Archive
Democracy denied – Labour’s saddest failing
.
.
Labour’s most tragic failing to date has largely flown under the media radar: to reinstate the right of prisoners to vote. Labour’s inaction is made worse in the knowledge that it would have taken little effort and very little cost to undertake.
In 2010, as part of it’s get-tough-on-crime rhetoric, National passed the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Act. It’s intention was clear enough:
The bill proposes to remove the right of a person serving a term of imprisonment of less than three years to register as an elector.
Previously, the Electoral Act 1993 had disqualified prisoners from voting those “detained in a prison under a sentence of imprisonment for life, preventive detention or for a term of three years or more“.
The Act was first proposed by National MP, Paul Quinn. Mr Quinn was one of National’s few Maori MPs at the time, and was struggling to make a name for himself in Parliament. In both the 2008 and 2011 general elections he finished second in the Hutt Electorate to Labour’s Trevor Mallard. By 2011 he had dropped seven places on National’s Party List and did not make it back to Parliament as a List MP.
The irony of Mr Quinn’s sponsoring of the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill should not be lost on anyone. As a Maori MP and Treaty negotiator for Ngati Awa, his Bill would target and disenfranchise a predominantly Maori prison population;
.
.
Attorney General Chris Finlayson – one of National’s well-respected moderates and an uncommonly insightful member of Parliament – was scathing of Quinn’s Bill. In a report presented to the House, he attacked the Bill as “unjustifiably inconsistent”, “not rationally linked”, having “irrational inconsistencies”, “irrational and irregular”, and creating “irrational effects of the Bill … disproportionate to its objective”.
He pointed out several examples of irrational inconsistencies;
“The blanket ban on prisoner voting is both under and over inclusive. It is under inclusive because a prisoner convicted of a serious violent offence who serves a two and a half year sentence in prison between general elections will be able to vote. It is over inclusive because someone convicted and given a one-week sentence that coincided with a general election would be unable to vote. The provision does not impair the right to vote as minimally as reasonably possible as it disenfranchises in an irrational and irregular manner.”
Minister Finlayson concluded that “the blanket disenfranchisement of prisoners appears to be inconsistent with s 12 of the Bill of Rights Act and that it cannot be justified under s 5 of that Act“.
Writing in his regular on-line column, Gordon Campbell also pointed out bizarre contradictions inherent in Quinn’s Bill;
Hidden in the majority verdict though, is this gem of illogic : “The Electoral Enrolment Centre has proposed working with the Department of Corrections to develop a national procedure to encourage prisoners to re-enrol upon release from prison.” Got that? The centre-right faction on the select committee wants officialdom to devise a new bureaucratic programme to re-register prisoners all over again, once they’re out of jail. First, they want to treat prisoners as non-persons and deny them the vote – and then want to set up a nationwide programme to re-ignite the same motivation that they’ve just gratuitously chosen to dampen. If there was a prize for political stupidity and bureaucratic proliferation in the first term of the current government, this Bill would have to be a prime contender. Prime Minister John Key clearly needs to take heed of the verdict of his Attorney – General, and advise the National caucus to vote against this measure.
Quinn may have vanished from Parliament (and from most people’s memories), but the chilling legacy he left behind in that one piece of ill-considered legislation has caused on-going social harm.
Despite Minister Finlayson’s warning, National and ACT passed the legislation 63 votes to 58 against. The Maori Party and Peter Dunne – National’s coalition partners – voted with Labour, the Greens, and the Progressive Party (Jim Anderton).
Labour MPs were vociferous in their opposition to Quinn’s Bill.
“We know why this bill is being introduced: it is called dog-whistle politics. There is nothing worse in this House than to see matters of substance raised in a debate such as this. I take the strongest possible exception to using an amendment to electoral law to argue this dog-whistle position to attack people who are in prison at a particular time.
[…]
I say that getting marginalised people in our society on to the electoral roll is one of the hardest things that we have to confront when we try to sign up people during the election campaign. Every member of this House will know how much resource we put into the Electoral Commission to make sure that people are on the roll in the lead-up to both the local-body elections, which take place this year, and the general election, which takes place next year.”
Charles Chauvel:
“The Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill is nothing more than the latest in a long line of dog-whistle attempts to make the Government, the National Party, and its ACT Party fellow traveller over there seem tough on crime. This House should be gravely concerned that some of its members can come in here and propose legislation for those reasons, without any regard for its practical implications. Those members would place political image above fairness, above the value our society places on the civic duty of voting, above the effectiveness of our electoral roll, and above prisoners’ reintegration into society upon release…
[…]
This bill has no intention other than to make the Government look tough on crime.”
Chris Hipkins:
“This bill will disenfranchise them from society even further.
[…]
We spend so much time getting people on to the electoral roll in the first place, and some of the people who are the most difficult to get on to the roll in the first place are the people who are disenfranchised from our community. We struggle to get the people who are more likely to go to prison on to the electoral roll in the first place, yet this bill removes them from the electoral roll. It is not justified. It will further marginalise them from our community.
Tough on crime rhetoric is the easy part. Dealing with the underlying social causes of criminal offending, the disenfranchisement from society, and the total feeling of anger that exists within many of the people in our prisons is something we have to think long and hard about. We do not do a good job of this, because the political rhetoric is too hard on any side of this political debate. It is very difficult to deal with this issue in a way that will look good on the news and will make people likely to vote for us. Yes, there are votes in being seen to be hard on criminals. There are very few votes, unfortunately, in dealing with the root causes of crime and criminal offending, because they are not easy and they do not fit on a bumper sticker.”
“… The truth about this bill, which every person who came before the select committee—including David Farrar, although he supported it—agreed on, is that it will do nothing to help victims. This bill will do nothing to stop recidivism. It will do nothing to stop reoffending, and there is no evidence that it will. This bill will do nothing to change prisoner behaviour. Every submitter bar the member Paul Quinn admitted that this bill was simply a political pamphlet.”
Grant Robertson:
“This kind of legislation is the simple stuff, the meaningless stuff. The hard work of the criminal justice area in trying to make sure that we rehabilitate people and reintegrate them into society is not what we hear from National.
[…]
The true test of being committed to democracy is to say that even if people have committed some of these crimes, we still fundamentally believe that they have a human right to vote. If we want people to rehabilitate and reintegrate into society, we need to give them a chance to be involved in society. Virtually every person who is covered by the extension of this law, the 2,000 or 3,000 people who are sentenced each year to less than 3 years in prison, will end up back in society. We are not talking here—though with the mistake that National has made, it almost is—about people sentenced to life imprisonment. That is already in the law. Every single one of the people to whom this extension applies will be back in society. What we should be doing is working out how we reintegrate those people into society and how we contribute to rehabilitation. Instead, we have petty, spiteful legislation that does nothing to make our communities safer.”
Carmel Sepuloni:
“I look at the Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill and think that it is so incredibly trivial and insignificant. The bill will bring about no change, and no positive repercussions, for New Zealand society.
[…]
The one question that I have to ask when I look at this bill, given that it is a law and order bill, which has gone through the Law and Order Committee, is whether this bill will act as a deterrent to crime. I think the answer is actually no. I cannot envisage any person who is incarcerated, or any person who is on the verge of committing a crime, thinking: “Oh, I had better not commit this burglary; otherwise I will go to prison and lose my right to vote!”. The reality is that for all of us in this House to vote is a right, and for many other people around the world it is an absolute privilege to have the right to vote. But I assume that many of the people who are incarcerated may not actually see voting as being one of the priorities in their lives. In fact, I wonder how many of those people who are incarcerated who actually exercise the right to vote have actually felt a sense of loss when they have been incarcerated and lost that right to vote. This bill seems rather insignificant and almost a complete waste of time in regard to what that member, Paul Quinn, was attempting to do.
When we look at whether it could act as a deterrent to crime, we see that obvious common-sense dictates that actually, no, it probably will not.”
Then-Maori Party MP, Hone Harawira, was no less scathing of the Bill;
“Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Huri rauna kia ora tātou katoa e te Whare. This bill, the Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill, to remove the right of anyone in jail to vote is a direct attack on the democratic freedoms of people we should be trying to help. It is an assault on the intelligence of ordinary New Zealanders. It is another in a raft of misbegotten, panicked pieces of legislation that are driving this country over the precipice into the mindless depths of right-wing insanity.”
Green MP, David Clendon, seemingly had to remind our elected representatives – especially those in government – that voting was core and fundamental to democracy;
“The right to vote, the commission said, is considered fundamental to representative democracies… It [the Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill] is at odds with the concept of democracy.”
In 2014, “jailhouse lawyer”, Arthur Taylor, challenged the National government’s law in a Court of Law.
.
.
In July 2015, the High Court found in Taylor’s favour. Justice Heath reasserted Attorney General Finlayson’s determination that banning prisoners from voting was inconsistent with the Bill of Rights and unjustified;
“The purpose of a formal declaration is to draw to the attention of the New Zealand public that Parliament has enacted legislation inconsistent with a fundamental right.”
In 2017, the Court of Appeal also determined that the law was unfair, unjustified, and inconsistent with the Bill of Rights.
National refused point blank to repeal the law. Said Bill English;
“If they raise significant policy issues we’d look at them, but up until now we haven’t seen a reason to change the law.”
Then came the election last year and the National government was swept away. A Labour-led Coalition could finally undo a bad law.
Or so you would think.
On 9 November, after another victory by Arthur Taylor in the Supreme Court, Coalition Justice Minister, Andrew Little issued a response;
.
.
Minister Little said;
“It’s not that much of a priority.”
It’s. Not. That. Much. Of. A. Priority.
Think about that for a moment: “It’s not that much of a priority.”
According to Minister Little, the very foundation of democracy – voting – is “not that much of a priority.”
Attempting to re-engage a marginalised sector of our society by encouraging civic responsibility is “not that much of a priority.”
In the year that is the 125th anniversary of women’s suffrage in New Zealand –
.
.
– voting by a disenfranchised, disengaged section of our society is “not that much of a priority.”
Overturning a bad law “not that much of a priority.”
I sincerely hope that Minister Little did not understand the full implications and that he mis-spoke. Because when an elected representative declares that righting a wrong – such as citizens stripped of their vote – is “not that much of a priority”, they are demonstrating a callous disregard for our democratic traditions that defies understanding.
Clendon, Harawira, and others were correct to describe Quinn’s Bill as a direct attack on the democratic freedoms of people. The right to vote is the most basic cornerstone of a true, participatory democracy. Nothing else comes close to the critical importance of the universal franchise.
Only in countries where a notional facade of democracy exists in name only, is the right to vote regarded with similar cavalier disregard. In both Russia and the United States, vested interests have actively undermined participatory democracy. In China, voting is limited to one party. Britain is still locked in a feudal-era First Past the Post system.
When the National government’s own Attorney General – Chris Finlayson – described the removal of the right for prisoners to vote as “unjustifiably inconsistent with the electoral rights affirmed by s12 of the Bill of Rights Act“, then we are left with only one conclusion: it was bad law from the start.
Minister Little was completely and utterly wrong when he said it was “not that much of a priority.”
It should be the highest priority for any nation professing to be a participatory democracy.
If the former National government could abrogate workers rights by changing their status from employees to “contractors”, with an odious piece of legislation passed in just 48 hour from First Reading to Royal Assent – then it should not be an insurmountable task to abolish the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Act before the house rises this year.
In fact, by next Friday would be good.
Minister Little, tear down this bad law.
Minister Little, do it now.
Make it a priority.
.
.
.
References
Legislation: Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Act 2010
Ministry of Justice: Report of the Attorney-General under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 on the Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill
Parliament: Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill
Wikipedia: Paul Quinn
NZ Herald: Cross-claim endangers settlement
Department of Corrections: Prison facts and statistics – September 2011
Parliament: Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill — Third Reading
Parliament: Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill — First Reading
Parliament: Parliament: Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill — Second Reading
TVNZ: Jailed bush lawyer asks High Court for right to vote
Radio NZ: Prison vote law breaches human rights – judge
Mediaworks/Newshub: No voting in prison ‘unfair’ – Court of Appeal
Radio NZ: Prisoners’ right to vote currently not a priority for Parliament – Little
Ministry for Culture & Heritage: Suffrage 125
Legislation: Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Act 2010 (aka “Hobbit Law”)
Acknowledgement
Scoop media: Martin Doyle Cartoon – Voting sucks
Additional
Radio NZ: Protest over prison voting ban
Other Blogs
The Daily Blog: Prisoner Rights Blogger wins for Human Rights
Green: Prisoner voting ban needs to be repealed
The Green Blog: Prisoner voting disqualification and the Bill of Rights Act
Public Address: Fact-checking Parliament – more prisoners can vote than they think
Werewolf: Robbing the Vote
.
