Wednesday, May 22, 2024
Home Blog Page 2081

Tony Abbott – the hollow leading the blind

By
Martyn Bradbury
-
16

tony-abbott-mask-375

I never understood how Abbott became Prime Minister of Australia. Most of the Australians I know just don’t seem to be stupid enough to vote for someone with such 18th Century views on the modern world. Everything about Abbott seemed ridiculous and unworthy of any kind of power. His homophobia, his fetish for the military, his climate change denial, his weird gaffes, his sexism, his woeful lack of self awareness, his racism and his draconian position on refugees all seemed so backwards for a country that likes to advance fair.

My guess was that Australians just really hated Labour to vote Abbott in.

That he’s been rolled shouldn’t be a surprise, he clearly connected to a raw meat section of the Australian voting public and the Liberals needed that because they are about as popular as a cup of cold sick, but Abbott’s poor performance has eroded that support. There’s only so many times you can hear your Prime Minister say moronic things before even the dumbest amongst his supporters start saying to themselves ‘hey, I’m stupid and even I think what he just said was crazy’.

Turnbull doesn’t look much better. He’s clearly smarter than Abbott, but Abbott’s appeal was to the base of the Australian electorate, Turnbull is a right winger without the populism.

A plague on all their houses.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Hosking on Corbyn – a point by point rebuttal

By
Wayne Hope
-
51

Screen Shot 2015-09-15 at 5.54.06 am

Sometimes insulting or abusive judgments about others reveal more about the judger than the accused. Individuals may psychologically project their own negative qualities onto other people without realising that they are doing so. The constancy of such behaviour may reflect haughtiness, grandiosity, fierce entitlement, a need for admiration, and other narcissistic traits. These thoughts came to mind after reading Mike Hosking’s recent New Zealand Herald column (‘Corbyn leading fool’s errand’, 10  September 2015). The soon-to-be Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn was described as being “a stark-raving loony” and as “about as far left of the political spectrum as you can get”. These judgments are entirely wrong and reveal much about the person who has made them. In the following commentary I will defend this evaluation step-by-step.

Corbyn’s policies are costed, coherent, and credible.

Corbyn stands opposed to the prevailing policy regime of privatisation, austerity for the poor, and reduced tax rates for corporates and upper-income earners. This has caused  “falling real wages”, the removal of “spending power from the economy” at the expense of “growth and future prosperity” (Jeremy Corbyn, ‘The Economy in 2020’, 2010). Corbyn instead proposes a national investment bank to fund public infrastructures alongside new housing, health and education programmes. The latter would include a National Education Service (NES), the replacement of university tuition fees with grants – at a cost of £10 million – and the removal of private finance initiative schemes from the National Health Service (NHS). Public service provision will be paid directly from tax revenue rather than public-private sector arrangements. The entire plan hinges upon a radical overhaul of the British tax system. Corbyn’s chief economic adviser, Richard Murphy, estimates that corporate tax avoidance-evasion costs the country around £120 billion a year. He favours the introduction of “country-by-country reporting” for corporations as a means to increase financial transparency. Murphy is no loony. He is a chartered accountant with a degree in Economics and Accounting, co-founder of the world-renowned Tax Justice Network, co-author of Tax Havens: how globalisation really works  (Cornell University Press, 2009), and sole author of the Courageous State: rethinking economics, society and the role of government (Searching Finance, 2011). It is ridiculous to claim that Murphy and Corbyn are “far left” on tax policy. Alongside anti-avoidance-evasion law reform, the top income tax rate will stay at 50% and corporate taxes will remain around 20% (compared to 34% under the Thatcher Government). Murphy and Corbyn also note that the Bank of England’s quantitative easing programme would help fund public expenditures. Historically low interest rates should be the occasion for major investment rather than brutal austerity cuts. This is all common-sense Keynesianism, which is why 41 leading Economists, including a former Bank of England adviser, have publicly supported Jeremy Corbyn’s policy platform. In a signed letter, the Economists wrote:

“The accusation is widely made that Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters have moved to the extreme left on economic policy. But this is not supported by the candidate’s statements or policies. His opposition to austerity is actually mainstream economics even backed by the conservative IMF. He aims to boost growth and prosperity” (D. Boffey, ‘Jeremy Corbyn wins economists’ backing for anti-austerity policies’, The Guardian, 22 August 2015).

