liberation

Fascist America, in 10 easy steps

The left is generally far too quick to toss around the term fascist at its enemies, which usually displays the left's ignorance of what the term actually means. Nonetheless, here's an interesting (and long) argument by Naomi Wolf on why the US appears to be moving through the following ten steps towards fascism: 1 Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy; 2 Create a gulag; 3 Develop a thug caste; 4 Set up an internal surveillance system; 5 Harass citizens' groups; 6 Engage in arbitrary detention and release; 7 Target key individuals; 8 Control the press; 9 Dissent equals treason; and 10 Suspend the rule of law. See: Fascist America, in 10 easy steps

Auckland - party finance reform public forum

The CTU is hosting another public forum on reforming party finance laws, this time in Auckland. See the details below. Essentially the CTU is playing the part of advocate for reform, and the invited speakers at the forum are therefore like-minded. It's good that this type of public debate is being promoted. But I also think that the CTU et al need to be challenged in these forums about some of the reform ideas that they're being associated with. And the way that the debate is being formulated by the CTU as Us Vs Them is a false one based around a strange idea that political parties like Labour represent ordinary New Zealanders Vs National which represents the corporates.
----------------------
The Hollow Men: Our Democracy or Theirs?  Auckland Forum: May 1 2007
Is our democracy “rule by the people” or rule by the corporate funders?  How do we restore integrity and transparency to election campaign funding? What needs to change so ordinary New Zealanders feel they have an equal say in our political system? Speakers include Nicky Hager, journalist and author of 'The Hollow Men', Dr Raymond Miller, Head of Department, Political Studies, University of Auckland and Laila Harré, union leader and commentator.  There will plenty of time for questions and comment.
Tuesday May 1 2007, 7.30pm
University of Auckland, Lower Lecture Theatre, City Campus, Princes St
visit http://union.org.nz/event/hollowmenMay07

Yeltsin: lauded in the west, reviled at home

Tributes to Boris Yeltsin will be flowing in from the west following the former president's death, but there probably won't be so many Russians morning his passing. Yeltsin's domestic popularity plummeted after his introduction of free market reforms which lead to an incredibly unequal society and a ruined economy. So although he was lauded by capitalist politicians, it was Yeltsin's own people that suffered tremendously. 'Shock therapy' impoverished millions while privatisation significantly enriched the people around the authoritarian Yeltsin who became millionaires and billionaires. Here's a few critical obituaries - Ex-Russian president dies and Do svidanja, Boris, Yeltsin's legacy: us and them, the UK SocialistWorkerOnline obituary, and perhaps best of all: The bitter legacy of Boris Yeltsin.

Greener than thou; funnier than ever

Environmentalist celebrities just get funnier and funnier with their wacky 'greener than thou' admonishments. The latest in the news is Sheryl Crow's view on toilet paper: one sheet a visit. She has been promoting her Stop Global Warming College Tour by telling us that the average person should use 'only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where two or three could be required'. Bizarre. But funny. Environmentalists really are doing their best to be greener than thou, but they're just ending up as the target of lots of great parodies. For instance, check out the new carbon neutral children service called Offsetyourkids.com which is relayed in the article Is it ethical to offset your children? The mission statement of the company is: 'Make every kid a cancelled one'. The creator of the service has offset his own kids (Freya and Thor) by the usual methods as well as finding other people's deaths to offset a new life! See also spiked-online's satirical Ask Ethan series. All this demonstrates that the green moralist hairshirt approach is rather counterproductive.

[political finance] Myth 16: NZ parties are controlled by their members

The significant expenditure involved in New Zealand politics is strongly related to the professionalisation of the parliamentary parties. The employees of the parties in Parliament now have significant influence over the parties – many of whom are not even party members of activists. Arguably these state funded professionals have much more influence than any party donors – and certainly more influence than party members and activists. This blog post argues that instead of worrying about growing expenditure on billboards, pamphlets, and advertising, those seeking a stronger democracy and political parties should be concerned about the professionalisation of the NZ party system. [Read much more below]

New Zealand not so racist

Liberals often despair over the state of race relations in New Zealand, viewing the masses as being particular backward on racism. But a recent comparative survey of countries shows that NZ is less bigoted than most other comparable nations. The survey found that in NZ, 3% of society would not like neighbours of a different race. This compared to 16% in Italy. Apparently we are second lowest (out of 23 countries) for racism, with only Sweden beating us (2.6%). On other issues NZers are similarly bigoted to other nations. When asked if they minded living next to a gay neighbour, the survey found 22% did. The countries with the highest homophobia were the macho and/or Roman Catholic countries such as Greece (26.8), the Republic of Ireland (27.5) Italy (28.7) and Portugal (25.6), although interestingly enough, it was Northern Ireland that easily came out on top, with 36% saying they did not want gay neighbours. In Sweden only 6% said they would object. There's more info in the Herald article, as well as commentaries by NoRightTurn and Kiwiblog.

