Entry 2299, on 2023-10-15 at 17:56:38 (Rating 3, Politics)
Well, I've got to say at this point that, for a change, I am fairly happy with the outcome of several recent events. Most obviously is the outcome of the New Zealand general election, but there is also the result of the Voice referendum in Australia, and the epic victory of the All Blacks against Ireland in France.
So with this feeling of schadenfreude foremost I should try to justify these thoughts and maybe look at them in a bigger context (apart from the rugby: that's just a game).
The NZ Herald had a headline this morning, which read: "Election 2023: Political bloodbath and the end of the Jacinda Ardern era - World reacts to National Party's victory in New Zealand" Other comments include phrases like "the end of Ardernism". So while Ardern wasn't the prime minister at the time of this defeat, clearly many people see her as the cause.
And I would be one of them. To paraphrase Lincoln: "she fooled most of the people for some of the time, but eventually most of us caught on to her games". But even now many people cannot comprehend how anyone could not admire her. I was recently discussing this with a Labour supporter, and I said it was Ardern's fault that Labour was failing. The other peson assumed I meant that it was because she had left, and not that if she had stayed Labour would still be wildly popular. They just don't get it.
I see this more of a rejection of the woke political agenda than of Labour itself. I mean, they hadn't really achieved much, but they weren't a complete disaster either. Based on that, they hardly deserved to have the number of seats they won at the last election halved in just 3 years. That takes more than incompetence, especially when the main opposition party is so uninspiring. That takes a deeper, philosophical objection.
It is affecting many left-leaning political parties around the world. Instead of being primarily there to help the working class, they are more interested in identity politics. Leftist governments are supported by (so-called) well educated elites now, rather than workers. If Labour had spent as much time worrying about the lower and middle classes, and less time being concerned with equity, diversity, and gender and race-based politics, then maybe they would have won.
One event told me as much about the new Labour, with Hipkins in charge, than many other well-publicised events. It was when Sean Plunket asked him "what is a woman" and he mumbled a load of incoherent nonsense instead of giving an answer. To me, this showed that despite his friendly exterior, he was still dedicated to that ideology of woke politics beneath the surface.
By the way, if you never saw the interview where this interaction took place, I'm not surprised, because the mainstream media would have hidden it. I only saw it because I follow various alternative sources as well as the mainstream.
I have mentioned in the past that I see myself partly as a libertarian and was going to vote Act, which I did. That party maybe didn't do as well as they could have, due to some errors in strategy over the past few weeks, and it now looks like New Zealand First might also become part of the government coalition. I'm pretty happy with that, because the ideas that party have I think will help steer us away from the path we have taken during the Ardern era.
The next three years will tell us whether this is going to work, but I think at least it's a change of course which we needed. I don't expect miracles, but I do expect that some of the irrational, divisive nonsense we might have got with the left instead might be avoided. I could probably cope with Labour in charge, but having the Greens and the Maori Party involved in a coalition: well, that's not a happy prospect.
At the same time as our general election, Australia held a referendum called "the Voice" which was intended to modify their constitution to set up a special aboriginal group intended to advise the government on relevant issues.
The referendum question was "A Proposed Law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Do you approve this proposed alteration?" was so non-specific that few people should have felt comfortable voting "yes".
So this is clearly another example of woke-ism pushing against established democratic norms. It has been said that there would be no compulsion to take any of the recommendations of this group seriously, but it has also been said that anyone who ignored them would do so at their peril.
Race-based politics is one area here in New Zealand where division and conflict has arisen, so I was pleased to see the Australian people voted "no" to this proposal. I freely admit that the history of aboriginals in Australia is a very sad one, but handing out special privileges, based on race, is not the best answer.
I'm sure that some people voted against this because they were racist, and I'm also sure that many voted against it because they wanted to protect democracy. But the same old crowd came out in favour of it: university academics, extremely woke TV hosts, and political activists. I think it is time these groups were taken a bit less seriously.
Finally, the All Blacks beat the world's number one rugby team, Ireland, by 24 to 28. I don't really pay a lot of attention to sport, except sometimes cricket, but it's always good to see our national teams do well, especially when they were the underdogs for a change. And yes, I know, that supporting a national sport team could be seen as an example of the tribalism I sometimes rail against, but no one's perfect!
So yes, it was a good day, news-wise. I don't think everything in the world will suddenly be better, but at least there's some cause for optimism now. At least the last traces of Ardernism are consigned to the political rubbish heap: it's the end of an era.
Re the Voice in Australia. This cannot be compared with NZ’s political concept of co-governance. The Voice was meant to be a democratically elected group of representatives, respected by their local community who were intended to function as a direct pipeline to the federal parliament to “pipe up” on matters affecting especially Aborigines. No decision-making capacity intended to be granted to them, or any kind of statutory regulated influence. In effect this would have worked like a lobby group – most probably with much less influence than probably the mining lobby group . Lobbying is a political instrument that is not usually considered undemocratic and in this case the “lobbyists” would even be democratically elected by their peers unlike other lobbyists. Yes, there are shades of identity politics, but in terms of race-relations when you have Aboriginal genes Australia is not the lucky country for you. (Believe me I have acted as state consultant in such matters for several years.)
Comment 2 (7513) by OJB on 2023-10-15 at 23:17:20:
Yes, I am aware it was only supposed to be an advisory group, but why would that require a change to the constitution? There was also the comment that politicians would have been unlikely not to carry out their recommendations. And finally there was the idea that it was the first step to truly undemocratic changes.
I spent a day in a remote aboriginal community once and I know how horrendous their lives are. It would be great to see that situation improved, but I just don't know if this would help. Note that there were aboriginal leaders against it.
Comment 3 (7514) by Anonymous on 2023-10-18 at 17:13:09:
Just to be clear, you do know that every single NZ party in parliament voted in favour of gender self ID right? They were all captured by the activists.
Comment 4 (7515) by OJB on 2023-10-18 at 19:12:09:
Cannot recall exactly what this vote on "gender self ID" entailed. If it meant that biological men were allowed into women's change rooms and to compete in women's sport, I would be surprised. I'm fine with gender ID, but not so much with sex ID, which cannot be changed.
Comment 5 (7516) by Anonymous on 2023-10-19 at 10:32:17:
Self ID means that anybody who feels like a man or woman can get the sex on their birth certificate and passport changed quite easily. From there, there are a large number of flow on effects involving sport, changing rooms etc because how can you discriminate against somebody whose birth certificate shows their *sex* as that with which they identify, not their biological sex. This, I think, is the real problem. All parties supported that legislation. Can't remember the public debate, can you?
Comment 6 (7517) by OJB on 2023-10-19 at 16:17:41:
Well there are so many problems with that, aren't there. In some ways I'm surprised it was supported by every party, but considering how scary the trans mob are, maybe I shouldn't be. Don't remember any debate, but there never is on something they know might not enjoy majority support, is there. Three Waters?
Thanks for reading this blog post. Please leave a message below.
You can leave comments about this entry using this form.
To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add. Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry. The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.
BLOG PAGE