Update on Hawkins and why a by-election would be good for Labour

In my last post I looked at how Labour leader Phil Goff was handling the fallout from Chris Carter's brain explosion, and the reaction of Labour MP George Hawkins to being mentioned in Carter's missive.

Carter claimed Hawkins was to face a challenge from within the party for the candidacy of Manurewa, the seat Hawkins has held since 1990. I said that Hawkins reaction demonstrated the same 'sense of entitlement' that Goff (justifiably) criticised Carter for in relation to large travel bills.

Hawkins has now announced an intention to stand for a local board in the October Auckland local body elections. He says he will withdraw his nomination for his parliamentary seat if he is elected, meaning that he will not stand at the next election. But if he is not elected to the local board he will stand for parliament again.

The least charitable interpretation of this would be to claim Hawkins is attempting to discourage a potential challenger to his seat, as nominations close on the 1 September. The most charitable interpretation was that standing down from parliament for the local board was always Hawkins intention, and Carter chose to put an uncharitable spin his intention for effect.

Yet in either case Hawkins still gives the impression of wanting to hang on for dear life, which looks like a sense of entitlement to me. I still hope the challenge happens.

The more I think about it, the more I think a by-election in a seat like Manurewa or Te Atatu would be entirely in Labour's interests. Take this for a scenario.

Hawkins resigns from his seat, and challenges Carter to do the same thing. Labour regain the initative, and Hawkins gains a graceful exit in the arms of a grateful party.

Explain to the public that while by-elections are expensive, at the end of the day democracy and the right of the people to have a say is worth more. This would tie in with a strong message about the lack of democracy in the Super City too. Highlight how National Maungakiekie MP Sam Lotu-liga oped to stay on the council after being elected an MP, and avoided a by-election for the political convenience of his CityRat mates.

At the beginning of the by-election campaign/s Labour annouce they will use every public meeting to tell people about the National party's attempts to bring back the Employment Contracts Act in drag, and every pamphlet delivered for the by-election will also be accompanied by a leaflet explaining the negative effects of the proposed employment law changes on 'every wage and salary earner'. Strong soundbites against '90 days' echo through news bulletins for three weeks.

Labour would be bound to win Manurewa with an ok candidate and Te Atatu with a strong candidate, which would help build momentum and exposure and make it more difficult for the Nats to control the news agenda. There is not likely to be any harm in the Greens running good candidates in either seat, for the same reasons.

So Chris Carter is going on two months 'sick leave'? Is this to waste just enough time so the 'election is too close for by-election' excuse can be trotted out? Please Chris, you may not care for Goff, but please resign from parliament immediately for the sake of the party you claim to care about. The public want you gone.

Telling Carter to go while protecting Hawkins is a mistake

Overall Labour leader Phil Goff has handled the impact of his MP Chris Carter's brain explosion reasonably well. Carter's antics, which have included sending an unnamed gossip sheet to the parliamentary press gallery yet addressing the envelopes in his own handwriting, must go down in New Zealand political history as one of the most inept attempted coups ever. It has to take a vain individual to start an whisper campaign against his leader, when the said individual secretly wants everyone to know it was him all along.

Goff has made the best of a bad situation, using last week as an opportunity to demonstrate how he can be a decisive and strong leader. While Goff has done well overall, some weaknesses in Goff's public position have begun to emerge. The suggestions from senior MP Trevor Mallard and Goff that Carter is 'unwell' may be an honest attempt to explain the bizarre behavior of the later, however this may rebound on Labour if Carter and Government MPs accuse Labour of bullying. Better to state the facts of Carter's behaviour and let the public work that one out for themselves.

The second weakness is the apparent differing treatment of Carter and long time Labour MP George Hawkins during this affair. In his gossip sheet to the gallery Carter alleged unionist Jerome Mika was looking to challenge long time Hawkins for his Manurewa seat, and that Hawkins was threatening a byelection if the challenge went ahead. Significantly, Hawkins refused to deny this was the case when he was questioned about this by journalist Rebecca Wright.

Not only did Hawkins chose to comment on an issue that should have been immediately redirected to the press office of his leader, he did so in such a way that confirmed 'all sorts of rumours'. I am not saying that Hawkins conduct is on the same scale as Carter but the underlying issues at stake are similar.

Goff has criticised Carter for having a sense of entitlement. From the looks of things you could say exactly the same thing about Hawkins sense of entitlement to his seat. Hawkins said that it wouldn't be the first time someone with political ambitions has eyed his safe Manurewa electorate as an easy way of getting into Parliament. That goes for staying there too George.

While acknowledging the seat was subject to a party selection process, Goff sent a message of support to Hawkins by saying "I am confident that George is well supported by the people in his electorate and that he would be confident of being elected even if it was contested". At the same time Goff has called on Carter to resign his Te Atatu seat as he no longer represents the Labour party. The danger is that the Te Atatu electorate committee could also demonstrate support for their troubled MP, as they have now done so.

For these reasons, and some potential legal difficulties in expelling Carter from the party, its good to see some Labour figures backing of this threat for now. A plea bargain of sorts may emerge, perhaps along with a lighter punishment like suspension, where Carter promises not to publicly comment on the leadership of the party, not to travel or be involved in any way in the selection of a new candidate for Te Atatu. Carter has already said he will not stand at the next election. Better to state the facts of Carter's behaviour and let the public work that one out for themselves.

It would a great shame if Hawkins held on for another three years on the back of Carter's stupidity. When now Act MP Roger Douglas resigned his Labour seat in 1990 he anointed Hawkins has his successor, and Hawkins has been a member of the right wing faction in Labour ever since. After a single bumbling term as a minister between 1999 and 2002, Hawkins was quietly told to stand aside as a minister before others made the decision for him. Hawkins career isn't going anywhere, and Manurewa stands as one of the most obvious electorates where rejuvenation is required.

I have only briefly met Jerome Mika, so I don't feel I can comment on his suitability as a candidate. I have heard he is not lacking in ambition, and that he is such a natural at 'working a room' that he sometimes does this at work. Recognition among some of South Auckland's large industrial sites, along with support from Labour's Pacific networks could make some interesting numbers. He may not win the nomination, but Jerome would help send a message.

