liberation

NZ Politics Daily - 29 November

I've been putting together NZ Politics Daily nearly every day, Monday through to Friday, since January 4, and the intention has always been to do so until the general election. The current sponsor arrangements, which ended with the election, were vital as I’m highly reliant on using a paid research assistant to help put it all together. I will now take a break and re-evaluate the project, and see what ongoing resources are available to continue. Thanks to the sponsors for generously making NZ Politics Daily possible, and thanks to all the subscribers for receiving it.

The post-election issue that is most likely to dominate political analysis over the next few months is the state of the Labour Party, its leadership, and how the party might rebuild. The biggest immediate problem seems to be a dearth of credible leadership options. As Vernon Small says, there has been ‘no clear contender emerging over the last term because of doubts over all the likely options’. He also puts forward the pros and cons of leading contenders: see: Parker heads queue for Labour leadership. Claire Trevett sets out similar points in: 'Charismatic' Cunliffe people's choice for Labour. Trevett’s report also quotes me as saying all three Davids – Cunliffe, Parker, and Shearer – are ‘sort of Phil Goff clones’, and the party would be better to think outside the box. Patrick Gower also blogs today to say that ‘Labour's problem: Its caucus cannot think outside the square’ – see: Lack of Camp Shearer shows Labour's problems. According to Gower, ‘The caucus are too focussed on the egos and the power brokers and the factions and the personal history to see through the mist’.

Today’s Dominion Post editorial, Policies with vision needed by Labour perceptively points out that Labour needs someone who is ‘more than the master of the sound bite and more than the best schemer in the Labour caucus’. Unfortunately for Labour, the Dom Post says ‘Neither of the leading contenders to replace Mr Goff – David Parker and David Cunliffe – has demonstrated that capability to the public. Nor have the others whose names have been mentioned in connection with the position – David Shearer, Andrew Little and Grant Robertson’.

The three Daves all have a sense of being versions of ‘Key-lite’ at best, and at worst, alternative versions of Phil Goff. And why would voters want to re-embrace a party lead by a poor carbon copy what they have just rejected? Gordon Campbell has written a very thoughtful blog post on the leadership problem, suggesting that Cunliffe and Parker, in particularly, are actually very similar to each other: ‘It is not as if they are polar opposites, ideologically speaking. Both tend to be regarded as being at the rightward end of the centre left political spectrum, on the economy at least’ – see: On the challenges facing Labour’s new leader. 

There’s talk of ‘wild card’ options – usually people like Grant Robertson – but the problem is that such candidates are far from being ‘wild’ at all. They’re entirely predictable. There is no doubt that Robertson will eventually be at least deputy leader. But although he’s probably got more going for him than the David’s he’s not entirely in a different league. Campbell is fairly dismissive of the apparently leadership ticket of Parker and Robertson: ‘David Parker and Grant Robertson – looks more substantial as a management team, but less capable of winning votes for Labour among the wider public. Unfortunately for Labour, it isn’t bidding to run a small government agency – a task for which Parker/Robertson would be a crackerjack duo – but the entire country.’ Also, as the Dim-Post blog points out, despite having a strong reputation, Robertson ‘Has not met expectations as an opposition MP in terms of holding Ryall to account in the health portfolio’ see: Process of elimination. 

Labour’s problems run deeper than a lack of leadership options. Numerous party insiders and commentators have emphasised today the extent of Labour’s problems. Shane Jones has been one of the most outspoken on the need for Labour to face up to its disastrous loss: ‘Really we've got to delve deeply into why three out of every four New Zealanders who cast a vote said we were unsound and unfit to govern. I don't think that will change until we deeply address those challenges. Until we really understand why so many people moved away from us, then we are going to be where we are for a long time to come’ (Shane Jones: Labour must reconnect with Maori. 

Similarly, John Pagani says that Labour is currently fooling itself with claims that the party ran a great campaign with great policy: ‘The assertion is tone deaf, arrogant, and embarrassing’. In his column, What the election means, he makes the important point that ‘This is not a matter of packaging. Voters are not choosing National because they are being fooled, but because they see more of what they want.  Only when Labour acknowledges this truth can it hope to win voters back’.

In a similar vein, another Labour insider, Phil Quin calls out MP Charles Chauvel on his assessment of Labour’s election campaign, labelling it Complacent. Delusional. Staggeringly Arrogant. 

But perhaps the greatest criticism has come today from Chris Trotter, who writes that ‘The diminishing parliamentary assortment of middle-class professionals, civil servants and trade union officials that sits atop Labour’s demographic rump look less-and-less like the people it purports to represent’ – see: Rout & Ruin. The problem, according to Trotter is that the ‘ailing’ party is politically incoherent: ‘What does Labour really stand for in 2011? It most certainly does not stand for the socialist aims and objectives proclaimed by Harry Holland’s Labour Party in 1919. Indeed, two of the most important policies promoted by Phil Goff’s Labour Party in 2011: the introduction of a Capital Gains Tax; and lifting the age of eligibility for superannuation from 65 to 67; could just as easily have emerged from a moderate conservative party’.

This is an argument also pushed in today’s Dominion Post editorial, Policies with vision needed by Labour. The Dom Post says that ‘the Goff Labour Party could not make up its mind whether to be fiscally responsible or profligate in its social spending. In trying to be a bit of both it wound up pleasing few and annoying many’. More importantly, ‘Labour's problem is not its leader, nor its campaign strategy…. The problem is not even John Key's popularity. It is the absence of a coherent set of policies that give effect to its core philosophy’.

Other important or interesting items today include: Andrea Vance’s John Banks looks to Conservatives, the NBR’s Banks: 'ACT brand just about had its use-by date', Derek Cheng’s Divided Act Party needs 'to bring factions together', John Moore’s The Bored and the Disgusted, TV3’s Did opinion polls influence the election?, Audrey Young’s 10 things you didn't know about the election results, the Standard’s Demise of the Maori Party and Choosing our next PM, the David Farrar’s series of posts on the state of all the parties: Labour, ACT, Maori Party, NZ First , and The Greens. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

NZ Politics Daily - 28 November

Voter turnout in the general election was an historic low of 68.8% of eligible voters. An argument can be made that the National Party was almost beaten by The Abstention Party, which won 31.2% of the (non)-vote. Once you take into account the large number of the New Zealand population that abstained from voting on polling day you can see just how unpopular the political parties are. The National Party actually only scored about 33% of the electorates’ votes, Labour got only 18.5%, and the Greens only 7%. Thus although the Abstention Party was hardly mentioned by political commentators – it, rather than the National, the Greens or Winston Peters, was the major success story of 2011. Nonetheless it’s worth having a look through what the result mean for the parliamentary parties.

 There’s a wealth of very good items to read about the election results and their implications. Some of best and most important are: Anthony Hubbard’s Turning the spin around, Karl du Fresne’s Election death and resurrection, Gordon Campbell’s On the election outcomes, Matt McCarten’s Labour's love lost to Green, Dave Armstrong’s Poll hangover would feel better if all voters had it, No Right Turn’s Picking the bones, Dim-Post’s Post election autopsy, amateur hour 2011 edition, John Armstrong’s Political match-making begins, Audrey Young’s Key signals portfolio for Banks, Kerry McBride’s Dramatic drop compared with 2008 election, Simon Collins’ 1 million didn't bother to vote, Graeme Edgeler’s Election '11 - Counter-Factual, David Farrar (Kiwiblog): Specials and National, Claire Trevett’s Future of Phil Goff, King on table at caucus, Tracy Watkins’ Key walks tightrope on pushing mandate, TV3’s Labour won't be able to turn tide in three years – Trotter, and Vernon Small’s two items, Jockeying starts as Goff set to quit and Time for Labour to embrace a few risks. 

Below is my take on what the results mean for the various parties.

National

National’s 48% of the party vote is obviously an historic high, and in terms of the two-way battle with Labour, a massive victory. However, in practical terms the result pretty much replicates the last election and presumably will be National’s high tide mark in this election cycle. National is claiming that its 48% vote is a mandate for its most unpopular policy, asset sales, but actually implementing those will inevitably eat into this current level of support. Big advantages for National are a huge pool of potential talent to renew the leadership and great continuity, as well as an almost ideal situation in terms of current coalition partners. They can pass legislation with either United Future and Act, or with the Maori Party, so there is no chance of the tail wagging the dog. The big issue is, of course, 2014. National’s support will fall, Act is on life support, there is little chance of Peter Dunne increasing United Future’s representation and another three years in Government with National is unlikely to enhance the Maori Party’s electoral fortunes – especially when they farewell both their high profile leaders. Key will have to be looking at the Conservative Party as an option and figuring out how to facilitate their entry into Parliament. And of course John Key will be incredibly mindful of the Greens. Key has three years to build the relationship to the level where the Green Party could actually support a National–led Government.

Labour

Obviously the inverse is true for Labour – a party that has incurred an historic level of defeat and has suffered a loss of talent and demoralisation. This will take some time to bounce back from. The whole party will be distracted for quite some time by replacing Goff, which will inevitably end with further internal strife. Labour actually needs a thorough overhaul and this involves more than simple replacing Phil Goff. But the party has historically had a lot of difficulty removing its dead wood, especially as a new leader tries to retain a balance between the factions within caucus. It looks like it will be very hard for Labour to come back to Government in 2014 and instead the rebuild will be a six-year project. The electoral cycles are actually very consistent. Both National and Labour have been kept out of Government, suffered an even worse defeat at the following election and then bounce back to come close or take government. Labour’s major concern may be that they really do not have a leader in waiting who will be seen to match it with John Key. 

Greens

Any party would be happy with a 50% increase in their vote. The increase in MPs will bring a massive increase in parliamentary resources as well as the ability to cover parliamentary duties. However, their election night wobbles did actually continue. Polling consistently at 12% or higher, they still suffered their traditional 2% drop on election day. The issue for the Greens will be that their surge primarily came as a result of Labour’s woes and therefore the party’s high vote is vulnerable to be taken back as Labour eventually rebuilds. While the Greens are keen to push the word ‘historic’ in relation to their result, actually their party vote is almost the same as that of the Alliance in 1996 – and that was the Alliances high-tide mark which declined as Labour regained popularity in subsequent elections. To avoid this the Greens will need to ensure that as National sheds support, they pick up some of those votes to compensate. Strategically then for both the Greens and National the Greens need to continue their push to the centre to maintain this level of support. 

NZ First

Winston Peters finds himself in the position he is best at – in opposition. With a weakened Labour Party he will have quite a few months as the main opposition attack dog and will undoubtedly make the most of it. The question mark will be the rest of his caucus. NZ First has historically been very much a one-man band but given Winston Peters’ age, the party desperately need some new stars to emerge and it’s not clear that there are any obvious future leaders in his new caucus. His presence in Parliament though will hinder Labour’s rebuilding efforts particularly as Labour tries to capitalize on the implementation of the asset sales policy. Nobody does outraged indignation better than Peters.

Maori Party

The Maori Party face a real quandary. The leadership openly acknowledges that the party has been punished for its relationship with National. Yet the Maori Party looks set to make the same decision they made in 2008, which must surely endanger their survival in 2014, particularly as they will be without Pita Sharples and Tariana Turia. Like a possum in the headlights, they know the car is coming, but seem unable to move out of the way. If they had the balance of power then they might have been able to secure more concessions from National, even stopping the asset sales programme, which would have been hugely popular. The problem is National can use them when convenient but ditch them for United Future and Act as required. Even if the Maori Party votes against National, having been in Government with them inevitably means you become associated with their policies.

Mana

Mana will have to be disappointed that it still only has one seat, and even that had to be fought hard and was reasonably close. Mana needs to get out of the single-seat party ghetto they currently inhabit with Peter Dunne and John Banks, but it can’t do so for another three years. Annette Sykes did mount a strong challenge in Waiariki and would probably fancy her chances of taking Flavell out in 2014 (especially given the Maori Party’s situation). If the Greens continue their centre drift and Labour continues to flounder then there will be potential for Mana on the left. With the Maori seats there is likely to be an unprecedented level of vacant seats (including potentially a new seat if more Maori switch to the Maori role). The problem is the potential went largely unrealised this election – so there is a lot resting on Hone Harawira. While he has secured the minimum base, there is obviously a lot of work to do for Mana in the next few years to build the fledgling party.

Act

The very idea of John Banks keeping the libertarian candle burning in Parliament stretches credibility. It’s hard not to see Act now as a National mini-me and so their long term future would have to be pretty grim. There definitely is a constituency to the right of John Key’s National, but John Banks is not the person to lead it. Act have the potential to make some ground as National’s historic levels of support ebb away, but the party also faces competition from the Conservative Party, who John Banks would actually probably be a better fit with.Conservative Party

Well, a million bucks can’t buy a seat in Parliament, but apparently it can get you half way there. If Colin Craig has another million dollars he could well build towards 5% for the next election, and National probably wouldn’t be too upset at all given their outlook for their other potential coalition partners. National will probably be very wary of any electorate deals though but it will be interesting to see National’s attitude towards changing the MMP threshold and exemption for parties who win a seat. If they make it harder to break into Parliament it will be National who finds itself running out of coalition partners.

United Future

 Having reversed the trend of his declining majority, Peter Dunne could probably stay in Ohariu until his famous hair falls out. But that’s probably about it. One remote possibility would be a merger with the Conservative Party as both have a Christian element, and obviously Dunne’s seat would be very attractive. However, the voters of Ohariu may balk at being used as a gateway to Parliament for a conservative Christian presence.

MMP referendum

MMP looks very secure. Although only the advance votes have been counted, there is no reason to suppose that the final results will vary much. The anti-MMP campaign never really got off the ground and mainstream politicians were loathe to get their hands too dirty weighing in heavily one way or another. What was interesting was the results of the second question. The anti-MMP preferred option of Supplementary Member finished a distant second. While those who voted chose FPP, most people didn’t choose an alternative system at all. MMP is here to stay, but there will be some tweaking and the obvious targets are the threshold and the one seat exemption, although you can be sure that National especially will have one eye on future elections as it considers how far to push any major changes. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

Post-election images from the 2011 New Zealand General Election [updated]

The blog post below contains a variety of images from 2011 New Zealand General Election - from after the election polls opened, including the post-election period. It will be continuously updated.

The Bored and the Disgusted

Only 68% of potential voters bothered to vote in New Zealand’s latest election. Commentators have already given various clichéd responses to this record low turnout including the likes of: ‘the 32% who didn’t vote failed in their duty to participate in our democratic system’; ‘the 1 million non-participants represent the apathetic and apolitical’; and ‘those who didn’t vote shouldn’t complain about the government we now have’. In contrast to such patronising words of wisdom, guest blogger John Moore argues that not voting is in fact a rational and sensible response to bland politics. In light of an election where most of the parliamentary parties promoted ‘strategic’ voting to bring about either a Labour-led or National-led government, turning away from mainstream politics in disgust or out of sheer boredom should be seen as a legitimate action. The fact is that for many eligible voters neither of the ideologically similar two major parties seem particularly likeable, and so abstaining from this election clearly seemed like the most sensible thing to do. [Read more below]

 

Images from the 2011 New Zealand General Election [updated]

The blog post below contains a variety of images from the 2011 New Zealand General Election. It will be continuously updated.

