liberation

NZ Politics Daily: 31 May

It’s normally the case that reforming governments implement their most radical policy changes during the first year or so of their parliamentary term, leaving the third year of the electoral cycle to sell those reforms. The Key National Government seems to almost be doing things the other way around, implementing – or at least announcing – the more radical stuff in election year. Welfare reform is one of those areas, rearing its head at the moment with National’s declaration that such reform proposals will be at the centre of its reelection sales pitch – see: Nats’ welfare crackdown centerpiece of campaign. But just how radical and rightwing are such reforms likely to be? Gordon Campbell paints a picture of an extreme anti-welfare government in his article, On John Key’s Assault On The Welfare System. Campbell suggests that Key’s ‘moderate’ fig leaf is dropping away, and in fact John Key is even more rightwing than outgoing Treasury head John Whitehead (who apparently has concerns about our growing inequality gap). Meanwhile, Andrea Vance has a more skeptical view of what’s going on – see: Welfare carrots and sticks – in which she says that this week’s announcement tells us nothing new, and is actually characterized by the Government treading carefully. 

Typically, Phil Goff has responded to the looming reforms with the rather weak response that ‘raising the minimum wage would be a better way of getting people into work’ – see: Goff backs wage rise over welfare reform. Goff’s reluctance to take a harder oppositional line is, no doubt, based on his knowledge that there is indeed a strong public desire for some sort of reform, and hence he doesn’t want to be seen as ‘in favour of welfare abuse’. In reality both Labour and National are expert at welfare reform rhetoric, and neither party is likely to actually make radical changes. The epitome of this style of reform was the Clark Labour Government’s 2003 ‘jobs jolt’ welfare reforms, which were big on anti-welfare rhetoric but had little real effect. So while there should be no doubt that National will come up with some rightwing reform proposals later this year, compared to what the Welfare Working Group advocated National’s policies will be much weaker. The actual ‘ratio of rhetoric to radicalism’ will be the interesting part, as will Labour’s response. 

National is also sounding fairly radical in terms of public sector reforms – see: Cuts ‘a necessity’, says English. But the extent of the reforms is unlikely to be too controversial amongst the voting public outside of Wellington. Overall, the Government will continue to sell itself as ‘moderate’, which it has done very successfully so far. In fact, according to Chris Trotter’s Press column Voters may stick with familiar this is the important part in understanding the current Government’s very high opinion poll ratings: ‘The strategic choice which has defined Key's first term as prime minister is whether to embrace the radical neo-liberal policies urged upon him by his far Right critics in 2009 and 2010; or, to hold fast to the policies of political and economic moderation which had secured his 2008 election victory.  To his credit, Key has steadfastly refused to abandon his moderate stance. Stratospheric poll results have been his reward’. Therefore, unless we see any substantial change of political strategy from Key and National, we can expect that upcoming welfare and public sector reforms will indeed be rightwing and austere, but probably nothing near as radical as much of the political left in New Zealand are currently alarmed and excited about. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

NZ Politics Daily: 30 May

Anyone could be mistaken for thinking that this year’s election will be the battle of the minor parties. After all, with Labour and National being as bland as ever, suddenly Act, the Greens, NZ First, Maori, and Mana seem relatively fascinating. Yet, according to the polls, the combined support for these parties is still tiny – only about 11% in total. This compares, for example to the first MMP election in 1996, when the minor parties together won 39% of the vote. By the 2008 election, support for minor parties had halved. People have lost interest.

Of all the minors, the Greens are still the most interesting. Yet, they too are consciously attempting to emulate the major parties by becoming blander – there is a slow-but-certain evolution from the colour green to the colour beige. The latest party list announced in the weekend confirms this shift, with really nothing very exciting going on with the new list, even though there is supposedly an influx of ‘fresh new blood’. As David Farrar points out, this ‘new blood’ includes 56-year-old Steffan Browning at 12 on the list: ‘The press release from Metiria Turei doesn’t mention Browning at all, despite him being the big mover. This suggests they are not too happy with his promotion – possibly he is seen as too old being in his late 50s’. So, add Browning to the beigeness personified by Kennedy Graham (#5 on the list), Eugene Sage (#6) and David Clendon (#8), and the Greens are really in trouble of losing their reputation for colourfulness and vitality. John Pagani also suggests that the Greens appear to have taken the same identity politics approach as Labour to constructing its party list: ‘Sitting MPs have been protected, and new blood appears to have been advantaged where it brings, ahhh, identity diversity’. Pagani also won’t be alone in wondering how Catherine Delahunty has managed to get a ranking of 4. But for the strangest of all the media commentaries on the new Green list, see: John Hartevelt’s Some parties look better naked. Some don't ...

Act is in less trouble of being perceived as bland. Instead, the party’s problem amongst voters is a reputation of being ‘extreme’ – see: Audrey Young’s article Survey reveals voters wary of ‘extreme’ Brash. This will, no doubt, be one of the central campaign issues of 2011, whereby Labour and the Greens continually use Act’s reputation for extremeness as a weapon against National. Audrey Young also has a very good analysis of the dynamic between Don Brash and John Banks in today’s column, Pals until the election – but for how long after?. And with the involvement in the party of Lindsay Perigo and Hilary Calvert (with all of her interesting business ventures the Act Party will help keep the coming election campaign interesting. But blandness is certainly the problem of the moment in NZ politics – especially for Phil Goff. That’s the (harsh) opinion of Matt McCarten – see: Goff really needs to go…to labour a point. 

Other media pieces worth reading today, include John Armstrong’s Key’s smile shows full set of shark’s teeth, Andrea Vance’s excellent summary of the political use of social media: One foot on the virtual doorstep  and the Herald’s editorial, Opinion is free in internet age. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

NZ Politics Daily: 27 May

Social media is clearly shaping up to be one of the major battlegrounds for the 2011 election campaign (at least for politicos). Facebook and Twitter in particular is now where a lot of political debate is occuring, with politicians and voters preferring Facebook, and journalists and bloggers strongly inclined towards Twitter. In his weekly Herald media column today, John Drinnan, talks about How tweets make twits of journalists, with some interesting cautions about the media’s use of Twitter, but also about the problematic anonymity of social media and blogs. Elsewhere the attention is on the regulation of such social media interaction – which will often fall under the legal definition of ‘election advertising’, and hence the Electoral Act will apply, especially in terms of the ban on such advertising on election day. Toby Manhire covers this well in An election day Twitterstorm looms. Bloggers and commentators have been pondering whether the Electoral Commission’s warnings over tweets is really enforceable, or whether the actual law is dysfunctional. A number are sensibly asking whether the old rule of banning all electioneering on election day is really necessary – the must-read example of this is Imperator Fish’s blog post, Our Silly Election Day Law, where it is argued that we should ‘be able to tweet, post or broadcast as we please’. But for a reminder that there’s more to media and politics than Twitter, Facebook and blogs, try Chris Trotter’s Politicians stockpile secrets that give them power and Colin James’ Mediating the new media. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

