United Future New Zealand
Although United Future markets itself as a centre party of 'common sense' its policies don't really back this up. By international standards New Zealand 's economy is not centrist but staunchly neo-liberal. However, United Future consistently supports laissez-faire policies. For example, United Future offers no support for New Zealand's farming or manufaturing sectors although this is perfectly acceptable (to a moderate extent) under the Washington Consesus. United Future promotes an expansionist immigration policy and agrees with National that wealth-based immigration will strenghten the country's economy. AlthoughUnited Future claims to support recreational hunting and fishing interests its expansionist immigration policies are more likely to worsen, rather than improve, the quality recreational hunting and fishing in New Zealand.
New Zealand First
A pragmatic party which the countries liberal elites love to demonise. New Zealand First is the only party which aims to balance free trade with the long-term development of the economy. By advocating compulsory personal saving and greater investment in research and development New Zealand First aims to raise the living standards of the majority of the population. New Zealand First also promotes limited skill-based immigration as opposed to expansionist wealth based immigration. Further wealth-based immigration will only serve to increase labour shortages and degrade the country's infrastructure and natural environment. The main question marks over New Zealand First's policies are its fairly extravagant promises to the elderly and its promotion of high rates of economic growth through increased exports, which may no longer be realistic. To a certain extent New Zealand First does deserves its tag as a opportunistic populist party, largely because of the muck-raking style of Winston Peters, who would make a good investigative journalist should he chose to retire from politics. Also New Zealand First appears unwilling or unable to promote a capital gains tax, or a land value tax, which is needed to help encourage investors to invest in businesses rather than houses.
Monday, March 27, 2006
Centrist Sources
Some good books from various centrist/traditional conservative perspectives:
Frank, R. Luxury Fever: when money fails to satisfy in an age of limits
Gander, Eric. On Our Minds: How evolutionary psychology is reshaping the nature-versus-nurture debate.
Hardin, Gareth. Living Within Limits: ecology, economics and population taboos.
Gray, John. False Dawn: The delusions of global capitalism
Pinker, Stephen. The Blank Slade: The modern denial of human nature.
Saul, John Ralston. Voltaire's Bastards: The dictatorship of reason in the west.
Lasch, Christopher. The Revolt of the Elites.
Some good books from various centrist/traditional conservative perspectives:
Frank, R. Luxury Fever: when money fails to satisfy in an age of limits
Gander, Eric. On Our Minds: How evolutionary psychology is reshaping the nature-versus-nurture debate.
Hardin, Gareth. Living Within Limits: ecology, economics and population taboos.
Gray, John. False Dawn: The delusions of global capitalism
Pinker, Stephen. The Blank Slade: The modern denial of human nature.
Saul, John Ralston. Voltaire's Bastards: The dictatorship of reason in the west.
Lasch, Christopher. The Revolt of the Elites.
My Views on Conservative and Centrist Politics
The key aspects of good conservative and centrist politics in my view are:
- an acknowledgement of limits; common sense tells us we live in a finite world where population growth, economic activity and government bureaucracy need to have boundaries
- a sense of balance; perfect solutions do not exist, politics is about trade offs and the search for optimum balance
- respect for the opinions of non-experts; governments and public corporations cannot blatantly disregard the opinions of the majority in their decision making since experts are often wrong
- in policy-making, the burden of proof should lie with those who advocate radical change rather than with those who wish to work within the existing order (if it ain't broke don't fix it)
- recognition of human nature; human beings are born with strengths and weaknesses and cannot be perfected through education or ambitious social programmes
- government is better than anarchy- a civilised, industrialised society cannot survive without reasonably strong government.
Some important contributors to traditional conservative/centrist thought (past and present) :
Aristotle, Thorstein Veblen, Adam Smith, John Gray, Gareth Hardin, Edmund Burke, Thomas Malthus, Thomas Hobbes, Joseph Schumpeter, Joseph Conrad and Christopher Lasch.
- an acknowledgement of limits; common sense tells us we live in a finite world where population growth, economic activity and government bureaucracy need to have boundaries
- a sense of balance; perfect solutions do not exist, politics is about trade offs and the search for optimum balance
- respect for the opinions of non-experts; governments and public corporations cannot blatantly disregard the opinions of the majority in their decision making since experts are often wrong
- in policy-making, the burden of proof should lie with those who advocate radical change rather than with those who wish to work within the existing order (if it ain't broke don't fix it)
- recognition of human nature; human beings are born with strengths and weaknesses and cannot be perfected through education or ambitious social programmes
- government is better than anarchy- a civilised, industrialised society cannot survive without reasonably strong government.