NZ Politics Daily - 25 November

Opinion polls have dominated this election campaign. In the absence of meaningful debate, discussion and electoral issues, they have become a focus for framing and following the campaign. It’s easy for the media and political commentators to put together analysis, stories, and headlines based on the numbers. 

In the last 24-hours four major opinion polls have been released. So how much will these polls – and the many preceding them - influence how we vote tomorrow? A Politics graduate student at the University of Otago, Michelle Nicol, has recently carried out research on this question (Do opinion polls influence voters Part 1, Part 2, Part 3). She explains how the publication of these polls can influence voters by causing a bandwagon effect, inducing an underdog effect and encouraging strategic voting. 

The ‘bandwagon effect’ has been important in the buoyancy of National, as well as the continued rise of the Greens. The bandwagon effect is a simple case of ‘popularity breeding popularity’ – and it’s likely that many voters, especially swinging or undecided voters, have chosen to vote National or Green because they wish to be aligned with what is seen to be fashionable and popular – ‘jumping on the bandwagon’. Conversely, Labour has been negatively impacted by a ‘spiral of silence’ in which it has become particularly unfashionable and socially isolating to give a vote to a major party that is obviously so unpopular. Labour has suffered – as have Act and United Future – from ‘death by opinion poll’. Low opinion poll results can also result in the ‘underdog effect’ kicking in and helping a party receive ‘the sympathy vote’, but such a phenomenon is more likely to apply to minor party such as the Greens or New Zealand First. 

The final opinion polls will have a particularly strong effect on voter choice over the next day. National will yet again benefit from the bandwagon effect, as the 50%+ polls suggest to many undecided or wavering voters that ‘there must be something right about National if so many other people are going to vote for them’. New Zealand First will certainly benefit from these polls because the party has a range of support of 3.5% to 6.5%. The party is seen to be competitive and the chances of a sub-5% ‘wasted vote’ has been reduced. The Greens will also get a boost – especially with the Roy Morgan poll giving the party 14.5%. But, perhaps even more importantly, these polls are likely to have a negative impact on voter turnout on Saturday. National voters will be complacent, Labour voters will be demotivated.

One of the dominant themes of the campaign has been the perception of certainty about the result on Saturday. Opinion polls have contributed to this perception –not only because of National’s high polling, but also the incredible stability of those results. The volatility normally experienced in an election campaign has been absent. Unsurprisingly, there is a consensus that National will be the government next week. We can see that in the iPredict stock which has a 94% chance of a National Prime Minister, and also the poll out today which shows that 81% of voters believe National will win – see Audrey Young’s Key to win despite teatape actions – voters. 

Yet on the eve of the real election poll this degree of certainty suddenly appears unfounded. Although the narrative of an expected National Party landslide has always been based on something real – incredibly high opinion poll results – there are a number of factors that give doubt to that certainty. Some very good pieces have been written about this today, the best of which is undoubtedly Audrey Young’s Final poll: Nats win looks certain, Winston over 5%. Although Young says a National win ‘looks certain’, she perceptively notes that there are factors that could complicate this assumed easy victory. Most importantly, that National might win at least 50% of the party vote but not have a majority of the seats in Parliament: 

 ‘The reason National could get a majority of party votes tomorrow but not a majority of seats in Parliament is the overhang factor.  If today's poll figures were translated to votes, United Future, the Maori Party and Mana would get more electorate seats than their party vote entitlement.  When that happens, the size of Parliament expands beyond 120 seats, and the parties are allowed to keep the extra seats.  In this case, the "overhang" seats would take Parliament to 126 seats.  In that scenario, a Government would need 64 seats for a majority and in today's poll, National would have 63 seats - based on the assumption that Act, Mana, United Future and the Maori Party will keep their electorate seats’. 

Other analysis raising doubt about a certain National victory includes Guyon Espiner’s Cup of tea for Key in Rodney? and Duncan Garner’s Poll shows undecided voters figure leaps up. They both show that Winston Peters might yet be a major fly in the ointment for National’s expected trouncing of Labour. 

There are a series of possibilities that make National’s easy victory less certain, all of them are individually quite possible:

• National doesn’t get an outright majority of seats.

• Banks loses Epsom, Dunne fails to win Ohariu

• Peters gets over 5%

The likelihood of all of these events occurring is still fairly low, but not so low that they are not worth considering. Of course, the political right is also hammering the line that National sympathizers shouldn’t complacently take a victory as certain. What is particularly frustrating for them is the fact that there is still a possibility of failure despite historically high poll ratings. 

This all makes Chris Trotter’s column today relevant – see: The Winston conundrum. Also, if you’re interested in the constitutional details of it all, check out Dean Knight’s Governments in transition – some constitutional FAQs. 

On election night there will be a wealth of places to follow the results come in. The Herald has outlined the mainstream television options here: TV Pick of the week: Election night specials. More details of TVNZ’s coverage can be found here, and on TV3, and Maori TV. And of course all the main radio stations will have coverage too. Think also about using the Listener’s Election night sweepstake.

But if you’re after an ‘intelligent alternative’ to these mainstream efforts, check out the 'University of Otago Election Night Special with Dr Bryce Edwards and Professor Andrew Geddis' which will be webcast via the websites of the New Zealand Herald and Otago Daily Times. Together with Prof Geddis, I’ll be discussing unfolding events of the evening with guests from across the political spectrum. It will be interactive, fun, irreverent, and just a bit different. The ODT covers what’s happening here: Chat about vote to stream out from Dunedin. And Andrew Geddis provides his own irreverent overview of what to expect from our webcast: The revolution WILL be televised!. 

Whoever you are watching on election night one thing to be wary of is the analysis of the very early results. TV presenters and commentators grasp for any useful indications, but this often reflects a basic ignorance of how votes are counted and reported. The reality is that the first results in will be ordinary early votes – from people who voted before election day. These are actually a pretty good indicator but they are not  a perfect representative sample of the final votes. In the 2008, for example, the change in the party vote from the early votes counted through to the final vote was the following: National +3.6%, Labour -2.4%, Greens -0.6%, Maori Party -0.3%, Act -0.4% and NZ First +0.6%.

After this initial round of pre-election day results, the actual election day results start to dribble in and it is at this point that presenters and commentators inevitably and breathlessly raise the possibility of National getting 60% of the party vote. What is happening, of course, is that in the tiny rural booths where there are 26 votes in total the staff and scrutineers have counted everything three times and reported the results by 7.13pm (before heading off to the pub to try and guess ‘who the hell voted for Hone bloody Harawira’). Not surprisingly these early results always favour National. So National always starts out ahead and then the gap closes as the night wears on. The bigger polling places with more votes to count are, unsurprisingly, in the major urban centres and these tend to favour the left more, especially Labour and the Greens.

Political party commentators often are the most accurate predictors early on election night because they know how it works and they have scrutineers in polling places observing the count and reporting the results immediately. Because they know the votes for individual polling places they can compare them to the last election and quickly identify the trends. Even this has limits though. The trends in rural and provincial electorates may be quite different to those in the metropolitian centres. So be very wary of predictions between 7.30pm and 8.30pm.

Other important and interesting items today include: Karl du Fresne’s Reflections on a carefully stage-managed campaign, Duncan Garner’s ACT toxic, contaminated, diseased, David Farrar’s Post-election possibilities, John Armstrong’s two items It's put up or shut up time and Should we prepare for the zombie apocalypse, Tracy Watkins’ National has little to fear, so why the angst?, Morgan Godfery’s two items The smart picks for the Maori electorates and Vote strategically and bring in more Maori MPs, Kate Newton’s The power scenarios: which will it be?, Mark Blackham’s Refusing to talk, the Dim Post’s Election wrap up, It’s kind of like a torture, to have to watch the show edition, the Dom Post’s Memorable lines and overused soundbites, the Herald’s Campaign highs and lows, Stuff’s two items Issue by issue, we mark the scorecard and Policies show parties on different hymn sheets, and Tim Watkin’s two items The big wheels are turning to National - my last day summary and Marginal machinations: The seats to watch.[Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

NZ Politics Daily - 24 November

Today it’s being reported that ‘Almost half of New Zealand voters believe no political party truly represents their views’. What’s more, the same survey research shows that ‘more than 40 per cent of voters are driven to choose a party because they like the leader’ – see: Andrea Vance and Kate Newton’s Leader's popularity may sway party choice. Such reports are in line with academic research that shows throughout the western world there is a growing disjunction between the ideology of voters and parties.

So how can voters find a party to vote for? There are a number of very interesting interactive websites which offer information about the political ideologies and policies of the various parties. One of the most impressive is the international Political Compass website, which not only attempts to give a sophisticated multi-dimensional map of where political parties are ideologically, but also allows you to locate yourself on that map. It’s not just a traditional left-right economic spectrum – but one that incorporates the libertarian-authoritarian social dimension. You can take the test here and view where New Zealand parties currently sit. A measurement system such as this one will always have some inaccuracies, and I would argue that in this case the National Party is positioned too far to the right and the Greens too far to the left. The Mana Party is also deemed to be surprisingly authoritarian (probably due to a propensity towards banning and regulating activities such as smoking, gambling, and drinking). But overall the Political Compass does a good job of plotting our political landscape and providing a useful analytical device for understanding the nature of the various parties.

Other ‘guides to voting’ have been launched recently – check out the On the Fence website - which is also reported on here and Vote Note. An environmental-based site, Elect Who? is apparently ‘your guide to voting for a zero carbon future’. For other media items that seek to help voters navigate all of the policy options – see, Ally Mullord’s Undecided and confused? Election policies explained and the policy summaries on most major news websites – such as this one: Election policies: How the parties stack up. And for the electoral system referendum, there is a very useful interactive online tool here. 

Also in terms of the referendum, yesterday the Dominion Post came out in support of MMP (Fine-tuning MMP a voting solution) and today it’s the Herald’s turn – see: Flawed, but MMP is pick of the bunch.

With election day drawing closer, and the campaign nearly over, some focus is turning to the role that the mainstream media and new social media are playing. Some useful research and opinion can be found in these items: Media coverage of party policy sidelined by tea tape – study, Chris Philpott’s A quick review of election coverage, and Chris Whitworth’s From smiling to silent assassin: National's media stonewall. But it’s the interplay between politics, media and the state that is particularly interesting, and the following items discuss the contentious regulation of these activities: John Drinnan’s Policing election day media ban 'farcical', the Southland Times’ editorial, Hush as we go to vote, Eric Crampton’s Election gag and Stuff’s Weather off the radar on Saturday. 

With one day to go, some are saying that the election result is a foregone conclusion – but the party leaders haven’t got the memo. They know that -despite the polls – there are so many variables in play that mean those last few swinging votes may be crucial.

Shifting soft National support to Labour has to be Phil Goff’s primary focus and, after the teapot tapes diversion (which didn’t directly help Labour at all) Labour is relentlessly hammering the asset sales issue. National, having run out of any new policy to promote, are finding themselves having to respond to questions about limiting foreign ownership seemingly making policy about ownership caps on the hoof – see Adam Bennett’s Key promises curbs as state sell off looms. As Duncan Garner reports (Maori Party hold asset sale balance of power, the Greens are also taking shots at National over the policy – a sure sign there are votes to be won over in the centre. In the last few days the messages are slogans and appeals to gut instinct. Gordon Campbell has an interesting article (On why even financial analysts are jumping ship on the asset sales plan) that asks the question that really matters: Do the numbers add up? He quotes financial analyst Brent Sheather’s NZ Herald piece from a few weeks ago to argue that undoubtedly the government will get a poor price for the assets.

The asset sales issue has also highlighted the fundamental difficulties the Maori Party faces trying to preserve their voting base while being a junior coalition partner. Their position is that they oppose the sales, but if they go ahead then they want special status for iwi buyers. This is not really a cut-through policy position – especially when your current coalition partner is very clear they will be sold and there will be no special deals.

Tariana Turia says they have learnt from their first three years in government and will be wanting more policy concessions in the next term – see: Audrey Young’s Turia: We are in a better position this time around. It seems they are positioning themselves for another term with National, certainly being at pains not to take any position that would prevent that. However, Kate Chapman’s analysis (Maori Party appears to be quiet achiever) may be cold comfort on election night. MMP politics is littered with the corpses of junior coalition ‘quiet achievers’. Winston Peters – who is anything and everything except quiet – may be the exception that proves the rule. And Hone Harawira, having freed himself from the relationship with National, is able to project a far more decisive and forceful image for Mana – which can be seen in Yvonne Tahana’s Harawira calls for war on poverty [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

Do opinion polls influence voters? (3): The 2008 New Zealand general election case study

An examination of the 2008 New Zealand general election provides indications of the existence of the influence of opinion polls on voter behaviour. This blog post shows how in that election, the National Party benefitted from the bandwagon effect, while Labour and New Zealand First received increases in support attributable to the underdog effect. Likewise, National and Labour electorate candidates, the New Zealand First, Act, and United Future Parties, and Jim Anderton benefited from strategic voting based on opinion poll results. The Green Party, however, was likely negatively impacted by third party squeeze. These results indicate that exposure to opinion poll results are likely to also influence citizens’ vote choice on election day in 2011. This blog post is the third in a series of five guest posts by University of Otago Politics student Michelle Nicol, who has recently carried out research on opinion poll influences. [Read more below]

NZ Politics Daily - 23 November

National chose to make asset sales an election issue by announcing its policy of partial privatisation of selected State Owned Enterprises, and Labour has attempted to make the election a referendum about it. Yet, despite being unpopular with voters the issue has never really obtained the popular traction that Labour had hoped for. This gulf between voter belief and behaviour is perplexing. On the one hand privatisation has become a dirty word in New Zealand politics and National’s policy is opposed by a significant majority of voters; yet on the other hand the issue does not seem to translate into voters punishing National at the polls. As Brian Rudman says in his useful analysis today (Win will not give Nats right to sell assets), ‘While overwhelmingly opposed to state asset sales' voters have 'put that issue to one side, preferring to treat Saturday's vote more as a contest between two presidential-like rivals. And here, Mr Key has no rivals’. 

