liberation

The Mana Party leadership widens – roles for Bradford, Sykes, Minto and Jackson

The Mana Party’s weekend AGM showed the fledging new movement to be evolving in important ways. It still has some real ideological problems – or perhaps strengths, depending on your point of view – because it’s not clear if it wants to be a leftwing or a Maori-oriented party, and it’s going to try and be both. But the party is also becoming a bit more dynamic as moves beyond being a one-man band. For example it is expanding its leadership base with the election of very strong joint vice presidents, John Minto and Annette Sykes, and the addition of potential candidates Sue Bradford and Willie Jackson. The involvement of Jackson, in particular, would be significant – if he chooses to run in the Auckland Maori seat of Tamaki Makaurau, the three-way race between him, Pita Sharples and Shane Jones would be one of the most intriguing of the general election. As well as this, Mana is now set to go head-to-head with the Maori Party in a battle to the death in all the Maori electorates. I spoke about this today on TV3’s Firstline programme (read here; watch here). The blog post elaborates on some of the points I made. [Read more below]

 

Hone Harawira – rebel with a confused cause

Hone Harawira’s departure from the Maori Party was almost always inevitable. The contradictions that plague that party – resulting primarily from the fact its base is amongst left-leaning low-income Maori and yet its leadership is situated on the political right, has now led to a spilt. The party has attempted to be a movement for all ‘its people’ – that is, a pan-Maori party claiming to represent the interests of low-income supporters as well as elite Maori (sometimes referred to as the Brown Table). The party has also represented a uniting of both pro and anti-establishment currents from the tino rangatiratanga movement. The MP Tariana Turia represents the most conservative wing of the party, with her exposal of a pro-capitalist ideology, attacks on the welfare state and her claims that the National Party has always given more to Maori due to its pro-market philosophy. Harawira had clearly represented the left-wing of the party, what with his history as a militant activist, his links with left-wing figures such as Matt McCarten, and with his occasional statements of support for unions and poor pakeha. However, the contradictions contained within the Maori Party are also present within the ideological makeup of Harawira himself, who espouses and represents both the ideas of class politics and identity politics. In this guest blog, John Moore argues Harawira should be respected for standing up against the Maori Party leadership, but that his eclectic beliefs will act as a barrier to him building a lasting new political movement that reaches beyond a narrow ethnically–defined constituency. [Read more below]

Understanding the latest Maori Party schism

This is a fight to the political death. Hone Harawira has been battling for control of the Maori Party, but now his caucus colleagues are fighting back. Today saw their declaration of war against Harawira vis the seeking of legal advice about how to expel him and through Te Ururoa Flavell’s formal complaint within the party organisation. This manuover is not so much about Harawira’s outspoken Sunday Star Times column – which is really just a pretext for the ambush on the rebel MP – but is more about a fight over the political direction of a pan-Maori party that has a very contradictory voter support base. This blog post attempts to explain what is happening in the Maori Party, and why. [Read more below]

Review of New Zealand politics in 2009

 

The year 2009 was a hectic one in New Zealand politics, partly because it was the first year of the new National Party Government’s term in office. At a general election in November of the previous year, National had ousted the Labour Party from its three-term tenure in office and formed a single-party minority government with support agreements with the Act Party, the Maori Party and United Future – all of whom gained ministerial roles outside the cabinet. In this first year, the new administration was both ideologically centrist and highly popular, being challenged only on difficult issues relating to the economic recession, political finance controversies over MPs’ expenses and various race relations questions. The following blog post examines these issues via a ‘Review of New Zealand politics in 2009’ which has just been published as a peer-reviewed journal article in the top political science periodical, the European Journal of Political Research (in the December 2010 edition). As well as looking at how the National Government fared in 2009, it also briefly analyses the main issues in politics (such as the economy, social issues, political finance scandals) and the changes in the other parliamentary political parties. [Read more below]

Key to Victory – Rahui Katene on the Maori Party's 2008 campaign

Rahui Katene’s account of the Maori Party’s 2008 election campaign is a rather insubstantial and slight chapter in the new post-election book Key to Victory: The New Zealand General Election of 2008 edited by Stephen Levine and Nigel S. Roberts. At only four pages long it’s the shortest in the book. And, sadly it’s not necessarily a case of ‘quality over quantity’ either – there’s little of interest or insight in Katene’s story. Instead of meaningfulness, there’s lots of vagueness, platitudes and wooly talk from the new MP. For example, she talks about how ‘The concept was that the Maori Party is the voice of the people, the face of the future. We listen to people’ (p.96). [Read more below]

