Archive
Observations on the 2017 Election campaign… (Iwa)
.
.
Red-Green, Blue-Green?
There is mischief-making afoot.
Suggestions for a National-Green coalition are being floated by various right-wing commentators, National Party figures, and some media pundits. Despite Green Party Leader, James Shaw, repeatedly ruling out any such possibility – the suggestion continues to circulate.
On election night, as TOP leader Gareth Morgan realised his party would not reach the 5% MMP threshold, he made the bizarre comment that the Greens should join with National in a formal coalition;
“I want them [the Green Party] to do what we would’ve done if we had been above five, and say to National who are gonna be the Government it’s very obvious, we will work with you, we need to work on the environment no matter who the Government is.”
To which Shaw predictably responded;
“My view is that he would have been better off backing a party that had similar ideas, like us.”
This was reiterated for the NZ Herald;
Shaw said he would not being making contact with National, but he would take a call from National leader Bill English.
“It’s my responsibility to do so. And we’ll have to see what they’ve got to say. But one of the things I will be saying in return is ‘You know we campaigned on a change of government and you know what was in our manifesto … and how incongruous that is to what the National Party policy programme is’.”
On 25 September, right-wing political commentator and mischief-maker, Matthew Hooton, again raised the proposal for a National-Green coalition on Radio NZ’s Nine to Noon political panel;
“And then there’s the other one, of course, there’s the National-Green option, which is favoured by National party members… it’s an interesting one…”
On the same day, on Radio NZ’s Checkpoint, former PM Jim Bolger repeated the National-Green coalition possibility to host, John Campbell;
“…The Greens might be quietly reflecting on whether they, unique in the world as a Green party, should only link themselves to left-wing politics. Whereas the environment is neither left wing or right wing, frankly. The environment is the environment, it’s Mother Earth we’re talking about.
And I just wonder whether or not they won’t reflect on towards the National government that signed up to the Paris Climate Accords and have set in place the process to reach the goals that was set out there.
So I’d imagine in a quiet back room the Greens might be saying, ‘Why? Why are we saying we can only go with one party?’, eg the Labour party, and you might watch this space if I was you, John.”
Bolger’s hippy-like ‘Mother Earth’ musings was followed by Tracy Watkins. Writing for Fairfax media on 25/26 September, she still laboured under the impression that a National-Green coalition was a real ‘thing’;
Like Winston Peters, the Greens could theoretically hold the balance of power, after National made it clear it is more than willing to talk turkey with the minor party.
[…] Some senior Nats consider a deal with the Greens more desirable than a NZ First deal – the Green’s environmental platform is seen within National as something it could accommodate, particularly after the clobbering it took over clean water during the election campaign.
That highlighted to National that its credibility on environmental issues and New Zealand’s 100 per cent pure brand needs some serious work – and a Greens deal would be a simple way to enhance its environmental credentials.
There is also recognition that a deal with the Greens would be more forward looking and more likely to ride the mood for change than a deal with the NZ First, whose policies are more backward looking.
Peter Dunne followed on Radio NZ’s Morning Report on 27 September, with his call for a National-Green coalition;
“The best option in my view … is for the Greens to be very bold, work out that they could make significant changes on climate change policy, and go with National.”
Note that this suggestion came from Peter Dunne, who recently chucked in his own political career rather than facing Labour’s Greg O’Connor at the ballot box.
Where was Dunne’s own boldness?
What happened to his own United Future Party?
Even a chat-show’s sports commentator put his two cents worth in. The AM Show’s Mark Richardson suddenly decided that commentating on grown men kicking balls around wet paddocks wasn’t enough of a challenge for him. Duncan Garner decided to prompt Richardson to offer the public his suddenly new-found “political expertise”.
.
Mark Richardson, Sports Presenter (now moonlighting as a political pundit)
.
Richardson complied, and sagely advised;
AM Show sports commentator Mark Richardson is dipping his toe into the political pool again, this time splashing his ideas at the leader of the Green Party.
Introduced by his colleague Duncan Garner as a “political expert”, who has “decided that you [Green Party leader James Shaw] should listen to him and this is what he wants to say.”
The cricketer-turned-broadcaster challenged Shaw to form a coalition government with National, following the stalemate reached in Saturday’s election.
I just want to say James,” said Richardson, directly to camera, “be a risk taker and back yourself, but not only back yourself, back that band of hopeful young administrators you take with them (sic),” he said.
How ‘delightful’ that National supporters and other sundry right-wingers are encouraging the Greens to be “bold” and “risk takers”. After all, if such an unlikely coalition were to eventuate, the damage wreaked upon the Green Party wouldn’t impact one iota on the likes of Morgan, Hooton, Bolger, Dunne, Richardson, et al. But it sure as hell would destroy the Greens and eliminate the Labour Party’s only reliable potential coalition partner.
Game over for the Left.
So no surprise that a whole bunch of people on the Right and media have suddenly focused on the Green Party;
- For media pundits, they are suffering from boredom and a debilitating psychological effect called ‘lackofheadline-itis’. With coalition negotiations unlikely to commence until Special Votes have been counted and announced on 7 October, manufacturing “news” by positing a fantasy fairy tale of the Greens linking up with National creates headlines. It’s as close to fake news as we’ll get with the msm.
- For National Party supporters – such as AM Show sports commentator Mark Richardson (see above) – such a deal with the Green Party would lend legitimacy to a fourth term National government. Make no mistake, the Green Party is a powerful brand, and the Nats want it. Badly.
- For the National government, should any such a coalition eventuate, the kudos for any environmental gains would inevitably be snapped for themselves, as it did with the home insulation deal it made with the Green Party in 2009;
.
.
Success for that programme was claimed solely by the Nats;
.
.
But as the fate of small parties such as ACT, United Future/Peter Dunne, and the Maori Party demonstrated with crystal clarity, snuggling up close to the National Party goliath is akin to trying to cuddle up to a ravenous lion. It will not end well.
Just ask Te Ururoa Flavell and Marama Fox.
So National would benefit two-fold.
By contrast, it is unclear what gain (if any) the Greens could hope to achieve.
National and sundry right-wing commentators should knock off trying to use the Green Party as pawns in any negotiations with NZ First. Trying to use the Green Party as “leverage” will simply not work. The Green Party refuses to be anybody’s “lever”.
Just to be absolutely clear – because evidently, having it in writing, in black and white, on the Green Party website – is insufficient for some people;
.
.
Matthew Hooton can’t count
Also on Radio NZ’s Nine to Noon political panel on 25 September, right-wing political commentator, Matthew Hooton, stated that National’s vote on Saturday was better than previous elections;
“Admittedly partly as a result of the decline of the Conservative Party, National has won more votes, got a higher proportion of the vote than it did in 2014 and 2008…”
It is unclear what Hooton has based that assumption on, as his statement is contradicted by the Provisional Results from the Electoral Commission.
According to the Commission’s website, the National Party gained the followed percentage and individual votes for 2008, 2014, and 2017;
| Election Year | Party Votes |
% Votes |
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2008 | 1,053,398 | 44.93% | |||
| 2014 | 1,131,501 | 47.04% | |||
| 2017* | 998,813 | 46.0% |
(* Preliminary results)
The numbers are clear; National’s vote has fallen by 132,000 and their percentage of the Party Vote has fallen by over one percentage point from 2014. (And whilst National’s Party vote percentage was higher this year than 2008 – they still suffered a drop in actual votes by 54,585.
Even the demise of Colin Craig’s Conservative Party (aka, CCCP) failed to lift National’s poll results.
Whichever way you look at it, the tide is beginning to ebb on National’s fortunes.
Stuart Nash wins Napier outright
Following the 2014 General Election, I pointed out that Stuart Nash’s win in the Napier seat was due more to Garth McVicar splitting the right-wing vote, allowing Labour to slip through to victory. As I reported on 26 September, 2014;
Nash did not “win” Napier.
The National candidate, Wayne Walford lost the electorate when Garth McVicar from the Conservative Party split the right wing vote in the electorate. Remember; electorate contests are still fought using First Past the Post – not by any proportionality or preferential voting.
The actual results were;
McVICAR, Garth: (Conservatives) 7,135
NASH, Stuart: (Labour) 14,041
WALFORD, Wayne: (National) 10,308
Add McVicar’s 7,135 to Walford’s figures, and the combined 17,443 would have trounced Nash easily.
On Election Night 2017, Stuart Nash did not had the benefit of a popular Conservative Party candidate splitting the right-wing vote. Instead, he won the seat outright;
|
Candidate
|
|
| Stuart Nash (L) |
18,407*
|
| David Elliott (N) |
14,159*
|
| Laurence Day (CCCP) |
200*
|
* Figures provisional.
Not only did Nash retain his overall majority, but McVicar’s 7,135 votes from 2014 appears to have been evenly split between Nash and Elliott.
This time, Nash can legitimately assert that he won the Napier seat without vote-splitting creating an artificial majority, as happened three years ago.
Winston Peters waiting for Special Votes
It’s not often that I agree with NZ First leader, Winston Peters. But on 27 September he told the media;
“This will be the last press conference I am going to hold until after the 7th of October… I can’t tell you what we are going to do until we have seen all the facts.
I can’t talk to you until I know what the 384,000 people who have cast their vote said… please don’t write the kind of thing saying someone has moral authority…we are not first past the post here.”
He’s right.
Until Special Votes are counted, making statements to the media is an exercise in futility. It would be pandering more to the dictates of the 24-hour news cycle rather than offering anything constructive to the public.
At this point the media will have to exercise patience and simply accept that until Special Votes are counted, nothing can (or should) happen.
The democratic process cannot; must not; should not, revolve around the 24-hour news cycle.
The Curious resignation of Wayne Eagleson
Something very, very curious has transpired in the dark coridors of power in the Beehive. The Prime Minister’s Number 2, right-hand man, Wayne Eagleson announced his resignation on 25 September.
Eagleson was one of several high-ranking National figures who were informed that Winston Peters had received a superannuation overpayment.
On 26 September, both English and Eagleson vigorously denied leaking – or having knowledge of who might have leaked – information on Peters’ superannuation overpayments;
“It didn’t come from the National Party.” – Wayne Eagleson
“No, not all. I take people by their word that no action was taken by my staff in making that information public.” – Bill English
Now, aside from the fact that Bill English has already shown himself willing and capable of telling lies, by repeating Steven Joyce’s fabrications over Labour’s “$11.7 billion hole” and “increased personal taxes”, there remain an interesting question regarding the statements made by the Prime Minister and Wayne Eagleson.
Namely this: How can either English or Eagleson know with absolute certainty that the leaking of Peters’ personal superannuation details did not come from someone/anyone connected to the National Party?
If they truly know – with 100% certainty – that no one in the National Party leaked the information; how do they know this? How is that possible?
In fact, it is not possible.
In that respect, both English and Eagleson are covering up the possibility that the leak emanated from someone within the National party or government.
And if both men are willing to take that small step to cover-up the merest possibility of an internal National Party leak… would it be too much of a stretch to assume that one or both are fully aware of who the leaker is?
Why did Eagleson resign – especially at this very crucial time of coalition negotiations?
And what does Winston Peters know of why Eagleson resigned?
One salient fact fact is indisputable: someone did leak that information. The question is not who was responsible – but who else knew who was responsible.
Wayne Eagleson knows more than he is letting on, as does Bill English.
Winston Peters has had his ‘utu’.
.
.
.
References
Mediaworks: A phone call between National and the Greens would be a short one
Radio NZ: Nine to Noon Political Panel – 25.9.2017 (alt.link)
Radio NZ: Former PM Jim Bolger on how to deal with Winston Peters (alt.link)
NZ Herald: Green Party leader James Shaw rules out contacting National
Fairfax media: The Green Party also hold the balance of power, but they don’t seem to want it
Radio NZ: Morning Report – Dunne predicts ‘blood on the floor’
Fairfax media: Mark Richardson declares himself as a National supporter, does that matter?
NBR: Govt launches ‘Warm Up NZ’ programmed
National Party: 10 ways National is helping families get ahead
Green Party: How you vote has never been so important
Electoral Commission: New Zealand 2011 General Election Official Results
Electoral Commission: New Zealand 2008 General Election Official Results
Electoral Commission: Preliminary results for the 2017 General Election
Electoral Commission: 2014 Election Results – Napier (Alt.link: Wikipedia – Election Results – Napier)
Electoral Commission: 2017 Election Results – Napier (Provisional)
Otago Daily Times: Peters will wait for special vote count
Mediaworks: Bill English’s chief of staff quits – but wants NZ First deal first
Radio NZ: Timeline – Winston Peters’ superannuation overpayments saga
Mediaworks: As it happened – Parties prepare for election negotiations
Other Blogs
The Standard: How a National/Green coalition could work
Previous related blogposts
Election 2014; A Post-mortem; a Wake; and one helluva hang-over
Observations on the 2017 Election campaign thus far… (tahi)
Observations on the 2017 Election campaign thus far… (rua)
Observations on the 2017 Election campaign thus far… (toru)
Observations on the 2017 Election campaign thus far… (wha)
Observations on the 2017 Election campaign thus far… (rima)
Observations on the 2017 Election campaign thus far… (ono)
Observations on the 2017 Election campaign thus far… (whitu)
Observations on the 2017 Election campaign… (waru)
.
.
.
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 28 September 2017.
.
.
= fs =
Observations on the 2017 Election campaign… (Waru)
.