Prevailing austerity policies are extremist

Since the last election, David Cameron’s Conservative Government have rushed through £ 4.5 billion worth of new public expenditure cuts plus asset sales. The Guardian’s Seamus Milne calls this “austerity on steroids”. Further cuts worth £10 billion are planned along with privatisations from the major public stakes in Lloyds, The Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), Royal Mail, Royal Mint, The Met Office, and Channel  4. This policy path has drawn criticism from the OECD, powerful Tory figures and 77 leading economists (S. Milne, “There’s no reason to accept austerity, it can be defeated”, The Guardian, 17 June, 2015). The Government’s position is unsupported by mainstream economic research and is quite extreme internationally. Back in April, before the general election, US Economist, Paul Krugman, wrote “I don’t know how many Brittons realise the extent to which their economic debate has diverged from the rest of the Western world – the extent to which the UK seems stuck on obsessions that have been mainly laughed out of the discourse elsewhere”. This assessment was based on Cameron’s austerity measures of 2009-11. The net result then was falling economic growth and a stubbornly large budget deficit (despite promises to resolve the latter problem). After that period, Krugman argues, economic growth began to revive. Critically, for our purposes, he also refers to “the limpness of Labour’s response to the austerity push”, they had been gulled into thinking that budget deficits were the biggest economic issue and they devised no alternative to a prevailing policy course which manifestly failed to meet its own objectives (P. Krugman, ‘The austerity delusion’, The Guardian, 29 April 2015). This analysis reveals that England’s entire party political establishment occupies an extreme economic-right position. By comparison, Jeremy Corbyn’s policy platform is an intelligent, common-sense alternative.  He appears “far left” to those such as Hosking who are coming from an extreme economic-right position.

Austerity policies have no electoral mandate

The Conservatives were elected by fewer than 37% of voters and by only 24% of those on the roll. Never before have they won a parliamentary majority on a lower share of the vote. Regionally, popular support for the Government is strong in the South East, weaker in the North, and virtually non-existent in Scotland. Cameron’s austerity cuts, attacks on union activity, and his privatisation agenda were never signalled during the campaign. In short, the British Government has no electoral mandate for their policy agenda. Before Jeremy Corbyn’s arrival, Labour had no effective response to the Conservatives. Their austerity-lite position had no mandate either. On election day, millions of potential Labour voters went for UKIP, the Scottish National Party, or the Greens, if they voted at all. Hosking’s NZ Herald column asserted that “politics in Western democracies is won in the centre”. In the British case, however, the political centre in parliament is rightward of the political centre at large.  Most Britons are against further privatisation and austerity cuts. So, on Hosking’s analysis, Corbyn’s identification of ‘the centre’ among the populace is clever politics.

Jeremy Corbyn is self-effacing, thoughtful, and astute

Corbyn presents himself as representative of a growing social movement, rather than as a self-possessed charismatic personality. He is sane, measured, and calls things as he sees them, without spin doctoring. The proposed policy agenda should not surprise anybody; Corbyn’s economic and social convictions have not essentially changed in 40 years.  With well-informed up-to-date advice, he remains a Keynesian social democrat. Corbyn realised, before anybody else, that such an outlook was no longer an anachronism. What you see with the new Labour leader is what you get, which brings me back to the theme of projection. Hosking’s abusive rant against such a person shows, metaphorically speaking, that lunacy can reside in the mind of the beholder.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

GUEST BLOG: Leslie Bravery – Refugees – a question of responsibility

By
The Daily Blog
-
3

941664_536291496412532_2043978320_n

With growing world-wide awareness of the humanitarian tragedy that the creation of refugees inevitably causes, it is timely to remember the plight of Palestinian refugees – the largest group of displaced people in the world, whose suffering has lasted longer than that of any in modern history. Nearly athird of Palestinian refugees live in camps, from Syria to Jordan and Lebanon, as well as the West Bank and East Jerusalem (also in the West Bank), and theGaza Strip. In 2007, the Badil Resource Centre for Residency and Refugee Rights numbered Palestinian refugees at 7.6 million, 4.6 million of whom are UN-registered. UNGA Resolution 194 states unequivocally that Israel has the duty to repatriate those “displaced by the recent conflict” with compensation for their losses. These are the people and their descendants who fled, or were forced to leave by Israeli forces, with the establishment of Israel in Palestine in 1948.

Israel was admitted to UN membership on condition that it accept and implement UN resolutions, including Resolution 194. The right of Palestinian return has been reasserted by the UN at more than 135 sessions. Because Israel refuses to abide by international law, Western allies have supported a so-called peace process that seeks to accommodate the aims of Israel’s founding ideology by undermining the right of Palestinian return. As Palestinian writer Ghada Karmi reminds us: “The right of return is an individual right, and no one except the refugees themselves can negotiate it away.” As the World Bank has noted, “as long as significant portions of a society’s population are displaced, the conflict has not ended. There can be no hope of normalcy until the majority of those displaced are able to reintegrate themselves into their societies.” Beyond Resolution 194, Mark LeVine, professor of Middle Eastern History at the University of California, points to two other UNGA resolutions that counter efforts to deny Palestinian human rights: “General Assembly (UNGA) Resolution 2535, passed in 1969, recognises that:

“the problem of Palestine Arab refugees has arisen from the denial of their inalienable rights under the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”

In the same vein, UNGA resolution 3236 reaffirms: 

“the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return.” 

The blockade of Gaza is yet another humanitarian crisis, imposed upon a people, of whom more than half are also refugees. While Israel mercilessly enforces its blockade within and around the tiny enclave, there is no possibility of escape for the terrorised population. Meanwhile, the world community is failing in its duty to hold Israel accountable. The Zionist state possesses ample means to rebuild the thousands of homes it has destroyed, and our leaders should require Israel to make appropriate reparations by restoring Gaza’swater supply and economic infrastructure.

