Hold my calls, there’s a Mr Luxon on the line
Hoardings and other political ads we can tolerate, but one form of advertising I really take exception to.
A recorded message was left on our landline, with National leader Christopher Luxon talking about taking the country back – sloganeering as he does on autopilot. If I'd answered, I would have got the same recorded message. No opportunity to engage, question or reply, just a random invasion of my time.
You can put a sign on your letterbox requesting no junk mail, but cold-calling is another matter.
What would I have said if there'd been a person on the line? By no means will I vote for those who want to take the country backwards. I support those who've actually achieved things and will continue to do so.
Polling and panicking
The populace netted by political polls is telling us that we need change, as if change is a cure-all and when it is only demanded of the less fortunate.
Is wiping beneficiaries off your balance sheet going to remove the costs inherent to a desperate community? Logic says that these unfortunates do and will make an impact elsewhere in the budget — in policing, in hospitals in emergency services and housing, and in increased numbers of prison cells when such housing offers long-term security unavailable elsewhere.
There are fewer than 3000 households nationwide which are destined to benefit from National's much touted charity to the squeezed middle. Putting such a strict limit to the size of this demographic makes this merely a deeply cynical act of window dressing.
Some on the right have the trick of looking reliable by remaining staunchly inflexible. Others sound panicked and close to dementia.
Surely, in our changing times, not being able to think on your feet limits the chances of survival of your voter base.
Surely times of change demand flexible and beneficent rather than punitive leadership.
Surely, working assiduously to gain strength in numbers via shouted slogans is not encouraging a healthy democracy. Careful what you wish for.
On track to what?
I see a hoarding is claiming that a political party will get New Zealand "back on track". On track to what?
Perhaps, "back on track to corporate oligarchy"? It’s the direction in which western democracies have been heading for decades.
True, it is a kind of democracy, in that we can knowingly vote for a party that favours particular sectors of the economy. By default, that means that large corporate businesses within those sectors have influence over policy and that’s not necessarily problematic. We do give to governments the power to try to back winners on our behalf.
Nevertheless, the fundamental difference between democratic political governance and corporate business governance makes it difficult for business and government to operate in the same space. Democratic government is charged with operating in the interests its citizens; corporate business, by contrast, acts in the interests of its shareholders.
When corporate business has a large influence over a particular government, only the morality of politicians and business leaders protects citizens from decisions made on behalf of a tiny number of wealthy shareholders. The ongoing failure to come to grips with the unfair distribution of wealth is an indication that morality alone is not going to protect New Zealand from corporate oligarchy.
A central idea which is widely accepted
Co-governance isn't new nor inherently about a Māori-Pākehā divide. It's about a dominant group sharing governance or decision-making with another group. The name has not been widely used, so because this recent example of it involves Māori and Pākehā, the assumption that this is a central idea of it is widely accepted.
When people here first voted for members of Parliament, the original voters were all male adults who were also landowners.
Then the few Māori men who were landowners and who had sole title to that land, were included. Now, people 18 or over, of all genders, all races, landowners or not, who are New Zealand citizens or permanent residents, elect our representatives to Parliament. Each time a change has been made an act of co-governance has occurred. Always a different outlook has been introduced to that of the power holders. Always there has been resistance from those previously holding all the power, as they recognise that their power will be diluted by the newcomers. Always everyone has eventually got over it, and as time passes, we arrive at a new status quo which almost everyone accepts as normal.
The proposed change to the management of water resources has as it two co-governees Māori and Pākehā, each of which are seen to have a significant and substantially different point of view. Māori will almost certainly never progress their perspective on any subject by simple individual voting. The numbers in each group is too different for this ever to happen. Māori have a strong, cohesive group of priorities which need to be taken into account. By giving each group a recognised point of view, and rights that are equal in the mixture, then by negotiation a satisfactory solution to whatever the problen is has a chance to be negotiated. Why should that be unacceptable?
Winston Peters and scrums in league: why?
As we head into our own general election, the USA heads towards a future president who could be incarcerated and certainly should be. As the Middle East erupts into full-on war and everywhere there is increasing nuclear militarisation by rogue countries. As Putin grasps to reclaim the Russian Empire in his own name and image and further inflicts Ukraine even more tragedy piled on top of Holodomor.
As coral reefs are dying from over-heating and acidification of the oceans, as ice-caps are disappearing and temperatures soaring.
As species are dying faster than they can be protected we do have to ask the big questions.
What use is Winston Peters to anyone other than himself and what is the point of a scrum in the game of Rugby League? Priorities please.
High standards
The state education system has been said to be failing, and as Winston Peters says it was once at a very high world standard.
Looking back, the Labour Party introduced Tomorrow’s Schools, an unnecessary and damaging change. Then the National government altered the education system to favour segregation, whereby schools chose their pupils, zoning was done away with, and school buses roamed about picking up their flock.
The New Zealand education system was founded on a free, compulsory, and non-secular basis, whereby the rich and poor, all ethnic groups and religions mixed and integrated into our society.
The state system should be known as "New Zealand Integrating State Schools" — people in our democracy can segregate if they wish of course but they should be known as segregating schools.
Address Letters to the Editor to: Otago Daily Times, PO Box 517, 52-56 Lower Stuart St, Dunedin. Email: editor@odt.co.nz