.
The people have spoke; votes cast; and now the post-election negotiations begin in earnest…
… once Special Votes are counted and announced on 7 October.
The Electoral ‘Wild Card’ – Special Votes
Three years ago, there were 330,985 Special Votes cast, accounting for 13.5% of total votes. That reduced National’s seats in Parliament by one, and gifted the Green Party a fourteenth MP. The balance of power in Parliament went through a seismic shift with that one transfer of a single seat.
This year the number of Special Votes has risen dramatically to (approximately) 384,072 (or 15% of total votes).
Special Votes have traditionally supported left-leaning Parties and Labour and the Greens may pick up one or two extra seats, at the expense of National.
This may result in former Iranian refugee, lawyer, and feminist activist, Golriz Ghahraman becoming the Green’s eighth MP. Two extra MPs will send Mojo Mathers back to Parliament.
National will lose one, maybe two seats, reducing it’s MPs from currently 58 to 57 or 56.
Two extra seats for the Labour-Green bloc will strengthen their hand in negotiations with Winston Peters. A Labour-Green-NZF coalition would rise from 61 seats to 62 or 63 out of a 120 seat Parliament. (With the demise of the Maori Party, there is no over-hang.)
No wonder Peters, Labour, and the Greens can afford to bide their time. Two weeks will give the three parties a clearer picture as to what voters have delivered.
The Maori Party – a ‘bob each way’
During the election campaign, on 28 August, the Maori Party’s co-leader, Marama Fox, startled the country by making noises that her party could work with Labour as a coalition partner;
“I know our people lean left and they’d love to see us in a coalition arrangement with Jacinda, Metiria not anymore, but somebody from the Greens and Marama Fox and Te Ururoa Flavell. We could change the world – I think that would be amazing.”
She continued asserting that the Maori Party could work in coalition with Labour. In effect Ms Fox was re-branding the Maori Party as an opposition party working to change the government.
But on TVNZ’s Q+A, on 24 September, Corin Dann asked Te Ururoa Flavell if Bill English deserved a fourth term. Flavell replied;
“Yes, I do. I do, because I work with him. I do believe, come what may that he is an honourable person. That he does have people’s interests at heart […] But I do believe that he is the right person under the circumstances. He has all that background and that knowledge and I believe that, that he can take the country forward.”
Ms Fox may have been earnest in her desire to move her party to the left. But Flavell’s comments suggest otherwise.
We will never know.
The Doom of the Maori Party
The demise of the Maori Party should not surprise anyone. They have suffered the doom of any small political party that has made two grievous mistakes.
Mistake #1: Moving too close to their major coalition partner and being over-shadowed and subsumed by the Blue Colossus that was the National-ACT Government.
Mistake #2: Ignoring past ‘messages’ sent to them by voters who consistently showed their displeasure at the Maori Party’s choice of coalition partner. Since the 2008 general election, the Maori Party’s presence in Parliament has steadily dwindled;
2008: 5 seats
2011: 3 seats
2014: 2 seats
2017: nil seats – gone by lunchtime
In blaming voters for their defeat, Marama Fox and Te Ururoa Flavell and other Maori Party leadership ignored the gradual decline of voter support until they had nothing left.
Hone Harawira proved himself correct when he criticised the Maori Party’s coalition with National;
“The downside of being in government with National is having to put up with all the anti-worker, anti-beneficiary and anti-environment (and therefore anti-Maori) legislation that comes as a natural consequence of having a right-wing government.
The Maori Party is a coalition partner of that government and our co-leaders are ministers in that government, so unless we take a very strong position against some of the government’s legislative agenda we will be seen as supporting that agenda.
It does not reflect the hopes and dreams of either the Maori people or the Maori Party, and was opposed by most Maori during the select committee hearings. If we support this bill, we’re effectively saying that our coalition with National is more important than our commitment to Maori.”
Even Patrick Gower warned the Maori Party four years ago that it was sliding toward an inevitable doom if it maintained it’s cosy relationship with the Tories;
” It needs the nuclear option.
It needs to kick National in the guts and walk away.
[…]
It’s time for Flavell to change the narrative.
He needs to start distancing the Maori Party from National. He needs to start extricating it from the cosy relationship.
He needs to position the Maori party differently – much differently. “Positioning” isn’t enough any more – he needs to make a break.“
And so it came to pass.
Which is unfortunate, as I believe that the Maori Party’s voice in Parliament added to the public discourse. One hopes that a resurgent Maori-Mana Party will return in 2020. Maori need representation in the House, independent of any mainstream, pakeha-dominated party.
Gareth Morgan – green with envy?
Gareth Morgan’s call for the Green Party to work with National is either political naivete – or a cunning plan to undermine and eventually destroy the Green Party and siphon off their voter-base.
Either way, not a look look for Mr “Common Sense”.
The fate of the Maori Party (and other small parties whose orbits took them too close to their stellar coalition partners) is a clear warning that a blind person could see.
Mr Morgan should to stick to his “knitting” such as promoting the Universal Basic Income and building his own party for 2020.
ACT – time to pull the plug
It’s time for National to pull the plug on ACT. The Epsom life-support unit served it’s purpose when ACT could be guaranteed to poll over 1.2% – but it’s electoral support has been waning since 2008;
.
| Election Year | Party Votes |
% Votes |
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2008 | 85,496 | 3.65% | |||
| 2011 | 23,889 | 1.07% | |||
| 2014 | 16,689 | 0.69% | |||
| 2017 | 10,959 | .05% |
.
With no hope of ACT’s sole MP, David Seymour, pulling in a second MP on his “coat-tails”, National might as well cut him loose and regain Epsom for themselves.
Or not.
Who can really care anymore for a “Party” polling at half of one percent?
“We want to get on with the job of forming a government, but we will work with New Zealand First at a pace they’re willing to go.”
He said it was pretty clear cut that a two-party coalition would be more stable, and voters had given National a task of forming a government with New Zealand First.
“Our position in going into those negotiations is that almost one in two New Zealanders supported National.
“The voters have given us the task of forming a government with New Zealand First and that’s what we’ll proceed to do.”
ACT would complicate a governing arrangement, and he would not expect the party to be included in that government.
“The shortest path to stable government is a two-party coalition between National and New Zealand First.”
By the way, David Seymour…
On TVNZ’s Q+A, ACT leader and sole-MP, David Seymour, blamed First Past the post for his party’s crushing defeat on Election day;
“Every minor party got hammered, we kind of went back to a first-past-the-post environment.”
Typical of right-wingers; demanding personal responsibility from the rest of us – but never showing any themselves. If ACT cannot win electoral support under MMP, then it will never achieve success under any system (except maybe at gunpoint).
Perhaps Mr Seymour should just accept that 99.95% of voters simply do not like ACT’s free-market, dog-eat-dog, and corporate-welfarism for it’s taxpayer-funded Charter Schools.
When Gareth Morgan’s TOP gained four times more votes (48,018 – 2.2%) than ACT (10,959 – 0.05%), what does that say about the fate of neo-liberalism in this country?
Yes Winston, we have…
.
.
The question is, what will he do about it?
Does Winston Peters really want his party to end up like the Maori Party, ACT, and Peter Dunne – all casualties of their political closeness to National?
Lisa Owen made this observation on TV3’s The Nation, on 24 September, when she pointed out to Steven Joyce;
“Given the situation you find yourself in with the previous people you’ve worked with dwindling…”
As others have pointed out, a vote for NZ First was indeed a vote for change. Otherwise, those leaning toward National would have cut out the Black & White Middle Man and voted for the Blue Team.
Going with National is More of the Same.
Choose wisely, Mr Peters, choose wisely.
The Fate of The Maori Seats
With the demise of the Maori Party and the assimilation of all seven Maori Seats into a mainstream, predominantly white-person’s political party, it is more apparent than ever that we need to retain those Maori Seats to ensure on-going, guaranteed Parliamentary representation for Tangata Whenua.
If National bows to Peters’ demand for a referendum on the seats, it will be a sad day for democracy in this country when the Majority get to choose on entrenched safeguards for a Minority.
Why do (some) pakeha feel so threatened by seven seats when they have 113 seats for themselves, under their potential full control? It can’t be any notion of “reverse-racism”. Those who demand the abolition of Maori seats rarely concern themselves with such matters.
National’s Dirty Politics Strategy
In a Hollywood movie, a budding politician rises up from nowhere and successfully takes on the political Establishment Elites. After a struggle, the hero/heroine prevails, showing that truth, courage, and integrity will always defeat the Dark Forces of the political Elite. Cue happy ending; cue stirring theme music; roll credits; bank the ticket-takings.
In real life, Steven Joyce and his party strategists (with the assistance of Crosby Textor?) spun two lies, regarding Labour’s mythical “$11.7 billion fiscal hole” and that Labour would “raise taxes”. None of which were remotely true. Joyce was aided and abetted by Bill English who unashamedly repeated those two lies at every opportunity, whether on-air debates or interviews on Radio NZ, Q+A, The Nation, etc. At no point did either man resile from their wilful calumny.
If 998,813 voters who ticked “National” on their Party Vote ballot weren’t aware that the two claims were barefaced lies – or, knew it was a lie and simply didn’t care – Joyce’s strategy for mis-information worked.
Even Patrick Gower – no friend of the Left – knew that Joyce’s claims were deliberate lies, and was appalled at what he was witnessing;
.
.
.
The Dirty Tricks strategy was previously used against Winston Peters when an unknown agent leaked his superannuation over-payment to the media.
At the next election, Labour and the Greens must be better placed to strategically address “fake news” from the National Party. Labour and Green strategists must be conscious that the Nats will stoop to lies if their pre-election polling shows them at-risk of losing. A rapid-response task-force should be ready and well-resourced to counteract such lies; to do it immediately, and with energy.
Patrick Gower put it this way on The Nation on 24 September, when he interviewed Labour’s Phil Twyford;
“…And one of the issues was the attack from National on tax and their lies, in effect. Now, why didn’t you call them out earlier?
[…] But do you look back now and go, ‘We were relentlessly positive, but we let their relentless negativity come in too much.’ Do you look back now as you wake up and go, ‘Oh, we should have called them out earlier.’?
[…] But where was her junkyard dog? Where was someone— If she was relentlessly positive— And, actually, I’m going to call you out here — were you personally too late? Do you take some responsibility for not taking on Steven Joyce and letting him get away with what he did?”
This style of dirty tricks cannot be allowed to become New Zealand’s “new norm”.
That was Then, This is Now
In 2008 and 2011, then-Dear Leader John Key was emphatic that under no circumstances would he entertain any coalition deal with Winston Peters;
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The Nats are nothing if not “flexible”. As are their “principles”.
.
.
.
References
Electoral Commission: 2017 General Election Timetable
Electoral Commission: New Zealand 2014 General Election Official Results
Fairfax media: National loses majority, Greens pick up one
Electoral Commission: Preliminary results for the 2017 General Election
Green Party: Golriz Ghahraman
Mediaworks: Labour, Greens and Māori Party ‘could change the world’ – Marama Fox
TVNZ: Q+A – Maori Party – Te Ururoa Flavell
Wikipedia: Maori Party
Fairfax media: Māori have ‘gone back like a beaten wife to the abuser’, defiant Marama Fox says
Fairfax media: Te Ururoa Flavell won’t be part of a Māori Party revival
NZ Herald: Maori Party investigates complaint against Harawira
Mediaworks: Opinion: Maori Party must kick National in guts
Fairfax media: Party ‘for a fairer New Zealand’ falls flat, as Gareth Morgan’s TOP falls far short of 5 per cent
Electoral Commission: New Zealand 2011 General Election Official Results
Electoral Commission: New Zealand 2008 General Election Official Results
Radio NZ: Two-party coalition more stable – English
TVNZ: Q+A – ‘Every minor party got hammered’ – ACT Party leader David Seymour justifies dismal party vote
Scoop media: TV3’s The Nation – Lisa Owen interviews Steven Joyce
Fairfax media: The Māori Party is out: Labour wins all Māori electorates
Mediaworks: Patrick Gower – National guilty of biggest campaign lie
Mediaworks: Patrick Gower – National playing ‘post-truth politics’
Fairfax media: Winston Peters, scandal and a recipe for revenge
Scoop media: TV’s The Nation – Patrick Gower interviews Phil Twyford
Fairfax media: Bill English – I’m ready to talk to Winston
Other Blogs
The Standard: National have poisoned the Peters well
The Standard: National’s political hit job on Winston Peters
The Standard: Where to now for the Greens?
The Standard: Consider the people of New Zealand First
The Standard: National rules itself out of coalitions with cynical BillShit
Previous related blogposts
John Key: Man of Many Principles (2012)
How biased is the media? A Patrick Gower case study (2014)
No More. The Left Falls. (2014)
Election ’17 Countdown: The Promise of Nirvana to come
Observations on the 2017 Election campaign thus far… (tahi)
Observations on the 2017 Election campaign thus far… (rua)
Observations on the 2017 Election campaign thus far… (toru)
Observations on the 2017 Election campaign thus far… (wha)
Observations on the 2017 Election campaign thus far… (rima)
Observations on the 2017 Election campaign thus far… (ono)
Observations on the 2017 Election campaign thus far… (whitu)
.
.
.
(Acknowledgment: Toby Morris, The Wireless)
.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 25 September 2014.
.
.
= fs =
Random Thoughts on Random Things #7 – the fate of the Maori Party
.
.
