A return to Muldoonism
August 29th, 2007 at 6:22 am by David FarrarA number of commentators over the years have suggested that the tactics and style of government practised by Helen Clark has started to resemble Muldoonism at its worse.
This view is now shared by former Labour Party Leader Mike Moore. And this is an unprecedented attack on Clark by her predecessor. While Clark and Moore have never been friendly since she rolled him in 1993, they made up in 1996, he had her support to become WTO Director-General, and since he has been back in NZ, he has not criticised her directly, he has more commented on policy. One can only conclude the mud smearing of the last week was too much for him to stomach, having endured it himself from Muldoon.
Moore writes:
In the 1980s, a cruelly funny cartoon appeared of David Lange. It had four panels – the first displayed a smiling picture of David, then slowly, over the next two panels, David’s face morphed into a picture of Roger Douglas.
I’m expecting a cartoon of Helen Clark to appear, morphing into an angry Robert Muldoon. He used SIS files on opponents, perfected the nasty technique of personally destroying opponents, intimidating the media (not that you have to muzzle sheep), and used the levers of Government to create stunts, diversions, and buy votes in marginal seats.
This politics of personal destruction is fearful. Why is Labour so good at it? Because we practise on each other.
Helen Clark is superb at it, she’s destroyed more National leaders than any other Labour leader. Come to think about it, she’s dispatched more Labour leaders than anyone else too.
Muldoon’s circle of close mates got smaller and weaker as he got older too. Exactly what does the “consort” Judith Tizard and the legion of Ministers outside Cabinet actually do?
Perhaps it’s good they don’t do much. They manage the remarkable feat of being self-important, expensive, trivial and irrelevant at the same time.
In case one thinks Moore only bags Labour:
John Key just has to keep his head down, and is happy to campaign as “Labour with tax cuts”, sort of like playing a vacuous political air guitar. As for Winston Peters, our Foreign Minister still seems to hate foreigners.
He can’t speak about hospitals without talking of Third World diseases and Third World people, the Central Bank policies are about, he claims, promoting speculation and money-lenders (code word), Dubai investment in New Zealand is naturally bad, but at least the anti-Asian and Muslim stuff has been shelved for a while.
Rodney Hide seems to have rejected capitalism for narcissism and is destined to be a talk-back celebrity. The Greens and the Maori Party have locked up their small market niche and go unquestioned by the media.
The major political parties don’t scrutinise them or test them in Parliament because they will decide who forms the Government. Labour could still form the next Government, even if we get fewer votes than National. Under MMP, a silver and a bronze trumps a gold medal.
A Foreign Minister who hates foreigners!!
Related posts:
- Even Enemies Have Rights
- The Press on Labour
- McCarten on a Labour-led Cabinet
- Hey, who resurrected Muldoon?
August 29th, 2007 at 6:54 am
Ouch! That was the ultimate blowtorch down Clark’s undies – to use Mike’s vernacular. As someone who, in my Labour days, sat in a ringside seat when Clark ousted Moore, I can tell you this column will go down like a very large large cup of cold sick on the 9th floor! In one succinct column Mike sums up the malaise of Labour and the fruits of its 8 years in office.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 7:12 am
Moore says…
“Meanwhile, New Zealand continues to slip down the OECD ladder of successful economies. World growth is robust at 5 per cent, Australia will grow at 4 per cent. New Zealand half that. Labour productivity was close to zero in the last year, down from 2.7 per cent, 1992-2000. New Zealand’s tax ratio is 43 per cent of gross domestic product, Australia’s 35 per cent. Australia’s spending on a ratio of GDP is 34 per cent, New Zealand’s 41 per cent (close to France).
These are huge differences, and getting bigger. That’s why an Australian will earn 30 per cent more than a Kiwi, and 500 Kiwis leave each week for better opportunities.
The Government’s response? Run a media campaign in Australia telling people to come home!’
This is the realism of the failed social/economic experiment of 99-07. The media should be baying for blood…..but these facts are passed over without criticism.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 7:22 am
MM said:
Exactly what does the “consort” Judith Tizard and the legion of Ministers outside Cabinet actually do?
Could some one explain why he uses the word “consort” in this context?
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 7:30 am
Mike Moore? Who is he? Who elected him as PM – oh thats right, nobody.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 7:31 am
Poor Michael.
I bet he is thinking who it werent for labour lesbian mafia that could have been me.