Some important contributors to traditional conservative/centrist thought (past and present) :
Aristotle, Thorstein Veblen, Adam Smith, John Gray, Gareth Hardin, Edmund Burke, Thomas Malthus, Thomas Hobbes, Joseph Schumpeter, Joseph Conrad and Christopher Lasch.
The Significance of the 2005 New Zealand Election
The Liberal left, and the neoconservative Right, have been quick to dismiss the recently elected Labour coalition as 'unworkable'. Whether or not this government is likely to hold together remains to be seen. However, the wider significance of the election result seems to have been missed by the nation's chattering classes. The election of the current Government indicates that an overdue shift is occuring towards pragmatic government with a decline in ideologically driven neo-liberalism and centre-left social reform.
Since the mid 1980s the nation's elites have tried to impose an unpopular 'libertarian' agenda on the populace in which economic policy has been shifted to the right while social policy has been pushed to the left. Today, this is the opposite of what the majority of the population actually wants. Parties that have tried to oppose the excesses of the libertarian agenda, such as NewZealand First, have been automatically dismissed as reactionary or populist.
The treatment of immigration is a classic example of the domination of the libertarian, or 'yuppie' agenda in new Zealand politics. Studies in Australia indicate that most people there are opposed to large-scale immigration and popular opinion in New Zealand is likely to be similar. However, apart from New Zealand First, no party has dared talk of reducing immigration. If fact, no other party even has an immigration policy. This has left Labour and National free to use immigration whenever they want to, to import voters or paper over structural problems with the economy. The Governments of Canada and Australia have also been using immigration in the same way.
Winston Peters may have a charasmatic populist style as an opposition politician but he is known to be a pragmatic realist when in government. Hence, it is no suprise that he has toned down his rhetoric concerning Asian immigration. Nor is this hypocritical , since New Zealand First only advocates limited immigration- it does not rule out increased trade with Asia or more visas for Asian students. New Zealand's Peters bashing, pro-immigration advocates seem to believe that slowing Asian immigration will harm relations with Asian countries. However, this is only an assumption with little evidence to support it. Japan has a very restrictive immigration policy but it doesn't seem to be heavily criticised for its immigration policies by neighbouring countries.
The Green Party sabotaged any chance of forming a coalition with Labour through some ill-conceived policy proposals leading up to the election. Many of the Green's policy ideas seem to directly contradict the policies of most environmentally conscious countries. You don't see Germany, for example, increasing diesel tax since its government realises that diesel cars are more fuel-efficient than petrol ones. Similarly, Finland doesn't appear to be slashing its highway budget or closing down smelters as the Greeens would have New Zealand do.
The Act Party survived the election but only by resorting to sensationalism, excessive character attacks on individual politicians and by tediously highlighting occasional instances of procedural incompetence. Its core neo-liberal economic policies though, are now decidely out of fashion.
Since the mid 1980s the nation's elites have tried to impose an unpopular 'libertarian' agenda on the populace in which economic policy has been shifted to the right while social policy has been pushed to the left. Today, this is the opposite of what the majority of the population actually wants. Parties that have tried to oppose the excesses of the libertarian agenda, such as NewZealand First, have been automatically dismissed as reactionary or populist.
The treatment of immigration is a classic example of the domination of the libertarian, or 'yuppie' agenda in new Zealand politics. Studies in Australia indicate that most people there are opposed to large-scale immigration and popular opinion in New Zealand is likely to be similar. However, apart from New Zealand First, no party has dared talk of reducing immigration. If fact, no other party even has an immigration policy. This has left Labour and National free to use immigration whenever they want to, to import voters or paper over structural problems with the economy. The Governments of Canada and Australia have also been using immigration in the same way.
Winston Peters may have a charasmatic populist style as an opposition politician but he is known to be a pragmatic realist when in government. Hence, it is no suprise that he has toned down his rhetoric concerning Asian immigration. Nor is this hypocritical , since New Zealand First only advocates limited immigration- it does not rule out increased trade with Asia or more visas for Asian students. New Zealand's Peters bashing, pro-immigration advocates seem to believe that slowing Asian immigration will harm relations with Asian countries. However, this is only an assumption with little evidence to support it. Japan has a very restrictive immigration policy but it doesn't seem to be heavily criticised for its immigration policies by neighbouring countries.
