The day of disenfranchisement and the end of democracy in New Zealand

The New Zealand Parliament in 1977 and a protest over Executive over-reach and surveillance into civil society

What went through Parliament in New Zealand this week was the most systematic attempt by a government to use the Pandemic crisis to disenfranchise a whole category of citizens, and thus destroy the autonomy of civil society. Some may argue that the State of Victoria, in Australia, has seen a similar thing, but their Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, has come out against excessive use of vaccine mandates.

Meanwhile in New Zealand we have Jacinda Ardern, and her never ending quest for international notoriety. So, as the Western European nations deal with another wave of Covid cases, and are imposing draconian measures on an ad hoc basis, in New Zealand we have a whole legislative framework euphemistically known as a ‘protection’ framework. Once the framework is in place, and the vaccine certificates are all downloaded, Ardern will release the Auckland region from a lockdown and remove the internal border. She knows this will see an exponential rise in the number of Covid cases. But the only actual protection is for the ‘fully vaccinated’, and they will get the priority hospital care; the ‘unvaccinated’ have chosen their own fate, and are effectively no longer citizens participating in society.

Can you call letting the Covid 19 virus rip around the country, and reaching into places where it has never been seen before, negligent? Is allowing the ‘unvaccinated’ victims to die, with only minimal health care assistance, in their own homes fair, let alone humane? After all, Ardern and her coterie of academic doom merchants and fearmongers have been warning of mass casualties for some time. She, of course, can’t keep the internal border working for much longer, especially given that it is virtually impossible over summer. And she wants to open up the national border, and let New Zealand citizens come back home, after being shut out for so long. At least they get to see their families again.

However, those coming back to New Zealand may not notice some significant changes, even if they don’t quite get how civil society is being destroyed. They may notice that they need passes to get a haircut, or go to a cafe or restaurant; and they may find out that some family members, or old friends, are not allowed to got to the cafe or restaurant because they are now pariahs. They don’t have a pass or certificate because they are bad people, and have not got ‘fully vaccinated’. They may not notice what a cruel and vindictive leader Jacinda Ardern is, until they have to go to a funeral, and find that some family members are not allowed to mourn, becaue they have been bad, and are not ‘fully vaccinated’. Some bad people, like convicted criminals, are allowed to go to family funerals, but not the new pariahs.

This whole protection framework is being introduced when most of New Zealand is still on zero cases, because the ‘elimination’ framework actually worked. Everybody shared in the sacrifices of total lockdowns, voluntarily complied with not being able to see their families for weeks on end, and did what they were told. Some people are being granted new freedoms because they have been good, and are allowed to get a haircut and go the cafe. These were actually universal freedoms, that we used to think were based on civil rights, but now we realise they are privileges granted by Big Sister Ardern. And to get the new freedoms we have to get ‘fully vaccinated’ and participate in a new surveillance system. Not exactly like the clumsy, old analogue ones that were to be introduced in 1977, before Big Sister was born. But at least we were prepared to protest when we realised we were losing some basic civil rights.

The Covid response legislation passed on Wednesday this week, which imposes vaccine mandates and passports, was passed in one day. The Labour Government did not bother with niceties, like obligatory reports on regulatory compatibility; nor did they care to get any kind of report on the implications for human rights legislation. This is because they don’t care about the NZ Bill of Rights, despite it being the brainchild of one of Ardern’s predecessors, a law professor called Palmer. When a journalist dared to ask Big Sister if she thought the process had been too fast, and avoided any public submissions, she said no, with a characteristically beatific smile. The smile of a benevolent dictator.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Deaths from the Pfizer Vaccine in NZ: is it 1 or 94?

Dr Ashley Bloomfield: ‘leading’ health expert or misleading spin doctor?

Dr Ashley Bloomfield is the Director-General of Health in New Zealand, the departmental head of Health, and the chief advisor on Covid restrictions. In the first year of the Covid outbreak he became a well-known figure in the daily press conferences the Prime Minister staged, a trusted figure, and something of a celebrity. Now his figures on Covid-related deaths can’t be trusted, and, more significantly, nor can his department’s weekly reports on the deaths that occur from the administration of the Pfizer vaccine. Such a death has only been acknowledged once, and the so-called news media show no interest in investigating it further, despite the fact there have been a further 93 reports of deaths.

So we have to be clear here. The reported deaths from Covid in New Zealand have just reached 30, with most being from April and May 2020. There has been the new Delta outbreak in Auckland since August, with initially only 2 recorded deaths. But in the last three days there has been a report of death each day of Covid positive cases who were found dead in their homes, and not in ‘managed isolation’ facilities or in hospital. Even the media have felt obliged to ask Dr Bloomfield why these cases were not receiving proper medical attention. Bloomfield has tried to suggest that they were being monitored, and that there were other medical conditions involved, so he does necessarily accept that Covid was the cause. Indeed yesterday he proposed that the definitions of the cause of death would be changed, and reported differently.

This would appear to be similar to the approach taken by the ‘Medsafe’ authority, a part of the health ministry that oversees the safety of medicines in New Zealand. It issues a ‘safety report’ on Covid 19 vaccines, based on reports of side effects and deaths from the Pfizer vaccine (called Comirnaty), from patients as well as medical practitioners. The most recent report was published yesterday, 10 November, but it has a time lag, so is based on October data. I shall be referring to the previous report (#33), issued on 3 November, with data based on reports up until 16 October []. The key thing about these reports is that they never give a total number for the number of deaths reported: the headline is always the number of reports, and how many are deemed to be ‘serious’, as well as the number of doses administered; this is obviously an effort to not highlight reported deaths. The reports always state the number of deaths reported that week, but denies any causal link, that is, until Medsafe has investigated the report, and has referred it to the Coroner.

