liberation

[political finance] British Labour Party funding

In the UK - as in NZ - the Labour Party has been the wealthiest political party in recent years. Recent party funding figures suggest that this might be changing. The latest donation disclosure figures are out (for April-June), which show the Liberal Democrats got £783,000, Labour received £3.4m, and the Tories got £5.9m. According to the Guardian's David Hencke this represents a sea change taking place in British politics, although he says that all the main parties still play the role of representing billionaires rather than ordinary people.

Also of interest in the latest figures is the amount of debt that the parties have. Labour now owes £28m. No wonder it is selling honours. One of the strangest donations the 'chardonay socialist' party received was £5,927 for bottle-openers.

Peter Wilby has written a good opinion piece entitled Business wields more power over Labour than the unions ever did in which he argues that business now controls the party system destroying the setup whereby unions financed one party and business the other. He says that business actually prefers Labour to be in power:

A business-friendly Labour government is preferable to a business-friendly Tory government - even if a Labour one isn't quite as friendly - because it removes any threat of power falling to a hostile party.

I'm sure the same could be said in New Zealand.

All is not well with our world

In the UK there's recently been a lot of talk about "happiness", the fact that there is significant levels of personal and social malaise around, and the need for greater provision of therapists. As a counter to this, Paul Moloney, a psychologist, argues in the Guardian that what makes us most miserable is poverty and work. His opinion piece is one of the few decent attempts I've seen to put the unhappiness debate in a more political context. He challenges the mainstream view that 'the causes of psychological distress lie in the way that we see the world, not in the way that it is'.

No to all Kings and Queens

Much of the left in NZ loses their critical faculties when the issue of the Maori Queen (and now the Maori King) comes up. Chris Trotter was quick to line up with Paul Holmes in admiration for the indigenous royalty in A queen casts her spell. And then Matt McCarten wrote his Herald column this week on Maori royalty: Now's the time to get rid of the English monarchy and get our own in which he correctly says it's time to ditch the imperial royal line, but then strangely wants us to be subject to yet another (local) one.

Marx's Das Kapital: A Biography

Francis Wheen wrote an excellent biography of Karl Marx a few years ago, and is now back with Marx's Das Kapital: A Biography. I haven't seen the book yet, but you can read a reflection on it on spiked-online by Michael Fitzpatrick, who agrees with Wheen that Marx's 'Capital is unique, there is "nothing remotely like it".' Fitzpatrick relays his discovery of the brilliance of the book in the 1970s, and how it has become trendy again in the 1990s when it had apparently lost its subversive potential during the new period of capitalist triumphalism. Fitzpatrick correctly points out that against popular thinking, 'Marx does not advance a mechanistic thesis of collapse [of capitalism] or predict the inevitable downfall of capitalism.' Marx was not a fatalist but someone who saw the key factor of class struggle as changing the world.

[political finance] Trotter on Labour's unlawful election expenditure

Chris Trotter writes in the Sunday Star-Times that he's glad that the Labour Party stole the last election with their unlawful election expenditure - as Labour's actions were 'a courageous and forgivable kind of corruption'. For if Labour hadn't said 'Let's f--- these bastards' to the Establishment, New Zealand might 'now be experiencing civil strife on a scale not seen since the 1860s.' Trotter believes that a National government would have unleased 'a rampant Christian right' agenda rolling back the emancipation of women, reversing abortion rights, persecuting gays and lesbians, as well as Maori. New Zealand would be experiencing 'Racial conflict on a scale not seen since the Land Wars of the 1860s.'

Well I think Chris Trotter is a talented and insightful political commentor, who is somewhat uneven in the quality of his must-read journalism, but he really has lost the plot on this one...

Ideological convergence in Sweden and France

Ideological convergence is occurring in both Sweden and France according to recent opinion pieces in the Guardian. With elections about to occur in Sweden, and more distantly in France, two columnists have written about prospects of the left and how there's not much to separate left and right in these countries. Agnes Poirier compares the wannabe French socialist candidate Segolene Royal to the Tory leader David Cameron, drawing parallels on how influenced they are by Tony Blair in the article David wants to beat him. Segolene wants to be him. While Polly Toynbee warns the Labour chancellor to avoid the pitfalls of moderation that have led to the decline of the Social Democrats in Sweden: Brown must beware the human hunger for the shock of the new. The lesson in both articles is that these boring left parties offer no hope to electors.

