liberation

NZ Politics Daily - 31 August

Death by opinion poll. That continues to be Labour’s problem, and it seems nothing can turn things around for them. Today’s Fairfax opinion poll (Greens shoot up in poll) just consolidates the idea that Labour is, in the words of Tracy Watkins, ‘Dog tucker’. Hence Labour is vulnerable to losing its real and potential supporters into a ‘spiral of silence’, whereby it becomes particularly unfashionable and socially isolating to give a vote to that party. German social scientist Elizabeth Noelle-Neumann wrote in the 1970s about how the public constantly assesses the opinions held by the majority in society and this influences and modifies their own views, leading to essentially a reverse-bandwagon effect whereby once a party is somewhat unpopular it then spirals inevitably downwards. One study of the ‘spiral of silence’ found that  ‘People monitor the climate of opinion and when they perceive themselves as a minority, individuals are less willing to express themselves politically’. National fell victim to this in the years following the party’s 1999 election loss. 

The media, of course, continue to ‘sense blood’ haemorrhaging from both Labour and Phil Goff, and won’t let up on the pursuit – check out, for example, Patrick Gower’s Hunt for Labour Party leak intensifies and Claire Trevett’s Cunliffe: no 'Camp David' support. There are plenty of others willing to also analyse the poor health of Labour and its opinion poll results. David Farrar, for example, points out that on the basis of Labour’s 26%, the following would fail to be elected to the next Parliament: Carol Beaumont, Kelvin Davis, Carmel Sepuloni, Rick Barker, Stuart Nash and Steve Chadwick; and Andrew Little and Shane Jones are suddenly very vulnerable – see: Who would survive?. And, of course, it’s not just Phil Goff to blame – see Andrea Vance’s Dumping Goff not enough to save Labour. 

It’s almost as if New Zealand is effectively turning into a one-party state, in which National is the only major 30%+ party, and this is particularly unhealthy for a political system. As Michael Coote has pointed out in the NBR, having a lame duck opposition would give National too much power, allowing it to ‘become increasingly overbearing, arbitrary, dictatorial and utterly wrongheaded’. Labour’s poor performance and weakness is therefore everyone’s problem, and the irrelevance of the political left means we have even less to choose from in parliamentary politics. Of course, Labour’s loss is partly the Greens’ gain, but as that party increases it’s pursuit of power and moderation it also becomes less effective as an alternative. 

During its short existence, New Zealand Politics Daily has been particularly reliant on the output of the New Zealand Press Association (NZPA), which sadly closes today. There are a number of stories covering this such as Max Lambert’s NZ news agency signs off after 131 years, Clive Lind’s Years of change culminate in NZPA closure, Andrew Stone’s Farewell NZPA, hello three new services and even the Guardian’s New Zealand Press Association to close.

Media and communication is certainly changing fast, and three items worth mentioning in this regard are 1) the Scoop website now has a searchable page for NZ-related Wikileaks, 2) Tom Pullar-Strecker and Andrea Vance report Labour 'about face' on three strikes net law, and 3) my interview with MP Hone Harawira tomorrow at 12 midday will be live-streamed here, and you can follow and participate in the conversation on Twitter by using the #OUVoteChat2011 hashtag. The interview will take place in front of an audience in the University of Otago Media Production Studios filmed in High Definition by their three cameras, and eventually uploaded to iTunes. And on Friday I’ll be doing the same again with Annette King. If you have any questions for either MP, please tweet (@bryce_edwards) or email me. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

NZ Politics Daily - 30 August

The quality of political debate and the coverage of it in New Zealand is frequently bemoaned by academics, political activists and MPs. There’s very good reason for such critiques – so often political discourse and reporting in the newspapers, television and even on the blogosphere is incredibly shallow, limited and one-sided. Yet it’s also often apparent that in New Zealand there’s also a lot of diverse and excellent debate going on. Today’s NZ Politics Daily, for example, aggregates allsorts of interesting and varied analysis and reporting. The big issue of day – the Christchurch rebuild (and it’s burgeoning cost) – is covered very well. Starting with the inimitable Chris Trotter (Leaders fail Christchurch people), a valuable critique of the rebuild is provided. And then there’s plenty of in depth and speedy reporting on today’s Government announcement that the cost has skyrocketed – see: Andrea Vance’s Canterbury Earthquake liability more than doubles, and John Hartevelt’s Quake insurance another focus for Govt. More normative questions about how to pay for the cost are considered in items such as Andrea Vance’s Time for an earthquake tax? and Dan Satherley’s Time for an earthquake levy, say Greens. And then David Farrar nicely summarises some of the Earthquake Facts. 

Issues of economics, employment, poverty, and inequality are featured in diverse articles – of which one in particular stands out: Gareth Morgan’s Reviving values of an egalitarian society. But also of particularly value are: Andrea Vance’s That's my mum you're hurting, PM told, economist Eric Crampton’s latest installment on the minimum wage (The younger cohort drives it), and various items on inequality, such as Phoebe Fletcher’s Child poverty in New Zealand. 

On more partisan-political issues, there’s plenty to recommend: Bryan Gould’s Why Key's really like Muldoon, No Right Turn’s Excuses, excuses, John Armstrong’s Bloodletting over... now Act 2 begins, and Colin James’ How to get noticed -- and not noticed. All in all, although even more such material would be appreciated, sometimes much of what exists is fairly impressive.[Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

 

 

NZ Politics Daily - 29 August

Hilary Calvert suddenly looks like the ideal politician – she’s been knifed in the back, yet she very gracefully retains her cool and grace by pledging allegiance to the party and the principles it stands for. She could have taught Chris Carter a thing or two, as well as most MPs who would have thrown their toys out the cot if in her situation. In this regard, read Ele Ludemann’s blog post, Departing with dignity. Other very worthwhile items include Dene Mackenzie’s Calvert relaxed about dumping, Dim-Post’s Thoughts on the ACT Party list and Whaleoil’s Act’s List released. 

It seems as if Calvert might actually be better off away from what still seems like a rather dysfunctional party. For although Act is no longer having the meltdowns that plagued it for the last year, it still has the appearance of a party without a real soul or solid foundation. Whenever political parties lose their raison d’etre, they increasingly chop and change, brand and re-brand, refresh their personnel, alter nearly every element of their nature, all in the constant search to be relevant again. And without the ideological anchors and coherent social constituencies that originally cohered the party, they remain in flux and in search of popularity. Unfortunately for Act, the public will never entirely take the party seriously again. 