So it is easy enough to add up the number of reported deaths up to the 16th October, and we get 94; but only one of these deaths is seen as being likely caused by Comirnaty. Of the rest, 40 are classified as being ‘unlikely’; there is ‘insufficient’ information on 38 of the reports; and there were still 15 cases under investigation. In the week that followed there were 3 more deaths reported, but the overall number stayed the same, apparently due to double reporting. Anyway, of the 30 000 in the ‘non-serious’ category, in the #33 report, about a third are reported by patients, and only 2195 by General Practitioners. Obviously GPs are reluctant to report side effects having been instructed to emphasise the safety of the vaccine programme. Back to the safety report, the interesting thing was the figures for reports of Pericarditis and Myocarditis up to 14 October: combining the totals, there were 61 reports based on the patients taking the first dose, and 57 examples following patients taking the second dose. But there is no link between these conditions and the number of deaths, apart from the acknowledgement of myocarditis in one death.

I suppose that it is good that these reports are still being published, given that the Ardern administration is now relying on fearmongering and propaganda, as well as mandatory vaccination. But the ambiguity of the reports, and the element of obfuscation in the details is completely unsatisfactory. There is a wide gulf between reports of 94 deaths, at a current rate of 3 per week, and the statements that ‘Comirnarty’ is safe. How many deaths would be required before the Pfizer drug is going to be seriously questioned, unlikely given the reluctance to find any causation for the other 93 deaths. Interestingly, Dr Bloomfield announced yesterday that he was going to introduce the Astra Zeneca vaccine next month. But this is only for those with medical exemptions, where it is acknowledged that Pfizer is not safe, and is arbitrarily limited to 100 cases; and it will also be offered to those workers facing dismissal in the areas where mandatory vaccination is being enforced, but that does not mean that others can choose it over Comirnaty.

Bloomfield has obviously realised that some workers are not buying into the fearmongering and propaganda associated with the Ardern administration, and that key health and education institutions may not function if workers are fired for defying the mandate. The ‘anti-vaxxers’ were previously assumed to be misinformed, and had to face penalties to comply with public health orders, but since it appears that some midwives and teachers won’t be forced into vaccination, another option has had to be found. There are even protests now, including a large one outside Parliament on Tuesday. The barricades went up to protect the members from the rabble, as they cowered inside with Police defending their freedom of speech, but they were too cowardly to come out and speak. Four protestors died in a road crash on their way home to the coastal city of New Plymouth, three being employed at a local school. A terrible tragedy, but at least they stood up for civil liberties, and against the discrimination promoted by Ardern and Bloomfield.

Update 27/11/21: In the most recent ‘safety report’ on Comirnaty, Medsafe refer to being sad about 6 more deaths from the vaccine. Of course, they still don’t accept any causation, but apparently investigate the cause, before usually deciding that there is insufficient information to determine either way. This may be the last safety report, because basically the government doesn’t care who dies any more. Unless it was from Covid, and the patient was in hospital. In a question at the Prime Minister’s press conference on Monday, a male journalist dared to ask why the Ministry of Health would not confirm that ‘fully vaccinated’ patients had died from Covid 19. This got a withering look from Ardern who is used to the cosy club of press gallery members, mostly female journalist/supplicants, who only ask acceptable questions. But Dr Bloomfield, presumably feeling a residual sense of professionalism, came back on Wednesday and confirmed that 3 ‘fully vaccinated’ patients had died from Covid 19. But he insisted that the vaccine was still over 90% effective, and much better than not having it (despite 103 reported cases of death by Comirnaty). Funny how the experts always come up with 90% as the effectiveness rate.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Authoritarian Ardern: no more haircuts for the ‘Unvaccinated’

An odd couple: Labour’s most revered leader, and it ‘s most authoritarian leader ever

Today is the Labour Day in New Zealand. A public holiday that mainly celebrates the institution of the 40 hour week. This practice was introduced before the Labour Party was formed, and is now a relic of the past. Just like the Long Playing record of Norm Kirk, Labour’s Prime Minister between 1972 and 1974, when he died in office. Kirk was an MP based in Christchurch, where my extended family also live, and I remember being there around the time he died. It’s one of my earliest memories, though my family on both sides were not Labour, and weren’t exactly mourning. Anyway, my point is that Big Norm would be turning in his grave if he knew what Jacinda Ardern is about to do because of Covid 19.

Firstly the context about the new authoritarian policy regime Ardern is imposing. Auckland had been in lockdown for a long time, or so it seems, and although she claims it is because Delta is so bad, it is actually because people are not complying with her dictates. Her bureaucrats and academic experts have only just realised that if people meet up in private homes it is likely to spread the virus; up until now, all the draconian measures have focussed on regulating public space, and keeping people at home. So, in a fit of pique, Ardern has decided to scrap the existing system based on ‘levels’, and will move to one that will seem like a trafficlight. This is being sold as an end to nation-wide lockdowns, but will not be an end to lockdowns when the hospitals are overwhelmed. If this change seems reasonable, one needs to remember that most of the country has been on zero Covid since last year, and has also had restrictions for months.

So the headline should be that Ardern is now going to let the virus out of the Auckland region, and open up the artificial border that has been expanding over recent weeks. When the going got difficult she decided to give up, and she has got a new group to blame. Having observed that most of the Auckland cases have not been vaccinated she has decided that this is the cause of the problem, not the initial failure in border control. She claims that Delta hunts out the unvaccinated, and usually leaves the vaccinated alone. Besides the rather overwrought hyperbole here, there is a not very subtle attribution of blame. Where the unvaccinated were initially seen as innocent victims, they are now being blamed for their own predicament, and for infecting the others, the responsible citizens. The ones that reacted positively to all the fearmongering and scare tactics, and booked two doses of the experimental Pfizer drug.

