HRH’s deft handling of awkward trade meeting revealed depth of character, patience, remembers National Press Club president
Prince Andrew lamented the transition of the televised weather broadcast into entertainment. “I miss the isobars,” he confessed referring to the whorls and lines on the now disappeared diagrams that represented the connecting points having the same atmospheric pressure at a given time or on average over a given period.
HRH was dismayed that so much applied science in the media was taking a back seat to the imperative to entertain.
We met at government house in Wellington, New Zealand, and Prince Andrew was on tour as Britain’s trade “ambassador” working for United Kingdom Trade and Industry, the nation’s central promotion and development agency.
The prince sat at the head of a horse shoe shaped gathering of which I was a component through having at the time a role with what was then known as the British New Zealand Trade Council, which dates back to 1917, recalls now National Press Club president Peter Isaac
Andrew had a crisp, incisive manner. Nothing other-worldly about him. He fixed the group, looking at us directly, friendlily.
The British High Commissioner at the time George Fergusson, who had once himself held down a governmental trade promotion assignment, piped up about the international prospects for New Zealand honey.
Fergusson went into detail about the medicinal properties of honey, and did so at some length.
He then segued into a random history of the electronic microprocessor.
It occurred to me that the point of the story might have been to remind the prince of how the microprocessor patents had been allowed to slip way to Asia before being at the very last moment repatriated to the English speaking realm, the United States.
Geordie Fergusson, the last in a dynastic succession of British proconsuls to New Zealand, finally allowed his electronics contribution to taper off without it defining any special lesson, or indeed, point.
Andrew had a reputation for petulance, for being easily irritated, and it occurred to me that HRH might be becoming somewhat peeved about Fergusson taking over what was designated as his, HRH’s, show.
Andrew (pictured above at the time) listened attentively and with apparent interest to this vice regal dissertation.
On the heels of this followed now a question that surprised everyone including Andrew.
A local departmental trade functionary asked HRH about his golf, and his prospects for practising it in New Zealand.
Bringing up an off-agenda topic with a member of the royal family is a not unfamiliar play, especially with Andrew’s father, Prince Philip.
It is of course risky. It either catches the mood of the moment or it does not. This one did not.
This was not immediately apparent to the public service questioner, it turned out.
Andrew’s expression grew quizzical, but only briefly, and he sought to deter the issue by focussing on another imminent question, this one on the beaten track about trade and technology.
But the questioner persisted.
“We know all about you and your golf,” was the chummy follow up from the functionary.
“Come on…..we all know it is your passion……”
The prince’s private secretary now cut in suggesting that the prince extrapolate on a more focused point about commonwealth trade.
Andrew who speaks in a middle class English accent, and not the trademark drawl so many antipodeans associate with the royal family, took up the threads without allowing, if in fact, he felt it, any trace of irritation to cross his face.
He was at ease. The private secretary brought the event to a close. There was another pressing appointment, it seemed. Andrew was ushered out, yet gave the impression that he would much prefer chewing the cud with us.
Andrew presented the picture of a technocrat and a people-person, an encompassing ability that is by no means widespread.
As royalty becomes treated as reality show stars, and as reality show stars gravitate to royal status, Prince Andrew has become one of the most caricatured individuals on the face of the earth.
The profession of royalty has much in common with Andrew’s other profession, that of arms in that they are both hurry-up-and-wait occupations.
It is in the extended waiting periods between engagements in which lurk the unforeseen and contemporary perils
The actual cost of the Zero Carbon legislation that has just passed through New Zealand’s parliament is more than a trillion dollars in lost GDP.
The estimate is from AgFirst the leading non-governmental source of information in this domain.
AgFirst’s trillion dollar plus actual cost estimate was published in New Zealand Farmers Weekly
This forecast conflicts with an officially aired report that the zero carbon by 2050 legislative objective for the Bill will in contrast add $30 billion to the economy.
The independent and much higher negative estimate instantly became blacked-out through absence of pick-up in the mainstream media, print and broadcast, which has adopted a collective policy of ignoring anything viewed as countering the government line on climate change.
In Parliament itself the Opposition has been cowed into silence on the cost of the Bill.
The common reference figure of the nation’s contribution to global greenhouse gases is a fraction of one percent, 0.17 percent, which the government’s own reports dismiss as a “negligible” contribution, though such reports are careful to praise the global “leadership.”