Bring 'em all in

Here in the UK there has been a revival of the anti-immigration debate recently - mostly in regard to the prospect of more eastern european immigrants arriving when the EU is enlarged. Neil Davonport writes a robust counter in Spiked-Online to 'today's new anti-immigrant sentiment among the political class, sections of the media, liberals, greens and the left'. He argues for an open-door policy on immigration, saying that 'People from Poland to Peru, Estonia to Ethiopia, should be allowed to come and live and work in Britain as they see fit.' My agreement with this might be partly because I too am an immigrant in the UK, yet I'm constantly surprised to hear other immigrants express concerns about immigration. Also, I think the current influx of Poles to the UK, shows how on a practical level an open-door policy can work well - see the Observer article So far, migrant workers have been just the job. But on a more philosophical level, I also agree with Davenport that 'immigration controls are a disagrace and a menace to freedom, liberty and prosperity.' This is the same whether in the UK or in NZ.

Australia: Electoral bill blocks registration of new parties

With the demands for tighter electoral and party funding laws being raised at the moment in New Zealand, it's worth looking at what's happening in Australia to see how such state intervention and rules can often lead to very anti-democratic practices. The Howard Government has just introduced sweeping new electoral laws that aim to suppress any electoral challenge to the mainstream political parties. The new legislation automatically de-registers all nonparliamentary parties and blocks the registration of new ones. In a classic example of a cartel, the legislation was passed with the help of all the other parties including the Democrats and Greens. As the World Socialist Website rightly argues, 'To block parties that have not contested previous elections, or that failed to win seats when they did, makes a mockery of the electoral process'.

[political finance] How not to fix a rotten system

In her Sunday-Star Times article, Ruth Laugesen correctly labels party finance in NZ as ‘an ailing campaign financing system’. But the big question is how to fix it. While there are many who agree that the current situation is problematic and they admonish Labour and the other parties for their sins, their solutions are actually part of the problem. Sadly, on this issue, the bad solutions normally come from the left of the political system (or at least those who are considered to be the left or liberal sections of NZ society).

[political finance] Trotter's support for state funding

Chris Trotter has joined the leftwing chorus in favour of state funding of political parties, but he bases this support on an analysis of party change in NZ that is very flawed. It is worth dealing with his points.

What will follow Fidel?

With all the speculation about a post-Fidel Cuba, here's a thoughtful and more realistic understanding of current and future Cuba from the Spiked-online website. As this article argues, Cuba has in many ways already undergone its transition, especially in terms of the reintroduction of the market.

[political finance] Union money wasted on Labour

Investigate magazine has run an article on the Service and Food Workers Union and its support for Labour in the 2005 general election. Apparently, an internal union report says:

Overall the Union spent $237,364 during the election campaign. Around $100,274 was spent on printing, photocopying, postage, petrol cost, telephone tolls, the delegates' election conference and delegates' expenses. The cost for staff inovolved in the election activities was $137,090. Our Union dedicated almost 7% of [its] totalfinancial resources as well as one-month labour force for the election campaign.

I'm sure many of these union members think this is a huge a waste of money frittered away on a party and government that obviously doesn't care much about these workers. Such a huge donation to Labour is tragic, especially when you think about the levels of wages of those in this union.

Labour - blatant opportunism

'What part of shameless and arrogant does Labour not understand?' asks the Dominion Post in a savaging editorial about Labour's role in the unlawful election spending scandal. It's worth reading this editorial in full.

[political finance] Labour threat to media

The Government has clarified that it will not penalise the NZ Herald for criticising Labour's intention to pass retrospective legislation to cover it's unlawful election spending. But the suggestion that it might is pretty alarming. It is also now estimated that Labour's unlawful election spending in the 2005 election campaign was $800,000, followed by Act's $60,000, United Future's $40,000, and the Greens' $20,000.

The real threat we face is Blair

Tony Blair is a war criminal - says the latest John Pilger column about the alleged plot to blow up airliners leaving London - and he's the real threat to the British people.

Tory terrorists?

On the Guardian website, Brenden O'Neill argues that radical political Islamists sound a lot like Daily Mail-reading Little Englanders. O'Neill correctly points out that 'both are suspicious of modernity, both view the masses as lazy and vulgar, and both wish to turn the clock back to simpler, more humble times.' A very interesting opinion piece, with a lot of good debate to follow it.

Cuba's humanitarian mission

Cuba's healthcare system is an example to the rest of the world according to a good opinion piece on Guardian Unlimited. With all the current attention on the future state of Cuba, it's worthwhile looking at some of the country's achievements. For example, this small Caribbean nation has the world's highest proportion of doctors per capita. But more importantly, Cuba has assumed a major role in delivering humanitarian aid. It provides a nice contrast to the western aid industry.