The ‘unvaccinated’ will now be blamed for the spread of the virus to the rest of the country, and will be denied particular rights and liberties. For Ardern the blame is mostly focussed on the young, but her imposition of vaccine certificates applies to everybody, including half-vaccined older people like me, who suffered considerable side effects the first time, including chest pains. Ardern always claims that the Pfizer drug is completely safe, and last night was the first time one of the major media companies ran a story on the possibility of side effects. Though downplaying the role of causation, there is a health committee to which reports of side effects are made (though some doctors refuse to do this) , and there have been a significant number of reports of myocarditis. Health officials even acknowledged that one middle-aged person had died as a result of the Pfizer injection. But the media barely reported this, or the other less life threatening conditions, and never asked Ardern about the safety of Pfizer afterwards.

It seems that younger men in particular are at risk of myocarditis, but, if they want to go to musical festivals or drink at bars over the summer, they will have to be double-dosed and have a vaccine certificate. Which brings us to the ban on haircuts for the unvaccinated, and asking hairdressers to decline service if no certificate is presented to them. I heard Ardern say this live on the car radio, and when I saw it on the TV news I noticed the relish with which she said it. As someone who obviously dyes her hair regularly, with or without the help of a hairdresser, this is clearly a big deal to her. While she is mostly beholden to health advisers and academic experts, this was obviously her own idea. She thinks that the group opprobrium over bad hair is enough incentive to get the young people to the vaccination queues, but there are some academics (like Rod Jackson) who want a far more widespread and punitive use of vaccine certificates.

So is this a real volte face for Ardern, who used to claim we were all on the same team of 5 million, and should be kind to each other? The ‘velvet glove’ has really come off now, and she actively wants to discriminate against the recalcitrant young people, and poor people in ethnic groupings, despite both categories being key supporters of her and her party. But it is, in fact, really not much of a change. She imposed draconian lockdowns without even mentioning the complete suspension of freedoms of speech and assembly. This is despite these things apparently being enshrined in a Bill of Rights, legislation which was passed by one of her Labour predecessors (not Kirk). Ms Ardern obviously believes that civil liberties are just things that she bestows on those that are being good subjects, and can also be permanently removed from the bad people. The problem is that there is no limit to this. If even hairdressers are meant to discriminate over clients, aren’t other businesses going to do the same. Professor Jackson seems to think that all the unvaccinated should be dismissed from their jobs, not just the recalcitrant teachers and nurses that have not got with the programme.

So why would the great Labour leader, Norm Kirk, be turning in his grave? Well, that is because Ardern is forcing unionised workers to be injected with the experimental Pfizer drug, or be dismissed from their positions without regard for their performance. At this stage, this vaccine mandate is being applied to middle class professionals, a group that dominates the Labour Party and remaining trades union. But Norm Kirk was working class: he left school without any qualifications, and went on to build his own house, before eventually becoming Mayor of Kaiapoi (a town north of Christchurch). He would have taken a common sense approach, based on working class values and basic ideas of fairness, and he also has nothing in common with a prima donna like Ardern. She is actually from a very conservative background in rural Waikato, the daughter of a policeman involved in a fringe religion. So the authoritarian streak was always there, she is just dropping the charade of the liberal feminist.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

A portrait of the self-aggrandising bourgeois Academic

Rod Jackson, T-shirt designer, who sometimes lectures in Public Health at Auckland university

One of the strange thing about the phoney war pandemic, and the media control of it in New Zealand, is the number of experts that have come forward. Who knew there were so many epidemiologists in New Zealand. While some academic disciplines have atrophied there is no shortage of Professors in Epidemiology who can drop everything to help the media with the battle against Delta, and target the unvaccinated heathens holding out against reason. They often appear in their own homes, in front of their art collection, or sometimes outside their bourgeois houses, but don’t have their own line in T-shirts.

This is what makes Professor Rod Jackson so special, and why he is now the favourite expert for the TV networks. No, it’s not because he knows more than Michael Baker, of Otago, who had been accepted as the top dog. The media always introduce their experts by saying that he is a leading epidemiologist. But after holding back for so long, Jackson has made a late run for the top prize. With the campaign to target the unvaccinated getting full media hype, Jackson has designed his own black and white T-shirt range, and he wears them too!

Jackson is obviously a black and white guy, no grey areas on vaccination. The Pfizer version, which New Zealand is wedded to, is totally safe and completely effective of course. And ‘we know’ that Delta targets the unvaccinated through its magic hand, or evil wand, or something. But Jackson can even say exactly how many of the unvaccinated will succumb to Delta, though he doesn’t mention that the ‘fully vaccinated’ also get Covid 19 in Auckland, and that the vaccine has not stopped transmission overseas.

Really? Does Jackson know something that the rest of us don’t. Is Prime Minister Ardern about to remove all the current draconian restrictions in Auckland, and open up the internal borders, to let Delta do its evil work? Is Ardern no longer the control freak who imposed a total lockdown on the whole country, including places where there had never been a single case? Is she not the one who rigidly followed Baker’s theory that all people deemed to be contacts were also carriers, until proven otherwise. When Jackson and co get their way, and Delta spreads, won’t the hospitals be overwhelmed, and Ardern will follow form and impose another total lockdown. Do we still have an ‘elimination’ strategy, or is it now going to have to be ‘herd immunity’, which is the logical conclusion of what Jackson is advocating.

The hypocrisy of bourgeois academics like Jackson is substantive. They think nothing of permanently removing civil liberties for the lower orders of society. Presumably he really wants mandatory vaccines for everyone, not just those working in the public sector (i.e. all medical employees and schoolteachers). But when they think their academic freedom is being infringed they are quick to squeal. Even if everybody is vaccinated, unless the Director-General of Health grants an exemption, the scare tactics and legal compulsion will have to remain indefinitely in New Zealand. Civil Society has been broken.

