liberation

NZ Politics Daily - 30 September

The longer that the New Zealand military is in Afghanistan, the more the National Government is likely to be vulnerable to a growing backlash against such military adventures. Some of the media coverage is certainly turning negative. Today there are some good questions being raised and discussed in stories such as Hayden Donnell’s Did NZ SAS soldier die 'needlessly'?, Amelia Romanos and Audrey Young’s Govt: SAS now in 'substantial combat' role, TV3’s PM accused of sugar coating SAS role in Afghanistan, and Vernon Small and Tracy Watkins’ Expect more troop deaths, public warned. Just those headlines alone will be cause for great concern in the offices of John Key and Steven Joyce. And as is pointed in in the Kiwipolitico blog post, ‘All of this makes the government and NZDF attacks on the credibility of Jon Stephenson and Nicky Hager, two journalists who exposed the true nature of NZDF missions in Afghanistan and the duplicity surrounding them, all the more contemptible and desperate’ – see: About SAS “mentoring.”. And even Barry Soper’s evaluation of the issue is serious and critical – see: Political Report: September 30. 

Then there’s more bad news on the economic front, which also makes National particularly vulnerable – see: New Zealand's credit rating lowered. But the Government might take some comfort in the economic commentator Tim Hunter’s pronouncement that ‘ratings agencies are often as useful as a surfboard in the Sahara’ – see: Tell us something useful, Fitch. Nonetheless it gives Labour a real chance to continue its focus on undermining National’s perceived competency, an example of which can be seen in John Pagani’s blog post, The muddle-through downgrade. So could Labour yet make a comeback to ‘win’ the election? David Farrar thinks it’s plausible, and puts the case for a Labour victory in his Herald blog, Will cannabis propel Goff to power. However, Labour still seems to be wallowing in a fair amount of poor political management and self-inflicted own-goals – see, for example: Labour MP told to apologise for Mad Butcher comments. And Matthew Hooton also writes in the NBR today about a recent conspiracy theory put forward by the hapless Trevor Mallard – see: Labour’s Key Derangement Syndrome.

Other important, interesting or insightful items today include Chris Trotter’s Resurrecting Student Activism, Alex Walls’ Media bias questioned as PM to host RadioLive show, Stuff’s DJ Key talks cats, not tax on radio show, Tracy Watkins’ Voters not confident about outlook, and Tahu Potiki’s Maori policy, outcomes should be brought to fore. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

What would you like to ask National MP Tim Macindoe?

I’m interviewing National MP Tim Macindoe at 12 noon on Friday as part of University of Otago Vote Chat. What would you like me to ask him? Macindoe seems like a very true-blue, old-fashioned National Party MP, so I’m interested in exploring this ideological outlook. Because although he might seem like a run-of-the-mill conservative, he claims to be ‘blue-green’ politician, and many of his political pronouncements suggest a touch of ‘red toryism’. So what is his vision for New Zealand? Blue, green or red? [Read more below]

 

NZ Politics Daily - 29 September

‘Joycification’ is the new term coined by TV3’s political reporter Patrick Gower to describe the management and marketing of the National Government. Gower writes about this in the October edition of Metro magazine, which is well worth buying for Gower’s excellent analysis of the ideological nature of the current National Party under John Key and Steven Joyce. According to Gower, Joycification is the ‘the mechanism by which John Key and National’s “brand” are protected’, and ‘Joycification is driven by a philosophy both men like to call “whatever works”. It seems like another way of saying, “whatever doesn’t dent our popularity”.’ It’s a template within National, it seems, for making incremental progress in pursuing rightwing public policy advancement while hardly disturbing the voters: ‘It’s not a “do nothing” Government, as some would have it. The approach is: “If we do something, try and make it as unnoticeable as possible.”  Key fronts the major changes, and Key must be protected. So he will rarely be given something he can’t sell. When they want to make changes to popular programmes they don’t rip the guts out, opting instead for a stealthy surgical approach. The policy may be left standing, with key parts sliced away as unobtrusively as possible’. 

Gower’s analysis is both sober and sophisticated. He shows how National has essentially learnt well from the politically successful era of Helen Clark, and Joycification is really just an extension of Labour’s blandness and risk-free calculations – albeit taken to an even higher level of pragmatism. This makes things difficult for Labour, Gower says: ‘The risk-free politicking of Joycification has made life very difficult for Labour, which is increasingly desperate for National to “show its true colours”.’ So what does this mean for the election campaign? Gower says National’s campaign will be about as exciting as the National’s recently unveiled party list and that the upcoming sales jobs will be designed to send us all to sleep. And, that, according to Gower is the secret of John Key’s popularity – Joycification means that the public feels content that Key is ‘taking care of business’, so ‘we can go to the beach. Or the rugby’. 

Reflecting this superior political management and marketing, is the poll results published today by Fairfax – see: Danya Levy’s Latest poll a good one for Govt: commentators. The results show that in the two big areas in which National has been most vulnerable lately (the organisation of the Rugby World Cup, and the rebuild of Christchurch), they are being perceived as doing a good job. Labour had been doing a good job of attempting to focus the public’s mind on National’s alleged incompetence relating to these areas, but unfortunately for Labour, this scrutiny hasn’t resonated with the public. Although, interestingly, the poll does show that over a quarter of Canterbury residents disapprove of the Government’s red-zone property purchase offer – which shows a glimmer of hope for Labour.

Other important items to read today include: Gordon Campbell’s On the latest SAS death in Afghanistan, Duncan Garner’s SAS mentoring role 'just spin', Vernon Small’s Why John Key might be happy to see ACT die, Rosemary McLeod’s All you need is love, Don, Keith Ng’s Set it on fire, then, Eric Crampton’s NZ Youth - increasingly rational, and Paul Callaghan’s Our strength lies in the weird stuff. In the last item, Callaghan argues that the Green Party’s plan to sell ‘clean, green technology’ to the world is unrealistic and absurd. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

NZ Politics Daily - 28 September

It all seems to be getting a bit silly – the constant complaints, reporting and debate about political parties and electoral candidates breaking the rules over their various election advertising. In fact it’s almost been one of the defining elements of the whole election campaign since the start of the year. The latest minor controversies can be read in the following examples: TV3’s Labour MP Jacinda Ardern breaches signs bylaw, David Farrar’s TV3 reports Ardern breaking the law, John Pagani’s The signs of scofflaws, and Vernon Small’s Election signs breach council's laws. 

For most voters, it’s all a big yawn, but for many politicos it’s incredibly important. Ever since the 2005 election when the Exclusive Brethren and the Labour Party allegedly spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on election advertising that broke the rules, this area surrounding political finance and advertising has often been at the centre of partisan electoral debate. The passing of the deeply-flawed Electoral Finance Act 2007 was the pinnacle of this debate. Often the incidents that are argued over are trivial, but the principles are actually quite significant. Some of these were explained quite well today on RNZ’s Nine-to-Noon – listen to Law with James Dunne. These arguments will go on-and-on in New Zealand politics – partly because such debates contain strong opportunities to allege wrong-doing, hypocrisy, and corruption about political opponents. These are powerful electoral weapons in modern politics, because the public is now very receptive to revelations about political impropriety. So, yes, some of the debate can be rather petty and silly, and much it also relates to the can of worms that comes from attempting to over-regulate political activity. But overall, it’s actually very good to have political parties being monitored to ensure that they are playing by their own rules. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