[political finance] Poacher as gamekeeper - the Parliamentary Service

It is clear – from the Auditor General’s report – that Parliamentary Service has been approving unlawful spending by the parties for electioneering purposes. The big questions therefore are:

 

 

 

Why have the parties been able to get away with this for so long? And why have the Parliamentary Service been letting them? Incidentally, this is what The Press editorial asks: ‘The real issue here is why the parties were for so long able to get away with wrongfully siphoning public money into their election war chests, thereby making a mockery of the campaign spending regime’. The answer is that the Parliamentary Service is controlled by the Parliamentary Service Commission, which is run by the very parties that it is supposed to control. As my PhD section on this authority says (below), the criteria and parameters of how parliamentary resources can be used by the parties are made by the Parliamentary Services Commission (PSC), which is the cross-party parliamentary body that controls the Parliamentary Service and Ministerial Services. It is therefore a case of the recipients of the resources devising the rules on how they themselves can use them, something which might usually be viewed as a conflict of interest. This ‘poacher as gamekeeper’ situation appears to have led to a lax and dubious regime where parties are easily able to convert the lucrative resources into political tools. [Read more below]

[political finance] Parliamentary Service’s Fault?

Helen Clark has been trying to shift the blame for the unlawful election spending from the parties to the Parliamentary Service (PS). She – and other politicians – says that the dispute is really between the Auditor General and the PS. The parties argue that because this authority approved their unlawful expenditure it must therefore have been legal and if it wasn’t then any legal debt should be with the PS.

 

But, according to The Press, the PS apparently believe that they only ‘had only an accounting role in paying advertising accounts and that it was up to MPs to make sure their spending stayed within the law.’ National’s Gerry Brownlee has agreed, saying according to The Press, that ‘it was MPs, not the Parliamentary Service, who were responsible for making sure their spending was within the rules.’ Also in the NZ Herald report, Brownlee says that ‘Ultimately members are personally responsible for the way they and parliamentary political parties use the public resources entrusted to them.’ The Herald article backs this up, saying that ‘The principles [of the rules] expressly state MPs are "personally responsible" for the way they and their parties use public money and that the responsibility "cannot be avoided".’

[political finance] $350m of unlawful spending – Helen Clark

Helen Clark is probably correct when she says that the Auditor General’s ruling ‘held implications for $350 million in election funding spent in the past by political parties.’ Clark’s figure no doubt takes into account unlawful spending going back to the 1989-90 financial year, when the Fourth Labour Government implemented much greater parliamentary funding for the parties. Of this £350m, probably about $100m of it involves National Party spending – not just the $10,000. So I agree with National’s critics who say that if the party was serious about adhering to the funding rules, as it claims, then it should be repaying millions instead of the pittance that it has. It would have to confess back into the 1980s. As The Press says, the test for National will be how readily it repays any wrongful campaign spending from previous elections. There is no reason that the new ruling should not apply to previous years as well.

It is clear that the recent Auditor General’s report has huge implications. Most parliamentary money spent by political parties on communications has been deemed inappropriate. This is the same conclusion that my PhD found – see chapter Seven of my PhD at www.nzpolitics.co.nz

[political finance] Responses to the party finance coverage

Labour is clearly getting rattled by the scandal. Today’s Dominion Post reports that Helen Clark has ‘angrily accused some media yesterday of "defamatory" reporting on the issue.’

The Sunday Star-Times says the Auditor General has got it right with his report and urges him towards victory.

The Press editorial says the scandal ‘marks a new low point’ for the behaviour of the parliamentary parties. It points the figure at all the parliamentary parties, but correctly singles out ‘arrogant’ Labour, saying ‘This is the latest instance of Labour's cynical and unhealthy, power-at-all-costs political approach which has become all too common.’

The NZ Herald says Labour must repay taxpayers and notes that the gathering cartel that wants to pass the validating retrospective legislation is reminiscent of the situation when it took only seven minutes for Parliament to pass its ‘members’ superannuation enrichment’ legislation.

A few blogs are commenting on the story. Kiwiblog has of course taken a strong stance of condemning Labour’s actions. You’ll find some credible arguments on all the issues, but he fails to see that in the bigger picture National are in just as much trouble as Labour in their misuse of taxpayer funds. No Right Turn has taken a ‘balanced’ view on much of the issues, pointing out arguments for and against; and I See Red plays the usual labourite role of defending the indefensible and spinning Helen Clark’s spin.