Watching Pita Sharples interviewed on TV3’s ‘The Nation’ on 5 July, two things occurred to me.
1.
There is every likelihood that, come election day, the Maori Party is doomed. If they are really, really, really lucky, they might win one seat. Perhaps.
2.
As much as I dislike National’s coalition lap-dogs, We may yet need the Maori Party.
Up till now, I have wished for their hurried departure from Parliament. As a much-needed coalition ally to National, they have propped up this government and allowed various policies to be enacted that further the neo-liberal agenda at the expense of the majority of New Zealanders.
But this, in turn, has meant that National and ACT have toned down much of the anti-Treaty rhetoric that Brash engaged in when he was leader of the Nats. When Brash gave his infamous Orewa speech in January 2004, the more conservative, reactionary element in New Zealand society rewarded him and his party with a huge (if short-lived) 17% ‘bounce’ in the polls.
.
.
National’s strategists understand they cannot afford to alienate that support. Not when every vote and every seat in Parliament counts. And not when this year’s election promises to be the narrowest-run race in decades.
Keeping the Maori Party on-side has also meant losing a strategic tactic from the Right – playing the racist “Treaty Card”. National can no longer play that “card”. Not if it expects to keep the Maori Party as a coalition ally.
This is an added ‘bonus’ for the Left. By removing anti-Treaty messages from National’s “arsenal” of available campaign strategies, racist rednecks no longer have a “natural political home” to vote for, en masse.
As someone who has no love for National and it’s coalition allies, I have to grudgingly admit to a new-found use for the Maori Party – as a useful brake on National’s racist tendencies.
Perhaps Labour and Mana should consider the strategy of “gifting” one of the seven Maori Electorates to the Maori Party?
.
References
TV3: The Nation – Interview – Maori Party founding co-leader Pita Sharples
TV3: Interview – Pita Sharples – Transcript
Fairfax media: Brash takes aim at Key in race speech
Previous related blogposts
Poll shows gain for National’s ‘dog whistle’ politics
.
.
Above image acknowledgment: Francis Owen/Lurch Left Memes
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 12 July 2014.
.
.
= fs =
Radio NZ: Politics with Matthew Hooton and Mike Williams – 9 December 2013
.
– Politics on Nine To Noon –
.
– Monday 9 December 2013 –
.
– Kathryn Ryan, with Matthew Hooton & Mike Williams –
.
Today on Politics on Nine To Noon,
.
.
Click to Listen: Politics with Matthew Hooton and Mike Williams ( 25′ 53″ )
This week:
- The political ramifications of Nelson Mandela’s death and the NZ delegation travelling to South Africa,
- the Green Party’s new policy for the Meridian share float,
- and leadership changes within New Zealand’s smaller political parties.
.
.
= fs =
The Maori Party, the I’m-Not-Racist-Pakeha Party, the Gambling-My-Money-Away Party, and John Key’s Party
.
The Maori Party
.
“Time for the nuclear option, cuz!”
.
TV3’s Patrick Gower had this to say about the Maori Party, on 12 July,
“It needs the nuclear option.
It needs to kick National in the guts and walk away.
[…]
It’s time for Flavell to change the narrative.
He needs to start distancing the Maori Party from National. He needs to start extricating it from the cosy relationship.
He needs to position the Maori party differently – much differently. “Positioning” isn’t enough any more – he needs to make a break.“
Source: TV3 – Opinion: Maori Party must kick National in guts
Yeah, right. After five years of coalition with the Tories, all that the Maori Party has to do is walk away and all is forgiven?!
Never mind the damage they’ve done in the meantime?!
Never mind National’s Key’s rejection of the Waitangi Tribunal claim on water rights, in the light of SOE sales and the privatisation of water.
No. That is simply not good enough. A political party doesn’t simply walk away from it’s responsibilities and track record and expect all to be forgiven at the following election.
The only “gut kicking” and “walking away” will be voters from the Maori Party. As it should be.
God knows that is the only sanction that voters have against political parties that betray their interests.
.
The I’m-Not-Racist-Pakeha Party (1)
.
Source: TV3 – Pakeha Party founder discusses future
.
As of 1pm, 14 July, the so-called “Pakeha Party” had 55,495 “likes” on it’s Facebook page. By contrast, the Conservative Party received 59,237 Party Votes in the 2011 election. That wasn’t enough to win seats in Parliament.
So a vote for any prospective Pakeha Party will be a wasted vote.
Nice one, David; marginalising the racist vote in New Zealand. You’ve done the country a service.
Medal’s in the post.
.
The I’m-Not-Racist-Pakeha Party (2)
.
The Pakeha Party has a website up and running. I haven’t read the whole thing, as I have more important things to do (paint is drying and needs to be studiously watched).
But this bit on their policy page caught my attention. Much of it is badly written gibberish, and is all over the place. But note this bit,
In this modern age to the best of our ability we will abolish all racism and/or separatism within New Zealand setting an example for the rest of the world. We will ensure all races in New Zealand (particularly Maori) who have been a part of forming & establishing New Zealand and it’s history are well preserved, very cherished and heavily promoted wherever & whenever possible. This is a democratic society – the past is the past – no one should be handed anything for free these days based on their ethnicity. No guaranteed seats. No Maori only anything. We all have an equal opportunity in our geographic locations this day in age. To solve our issues we need to give a firm but motivational hand to the poverty stricken in the poverty stricken areas with low trade.
Maori will be “very cherished”…
Awwww, that’s nice.
Just what Maori need. Not a sound economic base upon which to create jobs and build their independence – but to be “cherished”.
Will that involve Mr Ruck and his supporters giving them each a hug and a cuddle?!
And what does “the past is the past – no one should be handed anything for free these days based on their ethnicity” – mean?!?!
What are Maori being “ handed … for free these days based on their ethnicity?!
Is Mr Ruck (or whoever wrote this childish garbage) referring to Treaty settlements? Is he referring to land that was illegally confiscated by the Crown or settlers in the 1800s, and even the early 1900s?
Is he referring to scholarships awarded to Maori youth, to attend University. Scholarships that are paid by IWI and not the taxpayer?
It’s hard to know. He doesn’t tell us. (I guess it can be all things to all people.)
Though if Mr Ruck refers toThe Treaty as “the past is the past“, I wonder if he’d dare say the same thing to our American cuzzies about their Constitution, which was enacted 51 years earlier than the Treaty of Waitangi?
Or would he suggest that the Magna Carta – signed 625 years prior to the Treaty – the basis upon which our judicial and civil freedoms are based on – is also “the past is the past“?
If Mr Ruck and his followers maintain that the Treaty is out-dated – I look forward to them pointing to the document’s expiry date.
It’s fairly obvious that Mr Ruck and his supporters all hold one thing in common – a shocking and tragic lack of understanding of history and only a cursory knowledge the Treaty settlements process. They hold to the erroneous belief that Maori are being handed [land and money] for free.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, said Albert Einstein. For good reason; 55,495 do not know our own history and the acts of violence that stripped Maori of their lands and possesson – and benefitted white colonials in the process.
One Law For All is the Pakeha Party’s slogan.
Excellent.
We can start with returning that which was stolen from Maori.
.
Gambling-My-Money-Away Party (1)
.
SkyCity chief executive Nigel Morrison has been having a bit of a whinge about community and political opposition to an agreement which which see a deal between National and the casino;
Key features of the SkyCity convention centre deal and what KordaMentha estimates they’re worth over 35 years:
* Extension of SkyCity’s casino licence, due to expire in 2021: $65m-$115m
* Additional 230 pokie machines: $95m-$115m*
* Additional 40 gaming tables: $72m-$101m
* More gaming tables that can be substituted for automated table game player stations: $77m-$109m
* Ticket-in, ticket-out and card-based cashless gaming technology on all pokie machines and automatic table games: $84m-$88m
* *Includes allowing up to 17 per cent of pokie machines and automatic table games (in restricted areas only) being able to accept banknotes of denominations greater than $20.
Acknowledgement: NZ Herald – PM defends 35-year SkyCity deal
Morrison’s recent “oh-woe-is-me” whining diatribe rested on his assertion that other gambling creates worse social problems than Skycity,
SkyCity chief executive Nigel Morrison says his casino’s pokies are only to blame for a minuscule amount of gambling harm, instead placing the blame on Lotto and the TAB.
Yesterday a bill allowing SkyCity to install hundreds more pokies and gaming tables and operate until 2048, in exchange for building a $400 million convention centre, passed its first reading 61-59.
It was supposed to be a conscience vote, but MPs voted along party lines, as expected.
Gambling support groups and the Opposition say the move will create more problem gamblers, but the Government has always maintained the economic benefits outweigh any potential harm – and Mr Morrison agrees.
Appearing on Firstline this morning, Mr Morrison said SkyCity’s contribution to gambling harm has been blown “way out of context”.
“We’ve only got 1650 machines, right – there are nearly 20,000 machines in New Zealand.
“If you want to do something about problem gambling, do something about the rest of the machines, do something about Lotto, do something about the TAB – all of which have higher incidences of harm than casino pokies in SkyCity Auckland.”
The Dept of Internal Affairs pointed out, when reporting on problem gambling,
At any given time, between 0.3% and 1.8% of adults living in the community
in New Zealand are likely to score as problem gamblers on standard
questionnaires. This is between about 10,000 and 60,000 people.
Source: Dept of Internal Affairs – Problem Gambling in New Zealand – A Brief Summary
Yet, when it comes to problem gambling for outlets such as Lotto,
Around 20% of adults in New Zealand do not gamble. Most of those who do
gamble play Lotto, which is relatively low risk for problem gambling. It is
likely that fewer than 2% of those who only play Lotto will score as problem
gamblers, even if they play it every week.
Source: IBID
It’s the old “my evil is less than other evils, so that makes me ok” argument. Taking this circular logic to it’s mad conclusion, no one could do anything to address a problem, because someone else will point further down the “food-chain” as being “worse”.
As Morrison himself said,
“The Ministry of Health does a report, and it shows the incidence of harm and problem gambling as a proportion of New Zealand adults is about 0.4 percent – that compares to drinking of 18 percent. The whole perspective of this debate has just been taken way out of context.”
- 1995: $313m
- 1996: $914m
- 1997: $1,883m
- 1998: $1,914m
- 1999: $2,297m
- 2000: $2,858m
- 2001: $3,075m
- 2002: $3,417m
- 2003: $3,805m
- 2004: $4,033m
- 2005: $3,936m
- 2006: $4,104m
- 2007: $3,912m
- 2008: $3,974m
- 2009: $3,879m
- 2010: $3,783m
- 2011: $3,929m
- 2012: $4,244.
“It’s going to be what it’s going to be. It’s not for us to interfere in it – we’re just a corporate citizen trying to go forward in New Zealand.”
Gambling-My-Money-Away Party (2)
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 15 July 2013.
.
.
= fs =
Radio NZ: Politics with Matthew Hooton and Mike Williams
.
– Politics on Nine To Noon –
.
– Monday 15 July 2013 –
.
– Kathryn Ryan, with Matthew Hooton & Mike Williams –
.
Today on Politics on Nine To Noon,
.
.
Click to Listen: Politics with Matthew Hooton and Mike Williams (26′ 50″ )
- Labour’s leadership ‘coup’
- the Maori Party AGM
- the GCSB and new spy legislation.
Acknowledgement: Radio NZ
.
.
= fs =
Pita Sharples, Spooks, Maggie Barry, and Bully-boy Brownlee
.
Pita Sharples – gone
.
Acknowledgement: Radio NZ – Pita Sharples quits Maori Party leadership
.
Pita Sharples has effectively taken responsibility for the Maori Party’s poor showing (third place) at the recent Ikaroa-Rāwhiti by-election. That result was an indictment on the Maori Party’s decision to support an increasingly shakey government that is losing support in more accurate polling.
The internal leadership struggles between himself and Te Ururoa Flavell has also taken it’s toll on the 71 year old,
“It’s clear that the leadership issue…has taken a toll on the Maori Party and our people deserve a united Maori Party.”
Acknowledgement: Domninion Post – Sharples quits Maori Party leadership
It’s also something that is focusing closer scrutiny upon an increasingly unstable government. The toll thus far;
- Hekia Parata – lost part of her port-folio. In essence, a partial sacking.
- Aaron Gilmore – forced to resign from Parliament.
- John Banks – facing charges in Court. If found guilty, he will hve to resign.
- Peter Dunne – Party de-registered; lost his ministerial portfolios; and becoming increasingly oppositional to National’s policies.
- Pita Sharples – standing down as Maori-Party co-leader
An early election this year (or early next year) is becoming more likely with each passing crisis.
Not a good time for National.
.
The spooks have a new Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security…
.
On 1 July, John Key announced that Paul Neazor would be replaced in his role as Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security (for the SIS and GCSB) by former-Judge Andrew McGechan.
Key says that McGechan’s role will be on an “interim” basis, instead of the usual three years, as the GCSB and Related Legislation Amendment Bill is currently being considered by a Parliament Select Committee.
However, with Peter Dunne wavering on this issue; with mounting public opposition; and god-only-knows which way Winston Peters will jump; the passing of the GCSB and Related Legislation Amendment Bill is by no means guaranteed.
In which case, National has two options remaining,
1.
The office of the Inspector-General must be expanded; properly staffed; and appropriately funded. At present, the Inspector-General’s role is a part-time position, with no permanent staffing. Our Inspector General is faced with oversight of two intelligence agencies with a combined staff of around 520. In effect he is out-numbered, out-resourced, and consequently, out-manouvered.