But propelling the New Zealand government to seek United Nations laurels is the nation’s culpability on its population basis said to place it in the very top flight of emitters.
New Zealand is unusual statistically in that less than half of one percent of its terrain is urbanised, lived in.
The population density in emitting terms is actually represented by the very high ruminant population of sheep and cattle. Especially of cattle and it is the high number of these animals and their gaseous processes required to digest vegetation that provides such a large proportion of this 0.17 percent.
Even if opponents of the coalition’s global grandstanding are suspicious about actual costs of the Bill, any resulting dissent is quelled.
Rumbling in the public sphere is doused by letting it be known that funding follows acquiescence.
State spending reached an all-time high of 11638 NZD Million in the second quarter of 2019 underlining the government’s ability to hold the line everywhere in the support for its flagship policy.
The government has been much helped by a general drift away from chemistry and mathematics and this has allowed it to spread fear uncertainty and doubt about “carbon” as carbon dioxide is routinely described.
Any hint that carbon dioxide is the plant growth gas will be quickly stomped on and the impression left to linger that it is the exhaust gas carbon monoxide or carbon black, soot, i.e. entirely nasty.
Neither is the conversation likely to be allowed to extend to the fact that a diamond for example is pure carbon.
.The Green-Labour coalition’s grip on all this is complete and so it should be a cynic might say given that the state is the predominant employer of journalists and public relations practitioners.
The additional packaging of the moral cause in motherhood-grade compassion and social justice has completed the neutralisation and paralysis of the Opposition the National Party so very conscious of being viewed as being otherwise.
Only the single MP party of ACT has challenged the Bill.
Agri Lobby and Eco Activist share endangered species role after New York takeover of moral movement
New Zealand’s farm lobby Federated Farmers once enjoyed a visibility and even power equal to that of the nation’s two main political parties, the Labour Party and National Party.
The lobby’s leader was a household name, and their intervention in any issue affecting farmers to any degree at all was accompanied by fear and trembling on one side or the other.
Yet now that New Zealand’s underpinning economic activity, farming, faces an ideological version of the Great Depression, and is known to do so, the lobby is eerily quiet on the public pulpit.
In institutional ecological husbandry terms the position of Federated Farmers curiously resembles that of Greenpeace.
Greenpeace until quite recently had the final word on everything in its domain.
Then it found itself shouldered aside by the United Nations takeover of the climate business in much the same way as Federated Farmers in its turn found itself eclipsed by the effects of the same intervention.
Federated Farmers successfully managed several earlier panics.
It quietly managed the red meat scare.
It then deftly handled the Food Miles concocted angst.
The ideological climate one keeps slipping out of its grasp.
Federated Farmers is in good company. The National Party the farmers’ party for instance. National knows an ants nest when it sees one, and thus it administers the hysteria merely a gentle kick from time to time.
It knows as Federated Farmers knows that putting a stick into it will stimulate the soldier ants dwelling inside carrying their latest millennialist doomsday computer modelled forecasts.
Farmers sell through agents and brokers and thus their circles are limited to other farmers and this has allowed to arise a false sense of security about their medium term prospects as the major designated villain in the emissions political panic.
Farmers convince themselves of the reasonableness of the coalition government and thus they fail to see that a large chunk of it seeks to appeal not to domestic wealth creators, but to the United Nations and that this is the reason for all the exulting about being “the first” with the emissions regime
The two most trafficked words in the current political lexicon are conversation and explain.
So why does Federated Farmers fail to publicly “explain” itself in the “conversation?”
The short answer is that it fears its presence will serve merely to inflame a fervour that remains immune to anything but catastrophizing on the capacity of the nation’s ruminants to contribute to the reflective canopy that we are told bounces back the sun’s rays to the surface of planet Earth.
Federated Farmers president Katie Milne (pictured) has but one option and it is to fire up her own base, and all those who rely on it for their livelihood: the stock & station fraternity, the merchandising cooperatives, along with the wider supplier community.
Other avenues are closed off. Traditional media which proved so helpful in calming the red meat excitement has taken a collective oath of allegiance to the United Nations- line and this was demonstrated by the mainstream’s awkward effusiveness in adhering to the recent UN-sponsored climate week.
Localised social media obediently chimed in too thus sealing off the sector entirely.