Labour’s housing disaster

More evidence has just come out of the housing crisis under Labour. Two reports - both partially funded by The Centre for Housing Research - quantify the size and scale of the housing and rental issues facing Auckland. And if you think that my continued use of the term ‘crisis’ is an exaggeration, then note that the Herard now describe it as ‘a housing crisis of massive proportions’.  The Centre for Housing Research reports says that housing unafforability ‘was likely to increase the gap between socioeconomic groups, and had implications for community stability and wealth accumulation’. In general, they say that ‘Home ownership is assuming a more polarised social character’ under Labour. [Read more below]

Anzac day: celebrating NZ wars for control of resources

Tomorrow is Anzac day - whereby an increasing number of people are being fed the lie that thousands of New Zealanders died fighting for freedom and independence. What people forget, is that it was NZ that was invading Turkey. What had Turkey ever done to us? Well, John Minto has written a brilliant and striking riposte in the Press to all the false commemoration of war - especially in terms of Anzac day and the First World War. Minto correctly argues that World War I - like most wars that NZ has been involved in - was fought for control of resources and markets. Instead of dying in a moral fight, the NZ conscripts died on a giant Monopoly board of European struggle for the control of empires, driven by greed, envy and suspicion. Minto also corrects the myth that NZers are a peace-loving people, when in fact our warmongering governments send troops off to fight unjust wars about every 10 years. We should be shamed that NZ is one of the harshest in its treatment of conscientious objectors, and also by the fact that 'In the entire history of human warfare no country has proportionally sent a greater number of troops a greater distance to fight a war than this little country of ours did in 1914.' As Minto says, we should be honouring the dead by demanding 'No more wars'. See also: Matt McCarten's column, Anzac story a sordid tale of world domination and death.

[political finance] Myth 15: Prohibitions on broadcast advertising levels the electoral playing field

In New Zealand, the state strongly regulates broadcast advertising by political parties, with both registered and unregistered parties being prohibited from purchasing any advertising on television and radio at election time, apart from that which is allocated to them by the Electoral Commission. Officially, the broadcast advertising ban is intended to inhibit parties from ‘buying’ electoral success, but in practice it advantages the larger parties who receive substantially more public funding for broadcast advertising than the smaller parties. [Read more below]

The problematic nature of ethnicity in NZ

Does ethnicity really exist? Certainly in the field of measuring ethnicity it is proving an increasingly fraught issue for the state. The fact that Statistics NZ has to keep changing the way that it measures ethnicity not only shows that ethnicity is an elastic and amorphous concept, but that it’s generally a highly problematic one which is quickly becoming an unhelpful way of understanding society. Prof Paul Spoonley has been critical of the creation of a new ethnic group called ‘New Zealander’. He calls into question how helpful and accurate such a new category is. Yet the category reflects the reality of how people perceive themselves ethnicly - 429,429 people (or 11.1% of the population) choose this group as their ethnicity in the last census. Raybon Kan has also written an excellent – but less humourous than usual – column in the SST, refuting the way that the state lumps some ethnicities together but not others. [Read more below]

[political finance] Myth 14: State funding promotes democracy and strong parties

The state funding of political parties is often justified as a recognition of the vital role these organisations play in the democratic process. It is said that it is only fair that the state offers some degree of support to parties for their part in providing democratic governance. However the reverse is true – state funding actually weakens political parties and encourages them to be ideologically bland. This very long, but crucial blog post argues that such funding plays a dramatic role in divorcing parties from civil society, leading to much reduced civic participation in politics. [Read more below]

[political finance] Myth 13: Parties are prevented from using parliamentary resources for electioneering

Politicians often say that their political parties are prevented from misusing parliamentary resources by the existence of the Parliamentary Service monitoring taxpayer funds. However the rules are actually incredibly and deliberately loose and vague. This is because the Parliamentary Service is controlled by the same parties that it supposedly monitors. The true role of the Parliamentary service is ‘corruption management’ in assisting parties make use of 'backdoor state funding'. This is, quite simply, a case of ‘poacher as gamekeeper’. [Read more below]