History of Western interference in Middle East affairs
From the time of the Balfour Declaration and the Sykes Picot-agreement to the present day, Western meddling and aggression has resulted in ever-growinginstability in the region. The US, which had supported the despotic Shah of Iran, later allied itself with Saddam Hussein in Iraq’s war against Iran in the 1980s. The US supplied the Iraqi leader with Intelligence that assisted in identifying Iranian positions that the US knew, only too well, would be targeted with chemical weapons. The US even blockedIranian attempts to bring their case against Iraq to the United Nations but when Saddam Hussein fell from favour, the US (supported by the UK, Australia and Poland) invaded Iraq, with devastating results. The allied justification for the invasion, which was based on lies, sundered Iraqi society and ruined the economy. The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) now controls the population centres that were bombed and occupied by the US. The traumatised Iraqi people, who suffered under occupation and under the regime, supported by sectarian militias thatthe US helped to establish, now have to cope with living under ISIL. 

The US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report
A federal lawsuit brought by the conservative watchdog organisation Judicial Watch, has forced the release of a revealing selection of formerly-classified Defence Intelligence Agency documents obtained from the US Department of Defense and the State Department. One aspect of the report is discussed in aFox News video interview. The interview focuses on the White House’s handling of the Benghazi Consulate attack but far more damaging information emerges from one of the Defense Intelligence Agency documents circulated in 2012: that an “Islamic State” is desired in Eastern Syria to effect the West’spolicies. The investigative journalist, Nafeez Ahmed, tells how the hithertosecret Pentagon document showed, three years ago, that the US-led coalition not only knew of but also welcomed, the emergence of an extremist “Salafist Principality” in the region as a way to undermine the Syrian leader, Bashar al-Assad. 

The document identifies the “supporting powers” in this strategy as “the West, Gulf countries, and Turkey.” Charles Shoebridge, a former British Army and Metropolitan Police counter-terrorism Intelligence officer, said of the documents that they contain: 

“. . . revelations that raise vitally important questions of the West’s governments and media in their support of Syria’s rebellion.” 

Nafeez Ahmed‘s article refers to a US Army-commissioned RAND Corp report,published four years before the DIA document, calling for the US to:

“capitalise on the Shia-Sunni conflict by taking the side of the conservative Sunni regimes in a decisive fashion and working with them against all Shiite empowerment movements in the Muslim world.”

The truth is, the West knew very well that Islamist militants were at the centreof the religious insurgency in Syria. That Western policies are inspired by corporate agendas, not least those of the burgeoning arms industry, should be self-evident. It is also clear that Western ‘interests’ certainly do not include the well-being of the people of the Middle East. As Annie Machon, a former MI5 Intelligence Officer who blew the whistle in the 1990s on MI6 funding of al-Qaeda‘s assassination of Libya’s former leader Colonel Gaddafi, concludedthat supporting the very same Libyan groups, resulted in:

“a failed state, mass murder, displacement and anarchy. So the idea that elements of the American military-security complex have enabled the development of ISIS after their failed attempt to get NATO to once again ‘intervene’ is part of an established pattern. And they remain indifferent to the sheer scale of human suffering that is unleashed as a result of such game-playing.” 

Zionist ideology
Ever since the imposition of the state of Israel (now nuclear-armed) upon the people of the region, the Zionist project has been responsible for untold suffering, both among the people whose land it expropriated and those who live in the wider neighbourhood. The Israeli whistleblower, Mordechai Vanunu, who courageously served 18 years of imprisonment for informing the world, in 1986, about Israel’s furtive introduction of nuclear weapons to the Middle East, has recently been put under house arrest for daring to give an interview to local news media. Israel’s fear of free speech is understandable but inexcusable. As Vanunu’s attorney, Avigdor Feldman, has pointed out, anything Vanunu might say on the subject cannot possibly present a threat to Israel’s national security. Feldman noted that the ban on speaking with foreigners without the security service’s permission “would surely be acceptable in North Korea, but not in a country that defines itself as the only democracy in the Middle East.” Vanunu had planned to visit London, both to attend a three-day conference sponsored by Amnesty International and toaddress the British Parliament. Silencing Vanunu only adds to the mounting record of Israeli repression of both its own citizens and those it condemns to live under military occupation and blockade. 

The Israeli economy and armed forces profit immensely from the repression of the Palestinian people. Israel proudly attributes the success of its weapons and war technology exports to their being ‘combat proven’ in Gaza and the West Bank. An Israeli journalist and film-maker, Yotam Feldman, released a documentary film in 2013 called The Lab. The film illustrates the use to which Israel puts its total control of Palestinian territories in order to test its weaponry. The profitability is attested to in a revealing interview in an Israeli newspaperwith Eli Gold, CEO of Israeli arms company Meprolight.

