liberation

NZ Politics Daily - 31 October

It’s only four weeks to go, but it’s going to be a very long, intense four weeks of electioneering. Therefore politicos are advised to seek out whatever political humour and satire you can find, because much of the campaign is going to be pretty serious, and often very boring. Today’s recommendations, therefore, are Steven Braunias’ The Secret Diary Of ... Phil Goff, Imperator Fish’s The Leaders Debate: Some Predictions, and Dave Armstrong’s The miseries within a Treasury financial forecast. 

Most attention over the last few days has been on the television opening addresses on Friday and Saturday nights. These are well evaluated and reported by the following items: David Farrar’s The Campaign TV Openings, Russell Brown’s We interrupt this broadcast ..., Vernon Small’s Key defends campaign advert, Matthew Hooton’s Labour/Green Axis Gets Boost from Opening Night Ads, and Andrew Geddis’ Politics on the radio without pictures. 

Apart from the above pieces, there’s actually a wealth of important items today that are all worth reading. But in particularly, the following items stand out: John Hartevelt’s Politics, policy and personality, Andrea Vance’s Business supports super review: survey, Martin Van Beynen’s Hard to care about elections, John Armstrong’s Key boxes clever on assets, but public's not buying it, Matt McCarten’s 'Courage' costly for working-class Kiwis, and Kiwipolitico’s Is a Blue-Green Foreign Policy Possible?. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

NZ Politics Daily - 28 October

What a topsy-turvy election campaign it’s becoming. With Labour promising to reduce entitlements to national superannuation – raising the age of eligibility to 67 – the party has effectively moved to the right of National on the issue. And National is pushing the more ‘left’ line of retaining the right to receive the retirement income at 65. And added to that, National is now promising to extend kids' free GP visits – which is being heralded by unions and welfare agencies. So perhaps this election isn’t going to deliver the definitive left-right choice that many commentators thought.

Labour’s surprise new policy of raising the age of super entitlement is putting into effect the arguments that Don Brash has been making for years – it’s straight out of Brash's Task Force recommendations. Coupled with the move to compulsory superannuation policy this is being painted as ‘taking the tough decisions’ but it will make it much easier for a future government to replace superannuation with a means-tested benefit. To placate the huge number of KiwiSaver members (read voters) that their saving has not been in vain, those without savings (read the poor) will have to be punished by reducing the basic level of payment.

The policy will hit Maori and Pacific workers hard. After all,  Maori males (who only live to 70 on average) will lose 40% of their total superannuation under Labour's policy, while non-Maori males will only lose 15%. It will hit manual workers hard who struggle to keep employment to 65 as it is.  It will force workers, who are already having to work more hours every week just to survive, to work another two years.

The dream used to be that technological and economic progress would reduce the burden of work. That the last few decades have seen the opposite for most workers is not news, especially to those currently occupying city streets and parks around the world at the moment. What is surprising in 2011 is that the New Zealand Labour Party would put that dream further out of reach for workers.

What is also interesting is that in the whole debate today there are hardly any voices condemning Labour’s jump to the right. Everyone seems to think that introducing such a policy is ‘bold’ and ‘courageous’. See for example, John Armstrong’s Party's courage setting agenda, Tracy Watkins’ Labour's gamble may force debate, the Dom Post’s Editorial: Top marks for political courage, and the Herald’s Editorial: Labour takes a bold step on retirement. 

Even the Green Party has been almost enthusiastic about Labour’s new-found fiscal conservatism and willingness to reduce entitlements. This gives a good indication of where the Greens are also heading: to the right. Today I interviewed the Greens’ fast-rising election candidate Holly Walker – as a part of my Vote Chat filmed interviews – and she said Labour’s announcement was ‘commendable’ and that although the Greens have a policy of 65 years, they wanted a ‘conversation’ with the other parties about the age of entitlement etc, and the Greens might well change their policy too. I also interviewed Mana’s John Minto, and although Mana seems to be fairly quiet about Labour’s change of policy, Minto was utterly condemning of it. He intelligently challenged the need to restrict retirement incomes. 

The unions have also been extremely quiet. The CTU’s response has been quite incredible. Where you might have expected the union to denounce the policy as an attack on workers’ rights, it instead seemed to mumble that they’d have to look at the detail. But they did at least say this: Many workers physically exhausted at 65 – CTU. 

More intelligent critiques can be read in the following very good blog posts: Steven Cowan’s Work till you drop, Chris Ford’s No to Labour's plan to raise super age to 67!, and Martyn Bradbury’s Labour's raising of retirement age racist, anti-worker and intergenerational theft. Cowan’s point about MPs wanting to cut retirement entitlements while retaining their very own gold-plated parliamentary superannuation scheme is a very good one. Surely if Labour thinks that superannuation isn’t affordable, then its own luxury version for itself should be severely trimmed as well. 

Whaleoil has also being doing a good job of highlighting’s Labour’s own prior statements against raising the age – see: What does Andrew Little say now?, What does David Cunliffe say now?, What does Chris Hipkins say now?, and Phil’s flip flop on super. 

Finally, check out the ODT’s report on my interview with Minister of Finance Bill English: English expresses empathy with protest. As the newspaper reports, not only did English express ‘empathy with some of the ideals of the Occupy Wall Street movement’, he said he’d be prepared to talk to ‘the Occupy Movement in Dunedin's Octagon’, ‘but the discussion would need to be around what would replace capitalism if it ended’. It seems we live in strange topsy-turvy times indeed. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

What would you like to ask John Minto?

John Minto is possibly the most revolutionary, controversial, interesting, intelligent, and principled person standing for public office at the 2011 New Zealand general election. This doesn’t mean that Minto is right about anything, but it does mean that he’s incredibly interesting and worth paying attention to. Minto has an incredible history of political activism – from essentially leading the 1981 anti-Springbok tour movement, through to political commentary, and union organising. After years of rejecting parliamentary politics, he’s now thrown his lot in with Hone Harawira and looks to be ranked #3 on the Mana Party list. So there’s a very real chance that the protestor could become a professional politician. But how would that work out? Could he really work harmoniously with Hone Harawira? Isn’t the Mana Party too much of a coalition of convenience between lefties and Maori nationalists to actually last? In fact, what exactly is the political nature of this so-far relatively vague party? What could he seriously hope to achieve, especially given that Mana seems to be isolated from the mainstream and from the main ‘left’ party, Labour? I’m interviewing John Minto today at 2pm as part of University of Otago Vote Chat – which you can watch live-streamed at www.bit.ly/ruN37y So what would you like me to ask him? [Read more below] 

What would you like to ask Green candidate Holly Walker?

Holly Walker is the future of the Green Party. She’s high on the Greens’ party list and is likely to be elected to Parliament, where no doubt she will quickly make an impression, and eventually succeed Metiria Turei as co-leader, and probably become a Minister in government at some stage. Already she’s got quite a political pedigree: graduate of the Politics Department at the University of Otago, Editor of Critic magazine, Rhodes scholar to Oxford University, Policy Analyst at the Office of Treaty Settlements, and currently a spin-doctor in Parliament for the Greens. Walker is clearly on the way up, and she appears to represent a new generation of Green politicians that is re-positioning the party for more mainstream success. Gone are the days of marginal, sandal-wearing, political ‘outsiders’, Walker and her new cohort appear to be bringing about a new-found seriousness, professionalism, and perhaps even ‘Establishment’ allure to what is now the only real solid ‘third party’ in New Zealand politics. I’m interviewing Holly Walker today at 1pm as part of University of Otago Vote Chat – which you can watch live-streamed at www.bit.ly/ruN37y But what would you like me to ask her? [Read more below]

 

NZ Politics Daily - 27 October

There’s a bit of a debate going on about ‘style versus substance’ in the election campaign. Labour is currently attempting to take the high moral ground in this debate, arguing that it prefers to emphasise policy instead of personalities in the way that it sells itself. Of course the reality is that Labour is de-emphasising its leader, Phil Goff, out of necessity rather than any sort of principle. There’s been plenty of quality reporting and commentary on this today – see: John Armstrong’s Labour's decision to ditch campaign launch a slap in the face for Goff, Claire Trevett’s Labour takes spotlight off Goff, Dene Mackenzie’s Labour to push policy, not leader, and Blair Cunningham’s Labour's policy focus 'only way forward'. I also discussed this in terms of election billboards on RNZ’s Morning report – see: Labour focusing on policies, not leadership or listen here. 

Regardless of Labour’s motivations for putting a greater emphasis on policy in its electioneering, it’s a positive step forward (albeit only a tiny one) in the need for robust and meaningful election debate. For decades now, New Zealand political parties have moved from stressing comprehensive programmes to emphasising the importance of leadership – with parties promoting the technical and managerial qualifications of their candidates and leaders. This form of electioneering also made for politics based around individual political personalities – and even celebrity endorsements. In this new schema of party politics, elections revolve more than ever before around a choice between politicians rather than between policies or programmes. This trend hit a peak at the 2008 election campaign which was both highly professionalised and bland. More than ever before, the New Zealand parties relied on professional campaign tactics and strategy, with the result that the campaign became meaningless for many voters, and because there was little to excite or enthuse the public, voter turnout was one of the lowest in over a hundred years. So let’s hope there’s a continued shift away from the meaningless electioneering, with a much greater scrutiny put on the actual policy pronouncements (and lack of them) from the parties. But we’ve still got a long way to go before we get to a point where substance outweighs style in the campaign.