“Helen Clark is superb at it, she’s destroyed more National leaders than any other Labour leader. Come to think about it, she’s dispatched more Labour leaders than anyone else too.”
Errrr? What is she supposed to do with National leaders?
Vote:And apart from poor Michael she seems to be keeping all the next generation leadership talent onside. I dont see any Derek Quigleys or Marilyn Warings floating around.
August 29th, 2007 at 7:38 am
sorry, next generation leadership talent?
where?
tell us more, I only see hacks, rainbow coalition representatives, university lecturers, unionists and other timeservers from various interest groups.
are there leaders in there? who knew! they must be keeping their heads down real low.
I’d also like to see the day when an actual, you know, worker, is felt worthy of a senior role in the “labour” party.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 7:42 am
I’m expecting a cartoon of Helen Clark to appear, morphing into an angry Robert Muldoon. He used SIS files on opponents, perfected the nasty technique of personally destroying opponents, intimidating the media (not that you have to muzzle sheep) . . .
WFT? When did Clark use SIS files on her opponents? Not even Invetigate has made this allegation. And the media has spent the two years since the last election scratching Labour’s eyes out on a daily basis. They didn’t seem terribly intimidated when they hounded a senior cabinet Minister out of office a couple weeks ago.
Helen Clark is superb at it, she’s destroyed more National leaders than any other Labour leader. Come to think about it, she’s dispatched more Labour leaders than anyone else too.
The grand total of Labour leaders Clark has ‘destroyed’ is 1: Mike Moore.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 7:56 am
MM’s seen, done and grown a lot since he got backstabbed by HC. I don’t think he’s bitter but he does love NZ more than any particular ideology. And he’s been willing to change his stance over time.
I’ve seen him in a fair few forums, BBC interviews etc etc over the years and been very impressed (as have the other expats I was with at the time – lots of poms, yanks etc rate him very highly). He really impressed them with his ability to suck up some hard Q’s and answer them properly and without getting shirty or attacking anyone personally.
I never used to hold him in any regard, thought he was a big-mouthed bumbler but I actually have a lot of respect for the guy now and that was before he said this stuff reported by DPF.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 8:06 am
Actually I like MM because he has a brain, a heart and most of all a soul. Not like the heartless, soulless ghoul that replaced him. She only has a brain and it might be losing its grip on reality.
Vote:Perhaps MM was never really cut out for politics NZ Labour style. He really cares about people and genuinely likes them so its understandable that Labour wouldn’t put their faith in him. He wasn’t tough-minded (pig-headed) enough.
August 29th, 2007 at 8:06 am
WFT? When did Clark use SIS files on her opponents? Not even Invetigate has made this allegation.
No, I believe that was Nicky Hager and Gordon Campbell’s doing in the Sunday Star Times’ ‘Operation Leaf’ non-story. The only scandal in that story is that Fairfax didn’t sack everyone connected with it.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 8:14 am
TomS said “Mike Moore? Who is he? Who elected him as PM – oh thats right, nobody”.
Well TomS, it might come as a shock to you but the Labour Party caucus elected him PM … the same caucus that elected HC.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 8:24 am
An excellent unbiased dissertation on the present political scene.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 8:29 am
At the end of the day Mike Moore is no more a member of the current Labour party than Rodney Hide. He is one of the betrayers of the Labour movement and an apologist for the disgraceful betrayal of New Zealand democracy that occurred on his watch.
His embittered diatribe is the voice of failure past, a failure he richly deserves and past where he ands the rest of his class traitors belong.
He is a political Krusty the Clown, only bitter and unfunny.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 8:30 am
“The grand total of Labour leaders Clark has ‘destroyed’ is 1: Mike Moore.”
So Danyl, I take it you know everything that goes on behind Labour’s closed doors?
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 8:39 am
toms said “At the end of the day Mike Moore is no more a member of the current Labour party than Rodney Hide. He is one of the betrayers of the Labour movement and an apologist for the disgraceful betrayal of New Zealand democracy that occurred on his watch.
His embittered diatribe is the voice of failure past, a failure he richly deserves and past where he ands the rest of his class traitors belong.”
Have you forgotten that Mike Moore was part of the same Labour Government so ably served by some of its junior ministers? You know, Helen Clark, Michael Cullen, Phil Goff, Annette King & Trevor Mallard – are they “class traitors” as well?
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 8:45 am
At the end of the day Moore is a man will the balls to speak the truth – good on him. If he is a “class traitor” then at least he is an honourable class traitor.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 8:48 am
Well TomS … for someone who in his original posting regarding MM asked “who is he” you seem to know an aweful lot about him.
