Wild and wonderfully well written, Mike. We currently have a worrying silence from our mainstream media with regard to the obvious cruel and shortsighted Tory/Atlas agenda that this crop of snide fools have foistered upon us in their short reign of terror. May it be bloody short. One term is too long. A louder and more strident rebuke of their daily clusterfuckery is warranted. Thank you for your insightful contribution.
I absolutely agree. It is shameful that the political and media establishment is bending the knee to this ridiculous counter-identity-politics tripe. It is very easy to easy to identify, but the journalists who work in this country are bad at writing and seeming not the sharpest sticks. If Chhour is reminded every day of the suffering she uses her constructed political identity to cosign then the world is a better place.
Great column Mike and thanks for telling it for what it is. It amazes me that Karen Chour, who always looks to be on the verge of tears, appears to be stunned that she is being spoken to unkindly. Her policies are vile in the extreme. Perhaps she needs to get out of politics......personally I have very grave doubts about anyone who would want to be part of the Act Party.
One of the biggest issues in relation to this CoC is that despite a coalition agreement that clearly states:
F. Evidence-based - decisions will be based on data and evidence, with programmes regularly
assessed to see if they are delivering results.
Policy seems to be based on what the minister in charge has decided. This is happening across every sector from health to transport to housing to education - ministers are making decisions which run counter to robust international and local research as well as ministerial advice and when questioned don't seem able to provide the 'evidence' on which their decisions have been based.
Eell written Mike. However,I hope you don't expect everyone to fall into line with your opinion on this.
I am very much of the opinion that this particular woman is only upset because her critics made good points. Her dismay is only because she's under attack- rather than her giving it out.
I cannot agree that the toxic environment which exists in Parliament serves any positive purpose other than an excuse to bully others, in fact bullying is not debate. Parliment doesn't need to be a toxic place at all.
There seems to be a twisted idea amongst some less educated members of society that debate is personal attack, and of course, this government and its Atlas Network supporters propogates that idea because toxicity is divisive, it is a barrier to an actual discussion or exchange of ideas, and allows them to do whatever they want to. Have you ever watched them click-bate the opposition to stop discussion and get the speaker involved? Try watching Simeon Browns face when ot happens- smug.
Debate is supposed to be a healthy questioning of the strength of ideas and knowledge (think doctoral viva), and definately not a personal attack (althoughbafter 4 years mine felt very personal)
The premise behind debate is exploration of new ideas that should be argued with a mind to weeding out the dross and finding better, more appropriate solutions.
People who never had to endure one may have little comprehension of the point of public debate and think attacks on the persom are an acceptable. Quite the reverse, toxicity blocks progress. I want you to consider how the views you express in this piece might work to their advantage.
I also want to remind you about the excessive targeting of female MP's that have increased in recent years.
Do you really find it acceptable to threaten peoples lives and the lives of their children and families? Do you believe it is really ok in this day and age to attack women based on archaic ideologied and masculine ideas of what being a woman should be? I don't recall a time when a man's family were threatened. Or a time a manwas told he is less than a man because he chose to not stay home and look after children. And remember when Clarke was told that being childless made her wierd and less of a woman? Rather, there has been a culture of patting inappropriate drunks like Winston Peter's on the back and saying oi-oi mate.
Personal atracks can only continue for as long as people feel free to polarise debate buy stooping to attacks on the person rather than debating the subject.
Having made these points this, I agree 100% that this government, in kahoots with ACT has exceled when it comes to ignoring advice they don't want to hear, bagging competent management so they can sack.them and replace with cronies.
They don't respect people. experience or education, and this means that their actions do not meet acceptable standards or rigour.
To be fair, I seriously doubt this woman has any clue about debate or would even welcome decent debate. If she has a post-grad degree it is probably from a ten day course run by the Atlas Network (just say'n).
She like the rest, has no compunction about using abuse or deceit to justify their ideas and cover their tracks. This standard has been set from the top leadership of ACT and National parties and it will continue until people find it unacceptable.
