Archive
Journalist blocks TDB Blogger
.
.
On 2 August, The Daily Blog’s administrator – Martyn Bradbury – published a story on Gerry Brownlee accusing Mediawork’s journalist Patrick Gower of being a “cheerleader for Labour”;
.
.
If that message truly came from National minister Gerry Brownlee, I thought it was a ‘Trumpian’ example of childish stupidity. An intemperate ‘tweet’ from a naive, newly elected, fresh-faced member of Parliament could be excused on the basis of inexperience.
But a senior politician of Brownlee’s record should know better. He has been in Parliament for two decades.
I sought out Gower’s Twitter account to make precisely that point.
When I access Patrick Gower’s twitter account – @patrickgowernz – this is what I found:
.
.
A close up of the message informing that I had been ‘blocked’ by Mr Gower;
.
.
I was a little surprised.
Three years ago I ran a series of blogposts on Gower’s own intemperate twitter posts and media comments on Laila Harré and the electoral accommodation between the Mana Movement and the fledgling Internet Party;
.
.
.
.
The three stories above were highly critical of Gower’s attacks on the Mana-Internet alliance. In my view Gower’s on-going vendetta was a naked attempt to influence the 2014 election.
As I wrote in August of that year;
It seems obvious that Gower has a personal thing against Mana and Kim Dotcom.
His most recent utterances on 29 July made that perfectly clear, when he has again stated,
“And David Cunliffe has repeatedly and pointedly refused to rule out working with Internet-Mana to form a Government.”
At every opportunity, Gower has repeatedly demanded Cunliffe rule out working with Mana-Internet.
Why?
When a journalist demands that a political party make a definitive policy statement to rule out a potential coalition partner is not reporting the news – it is a naked attempt to influence it.
It is one thing to ask a party leader who they will/won’t deal with, post-election. That is a perfectly legitimate question to ask.
But to pressure a party leader to rule out a potential coalition partner?
Gower has stepped beyond the bounds of what is acceptable journalism. It is not his job to dictate to any party leader who they should/shouldn’t coalesce with. His job is simply to report their decisions.
The rest is up to us, the people to evaluate that information.
Pull your head in, Paddy.
I was unaware up until 2 August that Gower had – at some point – blocked my access to his Twitter account.
Think about that for a moment. A journalist’s job is to present information to the public. It is their paid role; their raison d’être.
I can understand if Gower declines to allow me to post comments on his page. It’s his Twitter account; he sets the rules (within Twitter’s own Terms and Conditions). I have no argument with that.
But his action to block a person from even reading what he has written strikes me as totally contrary to what a journalist should be. Journalists should never decide who can and can’t read their material. (Which raises an interesting side-issue on pay-walled journalism.)
Gower’s action poses some interesting questions;
Who else has Gower blocked?
How on Earth can a seasoned journalist feel so threatened by a blogger that probably 99.99% of the population does not read?
What will Gower’s employers do if they expect him to interview me on a breaking story that I may be privy to – and I decline?
Is this professional behaviour from a seasoned journalist?
And how will Gower react if a public figure blocks him from their Twitter or Facebook account?
Gower’s blocking of me suggests that he has taken my criticisms badly. Which is ironic, considering the harsh criticism that Gower has dished out to Hone Harawira, Kim Dotcom, Laila Harré, et al.
Not a good look, Mr Gower.
Heat. Kitchen. Door.
.
.
.
References
Wikipedia: Gerry Brownlee
Twitter: Patrick Gower
TV3: Opinion – Dotcom does Key a Winston favour
Other Bloggers
The Daily Blog: Martyn Bradbury – Twitter Watch – Witness Gerry Brownlee’s petty & dangerously paranoid attack on Patrick Gower
Previous related blogposts
Patrick Gower – losing his rag and the plot
Waiting for Gower’s Twittering of indignation
How biased is the media? A Patrick Gower case study
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 3 August 2017.
.
.
= fs =
A positive story of political co-operation!
.
.
Wellington, NZ, 23 August – The following is a true story and shows how the natural inclination of the rank-and-file of our main left-wing parties is to work together…
I’ve been in contact with both the Green Party and Internet-Mana, to offer both parties a spot on my front lawn for election billboards.
The Green Party was the first to respond, and I outlined my idea to them that I wanted a billboard frame to be erected on an angle, so that Internet-Mana would build the second “arm” of a V-shape frame, and attach their own election corflute. The plan;
.
.
The Green’s billboard team were agreeable to the idea, and a couple of members arrived two days ago to erect their hoarding frame.
Before they started their work, one of the team members – Ian – knocked on my door to advise that they had a spare hoarding frame. He offered a suggestion – and what followed was perhaps the most remarkable and positive story relating to this election campaign.
One facing was covered with the main Green Party hoarding;
.
.
– with a smaller, detachable corflute (the plastic sign) attached to the other side.
Ian’s suggestion? That the second facing of the V-shape could be used by Internet-Mana, when they arrived, to attach their own corflute sheet. The small “Green Party” corflute could be easily detached and stored away until collection on 19 September.
In effect, two Green Party volunteers with no allegiance to another political party, had decided to extend a helping hand and assist Internet-Mana’s own election campaign by putting up a wooden frame for them. Nothing was asked in return. It was sheer Kiwi good will.
It was an amazing experience and perhaps, sometimes, we forget the good people of this country who want to participate in our democratic process – and not just focus on those politicians who are self-serving and negative. Especially to allies on the Left.
Without naming names, certain other people on the Left might reflect on this story.
.
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 24 August 2014
.
.
= fs =
Mana-Internet Roadshow hits Wellington
.
.
Wellington, NZ, 4 August – The Mana-Internet Roadshow hit Wellington on a chilly Monday evening, with the event scheduled for the waterfront venue at Mac’s Brew Bar, in Taranaki Street. The first sign of the event was the eye-catching bus, decorated in Mana-Internet livery, parked outside the old brick, brewery building;
.
.
Inside, Mana-Internet activists were busy setting up for the 6pm start, arranging chairs, speaking podium, party merchandise and leaflets, etc. It was a hive of quiet, determined, activity. Note King Kapisi (middle image) at work on his board;
.
.
Party paraphernalia had sprung up throughout the hall;
.
.
Videographer, Gerhart, chatting with Mana Party Leader and MP for Te Tai Tokerau, Hone Harawira;
.
.
Mana Party President, Annette Sykes, and the world’s first transgendered elected representative, Georgina Beyer – pausing from their chat to pose for cameras;
.
.
Mana Leader, Hone Harawira, and Mana candidate for Rongotai, the dedicated Ariana Paretutanganui-Tamati;
.
.
Eager young Mana-Internet activists on the main door, answering questions from members of the public;
.
.
Interestingly, contrary to some bullshit being spun on social media, there was no “door charge” and neither were members of the public offered “freebies” of any description. The lies from certain individuals illustrates their desperation to undermine Mana-Internet’s credibility.
Meanwhile, former broadcaster and Alliance MP, the extraordinary Pam Corkery, and Internet Party leader, Laila Harré, catching up and enjoying a quiet moment;
.
.
Glenn McConnell, from The Beehive Mandate, interviewing Internet Party candidate, for Wellington Central, Callum Valentine (camera-person – off shot – Saeran);
.
.
During his speech later in the evening, Callum said,
“Throughout the ’80s we saw a rise of stark individualism, and I think from my point of view what my generation is trying to piece back together is a sense of community…”
Interesting, how the young folk understand the price we paid for neo-liberalism.
The public meeting was due to “kick off” at 6, and at 5.30, the hall was still mostly empty.
This blogger asked several activists if they were worried that the turnout would be low. Without exception, every single Mana-Internet volunteer smiled or grinned with confidence and replied “wait and see“.
They were either hopelessly over-confident – or their experience on the road, travelling around the country had given them just cause to be confident.
They were not mistaken. By 5.50, the main part of hall looked like this;
.
.
The rear part of the hall filled quickly as extra chairs were laid out. By 6, there was standing room only;
.
.
There have not been very many public political meetings where a minor party has drawn such numbers. These people were not political activists from the Left. Instead, they represented ordinary New Zealanders of all ages and ethnicity.
If this meeting had been publicised with a full page ad in the Dominion Post, this blogger believes that the Wellington Town Hall would have had to have been hired to cater for the numbers that would have attended. There seemed a feeling of anticipation on the faces of many.
If every hall in the country where the Roadshow has stopped was filled in the same way, then little wonder that John Key and certain right-wing Labour MPs are worried at the spectacular rise of Mana-Internet.
No wonder Mana-Internet cannot expect allies in any part of the political spectrum. This alliance of two tiny little parties has sprung from the fertile soil of discontent, and is quickly becoming a very real threat to the established political status quo of this country.
And it is little wonder that they are so hated by the mainstream media commentariate; they simply don’t ‘get‘ why Mana-Internet is so popular.
As the hall filled to capacity (250-300, according to Brew Bar management), singer Matiu Te Hoki set the mood with several songs – including a few with audience participation. The response was enthusiastistic support from most of the crowd;
.
.
Internet Party candidate, Chris Yong, mc’d the event, and introduced guest speakers as they made their way up onto the stage;
.
.
Wairangi Koopu (L), professional rugby league player for the Pt Chev Pirates, and hip hop recording artist, King Kapisi (R), entertaining the crowd;
.
.
Mana Party leader, Hone Harawira, spoke with wit, humour, and passion;
.
.
Hone began by explaining Mana’s fierce determination to fight the current National government. He said,
“This country is being driven to poverty. That too many of our people are being driven to homeless. Too many of our young people are being driven into unemployment. A lot of them just get on the plane and go to Oz… simply because this government is committed to maximising the wealth for their friends. It’s not a society that I want, it’s not a society that Mana wants.”
He then gave a brief background into how the idea for an alliance between Mana and the Internet Party had come about;
“So as we moved closer towards this election, I started thinking about how we could lift our game. How could we raise our voice. How could we engage with wider audiences. How could we get our our message out to a greater public.
Now, I didn’t know how to do it. I was struggling with the ideas – watching, of course, while all sorts of other people were trying all kinds of deals. Then I was sitting down and talking to some young fellas at my Kura at home and one of them, a 17 year old, says to me, ‘You know this Kim Dotcom guy? Do you mind if I left Mana and joined the Internet Party?’
I walked away and I had a really good think about it. And then I came back to him, and sat down and talked to him some more. And what I realised was that our kids, Maori kids I’m talking about, and I imagine all kids, they’re ready to ‘fly’. They’re ready to chase that internet dream. And yet politics was stuck in a quagmire. Much of a muchness. Sameness after sameness. Nobody being prepared to to step outside the box and do something different.”
He said, “that young fella basically challenged me to do something about it“.
“So I thought to myself, I’ve been getting these calls from this guy, lives up in Coatsville. Big mansion up the road on the North Shore. Might be time to take that call.
Took the call.
We sat down. We had a bit of a korero. Well I’ll tell you, he talks like nobody I’ve ever met met before.“
Hone added, to audience laughter,
“Not just because he’s German, either.”
Hone described Kim Dotcom’s credibility by the way he spoke on certain issues, and how those same issues mattered to young people that Hone listened to.
Hone then went to to relate the reaction of Mana Party membership when he disclosed to them that he had been in discussion with Kim Dotcom. He said he knew there was a big risk in what he was considering. He described their reaction;
“Mate, the response was almost universal. 99.5% – ‘what the —- do you think you’re doing! But as they heard more, as they learnt more, they realised that there’s something happening here.“
He explained how such a strategic alliance would be the catalyst to “lifting our game”.
Hone then went on to describe the necessity of finding a leader for an Internet-Mana alliance,
“So when it became possible that that leader might, just might be Laila Harré, I’m thinking to myself, ‘If we could pull this off, this could go down as the biggest strategic move in politics in 2014‘.”
Many in the audience clapped enthusiastically at that point.
Hone said that “we either got Laila, or else there would be no deal“.
“So when we signed a deal between Mana and the Internet Party for the creation of Internet-Mana, I knew what the rest of the country didn’t know was that the deal was going to be done because I have a comrade standing alongside me that I could be proud of, that I would be proud to stand on any front line with, and will be proud to sit back and let her do all the driving.”
Hone added that whilst Mana-Internet might not have “all the right things to say“, that people wanted change. He was adamant that was why Mana-Internet was enjoying packed halls around the country.
“Where we are now, everybody, is we’re in a position to take politics to a whole different world. We’re in a position to completely change the way people view politics.”
After strong applause, Hone introduced the next speaker…
Kim Dotcom – one of the freshest things to hit New Zealand politics since the Green Party’s Nandor Tanczos – addressed the audience with his usual waggish, cheeky style. (One of the reasons Dotcom might be so popular with ordinary folk? He possesses a strong streak of that Kiwi trait of anti-authoritarianism, that ferments just below the surface of our docile sheeplike-veneer, and which was cleverly epitomised in the 1981 iconic classic movie, ‘Goodbye Pork Pie‘.)
.
.
Kim gave his greeting in Maori and welcomed those in attendence;
“Very nice to see so many people show up here tonight, in Wellington, in the ‘belly of the beast’! Isn’t this exciting?
We have had this happening every night for the last four weeks. There is something happening in this country. There is an appetite for this.”
With his trademark humour, and wry jabs at the establishment, Kim said,
“Because we are in Wellington tonight, I want to ask every staff member of the GCSB, please raise their hand… I know there are a couple of them here. Alright, so let me address you first.
Please don’t worry even though we’re going to shut you down, we will find you guys jobs.”
Kim then related the lead-up to the creation of the Internet Party. He referred to the Hollywood-style raid on his property; the closing down of his business; the illegal aspects to the search of seizure of his property; the spying on eighty-eight other New Zealanders by the GCSB; and how he and his wife, Mona, had been supported by many of his neighbours. He said that with the seizure of all their assets, they survived on the generosity of neighbours who brought them food, and one even loaned him a car to use.
Kim said the this support increased massively after his interview with TV3’s John Campbell.
He described the government’s closing down of his business, Mega-Upload, as an “over-reach” carried out without a trial.
Kim explained how his now-defunct business, Mega-Upload operated, and that in effect it was similar to a very big external hard-drive. He said people could upload their files for storage or to share with others. It was not a pirating service, he explained, though some users did carry out such activities. He likened his business to the old VHS video tapes which Hollywood at one time tried to curtail, because they could be used to copy commercial movies.
Kim also explained why current practices by Hollywood played into the hands of movie-pirates, by delaying release of movies by several months in different parts of the world. This, he said, was done to maximise profits. The consequence was,
“So they are actually responsible for the creation of the piracy problem, simply by the way they are doing business. Because even if a New Zealander wants to access a movie legally and is happy to pay for it, [they] can’t find it, and the only way to find it is on Google and through an illegal download. Well then that’s really a problem Hollywood should solve and isn’t really a problem for service providers like myself or the users.”
Kim then changed tack and described a “total lack of vision” when it came to the digital economy. He berated the lack of cellphone coverage in many areas of New Zealands and asked, “is this Zimbabwe or New Zealand?”
He condemned a focus on primary production as limiting our economy, and failing to “take this country forward”.
Kim digressed at one point and outlined his previous criminal convictions in Germany. He said he was 19 when he had hacked NASA because he was curious if they knew of the existence of aliens.
This drew loud laughter from the audience.
“I didn’t find anything”, he lamented. The laughter from the audience increased.
He then hacked Citibank to make a donation of $20 million to Greenpeace because he thought the organisation deserved a donation because “I thought they were good for the environment and stuff”. More laughter from the audience, and some clapping.
After which he hacked a credit rating agency to set the credit rating for the Prime Minister to zero, “because I didn’t like the guy”. This drew even more laughter, cheers, and a round of applause.
Kim said that at his trial, the judge pointed out that he should use his talents and knowledge for the benefit of society. What followed next could only happen in a civilised society with a brilliant sense of humour. The judge said Kim should use his skills to improve on-line security for businesses, to protect them from other hackers;
“To make their networks secure. I thought that’s a good idea so I wrote a business plan. I went to my government and I said I’ve just been convicted, can I please have a million dollars for my new business. And they gave it to me.”
The audience laughed with delight.
“So they gave me a million dollar loan, 20 years interest free. Didn’t have to pay anything back for 20 years. Within a year I had fifty staff and in another year later I already paid it all back.
We don’t have anything like this in New Zealand.
There are a lot of young people here with great ideas. If they had programmes like that, we would would have in ten ten years down the road a much better, a much bigger workforce; more jobs.”
Kim said many other countries also had such programmes which invested heavily in the minds of young people.