[political finance] Myth 12: Parliamentary resources are not used for organising the parties

Not only are parliamentary resources used for electioneering purposes, but they are also used to help run the parties’ extra-parliamentary organisations. In order to take advantage of the many lucrative forms of state resources available, the functions of the party organisation or their national offices are now increasingly carried out both in Parliament and MP electorate offices. [Read more below]

The Virginia killings and social anomie in the US

Reflecting on the tragedy of the mass killing at Virginia Tech in Virginia USA should indicate that something very strange is going on. There's no doubt that in the US, 'The ability to kill one’s fellow students methodically in cold blood reveals a terrible level of social anomie'. The World Socialist Web Site reflects on life in the US and comments that 'Every effort has been made to atomize people, to render them callous and inured to the suffering of others. Human life has been devalued and often held in contempt'. Their analysis is that the Virginia killings should not be seen as a unique or isolated occurrence - psychopathic episodes are happening with disturbing regularity. The writer says that the ruling elite's 'proliferation of violence, the continuous appeals to fear, the incitement of paranoia—all of this has consequences, it creates a certain type of climate. American society has for so long tried to cover up or ignore its most pressing problems' which stem from the stark divide of society into 'winners' and 'losers'. In this bleak scenario, there's been a huge decay of social solidarity. Therefore it's unsurprising that in his farewell note, the killer 'reportedly ranted against “rich kids,” “debauchery” and “deceitful charlatans.” He also wrote, “You caused me to do this.”' Clearly a sick individual from a sick society.

Hot Country Singer Has Message for the Troops

The Dixie Chicks finally have some competition from another political country singer. Sandy Belle is 'a buxom lass with big hair and small shorts', and her Message for the Troops is a well crafted song that getting lots of views on Youtube. The lyrics are pretty funny. They start off innocently enough: "This here song is goin' out to my men in the service/ Y'all been away so long that it's startin' to make me nervous." Which is nice - however it quickly descends into extreme sexual innuendo, climaxing with the full-on lines: "Home of the brave, let's misbehave/ We'll be gettin' freaky like in Abu Ghraib." Of course it's a parody. Sandy Belle is a comedian with New York group The Dregs. There are multiple versions of the song about. This less-viewed one is actually probably better. But if you want to see a 'real' patriotic country song about Iraq, check out Bumper of My SUV. It's all further evidence of the power of 'new politics' on the web.

[political finance] Myth 11: Parliamentary resources are not routinely used for party political purposes

The Auditor-General's uncovering of the Labour Party's unlawful pledge-card election spending last year was merely the tip of the iceberg. Unfortunately this scandal created the idea that this rort was a one-off or maybe just something that occurs at elections. In fact the illegal use of taxpayer funds is a routine matter within Parliament. The parliamentary parties receive resources and services of more than $40 million a year. These are intended to permit them to carry out their legislative duties and serve their constituents, yet much of this is used for partisan political purposes, electioneering and organising their parties. Leading on from the last posting on Myth 10: NZ parties are not state funded this blog posting illustrates that the vast resources in parliament are used to conduct activities that are to all intents and purposes party-political tasks, including basic electioneering. This very long blog posting therefore proves that New Zealand already has an incredibly generous form of 'backdoor' state funding of parties. [Read much more below]

Jeffrey Sachs - the liberal 'economist rockstar' on RNZ

Radio NZ National is broadcasting one of this year’s BBC Reith Lectures by Professor Jeffery Sachs, who is the celebrity economist behind such glorious projects as privatisation/theft in Russia, Bono's politics, Make Poverty History, and UN aid programmes. Not only is he one of the most influential economists alive, he's a friend of Geri Halliwell's, and somewhat more importantly, he's said to have 'done more to shape contemporary low horizons on global poverty than any other individual'. In the Reith Lectures he argues in favour of the fashionable views that 1) industrialisation is killing the planet, and 2) scientific and technological advances are destabilising the planet, and 3) rising population is destroying the planet. For a critique of these lectures, try Dominic Lawson in the Independent - Jeffrey Sachs is wrong again - or Daniel Ben-Ami on Sachs sucks. You can tune in to hear the Sachs broadcast on Sunday 29 April at 4:06 pm - or of course listen on the BBC website.

