So maybe this is where I don't get it. For me, the response to COVID-19 was textbook public health response. There was no rupture. I mean, yeah, there was accommodating and getting used to, but the meaning of the policies was always completely clear. Even the fact that normal life was disrupted was completely 'normal' because that's the best-practice response to the sort of public health emergency we were in. It was normally abnormal. And I'm not especially knowledgeable in this area. It was just the NZ analogue of the public health practices in other countries that have had outbreaks of communicable diseases over the past 20-30 years.
I totally agree - for me it was textbook public health too, also no rupture. In fact I think this rupture only occurred for a relatively small % of the population, call it somewhere around 5-10%.
But this small % was enough to create a small de-barked dog with two large tails. In 2020 ACT got 7.6% and NZF 2.6%. In 2017 ACT 0.5% and NZF 7.2%. Combined in 2023 13.72%, so an increase of 6%, basically a protest vote. These voters voted for the paternal function, and so we now have to live with it. ACT capitalised on this.
But for me the COVID response was still regressive. Public health is not isolated from the rest of macroeconomics. There is never any excuse for unemployment, not even a pandemic. In fact it was a great opportunity for a so-called “progressive” (and courageous) government to show they are the cause of all unemployment, but also the sole authority with capacity to reverse the policy mistake of unemployment. During COVID there were even more public service jobs to be done. A massive but ultra-careful (therefore laborious) mobilization was called for, not “stay-at-home and suck up the ubi” (Ubi but only for people who already had a job).
But if you do not know the cause of all unemployment (defined as people seeking to exchange their labour for the government scorepoints) then you will not be capable of seeing the progressive policy option. So they (Jacinda's lot) may call themselves the progressive wing of our government (and I believe they wanted to be), but we need to see that as a relative term. Relative to a potential future enlightened politics they were pretty darn regressive.
Unemployment fell to 3.2% due to Dame Jacinda and Labour Government action to save lives and businesses. The few thousands who were against the government actions were adherents to antivaxxers antiscience disinformation, conspiracy theories like QAnon, in Act case Atlas Network Libertarian policies. NZF under Winston the populist curted it. Our Covid response was the best in the world text book at what countries should do in a pandemic. Act looks more like a dictatorship. NZF and National: Trumpists. Those who put them in should be ashamed for it as economy is destroyed and unemployment is huge because of them. The division they created with Maori is despicable.
3.2% is still 3.2% too much. If you do not understand the social pathologies of even one person being unemployed then you have missed the point I was making. I had no problem with the Adern government health response per se, but it was not the correct macroeconomic response. Just go by ignorant statements made by the Finance Minster at the time. He had no idea.
The Health Ministry were fine, imho. But government is not a bunch of isolated Ministries.
It is still true as you say, I agree, NZ had possibly the best response of any nation in the world. In both health and employment. But our health response far exceeded in goodness of our woeful economic response. You should never defend or apologize for Neoliberalism, even when it comes out of the mouths and policies of a centrist-left administration.
One person unemployed is one too many, even if they are a rabid QAnonist or New Age homeopath. And yes, the Tories are the more dictatorial, by a long shot, it is not even close. Public health policies that were proactive in NZ have never been remotely dictatorial from my memory. Privatization health policy is. There is nothing more dictatorial than leaving the poorest to compete for basic healthcare on price.
I think that depends what you mean by “textbook”. If you mean “governments used public-health tools during a public-health emergency”, then yes. But if you mean “they followed their own pre-existing pandemic guidance”, I don’t think that is true.
Many Western pandemic plans before COVID were built around proportionality, keeping normal life going where possible, targeted isolation, voluntary compliance, and caution around school closures, border closures, mass disruption and coercive vaccine policy. In practice, much of the response became improvised crisis management: lockdowns, mass behavioural messaging, school closures, vaccine passports, shifting claims about transmission, and emergency-authorised products being treated socially and politically as settled long-term interventions.
That may be defensible as an emergency response, but calling it “textbook” seems wrong. The rupture was precisely that the textbook was abandoned under pressure.
This is a great metaphor. It reminds me of George Lakoff's 'Do you pick your baby up when it cries'. answer reflects [political philosophy. no is Stern parent (father) rightwing , yes nurturing parent (mother) leftwing.
We understand so little about the fragile nature of social cohesion, what it takes to build the ties that bind, and as you say repair them when severed
Personally for me I would have huge difficulty even communicating with anyone who supports Act. I can understand NZF and the Nats but ACT and their policies.....beyond me. No I will not be voting for them.
Thankyou again Andrew for a very interesting read.
And this government is also making it harder for parents to remove themselves & their children from the public education system ...
Amendment Paper 583:
Introduces (or strengthens) new regulatory powers over home education exemptions under the Education and Training Act.
It includes provisions that would require home-educating families to meet specific reporting, assessment, and compliance requirements prescribed by regulations to maintain their exemption from enrolling children in registered schools.
It was was a late change to the Education and Training (System Reform) Amendment Bill (introduced after the select committee process and public submissions), bypassing normal consultation, and grants broad ministerial or regulatory powers over homeschooling families.
Home education communities in New Zealand have been actively opposing it, viewing the changes as excessive government intrusion into parental rights and education choices.
So maybe this is where I don't get it. For me, the response to COVID-19 was textbook public health response. There was no rupture. I mean, yeah, there was accommodating and getting used to, but the meaning of the policies was always completely clear. Even the fact that normal life was disrupted was completely 'normal' because that's the best-practice response to the sort of public health emergency we were in. It was normally abnormal. And I'm not especially knowledgeable in this area. It was just the NZ analogue of the public health practices in other countries that have had outbreaks of communicable diseases over the past 20-30 years.