The right wing and some in the media commentariat have no hesitation in pillorying Dotcom’s misguided youth. But when they condemn a person for his illegal actions as a 19 year old, you just have to wonder where their heads are at.
Kim then told the audience of something else that bothered him; the New Zealand tertiary education loan system. He said that the Mana-Internet Party would remove all fees and provide free tertiary education for all students.
That announcement was greeted enthusiastically by the audience.
“Let me explain why. Because what’s currently happening is that we are asking our future, our [human] capital of this country, to study and get brighter and smarter and be able to create and build something with that knowledge. But we are putting them in a position where they have their first mortgage before they even started their professional life. They are indebted so much that they are looking for jobs abroad that are usually paying a bit more than in New Zealand. They are leaving this country; they build a network of friends there. Some start a family there and they never come back.
And how is that smart for this country if you send our best people – our biggest chance to increase our market share in the digital economy – away. It makes no sense at all… Why not make that investment in you for you to stay here and use your capacity that you have up here [indicated head], to make life better for all of us.”
Kim then turned his attention to Hone Harawira, seated on-stage beside him, and told the audience that the Mana Party leader was committed to resolving inequality in New Zealand. He said that we had a huge problem in this coiuntry and that our society was not fair.
Kim said that we needed to re-establish a social fairness contract, making sure that those who had the least were supported and looked after.
He thanked Hone for the partnership between them.
Kim turned to Laila Harre and described her as “an amazing source of power”. After the Mana-Internet alliance had been announced, Kim said that the media attacks on her were vicious. He said,
“But she stood her ground and she said, ‘so what?'”
He thanked Laila for her participation and taking the movement to a “whole new level”.
Kim then paid tribute to Mana-Internet’s young candidates as the best at their fields. He said that they did not “think like politicians“, they thought like the many young people in the room.
He said that young people would be instrumental in the growth of the internet economy and the growth of GDP.
Kim said we could take our market share in the world economy and lift our standard of living for all. He said this would increase incomes so people could afford housing and other consumer goods to make their lives better. He said all other industries would also benefit from a tech-boom.
Kim said that South Korea had already transitioned to a tech economy. He said the South Koreans had had an economy similar to New Zealand’s until they made the conscious decision to turn their society into a high-tech society, with high-speed broadband into every home. In the process, they went from unemployment at over 10% to 2.6%.
Kim said there was “no secret” to achieving such a transformation. He said it could be done, and New Zealand could do it.
He said,
“We are in a position in New Zealand where we have so many smart young people that are hungry for an opportunity like that, so let’s give it to them with Internet Mana this year.”
Kim was followed by another well-known New Zealander.
She might be sick and in the midst of medical treatment, but the vivacious Georgina Beyer was a firebrand, speaking with powerful determination, and attacking the Foreshore and Seabed Act, as well as the current government.
Georgina described the intense pressure that Labour’s Maori MPs had come under to vote for the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. One by one, except for Tariana Turia – who she paid tribute to – they folded. When she requested that she be allowed to abstain from the Bill, the Labour Party caucus howled her down.
She expressed her deepest regret that she had voted for the Foreshore and Seabed Act. She said,
“I committed a great shame under the Helen Clarke, Labour-led government; the Foreshore and Seabed [Bill]. That was the greatest Treaty breach in modern history…it did an absolute injustice to Maori.”
It had been the pivotal moment when she could no longer stomach being a member of parliament, and resigned shortly thereafter. Georgina said that Labour did not deserve to win back the Maori seats, because of the way they had abused their Maori MPs.
Joining the Internet-Mana campaign, she said, was her way of contrition for her mistake.
.
[Note: apologies for heavy red-tone to above image. My camera did not “like” some of the overhead spotlighting, from certain angles. – FM]
.
After Hone’s stirling introduction of Georgina, she described the “despair and desperation” that was impacting on many people in this country. She illustrated by launching into a furious condemnation of the 90 Day Trial period for new employees, outlining how she had lost her job to an unsympathetic employer,
“When I did get a job at [employer’s name redacted] in Masterton, the goddamn 90 day fire-at-will clause got me sacked! Why? Because I wanted to practice democracy in the 2010 mayoral democracy.”
She added, “Watch out when I get back there [to Parliament] – it’s [90 Day Trial Period law] going!”
Georgina said that the Unions needed to be strengthened after being decimated the last couple of decades. She said that when people are employed, that they should feel safe and be paid properly.
Georgina described walking into the WINZ office as “de-humanising” and must be changed. She accused Work & Income’s previous CEO, Christine Rankin of creating a climate that was more like a correctional facility, complete with security guard(s) at the door.
Paula Bennett’s figures for reduced numbers on welfare was treated with derision and challenged,
“Paula Bennett sits in Parliament, rabbitting away about the wonderful figures of the employment rates coming down. She’s shifting them around!
I’ve chaired the social services select committee for four years. I know the ‘jiggery-pokery’ that goes on, and the goddamn fiddles to make them look good. She’s telling you porkies!”
Georgina said Bennett wanted everyone to think “everything was going well, under this rock star economy“.
She added she was seeing the “hurt and the hate” that was being created in communities, and said there was little wonder that society was stressed and resulting in growing violence and abuse.
Georgina recounted her recent trip to Christchurch where she had been handed a report by Te Puawaitanga Ki Otautahi Trust on social problems affecting that city. She described the report as sobering;
“It’s about whanau housing, post-earthquake, down in Christchurch. Just one thing I’d like to share with you which I just think is atrocious, and it may well be happening in other areas around New Zealand, South Auckland, Northland, where-ever like that. Women are terminating their pregnancies because they don’t want to bring a child into the shit, crap places that they’re living in.
They’re cold, they’re damp, they’re rat infest[ed]. Now Christchurch, yes, is an exceptional situation right now. But you’d think after nearly two or three years they would’ve got those sorts of problems sorted, while making crap deals with Skycity and convention centres in Auckland, [and] building roads of national significance around the country…
… building stadiums that really aren’t necessary while people in our country are going cold, and tired, and starving, and children who are getting skin diseases…”
Georgina demanded to know,
“Is this the New Zealand we want to live in?”
When the audience replied “no!” in loud unision, Georgina responded that the government had to change, as well as people’s attitudes about our growing social problems.
If her strength that night was anything to go by, once her health improves she’ll make the ‘Energiser Bunny’ look like a wimp in comparison.
Georgina was followed by Annette Sykes, Rotorua lawyer, activist, and champion for Māori independence;
.
[Note: apologies for heavy red-tone to above image. My camera did not “like” some of the overhead spotlighting, from certain angles. – FM]
.
Annette opened by saying she was proud to be part of a relationship that was built on mutual respect between both parties. She said,
“It’s important that we make choices that are wise, choices that can be reviewed, but [also] choices that aren’t just good for Maori but are good for all of this country. And that is why I’m really proud to be part of a relationship agreement that is building on those fundamentals; mutual respect. A desire to see all sectors of society, the poor and the rich, making a contribution [and] also receiving a benefit from their participation in this government.”
Annette confirmed Hone’s description of how his suggestion for an alliance between Mana and Internet was received by the membership;
“I was [part of] the 99.5% at Mana. I was the one that Hone had to persuade the most. I was really suspicious about the relationship. But I had to take my hat off to Mr Dotcom, because there’s very few pakeha that would dare to walk into the Mana AGM, and subject themselves to the kind of cross-examination that Mr Dotcom did. And I can tell you it was without mercy.
He was asked [about] everything. How would he feel about our first policy of course, [which] is to tax the rich? How would he feel about us promoting quite candidly policies that stopped the $1.4 billion of benefit cuts that are being taken from the poor, and reversing the tax cuts on the rich and then substituting them with things like a Universal Basic Income?
Substituting them with a Capital Gains Tax? Substituting them with a tax on the toys that boys like to play with; you know, fast cars and flash boats.”
Annette continued,
“And he handled it. He handled it with an aplomb. I see a number of my socialist comrades here, and they will testify for the questions that he stood up to. And weren’t any easy questions, even for the most, I think, weather[ed] politician like Hone. They are real fundamental questions, like did he agree that we should stop foreign sales like the kind that are going through the back door at Taupo? Right now, as we speak?
Should we be putting in safeguards to protect [us from] the privatisation of our most fundamental assets from going offshore? And in all of those questions he came up with the single answer which is Mana policy. We have to take the power back from the National Party. We have to put the power back into the community where it belongs.”
Annette had a message for the mainstream media which seemed obsessed with Kim Dotcom, Mana, and the Internet Party;
“When he enters a room, yep, he’s got plenty of money. Stop talking about his money, please. He’s a man with a mind and a mission. That’s really important. The mind of the man, the intellectual largesse that he brought into our meeting house at Ngati te Arere, is what we saw.”
She gave this parting advice,
“Stop listening to the TV [and] start listening to your hearts.”
The next speaker was another well-known New Zealander; Laila Harré. She explained her reasons for joining the new Mana-Internet alliance;
.
[Note: apologies for heavy red-tone to above image. My camera did not “like” some of the overhead spotlighting, from certain angles. – FM]
.
With obvious pride in her voice, Laila told the audience;
“…From the the north of the North Island we have filled halls in Kaitaia, in Kaipoi, in Kerikeri, then we ran out of towns starting with ‘K’ in Northland so we filled the hall in Whangarei.
We went back to “K” and with a full hall, pouring with people, in my political turangawaewae, the Kelston Community Centre in West Auckland.
And onwards from there to Rotorua, where Annette Sykes rocked the town with one of the biggest political meetings to have been held there, in a generation.
On to Hamilton, then to New Plymouth, on to Whanganui, yesterday in Palmerston North, and now in Wellington. And we are reaching thousands and thousands of people through these direct communications, in the halls, and town halls, and school halls of New Zealand and we are changing politics!”
Laila was ‘working’ the crowd with a voice that was soft, yet steeled with determination. She had a message she wanted to give, and nothing short of Wellington’s ‘The Big One’ would get in her way.
She told the audience she was the recipient of two extraordinary gifts. The first was Kim Dotcom’s gift, to those New Zealanders who felt disconnected and disenfranchised from the established political system. She spoke of the Internet Party building a new movement that would create a new voice in politics.
She said the second gift was the alliance of the Mana Movement with the Internet Party. Laila spoke of votes counting as people voted for the Internet-Mana alliance, and predicted that Hone Harawira would win Te Tai Tokerau for a fourth term.
There was an outburst of applause when she said that, and again when she predicted that Annette Sykes would win the electorate seat in Waiariki.
The crowd erupted into louder applause when Laila took a swipe at coat-tailing media commentators (commentators who seemed to focus primarily on Mana-Internet . With defiance, she said,
“I have no shame at all in going into Parliament on his coat-tails and on her apron-strings!”
Laila also sent a message to her colleagues in the Trade Union movement. She said,
“My message is this. Progressive politics is about constantly building and inventing and reinventing the way that we enghage the people and make a difference on their behalf. Progressive politics is about alliances and this alliance and the the Intertnet Party’s developement gives us the opportunity as progressive New Zealanders to connect a whole lot of people to the power of progressive politics who have become disillusioned with it, or who have seen their only opportunities being to give in to the craven individualism promoted by the New Right in this country, because nothing else has looked better or more attractive to them for a long time. And the trade union movement has always been about strategic alliances; about clever politics; about being brave and standing up for what we see as fair and just, and this alliance has the capacity to change the government in September. And that is what the working people and the unemployed people of this country need to happen desperately.”
Laila then “sent a message” to Wellington, and it was simple and to the point;
“We don’t have a rock star economy!”
She said that the Mana-Internet roadtrip had visited many communities and told the audience, “you would be horrified at the propaganda by this government sold to New Zealanders over the last six years“!
The disgust in Laila’s voice was apparent. She expressed her horror at the loss of decent, affordable health services, especially in the regional communities. Laila’s exasperation was evident when she said she had believed many critical health problems had been solved – but instead many poor families and young mothers faced prohibitively high medical, doctor’s or prescriptions charges. She said,
“When they fêted Tony Ryall when he finished his term as Health Minister, they weren’t fêting him for improving our public health system. They were fêtinghim for keeping the horror stories of our health system off the front page of our newspapers for the last six years. And I want to know why the Opposition has been asleep on the job, because I have heard stories in the last four weeks that I was hearing fifteen years ago at the beginning of the health services crisis in this country, that I believed to be fixed. And I’m going to raise those issues in Parliament, in Wellington in [drowned out by applause and cheering].”
Laila added,
“We have an inequality crisis in this country. And it is a crisis that has been building and growing for thirty years. Now 285,000 children live in houses with incomes below the poverty line.
That’s almost become a cliche, hasn’t it? In the circles that we mix in – just an accepted reality. 285,000 New Zealand children whose parents don’t have a large enough income to provide for the very, very, most basic necessities of life. It’s a disgrace!
And if we think that we have an inequality problem now, let’s just look twenty years ahead, at what that time bomb means for the capacity of New Zealand to cope and to lead in the digital technical age.”
She said it was a disgrace that over 200,000 New Zealand school children had no internet access in their homes, saying it deprived them of knowledge to lead our economy in twenty years’ time.
Laila explained,
“Internet-Mana represents a very different kind of politics and there’s a few people out there including some of our friends, who are finding ourt new kind of politics quite confusing. It’s like ‘did we give you permission to do this’? Well actually, we don’t need permission to participate in the democracy of our country and neither do you,” pointing to the audience.
Laila said that Mana-Internet took away the sugarcoating, to dress things up, to spin things, and to pretend there is nothing really wrong with this country. She said Mana-Internet would lift the responsibility from the shoulders from all those burdened by the way things were in New Zealand.
She said she was giving fair warning to the National Party and mainstream media, that she would be attending the Helensville electorate meeting on 11 August, where John Key would be making his one and only public appearance (how very ‘big’ of him, I thought). As the rapturous applause died away, Laila grinned and said matter-of-factly,
“I know it’s a long shot.”
She said she would be fronting to John Key, to engage with the Prime Minister on his record, and how he had abdicated his responsibility for a decent future for this country’s children.
Laila said she would demand that he bring along the text of the secret TPPA document, so we could know in advance which rules and laws we would be allowed to pass, and which ones we were not.
She asked, “wouldn’t it be kind of decent” to know what we were signing up to?
Laila then announced clearly and succintly,
“We are not going to support a National government, that’s for sure. But we’re also not going to support Labour to sign the TPPA!”
The audience cheered and clapped loudly at that policy announcement. It was clear that there was no public support in that hall for the TPPA, or that it was held in secrecy by the National government.
Laila also said she was going to ask the Prime Minister “to give us just a little bit more information” than what he gave to the Auditor-General on his conversation with SkyCity which
“completely gutted normal rule of law and procurement processes“, and which changed the laws surrounding gambling to suit the corporate agenda of the casino in Auckland.
Laila called SkyCity “the biggest corporate pariah” in the country.
She said,
“I want to know what went on, and we do not stand committed to that [Skycity convention centre] contract.”
Laila said that the pokies that had been gradually eliminated from Auckland would now be returned to SkyCity. She said that the convention centre deal was funded on the backs of problem gamblers.
Laila said she would be asking the Prime Minister what really happened with respect to to Kim Dotcom’s permanent residence application, and,
“… did he really not know about Kim Dotcom until one day before the raid?”
She would be asking the Prime Minister to account for the illegal spying on Kim Dotcom and eightyeight other New Zealanders.
Judging by Laila’s powerful combination of fierce intellect, wit, and passion, Key would be in for a ‘bumpy’ ride that night.
In parting, Laila gave the audience a message to which they seemed very receptive;
“You can make that happen on September 20th… This is an opportunity to put some honest, brave, and smart voices into Parliament and to deliver a new kind of message and a new kind of politics to this country…
…we can change not just government, we can change politics forever.”
She added,
“Whatever the polls are telling us, the outcome of this election does not depend on the people who vote National. The outcome of this election will depend on those people who don’t.”
.
Postscript 1
Going by the lack of media (except for a sole Radio NZ reporter) coverage of the Roadshow event in Wellington, one thing seems clear; the mainstream media has no idea how to deal with the Mana-Internet alliance.
Is it a passing fad? Something fleeting that will vanish like so many other small parties have come-and-gone over the years?
Or is it something new? Something that is a radical step-change in politics in the 21st Century?
One thing that struck me was the age of most of those involved; they were young people in their late teens and twenties.
It is my belief that politics in the 21st century belongs to a new, younger generation… and they are slowly awakening.
The msm has no idea of what is coming. And if they do, they have no idea how to frame it.
