Who Are The Fifty Percent?

63
4

Screen Shot 2013-08-02 at 5.46.49 PM

THREE OPINION POLLS in as many weeks have shown popular support for the National Party government of John Key hovering just short of, or actually above, 50 percent of the electorate. This is an extraordinary, indeed unprecedented, level of support for a government halfway through its second term of office.

Who are these National Party supporters? Because National’s historically-defined electoral base: the tiny percentage of New Zealanders who still live on farms, and the roughly 10 percent of Kiwis who own and operate their own business, cannot possibly account for more than a third of them. What is it that makes the other two-thirds tell pollsters they’re voting for the Nats?

The most obvious (and also the most likely) answer is: National’s 50 percent share of the vote comes mostly from those for whom New Zealand remains a going concern. They are the people in work – real work. We’re not talking about those who juggle two or even three part-time jobs, or follow seasonal work to the freezing works and the fruit orchards. The people we’re talking about are fully and gainfully employed.

Their jobs require a varying, but nevertheless very real, array of skills. This is not the sort of shit-work that Kacey Musgraves sings about in Blowing Smoke . (Hat-tip to Steve Cowan.) These workers are not on the minimum wage or anything like it. They have real qualifications – not bogus certificates – and their employers breathed a huge sigh of relief when they signed on. The salary they were offered had to be generous or they wouldn’t have taken the job. These folk don’t really need a union.

The people they work with are pretty much the same as they are. All of them have rewarding and meaningful jobs, a family home in the suburbs, kids who, by and large, stay out of trouble. Money isn’t really a problem for these folk because, of course, their wives, husbands and partners all have jobs very similar to their own. As far as they’re concerned, everybody gets to go on holiday over the summer. Everybody runs away to Fiji or Rarotonga to escape the worst of the winter weather. And anybody willing to save in a serious fashion can fly off to Europe for that trip of a lifetime to London, Paris, Rome or Dubrovnik.

It’s not that the 50 percenters have nothing to do with the other half of New Zealand. In fact, many of them interact with the poor, the sick, the young, and the disoriented every day of the working week. It’s just that their interactions are all framed by negative assumptions, expectations and stereotypes. Whether they be doctors, teachers, social workers or counsellors, their common response to the deprivation of their clients is one of professional distance. They regard the people who come before them as broken and inadequate: life’s losers. Their job is to fix them. Those who cooperate will be helped. Those who defy or resist them won’t.

There are, of course, a great many young people in National’s 50 percent, but, more than likely, the conservative, National Party voter is going to be on the wrong side of 55. They’ll also be “Nesters”: Baby Boomers who’ve had the opportunity to not only purchase and pay-off their own home, but, having mastered the basics of financial leverage, acquired a second or even a third property.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

These properties are what they call their “superannuation plan”. Whether it’s fulfilled in the form of rent, or as untaxed capital gain, will largely depend on the state of the market. But, however their investment plan is realised, the promised monetary reward gives these lucky Boomers a profound sense of security. It’s the “Fuck-You-Fund” they’ve always wanted: the “rainy day” stash that lets them look the world squarely in the eye and say: “Bring it on!”

This, then, is the New-Zealand-as-a-going-concern that most of the 50 percent inhabit.

It’s not the New Zealand of shit-jobs and low wages, where the union is kept out and redundancy is just a quarter’s worth of bad numbers away.

It’s not the New Zealand of harassed beneficiaries and children heading off to school without food in their bellies or shoes on their feet.

It’s not the New Zealand where a decent, hardworking family’s home has been broken into for the third time and the insurance premiums have jumped beyond their reach.

It’s not the New Zealand where it’s midnight and your eldest boy is God knows where, doing God knows what, with people you’re pretty sure are dealing drugs and stealing cars.

But it is the New Zealand of the last and most heart-breaking portion of National’s 50 percent.

The portion that lives in that other New Zealand and hates it.

The portion that wants to get out and away more than anything in the world.

More, even, than it wants John Key and his ministers to make everybody look after their kids the way they do; and to force all those lazy dole-bludgers to get off their arses and do a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay; and to put all those bloody criminal bastards in jail and throw away the fucking key!

It’s not a small portion.