[political finance] Listener editorial: 'the best government taxpayers’ money can buy'

The Listener's latest editorial on party finance reform - Cheque, mate? - displays a great deal of common sense. It sensibly discusses the three main areas of contention: third party campaigning, state funding, and the process of reform. [Read  more below]

[political finance] Myth 10: NZ parties are not state funded

It is not commonly realised that the most important source of resources for political parties is now the state. The vast bulk of the resources provided to political parties come via the backdoor of parliamentary funding. MPs receive resources intended to permit them to carry out their legislative duties and serve their constituents – activities such as research, paying for office expenses, consultation with the public and so forth – but much of this is used for partisan political purposes, electioneering, and organising their parties. This blog post details the considerable resources that the parliamentary parties receive from the state (not including direct state funding in the form of Electoral Commission money, which will be discussed  in . Additional posts will show that these resources are not simply used for parliamentary functions, but are in fact strongly utilized for party political activity. [Read much more below]

[political finance] Myth 9: Regulating political activity is effective

One of the biggest myths about party finance reform is the idea that regulating party activity actually works. Instead, however, the interventions of the state into party affairs are very prone to failure. This is because it is in the interests of at least some parties to evade the rules, and they inevitably find legal means to do so. According to electoral law expert, Michael Pinto-Duschinsky, ‘In country after country, the introduction of new regulations has been followed by the development of new loopholes and new methods of financing politics that escape existing rules’ (Pinto-Duschinsky, 1998).  So in order to evaluate the appropriateness of further state regulations it is important to ascertain their effectiveness of such rules in achieving their stated objectives. The problem is that state intervention becomes a ridiculous chase to plug up the inevitable loopholes that arise from every rule the state introduces [Read more below]

[political finance] Myth 8: The Labour Party is dependent on union money

Despite rhetoric and out-dated tales to the contrary, the Labour Party obtains only very limited funding from the few trade unions still affiliated to it. Therefore when the then general secretary of the Labour Party, Rob Allen, was asked in 1999, about the degree of dependence the party has on union funding, he replied that the party was ‘Virtually not dependent at all. The income from unions is a very tiny, tiny proportion of funds – almost insignificant’ (Allen, 1999). The bigger picture is that there has been a reduction in the traditional class pattern of donor-party relations: the Labour Party is no longer reliant on trade unions and party members for its financial resources, just as the National Party no longer has a near-monopoly on business funding. Obviously there has been an increasing homogeneity of party finance that few commentators acknowledge. [Read more below]

[political finance] Myth 7: Huge amounts of money are spent by political parties

The money spent by New Zealand political parties is often remarked upon as being increasingly extravagant. Although it is true that financial resources are becoming increasingly central to the functioning of NZ political parties, it also needs to be noted that the amounts are still relatively low in New Zealand. For example, despite the centrality of advertising and its ever-increasing employment, political parties still spend fairly small amounts of money on advertisements relative to their commercial counterparts. Disregarding money donated to the parties’ election campaign funds, the overall picture is that the main two parties have routine incomes of about $2m, while most of the smaller parties have something less than half or a quarter of this amount. Those figures cannot be considered high. For instance, with a budget of about $2.5m, the Labour Party probably spends about the same as a small primary school. In comparison, the three main German parties have incomes of about NZ$240m, NZ$210m and NZ$40m even without counting state funding (Linton, 1994: p.22). [Read more below]

[political finance] Myth 6: Greater party finance means more votes

After I blogged last week that Money is no guarantee of political success, Kiwiblog then also carried out some analysis of Spending and Votes. I'm hoping to do some some further analysis of the correlation between votes and party expenditure in New Zealand, but in the meantime, here's some previous analysis I carried out on this subject. [Read more below]

[political finance] Myth 5: Academic studies show money makes a big difference in politics

Is money really as essential to New Zealand politics as is commonly assumed? Proponents of reform often speak as if there is credible evidence to show that money has a huge impact on the outcome of elections. There appears to be very little evidence in the party literature to show that the greater expenditures of money produces greater electoral success. The effectiveness of advertising for political parties is especially questionable. [Read more below]

[political finance] Myth 4: Poor parties like the Alliance cannot succeed in politics

Proponents of state funding for political parties and the regulation of parties claim that a level playing field needs to be created so that poor parties are not disadvantaged. They assume that the more money a party has, the more likely it is to succeed in politics. The story of the Alliance suggests that such a correlation is incorrect. The Alliance's rise and fall suggests that if any correlations exist between money and politics, it is actually this: the more wealthy a party becomes - the less political success it obtains! This is because the Alliance was most successful when it had virtually no financial resources, and quickly declined as an electoral force in proportion to its gain of significant funding. [Read more below]

