Plans to favour "Wealthy Immigrants"

"We want more Kim Dotcoms" is the Key government's call. Mr Key and his team want a lot more their own type to immigrate into NZ, keeping out the hoi-polloi and riff-raff. Mr Key also believes that this will be one way that the 2014 election can be saved - "The wealthy vote sensibly," opined Mr Key, as he signed a pile of invitations to the world's wealthy to come and buy up NZ. It is, however, not clear how many of "the wealthy" are not respectable white people, the sort that will fit into the Northern Club.

Heroic Consul told to stop grandstanding: "It won't save your job," says Minister McCully.

In a press release, Minister McCully has suggested the bravery of a NZ consular official who outfaced a group of armed people in Algeria is an example of the new levels of performance engendered by his MFAT cuts, but also warns MFAT staff that bravery and professionalism will not save jobs."It's nice to see people trying," he said, "But cuts is cuts, and no-one should have their hopes raised. When you are surplus to requirements, the iron laws of economics rule." Mr McCully has, however, sent the the high-performer a chocolate fish.

The US on NZ's strategic significance: the words and thoughts of a bully

"When it comes to geopolitical importance," Stratfor analyst Chris Farnham wrote to colleague William Hobart in September last year, "it doesn't get much f---ing lower than New Zealand." Hobart had a similar view. "What possible strategic use is that little part of the world to f---ing anyone??!!" he wrote to Farnham.

We should wear this disdain as a badge of honour.

Mr Key and the Hard Yards

The speculation about whether Mr Key is in the job for the long haul is growing (as shown in today's SST). His honeymoon is well over, and the three main policies of his government - asset sales, public sector reform and welfare reform - are all in the gun. The Crafar decision is also commanding lots of criticism in his own camp, we see.An increasingly broad cross-section of NZ is fed up with an attack mode which has no upside - no growth, no focus on jobs, no focus on a strong community. The government looks evermore to be hectoring and bitter about "others" (that is, anyone who doesn't benefit from the pro-business agenda). I have speculated on this blog about whether he is for off this term. I'm not sure. I hear two stories from National supporters - one agreeing that he might go, and another that suggests that he's under pressure to stay because of the lack of a replacement. It appears that in some National circles, Mr Joyce's appeal is fading, in that he doesn't seem likely to command much popular support as leader. Simon Powers' move to finance capital is, I hear, now being discussed as a major blow to National's succession plans.

Splashing out.....Soul Bar

An old and dear friend is in town from the UK, so tonight we splash out at Soul Bar - Judith Tabron's excellent Viaduct restaurant. I've never been disappointed there, by quality or service. Not the cheapest eatery in town by any means, but deserving of its reputation.

Coda: and it was excellent, as expected. 

Facing facts: the declining union density

I've been a unionist all my life (since 15 to be precise, so it's nearly 50 years). My family were (largely) unionists, even when embourgeoisement took them into the professions in my parents' generation. I expect to pop my clogs as a unionist. But I look at the current union density in NZ - maybe 18% of the workforce overall, perhaps only 7% of private sector workers, and I have to ask the question: why are the figures so low? I can trot out a host of possible explanations - proximate ones (e.g the impact of the ECA, the impact of neo-liberalism) and structural - cultural and generational shifts, reconfiguration of the economy, the breakdown of unionised communities, failures by the existing union movement, and many more. And they are all plausible.

However we understand the decline in density, its impact is dramatic. The collective protection of wages and conditions has been replaced (in small part) by government regulation (e.g. minimum wage regulations) and in large part by individual arrangements, in which the balance of power rests firmly with the employer. Moreover, as we see in Affco and the ports, employers want more and more of that imbalance in power. They are retreating to a nineteenth century model of managerial authority that brooks no questioning by employees (who are, we are told, safeguarded by HR policies and the freedom to leave a job and find a better one - as they say, yeah, right).

The only sustained alternative - in the literature and in international practice - appears to be the type of social movement unionism that built, for example,  COSATU in South Africa, or the Korean movement - primarily political processes of mass mobilisation in which the protection of wages and conditions was but one, albeit important, element. The debate about the relevance of this model for NZ has begun, and is fraught with challenge and misconception. Yet, clearly, something different must be done, for traditional unions are, with the exception of the public sector giants, fading badly, and there is no end in sight to that decline. The CTU is deeply involved in both discussion and action in response to this challenge. The current leadership - which, at the top, is as good as any I look at internationally - is well aware of the challenge but, let's be frank, they have to deal with a membership that is often immersed in the past, scared of change, unable to think strategically, staffed by people of varying capacities, and poorly resourced. The CTU leadership is pushing a very big boulder up a very steep hill, and the costs on personnel of the struggle are palpable. Think of trying to promote the modernisation of MUNZ and its internal nonsense, and you get the picture.

The Left in NZ needs to get in behind the union movement - in terms of engagement, but also in terms of the quality of debate it offers about worker protection and mobilisation. More on this theme anon.

Mr McCully and MFAT (again)

I blogged before the news about the MFAT cuts that Mr McCully was roundly loathed as a minister by seasoned MFAT staff. There was talk then about people looking at their labour market options and wondering whether there was any point in keeping their expertise in the ministry. These are often very highly-skilled people, with broad international networks, who can find excellent work opportunities overseas, often for better salaries and less hassle. NZ diplomats are well thought of in international agencies, and can be be found across the UN and Bretton Woods institutions in droves.

John Armstrong picks up on this today. It is easy to see diplomats as leading a pampered life. I,for one, would not want their job. The arts of diplomacy - from negotiation to saying nothing whilst talking for an extended period - are deep and varied. They are emotionally and technically demanding, and require, often, reasonable intellectual skills. The minutiae of a trade negotiation, for example, would make the average punter's head spin. We seem to be saying to this pretty skilled bunch that they must accept a form of flexibility (as described by Mr Armstrong) that is precisely likely to drive people out of the service and into more secure employment elsewhere. Mr English and Mr McCully clearly do not care about this. They have but one metric - the bottom line, and would prefer to do damage to NZ's external representation rather than sustain a decent set of conditions and expectations in MFAT staff. Short-sighted, stupid and feral - which pretty much describes this government's approach to everything.