Archive
Observations on the 2017 Election campaign thus far… (ono)
.
.
You show me yours, I’ll show you mine…
.
Perhaps the most ill-considered public statement from NZ First leader, Winston Peters, was his recent (11 September) demand that Labour disclose it’s full tax plan as a pre-condition for coalition;
“You are not asking the questions. You can’t possibly mean to go into an election saying, ‘My tax policy will be decided by a committee, and I am very sincere about that’. One needs to know what we are talking about … that should be fatal to a party’s chances. And we need to know.”
The jaw-dropping, gob-smacking, forehead-slapping gall of Winston Peters! For him to demand clarity and full disclosure from others – when he himself has made a fetish of not disclosing to voters who he will coalesce with, post-election – takes the Hypocrisy-of-the-Year Award from National and plants it firmly on his own Italian suited jacket-lapel.
On top of which, none of Peters multi-billion dollar policies have yet to be costed.
So here’s the deal, Winston. You want to see Labour’s tax plans? We want to see your coalition intentions.
We’ll show you ours if you show us yours. After all, “One needs to know what we are talking about“.
As Jacinda said, “Let’s do this“.
.
Richard Prebble should keep vewy, vewy quiet
.
On the matter of Labour referring taxation reform to a Working Group post-election, former-ACT Party leader Richard Prebble was scathing in his condemnation that Jacinda Ardern would not disclose her intentions toward implementation of a possible Capital Gains Tax.
In his regular NZ Herald propaganda slot, he wrote on 7 September;
“…Jacinda thinks the answer to every problem is a new tax. Asking for a mandate for capital gains taxes without giving any details is outrageous. All new taxes start small and then grow. GST was never going to be more than 10 per cent.
Who believes it is fair that the Dotcom mansion will be an exempt “family home” but a family’s holiday caravan plot will be taxed? The details are important…”
A week later, he followed up with;
“In a “captain’s call” Jacinda changed the tax policy to say that a Labour victory was a mandate for Labour to introduce any new tax and at any rate that a nameless committee of “tax experts” recommended, just the family home is off limits.
Any tax? What about land tax? Yes. Tax on the family bach and boat? Yes. Water? Petrol? Nothing is off the table. Will the capital gains tax be 33 per cent? Maybe. The petrol tax 10 cents a litre? Probably. Water tax. Guess a figure. “Trust us” says Jacinda.
No party has ever asked for so much power.“
This, from the man who was a former Minister in the Lange Government which – in 1986 – introduced various neo-liberal “reforms” that the Labour Government had never campaigned on; had not included in their manifesto; and introduced the regressive Goods and Services Tax in 1986. The Goods and Services Tax was never disclosed to the public in 1984.
Prebble and his cronies deceived the New Zealand public in the 1984 election campaign. They withheld their true agenda. They lied to us.
For Prebble to now rear up on his hind legs, braying in indignation, pointing a stained finger at Jacinda Ardern, is hypocrisy beyond words.
As former producer of TV’s The Nation, Tim Watkin, wrote on Prebble’s sanctimonious clap-trap;
“To read and hear a member of the fourth Labour government like Richard Prebble howling about transparency is like an Australian cricketer railing against under-arm bowling. Labour’s manifesto in 1984 was as artful a collection of vagaries as has ever been put to the public and after winning a second term in 1987, Prebble and his fellow Rogernomes embarked on a series of reforms – arguably the most radical tax reform ever considered by a New Zealand government, including a flat tax – without campaigning on them.”
Richard Prebble should think carefully before raising his voice on this issue – lest his own track record is held up for New Zealanders to scrutinise.
Does he really want that particular scab picked?
.
Latest Colmar Brunton Poll…
.
The latest TV1/Colmar Brunton Poll (14 September) has Labour and the Greens climbing – a direct antithesis to the TV3/Reid Research Poll which had Labour and the Greens sliding (12 September).
12 September: Reid Research-TV3
.
.
14 September: Colmar Brunton-TV1
.
.
Which raises two questions;
- Are polling polling companies operating in the same country? Or Parallel Universes?
- Is it about time that all public polling was banned once early voting begins?
The chasm in poll-results for National, Labour, and the Greens confirms critics of polls who dismiss results as wildly unpredictable. “Bugger the pollsters“, said Jim Bolger in 1993 – and with considerable justification.
Though Winston Peters and his supporters may be nervous at the fact that both polls have NZ First at 6% – perilously close to the 5% threshold. Any lower and Peters’ Northland electorate becomes a crucial deciding factor whether NZ First returns to Parliament.
Several commentators – notably from the Right – have been making mischief with the poll results, suggesting that a vote for the Green Party would be a wasted vote. Without the parachute of an electorate base, if the Greens fall below 5% in the Party Vote, their votes are discounted and Parliamentary seats re-allocated to Labour and National.
John Armstrong and Matthew Hooton are two such commentators making this fallacious point. Fallacious because even at Reid Research’s disastrous 4.9%, the polling ignores the Expat Factor. Expats – predominantly overseas young voters – are not polled, but still cast their Special Votes, and often for the Green Party.
In 2014, the Green vote went from 210,764 on election night to 257,359 once Special Votes were counted and factored in. The extra 47,000 votes was sufficient to send a fourteenth Green Party List candidate to Parliament;
.
.
It seems contradictory that there is a total black-out of polls on Election Day itself – when voting stations are open. But polling is allowed to proceed two weeks out from Election Day when voting stations are also open.
It may be time for this country to consider banning all polling whilst voting stations are open. If poll results are so open to wild fluctuations, and certain commentators make mischief from questionable data, then the possible risk of undue influence on voters cannot be discounted.
Once voting begins, polling should cease.
The only poll that should count after voting begins is Election Day.
.
Losing the plot, Winston-style
.
On Radio NZ’s Morning Report (14 September), NZ First Leader, Winston Peters lost the plot. His haranguing of Guyon Espiner did him no credit.
More incredible was Peters’ assertion that he has not made any “bottom lines” this election;
“I have never gone out talking about bottom lines.”
Peters’ blatant Trumpian-style lie flew in the face of his bottom-lines during this election campaign.
On a referendum on the Maori seats;
“My strategy is to tell everybody out there that you won’t be talking to NZ First unless you want a referendum on both those issues at the mid-term mark of this election.”
On re-entering Pike River mine;
“I’m making no bones about it, we’ll give these people a fair-go, and yes this is a bottom line, and it shouldn’t have to be.”
On a rail link to Northport;
“I can say for the people of Northland and Whangarei, this is going to happen. We’ve got the corridor; it’s been designated. The only thing it lacks is the commitment from central government and we are going to give this promise, as I did in the Northland by-election – we are 69 days away from winning Whangarei as well – and that’s one of the first things we’re going to be doing straight after the election.”
Peters has issued several other bottom lines, including changing the Reserve Bank Act, banning foreign purchase of land, setting up a foreign ownership register, reducing net migration to 10,000 per year, and not raising the age of eligibility for New Zealand Superannuation (from 65).
Peters also attacked Espiner for personally supporting the neo-liberal “revolution” in the 1980s. As Espiner pointed out, when Roger Douglas tore New Zealand’s social fabric apart, he was 13 years old at the time.
Plot lost.
.
Labour’s tax & spend – what ails the Nats?
.
National has launched a full-scale attack on Labour’s taxation policies and plans to set up a Tax Working Group to investigate the possibility of a Capital Gains Tax.
The Crosby-Textor line is childishly simple: the Right have identified a ‘chink’ in Jacinda Ardern’s teflon armour – kindly on loan from previous Dear Leader;
.
.
But there’s more to it than simply attacking Labour through a perceived weakness in their taxation policy.
Labour is attempting to shift New Zealand away from a low-taxation/minimalist government, and return the country to the fully-funded social services we all once enjoyed.
Remember free prescriptions? Yes indeed. Prior to 1986, prescribed medicine was free.
National’s growing concern is not that Labour will introduce new (or higher) taxes.
Their worry is that New Zealanders will like what their taxes can buy; free tertiary education. Lower medical costs. Cheaper housing. New, re-vitalised social services such as nurses in schools.
Up until now, the Cult of Individualism had it’s allure. But it also has it’s nastier down-side.
If New Zealanders get a taste for a Scandinavian-style of taxation and social services, that would be the death-knell for neo-liberalism. When Jacinda Ardern recently agreed with Jim Bolger that neo-liberalism had failed – the Right noticed.
And when she said this;
“New Zealand has been served well by interventionist governments. That actually it’s about making sure that your market serves your people – it’s a poor master but a good servant.
Any expectation that we just simply allow that the market to dictate our outcomes for people is where I would want to make sure that we were more interventionist.”
For me the neoliberal agenda is what does it mean for people? What did it mean for people’s outcomes around employment, around poverty, around their ability to get a house? And on that front I stand by all our commitments to say that none of that should exist in a wealthy society. And there are mechanisms we can use that are beyond just our economic instruments and acts, to turn that around.”
– the Right became alarmed.
This election is not simply between the National-led block vs the Labour-led bloc – this is the battle for the future of our country; the soul of our people.
This moment is New Zealand’s cross-road.
.
WINZ and Metiria Turei – A story of Two Withheld Entitlements
.
Recent revelations that WINZ has withheld $200 million of lawful entitlements to some of the poorest, most desperate individuals and families in this neo-liberal Utopia (note sarc), has shocked some;
.
.
$200 million withheld from welfare recipients who could have used that cash to pay for doctor’s visits. Shoes for children. Even lunch meals – which so many National/ACT supporters continually berate the poor for not providing for their kids – as Donna Miles reported on 13 September;
.
.
Did the country rise up in a clamour of righteous anger? Was there a vocal outcry on social media? Were the Letters-to-the-editor columns filled were disgust and demands for a fair go for beneficiaries?
Like hell there was. If New Zealanders noticed, they showed little interest.
Yet, even the Minister for Social Welfare, Anne Tolley, had to concede that WINZ had fallen woefully short in helping those who need it most in our country;
“I agree at times it’s too bureaucratic and we’re doing our very best.”
$200 million in lawful entitlements withheld – and there is barely a whimper.
Contrast that with former Green Party co-leader, Metiria Turei, who did some “withholding” of her own;
.
.
A young solo-mum withholds information from social welfare in the mid-1990s, after then-Finance Minister Ruth Richard has cut welfare payments – and every conservative moralist; middle-class National/ACT supporter; media elite; and right-wing fruitcake, has a collective hysterical spasm of judgementalism that would put a Christian Fundamentalist to shame.
Perhaps if social welfare had not been cut in 1991…
Perhaps if WINZ had not withheld $200 million in rightful welfare entitlements…
Perhaps then Metiria Turei would not have had to withhold information, merely to survive…
Perhaps if half this country were not so drenched in…
.
.
Perhaps then, our sheep and pigs might finally learn to fly.
.
.
References
NZ Herald: Winston Peters to Labour – Front up on your tax plans
Fairfax media: Gareth Morgan positions himself as alternative to Winston Peters
NZ Herald: Richard Prebble – The Jacinda tidal wave can be stopped
NZ Herald: Richard Prebble – The Jacinda tidal wave has gone out
Radio NZ: Time to come clean on coalition compromises
TVNZ: Colmar Brunton poll – Labour maintains four point lead over National, could govern with Greens
Mediaworks: National could govern alone in latest Newshub poll
Colin James: Of polls, statistics and a Labour deficit
NZ Herald: John Armstrong – This election is a two-party dogfight now
NZ Herald: Remaining Green Party voters ‘mainly hippies and drug addicts’ – Matthew Hooton
Parliament: The 2014 New Zealand General Election – Final Results and Voting Statistics
Radio NZ: Morning Report – The Leader Interview – Winston Peters
Fairfax media: Winston Peters delivers bottom-line binding referendum on abolishing Maori seats
Fairfax media: Winston Peters says Pike River re-entry is bottom line to election deals
NBR: TV3 – The Nation – Peters promises rail to Northport
Newsroom: What a National-NZ First Govt might actually do
Fairfax media: Jacinda Ardern says neoliberalism has failed
Radio NZ: WINZ staff accused of withholding entitlements
Fairfax media: Turei rallies Palmerston North troops in fight against poverty
Other blogposts
Donna Miles: Child Poverty – Facebook Post Shows The Nats Don’t Care
Previous related blogposts
Election ’17 Countdown: The Promise of Nirvana to come
Observations on the 2017 Election campaign thus far… (tahi)
Observations on the 2017 Election campaign thus far… (rua)
Observations on the 2017 Election campaign thus far… (toru)
Observations on the 2017 Election campaign thus far… (wha)
Observations on the 2017 Election campaign thus far… (rima)
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 15 September 2017.
.
.
= fs =
Why I won’t be congratulating Nikki Kaye
.
.
Bill English today (24 April) announced his Cabinet re-shuffle. As expected, departing non-performers and walking public-relations-disasters, Nick Smith and Hekia Parata, were replaced by “rising stars” Amy Adams and Nikki Kaye, respectively.
Both Ms Adams and Ms Kaye have conveyed a public perception of calm efficiency, without the PR cluster-f***s that have come to characterise Nick Smith and Hekia Parata’s erratic performances in their respective ministerial portfolios.
Smith’s accident-prone political career reached it’s nadir in March 2012 when he was forced to resign for mis-using his ministerial influence on behalf of a close friend and National Party apparatchik, Bronwyn Pullar.
Hekia Parata’s controversy-riddled career crashed in June 2012 when her proposal to increase class-room sizes was met with a deafening chorus of outrage from middle-class mums and dads. The backlash from voters was such that Parata was forced to back down in a humiliating policy u-turn.
English’s re-shuffle puts new(-ish) faces into his Cabinet giving the illusion of “rejuvenation”. But more importantly, it removes Parata and Smith from public view and from media questioning.
As housing and education are both going to be hot election issues this year, having Parata and Smith front to answer difficult questions regarding National’s problematic portfolios (health, education, housing, and dirty waterways) would be embarrassing. National’s tax-payer funded spin-doctors would be banging their heads against brick walls in sheer frustration.
Adams and Kaye had very little of the baggage that their predecessors had, in abundance.
Until, that is, on 15 March this year when then-Youth Minister, Nikki Kaye, launched into an ad hominem diatribe against Jacinda Ardern during a debate in Parliament. It was an orchestrated, pre-planned, personalised attack;
“ I want to talk about the deputy leadership of the Labour Party. We lost Annette King. I want to acknowledge Annette King. She has been a brilliant member of Parliament. She is someone who has huge respect across the House—and we got Jacinda Ardern. Now, I have been based in Auckland Central for 8 years. I struggle to name anything that Jacinda has done. What I can say is that a great example is when Kevin Hague and I developed an adoption law reform bill. We spent a year on that bill; we put it in the ballot. Jacinda Ardern did a one-line bill telling the Law Commission to write the law for her.
On her first day in the job as deputy leader, on one of the biggest issues confronting our generation, Generation X and Generation Y—on the issue of superannuation affordability—where was she? She had made a whole lot of statements previously about the importance of raising the age, and Jacinda Ardern was nowhere to be seen. She had cut and run on the biggest issue facing our generation, and that is another example of what is a whole lot of photo ops—yes, she will be across every billboard, but she absolutely failed our generation on her first day on the job.”
Ardern, to her eternal credit, refused to take the bait to dive head-first into a political sewerage and replied in a manner that epitomises statesmanlike behaviour;
“ It’s certainly not a style of politics I’ve seen her use before. Nikki and I have run against each other in Auckland Central for a number of years and usually pretty much stuck to the issues and avoided making it personal. I’m going to stick to that. I’m going to stick with the way I like to do politics, and it’s making sure that you keep away from making it too personal. But each to their own.”
It was also in stark contrast to the 2014 General Election where Kaye and Ardern agreed to conducting an issues-driven campaign and not resort to increasingly dirty, personalised attack-politics.
That agreement served both women well. They became (generally) more respected than their more “excitable” colleagues in Parliament who were not averse to “getting down and dirty in the bear pit of politics”.
Two days after Kaye’s attack, Jacinda Ardern went further and actually tried to defend her rival on Mediawork’s ‘AM Show’;
“ I just know that Nikki doesn’t believe that…
… I don’t actually think she believes that, because we’ve worked side-by-side, she knows the case work I’ve done, she knows what I’ve done locally, so I’m going to shrug it off. ”
National’s Deputy PM, Paula Bennet – herself no stranger to a bit of ‘bene-bashing’ to stir up support from the red-neck element in our society – was having none of it, and refused to accept Ardern’s placatory comments;
“ That is so condescending Jacinda, that is absolutely condescending. ”
Bennett was making sure that Kaye’s vitriol would stick and no amount of charitable turning-the-cheek from Ardern would be allowed to dilute the venom.
The result of this petty bickering, name-calling, point-scoring chest thumping is ongoing public scorn and derision at behaviour they would not tolerate from their own children.
In her attack on Ardern, Nikki Kaye has shown that she is not above cheap politicking. It is not Ardern’s reputation that suffered when Kaye launched into her contrived bitchfest.
On the same ‘AM Show’ Bennett attempted to re-frame the viciousness of political scrapping by referring to it as “robust” debate;
“ Of course she meant what she stood up and said and she’s got every right to say it. It’s robustness, and when you step into leadership roles, you are going to be called out and times that’s going to be uncomfortable, and at times you are going to disagree. ”
“Robust” is one of those new ‘buzz-words’, like the increasingly loathed ‘resilient’ or weird-sounding ‘stake holders’. It can be used to disguise bullying behaviour that would not be acceptable in any other workplace.
Imagine for a moment if the behaviour of personal attacks was replicated throughout society, in every workplace and home in the country. Such behaviour in domestic situations would be labelled domestic abuse. Very few would accept it as “robust discussion”.
Unfortunately, the host of the ‘AM Show’ – Duncan Garner – failed to pick up on this abusive aspect of politics. (Modern media commercial imperatives demand conflict raging – not conflict resolution. Garner might as well handed both women a knife each and told them to get on with it.)
If Nikki Kaye (and all other Members of Parliament) wants to work in a constructive, professional manner instead of a toxic culture of threats, point-scoring, and abuse, each Parliamentarian is personally responsible for their own behaviour.
Ardern’s mild response to Nicki Kaye’s verbal abuse, and refusing to pander to Bennett ‘egging’-on, has raised the standard of behaviour for her parliamentary colleagues.
Ms Ardern was correct to refuse to lower herself to their level.
Kaye, Bennett, et al need to raise themselves up.
Nikki Kaye, don’t let yourself be persuaded by your colleagues to engage in behaviour you would find unacceptable elsewhere.
Be the person you really are. You are better than this.
.
Postscript1
One of Nikki Kaye’s “criticisms” of Jacinda Ardern was that she “struggle to name anything that Jacinda has done”.
The simple reality that being in Opposition renders an MP with very little legislative power. Even when a Private Member’s Bill is drawn from the Ballot; debated; put through Select Committee process; and passed into law by a majority of MPs – it can still be vetoed by a dogma-driven Finance Minister.
However, even in Opposition, Ms Ardern is not without her personal achievements.
In the 2014 General Election, Ms Ardern was Number 5 on the Labour Party list. Nicki Kaye was Number 19;
.
.
One of those parties has more faith in their candidate and her abilities than the other.
Postscript2
In her 15 March diatribe, Nikki Kaye accused Labour of indulging in a certain style of superficial campaigning;
“This is a Labour Party that thinks the only way that it can get into Government is to totally get rid of all of its policies and to make sure that has got some nice fancy new billboards and some photo ops…”
When it comes to photo-ops, there is only one person in the last decade who mastered the art to a preternatural degree;
.
.
Whether it be babies, kittens, or puppies…
.
.
Though some weren’t quite so keen…
.
.
Some turned out to be downright dodgy…
.
.
And some turned into an unmitigated disaster…
.
.
But let’s get back to kitten and puppies – always an easy, safe bet for a photo-op… (especially with a visiting compliant Royal chucked in for good measure)…
.
.
Talking about visiting Royals – they are proven rich-pickings for Key to exploit for photo-ops…
.
.
And there were photo-ops-galore with various sundry Royals…
.
.
Chuck in an Aussie Prime Minister…
.
