So, you’ve done it. Against all the odds, the struggles, heartache and pessimists talking you down, you’ve actually made it. You’re one hundred. By many accounts, you should probably be dead. But you aren’t, so let’s celebrate.

You join a fleet of global political parties in the one hundred club. In fact, the company is great here, and would appear to minimise the significance of your milestone – the UK Labour Party, Australian Labor, the British Tories, the Canadian Liberal Party… and nearing two hundred now are the US Democrats, and the hopelessly withering ‘Grand Old’ Republican Party. You’re in great company. Oh the stories these old parties have to tell.

There is no shame in being old. In fact, the good news is the oldest political parties around the world are generally successful above the newer minor parties, and despite critical pessimism most have reformed to fit modern climates and changing public moods as they come and go. So as you sit there, watching the younger, cooler and sexier parties go by, just remember – by all odds you’ll be the one to out-live the lot.

After all, look at all the parties you’ve already seen go in your time; the Liberal Party, Reform, Social Credit, the Alliance and the Progressives – the list goes on. They’ve all had their hay day. They’ve all had their moment in the spot light. Now they’re gone, and you sit in opposition, poll numbers teetering below 30, and the difficulty of facing a third term Prime Minister and a vocal, powerful and resurgent new opposition in New Zealand First and the Greens.

But, like a tattoo, the heart you wear on your sleeve cannot be erased. It’s a stamp of pride. What you’ve achieved in one hundred years is remarkable. The life changing policies made by New Zealanders, for New Zealanders; economics, social policy, civics, international and environmental – there’s barely a part of New Zealand that isn’t touched by one hundred years of Labour doing the hard yards in government – and in opposition too.

Every life, on every street, in every Kiwi town benefits from at least one decision Labour has made over its 100 years.


One hundred years ago a new political party was formed on the rugged coastline of the West Coast. One hundred years ago, Harry Holland led a group of men who were fed up with their working conditions, their housing, and thee outlook for their families and began the fight for something better. One hundred years ago, a young man, who would become New Zealand’s first Labour Prime Minister years later and lift a struggling country from its knees, put a pen to paper and joined New Zealand’s newest political party.

By the end of Labour’s first term in government the world’s finest welfare state had been established, with New Zealand becoming one of the only countries in the world to offer completely free and universal healthcare coverage – saving lives and protecting families. State housing ensured all New Zealanders had a place to go home to, and children had a place to be safe in. Workers’ rights were improved, hours cut to workable levels and union membership made compulsory. The architects of this welfare state; the legendary, the iconic, ‘everybody’s uncle’ Michael Joseph Savage (1935-40) and his successor, Labour’s longest serving Prime Minister Peter Fraser (1940-9).

Compulsory unionism, the introduction of the 40 hour day and a five day week, the nationalisation of the Bank of New Zealand and universal superannuation were just some of the notable achievements of the First Labour government.

The second Labour government, led to power by veteran Hutt MP Walter Nash, introduced a budget which was well ahead of its time. Proposed increases on petrol and tobacco were progressive in their intention and ultimately assisted the government’s premature downfall, making the Nash government New Zealand’s first one-hit wonder government (1957-60). The second Labour government, however, can boast such achievements as New Zealand’s first female member of cabinet, a 50% increase in support payments to families and the introduction of television and the New Zealand Broadcasting Corporation (NZBC).

The third Labour government, led by Norman ‘Big Norm’ Kirk, restored Labour to its former glory following twelve years of conservative rule in 1972. On a wave of optimism and popularity, Kirk declared on parliament’s first sitting since his 1972 election victory over Jack Marshall’s National government that Labour was going to govern “for the next forty years”. And who could reasonably doubt him? Norman Kirk was a larger than life character with a strong working class background, and an undeniable Kiwi allure which put him in good standing with the ‘common man’. His government rose to power promising to be the voice of the working class, the poor, the elderly, the young and the disabled. The people to whom twelve years of conservative government has been most harsh. The ‘forty year’ government was to be cut to a tragic three following the death of Kirk in 1974. Rowling, Kirk’s successor, failed to capture the same inspiration as Kirk and ultimately failed to carry a parliamentary majority in 1975 – although, as opposition leader in 1978, Rowling’s Labour Party, despite losing government, won more votes than Muldoon’s governing National Party. Rowling is remembered as being New Zealand’s first openly pro-choice Prime Minister.