A sidebar to the main issue. Clayton Cosgrove has always marketed himself as a protege of MM. Guess there is a certain gnashing of teeth down ChCh way this morning.
The shooting in the foot continues apace. With ‘friends’ like MM, Labour certainly doesn’t need enemies
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 8:54 am
Please folks, don’t angry up TomS. Like all cult members, the only people he hates more than infidels are heretics and back-sliders. Trying to engage these people in anything resembling rational, reality-based discourse is a waste of time.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 9:05 am
Clark also forced Palmer out of office in favour of Moore.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 9:15 am
Moore’s comparison is inaccurate. Muldoon would never have tried to pass legislation making it illegal to criticise his government. He always believed – right to the bitter end – that he could win by pursuading people. Clark is a far greater danger to democracy than he ever was. As her power ebbs away, she is becoming an insane and deranged individual.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 9:25 am
Leadership is all about having people inspired to follow, not terrified to speak and be heard. Leadership is also about encouraging people to excel and for next-generation leaders to emerge.
Helen Clark has systematically destroyed any ‘threat’ to her position of power and the absence of any emerging fresh leadership bears witness to her failure to empower Labours next generation. This isn’t leadership. It’s tyranny.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 9:30 am
Iventory 2- “Have you forgotten that Mike Moore was part of the same Labour Government so ably served by some of its junior ministers? You know, Helen Clark, Michael Cullen, Phil Goff, Annette King & Trevor Mallard – are they “class traitors” as well?”
Absolutely!
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 9:39 am
HC also stared down MC when he challenged her as leader in the 90′s. Wouldn’t be surprised if she helped push Lange. Certainly there were no tears shed when he lost the PMship.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 9:46 am
Danyl
HC hasn;t used SIS files as far as I know but she did make the unprecedented move of releasing a normally private MFAT file note regarding an opposition leader.
I’d say that comes pretty close as a technique.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 9:47 am
Helmet – interesting that toms hasn’t answered my question yet!
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 9:49 am
look..!..it’s mike (quisling) moore..!
he who set new benchmarks..not only in mangled-english..
bit in being an american ‘puppet’..
and look..!..(woof..!..woof..!)..
he’s still ‘barking’..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 9:56 am
phil u said “look..!..it’s mike (quisling) moore..!
he who set new benchmarks..not only in mangled-english..”
Was he your English tutor phil?
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 10:47 am
I too would like to know more about the “consort” reference.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 11:02 am
Clark also forced Palmer out of office in favour of Moore.
Palmer went happily. What happened was, Clark went to Palmer with a set of polls showing Labour would lose a catastrophic number of seats with him as leader, but only a horrific number with Moore as leader. Palmer stood down without any rancour or even debate and I always got the impression he was relieved. He never wanted to be leader, he was the consumate Number Two.
I do have to say that anyone who claims Clark is like Muldoon never met Muldoon, so it is very surprising that Moore has made the comparison. It must be hyperbole as he couldn’t really believe it.
Muldoon was a malevolent and terrifying leader who cowed his colleagues and ravaged his opponents, not hesitating to use the full force of the state against them. He single-handedly destroyed the New Zealand economy because nobody was strong enough to stand up to him and disabuse him of this delusions of grandeur that only he was right and everyone else in the entire world was wrong.
It took 15 years for the economy to recover from his shambolic policies. Some of his victims have never recovered.
Clark doesn’t come within a bull’s roar of his awfulness.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 11:18 am
Inventory 2, it’s probably just like another of our resident lefty trolls always ‘gets tired’ or ‘has to go’ right after his peak oil and other rubbish gets systematically destroyed.
I thought it was a good question.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 11:20 am
“look..!..it’s mike (quisling) moore..!
he who set new benchmarks..not only in mangled-english..
bit in being an american ‘puppet’..
and look..!..(woof..!..woof..!)..
he’s still ‘barking’..”
Mangled english? Probably your funniest post ever phil!
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 11:59 am
helmet said “I thought it was a good question.”
So did I helmet!! I guess I shouldn’t hang around waiting for an answer.
Interesting to hear Ruth Dyson coming out in support of the PM this morning, saying what a nice, caring woman she is, who would never lower herself to Muldoon-like stuff. She’s obviously forgotten “cancerous and corrosive”, “hollow men”, “leader with a $50m bank account” etc etc, not to mention Clark grinning like a cheshire cat while Mallard & B-P were chucking out their “affair” barbs at Brash last year, and her “Oh, that’s Trevor” dismissal. Yep, she really is a caring & sensitive new age pollie!! Not!!!!!
