Is Matthew Hooton's Pro-PRC Positioning Rubbing Off On Muller?

So here's a curious thing. A few days ago, Matthew Hooton wrote what can only be described as an obsequiously pro-PRC column for the Herald [this was the 'Chinese Taipei' one comparing Taiwanese independence to the Chatham Islands attempting to secede from New Zealand and proclaiming itself the real government of the entire country].

Now, just prior  to Todd Muller's victory over Simon Bridges, Hooton put out a piece which appeared *Suspiciously* similar to Muller's remarks in his first speech as National's new Leader.

As it turned out, this was no accident, nor plagiarism - but rather a case of shared authorship. Hooton had been Muller's sotto-voce comms guy for much of his Leadership campaign. Not that I seem to recall this being openly disclosed by Hooton before he started going in to bat for Muller and/or against Bridges, but not my point. Which is, instead, to note that Hooton has a reasonable degree of influence over what the new National Party leader says in public.

Which may, perhaps, explain why Todd Muller started loudly pushing for New Zealand to re-open the border with the People's Republic of China, "concurrently" with our working to re-open the border with our closest neighbour, trading partner, and traditional ally of Australia.

Personally, if we were going to be doing this with anyone else other than Australia, I would have thought that it made more sense to be looking at resuming relatively normal-ish interactions with countries that've actually demonstrably got the virus completely under control ... like Taiwan ... but for obvious reasons, I doubt that Hooton would be keen upon pushing for that.

Anyway, to sum up - we can reasonably infer from Hooton's column that he's pretty pro-PRC. And seems to think that openly standing up for New Zealand's interests when the PRC pushes us to, say, *not* have a lockdown etc. ... is negative conduct to be castigated and eschewed.

He's got a point that there's a potential economic cost associated with such actions, and that Winston's exchanges with the Chinese Embassy here are, as I put it at the time, a case of playing bull-rush in a China-shop. [Which I don't necessarily disagree with doing either, but that is another story for another time]

But going out of his way to insistently denigrate Taiwan as "Chinese Taipei" and roll the PRC's preferred line upon that and other subjects - is going rather further than sensible, pragmatic 'realpolitik' considerations. It's repeating outright propaganda, to the interest of a state other than this one.

And then a few days later, Hooton's highest-profile local client, the new leader of the National Party, starts pushing a similar line around re-engaging with China by opening the border etc. as a top priority. [And certainly, this would help restore the situation the Chinese embassy was pushing for at the start of the crisis - wherein they vocally opposed our closing of the border to the PRC and other countries in the first place]

We have known for some time now that the PRC has made a considered and cogent effort to get its point of view into our politics, courtesy of Prof Brady's "Magic Weapons" paper and other such occurrences.

In light of this, I think it is a legitimate question to ask what degree of influence Hooton and his associates had over Muller's remarks and subsequent (geo)political positioning over the weekend.

On Matthew Hooton Against Winston Against China

There was something odd about Matthew Hooton's NZ Herald piece this morning castigating Winston for his remarks about the People's Republic of China. Namely, in a piece that was significantly about NZ's stance on Taiwan rejoining the WHO ... he did not use "Taiwan" once. Instead, it was "Chinese Taipei" all the way through - and in a manner that seemed almost calculated to emphasize that name. Which is, if you were unaware, the PRC's preferred way of talking about its "renegade province" on the international stage.

The only time Hooton came anywhere near saying "Taiwan", was when he was comparing ""Taiwanese Splitters"" [in scare-quotes, presumably because he's quite keen to kow-tow not only to the PRC's preferred proper nouns, but also to try and make out that Taiwan's divergence from the PRC isn't really a real thing, either, whatever the nomenclature under which it occurs] ... to the Chatham Islands pretending to break away from New Zealand in a bid to get the rest of us here in Kiwiland empathizing with Beijing upon the matter.

Now I know Hooton's no fan of Jacinda Ardern, but I somewhat suspect that obliquely insinuating she's Chairman Mao circa the late 1940s, is more than a few Bridges too far.