I agree with many, if not all your observations up to a point. My main disagreement revolves around the concept of debate. There can be no debate with people like Karen Chhour who operate from a position of wilful ignorance, ir with David Seymour who deliberately seeks to curry favour from a 'conservative underbelly of pervasive racism' in Aotearoa. His deliberate focus on the concept of 'one law for all' is a malicious and historically factual lie. There has NEVER been one law for all sinc0e 1840 and his disgraceful narrative to cast Maori as the villains is an appalling lie that many ignorant New Zealanders will happily buy into. As to your point about the vilification of women MP's for the most part it is a misogynist and misplaced characterisation of many who do not deserve the unwarranted attacks. I thought long and hard about my final comment re Karen Chhour. She has not been alone as a woman MP who have promoted and presided over toxic legislation that target the very weakest and most marginalized members of our society. Ruth Richardson, Paula Bennett, Judith Collins, Van Velden and now Karen Chhour are all examples of women whose legislations have been and remain toxic stains on any concept of a fair and egalitarian society. They were and are never interested in constructive fact based debate because they know their arguments don't stack up. So I dont mince words on the basis of sex or gender identification, they are toxic people and deserve to be called out in the strongest possible terms for the evil they inflict. The Parliament is not the local school library debating society, it's the real deal and the actions of these disgraceful people don't gently win a middle class moot, they make deep and lasting injuries of people who don't deserve it. So I will keep my gloves off and continue to call out nastiness every time these toxic people continue to destroy the fabric if this wonderful country.
Oh, I truely agree with the majority of your statements - especially your list of toxic women- a miserable bunch of power drunk drag queens playing to their audience.
I'd go further and propose that too often, it's been toxic females like Colin's attacking other (decent) women (Matiria Turei's parliamentary wardrobe was petty and inaccurate).
I also call Chhour's sincerity into question. I'd say she's really playing up the sympathy card in an attempt to undermine criticism and distract from the real issues. It's really rather pathetic in my mind. But dangerous. If that culture didn't exist, she wouldn't be able to exploit it.
I am utterly appalled that Luxon appears to be such a weak negotiator that ACT and NZ first were granted such massive power. But the more I learn about the forces that have placed people in key positions the more I understand that it wasn't by accident but by design.
Mike thanks for your reply. I respect your position, but I'll never agree that reducing our own behaviour to the level of theirs (yes, I agree 100% with your comnents) is any sort of solution.
Liars and criminals have to be named and shown for the mean and ignorant bullies they are. If we become them we have no integrity either... We may as well just join the bloody gangs and get to work reducing our own poverty by making meth for someone else's kids (now that Seymour has made it so much easier).
FYI- at this point the miserable narrow person living in my head wants to add that someone ought to sell it to his kids -or perhaps someone should snapchat his children so that he understands what a betrayal it is... but that will only make me like the detestable little mamas boy.
To clarify: sorry, i cant tell from your reply if you realised that what I defined as debate is not at all what happens on school debate teams - kudos to school debate as a precursor, and admirable in its own rite. School debate is where our brightest minds learn debate but not at all what I was referencing.
In order to be granted a doctorate - the highest qualification a practitioner or researcher can receive, they must complete the viva- (doctoral defense). The same ideology that underlies our parliamentary system, which although it's only 400 years old, (I'd argue its inappropriate now, but that's another discussion).
The concept of debate gives a right for the public to question and challenge proposed changes and information. Strength in deniability is supposed to improve rigour. It's logical, evidence-based and respectful.
Anyway, with respect. Ive given you my perspective Mike and I have a garden that won't prune itself. Cheers.
Everything you've said is absolutely spot on. It's so satisfying to hear the atrocities perpetrated by this government spelled out so clearly. Most commentators pull their punches, so it's a pleasure to read your analysis. Susan, Auckland
And anyone who dares criticise anything to do with Maōridom is shouted down with the words "colonisation or racist" before they have finished their sentence.
Don't stalk me before you make a criticism, base it on what I've written. Karen Chhour and the ACT deserve no respect ir dignity since they offer none to the down trodden and neglected.
Wild and wonderfully well written, Mike. We currently have a worrying silence from our mainstream media with regard to the obvious cruel and shortsighted Tory/Atlas agenda that this crop of snide fools have foistered upon us in their short reign of terror. May it be bloody short. One term is too long. A louder and more strident rebuke of their daily clusterfuckery is warranted. Thank you for your insightful contribution.
