Archive
Back to the Future Past with Paul Goldsmith
.
.
On 25 June, Amy Adams (the National MP, not the actor portraying Lois Lane, Superman’s on-again/off-again love interest in the movies) announced she would be retiring from politics next year, not contesting the 2020 General Election.
National appears to have been short on experienced talent when they quickly announced her replacement as Opposition Finance spokesperson as Epsom’s Not-MP, Paul Goldsmith. Mr Goldsmith’s two stand-out political achievements thus far have been;
1. Standing for the Epsom electorate in 2011 as a “Clayton’s” Candidate in a wink-wink-nudge-nudge deal between National and ACT. The cuppa-tea-deal for (first) John Banks (and subsequently David Seymour) allowed him to secure the Epsom Electorate in an effort to bring in additional MPs on the ACT Party List. (Winning only 1.7% of the Party Vote, the cunning plan failed.)
2. Being the only known political candidate in recorded human history to deliberately remove election signs so voters would not vote for him.
National appointed Mr Goldsmith’s as their latest Finance spokesperson barely three hours and three minutes after Ms Adams’ announcement was made public.
Whatever experience Mr Goldsmith has to propel him into the Opposition Finance spokesperson position is unclear. His experience in the private sector is questionable, as his own National Party bio reveals:
Before entering Parliament, Paul created his own business as a historian and biographer focusing on New Zealand’s history and economic development. He has published 10 books, his last were biographies of Alan Gibbs (Serious Fun) and Sir William Gallagher (Legend). Between 2007 and 2010 he served as an Auckland City Councillor.
According to the same bio we are informed that “he is an enthusiastic pianist”. (Good to know. As the fate of the Titanic showed, musicians are always handy to have around when a doomed ship goes down.)
.
.
Despite lacking any personal experience in the commercial sector, it has not prevented Mr Goldsmith expressing firm neo-liberal beliefs. In 2015, as National’s Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, he stated his categorical opposition to regulating corporate activities such as incentivising insurance brokers from selling products to clients who may or may not need them.
Instead, he opted for the usual “light handed” approach;
“I can’t rule it out, but I think it’s highly unlikely. I don’t personally like the idea of Government directly regulating such things.
The preference would be devising a disclosure regime, which is clear and simple and effective. There are countries around the world that ban commissions, full stop, and I think that’s probably carrying it too far.”
As Jenée Tibshraeny explained for Interest.co.nz;
“The main argument against commission is that it risks distorting the advice clients are given, as they’re often unaware of the perks their broker or adviser may receive for recommending different products.”
It appears obvious that Mr Goldsmith’s sympathies align more with corporate interests and defending the laissez-faire status quo rather than protecting consumers. (Only National could so blatantly subvert the role of “Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs” until the “Consumer Affairs” part of the ministerial title became meaningless.)
As if to underscore his disdain for safety in pursuit of unfettered de-regulation, in July last year, Mr Goldsmith drafted a Private Member’s Bill that would remove the 10pm “curfew” for new drivers on Restricted-class car licences. His rationale was that Restricted Licences potentially interfered with late-night work shifts;
“A lot of people at that age – in their last year of school or at university – have jobs in the hospitality sector. Very often, those shifts don’t finish until 10.30pm or somewhere around there, and it’s just a pain in the neck [to get home].”
However, Mr Goldsmith seemed oblivious (or simply did not care) to existing provisions where the New Zealand Transport Agency regulations permitted flexibility to Restricted licence requirements. As Fairfax journalist Damian George pointed out;
New Zealand Transport Agency regulations allowed for exemptions in special circumstances. The agency said 750 of 1585 exemption applications, primarily for driving hours, were approved for restricted drivers last year.
Automobile Association road safety spokesperson, Dylan Thomsen, was clearly not impressed. He also pointed out that young (under 25) drivers were predominantly involved in crashes and fatalities on New Zealand roads, especially at nights.
In early June this year, Mr Goldsmith slammed proposals from Associate Transport Minister, Julie Anne Genter, to reduce the speed limit on some open roads in this country. The NZTA revealed that “87 percent of speed limits on New Zealand roads are higher than is safe. An agency risk assessment tool, Mega Maps, suggests only 5 percent of the open road should have the current 100km/h speed limit. In most cases a speed of 60-80 km/h should apply, and in most urban areas 30-40 km/h would be appropriate“.
Mr Goldsmith’s extreme knee-jerk reaction on the same day bordered on “shower head-style” mischief-making;
“The reality is, New Zealanders lead busy lives and don’t want the Government telling them they need to operate at a slower pace. They would rather see their tax dollars spent on new, high-quality roads that are safe for them drive on at 100kmh, but this Government hasn’t built a single new road.
Drastically cutting speed limits to improve road safety is too simplistic. It would further isolate people living in regional New Zealand and pull the handbrake on our economy by hindering the movement of freight.”
Mr Goldsmith’s comments run counter to National’s previous Associate Transport Minister, Craig Foss, who recognised that some speed limits were inappropriate for certain stretches of roads. In November 2016, Mr Foss announced;
“New Zealand roads are unique and conditions vary from towns to cities, north to south. The Guide strongly encourages community involvement as local knowledge and perspectives, backed by the information and data provided in the Guide, will help ensure the best possible safety results.
Changes made under the Guide may include altering road design, lowering speed limits, or in certain circumstances, raising them.”
It is no secret that many of New Zealand’s roads are utterly unsuitable for high speeds. For Mr Goldsmith to “play politics” on this issue sadly demonstrates his willingness to exploit people’s lives when it suits his personal political agenda.
On 3 July, Mr Goldsmith told quasi-National Party chat-show host, Duncan Garner, on TV3’s ‘The AM Show‘;
Goldsmith also wants to look at dialing back excessive regulations, such as by reforming the Resource Management Act and reviewing health and safety laws.
“The health and safety laws were ones that we brought in and I think we need to just make sure we haven’t gone too far.”
Health and safety… “gone too far“?
Mr Goldsmith’s memory and grasp of recent historical events must be very poor indeed. He has apparently overlooked (or is ignorant of) instances of de-regulation in the early 1990s – the height of Small Government mania where common sense gave way to free market ideological purity – which has cost us dearly. And not just in monetary terms.
The de-regulation of the New Zealand building industry can be pin-pointed with the “reforms” of the Building Act 1991. In essence, the Act “changed building controls from a prescriptive system to a more self-regulated regime“.
The resulting self-policing resulted in a free-for-all where caveat emptor became the new standard for buying a home in New Zealand. Minimal regulation; self-policing; hands-off government… what could possibly go wrong?
.
.
In 2009, Price Waterhouse Coopers stated in a report on leaky homes that there were up to 89,000 homes affected throughout New Zealand. Remedial cost: $11.3 billion dollars.
Another leaky homes consultant put the true cost of remedial work at a staggering $23 billion.
“Legal Vision” – a firm of barristers and solicitors wrote a lengthy, detailed analysis of the failures of our building industry in the 1990s. With regards to de-regulation and the Building Act 1991, they concluded;
There was a lack of accountability for those responsible for construction mishaps/defects. The market forces in themselves were not sufficient to protect the key stakeholder being the home owner. The power imbalance as between home owner and the supplier was significant, such that you cannot rely upon market forces alone to protect the home owner. There was little to protect them within the 1991 Act and other legislation.
The financial and legal consequences from rotting homes would make send many in the industry – from builders to private certifiers (outsourced from local bodies) bankrupt – often to escape their liabilities.
The financial, political, and social fall-out would last for decades. As then-North Shore Mayor Andrew Williams said nine years ago;
“The Government must accept its own liability for the deregulation experiment inflicted on the building industry and local government and take responsibility for the liability accumulated by the private sector builders, designers, architects and certifiers who are now insolvent and unable to meet their responsibilities to leaky-home owners.
Unless these wider issues are dealt with, and dealt with soon, the ratepayers of the new Super City will be burdened for years, and the Government’s brave new world for Auckland governance will never be fully realised.”
As economist, Brian Easton, assessing the failures of the “reformed” Building Act, said in 2010;
The early 1990s was a period when the market extremists were still triumphant, and there was frequent reference to ‘light-handed regulation’, referring to a regulatory system in which the government is not very active but the regulation is based upon normal market practices, including litigation for breach of contract (perhaps under the Consumer Guarantees Act in cases where the contract was not very elaborate). Ideally, the threat of litigation is sufficient to ensure that the contractor maintains the agreed standards.
It appears that little thought was put into considering the issue of what redress the house owner would have if the performance standards were not attained. Suppose the cladding fell off after 14 years? Under light-handed regulation the aggrieved party can take the matter to litigation, but who exactly is to be sued? The above account suggests that there are many involved, and all, to some extent, may be at fault: the local authority, its building inspector, the builder, the architect, the buildings material supplier, the developer, the home owner who onsold, and even the legislators and their advisers who passed the relevant legislation. In such situations fault can be very difficult to establish in law.