63 COMMENTS

    • He has yes!
      Those once were (even) hippies – rebellious Onslow College going fuck my parents are dikheads, I’m left-wing, I love Jimmy Hendrix, call me cool, “I’m old-school” types even – right up until they discover the benefits of AMEX Gold and drop a couple of sprogs called Trinian and Chas.
      Once were Labour even – till it all became just so bloody inconvenient.
      Those amongst them that still try and keep up the pretense now form the ABC club and ‘right wing of Labour’ (what should be oxymoronic) – The Paganis, the oike Williams, often the now coke snorting (but don’t tell Trinian), we moved north for professional reasons when TVNZ came up this way, Grey Lynne/Ponsonby dwellers.
      Greed is good aye? it’s done them well! Kick the can down the road a little further – it eventually turns to gravel, and that’s just so enchanting yes?
      They’re much like the esprayshnul Key in many ways: I’ve got principles – and if you don’t like them – here are some others you could try.
      Oh (btw), did I ever tell you how tough we did it when we started out? Solo mum, dad was a bastard. We’re the self made man and woman – and if we can do it – ANYBODY can

      • Most baby boomers were never hippies. The counter-culture movement in New Zealand only ever comprised a small percentage of the babyboomer generation. The majority got steady jobs and raised families in provincial New Zealand. Many of those that were genuinely anti-establishment haven’t changed their tune at all.

        If you want to see what the majority of the non-political baby boomer generation looks like now, they are the ones (granparents) who left it till now to put red streak in their hair, travelling round in camper vans, and finally buying their Harley Davidson which they have accidents on.

        NB the second para is a generalisation of course, but does encompasses that age group quite significantly

    • Shit I hate this ‘boomer bashing’. I have never voted National in my life. Have lived on the fringe. Scrapped all the way. Have now to wait until I’m crippled to get a hip replacement, but marched, protested,then and now. All Boomers are not conservative. We might be over 55. Some of us are over 65, but still activists. Boomer Bashing is no better than Keys mates. Get off it Bomber.

      • I hate it too Jay (being one myself). I hear it all the time, but I keep coming across too many of the greedy, the self interested amongst my cohort, and those without any compassion that have loaded our grandkids up with debt and struggles we never had to face.

      • I don’t doubt that you have been just as disadvantaged by government policies as many younger people have.

        But, we see this all the time. Baby boomer commenter is a left winger, right up until the point that someone suggests that the boomers might be required to take some damn responsibility for the state of the society that they still control.

        Whether you like it or not, younger people do resent the baby boomers and the world they have plundered and left in their wake.

        Here’s an idea, how about standing with the younger generations who are trying to change the world into something better, rather than just telling us to sit down and shut the f*k up.

        • Divide and rule is how the Keys of the world get away with it. Categorising all “baby boomers” as greedy and irresponsible isn’t useful. There are plenty of us who have never stopped working for peace, justice and environmental sustainability and happily support our children and grandchildren in that work.
          Please stop resenting us and find those of us who have never sold out.

          • People are referring to a general tendency among boomers, not something that afflicts every single boomer.

            On average, people start paying more in to the welfare state than they get about at about age 35 or so. It is absolutely no surprise that the popularity of the welfare cutting politics we have had since the early 1980s coincides exactly with the boomers (who form a massive voting cohort) reaching that age. This is the case in all the Anglo countries.

            It isn’t just me, when thinking about how hard it is to afford a house, who remembers the state basically giving his parents the deposit on a house (the government let them buy their state house at 1/3 below market valuation, thus ensuring they would get a mortgage).

            My guess is that I will be close to retirement before most of the boomers have gone and we can start clearing up the economic, political and cultural wreckage they’ve left in their wake.

            • The boomers did not get the 3% loans and the state houses. That was their parents.

              Boomers got the up to 28% interest costs on houses while paying 60% top tax rates for Government services, including education. It wasn’t free!

              Services which were removed, sold or made user pays by the 1984 Labour Government. Also non-boomers, by the way!

      • The problem is obviously not the few boomers that know this government and all it stands for is corrupt – the problem is the majority of boomers who are self centred right wingers who are ONLY concerned with protecting their own ‘economic well-being’ and to hell with anyone who stands outside their corporate controlled value system

        • Majority of boomers? How do you know that?

          I doubt it.

          Plenty of young wannabees who vote for the nice Mr Key.

          Who want to be like the one who made 50 million, by ripping off New Zealanders

        • I think you will find this applies to most generations – the “boomers” just happen to be the ones occupying this demographic at the moment….and what a lot of cloistered arseholes most of them are (I am a boomer, by the way) – but then most of them always were. Nothing changes – just the names…..then it’ll be the next generation’s graspers to take the limelight

  1. I doubt if the people you describe are anywhere near 50% of the population. I’d include the lazy minded aspirational bigots whose life philosophy comes down to nothing more sophisticated than a few marketing slogans. The selfish, the stupid, those who need to feel superior to someone. The dark beasts of our civilisation. Those who would see the corpse of a poet and check for gold teeth. Our society has been moulded since the first ACT government to appeal to these people, to swell their numbers, to reward venality and mendacity. We need to take it back.