The Rule Book on Politics has just been chucked out the window.
Postscript 2
This is Leo…
.
.
After the roadshow, we had dinner at Wellington’s iconic Green Parrot Cafe, a block away from the Brew Bar
We met Leo, one of the hard-working staff at the Green Parrot. He casually enquired if we’d just come from a gig and we replied that we had – the Kim Dotcom Roadshow ‘gig’. Conversation turned to what Dotcom was trying to achieve with the Mana-Internet Party; to shake up the political system.
Leo said he had not taken much notice of politics, but he had heard of Dotcom and the hassles he was having. Even though he was entitled to vote, he hadn’t last time.
I replied,
“Well, if you don’t vote, you’re letting someone else decide your future.”
Leo got that immediatly and we chatted more. He said he wasn’t sure who he would vote for – but was adamant “it won’t be for that guy, John Key“.
The more we chatted, the more we realised that Leo was the archetypal young non-voter. He said politics didn’t seem very relevant in his life.
I encouraged him to check out the Mana-Internet or Green parties, as he might find relevance with either one. Whoever he chose, it was important that he cast his vote. He said,
“Yeah, I’m going to look into it…“
One of the ‘Missing Million’ – may no longer missing.
.
References
Maori TV: Internet Mana roadshow meets Kaitaia
Radio NZ: Internet Mana takes aim at Labour
Rotorua Daily Post: Internet Mana launches campaign in Rotorua
TV3: King Kapisi sent out to rally young voters
Te Puawaitanga Ki Otautahi Trust: Housing survey
Mana Party: Annette Sykes to launch campaign for Waiariki Annette Sykes, MANA candidate for Waiariki
Related
Fairfax media: Te Tai Tokerau tangles
Fairfax media: PM quiet on Dotcom’s ‘f*** John Key’ rally
Previous related blogposts
Labour’s collapse in the polls – why?
The Mana-Internet Alliance – My Thoughts
The secret of National’s success – revealed
Political Identification Chart for the upcoming Election
Patrick Gower – losing his rag and the plot
Other Blogs
The Daily Blog: No Cookies! But maybe the balance of power. Why Kelvin Davis and the Labour Right are so scared of Internet-Mana.
The Daily Blog: Cunliffe on Internet MANA, how ungrateful is Kelvin Davis & how we know Labour’s vote isn’t collapsing
.
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 10 August 2014
.
.
= fs =
Waiting for Gower’s Twittering of indignation…
.
.
Key has made his call; deals with ACT and Peter Dunne are in – a deal with the CCCP (Colin Craig’s Conservative Party), is out;
.
.
Now we can look forward to TV3’s political commentator, Patrick Gower, posting tweets of outrage at Key’s machinations – just as he did two months ago. On 29 May, Gower was scathing at the alliance between Mana and the Internet Party;
.
.
.
Will Gower make the same expressions of outrage at National?
What are the odds?
Postscript
It seems obvious that Gower has a personal thing against Mana and Kim Dotcom.
His most recent utterances on 29 July made that perfectly clear, when he has again stated,
“And David Cunliffe has repeatedly and pointedly refused to rule out working with Internet-Mana to form a Government.”
At every opportunity, Gower has repeatedly demanded Cunliffe rule out working with Mana-Internet.
Why?
When a journalist demands that a political party make a definitive policy statement to rule out a potential coalition partner is not reporting the news – it is a naked attempt to influence it.
It is one thing to ask a party leader who they will/won’t deal with, post-election. That is a perfectly legitimate question to ask.
But to pressure a party leader to rule out a potential coalition partner?
Gower has stepped beyond the bounds of what is acceptable journalism. It is not his job to dictate to any party leader who they should/shouldn’t coalesce with. His job is simply to report their decisions.
The rest is up to us, the people to evaluate that information.
Pull your head in, Paddy.
.
References
Radio NZ: Deals show contempt, says Labour
TV3: Opinion – Dotcom does Key a Winston favour
Previous related blogposts
Patrick Gower – losing his rag and the plot
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 29 July 2014.
.
.
= fs =
An interesting poll from TVNZ. Note some of the VERY left-wing questions!?
.
.
July 19 – Yesterday, I received this poll, sent by TVNZ to my email.
What I found very interesting were some of the question relating to issues that have not been discussed – literally – for decades. The question regarding free tertiary education is again an election issue. This is something we can attribute directly to the rise and rise of the Mana-Internet Alliance.
The questions (and answers I gave) are presented here as screen-shots. (Only the final two pages are not included, as they contained some personal responses and details. My preference for which Party I will be endorsing with my Party Vote for will be the subject of an up-coming blogpost.)
.
.
.
It is a shame that the “anti-smacking” question (above) was put without real reference to what the law actually states. If people actually knew the actual nature of the repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act, they might be more inclined to vote as I did. It is a fallacy that the repeal of Section 59 banned all smacking and is a deliberate distortion promulgated by neo-conservatives and religious right elements in our society.
.
.
I responded somewhat “lukewarm” to the question about compulsory Kiwisaver (above). The problem of compensating low-income earners and beneficiaries should be taken into account along with implementing compulsion. Forcing the poor, who might be currently living in garages and unable to afford even the basics, to save for Kiwisaver would be an untenable proposition and a farce.
.
.
I voted “strongly disagree” to the proposition that high income earners should not receive superannuation. We have been through this issue before and it was blindingly obvious that high income earners simply hid their money by clever accounting tricks – thereby avoiding cuts to their super.
Targetted superannuation invites the growth of a labyrinth of rules, exemptions, asset-income testing, and an associated invasive bureaucracy. Better to have Universal Superannuation, alongside a comprehensive progressive tax rate that claws back super-payments by slightly higher marginal tax rates.
And the final tranche of questions;
.
.
It is interesting to note that questions regarding tax cuts were omitted. I would have liked to have seen what New Zealander’s attitudes toward cutting taxes would have been. Especially if the question was framed as a choice between more tax cuts and less social services.
Now that would really have been a barometer of our nationwide psyche!
Now we just have to await the outcome of this poll…
.
.
References
Wikipedia: Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 20 July 2014.
.
.
= 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 =
Letter to the Editor – Dom Post editorial off into LaLaLand…
.
.
Today’s (9 June 2014) editorial in the ‘Dominion Post‘ was an interesting take on the John Banks Affair and National’s cynical exploitation of MMP’s “coat tailing” provision;
.
Editorial: Discredited flaw still being exploited
Last updated 05:00 09/06/2014
Every electoral system has flaws which politicians exploit. The coat-tailing provision of MMP is now utterly discredited, but it survives because it serves powerful political interests – especially the National Party’s. The clause should be abolished, but no National-led government will do so.
Labour promises to quickly abolish the clause, which allows a party with just one electorate seat to avoid the 5 per cent parliamentary threshold, if it gains power. There is already a paradox here. Labour might have to rely on the votes of the Mana-Internet Party to do so. But Mana-Internet will get into Parliament only via the coat-tailing clause. Nobody believes it will get 5 per cent of the vote.
The case for abolishing coat-tailing is overwhelming, and was made by the Electoral Commission in 2012. That inquiry grew out of John Key’s promise to “kick the tyres” of MMP, but his government ignored the recommendations. The reason is quite simple: coat-tailing helps the National Party. The Government’s refusal to take any notice of the inquiry was naked realpolitik and a supremely cynical act.
National’s coat-tailing deals with ACT in Epsom have left an especially sour taste in voters’ mouths. Key’s “tea-party” with the-then ACT leader John Banks before the 2011 election was widely recognised as a stunt.
The politicians invited the media to their meeting and then shut them out of the coffee-house while they had their “secret” and entirely meaningless chat. It added insult to injury that Key complained to the police after a journalist taped their conversation.
National and ACT had done similar self-serving deals in Epsom before, and showed just how unfair coat-tailing can be. In the 2008 election ACT got 3.65 per cent of the vote but won five seats in the House thanks to coat-tailing. New Zealand First, by contrast, got slightly more than 4 per cent of the vote but no seats in the House, because it won no electorate. This was mad, but highly convenient to the two right-wing parties.
Coat-tailing, in fact, has kept the dying and discredited ACT party alive. It delivered John Banks a seat in the House, and this week Banks stood disgraced when found guilty in the High Court of knowingly filing a false electoral return. Key, whose self-serving deal with Banks has hurt his own credibility, has even persisted in defending Banks’ “honesty” since the verdict. Now, of course, the Left is doing its own tawdry coat-tailing deal in Te Tai Tokerau. Without Hone Harawira’s electorate seat, Internet-Mana would go nowhere.
Hard-nosed strategists such as Internet Party leader Laila Harre argue that this is “taking back MMP”, as though this kind of thing was a blow for people power instead of the cynical politicking that it really is.
Two wrongs don’t make a right, no matter what power-hungry politicians might think. The Government should abolish the coat-tailing clause, along with its associated overhang provision, and drop the 5 per cent threshold to 4 per cent. However, it won’t happen while National is in power.
– The Dominion Post
.
Note the highlighted sentence; ” Now, of course, the Left is doing its own tawdry coat-tailing deal in Te Tai Tokerau. Without Hone Harawira’s electorate seat, Internet-Mana would go nowhere“.
That statement demanded a response…
.
FROM: "f.macskasy" SUBJECT: Letter to the Editor DATE: Mon, 09 Jun 2014 10:11:45 +1200 TO: "Dominion Post" <letters@dompost.co.nz>
.
The editor Dominion Post . Your editorial on National's exploitation of MMP's 'coat-tailing' provision was insightful until this jarring statement ruined it; "Now, of course, the Left is doing its own tawdry coat-tailing deal in Te Tai Tokerau. Without Hone Harawira's electorate seat, Internet-Mana would go nowhere." (9 June) What "tawdry coat-tailing deal" might that be? Because every indication is that not only will Labour refuse to engage in any deal-making, but MPs Chris Hipkins, Kelvin Davis, Stuart Nash, et al, have been vociferously attacking the Internet-Mana Party on social media. If any such "deal" exists, someone forgot to tell those Labour MPs. However, if even Labour and Mana-Internet came to an Epsom-like arrangement - so what? Those are the rules that this government has decreed and must be played. Anyone playing by some other mythical "principled" rules will sit saint-like on the Opposition benches whilst National gerrymanders the system. Suggesting otherwise creates an unlevel playing field that benefits one, at the expense of others, and is untenable. If it's good enough for National to arrange deals in Epsom, Ohariu, and soon with the Conservative Party, then it should be good enough for everyone. No one takes a knife to a gunfight unless they are dead-set on losing. -Frank Macskasy [address and phone number supplied]
.
References
Dominion Post: Editorial – Discredited flaw still being exploited
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
.
.
= fs =
Patrick Gower – losing his rag and the plot
.
.
When I first read Patrick Gower’s comments on Twitter;
.
.
– I was gobsmacked.
For a moment I considered that his account had been hacked and hijacked by ACT-On-Campus agitators.
Then I read several further “tweets” from the TV3 journalist;
.
.
This was not the work of a “hacker”.
More like a hack.
Note Gower’s comments,
1.
“Lalia Harré – you make me feel sick by how you are rorting MMP http://www.3news.co.nz/Opinion-Hone-and-Dotcoms-grubby-deal/tabid/1382/articleID/346334/Default.aspx#ixzz334vE4jKO Same goes for your pals Hone, Dotcom, Minto and Sykes.”
I trust that Gower will not be surprised if Ms Harré declines any further interviews with him? After all, Laila’s compassion would not allow her to make poor Patrick “feel sick“.
2.
“No I’m not OK with it. It’s not OK. Rorting MMP is not OK.”
No, Patrick. A strategic alliance between two political parties is not a “rort”. It is making full use of the rules of MMP – as this current government has itself endorsed and used on at least two occasions.
Secondly, it is not a “rort” because the strategic co-operation is out in the public domain, for all to see. Including the voters of Te Tai Tokerau.
It is up to voters to determine if it is a rort or not.
I would add that this strategic co-operation was done more openly; more transparently than the *nudge,nudge, wink, wink* “cuppa tea” meeting between John Key and John Banks, in an Epsom coffee shop, on 11 November 2011. And far more open and upfront that the sham candidacy of National Party candidate, Katrina Shanks, in Ohariu in the 2011 Election.
Was the Alliance – set up in 1991 between the NewLabour Party, Mana Motuhake, Greens, and Democratic Party (a fifth party, the Liberals, joined later) – also a “rort”?
Or was it a what it was – a strategic alliance of small parties to adapt to the rules of the then-electoral system of First Past the Post?
The rules of MMP were not decided by Lalia Harré, Hone Harawira, Kim Dotcom, John Minto, or Annette Sykes. They can only use what they have been given.
3.
“I want coat-tailing to go. I want politicians to stop rorting MMP.”
Fine. But I really think you should take that up with John Key and Judith Collins.
They are the ones who decided to keep the “coat tailing” provisions.
They are the ones who rejected the recommendations of the Electoral Commission to eliminate the “coat tailing” rule and reduce the threshold for Parties from 5% to 4%. But they refused. Why? Because the “coat-tailing” rule suited them very nicely.
When a governing party decides to preserve a provision in an electoral system because it increases their chances of winning more seats, or gaining seats for prospective allies – that is a “rort”.
It is also known as gerrymandering.
Blaming two tiny political parties who, between them have one seat in Parliament, and are using the MMP system as it has been presented to them – is just too asinine to take seriously.
Gower shows himself to be the village idiot, with an over-inflated sense of self-worth, is he does not understand this simple truism.
4.
“I fight those deals too.”
“Lets fight these deals together.”
Really?
And here I was, thinking that you were a political journalist reporting the news – not making it or judging it.
Aren’t you supposed to present the facts to us, and leave the evaluation to us, Joe and Jane Public?
Or are we too thick to be able to form our own opinions without journalists now telling us what and how to think?!
If you want to do a Campbell Live or Paul Henry style of story-telling – get your own show, Mr Gower. Then we can keep the differentiation between real reporting and advocacy journalism.
5.
“Nobody in politics will – all are too greedy for power.”
Really?!
Funny thing about that, Mr Gower – all those “greedy for power” were elected to office by us, the People. If you have a problem with that – take it up with the voters who put those politicians into office. I’d like to see Patrick Gower make a tweet, for example;
“Voters of Epsom – you make me feel sick by how you are rorting MMP …Same goes for your pals, the voters in Ohariu.”
I could see your employers having ‘kittens‘ if you tried to slag off tens of thousands of potential viewers with such a shotgun-style delivery of abusive criticism, eh?
What really annoys me about such a cynical state that “Nobody in politics will – all are too greedy for power” is that it is patently untrue. It is a generalisation based on nothing except your own personal experiences and cynical outlook on life.
Because, really, what is the alternative?
Democracy is be the worst form of political system – except all the others, as some famous bloke said a while ago.
By your cynicism you are simply perpetuating the feeling of alienation that pervades our society and helping to further voter disengagement rather than doing anything positive to improve the system.
Maybe I’m missing something here?
Perhaps trying to increase disengagement – especially with parties on the Left – is your real agenda?
6.
“It is about standards. Somebody has to hold the line”
I guess it’s easier to maintain “standards” and “hold the line” when it’s two small parties, with one MP between them – rather than the governing party in power, with fiftynine MPs, and the full force of the State behind them?
That’s the ‘trick’, Paddy, start small, on the little guy. And if you can beat him up, move on to the next little guy. But whatever you do – don’t take on the Big Boys, Paddy. Because you know they’ll kick your flabby arse from one end of this country to the other.
7.
“@RusselNorman Yes. But now it is time for the Greens to show some backbone and rule out working with the Mana-Dotcom rort. Why won’t you?”
Ah, and here we have it – the nub of it all.
This is not about “rorting” MMP. Or keeping “standards“. Or “holding the line“. Or any other lofty ideals.
Nah.
This is about keeping a Labour-Green-Mana-Internet Party(-NZ First?) coalition government from taking power post September 20th.
Because if the Greens (and Labour) were foolish enough to follow Gower’s suggestion – that would effectively lock out any chance of a new government forming, thereby throwing out Key and his cronies.
Bear in mind that when National did their dirty deal in Epsom with John Banks – Gower did not call on Key “ to show some backbone and rule out working with the ACT-Banks rort”. (If he did, I must have missed it.)
That is what this is all about. All this self-righteous, indignant chest-thumping – to keep National in power and prevent a left-wing government taking office.
How else does one explain the volume of hysteria associated with two tiny political parties that barely register 2% (collectively!) in the polls?
Answer? Because it threatens the established system and those who maintain it and profit by it.
