Budget choices
John Armstrong is calling Cullen’s budget in a few weeks a potential circuit breaker to restore Labour’s fortunes after a string of bad polls. I think Labour probably has three strategic choices if it is going to break any circuits:
- It can entrench its legacy with a ‘steady as she goes’ lead in to the election that takes the opportunity to bed down any important social programmes that it is worried National might try to cut. Labour clearly wants to campaign on its longstanding record and its history to contrast that to the unknown and apparently unknowable quantity that John Key and his team might bring to government. Such a budget would be an opportunity to highlight Labour’s past achievements and its longevity, while also investing in them some more so as to protect against their being cut in the future if the polls should continue as they are currently.
- It can ‘shoot for the moon’ with a spendarama budget designed to show that it still has exciting new ideas and a vision for New Zealand that extends beyond just managing the economy it has created. A vote-buying budget might take much of the last minute vote buying that occurred last election off the table this election and would freshen Labour’s image significantly. But whose votes would it attempt to buy and would it use tax cuts or social spending?
- Or it can take its last opportunity to do those things that people expect a traditional Labour government to do; things like ending child poverty, restoring fair living incomes to those on benefits and rebuilding our local community infrastructures. If it is facing potential obliteration in the next election it may well be considering whether its legacy is what it hoped it would be when it was first elected in 1999. Occasionally ageing governments faced with their mortality ‘find their mojo’ again by returning to their roots and making up for lost time.
Bookmark to:
April 30th, 2008 at 9:23 am
Probably right. What does “rebuilding our local community infrastructures.” mean?
April 30th, 2008 at 9:26 am
Doesn’t matter what they do. The Titanic is going down regardless…….
April 30th, 2008 at 9:39 am
And the Greens have one strategic choice…
Declare yourselves independant and campiaign on the environment. Be positive on the great future potential for our country as world leaders of sustainability. Pledge to work with whichever party that wins the lottery to achieve that goal. Forget about the left wing agenda otherwise you’ll be thrown out with the garbage. Green is a more pressing issue than red in our modern world.
April 30th, 2008 at 10:06 am
I couldn’t agree more samiam,
i believe that green isn’t left wing or right ring it belongs in its own wing.
Which means a green party can work with either national or labour.
One problem with the democratic nature of the green party is that its too easy for the party to get taken over.
April 30th, 2008 at 10:11 am
What would happen if there is a deluge of votes for the Green party without the social policy…and they became a majority party in government, resulting in a government with no social policy? I know this is stretching a long bow, but it could happen, no? Or do you just mean they should adopt a centre-ist, neither-here-nor-there social policy samiam?
April 30th, 2008 at 10:23 am
StephenR, why is green policy not social policy???
If you are green you must beleive in personal resposnsibility.
Why can’t you let that personal resposnsibility flow into social policy.
Why do we need masive state-ism to get everything done.
When we talk about energy , greens always talk about the solution is a local one with more power generated at the source etc.
Why can’t we take this same policy and flow it into social policy.
I don’t beleive that the answer to a countries problems is ever more government and more government departments the end result of policy
directed to an increase in government is everyone working for the government.
April 30th, 2008 at 11:19 am
BluePeter,
I totally agree with you. And what was the iceberg that holed the ship ? The free-trade agreement with China is a large chunk of it.
And what will replace the Titanic? A very large rusty and twisted Titanic wreck!!!
April 30th, 2008 at 11:46 am
>>what was the iceberg that holed the ship
The smacking bill, efa, the “use” of taxpayers money, the double standards, the curious relationship with the truth, the arrogance, the hubris…
>>what will replace the Titanic
Hopefully a 747, but I’d settle for a boat heading in the right, and I do mean right, direction….
April 30th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
BluePeter,
You mentioned the “Smacking Bill”. Many of us have suffered long-term as a result of the “Wooden Spoon” culture.
I think you need to read my own true story:
February 2008
Wooden spoon treatment - Smacking to Self-Injury
I was hit as a child with a wooden spoon. I responded sexually to the pain from being smacked with the wooden spoon. During therapy, I discovered that some children respond sexually to pain in this way because that is how they are ‘wired’. I happened to fall into that group. This is a fact that is not well understood. I am now sexually and psychologically damaged.
