David Cunliffe’s Leadership Withdrawal:

David Cunliffe’s Leadership withdrawal might help resolve some of the internal stress within the Labour Party’s Caucus. From the media and the number of mudslinging comments certain Labour MP’s have been making in the last few days, it seems clear that Team Building is not presently a major concern or priority. Without particularly blaming David, it does seem that the Party’s mullahs must try to restrain the leadership candidates and sundry MB’s from slinging very public mud through the media at each other.

David’s withdrawal, perhaps strategic (??) for the moment, might help the team building process start. He DOES seem to say what he thinks……..
For any of those MP’s slinging the mud at each other, there is a definite linear causality between their mud slinging and the difficulties they will experience in the present and long term future in their relationships with each other. And the voters….

In Psychotherapy groups, they use a special concept in teaching people to take the long term view of their behaviour and comparing that long term result with how they are behaving now; is the behavior now, constructive or destructive to relationships and goals? The short term description for that concept is called “Acting Congruently” in the here and now with what you want to achieve for yourself and your goals and relationships in the future…

The mudslinging is NOT a good look for them OR the Party! Not an encouragement to trust them as a possible PM or to attract positive votes for them.

Housing concerns: Nats handing over the State Houses

We are recently informed that the National Government has arranged with a religious organisation to take over the running and administration of NZ Government’s social housing just as they did in withdrawing problem gambling care and administration from a NGO and re-allocating it to that same religious organisation. The Government withdrew the major part of the problem gambling from the non-religious NZ Problem Gambling Assn, a NGO for problem gambling support. It was to be handed over to the same religious Church as Social Housing.

Again, this is classical neoliberal economics and philosophy in action where Government seeks to divest itself of its involvement in the lives and what it perceives as needless contacts with the citizens. Some of our schools and child education is also being given over to religious organisations as Charter Schools.

Is Creationism now to be on the required curriculum for those Church administered schools possibly excluding or downgrading the importance of, say, Evolutionary Theory and Science)?

This divestment is in accordance with the Nats’ Neoliberal agenda and theories, some early foundations of which date back to the early Greek times of Democrates. More recently, advocates for that approach were Adam Smith (1723-1790) and, in the mid nineteenth century UK, of John Mill, John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) (John Stuart was his son), their contemporary and friend, Jeremy Bentham. Even more recently, another prominent protagonist of those theories was Austrian, Frederich Hayek (1899-1992). For more information about the economic and political philosophies of those people, you could Google or consult their Wikipedia listings.

The (Neo) Liberal political theory(capital ‘L’ Liberal), in effect, was to give people as much freedom as possible by withdrawing or minimizing Government involvement in the citizens’ lives and, thereafter, to just manage the money and economy.

Though, perhaps, with well meaning intentions Neo Liberalism has, historically, socially and economically, had some unfortunate side effects better described at greater length by other writers and academics in social welfare and economics writings on the topic. The National Party in handing formerly administered NZ Government agencies and resources over to churches and NGOs and selling State Owned Enterprises (SOE’s) is implementing that Liberalist political theory in activist action.

One incident with that same church organisation cited above that occurred recently to a New Zealand university Social Work student (straight, NOT gay) who was reportedly failed for their University drug and alcohol coursework internship/placement. The student was failed by that organisation and the University by adding defensively supportive allegations?) claims alleging that the student helped a gay man after being assigned that client and instructed by the Church Social Worker supervisor to help the client person.
Sounds incredible, doesn’t it, it is true that such discrimination does still occur in New Zealand and, variously, on religious, homophobic, ageist and physical disability grounds. One NZ sixty five year old Masters degree Social Work student, with hip and spine osteoarthritis but otherwise quite mobile with a walking cane, was told by a supervisor that they were not healthy enough to be training for Social Work. The student was assigned a special needs school placement that required the student to participate in sporting activities…….

One also hopes and wonders, in the NZ social housing schema, that, say, gay/lesbian couples and their children or those with disabilities, other religious beliefs will not receive any such unfortunate discrimination. Whether covert or overt, when it comes to the allocation and administration of that social housing by religious organisations or others charged with administering and allocating former NZ Government resources and agencies, they will be selected on the basis of their need only.

A letter to the international head office overseas of that Church enquiring about their official policy on helping homosexual people was not given the dignity of an acknowledgement of the enquiry directed to them. One suspects they they did not wish to disclose or discuss the existence (at that recent time, of course) of any such homophobic discrimination policy.
The authors of those post have some concerns, perhaps unfounded, that a born-again, card carrying and religious or homophobic zealot staffer, with their fundamentalist Christian or with other beliefs, might believe they must discriminate against those whom they perceive as homosexual, non-Christians or those whom might be, (currently newsworthy and is topical, Islam) as Moslems, Jewish or many other faiths. Any non NZ cultural mainstream faiths might be perceived as unsuitable tenants. Islam, for example, is a wonderful, caring, religion sharing MANY exactly similar historical and biblical beliefs as with Christian doctrine.

The point of all of the above (supportive outside source report documents are available) is there is a risk that organisations or their staffer zealots might want to obfuscate, or covertly prevent, access to the available social housing? Is discrimination by those whom they, or their religious organisation, perceives as not suitable on the above personal, religious, ethnicity or sexuality criteria likely to restrict entry as desirable and suitable tenants?

Labour’s internal leadership issues.

We’ve had an inside tip that the Labour Party are clamping down, internally, to close up shop on the hype  generated in the media by some Labour MP’s with aspirations of leadership of the Party.  Great, because there was a risk that the media and voters would remember it all comes the 2017 election and, thereby, project an image of an internally unstable Party. We believe the Labour Party , like some other political parties, do have some interesting policies to offer New Zealanders but Labour needed to ride through this period a little more unscathed than at present…

Hello, welcome to New Zealand’s independant political website blog

This blog site will, it is intended, occasionally offer critical, topical and political comment but its special purposes are mostly educational and, perhaps, with a slightly academic bent. Some theoretical discussion on the various political parties in New Zealand (NZ) will also be presented from time to time. Particularly, we hope to allow the NZ voter an opportunity to look behind the scenes of those political parties and open the door to what political philosophies are really driving their policy making decisions  and (sometimes great but, ofttimes, not so bright!) ideas. Frequently, one cannot always be sure just what agenda is being engaged as they bring their ideas into the law, social welfare and social justice arenas.