The Labour Party struggles with some similar problems. And John Tamihere’s Sunday News column, It's Helen on Earth to get Labour right actually gets to the nub of much of this. One part of the column is worth quoting at length:

 ‘Another factor which can solely be attributed to Clark and her lieutenants was the destruction of any overt, robust, healthy contest of ideas. Instead of debating a cohesive and comprehensive ideology that defined what modern Labour stood for and how it was going to advance and implement that, Clark saw this very necessary conversation as a challenge to her leadership. The notion of left and right-wing factions in the party was done away with.  The Labour Party was broken up into a number of interest groups, in effect powerful lobby groups that chose the lacklustre party list. The interest groups are the women's division, the gay division, the Pacific Island division, the Maori division – you get the picture.  The union movement, which was the foundation of the party, when smoko sheds up and down this country vibrated with political discussion, is now gone. The unionists within the party now help negotiate marginal changes and conditions’.

As with the Act Party, Labour isn’t just beset by problems of leadership, but by real issues of ideology and social constituency. So likewise it’s stuck in the same political death cycle whereby it struggles to re-invent itself, re-brand, re-populate its representatives, and find a connection with a social constituency that might vote for it. Eventually it will find electoral success again, but this will probably owe much more to the inevitably decline of National than the discovery of a ‘political soul’ and raison d’etre.

 The two other must-read items about Labour are: Audrey Young’s Shane Jones and Labour's power struggles and John Armstrong’s Never mind this year's vote-2014 is the target. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

NZ Politics Daily - 26 August

We are likely to see less party-political electioneering propaganda delivered to our letterboxes from today. The new regulated three-month period kicks in this point onwards, and all the political parties have been extremely hard at work trying to get as much of their millions of dollars of parliamentary resources spent before this date, because they can no longer pump out newsletters, glossy leaflets, and other Parliamentary Service funded electioneering. This is the new rule that the parliamentary parties have schemed up to deal with the public perception that they have been rorting the system to pay for their electioneering. In particular, the politicians don’t want a repeat of the situation whereby the Electoral Commission and Auditor General intervene to tell them off or make them repay the large parliamentary state funding that they use. This is covered very well today by Clare Trevett (Parties must now watch spending) and David Farrar (The Taxpayer Relief Regulated Period) – two must-read items. Farrar, in particular, champions the change to the rules, suggesting that the use of Parliamentary Service money for ‘blatant electioneering’ gives incumbents an unfair advantage during the three months prior to election day. Surely he’s correct, but it begs the question of why he – and the parliamentary parties – think that they should be able to use taxpayer resources for the rest of the three year parliamentary cycle, especially since politicians now function in a permanent election campaign. 

The big political issue of the day is on the reform of alcohol laws. The proposed changes are detailed well in Derek Cheng’s Govt considers further alcohol restrictions. The issue is one that could be potentially very salient amongst voters during the next three months – much like issues of law and order were during 2008. Yet, there seems to be a very strong policy convergence amongst the parties on the issue of alcohol. Sure the main parties all have differences about the detail of reform, but mostly they appear to be generally proposing a shift towards greater regulation and reduced availability of alcohol, in general favouring a more socially conservative approach to liquor. For those not in tune with more social conservatism, there are few voices out there today providing alternatives to the (nanny state?) shift. A Libertarianz blogger has provided the only antidote – see: Not PC’s Time for a stiff drink—and a one-fingered salute to the wowsers. 

But if the multi-party response to alcohol is simply a reaction to populism, then so is the crackdown on young people that National proposes in the form of its payment-card plan for young beneficiaries. Gordon Campbell has dealt with this very well in his column, Youth unemployment problem an election issue?, in which he suggests that National’s approach is driven by ‘the talkback radio crowd’, and that ‘This may explain why Labour's response to the payment card was so muted as to be virtually inaudible’.

For those interested in issues of inequality and class politic, the must-read item of the day is sociologist Campbell Jones’ Dom Post opinion piece, The secret to making money. It goes very well with an earlier examination of capitalism in the Dom Post by Tim Hunter – Pay gulf bewteen boss and workers widens. After reading those, it seems hard to concur with John Key’s reported Wikileak’s comment that Kiwis have 'socialist streak'. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

 

NZ Politics Daily - 25 August

The National Government has been careful to tread lightly with cuts to core public sector jobs. They’ve promised that ‘frontline’ staff – the public servants that voters actually see and interact with – would not be cut. As Dave Burgess reports (Wellington feels pain of state job cuts) the reductions are beginning to bite in Wellington with the Public Service Association reporting over 600 jobs lost in the year to date.

 The strategic politics of this in an election year are clear: look like you are cutting costs while not cutting services. The political risk is low when the main casualties are accountants, communications and policy advisors, but the consequences of public sector cuts taken too far can take years to impact and can be, literally, disastrous. For example, on the Standard, Jenny Michie points to Cave Creek, Pike River, leaky homes and finance company collapses as failures contributed to by lack of public sector resources – see: Cuts and consequences. After the Cave Creek tragedy, Prime Minister Jim Bolger commented that all the deaths could have been avoided with just ‘$20 worth of bolts’ – but this ignored the reality that having the expertise to know bolts were needed and making sure they were installed properly and in time would cost quite a bit more than that.

 The latest round of cuts involve fisheries, a sector where the levels of research, analysis and monitoring of fish stocks and industry practices have been controversial for many years. So although Orange Roughy won't suffer if there fewer ministry newsletters published, getting poor advice on how to manage quotas can be (and has in the past proved to be) very costly.

 The savings can also prove illusory over time. Where there is genuine duplication after mergers then progress can be made, but many public servants are only too familiar with waving goodbye to redundant colleagues one day only to see them re-appear as ‘consultants’ a week later doing the same work at double the hourly rate. The total costs will come out in the end – but, of course, after the election.

 The need for public sector reform that focuses on innovation and not funding cuts is John Pagani's call in How to save public sector jobs. He argues that aversion to the risk that is inherent in trying out new ideas is hampering better efficiencies in the public sector. He may be right, but three months out from an election pain-free spending cuts are the order of the day.

 Clare Curran’s quasi-apology on Red Alert – The importance of being Labour #3 - was mostly well-received amongst her blogosphere critics today, though, amusingly, Denis Welch had something different to report: Cot case. 