New Zealand’s leaders have a choice
At present the New Zealand Government refuses to call for sanctions against Israel which might encourage the Zionist state to abide by and respect international law. Our leaders prefer to cling to the illusion that Israel would be prepared to give up its profitable abuses of the Palestinian people solely as a result of direct ‘negotiations’ with its defenceless victims. This view is part of the mind-set that puts our government’s devotion to membership of ‘the Club‘ahead of all other consideration. Never mind that it has been ‘the Club’ ofWestern allies that has, ever since the First World War, cynically exploited and manipulated the people of the Middle East while posing as their saviours. Western intervention has hindered the development of progressive movements in the Middle East that could have assisted in the building of rational, secular and modern societies. The US and its allies have consistently backed oppressive regimes and corporate-friendly dictatorships. So manypeople whose humanity and intelligence could have brought sanity and reason into the everyday affairs of the Middle East have been either exiled, murdered or lie forgotten in prisons.

The world is changing fast, through the internet people are speaking to each other, discovering and sharing realities that the corporate news media and many of our politicians would rather not discuss. The refugee crisis in the Middle East will end only when our leaders learn to respect the people of the region with policies based firmly upon the requirements of international law, particularly the Fourth Geneva Convention. Will our leaders ever have the courage to step outside of ‘the Club’ and, like Mordechai Vanunu, speak truth to power? New Zealand has a voice at the Security Council, for goodness sake and we must speak up. To remain silent would be unconscionable.

 

 

 

Leslie Bravery – Palestine Human Rights Campaign

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Corbyn’s policies more popular than Miliband’s

By
Keith Locke
-
24

jeremy_corbyn_stwc_460

Back in July British Green Party leader Natalie Bennett welcomed the Jeremy Corbyn campaign as indicative that the country was ready for “massive political change. Just as the rise of Thatcher marked the end of a political era, the combination of the ‘Green surge’ (Green Party membership more than treble what is was a year ago), the rise of the SNP and the support for Corbyn mark the start of a shift to a new political era.” Commenting on Corbyn’s victory on Sunday, Bennett said it showed “how many people support an alternative to austerity economics.”

The British political establishment (including most of the British Labour caucus) thought they could marginalise Corbyn by smearing him as far left, hard left, a Trotskyist, soft on terrorism, you name it. To their shame, our two state broadcasters bought into this, on Sunday calling Corbyn “an admirer of Marxism” (Jessica Mutch, OneNews) and “a supporter of Karl Marx” (Radio New Zealand news).

However, the reality is that Corbyn’s policy platform is more popular than Ed Miliband’s was, with many policies also striking a chord with conservative voters. Polls quoted by the Independent newspaper show this, as elaborated below.

Re-nationalising the railways. Supported by 60% of the population (including 42% of Tory voters) in a YouGov poll. Hardly a radical policy in New Zealand, where we have re-nationalised the railways.

A 50% tax rate on those earning over 150,000 pounds a year. YouGov has 56% of Britons supporting a top tax rate of 75%.

Rent control. 59% support in a YouGov poll.

Opposing the bombing of Syria. 60% also oppose it.

Cutting tuition fees. 49% support.

A mandatory living wage. 60% support.

Other popular policies are to scrap the 100 billion pound Trident nuclear submarine replacement programme; bringing energy companies into public ownership; a 2.5% increase in corporate tax (which would still leave the rate lower than in New Zealand); opposition to the TTIP (Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership); opposition to fracking; a big green jobs programme; and stronger action on climate change. Corbyn’s call for more support to refugees drew massive applause at a big London rally yesterday.

Unlike Labour to date, Corbyn is also willing to call out the British-backed warmakers, as he did in his Guardian opinion piece yesterday. Not only did Corbyn say that, “Isis is utterly abhorrent and President Assad’s regime has committed appalling crimes.” He went on to say: “But we must also oppose Saudi bombs falling on Yemen and the Bahraini dictatorship murdering its democracy movement, armed by us.”

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

TDB Political Caption Competition

By
The Daily Blog
-
20

199280-d1e256c8-e07f-11e3-9096-801fbb4e8d9b

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Malcolm Evans – Key and sports

By
Malcolm Evans
-
1

Screen Shot 2015-09-15 at 5.29.00 am

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

The Daily Blog Open Mic Tuesday 15th September 2015

By
The Daily Blog
-
22

openmike

 

Announce protest actions, general chit chat or give your opinion on issues we haven’t covered for the day.

Moderation rules are more lenient for this section, but try and play nicely.

 

 

Hey everyone, thank you for contacting us with the problems you are having at the moment with posting comments.

While you may be told your message has been trashed or disallowed or denied, they are in fact all remaining on site.

So please be patient and your comments will turn up.

We are working on the problem and will have a solution soon.

PS -While we are having this discussion about comments, we have always felt moderated comments were a way to go to avoid trolling. The Internet can be a pretty rude place at times so we wanted to try and reduce that.

How would everyone feel about

a) Direct posts to blogs.

b) Moderation after publishing (if we went down this path we would need volunteer moderators).

c) We are going to start clamping down more on personal abuse between commentators and would like to open up thoughts form you the readers about what you would like to see in terms of comments and what the rules should be.

Please leave comments below. Thoughts on what we will do will be published middle of next month.