Halfway through National’s term in office

The Sunday Star Times ran an article by Anthony Hubbard in the weekend about the state of the National Government which quoted me a bit – see Under-mining rich seam of popularity? (My comments also featured in an additional sidebar article which is not online, but is viewable on the right). In the blog post below I outline in further detail the analysis that I offered to the Sunday Star Times about National’s first year and half in office and about where it is going now. I argue that the National Government has been a relatively mild centre-right government so far, without any strong ideological momentum or sign of conviction. While it might not exactly be the friend of the working class, its also not the demonic, radical rightwing, reforming government that the left in New Zealand make the mistake of trying to portray it as. [Read more below]

Key to Victory – Colin James on the 2008 election

Why was Labour turfed out of office in 2008? Colin James puts down the Government’s electoral decline to Labour’s ‘failure of political management’ in areas such as the Electoral Finance Act and the so-called anti-smacking bill, as well as generally being punished for pushing a heavy socially liberal agenda. Labour also lost the electoral fight to show that it was the toughest on law and order. James says that the victorious National Party got there due to John Key’s ‘bland leading the bland’ strategy, which now results in a managerial ‘government by MBA’. James writes about these issue and others in a chapter entitled ‘2008: The last baby-boomer election’ in the new post-election book Key to Victory: The New Zealand General Election of 2008 (edited by Stephen Levine and Nigel S. Roberts). This blog post highlights some of the salient points made in this chapter. [Read more below]

Identity politics vs class politics - 2: Playing the ‘race card’ or the ‘class card’?

Phil Goff has been accused by many on both the left and right of ‘playing the race card’ with his recent speech attacking the Maori and National parties. For example, on the Pundit blogsite, Tim Watkin says Goff has veered ‘in an unwelcome new direction, playing the race card’ and that the speech ‘has the air of dog whistle racism’. Idiot/Savant at No Right Turn has called Goff’s speech ‘morally indefensible’, ‘a crime’, ‘cheap racism’, and a ‘cynical attempt to whip up racism’. But such kneejerk reactions show that New Zealand liberals have largely misread the nature of Goff’s speech. Rather than playing the ‘race card’, Goff has, if anything, actually been playing the ‘class card’. [Read more below]

Who runs New Zealand in 2009?

The 6th annual Listener ‘power list’ is out this week – seeking to shine a light on who makes up the modern New Zealand Establishment. This blog post offers an extensive critical summary of, and commentary on, the Listener’s list. Highlights include:

• Politicians do well on the power list. Although there are only 12 MPs in the whole list, 4 out of the top 5 are politicians. New entries include Simon Power, Judith Collins, Tony Ryall and Nick Smith.
• The Listener sure to do love John Key – although he’s too managerial and not rightwing enough
• The A-list ‘Top 10’ has been expanded by the peculiar inclusion of Phil Goff in the #11 position!
• One significant change in the A-list is Rodney Hide’s elevation from #7 to #4,
• Notably, Rightwing Treasury boss John Whitehead jumps into the A-list at #9
• Air New Zealand’s Rob Fyfe’s sudden inclusion at #6 of the A-list is a bit trivial
• The Listener heralds the inclusion of the country’s senior receiver, Michael Stiassny at #7, as ‘the most telling detail about this year’s Power List’
• Tariana Turia, is the only woman in the Top 10 power list at #8
• There are seven women on the power list this year; there are seven Maori
• The Environment category is distinguished by the arrival of five completely new environmental power listers – including Gareth Morgan. Nick Smith surges into the #1 spot from nowhere
• Four of ‘Business & Economy’ places go to either new entries or re-entries on the power list
• All five of last year’s Maoridom power listers have been delisted from this category in 2009; Pita Sharples is #2, transferring from #6 on the 2008 A-list, and coming in for criticism from the Listener
• In the Media category, John Armstrong of the New Zealand Herald is #3. And David Farrar has finally made the power list.

