So why the hell are helengrad in power

In what must be a reflection of limited ability for self analysis or an appalling communication job by the centre right. NBR has details of a poll showing significantly more New Zealanders said they considered themselves right wing ­ 34% ­ than said they were left wing ­ 22%. After the great result in America we need to get rid of helen and her cronies and move New Zealand off the failed socialist path.

Having predicted that Bush was a definite for months and hoped post election-pre announcement that he would reach out to the democrats it seems he is doing exactly that. Whilst it has been tempting to gloat at some of the more idiotic comments from the Left following the election now is probably the time for those serious about the need for political change in New Zealand who understand what GW is doing for the world to come out and win the arguments.

Gordy has said it well over at Just Talk and dpf about why the left just dont get it. I am agnostic, don't own a gun, and could not care what a man chooses to allow inside himself in the privacy of his own home. The state has no right to interfere. But if I had had a vote I would have gone strongly for GW.

I thought GW would be president back when he was Texas governor making stump speeches in Spanish. The man reached out. Having been a wild one in his younger days and having brought up children who are independent enough to go under age drinking despite the fact their father is president would seem to me signs of a very well adjusted individual. And I think he will make efforts to reach out again. The trouble is that many on the left will spit on the hand.

Bush clearly understood after 911 that the world had changed. The problem was no longer the soviet union. Socialism is a failed idea, persevered with only in failing states like cuba, north korea and helengrad.

The reason to invade Iraq was all about securing oil independence from the Saudi backers of Al qaeda and the more radical wahhabists who are clearly backing jihad. That will allow the US to put more pressure on the jihadists. For the neo con thinkers in the administration there was the opportunity to put in a democracy in the middle east. The main problem facing the world since the early nineties (remember the first WTC attempt) is the jihadis. Those who would impose Islam on the world by force.

Afghanistan seemed too unlikely to become a stable democracy. After 20 years of all out war it seemed an unlikely beacon of hope for stability and prosperity as a liberal bulwark against dictators and/or jidahis. The signs there seem really hopeful.

So the Bush Administration gave a chance to the Iraqi's. The fount of civilisation is a likely place for people to embrace democracy. the quagmire is just 20:20 hindsight bs. It will take years. But it will happen. In one state or 3.

So what is the relevance for New Zealand?

That fantastic little country at the end of the world. Our forebears understood that we owed it to ourselves to pitch in and help our neighbours in time of need. Without care for the consequence we participated in all the big wars for freedom in the twentieth century. But somewhere in there we started believing our own liberal socialist slogans too much and the talk became more important than the action.

The anti nuclear declaration became our defining political idea. Never mind that we were protected by the nuclear umbrella by a thankless US. We were just far too smug to accept it is a real & dangerous world out there.

So the likes of David Lange, Helen Clark, Margaret Wilson took power with liberal ideas formed in the cradle of a wealthy nation whose parents knew the reality of sacrifice, but who failed to pass on to those children that there were responsibilities to go with the prosperity they created for their children. We grew up in an environment where peace and prosperity was taken for granted. Socialism with its warm caring wealth and equality for everyone became the idea behind all policy. The original safety net became a state provided right and the socialist idea was extended to the point where the state provides over 1/3 of people with benefits.

Back to face some realities. New Zealand is not standing by its allies and those who have guaranteed its security for the last 70 years. It is slipping down the list of wealthy nations. Not so much getting poorer yet but steadily moving towards the Argentinian type of crisis that will result when too much is expected from the productive sector to support the wilfully idle.

The left reject the medicine provided by Sir Roger and Ruth Richardson as "failed experiments" but do not understand the basic economic principles underlying the reforms. New Zealand is like a wealthy private company that has passed to the third generation. The greedy family dont understand the business but just want to strip out more and more and more cash.

The problems in New Zealand today will not be solved by cutting Education or Health budgets. Investing wisely in the knowledge of the future and the health of people is a sign of a sensible society. Proper controls on spending and the methods of delivery will make sure taxpayers money is spent effectively. Breaking the teacher unions will ensure children can be taught at schools that conform to parental standards rather than woolly liberal, politically correct mantras of hand out and the state must oblige.

Having no vision for the future other than holding the hand out to the state for as much money as you can get from it is sleepwalking to the abyss. One third of taxpayers money is spent on benefits to equalise income. Paying people money they have not earned. That is what will kill the Kiwi spirit.

Now that the US election is out of the way and the world is in safe rather than French hands we can look to New Zealands future.

Education reform, Benefit reform, real contribution to the security of the world including our own security and stopping the idea that the state's role is what the state decides are the key issues for New Zealand to face. Given that New Zealanders seem inclined to view themselves on the self responsibility rather than state responsibility side of the spectrum there must be some hope.

Comments

[Jordan]

Well, for you there is no hope, not because the things you discuss as needing to be addressed are wrong, but because your analysis is totally incorrect. You have constructed, from whatever source, a picture of New Zealand that is violently at odds with reality. Don Brash did the same thing, with his "Labour is destroying New Zealand" stuff last year. He realised he was wrong, and has desisted.

If half the things you accuse Labour of were true, then we'd be out on our ear. The sustained, broad-based public support for the current government, its economic success and reinvestment in social services should by now have forced you to consider whether your analysis and facts were right.

