The Left Fails Yet Again

[Zardnaar]

Fair enough man, being poor can offset some of the priviledges, but what would you say if i decided to start classifying being poor/working class and any policies directed towards them as "identity politics"? Would you not be irked? Would you not stand back and say "hey this is more of a human rights issue than identity politics" because that is what every minority thinks of their respective position, so why should it be any different?

It's not really identity politics as such as it would apply to everyone that's poor, brown, white, gay whatever.

It's also probably the way to do it. For example here schools in poor districts get more money than schools in rich districts because those schools raise more money from their local districts.

In US terms reparations for slavery for example won't be very popular but to help poor minorities out help all the poor out. A disproportionate amount of the poor might happen to be minorities though nudge nudge wink wink.

White privilege also won't fly in rural areas where everyone is white. There's no real advantage to being white in that situation. Town I grew up in was 94% white, 4% Chinese, 1% Polynesian and 1% everything else.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

White priviledge would still exist in the town you grew up in, it might not be as readily apparent, but it still exists.

 

[Hrothbern]

You can't dance on two weddings ?

Well... the Left has done that from the start: one wedding was the structural financial economical improvement for the working class as a group, the other wedding the emancipation of the individual with education a strong base.

I think this worked fine, very well alligned and synergetic, up to the cultural revolution starting in the 60ies with the babyboomers.

Whether it was the New Deal or the Wellfare implementation, the financial economical position was greatly enhanced, and focus shifted to the emancipation that was still in full swing because the new well educated generation felt that this was "their" thing, and much room for improvement as well. The range being from general more progressive liberal to more outspoken proto-identity subcultures and criticising foreign authoritarian regimes and domestic military interventions supporting such regimes. And ofc most youth somewhere in between at a lower level of attention and engagement.

I see most of that emancipation, what it delivered, as a real improvement, but it distracted the new generations of The Left from its financial-economical agenda. Structural thinking became replaced by bargaining about a higher social care level for all.

Here a quote from a recent interview of a genuine traditional Social Democrat (a bit on the right side, not socialist, because he was a Gaitskellist) of the Labour Party of the UK (UK MP 1977-2015), Austin Mitchell, born near Leeds, university education in Manchester... the heartlands of working class Labour.
(should also be known in NZ because he lived there a couple of years in BTW Dunedin, teaching history at the university. He wrote from that experience "The Half-Gallon Quarter-Acre Pavlova Paradise").

In that interview he is complaining that UK Labour has lost its compass because of all those young people in the Labour party that are more like Liberal Democrats.

Meanwhile, Labour’s working-class roots were withering and my party became more middle-class and metropolitan, allowing its Northern heartlands to fall behind.
Labour eventually tried to rebuild itself by becoming a coalition of causes; feminism, LGBTism, environmentalism, localism, ethnic politics. You name a boutique issue, we were for it – with the exception of regenerating growth and advancing equality.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-voters-Former-Labour-MP-AUSTIN-MITCHELL.html
And yes... it is an interview in the Daily Mail, that uses this traditional Labour MP to sow more division in the Labour party because of Brexit. But the article does note down what he states.

To use a football expression:
I think The Left got confused between those two weddings.... too many changes and things getting more complex and opaque.... and was not able to keep its eyes on the ball.

 

[Zardnaar]

You can't dance on two weddings ?

Well... the Left has done that from the start: one wedding was the structural financial economical improvement for the working class as a group, the other wedding the emancipation of the individual with education a strong base.

I think this worked fine, very well alligned and synergetic, up to the cultural revolution starting in the 60ies with the babyboomers.

Whether it was the New Deal or the Wellfare implementation, the financial economical position was greatly enhanced, and focus shifted to the emancipation that was still in full swing because the new well educated generation felt that this was "their" thing, and much room for improvement as well. The range being from general more progressive liberal to more outspoken proto-identity subcultures and criticising foreign authoritarian regimes and domestic military interventions supporting such regimes. And ofc most youth somewhere in between at a lower level of attention and engagement.

I see most of that emancipation as a real improvement, but it distracted the new generations of The Left from its financial-economical agenda. Structural thinking became replaced by bargaining about a higher social care level for all.