To my mind the worst thing for Labour would be the appearance of an attempt by head office to stop the challenge to Hawkins, as this would only give Carter's outbursts more credibility and highlight the differing treatment of Carter and Hawkins. Either Hawkins should face the challenge with a little more grace than he has demonstrated so far, or he should announce his intention to stand aside at the next election. The later would also allow alternative candidates to emerge - a more open contest can only increase the chances of Manurewa getting the kind of MP its healthy majority deserves.

Here is hoping Britain votes for electoral reform

Like many political geeks I have been following the run up to the British election. While it appears the tide is going out on the present Labour government, when the polls are converted into seats things are still close. To my mind progressively minded folks should have a clear aim - vote to obtain electoral reform.

Following the performance of Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg in the first leaders debate, the LibDems surged in the polls and leapfrogged Labour into second place, with the Conservatives with the most popular party by a small margin. Yet due to the deeply undemocratic First Past the Post (FPP) electoral system Labour could still gain the most seats and remain in Government despite receiving less support in the popular vote than the LibDems or the Conservatives.

Assuming the LibDems gained enough support to deny Labour or the Conservatives an outright majority, and Clegg keeps his backbone, this could be the last British election under FPP. Hopefully the result will make clear a real proportional voting system is needed, not just Alternative Vote which is FPP in drag. A fairer electoral system would also be of great benefit to parties to the left of both Labour and the LibDems, and would make it harder for the Conservatives or the right wing of Labour adopting Thatcherite policies again. A hung parliament is a means in order to obtain a better democracy. A website has started to help voters achieve this result.

It is most unfortunate Labour did not progress electoral reform while they were in government as this would have set the stage for a long term Labour - Liberal alliance with the potential to shut the Tories out of Government for a long time. Yet as Will Hutton notes the key problem is that senior Labour party figures hate electoral reform and wish to maintain the two party system. In the current situation Hutton suggests Labour should offer Nick Clegg the role of Prime Minister in a coalition deal. Under this scenario Clegg would have to front up to any issues faced by a coalition government, while Labour could develop an alternative PM in waiting.

Yet after the Guardian/Observer endorsed the LibDems, Nick Clegg sprung to the right and said he would not back Labour in a hung parliament if they came third in the popular vote - this essentially opened the door to the Lib Dems supporting the Conservatives, despite the Tories being even more strongly opposed to real electoral reform than Labour. Following this development, in an interesting piece of timing, the Guardian carried a high profile article by Gordon Brown calling on LibDems to back Labour in Labour/Tory marginals.

Yet on another level Nick Clegg's moves should not be such a surprise. Nick Clegg is known to be on the right of LibDems, and the record of the party in local government elections is to campaign to the left, but govern to the right. The Lib Dems are already in coalition with the Conservatives in a number of city councils, including Birmingham, Leeds, Warrington, Camden, Southwalk and Newport, Gwent. A coalition of cuts. Clegg's claims to lead a progressive force have a hollow ring when compared to their council record.

The UK media are deciding only to report on the fortunes of the three 'major parties', those being the Conservaties, Labour and the LibDems. Yet as John Oyston points out the fortunes of minor parties in the regions could determine the result of the election in a close contest. Conservative leader David Cameron knows this - he visited Northern Ireland this week in a bid to support the Ulster Unionist candidates who will back the Conservatives in Westminster. If the difference to forming a government comes down to 10 to 20 seats, the media could look like stunned mullets as they realise the influence small parties have on the formation of the next British government.

If small parties do well this will strengthen the case for electoral reform. There are quite a few seats where minor parties have a strong candidate with a good chance of winning. Neither Labour or the Lib Dems really deserve the votes of the left - at least in some electorates the left have better options. The Scottish National Party may gain more seats in Westminster than its current seven. The Welsh Nationalist party Plaid Cymru is also on the left of Labour. Respect have a good chance in Bethnal Green and Bow, Birmingham Hall Green and Poplar and Limehouse. Caroline Lucus has a very good chance of winning Brighton for the Greens, who are also putting in a strong showing in Norwich South. These will be the seats I will be watching.

The last few days of the campaign has seen Labour increase its support, and the Lib Dems fall away, most likely as a result of Clegg's monumental error in cuddling up to the Conservatives. Not only has Clegg suggested he will support the Tories if they are the largest party (which encourages LibDem voters to switch back to the two old parties) but he is also appears to be going soft on electoral reform by stating this is not a precondition of talks with the Conservatives. In response to Clegg's comments Green party leader Caroline Lucus summed up the situation nicely, highlighting how Clegg had previously said electoral reform was an "absoulute precondition"

"The Liberal Democrats have made a huge noise about being the party of change but when it comes down to it all they really are is the party of changing their minds. It's common knowledge that the Tories don't want electoral reform. Any coalition negotiations that don't set out electoral reform as a deal breaker will lead to five more years of the same old system and it's the voters who will suffer."

Silence from Labour on ministerial housing is a mistake

It is most unfortunate the Labour opposition have made the decision to join National's conspiracy of silence over the out-of-town housing allowances issue. Even if Labour had some dirty laundry themselves, it is more important to speak out and differentiate themselves clearly from National, who being in Government would normally take most of the rap.

Instead, Labour look like they are out of touch. When they have reluctantly commented on the issue they have appeared nervous and indecisive.

If Phil Goff was a better opposition leader he would have gained the initiative by immediately demanding an inquiry into the issue, freely admitting there may have been some Labour 'mistakes'. At the same time he could have barraged Key with suggestions on how to do things better. Good use of parliamentary questions and Trevor Mallard may have uncovered information that put ministers under more pressure.

Instead Goff let John Key gain some of the initiative with his soft as Teflon 'review'. Through their actions the right encourage cynicism toward politicians - it just so happens a electorate with less expectations of politicians usually suits their agenda. So in their silence, have Labour helped the right undermine faith in democracy?

Unfortunately, a 'plague on both your houses' has been a common theme this week - in more ways than one.

As for the Greens, IMHO they had nothing to worry about regarding the Green Futures Superannuation Scheme - the fact they have been more open about their arrangements for years should provide enough political cover.

There are reasonable and necessary expenses for being an out-of-Wellington MP. Its only the profit seeking rorts that need to stop.

I was working in Parliament in 2001 when National and Act's campaign against Hobbs and Bunkle was in full swing. It went far beyond just raising issues - it was the right of New Zealand politics at their most nasty, personal and vindictive. I remember thinking at the time there soon must come a point where the public would start feeling sorry for Hobbs and Bunkle - it really was that bad.