So as someone who still believes in civil liberties I say this to Jackson and his ilk: will you please just go fuck yourselves. You’ve had hours and hours in the media limelight completely unchallenged. Go back to your ivory towers, and do what you are paid inflated salaries to do: teach the paying customers. Hundreds of bright young things have been conned into thinking you are experts with something to say. You people could at least attend to your duties to those getting into serious debt for the privilege of hearing you drone on about all the scary diseases out there: I’m sure they’ll all want to keep the T-shirts.

Update 23/10/21: Since writing this the Prime Minister has announced a new system to replace the so-called ‘levels’ of restrictions, and tried to sell it as a way to get Auckland out of the current lockdown. In fact, it introduces the vaccine passport idea, and requires everybody to have a certificate to utilise commercial services, thus excluding the non-vaccinated in a discriminatory way. Professor Jackson was interviewed last night live on TVNZ’s 6pm news bulletin, ostensibly about what the changes meant for the management of the ‘crisis’. Instead, he claimed that it introduced the policy of ‘no jab, no job’, which he had been advocating for. I don’t recall that Ardern has made it clear yet, but since the vaccination certificate policy will apply everywhere, no doubt there will be some unfair dismissals which Jackson is looking forward to. He then rather subverted his own argument, by stating that the unvaccinated would not listen to someone like him, based on class and race. He then did some racial profiling: so for him the unvaccinated are poor Polynesian men living in overcrowded houses. It is difficult to see what is gained by these guys losing their jobs, and not being able to shop either. What happened in Melbourne when the tradesmen were shut out of work, was that they then roamed the streets protesting and fighting with the police, passing on the dreaded virus as they did it. Melbourne now has over 2000 cases a day, but has just opened up with a Freedom day. Presumably the ‘fully’ vaccinated people think they are safe.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Survivors’s Lucy Fleming on the BBC News

Lucy Fleming with a shotgun defending a petrol tanker. Not in 2021 Britain, but in a BBC drama circa 1975

It does not take much of an excuse to write about the Survivors TV series during the current pandemic. One of its key actors was Lucy Fleming (Jenny), in fact she was the mainstay, as other characters came and went. So it was good to see Lucy on the BBC again this last week, albeit in a news programme. Indeed it was rather lucky, given that the domestic newshour at 9GMT also goes out on BBC World, for some reason, before it has Live with Lucy Hockings. Anyway the British news bulletin at that time is usually presented by Annita McVeigh, but on this occasion it was Victoria Derbyshire. In a week when the main international news story seemed to be Britney Spears, the interview topic was the new Bond flick.

For those that are not aware, Lucy is the niece of Ian Fleming, who created the Bond franchise, and which has carried on long after he has gone. It seems that Lucy Fleming had even seen the script, and there was a suggestion from Derbyshire that females had a bit of a different place in the latest Bond film, the last to star Daniel Craig as Bond. Victoria even asked Lucy if she thought the next Bond should be female, but it didn’t seem appropriate, even though the most recent Dr Who has been a female actor.

Of course, Derbyshire never pointed out that Lucy Fleming had her own acting career, including becoming the effective lead actor in Survivors, certainly in the third and final series. Lucy was asked about the relevance of Bond in the current world. If it was just about entertainment, or put in the context of English nationalism or jingoism, Bond would always be relevant. But at the moment, in a global pandemic, another Bond film is just escapism. Is it really world news? Lucy Fleming might not have a particular insight into the current pandemic, but the Survivors concept is surely more relevant than Bond.

In a documentary series on cult TV programmes, including Survivors, Lucy made the point that the setting in mid 1970s Britain reflected a society in stress, both in an economic and political sense. There is also the comparison being made with the Winter of Discontent, which was later in the 1970s, when fuel and food shortages were compounded by industrial action. Lucy was suggesting that the sense of societal breakdown was similar to that caused by a global pandemic, it was just turning the screw a bit more. Certainly, the first episode of Survivors gave an indication of how quickly things could fall apart.

It wasn’t till later in the first series that the petrol tanker comes into play, and the value of the petrol is fully understood. Of course, the role of petrol as a rare commodity became the basic concept for post-apocalyptic films like Mad Max. But in Survivors it initially was simply the vehicle for the return of an early character called Anne, a rather entitled aristocratic type, who was played by the late Myra Frances. Anne and her latest man were travelling around in the petrol tanker, but it was not salubrious enough, and the smell too onerous. So Anne has had enough “…and I’m tired, and I want a bath and I want a drink.” The lines may seem rather banal, but Myra Frances delivered them with such seething conviction that it was such a shame that hers was only a cameo appearance. Like so many good female character actors of that period, Frances had some interesting one-off roles, but never got a real break.

Anyway, back to the action involving the petrol tanker. In the episode called ‘Something of Value’, written by Terry Nation, the characters Jenny and Greg are taking the tanker to another commune, in the hope of trading petrol for food. In the meantime, a trio of bandits has been casing the area looking for petrol, and are prepared to take it by force. The tanker’s brakes fail and Greg stops to fix it, while Jenny goes back to the farm to get more tools, only to get kidnapped by the bandits in the process. Jenny escapes and drives off to get help, while Greg tries to hold them off, but the bandits get the tanker and don’t realise the brakes aren’t working. Greg survives again, but the most of the fuel is lost in a crash.