The Green Party sabotaged any chance of forming a coalition with Labour through some ill-conceived policy proposals leading up to the election. Many of the Green's policy ideas seem to directly contradict the policies of most environmentally conscious countries. You don't see Germany, for example, increasing diesel tax since its government realises that diesel cars are more fuel-efficient than petrol ones. Similarly, Finland doesn't appear to be slashing its highway budget or closing down smelters as the Greeens would have New Zealand do.
The Act Party survived the election but only by resorting to sensationalism, excessive character attacks on individual politicians and by tediously highlighting occasional instances of procedural incompetence. Its core neo-liberal economic policies though, are now decidely out of fashion.
Sunday, March 26, 2006
French Student Protests
This weeks student protests in France have certainly demonstrated that the country still has a healthy interest in politics. However, the demands of the protestors betray a disappointing lack of realism and imagination.
Young people in France are right to be concerned abour rising levels of inequality and should be opposed to policies that try to make France into another Britain. However, the French economy does need some restructuring and deregulating. The idea of long term, 35 hour a week contracts is simply too easy and to inflexible for the realities of the 21st Century. Similarly, ineqality cannot be addressed if unemployment remains at 10 percent or more.
With the population of France rapidly aging it is unrealistic to limit the work week to 35 hours and increase pensions and other social welfare benefits. However, the aging of the population does provide some opportunities. Demand for young workers is likely to increase and this should help reduce unemployment. France should now move with the times and make it easier to hire and fire wokers. What the student protestors should be focusing on is making sure that the minimum wage stays high so that workers are compensated for reduced job security. The Netherlands and Australia have shown the way by introducing a lot of labour market flexibility while maintaining high wages, good work conditions and relatively low unemployment.
Compared with countries like Britain and New Zealand, France has a pretty strong industrial base and high productivity levels so it can afford to pay its workers high wages.
The French should also put more resources into retraining wokers and assisting them to find work so as to limit the impact of reduced job security. Apparently Denmark has put a lot of resources into these kind of programmes and this a major reason why this country has a lower rate of unemployment levels than many other E.U states.
Rather than trying to stop the inevitable the French protestors should be trying to make the most of the reform process.
Young people in France are right to be concerned abour rising levels of inequality and should be opposed to policies that try to make France into another Britain. However, the French economy does need some restructuring and deregulating. The idea of long term, 35 hour a week contracts is simply too easy and to inflexible for the realities of the 21st Century. Similarly, ineqality cannot be addressed if unemployment remains at 10 percent or more.
With the population of France rapidly aging it is unrealistic to limit the work week to 35 hours and increase pensions and other social welfare benefits. However, the aging of the population does provide some opportunities. Demand for young workers is likely to increase and this should help reduce unemployment. France should now move with the times and make it easier to hire and fire wokers. What the student protestors should be focusing on is making sure that the minimum wage stays high so that workers are compensated for reduced job security. The Netherlands and Australia have shown the way by introducing a lot of labour market flexibility while maintaining high wages, good work conditions and relatively low unemployment.
Compared with countries like Britain and New Zealand, France has a pretty strong industrial base and high productivity levels so it can afford to pay its workers high wages.
The French should also put more resources into retraining wokers and assisting them to find work so as to limit the impact of reduced job security. Apparently Denmark has put a lot of resources into these kind of programmes and this a major reason why this country has a lower rate of unemployment levels than many other E.U states.
Rather than trying to stop the inevitable the French protestors should be trying to make the most of the reform process.
Saturday, March 25, 2006
Why Over- Population Matters
Since the early 1980s the subject of over-population has largely disappeared from official discussions about third world poverty and environmental decline. As John Gray points out in Heresies, governments and environmental groups blame institutional failure these problems rather than demographics. However, much of the disinterest in over-population is due to political denial rather than rational inquiry.
Among U.S governments population control programmes have been promoted by the Democrats but rejected by the Republicans. Increases in spending on overseas family planning have been reversed by George Bush in line with his views on abortion. Liberal human rights advocates have also attacked population control programmes arguing that they infringe on individual rights. Although most of this criticism has been directed at the more extreme programmes like China's One Child Policy, it has helped undermine the legitimacy of population control programmes in general. The good work done by organisations like Sustainable Population International has also gone largely unnoticed in the Western media.
