by frog
Matthew Hooton lashes out a Chris Trotter today in the Sunday Star Times. He gets so personal that after I write this, I’ll dig up Trotter’s article from last week and have a read. I don’t know how I missed Trotter being vitriolic!. In the middle of his article, Hooton makes an interesting assertion:
The fact is, the odds are against New Zealand maintaining our status as a first world nation.
This statement is followed by many other prophesies of doom for the business and workers of New Zealand should we fail to follow the National Party’s prescription for “first-world” success.
I am more than willing to concede his points that NZ needs to boost productivity and that our current lifestyle is under threat because of the way we have structured our economy. The fact is, many of the OECD’s top economies are groaning from the bubbles and debt caused by unrestrained deregulation and pseudo free-market ideology. It’s the 1920s all over again. And here Hooton is, exhorting us to follow them straight down the road to perdition.
Some of my right-leaning readers will immediately assume that I am calling for some sort of socialist revolution, because that is the sort of name-calling we all like to engage in. However, like Hooton, I just want a proper dialogue before we rush headlong down the ideological path.
Hooton is right. We are a small, isolated island nation with only one massive multinational to our name. Only one? Is that so bad for a whole country the size of most medium size cities? Do we really want to judge our success solely on the number of multinationals we have? Or on the penis-envy scale of GDP? I think not. Nor do I think we should be rushing headlong into the American economic paradigm, like Hooton and the National Party would like us to do.
He’s right, we should take our cue from nations doing better than us. America, with their free-market obsession, isn’t one of them. Their deficits, their debt, their disregard for human rights and their callous treatment of their own citizens does not provide a good model. There are however, several countries that are closer to NZ in demographic, size and resources, which are doing very well both economically and for the benefit of their citizens. What about the the many small Scandanavian countries that top the OECD? Could we not hatch our own Nokia, like Finland? Could we not top the list in citizen happiness and well being, like Denmark, who still rank highly in economic terms? Could we not guarantee free education, health care and superannuation for our citizens while still hovering in the top, like the Netherlands? All we need is the political will. We certainly have the resources. What I fail to see is any leadership. We are just plain tired of Helen’s vision, and Key is too scared to tell us what his vision is because he knows that we’ll reject it out of hand. If , in fact, he has any vision at all. What a sorry state of affairs!
Published in Economy, Work, & Welfare | Media by frog on Sun, July 27th, 2008
Tags: chris trotter, europe, Frog, frogblog, green, ideology, matthew hooton, national, new zealand, party, scandanavian, sunday star times
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
this is what dribble he wrote
You can imagine my response!!!
it was not polite
So you’re thinking of voting for the Nats? After nine years of the same old faces, you think it’s time for a change?
Well, you’re not alone. According to the opinion polls, there are about 350,000 people out there who are thinking what you’re thinking.
But before you – the 15 per cent of the electorate contemplating a lurch to the right – throw your weight behind the 35 per cent of New Zealanders who make up National’s core vote (which will then, with 50 per cent, and wielding unbridled parliamentary power, be free to govern alone for three long years), I would ask you to take a closer look at the people you will be joining.
THE COCKIES: Backbone of the nation; earners of our overseas funds; selfish; insular; and possessed of an indefatigable sense of moral superiority over everyone whose front door looks out upon a street instead of a paddock.
These are the people who, heedless of the enormous biosecurity implications, illegally released the rabbit-killing calicivirus into New Zealand – and then laughed at the efforts of the authorities to hunt down the perpetrators.
The people who, when asked to contribute to the cost of scientific research into how we as a nation might control the amount of methane released into the atmosphere by our cows and sheep, refused point-blank to contribute, branded the levy a “Fart Tax”, and got away with it.
The people who have aggressively resisted every government effort to secure legally protected rights of way across the countryside, so that all New Zealanders might enjoy the beauty of our wild open spaces, and who, once again, have got away with it.