The TV advertisements are also being analysed intelligently – see, for example, Toby Manhire’s NZ election 2011: the first TV ads, Gordon Campbell’s On our election campaign opening…, and John Pagani’s Opening ads. Pagani is probably correct in saying that overall, ‘the TVCs won't make much difference’.

Other notable items today (out of the many) include Tim Watkin’s Labour launches for Election 2011... or does it?, Giovanni Tiso’s The Meaning of John Key, Judy Callingham’s Lazy – or just plain ignorant? Why the under-25s aren’t voting, and John Hartevelt and Mike Houlahan’s Bill English backing Green Party - to a point – which reports, partly, on a public interview I had today with Bill English. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

What would you like to ask Bill English?

Bill English is the most important politician in New Zealand’s general election campaign. The overwhelmingly central feature of electoral debate is the economy, and all the various issues relating to it such as inequality, public sector cut backs, unemployment, asset sales, and the general nature of ‘slump capitalism’ and what it means for those that want to govern. As the Minister of Finance over the last three years, and the person vying to remain in that role, Bill English has a lot of issues and questions to face over the economy. The Treasury’s pre-election economic and fiscal update has just come out, and it’s pretty sober and sometimes pessimistic stuff – suggesting that there’s a still a real chance of an economic meltdown occurring in the next couple of years. So how will English deal with these issues? Where in society will the belt-tightening take place? What plans beyond partial asset sales and further public sector cuts, does National have for rejuvenating the economy? I’m interviewing Bill English today at 12 noon as part of University of Otago Vote Chat – which you can watch live-streamed at www.bit.ly/ruN37y But what would you like me to ask him? [Read more below]

NZ Politics Daily - 26 October

‘Slump capitalism’ is a term that might be applied to what New Zealand and the western world continues to experience economically. Although there are occasional bursts of economic growth, the state itself is hamstrung by endemic economic crises, which make it very difficult to deliver the level of social services and economic interventions desired by most voters. Yesterday’s PREFU Treasury document showed just how dire things are, and how much the parliamentary parties are restrained – or should be restrained – by a very negative economic environment. Although there’s a lot of mixed messages and a mostly rosy-tinted view of things in the PREFU, there is also some admission of just how bad things might get. This sober admission is concentrated on by the following very good reports – Audrey Young’s Surplus 'on track' bar disaster, John Armstrong’s Sobering message amid revelry, Tracy Watkins’ It never hurts to plan for worst-case scenario, and editorials in the Herald and Press. Also check out Keith Ng’s PREFU 2011: "What credit downgrade?" and Gordon Campbell’s On the Prefu…. But the best summary of the PREFU comes from the NBR’s Rob Hosking who shortens the 118 page document to 19 words: ‘Things will get better, unless they get worse. Here’s some numbers that say both. See you after November 26’ – see: Govt spending cuts yet to really start.

These writers have quite rightly picked up on Treasury’s admission that there’s a strong chance that an economic meltdown might hit New Zealand, and even without that occurring, things are looking rough for whoever governs over the short to medium term. But there’s also a sense in which the various commentators and editorial writers seem very unconvinced that the various parliamentary contenders have really risen to the challenge of dealing with New Zealand’s slump capitalism. Although Labour and National do a very competent job of continuing to lower our horizons for what we might expect from them, they really aren’t providing much to voters beyond the politics of austerity – and even then some of the economic policies are rather vague. Although there is a lot of talk about a ‘clear difference’ between Labour and National in the campaign, much of it is simply magnified by partisan rhetoric. Jane Clifton is actually quite write in her Listener column, which is aptly entitled Labour and National without economic strategy. When it comes down to the crux of it, the public sector is in for more than a bit of ‘trimming’, and this seems likely to happen under either Labour or National after the election. For a thorough report on what’s been happening in the core public service, see Danya Levy’s Is our state sector more efficient?. Also worth reading for another account of the impact of ‘slump capitalism’ is Catherine Harris’ Youth unemployment a growing problem. 

Of course the election campaign rolls on, and today’s important items include Claire Trevett’s Labour ditches big campaign launch, Andrea Vance and Danya Levy’s Goff absent from Labour billboards, Alexia Russell’s Election campaign starts in earnest, Andrew Balemi’s All about election polls, and finally: iPredict’s World First: iPredict Election 2011 TV Series.[Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

NZ Politics Daily - 25 October

From the sublime to the ridiculous. That’s how one writer has characterized the quick shift the nation is experiencing in moving on from the Rugby World Cup tournament to the general election campaign (see: From one competition to another). And today really is the first day of the proper election campaign. There’s still some discussion on how Sunday night’s outcome might impact on the election. Both John Key and John Pagani seem adamant that it won’t affect things politically, and they both have they own reasons, no doubt, for pushing that line. Others, such as Gordon Campbell have been a bit more profound, arguing that ‘This close, nail biting victory – without the triumphalism that the All Blacks running riot over their opponents would have entailed – was the best possible result, politically as well’. The one-point victory in a match increasingly dominated by the French, would according to Campbell temper the benefits to the National Party, and furthermore, ‘Phil Goff will be seeing analogies in this final, and hoping for similar miracles from the underdog during his own political final, on November 26’ – see: On the Rugby World Cup Victory. But for the very best analysis of the politics of the Rugby World Cup, see Scott Yorke’s irreverent Imperator Fish blog post, Hitler Behind RWC Ball Choice. And for a more serious examination of the big-money commercial operations of ‘All Blacks Inc’ read Lane Nichols’ What an ABs win is worth. 

The most intelligent analysis of the day on the election campaign comes from Massey University’s Grant Duncan writing on his Policy Matters blog – see: How did Key get away with it?. Duncan explains John Key and National’s extreme popularity by their successful attempts to position themselves – as Helen Clark once did with Labour – as ‘mainstream New Zealand’. He argues that Key has been able to ‘obliterate the class politics that used to limit their [National’s] appeal as a traditional conservative party’, but also ‘to obliterate ethnic-identity political boundaries as well’. Other very useful election campaign items today include: Tracy Watkin’s Rena grounding has left National floundering and Andrea Vance’s Our embarrassing uncle?. Also of importance is Adam Bennett’s An odds-on favourite and Marika Hill’s Political activism surge driven by students. 

But the economy continues to be central to this year’s election campaign. And therefore today’s Treasury book-opening exercise will have a strong influence on the next few weeks. For the latest, see the following reports: Govt still expects surplus by 2015, Grim forecast for New Zealand's finances, and Treasury confirms Govt on track for surplus. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

Vote for me (Part 5): Conclusions

To be successful, green parties must preserve a fundamentally dichotomous reputation. The development of the New Zealand Green Party exemplifies this. The ability to be seen as both insiders and outsiders, may seem inherently contradictory, however, as the New Zealand Green Party shows, it is entirely possible. This provides an interesting lens through which to examine the history of the Greens and the factors that have contributed to their success. This post is the fifth of five posts, written by Niki Lomax, based on her recent University of Otago Politics Department Honours dissertation which discusses the path the Greens’ have taken to get to this point, focusing on what has made the Green Party successful and what barriers has it faced in its quest for success. [Read more below]

 

NZ Politics Daily - 21 October 2011

After much hype and expectation, the final of the RWC is upon us. The question of it’s political impact is once again being asked. Two Victoria University of Wellington academics have a lot to say about this – see: Peter A Thompson and Marc Wilson’s Winning the World Cup – does it make a difference? and the TVNZ items Expert believes RWC result could impact election and The Cup and the media (3:51). Audrey Young has also written a useful backgrounder here: Rugby World Cup unlikely to affect election. 

 

There should be no doubt that the result of Sunday night’s game will have some impact on the election campaign. Obviously people don’t consciously make deliberate voting decisions on the basis of sporting wins or losses, but those sporting results do have an influence on the emotional mood of the electoral, which definitely then impacts on voting behaviour to some degree. And a win will definitely produce an element of elation in the national mood/psyche over the next few months. This has to be good for the incumbents. Of course those that have already firmly decided to vote for parties other than National are not likely to change their vote as a result of the win. But those undecided voters will be slightly more easily won over by the National Government’s attempts to convince the electorate things are getting better, and that therefore no change is needed.

 

Also, the tournament has been a big success – apart from the opening night – and so this has also left the country slightly buoyant. We’ve had a national party so-to-speak, and people have enjoyed the festivities and games and this probably makes people conducive to retaining the status quo in government.