By contrast, our Aussie cuzzy’s version of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security has approximately 20 people working full time for the Inspectorate (see IGIS Annual Report 2011-12 Part three: Management and accountability )
This, I believe is the real problem surrounding our security-intelligence agencies – not the legislation needing “tightening up”. The legislation is tight enough as it is.
It just needs to be obeyed.
2.
The Labour Party’s call for a full public commission of inquiry on this matter cannot be ignored any longer. If Key wants cross-party support and public buy-in to secuirity/intelligence issues, then it must be open to all political parties and the public to contribute to the debate.
As matters stand now, if National forces through unpopular, undemocratic, and ultimately counter-productive laws – an incoming government will be bound to amend or repeal it entirely. This is grossly wasteful use of the Parliamentary process and taxpayer’s money.
This blogger hopes that the GCSB and Related Legislation Amendment Bill is set aside. Aside from National ministers and a few misguided rightwing bloggers, there is very little support for this proposed legislation.
Additional
Parliament: External oversight of intelligence agencies: a comparison
.
Egg; Face; Maggie Barry
.
Ex-radio host-come-National politician – known for her acerbic and often nasty tongue in Parliament’s debating chamber – has copious amounts of egg on her face.
Ever the loyal, obedient National Party foot-soldier for towing the OPL (Official Party Line), she loudly parroted her party’s opposition to the Auckland rail link. She expressed her “well wishes” to Len Brown after he won the 2010 Mayoralty race with this graceless message,
The morning after National’s resounding victory she sent a strong message to Auckland mayor Len Brown, saying there would be a CBD rail link before a second harbour crossing “over our dead bodies”.
Acknowledgement: Fairfax Media – Maggie Barry’s line in sand
Charming.
But political Karma being what it is, National’s change of heart on this issue had made her look foolish. Her senior fellow politicians have now endorsed Len Brown and Auckland Council’s plans for the Auckland rail link,
.
Acknowledgement: Interest.co.nz – Auckland Mayor celebrates Government’s agreement to support rail loop
.
Ms Barry, not quite bringing herself able to tow the new OPL, endorsed only certain aspects of Auckland Council’s transport plans,
North Shore National MP Maggie Barry said there was a “flurry of excitement” about the suggestion the North Shore could get another link to the city.
“It is essential and long overdue, and it would make a phenomenal difference to the North Shore.”
Acknowledgement: NZ Herald – Key to give Auckland a crossing
I suspect there’s enough egg on Ms Barry’s face to cook up a decent size omelette.
.
Bully-boy Brownlee
.
Not content with creating the Auckland super city without first putting it to Auckland ratepayers through a referendum…
Not content with pushing more laws through Parliament under “Urgency” than probably any other government in New Zealand’s history…
Not content with dis-establishing Environment Canterbury in March 2010; replacing it with un-elected Commissioners; whose decisions cannot be appealed to the Environment Court…
Not content with usurping the authority of the Christchurch City Council with the creation of CERA…
Not content with being given sweeping political power in the Christchurch re-build, via the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act which effectively gives unbridled power to National Ministers for five years…
Not content with expanding the surveillance powers of the GCSB, where no one will be safe from being spied upon by the State…
Not content with moving to take control of Christchurch…
Gerry Brownlee is now putting none-too-subtle pressure on Auckland City to sell its assets to help pay for the Auckland rail loop,
.
Acknowledgement: NZ Herald – City’s shares eyed for rail
.
Acting more reminiscent of a feudal Baron ruling over his fiefdom, Brownlee is treating Mayor Len Brown as a vassal, forcing Auckland City to obey National’s diktats.
I wonder what Aucklanders think of this kind of high-handed Ministerial control being exerted over their city – all the way from Wellington?
It must be demeaning for Aucklanders to realise that their elected local representatives are being treated like puppets, and that real power is being exerted from the Beehive?
So much for the quaint notion of democracy.
So much for Aucklanders being in charge of their own destiny.
So much for the “partnership” that our mendacious Prime Minister promised, three years ago,
The Government will work in partnership with the new Auckland council to improve the city’s transport systems, Prime Minister John Key says.
He said today the Government shared Mayor Len Brown’s vision of getting Auckland moving and it was a government priority as well.
“The Government will work in partnership with the new Auckland City Council on what comes next, and contribute its fair share to the continuing goal of improving transport,” Mr Key said at his post-cabinet press conference.
Acknowledgement : NZ Herald – Govt will work with council on Auckland’s transport
Having a Minister of the Crown attempting to bully Auckland to sell it’s assets in not a “partnership”. And just because National has engaged in an act of wilful economic sabotage by it’s agenda of partial asset-sales – is no reason to expect others to follow that lunatic policy.
Gerry Brownlee should take note. He is playing with political fire, and a million votes in Auckland may come raining down on his (and other National MPs’) head.
If I know Kiwis as well as I think I do, they will not take kindly to being bossed around. (The Americans found this out, to their cost, when the Lange-led Labour government passed our nuclear-free legislation.)
How much does Brownlee really want to piss that many voters off?
Tread carefully, bully-boy.
This blogpost was first published on The Daily Blog on 3 July 2013.
.
.
= fs =
Radio NZ: Politics with Matthew Hooton and Mike Williams
.
– Politics on Nine To Noon –
.
– Monday 8 July 2013 –
.
– Kathryn Ryan, with Matthew Hooton & Mike Williams –
.
Today on Politics on Nine To Noon,
.
.
Click to Listen: Politics with Matthew Hooton and Mike Williams (23′ 26″ )
- Labour’s so-called “man ban”
- What does Maori/Mana/Labour all add up to?
- The latest on Christchurch
- And Kim Dotcom vs John Key
Acknowledgement: Radio NZ
.
.
= 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 =
Citizen A – 24 January 2013
.
– Citizen A –
.
– 24 January 2013 –
.
– David Slack & Dr Wayne Hoper –
.
– National Party cabinet reshuffle – First Political Poll of 2013 – Ratana & the Maori Party –
.
.
Issue 1: National Party cabinet reshuffle – rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic or the boldest political move of the 21st Century?
Issue 2: First Political Poll of 2013 – National up and Labour down – what does David Shearer need to do?
and Issue 3: Ratana this weekend – has Maori political influence peaked – what is happening in the Maori Party?
.
*
.
Acknowledgement (republished with kind permission)
.
.
= fs =
Citizen A – 1 November 2012 – Online now!
.
Citizen A
.
– 1 November 2012 –
.
– Claudette Hauiti & Chris Trotter –
.
.
Issue 1: How do we get affordable housing in Auckland – is the Government on the right track and should the Super City open up more land?
Issue 2: Can the Maori Party convince Pakeha to vote for them?
Issue 3: What does the latest roy morgan poll mean for David Shearer at this months Labour Party conference in Auckland?
Citizen A broadcasts 7pm Thursday Triangle TV
.
Acknowledgement (republished with kind permission)
.
.
= fs =
Citizen A – 14 June 2012 – Online now!
.
Citizen A
.
– 14 June 2012 –
.
– Chris Trotter & Selwyn Manning –
.
.
Issue 1: In light of the Bronwyn Pullar fiasco, is ACC out of control and does a culture of bullying exist to keep NZers needing compensation from accessing it?
Issue 2: As far as the Prime Minister is concerned, the backlash to larger class room sizes was just bad marketing. Should public education be worried?
Issue 3: The Maori Party this week voted for Paula Bennett’s welfare reforms and their leadership are reconsidering retirement – is there a future for the Maori Party?
.
Acknowledgement (republished with kind permission)
.
.
= fs =
20 May: End of the Week Bouquets, Brickbats, & Epic Fails
.
– End of the Week Bouquets, Brickbats, & Epic Fails –
.
.
“Think Tank”
TV3’s current affairs “chat” show, “Think Tank” is hosted by John Tamihere, on Sunday mornings. This half hour programme discusses critical issues confronting our nation, but in a low-key, constructive manner. There are no flashy graphics; no distracting backgrounds; and the guests are encouraged to offer their views without being talked over by other guests or the host.
The only slight criticism? that this excellent show is “ghettoised” on Sunday mornings (alongside TVs’s “The Nation” and TVNZ’s “Q+A”).
It would be a radical moment in our media history if “Think Tank” (as well as “Q+A” and “The Nation”) were re-scheduled for prime-time evening viewing. The public might actually be exposed to intelligent viewing for a change.
Shayne Currie (Editor, New Zealand Herald)
Who tweeted (@ShayneCurrieNZH), ‘We wouldn’t want to be populist now would we Mr Key‘, after Dear Leader whinged on Newstalk ZB that “the media are in a more aggressive and hostile mood towards us” . Key singled out the Sunday Star Times and NZ Herald for special criticism.
Nice one, Shayne. Sometimes it takes a gentle reminder for politicians to understand that the Herald is not Pravda, nor is Sunday Star Times New Zealand’s own Izveztia.
AFFCO workers
Locked out by their employers, the Talley Brothers – millionaire businessmen – who are hell-bent on driving down staff’s wages and destroying the Meatworkers Union.
The AFFCO meatworkers are ordinary New Zealanders – they could be any one of us – who have been harrassed and persecuted by the Talleys.
In a display of sheer courage that our ANZAC forebears would be proud of, the workers have faced up to the bullies who are their employers.
These brave men and women should be hailed as true Kiwi battlers.
An incoming Labour-led government should not forget the AFFCO workers when they next review employment legislation.
.
.
Paula Bennett (National MP
For planning to force welfare recipients to immunise their children for no other reason than they are receiving welfare assistance from the State. This has to be the worst case of State coercion since military conscription.
If National wants everyone immunised, by law, then make it compulsory for everyone. Yeah, right! There would be rioting in the streets, and this rotten government would fall within a week.
But it’s fairly obvious that Key, Bennett, and their misguided mates are exploiting the vulnerability of New Zealanders who happen to be on welfare, for their own political ends.
This country’s economy is in dire straits; we are stagnating; unemployment is on the up; and kids are starving and going through pig-slop buckets to get a feed. Plus on top of that numerous scandals and dodgy deals, and National is desperate to focus public attention elsewhere.
In the 1930s, the nazi government used gypsies and jews as scapegoats. We can’t use jews – Israel would kick Key’s sorry arse to the curb. And we don’t have gypsies.
But we do have welfare beneficiaries, and the public doesn’t mind if they’re ‘bashed’ around a bit.They are the 1930s “jews” of our society.
This is shameful. For a New Zealand government to demonise a sector of the population in such a cynical manner is unforgivable.
Pita Sharples (Maori Party)
For citing that there had been a number of gains for Maori the upcoming budget, such as “funding for treatment of cancer, funding for tackling rheumatic fever…”
Yes, Mr Sharples – but at the expense of raising prescription charges from $3 to $5, which will hurt welfare beneficiaries, superannuitants, and low income earners the hardest. Many of whom already have to make hard choices whether to pay the rent and electricity bill, or cut back on food, medicines, etc.
Many of those low-income earners are the Maori Party’s constituents.
By any definition, that is not a “gain”, Mr Sharples. This is robbing Pita to pay Paul.
Wally.
ACT Party
For not distancing itself from racist bigot, Louis Crimp, and returning his $125,520 donation. Is ACT so desperate for funds that it willingly accepts money from a person who believes,
“I don’t give a stuff what I’m called. You have to look at the facts and figures. This is the problem with New Zealanders. Most of them dislike the Maoris intensely – I won’t say hate – but they don’t like to say so.”
At what point does a Party draw a line and refuse to accept financial support because the donor is just so repugnant?
Act’s president, Chris Simmons, said he disagreed with Mr Crimp but respected his right to have a view,
“One of the beauties of the Act Party is we believe everyone should have their say.”
That may be, Mr Simmons. But by accepting a racist’s money, you are giving tacit approval to their abhorrent prejudice.
It’s called tarred by association.
Think about it.
.
And for the final category, the Epic Fail of the Week,
.
.
Businessman and bigot. Unfortunately, he may not be alone is holding such racist views.
We have a long way to go, in this country.
.
.
= fs =
ACT on polling – naughty, naughty, chaps!
.
Naughty Mat for ACT!
.
Searching for details on a previous blogpost, this blogger came across this interesting poll result on stuff.co.nz,
.
.
Making my vote, the Poll showed me the following results,
.
.
Interestingly, the poll results for Labour, Greens, National, Mana, Maori Party, and United Future more or less mirror the 2011 election results.
2011 Election Results
National: 47.31%
Labour: 27.48%
Greens: 11.06%
Mana: 1.08%
Maori Party: 1.43%
United Future: 0.60%
No surprises with those figures.
NZ First polled higher than their Election Result of 6.59%.
The figures for NZ First may be easily understand as a nationalistic response to the current government’s policies on partial asset sales and the sale of farmland to offshore investors. (Though whether the Stuff poll translates into success at the Ballot box is another matter entirely.)
The real surprise is ACT’s result on the Stuff poll; 6.4%.
Really? 6.4%?!
No, I don’t think, so, my fellow Kiwis.
ACT’s election result was a meagre 1.07%. Recent polls by Roy Morgan and News Reid has ACT barely registering,
Roy Morgan: 0.3%
News Reid: 0.2%
Which indicates to this blogger that some naughty ACT apparatchiks have been “stuffing Stuff’s electronic ballot box”, by voting multiple times. Naughty boys. Off to the naughty mat with you – and don’t come out until Election Day!