[Read more below]

The changing nature of ideological conflict in New Zealand electoral politics (1996-2008): The rush to the centre & the rise of post-materialist issues

To what extent does the left-right political dimension still structure political party competition in New Zealand politics? Where do the parties sit on that spectrum? What other political dimensions now underpin our electoral politics? This extensive blog post presents the findings of a regular survey of New Zealand political scientists about party ideological conflict that has been carried out for the three MMP general elections of 1996, 2002, and 2008. Explaining the results, and drawing on some previous blog posts, it argues that the left-right spectrum is of declining importance in New Zealand politics, and that ideological conflict is cohered to a greater degree by post-materialist issues. The major political parties in New Zealand now all agree on the basic post-Keynesian economic framework that dominates discourse and policy formation. No party fundamentally challenges the paradigm shift that occurred with the neoliberal revolution that occurred from 1984 onwards. All parties now agree, explicitly or implicitly, that the market is the best mechanism for generating wealth and distributing good and services. Within this ‘new policy consensus’ there is, of course, room for some limited discussion of when and where the state should intervene to correct market failure, but because there is essentially no debate of any substance around material/economic issues, what might be called ‘postmaterial issues’ now represent the arena for ideological and political conflict in parliamentary politics. Furthermore, within this post-reform era political conflict is underpinned by a strong pragmatism rather than principle. Some explanations are proposed for the rise of the new consensus, the decline of left-right conflict, and the increasing salience of societal issues in electoral competition. [Read more below]    

Maori Party's 2008 campaign

The Maori Party had three related objectives for the 2008 campaign: to win all seven Maori electorates, gain greater recognition as the ‘Treaty partner’ in Parliament, and have a role in the next government. Thus the party sought to project itself as the independent kingmaker of the election, hoping to take up the same strategic position that New Zealand First had held as an important player in past coalition negotiations, able to leverage disproportionate policy gains from the major parties. In order to gain this position, the Maori Party had to carefully construct an image of political neutrality between Labour and National. These are the issues that I focus on in the section on the Maori Party within my chapter entitled ‘Party Strategy and the 2008 Election’ which is part of the recently published book Informing Voters? Politics, Media and the New Zealand Election 2008 (edited by Chris Rudd, Janine Hayward and Geoff Craig). This blog post is the 12th of a series of explorations of the chapters from the new book, and it constitutes the original draft section about the Maori Party that I wrote for my chapter. Subsequently this draft was substantially reworked, edited, and condensed for the final book, so please see the published book for the final and ‘authoritative’ version. [Read more below]

The Maori Party and newspaper coverage in the 2008 NZ election

Newspaper coverage of Maori issues and the Maori Party during last years’ election campaign was very fair and reasonable according to a chapter by Ann Sullivan in the just published book Informing Voters? Politics, Media and the New Zealand Election 2008 (edited by Chris Rudd, Janine Hayward and Geoff Craig of the University of Otago Politics department). This blog post is the third of a series of explorations of the chapters from the new book (which I also have a chapter in). Sullivan says in her chapter that the 2008 media reporting was significantly better than in 2005 when sub-editing in particular relied on stereotypes and negativities. In 2008 the print media seemed more positive and ‘was generally fair, objective and reasonable’. [Read more below]

Review of New Zealand politics in 2008

Every year the European Journal of Political Research publishes a political date yearbook which gives a review of politics in a number of western countries. I contribute the section on New Zealand to the journal – last year’s publication on New Zealand politics in 2007 can be read here. Below is the first draft of my review of New Zealand politics in 2008. It still requires a bit of abridging and editing, and as always I’m interested in feedback and suggestions, which you can leave in the comments section or email me (edwards.bryceATgmail.com). [Read more below]

Election analysis from the left

There’s been very little insightful or interesting analysis of the New Zealand general election results from the left of the political spectrum. This is partly because much of the left is so strongly tied to either the Labour Party or the Greens – both losers in the election.  However, John Braddock’s socialist analysis is fairly solid. Writing on the World Socialist Website, Braddock’s article Labour government dumped in New Zealand elections is a hard-hitting explanation of Labour’s loss, which he explains as a clear ‘clear repudiation of Labour and its pro-business orientation by significant layers of the working class’. [Read more below]