Cheers TDB Team

 

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Revolution In The UK? Jeremy Corbyn and the Matter of Britain

By
Chris Trotter
-
44

unnamed-2

AND SO IT BEGINS. According to that house-journal of the British Conservative Party, The Telegraph: “John Mills, Labour’s biggest private donor, said he would stop giving money to the party in the wake of Mr Corbyn’s election and instead fund the MPs plotting to oust him.”

The response of the British Establishment could hardly be clearer. Be it Mr Mills and his millions, or the Blairite heavy-hitters who have resigned their front-bench positions rather than serve under a socialist leader, the men and women who have worked so long and so hard to deny British voters a genuine choice between alternative futures, are peeling away from Corbyn in anticipation of all-out war.

Looking back through British history, it is difficult not to seize upon the moment when King Charles I, accompanied by his family, and joined by his closest political allies, deserted London for the Royalist stronghold of Oxford. It was there that he raised the Royal Standard against England’s Parliament – thereby setting in motion the English Revolution, and a civil war that would kill more Britons – per head of population – that World War I.

Over the top? Maybe. But only “maybe”. Because, whether they realise it or not, the quarter-of-a-million Britons who voted for Jeremy Corbyn were also voting for revolution in the UK.

Revolution? Really? Yes, “really”. What else would you call a political project committed to toppling the economic and social status quo? A project determined to roll back 30 years of neoliberalism? A project which openly proclaims its objective of bringing into being a mass, nationwide movement for radical social democracy – and equipping it with state power?

Some people get it. Here, for example, is the response of Rob Williams from the National Shop Stewards [union delegates] Network: “‎The victory yesterday by Jeremy Corbyn has changed everything. The vote we saw yesterday was a political revolution. We must build a mass movement against austerity and the anti-union laws. The message must be simple – Cameron: we are going to take you down. Your anti-union bill and your cuts, you’re going down because we are mobilising against you.”

And then there’s this, from Mark Serwotka from the powerful Public and Commercial Services Union: “If we are going to see any of those policies realised, we will not get that just through what Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party do in Parliament. If Jeremy Corbyn wants to win on those policies, he absolutely needs a mass vibrant movement in the country… He needs the six-and-a-half million trade union members to ensure that we have that vibrant campaign through strikes, demonstrations, local campaigns, occupations and everything else ….. We have the ability to stop austerity in its tracks, to topple this government and to ensure we get a fairer society.”

It is statements such as these that prompted the British Prime Minister’s, David Cameron’s, terse response to the Corbyn landslide. “The Labour Party is now a threat to our national security, our economic security and your family’s security.”

Just pause for a moment and absorb the meaning of those words. Think about all the other individuals and groups which, over the decades, have been described as “a threat to national security”. Recall, if you can, the sorts of measures the British “secret state” (most particularly, MI5) felt entitled to take against these many and various “threats”.

Were they not long out-of-print, I would recommend two books – Smear! Wilson and the Secret State, by Stephen Dorrill and Robin Ramsay, and The Wilson Plot: How the Spycatchers and Their American Allies Tried to Overthrow the British Government, by David Leigh – as useful guides to the likely fate of any Labour leader who steps beyond the boundaries of what the British Establishment deems to be politically acceptable. Alternatively, you could watch the excellent 2006 BBC docudrama The Plot Against Harold Wilson – which covers much the same ground.

 

 

The events described in the books and the docudrama all took place the 1970s. Jeremy Corbyn was a young man in his 20s when the decade began. As a middle-class boy steeped in the history and traditions of the Left (his parents had met each other in the Spanish Civil War!) Corbyn soon gave up the life of a half-hearted Polytech student to become a trade union organiser. Living in the capital city through the drama of the 1973 Miners Strike; the fall of Edward Heath’s Tory Government; the sudden resignation of Harold Wilson; the IRA’s bombing campaign on the British mainland; the tragic 1978-79 “Winter of Discontent”; and the ominous rise of Margaret Thatcher; he could hardly fail to absorb the political lessons of that most querulous and perilous of decades.

Perhaps it was the fact that he did not go to university that saved Corbyn from the trahison de clercs  that saw the CPGB stalwarts behind Marxism Today end up singing the praises Tony Blair’s “new times”. Then again, it might simply have been the grounding effect of his day-to-day trade union work. Whatever it was that steered him clear of “New Labour’s” siren song, Corbyn remained true to the mass-based, radically democratic and very public politics of the era in which he came of political age.

He had seen this politics at work on the streets, in the factories and down the pits, and he had realised how much it frightened the powers that be. He’d also witnessed the lengths to which those same powers would go to demobilise and demoralise the ordinary people who are the only reliable drivers of progressive economic and social change. If Jeremy Corbyn’s politics were forged in the 1970s, they have been well-tempered in the treacherous decades that followed.