.
And another Aussie Prime Minister…
.
.
Yet another Aussie Prime Minister…
.
.
And – wait for it! – an Aussie Prime Minister!!
.
.
Ok, that line of Aussies was getting tedious. Let’s try something different.
A former New Zealand Prime Minister…
.
.
Or the current Brit Prime Minister.
Slow down, Dear Leader, you’ve got Cameron dead in your sights for that manly grip…
.
.
See? Nailed that handshake…
.
.
Enough of Prime Ministers. Let’s try a current German Chancellor…
.
.
Or a (former) US State Secretary…
.
.
Maybe another Royal…
.
.
And a Queen or two…
.
![[*scrape, scrape, shuffle, bow, bow, grin like a commoner*]](https://fmacskasy.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/queen_elizabeth_meets_new_zealand_prime_minister_j_4fcfc3458b.jpg?w=595)
[*scrape, scrape, shuffle, bow, bow, grin like a commoner*]
.
.
Some bloke from China…
.
.
And some bloke from America…
.
.
Here is our esteemed Dear Leader with perhaps The Most Important Bloke in America…
.
.
And we know what followed next…
.
.
Though perhaps not quite as embarrassing as this…
.
*facepalm*
.
But just to keep the “common touch” with the Great Unwashed…
.
.
And when you get tired of doing your own driving…
.
.
But for the Top Prize for photo-ops, you just can’t get more Ordinary Blokey than hanging out with Ritchie and The Boys…
.
.
Still hangin’ out with Ritchie and The Boys…
.
.
Ah, John, I think this is The Boys telling you ‘enough is enough, go the f**k home!‘
.
.
Ok… getting a bit wanky now…
.
.
And then it just hits rock-bottom, in Key’s eagerness to be In-On-The-Act…
.
.
It’s obvious that our esteemed Dear Leader is not shy in front of a camera.
So… what was that you were saying about photo-ops, Ms Kaye?!
[Images and text above re-printed from previous blog-story: John Key is a principled man – except when a photo op arises (A Photo Essay) ]
.
.
.
References
Radio NZ: Brownlee to take on Foreign Affairs in ministerial reshuffle
Otago Daily Times: Cabinet minister Nick Smith resigns
Fairfax media: Backlash forces Government class size U-turn
NZ Herald: Gloves off – National MPs target Labour’s Jacinda Ardern in series of attacks
Parliament: Hansards – Nikki Kaye
TV3 News: Nikki Kaye launches war of words on Jacinda Ardern
TV3 News – The AM Show: ‘Gloves off’ for Bennett, Ardern on The AM Show
NZ Herald: Bennett rejects ‘hypocrite’ claims
Radio NZ: Govt vetoes paid parental leave bill
Electoral Commission: 2014 General Election Party Lists
Other Blogs
The Standard: “All show and no substance”
The Standard: Nats’ attack on Ardern backfires
The Standard: Nats’ attack on Ardern – Day 3
The Daily Blog: With all due respect to Nikki Kaye and Paula Bennett, if you want to slag off Jacinda Ardern
Previous related blogposts
National MPs – giving us the finger in election year
Why Hekia Parata should not be sacked
Citizen A – Susan Devoy; Nick Smith; Len Brown; and DoC job losses – 28 March 2013
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 25 April 2014.
.
.
= fs =
Election ’17 Countdown: The Strategy of Ohariu
.
(Or, “It’s only ‘hypocrisy’ when the Left do it!“)
.
.
The Labour-Green New Deal
On 14 February, the Left finally woke up to the realities of MMP. A deal was brokered and the only possible, logical outcome arrived at;
.
.
The Radio NZ story is correct; Dunne retained the Ōhāriu electorate by only 710 votes.
.
.
Had Green voters given their electorate vote to the Labour candidate, Virginia Andersen would have won Ōhāriu by 2,054 votes and National would have lost one of their coalition partners.
With the subsequent loss of Northland to Winston Peters in March 2015, National would have lost their majority in Parliament and would have had to either rely on NZ First for Confidence and Supply – or call an early election.
A major victory for the Left (and all low-income people in our community) would have been the abandonment of National’s state house sell-of. (Current state housing stock has dropped from 69,000 rental properties in 2008 to 61,600 (plus a further 2,700 leased) by 2016.)
National has sold off 7,400 properties. Meanwhile, as of December last year, there were 4,771 people on the state house waiting list;
.
.
Had Dunne been ousted from Ōhāriu in 2014 our recent history would have been completely altered. Anyone who believes that the Labour-Green accomodation was a “dirty” deal might ponder the ‘rights’ and ‘wrongs’ whilst spending the night in a car or under a tarpaulin. Preferably in winter.
Green Party co-leader, James Shaw, rightly pointed out the obvious;
“I think New Zealanders will understand that, in an MMP environment, it makes perfect sense for us to not stand a candidate in Ōhāriu. Ōhāriu has a significant impact on the makeup of Parliament.
Not standing in Ōhāriu increases the chances that we will be in a position to change the government in September – it’s as simple as that.
I would actually argue that we’re being more transparent here by actually simply saying we’re not going to and it’s within the structure of the memorandum of understanding with the Labour Party that we signed last year, where we actually held a press conference saying that we were going to work together to change the government.”
Shaw has rejected any suggestion that this is a “dirty deal”. Again, he is correct. the Greens and Labour are simply working by the rules of MMP as National determined in 2012/13, when then-Dear Leader Key refused to eliminate the “coat-tailing” provision.
Shaw should have thrown the description of a “deal” right back at critics such as right-wing blogger and National Party apparatchik, David Farrar, and TV3’s faux-moralistic Patrick Gower. Shaw’s response should have been hard-hitting and ‘in-your-face’,
“Damn right it’s a deal. Those are the rules set by National and we play by them. If people don’t like it, take it up with the Tories.”
Some context
In 2012, National followed through on an earlier government committment to conduct a review into the MMP electoral process. The Commission called for submissions from the public, and over 4,600 submissions were duly made on the issue. (This blogger made a submission as well.)
As a result, the Commission made these findings;
The Commission presented its final report to the Minister of Justice on 29 October 2012 with the following recommendations:
-
The one electorate seat threshold [aka “coat-tailing”] should be abolished (and if it is, the provision for overhang seats should also be abolished);
-
The party vote threshold should be lowered from 5% to 4% (with the Commission required by law to review how the 4% threshold is working);
-
Consideration be given to fixing the ratio of electorate seats to list seats at 60:40 to address concerns about declining proportionality and diversity of representation;
-
Political parties should continue to have responsibility for selecting and ranking candidates on their party lists but they must make a statutory declaration that they have done so in accordance with their party rules;
-
MPs should continue to be allowed to be dual candidates and list MPs to stand in by-elections.
The first two recommendations were a direct threat to National’s dominance in Parliament, and then-Minister of Justice, Judith Collins rejected them outright;
.
.
Key offered a mealy-mouthed excuse for not accepting the Electoral Commission’s report;
“If you’re really, really going to have major change to MMP you’d want to have either consensus or to put it to the people. It’s not a matter of blame – it’s just a range of views out there.”
Yet, submitters had been fairly clear in their views and failure to obtain “concensus” from the smaller parties in Parliament said more about their own self-interests than public-interest.
A NZ Herald editorial pointed out;
All of National’s present allies, Act, United Future and the Maori Party, take the same view of the single electorate entitlement and all but the Maori Party have benefited from it at some time. Self-interest may be their underlying motive…
[…]
National seems not to want to disturb the status quo because it discounts its chances of finding stable coalition partners under the simplified system proposed.
So the hundreds of thousands of taxpayers’ dollars spent on the MMP Review; seeking submissions; listening to submitters; and providing the Report to Parliament was all an utter waste of money.
The “coat-tailing” provision would be set to remain because without it National would find it harder to find potential coalition allies, and therefore govern.
It also meant that all political parties now have to play by the same rules, or else be disadvantaged.
(Hypo)Crit(ic)s
— Gower
Patrick Gower (with Jenna Lynch sharing the byline) writing for TV3 News was obviously having a bad coffee-day with this vitriolic comment, condemning the Labour-Green accomodation;
Labour and the Greens have just done the dirtiest electorate deal in New Zealand political history – and it is all about destroying Peter Dunne.
The tree-hugging Greens will not stand in Ōhāriu to help the gun-toting former cop Greg O’Connor win the seat for Labour.
This is dirtier than most electorate deals because for the first time in recent history a party is totally giving up on a seat and not running rather than standing but giving a ‘cup of tea’ signal for its voters to go for a minor party candidate.
The degree of hypocrisy to Gower’s comment is breath-taking.
Note that he suggests that it is preferable to “giving a ‘cup of tea’ signal for its voters to go for a minor party candidate” rather than withdrawing a candidate and openly declaring an accomodation.
In effect, a journalist has advocated for “open deception” rather than transparency. Think about that for a moment.
Gower antipathy to left-wing parties using current MMP rules is not new. Three years ago, Gower made a scathing attack on Hone Harawira and Laila Harré over the alliance between the Internet Party and Mana Movement;
.
.
By attacking parties on the Left who choose to work together (but not parties on the Right), Gower is either displaying crass ignorance over how MMP works – or undisguised political bias.
I will not be surprised if Gower eventually ends up as Press Secretary for a National minister.
Postscript: Re Gower’s comment that “for the first time in recent history a party is totally giving up on a seat and not running“.
This is yet more ignorance from a man who is supposedly TV3’s “political editor”. Political parties often do not yield a full slate of candidates in every electorate.
In the 2014 General election there were 71 electorates; 64 general and seven Māori electorates;
.
.
The Green party had only 57 candidates out of 71 electorates. Notice that even National did not offer candidates in every electorate.
Only Labour fielded a candidate in all 71 electorates.
So as usual, Gower’s political knowledge is disturbingly lacking. Or partisan. Take your pick.
— Farrar
Soon after the Greens announced their accomodation deal, National Party apparatchik, pollster, and right-wing blogger – David Farrar – was predictable in his criticism. Cheering for Patrick Gower, Farrar wrote;
…Labour and Greens have spent years condemning deals where National stands but tells supporters they only want the party vote, and now they’ve done a deal where they don’t even stand. I don’t have a huge issue with them doing that – the issue is their blatant hypocrisy.
They’re so desperate to be in Government they’ll put up with that, but the irony is that if Winston does hold the balance of power and pick Labour, he’ll insist the Greens are shut out of Government.
Yet, in 2011 and 2014, Farrar had different thoughts on deal-making when it came to electoral accomodations;
This is sensible and not unusual. Off memory most elections there have been some seats where ACT doesn’t stand a candidate to avoid splitting the centre-right electorate vote. One of the nice things about MMP is that you can still contest the party vote, without needing to stand in an electorate.
And,
I think Epsom voters will vote tactically, as they did previously. But the choice is up to them. National may say we are only seeking the party vote in an electorate – but they still stand a candidate, giving voters the choice. Epsom voters are not controlled by National. If they don’t want to tactically vote, then they won’t. All National will be doing is saying we’re happy for people to vote for the ACT candidate, as having ACT in Parliament means you get a National-led Government.
So, according to Farrar, it’s ok that “ ACT doesn’t stand a candidate to avoid splitting the centre-right electorate vote“. He describes it as “one of the nice things about MMP“.
So as long as a deal is presented dishonestly – “All National will be doing is saying we’re happy for people to vote for the ACT candidate, as having ACT in Parliament means you get a National-led Government” – then that’s ok?
Both Labour/Greens and National/ACT have presented electoral accomodations – but in different ways.
One was transparent.
The other was doing it with a “wink, wink, nudge, nudge”.
It is unreasonable and hypocritical to support one side to exploit current MMP provisions to their benefit – whilst expecting others to work to a different set of rules. Perhaps Mr Farrar should look at how National/ACT presents their accomodations to the public – or else do away with the coat-tailing provision altogether.
Ōhāriu Green Voters
Following the 2011 General Election, I noted that Green voters had failed to make full use of strategic voting under MMP;
Dunne’s election gave National an extra coalition partner and his win therefore assumes a greater relevance than a “mere” electorate MP. In effect, 1,775 Green voters sent John Key a second Coalition partner, after John Banks.
And again, post-2014;
Some Green supporters are either woefully ignorant of MMP – or have been smoking to much of a certain herb. Or, gods forbid, they are so desperate to remain ideologically pure in their principles, that they are willing to allow a right wing candidate to be elected, rather than supporting a candidate from another party on the Left.
In Ōhāriu (as well as other electorates) Peter Dunne was returned to office because Green Party supporters cast their electorate votes for Green candidate Tane Woodley, instead of the Labour candidate. Preliminary election results for Ohariu yield the following;
ANDERSEN, Virginia: (Labour)11,349*
DUNNE, Peter: (United Future) 12,279*
WOODLEY, Tane: (Greens) 2,266*
Had supporters of the Green Party given their electorate votes to Viriginia Andersen, Peter Dunne would have been defeated by 1,336* votes.
The Greens need to get it through to their supporter’s heads that giving their electorate votes to their own candidates is a waste of effort and an indulgence we cannot afford.
When elections are close-fought and majorities slim, such indulgences cannot be tolerated, and the Greens need to educate their supporters quick-smart, if we are to win in 2017.
(*Note: figures above were preliminary and not final results.)
If there was an element of frustration and anger in my comments above, it was a ‘face-palm’ moment. The poorest families and individuals in New Zealand have paid the price by enduring two terms of National because Green voters chose to indulge themselves by casting both votes for the Green candidate, rather than strategic vote-splitting.
I can understand affluent, propertied Middle Class voting for self-interest.
I find it less palatable that Green voters cast their ballots for some bizarre feeling of political purity. That is selfishness in another form.
Beneficiaries being attacked by a souless government; people living in cars, garages, rough, or crammed three families into one home; people suffering as social services are slashed, will find it hard to understand such selfishness.
In the United States, blue-collar workers voted for a populist demagogue. The workers who voted for Trump believed that the Left had abandoned them.
We dare not allow the same despair to flourish in our own country.
If politics is a contest of ideas; a battle of ideology; then strategy counts.
The Greens have woken up to this simple reality.
.
.
.
References
Radio NZ: Green Party will not stand in Ōhāriu
Electoral Commission: Official Count Results – Ōhāriu
Radio NZ: Winston Peters takes Northland
Radio NZ: Thousands of state houses up for sale
Housing NZ: Annual Report 2008/09
Housing NZ: Annual Report 2015/16
Fairfax media: Samoan family stuck in makeshift, mosquito-ridden tent – ‘through no fault of their own’
Ministry of Social Development: The housing register
Radio NZ: Labour-Greens deny deal over Ohariu seat
NZ Herald: Political Roundup – Embarrassing but strategic deal for the Greens
Electoral Commission: 2012 MMP Review
Electoral Commission: What people said on the MMP Review
Electoral Commission: The Results of the MMP Review
NZ Herald: Govt rejects recommendations to change MMP system
NZ Herald: Editorial – National too timid on MMP review
Electoral Commission: Financial Review
Radio NZ: Collins defends not trying for changes to MMP
Scoop media: Minister’s response to MMP review a travesty – Lianne Dalziel
NZ Herald: Editorial – National too timid on MMP review
TV3 News: Patrick Gower – Labour-Greens do double dirty deal in Ōhāriu
Electoral Commission: Electoral Commission releases party and candidate lists for 2014 election
Kiwiblog: The double dirty deal in Ohariu
Kiwiblog: Marginal Seat deals
Kiwiblog: National’s potential electoral deals
Additional
Electoral Commission: 2017 General Election
Other Blogs
The Standard: The coat-tail rule and democracy (2014)
Public Address: Government votes not to improve MMP (2015)
The Standard: Greens stand aside in Ōhāriu
Previous related blogposts
Patrick Gower – losing his rag and the plot
Judith Collins issues decision on MMP Review!
Judith Collins – Minister of Talking Crap
Letter to the Editor: Mana, Internet Party, Judith Collins, and “coat-tailing”
Letter to the Editor – Dom Post editorial off into LaLaLand
John Banks: condition deteriorating
The secret of National’s success – revealed
Election 2014 – A Post-mortem; a Wake; and one helluva hang-over
2014 Election – Post-mortem Up-date
Post mortem #1: Green Voters in Electorates
.
.
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 17 February 2017.
.
.
= fs =
How biased is the media? A Patrick Gower case study
.
.
Isn’t it interesting that Patrick Gower – who made his partisan feelings crystal clear on Twitter on 29 May with this extraordinary outburst;
“Lalia Harré – you make me feel sick by how you are rorting MMP http://www.3news.co.nz/Opinion-Hone-and-Dotcoms-grubby-deal/tabid/1382/articleID/346334/Default.aspx#ixzz334vE4jKO Same goes for your pals Hone, Dotcom, Minto and Sykes.”
– is also the same one who interviewed Laila Harre on Saturday, 22 November, on TV3’s “The Nation”? What measure of neutrality did “The Nation’s” producer, Tim Watkin, believe that Gower possessed, to run that interview?
Quite simply, any reasonable individual would have arrived at the conclusion that Gower should have disqualified himself and the role given, instead, to the highly talented Lisa Owen.
Notice how Gower was very well behaved during the interview, when face-to-face with Harré?
But once Harré was off the set and he was with the panel (Mike Williams and Matthew Hooton), the gloves and mask came off and Gower’s vitriol issued forth;
“… She blamed Labour there, she blamed the Greens, she blamed the National Party, she blamed the media, she blamed Georgina Beyer, although she did say-“
“… I think there’s two words for what we saw over there, before and that’s called in denial. Hmmph!”
“… She’s not going to go in with the Greens, she’s betrayed them. Labour won’t have a a bar of her. No chance of Laila Harré coming back to Parliament. And that’s why you see this sort of denial from her. She’s got it horribly, horribly wrong and she still can’t admit it.”
It should be noted that neither Williams (an ex-Labour President) nor Hooton (a right-wing commentator) could possibly comment impartially on the Mana-Internet Alliance. Both Labour and the Right had a unified agenda to smash Mana-Internet at the election (See: 2014 Election – Post-mortem Up-date). There was simply no attempt at balance with the panelists or the the host-interviewer (Gower).
What is abundantly clear is that Gower seemed to lack a certain inner fortitude to say the things he did to the panelists, to Harré’s face.
This was part of an ongoing, unrelenting onslaught against the Left. The same dirty media that saw right-wing, self-professed “media personalities” appointed to host political debates, despite public opposition and cries of partisanship;
.
.
There was good reason for public disquiet over Mike Hosking hosting one of the election leadership debates. His political allegiance was already well known;
.
Hosking: “As I see it, all things considered we are doing pretty bloody well. We box above our weight.
“We have bright prospects for the future, so long as you keep them [National] in Government.”
An example of media bias was clearly shown over the issue of two holidays by two party Leaders. As I wrote on 24 July;
The recent non-story on David Cunliffe’s three day holiday should be proof-positive that the mainstream media (msm) is fixated on pumping out as many “bad news” reporting as can be generated by a headline-seeking; advertising-driven; lazy corporate-media system.
We’re all aware that whilst Cunliffe took a three day break (I’m surprised he bothered to come back, instead of telling this country to go get f- – – – – !), our illustrious Dear Leader was off on a ten-day holiday, sunning his pale, $55 million arse, on a Maui beach in Hawaii.
Whilst the media did indeed mention that salient fact (albeit in passing), it was taken as a given that the leader of a party polling 50%-plus in the polls is entitled to a holiday.
Meanwhile, the leader of a mid-twenties-polling (?) Party is – it was hinted – not entitled to any such break.
The subtext was blindingly obvious; success breeds reward. In this case, a warm, sunny Hawaiian beach.
And failure means you don’t deserve a single damn thing, so get-back-to-work-peasant!
(See: When the mainstream media go feral: A tale of two holidays)
Perhaps the most outrageous, recent political “hatchet job” was the Herald’s character assassination scheme launched against David Cunliffe, using unproven (and later discredited) allegations from immigrant-businessman, Donghua Liu. The story behind Liu’s shonkey allegations; a 13 year old letter; and information strategically released by National minister, Michael Woodshouse, to Herald and TV3 journos, was nothing less than a disturbing abuse of ministerial power and media influence. (See: The Donghua Liu Affair – The Players Revealed)
When a party leader continually receives bad press (eg; condemnation over taking a 3 day break; the colour of the scarf he wore; a manufactured “scandal” regarding a 13 year old letter, etc) what is the mainstream media telling this country?