Federated Farmers is unfashionable which is why it is being so pointedly scorned by whole categories which once leaped to do its bidding.
Its own party, National, shows signs of hanging onto the sides of the same electoral climate bandwagon, a tendency only curbed by the knowledge that such exuberance would spur the Green-Labour component of the governing coalition to seek to outpace it with still more supercharged enthusiasm.
In New Zealand politics it is now the fame and renown overseas that matters and especially so in climate cult strongholds as New York and Paris.
A publicly sidelined Federated Farmers must now activate its own substantial base and thus reveal that it recognises and confronts the existential threat to its members and thus the ability of the nation to thrive.
Curious as it sounds Federated Farmers and Greenpeace hew to not dissimilar pastoral principles especially in regard to preservation and development of animals.
The arrival of a top down intervention on the scale of the United Nations climate drive has left both organisations overtaken and in an unaccustomed shade. Even on the endangered species list.
Television 3 offers an opportunity for the productive sector to advance common sense
With the For Sale sign officially hoisted over New Zealand’s Television 3 channel an 11th hour remedy to the channel’s trouble emerges in the form of its presenters saying what they think, instead of what their polite society audience who do not watch television anyway, think that they should think.
When the middle class family group studio presentation formula began to evolve 50 years ago the average age of the population was 25 years old.
The average age of the average New Zealander is now nudging 40 years old i.e middle age.
Half the population is under middle age, and the other half middle aged.
Television Three allowed itself to be drawn into the slipstream suction of the government controlled broadcasting operation in quickly taking up the full slate of advanced idealistic doctrines formulated by the Guardian and then echo-chambered through the BBC and then relayed via Australia’s ABC.
The channel’s proprietor woke up to this last year and slewed around its talk radio channel from being the poor man’s version of Radio New Zealand.
Gone were the jokey, middle of the road types, with their rosy familial anecdotes, and in their place three presenters Sean Plunket, Peter Williams, and Ryan Bridge who now contrapuntally challenge the very type of ideology actively being propagated by the government broadcasting operation.
The advertising expenditure followed this focus re-adjustment as the listening audience found that presenters chimed with their point of view.
The channel’s key show, the AM Show, now gave the impression of seeking to straddle this very demographic which had been hiding in full sight for so long.
But it also gave the impression of being still partially hypnotised by the London ideology arbiters which are all entirely subsidised: the BBC by taxpayers, the Guardian by philanthropy, and the relay repeater the ABC by the Australian taxpayer.
So why does TV3 tacitly or deliberately follow their line?
Enter now, stage Left, the hidden persuaders, the advertising agencies. They are in the business of influencing the purchasing by one very identifiable segment which is those from 18 to their mid 30s and who are ideally women and ones with a university degree, and about to set up house.
As social media began to absorb more and more mainstream advertising, so the advertising agencies put their support behind the happy family collective platforming staffed with womenfolk if they didn’t actually have university degrees then looked as if they did.
This in turn was reinforced visually and verbally by the manifest iteration of university values which in turn are deemed to be the values of those who have money to spend, especially on big ticket things such as cars and domestic fitments. Today’s conformity is thus centred on contemporary university values.
The result is that as the mainstream broadcasting audience greys with the weight of the years so it is treated as if it were greening with the sap of idealism.
The happy family presentation platform sidesteps sensitive issues and if one seems to be looming or unavoidable, then family members segue on cue into familial chatter about docile spouses or wilful kiddies. The era of the standalone presenter had passed. Anyone still remember Paul Holmes?
It is not that long ago that Winston Peters declared that TV3 was “better” than the government version. TV3 in the event, and under pressure from the advertising agencies, began to take on the colours of its subsidised competitor and did so by looking and sounding more and more like it.
But the green shoots, this time of rebellion, are starting to show. Management, which has had the channel on the market for quite some time, must carefully nurture them now that the sale is public.
Curiously and nobody is talking about this for obvious reasons TV3/Mediaworks is a component of one of the world’s biggest pools of money. It is controlled by Brookfield Asset Management.
A fellow Brookfield stablemate is Westinghouse Electric Company, a nuclear reactor design and builder.
While industrial ownership of newspapers is now commonplace (think Amazon’s proprietorship of the Washington Post) it remains unusual in the broadcasting sector.
Brookfield shouldered the New Zealand broadcaster from Oaktree Capital Management an outfit specialising as a vulture fund acquiring businesses on the verge of liquidation.