 

However, the impact of a win could be diluted by other factors. The Rena oil spill still has a long way to go before its looking like it can be safely resolved. And similarly, the Treasury’s PREFU statement comes out this week, which is basically the Treasury opening the Government’s books prior to the election to show just how good or bad things are. So if the PREFU and the Rena Spill are also pointing towards negative futures, then the World Cup win will be slightly overshadowed – or at least the gloss is less shiny, and that opens up Labour’s chances of making an impact with their argument that the Government hasn’t improved people’s lives in New Zealand. 

 

And a loss on Sunday would definitely produce an element of depression in the national mood, and this has to be bad for the incumbents. Again, those that have already firmly decided to vote for National are not likely to change their vote as a result of the loss. But those undecided voters – or even the many ‘soft National supporters’ will be slightly less easily won over by the National Government’s attempts to convince the electorate things are getting better, and that therefore no change is needed. And when people are in negative moods are they are more receptive to negative election advertising, and that will advantage the Labour Party, which is campaigning on the basis of the need to change the government. And, of course, the impact of the loss could be compounded by those other factors such as Rena and the PREFU. If the All Blacks lose, Labour might also be tempted to make something of the fact that the underdog has won, and they’ll want to draw the parallel with the fact that so many commentators and voters have written off Labour as being destined to lose the election. But they’ll have to be very careful in drawing such parallels, which in the current sensitive emotional mood could go down very well, and could be seen as anti-patriotic. 

 

For another political take on the Rugby World Cup, see Simon Collins’ article, Deep divisions over $1000 for a Rugby World Cup game as poverty grows. 

 

The big political story of today is about the Act Party’s precarious existence due to its reliance on its so-called dirty deal with National over Epsom. Today’s NBR carries some important poll results and analysis in the following stories: Hide wins similar support as Banks. Key will decide ACT's Parliamentary future, Key too fuzzy on Epsom, and Voters punish ACT. Act’s situation is also dealt with very well by TV3’s Lloyd Burr – see Key will not vote for Banks in Epsom and Patrick Gower: Key and ACT's Epsom deal is just so filthy. In the ODT, Dene Mackenzie also asks: Brash staging Act finale?. 

 

Other important items today include: John Hartevelt’s A campaign subplot, Danya Levy’s Labour promises to protect Kiwi farms, John Pagani’s National's empty words, David Farrar’s Work and wages policy is no surprise, Derek Cheng’s Labour and unions sing same tune on contracts, Bill Rosenberg’s New Zealanders get low wages, Chris Trotter’s Resistance is not futile, and Ben Heather’s Red-zone challenge proposal scrapped. There’s also some very interesting items about the issue of ‘gay marriage’ coming onto the election agenda – see: Pro-gay marriage protest hits Parliament, Calls for gay marriage to be on election agenda and Deborah Russell’s Gay, straight, bi - marriage should be for all. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

 

What would you like to ask Simon Bridges?

The MP for Tauranga, Simon Bridges, appears to be the future of the National Party. He’s rising fast up the party list, is creating a large media profile, has been voted the second ‘hottest’ politician, and insiders pick him as a potential future leader. I’m interviewing Simon Bridges today at 12 noon as part of University of Otago Vote Chat. What would you like me to ask him? [Read more below]

 

NZ Politics Daily - 20 October

The Labour Party’s newly-released industrial relations policy has been widely panned – at least by newspaper editorial writers and bloggers. See, for example, the Herald’s Labour wage policy revives bad old days, the Dom Post’s Labour's worker-pay policy out of touch, the Press’ Not a good sign, and the ODT’s Wages and the real world. Regardless of who’s right, Labour or the newspapers, there appears to be a huge chasm between these forces, which is very interesting. It’s not that often that the Labour Party strays so far from what it might expect the media and commentators to approve of. In this case, there appears to be a few factors at play. 

Labour has definitely moved to the left in recent years. After decades of being a relatively centrist, liberal, middle-class oriented, neoliberal political party, it now has a much more social democratic political character. There is no doubt that the party has been re-positioning itself as a more traditional pro-worker and pro-union party. Of course this shift has been a very inconsistent and partial one. 

Much of the shift relates to the changing global economic and political environment. Quite simply, neoliberalism is ill at the moment, and its intellectual and political hegemony has weakened drastically. The decline of the world economy, and now the ongoing slump in capitalism, means that the formally robust shibboleths and certainties of the old framework are up for challenge. The actual economic policies of governments in the west are all over the place – some of the biggest economic bailouts and nationalisations have happened in the last couple of years. The reality is that many of the neoliberal reforms and mechanisms have been reformed, replaced, dismantled, or at least strongly challenged.

This has meant that there’s been a resurgence in leftwing politics globally, most recently expressed in the ‘Occupy Wall St’ movement. It should be no surprise that the main party of the left in New Zealand would be affected by these changes. Hence we hear much more from the Labour Party – and sometimes National, too – about economic interventionism, regulation, and ‘corporatist’ governance. The latest proposals for centralized wage-setting involving employers and unions is exactly that. It might seem ‘absurd’ to many, but such proposals represent the crumbling status of the post-1984 neoliberal settings. 

Labour’s left-turn also involves, no doubt, a very strong element of strategic positioning. Often when major parties are facing strong election defeats, they shift away from an orientation towards centrist, swing-voters, and instead attempt to shore up their core constituencies. In this sense, Labour appears to be in a battle to retain it’s 30+ percent of the vote. The party has given up on winning 40+ percent, which would involve a strong appeal to soft National voters, and is instead in electoral retreat to prevent a catastrophic wipeout. 

For more on Labour’s new policy, see Derek Cheng’s Labour vows to repeal Hobbit law and Danya Levy’s Labour: A 'decent' wage for all Kiwis. 

Other important recent items include the following: Dylan Moran’s Voters swing from National after Rena disaster, Patrick Gower’ It's a moratorium, but 'not a moratorium' – Goff, the Taranaki Daily News’ Confidence in government rocked, Gordon Campbell’s Shockwaves from the Rena disaster, Grant Duncan’s The Rena as a public-policy case study, Joe Fleetwood’s Rena disaster: How did it come to this?, Gordon Campbell’s Why MMP Is Still The Best Option, Jim Chipp’s MMP: Is it time for a change?, Amelia Romanos’s English in trouble over school ad, David Farrar’s Is this the right direction?, Danya Levy’s Labour targets homelessness, Adam Bennett’s Press Council blasts party's suggestion of statutory control, Tim Watkin’s two items, Campaign 2011 begins: Ta da, the big issues are here and Why Epsom matters so much.[Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

Vote for me (Part 4): The Greens go into the Suburbs

Since 2005 it has become increasingly clear that the Green Party’s electoral ambition has moved well beyond the five percent threshold. Rather than simply winning seats in parliament, the Greens want greater access to power and more opportunities to directly influence policy. From early 2006 the Green Party deliberately repositioned themselves in the hope of attracting a broader, more mainstream constituency. As Green co-leader Russel Norman stated: ‘The challenge for the Greens, I think, is to actually move out, move more into the suburbs and to appeal more to suburban New Zealanders.’ This blog post focuses on the ways in which the Green Party have tried to court this suburban vote. This post is the fourth of five posts, written by Niki Lomax, based on her recent University of Otago Politics Department Honour dissertation which discusses the path the Greens’ have taken to get to this point, focusing on what has made the Green Party successful and what barriers has it faced in its quest for success. [Read more below] 

 

Vote for me (Part 3): The Greens go from Protest to Permanence

Although New Zealand was home to the first national green party in the world, it was almost a quarter of a century before a green politician sat in the House of Representatives. This blog post details the development of the New Zealand Green Party from its origins through to the 2005 election, and discusses the transition of the Green Party from a fringe movement to a political party with a sustained parliamentary presence. This phase of the Green Party’s history is largely defined by its ‘outsider’ status and its ability to capitalise on voter disillusionment. Following electoral reform and the party’s entry into Parliament, this outsider status became problematic and the Greens had to revaluate their positioning and strategy, looking instead to project more of an ‘insider’ status. This blog post is the third of five, written by Niki Lomax, based on her recent University of Otago Politics Department Honour dissertation which discusses the path the Greens’ have taken to get to this point, focusing on what has made the Green Party successful and what barriers has it faced in its quest for success. [Read more below]

NZ Politics Daily - 18 October

Issues of economic inequality are politically back in vogue. Going into the general election, the political left, in particular, is suddenly much more focused on this traditional leftwing subject. A good example of this can be seen in today’s Herald opinion piece by academic Anne Salmond: We could do with a change of heart. She berates successive governments for their neoliberal policy framework that has furthered inequality, and asks the big political question: ‘In whose interests is our country being run?’. Essentially Salmond is channeling the more coherent elements of the global ‘Occupy’ movement. And she suggests that it’d take more than just a change of government to truly affect changes in the deeply unequal distribution of wealth and income in New Zealand. Related to Salmond’s almost-revolutionary demands, there’s a strong element of class and left politics being reported today. Simon Collins reports that Charities' food handouts at record after Govt cuts, The Standard says its Time to take back what’s ours, and Claire Trevett covers the fact that Key admits underclass still growing despite the fact that he campaigned strongly on this issue in coming to power in 2008. Of course the Labour Party is reflecting this growth in concern with traditional left issues, and today it released its industrial relations policies, and they have a more leftwing character than in the past. See for example, Danya Levy’s Labour targets sectors for minimum wage and Derek Cheng’s Labour Party launches work and wages policy. 