Gower has seriously damaged any credibility he might have had.
By his own words, he has disclosed his agenda.
.
References
Twitter: Patrick Gower
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 1 June 2014.
.
.
= fs =
The Mana-Internet Alliance – My Thoughts
.
.
1. Mana’s cunning plan
Firstly, let me say that I have a huge amount of respect for Sue Bradford. Much like Kate Sheppard, her contribution to New Zealand society with her political activism and expression of ideals is something that our children and grandchildren will recognise and appreciate. She is the better part of our nation’s collective conscience in what is right, fair, and decent.
When Sue Bradford speaks, we listen.
On the issue of the Mana-Internet Party Alliance (it is not a merger, as cynics and right-wing commentators are suggesting), whilst I understand her reservations, I don’t accept we have the luxury of being “purer than pure” about this.
I don’t need to remind people that this government has been vicious toward low income earners; workers; and welfare recipients. Whilst National has bent over backwards for the likes of Rio Tinto, Warner Bros, and Skycity, it has nothing but contempt for those at the other end of the socio-economic spectrum.
Bennett’s on-going war-of-words on the unemployed and solo-mothers (but never solo-fathers) and repressive new measures at WINZ are making life harder and harder for those who must survive on welfare.
Simon Bridges’ anti-union legislation will destroy the last vestiges of protection and collective bargaining for workers, delivering them into the grasping fists of local and foreign capitalist corporations.
We can argue all we like about the ethics of co-operation between Mana and the Internet Party. We can indulge our political passions till the dairy cows come home (after their morning poo in our rivers).
We can keep waiting for a mass workers’ movement to rise up and overthrow the oligarchy that rules this country (and others throughout the world) – but really, it ain’t gonna happen, folks.
Quite simply, the poor/unemployed/low-paid are too busy struggling day-to-day to survive on their meagre incomes; avoiding debt collectors; and keeping up with WINZ’s ever-changing rules and new hurdles. Who can forget the chilling, heart-wrending story of Sarah Wilson, who recounted her experiences with WINZ. There are thousands of men and women and children like Sarah going through what she has.
The middle-classes are either National Party aspirationists who have bought the neo-liberal, consumer-is-king, construct, hook-line-and-sinker – or are trying to keep their heads above water, balancing their outgoings with their income. The latter have one eye on their bank accounts and the other on the lot of the poor/unemployed/low-paid – and will do anything to keep from slipping down to their bottom level.
Like homelessness in the United States, once down the socio-economic ladder, it is damned hard to climb up again.
If we needed a clear example why the Left must take every opportunity to rid ourselves of this government, it is this piece, which I have republished from Tony Milne’s blogpost on The Daily Blog;
.
Hooray for our National Government!
Let me tell you just how well they have supported my family over the last twelve months.
We started off 2013 full of hope that finally things were going to get better. Our children were at new schools and beginning to recover from the trauma of being trapped in the CBD during the earthquake. Having lost our source of income as a result of the earthquake I retrained as a teacher. My husband and I both had teaching jobs. As a beginning teacher and teacher Aide our salaries were very low but at least we were earning.
Strike 1: We were earning but not receiving. Novopay! That wonderful new acquisition of our caring and intelligent government hit us hard. For months we were not paid properly or at all in my husband’s case. This meant that we quickly fell into debt as we had no income. Paying interest on the debt cost us thousands by the end of the year.
Strike 2: My job was a fixed term position for 1 year. That’s ok. I’m sure to find another one… except the government has closed so many Christchurch schools that even many experienced teachers are out of work. So no more jobs available. Way to go government! As if we haven’t suffered enough in Christchurch!
Strike 3: Thank goodness we have a welfare system to help us out in times of trouble. Our incredibly generous government has worked its magic on the welfare system too. Revamping it to make sure those nasty beneficiaries don’t eat into their coffers and mess up the budget surplus targets. So despite being unemployed I am ineligible for a benefit. The reason being that the $379.28 that my husband brings home each week during the school term (as a teacher aide he does not get paid for school holidays) is too much for me to qualify. We can claim an accommodation supplement of $120 per week.
Strike 4: $120 per week accommodation supplement doesn’t go very far in Christchurch thesedays. But if we lived in Auckland we could get more because housing is so much more expensive there. Really? A small 1960’s house with 2 1/2 bedrooms and no insulation is at least $450 a week in Christchurch. A search on Trademe revealed 68 3 bedroom houses available for rent in Auckland for $350 per week or less. There were no 3 bedroom houses for that price in Christchurch. Aah yes there is a housing shortage but the government will not increase the accommodation supplement or do anything to stop the profiteering of landlords. Or make resolving the housing shortage a priority.
Why? Who knows… it seems that people are not as important as those good old market forces – our friends supply and demand.
It is interesting to consider that during a similarly traumatic and destructive national emergency (World War 2), it was illegal to profiteer in this way. In fact in the UK, profiteering like this was akin to treason and carried the death penalty.
Strike 5: So, here we are. A family of two adults and two hungry teenagers and two cats living on $568.28 per week for 40 weeks of the year and $189 per week for the rest when you include our
family tax rebate. Our rent was $470 per week and it was costing $110 per week for my husband to commute to his job. In order to save money we have put the kids into the school where my husband works and moved close by. Our rent is now $450 per week and we are locked into it for the next twelve months. We signed the contract believing that we would be entitled to a benefit that would give me an income and believing that for $450 a week it would be insulated and safe if not beautiful.We were wrong. We were unable to find anything cheaper despite searching for months. I had applied for a benefit in the first week of February after my previous employment contract ended.
Unfortunately, WINZ were having a tough few months and it took them until the 6th process my application. They declined it. If I had known that it would be declined I would not have signed the tenancy three weeks earlier.
Strike 6: Novopay strikes again! Novopay failed to pay me correctly at the end of my contract so I am still owed a week’s pay. Novopay refuse to talk to teachers and will only talk to the pay officer in the school. I notified the school over a month ago and they say that they have referred the matter to Novopay. Nothing more they can do. Novopay won’t talk to me so I can’t find out where my money is. Stalemate!
So as you can see our wonderful government has taken an ordinary family and crushed it through the accumulated impact of the decisions of their various departments. We survived the earthquake and after three years the physical and psychological injuries are starting to heal. Unfortunately, we won’t survive this government. I don’t know what I can possibly do to change my situation. I have tried every avenue I can think of. Years of hard work all for nothing.
It baffles me that such a government could ever be elected by reasonable people. But then I guess Hitler was elected too… I am sure there are well meaning people in the government somewhere but I wonder if they really appreciate the impact of the decisions that they make on ordinary people.
One other point: getting rid of this government is not just a matter of helping those who are threatened by right-wing policies – though god knows that should be plenty to motivate us.
The longer that a right-wing government is in power, the further their neo-liberal policies are cemented in place, and the harder to undo them. The dismantling of free tertiary education and introduction of tertiary fees/debt, from 1992, is a prime example.
A third term of National will see a further erosion of workers’ rights; beneficiary bashing; growing inequality; worsening housing shortage; and other social and economic ills. A third term will make it much harder for an incoming Labour-Green-Mana-Internet Party(-NZ First ?) to carry out social reforms, as the country is moved further and further to the right.
Time is not on our side.
2. Flavell’s unmitigated hypocrisy
On the Mana-Internet Party Alliance, Maori Party co-co-c0-leader, Te Ururoa Flavell said;
“Utilising Maori seats to drag in somebody who is questionable about their knowledge about things Maori, and indeed the dreams and aspirations of the Tai Tokerau, it’s not on.”
If I were Flavell, I would not be bandying about words like “dreams” and “aspirations“.
Since John Key became Prime Minister – with Maori Party support – unemployment has risen; the housing crisis has worsened; child poverty has increased; and income inequality has worsened;
.
.
Note the yellow-highlighted After Housing Costs rise in inequality from 36.8 (2007) to 37.7 (2012). The higher the figure in the GINI co-efficient, the greater the inequality.
Many of those unemployed and looking for work or living in garages are Maori or Pacifica. Poverty related diseases are impacting on Maori and Pacifica children worse than other ethnic groups. New Zealand’s under class is growing.
As such, Flavell and his mates in the Maori Party are every bit a part of the problem rather than the solution. So if I were Mr Flavell or his fellow-travellers, I’d be keeping my head down, and mouth firmly shut.
3. Labour’s mind-numbing stupidity
(Some ?) (All ?) Labour MPs need to make up their minds – do they want to be in government or not?
Labour’s Kelvin Davis’s comment on 28 May;
“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.”
– beggars belief.
With that incredibly asinine comment, it appears that certain Labour MPs do not quite comprehend;
- This is an MMP political environment – has been since 1996, for god’s sakes!
- This will be a closely fought election according to political pundits, commentators, bloggers, pollsters, etc. Even Dear Leader acknowledges that this year’s election will be close.
As such – and let me bold this so that any Labour politician reading this doesn’t miss it – every single seat will count. The next government may have no more than a one or two seat majority.
In which case, let me explain it in simple terms for Mr Davis and his colleagues;
- If Kelvin Davis wins Tai Tokerau – that will give one seat to a Labour-led-government.
- If Hone Harawira wins Tai Tokerau, and the Mana-Internet Alliance polls 1.5% (for example), that will give a Labour-led government two MPs.
- Let me repeat that, as some of my colleagues may be a bit slow on the up-take on this point;
- If Kelvin Davis wins Tai Tokerau – that will give one seat to a Labour-led-government.
- If Hone Harawira wins Tai Tokerau, and the Mana-Internet Alliance polls 1.5% (for example), that will give a Labour-led government two MPs.
Now in my books, two is better than one, by about 200%.
So – unless Labour is getting nervous at impending interest rate rises, and is planning to sit this election out and gift the government back to National – there is no benefit whatsoever to the Left if Kelvin Davis wins Tai Tokerau.
None.
Nada.
Nil.
Zero.
In fact, if Mana-Internet fails to win seats, we could see a third term of this guy, as our Prime Minister;
.
.
I trust that’s helped focus people’s attention?
4. Postscript
If rumours are correct that Laila Harré has been appointed as the new leader of the Internet Party, then we have nothing to fear. Laila is as solid as they come when it comes to a strong leftwing philosophy. Her integrity, vision, and inner strength will keep the Internet Party firmly to the Left.
I’d say our chances of a new progressive government post 20 September just got better.
.
References
NBR: Internet Party, Mana merge
NZ Herald: Beneficiaries ‘attacked on all sides’
NZ Herald: Welfare rules force people to struggle on without benefits
Writehandedgirl Blog: Terror and humiliation – just another day with WINZ
The Daily Blog: “We won’t survive this government”
TVNZ News: Dotcom’s party poised for Parliament on Harawira’s coat tails
MSD: Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2012 Revised Tables and Figures 27 February 2014
Scoop media: Shocking poverty causing shocking diseases in our children
NZ Herald: Key admits underclass still growing
TVNZ News: Former MP Laila Harre tipped as Internet Party’s new leader
Radio NZ: PM still expects tight election race
Previous related blogposts
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 29 May 2014.
.
.
9= fs =
Radio NZ: Focus on Politics for 30 May 2014 – the Mana Internet Party Alliance
.
– Focus on Politics –
.
– Friday 30 May 2014 –
.
– Demelza Leslie –
.
A weekly analysis of significant political issues.
Friday after 6:30pm and Saturday at 5:10pm
The contest for votes on the left is heating up with the announcement this week of an alliance between the Mana and Internet parties and the reappearance of former Alliance Party MP Laila Harre.
.
.
Click to listen: Focus on Politics for 30 May 2014 ( 16′ 57″ )
- Mana Party, Internet Party, Laila Harre
- MMP, “coat-tailing” rule
- Sue Bradford
- Kelvin Davis
- Hone Harawira
- David Cunliffe
- John Key, Epsom, Ohariu
- Winston Peters
- Gerry Brownlee
John Key;
@ 10.49
“If you look at those places like Epsom and Ohariu, those people actually won their seats outright, in their own right…”
@ 12.28
“He can go on and on and on all he likes that there isn’t some deal and there isn’t something going on. But you just take a step back and you say well what sort of person puts up three or four million dollars, has absolutely nothing in common with the party that’s there, has actually no interest in politics, lives in a twentyfive million dollar house and is arguing he’s there for the poorest New Zealanders which is what, you know, Hone Harawira talks about and Laila Harre talk about. It’s not really a plausible or believable story…”
Power Play, by Chris Bramwell
Acknowledgement: Radio NZ
.
.
= fs =
Letter to the Editor: The ‘Darth Vader’ of Deal Making! (v.3)
.
.
FROM: "f.macskasy" SUBJECT: Letters to the editor DATE: Fri, 30 May 2014 12:37:12 +1200 TO: "Dominion Post" <letters@dompost.co.nz>.
The Editor Dominion Post . How does one define panic? Answer: when a Prime Minister launches into stinging attacks on two tiny political parties that, between the two of them, barely register at 2% in every poll conducted. I refer to John Key bagging the recent alliance of Mana and the Internet Party, asserting; "You've got a guy who can't buy a house in New Zealand, but he can buy a political party." Realising that people will draw comparisons between between his criticism of the Mana-Internet Party Alliance and National's stitch-ups in Epsom and Ohariu, Key lamely added; "Those people win their seats outright, in their own right. Their motivations are the beliefs of those parties. That's not the case here." What garbage. With talk of a National-Conservative Party stitch-up before the election, the 'Darth Vader' of deal-making - John Key - is drawing attention to his own party's shonkey "arrangements". How else to explain the Nats freaking out at Mana and the Internet Party working strategically together? They must feel very threatened by a party with a combined poll rating of only 2%. The 1% fearing the 2%? Appropriate. -Frank Macskasy
[address and phone number supplied]
.
References
NZ Herald: PM accuses Dotcom of trying to ‘buy influence’
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
.
.
= fs =
Letter to the Editor: The ‘Darth Vader’ of Deal Making! (v.2)
.
.
FROM: "f.macskasy" SUBJECT: Letters to the editor DATE: Fri, 30 May 2014 11:02:22 +1200 TO: NZ Herald <letters@herald.co.nz>.
The Editor NZ Herald . John Key must be panicking. How else does one explain his bizarre statements about the recent Mana Internet Party Alliance; "You've got a guy who can't buy a house in New Zealand, but he can buy a political party. I think most New Zealanders would look at that and be pretty cynical about it. No one should be under any illusion." No, Mr Key, we are not "under any illusion". Especially when the Prime Minister lamely insists that the National-Peter Dunne stitch-up and the National-John Banks stitch-up in 2011 were obvious examples of deal-making from the Right. And coming soon, for this election, as well as stitch-ups in Ohariu and Epsom, voters can now look forward to a deal between John Key and the Conservative Party. But according to the Prime Minister, deal-making between Right Wing parties is ok; "Those people win their seats outright, in their own right. Their motivations are the beliefs of those parties. " Yeah, right. Well, I have a deal for John Key, the 'Darth Vader of deal-making'; how about he stops trying to influence voters and leave those decisions to us? In return, we won't call him a hypocrite. -Frank Macskasy [address and phone number supplied]
.
References
NZ Herald: PM accuses Dotcom of trying to ‘buy influence’
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
.
.
= fs =
Letter to the Editor: The ‘Darth Vader’ of Deal Making!
.
.
FROM: "f.macskasy" SUBJECT: Letters to the editor DATE: Fri, 30 May 2014 10:28:19 +1200 TO: "Sunday Star Times" <letters@star-times.co.nz>.
The editor Sunday Star Times . One can tell when the Right are in a panic - they start making silly noises about parties on the Left. Take for example John Key's recent silly utterances about the strategic alliance between the Internet Party and Mana that "You've got a guy who can't buy a house in New Zealand, but he can buy a political party. I think most New Zealanders would look at that and be pretty cynical about it. No one should be under any illusion" - is laughable. I take it that Key excludes the Epsom deal between himself and John Banks in 2011? On the Epsom cup-of-tea deal, Key says, "Those people win their seats outright, in their own right. Their motivations are the beliefs of those parties". Really? So why the need for the "cup of tea" arrangement with John Banks if ACT could "win their seats outright, in their own right"? One would think the Right would be fine with this kind of “arrangement” because it validates the Epsom stich-up; the Ohariu stitch-up; and the coming Conservative Party stitch-up… When it comes to stitch-up deal-making, the Left have learned their lessons from National - especially from John Key, the 'Darth Vader' of deal-making. -Frank Macskasy [address and phone number supplied]
.
References
NZ Herald: PM accuses Dotcom of trying to ‘buy influence’
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
.
