Never thought I’d say this, but: Bring Back Mike Williams. Stephen Mills flattered to deceive last month; he’s just another politician. Political Commentators, RNZ National, Monday 18 January 2016, 11:10 a.m. Lynn Freeman, Matthew Hooton, Stephen Mills
Lynn Freeman is a far better, more thoughtful and tougher host than Kathryn Ryan, but the basic problem remains: the “Left” person is dodgy, to say the least. Not long ago, I praised Stephen Mills as superior to Mike “I Agree With Matthew” Williams, who had a monopoly on the “Left” seat for much too long. [1] I was impressed by the no-nonsense way that Mills had taken on Matthew Hooton; it seemed that here was someone, finally, who had the guts to actually contest what Hooton said.
I’m sorry to say that my assessment of Mills was wrong. This morning, in the first program of the year, Hooton was immediately back into it; his little performance consisted of sneering at unions as “dinosaurs” and scoffing at the rise of politicians like Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders.
For any principled and alert commentator, that would have been the perfect opportunity to point out that Corbyn and Sanders are not outliers, as the likes of Hooton always insist they are, but are firmly in the tradition of democratic, centrist, sensible thinking. Mills, however, decided to reiterate the Labour Party political leadership’s line. I sent the following email to Lynn Freeman….
Stephen Mills’ highly contentious claim about “most Labour voters”
Dear Lynn,
Stephen Mills (From the Left and Right) made the highly contentious assertion that “most Labour voters in New Zealand would support Hillary Clinton” and would regard a Jeremy Corbyn style leader as “inappropriate for New Zealand.”
New Zealand Labour supporters are probably not much different from British Labour supporters, who overwhelmingly voted for Corbyn as leader. And Bernie Sanders, who Stephen Mills chooses to portray as some sort of extremist, advocates moderate, sensible, humane policies that are pretty much the same as Labour has represented in this country, at least until the Douglasite faction took control.
The producers need to get a more rigorous and well informed representative of “The Left” for this program; we don’t need someone reiterating Matthew Hooton’s rhetoric like Mills did this morning.
Yours in concern at the standard of commentary on RNZ,
Renationalise railways to bring down fares. Franchises would be managed locally; Locally owned energy suppliers, emulating the German model; Integration of health and social care; Creation of a lifelong education service that would help retrain and reskill workers; Universal childcare; Repeal the Tory Trade Union Act; Fixed pay ratios for companies to stop top management earning many multiples more than lowest paid workers; Restriction on dividend payments for firms that don’t pay the living wage.
People like Mills are the problem in the Labour Party. I have no doubt he actually supports Corbyn’s policies. But in the tiny, introspective bubble of Labour Party “strategy”, the only possible option is Blairite/Clarkite opportunism and “positioning”. The only views that matter for the likes of Mills, Stuart Nash, and whoever else is formulating “policy” for the Labour Party are the views of right wing political commentators like Hooton and the views of right wing business leaders.
Mills knows as well as anyone else that Corbyn is far more popular than the Blairite rump that dominates Labour Party discourse, and that it is Hillary Clinton, not Bernie Sanders, that is the extremist candidate for the Democrats.
I was very disappointed that he lacked the character to state that firmly and unequivocably this morning, instead opting for the nonsensical dogma of his Party leadership.
His problem is that the majority of the Scottish Labour Party sold out the Scottish people a long time ago, through years of Blairite treachery, so the Labour Party north of the border is toast.
No dear. Somehow, having read some of your contributions(?) to reasoned(?) debate I wouldn’t regard you as a very good judge. Just what part of the article didn’t you approve of?
Do you, or Morrissey, actually have anything to say about Corbyn and the way he differs from the SNP? Or is your style of debate simply to make your childish remarks about people you don’t agree with because you are incapable of discussing things in a sensible manner? Now just what part of the article didn’t you agree with? And do you think that Corbyn will be able to get along with the SNP?