In just three years, the third Labour government lowered income taxes for working families, increased spending on health and education, introduced Waitangi Day as a national holiday and the introduction of the Christmas Bonus for the elderly and the DPB benefit for single parents were changing lives.

By 1984 the economic landscape of New Zealand has changed considerably. Muldoon had mastered one of the most tightly controlled economies in the world, with his headline ‘think big’ projects tanking and the national debt soaring.

One political scientist describes the economic changes the Lange-Palmer-Moore persued over just six years in government. Six years that would forever change the direction of New Zealand’s economy, social life and democracy.

“New Zealand underwent radical economic reform, moving from what had probably been the most protected, regulated and state-dominated system of any capitalist democracy to an extreme position at the open, competitive, free-market end of the spectrum.”

Collectively known as ‘Rogernomics’ (after then finance minister Roger Douglas), the economic changes included the floating of the New Zealand dollar, the removal of farming subsidies, the introduction of GST, corporatisation of state-owned assets and giving autonomy to the Reserve Bank. The changes caused a everlasting rift in the party and led way to the creation of ACT New Zealand, the unwanted birth child of the Labour movement, where neoliberal members of the party vacated to following the eventual resignation of Douglas.

Socially the government offers some pride to modern day progressives. David Lange, off the back of his infamous “uranium” oxford union debate speech declared New Zealand as a nuclear-free nation, despite avid protest from the United States. Additionally the government legalised sex between consenting males over the age of 16 through the Homosexual Law Reform Act of 1986, legislated to make rape in marriage a criminal offense and abolished the death penalty. A liberal government inside and out, socially and economically, the 1980s were a defining moment for the Labour Party and the direction of the party. Following its heavy loss in 1990, party morale plummeted as polls showed the party allegedly fading away into the history records.

The rest, as they say, is history. The Clark government through 1999 to 2008 brought Labour back to its founding roots and values, whilst adapting to the technological revolution and a forever changing economy.

Where Labour will land itself next, in what form, and whether or not it will find itself in government again remain to be confidently concluded. But it has something in its sails most parties can’t claim. A long, long (100 year) history, and countless features of New Zealand’s economic, social and democratic life that it can point to and call its achievements.

 Bennett Morgan

Liam Bateman

The calls began in the outset of the massive shock of Leave’s victory. MPs accused Corbyn of not doing enough to help the remain vote to win. This is despite polling that shows over two thirds of Labour voters voted stay, similar figures to SNP voters. Many have called this argument bullshit and have seen it for the Blairite plot it truly is. Members have rallied around him, and new MPs have taken up positions in the Shadow Cabinet previously occupied by veterans. Many whom I’d praised for fantastic performance against the Tory austerity have resigned, demanding Corbyn’s resignation.

The whole chaos began with the sacking of Hilary Benn. I am utterly angry at the man, more than words can communicate. While I still maintain he’d make a great Foreign Secretary when Labour got back into government, Benn’s betrayal has made me lose all respect for the man. It hurts me the most out of all the resignations that have come out, amongst the Eagle sisters and many others. His father, he is not, I knew that from the beginning, but even I believed he would be honorable enough to not create such a devastating rift. It fills my heart with sadness to be proven wrong.

This whole coup by the Bitterites, a word given to me by friend and Corbyn supporter Susie, has as much to do with the EU vote as anything else. It goes back to a defeat that they simply refuse to accept. The death of New Labour. The 12th of September 2015. I still remember that night. We had all tuned into the BBC livestream and had Twitter open. I cheered with delight and a joy I’d never felt before welled in my heart as the returning officer recited “Jeremy Corbyn – 251,417” 59.5% of the vote, a mandate bigger than Blair. I received an excited Tweet from Susie as the cheering grew louder and I knew I’d witnessed history in the making. But I knew it wouldn’t sit well with the still strong right wing in the caucus. I read articles from the Guardian trying to smear him, I saw Josie Pagani write about him in the NZ Herald and I saw MPs like Simon Danczuk openly state their anger with Corbyn. He’s won every single Westminster by-election, with Tooting showing a 7% swing to Labour, however, and despite gloom and doom for their local election prospects, Labour held on, winning new councils and getting a new Labour mayor. But yet, they would not support him.