Myth 3: Corporate parties like Act can buy their way into power

Since the introduction of MMP there has only been one new party to enter Parliament - the Act party. Every other minor party established has been established by an existing parliamentarian. No doubt Act's success was aided by its possession of huge amounts of financial resources. But its election to Parliament probably had more to do with the simple fact that its political programme represented the ideological outlook and economic interests of a small but significant minority of voters. Act's steady electoral decline since 1996, however, actually indicates that money can't buy power. The story of Act shows that a well-funded corporate party can spend as much money as it likes, but if the tide is going out on your brand of discredited politics, money can't save you. [Read more below]

[political finance] Myth 2: Corporate funding doesn't go to the Labour Party

Whenever business donations to political parties are discussed in the current debate about party finance reform, it is assumed that these donations generally only go to parties such as National and Act. It seems that few people are aware that Labour obtains a very large proportion of business donations. In fact in recent years, the Labour Party has been the most well resourced party in New Zealand. [Read much more below]

[political finance] Myth 1: Enormous business donations in NZ politics

In the debate about reforming the system of party finance in New Zealand, there is often an assumption made that business is a significant actor in party politics or that some political parties are surviving only on the largesse of such corporations. In some ways this was once the case in NZ politics, but it's decreasingly the case. This posting argues that business intervention in politics is not as significant as the proponents of reform suggest. Certainly, National and Labour have both reported less interest from big business in making donations. [Read much more below]

[political finance] Debunking myths about political finance in NZ

I am about to start a series of blog postings on liberation based around the current party finance reform debate in New Zealand. These will take the form of examining Party Finance Myths  in which I want to debunk some myths about party finance and introduce or promote into the debate some little known or discussed issues relating to party finance in NZ. The postings will very much be ‘works in progress’, as I’ll continue to alter those postings with further information as it comes to my attention. Much of the information for these postings will come from my 2003 PhD thesis Political Parties in New Zealand: A Study of Ideological and Organisational Transformation. Some of the information is therefore a bit out of date, but I hope to update the facts and arguments over the following weeks and months.

Is 'Live Earth' a global disaster? Or just a harmless 24-hour smugfest?

It's the new pattern of 'New Politics': don't bother with politics, political parties, programmes and elections etc - just organise a big media feel-good gig and get celebrity endorsements for your cause. So despite the conspicous failures of past smugfests like Make Poverty History and Live 8, Al Gore wants to lecture us all by getting pop stars to perform environment concerts on seven continues over 24 hours. As if there's anyone alive who isn't already aware of the situation? It's rammed down our throats everywhere. But Live Earth reminds us that political pop is not dead but is in a dire state where, as I've posted before, there are Too many protest singers, not enough protest songs. [Read more below]

What Happened to Our Dream of Freedom

Political journalism is just about dead. In New Zealand we have very little informative and critical journalism to help us see what lies below the world of surface appearances (especially with the ongoing cuts in journalism). That's why it worth trying to see the fascinating documentary series entitled The Trap: What Happened to Our Dream of Freedom by Adam Curtis, which has just screened on the BBC in the UK. This three-party series explores the dominant anti-collective ideology that views human beings as selfish, mistrustful, isolated individuals and which has been incredibly influential on politics and general life in the west since the end of the cold war. [Read more below].

A Royal shift to the centre in France

The race is on to replace French President Jacques Chirac - who has been the most unpopular president since polling began - with a recent popularity rating of just 29%. Added to this, there are massive social and economic problems in the country, with 54% of the French think their country is in decline. In this context, the French Socialist Party presidential candidate should be the almost unstoppable. Yet Ségolène Royal's campaign has been a bit of a disaster, and her programme has been far from convincing to voters, as she lurches from left to right and back again. The Guardian has pointed out that her failings in opinion polls might be related to the conservative nature of the French electorate, but the newspaper also adds that although Royal complains of sexism, her support base is actually heavily male, with women supporters being the least loyal. [Read more below]

The Moderation of New Zealand First

Like every other party in Parliament, New Zealand First is currently speeding up it's attempts to moderate its policies and make itself less politically distinctive. The latest examples involve asian immigration, free trade deals, and acceptance of the 'baubles of office'. Where once leader Winston Peters was well known for his opposition to Asian immigration and refugees, he now takes part in building better ties between Asians and New Zealanders. For example last week he helped launch Asian Magazine, which is aimed at making a stand against racism in NZ. As the Herald points out, this is a long way from when Peters complained 'We have now reached the point where you can wander down Queen Street in Auckland and wonder if you are still in New Zealand or some other country'. [Read more below]

Labour Govt is a miserly aid donor - Oxfam

Last week I posted on Make Charity History and mentioned NZ's very poor foreign aid levels. The Herald reports that Oxfam NZ's director, Barry Coates has said: 'Most kiwis think we are good global citizens. But compared to others, our government is a miserly aid donor'. Currently NZ gives only 0.27% of GNI, and although Labour has promised to increase this to 0.35% by 2010 there has been no increase yet. Oxfam says also, that NZ is 'one of only a few countries who have not set a plan in place to reach our promised target of 0.7%'.