.
.
= fs =
Post mortem #5: Election results, coalition deals, and other matters…
.
.
Electoral Commission official results;
.
.
Other results, including Electorate Seats
.
At 61 seats out of 121, the National+Dunne+Banks Government has a bare one seat majority. My money is on this majority disappearing when the first by-election takes place. (Last term, there were four by-elections.)
The Maori Party, more than ever, finds itself in a position of considerable strength – and precarious vulnerability.
Odds are that this National Government will be far more right wing than the previous Administration, if policies announced thus far are any indication. Does the Maori Party wish to be tarred with the same right-wing brush?
If so, it will suffer total electoral annihilation in 2014.
Because with a one seat majority, National can still push through asset sales; welfare “reforms”; semi-privatisation of schools; etc. The Maori Party will not be able to stop these policies from being implemented, even if they vote against it.
So being a part of said National government, as a coalition partner will put them on a path for a hiding to nowhere.
Electoral annihilation. 2014. Guaranteed.
But by sitting on the cross-benches, a-la Greens and NZ First, the Maori Party will still be able to vote for policies they support and against policies they oppose – for precisely the same gain – but none of the side-effect of tarred-with-the-same-brush.
Then, when National loses it’s first seat in a by-election (or defection of an MP) – thereby reducing it’s numbers from 61 to 60 – the Maori Party will be well-placed to support a Labour-led Coalition. It may then regain some of the electoral support it lost in November.
If the Maori Party is getting anything resembling decent political advice, it should arrive at precisely the same conclusions I have.
If not… Hāere ra, Maori Party, 2014.
.
+++ Updates +++
.
.
Prime Minister John Key says that “National does not need the Maori Party’s support but its three votes will be a big help“.
Oh, I’m sure it will be, Dear Leader.
As for the Maori Party, I guess they will be consigned to History’s rubbish bin, following Mauri Pacific and Mana Motuhake.
It beggers belief, that the Maori Party’s constituency is happy with this unholy alliance.
“Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples says the party only agreed to the deal after consulting its members.
He says it conducted over 40 meetings which were attended by more than 1000 people.
“It was unanimous that we should continue to be at the table in the capacity that we were last time and that’s not just confidence and supply, it’s really a relationship accord with confidence and supply.” “
“Unanimous“?! More than 1,000 people were “unanimous” in supporting a coalition arrangement with National???
I find that somewhat hard to believe.
.
.
“The Maori Party has agreed to support the National Party on confidence and supply votes but is free to oppose it on all other matters, including partial asset sales.”
If Sharples and Turia think that they will not be tainted with the same brush of scorn that with be liberally applied to National (as well as Peter Dunne), then they are truly more naive than I thought possible. Just because Sharples and Pita are ” free to oppose it on all other matters, including partial asset sales ” will not absolve the Maori Party from the same oppobrium that will grow over the following three years, as it becomes apparent that this government implements right wing policies.
When John Key says that the Maori Party “will not make any difference to the passage of the legislation because the 61 votes it has without the party’s support is still a majority” – he is showing his usual optimistic facade . He knows full well that his “majority” is one by-election or defection away from being utterly dependent to the Maori Party.
Listen to John Key on Radio NZ Morning Report
.
.
A “Committee on Poverty” will be led by Deputy PM, Bill English, “and will issue progress reports on poverty twice a year”.
Well, excuse my scepticism, by I can really see a committee achieving a lot.
At the very least, I guess a committee will give jobs to those sitting on said committee.
This is a sop. Like committees and reports before it, this committee will achieve very little – if anything.
There have been countless reports, committees, Commissions, etc, in the past. Here is a list of some of them.
They have all come and gone and been forgotten. Meanwhile, joblessness; lack of good, affordable housing; the growing gap between poor and rich; etc, remain as indictments of a society that has gone seriously off the rails since the rogernomic-“reforms” of the late 1980s.
The “trickle down” theory not only has not worked, but the “trickle” has been a tsunami upwards.
If the Maori Party think that National has policies that will address growing poverty in this country, then then are more gullible than I thought.
National is a right wing party, and as such right wing governments are not concerned with poverty. Their focus is purely on implementing “free market” policies; minimal government; reducing social policies; selling state assets into private ownership; “business-friendly”; and lower taxes – especially for higher income earners.
This government will be a re-run of the last three years of the Bolger/Shipley administration in the late 1990s. That National government cut taxes; reduced social services; and csaw a widening disparity in incomes.
We are witnessing a reliving of recent history, which most folk seem to have forgotten.
The next three years will not be happy ones.
The flow of New Zealanders to Australia will become a flood.
And 1,058,638 voters may be sorry for voting for John Key.
.
Additional
Chris Ford: An open letter to Labour’s new leadership team
.
.
Has National declared class-war on New Zealand?
.
“What’s past is prologue”
.
“Class war” – not a piece of left-wing jargon I normally employ, as it has connotations that are seemingly out-of-date in the 21st Century. It is a term I normally associate with 1960s-style, cloth-cap marxist-leninist or maoist cadres, addressing factory workers as they’re about to “Down Tools and All Out, Bruvvers“!
.
In 1947 a union official addresses London dockers. In the post-war years efforts were made by the unions to recruit new workers coming into British industry.
.
However, “class war” seems to pretty well describe what this ‘new’ hard-right wing government is planning.
Since the Election on November 26, it is apparent that this government has moved well away from the centre-right position it occupied from 2008-11. There is a definite undertone of cold harshness about this ‘new’ government. The old “smile and wave” has been replaced with a grim tension as the National-Dunne-ACT Coalition begins to announce policies that were never announced during the election campaign.
It is as if the facade of the cheerful “vacant optimism” of John Key has been allowed to fall away – to be replaced with something cold and quite alien. I think New Zealanders are waking up to a Prime Minister that they never voted for.
It appears that the first term of National was to “bed in” this government and lay fertile ground for their real policies – policies that are intended to transform this country as Rogernomic did in the late 1980s. National has declared war on our social services, remnants of our egalitarian past when most or all New Zealanders had a fair go.
Since Rogernomics, we were promised that increased wealth creation would “trickle down” to middle and low income earners, and as a result incomes would rise. This has not happened. in fact, quite the reverse.
The OECD (not exactly a left-wing organisation) has warned “about the rise of the high earners in rich societies and the falling share of income going to those at the bottom, saying governments must move quickly to tackle inequality ,”
.
.
Warren Buffett – one of the richest men on this planet – has said pretty much the same thing,
.
.
Buffett has stated,
“My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice. “
The same could be said of high income earners and wealthy throughout the world, including here in New Zealand.
Since 1986, there have been seven tax cuts in New Zealand. Gst was introduced at 10% in the same year, and increased to 15% this year (despite assurance by John Key that he would not raise gst).
GST impacts disproportionately on low-income earners as they spend all their income on necessities, whilst higher-income earners/wealthy invest, speculate, or “park” their money. “Parking” wealth does not lead to increased spending in the economy and businesses suffer accordingly. Investment does not always lead to more jobs or higher wages either – simply an increased return to the investor.
The growing disparity between rich, middle-classes, and low income/poor began in earnest in the late 1970s,
.
.
It is noteworthy that right-wing governments in the UK (“Thatcherism”) and USA (“Reagonomics”) implemented neo-liberal government policies such as tax cuts for the rich; reduced social services and government spending; and stagnant wage-growth, at the same time – the late 1970s.
Could there be a link? Of course there is. Only a fool would deny the causal factors of neo-liberal governments and growing wealth disparity.
In New Zealand, right wing neo-liberal policies were introduced a little later, in the mid-1980s.
The result has been predictable, and follows overseas trends,
.
.
Income disparity has been a growing problem and despite endless promises that “trickle down” theory works – wages have stayed static and those earning minimum wage barely have sufficient to surevive. When questioned by Q+A’s Guyon Espiner on this issue, Bill English agreed,
.
“GUYON: Okay, can we move backwards in people’s working lives from retirement to work and to wages? Mr English, is $13 an hour enough to live on?
BILL: People can live on that for a short time, and that’s why it’s important that they have a sense of opportunity. It’s like being on a benefit.
GUYON: What do you mean for a short time?
BILL: Well, a long time on the minimum wage is pretty damn tough, although our families get Working for Families and guaranteed family income, so families are in a reasonable position.” Source
.
The tax cut last year exacerbated that growing gap between the rich/high income earners and those on middle/low incomes,
.
.
Only the most politically partisan – blinded by misplaced quasi-religious beliefs in neo-liberal ideology – can ignore the ample evidence that so-called “free market” policies serve to make only the rich, richer. Meanwhile those at the bottom are mired in poverty. The middle-classes become debt-laden, as they have to borrow more and more to keep afloat financially.
We have created a recipe for disaster and in 2008 the fiscal chickens came home to roost.
In November 2011, 957,769 voters cast their ballot for a charismatic Prime Minister who seemed to be fairly centrist and common sense.
957,769 voters were duped.
This was not the same John Key nor National government they elected in November 2008.
.
The Right Strikes Back
.
Charter Schools
Charter Schools is nothing less than gradual privatisation by stealth. Instead of announcing to New Zealanders that schools will be put on Trademe and sold to highest bidders, the “Charter Schools” policy is far more subtle; and done piece by piece; step by step.
99% of New Zealanders would never countenance our schools being put on the chopping block and flogged of to Heinz Watties, Church of Scientology, Toyota, the Mormons, Uncle Tom Cobbly, etc. But that is precisely what “Charter Schools” is about. Under “Charter Schools”, a religious group or corporation can fund and take control of your local school.
A Radio NZ report states,
“Christian school leaders say the Government’s plan to trial so-called charter schools could give them a way to reach the most needy families.
Charter schools are part of a movement in the United States and Britain to get business and non-profit organisations to run government-funded schools free from many of the rules that govern regular state schools.
The schools are not allowed to charge fees, but can set teacher pay and their own school day and year.
A trial for such schools in South Auckland and central and eastern Christchurch was part of the confidence and supply agreement reached between the National and ACT parties on Monday.
Christian school leaders say the proposed schools might give Christian schools a way round current restrictions on their enrolments.
Most are integrated schools and must focus their enrolments on Christians. Charter schools would get the same funding, without those restrictions.
Christian school leaders say that will interest schools that want to help poor communities.
They say the schools would be fulfilling a Christian mission and would not try to convert people to Christianity. ” – Source
So if a christian fundamentalist group like “Exclusive Brethren” took over my local primary school, they would not be replacing the science curriculum with Creationism? Or teaching girls to be “silent and obedient to men”? Or canning sex-education?
A NZ Herald article had this to say about “Chart Schools”,
“The National party yesterday agreed to incorporate charter schooling as part of its government support deal with the Act Party, allowing private entities such as businesses, church groups and iwi organisations to take over management of schools but retain state funding under the scheme.
The charter school scheme will be trialled in South Auckland and Christchurch within the next three years.
Groups representing teachers and principals are outraged at the proposal.
Post Primary Teachers’ Association (PPTA) president Robin Duff labelled the charter school trial nothing but a “social experiment” on already vulnerable students.
“Why are they not putting a school like this in Epsom? I think some honest answers are needed.”
He said models overseas were ineffective; Stanford University research showed students at only 17 per cent of charter schools did better than at traditional schools.” – Source
When John Key was interviewed about the new “Charter Schools” policy that ACT and National had jointly announced, he replied on Radio NZ,
“‘That’s MMP for you, isn’t it? That you agree to different proposals.”
Rubbish.
Once again, Key is spinning a lie to cover his backside.
The facts are simple, and a visit to National and ACT’s website yields some interesting information.
National
There is no mention made whatsoever of “Charter Schools” in National’s policy, “Education in Schools“. Nothing even remotely close.
National makes policy on employing unqualified people off the street to teach our children,
“We will make it easier for schools to employ people with specialist skills who may not be a registered teacher, but who can undergo basic teacher training. That training may be on-the-job training.“
They even hint at League Tables,
“They also have clear targets they can measure their own achievements, and the achievements of their school, against.”
“National will make secondary school performance information available to parents, so they are informed about their child’s learning environment.”
“Improve reporting of system-level performance, including investigating school level reporting.”
National wants to psyco-analyse people to gauge their “disposition to teach”, in a quasi-Nanny State/Big Brotherish kind of way,
“Improve the quality of initial teacher education, including a move to a post graduate qualification and minimum undergrad entry requirements, as well as a formal assessment of a ‘disposition to teach’.”
And National isn’t “quasi” in some of it’s Big Brotherish surveillance of ordinary New Zealanders,
“Track students who leave school before 18 and make sure they are in some form of education or training.
Schools will be asked to report students who are leaving school and not going onto further training or employment, so we can support them and ensure they don’t end up on welfare.“
So, if you’re 17 and about to leave school, for whatever reason, expect the eyes of The State to be watching you.
National also makes some very grand, heart-warming, claims stating their supporting for schools in Christchurch in their “Education in Schools” policy,
“Double-funded students who moved out of Christchurch for 2011. That is, we funded the Christchurch school they no longer attended and also funded the school outside of Christchurch they did attend.”
However, they make no reference to the fact that, in September, Education Minister Anne Tolley announced cutting 167 full-time equivalent-positions from Christchurch schools, effective next year. This lapse in painting a full picture of National’s policy and track record in Christchurch is another unpleasant example of dishonesty from this government.