Labour’s new leader, and his enemies, are both acutely aware of the power of the political genie the party’s leadership election has released. In just a few, tumultuous weeks Britain has found itself cast into a political version of Life on Mars. Questions that have not been put to those in power for 40 years are about to be asked again – and by a man who, unbelievably, was there the first time around and remembers them all. They are not easy questions – many of Corbyn’s younger followers have never heard them asked before – and the answers are likely to prove painful for many and, for a few, very costly. But only in the asking, and the answering, of these, the most fundamental of questions: about Justice, and Equality, and Liberty, and Love; can the Matter of Britain be moved forward.

 

And did those feet in ancient time

Walk upon England’s mountains green:

And was the holy Lamb of God

On England’s pleasant pastures seen!

 

And did the Countenance Divine

Shine forth upon our clouded hills?

And was Jerusalem builded here,

Among these dark Satanic Mills?

 

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

MediaWorks hire the female whaleoil – their descent is complete

By
Martyn Bradbury
-
13

Glucina

Rachel Glucina with National’s polling agent and online mouthpiece – David Farrar.

Wow.

Hiring the female whaleoil  means MediaWorks descent is complete.

The appalling manner in which Rachel was allowed to disgrace the journalistic ethics of the Herald hasn’t stopped her gaining a position with MediaWorks, if anything it’s helped her.

Rachel was a vocal attack dog for TV3 Management when she started her campaign against Campbell Live. Being fed gossip and complaints helped her fashion their public attack on Campbell Live.

We had hoped that the internet would force the mainstream media to lift their game. The ability to criticise their work in real time was supposed to democratise the news so that the news gatekeepers performed better. It hasn’t turned out that way. Conglomerates now simply recycle content in small bubbles, so that TV3s Celebrity becomes NZ Herald’s lead story becomes The Edge’s morning interview becomes Paul Henry’s topic of the day. Clickbait is what rates, not a broadening of opinion and more diverse voices joining the mix, if anything the mainstream media is worse now than before.

Rachel’s new online gossip show is the warped commercial reality of todays media companies. Clickbait shlock interwoven with hard right bias to an audience with the critical abilities of hungry children shown ice cream.

It looks like Rachel pretended to be a PR person helping a business write a press release to gain access to a waitress who had been bullied more than 10 times at her place of work by the Prime Minister while consulting with the PMs Office. It resulted in a twisted story claiming Amanda Bailey had a particular bent on politics so was probably just axe grinding rather than being victimised by the Prime Minister.

How that kind manipulation and perverse ethics colours a network who have already stated that News is simply about ratings and who killed off Campbell Live for political reasons isn’t a difficult question to answer.

It colours that network a villainous black.

This is why we need a properly funded public broadcaster. These kind of warped market mechanics is the exact sort of media we don’t want and don’t need.

 

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Top 9 Left wing potential ‘Corbyn/Sanders’ candidates in NZ politics

By
Martyn Bradbury
-
37

COvPkK2WwAArl5F

With the astounding win by Corbyn and rising support for Sanders, attention turns to the sad state of the NZ political environment for a progressive Left leader who could build a similar political momentum in NZ for 2020.

That date could be circuit broken and fast tracked to 2017 if the speculative housing market bubble in Auckland pops. The majority of the middle are backing Key because they earn more from the annual increases in their property valuations than they do from their actual jobs and they’ll only find their political conscience and vote left once that illusion of wealth melts down.

Until then, the political gatekeepers that killed off Cunliffe’s attempt to move Labour to the Left will still control the opposition to focus on not spooking the middle. That changes if an economic down turn ignites anger and those political gatekeepers get swamped by populist backing of a candidate speaking to that anger.

So who in the NZ Political spectrum could be a progressive left candidate to take up the challenge? Firstly, there are only two candidates right now with that potential (ranked at 2 and 1), but there are a few in the pipeline. It’s not just their intellectual pedigree that counts, it must be the ability to be great orators and an ability to connect with the missing million voters. Part of the issue is that the candidate needs to be seen with new eyes or be new themselves, National parachute leaders in when they need, Labour last tried that with David Lange. Here are the top 9 candidates on the Left with that combination of skills.

It’s not a top 10 list because we don’t have 10.

9 – Robert Reid
National secretary of First Union. He has huge mana and a no nonsense strong media presence. Would be the closest to Corbyn the NZ Left has.

8 – Morgan Godfery
It’s just a matter of time before the Labour Party wake up to how good Morgan is and how much an asset he would be. The Greens and Maori Party would be mad to overlook him if Labour miss their opportunity. He is intelligent, articulate, well respected amongst the Left and would make a mighty leader. Maybe 2023 election?

7 – Erin Polaczuk
National secretary of the PSA, part of the new generation of Union leadership. Erin’s intelligence and mana make her one of the next voices to move the union movement forward in NZ. Either 2020 election or 2023 election.

6 – Jacinda Ardern
If Jacinda articulates a strong left wing position, she could easily step into the role of our version of Corbyn, but Labour’s current middle ground stance leaves her with very little rhetoric to hammer out an authentic voice and this has been her problem since she entered politics. 2020 election if Labour lose 2017.

5 – Efeso Collins
Efeso Collins has a huge personality, a strong Pacific Island community background and incredible oratory skills. His potential to give Pacific Islanders real voice would have great cross over appeal. 2020 election.

