Red in Roskill

Distraction

2007-09-09T18:17:00.000+12:00

The reason for the lack of posting on this site in recent months hasn't been a lack of interest in politics, but a diversion of activity to the local government elections in Auckland City.

To read more go to:

www.cityvision.org.nz
http://cityvisionblog.blogspot.com

Normal transmission will resume from about mid-October.

Budget Bites the Bullet

2007-05-17T17:20:00.000+12:00

This was a bolder budget than anticipated by anyone, and bites the bullet on several important long-term issues for New Zealand.

Saving – Partial compulsion

My feeling for quite a long time has been that as good an idea as Kiwisaver was, it was simply too light. It was a purely optional scheme and offered a maximum $5000 subsidy for any participating individual. A useful scheme to make it easier and more attractive to save, but not really significant enough to tackle our low savings record head on.

Today’s budget testosterone injection means that Kiwisaver will sit alongside the Cullen Fund as a centerpiece of a national savings strategy, The Cullen Fund ensures that the state will be in a position to fund NZ Super over the long run, while Kiwisaver will provide the vast majority of New Zealanders with a genuine opportunity to supplement NZ Super with retirement savings of their own.

People contributing to the scheme will receive a matching government tax credit of up to $20 per week to supplement their own savings (around $1000 per year), while critically, employers are being required to contribute (1% next year rising to 4% by 2001/12), after twenty years of on the whole shunning their responsibilities in this area.

There will no doubt be much carping about this from business lobby groups, but it is fundamentally a question of whether business wants to consider itself a part of society or not. Faced with long-term economic imbalances in our economy, all sectors of society have a duty (and in fact a self-interest) in resolving the problem by building our national savings.

Cullen’s move in this area has been bold and impressive. Budgets are best when they plan for long-term prosperity and cohesion. By biting the bullet on savings, Cullen is acting to ensure that our economy is on a more stable footing for the next couple of generations.

Transport

The announcement of $500m in capital funding for rail electrification in Auckland and other major transport initiatives is also about our long term economic and social health. This spending is non-inflationary as it actually builds economic infrastructure that will raise productivity, and it targets money to exactly where it is needed – critical projects that will make Auckland in particular a more livable city.

There is of course a lot more, which I will write on soon.

Your HR Policy Stinks as much as your sandwiches

2007-05-09T23:59:00.000+12:00

Lessons for Labour

2007-05-07T22:07:00.000+12:00

Elections in Scotland, Wales, and for local government in England over the weekend proved pretty inconclusive for anyone looking for decisive trends (Labour weak, but the Tories unable to forecefully take command), but confirmed the gut feelings of many observers that UK Labour does have some serious (if not insurmountable) challenges to overcome in order to win a fourth term of government. There are lessons in this for NZ Labour.

The Labour vote of has come in at what many consider to be the absolute base for the Party, while the Conservatives picked up 41% of the vote across England. So while New Labour is clearly unpopular, the Tories are simply performing credibly. They failed to significantly cut into Northern strongholds like Manchester and Birmingham, took fewer Councils of the Liberal Democrats than expected, and narrowly avoiding becoming the fourth party in Scotland.

All this to me is suggestive of a public that don't want a return to conservative rule, but are disallusioned by politics as practiced by New Labour. The rhetoric of choice that masks creeping privatisation of the health system, the banal infatuation with wealth and celebrity, increased costs in the tertiary education sector, and of course the utter folly of Iraq have all eroded support for a Party and an idea that most moderates and progressives in the UK still want to govern.

Fundamentally, New Labour has in its style and policies just departed to0 far from the core beliefs of the coalition that elected it to office so overwhelmingly in 1997.

NZ Labour must understand this if we are to win a fourth term, and I am convinced that in this regard, we are on the correct side of the ledger. On all of those core principles that have been backed by a solid 40% of the population for close to a decade, NZ Labour has largely steered a straight course. The privatisation agenda has been stopped in its tracks, the investment in core public services and capacity has been significant, the labour market has been actively intervened in to promote greater equality and fairness, and we have stayed true to our internationalist roots by wisely keeping out of the quagmire in Iraq.

Political management issues aside, this government has basically stayed faithful to the people that put it in place. So while also facing an invigorated Opposition, my feeling is very much that NZ Labour is in a far stronger position to hold on to a base of support large enough to make centre-left government possible in the medium to long run.

One down!

2007-05-03T23:22:00.000+12:00

Jacqui Dean's Easter Trading ammendment Bill has suffered a deserved defeat, going down 84 votes to 37. Media coverage of the issue and vote has been predictably limp, with this TV3 report all I could find. It's sort of as if we've now had our big parliamentary conscience vote show-down for the year, and reporting on the issues around another significant decision would just be too much of a stretch.

As the more hardline of the two Bills, it was reasonably likely that Dean's effort would go down in a ball of flames, leaving the door open for the more moderate Chadwick Bill to pick up wider support from MP's sensitive to the finely tuned whinging of some in the retail sector. So, the fight goes on.

With the Child Discipline Bill tidied up with such astonishing speed, the legislative agenda has actually started chugging along again, and I think that debate on the Chadwick Bill is imminent.

Nonetheless, it's never a bad time to sign a petition for a good cause, so anyone out there who wants to oppose the Bill just contact me for an e-mailed copy.

Kill the Bills

2007-04-30T21:24:00.000+12:00

The brouhaha over Sue Bradford’s child discipline Bill has overshadowed another looming conscience vote of great significance. National MP Jacqui Dean and Labour MP Steve Chadwick have each produced Bills that seek to dismember Easter trading restrictions. Both Bills, having been delayed by the Bradford Bill , are coming up for Second Readings in the House. For an outline of the legislative process to date (and a little commentary to boot), read Sue Bradford's speech to the House here.

The two Bills are each slightly different. Essentially Dean’s Bill allows for all shops to trade on Easter Friday and Sunday. Steve Chadwick’s Bill, tailored more for tourist towns like her own Rotorua, allows for Territorial Authorities to decide whether trading on these days will be permissible. While Chadwick’s Bill is the lesser of two evils, both are obnoxious pieces of legislation that ought to be rejected.

There are currently just 3.5 days per year on which trading is restricted (Easter Friday, Easter Sunday, Anzac morning, and Christmas Day). These 3.5 days represent small islands of quality time away from the pressures of work and consumerism. New Zealanders currently work some of the longest hours in the OECD, and with an increasing trend towards unpredictable casual and rotational work, and longer opening hours, many hundreds of thousands of New Zealand workers, particularly in retail, are truly starved of time with family and friends.

These remaining protected days allow our communities to come together to do the things that help knit us together – to commune around a BBQ, to attend Church (if that’s your thing), to enjoy a long weekend away from home, or simply for everyone to be together at home with no pressure to work and no pressure to buy.

The Anglican Archbishops have issued a thoughtful statement against the Bills in which they identify an absolutist market philosophy as being at the heart of the Bills, and question “Are we simply consumers, running like hamsters on a wheel in a marketplace, or is there more to us than this?"

I believe that this issue is one of conflicting rights. Is the unfettered right to buy goods and make money more important that the right of New Zealanders to spend quality time together in our communities? Both Bill’s, shamefully, support the first proposition. There should also be no mistake about the intentions of those in industry who have driven the Bill. Once the principle is established that trading on Easter Friday and Sunday is OK, then why would Anzac morning and Christmas Day be any different?