    • Gotta agree with that. I think xome commentators need to get out more. The Tory support is heartland support. Ordinary people who feel threatened by the “other” – Gay, brown, intellectual, immigrant. If they are employed then the unemployed are bludgers. If they’re unemployed it’s the fault of Asian immigrants. They still believe the “anti-smacking bill” was Helen Clarke’s conspiracy to depower them and have no idea Jonkey voted for it. They like Jonkey because “at least he knows how to make money”. They support the GCSB bill because there are “weirdos in this country who need sorting out”. If the death penalty was proposed they would support it. Thery would support closing our borders to any refugees. They are not interested in any information that threatens their world view and have no intellectual reason for supporting National except “they’re not Greenies and not that bloody Helen Clarke”.

    • Ah yea Ovic – they’re kind of like those I was trying to put into a nice little square box (above).
      As a boomer myself though, these days I just find them amusing. By and large, their entire existence has been sustained on credit, their hearts. minds, wealth and being looks very synthetic (almost plastic) … and when they kick their mortal, and have to cash up, most of them I know of (my contemporaries) are in a far worse position than I am. Trinian and Chas are often total fuckups as well

  2. This question has bounced around with me lately and I can see now why I didn’t want an answer. Confronting it is a bit depressing. I’m a baby boomer of the penniless kind, or loser, for those who prefer it, but it has some advantages believe it or not. My mind goes back to 1981 … weren’t those “lovers of social justice” who hit the streets in huge numbers mostly baby-boomers too? The ones around me were. So what happened to that young but keen sense of morality that should by now be further refined? That willingness to stand up for the disadvantaged? You could compare it to the rock revolution of the 60’s/70’s … love and music was going to change the world, until it was realised their was money to be made. The same generation would now spill someone else’s blood before their loose change. How do you change that? The whole country resembles CHCH pre-earthquakes … head down in their own little world where there is nothing to worry about. I keep a good pair of shoes. Well written article Mr Trotter.

    • Hardly a loser Sizemik. Better that anyway than not being able to cope when the dishwasher breaks down or the SUV won’t start.

      Oh wait … I forgot – many of them will have upgraded to one of those ‘double drawer’ models (just for redundancy purposes of course), then there’s always the runabout to get around

  3. Who are these National Party supporters? Because National’s historically-defined electoral base: the tiny percentage of New Zealanders who still live on farms, and the roughly 10 percent of Kiwis who own and operate their own business, cannot possibly account for more than a third of them.

    That’s an interesting point to make, Chris.

    I’ve been looking at some of the more unscientific polls on various media – the ones like on the Herald or Dom Post that ask questions about various government policies.

    Generally speaking, about a third of respondants (and bear in mind they are not scientific) will always support the Nats.

    It’s as if their core support – the ones whose views cannot be dislodged with reason, evidence, or half a dozen sticks of gelignite – to them it’s akin to a religious belief.

    So it’s not quite as bad as we might think. Remember, the Nats won only 30.5% (there’s that one third again) in 1999 and 20.93% in 2002. In 2005, they went up to 39.10% – just over that one-third we keep seeing.

    So if the Nats are scoring an extra 10 percentage points on these polls – that is the “soft vote”.

    They’re the voters who can be persuaded.

    I’ll be interested to see what the next Roy Morgan poll shows. The polling dates for this last one closed on 28 June – the same day Labour released it’s housing policy.

    Will they benefit from that policy in the next RM poll?

    Time will tell.

    In the meantime, we work harder – irrespective of whether we’re Labour, Green, or Mana supporters.

    And Labour has to start promoting policy and showing that they will hit the ground running the day after the 2014 General Election.

  4. I used to attempt conversation with the 50% while waiting to pick my boy up at school. Deadly boring exchanges of commonplaces re holidays and not much else. I’ve stopped.

    It is cold comfort to realize that they are a self correcting problem – condemned to live exclusively with themselves and with those just like themselves. Underneath the self-satisfaction. Beneath the “fuck you fund” is genuine despair at having traded a shot at genuine humanity for a small pile of monetary signifiers.

    I’m a boomer and have for some time now been deeply ashamed of the mid-life political apathy and petty avarice of my generation. Surviving generations, if any, will curse our memory.

  5. part of the 50% may some of the people I know, who are alienated by labour/greens social policies and therefore vote nats by default, (cos small parties may not get in, then the dreaded labour machine will be there). The ones who fear liberalism so much that heartless, oppressive, apparent conservatism seems the lesser evil. An interesting question to survey or poll would be “why wouldn’t you vote for labour/greens/mana” rather than “who would you vote for and why”.

    • It would be interesting to see the results in Christchurch at the moment, especially in the eastern suburbs.

  6. How are these polls done? If it is solely by landlines, this may explain a few things. I was explained once by someone who use to work in business marketing for Telecom, that telecommunication companies target their landline marketing at clients who are most likely to be National voters. They are the most likely to have a landline for two main reasons. First, National supporters are most likely to own or run a reasonable sized business, which usually still needs a landline to operate. Second main reason, it is becoming more and more expensive for house holds to keep a landline, while those on lower incomes it is more economical to have a mobile service only. Those who can afford to run both a mobile phone and landline service are recognised as being more likely to National supporters by the telecommunication companies. They target their markets like any company, and National supporters are deemed the most likely to use landlines today, and more so as time goes by.