Or perhaps Mr Goldsmith is thinking of the de-regulation of the Labour Dept, Mining Inspectorate, and safety legislation – also in the early 1990s.
The Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 (HSE Act) now “impose[d] the obligation on employers to take all practicable steps to ensure safety at work“.
Then, Pike River happened.
An independent review commissioned by the then-Chief Executive of the Department of Labour revealed the nature of the new, de-regulated environment which dangerous workplaces such as mines, now operated.
The report optimistically set out expectations of of the HSE Act;
11. The nature of the Department’s regulatory role is set out in the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 (HSE Act). The principal plank of the legislation imposes the obligation on employers to take all practicable steps to ensure safety at work. The Department sees its role under the Act as being to ensure that employers are aware of their obligations, to support and assist them to understand and give effect to these obligations and to enforce as appropriate.
And then revealed a staggering flaw in the Act;
15. There was one gap in this picture. The inspectors did not conduct general safety systems audits. They were not required to do so by their work plans. The approach the mine inspectors took in scrutinising specific complex and technical mine safety issues confronting the mine, is an appropriate one for a technical and specialist area involving high hazards. However, this approach should be complemented by also paying attention to general systems. In high hazard industries, inspectors should engage in an integrated approach that involves systems audits and in-depth scrutiny of specific, often technically complex safety issues. We note that in future the Department plans to complement its regulatory approach with a greater level of emphasis on safety system audits. When it does so, it will need to equip its inspectors with the training and support tools to successfully perform this role.
The report was damning in pointing out the utter failure of the so-called Health and Safety in Employment Act to actually do what it’s label demanded of it: to provide health and safety in employment;
45. In broad terms, the HSE Act replaced heavily prescriptive standards (telling duty holders precisely what measures to take in a particular situation) with a performance-based approach, primarily by imposing general duties (sometimes referred to as goal setting regulation) such as to take ‘all practicable steps’ to ensure health and safety, leaving it to the discretion of the duty holder how they achieve that standard. This approach was coupled with greater use of performance standards that specify the outcome of the health and safety improvement or the desired level of performance but leave the concrete measures to achieve this end open for the duty holder to adapt to varying local circumstances. There was also a focus on systemsbased standards. These identify a particular process, or series of steps, to be followed in the pursuit of safety, and may include the use of formal health and safety management systems.
46. New Zealand embraced the Robens philosophy of self-regulation somewhat belatedly, but with particular enthusiasm and in the context of a political environment that was strongly supportive of deregulation. Indeed, in various forms, deregulation (and reducing the regulatory burden on industry more broadly) was strongly endorsed by the Labour Government that came into power in 1984 and by the National Government that succeeded it in 1990. The HSE Act was a product of this deregulatory environment and in its initial version was stripped of some of the key measures recommended by Robens, not least tripartism, worker participation and an independent executive. It was regarded, so we were told, as a ‘necessary evil’ at a time when the predominant public policy goal was to enhance business competitiveness…
[…]
50. Put differently, whereas under the previous legislation, inspectors had been expected to go into workplaces and direct duty holders as to what safety measures they should introduce (the expectation being that the inspector rather than the employer would take the initiative) under the HSE Act employers bear primary responsibility for health and safety while providing information and support, particularly when it comes to establishing and developing health and safety systems and processes and takes enforcement action where the employer fails to meet the practicability standard.”
Again, “reforms” replaced set prescriptive standards of safety with individual self-policing and self-regulation.
As well as deferring health and safety to individual companies, the government mines inspectorate was reduced to a shadow of it’s former self.
Amongst other things the Coal Mines Act 1979 took a strong, proactive approach to safeguarding health and safety in the country’s mines. The Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy described the role of the mines inspectors;
“…provided for a chief inspector, district, electrical and mechanical inspectors of coal mines. Chief inspectors could support and review the actions of the inspectors. They held first class coal mine manager’s certificates and had significant coal mining expertise, usually as manager of a large and challenging New Zealand mine such as Strongman, which had problems with gas and spontaneous combustion.
…District inspectors had coal mining expertise and inspected mines within a particular geographical area. Inspections occurred with and without notice and following notification of incidents and accidents. Small mines were inspected monthly and large mines inspected weekly“.
The coal mines inspectorate was a unit with the then Ministry of Energy.
From 1993 to 1998 the MIG consisted of about 20 to 25 people. In 1995, for example, there were three coal inspectors, three mining engineers, five quarry inspectors, one electrical/mechanical engineer, two petroleum/ geothermal inspectors, two regional managers, one group manager and eight support staff.
In 1989, the Mines Inspectorate Group (MIG) was transferred to the Minister of Commerce. After considerable opposition from the MIG, the group was transfered to the then Department of Labour.
Staff rationalisation then proceeded with a vengeance.
Mines inspections were reduced from once every two months in 1993/94 to every three months by 1995. By the time the Mines Inspectorate Group was incorporated into the DoL, it ceased being a separate entity and became part of general workplace safety inspectors.
Most mines inspectors resigned.
Only three dedicated mines inspectors remained by 2001.
From 2001 to 2011 the number of mines inspectors fluctuated between one and two – for the entire country. When one of those inspectors resigned in 2011, one was left by himself, for several months, to monitor every mine in New Zealand.
The gutting of the Mines Inspectorate over several governments and decades was a breathtaking act of stupidity for what was undoubtedly one of the most dangerous industries in the world.
The consequence was inevitable. On 19 November 2010,the ticking time bomb detonated: a series of methane explosions at Pike River Mine killed twentynine miners.
In an almost perverse understatement, The Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy reported,
DOL now appreciates the importance of, and deficiencies in, its leadership of health and safety. As the minister’s proposal noted, ‘the Pike River tragedy and Royal Commission hearings indicate areas of weakness in the effectiveness and credibility of the regulator, and the ability to support industry-led activity and effective employee participation’.
As if to underscore the findings of the Royal Commission, another government enquiry, the Independent Taskforce on Workplace Health and Safety in 2013 wrote scathingly of our current mania for de-regulation;
Ultimately, New Zealand implemented a much lighter version of the Robens [workplace health and safety self-regulated by employers] model, and much later, than other countries. This light implementation reflected a range of New Zealand-specific factors during the late 1980s and 1990s, notably resource constraints (including public sector staff cuts), changing attitudes towards the roles of government and business (including an ethos of business self-regulation), and liberalisation of the labour market with weakened union representation.
As if to drive home the point, the Taskforce spelled it out for us:
Our national culture includes a high level of tolerance for risk, and negative perceptions of health and safety. Kiwi stoicism, deference to authority, laid-back complacency and suspicion of red tape all affect behaviour from the boardroom to the shop floor.
For those who see human life in purely monetary terms, the Taskforce estimated that the cost of workplace injuries was approximately $3.5 billion a year – nearly 2% of GDP.
Then-Labour Minister – and currently holding the position of Leader of the National Party – Simon Bridges, accepted the Taskforce’s report;
“The Working Safer package represents a major step change in New Zealand’s approach to meet our target of reducing the workplace injury and death toll by 25 percent by 2020,” says Mr Bridges.
The reforms recalibrate our approach so we are working smarter, targeting risk and working together to improve performance in workplace health and safety.
Working Safer addresses the recommendations of the Independent Taskforce on Workplace Health and Safety which provided Government with a solid foundation to work from.
We will improve the legislation and back it up with clear guidelines and enforcement, and investment in a strong new regulator WorkSafe New Zealand.”
So when Paul Goldsmith recently said to Duncan Garner;
“The health and safety laws were ones that we brought in and I think we need to just make sure we haven’t gone too far.”
– he had obviously missed the memo from his current Leader.
The cost of de-regulation in our building industry is estimated in excess of $23 billion.
The cost of de-regulation and watering-down of safety practices in our work places: injuries; permanent disabilities; and lives lost. In other words: incalculable.
If the definition of lunacy is to repeat the same thing over and over again, expecting differing results, then the National Party has been wildly successful: it is a party of lunatic ideologues.
It has not learned a single thing from our recent, well-publicised, recent history.
Who else will be injured, maimed, or killed, in the name of de-regulation if Paul Goldsmith gets his way?
Mr Goldsmith should not be allowed anywhere near a ministerial position. He is not fit for any role of responsibility.
.
Postscript
Since December 2010 – one month after the Pike River Mine disaster – 422 people have been killed in workplace accidents:
.
.
.
.