However, all is not lost! For an Anglican trade unionist such as myself, the Bills have provoked a dream coalition of Churches and Unions to come together to protect the Easter Holidays. Labour MP’s Darien Fenton and Mark Gosche are involved, as is United Future’s Gordon Copeland. Both the Catholic Bishop’s Conference and the Anglican Social Justice Commission have swung in behind, while the NDU, as the union for retail workers, has been campaigning hard on the issue for months.

One of the key initiatives of this coalition of Churches and Unions is a nationwide petition. Slightly frustratingly, it is as yet unavailable online, although this is being worked on. For those of us with an interest in the ability for the Progressive Christian community to engage and organise with the broader progressive community, this joint campaign could serve as a real model for future co-operation on social justice issues.

Anyone who wants petitions should feel free to contact me. You can also send an e-mail direct to targetted MP’s from the NDU website.

Really Busy

2007-03-05T21:35:00.000+13:00

Not much time for blogging at the moment due to everything happening at once at work. Likely to be a bit like this through most of March.

Bugger the Billboards

2007-02-19T22:10:00.000+13:00

Auckland City’s attempt to control advertising signs and billboards around the city deserves a cheer. There aren’t too many bouquet’s for the move in the media, with the political right working itself into a self-righteous slather in defence of the right of the advertising industry to invade our public space, and the Herald running one of its small-minded campaigns in defence of those noble nation builders of the outdoor advertising industry.

The Councillors who have proposed the by-law changes have primarily justified the move on the basis of improving visual amenity in the city. Quaint Edwardian facades clearly lose something of their gentle charm with Dan Carter’s crotch competing for attention next door. While there is definitely some merit to this argument, my main reason for supporting the by-law has more to do with the right of citizens to go about their business in public space, without the constant and aggressive mental intrusion of advertising.

The purpose of advertising (as distinct from store signage that identifies where a shop is and promotes it generally) is to influence your mental processes and convince you to buy something, that presumably you would otherwise not. We are driven (in part) by this advertising to believe that consuming more and more will make us happier, when in fact the evidence continues to mount that mindless commodity fetishism is a self-perpetuating cycle by which we become disappointed by the failure of new products to truly satisfy us, yet convinced that the only solution is to buy more (think – “140 000 troops won’t do it, I’ll try 20 000 more").

I object thoroughly to the advertising industry’s role in this cycle, and am increasingly sickened by the quasi-scientific approach taken by professional marketers to scientifically target messages to certain people in an attempt to create a pavlovian impulse to buy.

Sickened as I am, I can live with it in spaces that we have some control over. We can chose to change the channel when the ads come on (or not turn the TV on at all), we can decide not to buy 250 page glossy magazines that devote 165 pages to advertising, pop up settings can be changed on our browsers, and spam filters installed.

However, when the advertising industry moves into our public spaces such as streetscapes as billboards and signage increasingly have (and semi-public spaces like buses), we lose that control. Every person has an equal right to be in these spaces, and in my view to be there without being mentally pestered at every turn. I have no doubt that the constant pressure to buy created by the advertising industry at every juncture of the day is a contributor to feelings of stress, anxiety, and inadequacy in our society.

Why should we tolerate this in our public spaces? Pestering people to buy more crap is not a fundamental human right.

Brian Rudman also very helpfully points out that the by-law is unlikely to actually affect the business of genuine local traders.

My hope is that the hearings process will result in a by-law that remains firm on the key tenets of the proposal, while allowing some sensible compromise and refinement on the rules governing store signage. You can join me in submitting here.

Progressive Christian Resources

2007-02-14T07:31:00.000+13:00

I've added a new menu down the right hand side that lists Progressive Christian resources on the blogosphere/web that I find interesting or go to from time to time.

If anyone else has any sites or blogs they would recommend then just let me know.

Helen Duncan

2007-02-08T10:44:00.000+13:00

Some sad news came through yesterday with the death of former Labour MP Helen Duncan. Helen had been battling cancer for quite a few years.

I didn’t have a huge amount to do with Helen, but met her and Alan on a number of occasions at Labour and union events. Helen was warm and engaging, and extremely down to earth – despite her status as a government MP, she had no aires or graces about her.

In particular I recall her kindness when as a rookie candidate in 2002, I was at some kind of large scale business/ethnic sector event. One of those ones where you don’t know anybody, and apart from engaging in some banal small talk there is little for the Labour candidate for Pakuranga to do. For whatever reason Helen and Alan were there, and Helen no-doubt recognising the signs of a bewildered and slightly at sea candidate, proceeded to very diplomatically take me under her wing as we moved around the room. A small but telling kindness.

A good story, dear to my heart also emerged from the Transport and Industrial Relations select committee, of which Helen was a member, that heard the Employment Relations Bill 2000. The then Head of Westpac Employee Relations (the people who deal with the union) was submitting, and commented that Westpac had over 6000 employees and that changes to employment law had significant consequences for them. I’m paraphrasing here, but Helen said something like “6000 people to negotiate with, wow, that’s a huge commitment in time, people and resources”. “Yes” said the ER Head, “With 6000 employees, running the negotiating process is a huge commitment”. “Well” said Helen, “having more of them come under one Collective Agreement as this Bill promotes will save you a lot of time and money then won’t it?”. “Ummm, well, if you look at it like that, I, ummm, suppose so” continued the beaten bank lobbyist. Touche Helen!

Helen’s background was with NZEI where she was President between 1993 and 1995 and played a major part in some key union battles at that time. She was at the forefront of the fight to keep the primary sector collectivised in the early 1990s as the ECA began to bite, fought against the introduction of bulk funding, and was President at the time NZEI won the historic right to pay parity with secondary teachers.

My thoughts are with Alan and the rest of Helen’s family.

The Maori Party and Maori Political Power

2007-02-07T17:58:00.000+13:00

Since the formation of the Maori Party, its relationship with National has been a topic of media speculation, and a cause of much angst on the left. The debate was sparked again last week with twin kicks in the guts for the MP from John Key who confirmed National’s policy to abolish the Maori seats, and to not support the first reading of the MP’s bill to repeal the Foreshore and Seabed Act.

The media analysis of this issue tends to be shallow and transitory. Instead of focusing on the talks that National and the MP are having talks this week about issue x, we should instead look at why it is that the MP is behaving the way it is in the Parliament, and where the MP will position itself in the long-term:

Maori Power

While the catalyst for the formation of the MP was the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004, the networks, ideas, and activists that are brought together in the Party did not spring up wholly formed at that time. Rather, Maori have been organising, and growing their political power over a number of decades.

Activism and protest, particularly through the 1970s and 1980s gave Maori a voice in the body politic and brought Maori political issues to the forefront of public consciousness. Most importantly, this activism and protest delivered results. The establishment of the Waitangi Tribunal, key legal victories that secured Maori rights, the Treaty Settlement process, and just as importantly thriving Maori cultural, NGO, and business sectors, all stemmed from the activism and protest of the 1970s and 1980s. Through this, Maori won a degree of political power.

The Limits of Activism

As the organised labour movement of the early Twentieth Century found however, activism and protest have their limits. The New Zealand Labour Party was formed against the backdrop of crushing defeats for the labour movement such as the Waihi Miners strike, which led union leaders such as Savage and Fraser to realise that the labour movement needed to win power through the democratic process in order to fulfill their political ambitions.