Richard Prebble was particularly obnoxious - it might be a small mercy, but the end of his second political career can be traced to his involvement in the Hobbs and Bunkle bashing. Speculation about his replacement as Act leader started soon after the 2002 election.

The memories of that National and Act campaign were a key motivation behind my posts this week.

Not that I am suggesting Labour and the Greens should now run a similar campaign - instead its more important to remind the public how nasty the Nats can be, as well as highlighting their obvious hypocrisy. How easy would it be right now to paint the Nats and Roger Douglas as greedy out of touch bullies? Unfortunately the opposition are failing to be an effective opposition right now.

Many of the National MPs who were frothing at the mouth in 2001 are now claiming, on questionable grounds, higher out-of-town allowances than Bunkle or Hobbs - it just beggars belief.

Election 2008: Labour now led by Goff and King

Phil Goff is now leader of the Labour Party, with Annette King acting as his deputy. Both are from the right wing side of the Labour party, and both were allies of Roger Douglas during the forth Labour Government.

It is likely that Labour will move to the right under this leadership team, despite being in opposition. Goff could argue Labour needs to attempt to reconnect with what he sees as the 'centre' in New Zealand politics. This may lead to situations where Key appears to be on the left of Goff on some policies - this cannot be good for the rejuvenation of the Labour party.

Interesting that Goff describes himself as a "loyal Labour party person" - does this explain why he supported the forth Labour Government when they were enacting Act policies? For many he will also be remembered as the Minister who first introduced student tertiary fees.

Its possible the new National/Act/Dunne Government will attempt to shore itself up by starting the age old debate over who is tougher on crime. Act leader Rodney Hide is pushing an expensive three strikes policy and likely Justice Minister Simon Power is known for beating the crime drum. Goff had a reputation as a more reactionary Justice Minister, and King just finished a stint as Minister of Police. I really hope this does not mean they join the right in the meaningless 'mine is tougher than yours' competition. Instead I hope Labour join the Greens and the Maori party to stand up for policies shown to cut crime rates and lessen the need to build more prisons. Rationality may not swing short term political support, but logic has a greater chance over the longer term.

I also fear a Goff/King Labour party would support reactionary amendments to the Suppression of Terrorism Act and similar legislation.

Helen Clark did a great thing by announcing her resignation on election night. While it may have shocked some supporters, Clark was likely to move on in the next three years anyway. She ensured she left the leadership of the Labour party under her own terms, and while making a gracious speech, she also took some of the focus off John Key on election night. She also allowed the parliamentary party to reorganise itself quickly, in order that it can better prepare to challenge the new Government on day one of the Parliamentary term. It also gives the Labour party more time to tweak the leadership before the next election if need be.

Outgoing deputy leader Michael Cullen is upbeat. "We've got the best and strongest intake we've had since 1984, it's a generation, the base for a very strong performance by us moving forward so our message is to the National Party, being a law and order party, is three years and you're out.". He also promised "I don't want to become one of those old men in the Muppet Show up the back." This is a shame - I always though the old men in the Muppets had some of the funniest lines!

While the leadership of Helen Clark was a strength of the Labour party for a number of years, her dominance of the caucus and the party also limited the opportunities for any successors or an organised succession plan. This created the situation where Goff only need to bide his time and he would become the front runner by default.

While Goff was an effective minister this does not necessarily provide the style and skills required to be an effective opposition leader. As a minister Goff often defended Government policies by talking in a monotone and giving his opponents or journalists few opportunities to interrupt - on some days he sounded like a Borg drone powered by the Energizer bunny. As a ministerial tactic this could be useful, but the role of opposition leader requires the ability to empathise and talk in a way the public can identify with. I am not sure Goff is there yet - but this may improve now he is out from under Clark's shadow.

Does National party strategy come from the CityRats?

Chris Trotter poses an interesting question. Did the success of the Citizens and Ratepayers Campaign in the last Auckland local body elections provide a 'dry run' for the general election campaign of National led by John Key? Is the same strategy at work?

"Like Banksie, Key is promising that he and his followers have changed. That they’re no longer the flinty-faced mob they used to be under Don Brash. Oh dear me no, they have turned over a new leaf, and become kinder, gentler tories: National-Lite. Also, like Banksie and his C&R strategists, the Nats are relying on the voters’ rapidly waning affection for the incumbent left-wing adminstration to carry them into power without having to first undergo too much in the way of intense media scrutiny.

Could this explain the Opposition’s extreme reluctance to talk about too much policy detail? In case somebody ends up disagreeing - i.e. attracting attention and making news? Is Key hoping to take down Helen Clark’s government in the same way that Banksie took down Dick Hubbard’s - by default?"

Trotter believes the Left opened the way for the CityRats to win in an environment where there was little public scrutiny of their ideas or what they stood for. I largely agree with Trotter's analysis here. I would also note that a compliant media was also a factor.

This suggests a Labour party general election campaign based around 'keeping National out' is less likely to succeed than a campaign based on big ideas (like interest free student loans). Announcing progressive policy is more likely to force the Nats to talk about policy in a way they wish to avoid. Act's Roger Douglas may have this effect too. Labour would not need to run the negative message, as National and Act will scare the horses all by themselves, just like Maurice Williamson did with his $50 a week estimate of road tolls.

I posted the following as a comment in response to Chris' post - I thought I might as well note it here too.

Another related issue is the failure of the centre-left/left to come up with a credible electable candidate for the Auckland Mayoralty for as long as I can remember. While Hubbard won in 2004, he ran a dreadful campaign in 2007. Hubbard’s politics are centrist at best - I am sure many voted for him because he was on the left of Banks, which is not saying much. In 2001 there was the fracas created by the Labour wing of City Vision endorsing a failed National party cabinet minister who also ran a dreadful campaign, and lost badly.

Could we please have a centre-left candidate at the next mayoral elections who people of the left actually want to vote for? A candidate who can generate some enthusiasm around local body issues and encourages a greater turnout?

Will Peters survive the election?

With the political career of Winston Peters now hanging by a thread, many are asking whether NZ First will survive this election. Yet in NZ First's case I believe a focus on the chance of the party regaining 5% or more of the party vote underestimates the regional nature of NZ First support.

Last month a poll showed Winston Peters 20% behind National candidate Simon Bridges for the Tauranga electorate. It is likely that Tauranga is now Bridges to lose, and Peters has no chance of regaining his old seat. That said, with NZ First running at around 3% in polls at the time most political pundits gave Peters a chance of making a comeback given Winston's fearsome campaigning skills. The same poll had NZ First on 6% support in the party vote contest - under half the 13.3% party vote percentage gained in Tauranga in 2005.