References
Parliament: Hon Amy Adams
Youtube: Lois & Clark | In My Veins ( Batman vs Superman Drawn of Justice)
Radio NZ: Senior National MP Amy Adams to retire from politics
NZ Herald: Leaky homes a disaster and a $2b tax windfall
MoBIE: Dept of Labour – Pike River Mine Review
Parliament: Paul Goldsmith
Wikipedia: 2011 New Zealand general election – Epsom and the Tea Tape scandal
The Standard: Goldsmith removing Goldsmith signs
Scoop media: National Party Caucus reshuffle announced
Scoop media: Amy Adams to retire from politics at election
National Party: About Paul
Interest.co.nz: Minister Paul Goldsmith admits he doesn’t like the idea of the Govt directly regulating how insurers incentivise advisers to sell their products
Fairfax/Stuff media: Member’s bill to scrap curfew for restricted licence holders so they can get to work
Scoop media: Minister shows how misguided she is on speed limits
Radio NZ: ‘Huge majority’ of NZers would prefer lower speeds on some roads – Genter
Scoop media: Showers latest target of Labour’s nanny state
Scoop media: A new approach to safer speeds
Mediaworks/Newshub: National Party Finance spokesperson Paul Goldsmith outlines plan for cutting regulation, taxes
Wikipedia: Leaky homes crisis
Merriam Webster: caveat emptor
MoBIE: Building Performance – Signs of a leaky home
Leaky Homes: A New Zealand Crisis
NZ Herald: Leaky homeowners on suicide watch
NZ Herald: Leaky-home bill estimated at $6.3b
NZ Herald: Repaired leaky homes worth 1/4 less
Fairfax/Stuff: 15 years of leaky homes and the brutal economics of owning one
Homes to Love: 10 tell-tale signs you have a leaky home
NZ Herald: It’s not if – it’s when for our dripping time bombs
Interest.co.nz: Price Waterhouse Coopers – Weathertightness – Estimating the Cost
Legal Vision: Failings of the Building Act 1991 – Were these a cause of the leaky building crisis?
Brian Easton: Regulatory Lessons from the Leaky Home Experience
MoBIE/Dept of Labour: Review of the Department of Labour’s interactions with Pike River Coal Limited
Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy: The decline of the mining inspectorate
Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy: Chapter 24 -Effectiveness of the health and safety regulator
– Leadership of health and safety
Independent Taskforce on Workplace Health and Safety: Key Findings
Scoop media: Major reform of workplace health and safety (alt.link)
Worksafe: Workplace fatalities for all industries, all regions, all ages, from Dec 2010 to Jul 2019
Additional
Ministry of Labour: A Guide to the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992
Other Blogs
Tumeke: The myth of over-regulation and the delusion of self-regulation
The Standard: Two faced John Key on Pike River
Previous related blogposts
A lethal lesson in de-regulation
Heather Roy – head down the mine shaft?
Health and safety jobcuts? Haven’t we been down this road before?!
W.o.F “reforms” – coming to a crash in your suburb
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 30 July 2019.
.
.
= 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 =
Letter to the Editor: Jump Epsom voters, Jump!
.
.
from: Frank Macskasy
to: NZ Herald <letters@herald.co.nz>
date: Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 4:56 PM
subject: letter to the editor.
The editor
NZ Herald.
There is an old saying attributed to lords, masters, and army sergents; “when they say jump – you ask, ‘how high, sir?’
Dear Leader John Key has issued the order to Epsom’s loyal National voters to cast their electorate vote for ACT’s David Seymour.
In other words, “jump”!
Perhaps Labour, Green, and other non-National voters should “jump” the other way and vote for National’s Paul Goldsmith? I’m sure he’d be delighted to be elected Epsom’s member of Parliament.
-Frank Macskasy
[address & phone number supplied]
.
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
.
.
= fs =
Letter to the Editor – Dom Post editorial off into LaLaLand…
.
.
Today’s (9 June 2014) editorial in the ‘Dominion Post‘ was an interesting take on the John Banks Affair and National’s cynical exploitation of MMP’s “coat tailing” provision;
.
Editorial: Discredited flaw still being exploited
Last updated 05:00 09/06/2014
Every electoral system has flaws which politicians exploit. The coat-tailing provision of MMP is now utterly discredited, but it survives because it serves powerful political interests – especially the National Party’s. The clause should be abolished, but no National-led government will do so.
Labour promises to quickly abolish the clause, which allows a party with just one electorate seat to avoid the 5 per cent parliamentary threshold, if it gains power. There is already a paradox here. Labour might have to rely on the votes of the Mana-Internet Party to do so. But Mana-Internet will get into Parliament only via the coat-tailing clause. Nobody believes it will get 5 per cent of the vote.
The case for abolishing coat-tailing is overwhelming, and was made by the Electoral Commission in 2012. That inquiry grew out of John Key’s promise to “kick the tyres” of MMP, but his government ignored the recommendations. The reason is quite simple: coat-tailing helps the National Party. The Government’s refusal to take any notice of the inquiry was naked realpolitik and a supremely cynical act.
National’s coat-tailing deals with ACT in Epsom have left an especially sour taste in voters’ mouths. Key’s “tea-party” with the-then ACT leader John Banks before the 2011 election was widely recognised as a stunt.
The politicians invited the media to their meeting and then shut them out of the coffee-house while they had their “secret” and entirely meaningless chat. It added insult to injury that Key complained to the police after a journalist taped their conversation.
National and ACT had done similar self-serving deals in Epsom before, and showed just how unfair coat-tailing can be. In the 2008 election ACT got 3.65 per cent of the vote but won five seats in the House thanks to coat-tailing. New Zealand First, by contrast, got slightly more than 4 per cent of the vote but no seats in the House, because it won no electorate. This was mad, but highly convenient to the two right-wing parties.
Coat-tailing, in fact, has kept the dying and discredited ACT party alive. It delivered John Banks a seat in the House, and this week Banks stood disgraced when found guilty in the High Court of knowingly filing a false electoral return. Key, whose self-serving deal with Banks has hurt his own credibility, has even persisted in defending Banks’ “honesty” since the verdict. Now, of course, the Left is doing its own tawdry coat-tailing deal in Te Tai Tokerau. Without Hone Harawira’s electorate seat, Internet-Mana would go nowhere.
Hard-nosed strategists such as Internet Party leader Laila Harre argue that this is “taking back MMP”, as though this kind of thing was a blow for people power instead of the cynical politicking that it really is.
Two wrongs don’t make a right, no matter what power-hungry politicians might think. The Government should abolish the coat-tailing clause, along with its associated overhang provision, and drop the 5 per cent threshold to 4 per cent. However, it won’t happen while National is in power.
– The Dominion Post
.
Note the highlighted sentence; ” Now, of course, the Left is doing its own tawdry coat-tailing deal in Te Tai Tokerau. Without Hone Harawira’s electorate seat, Internet-Mana would go nowhere“.
That statement demanded a response…
.
FROM: "f.macskasy" SUBJECT: Letter to the Editor DATE: Mon, 09 Jun 2014 10:11:45 +1200 TO: "Dominion Post" <letters@dompost.co.nz>
.
The editor Dominion Post . Your editorial on National's exploitation of MMP's 'coat-tailing' provision was insightful until this jarring statement ruined it; "Now, of course, the Left is doing its own tawdry coat-tailing deal in Te Tai Tokerau. Without Hone Harawira's electorate seat, Internet-Mana would go nowhere." (9 June) What "tawdry coat-tailing deal" might that be? Because every indication is that not only will Labour refuse to engage in any deal-making, but MPs Chris Hipkins, Kelvin Davis, Stuart Nash, et al, have been vociferously attacking the Internet-Mana Party on social media. If any such "deal" exists, someone forgot to tell those Labour MPs. However, if even Labour and Mana-Internet came to an Epsom-like arrangement - so what? Those are the rules that this government has decreed and must be played. Anyone playing by some other mythical "principled" rules will sit saint-like on the Opposition benches whilst National gerrymanders the system. Suggesting otherwise creates an unlevel playing field that benefits one, at the expense of others, and is untenable. If it's good enough for National to arrange deals in Epsom, Ohariu, and soon with the Conservative Party, then it should be good enough for everyone. No one takes a knife to a gunfight unless they are dead-set on losing. -Frank Macskasy [address and phone number supplied]
.
References
Dominion Post: Editorial – Discredited flaw still being exploited
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
.
.
= fs =
Letter to the Editor: The ‘Darth Vader’ of Deal Making! (v.3)
.
.
FROM: "f.macskasy" SUBJECT: Letters to the editor DATE: Fri, 30 May 2014 12:37:12 +1200 TO: "Dominion Post" <letters@dompost.co.nz>.