I absolutely agree. It is shameful that the political and media establishment is bending the knee to this ridiculous counter-identity-politics tripe. It is very easy to easy to identify, but the journalists who work in this country are bad at writing and seeming not the sharpest sticks. If Chhour is reminded every day of the suffering she uses her constructed political identity to cosign then the world is a better place.
Great column Mike and thanks for telling it for what it is. It amazes me that Karen Chour, who always looks to be on the verge of tears, appears to be stunned that she is being spoken to unkindly. Her policies are vile in the extreme. Perhaps she needs to get out of politics......personally I have very grave doubts about anyone who would want to be part of the Act Party.
One of the biggest issues in relation to this CoC is that despite a coalition agreement that clearly states:
F. Evidence-based - decisions will be based on data and evidence, with programmes regularly
assessed to see if they are delivering results.
Policy seems to be based on what the minister in charge has decided. This is happening across every sector from health to transport to housing to education - ministers are making decisions which run counter to robust international and local research as well as ministerial advice and when questioned don't seem able to provide the 'evidence' on which their decisions have been based.
The worst aspect is that ministers are making decisions based solely on their personal life experiences, always problematic!
Exactly David.
Evidence based data & research are mutually exclusive when it comes to National, Act or NZ First.
They are a disgrace & Mike couldn't have expressed it any better. A brilliant piece of writing.
Eell written Mike. However,I hope you don't expect everyone to fall into line with your opinion on this.
I am very much of the opinion that this particular woman is only upset because her critics made good points. Her dismay is only because she's under attack- rather than her giving it out.
I cannot agree that the toxic environment which exists in Parliament serves any positive purpose other than an excuse to bully others, in fact bullying is not debate. Parliment doesn't need to be a toxic place at all.
There seems to be a twisted idea amongst some less educated members of society that debate is personal attack, and of course, this government and its Atlas Network supporters propogates that idea because toxicity is divisive, it is a barrier to an actual discussion or exchange of ideas, and allows them to do whatever they want to. Have you ever watched them click-bate the opposition to stop discussion and get the speaker involved? Try watching Simeon Browns face when ot happens- smug.
Debate is supposed to be a healthy questioning of the strength of ideas and knowledge (think doctoral viva), and definately not a personal attack (althoughbafter 4 years mine felt very personal)
The premise behind debate is exploration of new ideas that should be argued with a mind to weeding out the dross and finding better, more appropriate solutions.
People who never had to endure one may have little comprehension of the point of public debate and think attacks on the persom are an acceptable. Quite the reverse, toxicity blocks progress. I want you to consider how the views you express in this piece might work to their advantage.
I also want to remind you about the excessive targeting of female MP's that have increased in recent years.
Do you really find it acceptable to threaten peoples lives and the lives of their children and families? Do you believe it is really ok in this day and age to attack women based on archaic ideologied and masculine ideas of what being a woman should be? I don't recall a time when a man's family were threatened. Or a time a manwas told he is less than a man because he chose to not stay home and look after children. And remember when Clarke was told that being childless made her wierd and less of a woman? Rather, there has been a culture of patting inappropriate drunks like Winston Peter's on the back and saying oi-oi mate.
Personal atracks can only continue for as long as people feel free to polarise debate buy stooping to attacks on the person rather than debating the subject.
Having made these points this, I agree 100% that this government, in kahoots with ACT has exceled when it comes to ignoring advice they don't want to hear, bagging competent management so they can sack.them and replace with cronies.
They don't respect people. experience or education, and this means that their actions do not meet acceptable standards or rigour.
To be fair, I seriously doubt this woman has any clue about debate or would even welcome decent debate. If she has a post-grad degree it is probably from a ten day course run by the Atlas Network (just say'n).
She like the rest, has no compunction about using abuse or deceit to justify their ideas and cover their tracks. This standard has been set from the top leadership of ACT and National parties and it will continue until people find it unacceptable.
Cheers Mike.