Jack Vowles (professor of political studies at the University of Auckland) has also written an opinion piece in the NZ Herald about the scandal, which is generous to Labour and the parliamentary parties in general. Vowles takes up Labour’s line that because the funds have been misused in the same way for some time and because the PS has allowed them to do so, there shouldn’t be a problem. He argues in favour of increased state funding for political parties because they carry out a valuable and public service.

Union numbers up?

Further to the stories on the union numbers, George Lafferty of the Victoria University Industrial Relations Centre emailed me to say:

Just a bit more clarification on this. Collective bargaining coverage in fact increased over the past year (by around 7%). Both public and private sector coverage increased, although the public sector increase was significantly greater.

Obviously the previous reports on collective bargaining were even more confused than I thought. I'll post more information as it becomes available. But in the meantime, you will find a PDF file attached to this posting that is the most recent journal article on union numbers.

Download unions_2004.pdf

NZ to consider joining UN force in Lebanon

The Labour Government is now considering sending troops to Lebanon. Helen Clark is once again wanting to expand NZ's overseas military adventures beyond Afghanistan, the Solomons, East Timor, and Gaza. As in these other places, it is clear that NZ will again be taking on the policing role of the UN/US. The NZ military won't be there to defend Lebanon, but merely to impose the US and West's interests in the Middle East. Being part of the UN mercenary force protecting Israel's borders will mean that NZ will be a further part of the US regime's war on terror against the struggles of oppressed people. This might improve the Government's relations with the US and help NZ business get more work overseas, but it's clearly not in the interest of any real liberation of Lebanon.

Green Party parochialism

The Green Party's parochialist "Buy NZ Made" campaign might now be extended to a "Buy NZ Owned" campaign - whereby overseas made products would be promoted if the company is owned by a New Zealand businessperson. Although the Dominion Post think this might have the late Rod Donald turning in his grave, such a move is actually the logic of the Greens' nationalism. It's a short shift from the Greens' belief in trying to keep out products made by foreign workers to trying to protect NZ capitalists wherever they make their products. As David Farrar points out, 'Yes, you can get your products made in an overseas sweatshop, but so long as the company selling them is NZ owned, this may now qualify.'

Union numbers down?

Statistics released by Victoria University's Industrial Relations Centre show that proportions of workers in collective employment agreements has dropped. Reports in the media say, for example, that private sector employees in collective agreements has dropped from 21% in 1995 to only 9% now. Such stats have been reported here by NZPA, here by the Independent, and here by David Farrar - but all of these reports appear to confused collective employment agreements with union membership. The Vic Industrial Relations Centre hasn't reported on union membership since 2004, and will be doing so in a few months, but as I understand it, they don't expect to see much difference between the figures for 2004 and 2006. See below for more from the (confused) Independent story:

The Politics of Morrissey

Morrissey has a new album out, Ringleader of the Tormentors, so it seems like an ideal time to examine the misunderstood but interesting politics of the artist. This article is published in the August edition of revolution magazine.

[political finance] Labour push for public party funding

Following on from the latest party finance scandal, the Labour Party is once again pushing the idea of *direct* state funding of political parties. It should be clear that this isn't necessarily an attempt to get additional money - although it probably involves that too - but really just a response to the solicitor-general's legal opinion that puts all the parties access to millions of dollars of parliamentary funding at risk. What people normally fail to realise is that there is already a substantial system of state funding of political parties (through parliamentary resources), and that Labour's proposal is to establish a more direct form of state funding. In particular, Labour Party president Mike Williams has indicated his preference for adopting Australia's state funding model. For my own PhD argument against state funding, go to http://www.nzpolitics.co.nz/ and read 'Chapter Eight: State Resourcing of Parties'. Also see David Farrar's comment (and discussion) on this today, entitled Legalised Theft.

Lost in the Green wilderness

Green Party members sneer at New Zealanders who don't "get" tino rangatiratanga, which makes them feel virtuous and superior. So says Chris Trotter on his Dominion Post column this week. And he's probably right. Trotter says the Greens have a strategy of competing with the Maori Party for the "honour the Treaty" constituency, which is a mere tiny fraction of society. They have an elitist orientation to politics which means that don't understand Jim Anderton's 1980s advice to Trotter, to 'Always build your footpaths where the people walk.' Obviously there's always a tension for political parties between leading and following, but if, as Trotter suggests, your party has contempt for a public that just doesn't 'get' your separatist ethnic politics, then you'll never really build anything significant. The problem for the Greens is that they lurch between populism and elitism.