    • Can I put a question to those that feel that a land line service indicates a level of financial comfort in a household, in regard to poll results favouring the National Govt, because I really, really think I am missing something. This is a sincere question.

      Apparently NZ is one of the most expensive places in the world to use a mobile phone service, but we have one the highest mobile phone use rates per capita outside India. Sorry, nothing to back that up, it’s just what I’ve heard.

      I spend about $20 on a 2 degree’s prepay top up approximately every 3 months. We do a lot of out of town calls per month on our land line and have a combined land line internet contract with Slingshot. We get 100GB and each month we pay little over $100 per month. For all our phone and internet use, we are far better off having a land line. I keep the mobile for emergencies and texts to other 2 degree’s phones are 2 cents, plus theres a certain amount of free texts per month. I own the cheapest mobile you can buy and have no need for a smart phone. I have never been phoned by a research company to get my political opinion. Surely there must be other lefties out there that use a land line? Land lines surely can not be the sole domain of National party supporters can they?

      • Hi Rosie

        I think you’re spot on. Mobile phones are still fairly expensive in NZ. Around 87% of households have a landline and I think around 11% only have a cell phone (assuming around 2% have neither).

        So sure, non-coverage of cell only households in a potential source of poll error. But the potential sources of poll error are endless!!! Anyone who points to just one potential source of error in a poll is just seeing the tip of the iceberg. It’s the job of any good pollster to try and identify and reduce all sources of error as much as possible. Everyone seems to assume that cell only households are made up of young students – I’m sure many are and I know there is a bias toward younger people, but what about the rich executives? You see, with the proportion around 11%, the voting preferences of cell only pple would need to be dramatically different to those with landlines to make any difference to a poll result.

        I wrote a post about poll error here: https://grumpollie.wordpress.com/2013/03/24/error-in-polls-and-surveys-2/

        And a couple of posts about landline ownership
        https://grumpollie.wordpress.com/2013/03/18/what-proportion-of-nz-households-have-a-landline-telephone/
        https://grumpollie.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/what-proportion-of-nz-households-have-a-landline-telephone-update/

        Finally – I’ve noticed pple judging polls by comparing Election Day results with polls taken two or three weeks out from the election! What’s the point in doing that? Public sentiment can change massively leading up to an election – eg, teapot tapes!!! The only fair comparison is the Election Day result with the polls taken as close as possible to Election Day – and even the polls can’t account for events in the last few days leading up to the election, because most of the interviews are carried out earlier in the fieldwork period.

        • 13% of household may not have phonelines but the households without phonelines, I would guess, would tend to have more people in them. So a 13% of households would probably equate to 18% of the population.

          Anyway, the latest census data should be able to say.

          You can pick up cell phone from JBHiFi for $26 bucks.

          • Absolutely. The census will be interesting.

            Would all the people on those landlineless larger households have cell phones? Can’t wait for the census!

            Yeah cell phones themselves can be pretty cheap – relative to other places in the world I hear that services are fairly expensive though – I could be wrong.

        • Thank you Andrew. Your 3 links and the points you raise above, including the final one, are all very interesting. I had suspected the methodology around collecting data could lead to a bias, or an outcome that doesn’t truly represent the participant’s view, so it’s helpful to see the factors that influence this clearly explained.

  7. The 50% are half my workmates, half my neighbours, half the people in the checkout queue with me. And I want to punch some sense into them.

    I feel as though I’m living in a nasty sci-fi movie.

  8. I’d say it’s a combination of Key successfully peddling the Big Lie that we’re all temporarily embarrassed millionaires, and an increasing number of non-voters too cynical and disillusioned to vote. A lot of non-voters are also transient, making it difficult for the Electoral Commission to enrol them.

  9. More, even, than it wants John Key and his ministers to make everybody look after their kids the way they do; and to force all those lazy dole-bludgers to get off their arses and do a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay; and to put all those bloody criminal bastards in jail and throw away the fucking key!

    If you want to see this attitude in all its glory, take a deep breath and try the well trafficked http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/

  10. The Labour Party of New Zealand don’t have a hope of being elected. It won’t until it stops reacting to events and starts creating a view of the future that is positive. Something we can see in our mind’s eye.

    That might sound a little facile. How can you talk about positivity when there is so much negativity swirling about – as described in this post?

    Labour, or any party that wants to win, you must stop emphasising ‘them and us’. It’s not red or blue – they are both antiquated ideas.

    Look to the common ground. A family lucky enough to be comfortably well off still have anxiety about their children’s prospects. It may be true that their kids have a head start or an advantage over a poor migrant family – but everything is relative.