The Foreshore and Seabed Bill and the associated hikoi was a case in point. Sure, 20 000 people took to the streets of Wellington to vent their anger and apply pressure, but ultimately the Bill had the numbers and got through. Defeating the Bill actually required a parliamentary presence that could organise 61 ‘no’ votes (I incidentally support the Act as a pragmatic balancing of interests).

Transition to political power – contradictions and compromises

In winning four of the Maori seats and taking seats in Parliament, the Maori Party has moved to establish this political power to compliment the powerbase of Maori across marae, iwi organisations, NGO’s, and businesses across New Zealand, and sometimes seen on the streets. It is in this context that the Maori Party’s behaviour needs to be considered.

Parliamentary representation brings with it a range of contradictions and the need for compromise. For instance, how does the Maori Party reconcile the fact that it was born out of opposition to a Labour Party Bill, with the fact that Labour’s programme has delivered huge tangible gains for Maori? On all of the key indicators – unemployment, income levels, access to healthcare etc, Maori have moved ahead under this government at a faster rate than the general population.

Well, in the Maori Party’s case you basically ignore it. Instead you focus on issues of culture and sovereignty that provide a contrast to Labour’s position. The MP has had precious little to say on macro-economic policy or (more surprisingly) even on economic development. Naturally this is frustrating for a Labour government that has invested hugely in the economic and social development of Maori, but it is simply a natural consequence of the MP finding a political voice in parliament that is distinctive.

Compromise is also a necessary part of building political power in a parliamentary environment – particularly under MMP where no one party can do it by themselves. All parties are bound by this iron law, and it is wrong to criticise the Maori Party for doing so. Equally, in order to exert maximum influence, a small party like the MP is almost bound into engaging with both major parties. It is the subsequent dalliances of the MP with National that cause the most angst for Labour activists.

Watching the MP cavort with a cabal of people who represent the interests of the wealthy and powerful, and whose record is of throwing the working people of New Zealand onto the socio-economic scrapheap is stomach churning, but (swallowing words) it is understandable. In any negotiating environment – union/employer negotiations, cutting a business deal, getting the right person elected as Chair of the PTA, you increase your power by having other options, or at least giving the appearance of other options. The MP cannot be blamed for this.

What they can be blamed for, is taking it much, much too far on occasion. The initial decision to back the 90 Day Bill, and the more recent stance on Work for the Dole moves the MP’s position from negotiating, to selling out the interests of the people they represent. Quite appropriately, it was mass mobilization by the union movement that caused the MP to drop their support for the 90 Day Bill. The MP over-stepped the mark on these occasions and urgently needs to sort out a strategy for avoiding such situations again.

What Now? An Opportunity for the Left

The Maori Party is here to stay, and is here to exercise power. This needs to be accepted as a reality, and an historic opportunity for the left. The 2005 election results confirm this. While the MP succeeded in taking 4 seats from Labour, voters in those same seats actually increased their support for Labour over the 2002 result. Maori voters did not reject Labour – rather, they voted strategically, splitting their votes, in order to increase their political influence.

Polls consistently show that a Labour/Prog/Green/Maori block has a natural and comfortable majority in the Parliament. I doubt if any poll since the formation of the MP shows this group falling below 61 seats. While the MP has danced a merry dance with National, this is not a combination that will ever work. If for no other reasons, how on earth would the two reconcile their positions on the two touchstone issues of the Maori seats (National: abolish, MP: enshrine) or the RMA (National: Private property rights over-riding all else, MP: A greater say for local Iwi). My gut tells me there are enough smart people in the MP to realise that it simply cannot work in practice, and that it would be punished by Maori voters.

So, what needs to happen? Here’s what I think:

The Maori Party
- Needs to develop an analysis of economic policy and clearly go on record to state that National’s neo-liberalism was and will be a disaster for Maori. Use this analysis to assess where they stand on policy coming out of National and Labour, rather than developing positions on the hoof.
- Should talk to natural social partners more. Develop a deeper relationship with unions, churches, non-Maori NGO’s, and talk policy with them (while obviously preserving a central relationship with their core constituency).
- Engage with Labour. Yes, the MP arose out of a dispute with Labour, but so did the Alliance, and NZF out of National. Politics demands that you move on if you want power. There are encouraging signs that this door is now opening.
- Without closing off any options for the remainder of this term, make a clear strategic assessment about whether a partnership with National and ACT is a goer. Maori voters said no resoundingly in 2005. Base the 2008 strategy around this assessment.

The Left
- Recognise that the Maori Party is here to stay and represents an historic opportunity to lock in a centre-left majority (some contradictions and differences in focus notwithstanding).
- Develop the relationship at a soft and personal level. Again, this seems to be starting to happen.
- Work with the MP to develop a broad consensus around common principles. An attack on inequality and the role of the state in ironing out these inequalities, a rejection of neo-liberal ‘trickle down’ theory, a policy for increasing the wages of poorly paid workers (many of whom are Maori), the role of a strong and well-funded public sector in delivering core services etc…
- Find some common projects and start working on them, be it some mutually agreeable legislation, a union campaign on low wages in a sector with a high Maori presence – something that builds a bridge.

Getting this right is in my view not just a question of what happens in 2008, but a question of building a progressive political coalition that has a comfortable structural majority.

Progressive Christianity

2007-02-01T23:18:00.000+13:00

One of the intentions of this blog is to generate some discussion about Progressive Christianity. There is a significant gap in our public discourse for people of Christian faith who believe that the Christian message is one of social and economic justice, tolerance, and compassion. While there has been a long history of Christian Social Justice campaigning (think about Michael Joseph Savage’s “Applied Christianity” of the Hikoi of Hope), the loudest Christian voices in public debate across the Western world tend to belong to those who want to exclude and judge anyone different, and ignore the poor.

Because Progressive Christians, in stark contrast to conservative Christians, have on the whole been ineffective at publicly enunciating what we stand for, I think that most people outside of the Church would struggle to identify just what Progressive Christianity is. If pushed I imagine that the term conjures up a fairly wishy-washy version of Christianity – nice accepting folk, living and dressing for the late 70s, and not really believing in much aside from being pleasant to one another.

This is unfortunate because there are clear and powerful principles underlying Progressive Christianity that have huge relevance for today's public discourse. What follows is not a manifesto, but a summary of some of the key points Progressive Christian principles that motivate me:

Moral Rights and Wrongs

The religious right like to contrast their unambiguous beliefs about a range of ‘moral’ issues with the more tolerant views of others, claiming essentially that this is evidence that they believe in clear moral rights and wrongs, and that contrarily, the rest of us are coasting on some post-modern acid trip on which anything goes.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Progressive Christianity is in fact all about the fact that we live in a world in which there are clear moral rights and wrongs, and choices to be made. We just disagree (sometimes) on what the rights and wrongs are. Brian Tamaki holds that two consenting men having sex is a moral wrong that Christians should mobilise against. I hold that 21% of our children living below the poverty line is a moral wrong, condemned by scripture repeatedly, and something upon which we must act.

Progressive Christians in my view actually need to drop some of the more namby-pamby rhetoric, and in the spirit of the great Christian social justice campaigners of the Nineteenth Century label some of the great injustices of our world for the moral crimes that they are – and then act to change things.

The Centrality of Scripture

While Progressive Christianity is accepting of the right of other faiths to draw inspiration from their traditions, this does not mean that we forget about our own traditions, and the centrality of the Bible in that tradition.

