liberation

The Green-Labour-National carbon trading con

The Labour Government has just unveiled its market-driven Emissions Trading Scheme, which has the support of other political parties such as National and the Greens. Increasingly it seems that all the parliamentary parties are ‘blue-green’ parties – combining concern for the environment with trivial market-based ‘non-solutions’ to the problems of climate change. [Read more below]

Law & order – the new political battleground

Law and order issues are shaping up to be one of the main areas of political debate in New Zealand. Despite little differences between the parliamentary parties, increasingly they all stress how socially conservative they are on such issues. Labour in particular, is ditching any policies that smack of liberalism and has now begun to assert its socially conservative side in order to fend off National’s law and order campaigns. So today we see the Labour’s announcement of Tougher rules to smash gangs and Increased coercive powers for police. The reason for this resurgence of political conflict on these ‘social issues’ can be explained by the decline of economic differences in the parliamentary parties. [Read more below]

Child abuse - a product of 23 years of neoliberalism

Amongst all the outrage of the moment about child abuse, there's at least two voices putting some sort of decent leftwing explanation forward: John Minto and Chris Trotter. Both columnists argue that child abuse in this country is an affect of 20+ years or Labour and National's neoliberalism. Minto's column in today's Christchurch Press calmly and rationally explains how prior to Labour's economic reforms 'Child-abuse deaths for Maori were on a par with the rest of New Zealand... [But] A few years later it spiralled out of control. For the period 1991 to 2000 the figures were 0.67 [per 100,000] for non-Maori but 2.40 for Maori' when Maori unemployment peaked at 26%. Unsurprisingly, the dysfunctional families that resulted produced dysfunctional behaviour such as child abuse. Trotter also discusses the anomie and alienation that resulted from a New Zealand that now lacks social solidarity. He says 'Locate on a map of New Zealand those communities where "Rogernomics" and "Ruthanasia" bit hardest, and you will discover an alarming correspondence with the communities experiencing domestic violence, child abuse, gang affiliations and crime at their worst.' Both Trotter and Minto advocate a change in economic priorities. Minto goes further, and suggests 'The statistics relating to child abuse should be carved into slabs of granite along with the names of those who drove these families into poverty' - namely Labour, National and all their fellow travellers.

The KiwiSaver con

Apart from a lot of discussion about the nuts and bolts of the new KiwiSaver, there has been little analysis of what the new scheme really means for society, and who will really benefit. Labour’s new grand plan actually represents a tax on workers, backdoor privatization of social security, lower wages, and much greater economic inequality in the future. [Read the full post below for details]

[political finance] Another National Party misuse of state funds uncovered

It has been revealed that parliamentary state funding is paying for a National Party campaigning database. The National Party has paid at least $350,000 to an Australian company for a software system called Feedback, which gathers information on voters and their views. Part of the funding - $90,000 - has come from the 'Leaders Budget' in Parliament. John Key's chief of staff, Wayne Eagleson, says it's an appropriate use of taxpayers money because it helps MPs address constituents' concerns. Basically this means it allows the party to record information about hundreds of thousands of voters and then send niche marketing information to them to encourage them to vote for National - this is party political, not parliamentary.

Of course, details of such parliamentary spending on party political purposes don't usually come to light. After all the Parliamentary Service is effectively controlled by all the parliamentary parties (through their membership of the overseeing body the Parliamentary Services Commission) and therefore such payments are never made public. In fact the politicians has specifically made the Parliamentary Service exempt from the Official Information Act. In this case, the information has come from the Australian Electoral Commission which requires all companies to list any money received from political parties.

Do National's ideological compromises improve democracy?

The NZ Herald editorial today says that with National's moves to dump its market rents policy for state housing, it is buying into the new political consensus. The paper thinks that although the market-rents policy was principled and essentially more equitable, National is dumping it to avoid losing a debate on it in election year - 'Any policy, no matter how principled, is likely to be abandoned if it risks providing ammunition to opponents.' The Herald is slightly ambivalent about this pragmatic trend, but concludes that ideological compromise improves democracy, even though it reduces choice and principles in politics. Rather simplistically the Herald explains political pragmatism by saying 'the more confident a party becomes that it will win the next election, the more risk-averse it becomes'.

The paper also seems to be celebrating the growing consensus in politics as logical for both main parties:

Any policy with echoes of the 1990s is likely to be expunged from National's prospectus between now and the next election, much as Labour came to terms with the successful elements of monetarism and the market economy before its election in 1999.