4 – Andrew Dean
Author of Roger, Ruth and Me – Andrew Dean’s book is probably the most revolutionary text to be printed in NZ since ‘I’ve been thinking’ by Prebble. His understanding of how Gen X and Y have been robbed of an idealogical compass by consumerism and user pays culture is the exact sort of narrative if articulated passionately that could bring together those generations into a powerful political vehicle. 2023 election.

3 – Michael Wood
Most likely to get the nod when/if Goff stands down from Mt Roskill if/when Goff runs for Auckland Mayor. Wood is incredibly smart, very left and has potential to be a whole new movement within Labour. Articulate and witty, he has a self assurance that connects with people and has huge cross over appeal. 2023 election.

2 – John Campbell
If John ever walked away from Radio NZ, Labour would be lucky to parachute him in as Leader. He has strong social justice credentials, is an excellent communicator and most importantly has the optimism and hope message that would cross political schisms. He has the mana and nationwide recognition and he’s the only person who could do what Corbyn did right now. He could win 2017.

1- Marama Davidson
Marama coming in off the list with Norman stepping down is the best thing to happen to politics since Hone Harawira entered Parliament. An activist with a huge social media following, her humanity and kindness is welded together with a fierce social justice. Can lead and will be an amazing addition to the Greens. 2020 will be her moment to stand unless Metiria stands down before 2017 election and there will be a fight between Genter and Davidson for female co-leader.

Labour is too focused on wooing the middle to be too loud with any left wing ideas, and the Greens are eying the same electorate territory. With an economy that has been so prosperous for those with property, it’s hard to champion politics that threaten that prosperity for those who haven’t benefited, but if the economy turns, both Parties have enough political room to tack back left, but it will be up to one of the above to articulate and implement it.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Give it back you thieving bastard

By
John Minto
-
65

John-Key-Swimming-Pool-Metro-2006

It’s not yours – give it back. You have stolen it from the poorest New Zealanders – those struggling below the poverty line in impossible circumstances.

$118 million taken in dividends from Housing New Zealand is money filched from families living lives of quite desperation in cold, damp, mouldy homes which you refuse to upgrade. You have throttled Housing New Zealand, forcing it to hand over hundreds of millions and refusing to allow it to service the homes and families who so desperately need it.

Last year two of your tenants died from conditions exacerbated by the shocking living conditions they were forced to endure in unmaintained state houses – their family’s appeals for better housing ignored. Why did 37-year-old Soesa Tovo and two-year-old Emma-Lita Bourne deserve death in a state house? Homes these families didn’t have a dog’s show of heating.

This happened on your watch as Minister of State Housing Bill English and you didn’t resign – in fact you did nothing. You were unmoved. You callous bastard.

Now you demand $118 million in dividends from HNZ – money taken from families paying to live in the hovels you refuse to upgrade. You have all the moral fibre of a slum landlord.

You are happy to encourage the public to think of Housing New Zealand tenants as bludgers – to encourage the rest of us to look down on them as the underserving poor.

But who was it Bill English who rorted the system to claim more than $900 per week in a living allowance in Wellington a few years back? A sum larger than the entire income of any family in a state house. So who is the real bludger on the public purse Bill English?

This week when you defended your demand for $118 million from the pockets of the poorest you said:

“If any tenant lets Housing New Zealand know about any what they call urgent maintenance needs, and they’ve got 125,000 of those notifications in the last year or two, then Housing New Zealand has the cash to act on those.”

Tell that to Housing New Zealand tenants who have to put up with appalling maintenance done on the cheap by HNZ contractors.  Your comments are public relations pap – deliberate delusion.

And why is it that Housing New Zealand managers are each responsible for three times more houses than a similar role in the private sector?

Squeezing the life from Housing New Zealand and its tenants is a favourite pastime for callous Tory politicians like you Bill English.

State housing is desperately needed to support the victims of your government’s economic policies. So give up your plans to sell state houses Bill English and start to respect HNZ tenants and their homes.

And give the $118 million? Give it back Bill English.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Award for Idiot Comment of the Year – And the winner is…

By
Frank Macskasy
-
18

.

Foot In Mouth Award - john key

.

As international prices for milk-powder plummet to historic lows, wiping billions from Fonterra’s pay-out to farmers; the economy; and tax revenue;  sending farms to the wall and collapse; and pushing New Zealand closer to recession – our esteemed Dear Leader, John Key, had this to say about the downturn;

.

"I mean - yes dairy prices are down a little bit..."
“I mean – yes dairy prices are down a little bit…”

.

“Dairy prices are down a little bit…”?

And I suppose World Wars 1 and 2 were “nations disagreeing a little bit“.

You can always count on the sky on Planet Key being warm and rosy.

.

1373449-bigthumbnail

.

Contrast Key’s disingenuous, Pollyannarish positivity, with former Finance Minister, Dr Michael Cullen’s, warnings about the Global Financial crisis in June 2008, and how it was impacting on New Zealand’s economy;

“In 2008, New Zealand’s economy has begun to feel the effects of a challenging global environment. Global increases in commodity prices have seen the cost of food and petrol increase significantly here at home. Internationally, there are fears that these increases could impoverish tens of millions of people in developing countries.