Jim Wallis is a Progressive Christian leader from the USA, who comes from the evangelical movement, and has a long history in the civil rights and social justice movements. In books such as Gods Politics – why the American right gets it wrong and the left doesn’t get it, he repeatedly returns to scripture as a source of inspiration, to uncover truths about the human condition and God, and to search for solutions to our problems.

He rightly points out that the biblical imperative to act to end poverty and bring about social justice is overwhelming. Old Testament prophets, Jesus, and the disciples raged about injustice, and our obligation to act. The Bible remains as central to the the faith for Progressive Christians as it does for other Christians.

Inclusive not Exclusive

There is an interesting passage in John 21-28 in which Jesus initially refuses to deal with a woman because she is a Canaanite and not a Jew. He compares her to a dog – nice. What happens next is the cool bit though. The woman challenges him, and he backs down. For good measure, he heals her daughter. The formally closed shop of Judaism is thus opened up by Jesus, who takes a message of unconditional love and acceptance out to the very gentiles who previously were excluded.

The New Testament message of love, and not judging others is impossible to ignore. If these principles are at the centre of your faith, then there is simply no question about excluding or condemning others because they have slightly different beliefs, sexual preferences, customs, or whatever. It just makes no sense.

Justice and Change

Jim Wallis powerfully talks about the call to social justice in the Bible, and the need for Christians to be a part of solutions. He notes that the bible talks about homosexuality twelve times over 1500 odd pages of small print, yet talks about the plight of widows, orphans, the sick, the homeless, and the socially isolated many hundreds of times.

Seeking justice by changing unjust social and economic systems therefore becomes a biblical imperative. Wallis was a leader of the Jubilee Debt Campaign – an inter-faith movement that led to the cancellation of billions of dollars of third world debt. The term ‘Jubilee’ came from a Biblical tradition of the Jubilee, a once in every 49 year event during which debts were forgiven, foreclosed houses returned, and slaves freed. Basically, unjust distribution of wealth was leveled out. Radical stuff.

While a new levelers movement is not about to be re-born in the middle-class Anglican parishes of Auckland, the Christian tradition is clear that we should actively attempt to bring about social and economic justice for all.

Different Strands

Of course, its nonsense to suggest that there is one Progressive Christian creed that is followed by everyone who will identify with the term. Just as the Catholic Church, the Buddhist tradition, or American Evangelicals all have different streams within them, so does the Progressive Christian movement.

Jim Wallis himself comes from the Evangelical movement. South American Catholic Liberation theology sits within the tradition, and in contemporary New Zealand, Christians across all denominations identify with Progressive Christian ideals.

Importantly too, there are people with very different personal theologies and conceptions of God who would identify as Progressive Christians. I’m with Richard Randerson and his agnosticism as to whether God exists in spirit form or as a guy with a beard – equally the obsessive interest of the fundamentalist right in Creationism is just something I couldn’t give a hoot about. As a Progressive Christian I am far more interested in discussing our tradition, drawing inspiration from it, and then acting to bring about justice and understanding in our country and world.

===============

I am keen for discussion about Progressive Christianity to take place on this blog, so any comments are welcome (if you have made it this far). In the near future I intend to set up a list of Progressive Christian resources too – any suggested sites or blogs would be appreciated.

Radio New Zealand National...

2007-01-31T20:08:00.000+13:00

...sounds like patronising branding bullshit.

Hold on, I'm already listening to you. You don't need to sell me on the "product" or create "brand awareness". Save the money on the marketing hack who came up with this nonsense and hire another reporter.

Dead Possums and Nice Views

2007-01-29T18:08:00.000+13:00

One of the fantastic things about the Roskill area is the interesting and varied natural environment. Not many people know it, but snaking along the Manukau Harbour foreshore is the largest area of native bush on the Auckland Isthmus.

This bushy strip starts out where SH20 winds down towards Onehunga, continues along the coast around Hillsborough, nestles around a number of bays and beaches at Waikowhai (my local patch) and Blockhouse Bay, before continuing on towards Green Bay and beyond. There is an impressive array of native bush, historic tracks and buildings, and native birdlife within the area.

In amongst the Punga, Puriri, and Pohutakawa, are signs of the areas colonial heritage. A cobbled road that once carried log laden wagons from the Waitakere’s can still be spotted at some points, and there is an old abandoned stone building in the Waikowhai reserve that presumably serviced this trade.

This urban oasis is however under threat from filthy, dim-witted, aggressive, venereal disease infected Australian ex-pats. Possums (along with assorted other pests of the rodent-kind), loads of the buggers, make their syphilitic homes high in the trees along the foreshore where they alternate between breeding and gorging on the native flora. Once the trees and berries are stripped by possums, there is precious little room or food for our unique (but pretty helpless) native birdlife.

This is where Auckland City’s volunteer programme comes into play. The programme is co-ordinated by a Council Officer who organises groups of local people to run pest control programmes, plant trees, maintain tracks, clear rubbish from waterways, and a range of other activities at some of the major parklands across Auckland. The programme at Waikowhai has been running since 2004, and has focussed on pest eradication – this being the first step needed to create a wild-life sanctuary right on the Auckland isthmus that could potentially be fenced off as a predator-free zone for the introduction of a wider variety of native birds.

I became involved in the programme in 2005, and have over recent months gone out a couple of times per week to check and clear traps. It’s a fantastic opportunity to get some exercise, enjoy the local scenery, and contribute something locally. Anyone in Auckland interested in volunteering in a similar way should just follow the link above.

I’ve attached a few photos of the reserve from around Lynfield where I have been active recently. If anyone wants any more information about the various tracks along the Manukau, then feel free to e-mail me.

* Photo's aren't uploading at the moment but I'll add these later.

New Blogger

2007-01-25T07:58:00.000+13:00

Have a look at single malt social democrat

Carl is a friend of mine, with a tinder dry sense of humour whose blog will be well worth watching. I think he is going to blog on a combination of political issues and book reviews.

McMillan - Out (again)

2007-01-25T07:47:00.000+13:00

A fourth obsession of mine is cricket, so for those of you who don't appreciate the great summer game, perhaps skip to the next post.

Cactus Kate has started a campaign of persecution against New Zealand batsman Craig McMillan. As far as campaigns of persecution go, this one is relatively justified.

McMillan’s stats simply don’t stack up. His average, and conversion rate to match winning 50s and 100s are just too low, even when put alongside the rest of the under-performing New Zealand top order.

Most critically in my view, McMillan has failed to develop as a player. Although the available records don’t allow for this, I am quite sure that a season by season analysis would show that his figures have not significantly improved, if at all, over the decade he has spent in the national team.

McMillan consistently plays with the same reckless abandon that is guaranteed to get him out for an insignificant score 7 times out of ten. With a decade of top flight coaching and experience he has failed to apply himself and remedy basic errors in his game such as his inability to leave good balls just outside the off-stump. Time and time again he is dismissed mindlessly wafting at balls that a more focused player would recognise as hard to play, and leave.

This happened repeatedly in his innings of 89 last week, and it was only a matter of luck that he was not given out caught behind while still in single figures. This lack of self-assessment and willingness to apply himself to improving his game is in my view the main reason he should not continue to be selected. It’s a pity because McMillan has some real batting talent, and when in form he sees the ball like a watermelon.

For several years now, my view has been that the logical replacement for McMillan in the team is Scott Styris. While is batting average is far from stellar yet, he shows signs of application and improvement. Critically too, in his shorter international career, he has been far more effective at turning starts into match winning hundreds – something the New Zealand team (a scratchy win over England notwithstanding) desperately needs.