.
= fs =
Letter to the Editor: Mana, Internet Party, Judith Collins, and “coat-tailing”
.
.
Oh, the height of irony as various National MPs bleat on about Mana-Internet Party “coat-tailing” on Hone Harawira’s electorate…
.
FROM: "f.macskasy" SUBJECT: Letters to the editor DATE: Thu, 29 May 2014 12:51:49 +1200 TO: "NZ Herald" <letters@herald.co.nz>.
The Editor NZ Herald . Gerry Brownlee, other National MPs, supporters, and assorted hangers-on have accused the Mana and Internet Party Alliance of "stitching" up a deal and "coat-tailing" on Hone Harawira's electorate of Te Tai Tokerau. I might remind Mr Brownlee and National's fellow-travellers that, after taking hundreds of public submissions, the Electoral Commission recommended in May last year to do away with the "coat tailing" provision in MMP, as well as reducing the Party threshold from 5% to 4%. Justice Minister, Judith Collins - perhaps too busy with trips to China and milk issues - refused to implement the Electoral Commission's recommendations. She cited "lack of consensus" from MPs. Translated into plain english, Collins' reference to a "lack of consensus" meant ACT and Peter Dunne opposed removing the "coat tailing" provision because it would impact on a slim chance to bring additional MPs into Parliament on their "coat tails". John Key had the chance to remove this unpopular provision from MMP and failed to do so for their own self interest. Now the chooks have come home to roost for National. -Frank Macskasy [address and phone number supplied]
.
References
NZ Herald: Govt rejects recommendations to change MMP system
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
.
.
= fs =
Radio NZ: Politics with Matthew Hooton and Mike Williams – 27 May 2014
.
– Politics on Nine To Noon –
.
– Monday 27 May 2014 –
.
– Kathryn Ryan, with Matthew Hooton & Mike Williams –
.
Today on Politics on Nine To Noon,
Our political commentators speak about the recent boost in National’s polling, the strengthening New Zealand economy, and the upcoming elections.
.
.
Click to Listen: Politics with Matthew Hooton and Mike Williams (21′ 30″ )
- Budget 2014, Family Package
- Polls
- Election 2014, voting, Labour-Green Bloc, “Missing Million” voters
- David Shearer
- Environment, rivers, genetic engineering, nitrate pollution, Ruataniwha Dam
- Resource Management Act reforms, Amy Adams, Peter Dunne
- Mana Party, Internet Party
- Green Party list
- Winston Peters, Parliament
.
= 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 =
Anti-Deep Sea Drilling Wellingtonians Take To The Streets (part rua)
.
Continued from: Anti-Deep Sea Drilling Wellingtonians Take To The Streets (part tahi)
.
.
NZ, Wellington, 24 January 2014 – As Wellington basked in a fine, warm summer day, over two hundred people gathered at Midland Park, in Lambton Quay, in the city’s CBD.
The message from Wellingtonians was simple; don’t mess with our environment;
.
.
The media filmed and recorded, as speakers addressed the crowd, and Wellingtonians lined up to sign the Trespass Notice;
.
.
.
Oil Free Wellington organiser, James Barber, on the bullhorn;
.
.
TV1 and TV3 camera crews, with Radio NZ’s reporter off-picture;
.
.
The protest march took off along Lambton Quay, toward the offices of Anadarko, several city-blocks away;
.
.
Strangely, the police insisted that protesters keep to the footpath instead of the road. Which proved more of an inconvenience to other pedestrians than potential inconvenience to vehicle traffic, of which there was little on the road;
.
.
When some of the protesters spilled onto the edge of the road, this police officer took a strong response to force them back on the footpath – despite the road being closed to vehicular traffic. There was a momentary face-to-face confrontation between James and this policeman;
.
.
It seemed rather unnecessary, as most protesters were good natured, middle class Kiwis, rather than “hard-core-fanatical-extremists-hellbent-on-the-destruction-of-Western-Capitalism”.
The marchers moved along Hunter Street, crossing a road. Next stop, Anadarko!
.
.
There was support from by-standers and passers-by, such as this worker who stood across the road from the marchers, expressing her obvious approval by clapping;
.
.
The protestors arrived at the Todd Building, where Anadarko is headquartered. At this point, the crowd numbers had swelled to nearly 300 (approx);
.
.
The open courtyard quickly filled;
.
.
The Mana Party was well represented at the protest;
.
.
Meanwhile, as pointed out in the previous part of this blog report – the Labour Party was conspicuous by it’s absence.
Oil Free Wellington organiser and spokesperson, Fi Gibson (in background, with loudspeaker), addressed the crowd and explained that the Trespass Notice would be delivered to Anadarko, who would be urged to pack up and leave New Zealand;
.
.
Ursula and Ruby had their own message for Anadarko;
.
.
An unusually heavy police presence (at least three other policemen off-camera) at a peaceful, low-key protest;
.
.
Had someone from the Beehive given instructions that Anadarko’s offices and representatives were to be protected at all costs? With oil licences worth billions at stake, it’s not unlikely that such instructions were issued from “on high”.
These three young women are members of a coalition of environmentalist student activists from Wellington High School and Wellington East Girls College. From left-to-right, Rheilli, Courtney, and Anna;
.
.
Spokesperson Anna had this to say on the problem posed by deep-sea drilling;
“We’re a coalition between Wellington East Girls College and Wellington High School. We are Oil Free Wellington for Schools…
… We support support Greenpeace, Green Party, Oil Free Wellington and any other grass roots or NGO groups in the area, to stop deep sea drilling of our coast. Particularly in the Pegasus Bay area because it’s right where we live and we love the ocean. We want to protect the ocean not only for us, as children, but for our children and their children, the future generations of New Zealand.”
I asked what they saw as the top concerns around deep sea drilling. Anna replied,
“Well, I’m definitely concerned about the spill risk which is huge. There is no way that this is an environmentally viable solution.
But my main concern is that we’ll all be contributing to global warming.
Already out of the 3,000 available giga-tonnes of carbon fuel-reserves we can only afford to burn another 500 of those [giga-tonnes]. Those are the ones we already have. We have no business digging up more.
We can’t raise the temperature above 2 degrees, otherwise it could mean mean catastrophic climate change [and] out of control situations.”
I was mightily impressed by Anna, and her friend’s knowledge and dedication to environmental issues. If the young people of New Zealand are of the intelligence and passion of these three young people, then the future of this country is a bright one indeed! (No, not John Key’s “vision” of “bright”.) They’ll have to be – our generation will be leaving our children and grand-children a hell of a mess to clean up.
Before dispersing, people were invited to leave messages for Anadarko on the courtyard floor and footpath (in removable chalk);
.
.
The messages varied,
“Solar energy is the way”
“Go home Anadarko”
“Frack off”
“[peace sign] world peace”
“Stop killing our oceans”
“Keep out greed”
“No deep sea oil”
“We’re better than oil”
“Leave our sacred land”
“Enough is enough”
“You’re on the wrong side”
“Leave the sea alone”
“No future in oil mate”
“Don’t drill just chill”
“How do you sleep at night?”
“Blood is on your hands”
“Fuck John Key”
“Deep sea drilling is a criminal act”
“We [heart] this planet”
.
.
On the issue of Labour’s visible absence; if the Labour Party wants to set itself apart from the Left – as well as general mainstream, middle-class Kiwi society – by supporting the phenomenally risky practice of deep sea drilling, as well as adding to greenhouse gases – then the Labour leadership should not be surprised if they find their fortunes falling in the polls. Whilst at the same time, unsurprisingly, the Greens will be the rising star.
I was intrigued by the make-up of the crowd who protested. Most seemed to be ‘ordinary’ New Zealanders – the sort who would be working in offices; shopping in malls; taking their kids to school; etc. And a large majority were women.
I believe that the leadership of the two main Parties have mis-read the concerns of the public on this matter.
I believe it will become an election issue.
And I believe the Green Party (with perhaps Mana) will stand to gain from their more cautious, common sense approach to this unpopular practice.
I would also offer a word of caution to the Labour leadership; if between now and the election we suffer another major oil spill of our shores, do they really want to be ‘tarred’ by the same oil-brush that National will inevitably be?
Another oil spill will spell the doom of this National government for the next decade at least. Labour would find itself dragged down with the Nats – because they have placed themselves on the wrong side of history.
The protest on 24 January through the streets of Wellington may have been small. But the constituency of the marchers reflected the greater constituency of the country as a whole.
Just in case any Labour and National MPs reading this are in doubt, they should look a little closer at the faces of the people in the pictures in this blog-report.
They are the faces of New Zealanders.
New Zealanders who vote.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 27 January 2014.
.
.
*
.
References
Oil Free Wellington | Facebook
NZ Herald: NZ not 100% pure but aspires to be, says Govt
Copyright (c) Notice
All images 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 Oil Free Wellington is requested.
- At all times, images must be used only in context, and not to denigrate individuals or groups.
- Acknowledgement of source is requested.
.
.
= fs =
Anti-Deep Sea Drilling Wellingtonians Take To The Streets (part tahi)
.
.
NZ, Wellington, 24 January 2014 – Summer arrived just in time for a gathering of Wellingtonians protesting at deep-sea oil drilling and Anadarko’s presence in New Zealand.
It was a mild, warm day with a light breeze, as protesters gathered at Midland Park in Lambton Quay, down-town Wellington, and mingled with office workers having their lunch on the grass; concrete steps; and nearby Astoria Cafe;
.
.
People came with printed banners;
.
.
Others made their own;
.
.
Regardless of style and provenance, the message was crystal clear;
.
.
“Expect resistance” – Kiwi style – which will be demonstrated at the ballot box, later this year;
.
.
Political parties, that ignore public concerns at the dangerous practice of deep sea drilling, do so at their peril.
Some came dressed for the part, like this “sea gull”;
.
.
Aya (center) and two fellow Young socialists – the next generation of leaders on the Left. They will be leading the charge against irresponsible corporate, government, and capitalist activity which threatens our planet’s environment;
.
.
The message for all politicians, whether from the Left or Right;
.
.
Wellingtonians were invited to sign a Trespass Notice, to be delivered in person to Anadarko;
.
.
Many in the crowd who did not take part in the protest were still eager to add their name to the Trespass Notice;
.
.
A simple message, delivered in a clever way;
.
.
So when did the notion of clean water; un-polluted seas; and respect for the environment become a “radical” thing? Isn’t New Zealand supposed to be proud of it’s “100% Pure” and “Clean and Green” reputation? Or, as National suggested, are those “aspirational goals” only?
Young Arlo, standing behind his dad, Green MP Gareth Hughes, as he addressed the protest rally,
.
.
Gareth spoke without a prepared speech, and said that this was about protecting the environment for children “like my son, Arlo”. His sentiments were well recieved by the crowd.
Arlo, holding his simple message for what it’s all about;
.
.
Gareth was followed by Wellington Regional Councillor and environmentalist, Paul Bruce;
.
.
Paul gave the science behind global warming and said that with humans continuing to load up the atmosphere with CO2 and seas continuing to warm, it was time to call a halt.
After Paul, Mana Party member and campaigner, Ariana Paretutanganui-Tamati took the loudspeaker;
.
.
Ariana began by repeating the simple truth; “Aotearoa is not for sale!” She said that deep sea drilling was part of the neo-liberal agenda to “mine it, drill, frack it”.
Ariana said that neo-liberalism was a failed economic system that exploited our resourtces for the benefit of the One Percent. She said bluntly,
“No one has the right to prostitute our land!”
Arians expressed her disappointment that Labour had not ruled out deep sea drilling and urged Labour supporters “to work on their Labour MPs“.
Many New Zealanders will not accept dangerous decisions from politicians who, after all, are only seeking short-term gain and solutions to complex problems. When ‘ordinary’, middle class New Zealanders are expressing opposition to deep sea drilling and all the risks entailed, politicians who ignore their concerns run the risk of being tossed out of office.
Voting is resistance;
.
.
.
Green MP, Gareth Hughes, interviewed by a TV1 news team;
.
.
Kevin Hackwell, representing one of New Zealand’s most formidible and credible environmental protection organisations, Forest & Bird, speaking to members of the public;
.
.
In fact, only one group was conspicuous with it’s total absence: the Labour Party.
And I think we know why.
Continued at: Anti-Deep Sea Drilling Wellingtonians Take To The Streets (part rua)
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 25 January 2014.
.
*
.
References
Oil Free Wellington | Facebook
NZ Herald: NZ not 100% pure but aspires to be, says Govt
TV3 News: Oil companies welcome Labour backing
Copyright (c) Notice
All images 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 Oil Free Wellington is requested.
- At all times, images must be used only in context, and not to denigrate individuals or groups.
- Acknowledgement of source is requested.
.
.
= fs =
Letter to the Editor: Is Key losing the plot over Hone Harawira?!
.
.
Another letter to the ed, on this issue…
.
FROM: "f.macskasy" SUBJECT: Letter to the Editor DATE: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 15:39:08 +1300 TO: NZ Herald <letters@herald.co.nz>.
The Editor NZ HERALD . John Key must be losing the plot to be making outrageous, vile comments like this, condemning Hone Harawira's decision to attend Nelson Mandela's funeral, "This is a guy that went to South Africa on a jolly and shouldn't be billing the taxpayer for it. The bottom line is we took a delegation - whether he likes it or not - that represented, in our view, the right mix. I personally don't believe there was a role for him to go to South Africa." If anyone had a right to attend Mandela's funeral, it was Hone Harawira - one of the leading figures in the 1981 anti-Tour movement. Not two ex-National ministers who supported the Tour (Bolger and McKinnon). Certainly Harawira had more right to attend than John Key. At least Harawira could remember which side of the Tour he was on. Shame on you, Mr Key, for indulging in childish, petty, political point-scoring, before Mandela was even laid to rest. Shame! -Frank Macskasy (address & phone number supplied)
.
*
.
References
Radio NZ: Key criticises Harawaira for tax-funded trip for Mandela funeral
.
.
= fs =
Letter to the Editor: More arrogance from an increasingly authoritarian PM!
.
.
FROM: "f.macskasy" SUBJECT: Letter to the Editor DATE: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 09:02:11 +1300 TO: "the listener <letters@listener.co.nz>.
The Editor The Listener . What is it with the Prime Minister? Firstly he casually and arrogantly dismissed the recent asset sales referendum; "Well, the numbers don’t look like they’re that significant. I mean at the moment it’s sitting at around about 40 per cent. That’s not absolutely amazing, it’s not overwhelmingly opposed." Then he launches into an unprovoked, nasty, diatribe against Hone Harawira for attending Mandela's funeral; "This is a guy that went to South Africa on a jolly and shouldn't be billing the taxpayer for it. The bottom line is we took a delegation - whether he likes it or not - that represented, in our view, the right mix. I personally don't believe there was a role for him to go to South Africa." Despite the fact that Harawira was one of the leaders in the 1981 anti-tour movement? Unlike Jim Bolger and Don McKinnon who both supported it. At least Harawira remembered which side he was on, unlike our amnesia-afflicted prime minister. It seems that as we get closer to next year's election, Key is showing signs of stress and outbursts of anger. Just as well Key said he will resign as National's leader if they lost the election. He is clearly losing the plot. -Frank Macskasy (address & phone number supplied)
.
*
.
References
Radio NZ: Key criticises Harawaira for tax-funded trip for Mandela funeral
Fairfax media: PM playing down voter turnout
Previous related blogposts
Letter to the Editor: Key’s arrogance shines through
.
.
= fs =
Mana enters the Wellington Regional Council race!
Disclosure.
.
NZ, Wellington, 10 August – Ariana Paretutanganui-Tamati, political and community activist, today launched her candidacy for the up-coming Wellington Regional Council local body elections. Ariana will be standing under the Mana Party banner – a Party she has supported since it’s inception.
.
.
Ariana’s campaign platform was based on the issue of free water for domestic users, and opposed metering and charging. Her policy postion stated,
- domestic water use should remain a public service,
- she supported increasing water conservation and collection,
- making increasing leak repair of the public water system priority,
- and opposed water and water-related assets being used for private profit-making.
Ariana’s other concerns were also emblazoned on her placards, dotted around the marquis which her campaign team had set up adjacent to the water fountain;
.
.
Ariana spoke to the crowd on the problematic issue of allowing Anadarko – which had been involved in the disastrous 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill – to prospect-drill of the Wellington coast.
Ariana said New Zealand had no means by which to contain an oil spill-disaster along the magnitude of the Deepwater Horizon event in the Gulf of Mexico.