Here a quote from a recent interview of a genuine traditional Social Democrat (a bit on the right side, not socialist, because he was a Gaitskellist) of the Labour Party of the UK (UK MP 1977-2015), Austin Mitchell, born near Leeds, university education in Manchester... the heartlands of working class Labour.
(should also be known in NZ because he lived there a couple of years in BTW Dunedin, teaching history at the university. He wrote from that experience "The Half-Gallon Quarter-Acre Pavlova Paradise").

In that interview he is complaining that UK Labour has lost its compass because of all those young people in the Labour party that are more like Liberal Democrats.


To use a football expression:
I think The Left got confused between those two weddings.... too many changes and things getting more complex and opaque.... and was not able to keep its eyes on the ball.

I live in Dunedin lol, not familiar with him but I think I have heard if that book.

Modern like Labour is more urban liberals but the unionist control the party infrastructure. They kept throwing up trade unionist types with 0 charisma. The last one was a but smarter, stood down. 6 weeks out from election and poll numbers jumped by almost 10%. We elected a 37 yo unmarried pregnant women. She seems popular/genuine. Might even met her on the street.

https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/1140...ed-prime-minister-jacinda-arderns-cat-paddles

 

[Zardnaar]

White priviledge would still exist in the town you grew up in, it might not be as readily apparent, but it still exists.

It did but it was class not racial based. The business roundtable/old boys network. Had non whites in it, and a lot if the wealthy kids at school were Asian. Social networks helped of course but all the kids rich or poor went to the same schools and if you were friends you could go round to their house etc.

My friend's dad was involved with the local business men's club. Mostly white but as I said the town was 90%+ white.

When you have a dominant culture, the elites will look after themselves.

Election night party HQs are funny. Right wing white, Chinese, Indian, left wing white and Polynesian.

 

[Patine]

And I voted for them.

https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...ed-a-war-on-poverty--is-it-gaining-any-ground

Basically we have a heap of social problems over here. Wages are low for probably over half the country while rent is really high.

Our house is basically worth nothing but we could probably sell it for close to half a million, convert the money to USD and buy a cheaper house in a nice suburb in the USA and gave 100k left over. The land under the house is great.

As the article says a couple of years ago a left wing government made a few promises that were basically undeliverable. Hey at least they tried. Vote right wing they can deliver on tax cuts, just borrow money and run the country down for a decade or so.

I also got accused of being a racist here at CFC for opposing immigration when we can't build housing fast enough. Put simply letting in more rich migrants is putting stress on poor NZers. We had close to 15% population growth rate in a few short years. Per capita those Syrian refugees in Europe in 2015. We had that every year for a while.

So why not build more cheap housing? Well we can't we have the land but resource consent is a pain along with zoning laws. Combine that with a lack of tradesmen and it's actually illegal to build cheap housed due to building codes a cheap new house here is $350 000 USD. In places like Auckland double that.


Our average wage here looks good. 70% don't get it. We live alright as we bought a do er upper in a decent suburb a few years back. Mortage is cheap but we lived like students into late 20s/early 30s to do it.

Anyway I think a lot if idealists here are going to be disappointed but electing a left wing government won't fix things over night. It took the right about 30 years to get here, even if Labour can fix things it will take decades not one or two election cycles.

It's also why I'm not overly sympathetic towards illegal migrants in the USA. Get caught here without a visa you're gonna get sent home. If I went to Australia and over stayed and got caught I imagine I would get deported.

If you have surplus labour wages stagnate, more people less houses property prices only go up. Economics 101 yet Labour parties that used to represent organised Labour got hijacked by social liberals with very few clues how the world works.

The left here campaigned on less immigration, the right on more while the far left (read Greens in Parliament) are your stereotypical hippie types

Anyway the Democratic candidates-Trump are full of crap, prepare to be disappointed assuming Trump loses. If Trump wins please stop nominating idiots.

Why are you, and others, still carrying on about a socio-political ideology and stance that effectively doesn't meaningfully exist. I've brought this up many times, and it's a notable point, but it's one of the very prominent vectors of the penetration of high oversimplification to the point of generating and promoting stupidity in thought and rhetoric - but the fact is, and I'll say it again - there's a reason the term political SPECTRUM and not political DUALITY is used. Now, I will enjoin you (again) to up your game, sound more erudite and respectable, and command any sort of respect or credence in debate or rhetoric, and stop using "the Left" or even "the Right" as though they were coherent, meaningful, or unified socio-political stances, and refer to the SPECIFIC, APPROPRIATE, and APPLICABLE socio-political stances in question, and no others.