There's legitimate space to discuss Winston's remarks pertaining to the PRC recently - that's one of the benefits of a free and democratic society, we can have free and democratic conversations about what our elected representatives come out with upon all of our collective behalves.

And while I do think that Winston is, in effect, coasting towards mixing metaphors by playing bull-rush in a China shop by openly disclosing that the PRC attempted to get us not to enter Lockdown, or asserting that Beijing wouldn't impose significant trade-penalties upon us for supporting the Australian call for independent inquiry into the origins of Covid-19 etc. ...

... that doesn't mean I think he's in the wrong for doing so. He's standing up for New Zealand's interests and independence.

Hooton's perspective, by contrast, appears to be that letting China have its way - and at least as importantly, being seen to do so - is the best way to support New Zealand's interests. I'm not sure if he's to bothered about the "Independence" side of that equation.

Still, look on the bright-side. If Beijing chooses to make good on Hooton's implied threats to stop accepting our exports, etc. ...

... perhaps that means they'll also stop buying up our politicians and newspaper columnists.

On National On Labour On Human Rights In (A) Crisis

So let me get this straight. The National Party is objecting to the Government's recent Public Health Response bill ... because of its deeply held stances around the protection of human rights, opposition to warrantless searches, and scrupulously consistent abject horror at the concept of abrogation (or expedition) of democracy.

I believe the canonical response goes: pull the other one, for it hath bells on.

This is the self-same National Party that semi-regularly treated 'human rights', and the Human Rights Commission as a dirty word during its time in Government - indeed, which has continued to oppose the Human Rights Commission's stance on prisoners voting  from Opposition.

This is the self-same National Party that massively expanded Police and spy agencies' powers to engage in warrantless search and surveillance of ordinary Kiwis ... and, as it happens, sided against the Human Rights Commission AGAIN in the process.

This is the self-same National Party that imposed a SuperCity on Auckland against the will of its people (as in, quite literally erased eight democracies and then some at the stroke of a pen), suspended democracy for almost a decade at Environment Canterbury, and rushed HOW much legislation through under Urgency?

National's own track-record is abundantly clear. They didn't care about human rights, or the views of the Human Rights Commission, or protecting you from warrantless search etc., or upholding your democratic-constitutional system ...

... up until it became politically convenient to. In fact, they STILL don't care about these things. They're just far enough from power - and painfully aware that they're going to be that way for some time yet - that they can semi-safely pretend to be up in arms about these concerns, secure in the knowledge that by the time they're in a position to legislate in these areas again, all of this will be a distant memory.

The National Party was quite prepared to actively support the abrogation of human rights, sidelining of HRC, and the deliberate erosion of democratic systems here ... in an ordinary, peace-time situation. In fact, in what was - by  their own accounting of things - some of the best and most prosperous conditions in recent memory.

Who knows WHAT they'd have felt entirely entitled to hack away at were they in the driving seat right now instead of Labour. Hell, they'd probably be flogging off the other half of half a dozen energy companies in order to try and fund a few billion worth of tax-cuts ... and that'd be before they'd even realized there was a Covid-19 Crisis demanding their attention.

Now, I am not, strictly speaking, a huge fan of Labour ordinarily. And I do think that there is legitimate room for both criticism and conversation around this Bill. As well as, of course, congratulation in no small quantity for how they've handled this present Crisis all up.

But I find it exceedingly difficult to believe that the man who proudly boasts of being a "former Crown Prosecutor" who's presently leading the Opposition ... genuinely has an issue with warrentless searches by Police. It'd be interesting to know if this apparent deeply-seated principled belief meant that he'd ever turned down prosecuting a cannabis charge, for instance, because the warrantless search powers we've already got under various legislation (even prior to the legislation he voted for on this subject) were made use of to make the arrest.

I doubt it. I really do.

There's a lot of misinformation flying around about the Public Health Response bill at the moment.