Another explanation for the failure of the asset sales issue to save Labour is the simple fact that the public has no great emotional or rational attachment to the status quo, and in general, Labour and National's positions are not as dissimilar as their might first appear. Very few voters hold any sort of emotional connection with a business like Solid Energy, and most would fail to even identify which energy companies are state owned. Labour's policy is to retain businesses like Solid Energy under the State Owned Enterprises Act, which means that they run along totally commercial lines and with the profits going to the current shareholder – effectively the Treasury. Therefore the real policy debate is between the option of Labour’s ‘Corporatised model’ for the energy companies or National’s ‘half-corporatised, half-privatised’ model. As far as citizens are concerned, in practice there’s really no difference in these models – both mean high electricity prices and the market model. So what might on the surface look to some like two opposite policy models (‘privatization versus public ownership’) is in reality a false dichotomy, because Labour's status quo means that those assets in question currently operate outside of any sort of public control and they serve no real social function beyond profit. For more on this, see my previous blog post, A leftwing perspective on asset sales. In line with this, it’s also worth reading Brian Fallow’s analysis (Both parties overstating benefits of asset policies;), which correctly points out that ‘Both major parties have exaggerated the fiscal benefits of their respective policies by glossing over the opportunity costs involved - dividends foregone in National's case and a higher interest bill in Labour's’. For Labour’s view on the issue, see John Pagani’s two items today: We've already sold assets - and ended up with debt and Do you really want to sell our assets?. 

In the last few days of the campaign, National’s asset sales policy has come under increasing scrutiny. This is partly because National itself hasn’t put it under any scrutiny – particularly their assurances that the assets will be sold to New Zealanders – see: TVNZ’s Ombudsman called in over asset sales. Today, National has gone on the defensive, emphasising that there will be regulation to stop any private owner buying too many shares in a company – see: Derek Cheng’s Asset sales: Govt considers 10pc cap plan. For more on the disjuncture between the unpopular policy and the popular National Party, see Adam Bennett’s Key's popularity unaffected by asset sale plan. 

Despite not being much of a salient issue for voter choice in the election, the issue of asset sales is at least acting as an important vehicle for the discussion of coalition possibilities for the minor parties that would seek to negotiate with National after election day. For the Maori Party, in particular, the issue is problematic. On the one hand they say they oppose asset sales, but if they were sold they would try to ensure iwi corporate buyers would get preferential treatment. National – their current and prospective coalition partner – isn’t having a bar of it, undermining the Maori Party’s main campaign thrust that it makes real gains for Maori by sitting around the table with National.  

The Greens, too, have to deal with the issue of asset sales when considering whether to support a National Government after the election. And today it’s been reported that ‘The Green Party has put asset sales at the centre of any post-election negotiations – but stopped short of ruling out a deal with National’ – see: Paloma Migone’s SOE sales likely deal breaker for Greens. Once again, it seems, the Greens are being opaque in their messages about post-election arrangements with National.

John Armstrong has written an excellent article on this topic, emphasising the important post-election role the Greens might play in conjunction with National – see: Cliffhanger could see Key drinking tea with Greens. Armstrong points out that all political parties feign opposition to their rivals during the campaign, but after the vote count they immediately start coalescing, and there’s absolutely no reason to consider the Greens any different. He concludes that despite the ‘circumspect’ details given by co-leader Russel Norman about working with National, ‘one way or another, National and the Greens will talk turkey after the election’. Similarly, Gordon Campbell has written about this, saying that ‘the Greens have to explain in the closing days of the campaign just how they would go about the difficult task of constructive engagement with a National-led government’ – see: On the Greens’ end game this week. Campbell astutely argues that ‘In the coming days, the Greens may decide to specify (and if not, it should definitely be asked) what it plans to add to its current MOU agenda, and what it reasonably expects National can be induced to give away in order to get the Greens into the negotiating frame’. For other items on the Greens today, see: John Hartevelt’s Green Party's unexpected surge, Kate Chapman’s Key doubts Green Party figures, and Danya Levy’s Mojo Mathers set to be New Zealand's first deaf MP. 

Apart from asset sales, the other big policy issue of the day is poverty and inequality in New Zealand – which is on the public agenda due to TV3’s controversial screening last night of a documentary about child poverty – see: Strong reaction to damning TV child poverty doco. Other recent items worth reading about this include: Gordon Campbell’s On child poverty, Ally Mullord’s Child poverty doco 'apolitical' – filmmaker, Kiwipolitico’s Impoverished, RNZ’s Renewed focus on poverty in campaign, and Brian Easton’s NZ Child welfare a disgrace.

Other must-read items about the campaign include the following: Isaac Davision’s Mana fills void as rivals drift to centre, Vernon Small’s Five things I'm sick of hearing, Giovanni Tiso’s Posterous, Andrew Geddis’ The Bradley Ambrose non decision, Audrey Young’s Maori Party weighs up balance of power tactics, Tracy Watkins’ National still cosy in polls after tea break and John Hartevelt’s Sound and fury signifies little to voters. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

NZ Politics Daily - 22 November

This election campaign has a certain depoliticised and contrived aspect to it. Certainly the gap between politicians and the public has never been larger, with little meaningful engagement by politicians with the public, low enrolment for the election, and the likelihood of a low voter turnout on Saturday. This is the focus of my opinion piece in the Herald today: Designer politics a real turn-off for the nation's voters. I explain why fewer people are voting in general elections and why we shouldn’t condemn those that choose not to participate. This is contentious, and there are always plenty of voices demanding that we all perform our ‘democratic duty’ at election time – see, for example Jane Bowron’s Get off your backsides and vote – please. Such directives – while well intentioned – won’t resonate with those who feel patronised by being told you ‘must vote’ regardless of how repulsed you are by what passes for the options on offer and the electoral circus that is the contemporary campaign.

Brian Edwards writes an excellent blog post on the inauthenticity of modern party policies – and how instead of coming up with genuinely held beliefs and trying to convince us of these, modern political parties ‘follow’ the public through the use of market research so as to give the public want they want – see: Leadership, Followship and the Tyranny of the Focus Group. 

There are quite a few items today about the inanities of election advertising – especially billboards. For example, in Confusion reigns amid sign blitz, Joshua Drummond has written an amusing parody of the ‘sign-gularity’ notion that we all simply vote for the party with the best and most billboards. Similarly, a Nelson Mail editorial (Ugly billboards are obvious targets; asks if ‘a single voter has been empty-headed enough to cast his or her votes based simply – or even partly – on the message contained on a political billboard?’ Other interesting items about billboards include Michelle Cooke’s Kaye lets public loose with her slogans  and Blog Idle’s Billboards, trees and comparative loveliness . And Peter Lange’s pro-Paul Goldsmith campaign poster for Epsom – which is aimed at sinking the Act Party – can be downloaded from here: Epsom campaign poster, by Peter Lange. 

A lot of questions are being asked at the moment about the legitimacy and ethics of some more extreme forms of negative campaigning. Derek Cheng reports today on the Labour Party’s justification for sending out advertising that seeks to shock people out of voting for National – see: 'Hard hitting' leaflet tells truth, says Goff. Whaleoil broke the original story with his blog post, Labour is the nasty party, ctd. Since then, Matthew Hooton has blogged a scathing attack on Labour’s Grant Robertson for losing his ‘moral compass’: Labour plumbs new depths . David Farrar covers similar themes in Flirting with the truth. Russell Brown also covers the issue of social media campaigning on election day – see: The Solemnity of the Day. But it might be meteorological conditions that are a much greater factor in the election outcome – see Philip Duncan’s Talk about the weather, and politics. 

Unsurprisingly, the Greens are receiving a lot of attention this week – partly because of their very high opinion poll ratings (which will probably rise further), and because the party is now set to potentially play a central role in determining post-election governmental arrangements. Some heat is being applied to the party in an attempt to clarify its new coalition policy – see RNZ’s Greens not ruling out confidence and supply deal with National and TV3’s Greens coalition with National "hypothetical question" – Norman. Other interesting items about the Greens include: TV3’s Green Party ready to flex muscles after election, Adam Bennett’s Greens promise help for small businesses, TV3’s A harder edge to the Greens?, Paul Little’s Greens thrive as we face dirty truth, No Right Turn’s The Greens, abstention and cooperation, and the Herald’s editorial Wild Greens nowhere to be seen.

iPredict has launched a new Greens-related election stock option: ‘Labour party vote to exceed Green party vote by at least 10 points in the 2011 General Election’, and this is currently trading at a 97% possibility (which is surely way too high). Also, on iPredict, the stocks for ‘At least one Green Party MP to be a Minister in next government’ has now edged up to 20%. 

Other very worthwhile reads today are: Karl du Fresne’s Claiming political scalps for sport, Claire Robinson’s Undies Undies Togs: Undressing the Epsom Talk Scandal, Deborah Russell’s Property divide creating second-class citizens, Keith Ng’s Brain Drain Et Cetera, Tim Watkin’s TV3 leaders' debate - my first impressions, and Gordon Campbell’s On last night’s TV3 debate. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

NZ Politics Daily - 21 November

As we enter the final week of the election campaign, messages from National and Labour (and their acolytes) are becoming very focused. The Winston Peters bogeyman line is the consistent theme being pushed by John Key and right wing commentators – see this covered in the following stories: John Armstrong’s Spectre of resurgent Peters has PM dancing to different tune and Audrey Young’s John Key’s new target: Winston. 

Obviously New Zealand First is both a threat and an opportunity for National. It’s a threat because the Peters party has a very good chance of making it over the 5% threshold – and this is the only scenario in which National might reasonably be expected to lose power. The teapot tapes drama has given Peters invaluable media coverage at exactly the right time.

The nightmare scenario for National is this: Winston Peters clearing 5%, Act and United Future out of parliament and National trending downwards to below 48%. Under this situation National could still lose what once seemed to be an unloseable election.

PublishOf course it’s also an opportunity for National to scare their voters out of complacency, to frighten wavering voters who may not want National to have absolute power but still want a National government, and to terrify the National voters of Epsom into supporting John Banks. Other important or interesting items on this include: Dim Post’s Dogwhistle of the day and Imperator Fish’s very funny blog post, Trying Hard To Lose which paints a picture of the extremes Paul Goldsmith might be forced to go to in order to throw the election in Epsom. 

Labour has two straws remaining to which they are clutching for dear life. The first is that there is an outside chance they can still win the election. No one likes voting for losers and so they have to be seen as being contenders in the last week. The rise of Winston Peters – even though it may be partially at a cost to their own vote – actually gives Labour some slim hope. So despite Peters taking equal whacks at Labour as well as National, Labour are biting their tongues.

The only real ammunition Labour has left is opposition to asset sales and they will hammer this for the rest of the week – see: Audrey Young’s two items, Labour stakes it all on stopping asset sales and Goff: 'New Zealand is not for sale'. Even so, blogger Steven Cowan raises questions about the authenticity of Labour’s campaign on this issue. See Empty posturing over state assets. 

Apart from asset sales there is a chance that no other actual policy might see the light of day in this campaign, although TV3 is screening what looks like a very interesting and heavily political documentary tomorrow night – see: Michelle Duff’s Shock look at NZ's child poverty. On issues of inequality, also see Tapu Misa’s Differing values widen the chasm. 

 It’s likely that the teapot saga will continue to dominate as it has for the past week. Although the issue is probably irritating and boring the vast majority of voters and politicos, it just won’t die. Today the Herald is supposed to be subjected to a Police search warrant, tomorrow the cameraman will get his day in the High Court, and on Wednesday TVNZ is expected to receive their visit from the Police. This will continue to impact negatively on the two major parties, raising further questions about the Prime Minister’s handling of the matter, and depriving Labour of much needed media attention. Winston Peters and the Greens will hope the controversy carries on, boosting their chances for Saturday.

Items worth reading on the teapot tapes include: Vernon Small’s Tea party rivals Alice's stupidest ever, Vernon Small and Kate Chapman’s Tape talk private, say voters, John Armstrong’s The best and the worst of weeks for John Key, the Herald editorials Teapot affair too trivial for raids on media and Key counts cost of evasiveness, the Standard’s How bad are National’s internals?, and Andrew Geddis’ Time for a cup of tea, perhaps. 

Other important reads today are: Mathew Grocott’s Massey poll survey gives interesting reading, Rob Salmond’s Poll of polls update, and some projections, too, and Bernard Hickey’s Politicians avoiding main concerns. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

 

Do opinion polls influence voters? (2): What influences exist?

There is no consensus as to whether exposure to election opinion poll results influences citizens’ vote choice on election day. Some academics reject the suggestion that election polls cause a bandwagon effect, induce an underdog effect, or encourage strategic voting, while others believe these influences are not only a possibility, but a reality. This second blog post is the sccond in a series of five guest posts by University of Otago Politics student Michelle Nicol, who has recently carried out research on opinion poll influences. In this theory-based post she examines key overseas literature and the theoretical justifications for each of the three possible election poll influences. In doing so, a framework for analysis of the New Zealand case is developed. This evaluation shows that each of the three election poll influences exist: opinion polls do indeed cause a bandwagon effect, induce an underdog effect, and encourage strategic voting. Election polls influence voters in the US and UK. [Read more below]

Do opinion polls influence voters? (1): Introduction

Election opinion polls are controversial: data gathering methods are not universally agreed upon, results are said to be open to manipulation and they have marginalised issue based political coverage in the media. Crucially, however, election polls are said to interfere with democratic integrity by influencing citizens’ vote choice on election day. This in turn is said to justify a prohibition on the publication of election poll results for a period of time prior to an election. These contentions are investigated in the following series of five guest blog posts by University of Otago Politics student Michelle Nicol. Based on her Honours dissertation, Nichol these blog posts ask whether election polls influenced voters at the 2008 New Zealand general election by either causing a bandwagon effect, inducing underdog effect or encouraging strategic voting. As no comprehensive examination of this topic has previously been undertaken, a framework for evaluation of the New Zealand case is constructed using overseas literature. Events from the 2008 election campaign, election poll results, media coverage and NZES data are then applied to that framework. Results indicate that New Zealanders are in fact ‘poll-driven fruitcakes’, as once lamented by David Lange. Despite this, Nicol concludes that claims of election poll interference with democratic integrity are weak. She argues that prohibitions on the publication of poll results would in reality be more damaging to democratic integrity in New Zealand than the influences of polls themselves. This first blog post provides an overview of the issue. [Read more below]

NZ Politics Daily - 18 November

The Green surge continues. The Green Party has so far had a near perfect election campaign, and they have strategically repositioned themselves for considerable mainstream success next week. They’re on track to peak just at the right time – the three opinion polls released in the last 24-hours all put them on remarkable 13% of the vote – see, for example: Labour hits ten year low in latest poll. iPredict now has the Greens on a projected 11.3% party vote which suggests that pundits believe the Greens won’t suffer badly from the usual problems the party has getting its own supporters to actually turn up to the polling booths. 