NZ Politics Daily - 27 September

As we come up to each general election there’s always an explosion of angst about political apathy, and in particular about citizens choosing not to register and/or turnout to vote. It’s usually academics, government departments, bloggers, and politicians declaring the dangers of not participating in politics, about a so-called duty to vote, and so forth. It’s all rather condescending, especially when they aim their lectures at youth. The latest panic concerns  the fact that apparently 200,000 eligible voters under the age of 30 have not enrolled – see, for example, 200,000 young reluctant to vote, Voting important for youth – EEC, and Enrol to vote. There’s no doubt that all this angst is based on a real issue of declining public participation in parliamentary politics. It’s true that in general fewer and fewer New Zealanders are inclined to vote. At the 2008 general election, voter turnout (as a proportion of eligible voters) was down to about 75% - the second lowest level for a century. And there’s a very good chance that this year’s turnout will be even lower – especially if the basic election outcome looks to be a foregone conclusion, and the political parties fail to inspire the public. And that’s really the crux of the issue – whether parliamentary electoral politics is actually healthy and inspiring enough to motivate people to participate. And are the political parties really offering enough ideological diversity to voters? Are the differences between the supposed variety of parties really that meaningful? There’s good reason to think not, and so it should be no surprise that many citizens – and youth in particular – will be feeling alienated, marginalized and bored by what passes for democratic politics at election time in New Zealand. I put this argument forward today on RNZ Morning Report – listen here: Young people demonstrate reluctance to vote. At the moment, it strikes me that declining voter participation is constantly blamed on the people that are marginalized by politics rather than by those that are failing to inspire participation. And when people don’t vote, it’s often for a variety of reasons other than just ‘apathy’. This week the band R.E.M. finally split up after 31 years, and in one of their greatest songs, ‘What’s the Frequency, Kenneth?’, Michael Stipe sings the very insightful lyric: ‘To turn away in disgust is not the same as apathy’.

Part of the problem, of course, is the very trivial issues that some politicians are focused on – see today’s column by Chris Trotter: Of Mad Dog and English men. 

Nonetheless, the election campaign will deal with all sorts of important issues (to some degree), and even if the differences between parties is somewhat magnified by partisan hyperbole and marketing, there’s the very important referendum on the electoral system – a topic that has sadly received only a fraction of the analysis of the wider election campaign. Partly this is because the different electoral options appear so difficult to decipher. Fortunately, legal expert Graeme Edgeler has developed a very impressive Referendum Tool to help you decide how to vote. Edgeler explains it here: Now it’s up to you. 

In understanding the ongoing Act Party saga, it’s worth reading some of the newspaper editorials today, which by and large have an excellent analysis – see: the Herald: Brash's dope idea misguided and desperate, Dominion Post: Act is not a team, it's a one-man band, the Otago Daily Times: Act II: a 'brand' new party?, Nelson Mail: The dope on Don, Timaru Herald: Instincts not the sharpest, and the Manawatu Standard: Pot shots earned as Brash makes a hash. Beyond this, it’s also worth reading Eric Crampton’s blog post entitled Shambolic. Crampton is sympathetic towards Act, and is also a long-time proponent that the party pushes drug legalisation, but he says that the party is probably now dead. 

Other especially interesting items today include Gareth Morgan and Susan Guthrie’s UK riots wake-up call for New Zealand, John Hartevelt’s Big shocks yet to be felt, and perhaps April Ieremia’s Sporting the world's colours. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

NZ Politics Daily - 26 September

What is to be made of the continued strangeness of the Act Party? My analysis has been reported on TV3 (Time for ACT to dissolve – Edwards; and video), but possibly the most apt summary and explanation of what’s happening in the increasingly farcical Act Party can be taken from the 1920s quote of Italian Marxist theoretician, Antonio Gramsci: ‘The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear’. This old quote nicely fits the fact that the Act Party has all but died but isn’t being allowed to be buried. Instead of being dissolved, the organisation has been taken over by Don Brash, John Banks and co, when really they should have started their own new party rather than trying to resuscitate and reform that which is already too far gone. The peculiarities of this quasi-National Party annexation, together with the accumulation of internal ideological contradictions within Act, means that the level of dysfunction present is extreme. So often, parties and politicians are not able to know when to call it quits. Similarly, this has happened with other minor parties: we’ve seen equally ugly and bizarre political symptoms occurring during the death throes of both the Alliance and New Zealand First. 

Elsewhere there’s some excellent analysis of what’s going on in Act: Tim Watkin’s ACT says bye-bye Bosco - turns to the drug vote. Or not, Audrey Young’s It's goodbye Boscawen, and adieu to Act brand, and Duncan Garner’s Brash's dopey trainwreck politics. 

John Key is possibly appreciating that the political attention is on Act. His own political management appears increasingly rough when put under scrutiny recently, and just going into an election campaign some of the Teflon coating appears to be rubbing off in places. In particular, Key’s not been looking so good in terms of Pike River, Afghanistan, the Urewera and spy legislation, and the Christchurch rebuild. John Hartevelt’s column is a must-read in this regard – see: PM's Pike River response a rare error of judgement. Also Imran Kahn has had a go at Key for his alleged ignorance, see: Key 'does not understand Afghanistan' – Khan. And of course the Prime Minister can't be happy with the debacle over National’s attempt at shoving through the video surveillance legislation. Today there are a number of worthy items on this issue, such as Rodney Harrison’s Why Govt plan to overrule top court is wrong, Steven Price’s Video camera surveillance and the Urewera defendants, Dave Armstrong’s Is it time for a Urewerawood sign?, and Deborah Coddington’s Unseemly haste for law to cover cops' illegal actions. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

 

NZ Politics Daily - 23 September

The Labour and Act parties have been jointly-awarded the title of ‘Party of the Week’ by Stuff political journalists Andrea Vance and John Hartevelt. What have these ‘unlikely bedfellows’ done? They’ve refused ‘to roll over to National’s bid to push through quick-fix surveillance laws’ – see: Campaign countdown: 64 days to go. Vance and Hartevelt also appropriately cite the ‘Giant legal brains Andrew Geddis, Dean Knight and Philip Joseph’ as helping defeat the Government’s rush into dodgy legislation. Of course ‘The Maori Party, the Greens and the Mana Party say they won't vote for the bill under any circumstances’ – which is a more hardline stance against it – see: No deal yet on covert surveillance bill and Greens rule out support for urgent surveillance bill. Yet when it comes to the Labour and Act parties, it’s still not apparent to what extent they disagree with the substance of the bill rather than just the rush to proceed under urgency. No doubt the debates continue within the individual parties over whether to eventually lend support to the legislation if National allows them some sort of select committee process. And although the strongest criticism of the proposed bill is coming from the left, National will be stung most by the criticisms of rightwinger Matthew Hooton in a NBR column entitled Key risks following Clark’s footsteps: ‘It is impossible to believe Mr Finlayson, the most distinguished legal mind in parliament and a person of impeccable integrity, genuinely supports what is being done in his name.  More likely he is being put up to it after one of Steven Joyce’s polls.  But while pragmatism and poll-driven fruitcake-ism may have something to commend them in economic and social policy, the criminal law is one area where it is the prime minister’s responsibility to uphold a strong ideological position based on ancient rights and the rule of law’. Well said. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

 

What would you like to ask Winston Peters?

I’m interviewing New Zealand First leader Winston Peters at 11am today as part of University of Otago Vote Chat. What would you like me to ask him? “I think Winston Peters should be in Parliament. I wouldn’t vote for him, but it’s a bit of a shame that he’s not there anymore”. That seems to be a common sort of feeling I hear expressed, and it’s one I have some sympathy for as well. So this year is either Winston Peters’ great comeback or his swansong – and therefore I want to explore that with him. What are the factors that are holding his party back? But lessons has he learnt from decades of politics? Why has his political career and the project he was building ended in failure? If anyone has additional topics and questions that they want put to Winston Peters, please let me know – or participate on the Twittersphere in realtime (see details below). Of course, I may not be able to use all the questions you suggest, but it’s helpful to get ideas from others and it’s useful to know what topics you find particularly interesting.