The Editor Dominion Post . How does one define panic? Answer: when a Prime Minister launches into stinging attacks on two tiny political parties that, between the two of them, barely register at 2% in every poll conducted. I refer to John Key bagging the recent alliance of Mana and the Internet Party, asserting; "You've got a guy who can't buy a house in New Zealand, but he can buy a political party." Realising that people will draw comparisons between between his criticism of the Mana-Internet Party Alliance and National's stitch-ups in Epsom and Ohariu, Key lamely added; "Those people win their seats outright, in their own right. Their motivations are the beliefs of those parties. That's not the case here." What garbage. With talk of a National-Conservative Party stitch-up before the election, the 'Darth Vader' of deal-making - John Key - is drawing attention to his own party's shonkey "arrangements". How else to explain the Nats freaking out at Mana and the Internet Party working strategically together? They must feel very threatened by a party with a combined poll rating of only 2%. The 1% fearing the 2%? Appropriate. -Frank Macskasy
[address and phone number supplied]
.
References
NZ Herald: PM accuses Dotcom of trying to ‘buy influence’
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
.
.
= fs =
Letter to the Editor: The ‘Darth Vader’ of Deal Making! (v.2)
.
.
FROM: "f.macskasy" SUBJECT: Letters to the editor DATE: Fri, 30 May 2014 11:02:22 +1200 TO: NZ Herald <letters@herald.co.nz>.
The Editor NZ Herald . John Key must be panicking. How else does one explain his bizarre statements about the recent Mana Internet Party Alliance; "You've got a guy who can't buy a house in New Zealand, but he can buy a political party. I think most New Zealanders would look at that and be pretty cynical about it. No one should be under any illusion." No, Mr Key, we are not "under any illusion". Especially when the Prime Minister lamely insists that the National-Peter Dunne stitch-up and the National-John Banks stitch-up in 2011 were obvious examples of deal-making from the Right. And coming soon, for this election, as well as stitch-ups in Ohariu and Epsom, voters can now look forward to a deal between John Key and the Conservative Party. But according to the Prime Minister, deal-making between Right Wing parties is ok; "Those people win their seats outright, in their own right. Their motivations are the beliefs of those parties. " Yeah, right. Well, I have a deal for John Key, the 'Darth Vader of deal-making'; how about he stops trying to influence voters and leave those decisions to us? In return, we won't call him a hypocrite. -Frank Macskasy [address and phone number supplied]
.
References
NZ Herald: PM accuses Dotcom of trying to ‘buy influence’
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
.
.
= fs =
Letter to the Editor: The ‘Darth Vader’ of Deal Making!
.
.
FROM: "f.macskasy" SUBJECT: Letters to the editor DATE: Fri, 30 May 2014 10:28:19 +1200 TO: "Sunday Star Times" <letters@star-times.co.nz>.
The editor Sunday Star Times . One can tell when the Right are in a panic - they start making silly noises about parties on the Left. Take for example John Key's recent silly utterances about the strategic alliance between the Internet Party and Mana that "You've got a guy who can't buy a house in New Zealand, but he can buy a political party. I think most New Zealanders would look at that and be pretty cynical about it. No one should be under any illusion" - is laughable. I take it that Key excludes the Epsom deal between himself and John Banks in 2011? On the Epsom cup-of-tea deal, Key says, "Those people win their seats outright, in their own right. Their motivations are the beliefs of those parties". Really? So why the need for the "cup of tea" arrangement with John Banks if ACT could "win their seats outright, in their own right"? One would think the Right would be fine with this kind of “arrangement” because it validates the Epsom stich-up; the Ohariu stitch-up; and the coming Conservative Party stitch-up… When it comes to stitch-up deal-making, the Left have learned their lessons from National - especially from John Key, the 'Darth Vader' of deal-making. -Frank Macskasy [address and phone number supplied]
.
References
NZ Herald: PM accuses Dotcom of trying to ‘buy influence’
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
.
.
= fs =
Radio NZ: Focus on Politics for 7 March 2014
.
– Focus on Politics –
.
– Friday 7 March 2014 –
.
– Demelza Leslie –
.
A weekly analysis of significant political issues.
Friday after 6:30pm and Saturday at 5:10pm
After being officially appointed as the new ACT leader, Jamie Whyte is now being heralded as the saviour of the party that’s struggling to even register in political polls.
.
.
Click to listen: Focus on Politics for 7 March 2014 ( 16′ 37″ )
- ACT,
- Jamie Whyte,
- RMA,
- Three Strikes Law,
- Epsom,
- John Banks
.
.
.
= fs =
Radio NZ: Politics with Matthew Hooton and Mike Williams – 10 February 2014
.
– Politics on Nine To Noon –
.
– Monday 10 February 2014 –
.
– Kathryn Ryan, with Matthew Hooton & Mike Williams –
.
Today on Politics on Nine To Noon,
.
.
Click to Listen: Politics with Matthew Hooton and Mike Williams (22′ 58″ )
- John Key’s meeting with Tony Abbott
- CER, Aussie supermarkets boycotting NZ-made goods
- migration to Australia
- low wages, minimum wage
- National Party, Keith Holyoake
- paid parental leave, Working for Families, Colin Espiner
- Waitangi Day, Foreshore & Seabed, deep sea oil drilling, Nga Puhi
- MMP, “coat tailing”, Epsom, Conservative Party, ACT
- Len Brown, Auckland rail link
.
= fs =
Radio NZ: Politics with Matthew Hooton and Mike Williams – 3 February 2014
.
– Politics on Nine To Noon –
.
– Monday 3 February 2014 –
.
– Kathryn Ryan, with Matthew Hooton & Mike Williams –
.
Today on Politics on Nine To Noon,
.
.
Click to Listen: Politics with Matthew Hooton and Mike Williams ( 19′ 46″ )
- The latest TV3 poll says the gap between National and Labour/Green is too close to call.
- ACT party elect a new leader and a new candidate for Epsom.
.
= fs =
Radio NZ: Politics with Matthew Hooton and Mike Williams – 9 December 2013
.
– Politics on Nine To Noon –
.
– Monday 9 December 2013 –
.
– Kathryn Ryan, with Matthew Hooton & Mike Williams –
.
Today on Politics on Nine To Noon,
.
.
Click to Listen: Politics with Matthew Hooton and Mike Williams ( 25′ 53″ )
This week:
- The political ramifications of Nelson Mandela’s death and the NZ delegation travelling to South Africa,
- the Green Party’s new policy for the Meridian share float,
- and leadership changes within New Zealand’s smaller political parties.
.
.
= fs =
Citizen A – 2 August 2012 – Online now!
.
Citizen A
.
– 2 August 2012 –
.
– Keith Locke & Phoebe Fletcher –
.
.
Issue 1: Has the Waitangi Tribunal forced the National Party to slow down?
Issue 2: Isn’t it time to allow Gay adoption and Gay marriage?
Issue 3: Epsom MP John Banks is off the hook for any charges on donations, but does the law need an over haul?
Citizen A broadcasts 7pm Thursday Triangle TV – This blogger recommends ‘Citizen A’ as intelligent analysis of current affairs.
.
Acknowledgement (republished with kind permission)
.
.
= fs =
Citizen A – 10 May 2012 – Online now!
Citizen A
.
– 10 May 2012 –
.
– Claudette Hauiti & Selwyn Manning –
.
.
Issue 1: What are the odds of an Epsom by-election and are the Conservative Party John Keys new best friends?
Issue 2: When is Nanny State not Nanny State? When it’s beneficiaries and contraception!
Issue 3: Is the GC the new low point for Public Broadcasting?
.
Acknowledgement (republished with kind permission)
.
.
= fs =
Money in the Banks…
.
.
As if the “Tea Party” fiasco wasn’t sufficient, John Banks – leader of the “1 Percent Party” (aka ACT) – is now embroiled in another scandal: undeclared or wrongly-declared campaign donations,
.
.
.
If these allegations are proven, Banks’ career as a politician has screeched to a grinding stop. He will be lucky if any subsequent police investigation does not result in a prosecution, as happened with ex-Labour MP, Phillip Taito Fields.
Should Banks be forced to vacate his seat, that would force an automatic by-election. The chances are that the Right would probably win any such contest. Epsom is still a blue-ribbon electorate.
See: previous election results for Epsom.
In terms of Parliamentary numbers for the government, it doesn’t matter if a National or ACT candidate wins it. They maintain their one-seat majority.
What will matter is that if National wins and the ACT loses Epsom, then the Nats will no longer have an excuse to implement right wing policies such as Charter Schools. That was an ACT policy, not National.
National would be within it’s rights to dump it, should they regain Epsom.
If they don’t, it would be a fairly dramatic indication to the public that the Nats are moving to the Right, regardless of their coalition deal with ACT.
That should give pause for thought for many voters.
On a related thought, the Banks/donations scandal is yet more convincing proof (not that we really needed it) that this government is shonkey and has no hesitation in engaging in secret, back-room dealing. New Zealanders should be very cautious in continuing to support National.