This resurgence of interest in, and focus on, inequality is fascinating. After all, for decades now, this subject has been largely absent from the parliamentary political system, and few political actors have been interested in raising questions about the distribution of material wealth. Quite simply, economic inequality has not mattered in New Zealand politics. This has refleccted the general decline of the political left, and the defeat of ideologies and movements that are most associated with combating economic inequality. Class politics has been at a very low ebb in recent years, and the ideas of socialism, Marxism, egalitarianism, anti-capitalism have been largely discredited and out of fashion in both New Zealand politics and academia. 

But a resurgence of interest and concern with inequality isn’t just occurring on the left side of politics. In last year’s British general election, the Conservative party successfully campaigned on reducing economic inequality. The Tory’s election advertisements even featured the sarcastic negative faux-Labour adverts in which a grinning Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown is accompanied by the text ‘I increased the gap between rich and poor – vote for me’. It was a remarkable campaign focus for the party traditionally associated with the defence of inequality in British society. As one British leftwing political commentator pointed out, ‘the new ideological keywords of the Conservative were, remarkably, poverty, inequality, compassion and society’. 

So what has been happening? I explored some of these issues in a series of blog posts last year on the topic of inequality. In particular, in a blog post entitled The resurgence of issues of economic inequality, I detailed the rising interest and concern with inequality, pointing out that a combination of factors, including the arrival of the worst economic recession since the 1930s and the unraveling of the leftish identity politics project, has produced a small but significant revival of interest in issues of class politics. This focus on inequality is more than just a shift in emphasis and suggests something important going on in parliamentary politics.

Related to this, the ministerial hearings into the involvement of foreign fishing boats in New Zealand waters began this week, and it's bringing into light the very different attitudes towards inequality and exploitation. Michael Field’s article entitled 'We need more cheap foreign fishermen' says it all. The main fishing body is complaining that New Zealand workers are too expensive and they want the ability to bring in more low-paid immigrant workers. Unsurprisingly, the Maritime Union has responded by labeling the industry bosses as ‘greedy’ – see: Foreign charter vessels about greed: union. 

Other political items of either importance, insight, interest, or influence, include the following: Frances Cook’s Goff 'splits hairs' over deep sea drilling moratorium, Dan Satherley’s A brief history of elections in New Zealand, Colin James’ Not a syndrome yet but Key's slips are showing, Felix Marwick’s Who’d want to be leader?, Rob Hosking’s Raise the pension age and ditch MMP – survey, Ian Llewellyn’s MMP – The Forgotten Question, Russell Brown’s Winning the RWC: it’s complicated, and Sue Kedgley’s Time to review how Parliament works. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

Vote for me (Part 2): Theoretical Interpretations of Green Party Success

In pursuing electoral success, green parties throughout the world have had to balance the tasks of projecting a status of being both insiders and outsiders at the same time. Put another way, greens need to sell themselves as both 'protesting radicals with principles' and as a pragmatic suit-wearing part of the political Establishment. This contradictory task is at the heart of the subject of how the New Zealand Green Party is searching for greater success. The necessity of an insider/outsider status is a peculiarity of green parties and does not apply to other minor parties to the same extent. This is because green parties emerged from distinctly anti-conventional, anti-establishment ‘outsider’ counter-cultural movements. Political parties were seen as part of the establishment that these movements rejected, yet, from these movements political parties emerged. This fascinated political scientists in the 1980s and early 1990s, and consequently a considerable amount has been written about the emergence and success of green parties in this period. This blog post is the second of five, written by Niki Lomax, based on her recent University of Otago Politics Department Honour dissertation which discusses the path the Greens’ have taken to get to this point, focusing on what has made the Green Party successful and what barriers has it faced in its quest for success. [Read more below]

NZ Politics Daily - 17 October 2011

 

After compiling and then printing out today’s NZ Politics Daily, I realized just how much political activity and analysis is taking place at the moment – the draft printout of all the material in the NZPD was well over 200 pages. Of course this mostly due to the Rena oil spill, which continues to occupy a huge amount of attention, concern, and politicking. There’s plenty of important articles that deal with the ‘politics of Rena’ – the most significant probably being John Armstrong’s Rena may blow National off its campaign course, Gordon Campbell’s On who should pay for the Rena clean-up, Reading the maps’ The Real meaning of Rena, and Derek Cheng’s two items, Rena disaster has made Govt vulnerable: Banks and Rena oil spill: Missing $12m cover 'Govt error'. 

The ‘Occupy Wall St’ protests have also arrived in New Zealand, fuelling all sorts of political activism. The aim and political nature of the occupations are still rather vague. As TVNZ has reported, ‘Critics have slammed the occupiers for being incoherent and disorganised’ – see: Anti-greed protests sweep through NZ. But the main focus uniting the activists seems to be focus on corporate greed and increasing economic inequality – issues that are now resonating strongly around the world. In this regard, the Herald points out that a Statistic New Zealand study showed that ‘the top 1 per cent of New Zealanders owned 16 per cent of our wealth, higher than every country in the study except the United States and Sweden’ – see: 'Occupy' movement reaches New Zealand. Other useful opinion pieces on the local occupy movement include Chris Trotter’s They're Only 0.1 Percent - But It's A Good Start!, The Standard’s Over or Into The Wall?, and Jordan Carter’s Will the #occupation movements fly in New Zealand?. 

Back in more orthodox mainstream politics, the election is also really heating up, with some interesting analysis arising. Political scientist Claire Robinson displays her usual strong grasp and alternative view on issues of political finance and electoral law in disagreeing with the recent BSA decision on the John Key RadioLive show – see: Of course it was electioneering, but so what?. Kate Chapman let’s us know what ‘Members of the political, business and farming elite’ think about politics in her Survey: Too many 'loonies' in Govt. Anthony Hubbard provides an interesting profile of Green Party co-leader Russel Norman in his feature, 'Being poor didn't mean we were bad'. It’s a fairly soft profile/interview, and so for a more analytical look at where the Greens are going, check out Niki Lomax’s series of guest blog posts on my liberation blog, starting today with Vote for Me (Part 1): The Green Party’s quest for success. John Moore has also written a very guest blog post examining the ongoing ideological and power shifts going on within the fledging Mana Party – see: The Sidelining of Mana’s left-wing. The very astute blogger Morgan Godfery has replied with Mana: a discussion. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

Vote for Me (Part 1): The Green Party’s quest for success

The New Zealand Green Party has the potential to achieve unprecedented electoral success at the 2011 General Election. Over the last few years, the party has undergone a transformation that has seen them become increasingly pragmatic and mainstream. This reflects the Greens’ ambition to target a broader, more ‘suburban’ constituency. This blog post is the first of five, written by Niki Lomax, based on her recent University of Otago Politics Department Honour dissertation which discusses the path the Greens’ have taken to get to this point, focusing on what has made the Green Party successful and what barriers has it faced in its quest for success. An assessment of theoretical explanations for the success of green parties internationally, and in particular the examination of their unconventional political origins, ultimately shows that the key to explaining green success lies in their inherently contradictory reputation for being both insiders and outsiders simultaneously. The history of the Greens’ electoral success can clearly be tied to their ability, or indeed inability, to maintain an insider/outsider status. Leading up to the 2011 election, the Greens have demonstrated a skilful ability to balance this dichotomous reputation. This could see the party achieve a higher electoral result than ever before. However, this research suggests that in the long-term, the ability of the New Zealand Green Party to use their insider/outsider status to achieve electoral success is limited. [Read more below]

 

The Sidelining of Mana’s left-wing

The Mana Party’s selection of a right-wing candidate for the crucial Tamaki Makaurau electorate is a blow for the left of the party. Mana will be pitting ‘waka jumper’ Kereama Pene against Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples. Pene is a self-declared fan of New Zealand Prime Minister John Key. The Ratana Church minister is also a former supporter of the now defunct Christian fundamentalist Destiny New Zealand party, and has also given his support at various times to Labour, Mana Motuhake and to the Maori Party. Guest blogger John Moore argues that the selection of Kereama Pene represents the marginalisation of the left within the Mana Party. For although the party appears radical on paper, in reality a number of Mana’s leaders aim to cut deals and form alliances with parties that would have little interest in Mana’s ‘socialist’ policies. Therefore, the selection of Karema Pene sends a signal that Mana is both ideologically flexible and that the party’s socialists are being kept on a tight leach. All of this amounts to the attempt by a section of Mana’s leadership to present the party as respectable and non-threatening. So, is the game up for Mana’s left? [Read more below]

 

NZ Politics Daily - 14 October

Politics is getting rough around Rena. The various political parties are sniping at opponents, allegations are being thrown around, and there’s strong acrimony between Labour and National. All of that’s to be expected, especially during an election campaign, but the level of aggression seems higher than usual, and we can expect to see many more sparks fly before November 26. This is all well conveyed in Audrey Young’s Rena oil-spill emergency winds up political leaders as well as RNZ’s Focus on crisis instead of pot shots, Goff tells PM, and Lloyd Burr’s Key dismisses Goff’s oil drilling moratorium as 'pure politics'. But there’s also a fair bit of consensus developing and alliances being formed, with Labour, the Greens, Mana and New Zealand First all apparently on the same page over the disaster.