    A poor family don’t want their current circumstances to define them. “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”.

    All people want to believe things will get better. We are wired that way.

    It might be a worthy social objective, but emphasising an issue like child poverty, as polis Jacinda Adern and Phil Twyford (and others) have done assiduously -doesn’t resonate. On the news it simply sounds like rhetoric – talking theoretically about the problem. In opposition Labour can’t solve the problem, it has no real effect on social policy. National can simply form a coalition with Sanitarium, toss a few Weetbix to the mob and claim a victory (a measured one – it wouldn’t do to seem to be spending the mythical ‘taxpayer’s money to teach or reinforce helplessness).

    It would make more sense to paint a picture of what the future for New Zealanders would be with the kinds of social policy in place needed to get there.

    I feel New Zealand has no goal. It is rudderless – it suits Free Trade advocates to perpetuate the real sense of anxiety that comes from fear of missing out (FOMO) – if we don’t come to the party we will be left behind. The sacrifices aren’t just worth it in their worldview, but necessary. High minded principles like sovereign laws are less important than access to markets that are, in truth, bigger than we can serve.

    Fear drives too much of the discourse of the left and the right. Arguing about what we don’t want seems to take precedence over agreeing on what we do want.

    As I said, us and them is a notional and transitory thing. With luck we become ‘them’. The poor should be able to invest in education and personal gain – it’s not an issue defined by politics in their minds.

    The government of the day is irrelevant if people agree on what defines us as nation. The day that happens pissants like John Key wouldn’t dare mess with the future because they know it belongs to us.

    • I totally agree David. I am a regular reader of TDB but I think the messages don’t go past people who are already think this way – anger & negativity may work to motivate people who already support this view but it doesn’t seem to be working to persuade other people or get them inspired, they just seem to turn off when they hear about how bad things are or feel attacked – when people feel attacked they are closed off and not open to being persuaded.

      I recently watched the movie NO about the 1988 ‘No’ campaign in Chile which helped end the rule of Augusto Pinochet http://www.ndi.org/NO-movie-event. I suggest something like this needs to be adopted by the left in order to reach into the hearts & minds of the 50%

      We are a country being run into the ground by an ex foreign currency trader and 50% of the population is oblivious to this. The left need to start thinking outside the square to open up the eyes of the 50%

      “It would make more sense to paint a picture of what the future for New Zealanders would be with the kinds of social policy in place needed to get there.”

      • You may recall that David Cunliffe gave a speech along just those lines to the women of his own electorate about a year ago, and was publicly bad-mouthed and sent into Coventry by his party for it. A very dangerous game is being played, in which the current Labour leadership seems willing to acquiesce. Their grand policy initiatives all have the ring of sales pitches rather than serious intentions, exemplified by Shearer’s prancing off overseas the day after his electricity announcement, leaving Robertson to reassure the investor class. Rather than offering an alternative vision, they just want a piece of that 50% action, even as the country as a whole goes to hell in a hand cart.

        Meanwhile, the default facial expression of the NZ bourgeois flicks between anxiety and self-congratulation, like those stickers that people used to have on the dashboards of cars, that flicked between Mary and St Christopher when you went over judder bars. You really notice this when you come back from being away. Of course they are going to vote for a status quo when no realistic alternative is being articulated.

        What we need is a real plan to rebuild the real economy in an inclusive way, and someone who can convince the broader electorate that we will all be better off for it, as Cunliffe was trying to do in the above-mentioned speech.

        • Labour should take a look at what’s been happening with an open source approach in technology.
          Projects on Kickstarter and Indiegogo are bypassing traditional funding models.

          Go back to the early 70s when Labour was supporting Ohu community startups. They were helping people by offering an opportunity with those policies, rather than just offering more welfare.

          Giving people the opportunity to learn open source skills and frameworks might give them a sense of community in what they’re doing.
          Fonterra is a fine example of what a co-operative approach can achieve.

    • The lack of any real “positive vision for the future” is indeed one of the calamities that has befallen the Left since the 60s. There has been a complete loss of faith in any ‘grand narrative’, any idea of the possibility of ‘progress’. The Left has no dream to tell anymore.

      For me, this stems from the intellectual Left’s love affair with postmodernism, a paralysing disease of the spirit which encourages ironic detachment and little else.

      And while Friedrich Hayek’s children, the ‘Chicago boys and girls’, have imposed their neoliberal ideological nightmare on us, we have had no dream to fight back with.

    • Well said, David.
      It’s impossible to be anything but reactive when you steer your ship with focus groups.

  11. This is why our so called “democracy” is irrecoverably broken, and must be abandoned. The wolves don’t get a say, in a fair society.

  12. My personal feeling is that it is less that people actively support National and more they actively don’t support the alternative of Labour/Green.