Inequality in NZ: CEO pay

With issues of cost of living, austerity and economic inequality making a comeback in New Zealand politics, there is likely to be an increasing focus on the incomes of this country’s super-wealthy and on the question of whether such people are also ‘suffering’ or prospering during these austerity times. In this regard, two recent newspaper reports provide conflicting evidence on the plight of CEOs. Jennie McManus, a very business-friendly journalist reports on Stuff that ‘Kiwi CEO salaries have been hammered harder by the recession than those of general staff’, while Christopher Adams says in the NZ Herald that the average pay of the bosses rose by an average of 14% last year. This blog post unpacks some of the figures and claims. [Read more below]

 

NZ Politics Daily: 26 May

After a deluge of political news and analysis over the last couple of weeks, we’ve suddenly entered a drought – due mainly to the fact that MPs are on holiday (or ‘recess’) for two weeks. Political bloggers are also quiet at the moment, with few quality posts to reproduce today. While normally NZ Politics Daily has to be cut back in an attempt to keep the document from getting too big, today it’s been a struggle to find enough meaningful material. Nonetheless, it’s exactly six months to go until the general election, so I’ve included the text and video links for a TV3 Firstline interview I gave this morning. But for a more thorough version, see Duncan Garner’s The week in politics. And, because it’s a slow political news day, I’m also highlighting my own blog post, Labour’s “let’s not” web campaign, in which I argue that ‘The Labour Party has a massive image problem. It’s seen by the public as too politically correct, earnest, dull, mean-spirited and authoritarian… This week’s launch of Labour’s “Let’s Not” viral website campaign attempts to combat Labour’s negative image by offering up something irreverent, humourous, and light-hearted to the Facebook generation… [But] Unfortunately for Labour, the “Let’s Not” web site is more likely to be seen by most as gimmicky, superficial, condescending, insular, and missing the zeitgeist by about ten years’. 

Similarly, political design expert Claire Robinson is quoted in Claire Trevett’s article, Casual look puts Goff into electoral danger zone suggesting that when politicians such as Phil Goff attempt to reinvent their image with a new casual clothes look, often ‘you get the impression they're trying too hard to present themselves as something they aren't’. 

Elsewhere, dealing with economic matters, Gordon Campbell bemoans in What's really in the Budget? that the media/’expert’ attention placed on the Budget each year is too short and sharp, which often leaves some of the more significant details of the Budget unexamined. He pinpoints some of the cuts that haven’t been discussed properly, and argues that although ‘the government appears to have succeeded in painting this as a Budget of moderation’, eventually ‘the drip-fed consequences of the Budget cuts will put that image of moderation to the test’. 

Brian Fallow has an in depth discussion about the cuts to KiwiSaver – New-look KiwiSaver faces popularity test – and along the way deals with the disingenuous economic argument used by every political party in which they ‘claim it is "crazy to borrow to pay for" whatever policy they don't like’. By hiding behind the slogan of ‘fiscal conservatism’ they use this ‘cheap rhetorical trick’ instead of arguing against the merits of what the money is being spent on. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

Labour’s “let’s not” web campaign

The Labour Party has a massive image problem. It’s seen by the public as too politically correct, earnest, dull, mean-spirited and authoritarian. Hence the nanny state label attached to the last Labour Government. This week’s launch of Labour’s “Let’s Not” viral website campaign attempts to combat Labour’s negative image by offering up something irreverent, humourous, and light-hearted to the Facebook generation - those in the 18-40 age-bracket who get a lot of their information from the internet. These are also the people who are less likely to engage in politics and to vote. And they’re the group that are probably most alienated from Labour, due to the party’s anti-fun image. The  “Let’s Not” campaign is relatively apolitical, with many of the jokes having little or nothing to do with politics. From Labour’s point of view, then, it’s a perfect approach for our post-ideological age. The party has noticed the anti-political mood and cynicism amongst young (non) voters and is seeking to match that with it’s own lowest common denominator approach to communicating its politics. Unfortunately for Labour, the “Let’s Not” web site is more likely to be seen by most as gimmicky, superficial, condescending, insular, and missing the zeitgeist by about ten years. [Read more below]

Time to challenge Dunedin’s MPs about the Budget

Amongst all the trivial political manoeuvrings and carry-ons of parliamentary politics, there are in fact some serious issues that get discussed and decided upon in Wellington. So, for every scandal involving personal behaviour or inappropriate minor public spending, there are decisions being made that have an important impact on our lives. The Government’s annual Budget is one of these. [This blog post is a reproduction of my monthly politics column in Dunedin Fairfax newspaper DScene, out today]

NZ Politics Daily: 25 May

The National Government probably thought that last week’s Budget day went fairly well – there were the expected criticisms, but hardly riots in the streets. They might however, be surprised to find that its Budget and economic plans are being subject to continued critique this week. The flaws and problems are still being picked up on. For instance, Audrey Young’s article, Govt’s KiwiSaver cut will kick in earlier than election, investigates the truth of John Key’s statement that the cuts to KiwiSaver will only take place after the election, and finds a slight of hand whereby ‘The new lower rate applies from July 2011 - though payment for it will not be made until July 2012’. Such a fact will play into the hands of National’s opponents wanting to paint Key as ‘slippery’. Also, John Hartevelt’s article, Key’s post-Budget flattery fails reveals the Prime Minister’s sales approach to the Budget, and highlights Key’s ‘boast’ to businesspeople that National has eased the tax burden of the wealthiest New Zealanders. And Adam Bennett’s article, Sell-off spectre over Kiwibank raises questions about how and why the Treasury could come up with such incorrect Budget figures about the assets of state-owned Kiwibank.

One of the key stories of the day that should be getting more attention is Michael Field’s Maori warned over ageing foreign fishing boats. This in fact leads on nicely from the in depth feature by Frances Morton in the weekend entitled Kiwi wage slaves lagging behind, in which it’s suggested we’re becoming a cheap-wage economy.

The Labour Party would do well to be concentrating on this type of issue, but instead, today it launched a so-called viral website ‘let’s not’ campaign which once again illustrates how out-of-touch and contrived it is when the party tries to be down with the kids. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

NZ Politics Daily: 24 May

The Labour Party’s woes are laid starkly bare in today’s Press column by Chris Trotter, Lowered Expectations: Labour Party Congress 2011. Delivering a damning verdict on the health of the party, Trotter laments Labour’s stifling top-down conservatism and the sudden snuffling out of radicalism that he previous detected growing amongst the party activists. In fact, he says that in 2011 the ‘rank-and-file is much more subdued’, and the parliamentary wing has re-asserted itself over the party, leading to the cautious return to the tired old ‘third way’ ideology of the 1990s with all of its business tax credits, fetishism of ‘innovation’, and hollow rhetoric about inequality. And in this Trotter is particularly damning: ‘Annette King’s policy announcement: that Labour will be “investing in and supporting people who are willing to raise children” was less impressive. Her proud boast that the next Labour Government would “eradicate child poverty in New Zealand” rang tragically hollow in the absence of any firm commitment to restore the purchasing power of the Domestic Purposes Benefit to pre-1991 levels.  While 225,000 children are being raised on the demonstrably inadequate post-Jenny Shipley DPB, child poverty can only endure’. Trotter also bemoans that the annual Congress largely closed itself off to the outside world: ‘The decision to uphold the tradition of keeping the media out of Labour’s policy workshops in election year – in spite of the party’s parlous position in the polls – speaks eloquently of both the parliamentary and the organisational leaderships’ determination to lower rank-and-file expectations of exactly how far and how fast the party can be steered to the left’. 