.
.
“It’s a measure of the times we live in that neither the media nor New Zealanders in general seem worried that parliament can ‘remove’ rights supposedly guaranteed under our Bill of Rights. Prisoners are themselves victims of a serious constitutional crime. Given our noble history of women’s suffrage, it’s amazing no women have spoken up on behalf of women prisoners.” – Martin Doyle, cartoonist, 29 January 2015
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 25 November 2018.
.
.
= fs =
Kelvin Davis – an unforeseen disaster on 23 September?
.
.
August 1 began a new chapter in Labour’s 101 year history: the sudden – though not wholly unexpected – appointment of Jacinda Ardern and Kelvin Davis as Leader and Deputy Leader, respectively, of the NZ Labour Party;
.
Jacinda Ardern and Kelvin Davis
(acknowledgement: Fairfax media)
.
It marks an end to Andrew Little’s brief reign as Leader. Little’s decision to step down – the mark of an honourable man who put Party before personal ambition.
The recent TV1, TV3, and Labour’s own internal polling sealed Little’s political doom.
Labour’s new Deputy Leader, Kelvin Davis, is an Electorate MP for Te Tai Tokerau. The vast Maori electorate stretches from Auckland to Cape Reinga;
.
.
Davis won the seat from Mana Movement leader, Hone Harawira in 2014, after a ‘stitch-up‘ deal between National, Labour, and NZ First;
.
.
.
The deal was organised to rid Parliament of the one true far-left political party, and it was executed with callous efficiency. Davis won the seat with 743 votes.
But that’s history.
What is pertinent is a point that few people have realised – Kelvin Davis’ precarious position as Labour’s Deputy Leader.
At Number Two on the Labour Party list, Ms Ardern’s chances of returning to Parliament is all but guaranteed.
The new Deputy Leader – Kelvin Davis – has no such guarantee. His “life boat” – a high placing on the Party List – does not exist.
On 21 March this year, Labour announced that’s its candidates for the seven Maori seats would not have a place on Labour’s Party List;
.
.
The decision to stand candidates in electorates-only was a strategic move by Labour. Labour wanted Maori voters to give their Electorate Vote to Labour candidates and not split their votes between Labour and the Maori Party. (At only 1.3% in the last election, the Maori Party was way below the 5% MMP threshold and the Party Vote was of secondary use to them. They needed to win an Electorate seat to gain representation in Parliament.)
This was a calculated plan to oust the Maori Party from Parliament using Labour’s Maori candidates in an “all-or-nothing” gambit. Interestingly, to this blogger’s knowledge, none of Labour’s pakeha candidates were asked to make a similar decision to stand in an Electorate only.
This “cunning plan” may have backfired if the recent accord between the Mana Movement and the Maori Party allows Hone Harawira to regain Te Tai Tokerau;
.
.
In 2014, had Maori Party supporters given their electorate vote to Hone Harawira, Davis would have lost by a decisive 1,836 votes;
.
.
Labour could yet end up with another (deputy) leadership vacancy. Embarrassing.
On the positive side, if Andrew Little’s sacrifice for the greater good pays dividends on 23 September, it will signal the end of National’s current reign – and begin the slow unpicking of neo-liberalism. The times, they are a-changin’ and the winds against globalisation/neo-liberalism are gaining strength.
Labour’s up-coming announcement on tertiary education may put the ‘frighteners’ into the neo-libs if it is as bold as I hope it is.
.
.
.
References
Wikipedia: NZ Labour Party
Radio NZ: As it happened – Jacinda Ardern takes charge as Labour leader
Wikipedia: Te Tai Tokerau
Maori TV: Key wants Harawira to lose Tai Tokerau seat
NZ Herald: Hone’s call to arms after Winston backs Kelvin
Wikipedia: Te Tai Tokerau – 2014 Election
NZ Labour Party: List
Fairfax media: Labour’s Maori MPs opt to go ‘electorate only’ and not seek list places
Wikipedia: Maori Party – 2014 Election
Fairfax media: Hone Harawira gets clear Te Tai Tokerau run for Mana not running against Maori Party in other seats
Additional
NZ Herald: Andrew Little’s full statement on resignation
Other Blogs
No Right Turn: The big gamble
The Jackal: Andrew Little is the devil
The Standard: Ok, I’m pissed off with the Labour caucus again. Time to switch
The Standard: Thank you Andrew – go well Jacinda!
The Standard: Helen Clark burns Matthew Hooton
The Standard: So NZ Labour wanted the Headlines.
The Standard: Greens and the Māori Party on the new Labour leaders
Werewolf: Gordon Campbell on the Labour leadership change
Previous related blogposts
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 2 August 2017.
.
.
= fs =
Flying the Red-Green Banner of Resistance
.
.
May 31st was the day that many in the Labour and Green parties had so earnestly wanted to see – a formal declaration between the leadership of their respective parties for greater co-operation to remove National from power. For most (if not nearly all) of the rank-and-file membership, it was a no-brainer that the two parties – both similar in so many ways – would seek a more formal partnership.
The wonder is that it has taken so long to achieve.
When Labour undermined Hone Harawira’s chances of holding on to his Te Tai Tokerau electorate, I wrote this prescient piece on 11 June 2014;
That is why the Left will lose on 20 September [2014].
Unless Labour radically changes tack and demonstrates to the public that they are more interested in working together with potential partners – than wrecking their chances at winning votes – voters will be put off. Telling the public that Labour “can work with other parties after the election” is not good enough. Labour must show it can do it.
Otherwise, as one quasi-fascist right-wing blogger put it, the public will perceive that “things are falling apart for the Labour Party“. He may have a valid point.
Again, as Gordon Campbell stated,
“Labour may just be mule-headed enough – and tribally fixated on the FPP-era of politicking – to try and get rid of Harawira at all costs, and thereby torpedo one of its main chances of forming the next government.”
At which Scott Yorke at Imperator Fish added;
“How not to win an election…
…Pretend that we still have a First Past the Post electoral system.”
It is supremely ironic that National – the champion of the Cult of Individualism – can work collectively and collegially with other political parties. But Labour – a party of the left, which espouses collective action for the greater good – is desperately and greedily scrabbling for votes for itself and attacking potential allies.
That was written four and a half months out from the 2014 election.
After Labour’s disastrous drubbing at the 2014 election, I penned this post-mortem on 26 September 2014;
“The forces on the right are very united”, said Josie Pagani, on TV3’s political panel. And she would be 100% correct.
This is one of the lessons that Labour should be taking from the 2014 elections; unity is strength.
National did not seek to destroy potential allies. With the exception of the Conservative Party, it actively supported them. Either with direct deal-making (Epsom and Ohariu), or with “nods-and-winks” (Maori Party).
Even with the Conservatives – though Key refused any actual deal-making, he did not go out of his way to under-mine Colin Craig’s party. Just in case they reached the 5% thresh-hold and thus became potentially useful to the Nats.
By contrast, Labour campaigned to destroy the Mana-Internet Party, and the Greens undermined Labour with it’s comment that Labour’s policies would have to be “independently audited” – a phrase picked up by Key and used to attack Cunliffe.
Key projected stability and co-operation on the Right.
The Left projected intense rivalry and a hatred of each other that was volcanic in intensity.
Who did Labour and the Greens think the public would vote for?
Ten things Labour and the Greens should consider in the coming days, weeks, months, and next three years.
A couple of weeks later, on 10 October 2014, I repeated my views;
Perhaps Labour’s worst mistake of all the above was constantly deriding the Mana-Internet alliance. The constant attacks on Hone Harawira and his Party signalled to the public that Labour was weak; full of self-doubt and lacking in self-confidence. Labour’s desperation for votes was so dire that they were willing to attack and destroy a potential coalition ally, to cannibalise their electoral support.
That showed weakness.
And the public took note.
Contrast Labour’s treatment of Hone Harawira and Mana-Internet, with how John Key related to ACT, United Future, and the Maori Party: with confidence; courtesy; and collegiality.
When Key refused to make a deal with Colin Craig’s Conservative Party, he did so with professional courtesy. There was never any rancor involved, and despite refusing any Epsom-like deal, Key still left National’s options wide open to work with the Conservatives.
Key even flip-flopped on his previous hand-on-heart promise never to entertain any coalition deal-making with Winston Peters;
“I don’t see a place for a Winston Peters-led New Zealand First in a government that I lead.” – John Key, 2 February 2011
When the public looked at Key, they saw a politician who said categorically he would be prepared to work with anyone.
The public liked that. The public want politicians to work together for the good of the country. Key not only said as much – he demonstrated it by working with parties as disparate as ACT, the Maori Party, United Future, and the Greens (though the latter not in any formal coalition agreement).
When the public looked at Labour, they saw a left wing party willing to consume another left wing party, to further their own selfish agenda.
Key showed collegiality and co-operation.
Labour exuded desperation.
Whoever leads the Labour Party after 18 November – take note.
It appears that Labour, belatedly, has finally taken note. Specifically, they have taken note of 21st Century Realpolitik in New Zealand;
- We are no longer operating under First Past the Post
- John Key is very adept at fostering good relationships with potential coalition allies
- Labour either ignored potential coalition allies, or – in Mana-Internet’s case – actively destroyed it
- Post FPP, National is still a monolithic party of the Right simply because it has successfully become a political vehicle for religious conservatives, urban neo-liberals, rural conservatives, and other assorted right-wingers
- Post FPP, the Left is fractured because ideologies are wider ranging, and because many perceive Labour as still carrying baggage from it’s Rogernomics days and do not trust the Labour Party (whereas the Green Party has a pristine, untarnished reputation, free of dirty baggage from past betrayals of the electorate)
Adding to Labour’s woeful performance is it’s constant habit of replacing their leader almost like we change the oil in our motorcars. As I wrote on 10 October, 2014, after Cunliffe was dumped as party leader;
Changing the leader, post-election. Does that mean Labour never had confidence in Cunliffe in the first place, and this his appointment was a mistake? Does that mean Cunliffe’s replacement may also be a mistake? Does it mean Labour has 100% confidence in their new Leader – until they don’t? So… why should the public have confidence in Labour’s new choice of a new Leader, when s/he may be temporary?
The only other parliamentary party that goes through it’s leaders like I go through a pack of toilet-paper is ACT – and we don’t really want to be like ACT, do we?
Support for the formal MoU was positive from Labour-leaning blogs such as The Standard, and grass-roots members generally seem to welcome what was an obvious strategic move by both parties.
Those who were ascerbic tended to be the Right Wing (for obvious reasons), and some cynical media for whom deep political analysis has long eluded them.
Peoples’ Exhibit #1
This asinine “tweet” from Heather du Plessis-Allan had all the constructive insights of a rural long-drop made from decaying, moss-covered weatherboards;
.
.
It “hurt her eyes”! Oh, how jolly witty!
It received eleven “likes”. Out of 4.5 million New Zealanders.
Is this the new nadir of 21st century journalism in New Zealand? All I can say is; thank-the-gods-for-Radio-NZ.
’nuff said.
Some other media punditry was only marginally better. Either New Zealand’s political journalists have become too cynical; too jaded; too dismissive to offer constructive reporting and analysis of new events – or, perhaps, such new events are beyond their ken to fully understand.
Peoples’ Exhibit #2
This column from former ACT-leader Rodney Hide, published in the Herald on 5 June;
.
.
– spoke more of the author, than the political event he was commentating on.
Hide’s piece is little more than some bitchy, snide derision dressed up as political commentary. However, the more one reads, the more one becomes acutely aware that – carrying the “marriage of convenience” metaphor a step further – Rodney Hide is positively purple with apoplectic jealousy.
Hide is the bachelorette who missed out on getting a rose, and he’s miffed!
Whatever Hide might say about the Greens, there are certain truths he cannot easily dismiss;
- The Green Party won 10.7% of the Party Vote in 2014. ACT won 0.69%.
- The Green Party won it’s votes through it’s own efforts. ACT’s sole MP won Epsom through a deal between National and John Banks in 2011, and later, David Seymour.
- The Green Party leadership has been stable since 2008. ACT has changed leaders five times since 2008. (The next change will see them officially run out of members, and they will have to start from Roger Douglas again.
- In the 1999 General Election, ACT won 9 seats and the Green won seven. A decade and a half later, in the 2014 General Election, ACT had one MP (elected solely at the whim of the National Party) and the Greens have doubled their parliamentary representation with fourteen MPs.