Updating Blog

2007-01-22T22:02:00.000+13:00

Quite a few of the details on this blog - website links, the blogroll, etc, have become pretty out of date since I was last regularly blogging in mid 2005.

I'm slowly updating all of these, so apologies for any dead links, and the lack of new links. If you have a blog or site that you would like added please just leave a comment here.

Cheers,
Michael.

Labour in 07: Investment

2007-01-21T23:48:00.000+13:00

The PM has given some clear indications about the government’s policy priorities for the year, and fairly typically the mainstream media has failed to provide much analysis or comment on this. The media focus is very much on the issue of caucus and cabinet renewal, but it is a mistake to think that renewal is just about different bums on parliamentary seats – it is not. A renewal of ideas, policies, and thinking is just as critical.

Think about the National administrations of 1990 – 1999. In terms of the personnel, there was actually significant turnover, particularly of those at cabinet level. Jim Bolger, Max Bradford, John Banks, Philip Burdon, Paul East, John Falloon, Peter Gresham, Doug Kidd, and Denis Marshall are just some of the Ministers who turned over between 1993 and 1999. National’s Leader, Deputy, and Finance spokespeople all turned over within the three terms. Yet by 1999, the National government (crippled admittedly by a series of dodgy coalition arrangements) was seen as tired and out of ideas.

So the vigour and vitality of a government is about far more than simply how new the MP’s and Ministers are. While it is clear that some new blood in the Labour lineup is needed over the next year or so, renewal is about far more than this. The PM’s recent comments have been positive in this regard. She has highlighted the following issues as key areas for work over 2007:

Education

Education has been highlighted as “the area (where) the initiatives need to go”. This is an excellent move. There is a clear need for increased investment, particularly in the compulsory sector where the case for increased operational funding is strongly made - and doing so will highlight the emptiness of John Key’s “aspirational” rhetoric. We will need to contrast increased investment in our schools with National’s default setting in this area – attacking teachers, whinging about NCEA without providing any solutions, and banging on about bulk funding as if it actually does anything to improve the delivery of education to children.

The same should happen in regards to the implementation of the 20 hours per week free early childhood education policy. Getting every single three and four year old into early childhood education is one of the best things we can do to ensure that literacy, numeracy, and social cohesion improve – particularly in our poorer communities. This is an expensive policy and the implementation is difficult (the intransigence and greed of many private providers being a significant obstacle), but it is happening, and Key needs to be made to front up on whether a future National government would continue the investment, or spend the hundreds of millions on tax-cuts for mates in the Parnell millionaires club.

If by the end of 2007 we have seen a significant increase to Operations funding for schools, fulfillment of the 20 hours free policy, and progress on the election pledge of reducing class sizes to fifteen for five year olds, then Labour will be able to head into election year with a clear record of using our national resources to invest in the core public services that matter to most people.

Climate Change

With several policy papers out for public consultation, the government has succeeded in starting a national conversation about the issue. While it is clear that there are no quick and easy fixes, and that a strategy needs to be rolled out over a number of years to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, it will be important that some policy work is concluded in 2007. Some tangibles need to be implemented by late this year or early next.

There is a real sense that this issue has reached a tipping point. Some kind of action in 2007 is necessary both to ensure that we are meeting our ethical and international issues to reduce our emissions, and to contrast Labour’s action on the issue with National’s lack of commitment to environmental issues. Having a blue-green sector and saying that they believe in the concept of climate change has been relatively easy for National, but I see no evidence that they have any willingness to take on the challenge of reducing emissions if it offends key sector groups in agriculture and industry.

Auckland

The Stadium – decision made, argument over. Build it.

In her comments the PM has focused in on the issue of regional governance and public transport. It is apposite that the two are bracketed as (in part at least) many of Auckland’s public transport woes are down to a failure of regional governance.

After the botched Mayoral proposal to create a super-city (and co-incidentally a new role of Lord Mayor for one of their own), the government and the region have responded well to the challenge of modernising Auckland’s governance structure. The government provided leadership by making the call that change was needed, and setting a timeline. The region responded by engaging in a rare public discussion on local body governance, and then feeding the results back to government. The clock is ticking on this one with local body elections in October. A well-crafted proposal that unifies the region will be critical in ensuring that Auckland is ready for another million people in the next fifty years.

The PM’s other comments on Auckland focused around the rail network, and particularly the issue of electrification.

We know that increased investment in rail services through better stations and rolling stock, more regular services, the Britomart project, and double tracking have delivered increased rail patronage, and with it significant economic, social, and environmental benefits. It is critical that the investment continues. Electrification is a big part of this, as in my view is an expansion of the network – starting with the Onehunga line. I will write more on this later. Needless to say, a government backed plan in 2007 to proceed with electrification would signal a major commitment to investing in Auckland’s future.

It’s about Investment

All of the areas highlighted for attention in 2007 by the PM are about investment. To paraphrase economist JK Galbraith, “there is no point living in a society of private affluence, surrounded by public squalor”. Serious investment in our education system, meaningful movement on climate change, leadership on Auckland’s governance, and investment in the region’s public transportation network in 2007 will show that Labour is the Party that invests in our shared future.

Investment on this scale will signal to the country that this is a government that is renewing its ideas and policies more that one or two new MP’s will.

As the Bishop said to the Editor

2007-01-19T22:27:00.000+13:00

The debate sparked by Bishop Richard Randerson’s recent comments in the Herald about the nature of God is significant for two reasons – the very fact that such a debate has taken place in the mainstream media, and the public intolerance displayed by some conservative Christians in response.

For several surprising days this week, the dialogue and letters pages of the national paper have been dominated by responses to the Bishop’s acknowledgment that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of God, and his belief in God as something other than a guy with a beard “up there”. Letter writers, guest columnists, Herald writers, and other clergy all chimed into the debate. There was conservative outrage at this “heresy”, plenty of liberal letters making great use of the word “inclusive”, and a strident band of atheists maintaining that every calamity and genocide in history was the fault of the previous two groups.

But there it was – a discussion about the nature of God laid out bare for all to see and think about. As the earlier heretic Lloyd Geering pointed out in the 1960s, this discussion is not new. Debate about the nature of God has gone on across all faiths, and within the Judeo-Christian tradition, since Adam was a boy – somewhere between six thousand and two million years ago. Biblical texts such as Song of Solomon, or Mark’s contributions to the New Testament strikingly talk about a God more along the lines of Bishop Randerson’s “God as life-giving spirit flowing through all creation”, than of a thunder bolt wielding chap in robes.

Geering points out that across the Christian Church, clergy have been actively having this debate for at least a hundred years, and congregations have not been far behind. My feeling is however that most outside the Church are not aware of these strands of belief. Rather, it is the traditional image of God (with all that this implies – something I will write on more later) that most agnostics or atheists think of if asked to identify who/what ‘God’means. For most, it is a concept that in our post-enlightenment age simply doesn’t compute.

For this reason, the opening up of the debate publicly can only be a good thing for the Church.

Or at least it would be if the debate is conducted with respect and tolerance. Randerson’s comments were notable for this. Nowhere in them is any denigration of the traditional view of God, or criticism of traditional Christians for their genuinely held beliefs in this regard.