 

Heather Roy at Vote Chat

Retiring Act Party MP Heather Roy participated in Otago University Vote Chat today. Interestingly, she appeared to be the most liberal guest to date. For example, she expressed a belief in validity of gay marriage, favoured the gradual legalisation of drugs, doesn’t want the drinking age raised, and pondered whether New Zealand needs a drinking age at all. Her opinions on the ideological state of the Act Party were somewhat more guarded, but she diplomatically expressed disappointment that the party had become so socially conservative. In this guest blog post, James Meager provides an account of the discussion with Roy. [Read more below]

 

NZ Politics Daily - 22 September

This could be the year of the Greens – finally they might crack the 10% mark that has eluded them in every general election so far. And with the popular demise of Labour and the ideological confusion of Mana, the Green Party might end up being the real success story for the leftish side of the political spectrum. Certainly John Armstrong thinks that the party is ‘crossing some kind of Rubicon’ with its emphasis on serious economic thinking – see: 'Green Wave' shows party is serious. He also notes that the party seems to have ditched its opposition to economic growth – but as with much about the Green Party, it’s a case of shifts of emphasis and smart presentational politics. If journalists really pushed the Greens on the question, they’d be likely to find that the Greens are still officially opposed to the very concept of ‘economic growth’ – which is a core doctrine of political environmentalism. 

John Pagani also says the Greens have crossed some sort of Rubicon: ‘the party seems ready to get a bit dirty: more serious, less radical, more electable, more capable of compromise in pursuit of tangible gains’; Pagani celebrates the fact that the Greens’ ‘leaders have been responsible, reasonable and focused on issues that really matter’ – see: The Greens get it together. Along with all the praise, however is some stinging criticism – No Right Turn has an interesting critique of the Greens’ latest jobs announcement – see: The Green jobs initiative. While sympathetic to the policies involved, this blog post condemns the way it is sold: ‘deceitful and misleading’; ‘raising questions of the Greens' honesty and integrity’; ‘Deceit is not the green way, and if you use it to sell your policies, then people will start treating you as liars, just like all the rest’. David Farrar raises some similar issues in his Stuff blog post, Are the Greens becoming astroturfers?. Nonetheless, the Greens will be very happy just to be talked about. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

What would you like to ask Heather Roy?

I’m interviewing Act MP, Heather Roy, on today as part of University of Otago Vote Chat. What would you like me to ask her? The Vote Chat series of interviews at the University of Otago normally involves a conversation with a politician seeking votes at the upcoming general election. And while Heather Roy is part of the Act Party campaign in 2011, she probably isn’t doing many media interviews or much door-knocking. After all she’s retiring after a particularly tumultuous parliamentary term that has involved scandal after scandal within her own caucus alongside internecine internal warfare. She’s probably very pleased to be departing – especially due to the way that certain colleagues have treated her. So that’s the major area that I want to canvas in my discussion with her. But what else should I ask? [Read more below]

 

NZ Politics Daily - 21 September

While the legislative fix to allow police to use covert video surveillance reflects poorly on the National Government amongst liberals and legal academics, it might well be the Labour Party that ends up being damaged the most by the issue. Labour seems to be a possum in the headlights on the issue, not sure whether or not to risk being seen as ‘soft on crime’ by refusing to support the dodgy legislation, or risk the ire of commentators and most of its own supporters by ‘falling into line’ and bailing out the Police. Certainly John Armstrong thinks Labour has no option – see: 'Yes' - the only answer for Labour. Armstrong isn’t actually proposing that Labour should support National on this (as some might have read his column), but just that Labour is not strong enough ‘to take a stand and claim the moral high ground by not voting for the bill’. Labour’s apparent opposition really ‘amounts to little more than political window dressing prior to the party inevitably falling into line’. Of course Charles Chauvel has spoken strongly about the issue in his Red Alert blog post, Overturning the Supreme Court, but although this will please Labour supporters, a careful reading of his opinion – and any other public statements from Labour MPs – shows that Labour is being very careful to avoid saying that they will oppose the bill. What’s more, Labour’s main beef with the bill seems to be about process rather than principle. 

Almost as if replying to John Armstrong’s prediction of Labour capitulation, Patrick Gower has written an excellent article to say that ‘It is high time that Labour hardened up’. For once, Gower says, Labour should follow principles rather than pragmatism: ‘Goff needs to take a look in the mirror and say slowly to himself: I am not going to cave into the petty politics of John Key on this one.  Phil Goff needs to own his own future.  Why be predictable and buckle to Key? Why don't Goff and Labour's MPs stand up for their principles?’. Read more: Labour must harden up and reject police spy-video law change. 

The condemnation of the proposed bill continues – see, in particular, the Herald’s editorial (No grounds for knee-jerk law change) and the Dominion Post editorial (Law must apply to all). And Andrew Geddis has further sensible things to say about the ‘problem’: Too many problems, why am I here?. 

The other big topic of the day is the Green Party jobs policy announcement – see: John Hartevelt’s Greens unveil policy: Jobs and innovation, not roads. Here the Greens are making yet another step towards orthodoxy and credibility – it’s all apparently fully costed, footnoted, and swishly communicated, showing why the Greens will be taken more seriously in this election than ever before. The Greens are talking about economics more than ever – and in a way that smartly appeals to more than just left voters. And the fact that they lined up eco-businessman Nick Gerritsen to appear alongside the announcement was very telling. The party has ditched all the extraneous radicalism as well as the amateur approach, and now looks surprisingly like a mainstream party (with business backing). The problem, of course, is that the more the party tries to blend in with the ‘suburban mainstream’ the more it risks becoming rather forgettable, grey, and bland. And the more the party attempts to copy the ‘machine politics’ of Labour and National, the more it will end up incurring stories like this one in today’s Waikato Times: Green candidate apologises to newspaper. Increasingly ex-Green voters might be asking why the Green Party has sold its soul? [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

NZ Politics Daily - 20 September

What on the surface might seem arcane, complicated and dry – the debate over the Police’s legal ability to undertake covert surveillance, and Parliament’s ability to retrospectively enable it – is actually a fascinating and hugely important issue. For the best in-depth analysis of it all, you have to read Andrew Geddis’ Once upon a time in te Urewera ..., Dean Knight’s Covert video surveillance and the (c)overt erosion of the Rule of Law, and Gordon Campbell’s On the Police surveillance bailout. With patience to delve through this analysis, anyone should be able see that the Police modus operandi and the Government’s attempts to help the Police out are rather outrageous. With very good reason, various commentators are using strong language to condemn both the Police and National’s response to the Supreme Court ruling. No Right Turn says its a ‘gross assault on the rule of law’ and ‘absolutely obscene’; Morgan Godfery says National shows contempt for our democracy, Imperator Fish says Law And Order Trumps Civil Rights Again, and so forth.

The whole issue is heavily political. So the above condemnations obviously won’t seem appropriate to everyone. How such an ideological issue is evaluated depends much on your orientation towards the institutions of the state – and particularly the Police. If you believe that the state is inherently politically neutral, reliable, and exists for good of all in society, and if you believe that the Police are fundamentally a force for what is good and right, you might be inclined to overlook the criticism of all of this. If however you regard the state as being reflective of the strongest forces in society, and as part of an Establishment that has its own interests, then you will be very receptive towards the above criticisms. 

This means that there tends to be a left-right element to the political reactions to the Police’s role in the Ureweras and the Government’s determination to retrospectively bail them out. In parliamentary terms, the Greens, Mana and the Maori Party have fallen into opposition to what’s going on. (The Maori Party’s opposition says less about the party’s current political positioning and more about it origins amongst lower socio-economic Maori). Meanwhile the political right is clearly supportive of the institutions of the Establishment, the Police, and the need for a strong stance on issues of law and order. For them the rules – and their own principles – can apparently be bent to ensure a pragmatic outcome that favours the status quo.

This leaves Labour stuck in the middle, which lends it both danger and opportunity. On similar matters in the past, the Labour Party has sided firmly on with the Police and in favour of hardline law and order. So, for example, in the similar case of the SIS’ bungled and illegal behaviour over Aziz Choudry in 1996, Labour supported the SIS and increasing the agencies draconian powers. And in Government, of course, Helen Clark’s Labour was very socially conservative on law and order – doubling the prison population in just nine years. But with an election-year opinion poll gap of 20+ points behind National, Labour will be tempted to differentiate itself from National and refuse to support the Government’s hardline rushed legislation. For the moment, Labour is sitting on the fence, with Goff declaring that they might be willing to support National’s rushed legislation ‘if the Government can make a case for urgency’ – see: Surveillance law scrutiny needed: Labour.