But a big Nothing/Nada/No Way reference to “School Charters”.
ACT
Quite predictably, ACT, and it’s website, is a right-winger’s Onanistic delight.
Again, there is no mention of “Schools Chart” in ACT’s education policy. Though they do rabbit on about “the benefits of making education more market-like and entrepreneurial. ”
In fact, this is ACT’s full education policy,
.
.
It’s interesting that ACT (and to a lesser degree, National) both make out that our education system is in dire straits. Their inference is that only their policies will achieve grand outcomes – no one elses.
And yet, things are not as bad as they would have us believe,
.
.
Ok, so we’re not ‘perfect’, and obviously we “Can Do Better” on our OECD Report Card. But matters are not so desperate that National has to implement a policy that neither they nor ACT campaigned on. National, specifically, has no reference coming even remotely close to “Charter Schools” in it’s education policy.
Quite simply, National has ‘sprung’ this on the public. They have no mandate for such a radical re-shaping of our education system.
Trying to blame it on MMP and suggesting that it is ACT policy is duplicitous. They have deceived the elecorate – and as such parents, teachers, students, and the rest of the community have a legitimate right to resist implementation of this policy.
I suspect that “Chart Schools” is merely the tip of the iceberg. National and ACT have other surprises in store for us, and New Zealand will be in for a rude shock.
The Right Wing are in ascendancy in Parliament and they will run rampant with their “reforms”, mandate or not.
.
Denniston Plateau
.
Yet more evidence (if we ever really needed it) that this National-led coalition has taken off the kid-gloves and has adopted an agressive, uncompromising, right-wing posture. As well as ramming through policy that was never presented to the electorate, expect National to be more open and brazen in breaking promises.
National’s intention to mine the ecologically-sensitive Denniston Plateau was made public by “Conservation” Minister Kate Wilkinson, a mere one-working day day after the election. She could barely wait for the ballot papers to be counted before issuing a public statement that broke a promise to make future applications to mine on the conservation land publicly notifiable.
On 20 July 201o, after mass protests throughout the country opposing mining on Schedule 4 Conservation land, Energy and Resources Minister Gerry Brownlee and Conservation Minister Kate Wilkinson issued this statement,
.
After carefully considering the feedback received on the Maximising Our Mineral Potential: Stocktake of Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act and Beyond discussion paper, the Government has agreed that:
- i. No areas will be removed from Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act.
- ii. All of the 14 areas proposed for addition to Schedule 4 will be added to the schedule.
- iii. A technical investigation will be undertaken of Northland (in strategic alliance with Northland Regional Council, the Far North District Council, and Enterprise Northland), the West Coast of the South Island and various other highly prospective areas in the South Island – excluding any Schedule 4 areas. This will identify mineral deposits and assist with hazard identification (for example, faults and slips), road maintenance and conservation planning.
- iv. Areas given classifications equivalent to current Schedule 4 areas (for example, national parks and marine reserves) will in the future be automatically added to Schedule 4. Such classifications will be agreed by Cabinet.
- v. Significant applications to mine on public conservation land will be publicly notified.
– Gerry Brownlee, Kate Wilkinson – 20 July, 2010
.
Australian mining company, Bathurst Resources, wants to mine an additional 50-80 million tonnes from the area over a 35 year period. Forest & Bird state,
“The adjacent Stockton Plateau has been half destroyed by opencast mining in the past few decades. The Denniston Plateau has a history of underground mining, but has been spared – until now – this fate.
A new opencast coal mine proposed for the Denniston Plateau would destroy 200 hectares and increase New Zealand’s coal exports by up to 63% per year. But that would only be the beginning. The Australian company holds mining permits across the Plateau, which would generate an estimated 50 million tonnes of coal.” – Source
In effect, this,
.
Denniston Plateau
.
Would become this,
.
Stockton Mine
.
National’s open contempt for the democratic process; honouring election committments; and public consultation – should now be apparent to everyone. Worse still is their contempt for the people of this country.
How else does one explain a government that has so blatantly gone back on so many of it’s promises?
Wilkinson’s readiness to go back on her word is something that she – and her colleagues – should be deeply ashamed of.
.
Urgency laws?
.
National’s previous term saw the highest use of “Urgency” to ram through legislation, in decades.
Expect more of the same, as they implement their right wing agenda at breakneck speed, before 2014. This is the method used by Douglas and Prebble in the 1980s.
Indeed, Douglas boasted at the speed at which he and his cronies introduced their “reforms”. The result was that public opposition to their agenda was difficult to mount.
The right wing have little time for the democratic process and public consultation. That should be readily apparent to us all by now.
.
ACC
.
I’ve no doubt that whilst ACC will not be privatised – that workplace accident compensation will be opened up to “marketplace competition”. This will be a rehash of National’s earlier experiment in accident insurance competition in the late ’90s.
Neo-libs. They love to recycle old policies, whether or not they were ever successful.
.
Maori Party
.
The Maori Party has not yet gone into formal coalition with National. They are currently conducting consultation with their constituents, by holding Hui around the country.
I have no doubt in my mind that Maori Party members will bitterly denounce any suggestion that they coalesce with National. To many, the last week has already been a fore taste of the right wing whirlwind that is about to hit this country.
For the Maori Party to be associated in any way, shape, or form with the impending storm will be a colossal misjudgement on the part of Maori Party leadership – and will guarantee their political demise in 2014.
Wise heads will try to warn Pita Sharples, Tariana Turia, and Te Ururoa Flavell, that entering into coalition with National and it’s coat-tailing little mini-Nats (Dunne and Banks) will be the death knell for the Maori Party.
The question remains; will they heed that warning? Or will they suffer the same fate as Tau Henare’s Mauri Pacific Party in 1999?
.
Things To Come
.
Let no one be under any illusion that this National Coalition v.2 is nothing like it’s predecessor from 2008-11. This is a fully-fledged, ideologically-driven, determined Right Wing Government.
And it has nothing to do with ACT. ACT is a political corpse, and John Banks is carrying on in name only.
Despite MMP being designed to reign in the executive power of large parties, and prevent FPP-style single-party rule – National has managed to rort the system by creating proxies – Peter Dunne and John Banks – who are essentially National Party ministers-by-default.
National did not fail in their fight to win an outright majority in the House. They succeeded.
I hope that the voters of Epsom and Ohariu knew what they were doing when they voted for Banks and Dunne (and Green and Labour voters when they failed to vote tactically). Because they have helped achieved the near impossible under MMP: a single-party government.
And we know what happens when a single-party government rules Parliament. What does a single-party government do?
Whatever it wants.
.
References
National: Education in Schools Policy
.
Additional Reading
Education shake-up ‘biggest for years’
Key defends state-funded private schools
On charter schools – Gordon Campbell
Save the Denniston Plateau:Ours Not Mine
On income inequality – Gordon Campbell
The gap between NZs rich and poor
New Zealand wealth gap alarms charities
Chris Ford: National/ACT Coalition aiming to complete New Right revolution
.
Video
2011-12-06 – 3News – OECD: Inequality Growing Fastest in NZ
OECD: Record inequality between rich and poor
.
.
Did Goff resign too soon?
The election may have ended at 7pm last Saturday – but political “aftershocks” may yet change the Parliamentary landscape,
.
.
As the Dominion Post story states, “National could theoretically lose up to two seats on special votes and its majority could be affected“.
After the 2008 general election, Cam Calder (number 58 on the National Party List), became an MP based on election night provisional results.
However, a subsequent seat re-allocation due to counting of special votes reduced National’s entitlement (by one seat) in the final count, preventing Calder from entering Parliament.
Instead, the counting of specal votes gave the Greens an extra seat, and Kennedy Graham became an MP.
Fast-forward to the 2011 general election: If Te Ururoa Flavell’s coup succeeds, and the Maori Party chooses not to give Supply and Confidence to the National-Dunne-ACT coalition – then matters could get very interesting, very quickly.
It would be bleak irony if National lost it’s election night wafer-thin majority; the Maori Party chose not to support a second John Key administration; and a Labour-led coalition became a new reality. In which case, Phil Goff’s resignation was somewhat “premature”.
Irony indeed if, having stepped down, one of the two Davids became the new Prime Minister – on the back of Phil Goff’s hard work and victory.
.
.
Politics – reality TV at it’s finest.
.
.
Post mortem #4: Maori Party, National, and the Treaty
.
.
Current National and Maori Party coalition negotiations raise two interesting issues. One is fairly self-evident. The other is something I’ve just noticed in the above image of Pita Sharples anf John Key…
Issue one
.
“Mr Key said there was no reason why partial asset sales would need to be treated as a matter of confidence and supply.” Source
The sale of state assets is usually a budgetary matter. As I’ve written previously, past asset sales were generally included as part of bugetary legislation and passed by the government-of-the-day using it’s majority in the House.
The Opposition – whether one party as under FPP, or several parties under MMP – would automatically vote against the government’s budget. If the budget passed, the government had Supply (money to pay for ongoing state activities, such as paying salaries; building infra-structure; making purchases; paying for borrowings; etc).
If the budget was voted down – the government fell.
At present, John Key’s coalition-government consists of 62 seats out of 121 (there is an “over-hang of one seat),
.
.
Those 62 seats comprise,
National: 60
John Banks/ACT: 1
Peter Dunne/United Future: 1
Total: 62
62 out of 121 is a majority – just barely. Lose one seat – in a by-election or a defection – and the majority is cut down to one. Lose two seats, and Key’s majority is lost, and becomes a minority government.
No wonder John Key spat the dummy a couple of days ago and called MMP a “weird system”.
Which is why the Maori Party’s the seats becomes vital to the longer-term survival of this new, National-led coalition government. Last term there were four by-elections. There is no guarantee that there won’t be one or two or more this time around.
Key needs the Maori Party as political “insurance”.
The only way that the Maori Party can be placated regarding asset sales is that the issue is removed from the main body of the upcoming Budget, and presented to the House as separate legislation. The Maori Party may then vote with the National-led coalition to ensure Supply, and the business of government carries on.
When the issue of asset sales is presented to the House as separate legislation, the Maori Party will no doubt vote with the Opposition, as Sharples and Turia promised their constituents during the election campaign, and try to vote down the Bill.
No doubt the Bill will proceed through the House, as John Key utilises his two seat majority early on, to guarantee it’s passage.
Once the Bill is enacted and becomes law, the asset sale can proceed unhindered.
At the same time, the National-ACT-Dunne-Maori Party coalition is embedded. There is face-saving all around.
Issue two
.
When I looked at the image above, of John Key and Pita Sharples meeting and greeting each other as equals, the scene reminded me of a photo taken in the early 1970s, of then-Prime Minister, Norman Kirk. I found the image using trusty Google.
Let’s compare the two,
.
.
My, how we’ve matured as a society since the early 1970s.
The symbolism of those two images shows – to me – how the New Zealand social and political meme has been re-defined in only 40 years.
When Norman Kirk led the young Maori boy across the grounds of Waitangi, the image was one of the Pakeha culture as the dominanant patron of this country, leading the “maori child” walking together, hand in hand. It was the archetypal British Colonial “father-figure”, taking in-hand the “childlike” indigenous people.
In the right hand image, the Maori male is an adult Pita Sharples, meeting John Key on a level playing-field. They are meeting as true Treaty partners.
Despite what one may think of National; their policies; and the Maori Party supporting this government – I find something positive in the right-hand image. I think it bodes well for our future and demonstrates that pakeha fears over the Treaty is without foundation.
We’ve come a long way. The journey is yet to end, if ever.
.
Additional
Chris Ford: Has the Maori Party finally cooked its goose?
.
.
Post mortem #3: The Maori Party
.
This is when politicians really break out in sweat,
.
“The Maori Party leadership has met in Auckland today but is yet to decide on a future relationship with National.
Co-leader Tariana Turia said the party would discuss the issue with supporters after meeting with Prime Minister John Key tomorrow.
A reduced Maori Party caucus gathered in Auckland this morning to discuss possible coalition deals.
The party suffered a serious dent in its support last night. It lost Rahui Katene’s Te Tai Tonga seat and saw reduced margins in its remaining three electorates.
Co-leader Pita Sharples was visibly deflated last night and admitted to being disappointed with his own result and that of the whole party.
He said the party’s poor performance showed supporters did not like the party siding with National over the past three years.”
.
Co-leader Pita Sharples said “the party’s poor performance showed supporters did not like the party siding with National over the past three years“.
Well now, that’s an understatement if I ever heard one.
It may seem like a Big Ask, but maori appear to want contradictory things for the Maori Party; independent representation with their own political movement – and a voice in government. But not in coalition – Maori Party voters seem overtly hostile to coalescing with National.
Anything else? Would you like fries with that?!
I don’t envy Pita Sharples or Tariana Turia one jot. They have conflicting messages from their constituents, and have already been punished with the loss of one of their number, and reduced votes. This is critical support that no small Party can afford. The next step would be a one-man band Party (a-la Peter Dunne, John Banks, and Jim Anderton) followed by political extinction.
On top of expectations from their constituents is a new thorn in their sides; state asset sales. The proposed sales are deeply unpopular with the majority of the public (or so they tell the pollsters) and no less so with maori.
Sharples has consistently stated that the Maori Party are opposed to asset sales – though with the caveat that if the sales do proceed, they want Iwi Inc. to have first options to buy.
National, of course, would never have a bar of such a proposal.