This has made the Greens the party to watch during the campaign. The party has received ample media coverage – and, according to recent academic research, they’ve received a greater proportion of positive coverage than any other party. But there is a lack of detailed examination of the party, especially since it has changed so dramatically in recent years. They really are the ‘New Greens’ under new management. 

A re-examination of the Green Party is particularly important in light of its significant new coalition policy of ‘leaving the door open’ to supporting a National Government. This really is central to the new-look Greens. It has made the party appear more relevant to any post-election scenario, and has underlined the party’s new centrist political positioning. But would the party really go into a coalition with the rightwing National Party? Officially the line is that it would be ‘highly unlikely’, but this is frustratingly vague, especially as it becomes apparent there is no chance of a Labour-led government. At the moment, iPredict has projected the likelihood of this happening under the trading stock of: ‘At least one Green Party MP to be a Minister in next government’. Currently the stock is trading at 19% - which is certainly greater than ‘highly unlikely’.

Rightwing political commentator Matthew Hooton says that the Greens will be a crucial determinant of the make-up of the next National government – see his analysis on the Stratos iPredict election programme last night. Hooton predicts that after the election John Key will invite Russel Norman into his government, with policy sweeteners and the chance to sideline the Act Party. 

Political/financial journalist Pattrick Smellie is also of the opinion that the Greens are now at the centre of - not just the political spectrum - but of determining future coalition governments – see: 2014 and the Greens: the timetable that really counts. Smellie says that ‘National will almost certainly have to deal more constructively and actively with the Green Party than it might have otherwise, since the Greens will again be the third largest party in the next Parliament’.

While the Greens new-found respectability may be attracting swing voters, Morgan Godfery argues in today's Herald that their new centrist popularity will come at a cost to their traditional support base and speculates who is best placed to benefit – see: Mana ready to pick up disaffected Green-activist vote. Other useful recent items on the Greens include: Sarah Robson’s Election 2011: Q&A with Russel Norman and TV3’s Russel Norman - dreaming of cleaner pastures. 

The latest opinion polls also show that the teapot tape saga has not yet damaged National’s popularity to a significant degree. National’s support remains steadfastly around 50%. It’s possible that the damage to John Key has not yet properly filtered through to the polls – they were both taken in the period before this really blew up. But there’s a very good chance that no damage has been done at all. That’s the analysis of Matthew Hooton, who writes in the NBR today that ‘National’s [own] polling was showing that more than 60% of voters regarded the teapot issue as silly, trivial and vastly over-reported.  Only 11% wanted the media to stick with the topic’. 

New Zealand First are clearly benefitting from the teapot tapes saga – see, for example, Audrey Young’s Poll shock: Winston within a whisker and Peter Wilson’s Media stunt bungle helps propel NZ First. According to iPredict, the chances of Winston Peters being elected to Parliament are now 43%.

The teapot tapes issue is no longer just about their content, but about the relationship between politicians and the media. For more on this, and good commentary on the saga see the following items: John Armstrong’s PM's blustering a reminder of Muldoon days, Guyon Espiner’s Policies shunted to background by teapot tape, Tracy Watkins’ Tea stains may be hard to shake, John Drinnan’s Labour waits as police leap in for Key, Russell Brown’s A week being a long time in politics, and Tim Watkin's Governing alone - time to talk about power. 

Labour is judged to be another loser in the whole affair because the party is being crowded out from the election debate – see, for example James Murray’s Goff's the surprise teapot tape loser. This is why we’re seeing reports such as this one: Goff 'sick to death' of teapot tapes. 

Issues of inequality and MP high pay are still resonating today, with some excellent comment in the following items: Dom Post’s editorial MP’s travel perk raise unwarranted, Kate Newton’s MPs 'don't deserve' pay rise, Adam Bennett’s Ministers' salary bump outstrips most voters', and No Right Turn’s Joining the top 1%. The Dominion Post even led today with a sole frontpage story – Lane Nichols’ Revealing the gap between NZ's rich and poor. 

Other very good election campaign items today include: Mathew Grocott’s Voters turned off by SOE, retirement policies, Isaac Davison’s Every picture tells a story, even if sometimes it can be the wrong one, Ali Ikram’s Defacing Labour billboards with Goff's face and the Reading the Maps’ blog post, Labour, neo-liberalism, and a blueberry smoothie: a chat with Carmel. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

NZ Politics Daily - 17 November

The fateful meeting between John Key and John Banks has become the defining moment of the election campaign. The affair has spiraled out of control for National and its campaign is suffering death by a thousand cuts, with the latest damage inflicted by another Key own-goal. By inviting police intervention (TVNZ, RNZ to be searched) Key has raised the stakes – a decision he may already be regretting.

Russell Brown, in a must-read blog post, Criminalising Journalism, argues that ‘a psychotically aggressive press statement by Steven Joyce’, bizarrely comparing it to the News of the World phone hacking scandal, ‘criminalizing the media’ and ‘the decision to drive a wedge between the public and the news media – has done enduring damage. This thing has gone to a very bad place’. It’s true that dangerous territory is being traversed when the police get involved in elections and media.

There’s a wealth of quality reporting and analysis on the teapot tapes drama today. The following items are particular worth reading, starting from the most important: John Armstrong’s Trapped by the tape - Key losing control, Gordon Campbell’s On Epsom, Derek Cheng’s two items: Key stands by suicide remarks and Nats pull out of teapot tape radio interview, Vernon Small’s It's the message, not the medium, Danya Levy’s Refusal to release tape a bad look – Brash, Duncan Garner’s Tape saga reveals 'changing face of PM', the Herald’s editorial, Time to get the chat out in the open, and the Manawatu Standard’s editorial Key only has self to blame for cuppa-gate.

A big part of the problem in Epsom is that National Party candidate Paul Goldsmith clearly does not want to win, going to great lengths to avoid campaigning for the electorate vote. Goldsmith has been photographed taking down election advertising encouraging a vote for him – although he seems to be the victim of a setup (Signs were bogus, says Goldsmith). 

Overall, the National-Act strategy in Epsom has badly backfired. This is reinforced by today’s mini-poll result that shows Goldsmith is leading the contest – see Andrea Vance’s ACT polls at wipeout low in Epsom. 

The ‘fake candidate’ phenomenon is certainly not confined to Epsom. There are candidates in electorates everywhere who are doing their damndest not to receive electorate votes – often specifically asking people not to vote for them. Every Green Party candidate across the country, for example, seems to be saying ‘don’t vote for me’ and is using their candidacy as a backdoor method to promote a party vote for the Greens. As I’ve argued before, this brings MMP into disrepute and is entirely unnecessary – see: ‘Fake’ electorate candidates. And today, we see a strange twist on this phenomenon with Act’s John Boscawen suddenly saying that he would actually like to win Tamaki despite saying he was retiring from politics – see Derek Cheng’s Boscawen quit ... but now he's back . 

National is also facing criticism at the moment from its traditional supporters – business. According to an interesting survey of business leaders (Party time is over Prime Minister). It seems that captains of industry are less than impressed with the speed of National’s uber-pragmatic approach to economic reform. See also, Fran O’Sullivan’s two items of analysis: Business loses confidence in Act and Top marks for the circuses, now what about the bread? 

The minor party leaders debate last night is still being discussed and evaluated. There seems to be a consensus that Winston Peters and Hone Harawira were the best performers – see, in particular, John Armstrong’s Hone a surprise stand out, Claire Trevett’s Peters returns to old form, Tracy Watkins’ Peters comes out firing in debate, and Andrea Vance’s Winston Peters winner in minor party debate. Tracy Watkins notes that ‘Green Party co-leader Russel Norman remained steadfastly "on message" as he tried desperately not to break the formula which has seen his party rise in the polls by appearing a more moderate force’.

Most leaders brought some light to the issue of post-election coalitions but Russel Norman typically chose to obfuscate rather than illuminate their party’s likely role after polling day. It seems that the Green Party wants its voters to trust the party to do the backroom negotiations and come up with the best deal from either Labour and National. Related to this, Claire Trevett’s Maori Party gains stronger voice in union with Nats deals further with National’s post-election options.

Apart from the teapot tape saga, the main theme of this year’s election campaign has been the economy, with the subtopics of austerity and inequality sometimes giving the debate a more significant and meaningful nature. It’s therefore appropriate that with a week to go in the campaign, we now have a chance to talk about MP remuneration due to news that politicians are suddenly getting a pay rise of about $7000 each – see: Kate Newton’s MPs get pay rise package of $7000 and No Right Turn’s Earning that reputation X. 

As I’ve argued in detail before, MPs are incredibly highly paid – in fact with salary packages of between $180,000 and $500,000, New Zealand Members of Parliament currently earn more than 99% of their constituents. So, to modify the slogan of the Occupy movement, MPs are now part of the 1% against the 99%. There is actually a very good argument for putting all MPs on the average wage. Interestingly, John Minto has made this demand before, but when I asked him in a Vote Chat interview recently (view here) he refused to commit to that or to advocate it for his Mana Party colleagues. Nonetheless, the Mana Party are speaking out against the pay rise – see: Mana outrage over MPs' $7000 pay rise and Harawira calls for MPs to donate pay rise.

The Mana Party is particularly interesting at the moment. The party has been evolving quickly and is no longer simply a Hone Harawira Maori nationalist party – see: See Chris Whitworth’s Sue Bradford - the Pakeha with Mana, and also some interesting policy announcements from Mana: Mana releases 'Top 10 Crimes of the Millennium' list and Harawira says Cabinet should be drug tested. Certainly we’re seeing a quite different version of Hone Harawira these days – in the minor party leaders debate his new-found constructive and composed approach was well received. 

Some of the most fascinating electoral battles are occurring in the Maori seats, and today Rawiri Taonui has a decent roundup of them in his article, The Maori vote. Taonui makes the following important point about the Te Tai Tonga contest: ‘Ask anyone and a month ago Labour's Te Rino Tirakatene was going to win Te Tai Tonga. Not so now. Enthusiastic, bilingual and articulate Mana candidate and son of Ngapuhi "Hurricane" Clinton Dearlove stole the live debate. He will not win but who he takes votes from will decide the outcome’. So despite previous assumptions it seems that the Maori Party’s Rahui Katene is in with a fighting chance of holding on. I’m interviewing Katene tomorrow in my final University of Otago Vote Chat meeting. It’s filmed in high definition, and you can watch it live-streamed at www.bit.ly/ruN37y or watch them later on YouTube here. Tomorrow’s interview with Katene is at 12 noon - please watch online or follow on Twitter (the hashtag is #OUVotechat2011), and let me know if you have any questions for the Maori Party MP.

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

NZ Politics Daily - 16 November

It’s looking like a potential ‘game-changer’ now. The so-called teapot tapes have somehow become the single biggest issue of the election, and are seriously threatening the stability of Nationals carefully orchestrated campaign. Opinion polls have consistently pointed to a landslide victory to National, but the potential for movement is now very real. It’s conceivable that Key’s handling of the incident will put a major dent in his reputation and image.

In addition, New Zealand First has been allowed back into the campaign, and might now be threatening the 5% threshold. It would also be a great irony if Key, in attempting to save Act, inadvertently delivered the killer blow.

The best analysis of the day on the teapot tapes is Tim Watkin’s Out of a teapot and into hot water and John Armstrong’s 'Teapot tape' could nail lid to Act coffin. Both writers explain very well how John Key has mismanaged this political issue and ended up in a quandary. 

Other very useful items on this issue include Tracy Watkin’s Key ups the stakes over tea tape, Gordon Campbell’s On the cuppa tea tape and billboard circuses, Brian Rudman’s Key plays risky game over taping, Reading the Maps’ Why 'Teagate' is anything but trivial, and the Taranaki Daily News editorial Live by the sword . . .. The most humorous comment comes from Denis Welch, who dreams up a John Key-Zac Guildford scenario on his Opposable thumb blogsite – see: Key tea vow. 

Surely it won’t be long now before the recording is released - officially or otherwise (see: Pundits believe Teapot Tape will be public soon). Much of it is already in the public arena via speculation and the pointed questions of political journalists like Duncan Garner, who has clearly got the bit between his teeth and is not about to let go. Matthew Hooton believes that National needs to do what they should have done from the start and front up properly on the issue – see: Oh dear! Key stuffs up big time. After comparing Key’s gaffe to Helen Clark’s infamous arrogant and angry ‘corngate’ interview with John Campbell, Hooton explains National’s problem: ‘National needs desperately to move on to this issue.  The problem is that the Prime Minister's success over the last few years is so great that his team hasn't had much experience in dealing with political crises.  To quote someone else, he is a victim of his own success as a popular and competent prime minister’.

The person with the most to gain from the teapot tapes coming out is probably Winston Peters – see: John Hartevelt and Andrea Vance’s Winston Peters relishes opening over tape, and there’s a decent chance that Peters will use tonight’s minor party leaders debate on TVNZ to spill the beans.

Danyl Mclauchlan raises a good point on his Dim-Post blog, Minor point, where he points out that ‘the tea-pot tape saga keys into a huge range of really substantive issues: the Prime Minister’s integrity; media ethics; surveillance... It’s about political management of the media, and the farce that is the ACT Party, and National’s endorsement of said farce’.

It is true that the teapot and billboard vandalism issues dominating the news today have given rise to important moral and ethical questions about politics and elections. In terms of the teapot tapes, the questions include: Is it ethical to record politicians’ conversations? Is it ethical to publish the transcripts? Is it OK for the state to spy on people, but not for people to spy on representatives of the state? Are political leaders ‘fair game’ for recording their conversations when they invite the media along for a publicity stunt?

National is not keen to answer questions – as we’ve seen today with John Key’s dramatic press conference walkout – see Derek Cheng’s Key storms off over tape question. But others are answering those questions with considerable authority and intelligence, including the British lawyer representing News of the World phone-hacking victims, who says that it is indeed in the public interest for the transcript of the recording to be released – see: Amelia Wade’s Prime Minister's 'cheap shot' . 

Just as the teapot tapes are a PR nightmare for National, the billboard vandalism saga threatens the Green Party’s surge in the opinion polls. As today’s Herald editorial points out (Sign vandals may cost Greens dearly), this is exactly the sort of issue that will worry the Greens’ new-found support base amongst middle-of-the-road voters who admire the party’s new moderation and respectability - see Adam Bennett and Amelia Romanos’ Vandalism links blow for Greens and Tracy Watkins’ Greens come clean over dirty tactics. Blogger Ele Ludemann – like others – raises questions about how much the Green Party MPs knew about the billboard vandalism campaign (Wild greens behind urbane front). She claims that it’s still not clear the billboard vandals ‘were not acting on the party’s behalf’, and in fact, ‘I have found no reference to any assurance from any other MP or office holder in the party. Until they give one it is legitimate to ask did any of them know anything about the plan or its execution before this morning?’. Similarly, in his blog post, Unanswered questions re Jolyon White, David Farrar says ‘The Greens have not said how many of their parliamentary staff knew about the campaign. We know at least one did. They have said they will not investigate until after the election. This leaves open the possibility that several of their staff knew, or were involved, in the campaign’.