At one stage the level of attacks against Cunliffe descended into pettiness and farce when, on TV3, on 24 July, TV3’s Tova O’Brien ran this report on their 6PM News bulletin, about Key’s face appearing – photo-shopped – on the cover of the “Rugby News“;
.
.
“So once again the blue team gets one over the red team. Yes, it’s cringey, but it’s left Cunliffe looking whingey.”
(See: When the mainstream media go feral: the descent into sheer farce, according to Tova O’Brien)
As I pointed out on 30 July,
Despite the fact that the story was ostensibly about Key getting his face photo-shopped onto a magazine and scoring some free election-year publicity – a supposedly well-educated, “impartial” journo still managed to somehow insert a childish comment about David Cunliffe. That’s despite the fact that Cunliffe’s comments were much more restrained and measured than the criticism made by Winston Peters in the same video.
So there we have it, folks. Even when the story is about John Key – a silly little journo still managed to turn it into a swipe at David Cunliffe.
Such was the mainstream stream leading up to the election on 20 September.
Returning to Patrick Gower, there are three questions I would like to pose to him;
1. Why is it that Gower condemned the Internet-Mana alliance as “sickening” – but not the ACT-National deal in Epsom, with the same intensity?
2. Or the National-NZ First-Maori Party deal to endorse Labour’s Kelvin Davis over Hone Harawira in Te Tai Tokerau?
3. Why was Dotcom’s funding of Mana-Internet such a big deal worthy of condemnation – but millionaires funding National and ACT is barely noted, in passing, if at all?
Otherwise, Patrick, this is not impartial, intelligent journalism.
It’s not even close.
Postscript1 (Brick-bat)
Note to MSM journos, sub-editors (those remaining), current affairs/news producers, et al) – ok, we get the “Stuart Little” reference,
.
.
Ho, ho, ho.
But enough already.
It was funny for the first thirty seconds. Now it’s just lame.
Message to journos: don’t be lame. It’s not cool.
Postscript2 (Bouquet)
For an excellent interview with a political leader (whether Labour, National, Greens, whatever), check out TVNZ’s Q+A today (22/23 November), where veteran reporter/interviewer, Heather du Plessis-Allan interviewed new Labour Leader, Andrew Little. This is how an interview should be conducted; the host asks the questions; the guest is given time to respond, without interuption.
All TV/radio hosts take note.
.
References
Twitter: Patrick Gower
Pundit: Tim Watkin
TV3: Laila Harre stepping down as Internet Party leader
TV3: “The Nation” Panel – Patrick Gower, Mike Williams & Matthew Hooton
Fairfax Media: Labour claims Hosking’s biased
NZ Herald: Media – Hosking plugs car and Key
NZ Herald: Donghua Liu’s new statement on Labour donations
TV3: David Cunliffe owns up to getting it wrong
TV3: Stuart Little, leader of the Opposition?
TVNZ: Q+A 22/23 November
Previous related blogposts
Mike Hosking as TVNZ’s moderator for political debates?! WTF?!
The Donghua Liu Affair – The Players Revealed
When the mainstream media go feral: A tale of two holidays
When the mainstream media go feral: the descent into sheer farce, according to Tova O’Brien
2014 Election – Post-mortem Up-date
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 24 November 2014
.
.
= fs =
2014 Election – Post-mortem Up-date
.
.
Counting of Special Votes are completed and the Electoral Commission’s final election results have been announced;
National: 47.04 (60 seats – down 1)
Labour: 25.13 (32 seats – no change)
Green Party: 10.70 (14 seats – plus 1)
NZ First: 8.66 (11 seats – no change)
Maori Party: 1.32 (2 seats – 1 electorate, 1 List – no change)
ACT: 0.69 (1 electorate seat – no change)
United Future: 0.22 (1 electorate seat – no change)
Conservative: 3.97 (nil seats – no change)
Internet Mana: 1.42 (nil seats – no change)
It is interesting to compare the 2014 results with the 2011 Election figures;
.
* Predominantly electorate based-parties
.
Other results
2011: 93.7%
2014: 92.6%
2. Total Votes counted by Electoral Commission:
2011: 2,278,989
2014: 2,416,481
Increase: 137,492
3. Voter turnout (as a percentage of enrolled electors):
2011: 74.2%
2014: 77.9%
4. Advance votes cast:
2011: 334,558 (14.7% of voters)
2014: 717,579 (29.33% of voters)
Increase: 383,021
Observations
National
National lost it’s overall majority in the House, though with ACT’s single MP (and to a lesser degree, Peter Dunne), they will most likely still maintain a de facto majority regardless.
My belief is that National’s party strategists were acutely aware that once Special Votes were counted, they would lose their 61st MP, Maureen Pugh. This was a re-play of the 2008 and 2011 elections, where election night results were only temporary, and National’s numbers were pared back (usually by one seat) after the counting of special votes.
Little wonder that Key and National Party strategists have been very, very, very eager to form coalition deals with ACT, Peter Dunne, and the Maori Party. Despite Key’s noble-sounding public pronouncements,
“It’s more about, you know, the kind of inclusive government we want to have other parties working with us…[…]
But equally, we sort of know each other quite well now, after six years we got a bit of a sense of the areas of importance and significance to each other and in a perfect world we don’t want to pass legislation 61 [to] 60 votes the whole way through, we do want to work with other people.”
Yeah, right, whatever. Key wasn’t being “inclusive” or “magnanimous” – he was playing his cards right, knowing full well what the Electoral Commission was going to deal out to his Party two weeks after Election night results.
National’s coalition deals with three minor parties was their “insurance policy”.
For the next three years, Key will be praying nightly to the political gods for all his MPs to remain alive, loyal, and healthy (in that order). At 60 Members of Parliament out of 121, National cannot afford too many by-elections or defections.
ACT
Not just on political life-support by the good graces of the National Party, but more importantly, ACT’s 7,200 drop in their Party vote signifies New Zealanders’ lack of appetite for any further right-wing, neo-liberal “reforms”.
This is something Key and National Party strategist should take careful note of. National’s increase in support may reflect a current preference by voters for a “steady-as-you-go” regime – not further radical moves to the Right.
It is also something that Left-Wing parties should take note: New Zealanders have expressed a subtle distaste for neo-liberalism. We need to capitalise on that.
On a side-issue, if ACT’s Party Vote is destined to reside with a tiny hard-core element of incorrigible, fanatical, right-wing voters, then what is the value of gifting Epsom to ACT if no other candidate will coat-tail into Parliament on the success of someone like John Banks or David Seymour?
There can only be one possible benefit to National: ACT is the “trojan horse” whereby unpopular right-wing policies (eg; Charter Schools) can be introduced as part of sham “coalition negotiations”. As Cameron Slater’s malicious right-wing blog was used to conduct “second track” vicious attack politics on National’s enemies, ACT’s usefulness lies in enacting right wing policies Key may not wish to be closely associated with.
United Future/Peter Dunne
UF’s drop in it’s Party Vote – by well over a half – signifies that voters see Dunne fully as a one-man band. He may continue to win Ohariu on Electorate Votes, but his low Party Vote results preclude any other UF candidates “coat tailing” into Parliament on Dunne’s localised success.
A Party Vote for UF has therefore become a “wasted” vote, and eventually National will ask itself a question, “Why are we supporting Dunne when we might as well go hard out to win the seat ourself, with one of our own candidates?” When the Nats cannot even pin unpopular policies on Dunne – what is his purpose to the centre-right bloc?
As well; the day that Green Party voters wake up to the reality that supporting the Labour Candidate, instead of their Green candidate, with the Electorate Vote, is the day Dunne loses his seat. His presence in Parliament is based purely on some Ohariu Green voters voting shambolically rather than tactically.
Mana-Internet
Interestingly, the Mana-Internet alliance was the only electorate-based Party to actually increase their overall Party Vote: from 24,168 in 2011 to 34,095 on 20 September. ACT and United Future between them lost much of their support. And whilst the Maori Party lost only 132 Party Votes – they lost two electorates; Tamaki Makarau and Te Tai Hauauru to Labour.
As history shows, Hone Harawira only lost his seat – Te Tai Tokerau – after Labour’s candidate was endorsed by John Key and Winston Peters, along with some very shady back-room dealings by the Maori Party.
Subsequently, the mainstream media, indignant commentators, etc, all piled on to the battered and bruised body of Mana, the Internet Party, Kim Dotcom, and Hone Harawira. However, New Zealanders should never forget;
- Through Kim Dotcom’s refusal to buckle to State power, we discovered that the GCSB had been illegally spying on 88 New Zealand citizens.
- After Kim Dotcom’s efforts, we now know that mass surveillance is being undertaken in this country. This is the new reality which the media seems to have over-looked (as per usual) in their constant demands for sensationalistic news stories (as if living in a mass-surveilled society wasn’t sensational in it’s own right).
- Yes, Kim Dotcom did fund the Internet Party to the tune of around $3 million.
- Compare that to National spending $2,321,216 from wealthy benefactors for the 2011 general election.
- And contrast with the $60,082 Mana spent at the same time. When did the media ever question the David-VS-Goliath battle between National and Mana in 2011? The answer is blindingly obvious.
New Zealand has a fine tradition of giving people a fair go.
We like to think we help one another.
There is also a darker side to our nature. Some call it “The Tall Poppy Syndrome”.
I call it bullying.
Less words. Same meaning.
Something Patrick Gower might reflect on.
Conservative Party
Whilst I am no fan of Colin Craig and his ill-considered mish-mash of populist and right wing policies – I do recognise that National’s on-going refusal to carry out reforms to MMP – as recommended by the Electoral Commission in 2012 – is persistently creating bizarre and undemocratic results.
The Conservative Party polled 95,598 Party Votes – three times as high as the Maori Party, which was able to bring in a second MP on Te Ururoa’ Flavell’s “coat-tails”. Yet the Conservatives have no MPs, despite out-polling the Maori Party.
(Yes, I understand that the Conservatives achieved only 3.97% of the Party Vote. But who is say they would not have gained extra votes had the Party threshold been dropped to 4%, as the Commission recommended?)
Green Party
Of the left-wing parties, the Greens fared better than Labour or Mana-Internet. Clearly, their extra 9,986 Party Votes came from Labour’s drop of 10,402 votes. Their campaign was well-targetted; they stayed consistently on-message; and their Party was not under-mined by loose-cannon-candidates engaging in open sabotage. (ref)(ref)(ref)
At 257,356 Party Votes, the Greens increased their support from their 2011 result ( 247,370 Party Votes). Their overall percentage dropped only because the overall number of Party Votes cast increased this election by 137,492.
NZ First
NZ First benefitted from the increase in voting this year. The scandals exposed in “Dirty Secrets“, and the political fallout that affected Labour, escaped Winston Peters who has continually portrayed himself as “above petty politics”.
Peters, however, was not quite sufficiently “above petty politics” to under-mine Mana Leader, Hone Harawira, in his bid to retain Te Tai Tokerau. By endorsing Labour’s Kelvin Davis, Peters plotted with John Key and the Maori Party in an unholy, manipulative, venal triumvirate to destroy the Mana Movement.
Peters can get down and dirty with the worst of them, it seems.
Like Peters’ broken promises post-1996, the public will soon forget Peters’ quiet treachery. Unfortunately.
Labour
Ye gods, where does one start…?!
- The billboards which promoted electorate candidates – and mentioned the all-important Party Vote in barely-discernible small letters?!
- The constant attacks on a potential coalition support-partner by Labour candidates?!
- Allowing certain media political commentators to frame the narrative on coalition partners – thereby forcing Cunliffe to look too eager to “do the right thing” according to certain pundits?! (ref)(ref)(ref)
- Engaging in internecine warfare, whether pre or post-election – simply the most futile act that Labour could possibly engage in. Did they think no one would notice?
- Changing the leader, post-election. Does that mean Labour never had confidence in Cunliffe in the first place, and this his appointment was a mistake? Does that mean Cunliffe’s replacement may also be a mistake? Does it mean Labour has 100% confidence in their new Leader – until they don’t? So… why should the public have confidence in Labour’s new choice of a new Leader, when s/he may be temporary?
Perhaps Labour’s worst mistake of all the above was constantly deriding the Mana-Internet alliance. The constant attacks on Hone Harawira and his Party signalled to the public that Labour was weak; full of self-doubt and lacking in self-confidence. Labour’s desperation for votes was so dire that they were willing to attack and destroy a potential coalition ally, to cannibalise their electoral support.
That showed weakness.
And the public took note.
Contrast Labour’s treatment of Hone Harawira and Mana-Internet, with how John Key related to ACT, United Future, and the Maori Party: with confidence; courtesy; and collegiality.
When Key refused to make a deal with Colin Craig’s Conservative Party, he did so with professional courtesy. There was never any rancor involved, and despite refusing any Epsom-like deal, Key still left National’s options wide open to work with the Conservatives.
Key even flip-flopped on his previous hand-on-heart promise never to entertain any coalition deal-making with Winston Peters;
“I don’t see a place for a Winston Peters-led New Zealand First in a government that I lead,” – John Key, 2 February 2011
When the public looked at Key, they saw a politician who said categorically he would be prepared to work with anyone.
The public liked that. The public want politicians to work together for the good of the country. Key not only said as much – he demonstrated it by working with parties as disparate as ACT, the Maori Party, United Future, and the Greens (though the latter not in any formal coalition agreement).
When the public looked at Labour, they saw a left wing party willing to consume another left wing party, to further their own selfish agenda.
Key showed collegiality and co-operation.
Labour exuded desperation.
Whoever leads the Labour Party after 18 November – take note.
Media
The closet, political “party” in this election – the mainstream media. Acting much like a ‘spoiler’ for the Left, it did it’s damndest to engage in “gaffe” journalism; focus on trivia (scarves, holidays, etc); and failed to chase up real stories when they hit the public.
The nadir of junk ‘journalism’ came when Mike Hosking interviewed both Nicky Hager and National Minister, Steven Joyce, on 14 August, over revelations contained in the expose, “Dirty Secrets“.
As I wrote previously, when I reviewed this segment of “Seven Sharp”;
I encourage people to watch the opening segment, where Mike “interviews” Minister Steven Joyce, and then interogates and derides author, Nicky Hager.
Any pretence that Mike Hosking is an “unbiased journalist” has been firmly dispatched. The man is a mouthpiece for the National government and his behaviour and line of questioning proved it.
.
.
Nicky Hager’s investigations have uncovered practices that can only be described as an abuse of power by this government.
Did Hosking ask challenging questions to the Minister? Answer: no.
Did Hosking put specific examples requiring explanations to the Minister? Answer: no.
Was Hosking’s line of questioning relevant to the book and offer insights to the viewer? Answer: no.
Hosking then asked hard questions from Nicky Hager, who to his credit realised that he was being set up as the “fall guy” for the story.
This was not journalism. Not even close. It was superficial, Fox-style partisan politics masquerading as “informed debate”. Again, not even close.
The only television I have seen in my life that came close to Hosking’s slanted, pro-government performance was during my visits to Eastern European countries in my late teens/early twenties. In those times, Eastern Europe was ruled by well-policed, undemocratic, One Party “communist” regimes. Television “news” was little more than a mouthpiece for the government – no questions asked. There was never even an attempt at balance.
Hosking would have fitted in perfectly.
As far as I am concerned, Hosking’s “talent” lies elsewhere, but not in journalism. Perhaps a PR/spin-man for a cereal company or arms manufacturer or bordello run by the Chow Brothers (he’s already sold his soul, so the other bodily bits should be equally saleable).
On The Daily Blog, on 3 October, Keith Rankin made this pertinent observation
Note that the apparent conservatism of the mainstream media is due it being almost completely bound to the prevailing consensus; far more bound to it than even the politicians themselves.
“So once again the blue team gets one over the red team.Yes, it’s cringey, but it’s left Cunliffe looking whingey.”
References
Electoral Commission: 2014 General Election – Official Result
Wikipedia: New Zealand general election, 2011
Electoral Commission: Party Votes and Turnout by Electorate
NZ Herald: Final election results in – National loses majority
Dominion Post: National loses majority, Greens pick up one
NZ Herald: Special votes see Greens gain seat, Nats lose
NZ Parliament: The 2011 General Election
TVNZ ‘Breakfast’: Coalition deals signed – ACT and United Future
Radio NZ: Big change in Maori seats
Dominion Post: Lots left to be desired
Twitter: Patrick Gower
NZ Herald: Govt rejects recommendations to change MMP system
NZ Herald: MMP review recommends lower party threshold
Scoop Media: Māori Party’s first list MP Confirmed
TV3 News: Labour candidate makes more ‘Shylock’ comments
Fairfax media: Mallard’s mad Moa blurt
Fairfax media: Winston Peters backs Labour’s Kelvin Davis
NZ Herald: Election 2014 – Hone’s call to arms after Winston backs Kelvin
Fairfax media: Kelvin Davis blasts Mana Party (alt. link)
TV3 News: David Cunliffe owns up to getting it wrong
TVNZ: David Cunliffe stands by decision to take family holiday
Election Ads: James Dann – Labour Party – 2014 General Election
Frankly Speaking: The secret of National’s success – revealed
Scoop Media: Patrick Gower interviews Labour leader David Cunliffe
Radio NZ: Cunliffe says no to Internet-Mana
TV3 News: Cunliffe – Labour, NZF, Greens ‘will work’
NZ Herald: Cunliffe on Dotcom – ‘We have nothing to do with him’
TVNZ News: No deal – Key leaves Colin Craig out in the cold
Fairfax media: Possible coalition line-ups after election
TVNZ News: Winston Peters not grabbing John Key’s olive branch
NZ Herald: PM rules out any NZ First deal
TV3 News: Cunliffe apologises ‘for being a man’
The Daily Blog: When the media say they covered Dirty Politics – did they?
TVNZ: Seven Sharp 14 August
The Daily Blog: National Party Spice Boys
TV3 News Bulletin: Tuesday 30 September 2014
TV3 News: Key nestles in with the All Blacks
Previous related blogposts
Winston Peters recycles pledge to “buy back state assets” – where have we heard that before?
The secret of National’s success – revealed
Election 2014; A Post-mortem; a Wake; and one helluva hang-over
Patrick Gower – losing his rag and the plot
“Dirty Politics” and The Teflon Man
The Donghua Liu Affair – The Players Revealed
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 6 October 2014
.
.
= fs =
A Study in Party Stability
.
In terms of long-term stability, one party above stands above all others, with the exception of personality-driven groups such as NZ First and United Future. That party is the Greens.
If the Labour Party wants to look elsewhere for solutions to their problems, they need only walk down the coridor at Parliament and knock on the doors to Metiria Turei and Russell Norman.
The Greens’ record speaks for itself…
.
.
(L-R) Helen Clarke – Michael Cullen – Jeanette Fitzsimons (retired 2009) – Russell Norman
.
.
(L-R) Phil Goff – Annette King – Metiria Turei – Russell Norman
.
.
(L-R) David Shearer – Grant Robertson – Metiria Turei – Russell Norman
.
.
(L-R) David Cunliffe – David Parker – Metiria Turei – Russell Norman
.
.
(L-R) ? – ? – Metiria Turei – Russell Norman
.
.
(L-R) ? – ? – Metiria Turei – Russell Norman
.
In the meantime, Labour’s ritual post-election self-flagellation and purging of their leadership damages their standing in the public’s eye even further. The words I’ve been hearing in the last 48 hours are “clowns”, idiots”, and a few others that are unmentionable around kids.
If the Labour caucus don’t support their own leader – especially when times are tough – why should they expect the voting public to take their leadership choices seriously? After all, with four leaders gone in six years, it would appear to be a temporary position at best.
The only thing that Labour is proving by it’s actions is that it cannot cope with defeat; cannot build positively; and most important – will not support it’s elected leader when he needs it the most. Not exactly an inspiring message to send to voters, eh?