Labour’s newly announced Christchurch recovery package is also looking increasingly half-hearted and middling. A close look at the difference between National’s status quo and what Labour is proposing shows that there’s less differentiation than either party suggests. For example, on the issue of the state entering the insurance market, both parties emphasise that they would only do so as a last resort. And in terms of the quake payments, Labour isn’t proposing the expenditure of any different amounts to red-zone residents, only shifting the figures around. Therefore headlines such as Political parties at odds over quake gridlock, appear to exaggerate the difference between Labour and National. Of course National is equally reliant on painting Labour’s Christchurch policy as extreme. And so although National won’t rule out getting involved in the insurance industry, John Key has scorned Labour’s openness to that possibility. Hence, Goff has rightly said, ‘It is nonsense for John Key to condemn Labour for intervening when he is not ruling out making exactly the same decision’ – see: Labour defends Christchurch rebuild plan. Of course, election campaigns are all about exaggeration, but it appears that in 2011 there’s going to be a lot more of it than usual. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

NZ Politics Daily - 19 September

The politics-free zone of the Rugby World Cup was supposed to deprive the Opposition parties of any significant media publicity in the main period leading up to the general election – but it might not quite work out as National intended. Instead Labour and the Greens seem to be enjoying the tournament immensely. Of course, the RWC opening night debacle has tarnished National’s competency reputation, and then other ongoing minor political stories about ministerial bad manners and so forth would have been of further delight for Labour. These issues have been very well covered in the last couple of days in John Armstrong’s McCully uses authority to keep Nats in power, Tracy Watkins’ Will nightmare turn to reality?, and more light-heartedly in Dave Armstrong’s National has dropped the ball - in any language. 

Labour and the Greens are not just basking in National’s woes, however, but seem to be proactively attempting to get their messages out to the public while National has its mind on other things. During the last day or so, Labour and the Greens have been announcing all sorts of policies and campaigns. Labour’s policy on the Christchurch rebuild, in particular, might gain it some real kudos – see: Labour's Christchurch quake package revealed. There’s plenty about the policy details which might be challenged, but there’s no doubt that it directly answers a lot of concern that people have about the National Government’s supposed stingy and hands-off approach to the rebuild (in terms of red zone payouts and re-insurance). 

According to Newstalk ZB’s Katie Bradford-Crozier, Labour and Greens are ‘set to make the most of the last parliamentary recess before the election and release a number of policies’ - see: Political Report for September 19. It seems that they’re going against National’s politics-free plans, and counter-intuitively supplying even more political news stories to the media during the RWC. And so Phil Goff is everywhere in the media at the moment – especially with profiles that attempt to show the public ‘the real Phil Goff’. The latest is Anthony Hubbard’s Sunday Star Times feature, Phil Goff reveals he has not given up hope.[Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

NZ Politics Daily - 16 September

A week into the Rugby World Cup and political fatigue is probably setting in – people are sick of all the finger pointing, point scoring, and the passing of the buck. Yet it’s still the major story of the moment, and David Farrar does his best to eloquently put the political right’s point of view through in his Herald blog post, Rugby World Cup and the blame game, which is worth reading. And Brian Rudman asks Who dropped the ball? Point the finger at everyone. But the most interesting analysis on the issue comes from Chris Trotter, who takes a historical view in Chaos on tracks: Auckland parties like it's 1949. Clearly it’s been a tough week for both the National Government and the Auckland supercity authority, so they’ll both be hoping that the worst of the RWC politics draws to a close today. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

NZ Politics Daily - 15 September

Parliament will be a more interesting place if Sue Bradford is successful in her attempt to return there. She’s finally been officially announced as the Mana Party candidate for the general seat of Waitakere – see: Bradford confirms she's standing for Mana party. And because Bradford’s apparently very popular amongst Mana activists, she can expect a relatively high list placing. Certainly there’s a lot of reason to believe that she is likely to be ranked #2 after Hone Harawira if Annette Sykes decides against standing for Parliament – although iPredict currently suggests the chances of Bradford being #2 are an incredibly low 3%. 

Certainly Bradford will lend Mana a more leftwing character. Where she failed to get the Greens to ‘stick to the left’, it’s possible she might have more luck with Mana, especially since Willie Jackson has pulled out as a candidate. Although Jackson might have also made Parliament a more interesting place, he would have had a very centrist affect on Mana, and it’s telling that the main reason he gave for not standing in the Tamaki Makaurau electorate was that he didn’t want to effectively aid Labour winning the seat of the National-friendly Maori Party. 

So the battle goes on within Mana to decide it’s ideological trajectory. Will it be essentially another ethnic-oriented Maori party with some leftwing add-ons, or will be a socialist-style party with a particular focus on Maori oppression? These might sound like similar options, but they mean very different things in practice. Interestingly, some other Mana candidates are currently being announced and this will help answer the question. For example, Ngawai Herewini is going to contest the general seat of Northland for Mana, and she has the appearance of being much more Maori nationalist than socialist. And more noteworthy, prominent Maori campaigner and academic Angeline Greensill is going to be the Mana candidate for Hauraki-Waikato. The daughter of Eva Rickard, Greensill is a long time Maori land rights campaigner, and has been through a plethora if Maori nationalist parties: Mana Motuhake, Mana Māori Movement, the Maori Party, and now Mana. 

So at the moment, it appears that Bradford might once again play the role of the sole, staunch lefty within a party that isn’t quite in sync with her progressive left politics. However, much will depend on the likes of Matt McCarten and John Minto bolstering Bradford’s ideological crusade. But don’t necessarily expect Annette Sykes to be an ally of Bradford within the party – Sykes seems to still be enthralled with the likes of Mana supporter Margaret Mutu, and she even gave Mutu her support recently over the anti-white immigration controversy. In fact, it’s also telling that, no Mana leader has been willing to publicly disagree or condemn Mutu’s high-profile stance. 

Other particularly interesting or important items for today include: David Farrar’s Are the public tuned in?, Janika ter Ellen’s Social media set to star this November, Duncan Garner’s Waterfront takeover will have long-lasting effect – Video, John Armstrong’s Goff flays Nats over World Cup chaos, Vernon Small’s Time to keep eye on ball, and Tim Watkin’s RWC crowd chaos.[Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

NZ Politics Daily - 14 September

There is no doubt that the National Government deserves the pressure that is currently being applied over the shambles of the Rugby World Cup opening night. The chaos in Auckland was extraordinary, and the decision now to commandeer the city’s waterfront is equally so. With just ten weeks until election day, this all gives Labour an amazing opportunity to scrutinise the government over something that was so unnecessary. Whether or not this drama is a ‘game changer’ is still to be seen, and will depend to some extent on whether National can ensure that the rest of the RWC goes to plan. But the fiasco has certainly taken the shine off the National Government’s general appearance of competency. Murray McCully’s days as a minister suddenly seemed numbered.

Today's most appropriate headline covering the debacle is therefore the Herald’s Four years of World Cup plans unravel in four days. Also conveying the latest drama well is Fran O'Sullivan’s Seizing control of fan zone surreal. But the must-read critique of National (and Labour and the local body politicians) comes from Duncan Garner – see: McCully must share Rugby World Cup Waterfront blame. Also of importance are: Vernon Small’s Nats in hot seat over party central, John Armstrong’s Knock out - Key lands the killer punch Len Brown didn't see coming, Brian Rudman’s So what comes next, Il Duce, and Dylan Moran and Lloyd Burr’s Opposition opposed RWC legislation as it gave McCully too much power.

Finally, please note that I’m interviewing Clare Curran MP on Friday for the University of Otago Vote Chat series and I’m interested in receiving your questions for her – see: What would you like to ask Clare Curran? [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

What would you like to ask Clare Curran?

