Singapore's Recognition Of Success Of NZ Covid-19 Response Shows How Well We're Really Doing

 On Friday, Singapore made an announcement - New Zealanders heading there would no longer be required to self-isolate for 14 days upon arrival. Instead, Kiwis will simply be given a Covid-19 test and assuming it's negative, they'll be allowed to go on their way. 

That's pretty huge - and shifts New Zealand from the clade of 'low risk' countries (such as Vietnam, Taiwan, and South Korea) where visitors to Singapore are allowed provided they undergo 14 days isolation. 

To phrase it another way - Singapore has such confidence in New Zealand's measures to fight Covid-19, that they think we're doing a better job than the three Asian countries often cited as the 'gold standard' for controlling the disease. 

I don't think I've seen any media reports on this here in New Zealand - partially because it's a recently breaking story, but also I suspect because it conflicts with the narrative that various portions of our media seem to wish to push: that the Government has been incompetent, lazy, if not outright flagrantly negligent over the past three-and-a-half months since the last Lockdown ended here. 

To be fair and sure, it's true that over-reliance upon the perceptions of foreign governments in assessing our own Covid-19 response is a bit of a fraught avenue. If you listen to Trump, after all, we're currently in the middle of a massive disaster that means it's "all over" for us. Which is fairly patently not the case. 

Yet even though Singapore's rather ... different to us in many ways, and runs off a social and economic model that would be painfully inappropriate for New Zealand - one thing they're generally very good at is the analysis of risk. They've had to be. That's how they've managed to survive as a small island nation the size of Lake Taupo sandwiched between much larger and often semi-hostile neighbours. And also raised themselves from a small colonial backwater to a prominent international economic powerhouse. 

They've made the decision to regard our people - and therefore, the fruits of our Covid-19 control campaign - as below even 'low risk'. Lesser risk than the countries which went down the pathway of eschewing major lockdowns in favour of localized control and contact tracing. You know, what various domestic right-wing voices here are claiming we should (or should have been able to) have done. 

And they made that decision AFTER the most recent round of Auckland-lockdown-lite had been in place already for a week and a half. 

Don't get me wrong - there are various areas in our Covid-19 response wherein it's quite clear that somebody has dropped the ball. I hardly need to detail them here. And certainly, we've been incredibly lucky upon occasion, as well. 

But at a time when a number of voices are seemingly attempting to portray our Government as clueless and crazy when it comes to controlling the Corona virus, it's useful to be able to apply a bit of perspective. And really compare the scale of our success - as well as our shortcomings - relative to other nations held to be 'doing well'. 

In this case, by making use of the perspective of another. After all - it is notably difficult for a subject to observe itself. 

National Debacle Over Stripper Allegations Shows Trajectory Party Is On

 

There are bad news cycles, there are poor news weeks lacking in cut-through - and then there's whatever's happening with the Opposition. Wherein they've transcended mere mediocrity to start showing their true colours in the most inadvertent and unintentional of ways, splashed across our headlines. 

The weekend's revelation that some in National are reportedly attempting to torpedo their own potential candidate in Auckland Central by claiming she's a former stripper, is by now about par for the course for the party. It's hardly a 'new low' - really more of a 'new middle'. 

And pretty emblematic all-up of where the National Party is at at this point in the campaign. Quite a number of them are so focused on scrabbling for their own individual simulacrum of success that they're doing ridiculous things which don't help the party - and therefore, in the real sense, undermine their own potential future prospects.

Rumours, muckraking, and invented attacks on rivals - internal to your own party or otherwise - are part and parcel of party politics, unfortunately. Although it's rare that they ever serve anything other than the most petty and personal of motivations.

In this case, it's a pretty bad look on just about every score. The party which has been attempting to brand itself as the vehicle for glass-ceiling penetrating , aspirational liberal feminism and women-in-power-ment ... is having a localized meltdown because party members presumably in favour of one up-and-coming female candidate are trying to take down the other female candidate by spreading rumours the latter's a stripper and sex-scandal-implosion liability.

Feminism in National, it would seem, means that the women just as much as the men get their opportunity to take pot shots at women in pursuit of their own personal advancement.

Now to be fair and sure, this isn't a phenomenon exclusive to National - nor is it, for that matter, a proclivity exclusive to politics.