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
helmet..you are obviously confusing punctuation idiosyncrisies with the actual use of words/language..
(and if you want a real howler..check out neil roberts’ offering in the herald today..
the second sentence should do it to ya..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
philu
‘mangled english’ – at least Mike writes coherent sentences! Thanks for the laugh of the day though.
Toms
As I predicted, MM hit a very raw note. Um – I recall that Goff, Cullen and Clark sat around the same Cabinet table as Moore who you say ‘betrayed the Labour movement’. I don’t recall either of them resigning or even threatening to resign due the said ‘betrayal’. Ditto senior caucus members Mallard and King.
Muldoon became more ideologically isolated than Clark and that is a crucial difference. His isolation from his colleagues came not just because he was a bully but because he became such a thorough interventionist with disasterous consequences and used/abused his power as PM and Minister of Finance. Clark’s inner circle has no problem with either her ideology or her tactics. They will turn on her eventually but only if electoral oblivion seems likely.
Clark’s bullying and destructiveness is more insidious and subtle. She has installed ideologues in key positions in the bureaucracy that have made sure she has not had to pay the price for activities that were prima facae illegal (Paintergate, Doongate and the speeding ticket fiasco). She has enjoyed a far better relationship with the media than Muldoon (up until recently) also due to so many reporters being fellow socialist feminists/feminist sympathisers (or secular liberals) and so has faced less scrutiny of her methods until now. Muldoon’s relationship with the Press had been fractious for years and only got worse as his 3rd term neared its ignominious end.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
“It took 15 years for the economy to recover from his shambolic policies. Some of his victims have never recovered. Clark doesn’t come within a bull’s roar of his awfulness.”
Let’s revisit that comment 15 years hence. I suspect the fallout from Labour managing our country for the last 9 odd years will likely only be felt a few years hence once the ideological “gimme plz gov’ment” mentality that has become entrenched reaches the productive generations.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Good observations KiA. Clark certainly does have that “whispering death” aura around her, but manages to avoid taking the blame for most of the chaos that ensues. She obviously has a keen ear for the changing political moods, although that seems to have deserted her in the last few weeks.
I wonder if Benson-Pope was the last straw. She stuck up for him for a long while, insulated and protected him, right up until she found out that he was a liar, at which point she acted swiftly. But even then, she didn’t do the job herself – sources say it was Maharey that had to do the “Gidday B-P, Helen asked me to call you…” job. I’m just starting to wonder if Helen has lost the political “fire-in-the-belly” – maybe it just doesn’t push her buttons like it used to. Something’s changed in the last few weeks – am I out on a limb in thinking this, or has anyone else seen it?
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
Insidious is a very good word to describe Clark.
davemc; you’ve forgetting Clark is part of the dynamic dual that is H1 & H2. H2 openly said she “likes people to fear her but doesn’t respect anyone that does”. Tamahere experienced the wrath of H2.
Clark is a master of smoke’n mirrors. A machiavellian person who is behind every nasty attack, but can’t be pinned to anything. And that is why she’s more dangerous than Muldoon. Dr Brash was the polar opposite to Clark.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Is anybody going to address the CONSORT comment?
Vote:When a former PM and leader of the labour party comes out and calls the situation like it is how long till the media hold Clarke to the levels of scrutiny and abuse that she is orchestrating against her opponents?
August 29th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Tamahere experienced the wrath of H2.
Tamihere experienced the consequences of his own immense stupidity.
It’s worth examining Moore’s claims about Clarks impressive record of ‘destroying’ political foes in slightly more detail.
Labour
Lange. Clark is unlikely to have played more than a superficial role in Lange’s resignation.
Palmer. Stood down in the face of electoral annihilation.
Moore. Was indeed, rolled by Clark.
Cullen. Punished his attempt to overthrow her by making him deputy PM and Finance Minister.
National
Vote:Shipley – stood down after massive election defeat; rolled by Bill English.
English – stood down after massive election defeat; rolled by Don Brash.
Brash – stood down after narrow election defeat; was about to have a book of his emails published; rolled by John Key.
John Key – has thus far withstood Labours pathetically feeble attacks on him; will possibly win next election in a landslide and be PM by this time next year, thus cannot really be described as ‘destroyed’, whether by Clark or anyone else.