Despite being miserly, the NZ Government is not that different to other western governments, who according to the UK Independent have even been cutting back on foreign aid after a G8 splurge last year which has dwindled out leading to a breaking of aid promises. It's also worth keeping in mind that more aid doesn't necessarily equal a good thing. For example, the cost of NZ's military involvement in the occupation of Afghanistan is counted towards the country's foreign aid donations!

Housing market working well for MPs

The Parliament Register of Interests came out last week. In this, MPs have to disclose all sorts of information about their finances. There wasn't a whole lot of interesting things in it. Kiwiblog mentions the apparent contradiction of Jim Anderton being a shareholder in the Commonwealth Bank of Australia after criticising the foreign domination of banking in NZ and therefore setting up the state-owned Kiwibank.  Much more significantly, No Right Turn suggests there is a problematic issue of so many MPs owning investment properties: 'it does raise doubts about their ability to seriously discuss the housing problem, when so many of them are directly financially benefitting from the present state of affairs'. As pointed out in an earlier posting on Money & Power, Helen Clark, for example, owns an Auckland villa worth $720,000, a Wellington townhouse worth about $350,000, an apartment in Christchurch, and property at Rodney. So although Labour's faith in letting 'the market decide housing issues' doesn't work very well for working class New Zealanders, it's sure working well for the political class.

[political finance] Money is no guarantee for political success

Party finance law reform - such as that currently proposed in New Zealand - is normally based upon the idea that the influence of money in politics can be used to 'buy elections'. But the fact is that there is very mixed evidence on the usefulness of money in elections. In this regard, the Economist has commented this week on the fact that the 2008 US presidential primary is shaping up to be easily the most expensive in history, by suggesting that how much money matters is not exactly clear:

Money is not a guarantee of success nor is lack of it a guarantee of failure. Phil Gramm and Steve Forbes have both proved that truckloads of money do not necessarily translate into political momentum. And Bill Clinton proved that you can win the presidency without being the big money candidate. Howard Dean has gone one better and proved both that you can succeed without money and fail with it. He came from nowhere to dominate the money primary in 2004. But his $40m treasure chest did not prevent him from imploding during the Iowa primaries.

And just in case you think this view is just the rantings of the rightwing Economist magazine, note the recent Guardian article entitled Money isn't everything by Ben Whitford, who argues that although the configurations of money in politics (and the US primaries in particular) can tell us a lot, ultimately 'there's more to the money primary than just the bottom line'. He says:

Money tells us a few specific things about candidates: how effective a political machine they can assemble, what kind of popular support they have, whether they're capable of mounting a serious campaign. But at the end of the day, despite the hype, elections come down to votes: it doesn't matter how rich a candidate is if they don't have the charisma and broad political appeal to back it up.

National's new smacking proposal

My friend Don overheard this in the pub the other night, so it may only be a rumour...

'Apparently in an attempt to brand his party more distinctly, John Key is launching a private members bill allowing employers to smack workers, using "reasonable force". As in, for example, "a few slaps on the buttocks for chronic absenteeism", or " a swift clip round the ear for clocking another employee's card". "That's not as hurtful as instant dismissal", argues Key " We think the occasional loving smack will help make some work sites a lot more family friendly. [Read more below]

Rich steadily getting richer in NZ

Few will be surprised to hear that Statistics NZ has confirmed that under Labour the Rich keep getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Their latest report on wealth illustrates the staggering inequality that exists in NZ. The richest 10% of NZers own 52% of NZ's wealth. This is up from 48% in 2001. The poorest half of NZ society now owns only 5% of the country's wealth - down from 7%. What's more, the wealth distribution is incredibly ethnic-based, with the average 'European' having a net worth of $87,000 compared to, for example, Pacific people with only $6,700. Here's the breakdown of wealth:

Top 1% own 16% of wealth
Top 5% own 38% of wealth
Top 10% own 52% of wealth
Top 50% own 95% of wealth
Bottom 50% own 5% of wealth

The Statistic NZ report in (PDF form) is here. The NZ Herald report is here. I'll try to post more analysis on this staggering report in the near future.