Yet as the National Party's prospects for power diminish as we close upon the Election, their propensity for fighting ever more frantically for what skerricks of potentiality remain has little actual success to immerse itself in and hide behind.

The only thing we can see about them - isn't the fools' gold lustre of faked progress on GDP or housing stats or purportedly vital road construction (or tunnel costings). It's just them as they actually are. Nakedly self-interested invertebrates who'll quite happily sell their own grandmother for the illusory prospect of power, and cook their own goose amidst the duck-shoving to even have a semi-shot at its attainment. 

In a healthy political environment, and when one has the self-confidence to feel secure in possessing principle - this sort of allegation doesn't tend to happen. It's usually only when the desperation kicks in, the poison of despair begins to make all manner of previously morally turgid avenues seem palatable, that we see this kind of conduct happening in earnest. 

It would therefore be tempting to file this alongside Judith Collins' weaponized dobbing in of Iain Lees-Galloway just recently; however this is something else. And not only because there's nothing to suggest there's any truth to the claims made against Samarakone, the National candidate in question. 

Rather, it is because whereas Collins' quip against Lees-Galloway was a sideswipe across the aisle - this is something that is intra-party, yet turning up outside of the party because the famed National Party internal discipline which usually has all the troops facing the same way even in pressing circumstances has begun to break down in earnest. 

Facing the same way does not, of course, mean that knives aren't also pressed into the backs of those immediately ahead of you, of course - and that is something we've seen at least once in the past few months at the very highest levels of the party. But I suspect that, in concert with Collins' moves to marginalize a few other people in the Party, we are beginning to see National descend into the sort of factional infighting which plagued Labour for much of the nine years it spent in Opposition. 

This is particularly the case given the implicit additional target of the attacks upon Samarakone is National Party President, Peter Goodfellow. The infighting therefore, will assumedly be going well beyond the relatively small-scale selection battle over a single now-marginal seat , and may continue to exert a corrosive effect upon National's interior administration and governance for some time to come. 

That may not necessarily be fatal for them in the longer term, of course - as we saw between 2002 and 2005, the roiling chaos which engulfed the party following its worst-ever election result facilitated the rise of one Don Brash, and the re-invigoration of National from not-even-also-ran to almost-government status. 

So who knows how things will play out over the next three years. They might even manage to get near 40% ... eventually. 

Still, I must express my sympathy for Samarakone in this situation. As a younger man, I had not entirely dissimilar underhanded maneuvers and rumour-spreading-for-tactical-nukery carried out against me. Some of it was even semi-true! But fortunately in my case, most of it took place behind closed doors and as whispers in ears to subtly influence things (up until it didn't). It must be a pretty horrible feeling for her to have these sorts of increasingly lurid allegations blared across the headlines.

And not least because it makes her the villain for daring to stand up to the faceless 'whispering campaign' by refuting it, bringing in legal sanction to get it to actually stop, and then having somebody leak that that's what she's doing. Because then it's perceptibly 'on her' that there's bad publicity and 'oxygen' as to the matter. 

In any case, I think it fair to say that National is not so much starting the campaign in Auckland Central on the back foot - as actively underwater. And when you are in it up to your eyeballs, it is occasionally good advice to close your mouth. As a party, I mean. People might inadvertently adduce something as to your character from what you say otherwise.  

2020 - NZ First's St Anger Moment ?

Over the weekend, NZ First did something rather remarkable for a smaller party. They turned 27.

Now, in the annals of music and film, a standout performer's twenty seventh year is always one that's for some reason fraught with risk of imminent mortality. Whether Jimi Hendrix or Kurt Cobain, Jim Morrison or Amy Winehouse ... there's just something about that age that seems to inspire the critical existence failure in the renowned. Their potential never becoming quite realized, and leaving them forever frozen in time. Which can, from an artistic perspective, be no bad thing - there is never the ensuing slide into mediocrity which, say, Metallica underwent in the St Anger era. They are remembered amongst the constellation of Greats by virtue of never having stopped being, even as and when they stopped being.

Except while it is unquestionably the case that NZ First in its two-point-seventh decade is facing a bit of a death-risk in the next few months, that last statement is only of questionable application to the party. In much the same manner as the old parlour-game of asking at what point the French Revolution ceased being a Good Idea, the debate as to whether or perhaps when NZ First stopped being Great (as opposed, presumably, to 'Make New Zealand Great Again' - with all that *that* entails) is one that could go on for some time.