So for Hide to sneer at the Labour-Green MoU is a bit rich, considering his own party is on terminal life-support, and survives purely at the pleasure of the National Party. When ACT’s usefulness to National has finished – the electoral plug will be pulled from the political respirator that keeps ACT’s brain-dead corpse “alive”.
ACT’s passing will be the point in our history when we mark the decline and demise of neo-liberalism in New Zealand. Future generations will view it as a mirror-image of the 1960s/70s youth counter-culture movement; cruel, self-centered, and full of hatred for those impoverished for whom the “free” market failed.
In the meantime, the Green Party will do what green things tend to do: grow.
And the jealous bitterness of Rodney Hide will consume him to his final days.
Peoples’ Exhibit #3
Winston Peters dismissed the Labour-Green MoU. He repeated his usual mantra;
“We do not like jack-ups or rigged arrangements behind the people’s back. We’ll go into this election, just ourselves and our policies seeking to change how this country is governed.”
And five days later on TVNZ’s Q+A;
@ 0.46
“But the idea that you would go out there with a pre-arrangement on a deck of cards you’ve never read, we simply can’t see how that works.”
Which is deeply ironic, considering that;
(a) Prior to an election, Peters never discloses to the voting public whether he would coalesce with National or Labour,
(b) Once the election is over, Peters then negotiates in strict secrecy with both National and Labour – in effect, “behind the people’s back“.
In effect, a Party Vote for NZ First is akin to giving that political party a blank cheque; the voter has no way of knowing where that “cheque will be spent”. Will we get a National-led coalition? Or a Labour-led coalition?
At least with parties like ACT and the Greens, the voter has a good idea where a vote for either party will end up on the political spectrum.
With a vote for NZ First, you are effectively handing over to Peters your voting ballot-paper, un-ticked, and he alone will decide whether to cast it for a National-led coalition or Labour-led coalition.
Peters’ derision of the MoU was therefore wholly predictable.
Peters understands that a resurgent Labour-Green team poses a dire threat to NZ First’s chances of being “king maker”, post-2017 election. If closer co-operation between Labour and the Greens results in electoral success and the birth of a new red-green coalition government, NZ First’s role as “king maker” would be scuttled.
In such a case a vote for NZ First becomes a “wasted” vote. He would be left isolated on the cross-benches, sniping impotently at Prime Minister Andrew Little, and his Deputy PM, Metiria Turei.
Another jilted political suitor who missed out on a rose.
.
.
Evidence for the Defence
There is nothing preposterous about a closer Labour-Green relationship. It is no more absurd than the Liberal–National Coalition which has existed in Australia since early last century;
The Coalition, also known as the Liberal–National Coalition, is a political alliance of centre-right parties, which has existed in Australian politics in various forms since 1923.
The Coalition is composed of the Liberal Party of Australia (formerly the United Australia Party, the Nationalist Party of Australia and the Commonwealth Liberal Party) and the National Party of Australia (formerly named the Country Party and the National Country Party), as well as the Liberal National Party (LNP) in Queensland and the Country Liberal Party (CLP) in the Northern Territory.
And coalitions in Europe are the norm.
So what was the fuss about the “living arrangement” between Labour and the Greens?
Summing up for the Jury
At the moment, the public sees the National-Maori Party-Dunne-ACT coalition, and understand it. But one thing that voters want to know is; what would an alternative to a National-led government look like?
Far from negotiating this Memorandum from a position of weakness, as some have suggested, it is instead a well-executed strategy. As Andrew Little said with simple clarity;
“Voters want to know that there are opposition parties who are capable of working together, can work strongly together and can offer stability and certainty. And that’s what this agreement is about, that’s what we will demonstrate.
Up-coming polls will show whether the voters like what they see.
And on election day next year, the verdict will be delivered.
.
.
.
References
Green Party: Memorandum of Understanding
Gordon Campbell: Gordon Campbell on the rise of Laila Harré
Imperator Fish: How to win an election
Fairfax media: Greens eye bigger supluses
TVNZ News: No deal – Key leaves Colin Craig out in the cold
Fairfax media: Possible coalition line-ups after election
TVNZ News: Winston Peters not grabbing John Key’s olive branch
NZ Herald: PM rules out any NZ First deal
Twitter: Heather du Plessis-Allan
NZ Herald: Rodney Hide: Marriage of convenience
Wikipedia: New Zealand general election, 2014
NZ Herald: Political cups of tea shared
Wikipedia: ACT Party Leadership
Wikipedia: 1999 General Election
Wikipedia: 2014 General Election
Fairfax media: Labour and Green leaders announce closer co-operation agreement
TVNZ: Q+A – Winston Peters interview (video)
Twitter: Steven Joyce
Wikipedia: Coalition (Australia)
Radio NZ: NZ First labels Labour-Green deal ‘worthless’
Other bloggers
Boots Theory: On the M.O.U.
Pundit: In which universe will Winston Peters become PM?
The Standard: Labour Green announcement – working together to change the government
The Standard: Why is it that?
The Standard: Labour Green MOU well received in poll
Previous related blogposts
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
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 14 June 2016.
.
.
= fs =
Andrew Little’s “dangerous” speech – a cunning plan for the Middle and the Left
.
.
Wellington, NZ, 22 May – Speaking to a fully packed downtown conference centre in Wellington, on a cold, gloomy rainy afternoon, Labour-leader, Andrew Little launched into a fiery attack on the current National Government focusing on it’s inarguably lack-lustre track record for the past eight years.
With a heavy media presence, Rimutaka MP, and Labour spokesperson for Education, Chris Hipkins, was tasked with making the introduction;
.
.
Hipkins said;
“Certainly there is a mood for change around the country now and that mood for change is increasing. But the question that everybody has been asking us, is is Labour ready? And that’s a fair question to ask.”
“They say that being the leader of the Opposition is the toughest job in politics. Well I can tell to tell you that Andrew has taken to that tough job in politics like a duck to water.”
“In all of that time that he has been doing that job, and all the hours he has put in, he has never forgotten why is there; for people. And that is why the Labour Party is here.”
The short introduction over, the audience of committed Labour members clapped enthusiastically as Little mounted the podium;
.
.
To say that Little had plenty of material to work with would be an understatement as the growing crisis for both affordable housing; skyrocketing rentals; and shortage of state houses have been well publicised in the media and by bloggers.
From just one day in Wellington’s Dominion Post Monday 23 May edition;
.
.
Jane Bowron’s piece especially – Marae shows up Government with haere mai to homeless – is a must-read, head-on assault on the warped ‘values’ which currently afflict our government and some peoples’ thinking. Yet, the Dominion Post is hardly known as a bastion for marxist agitation.
Little wasted no time as he launched into a recitation of National’s failures after eight years in government;
“It’s becoming harder for many people to get ahead. Harder to find a good job or get a pay rise. Harder to find a home, put some savings aside, or get the health care you need. Parents are paying more for their childrens’ education, but our schools aren’t performing as well.
[…]
Look at the headlines from the last couple of weeks: Children sleeping in cars or forced to lives in houses that make them sick; plummeting home ownership; rising unemployment, [and] stalled wages for many people.
[…]
And while the few at the very top got to enjoy special rules that meant they didn’t have to pay their fair share – everyone else is paying the cost.
We’ve seen increases in unemployment. There are now 144,000 people out of work in New Zealand, 40,000 more than when National took office.”
Little is correct on those stats. According to the convenient graphs and data from US website, Trading Economics, the increase in unemployment in New Zealand has remained stubbornly high;
.
.
Little explained that the unemployment problem was worse than just sheer numbers;
“And it’s not just that more people are out of work – it’s that many more are out of work for longer. Under this government the number of people unemployed for more than a year has tripled – up over 11,000 since they took office.
The situation is especially tough for our young people. Under this government the number of young people who aren’t in work, education or training has risen by more than 26,000.
The truth is those are the young people this government has given up on – the ones they label as ‘pretty damn hopeless’.”
.
.
Little pointed out the numbers who had not gotten any wage increase in the last year, and more importantly that workers were missing out on the benefits of economic growth;
For those in work, getting a pay rise has become harder. 43% of New Zealanders saw no increase in their incomes at all in the last 12 months.
[…]
Under the last Labour government, the share of economic growth going to wage and salary earners was over 50%.
Today, it’s 37%.
The slice of the economy going to workers has fallen each year under National.
This year, that lost income works out to be fifty bucks a week for the average family.
His comments will most likely resonate with those workers who feel they are working harder and longer hours – and yet do not seem to be progressing. The back-stories of mega-rich tax-evaders hoarding their wealth in tax havens will fuel feelings of resentment by those who work and pay their taxes so we can have roads, hospitals, schools, etc;
.
.
Little then hit the big story of the last few weeks – growing homelessness in New Zealand. Coupled with a fall in home ownership rates since 1991 (from 74% in 1991 to 64% in 2015), and we get a clear picture how “free” market economics has impacted on our society.
National’s response was to deny that a problem existed in New Zealand at all. According to Social Housing Minister Paula Bennett;
.
“I certainly wouldn’t call it a crisis. I think that we’ve always had people in need.” – Paula Bennett, 20 May 2016
.
Andrew Little’s response was less dismissive of the challenges facing 21st century New Zealand families;
“When kids are sleeping in cars. That’s a crisis.
When families are crowded into garages. That’s a crisis.
When an entire generation is locked out of ever owning their own home, that is a crisis.”
He firmly sheeted home blame for our current predicament, in no uncertain terms;
“Instead of owning up to that and fixing it, the government is siding with property speculators and land bankers, while everyone else misses out.
Every initiative our bumbling housing minister Nick Smith has tried on housing has failed. Rather than go after the causes of the problems, he’s flailed around with gimmicks.
Remember special housing areas? Fewer than 1000 homes actually built.
Remember his gimmick from the last Budget? Releasing crown land? It turned out to include substations, cemeteries and even the back yard of Government House.
While the government’s been tinkering, the problem’s gotten so much worse.
In March, the average house price in Auckland rose by over $2,200 a day.”
For maximum effect, Little repeated that startling factoid to the audience and media;
“Let me say that figure again. Over twenty two hundred dollars a day.”
On Radio NZ’s political panel on Monday, 23 May, former Labour Party President, Mike Williams complimented Andrew Little’s speech, referring to it as “dangerous”;
“Middle New Zealand is concerned about health, education, housing, and the economy. And I think, as far as John Key is concerned, this is the most dangerous speech a Labour leader has given since Helen Clark resigned.”
Williams also made an interesting observation regarding how Middle New Zealand felt about their rising house values;
“I think there’s a bit of schizophrenia going on in Middle New Zealand which is showing up in the UMR numbers. If you own a house you are feeling pretty good because the value of your asset has been going through the roof. However, if you’ve got kids, you’re worried about their schooling; you’re worried about will they get a house; and you’re worried about will they get a job that pays enough to pay for a house. So I think, that, yes, home-owning New Zealanders [are] feeling ok, but parents are not.”
Little then addressed the growing under-funding of public healthcare;
According to Infometrics, we’ve had $1.7 billion dollars cut in real terms from our health budget over 6 years.
That’s meant that 160,000 people in the last 5 years have been unable to get the appointment they need with a specialist.”
Which seems to be a replay of National’s cuts to the Health budget in the late 1990s;
.
.
In response, Little promised;
“Under Labour, Kiwis will know that if they get sick, the public healthcare system will be there for them. That’s why we are committed to meeting the cost pressures that are depriving people of the care they need…
…Budgets are about priorities, and under Labour, health will be a priority again. We shouldn’t be spending money on $3 billion of unaffordable tax cuts when we could be fixing our health system instead.”
Which, if the previous Clark-led Labour government’s actions are anything to go by, can be counted as a solid committment;
.
.
Little was also scathing at National’s taxpayer subsidies being thrown at Charter Schools;
“At the same time as National has poured millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money into privately run charter schools, our public education system is struggling.
In the last year alone, National has cut funding for pupils by $150 each.
And so schools load more costs on to parents in order to fill the gaps.
Ask any parent and they’ll tell you the cost of uniforms, class activities, camps and of course ‘voluntary donations’ just keep on rising.”
For all of National’s much-vaunted “reforms” in our education system, the results are less than impressive. Little rattled off a list of stats that should raise concern with all New Zealanders;
But here’s the thing: while costs are rising, standards are falling.
In 2006, we were ranked 5th in the world for reading.
Now we’re 13th.
We were 7th in science.