Remind me why the public would think that this is a team worth supporting?!
No one benefits from this circus.
Except of course, Cameron Slater, David Farrar, Simon Lusk, and their parasitic mates. For them, despite Nicky Hager’s expose, this has been a dream-come-true. For the apostles of Dirty Politics, Christmas has come early.
Gift-wrapped and presented by the Labour Party caucus and hierarchy.
.
References
Radio NZ: Cunliffe resigns as leader of Labour
NZ Herald: Timeline: Labour’s years of leadership pain
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 28 September 2014
.
.
= fs =
No More. The Left Falls.
.
We cannot be beaten down
Because we are down already.
We can only rise up
and if you should beat us down,
We will rise again. And again. And again…
And when you tire of beating us down,
We will rise up once again,
And look our Oppressor in the eye,
and say, ‘Rise up with us, brother,
for you may yet share our pain’.
– FM
.
As passions settle, disappointment wanes to something approaching tolerable, and we start to look at things a bit more rationally, it’s time to review the last few days, weeks, and months…
Without a doubt, it is safe to say that the Left never expected expected the two results of the Election Night figures.
- That National would score so highly, at 48.06%, (Specials still to be counted)
- That the Left would fare so poorly that even NZ First’s credible 8.85% result would make no appreciable difference to National’s success.
Once again, it appears that the Non-Voters – traditionally mostly Labour or left supporters – gifted National the government for a third term;
Roughly a million people didn’t show up to vote for Saturday’s election, making it one of New Zealand’s worst turnouts in the last century.
An estimated 77.04 per cent of enrolled voters took part in the election, slightly higher than the 74.2 per cent turnout in 2011, which was the worst in percentage terms since before women got the right to vote in 1893.
This year’s result still ranks as the third-worst turnout in the last 100 years, with the number of non-voters almost tallying to the number of votes that went to National.
The estimated results are based on the 2,405,652 votes received before voting closed, which includes nearly 300,000 special votes that are yet to be counted.
Interestingly, in the same Fairfax article, Victoria University politics professor Jack Vowles said,
“A small increase in turnout is what we would expect. There’s been a downward trend of turnout for some time, so any increase shows something has changed.”
My suspicion is that the polarising effect of John Key may have motivated more people to engage in voting. My own experience lends some credence to this, with past non-voters this year keen to engage in the electoral system. In plain english, Key has pissed off people to such a degree that they expressed their feelings through the ballot.
Unfortunately, the Left was in no position to focus this anger in any meaningful way. Young people chanting in unison, ‘Fuck John Key‘, may have been fun and cathartic – but it ultimately failed to translate into valuable votes.
Meanwhile, I offer my post-mortem, observations, and views of events…
David Cunliffe
I am not one to pick and choose Party leaders – especially for Labour. Besides which, I’ve always been more interested in policy factors than pretty faces.
However, I will offer my ten cents + 15% GST worth.
Has it ever occurred to the Labour caucus that replacing your Leaders after every electoral loss is counterproductive? I offer three reasons for this assertion;
1. How do you test your Leader in the fires of adversity, if you keep replacing him (or her) after each electoral loss? If your Leader is proven in victory – but unknowable in defeat – are you not missing a vital measure of the man (or woman)?
2. Replacing your Leader after each defeat sends a curious message to the public. It suggests that you’ve made a mistake with your Leadership selection. In which case, if/when you choose a new Leader to replace Cunliffe – is that a mistake as well? If you have no faith in your Leader, even in dire adversity, why should we – the voting public?
3. It takes years for a Leader to become known and familiar to the public. Years to gain their trust. If you keep rotating your Leadership, you are in effect putting an Unknown Quantity before the public who will never get a chance to assess the man (or woman).
It took three terms for the public to get to know Helen Clark. After which she led three consecutive Labour-led governments.
For god sakes, learn from history.
Or be consigned to it.
David Shearer
I understand David Shearer’s simmering anger. I really, really do. If I was in his shoes, I would’ve gone ‘thermo-nuclear’ by now.
But he does himself and the Labour Party no favours with his behaviour in front of the media.
Shearer has every right to be angry. But dignity and self-discipline is a far better course of action than publicly under-mining his Leader. After all, when/if he assumes the Labour leadership again, he would expect a modicum of public loyalty shown to him.
Two words: Kevin Rudd.
Hone Harawira
The more times I met Hone Harawira, the more times I have been thoroughly impressed with this man. The word ‘mana’ was created to describe his real personality- not the isolated snippets chosen by the media to portray him as a “mouthy brown boy”.
Hone was condemned – mostly by the Right and a headline-seeking media and commentariat – for the ‘crime’ of having a rich benefactor.
Meanwhile, the National Party has a plethora of rick benefactors – and no one bats an eyelid.
Unfair? Of course it is.
But that’s New Zealand in the 21st Century. As a society, it seems we left fairness behind when we allowed ourselves to be tempted by neo-liberalism’s promises of “aspirationism” and shiny consumer goods.
Men and women like Hone Harawira still exist in our fair, if considerably less-than-100%-Pure, country. But their values and notions of fairness, decency, and helping one-another is something that the public view with suspicion as a quirky notion from last century (much like Queensbury rules when two men engaged in fisticuffs) – and which an increasingly cynical, lazy, and politically-captured media treat with disdain and derision.
The media subtext of Hone’s relationship with Kim Dotcom was simple; “You can be a ‘champion of the poor’ as much as you like. We’ll write patronising (if somewhat racist) stories about you to paint you as a loud-mouthed radical engaging in ‘envy politics’.”
But the moment Hone’s Mana Movement got all cashed up, things changed.
National is allowed money.
Even Labour.
NZ First and the Greens rely on branding for success.
But parties representing the poor? No way. The rule from On High was simple: You want to represent the Poor and the Powerless? Fine, but you stay poor and powerless.
Hone broke that rule.
John Key
Key’s victory speech was par-for-course, and well scripted for him by his tax-payer funded spin-doctors and media minders. The speech was a mix of humility and delight in his victory.
Part of Key’s election night victory speech referred to “serving all New Zealanders”,
“I can pledge this to you, that I will a government that governs for all New Zealanders.”
In fact, it seemed a re-hash of his 2011 victory speech,
“I will lead a government that serves the interests of all New Zealanders…”
Key’s sentiments were repeated in a John Campbell interview on 22 September, (the interview is worthwhile watching) where he spoke at length about his concerns for the most vulnerable in our society. He pledged a third term Key-led government to improve their lives.
Trouble is –
- His government has spent the first two terms doing very little about rising child poverty,
- tax cuts have benefitted the most well off,
- Increases in GST, prescription charges, and others costs-of-living have impacted on the poorest,
- Inequality has increased,
- Wages have fallen even further behind Australia
If Key failed to address the lot of the poor in the first six years of his governance – why should we take his word for the next three? Especially as National has lined up new legislation to further cut back worker’s rights; the Employment Relations Amendment Bill.
Marginalising workers’ rights will not reduce poverty; create jobs; or lift wages. It will only maximise profits for companies at the expense of workers.
As the editorial for the Otago Daily Times stated on 22 September,
“But while he is rapidly becoming one of this country’s most ”popular” prime ministers, there remains a gulf before he can go down in history as a ”great” prime minister. If that is Mr Key’s ambition, he is going to have to show that his role is, indeed, to serve all New Zealanders.
He and his Cabinet will have to strive to care for families, to try to ensure the poor are supported and not consigned to a demeaning and destructive underclass future. As well, alongside pursuit of economic development, this Government is going to have to protect the environment.”
Talk is cheap.
Actions count. So far, we’ve seen precious little of it.
I look forward to being proved wrong.
Kelvin Davis
The day after Election Night, my feelings were running high and my views coloured by my passions. I may have written some things that, as my passions cooled, I reflect more wisely on matters in the clear light of day.
Not so with Kelvin Davis.
I stand by my initial statements;
Davis did not “win” Te Tai Tokerau. It was “gifted” to him as a dirty little rort, when John Key, Winston Peters, and the Maori Party told their supporters to vote for Davis, over Hone Harawira.
This was a disgusting, shabby example of dirty politics.
Kelvin Davis is “Labour” in name only and, like Peter Dunne and David Seymour, he should not forget who his political patron really is: John Key. Davis is John Key’s errand boy.
Who knows – one day Key may call in the debt David owes him?
“For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul?”
Kim Dotcom
Kim Dotcom has been vilified and made the scape-goat of the election by many. As if Hone Harawira’s defeat has validated the views of the Right Wing, and those who see Kim Dotcom as the villain of the piece.
I offer a counter-view, and one I believe equally as valid.
Let us not forget a few pertinent facts about Dotcom;
- He was allowed entry into New Zealand by John Key’s government.
- Dotcom has committed no crime in this country. He has yet to be tried for copyright infringements – a civil matter, not a criminal offense. And his convictions in Germany happened when he was 19 years old – a time when young people often fall foul of the law with drugs, alcohol, violence, driving offenses, teen pregnancies, etc. He is no criminal “mastermind”, despite the obsessive rantings of the Right. Dotcom’s past criminal record is only an affront to Right Wingers because he supports the Left.
- Dotcom was instrumental in uncovering the fact that the GCSB had illegally spied on eighty eight New Zealand citizens or Permanent Residents. Until then, we had no idea what had been happening under successive Labour and National governments.
- Dotcom has also uncovered the very real likelihood that the NSA/GCSB has been engaging in mass surveillance in this country – despite protestations to the contrary by our Prime Minister (not noted for his scrupulous honesty) and the former GCSB director Sir Bruce Ferguson (under whom illegal spying had been taking place for years).
- And Dotcom uncovered John Banks’ own dishonest activities regarding his election financial returns, resulting in the former ACT minister’s conviction and resignation from Parliament.
Kim Dotcom’s real ‘crime’ has not been copyright infringement.
His real ‘crime’ has been to turn his back on his fellow millionaires and political elites – the Oligarchs for whom power is the oxygen that sustains them – and to give financial support to one of the few people in this country to threaten their privileged positions: Hone Harawira.
For the Right Wing – and the infantile lackeys who act as their on-line henchmen by constantly posting anonymous message demonising Dotcom – this was an intolerable situation. They could barely tolerate Hone Harawira’s existence. But as long as Hone was one lone voice in the political wilderness, he was left alone. Kelvin Davis’ previous attempts to unseat Hone came to nothing.
But when radical left-wing politics and Big Money became entwined, Hone Harawira became a threat that could no longer be ignored by the Establishment.
First, some in the media responded. The venom dripped from this typical comment on social media, and was only less overtly spiteful in the mainstream media;
.
.
Because Big Money funding the National Party is not “rorting MMP”.
The vendetta – and that is precisely what this was – culminated in National, NZ First, and the Maori Party rushing at the last minute to endorse Labour’s Kelvin Davis;
.
.
.
Harawira’s fall was compounded by the ‘Moment of Truth’, on 15 September, failing to deliver certain promises made and hyped by Dotcom. Ironically, it was not sufficient for New Zealanders to learn that were were living in a Surveillance State and all our meta-data was being collected by shadowy agencies. It was not enough to realise that our on-line and telephone privacy was a thing of the past.
We wanted the ‘dirt’ on John Key. That’s where the real sensationalistic headlines lay for the MSM. That would sell several million bucks worth of advertising to the punters.
And when Dotcom failed to deliver – stymied by legalities, I am informed – the media and noisy aspects of the public turned on him. Being spied on by the State was apparently nowhere as bad as being denied a good political drama. We wanted Reality TV, made real, in our lounges, and our insatiable appetite for sensational gossip to be sated.
When that was denied us, we turned – like children denied access to our favourite TV programme or ‘grounded’ from internet access for 24 hours – on he who had promised us so much. We howled with rage and had Dotcom lived in our village, the good people would have gathered up their pitchforks and torches and made for his hut.
However, this is the 21st Century. We don’t do pitchforks and blazing torches any more (OSH would have a fit!). The mob is more sophisticated now. We do lynchings on-line and in the media.
Far more effective.
Fewer blood stains to wash out.
It has been said that part of our peculiar national psyche is something called ‘The Tall Poppy Syndrome’. In this case the tall poppies were two men who dared challenge the Establishment, and were cut down for their troubles. This time, though, it did not happen in secret, behind closed doors, concocted by shadowy figures.
It happened in full public view.
If you think this happens only in movies, in America, and the good guy(s) always win – think again.
It happened here. We just witnessed it. And the good guys didn’t win.
Not this time.
See also: Brand Kim Dotcom: what has changed?
Labour
One thing that Labour apparently excels at is self-mutilation. As a fund-raiser, it could make truckloads of cash by catering to certain folk with BDSM inclinations. One hour of a good, hard flogging, $250. Humiliation and discipline – $150 per half hour. (So I’m reliably informed…) Ok, so you have to wear a lot of sticky leather or rubber gear, but hey, it’s all for a good cause, right?!
Since Labour’s loss on election night, Labour MPs have been more vocal and active than all their last campaigning over the past six months. None it it, though, any good. Airing the party’s “dirty laundry” is an act that beggars belief.
If Labour MPs believe that their current media appearance on Radio NZ, TV3, TV1, et al, are doing them any good – let me disabuse them of that belief. It is self-destructive.
It is self-harm on a party-political scale. It is sheer, unmitigated stupidity.Attentions Messrs Shearer, Goff, Hipkins, et al – the public are watching.Whoever leads the Party – whether it be Cunliffe or X – will be accepting a poisoned chalice that would fell a totara.
It makes the Labour Party look like a bunch of self-serving fools or witless muppets – take your pick.Is there any wonder why Labour keeps losing? Let me spell it out.
After each election defeat – 2008, 2011, 2014 – Labour indulges in public self-flogging and blood-letting. There is nothing remotely subtle or civilised or clever about the unpleasantness that follows.
It turns people off in droves.It turns voters away from Labour.
Three years later – another defeat.
Repeat cycle.
At this rate, Labour will become a third-rate Party, supplanted by the Greens which will become the main Opposition Party – and ultimately, along with NZ First (or it’s successor under Ron Mark) – lead the next Coalition Government.
This is how a once proud, proactive political party becomes an ossified institution, and ultimately irrelevant to peoples’ lives. Think – Alliance, post 2002.
To all Labour MPs, take my advice: STFU. Listen to your Leader (whether you support him or not) and keep your mouths closed. Sort your sh*t out in private, and in public, smile a Happy Face.
Otherwise, you can kiss your chances goodbye for 2017.
Media
The media pack is in full hunt. Their quarry – David Cunliffe.I swear TV3’s Patrick Gower was salivating at the prospect of doing a “Nosferatu” on Cunliffe’s neck;
“Labour is in crisis tonight with leader David Cunliffe apparently refusing to give up the leadership, despite the party’s humiliating election defeat…[…]So Labour is now in a civil war, with Mr Cunliffe trying to gag MPs.[…]The five potential contenders show just how fractured Labour is. The caucus has atomised and another leadership spill is the last thing it needs.”
Labour MPs have emerged from a seven-hour crisis meeting – and leader David Cunliffe is still refusing to go.After presenting the party’s new chief whip Chris Hipkins and his junior Carmel Sepuloni, he gave a short statement, but refused to say what happened in the meeting.His MPs have given him a bloody nose with their choices.
“Labour needs to face the question of its leadership, nothing more. If Mr Cunliffe is going to appeal over the heads of his caucus to the membership and affiliated unions who elected him last year, he must imagine he can continue to lead a team that has little confidence in him. This will do Labour no good, as surely its members and unions now see.It is in the nation’s interest that the party finds a new leader quickly.”
They simply haven’t announced it to the public.
Stuart Nash
Some commentators (media, political, and blogs) are still adhering to the fiction that Stuart Nash “won” the Napier seat. Election night results, however, paint a different picture entirely;
McVICAR, Garth: (Conservatives) 7,135
NASH, Stuart: (Labour) 14,041
WALFORD, Wayne: (National) 10,308
Contrast to the 2011 result:
NASH, Stuart: (Labour) 13,636
TREMAIN, Chris (National) 17,337
See where Tremain’s 7,000 votes went three years later?
Nash has now hinted he is “not ruling out” throwing his hat into the ring for an up-coming leadership challenge. If true, Nash’s colossal ego has outstripped his common sense entirely. He is deluded if he really believes he won his seat on his own merits. An extra 405 votes is not a mandate when his ‘success’ was predicated on his opponant’s vote being split by another right-wing candidate.
.
The heading of this piece is wrong. It’s not, “No More. The Left Falls.”
It should read,
.
The Left Falls, No More.*
.
* With acknowledgement to a recent BBC movie, about a certain quirky time travelling hero in a blue box.
.
References
Electoral Commission: Election Results — Overall Status
Fairfax media: Voter turnout near record low
Youtube: Fuck John Key! [New Zealand Revolution]
TV3: Former GCSB boss denies Snowden’s claims
Maori TV: Key wants Harawira to lose Tai Tokerau seat
NZ Herald: Hone’s call to arms after Winston backs Kelvin
Fairfax Media: Hone Harawira accuses Maori Party of sabotage
Electoral Commission: Election Results — Napier
Wikipedia: 2011 Election – Napier
Radio NZ: Tussling starts for Labour’s top job
TV3: National Party wins third term
John Key: 8 November 2008 – Victory Speech
Campbell Live – Monday September 22, 2014
National: Employment Relations Amendment Bill – Second Reading Speech
Otago Daily Times: John Key’s opportunity
TV3: Labour Party in civil war over leadership
Fairfax media: Cunliffe emerges from crisis meeting still in charge
NZ Herald: Editorial – Labour needs a new leader, nothing more
Radio NZ: Labour MPs agree to review campaign
Previous related blogposts
She saw John Key on TV and decided to vote!
The secret of National’s success – revealed
Patrick Gower – losing his rag and the plot
Waiting for Gower’s Twittering of indignation
Other blogs
Why chanting “fuck John Key” is a battle cry not profanity
Brand Kim Dotcom: what has changed?
Hang tight everyone – Marama Davidson campaign reflection
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 19 September 2014
.
.
= fs =
Election 2014; A Post-mortem; a Wake; and one helluva hang-over
.
.
It would be fair to say that the results for Election 2014 did not go as anticipated.
The Left has had a drubbing – and some of it was of our own making. In other aspects, there were some interesting lessons to be learned…
1. Green Voters & Electorate Votes
Some Green supporters are either woefully ignorant of MMP – or have been smoking to much of a certain herb. Or, gods forbid, they are so desperate to remain ideologically pure in their principles, that they are willing to allow a right wing candidate to be elected, rather than supporting a candidate from another party on the Left.
In Ōhāriu (as well as other electorates) Peter Dunne was returned to office because Green Party supporters cast their electorate votes for Green candidate Tane Woodley, instead of the Labour candidate. Preliminary election results for Ohariu yield the following;
ANDERSEN, Virginia: (Labour)11,349
DUNNE, Peter: (United Future) 12,279
WOODLEY, Tane: (Greens) 2,266
Had supporters of the Green Party given their electorate votes to Viriginia Andersen, Peter Dunne would have been defeated by 1,336 votes.
The Greens need to get it through to their supporter’s heads that giving their electorate votes to their own candidates is a waste of effort and an indulgence we cannot afford.
When elections are close-fought and majorities slim, such indulgences cannot be tolerated, and the Greens need to educate their supporters quick-smart, if we are to win in 2017.
This is a problem I blogged about three years ago. Why am I still having to point out the bleedin’ obvious?!
2. The Conservative Party
All ridicule and derision aside, Colin Craig’s Conservative Party deserves accolades. The CCCP got damn close to the magical 5% threshold – without a jot of support from Dear Leader Key and his National Party strategists.
No cuppa tea for Colin Craig – the Conservatives worked their backsides off to achieve a credible result. The Conservatives won 4.12% of the Party vote.
Meanwhile, the rort that is the ACT-National dirty deal was rewarded with a parliamentary seat in Epsom. ACT won 0.69% of the Party vote.
Kudos to the CCCP – and a curse upon the walking political corpse that is the ACT Zombie Party.