 Other important items to read today are: David Farrar’s Who plans to spend money?, James Meager’s Why Parliamentary Services employees should cease to be chosen by parties, Andrea Vance’s Stuart Wilson now ACT's campaign manager, Claire Trevett’s Watch your back, candidate warned and Jones to consider future if he fails to win seat, the Herald editorial, Lack of depth in Cabinet starts to show, and Tim Watkin’s Or are we heading for another 1963?. 

 Of much less importance, Hamish McNeilly reports on my minor initiative to improve electoral discussion and debate – see: Quirky questions welcomed. I also elaborate about this on in a blog post: Otago University Vote Chat. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

Otago University Vote Chat

Electioneering politicians can be pretty boring. MPs travel around the country at this time of the parliamentary cycle and give their well-rehearsed speeches and party-lines on the issues of the day and supposed ‘visions’ for the future. This can make politics seem fairly bland, superficial, and non-dynamic. Of course, in most ways this merely reflects reality: parliamentary politics is in fact mostly stale and uninspiring, with little real meaningful debate and differences being offered to society. Yet general elections are in fact still very important. In their own very limited way, parliamentary elections are still the major time for debate about how we run society – the campaigns, the meetings, the discussions continue to be the central means by which political issues of economy and society are debated and contested in this country. Therefore it’s important to be involved and it’s important to try and increase the quality of this debate. In one small way, this is what the Otago University Vote Chat forums attempt to do. [Read more below]

 

NZ Politics Daily - 24 August

For the first time in 16 years, the Cabinet will meet outside of the Beehive when it holds its weekly meeting in Christchurch in 12 days time. Apparently there will be a ‘welcoming committee’ there to greet the National Party ministers and thank them for all that they’ve done to start to rebuild the city. Unfortunately for National, this sarcastic ‘thank you’ will be in the form of a protest against the way that the city is being rebuilt – see: the Action for Christchurch East blogpost, National Party Welcoming Committee!. This is all a sign of things to come for the Government. It looks as if things are quickly turning sour, and hence turning political in Christchurch. Residents that had been lured into feeling that the Government would look after them, are suddenly waking to the reality that it might not quite work out that way. This is all well conveyed in the news headline, National's broken promise on quake compensation, and even better explained in the Ben Heather’s Press story, Losers and winners in Govt offer. A Press opinion piece by resident Leeann Apps also very starkly shows how residents are being affected – see: Unlucky, but don't toss us aside. Interestingly, it’s even the forces of business that are complaining and asking for state intervention into the private sector: ‘Canterbury Employers' Chamber of Commerce chief executive Peter Townsend last month called for the Government to intervene in the insurance market, saying the private market was broken’ – see: Business leaders call insurance delays 'a cancer'. So although National has, so far, muddled through the Christchurch earthquake aftermath without too much backlash, it should now prepare itself for increasing politicisation of the rebuild. 

National is also wandering into dangerous territory with news that the Government is considering banning the expression of racism online – see: Racism online denial may become illegal in NZ. Such a fraught attempt to censor what the state might view as incorrect thinking would be both ridiculous and outrageous. 

Labour cheerleaders have something to be happy about in TV3’s polling results that show the public more predisposed towards a capital gains tax than partial privatisations – see: Kiwis prefer capital gains tax over asset sales – poll – and this glee is reflected in Anthony Robins’ Standard blog post, Substance vs style. But this type of thinking has been answered by John Hartevelt’s opinion piece, Style vs substance - why not both?. And, related to this, James Meager has a go at the tendency of various party cheerleaders to be selective about which polling they consider legitimate – see: Polls are meaningless... Meager also goes into bat for the beleaguered Clare Curran – see: In defence of Clare Curran. While Steven Cowan asks 'What's the connection between Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci and Labour MP Clare Curran?’. 

Other items of interest, importance or influence today, include: Hamish McNeilly’s MPs scramble to avoid luxurious hot seat, John Hartevelt’s National candidates' similar statements queried, Rebecca Wright’s Key: Deal on table to take Australian refugees , Tim Watkin’s 2002 repeat? Nah, it's 1951 all over again, Ally Mullord’s Key too quick to aid Libya – Greens, and Brian Rudman’s RNZ in no state to save public TV. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

 

 

NZ Politics Daily - 23 August

For a supposedly professional communications adviser, Clare Curran, the Labour MP for Dunedin South, seems to be remarkably adept at having her communications received very poorly. This has been especially so in the last 24 hours. Following up on yesterday’s rather odd blog post on the The importance of being Labour, she continued the theme with another Red Alert post, The importance of being Labour #2, in which she appeared to rather arrogantly bash the Green Party and make a claim of entitlement about voters. This is covered well in both Andrea Vance’s Clare Curran stirs blog controversy and David Farrar’s How to win friends and influence people. Other bloggers have entered the fray, with the Labour aligned Standard blogsite even saying Pull your head in, Curran and the Labour-friendly Imperator Fish asking, Is Red Alert Damaging Labour?. Similarly, No Right Turn has labeled Curran’s communications, The ugly face of Labour, and the Dim Post has said the incident shows why the left should vote strategically. While all of this commentary is useful in understanding the bizarre Clare Curran incident, surely further explanation is required. Most simply, Curran’s communications and apparent arrogance probably epitomises the desperate state that Labour MPs find themselves in. Polling and criticism of their poor performance is undoubtedly putting Labour MPs under pressure, with some responding by lashing out and not thinking very clearly. In Curran’s case, there may be additional pressure in her own ‘safe’ Dunedin South electorate in which she is possibly facing a significant reduction in her electoral majority in November. While this wouldn’t bother some MPs in supposedly safe Labour seats, unfortunately for Curran she has introduced the precedent of Dunedin South Labour MPs being vulnerable to de-selection – she accomplished the virtually unprecedented task of rolling an incumbent Labour MP when she won the Labour nomination for the electorate of David Benson-Pope. And those that ‘live by the sword, die by the sword’, making her political future fairly uncertain if she fails to impress. In this regard, it’s interesting to note that the iPredict stock on ‘Labour to win Dunedin South’ has dropped suddenly from a 95% likelihood to 86%, no doubt fuelled by Curran’s outburst. For further background to Curran’s behaviour, check out the guest post on the liberation blog by John Moore – see: Facile MP, Facile Party: Clare Curran and the Labour Party.