The fact you remain deaf to the evidence that is all around you, explains why your movement isn't going to win the next election. There is plenty of time for you to start listening and get back in touch, but I believe that you (as a group, not you personally) are too arrogant and confident of your own rightness, to listen, to learn or to get it right.

[Rich]

For most people, social market capitalism (what you seem to regard as close to Communism) works on a basis of simple arithmetic.

Let's take one possible policy a right-wing government could introduce - charging for hospital visits. This would no doubt fund a small tax cut, but for a majority of the population, this would be eaten up in hospital bills. This is true of most public spending, and makes voting left a rational decision.

In some countries, including a large one that has just had an election, the right gain power on a regular basis by playing on fear and bigotry amongst the "working people". (aka Social Conservatism). With less well educated people than Kiwis, this works well...

Of course various parties of the right espouse social liberalism, but how many have ever been elected (interested to hear of any examples??)

[James]

Maybe I don't read enough right blogs, but I still don't get the 'Helengrad' label. Well, it's very clever that 'stalin' and 'helen' sort-of-rhyme, but if the point of the label is to link stalinism and authoritarian soviet policies with the labour government of helen clark through their similarities, well it seems to show up an ideological bias more than a worthwhile analysis. Unless you're being ironic, of course.

We are a capitalist welfare state run by a centre-left government that have not fundamentally reversed the neoliberal policies of the 80s and 90s. The labour government have tinkered around with a few issues, mainly social, but describing our government as 'socialist', to me, says more about perceptual bias than it does about the government.

[James]

btw sage, my post says 4:10am but it's 5:10pm. Is that your site or my computer? Just thought I'd point it out...

[Jordan]

Rich - the National Party has. The party of the Human Rights Act; of Treaty Settlements... that National Party had a remarkably good record on human rights etc. The current leadership seems to be trying to bury it, or parts of them do, but it's a strong trend in New Zealand right wing thought.

[sagenz]

none of you have the slightest idea of what I am getting at. New Zealand has lost its path in the world. we used to stand for something real. Contributing our people to bringing freedom and democracy to the world and being self reliant. being part of a bigger idea. now it is hold the hand out to the state and whine loudly they need to giver more.
Jordan - Brash desisted, not because he realised he was wrong, but too keep the powder dry. helen is nothing if not politically astute. The resonance that Brash ideas had with New Zealanders as evidenced by the massive increase in polls showed that a sustained campaign would bring out support for National. helen and cronies performed a complete u turn in their bid to hang onto popular support. These are actions of your group 3 people.
Rich - The discipline that charging for hospital visits brings is that encourages people to understand there is a cost to everything. Your logic is precisely the problem. you see no problem with the state providing everything. state provision has a dead weight. If 10 visits cost $100 each to the hospital providing, then charging people $20 per visit will allow 12 people to visit. Instead, if taxes were increased by $20 for each original visitor perhaps only $100 of that $200 would be able to flow on to the hospital. thus only 1 more person is provided health services.
Basic economics. the same applies on student fees. If you contribute something it has a value.

James - helen and even more so margaret wilson are authoritarian socialists. there is no irony - stalingrad, leningrad, are some examples. helen is not stalin. check out the motto at steve kearneys blog - "the states role will be whatever I determine the states role to be". The clear theme of their policies is to make New Zealanders more reliant on a more powerful state.
"capitalist welfare state " - and helengrad are moving towards the welfarist idea and away from the capitalist balance.
National has a proud record on human rights. It was a successful political tactic of the left to whine long and loudly about some of the political flaws that are inevitable in government. Their holier than thou attitude in the 99 campaign is precisely what makes such hypocrisy grate now.

[dave]

There are several reasons why Helengrad is in power.

1. a good economy
2. Many voters on the centre like Labour
3. we havent had the next election.
4. the centre vote.

Anyway, it depends on what you mean by left/right. Socially, general, theologically/religious/ economic?

Hey, I'm not hard left or right - Im in
the centre, ( well, balanced, you could say :-) and the centre is the biggest group of people, and is the group that determines the election.

Furthermore, people vote based on gut feeling. Some who like Labour's economic policies do not like the sodial ideaology, but they think Nationals economic policy is worse - so they vote the lesser of the two evils. Its the economy, stupid.

And finally, I don't think your economic analysis is correct. And categorisning people self responsibility rather than state responsibility does not equate to left/right IMHO.

[stephen]

You might consider that a *conservative* view in New Zealand would be in favour of a welfare state. To remove and reduce social security is a radical departure from the status quo.

You might also ask yourself how the economic policy of this goverment differs from its National predecessor, and while I'm sure Jordan would disagree, I would say the answer is "hardly at all". This goverment's leftiness is manifested much more in the social policy sphere than the economic. And as it happens, I think NZ'ers these days are pretty loose and mellow compared to their 1950s equivalents, so they don't feel the same outrage that their American counterparts might.

In fact, yer genuine 70's Labour activist wouldn't recognise Labour now as a left wing goverment. Where are the price controls? The tariffs? The high marginal tax rate? The property speculation tax? The state-supported collectives? Subsidies for local industry? State-owned infrastructure?

So there's your answer. Labour IS a right-wing, or at least a centrist party (though it may be to the left of National). You are personally too far to the right to realise what the middle is.