There have been signs of fire and fury in TV3. The guest-hosting by former Republican senator and now ambassador Scott Brown was one.
The straight-to-camera editorialising to Winston Peters about Winston Peters by Mark Richardson still another.
Another industrial proprietor this time with a productivity base in New Zealand itself will be in a position to counter the London-originating point of view with some badly needed home truths, and steer the channel away from the media magnetic north of juvenilia and shrill identity issues..
Anticipating Hitler’s rise pre-war politician told family to get as far away from Germany as possible
The death in New Zealand’s Wairarapa Valley of Tony Haas (pictured) severs one of the closest human link’s with Germany’s Nazi era.
Haas was the grandson of Ludwig Haas the minister for Baden and member of the Reichstag for the German Democratic Party and a determined opponent of the National Socialists, the Nazi Party.
Ludwig Haas died unexpectedly in 1930.
He is often considered the only politician who, had he lived, could have foiled the rise of Hitler and thus averted World War 2.
On his deathbed Ludwig Haas, anticipating Hitler’s rise and what was to come and knowing he would be powerless to do anything about it told his son, Karl, father of Tony Haas, to move as far away from Germany as possible –and stay there.
The family did this, re-establishing in New Zealand.
Several years prior to his own death and by now much encouraged by the resurgence in Germany of interest surrounding his grandfather (pictured below), Tony Haas toured Karlsruhe, his grandfather’s constituency, and there he was given a warm and attentive official welcome.
In his final years and with the assistance of Berlin-based archivists Tony Haas the grandson occupied himself with compiling the official biography of his prescient grandfather
Anthony Roger Haas was born in 1944, and raised in his own words as a “farm boy” in Pahiatua in the remote Wairarapa Valley where his father in addition to changing hemispheres had also switched vocations becoming a farmer.
Tony Haas’ own long incubated 2015 autobiography Being Palangi – My Pacific Journey was launched in the Wairarapa Valley.
Tony Haas in retirement had returned to his New Zealand roots after a 50 year global journalistic career mainly devoted to covering the Pacific and its peoples.
Tony Haas is survived by his wife Dr Patricia Donnelly and their children.
Deluded diplomats are fed hopes of a vanishing Restoration
An enduring mystery in Anglosphere diplomatic corps is the way in which so many officials insist on believing that president Donald Trump is an imposter who will be washed away by impeachment proceedings prior to the 2020 presidential elections.
Two virtual diplomatic handbook periodicals proffering this point of view are The Economist and the Financial Times.
Most foreign affairs officials believe that these two publications are owned in Great Britain.
They are not.
The Economist is controlled by the Agnelli dynasty of Fiat fame.
The Financial Times is owned by the Japanese Nikkei company, famed for its Nikkei index, the counterpart of the FTSE index.
Both these organisations are committed to globalisation, the outstanding roadblock to which is president Trump.
Whitehall regards these two publications with a Delphic reverence and to the extent that even after the Trump victory in 2016 its diplomats, notably those in Washington, believed that the Trump ascension was an ephemera, and would somehow evaporate.
This belief was so solidly grounded that it took three dimensional form in the shape of sourced print-outs to this effect, widely circulated, and which, surprise, surprise, found their way to the Daily Mail.
The belief fanned by the two periodicals is that one of the revolving door impeachment actions against president Trump will somehow sink him.
To date they have had the opposite effect of the one intended and the current iteration of the impeachment attrition is another one in this genre.
President Trump has presided over the strongest economy in living memory. Unemployment is at record lows, inflation is nearly non-existent, and new jobs are being created at a startling pace. Anyone who studies presidential politics knows that strong economies are the most important factor driving support for the incumbent.
Here’s the rub. Horrified by free trade regime of the WTO, and the leverage it bestowed upon China, Trump wants managed trade that better supports U.S. economic aspirations.
It is this apostasy that the two tut-tutting once British owned publications cannot get past.
The Economist and the Financial Times have been allowed to bypass slews of history such as that the most controversial presidents tend to roll up the biggest reelection victories.
Also when a party takes the White House, they tend to stay there for at least eight years.
Casualties of this higher-level media indoctrination to date have included the Australian Labour Party which lost its unloseable general election after constructing it around the vaunted globalist IPCC playbook.