The interesting thing about Survivors, once one is familiar with it, are the gender conflicts that emerge and are sometimes resolved. In ‘Something of Value’, it is because Jenny has learnt to drive after the pandemic has started that she has a role in the story of the tanker hijack. The leader of the commune, Abby, continally conflicts with Greg over who is really in charge (and she even slaps him at one point). And the Anne character comes through her encounter with a previous companion, Vic, who she abandoned after he had an accident which left him a cripple. He was determined on revenge when she appears at the commune, albeit with a petrol tanker, but, having talked her way out of it, she is seen striding away in the morning sunlight (with her fur coat on), seemingly more empowered by the experience. They don’t have female acting roles quite like that any more, and the writers were all blokes. But even if all the compelling female actors in Survivors were forgotten, the concept remains relevant.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Fear-mongering and tunnel vision in Ardern’s New Zealand

Shaun Hendy, the self-styled expert in Covid 19 modelling, who sometimes teaches physics in Auckland.

Auckland, New Zealand, remains in lockdown, six weeks into a Covid outbreak that has so far only cost one person their life. Nonetheless over 1 million people remain behind the newly created border around the city. Meanwhile the crack team of Covid 19 modellers at the University of Auckland, led by Professor Shaun Hendy, have been commissioned by Jacinda Ardern to help her sell her new message of maximising vaccination, before she allows the lockdown to end. Hendy provided the numbers for her resort to scare tactics: if we open the borders 7000 people die, unless 90% of the population accept two doses of the Pfizer vaccine. Hendy’s modelling became the top news item yesterday on all media.

Hendy is usually paraded as one of the public health experts by the news media, but, in fact, he was appointed as a Physics lecturer at Auckland University. It seems that anybody in academia with an opinion, or some modelling experience, can be called an expert and automatically get deferential treatment in the media. However, we hear today that another modeller, Rodney Jones, has criticised Hendy for raising fears based on dodgy data, and unrealistic assumptions. Jones is an economist, and so is probably good at number crunching, although econometric models are also known for being based on limited data, and simplifying assumptions. But at least his opinion got reported in some of the media. When I was attempting to do an earlier PhD thesis, before being enrolled at AUT in Auckland, I came across an interesting article comparing physics and the kind of metaphors used in economic theory and policymaking. Rather than rehearse that here, I want to make an analogy using monetary policy.

The new monetary policy following the 1984 change of government was enshrined in the 1989 Reserve Bank Act. This was seen as groundbreaking by economists around the world, because it was based on the theory of inflation expectations, and sought to restore sound monetary policy by setting a level of annual inflation (up to 2%) that the central bank was required to meet. This was the ultimate in the ‘ends justifying the means’: the Reserve Bank no longer had to limit the growth of the money supply to set targets, or commit to any other measurement, as long as inflation was not over 2%. Central bankers talked about establishing credibility, and as their monetary policy resulted in interest rates going over 20%, they dogmatically stuck to the task. This involved a rigid adherence to the policy goal, and was based on their underlying theory that monetary policy did affect anything in the economy other than prices, in the long run. Of course, in practice this tight monetary policy helped cause unemployment to rise to over 10%.

Anyway, both of the governing parties remained committed to this policy despite the collateral damage, because of the fear of inflation. And the central bankers would not reduce the base interest rate until they determined that the markets would not expect a loosening, i.e. their expectations factored in a stable inflation rate. Of course, in practice the monetary policy was not officially loosened till the global financial crisis in 2008. This was because removing inflation had been portrayed as some kind of disease that had been crippling the real economy: so, once the disease had been beaten the economy would thrive. But there still had to be a ‘tight’ monetary policy in case the inflation disease returned.

For those still reading after this short summary, I now want to draw an analogy with the type of Covid policy response that Ardern is pursuing, and the mentality that produces lockdowns which aren’t even necessary based on actual evidence rather than made-up models. Firstly, Ardern’s policy evinces the same dogmatic type of theorising as the monetary policy of the 1990s. This involves a form of tunnel vision, where a theory is composed with simplifying assumptions, and where the collateral damage is not included, and then dogmatically pursued just in case there is any doubt about the rigid adherence. Thus, the so-called Elimination strategy created by Michael Baker and friends, based on complete lockdowns in Covid hotspots, has to be pursued until zero cases is reached. However, secondly, getting to zero cases does not mean Elimination has been achieved. Baker has another narrative in which there is always Covid 19 lurking out there undetected in the community. This is why the Ardern government continues to run advertising which claims that the common cold could be a symptom of Covid, and testing is required. So, like inflation, Covid is always out there and policy settings have to be tight.

Nonetheless, Hendy’s modelling results are really over the top. Ardern obviously wanted him to soften up the public for the results of opening up the country, and therefore allowing Covid to creep in, so as to scare the vaccine hesitant into getting the Pfizer jab twice. But Hendy’s 7000 projected deaths, in a country where only 27 have been lost to Covid, isn’t even credible. In practice, Ardern is still committed to Elimination, and if the country is opened up to Covid, she will have to act to save the obviously inadequate health system with, you guessed it, another total lockdown. Then she can continue to have her daily press conferences, where she promises to restore the people’s civil liberties. But only if they are being good, and following her theory of Elimination, and the resulting self-isolation in ‘bubbles’. Being a completely docile and subservient people, who do not defend our rights, we will no doubt comply again.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Loyalty, Labour Saving, and the minor legacy of Michael Cullen

One of Murray Webb’s portrayals of Dr Michael Cullen

Dr Michael Cullen was the finance minister and Helen Clark’s deputy during the fifth Labour Government in New Zealand, elected in late 1999, which had three terms in office. He recently died of lung cancer just as his successors plunged the country into another draconian lockdown. His might have been a rather large funeral in his adopted home in the Bay of Plenty. But the pointlessly harsh restrictions on funeral attendance meant no traditional send-off.