August 29th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
Labour
Lange. Clark is unlikely to have played more than a superficial role in Lange’s resignation.
Palmer. Stood down in the face of electoral annihilation.
Moore. Was indeed, rolled by Clark.
Cullen. Punished his attempt to overthrow her by making him deputy PM and Finance Minister.
We have no idea of what HC did or did not do in these instances.
What we do know is that in each case she rose further and further to the top until she reached the point where she got the top job.
When Moore got the top job, Helen Clark would have been pivotal in making sure he got the job, in full knowledge that Labour would lose the election. Talk about setting a man up for a fall.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Anyhow. Here is an example of the insidious nature of Helen Clark from the listener interview of some weeks ago. Note the last sentence of the first paragraph and contrast that with the last paragraph.
*************************************************************
Across town, upstairs in her narrow nondescript two-storey storefront electorate office opposite Eden Park, Helen Clark is more brutally honest. When I ask her about Key’s leadership ability, she points out that he is the fourth National leader she has gone up against as Prime Minister. “I think they’re all different,” she says, shrugging dismissively. “I think he would be the least substantial of any of them.”
Ouch.
“There’s a lot of window-shopping when you get a leader,” she says by way of explaining National’s current polling success. Clark professes not to be overly concerned about the yawning gap in the polls that leaves her party trailing so dangerously behind. She points out that Brash enjoyed similar polling leads three years ago, especially after his Orewa speech. “That Orewa speech which played the race card,” as she scathingly puts it.
According to Clark, when there is a leadership change, people have “a good look” at the new guy “but sooner or later you get a better balance of things”.
“You can’t stop a honeymoon, it’s going to happen. So the best thing you can do is get on with what you are doing, which is what I’ve done. I don’t think you’ve heard a bitter word pass my lips,” she says virtuously.
************************************************************
Her actions are less professional, more personal. When she is on the back foot, she gets nasty.
These are traits that Muldoon had, and the comparison is valid.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
I was hoping that the knowledgable people on this log would be able to fill me in on the importance of that “consort” comment.
There is something weird here that has aroused my curiosity.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Helen Clark can’t seriously believe her own words. Every second thing she says can be interpreted as ‘bitter’.
That is a breathtaking statement & is nothing sort of a lie – another lie.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
“Consort”
I am annoyed by that “consort” reference as well.
I always thought Miss Simpson would be known as her consort as she is Ms Clarks main assistant. Is this not so ? If Ms Tizard is giving all the strategy or whatever she needs to be retired and a new “consort” found because I think Miss Simpson has really had her share of chances as well.
Does Ms Tizard have more to do directly with the PM’s or what does Mr. Moore mean ?
Vote:I am alarmed Mike Moore is a respected politician with a lot of experience – He is casting serious doubt on the current Helen Clark strategy. Whats more she was interviewed by TV3 today and she just cast his views aside an even I am thinking that something is going off the rails here. Any way could some Labour staffers please explain the consort reference.
August 29th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Helen Clark said ““You can’t stop a honeymoon, it’s going to happen. So the best thing you can do is get on with what you are doing, which is what I’ve done. I don’t think you’ve heard a bitter word pass my lips,” she says virtuously.
I can think of two – CANCEROUS and CORROSIVE
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
News flash …. ultra right-wing, roger douglas acolyte doesn’t like centrist politician who mounted a succesful leadership challenge against him. What a story hey guys? Who would have thought?!
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Geez – taken you a while to get here rn – have you been in an all-day “damage limitation” meeting? From your response, that would seem to be the case. Helen will be pleased with you.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
I think H2 is happily partnered. Tizard is reported as Helen’s best mate, but I believe she’s married (to a man – how novel). So I’m not sure what ‘consort’ is referring to. Dictionary.com defines consort as ” husband or wife; spouse, esp. of a reigning monarch.”
But frankly I don’t care what company Helen keeps. I dislike the Dear Leader because she’s Machiavellian, unhumourous, pretentious person. “Popular & compliant” – get over yourself Helen; you’re gone!
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Yes, but Roger nome, you consider everyone to the right of Sonic “ultra right wing”.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
^ that should read “popular & competent”. Perhaps if she was a little more compliant she would be a little more popular.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
What wing is Roger suppose to be on?
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
“Yes, but Roger nome, you consider everyone to the right of Sonic “ultra right wing”.”