3. The killing of Mana
‘Congratulations’ to the Labour Party for successfully killing of Mana.
Question: what kind of a fool destroys his own ally, to the eventual benefit of his enemy?!
It takes a spectacular degree of sheer stupidity to achieve such a feat – and still not win the election! At this rate of ‘success’, Labour will kill off all it’s allies; then self-destruct; leaving the National Party and it’s henchmen (Peter Dunne and ACT) last men standing.
If this is ‘clever strategy’, what am I missing?
4. Nicky Hager & ‘Dirty Politics’
Make no mistake, Nicky Hager wrote the truth in his expose, ‘Dirty Politics’.
Some critics have suggested that it was not the “right time” to release the book, so close to the election. So, when was the right time? Afterward? When it’s too late to do anything about it?
No, the right time to reveal the truth is always now. Not later.
What New Zealanders ultimately decide to do with that truth is up to them. But at least they can never say they never knew what was going on. The excuse of ignorance cannot be used when the truth is laid bare for all to see.
Nicky Hager revealed the dirty side of politics.
1,010,464 voters chose to ignore it.
5. National did not increase their support!
The media – as usual – are being sloppy and lazy when they excitedly exclaim about National increasing it’s support. No such thing has happened.
In 2011, National gained 1,058,638 Party Votes.
This time, they gained 1,010,464.
According to my trustee hamster-powered calculator, that’s a drop of 48,174 votes. Their electoral support fell, not increased.
It’s this kind of sloppy reporting that actively assists the National Party avoid real scrutiny by the media.
6. The Labour Leadership
If Labour want to indulge in an orgy of purging, sackings, rejuvenation, or whatever euphemisms they want to employ – fine. I say, “Enjoy the bloodletting. Knock yerselves out. ”
But please. No more changes in the Leader of the Labour Party.
It takes years for the public to get to know a political leader.
And it takes years for a political leader to become truly experienced and confident in his/her role. Otherwise you get this kind of event – where he is blindsided by a media-pack ambush and caught badly off-guard.
Changing leaders every time plans do not succeed invites organisational instability and undermines any opportunity to build rapport with the public.
Stick with Cunliffe. Support him. Let him grow into the role. Let the public have a chance to get used to him.
The alternative? Just look at ACT to see what effect four leadership changes in six years has achieved.
7. No more Teflon John
John Key may have won a third term – but his problems just got worse.
Lurking in the background;
- Increasing child poverty and inequality
- an economy about to tank
- housing unaffordability that will worsen
- Judith Collins and National’s restless right-wing faction
- Cameron Slater and his unpredictability
- and an increasingly aggressive media chasing stories that will become harder and harder for Key to ‘casually’ dismiss
Teflon John is gone – and in his place is a very mortal, vulnerable politician.
8. Stuart Nash
Pundits and media commentators on TV3 gushed at Stuart Nash’s “awesomeness” at winning the Napier electorate. At one point, I thought Josie Pagani on TV3’s election panel was going to declare her undying love for the guy and call for his immediate canonisation at a Saint.
It’s rubbish, of course.
Nash did not “win” Napier.
The National candidate, Wayne Walford lost the electorate when Garth McVicar from the Conservative Party split the right wing vote in the electorate. Remember; electorate contests are still fought using First Past the Post – not by any proportionality or preferential voting.
The actual results were;
McVICAR, Garth: (Conservatives) 7,135
NASH, Stuart: (Labour) 14,041
WALFORD, Wayne: (National) 10,308
Add McVicar’s 7,135 to Walford’s figures, and the combined 17,443 would have trounced Nash easily.
Be wary of media hype. It maybe useful to sell advertising, but is useless for factual purposes.
9. Kelvin Davis
Likewise with Kelvin Davis. Davis did not “win” Te Tai Tokerau. It was “gifted” to him as a dirty little rort, when John Key, Winston Peters, and the Maori Party told their supporters to vote for Davis, over Hone Harawira.
This was a disgusting, shabby example of dirty politics.
Kelvin Davis is “Labour” in name only and, like Peter Dunne and David Seymour, he should not forget who his political patron really is. He is John Key’s errand boy.
Kelvin Davis has no mana from this dishonourable “victory”. By contrast, Hone Harawira, may have lost his seat – but he retains his mana.
10. “The forces on the right…”
… are very united, said Josie Pagani, on TV3’s political panel. And she would be 100% correct.
This is one of the lessons that Labour should be taking from the 2014 elections; unity is strength.
National did not seek to destroy potential allies. With the exception of the Conservative Party, it actively supported them. Either with direct deal-making (Epsom and Ohariu), or with “nods-and-winks” (Maori Party).
Even with the Conservatives – though Key refused any actual deal-making, he did not go out of his way to under-mine Colin Craig’s party. Just in case they reached the 5% thresh-hold and thus became potentially useful to the Nats.
By contrast, Labour campaigned to destroy the Mana-Internet Party, and the Greens undermined Labour with it’s comment that Labour’s policies would have to be “independently audited” – a phrase picked up by Key and used to attack Cunliffe.
Key projected stability and co-operation on the Right.
The Left projected intense rivalry and a hatred of each other that was volcanic in intensity.
Who did Labour and the Greens think the public would vote for?
Ten things Labour and the Greens should consider in the coming days, weeks, months, and next three years.
.
References
Electoral Commission: Election Results — Ōhāriu
Electoral Commission: Election Results — Overall Status
Wikipedia: 2011 General Election
Electoral Commission: Election Results — Napier
Alternative link: Wikipedia – Napier Election results
Fairfax media: Greens eye bigger supluses
Previous related blogposts
Post mortem #1: Green Voters in Electorates
.
.
.
= fs =
She saw John Key on TV and decided to vote!
.
.
NZ, Wellington, 15 September – ‘Tina’* is 50, a close friend, and one of the “Missing Million” from the last election. In fact, ‘Tina’ has never voted in her life. Not once.
In ‘Tina’s’ own words, politics has never held any interest for her and she was always busy with raising a family. To her, politicians were all “the same” and of no relevance to her life. Her family and close friends were her world.
All that changed on 14 August.
‘Tina’ surprised me one evening, the day after Nicky Hager released his book “Dirty Politics“, when she asked me,
“Frank, how do I go about voting?”
I was somewhat taken aback. I was fully aware that ‘Tina’ was without doubt the most apolitical person amongst my friends and acquaintances. Her out-of-the-blue query left me surprised, and somewhat lost for words. (Unusual for me.)
I asked (almost knowing the answer) if she was enrolled. ‘Tina’ wasn’t.
I replied that the easiest way would be to wait for Early Voting to open to the public, where she could enroll and vote at the same time. I reassured her it was a relatively easy process and would take very little time.
I was curious, though, what had motivated her,
“What’s brought this on,” I asked?
She said she had seen a “guy on television” and asked if John Key was the Prime Minister. I replied, yes, sadly, he is.
“Why do you ask?”
‘Tina’ replied,
“He was going on about some book and they were asking him questions about it. I don’t know what it was about, but I know he was lying.”
This is the TV3 interview ‘Tina’ saw;
.
.
Despite having little interest or knowledge of politics, ‘Tina’ picked up very quickly that Key was not telling the truth when questioned by reporters. Especially toward the end of the interview. And ‘Tina’ was pissed off that Key was treating the public as fools if he thought his dishonesty was not obvious to the casual observer.
Our following discussion was which party should she vote for that got rid “of that man”. I replied that Key’s party was National – so don’t tick that box. I listed ACT, the Conservatives, United Future, and the Maori Party as parties that supported Key – so avoid them like the plague.
NZ First was a question mark as there was no way of guessing if Peters would support Key or Labour. So forget that party.
The only three parties guaranteed to get rid of Key were Labour, the Greens, and Mana-Internet.
‘Tina’s’ next question was the one I dreaded;
“What’s the difference?”
What followed was a short, crash-course in the difference between Labour, the Greens, and Mana-Internet. Which, when trying to explain it to someone out loud seemed ridiculous. The differences seemed minor. Almost trivial and meaningless.
Choosing the electorate candidate was straight forward – vote for the Labour candidate.
On 15 September, I received the following txt-message from ‘Tina’,
“U be proud of me Frank. I just voted.”
I was proud. ‘Tina’ had seen something from our elected Prime Minister that she did not like – and she set about doing something about it. Despite never having voted in her life, my friend made the decision to learn what the process was; what the parties were; and which option best matched her beliefs.
Later that day, ‘Tina’ sent me this photo. She proudly pointed at the little sticker they gave her at the Voting Station; “Yes, I have Voted“. She txt-messaged me,
“The beehive needs a maturity injection. Its seems there is a lot of school yard bullying and antics going on.”
.
.
Tina hasn’t told me which party she voted for, and I won’t ask. But one of the “Missing Million” is no longer missing.
And one of three parties is now one vote stronger.
The moral of this story? Sometimes it is not the policies or personalities that impel a person to vote.
Sometimes it can be as simple as a flash of insight.
And doing something about it.
.
* Not real name
.
.
References
TV3: Video: John Key talks Nicky Hager’s Dirty Politics
Previous related blogposts
“Dirty Politics” – the fall-out continues
.
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 16 September 2014.
.
.
= fs =
Voting turnout affected by bad weather?
.
.
NZ, Upper Hutt, 20 September – Cold, wet weather in the Hutt Valley, north of Wellington may be impacting on voter turn-out.
A head-count of people visiting the Trentham School Voting Station in Moonshine Rd, Upper Hutt, indicated a slow stream of voters between 11am and 1pm. Between 11am to mid-day, this blogger counted 147 voters casting their ballots, as they braved a cold and steady drizzle blanketing the region. Between 12 noon and 1pm, this had dropped to 104.
During this period there were only brief rushes of people entering the school hall. At other times Voting Staff out-numbered voters.
High early voting over the last two weeks may also be a factor.
.
The entrance to Trentham School in Upper Hutt, where bad weather is affecting voter turn-out
.
One Voting Station official said the bad weather would definitely have a negative impact on voter-turn-out.
The weather is forecast to ease later today, and may prompt people who have not voted, to venture out to cast their ballots.
.
.
Other Blogs
The Daily Blog: Final total of advance voting
.
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
.
.
= fs =
Frank Macskasy: Who I voted for…
.
.
On the road today, this news story caught my attention;
.
.
I couldn’t believe what I was hearing.
This is a deliberate attempt by NZ First and elements within the Labour Party to undermine and destroy the Mana-Internet Alliance.
Which is utterly crazy, and beggars belief.
At current polling, if Hone wins his electorate, he could bring in one or two extra MPs on his “coat-tails”. (The rules as set by this National Government.)
If Labour loses to a National-led coalition by that slim margin – two or three seats – and we face another three years of this damnable regime, because of their unmitigated, self-serving, colossal stupidity, I will be mightily f****d off.
I will hold the Labour leadership responsible.
And, by the gods, I will give them such grief that Slater and Farrar will be the least of their worries.
This little dirty deal between Labour and NZ First has sealed my Party Vote. I encourage everyone to vote, and I offer my personal endorsement for the Mana-Internet Alliance.
And Winston Peters, Kelvin Davis, Stuart Nash, et al, can go kiss my well-padded, hairy [Anatomical description deleted on good taste grounds – Chief Censor, GCSB]!
.
.
.
References
Radio NZ: Peters backs Davis in Te Tai Tokerau
Previous related blogpost
The secret of National’s success – revealed.
.
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
.
.
= fs =
Polls, propaganda, and Tracy Watkins
.
.
1. A bit of personal history…
Since I became more and more politically active, part of the growth of my political consciousness was an awareness that the media – whether print or electronic – was not always a clear reflection of what really was happening.
The first time I became starkly aware of the disconnect between a media story and reality was in 1989, when an associate and I made a submission to a Parliamentary Select Committee on the Classifications Bill. The Bill was aimed at replacing the old, antiquated Censorship Act.
There were some aspects of the Bill which we took exception to (from a liberal viewpoint) and we put together a submission, and requested an opportunity for a supporting oral submission.
We were due to ‘appear’ near the end of the day, and thus had an interesting opportunity to listen to all the submissions made by various groups, organisations, and individuals. Submitters ranged from the Nurses Organisation; Film Directors Association, NZ Law Society, etc.
I took note of the tenor of each submitter, and it was roughly 50/50 toward strengthening the proposed Classifications Act or liberalising it.
The following morning, the Dominion featured two stories on two submitters – both from the “pro-censorship” camp.
A critical submission from the NZ Law Society, regarding an aspect of the Bill which they deemed to be fatally flawed, was not reported. Neither did the Dominion report an astounding comment by then-MP, Trevor Rogers, who threatened to “change officials of the Courts” who could not, would not, implement the new law, whether flawed or not.
Had I not attended the Select Committee hearing personally, I would have assumed that all submissions were of a similar nature; would not have been aware of opposing views; would have been unaware of the Law Society’s views; and been oblivious to a Member of Parliament threatening to interfere with the judicial system of this country.
After 25 years, the incident remains vividly clear in my memory.
That was my very first lesson – not just in Select Committees – but media (mis-)reporting.
Since I began this blogging lark in July 2011, I have found no reason to lessen my wariness of media reporting, accuracy, and fairness. In fact, sadly, quite the opposite.
2. Once upon a time, in a fairy-tale land called Fairfax Media…
So begins this analysis of a recent Fairfax-Ipsos Poll which, upon closer scrutiny, is a fantasy lifted straight from the pages of Brothers Grimm.
A very recent Ipsos poll was taken over a five day period, starting from Saturday, 30 August – the day of Judith Collins’ resignation from her ministerial portfolios (though not from Parliament itself).
.
.
The infographic shows National at 54% and the Labour-Green bloc at 38%.
Right?
Wrong.
The above poll infographic was taken from a Research International poll, commissioned also by Fairfax Media – and released on 23 November, 2011 – three days before the General Election, three years ago.
The actual current, September 2014 poll results from Fairfax and it’s “newly” commissioned polling agent, Ipsos;
.
.
Compare the two polls above.
Two “different” polls. Two different polling companies. Three years apart. Almost exactly same figures.
Now let’s chuck in the actual election results for the 2011 Election;
.
.
In the 2011 poll, Fairfax’s polling agent over-estimated National’s support by a staggering 6.69 percentage points – well outside the stated margin of error by Research International (3.1%).
Considering that other mainstream polling companies have National ranging from 45% (Roy Morgan) to 46.4% (NZ Herald-Digipoll and TV3 News) to 50% (TVNZ News), it could be safely argued that the Fairfax-Ipsos results are in Wacky-Doodle Land.
The figures are not only dubious – but Fairfax buries an important fact;
The undecided vote remained steady at 13 per cent, which is higher than in some other polls. [my emphasis]
That statement is buried near the bottom of Vernon Small’s article, “National soars without Collins – poll“.
Incredibly, Small then adds – almost seemingly as an after-thought;
Benson said if Ipsos included those who said they were undecided, but when pressed were leaning towards a particular party, that number dropped to about 7 per cent and saw National’s vote come in about 2 percentage points lower.
Anything else we need to know, Vernon?!
The problem here is not just Fairfax presenting dodgy polling figures over two consecutive election periods – but the fact that Vernon Small, who wrote a story covering the poll, was thoroughly accepting of the results – and made no effort to question the veracity of the figures. Some comments from Small;
Two weeks out from the election National’s popularity has soared after the dumping of justice minister Judith Collins, putting John Key on course for a thumping victory on the evidence of a new Stuff.co.nz/Ipsos poll.
[…]
Assuming all the small parties hold their current seats, but independent Brendan Horan is not returned, National would have a dominant 70 seat bloc in a 125 seat Parliament.
Small also quoted Ipsos pollster Matt Benson without any real critical analysis;
Ipsos pollster Matt Benson said the poll followed the first televised leaders’ debate and straddled the resignation of Collins. ‘‘Despite a difficult week for National the poll shows support rise for the National Party, and John Key as preferred PM has also increased to 51.7 percent.’’
He said the rise may have been caused by wavering voters, uncomfortable with Collins, swinging in behind Key for finally taking action against her.
In no way could this poll and associated story be considered critical political analysis or news in the traditional sense.
Little wonder that, after only ten comments, Fairfax closed down posting on it’s comments section, at the end of Small’s article;
* Comments are now closed on this story.
– Stuff
The criticism of Fairfax must have been excoriating!
The problem here, as I see it;
Firstly, Ipsos is paid by Fairfax to conduct it’s polling.
Therefore, Fairfax has an inherent, undeclared financial interest in the source of “story”. Fairfax is not reporting on a story from the point of view of an impartial, disinterested party. They have a vested, commercial stake in promoting Ipsos’ findings.
As such Fairfax would be as critical of Ipsos as the Editor of the Dominion Post would commission an investigative piece on sub-editors being made redundant from his own newspaper (the redundancies happened – the story reporting the event never materialised).
In fairness, it should be pointed out that Fairfax is by no means unique in this obvious conflict of interest. The NZ Herald, TVNZ, and TV3 all have their own contracted pollsters. None of them will question the accuracy of their respective polling agents.
Secondly, because Fairfax (and other media) have a vested interest with their respective pollsters, they are locked in to using that sole company as a source for polling “news”. Hence, each media outlet’s authoritative reputation rests on pushing up the credibility of their respective polls. They must not question their own polling for fear of damaging their reputation for “authoritative political analysis”.
Regardless if their own polling is hopelessly implausible, it must be presented as factual and inarguably credible.
Even if it is clearly not.
3. Radio NZ – an oasis of information in a desert of pseudo “news”
The non-commercial Radio New Zealand not only reports polling results from various pollsters, but is currently running a Poll of Polls;
“The POLL of POLLS is an arithmetical average of the four most recent major polls since mid-June from among: TV1 Colmar Brunton, TV3 Reid Research, Fairfax Media-Ipsos, NZ Herald DigiPoll, Roy Morgan New Zealand and UMR Research, which is not published.”
– and is well worth keeping an eye on.
Off the main pollsters, the most accurate one to keep an eye on is Roy Morgan, as it alone calls respondents on cellphones. All others rely solely on landlines to contact respondents.
4. Tracy Watkins
Associated with Vernon Small’s front page article on the Dominion Post on 5 September, was a side-bar “opinion piece” by the paper’s political editor, Tracy Watkins. This is the on-line version;
.
.
“Two weeks down, two weeks to go and on today’s stuff.co.nz/Ipsos poll it’s all over bar the shouting.”
I was stunned when I read that comment. In effect, Watkins has elevated Fairfax’s 3 September public opinion poll to supplant the up-coming general election and accept a National Party victory based on Ipsos’ findings.
I put this issue to Neil Watts, blogger (Fearfactsexposed) and long-time commentator/critic of Fairfax Media and it’s policies. I asked him about the credibility of Fairfax’s polling and he replied,
“Having watched Fairfax Media make an art form of National Party propaganda for many years now, nothing they publish surprises me anymore. Their polls are notoriously, willfully unreliable, and they blatantly use them to manipulate rather than inform the electorate.”
This would certainly seem to be the case, as it should be noted that two different polling companies contracted by Fairfax consistantly over-rated National in their results. Neil had definite thoughts on why that might be. He said;
“Their political coverage is partisan, anti-opposition, anti-democratic, and their spin consistently comes from the exact same angle that the National Party are taking via Crosby Textor.
In fact, this is so reliable, that I only bother to read stuff.co.nz these days to find out what the Government’s spin will be on any given issue.”
When I pointed out Watkins’ piece, “All over bar the shouting”, Neil was scathing about her lack of impartiality;
“Political editor Tracy Watkins is clearly enamored with the Prime Minister and unprofessionally close to him. After several international trips with John Key and a substantial back catalogue of journalese ‘love letters’ to him, she really has zero credibility as an objective reporter.
To the informed reader, her copy is generally one-eyed, propagandist tripe. The weight of evidence is in their reporting, but I have heard from sources within Fairfax Media that their blatant goal is to get Key’s Government re-elected.”
If true, and the Fourth Estate has become a mouth-piece for The Political Establishment, it may explain why people are turning away from the mainstream media as well as politics. The previous general election had the lowest voter turn-out since 1887 – no feat to be proud of, and seemingly indicative of a growing malaise of alienation, apathy, and disconnection from our heretofore strong civic pride.