The people whose dairy herds befoul our rivers and streams. The people who refuse to pay for the pollution they cause. The people who are bending all their powers towards securing control of our nation’s water – even as they make it unfit for our children to drink or swim in.
These are the people you will be supporting when you vote National.
You will also be supporting:
THE RICH: Creators of wealth; makers of jobs; robbers of rights; bastardisers of culture; selfish; arrogant; and possessed of an indefatigable sense of moral superiority over everyone whose income is less than $100,000 per annum.
These are the people who, with the Employment Contracts Act, stripped from hundreds of thousands of working-class New Zealanders the legal rights they had enjoyed for nearly one hundred years.
The people who pocketed the accommodation supplement (kindly supplied by their political representatives) even as their tenants’ children went cold and hungry, and the diseases of poverty, long banished from New Zealand society, made a deadly reappearance.
The people who begrudge every cent of tax they are asked to contribute. The people who care nothing for the cultural wealth of our nation being fairly distributed. The people who regard education principally as a means of preserving the advantages of their class. The people who think our health system wastes far too much money on all the stupid, lazy and poor people cluttering it up.
These people, too, you will be supporting when you vote National. And then there are:
THE REACTIONARIES: Defenders of the faith; upholders of decent family values; sadistic; bigoted; deranged hankerers after a world that – thankfully – has long since passed away.
The people who think prisons are the solution to the problems that fill them. The people who resent having to treat women, gays, ethnic minorities and the disabled as human beings. The people who think anyone who doesn’t laugh at a racist joke is an example of “political correctness gone mad”. The people who supported the Springbok Tour, thought Vietnam and Iraq were “noble causes”, and opposed New Zealand becoming nuclear-free. The people who deny climate change.
Yes, these are the people you will be joining when you make the big switch. The people who have opposed every single progressive reform that New Zealand has ever undertaken – yes, every single one.
Of course, no one can stop you joining them.
It’s still a free country.
But, please, before you vote, ask yourself: “Is this the company I want to keep?”
I prefer this reply!!!!
So you’re thinking of voting for Labour? After nine years of the same old faces, you don’t think it’s time for a change?
Well, you’re not alone. According to the opinion polls, there are about 750,000 people out there who are thinking what you’re thinking.
But before you – the 35 per cent of the electorate contemplating no change to the status quo, the 35 per cent of New Zealanders who make up Labour’s core vote, who are happy to let Labour wield unbridled parliamentary power and be free to govern alone for three long years – vote Labour, I would ask you to take a closer look at the people you will be joining.
THE DOLE BLUDGERS: Fallen on hard times; deserving of pity; lazy; ignorant; penniless for good reason.
These are the people who prefer to smoke dope all week at taxpayer expense.
The people who leech off our tax dollars while contributing nothing to society, and still expect to have their education and health care paid for by workers.
The people who have nothing, and aspire to nothing.
The people whose children fill our jails. The people who grow weed, commit burglaries and violent crimes, and still qualify for state assistance. The people who make entire suburbs virtually uninhabitable, and yet rail against the slightest decrease in the money they get for nothing.
These are the people you will be supporting when you vote Labour.
You will also be supporting:
THE CHARDONNAY SOCIALISTS: Well-educated; analysts of policy; robbers of rights; bastardisers of culture; selfish; arrogant; and possessed of an indefatigable sense of moral superiority over everyone who drinks beer or works in the private sector.
These are the people who, with the Resource Management Act, stripped from hundreds of thousands of land-owning New Zealanders the legal rights they had enjoyed for hundreds of years.
The people who pocketed massive salary increases (kindly supplied by their political representatives) even as genuine workers suffered from rampant inflation.
The people who begrudge every last fraction of economic freedom. The people who care only about their preferred ‘arts’ and ‘culture’ being subsidised by the taxpayers of New Zealand. The people who regard education principally as a means of preserving their ideology. The people who think our health system wastes far too little money on all the disadvantaged, uneducated and poor people cluttering it up.