For what it's worth, my answer to the former question is to be unfavourable as to The Terror, but to consider Napoleon to be the apotheosis of The Revolution and therefore fundamentally its savior and the stalwart support for its Goodness going forward to the end and then some. And as applies the latter question .... while I've been pretty disappointed upon occasion by my former party (c.f the TPPA volte-face, Shane Jones in general, inter alia), I have nevertheless been broadly content that my vote for it in 2017 was the right one. We did, after all, get a pretty decent Labour-led Government out of it, for a start. And I've been genuinely pleased with Ron Mark's actual forward thinking and strong advocacy in the Defence portfolio - a series of decisions which we shall reap the benefits of for years if not decades to come.

But all up, in recent weeks NZ First has seemed a rather different kind of rock-star to a sprightly young suicide risk of just under 30. In my writeup on NZ First at its 2017 Convention, I compared the Party to Motörhead - on the basis that while it did seem to basically be releasing the same album every three years or so ... that was OK, because that's exactly what the fanbase seemed content with, and it kept things ticking over consistently if perhaps not immensely excitingly for everybody else within earshot of the stadium.

This no longer quite seems to be the case. Insofar as NZF's found itself in the ineluctable position of no longer quite being able to convincingly play the rebel Outsider following nearly three years in Government ... and is instead attempting to deploy an array of rather bemusing foreign-import cliches to try and give itself some maladroit 'maverick' appeal to paper over its lack of genuine, transformative change.

These range from those so-called 'Bad-Boys of Brexit' that either are or aren't working for NZ First at this year's Election contingent upon which day of the week it is and how the question is asked ... through to Winston's apparent keynote sub-theme of rejecting "Woke Pixie-Dust" in his yesterday's address.

All up, the sense I'm getting from this is not Lemmy Kilmister. It's rather, some *other* aging, punch-drunk hard-living music-scene stalwart that's regrettably started to go a bit tone-deaf and as a result has gone down a bit of a peculiar trajectory in a semi-desperate bid to reclaim the 'vibe' of their now-distant youthful prime. Perhaps 2020 shall prove to be Winston's "St Anger" moment. Or, possibly it's like Dave Mustaine following the frankly remarkable recovery from his stroke - during which his born-again Evangelical Christianity really started to shine through with no off-switch and lead to the critically as well as fanbase panned 'Super Collider'.

Anyway, I digress.

I wasn't at NZ First's Convention this year, so my perception of events is based on little more than media reports and talking with people actually still involved or proximate to the Party who were.

This appeared to confirm that the substance on-view in the media was broadly accurate: that not too terribly much of import occurred (with one major exception), and that in lieu of meaningful announcements, we had Winston attempting to out-woke on being anti-woke Judith Collins in a 'how do you do, fellow kids' sounding attack on what in the old days would have been termed 'political correctness', while also making pretty standard remarks about the importance of 'stability' and preparing for this country's 'future'.

And you know what? That's not actually so bad. Most parties don't signal flagship policy launches in Election years at their annual Conventions. They save those for when precious oxygen is needed on the campaign trail. Stability IS important, going forward - and it's a pretty amusing and positive sight to compare the way the Coalition Government, despite containing three occasionally rather different parties ... hasn't imploded or rolled its leadership in the manner that National has done twice in two months over on the other side of the aisle. It would be nice to presume that 'Stability' of Government also means that NZ First is keen to make ready to support Labour (and perhaps the Greens) for a second term in office, but I suppose we'll have to see what happens.

I'm rather less impressed all up with NZ First's commitment to 'back our future', given that its major contribution (again, with the exception of Ron Mark's decent defence portfolio work) to future-planning for New Zealand has been to turn on a somewhat less than discriminate hose of Provincial Growth Funding and seemingly support the continued status of New Zealand as economic colony through a lack of positive vision for transformative change away from over-reliance on primary industries and tourism (and this, in the same week that Tiwai Point's closure unlocks by necessity a whole nother conceptual space for regional development in Southland) ... but that is another rant for another time.