Very rarely do we have an opportunity to glimpse the secret deals taking place behind closed doors. As this blogger wrote in the previous blogpieces, Doing ‘the business’ with John Key – Here’s How and Doing ‘the business’ with John Key – Here’s How (Part # Rua),
“Once upon a time, at the bottom of the world, there was a small country that prided itself on being a fair, open, and uncorrupted society.
I’m no longer sure about the last bit.
Last year, Transparency International ranked New Zealand as the #1 least corrupt nation on Earth. We ranked above Denmark (#2), Finland (#3), Sweden (#4), Singapore (#5), and Norway (#6).
I’m no longer certain we deserve that top ranking, either.
The further that the Sky City/Convention Centre and Crafar farm deals are scrutinised – the stronger the odour of something unpleasant fills our nostrils.”
As for who might be a suitable candidate to contest Epsom; considering it’s conservative, Tory nature, this could be a job for the former Member for Tauranga,
.
Winston Peters
.
The most suitable candidate would be the highest polling person from any given Opposition Party. In fact, this might be a suitable occassion to employ the US style of “Primaries“, where a candidate is selected from a group, to go up against the incumbent.
Should National or ACT lose Epsom (unlikely) this government will fall.
.
Related
TV3 John Campbell: Banks knew about ‘anonymous’ Dotcom donation – reports
.
.
= fs =
Dominion Post – asking the wrong questions?
.
Today’s Dominion Post has highlighted Hone Harawira’s travel costs, incurred from 1 October 2011 to 31 December 2011,
.
.
The article state,
“Mana Party leader Hone Harawira topped the list at $54,961, followed by Labour leader Phil Goff with $32,566.” – Ibid
Blah, blah… blah, blah, bah… … … … …blah.
The article then repeats Harawira’s travel expenditure, for good measure – just in case we missed the statement at the beginning, plus the photo with the comment,
“TOP DOLLAR: Mana Party leader Hone Harawira topped the list of MP travel expenses during election time.“
Obviously, this article is a thinly-disguised attack on Hone. It’s called “having a go at someone” since Harawira is an easy target for lazy journos, right wingers, and racists.
Otherwise, Ms Vance has missed the real story relating to the release of MP’s travel costs, to whit,
Hone Harawira’s travel costs,
.
.
John Key’s travel costs,
.
.
Source: Members’ expense disclosure from 1 October 2011 to 31 December 2011
Hang on a mo’…
$1,710 spent by John Key on all domestic and air travel?!?!
How does that work???
Especially when National MP, Nikki Kaye (immediatly above Key) spent $14,569 and National MP, Colin King (immediatly below Key) spent $20,037?!?!
After all, Key was all over the country in the run-up to the election – especially his little “day excursion” to Epsom, to have a cuppa tea,
.
.
Who paid for Key to travel to Epsom?
And shouldn’t that question be a matter of interest to journalists? Or is it much easier to simply pluck the highest figure from the list, and repeat it without any context or analysis at all?
.
***
.
As an aside, Hone Harawira is MP for the Te Tai Tokerau electorate – one of the biggest electorates in the country.
Also, Te Tai Tokorau takes in the general general electorates of East Coast Bays, Helensville, North Shore, Northcote, Northland, Rodney, Te Atatū, Whangarei, part of Waitakere and some islands located within the Auckland Central electorate.
Harawira is therefore covering an area which, in the General Electorates, is covered by ten MPs.
.
.
It would be remarkable if Harawira didn’t incur a larger-than-normal travel bill. His electorate is larger-than-normal.
.
.
“One law for all” – except MPs
.
.
The government is going after cameraman/journalist Bradley Ambrose with a vengeance, demanding $14,000 in court costs,
.
.
It seems that this government is as vindictive as ever, when it comes to “settling scores” with critics. Their recent history has other similar examples of coming down hard on those who would dare criticise the current regime.
This list outlines just some of the people who have criticised this government and been abused or derided;
July, 2009
Natasha Fuller & Jennifer Johnston, solo-mothers
Personal WINZ details released to the media by Social Welfare Minister, Paula Bennett, to discredit both women after they criticised National for canning the Training Incentive Allowance (which Bennett herself used to pay her way through University).
May, 2011
Jon Stephenson, journalist
John Key derides Stephenson’s research into NZ activities in Afghanistan: “I’ve got no reason for NZDF to be lying, and I’ve found [Stephenson] myself personally not to be credible.”September, 2011
Nicky Hager, writer, researcher
John Key dismisses Hager’s book, on CIA involvement in NZ military activities in Afghanistan: “I don’t have time to read fiction,” quipped the Prime Minister, adding that the book contained “no smoking gun”, just supposition, which, “makes it business as normal for Nicky Hager”. (Despite the book having 1300 footnotes to referencing documentation.)October, 2011
Martyn “Bomber” Bradbury, broadcaster, blogger
Criticised John Key on Radio NZ. Subsequently banned/ “uninvited” from returning to Radio NZ as a panellist for the Afternoons with Jim Mora segment.November, 2011
Robyn Malcolm, actor
Criticises the John Key led National government for it’s failures at a Green Party campaign launch, and is, in turn, vilified by the ‘NZ Herald’, and by one-time National Party aspiring-candidate, Cameron Brewer.November, 2011
Bradley Ambrose, journalist/photographer
Investigated by police after complaint laid by the Prime Minister, over the “Teapot Tape” affair. Ambrose investigated and interviewed by Police. Media office raided. Property seized. Eventually, no charges laid. Government considered seeking costs of $13,669.45 from Ambrose – but eventually decided not to.
Whilst “Bomber” Bradbury and Ms Malcolm were not directly attacked by this government, actions taken against them were made as a direct result of criticising John Key.
It appears that Bradley Ambrose can now be added to that growing list of harassed or vilified dissidents. If it’s any consolation for Mr Ambrose, he appears to be a member of an “exclusive club” of some very talented individuals.
It also seems that the National Party is not averse to resorting to Muldoonist tactics – where the Prime Minister of the same name had little hesitation in attacking critics on a personal level. Many of us still recall Muldoon’s abuse of power against cartoonist and journalist, Tom Scott, in the 1970s.
.
.
I thought those days were over, and behind us.
Evidently not.
What is even more outrageously hypocritical is that Ministers of the Crown are not above dipping into the public purse to pay for their own court costs – some of which are considerable,
.
.
National MP, Gerry Brownlee also tried to seek reimbursement for a $48,000 legal bill – though this was knocked back. Brownlee knew he was “trying it on”, when he admitted,
“In hindsight, I would have thought ‘oh well, I’ve got this big bill, I may as well see what is possible’. But quite clearly it wasn’t appropriate.” – Ibid
Nick Smith has received $122,000 taxpayer funding in his case against timber preservative company Osmose, and an undisclosed sum to reimburse his court costs in his case against David Henderson.
One cannot help but arrive at the conclusion that there is one law for Members of Parliament – and another law for the rest of us plebs.
It was highly ironic then, considering Bradley Ambrose’s case that the Speaker of the House, Lockwood Smith referred to court action against the media, as justification for using taxpayers’ money,
“Dr Smith said allowing MPs to use public money was warranted, likening it to a media company paying for a defamation case against a journalist.” – Ibid
John Key also climbed into the fray, justifying the use of taxpayers’ money thusly,
“”It’s a question about whether ultimately those disclosures are brought into the public domain by greater levels of transparency, but that has never been the rule in the past. I don’t think it would be of concern to me if it was opened up to a greater degree. There’s nothing to hide here.” ” – Source
Well, obviously there was quite a bit to hide when it came to the “Teapot Tapes”. So much to hide, in fact, that police were called in to raid several media offices and punitive action is being meted out to Mr Ambrose. Not very “transparent” at all.
It is quite obvious that this government has little hesitation in using taxpayers money – our money – against members of the public who dare annoy a Minister.
It is also quite obvious that this same government will dip into our wallets and use our taxes when it suits them, to pay for their legal expenses.
The term for this is hypocrisy.
.
***
.
Additional
.
.
.
.
Election Eleven – Saturday
.
Election Eleven – Saturday
.
.
.
National has won the election, and, seemingly increased it’s Party vote from 44% to 48%.
Despite running a policy-based campaign based on important issues, Labour has suffered a major setback.
The Greens, meanwhile, have done stunningly well.
And Winston Peters was the sole beneficiary of the “cuppa tea” meeting in Epsom.
Some initial observations…
.
ACT
.
The “cuppa tea” meeting between the Two Johns has proven to be a futile exercise. The sole gain for ACT was to return John Banks (a former National MP) to Parliament – but with no extra MPs “riding on his coat-tails”.
In effect, there was no profit for National to support ACT. National might as well not bothered and simply supported Paul Goldsmith.
ACT’s continuing existence is now at the pleasure of Dear Leader, John Key.
By 2014, ACT will most likely disappear.
.
Green Party Voters – Ohariu
.