Today? 18th.
And in maths? We’ve fallen from 11th to 23rd.
So much for National Standards. And so much for the neo-liberal ideology that has not only not delivered on promises of excellence in our education system – but has seemingly damaged it. Our fall in international rankings are stark evidence that National’s policies in education have failed spectacularly.
Little then offered what can only be described as Labour’s manifesto for the 2017 General Election;
- We’ll crack down on the offshore speculators who are driving up house prices and locking families out of the market.
- Labour will launch a mass home building programme to deliver new, affordable homes in Auckland and around the country.
- That’s why we are committed to three years’ free post-school education so that Kiwis can train and retrain across their working lives, without having to take on huge debt. That’s how we support our people and its how we tackle the challenge of the future of work.
- We’ll introduce a dole for apprenticeships scheme to give young people the opportunity to get into paid work.
- We’ll raise the number of hours people can work without having their benefit cut.
- We will feed hungry kids in schools…
In six, short, sentences, Andrew Little has put the boot into neo-liberal so-called “reforms”. If elected, and if Labour does not water-down it’s promises, we will be witnessing the dismantling of thirtythree years of the neo-liberal paradigm in New Zealand.
No wonder right-wing commentator, Matthew Hooton, seemed perturbed by Little’s speech during his regular ‘slot’ on Radio NZ’s Nine to Noon programme on 23 May.
Perhaps the most revolutionary aspect to Little’s promises is that of “three years’ free post-school education“. This is, in effect, partially undoing user-pays in our tertiary institutions.
But the most clever aspect to Little’s speech is that it is “talking” to two different parts of New Zealand.
His reference to “that lost income works out to be fifty bucks a week for the average family” is a direct pitch to Middle New Zealand that feels it is not progressing whilst the mega-rich rort the tax system.
But his reference to abandoning part of user-pays in tertiary education is directed at the Left who are demanding that the Labour Party make a public commitment to renouncing it’s Rogernomics past.
The trick for Labour’s hierarchy and strategists is to achieve both – appealing to Middle New Zealand and the Left – but without spooking the former, or further alienating the latter.
In effect, Labour has taken a firm step-to-the-left – and the public have not noticed.
Mike Williams was right: this was a “dangerous” speech from Andrew Little.
And a damned clever one.
.
Addendum
Full text of Andrew Little’s speech here.
.
.
.
.
References
Fairfax: Jane Bowron – Marae shows up Government with haere mai to homeless
Trading economics: New Zealand Unemployed Persons
Fairfax media: Bill English describes some Kiwis looking for work as ‘pretty damned hopeless’
TV1 News: Panama Papers investigation – ‘NZ absolutely, conclusively is a tax haven’
Interest.co.nz: Collapse in home-ownership rates among families formed since 1991 is an unfolding disaster for NZ’s economy
Radio NZ: No housing crisis in NZ – Paula Bennett
Radio NZ: Nine to Noon – Political commentators Mike Williams and Matthew Hooton
Scoop media: Andrew Little: Pre-Budget Speech 2016
Related
Pundit: Have We a Housing Policy?
Other bloggers
Chris Trotter: Left Unsaid: What Andrew Little Didn’t Say In His Pre-Budget Speech
Kiwipolitico: Not Quite But Getting There
No Right Turn: National should give us our $13,000 back
The Standard: Little’s $50 a week message getting through
Copyright (c) Notice
All images stamped ‘fmacskasy.wordpress.com’ are freely available to be used, with following provisos,
» Use must be for non-commercial purposes.
» Where purpose of use is commercial, a donation to Child Poverty Action Group is requested.
» At all times, images must be used only in context, and not to denigrate individuals or groups.
» Acknowledgement of source is requested.
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 25 May 2016.
.
.
= fs =
Letter to the editor – through a mirror, crack’d?
.
.
from: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: Sunday Star Times <editor@star-times.co.nz>
date: Wed, Dec 10, 2014
subject: Letters to the editor.
The EditorSunday Star Times.
I think the Greens will have no problems distancing themselves from the Labour-National Grand Coalition after both major parties voted to increase the powers of the SIS.I would not be at all surprised if the Green Party builds on this issue and receives a boost in poll ratings as a reward.
Then again, maybe I’m hopelessly naive and don’t realise that 21st Century New Zealand loves the idea of a Surveillance State (to protect us from Muslim jihadists; uppity brown people; Kim Dotcom; communist Greenies; martians, pod people, Uncle Tom Cobbly…)
In fact, somewhere along the line, I slipped through a tear in quantum realities and ended up in a Parallel Universe where the Rise of the Surveillance State is proceeding with hardly a murmur.
Clearly, this is not the country I grew up in.
It is a hopelessly-apathetic; easily-led; twisted variant.
-Frank Macskasy
[address and phone number supplied]
.
References
Libcom: 1982 – The death of Neil Roberts
.
.
.
= fs =
MSM under-mining of new Labour Leader already begun?
.
.
It did not take long.
In fact, on the same day that Andrew Little won the Labour leadership*, the first media reporter was already asking if he would be stepping down if Labour failed to lift in the all-important polls.
On Radio NZ’s Checkpoint, the usually uber-sensible, Mary Wilson asked these gormless questions of Andrew Little,
@ 4.35
Wilson: “And in terms of your accountability though, if at the end of 2016, there is no movement [in the polls] there is no change, what happens then?”
@ 4.47
Wilson: “Is there any point during the next few years where you will say, ‘Ok, this hasn’t worked; I haven’t done what I set out to achieve; I’m leaving’.”
@ 5.00
Wilson: “And if you’re not there by the end of 2016, would you step aside?”
Now bear in mind that Radio NZ is not part of the ratings-driven, advertising-revenue-chasing corporate MSM of this country – but still those questions were put to Little.
How long before the corporate MSM – sensing sensational headlines and potential advertising revenue – begin baying for blood and drafting stories which begin to portray Little in a negative light?
It was the relentless attacks on Cunliffe from all quarters of the MSM (including non-commercial Radio NZ) which contributed to under-mining his leadership in the eyes of the voting public.
The public’s perception of a political figure is determined largely by how he is portrayed by the media. Fairness and accuracy can play little part in reporting stories targetting a political figure. As the Donghua Liu Affair, in the NZ Herald showed with disturbing clarity, even a non-story can be spun in such a way as to totally destroy a man’s credibility and reputation.
Note: As an aside, in defending the Herald’s story on the 13 year old Donghua Liu-Cunliffe letter, Editor Tim Murphy stated in June this year (in an email to this blogger), that “We fully expect further details to come will show the Herald’s earlier reporting to have, as we have known throughout, been accurate and soundly based“. Nothing further has been produced by the Herald to back up it’s assertions since it was forced to make retractions on 25 June.
The Donghua Liu Affair was part of an ongoing, targetted, smear campaign against David Cunliffe. The non-story, involving a 13 year old letter; a non-existent $100,000 bottle of wine; and an alleged, yet-to-be-discovered, $15,000 book, painted Cunliffe as untrustworthy, and the Labour Party as dodgy.
The new Labour leader will have to keep his wits about him and use every media-related connection and employ the best possible media minders to counter an MSM that can no longer be trusted to report the basic truth. With the likes of Patrick Gower and Mike Hosking competing to be the “baddest bad asses” on the Media Block, accuracy and truth play third-fiddle behind egos (#1) and ratings (#2).
TV3’s Patrick Gower has already had a ‘go’ at Little’s victory, referring to the democratic selection process as “the great union ripoff”;
“It’s a backdoor takeover by the unions. Simply, Andrew Little would not be Labour leader without the unions. He is the unions’ man; Little is a union man, and the unions have got their man into Labour’s top job.”
The TV3 on-line article is bizarre in itself with TV3’s “Online Reporter”, Dan Satherley, reporting TV3’s Political Reporter, Patrick Gower’s, utterances. Journalists interviewing each other?
They just can’t help themselves. In an ‘Interstellar‘-quality vacuum of any meaningful news reporting, media-hacks like Gower will blather on about any silliness that enters their heads. Far be it for him to actually interview Andrew Little and ask him questions like;
What’s on your agenda if you become Prime Minister?
What’s your point-of-difference to National?
What do you hope to achieve, legislation-wise, in the First 100 Days of a government you lead?
You know, real questions that real journalists used to ask, in real interviews, with real people.
At the same time, the same brickbat used to beat the MSM around it’s collective head should be generously applied to the Labour Party hierarchy’s backside.
When Labour president Moira Coatsworth made this statement in the NZ Herald, congratulating Andrew Little;
Labour president Moira Coatsworth, who announced Mr Little’s victory, said he would lead a reinvigorated party into the 2017 election campaign.
“Andrew has the leadership skills and the vision to win the trust of New Zealanders and take Labour to victory in 2017. I have no doubt he will go on to become a great Labour Prime Minister who builds a stronger, fairer and more sustainable New Zealand.”
– it was the same gushing enthusiasm she voiced for David Cunliffe last year;
“The Labour Party congratulates David Cunliffe on his win. David has been elected by a robust and democratic process and has won on the first round with a clear majority. This gives him a strong mandate as leader and he has the full support of the Labour Party.
[…]
David Cunliffe has the leadership skills and the vision to win the trust of New Zealanders and take Labour to victory in 2014. I have no doubt he will go on to become a great Labour Prime Minister who builds a stronger, fairer and more sustainable New Zealand.”
– and before that, David Shearer, in 2011;
“I congratulate both David and Grant and look forward to working closely with them as we build towards a Labour victory in 2014.
David and Grant bring a fresh approach; a breadth of skills and a strong commitment to rebuild for a Labour win in 2014.”
The repetitive nature of Labour’s revolving-door leadership leaves the voting public scratching it’s collective head, wondering WTF?! As I blogged on 2 October;
If the Labour caucus don’t support their own leader – especially when times are tough – why should they expect the voting public to take their leadership choices seriously? After all, with four leaders gone in six years, it would appear to be a temporary position at best.
And earlier, on 25 September, I wrote to the NZ Herald;
If Labour keeps changing it’s Leader after every defeat, then I put the following questions to them;
1. How will a Labour Leader gain experience, if they’re dumped every couple of years?
2. How can the public be expected to get to know a Labour Leader, and develop trust in that person, if their presence is fleeting and disappear before we get to know him/her?
3. How will a Labour Leader learn to handle victory, when s/he first won’t be allowed to understand defeat? Humility is learned in failure, not success.
I also pointed out in the same letter-to-the-editor;
The Greens have leaderships that are stable and long-term, irrespective of electoral success or failure. That is because the Party has faith and confidence in their leadership choices.
Even pro-National columnist for the NZ Herald, John Armstrong stated the obvious on 18 November;
“The public should warm to him. But that will take some time.”
Meanwhile, on the day that Andrew Little won the leadership contest, John Key made this astute observation;
“What this process has shown is that there are deep divisions within the party, they’re a long way away from agreeing with each other or even liking each other.
Andrew Little has the task of unifying a group of individuals who historically have shown they have very low levels of discipline.”
He has a point. Labour’s lack of internal discipline is in stark contrast to National’s public facade of unity. Both parties have their own factions – but National is the one that has succeeded in keeping in-fighting private and behind closed doors.
There is a weird irony to this. Labour is supposedly the party that espouses an ideology of collective action whilst National is the party of unfettered individualism.
Yet it is the Nats who work collectively and collegially for their number one goal: power. Any factional agitation and cat-spats for dominance is kept well away from the public and media gaze.
By contrast, Labour appears to be a party of rugged individualists that would make ACT look like an Ohu commune from the 1970s.
Labour could do well do learn from their rivals.
The alternative is more dissent and dis-unity within Labour; more leadership changes; and a National government stretching into the 2020s, with Max Key taking the reigns of Prime Ministership from his father, and assuming the dynastic role of “Little Leader”.
Personally, I prefer a “Little Leader” to emerge from a Labour-led government, and not a future National regime.
Andrew Little’s success will be our success as well.
.
* Disclaimer: This blogger is not a Labour Party member, nor has any preference who should be Leader of that party.
** Acknowledgement to Curwen Rolinson for his perception and pointing this out on his Facebook page.
.