In terms of actual policy announcements ... there appears to have been but one of serious significance - Tracey Martin's push for the restoration of a Universal Family Benefit. Which is actually a pretty decent proposal. I don't think that it's a serious competitor for a Universal Basic Income - or, for that matter, to the Green Party's significantly watered-down Guaranteed Minimum Income proposal ... but that's because these are different tools with different objectives in mind. You could probably even run them somewhat complementarily. And I perhaps wouldn't even have brought up the Green Party's GMI, except for the fact that Martin, in speaking about the NZF proposal, asserted that part of her objective was to "bust [the] myth" that "the Greens have got a monopoly in caring about poverty" with reference to their recent policy announcements in the relevant area.

Interestingly, the brusqueness towards the Greens ... by claiming to be equal to or better than the Greens in what's ostensibly Green Party core competency, was also something Winston got in on - declaring NZ First to be "in fact the greenest party in Parliament". Presumably with a substance other than envy.

Which, if nothing else, goes to show that I was right all along about the two parties actually realizing they have more in common in terms of values than either really wants to believe ... and therefore fighting bitterly, animositically as a result.

Now, in terms of the actual 'mood of the people', it may also be worth looking at a few of the policy remits that were successfully passed by the Party over the weekend. These included some somewhat predictable ones around abolishing conscience voting for MPs on matters put to referendum and doubling the manpower of our defence force in order to facilitate better humanitarian (as well as military) response.

But also some slightly more surprising ones, such as a push for greater efforts at recycling and minimizing the use of landfills ... and, perhaps in light of present circumstances across the Pacific, a proposal to institute body cameras for Police and Corrections personnel.

All things considered, this year's NZ First Convention - as seen from a rather far distance of a whole few suburbs away and second-hand (instead of just the smoke being second-hand as in previous years) - seems to have been a bit average. Nothing really bad appears to have happened ... but, then, with the plausible exception of Martin's Universal Family Benefit proposal, nothing rather remarkable seems to have occurred, either. Even the Green Monster that turned up part-way through Sunday was both 'non-political' and dealt with outside the venue by security.

As I have said ... in an Election Year, this is almost to be expected - you could view Labour's Convention a few weeks back in much the same light. However, the trouble is that with NZ First, I'm not really sure how much more and different they're actually going to manage going forward from now until the Election.

It's certainly possible that the Party shall surprise us with some visionary, big-ticket items that are actually worth turning out for. I definitely hope so.

It's even possible that some of those visionary, big-ticket items (should they exist) are actually intended to be pursued with some vigour by the Party when (or, perhaps, if) it is back in Government in four or five months time.

Although after the way in which NZ First's ever-mounting stack of Bottom Lines seemed to become occasional Bottom Afterthoughts during the course of last Election's culminatory coalition negotiations process (a matter that was, to be fair, not necessarily under NZF's control - unless it wanted to genuinely go cross-benches and/or subject the country to another election as a result of neither Labour nor National being prepared to countenance some of the more .. unique ones) , it could be well understanded if the Party chose to eschew such things (until it gets desperate) in favour of basically just standing upon its record.

A record which, for all its (occasional) faults - is not actually a bad one, especially in light of its positive contribution to good governance over the past three years, and keeping National seriously hammered for the nine years before that.

Certainly, the notion of 'Stability' and continuance for prudent governance is what Labour's running on this time around - and therein lies at least half of the problem.

The Party will have perceived that being too closely aligned with Labour , effectively means becoming subconsciously indistinguishable from Labour - and therefore likely to become electorally eclipsed by them. This is the opposite scenario to what prevailed in 2011, wherein the Party being fundamentally distinct from Labour (not least, by virtue of being politically purportedly 'dead' at the time) induced many left-of-National Kiwis to tactically or enthusiastically vote for NZF as a fairly direct result.

So instead of running on its record of Good Governance with Labour, we see this curious Cat on the Doorstep campaign stratagem (that is to say, not quite sure whether 'in' or 'out) - of simultaneously running on a record of supposed Good Governance against Labour (and the Greens), as can be seen with the 'handbreak on silly policy' rhetoric of late. But also performative signalling of just how different they are (or like to think they are) from Labour (and most especially the Greens) in areas that are heavily visually distinctive, but lacking in real substance.