Perhaps one of the strongest criticisms of the Government, has interestingly come from rightwing commentator Matthew Hooton in his Friday NBR column, Key, Smith forced to clean up Joyce’s PR debacle (not currently online). Hooton excoriates Steven Joyce for his mismanagement and mis-leadership of both the politics and portfolio relating to the Rena disaster. Hooton’s worth quoting at length on the matter. He says that ‘Joyce failed totally to comprehend what the Rena grounding meant to the Bay of Plenty’, and ‘He did not see that, as transport minister and arguably the most powerful figure in the government after Mr Key, his role was to lead and improve the quality of the response, and ensure it was sufficiently empowered and resourced. When he spoke publicly, he demonstrated little empathy with locals, telling them there was no point going to the beach to clean up the oil, saying more was on its way and that it could take years to resolve anyway’.  Furthermore, ‘It was three days before he even visited the region…  Even Mr Key, usually so politically adroit, stayed away for five days and finger-pointed from afar. Presumably he was acting on the advice of Mr Joyce, also the National Party’s campaign chairman and the government’s PR supremo’. So how did Joyce come to stuff up so badly? Hooton ponders whether Joyce was ‘out of his league when faced with an issue where just doing a poll wouldn’t give him an answer.

Politically, it now seems that deep sea oil exploration has just become a lot harder in New Zealand. In fact the two issues of coastal shipping and deep sea oil drilling are about to physically collide this week. The Rena's skipper and navigator, if they re-appear in the Tauranga court next week, will probably pass by Elvis Teddy, skipper of the Te Whanau a Apanui-owned fishing vessel San Pietro, also due in court next week after being charged during protests against Petrobas' oil exploration in April. Teddy already has strong iwi support, but given you may be able to literally smell the issue in the Tauranga Courthouse, deep sea oil exploration looks likely to become a very stinky issue for voters. And although Goff and Labour might be fairly criticized for ‘rewriting policy on the hoof’ with their new moratorium on deep sea oil exploration, electorally it’s likely to be popular. 

While the government is furiously trying to de-link the Rena disaster to deep sea oil drilling the task is probably as hopeless as that facing locals fighting 350 tonnes of heavy oil with rubbish bags and rakes. As Tracey Barnett points out in her article, A word of warning, the locals in the Bay of Plenty have plenty of reasons to doubt Petrobas and government assurances about low risk and "best practice" responses to any emergency. The Rena had 1700 tonnes of oil on board, large tankers can carry 100,000 tonnes. That's a lot of rubbish bags. See also Patrick Gower’s very good item, Rena Disaster sees Labour rush out policy to stop deep sea drilling. Gower says, ‘Beehive sources were today super sensitive to the Rena spill being linked to deep sea drilling. The reason for that is simple; they fear a public backlash like the one that scuttled its plans for mining in National Parks before they even got off the drawing board’. 

Other important Rena items include the Press’s Editorial - The scenario changes, Matt Stewart and Paloma Migone’s Funding freeze strands Maritime NZ, Lincoln Tan and Amelia Wade’s Rena crew quit NZ for their 'safety', Yvonne Tahana and Derek Cheng’s Govt ready to chase Rena's owners for extra cash, RNZ’s Rena owners apologise, but not accepting liability, and Jamie Morton’s Rena spill: 'Shame on you' - furious locals slam officials.

Politics carries on outside of the Rena disaster zone. And the following stories are either insightful, interesting, important, or influential: Lane Nichols’ Justice not well served, Elias warns, Andrew Geddis’ Is this really how we have to remember Simon Power?, David Williams’ $2.84m spent on scrapped housing scheme, Claire Trevett’s BSA dismisses DJ Key complaint, Vernon Small’s MPs change TV coverage rules in Parliament, John Drinnan’s Big bosses, big bucks - big cutbacks, Claire Trevett’s Act line-up attracts Gibbs' money, Anna Leask’s Call to sack SFO boss over slur, and Chris Trotter’s John Key is a lucky boy indeed. 

Issues around gay politics continue to be interesting today – see: Claire Trevett’s Labour pledges to push for same-sex adoption, Andrea Vance’s Upset over Mallard comment, and David Farrar’s So who is lying?. 

And, finally, Labour appears to be shifting tack on economics and state service restructuring. Following on from yesterday’s announcement from David Cunliffe that Labour is joining the Government’s ‘bipartisan consensus’ for fiscal austerity, and that the public service should not expect ‘a lolly scramble’ (Don't expect a lolly scramble – Labour), today Labour’s Ruth Dyson has responded incredibly softly to National’s announced cuts of 233 staff within the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries – see Felix Marwick’s Fear MAF cuts will lead to performance problems.[Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

 

 

Grant Robertson at Vote Chat

Grant Robertson joined the increasingly popular Vote Chat 2011 election series today held in front of good number of interested students, members of the public, the Dunedin Clark & Curran Support Crew Inc., and the media. More impressively, the conversation was updated via Twitter, and a substantial number of questions were asked and answered, indicating the inherent value in social media and new technologies being able to connect people with politicians. This guest blog post by James Meager provides a summary and evaluation of Robertson’s performance. [Read more below]

 

What would you like to ask Grant Robertson?

I’m interviewing the future Labour Party leader Grant Robertson today at 12 noon as part of University of Otago Vote Chat. What would you like me to ask him? Robertson is the Labour MP for Wellington Central, the campaign spokesman for Labour’s 2011 election campaign, and has already had an impressive career as a student politician (President of OUSA and NZUSA), a senior advisor to Prime Minister Helen Clark, a NZ diplomat in Washington, and a senior manager at the University of Otago. So what’s next on his CV? At the very least, Robertson is destined to be the deputy leader of the Labour Party, but he’s likely to be leader, and therefore potentially a future prime minister. So because he’s now one of the key players in the Labour Party, there’s plenty to ask him about the current state and future directions of Labour. And there’s all the issues around today about homophobia in the Labour Party, which I’m sure he’ll be keen to address. [Read more below]

 

NZ Politics Daily - 13 October

No spade is safe from politicians in Tauranga at the moment. Together with the media, MPs are turning up on the beaches to be photographed and filmed in the oil clean-up. This is a point well-made in the brief Dom Post item, Visiting politicians dig in. The item says: ‘Labour leader Phil Goff flew in yesterday to help with the cleanup of the oil spilling from the ship Rena. MP Darien Fenton joined him shovelling. John Key diverted there, and Health Minister and local MP Tony Ryall stayed at home to be near the action.  Russel Norman and Green MP Gareth Hughes were there tweeting up a storm and Transport Minister Steven Joyce was back again.  But it may be a one-day blitz. Mr Key is opening an Auckland supermarket today and Mr Goff is talking to Invercargill Grey Power’. 

So is it political opportunism to use the Rena disaster in election campaigning? In a sense, some of the political output does appear to be grandstanding and purely shaped for electoral calculation. But then again, the anger is surely mounting amongst many voters, and the issue is now very much an election issue – see: Jessica Mutch’s Politics and pollution and TV3’s video item Rena cleanup becomes election issue. So to expect the politicians to refrain from finger pointing over the crisis would be naïve. And those politicians that want the Rena crisis to be a ‘politics-free-zone’ are surely the same that want to artificially take politics out of other major societal issues. And in terms of whether the ‘blame game’ is fair or not, it’s probably irrelevant. As Scott Yorke says, ‘Did the government do enough to respond to the ship's grounding? Who knows? Is there a perception that they didn't? Absolutely’ – see: Imperator Fish’s This Is All Bad For National. 

Other important items (of the many) include Derek Cheng’s Rena spill: Key challenges critics: What could we have done?, Dom Post’s Editorial - Doubts over Rena crisis management, Global Dialog’s New Zealand: could Rena open the door for Peters?, Matthew Hooton’s Rena debacle hurting National, Anthony Robins’ Key’s Katrina, Local bodies’ Laila Harre Predicted Rena Wreck, the Maritime Union’s Responsibility for Rena lies with the Govt, and Ian Llewellyn’s Will Ministerial Heads Fall? 

There are plenty of interesting – and perhaps, outrageous or silly – images circulating online at the moment that relate to the Rena oil spill. Much of these are heavily political or part of the partisan ‘viral’ electioneering. This is to be expected – after all, the Rena oil disaster has struck in the middle of an election campaign, and therefore what was already a heavily political issue is now going to be strongly campaigned upon and used visually in all sorts of mediums. So there are plenty of satirical newspaper cartoons, photoshopped images, blogosphere creations, and even simple photographs that display certain aspects of the politics of the Rena oil disaster. I’ve attempted to comprehensively aggregate many of these images in a blog post – see: Politics of the Rena oil disaster - in images. The post will be updated regularly. 

