21 Comments

Is King Charles III Conflicted?

Why hasn’t Jacinda, Anthony and Justin (along with the other PMs of 13 Kingly states) stood up to Lizz Truss and insisted that the Head of the Commonwealth, that includes NZ, Australia, and Canada along with 54 other independent states, should be allowed to represent our collective views at COP27. Apparently, Liz’s decision was made is because she has appointed a Climate Denier Jacob Rees-Mogg as her UK Environmental Minister, and she doesn’t want to be embarrassed by her King’s views on the world stage. On the other hand, Global Warning is a serious international issue, Charles III is our King and head of the Commonwealth and apparently well qualified to represent smaller states that are anxious about the impacts of climate change. Moreover in 1961 our former Queen set a precedent for independent action by ignoring Thatcher’s “advice” not a to attend the Commonwealth conference on Apartheid, danced with the PM of Ghana and thereby “saved” the Commonwealth from breaking up. The question we might ask ourselves, if Liz has so much power over our present head of state why do we bother keeping him on?

Expand full comment

This is great, Bernard; it's helping me articulate my frustrations with the current situation. I've been a staunch greens supporter, but it's becoming untenable as I don't see the changes I want to see happening with the current greens/labour relationship. Sigh. Thank you!

Expand full comment
Oct 7, 2022Liked by Bernard Hickey

Hi Bernard. With your theory that a 5% vote for the TOP party could force a government to bring in a land tax, this does conflict with the power of the political manifesto. In 2020 the Labour manifesto promised that they would not raise taxes, or introduce new ones, for the term ending in 2023, and for all its faults it has more or less stuck to that. If new taxes are proposed for the next term of Government, not is the time to push for them, to either spell it out, or at least give an incoming government some wriggle room. It's too late to wait for the next election and then, depending on the TOP vote, as a government of either stripe to change their policy if their manifesto is totally against new or further taxes (although admittedly that is what the Key National government did with GST following the 2008 election!)..

Expand full comment
Oct 8, 2022Liked by Bernard Hickey

There is a backlash against Labour. Its not one issue. Its so complex. It means its Nat/ACT election to lose. Jacinda's star is fading. Her ability to communicate the let's do this moment is history. Her stance on no CGT placed her centre right. Her stance on alcohol and cannabis reform diesnt take into account harm. Basically she's as mishmash of incomprehensible inconsistency. The opposition is just as sickening. The Greens have the wrong leadership. I find myself considering Te Pati Maori for no other reason than our racist history deserves a payback. The only chance that might turn me is Chloe Swarbrick becomes the Green leader or Grant Robertson replaces Jacinda. Its a real shame Labour had total power. Voting TOP would be no different to voting NAT/ACT

Expand full comment
Oct 8, 2022Liked by Bernard Hickey

Hi Bernard, I consistently find your podcast audio is quiet i.e I need to use high volume on all my devices to hear you properly. This particular podcast is rather tiring as yours is very quiet compared to Peters. Can you please look into your mic sensitivity or do some normalisation or something technical? Cheers

Expand full comment
Oct 9, 2022·edited Oct 9, 2022

I really enjoyed this discussion, as usual, but I find Robert Patman's glib views about the potential of nuclear war disconcerting. 'Sabre-rattling' or not, surely we must take it seriously. There are plenty of credible experts who would challenge his view, including Anatol Lieven, interviewed here:

https://jacobin.com/2022/10/ukraine-russia-us-nuclear-war-putin

I wonder if Robert Patman might be challenged a little on this in future?

Expand full comment