Or, in other words, Winston's "Woke Pixie Dust" is just exactly that. The Pictsie [with deference to his proud Scottish heritage] dusting of shouting "Woke" about the place [as he recently did to The Spinoff, for instance, to deflect from their scrutiny of his British associate's pledged assistance], in order to distract from how little there is to easily distinguish NZ First and Labour from each other after three years joined at the hip in coalition governance and Cabinet.

"Where Is My Mind", indeed.

And yet - it could be worse. While I'm not exactly enthused by this contemporary choice of stylistic veneer ... in many ways, it's preferable to NZF deciding to try and add substance to its claim of distinctiveness from those it's recently been in government with. Because while in yesteryear it did this rather effectively by actually running to the economic left of the Labour party ... I rather suspect that were it to try and do genuine policy or ethos distinctiveness from Labour (and the Greens) today, it would go in the exact opposite direction.

But this comes with a risk. The 'Woke' attack line is not merely a distracting bauble for some of its supporters to play with. It's also something of a cathartic steam-valve for various portions of the Party that probably really do think that they've been enabling Government-By-Tumblr for the past three years and are now fed up with it.

What this means in practice, is that what's supposed to be a gimmick - could turn into a much more genuinely felt and genuinely pushed surge of emotion. Especially with them Brexit Back-Street Boys involved. Soon as that happens, it could well turn into, to quote Megadeth's Foreclosure of a Dream:

"Backed in a corner, caught up in the race
Means to an end ended in disgrace
Perspective is lost in the spirit of the chase"

That is to say, in much the same manner as Metallica in the early 2000s, NZF may wind up attempting to push through its doldrumish funk by channeling that raw frustration and emotion and have it become the message, the vibe itself. An outlet, rather than outreach, perhaps.

And while this may have worked rather well in previous years, and upon previous releases (by which I mean NZ First at its arguable necessary-best in 1993-1996 and 2011, and Metallica in its early best albums, Ride the Lightning and Master of Puppets) ... the part that's arguably missing in the here and now is both the technical proficiency to make it a seriously engaging output, as well as the 'something to say' to match that emotional heft to other than perceived personal annoyance.

A lack of realization of these facts - a lack of self awareness - and a decision to press forward down the rabbit-hole of what felt good at the time to release ... appears to have been how St. Anger happened. An album which, for those unaware of the controversy, was basically the musical equivalent of recording a patient screaming their neuroses out in a therapy session. Which may sound incredibly Metal in theory ... but in practice, the questionable (even arguably somewhat 'tone-deaf') quality of the result effectively definitively ended Metallica's reign at or near the top of their relevant musical scene and splintered its fanbase irreparably.

You can see how this might relate to NZ First if it keeps going too hard down this trajectory as we head toward the Election - and especially if there's little else to offset it or otherwise add substance to its offering.

I could probably take the metaphor further at some length (including Load / Reload and S&M representing NZF's years in Government ... therefore adding pressure to 'act out' at the end of the term to draw a line under the previous; and the frankly disconcerting supposition that if NZF's emotive 'Anti-Woke' posturing is Metallica circa 2003, Judith Collins as the larger and likely more successful mobilizer of the phenomenon may be Nu Metal) ... but this stopped being a report on NZF's Convention and started being rather peculiar politico-musical history some paragraphs ago.

To phrase it succinctly, then - NZ First in its 27th year is facing a risky situation. The largely lackluster Convention isn't really a problem for that - however the prospect of the party doubling or even trebling down on some of the only material from said Convention to actually get air-time (i.e. the "Woke Pixie-Dust" - the ruin of many a rockstar) in lieu of much else of substance ... could lead to this becoming the Party's "St. Anger Moment" - and thence joining the Twenty Seven Club itself.

A fate which, despite the Party's traditional colours, would be a most unfortunate 'Fade to Black', indeed.

A Brief Timeline Of Events Pertaining To Schrodinger's Homeless Man

1. Michael Woodhouse alleges Government has inadvertently housed the homeless

2. Government carries out full-scale investigation to determine whether they have, in fact, housed a homeless man for two weeks

3. Despite putting huge resources into the above, including manually reviewing a whole lot of CCTV footage, the Government can find no evidence that this has, in fact occurred

4. Government writes to Michael Woodhouse formally requesting his assistance in investigating the matter

5. Woodhouse starts to umm and err and claims his source, while "reliable", is unlikely to want to co-operate ... and that he'd always been careful to emphasize that his claim wasn't "verified"

6. Woodhouse then turns the attack back on the Government, claiming that the fact that they've put significant resources into investigating HIS CLAIM made as a Member of Parliament that somebody got into Quarantine and stayed there for a full two weeks ... means they believe their own system's immensely flawed and it could have happened and that's what's important.