These people, too, you will be supporting when you vote Labour.
And then there are:
THE STUDENT POLITICIANS: Defenders of the faith; upholders of ‘progressive’ Maoist values; sadistic; bigoted; deranged hankerers after a world that – thankfully – passed away in 1989.
The people who think prisons should be abolished. The people who resent having to treat men, heterosexuals, ethnic majorities and the able-bodied as human beings. The people who think anyone who laughs at a politically-incorrect joke is an example of “the oppression of the hegemony?. The people who detonated bombs and assaulted police during the Springbok Tour, thought Vietnam and Iraq were worse than the genocides perpetrated by Pol Pot or Stalin, and support unilateral disarmament and gun control. The people who promote the worst-case-scenarios of climate change in order to handicap New Zealand industry.
Yes, these are the people you will be joining when vote for the status quo. The people who have undertaken every single stupid socialist reform that New Zealand has ever suffered under – yes, every single one.
Of course, no one can stop you joining them.
They’re in charge of our semi-free country, after all.
But, please, before you vote, ask yourself: “Is this the company I want to keep?”
Phil Howison philip.howison@gmail.com
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Here is a link to the Chris Trotter piece. Irritatingly, the SST hasn’t put Matthew Hooten’s article online.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sundaystartimes/4624348a22678.html
Fonterra have been touting themselves as NZ’s “Nokia”. Personally, I feel nervous about having too many of our economic eggs vested in one basket. We leave ourselves vulnerable to being held to economic ransom in the future. Even Finland may one day rue its reliance on one major company. Especially if Nokia lost its dominance. Or, for example, imagine a scenario where (with echoes of tobacco and asbestos companies) it was revealed that Nokia and similar companies was aware of, but buried, evidence that showed a definite link between cell phone use and cancer? Who’d want to be the Finnish government then??
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
EcoBiz – Point taken. Having all the eggs in one basket is a risk. I was just trying to make the point that having expectations of multiple NZ multinationals was a bit pie-in-the-sky given our size, and that it is probably not a good proxy measure of economic success in any case. In fact, the eggs-in-basket point supports the assertion that it is a bad indicator of ’success’, difficult as it is define that term.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
frog,
Having decided that the Danish economy is the right model. Will the Greens present a plan with timelines, budgets, KPI milestones to be achieved, etc. in their election manifesto?
Totally agree that the Danish model is achieveable and desireable.
How will we get there?
Because without the Greens presenting that plan, your vision might be like John Key and the Nats vision, “we might reject it out of hand”.
How can you reject the Nats vision “out of hand” without seeing it?
The might present (seeing they are a slightly right of centre party) a vision that could just take you to the Danish delight you are seeking.
If that were the case would the Greens work with the Nats?
Or will Locke and co prevent that?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Oh, Gerrit, don’t put words in my mouth. I haven’t decided that the Danish model is the right one. I am simply pointing out that there are choices other than the American free-market ideology model that Matthew Hooton and the Nats espouse. You are quite correct, the voters could reject a Danish model out of hand.
I cannot reject Key’s vision out of hand because he hasn’t presented one.
I can only reject the tired and failed National Party policies of the past, which do seem to be peeping through the very few words that Key’s Australian minders allow him to speak. Such policies do not bode well for NZ’s future.
As for the Green vision, I cannot speak for that unless it is published policy. Did it ever occur to you that my jab at the Nats was also an indirect jab at my very own Greens?
One thing that the Greens have stated is that they will work constructively with any party on shared issues. When the Nats front up with a statement of principles, we can talk about something more than an issue by issue relationship.
Only Act, (God forbid), and the Greens have any clearly articulated principles. It would be easier to find common ground with them in order to build something more than an issue by issue relationship. Indeed, we have worked constructively with them in the House on many occasions. Rodney’s impassioned speech against the last Terrorism Bill was a work of art.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’d love to see Estonia’s electronic parliament implemented here in NZ. They have had many citizens-initiated movements started online, which eventually reached the critical mass to be forced to be an agenda item, and eventually passed into law!