In terms of the ethics of the Green Party related billboard vandalism, the following questions are being widely discussed: Is it OK to deface billboards during an election campaign? Where do you draw the line in between harmless billboard political pranks and systematic dirty tricks that infringe on the freedom of speech of opponents? Are political parties responsible for the actions of their members or activists? Is it appropriate for political party leaders to dob in their party members to the authorities for billboard activism?

Ex-Green Party MP Sue Bradford answers that last question with an outraged ‘No’ – see: Danya Levy’s Greens accused of selling out over billboard stoush, or listen to Bradford on RNZ’s Checkpoint). Not only does the Mana Party candidate say that the Greens have ‘sold out their own people’, she argues that billboard defacing is an acceptable and normal part of the electoral political discourse. In agreement with this is Steven Price and Kiwipolitco who both argue that a bit of billboard damage should be an acceptable part of the campaign as long as it doesn’t shift into the type of large-scale operation we’ve witnessed in the last few days – see: Price’s Billboard “vandals” and Kiwipolitico’s On Billboards. In contrast to this, John Pagani makes a good argument that Vandalism isn't free speech.

Finally, check out the account of Sue Bradford’s very interesting views on the Green Party in her live Herald-online chat today: Bradford: Mana a 'party for the future', as well as a very good blog post analysing the shift of the Greens into the centre of the left-right political spectrum: Kiwipolitico’s Against Centrism. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

NZ Politics Daily - 15 November

This election campaign really is descending into a circus. On the one hand all the parties, bloggers, and commentators are fighting over a storm in a teacup – see John Armstrong’s Key silence on tea tape cause for suspicion for the best coverage of this. And on the other hand, Green Party activists are caught red-handed in the type of juvenile billboard vandalism that the Greens are doing their utmost to disassociate themselves from – see Amelia Romanos’ Greens billboard vandal quits. Also see Vernon Small’s excellent Red faces over billboard campaign. 

So where is all the policy focus that was promised for the campaign? Why has it all suddenly descended into trivialities, legalities, and pettiness? Part of the answer is that the political parties have all contrived to make this campaign utterly boring and mostly meaningless. National and the Greens, in particular, have so far been ultra-cautious in this election, running tightly controlled and highly scripted campaigns. But such control-freakery is never liable to last and in the last few days we have seen some own goals from Key and Green party members. And these careless episodes really do have the potential to badly damage their campaigns, because both the teapot tapes and billboard damage campaigns relate to issues of political integrity.

Integrity is one of the biggest electoral assets for both parties, and in contemporary times is one of the main factors in peoples’ voting decisions. Policy is less important than perceptions of whether parties and politicians are authentic, honest, and reliable. And John Key and the Greens have this in spades. Both are going to have that reputation tarnished as the result of the two big issues of the day.

There’s plenty of advice for John Key today regarding what he should and shouldn’t do about the tea tapes. Opposition parties are only barely concealing their glee behind earnest handwringing about unethical taping, all the while insisting that public interest demands the release of the tape. 

Meanwhile David Farrar argues that the distraction is as bad for Labour – see: A distraction Labour doesn't need. And it’s no doubt true that Labour would prefer to be landing direct hits on National itself over policy, but seeing your opponent shoot themselves in the foot is surely the next best thing.

Key’s position that he’s got nothing to hide and won’t agree to the release of the tapes on principle is looking fairly shaky. Reporting it to the police has only upped the stakes and ensured the story is prolonged.

Now that the recording has gone further than just the Herald on Sunday, it seems almost inevitable that the content will be known within days. If not, then the Herald would have a bonanza publishing the transcript, analysis of it, and reaction to it – all in their last paper before polling day. In justifying the publication of the recording they will be able to point to the massive public interest that has built during the week.

The intention of National’s complaint to the Police complaint may be simply an attempt to buy the party a bit of time to work out how to spin this rather than preventing the release altogether. Certainly this is part of Gordon Campbell’s excellent analysis: On the Banks/Key taping saga. Other essential views on the matter can be read in John Hartevelt’s What's in the teapot tapes, really?, Andrea Vance’s Cuppagate so much more fun than policy, Andrew Geddis’ The Conversation, and Karl du Fresne’s The funny business at the Cafe Urban. du Fresne, in particular, makes a very good point about how the media in this situation was able to (thankfully) break out of the oppressive directives of the highly-controlling politicos: ‘it was symbolic of a tightly controlled media operation in which political journalists are expected to dance to a ballet choreographed by Beehive spin-meisters…. The whole affair was conducted entirely on the politicians’ terms, for the politicians’ benefit, and to that extent, pretty much summed up what the modern election campaign, with all its jiggery-pokery, has become; and I have to admit I’d find it quite satisfying if something hideously embarrassing came out of it all’.

All in all, the cup of tea has spectacularly backfired. The deal was always going to be seen as dodgy and the impression of Banks and Key desperately trying to conceal what was really said has magnified this impression tenfold. No matter how much Brash is disliked by the public, stabbing your own colleagues in the back in secret is never a good look. If this sinks the Epsom strategy then Act are doomed and for John Key undermines the smiley, blokey, good-mate-next-door image. Who wants to have a beer with someone who will be knifing you in the back the next time he shares a brew.

The defacing of National’s billboards by Green Party members is obviously an embarrassment to the leadership of the Greens, and Russel Norman’s reaction show’s just how far the Greens are pushing into the mainstream. As Vernon Small points out (Red faces over billboard campaign), once they would have ‘reveled’ in these tactics but now they are obviously petrified of offending potential new supporters who hold the sanctity of private property above freedom of political expression. Small rightly points out that ‘It is a measure of how much the Greens have changed that their new moderate mainstream image is now so at odds with some of their grass roots who germinated in protests like this.  But with their poll rating above 10 per cent, and starting to pick up more and more middle-class voters,  the last thing they need is a controversy that highlights the party's protest wing’. The Dim-Post agrees, saying that the obvious conclusion to draw is that ‘it highlights the disparity between the Greens’ desired voter target – middle class suburban voters who not anti-National and will vote for the ‘new Greens’ because they are a serious party and not a bunch of anarchists – and the Green Party’s activist base, who are a bunch of anti-National anarchists’. This point about the contradictory balancing that the Greens are having to perform has recently been the subject of in depth research by Otago University Politics student Niki Lomax – see her blog posts on this here. 

The billboard attacks by Greens is strongly condemned and analysed by David Farrar in his blog post, It was the Greens. As with other commentators, Farrar draws the parallels with the Exclusive Brethren campaign in 2005. This will be an ongoing comparison, because the Greens have constantly used the Exclusive Brethren example in their campaigns to ‘clean up’ election regulations and political finance, but now appear to be similarly tarnished. 

Of course the rule for these types of political ‘black ops’ is don’t get caught. That the Greens responsible for the attack then did interviews and put out a press release is mind bogglingly incompetent and almost rivals the foolishness of having a secret conversation just metres away from an assembled media horde.

An issue that should be a feature of this campaign is the MMP referendum. The outcome of this will arguably have a much more far-reaching and ongoing impact on the country than whether Labour or National lead the next government. Sadly the referendum has been heavily overshadowed by the political party chase for votes. Quite simply the politicians have no great interest in fostering or leading debate about the referendum, and so they’ve forsaken that role. Nonetheless there is some quality analysis being contributed to the debate. For example, today Prof Jack Vowles nicely demolishes the anti-MMP argument about the supposedly lack of accountability under the current system. His research shows that MMP has led to a greater degree of MPs being ‘thrown out of Parliament’ than under FPP – see: List MPs and ‘Accountability’. Colin James explores why National tends to favour the supplementary member (SM) voting system, and why Labour favours some modifications to MMP – see: MMP or SM: it's not just a small-party matter. Chris Trotter also makes some important points in his discussion of coalitions and electoral systems in "The Most" versus "The Majority". And finally, I have an opinion piece in the Herald today in which I argue in favour of abolishing MMP’s 5% threshold, pointing out that the supposedly ‘dirty deals’ in electorate seats are really due to the unnecessary threshold – see: Undemocratic 5pc threshold at fault, not MMP.[Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

NZ Politics Daily - 14 November

It would be a good thing for the so-called ‘teapot tapes’ to be published. This is simply because during election campaigns in particular, the public is served by having the most information possible about the political class, even if that information is gained surreptitiously. Of course this is messy, but democracy frequently is. If you want an example of how our understanding of political parties and politicians work is furthered by material garnered surreptitiously then we need look no further than Nicky Hager’s Hollow Men.

 The ‘teapot tapes’ saga was first reported in David Fisher’s PM blocks release of chat tape. I’m quoted in the article as saying: ‘the information should be released. It is increasingly difficult for the public to access real information about politicians because the media was outgunned by political budgets and press officers.  "It is a conversation that would help voters navigate the election campaign. In an election campaign, voters need maximum amounts of information and viewpoints. In the name of democracy, we need this sort of information”.’ See also: Jonathan Milne’s Chat over cuppa more than it seemed. Milne says ‘the potential disclosure of the contents of that conversation… could yet throw a rocket into this election campaign. It is a game-changer’ and that ‘it's the sheer range of comments in Key and Banks' discussion that is breathtaking - and the pair's assessment of the prospects of National, Act and NZ First’.

 The media’s relationship with politicians is extremely problematic in New Zealand (and elsewhere). In most areas journalists are in a weakened position vis-a-vis political parties, MPs and government. The political class is so extremely well resourced, the media is at a huge disadvantage in covering the politicians. Parties in Parliament have access to Parliamentary Service and Ministerial Services funding of many millions of dollars that they use for, what amounts to, constant election campaigning. Part of this money is used for employing public relations professionals, communications experts, spin-doctors and ex-political journalists. For example, in the Prime Ministers’ Office there are about 25 communications staff working in it. Overall, the parliamentary parties appear to have more political journalists working to spin their electioneering than there is actually working full-time in the Parliamentary Press Gallery. 

 As a result, the public rarely gets to see what goes on behind the scenes in politics. We are fed a constant stream of scripted campaigning. This means that in New Zealand the public is often ill-served and ill-informed about what goes on in politics.  This election in particular is one of the most heavily manipulated and glossy we’ve seen in New Zealand. For more on this see Tracy Watkins’ excellent column Groundhog Day on the campaign trail. Not only does the column supply an impressive summary of the campaign so far, it also gives an insight into ‘life on the campaign trail’ and how much the journalists are reliant on an entirely stage-managed diary of political walkabouts without any real content to report on. She says: ‘one day is starting to look a lot like the rest. Journalists fret over their laptops each night trying desperately to conjure up "colour" – how do you turn John Key eating a prawn into news? – and wake to a new day of shopping centre walkabouts, kindy visits and factory tours.  The lack of interesting news is in inverse proportion to the amount of energy, planning and resources poured into each day on the campaign trail. Advance teams from the leader's office head up the night before to scope out the territory, check for potential pratfalls and ensure nothing is left to chance.  In National's case, the purpose is not to create news, but manage it. Prime Minister John Key is so far ahead right now that no news – literally – is good news’.

Similarly, in the Manawatu Standard editorial today ‘Cup of tea' charade leaves bitter taste; http, Warwick Rasmussen laments that ‘every day for the top parties is a series of planned opportunities to maximise exposure to the public while peddling policy’ and the ‘choreographed and sickening photo opportunity really does plumb the depths’. He’s referring mostly to the Epsom deal-making – which he also calls ‘distasteful’, and ‘a circus and a farce’. Also in the Manawatu Standard, it’s reported that ‘The ministerial offices have been keeping MPs' movements on the campaign trail close to their chests in the past few weeks. Media advisories have been distributed late and publication of these has often been forbidden. This has probably been done to avoid any organised protests, similar to the one that marred Mr Key's appearance in Palmerston North before the 2008 election’ – see: Jonathon Howe’s Picking row not in Key's best interests. 

Massey University’s Grant Duncan also argues against the politicians’ argument that issues of privacy should trump the public interest – see: Tea-Party-Gate. As others have done, Duncan points out that it’s ludicrous for politicians to cry ‘privacy!’ after generating a ‘media circus’ ‘engineered to maximize attention’. Furthermore, ‘on the principle that ‘those who live by the sword shall die by the sword’, the tape should be released.  Public figures, during a highly public event, are not to be accorded any special right to privacy in the course of that event. Naturally, they do have rights to privacy (in their family lives, or in caucus), but not at those times when they have actually invited reporters and camera crew to follow them.  The conversation was captured on video, and a lip-reader might have interpreted it; and so the fact that they did not know there was a live microphone in earshot is irrelevant.  And, if the two Johnnies ever wanted to have a genuinely private conversation, surely they could arrange one’.  Of course, if the ‘teapot tapes’ are to be published, then isn’t all political conversation up for recording and distributing? Where do you draw the line? This question is also discussed by Scott York on the Imperator Fish blog – and he says ‘no’ to the release. For more on the legal aspect of the issue, see: Steven Price’s blog post, Of sneaky devices, and another very good argument is put forward by Russell Brown in his blog post The perils of political confidence. 

So-called electorate deals are another big issue of the day – mostly in terms of the National-Act relationship in Epsom. The electorate deal-making has also been strongly targeted by Phil Goff – see his comments in John Hartevelt and Andrea Vance’s Goff looking to stop MP 'smuggling'. A populist Goff is quoted condemning the Epsom deal as a ‘rort’ and calling for the MMP threshold exemption rule to be abolished: ‘Frankly, I think the law needs to be changed to stop this kind of gerrymander. You either get in because you've got an electorate seat or you get in with list MPs if you get over five per cent’. Responses to this can be seen in Graeme Edgeler’s Election Fact Check #8: Electoral Law Consensus and David Farrar’s Why Simon Power was wrong to trust Labour. 

In other issues, the highlight of today is definitely Steve Braunias’ very clever The Secret Diary Of John Banks. The next best is the Sunday Star Times profile of some of the minor players in the election – see: Colour amid the beige. Other very worthwhile reads include Matt McCarten’s Key wipes off smirk and Greens can grin, Vernon Small’s Poppers as ACT gets its show underway, and John Armstrong’s Act's rebranding too little too late. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

NZ Politics Daily - 11 November

John Key has finally put the kettle on for Act’s John Banks in Epsom, in an attempt to give National a coalition insurance policy – although not much of one given Act’s current polling. The minnow party, in turn, will be hoping that this will reassure voters who were scared off by the prospect of their vote being wasted should Banks have failed. Given that these votes would have almost certainly gone to National, it’s hard to see much electoral advantage for National – at most, a seat or two in a really tight race. And so the political right are circling the wagons around Epsom. John Banks is talking up Winston Peters' chances in an attempt to terrify National voters into voting for him to save Key's government and David Farrar has a Herald column today clearly aimed at invoking National voters worst nightmares – see: What a Labour-led coalition might look like.