I began to deliberately cut and burn myself, which continued well into adulthood. The childhood sexual response to inflicted pain from the wooden spoon was the trigger that led to my self-injury behaviour. This behaviour became very addictive and extremely difficult to stop. The physical discipline also caused me to suffer from an anxiety-depressive illness with disassociation and flashbacks. This has had a very destructive effect on my life.
The years of secret shame from the sexual response to pain, the self-injury behaviour and disassociation and shame relating to the physical discipline caused me to become suicidal - resulting in two suicide attempts.
The taboo surrounding such addictive behaviour and the strong shame barrier prevented my speaking about it. That is a very lonely place to have to endure over many years. The “intermingling� of pain and sexual feeling responses is the driving force that led to my self-harm. The pain becomes very pleasurable. It is an extremely horrible thing. I now have physical scars resulting from my years of self-injury.
I had to seek professional help. It has taken many years of therapy and counselling for me to overcome the effects of the childhood physical discipline administered by my parents, who believed in the Section 59 Culture that you so feverishly cling on to.
have a long medical file that shows the life-long damage I suffered as a child.
My journey to heal has been very long and hard. I had to take full responsibility for my own self-injury pain addiction so that I could begin to heal. The taxpayer now has to foot the bill for my ongoing counselling.
To say that smacking “did nobody any harm� is a terrible myth. You may still think it is acceptable to punish children in this way. But when you do, you can now do so in the knowledge that some of us have suffered long-term psychological damage from such discipline in childhood.
Your’s sincerely,
Section 59 Survivor
April 30th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
>>I think you need to read my own true story
“Need”?
I think I’d prefer to read something a little more…how shall we say…intellectually rigorous….
April 30th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Bluepeter,
I am not here to play stupid games with you - or anyone else either. If you think your immature “mocking” is going to silence me - then you had better think again!!
April 30th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
I do not think my mocking, of both the immature and mature variety, could ever silence you
Your story is anecdotal. The fact that some people react to a given situation in a certain way isn’t an argument that all smacking is therefore problematic.
The Dunedin Study, the most rigorous of its kind and directly applicable to New Zealand, showed that those who were merely smacked had “similar or even slightly better outcomes” than those who were not smacked in terms of aggression, substance abuse, adult convictions and school achievement.
I realise people have strongly held views on what constitutes violence and abuse, however my own view, backed up by personal experience and studies such as these, is that smacking can be a useful method of discipline, for certain children, under certain circumstances.
Mental abuse and isolation is far more damaging to children…
April 30th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Frog, my post has been blocked. Can you release it?
April 30th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Bluepeter,
I really do not understand what people like yourself are on about. The law, as it stands now does not outlaw inconsequential, smacking. It outlaws the “smacking” described in my story above - and what was allowed under the old law. That change is proper and appropriate. No parent has the right to hurt their child as I was hurt. My parents lived under a cloud of pig-ignorance as many still do.
Let me tell you too that my story is NOT anecdotal - it is a true account.
As for the Dunedin study you infer, that is also in hot debate and what you claim could certainly be anecdotal.
April 30th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Bluepeter
You comment:
“Mental abuse and isolation is far more damaging to children…”
Are you saying that what I suffered was not mental abuse and isolation?
The mental abuse and isolation I suffered by being “smacked” as a child was devastating. If your experiences were different, then you should count your blessings. Some of us were not so lucky!
April 30th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Where did I suggest it wasn’t true? It is, however, anecdotal in the context of the law regarding smacking.
>>The law, as it stands now does not outlaw inconsequential, smacking
Yes, it does. It makes it a criminal offense.
>>Are you saying that what I suffered
With all due respect, everything I say isn’t all about you.
The zealots - not meaning you - will never understand it. They deem smacking harmful to all, yet they have nothing to back this position up.
April 30th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Alright, one of the best things that the Government can do for New Zealanders is completely get rid of Working for Families and replace it with a zero tax bracket between $0 and $20,000. That would do much more for the poor of New Zealand, and not act as a subsidy to those that choose to have children - it isn’t the government’s duty to subsidise them.
In fact, while I am on that note, do you notice that all these families they have commented about recently have four/five/six/more children. Why do they have so many children?