Shifting the focus entirely onto the national party vote misses something important about the nature of NZ First's support base - it has long had strong regional characteristics. This means the standings of candidates in electorate races in their previous area of strength will have a stronger correlation with their likely party vote than a party with support spread relatively evenly throughout New Zealand.

In a blog post prior to the 2005 election, I looked at NZ First's support base, making use of a useful post by Poster Child* that listed the top 10 electorates by party vote for each party. I summarised the situation based on the 2002 results:

NZ First support appears to be focused around the top of the North Island. In fact, most of these electorates are right next to each other - the Peters disease must be airborne! From Northland to the North, to Taranaki-King Country and Rotorua in the south, an iron passes over an Italian suit, and people fall for it. Thankfully, Auckland city appears to have greater immunity.

I thought it would be interesting to repeat the exercise using the 2005 results. Once again I was spared from having to trawl through all the election results thanks to DPFs election summary from 2005.

Using a map showing electorate boundaries from the Electoral Commission, I shaded in NZ First top 15 electorates in terms of the party vote. NZ First top electorate of Tauranga (then Bay of Plenty) is black, with lightening shades of grey used to illustrate lower levels of support. I can't say the shades of grey used have a scientific relationship to the levels of party vote - the graphic only aims to be indicative.

While Te Tai Tokerau was NZ First's 12th top electorate, I didn't include it as layered shading would have looked confusing - the outline of Te Tai Tokerau is roughly similar to that of Northland in any case.

Once again, the pattern is similar to 2002 with most of the the dark grey electorates surrounding Tauranga. A Winston bomb with a prevailing wind, with Auckland in a fallout shelter.

This suggests that polling in individual electorates, for both the party and the electorate vote is going to be more significant for NZ First than other parties. The survival of NZ First could well be determined by the levels of support in Tauranga, Bay of Plenty, Northland and Coromandel.

Some may wonder why I am so hard on Winston when we both have sceptical views towards the neo-liberal free trade agenda and the current Reserve Bank Act. Quite simply because NZ First possess limited credibility to be an effective advocate on these issues. While Peters may have campaigned on the left in 1996, he was a neo-liberal poodle as Treasurer between 1996 and 1998 - the supposed walkout over Wellington airport may have been an attempt to cover this up. While Peters may be right to strongly criticise Max Bradford's electricity reforms in 2008 - the fact is that NZ First joined National to vote in favour of these changes in 1998.

At the same time Peters was criticising big business, it has been revealed that he was taking large donations from Bob Jones. NZ First opposition to state funding of political parties now makes sense. As Murray Horton says Winston may talk the talk, but he fails to walk the walk.

So I hope NZ First is dog tucker this election. I hope for some political renewal where other parties take up issues such as fair trade and reform of monetary policy, and leave all the wink wink Asian bashing and public harassment of legitimate refugees such as Ahmed Zaoui in the political wilderness where they belong.

NZ First 2005 Top 15 Electorates by Party Vote Percentage

1. Tauranga 13.3%
2. Bay of Plenty 12.0%
3. Northland 10.2%
4. Coromandel 10.1%
5. Rotorua 9.2%
6. Whangarei 9.0%
7. Wairarapa 8.9%
8. Piako 8.9%
9. Port Waikato 8.4%
10. Rodney 8.1%
11. Taranaki-King Country 8.1%
12. Te Tai Tokerau 7.9%
13. Taupo 7.8%
14. Hamilton West 7.5%
15. Rangitikei 7.4%

* A blog that is no longer with us - I wish Poster Child was still with us Bren, if you have started another blog in another guise please say hi :)

PS: DPF I could not find the link to your analysis - if there is one I am happy to add it.
PPS: For some reason blogger made this post before I had finished writing it. I am sure I only clicked 'save as draft' but found it had been published this morning. Be interested to know if anyone else has had similar issues with blogger. If the post seemed to be incomplete earlier - it was!

The Winniebox and the Serious Fraud Office

GWith the announcement by the Serious Fraud Office of an investigation into donations made to his NZ First party the position of Winston Peters as Foreign Affairs minister is fast becoming untenable.

The smartest thing for Peters to do now would be to stand down. He could use the opportunity to claim he is doing it for all sorts of important sounding reasons other than saving his own skin, such as maintaining confidence in the government, a sacrifice for the good of the nation. Peters gets an opportunity to grandstand, an opportunity to clearly state his belief in his own innocence, and his expectation of coming back as a minister as soon as this nonsense is cleared up.

Peters would also be free of any sort of collective cabinet responsibility for the election campaign, which being Winston could bring some advantages.

Sadly, it appears that Winston Peters is simply too arrogant to take the most pragmatic political course of action.

But if Peter's won't go, Helen Clark must suspend him. She has suspended her own ministers for less, in fact David Parker stood down over a whole lot less. If Peters remains a minister while the SFO investigate, it will be difficult to avoid the perception that ministerial standards have dropped to levels not seen since the end of the Shipley administration. That perception has the potential to cause problems not only with the public, but inside the Labour caucus, as any MPs disciplined by Clark will wonder why Peters is being treated so leniently. Many may start to question Clark's judgement, and perhaps even Clark herself.

This Labour-led government is not in free fall - yet. I still rate their chances of remaining on the Treasury benches around 50/50. Despite the National party leading in the polls, they can not lead the Government unless their vote plus their allies adds up to 50% - and that has been a struggle for National all year.

In the case that Peters remains a minister and Labour lose the election, perhaps some people will cast their mind back to the post election negotiations in 2005 when Labour cast off the Greens in favour of NZ First and United Future. In doing so, did Clark write her own political death warrant three years later?

The more hopeful scenario is that Labour scrape home in 2008, and the numbers force the Labour leadership to form a government with the Greens as the primary support partner. In the same way that some people credited the Alliance with rejuvenating the Labour party in 1999, perhaps the Greens can do the same thing for Labour in 2008. One hopes Labour and their supporters can be grateful.

Obama should put Hillary on the Supreme Court

Listening to National Radio early this morning I did enjoy the suggestion made by Jon Johansson that a President Obama should appoint Hilary Clinton to the Supreme Court. As Johansson points out this would mean all of Hilary's conservative detractors would have to put up with Hillary for as long as she lives!