Surely, the most egregious of it is that National has a leg to stand on.

Not least because that would imply that it hath been surgically removed from Simon's mouth.

On The Curious Un-Death Of Kim Jong Un - Schrodinger's Dictator

So for the past 48 hours, I've witnessed a lot of excited chatter about the alleged incapacitation of Kim Jong Un. First it was because he'd had surgery and was having a tough time of recovery; then it was because he was in a coma; then it was a vegetative state (which some wag imputed to mean he'd just sampled his first vegetable); and then it was a death, with his sister poised to take over and make totalitarian autocracy the equal-opportunity sport it had always longed to be.

Except here's the thing. There's no actual proof that this has occurred.

What there is, are a range of predominantly American news-sites, falling over themselves to report that he's dead, on the strength of what appear to be unconfirmed rumours.

Meanwhile, South Korea - who are both figuratively and literally closer to the situation than just about anyone - have expressed considerable skepticism, and believe everything's basically normal (or, at least, as normal as the DPRK-o-sphere ever really gets).

Now, in fairness, it is possible that Kim Jong Un is dead. It is possible that there's some sort of coup underway and the news he is dead has been put out for some intentionally aimed-for impact. It is possible that Kim Jong Un himself put out the news he is dead, because he saw how much "fun" the whole 'inject disinfectant' thing was, and wants to have a go at "JUST A PRANK, BRO - WORLD LEADER EDITION" himself.

All of these things are possible, although I am not sure how many, if any, are actually likely.
For now, he is Schrodinger's Dictator. The Man In The Box.

And until there is actually some sign one way or 'tuther from the DPRK, it would be entirely premature to actually believe that these "rumours" you're all suddenly placing massive credence in, have a solid ring of truth to them.

[And seriously, looking at the American right-wingers around the place - you people turn on a dime! You go inside 24 hours from claiming the media makes up anything and everything to make a leader you like look bad (potentially by playing unaltered clips of him speaking) ... through to just taking everything that's being said about a leader you don't like (but that your leader kinda likes) at face value because you like how it sounds!]

If one looks into it, it turns out that the DPRK appears to be run by a cabal of necromancers. Because on a reasonably regular basis, we hear a report of this or that general or senior official or music-star that's supposedly been executed in cartoonish supervillain style ways - only to have them turn up alive and well at some function in public view looking surprisingly healthy for a corpse. Particularly one that's supposedly been used as mortar or anti-aircraft gun target practice.

This has taught me to have a reasonable degree of skepticism whenever such claims are made. It doesn't mean that executions, disappearances, or dynastic transfers of power are all an illusion. Only that rumours of some deaths are greatly exaggerated, often by people with an agenda - whether that's to make the DPRK seem more relatably evil as a narrative antagonist, or simply to sell you something, or especially both at once as they both feed of each other. (the shifting stories o some DRPK defectors can also be viewed in this light)

But who cares. Many of you seem to want a "feel good" news story. Because if the death of one is a tragedy and a million a statistic .. the deaths of tens of thousands amidst the present pandemic can apparently be eclipsed by the admittedly rather large figure of one Hermit King in a missile-transporter hearse.

Have a bit of skepticism, and some care - we don't know that Kim is Dead. It's possible that his shade is chilling right now with Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction, instead.

Winston Wronged And HDPA Right - The Unexploded Truth Of The Pension Payment Settling Of Accounts

So earlier this week, two things happened. Winston got his lawsuit result back ... and the National Party started demanding that he pay for it.

Now, in a sense, you could be forgiven (by somebody else) for seeing National's point. The judgement was reasonably clear - the assertion that Paula Bennett and/or Anne Tolley (inter alia) had leaked Winston's pension overpayment details to the media as part of some sort of targeted political hit-job, was unproven. Indeed, would have been very difficult to actually prove in the first place.

So therefore, if Tolley & Bennett were not found guilty - and the taxpayer was footing the bill for the whole fruitless exercise, perhaps some recompense was in order?