Trotter’s sentiments aren’t an isolated response to Labour’s recent performance. Today’s NZ Herald editorial also highlights the lack of ‘interesting new ideas’ and ‘bold thinking’ in the party – see: Labour needs to find much better ideas. And if Andrea Vance’s column, Labouring the point, is anything to go on, then it seems that political journalists opinion of leader Phil Goff is at an all-time low, with Goff’s now shifting into Winston Peters-style territory of berating the media for the woes of his party. Rightwing columnist Richard Long can be expected to be hostile to Labour, and today his column is no surprise – Where’s Goff going to find $10b? – but nonetheless he does ask the type of question that Labour better get used to. There is no doubt Long is correct that Labour will campaign well on ‘the cost of living’ but ‘the election spotlight’ will ‘be on Labour’s spending plans’. There are plenty of questions today about how Labour could afford it’s R&D policy, and no one seems satisfied with the answers.

For a deeper explanation of the state of the Labour Party, read Colin James’ excellent column in the ODT today, Anyone for a fair go? Labour looks for a line. James explains very insightfully about Labour’s long-term shift from being a workers’ party to that of being an ‘identity politics’ party of the middle-income professionals that are motivated by single-issue agendas rather than leftwing and working class interests: 

‘His party is essentially middle-class. Professionals with degrees are prominent. Most, though they will usually have "working class" one or two levels back in their ancestry, have not lived at the bottom or even a rung off the bottom. (Goff is an exception.)  It's not unusual to come across candidates and activists whose parents were National voters. They have made a choice based on political philosophy or "values".  The result is that many Labour activists empathise with less-well-off voters rather than sharing their gut-feelings.  And that pushes Labour towards high-level policy solutions’. 

James notes that in 2011 Labour has suddenly dropped its 2009-10 leftist mantra about ‘fairness’ and is now pushing the more post-ideological term ‘fair go’. Goff is also pushing environmentalism and innovation, but James says that’s ‘All good stuff for the liberal-left middle class. But neither R&D nor the ETS is likely to set pulses racing in the lower-income suburbs’. This is all part of Labour’s divorce from the union movement – ‘Labour is no longer in thrall to the unions’. Although some of the elite linkages with unions remain, James points out that ‘it was notable that Goff, while promising a $15-an-hour minimum wage, did not mention unions in his speech’, and when the CTU’s Helen Kelly spoke to the conference, only about 150 of the 450 delegates bothered attending: ‘Not a great show of solidarity with the party's brothers and sisters in the union movement’.[Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

 

NZ Politics Daily: 23 May

The Labour Party is finally getting to the top of the political news reporting – mostly because of its weekend election year Congress. Audrey Young reports from the congress about the rising internal party profiles and mana of Trevor Mallard, Kelvin Davis and Grant Robertson especially – they’re all future powerbrokers of importance in Labour. Mallard has great mana, because ‘He is the shadow leader of the House, the procedures guru, the driving force behind the Red Alert website and now the campaign manager’; and Robertson was the MC for Labour’s weekend Congress, and is now ‘Labour's campaign spokesman’. Young says he’s ‘the fastest-emerging powerbroker in Labour’. See: Goff has gone the distance since glory days of ’81 tour. Vernon Small also has an interesting column, looking at how Labour is changing its orientation towards combating National and the economy. It is no longer attempting to rally anti-austerity movement against the Government, but instead wants to show that it can be more responsibly austere than National: ‘Now it is adopting a similar debt reduction track to National's and is promising every new spending promise is funded or matched by a saving elsewhere.’ In other reports, Goff says Labour may not be able to roll back National's KiwiSaver changes if elected. And, in terms of Labour, John Armstrong has a good column - Labour confined to a fiscal straitjacket in which he explains further Labour’s attempt to be fiscally conservative.

There’s still plenty of good commentary about last week’s Budget. The most accurate and insightful commentary on it was actually an Editorial, in the Sunday Star Times - Key’s reign of greyness tints budget. Because it is not currently online, it’s worth quoting at length:

The Budget was grey, like so much else about John Key’s government. It is neither slash-and-burn nor borrow-and-hope, but a weird sort of wasteland in between. It takes risks, but not huge ones. It shifts the responsibility for a lot of the cutting in government departments to the department heads themselves. For the civil service, the budget is jet-black, and it is impossible to believe that it won’t lead to cuts in services, as well as ‘‘back office’’ work. The politicians make the safe-ish gamble that bureaucratic suffering will not cause widespread anguish…. The Budget is an apt symbol for Key’s New Zealand: unexciting, middling, cautious, but leaning to the right, ‘‘boring but in a positive way’’, as Federated Farmers hilariously put it. In modern-day New Zealand, things do not fall apart, and the centre can hold for an awfully long time. In the great grey middle, there is a lack of conviction and only at the extremes a passionate intensity…. All the more radical or imaginative ideas for change have been shelved. The bold suggestions for tax reform, such as capital gains taxes, land taxes or assets taxes, went nowhere. Instead, Key cut income tax and put up GST, favouring the wealthier folks, but not by so much as to cause a revolt. At the same time, the Budget made no move to radical welfare reform either. That question seems to have been shelved, and it will be interesting to see whether National plans to make it an election issue. So we muddle along. It’s not an exciting time to live in Aotearoa, but perhaps, in uncertain times, most voters prefer caution and reassurance from their government.

Also in the Sunday Star-Times, Anthony Hubbard – possibly the author of the anonymous Editorial? – has a similar and useful analysis of the political astuteness of John Key and the 2011 Budget – see: Key still sees good times ahead. Also worth reading, is John Armstrong’s National will pay if voters feel fooled, Vernon Small’s Labour rolls up its sleeves on economy, and Tracy Watkins’s Goff’s challenge to unbalance Key. Or for a different view of the Budget, have a look here at Budget 2011 images and cartoons on my blog site, liberation. After all, sometimes to understand a political event or issue, the images and cartoons that are published about it can be very insightful. Obviously they present a very distorted and simplistic view of any event or issue, but nonetheless by looking at a wide selection of images and satirical views, you can at least obtain some sort of view of how the public is thinking - or are being told how to think. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

Budget 2011 images and cartoons

To understand a political event or issue, often the images and cartoons that are published about it can be very insightful. Obviously they present a very distorted and simplistic view of any event or issue, but nonetheless by looking at a wide selection of images and satorical views, you can at least obtain some sort of view of how the public is thinking - or are being told how to think - about something. Below is a collection of about 60 such images collected over the last week or so, that pertain the National Government's Budget 2011. If I've missed any, please let me know. [Read more below]

 

NZ Politics Daily: 20 May

Today’s NZ Politics Daily is entirely dedicated to the Budget. There’s been a massive amount of news and analysis generated by the Budget, and what is included below are simply the most essential points of view to read about the Budget. They're categorized by theme, and within those categories, the material is ranked from most to least important. My own commentary has already been in various places in the media, and I’ll be writing some further blog posts about the Budget over the weekend. But note should be made, especially, of the following items: 