It simply beggars belief that a journalist such as Ms Watkins with many years experience could publish such an off-hand comment that effectively undermines current efforts by the Electoral Commission, trade unions, political parties, et al, to encourage people to enroll and to vote.
The Commission is spending tax payers’ money to encourage voter turn-out – and Watkins’ casual, flippant, remark that “it’s all over bar the shouting” undermined that campaign with half a dozen words. The fact that the Dominion Post reinforced that off-the-cuff remark by placing the Fairfax-Ipsos poll-story on the front page of the edition reinforced her comment with a subtle message; “don’t bother voting – National has won – it’s all over bar the shouting”;
.
.
Note the heading in big, black, bold lettering,
Poll sees Nats in command
“In command“? Was the election held on 5 September?! Did I miss it?
Note also the hidden subtext of an image of the PM, John Key, twice the size of his opponant, David Cunliffe. Note the victorious look on Key’s face – and the open-mouth “petulance” of ‘disappointment’ on Cunliffe’s.
The impression is clear; Key has “won” the election.
Cunliffe’s annoyance validates Key’s trimphant expression.
This is not reporting the news – it is manufacturing it.
Meanwhile, with more than a hint of irony, the real news of election-related events are buried within the newspaper;
.
.
Little wonder that Neil Watts summed up Fairfax’s agenda thusly,
“For a media corporation to be effectively aiming for oligarchical rule in New Zealand is a gross abuse of power and position. At the very least, they should be honest and open about their political loyalties, so that ordinary Kiwi voters can make an informed choice about where they source their news.”
I see nothing to disabuse me of the notion I began to develop in 1989, that a healthy dose of skepticism is required when presented with information from a media source.
Their agenda is no longer to present news.
Their agenda is to manufacture it; embellish it; use it to sell advertising; and to further political goals.
How else does one explain naked propaganda-masquerading-as-“news”?
Because looking at the full-blown story on the front page, I can see no other interpretation than the conclusion I have arrived at.
According to the Dominion Post, the election is done and dusted and the Nats are “in command”. So don’t bother voting. It’s all over.
Bar the shouting.
.
References
Fairfax media: National still cosy in polls after tea break (2011)
Fairfax media: National soars without Collins – poll (2014)
Wikipedia: New Zealand 2011 General Election
Roy Morgan: ‘Dirty Politics’ muddies the water for major parties in New Zealand
NZ Herald: National or Labour could form a Government – poll
TV3 News: Key could need Maori Party post-election
TVNZ News: National unscathed by Dirty Politics – poll
Radio NZ: Election 2014 – Poll of Polls
Dominion Post: All over bar the shouting
Massey University: Massey commentators preview key election issues
Dominion Post: Tracy Watkins on politics
Additional
Fairfax media: Ipsos Polling Station
Previous related blogposts
Census, Surveys, and Cellphones (part tahi)
Census, Surveys, and Cellphones (Part rua)
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 7 September 2014
.
.
= fs =
Letter to the Editor – tax cuts bribes? Are we smarter than that?
.
.
from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: Sunday Star Times <letters@star-times.co.nz>
date: Thu, Sep 4, 2014
subject: Letters to the editor
.
The editorSunday Star Times
.
National must be in panic-mode if they are resorting to the tactic of bribing voters with promised tax cuts.
Key and English both maintain that the government’s books will be “back in surplus” next year.
That is not the whole truth. In fact, it is a lie.
The government (and therefore taxpayers) owe $68 billion in debt that this government has borrowed since 2008.
On top of that, the dairy pay-out to farmers is expected to fall dramatically, taking more revenue out of the economy and reducing the government’s tax-take.
And we still have billions to spend on re-building Christchurch.In the light of this, it is grossly irresponsible for any politician to be making promises that are simply unsustainable. Tax cuts will have to be paid for and simply putting it “on tick” and adding it to the $68 billion debt is verging on criminal negligence.
I sincerely hope that voters think carefully before accepting this bribe. We should be smarter than that.-Frank Macskasy
.
[address & phone number supplied]
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
.
.
= fs =
Early Voting starts…
.
.
Early voting kicked off on Monday and according to media reports, there has been a heavy response from the public.
This is excellent news!
Meanwhile, I’ve supported three people to cast an early vote, who might not have otherwise voted without encouragement. All three votes went to Labour.
This is the only way to win this election and seize back the power for the people: find someone who normally doesn’t vote and encourage them to do so. Whether they vote for Labour, the Greens, or Mana-internet is immaterial – as long as they vote!
.
References
TVNZ News: Early voting turnout more than doubles
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
.
.
= fs =
Letter to the Editor – Time for a bribe
.
.
from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: Dominion Post <letters@dompost.co.nz>
date: Thu, Sep 4, 2014
subject: Letter to the editor.
The editorDominion Post
.John Key justifies his electoral bribe of tax cuts saying that his government will be “back in surplus” next year.
This is a lie. A $68 billion lie.
Because $68 billion is the debt that government (and we, the public) owe after six years of borrowings.
New Zealanders should reflect on that before voting. We are being bribed with money we don’t have; must be borrowed from offshore; and will have to be paid back.
What is supremely ironic is that John Key and Bill English then have the gall to label Labour and the Greens as “fiscally irresponsible”?
National won the 2008 with promises of tax cuts.
They were unaffordable then, they are unaffordable now.
$68 billion in debt. Think about it.
-Frank Macskasy
[address & phone number supplied]
.
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
.
.
= fs =
National’s Ohariu candidate admits contact by Simon Lusk
.
.
Wellington, NZ, 31 August – At a meet-the-candidates public meeting in the Rongotai Electorate, National’s Ohariu candidate, Brett Hudson, confirmed that he had been approached by “a mate”, who passed on a message from National Party operative, Simon Lusk.
Simon Lusk is a far right-wing apparatchik who runs a private, self-styled “candidates school” for potential National Party candidates. Amongst those National MPs linked to Lusk are Taupo MP Louise Upston, Maungakiekie MP Sam Lotu-Iiga, Napier MP Chris Tremain, Rodney MP Mark Mitchell and former list MP Aaron Gilmore. Disgraced Minister, Judith Collins, is also an associate of Simon Lusk.
The media reported that some National Party insiders were so concerned by Lusk’s activities that they leaked documents to the media in 2012, and the following year. At least one senior Minister, Michael Woodhouse, discussed his growing unease with National’s president, Peter Goodfellow .
Brett Hudson
On Sunday, this blogger put a direct question to National’s Ohariu candidate, Brett Hudson, enquiring if he has had any recent contact with Simon Lusk; Lusk’s so-called “college for candidates”; Cameron Slater, or any of their associates.
Hudson confirmed that he had been approached, explaining that he had been offered Simon Lusk’s services through a third party,
“I have [had an] indirect approach. Someone else had said that, that gentleman had said if your mate wants to get involved, let me know. And I turned it down.”
When I enquired who that “someone else” had been, Hudson refused to disclose the name.
“I’m not going to name who it was, it’s not relevant to this situation.”
Hudson insisted,
“They just said, I’ve had a message from this guy Lusk, who sez if your mate is interested let me know. Tell him to get in touch.”
Hudson stated categorically that the un-named person who approached him was not National Party parliamentary staffer, Jason Ede.
When questioned further, Hudson stated,
“I’ve no contact with Slater or Lusk. I have no intention to never, nor would ever consider entering their scheme.
So I made my own message, which I think it was Facebook, I can’t recall exactly, just went to Lusk, and don’t want to participate.”
Upon further questioning, Hudson confirmed that he contacted Lusk directly to decline the offer,
“It was just a message to say I’m not interested… so I’m not involved, I’ve had no conversations.”
When I asked when this exchange took place, Hudson was vague, and said,
“I can’t recall, last year probably. Or even… probably… could’ve been late 2012. I don’t know. Honestly, ‘cos I’ve no intention of being involved.”
I asked when he was selected as a candidate and Hudson replied,
“End of April this year.”
I asked,
“End of April this year? So why would he have contacted you… in 2012?”
Hudson replied,
“Because if he wanted people to join his college, which as I understand it, and I don’t know, but it would be a paid for thing, then maybe he was touting for business, I don’t know.”
Hudson was emphatic when he denied all involvement with Lusk;
“And also I think the message was, if your mate was interested then he could contact me. And I said I’m not interested.”
Despite repeated enquiries, he refused to name who the “mate” was who acted as a go-between him and Lusk.
Interestingly, Hudson joined Facebook on 5 May 2011, so why would Lusk have offered his services through a so-called third party, rather than FB messaging Hudson directly?
Especially when Brett Hudson is one of Simon Lusk’s FB friends;
.
.
Lusk does not appear on Brett Hudson’s FB friends list.
If Hudson was approached by a “third party”, there are two well-known associates of Simon Lusk who appear on Brett Hudson’s Facebook Friends list; right-wing lawyer Jordan Williams, and blogger, David Farrar;
.
.
.
Chris Finlayson
At another public meeting in Rongotai, on the same day, National’s Treaty Negotiations Minister and Attornery General, Chris Finlayson was also asked what dealings, if any, he had had with Simon Lusk or Cameron Slater.
At this point, as I put the question to Finlayson, National Party supporters attempted to shout me down. Nearly all middle-aged men and women, their behaviour was mob-like, reminding me of the “F**k John Key” Youtube video we have seen recently, and attempted to stop me from questioning the Minister. They took particular exception to a hand-held voice-recorder in my hand. One particularly observant older National supporter yelled, with a hint of panic,
“He’s got a recorder! He’s got a recorder!”
I turned to the greying-haired lady and responded,
“Why yes, so it is.”
The chair of the meeting felt the need to address the matter and called for a voice “vote” on whether or not I should record Finlayson’s response to my question. The loud vocal braying from the National Party supporters would have done a village mob proud, with one National supporter sitting directly behind me adding,
“Sit down! Not relevant!”
At the Chair’s request, I turned my recorder off and said,
“But I will put the question, as it’s an important election issue.”
Minister Finlayson responded (with far more grace than his supporters, I might add). The following notes were jotted contemporaneously,
“No, [I] haven’t been contacted by them. I haven’t read the book. But all I know is I think they called me a tosser who tried to speak latin.”
I thanked the minister, sat down, and turned to the National Party supporter seated behind me,
“Are you a National or Conservative Party (he had cheered and clapped for several comments made by the Conservative candidate) supporter?”
“Doesn’t matter, irrelevent,” he replied.
“Well, it is relevent. You’ve expressed strong views and I’d like to know where you’re coming from.”
“No, irrelevent, just like your question to Chris,” he said.
I replied, “it can’t be ‘irrelevent’, because it’s a major election issue.”
“Well,” he said with some smugness, “we’ll have to agree to disagree then, won’t we?”
I replied,
“Really? That didn’t stop you from trying to shut me down, did it?”
At the conclusion of the public question and answer session, I approached Chris Finlayson and introduced myself. I asked if he would go on record, to answer my question. The Minister seemed quite happy to do so, and added an interesting ‘aside’.
I asked,
“So you’ve never had no contact or anything with Simon Lusk or Cameron Slater, say in the last year or so?”
Finlayson replied, without any hesitation,
“I’ve never had contact with them.”
He added,
“I suggest you ask the same question of Stuart Nash, the Labour candidate in Napier.”
When I asked why I should ask Nash that question, Finlayson refused to say why, and instead repeated that I should put the question to him.
Accordingly, I have put the question to Stuart Nash via Facebook messaging,
Kia ora Stuart,
I’m putting together a story for the Daily Blog, regarding Simon Lusk and Cameron Slater, and your name has come up in discussions with certain people. Can you confirm what dealings you have had with Simon Lusk (or his intermediary) , and what services he has offered you for your election campaign? Have you paid any money for any services he might offer, or has any amount been agreed on? Furthermore, what was the nature of the agreement and did it refer to the Mana-Internet Party? Also, are you aware of other Labour candidates who are currently in contact with Simon Lusk (or his intermediary, or Cameron Slater). I look forward to your responses on these questions, to shed some light on matters that have arisen.
The message was seen at 1.46am on 1 September, but no reply has been forthcoming.
Mr Nash, if you wish to reply and address the question, the opportunity is still open.
It is the contention of this blogger that Cameron Slater and his dealings are a matter of intense public interest. People who are putting themselves up for election to Parliament should have nothing to hide when it comes to disclosing what contacts they have had with controversial public figures and matters of considerable public interest.
I will continue to ask these questions, and noisy supporters of National (or Labour) would be well advised that attempting to shout down the truth does not serve their interests.
References
NZ Herald: National Party had high-level concerns over member’s influence
NZ Herald: National turns on hard right advisor
Fairfax media: Seriously happy to upset the status quo
TVNZ News: National Party selects Ohariu candidate
Facebook: Simon Lusk FB Page – Friends
NZ Parliament: Chris Finlayson
Previous related blogposts
Power Struggle in the National Party?!
David Farrar – Challenging Slater for Sultan of Sleaze?
National MP admits collusion with bosses to set up strike-breaking law!!
Other blogs
The Paepae: Simon Lusk in the headlines again!
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 2 September 2014
.
.
= fs =
Third party propaganda attacks incoming Labour-led government
.
.
Further to a report by Daily Blogger, Chris Trotter, on receiving information regarding planned attack-billboards, the following billboard is highly visible to traffic on the southbound lane of the Wellington motorway, just prior to the Murphy St turn-off.
I had noticed the billboard mid-last-week, and today had an opportunity to take the following images;
.
.
The authorisation statement does exist – but is barely legible on the bottom left of the massive billboard.
Combining the distance from the motorway and an obstructing motorway barrier, the authorisation statement is not visible from the road. The large green and red lettering, though, stands out clearly to all passing traffic.
Even by zooming in, the authorisation statement is barely legible;
.
.
The authorisation statement, with maximum zoom;
.
.
Someone has a lot of money to spend, to frighten voters away from a Labour-led government.
Is this what John Key meant when he opined that we were focusing too much on Dirty Politics and not on policies and issues?! And if not, will he condemn these billboard(s) with the same intensity he slammed Nicky Hager’s book?
I doubt it.
Final question: is an authorisation statement that is barely legible to drivers, as well as obstructed by the motorway side-barrier, actually legal?
I will seek an answer from the
.
.
Further to a report by Daily Blogger, Chris Trotter, on receiving information regarding planned attack-billboards, the following billboard is highly visible by traffic on the southbound lane of the Wellington motorway, just prior to the Murphy St turn-off.
I had noticed the billboard mid-last-week, and today had an opportunity to take the following images;
.
.
The authorisation statement does exist – but is barely legible on the bottom left of the massive billboard.
Combining the distance from the motorway and the motorway barrier itself, the authorisation statement is not visible from the road. The large green and red lettering, though, stands out clearly to all passing traffic.
Even by zooming in, the authorisation statement is barely legible;
.
.
The authorisation statement, with maximum zoom;
.
.
Someone has a lot of money to spend, to frighten voters away from a Labour-led government.
Is this what John Key meant when he opined that we were focusing too much on Dirty Politics and not enough on policies and issues?! And if so, will he condemn these billboard(s) with the same gusto he slammed Nicky Hager’s book?
I doubt it.
Final question: is an authorisation statement that is barely legible to drivers, as well as obstructed by the motorway side-barrier, actually legal?
I will seek an answer from the Electoral Commission.
.
References
The Daily Blog: Dirt Alert! Are the Greens and Labour about to become the targets of a major negative advertising campaign?
Copyright (c) Notice
All images stamped ‘fmacskasy.wordpress.com’ are freely available to be used, with following provisos,
» Use must be for non-commercial purposes.
» Where purpose of use is commercial, a donation to Child Poverty Action Group is requested.
» At all times, images must be used only in context, and not to denigrate individuals or groups.
» Acknowledgement of source is requested.
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 31 August 2014
.
.
= fs =
Radio NZ: Politics with Matthew Hooton and Mike Williams – 1 September 2014
.
– Politics on Nine To Noon –
.
– Monday 1 September 2014 –
.
– Kathryn Ryan, with Matthew Hooton & Mike Williams –
.
Today on Politics on Nine To Noon,
Mike Williams and Matthew Hooton on the circumstances that led up to the resignation of the Justice Minister, Judith Collins, at the weekend.
The Prime Minister has announced he’ll be holding an inquiry into Ms. Collins’ conduct – though he says it won’t go any wider than her office – and he’ll be announcing its terms of reference this week.
Click to listen on icon below;
.
.
Click to Listen (alternative link): Politics with Matthew Hooton and Mike Williams (23′ 22″ )
And listen to some damning comments, by Matthew Hooton, highly critical of National Party machination.
.
= fs =
Related
Radio NZ: POLL of POLLS with Colin James
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
.
.
= fs =
National Housing propaganda – McGehan Close Revisited
.
.
Housing has become a major, defining issue in New Zealand. We have critical shortages and escalating prices in in the main centres and falling house values in the regions. The National government has addressed the supply & demand problem not by increasing supply – but by attempting to suppress demand. Hence the 20% LVR restriction, which has resulted in a fall in demand.
In other words, instead of building new homes for first home owners – National’s policies have simply raised barriers to chase them away from the housing market.
Which seems to contradict Dear Leader’s famous speech in 2008, when he attacked then-Prime Minister Helen Clark’s government, in January 2008;
Well, I’ve got a challenge for the Prime Minister. Before she asks for another three years, why doesn’t she answer the questions Kiwis are really asking, like:
-
Why, after eight years of Labour, are we paying the second-highest interest rates in the developed world?
-
Why, under Labour, is the gap between our wages, and wages in Australia and other parts of the world, getting bigger and bigger?
-
Why, under Labour, do we only get a tax cut in election year, when we really needed it years ago?
-
Why are grocery and petrol prices going through the roof?
-
Why can’t our hardworking kids afford to buy their own house?
Of course, the first point – interest rates – doesn’t apply in this situation. Key has deftly escaped over-seeing a massive rise in interest rates by simply making it harder for people to buy a house. (Though prices are still rising – and massively so in Auckland.
Key and his hopeless government have done nothing to address this country’s housing shortage – they’ve simply tried to stifle demand, in a very Muldoonesque way. Shades of price and wage freeze in 1982!
It seems that National is shortly to reprise a variant of a previous propaganda campaign from it’s 2008 election strategy. According to Selwyn Manning, who wrote recently in The Daily Blog,
On Monday morning, National will visit the Weymouth housing development in South Auckland. On Monday afternoon, National will visit the Hobsonville housing development north of Auckland. Its message will be to connect housing policy to the economy and squeeze out the opposition parties.
This was National’s housing campaign in 2008,and which four years later came to a messy conclusion. The following was a story I wrote, in November 2012…
.
.
.
.
.
Desperate measures…
.
Desperate to seize power from Labour, and faced with strong, experienced leadership in the form of Helen Clark and Michael Cullen, National and it’s fresh, new leader – John Key – launched a series of public-relations media/propaganda initiatives. One of those propaganda exercises, a photo-op with a schoolgirl, would come back to haunt Dear Leader and ridicule one of his major pledges…
.
Opening shots…
.
The campaign to mark out National’s “human face of neo-liberalism” was launched on 30 January 2007, when Key made his speech “The Kiwi Way: A Fair Go For All” at the Burnside Rugby Clubrooms, Christchurch.
See: The Kiwi Way: A Fair Go For All
It had all the nice, warm, fuzzy sound-bites; “good Kiwi upbringing“; “betterment of all New Zealanders“, “proud of our culture and society“; “opportunity and hope“; “giving people a fair go”; “egalitarian society“; “The Kiwi Way” (mentioned ten times); “born into a struggling household“, etc, etc, etc…
Whoever wrote that speech really mined the handbook of the Kiwi Psyche.
But the real opening shots in the political battle for the hearts and minds of New Zealanders began in the opening months of 2007 – two full years leading up to the November 2008 general elections.
Reading many of Key’s speeches and policy announcements, was almost like tapping into a Scandinavian model of a social democratic society. Michael Joseph Savage would have nodded in approval to many of Key’s utterances.