“The thing is, that they didn’t actually clean it up. The oil is still at the bottom of the ocean. They used a toxic chemical to sink the oil down so it was out of sight, out of mind.”
The coastal areas were still polluted, Ariana said, and this was affecting sealife in the region as well as people’s health.
“We must not allow Anadarko to drill of the south coast of Wellington!”
There were cries of “Hear, hear!” from some in the crowd at that point.
In between speaking, Marama Te Kira entertained the crowd and passers-by with her music and singing,
.
.
Ariana, and her Campaign Manager, Warwick, talking to a member of the public. The woman listened attentatively and said she agreed with a great deal of Ariana’s policies. Another vote, hopefully?
.
.
Ariana talking to two well-wishers who had heard about her campaign launch on social media, and decided to attend,
.
.
Ariana made a clear distinction between herself and Fran Wilde, who supported user-pays with water;
.
.
With a crowd forming around Ariana, who carefully explained Mana’s policy to keep water in public ownership for the benefit of all, she offered people water from two containers. One was free, the other cost money.
Everyone took the free water;
.
.
Ariana talking to another member of the public;
.
.
A message to the public that, despite a lingering recession, a tiny minority are doing very well – while everyone else either struggles or is just getting by;
.
.
More of Mana’s messages to the public;
.
.
Ariana, surrounded by supporters and members of the public, fielding questions about her candidacy;
.
.
Totally relaxed with the public. Perhaps people sensed her honesty and lack of underlying secret political agendas;
.
.
Even left-wing, anti-establishment, pro-people activists have to “press the flesh” with potential voters. These two had a good natter on Ariana’s policies;
.
.
Ariana’s campaign manager, Warwick, explaining Mana Party policy to a member of the public,
.
.
Another vote for Ariana from this young chap,
.
.
Brochures given out to passers-by (see image at top of page for detail),
.
Addressing the crowd and passers-by;
.
.
Ariana tlold the public that a government advisory group, Chaired by Wellington Regional Council chair Fran Wilde, advocated local bodies adopt a user-pays policy for drinking and waste water. She said this would involve compulsory water metering for every household in the Wellington region.
“Water is a right. Water is a right of citizenship, and should come out of public funds. Everybody should have the right to clean water.”
Ariana said there were other ways to reduce water usage such as education and fixing up the various leaks around the city; “We fundamentally and strongly oppose any privatisation of water.” She added, “this is part of a bigger agenda to commercialise our essential services.”
Ariana reminded people that this had already happened with our electricity supply and our power bills had skyrocketed since the 1990s.
Ariana compared the rise in water costs over the same period, saying it had risen by only 17% saying, “So this is what happens when you start to commercialise essential services. We need to ensure to ensure that these services are publicly managed for the public good, not for profit.”
Ariana said that selling off essential services had only contributed to people’s hardship and many were struggling to pay for their power bills. She said the same would eventually happen for water,
“If we start selling of our water, making people pay, then people on low incomes and who are poor, are going to be forced to make decisions about whether or not they give their children a bath… or whether or not they can put on the power to warm their house.
This is disgusting!
We have to make sure Councils are run for the public good – not for profits!”
Ariana said she would “work her butt off” to keep water free for every household.”
Ariana directed a simple question at these young men who had been listening intently; do you think water should be kept in public ownership or privatised?
.
.
All three laughed and answered, “keep it public!”
Who said that young folk don’t understand or care about the issues?
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 11 August 2013.
.
*
.
Disclosure
This blogger supports and endorses Ariana Paretutanganui-Tamati for her candidacy in the forthcoming local body elections. (see: Ariana for Wellington Regional Council – Campaign Launch)
Copyright (c) Notice
All images 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 (or a donation to Ariana’s campaign fund).
* At all times, images must be used only in context, and not to denigrate individuals or groups.
* Acknowledgement of source is requested.
See also
Wall Street Journal – Judge Rules BP, Anadarko Liable in Gulf Spill
Radio NZ: Gear to cap oil rig has to be shipped from
The Daily Green: The Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill by the Numbers
Scoop Media: Fran Wilde’s advisory group tells councils to start charging ratepayers for water
NZ Herald: The 30-year power price hike
Electoral Commission: Enrol or check your enrolment details
Electoral Commission: Local Elections 2013
.
.
= fs =
Beware of unstable government!
.
.
In case anyone has missed it, Dear Leader and his Ministers have been consistantly spreading the message, warning us about the potential perils of a Labour-Green-Mana(-NZ First?) coalition government.
.
“ Only National can provide a strong stable Government that keeps debt down and delivers on jobs. The alternative is big spending, big borrowing, and huge uncertainty. Any way you look at it – a Labour-led Government would owe our future.” – Steven Joyce, 22 November 2011
.
“If anyone thinks Labour and the Greens are going to deliver stable government, they’d better think again.” – John Key, 19 July 2012
.
“ The sharemarket value of Contact Energy, Trust Power and Infratil shares alone fell by more than NZ$300 million yesterday afternoon. That value was taken out of the pockets of hard-working KiwiSavers, the New Zealand Super Fund and small shareholders across New Zealand. If Labour and the Greens could do that in just a few hours, imagine what they would do if they ever got near being in government.” – Steven Joyce, 19 April 2013
.
“There is not going to be a difference between centre left and centre right; it’s going to be a Labour government dominated by the Greens.
This would be the issue of 2014 and voters needed to be aware of the differences.
All of those differences between Labour and the Greens will need to be reconciled by Election Day.
If there is to be no Transmission Gully if a Labour/Green’s Government gets in then we need to understand that; they won’t be able to fudge that.” – John Key, May, 2013
.
“ Normally, elections are fought between the centre left and the centre right. That is not what’s going to take place next year. David Shearer has cut his cloth and it is wrapped around Russel Norman … that now becomes an election between the centre right and the far left.” – John Key, 28 May 2013
.
Well, we’ve seen “unstability” since November 2011.
One of National’s coalition Ministers was investigated by the Police for electoral fraud, and is now before the courts facing a private prosecution, charged with filing a false electoral return.
Another coalition Minister has just resigned his portfolios after allegations that he leaked document(s) to a journalist.
And National’s other coalition partner, the Maori Party, seems unsure how many co-leaders it has;
.
.
I think from now on, Key and his ministerial cronies may lie low a bit and keep comments of “unstable government” to themselves.
Instability? We’re seeing it now, in spades.
This blogger is picking an early general election – this year.
After that, this country can settle down to a coalition government of stability. One that doesn’t include Key, Banks, Dunne, et al.
About bloody time.
.
.
*
.
References
National.co.nz: Labour plus Greens equals billions more debt (22 November 2011 )
Dominion Post: Key’s game is ripping into Greens (19 July 2012)
Interest.co.nz: National’s Steven Joyce dismisses Labour-Greens power policy as ‘bumper sticker politics at its most destructive’ (19 April 2013)
FW: Key fires warning shot over ‘green-dominated’ labour (May, 2013)
ODT: And so it begins (28 May 2013)
.
.
= fs =
National dragged kicking and screaming to the breakfast table
.
.
“We all instinctively know that hungry kids aren’t happy and healthy kids. I want this to be the first of many schools and businesses that we put together. I’m interested in what works and I am humbled by the support this idea has received already. We are going to put together the package while in Opposition. We are not waiting to be in Government, because all our kids deserve better.” – John Key, 4 February 2007
Mounting pressure on National has finally yielded results; Prime Minister Key today announced that funding would be provided for some food in schools.
It’s a limited programme;
- Increasing the ‘KickStart’ School breakfast programmes from two to five days a week
- $9.5 million over five years from the State
- A further $9.5 million to be sought from Fonterra and Sanitarium
- $1.5 million to Kidscan over three years to provide clothes, health and hygiene products to children from poor families
- Targetting schools with decile rating 1-4. (“Higher decile schools that want and need it, can opt in during 2014“, says Paula Bennett. see: Breakfast programme part of the solution)
It’s a basic breakfast, weetbix and milk. But it’s a damn sight better than nothing. Anything that gives hungry children a better chance at some basic nutrition and a better chance at learning, has to be welcomed.
Never mind National’s core-support naysayers. They most likely never had to endure any degree of hunger (except maybe getting home late to a dinner of salmon, courgettes, greek-style salad, with a decent pinot gris).
The only thing that worries me is that this $19 million programme relies heavily on support from private companies; Fonterra and Sanitarium. Either one of those companies could pull the plug, citing commercial reasons; shareholder dissatisfaction; or no particular reasons at all.
This happened in mid 2011, when the Countdown Supermarket chain withdrew it’s support from a Red Cross-operated programme. As the Herald report on 27 May 2011;
Child poverty campaigners want the Government to take over feeding hungry children in low-income schools after the supermarket chain Countdown torpedoed a Red Cross breakfast programme.
[…]
Countdown spokesman Luke Schepen said the supermarket chain gave more than $1 million in food and other help to the Red Cross breakfast programme from its start in 2007 until the end of last year.
Red Cross wrote to the 61 decile 1 schools in the programme this month saying it could not find another sponsor and the programme would finish at the end of this term.It advised the schools to apply to the Kickstart programme run by Fonterra and Sanitarium, which provides milk and cereal to more than 400 schools twice a week.
Acknowledgment – NZ Herald – Govt urged to take over school food programme
It’s interesting that Countdown began it’s assistance in 2007. That was the year that then-leader of the Opposition, John Key, launched National’s own Food in Schools initiative;
.
Acknowledgment – Scoop – National launches its Food in Schools programme
Two years after Key released the policy statement above, Countdown withdrew from the programme. A cynic might suggest that Countdown had fulfilled it’s bargain with National and could safely walk away.
Is that what we’ll see with Fonterra and/or Sanitarium? That, after a couple of years, when the issue of hungry kids has faded from public consciousness, Fonterra and/or Sanitarium will announce their withdrawal from the ‘KickStart’ programme?
Considering that Fonterra is a farmers co-op and the rural community have traditionally voted National; and considering that the Seventh Day Adventist church is a conservative religious group, whose members most likely also vote National – these are natural allies to the Tories.
Let’s hope that this is not a cunning trick by National to down-play this problem and create a false assurance to the public that the government is “doing something”. That really would be cynical.
Some final points…
The Polls
Of all the reassuring events recently, two polls on TV1 and TV3 reconfirmed my faith in the generosity of most New zealanders. Both showed over-whelming support for introducing food in schools;
In favour: 70%
Opposed: 26%
Undecided: 4%
In favour: 74%
Opposed: 23%
Undecided: 3%
Most surprisingly, Patrick Gower revealed that 66% of National voters were in favour of a Food In Schools programmes, with only a “hard core” of one third opposing it.
Well done those 66%. You folk still have a soul and a heart.
The Naysayers
Your naked selfishness and utter lack of empathy verges on the sociopathic. You would condemn innocent children to hunger simply because of some twisted, perverted desire to punish parents who don’t measure up to your own precious ‘standards’.
Really, go fuck yourselves.
The Public
As Hone Harawire pointed out yesterday (27 May) on TV3, it was public pressure that forced National to pay attention to this growing problem in our society, and to come up with something – anything! – as a solution.
It is inconceivable that we cannot do something for the children of the poorest families in our own country. Especially when Sweden, the UK, Canada, etc, already offer this most basic service.
Why do we call New Zealand “Godzone” if not to practice what we preach in terms of egalitarianism and helping one another.
This achievement was the result of a broad people’s movement. Whether it was Bryan Bruce and his incredible documentary, “Inside Child Poverty“- or individual citizens such as this Facebook user wrote,
“ The simplest way to address this would be to increase the minimum wage, my wife teaches in a decile 1 school many parents who are working are struggling. Living in the eastern bay of plenty average incomes here are the lowest in NZ. Parents working as pickets or packers in the kiwifruit industry earn bugger all. The myth that those struggling to feed their kids are on the dole is exacting that, many are working long hours , but if you are on the minimum hourly rate in NZ, you only need a doctors bill, or. Car repairs and your family budget is negatively impacted. The concentration of wealth in New Zealand was never better illustrated, than when recently it was revealed that, the CEO of solid energy NZ was suspended on indefinite leave on full pay at home gardening on $5,000 a week. Contrast that with people working 40 hours plus a week and end up with less that $350.00. Lift the minimum hourly rate so working parents don’t have to struggle to put food in the table…” – Alex Dobie
– Thousands of New Zealanders put unrelenting pressure on National and sent one, simple, message to John Key; do the right thing.
The Message
.
from: Frank M <fmacskasy@gmail.com>
to: Sunday Star Times <letters@star-times.co.nz>
date: Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:36 PM
subject: Letters to the editor.
The Editor
SUNDAY STAR TIMES.Sir/madam,
National’s “food in schools” programme relies heavily on the private sector (Sanitarium, Fonterra, etc) to provide breakfasts in schools.
The problem with this policy is that a private business offering charity can walk away any time it decides, leaving the programme unsupported.
Prime Minister Key says,
“This is something that corporates do because they have a corporate social responsibility. So I’d imagine there are situations where they could walk away but they’re pretty unlikely to because it’s pretty good for their brand – because it’s genuinely a nice thing that they’re doing.” (28 May)
“Pretty unlikely”? Really?
That is precisely what happened in mid-2011 when the Countdown supermarket chain withdrew contributing to the Red Cross’s food in school programme.
Let’s hope we don’t see a replay of that event.
On a related note, it is appropriate for Sanitarium to be contributing to a Food in Schools programme. Being owned by the Seventh Day Adventist church, Sanitarium pays little or no taxes because it’s owner (the church) has charity status.
At least now Sanitarium can put something back into the community.
-Frank Macskasy
(address and phone number supplied)
.
The Children
Whatever reservations I might have on National’s motivation and long-term agenda, the main thing here is that more children will be fed at schools. That is a positive step, and one to be encouraged.
Until a Labour-Greens-Mana coalition can implement Hone Harawira’s Food In Schools Bill, National’s programme is better than nothing.
At least it will put nutrition into young, empty bellies. And really, that is what counts.
.
“Please, Mr Key, sir, may I have some more?”
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 28 May 2013.
.
*
Previous related blogposts
On child poverty, to the Sunday Star Times…
Budget 2013: Suffer the little children… to starve
Budget 2013: Child poverty, food in schools, and National’s response
References
Scoop: National launches its Food in Schools programme (
NZ Herald: Govt urged to take over school food programme (27 May 2011)
Beehive: Breakfast programme part of the solution (28 May 2013)
Dominion Post: Key: Food in schools here to stay (28 May 2013)
NZ Herald: Schools gets $9.5m breakfast funding boost (28 May 2013)
Radio NZ: Govt gives $9.5m to expand food in schools programme (28 May 2013)
Dominion Post: Govt rolls out expanded food in schools (28 May 2013)
.
.
= fs =
Westpac, Peter Dunne, & Edward Snowden…
.
Acknowledgement: Huffington Post – Edward Snowden Charged With Espionage Over NSA Leaks
.
Are we witnessing the first green buds of the Earth Spring? All over the world, the winds of change are blowing harder and harder.
The Arab Spring was first, and people rose up against dictators in Algeria, Egypt, and Libya. In Syria, a similar popular uprising turned into a bloody sectarian war, claiming nearly a hundred thousand lives. Dictator Assad will not give up power easily.
In the West, the Occupation movement flowered for a brief moment, but has become dormant again… for a while.
In Turkey and Brazil, people have come out onto the streets to oppose their governments. Even democratically elected governments are feeling the brunt of popular discontent.
In the US, even as a once great symbol of freedom devolves into a police surveillance state, individuals are risking personal safety and rebelling.
Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden are two such men.
Manning was arrested in May 2010, and is currently facing a military trial (and we know how that will turn out).
Now, Edward Snowden is the latest whistleblower to be charged by an American system that is becoming more and more despotic.
When a government fears it’s own people, it is well past it’s Use By date.
Bradley and Snowden: history books will be kinder to them than the politicians who persecuted them.
.
.
*
.
Acknowledgement: Radio NZ – Dunne hasn’t made up mind about GCSB bill
.
Edward Snowden made public information that revealed that US intelligence agencies were spying on citizens in countries around the world. He revealed that no one’s privacy was safe.
Meanwhile, here in New Zealand, the National led government is rushing a Bill through Parliament that would permit the GCSB to do precisely that; spy on New Zealanders.
We have moved from a nation that barely tolerated the State from prying into our lives – to one that is surveilling us; storing vast quantities of data on us; and now wants more power to spy on us.
There is barely a murmur in response.