 Other must-read items today, include, Susan Guthrie and Gareth Morgan’s Rot at centre of modern economics, Andrea Vance’s Time for the Greens to grow a pair?, and Colin James’ The weakness and strength of politics.[Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

Guest Post: Facile MP - Facile Party: Clare Curran and Labour

Labour MP Clare Curran’s recent rants and attacks on the internet will seem to many both puzzling and peculiar. She has told the Green Party to get out of Labour’s territory, has taken a leaf out of Winston Peter’s book in railing against a fanciful threat from China, and has lashed out at perceived critics on the left and right. However, her desperate and ill-conceived remarks need to be contexualised. In this guest post, John Moore argues that Curran is a minor MP of a party that is desperate but unable to make political headway and is heading towards an historic electoral defeat. Curran therefore is merely a personification of a party in crisis, a party that is devoid of ideas or vision. [read more below]

NZ Politics Daily - 22 August

The Labour Party cannot complain about lack of media attention at the moment. And much of it is fairly substantial stuff – in particular, the second installment of Claire Trevett’s in-depth profile on Phil Goff is a must-read: Goff's career follows Labour's swings to the left, right, left, which is nicely complemented by the NZ Herald Editorial, Goff haunted by role in past Labour policy. Much of the media coverage, however, is about Labour’s continued abysmal showing in the polls. The best is probably Anthony Hubbard’s Labour must leave past behind and Matt McCarten’s Goff shines by coming clean on class war. So what can Labour now do? Most commentators see no ‘silver bullet’ and seem to advise a calm and considered approach. In contrast, Claire Robinson has posted a blog entitled, If I were a Labour MP now, I would be panicking!. That appears to be the gist of Clare Curran’s latest Red Alert blog post, The importance of being Labour. Curran opens her unusual blogpost by saying, ‘Have had a gutsful of the white-anting of Labour from both the right and the left of politics’ and ends it by declaring that ‘Strong Labour policies focussing on our economic sovereignty; owning our own future are what this country needs’. Meanwhile, yet another very minor political finance scandal could dog Labour, with news that Helen Clark is giving a talk to a $65-a-ticket cocktail Labour Party fundraiser, while travelling on taxpayer-funded travel, which appears to be outside the rules of these perks – see: Belinda McCammon’s Clark star attraction at Labour fundraiser. 

It’s now six months since the major Christchurch earthquake, and it seems that the Government’s offer to affected householders might be turning sour – see: TVNZ’s Offer to red zone owners a 'disgrace' and NZPA’s Kaiapoi residents out of pocket. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

 

NZ Politics Daily - 17 August

One of the issues that dented the Government’s image most this year was its decision to upgrade the ministerial fleet of BMW limos. Although a fairly trivial and almost apolitical issue, the Labour opposition was able to impugn the Government’s reputation for austerity and fairness  by throwing mud about the alleged bad decision to purchase the new limos. Today the issue is revived with the news that the ‘old’ BMWs are about to be auctioned off – see: Crown limos to be auctioned off. Other issues of political finance and scandal are also raised by the Electoral Commission’s Referral of alleged breaches of the Electoral Act 1993 in which Charles Chauvel, the Act Party, and Labour are being investigated by the police. 

 As I mentioned yesterday, allegations about political finance, corruption and scandal are now the key electoral weapon of modern New Zealand politics. The political rhetoric about corruption, political funding, misuse of taxpayer funds, and personal political behavior are now one of the most salient forms of electioneering in what is now a permanent campaign. As with rhetoric around more perennial issues such as law and order, parties and politicians now trade heavily on claims, accusations and complaints relating to these issues. Yet New Zealand politics has not traditionally been characterised by political finance, corruption and scandals. So why has this type of negative campaigning suddenly become so central to New Zealand politics? Quite simply, problematic issues of political finance and political corruption have actually existed for a long time in New Zealand politics but have only recently become visible due to a variety of factors relating to the shift to a proportion representation electoral system, the breakdown of the party system and ‘cartel’, and ideological convergence in the party system. Most significantly, the increasing visibility of apparent political finance and political corruption is due to the sudden propensity of political parties to use such allegations as a rhetorical weapon against opponents, creating an escalating battle over political integrity in which words such as ‘corrupt’ and ‘corruption’ are increasingly used. I’ll be explaining all of this in a paper I’m giving at the Political Rhetoric conference being held at Parliament over the next couple of days (and blogging it in the near future). And, note, because I'll be at the conference all day tomorrow there will be no NZ Politics Daily sent out on Thursday.

 Other items of special note today include the following: Brian Rudman’s Fishing scandals Maori owners must fix, NZ Herald’s Mammoth task to counter Cup power, Andrea Vance’s The overuse of urgency, Whaleoil’s The Maori Party’s Election Chances, and Matthew Hooton’s Poor Phil Twyford in trouble. 

NZ Politics Daily - 16 August

Youth unemployment is clearly the big political issue of the moment, and the larger issue of New Zealand's fragile social cohesion soon will be too. There seems to be little political party consensus on these subjects, but also very little in the way of convincing solutions being proffered out of Parliament. In a lengthy blog post, Unemployed youth would fill Eden Park, Duncan Garner declares that ‘this Government's biggest failure to date is our young people’. With 58,000 youth not in work or education, ‘We are at crisis point. 27.6% of those aged 15-24 are out of work and out of luck. It's even higher for Maori and Pacific youth’. And how has the Government performed on this issue? Garner says ‘there is a yawning gap between Key's rhetoric and the reality’, and asks, ‘So what did Key do in the weekend to target the problem? Very little’. He suggests that ‘Key needs to be bold, he needs to take risks’. Similarly, Colin James points out in Key's investment approach to "social" action, the gap between the unemployment rate of ‘youth’ and adults is now 20% - much greater than during previous recessions. James suggests that National should be looking to a solution involving much greater investment in the early stages of life (a la Gluckman and the Every Child Counts coalition). In much of the commentary and criticisms of the Government’s proposed youth unemployment policies, the key issue seems to be the lack of actual job creation. See, for example, the NZ Herald editorial, Job creation lacking in PM's policy. 

 The other side of the ‘youth problem’ is that of ‘youth revolt’, which is why this issue is particularly salient at the moment. Citing the Human Rights Commission, Duncan Garner says this now threatens ‘social cohesion’ in New Zealand. Social cohesion is something that Governments and elites take very seriously – it’s one of the mainstay factors in maintaining the status quo and ensuring some sort of foundation exists for life as we know it. In this regard, it’s well worth reading Anthony Hubbard’ column, Don't wash away the scum, John, in which he argues that ‘We stand in the same tinder that flared up in Britain’. Hubbard reckons that ‘We have most of the elements needed for a riot. We also have a conservative government hell-bent on cutting, as Britain has. Key's administration has already signalled it wants to slash welfare spending, and it has a blueprint’. Apparently, according to a major report from the New Zealand Institute think tank, on average, New Zealand's disadvantaged youth ‘are more disadvantaged than youth in other OECD countries’ and ‘there is no convincing sign of improvement’. As Hubbard says, ‘Many are already living lives of quiet desperation. Under certain circumstances, desperation can turn to rage’. Social cohesion then quickly melts away. 