Now that’s democracy
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
frog,
If you were admonishing the Greens for not having policy, I failed to see it in your post and aplogise for the oversight.
So will the Greens publish some concrete, costed policies that will be instrumental in meeting the vision the party has?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Indeed, we have worked constructively with [Act] in the House on many occasions.”
I’ve often wondered whether Act is the Yang to the Green’s Yin. Perhaps a coalition of the two would give society more integral and substantive solutions
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
EcoBiz – Lol! I am not sure how well an Act/Green coalition would go down with either party’s core voters. It would be fun to watch the negotiations though!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What I would say, Ecobiz, is that ACT is the only Party other than the Greens that shows any principle. The others just do whatever is necessary to get the votes, and compromise anything they have ever said in the past if they think it will cost them votes.
While I don’t agree with some of the principles that the ACT Party stands for (especially the ones that put the interests of the individual above the interests of the community as a whole, although I do agree largely with their socially libertarian principles) I agree that since the departure of Prebble as Leader they have been largely a principled Party.
As have the Greens!
The rest of the parties just pander to prejudice and short-term public opinion responses to political issues – essentially giving succour to bigotry and small-mindedness.
How about an agreement among all our political leaders to actually lead, rather than to pander to the worst aspects of humanity???
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Here here, toad!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“I’d love to see Estonia’s electronic parliament implemented here in NZ.”
I don’t, it would leave us far too vulnerable to e-terrorists; don’t forget what happened to Estonia in last year when they pulled down that statue.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad
Any party that supported the EFA does NOT have principles.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
‘Round and ’round we go, the usual crap from big bro.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Valis
“‘Round and ’round we go, the usual crap from big bro”
Further confirmation that the left revert to abuse when faced with opposition, mind you at least I will not be the one who is crying into my herbal tea on election night when the Greens fail to make the threshold.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
big bro – I didn’t ask what you thought of the EFA. I asked if you supported the principle of fully transparent donations to political parties. (Assuming we have a threshold for small, gold coin type donations.) What say ye?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
And more and more from big bro, where will it stop? The left stoops so low compared to the right – yeah right. My comment was reflecting on the circles we go around in with you and only one or two others really. Personally, I can’t imagine spending so much time on a right wing blog just kicking dirt, but if this is the best thing you have to do, you should expect to get baited occasionally.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Frog
I am well aware what you said however still does not mean that any party who supported the EFA can claim it has principles.
As for donations, well in a perfect world I would agree with you however we both know that any company or businessman who dared to donate a sum of money to the right would be attacked, vandalized and abused by rabid lefties and pinko’s, so for that reason I would favour keeping donations anonymous, after all it is my money and I will do with it what I like.
While we are discussing this issue it might be a good idea if you actually told us the real reason you are against big donations, we both know it is because you dislike the ease with which the Nat’s can raise money (which is where your support of this piece of envy legislation comes from) compared to the Greens and of course the fact that ultimately you want ME (and all other tax payers) to pay for your electioneering.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Valis
“The left stoops so low compared to the right”
Glad you agree, would you like me to list a few examples?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Apparently our ‘Nokia’ was ‘Navman’, but that got sold to some Americans who then took it apart…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Frog
Just what are the “tired old failed policies” that National had, and how many of their reforms have the current corrupt govt changed?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Stephen, And F&P was our Electrolux/Dishlex. If we could work out why Ford kept Volvo in Sweden we might work out what we have been doing wrong.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Volvo in Sweden eh. huh. I bet those blooooody Swedes think they’re so great .
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
That takes money Frog.
Without a capitalist agenda guaranteeing income, we are destined to be more like Fiji rather than like any of the Scandinavian or European countries.
You forget that we are saddled with a huge component of Pacific cultural baggage.
Even if you consider that to be a good thing, there is no way you can pretend that we can build a Euro-style country upon it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)