I agree with many, if not all your observations up to a point. My main disagreement revolves around the concept of debate. There can be no debate with people like Karen Chhour who operate from a position of wilful ignorance, ir with David Seymour who deliberately seeks to curry favour from a 'conservative underbelly of pervasive racism' in Aotearoa. His deliberate focus on the concept of 'one law for all' is a malicious and historically factual lie. There has NEVER been one law for all sinc0e 1840 and his disgraceful narrative to cast Maori as the villains is an appalling lie that many ignorant New Zealanders will happily buy into. As to your point about the vilification of women MP's for the most part it is a misogynist and misplaced characterisation of many who do not deserve the unwarranted attacks. I thought long and hard about my final comment re Karen Chhour. She has not been alone as a woman MP who have promoted and presided over toxic legislation that target the very weakest and most marginalized members of our society. Ruth Richardson, Paula Bennett, Judith Collins, Van Velden and now Karen Chhour are all examples of women whose legislations have been and remain toxic stains on any concept of a fair and egalitarian society. They were and are never interested in constructive fact based debate because they know their arguments don't stack up. So I dont mince words on the basis of sex or gender identification, they are toxic people and deserve to be called out in the strongest possible terms for the evil they inflict. The Parliament is not the local school library debating society, it's the real deal and the actions of these disgraceful people don't gently win a middle class moot, they make deep and lasting injuries of people who don't deserve it. So I will keep my gloves off and continue to call out nastiness every time these toxic people continue to destroy the fabric if this wonderful country.
Oh, I truely agree with the majority of your statements - especially your list of toxic women- a miserable bunch of power drunk drag queens playing to their audience.
I'd go further and propose that too often, it's been toxic females like Colin's attacking other (decent) women (Matiria Turei's parliamentary wardrobe was petty and inaccurate).
I also call Chhour's sincerity into question. I'd say she's really playing up the sympathy card in an attempt to undermine criticism and distract from the real issues. It's really rather pathetic in my mind. But dangerous. If that culture didn't exist, she wouldn't be able to exploit it.
I am utterly appalled that Luxon appears to be such a weak negotiator that ACT and NZ first were granted such massive power. But the more I learn about the forces that have placed people in key positions the more I understand that it wasn't by accident but by design.
Keep up the good work Mike.
Mike thanks for your reply. I respect your position, but I'll never agree that reducing our own behaviour to the level of theirs (yes, I agree 100% with your comnents) is any sort of solution.
Liars and criminals have to be named and shown for the mean and ignorant bullies they are. If we become them we have no integrity either... We may as well just join the bloody gangs and get to work reducing our own poverty by making meth for someone else's kids (now that Seymour has made it so much easier).
FYI- at this point the miserable narrow person living in my head wants to add that someone ought to sell it to his kids -or perhaps someone should snapchat his children so that he understands what a betrayal it is... but that will only make me like the detestable little mamas boy.
To clarify: sorry, i cant tell from your reply if you realised that what I defined as debate is not at all what happens on school debate teams - kudos to school debate as a precursor, and admirable in its own rite. School debate is where our brightest minds learn debate but not at all what I was referencing.
In order to be granted a doctorate - the highest qualification a practitioner or researcher can receive, they must complete the viva- (doctoral defense). The same ideology that underlies our parliamentary system, which although it's only 400 years old, (I'd argue its inappropriate now, but that's another discussion).
The concept of debate gives a right for the public to question and challenge proposed changes and information. Strength in deniability is supposed to improve rigour. It's logical, evidence-based and respectful.
Anyway, with respect. Ive given you my perspective Mike and I have a garden that won't prune itself. Cheers.
So sorry about the uneditedreply I'm on my phone.
Everything you've said is absolutely spot on. It's so satisfying to hear the atrocities perpetrated by this government spelled out so clearly. Most commentators pull their punches, so it's a pleasure to read your analysis. Susan, Auckland
💯. Fantastic piece Mike!
And anyone who dares criticise anything to do with Maōridom is shouted down with the words "colonisation or racist" before they have finished their sentence.
Hiding behind an alias gets you blocked
Don't stalk me before you make a criticism, base it on what I've written. Karen Chhour and the ACT deserve no respect ir dignity since they offer none to the down trodden and neglected.