 Issues of political finance and electoral law will also not go away. On the Standard, ex-General Secretary of Labour, Mike Smith says that ‘the pernicious influence of money in politics is growing across the democracies’ – see: Envy or greed? – follow the money. In some ways its surprising to see Labour – and Smith, in particularly – bringing up issues of political finance and its regulation since they have such bad records in this area. But as with issues of law and order and youth unemployment, they’re useful electoral weapons to use against your political opponent. Allegations of ‘corruption’ are now the key electoral weapon of modern New Zealand politics, and it used by all sides. But what’s particularly surprising is that parties such as Labour keep falling into the trap of breaking the rules, and therefore allowing their opponents to gain political points – see, for example, the latest alleged transgression overcovered by Whaleoil: A response from the Electoral Commission. Whaleoil also makes some good points in this post: Time to remove backdoor state-funding of political parties. 

 Other important political items today include: Geoff Simmons’ Holes in Labour's health-by-stealth line, Karyn Scherer’s New party's sights on rugby great, No Right Turn: This will be interesting, and David Beatson’s Radio With Pictures – give it a crack!. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

 

NZ Politics Daily - 15 August

In 2003 the Helen Clark Labour Government announced their ‘Jobs Jolt’ package of welfare reforms to outrage from the left and beneficiaries, and to the cheers of so-called ‘Middle New Zealand’. Beneficiaries were supposedly going to be forced to take jobs, to shift from their homes to other parts of the country in order to find jobs, and be work-tested and drug-tested. It was all a con, of course – it was purely designed for electoral calculation. In reality it didn’t even really affect that many beneficiaries in any serious way. Similarly, National’s latest beneficiary-bashing welfare reforms are not really that radical except in rhetoric and can be regarded as a modern Jobs Jolt for youth. In this regard, check out Gordon Campbell’s On the Government’s latest plans to Americanise the welfare system. As Campbell says, ‘the target audience for these proposals is not the miniscule number of feckless young people on benefits, but the wider population of voters who think the young have had it too easy for too long’. Likewise, John Armstrong says that the ‘policy has "winner" stamped all over it - at least in electoral terms’ – see: Grand finale wakes up the delegates. Russell Brown is very unimpressed with the substance of what is being proposed and likens it to National’s Bootcamps, which were always more of a slogan than a solution (Is that it?). Similarly, blogger Dave Crampton says National’s welfare policy is hot air on a cold day – it won’t happen. Bernard Hickey also makes some good points in Key should apply rules to the older beneficiaries. And there are plenty of commentators making the point that National’s firmly interventionist approach into beneficiaries’ lives is akin to Labour’s much-mocked nanny-state ideology – see, for example, Steven Cowan’s Big Daddy, Rob Carr’s Daddystate, and Patrick Gower’s Welfare reforms: 'Nanny state comes to mind'. And academic Grant Duncan looks intelligently at the issue of the state pursuing fraudulent beneficiaries in secret relationships in The great big benefit fraud. Also of interest, is John Hartevelt’s opinion piece, This is a big deal, in which he argues ‘the changes to youth welfare announced by National yesterday are a big deal. At the same time, however, they are actually kind of trifling’.

Other recent must-read items include Catherine Masters (lengthy) Phil Goff - the careful rebel, Whaleoil’s A Strange Conference, John Armstrong’s SOE share loyalty scheme being considered, Bernard Hickey’s Capitalism - top heavy and toppling, and Ian Llewellyn’s Where Now For The "Other'" Minor Parties. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

 

NZ Politics Daily - 11 August

The debate over Maori Wardens having special legal powers to police Maori people might be a bit of a storm in a teacup, as it seems that the most extreme forms of those powers are unlikely to be utilized – see: Yvonne Tahana’s 'We won't drag Maori from bars'. Yet surely there is room for discussion about whether the whole existence of state-mandated Maori Wardens is a positive and necessary part of society in 2011. Interestingly, few – if any – politicians are willing to get into that wider question. In fact there’s a fascinating silence over the issue from parties as diverse as Act through to the Mana Party. In regard to Mana, it’s likely the party would be split down the middle, with the Harawira/nationalist faction giving support to the sovereignty aspect and powers possessed by Maori Wardens while the leftist faction would feel abhorrence towards the concept of Maori being policed on the basis of their ethnicity and the incorporation of Maori volunteers into the state’s policing function. Similar debates will be occurring within parties such as the Greens, Labour and Act, and hence none of these parties seem to have a clear line on Maori Wardens. National and the Greens appear to be in support of the existence of the wardens, but both probably favour modernisation of the laws. Having an ethnically separate form of policing is a complicated issue that might continue to fuel debate in New Zealand politics, or it might disappear quickly into the ‘too hard basket’. If youth unrest spreads to New Zealand, it could certainly become a bigger issue. One academic thinks that’s possible, based on the significant youth problems in this country – see: Olivia Carville’s Unrest inevitable, NZ just as bad – academic. Similarly, today Gordon Campbell summarises recent debates about social problems in New Zealand – see: Putting the focus on income inequality. And Tim Watkin’s David Parker in Epsom – stepping up or giving up? is worth reading too. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

NZ Politics Daily - 10 August

Is the price of milk really all about ‘socialism for farmers’ but ‘monopoly capitalism for consumers’? Essentially, over time, the free marketeers have done a ‘deal with the devil’ to allow Fonterra to become a monopoly producer. Why? Because it works. A quick look at the sorry state of the other agricultural sectors over the past thirty years shows why dairy farmers and politicians across the spectrum opted for a co-operative rather than competitive structure for our biggest industry. We changed the rules to ensure our farmers could work together to get good returns but there is growing concern that, as a result, consumers have been left to mercy of a few large corporations. It isn't only the producers who may be under scrutiny. Farmers often point the finger at the effective supermarket duopoly in New Zealand. Back in February TV3's Campbell Live featured an anonymous supermarket ‘insider’ who fingered Foodstuffs and Progressive as the main culprits, claiming 100% plus markups. MP Lianne Dalziel is pushing for a farmgate-to-supermarket-checkout enquiry – see: Andrea Fox’s Examine all milk pricing points – but it appears the government may resist such a wide scope. All the players claim to only be covering costs and making reasonable profits, but as Tim Watkin points out in his excellent opinion piece We want answers and cheaper milk, large corporations often use subsidiaries to inflate costs and hide profits. The explanations as to why Europeans and Australians can buy milk substantially cheaper won't be particularly convincing to consumers. The Standard (Chart o’ the day: got milked?) makes the interesting observation that the international commodity price for milk peaked at very time Fonterra announced its domestic price cap  and that domestic prices don't seem to be tracking the world price downward.