Contrarily, the conservative reaction dripped with bile. Randerson was a “heretic”, he shouldn’t be a priest let alone a Bishop, the decline of the Church is down to people like him, he roasts tabby kittens in tubs of baby lard etc… It was a sadly predictable reaction, reflective of people with a siege mentality, and ignorant of the diverse strands of belief that have shaped Christianity over two thousand years.

A traditional view of God is still relevant for many Christians, and will continue to be so. Equally, there is an alternative paradigm that views God and faith in a different that has many followers. Both groups need to work together in a spirit of irenicism to build a Church that stops looking inwards, and instead goes out into the community to seek justice for the kind of people that Jesus spent his time with – the poor, the sick, the dispossessed, and desperate.

These people probably wouldn’t have even read the Herald this week.

New Blog

2007-01-19T00:16:00.000+13:00

The last proper entry on this site contains graphical analysis of the electoral swing across non-Labour held seats in Auckland.

I sincerely promise to attempt to think a bit more creatively about content on this new incarnation - at least until Election 08.

This blog will focus on 3 big things in my life - Labour, life in Roskill, and Progressive Christianity. I also have some other things in my life, so I'll probably be posting 1-2 times per week.

Feel free to comment, even if you're a vindictive, embittered right winger who views the world through the prism of money.

Cheers,
Michael.

Under re-construction

2006-09-10T19:44:00.000+12:00

Restarting again soon hopefully.

Just Dozing

2006-02-06T16:32:00.000+13:00

Given that this was a campaign blog, you will notice that posts ceased after the September 2005 election.

With NZ politico's of varying affiliation clogging up the blogosphere with contributions that vary from incisive to inane, I haven't seen too much point in carrying on with another standard-type blog.

Currently thinking about some different options and plan to have something up and running on this site in early March 2006.

Michael.

Polarisation: The Stats tell the story

2005-09-22T22:14:00.000+12:00

Labour Vote Trend: Labour Held v. Non Labour Held

Some extremely interesting trends emerge on analysis of the Election night results.

The primary trend is of increased political polarisation. Simply put, National areas moved to National in proportionately higher numbers than elsewhere, and Labour areas moved away from Labour in proportionately lower numbers than elsewhere.

The overall result saw Labour fall marginally from 41.26% in 2002, to 40.74% on Election night this year, a small swing away from Labour of 1.26%. The polarisation trend can be observed by looking at the Labour vote across Auckland electorates and seeing how this trend was distributed.

The graph above shows three things:
- The flat yellow line in the middle represents the 1.26% fall in the Labour vote across the country.
- The pink line represents Party vote results in Labour-held Auckland seats.
- The blue line represents Party vote results in non-Labour held Auckland seats.

The picture is simple, in all non Labour-held seats, where the Labour vote was weaker to begin with, the swing against Labour has been bigger than the nationwide average. The percentage decrease in the Labour vote in these seats varied between 5.8% (North Shore) and 15.15% (Rodney). Pakuranga was 6.84%.

However, in most Labour held seats, the picture is reversed. In all but two of these seats, the Labour vote held up better than the nationwide average. In four (Mangere, Auckland Central, Manurewa, and Mt Albert) the Labour Party vote actually increased.

The stark differences in Party vote increase/decrease between Labour-held and non Labour-held seats in Auckland confirms the theory of increased political polarisation that has been bandied around in reference to the rural/urban divide.

The trend is also evident within the Pakuranga results.

Our overall Party vote decrease was 6.84%. For administrative purposes the Returning Officer breaks down the booths in the electorate into the geographic sub-groups of Bucklands Beach (worst for Labour historically), Howick (middling), and Pakuranga (best for Labour historically). When the results are broken down into these groups we see:

- Labour vote in Howick down by 14.39%
- Labour vote in Bucklands Beach down by 8.41%
- Labour vote in Pakuranga down by just .79%

If the Pakuranga segment is broken down further to remove the Farm Cove and Sunnyhill booths which are very strong for National, we are left with what we call 'Pakuranga South', the area that has had far and away the strongest Labour vote historically. In this area our vote actually climbed by .91% compared to the nationwide dip of 1.26%. The strongest Labour booths such as Anchorage Park (+2.6%), Elm Park (+4.88%), Pakuranga Heights (+6.02%), and Riverhills (+11.56%) saw good Labour gains.

So internally, the pattern matches the picture across Auckland - National areas solidifying for National, Labour areas solidifying for Labour. Polarisation.

And here's an example of what won this tightest of tight elections for Labour:

Turnout Increase in Pakuranga:

Bucklands Beach (7143-7617) - 6.64%
Howick (7304-7645) - 4.67%
Pakuranga (12649-14110) - 11.55%

Hard graft and on the ground organisation to get out the Labour vote, that's what won it. Despite the Presidential style campaign, flash billboards, blogs, and multi-media gimmicks, it was on the ground campaigning in the end.

Campaign Highs and Lows

2005-09-20T20:17:00.000+12:00

There's a pile of campaign analysis out there in the blogosphere, and I'll have some on the Pakuranga campaign tomorrow once I've finished the number crunching (some very interesting trends emerging already).

In the meantime, the good bits, and not so good bits from an extremely long, tough campaign in Pakuranga:

Lows

- The poll blues. Whatever anyone says, and whatever you know about long-term trends, margins of errror and the time frames involved, candidates still live and die from poll to poll. Given this, one's mental health took on something of a schitzophrenic quality over this camapign.
- Long days and nights away from home.
- Absolute exhaustion in the last couple of weeks. Literally falling asleep in the middle of phone calls is a good sign that you need a bit more rest.
- The odd socially disfunctional jerk who insists on turning any political discussion into a personal slanging match.
- War wounds. Campaign helpers torn to bits by dogs, strange and horrific blood blisters after hoarding expeditions gone wrong...

Highs

- The door-knocking campaign. Almost universally well-received, and worth the effort when we align the areas we intensively canvassed, with our results.
- Campaign Committee meetings. I had what every good campaign needs - a tight, focussed campaign committee that put together and implemented a sound plan. Thanks Angela, Jeff, Patrick, and John.
- This Blog. Proved to be a good campaign tool, and created more local interest than I had envisaged.
- The debates. The first was an out and out butting of heads with Judith Collins, and I was very happy with the outcome. The second was a lower key, quite fun affair that also went well.
- Assisting local residents. Campaigning brings you into contact with local residents who sometimes need a hand dealing with Council/Govt dept etc... I enjoyed the opportunity to help out in these kinds of cases.
- Campaign blitz days. Hitting targetted parts of the electorate with a group of activists. The best day was when we convereged on the Ennis Ave area in late June, and leafletted and doorknocked the place to within an inch of it's life. We got our best vote increase at the local booth.
- The final burst. That final two week burst of campaigning was exhilirating. We knew that the election could go either way, and that everything we did counted. Alot of coffee and Berocca kept me going.
- The people who spontaneously came out of the woodwork to help. Folk like Louise who helped scrutineer on the day, and Christine whose female presence while giving out education policy information outside schools, ensured that I didn't look like a paedophile.
- The night. What an absolute spectacle. I knew we were going to win when we pulled even, and then the next set of electorate graphics showed Labour strongholds Mangere, Manukau East, and Manurewa with 60-70% of votes still to count.

Tomorrow... the local numbers!

Every Vote Counts

2005-09-15T23:51:00.000+12:00

This will be my last post before Election Day, and if if can communicate just one thing, I hope it is that every vote counts on Saturday.

It is absolutely clear that this is the tightest election race in a generation, and that the choices are very stark.