Dr Cullen has been portrayed as a kind of MVP (most valuable player) for the recent incarnations of the New Zealand Labour Party. He was certainly a competent Cabinet minister, a good orator, and one of the great debaters in Parliament, something he had no modesty about claiming. However, I suggest his policy legacy is more modest than other commentators think, and he was more of a continuity figure in terms of public finance, essentially working within the existing parameters defined by the so-called ‘neo-liberalism’ of the 1980s and disastrous fourth Labour Government in which he played a minor part towards its deserved end.

Cullen’s career in politics is written about at length in his recent memoir called Labour Saving. I would have perhaps got to review it in the past, but decided to buy it instead. Like many other political memoirs it does not cover a lot of new ground, and, while more readable than most, it does not provide as many insights as one would expected from one of the few intellectuals in recent Parliaments. This is a point in itself, as there have many former academics like Dr Cullen that have pursued a political career, and just as most did not actually have a PhD, they also did not seem to have much of an intellectual approach to policy, nor a philosophical basis for their practice. Most MPs seem to be just career opportunists, and the political philosophy has come from more highly educated public servants who often have PhDs from American universities.

Michael Cullen had a private school education, studied history at Canterbury University, before getting a PhD in a Scottish University. I had been expecting that he might discuss his policy views in Labour Saving within an intellectual tradition, even if this was primarily British such as Fabian Socialism, but he doesn’t do this. Indeed, he doesn’t even discuss his general political philosophy until page 168 in the book, in a ‘brief excursion into basic beliefs’. Other than quoting Shakespeare, he doesn’t pay homage to any Labour figure as inspiration, and refers to something called social democratic philosophy but doesn’t explain it. He is no socialist of course, but does believe in equality, security and opportunity. So did the first Labour Government, but they were hardened trade unionists and agitators who still advocated for socialism in practice.

The brief excursion into basic beliefs does come at an interesting stage of the book, however, just as Cullen discusses becoming finance spokesperson in the Labour rump that emerged from the 1990 landslide. Dr Cullen replaced the former finance minister, David Caygill, a man who presided over the biggest financial disaster in New Zealand history, involving two financial institutions that the State had nominally owned but had gone off the rails badly (DFC and the BNZ). Apparently this was not Caygill’s fault, nor was the rapidly rising rate of unemployment at the time. But Caygill was still close to the Business Roundtable, a lobby group made up of the richest men in New Zealand who were determined to maintain their control over policy.

Anyway the richest of them was brewing magnate Douglas Myers, who it seems was close to the then leader Mike Moore, and they had decided that Cullen could become the finance spokesman if he agreed to study political philosophy in the USA for a while. Certainly, Dr Cullen states that Doug Myers did pay for him and his wife to attend the Aspen Institute course in Maryland during 1991. Presumably Myers would not have paid the fees unless he thought that Cullen would be appreciative of his largesse in the future. Cullen really did not have to mention this minor point at all in the book, unless he also felt the need to assure readers that he was not held sway by the kind of right wing philosophies that had captured the institutions and policymaking of the previous government.

In any case Labour had been replaced by the more naturally conservative National Party in the 1990 election landslide, and the new government was led by a former farmer, Jim Bolger. Some parts of the Bolger ministry were obviously captured by the ‘new right’ philosophy, and the Business Roundtable saw all sorts of opportunities for privatisation in the previously sacrosanct areas of health and education. More importantly Bolger saw through legislation (the Employment Contracts Act) that decimated the trade union movement, at least in the private sector. It also sought to put downward pressure on wages through making swingeing cuts to the unemployment benefit, and all other transfer payments. Dr Cullen made a grand speech at time, I remember it well, but when he became the finance minister in 1999 he did not restore the basic benefit rate, and that would have to wait until the 2021 Budget, delivered by his anointed successor Grant Robertson of Dunedin.

One of the other unusual parts of the book is in Cullen’s comments about Jim Bolger, who got many plum governmental positions and appointments after retiring from Parliament. This includes becoming the chairman of the new State-owned bank, called Kiwibank, that Dr Cullen had to accept as part of a coalition with something called the Alliance. Not only was this an odd situation, because the State had only just dispensed with owning banks like the BNZ; but that bank had also been part of controversy about tax evasion. Strange that, a State-owned bank being involved in things like tax evasion and money laundering, and also that the privatisation of the Bank of New Zealand had come just after a massive injection of capital by the government.

Bolger had also been on record as saying that there had been no evidence that the BNZ had been involved in tax evasion and fraud. He must have known that the BNZ’s operations in Australia had been dismantled, and managers fired, because of dodgy corporate deals. This all came out in something called the Winebox scandal in the 1990s, which included a royal commission of inquiry that Bolger eventually acquiesced in. Anyway, if one thought that accountability and honesty were going to be important in the new State-owned bank, after the failures of the BNZ and DFC, then it was rather odd to put someone like Bolger in charge.

Mr Bolger has since gone on to have something of a trip to Damascus experience, and come to denounce the excesses of his government, as if he was under the spell of neo-liberalism. Of course, most of the appointments made by one of the two major parties when they are in office are respected by the other party, and they wait for terms to end before finding one of their own people for plum jobs. Another version of this scenario is simple cronyism: i.e. there are networks of people in certain jobs who just bide their time before becoming political candidates, or a ‘safe pair of hands’ for appointments to boards in government agencies. Dr Cullen’s ability to take on governance roles was not in doubt, but the overall process is rather dodgy. Labour’s problem is that it usually relies on insiders who don’t always have deep understanding or knowledge of a policy area, and this explains recent policy failures like ‘Kiwibuild’. But as Dr Cullen highlights in his book, loyalty is highly prized in the Labour Party now. Indeed, what he means by ‘Labour Saving’ refers to being a safe brand in electoral terms. The leader made certain electoral promises and then he found the money to implement them, usually against constant pressure to turn his hard won fiscal surpluses into yet more income tax cuts.