Green Party members in the Ohariu electorate – you people need to learn to count and to understand the concept of tactical voting.
By giving your electorate vote to the local Green candidate, Gareth Hughes, instead of Charles Chauvel, you have allowed Peter Dunne to return to Parliament and give National an extra coalition partner.
National wishes to thank you for your assistance in returning a centre-right government to power.
Similar results have occurred in other electorates, where Green supporters voted for their Electorate candidate, instead of voting strategically, with a Labour/Green split.
For example; Waitakere:
Paula Bennett (N): 12,310
Carmel Sepulone (L): 11,961
Steve Tollestrup (G): 1,582
1,582 wasted electorate votes for the Green candidate could have helped the Labour cadidate defeat Paula Bennett. Instead, Carmel Sepulone – a very talented Labour candidate – has lost her seat in Parliament.
Similar instances abound in other electorates.
*facepalm*
Next time, Green Voters, ease up on the wacky-bakky before you vote.
.
Asset Sales
.
By voting National, New Zealanders have given National the mandate to sell state assets. That’s our assets. Or rather, they used to be our assets. Pretty shortly, they will belong to Americans, Germans, Chinese, Australians.
Congratulations, fellow New Zealanders, you’ve succeeded in giving away our best performing; most profitable publicly-owned; assets.
After our electricity companies are sold off, wait till you get you next power bills. When power prices begin to rise, as overseas owners demand higher and higher returns on their investments, you will be reminded that we did this to ourselves. No one forced us to sell.
Aren’t we a clever bunch?
Not.
.
Maori Party
.
Pita Sharples has stated that the Maori Party will oppose asset sales as National’s coalition partner.
Oh dear lord…
Sharples needs to look at the rules of Supply & Confidence. Specifically, if National makes asset sales a part of their budget; and the Maori Party votes down that budget; they will have denied the National-led government Supply, which in turn will force a snap election.
Does the Maori Party want to force a snap election and suffer the wrath of the voting public?
Do they want to risk electoral annihilation at the hands of annoyed voters? I doubt it.
Checkmate.
.
Horizon Polling
.
The biggest loser of the night, few will take Horizon Polling seriously after tonight’s election results.
.
MMP
.
The BIG winner of the night; New Zealanders have voted to retain MMP. This was due in part to “Vote for Change” mounting the most pathetic, incompetant, and and mostly invisible campaign in this country’s history.
And Jordan Williams had the cheek to blame the media for “not having a debate” on the issue?
Jordan Williams needs to take responsibility for his Claytons-campaign. Blaming the media may work for Winston Peters – but coming from others, it is not a good look.
MMP won because,
- It is relatively simple to understand,
- The alternatives were unfair; unworkable; or hellishly complex to understand,
- New Zealanders simply didn’t feel inclined to change.
.
Labour
.
Was this a defeat for Labour?
No. I see it as a postponement of a victory.
In the next three years, as National’s policies really start to bite low and middle income earners, and those at the top increase their wealth, Labour’s time will come in 2014 (if not earlier – see Maori Party above).
I am picking a snap election in a years’ time, or mid-term.
And this time, National will lose.
As for Phil Goff – I hope he doesn’t step down. I think he’s actually grown in stature over the last few weeks. He won two of the three Leader’s Debates handsomely, and is able to pin down John Key on issues.
With the media/Key honeymoon well and truly over, Goff now has a chance to show up National’s weaknesses to the public.
The campaign for the next election starts on Monday.
.
Additional
Post mortem #1: Green Voters in Electorates
.
.
.
Tea, tapes, & tantrums
.
.
To re-cup – er, I mean, to re-cap…
Last Friday, (11 November) John Key met ACT’s Epsom candidate, John Banks for their symbolic “cuppa tea” meeting. It was supposed to send a message to Epsom voters, and to the rest of the country.
.
.
A ‘message’ was sent – but not the one intended.
It’s been one week since the saga of the “Teapot Tapes” began. During that time, the issue has been a tsunami over the election campaign and has had unintended consequences.
The saga has not helped Labour – polls seem to be clear on this point. In fact, the ruckus appears to have hindered Labour’s strategy to imprint itself on the voter’s psyche as a credible alternative to a government led by a popular politician.
Only Winston Peters – who has a knack for “playing” the media like a violinist with a carefully tuned stradivarius – appears to have benefitted. For him, the “Teapot Tapes” has been a blast of ‘oxygen’ to his struggling campaign. Peters succeeded in ‘mining’ the issue as he tapped into an underlying anger and distrust toward John Key, ACT, and their public machinations in Cafe Urban, last week.
There was no way that a politician like Phil Goff could exploit this latent collective anger. This is territory that could only be covered by a populist politician adept at taking this collective anger and focusing it like a surgeon’s laser. This was firmly Winston Peters Country.
And sure enough, the latest Herald-Digipoll had NZ First at 4.9% – a fraction below the magical 5% MMP thresh-hold.
Thank you, John Key.
As the saga unfolded, people were taking note of John Key’s actions, reactions, and behaviour.
On Monday, the first ‘crack’ in John Key’s veneer of “laid back blokeyness” appeared when he laid a complaint with the police. For a man who was insistant that he was “comfortable” with what was on the tapes – calling in the police and mounting an investigation against four media outlets was hardly consistent with some who was “comfortable” and relaxed.
.
.
His walk-out from his own press conference on Wednesday was the second sign that the pressure was getting to him. For John Key – used to high popularity ratings and a compliant media – this was uncharted territory for him. His walk-out on 16 November was a classic “flight or fight” response to someone stressed and unable to cope.
To memory, no other Prime Minister has ever walked out so abruptly in such circumstances.
The “Teapot Tapes” situation has now moved on from whatever machinations were being plotted by the Two Johns. What we are now witnessing is how a man – fighting for a second term as Prime Minister and hopeful leader of our country – is coping with a situation that he can no longer control.
.
.
It doesn’t look good for Key.
Even if the polls are correct and National is still rating highly with voters, the image of a distinctly un-comfortable Prime Minister; rattled by run-away events; and immune to his charm, has been witnessed by the public. The mask has fallen away – albeit briefly – and we’ve seen a three-dimensional man with a short fuse and limited patience. Certainly not the two dimensional caricature, of an ever-smiling figure, seemingly in a perpetual state of grace that we’ve all been familiar with.
We have seen some of the real man behind the facade.
Just as critically, as I wrote in It’s official: the media honeymoon is over Key’s cosy relationship with this country’s media has come to an abrupt halt. The media have now identified John Key as Just Another Politician, and this will prove fatal to the “ordinary bloke” image Key has cultivated these last three years. From this week onward, he will be treated like every other politician.
It’s like we’ve just discovered that our father, who once upon a time could do no wrong and was infallible, is actually just like other people. It’s a bit of a let-down really.
If National is re-elected to government – by no means a certainty any more – then I wonder if John Key’s media advisors have prepared him that the next three years may be rougher than anything he’s experienced thus far. Ironically, even if the economy improves, his relationship with the press will worsen. The media will no longer be quite so accepting of his care-free, easy-going manner and style of management.
Like Stephen Sackur’s interview with John Key on BBC’s Hard Talk last May, they will be asking harder questions, and less inclined with his classic “ackshully” fob-offs. If Key thought that the preceeding week was a bitch – he ain’t seen nothing yet.
This time he will be held to account.
.
+++ Updated+++ Footnote
ACT’s need for the photo-op between the Two Johns is hypocrisy in the extreme.
Not too long ago, ACT’s Rodney Hide rejected any idea of Maori Seats on the new Supercity Auckland Council. According to ACT, Maori were expected to wins seats on the Council on merit alone.
“Maori Must Earn Auckland Seats On Merit – By Guest Author Denise Cameron
…There are lots of different ethnic groups with representatives in Parliament, on City Councils and as Mayors – who all got there on merit, not as a gift. Let our people do it the same way. Some individual at the Hikoi said that [having Maori representatives on the new Auckland Council] was our right under the Treaty.Let our bright boys and girls EARN their seats, I say…” – Source
Really? Like ACT is trying to win the seat of Epsom on “merit” alone? With a “political subsidy” from National?
Oh dear. Never mind. ACT will be goneburger the day after 26 November…
… which in itself raises new problems for the Left. Activists from a dead political party have a habit of colonising other parties and becoming factions within.
.
Additional Reading
How bad are National’s internals?
What if the unexpected happens?
Will there be election-night fright for the Nats?
Tea Pot Tapes: Revenge of the Meme
.
.
I thought candidates wanted to win?!
.
.
.
It’s been fairly clear that Paul Goldsmith, National’s “candidate” in Epsom, is seeking only the Party Vote, and that he and John Key are wanting Epslomites to vote for John Banks with their Electorate Vote.