    • More that Labour appears so incompetent and dis-organised, they make even an evil bunch of unthinking buffoons, like National, look good.

  13. Once you have a couple of kids, a mortgage and a mid level job with some degree of responsibility you stop looking out at the world, and instead look in at your responsibilities.

    It’s the insular view of the world that creates the middle and working class right.

    But, they are essentially swing voters in that if their life equilibrium changes, they will vote selfishly (i.e. if they lose their job, their investment, their property dips into negative equity).

    They are voters who will go with what’s best for them, not what’s best for the collective. For Labour to win their vote, it needs to convince enough of these voters they are the best party for them as individuals.

  14. Yes, I thought this was bomber talking too. I had to check to see it was Chris Trotter. I think it is poor form to lump people together in any classification except arseholes and total arsehole and I am pretty sure those categories include all ages. The baby boomer argument works historically because the labour govt of 1984 brought in neoliberalism as those so aged were in their prime. For those that came after 1984, all the things that gave the boomers their start in life were removed by the very age group that had benefited. All over the neoliberal world today, youth have no future, no jobs, no homes, nothing. And that’s for the well educated ones. It has nothing to do with age. It has to do with an especially evil brand of capitalism. Fire your cannons in the right direction or have them taken off you Chris.

  15. Where is your evidence for this, Chris?

    As one of the people you describe.

    Highly skilled, well paid, in demand, prosperous, yacht and beemer, owning boomer.

    I am also well aware that in many other countries, without New Zealands welfare and education systems, with the income and social level of my parents and grandparents, I would have had no chance to get to the stage I have.

    I have strongly opposed the Neo-Liberal direction the country has been taking, right from the 80’s. To the point, at times, where my job has been threatened.

    I believe everyone, growing up, should have the same chances I had.

    In my experience, so far, the genuinely highly skilled and competent, I.E. Teachers, Doctors, Technicians, Engineers, skilled trades tend to be left leaning, can spot the tells when Key lies and dislike the mean spirited and evil turn the country is taking.

    I have seen many John Key’s and Bill Englishe’s in my working life. They rarely leave places better than they found them.

    National supporters, on the evidence I have seen, tend to be either the tribal ones like the Chamber of Commerce types and cockies, often well meaning, but unthinking, or the parasites. Real estate agents, speculators, dodgy business men, bean counters, corporate managers and a great many other wannabees. People with no real skills, but, like Key, are competent at bullshit, and/or dream that one day they may be as wealthy.

    It is depressing to see someone, who claims to be a left wing, like yourself, commentator, reinforcing right wing bullshit memes which set the generations against each other, and blind them to the real culprits.

    The corporate thieves, who have stolen our country!

  16. I am a 58 year old baby boomer in a meaningful well paid job in the health sector trying to make a real difference to peoples lives. I have two children and an active Green Party member. I have just donated money to John Minto’s mayoral campaign. I abhor current National Party policy and behaviour as I also abhor the Plutocracy of the 5 eyes countries.
    The above published article is an example of stereotyping at its worst. I would be ‘the enemy’ according to its axioms. Why would a movement trying to redemocratise New Zealand make an enemy of anyone like me ??
    It does not make sense.

  17. “”Whether they be doctors, teachers, social workers or counsellors, their common response to the deprivation of their clients is one of professional distance. They regard the people who come before them as broken and inadequate: life’s losers. Their job is to fix them. Those who cooperate will be helped. Those who defy or resist them won’t.”

    Sorry – I find this pretty offensive.

  18. I’m a boomer. You forget that boomers were disproportionately affected by the economic upheavals of Rogernomics, and those with investments were disproportionately whacked about the ears by the 1987 stock market crash.

    Many never regained an equivalent place on the economic ladder: unable to get another decent job because they were considered to be too old, and thus unable to restore their financial position to what it might have been, had the crash not occurred, or their jobs hadn’t disappeared.

    I’d also point out that the architects of the great neolib experiment weren’t, by and large, boomers. So give us a break, for god’s sake!

    I’ve never voted National in my life, and I ain’t going to start now. But I’m damned if I’ll give Labour my vote until they stop trying to be centre-right – or whatever it is that they’re doing – and begin to differentiate from the Nats. And it’d help if they had a leader who actually looked and sounded like one. Come back, Helen, all is forgiven!

  19. ‘ Lies , damned lies and statistics . ‘

    Remember , all you Humans . 99% of everything is bullshit .

    I polled the neighbours in my street and I got a 99% approval rating for my new sneakers .

    I only asked one person because I only have one neighbour .

    For anyone trying to find reason , logic or God forbid the Truth in any statistic relating to jonky-stiens hoard of thieves and liars or their stubborn perpetuity should stick to television for all their educational needs .