 

[Zardnaar]

Why are you, and others, still carrying on about a socio-political ideology and stance that effectively doesn't meaningfully exist. I've brought this up many times, and it's a notable point, but it's one of the very prominent vectors of the penetration of high oversimplification to the point of generating and promoting stupidity in thought and rhetoric - but the fact is, and I'll say it again - there's a reason the term political SPECTRUM and not political DUALITY is used. Now, I will enjoin you (again) to up your game, sound more erudite and respectable, and command any sort of respect or credence in debate or rhetoric, and stop using "the Left" or even "the Right" as though they were coherent, meaningful, or unified socio-political stances, and refer to the SPECIFIC, APPROPRIATE, and APPLICABLE socio-political stances in question, and no others.

It's a forum, I can use nice technical language etc, but why bother.

Left and right are both made up of 3 or 4 major factions but I don't really need to name them all yes?

It's a forum, not an academic paper. Have you found my post yet where I claimed I was a Christian?

 

[Patine]

It's a forum, I can use nice technical language etc, but why bother.

Left and right are both made up of 3 or 4 major factions but I don't really need to name them all yes?

It's a forum, not an academic paper. Have you found my post yet where I claimed I was a Christian?

3 or 4 factions. Um, no. The political spectrum is incredibly varied and fine-toothed, immensely intricate and convoluted. And, while you MAY use "Left" and "Right," if you wish, I am free to waspishly correct you and bring up the error in your terminology EVERY SINGLE TIME I see it, as well.

And I didn't find that post, but do notice, I also instantly stopped trying to hold you to Christian virtues and ethics utterly since then, too.

 

[Zardnaar]

3 or 4 factions. Um, no. The political spectrum is incredibly varied and fine-toothed, immensely intricate and convoluted. And, while you MAY use "Left" and "Right," if you wish, I am free to waspishly correct you and bring up the error in your terminology EVERY SINGLE TIME I see it, as well.

And I didn't find that post, but do notice, I also instantly stopped trying to hold you to Christian virtues and ethics utterly since then, too.

I did say my Mother was Christian, I'm not don't pretend to be.

I said 3 or 4 main factions, not every faction. The left here is urban liberals, social Democrats, trade unionists, Polynesians, etc.

The right are your neoliberals, young nats, farmers. Conservatives maybe 1 to 4%, libertarians less than 1%.
I don't really need to break it down every post.

 

[wolfigor]

How about you blame those that run the system; big business, corporations and their puppet politicians rather than refugees; the people with the least amount of power? If you think it's bad now, just wait until climate change accelerates the inevitable ecological disasters that will trigger mass migrations.

The OP clearly stated that the main problem is gentrification and reduced income that push more and more people on a limited number of affordable houses.
Immigration, welcome or not, doesn't make the problem any easier to solve: it adds pressure on a system already under pressure.

Indeed there are 3 "pressure" points acting at the same time (in order of priority):
1. Real cost of living raising faster than income
2. Rich individuals and companies buing houses and raising the overall cost of properties.
3. Immigration bringing even more people on the reduced set of affordable houses and lowering the negotiation power of workers in lower income jobs

I would say that there is also a fourth, but it is probably minor compared to the above:
4. Reduces/inadequate public services that will allow people to live in cheaper parts of the town

To be honest it is easier for everybody to talk about #3, without trying to find a solution for two more important issues.
Solving point #1 will make the other problems less critical... but it is arguably the hardest nut to crack.


[personal rant]
It is really counterproductive to ignore that immigration does bring problems: sometimes new problems sometime exacerbating pre-existing ones.
Attacking anyone who even slightly comment negatively about immigration with "white privilege" or "being a racist" is not helping at all.
It just makes people defensive and it would be much better to acknowledge tha immigration does create a problem and openly discuss about it instead of shutting down the discussion.
It also distract from fronting the real issues: when the left pushes too much on identity politic , it does at the cost of not fronting the other issues.
[/personal rant]

 

[Peuri]

3 or 4 factions. Um, no. The political spectrum is incredibly varied and fine-toothed, immensely intricate and convoluted. And, while you MAY use "Left" and "Right," if you wish, I am free to waspishly correct you and bring up the error in your terminology EVERY SINGLE TIME I see it, as well.

[...]