I’m interviewing Labour MP for Dunedin South, Clare Curran, on Friday as part of University of Otago Vote Chat. What would you like me to ask her? Clare Curran is a particularly interesting Labour Party MP. In many ways she embodies the current nature of the Labour Party, and so the conversation with her will hopefully bring up many illuminations about wider issues relating to the current and future party. [Read more below]

 

NZ Politics Daily - 13 September

Political parties continue to pay little more than lip service to the severe problems of child poverty in New Zealand. One in four children in this country are living below the poverty line according to a new report from the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG). The report, Left Further Behind: How policies fail the poorest children in New Zealand (pdf), is an important document, but its recommendations are unlikely to be picked up by political parties. Already it appears that Labour and Greens are picking and choosing elements of the report to highlight and use as an ‘endorsement’ of their own policies, but this has the appearance of cynical electioneering when those parties ignore the other findings. 

The Left Further Behind report is covered in the media today by Shabnam Dastgheib’s Quarter of Kiwi kids in poverty, TV3’s Action needed on child poverty in NZ – report, and RNZ’s One in five children in severe hardship – report. CPAG’s spokesperson, Professor Susan St John also discussed the publication on Morning Report. And No Right Turn has blogged: Left further behind and You can't manage what you don't measure. John Pagani also has some interesting things to say in Who is really cheating?. 

The Child Poverty Action Group clearly feels that the current National Government has done nothing to ameliorate the growing crisis of child poverty. But perhaps the parties of the right are not CPAG’s main targets. National and Act are not currently disposed towards the type of political solutions that CPAG is pushing.  It’s more likely that CPAG want to pressure leftwing voters to demand that the parties that they vote for are willing to implement solutions to child poverty. In recent years, the issue of poverty has been severely neglected on the left, and CPAG clearly points the finger at previous governments for the state we’re currently in. There is research to show that in fact successive governments have ignored the plight of the poorest children in this country – particularly the children of beneficiaries who are excluded from Working for Families.

So, yes, National needs to be held to account for the state of child poverty under its watch. But so does Labour and other political parties. And it’s not just about looking to the past – but also their current policies. So the next time that a Labour MP electioneers on the basis of increasing inequality and child poverty they need to be asked hard questions about their own continued support for policy settings that contribute to that. For example, when does Labour plan to restore benefit levels to pre-1991 levels or extend family tax credits to those receiving a benefit? Or why does the Green Party support retaining GST at the new 15% rate? And when will the Greens and Labour support CPAG’s call for 24/7 free healthcare for those under 6?

It also seems that many people have strong feelings that adult beneficiaries need to be forced, motivated or given incentives to get into work and that means not having them be too comfortable on benefits. CPAG’s point is that regardless of whether it is morally defensible or even economically sensible to be punishing those not in work, it is a whole other issue to punish the children of beneficiaries who have no part in such decisions and who most suffer the consequences of poverty in their homes.

One of the problems is that because wage levels are so low in New Zealand increasing the incomes of beneficiaries with children effectively becomes a disincentive to go into work. The answer put forward by Paula Bennett and National is to keep benefit levels low and provide top-ups or targeted assessments like food cards and so on. The other option, of course, which this government is certainly not looking to do, is to increase low wages so that there is a gap in which beneficiary incomes can be increased without creating disincentives to work. After all, a large number of the poor in New Zealand are actually in paid work. It might be part-time work or working two or three jobs, but there is no doubt that $13 an hour for the minimum wage it is not enough for many families to pay their way and provide the basics of life. 

To change this would require a much stronger focus on producing full employment, which is the subject of this year’s Bruce Jesson Lecture which will be given by Prof Paul Dalziel on 26 October at the Maidment Theatre, University of Auckland – see: Political Studies Department and the Bruce Jesson Foundation 2011 Bruce Jesson Lecture: Recreating Full Employment. 

Other interesting items today include the following. Phil Quin asks Are party blogs useful?, and answers this by saying that political party run-blogs, such as Labour’s Red Alert, are hopeless at actually persuading voters. And while such propaganda devices do a have place, parties should stop treating them as vehicle for press releases. 

Longtime Press journalist Peter Luke is retiring, and he reflects on his years  as a parliamentary gallery and leader-writer in Finding truth in shades of grey. Of particular interest is his list of the MPs that he most respected: Michael Cullen (‘the wittiest and smartest’), Jim Bolger (‘the most under-estimated prime minister’), Rod Donald (his ability to combine green politics with pragmatism), Jim Anderton (‘one of the hardest politicians to interview… But in the years of Rogernomics he had the courage of his convictions’), and Mike Moore (‘Mike told me I would be free to use his office, against the rules, for a smoke’). 

The Margaret Mutu saga continues to roll on, partly because she’s raised questions about issues that are still very much alive in electoral politics despite current parliamentarians speaking less about them. Recent items of interest include Anger building over 'racist' call and John Tamihere’s opinion piece, Mutu doesn't speak for me. 

Of course, politics of the Rugby World Cup are particularly strong today, with the shambles of the opening night transport still producing big stories – see, in particularly, John Hartevelt’s Government seizes control of Auckland waterfront and An actual political football. 

Finally, Gordon Campbell has just published a very thoughtful article entitled Too Old To Vote?. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

NZ Politics Daily - 12 September

As John Key might put it, New Zealanders are showing their ‘socialist streak’ by backing the ‘underdogs’ in each Rugby World Cup match. We have an affinity with the underdog, and this has translated, so far, to an instinctive mixing of sport and politics, whereby in Dunedin on Saturday, New Zealanders appeared to support the Argentina over England by a significant margin. Then in Wellington last night – where there were vast numbers of South Africans in the crowd – it seemed that clearly pretty much everyone else there (mostly Kiwis) were with the Welsh. 

There’s more to it than just the ‘underdog’ factor, and some other ideological attitudes appear to kick in. Our reluctance to support the English, for example, is possibly due to the fact that in England the sport of rugby has traditionally been the game of the Establishment, which does not sit well with more egalitarian ethos; not to mention the fact that England is the old colonial master of most rugby playing countries. 

Similarly, New Zealand has a long-standing rugby rivalry with South African but there’s also the political reality that rugby was the sport of white South Africa and in this country the Springboks are indelibly associated with apartheid – even thirty years later. In fact in an interesting parallel, there’s still very strong support for the All Blacks by black South Africans – see for example, this article published in South Africa: All Black support grows in EL and Eastern Cape, which explains that although borne of apartheid, black South African support for New Zealand in rugby is now ingrained. 

And of course, New Zealanders also seem to have an approach of supporting ‘whoever is playing against Australia’. Thus amongst most New Zealanders there appears to be a deep-seated aversion to England, South Africa and Australia that leads to wildly enthusiastic support for anyone who comes up against them. Beyond this aversion to these three, there seems to be a further hierarchy of teams that are deemed worthy of support in the RWC. Much of this is based on factors such as our regional big-brother role in the Pacific.

So below is what might be termed ‘A Politicos guide about who to support in the RWC’, based on very subjective and flippant criteria:

1. All Blacks (nationalism is far from dead)

2. Samoa (our old colony – guilt maybe)

3. Tonga (maybe on their way to number 2?)

4. Fiji (relegated to the bottom of the Pacific Islands because of Military rule)

5. Ireland 

6. Wales 

7. Scotland

8. Argentina 

9. Japan

10. Georgia

11. Canada 

12. Romania 

13. Namibia 

14. Italy

15. Russia

16. France (ex colonial bully boys - albeit with style)

17. Australia (the new colonial bully boys in the region)

18. USA (the biggest imperialist power)

19. South Africa (they are, after all, the Springboks; and Apartheid still lingers)

20. England (Republican-esque sentiments mixed with egalitarian ethos)

There will be many who will fervently disagree with these tongue-in-cheek rankings. Feel free to leave details of the ‘correct’ rankings on my liberation blog site. 