Especially when, on 3 February 2007, Key announced the launching of National’s “Food in Schools programme“. It was pure 1930s Labour stuff,
.
National Party Leader John Key has announced the first initiative in what will be a National Food in Schools programme.
“National is committed to providing practical solutions to the problems which Helen Clark says don’t exist,” says Mr Key.
During his State of the Nation speech on Tuesday, Mr Key indicated National would seek to introduce a food in schools programme at our poorest schools in partnership with the business community.
Mr Key has since received an approach from Auckland-based company Tasti foods.
“I approached Wesley Primary School yesterday, a decile 1 school near McGehan Close, a street that has had more than its fair share of problems in recent times. I am told Wesley Primary, like so many schools in New Zealand, has too many kids turning up hungry.”
.
See: National launches its Food in Schools programme
Of course once National came to power twentyone months later, on 8 November 2008, Key’s quasi-socialistic policy of ” providing practical solutions to the problems which Helen Clark says don’t exist “, quietly slipped beneath the waves and disappeared from public sight.
It had achieved it’s purpose.
In fact, National’s policy stance on any suggestion of Food in Schools programmes, is now somewhat more hostile,
.
Organisations working with the poor and opposition parties say Prime Minister John Key is in ”la la land” if he thinks fruit is enough to get a hungry child through a school day.
Labour yesterday unveiled a $10 million policy to provide free food to 650 of the country’s lowest decile primary and intermediate schools.
Key immediately rejected the idea, saying free fruit was already provided in the ”vast bulk” of low-decile schools and there was often a breakfast programme.
”Not every school wants every child to be provided a lunch,” he told reporters in Russia before leaving for Japan. ”There are many families that can provide those lunches’.”‘
See: Key in poverty ‘la la land’
And in case anyone missed the point that National was not about to follow the Scandinavian model of helping children living in poverty,
Prime Minister John Key says beneficiaries who resort to food banks do so out of their own “poor choices” rather than because they cannot afford food.
Mr Key made the comment when asked in Parliament yesterday about poverty levels.
When Labour’s social development spokeswoman Annette King asked about Salvation Army reports of high demand for food parcels, Mr Key responded by saying it was true that the global recession meant more people were on benefits.
“But it is also true that anyone on a benefit actually has a lifestyle choice. If one budgets properly, one can pay one’s bills.
“And that is true because the bulk of New Zealanders on a benefit do actually pay for food, their rent and other things. Now some make poor choices and they don’t have money left.”
See: Food parcel families made poor choices, says Key
.
Not only has National’s “Food in Schools programme” vanished, and subsequently replaced with naked antipathy, but this blogger’s emails to the Prime Minister’s office on the issue have gone unanswered.
Too embarressing, no doubt.
.
Firing Photo ops missiles…
.
On 6 February 2007, National’s tax-payer funded spin-doctors organised this photo-op for Dear Leader,
.
.
Key was attempting to re-play a much earlier scene on Waitangi Day in 1973, when then-Prime Minister, Norman Kirk walked onto the grounds on Waitangi, with then-ten year old, Moana Priest,
.
Acknowledgement: Life and career of the late Prime Minister Norman Kirk, Herald Book
.
However, it can safely be stated that the difference between Kirk and Key was/is monumental. It was a distance between two men that can only be measured in interstellar terms.
Kirk believed deeply in what he was doing.
Key simply exploited a naive young girl and her family for a photo-op – which we all now by now is something he cannot pass by.
In the Herald, on 6 November 2007, Aroha and her family expressed delight at attending Waitangi Day celebrations with the leader of the Opposition (as he was then),
Yesterday morning, Mr Key picked Aroha up in a Crown limousine and took her to Waitangi with him, discussing, among other things, her favourite band, Panic at the Disco.
She described the trip – one of the few she’s made outside Auckland and which included her first stay in a hotel – as “exciting”.
She said her family were also rapt with the visit, and felt much more comfortable when they realised National list MP Jackie Blue, who accompanied Mr Key to McGehan Close, would be with her for the trip.
Dr Blue was Aroha’s grandmother’s doctor and also attended to her mother, Joan Nathan, so “Mum said I’d be in good hands”.
The pair spent part of the day with Mr Key but slipped away for lunch at the Copthorne Hotel, where Aroha described the chips as great but said she didn’t think the fish was fresh.
“Dad always says if it doesn’t fall apart it’s not fresh.”
Aroha said she knew little about events at Waitangi on Waitangi Day, but was looking forward to finding out.
See: A day out with friends in high places
It’s somewhat disturbing to note that National list MP Jackie Blue, who had a close personal relationship with Aroha’s family, played along with the photo-op. That was despite reservations expressed by some,
Labour list MP Dover Samuels was the only one publicly labelling Mr Key’s invitation a stunt yesterday, but others quietly voiced similar concerns.
See: Ibid
The family, though, seemed blissfully unaware that they were little more than pawns in National’s pre-election grand strategy and expressed their comfort with events,
…Mrs Nathan told Close Up last night that the invitation had given her daughter a good opportunity.
She continued to disagree with some of Mr Key’s views on McGehan Close, but she believed he was trying to push for positive changes.
See: Ibid
Three months later, on 27 May 2007, Key referred to Aroha Ireland in a speech strangely entitled, “Tough on Crime”. His reference to Aroha was fleeting (as was his brief intervention in her life), barely rating a mention,
” For the past six months, I’ve had the privilege of travelling New Zealand from city to town talking to the people who make our country tick. I’ve been to places like McGehan Close and met people like Aroha Ireland, a young girl with big dreams for her future. I’ve milked cows in Horowhenua. I’ve visited primary schools in Canterbury. I’ve met with iwi in Ruatoria. ”
See: John Key’s speech – Tough on Crime
Cows weren’t the only thing he milked…
In the same speech, Key ramped up the aspirational rhetoric,
” The first ‘E’ is the economy. National will emphasise this theme because we are committed to delivering New Zealanders the fruits of a wealthier country. Make no mistake – Labour’s policies are seeing us fall further and further behind the rest of the world. The recent Budget did absolutely nothing to alleviate that slide.
Michael Cullen has given up on growing our economy, instead he’s preparing for retirement: Labour’s retirement.
Well, National is a lot more ambitious than that. We think Kiwis deserve higher wages and lower taxes during their working lives,as well as a good retirement. That’s why we will pursue economic policies and infrastructure development that will keep New Zealand competitive on the world stage. Make no mistake – Bill English’s first Budget will include tax cuts. ”
See: Ibid
The rest of Key’s speech was pure knee-jerk, tough-on-crime, BS – so beloved by National’s fearful aging middle classes.
.
Shots that re-bound and ricochet…
.
Three Years later, and Key’s visit to McGehan Close had lost it’s gloss, as the NZ Herald reported on 10 February 2010,
The mother of the 12-year-old girl John Key took to Waitangi three years ago says she has been let down by the Prime Minister, and her daughter now wants nothing to do with him.
Joan Nathan said she and her family were worse off since National won the election.
She’d lost her job with National list MP Jackie Blue, arranged by Key, and a training allowance she received had been cut.
“They gave me the job to sweeten the deal, and then as soon as they got elected I got the sack,” she said.
“I’m pretty anti-Mr Key at the moment”..
[…]
“He’s just made everything worse for us and made it easier for ones that are higher up. I’m struggling every week.”
See: Family still on struggle street after Key leaves
The NZ Herald story went on to state,
A spokesman for Key said he had visited her home last year to try to help resolve the housing issue, and had spoken to her on the phone several times since the election. Key didn’t wish to make any further comment.
See: Ibid
Yeah. I’ll bet he didn’t want to comment.
Why should he? Aroha Ireland had served her purpose for the 2008 general election, and like some Bond Villain, Key was now disposing of his ‘puppets’ – they were no longer useful for his grand Master Plan for
WorldNew Zealand Domination.And Key’s crony, National MP Jackie Blue’s, response was even more insightful,
Jackie Blue said Nathan worked 10 hours a week doing administration for Mt Roskill office up until the 2008 election.
She wasn’t re-employed because Blue merged her office with Lotu-Iiga, and didn’t need to rehire staff.
Blue said she had tried to keep in touch, but Nathan’s phone had been disconnected.
See: Ibid
Irony heaped upon grim irony… made redundant from a faux-job created specifically by the Nats as an enticing “lolly” for Joan Nathan (Aroha’s mother)… phone disconnected as a sign of lowered income and encroaching poverty… Ms Nathan’s loss of employment symptomatic of National’s do-nothing approach to the country’s growing unemployment crisis…
Little wonder that Aroha Ireland no longer wanted to talk about Key’s visit three years ago. One cannot feel any measure of pride in being used.
John Key’s photo-op had gone full-circle, and was lining up to tear big chunks from Dear Leader’s arse.
If anything, Aroha’s situation was now a prime example of National’s policies (or lack thereof) – but not as the Nat’s politburo had intended.
.
Shot himself in the foot…
.
By November of last year, Key’s photo-op with Aroha Ireland had jumped from expressions of disgust, by her family at being exploited, to one of high farce for the Nats – and a measure of hope for Aroha.
Ms Ireland was joining the flood of New Zealanders escaping over the
Berlin WallTasman Sea to a Brighter Future – in Australia,National leader John Key says the teenager he took to Waitangi Day three years ago is not leaving for Australia because life is better there.
Aroha Ireland, 16, became the face of National’s campaign to close the gap with Australia and help struggling families during the last election campaign.
Now it has been reported that Miss Ireland is headed across the Tasman.
See: PM denies teen leaving for good life
Dear Leader sez “the teenager he took to Waitangi Day three years ago is not leaving for Australia because life is better there ” ?!
Oh yeah, spin it, John Boy, spin it!
Key went on to state (with a straight face, I hope) that he did not think she was going because of the yawning wage gap, between our two countries,
“I’m proud of the Government’s record – in difficult times, we’ve closed that wage gap with Australia. We’ve grown after-tax wages by 10 per cent in the last three years, Australia by six.”
Except… well… Yeah, nah. John Key is now piling the BS on top of his previous outrageous spin. The facts speak otherwise – the wage gap is growing, not reducing, despite what Key and his spinmeisters might want us to believe.
In fact, Key should be fully aware that he was being less than truthful by suggesting that the wages gap was closing. As right wing politician, and ex-Reserve bank governor, Don Brash stated only two weeks earlier,
“In 2008 we estimated the gap was 35% currently it’s nearer 40%.”
See: Aussie wage gap now 40% – Brash
(Unfortunately, Brash’s brief moment of lucidity was short-lived, and he thereafter descended into right wing nuttery to solve the growing wage gap. In essence, more of the same of the last thirty years. What’s that definition of craziness; doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome?)
It was little wonder that Key claimed he had “no idea” why Aroha was escaping to Australia,
“Lots of young people decide to go for an OE – I don’t know how long she’ll last. I’m not in a position to go into too much; hope she comes back.
I’m disappointed she’s going for her, because I think New Zealand has got a great future in front of it and I’d like her to be part of it.”
See: PM denies teen leaving for good life
Of course Dear Leader knows why Aroha left New Zealand. But to admit it would be a colossal admission of National’s failure to address critical economic and social problems in our country.
Key’s comments are lame by any standards. We simply laugh harder and louder at his moronic utterances.
A year later, all doubt was removed why Aroha Ireland – like thousands of other New Zealanders, before and since, her voting with her feet – had moved to Australia…
.
And the photo-op blows up in Key’s face…
.
According to a NZ Herald report this year, Aroha’s move to Australia held no great mystery,
… Aroha Ireland has given up on New Zealand, is engaged to be married and earning good money with no plans to return to her homeland.
The 17-year-old bailed for the lucky country last year, disillusioned with her prospects in Auckland.
Miss Ireland, who is engaged to Stuart Spashett also of Auckland, did not return the Herald’s calls.
She has told family members and friends she is embarrassed by the publicity that followed her since her visit to Waitangi in 2008.
Lisa Spashett, who calls herself Aroha’s second mum, said the Government had failed people like her future daughter-in-law.
She said there was nothing for them in New Zealand to look forward to or return to.
See: Key’s poster girl finds life much better in Australia
Ms Spashett went on to say, with drilling, laser-beam, accuracy,
“As far as they are concerned, no, they [the National Government] hadn’t done anything for them. I can tell you that straight up and that’s why they are in Australia.”
See: Ibid
From 6 February 2007,
.
.
… to 13 November 2012,
.
.
From self-serving exploitation by a cynical multi-millionaire-cum-politician – to an embarressing example of National’s failure.
And the best thing about this? National has shot itself in it’s own foot, with no help from it’s political opponants whatsoever.
They did it to themselves.
Classic.
.
.
.
Fast forward to 2014 and a new election and a new propaganda campaign.
If anyone believes that National will be addressing our growing housing shorting, they need only stop, pause, and think: what has Key been doing sincve 2008?
And perhaps they should ask Aroha Ireland. How did things pan out with the Prime Minister?
She’s only a phone call away. In Australia.
.
Sources
National Party Speech – The Kiwi Way: A Fair Go For All (30 Jan 2007)
National Press Release – National launches its Food in Schools programme (4 Feb 2007)
A day out with friends in high places (6 Feb 2007)
Aroha is missing her Key friend (10 Feb 2007)
National Party Speech – Tough on Crime (27 May 2007)
Family still on struggle street after Key leaves (7 Feb 2010)
Aussie wage gap now 40% – Brash (7 Nov 2011)
PM denies teen leaving for good life (21 Nov 2011)
Key’s poster girl finds life much better in Australia (13 Nov 2012)
.
References
Fairfax media: RBNZ cracks down on mortgage lending
ODT: LVR ‘working well’ as housing market slows
National Party: 2008: A Fresh Start for New Zealand
NZ Herald: Auckland’s property values jump 33pc
Te Ara – Encyclopedia of New Zealand: The wage and price freeze, 1982–1984
Previous related blogposts
John Key: When propaganda photo-ops go wrong…
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 25 August 2014
.
.
= fs =
Letter to the Editor – fiscal irresponsibility by National
.
.
from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: “The Wellingtonian” <editor@thewellingtonian.co.nz>
date: Wed, Aug 27, 2014
subject: Letter to the editor.
The Editor“The Wellingtonian”
At a time when the Capital Coast DHB is so strapped for cash that it is cutting back on services for the mentally unwell (see: Fears for mentally ill forced to streets), our esteemed Prime Minister – or the “Prime Minister’s office – there is evidently a distinction – is once again attempting to bribe New Zealanders with tax cuts.Never mind that, collectively, as a nation, we have a $69 billion dollar debt that accrues millions in interest payment, and must be paid back.Never mind that we have 250,000-plus children living in poverty as the jobless and working poor cannot afford the high cost of living.Never mind that people in Christchurch face a housing shortage and massive rent hikes. Evidently, according to earthquake-minister Gerry Brownlee, the free market will sort that out.It beggars belief that we have a major political party so irresponsible with finances that it is willing to spray money around to win votes, rather than address our multi-billion dollar debt and critical social problems confronting our nation.They do not deserve to be re-elected government.-Frank Macskasy
[address and phone number supplied]
.
References
Fairfax media: Fears for mentally ill forced to streets
Fairfax media: Christchurch rent crisis ‘best left to market’
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
.
.
= fs =
Election TV campaign ads – Opening Night
.
.
NZ, 23 August – The election campaign “kicked off” on Saturday evening, with a one hour “televisual feast”. Party advertisements were broadcast for National, Labour, Greens, NZ First, United Future/Peter Dunne, Focus Party, Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party, the Internet Party, Conservative Party, ACT, NZ Independent Coalition, and Democrats for Social Credit.
The content of the ads ranged in length from National’s stultifying quarter of an hour – to only a few minutes for the sprites – minor parties.
The following is my own personal round-up of what we were subjected to saw;
National
Ok, I admit I’m not fan of either right wing parties and especially John Key, who I hold as one of the most dishonest and manipulative politicians since… whenever.
However, National’s ad had to be the worst in political history. I had already heard most of it in audio form on Radio NZ the previous evening, in my car, on the way home. I made it for about five minutes before switching off the radio and putting a CD on to play.
Note: I never turn Radio NZ off in the car. People who travel with me know the cardinal law of survival if they are to be a passenger; all stations are set to Radio NZ. There are no other radio stations. They do not exist. Do not touch the frequency knob – ever.
But on Friday night, listening to Key droning on and on and on and… Too much. My ears were about to bleed.
I switched off.
On Saturday evening, being the political junkie I am, I settled down; coffee; notebook; cat on lap; and a couple of other people to gauge their perceptions.
It was the same advert as the previous night’s RNZ broadcast. I could feel braincells withering under the onslaught of tedium. I lasted seven minutes. Then muted the TV and walked away. (I asked others to let me know when it was all over.)
It last for 15 minutes. Fifteen minutes of mostly Key sitting in a comfy chair (yes! the dreaded comfy chair!) replying to patsy questions from an off-screen mock-interviewer. He droned onnnnnn and onnnnn and onnnnnn… and so earnestly … and it was relentless… and by the gods, it was bad by any measure.
If Labour had broadcast that trash, it would be game-over. Cunliffe might as well email Key his concession speech and be done with it.
Now here’s the thing; as a political junkie, I’m interested in watching and listening to this kind of stuff. But I could barely last half-way through before leaving the room lest my head exploded like some scene out of Peter Jackson’s “Brain Dead“.
My guess is that the punters in Voter Land will have lasted two minutes, max. Then the TV would’ve been switched off; changed channel; or put a DVD on.
I can only guess that whoever produced this unwatchable, painful garbage is in reality an operative for Kim Dotcom or the mysterious ‘Whale Dump’.
Score: 0/10(nil)
Labour
Now this, was a delight to see. This was a slick piece of political advertising. Most importantly it obeyed the first commandment of TV broadcasting: thou shalt never, ever bore the viewer. (All other Commandments follow on from #1.)
The opening scene has David Cunliffe – not sitting in a padded comfy chair in suit and tie – but lugging electrical extension cords and some unidentified DIY handyman’s tool (it could’ve been an egg-beater for all I know), and heading into a community centre where Labour MPs and local folk were pitching in for a do-up of the building. Everyone was engaged; everyone was doing something. And intermittently, the MPs would talk policy to the ‘Ordinary Folk’, in reply to pre-set questions.
Aside from David Parker seemingly out of his element and a tad ill at ease, it was well done and succeeded in conveying the central theme; getting of our backsides and doing stuff.
(At the beginning of the National Party ad we saw people rowing – but Key and his ministers were doing very little except sitting around in their suits, talking. Probably planning the next leak of info to Cameron Slater’s blog.)
Whoever put the Labour Party ad together has not only earned their money – but I’d say they’ll be scoring a few more advertising contracts from new clients.
Score: 8/10
Greens
Same as for the Labour ad above – though it began somewhat jarringly with the lovely Metiria Turei popping out from the side of off-screen, David Seymour-style, and disconcertingly launching into a very exuberant speech. (Too much coffee that day, I wonder?)
The video was notable for putting across many of the Greens’ policies and touched upon wide sectors of New Zealand. There was even a well-made point regarding how National’s Minister, Paula Bennett, had made full use of the Training Incentive Allowance to gain an education – and then scrapping it in 2009. Nice little reminder that National’s ostentatious claims for improving education and welfare services in this country are debatable – if not outright crap.
Russell Norman even managed to turn around the fact that he is an Aussie immigrant. (As long as we keep beating the Wallabies, I’m not terribly worried.)
Like the Internet Party, the Greens have an advantage over their opponents in have smart, savvy young people as their leaders and candidates. Their policies are well-reasoned, costed, and make good sense. The only criticism that right-wing opponents can usually come up with is juvenile derision or name-calling.
Interesting though, how the Nats took on board Green Party policy for home insulation, eh?
Score: 9/10
NZ First
Vintage Winston Peters; immigration, land sales to foreigners, etc. Some forced smiling.
Strangely forgettable…
Score: 5/10
United Future/Peter Dunne
Usual Peter Dunne stuff. Pretending to be an independent party, whilst off-screen he’s planning to join the next, Third Term, John Key-led government. (He’ll be waiting a long time.)
Still, the video was inoffensive. Unremarkable. Actually quite forgettable.