References
Radio NZ: Little man for the job of Labour’s big rebuild
Radio NZ Checkpoint: Little says narrowness of his win not a problem (audio)
NZ Herald: Donghua Liu’s new statement on Labour donations
TV3 News: Gower – Little’s victory ‘the great union ripoff’
NZ Herald: ‘He has the vision to win the trust of New Zealanders’ – Andrew Little elected Labour leader
Interest.co.nz: David Cunliffe wins Labour leadership contest, defeating Grant Robertson and Shane Jones
Scoop Media: Labour Party President congratulates new leadership team
NZ Herald: John Armstrong – Andrew Little’s first job – drown out Winston Peters
MSN News: Labour is still divided – Key
Te Ara Encyclopedia: Communes and communities
Facebook: Curwen Rolinson
Previous related blogposts
Letter to the editor: the culling of Cunliffe
The Donghua Liu Affair – The Players Revealed
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 21 November 2014
.
.
= fs =
A Study in Party Stability
.
In terms of long-term stability, one party above stands above all others, with the exception of personality-driven groups such as NZ First and United Future. That party is the Greens.
If the Labour Party wants to look elsewhere for solutions to their problems, they need only walk down the coridor at Parliament and knock on the doors to Metiria Turei and Russell Norman.
The Greens’ record speaks for itself…
.
.
(L-R) Helen Clarke – Michael Cullen – Jeanette Fitzsimons (retired 2009) – Russell Norman
.
.
(L-R) Phil Goff – Annette King – Metiria Turei – Russell Norman
.
.
(L-R) David Shearer – Grant Robertson – Metiria Turei – Russell Norman
.
.
(L-R) David Cunliffe – David Parker – Metiria Turei – Russell Norman
.
.
(L-R) ? – ? – Metiria Turei – Russell Norman
.
.
(L-R) ? – ? – Metiria Turei – Russell Norman
.
In the meantime, Labour’s ritual post-election self-flagellation and purging of their leadership damages their standing in the public’s eye even further. The words I’ve been hearing in the last 48 hours are “clowns”, idiots”, and a few others that are unmentionable around kids.
If the Labour caucus don’t support their own leader – especially when times are tough – why should they expect the voting public to take their leadership choices seriously? After all, with four leaders gone in six years, it would appear to be a temporary position at best.
The only thing that Labour is proving by it’s actions is that it cannot cope with defeat; cannot build positively; and most important – will not support it’s elected leader when he needs it the most. Not exactly an inspiring message to send to voters, eh?
Remind me why the public would think that this is a team worth supporting?!
No one benefits from this circus.
Except of course, Cameron Slater, David Farrar, Simon Lusk, and their parasitic mates. For them, despite Nicky Hager’s expose, this has been a dream-come-true. For the apostles of Dirty Politics, Christmas has come early.
Gift-wrapped and presented by the Labour Party caucus and hierarchy.
.
References
Radio NZ: Cunliffe resigns as leader of Labour
NZ Herald: Timeline: Labour’s years of leadership pain
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 28 September 2014
.
.
= fs =
Letter to the editor: the culling of Cunliffe (v2)
.
.
FROM: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
DATE: Thu, Sep 25, 2014
TO: Sunday Star Times <letters@star-times.co.nz>
SUBJECT: Letter to the editor.
The editor
Sunday Star Times.
Has it ever occurred to the Labour caucus that replacing your Leaders after every electoral loss is counterproductive? I offer three reasons for this assertion;
1. How do you test your Leader in the fires of adversity, if you keep replacing him (or her) after each electoral loss? If your Leader is proven in victory – but unknowable in defeat – are you not missing a vital measure of the man (or woman)?
2. Replacing your Leader after each defeat sends a curious message to the public. It suggests that you’ve made a mistake with your Leadership selection. In which case, if/when you choose a new Leader to replace Cunliffe – is that a mistake as well? If you have no faith in your Leader, even in dire adversity, why should we – the voting public?
3. It takes years for a Leader to become known and familiar to the public. Years to gain their trust. If you keep rotating your Leadership, you are in effect putting an Unknown Quantity before the public who will never get a chance to assess the man (or woman).
It took three terms for the public to get to know Helen Clark. After which she led three consecutive Labour-led governments.
For god sakes, learn from history.
Or be consigned to it.
-Frank Macskasy
[address & phone number supplied]
Text taken from blogpost: No More. The Left Falls.
.
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
.
.
= fs =
Letter to the editor: the culling of Cunliffe
.
.
FROM: Frank Macskasy <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
DATE: Thu, Sep 25, 2014
TO: NZ Herald <letters@herald.co.nz>
SUBJECT: Letter to the Editor.
The editor
NZ Herald.
If Labour keeps changing it’s Leader after every defeat, then I put the following questions to them;1. How will a Labour Leader gain experience, if they’re dumped every couple of years?
2. How can the public be expected to get to know a Labour Leader, and develop trust in that person, if their presence is fleeting and disappear before we get to know him/her?
3. How will a Labour Leader learn to handle victory, when s/he first won’t be allowed to understand defeat? Humility is learned in failure, not success.
4. If the Leader is changed after each defeat, that suggests the Labour Party wasn’t confident with their initial choice. The public cannot be expected to take Labour leadership appointments seriously knowing that their tenure is most likely temporary.
The Greens have leaderships that are stable and long-term, irrespective of electoral success or failure. That is because the Party has faith and confidence in their leadership choices.
The Labour Party might consider this before it dispatches Mr Cunliffe.
-Frank Macskasy
[address & phone number supplied]
.
.
.
= fs =
An open message to Kelvin Davis…
.
.
Kelvin is now supported by the likes of National Party apparatchik, David Farrar, and quasi-fascist muck-raker, Cameron Slater.
That alone should give Kelvin, Stuart, et al in the Labour Party pause for thought.
To Kelvin; his colleagues; and his cheerleaders, I share this insight, for free;
Why is Key so popular?
One of the reasons is that he has demonstrated a willingness and ability to work with other political parties, from neo-lib-nutcases in ACT to political prostitute Dunne, to the Maori Party.
In doing so, he has cobbled together a coalition that has lasted nearly six – six! – years.
In every campaign, neither Key nor a single other National candidate has ever slagged off one of their potential coalition allies. Not once.
What the public sees is a group of political parties working together. They may campaign on their own policies and platforms and do “deals” – but they never slag off in public.
Because Key understands the mood of the public; that people want to see our elected representatives working together, for the “good of the country”.
Now, we can disagree that National’s policies are for the “good of the country”. God knows I’ve written enough about National’s appalling governance that has left this country in a social and economic mess.
But – the public still perceives Key as being able to work with other parties. Key demonstrates collegiality every time he’s in the media.
Contrast that to the infighting between the parties on the Left.
The public are not seeing Labour going hard out to win the election; they’re seeing Labour going hard out to win votes, at any cost.
Believe me, there is a big, big difference.
That, my fellow New Zealanders, is why Labour is low in the polls.
If Labour cannot demonstrate, to the public, that it can work collegially with potential coalition allies now, prior to 20 September – then how on Earth can Labour expect the public to believe it can work with other parties, post-election?
Saying that you can “work with other parties” and then trying to destroy them at every opportunity sends only one message to the public; you’re more interested in your own success than anything else.
Not exactly a hopeful message, is it?
.
.
References
Facebook: Kelvin Davis
Previous related blogposts
The secret of National’s success – revealed
.
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
.
.
= fs =
‘Tricky’ media…
.
.
In case anyone finds it hard to believe that some in the msm (mainstream media) are politically partisan, the screen-shot below – of a recent NZ Herald story – should help dispel such doubts;
.
.
Notice the two disparate images.
On the left, Key’s image portrays him as smiling and obviously confident and relaxed.His authority is not under threat.
The image on the right, depicting David Cunliffe, shows him scowling; mouth open in mid-retort; obviously in a defensive and angry position. His leadership authority is shown to be in question in that image. (Hence the old expression, “if you become angry, you have lost the argument“.)
It is a subtle piece of visual propaganda; one is calm, poised, confident. The other is emotional, upset, obviously responding to an attack.
So this is supposedly an example of an impartial, non-partisan media?
And journos wonder why a large sector of society view them with disdain and suspicion?
If the Reader’s Digest Most Trusted Professions for 2013 is any indication, journalists need to work on their integrity;
1. Paramedics
2. Firefighters
3. Rescue volunteers
4. Nurses
5. Pilots
6. Doctors
7. Pharmacists
8. Veterinarians
9. Police
10. Armed Forces personnel
11. Scientists
12. Teachers
13. Childcare workers
14. Dentists
15. Farmers
16. Bus/train/tram drivers
17. Flight attendants
18. Architects
19. Chefs
20. Electricians
21. Miners
22. Computer technicians
23. Postal workers
24. Hairdressers
25. Builders
26. Plumbers
27. Mechanics
28. Accountants
29. Truck drivers
30. Waiters
31. Bankers
32. Charity collectors
33. Shop assistants
34. Clergy (all religions)
35. Cleaners
36. Personal trainers
37. Lawyers
38. Taxi drivers
39. Financial planners
40. CEOs
41. Call centre staff
42. Airport baggage handlers
43. Journalists
44. Real estate agents
45. Insurance salespeople
46. Politicians
47. Sex workers
48. Car salespeople
49. Door-to-door salespeople
50. Telemarketers
Lumped in with politicians, car salespeople, etc, is not a desirable place, one would think.
This will be a dirty election as the Right (National and ACT) with their media allies (NZ Herald, NBR, and rantback radio hosts) pull out the stops to destroy a resurgent Left. Those who hold power will not give it up easily.
.
.
References
NZ Herald: Key on Liu-Labour link: More to come
Reader’s Digest: New Zealand’s Most Trusted Professions 2013
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 20 June 2014.
.
.
= fs =
Labour’s collapse in the polls – why?
.
.
In recent months, successive polls have not favoured the Labour Party and the Left Bloc.
A TV3 Reid Research Poll in mid/late May gave a shock result for Labour;
National: 50.3% (+ 4.4%)
Labour: 29.5% (- 1.7%)
Greens: 10.2% (- 1%)
NZ First: 5.6% (+ 0.7%)
A Roy Morgan poll in late May/early June – one of the more accurate of polls – fared no better;
National: 52.5% (+ 7%)
Labour: 29% (- 1.5%)
Greens: 9% (- 4.5%)
NZ First: 4.5% (- 1.5%)
A mid-June Herald Digipoll presented similar results;
National: 50.4% (- 0.4%)
Labour: 30.5% (+ 1%)
Greens: 10.7% (- 2.4%)
NZ First: 3.6% (n/c)
The most recent stats, from a June Fairfax/Ipsos poll, was even worse;
National: 56.5 (+ 8.9%)
Labour: 23.2% (-6.3%)
Greens: 11.9% (- 0.8%)
NZ First: 3.2% (- 0.5%)
Though National’s 56.5% is in pure la-la land (they scored only 47.31% in the 2011 General Election), the overall pattern seems fairly clear; National is rising, whilst the Labour-Green bloc is falling, and – on face value – close to collapse. (I also do not believe that NZ First will not cross the 5% threshold.)
I put National’s rise and the Left’s fall down to three significant factors;
1. National’s May 15 Budget which took a lurch to the left with extra social spending; removing tariffs (temporarily) on building materials; and the promise of a budget ‘surplus‘.
It was a typical electioneering budget, increasing spending on social areas that had been been previously starved of funding in recent years. Even the so-called “surplus” was questioned by the Opposition.
2. Increasing economic activity, predicated mainly on three factors;
- Auckland’s housing bubble/boom
- The Christchurch re-build
- Growing demand for dairy products and raw material exports from our trading partners
3. Infighting between Labour and it’s potential coalition partners.
On 7 June, I blogged on the issue of Labour’s unprovoked and negative attacks on it’s potential allies. I wrote;
Going by recent public comments made by Labour MPs and candidates, it seems that the Labour Party is either planning to sit this election out – or some of it’s higher-ranking public individuals are out of control.
How else to explain recent statements made in the mainstream and social media by Labour people, attacking others on the Left?
[…]Being “principled” and attacking potential allies will result in looking weak and fractured, in the eyes of the public.
Being “principled” and attacking potential allies smacks of dis-unity. Dis-unity, in the eyes of the public, is not a Government-in-waiting. It is Labour unable to set aside self-interest and party-politics for the good of the nation.
If the public perceive that Labour is more interested in attacking it’s own potential allies – and here is the nub of the problem – then why should people vote for such a fractious party that appears unable to work alongside said potential allies?
National – polling in high 40s and low 50s – cultivates potential allies.
Labour – polling in high 20s and low 30s – undermines, attacks, and marginalises it’s own potential allies.
[…]
How many times have we heard the public say, “why can’t they work together for the good of the country?”.
Well, National’s strategists have understood and implemented this very simple truism; the public do not like seeing squabbling politicians. The public want political parties to work together, collegially to solve pressing problems.