Some folk are resisting this blatant manipulation and trying to ‘unstitch’ this scheme, by ensuring that Goldsmith wins. (And not just ledftists, either. Quite a few National Party voters are intensely annoyed at what has transpired in their electorate.)
Even though Goldsmith doesn’t want to win.
But people are going hell-for-leather to make sure he does and Banks doesn’t.
Despite Goldsmith not wanting to win.
The question then arises; if – as it seems likely – Paul Goldsmith wins the Epsom Electorate, will he resign a few weeks later, thereby forcing a by-election?
It’s entirely possible.
Elect a man who doesn’t want the job. Put him into Parliament. Then watch him resign.
Is that National’s “Plan B”?
.
.
What are you hiding, Mr Key?
.
.
It seems that more may have come out of the “cuppa tea” between John Banks and John Key, than we first thought. One of the journalists present inadvertantly recorded something that was not meant for our ears,
.
The conversation was inadvertently recorded in Newmarket’s Cafe Urban where Banks and Key had arranged to meet in front of 40 members of the media. The meeting was a platform for Key to symbolically endorse Banks in the Epsom seat. If Banks, who has been trailing National’s Paul Goldsmith in polls, wins the seat, it would give National a much-needed coalition partner. Banks initially told the NZ Herald on Friday he was not concerned about any recording. But when told the Herald on Sunday had a copy, he refused permission for it to be printed.
“I’m not saying yes. I’m not saying no. I think you need to talk to the Prime Minister. It was his cup of tea, he paid for it.”
Herald on Sunday editor Bryce Johns said the newspaper had sought legal advice and believed it could have gone ahead, but it was an ethical matter for the newspaper. “Neither politician knew they were being recorded and they want to keep that chat private.”
The freelance cameraman who made the recording, whom the paper has agreed not to name, said the recording had been made accidentally after he was stopped by Key’s security staff from recovering the recording device. It transmitted the recording to the camera operator’s equipment but he did not discover until later.
In the eight-minute and 26-second conversation, the pair discuss Act’s future and its leadership, New Zealand First’s electoral chances and the percentage of the vote the National Party would secure.
Labour’s Epsom candidate David Parker said Banks and Key’s actions were “hypocritical” after the pair organised and stage-managed the “cup of tea” scenario to get the public maximum impact.
“They have been hung on their own petard and they should be pressured to disclose what it is that is so distasteful they don’t want the public to hear it.”
Parker said the public did not have a right to all aspects of public figures’ lives but the situation involving Banks and Key was different.
“They manipulated things. Because of a mistake caused by an agent of the Prime Minister not allowing this person to pick up his kit, they are uncovered. What is it that they are hiding?”
Two senior politicians to enjoy the “cup of tea” show of support were Act leader Don Brash and former party leader Rodney Hide. As National Party leader, Brash met United Future leader Peter Dunne in 2005.
Brash said he believed the it would be “unethical” to publish. “I suspect there is nothing terribly sensitive in it.”
Hide, who met Key for coffee during the 2008 election campaign, said, “I’m of the strong view that private conversations should stay private.”
University of Otago political scientist Dr Bryce Edwards said the information should be released. It was increasingly difficult for the public to access real information about politiciansbecause the media was outgunned by political budgets and press officers.
“It is a conversation that would help voters navigate the election campaign. In an election campaign, voters need maximum amounts of information and viewpoints. In the name of democracy, we need this sort of information.”
Right-wing blogger David Farrar also supported release if the recording revealed hypocrisy. “If there is something which is contradicted by what they say publicly, it makes the public interest argument.”
.
One wonders what was recorded that could possibly be so “sensitive” or “embarressing” that neither Key nor Banks want the details to be made public?
What did those two have to say to each other could possibly be so damaging?
And here’s the richness of the irony; both men were the centre of a massive media scrum. John Banks needed Key’s public “nudge, nudge ,wink, wink” endorsement – and Key… well, Key just lives for photo ops. (Though he did give away the faintest impression that this was not his favourite photo-op since he first ventured into Parliament and political life. (There may’ve been a dead rat in his cuppa tea?)
So despite their basking in the media lime-light and public focus – all of a sudden they have both become shy at revealing what was recorded on tape? From media “sluts” to shy, retiring “wall flowers”?!
Ok, my curiousity is well and truly piqued.
As for John Key’s remark…
“I’m of the strong view that private conversations should stay private.“
… strikes me as a bit rich, given Paula Bennett’s willingness to release people’s private details to the media, and to the public.
And if, as Brash says…
“I suspect there is nothing terribly sensitive in it.”
… why not release the tape/transcript? What does he have to hide?
Considering Brash’s secret dealings with the Exclusive Brethren in 2005, his credibility on such matters is dubious, to put it mildly.
Even right-wing blogger and National Party apparatchik, David Farrar, smells a rat – of which there seem to be plenty of dead ones around Epsom these days – then something is definitly “rotten in the State of Denmark”, to quote The Bard.
Of course, this cuts both ways. One day the left may also have to disclose a dodgy conversation to the public.
.
+++ Updates +++
.
.
John Key states categorically that he will not provide consent to release the tape/transcript of the recording of his conversation with John Banks. He says,
” It was deliberately put there and I’m simply not going to reward them with that tape. But I’m not bothered by the contents of it.”
If the Prime Minister’s sole concern is “not rewarding” the Herald-on-Sunday, then he has another simple option: release the tape to another media outlet.
That removes any element of “reward” for the Herald-on-Sunday, whilst satisfying the public’s right to know what their elected representatives are up to.
Quite simple really.
Unless, of course, there is more to the contents of that tape than John Key is letting on. And let’s face it – the debacle over the alleged “email” regarding Standard & Poors was our first public indication that the Prime Minister could bend the truth when it suited him.
.
More here
.
+++ Updates +++
ACT leader agrees tape secrecy suggests something to hide
.
.
Of Polls, Politics, & Pollution
.
“Do as I say, Not as I Do”, is not a particularly savvy way to relate to an important electorate such as Epsom,
.
.
It beggars belief that a Party leader could ask voters in a given electorate to vote for the candidate of another Party – whilst he himself supports his own Party’s candidate. John Key has stated categorically,
“‘I’m going to vote for Goldsmith. I am the National Party leader and I am going to vote for the National Party candidate and give my party vote to National. ” Source
One wonders how National supporters in Epsom must be feeling.
The leader of their Party hints that they should vote for ACT’s John Banks, whilst Key himself votes for the National candidate, Paul Goldsmith?
And if Paul Goldsmith is the “sacificial lamb” – why is he standing as an electorate candidate anyway? National could just as easily – and more honestly – simply not stand a candidate and mount a publicity campaign for the Party Vote only,
.
.
In effect, National’s electorate candidate is not really campaigning to win. And if he doesn’t want to win, why is he standing? To give Epsom National supporters a “wink and a nod” to Electorate Vote ACT and Party Vote National?
And if such is the case – what possible legitimacy does that give ACT when they can’t attract electorate support on their own merits?
So much for ACT being a Party that encourages success through merit. Especially when they apply the merit-based principle to Maori: Maori Must Earn Auckland Seats On Merit .
As the ACT statement sez; “Let our bright boys and girls EARN their seats.”
.
***
.
.
ACT and National’s machinations in Epsom are, of course, due to ACT’s low poll ratings. Practically every single poll has them around the 1.5-3.5% mark. Under MMPs rules, if they cannot cross the magical 5% Party Vote threshold – or – win an Electorate Seat, they will end up like The Alliance and NZ First: out of Parliament.
(Despite what critics of proportional representation would have us believe, MMP is not a very ‘forgiving’ system to small Parties.)
The latest Horizon Poll makes for very interesting reading. Horizon is the only polling company that prompts Undecideds to state a preference. Under this system, the results appear to give a far more realistic result of Voter’s intentions, rather than the ‘fantasmagorical‘ results that have National at 53-55%-plus,
Horizon is the only polling company publishing results for don’t know voters.
Horizon’s results are for
- Decided voters
- Undecided voters with a preference
who are
- Registered to vote and who
- Intend to vote.
The poll finds
- National has 36.8% of registered voters (down 2.7% since September 22)
- Labour 25.7% (-1.1%)
- Green Party 11.6% (up 0.9%)
- New Zealand First 6.2% (- 1.1%)
- Mana Party 2.3% (+ 0.3%)
- Act 3.4% (down 1.4% from September and down from a high of 5.3% in May shortly after Don Brash became leader)
- Maori Party 1.7% (+0.7%)
- United Future 0.4% ( 0% in September)
- Conservative Party of New Zealand 2.2% (new party, first time measured)
- New Citizens 0%
- Other parties 1.2%
National has highest voter loyalty: 76.2% of its 2008 voters still support it. It has picked up 19.9% of Act voters and 9.1% of Labour voters (while Labour has picked up 7.6% of National’s).