The big question is, of course, whether the National voters of Epsom will heed Key’s directive and the Banks/Farrar scare tactics. If Act’s polling remains low, many of them will wonder whether it’s worth it. Matthew Hooton notes in today’s NBR that National does not have the monopoly on tactical voting. As Hooton points out, around 30% of Epsom voters are Labour or Green, and if they back Goldsmith, it will take very few National voters to vote for Goldsmith to see Banks defeated. Expect, then, to see local Epsom candidates David Parker (Labour), David Hay (Greens) and Pat O’Dea (Mana) with a thermos desperately trying to locate Paul Goldsmith so they can offer him a cup of tea and their endorsement – see Isaac Davison’s Goldsmith's invisible act all for the sake of Banks. 

One of MMP's big advantages is the freedom to vote for parties and candidates we really support, rather than having to choose between ‘the lesser of two evils’. In Epsom in 2011 it seems everyone except the dwindling number of Act supporters is being told to hold their nose when they vote on November 26.

National must be hoping that John Key’s cup of tea with Don Brash will divert some media attention away from their asset sales policy, which is their Achilles heel in this campaign. There is no doubt the policy is unpopular across most of the political spectrum, and crucially with the swinging voters Labour needs to pull off National. If Labour is to make any headway, it will be on this issue.

National’s addition of hospitals to the growing list of recipients of asset sales money smells a little of desperation – see Andrea Vance’s Labour attacks Nats health promises. While they are accusing Labour of being fiscally irresponsible, the charge that National are spending the same money many times over is beginning to get traction.

That Key refuses to rule out further sales in future opens up another line of attack for Labour – see Duncan Garner’s Key won't rule out more asset sales. Key is under pressure to deliver for the rightwing of the National Party who consider that they have been very patient over the last three years, but going too far will endanger his government. National will not want this to be the main issue in the final two weeks.

Todays’ Herald Digipoll (Poll shock as Nats drop under 50%) is showing things either turning against National or playing into their hands, depending on which way you look at it. Winston Peters’ rise and National dipping below 50% is clearly making National very nervous, but as long as those trends don’t continue it may be a timely jolt to soft National supporters. Some voters who may want a National government but aren’t keen on them having an absolute majority may be frightened into voting National anyway, if that’s what it takes to save them from a Peters/Goff government. But other polls out in the last 24 hours, continue to put National miles ahead of Labour – see: TVNZ: Drop in support for National and Labour – poll and Roy Morgan’s Latest poll shows Nats could govern alone. 

Other must read items today include Patrick Gower’s revelation that Treasury advised the Government 18 months ago that raising the minimum wage would not cost any jobs – see: Key's figures dodgy on minimum wage – blog. This, of course, undermines National’s main argument for not raising the minimum wage and lends credence to claims that John Key has been less than straight with the electorate. Also check out economist/blogger Eric Crampton’s disagreement with Gower: Minimum wage nonsense.

Other interesting or important items today include: Unity Aotearoa’s blog post, Epsom debate: Banks attacks Brash, Andrea Vance’s Who's taking the gloss off the campaign?, Jon Johansson’s It's all about 2014, Chris Trotter’s National may need to blend in a little Green?, Tim Watkin’s Lucky Winston the winner, National Party winning largest share of media coverage – study, and two accounts of last night’s Wellington Central electorate debate - Gordon Campbell’s A political star in the making and Dim Post’s Aro Valley meet the candidates evening: 7200 seconds of democracy. For a more frivolous example of political ‘news’, check out Stuff’s Purr-litical attack: Cats that look like David Cunliffe. Finally, Toby Manhire deserves praise for his daily online Listener ‘live’ election blogging – here’s yesterday’s version: Thursday 10 November: Epsom in the spotlight.[Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

NZ Politics Daily - 10 November

The last couple of weeks of election campaigns are usually dominated by potential coalition arrangements. Even though National may not need any coalition partners this time, the question of ‘who will dance with who’ is still likely to be a major theme until election day. While many parties try to fudge the issue, voters quite rightly want to know what kind of government their vote will end up supporting. Below is a quick run down of the options.

Assuming that Peter Dunne survives this time, this is likely to be his last term. He won't want to spend his last years in opposition and so will continue to be the most compliant and submissive of coalition partners and do whatever it takes to be in Government. This means not making too much noise and not making any real demands. Currently iPredict has says there’s an 84% chance of Dunne being a minister. 

 The Maori Party are adopting many leftish policies this election, but their big problem is that few – if any – will see the light of day if they go back into coalition with National. Their $16 minimum wage policy looks decidedly wishful given National’s plan to cut the youth minimum wage. Compounding that problem is the likelihood of Don Brash sitting at the Cabinet table with them. Brash is an anathema to most Maori and continues to push his one law for all theme – see: Don Brash pushes 'one law for all' message again. Today they are at loggerheads over Maori language in schools – see Danya Levy’s Clash over compulsory Te Reo. While the Maori Party will be keen to distance themselves from National policies and Don Brash in general, Labour and Mana are equally determined to keep them linked in voters’ minds. Strategically, the Maori Party actually needs a stint in government with Labour. Another three years with National will probably put them on life support and there is no Epsom option within the Maori seats. But for the moment iPredict says that there’s currently an 82% chance of at least one Maori Party MP being in the next government.

Despite their continuing rise in the polls the Greens seem to be feeling the pressure about the possibility of a coalition with the National Party. They are deliberately positioning themselves towards the centre as a fiscally responsible mainstream political party. Are they doing this to genuinely leave open the possibility of coalition with National or is it a bargaining lever with Labour should they hold the balance of power? 

The answer may be that in 2011 it is about building vote share and negotiating power with Labour, but long term there does seem to be an intention to position themselves in the centre. Perhaps they'll need a further three years to soften up of their core supporters to swallow a deal with National (although most of the Greens leftwing activists departed a long time ago). If Labour can’t deliver in 2014 will the Greens wait another three years?

Regardless, the heat is now on the Greens, and they continue to obfuscate about whether or not they’d support a National Government. Watch for example, Metiria Turei on TVNZ where she refuses to rule out supporting a National government while also saying that left voters can safely trust their vote to the Greens (http://bit.ly/tr4a9c). Blogger Robert Winter has also issued this challenge: ‘Will the Greens please tell us, fair and square, whether they a seek to become the one true centrist party, willing to get into bed with National for a whiff of power?  All this shilly-shallying insults the voter’ – see: Will National and the Greens come clean, please?. And traders on iPredict have recently been judging the chance of ‘At least one Green Party MP to be a Minister in next government’ to be about 20%.

Officially, the Greens still say that the only ‘deal breaker’ would be that National would have to change it’s policy on ‘country of origin food labeling’. But this week the party’s official Twitter account also put forward a ‘condition’ that National raise the minimum wage to $15/hour (although the Greens later backtracked on that being a deal breaker for a National-Green coalition). Whether or not a formal coalition eventuates, it’s certainly a foregone conclusion that the Greens will work to have a closer relationship with National after the election. In this regard it’s also worth checking out Tim Watkin’s The Greens' double digit strategy, which deals with the party’s ‘carefully crafted game plan’ to ‘re-brand the party’ and make ‘it friendlier to the political centre’. Watkin says that the Greens new coalition policy is essentially a ‘dog whistle to the wider electorate was that the Greens were neither a Labour party poodle nor a bunch of leftie idealists’.

Labour, of course, will need all hands on deck if they are able to form a government. If current polling holds up the Greens would be in a strong bargaining position. Despite what they say, Labour will be hoping against hope that Winston Peters makes it over the 5% threshold, because despite what he says, they would both leap at the chance of being back in government. See also: Patrick Gower’s Potential coalition partners a headache for Goff. 

Apparently Labour won’t work with Hone Harawira and he won’t work with National or Act. Harawira doesn’t have much appeal to the swinging voters Goff needs to win back from National so it’s no surprise that Labour is trying to keep its distance before the election. For a new party a spell on the cross benches would probably be the best option anyway, although few believe that Goff wouldn’t talk to Mana if it were the difference between opposition and government. But Mana will face the same dilemma the Alliance had and the Greens are trying to resolve – how do you increase your leverage with Labour when they are your only option in government? Today Duncan Garner concludes that, Harawira will therefore be ‘the most impotent bloke’ in Parliament, and he should therefore have stayed with the Maori Party because it can essentially do coalition deals with anyone – see: Heard from Hone Harawira?. For a different view, see: Ian Llewellyn’s Future Labour Leader Will Work With Mana: Harawira. 

National’s best option (apart from the almost unlimited power a majority vote would give them) is a continuation of the status quo – Maori Party off on one side, Act on the other, neither strong enough to cause them too many difficulties. Their long-term problem is that both of their coalition partners are looking decidedly sick. Act is potentially terminal in 2011 and the Maori Party face a decline to oblivion on 2014. National has its finger on the life support button for Act and must be asking ‘is it worth saving?’ On current polling it would probabably only bring in an extra seat and Act’s long-term prognosis is dismal. The Act brand is also embarrassingly toxic to National, and Key must be tempted to pull the plug.

National desperately needs to look for new options for the future. The two obvious ones are the fledgling Conservative Party, which could possibly make it in to Parliament in 2014, but the big prize would surely be the Greens. Not only could it provide a larger number of seats, but crucially it would deprive Labour of the seats they would need to dethrone National. It is unlikely in 2011, but then so was the Maori Party/National coalition in 2005. Expect to see John Key take every opportunity to build relationships with the Greens over the next three years. In 2011 it may be a bridge too far but in 2014 it could be a major coup for National. 

Act has only one option and that’s National. Not only do they rely on them as a coalition partner they are reduced to begging National for political survival. The recent outburst by the New Plymouth Act Chairperson lends credence to the theory that Don Brash and John Banks have, in fact, led a National party takeover of ACT. Having sold their soul completely to National you can understand the incomprehension and frustration within ACT that National now hesitates to save them from political oblivion. But, that’s politics. According to iPredict, there’s currently a 62% chance of an Act MP being a minister in the next government. 

A 'cup of tea' has become the symbol for electorate deals between ally parties. Today, Claire Trevett has an astute analysis of why John Key is playing the hard-to-get routine with John Banks – see: Key won't set teacups until thirsty Act is gasping. Trevett says it’s ‘a sure bet’ that the café meeting will eventually occur. Traders on iPredict seem to agree, with the probabability of ‘John Key to publicly endorse John Banks’ currently being 89%. Personally I think this is too high, as there’s still a decent chance that Key will decide to kill off the ailing party. Two other very good items on the issue are: Guyon Espiner’s Two Johns don't make it right in Epsom and Tim Watkin’s Epsom: ACT dependent on political welfare. 

Another major issue of the day is National’s perennially-unpopular partial-privatisation policy. Recently the party has been selling the necessity of asset sales on the need to spend the proceeds on schools and other public investment, but now it appears $400 million will actually go to benefit farmers with irrigation schemes – see: John Hartevelt’s Key announces fund to boost irrigation. There cant be many votes in flogging public assets to the private sector and then gifting them the sale proceeds as well. For more on this, see Gordon Campbell’s blog post, On credibility, and the government’s irrigation plans. 

Other especially important items today include: John Armstrong’s Voter apathy now National's big enemy, the Southland Times’ Editorial - Wondrous welfare, David Farrar’s Anderton v Electoral Commission , Chris Trotter’s Vicious Spiral, and Steven Cowan’s Point of Extinction, which argues ‘The problem is that Labour is providing no alternative other than an assertion that it would be a better steward of the neoliberal economy than National’. A different take on Key’s success and Labour’s failings can be found in Danya Levy and Paloma Migone’s John Key: Safe hands, forked tongue? which uses survey research to show that Key is deemed to be vastly superior when it comes to dealing with crises and having a grasp of economic issues. Although interestingly given his popularity, Key isn't particularly trusted by voters.

Finally, each week I’ve been interviewing politicians on campus at the University of Otago in an election forum entitled Vote Chat. The idea behind Vote Chat is to have campaigning politicians come and talk to us about why we should vote for them, what makes them tick, what their political ideology is, and how they want to change society. But instead of just handing them a platform to speak for 30 minutes, we are trying to do something a bit different by interviewing them in front of audience, and using different ways to get audience participation such as using Twitter (the hashtag is #OUVotechat2011). And it’s filmed in high definition, which means you can watch it live-streamed or watch them on YouTube here. Recent highlights include Bill English, John Minto, Simon Bridges, Grant Robertson, and Peter Dunne. Tomorrow (Friday) I’m interviewing Green MP Kevin Hague at 12 noon. Please watch online or follow on Twitter, and let me know if you have any questions for Kevin Hague. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

NZ Politics Daily - 9 November

The general election campaign is highly professionalised and bland. More than ever before, New Zealand parties rely on professional campaign tactics and strategy, with the result that campaigning has become meaningless for many voters. Because there is little to excite or enthuse the public, voter turnout might well be the lowest in over a hundred years. So just how significant is the current election campaign for voters? How well are politicians and political parties helping us make sense of the big issues and problems in society? What is the health of parliamentary democracy in New Zealand? So far, not so good, and there are many items in the election campaign today that highlight the ill health of contemporary electoral politics.

It’s not just the intense focus on hand shaking, baby kissing, and walkabouts – it’s the overwhelming focus on personalities in general. Today we see that personal attacks on various leaders is central. See, for example, TV3’s Labour changes tactics, targets John Key. 

Celebrity is also a heavy part of the personalised approach. Today, Barry Soper reports on Labour’s use of All Black Jerome Kaino – see: Political Report for November 8. New Zealand doesn’t have a tradition of celebrity involvement in parliamentary politics, but this is obviously changing. Perhaps surprisingly, the party at the forefront of this ‘Americanisation of New Zealand politics’ has been the Greens. In the 2008 and 2011 campaigns, the party has made an effort to sell itself on the basis of celebrity endorsements – by including cultural and sports stars on its billboards, using an actor to MC its official launches, and even having actors running for Parliament. Such a shift, according to some political scientists, is part of ‘a despicable trend that epitomizes the banal and the mindless in public life, empowering image over substance and producing pseudo-charismatic leadership’.

The use of media professionals is incredibly evident in the campaign so far. There’s always been the PR and journalist ‘hired guns’ working for the parties, and it’s obvious that they have a strong sway over the campaigning techniques being used. But increasingly these PR-orientated people are actually running the show. The main abilities of Maggie Barry and Kris Fa’afoi, like John Key himself, is not what they stand for or believe in but for their ability to communicate the brand. This is not a bad thing in itself but is that the prime skill you want in the Prime Minister and cabinet ministers – the ultimate decision-makers? Good for winning elections but is it good for government?