I totally agree - for me it was textbook public health too, also no rupture. In fact I think this rupture only occurred for a relatively small % of the population, call it somewhere around 5-10%.
But this small % was enough to create a small de-barked dog with two large tails. In 2020 ACT got 7.6% and NZF 2.6%. In 2017 ACT 0.5% and NZF 7.2%. Combined in 2023 13.72%, so an increase of 6%, basically a protest vote. These voters voted for the paternal function, and so we now have to live with it. ACT capitalised on this.
I understand your logic here Andrew - that’s providing clarity - thanks for this 🙏
Gave you a like. 🫶🙏
But for me the COVID response was still regressive. Public health is not isolated from the rest of macroeconomics. There is never any excuse for unemployment, not even a pandemic. In fact it was a great opportunity for a so-called “progressive” (and courageous) government to show they are the cause of all unemployment, but also the sole authority with capacity to reverse the policy mistake of unemployment. During COVID there were even more public service jobs to be done. A massive but ultra-careful (therefore laborious) mobilization was called for, not “stay-at-home and suck up the ubi” (Ubi but only for people who already had a job).
But if you do not know the cause of all unemployment (defined as people seeking to exchange their labour for the government scorepoints) then you will not be capable of seeing the progressive policy option. So they (Jacinda's lot) may call themselves the progressive wing of our government (and I believe they wanted to be), but we need to see that as a relative term. Relative to a potential future enlightened politics they were pretty darn regressive.
The bottom lines: https://smithwillsuffice.github.io/ohanga-pai/questions/001_basic_ohangapai/
Unemployment fell to 3.2% due to Dame Jacinda and Labour Government action to save lives and businesses. The few thousands who were against the government actions were adherents to antivaxxers antiscience disinformation, conspiracy theories like QAnon, in Act case Atlas Network Libertarian policies. NZF under Winston the populist curted it. Our Covid response was the best in the world text book at what countries should do in a pandemic. Act looks more like a dictatorship. NZF and National: Trumpists. Those who put them in should be ashamed for it as economy is destroyed and unemployment is huge because of them. The division they created with Maori is despicable.
3.2% is still 3.2% too much. If you do not understand the social pathologies of even one person being unemployed then you have missed the point I was making. I had no problem with the Adern government health response per se, but it was not the correct macroeconomic response. Just go by ignorant statements made by the Finance Minster at the time. He had no idea.
The Health Ministry were fine, imho. But government is not a bunch of isolated Ministries.
It is still true as you say, I agree, NZ had possibly the best response of any nation in the world. In both health and employment. But our health response far exceeded in goodness of our woeful economic response. You should never defend or apologize for Neoliberalism, even when it comes out of the mouths and policies of a centrist-left administration.
One person unemployed is one too many, even if they are a rabid QAnonist or New Age homeopath. And yes, the Tories are the more dictatorial, by a long shot, it is not even close. Public health policies that were proactive in NZ have never been remotely dictatorial from my memory. Privatization health policy is. There is nothing more dictatorial than leaving the poorest to compete for basic healthcare on price.
Yup, fair point Mate 🙏
I think that depends what you mean by “textbook”. If you mean “governments used public-health tools during a public-health emergency”, then yes. But if you mean “they followed their own pre-existing pandemic guidance”, I don’t think that is true.
Many Western pandemic plans before COVID were built around proportionality, keeping normal life going where possible, targeted isolation, voluntary compliance, and caution around school closures, border closures, mass disruption and coercive vaccine policy. In practice, much of the response became improvised crisis management: lockdowns, mass behavioural messaging, school closures, vaccine passports, shifting claims about transmission, and emergency-authorised products being treated socially and politically as settled long-term interventions.
That may be defensible as an emergency response, but calling it “textbook” seems wrong. The rupture was precisely that the textbook was abandoned under pressure.
Thanks Andrew
This is a great metaphor. It reminds me of George Lakoff's 'Do you pick your baby up when it cries'. answer reflects [political philosophy. no is Stern parent (father) rightwing , yes nurturing parent (mother) leftwing.
We understand so little about the fragile nature of social cohesion, what it takes to build the ties that bind, and as you say repair them when severed
Thanks Susan! And you’re absolutely right, we know so little about social cohesion.
what can be counted gets counted-- but what counts is easily ignored
Personally for me I would have huge difficulty even communicating with anyone who supports Act. I can understand NZF and the Nats but ACT and their policies.....beyond me. No I will not be voting for them.
Thankyou again Andrew for a very interesting read.
And this government is also making it harder for parents to remove themselves & their children from the public education system ...
Amendment Paper 583:
Introduces (or strengthens) new regulatory powers over home education exemptions under the Education and Training Act.
It includes provisions that would require home-educating families to meet specific reporting, assessment, and compliance requirements prescribed by regulations to maintain their exemption from enrolling children in registered schools.
It was was a late change to the Education and Training (System Reform) Amendment Bill (introduced after the select committee process and public submissions), bypassing normal consultation, and grants broad ministerial or regulatory powers over homeschooling families.
Home education communities in New Zealand have been actively opposing it, viewing the changes as excessive government intrusion into parental rights and education choices.
I saw that. Police-nanny-state. Some of my very best university students have been home schooled in untraditional ways.
I always wondered what those buttons were for on chairs. Today I've learnt about David Seymour's psyche, as well as furniture making.
Gotta love a little Lacan :-)
Isn’t the purpose of Act to verbalise what National are really thinking?
Some of them probably
Some of them not.
And that will maybe grow to a become a threat for their existence as for Conservative Party in the UK
I thoroughly enjoy your analyses of this government; especially helpful in making sense of Mr Seymour's motives. #cantwaittovote
Makes lots of sense to me. Thanks again Dr AD