Looking into this idea a little further, I found the American Family News Network made a compelling case for Hillary, even if they might not have meant to. A so-called "pro-family legal expert", Mat Staver hopes the the potential legacy of Clinton is something conservative voters will consider.

"That legacy will likely be whether or not we have abortion for the rest of our lives or whether we restore the sanctity of human life," he explains. "Whether we continue to have [traditional] marriage ... [w]hat kind of security, what kind of family values and religious freedom are we going to have in the next couple of generations," lists the attorney.

The American Taliban have spoken. Many people reading the above will take it as an ringing endorsement of a Clinton candidacy.

While Clinton does not have any judicial experience (she is a lawyer), non judges have been appointed to the Supreme Court before. In 1952 California Governor Earl Warren entered the court. He later became one of the highest regarded Chief Justices, playing a key role in the Brown vs Board of Education case in 1954 that ordered an end to school segregation.

Of course Obama can't simply appoint her - he needs to become President and a Justice needs to die. Perhaps he could appoint her Attorney General (or a similar role) in the meantime, which would give a clear hint of where she might be heading, and avoid any perceptions of the Clintons running the Obama White House.

Given a Republican majority on the Supreme Court voted on party lines to appoint George W Bush to the Presidency in 2000, the Republicans can not credibly complain about politicisation of the Supreme Court. In fact, Hillary would bring welcome balance to the currently conservative bench.

National's u-turn on Kiwisaver should not be trusted

The National party attempted to make a swift u-turn today when its Industrial Relations Spokesperson Kate Wilkinson told an employment relations forum that National would do away with the compulsory employer contributions to Kiwisaver. "The National party is not a party of compulsion".

Under pressure from her boss, John Key, Wilkinson issued a later statement claiming she had "misinterpreted the question" (yeah right). "National will release its Kiwisaver policy later this year, but suggestions that National will do away with compulsory employer contributions to the scheme are incorrect.

According to Key, Wilkinson "got it wrong", and added that National's industrial relations spokesperson is not involved in the setting of National's Kiwisaver policy. Perhaps Wilkinson was only guilty of telling National's wealthy backers what they want to hear. Perhaps this is a also a sign many National MPs are currently sharpening their hatchets, desperately looking for ways to cut government spending to fund tax cuts, following a budget that tied up most of the cash.

Despite it not being National's day, I think the media have missed something important, and have subsequently let Key off the hook with his refusal to outline any further detail about National's Kiwisaver policy.

While employers have to make contributions to their employees Kiwisaver accounts, employers also gain tax credits for doing so. These tax credits reinburse 100% of employer contributions up to a maximum of $20 a week. In situations such as the 2+2 scenario (where employees put in 2% and employers 2% to make up the 4% minimum) Kiwisaver does not end up costing employers any money more money (than paying 1%) when the tax credits are taken into consideration (for those earning less than 52,000 a year). Labour have set aside a total of $2.4 billion to compensate employers for their 'contributions' over the next four years.

National's denials come with a pungent stench of weasel. National could keep the employer contributions, but give employers greater tax breaks so a greater proportion of employer 'contributions' actually end up being effectively subsidised out of the public purse. National could pay for this by trimming the government contributions, and dangle the prospect of greater tax cuts. This would be consistent with the comments made today.

The effect of such a policy change would also deliver to National's big business backers, who prefer corporate welfare when they can get it. The 650,000 New Zealanders who belong to Kiwisaver should not take any relief from National's blundering policy announcement today. As far as Kiwisaver is concerned, the National party still refuses to answer the key questions regarding their Kiwisaver plans.

Hat tip for some of the links NoRightTurn.

Leading the tax system in a progressive direction

Vernon Small of the Dominion Post has made a cheeky post where he speculates on how Cullen could stop the very rich from taking the lions share of benefits from tax cuts.

His solution - introduce a new top tax rate of 42c in the dollar on incomes above $150,000, and thus allow greater tax relief to be given to those on lower incomes.

While I don't think its going to happen, I like it. The call for tax cuts could be answered, yet the left could claim a victory in making the tax system more progressive. If there are to be tax cuts, this does not necessitate complete submission to the screaming of the right.

There are many other ways the tax system could be improved. I would be happier about cuts to the top tax rate (39c at 60,000) if Cullen used the opportunity to introduce structurally useful changes such as a capital gains tax on secondary residential properties, and/or a financial transactions tax to discourage short term speculation. While the currency speculators may have means of avoiding the later (eg the EuroKiwi), it may still lead to a lower and more stable currency, which makes the Kiwi a less exiting toy for international currency speculators.

Many other countries have a higher top tax rate than 39c, but they generally apply at a higher threshold. If Cullen dared to introduce a new top tax rate, the National party would scream on behalf of its very rich mates, and Cullen could point this out with some of his trademark glee. Yet in order for this to work Cullen would be best to deliver tax cuts before the election, so voters can't be hoodwinked by the Nats into believing a $150,000 threshold is going to affect them.

As the Nats have called for the New Zealand tax system to be more like Australia, shouldn't we also have higher tax rates at higher thresholds? Kevin Rudd recently increased the threshold of 45c tax rate to $180,000 - why do the right wingers never mention the existence of the 45c rate?

Maori party could be more effective with more written policy

Just been browsing the applications of the political parties to the Electoral Commission for the allocation of broadcasting time and funds. I found a few interesting points in The Maori party submission. Their president Professor Whatarangi Winiata points out how the media distort an MMP election campaign back into a First Past the Post electoral contest, and refers to a study conducted by Chris Rudd and Scott Connew which found

"....newspaper coverage of the smaller parties during the 2005 election campaign was, overwhelmingly, focused on the political 'game' rather than on substantive policy issues. That study, [Therese] Arseneau explains, revealed that out of a total of 212 stories dealing with the smaller parties, 19% were about policy. The other 81% were about the game or strategy: who is winning, who will cross the threshold, who is the preferred coalition partner.

"Such an analysis points out the unfair advantage (which we acknowledge is a creation of a media with an FPP and presidential election type mindset) that the larger parties hold, in receiving the great bulk of media attention on policy in the lead up to the Election campaign. In the interests of equity that such a disproportionate allocation of time for the larger parties to present their policy arguments makes a strong case for giving the smaller parties a more substantial allocation of time in the opening and closing addresses, in order that the voting audience has access to a more balanced presentation of information, equally applied across all parties.

