the fourth Labour government of 1984-90 (the anti Nuke govt) was only a Labour party in name. They stripped back the state, sold off assets ran hospitals and schools like businesses amongst other things, so they were definitely not socialist. And if anything our Nuke free stance was courageous, I think America was shocked that such a small nation wasnt taking their bully tactics, most countries would simply back down, we didnt.
Has anyone else noticed the amount of disrupter scum rising to the surface in this thread? Funny how the ink on their screen names is so fresh as well. Helen Clark's nanny staters are working overtime with their pointless and worthless drivel.
As soon as the Kiwis have a new election and Labour is tossed out again, NZ will have a government again that truly represents the people.
As I say, I really can't pretend to understand your politics from clear over here. Frankly; I have enough trouble understanding ours!
All I really know is that NZ is a parlimentary democracy, though the specifics of how you implement that are a mystery to me. I know that in general parlimentary systems involve many parties (though it varies wildly from country to country) and "governments" are usually formed through building coalitions. This has the advantage of giving the voters a wide selection of parties from which to pick the philosophies and/or individuals who best reflect their views. And the overall composition of the parliment is a good reflection of the attitudes of the country. On the downside, often times the ruling coaliton is based more on deal making than truely "trying to do the will of the people". And this occasionally results in tiny minority parties having inordinate amounts of power. Advantages and disadvantages, like all forms of government. If I ever discover a perfect one, I'll be sure to let you know right away, OK? But don't hold your breath... I don't want your death by asphyxiation on my conscious. ;)
With that much complexity, I would be foolish to argue with you. Add to that the fact that socialist idealists of the time rarely called themselves such. They prefered names like "people's labour party", "social democratics", "democractic green union", etc. As juliette said, "What's in a name?" Without a score card I could never hope to keep track of the players. Then...On top of all that... Add purely local concerns. Like anger over French Nuclear testing in the Pacific, or frustration over economic issues, for example. Then libererally (?) spice with a mixture of the people in power warping and spinning issues to enhance their own agendas. Let simmer over a low flame of the general anxienty that pervaded the world at the time...And Viola! A stew utterly undigestible by any foreigner, what-so-ever!
That's why I had to confine my ruminations to the generally vague. I do know that NZ was more socialist than the US. Your descriptions of the actions of the government confirm it as they describe a country trying to emerge from socialism. I do know that such actions are rarely taken lightly, and there is always a large segment of the population that resists - that is true of any people, anywhere. That means that you must still have had plenty of socialists around (even if they had changed their names) and I will bet flaming rights that they were vocal supporters of the "Nuclear Free" movement. Am I wrong?
As for your definition of courage; I'm afraid we'll just have to agree to disagree. I, quite frankly, don't even understand your definition of courage. Which means you probably don't understand mine either. We may as well be speaking different languages. And I really don't know what to do about it beyond wishing you a good day. Adios!