Other interesting commentary on the politics of the rugby come from Anthony Hubbard (Conversion still needed to win), who argues that the sport has changed significantly in New Zealand, and from John Armstrong (Politics first casualty of RWC media scrum). Other important items include Catherine Masters and Geoff Cumming’s The oddball revolutionaries, Adam Dudding’s A prime minister's view from the top, and Neil Reid’s NZ military's 'spin' doctors under fire.[Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

 

NZ Politics Daily - 9 September

Sport and politics aren’t supposed to mix according to some, but virtually everything in life interacts with politics in some way or another. Hence the launch of the Rugby World Cup tournament today will inevitably impact on domestic politics. The question of how it will affect the election campaign is a contentious and hard to predict issue. David Farrar has a go today in his Herald blog, World Cup's affect on the election. After a run through a couple of international comparative examples of the influence of sporting success on a nation’s voting behaviour, Farrar seems to conclude that there’s no obvious pattern to expect, but that a National Party that is already well ahead in the opinion polls will be well served by the reduced focus on politics for the next six weeks. Previously, Tim Watkin has also blogged about this issue, suggesting such an affect is good for National, but poor for democracy – see: Political distraction. Interestingly, Labour candidate Jordan Carter sees things a bit differently, saying that he’s optimistic about it’s potential impact on Labour’s underdog status: ‘the tournament will wash away people's attention from politics for weeks and weeks, and afterwards -- no matter what the result -- there'll be an unusually sharp focus back to politics.  If the underdog presents unexpectedly well, there'll be an upside for them’ - see: Effects of the #RWC on the election. And a couple of months ago, Anthony Hubbard wrote a very good article on all of this: Will the Rugby World Cup affect the election result?. 

TVNZ’s business host Nadine Chalmers-Ross also ponders the impact of the RWC on the country, and worries that the IRB have over-priced the tickets making them ‘a luxury beyond the reach of many’ – see: Cautious RWC excitement. And finally, Helen Tatham has polled general practitioners for the NZ Doctor publication, about what impacts doctors expect from the RWC – see: Depression not expected unless All Blacks lose cup. The political analysis of doctors is that, ‘46 per cent do not think the outcome of the Rugby World Cup will have an impact of the Government's election results while 25 per cent think it will’. But sticking to their own area of specialty, ‘45.2 per cent expect to see an increase in alcohol-related injuries and 7.3 per cent expect an increase in sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). The percentage of GPs expecting an increase in all three - depression, alcohol-related injuries and STDs - is 35.5. Other conditions GPs expect to encounter as a result of the Rugby World Cup include forgotten medications, violence, indigestion, rape, assault, partner abuse, financial stress, cardiac problems, upper respiratory tract infection and gout’. 

Making political projections is, of course, a ‘mug’s game’, but I largely agree with David Farrar’s analysis that the RWC is likely to help National retain it’s lead in the polls. Also, the mere fact that the country is hosting the world tournament is likely to have a greater impact than whether the All Blacks win or lose in the semis or finals. New Zealanders love to be hosts and will revel in being ‘showcased to the world’. This will exacerbate the growing ‘little New Zealand’ nationalism – assuming that the hosting of the cup is a success – and this will mostly work in the favour of the most nationalist party: National. And much of the post-RWC electioneering will be affected by this likely rise in nationalism. Hence today, I’ve published a very simple and flippant blog entitled Blackout: The dark art of NZ politics. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

Blackout: The dark art of NZ politics

Lately there’s been a distinct trend of New Zealand politicians being photographed with a dark-black theme lately. Of course it could be because the building All Black fever is creating a fashion for black imagery, but regardless, since the Rugby World Cup starts today, this blog post reproduces some of the recent photographs in which electioneering politicians have gone all black. [Read more below]

NZ Politics Daily - 8 September

Another day, another bad opinion poll story for Phil Goff and Labour. John Armstrong reports on the Herald’s poll-of-polls, to show that Labour is now in real trouble of losing incumbent list MPs like Stuart Nash and Steve Chadwick – see: Labour list MPs under threat. Such polls-of-polls use a very credible methodology: by aggregating all the polls and thereby ironing out any individual rogue poll results and reducing the various mechanical biases of each poll. For the last general election, this poll-of-polls methodology proved to be the most accurate predictor of the final election result – for more on this, see my 2009 blog post, Opinion polls and prediction markets. 

Labour’s troubles continue to be embodied by the leadership of Phil Goff. The latest North & South magazine is worth purchasing for the feature story on Goff entitled, The Loneliness of Phil Goff. In this, author Mike White followed Goff for a month and tries to explain how the public has come to have ‘an image of 58-year-old Goff as weak, bland and with no hope of winning an election.’ The problem is quickly identified: ‘nobody seems to know much about him’, and ‘to most, he's just a cardboard-cut-out politician -featureless, beige, perishable’. An attempt is clearly being made in the article to show that Goff’s more than just the bland leading the bland – that he has real personality and warmth to rival John Key. So friends and colleagues are interviewed, and everyone keeps to the script, which is epitomized by one quote: ‘This is the saddest, saddest thing about the way people perceive him – they don't realise how much fun he is’.

The North & South writer also conveys how Labour is battling to reinvent Goff in various ways, but ultimately in failure: ‘when Goff does try and show his personality - motorcyclist Phil, farming Phil, Warriors fan Phil - it appears contrived because they don't fit the caricature, despite being completely genuine’; ‘Attempts to freshen his image such as dyeing his hair and abandoning a tie for the casual look are often interpreted as tragic or try-hard’.

A bigger problem than his perceived lack of personality can be read between the lines of the article: that no one really knows what Goff stands for beyond platitudes and ambitions. An attempt is made by Goff himself, his friends, and the sympathetic author to show him to be a man of principle. But again this falls very flat. Instead we find that he has incredibly flexible principles: a leftwing socialist activist in the 1970s, through to a neoliberal radical championing Rogernomics in the 1980s, to apparently now in 2011 suddenly regretting his role in asset sales and so forth. A sense is conveyed that, as with many Labour MPs, Goff is the master of political chameleon, which is part of his credibility problem. And although his friend Mike Rann (the South Australian premier) is brought into the story to say that Goff ‘doesn't duck and weave, he isn't into fads’, this is exactly the impression you get of the ambitious politician. Backing this up, David Lange’s assessment is cited: ‘Phil Goff liked to be in the majority’. 

An even better quote comes in the article from Chris Trotter, who really hits the nail on the head: ‘Why does he want to be prime minister? What does he want to do apart from all the platitudes – New Zealand to be prosperous and free and all those other mum-and-apple-pie sentiments? Does he have a mission he wants to accomplish? I don't know’. 

The writer also observes the technocratic Goff give a speech, in which he lacks signs of a heartfelt beliefs: ‘there seemed to be a vacuum of visible passion. It was analysis rather than a call to arms, reasoned rather than rallying. You wanted to shout out, "Find the fire in your belly, Phil."’ 

Reading the article, we find that Goff comes up with the perennial favourite of politicians for explaining lack of success or popularity: ‘Goff is pissed off with the endless parade of publicity for the Prime Minister - he raises it regularly as a reason for struggling in the polls’. But it’s not just the polls either: ‘Goff has 4000 Twitter followers, Key nearly 25,000. Key's Face book page has 61,000 likes, Goff's fewer than 4000. Goff lacks amplification’. 