Billy – he was WTO Director-General. You know, that explicitly pro-”free trade” organisation whose purpose is to do the bidding of the multi-national banks and corporations? Excuse me if I take that as meaning he has a far-right political bent.
[DPF: And here Roger shows how extreme left he is. Almost every country on Earth outside North Korea has joined or wants to join the WTO. In OECD countries there is not a single major party which advocates not being in the WTO. Roger/PJM reveals much much more about himself than anyone else with his wild rant about how the WTO is evil.]
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
The sad thing, Roger, is that I know you really beleive that everyone who is pro-free trade is so because they want to oppress the masses and leave them in misery.
Rather than the exact opposite. Which, of course, is the truth.
By the way, you are the first person I have ever heard describe Mike Moore as “ultra right wing”.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
This “consort” comment and the lack of definitive explanations remains interesting. So can I be more specific. Does anyone think there might be some connection in Mike’s mind between Judith’s enormous domestic travel bill and a possible correlation between her travel and the PM’s domestic travel? Has anyone tried to match the two sets of information?
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
“The sad thing, Roger, is that I know you really beleive that everyone who is pro-free trade is so because they want to oppress the masses and leave them in misery.”
Not at all. For the corporates the motivation is profit (obviously) whether that means misery for someone else is neither here nor there for them. For the pollies it’s a mixture of pleasing the people that pay their bills and providing what they see as a “higher standard of living” to the masses through the provision of cheaper commodities. For economists/amature economists it’s often derrived from a dogmatic beliefe in the neo-classical economic paradigm.
“By the way, you are the first person I have ever heard describe Mike Moore as “ultra right wing”.”
Really? I’ve heard it from plenty of people. Do you deny that he has a right-wing political bent? He does after all tacitly criticise Rodney Hide for becoming too centrist.
“Rodney Hide seems to have rejected capitalism for narcissism and is destined to be a talk-back celebrity”
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
Phillip John/Roger Nome:
You disappoint me. No response to criticism yesterday (from several posters) about your slipping academic standards? Your contributions to this thread is a classic example of your strategy – you make sweeping assertions without supplying proof. Meanwhile, on other threads, you demand proof from others.
So please provide proof of the following sweeping assertions:
The WTO is (according to Phillip John) an “explicitly pro-”free trade” organisation whose purpose is to do the bidding of the multi-national banks and corporations”.
And another Phillip John spectacular:
“For the corporates the motivation [behind free trade] is profit (obviously) whether that means misery for someone else is neither here nor there for them. For the pollies it’s a mixture of pleasing the people that pay their bills and providing what they see as a “higher standard of living” to the masses through the provision of cheaper commodities. For economists/amature economists it’s often derrived from a dogmatic beliefe in the neo-classical economic paradigm.”
Any proof forthcoming? Or are you talking out of your green-tinted socialist ass again? Remember, if you’re stuck, there’s always Wikipedia or dodgy links to help you out.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
roger nome
You are fighting a very superficial ideological war on the extreme periphery of this issue. It comes as no surprise that a green marxist such as yourself would consider Mike Moore to be ‘extreme right wing’. The epithet speaks more to your extremism than his. The issue is not what an peak oil vehement anti-free trade frequenter of the closeted halls of academia thinks (or the like minded socialists whose company I’m sure you keep) – it is what middle NZ thinks and they will not see Mike as you see him.
Mike was a good old fashioned working class socialist who realised that socialism doesn’t work. He famously summed up the dilemma of the far left and the inability of their policy proscriptions to deliver the heady promises of eliminating poverty by saying “I cant tax losses”. Governments can only fund social programmes on the backs of taxes on the productive sector of the ecomony. If socialism reduces the profitability of the private sector to the point of losses instead of profit, then what use are losses to a government seeking to use the state as a tool of wealth redistribution.
Once again rather than focus on what Moore has said about the Clark government, Labour’s friends simply turn on the messenger and attempt to tag him as extreme. After all claiming he’s turned to the dark side of the force conveniently explains his attack on Clark.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
POC: As far as interlocutors go, I have plenty of choices here at Kiwiblog. So if you want me to debate you, you’ve got to lift your game mate. Sorry, but you’re just to stupid for me to bother with. Look at KIA’s post for some tips. He’s a clever man – if a wee bit arrogant and misguided.
KIA:
“…. comes as no surprise that a green marxist such as yourself …”
Well I’ve been called plenty of things here, but never a this. If you must know, I identify as a centre-left social democrat. Hope that helps you.