I have to go out in about 5 minutes so I can’t give this question the full attention it deserves. My main objections are (1) They lied to the people of Scotland about the referendum. They promised them that they could continue to use the pound. They promised that they would automatically become part of the EU. They promised that they would not have to take any responsibility for GB debts. They promised that things would be wonderful from the oil production. I don’t believe any of those were true. (2) They waste the money they get from Great Britain on things to buy them popularity. Meanwhile, although University education may be free, less low income students (as a percentage) go to university in Scotland than they do in England. (3) They try and dominate and suppress their opponents. I think they fit into the group of people, like the ones on this site, who would close down the NZ Herald because it is not faithful to what they believe. The Venezuelan Government would be proud of them. (4) They want central control of all national affairs. All things are to be under the control of central government. I suggest you read that article in the Economist I referenced. I agree with it.
The ‘funny’ bit about that segment of 9 to noon, was that Matthew Hooten was way more on to it in terms of what prospective Labour and Green voters are saying than was Mills.
Who is he by the way – this Stephen Mills? Ah….a pollster…a bear of few brains with lots of pieces of paper with conservative numbers on them in front of him – sigh.
He’s an improvement on Mike “I agree with Matthew” Williams, which I guess is something to be grateful for.
I thought that about Hooton as well except I thought it was all carefully crafted tosound like he was on to it and oh so reasonable Very little comes out of that man’s mouth that isn’t via his forked tongue.
Well, he (Hooton) is ‘on to it’ enough to read the more obvious social media sites. Now that’s a very fucking low bar. But it seems Stephen Mills cracks his numb, dumb skull on it nevertheless.
You seem to be conflating UK Labour *members* who elected Corbyn and their *voters* at the next election, a much larger group who may have different views. I imagine there has been polling about those.
The trickle down is failing to distribute the wealth required to sustain consumer demand, thus sustainable business growth and return. The consequences of which we are currently witnessing.
New Zealand has the combination of capital flight (returns heading off shore) negatively impacting on our current, ultimately leaving us with less, coupled with insufficient wealth distribution.
Yet, instead of addressing these problems, we exacerbate them. We continue to welcome offshore ownership and largely decimated the power of unions, which help keep incomes in check.
Since the 80’s there has been years of reforms, new trade deals etc, yet we’ve failed to put our current account into surplus and have made little to no improvements in inequality.
Local business leaders should be opposed to offshore ownership and supportive of unions. The more workers earn, the more they drive up consumer demand, thus business return.
Stephen Mills flattered to deceive last month; he’s just another politician.
Political Commentators, RNZ National, Monday 18 January 2016, 11:10 a.m.
Lynn Freeman, Matthew Hooton, Stephen Mills
Northcote Point
Locally owned energy suppliers, emulating the German model;
Integration of health and social care;
Creation of a lifelong education service that would help retrain and reskill workers;
Universal childcare;
Repeal the Tory Trade Union Act;
Fixed pay ratios for companies to stop top management earning many multiples more than lowest paid workers;
Restriction on dividend payments for firms that don’t pay the living wage.
“Locally owned energy suppliers”
http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21674723-soft-autocracy-nationalist-scotland-cawdors-shadow
Somehow, having read some of your contributions(?) to reasoned(?) debate I wouldn’t regard you as a very good judge.
Just what part of the article didn’t you approve of?
Or is your style of debate simply to make your childish remarks about people you don’t agree with because you are incapable of discussing things in a sensible manner?
Now just what part of the article didn’t you agree with?
And do you think that Corbyn will be able to get along with the SNP?
My main objections are
(1) They lied to the people of Scotland about the referendum. They promised them that they could continue to use the pound. They promised that they would automatically become part of the EU. They promised that they would not have to take any responsibility for GB debts. They promised that things would be wonderful from the oil production. I don’t believe any of those were true.
(2) They waste the money they get from Great Britain on things to buy them popularity. Meanwhile, although University education may be free, less low income students (as a percentage) go to university in Scotland than they do in England.
(3) They try and dominate and suppress their opponents. I think they fit into the group of people, like the ones on this site, who would close down the NZ Herald because it is not faithful to what they believe. The Venezuelan Government would be proud of them.
(4) They want central control of all national affairs. All things are to be under the control of central government.
I suggest you read that article in the Economist I referenced. I agree with it.