Secondly, I don’t think that the Government should be increasing benefits - why should I, a hard working New Zealander, pay for a lifestyle choice? I do agree with the Unemployment Benefit for the short term; and the other base benefits, however, the Unemployment Benefit should not be a lifestyle choice - it should be there to help the temporarily unemployed through a few months while they get their next job.
Of course another thing could be looking at infrastructure. New Zealand is very infrastructure deficient and is probably comparable to 1960s Queensland, or 1970s Western Australia.
April 30th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Bluepeter,
Anecdotal in the context of the law regarding smacking.? I don’t understand.
I have to disagree with you over the law change - it does not outlaw smacking in it’s true context. It only outlaws the zealots who want to hit their children. And under the old law that was certainly legal.
However, even if it does as you claim, and does outlaw all smacking, then I am not going to lose any sleep over it.
You refer to “zealots”. The only zealots I can think of are those of the ilk of Larry Baldock who started a pathetic petition to again; make it legal to hurt children by hitting them. (note I said hitting as apposed to smacking).
I believe many people enjoy seeing children being hit with wooden spoons. It is like a sport to them. And now children have become political footballs. Disgusting!!!
April 30th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
You can demonise any parental practice. It always, without exception, involves the use of power over a minor.
Your experience is just that - your own. It is not applicable across the population, else every child would react the same way, but they don’t.
The law makes smacking a crime. The zealots are WRONG. SB is WRONG. The Greens are WRONG. Their position is not backed by the facts, arrived at by in-depth scientific study, not by opinion and, and in some cases, self-loathing and guilt.
April 30th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Again, I’ve been blocked.
Frog, why can’t you be more transparent about you censorship policy?
April 30th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
I was hit as a child with a wooden spoon. I responded sexually to the pain from being smacked with the wooden spoon.
…………
Smacking is a contextual thing: a normal parent wouldn’t smack if some sort of arousal was detected……………….?
April 30th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
jh (and BP): Please don’t mock or deny someone who has come here to tell a very private and personal story so people better understand some of the issues associated with corporal punishment.
Sure it is anecdotal and may not be a common response to physical discipline, but please accept her word that it was her response (and also acknowledge that sexual arousal in a girl may be somewhat more difficult for a parent to detect than it is in a boy).
April 30th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
Toad
I do accept her response.
Aren’t we trying to find truth?
Through honest debate?
Is this an appropriate forum for personal therapy?
With respect, we’ve heard this exact story before in previous threads. I get it. Some people respond badly to their childhood, some people blame their parents for everything, and Freud is alive and well.
April 30th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Bluepeter,
Cut out that crap! I have just as much right as you have, to speak my truth here. You are (again) just trying to belittle my account and that will not be tolerated. And you are right, you have seen my story here before, and you will continue to see it as for long as this issue continues to raise its ugly head.
April 30th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
JH,
I masturbated extensively as a child and my parents “cared� by smacking me for it. The arousal did not mean a thing to them. So even if they were aware of it, they never heeded it. It is my belief that they were probably unaware of it. After all, smacking (or rather hitting) never did anyone any harm did it!!!
However, this phenomenon happens for both girls and boys. I do not know what the percentage is in the number of children affected by such responses, but going on my own experiences in group therapy and research, I would estimate 1 in every 10 children could be at risk.
Children who may have been sexually molested are very much at risk. These are the victims that are forgotten about in this whole disgusting issue.
Section 59 allowed children to be legally hit. So JH, you are right. Smacking is a contextual thing – it could be a smack with the hand or a bashing with a wooden spoon.
April 30th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Toad
Do we really have to put up with such “graphic” posts, I have no interest in the nocturnal activities of S59 survivor.
April 30th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
I know Big Bro does not like my truth. That is OK - just so long as he does not display the bully boy tactics of last time.
April 30th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
I masturbated extensively as a child and my parents “cared� by smacking me for it.
………………
So did I when I was old enough, but I made sure no one saw me.
April 30th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
JH,
And I did when I was not old enough. I was still a child. I think it all began from a very early age - around 3 - 5 years of age. That is what caused the damage.
April 30th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
And I do not intend to get into a debate about child-sexual behaviour. I know children naturally “experiment” but I went way past that - as my story explains.