Issues in New Zealand politics in 2007

It might seem a bit odd to have a blog post about issues in NZ politics in 2007. But every year the European Journal of Political Research publishes a yearbook looking at what’s happened in the previous year in politics of 20+ western democracies. For the past decade or so, this has been written by Jack Vowles, but this year I’ve given it a go because Prof Vowles is no longer in the country. And the latest Political Data Yearbook (Volume 47, Issue 7-8, 2008) has just been published. You can read this in university libraries, and some universities will have online access to it here. But for those that can’t, below is the text that I submitted to the yearbook.  Although it pertains to last year, hopefully what I’ve written is actually a useful context for understanding the current election campaign. The extensive analysis includes discussion of all the major issues from an action-packed policy year involving the ‘anti-smacking’ law, the Electoral Finance Act, extensions and enhancements to KiwiSaver and Working for Families, the terrorism raids, scandals about Air NZ in the middle east, employment and politicisation in the public service, and the charging of Labour MP Phillip Field with corruption and bribery. There was also the rise of John Key and the attempted revitalization of Labour. I argue that although it appears contradictory, political consensus and conflict increased in tandem during 2007. [Read more below]

Why the Maori and National parties fit together

Most on the left struggle to see how the Maori and National parties could ever coalesce or even how the Maori Party could help National into power. ‘Surely the parties are mortal enemies?’ they say. This fails to understand the political nature of both parties. These two nationalist parties have much more in common than most realise, and this means that their current repositioning could yet yield a closer working relationship or even a coalition agreement – especially if a repeal of the Foreshore and Seabed Act is involved. [Read more below]

Maori Party to favour privatization?

The Maori Party might be in favour of the partial privatisation of public assets – if it involves a shift of ownership to iwi corporations, according to co-leader Pita Sharples – see SOE shares part of Maori Party 'budget'. Sharples suggests that Treaty settlements could include the provision of shares in State-Owned Enterprises. In particular he suggests that Tainui should be given partial ownership of the generator Mighty River Power. Such policies are indicative that the party might be able to do deals with National over Labour (which rules out such privatisations). In general, it is difficult to discover the economic policies of the Maori Party, but today they intend to release an Alternative Budget to rival Cullen’s. It’d be interesting, as Sharples, so far appear to be rather economically rightwing – having pushed for private prisons, advocating for Maori business interests, and the work-for-the-dole scheme.

Once were radicals

Ethnic-based politics continues to reveal itself as a dead-end for the liberation of Maori in New Zealand. In the article below, republished from the Spark newspaper, I argue that although the Maori Party is not yet three years old, it's already proved itself to be a conservative and centrist political force with little to do with progressive and working class politics. [Read more below]

The "Maori National Party" or the "National Maori Party"

It appears to be becoming common wisdom that both the Greens and the Maori Party are now centrist parties, vying to be power brokers between Labour and National after the next election. This is today's story in the Herald anyway. Certainly the Maori Party has done a lot recently to position itself to work with National, and National are doing likewise. Last week John Key even said that if National-friendly Maori voters don't want to vote for National in the Maori seats, he would like them to vote for the Maori Party. That's quite an endorsement. As John Armstrong wrote recently, there's actually many areas where the interests of the Maori and National parties intersect: 'welfare reform, iwi-based delivery of social services, reviewing the treaty settlement process, and promoting Maori business enterprise'.

Add to this, Tariana Turia recent statements that her party is neither left nor right, but kaupapa and tikanga-driven, and you'll see the ideological trajectory that the party is on. Certainly the party's recent advocacy of work-for-the-dole - together with their immigration and law and order campaigns, and their courting of the corrupt Philip Field - should be a fairly solid signal that the party is not a left one. Meanwhile Labour is letting its grip on the Maori vote weaken, which opens the way for National to co-opt the Maori Party as a coalition partner.

A nasty racist, little blurt by Maori Party

The lack of debate on the Maori Party's anti-white immigration policy has been a bit disappointing. The Dominion Post reported that an economist agreed that Maori have a genuine grievance against immigration (but an argument that doesn't actually amount to much), and the Herald just quoted an immigration recruitment consultant (who showed that white immigration has in some ways been on the decline). A better commentary was made by NoRightTurn, who calls Turia's policy a nasty racist, little blurt. Meanwhile the Guardian reports on a Pricewaterhousecoopers study which shows that 'the flow of migrant workers into the UK has boosted economic growth and helped keep a lid on inflation without undermining the jobs of British-born workers'.