That is why Key keeps repeating his mantra,
“We’ve shown we can deliver strong and stable government and can work with other parties for the good of the country blah blah blah..”
That is why National is high up in the polls.
That is why Labour is floundering and losing support. And respect.
Not only do I not resile from the above comments I wrote on 7 June, but I reassert that recent polling has more than proven my point.
We on the Left can do very little about National’s fudging of Budget figures, nor economic growth created by demands from an earthquake-ravaged city; a housing bubble; and Chinese consumption.
We can, however, get our own house in order when it comes to inter-party relationships.
If Labour wants to portray itself as a credible government-in-waiting, it must demonstrate that it is capable of working across all sectors in society.
If they cannot work collegially with other Left-leaning parties – then why on Earth should the public believe that Labour could work with other sector-groups? The ‘signals’ that various Labour MPs (Hipkins, Nash, Goff, Shane Jones, Davis, et al) are sending is one of fractious in-fighting; of “greedy little little children grabbing all the toys in the cot, and not prepared to share and play together”.
This is not a political party demonstrating readiness to be a government. It is a party showing desperation to grab votes at any expense.
Unless Labour is looking forward to sitting on the Opposition benches for the next ten years, it must change it’s internal culture. We talk about the “Police culture” needing change – I submit that Labour itself needs to look deep within itself and understand why the public are not responding to their policies and messages.
Why is the public turned off from Labour?
How does the public view Labour’s bitter attacks on the Greens and Mana-Internet?
What does the public want?
Ask those three questions at the next focus groups, Ms Coatsworth, and you may start to understand why it is that Labour is not connecting with voters.
.
References
TV3 Reid Research: 3 News Reid Research Poll
Roy Morgan: National (52.5%) surges to election winning lead while Labour/ Greens (38%) slump to lowest
NZ Herald: National flies high as new party nibbles into Greens
Fairfax media: Ipsos June 2014 Poll – The Party Vote
Wikipedia: New Zealand general election, 2011
NZ Herald: Budget 2014 – Bigger surplus unveiled, doctor visits for kids
Interest.co.nz: Government to temporarily remove duties and tariffs on building materials
Dominion Post: Wellington rape centre forced to cut hours
Fairfax media: Rape crisis line forced to cut staff
Fairfax media: Budget 2014: Surplus real, says English
NBR: Auckland house prices continue their relentless rise
NZ Herald: Big resurgence in NZ house-building
Stats NZ: Dairy product exports grow for 20 years
Stats NZ: Logs to China drive our forestry export growth
Daily Blog: The secret of National’s success – revealed
Previous related blogposts
Letter to the Editor: playing politics with rape victims, National-style
Budget 2014 – How has National exposed itself in Election Year?
.
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 19 June 2014.
.
.
= fs =
Letter to the Editor: The National House of Cards (v.2)
.
.
FROM: "f.macskasy" SUBJECT: Letter to the Editor DATE: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 13:52:49 +1200 TO: "NZ Herald" <letters@herald.co.nz>
.
The editor NZ Herald . So let me get this straight; the Nats have "found" an eleven year old letter, purportedly from David Cunliffe, relating to Donghua Liu's legitimate application to the Immigration Service. Locating a letter from eleven years ago, from a government department? I had no idea our bureaucracy was so incredibly super-efficient. It also appears that John Key and Bill English seem to have differing stories when they got hold of this mysterious "letter". Key says he "can't exactly recall, I think it was a few weeks ago." But English says he did not know anything about it. So what is the story? When did they "get hold" of this letter? Who gave it to them? And how on earth could it have been "found" after eleven years? Methinks there is more to this issue, and the dodgy shenanigans being played out by senior National ministers in an apparent dirty tricks campaign, is the real story. It is high time for Key and English to come clean. What are they up to? -Frank Macskasy
[address & phone number supplied]
.
References
Radio NZ: PM and deputy at odds over Cunliffe letter
Radio NZ Interview: Deputy PM says Cunliffe’s credibility shot
NZ Herald: Key on Liu-Labour link – More to come
The Daily Blog: The Trap Is Sprung – Why David Cunliffe Must Not Resign
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
.
.
= fs =
Letter to the Editor: The National House of Cards
.
.
FROM: "f.macskasy" SUBJECT: Letter to the Editor DATE: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 09:31:52 +1200 TO: "Dominion Post" <letters@dompost.co.nz> .The Editor Dominion Post . So National's party strategists have begun their "House of Cards" dirty tricks campaign? Finding an eleven year old letter, to try to discredit David Cunliffe, must have been the "luckiest" stroke in history. It is going to be a nasty campaign and the Nats will pull out all stops to win. -Frank Macskasy
[address & phone number supplied]
.
References
NZ Herald: Key on Liu-Labour link – More to come
The Daily Blog: The Trap Is Sprung – Why David Cunliffe Must Not Resign
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
.
.
= fs =
The secret of National’s success – revealed.
.
.
1. Preface
Firstly, a disclosure on my part: I am a Green Party supporter (though by no means ‘wedded’ to that particular party – or any party for that matter).
Secondly, it is not often I write a piece criticising others on the Left. I have long held the opinion that the Left needs to work together to achieve common goals, and that public displays of discord only serves to play into the hands of the Right. And really, do we need to give the Right any further ammunition? Especially free of charge?!
2. What the hell is going on?!
Going by recent public comments made by Labour MPs and candidates, it seems that the Labour Party is either planning to sit this election out – or some of it’s higher-ranking public individuals are out of control.
How else to explain recent statements made in the mainstream and social media by Labour people, attacking others on the Left?
A few examples.
Kelvin Davis on 28 May (see video at 1.29);
“People can see that this is just a stitch-up and I don’t think they like seeing Tai Tokerau being traded off like that. I think they’re taking the voters of Tai Tokerau for granted.”
.
.
The above ‘tweet’ was supported by none other than ACT Party-member, Peter McKeefry;
@matthewjpb@chrishipkins and we look forward to you Chippie slamming the corruption of democracy by the left in general debate.
Meanwhile, also on 30 May, Labour MP and one-time Party leader, Phil Goff, added his three cents worth on Facebook;
.
.
Goff makes the point,
“I am also opposed to anyone buying a political party and buying influence by splashing out $3 million as Dotcom proposes.”
Funny. That is precisely the same smear that the Right continually throw at Labour: that unions are “buying influence” with their donations to the Labour Party campaign ‘war chest’.
It can only be a facepalm moment when a senior, experienced, supposedly politically-savvy Labour politician utters a statement that parrots and validates Right-wing bullshit. Nice one, Phil. Got anything on ‘lazy benes’ spending up large on SkyTV, booze, and drugs?
.
.
.
Right-wing blogger and National apparatchik, David Farrar, caught on very quickly when Kelvin Davis re-tweeted one of National Party supporter, Hamish Price’s tweets, and posed this question;
.
.
.
.
And just to make sure we all got the gist of his attacks on small parties (aka, Internet-Mana), Hipkins threw this ‘grenade’ into the mix on the same day;
.
.
Of all the statements put out by Labour’s MPs, that one has to be the most asinine yet – as blogger Jackal (et al) tried to point out to Labour’s Napier candidate, Stuart Nash;
.
.
Kelvin Davis seems unable to comprehend that a “Labour victory” is unobtainable if Labour shafts potential coalition partners. He could not answer the simple question; “How will you achieve a Labour victory without coalition partners“?!
This simple fact not lost on National – and the Nats have consistently out-ranked Labour in every poll to date! (More on this point in a moment.)
Twitter-user, Andrew Riddell tried (in vain) to point out the futility of Labour’s attacks on Mana-Internet – and was “rewarded” with a very bizarre, Winston Peters-like evasive response by Labour’s Education spokesperson and MP for Rimutake, Chris Hipkins;
.
.
.
.
Kelvin Davis’ hardline statements were supported by rightwing Twitter members such as Hamish Price, Manoja St John – and by right-wing, National-supporting blogger, Keeping Stock;
.
.
Note who “Favourited” Keeping Stock’s tweet – Kelvin Davis and National Party MP, Mark Mitchell (red arrowed).
Amazingly, it was ‘ordinary’ Twitter users who tried to talk sense into Labour’s MPs and candidates;
.
@AndrewRiddell1@chrishipkins@LewSOS They want to be be in opposition. They can’t even function together as one team.
.
@chrishipkins@AndrewRiddell1@LewSOS Ppl don’t have the confidence to vote left bcause they can’t see how we will work together. Fix this!
.
@chrishipkins@LewSOS For someone who is pro-MMP you show a real inability to think in terms of left and right blocs.
.
@chrishipkins why use strategic friends and allies when you can just lose all by yourself?
.
@chrishipkins if u want to win need to get around your heads around the fact that MMP rules allow what happened and be more magnanimous
.
@chrishipkins that is not constructive. Think outside the “two big parties” box please.
.
@chrishipkins another crack at your future coalition partners.. It’s like you know you’re going to lose….
.
Gee,
@chrishipkins, I’ve never heard you be so purposefully insulting … oh, wait. Yes I have.
.
@chrishipkins Speaking of sell outs.. I remember the time in 1984 when I voted Labour and got neoliberalism instead.
.
@TweetFromTheHip@NgatiBird@dpfdpf@hamishpricenz Kelvin,you are in the wrong party .. join the Nats and make a REAL difference
.
@allanalach@chrishipkins It is counter productive for the left to dis the left Instead its smarter 2 wish them well & focus on a left win
.
@NgatiBird Even more kinda sorta ironic that the Kelvin Scale is used to determine absolute zero.
.
@NgatiBird how many tory votes do you think that tweet scored you?
.
@NgatiBird Pull your head in .clowns like urself are gonna cost THE LEFT thats right THE LEFT. this election.#STFU
.
@StuartANash@DavidCunliffeMP Is Labour on a kamikaze mission? Goff, Davis & now Nash slagging off coalition partners. This is damaging.
.
@allanalach@chrishipkins more the left stands undivided the easier it is for the country to think the right is the only consistent choice
.
The last (but not really – there were many, many more) made the point that really counts.
3. The Primal Urge to Self-Destruct?
I’m not sure what ‘game’ Labour is playing at here. Obviously they are trying to grab potential votes that might accrue to Mana-Internet – but the process they are using is so utterly destructive that it beggars belief.
In an MMP environment, both National and Labour need smaller parties as coalition partners. This was amply illustrated in 2011, when National all but endorsed John Banks for the Epsom electorate, and made Katrina Shanks an electorate candidate-in-name-only in Ohariu, to allow Peter Dunne the opportunity to win.
National fully understands the realpolitik of MMP.
Labour – it appears – is still playing by First Past the Post rules.
National set the rules for MMP on 14 May 2013, when Justice Minister Judith Collins told the House that National would be rejecting the Electoral Commission’s recommendations to abandon the ‘coat tailing’ provision and to reduce the party threshold from 5% to 4% [which this blogger supports]. Collins gave the weak excuse,
“Mr Speaker, of course I did not hold the MMP Review. That was a matter that was undertaken by the Electoral Commission. But I can also say that I made it very clear that we need concensus on these matters for any change and there is no concensus for any change.”
The “concensus” that Collins referred to was ACT and Peter Dunne opposing the scrapping of coat-tailing because it would significantly damage their electoral chance to win extra seats with that provision.
“National can hardly bitch and moan about this outcome either. For nearly 15 years, it campaigned loud and long against the evils of MMP and railed for a review of its shortcomings. Yet then Justice Minister Judith Collins promptly and cynically shelved the MMP review findings, once National realised that the review’s main recommendation – that the electorate seat coat-tails now being used by Harawira and Dotcom should be abolished – would hurt its own chances of getting Colin Craig and his Conservatives and the Act Party’s latest minion in Epsom onside, and into Parliament. If the Mana/Dotcom arrangement looks like cynical pragmatism, it is merely par for the course.”
Labour needs to get their head around one simple reality; that it must – must! – play by the rules which National have set. Playing by another set of rules will result in losing the election in September and staying on the Opposition benches.
If Labour is trying to paint itself as “principled” – they have failed. Right wing blogs and even msm journalists have tarred both main parties with the same brush, as TV3 journalist, Patrick Gower did in 2011, with an outrageous claim about Labour doing “dirty deals” with the Greens. (For the record, since 2002, the Greens’ policy has been to campaign for the Party Vote, not the Electorate Vote. Gower was making sh*t up when he claimed – without any actual evidence – that Labour and the Greens colluded in Ohariu in 2011.)