They accuse him of damaging Labour, yet it is their treachery and greed that are causing the trouble. Thousands of people have joined the party, unions have come back into the fold and Labour was starting to catch up to the Tories in the polls. They accuse him of being unelectable, despite their hero is one of the most hated men in British politics and the upcoming Chilcott report will incriminate the Blairites for the war in Iraq. This could be pushed to Corbyn’s advantage, however, himself a firm opponent of the war, giving him the ability to quash a Blairite challenger. What they seem to be unable to comprehend is the fact that New Labour died the day Gordon Brown lost the 2010 election and they cannot, for any reason, accept that. Nothing can bring it back and they feel a disconnect with the membership.

We Corbyn supporters are not children. We understand politics, and we do not like being treated like we know next to nothing by Blairites who have frustrated us by lurches too far to the right. We want our elected party leader’s mandate by we, the voters, to be accepted, regardless of faction within the party, and we cannot believe that scores of MPs won’t grant that right. It is nothing short of treachery. I will stand in solidarity with Jeremy, and if the Bitterites won’t accept it, they should get out of the party and make way for those who will.

There are two things I want to end with. The first is a message to my fellow supporters, and to Corbyn himself, if he reads this. It’s an old Salvation Army hymn, one that inspired Tony Benn throughout his life: Dare to be a Daniel, dare to stand alone, dare to have a purpose firm, dare to make it known! The second is the first stanza of the Red Flag, our vow to the movement: The people’s flag is deepest red, it shrouded oft the martyr dead, And there, their limbs grew stiff and cold, their blood it dyed its every fold. So raise the scarlet standard high, beneath its furls, we’ll live or die, While cowards flinch and traitors sneer, we’ll keep the red flag flying here!

With the election nearing closer and closer, two Labour MPs so far have stated they intend to leave parliament, those being Clayton Cosgrove and Phil Goff, with Phil intending to contest the Auckland mayoralty in October. Should he be successful, a by-election will be held, and Labour has found its new champion in Michael Wood.
Michael Wood has been involved with the party from a young age, and currently sits on the Policy Council. He served as chair of the Mt Roskill Labour Electorate Committee, which I am a member of, for several years and has contested both Botany and Epsom. He currently sits on the Puketepapa Local Board with his wife Julie.

Michael’s selection was uncontested and his subsequent speech was very well received by attendees. He condemned National’s mismanagement of housing in the area as well as cuts to the local police, which have seen the resolution rates of crimes like burglary fall. His biggest cheer, however, came when he suggested that funding for charter schools be cut and brought back into public schools. His passion for the constituency is clear and strong, and as a member of the LEC and a friend, I am proud to endorse him to be the next Member of Parliament for Mt Roskill.

However, the next election in Mt Roskill will be one that will be fought vigorously. While National has not had a successful candidate since 1990, and Phil holds a majority of over 8000 votes over Parmjeet Parmar, National won the party vote by 2000 votes and they will be hoping to inflict a humiliating blow on Labour, with this hit of confidence. Labour will have the upper hand on some issues here though, especially with regards to housing and crime issues. The average house price in the area is now $800,000, which would get you nowhere on a $120,000 deposit. Law and order is also a major issue and has also received attention from Phil Goff’s campaign as well. Cuts to the police have meant callouts have fallen and Phil described an incident where a shop owner had to tell the police he would handle some vandals attacking his shop with a knife before they would come to their aid. That simply is not right. We should not have to be resorting to threatening vigilantism to get the police to help.

This by-election will be a major test for Labour, especially so close to the next election. While Roskill’s solid habit of returning Labour MPs has held strong, the electorate cannot be taken for granted. We will be fighting tooth and nail for every single vote. We have given the people of Mt Roskill no reason to turn their back on us and we will not turn our back on them. We’re ready to go out and campaign and we won’t back down.

Liam Bateman 

Many times, I and many Christians are left to facepalm ourselves as we watch right wing Christians protest about how Christianity is under attack in America. Protests against same-sex marriage, against Planned Parenthood, which resulted in one friend of mine being told she was going to Hell and other such lovely cases of them making a flagpole out of a matchstick. I already did a post about the supposed ‘War on Christians’ which is easily debunked with simple statistics. 70% of the United States identify as being Christian, every president they’ve had has been Christian, though this may change if Bernie Sanders, a Jew, is elected. And the so-called liberal elite on the offensive are also Christian, from the liberal gang of MSNBC to Stephen Colbert, heck, even Michael Moore, the most hated liberal in America, is a Catholic. But I wanted to do a post about a pair of recent films that just personifies everything wrong with right wing Christianity in the US.