Hardly renowned for its world-view the Australian Labour Party might still have learned from France’s president Macron who squandered most of his electoral capital doing the same thing and ignited the yellow vest protests.
New Zealand’s outgoing National (conservative) government in 2016 allowed itself to be utterly persuaded that Donald Trump would be washed out of history and committed the country to the censure of Israel and a long term commitment to the Clinton Foundation.
How have these two periodicals been able to get away with their continuing dangerously misleading prophecies?
The answer is that they chime with exactly the viewpoint of their foreign service adherents to the effect that there will be a restoration of the globalism world order with all its attendant civilities.
The two publications express the yearnings of Gerard Araud, the French ambassador to Washington and who upon Donald Trump’s ascension tweeted his dismay at a collapsing world order.
"It is the end of an era, the era of neoliberalism. We don't yet know what will succeed it,"adding "After Brexit and this election anything is possible. A world is collapsing before our eyes. Vertigo.”
Dizzy diplomats fed by publications with a face value mercantile priority can now heed (two-term) president Clinton’s indelible and winning electioneering axiom “It’s the economy, stupid.”
Collapse of gender partition dissolved patriarchies & opened way to UN-led activism
Our post religious neo-pagan era owes its advent to an academic figure who clinically dismantled biological gender division and in doing so became a one-man latter-day reformation pushing church teachings utterly and conclusively aside in favour of the elemental lore so evident today.
Rarely has any such tidal movement in contemporary culture been quite so traceable to a single individual which in this case is to Dr John Money (pictured) who ushered in the age of gender neutrality.
He effectively in doing so demolished the wall that hitherto had securely partitioned science from the populace at large,
In toppling the concept of patriarchy he eroded the standing of other dominant hierarchies. Dr Money kick-started a new reconstructed and fluid ethical framework.
Dr Money dissolved the gender binary boundary and ignited the new non-patriarchal orthodoxy of social equity subscribed to most notably by United Nations. One in which for example juveniles can challenge on equal footing science professionals of any standing.
Dr Money’s influence extended to introducing terminology that we take for granted today. He took the word gender out of its exclusively grammatical context and applied it to humans as in terms such as gender role and gender identity.
He was the first clinician to describe himself as a sexologist and to be officially described as such. He was the pioneering exponent in child rearing of the "nurture versus nature" concept in gender assignment.
Dr Money contended that if the gender of the young child was nurtured by the parents as that gender, then it could be that its behavioural characteristics and not its physical ones (nature) would decide whether it was male or female.
This is a variant on the livestock breeder axiom of nature versus nurture which Dr Money would have picked up growing up in the New Zealand dairy farming settlement of Morrinsville.
His arrival as the decisive agent of human biology-driven cultural change intersected with the counter culture. Rolling Stone among other avatars popularised his research about what was known at the time as gender bending.
Dr Money studied psychology at Victoria University in Wellington before taking up a junior lectureship at Otago University.
He emigrated to the United States becoming a research fellow at Johns Hopkins University for more than 50 years.
His fame came as director of the Psychohormonal Research Unit at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, and he authored some 40 books on sexology.
He established the Johns Hopkins Gender Identity Clinic in 1965 .The hospital began performing sexual reassignment surgery in 1966.
He retired only two years before his death at 85 in 2006.
The weight accorded Dr Money’s work on gender had much to do with his long association with Ivy League universities notably Johns Hopkins the original medical research university in the United States. His Phd was from Harvard
The man who collapsed the watertight door between science and humanities preferred the company of artists to scientists.
Often considered difficult and prickly by his colleagues, Dr Money’s work made him rich and his philanthropy took the form of investment in art, especially primitive art which he gathered during his constant travelling.
Except for his eponymous collection bequeathed to the art gallery in Gore, New Zealand, he remains an uncommemorated figure in the country of his birth, and indeed also in the United States.
A collection of his professional writings is housed at the library of the Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender and Reproduction at Indiana University.
How was it that someone from a modest background and from a remote part of the world became such a watershed figure in the cultural direction of the west, U-turning it in such a compressed period of time?
His emergence from far beyond the mainstream was coupled with an instinct for the centre and a disdain for criticism. He understood before it entered the mainstream the true outcome of the fusion of the twin cultures into the social sciences and inserted himself into the fulcrum, the point at which he could exert the greatest leverage which was gender identity.