[political finance] Labour to legislate to over-rule Auditor-General

More on the misuse of parliamentary funding. Kiwiblog makes some good points here, asking whether Michael Cullen's intention to legislate for Labour's $446,000 overspend 'is not corruption, what is?' I'm inclined to agree, but as one commenter on his blog asks, 'Didn't National want to introduce retrospactive legislation to make their $100k overspend "legal"?' While these are quite different cases, both involve parties trying to paper over their breaking of the law with new retrospective legislation.

New Zealand wages rising (kinda)

Victoria University’s Industrial Relations Centre has released its report Employment Agreements: Bargaining Trends & Employment Law Update 2005/2006, which has some figures on NZ wages increases. Despite some top level news that wages are increasing, it actually shows that workers on the lowest wages are falling behind. Apparently, 'there are industries where the lowest wage has increased by less than $2 each year for the last 15 years. “The lowest paid storage workers are earning just $24 more today than they were in 1992, and for a community services worker it might be only $54 more”.' Inequality continues...

Business support for Clark

The Labour Party has once again received the tick of support from business. CEOs were asked to rate the effectiveness of the party leaders. Clark scored 34% excellent, 56% good and 10% indifferent. In vast contrast, Brash's rating was 9% excellent, 38% good and 53% indifferent. Rodney Hide scored very lowly - 2% excellent, 14% good and 84% indifferent. The Herald reported that Clark's overall mastery is admired by business.

[political finance] MPs may change funding rule

Parties in Parliament often operate like a business cartel when it comes to their state funding - they're always doing deals to protect and increase their access to taxpayer funds. This is more apparent than ever with the current scandal - as reported by the Dominion Post article MPs may change funding rule. Even though all the parties have probably breached the Public Finance Act, they will try to find a way to change the rules and avoid paying any money back. Apparently, 'Labour is likely to find allies in the Green Party, NZ First and possibly ACT in resisting the auditor-general's view that the use of their special taxpayer-funded leaders and members budgets during the election campaign broke the rules.' Already Peter Brown, Rodney Hide, and Jeanette Fitzsimons have expressed their opposition to the findings of the Auditor General. Fitzsimons quite blantantly declared that cross-party talks will be needed to find a solution - ie the self-interested cartel continues.

Website puts bosses' pay packages on record

In Britain the Trade Union Confederation has launched a new website that allows workers to access details of their bosses pay and profits. As the Guardian reports, 'workers can look up corporate details such as turnover and a company's pensions commitments. They can discover not only what the boss is paid, but also what the average worker earns, and whether shopfloor rises have kept pace with the executive suite.' What a great idea. The CTU should be doing the same in NZ - although it is more likely that Matt McCarten's Unite! union will take up this type of useful innovation. With such inequality in NZ workplaces, it only seems fair that employees should be able to know what's going on in their own workplace.

Protests in NZ against proposed probationary employment bill

The latest WSWS article about NZ politics concerns the Wayne Mapp private members bill to 'create an entire layer of insecure, disposable employees, whose position will be used to undermine the wages and conditions of every worker.' The article correctly points out that the campaign by the CTU and Engineers union is rather 'limited and desultory' and that they 'are intent on confining the growing opposition to lobbying and petitions, while deflecting popular anger over attacks on working conditions, living standards and basic rights away from the Labour government.'

Now is the time for MPs with union hearts to take a stand for workers

Matt McCarten's latest column for the Herald is about ex-union leaders now in Parliament. The theme of the column is about illusions - the illusions that McCarten and other unionists had in the desirability of getting the 4th Labour Government elected, the illusion of how useful it would be to get more Labour-unionists into Parliament, and now the illusion that some of the current ex-unionists such as Taito Philip Field, Rick Barker, and Lianne Dalziel might now support Sue Bradford's bill to abolish youth rates. I think McCarten is being somewhat naive or over-optimistic if he thinks that any of the current unionists in Parliament are suddenly going to rebel against Labour's neo-liberalism.

Ovens switches to Labour after winning union vote

Alliance president Jill Ovens has told the Alliance that Labour apparatchiks are 'dogs', but is jumping ship to them anyhow (see also the Herald article). Turning ultra-pragmatic, Ovens has decided that if she really wanted a top job in the Service and Food Workers Union she needed to put aside her politics and join Labour. The reason she gives is that Labour MP Darien Fenton had (incorrectly) told members of the Service and Food Workers Union that links to the party were crucial to their pay rises. Ovens used to challenge Labour and show how working people and unions shouldn't trust them, but now she's given all that away and even goes so far as praising what they've done in government.