God’s Not Dead is a Pure Flix film series directed by Harold Cronk, which has been labelled by critics and indeed, other Christians like myself as propaganda, among such great titles as Rock, It’s Your Decision, which said listening to rock and roll was a one way ticket on the Highway to Hell (pun intended) and Deception of a Generation, which saw Eagle’s Nest Ministries pastor Gary Greenwald decry cartoons and toys of the 1980s as an occultic conspiracy to trap children. A friend and film critic also told me she considers the films one of the best arguments for atheism or agnosticism she’d seen. But why exactly has it been lampooned? Allow me to explain:

The first film follows an evangelical student in a philosophy class whose atheist professor forces the class to write Nietzsche’s “God Is Dead” in order to pass. When the student refuses, he is forced to debate him over three classes to prove his faith is reasonable. The film also has several subplots with different characters as well as others already introduced. One is a liberal blogger who goes after Willie Robertson of Duck Dynasty. The second is a Muslim girl who secretly practices Christianity. And the third is the professor’s girlfriend as she goes about her life with him. Now, it doesn’t seem so bad upon first inspection, but looking closer reveals something absolutely disgusting.

This movie creates some of the most awful caricatures of atheists and Muslims and an unfounded attack on liberals with its plot, and it’s simply disgusting and offensive. The liberal blogger, shortly after going after Robertson, is diagnosed with cancer out of the blue. Her boyfriend breaks up with her, and she later ends up converting to Christianity with the aid of the Newsboys, a band with a song from which this film gets its name. I’m disgusted they’d be willing to appear, let alone use their song.This boyfriend, a wealthy atheist businessman, refuses to see his mother, a dementia patient, and when he visits, is told his wealth was a gift from Satan in order to keep him from God. As for the Muslim, upon having her secret discovered, her father BEATS her and throws her out of the house. And I thought how Fox News talked about Islam was offensive. But the worst caricature, has to be the atheist professor. He is portrayed as an absolute bigot. He treats those who believe in God as second class, even his own girlfriend and is revealed to be just angry at God for not saving his terminally ill mother when he prayed, in the heat of the final debate. This man is also killed by a car crash and converts before he dies. Flat out disgusting, that they portray him in this way. I don’t deny there are atheists who fit into this caricature and, yes, those people are awful, to say the least, but this flat out stereotyping is plain wrong and un-Christian. The film has no point and just serves to reinforce the prejudices of the Christian Right against those who they believe are marginalising their faith.

The second film, God’s Not Dead 2, is due for release in a matter of days in New Zealand as of writing this, and as I’ve heard from friends and critics, it’s just as bad. This film follows a Christian teacher played by Melissa Joan Hart, known for her work on the live action Sabrina the Teenage Witch. When the teacher refers to Jesus in class while answering a question of a student. Word gets out and she is taken to court for ‘preaching in class’, prosecuted by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). It’s a massive courtroom drama that features cameos from the likes of Pat Boone and former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, a man who once claimed America was ‘rapidly moving towards the criminalisation of Christianity.’ But what is disgusting is the villainisation of the ACLU. This is an organisation that has fought for black civil rights, for LGBT rights and immigrant rights. And while they support the separation of church and state, which this film tries to label persecution, they have stated students should have the right to pray in schools, one issue the Christian Right believe should be contested. But they treat them as if they’re some evil atheistic organisation out to persecute religious people, with one of the main lawyers stating he wants to prove God is dead.

This is simply ridiculous! People like Cronk are trying to paint a world for right wing Christians as being out to get them. Saturday Night Live even went as far as to parody the film trailer, called ‘God is a Boob Man,’ in which the teacher is replaced with a baker who refuses to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. The lawyers tell her they want her to say God is gay, to which she refuses. SNL’s regular hilarity ensues throughout. While it was well-received, Pat Boone was outraged, decrying the skit as ‘satanic’ and condemned them to hell, something I consider one of the most un-Christian things a Christian could do. Christianity is a faith of forgiveness and reconciliation, not of condemnation and shame.

To those of my faith and others who decry the film, thank you and well done. This kind of film does not belong in cinemas anywhere and it certainly doesn’t belong here. But to those of you who actually defend this film, those I’m criticising, have you ever looked at yourself and thought it may be you, that’s the problem?

