This is a weekly thread for people to discuss international news, foreign policy or IR history. I usually start off with coverage of some current events from a mix of countries I follow personally and countries I think the forum might be interested in. Feel free to drop in with coverage of countries you’re interested in, talk about ongoing dynamics like the the wars in Israel or Ukraine, or even just whatever you’re reading.
What is this place?
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
If in doubt, please post it!
Rules
- Courtesy
- Content
- Engagement
- When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
- Proactively provide evidence in proportion to how partisan and inflammatory your claim might be.
- Accept temporary bans as a time-out, and don't attempt to rejoin the conversation until it's lifted.
- Don't attempt to build consensus or enforce ideological conformity.
- Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
- The Wildcard Rule
- The Metarule
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Ah, that makes perfect sense.
It's interesting to hear that aside from Jacinda's 2019 economic plan being centrist enough that it bears resamblance to the current National agenda, that the civil service was also basically functional under her and mostly only spiraled under Hipkins. From a distance she's portrayed as the more radical one and he's an uncharismatic guy who inherited a host of problems from her. I guess that's to some degree compatible with a lot of her structural changes to the size of the civil service only manifesting later under less competent / less aligned leadership.
Pretty unfortunate the National Party doesn't seem to be focused on the issue of the civil service if it was a problem even for the party that elevated it to its current status. If the fiscal situation enjoys a national consensus that some fat needs to be trimmed then hopefully their fiscal reforms won't have too much difficulty being implemented?
It's more that the ends to which Ardern was turning the civil service were neatly aligned with the zeitgeist, and she was an international megastar. Ardern had something of a reputation for sitting on a vast hoard of political capital and had enough personal popularity that practical delivery was essentially superfluous. Take Labour's 'Kiwibuild' policy to build state houses, one of the highest priorities of their 2017 platform. The goal was to build 16,000 homes over 4 years. They managed to build... 1000.
Obviously, these failures didn't affect Ardern's popularity (she won the first outright majority government under MMP in 2020), and she continued to enjoy the abbasiyah of a civil service who were being well paid to decolonise Aotearoa, etc. Once she resigned however, straight-white-man Hipkins was left holding the bag. His motivations were always more practical and union-focused rather than ideological. In any case, he obviously could not rely on personal popularity to win the next election. Hence: the eruption of tensions between ministers desperately trying to deliver meaningful results for the electorate and a civil service that had higher loyalties to their cause.
Of course, I'm speaking in generalities. Plenty of good people in Wellington, and pockets of high competence. However, since National has deliberately avoided getting involved in the culture war while out of office, they're therefore, I believe, largely ignorant of how far things have shifted in this regard.
New Zealand has a unicameral house, so I don't expect National will have any difficulty implementing its fiscal agenda - or rather, whatever fiscal agenda emerges after coalition talks with ACT and NZF are concluded. However, as Labour found with Kiwibuild: changing budgets is easy for the party in power, fixing problems is far more difficult.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link