Score: 4/10
Focus Party
I’m fairly politically au fait with politics in this country.
But.
Who/what/why is the “Focus Party”?
A staggeringly amateurish video (filmed on a hand-held smart-phone?), complete with echoing voice-over, spouting a mish-mash of policies that appear to have been lifted from ACT, Labour, National, NZ First, and Uncle Tom Cobbly. It appears to be a one-man band with one middle aged bloke fronting.
Very bizarre.
Very pointless.
Score: 2/10 (I’ve scored it for merciful brevity.)
Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party
Ah, the good ole Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party. You can’t have an election without the ALCP. That would be just… rude. Like not sharing a joint with a good mate.
Actually, it was surprisingly well done, with a cross-range of people from Kiwi society. Considering how long the ALCP has been around, it would be disappointing if they hadn’t mastered the art of political advertising by now.
My fondest memory of the ALCP was during the 1996 General Election when candidates for the Rongotai electorate assembled at the Wellington Polytechnic, in Tasman St, Wellington, for a Q and A with students.
The ALCP candidate was a likeable young chap. Very friendly. Very eager. Very stoned. As in blood-shot eyes, silly grin, and slurred speech.
The other candidates, mercifully, did not give him a hard time. (It was the Kiwi way, back then. These days, the Nat candidate would’ve been on his phone to the Police and the ACT candidate would be having a conflict of ideology; obey the law or support a person’s individual right to use drugs or not, as well as date your own sister/brother.)
I score them low only because they’re a single-issue party.
Score: 6/10
Internet Party
This one caught us by surprise and it took a few seconds to realise it wasn’t part of the ad-break. Had to quickly un-mute the TV.
An animated video, featuring a Jetsons-style cartoon of a talking cat and couple of Kiwi kids in a future New Zealand. There was mention made of getting rid of spy agencies and making New Zealand a better place to live. (Presumably all Tories had been exiled to mine the Asteroid Belt for gold, silver, etc – a kind of SF libertarian frontier world. No government. No “social welfare bludgers”. No oxygen either.)
It was quirky and never took itself too seriously. Definitely aimed for a younger demographic for whom a world of 21st Century technological marvels is as commonplace as VCRs and Vauxhall Victors were for me in the 1980s. The Jetson’s link would have brought a smile to many Baby Boomers.
Nicely done. Not pretentious. Short. Too the point. Entertaining.
Score: 8/10
Conservative Party
Honestly, did Colin Craig not look at this video before it was released upon the unsuspecting public?
The video is set in a community hall; a crowd of people looking blankly at Colin Craig standing on a stage, as he gives a speech on binding referenda, yadda yadda…
The audience looked like they’d rather be elsewhere. One wag on Twitter suggested they were all dead.
Hint to advertisers: if a bought-and-paid audience doesn’t look remotely interested, why should we?
Score: 2/10
ACT
Cue scene of ACT-leader and philosopher-cum-wanna-be-capitalist, Jamie Whyte walking over a very green, well-manicured field with strange, bizarre statues in the back-ground. Cue Whyte’s Malian wife walking alongside with him. Subtext: “I’m not a racist because I have an African wife. So I’m entitled to play the ‘race card’ to win votes by promising to abolish the Maori seats. Come unto me, Redneck Voters of New Zealand”.)
A strange video, mostly a re-hash of past policies designed to make rich old white men eventually richer dead white men, and keep the rest of us peasants where we belong. This was made more appropriate as the video was filmed on eccentric art-collector and multi-millionaire, Alan Gibb’s estate.
Whyte was continually “ticking” the air to endorse ACT policies.
Very clinical. Lacking in any warmth, humanity, or hint of a feeling of community. In essence, a vision of an ACT world.
ACT could have done better by using David Seymour’s previous video, which has gained a measure of notoriety for it’s quirkiness. At least it contained an element of humour.
Score: 1/10
Irony factor: 10/10 – ACT took taxpayer’s money to make these political advertisements. Did they send a cheque to the IRD to pay back monies received from the Electoral Commission?
David Seymour’s video: 10/10
NZ Independent Coalition
Ex-NZ First MP, Brendan Horan’s vehicle, to return to Parliament. His chances of winning his electorate (Tauranga) is as likely as me waking up tomorrow and discovering I’ve under-gone a spontaneous sex-change through the night (very low).
What is it with waka-jumpers who feel they can cobble together a “party” and try to get back into Parliament for no reason other than, well, “I’m here anyway! Vote for me! Please..”
Score: 2/10
Democrats for Social Credit
Ah, another “blast from the past” – and boy, didn’t the Social Crediters use their history to good advantage? Clips showing past MPs during the Muldoon era would’ve brought nostalgic memories from older Baby Boomers.
In fact, I recall it was the first political party I ever voted for. I was 21 and my first time voting. I didn’t have a clue. All I knew was I didn’t like Muldoon, and I was wary of the Labour (a result of being young, stupid, and hopelessly right wing).
Even though elections then were a two-party closed-shop, run under the erratic First Past the Post system, the Social Credit Party valiantly tried to break through. That year – in 1978 – they gained one MP with 16% of the vote. The following election, Social Credit gained 20% of the vote – and a miserly two seats in Parliament. (By this time, I had matured and moved to the left, voting for Labour.)
The face of the Democrats for Social Credit is the personable and experienced Stephanie DeRuyter, and she hosted the video in a capable, professional manner. At best, the DSC offer a comfortable link to our recent past and institutional knowledge – something which umpteen re-0rganisations and mass-redundancies in our civil service has resulted in a form of collective Alzheimer’s.
Good video.
Still not voting for them.
Score: 7/10
Conclusion
Based on tonight’s electioneering material, I’d say the Left have their act together. The Right, on the other hand, are a shambles. (Honourable mention of David Seymour’s own effort to promote himself in Epsom.)
If the Nats win this election, it will be despite their election advertising, not because of it.
.
References
Wikipedia: Brain Dead
Youtube: David Seymour
Green Party: Greens negotiate landmark insulation programme
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
.
.
= fs =
Party Lists – Election 2014
.
.
ACT Party
1. Dr Jamie Whyte
2. Kenneth Wang
3. Robin Grieve
4. Beth Houlbrooke
5. Don Nicolson
6. Stephen Berry
7. Dasha Kovalenko
8. Gareth Veale
9. Ian Cummings
10. Sara Muti
11. Toni Severin
12. Max Whitehead
13. Phelan Pirrie
14. Stephen Fletcher
15. David Olsen
16. Nick Kearney
17. Sean Fitzpatrick
18. Richard Evans
19. Michael Milne
20. Dr Ron Smith
1. Julian Crawford (Dunedin South)
2. Abe Gray (Dunedin North)
3. Emma-Jane Kingi (Te Tai Tonga)
4. Alistair Gregory (Wellington Central)
5. Jeffrey Lye (Kelston)
6. Richard Goode (Mana)
7. Paula Lambert (Christchurch East)
8. Romana Manning (Tukituki)
9. Rob Wilkinson (Christchurch Central)
10. Richard Neutgens (Auckland Central)
Conservative Party
1. Colin Craig
2. Christine Rankin
3. Garth McVicar
4. Melissa Perkin
5. Dr Edward Saafi
Labour Party
1. David Cunliffe (Leader)
2. David Parker
3. Grant Robertson
4. Annette King
5. Jacinda Ardern
6. Nanaia Mahuta
7. Phil Twyford
8. Clayton Cosgrove
9. Chris Hipkins
10. Sue Moroney
11. Andrew Little
12. Louisa Wall
13. David Shearer
14. Su’a William Sio
15. Maryan Street
16. Phil Goff
17. Moana Mackey
18. Kelvin Davis
19. Meka Whaitiri
20. Megan Woods
21. Raymond Huo
22. Damien O’Connor
23. Priyanca Radhakrishnan
24. Iain Lees-Galloway
25. Rachel Jones
26. David Clark
27. Carol Beaumont
28. Poto Williams
29. Carmel Sepuloni
30. Tamati Coffey
31. Jenny Salesa
32. Liz Craig
33. Deborah Russell
34. Willow-Jean Prime
35. Jerome Mika
36. Tony Milne
37. Virginia Andersen
38. Claire Szabo
39. Michael Wood
40. Arena Williams
41. Hamish McDouall
42. Anjum Rahman
43. Sunny Kaushal
44. Christine Greer
45. Penny Gaylor
46. Janette Walker
47. Richard Hills
48. Shanan Halbert
49. Anahila Suisuiki
50. Clare Wilson
51. James Dann
52. Kelly Ellis
53. Corie Haddock
54. Jamie Strange
55. Katie Paul
56. Steven Gibson
57. Chao-Fu Wu
58. Paul Grimshaw
59. Tracey Dorreen
60. Tofik Mamedov
61. Hikiera Toroa
62. Hugh Tyler
63. Susan Elliot
64. Simon Buckingham
Green Party
1. Metiria Turei (Co-leader)
2. Russel Norman (Co-leader)
3. Kevin Hague
4. Eugenie Sage
5. Gareth Hughes
6. Catherine Delahunty
7. Kennedy Graham
8. Julie Anne Genter
9. Mojo Mathers
10. Jan Logie
11. Dave Clendon
12. James Shaw
13. Denise Roche
14. Steffan Browning
15. Marama Davidson
16. Barry Coates
17. John Hart
18. Dave Kennedy
19. Jeanette Elley
20. Jack McDonald
21. David Moorhouse
22. Sea Rotmann
23. Richard Leckinger
24. Umesh Perinpanayagam
25. Susanne Ruthven
26. Teresa Moore
27. Dora Langsbury
28. Tane Woodley
29.Chris Perley
30. Rachael Goldsmith
31. John Kelcher
32. Daniel Rogers
33. Richard Wesley
34. Anne-Elise Smithson
35. Malcolm McAll
36. Chris Ford
37. Reuben Hunt
Internet Party
1. Laila Harré (Leader)
2. Chris Yong
3. Miriam Pierard
4. David Currin
5. Beverley Ballantine
6. Gil Ho
7. Pani Farvid
8. Patrick Salmon
9. Roshni Sami
10. Callum Valentine
11. Grant Keinzley
12. Lois McClintock
13. Robert Stewart
14. Raymond Calver
15. Andrew LePine
Mana Party
1. Hone Harawira, Te Tai Tokerau (1)
2. Annette Sykes, Waiariki (3)
3. John Minto, Mt Roskill (4)
4. Te Hamua Nikora, Ikaroa-Rawhiti (7)
5. James Papali’I, Mangere (9)
6. Angeline Greensill, Hauraki-Waikato (11)
7. Pat O’Dea, Epsom (13)
8. Makelesi Ngata, Upper Harbour (15)
9. Tangi Tipene, List Only (17)
10. Joe Carolan, Mt Albert (19)
11. Dr Sitaleki Finau, Maungakiekie (21)
12. Joe Trinder, Manukau East (23)
13. Ariana Paretutanganui-Tamati, Rongotai (25)
14. Lisa Gibson, Tamaki (27)
15. Heleyni Pratley, List Only (29)
16. Roger Fowler, Papakura (31)
17. Yvonne Dainty, Manurewa (32)
Maori Party
1. Te Ururoa Flavell (Waiariki)
2. Marama Fox (Ikaroa Rawhiti)
3. Chris McKenzie – Te Tai Hauauru
4. Te Hira Paenga (Te Tai Tokerau)
5. Ngaire Button (Te Tai Tonga)
6. Nancy Tuaine (Whanganui)
7. Tame Iti
8. Eraia Kiel
9. Anaru Kaipo (Whangarei)
10. Raewyn Bhana (Manurewa)
11. Rangimarie Naida Glavish
12. Aroha Reriti-Crofts (Waimakariri)
13. Hinurewa Te Hau (Upper Harbour)
14. Tom Phillips (Hunua)
15. Verna Ohia-Gate (Tauranga)
16. Ann Kendall (Papakura)
17. Hiria Pakinga (Coromandel)
18. Claire Winitana (Taupo)
19. Ra Smith (Wairarapa)
20. Lenis Davidson (Christchurch Central)
21. Tania Mataki (Christchurch East)
22. Sheryl Gardyne (Selwyn)
23. Te Whe Ariki Phillips (Wigram)
24. Benita Wakefield (Ilam)
National Party
1. John Key (Helensville)
2. Bill English (List)
3. David Carter (List)
4. Gerry Brownlee (Ilam)
5. Steven Joyce (List)
6. Judith Collins (Papakura)
7. Hekia Parata (Mana)
8. Chris Finlayson (Rongotai)
9. Paula Bennett (Upper Harbour)
10. Jonathan Coleman (Northcote)
11. Murray McCully (East Coast Bays)
12. Anne Tolley (East Coast)
13 Nick Smith (Nelson)
14 .Tim Groser (New Lynn)
15. Amy Adams (Selwyn)
16. Nathan Guy (Otaki)
17. Craig Foss (Tukituki)
18. Simon Bridges (Tauranga)
19. Nikki Kaye (Auckland Central)
20. Michael Woodhouse (Dunedin North)
21. Jo Goodhew (Rangitata)
22. Chester Borrows (Whanganui)
23. Todd McClay (Rotorua)
24. Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga (Maungakiekie)
25. Nicky Wagner (Christchurch Central)
26. Lindsay Tisch (Waikato)
27. Louise Upston (Taupo)
28. Tim Macindoe (Hamilton West)
29. Jami-Lee Ross (Botany)
30. Paul Goldsmith (Epsom)
31. Melissa Lee (Mt Albert)
32. Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi (Manukau East)
33. Jian Yang (List)
34. Alfred Ngaro (Te Atatu)
35. Maurice Williamson (Pakuranga)
36. Jacqui Dean (Waitaki)
37. David Bennett (Hamilton East)
38. Jonathan Young (New Plymouth)
39. Brett Hudson (Ohariu)
40. Maggie Barry (North Shore)
41. Ian McKelvie (Rangitikei)
42. Mark Mitchell (Rodney)
43. Simon O’Connor (Tamaki)
44. Mike Sabin (Northland)
45. Scott Simpson (Coromandel)
46. Paul Foster-Bell (Wellington Central)
47. Joanne Hayes (Christchurch East)
48. Parmjeet Parmar (Mt Roskill)
49. Chris Bishop (Hutt South)
50. Nuk Korako (Port Hills)
51. Jono Naylor (Palmerston North)
52. Maureen Pugh (West Coast – Tasman)
53. Misa Fia Turner (Mangere)
54. Todd Barclay (Clutha-Southland)
55. Andrew Bayly (Hunua)
56. Matt Doocey (Waimakariri)
57. Sarah Dowie (Invercargill)
58. Barbara Kuriger (Taranaki-King Country)
59. Todd Muller (Bay of Plenty)
60. Shane Reti (Whangarei)
61. Alastair Scott (Wairarapa)
62. Stuart Smith (Kaikoura)
63. Wayne Walford (Napier)
64. Simeon Brown (Manurewa)
65. Hamish Walker (Dunedin South)
66. Lewis Holden (Rimutaka)
67. Karl Varley (Wigram)
68. [Candidate TBA] (Kelston)
69. Linda Cooper (List)
70. Letitia O’Dwyer (List)
71. Mark Bridges (List)
72. Boris Sokratov (List)
73. Matthew Evetts (List)
74. Carolyn O’Fallon (List)
75. Christopher Penk (List)
New Zealand First Party
1. Rt Hon Winston Peters
2.Tracey Martin
3. Richard Prosser
4. Fletcher Tabuteau
5. Barbara Stewart
6. Clayton Mitchell
7. Denis O’Rourke
8. Pita Paraone
9. Ron Mark
10. Darroch Ball
11. Mahesh Bindra
12. Ria Bond
13. Mataroa Paroro
14. Romuald Rudzki
15. Jon Reeves
16. Asenati Lole- Taylor
17. Brent Catchpole
18. George Abraham
19. Ray Dolman
20. Hugh Barr
21. Anne Degia Pala
22. Steve Campbell
23. Edwin Perry
24. Bill Gudgeon
25. Brent Pierson
United Future Party
1. Hon Peter Dunne (Ohariu)
2. Alan Simmons (Taupo)
3. Damian Light (Northcote)
4. Sultan Eusoff (Rongotai)
5. Ben Rickard (Bay of Plenty)
6. Jason Woolston (Kelston)
7. Dave Stonyer (Hutt South)
8. Bryan Mockridge (Maungakiekie)
9. Ram Parkash (Manukau East)
10. Quentin Todd (Hamilton East)
11. James Maxwell (Tauranga)
This list will be updated with other Party Lists as they are publicly released.
.
.
= fs =
Letter to the editor – fiscal prudence or another election bribe?
.
.
from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: Dominion Post <letters@dompost.co.nz>
date: Tue, Aug 26, 2014
subject: Letter to the editor.
The EditorDOMINION POST
.So let me get this straight…
We have in this country, currently,
* a colossal debt estimated to rise to $67.9 billion by 2018,
* a quarter of a million children living in poverty,
* Christchurch residents facing a critical housing shortage,
* and cuts to health and education
– and our esteemed Prime Minister is talking about tax cuts?!
Perhaps he can also tell us where the cash for tax cuts will come from? More borrowings from off-shore, as National did for the 2009 and 2010 tax cuts?
And perhaps he can tell us which generation will pay off the massive $67-plus billion debt if he’s going to lavish us with tax cuts?
National continually accuses Labour, the Greens, and Mana-Internet for being profligate spenders.
But nothing compares to this government which took us from zero debt in 2008; implemented two clearly unaffordable tax cuts funded by borrowing from off-shore banks; and ballooned debt out to nearly $70 billion dollars.
This is not prudent fiscal management. It is a very expensive election bribe.
More fool us if we take this bribe. A bribe with other people’s money. A bribe to be paid back by our children.
-Frank Macskasy
[address & phone number supplied]
.
.
from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: NZ Herald <letters@herald.co.nz>
date: Tue, Aug 26, 2014
subject: Letter to the editor.
The editorNZ Herald
.John Key’s desperation is showing. How else to explain National’s dangling of a tax-cut carrot in front of voters, barely a few weeks out from the election.
As if a $67 billion debt isn’t enough, he wants to cut taxes and presumably borrow more money from off-shore to fund those cuts.
Where else will the money come from? Pixies cultivating money trees?
Meanwhile we have critical problems confronting our nation;
* over 250,000 children living in poverty,
* Cantabrians faced with a snails-pace rebuild; mounting housing shortage; and skyrocketing rents,
* cuts to social services such as health and education.
The last round of tax cuts in 2009 and 2010 were paid by increasing user-charges such as medical prescriptions and raising GST from 12.5% to 15% – increases which hit low-income earners the hardest.
National paid for the ’09 and ’10 tax cuts with massive borrowings.
How much will be have to borrow to fund these tax cuts?
Who will pay it back?
Our children?
Shame on us if we fall for this scam.
We are better than this.
-Frank Macskasy
.
References
Fairfax media: Surplus on track, Treasury figures show
Fairfax media: National’s tax cut mixed message
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
.
.
= fs =
Radio NZ: Politics with Matthew Hooton and Mike Williams – 25 August 2014
.
– Politics on Nine To Noon –
.
– Monday 25 August 2014 –
.
– Kathryn Ryan, with Matthew Hooton & Mike Williams –
.
Today on Politics on Nine To Noon,
Our political commentators speak about the recent boost in National’s polling, the strengthening New Zealand economy, and the upcoming elections.
Click to listen on icon below;
.
.
Click to Listen (alternative link): Politics with Matthew Hooton and Mike Williams (24′ 58″ )
Listen to Matthew Hooton’s take on the Prime Minister’s comments that “someone else” in the “Prime Minister’s Office” was briefed by the SIS. His analysis is damning.
.
= fs =
Radio NZ Debate: Bill English vs David Parker
.
.
Check out this excellent debate between National’s Bill English and Labour’s David Parker. Well worth listening to;
.
.
Alternative link: Listen to Bill English and David Parker debate the economy on Nine to Noon
.
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
.
.
= fs =
News Archives
Crony Watch
Keeping an eye on dodgy government appointees, crony-by-crony!
Frankly Speaking... 