“Once again rather than focus on what Moore has said about the Clark government, Labour’s friends simply turn on the messenger and attempt to tag him as extreme”
A few quotes about Moore for you KIA.
“While advocating some mild government intervention … he is still a fundamentalist on globalisation. He supports a monetarist line and an open economy.”
“Moore is an ardent supporter of the International Monetary Fund, World Bank and WTO. He has a naively expressed faith in the ability of these institutions and free trade and investment to bring prosperity, peace (etc) to the world.”
“His books quote liberally from the extreme right through to the centre-left. For example, his latest book – modestly titled A Brief History of the Future: Citizenship of the Millennium – quotes enthusiastically from The Sovereign Individual by James Davidson and Lord William Rees-Mogg, which condemns opponents of globalisation as ‘reactionary losers’.
The books make frustrating reading, spiked heavily with unresolved contradictions, and with barely related, tenuous generalisations following in close succession.”
http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/1947-cn.htm
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
davemc said:
I do have to say that anyone who claims Clark is like Muldoon never met Muldoon, so it is very surprising that Moore has made the comparison.
Clearly you did, Dave, or at least were a grown up during at least part of his tensure, as was I. I happen to disagree with you, but at least we have some historical perspective from which to view events today. The biggest problem with most of the media is that too many journalists who are writing about politics have known no other PM but Clark. I had this debate on the journz Yahoo group recently (of which DPF is also a member) but gave up when some strident young man asserted that never having reported on Bolger, Shipley, Lange, Palmer or Moore, let alone Muldoon, was no impediment whatsoever. And when I look at the standard of some political reporting, it would seem not to be…
NX then chimed in with:
Clark is a master of smoke’n mirrors. A machiavellian person who is behind every nasty attack, but can’t be pinned to anything. And that is why she’s more dangerous than Muldoon.
While Clark isn’t alone in having a Machiavellian bent, you’re absolutely right in that, if Muldoon didn’t like you, you knew about it. And so did everyone else. He might have been a megalomaniac but – perhaps because of that – he was also forthright about his intentions, whether political, policy or personal.
I’d crossed swords with Muldoon starting as a callow young reporter and when he retired from Parliament I thanked him for his time over the years and commented that, while I may have disagreed with him more times than not, and found him abrasive on almost every occasion, I knew I wouldn’t be calling him up a week after he made a statement to ask why he was trying to resile from it or pretend he never said it. His response was that hearing that gave him “a great deal of satisfaction”, which I truly believe it did.
In that respect, Muldoon was the polar opposite of most of today’s crop, the PM included.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
Oh nice try Phillip John/Roger Nome.
Notice how you’re always quick to label anyone who happens to disagree with you as stupid?
You clearly have a high opinion of yourself… I simply want to put your self-belief to the test. I’m holding you to the same standards you require of others. Your sweeping assertions cannot pass for argument. So either stump up with proof to at least one of the two propositions I challenged, or accept that you’re not as bright as you’d have us all believe.
Which is it?
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
POC: I don’t know how I can make it clearer too you. I simply don’t see communicating with you as being worth my time. That’s the plain truth of it. I hope that in time you can accept it and move on.
Kind regards,
Roger Nome.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
Phillip John/Roger Nome: I’m not in the least offended that you don’t feel intelligent enough to stand behind your own comments. To take one example from your response to Kiwi in America: you have taken quotes ABOUT Moore, and through a dodgy alchemy process, converted them into proof that Moore is a hardline monetarist. Oh, and by the way, I happen to have a high-level job and strong academic credentials (two first-class Honours degrees) – and a job that pays a six-figure salary – more than you’ll ever earn.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 7:30 pm
POC:
[From now on when ever you address me you'll recieve this message. I live in the hope that maybe one day you'll "get it".]
POC: I don’t know how I can make it clearer too you. I simply don’t see communicating with you as being worth my time. That’s the plain truth of it. I hope that in time you can accept it and move on.
Kind regards,
Roger Nome.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
Oh yes Phillip John/Roger Nome. I live in hope too – that one day you’ll demonstrate the same rigorous academic standards that you expect of others. Really not too much to ask. Now run along – we need to free up the soapbox for D4J. He’s been a bit quiet lately.
Vote:August 29th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
Restating the obvious from fredrico..