Hillary Clinton's staggering US$36m in the 'money primary'

Hillary Clinton is proving to be the favourite presidential nominee of American millionaire and billionaires. She has just announced that her fundraising in the first quarter of 2007 has netted her US$26m to add to her existed $10m in campaign funds. This figure easily breaks all previous records - it's three times the previous record for any Democrat or Republican politician. Republican contenders have the following amounts: Mitt Romney $20m, Rudy Giuliani $15m, and John McCain $13m. A WSWS article says all these enormous figures 'are an expression of the hammerlock which wealthy corporate interests enjoy over the US two-party political system'.

Make charity history?

Recently I read that New Zealanders give $1.27bn in donations each year, and that this compares very poorly to other countries. I thought it was maybe a good thing to find that we give only 0.81% of our national income compared to 2.2% in the US (where they obviously have a strong philanthropic culture). But then I was also impressed to read elsewhere that Latin American emigrants sent home about NZ$100bn to their families last year. Apparently such remittances are typically sent home by 'fruit pickers, nannies and cleaners' earning NZ$150-450 a month, and keep about 10m families out of poverty. This money actually exceeds the combined flow of aid and foreign direct investment' to Latin America. But why do I feel so differently about the two different examples above? [Read more below]

We need a campaign against economic violence to children

For all the good intentions of the 'anti-smacking' lobby, we actually need more attention focused on the violent effects on NZ children of our current economy. In line with this idea, John Minto reflects in the Press today on his work in low-income area schools - see Poverty produces the bash. Minto argues that 'Getting "the bash" is a regular feature of many kid's lives' in communities stressed out by poverty - 'where families live day to day on earnings from low quality, low-paid jobs'. He says the real long-term solution to child abuse is 'to tackle economic change head-on'. [Read more below]

[political finance] The public debate on reforming party finance rules begins

A new coalition has formed to push for tough party finance law reform. It's taken on the name of a group formed in 1979: the Coalition for Open Government (COG). Their formation is to be welcomed, even if their initial key policies if enacted would possibly lead to less open government and an even less politically diverse party system. [Read more below]

Government's neoliberalism to blame for housing crisis

As the debate on the housing crisis intensifies, more commentators are pointing the finger at Labour and National's 'hands off' approach to housing. A Herald editorial says that the 'Government has stood aloof from matters', while Matt McCarten says that 'It is outrageous that a supposedly pro-worker government manages an economic policy that tolerates a situation where workers on the average wage in Auckland would have to pay 90 per cent of their take-home pay on a medium house mortgage' and that Labour are essentially fiddling while Rome burns. The Herald also highlights the plummeting rate of home ownership in NZ - as pointed out earlier on this blog - saying that 'Home ownership has dropped almost 10 per cent since 1990 - and that was the first decade since the 1940s in which it did not rise'.

Further to last week's posts (here and here) detailing the unaffordability of housing in NZ, there's been another study released that provides further evidence of what McCarten is calling 'a major societal catastrophe'. The Massey University study says that 'buying a house is at its most difficult level since the studies began in 1989', with the author, Professor Bob Hargreaves saying 'things are pretty grim for first home buyers'.

It is becoming obviously to even mainstream commentators that Labour and National's reluctance to build enough state housing has strongly affected the problem. Quite simply, the market cannot provide the housing needs of New Zealanders. As Prof Hargreaves states, the private sector does not have the capacity for building enough low-cost housing. He says there is a lack of big building companies, and 'Part of the reason why building costs are so high is most builders are just small time, they're only building a few houses every year.... If you've a large contract... you can drive the building costs down'. At the same time, a report on building consent figures show that the number of new properties is falling, and 'average cost of a new dwelling jumping 70 per cent in the past five years'. The Chief Executive of the Builders Federation says that the budget end of the building market is in decline 'and most new houses were increasingly luxurious'.