This negative view of Christianity didn’t start out because they hated churches going out into the community, giving care to those who needed it most. Even I get non-religious people telling me how happy they are about what my church does in the country. It’s because people like you are out on the streets attacking the LGBT community and innocent women and whining about your faith being under attack when progress is being made. You claim to be people of God, yet your actions contradict the core of Christianity and Christ’s teachings themselves. Step back and look at yourselves in the mirror. Ask yourself: is this really something a Christian would do?

Liam Bateman

As May comes closer and closer, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have begun to prepare for their elections. Most recently, Scotland held their first debate with the BBC, with representatives from several parties present. Nicola Sturgeon from the Scottish National Party, Kezia Dugdale from Scottish Labour, Ruth Davidson from the Scottish Conservatives, Willie Rennie from the Scottish Liberal Democrats, Patrick Harvie from the Scottish Green Party and David Coburn from UKIP. Unlike my post on the 2015 election debate, I’m gonna go topic by topic, give a brief summary and name the best performer.

Topic 1: Taxes

The UK Parliament has recently announced they will devolve taxes to the Scottish Parliament, giving much stronger power over the regional economy. Of course, with austerity being targeted by the left, it was a major part of arguments from the SNP and Labour. Nicola promised that she planned no increase in basic income tax, an increase in personal allowance (non-taxable income) to £12,750, with plans to ensure that the wealthiest would bear the brunt of the forced austerity. Kezia Dugdale also promised that Labour would fight austerity, reintroducing a 50p rate for top earners, which Nicola formerly supported and a 1p increase in the basic rate, to earn more money to stop the cuts, equating to only paying £1.80 more a week in tax. She also promised no tax increases for those earning less than £20,000 a year, which she’d achieve through local authorities. Nicola, when questioned by the moderator, stated that she isn’t opposed to raising it but is worried about tax avoidance. Ruth Davidson will not raise taxes at all, but was attacked by both Nicola and Willie Rennie for wanting to bring in prescription charges, tuition fees and tax cuts for the rich. Rennie started talking about how he want to reinvest £475 million into education, he said he would put up taxes but no extra for those who earn less than £19,000. Patrick Harvie would scrap the council tax, calling it 25 years out of date, but did not give a figure on top tax rates, though promising they’d rise and he would work to close the wealth gap. David Coburn said he would not support tax increases either, believing it would discourage Scottish business investment. Kezia called the increases necessary, despite protests from Davidson, saying public sector job were at risk if nothing was done to stop the spending cuts from Westminster. Harvie, upon a question regarding Google and Amazon avoiding tax, condemned companies for tax evasion before attacking the capitalist system.

Winner: Tie between Nicola Sturgeon and Kezia Dugdale
Both leaders spoke well when discussing policy, there was some excellent points made against each other and it made for some good discussion on how austerity should be fought in Scotland. It also made me see there was still some fight in Scottish Labour and that what I thought was a Blairite faction was much more left wing than before. The other four leaders didn’t do spectacularly, but their performances weren’t disastrous either. Yes, even the UKIP spokesman did OK here.

Topic 2: Welfare

Welfare is also being devolved to Scotland in the coming months and cuts are being threatened on the disabled and other beneficiaries. Ruth Davidson said she would put carer’s allowance up to be more than jobseeker’s allowance and would look at devolving personal independence payments for disabled beneficiaries to a local level. Willie Rennie congratulated the SNP for their work on welfare in government, but said he’d increase carer’s benefit and would completely scrap the controversial bedroom tax, introduced by his own party in coalition, a late realisation but one I am glad that was realised. David Coburn began rabbiting on about the NHS and the TTIP (Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and European version of TPPA) but did not give any policy for welfare. Ruth claimed she tried to speak out against the cuts to PIP in the recent budget which Nicola called a lie. Sturgeon promised to establish an independent social security agency to replace the Work and Pensions department, attacking their benefit sanctions, to abolish the bedroom tax and will maintain disabled support, going on to attack Ruth Davidson for the cuts. Kezia identified similar policies with the SNP including raising carer’s allowance, abolishing the bedroom tax and using a maternity grant for struggling mothers. She also promised a new employment agency, which would aid people into work and provide assistance to those in work as well. Harvie attacked the transformation of the welfare state and said he would bring in a universal basic income for Scotland.

Winner: Nicola Sturgeon

Nicola’s policy suggestions were very good, handling herself well and managing to attack the disgusting idea of a deficit being cleared on the backs of disabled people and her mention of a new social security agency reminded me of a story Mhairi Black made in her maiden speech about a food bank user who starved himself to afford to go to a job centre. While I like the sound of Kezia’s employment agency and the universal basic income from Patrick, the strongest points came from Sturgeon. Coburn did himself absolutely no favours and was indisputably the loser of the second round.