 The controversy raises another more basic issue that the government will not want to dwell on in the run-up to the election. The increasing cost of living is putting many families under real pressure and milk as a staple food is always going to be watched as a key indicator – the ODT, The Press, Manawatu Standard and the Dominion Post have all weighed in with editorials on the issue. What perplexes many is that New Zealand is one of the most efficient producers of milk – so shouldn't it be affordable here? When the world commodity prices are given as a reason it raises the issue of why Kiwi families struggle to pay. The simple answer is that our real income levels are low and continuing to fall relative to those countries we sell our milk to. The principle is the same as for third world countries who have to grow cash crops for the first world to service massive debt, instead of growing food for their starving citizens.

 The other big – and fascinating – issue of the day relates to laws around the roles of Maori Wardens. Duncan Garner’s report, 'Drunk Maori' to be targeted at World Cup, shows how Maori Wardens have state-sanctioned legal powers to control Maori. See also: Danya Levy’s Maori Warden law faces review. This extraordinary situation is partly a hangover from the past, but also the logical conclusion of Maori nationalist political demands for self-governing powers. In this regard, see, Joshua Hitchcock’s Tino Rangatiratanga in Action?, which argues in favour of the special powers for Maori Wardens. It’s a potentially divisive issue within Maoridom, as can be seen from Morgan Godfery’s hostility to the concept – FTP. 

 Other items worth checking out today, include, Inquiry 'will get to bottom' of foreign fishing vessel issues, Paloma Migone’s Govt mulls asylum seeker laws, and Riots could happen here – Peters. Also, see my own opinion piece, ‘Fake’ electorate candidates, in which I argue that its an electoral farce that candidates – and MPs in particular – put their names forward for a constituency seat and then effectively tell voters not to vote for them. The idea that candidates should have to choose between being on the list and standing in an electorate has some merit, but even better, let’s solve this problem by going one step further with proportional representation and simply get rid of the geographical electorates altogether. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

 

 

‘Fake’ electorate candidates

Green Party co-leader and MP Metiria Turei is set to stand as a ‘fake electorate candidate’ in Dunedin North for the general election. Despite officially throwing her hat into the ring to become the Member of Parliament for the electorate, she won’t actually be asking for your vote, and will instead use the local contest to encourage Dunedin electors to give the Greens their party vote. Of course, Turei is hardly the only such candidate – politicians from all political parties – especially the minor parties – will essentially be doing the same. Candidates across the country will be entering local electorate contests with absolutely no intention of trying to win, but instead will simply be using the local contest as a platform to promote their party in general. In fact in the 2008 general election, there were 682 candidates for Parliament, of which the vast majority (433) stood on both the list and for an electorate. Only 89 candidates out of 682 were not on party lists – many of which were independents and representatives of parties without party lists. [Continue reading my Dunedin DScene newspaper column below]

 

NZ Politics Daily - 9 August

The Russian revolutionary, Vladimir Lenin, once said that ‘Politics is the most concentrated expression of economics’. And once again this week – and indeed whole year – is reiterating to us that the economy is central to understanding New Zealand parliamentary politics and the upcoming general election. All the most important items included in today’s NZ Politics Daily are closely relating to the state of the economy, plans to help savage or protect it, and the side affects of all things economic. Hence, we’re hearing today that Bill English says More market turmoil ahead, Key shrugs off credit warning, Asset sales could be delayed: Key, Days of easy money are 'over', and so forth. There’s some interesting commentary on all of this too – see: Chris Trotter’s Sweeping the real rubbish away and Ian Llewellyn’s It's The Economy Stupid. And of course, connected to such economic matters, it’s being widely reported that Another welfare shake-up likely, Bennett says and the whole ‘price of milk’ issue is still very political – see, for example, Goff accuses Key of 'flip-flop' on milk price inquiry. The Labour Party is fairly well placed to target the Government on the economy, and there’s real potential to make political progress on such issues – see: Danya Levy’s Goff critical of Key's economy stance, but mostly Labour is still focused on irrelevancies, poor communication and silly tactics – see: The Standard:’s FFS, Clare Curran’s The trolls under the bridge, and amusingly, Imperator Fish’s Internet Outage Hits Labour MP. Other important items today, include Colin James’ Is National now the more-often-than-not government?, Matthew Hooton’s What secret polling is underway? and Susan Guthrie’s Rich-poor gulf hard to measure. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

NZ Politics Daily - 8 August

The Mana Party might be barely registering in the opinion polls at the moment, but it’s one of the more interesting parts of the party system, and it might well turn into the success story of the next five months. Certainly, there are some interesting personnel involved that should be taken seriously. People like Matt McCarten, John Minto, Annette Sykes, Sue Bradford and Willie Jackson are adding a certain dynamism to Mana that will probably complement or counter Hone Harawira’s various idiosyncrasies and weaknesses. I spoke about this today on TV3’s Firstline programme (read here; watch here), and also elaborated on some these points in a blog post – see: The Mana Party leadership widens – roles for Bradford, Sykes, Minto and Jackson. But the party is still far from coherent, and wants to be both a Maori party and a leftwing party – a situation that seems to be working for them so far, but will no doubt become increasingly problematic. Morgan Godfery has also blogged a nice concise summary of the Mana Party AGM, but he’s rather less than impressed by the key roles being given to what he sees as recycled socialist politicians from the 1980s.

