Somehow, we need to understand how to tell society’s story in today’s new world. Doing so will help the people and politicians alike to form a more consistent view of the challenges we face.
On the home front, we have a couple of big issues that will likely dominate the year. Loosely, they fall under the headings of economy and race. Both will likely attract different views and staunch positioning.
Economically, the challenges for our country are greater than they’ve been previously. The nation’s debt is too high and is forecast to grow further. Interest costs are now a major budget item. Government spending is too high. We learned before Christmas that our recession is prolonged.
Productivity continues to be a problem that shows no signs of improving. The housing market that we all rely on for our wealth creation is moving terribly slowly. And our exchange rate is in the doldrums, which is great for our exporters, but tough for those of us concerned about importing inflation.
Austerity will be needed to protect entitlements. But people don’t like austerity and therein lies the opportunity for disagreement and blame. Communication and consistency of messaging is an important obligation for our leaders.
Elsewhere, submissions on the Treaty Principles Bill closed a couple of weeks ago. Indications are that over 300,000 submissions were received before the deadline. That would suggest a level of interest beyond what we’ve seen for similar processes in the past. It also suggestshowever this process is advanced, there is likely to be plenty of noise from both sides of the debate in the year ahead.
Although it’s a debate we’ve had many times before, we’re not very good at it. We’re not good at bringing constructive ideas to the table — only criticism. We need a different approach. Communication and tolerance will be important.
Despite our own problems, it is the international stage, the global market on which our recovery is so dependent, that seems set to deliver a year of upheaval.
Just 18 days into 2025, somewhat predictably, the global political year has started with a bang.
The United States is totally consumed by the arrival of another Trump presidency, which launches next week. In the lead-up to his inauguration, Trump has outlined a desire to take Greenland from the Danes and the Panama Canal from Chinese control. He’s making a big push for Government efficiency and cost reductions that will inevitably impact lives and jobs. And he’s driving a “send them home” immigration message that will create headlines for most of the year ahead.
The tragedy of California’s wildfires has been allowed to become a political football because of the timing of the incoming presidency. Trump is blaming Gavin Newsom, California’s Democrat Governor, saying that failed water management policies have been a major contributor to the scale of the disaster. The climate lobby is claiming the fires are a factor of climate change, while elsewhere, accused arsonists are being arrested.
Further north, Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau resigned under enormous pressure brought about by plummeting approval ratings and heat from within his own party. Canada’s big issues, slow economic growth, high inflation, rising unemployment, and housing affordability sound like a repeat of our own litany of sorrows.
In the UK, the latest point of political upheaval is focused on grooming gangs and the alleged mass rapes of thousands of young British girls. At the centre of this particular controversy is the extent to which these crimes have been covered up, supposedly in the interests of racial harmony. Sir Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister himself, is implicated in the so-called cover-up through his previous role as Director of Public Prosecutions over a decade ago.
The UK Government has also been accused of attempting to influence the outcome of the US election, by sending Government or Labour Party personnel to the US last year to work directly against the re-election of Trump. Trump’s response to date has been to withdraw the British Prime Minister, usually an automatic invitation, from the list of attendees at his upcoming inauguration.
And so it goes. The Government in France has collapsed, Germany is about to go into elections in which the centre-right parties are expected to take over from the centre-left, and the UN has admitted to attempting to influence the outcome of the Romanian elections.
And we’re only 18 days in.
Interestingly, a consistent theme in all of the events listed above is the role played by social media in promoting the dialogue. Whistleblowers are creating headlines that mainstream media are often (and rightly) too cautious to consider, and governments are being forced to respond.
There’s a saying going around that “transparency is the best disinfectant”. The saying implies that uninhibited open dialogue will enable the dirty laundry to come out rather than have it hidden away by political or media agendas. That’s true to a point. Social media has been influential in shining a light on wrongs that need to be righted.
But social media has brought a viciousness to political debate that we could do without.
As the mainstream media commented on the Trudeau resignation a single sentence caught my eye. “He can’t walk down the street in Canada anymore” it read. It reminded me of our own former Prime Minister who is probably in a similar position. Starmer and Australia’s Albanese seem destined to follow a similar path.
It’s true centre-left governments around the world are no longer the favoured option. But here’s the point: in the countries we’re referring to, our politicians are elected via a democratic process. Whether they succeed or fail, we should remember that we put them there. In offering themselves for public office, they should expect at the least, our respect in return.
And yet, it is the politicians themselves who are partly to blame. The problem arises when their own actions cause us to lose trust.
Many of the politicians mentioned here are guilty of inflaming the position they are in. There has been a tendency in the past couple of years to resort to name-calling and branding of those with whom they don’t agree. Starmer’s repeated accusations that those who disagree with him are “far right” and “activist” do him no favours. Albanese fell into the same trap last year when pressured over age restrictions on social media use.
The reality is that the great majority of those of us who are accused of being far left or far right are neither. For the most part, we are just people expressing an opinion that doesn’t agree with that of those calling the names. In this country, the same goes for those who are accused of being racist, misogynistic or genocidal. The activists supporting everything from climate change to the Palestinian cause have labels for those who don’t agree with them. They are variously climate deniers, Islamophobic, anti-trans, anti-vaxx and so on.
If the world is to move forward, we have to accept that expressing a different view, an opposing view, does not make someone an extremist. The presentation of opposing views is what allows debate. Debate is good. Debate allows a contest of ideas. Such contests lead to better outcomes. But how will we guarantee quality debate, if participants are at risk of being labelled, branded or rolled. The natural inclination will be to stay quiet, or walk away. As a result, he who makes the most noise, wins.
We are living in an unprecedented period. Big globalist organisations such as the United Nations, World Health Organisation and the World Economic Forum, are collectively trying to change the way we live. Their apparent motivations are driven by their own views of climate alarm, overpopulation, equality and in all likelihood, a desire for control.
Society must be able to openly challenge those agendas, and do so in a manner that is constructive and respectful. In return that same society should expect a considerate reception, a rational debate and a contest of ideas.
As governments around the world change hands, the big story of 2025 will be that the people pushed back. The people now have the means to build their own knowledge from reliable sources, and a platform to present their viewpoint. Over the next 12 months, they will challenge the conventions that are being presented to them. After just three weeks in the new year, we are already seeing it. Are the California fires related to climate change or arson? Are diversity hires the reason for navy ships sinking or firefighters running out of water?
It should be okay to have these discussions without fear of being labelled or abused. Social media should be a great vehicle to facilitate such conversations. But comments need to be accurate, constructive and most of all respectful.
Back in New Zealand, in 2025, as we debate issues that lay the foundations of our next 30 years, issues relating to our economy and race, I hope we can do so in a manner that ensures that all voices are heard, considered and most of all, respected.