Additionally, the editorial points out that the Labour Party's dumping of the market-rents policy has been masterful because the move has effectively done very little - if anything - for improving equality, yet it has silenced the lobby that has complained about poverty in NZ, and therefore the Government has had to do little else in this area. A very good point.

National Party U-turn on tax cuts

Bill English has been speaking out against tax cuts. He now says that National would not not introduce extensive tax cuts if it was in power now. He says tax cuts would merely contribute to inflation. As Michael Cullen correctly comments, National has now done a complete policy U-turn.

National now loves unions

The National Party has been on a charm offensive with the union movement, in a bid to draw a line between the old union-hating National Party and the new more sophisticated middle-of-the-road Key-English National Party - see Newsroom's Nats Try Softly Softy Approach With Unions.

As the article points out, the party under Brash had no real communication with unions and the previous spokesperson on Labour, Wayne Mapp, 'used to talk of union militancy and warned that "if you give unions powers they will use it"', but the new spokesperson promoted by John Key, Kate Wilkinson is at pains to have a constructive relationship with unions and promote National's supposedly more worker-friendly policies. National now says that it values unions and believes they have an important role in representing workers. According to the article, National says 'Unions could be important information conduits, play an important collaborative role, be influential in improving productivity and bring balance to bargaining powers.'

The CTU has confirmed the softer approach and says they are having 'very amicable' and ongoing discussions with National. The movement welcomes the change, but wants to see real policy change from National.

Pragmatic National to ditch market-based rent policy

National leader John Key has announced that he wants his party to abandon its policy of market-related rents for state houses before the next election, saying 'I don't favour a move back to market-related rents, and I don't think the party will support a move back to market-related rents'. Partly justifying the move, Key said that re-imposing market rents was likely to be more expensive in the long run. But as former housing minister John Luxton says, the party still has the political belief in the correctness of the policy, but that they lost the argument with the public a long time ago, and is therefore giving in to pragmatism. He is quite right in saying, 'I think it takes another thing off the agenda that Labour will use their firepower to suggest there's a marked difference' between the parties. Additionally, National is signalling that it would build even more state houses than Labour has.

The "Maori National Party" or the "National Maori Party"

It appears to be becoming common wisdom that both the Greens and the Maori Party are now centrist parties, vying to be power brokers between Labour and National after the next election. This is today's story in the Herald anyway. Certainly the Maori Party has done a lot recently to position itself to work with National, and National are doing likewise. Last week John Key even said that if National-friendly Maori voters don't want to vote for National in the Maori seats, he would like them to vote for the Maori Party. That's quite an endorsement. As John Armstrong wrote recently, there's actually many areas where the interests of the Maori and National parties intersect: 'welfare reform, iwi-based delivery of social services, reviewing the treaty settlement process, and promoting Maori business enterprise'.

Add to this, Tariana Turia recent statements that her party is neither left nor right, but kaupapa and tikanga-driven, and you'll see the ideological trajectory that the party is on. Certainly the party's recent advocacy of work-for-the-dole - together with their immigration and law and order campaigns, and their courting of the corrupt Philip Field - should be a fairly solid signal that the party is not a left one. Meanwhile Labour is letting its grip on the Maori vote weaken, which opens the way for National to co-opt the Maori Party as a coalition partner.

National's new pale blue MPs

It's been interesting to see read the Herald's recent interviews with some new first-term National MPs, and to see how they orientate to National's push into the middle of the political spectrum under John Key. Rising stars like Jackie Blue are clearly 'on message', supporting the new moderation: 'I think [National] does need to be more centrist. I think John has already taken away all ambiguity that there was with the previous leadership and I think that's a good thing.'

Chris Finlayson stresses that the party needs to be 'liberal conservative', and says 'I really want to play my part to justly finish the historical Treaty settlements'.

Chester Borrows comes across as the most unlikely of National MPs, saying he wants 'to bring a sense of understanding about how life is at the bottom of the tree to National Party policy.' He sees that NZ society has changed and thinks National has to change likewise:

The party needs to grow the vote on the left and it's that group of voters in the middle that change governments. It's not a matter of selling your soul, it's a matter of being reasonable. If you look at where New Zealand's gone over the last 30 years, the Maori activists and the protesters we all used to cane have actually taken us to a place where we'd rather be, in many cases.

They all seem to like and be keen to build bridges with MPs from the minor parties to National's left.  Here are part of their responses to the question of which other MPs they have made friends with or respect.

Jackie Blue: 'There's only one person who would get that award and without any hesitation, I'd say Tariana Turia. I worked with her on the health committee and she is a woman of integrity ... she just blows me away, quite frankly.'