This is of course a fair criticism, but then again you can do this to almost any concept. Every field of inquiry bickers over the central concepts employed in the fields. You won't see all biologists agree what a "species" is, nor will you see philosophers even agreeing on what "philosophy" is, yet philosophers do philosophy, while there is no agreed upon definition of philosophy, and scientists doing "science", while the demarcation problem presists. So while I agree, that employing the terms "left" and "right" fall short of precise meaning, but so do all words, I'd argue. Words, or concepts rather to distinguish the written or spoken word from the referent, are all Wittgensteinian family resemblance concepts. No game is alike, but games still exist as a meaningful category. Should we not talk about games, while chess and football have virtually nothing in common?

 

[Patine]

I did say my Mother was Christian, I'm not don't pretend to be.

I said 3 or 4 main factions, not every faction. The left here is urban liberals, social Democrats, trade unionists, Polynesians, etc.

The right are your neoliberals, young nats, farmers. Conservatives maybe 1 to 4%, libertarians less than 1%.
I don't really need to break it down every post.

Polynesian is not a socio-political stance. It's an anthropological race and ethnic and linguistic grouping.

And you forgot the Greens, the Social Credit (who ended up MUCH further left-wing in New Zealand than the Canadian analog of the movement), the Pirate/Kimdotcom group, the actual, outright Communist Party of New Zealand, and a few smaller groups on the left-leaning side, and two "Christian" claiming parties, a right-wing Maori Party (another debunking of your use of Polynesian as a socio-political blocs), the hyper-nationalist NZ First Party, and a few other groups on the right-leaning side, and a notable number of parties and movements that would be very hard to firmly place on the spectrum. An interesting selection of parties you have in New Zealand listed right here. You DO really oversimplify things...

 

[Patine]

This is of course a fair criticism, but then again you can do this to almost any concept. Every field of inquiry bickers over the central concepts employed in the fields. You won't see all biologists agree what a "species" is, nor will you see philosophers even agreeing on what "philosophy" is, yet philosophers do philosophy, while there is no agreed upon definition of philosophy, and scientists doing "science", while the demarcation problem presists. So while I agree, that employing the terms "left" and "right" fall short of precise meaning, but so do all words, I'd argue. Words, or concepts rather to distinguish the written or spoken word from the referent, are all Wittgensteinian family resemblance concepts. No game is alike, but games still exist as a meaningful category. Should we not talk about games, while chess and football have virtually nothing in common?

But, in the case of the usage he, and a growing number of (disturbingly so) are of employing of "Left" and "Right," it portrays an actively unhealthy, unproductive, and degenerative view of society of politics, moreso than previously. Thus, these terms SHOULD be challenged, called to task, and not taken for granted or at face value.

 

[Zardnaar]

Polynesian is not a socio-political stance. It's an anthropological race and ethnic and linguistic grouping.

And you forgot the Greens, the Social Credit (who ended up MUCH further left-wing in New Zealand than the Canadian analog of the movement), the Pirate/Kimdotcom group, the actual, outright Communist Party of New Zealand, and a few smaller groups on the left-leaning side, and two "Christian" claiming parties, a right-wing Maori Party (another debunking of your use of Polynesian as a socio-political blocs), the hyper-nationalist NZ First Party, and a few other groups on the right-leaning side, and a notable number of parties and movements that would be very hard to firmly place on the spectrum. An interesting selection of parties you have in New Zealand listed right here. You DO really oversimplify things...

I did forget the greens, NZ First is centrist currently in coalition with Labour, Social Credit is basically dead for the last 35 years.

Polynesians overwhelmingly vote left here, farmers overwhelmingly vote right. Only 4 parties in NZ have more than 1% support. All the stupid little parties are often a handful of people who can get 500 friends and family to join and get registered which qualifies for government money.

 

[Zardnaar]

The OP clearly stated that the main problem is gentrification and reduced income that push more and more people on a limited number of affordable houses.
Immigration, welcome or not, doesn't make the problem any easier to solve: it adds pressure on a system already under pressure.

Indeed there are 3 "pressure" points acting at the same time (in order of priority):
1. Real cost of living raising faster than income
2. Rich individuals and companies buing houses and raising the overall cost of properties.
3. Immigration bringing even more people on the reduced set of affordable houses and lowering the negotiation power of workers in lower income jobs

I would say that there is also a fourth, but it is probably minor compared to the above:
4. Reduces/inadequate public services that will allow people to live in cheaper parts of the town

To be honest it is easier for everybody to talk about #3, without trying to find a solution for two more important issues.
Solving point #1 will make the other problems less critical... but it is arguably the hardest nut to crack.