Former Green MP joins National

I will be no huge surprise that Ian Ewen-Street, the ex-Green MP has jumped ship to the National Party. This move shows once again that there are many in the Greens that are politically not so distant from National. Ewen-Street doesn't apparently have any significant disagreements with the Greens, but has just moved out of total pragmatism, believing that environmentalism can be furthered faster with National. Never a particularly talented MP, the conservative Ewen-Street was chosen by the party to appeal to farmers and middle-class voters that would appreciate a less radical-looking and sounding candidate.

Meanwhile the Greens have launched their latest attempt to win over business support, with The Real Bottom Line - a newsletter 'for businesses and people interested in a sustainable economy'.

[political finance] Election ad spending was illegal, report finds

The scandal over NZ political parties use of parliamentary resources in the 2005 continues. Now the Auditor General has investigated the misuse of funds and its confidential report appears to label spending by most of the parties as unlawful - see articles in the Sunday-Star Times and the Dominion Post. Hopefully all the parties will be made to pay the money back. At the top of the list is Labour's $446,000 spent on the electioneering pledge card and the Green Party's $20,000 on its election newsletter Green Times. But this is merely the very tip of the iceberg. As the article say, at least $14m is available to the parties to misuse.

Political cross-dressing

Earlier this week, Tony Blair stated that 'policy cross-dressing is rampant and a feature of modern politics that will stay'. For anyone observing politics in UK, NZ, or anywhere he was essentially stating the obvious - but it was interesting to see him admitting it, if not celebrating it. If only Helen Clark and Don Brash were so honest! The Guardian ran a fairly good comment by left-Labourite Neal Lawson, in which he sums up the cross dress as being due to the all-party consensus on economic neoliberalism:

How we lost people's trust

Ex-Liberal Democrat leader in the UK, Charles Kennedy, writes an interesting piece in the Guardian today about the erosion in the public's faith in the political process. In it he recants for helping to produce this situation by avoiding debate on the 'the big, divisive issues - particularly at election time'. Kennedy says that politicians such as himself are to blame for following focus groups and ruthlessly targeting swing voters in order to get elected. Instead of raising the 'real issues of strategic substance' and attempting to influence public debate these things, he says parties are only interested in 'vote winners'. I guess this is all part of Kennedy's campaign to win the Liberal Democrat leadership back, but it's nice to read his confession and it's stimulated a good discussion on the Guardian site.

Inequality likely to increase with Labour's corporate tax cut proposal

Matt McCarten's most recent Herald column is about Labour's proposed tax cuts and their effect on inequality in New Zealand. McCarten argues that 'the tax cut for our wealthy isn't affordable unless it is made up from elsewhere' - and that it will, once again, be from the poor. McCarten's column is one of the few mainstream critical analysis of Labour and it's 90th anniversary.

Generation change under way

I missed this Fran O'Sullivan column when it was first published in the Herald a couple of months ago. It talks about how: 'Labour's new breed of business-friendly Cabinet ministers are starting to make a hit with New Zealand business'. O'Sullivan reports that ministers such as Lianne Dalziel and David Cunliffe have been responding to pressure from business in their portfolios. She says that 'Cullen's standard riposte to uppity business folk: "We won, you lost, eat that" - is not the order of the day when it comes to Labour's new generation of ministers, who now lose little opportunity to promote themselves as "on business's side".' Apparently Dalziel has been dazzled by the neo-liberal report called Rethinking Regulation, by an Australian taskforce headed by Gary Banks, with the job of reducing the regulatory burden on business.

Home ownership rate plummets

Plummeting rates of home ownership are another sign of a worsening inequality situation in New Zealand. The latest figures from AC Nielsen research (detailed in The Press and NZ Herald) show that in the last 12 months alone, home ownership has dropped by 12%. Owning your own home is increasingly hard as the vast majority of people's income's struggle to keep up with the rising cost of living and buying a home. This has got much worse while Labour have been in government.

Home ownership when Labour came to power in 1999 was 74%. It dropped to 68% in 2001. By 2005 it was down 50%, and the latest statistics put it at 44%. In NZ's biggest city, Auckland, it has plummeted in the last year by 26% or 95,138 people.