As we get closer to the election, there are an increasing number of must-read items being published. The following list contains the more interesting or important ones from the last three days: Chris Trotter’s Which party will block the unbridled power?, John Hartevelt’s Cringe-making politics, John Armstrong’s Disgraceful, pitiful - it's Labour's day of shame, Anthony Hubbard’s Will the Rugby World Cup affect the election result?, Andrea Vance’s Political donations dwindling, Neil Reid’s National fosters new talent, Tracy Watkins’ Can the wily sexagenarian rise again?, and Brian Gaynor’s It shouldn't be just the rich getting richer. And for fun, New National tactics to win Labour electorates. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

 

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

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

 

NZ Politics Daily - 5 August

Guest editorial: John Minto

Yet another anniversary of the 1981 Springbok tour is upon us and media coverage has been extensive but generally shallow. Most have taken a magazine-style approach with no shortage of dramatic pictures or film to illustrate – for example, see: Hamilton’s Rugby Park 1981 Springboks tour protest. But Nikki Macdonald has an interesting piece using individuals to present the various views from the conflict (Waging war on and off the pitch) and the Herald posed myself and red squad senior sergeant Ross Meurant as the protagonists as though this were a civil disturbance with the politicians and rugby union on the sidelines – see: Jared Savage and Andrew Stone’s The rugby tour that split us into two nations.

There were a few new revelations however. The Listener got access to police files from the tour and gave an interesting look at the issue from behind the police barricades (Redmer Yska: Inside the 1981 Springbok tour) and the aforementioned Ross Meurant gave an honest account of the lies he told to defend the police responsible for the infamous batoning of the clowns at the last game of the tour. It’s nice to have one’s prejudices confirmed even if it takes 30 years.

What has emerged more strongly this time was the fact the tour had a much greater impact on South Africa than any of us appreciated at the time. Chris Laidlaw points this out (see Karl du Fresne’s 1981 and all that) as does Springbok captain Wynard Claassen (Team of '81 coming 'to reconcile') and we will get more of this when the ’81 Boks come back for a reunion visit during the World Cup.

What’s missing is the most important story: the impact of the tour on New Zealand itself. At one level there is general feeling that the tour had an impact on our psyche and that we that we ‘grew up’ as a country. The provincial papers see this theme strongly with the Manawatu Evening Standard, for example, talking about a ‘cultural catharsis’. See: Michael Cummings’ Manawatu Standard editorial Thirty years since our cultural catharsis.

However the bigger story - the impact of the tour on race issues here in New Zealand is no-where to be found. I think this was profound and deserves a good bit of journalistic attention. For example the tour protests and aftermath gave a solid boost to Maori nationalism, best illustrated in the new powers for the Waitangi Tribunal to look at historical Treaty grievances. These changes would have taken a lot longer to come about without the tour.

And what about the politicians who benefitted from the tour? Meurant and myself agree on the cynical use of the tour for political gain by National under Muldoon. Where are the National MPs who benefitted from the tour by winning Gisborne, Invercargill, New Plymouth and Taupo in the first-past-the-post election at the end of 1981? Those were the four crucial marginal seats won by National on the basis they wanted to keep politics out of sport. Yeah right.

It’s good to see some writing, in this case by John Edmundson, looking at a current issue that will develop in the same way as the fight against apartheid in South Africa. It’s the call for BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) against Israeli apartheid (See: Thirty years on: The 1981 Springbok tour and protest today). In 30 years time it will be hard to find anyone who was not on the side of the Palestinians.

There are always some personal stories, which more than anything bring the past alive in the present. Here are a couple that caught my eye: 30th Anniversary of the Springbok Tour and Peter Clayworth’s Days of Shame or days of rage? A personal memoir of the ’81 tour.

There is plenty of scope for good journalism yet in this issue. It’s not too late for anyone out there in the media this time. Let’s not wait for the 50th anniversary…

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

 

NZ Politics Daily - 4 August

Whaleoil (aka blogger Cameron Slater) is certainly making a nuisance of himself for the Labour Party. His daily shotgun approach of barraging them in any way possible occasionally hits the mark, and today he seems to have done that again with his Official Information Act request re-igniting the SIS vs Phil Goff stoush over whether the Labour leader had been properly briefed about the Israeli spy allegations – see Tracy Watkins’ story SIS misled public – Goff. Labour is obviously trying to front foot the minor scandal and take the initiative in attacking the head of the SIS, and the fight could go either way, but certainly at this stage Goff looks to be in a weak position. That’s certainly David Farrar’s analysis: Goff still can not admit he is wrong. Meanwhile, the Dim-Post and John Pagani are asking some obvious questions about how a rightwing blogger such as Whaleoil can so successfully be using the Official Information Act where others aren’t. 

The launch of the new Election Results website, which is based on iPredict prediction material, is another boost for this year’s focus (or obsession?) with political opinion polls and predictions. The site has a number of decent commentaries on electoral projections – see, for example, Matthew Hooton’s Easy profits look possible on safe seats or, say, Ian Llewellyn’s Focus On Waitakere. And across in Australia, Centrebet is also taking bets on our general elections – see: $5,000 bet on National winning election. It seems that the betting company is only paying $1.10 for a National win, yet $6.50 for Labour. But for much more analytical projections, see Colin James’ Bold or timid: how will National campaign? and Vernon Small’s It's awful medicine but we need it. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

NZ Politics Daily - 3 August

The fact that issues of economic inequality are back on the public agenda are reinforced by the debate breaking out in Parliament about whether the gap between rich and poor has grown recently. After being ignored by political parties and voters for the last two decades, inequality is now a hot topic. The Government, of course, claims that income inequality has fallen on its watch, and Labour purports otherwise – see: Andrea Vance’s Inequality report ignores tax cuts for rich – Goff. The dispute revolves around the release by the Ministry of Social Development of the latest version of its publication, Household Incomes in New Zealand: trends in indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2010, (which can be downloaded here). The report is given a good summary by Simon Collins in Investment hit closes gap between NZ rich and poor. Also see the No Right Turn blog post, I don't think that shows what you think it shows. Also indicating the electoral saliency of the inequality issue, the Green Party has been campaigning strongly on it for the last 18 months, and today the Greens launched its latest strategic installment – see: Greens unveil poverty plan for 100,000 kids. As usual, John Minto, has an interesting viewpoint on it all, by way of commenting on last week’s NBR Rich List: Why We Need Sleepless Nights In Remuera. Also worth reading on this topic, is Anthony Hubbard’s National treasures? That's rich and Tim Watkin’s The Rich List: A pat on the back but national treasures?.