Balderdash. There are three salient points to be made here. The first is that the judgement also quite clearly agrees that Winston's privacy was breached, in a highly unusual and improper manner. The only thing it disagrees with is that the culprit could be positively identified.

And that, as it happens, is not necessarily too terrible of a thing. Insofar as, if we cannot actually prove to a reasonable standard that somebody has done it ... then of course the law should not assert that they have.

The second, is that as Winston's privacy was breached in this way, it's good that somebody took both government apparatus and relevant Ministers notionally responsible to task over it. Bennett has a bit of a history of making improper disclosures about Ministry of Social Development payment recipients for political impact - and previously she has managed to get away much more easily than she did this time. Possibly because impoverished mothers dealing with WINZ are less able to afford High Court lawsuits than veteran pensioner politicians armed with the resources of state.

The utilization of taxpayer money in this way, in other words, while it might seem a vainglorious counter-charge in pursuit of political scalps as part of a personal vendetta ... is actually a safeguarding and upholding of our rights as taxpayers to be treated fairly by our state and government. It is, in short, that thing NZ First has so often claimed to be about - "Keeping The Bastards Honest".

But the third point ... is that I am not sure the judgement as it was, really lets National off the hook. At least, not enough for it to be pompously demanding that the victim - and for all his faults, in this he truly was - of malfeasance, pay back the entire sum total of his costs in pursuit of justice.

Now, I am going to astound everybody - not least of which, myself - by stating that Heather du Plessis-Allan got something right. Not recently, but a year ago, but of fresh saliency and relevance in light of this week's judicial findings.

To quote her - "The reason I say that is because in the weeks before the leak, I was told by the Nats that the nats had the information. 

They told me they were considering leaking it. They told me how they would leak it, the process they would follow to cover their tracks. Without going into details, I can tell you that’s exactly how it played out.

So the chances that the Nats leaked it are about 99 per cent."

That's from a piece upon the subject she wrote in late August of last year. A veritable lifetime ago in multiple senses of the term. But nonetheless, an interesting remark in light of what has just occurred.

For while this is not exactly the sort of evidence that one could viably take to court - partially because it is hearsay, and partially because I suspect a journalist's protections of sources would mean that it would be difficult to compel her to unveil more details that might actually lead to surety about the situation ...

... it nevertheless suggests rather strongly that Winston WAS right to point the finger toward National.

And that what has just happened this week, wherein the verdict has come in, and National are demanding that Winston pay up, apologize, and all the rest of it, is a case of a party who were probably actually guilty of wrongdoing having an incredibly lucky escape and then doubling down on their visage of tortured innocence. Certainly, they have had few strong blows against the Government in recent weeks (for entirely understandable reasons - blow-BACK on the other hand, being another matter), so the chance to actually salvage some shrinking vestige of moral high ground must have proven irresistible.

The fact that Tolley and Bennett have escaped direct and official censure for this gambit, should in no way detract from the fact that Winston has been partially vindicated. It should also not distract from the very real possibility that National remains secretly guilty of the offence that has been charged against it.

It is repugnant for it to be found that Winston was, indeed, the victim of such a breach - and then to expect him to have to pay for the proving that he has been wronged against.

It is also most curious that we can have senior figures of our political and journalistic sphere pretty sure that National as a party WAS actively involved in the leaking which ensued, and because we cannot decisively prove WHICH National high-up it came from, this therefore lets the party as a whole and as an entity off the hook.

National can and will spin this as some sort of grandiloquent vindication. It is nothing of the sort.

On The Escalating Media Demands For A Covid-19 'Wartime' Coalition With National

It's Almost Like The Neoliberals Don't WANT To Survive The Crisis - On Brazen Talk Of "Acceptable Losses" To Re-Grease Wheels Of Economy

There is a quotation often attributed to Lenin, in which it is said that when it comes time to hang the capitalists - they will fall over each other to attempt to sell their executioners the rope.