On top of all this is the convention of providing Confidence and Supply to the government.
Budgets are presented to the House for voting by all MPs. If the Budget passes, then government is assured of Supply – at least until the next Budget. In all likelihood, National will make asset sales a central pillar of their first Budget.
If the Budget is voted down – the government falls. If the Opposition cannot form a new government, then a snap election is called.
Is essence, if Sharples goes ahead with his promise to oppose asset sales, he is effectively voting down the government’s Budget.
With National’s majority only a slim margin, the Maori Party would be playing a risky game of high-stakes, political poker. Excluding Maori Party support, National will have only a one seat majority in the House once the Speaker’s role is taken into account,
.
.
With Labour a couple of seats short of being able to form a Labour-Greens-NZF-Mana-Maori Party Coalition – a fresh election is inevitable.
At best, the Maori Party could only abstain from voting for Supply for the government. That would mean National relying on Peter Dunne and John Banks to make up the numbers. Just barely.
Not exactly voting for asset sales – and not exactly opposing it, either. And all the while having to satisfy their constituents – or face an even greater voter back-lash in 2014.
At this stage, joining Winston Peters on the cross-benches; voting on legislation issue-by-issue; and hoping that Tariana Turia’s “pet-project” Whanau Ora is not canned – seems their likely option.
This may work. Until the first by-election happens – and last year there were four such by-elections.
To coalesce or not to coalesce – that is the question. Classic damned if you do, damned if you don’t, for a small party in Parliament.
.
.
Election Eleven – Saturday
.
Election Eleven – Saturday
.
.
.
National has won the election, and, seemingly increased it’s Party vote from 44% to 48%.
Despite running a policy-based campaign based on important issues, Labour has suffered a major setback.
The Greens, meanwhile, have done stunningly well.
And Winston Peters was the sole beneficiary of the “cuppa tea” meeting in Epsom.
Some initial observations…
.
ACT
.
The “cuppa tea” meeting between the Two Johns has proven to be a futile exercise. The sole gain for ACT was to return John Banks (a former National MP) to Parliament – but with no extra MPs “riding on his coat-tails”.
In effect, there was no profit for National to support ACT. National might as well not bothered and simply supported Paul Goldsmith.
ACT’s continuing existence is now at the pleasure of Dear Leader, John Key.
By 2014, ACT will most likely disappear.
.
Green Party Voters – Ohariu
.
Green Party members in the Ohariu electorate – you people need to learn to count and to understand the concept of tactical voting.
By giving your electorate vote to the local Green candidate, Gareth Hughes, instead of Charles Chauvel, you have allowed Peter Dunne to return to Parliament and give National an extra coalition partner.
National wishes to thank you for your assistance in returning a centre-right government to power.
Similar results have occurred in other electorates, where Green supporters voted for their Electorate candidate, instead of voting strategically, with a Labour/Green split.
For example; Waitakere:
Paula Bennett (N): 12,310
Carmel Sepulone (L): 11,961
Steve Tollestrup (G): 1,582
1,582 wasted electorate votes for the Green candidate could have helped the Labour cadidate defeat Paula Bennett. Instead, Carmel Sepulone – a very talented Labour candidate – has lost her seat in Parliament.
Similar instances abound in other electorates.
*facepalm*
Next time, Green Voters, ease up on the wacky-bakky before you vote.
.
Asset Sales
.
By voting National, New Zealanders have given National the mandate to sell state assets. That’s our assets. Or rather, they used to be our assets. Pretty shortly, they will belong to Americans, Germans, Chinese, Australians.
Congratulations, fellow New Zealanders, you’ve succeeded in giving away our best performing; most profitable publicly-owned; assets.
After our electricity companies are sold off, wait till you get you next power bills. When power prices begin to rise, as overseas owners demand higher and higher returns on their investments, you will be reminded that we did this to ourselves. No one forced us to sell.
Aren’t we a clever bunch?
Not.
.
Maori Party
.
Pita Sharples has stated that the Maori Party will oppose asset sales as National’s coalition partner.
Oh dear lord…
Sharples needs to look at the rules of Supply & Confidence. Specifically, if National makes asset sales a part of their budget; and the Maori Party votes down that budget; they will have denied the National-led government Supply, which in turn will force a snap election.
Does the Maori Party want to force a snap election and suffer the wrath of the voting public?
Do they want to risk electoral annihilation at the hands of annoyed voters? I doubt it.
Checkmate.
.
Horizon Polling
.
The biggest loser of the night, few will take Horizon Polling seriously after tonight’s election results.
.
MMP
.
The BIG winner of the night; New Zealanders have voted to retain MMP. This was due in part to “Vote for Change” mounting the most pathetic, incompetant, and and mostly invisible campaign in this country’s history.
And Jordan Williams had the cheek to blame the media for “not having a debate” on the issue?
Jordan Williams needs to take responsibility for his Claytons-campaign. Blaming the media may work for Winston Peters – but coming from others, it is not a good look.
MMP won because,
- It is relatively simple to understand,
- The alternatives were unfair; unworkable; or hellishly complex to understand,
- New Zealanders simply didn’t feel inclined to change.
.
Labour
.
Was this a defeat for Labour?
No. I see it as a postponement of a victory.
In the next three years, as National’s policies really start to bite low and middle income earners, and those at the top increase their wealth, Labour’s time will come in 2014 (if not earlier – see Maori Party above).
I am picking a snap election in a years’ time, or mid-term.
And this time, National will lose.
As for Phil Goff – I hope he doesn’t step down. I think he’s actually grown in stature over the last few weeks. He won two of the three Leader’s Debates handsomely, and is able to pin down John Key on issues.
With the media/Key honeymoon well and truly over, Goff now has a chance to show up National’s weaknesses to the public.
The campaign for the next election starts on Monday.
.
Additional
Post mortem #1: Green Voters in Electorates
.
.
.
Election Eleven – Friday
.
Election Eleven – Friday
.
.
Not much blogging today. Busily removing ‘Vote MMP” signs before the midnight deadline tonight.
A few observations though…
.
.
.
An open letter to the Maori Party…
A point to make about Pita Sharples stating that if National gets back into power, that the Maori Party will vote against asset sales.
I’m glad to hear that, Mr Sharples.
But it ain’t that simple.
If National get back into power, with the Maori Party as their sole coalition partner, then National will assume it has Supply & Confidence.
National will then ‘tack’ asset sales onto their first budget.
If the Maori Party votes against asset sales, it will be ipso facto be voting against the government’s budget. This means that a National-led government no longer has Supply – one half of the Supply & Confidence equation required to govern.
Once a government loses a Confidence vote, or, cannot pass Supply legislation – that usually results in a snap election.
Think very carefully who you want to go into Coalition with, Mr Sharples and Ms Turia.
.
.
.
Kind of sez it all, really…
.
.
.
Latest Horizon Poll – released today!
.
.
.
The latest Horizon Poll has been released today, with results on,
.
- the electoral system referendum
- political party ratings
- Maori voting intentions
.
Electoral system referendum
.
MMP is still the preferred option, with FPP coming in second place. This will no doubt annoy the heck out of the “Vote for Change” lobby group, who chose the FPP-variant, Supplementary Member (SM) as their preferred option.
Big mistake, boys. I know why you did it – you believed that FPP was tainted by past political abuses of power (which is correct) and that Supplementary Member would be a welcome alternative. “Vote for Change” even touted SM as a “compromise between FPP and MMP – which it isn’t, of course. But you relied on low-information voters not knowing this and following your lead.
Unfortunately for “Vote for Change”, their non-existant campaign achieved very little. In fact, it was distinctly amateurish, to put it mildly.
The results,
.
Full Results.
Political party ratings
.
As usual, Horizon Polling results differ markedly from Roy Morgan, Herald-Digipoll, et al, because Horizon prompts Undecided respondants to state a preference. Other pollsters also often do not include Undecideds when calculating their percentages.
The poll results,
.
.
It’s interesting to note that the poll results for ACT, Labour, and the Greens match very closely other political opinion polls – only the result for National is markedly different.
For example, a Fairfax Media-Research International poll released yesterday had the following results;
- Labour – 26%
- Greens – 12%
- ACT – 0.7%
Very similar results to the Horizon Poll, with two important exceptions – Fairfax had the following results for National and NZ First;
- National – 54%
- NZ First – 4%
Significantly different to the Horizon Poll.
As the poll above stands, a Labour-led government is possible, with NZ First support. (And woe betide Winston Peters if he plays silly-buggers with Supply & Confidence.)
The election results will point to which company has gauged voter preferences the most accurately.
.
Maori voting intentions
.
As Maori politics follows Pakeha political movement and fragmentation along classic Left/Right lines, Mana and Maori Parties are becoming critical potentional partners for National and Labour. (Phil Goff may say he won’t go into Coalition with the Mana Party – but I believe he will need Hone Harawira’s Supply & Confidence to govern. He is hardly likely to turn down Mana Party support – critical if the left are to win on Saturday.)
Party Vote Results:
- Labour is attracting 27.6% of Maori nationwide
- Mana 14.9%
- Maori Party 14.9%
- NZ First 11.3%
- Green 11% and
- National 9.5%.
It is interesting to note that, generally speaking, Maori still favour Labour-led government;
- 20% of Maori want the Maori Party to enter a post-election coalition agreement with National.
- 53.5% would prefer it enter a Labour coalition.
- 45.8% of Maori would prefer Mana to enter a coalition agreement with Labour, 9.2% National.
If Horizon Polling is accurate – and I believe that their results are more realistic than the 50%, 53%, 56%, results that other polling companies have been coming up with – then National is on-course to being a one-term government.
And if John Key follows comments he made earlier this year, he will resign from Parliament.
Interesting times, indeed…
.
.
Maori Party and the new Conservative Party – some thoughts
.
.
. 
.
I’ve been thinking…
.
Maori Party
.
On the issue of state asset sales, Maori Party opposition appears to be luke-warm,
.
“Maori Party not keen on asset sales
Tuesday 11th October, 2011
Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia is trying to create some electioneering difference from her coalition partner by coming out against state asset sales.
National is campaigning on selling off stakes in the state-owned power generators and Air New Zealand if it’s reelected next month.
Mrs Turia says pressure to support the plan is coming on the Maori Party from iwi who want to invest in assets.
“We’re not going to stand in the way of iwi but at a personal level, a political level, we don’t support asset sales because what we’re fearful of is that overseas big buyers will come in and in the end our assets will be owned by them,” she says.
Tariana Turia says there are already protests against Chinese companies buying up farmland although Maori are always conscious that more than 94 percent of land in Aotearoa is now owned by non-Maori.” Source
.
Three weeks later, the Maori Party position on asset sales to Iwi became clearer, if only fractionally,
.
“Maori Party give iwi exemption on asset sales
Tuesday 1st November, 2011
Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia says her party doesn’t support state asset sales, but it won’t stand in the way of iwi who want to buy in.
The party’s manifesto released at the weekend said any privatisation must be managed in a manner that is consistent with Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
Mrs Turia says the party is aware that many iwi want a chance to buy shares in companies like Solid Energy and Mighty River Power.
“We’re not saying that we support asset sales. What we are saying is we’re not going to stand in the way of those iwi who believe that if they can buy in to those assets, to hold them in New Zealand, we support them,” she says.
The party is also pushing for a Treaty clause into the overseas investment legislation so iwi are given first right of refusal on any land being considered for sale to foreigners.” Source
.
I would suggest to the Maori Party that a more hardline rejection of asset sales would put additional pressure on National to reconsider their deeply unpopular policy. Key has already stated today (7 November) that SOE sales could be postponed – supposedly because of the deteriorating state of the global economy. But I suspect it more to do with public opposition to asset sales, and that focus-group testing has shown that Labour’s campaigning on this contentious issue is gaining traction out in Voter Land.
With the likely demise of ACT, and Peter Dunne probably losing Ohariu to Charles Chauvel, National would have only one potential ally remaining. As such, the Maori Party could easily “flex” it’s collective-muscle and put the brakes on this unpopular policy.
With 68% of voters opposed to asset sales, according to one recent poll, the Maori Party could be tapping into popular public sentiment on this issue by adopting a “me too!” oppositional stance to National.
Once the election is over, and the dust settles, the Maori Party may be the only force in Parliament able to stop the sale process.
The irony of this should not be lost on us; Maori preventing the alienation of state assets; promoted by a minority; against the wishes of the majority. Oh, the karma.
.
Conservative Party
.
Colin Craig’s Conservative Party appears to be gaining some traction with voters, and is actually beginning to register in the polls. Not bad for a new party, led by a relative “unknown”, that was registered only on 11 October this year. (Unknown perhaps outside of Auckland. Colin Craig stood as a mayoral candidate for Auckland in 2010, and finished a credible third-placing.)
Amongst their policies is a mixture of 1950s-style social conservatism; appeal to nationalist sentiment; and economic liberalism. In some ways, they are a more user-friendly version of ACT. Conservatism/economic liberalism with a human face, to borrow a phrase from the 1968 “Prague Spring” uprising. Or, as TV3 put it,
“The Conservative Party opposes selling state assets – in direct opposition to National – and has traditionalist views on marriage, abortion and child discipline – putting them at odds with Labour. ” – TV3
A recent Herald-Digipoll has the Conservative Party at 1.1% – higher than ACT, United Future and the Mana Party, in some polls. The Conservative Party could conceivably replace ACT as a credible alternative. Indeed, their Party List appears more diverse in terms of gender and ethnicity, than ACT’s Middle Aged White Men’s Circle-Jerk.