 The other main interesting political news is the announcement by the maverick conservative Colin Craig – see: Colin Craig launches Conservative Party. David Farrar succinctly evaluates its nature and chances here: The Conservative Party, pointing out that it ‘looks to have similar policies to NZ First – morally conservative, and economically wet’. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

NZ Politics Daily: 2 August

Elections should be about maximum debate. In theory at least, the campaigns are a time during which the parties put forward their different visions for running society, and an informed citizenry makes a choice. In practice it doesn’t really work out anything like that, but at least there’s some semblance of debate, discussion and different ideas about the big issues in society, which is why we need to ensure that any elements of the election debates are democratic, inclusive and useful. Unfortunately the National and Labour parties are once again conspiring to limit the scope of the televised leaders debates – see TV3’s Duncan Garner’s blog post: Key, Goff refuse debate with minor parties. As Garner says, it’s bad enough that the Prime Minister is denying the public the opportunity to see a full debate, but it’s incredible that Phil Goff hasn't taken the opportunity to show him up on it, and has gone along with the arrogant approach.

Back in 2008 when Labour and National teamed up to do the same, there was outrage from many commentators. For example, academic media lawyer, Steven Price said: ‘I think the Clark/Key withdrawal was a spit in the eye of democracy. They’ve calculated the political benefit: I hope the public’s disgust with the tactic shows it was a miscalculation and they both lose from it’. Although there should be similar discontent in 2011, it’s unlikely. New Zealanders are getting used to our multi-party system slowly morphing back towards an effective two-party system, in which minor parties are just minnow parties not really taken seriously as full contenders for power. 

Of course it’s common for political parties to struggle over the important details of televised leaders debates. Things such as the appropriate number of debates, their timing and format can all play a crucial part in advantaging certain parties or candidates. Therefore it seems increasingly important that some sort of more regulated and organized system is developed for the leaders debates. The media are too often in a weak bargaining position with the politicians and therefore they let the leaders have too much sway over the debate configurations. Surely it’s time for journalists to get together in some sort of consortium to agree on the nature of the leaders debates. Perhaps the Parliamentary Press Gallery organisation might be the best existing vehicle for determining how the leaders debates occur. At least then the broadcasters could be united to withstand pressure from the main parties that try to dictate the terms of debate.

In terms of the minnow parties, it’s worth reading Andrea Vance’s report on the speculation about the Act Party’s former leader and what’s happening with their party list – see: Rodney and all those rumours. And the most fledgling parliamentary minnow of them all – the Mana Party – is finally represented in the Debating Chamber – see: Harawira completes Parliamentary oath.

Two further political items from previous days also deserve a read. John Hartevelt’s Sunday Star Times column, Pollies all aboard tough-times gravy train, provides a compelling explanation for why Labour is so far behind National in the popularity stakes. First he puts forward some useful analysis about the economic mood in politics: ‘Fiscal austerity is now in fashion.  It will reshape the way the election campaign is run and in a way that can only favour National’. This is crucial stuff. Then he points out that Labour has until recently been out of sync with this austerity mood, and is struggling to catch up: Finally ‘Labour has truly grasped the nettle of what this new political climate means. It's grasped it so well, in fact, that it actually beat National at its own game. A capital gains tax was the ultimate policy step to fit the fashion. Following it would be a tilt at the retirement age. But it's too late in this electoral cycle for that because Labour has been too slow to discover the formula.  If it had announced its capital gains tax in January and followed up with its income tax and GST cuts now, Labour would be in the fight. Instead, it's still catching up’.

And last week in the Press, novelist Fiona Farrell’s opinion piece, 'Free-market quake' turns citizens into assets, puts forward the argument that natural disasters occur in a crucial political context that determines their impact. She says that in Christchurch, ‘This is a 2011, free market, market-driven earthquake’. The key quote is this: ‘The city is in the big clammy paws of insurance companies and all the consultations, the vision groups, the creative planning meetings to determine the future shape of Our City, are sideshows. The main event is determined by a government that consistently agrees to be powerless before the demands of international business.  In this system, New Zealanders are not citizens with rights but assets to be traded round a table. We make a profit or a loss for the shareholders in a company. Our wellbeing is not their primary focus’. This is all fairly polemical stuff, but that doesn’t make it any less true. I look forward to reading what the novelist has to say about the election campaign. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

NZ Politics Daily - 1 August

Can New Zealand First come back? John Armstrong seems to think so. He’s one of the few political commentators not writing off Winston Peters yet. His Herald column – Peters does his best to rise from the dead – argues that ‘NZ First refuses to obey its critics and die. It instead looks to be in rude good health despite three years in the political wilderness’. Yet in another very good column, Pilfering rife as minor parties face massacre, Armstrong effectively, if perhaps unintentionally, puts forward the argument for why Peters and his party will struggle: his policies are being plagiarised by other parties. Every minor party is now a ‘populist party’, and NZ First simply has a problem differentiating itself in such a crowded marketplace of populists. This is also what I argued on TVNZ News at 8 last night (watch here), and also on a blog post today: New Zealand First – looking lacklustre and tired. 

The Act Party is one of those populist parties struggling for room on the political spectrum, and it also seems to have a number of its own unique problems. David Fisher covers some of the problems in his article, Dreams of Act’s demise. There’s obviously a certain amount of dysfunction still present in the party. What’s more, ex-leader Rodney Hide still won’t quite let go, and today its reported that he won’t give the traditional valedictory speech at the end of his parliamentary term – see: Hide refuses to give traditional farewell. It seems that this is simply due to the fact that he’s leaving under protest or else its because he’s not yet willing to accept that he has been ousted. Of course Hide still has a fair amount of internal sway in the party, so unlike Winston Peters, we still might not have seen the last of Rodney Hide in Parliament. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

New Zealand First – looking lacklustre and tired

It appears that the chances of New Zealand First being returned to Parliament in this year’s general election are becoming rather slim. Although the party’s just received a fair bit of media attention this weekend because of its conference and Winston Peters’ usual capacity to get headlines, he doesn’t really seem to be coming up with the goods in the way that he used to. Peters has always been a dynamic political campaigning, who shouldn’t easily be written off, but it finally appears that he’s becoming rather lacklustre and tired. Certainly his attempts at differentiating NZ First from the other major and minor parties are looking fairly weak. His latest policy focus seems particularly ineffective. So is there actually a political-electoral space for Peters and his party? Does anyone really want to buy what Winston Peters is selling? This is still a partially open question, and so it’s anyone’s guess as to whether NZ First will be victorious in its quest to return to Parliament this year. The party will obviously need to cross the crucial 5% threshold to do so, and most polls suggest that NZ First is well short of being within striking distance. I was interviewed on the subject last night by TVNZ7 News – which you can watch here – and this blog post elaborates on some of those points made. [Read more below].