Metro magazine have their ‘election issue’ out at the moment, with some very useful political items in it – in particular a three-page article by Matthew Jansen entitled ‘Gaming the system’. In this, Jansen notes that New Zealand politics at the moment is essentially ‘worthy, dull, unwatched’ and so he ponders: ‘can politics learn from sport and become more exciting?’ But his answer is that politics has already become too much like sport and is losing its meaningfulness:

‘Politics, like sport, has been thoroughly professionalised over the past 20 years. The effect is the same: a small group of people playing the game at a higher level, but with a reduction in mass participation.  We are now consumers rather than producers of our politics, spectators rather than players.  And there, perhaps, is the reason politics seems duller than before. The grown-up marketing types are in charge. Everything is airbrushed and soundbitten to exquisite extinction. The personality has been packaged for mass media, the policies tested by focus groups, the audiences screened for malcontents’.

Jansen argues that this deep malaise in which there is no ‘passionate contention between ideas’ occurs despite, rather than because of, the importance of politics in shaping our lives: ‘Which is maybe a shame, and possibly dangerous, because politics (like Philip Larkin’s Mum and Dad) can really f*ck you up’.

Karl du Fresne’s blog post today, What we need is a Lange - or even a Muldoon is also very insightful in this regard, and is also worth quoting at length:

‘the major parties have become more risk-averse and more centrist.  The defining ideological differences that once separated National and Labour have narrowed to the point where they are reduced to fighting over a shrinking patch of centre ground.  What this means is that election campaigns are matters of tone and nuance rather than the great contests of ideas that they should be. It's all about "branding".  There's no fire, no galvanising vision. At a Business New Zealand pre-election conference addressed by the party leaders last week, it was the minor parties that presented the bold ideas (and Pita Sharples the wit).  In difficult times like this, an election campaign provides an opportunity for the nation to debate whether to tear the house down and start again. But John Key and Phil Goff are like a married couple squabbling over which shade of off-white to paint the kitchen’.

Steve Braunias does a superb job of parodying the inanity of politicians in their campaigning. See for example this week’s The Secret Diary of John Key. Braunias has also got a feature in the latest Metro (‘Eating political lunch’) in which he managed to satirise Metiria Turia, Don Brash, Hone Harawira, Phil Goff and John Key. David Slack does a similar job in his parody of a National Cabinet meeting. In his Metro editorial, Simon Wilson argues that the theme of the election so far is ‘Let’s not talk about politics’, and John Key is the ‘chief instigator and main beneficiary’. But more importantly, Wilson’s profile on the so-called ‘Battle of the Babes’ contest in Auckland Central is appropriately dismissive. In ‘My dinner with Nikki & Jacinda’, the contest appears better characterised as the ‘Battle of the Bores’. 

The overuse of sloganeering by all parties is also evident today – see for example TVNZ’s Goff pledges to close Aussie wage gap. And politicians have been caught out using a lot of ‘doublespeak’ in the campaign – see Chris Whitworth’s John Key shows doublespeak ‘not unhelpful’ during elections. 

There’s also a lot of claims of policy plagiarism in this election – see TVNZ's Greens accuse Labour of copycat politics. Such complaints – increasingly frequent in this election – serve to show just how ideologically convergent the parties are becoming that they can all so easily swap policies. This is reminiscent of the remark once made about policy stealing in New Zealand elections by political scientist RS Milne: ‘Each party is mortally afraid that the other will steal its clothing, mainly because the clothing is not distinctively marked with the party’s name’.

Similarly, a high degree of ideological flexibility is noted by Tim Watkin in his Pundit blog piece on National’s approach to privatisation – see: Is it the right time to sell assets? Lessons from the past. Watkin ponders that ‘Ain’t it funny in politics how principles bend to fix the times?’.

So we are reduced to a spectator role – consumers watching the advertising and making our purchase on November 26. Modern parties just want your money and your vote and are not really interested in your policy input. Political party conferences have long ceased to be arenas of debate and decision, but are instead showpieces for the leadership. The real decisions about what policies will run are made by the focus groups. 

Partly as a result of this marginalisation of citizens, fewer bother to vote. Voter turnout is discussed in the article by Tracy Watkins and Paloma Migone’s item National heading for outright win. In this, both Chris Trotter and Raymond Miller ponder whether there will be a very low turnout on polling day. It certainly seems likely, and in my opinion turnout could be the lowest in a century. At the last election it was 75%, and my forecast is that it will drop to at least 74% this time around. 

Other important items today include: Paloma Migone’s Greens gaining at Labour's expense, Dene Mackenzie’s Greens setting policy debate pace, and Gordon Campbell’s Time for Labour to roll up its sleeves.[Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

NZ Politics Daily - 8 November

It wasn't that long ago that the Maori seats were a political backwater - taken for granted election after election by Labour. In 2011 there is a tense three way battle across the country. But commentary on these seats is infrequent and often ill informed, so it is worth surveying the competition. 

Up in Te Tai Tokerau it seems Hone Harawira will see off Labour's Kelvin Davis for the second time in six months, although it won't be one of the landslides he enjoyed when he was the sole challenger in 2005 and 2008. Harawira is only too aware that the entire future of his Mana Party rests on the result and isn't taking anything for granted. Waihoroi Shortland for the Maori Party has obviously made a much more aggressive challenge than Solomon Tipene during the by-election but despite a much improved showing it seems he is drawing as many votes from Davis as from Harawira. The rejection of Shortland in favour of Tipene for the by-election was a huge blunder for the Maori Party. Back then he could well have ensured the permanent demise of Harawira and Mana, and so this may prove very costly for the Maori Party in the next few years. According to iPredict, Harawira has an 88% chance of winning. 

In Tamaki-Makaurau it appears Pita Sharples is secure with a very handy lead over Labour's Shane Jones and Mana's Kereama Pene – see: TVNZ’s Sharples ahead in Tamaki Makarau – poll. Although it appears a no-contest the implications are large. This is Jones' best chance to win a seat. Given his leadership ambitions losing will be a big blow and there are questions as to whether he will stick around with his political future at the mercy of Labour's list selection process. But, this will almost certainly be Pita Sharples' last election. 2011 may be easy to pick now but 2014 looks wide open, especially with Willie Jackson waiting in the background. At the moment, iPredict says Sharples has an 86% chance of winning. 

Tariana Turia will easily take Te Tai Hauauru but she has formally announced her retirement before the 2014 election. Again a huge personal vote will mean the Maori Party will have a real battle to retain this seat then. The Maori Party has an 86% likelihood of winning according to iPredict. 

In Hauraki-Waikato Labour's Nania Mahuta looks to be safe from both Maori Party and Mana challenges, but again there is doubt about her sticking around for the next election. It’s another one to watch in 2014. But in 2011 Labour’s chances have recently risen to 89% on iPredict . 

The same situation applies in Ikaroa-Rawhiti where Parekura Horomia's huge personal vote will bring it home for Labour. But there were persistent rumours of his unhappiness with Labour over the last few months and even some doubt he would stand in 2011 – see, for example Morgan Godfery’s Will Parekura Horomia retire?. He is standing but it is hard to see him still there in 2014. Labour’s likelihood of retaining the seat is rated at 86% on iPredict. 

Rahui Katene was the surprise victor for the Maori Party in Te Tai Tonga in 2008, especially as she was the second choice after the sudden death of Monte Ohia. It was always going to be a hard seat to hold, especially with Katene on the defensive over the Marine and Coastal Area legislation and the fallout over Hone Harawira's split. Rino Tirikatene should regain it for Labour, assisted by a charismatic late challenge from Mana's Clinton Dearlove. Another Labour-Tirikatene dynasty in the south is far from certain, however. iPredict says that Labour has a 72% chance of taking back the seat. 

Waiariki actually looks to be the key battle this year, with Morgan Godfrey calling it the hardest to pick – see: Waiariki: Electorate analysis. Mana's Annette Sykes has clearly established herself as the main challenger to Maori Party MP Te Ururoa Flavell. Her performance on the Native Affairs debate last night will reinforce this. No Waiariki polls have been released yet but, if they show Sykes within striking distance, she has the chance to collapse the Labour candidate Louis Te Kani's support and swing the anti-National vote behind her. According to iPredict, the Maori Party has a 65% chance of retaining the seat against the challenger. 

As James Ihaka reports, there is a lot at stake in the Waiariki contest – see: Issues rift turns friend into foe. Given that Sharples and Turia won't be around in 2014 and that Katene is unlikely to hold her seat, the Maori Party desperately needs Flavell to hold on to provide some leadership succession. If he can't, the Maori Party face having to fight all the Maori Seats in 2014 without the huge advantage of having incumbent MPs. Another three years in coalition with National is very unlikely to make the job any easier as Colin James notes in last month’s column The Maori Party’s hard choice. 

With this prospect, along with the uncertain futures of Act and Peter Dunne, National is looking a little short of reliable friends in Parliament over the next few years. A Herald poll is picking up surprising support for National amongst Maori voters but in reality National is reliant on the Maori Party to turn Maori votes into seats for a National led government – see: Mood of the Nation: National picks up Maori support.

A Sykes win in Waiariki would be a huge boost for Mana and would set them a great platform to mount strong challenges across all the Maori seats in 2014, something they were unable to do this election. Even the chance of a win will be a boost for Mana over the next few weeks - their party vote stock on iPredict shot up by nearly 1% in tandem with Sykes’ stock after last night's debate. Mana needs to show it can step up from the one-seat-wonder category of Peter Dunne and Jim Anderton. If Sykes can keep the momentum building then they could make the leap this time.

Labour have been talking up their chances of re-taking all of the Maori seats since the Maori Party-Mana split but they would have to be pretty disappointed with the prospects for 2011. They will probably gain one and hold on to two, but are likely to face 2014 with only one incumbent Maori MP. Having largely failed to take their opportunities in 2011 they will have to step it up considerably in 2014 to make any headway.

The Green Party is definitely making significant headway in the election campaign, and National aside, is likely to be the real success story of the year. I take issue with their problematic post-election coalition policy in my weekly Herald column entitled Greens play dangerous game with slippery campaign line. Elsewhere, Gordon Campbell has an excellent opinion piece on the big question of whether or not the Greens should enter a coalition with the National Party, and he points out the pros and cons – see: On some possible options for the Greens. Colin James also writes today about the ‘repositioning’ of the Greens towards the political centre – see: It's not only National that's a bit rich. Clearly there’s a developing consensus amongst political commentators that the Greens have evolved in political character and are suddenly poised to play a more central and moderate role in parliamentary politics – perhaps even from within government.[Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

NZ Politics Daily - 7 November 2011

The demise of the minor parties is one of the key issues of this election campaign. Many commentators have noted that despite the MMP electoral system, New Zealand appears to be shifting back towards a two-party system in which the minors barely feature. Certainly we’re supporting them in much lower numbers. Back in the first MMP election of 1996, about 4 in 10 voters favoured a minor party, but now in the sixth MMP election, only 1-2 in 10 voters will bother with a minor party. Matt McCarten covers this in his weekend column, pointing out that ‘This election day we are on track to have the lowest support for third parties in 24 years’ – see: Never-say-die Goff has plenty of guts.

Similarly, Jonathan Milne notes that ‘National and Labour are hoovering up 83 per cent of the vote, according to the latest Herald-Digipoll - a bigger share than in any other election for a quarter of a century’ – see: The perils of unbridled government. Milne elaborates on the marginalisation of the minors: ‘Like the other small parties, the Greens will instead be gently squeezed to the periphery of politics. Already, NZ First is gone and all the serving Act MPs are retiring. So too Jim Anderton, the last scrappy remnant of the Alliance.  Hone Harawira, John Banks and Peter Dunne may each hold on to one last Parliamentary seat, but only by their fingertips. They won't be a powerful influence on the next parliament’.

Surely this isn’t how MMP was supposed to be? Part of the problem seems to lie with the minor parties themselves. It increasingly appears as if the minor parliamentary parties have run out of steam and dynamism. Like the major parties, the minors have attempted to take on a ‘catch-all’ type approach in order to win votes, while watering down their policies in order to offend the fewest voters. In their quest to occupy the soft centre ground, they have become less political and programmatic. In this sense, the minor parties are proving to be no more resistant to a larger trend that has affected the majors – the need to professionalise and operate more like businesses than political organizations representing civil society.  Even the Greens and Act – parties who supposedly pitch themselves to people of principle and conviction rather than to the middle ground – have been moving fast towards the centre, moderating their programmes.

But there is a sense in which the decline of the minor parties also owes itself to a new ideological public mood in which there is less space for parties of principle or those advocating significant change. The decline of ideology goes hand-in-hand with the increasing unpopularity of so-called ‘extreme’ politics. The new moderation in parliamentary politics means that anything outside the sphere of orthodoxy is painted as extremism. In this new climate there is a tendency for minor party politicians to say nothing rather than risk causing offence.

But perhaps it’s not just the fault of the minor parties themselves. Both Labour and National have, at times, successfully tried to destroy or at least seriously hurt, their 'natural' minor party partner. So the National under Shipley's leadership aimed to kneecap New Zealand First, and Labour, under Clark's careful management, helped to destroy the Alliance. Both the Alliance and New Zealand First were the most successful minor parties in the post-FPP environment. Their existence and popular support helped to build up an interesting MMP environment where the old Lab-Nat duopoly seemed in rapid decline. The demise of these parties has shaped the consciousness of today's voters who now essentially think in a default FFP mode. 

With the demise of New Zealand First and the Alliance, surviving minor parties have decided to be hyper cautious. This has led to them becoming rather forgettable entities - United Future and the Progressives are the worst examples of this phenomenon. And both Labour and National have rewarded such cautiousness by awarding these party leaders cushy jobs.

But parties which might be expected to position themselves significantly to the left or right of the main two main parties have gone through an existential crisis – with the Alliance this led to an implosion and with Act it's ongoing crisis of identity presents itself as a bizarre political circus. 

Nonetheless, the minor parties have featured more prominently over recent days in the campaign. The Greens, in particular, are looking electorally buoyant. Some useful reports include: John Armstrong’s Greens talk economics to shatter 10pc ceiling, the Herald’s Editorial – Chance for Greens to take a big step, TVNZ’s National would lose if Greens hold power – Key, John Hartevelt’s KiwiSaver in the Green gun, and two items by Adam Bennett – State of the Greens Party and Greens buoyed by prospect of having 15 MPs.

The Mana Party has also received useful coverage with RNZ’s Mana Party wants rich to pay their fair share, Kate Chapman’s Mana off with a bang and a song, and Claire Trevett’s State of Mana Party. 