7. Or, phrased another way - "IT WAS JUST A PRANK, BRO, YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE TAKEN IT SO SERIOUS" ... and, of course, if they hadn't .. he'd have attacked them for that as well.

Some things are too important to "cry wolf" over. Unless you're National.

But What Of The Real Culprits ? Covid Quarantine Crisis And The Rush To Judgement And Blame

There's been a few instances over the past few months wherein the Government and the Director-General of Health have said one thing ... and it's turned out that the situation on the ground has been a little different.

A good example of this concerns the NZ Nurses Organization saying they were having issues with getting PPE, and other working conditions.

As it turned out, there were issues - and these were moved to be rectified; occasionally at a rather glacial pace by the local DHBs involved.

I was disquieted about that - as I'm the sort of person who generally presumes that if somebody on the front line says there's an issue, and somebody somewhat removed therefrom says there's not ... then you believe the ordinary worker. At least enough to take them at their word that there's something which deserves looking at - and then look seriously into it.

The past 48 hours have thrown up another cluster of such occurrences. Some events that should never have happened; some events that - with something like 19,000 people going through quarantine - were probably bound to have occurred eventually.

As applies the former, there's been a notable discrepancy between what we were told towards the start of the occurrence ... and what it is that now appears to be the case.

But here's the thing - it's tempting to go for the simplistic take on this. To assume that when there's a dysjunction between the facts-on-the-ground and the words-from-the-mouth at the Parliamentary Press Conference ... that that means somebody standing in the latter is wilfully obfuscating. Lying. Covering things (most prominently their own behind) up.

That's what National wants you to believe. And to be fair, they've got understandable reason to presume so - they've certainly done it often enough themselves while they were in Government. It's part of the nature of the game in politics, no matter which side of the aisle you find yourself upon.

Except I'm not sure that that's what's happened here. Not exactly, anyway. In fact, I'd go so far as to suggest that there seems to be reasonable evidence that it's virtually the opposite.

Phrased another way: I have no reason to doubt that Bloomfield et co, and even the hapless David Clark *genuinely* believed they were in possession of the facts. That procedures were being followed. That we *were* in possession of what we said we were, doing what we said we were doing, things working basically as they almost ideally should.

And that the shock and fury many of us have experienced to find out that this is not, in fact, the case - has been an emotion they've felt, too.

Because it seems like they've been operating in almost as much of an informational void about this as we have. Perhaps even more so - as they had every right, as the lawfully empowered and responsible oversight of the situation, to presume that the datastreams they were getting were reasonably accurate and comprehensive in scope.

So why weren't they. What went wrong.

Broadly speaking - I am calling this the "Yes Minister" defence.

Because that's honestly what it looks like. Multiple layers of questionable communication let alone accountability and command-and-control, between often-competent and certainly well-meaning people at the top, and often-competent and certainly well meaning people at the bottom, that have allowed the *incompetent* exceptions to not so much *test* the rule as seemingly become it.

This does not absolve the Minister or the Government of ultimate responsibility in the overarching sense - it happened on their watch. But it DOES show that in the SPECIFIC sense, decision-makers at the top weren't the directly proximate cause of these situations.

After all - superhuman though he may occasionally seem to be, it's not like Dr Bloomfield could be personally across all quarantine facilities and testing-before-release in the country.

What I'm saying is - it's easy and cathartic to focus upon the faces at the top, and fixate that they're somehow the sum totality of the problem. To do so, in this instance allows the ACTUAL cause of these lapses  to fester quietly out of sight. Safe in its relative anonymity and lack of true accountability.

At various points in the informational chains going upwards, and the implementation chains going back out, things have become broken. In fact, it's inescapable to conclude that they've actually been severely broken for some time.

Our health system has some amazing men and women operating in it - but time and again seems to find itself with feet and nervous-bundles of clay.