Being “principled” will not prevent public attacks by right-wing commentators; headline-hunting conservative msm journos; business interests; National/ACT; etc.
Being “principled” will simply give National a free run in this years’ election.
Being “principled” and attacking potential allies will result in under-mining potential coalition partners.
Being “principled” and attacking potential allies will result in looking weak and fractured, in the eyes of the public.
Being “principled” and attacking potential allies smacks of dis-unity. Dis-unity, in the eyes of the public, is not a Government-in-waiting. It is Labour unable to set aside self-interest and party-politics for the good of the nation.
If the public perceive that Labour is more interested in attacking it’s own potential allies – and here is the nub of the problem – then why should people vote for such a fractious party that appears unable to work alongside said potential allies?
National – polling in high 40s and low 50s – cultivates potential allies.
Labour – polling in high 20s and low 30s – undermines, attacks, and marginalises it’s own potential allies.
Contrast Labour’s current destructive pattern of behaviour with National’s attitude, as repeated ad nauseum by John Key;
“We’ve shown we can deliver strong and stable government and can work with other parties for the good of the country, even when those parties have different policies.”
Labour says that it will campaign on it’s own policies.
So does National.
But the difference – the B-I-G difference – is that in doing so, National does not attempt to subvert the chances of it’s potential allies. Quite the contrary, it nurtures it’s potential coalition partners like a farmer tending to his flock.
Is this “dirty deal-making” as sensationalist media headline-mongers keep hysterically screaming?
.
.
– or has National understood what the public really, really, really want; constructive co-operation between political parties?
How many times have we heard the public say, “why can’t they work together for the good of the country?”.
Well, National’s strategists have understood and implemented this very simple truism; the public do not like seeing squabbling politicians. The public want political parties to work together, collegially to solve pressing problems.
That is why Key keeps repeating his mantra,
“We’ve shown we can deliver strong and stable government and can work with other parties for the good of the country blah blah blah..”
That is why National is high up in the polls.
That is why Labour is floundering and losing support. And respect.
That is why the latest Roy Morgan poll – the most reasonably accurate of all polls (except the one that really counts on Election Day) – had this recent shocking result;
.
Today’s New Zealand Roy Morgan Poll shows a strong gain in support for National (52.5%, up 7%) now at their highest since before the last New Zealand Election and well ahead of a potential Labour/Greens alliance (38%, down 6%) – almost matching their performance at the 2011 New Zealand Election at which the two parties polled a combined 38.5%.
Support for Key’s Coalition partners has also improved with the Maori Party 1.5% (up 0.5%), ACT NZ (1%, up 0.5%) and United Future 0% (unchanged).
Support has fallen significantly for all Opposition parties with the Labour Party down 1.5% to 29%, the Greens down 4.5% to 9% (the lowest support for the Greens since September 2011), New Zealand First 4.5% (down 1.5%) and Mana Party 0.5% (down 0.5%). Support for the Conservative Party of NZ is 1% (unchanged) and the Internet Party is 0.5% (unchanged).
If a National Election were held now the latest New Zealand Roy Morgan Poll shows that the result would be a landslide victory for the National Party and a third term for Prime Minister John Key.
.
That is why the Left will lose on 20 September.
Unless Labour radically changes tack and demonstrates to the public that they are more interested in working together with potential partners – than wrecking their chances at winning votes – voters will be put off. Telling the public that Labour “can work with other parties after the election” is not good enough. Labour must show it can do it.
Otherwise, as one quasi-fascist right-wing blogger put it, the public will perceive that “things are falling apart for the Labour Party“. He may have a valid point.
Again, as Gordon Campbell stated,
“Labour may just be mule-headed enough – and tribally fixated on the FPP-era of politicking – to try and get rid of Harawira at all costs, and thereby torpedo one of its main chances of forming the next government.”
At which Scott Yorke at Imperator Fish added;
“How not to win an election…
…Pretend that we still have a First Past the Post electoral system.”
It is supremely ironic that National – the champion of the Cult of Individualism – can work collectively and collegially with other political parties. But Labour – a party of the left, which espouses collective action for the greater good – is desperately and greedily scrabbling for votes for itself and attacking potential allies.
Also ironic is that the current MMP rules were set by a National government for the benefit of National. When other parties such as Mana-Internet try to use those very same rules, the reaction from National, the media, and other right wing commentators, is both vicious and sustained.
Unfortunately, Labour have bought into National’s strategy. The concept of “principles” – which utterly eludes the Right – has been used to frame the issue of small, left-wing parties “coat tailing” into Parliament. It is “un-principled” when the Left does it.
When National does it, they are being “pragmatic” and duly ignore the shrill screams of the likes of Gower, Garner, et al.
Because in the final analysis, National has sussed perfectly well what the public wants.
We have three months to do likewise.
Or we will lose.
.
References
TVNZ News: Former MP Laila Harre tipped as Internet Party’s new leader
Twitter: Chris Hipkins
Facebook: Phil Goff
Twitter: David Farrar
Twitter: Hamish Price
Twitter: Chris Hipkins
Twitter: Chris Hipkins
Twitter: Jackal (Jackalblog)
Twitter: Andrew Riddell
Twitter: Chris Hipkins
Twitter: Kelvin Davis
Twitter: Keeping Stock
Fairfax media: Government’s MMP review response slammed
TV3: John Key’s State of the Nation speech – the main points
Kiwiblog: Mana-Dotcom Alliance
TV3: Dirty electorate political deals, done dirt cheap
Twitter: Patrick Gower
Previous related blogposts
The Mana-Internet Alliance – My Thoughts
Patrick Gower – losing his rag and the plot
Judith Collins issues decision on MMP Review!
Additional
Fairfax media: Labour MPs not happy with Mana-Internet
Other blogs
The Standard: Labour’s Mana Internet Party dilemma
Gordon Campbell: Gordon Campbell on the rise of Laila Harré
The Daily Blog: Authoritarian Labour: Why Kelvin Davis needs to STFU – and soon!
The Daily Blog: Keep Calm And Carry On: Why the Left should ignore the next round of poll results
Imperator Fish: How to win an election
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 7 June 2014.
.
.
= fs =
Questionable assumptions ‘bad for small democracies’
.
.
This item in Fairfax’s Dominion Post caught my eye a few days ago;
.
.
In this story, author John Anthony is reporting on a study by two academics – Massey University economics and finance senior lecturer Dr Chris Malone, and associate professor, Hamish Anderson. They came to the astonishing conclusion;
Small listed companies have performed significantly worse under Labour governments over the past 40 years because of major policy changes, a report says.
[…]
“The smaller firms have done abysmally poor during Labour terms of office.”
Funny thing about this article – it’s mostly rubbish. The Labour government in the mid/late 1980s was hardly a traditional left-wing administration as it implemented neo-liberal, free market policies at breakneck speed. It was the government that gave us the term “Rogernomics“.
In essence, it was a Labour government in name only, having been hijacked by future-ACT MPs and neo-liberal cadres. It was a foretaste of how Brash seized power in 2011 after a putsch overthrew Rodney Hide as ACT’s leader.
Yet the heading of the article is utterly misleading;
.
Labour governments ‘bad for small business’
.
Indeed, anyone glancing at the story would come away with entirely the wrong impression until their attention was caught by this bit;
The main reasons for poor performance in small firms during Labour governments included market under-performance, periods of falling inflation, harsh default-risk and credit conditions and the introduction of deregulation in 1984 that opened up firms to increased foreign competition and exchange rate pressures.
Notable features were the two Labour governments of the 1980s under Prime Minister David Lange.
In the first term from 1984 to 1987 the mean returns were amongst the highest in the sample but in the second term the smaller firms had a mean monthly return of minus 7.2 per cent.
Roger Douglas’s neo-liberal “free” market reforms truly kicked in during Labour’s second term in office (1987-1989) and the academic’s report is not very flattering;
“…in the second term the smaller firms had a mean monthly return of minus 7.2 per cent”.
It is interesting to note that overseas ratings agencies (Standard & Poors, Moodies, and Fitch) also seem to have a somewhat dim view of right-wing governments. Note the credit rating movements during right-wing Labour/National governments compared to the Clark-led Labour government;
.
.
Note the credit downgrades (red underlined) in the chart above and detailed belowed;
- Standard & Poors: From AA+ in April 1983, to AA in December 1986 (Rogernomics Labour)
- Standard & Poors: From AA in December 1986, to AA- in January 1991 (National)
- Moodys: From Aa1 Stable Outlook, February 1996, to Aa1 Negative Outlook on 30 January 1998 (National)
- Standard & Poors: From AA+ Stable Outlook in January 1996, to AA+ Negative Outlook on 10 September 1998 (National)
- Moodys: From Aa1 On Review for Possible Downgrade on 5 June 1998, to Aa2 Stable Outlook on 24 September 1998 (National)
- Fitch: From AA+ Stable Outlook on 28 November 2008, to Aa+ Negative Outlook Reaffirmed on 16 July 2009 (National)
- Fitch: From Aa+ Negative Outlook Reaffirmed on 16 July 2009 to AA Stable Outlook on 24 September 2011 (National)
- Standard & Poors: From AA+ Negative Outlook Reaffirmed on 22 November 2010 to AA Stable Outlook on 30 September 2011 (National)
Eight credit down-grades under two Right-wing governments.
By contrast, during Clark’s more left-wing Labour administration, from 2000 to 2008;
- Standard & Poors: From AA+ Negative Outlook on 27 March 2000, improved to AA+ Stable Outlook on 7 March 2001
- Fitch: From AA on 27 March 2002, improved to AA+ on 16 August 2003
- Moodys: From AA2 Stable Outlook on 24 September 1998, improved to Aaa on 21 October 2002
- Fitch: From AA on 27 March 2002, improved to AA+ on 16 August 2003
Eight years, four credit upgrades.
As Labour’s economic development spokesperson, Grant Robertson, stated in the same article,
“The last Labour government ran nine surpluses in a row while having the highest average growth rate of any government for 40 years.”
He’s right. Under Labour’s administration of the economy,
- Net sovereign debt was paid down to near zero;
.
.
- Finance Minister, Michael Cullen posted nine consecutive surpluses
- Unemployment was at a record low 3.4%;
.
.
- The minimum wage was increased nine times under Labour, from $7.00 to $12.00 – whilst National has raised it six times from $12.00 to $14.25,
- Building permits rose steadily until 2008;
.
.
- The NZ stock market showed a steady rise, until the 2007/08 Global Financial Crisis;
.
.
- GDP rose steadily, averaging 3.5% per annum, until 2008;
.
.
- Consumer Confidence vs Business Confidence – showed conflicting results, with consumer confidence staying bouyant whilst business confidence appeared to fall. (It seems bizarre that whilst customers were happy to open their wallets/purses to spend – businesses remained gloomy until nearly two years after the initial effects of the GFC were felt and the Recession was biting hard. Masochistic tendencies appear at play here?)
.
.
It seems farcical in the extreme that two academics – with the willing assistance of an uncritical journalist – have presented “research” which brands the Labour Party as “bad for small business” when the 1984-89 Lange-led administration was an undemocratic aberration that was closer to the ACT Party than the Kirk or Clark governments.
In essence, Malone and Anderson have passed judgement on governments implementing right wing, neo-liberal economic policies and, rather unsurprisingly, given them a *fail* mark. But you wouldn’t think it with the headline “Labour governments ‘bad for small business’” and the statement that “smaller firms have done abysmally poor during Labour terms of office”.
But at least this has given right-wing bloggers some joy – even if those same bloggers have been less than honest at what Malone and Anderson have actually written. But that’s the right wing for you; never let inconvenient truths get in the way of a good propaganda moment.
.
References
Fairfax media: Labour governments ‘bad for small business’
New Zealand Debt Management Office: New Zealand Sovereign Credit Ratings
New Zealand Debt Management Office: Summary of Direct Public Debt
Trading Economics: New Zealand Government Debt To GDP
National Party: What about the workers?
Statistics NZ: Unemployment Rate Falls to 3.4 Percent
Trading Economics: New Zealand Unemployment Rate
Ministry of Business, Innovation, & Employment: Previous minimum wage rates
Trading Economics: New Zealand Stock Market (NZX 50)
Trading Economics: New Zealand Building Permits
Trading Economics: New Zealand GDP
NZ Treasury: Recent Economic Performance and Outlook
Trading Economics: New Zealand Consumer Confidence
Trading Economics: New Zealand Business Confidence
Kiwiblog: Labour bad for small business
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 30 May 2014.
.
.