Cullen obviously saw the need to steer away from the 1980s path of Labour as the party of the ‘new right’, as it was known at the time. He says: “continuing in that direction implied a kind of Faustian pact in which our political position would become that of another right-wing party, simply favouring a low tax, small government State…[p.106]” Obviously his own economic position, which he calls ‘muddy Keynesianism’, was something of an alternative to neo-liberalism (which he prefers to call the ‘neo-classical’ dream, a more accurate reference to the underlying economic theory). I don’t think it much of an alternative in the circumstances, nor consistent with the founding values of Labour over 100 years ago, as Cullen seems to think. It might have saved Labour as an electoral brand, but did not save the urban base of the party from outright poverty, or the low wage economy dominated by international finance.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Ardern imposes panic National Lockdown without evidence

Well, here we go again, another nationwide lockdown in New Zealand. The difference this time is that it only took one confirmed case in Auckland. But instead of a regional lockdown she has imposed a total lockdown on the whole country, including places where there has never been a single case of Covid 19. Apparently the Delta variant changes the response required.

I was going to write this just after she announced, but I’m glad I didn’t. The initial justification was that the confirmed Covid case was a ‘mystery’, and not directly linked to the border control facilities. Since the middle-aged man had also travelled outside of Auckland this was enough to impose a lockdown for the rest of the country. So we got the same old cliches about ‘going hard’ and early, and an abundance of caution. But she has changed the rules: when the Australian tourist in Wellington had the Delta variant there was no lockdown at all. Now we have the pre-emptive lockdown; when there are no cases found it will be wound back.

Overnight it now seems that there were more cases, and one is a nurse from Auckland hospital. This must mean that a Covid case that was transferred from ‘managed isolation’ has actually been the source of the infection. The only other possibility is the case of the United Nations worker from Fiji with the Delta variant, who was airlifted to Auckland for treatment. There was talk that Helen Clark, with her U.N. connections, lobbied for the Fiji case to come to Auckland hospital, and Clark is Ardern’s mentor and friend, and that is how the Labour Party works.

It was only last week that a report was released on the ongoing policy towards Covid management, from a group of academic tossers, led by Skegg of Otago University. Based on media reports at the time, this report recommended that a single case of the Delta variant should lead to a national lockdown. And lo and behold, within a week the academic tossers have got their way. Apparently, because the Delta variant has taken off in New South Wales, Australia, we have to do what they did not, i.e. go straight into a full lockdown. The analysis is that the Sydney outbreak is derived from one case, a limousine driver from the airport. However, the logic of this is that all of Australia should be in lockdown, not just the NSW and Victoria states. The governor of Western Australia likes to impose lockdowns, but has held off so far.

The actual reason is that there are not cases there yet. But, according to the ubiquitous Professor Baker, also of Otago University (based in Wellington), all of the South Island should be in lockdown. After all, some Aucklander do visit the South Island tourist spots, like Queenstown, to go skiing. I bet the Ski resorts are really pleased with Ardern and the academic tossers, removing all their customers just as a new snowfall is on the way, in the last gasp of winter. It might also be the last gasp for some of the related businesses hundreds of miles away from any Covid cases. Meanwhile the academic tossers like Baker continue to get their six figure salaries, while those of us with worthless qualifications who rely on casual work at the minimum wage get no more work for at least the next three days, if not longer. There may be no courier arriving from Auckland with my purchases for much longer, nor the new appliance that is meant to be coming from Christchurch.

The photo below is from one of the power substations in Kaiwharawhara, near where I used to live in Wellington city. In the last cold snap the power-generating companies failed to supply enough power, and the retail companies had to ration it. The extra power sources include old coal-burning facilities in Huntly, south of Auckland. Power use is reduced during lockdowns, and the environment benefits, but the Ardern government has failed on power supply as well.

Kaiwharawhara substation #2

Update: it is now six days into this absurd lockdown. Yes, it is true that there has been a bit of an outbreak in Auckland, and thousands of people are being called contacts, so legally have to get tested. There are also a handful of cases in Wellington, where a few people returned after visiting Auckland. Wellington is hundreds of kilometres from Auckland, and there are no cases in between. Today, in justifying the extension of the lockdown, Ardern brandished a crude map of the whole country, with black dots all over it. This was meant to indicate where all the close contacts resided, and so it indicated possible Covid cases, including in the South Island.

The South Island is a cold, mountainous, sparsely populated place, apart from the plains around Christchurch. But there were no Covid cases when the lockdown was imposed last Tuesday, and there are no cases being announced today (Monday). Just maybe that means there are no cases at all, but we have to wait to see if Jacinda will rescind the removal of all civil liberties down south this Friday. The international media, especially the BBC, seem to think that she will accept the presence of Delta cases like the rest of the world, like in Britain where there are about 30 000 new cases per day. But no, they should now realise that Ardern is resolute, if not obsessed, along with her Health officials (and the academic tossers) that the Elimination strategy must be made to work, so she can be the only one to achieve Zero Covid cases.

Update#2: It is now over a week since the national lockdown started, and Covid cases are still rising in Auckland. As expected the total lockdown remains in the Auckland province, and north of Auckland, but the ‘level’ is to be lowered south of Auckland to be at 3. The lockdown madness still continues, though, as ‘level 3’ is still a lockdown. There is simply to be a border with the Auckland region. In fact the whole ‘levels’ model is meaningless now it’s obvious that Ardern prefers a total lockdown. Being at level 3 doesn’t mean civil liberties are granted.