Even New Zealand First is making a lot of noise, and this is reported in the following items: Tracy Watkins’s NZ First rules out working with other parties and Danya Levy’s Comeback king Peters eyes new list of enemies.

Other important or interesting items for today include: John Armstrong’s Resurrection of Goff embraces presidential style (http://bit.ly/sWY1Xz), Maria Slade’s Daily issues not highlighted, Rob Stock’s Party time for NZ's political tribes, Guyon Espiner’s Spending promises don't ring true, Duncan Garner’s Unpopular asset sales should be hurting - so why isn't it? and Dene Mackenzie’s Ticks and crosses. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

NZ Politics Daily - 4 November

With three weeks of the campaign left to run, National has this election in the bag. It's now theirs to lose. As Guyon Espiner has said about TVNZ’s latest poll – which came hard on the heels of an even worse Herald Digipoll result – it’s a brutal kick in the guts for Labour who must have hoped that the polls would reflect their strong start to the campaign – see: Poll is a kick in the guts for Labour. 

Labour will be particularly disappointed because its campaign had suddenly taken off, and Goff and Labour were looking dynamic for a change. In terms of style and presentation, the Labour Party has probably been winning the campaign so far. Labour's election advertising in this campaign has been superior, and they’ve rolled out a series of policies designed to show how compassionate and prudent they are. But Labour’s policy of raising the retirement age might be a big part of the problem. John Armstrong’s Voters evenly split on super age shows that nearly half of voters disapprove of the policy, including one-third of Labour’s own support base. Similarly, Danya Levy reports that the policy would make 30% of voters less likely to support Labour, while only 19% are more likely to support the party as a result – see: Goff's big calls fail to excite voters. David Farrar has also analysed Labour’s polling woes in the column, Under 30pc - how did Labour drop so far? 

Labour has thrown everything they've got at this campaign. Yet still voters prefer a government who have presided over a tanking economy and insist on promoting asset sales to a wary public – see: National could easily govern alone – poll. Having used every weapon in their arsenal, it is hard to now see what more Labour can do. The election result is now surely beyond their control and their only hope is that National stumbles – and stumbles badly. With only three weeks to go there has to be a ten-point swing – and that’s a lot of votes to pull in three weeks. Even in the most volatile electoral environment such movements rarely occur.

There’s plenty in the media today about the first week of the election campaign. The best reports include Tim Watkins’ Labour's bubble burst, but what's this amongst the minors?, Dim Post’s Damage done, Radio New Zealand’s Key proves he tries to keep in step with public opinion, TVNZ’s Kiwis sticking with Key and what they know – expert, and TV3’s Linda Clark on the opening week of the election.

But the big turning point of the week was the ‘show me the money’ line used on Phil Goff by John Key. John Armstrong reflects on this in his column and suggests that it might ‘prove to be the defining moment of this election campaign’. Of course, Labour has eventually come back with its election costings, but the damage is already done. What’s more, Labour is vulnerable to further attacks from National, especially as Labour’s tax cuts are costed. According to Keith Ng, Labour seems ‘petrified of talking about it because fiscally responsible is the new black. Unfortunately for them, it’s also the biggest, most expensive goddamn thing in their policy’ – see: Fiscal Responsibility is the New Black. 

Perhaps it’s a pity that so much of the media’s coverage has concentrated on the televised leaders debate/circus this week. Elsewhere there’s been plenty of alternative analysis and interviews with politicians. For example the Grey Lynn access TV station Stratos, is using an unlikely combination of Martyn ‘Bomber’ Bradbury, right-wing pundit Matthew Hooton, and Victoria University’s iPredict market, to broadcast ‘iPredict Election 2011’. So far it’s managed to discuss the political issues of the day intelligently (despite host Bradbury’s bombastic reputation) and entertainingly. The programme can also be watched on YouTube here [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

NZ Politics Daily - 3 November

In an election that is all about the economy, Labour can't afford to be weak on economics. Yet that is the nagging perception in the public mind. One survey out today shows that Voters back Nats' economic policy. Unfortunately for Labour, last night's leaders debate has done nothing to quell public uneasiness about the party’s ability to manage the economy. In all the evaluations, reports and commentaries on the debate the single biggest theme is how the leaders (and parties) are approaching the economy. And on this issue, Phil Goff was badly wounded by Key. As explained in a report by Adam Bennett, John Key has been able to embarrass Labour’s leader by asking him how his party would pay for all its election promises – see: 'Show me the money' line hits the spot . Goff simply didn’t have an answer. This is also covered well in Andrea Vance’s John Key gets his mojo and Tracy Watkins’ Costings stumble cost Goff. 

Goff’s poor showing in the debate is addressed by Gordon Campbell in a scathing article on the Scoop website. Campbell says, ‘The centre-left can feel justifiably furious at Goff and his minders for going into this debate without a narrative (much less a credible defence) for Labour’s election costings. Sorry, but “We’ll have them for you by the end of the week” doesn’t really cut it. Somehow, Goff managed to make Key look like a hard-headed and credible manager of the economy’.

But Goff’s inability to deal with such economic questions is not simply down to poor preparation – it’s much deeper than that. Instead, the problem is that Labour has a rather contradictory economic orientation at the moment – it’s desperately attempting to be both economically austere and social democratic. These two goals push Labour in two very different political directions, and the party can’t quite ‘square the circle’. It strives to be as fiscally ‘responsible’ as National, and has promised to match the Government in terms of getting the state back into surplus in the same timeframe. Yet its attempt to be a social democratic party means it wants to make promises that involve spending a whole lot more. Quite simply, it can’t do both - it can’t be both leftwing and rightwing at the same time, and ultimately this contradiction shows up when it gets called out on the detail by people like John Key.

But for those more interested in ‘who won’ last night’s debate, most commentators picked Key, including Vernon Small (Second debate a win for Key), Claire Trevett and Felix Marwick. There was also some very interesting commentary on the format and nature of the debate. In an item entitled Goff flaps as Key talks cash, Audrey Young seemed to enjoy the absence of on an interventionist debate moderator: ‘the result was fantastic - they were pretty much left standing at a lectern debating each other, bouncing uncontrollably from issue to issue.  Goff asked the questions of Key and Key asked the questions of Goff. They ran the show’. Similarly, John Hartevelt has asked ‘Is the old-fashioned Town Hall political debate back in vogue?’. Hartevelt explains that last night’s debate was the only ‘public debate’ between the two leaders, and that the ‘live audience, viewers and the leaders themselves seemed to relish the more open style’ – see: Leaders relish public debate. John Key is also quoted as preferring the format.

Labour will be very disappointed in Audrey Young’s news that Labour slips further in latest poll. The survey has the party dropping to only 29% at the very time that it might have expected a rise based on some positive media coverage – but perhaps the party’s policy of raising the age of superannuation is not going down well with core supporters. Meanwhile the Greens have finally breached the 10% mark in the Herald’s poll. This will ensure further publicity for the party, potentially adding momentum to push the party even higher. But it will also lead to an increased focus on whether the Greens might end up supporting a National-led government. There are already reports on the party’s ambitions today – see: TV3’s Norman wants ministerial roles for Greens, Newstalk ZB’s Questions asked over National-Greens relationship, and RNZ’s Greens 'highly unlikely' to support National. 

Other important or interesting items today include: Dan Satherley’s Top 10 oddest John Key moments, Kate Newton’s Campaign donations favour the Right, Derek Cheng’s Thousands of unionists mobilised to help the left , TVNZ’s Shock at rheumatic fever cases, and John Minto’s It's time to end racism in immigration policy. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

Guest post: The Significance and limits of the global Occupy movement

Globally as well as in New Zealand, the Occupy movement points to both a resurgence in leftwing politics and an ongoing ideological crisis facing capitalism. This is incredibly significant, because for the left, capitalism has seemed impenetrable in recent decades. Due largely to the collapse of ‘really existing socialism’ late last century, the left essentially accepted the thesis that radical change is impossible and that there is no viable alternative to the global market system. The Occupy movement now represents a partial challenge to prevailing capitalist hegemony. In this guest blog, John Moore argues that despite the radical nature of these protests, this nascent left movement could easily succumb to a form of middle-class liberalism. Presently the occupations waver between remaining ‘apolitical’ rebellions or alternatively to endorsing a set of mild and acceptable reforms. Ultimately the protests are likely to dissipate or be co-opted if they continue to fail to seriously pierce the hegemony of liberal capitalist ideology. What is needed is a discussion over what type of demands can act to transcend the ‘apoliticism’ of this new left. The movement needs also to address what form of demands can act to seriously challenge dominant capitalist ideas. Ultimately those involved in these occupations throughout major world cities need to go beyond the weak social-liberalism that has been prevalent amongst the left for the last few decades. [Read more below]

NZ Politics Daily - 2 November

It’s fairly cynical stuff. National’s welfare policies are very much designed for electoral gain. There’s always a ready political market for populist ‘get tough’ posturing on solo mums and beneficiaries. Claire Trevett reports on the newly-announced welfare measures in the article Cradle to job queue. And John Armstrong’s National's stance on welfare not as tough as it seem provides a very good analysis of what it all really means. He questions whether National’s welfare rhetoric matches reality, saying that ‘The policy typifies National's overall election strategy so far - maintaining momentum through drip-feeding policy to demonstrate the party is focused on the issues that matter to voters, while at the same time not overly scaring the horses’. A similar point is made by TVNZ’s Guyon Espiner in his excellent commentary, National's no-surprises campaign. Espiner makes a number of important points: the policy will cost money to initiate, it’s less tough than the Welfare Working Group’s recommendations, and it seems unlikely to produce the promised savings and reductions in beneficiary numbers.

Espiner also observes that ‘Labour is not calling this punitive or labelling it beneficiary bashing’ and that it ‘too knows the public supports a tougher line on welfare and the party is conscious of not wanting to get on the wrong side of this issue’. And that’s an important point. As I argued yesterday in my Herald column, Left right rhetoric masks almost identical policies, National and Labour tend to converge more than differ in many crucial policies. This point is ‘partially’ backed up by Massey University’s Grant Duncan – see: Labour? National? What's the difference? Duncan argues that in this instance, National has essentially copied policy out of Labour’s own recent time in Government: key words in the announcement ‘could have come from one of the previous Labour-led government's "social development" policy documents’.

Whether or not National’s policies would actually work is discussed widely in the media and blogosphere today. The response has been that there are 22% (60,000+) more beneficiaries under National. Where are the jobs for beneficiaries and solo parents come from? All the signs are that the global recession is not going away and may actually worsen, especially if the European Union can't sort out Greece's debt problems very soon. For more on this see Radio NZ’s Welfare groups say jobs needed, the Herald’s Editorial - Key's benefit plan needs the jobs first, and Gordon Campbell’s On the welfare reform proposals.

There are also questions about whether National’s beneficiary bashing is in fact a bit out of vogue. While in some quarters beneficiary bashing will always be popular, there is quite a bit of skepticism about cutting incomes at the bottom as a strategy for economic growth. ‘Trickle down’ theories have little political traction these days. This ‘squeeze up’ version has a gaping hole in it without employment growth. The Occupation movement continues to challenge this sort of thinking, and it’s resonating with a large number of people questioning policies that increase austerity and inequality. In light of this it’s worth reading Matthew Backhouse’s Almost half of Kiwis just scraping by. 

In terms of Labour’s latest broadcasting policy, not all are impressed – see: Russell Brown’s Ante Up  and Steven Cowan’s Not doing the right thing. Other particularly interesting items include: Henry Cooke’s A check on politicians' social media use and Andrea Vance’s Hanging out with the political Wags. And also, there was a minor party leaders debate on Radio NZ’s Morning Report today that you can listen to here.[Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]

NZ Politics Daily - 1 November

Back in 1974, Bob Jones wrote and published a book entitled "The First Twelve Months - The Achievements of The Third Labour Government". All 125 pages were blank. Last night, the very satirically minded Imperator Fish blogger, Scott Yorke replicated that technique with a blog post entitled What I Learned From Tonight's Leaders Debate. And of course the blog post was empty. He followed it up later with a less sarcastic attempt, entitled What I Actually Learned From Tonight's Leaders Debate, in which he concluded that ‘All in all it was an utterly forgettable 90 minutes’. 

Leaders debates are always a fascinating part of the election campaign. But not because of the actual 90 minutes of debate – more because of the screeds of analysis and disagreements that come out afterwards in the commentary. Last night’s first debate has launched all sorts of interesting media reports, opinion pieces and blog posts. The media’s reporting of the debate is actually more coherent and interesting than any of the words that Phil Goff and John Key had to say. For instance, see the following mainstream analysis: Dene Mackenzie’s Key wins but Goff may lift, John Armstrong’s Attack dog lost scent, and Tracy Watkins and Vernon Small’s Goff finds bark in leaders' debate. 

There’s inevitably a huge emphasis on evaluating who ‘won’ the debate, which often seems rather superficial. As I told RNZ’s Morning Report, I thought the winner was likely to be TV2’s Shortland Street which was screening at the same time (listen here). Surely the incredibly bland and boring debate was a huge turn-off for viewers. And according to the Throng website, last night’s ratings were Shortland Street: 536,990 viewers and Election 2011 Leaders Debate: 402,340 viewers. 

The format of the TVNZ leaders debate is also being questioned by a number of commentators. See, in particular: Brian Rudman’s Anything but a debate, TV3’s TVNZ debate format under fire, Steven Price’s Horsing around, and Brian Edwards’ Who won, who lost in the first television leaders’ debate? I name the biggest loser. 

However regardless of the format, the leaders debates are always incredibly contrived and fake – that’s their basic nature. Although last night’s one seemed more dull than usual. Both Goff and Key performed very well and came across as competent. But they both sent everyone to sleep with absolutely nothing interesting to say. Where was the dynamism? Where was the vision? Where were the big issues and differences? Hardly anything in the debate that is likely to inspire enthusiasm about either leader. 

In this sense, the leaders debate simply epitomised a relatively meaningless election campaign in which the choices on offer are much less significant than many people assume. I’ve written about this today in my first weekly election column for the New Zealand Herald – see: Left right rhetoric masks almost identical policies. In this I argue that although superficially there appears to be a definitive left-right difference on offer in 2011, an analysis of the policy and manifesto promises of the two major parties shows Labour and National are in virtual agreement on something like 99 per cent of the way society is run. Parties have an interest in marketing their policies as being different from one another by magnifying their slight differences with partisan rhetoric, but a most voters realize that the similarities are more significant than the differences.

Other important items to read today include: Colin James’ Does National need to turn the Key from bland to bold?, Morgan Godfery’s Native Affairs Kowhiri 11: Te Tai Tonga, and David Farrar’s The minor parties. [Continue reading below for a full list of the highlights of NZ Politics Daily]