Power profits and prices soar as NZers shiver

Labour came to power promising to fix the electricity market, yet since 2000 power prices have gone up 40% in real terms. And over the last year, electricity prices have risen by 7% for consumers, and fallen by 6.5% for businesses. On top of this, it's recently been announced that Transpower are putting up their prices by 15%, and other energy retailers like Contact are about to raise their prices significantly. At the same time, power company profits are rising fast. The Dominion Post has reported that 'State-owned power company profits topped $300 million in six months, up $37.6 million on the previous half year'. [Read more below]

Socially liberal Cuba to legalise gay marriage

Cuba is set to become the most socially liberal country in the Americas by legalising gay marriage and making sex change operations free of charge under Cuba's world leading health service. The country abolished its anti-gay laws in 1979, well before most US states (many of which retain various laws against forms of sexual activity usually associated with male homosexuality), and well before New Zealand. NZ too, has only adopted a half-way-house approach to gay marriage whereby gay and lesbians can only get Civil Unions (because Helen Clark and co thought that the sanctity of marriage meant that it should remain a heterosexual-only institution).

According to a Guardian opinion piece, Havana now has a lively and vibrant gay scene, and the days of official repression and machista cultural societal oppression are over. It quotes the president of Cuba's national assembly, Ricardo Alarcon, saying that 'We have to redefine the concept of marriage. Socialism should be a society that does not exclude anybody.' This is a huge advance on the Cuban revolution's early homophobia. The Guardian says that the change has come about primarily due to pressure within Cuba, but also significantly from Cuba's external supporters of the revolution that have encouraged progressive social-political change in the island. See also, the USA Today article, When it comes to gay rights, is Cuba inching ahead of USA?

The Politics of Paul Weller

Paul Weller, the solo artist and ex-Jam and ex-Style Council frontman, has recently been reported as creating disturbances in the increasingly polite world of rock. According to the Mirror newspaper he gobbed on a framed picture of Sting at a cancer charity event, said to a magazine that Sting is 'a fucking horrible man', and told Bob Geldof to 'fuck off'. Is the so-called 'godfather of britpop' just a yob, or a rebellious working class politico? [Read more below]

Labour Party hypocrisy over civil liberties

When the National Government of 1999 hosted the Chinese President Jiang Zemin in 1999 and police refused protesters their right to protest, the Labour Party and Helen Clark denounced the Government in the strongest possible terms for allowing NZ civil liberties to be trodden on. Now in 2007, Labour has displayed as much interest in upholding civil liberties as National. As has been widely reported, a NZ reporter was barred from a parliamentary photo opportunity last week on the request of the Chinese Embassy. Both Helen Clark and Michael Cullen justified the removal of journalist Nick Wang on the falsehood that he had been creating a disturbance. Luckily, however, video footage has shown that in truth Wang had been entirely calm despite the police harassment, and that the police had acted on Chinese instruction.

Even if the Labour Government didn't directly order the journalist to be removed, they have failed this important and highly-predictable test of ensuring that their own diplomatic protection police don't automatically do this on their behalf as has happened so many times before. As a Herald editorial points out, this ugly occurrence is not an isolated incident. They say: 'It is becoming routine: another high-ranking visitor from China, another suspension of a civil liberty'. Labour again proves no different to National.

Chris Trotter: Withdraw the anti-smacking bill

Anti-smacking advocates in New Zealand have adopted an elite, lobbying-style of politics that has effectively killed any chance of successfully changing society's orientation to smacking kids. To this effect, Chris Trotter has written a very interesting opinion piece in the Sunday-Star Times arguing that the 'anti-smacking' private members bill should not be rammed through Parliament in the context of such widespread opposition in society. [The article does not currently appear to be online.] Trotter says that when something like 80% of New Zealanders oppose the bill, it's bad politics and bad law to push legislation through just because you have assembled a slight parliamentary majority in favour.

Trotter is probably right. The proponents of the bill have failed to convince New Zealanders. This is because the Greens and their allies never really attempted to focus their campaigns on ordinary people. Instead they have taken an elite political approach that epitomises modern activist politics - that of lobbying those in power rather than the public. Trotter suggests that previous agents of social change were about more participatory and democratic means: 'the anti-Vietnam War movement, the anti-apartheid movement, the anti-nuclear movement and gay-rights movement. As their names suggest, they were all exercises in mass democratic action - and took years.'

NZ politics now takes place in an elite way, in which single-issue campaigns are increasingly carried out in a disengaged way from society. It's a hierarchical and anti-democratic way of trying to push for social change. As Trotter, reminds proponents of the bill, 'You cannot legislate people into virtue... they can only be persuaded. And you have not persuaded them.' Of course, there are always exceptions - where there is an overwhelming and urgent case for a government to act against majority wishes to protect the rights of some citizens, but I don't believe this case falls anywhere near that.