So, yes, this in depth article achieves its aim of making Goff appear more human and personable, but in terms of discovering the leaders’ own politics the reader won’t find much that is very convincing. The author says that ‘Goff is defined in the public's mind as a career politician’. And the article doesn’t seem to do much to refute that idea. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

 

Dunedin likely to stick with red

Who will represent Dunedin voters after the general election in November? At the moment there are six MPs resident in Dunedin (electorate MPs Clare Curran and Pete Hodgson; and list MPs Metiria Turei, Michael Woodhouse, David Parker and Hilary Calvert). This mix will change considerably, especially because Hodgson is retiring, Parker is shifting to Auckland, and Calvert is not standing again. So, which Dunedin candidates will get into Parliament via their party lists or the Dunedin electorate contests? This blog post reproduces my monthly column from the DScene newspaper. [Read more below]

 

NZ Politics Daily - 7 September

The National Government wants the rebuild of Christchurch to be a ‘politics free zone’, but this wish is highly unlikely to occur. Major decisions over resources and the way we construct our society are always going to be fraught with major differences and divisions. And that’s how it should be – it’s healthy to have alternatives and differences debated and struggled over. However National won’t be welcoming headlines such as TVNZ’s Anger in Chch red zone over buyout offers. To contain this debate, the forces of the political right are going to have to focus their arguments strongly. David Farrar obliges with his blog post response to the anger in Christchurch – see: Red zone unease – in which he makes the Government’s ‘take it or leave it’ argument to those unhappy with what he sees as a very generous response from the Government. One person has left a reply on the blog post that is worth highlighting – ‘m@tt’ says:

‘That’s not the point at all. The majority of these people have insurance for their homes which they expected would give like for like replacement in the event of loss of their home. The technicalities around land damage vs house damage make no different to the actual real world outcome for those people. Not many people are going to get a like for like replacement using the just the government offer, they are going to have to downsize or take on debt.  For those that are elderly, and that’s a fair chunk of these people, they simply are not going to be able to get raise finance to cover the shortfall and in many cases, where we are talking 1 and 2 bedroom units for the elderly in these areas, downsizing is not an option’. 

 What is being dealt with in Christchurch is a major market-based failure and problem. Although theoretically everyone should just be dealing with their insurance companies, the reality is the insurance companies can’t cope and land is not insured. The fact that the Government has intervened at all clearly shows the limits of market-based solutions in the face of a disaster on this scale. Therefore the government is offering an option to allow people to get on with their lives. But under this ‘solution’ residents face losing tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars. And although people are saying that the GVs have gone down, in a sense that is irrelevant because people are understandably viewing it as a simple insurance situation. They had a house and some land, which they were not trying to sell. They did all the right things and had full insurance and now they just want the equivalent to what they had. So it seems unfair to say that market based valuations will be a fair solution when the market isn’t working at all. What’s more, the earthquake was so massive that it has pushed values for replacement land and housing up, making National’s ‘solution’ a rather problematic one. National needs to be reminded that most people believe that we have governments and collective responsibility so people can feel protected from these bolts from the blue. 

 Margaret Mutu will be relieved to have others coming to her defence – today the Maori Party has expressed sympathy with her anti-immigration views by also pointing to the problem of ‘English-speaking people’ coming to New Zealand. Co-leader Pita Sharples is reported as saying that ‘Maori need to have a more active role in immigration…. and as the tangata whenua “should be involved in who comes here”’ – see: TV3’s Pita Sharples on Maori and immigration. It seems the Maori Party want to have a ‘Maori leadership committee’ established to provide consultation to immigration officials. Mutu’s right to freedom of expression is also put strongly by an ex-academic from her University, but she will not exactly welcome the rest of the critique in Mooting Mutu.

Other items worth checking out today are: Imperator Fish’s Problems with Police, David Farrar’s iPredict and Minor Parties, Cactus Kate’s The Psychology Of The Polls, and perhaps James Meager’s Vote Chat 2011 – now available for your posthumous viewing pleasure. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

 

NZ Politics Daily - 6 September

Another chapter in the saga of malicious bungling by the Police has come to a ridiculous end with charges being dropped against 11 of the accused in the Urewera 'terror' case – see: 'Urewera 18' charges dropped. The whole story of the Urewera police raids has been woeful right from the start, and it reinforces the reputation the state has for over-reacting. The state has already spent what could be millions of dollars on the case, and the trial was set to become the most expensive in New Zealand’s criminal history. So this is embarrassing for the Police, who it seems just didn’t have enough appropriate evidence to make their case. But it’s also embarrassing for the Labour and National parties, who have governed throughout the four-year debacle. This will be accentuated if the accused manage to win compensation for unlawful search and seizure. So coming on the back of Nicky Hager’s recent expose of the Labour-National war on terror abroad, this domestic clampdown on supposed ‘terrorism’ should also result in some difficult questions being put to the major parties during the election campaign.

While there continues to be questions that should be asked about National’s handling of the Christchurch earthquake rebuild, it seems that Labour is going about this in a very disappointing way. John Armstrong has written an excellent column on this – see: Goff ventures onto shaky ground. Essentially Labour is lacking any credibility in its critiques of National because it refuses to put up an alternatives to how National is doing it. This makes Labour look increasingly hypocritical and shallow. Armstrong says: ‘it was a bit rich for Goff to criticise the Government yesterday for not making fast enough progress towards restoring some degree of normality to the lives of the citizens of Christchurch when Labour has yet to outline its stance on the crucial question of how much compensation should be paid to those people in the city's red zone who have to move out of their houses’. And Armstrong concludes, ‘And Labour wonders why it is rating so poorly in opinion polls’. Here the nail is hit on the head, because it epitomizes Labour’s credibility problem in which it rhetorically rails so strongly against National, but then doesn’t come up with the alternative goods itself. This problem is highlighted further by Alex Tarrant, who continues to point out that Labour offers no solutions on earthquake payouts or on the problem of the insurance market in Christchurch. 

The Auditor General’s report on Pansy Wong’s use of parliamentary travel allowance appears to almost exonerate her – see the AG’s statement, although Labour isn’t convinced – see: Wong's claim 'not credible' - Goff and Another Wong whitewash. But no doubt the bigger issue to come out of the report is the further condemnation of the whole system of travel allowances, which the Auditor General says is still highly problematic. For more in-depth analysis (and cartoons!) about these problems, see my own lengthy analysis in the blog post from last year: 10 pertinent questions (and answers) about axing the MP international travel perk.

Prof Margaret Mutu’s reactionary comments on immigration continue to receive attention – see, for example: Immigration race row escalates – and although Mutu’s racial beliefs more properly reflect a demagogue than an actual academic, her right to make them should be defended. So complaints to the University of Auckland and to the Race Relations Office appear to be particularly unhelpful and indeed also worrying – see: Race relations complaint against professor. In fact, Phil Quin makes some excellent points about this in his succinct blog post, Bring it on, Prof. Mutu: ‘she should be encouraged to speak her mind, not vilified by the appropriateness monitors who are in danger of turning New Zealand’s public discourse into an an even more desolate and depressing blandscape than it already is’. So as much as Quin might disagree with Mutu, he usefully pinpoints a greater concern: ‘New Zealand’s problem is decidedly not an excess of provocative characters on the national stage’. Also, see  Eric Crampton’s ever-useful analysis. And John Tamihere has some sensible things to say about the Mutu’s beliefs in this Australian ABC radio item. 

Other useful items for today include: Chris Trotter’s Can Key give serious answers?, David Farrar’s Party lists: how important is diversity?, and Phil Quin’s Parties of progress must themselves progress. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

NZ Politics Daily - 5 September

The National Party list for the 2011 general election is disappointing and boring. But parties don’t put their lists together for the benefit of political commentators to have something interesting to discuss, and in general the list is probably a good reflection of National’s winning formula of blandness. I’ve already made my analysis of this on TVNZ. Most analysis of the list has looked at it through the ‘identity politics’ prism to illustrate once again how ‘white and male’ National is – even Whaleoil is complaining about the ‘blokefest’ – and it certainly does seem that National has a problem attracting or encouraging females in particular, and less so with ethnic minority candidates. The Standard puts together the most comprehensive identity politics measure of the party lists. Does this all matter? Cactus Kate thinks not, and she’s probably correct in terms of most voters not thinking in terms of candidate identity, and some may even be put off by ‘tokenistic’ behaviour. What would be more interesting, would be to measure the actual politics of the candidates, as has been done in the past by political scientists. But interestingly, probably the best analysis of National’s list came from John Hartevelt, writing about the list before it was even announced – see: No rankling expected over new list. 