Other important items today include: John Hartevelt’s Don't expect a lolly scramble – Labour. Anne Salmond’s Our small country needs a change of heart, Brian Fallow’s Pre-poll forecast likely to take dark turn, Andrew Geddis’ You have the right to free speech as long as you're not dumb enough to actually try it, Laura Frykberg’s Politicians look to sway swing voters, and Andrea Vance’s Labour accused of homophobia cover-up. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

Politics of the Rena oil disaster - in images [Update 3]

The Rena oil disaster has struck in the middle of an election campaign, and therefore what was already a heavily political issue is now going to be strongly campaigned upon and used visually in all sorts of mediums. There are already plenty of satirical newspaper cartoons, photoshoped images, blogosphere creations, and even simple photographs that display certain aspects of the politics of the Rena oil disaster. This blog post is an attempt to comprehensively aggregate many of these images. Absolutely no endorsement is meant by the inclusion of any particular image. It will be updated regularly. 

What would you like to ask Peter Dunne?

I’m interviewing the Government Minister Peter Dunne today at 12 noon as part of University of Otago Vote Chat. What would you like me to ask him? Dunne is the MP for Ohariu, the leader of United Future, and the Minister of Revenue. Although some people think Dunne is rather middle-of-the-road, and therefore boring, his approach to political ideology, party building, and political alliances is actually very interesting. Ideologically, he’s either incredibly tolerant and open-minded, or he’s the ultimate pragmatist who will desperately alter his views and allies for a quick vote. Today I want to explore which version is correct. [Read more below]

 

NZ Politics Daily: 12 October

Could this be Key’s Katrina? Back in 2005 when Hurricane Katrina struck, US President George W Bush faced a major backlash over his mismanagement of the crisis. Could the same happen to John Key now? So far, Key and National have come out of major disasters looking fairly good, but that doesn’t mean the opposite won’t happen now. Certainly the political commentary isn’t looking good for the Government. For instance, this is what Tim Watkin says: ‘This week, National has conspired to struggle with the Rena spill.  Complacency? Bad advice? A lack of preparedness? It's not clear yet, but the impression left is of a flat-footed government’ – see: Luck has an unlady like way of running out - just ask John Key. The newspaper editorials and political columnists are also very negative – check out the ODT’s editorial, Oil spills and careless words, the Southland Times editorial, Oil spill masterplan less than masterful, Andrea Vance’s Where's the master of disaster?, Vernon Small’s Teflon Key facing toxic backlash, and Brian Rudman’s Lessons of Pike River apply to oil. 

Other partisan voices are also suddenly aggressively making strong political points about the disaster – see, for example John Pagani’s Who is to blame for Rena? and Claire Browning’s The turning tide for fossil fools. Similarly TVNZ is reporting: Greens claim Joyce 'lied' about Rena and TV3 has a story, Goff questions Rena response. 

So this really could be the game changer that Labour has been hoping they could manufacture. In earlier opportunities to make electoral progress out of National’s misfortunes or mistakes, Labour has ended up shooting itself in the foot at the same time, and has squandered the opportunity. Goff will be determined that this doesn’t happen now. He has been given the perfect electoral present and will be clamping down on ill-disciplined outbursts from his colleagues, and from other allies, such as in the blogosphere. It’s notable therefore that Labour’s friends at The Standard blog – who normally dive in boots and all at any opportunity to criticize or denigrate the Prime Minister and Government – have been conspicuously silent about Rena. Likewise, suddenly Red Alert has gone relatively quiet. It’s as if Clare Curran and Trevor Mallard have had access to their parliamentary service computers blocked by Phil Goff. So we can expect that Labour will deal with this crisis and opportunity very carefully. 

For better or worse, the Greens are showing less restraint. The allegations and blog posts are flying thick and fast out of the Green Party parliamentary offices. Any glee that the Greens might feel about this electorally-advantageous catastrophe falling into the party’s lap a few weeks out from an election is being suppressed. The timing is superb for the party, and many are joking along the lines that ‘if you didn't know better you'd think the Greens ran the Rena aground on purpose’. And there should be no doubt that this will benefit the Greens – simply because an environmental disaster will lend further credibility to the main party of environmentalism. The Greens will win votes from across the political spectrum, and especially from undecided and ‘apathetic’ voters who will be easily won over the simple message of ‘voting for the planet’. 

iPredict tip: Buy stocks in Labour Party vote, Green Party vote, a Labour PM after election, and a Green Minister after the election, and short-sell stocks in John Key as next PM, the National Party vote, and NZ First vote. 

The saga over Martyn ‘Bomber’ Bradbury being removed from Radio New Zealand is still being discussed, with some of the most interesting and thoughtful points being made today – see: Brian Edwards’ Bomber Bradbury – a gutless reaction by Radio New Zealand that smacks of political hypersensitivity, Imperator Fish’s On The Bradbury Ban, Chris Trotter’s Defusing The Bomber, and David Farrar’s Diversity at Radio NZ. 

Other items of special importance, insight, interest, or influence today include: the Dom Post’s Editorial - Time to buckle down, Mr Key, Mr Key, Brian Fallow’s Quakes take only half of $18b deficit, Kim Savage and Felix Marwick’s Public sector cuts possible to reduce deficit, Hamish Rutherford‘s Quake costs may force surplus rethink, TV3’s Defence Minister talks Afghan torture - Full interview, Patrick Gower’s Govt can’t rule out SAS link in Afghan prisoner torture, Derek Cheng’s SAS prisoners may have been tortured: Govt, Claire Trevett’s 'Be cautious' warning over PM's show, and John Armstrong’s A National-Green alliance? Unlikely, but not impossible.  [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

NZ Politics Daily - 11 October

Two significant disasters are dominating New Zealand politics today. The most visually and immediately newsworthy is the obviously the Rena oil spill disaster, which is suddenly looking much worse, and is rapidly taking on a much more party political character. Cynics (or realists?) might see the unfolding disaster as a ready made recipe for Green Party success, coming as it is just weeks from a general election. Certainly the Greens are making a lot of noise about the potential catastrophe – and you couldn’t expect anything else from an environmental party. See, for example some of the blogposts by Green MPs: Catherine Delahunty’s Rena Oil Spill Day Five, David Clendon’s A precautionary tale, and Gareth Hughes’ Joyce caught lying about Rena. And perhaps for balance, it’s worth reading Whaleoil’s short jab, Is coastal shipping green?. The Press newspaper also labels the Greens’ response as ‘political opportunism’ – see: Editorial – Cleanup all at sea. But regardless, the issue seems likely to have an impact on the general election, and already iPredict is being reported as showing Labour And Greens Rise As Oil Leaks.

The other significant disaster has arrived in the form of the Government opening its books to reveal the fiscal deficit for the 2010-11 year has ballooned out to $18.4b, which is a deterioration of $12b – see: Vernon Small’s Homeowners to pay extra $130 to help Govt. Coming after the double credit rating downgrade as well as a just announced fall in the level of business confidence (Economic confidence falls, RWC blamed), this really puts the economy firmly at centre stage for the election campaign. Therefore today there are plenty of important, interesting, insightful or influential items on the economy that are worth looking at, including: John Hartevelt’s Seismic blow to Govt accounts, TVNZ’s Goff: We already know economy's in bad shape, Susan Guthrie and Gareth Morgan’s Downgrade highlights need for repairs, and Nadine Chalmers-Ross’s Should we fear the downgrade?. 

The NBR is always a useful bellwether for how business is viewing the state of the economy and their view of the Government’s performance, and hence it is entirely instructive that the most recent edition of the NBR included strong criticism of National’s economic track record on almost every page – including lead story, entitled ‘Government in denial over economy’. This story pointed out that ‘The Crown’s worth will fall 40% while its debt increases 100% over the next five years’.

Most of the NBR stories are not yet online, but the following ones are available (although paywalled): Matthew Hooton’s Downgrade shows National has been much too soft, Rob Hosking’s Paying credit where it is due, and Neville Bennett’s Credit agencies expose government spin. All of these items express concern about the Government’s handling of the economic slump – and Hosking and Bennett even raise the question of whether National was wise to reduce income taxes. Similarly, in the recent Sunday Star Times, Rod Oram had some worthy criticisms in his column entitled Muddling through, all right.

Other items of special interest today include: Anthony Hubbard’s Perks will remain in the murk, Chris Trotter’s Farmers immune from urban pain, John Armstrong’s Key's credibility takes a hit, and David Farrar’s The case for and against MMP.[Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

NZ Politics Daily - 10 October

Just when you thought…. that the Act Party dramas and dysfunctional internal dynamics couldn’t get any worse, this past weekend has provided more bad news for the fledgling chaotic party. There’s an opinion poll of Epsom voters that shows that the party’s lifeline to staying Parliament is in trouble – see: David Fisher’s Epsom poll has Banks sidelined. See also Brian Rudman’s Epsom voters' poll give Act that sinking feeling. Then there are the ongoing reports of leadership questions – see: Dan Parker’s Questions surround Brash's ACT leadership. Act’s chaos is nicely summed up in Ian Llewellyn’s ACT’s Grim Weekend Continue. Other negative media items include Claire Trevett’s Banks has no veto on what I say, says Brash, and the NBR’s Brash bows out of television Waitangi debate. 