= fs =
A music moment: I’d Like To Teach The World To Sing (In Perfect Harmony)
.
.
Dedicated to certain Labour Party candidates…
.
.
= fs =
Radio NZ: Politics with Matthew Hooton and Mike Williams – 24 March 2014
.
– Politics on Nine To Noon –
.
– Monday 24 March 2014 –
.
– Kathryn Ryan, with Matthew Hooton & Mike Williams –
.
Today on Politics on Nine To Noon,
Will The Mana party and The Internet party form an alliance?
.
.
Click to Listen: Politics with Matthew Hooton and Mike Williams (25′ 54″ )
- Mana Party
- Internet Party
- Hone Harawira
- Kim Dotcom
- The Alliance
- Sue Bradford
- Roy Morgan Poll
- Shane Jones, Winston Peters, NZ First, The Green Parrot Restaurant
- Hekia Parata, Kohanga Reo National Trust, performance pay for teachers
- Ernst Young, Serious Fraud Office, PISA Education Ratings
- Judith Collins, Oravida
- John Key, China, Fran O’Sullivan, Rod Oram
- Labour Party, Forestry policy, Red Stag Timber, government procurement
.
= fs =
The trivialisation of the News and consequences
.
.
Patrick Gower recently wrote on the TV3 website,
“The Labour Party has been putting voters wrong about its baby bonus.
Labour has been deliberately misleading, and in my view dishonest by omission.
On Monday night I told 3 News viewers that under Labour’s $60 a week baby bonus policy, families would get $3120 a year for their baby’s first year.
A simple calculation you might think, of $60 mutiplied by 52 weeks, given David Cunliffe announced in his State of the Nation speech: “That’s why today, I am announcing that for 59,000 families with new-born babies, they will all receive a Best Start payment of $60 per week, for the first year of their child’s life.“
Now most normal people would think that means “all” those parents will get the payment “for the first year of their child’s life”.
But it wasn’t true – not that you would know that from Cunliffe’s speech, media stand-up, the MPs who were there to “help” and all the glossy material handed out to us.
Because buried in the material was a website link that takes you to a more detailed explanation policy.
And on page six of that policy document, in paragraph 3, it revealed the payment would commence at the “end of the household’s time of using Paid Parental Leave, ie. after 26 weeks in most cases.”
So translated, in most cases, the $60 a week payment is not for the first year, but for the second six months.”
.
*
.
References
Dominion Post: Govt spent $500,000 on boozy functions
The Press: Jenny Shipley on Cera review panel
TV3: Opinion: Labour dishonest on ‘baby bonus‘
TV3 News: January 27 6PM Bulletin
Previous related blogposts
.
*
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 1 February 2014.
.
.
= fs =
Another good poll for a LabourGreen government
.
.
The election of David Cunliffe has had the desired effect; in yet another poll, Labour is up, whilst National is either down or trailing. If these polls are any indication, and barring any major f**k up from the left, we are on course for a change in government next year (if not earlier).
A recent Herald Digipoll had Labour on 37.7%, giving it 48 seats. With the Greens on 11.3%, giving it 14 seats, and with Mana’s one seat, the centre-left would have 63 seats in the House. (See: Labour rockets in poll) More than sufficient and not needing to rely on the unpredictable Winston Peters (who has still not ruled out coalescing with the Nats, post election).
The Herald Digipoll is backed up by the latest Roy Morgan poll (for which this blogger was recently polled as well, via cellphone – see: Mr Morgan phoned).
The results are a spectacular boost for a new LabourGreen government – and a death notice for the Tories;
Centre-Left Bloc
Labour: 37% (+ 4.5%)
Greens: 11.5% (- 3.5%)
Mana: 0.5% (n/c) 1 seat (?)
Centre-Right Bloc
National Party: 42% (+ 1%)
Maori Party: 1% (n/c) 3 seats?
ACT NZ: 0.5% (- 0.5%) 1 seat?
United Future: 0.5% (unchanged) 1 seat?
Conservative Party of NZ: 2% (+ 0.5%)
Unknown orientation
New Zealand First: 4.5% (- 2%)
.
Source: Roy Morgan
.
Gary Morgan, of Morgan polling, says,
“Today’s New Zealand Roy Morgan Poll shows a large boost to Labour’s support (37%, up 4.5%) after the election of David Cunliffe as the new Labour Leader – now at its highest since Helen Clark was Prime Minister in October 2008. The boost to Labour’s support has come at the expense of fellow Opposition Parties the Greens (11.5%, down 3.5%) and New Zealand First (4.5%, down 2%).
“A potential Labour/Greens alliance (48.5%, up 1%) remains well ahead of National (42%, up 1%) and would form Government if an election were held now. The immediate boost to Labour support provides Cunliffe with a great ‘platform’ to explain why New Zealand electors should vote for Labour again.
“If Cunliffe can enunciate a consistent and concise message of the Labour Party policies and how they will improve the lives of New Zealanders and the country in general over the next 12 months, Cunliffe stands a real chance of being elected as New Zealand’s next Prime Minister at next year’s election.”
Indeed.
Roy Morgan explains it’s polling techniques, “This latest New Zealand Roy Morgan Poll on voting intention was conducted by telephone – both landline and mobile telephone , with a NZ wide cross-section of 934 electors from September 16-29, 2013. Of all electors surveyed a high 5% (down 1%) didn’t name a party.”
It is interesting to note that the number of undecideds/wouldn’t say, are down by a percentage point. That means that just over a year out from the election, voters are making up their minds. And it isn’t looking too good for the Nats. The Nats promote a pseudo-“hands off” approach to economic/social problems (except for Skycity, Rio Tinto, Warner Bros, Southern China Airlines, Mediaworks, etc) – such as Brownlee’s infamous quip that the housing crisis in Christchurch is best left to the free market to solve (see: Christchurch rent crisis ‘best left to market‘). Yeah, right.
People want active solutions to pressing problems. Throwing corporate welfare at companies like Warner Bros and Rio Tinto will not help struggling young New Zealanders into their own homes; feeding hungry children from poverty-stricken families; or create jobs for the 164,000 unemployed in this country. The latest Reserve Bank restrictions on first home buyers with low deposits – sanctioned by Bill English – will be the final straw.
When New Zealanders eventually tire of flirting with a do-nothing National government, they look to interventionist parties (Labour, Greens, and Mana) to do the job.
After two terms, the smile and wave frontman for National will be thrown out and their diabolical legislation can be reversed and consigned to the garbage heap of history.
.
*
.
References
Fairfax: Christchurch rent crisis ‘best left to market‘
Previous related posts
Latest Roy Morgan Poll – on course to dump this rotten government
.
.
= fs =
Radio NZ: Politics with Matthew Hooton and Mike Williams – 30 September 2013
.
– Politics on Nine To Noon –
.
– Monday 30 September 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 (20′ 29″ )
This week:
- More on Hooton’s outburst last week regarding David Cunliffe. Hooton apologises – sort of.
- The Labour Party’s shadow cabinet.
- and local body elections.
.
.
= fs =
Radio NZ: Politics with Matthew Hooton and Mike Williams – Hooton loses the the plot?! 23 September 2013
.
– Politics on Nine To Noon –
.
– Monday 23 September 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 (18′ 22″ )
- America’s Cup,
- Labour set to unveil new caucus line-up,
- Labour candidate selected for Christchurch East,
- and John Key’s visit to Balmoral.
Acknowledgement: Radio NZ
Listen out for Matthew Hooton launching into a full-scale hysterical rant over David Cunliffe. Hooton has either lost the plot – or this is the beginnings of a sinister right-wing scheme to destroy David Cunliffe’s reputation via a slander-campaign.
In my view, it is the latter.
Yes, folks, Cunliffe is such a threat to John Key’s government that National’s strategists have launched a smear campaign against the new Labour leadership.
Watch out for more of the same in coming weeks.
By the way – Kathryn Ryan was so annoyed at Hooton’s performance that she cut the segment short at just over 18 minutes. Normally, her Monday political panel is around 25 minutes or longer.
.
.
= fs =
Congratulations, Mr Cunliffe!
This blogger extends his congratulations to David Cunliffe for his successful selection as Labour’s new party leader.
A special mention should be made of Grant Robertson and Shane Jones – both of whom are talented individuals and would also have made fine leaders.
All three men campaigned with integrity, decency, and maturity.
As for John Key, who derided the Labour’s selection process – would he care to put his leadership to the test, and allow National Party rank and file members to vote on the leadership? Yeah, nah…
.
John Key announces National’s leadership will be put to Party members for a vote!
.
It is now time for every fair minded New Zealander to roll up his or her sleeves. We have work to do, and a corrupt, self-serving, ineffectual Tory government to throw out. Whether we are Labour, Green, Mana (NZ First?), we all have our bit to play to rebuild our decent society.
As David Cunliffe said on National Radio this morning – the election campaign started today!
.
.
= fs =
John Key on leadership aspirations…
As reported on Radio NZ today (26 August);
.
PM’s take
Prime Minister and National Party leader John Key says the Labour leadership contest will show how heavily the party is divided.
Mr Key says it could be a television reality show called Parliamentary Idol, with the three MPs demonstrating to New Zealanders how much they loathe each other.
Source: Radio NZ – Cunliffe confirms bid for Labour leadership
More here: John Key says Labour is a divided party
.
Which is kind of ironic really, as Key’s own rise to power as leader of the National Party happened under less auspicious circumstances, involving secret plotting behind closed doors; lies; duplicity; and rolling then-National leader, Don Brash.
Key wasn’t very upfront to the public or media, or even his own then-leader at the beginning, as this October 2006 NZ Herald report by Audrey Young, showed,
.
Beware the ides of November, Don
By Audrey Young
5:20 AM Thursday Oct 26, 2006An attempt within the National Party to topple leader Don Brash could be mounted next month.
The backers of National finance spokesman John Key have already taken soundings among caucus colleagues. It is understood they were taken four weeks ago but nothing came of them.
However, internal speculation is mounting of a stronger bid for the leadership being attempted by Mr Key next month or at the start of next year.
Mr Key did nothing last night to hose down the speculation, being less than emphatic at dismissing talk of a possible attempt in November.
“I have never had that raised with me,” he said. “That is speculation I can’t comment on and I don’t know whether it is accurate or not but I don’t anticipate that being the case.
“I’m supportive of the leader and I don’t anticipate that position changing.“
Source: NZ Herald – Beware the ides of November, Don
.
Key’s “support” for his leader was so sincere that a month later, Don Brash was rolled and replaced by… John Key!
.
New Zealand’s National Party Appoints John Key as Leader
By Tracy Withers – November 26, 2006 20:44 EST
Nov. 27 (Bloomberg) — New Zealand’s main opposition National Party elected John Key, a former head of global foreign exchange at Merrill Lynch & Co., as its fifth leader in nine years as it targets victory in the 2008 elections.
Key, 45, was voted leader by his National parliamentary colleagues in Wellington today, replacing Don Brash who quit last week. Bill English, who was ousted as leader by Brash in 2003, was named deputy leader and will take over from Key as finance spokesman.
Source: Bloomberg – New Zealand’s National Party Appoints John Key as Leader
.
At least Labour’s leadership contest is out in the open; open to public and media scrutiny; and will be democratically decided. This is a milestone in New Zealand politics, with the Greens the only other political party to decide their leadership by member’s ballot.
By contrast, seizing power via a coup hardly seems a fair; open; or democratic process. Indeed, one might question if Key really has a moral mandate to lead his own Party?
Perhaps this is a salient lesson that Key should take on-board, instead of indulging in school-yard petulance.
Then again, I suspect Key’s pathetic attempt to deride and dismiss Labour’s new leadership process is stressing the Prime Minister as he foresees his own political demise come the next election?
After all, Key did make this pledge to the electorate in 2011,
.
Key says he’ll quit politics if National loses election
By Audrey Young 5:30 AM Monday Jan 3, 2011
Prime Minister John Key has all but confirmed that the general election will be in late November or early December and he has indicated he will leave politics if he cannot lead the country to a second term in Government.
[abridged]
He also said he had made it reasonably clear that he did not want to revert to being Opposition leader.
“I don’t think it suits me as a person. I’m not a negative person and a lot of Opposition is negative.”
Source: NZ Herald – Key says he’ll quit politics if National loses election
The election of a new leader for Labour isn’t just a new beginning. It heralds the end for Key’s political career.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 27 August 2013.
.
.
= fs =
News Archives
Crony Watch
Keeping an eye on dodgy government appointees, crony-by-crony!
Frankly Speaking... 