Even the Right Wing – the political spectrum that is (supposedly) the most intolerant and suspicious of the growth of State power – seems to be practically comatose. Though in reality that may be because National is proposing the law-change, and not Labour. If it were a Labour government…
Peter Dunne, fresh from resigning his ministerial portfolios for allegely leaking the Kitteridge Report (or, more accurately, breaking an embargo, since it was one week away from being released anyway), has yesterday announced that he might not support National’s Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill.
Whilst I’m not about to look a gift-moa in the mouth and happily support Dunne on this – it does raise a few questions.
Questions like… why?!?! Up till now he has been the obedient lap-cat of the National Party, so why all of a sudden has the Coiffured One grown a pair, and practically thrown his lot in with the Snowdens and Mannings of this world?
Martyn Bradbury on The Daily Blog has been speculating on Dunne’s motivations in his part of the GCSB Affair in a series called The Dunne & Vance Theory.
Whatever is going on – I hope Dunne votes against the Bill. We don’t need to empower our spy agencies any more than they are already. We need to remember that the State is our servant – not the other way around.
We don’t need to be constantly surveilled, in case one of us happens to nick a pen or spray-paints ‘Key Sucks’ on the footpaths outside Parliament.
Up until the 21st century, the State pursued crooks after they committed wrong-doing. Now, the State seems intent on watching us all – in case someone, somewhere, is naughty.
Isn’t that… Big Brother?
I support Dunne on this dire issue. It is time to call a halt to the rise of the Surveillance State.
Dunne may well be the man to do it.
.
.
*
.
Acknowledgement: Radio NZ – Govt move to tender banking gets Green approval
.
I’ve always wondered…
Why have successive governments (Labour as well as National) used Australian-owned Westpac Bank to hold government accounts – known as the ‘Master Banking Contract’? The Master Banking Contract has been held by Westpac for 23 years despite never being tendered out. It covers all government departments (except Crown entities and SOEs).
According to Alex Tarrant,
- In the late 1980s, Treasury undertook an open tender to select one bank to provide the Crown’s domestic banking services. Westpac was selected to provide these services and a deed entered into in January 1989.
- A new master agreement was signed in November 2004 and, since 2005, the Crown has negotiated ongoing contractual price reductions for contract services.
- The contract covers only the core banking services associated with operating Government departments’ bank accounts for processing domestic receipt and payment transaction banking business in New Zealand.
- An increasing array of banking services have developed over time that are not covered by the master banking agreement with Westpac. Banking services that are not covered by the contract are regularly tendered by the departments concerned.
- The contract applies only to Government departments, not Crown Entities or SOEs.
- The Treasury regularly consults with key departments over pricing and service levels relating to the contract, including the possibility of conducting a future tender of the Crown’s banking arrangements.
- The contract has not been re-tendered to date because the costs of doing so outweigh the expected benefits given the complexity of arrangements with departments and the price reductions negotiated under the existing contract. Departments do, however, tender for a range of supplementary banking services not covered by the master banking agreement with Westpac.
- The fee arrangements between the Crown and Westpac are commercially sensitive and are not made public.
Acknowledgement: Interest.co.nz – Government considers future of Westpac’s key 21 year-old banking deal
.
Here are two further points to consider,
- Last year Westpac NZ reported $707 million in after-tax profit – a 22 % increase from 2011. (See: Westpac profit rises 22pc to $707m )
- In October 2009, the IRD won a lawsuit against Westpac which had been taken to Court for tax avoidance. Not only did Westpace lose, but it ended up owing $961 million in back taxes and accrued interest. (See: Westpac loses massive tax case on all counts)
So, Mr Key or Mr English – just remind us again why the NZ Government still has a Master Contract for State banking, with a convicted tax avoider, that actively conspired to scam the tax-payer for nearly one billion dollars?!
How is that being a Good Corporate Citizen?
Perhaps we should just let the Russian Mafia tender for our banking services – the result would be the same.
So not only is Westpace making huge profits – $707 in 2012 alone – but they’re screwing us by not paying their share of tax, as the law demands.
Have I left anything out?
Screw the tender process.
Just give the Master Contract to Kiwi Bank. The benefits would be obvious to all but the most strident, dogmatic right winger;
- No more tax avoidance – the Crown-appointed Board (with Ministerial over-sight) would see to that,
- Kiwibank would make bigger profits and therefore pay a bigger dividend to the government,
- All profits remain in New Zealand and not shipped of overseas (to Australia in Westpac’s case)
- Less profits remitted overseas will help of balance of payments
Win/win/win/win.
I’m just gobsmacked that no politician – whether Labour or National – has ever seen the blindingly obvious nature of this commercial cock-up.
And strangely enough, it’s left-wing parties – Mana and the Greens – thay have to point this out to the more capitalist-minded Nats?!
Though the reasons why the Nats have stayed ‘sweet’ with Westpac seem to be less than commercially sensible and more to do with a good night out…
.
Acknowledgement: Interest.co.nz – Greens say govt must tender master banking contract with Westpac after Ministers reveal corporate hospitality accepted from the bank
.
Just to remind folks: New Zealand is the “least corrupt nation” on Earth. And government ministers are not corrupt, nor easily bought off by corporate parasites.
I can’t say otherwise.
Otherwise I’d be sued for telling the truth.
.
.
.
= fs =
Can we afford to have “a chat on food in schools”?
.
.
1. We’ve had the ‘chat’
We should all know the facts and stats by now;
In 2006/07 230,000, or 22 percent, of New Zealand children were still living in poverty. That is, in households with incomes below the 60 percent median income poverty line, after taking housing costs into account. This is more than the entire population of North Shore City (205,605) or the Manawatu-Wanganui region (222,423) and means one adult and one child were living on $430 a week before housing costs. (see: Brief Statistics on Child Poverty in New Zealand 2004-2008)
By 2011/12, approximately 270,000, or 25%, of New Zealand children were living in poverty. (see: Solutions to Child Poverty)
A recent UNICEF report placed New Zealand amongst the worst in developed countries for child wellbeing, ranking us 25th out of 34 developed countries. We are now behind Australia and Britain also for homicide rates, child health, and safety. (See: NZ ranked poorly on child welfare)
The same UNICEF report rated our country third for clean air and fourth for children’s education outcomes in reading, maths, science and literacy. I’m sure clean air and high achievements in readin’, writin’, ‘n ‘rithmetic, will mean a lot to young chldren going to school with empty bellies… (Note sarcasm.)
In 2011, Dennis McKinlay, executive director at Unicef New Zealand, said,
“New Zealand currently spends US$14,600 ($17,500) per child whilst, in comparison, Scandinavian countries spend US$50,000 per child under six. Other countries, like the Netherlands, spend less but have better outcomes. The stark reality is that poor outcomes for children are costing New Zealand $6 billion per year in areas such as health, welfare services, crime and justice.”
Acknowledgement: NZ Herald – Study: Quarter of NZ kids in poverty
McKinlay was 100% on the mark when he said spending on children should not be considered as a social cost but as an economic investment for the future of the country.
We have lost our moral compass when we demand tax cuts ahead of good policies that benefit our children.
The situation is so dire for many families that their households are often empty of food. After rent, power, and other fixed costs are taken out of their meagre incomes, there is simply not much left for discretionary spending on things like food, medication, clothing, etc.
As a blogger, “Burnt out Teacher” (Amanda Kennedy), recently wrote on The Daily Blog,
“You have $440 dollars after tax from your minimum wage job. $290 of it goes on your rent. You have $150 left. You pay $198 towards your power bill. Your car needs registering at a cost of $290.97. You owe Watercare $58.20 for last month. You need at least $15 of petrol to get to the doctor and back (the doctor will cost another $20 per child) because your children have asthma and your house is damp and cold. Both kids need new shoes for winter. Your boyfriend just beat you up. You are crying. How much debt are you in, and what are your kids going to eat today? ”
Acknowledgement: The Daily Blog – Hungry Kids Annoy Frazzled Lobby Group Director
To those who care enough, I encourage you to read “Burnt out Teacher’s” full blogpost. It makes for sobering reading.
2. More ‘chat’?
On 7 May, Children’s Commissioner, Dr Russell Wills, wrote an op-ed piece for the Dominion Post;
.
Acknowledgement: The Dominion Post – Time for a chat on food in schools
.
As Dr Wills said,
“ We need solutions that recognise the many complex causes of child hunger and poverty if we are to use the limited resources we have to make a real difference to children’s education and health outcomes.
Blaming parents is unhelpful and simplistic.”
So far, so good.
However, in the next sentence from Dr Wills gave cause for concern,
“ I am not a fan of overseas models of fully state-funded school cafeterias. They tend to provide poor food, assume state responsibility for a parent’s role, create dependence, cost a lot of money that could be better spent elsewhere, take up school management time, and provide no role for parents, business or community organisations.”
Dr Wills may or may not realise that by issuing the statement that “fully state-funded school cafeterias… tend to provide poor food, assume state responsibility for a parent’s role, create dependence…” – he is perpetuating several unhealthy prejudices which the politically rightwing and conservative religious groups use to oppose food in schools for children.
Namely the extremist neo-conservative group, the so-called “Family First”, which also stated,
“ It also creates a dependence on a service which may not always be able to be provided…
[…]
It also creates a dependence on a service which may not always be able to be provided.”
Acknowledgement: “Family First’: Food In Schools Will Feed The Problem
Hopefully it is a mere coincidence that Dr Wills’ comments seem to mirror the extremist views of “Family First”.
Where Dr Wills’ op-ed piece falls down is his proposals for how to provide food in schools. Dr Wills proposed that schools be responsible for growing their own food, and to operate in partnerships with businesses. He promoted philanthropy rather than state intervention.
I asked for feedback from the principals of two low decile schools, and from Bryan Bruce, documentary-maker, child poverty campaigner, and producer of the documentary, “Inside Child Poverty“, on Dr Wills’ proposals.
I first asked all three; having read Dr Wills’ op-ed piece, “Time for a chat on food in schools”, what was their overall view on the points he had made?
“The points he makes are quite valid. I think he is right that we do need a different approach to the way cafeteria type models run overseas. NZ general has its main meal in the evening – however in saying that these children often only eat what they are given at school and don’t eat much in the evening. To form a group to look into the best way to supply food is a good idea.”
“ Overall, his comments are generally valid and his suggested solutions have merit – but only if you regard the solutions as short-term solutions. The real solution to child poverty is for structural changes to NZ society and changed government policies, particularly ensuring a decent living income for all. With this approach, all families would be able to afford the food, afford the time to put into their kids (not working 2 jobs, or working early morning shifts, etc). Education for parents to help with budgeting, cooking, etc would also fill a gap. Without this approach, the proposed solutions rely on businesses, charities, and schools.”
“ I am not a fan of overseas models of fully state-funded school cafeterias. They tend to provide poor food, assume state responsibility for a parent’s role, create dependence, cost a lot of money that could be better spent elsewhere, take up school management time, and provide no role for parents, business or community organisations.”
“ I think he is right. We need to look for a nutritious alternative that does not take school time – we are there to provide education not food. The food needs to be provided by an independent source that is reliable.”
“ I worked in UK schools for 4 years from 1999-2002, and saw the ‘school dinners’ (lunches) programme in operation. I don’t know about the cost to the authorities, but I don’t think it took up much school management time. The food quality was variable, but this is easily changed with the right will, as showed by Jamie Oliver’s crusade to make school dinners healthy.”
“ You can find good and bad examples of state funded cafeterias. So we know how bad it could be – let’s regulate the process from the start and model ourselves on the best ones – like the one I visited in Sweden . It is in a migrant area and the food was nutritious, tasty and much enjoyed by the kids .”
My next point; Dr Wills suggested that, “in some schools parents and whanau are encouraged to help garden, harvest veges, cook and serve the food. This teaches gardening and cooking skills, and helps build relationships between parents, whanau and teachers”
“This is a glorious hope – but it wont work in the long term. Yes it is great to grow veges and encourage parents to be involved but this won’t supply the lunches everyday. The parents are not reliable enough to turn up everyday and make lunch – for it to work properly it needs to be a commercial venture. Schools have to have a fully guaranteed liunch programme everyday that they don’t need to worry about.”
“Great if it works. Problems include vandalism to gardens, and difficulty to have parents regularly available. Yes it may help with relationships but not necessarily – relationship are better built over students’ education.”
“While I think its a very good idea to teach kids how to grow food, but the idea of sustaining a school food programme on a grow your own basis would take up most of the playing fields and leave the kids with little time for anything else .”
I then asked, is this practical practical in the short term? Long term? Would gardening, harvesting veges, cooking and serving the food be more time consuming than the provision of fully state-funded school meals? Where would vegetables be cooked?
“I have no idea where the food would be cooked on a large scale. You have to employ people who have the skills to provide food on a large scale everyday. We would have nowhere at present that you could cook or eat on a large scale.”
“I believe it would be [more time consuming than the provision of fully state-funded school meals].
With the UK school dinners, the schools have commercial kitchens. This school [Taita Central School] certain doesn’t have the necessary kitchen facilities.”
“Food is a fundamental health need. Let’s put in the Swedish model – full time caterers and school restaurants. This will create jobs, ( for chefs, cooks, builders) which will stimulate our economy, reduce our health spend on crisis care for obese, diabetic and future adults with dodgy hearts.”
Dr Wills further claimed that, “teachers involve students in the growing, harvesting and preparation of the food, so the programme is linked to learning goals. In many cases NGOs partner schools and businesses to provide the programme.”
Is a Public Private Partnership a desirable proposal? Or reliance on a a current ideological fad?
Does reliance on “teachers involve students in the growing, harvesting and preparation of the food” take students away from an already packed curriculum and place more demands on teachers and other staff?
“Teachers do not have time to do this on the scale that is needed to feed the whole school. Being out in the sunshine gardening is lovely – but what about winter!!! We won’t get to National Standards in Reading, Writing, and Maths if we are out gardening all day. To have small class gardens that we have where children grow vegetables and take them home is great and teaches the skills of growing food but this won’t work on an everyday basis to feed everyone.”
To Dr Wills suggestion that “teachers involve students in the growing, harvesting and preparation of the food, so the programme is linked to learning goals. In many cases NGOs partner schools and businesses to provide the programme” – Mike Fackney responded,
“This is fine, but not something which can really continue on an on-going basis, particularly with all the other expectations the government has on schools.”
And when asked “Is a Public Private Partnership a desirable proposal? Or reliance on a a current ideological fad?” – he replied,
“It’s never really a desirable proposal for schools to rely on private support.”
Bryan Bruce was even less enthusiastic at Dr Wills’ proposals,
“We seem to be going back to the 19th Century idea of relying on charities and volunteers to look after the poor. Haven’t we learned anything ?
In my view it’s like this – teachers are not hired to be caterers. They are doing it out of compassion. Are we now asking them to be full time gardeners as well.”
Dr Wills also said ; “In many cases NGOs partner schools and businesses to provide the programme… It gives businesses an opportunity to give back to their communities, the cost to the taxpayer is reduced and the food is nutritious. Notice that these models leave responsibility for running and funding programmes with communities.”
He also states,
” However, I think there could be two potential roles for government funding. First, there is a place for a co-ordination role to bring together schools and businesses, and manage the programme and the workload for principals and business owners.
Second, there is an argument to match government funding to philanthropy on a sliding scale.
For example, $3 for every $1 raised in a decile 1 school, decreasing for better-off schools.
Matched funding like this encourages communities to build and own their own solutions, and incentivises businesses to give to their communities rather than replacing philanthropy with taxpayer funding, which has the opposite effect. Funding could be made available only to programmes that adhere to agreed standards, raising the quality of programmes. None of this requires legislative change.”
Dr Wills appears to be promoting a State/Philantropy Partnership policy. Is this a practical means by which to promote food in schools, or is it an abrogation of duties which should be the State’s responsibility on this issue?
What happens where businesses or private philantropy is not forthcoming – especially in poorer areas with high unemployment and few businesses? And would private businesses expect a quid pro quo, ie, advertising on school grounds?
.
Photograph: Upper Hutt School, Upper Hutt
.
“This again puts pressure on schools to spend time on activities other than teaching children!! There is no money in the community. $10 is alot of money in Cannons Creek. We do not charge more that $2 or $3 for a school trip and subsidise the rest with school money. We have no school fees and provide such things as sunhats, beanies, shoes, socks, etc ourselves. I think there needs to be further investigation into how poor is poor. It may only be small groups of decile 1 schools that need this support.”
To Dr Wills’s comment that “in many cases NGOs partner schools and businesses to provide the programme… It gives businesses an opportunity to give back to their communities, the cost to the taxpayer is reduced and the food is nutritious. Notice that these models leave responsibility for running and funding programmes with communities.”