Topic 3: Education

Willie has said his tax plan would be directly used for education, specifically nursery education, stating he was appalled at how Scottish education, some of the world’s finest, was beginning to slip. He also promised disadvantaged kids would get a pupil payment to aid them through to high school and invest £108 million into universities. Kezia would keep Scotland’s universities free from tuition fees but wanted to bring in more bursaries for poorer students which were cut, with high dropout rates in Scotland compared to the rest of the UK. But this number has dropped from 9% to 6% according to Nicola, but she acknowledged it is still too high. Nicola would continue to expand childcare and set out plans to set out £750 million into education to close the attainment gap. Ruth would unfreeze council tax for education spending and would work to empower teachers. David Coburn wanted to see more grammar schools and bring in tech schools, like those in Germany, for those not academically inclined. Patrick started with a snide remark at UKIP before promising more investment in schools, though he gave no figures.

Winner: Three way tie between Nicola, Willie and Kezia

All three leaders made good commitments to education spending and investment, which was exceptionally promising. Education has been quite a prominent topic for the Liberal Democrats and in this case, Willie Rennie proved they were still quite strong on it. Kezia did call out Nicola but it was good to see her talk about how she would ensure poorer students would get better opportunities. Nicola too did well, but not enough to have her stand out above the rest. I would have to say Patrick would be the loser here, with the lack of figures putting him at a disadvantage. David Coburn, much as I hate his party, did speak strongly, despite only speaking briefly.

Topic 4: Fracking

Fracking has been extremely controversial worldwide, with reports of water supply poisoning in America hitting our screens a few years back. Ruth Davidson supports fracking, but would want the decision to be left at a local level. Willie Rennie does not, saying the UK needs to meet its climate change targets, which it has continuously failed to reach for four years. David Coburn supports using fossil fuels, saying renewable energy is too expensive and would harm pensioners. He would use high tech equipment to reduce pollution, before failing to launch a hit on Patrick Harvie. After an applause of welcome, Harvie himself declared the age of fossil fuels was ending and said he would work on more renewable source of energy, stating he wanted to provide work in renewable energy to those who were losing jobs in industries like North Sea Oil. The Greens resolutely oppose fracking. Kezia firmly too said Scottish Labour would not allow fracking at all. Nicola Sturgeon has put a moratorium on the activity and said if no evidence was found to prove that it would not harm the environment or the people, fracking would not be allowed under the SNP.
Winner: Patrick Harvie

This was a golden opportunity for the Greens to shine and shine they did. He was greeted to applause and resolutely said that Scotland MUST begin to move away from fossil fuels and that jobs at risk from fossil fuel industry layoffs should be kept in renewable energy. It was a strong and convincing argument. All other parties in opposition to fracking were brief but firm on their position, though Nicola seemed the weakest link, saying she would need evidence before making her ultimate call.

Topic 5: Donald Trump

The last question was a good opportunity for a laugh, asking how each leader, as First Minister, would respond to a phone call from President Donald Trump. Willie Rennie “Get off my phone!” David Coburn compared a Trump presidency to the film Dr Strangelove but said he’d invite him to golf. Sounds like something else another leader said, hmmm…..

Patrick Harvie said Trump wouldn’t call him, having been reported by Trump for comments he made about him in the Scottish Parliament. Ruth Davidson said she’d likely say “Could I have fries with that?” because she considered him unlikely to win the presidency. Kezia Dugdale, three words, “Stop preaching hate,” a simple message but would be quite weak in my honest opinion. Nicola said she would pretend to be occupied on another phone line, which I’d rank as my second favourite. If it were me, personally, I’d employ two of Frankie Boyle’s favourite words: fuck off!

Winner: Everyone except UKIP

It was an interesting and informative debate, although it wasn’t as long as I’d hoped. While Nicola is a clear frontrunner, we did get some good performances from other party leaders and I think we may not have seen the end of the Liberal Democrats yet. However, nothing is certain until the ballots are counted.

I’m into my third week of university as of writing this article, and have been enjoying it very much. I have some excellent classes with excellent lecturers, especially my American history class, I met Jacinda Ardern, David Shearer and James Shaw during O-Week, resulting in a bit of good discussion on Friday with James on the European Union and have been enjoying Craccum, the local Auckland University magazine. There’s generally some fantastic articles, including some from Daily Blog writer Curwen Rolinson, who I also had the pleasure of meeting.