Just look at Dr Bloomfield's immediate predecessor, or various other bureaucrats and middle-managers who've graced the headline pages in ignominy over the past couple of years. In some ways, it's almost amazing that the system's performed as well as it has up until this point - in 'peace-time' let alone during the depths of the current crisis circumstance.

This is why the military's really been brought in. Because the Government has rapidly come to realize that really ... it can't actually trust the informational picture, and the adherence to commands from the center, of those other agencies that were hitherto entrusted with the running of our quarantine system.

Perhaps that should have happened some time before now.

Pending the no-doubt inevitable Commission of Inquiry into our pandemic response all up ... who can say.

All things considered, while I am not seeking to abrogate the burden of responsibility that is borne by those by now household names at the top of the tree ... I do think it's worth emphasizing that having responsibility for the situation, and being at fault so as to cause it - are not, strictly speaking, the same thing.

The factors that may have lead to this week's major shortfalls, or various others of the events I've subtly alluded to - would quite likely have taken place regardless of who  was Minister of Health at the time ... or even perhaps regardless of who was in Government.

In fact, while I am openly somewhat partisan about this - I actually think that had National been in the driver's seat, we would have had more numerous and risky occurrences to deal with. Simply because National has been quite plain in their intent to bring in more people with looser restrictions (particularly international students, and matching the Trans-Tasman Bubble with re-opening the border with China at the same time).

That's why I don't think sending David Clark afore a firing squad is actually going to help matters (in the short term, anyway). And why if there's going to be a Witch Hunt - it should presumably be an Inquisition whose more searching instincts are focused rather further away and into darker recesses and corners than those we can see blaring back at us from the nightly news-casts as Tova O'Brien endeavours to tear to shreds the trustworthy reputation of the man we fondly call St Ashley.

There's little to be gained from that. Except ratings and shock-value. Both for the Government's political opponents, and for a scandal-hungry news-media looking to stoke the regime-change fires of the impending Election that's coming later this year.

Our trust has been shaken, as a nation - and after what's occurred - or, should I say, what's nearly occurred (and hopefully hasn't) - this week, that's both understandable and as it should be.

Muller's Big Speech - The Inversion Of A Copy Of A Clone Of A Success Story

I am slightly surprised that Todd Muller's big speech as leader of the National Party, is summed up by the Herald as:

"A National-led Government would not increase taxes or cut benefits, its leader Todd Muller has promised.

In fact, the new opposition leader today revealed that if he is Prime Minister, National would spend more money on the "welfare safety net".

He also said the previous National Government did not move fast or boldly enough on issues such as climate change and addressing New Zealand's social deficit."

Now, none of that's necessarily bad or inaccurate - not that one necessarily trusts a National government to actually go through with any of these things should it make it into office ... but that's not what's noteworthy about this.

Rather, it's that - as my associate Josh Van Veen pointed out - basically indistinguishable from what the Labour Party is about.

Which is an interesting inversion on what we've had for much of the past nine years, wherein the Labour Party was too often effectively about being kinda like the National Party ... but not quite as much.

Thus reflecting the fundamental truth that Kiwi Politics has generally always been a contest for 'the centre', with 'the centre' (for the past 30 years, anyway) being defined as somewhere on the neoliberal right whre ideas and vision go to die. And "Charisma" means all the appeal of a slick used car salesman in a toothpaste commercial.

Nevertheless, it's interesting to see the shoe on the other foot now - and the Nats choosing to define themselves in conscious imitation (even if they'd never admit it) to Labour. Perhaps it's the logical result of seeing just how badly Simon Bridges' constant irascible criticism of Jacinda was playing with voters. Perhaps it's actually more sincere - and a return to Bill English style Catholic Conservatism With Its Cufflinks Rolled Up. Perhaps it just plays well with focus-groups that're still shiny about Labour following the Covid-response.

Whatever the case, it's questionable as a 'winning strategy'. Although if there is a tide in the affairs of men - I suspect rather strongly that it's just naturally gone out and shall *remain* out on National for awhile yet, meaning this is effectively going to be an Election of 'damage control' uber alles.