[personal rant]
It is really counterproductive to ignore that immigration does bring problems: sometimes new problems sometime exacerbating pre-existing ones.
Attacking anyone who even slightly comment negatively about immigration with "white privilege" or "being a racist" is not helping at all.
It just makes people defensive and it would be much better to acknowledge tha immigration does create a problem and openly discuss about it instead of shutting down the discussion.
It also distract from fronting the real issues: when the left pushes too much on identity politic , it does at the cost of not fronting the other issues.
[/personal rant]

Ding ding you get it. Our house doubled in value in about 7 years. Good for us we can sell it and buy a half million dollar house for $200 bucks a week mortage.

You can be looking at 10 to 13 years income to buy a house, rent hitting 60 to 80% take home pay. We're also getting internal migration here from up North as people have been prices out of Auckland come South. McDonalds is paying around $20 an hour in Auckland, house prices were getting close to a million dollars.

 

[Peuri]

But, in the case of the usage he, and a growing number of (disturbingly so) are of employing of "Left" and "Right," it portrays an actively unhealthy, unproductive, and degenerative view of society of politics, moreso than previously. Thus, these terms SHOULD be challenged, called to task, and not taken for granted or at face value.

Ok, I can 100% respect that. It's more of a moral argument that using those words in a very general sense will lead to harming public political discourse, than an argument of wanting precise meaning per se, would you say?

 

[Cloud_Strife]

I mean... okay? If you think immigration is bad now wait until parts of the world are rendered uninhabitable by climate change.

The problem isn't going to go away and there needs to be a deep societal change before progress can be made; housing basic or otherwise should be a human right if it isn't already.

 

[Zardnaar]

I mean... okay? If you think immigration is bad now wait until parts of the world are rendered uninhabitable by climate change.

The problem isn't going to go away and there needs to be a deep societal change before progress can be made; housing basic or otherwise should be a human right if it isn't already.

NZ has a moat called the Pacific Ocean.

What annoys me with the pro immigration liberals us they are hurting people they profess to care about. Crap falls harder on the minorities and low paid and ones who don't own property.

 

[Hrothbern]

housing basic or otherwise should be a human right if it isn't already.

It is a bit like the right on a job.

As soon as a majority of the voters owns a house, it is improbable that there will be a political majority to build so many houses that such a right can be implemented.
For the simple reason that it would reduce the value of the existing houses for the existing house owners.

* It would be great when there are more job vacancies than unemployed or underemployed.
* It would be great if there would be more housing than people looking for a house.

If a society can achieve and secure that situation, two basic (domestic) inequality issues are structurally mitigated.

And do mind that IF that situation is achieved, there are many forces to "fill the gaps" by getting migrants in that society. Employers and existing house owners the root main drivers.
As soon as that has been done....
you are back in the structural situation most countries have now: too low wages from less vacancies than unemployed & too high housing cost from less houses than people looking for a house.

=> you can, if you want to keep the edge on domestic equality, only allow migrants when you build houses and job vacancies faster than the influx of migrants.

The candy offered to us to prevent this happening is the mantra that more GDP growth solves all issues and is better for everyone.

 

[Zardnaar]

It is a bit like the right on a job.

As soon as a majority of the voters owns a house, it is improbable that there will be a political majority to build so many houses that such a right can be implemented.
For the simple reason that it would reduce the value of the existing houses for the existing house owners.

* It would be great when there are more job vacancies than unemployed or underemployed.
* It would be great if there would be more housing than people looking for a house.

If a society can achieve and secure that situation, two basic (domestic) inequality issues are structurally mitigated.

And do mind that IF that situation is achieved, there are many forces to "fill the gaps" by getting migrants in that society. Employers and existing house owners the root main drivers.
As soon as that has been done....
you are back in the structural situation most countries have now: too low wages from less vacancies than unemployed & too high housing cost from less houses than people looking for a house.

=> you can, if you want to keep the edge on domestic equality, only allow migrants when you build houses and job vacancies faster than the influx of migrants.

The candy offered to us to prevent this happening is the mantra that more GDP growth solves all issues and is better for everyone.

Wouldn't disagree with any of that.

Economics 101 surplus labour low wages. Wages doubled in the war years in fort USA for obvious reasons.

Americans rode that until 1973 or so.