Contribution of methane to world’s total emissions is negligible…
Carbon dioxide is in fact the “gas of life” and doubling of the level of CO2 in the atmosphere would result in about 30% increase in plant growth, “a result which would be a terrific boon towards food production for an increasing world population,” claims a former director of New Zealand agriculture Dr Jock Allison.
The real culprit in causing the greenhouse gas effect was water vapour said Dr Allison.
“Water vapour and clouds are responsible for 80-90% or more of the greenhouse gas effect.”
The “mantra” of “carbon pollution” is illustrative of “a misinformed and alarmist media and a misinformed general public. “
Dr Allison (pictured) a top ranked retired government scientist, says that the climate change emissions alarm is now embedded in government policy and that the government’s servants are obliged to toe the party line as are all entities on the receiving end of government funding.
Television and newspapers self censored themselvelves and thus organisations such as the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition were effectively gagged.
Dr Allison went public at a time when New Zealand is considered to be on the verge of contributing immense sums to the United Nations and its campaign.
Mistakenly, water vapour is not included in any assessments of greenhouse gas effects by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),” a crucial omission,” Dr Allison pointed out.
The IPCC concentrates on anthropogenic (human) emissions, and ignores natural contributions of the green house gases from the planet and the ubiquitous water vapour
Mathematicians and their resultant modelling were behind scares such as those centred on carbon dioxide and methane.
Non scientific myths such as the concept of dry air proliferated as the mathematical modelling had gathered sway.
Dr Allison’s analysis is the first major crack in the official New Zealand line on climate.
Samizdat-style his communiques broke through a solid wall of all-party, all-media resistance to anything that disputed the monolithic orthodoxy on carbon dioxide and methane.
Rogue radio hosts defied their own broadcasting channels to alert their audience to Dr Allison and his views.
All New Zealand’s mainstream media in the run up to the United Nations summit united in a fervent campaign, a chorus centred on man-made climate change, its imminence and its perils.
In an unusual counter flow, the climate symphony from the mainstream was taken up by fringe media which in one example hazarded that Auckland’s suburbs would be inundated by a 10 metre sea level rise.
Politically motivated indoctrination centred on climate change was so pervasive, said Dr Allison, that it eliminated whole areas of science including the sciences dealing in seismology and the earthquakes which had so far been responsible for sea level adjustments
The politico-media frenzy timed to mesh with the summit carries the threat that the mounting “mantra,” as Dr Allison describes the now orchestrated litany, will cause New Zealand’s representatives there to commit to large sums on behalf of taxpayers, notably farmers.
Contrary to the common assertions, emphasised Dr Allison, the contribution of methane and nitrous oxide to world’s total emissions is “negligible.”
The state sponsored mathematicians responsible for the computer generated modelling seemed unaware also that C02 was a short-lived gas, not an indefinite one.
New Zealand Prime minister takes a personal hit on an impossible-to-police moral policy
A high-minded and even higher profile policy against harassment and bullying has turned New Zealand’s Parliament House into a courthouse-cum -district attorney’s office.
It is filled with reviews, investigative panels, and inquiries and with the lawyers required to implement them.
All this can be sheeted home to the Labour-led governing coalition’s determination to settle bullying, harassment, and aggression claims internally as an alternative to referring them to the police.
Complainants, automatically described as “victims” or “survivors” in Labour coalition-speak, are equally wary because of the relationship between the government and the police.
Nobody has yet understood that Roman law as practised in Scotland is designed to cope with this problem
The Scots procurator fiscal has the discretion to pursue alternatives free from political interference.
The procurator fiscal in Scotland is answerable to neither the police nor the government, but to the judiciary.
The fiscal as this office holder is known decides if there is a case to answer.
The role of the fiscal would have sidestepped the current bush-lawyering transitioning into an expanding bush fire.
This has been fed by a series of incidents since the Labour coalition took office.
The extent of the current frenzy can be gauged by the fact that it precipitated the resignation of the president of the Labour Party, an organisational figure critical to the Labour coalition’s victory in 2017 and as such an architect of the party’s successful positioning as the nation’s conscience.
This moral guardianship strategy soared globally as “#WeToo” when it was proclaimed to the United Nations general assembly.
This whole aura of purity of intention now became indissolubly blended with the persona of New Zealand’s prime minister, the youthful Jacinda Ardern (pictured).