Another problem has been confusion over the extent of the over-population problem. In the 1980s the rate of population increase declined but the total world population will continue to increase untill at least 2040. Many media reports gave the impression that a slowing down of population growth would lead to rapid population stabilisation, but this hasn't occurred. Subsequently, the present world population of 6 billion will reach at least 7.5-8 billion. At present industrialisation in Southern China is having a big impact on world commodity prices. Soon this industrialisation may spread to the rest of China and India creating absolute scarcity of many essential resources. Subsequently, if the world's population grows beyond 7.5 billion, mass starvation could well occur in many poorer parts of the world.
Marxists and libertarians argue that the world can accomodate a continual increase in population through technological innovation and up to a point this is true. However, it is clearly apparent, even among developed countries, that a higher population leads to a poorer quality of life- compare Britain and Australia for example. Unless you want to live like a battery chicken, technology can't help you without population control. In poor politically unstable countries like Rwanda over-population can lead to genocide.
Similarly, just because some countries can accommodate large numbers of poeple successfully doesn't mean the whole planet can. The world is increasingly an economically integrated whole with the more sparsely populated countries supplying natural resources and farm products for the densely populated regions- under-populated countries don't really exist.
Although some developed countries have stable populations , the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand still have rapidly growing populations due to immigration. The population of the U.S will apparently reach 300 million in 2006. This immigration has been used to provide temporary economic growth and disguise poor levels of productivity. The winners have been the wealthy elites- particularly those engaged in property speculation. The U.S, Canada and Australasia have the highest rates of resource use per capita in the world. Adding to their populations will only accelerate consumption of finite resources and make it all the more difficult for their governments to agree to limits on emmissions.
Environmental decline is essentially caused by two factors- population growth and industrialisation. Unless over-population is addressed efforts to make industry more environmentally friendly will have little impact. It is also politically easier to get people to accept population control than it is to get them to accept a lower standard of living.
Among U.S governments population control programmes have been promoted by the Democrats but rejected by the Republicans. Increases in spending on overseas family planning have been reversed by George Bush in line with his views on abortion. Liberal human rights advocates have also attacked population control programmes arguing that they infringe on individual rights. Although most of this criticism has been directed at the more extreme programmes like China's One Child Policy, it has helped undermine the legitimacy of population control programmes in general. The good work done by organisations like Sustainable Population International has also gone largely unnoticed in the Western media.
Another problem has been confusion over the extent of the over-population problem. In the 1980s the rate of population increase declined but the total world population will continue to increase untill at least 2040. Many media reports gave the impression that a slowing down of population growth would lead to rapid population stabilisation, but this hasn't occurred. Subsequently, the present world population of 6 billion will reach at least 7.5-8 billion. At present industrialisation in Southern China is having a big impact on world commodity prices. Soon this industrialisation may spread to the rest of China and India creating absolute scarcity of many essential resources. Subsequently, if the world's population grows beyond 7.5 billion, mass starvation could well occur in many poorer parts of the world.
Marxists and libertarians argue that the world can accomodate a continual increase in population through technological innovation and up to a point this is true. However, it is clearly apparent, even among developed countries, that a higher population leads to a poorer quality of life- compare Britain and Australia for example. Unless you want to live like a battery chicken, technology can't help you without population control. In poor politically unstable countries like Rwanda over-population can lead to genocide.
Similarly, just because some countries can accommodate large numbers of poeple successfully doesn't mean the whole planet can. The world is increasingly an economically integrated whole with the more sparsely populated countries supplying natural resources and farm products for the densely populated regions- under-populated countries don't really exist.
Although some developed countries have stable populations , the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand still have rapidly growing populations due to immigration. The population of the U.S will apparently reach 300 million in 2006. This immigration has been used to provide temporary economic growth and disguise poor levels of productivity. The winners have been the wealthy elites- particularly those engaged in property speculation. The U.S, Canada and Australasia have the highest rates of resource use per capita in the world. Adding to their populations will only accelerate consumption of finite resources and make it all the more difficult for their governments to agree to limits on emmissions.
Environmental decline is essentially caused by two factors- population growth and industrialisation. Unless over-population is addressed efforts to make industry more environmentally friendly will have little impact. It is also politically easier to get people to accept population control than it is to get them to accept a lower standard of living.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