However, on Friday morning, as I went into my law lecture, I discovered some paper across the desk. This is quite common, promoting events and such. However, a Mr Nicholas Kirke had left a two page article on the desks. The article was about objective reality and transgender issues, and had been apparently rejected as not to cause offence to the transgender community. My curiosity was peaked and I decided I would give it a read. I am now wishing that I hadn’t.

Kirke’s introduction doesn’t start out controversially, speaking of objective reality and its meaning. But following that, it’s all downhill. He starts speaking about how disturbed he is gender is being distorted by objective reality, as well as age. He goes on to speak about anatomy and such, but it’s his third paragraph that enraged me. He highlighted a case from the Fox News of Britain, the Daily Mail, of a 52 year old Canadian, with a wife and kids, who abandoned the family claiming he “chose” to identify as a woman and a six year old. While he said he had no hatred for this person, he felt that despite his actions since assuming the identity, he was still the same person and criticised him for abandoning his family to pursue what he would view as a fantasy life, perhaps something along the lines of something you’d see on My Strange Addiction or Taboo.

I had already been horrified but this assumption but he proceeded to make it worse for himself, using two articles of two people, one who believed they were a cat trapped in a human body (what some people from Tumblr will know as an Otherkin) and a man who appeared on Jeremy Kyle, believing himself to be a parrot and having cut off his own ears in pursuit of it. His article was a bigoted attack on the transgender community, saying transgenders are simply people trying to pursue fantasy lives they can’t otherwise have. And from someone who has a close friend who is transgender, I was disgusted at this treatment.

This isn’t the only media I’ve seen bashing the community. There was also a certain episode of South Park known as “Mr Garrison’s Fancy New Vagina,” where teacher Herbert Garrison decides to undergo gender reassignment. His post-surgery persona is portrayed as sexually promiscuous and is, to be quite honest, offensive. It would also be an episode I recommend does not get viewed, especially by men, for another couple reasons.

1. Kyle Broflovski, one of the four boys, gets surgery to become a black kid so he can play basketball. One certain scene would make male viewers’ get sensitive kneecaps and downstair regions.

2. Kyle’s father decides to undergo surgery to be a dolphin. He looks incredibly horrifying.

I do understand the show’s trying to make a message about cosmetic surgery, but comparing transgenders to what happened to Kyle and Gerald is WRONG on so many levels. Transgender people already have to deal with a lot of prejudice, some getting rejected by their families and with a very high suicide rate.

This kind of mockery and insensitivity is simply wrong and it’s people like Mr Kirke that make me disgusted with humanity at times. So, Craccum thank you for rejecting Kirke’s article, you made an excellent decision. I cannot believe that in one of the most socially progressive countries in the world, we’d be seeing this kind of bigotry towards transgenders, but I am at least assured of the fact there are people who will stand up to this kind of disgusting hate speech.

Liam Bateman

This is a bit of an unusual break from the political events of recent days, but with recent happening in a community I’m involved in, I wanted to write this post about another issue: sexual harassment in the cosplay community.

For those who are not aware of nerd culture, cosplay is a nerd culture revolving around making and wearing costumes of characters from film, television and video games. It’s become extremely popular and I’ve recently started work on a cosplay myself, with the help of a friend. However, while it’s extremely fun to do and they’re a fun sight at any convention, namely Armageddon, there have been problems facing cosplayers, and this was recently highlighted yesterday in Armageddon in Dunedin.

Victoria Ransom, a cosplayer attending as Harley Quinn, girlfriend of the Joker as she will appear in the upcoming Suicide Squad movie, was recently harassed by a teenager, around 15-17 years of age, when she was pinched in an inappropriate area. In an online forum, she talked about the attack and tried to notify security. While staff members were notified, security was not and the culprit went unpunished.

Another cosplayer, an extraordinary craftsman named Warren Goodwin experienced the same treatment. As a genderbent Rey from the new Star Wars movie, he too was enjoying the convention, having created a fantastic model BB-8. This same person was staring him down and said to him in a threatening tone “I’ll see you later,” He later confessed on the same forum he’d been scared by him.