Chris Finlayson: 'I've really enjoyed working with Russell Fairbrother and Nandor Tanczos on the justice and law reform select committee. I really like Nandor Tanczos.'

Chester Borrows: 'I've got a healthy respect for Tariana Turia and Pita Sharples. They just ooze mana. I've got a healthy respect for Sue Bradford's intellect.... Nandor Tanczos has got a great grasp of social and criminal justice.'

Topsy-Turvy underclass politics

The topsy-turvy world of NZ politics in 2007 continues with Labour taking up the conservative position of being 'underclass deniers', and National making the most of highlighting the country's poverty. In terms of evidence against Labour's underclass denying, we had the KidsCan charity suggesting that 15,000 children are going hungry, then some analysis of Ministry of Health data that suggests the figure might be 80,000. Now one of the leading paediatricians at Auckland's Starship Children's Hospital says that the hospital alone admits more than 5000 malnourished under-2-year-olds each year.

It's great to see the Labour Government being held to account, but some of the heat should be applied to National as well. The best analysis I've seen of the issue so far is from John Minto, writing in the Press who says that it was the National Party's policies 'which drove working class New Zealanders into poverty in their hundreds of thousands'. He also makes the important point that we can no longer evaluate poverty levels through unemployment figures, and that 'Various combinations of low-paid, part-time, insecure, rostered, anti-social work are at the heart of social dysfunction'.

Hertz-vs-Avis politics

Labour and National are forever trying to convince us that they are miles apart ideologically, and that it therefore makes a big difference which one of them is elected to lead the country. Therefore it's refreshing when any of their advocates drop the guise and tell the plain truth. Sunday Star-Times columnist Matthew Hooton has been a political and media strategist for Don Brash and John Key has written a column where he admits (or in his thinking 'celebrates') the new policy consensus. His comments are worth quoting at length.

Although National's constantly paints Labour as being economically socialist and ruining the neoliberal economic reforms, Hooton says that actually, 'With the exception of industrial relations, Labour has done almost nothing to change the legacy of Sir Roger Douglas and Ruth Richardson, and even the 1990 benefit cuts remain in place'. Likewise, he admits that National in government would have reformed less than it suggested: 'Institutions like the Human Rights Commission and TVNZ newsreaders saying "kia ora" were always safe, even under a Don Brash-led government. US aircraft carriers were never going to anchor off Rangitoto. Every MP rejoices when a treaty grievance is resolved'.

Although citing some minor differences on issues like law and order, Hooton makes the following summary:

Roughly speaking, our main political figures have reached a consensus: they're right on economics, left on social issues, green on the environment, "independent" on foreign policy and stand for justice-without-guilt on treaty issues. Even on tax, the defining policy issue of the 2005 election, Bill English and Michael Cullen are both committed to ongoing cuts. Key appears completely relaxed about the unions' dream of the minimum wage reaching $12 an hour.

Hooton calls this all 'Hertz-vs-Avis politics', and says we're only headed for more of it in 2007.

Money & power

The Business section of the Sunday Star-Times has published two articles on the personal wealth of political leaders internationally and domestically. The intended message of these business articles is that most of the world's representatives 'are not always rich'. For instance, apparently 'George W Bush has a surprisingly small fortune.  His net worth is estimated at somewhere between $US15m and $US26m'. Similarly, 'Bush's fortune may be small, but British prime minister Tony Blair's is tiny. His net worth is estimated at just $4.2m'. The NZ Dimension story lists the known assets of John Key (which have already been widely publicised) and Helen Clark. Surprisingly, Clark owns an Auckland villa worth $720,000, a Wellington townhouse worth about $350,000, an apartment in Christchurch, property at Rodney, and is 'a beneficiary of two family trusts'. Her joint annual income with her husband is estimated at $500,000.

National’s realignment on tax cuts

The National-Labour policy convergence continues, with Bill English repositioning National’s stance on tax cuts, saying that a National Government would only cut taxes ‘as and when’ it became affordable and responsible and stating that the next election would not be fought around tax cuts. The Press notes that ‘National’s realignment puts English and Cullen in virtual agreement over tax cuts’. Even Michael Cullen recognises and welcomes their policy agreement:

Bill's position now on tax cuts is extraordinarily similar to the Government's – they won't be large, they'll be incremental and they will be as they can be afforded and fiscally responsible. I welcome him aboard the bridge – Horatio has a friend

But more than that, it is actually the Government that is making the most noise about tax cuts. Revenue Minister, Peter Dunne, recently hinted that tax cuts were coming. According to the Dominion Post [url], Dunne and Michael Cullen are considering lowering the corporate tax rate to 30 cents, a move that Dunne says would cost ‘just under $2 billion a year’ and if they adjust personal rates as well, ‘the total cost of the package could climb towards $3 billion.’