The continued fallout from the subprime mortgage crisis in the United States and the resulting global credit crunch have led to higher mortgage rates and a weakening of the housing market domestically, squeezing the budgets of existing homeowners and reducing household spending and investment growth. The weakness of the United States Dollar has been an important driver of a very strong New Zealand Dollar, making life difficult for some exporters. Adding to this, farmers are battling drought in a number of regions and GDP growth will slow as a result.

While these challenges are not of New Zealand’s making, they are affecting New Zealanders today. And while the New Zealand Government cannot single-handedly bring down food and petrol prices or end the credit crunch, we have a responsibility to manage our way through these difficulties while protecting families from the harsh edges of any downturn.”

Cullen was up-front with New Zealanders, warning of tough times ahead.

Key treats us like children, because deep down, his barely-disguised arrogance taints and defines his view of New Zealanders.

Sometimes, though, the disdain he holds for ordinary Kiwis pokes through his public persona of “likeable blokiness”, and becomes manifested in sneering derision. As he has done with anti-TPPA protests and opposition to the partial-privatisation of state assets;

“They don’t fully understand what we’re doing. My experience is when I take audiences through it, like I did just before, no-one actually put up their hand and asked a question.” –John Key, 27 October 2011

.

“Well, the numbers don’t look like they’re that significant. I mean at the moment it’s sitting at around about 40 per cent. That’s not absolutely amazing, it’s not overwhelmingly opposed. But the people who are motivated to vote will be those who are going to vote against.” – John Key, 14 December 2013

.
“They were expecting a big turnout, they were expecting a big vote in their favour and they didn’t get either of those. Overall what it basically shows is that it was a political stunt.” – John Key, 13 December 2013

.

“There’s three groups – some are Jane Kelsey and her people; she’s been opposed to every single free trade deal… she’ll never agree. The second group are the Labour and the Greens people; they are there with all sorts of stuff… Labour in their heart of hearts are actually in favour, but they’re in that oppositional mode at the moment where they’re opposed to everything… then you get to the third bit with people who are genuinely protesting, but I think protesting on quite a bit of misinformation.” – John Key, 17 August 2015

With each passing year, it gets harder and harder to hide the real John Key from public gaze.

.

.

.

References

Radio NZ: PM shrugs off worries about economy

Treasury: Budget 2008

TV3 News: Key – TPPA protesters ‘misinformed’

Fairfax media: Asset sales promoted to seniors

NZ Herald: Asset sales proceed in spite of referendum

Fairfax media: PM playing down voter turnout

Previous related blogposts

Patrick Gower – losing his rag and the plot

Another media gaffe – this time it’s TV3’s Brook Sabin

John Key’s foot-in-mouth syndrome

National Minister refers to PM as “Wild Eyed” Right-Winger!

National Minister refers to PM as “Wild Eyed” Right-Winger!

.

.

.

don't ruin my hawaiian holiday - john key

.

 

.

= fs =

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Big announcement on TDB Wednesday 16th

By
The Daily Blog
-
17

the-daily-blog-305x78

The Daily Blog will be announcing a big event on Wednesday 16th.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

The Daily Blog Open Mic Monday 14th September 2015

By
The Daily Blog
-
6

openmike

 

Announce protest actions, general chit chat or give your opinion on issues we haven’t covered for the day.

Moderation rules are more lenient for this section, but try and play nicely.

 

 

Hey everyone, thank you for contacting us with the problems you are having at the moment with posting comments.

While you may be told your message has been trashed or disallowed or denied, they are in fact all remaining on site.

So please be patient and your comments will turn up.

We are working on the problem and will have a solution soon.

PS -While we are having this discussion about comments, we have always felt moderated comments were a way to go to avoid trolling. The Internet can be a pretty rude place at times so we wanted to try and reduce that.

How would everyone feel about

a) Direct posts to blogs.

b) Moderation after publishing (if we went down this path we would need volunteer moderators).

c) We are going to start clamping down more on personal abuse between commentators and would like to open up thoughts form you the readers about what you would like to see in terms of comments and what the rules should be.

Please leave comments below. Thoughts on what we will do will be published middle of next month.

Cheers TDB Team

 

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

TDB Political Caption Competition

By
The Daily Blog
-
24

COvPkK2WwAArl5F

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
1...2,0802,0812,082...2,862Page 2,081 of 2,862

STAY CONNECTED

11,996FansLike
4,057FollowersFollow

Foreign policy + Intel + Security

Subscribe | Follow | Bookmark
and join Buchanan & Manning LIVE Thursdays @ midday

MIL Public Webcast Service




TheDailyBlog.co.nz
Launched on Friday 1 March, 2013, the ‘TheDailyBlog.co.nz’ unites New Zealand’s leading left/centre-left commentators and progressive opinion shapers to provide the other side of the story on today’s news, media and political agendas.

Website customised by MILNZ.co.nz
© Copyright 2021 TheDailyBlog.co.nz. All rights reserved.