“Moore says…
“Meanwhile, New Zealand continues to slip down the OECD ladder of successful economies. World growth is robust at 5 per cent, Australia will grow at 4 per cent. New Zealand half that. Labour productivity was close to zero in the last year, down from 2.7 per cent, 1992-2000. New Zealand’s tax ratio is 43 per cent of gross domestic product, Australia’s 35 per cent. Australia’s spending on a ratio of GDP is 34 per cent, New Zealand’s 41 per cent (close to France).
These are huge differences, and getting bigger. That’s why an Australian will earn 30 per cent more than a Kiwi, and 500 Kiwis leave each week for better opportunities.
The Government’s response? Run a media campaign in Australia telling people to come home!”
It’s time.
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 12:32 am
Sounds like ‘Peak Oil Conspiracy’ has you beat Roger.
Vote:August 30th, 2007 at 4:55 am
roger nome
Vote:Quoting the opinions of Mike Moore from those who are fellow lefties to support your ‘extreme right wing’ thesis rather proves my point. Please address the specifics of what Mike said re Clark rather than indulge in spurious ideological pegging
August 30th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Although I’d hesitate in RN’s use of label’s, Mike Moore has, at best a naive and at worst duplitious view of “free trade” and the role of the WTO in fostering economic growth and improving the lives of the poor.
, as the failure of the so-called Doha “development round” demonstrates, the WTO is merely a forum where rich Western countries both in North America and Europe, campaign to relax trade barriers in developing countries in order to further the interests of their transnational corporations, whilst still being able to provide protections and subsidies to politically powerful lobby groups in their own countries. i.e. large transnational agriculture corporations and to pander to the interests of voters in the crucial Red State voting bloc, which is best exemplified in reading these articles.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6880278,00.html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_33_15/ai_55739260/pg_4
http://www.broadstreetnews.com/index.php?categoryid=12&p2_articleid=450
“There’s no mystery about why the heartland gets such special treatment: it’s a result of our electoral system, which gives states with small populations ・mainly, though not entirely, red states ・disproportionate representation in the Senate, and to a lesser extent in the Electoral College. In fact, half the Senate is elected by just 16 percent of the population.”
http://www.pkarchive.org/column/050702.html
KIA
“He famously summed up the dilemma of the far left and the inability of their policy proscriptions to deliver the heady promises of eliminating poverty by saying “I cant tax losses”. Governments can only fund social programmes on the backs of taxes on the productive sector of the ecomony.”
Not necessarily. “Social programs” don’t have to be paid for by punitive taxes, due to the delinking of monetary value from a commodity value thanks to the US’ abandonment of the gold standard under Nixon and rapid digitalization of credit and financial services in the West its entirely possible for governments to provide a universal basic income for its citizens by issuing interest money through the Central Bank, like Michael Joseph Savage did in the 1930s to fund the public works programs in the 1930s and we wouldn’t even have to the suffer the effects of inflation as they lamentably did as we have tools like the Consumer Price Index and the ‘Exchange Settlement Accounts System’ (ESAS) of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand that they lacked to monitor the amount of money that is in the economy.
“Where will the money come from?”; the Government’s answers were never explicit, but in fact a good deal of the money came from State credit created by the Reserve Bank. This institution, by an Act of 1936, had become a fully governmental body; where these expensive programmes could not be financed out of current revenue or overseas funds, the Government simply borrowed from its own bank. Neither the housing programme nor the guaranteed price could have been financed without such credit.”
http://www.teara.govt.nz/1966/H/HistorySettlementAndDevelopment/193549 theLabourRegime/en
A diverse range of people, from monetarists like Milton Friedman to the founder of the Social Credit movement, Major C. H. Douglas, have campaigned for a universal basic income.
http://keithrankin.co.nz/krnknbyonpov.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Credit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax
I think that it is the only way to combat the ravages of poverty as governments around the world have spent trillions of dollars in the bid to provide full employment for their citizens and to promote development in the Third World, which has erronisly failed.
These failed attempts has led to the current farce in the United States where corporations are granted benefits that cost the wider community (who actually pay for them) an estimated US$125 BILLION (I’m not sure of the figures in Europe), and citizens in Third World countries are forced to pay back debts owed to irresponsible lenders in the West, which are often unrepayable (where the interest payments amount to more than the country produces) or odious (where the money was loaned to and used by regimes that repressed their peoples or was misspent on prestige projects that did not actually benefit people who were most in need).
http://www.usbig.net/papers/013-Sheahen.doc
Vote:http://alertandalarmed.blogspot.com/2005/10/myths-of-corporate-globalisation.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_World_debt