She has become the lightning rod for all the accusations of moral slippage, human frailty, and backsliding that are part of the current charge and counter charges of the who-knew-what-and-when variety.
In the past the distaff section of the media especially has treated Ms Ardern and her lofty ideals with the sincerity with which they were uttered. No longer
There is no explanation of how exactly how Miss Ardern can be expected to track the situational ethics of the thousands of people who can claim affiliation with the Labour Party and the parliamentary precinct
This especially applies in the context of the excitable nature of people who tend to be drawn in the first place to politics.
New Zealand, quite a sparsely populated country, has six law schools, and thus lawyers abound.
Lawyers’ first duty is to the law.
In its parliamentary context the law currently is looking silly, if only because so many people who should know better are doing end runs around it.
New Zealand was substantially founded by Scots immigrants.
A moral crusade which is what we are talking about here is necessarily driven by a fervour which in turns becomes hysteria on the stony path toward the grail of perfection.
New Zealand is prone to moral movements which quickly infuse the body politic, especially if there is international applause.
Handled deftly such movements will compensate for failures in other and applied conventional policies.
These movements are often associated with individuals who will assume a correspondingly saintly aura.
This one has been incarnated by the prime minister.
The accounting lesson has been learned from Australia
Don’t tell anyone. But New Zealand’s Labour coalition is tooling up for the world’s first successful climate change election which means winning it.
The lesson has been learned from Australia’s all-party attempts to do the same thing.
The lesson learned is this.
Do not price the components costs of a single-issue climate change election because if you do this then the central policy of climate change will be lost in a welter of arguments mainly about the cost to the taxpayers.
Australia recently emerged from its most recent and fourth climate change general election and the proponent, on this occasion Labour, lost its sure-fire projected win doused and extinguished as it was in a tsunami of costings.
In New Zealand, in contrast, next year’s climate change general election, will steer clear of clogging and distracting accounting minutiae and instead will rely either implicitly or explicitly, it is still too early to tell, on the constellation of other issues attendant upon it.
The oil and gas embargo in New Zealand’s most prosperous province, Taranaki, emboldened the Labour-led coalition.
Ruthlessly and suddenly imposed on the heels of its general election win, the coalition in its bid to lock in its Green Party component, can justifiably hug itself and say to itself “we got away with it!”
Acquiescent and quiescent the newspaper chains have happily published glowing articles from government agencies to the effect that things like craft breweries and pastry shops will fill the vacuum in Taranaki left by the energy industry, oil and gas version.
Climate change in Australia has consistently as an election clincher failed because its proponents with names such as Gillard, Rudd, Turnbull, and Shorten allowed their talisman to dissolve into accounting disarray.
The real-life debits gave the electorate the impression of exceeding the more abstract credits.
Premier Malcolm Turnbull demonstrated that devotion and singularity of purpose are not enough to bring about a successful climate change election.
In various recent times he lost a general election in this belief and also the leadership of the Australian Liberal Party.
If devotion, singularity of purpose and even sincerity cannot swing a successful climate change election then what will?
In Australia cooler heads suggest that the nation use its gigantic reserves of uranium to create nuclear energy.
In New Zealand with its still untapped reserves of hydro power, it is suggested that more dams are constructed.
To the climatists this kind of argument has as much appeal as a cup of baby’s blood.
So the Labour coalition knows that it needs to stick relentlessly to the central policy, the climate change branding, which in being branded needs no explanation and certainly no apologies.
The Labour-led coalition has been allowed to walk away from its operational policies such as the mass house construction scheme and also the capital gains tax plan.
It correctly sees its strength now as a moral one blended with empathy with an overlay of UN-style global conscience, all of which anyway sound rather phony emanating from anyone in the National Party.
A climate change election with all its virtuous subsidiary policies over for example transport, and nutrition will consistently keep the Labour coalition on the moral high ground.
The aim is to keep the National Party on the dark and nasty boggy ground below.
Here, the planning goes, the National opposition, not exactly brimming with charisma in the first place, will tie itself in knots and public disdain over the spoiling what-will-it-all-cost numbers?
And as a concurrent and especially unprofitable diversionary sideline, the decimal points and fractions of the computer-modelled climate change narrative. `
This pending climate change election will tell us that there is no Plan B.
Removing the opposition’s Plan B, the accounting one, features the simplicity so essential to success.