    And remember also , and perhaps most importantly ; It was Labour who excreted the beasts Ovicula wrote so eloquently of , and frighteningly , they’re still out there exerting their influence . Not that long ago I saw roger douglas squeaking like a cornered weasel about this or that from the ACT nest . Until recently don brash was being courted for his opinions by the MSM and I saw jonky shrilling like a school girl at john banks just the other night while making lite of his litany of lies .

    The reason Labour haven’t ousted Nationals goon squad of Right , White , Neoliberals is because Labour is also a goon squad of Right , White , Neoliberals .
    And both parties know very well that the best way to further their dark agenda is to divide us lot either financially , racially or sociologically . Make one sector of our community financially secure and fuck the rest of us over by upping the basic cost of living . It aint rocket surgery .
    What we should be doing is raging through Parliament with pitchforks and burning torches , not blowing out gas here and the reason we are not with the pitchforks and the torches is because we have no leader . As I’ve said before .

    Of course the trouble with toppling a government is who do you replace them with ?
    My answer is simple . Don’t replace them . Just make them do what they’re told until an inquiry is undertaken and fresh elections are planned . Then imprison them , asset strip them and chase down their swindling mates on a case by case basis .

    And with the Boomer conundrum . Well , I think it’s a wee bit of a myth . All them Boomers out there Booming . I know boomers . I was one . I was also enormously wealthy and privileged . I came from a position of never having to worry about money but perhaps most importantly of never having to worry about locking the car or the house . Ever . And now-a-days ? Well , everybody is a muthafuckin’ gangbanger . A soulless , slouch ares’d homi with a grudge , a nut sack full of sperm and an empty cranium . Or is that just a bunch of kids who’ve been deliberately deprived of hope by a BMW load of flaccid , well educated fools who only know greed and have made corruption the new sport of Kings .
    Because , all you kids with your spray cans and turf to patrol and vandalism to do and things you must steal and that terrible ignorance you haul around like a sack of stones … It was your stuff they took . It was your birthright they took away from you and sold for their profit . I reckon it’s time you demand it back .

    I found this guy while looking .

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Carton_de_Wiart

    ” Sir Adrian Paul Ghislain Carton de Wiart[1]VC, KBE, CB, CMG, DSO (5 May 1880 – 5 June 1963) was a British Army officer of Belgian and Irish descent. He served in the Boer War, First World War, and Second World War; was shot in the face, head, stomach, ankle, leg, hip, and ear; survived a plane crash; tunnelled out of a POW camp; and bit off his own fingers when a doctor refused to amputate them. Describing his experiences in World War I, he wrote, “Frankly I had enjoyed the war.”[2]

    After returning home from service in the Second World War, he was sent to China as Winston Churchill’s personal representative. While en route he attended the Cairo Conference.

    In his memoirs he wrote, “Governments may think and say as they like, but force cannot be eliminated, and it is the only real and unanswerable power. We are told that the pen is mightier than the sword, but I know which of these weapons I would choose.”[3] Carton de Wiart was thought to be a model for the character of Brigadier Ben Ritchie Hook in Evelyn Waugh’s trilogy Sword of Honour.[4] The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography described him thus: “With his black eyepatch and empty sleeve, Carton de Wiart looked like an elegant pirate, and became a figure of legend.”[5] ”

    This guy bit his fingers off for you . Isn’t that just outrageous ?
    And what respect do we show his memory ? We let those punks rip us off , head-fuck us then convince us that we’re to blame .

    Ok . I’m ranting again . Off for more medicine .

    @ Merrial . ‘ Come back Helen , all is forgiven . ‘ Yeah , well speak for yourself . clark is where she deserves to be . In Satans own . The USA ! FUCK YEAH ! ( Team America . http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0372588/ )

  20. @ Countryboy: you got a better suggestion for Labour leader??

    And that rant: all the more reason to protest at the passing of amended GCSB legislation, huh? We want a society in which we can write intemperately about the gummint, without the spooks turning up on the doorstep accusing us of sedition or subversiveness…..

  21. @ Merrial . Why , yes I have actually . judith collins . She’d fit right in . Then david shearer could give her nice foot massages . Awww . Snuggle !

    Who wrote that Labour had no dreams left to sell us ?

    Labour’s lobotomized it’s self of dreams then pruned off it’s most promising while National are greedy , dangerous haters that 50% of us love to be tortured by and who can go about their terrible work unhindered .

    And we all live in this beautiful country with that kind of steerage ? How ? How did that happen to us ?