April 30th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
john-ston,
I am sorry your post has been lost in all of this foray.
You raise some very good points. A zero tax bracket between $0 and $20,000 seems to be a good approach to the issues you highlight.
April 30th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
I am new to this idea of posting. I was excited about the idea of a Green Party blog to engage in discussion. I am suprised at the things I am reading thus far. There seems to be a lot of dismissing, trivialising, marginalising/generalising (see no GST on food thread) and some posts that come close to bullying. I realise I am a little naieve (sp?) in what I expected from this blog - coming from a devotedly socialist background, with my first recorded sentence being ‘viva anarchy’ and with a Grandmother who still buys me yearly subscriptions to New Internationalist I expected something more … I don’t know? .. ‘accepting’ of everyone’s opinions I guess. Now I am realising that this is about freedom of speech, the right to express opposing views, about democracy. However, it seems to me that those with the ability to take text and make it fit their own views - usually as a vehicle to discredit those of us speaking from experience or from the heart - dominate these pages with their rhetoric. Although as I say, I am new to this, so will continue to log on and perhaps will recognise more balance over time.
Section 59 Survivor, I applaud you for your courage and honesty. These anecdotal stories are exactly what we should be hearing as Family First et al continue to try to discredit the repeal of Section 59. Most of us who were ’smacked’ and struggle with the repercussions don’t share. Kudos to you.
May 1st, 2008 at 9:23 am
barking rabbit, there is a ‘previous entries’ link at the bottom of the blog home page, where you can look at all the old ones in order of entry. With one click, you would have found your ‘GST on food’ thread (it’s here http://blog.greens.org.nz/index.php/2008/04/29/gst-on-food/)
Sounds like you’ve only read one thread! Branch out a bit
May 1st, 2008 at 9:46 am
technical support always welcome, thanks StephenR. Have read more threads than it sounds - i was refering to the GST on food thread which I had been reading, not saying there wasn’t one - bad grammar on my part. Despite my technophobia I’ve found this site relatively user friendly and have found lots to read. Just been perturbed to read some comments -on more than one thread (; - appearing to dismiss and marginalise other users comments, rather than engaging in discussion . Bit of an ‘old bloggers club’ perhaps?
May 1st, 2008 at 10:09 am
Yeah I didn’t think you’d be too illiterate, what with having YOUR OWN BLOG (la dee da) and all, .
There can be a bit of ‘more of the usual’ from some people e.g. climate change is a communist plot, the Greens are commies who are going to…communise us or something, but at the same time not much is indefensible, so I personally try to be on my guard against lightly dismissing everything a poster says based on past comments.
You’ll probably find this blog to be one with a very low number of infantile comments and personal attacks, if nothing else
May 1st, 2008 at 11:15 am
Hi Barking Rabbit,
Many thanks for your feedback.
It is a real pity that too often sharing, disclosing and discussion very quickly degenerates into personal attacks and put-downs. But it really does display the true character of such people that do this. So it really does not bother me too much because all these people are doing is showing themselves up for what they really are.
Stephen R - What you have said in your post certainly does highlight this behaviour too.
I would like to see more discussion on this thread on the present economic situation facing New Zealand. I thought john-ston had raised some very interesting points.
May 1st, 2008 at 11:35 am
S59, you haven’t seen a personal attack or put down until you’ve been to Kiwiblog, that place can get *toxic*, in the context of what i’ve seen there, what BP said was nothing much more than BP being a bit irritable.
You’ll get the present economic situation in NZ brought up in about every 5th thread or so, I think you’ll find…
May 1st, 2008 at 11:47 am
Hi StephenR,
Yes, I have heard a lot about Kiwiblog and what goes on there. I would not bother wasting my time there.
I think some of these blogs are simply places where the lowest-common-denominator can vent their anger and spleen and show very little intellect or substance. They are not interested in serious discussion.
It sounds like Kiwibog is simply a place of competition to see who can display the biggest ego.
May 1st, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Stephen R, glad you like my blog
Late night attempt to set up a forum (on the only site I could work out how to use) to have my say after another frustrating round of dialogue with Family First. I’m the only one who reads it so no trouble with ‘toxic’ blogging there!
Good point about not dismissing a post due to past comments. Will remember that.