And just when you thought…. that the Government wouldn’t let any further disasters look mishandled, the Rena maritime potential catastrophe starts to look dangerous for John Key and National. The disasters on the West Coast and in Canterbury mostly lent the governing National Party an air of authoritative management, but inevitably both disasters also led to questions being asked of National’s relatively hands-off tendencies. In terms of the developing crisis near Tauranga, the politics of it all is slowly emerging – see: Matthew Theunissen and Amelia Romanos’ Anger at slow action over oil spill and RNZ’s Government should take control of spill – Greens.

And just when you thought…. that the media would try to keep itself out of the headlines during the election campaign, it seems that Radio New Zealand has sidelined maverick lefty Martyn ‘Bomber’ Bradbury from National Radio. Bradbury’s version of what’s happened can be read here: Banned from Radio NZ for criticizing the Government. Other must-read items on the strange episode are by Gordon Campbell (On RNZ’s banning of Bomber Bradbury) and Russell Brown (Dropping the Bomber). 

Amongst the rest of the embarrassment of riches in today’s NZPD, the following are particularly worth reading: Chris Trotter’s Mana - Not A Serious Option, Tim Watkins’ The battle for the north – Hone's close call, Marika Hill’s Battle looms in Northland, Tapu Misa’s Eyebrows raised as DJ Key gets matey with the media, Dave Armstrong’s Why shouldn't John Key say 'pricktuss'?, Audrey Young’s S&P contradicts downgrade claim by Key, and Danya Levy and Kate Chapman’s Labour complains over Key rating comments. 

Also, Adam Bennett has reported on Catherine Delahunty’s declaration to me about a National-Green coalition – see: MP will quit if Greens join Nats in Govt. This is also reported by John Hartevelt (Green MP 'disturbed' by National polls) and discussed by David Farrar (Delahunty threatens to quit if Greens becomes Ministers with National). A YouTube Clip of Delahunty’s promise can now be viewed here.[Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

NZ Politics Daily - 7 October

Is political debate being stymied during this election campaign? Obviously to have a meaningful parliamentary election there’s the need for an actual discussion to occur about the different political party options. But how much real debate do we actually get? There are all sorts of factors that could be seen to constrain political activity in modern elections: from the lacklustre political parties through to a superficial media, and perhaps also the existence of a world cup tournament dominating our lives, there are plenty of reasons that might stymie the election campaign. 

Sometimes it seems possible that the state itself might be adding to the constraints on political activity and discussion. That was certainly one of the problems with the Electoral Finance Act 2007 – which during the last election campaign the Electoral Commission declared was having a ‘chilling effect on the extent and type of participation in political and campaign activity’. But to what extent are the new electoral laws doing a better job? This is yet to be seen. But there’s certainly a significant amount of arguing over the legality or otherwise of various election billboards, placards, newspaper advertisements, and even radio shows. The saga over John Key’s RadioLive show might have shown how unwise both the station and the Prime Minister were in undertaking that venture, but it also hinted at the potentially stifling role that electoral laws can play in proscribing what is legal. 

This was brought home to me again today when in organizing a political meeting on campus – where I was going to interview Green MP Catherine Delahunty – a local journalist declined my invitation to attend on the basis that his media organization was not covering such events in case they fell foul of electoral law for not providing balance by including other candidates in their reporting. 

And then today, Parliament’s Speaker issued a chilling sanction against the New Zealand Herald gallery journalists, in which they would be banned from reporting from Parliament for 10 days – see: Kevin Norquay’s Parliament media ban over photo sparks ire. Although the Herald later reported the Partial backdown on Parliament's Herald ban, the incident brought into question the power of the state to punish the media in a way that would stymie political information once again.

Another area where free political expression appears to be under threat is in the right of tenants to erect election advertising on their rental properties – see the Manawatu Standard’s editorial: Politics behind tenancy dispute. 

In terms of today’s meeting with Green MP Catherine Delahunty, the lack of journalists present hopefully won’t matter. The meeting was part of a weekly series of ‘conversations with politicians’ that I have organized at the University of Otago. The events are filmed in front of a studio audience, and live-streamed on the internet, bypassing the mainstream media. Eventually, all the interviews, which so far have included Hone Harawira, Annette King, and Winston Peters, will eventually be available as podcasts to download from iTunes, but in the meantime you can also watch them on YouTube here. And to keep up with the series, some of the Politics students who help organize Vote Chat also run a Facebook “Vote Chat 2011” page.

Of course, as with other social media, much of this will have to be taken down or ‘frozen’ for election day so as to infringe electoral laws on the day of polling. So it seems that the electoral laws will continue to have all sorts of potentially stymying affects on politics. 

Also in terms of the meeting with Catherine Delahunty, the most interesting aspect of our discussion was about the possibility of future Green-National coalition. Delahunty clearly expressed her unease with the possibility, and agreed that if after the election any Green MP a minister in a National-led government, she would resign from Parliament. Incidentally, the online political futures market, iPredict, has just launched a new stock which attempts to measure the likelihood of the Greens being part of the next Government – see: ‘At least one Green Party MP to be a Minister in next government’. Currently the money says that there is a 13% chance of the Greens entering government – and hence an almost 13% chance of Delahunty resigning after the next election. See also: Ian Llewellyn’s It May Not Be Easy Being Green After Election Day. 

Other items of note today include: David Farrar’s 49th Parliament comes to a close, Imperator Fish’s Saint John At Number 7?, Chris Trotter’s Fall-guy who goes over the top, John Pagani’s Who is getting a real wage rise?, No Right Turn’s Earning that reputation IX?, John Drinnan’s Consultant steps into Flannery's shoes, and Steve Braunias’ The Secret Diary Of ... Don Brash.[Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

What would you like to ask Green MP Catherine Delahunty?

I’m interviewing Green MP Catherine Delahunty, today at 12 noon as part of University of Otago Vote Chat. What would you like me to ask her? Delahunty is widely viewed as one of the most radical Greens, so it’s be especially interesting to explore with her the recent evolution of her Green Party from the margins where it’s been perceived as a watermelon-style party (green on the outside, but politically red on the inside), to a much more moderate, centrist party that is now open to forming a government coalition with the rightwing National Party. So how would Delahunty feel about the Greens propping up a National Government? To what extent is she happy with the shift of the party towards the mainstream and moderate middle of the political spectrum? [Read more below]

 

NZ Politics Daily: 6 October

The politics of a low-wage economy are currently emerging onto the public agenda in time for the election. This should be welcomed. After all, issues about low wages, the minimum wage, and state subsidisation of low incomes generally don’t get much discussion in electoral politics. But the ongoing economic slump, together with the shift towards a low-wage economy, is finally pushing these issues to the fore. Today’s lightening rod for this is the current industrial campaign on the part of cleaners in the Parliamentary buildings to obtain a living wage – see: Lloyd Burr’s Parliament’s cleaners are earning ‘poverty wages’, as well as the news of Tiny gains in wage packets. It seems that those cleaning our politicians’ offices are earning something like only $13.50 per hour – the minimum wage. 

Usefully, David Farrar shows that the plight of such low-wage workers is supplemented by Working for Families credits – see: The full story. But this just illustrates that the state has stepped in to subsidise the privates sector’s payment of low-wages. As political commentators (and activists) Matt McCarten and John Minto have long pointed out, Labour’s Working for Families was always meant as a subsidy for business to enable them to get away with paying workers only $13.50 an hour. Without WfF, businesses in industries such as office cleaning would struggle to survive, so effectively the state subsidises private business. In contrast, the idea of a living wage is that if you have a full-time job you should have enough to look after yourself and your dependents. John Pagani also succinctly makes this point in his blogpost The right prefers welfare to work. For the rightwing view on all this, see Cactus Kate’s The Link Between Children and Poverty, which seems to come from the view that the poor shouldn’t procreate. Yet surely there’s a strong need for a wide public debate about creating a higher-wage economy in which welfare isn’t required for those in work. Unfortunately the political parties don’t seem to be up for any sort of proper consideration of alternatives – despite headlines such as: Politicians claim to have answers to increase wages. 

 It’s especially appropriate that the parliamentary cleaners are taking action to highlight their plight at a time that the focus is back on the extremely generous pay for politicians – see: RNZ’s MPs in line for potentially large pay rise, TVNZ’s Changes in store for MPs' perks and travel, and Tracy Watkins’ Perks law for next Parliament. With salary packages of between $180,000 and $500,000, New Zealand Members of Parliament currently earn more than 99% of their constituents. And it seems that MPs are about to get a hefty pay increase of perhaps $10,000 to make up for the fact that they have rightly lost their illegitimate rort of free international holidays, which was set up in the 1970s to surreptitiously inflate politician incomes. It’s a pity that such a $10,000 increase won’t be going to people that really need it, such as cleaners. 