Now, I do not invoke this axiom to attempt to urge a death-sentence against this Texan. Going by his own words, he seems more than eager to initiate such a thing upon himself, in order to secure the delusory promise of a few days of scrounged together economic 'stabilization'.

For that is all that would likely eventuate were America to turn upon the proverbial dime and ditch physical/social distancing and lockdown protocols to go back to "business as usual" (as Trump appears now keen to do) ... isn't even a temporary uptick in economic activity - it's just a brief arrest of the ongoing crisis-pandemic furthered decline.

Followed by an even more dramatic medium-to-long-term negative impact as the directly attributable result of heightened pressure upon their healthcare system and their workforce through illnesses, disorder, and deaths.

Some Americans in the political and financial spheres, are more afraid of the malaise of a significant downturn in economic activity (or even doing things differently when it comes to economic activity all up), that it is preferable to talk of quite literally "sacrificing" an entire generation in pursuit of its desperate avoidance.

They love largely illusory money (for that is, ultimately, what so much of their stock-market, with its one point five trillion dollar devouring snackatite, actually is), and are prepared to fight to the death to defend it. Human blood and human deaths, in exchange for filthy, filthy lucre.

To be fair and sure, Lt. Gov. Patrick deserves some minimal modicum of 'credit' for being prepared to place himself - rhetorically at least - upon the chopping block.

And the issue is not his own willingness in principle to do something daft for his grand-children; because there is something instinctual in the desire to protect one's progeny and future lineage.

Dependent upon your personal ethical position, you may or may not also have a problem with his endeavouring to force his personal choice in this matter upon every OTHER grandparent in the nation.

But for me, it is quite simple. Doing as these economic right-lemming kinds would wish, does not offer "sacrifice" in exchange for meaningful improvement in circumstances - either for their own generation, or for ours. It shall not leave their country better off a week, three weeks, ten weeks, or twenty eight weeks later from now.

On the contrary, it shall almost certainly extend the misery. Because 'delayed gratification' rather than degraded prefrontal cortex critical-thinking-child seeking pseudoconomic sugar-rush-'stimulus', is not how their minds appear to work in practice.

This, presumably, is a large part of how we seem to *keep* finding ourselves, every few years, crushed under the weight of "too big to fail" billion-dollar outfits and operators who can't seem to keep themselves ticking over between largely self-authored crises sans massive government intervention upon their behalf. A variable that requires no globe-spanning contagion other than the ideological one to repeatedly ensue!

And lest this seem like an anti-American beatup ... it is important to note that many Americans find all of the above absolutely and axiomatically abhorrent. And, perhaps more concerningly, that it is not only an American 'disease' of the mind of which we are speaking.

It was just a week ago that the European Union's leadership was speaking about the necessity of a balancing act between preventing deaths on the one hand (assumedly also encompassing to a certain extent deaths particularly amidst the older and less wealthy or physically hearty - you know, those for whom the capitalist mill has increasingly less use for as time goes on ... both their time in a personal sense, and the general time of the advancement of the economic epoch we presently endure) ... and preserving "The Market" and its accompanying actions and profits on the other.

It may be undeniably true that on a long enough time-line, everybody's survival rate drops to zero ... yet these kinds of "acceptable losses" wherein the time-lines of many are foreshortened considerably in order to secure temporary reprieve for the stock-portfolios of the few, is not so much "natural selection" as it is "utterly inhuman".

Perhaps, in the not too distant and nightmarishly, overbearingly close future, it may be possible for finance-capitalism to exist sans humans. It already seems to do largely well enough with just computers and the hive-like inhabitants of Wall Street, so some might suggest it's endemically close enough.

Yet until that happens - and, indeed *especially* should that happen, it makes no sense whatsoever to value dollars above lives in the manner these demons are proposing.

If there is to be a "sacrifice", turn it around - sacrifice a certain modicum of financier-cheque-book, to support the lives and the quality of lives of many ordinary and older people.

Except most peculiar, curious thing - it never seems to get offered like that, does it. It's always just the other way around.