The quote is from Garth George.

I agree. I like titles, and I am annoyed that people who have recieved the equivelant honour in NZ do not have them.  I think that this is one thime for retrospective legislation: that people with the first level of the Order of NZ –  should be offered this as well.

Because in NZ, it either means 30 years of weaseling in Wellington, or (less commonly but often enough) a lifetime of service.

Some silly people, of course – and they are a small minority – complain that the restoration of titles is, as one letter writer put it, “out of touch with contemporary New Zealand”.

That is arrant nonsense. A Herald poll this week asked, “Is the return of knights and dames in the NZ honours system a good move?” and the response from 3832 New Zealanders was a thumping 76 per cent “yes”.

There are those, too – and Helen Clark (remember her?) is among them – who reckon that, as she put it before the election, “The use of aristocratic titles is outside of the Kiwi value system”.

Nonsense, again. The titles we confer today have nothing to do with aristocracy and everything to do with the regard in which we hold some of our number and having a convenient way to distinguish them.

How many of the ONZ recipients of the past eight years can you name? Not many, I’ll wager. The media are disinclined to publish letters after people’s names, but will invariably use a title.

Thus are we constantly reminded of those on whom we have deservedly (and not infrequently undeservedly) bestowed mana for what is perceived as outstanding national service.

Think Sir Edmund Hillary, Sir Peter Blake, Sir Wilson Whineray; Sir James Wattie, Sir James Fletcher; Dame Ngaio Marsh, Dame Anne Salmond, Dame Whina Cooper – New Zealanders who live and will continue to live in our memories, and easily so because of their titles.

Another silly argument is that we should not restore titles because Australia, Canada and other Commonwealth countries don’t use them. My answer to that is: Who the hell cares what Australians and Canadians do or don’t do? We are secure enough to make our own choices, surely.

via Garth George : Object to titles? Then you, Sir, are a fool – Opinion – NZ Herald News.

Matt McCarten is of the left. He is the person behind the UNITE union in NZ, which has been quite confrontational when attempting to get a deal for their members, or shame a multinational.

(McCarten is smart: he targeted McDonalds, which is no longer loved by the middle class liberals who buy Spurlock documentaries). He writes a column for the Sunday Herald. Today he let this slip:

Workers have always the known that politics impacts on their lives, and expect their unions to have a political strategy. Workers in many countries, including New Zealand, have even formed political parties of their own to advance their interests.

But no one believes that Labour is the sole champion of workers’ interests any more. The Greens are consistently better on workers’ issues. The Maori Party is more reliable. Even if Labour was the most pro-worker party, putting all the union movement’s eggs into one party isn’t that smart.

via Matt McCarten: Little bites off a lot more than he can chew – Politics – NZ Herald News.

As a conservative, I beleive that any group can meet and work collectively for the interests of their members. This process is neutral, and indeed needed: it is easier for the government to talk to the medical association or the chair of the farmer’s group than to each ornery individual in that group. There is nothing morally wrong with a union. There is nothing wrong with promoting interests in the agora: we allow free speech so that the public can criticise and confront ideas, in the hope that out of this challenge truth will be reinforced.

What McCarten is saying is that the neo-feudal,  “organic” connection of Labour with the union movement is over. He, in my mind correctly, sees Labour as working in the interests of public sector employees and specail interests. He does not see them as being for the workers. He notes that the Green party is more socialist that Labour. He is removing the middle man — or the middle party — from the equation.

And he,  rightly, says that one cannot serve two masters: one will either sacrifice one’s political ambitions to represent your union members, or disavow your political ambitions. You can’d do both.

I often disagree with Matt, but he conclusion is correct. The day, in New Zealand, of a broad movement of the left is over. Labour has forgotten the reason it was created. They are no longer in power, and their performace has deteriorated since the election.

Labour has to think about how they will survive. They cannot rely on the (few remaining) workers in NZ:  the Maori party and the Greens may poach the beneficiaries as well. I predict that the party will either move left (and compete with the Greens) or rediscover populism.

The latter is unlikely. This could be interesting.

This is Beau, who my sons chose from the RSPCA. He now owns the house, and thinks he owns my couch.

Bazza was talking last week about persistance and this week about humility.

We need to continue to pray, we need to continue to do good. We are blessed so we can do this, not to compare with one another.

For none of us can compare withservice,  the loss  of status, or the sacrificial death of  Jesus.

We need to remember that tolerance is not a Christian virtue. Charity, justice, mercy, prudence, honesty — these are Christian virtues. And obviously, in a diverse community, tolerance is an important working principle. But it’s never an end itself. In fact, tolerating grave evil within a society is itself a form of serious evil.

via Rendering Unto Caesar: The Catholic Political Vocation.