While I completely agree with the analysis quoted above, the Maori party may have contributed to this situation in 2005 by failing to release more policy documents during the campaign. As a bit of a political junkie I remember looking at their website on many occasions and being seriously underwhelmed by the lack of relevant information offered to voters. I remember there only being a grand total of three 'policy' documents. Looking at their website at the moment, the situation is even worse - the policy page is empty!

I do not wish to attack the Maori party here, only raise the hope they devote more resources to this area and release more detailed policy for this years election. In the last weeks of the 2005 campaign I remember my surprise when Winiata announced during a TV election debate that the Maori party wanted massive tax cuts - my first thought was well, where is your tax table so I can assess whether your policy will indeed help the poorest New Zealanders?

I believe that in releasing more detailed policy, the Maori party have a chance to have a more influential role in parliament, as other parties would be likely to look to the views of the Maori party when considering how their own policies could affect Maori and Treaty issues.

I have long regarded detailed written policy as a key mark of political honesty. Yes, someone can quote policy in the future when it might be inconvenient, but that is what political accountability is all about.

While there may be short term political advantages in fudging policy to hide internal disagreements or, worse, hiding your real intentions from the electorate (hello John Key I hope I am not talking to you), there are likely to be costs over the long term.

First of all, it becomes difficult for voters to work out how a particular party is going to vote on issues as they come up in parliament. I dare say the Maori party lost a few votes when Tariana Turia suddenly decided to vote against the civil union bill. I dare say the party lost support again when three of its MPs voted for the first reading of Wayne Mapp's bill that proposed to strip workers of their rights for the first 90 days of their employment. If these votes had been consistent with previous written policy, people would have had no right to be upset, however voters would have also had the opportunity to consider the position of the party on these issues before they chose to support the party.

In a small party in particular, a lack of written policy can lead to policy being set 'on the hoof' by MPs, effectively disenfranchising ordinary party members from the policy making process.

Ideas normally outlive people by a considerable margin. Its a quirk of life that has led to significant process. In the same vein, political ideas are more likely to endure when they are set out as a independent set of written principles and ideas - that way they do not die with the political careers of particular MPs.

Benson Pope should resign

David Benson-Pope should resign. NoRightTurn has outlined the reasons.

The question is, is Benson-Pope capable of putting the interests of the Government ahead of his personal ambitions? The lack of political nous he has demonstrated over the whole Madeleine Setchell affair suggests that this is beyond his ability.

I am not at all impressed by the attempts of Helen Clark and David Benson-Pope to blame Ministerial staffer Steve Hurring for the events that led to Madeleine Setchell losing her new job at the Ministry for the Environment. Steve Hurring placed a call to Ministry of the Environment CEO Hugh Logan to inquire as to whether it was true that Setchell was the partner of Kevin Taylor, Chief Press Secretary to National leader John Key. Clark and Benson-Pope are commenting with the benefit of retrospect. Hurring's crime, if there was one, was to uncover a stuff up in the hiring practices of the Department.

At the end of the day, the issue is this - two workers - Setchell and Hurring, are getting a raw deal from their bosses.

Ministerial and Parliamentary staff sign away their rights to speak freely and accept constraints on their activities in their lives away from work. In return staff are not held publicly responsible for actions taken while they are working for their political masters. At least they shouldn't be. As Colin James notes "A person in a minister's office speaks for the minister. The minister is responsible for what that person says or does as a member of the minister's office whether or not it is as at the minister's specific bidding or with the minister's knowledge."

David Benson Pope should have offered his immediate resignation to Clark as soon as the Setchell scandal broke. Clark may not have accepted it. I don't think I am entirely commenting with the benefit of retrospect here - this is how I would have expected Clark to deal with the situation in her first term. In fact this is exactly what another Minister, David Parker did in March 2006, and he got his job back. Ironically it was commented on at the time that Parker was essentially acting as a 'fall guy' for earlier mistakes of Benson-Pope.

Ministerial standards do appear to be falling, and such appearances, even if they are only that, are still damaging. Clark needs to leapfrog some wrinkled egos and find some new faces fast.

The left should not weep at the downfall of David Benson-Pope. Despite claims in some quarters that he is on the left of the Labour party, his actions in his Social Development and Employment portfolio suggest the opposite. The Social Security Amendment Act changed the whole purpose of the 1938 Social Security Act that established the welfare state. The new Act "wipes away any notion our social security system is about ensuring everyone can participate as citizens, instead it makes getting a job, any job the fundamental duty of citizenship". As Louise Humpage and Susan St John say - the Government is undermining the original notion of 'well-fare' in a way that would have Michael Joseph Savage turning in his grave. The new Act also will make it very easy for a future government to reintroduce work for the dole. If Benson-Pope is on the left, the Labour party is now even more of a centre-right party than I imagined.

Key refuses to rule out a challenge to National leader Brash

In my post yesterday I highlighted recent ructions within the National party, and suggested these little public flare ups may indicate some National MPs are already beginning to prepare for the day Don Brash loses the leadership of the party.

In the Sunday Star Times today Ruth Laugesen suggests some of Brash's colleagues are measuring him up for a body bag.

Following reports "plenty" of National MPs would like to reduce the influence of Murray McCully on Brash, Mr McCully has now signaled his intention to step down from the role as 'Parliamentary Assistant to the Leader of the Opposition'. This is not a clear victory for McCully's critics, as the lack of a fancy title is not likely to reduce his access to Brash.

According to Laugesen, McCully is giving up the post because he wants to put some distance between himself and Brash, so he is free to prepare the ground for the next leader. So even McCully might be joining the game of bullrush out Brash's door.

Laugesen suggests McCully would back John Key when the time comes.

In a recent interview with Helen Bain, John Key refused to rule out a challenge to Brash in the next three years. "These things are something you consider when you get nearer the time" (in other words, I can't wait for the opportunity).

"I have no intention of challenging Don, but you can't ever rule those things out. I'm supporting him and it's genuine. There is no grand master plan behind the scences, like we go after him after six months," Key said (if there was a master plan, do you think I would tell you?).

But Key also said there might be "other circumstances" in which his intentions might change, although they were "not on the radar' (In other words, I might do something if our poll ratings drop, or Don demotes me or one of my mates).