On Saturday New Zealanders can choose the short-term silver bullet of tax cuts, or we can choose to invest in our shared future.

Over the past six years we have worked hard to build a strong economy that serves all New Zealanders, not just the wealthy few. We have strong growth, low unemployment, decreasing child poverty, and we have implemented a range of positive measures such as the re-establishment of apprenticeships that put us in a good position to prosper in the future.

We have also developed into a proud, confident nation. I have never been so proud to be a Kiwi or a member of the NZ Labour Party as I was when the US & UK illegally and immorally invaded Iraq, and we stood firm on our principles and refused to participate.

This Labour government has not been perfect, but I genuinely believe that we have honoured the commitments we made in 1999 and 2002, and that we have a positive plan for the future. Policies such as interest-free student loans, more modern apprentices, smaller class sizes for 5 year olds, and the expanded rates rebate scheme represent a comprehensive programme to invest in our future, and to share the benefits of our national wealth.

On the local front I have enjoyed the Pakuranga campaign immensely. I can honestly say that I have never worked so hard in my life. We have done everything that we could have to connect with the voters of the electorate, and I have enjoyed the opportunity to meet so many local residents face to face.

For the assistance and support offered by my wonderful campaign team of Patrick, Angela, Jeff, and John, I am incredibely grateful. For my wife's forbearance, patience, and support over the past 9 months of campaigning I am also indebted.

On Saturday I simply ask that Pakuranga voters think carefully about the sort of country we want to build, and look closely at the policies on offer. Any local residents who may find it difficult to reach a polling booth on the day are welcome to contact me for assistance.

Best of luck everyone. See you on the other side!

Campaign Crescendo

2005-09-15T00:01:00.000+12:00

From Dawn till dusk and beyond, this week is manic.

Early morning bus stop visits begin each day, followed by getting out the ever huge mountain of deliviries, doorknocking, the odd community group visit, leafleting of parents outside local schools, and 1001 little tasks to keep the campaign ticking over.

This week also saw Pakuranga's only two real campaign debates.

The first, on Monday night was organised by the combined local Catholic Parishes. This was the bigger of the two, with roughly 100 people in attendance. Each speaker had to address 4 topics, and the floor was then opened for questions. National was represented by Judith Collins, and from her very first response on abortion which she used to make a Party political point over the parental consent issue, it was clear that we were not going to have a happy night.

Over the next couple of hours, her behaviour deteriorated. While I actually quite enjoy a bit of good heckling, Mrs Collins behaved in an increasingly petulant manner, rudely nattering away while others spoke, mouthing 'Shutup' to someone in the audience who dared to disagree with her, questioning the right of the audience to ask the questions they wanted, and finally refusing to answer a direct question on the Iraq war. Being a helpful fellow I politely stepped into that paticuar breach.

I got on fine with other canidates from across the political spectrum, and simply sould not fathom Mrs Collins sourness.

The second debate, organised by Oxfam, Amnesty, and the UN Association was completely different. It was quite a bit smaller and better humoured. Maurice attended this one, and although we got stuck into each other a few times, it was all in good spirit - the way it should be.

We'll be continuing to campaign right until the final whistle. I think this is still an extremely tight election and think that this will be reflected in polls over the next couple of days. Turnout and leadership will be the decisive factors.

The Polls go crazy

2005-09-11T09:48:00.000+12:00

The polls are all over the place:

Colmar Bruton last Sunday: Nats 9 ahead
Midweek TV3: Labour 9 ahead
Herald Friday: Deadheat
SST today: Nats 7 ahead
Herald on Sunday (snap): Labour 3.5 ahead.

...with a Colmar Brunton poll coming tonight which the Herald on Sunday suggested would contrast with the SST result.

What to make of it? Two things I think. The first is that there is exceptional volatility, particularly in National's vote. Secondly, there is no doubt heading into the final week that it is very close.

In my view, a combination of the Leaders performances, and on the ground organisation to turn out the vote, will probably decide the election.

Knife edge stuff!

Best Day Yet

2005-09-09T00:00:00.000+12:00

Great day of campaigning today.

Leafleting at Pakuranga Plaza bus stop kicked things of this morning. This went well again, with another very positive reaction from students to the interset-free policy.

Then a big leafletting drive through the day. The best thing about this was that about half a dozen people stopped me to chat along the way, and offered their support.

Lunch was good too. Labour was nicely ahead in the Pakuranga Muffin Break coffee bean poll!

The afternoon saw a bit of hoardings maintenance, including the replacement of one of our horror sites in Howick that seems to get hit every second night. I won't attempt to describe what was written and drawn on this one! Again, a number of passersby offered their support. We also put up a fantastic new sign in Half Moon Bay that was offered by a supporter who called us up and suggested the use of his property.

The day was rounded off by an extremely positive bout of campaigning along Casurina Rd in Pigeon Mountain. There was hardly a negative response.

A bit of a dream campaign day really, and I'm quite ready to be brought back to earth tomorrow!

Gone by Lunchtime

2005-09-07T16:56:00.000+12:00

This is very funny.

Mainly because it is true. All it does is quote back Brash's various contradictory positions on a range of issues.

Not everyone 'likes' Helen Clark or agrees with all of Labour's policies, but a number of right leaning voters have told me during the campaign that at least they know what they are getting with her. With Brash, who knows what the policy will be next week? His comment the other day that he could not comment on National's housing policy because he had not "read the press statement" was a new low.

I think that this leadership issue will be a critical one in these closing weeks of the campaign.

Wednesday in Howick

2005-09-07T16:18:00.000+12:00

It has been a good days campaigning.

I began with some leafletting of people at the Highland Park bus stop this morning which went very well. Naturally, many of the people at the bus stop were students going into Auckland University and AUT, so the response to our interest-free policy was very good.

The middle of the day was taken up by a lot of leafletting around the central Howick area. We seem to be getting quite a good response to this. In 2002, I received very few phone calls or e-mails in response to our leafletting, but this time there is steady daily feedback, and most of it is good, or at the very least, genuinely undecided and enquiring.

Lunch was an extremely unhealthy visit to the Roast Dinner store on Aviemore Dr where I had my first after school job. I can heartily recommend this place - they were doing the roast dinner thing when there were only about 3 such stores in Auckland, and they still do a mean pork roll.

More leafletting in the afternoon, followed by a bit of doorknocking in central Howick, then home to work on various bits of campaign administration.

More of the same tomorrow...

Nats in Eastern Corridor Spin??

2005-09-05T21:12:00.000+12:00

I caught the end of a One News item this evening which seemed to show Don Brash over-ruling Maurice Williamson on the Eastern Corridor issue.

Maurice once again extolled the virtues of the corridor at the debate I had with him over transport policy a couple of months ago, so I would be extremely interested to know if this was the case.

There doesn't yet seem to be anything online... did anyone see the full story?

Hard Slog Ahead

2005-09-05T21:01:00.000+12:00

It has been an exceptionally busy week, hence the lack of recent blog entries.

The last few days in particular have been hectic. Our second major electorate-wide electorate has been parcelled out to our team of deliverers across the electorate, I've had a cluster of speaking engagements with local community groups, door knocking in the Pigeon Mountain area has commenced, the signage network has been expanded (and repaired where necessary), and I have commenced bus stop visits to meet local residents first thing in the morning.