As a further example of National’s prowess in politics, note the relatively successful ride that Earthquake Recovery Minister Gerry Brownlee has had with his backdown on giving full compensation to red zoned houses in Christchurch – see: Brownlee backtracks on compo for renovations. What was in fact a significant political backdown has been successfully sold by National as just a mistaken human error in the first place by the Brownlee, hence the Government is apologizing not for their change of mind over honouring their promise, but instead for making the ‘mistaken’ promise in the first place – a case of brilliant political spin, and one for which Brownlee is bizarrely receiving some plaudits. 

We need more satire in New Zealand politics, so it’s very pleasing to see Denis Welch once again deliver by combining our love for 'Happy Feet' with our indifference to Phil Goff – see: Happy Phil. On top of that, Dave Armstrong successfully labels Phil Goff as ‘the Ned Flanders of New Zealand politics’ in his lighthearted advice to the Greens – see: How the Greens can stop people laughing at them. A more serious and useful analysis is also provided by Tracy Watkins’ Greens look more cuddly to Nats. 

Election spending rules continue to confound some of the parties that wrote and passed the rules, and so TVNZ’s Jessica Mutch has helpfully written a blog post, Election spending rules explained. It won’t be enough, however, to work out whether the fact that a Multi-millionaire businessman now backs National is going to lead to breaches of the Electoral Act. Judy Callingham thinks so – see: Bored with your Monaco millions? Why not buy an election?, but her tongue seems to be firmly planted in her cheek (I think…). 

Similarly, it might just be a storm in a teacup, but Prof Margaret Mutu’s arguments about the dangers of white immigration (White immigrants row) should cause further concern about the ethnic politics of the Mana Party, which she’s been cheerleading. The fact that Mutu (pictured above), a Mana supporter wants white immigration further restricted to New Zealand is not as bizarre as it might sound. Maori nationalists have long called for restrictions on immigration, and even Tariana Turia has mused about the political ill-effects of it before. In fact it was common in the 1970s and 80s for Maori nationalists to oppose immigration from the pacific, too. It will be interesting to see if the leading leftists in the Mana Party now condemn Mutu’s reactionary stance. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

NZ Politics Daily - 2 September

John Key hasn’t let the fact that he has not actually read Nicky Hager’s book stop him from voicing the same arrogant dismissiveness we saw in evidence in his initial handling of the Israeli spy allegations and the work of journalist Jon Stephenson on Afghanistan. As with his treatment of Stephenson, Key’s first response has been to attack the journalist’s credibility by saying ‘Nothing surprises me when it comes to Nicky Hager…. he makes a lot of spurious claims and never generally backs it up’ – see: TVNZ’s Key, Goff dismiss 'spurious' Hager book. This earns a swipe from John Armstrong: ‘Those who think Nicky Hager is just another left-wing stirrer and dismiss his latest book accordingly should think again.  Likewise, the country's politicians should read Other People's Wars before condemning it’. In his must-read Herald story, Armstrong also points to the ‘mountain of previously confidential and very disturbing information his assiduous research and inquiries have uncovered’ – see: 'Candyfloss' PR exposed in all its cynicism. 

Armstrong’s views are shared by many journalists and commentators, including media law expert, Steven Price - see: Other People’s Wars. Price says: ‘Just heard John Key discussing the book on Checkpoint. He said (a) there was no evidence for Hager’s claims; and (b) he hadn’t read the book. I hope other people find that as breathtaking as I do’. The sentiment is also nicely captured by the Dim-Post: ‘Yeah – crazy old Nicky Hager, always making wild suppositions based on nothing but confidential documents leaked to him by senior military and intelligence officials’ (Deep thought).

Unsurprisingly Phil Goff concurs with John Key, saying he does not see any need for an inquiry into Hager's accusations. But then, as John Armstrong points out he would say that wouldn’t he: ‘Neither National nor Labour - both having committed troops to Afghanistan while in government - have anything to gain from such an inquiry. Nor has the public mood shifted in sufficient quantity against the Afghan deployment to force any meaningful inquiry. It is more likely any Government going down that path would cop a backlash through being seen as undermining the armed forces.  And, with an election pending, neither of the two major parties will go there’.

Not everybody shares Armstrong’s view of the importance of Hager’s book. Vernon Small and Guyon Espiner in particular both point out that they visited Afghanistan and saw nothing scandalous. These journalists seem to share Goff’s basic line that, ‘I think it would be shock horror surprise if you didn't have intelligence facilities designed to keep New Zealand defence personnel safe in an area of deployment’. Another interesting interview on RNZ’s Nine-to-Noon, has Katherine Ryan discussing the matter with Jon Stephenson and Ron Smith.

Meanwhile the Greens are once again proving their worth by backing up Hager, but as Armstrong points out, that the Greens’ response has actually been surprisingly limited. Could it be that the Greens are shifting away from their loud-hailer approach to foreign policy? Certainly the gist of Denis Welch’s article on the Greens in the latest Metro magazine might suggest that. The magazine is well worth buying for Welch’s analysis of the party that might finally have found it’s way to success in this year’s election. Welch says that the party is still far too ‘ preachy, patronizing and far too principled’ and ‘holier-than-thou’, but under the new leadership its making great strides to make itself more palatable to voters. He says, ‘if you wrote a book about the party's centrist shift in the past couple of years, you might well want to call it The Decline and Fall of the Roman Sandal’. Under Russel Norman, the Greens have finally ‘embraced capitalism’ and made ‘the Green Party economically credible’. David Farrar has also written insightfully about the party of the moment in The rise of the Greens. And today’s Dominion Post Editorial on the Greens states ‘Greens' rise is clearly due to disillusioned centre-Left voters looking for a new home as any real prospect of a Labour victory disappears’. This all means that we’re going to see more and more changes from the Greens. Notably, PR firm, Senate Communications advises in their latest political briefing that ‘businesses philosophically opposed to the Greens’ policies will need to find a way to engage meaningfully with the party’. 

Finally, two other important items today are Chris Trotter’s Why we now see politics as a big turn-off and Tim Watkin’s A lobby with clout. And the interview I conducted with Hone Harawira yesterday is reported in the following three items: Allison Rudd’s An answer for almost everything, James Meager’s Vote Chat 2011 – At home with Hone, and Channel 9’s Hone Harawira visits Otago University.[Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

NZ Politics Daily - 1 September

One of the most significant trends in New Zealand’s recent military history is to promote the state’s foreign military interventions in liberal terms. Where once it might have been termed ‘imperialism’ or just ‘going to war’, these days New Zealand governments intervene abroad under the cloak of a more sophisticated sales pitch. Hence New Zealand’s intervention in all sorts of developing countries is promoted as being ‘peace keeping’, and the foreign occupations are deemed to be ‘reconstruction’. It’s all a type of very modern liberal nationalism, and it’s very Orwellian. It doesn’t just happen under National governments either. The Helen Clark Labour Government apparently intervened in more overseas military ‘imperialist’ adventures than any previous government (just as Tony Blair’s New Labour government was much more Hawkish than the average Tory government). 

Slowly much of the real nature of this foreign military intervention is being uncovered. Following on from Jon Stephenson’s very good work on NZ’s role in Afghanistan, we now have Nicky Hager’s new book, Other People’s Wars: New Zealand in Afghanistan, Iraq and the war on terror, just released today. You can see details on Hager’s own website, or in the following stories: John Armstrong’s 'Kiwi Camp' a CIA base – Hager and Vernon Small and Tracy Watkins’s Kiwi base 'hid CIA', Hager book claims. Although much of the focus is on the dodgy behaviour in the Defence Force, the book will also be particularly embarrassing for both Labour and National, who have presided over it all. Hager’s book isn’t going to have any sort of major impact on this year’s election, but will help discredit some of the dishonest ways that Labour and National use to sell their ‘war on terror’ to the public. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]