Analysis by Guest Commentator,
Historically Christian parties in New Zealand have struggled to achieve mainstream credibility because the appeal of underlying Christian values has been overshadowed by fears that they will go rabid on abortion, euthanasia and homosexuality. Colin Craig appears to understand this, as his recent comments that the state should not make moral judgements on behalf of individuals would indicate an intention to avoid positioning the Conservative party as a traditional Christian party in order to have a chance of eventually rising to MMP’s 5% challenge.
– Alastair, “Political Antagonist”
.
Curiously, Larry Baldock (List #3, Tauranga Candidate) and Gordon Copeland (electorate candidate only, Hutt South) appear to be “re-cycled” from Peter Dunne’s United Future Party, under whose banner they were elected as MPs in 2002.
If the Conservative Party attracts votes, it will most likely be from practically all centre-right parties; National, NZ First, and ACT, as well as centre-left Labour. The Conservatives appear to offer a bit of everything to everyone, and in some ways are not dissimilar to United Future in 2002, with a bit of NZ First thrown into the mix.
The real danger with this approach is that Craig runs the risk of making the party appear watered down, with questions about moral issues on his Facebook page often met with conservative personal views qualified by reassurances that the Conservative party are not jumping over themselves to enforce abortion laws or turn back the clock on homosexual law reform. That sort of response works well on social media as it has Craig coming across as a nice bloke who has firm social values and respects the views of others, but it simply won’t work in traditional media. If the Conservative party really does start to strengthen their profile then eventually a confident interviewer such as Duncan Garner will pin Craig down to aggressively and repeatedly ask the question “will you or won’t you” while Craig awkwardly dances around his weak and ambiguous policy position. The involvement of hard line Christian politicians such as Larry Baldock and Gordon Copeland look likely to further jeopardise Craig’s “too controversial, keep mouth shut” approach to formal party policy.
– Alastair, “Political Antagonist”
.
As the Conservative Party matures, and it’s policies become more embedded, electoral support will settle and it will attract mostly… well… conservatives. With a hint of raw nationalism in the form of opposing state asset sales. It will be the ideal home for disaffected “soft” National Party and disillusioned NZ First supporters.
After ACT’s demise, it’s supporters will most likely migrate to National, which they see as a potential home for colonisation and eventual “conversion” of the Party to orthodox neo-liberalism. An invisible ACT faction/ginger group will want to do to National what they accomplished in Labour in 1984-1989.
Will the Conservative Party win seats in Parliament? Perhaps, more importantly, the question should be: would the Conservative Party survive Parliament?
A part of me believes that the Conservatives have the potential to do well and chip away support from various parts of the political spectrum, particularly given the backlash towards the anti-smacking legislation, but another part of me worries that they may be spreading themselves too thin.
– Alastair, “Political Antagonist”
.
.
National and ? – some thoughts
.
.
.
I’ve been thinking…
.
National
.
That National is higher in the opinion polls than Labour is undeniable. Even the Horizon Poll – which has supposedly more accurate methodology than the other polling companies – has National at 36.8% and Labour at 25.7%. (Source)
Other polls have National at an unfeasibly high 56% – unheard of in an MMP environment, where up till now the highest Party Vote was National’s 44.9% in 2008.
If National is anywhere near 50%-51% of the Party Vote – enabling it to barely form a government – then it will have made history in MMP elections.
Assuming that National’s vote on 26 November will be somewhere in the high 40s – it will not have sufficient seats in the House to govern alone. It will need a coalition partner.
Which is where things start to get interesting…
.
.
ACT?
.
It is apparent to all but the but die-hard fan of ACT that Don Brash’s coup d’état in April has not achieved a single desired outcome for that Party. Brash’s toppling of Rogney Hide was done on the premise that Brash would re-focus ACT on economic matters and change it’s “brand” from a “chapter” of the Sensible Sentencing Trust, to it’s more traditional role of a neo-liberal party, espousing free market ‘reforms’; user-pays; asset sales; minimalist government; and the Cult of the Individual.
Brash has achieved none of those policy-goals.
ACT is polling well under the 5% MMP threshold (5%). It’s 1% – 3% poll rating rating is not sufficient to win seats in Parliament. It must therefore rely on winning an Electorate Seat, at which point the 5% threshold is set aside.
John Banks’ candidacy in Epsom has also seemingly failed to ‘fire’. Banks is trailing well behind the National Party’s candidate, Paul Goldsmith. Banks’ position is not helped by John Key stating publicly,
“I’m going to vote for Goldsmith. I am the National Party leader and I am going to vote for the National Party candidate and give my party vote to National.” – John Key
Which makes a mockery of the unspoken “arrangement” between National and ACT, and seems to be an insult to Epsom voters that whilst they are expected to give their vote to John Banks – the Prime Minister refuses to lead by example. Charming.
If, as seems likely, John Banks does not win in Epsom then, like Winston Peters losing Tauranga, ACT is out of Parliament.
Strike 1 for National.
.
Peter Dunne?
.
Since the height of United Future’s popularity in 2002, their electoral support has declined to margin-of-error polling,
.
.
United Future, as a political entity, is all but dead except in name. Peter Dunne is essentially now a one-person band – and even in his electorate of Ohariu-Belmont, is experiencing waning support with each election,
.
Peter Dunne, Electorate Votes 1996 – 2008
.
1996 – 15,915
1999 – 20,240
2002 – 19,355
2005 – 16,844
2008 – 12,303
.
In 2008, Dunne’s electorate majority over his nearest opponant, Charles Chauvel (L), was a bare 1,006 votes. At the rate that Dunne has been losing electoral support, and if even half the Green electorate vote shifts to Chauvel, then Peter Dunne will lose his seat in Parliament.
Strike 2 for National.
.
Maori Party?
.
National’s only remaining life-line; the Maori Party. Polls indicate that Maori Party co-leader, Pita Sharples, will most likely win his seat, Tamaki Makaurau. Whether he is join by other successful candidates from the Maori Party is anyone’s guess, and with their low overall ranking in the polls, the Maori Party is unlikely to approach the 5% threshold, much less cross over it.
In 2008, the Maori Party won five out of the seven Maori Seats. With the advent of the Mana Party, formed by breakaway MP Hone Harawira, and supported by many disaffected Maori Party members/activists, these seats are now contested in a three-way battle; Mana, Maori, and Labour.
As an indicator, Hone Harawira won his seat Te Tai Tokerau in a by-election, earlier this year,
.
.
If the Maori Party beat Mana’s challenge and win sufficient seats; and if they enter into coalition with National, then John Key is faced with the real prospect of having no counter-balancing Party on the Right. Unlike the 2008 election result which gave him ACT and Peter Dunne on the right, National will be governing at the “pleasure” of just one coalition partner.
Considering that the Maori Party has stated it’s opposition to asset sales (albeit lukewarm opposition), the partial-privatisation agenda may not go ahead as John Key and Bill English anticipated. (*whew!* The ‘family silver’ is saved till another day!)
John Key recently stated,
“I think it is important to understand if the Greens hold the balance of power it would be a Phil Goff Labour-led government and I think they would be quite upfront about that.” Source
The same could be said of the Maori Party. National’s re-election prospects now depend solely on the success of their Coalition partner.
National’s strike 3? We will have to wait till 26 November for the final result.
.
.
ACT and The Greens – some thoughts
.
.
.
I’ve been thinking…
.
ACT
.
Throughout this election campaign – and even prior to Don Brash’s coup d’état – ACT has been polling well under the 5% MMP threshold, that permits a Party to win seats in Parliament.
With such low voter support, ACT has relied on the electorate seat of Epsom, which Rodney Hide won in the 2008 General Election with a handsome 21,102 electorate votes. National’s Richard Worth came a distant second with 8,220 electorate votes.
Since then, ACT has suffered several set-backs;
- A very public coup, which saw Don Brash seize the leadership of ACT – despite the fact he was not even a member of that Party when he took over.
- A serious mis-calculation in advocating legalisation of marijuana. Whilst this would be reasonable policy for a quasi-libertarian Party – it did not go down well with the conservative folk of Epsom.
- John Banks reportedly “reigning in” his own Party leader on the cannabis issue.
- Deputy leader, John Boscawen, resigning under circumstances that were less than clear.
- Brash attempting to resuscitate anti-Treaty sentiment with a newspaper advert attacking “maori privilege“.
- Brash not focusing on core, economic issues, as he said he would at the time he took over from Rodney Hide.
- Nominating John Banks as the new candidate for Epsom – something that Epsomites seem less than enthusiastic about.
- John Key stating publicly that he was voting for the National candidate in Epsom, Paul Goldsmith.
.
Prime Minister John Key will not vote for ACT's John Banks for the Epsom electorate, instead giving his vote to National's Paul Goldsmith
.
With ACT practically falling apart before our eyes, it seems unsurprising that it barely registers in public opinion polls. It polls usually 1-3%.
Meanwhile, Banks is trailing behind Paul Goldsmith, despite the “unspoken arrangement” between National and ACT, the Epsom National Party supporters give Banks their Electorate Vote, and National their Party Vote. The idea being that if ACT scores over 1.2% of the Party Vote nationwide; and wins Epsom*; then Banks could pull one or two extra MPs into Parliament with him, as a Coalition partner for National.
So far there seems little chance of this happening. If current polling translates into votes on 26 November, then ACT is out of Parliament – another small party “bites the dust” under MMP.
One part of me views this possibility with a shrug and a “meh”. Considering ACT’s harsh right wing policies that most certainly favour the rich and corporate ‘elite’, it is hard to muster any sympathy for such a group.
But another part of me is… uneasy. Uneasy at the prospect of ACT’s demise.
Though I have no truck with that Party and it’s hard-line right-wing, neo-liberal, free market ideology – I cannot help wondering what will happen once it fails to return to Parliament.
What will happen to it’s supporters?
Where will they go, in terms of finding a new political “Home”?
Remember that ACT was founded by Roger Douglas and Richard Prebble – one-time Labour Party MPs. Douglas, Prebble, and other hangers-on had colonised a supposedly social democratic, left-wing party – and between 1984 and 1989, had managed to gain control of Labour. Like some parasitic organism, they had managed to take over the Host, and turned Labour into a precursor of the ACT Party.
A party of me shudders at the imminent demise of ACT.
Where will the ‘parasites’ end up? In which new Host?
The obvious choice would appear to be National.
If ACT supporters colonise National and become a viable, albeit invisible, faction within that Party – it will happen out-of-sight, and without the elecorate’s knowledge.
Voters in 1984 believed they were voting for a traditional Labour Party. They were badly mistaken.
National, with an agitating ACT faction vying for power and influence, could be a re-run of history.
Let’s not be too keen to see the end of ACT. Let’s keep the buggers where we can see them; out in the open.
.
+++ Updates +++
ACT polls at wipeout low in Epsom
.
The Greens
.
There has been some discussion recently about the (extremely remote) possibility of a National-Green Coalition, post-election.
The Green Party leadership seems frosty at the idea, and List candidate, Catherine Delahunty, has stated that she will resign if such a Coalition deal eventuates.
Most recently, this issue was canvassed during an episode of Statos TV’s “iPredict Election Show”, with Green MP, Gareth Hughes.
.
.
Personally, I have no great love for this notion either.
My first preference would be a Labour-Greens-Mana-(Maori Party?) Coalition. (And yes, I think such a notion would work. They all want similar things for their constituents, and despite some asteroid-sized egos at work, their party policies are not as divorced from each other as they like to make out.)
However…
In saying that…
Part of the rationale for MMP is that small parties act as a “brake” on the executive power of governments. Most recently this worked well when ACT voted – along with Labour and the Greens – to seriously amend National’s outrageously draconian, Police Video Surveillance Bill.
MMP is not just an electoral system – it is an extension of the Will of the Voter to prevent any one party from having total control over Parliament. The days of unbridled power by the likes of Muldoon, Douglas, Bolger, and Richardson, are long gone.
If the Greens can act as a “brake” on National – should it win the largest number of seats in Parliament – but not sufficient to govern on their own – then this option should be explored. With all due respect to Ms Delahunty – a principled person who does not appear to brook political shenanigans easily – let us at least look at what the Greens might achieve in Coalition with the Nats…
- No asset sales. Not 49%. Not 25%. Not 1%. End of story.
- No more demonisation and attacks on unemployed and other beneficiaries. Enough of the victim-blaming of this recession.
- Re-focus the next government’s attention on job-creation policies. This has to be a priority. Without jobs, we are sentencing a couple of hundred thousand of our fellow Kiwis to rot on welfare.
- Raise the minimum wage. Yeah, I know this is Labour Party policy – but somehow I dont think they’ll mind if you nick it and use it.
- Begin the re-building of Christchurch, in earnest. Enough with the messing around. As a famous sweatshop-operator-and-maker-of -footwear sez, Just Do It!
A Green-National partnership would be handy to achieve all of the above. But more than that – much more importantly – the Greens could pull National away from the Right, and back to the middle ground in politics.
That, in itself, would be a worthy achievement.
.
.
* Note
If a Party wins an Electorate Seat, then they are not bound by the 5% threshold, and can win as many seats as their Party Vote allows them, regardless of whether or not they are at 5%.
.
.
News Archives
Crony Watch
Keeping an eye on dodgy government appointees, crony-by-crony!
Frankly Speaking... 