The Greens have 68.7% voter loyalty and are gaining 2008 voters from the Maori Party (23.1%) and Labour (14.6%).
Labour has 63% voter loyalty, losing 14.3% to the Greens, 9.1% to National and 3.7% to New Zealand First.
The Maori Party has 30.8% voter loyalty, losing 23.1% of its 2008 voters to the Greens and 19.1% to Mana.
Assuming John Banks wins the Epsom electorate seat for Act, Peter Dunne retains Ohariu-Belmont, the Maori Party retains its four electorate seats and Hone Harawira retains Te Tai Tokerau, a 122 seat Parliament would result, with a two Maori Party seat overhang, comprising:
National 50
Act 5
Maori party 4
United Future 1
Current governing coalition: 60 seats
Labour 35
Green 16
NZ First 8
Total: 59 seats
Mana 3
Horizon Research says a great deal depends on the support New Zealand First attracts at November 26.
Horizon polls have had the party at 6% or higher since November 2010. (Note the poll’s margin of error is +/- 2.2%).
If correct, National is in trouble. Their chances of a second term are not guaranteed, and judging by the public’s low opinion of National’s performance of the grounding of the m.v. Rena; the double credit-rating downgrades; the questionable veracity of the so-called Standard & Poors “email”; and various promises made that have not been kept, John Key’s “teflon” image is definitely beginning to show signs of wear and tear.
And with the RWC behind us, and the public “partyed-out”, a return to politicking may be a welcomed diversion for many. Especially as people begin to focus on issues such as asset sales and the sales of farmland – both contentious and highly unpopular with the public. In a way, the RWC may even strengthen opposition to asset/farm sales to foreigners.
After all, if we’re good enough to beat the world in rugby, then why the dickens aren’t we good enough to hold on to our taongas?! Explain that, Dear Leader!!
On the other hand, though Labour leader Phil Goff has consistently polled lower than Key, his dogged determination to persevere and not fold under media scrutiny may actually earn him “brownie points” with the public.
Goff can wear the label of “underdog” with real credibility. If Labour can play on this in a subtle manner, and show that Goff does not cave under pressure; that he keeps on like the proverbial ‘Energizer Bunny’ when all seems lost; and that he doesn’t rely on shallow charisma and meaningless smiles and utterances – he is in with a fighting chance.
God knows that lesser mortals would’ve probably chucked it in long before now, and call for a replacement from the “benches”.
.
***
.
Another Horizon Poll has shown what many suspected would be the reaction from New Zealanders over the grounding of the m.v. Rena: that the government was slow of the mark and wasted precious time in delaying action,
.
.
Taken in isolation, the grounding and response from government and statutory bodies would probably have raised no more than slight annoyance from the public.
But the grounding of the Rena is now the third major disaster this country has experienced; on top of the Pike River Mine explosions and the Christchurch earthquakes.
In both instances, central government made promises to locals that – in hindsight – may have been unrealistic at best, and irresponsible at worst. Public patience with the ever-smiling, waving, John Key may be wearing just a bit thin.
Then on top of all that, was the near-disaster of the Rugby World Cup’s opening night. The government had well and truly taken their collective eyes of the ball that night, and it is pure good luck that no one was seriously injured or killed in the mayhem.
Unrealistic promises and slow responses were only the beginning.
We also have the government intending to bring deep-sea oil drilling to our coastal waters. More than half the country by now must be asking themselves,
“Just hang on a mo’, Mr Prime Minister! If we can barely cope with a single stranded freighter, sitting on the surface of the sea – how the heck are we going to cope with a major oil disaster that might be two or three times the depth of the Gulf of Mexico disaster?! Aside from hoping for good luck that nothing goes wrong, we’re not really prepared are we, Mr Key? ”
.
***
.
To make things worse, is the disquieting suspicion that our de-regulated safety regime; lax building codes; and continual cutbacks to government workers are contributing to a systematic running-down of essential services. Especially when even emergency services are now starting to feel the blades of National’s savage cuts,
.
.
When the aspirational middle class Baby Boomers start to feel that their comfort zones are threatened, government politicians should take heed. That’s when we throw out governments. We don’t like our “comfort zones” upset. (It upsets our delicate tummies.)
.
***
.
Now let’s really stir the political pot of discontent; our youth seem to have re-discovered their own political power and realised that leaving matters to the Older Generation (us) may not achieve the outcomes they desire. God knows our generation has succeeded in wrecking the global economy; threatening the stability of the Eurozone; and bringing the once great super power that is the United States, to it’s knees.
Young folk have woken up to the world around them – and they are not very happy at what they find,
.
.
The recent government interference in Student Union affairs (forcing voluntary unionism upon people who may not necessarily wish for it) should be a stark wake-up call to young people that National governments – far from being “hands off” and opposed to “nanny statish” behaviour – can be just as controlling as their counterparts allegedly were.
In fact, more so. After all, this “hands off” government did force almalgation on Aucklanders without any democratic referendum being conducted. National had no hesitation in passing legislation to ban cellphone usage whilst driving (but not banning applying makeup or eating whilst driving). Then they lifted the driving age. And have begun liquor law reforms. And John Key is even now contemplating the ungodly “Nanny Statish” policy of making Kiwisaver compulsory!! Oh dear gods – whatever next?!
Oh, that’s right – National wanted to extend Police powers to allow greater video surveillance in the community. (Which even ACT decided was a step too far.)
All in all, the gloss has worn away from this government, and it’s track record of the last three years cannot be dismissed with a smile and a wave, with a hollow promise chucked in for good measure.
And young New Zealanders are starting to flex their political muscle.
Not too bad, on top of winning the rugby world cup, eh?
.
.
Who’s been ACTing up?
In the news just recently,
.
.
“In a blow to the party and Don Brash’s leadership, TV3 current affairs show The Nation will reveal details of a leaked poll that shows John Banks will not win in Epsom if National is polling more than 50 per cent nationwide and does not need ACT’s support.“
“Leaked poll”?!
Now who would have done such a thing?
The polling was conducted by right-wing blogger and National Party activist, David Farrar.
The poll was then delivered to the National Party official responsible for receiving such material, ‘Mr/Ms X’.
So the question is; was it leaked from the originator of the poll (Farrar), or the National Party client (‘Mr/Ms X’)?
There are no other possibilities. It is doubtful anyone else could have gained access to this information.
Next question; what would have been the motivation for leaking such a poll? If it had been to simply destroy ACT’s chances in Epsom, then the poll would simply have contained low-polling results for the ACT candidate, John Banks.
That would have sent a clear signal to Epsom National voters not to waste their electorate vote on Banks, but to vote for the National candidate, Paul Goldsmith.
But, if it is correct that “apparently, Farrar asked a three scenario question: would you vote for Banks if a) National was polling over 50% (ie able to govern out-right), b) if National was polling at 47.5% (on the cusp of governing alone), c) if National was polling 45% (needing a partner to govern)” – source – then the rational becomes completely different.
In this case, what we have here is a cunningly-disguised, further instructions to Epsom National voters. The instructions are for Epsomites to vote to Banks or Goldsmith depending on local polling.
Personally, I think a flow chart to “assist” Epsom voters might be jolly useful,
.
.
.
MMP – the “Marketplace” of Politics…
… and offering the voters real choices, other than the gerrymandered riggings and back-room deals of First Past the Post and Supplementary Member.
The good folk of Epsom now have a wide range of candidates to choose from, this coming November. Labour MP, David Parker, is experienced, articulate, and with a good common-sense attitude.
Spoilt for choice, Epsom folk?
Can David Parker win Epsom? Should he even try? What is the point of offering oneself in a safe National-seat that is as “blue ribbon” as one can find in this country?
I’m thinking that David Parker has a very simple plan: to Give It A Go.
New Zealanders love that “give it a go” attitude. The same attitude that has seen various individuals achieve stuff that – on the face of it – was practically unheard off. Whether climbing a bloody big mountain and “knocking the bastard off”, or producing a few ‘splatter’ movies and eventually becoming one of the biggest Names in Hollywood (Miramar Branch) – these individuals just gave it a go.
Now it may be a long-shot that David Parker wins Epsom. That’s a bloody high mountain to climb in anyone’s books.
But Kiwis love the “battler”; the Little Guy Up Against It. Hence why “Goodbye Pork Pie” is one of our most endearing movies?
I think that’s the rationale for David P to try it on in Epsom. He may not get anywhere – but by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I think he’ll earn bucketloads of respect from the local Epsomites. ‘Cos he Gave It A Go.
Who knows – he may even…
As for the Parker Game Plan – I’m picking he’ll opt for Deputy Leadership if/when the Labour leadership issue ever arises.
News Archives
Crony Watch
Keeping an eye on dodgy government appointees, crony-by-crony!
Frankly Speaking... 