It is also possible Bill English could mount a comeback. In a recent speech on the Treaty of Waitangi many noted the more respectful tone English took towards Maori, in contrast to the sloganeering of Brash at Orewa and during the election campaign. While Brash says he backs the speech, it is yet to appear on the National party website.

Given another go at the leadership, English may attempt to fashion a more 'thoughtful' image, more in keeping with his strengths. When English was leader, some suggested it was McCully who attempted to coach English away from this, in favour of a more typical (nasty) Nat approach. While English is often painted as more of a centrist within the Nats, this does not take into account his views on education, which are close to the radical right prescription of the two-seat Act party.

English does not owe Brash any favours, especially given the clumsy fashion in which Don undermined Bill's leadership of the party before mounting a formal leadership challenge against him. The continued clumsiness of Don in itself suggests an orderly change of leadership in the National party is not likely to happen. Its going to get messy. In the next few months will we see another National MP seek to undermine Brash (other than the cat-burning Brian Connell), allowing John Key to take over as a 'compromise' candidate?

Categories: Politics, New Zealand, National, Murray McCully, Don Brash, Leadership

Are National MPs starting to organise against Brash?

There is ongoing speculation "plenty" of National MPs want to reduce the influence of veteran adviser Murray McCully on leader Don Brash. This is reported to include senior figures such as Lockwood Smith and Simon Power.

McCully currently works as a "Parliamentary Assistant' to the leader of the Opposition.

One source said Mr McCully, who is MP for East Coast Bays, had been part of several strategy teams that had presided over election losses. His abilities were overrated and had at times played a role in poor decisions, the source claimed.

"Plenty of us are unhappy with his influence," the source said. "He has a huge influence over Brash and we still can't understand why. If Brash doesn't start to listen to the broader caucus then he won't survive."

Although Brash won a routine caucus reaffirmation of his leadership following the election, not even Brash is sure whether he will lead National into the next campaign. Those with leadership aspirations, together with those with an axe to grind are now jockeying for position in case an alternative leadership candidate emerges.

Some MPs were unhappy with what they saw as McCully's role in the demotion of MP Katherine Rich from the welfare portfolio after she refused to support the more extreme aspects of Brash's beneficiary bashing.

National insider DPF warns this is about the tenth time since the 1993 election he has heard speculation about the imminent demise of Mr McCully (which in itself speaks volumes about the popularity of the man within the party!). But the real issue here is not whether McCully stays or goes - the moves against McCully have more to do with Brash remaining National's leader.

Some MPs are looking to McCully to be the fall guy for the election loss, others see him as being close to Brash and the type of operator who would work out pretty quickly if someone was 'doing the numbers' within the caucus. The first stage of a palace coup is to take out the palace guard.

More significant, however, is Simon Power wish to gain a major portfolio instead of continuing as Whip of the National Caucus. It is a convention of New Zealand parliamentary politics for the Whip to unquestionably follow the will of the leadership, even internally. This suggests a reasonable explanation for the reason Power does not want to remain as Whip - he wants a free hand to faction against Brash.

Power once held the undemanding portfolio of Defence, only to be fired by Brash for making a hash of it by saying National's foreign policy would be to support our close allies, Australia, the United States and Britain, without reservation, "when and wheresoever our commitment is called upon" (fired for telling the truth perhaps?).

In the Press today Brash makes the position of McCully a confidence issue, warning that those critical of McCully may not get the job they wanted as a result. This barb is clearly aimed at Power.

The latest TransTasman newsletter says McCully attempted to brush off the criticism of his influence over Brash but "has revealed he believes the matter is being pushed by former party golden boy Simon Power". Rakaia MP Brian Connell, better known for his wish to throw cats into fireplaces, is also named as an MP keen to reduce the influence of McCully.

In the event Brash is removed from the leadership (or more likely, Brash is 'convinced' to step down), it is possible the moves against McCully and the change of Whip will be seen as the first steps in the political death of the Don.

Categories: Politics, New Zealand, National, McCully, Brash, Leadership

Random Historical Interlude #2: Roman Emperor Constantine

Just watched an interesting documentary about Constantine the Roman Emperor, part of the BBC 'I, Caesar' series. I normally find I am not as interested in ancient as opposed to modern history, I suspect it came from the tendency of classics at school to emphasise 'storytelling' over historiography, and I have always had a preference for the later. But I did enjoy this episode of 'I, Caesar' :)

Constantine was the first Roman Emperor to take steps to remove the persecution of Christians in the Empire, effectively adopting Christianity as his imperial cult following the battle of Milvian Bridge on October 28, 312. The 'Edict of Milan' promoted religious freedom, whether it be Christian or Pagan, returned Church property and established Sunday as a day of worship (Sunday being a reference to the Sun God - so paganism was still a big influence). Christianity was very much a minority religion at this time, some of its unpopularity being due to its rejection of other peoples gods (has that changed?) and the clear preference of soldiers for paganism. It was estimated that only 2% to 10% of the population were Christian around this time.

The way Constantine went about his unofficial sponsorship of Christianity allowed him to achieve his political objectives, with his convoking of the Council of Nicaea in 325, a very deliberate mixer of Church and State. While those that continued to follow Paganism continued to gain appointments, right up to the end of Constantine's life, it was pretty clear that adopting Christianity could be a very shrewd political move for the elites surrounding the Emperor. Leading families who refused Christianity were denied positions of power. Yet most of the ordinary people/peasants kept to the old Pagan faith, some for a generation, some for a few more hundred years.

What struck me was the uncanny similarities to the European Reformation some 15 centuries later, where elites were the first to convert to Lutheranism (and then Calvinism), many for reasons of political expediency, some to ensure their head remained attached. Leading families who refused to 'recant their Catholism' were denied positions of power, while the peasants stayed with the Pope.

Near the end of his life Constantine went a bit paranoid, accused his eldest son Crispus and second wife Fausta of having an affair and had both of them killed (they were not mother and son so its not as Freudian as you might think). Constantine was baptised on his deathbed, thereby gaining absolution for his sins. There is something pretty cynical there (and a bit of Pascal's old wager). I guess Pope Urban’s promise of absolution for killing Muslims during the first crusade was another step worse.

The curious rules of coups

There is a plot within the belegerled ACT party to replace leader Rodney Hide. Senior party members have asked former deputy leader Ken Shirley to challenge Hide for the leadership.

Public statements to the media in such situations that 'all is well' should be taken with a grain of salt, as just about every leadership challenge includes a denial of a leadership challenge, right before there is a leadership challenge. What is not being said is often a better guide to what is going on.