This issue is not contained to New Zealand or Armageddon. One ‘photographer’ in the States has contacted cosplayers, stating their interest in photos of them, but requested that naked pictures of them be taken too to get an idea of their modelling. Some people even interviewed cosplayers, who gave stories of their experiences, people asking to touching their butt or breast, cat-calling, being handsy and other general perversion and threats. While women have been the subject for sexual harassment, men too have been harassed.A member of the famous 501st Legion, a group of Star Wars cosplayers, said that during an event, a group of boys approached him, thinking they wanted to take a photo. The group proceeded to beat him physically.

The result of this has been a kind of movement in the community called “Cosplay Is Not Consent,” a backlash from cosplayers and fans, male and female, against harassment of any kind. I’m glad to add my voice to the movement. I’ve spoken out against crony capitalist deals, harassment, unfair copyright systems and am proud to add harassment against cosplayers to the list. It’s supposed to be a fun time, a gathering of nerds and fans from across the country to meet icons, get merchandise and show off their amazing costumes, but the culture is under threat from perverts and bullies who care little for the fun that Armageddon brings with it.
Two final points. The first is a request to any convention attendee, cosplayer or otherwise. If you see any of these heinous acts being carried out, report it immediately. Take a photo, or go in groups if you feel afraid to go on your own. And to those who have been the victim, I am proud to take the stand with you. Basic human dignity is threatened and that is something that we must fight.

Liam Bateman 

It seems in recent months, the question of “electability” of candidates for leadership has been called into question. Media figures, veterans of a party and many more love to wave their finger at candidates who want to make progressive change for their party and their country and dismiss them as being “too radical” and “unelectable.” I lightly skimmed the surface of this issue when addressing Richard Wolffe’s anti-Bernie article in the Guardian, with Sanders winning Maine, Kansas and Nebraska with comfortable margins several days after its release, but I wanted to dedicate this post to the issue as well as something I really wanted to address: compromise in politics and its potential dangers.

The word “unelectable” was tossed around a lot in the campaign for the British Labour leadership. When Corbyn began to gain momentum amongst thousands of members, high profile interventions from Gordon Brown, former PM and Chancellor, David Miliband, brother of Jeremy’s predecessor Ed Miliband and even Tony Blair labelling him as unelectable and a man who’d set Labour on a crash course for disaster, telling them only a “moderate” could win them power. I, like many Corbyn supporters, was deeply offended at what seemed like being treated like children, rather than thinking adults capable of making their own decisions. And as for compromising for a moderate? One of the reasons Corbyn won was because the British Labour movement were sick of having to make compromises on their beliefs and the party’s beliefs in order to attain victory. It’s what got the party into the mess they are in now. Kinnock and Blair compromised so much, the soul of the party was essentially ripped apart into nothingness and furthers my hatred of the Blairite ideology. Blairism is an ideology of surrender and defeatism, the belief that left wing progressivism can never triumph again and that all we can do is lightly regulate and maintain the system. That is an awful vision to believe in, one I refuse to believe in. Corbyn has lit a beacon of hope for Labour, that victory is possible as a principled movement.

The same goes for Sanders. Clinton represents a road of more third way compromise, a Democratic party that is a ghost of its former self, that is unwilling to take a stand against the leeches of Wall Street and to actually stick up for the worse off in America. They’ve churned out people like Franklin D Roosevelt and Jimmy Carter, two men I consider to be some of the greatest presidents in American history, but now are churning out the likes of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, who have been decent presidents but have serious stains on their character, in more ways than one in Bill’s case. Sanders is another chance for a Roosevelt or a Carter, a principled man who can do right by those who desperately need help.

I’m not against compromise by any means. Compromise in some cases isn’t a bad thing, it shows you can listen to other points of view, have debates and come to an agreement. However, the kind of compromise I am seeing today is the kind that insults the very values our movement was founded upon, being sold out to powers that hold no interest for the enhancement of people’s livelihood. We should not have to be so willing to give up who we are as a party in order to get elected and we don’t have to be. I want to see a Democrat in the White House and a Labour government in Britain, but I’m not willing to stoop to the levels of Tony Blair and Bill Clinton in order to get there. Tony Benn would have described them as weathercocks, people who’ll spin with the wind of public opinion no matter what principle they have to give up. Sanders and Corbyn, however, are signposts, people who stand true and principled, point a single way and say “This is the way to a better society and it’s my job to convince you why.” The world needs more signposts in politics and I would take them any day over a weathercock, no matter how “electable” they seem.

Liam Bateman