• John Armstrong: A fairytale of high hopes on a frayed thread

• Rob Hosking (NBR): Trim and singe, not slash and burn

• Rob Hosking (NBR): 80 years since cuts like this

• Tim Hunter and Kate Chapman: Budget keeps credit ratings secure

• Adam Bennett: Pay more to save the same, workers told

• Derek Cheng: ACC biggest loser in widespread cuts

• Duncan Garner: KiwiSaver trimmed but not slashed

[Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

NZ Politics Daily: 18 May

The National Government’s sales pitch for the Budget has become fairly clear over the last week: it’s all about economic growth and turning around the large deficit. In an attempt to manage and lower our expectations, they’ve already given us the bad news, and tomorrow they’ll attempt to wow us with promises of significant future economic growth and a very speedy return to budget surpluses. What is less clear, however, is Labour’s sales pitch for dissuading us from ‘buying’ National’s Budget and economic prescriptions. After nearly three years of not knowing how to take on the Government, Labour appears as if it might finally be formulating a more robust response. For more on this, read John Armstrong’s insightful article Lifting the economy Labour's new focus and David Cunliffe’s Herald opinion piece, Borrowing, splurging for rich has to stop. Colin Williscroft’s NBR piece, Bold budget needed, Business NZ told also provides details of Cunliffe’s message on the Budget. It seems that Labour is going to put less emphasis on exposing inequality and opposing austerity, in favour of a greater focus on National’s lack of substance and boldness in the Budget. There’s good reason for this shift of emphasis, but there’s no certainty it’s actually going to work out. And if you read party-insider John Pagani on this issue, you’ll get a sense of the fact that the Labour has some good points to make its critique of National, but it’s still utterly confused and poorly communicated in its delivery – see: Falling off the tightrope: How National’s budget sales pitch is coming unstuck. 

 And a bigger problem for Labour is that it might indeed manage to convince people of National’s weakness on the economy, but Labour itself is perceived to have nothing better to offer in terms of a plan. Mostly its prescriptions for change appear similar to National’s. In this regard, it’s interesting to note that Horizon’s weekend opinion poll showed a massive 44% of New Zealander disapprove of National’s handling of the economy, yet only 29% seem to think that Labour would better look after their economic interests. Public faith in the economic policies of all parliamentary parties seems to be rather weak. 

According to Armstrong, Labour is not likely to heavily oppose the austerity nature of National’s Budget, meaning that this aspect will be less politicized. But where the Opposition is more likely to make noise will be on the public sector downsizing. This element of the Budget could end up being the most radical and significant part of the austerity measures – see: Katie Bradford-Crozier’s 'Secretive' budget irks Labour, and John Hartevelt’s Mergers stay secret until after election.

Wellington Central MP Grant Robertson can be expected to go into bat strongly for his constituents in this regard – see, for example: Labour challenges claim of public servants' good times but party leader, Phil Goff, might not exactly be behind Robertson. For although this might be the real crunch area of ideological differences, Labour will be well aware of how little attention it has won amongst the public when National has successfully downsized government departments such as the Ministry of Health. Labour might, however, keep to trying to run with the idea that National’s traditional core constituency is not contributing its fair share – see: Is the rural sector paying enough tax?

Meanwhile, some of the best critiques of National’s approach to the economy have come, not from Labour, but from blogging journalists – see, for example: Tim Watkin’s It's the end of the world, and I feel fine and Gordon Campbell’s On the lead-up to the Budget. Along with the blogosphere, the political Twittersphere continues to grow in influence. For an excellent report on the quality and quantity of the various political parties and politicians on Twitter, see: Justin Flitter’s The State of #NZPolitics on Twitter. As might be expected, the Green and Act parties rate very well – being especially interactive with others ‘tweeps’, but Labour and National are having trouble keeping up with the technology (Labour’s Claire Curran, though, is anointed the most engaged on Twitter – especially in the evenings). John Key, especially, but also the Finance Minister, are unengaged and quiet on Twitter. But that will mean nothing if they can produce a bold and convincing Budget. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

NZ Politics Daily: 17 May

If you want to understand modern politics, elections and economics, you’d do well to read Chris Worthington’s NZ Herald opinion piece, Transformation by policy a pipe dream. Ostensibly about this week’s Budget, Worthington explains – and advocates – the mindset of contemporary establishment thinking about how to govern the country and make beneficial changes. A senior economist with Gareth Morgan, Worthington channels the low-horizon, low-expectation, slow-moving, cautious politics of modern political parties and state bureaucrats, in arguing against the role of ideology, ideas, and big changes in politics. He says such revolutionary or ‘big bang’ approaches to changing society and economies are destined to failure, and what really works is non-ideological, incremental improvements based on evidence and trials. This centrist thinking is essentially the ruling ‘ideology’ of our time, and Worthington bemoans the continued existence of those who want politics to be political and elections to be about ‘a contest of ideas’. He needn’t worry too much about that happening any time soon. 

In fact, in another excellent analysis of the National Government’s approach to the Budget, Chris Trotter writes in the Press (Key deals restrained Budget hand) that Worthington’s centrist and relatively pragmatic approach is working very well for National. Trotter says that National has ‘made moderation their watchword’ and ignored the advice of the Business Roundtable, Don Brash, and Paula Rebstock. The ‘Key-English version of moderate-conservative poker’ has led the Government down a popular path whereby voters are unlikely to want their playing cards assigned to them by Labour and the Greens. Trotter would surely argue that National is more in line with Worthington’s prescription for boring but successful politics. Similarly, Bryan Gould bemoans in the Herald today that National’s ‘idea of managing the economy is simply to wait and see what turns up’ – see: A Key Budget? Wake me when it’s over. 

Continuing the theme, John Armstrong emphasizes that the Government is aiming for ‘balance’ – in particular, an approach ‘that balances the need to chop back Bill English's record $16 billion deficit with this being election year’ – see: A matter of balancing the sweet and sour. Labour, too, isn’t particular bold at the moment in its economic approach – despite the severe economic conditions – and Armstrong rightly points out that there should in fact be a lot of political attention on decline living standards: ‘The cost of living is shaping as the one election issue that might derail National. The reason it has yet to become a red-hot political issue is that Opposition parties - like the Government - do not have any ready solutions beyond subsidising such things as winter household power bills’. 

Colin James says that Labour is instead going to rely on demonizing Don Brash and Act as its election strategy. He points out that Labour has a problem in that it has lost it’s working class base and soul, but is yet to reconstitute any real voting base to replace it. Colin James’ column, Brash, the budget and building a new strategy, is in today’s Otago Daily Times, which is sadly the only daily newspaper that will be publishing him – incredibly, Fairfax has dropped him from both the Dominion Post and the Press. This move should give more grist to MP Clare Curran, who has written on Red Alert about The trashing of politics and media. But there’s always the blogosphere, and today Denis Welch gave his evaluation on the state of it in his Nine-to-Noon media slot – listen here. And for those of you wanting some quality analysis of the Budget on Thursday, tune into TVNZ’s Budget Special at 2pm, where I’ll be giving it a go! [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

NZ Politics Daily: 16 May

The upcoming Budget is the focus of attention for most political commentators – and there are many worth reading from the last few days. The must-read overview and analysis is from Colin James - Never waste a good crisis: budgeting out the nice-to-haves . James says that the Government’s Budget political sales pitch can be encapsulated by the contradictory phrase, ‘toughness and hope’, as National simultaneously seek to persuade electors that the economic conditions are dire, but the future is bright. James believes that middle New Zealand swing voters probably accept the ‘nice-to-have’ economic logic of the Government – an argument which Labour possibly helps to inadvertently broadcast. In fact, Labour’s soon-to-be announced ‘four-point 10-year development, savings and investment, inequality-reducing and fiscal prudence strategy’ is also mentioned by James.

John Armstrong reckons that the Budget ‘won't be as tough as people fear’, but National has successfully lowered our expectations – see: Key aims for middle of road to recovery. He thinks it’s going to be a relatively ideologically mild budget – less ‘Mother of All Budgets’ than ‘Mother of All Budget Deficits’ – as this Government is shouldering the biggest deficit ever – which means it’s hardly taking an extreme neoliberal approach. But the neo-Keynesian approach is wearing thin, with ‘middle NZ’ focus groups – and pressure from Don Brash, as well as credit agencies – pushing National towards greater austerity. National aims to be seen as sensibly running the middle ground between profligacy and fiscal stringency. This middling approach is starting to agitate those on the right – and Fran O’Sullivan’s Ministers deaf to cocktail circuit chatter provides a perfect example of this, protesting that this Government is moving too slowly and not far enough. She makes a very good point in challenging the possibility that the Budget presentation on Thursday might include costings and projections based on what National would do ‘after’ the next election if it gets a ‘mandate’. She rightly says that if National does this, ‘the Government is shifting the Budget dangerously close to being a party manifesto’.

Bernard Hickey says that the upcoming Budget will revolve around the question of economic growth forecasts – see: Questioning the government’s Budget 2011 decision to bet on growth. He says that ‘It's amazing what you can promise when you forecast strong growth’, but cautions that we should take Treasury’s growth forecasts with ‘a grain of salt’, because ‘every economic forecast by Treasury since May 2008 has overestimated actual growth by between 2% to 3%’. Meanwhile, economists quoted in Hamish Rutherford’s Early return to Budget surplus tipped say just the opposite, and that economic growth is set to take off, leading to an early return to government surpluses. And Brian Fallow also says that Budget will be sold as ‘a tough Budget for tough times’, and emphasizes just how difficult it will be for the Government to actually produce a ‘zero budget’ – see: Budget increases funded by cuts.

The main party-political news over the weekend was the new Horizon Poll, showing some interesting results: the Act Party up, Mana Party registering well, and supposedly the cumulative left and right blocs of parties being relatively equal in popularity – see: Act support up after leadership change. The Horizon company’s poll has always been an outlier in terms of gauging National’s support – which Horizon always puts lower than the other polls – and for New Zealand First’s support, which is always much higher in the Horizon poll. David Farrar has been rather scathing of Horizon. So the question is, while Horizon’s absolute numbers could be questioned, generally the trick is to note the actual trend, i.e. which way are the numbers moving. It seems Act’s increase has clearly come from National – no surprise there – but the increase to 5.3% is only 1.6%, which is not exactly a huge leap – especially considering the media exposure the party has had. It’s also very interesting that the Mana Party can be at 2.3% and not affect the Maori Party at all. If you look at the stable of how they voted in 2008 it does show a lot of fluidity, and a lot of movement between different parties (generally only 70% of people who voted for a party last time are voting for the same this time). The trend line, which is probably the only thing you can really take from this, is a drift to the left. If anything, Act has simply cannibalized the National Party vote, but has probably scared twice as many away from National to Labour. And people who didn’t know how to vote, seem to be making up their minds because there is a distinct drop-off in the ‘don’t knows’ which appears to be advantaging the left. However, a big factor is New Zealand First – and it’s future clearly could make a big impact on who governs after November. Clearly, if the Horizon poll is at all accurate in gauging support for NZ First, then Labour is still in with a shot to form the next government – but that’s still a big ‘if’. More likely, however, is that Brash is going to steal some of Winston Peters’ thunder, because some of their appeal must be to the same audience. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

NZ Politics Daily: 13 May

With salary packages of between $180,000 and $500,000, New Zealand Members of Parliament currently earn more than 99% of their constituents. This gross economic inequality between voters and their representatives means that whenever there is perceived to be any discrepancy between what austerity measures are being pushed on the public by politicians and what the politicians are willing allowing for themselves, this can easily result in perceptions of hypocrisy by voters. The current political debate over cuts to KiwiSaver is therefore a perfect time for the focus to go onto the very generous self-created retirement scheme for the ‘political class’ (which is worth about $26k to each MP per year). Politicians will attempt to avoid this discussion – and virtually all of them have been doing that today – but this just makes the public more suspicious. Political journalists, however, don’t have any qualms about making this an issue, and today the perceived conflict between the MP gold-plated superannuation scheme and the supposed unaffordability of the current KiwiSaver model, is being put in the spotlight – see, for example: Vernon Small’s KiwiSaver cuts ignore MPs’ super and TVNZ’s KiwiSaver cuts will not affect MPs’ super. And then it got worse with the news released today that MPs are due for a pay rise – which could be rather substantial based on their argument that they’ve lost travel perks – but the Remuneration Authority has come to the rescue by conveniently deferring the decision until after the Budget - see: TVNZ’s Raincheck on MPs' pay rise . Other important news today includes the fact that the NZ Navy has the first naval exercise with the US since 1985 – see: Navy ends inaugural exercise with US. Also, see: Don Brash: Dear John and the satirical version, Beware the Puritans at the gate, today’s Southland Times Editorial on Labour, and Chris Trotter’s advice to Act on race.[Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

NZ Politics Daily: 12 May

A simple glance at newspaper headlines is an obvious way for governments to judge how well their political messages are getting across. Forget about the complexity of what is being argued and reported – you can see how the debates boil down in the public mind with a few bold words that come to represent the issue. On the one hand, headlines such as KiwiSaver changes ‘will hit low-paid’ will be feared, while KiwiSaver change shrugged off is exactly the desired outcome of the Government’s pre-Budget exercise in expectation management. So in terms of this softening up approach for cuts to KiwiSaver, the National Government will have mixed feelings about today’s very mixed media headlines. Looking at the headlines, it seems that there is no one dominant response to the KiwiSaver cuts signaled by National. The variety of responses is quite interesting: John Armstrong says KiwiSaver sugar hard to swallow, while NZPA reports KiwiSaver cuts ‘won’t fix economy’. But probably the most accurate headline is actually Vernon Small’s Key cashes in a little of his political capital, which really says it all. The media subeditors that create these headlines really do have a lot of power when it comes to these issues.

Tracy Watkins says Workers to pay more for KiwiSaver, again suggesting that Labour (and the Greens) are getting some traction in their left-oriented critiques of the changes. Of course Labour and the Greens conveniently forget that the KiwiSaver scheme was always actually designed to disproportionately favour middle-income earners, and the poor were largely very badly served by this particular version of state-initiated retirement savings, and so they’re not exactly defending a progressive leftwing scheme under attack from the right. Furthermore, part of the problem for Labour is that the signaled changes are carefully constructed to appear relatively even-handed, in the sense that both employees and employers are being asked to contribute more. And, of course, characteristically, although Labour’s critiques of the changes have some strong logic, the party is not actually putting up alternatives to National. In fact Goff is cited as saying that Labour wouldn’t reverse National’s cuts to KiwiSaver. And what might actually be the most publicly popular argument against the cuts, is unlikely to be run by Labour – as Tracy Watkins points out: ‘MPs have a taxpayer-funded superannuation scheme that provides for a maximum super subsidy of 20 per cent of the salary payable to a backbench MP elected after 1992, at a ratio of $2.50 put in by the state for every dollar put in by the MP’. Unlike KiwiSaver, this gold-plated scheme is likely to prove to be up for debate by any parliamentary party. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

NZ Politics Daily: 11 May

Issues and allegations of political finance, corruption and scandal just won’t go away. New Zealand politics has traditionally been relatively free of any allegation involving corruption and the misuse of government funds. This all changed in the late-1980s and especially since 1999, when the Labour Party campaigned against the Shipley-led National Government, liberally throwing around the terms ‘sleaze’ and ‘corrupt’. Ever since, it’s been one of the main weapons of political campaigning in New Zealand. And when such allegations manage to breakout of the ‘Wellington beltway’ they resonate strongly with a public that distrusts politicians more than ever before. That’s why the Labour Party has been endlessly focusing on the National Government’s various weaknesses in terms of politician perks and purchases. It’s looked rather shabby, but Labour has hoped that the endless chipping away at the reputation of the Prime Minister and National would eventually break through with some sort of ‘king hit’ whereby the administration could once again be characterized as ‘corrupt’ or at least irresponsible with public money. Today, that might have finally happened with Chris Hipkins’ questions in the House about the Government’s acceptance of a $50k donation from a BMW car dealer around the same time that the 34 new ministerial cars were ordered from BMW – see: National took BMW donation after deal. Regardless of the truth or otherwise of such allegations and suspicion, such revelations will continue to play a strong role in Labour’s political strategy this year. Incidentally, Labour’s strategy is intelligently critiqued today by two bloggers – see: David Farrar: Having a clear message and The Dim-Post: The vision thing.

Meanwhile, the upcoming Budget really is starting to build up to something big – especially with today’s announcement of cuts to KiwiSaver: KiwiSaver tax credit targeted in Budget cuts. More analysis about this tomorrow. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

NZ Politics Daily: 10 May

Labour has previously dismissed the prospect of a Te Tai Tokerau by-election as a waste of money and a political stunt, but now that the Maori Party has declared it’s intention to stand a candidate, Labour has, predictably, come around to the idea – see: Jessica Mutch: Let the race begin

Labour will certainly be hoping that voters in the electorate will be split along Labour/non-Labour lines and that the non-Labour vote will be divided between Hone Harawira and the Maori Party, allowing Labour’s Kelvin Davis to come through the middle to win. A more likely alternative, however, is that the vote will be split between those for Harawira and those who are against – because this by-election will essentially be a mini-referendum on the polarizing and maverick figure of Harawira. Hence it’s likely that the Maori and Labour parties will be fighting each other – and potentially splitting the vote – between the anti-Harawira voters, allowing Harawira to storm home as victor. Certainly the campaign strategist, Matt McCarten, will be well aware that to take out an existing MP you have to unite the opposition against them. So what happens is that there’s polling, the candidate that’s in third place then has their vote cannibalised. The Maori Party will probably be weakest because it doesn’t even have a candidate yet and it doesn’t have a strong organisation in the electorate. At that point, the Maori Party vote is likely to collapse. The question is, will their vote go to Labour or will it go to Harawira?

Labour’s decision to join the contest is more out of necessity than a gutsy roll of the dice. The party’s hand has effectively been forced by the Maori Party’s decision to compete. And after having been locked out of the headlines for the last couple of weeks while the ‘Hone and Don show’ dominated, and being in the headlines for all the wrong reasons before that, Labour can hardly afford to continue to be starved of any profile at all over the next eight weeks. But nonetheless, Labour’s entry into the by-election will make it a real competition and guarantee much more exposure and public attention than there would have been if it were a no contest. 

Morgan Godfery is confidently picking Harawira to win – see: Why Hone will win. His logic involves five points: 1) Harawira won 62% of the 2008 vote; 2) Incumbency means high name recognition and parliamentary resources in the electorate, 3) ‘brand Harawira is extremely powerful’, akin to a Maori version of Key’s ‘smile and wave’, 4) Harawira has a very strong organization and network in the electorate, and 5) Harawira has an easy-to-run narrative against the Maori Party (‘sellouts’) while their attack lines are too personal. Godfery also outlines why Harawira is forcing the by-election, and almost as a postscript adds that Labour’s Kelvin Davis is likely to come a ‘very respectable second’ in the race. The fascinating iPredict market seems to agree that Harawira is very likely to win – currently it says that there is a 70% chance of victory for him. 

The other growing political focus at the moment is next week’s Budget and the state of the economy. PM John Key is clearly trying to soften up the public for cuts to KiwiSaver – see: Audrey Young’s article Key readies voters for changes to KiwiSaver, and Vernon Small’s KiwiSaver ‘affordable in sunshine’. Nonetheless, Labour is still focused on raising questions about John Key’s judgment and minor expenditure – criticisms which Key seems to be able to easily bat away (Labour’s campaign avoids big issues, says PM) and which commentators are starting to criticise Labour about (NZH Editorial: Labour energy better directed to the Budget). Labour, however, will hope to eventually tie the two themes together and convince people that an austerity-oriented government is delivering a Black Budget while living it up themselves. And today, Grant Robertson tries to convey the idea in a blog post that Labour isn’t so easily distracted by it’s current focus on the minor/trivial issues – see: Walking and Chewing Gum.

The Greens – a party that seems to have been overshadowed by the more radical minor parties lately – is the focus of a blog post by Guyon Espiner that is worth reading – see: Greens' private battle for public acceptance. Espiner perceptively notes that the Greens are moving in from the margins and becoming more pragmatic, but wonders if they can make the logical next leap and start jettisoning some of the more radical policy stances holding the party back. See also, Espiner's Q+A interview with Russel Norman.

With all the volatility and changes occurring in politics, Denis Welch has again been appraising the political commentators on his RNZ Nine-to-noon media analysis slot. He argues that there was a massive failure of the ‘NZ commentariat’ to predict the Brash coup (listen here). [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

 

NZ Politics Daily: 9 May

Matt McCarten is one of the sharpest minds in NZ Politics, and he has quite an impact on the political left. This is conveyed very insightfully in Steve Braunias’ brilliantly satirical, Secret diary of Hone Harawira. Putting words in Harawira’s mouth, Braunias illustrates how a Maori nationalist – Hone Harawira – can suddenly become a working class leader:

 

‘I stand for Maori. I stand for the oppressed. And, as of five minutes ago, I also stand for workers.  I had a really interesting chat with the Mana Party chairman, Matt McCarten, five minutes ago.  He totally blew my mind when he told me that workers were people who worked for a living.  I said to Matt, "I've no idea what that means."  He was very patient. He explained what workers do.  He said they toil in fields. They clean offices with mops and suchlike. They work what are known as "shifts" in buildings called "factories" owned by "white corporate bastards".  He was speaking my language’.

In his Herald column yesterday, McCarten noted that ‘the Don and Hone show is the only political story in town’ and that show just secured the attention of it’s audience – with the Maori Party announcing today that it intends to contest the Te Tai Tokerau by-election. In his Herald on Sunday column, McCarten confronts head-on the criticisms leveled at Harawira about the cost of the by-election to the tax payer, directing some stinging attacks at what he sees as a lazy and conservative press gallery:

‘The twittering press hacks who wrote breathlessly about Brash's coup went into fits of faux outrage over the cost of a Tai Tokerau byelection.  I'd be more sympathetic if they managed the same outburst as guardians of the public purse when Helen Clark and Winnie Laban dumped their electorates, forcing byelections, because they got better job offers elsewhere’.

He also correctly points out that in other by-elections such as Mt Albert, the Greens, Act and National candidates campaigned while on the public payroll with all the parliamentary resources, while Harawira will lose all of this the moment he resigns.

The counterpart of the Mana Party is currently deemed to be the revitalized Act Party. Two columnists take a worthwhile look at whether Don Brash will be able to spin his magic and increase the party’s popularity: Rob Hosking (NBR): Moving on to the next Act and John Armstrong: Elements of farce to Brash's outsider status. Meanwhile Derek Cheng has a feature on Act’s largely overlooked new leader in Parliament – see: Rich pricks? No, that's not us, says Act's Boscawen.

 Due to colourful changes brought about in recent weeks by Harawira and Brash, commentators seem to be in a consensus that suddenly we’re facing a much more dynamic and interesting election year. For a good example of this, see Tracy Watkins’s White and black don’t make grey. She says that ‘After worrying that the upcoming election was going to be a battle over varying shades of grey, suddenly it looks as if we’re going to get fireworks instead’. This is undoubted true, yet, the biggest ‘issues of day’ are regrettably still the most trivial and minor – such as attention on spending on house painting and politician behaviour – see, for example, Labour attacks Key’s reputation. These are all legitimate issues for party competition, but they remind us that parliamentary politics might be suddenly a bit more interesting, but it hasn’t yet become entirely meaningful and focused on the big issues in our society. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

NZ Politics Daily: 6 May

The reviews and evaluations of the Harawira vs Brash Close Up debate are still coming out. The latest is from David Farrar in his new gig as a weekly political commentator on the New Zealand Herald website – see: The Don and Hone show. Another interesting reflection on the debate can be read on the Maori Law and Politics blog run by Joshua Hitchcock – see: Harawira v Brash. Hitchcock – like Morgan Godfery, but coming from quite a different point of view – is clearly another sharp young Maori commentator worth following. Some of his other recent posts are also worth a read: The Curious Case of the Maori Electorates and The Myth of “Maori” as a Demographic. Unsurprisingly, Chris Trotter also comes up with an interesting challenge for the Mana Party, in his blog/column, Going Up Together (Most NZers, Meet the Mana Party). Elsewhere, The Standard challenges the presentation of Harawira as a supporter of bin Laden – see: Anatomy of a lie, a theme extended by Steven Cowan in his blog post, Time for real change.[Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

NZ Politics Daily: 5 May

It hasn’t taken long for Hone Harawira to revert to type. While recently the Maori nationalist MP has been posturing and positioning himself as a leftwing class warrior – no doubt under the influence of Matt McCarten and other socialists active in the Mana Party – suddenly his Maori sovereignty politics have resurfaced in the form of a rather reactionary statement of sympathy for Osama bin Laden – see: Bin Laden a freedom fighter, says Harawira. Condemnation of his statement has been made all around, and even Harawira’s leftwing backers must be grimacing at his incredible statements. Morgan Godfery didn’t waste any time in condemning Harawira’s support for bin Laden, saying ‘Angry, arrogant Harawira may be gone, but stupid Harawira is still with us’ (Bad call, Hone). Godfery also makes the important point that it wasn't simply the case of Harawira thinking before talking or ‘losing control’ (as many are likely to understand the situation), but actually due to his genuine belief that bin Laden was a good guy. Harawira’s orientation towards al-Qaeda is actually quite consistent with Maori nationalism taken to its logical conclusion. After all, Harawira made it clear that his sympathy for bin Laden related to the fact that he was a fighter for indigenous rights and sovereignty. (For similar reasons, the Mana Party’s Annette Sykes has also in the past shown at least ambivalence about the ‘September 11’ killings). Harawira was clearly given the hard word from McCarten and co to retract and apologise, which by mid-afternoon he had done – see: TV3: Harawira apologises for bin Laden comments. Nonetheless, damage has already been done, and a strong signal has been sent that Harawira’s Mana Party is– despite initial appearances – ultimately likely to be more Maori nationalist than socialist. Harawira’s propensity to throw around silly Hitler comparisons also hasn’t helped his credibility. And last night’s Close Up debate between him and Don Brash, continued this theme, with both protagonists making cases for the other having racist policies. All of this is surely a sign that ‘race relations’ will continue to be one of the major themes in this year’s election campaign. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

NZ Politics Daily: 4 May

The establishment of the Mana Party could prove to be this year’s most significant political event in the lead up to the general election. This means that we badly need some quality analysis of what the party is all about. Luckily, political commentator Morgan Godfery is prolific in his analysis. His latest blog post on the Mana Party is probably the must-read item of the week – see: The Mana Party. This is the type of in depth and thoughtful article that needs to be published in somewhere like the Listener. Although obviously sympathetic to Hone Harawira, Godfery’s analysis is mostly dispassionate, analytical and critically-minded. His seven-page analysis shows what a talent Godfery is, and why he is by far the most insightful commentator on Maori politics. In the blog post, Godfery looks at the ideology and personnel making up the Mana Party, in order to understand what it represents and where it’s going. He’s particularly intrigued by the fact that this so-called ‘Maori-focused party’ has hardly any Maori-specific policy, but seems much more working class oriented, which he explains via the strong involvement of Matt McCarten. There’s an interesting discussion about the dynamic within the party between the Maori nationalists – typified by Annette Sykes – and the socialists represented by McCarten (who Godfery credibly sees as the ‘ideological leader’ together with Harawira). The question is how long this balancing act can be sustained, and which faction will end up running the show. The blog post ends up delving into a useful wider explanation of the class nature of Maori politics.

Looking beyond the Mana Party, Godfery also updates his Best and worst performing Maori politicians list. The ‘good’ Maori politicians for the month of April are: Harawira, Annette Sykes, Pita Sharples, Shane Jones, Georgina Te Heu Heu and the worst are: Pem Bird, Hekia Parata, Parekura Horomia, Nanaia Mahuta and Jamie Lee-Ross.

For another very thoughtful piece on the Mana Party (and Act), see Chris Trotter’s Press column, History Makers? And to see what journalists are thinking about Hone Harawira, it’s worth reading Duncan Garner’s blog post, Harawira didn’t tell the truth - blog about the fact that Harawira denied that he would force a by-election. It seems that he has not only badly damaged his reputation for being upfront and honest, but his credibility and relationship with journalists will need a lot of rebuilding.

Harawira’s relationship with the Greens – a party which is apparently an ally of his – has also suddenly taken a turn for the worse. The Greens have joined in on Labour and National’s attacks on the Mana Party today, with Russel Norman arguing that the party is too leftwing – see: Russel Norman scorns Mana Party. Across the leftish blogosphere, Norman is taking a hammering for his statements, with many accusing him of political game playing and arrogance – see, for example, The Standard’s Russel’s mana, especially the direct comment to him: ‘I know you’re jockeying for position and you probably think you’re playing smart politics by trying to scare your voting base off Mana but I think that you (and Phil) should consider one of the meanings of Mana... [It’s] made you look like just another self-interested politician’. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

 

 

NZ Politics Daily: 3 May

After a dramatic week in politics, it’s worth pausing to look at how the media have been covering the changes. Denis Welch does exactly that in an interesting overview in his very good media watch slot on RNZ’s Nine-to-Noon (audio here). He cites Claire Trevett very approvingly in particular, but also John Armstrong, Guyon Espiner, Duncan Garner, Karl Du Fresne and Jane Clifton. Welch also comments on the blogosphere, making positive mentions of David Beatson, Gordon Campbell, Claire Browning, and even Cameron Slater. He also gives a serve to journalists and politicians being ageist in relation to Don Brash. For prime, but amusing, examples of this, see Trevor Mallard’s vicious recent posts on Red Alert).

The must-read opinion piece of the day is Colin James’ deep thinking ODT column entitled Can the purists come in from the fringes? in which he attempts to explain the roles of the ideologies and participates on the left and right of the major two parties.

Moving onto the Mana Party, John Armstrong looks at the Tai Tokerau by-election and whether Mana’s opponents should participate – he advises against it, see: Labour, Maori parties shouldn’t rise to Hone’s byelection plotting. Another good piece is written by Katie Bradford-Crozier and Anna Cross (Newstalk ZB) – Mana confident Harawira will win. In this, Matt McCarten is quoted giving a relatively impressive justification for the Harawira forcing the by-election. And Goff explains why Labour will not work with the left-wing party. Labour has not yet decided whether to participate in the by-election either, and according to an NZPA item (National won’t stand in ‘ridiculous’ by-election – Key  Goff’s reason for the indecision is because, ‘I haven't done any polling on the electorate, I'm not sure what would happen at this stage’. Spindoctor John Pagani provides the pros and cons for Labour contesting the by-election in his blog post 4 reasons Labour shouldn’t run in Te Tai Tokerau and 2 reasons they should. But Pagani’s credibility is really placed on the line when he amazingly predicts that ‘Labour would probably win, and in doing so it would knock Mana out of politics’. And if you missed Graeme Edgeler’s recent excellent blog post detailing the ins and outs of Harawira forcing a by-election, it’s worth checking out Edgeler’s very helpful abridged version of his arguments – see: Too long, didn’t read.

In terms of the Act Party’s ongoing sagas, it’s worth reading an insider view – see: Richard Long’s Brash is back - and a hard ACT to follow. For a more satirical account, try, Stephen Braunias’ Secret diary of ... Don Brash. It’s also worth noting Cartoon wars: Mallard takes on Brash.

Finally, it seems that the (beltway?) story about the SAS in Afghanistan won’t go away. The PM is now attempting to discredit journalist Jon Stephenson – see: Derek Cheng’s PM attacks journalist over SAS torture claims. It’s also worth reading Anthony Hubbard’s Afghanistan torture haunts next governor-general and David Beatson’s Afghanistan: Mapp’s raid spin is wearing thin. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

NZ Politics Daily: 2 May

Suddenly, we’ve seen a rather boring-looking election year spring into life. Until last week, we’ve had a relatively safe and slow moving government about to sleep walk to victory over a lame-duck Labour Party. But now the party system has been somewhat reinvigorated, and the contest might be a lot more interesting because there’s going to be some real policy disagreement, and some more dynamic debate being forced by these parties to the left and right of the two giants (National and Labour). This is what I argue in a blog post today entitled Election year – reinvigorated by the minor parties? Certainly there seems to be substantial interest in the minor parties and the way they’re changing the electoral landscape, and hence today’s NZPD is entirely dedicated to minor parties – especially those led by Hone Harawira and Don Brash.

During the last few days political junkies have been poring over what the change in the Act Party’s leadership means, and the details of the new Mana Party. There’s all sorts of ramifications from these stories, and all sorts of arguments about the legitimacy and/or desirability of a by-election in Harawira’s seat. But more significantly, there’s an interesting discussion going on amongst leftists about the question of what exactly the Mana Party is all about. It seems that Labour believes that the Mana Party is so radical and extreme that Goff has reiterated again that Labour would have nothing to do with them after the election – see: Goff rules out working with Mana Party. Meanwhile, leftwing activist Chris Ford, is enthusiastic about the prospect of a new leftwing force – see: Hone Harawira Brings Mana To The Left. Two critical leftwing views of the Mana Party can be read – John Moore argues in a guest blog post on liberation that Harawira is still essentially a race-based politician building another version of the Maori Party – see: Hone Harawira – rebel with a confused cause. In his blog post entitled Whither The Mana Party?, Oliver Woods also warns the left that they should get ready to be disappointed yet again.

Some are asking where the Mana Party’s votes are going to come from? The Green Party will be one obvious source. It already seems to be bleeding activists and high profile members such as Sue Bradford and Nandor Tanczos – see Claire Trevett’s article, Mana Party audience seems to have identity crisis.

Certainly as the Greens continue to reposition themselves closer to the middle of the political spectrum, they are leaving room for the Mana Party to be the default anti-Establishment and ‘left-of-Labour’ option. Today’s Wikileaks revelations about the Greens being taking funding from the US government in exchange for a perceived moderation of party’s stances – see: Michelle Field’s report, Green Party lunch revealed in Wikileaks cable – will only further grassroots disillusionment with the leadership, and create more room for Harawira and his leftwing allies in the Mana Party to establish themselves as the new radical force on the left. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

 

Election year – reinvigorated by the minor parties?

Suddenly we’re seeing a rather boring-looking election year spring into life. Until last week, we’ve had a relatively safe and slow moving government about to sleep walk to victory over a lame-duck Labour Party. But now the party system has been somewhat reinvigorated, and the contest might be a lot more interesting because there’s going to be some real policy disagreement, and some relatively dynamic debate being forced by these parties to the left and right of the big two giants (National and Labour). I was interviewed this morning on TVNZ Breakfast about this topic and about what the changes in the political landscape might mean for the referendum on MMP. The video of the interview is here, and it was also reported in a story entitled ‘Race row could escalate ahead of election’. This blog post elaborates on some of the points I made about the changes in the political landscape. [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]