Shirley will only confirm he supported 'the ACT party leadership', but declined to clarify whether this meant he supported Hide.

Former vice-president of ACT Vince Ashworth also declined to say whether he was comfortable with Hide as leader, but added "I always believed that Ken (Shirley) would have been the better leader. I say that because of his experience, and he's a person I've always left I can trust."

So Ashworth thinks Rodney Hide is untrustworthy. Act MP Deborah Coddington declines to comment whether she supports Hide. Roger Douglas and Derek Quigley want no hear or Hide. ACT president Catherine Judd does not really want Hide either, as she supported Franks for the leadership.

Hide desperately attempts to blame the rumours on 'Helen Clark's cheap shots', while the Press confirms no Labour party sources were in any way involved in their reporting.

I would not be surprised at all if it turns out Shirley is the stooge candidate for the leadership, an MP on the way out who is being used to test support for a challenge. Shirley will take the rap for challenging the leader, allowing John Banks or Stephen Franks to mount a clean(er) challenge later.

This will lead to a glorious mess, and ACT will be tossed out of Parliament. Not even their cabal of wealthy backers, with their record dodgy donation deals will be able to save them.

Thoughts on Tamihere's terrible tirade

John Tamihere is in trouble once again for shooting his mouth off, this time in an interview with Ian Wishart of 'Investigate' magazine. In a sheer act of political hari-kari Tamihere lays into the Prime Minister, calls one cabinet minister a "tosser", and another "smarmy".

Tamihere's excuse that he thought the interview was off the record simply does not have any credibility. Especially when the journalist reports "I put the tape recorder down on the table and away we went". I find it very hard to believe an experienced MP and former cabinet minister would talk to a journalist in this way, unless it was part of a deliberate political strategy.

My guess? While he intended to undermine a few select colleagues, once he got going he just got carried away.

In the interview, Tamihere claims 10 MPs out of the Labour caucus of 51 back him "to the hilt". This gives a pretty good indication of the size of the right wing 'backbone club' within the Labour party. When John Tamihere resigned from cabinet in November, I predicted George Hawkins was likely to lose his place in cabinet in Clark's Christmas reshuffle. Ok, I might have been a little premature, but only by a few months. Apparently Tamihere and other members of the backbone club kicked up a stink when rumors started to fly that Clark was about to drop him. With Tamihere gone, Clark has been more able to act.

Tamihere's outburst appears to be partly motivated by the recently announced party list, suggesting he is rankled by the rankings given to his mates.

"When you look at the (party) list, the union movement have got four new members coming in, end of story... They don't deserve to have that level of influence. I'm going to lead a charge against that, very shortly.."

It may be significant that Tamihere chose to talk to a journalist who he thought might be sympathetic to his views. In January Xavier of About Town wrote a good piece on the conversion of Ian Wishart from a respected investigative journalist to a dogmatic Christian fundamentalist who no longer lets truth get in the way, especially if helps a story preach moral conservatism. Given that an article titled 'Helen's a Dyke' appeared in Wishart's 'Investigate' magazine it is possible that it was Wishart who drew out Tamihere's offensive paranoia about butch lesbians and the "wimmim's" division of the Labour party.

Ironically, JT's upfront moral conservatism places him closer to the views of a centrist, morally conservative Maori Party. Had he not been so quick to bag them so publicly, he could have hinted to Helen he was considering jumping waka, thereby creating a combination that would have done the most damage to Labour. Instead, he now desperately attempts a similar trick by promoting the future of the National party, a stance highly unlikely to help his re-election chances in a Maori electorate.

Come the election, could we see Labour leftists supporting Pita Sharples* in Tamaki Makaurau, in a campaign reminiscent of the successful attempt to oust Richard Prebble from Auckland Central in 1993? Perhaps that comparison is a little harsh, but you get the point. Roger Douglas appointed Hawkins to be his successor after all....

* From what I have heard from Pita he seems decidely less keen on a coalition with National than other Maori party candidates, and from what I can make out seems to be more of a lefty.

NZ: Has Tamihere resigned? At least there will less of a 'backbone club'

Scoop is reporting that beseigned cabinet minister John Tamahere has resigned from cabinet. I am not surprised about the timing - the humongous focus on the American election means that it will be an opportune day to bury unfavourable political news. Of course this rule must remain unspoken. On September 11 2001 a white house staffer sent around an email suggesting 9-11 was a good day to bury bad news, and was sacked after a public outcry.

Governments controlled by spin merchants are not always this cynical, but nethertheless, today is a good day to keep an eye out for parliamentary and other reports the government would prefer not to release at all.

Clark has been distancing herself from Tamihere ever since she got back from India. Her comments to the media that she had spoken to Tamihere earlier in the year about speculation over tax related issues, strongly suggested he was already toast. Clark can say she asked Tamihere about any potential issues and he denied there was a problem, so she can claim to be off the hook.

I must say as a lefty I am not too sorry to see Tamihere go. He is a known member of the Backbone Club alongside Clayton Cosgrove, David Benson-Pope*, George Hawkins and Dover Samuels - the Labour right wing faction that once included Roger Douglas, Richard Prebble, David Lange and Michael Bassett among its members. Kind of an ironic name really - I didn't think worms and snakes had backbones.

One of Tamihere's first actions as Youth Affairs Minister was to dismiss a report commissioned by Laila Harre advocating the removal of Section 59 of the Crimes Act (the so called defence to allow smacking of kids). He also has advocated the privatisation of welfare - so I think there is a case that, if he did not hold a Maori seat, he would be in a different party.

That said, Tamihere always struck me as a friendly, affable sort of guy. When I worked in Parliament as a researcher he was one of the few MPs that would say 'Ki ora' to me as I walked past, even though we had never been introduced. Many MPs would not even acknowledge the existence of us 'worker bees' in the Beehive, Bowen House and Parliament house.

With Tamihere gone from cabinet, it is now more likely that George Hawkins will be reshuffed out of cabinet in Clark's Xmas reshuffle. Apparently his fellow members of the backbone club kicked up a stink when rumors started to speculate that Clark was about to drop him. I wish she would - he always reminded me of Mr Creasote from Monty Python's 'Meaning of Life'. I am sure if he ever 'blew up' it would be equally as disgusting.


*The Labour cabinet minister who told Zaoui to 'Get on a Plane'