Maori Party and others want to erode civil liberties

A disturbing erosion of civil liberties is being promoted by a coalition of social conservative politicians, including the Maori Party. In an attempt to deal with gang problems in NZ, politicians want to use the blunt and authoritarian measure of banning people wearing gang colours in public. National MP Chester Borrows is promoting the bill in Parliament to outlaw this personal expression. He's being backed by idiot so-called liberals like Christchurch Mayor Garry Moore who has said he's behind the idea '150 per cent'. He wants to impose his own personal likes and dislikes on society: 'Gang patches are disgusting. All power to the police'.

All this follows on from Maori Party co-leader, Pita Sharples, whipping up anti-gang feeling. He wanted to look at all gang insignia being banned, and he threatened to name and shame gangs and their members. Such an approach is reminiscent of Deborah Coddington's publishing a book of the identities and details of convicted sex offenders. Disappointingly, Sharples has been cheered on by other Maori leaders such as Willie Jackson.

The Maori Party's anti-immigrant populism

The Maori Party have adopted a new populist and racist anti-immigration policy. But whereas populists like Winston Peters have suggested there's too much asian immigration, the Maori Party say there are too many whites coming to New Zealand. Party leader, Tariana Turia lamely rejects the comparison, saying 'No, we aren't playing the race card, because we are not talking about Asian immigration.'

Turia says successive governments had used immigration against Maori - this time to stop the 'browning of New Zealand'. She says the effect of white immigration has been to stop the Maori gaining an additional electorate in the latest Statistics NZ calculation. Note that this false logic if refuted by Kiwiblog. But Helen Clark answered Turia perfectly sensibly, by saying 'Our country has been built on migration. You're part of it, I'm part of it, our forefathers were part of it.'

Unfortunately Maori nationalists have for a long time been anti-immigration. In the past Maori radicals have called for a complete halt to immigration (and especially pacific island immigration) until Treaty grievances are resolved.

The future Maori-National coalition government

The Maori Party will be the kingmaker in the next Parliament, according to Matt McCarten. And the could conceivably go into a National-led government. McCarten's latest Herald column explain why the National Party is putting so much effort into improving its relations with the Maori Party, and may even support their Foreshore and Seabed Private Member's Bill.

McCarten correctly points out that Don Brash couldn't count, while John Key can. What he means by this is that National stupidly 'spent the last election smashing into Maori and cannibalising the votes of his potential coalition partners - Act and United Future. Despite a healthy National vote, it left the centre-right out of power'.

And could the Maori Party really go into a National government? McCarten no longer seems to categorise the Maori Party as being to the left of Labour. Instead, they are, like NZ First, a 'legitimate independent' party, which means they could.

Tribal business

Some people - especially on the left - seem surprised that the Maori Party and Maori businesses want Ukrainian fishers working in New Zealand to be paid a pittance. The Treaty of Waitangi settlement model and the Maori Party have always been about enriching a Maori elite, and it should be no surprise that Tariana Turia is now adamently opposed to a plan to raise the hourly pay rates of foreign fishing crews to $12.75. Such workers are contracted to catch 80% of the Maori fishing quota, and it's therefore in the interest of Maori capitalism to keep wages of these very exploited people as low as possible. But it shows just how reactionary people like Turia are, that they oppose any measures to improve these people's lot. A recent report apparently showed that some of these workers are being paid as little as $195 a month in New Zealand.

Evil?

It's quite extradinary that the level of debate in New Zealand politics has dropped to the point that politicians such as Pita Sharples call arguments they don't agree with 'evil' - in regard to Don Brash's view that there are no full-blooded Maori left in NZ and that a distinct ethnic group of Maori still exists. For what it's worth, I think Brash's points are probably correct and hardly that controversial. I'll provide some arguments and links to back up such an idea soon.

It's also interesting to remember that the Maori Party pronounced themselves above personal criticisism, but now label their opponents as 'evil'!

Update: The Sunday Star-Times has published scientific research that showing that on average Maori are at least 43% European. Clearly most Maori have a large amount of pakeha ancestry.

Ban smoking anywhere, any time, says Maori Party

The Maori Party has now decided that it wants to ban cigarettes - see the article in the full post below about Hone Harawira's new private member's bill. They essentially want to punish smokers in order to do good to them. But rumours that the party wants to ban cars because cars also kill people isn't actually true (though you never know...).

For a counter to this, try Smoking out the facts on spiked-online, which challenges some of the beliefs about the grave dangers of second-hand smoke. As expected the article puts up the sensible argument that the state should "Butt Out" of telling people how to live their lives.