    Helen Clark . Wikipedia .
    [ During the 1980s and early 90s, Clark held numerous Cabinet positions in the Fourth Labour government, including Minister of Housing, Minister of Health and Minister of Conservation. She held the position of Deputy Prime Minister for a year. ]

    She was in there boots and all with the Big Boys during the redefining years of our political landscape . She was holding some serious clout as the Right-Left nasty’s like douglas , brash , big jimmy bolger , prebble , richardson , shipley etc did their dirty , dirty work so don’t try to sell clark to me and in all seriousness to your question ‘ … a better suggestion for Labour leader . ‘

    I really don’t know . My instinct says cunliffe ? And only because he dropped the N bomb . He mentioned neoliberlaism and was that before or after shearer relegated him to the wastelands of the back benches along with Dalziel ?

  22. I believe the problem is not Helen, she is one of a kind and if you ask me, shes exactly where she deserves to be. Labour was not good enough for her, and neither was New Zealand. You can boohoo her all you want, but I believe her current position at the U.N. pretty much proves shes morally better than many MANY of our, and I repeat, OUR choices in leaders.
    The problem lies in the theater that is MMP. We spend alot of money (per actor), to distort their parties political values to suit the New Zealand media at any given time. (3 years is too much – another debate?)
    What we need is to re-look at the core values the “parties” stand for, and judge their actors to how greater part they play in those values.
    Another option would be to decide what values New Zealand really wants to stand for, and just employ Mr Right… dare I say it…. maybe something new. :/
    As for the boomer evil… Im a non-belieber. People need to educate themselves, and use the technology at their finger tips. Time which they are constantly wasting on facebook and Youtube could be easily channeled towards the right cause…
    Grand dad… TEXT ME!!

  23. A good column Chris, but it begs the question of what you expect this ‘upper 50%’ (if I can call it that) to do?

    They already pay for the bulk of the welfare state with their taxes.
    Are they expected to wring their hands publically?

    Many of these successful people see themselves as having made the right choices, from their school days onwards, getting a useful education , a work ethic and not devoting their lives to drugs. Andby the same token, they see many of the ‘lower 50%’ as having made the wrong choices, and reaping the consequences.
    Of course not all (or even most) poor people deserve their fate, but when you are are paying for the ones that do, you get rather weary of being told to be ashamed of your success.

    John

  24. My own view is that your completely wrong Chris. The National voters who vote for English, Key, Joyce, Collins, Tolley and Bennett have nothing in common in the demographic, class or IQ sense to the group who voted for Holyoake, Jack Marshall or to a lesser extent even Talboys or Gordon (there might be some continuity in the rural Southland and Otago vote although Invercargill had a substantial intelligent middle class pre Rogernomics and Computerisation).
    In the 1960s pre Muldoon most of the middle class, professionals and those with an education voted National. Educated professionals Like Finlay and Nordmeyer were rare in the Labour Party. The Highet brother of the MP for Remuera in the 1970s and 1980s always used to delight in telling my how much Martyn Finlay regreted choosing Labour rather than National in 1946 and therefore spending most of his political life in opposition. In the 1970s half the teachers and higher level civil servants still voted National. Few would now.
    Nationals support is now the working class and least intelligent, the rural embittered. The 50% who persist in voting National now are basically the 40% of women and 60% of NZ men who would have been regarded as intellectually handicapped by Galton and the German National Socialists and the intellectuals and professionals inclined to believe in Eugenics like Aldous Huxley and Shaw. I always found that in the days that Bill English and the Studhome and Elworthy type embittered squireacracy types were building up hate for Jenny Shipley’s, enlightened neo liberalism and her changing of the regulations so that between 1997 and 1999 every rural towns back street changed from custard pie tea shops into a line of 40 sophisticated bars and espresso, that the supporters of English and the Elworthy family, were always the thickest people you ever met at school, bottom stream types. The Nat vote now is the old befuddled Social Credit failed shopkeeper vote.
    By 1983 Muldoon mistakenly given a chance from the gutter had destroyed the real National party. Giving John Banks a seat in Whangarei was the final insult to the real National Party. Banks in nothing more than a squeaker and police mascot, someone easily directed by the conservative anti change elements in society.
    National today is an ultra conservative party, a country party essentially- with a few very weak bright Catholics like English and Finnalyson. In NZ there is no equivalent to the libertarian half of the Australian Liberals or the Bush, Lehmann, Reagan, Romney, Liberal Republicans. The suggestion that Coddington or Act are in any way representative of the values of the liberal National Party is wrong, again they are essentially country Conservatives, the remaining liberals in NZ are probably the 75 year old ducks having a coffee or tipple in the cafes of Ponsonby, Herne Bay and Remuera. It seems to me that most of the top ten in both the Australian liberals and labour party are people who never have been selected for cabinet in NZ and half of them would probably have been locked up in an asylum.
    My own view is that NZ is now a far more conservative country than pre 1984 and much more dominated by a working class male viewpoint that would have no credibility beyond NZ,s 200 mile zone.
    Most of those working in the care and low grade nursing and social work are people essentially of the lowest demographic and it is artificially created job with care job depending on people not recovering and being sustained beyond any point.

Comments are closed.