In any case, all of this put me in the mind of a semi-parody post-modern analysis of a video-game character somebody directed my attention to years ago:

"Waluigi is the ultimate example of the individual shaped by the signifier. Waluigi is a man seen only in mirror images; lost in a hall of mirrors he is a reflection of a reflection of a reflection. You start with Mario – the wholesome all Italian plumbing superman, you reflect him to create Luigi – the same thing but slightly less. You invert Mario to create Wario – Mario turned septic and libertarian – then you reflect the inversion in the reflection: you create a being who can only exist in reference to others. Waluigi is the true nowhere man, without the other characters he reflects, inverts and parodies he has no reason to exist. Waluigi’s identity only comes from what and who he isn’t – without a wider frame of reference he is nothing. He is not his own man. In a world where our identities are shaped by our warped relationships to brands and commerce we are all Waluigi."

That's where National's at at the moment. Playing the deliberate role (for what else is left to them) of the inversion of a copy of a clone of a success-story.

On The Seattle Commune

So for the past day or so, I've been watching developments in the Seattle "Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone". It's kinda amazing.

Basically, after the Seattle police pulled out [apparently abandoning a station in the process], Anarchists and Anarcho-Communists pulled *in*, and set up some sort of commune in the vicinity - and then started quasi-fortifying it with barricades and attempts at recruiting a militia.

I predicted at the time that it was probably going to play out rather like the abortive uprising/commune from Les Miserables ... but it appears that this was perhaps somewhat optimistic.

As with many putative revolutionary efforts ... the leadership proved somewhat unstable. By which I mean, the tenure of one of the lead organizers running the show lasted approximately six hours - ending when they were repeatedly accused of domestic violence by former partner(s) via twitter ... followed by said organizer announcing their intent to vacate the office (and planet) in an act of not-exactly-revolutionary suicide. [although as far as I am aware, they did not viably undertake this, and are still alive - if off twitter - which is good, because the stated justification of their feeling unable to improve from being an abuser is .. pretty pessimistic]

Said tenure may have been brief, but it could not be termed boring - with a perhaps unexpected announcement about how "the homeles [sic] [...] took away all the food", and therefore required urgent donations of soy-based sustenance [I'm not kidding, that's literally what they were after] "anything to help us eat" ... prompting one associate to note that they'd only had 'communism' for two days and were *already* starving.

Although all of that drama cannot *hope* to hold a candle to this morning's intriguing development ... the emergence of a local AirBNB landlord/rapper and associates, who promptly declared themselves to be the new "police", and started implementing policies of 'stop-and-frisk', and gratuitous beat-downs for potentially minor offending. It's not quite the Committee of Public Safety ... but the "People's Force" is certainly turning out to be an interesting demonstration of the implicit principle around revolutions eating their own dreams for the second course.

Particularly as it appears that the man variously (if somewhat sensationally-exotically) referred to as "The Warlord of CHAZ", or by his first name - Raz .. appears to have been a vocal initial advocate and proponent of the 'revolutionary' 'secession' of the Autonomous Zone in the first place.

Sadly, however, all good things must come to an end ... and as of this afternoon, the Seattle PD have announced their intent to move in and reclaim the commune formerly known as CHAZ.

In theory you *could* suggest (in keeping with the spirit of these weeks) that they felt moved to act due to a black man and assorted associated militia now running things, rather than a 'mostly harmless' group of anarcho-larpers - although I think it may have a little more to do, in practice, with the reports that the "People's Force" of Raz of CHAZ, had started going around demanding protection money from other locals and their businesses, as well as, you know, assaulting people in the street for looking suspicious or filming them.

Which means that, I suppose, you could *also* allege (in keeping with the spirit of these times) that the underlying reason for the sudden Seattle PD interest in retaking the CHAZ - is because they absolutely *hate* having competition in these spheres. The police, after all, are a tangible expression of the concept of a state enjoying a theoretically exclusive monopoly on violence.

It certainly has been a rather curious thing to watch various persons on twitter suddenly come to grips with the notion that a localized abolishment of police may well create a vacuum into which steps something that's like the police but actually somehow *worse* and less accountable to its subjects.

Although I must confess - I wasn't expecting the development and the collapse of this entire thing to take place so rapidly, nor so ... bathotically, over a few days in mid-June 2020.

With deference to some of the rather more ... impressive communes and failed revolutionary uprisings of the past 200 years or so, it really does put one in the mind of that excellent aphorism of Marx -

"Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce."

We could, perhaps, term this the 20th Brouhaha of L'Raz d'Washington.