National says no major changes to employment law

John Key says that a National government would make no major changes to employment relations laws. National have been softening their labour policies for some time, but Key’s statements are highly significant in positioning the party much closer to Labour, and in correctly highlighting that Labour never actually made significant changes to Bill Birch’s ECA:

we haven’t argued for some time that we would go all the way back to the Employment Contracts Act, largely because the Employment Relations Act is 85 per cent a rewrite of the Employment Contracts Act anyway

Act party to benefit from National’s compromises

The Act party are obviously set to be the major beneficiaries of National’s recent embrace of the centre of the political spectrum.

Rodney Hide correctly notes that ‘The debate between the two old parties is now about who should be in power not about policy.’ Elsewhere he says: ‘"There's no doubt what we've got now is a National and a Labour party that in policy terms appear identical. I'll certainly be making that point, that while the personnel are different the policies now are very much the same. That's not a criticism, I think it's just a fact.’

But while Hide is correct in his criticisms of the National-Labour consensus, his own party has been moderating its policies towards the centre for years, and increasingly stands for nothing very identifiable. Recently Hide even announced that Act would seek an alliance with the Labour Party amongst others, and that the party was not ‘rightwing’ but ‘classically liberal’, which sounds like quite a rebrand.

The future Maori-National coalition government

The Maori Party will be the kingmaker in the next Parliament, according to Matt McCarten. And the could conceivably go into a National-led government. McCarten's latest Herald column explain why the National Party is putting so much effort into improving its relations with the Maori Party, and may even support their Foreshore and Seabed Private Member's Bill.

McCarten correctly points out that Don Brash couldn't count, while John Key can. What he means by this is that National stupidly 'spent the last election smashing into Maori and cannibalising the votes of his potential coalition partners - Act and United Future. Despite a healthy National vote, it left the centre-right out of power'.

And could the Maori Party really go into a National government? McCarten no longer seems to categorise the Maori Party as being to the left of Labour. Instead, they are, like NZ First, a 'legitimate independent' party, which means they could.

[political finance] National now supports electoral law reform

A consensus is firming up on campaign funding law reform because National has signaled a willingness to support curbs on third party advertising and a clampdown on anonymous donations - see National backs curbs on funding

This incredibly shift by National indicates how much change the party is undergoing under Key/English. But it is also a sign of Key and English's incredibly flexibility and ability to read the writing on the way in this regard. They probably realise that any new rules that come about will probably not change campaign finance activity that much in the end, and so it's wise for National to proactively remove the stick that they're being beaten with - especially after the Hager book.

Furthermore, National are taken the opportunity to bring their own electoral complaints to the table. Bill English says there should be a moratorium on non-essentialy government advertising in the run up to the election. This seems a perfectly sensible idea, and it's certainly true that parties in power have strongly exploited this multi-million dollar lever of power - but not just within the 90-day election campaign period that English suggests.

National also suggests stronger penalties for parties breaching spending limits - as Labour did in 2005 and was unpunished for. Again, such a proposal is sensible if you are going to have caps on spending.

The Green Party has also indicated support for restricting third party advertising, but with the unusual idea that the spending of such organisations should count against the cap of the party they are supporting. Such a law would be very complicated, fraught, and probably still rather undemocratic.

Where is National going?

The ideological burp of Don Brash is now over, and National is returning to its historic place as a muddle in the middle of the political spectrum, just a fraction to the right of Labour. The arrival of John Key at the helm of the National Party clearly represents a significant shift within the party away from any radical and ideological distinctiveness. Read on below:

The Machinations and Pragmatism in ‘The Hollow Men’

Forget the new details of National’s relationship with the Exclusive Brethrens and allegations of the party’s dodgy financial links with business – the most interesting story in Nicky Hagar’s new book is the picture it paints of the internal machinations and cynicism of National’s leadership inner circle. Below is a synopsis of what Hagar found to occur in the parliamentary wing – based partly on Raymond Miller’s review of the book. As Miller notes, Hagar’s book conveys ‘an impression of cynicism towards the voting public bordering on contempt’. It would be naïve to assume that what goes on in the National Party is dramatically different to the other parliamentary parties.