Other items today that are either important, interesting, insightful or informative include: John Hartevelt’s Life after Simon Power, Morgan Godfery’s Te Tai Tonga - the lowdown, Tracy Watkins and Danya Levy’s Treasury defends $13m consultants bill, Gordon Campbell’s Questioning rugby's social values, David Farrar’s Rugby and politics, David Farrar’s Gay issues, and Andrea Vance’s Simon Power praises consensus. Of course the incident on the Parliamentary gallery balcony also deserves some analysis – see: Claire Trevett’s Balcony protest sparks squabble between MPs, John Armstrong’s Key's parting shots leave Labour agape, and Grant Robertson’s Reflecting on yesterday - especially for the comment by Danyl Mclauchlan. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

NZ Politics Daily - 5 October

It’s a pretty major allegation about the National Government – that it is accepting free election advertising on a radio station as a quid pro quo for a financial favour to the owners of the broadcaster. This is the escalated state of the saga/scandal over John Key’s so-called ‘election-free zone’ one-off broadcast on Radio Live last Friday. Official complaints have been lodged by the Labour Party with the Electoral Commission and Broadcasting Standards Authority – see: Goff's accusations over Key DJ segment rejected and BSA considers complaint against Key radio show. Useful contributions to the debate are also put forward in Simon Cunliffe’s Key's radio spot wasn't political - yeah right and John Pagani’s Radio Live keeps digging. 

All of this shows that issues of political finance and electoral rules continue to dog New Zealand parliamentary politics, especially at election time. Ever since the 2005 general election, when two major political finance scandals broke – the Exclusive Brethren campaign that favoured National, and the Labour Party’s breach of the spending limits via use of taxpayer funded election pamphlets – all the parties have bickered and moaned about each others’ electoral activities and funding. The controversy of the Electoral Finance Act 2007 was the pinnacle of this struggle. Although issues of political finance and electoral law were meant to all be resolved by the National Government’s supposedly consensus-oriented replacement legislation, this was never going to happen. The replacement ‘solution’ was mostly as bad as the original, and the same problematic issues remain in terms of the attempt to define what an ‘election advertisement’ is, and how to properly regulate them. Of course none of the debates about political finance and electoral rules are likely to go away for the very reason that such allegations and counter-allegations are such useful electoral weapons. And in the current stoush, Labour seems to have the upper hand because regardless of the truth or otherwise of the corruption allegations, and regardless of whether Key’s appearance was an ‘election advertisement’, the whole affair now looks unwise.

The ‘game of politics’ has changed with the arrival at centre stage of ‘scandal politics’ and allegations about political finance and corruption. Hence it’s not surprising that there are plenty of other stories around today that relate to this broad topic: the Herald’s SFO's bubbly an error of judgment, Fran O’Sullivan’s More than a storm in a champagne flute, Stuff’s John Key: Authority to handle MPs' entitlements, Clio Francis’ Taito Phillip Field granted parole, and Claire Trevett’s Greens reject cash from energy firm. All of these stories relate to the fascination and concern with issues of political finance and corruption.

Other important items today include: Steven Price’s Staggering bunk from Collins over surveillance bill, Dene Mackenzie’s Key Nats' ace; Goff sidelined, Claire Trevett and Nick Tolerton’s MPs scramble to get photos with Mad Butcher, Bill Rosenberg’s Judge the Govt by things that matter, Danya Levy’s Treasury 'didn't have power to stop finance companies', Adam Bennett’s Cunliffe questions Govt 'failure' to monitor scheme, and Duncan Garner’s two items, Greens polling at record high - is Nat coalition likely? and Poll reveals how voters feel about Key's term.[Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

NZ Politics Daily - 4 October

The Labour Party seems to have turned an electorally-dangerous issue into a victory with its compromise agreement with National over the Police covert video surveillance fixit legislation. As Andrea Vance reports, ‘Labour has forced the Government to back down over controversial video surveillance laws.  After insisting the legislation go before a select committee before agreeing to support it, Labour has secured changes to more contentious aspects of the proposed law’ – see: Labour gains changes to surveillance bill. On the whole, National comes out of the saga looking weaker and less principled. Andrea Vance also covers this well in her opinion piece, Has Finlayson flunked?. But at what cost has Labour achieved this tactical victory? Supposedly, the issue has fractured the party – see: Derek Cheng’s Labour split over hidden camera bill – Govt – but more importantly, Labour will have disillusioned some of it’s core supporters and activists with what Gordon Campbell calls a ‘cosy deal’ with National – see: On why the deal on Police covert video surveillance is a travesty. So has Labour compromised on what it said were the key points a week ago or was it about easy point scoring and political management?

The election campaign continues to heat up with all sorts of aggressive tactics and allegations being thrown around. The Prime Minister’s unusual hosting of a Radiolive show is at the centre of current controversy – see: Labour complains over PM's radio show. The issues were dealt with well yesterday by Graeme Edgeler’s On Cats and Coro, and today by Russell Brown’s The Politics of Absence. Interestingly, No Right Turn has labeled the affair as Labour's hypocritical complaint. The whole issue of online attacks and SMOG (Social Media Own Goals) is also dealt with by ODT political editor, Dene Mackenzie’s Social media force in elections. And Derek Cheng reports on the latest election billboards in Labour offers a bit of black humour. 

Other important NZ politics reads for today include Susan Guthrie and Gareth Morgan’s Why the world wants to tax the rich, Chris Barton’s The death of public service television, Simon Collins’s Amnesty International criticises NZ Afghan detainee policy, Audrey Young’s Forces to 'talk, think and breathe' as one, and two items by Colin James: Partying is more important than policy and The Maori party's hard choice. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

NZ Politics Daily - 3 October

Chris Trotter is probably not the Labour Party’s favourite leftwing political commentator at the moment. Today he went on TV3’s Firstline programme to explain Labour’s poor showing in the opinion polls. You can watch his video or read the brief article here: Labour can't win the election - Chris Trotter, which reports that ‘Trotter says Goff has been held back by his caucus, who've failed to show support for his plans but also refused to replace him’. To top off his severe public critique of Labour, Trotter then went and published a blog post this afternoon, Auslander!, which really eviscerates Labour by arguing that the ‘workers party’ has caused its own demise by taking for granted working class voters and treating them with managerial contempt. By contrast, the secret of John Key and National’s success, according to Trotter, has been their message of solidarity for working voters who aspire to economic advancement. By pushing this powerful message – coming from a leader that supposedly personifies such humble advancement – National has been able to ‘lure them across the great political divide’ to the extent that the party of the right has twice the public support of that of Labour – see TV3’s Latest 3 News poll shows Nats' support twice that of Labour and TVNZ’s More poll woe for Labour and Goff. Additional evidence for Trotter’s theories can even be seen in Danya Levy’s Few see downside to state cuts. 

Trotter’s critique of Labour is very thoughtful and poignant. And of course, Trotter isn’t exactly hostile to the Labour Party – in previous elections he has been somewhat of a cheerleader for the party. But his patience for Labour has obviously disappeared. Recently the party has shown its dysfunctionality and lack of focus via its undisciplined and aggressive outbursts. The most recent are covered well in the Herald’s MP's silly gripe throwback to tribal politics, Grant Miller’s MP's beef with Mad Butcher, and Kerre Woodham’s MP Fenton minces her words. 

One of the difficulties for Labour – which Chris Trotter and the Mad Butcher personify – is that it lacks supportive public figures endorsing or championing it. It suffers from a decline in the numbers of strong voices from within either civil society or the ‘commentariat’ that are willing to stand up, defend, or argue the party’s case. Many of the leading political commentators are far from enamored of Labour at the moment. So in Phil Goff’s office there must be a serious angst about the dominance in the media of partisan political commentators like David Farrar and Matthew Hooton. 

So where are Labour’s sympathetic voices? John Pagani is about the only one, and even he seems to be viewed by many as a Phil Goff plant amongst the commentariat – he was working in Phil Goff office until relatively recently, but is now a full-time blogger and commentator putting forward the messages of Goff and co. Effectively he’s probably just seen by many journalists as a spokesperson for Goff’s office who barely deviates from Goff’s lines of the moment. Mike Williams is another, but he too, as Labour’s recent president isn’t taken seriously as any sort of critically-minded observer. So it’s not surprising that Labour is getting frustrated and lashing out at everyone from academics through to the ‘Mad Butcher’. Surely it won’t be long before Chris Trotter, too, gets his comeuppance from Labour. Labour’s campaign strategist is probably planning his revenge against Trotter already, and sadly for Labour, this is the type of political behaviour that is coming to exemplify its 2011 campaign. 

Meanwhile, there are significant issues of policy that Labour should be focused on instead. In particular, the economic downturn presents real opportunities for Labour to challenge the Government on, but it sometimes seems that Labour has given up already. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]