next to a former US president.

I think the guy who stabbed Jo Cox saw this scenario.
I think he whose name I shall not mention saw this scenario.

[Enter the media crew and a new narrative/ Enter Kate Hannah]

chris prudence said...

Jesus wept, racist stereotypes much? Do you have any actual research/information on this? Or did you just drag it out of your bigoted arse?

Unlike the middle class commentators on this blog I live in a boarding house and see regular abuse of smokes booze and dope.Every pay day the bennies load up on these items.The treaty settlements are also paid in cash along with an apology for the abuse that will follow such largesse from the liberal conscience or killing with kindness of this the labour young tyros.

chris prudence said...

A digital food voucher or hop card might be a thing for the future but for the time being might be beyond the scope of your average beneficiary,student or pensioner, the hard core of the labour government support base and the grateful recipients of generous increases.

sumsuch said...

As I said Chris ... somewhere else ... Ardern's kindness didn't encompass the actuality of it, the heart of it, the neediest.

But, yes, the talk of it helped. Like Zoos despite being cruel help our feeling for our fellow wildlife.

The Barron said...

This just informs my view above regarding universalism. People stigmatize certain beneficiaries, and indeed will decide that it is a personal fault their is no suitable employment, they cannot live off the benefit because they cannot budget and the benefit received is squandered on items moralist deem unsuitable. The Pensioner is not stigmatized, there is a strong belief that they deserve dignity after a life of work and contribution, there is recognition that rents and rates are unfair to a fixed income, and we welcome when there is an ability for them to be able to have a small treat for themselves or grandchildren.

Both groups are in situations where there is a requirement to have assistance from the state. Both face rental or rate costs, both have benefits that they will struggle to pay essentials with. It is only with prejudice and a sense of moral superiority that some of the contributors to this blog have control and punitive provisions towards beneficiaries that they do not impose upon the pensioner.

All have a right to dignity in life.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

"Unlike the middle class commentators on this blog I live in a boarding house and see regular abuse of smokes booze and dope.Every pay day the bennies load up on these items.The treaty settlements are also paid in cash along with an apology for the abuse that will follow such largesse from the liberal conscience or killing with kindness of this the labour young tyros."

Anecdote is not evidence. Your 2nd sentence I don't understand at all so I won't comment.

Anonymous said...

Anecdote is not solipsism