National's weasel repayment scheme denies 'One law for all'

National is doing it's best to show it can weasel as good as any other party in it's latest attempt to avoid prosecution for its gst breach of the Electoral Act. To pay back the $112,000 it owes to broadcasters without incurring Electoral Commission action, National plan to pay the broadcasters the money to provide free advertising for charity groups. This benevolent-appearing action means that National have spent over the legal limit on broadcasting and don't get penalised for it. Amazingly, the Electoral Commission already appears to have OKed the plan. And broadcasters such as CanWest have indicated they'll take the money but provide no more charity broadcasting than already attended. Other broadcasters who do provide extra charity broadcasting, will essentially be doing it out of their own pocket. It seems clear that National should be avoiding such weasel schemes and just pay the money back - as countless commentators and editorials have recommended - see here and here. National passed the law pertaining to broadcast spending limits and penalties - and now treats these with disdain. Once again, it's clearly not 'one law for all'.

Another green weekend (but turning blue)

Over the weekend there’s been a number of stories about environmentalism and politics in New Zealand. Read more below about how the environmentalists are the new socialists, New Zealand’s environment is going downhill under present management, the Greens can see themselves working with National, and market solutions are still the favoured response to climate change.

The good ol' conservatives

Chris Trotter’s latest column sings the praises of good ol’ conservatives like Jim Bolger. But instead of recalling the Bolger days of the introduction of the Employment Contracts Act, benefit cuts, and engineered mass unemployment, Trotter only seems to remember National joining Labour’s bicultural consensus and negotiating the treaty settlements. He seems to be asking ‘Where have all those kind, compassionate National Party members gone?’ Read more below:

Rightwing parties are going green and the Greens are going rightwing

Labour announced their new environmental vision at their annual conference in the weekend, which was heralded as ambitious but lacked substance. As the Dominion Post’s Tracey Watkins correctly pointed out, this was ‘clearly a bid to head off National’s own attempts to “green” itself’. National has continued to develop its internal and influential Bluegreens group, especially as MP Nick Smith believes that Green voters are easiest to win from their competitors. In line with this, Ruth Berry has written a good feature on National’s move to the centre, which as with their British Conservative counterparts, involves a significant emphasis on environmentalism. It seems that everyone wants to be green, and environmental politics is probably where the consensus amongst NZ parties is strongest.

Not coincidentally, the Green Party has been moving to the right in recent times, and according to Watkins, they are currently in the process of giving away their leftwing tag and rebranding themselves as a potential ally to either of the main parties.

Evil?

It's quite extradinary that the level of debate in New Zealand politics has dropped to the point that politicians such as Pita Sharples call arguments they don't agree with 'evil' - in regard to Don Brash's view that there are no full-blooded Maori left in NZ and that a distinct ethnic group of Maori still exists. For what it's worth, I think Brash's points are probably correct and hardly that controversial. I'll provide some arguments and links to back up such an idea soon.

It's also interesting to remember that the Maori Party pronounced themselves above personal criticisism, but now label their opponents as 'evil'!

Update: The Sunday Star-Times has published scientific research that showing that on average Maori are at least 43% European. Clearly most Maori have a large amount of pakeha ancestry.

National more pragmatic

The National Party is clearly in moderating mode. A recent interview with Bill English on the Agenda TV programme (transcript here) shows that National still has problems differentiating themselves from Labour. Bill English had a lot of trouble pinpointing any principles of difference with labour. He also said that National is more pragmatic than it was 15 years ago and the party isn't setting out to prove a point about ideology.

Similarly, in the UK the Conservative Party is fast offloading many of their more repugnant and distinctive principles and policies. Yet just as Chris Trotter still thinks that National are secret extremists waiting to unlease armaggedon, there are many in the British Labour Party that believe an old extremist agenda lurks beneath the new Tory image. But leftist journalist John Harris wrote an opinion piece in the Guardian a few weeks ago in which he rightly suggests that attacks on David Cameron's inner Thatcher are a tactical dead end.

[political finance] Trotter on Labour's unlawful election expenditure

Chris Trotter writes in the Sunday Star-Times that he's glad that the Labour Party stole the last election with their unlawful election expenditure - as Labour's actions were 'a courageous and forgivable kind of corruption'. For if Labour hadn't said 'Let's f--- these bastards' to the Establishment, New Zealand might 'now be experiencing civil strife on a scale not seen since the 1860s.' Trotter believes that a National government would have unleased 'a rampant Christian right' agenda rolling back the emancipation of women, reversing abortion rights, persecuting gays and lesbians, as well as Maori. New Zealand would be experiencing 'Racial conflict on a scale not seen since the Land Wars of the 1860s.'

Well I think Chris Trotter is a talented and insightful political commentor, who is somewhat uneven in the quality of his must-read journalism, but he really has lost the plot on this one...