Mike replies,
“A far easier way is that it’s organised through the taxation system (i.e. a fairer taxation system) and provided by government – as schools are.”
As for the rest of Dr Wills’ comments above, Mike says,
“All of this sounds like an organisation nightmare.”
“If we want to rebuild a fair an equitable society where every child gets a fair go you can’t have kids in poor schools gardening to grow their dinner while kids in rich schools get their lunch provided and spend their school time doing maths and reading. If the public school system does not treat every child equally (and it already isn’t) then watch the gap between the rich and the poor get bigger and bigger.”
Dr Wills also suggests that , “ … we need a small project to bring together schools, NGOs, officials and experts to reach a consensus on what food in schools done well looks like. From there we could develop guidelines and standards for food in schools programmes. ”
Is this a viable, necessary step? Or a case of “talking heads around a table” whilst the problem of hungry children goes unaddressed?
“This sounds like a great idea – count me in. If this is going to be addressed properly and a long term healthy solution found then it needs a focused approach. With the right people and funding it could move quite quickly.”
When I asked, can we afford Dr Wills’ suggestion “Maybe it’s time for a cup of tea on food in schools?“, Bryan Bruce was less than impressed,
“ Forget the cup of tea and the charity and poor kids being constant gardeners – let’s get on and feed our kids properly so the teachers are freed to do their job and our kids can learn the 21 st Century skills they will need to earn money, pay their taxes and grow our economy.”
Ruth also offered her thoughts on matters arising from Dr Wills’ ideas.
Questons such as; who cares and tends to the gardens during school holidays? Are school staff expected to tend to garden plots during holidays?
Ruth O’Neill
“I can tell you that the class gardens all go to seed over the xmas break and then it takes all of term 1 when the soil is rock hard to get them up and running again. Then in the winter they are like a bog!!! On any given weekend people will come into the grounds and trash them, throw alcohol and broken glass bottles in them. Urinate in them – would you want your child doing the gardening?? Or people steal the veges.”
What about schools that have little or no spare land for gardens?
“Exactly??? Or who have high vandalism.”
I then asked how much food can be grown to sustain anywhere from thirty to a few hundred school children in any given school? The respone from Ruth was fairly predictable,
“ You could not grow enough food to maintain the whole programme. It is also a question of having the right veges on the right day to make the soup or the sandwiches. You need lettuces and tomatoes everyday!!”
And of course the also-obvious question which I put to Ruth – what do children eat whilst crops are growing?
“Exactly – totally impractical unless it is on a massive commercial scale for a big group of schools and the funding to buy in produce when needed to supplement supplies.”
And is a “chat” really necessary – or is it time to Just Do It; to get on with feeding our children and leave the “conversation” to some other time? (It’s easy for middle class professionals to want to engage in public debate. Especially on a full belly.)
Ruth O’Neill
“It needs addressing and in a timely manner – the chat would need to lead to actions and funding.”
“All of the above are very valid concerns.”
This blogger concurs with Bryan, Ruth, and Mike; Dr Wills has suggested some positive ideas – but the prospect of turning our schools into vast agricultural plots to feed hungry child is simply not practical.
Children go to school, first and foremost, to learn.
Those children from low-income or impoverished families should not be made to become mini-farmers.
Teachers go to school, first and foremost, to teach.
They do not expect to add Farm Manager to their C.V.
Child poverty is here, in our country. Whilst right wing conservatives ‘tut-tut’ and wag their judgemental fingers at the problem (I refuse point-blank to call it an “issue”), children through no fault of their own are going hungry and their learning experience is diminished.
As a nation, it is almost as if we have embarked on a deliberate course of increasing poverty and ensuring the advent of the next generation of impoverished New Zealanders.
If that is our aim, then we are exceeding all expectations. The UNICEF report referred to above proves that poverty is a growth industry in this country.
The time for “chat” is over.
3. “Feed The Kids” Bill in Parliament – Chat with MPs
The Mana Party in Parliament has a Bill before the House. The bill is designed to fund nutritional breakfasts and lunches to all their students in decile 1 and 2 schools.
For more info, see: Feed the Kids Bill
As their website points out,
- Feeding the kids should be our first priority as a nation.
- The Bill aims to set up government funded breakfast and lunch programmes in all decile 1-2 schools.
- It’s a simple, easy and immediate way to address growing levels of child poverty in Aotearoa and has been a key recommendation of leading organisations such as the Children’s Commissioner’s Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty.
- The Bill is expected to come before Parliament for its first reading on Wednesday 5 June. So far Labour, Greens, Maori Party, NZ First, and Independent MP Brendan Horan have agreed to support it.
- We need one more vote to get it passed and to a select committee for further consideration.
One more vote.
That’s all it will take.
Accordingly, Documentary-maker and child poverty campaigner, Bryan Bruce, is encouraging people to write to all MPs, asking that they vote for the Bill. As Bryan wrote on his Facebook Page,
You’re 7 years old. It’s winter. You haven’t had breakfast and you’re hungry. What do you want to hear?
“Why doesn’t your Mum feed you in the morning? I hope you’re not going to grow up to be a bad parent like her?”
OR
“Hey! Here’s some Milo. There’s toast over there and weetbix , milk and fruit on the table. Help yourself.”
We can’t change tomorrow if we don’t do the right thing today.
Please contact your local MP and ask them to support the Feed The Kids Bill. You will find their email addresses here:
Bryan even suggests a pre-formatted letter to send,
Dear [or Kia ora] (name of MP)
My name is…………. I live in your electorate . I urge you to commit to cross- party talks on how to end Child Poverty in New Zealand.
Please begin by agreeing to Cross-Party discussions on how we can implement a policy of supplying healthy meals in schools and show good faith by supporting the Feed The Kids Bill as a first step.
Yours faithfully………
Even something as simple as,
Dear [or Kia ora] (name of MP)
Please support the Feed the Kids Bill. Nothing is as important as ensuring that all children have a decent chance in life.
Yours faithfully………
Or,
Dear [or Kia ora] (name of MP)
Please support the Feed the Kids Bill. This is so important to me that I’ll be basing my vote at the next election for those candidates/parties who support this Bill.
Yours faithfully………
The MPs email addresses,
.
| Adams, Amy | National Party, Selwyn |
| Ardern, Jacinda | Labour Party, List |
| Ardern, Shane | National Party, Taranaki-King Country |
| Auchinvole, Chris | National Party, List |
| Bakshi, Kanwaljit Singh | National Party, List |
| Banks, John | ACT New Zealand, Epsom |
| Barry, Maggie | National Party, North Shore |
| Beaumont, Carol | Labour Party, List |
| Bennett, David | National Party, Hamilton East |
| Bennett, Paula | National Party, Waitakere |
| Blue, Jackie | National Party, List |
| Borrows, Chester | National Party, Whanganui |
| Bridges, Simon | National Party, Tauranga |
| Browning, Steffan | Green Party, List |
| Brownlee, Gerry | National Party, Ilam |
| Calder, Cam | National Party, List |
| Carter, David | National Party, List |
| Clark, David | Labour Party, Dunedin North |
| Clendon, David | Green Party, List |
| Coleman, Jonathan | National Party, Northcote |
| Collins, Judith | National Party, Papakura |
| Cosgrove, Clayton | Labour Party, List |
| Cunliffe, David | Labour Party, New Lynn |
| Curran, Clare | Labour Party, Dunedin South |
| Dalziel, Lianne | Labour Party, Christchurch East |
| Dean, Jacqui | National Party, Waitaki |
| Delahunty, Catherine | Green Party, List |
| Dunne, Peter | United Future, Ohariu |
| Dyson, Ruth | Labour Party, Port Hills |
| English, Bill | National Party, Clutha-Southland |
| Faafoi, Kris | Labour Party, Mana |
| Fenton, Darien | Labour Party, List |
| Finlayson, Christopher | National Party, List |
| Flavell, Te Ururoa | Maori Party, Waiariki |
| Foss, Craig | National Party, Tukituki |
| Genter, Julie Anne | Green Party, List |
| Gilmore, Aaron | National Party, List |
| Goff, Phil | Labour Party, Mt Roskill |
| Goldsmith, Paul | National Party, List |
| Goodhew, Jo | National Party, Rangitata |
| Graham, Kennedy | Green Party, List |
| Groser, Tim | National Party, List |
| Guy, Nathan | National Party, Otaki |
| Hague, Kevin | Green Party, List |
| Harawira, Hone | Mana, Te Tai Tokerau |
| Hayes, John | National Party, Wairarapa |
| Heatley, Phil | National Party, Whangarei |
| Henare, Tau | National Party, List |
| Hipkins, Chris | Labour Party, Rimutaka |
| Horan, Brendan | Independent, List |
| Hughes, Gareth | Green Party, List |
| Huo, Raymond | Labour Party, List |
| Hutchison, Paul | National Party, Hunua |
| Jones, Shane | Labour Party, List |
| Joyce, Steven | National Party, List |
| Kaye, Nikki | National Party, Auckland Central |
| Key, John | National Party, Helensville |
| King, Annette | Labour Party, Rongotai |
| King, Colin | National Party, Kaikoura |
| Lee, Melissa | National Party, List |
| Lees-Galloway, Iain | Labour Party, Palmerston North |
| Little, Andrew | Labour Party, List |
| Logie, Jan | Green Party, List |
| Lole-Taylor, Asenati | NZ First, List |
| Lotu-Iiga, Peseta Sam | National Party, Maungakiekie |
| Macindoe, Tim | National Party, Hamilton West |
| Mackey, Moana | Labour Party, List |
| Mahuta, Nanaia | Labour Party, Hauraki-Waikato |
| Mallard, Trevor | Labour Party, Hutt South |
| Martin, Tracey | NZ First, List |
| Mathers, Mojo | Green Party, List |
| McClay, Todd | National Party, Rotorua |
| McCully, Murray | National Party, East Coast Bays |
| McKelvie, Ian | National Party, Rangitikei |
| Mitchell, Mark | National Party, Rodney |
| Moroney, Sue | Labour Party, List |
| Ngaro, Alfred | National Party, List |
| Norman, Russel | Green Party, List |
| O’Connor, Damien | Labour Party, West Coast-Tasman |
| O’Connor, Simon | National Party, Tamaki |
| O’Rourke, Denis | NZ First, List |
| Parata, Hekia | National Party, List |
| Parker, David | Labour Party, List |
| Peters, Winston | NZ First, List |
| Prasad, Rajen | Labour Party, List |
| Prosser, Richard | NZ First, List |
| Robertson, Grant | Labour Party, Wellington Central |
| Robertson, Ross | Labour Party, Manukau East |
| Roche, Denise | Green Party, List |
| Ross, Jami-Lee | National Party, Botany |
| Roy, Eric | National Party, Invercargill |
| Ryall, Tony | National Party, Bay of Plenty |
| Sabin, Mike | National Party, Northland |
| Sage, Eugenie | Green Party, List |
| Shanks, Katrina | National Party, List |
| Sharples, Pita | Maori Party, Tamaki Makaurau |
| Shearer, David | Labour Party, Mt Albert |
| Simpson, Scott | National Party, Coromandel |
| Sio, Su’a William | Labour Party, Mangere |
| Smith, Nick | National Party, Nelson |
| Stewart, Barbara | NZ First, List |
| Street, Maryan | Labour Party, List |
| Tirikatene, Rino | Labour Party, Te Tai Tonga |
| Tisch, Lindsay | National Party, Waikato |
| Tolley, Anne | National Party, East Coast |
| Tremain, Chris | National Party, Napier |
| Turei, Metiria | Green Party, List |
| Turia, Tariana | Maori Party, Te Tai Hauauru |
| Twyford, Phil | Labour Party, Te Atatu |
| Upston, Louise | National Party, Taupo |
| Wagner, Nicky | National Party, Christchurch Central |
| Walker, Holly | Green Party, List |
| Wall, Louisa | Labour Party, Manurewa |
| Wilkinson, Kate | National Party, Waimakariri |
| Williams, Andrew | NZ First, List |
| Williamson, Maurice | National Party, Pakuranga |
| Woodhouse, Michael | National Party, List |
| Woods, Megan | Labour Party, Wigram |
| Yang, Jian | National Party, List |
| Young, Jonathan | National Party, New Plymouth |
.
I leave the final word to Bryan, from his Facebook page,
OK, let’s get some things straight about providing free healthy meals in schools.
1. First of all let’s decide on the principle before arguing about the detail.
Let’s admit there is a significant problem of children turning up to school hungry and that a lot of kids are eating low cost foods that contain a lot of sugar and fat , causing obesity , diabetes and long term health problems.
And at least get the Feed The Kids Bill to Parliamentary Select Committee. You can argue all you want about how it should be funded or what’s going to be on the menu there.
If you don’t think we have a community responsibility to feed children and/or educate their palates to healthy eating habits – then read no further it will only make you angry.
2. It doesn’t fill a hungry kids tummy to point at their parents and shout “Your problem is you have bad parents”. This page takes the view that kids don’t get to choose their parents and we have a community responsibility to ALL our kids to make sure they grow up healthy. And if that means feeding them for free- then that’s what we do.
3. No one is going to force feed any child food they don’t want to eat or is culturally inappropriate. If you watch the video below which I filmed in Sweden for the documentary you will see children from multi -cultural backgrounds CHOOSING their food. And Yes children with allergies are catered for and Yes children can still bring their own lunch prepared by the parents .
4.Free healthy school meals can be paid for without raising taxes. We just choose to re-distribute the existing pool of tax payer money and give up on some other things. Here are some suggestions, I’m sure you can think of other ways we could spend smarter.
(a) We could fund school meals out of the Health vote rather than the Education vote. In a document released under the Official Information Act I revealed that children under 14 receive 10% of the money set aside for health care. But children under 14 represent 20% of our population. So we could fund some of it – if not all of it – by giving kids their fair share.
(b )It is a well accepted health statistic that for every $1 we spend on preventing disease we save $4 in expensive hospital cure. So within a few years the scheme will fund itself out of what we save. If we DON’T do it, taxpayers will be spending much more than they are now on the Health budget in the future.
(c) We could make children a spending priority. National plans to spend a billion a year on Roads of National Significance over the next 10 years. What about Children? – aren’t they of National Significance? I’d much rather feed our kids than be able to by – pass small towns while driving to Auckland .
(d) We could pay the pension to people when they actually stop working and not just because they reach 65.
(e) We could spend more energy making sure people paid their taxes . Last year the IRD detected about a Billion dollars worth of tax evasion mostly by businesses. It’s estimated that the real tax evasion in NZ is between 4 and 5 Billion.
If you pay PAYE you can’t cheat your taxes. So we could easily pay for free school meals if more adults played fair.Let’s impose greater penalties for tax evasion, and let’s stop thinking of tax as a bad thing. Tax is a good thing – it’s giving to ourselves. That’s how we can have schools and hospitals and yes even Roads Of National significance. Tax is the price of civilisation. Get over it.
Now whether you agree with some of the above, all of the above or none of the above , let’s at least agree that The Feed The Kids Bill should at least go to Select Committee after its First Reading so the issue can be properly debated.
Please contact your local MP today and urge them to support the Feed The Kids Bill.
You can find their contact details here, just click on their name :
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/MPP/MPs/MPs
Thank you,
Bryan
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 10 May 2013.
.
.
*
.
Acknowledgement
My sincerest appreciation and thanks go to Bryan Bruce, Mike Fackney, and Ruth O’Neill for taking time out of their busy schedules to respond to my questions.
Other Blog Posts
The Daily Blog: Hungry Kids Annoy Frazzled Lobby Group Director
References
NZ Herald: Food parcel families made poor choices, says Key (17 Feb 2011)
Scoop: Government Policy Impacting Child Poverty Levels (30 May 2012)
NZ Herald: Poverty not only reason for suicide spike, says Key (30 Oct 2012)
Fairfax Media: Time for a chat on food in schools (7 May 2013)
Additional
Mana Party: Feed the Kids #fact sheet
Facebook: Community Campaign for Food in Schools – NZ
The Children’s Social Health Monitor: Child Poverty and Living Standards
Other blogposts
The Pundit: Children’s Commissioner fronts for Nats on food in schools: Corporate agenda rules
And from the nasty side of Conservative Rightwing politics
“Family First’: Food In Schools Will Feed The Problem
.
.
= fs =
News Archives
Crony Watch
Keeping an eye on dodgy government appointees, crony-by-crony!
Frankly Speaking... 