So the people in the South Island hoping to released from this madness are out of luck. Of course there are still no Covid cases, there haven’t been since last year, but Ardern’s health bureaucrats are still looking. Apparently there are still symptomatic people down there, which, in the latest press conference she qualified by using the term ‘contact’. This points to the fundamental misinformation that the government here propagates to suggest there are always cases of Covid lurking out there in society. Their advertising continually tells us that a common cold is also a symptom of Covid; therefore, if there are always people with a common cold in the community there is also the need to be always testing for the possibility of new cases. In other words, it is only a matter of testing properly, not the fact there are no actual cases there.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The One Case Covid Scare in Wellington

Having reached 50 000 pages views I thought I had better write something new. Below is a photo of Wellington harbour taken in summer this year. I have actually moved out of the central city since then, and am now about 50 kilometres north, but not out of danger. The whole region is back on alert, even though there has never been a Covid case in this area.

This is because of the most recent Covid 19 scare. An Australian tourist visited town the previous weekend, then returned home and had a positive test. And, of course, a single case means that the so-called alert level has to be raised, thousands of people have been tested, and major events have been cancelled, such as the Wellington marathon. Now we also have all the usual academic tossers appearing in the media, raising fears of another quick lockdown.

So, as I write this we have had another day without any new cases. Yesterday the Minister for Covid restrictions extended the so-called Level 2 Alert, despite the fact there is not a sign of any community transmission. Apparently there is more time needed to be sure. The really annoying thing is that the academic tossers are keeping on the pressure for new restrictions, based on what happens overseas. The tosser in chief, Michael Baker, claims that overseas countries are ahead of us on mask-wearing. But that is because they have completely failed to ‘eliminate’ the virus, and thus face wave after wave of new variants. It was Baker that was the architect of Elimination, which only works if the borders remain closed. Where New Zealand is behind is on vaccination, even the elderly have not been successfully vaccinated here, and if more resources had been put into this, rather than pointless testing, we would still be ahead.

You also have to wonder what people like Professor Baker actually do in a university, and how he keeps up with all his responsibilities for supervision. I have a very jaundiced view of this, having tried for may years to do post-graduate research with academics who could not be bothered most of the time. Maybe the real scientists are more conscientious than the so-called social scientists. But research supervision actually takes time, and Baker does so much media and public meetings, that he can’t possible be supervising students as well. Of course, if I had not been left to my own devices for 6 months at a time while doing a PhD at the Auckland University of Technology, the blog would not have been started, and an attempt at local tax haven research made, though it was ignored in Wellington and in the media.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

No more Pre-emptive regional Lockdowns, please?

It is time to acknowledge that Covid 19 is different in New Zealand. We don’t have community transmission in the same way that the northern hemisphere does. But, despite there have never been Covid 19 at all in some parts of New Zealand, we are still having partial lockdowns in the biggest city, Auckland. It seems like as soon as there is a case emerging in Auckland our government locks down the whole region, forgetting that this is a draconian measure that should have been a last resort.

In mid February it emerged that one person had contracted Covid 19, and it was presumed that this was because she worked for a company that serviced aircraft linen. She went on to infect her household. So the Ardern Government decided to have a partial lockdown of Auckland, which lasted three days. It then seemed that there had not been a spread of the virus, even though the household had school age children. A whole secondary school had to be closed and all students tested, along with the usual hundreds of people who queued up for tests even when they didn’t have any symptoms. It seemed to be under control, so the lockdown was relaxed, and the rest of the country went back to no restrictions at all.

Then a week later another case emerged in the same suburb of south Auckland. The young man did not have an immediate connection to the first household. He also had continued to visit the gym, an educational institution, and his workplace, even when symptomatic. So the lockdown was reimposed for 7 days. But then the contact tracers worked out that someone connected to the first household had visited the mother of the young man, and there were similar instances of positive cases not isolating when told to by authorities. However, there was no spread of the virus beyond fifteen linked cases.

Prime Minister Ardern yesterday announced that the lockdown would be rescinded, not immediately, but tomorrow morning (ie after 2 days more of it). All of this for a mere 15 cases, none of whom had to visit the hospital. It appears that we got away with it again, but she did not apologise for reimposing the lockdown just for 1 case. This is obviously wrong, and undermines her own policy. When we had a long lockdown in March last year it was because there was some community transmission, the health services were not prepared, and the contact tracing system was not in place. Since then we have got back to zero cases, there is strict border control, and the contact tracing system supposedly works well.

If the Covid 19 virus was ever to get away in New Zealand it would be in south Auckland. This is one of the poorest urban areas in New Zealand, with high ethnic Polynesian population, and overcrowding in public housing. Similar areas in Britain have seen high rates of the virus, so it might have been assumed that it would happen here. But the outbreak never took off, and it is not just down to luck. The authorities here assumed that, because it was the new English strain of the virus it would be more contagious, but it has not proved to be so once again. We have had earlier examples where some people have tested negative in managed isolation facilities, but tested positive when they were released. In one notable case the woman involved had gone to the hairdresser and all sorts of shops after she left the isolation facility in Auckland. Hundreds of people got tested but there was not a single new case of covid.

So now it is time for the so-called experts in New Zealand to look objectively at the empirical evidence here, and not make assumptions based on overseas experience. And the evidence is that community transmission has not happened, even with the new Covid variants arriving at the border and sneaking through the quarantine facilities. Not a day passes when one of the academic experts aren’t insisting on fine-tuning the existing system, or advocating for more measures that impinge on our civil liberties. Maybe the policies have been more successful in New Zealand because there is better compliance, but this does not need to be excessively enforced. There was no need for the pre-emptive lockdown in the first place in Auckland, and the re-imposition of it after a single new case was a mistake. The so-called scientific experts don’t seem to acknowledge the damage done, including all the community events in other parts of the country that have had to be cancelled over the last two weeks. Talk about cancel culture!

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment