liberation

NZ Politics Daily: 29 July

The ‘Super-Rich’ in New Zealand are getting extraordinarily richer, and they want government to help them become even wealthier. That’s the message from the NBR’s 2011 Rich List (which is accessible here: http://www.nbr.co.nz/rich-list-2011). The massive increase in the wealth of New Zealand’s elite is made obvious by the 18% annual increase in the collective wealth of those at the top of the capitalist class – they’ve gone from owning $38bn to $45bn in just one year. This is well covered in the articles by Michael Dickison: Rich Listers enjoy 20pc increase in wealth and by Dan Satherley: NBR Rich List 2011 - NZ's wealthy doing just fine.

If you’ve been following the Rich List over the last decade or more, you’ll know that the general trend is for ever increasing concentration of wealth at the top end of NZ society. Throughout even the Clark Labour Government years of 1999-2008, there was a huge explosion of wealth expansion at the top end of New Zealand society. It was these years that saw the emergence of a Super-Rich in New Zealand. Much of this went unnoticed by the general public, media and observers because it was a time of significant economic growth – in general everyone was doing a bit better so the rich-poor gap was not so political. But when the economic recession kicked in, the standards of living for a large part of society has dropped, yet the financial health of most of the wealthy has continued to improve (apart from a brief decline in 2009-10). And we can see many examples of that continued enrichment in the 2011 list. To see this enrichment in a graphical form, the NBR has produced a striking chart showing the explosion of wealth at the top end since the late 1990s – click on the chart here.

From a political point of view, the NBR Rich List needs to be contextualised within the current social setting of New Zealand society where there is significant poverty and economic suffering. So it's the gap between the rich and poor that the NBR Rich List really signifies. And there's an important electoral connection to all of this. For many years, the issue of economic inequality has not been on the political agenda. There is plenty of survey evidence to show that the public hasn't been particularly concerned about inequality since the 1980s. And political parties have reflected that lack of concern, by not really pushing policies to reverse the increasing economic inequality. But since the onset of the latest economic slump that's changing, and suddenly issues of economic inequality are at the forefront of public debate in this election year. We see this particularly in the politics and campaigning of opposition parties – which appear to be trying to capitalise on this growing concern. What's more there are actually now plenty of rich people that are publicly stating their discomfort with the huge income and wealth gaps. People like Gareth Morgan (and today, Rich Lister, Phillip Mills) are saying that they think people such as themselves should be paying more tax – listen for example to this RNZ item. This is quite an extraordinary development - and it reflects a significant shift in the politics of inequality in NZ.

Of course, the NBR – and much of the media and ‘Establishment’ – see the NBR Rich List as very much a celebration of ‘wealth creation’, whereby instead it’s possible to argue that virtually all the wealth ‘created’ by those in the Rich List actually comes from the hard work of their many employees. Essentially the Super-Rich in New Zealand are profiting from the hard work of ordinary New Zealanders through the extraction of super profits while keeping wages and salaries low. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

NZ Politics Daily: 28 July

‘It’s the economy, stupid’. That’s the political catchphrase that Bill Clinton popularised in his successful 1992 presidential campaign. It’s probably being muttered regularly amongst Labour and National parliamentary staff and politicians. Economic issues have not been so important in an election year for a long time, and both Labour and National think that their own economic strategies and critiques of their opponents will win them the election. The difference is, however, that only National seem to be right about this. 

Labour has an unmovable belief that the Government is weak on economic management and that the public just needs this to be pointed out to them. Regardless of the truth of the Government’s economic competency or vision, the public doesn’t seem to agree. Today’s Fairfax poll results merely confirm previous survey data showing that the public has much more confidence in National’s ability to govern in the recession than Labour’s. Today’s results show that 49% believe National has the best plan to fix the economy, while an incredibly low 17% pick Labour’s. What’s more, only about half of Labour’s own supporters have faith in their own party’s economic plans – see John Hartevelt’s Financial trust gives National edge. 

 This is another reason Labour will end up a very distant second place in November – 85% of voters say that economic issues will be important in deciding their vote. So they’re viewing the electoral options through an economic prism. What they see might be very distorted, but the fact remains that Labour lacks credibility on economic matters, and that seems fairly entrenched. Of course, it could be that, as one union leader confidently says, ‘The people polled have no grip on reality at all’ – see: Voters unconvinced by Labour's economy plan. But such Labour-friendly leftwingers are probably looking through their own prism of ‘Labour good; National bad’ which distorts their ability to see that National has won the public debate over the economy. 

 Labour and its cheerleaders (such as the bizarrely unreflective John Pagani) are paying the electoral price for their assumptions that ‘we are right’ and that ‘voters must come around to seeing that we are right’. It reflects the arrogance that the public still perceives in a party that was thrown out of office three years ago and refuses to show any humbleness or signs of self-reflection. Labour partisans and hacks would do well to be reading all the newspaper editorials (without their rose-tinted glasses on) and face some reality. In particular, they could read the Dom Post’s Labour needs to find a way to reconnect, the Press’ Grim time for Labour, and the Southland Times’ Pale in the polls. Furthermore, detail on what issues are important to voters can be found in the article, Economy key to November election. But quite frankly, on many of the public’s highly valued issues – education, health, law and order – Labour is still struggling to differentiate itself from National. Merely asserting that Labour has a superior and has different plan is not the same as actually having one. Inside Labour's strategy rooms in Parliament, they would do well to get rid of the arrogant assumptions of their own correctness, and remember: 'It's the voters, stupid'. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

NZ Politics Daily: 27 July

The expectation that Labour ‘is heading for a bloodbath in November’ has just been cemented in the public’s mind according to the non-partisan Dim-Post blog commenting on todays Fairfax opinion poll. This is correct. Just as the recent poll that put Labour on 27% was an absolutely ‘catastrophe’ for Labour at a critical time, the latest poll that puts the party on 28% confirms the deadly narrative for Labour that it has no chance of winning the general election. Political scientists refer to this as the ‘bandwagon’ effect – voters are often inclined to decide on how to vote in accordance with what they perceive other people have chosen to do. Partly this is simply to be fashionable or popular. But it’s also to do with the fact that swing voters, especially, have a lot of uncertainly and lack of information about who to vote for and so they take their cue from what they believe the majority of the population have decided. And how can you be wrong in voting National when supposedly 56% of society give their stamp of approval to the Government, compared to only 28% for the main alternative? But the bandwagon effect isn’t the only phenomenon affecting such strategic voters; the ‘underdog effect’ can also be quite powerful, which often explains why the gap between the two main parties tends to close during the election campaign. Therefore, paradoxically, the Labour Party might now be best to sell itself as the ‘principled losers’ in the contest. We’ve already seen that Labour is inclined to do this when its leaders push lines about adopting a capital gains tax ‘because it’s the right thing to do’ even if it loses Labour votes. We’re likely to now hear more from Goff and co about Labour valuing principle over popularity, and about policies that are the best for the country rather than the best for short-term political gain. They’re after the sympathy vote.

In terms of today’s poll, the most important pieces of analysis to read are John Hartevelt’s Labour's calling, but no one's answering, Andrea Vance’s Voters undeterred by PM’s stumbles, David Farrar’s 17 weeks to go: what can Labour do?, and Vernon Small’s National supporters stay loyal to Key-fronted party. Unlike many polls, the Fairfax one is notable for its rich voting behaviour information – especially details of vote shifting between parties and also about coalition preferences of voters. On both these scores, one of the more interesting details is about Green voters. It seems the Green Party has lost nearly a third of its 2008 voter base – possibly the more leftwing voters. And a decent proportion of the party’s current voters would prefer that the party goes into a coalition with National – see: Voters reject Harawira hook-up. As Sue Bradford is quoted saying, ‘More and more they are becoming a mainstream middle ground party that is going after the blue green vote and more and more Green Party members and supporters feel comfortable with that’.

The other ongoing political debate of the day is around electoral deals, and Patrick Gower has written a great blog post, entitled Dirty electorate political deals, done dirt cheap. His main complaint about such deals is when ‘politicians do them but don't openly admit them to voters’. A Herald editorial (It's politics... but not as many want it) takes a different approach in its disapproval: ‘If there is anything new about the latest set of machinations, it is that little attempt has been made to disguise them’. Another editorial (Parties risk sullying MMP's reputation) makes an even more important point: ‘With MMP's future on the line in a referendum in this year's election, how the people feel about such machinations will be put to the test. It would be deeply ironic if a system that was supposed to end the cynicism of politicians met its own end because of it’. A closely related issue – the nexus between electoral deals and the 5% MMP threshold – is dealt with well in the No Right Turn blog post, In support of the "electorate lifeboat".

It’s worth noting the rise of the issue of poverty and child welfare in New Zealand onto the political agenda – which is dealt with in recent Herald articles about child poverty – see, for example, Simon Collins’ Our hungry kids: Huge leap in foodbank use, and Brian Rudman’ Hunger in land of milk and honey. Partly this all reflects – as I’ve argued previously – the resurgence of public-political interest in traditional left-right materialist issues of economics and inequality. But it also reflects the ongoing work of the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG), which has been working tirelessly for a number of years to get these issues addressed. CPAG have also just released a useful report in this regard, Hunger for Learning, which you can download as a PDF here.

Finally, to mark the 25th anniversary of homosexual law reform, there are plenty of very good retrospective analyses of what happened back in 1986. In particular, check out Kimberly Rothwell’s 25 years of gay rights in New Zealand, Malcolm McKinnon's 25 years on – homosexual law reform in New Zealand, and for a more challenging account: Sean Kearns’ On the 25th anniversary of homosexual law reform: Gay liberation or crumbs from parliament?.[Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

NZ Politics Daily - 26 July

The most extraordinary political statement of the year (so far) was published on Labour’s Red Alert blog site last night. List MP Damien O’Connor wrote a blog post of just 59 words in which he protested against the recent ruling by Electoral Commission that deemed Labour Party election advertisements to be in breach of the law because they lacked authorizing promoter statements: ‘I thought we lived in a free democracy. Since when did a sign become illegal when expressing an opinion or encouraging people to act? Does this ban all signs at marches that may in any way be linked to a movement or political party. The EC needs to pull their heads in. This is not the 1930s in Europe’ – see his blog post: Signs. Then MP Clare Curran joined the fray to say, ‘Hope the Electoral Commission is reading this. Is this what our democracy has come to?  I agree with you Damien’.

What’s extraordinary about his polemical statement is that Labour – together with the Greens – has been the party that has been most enthusiastic about regulating political campaigning and election advertisements, in particular with the need for all such political expressions (such as the signs used by Labour) to carry authorization statements. Labour’s Electoral Finance Act 2007, in particular, was especially controversial for widening the definition of an ‘election advertisement’ and increasing the need for authorising promoter statement on the material. The rules – now watered down a bit by the legislation that replaced the EFA – are still in force, and Labour MPs such as Damien O’Connor voted for all of this. So to hear Labour suddenly protest against these rules is rather bizarre, and this is pointed out today by both David Farrar on the right (Labour says law should not apply to them) and No Right Turn on the left (Utter denial). Both bloggers are incredulous that Labour MPs have come up with a new stance on regulating election advertising, with Farrar explaining it like this: Labour ‘have got so used to being above the law, that they really do think it appalling that an independent agency will not kowtow to them. In fact the post is a barely veiled threat against the Electoral Commission’. No Right Turn labels Labour’s approach as ‘pig-headed arrogance’. 

Nonetheless, despite the bizarreness or hypocrisy of O’Connor’s statement, it’s not hard to have sympathy for him, because – going back to first principles – it truly is rather questionable that protest placards should be deemed illegal by the state if they do not contain official authorization. Yes, this has been a requirement since 1977, but is it really a useful and necessary one? A good argument can be made that there is simply no need for ‘disclosure of identity of the promoter’ on campaign communications. The rules for political expression should be the same for any other public communications such as media advertisements. There is no special reason that political communications requires any additional regulation, and in fact it is highly problematic to try and do so.

Such heavy-handed regulation of political activity does little, if any, good. But the state could be improving the health of democratic debate and politics simply through fostering a healthier mediascape. Alas, public broadcasting in particular is virtually dead in New Zealand. Three very good recent opinion pieces have covered the death in different ways. David Beatson’s Pundit post, TVNZ kills ad-free channels to grow profits explains in detail the demise of TVNZ7, and Ruth Zanker’s Press piece Death by a thousand tiny cuts (not currently online) points out that the per-person funding of commercial free broadcasting is only $30 here compared to $45 in Australia, $109 in the UK, and $142 in Germany. Most interestingly, Steven Cowan’s blog post, Who killed TVNZ?, says that ‘Labour killed public broadcasting in New Zealand. National just disposed of the body’. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

NZ Politics Daily: 25 July

Sometimes it’s hard to see why New Zealand went with Mixed Member Proportional representation, when if we really wanted a PR system we could have gone for the ‘real deal’ and left the electorate component out of the equation and just had 120 list MPs. It would certainly solve a lot of MMP’s problems that are continually complained about. The latest complaint is around so-called ‘electorate stich-ups’, with National’s strategic deals in Epsom and Ohariu being the focus of much political commentary in the last week. The must-read account of the moment is by Claire Trevett – see: Deals on the table, this time with a price. Trevett explains that the Epsom and Ohariu deals shouldn’t really be seen as remarkable, and it’d be more newsworthy if such deal making wasn’t happening. But she does point out that there are in fact two reasons that the 2011 ‘stitch-ups’ are different: (1) ‘This is the first time National has extracted a price in return. Deals have been made under which Act will not stand candidates in at least two marginal seats to maximise National's chances - Waimakariri, held by Labour's Clayton Cosgrove, and New Plymouth, which National's Jonathan Young holds with a tiny majority. Up to eight others are under negotiation’; and (2) ‘the usual quiet hints have increased to loudhailer volume. In the past it wasn't done to openly admit you were working the system, even though most parties did it to some extent’. The other decent account of the MMP ‘stitch-ups’ is by Anthony Hubbard – see: The Epsom equation – in which he comes up with a fantastic quote about the Epsom deal, by Green candidate David Hay: ‘National has selected a candidate it doesn't want to win [Goldsmith], in order to support a candidate they don't want in parliament [Act candidate and former Nat John Banks], to get someone else in parliament that the Epsom voters wouldn't vote for [Act leader Don Brash.]’. Another very astute piece of analysis by Hubbard can also be read in his article, Top dogs, battlers... and Hone. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

NZ Politics Daily: 22 July

Once again the Green Party is on a mission to ‘clean up politics’ – this time focusing on the acceptance of corporate freebies by Treasury staff – see: Greens call for probe into officials’ free lunches. The party is asking a lot of very important questions about these elite relationships. The extent of coverage of the issue shows the major sensitivity that the public and media continue to have towards issues of potential corruption and untoward business influence on politics. Although too often the discourse in this area veers into populism and crude electioneering, today’s situation is a major improvement over a previous era when business-political relationships were hardly ever examined at all. The Greens will continue to do well out of such a focus. It provides them with just enough anti-Establishment and critical orientation at a time when they could be seen as becoming too mainstream and boring. But the party will have to be careful not to appear as too arrogant and ‘whiter than white’ in such discussions – because the Greens also participate in many of the exchanges of resources in politics. For instance, it was not that long ago that co-leader Russel Norman accepted an ‘educational’ holiday to the US paid for by the US state. Is this really significantly different to the corporate hospitality that the Greens view suspiciously in others?

Attention is still on the Prime Minister’s handling of the spy allegations. A NZ Herald editorial labels John Key’s ‘ineptitude’ over the issue as extraordinary, because he ‘usually has a good instinct for matters of public interest’ – see: PM's inept reply fuels spying doubts. David Farrar also admits that Key ‘stuffed up’ in his initial dealing with the issue, and he briefly delves into why this might have happened. But Farrar also manages to find a genuine silver lining to cheer about: Key’s ‘strength is his willingness to change course quickly when he does go down the wrong path’ – see: Israel 'spygate' a test for PM. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

NZ Politics Daily: 21 July

There’s still a lot of smoke, but no apparent fire yet in the Israeli spy allegation stories. It’s also difficult to fathom just how this will play out in terms of domestic parliamentary politics. The most obvious issue so far is in terms of how the Prime Minister has dealt with the emerging scandal, with numerous reports evaluating his response yesterday – see, for example, Tracy Watkins’s PM John Key finds himself on shaky ground. The scandal has certainly taken the gloss off John Key’s trip to Washington.

Most journalists and commentators seem unimpressed with Key’s reluctance to answer questions as well as his U-turn on the issue, but some also acknowledge that he was simply ‘caught on the hop’. The whole line about it not being ‘in the national interest to discuss’ is also receiving some critical analysis, with some asking if the hush is simply designed to avoid embarrassing Israel. Phil Goff is especially critical of Key’s response – see: Key mishandled spy issue – Goff. And Keith Locke is asking some good questions too: ‘There is a reluctance to say or do anything that embarrasses the Israeli government, particularly as the current National government has adopted a stronger pro-Israeli foreign policy stance than Labour. It would be good if there was more public scrutiny of this’ (More information needed on spy story). 

The spy story is being covered very well by Radio New Zealand. And the most interesting item so far, has been a Morning Report interview with British Mossad expert Gordon Thomas (audio), which is also reported in Lane Nichols’ Israelis 'likely an official covert team'. All of this suggests that we might soon see a shift in the Government’s orientation towards the state of Israel. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

NZ Politics Daily: 20 July

The big story of the day is obviously the allegations about the suspicious activities of various Israelis in the aftermath of the Christchurch earthquake in February. The comprehensive story is told here: SIS on trail of suspected Israeli spies. At this stage, there seems little hard evidence or reliable information to form a full political analysis of what it all means, but undoubtedly this story will continue to evolve.

Instead, political commentators, journalists and bloggers are more fixated on the issue of marginal seats and cooperation deals between parties – especially allegations of collusion between Act and National involving the Epsom seat. Andrea Vance has some strong views on this – see: A shameless power-grab in Epsom – while Adam Bennett examines some of the deal apparently being discussed: Act look for deal to leave marginal seats alone. Labour’s Grant Robertson is scathing of the National-Act relationship. It seems that such deal making could be increasingly likely in this election, but it’s not entirely clear yet why that would be a problem. 

A more significant and troubling development is once again highlighted today by David Farrar and Whaleoil, when they draw attention to the misuse of parliamentary resources by the Labour Party to campaign – see: Labour’s taxpayer funded campaign, More taxpayer-funded Labour propaganda, Dear Lockwood and Labour’s Pledge card rort re-visited. Similar issues were also dealt with in the Herald in the weekend: Like it or not, we foot the bill. Clearly there continues to be a serious problem with political finance in this country. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

 

NZ Politics Daily: 19 July

We are living in a materialist world, and the coming election campaign is going to strongly reflect that. This statement is not supposed to be a riff on Madonna or hippy politics, but instead a pointer to the fact that the resurgence of materialist-based politics (tax, inflation, inequality, standards of living, asset sales, healthcare, retirement incomes) continues to overshadow the post-materialist politics such as law and order, Treaty issues, the environment, anti-smacking, and sexual politics (prostitution law reform; civil unions), that have dominated all recent elections. Today’s main political stories are about the economy and Labour’s new tax proposals – what political scientists call materialist issues. Assuming these media stories reflect what people are interested, then voters are concerned about ‘back pocket’ issues more than ever. For example, inflation is said to be at a 21-year high and wage levels are struggling to keep up, and interest rates look set to increase – see: Price rises hurting. This is re-fueling calls for a higher minimum wage – see: Inflation leads to new calls for $15 minimum wage. Colin James is talking today about materialist issues in his interesting Otago Daily Times column  Social investment for a stronger economy, the Dom Post editorial deals with retirement incomes – Mr Key, explain how you'll sustain superannuation and, of course, there’s plenty of ongoing discussion about Labour’s innovative capital gains tax proposal. The most notable news report is about the astonishing fact that last night a TVNZ survey suggested 43% of New Zealanders support such a tax – see: Support grows for capital gains tax. Labour will be incredibly buoyed by this good news, which somewhat goes against the commentary and analysis about Labour’s poll drop on TVNZ the night before. This apparent contradiction is briefly discussed by Danyl Mclauchlan at The Dim-Post.

But further bad news for Labour also comes out of the same poll – which shows that ‘53% of respondents trust the National Government the most to manage the books, compared to 24% who trust Labour’ – see: National far ahead in trust stakes. This is important stuff, because to a large extent the coming election contest is going to be about which parties are likely to govern in a way that will increase our material security. Labour has done very well one this – creating doubt in voters’ minds about the economic competency of National, but it has so far totally failed to make an impression about it’s own competency. Perhaps this will change if Labour wins the capital gains tax debate. But according to John Minto, Labour’s tax proposal is too boring and mild to truly excite voters. He says ‘a 15% capital gains tax will still mean property investors or speculators will be paying a lower rate of tax than anyone on wages and salaries. Under Goff’s proposal wage and salary earners will still subsidise parasitic speculators’ – see: Bold And Game-Changing? Sadly, No.

At least Labour is firmly focused on the materialist issues, however, unlike the Act Party – see for example, these two very good recent columns: The race is run, Don, so count on economics and ACT cynical and out of touch. It seems that unlike Labour and National, the Act Party is still apparently obsessively living in a post-materialist world of ethnicity issues, which is why the party is going to be much less relevant on November 26.[Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

NZ Politics Daily: 18 July

‘Catastrophic’ is the term that Matthew Hooton used to describe the Labour’s latest poll result in his weekly RNZ Nine-to-Noon politics slot (audio) – and he’s correct. Regardless of whether Labour support has really dived to only 27% –  as stated in the latest TVNZ opinion poll – and regardless of whether this slump is due to the party’s new capital gains tax policy, the problem for Labour is that it needed the first poll after the announcement to show some sort of improvement so that the party would have some forward momentum and people would herald the new tax policy as some sort of ‘gamechanger’ or success. It was possibly the most critical pre-election poll of the year for Labour. 

 Clearly it’s all about ‘the narrative’ – and the narrative that is now being embedded in voters minds – whether fairly or not – is that Labour’s election chances are sunk and it's due to the public’s verdict on the capital gains tax proposal. So as Hooton also said this morning, ‘The perception becomes reality. The perception is going to be that Labour has lost support because of it’. 

Danyl Mclauchlan at The Dim-Post has a plausible alternative theory about Labour’s sudden slump: ‘if you look closer at TVNZ’s poll numbers we see the real explanation for Labour’s enduring unpopularity. Voters really, really, really don’t like Phil Goff. He’s 45% behind Key in the preferred Prime Minister poll… the fundamental issue is still one of personalities, not policy. They desperately need to retire their entire front bench – with the arguable exceptions of Parker and Cunliffe – not change their policies’. And surely if the next opinion poll shows a similar or even lower level of support for Labour, then the question of Goff’s emergency replacement will arise once again in the caucus. 

Such negative discussions about Labour show just how powerful opinion polls have become in our political discourse. Just one opinion poll quickly overshadows so much else – and over the last few days there’s been plenty of positive coverage of Labour and its new tax policy. For instance, on Saturday John Armstrong praised Labour’s political management and leadership in his column: Goff tax has caught National napping. Today Tapu Misa writes in the Herald about Goff's tax plan a start to a fairer society, and on Friday Chris Trotter praised Labour’s new tax policy as a major step forward in terms of values rather than technical details – see: The Price We Pay For Civilisation. Even the Dom Post’s editorial on the CGT bemoaned that John Key was ruling out Labour’s idea (No to capital gains tax shows lack of faith). Clearly Labour has done something strategically right in pushing forward in a new direction, but ultimately it will probably come to nothing if the party is only able to win over elite opinion and not the people. 

Other worthwhile reads about Labour’s tax policy include Bernard Hickey’s Shock tactics fail to give us a hefty jolt, in which he laments Labour’s mild and watered-down approach to a capital gains tax, Brian Fallow’s Labour plan worries tax experts, Gordon Campbell’s Capital gains tax creates odd allies, and Nadine Chalmers-Ross’ Anything to gain?. Keith Ng’s blog posts at Public Address are also essential reading. 

 All of this quality debate shows that, as a friend recently said to me, although the CGT is not an inherently left-wing idea or right-wing idea, its a debate long overdue, and furthermore, it's vaguely encouraging that something as inherently dry as tax discussion has become the focus of political debate over the last couple of weeks, rather than the usual horse-race "leadership" obsession. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

 

NZ Politics Daily: 15 July

Hone Harawira's non-swearing in yesterday has predictably generated a lot of comment. While Harawira won't be upset by the furore, the widespread assumption that this was a deliberate stunt aimed at getting him thrown out of parliament is almost certainly wrong. Andrew Geddis (What if Hone had crossed his fingers?) is clear that the outcome was of Lockwood Smith's choosing: ‘the decision to stop Mr Harawira and tell him he needs to come back on another occasion to take the oath/affirmation properly was not legally required in any way; it was a decision that the Speaker has taken of and by himself’. James Meager (Some reflections on Hone), while not endorsing Harawira's actions agrees that Smith ‘did have a choice’. 

 Harawira was merely doing what he and other MPs had done previously - adding to the oath he is required under law to take as an MP sitting in parliament. He has to say the exact words but the law does not say he can't add more at the time. My view (Harawira owed an apology – academic; and video) is that Lockwood Smith made the call and should explain why he has changed his policy on this practice. Is it a case of not ‘pandering to Maori radicals’ as ACT and Don Brash put it?

Also predictably there has been repetitive reporting of Harawira's salary and allowances as an MP (Banned Harawira still getting paid) which is irrelevant. He is an elected MP and, as parliament is in recess until the day he will be sworn in, he will be doing exactly what he would have been doing. At most he missed being able to sit in parliament for a few hours yesterday - something most other MPs (who had the legal right to do so) probably missed out of choice.

 Mutterings of ‘no respect’ from fellow MPs and condemnations that this is not the way to change laws you don't agree with (New oath call after Hone stunt) are historically ignorant. Actions like this are very often key catalysts in initiating or speeding up changes and this will probably prove to be the case with the archaic oath our MPs are required to take when entering parliament.

But Labour’s tax policy announcement is still the most politically substantive topic of the day. Possibly the most vital items to read on the issue are John Armstrong’s Goff may win the political debate, but a tax is still just that, Gordon Campbell’s On Labour’s tax package, Adam Bennett’s Labour banks on voters ‘doing right thing’, and David Farrar’s Tax package great PR, bad numbers.[Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

NZ Politics Daily: 14 July

The likely electoral impact of Labour’s official capital gains tax policy will be now taking the attention of all political observers and pundits. First out of the blocks seems to be Stuff’s Andrea Vance, who says that the tax policy is ‘politically audacious’ but ‘it's a stretch to imagine it changing the outcome of the election’ – see: Labour seizes the moment. She emphasizes that the now-announced CGT is far from being a ‘comprehensive’ CGT, due to the surprising number of exemptions in the policy. Rightwing blogger David Farrar simply says that such a policy would lead to accountants ‘celebrating the extra work’ based on the loopholes created by the exemptions – see: Labour’s package. John Hartevelt reports on the number crunching that has been done to show the huge revenue that is eventually expected from the policy – see: Capital gains tax could net $3.9 billion. No doubt, much of the debate will now focus on the validity of these figures, because Labour’s electoral strategy is clearly based around the narrative that it can pay off government debt just as quickly and effectively as National, but can do so without the need to sell off assets. National’s job will be to show that Labour’s CGT will be somewhat less effective than what is necessary. But in reality, much of this debate will be buried in technocratic details that simply turn voters off. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

 

NZ Politics Daily: 13 July

Labour and National want to lower our horizons, and they need to convince us that their central campaign planks of a capital gains tax and assets sales, respectively, are the ‘necessary medicine’ to correct the country’s economic problems. This is the type of negative politics that will characterize the 2011 election campaign. Basically, the two political issues that are shaping up to be defining election campaign debates are both likely to be viewed by the electorate as negative ones. Hence without any great enthusiasm for either party’s plans, the sale of each proposal will largely depend on the argument that one policy is ‘less worse’ than that of their opponents. This is the upshot of what Guyon Espiner is reporting today in Labour poll shows people not happy with capital gains tax, in which he reports that Labour’s in-house polling shows that voters are not keen on the introduction of a new tax, unless it is framed as the ‘lesser evil on offer’. [*edit: the original NZPD editorial and pdf reflected the earlier TVNZ version of this article which stated that the CGI tax was unpopular with Labour voters in particular, as opposed to voters in general. TVNZ has subsequently changed their online headline and article.]

According to Espiner, Labour’s biggest group of respondents strongly disapproves of the idea of the capital gains tax - 31% of those polled. But when the new tax is counterposed to asset sales, there seems to be greater acceptance of the idea: ‘I guess if they can frame it as an either/or then they've got a bit more chance of trying to say their unpopular policy is the one to go for’. And quite simply, Labour has to come up with some income generation strategy – it will just get hammered if it says we shouldn’t sell assets but can’t explain how we will rebuild Christchurch. And they know very well that state asset sales are political poison – no one really likes them. So far Labour hasn’t been able to put enough attention on asset sales, but if every time they get attacked on their CGT they can turn that into a choice between that or asset sales they might win. So the election campaign, in a sense, is about lowering our horizon to accept things we don’t particularly want. That, of course, is nothing new in New Zealand politics – it’s been one of the major themes for the last 25 years. 

The refugee asylum issue is also a chance for Labour and National to go negative and campaign for the xenophobic vote. At first it seemed that Labour might see the issue as a chance to differentiate itself from National’s hardline/populist stance – especially because Phil Goff was reported as being highly critical of John Key over the matter – listen, for example, the RNZ audio story: Will strong border protection be a vote winner for Key?. But instead it turned out that Goff is actually just unhappy with the prime minister telling them they're ‘not welcome’ because it sounds a bit mean. But they're still not welcome!

The Act Party, too, is mired in negativity. Surely Don Brash must now be wondering if he shouldn’t have gone with his Plan B of launching a new rightwing party instead of taking over Act. Instead Brash continues with his project of cleaning out the party and injecting outsiders with no background in Act into the new brand – such as Don Nicolson, who will attempt to win over the farmer vote (but will be perceived by many as ‘another old fogey’ in the mould of Brash). There will be a lot of disgruntled Act insiders. Brash will be arguing that it’s necessary to hollow out the party and reinvent the party brand, but so far it doesn’t appear to be working, and the danger is that he may destroy anything that’s left organizationally. The latest negative headline is: Brash has difficulty recruiting Maori ACT candidates, and it seems that the only real Maori contender was deemed unsuitable because he listed his greatest hero as Rob Muldoon! Similarly, the party is going to have trouble recruiting women – see: Derek Cheng’s Bring on the girls…Brash acts to fight white blokes image. Brash might be inclined to blame the prior party brand for these woes, but really it’s all his own making, and it’s not like he can blame the current MPs or current party organization for the failure to fire. He has failed to spark the revival, and increasingly Act insider will be saying that it’s Brash and his approach that are the problem. 

The repeal of TVNZ’s Charter is the other negative story of the day – see: TVNZ released from ‘unrealistic dual mandate’. But the reality is that Labour’s Charter was always a sham, and the repeal means that it is simply the death of any pretense that TVNZ is a public broadcaster. Nonetheless, Clare Curran and the Greens are making the most of this negative situation – see: The slippery slope and TVNZ charter needed for 'healthy democracy' – Greens. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

NZ Politics Daily: 12 July

Never before has political debate in this country been focused on parties with such low public support. According to the most recent opinion poll published, the Act, Maori and Mana parties each have the support of 1.7%, 0.8%, and 0.7% respectively, yet they’re the political forces creating the most political debate this week. Nearly all the minor parties are now in the ‘death zone’ of scoring well below the 5% threshold – although most now focus on winning electorate seats rather than the party vote. 

Despite their low popularity, these minor parties are still potentially crucial for constructing coalition governments. Hence they remain politically relevant, and so we’re also seeing Prime Minister John Key take a ‘relaxed’ line on it all – see: Key can work with Brash and Sharples. This could yet change as we get closer to the election. Because even if the Maori Party and Act do get a few seats in November, Act’s attacks make it more and more difficult for a National-Act-Maori Party coalition after the election. After all, the Maori party will come under enormous pressure from Mana and Labour and their supporters to rule out any coalition going into government with Act. For evidence of this, see the Horizon poll about Maori preferences for government: Horizon Poll: Maori post election government preferences. So while John Key says he will work with both Brash and Sharples the reality may be that his coalition partners won’t work with each other.

Key’s floundering response is a symptom of the bind he is in with his current and future coalition partners. He needs both on tap. Therefore he’s currently not wanting to engage at all in the new ‘race wars’. Yet, eventually Key will have to deal with Brash. At the moment he doesn’t have to because he’s not really leading the Act Party in Parliament. But after the election it will be led by Brash, and so as the election approaches Key is going to be forced to address the issue.

 The other reason that the minor parties are receiving publicity far in excess of their public support is because, as Gordon Campbell points out in his column On Don Brash’s race gambit, they are all ‘seeking the oxygen of publicity to arrest their respective declines’. Campbell’s column is also worth reading because he deals with the prime minister’s very low key response to his coalition partner’s racial-based implosion.

Another thoughtful explanation for why Brash won’t be able to work the same poll magic on Act’s 2011 popularity that he did for National in 2005 is found on the rightwing Homepaddock blogpost, Leading Act where? - an account that boils down to the fact that although since 2005 Brash’s ‘message hasn’t changed, other things have’. 

The extent to which Act’s message is out of sync with the electorate – or perhaps just the political beltway? – is evident from across the media and blogosphere today. Everyone from Debborah Coddington and Rodney Hide through to the Dominion Post and various academics have expressed their disapproval for Act’s race-orientated advertisements. But even some of Act’s critics might be at least slightly alarmed to see the state’s Race Relations Commissioner enter the electoral fray and provide a warning to Act – see: Act warned over Maori radical’s ad. Similarly, it will be disconcerting to more than a few that the NZ Herald is using the controversy to announce in an editorial that there is No place for radicalism in NZ politics. Sue Bradford, for instance, is arguing the case for greater radicalism in dealing with environmental problems, and laments that the Green Party is going down the path of corporate greenwash and general market-based policies – see: Greed is good, as long as it’s green.

The media are interested in the fact that the Green Party has hit the 9% mark in the latest poll, and clearly the party is picking up votes of both the weakened Labour Party and New Zealand First – as I commented today on Morning Report (listen here). It shouldn’t be surprising that the Greens are picking up Labour votes – that’s what happened with the Alliance in the 1990s. It did particularly well when Labour was polling badly. If anything the Greens haven’t picked up as much as they should have. Given their shift towards the centre of the political spectrum and their very smart political positioning, they might have expected to be doing much better. It could be quite simply that the public has had enough of minor parties. Gone are the days – back in 1996 and 2002 – when the aggregate vote for the minor parties was nearly 40%. These days, all the minor parties seem to be struggling to remain relevant, and it’s their extreme desperation and weakness that is keeping them in the public eye. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

NZ Politics Daily: 11 July

There’s a lot of fragility and uncertainty in the party system at the moment. Although National might be popular (Greens on the up, National in front – poll), its main two coalition options are in an extremely fragile and weakened state, which could yet cause the downfall of the current Government at the coming general election. The Act and Maori parties are suddenly looking much more vulnerable, which could make a future National-led government much less likely.

Rather than regenerating under new leader Don Brash, the Act Party appears to have become even more dysfunctional and divided. This is the message in two very good blog posts by Andrea Vance (It's not working, desperate Don) and Patrick Gower (The ACT Party look pretty much stuffed). Vance points out that Brash was expected to take the party back towards a focus on economics, ‘But instead of a definitive speech on economic policy, he chooses to hurl abuse about "Nazis" in local government, complain about the Wai 262 report (which he hasn't actually read) and celebrate David Garrett's exoneration.  Of five press releases issued since June, four were about race and one was a cheap shot at Labour over broadband’. Similarly, Gower says Act is ‘pretty much’ stuffed, ‘and certainly desperate’: 

'It has gone nowhere. It is stagnant. It is treading water. It is looking like a couple of old blokes on political life support. The latest effort with the advertisement in the Herald shows Don Brash and his mate John Ansell acting as yesterday's men with no plan. It was a cut and paste job. So instead of being the adrenalin shot to bust them back into life the advert is more like slow euthanasia. Don Brash took the leadership on April 28. That was 11 weeks ago. Since then, Brash has been virtually anonymous. This is what has happened - or hasn't happened - since: No re-branding of the ACT party. No significant speech on economic issues by Dr Brash. In fact we are still due a centrepiece speech on where ACT is going full stop. No high-calibre new candidates have come forward. Heather Roy has done a runner. Sinking ship stuff?'

It appears that Act really is now showing that it has run out of policy dynamism and is simply looking to score some easy popularity points, but can’t even do this. And there seems to be an unhealthy internal dynamic at play – especially according to academic political advertising specialist Claire Robinson, who asks whether ‘we are witnessing a party in its death throes?’ Robinson normally defends political advertisements from bad press, but in this case is extremely harsh about what Act’s latest debacle represents: 

'[It all points] to a very dysfunctional party in which an unelected advertising official has had a dangerously disproportionate, almost Rasputinesque, amount of influence on a party’s policy direction and presentation.  It is seriously concerning that there should be so few checks on party communications in the ACT Party that an advertisement that so clearly reflected the individual political views of its creator, an unelected contractor, should be able to be published in New Zealand’s largest newspaper, and then followed up with a press statement written by the same person on behalf of the party’s leader. Only after this debacle is the contractor censured. This is what gives political advertising a bad name'.

To make matters worse for Key and National, the Maori Party has just decided to battle on to the death against the Mana Party (Maori Party: No deal with Mana). The Mana Party has played the situation well, coming out of the talks with the appearance of reasonableness, maturity and a willingness to compromise – which was probably always the main objective. The Maori Party in contrast appears foolish and sectarian, but worst of all, it’s chances of retaining the Tamaki Makaurau and Waiariki electorates has just dropped significantly – meaning that Key could be in real trouble if he needs to stitch together a coalition after 26 November. It seems that the major parties – Labour and National – continue to fail to protect and marshal their minor party coalition partners, which is one of their biggest failings under MMP. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

 

NZ Politics Daily: 8 July

Possibly the biggest threat to the electoral success of Labour’s as-yet-unknown capital gains tax policy is the technocratic element of the discussion. The technical details and arguments for and against are making the whole topic appear rather complicated and dry. There is little evidence, at this stage at least, of any great passion about the proposal, but more about the faults, problems, or benefits and appropriateness of capital gains taxes. There doesn’t appear to be any strong left or right political nature to this debate, and although it's a great beltway and policy wonk debate, it’s unlikely that Labour’s new bold policy is actually going to be one that creates enthusiasm or passion amongst voters one way or another. We’re already hearing from a bewildering number of economists, accountants, tax experts who are discussing the ins and outs of the potential policy, delivering diverse viewpoints. For instance, TVNZ’s Corin Dann gives his balanced opinion on the proposal, essentially saying he has mixed feelings about it but is glad the debate is occurring. TV3 reports one expert calling a Capital gains tax ‘reasonably normal’. In the NBR, Rob Hosking explores some other expert opinions, who mostly seem to downplay the significance of the proposal and the likely benefits, but also pointing out that the state agencies appear relatively divided on the topic. Elsewhere, the Waikato Times and the NZ Herald have run relatively sympathetic editorials. Gordon Campbell on Scoop is also enthusiastic, but he rightly points out that a CGT is not intrinsically a leftwing policy and that there’s absolutely no reason that the political right couldn’t agree to one as well. So it seems that the proponents of the CGT are running the line that it’s nothing radical, ironically just at time when Labour needs to show that it’s capable of coming up with something exciting and bold. 

Also, check out Chris Trotter’s Dom Post column, in which he attempts to refute my recent arguments that New Zealand has become characterised by an ‘anti-political and anti-ideological’ age. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

NZ Politics Daily: 6 July

Labour’s likely capital gains tax (TVNZ: Property investors face capital gains tax under Labour) looks set to be the main point of difference between the two main parties at the election. That reporters like Duncan Garner (Labour tightlipped over capital gains tax) describe it as a ‘bold and courageous move’ may owe more to Labour’s previously timid approach on economics and just how far to the right mainstream economic debate has swung in New Zealand. Nearly all commentators acknowledge that capital gains taxes are mainstream in most western economies. As the Dim-Post points out (Political suicide?) there are many more voters affected by Kiwisaver cuts than by a tax on investment properties. Bold or not, it could be an effective strike at National’s economic policy: ‘Now it looks like they finally get it. National wants to finance the rebuilding of Christchurch via asset sales; Labour via a tax on property speculation. This isn’t a hard argument to make’.

 For a truly bold view Rob Carr (Implosion a good thing) picks up John Key’s assertion that a capital gains or land tax would cause a property price ‘implosion’ and argues it would actually be a good outcome. Such a view has been strongly resisted by property investors, bankers and real estate agents who all prospered within the housing bubble but Labour’s policy shows the political centre is catching up with what most voters figured out a while ago – the years of debt fuelled spending and speculation are over. 

However, Labour’s proposed CGT appears to be a relatively mild version. It seems to be the sort of ‘CGT you have when you don’t really want a CGT’ – because it exempts the so-called family home. This might be seen as a major flaw in the proposal. CGTs can be very complex – and that’s the big downside of them – they lead to tax avoidance and creative accounting. So by including a major exemption like the family home, you open up a huge potential loophole, and it’s one that can greatly reduce the effectiveness of the tax because it can be extremely difficult to define a ‘family home’ in a watertight way. If Labour truly wanted to be bold, not only would it not allow exemptions to its CGT – as in most western countries – but it would also propose a land tax and a financial transactions tax.

 Meanwhile the big infrastructure bills in Christchurch and Auckland must be paid (Andrea Vance: Infrastructure blueprint ‘step to privatisation’ & TV3: Resilience a focus of new infrastructure spending) so it appears Labour will tell voters that they have to decide between National’s slash and sell approach and Labour’s speculator surcharge.

 Some politics are very much business as usual with Labour and National voting together to further increase the SIS powers of surveillance (SIS given stronger powers). And also, as usual, the Greens, led by soon to be retired spokesperson Keith Locke, were the only party to oppose it. 

 The news that ex-MP David Garrett will not face prosecution (Belinda McCammon: Ex-MP David Garrett cleared of perjury) will be cold comfort for Act. First Garrett and then leader Rodney Hide were sacrificed to revive dismal poll ratings – 10+% was the target after Brash’s ‘make me your leader or I will destroy you’ coup. The latest polls (David Farrar, Stuff: Where the latest polls point) show Act at 2.5% and only 3 MPs. There has been plenty of pain for no gain to date.

 Note: Today’s NZ Politics Daily is being distributed early, as I’m off to Wellington today to present a public lecture entitled ‘A Hollow Democracy? Why New Zealand elections are increasingly meaningless to voters’ tonight at 6pm, at the James Cook Hotel and tomorrow night in Auckland, 6pm, at 385 Queen St. Consequently there will be no NZPD tomorrow. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

 

NZ Politics Daily: 5 July

One of the great-unexamined social, economic and political phenomena of post-1984 New Zealand is the growing importance of iwi, following on from state-sanctioned involvement in Treaty processes and biculturalism. There has been some attention paid to the political and economic power of these modern ‘neo-tribal corporations’ by individuals such as Prof Elizabeth Rata at Auckland University, the late Bruce Jesson, and Maori radical Annette Sykes, but within the mainstream media there are few attempts to understand how significant these organisations are. Even the Iwi Leadership Group - a very modern political outcome of iwi power - passes by largely unexamined, despite its crucial role in modern state-Maori politics and it’s close relationship with the Maori Party. Therefore, John McCrone’s Press investigation, Ngai Tahu's legacy set to grow is well worth reading today. He argues that although Iwi corporations are large operations that have growing economic and political power they are not very transparent. 

Sticking with Maori politics, both Willie Jackson and Rawiri Taonui have dealt with the proposed Mana Party deal with the Maori Party – see: Time for a deal to lock out Labour and Hone stares down panicking opposition (not currently online, but in the Sunday Star Times). Jackson says the deal is important, and Taonui disagrees. Either way, it seems that the Maori Party is in trouble.

While this year’s election campaign looks likely to be fairly dull in terms of actual policy, Vernon Small speculates that this could change - see: Capital gains speculation over Labour tax policy;  and Mike Williams argues that National’s partial-privatisation plans will be central – see: The elephant in National’s room: Privatisation. Either way, both policies are likely to be the main points of attack for Labour and National against each other in the election.

Two other viewpoints worth reading in the Dom Post are Tom Fitzsimons’s article, When one moment on the lips becomes a monumental blip (not online) and Karl Du Fresne column, Moral outrage fans the spread of acute sensitivity disorder. Both items question if Thompson’s comments have been blown out of proportion. Yet more likely, Thompson’s comments have simply acted as a trigger event for debate and change on issues that are important but don’t get much attention from media obsessed with conflict you can't see on the TV. Of course trade unions have been running campaigns for years on it without much media attention. Thompson has proved to be their greatest ally in getting it on top of the public agenda. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

 

NZ Politics Daily: 4 July

The focus on John Key has been intensifying lately as, in the lead up to the general election, media and political commentators start to evaluate his first term as prime minister, and try to work out ‘who he really is’ and why he’s so popular. Hence recently TV3’s The Nation has given him a reflective – but very soft – profile, and this month North & South magazine has published a cover story with few hard questions asked – see: Virginia Larson’s John Key – Saviour or spinner? (not online). 

In his election year scene-setting feature – Game on – in the Sunday Star Times, Anthony Hubbard, also deals briefly with the question of Key’s incredible popularity, and quotes me in this section: ‘And that leaves National and its greatest asset, John Key. Why has he done so well? "I don't want to like him," says left-leaning Willie Jackson, "but I can't help it."  Edwards finds the secret in his blandness, pragmatism and apparent honesty. "Key almost perfectly personifies our anti- political and anti-ideological age," he says’. To elaborate on this argument, I’d point out that no other political leader of a major political party in New Zealand has been so able to convincingly display a lack of an ideological framework. 

This is very important when the public is so thoroughly skeptical of the political ideologies. The very mention of the term ideology – which used have positive connotations – is almost abhorrent to many New Zealand. And if not ‘abhorrent’, it's simply boring to them. Hence, the political frameworks of all ideologies are not popular, understood, or even really spoken about amongst New Zealanders now. So it's very rare to hear terms such as socialist, neoliberal, free-market, feminist, or social democratic. Even the old analytical currency of 'left-wing' or 'right-wing' is decreasingly uttered or used. Certainly few politicians will ever self-ascribe these labels, and only ever use them as pejorative terms against opponents. Even the term 'politics' is now one that increasingly is seen as a dirty word relating to negative activities and motives (whereas once it had positive connotations). So the overwhelming ideological characteristic of our age is not leftwing, rightwing or any other ideology, it's 'anti-politics', 'anti-politicians', and suspicion of all ideologies. That’s the important context to understand this year’s general election campaign.

John Key fits this age perfectly. He has no real political history prior to being elected to Parliament only nine years ago - no real National Party background, no real prior views on landmark political issues such as the ‘81 tour, and an absence of involvement or alignment with any government. Instead his narrative is about 'getting things done' (successful international career), understanding people from all walks of life (state house background, business knowledge), arriving at all political situations with an open mind, and being willing to compromise and work with all political actors (the so-called anti-smacking legislation compromise, embracing the Maori Party). For most people he really does convincingly exude a sense that he is not your usual politician and is not driven by ideology. So when Key talks about his political principles, people understand him to be talking about rules of personal/political behaviour rather than ideology. 

No other political leader has been so convincing in this regard. Bolger and Clark were relatively good at painting themselves as 'political managers', but the public was far from convinced that they were purely pragmatic and had no ideological worldview that they secretly or not-so-secretly wanted to pursue. And, of course, Key's public perception of being nice, 'relaxed', willing to laugh and indulge in humour or down-to-earth behaviour (beer in hand, bbqs, jandals, etc) fit in very nicely with that anti-politician and anti-elite brand.

So, while it’s commonly pointed out that John Key has pragmatic similarities with previously popular prime ministers such as Holyoake and Muldoon, he's actually seen as being even more ideology-free than they ever were, and in 2011 the public's desire for this is greater than it's ever been. Therefore the central dynamic for understanding John Key's popularity is his very close match with the ideological atmosphere in New Zealand. Key almost perfectly personifies our anti-political and anti-ideological age. 

Another very useful article relating to John Key’s popularity is Jenni McManus’s Fairfax published article, The state of the nation (not currently online), in which 40 business leaders are interviewed for their assessment of John Key’s government. The collective verdict is incredibly poor – with a rating given of only 5 out of 10. The six-page article is full of quotes from captains of industry along the lines of ‘Where's the excitement? They're terrified that if they do anything dramatic, they may not get another term. The only strategy seems to be getting re-elected’. McManus sums up the business complaints about Key and colleagues: ‘The problem? A widespread perception that the Government has squandered the huge mandate for change it was handed at the 2008 election, opting for timid and incremental tinkering around the edges instead of tackling the big - and contentious - issues like tax reform, superannuation and welfare.  Significantly, the business community said it had no confidence that the Government had a clear economic strategy or vision to guide its policy-making’.

The Labour Party, unsurprisingly, is written off by business: ‘Overall, the view of many businesspeople was that the Labour Party had become irrelevant. It was characterised as "hopeless", "pathetic", "lacking the vigour of Clark and Cullen" and "still doing Business 101"’. So with both Labour and National derided as ineffectual and mild, McManus says this ‘year's election is not shaping up to be iconoclastic’. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

NZ Politics Daily: 1 July

There’s plenty of interesting New Zealand politics stories and analysis to read today – even if no one strong theme dominates. The most interesting thing in politics by the end of the week is still Hone Harawira – with numerous analyses of the by-election victory, where the Mana Party is going and what it means for the general election. John Moore writes a guest blog post on liberation about the ideological divisions within the Mana Party, and suggests that Harawira is still very much the Maori nationalist rather than the ‘born again socialist’ that the left are getting excited about – see: The Mana Party and its identity problems.

The latest Herald opinion poll finally has Mana registering on the landscape, but only at 0.5% of the vote. Notably, all minor parties continue to struggle – the latest poll shows that the two major parties are collectively hoovering up the support of 87% of the public. And Labour, despite being a distant second in the poll, is still in the running for November, being on 36%, which puts the party in definite striking distance of putting together a coalition. In this regard, Chris Trotter’s National’s Nightmare Scenario is instructive – he projects a situation with the following final votes: Labour 32%, Greens 10%, NZF 5%, and Mana 3.5%, giving a Labour-led coalition a majority. 

The ‘future of Labour’ is also dealt with quite well in a profile feature in this week’s Listener magazine of candidate Andrew Little – see: Diana Wichtel’s Into the bear pit (full text not online until 18 July). Wichtel attempts to work out if Little really is ‘a pinko unionist who is too close to employers and a hard-mouthed, ruthlessly ambitious intellectual’. She seems to conclude that he’s really another version of Helen Clark, albeit more serious and dour. And David Farrar usefully unpacks a recent opinion poll that shows Little is unlikely to win his New Plymouth contest – see his Stuff column, Some light for Andrew Little? Farrar also has a must-read Herald column on The might of Mana Maori.

Also detailed below are some important upcoming political science events: The New Zealand Political Rhetoric Conference, 18-19 August, the 2011 NZ Political Studies Association Conference, 1-2 December, and the Victoria University of Wellington Post-Election Conference, mid-Feb 2012. And of course, next week, I’ll be presenting a public lecture entitled ‘A Hollow Democracy? Why New Zealand elections are increasingly meaningless to voters’ in Wellington on Wednesday, 6pm at the James Cook Hotel and on Thursday, 6pm, at 385 Queen St. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]