I've had some particularly enjoyable meetings with the Shakti Seniors group, the Selwyn Seniors, and Half Moon Bay Rotary. People at the meetings were extremely interested in the election, and had plenty of searching questions. I appreciated the opportunity.

The recent polls suggest a hard slog ahead for Labour to win a third term, so the next two weeks promise to be even busier. I am on annual leave now, so campaigning is now a full-time activity.

National Website

2005-08-29T22:10:00.000+12:00

I wouldn't usually draw attention to this, but I think that a glance at National's website is actually quite telling.

We are in the middle of an extremely competitive election campaign, with high levels of public interest, but what does National have to offer up in its featured 'National News' section?

Well, firstly and obviously a link to details about the tax announcement - fair enough, that is National's centrepiece (some would argue only) policy. Beyond that though, it's very sparce. There are two stories that are 2 weeks old, one of which is an announcement about National creating a new Ministerial role (I thought they believed in a smaller cabinet), and the second is weirdly, an ad about their TV ad. The other story is the 3 week old launch of National's immigration policy.

In the world of websites, this is all very dated. Labour's website on the other hand has six uptodate stories that are no older than 3 days.

To me this reflects, when you take tax cuts out of the equation, National's absence of anything positive to say about where they would take New Zealand. Labour on the other hand has produced a substantial youth policy, announced an $80 million plan to get new entrant class sizes down to 15, and a plan to give all pre-schoolers extra health checks over the last week, and that's just off the top of my head.

I was also surprised to see the "Helengrad Hall of Infamy" section further down the site. This section seems solely devoted to taking personal pot-shots at the PM, and at this stage contains a silly rip-off song. Is this the website of a serious Party wanting to govern, or a socially inadequate teenage libertarian?

When Campaigns Collide

2005-08-28T21:47:00.000+12:00

It has been an exceptionally busy campaign weekend.

Things got off to quite a strange start on Saturday. A couple of us set up a stall and begun handing out information at the Pakuranga Plaza. Usually we receive quite a good response at this location. The polling booth beside the Plaza is quite a strong one for us and we comfortably won the Party vote there in 2002.

After 15 minutes of leafleting however, we were feeling distinctly unloved. Aside from malevolent stares and snarls of disdain we encountered muttered comments about "communists" and one woman actually physically pulled her child away from us as if to avoid contamination. It look set to be a very long afternoon.

An explanation came after about 15 minutes when, after seeing Maurice walking by, we established that a National Party meeting was taking place inside the supermarket. It was therefore unsurprising that we were getting a hard time as many of the people walking by were attending the meeting!

Anyway, things settled down after that and we had a good response over the ensuing hour or two before heading off to doorknock the Millen/Latham Ave area, which was also very positive.

A Day of Contrasts

2005-08-25T18:38:00.000+12:00

Today summed up the difference between the two main Parties, and their respective campaigns.

On one hand National gave a good impression of three senile, blind dogs put in a sack in a sausage factory as the bumbled and stumbled over each other with regard to their three contradictory policies on native logging. Inthe end Brash executed a perfect flip-flop and scuttled what would have been a hugely unpopular policy. This is not a Party fit to run the local rabbit board, let alone a country.

On the other hand, Labour delivered a positive new policy that will make a huge difference in our primary schools. Labour will inject up to $80 million per year to bring new entrant classes down to a one teacher to fifteen child teaching ratio. The current ratio is 1:23. The policy will give young New Zealanders the best possible learning environment at a critical stage of their development.

National simply cannot deliver investments in our future of this kind while they are wedded to giving high income earners a $92 tax cut per week. I would personally receive quite a good tax cut under National, but I'd rather know that 5 year olds in our public schools are getting a great education.

Today's Howick & Pakuranga Times

2005-08-25T18:15:00.000+12:00

http://www.times.co.nz/letters/story_0007499.shtml

Order in one’s home first

AS a candidate with Christian beliefs I was offended by Ewen McQueen’s comments (Times, August 23) that Labour is “anti-Christian”.

As Pastor Ian Buckley says in the article, there are “multiple opinions among Bible-believing Christians”. Mr McQueen’s comment suggests a narrow fundamentalist outlook that is intolerant of anyone who comes up with views different to his.

I am proud of the principled stands that the Labour government has made against the proliferation of nuclear weapons, against participating in the immoral Iraq war, and against the scourge of child poverty in our country.

Labour’s policies have seen child poverty fall from one in three children to among the lowest in the developed world.

These are policies that reflect my Christian beliefs.

Coming from a party formerly led by the disgraced Graham Capill, Mr McQueen should be careful about using the political stage to lecture people about morals.

The Bible I know tells us we should keep our own houses in order rather than jumping to judgment against others.

Michael Wood,
Labour candidate for Pakuranga

Tax Cuts = Higher Wages. Yeah Right

2005-08-25T06:49:00.000+12:00

An article in yesterdays Herald highlighted another good reason why ordinary working people will not benefit from National's tax cut plans.

Aside from the fact that 66% of people will see a tax cut of only around $10/week, the following comment from the Managing Director of the Times Newspapers, which co-incidentally publishes the H&P Times, shows that the benefits of tax cuts will not necessarily accrue to workers:

"Times Newspapers managing director Reay Neben says while the company won't benefit from the decision to defer corporate tax cuts, the personal tax rates changes will alleviate pressure to increase staff pay rates. "

In other words, the employer will hold off on giving pay rises that s/he would otherwise feel obliged to give, and argue that the employee has received a raise through tax cuts! Result, the worker is actually no better off.

This is actually an important part of the debate, for despite their public protestations that they want to see the incomes of New Zealanders increased, National has taken pot shots at any group of workers who have tried to win a decent increase this year (ie; the EPMU 5% campaign). If the strategy is to give workers a payrise through a tax cut, then where does it stop - most workers expect a pay rise each year.

Labour has delivered investment in skills and training like apprenticeships, and fairer labour laws. These are contributing far more to long-term wage growth than a measly $10/week tax cut can.

Very strange

2005-08-23T22:15:00.000+12:00

I guess that when you're looking for excuses for not winning a leaders debate you can't use the tried and tested "the dog ate my notes" as an excuse, but Don Brash's comment that he "restrained" himself because Helen Clark is a woman, is simply strange.

The PM has rightly called this patronising, but frankly it's just pathetic. As if the constant prevarication, flip-flopping, unwillingness to answer specific questions (ie; details about NCEA), and general failure to show a firm grasp of policy, were all not enough to show that this man is not a leader, then this comment confirms it.

You don't go into a debate as a prospective Prime Minister and go easy on the other person because of their gender. Brash has either shown a strange patronising attitude to half of the population, or he is lying to cover up for a sub-par performance on a day when National should have dominated through sheer blanket coverage of the tax cut policy.

Campaign Update

2005-08-20T19:22:00.000+12:00

The past couple of weeks have seen our campaign in Pakuranga shift into top gear. Over the past couple of weeks we have:

- knocked on around 800 doors
- produced and then distributed 20 000 leaflets to our team of deliverers
- held several stalls in shopping areas meeting hundreds of locals
- accepted three invitations to speak to community groups
- made contact with around 20 large worksites with a view to holding meetings
- continued to expand our network of signage

And that's just the big stuff. With the official Labour campaign launch taking place at the Auckland townhall tomorrow we expect things to get even more frenetic. The final two weeks of the campaign will see our activities reach a peak.

It's all good fun and the response is great, but roll on September 18!

(The attached picture is of a group of very wet campaign helpers after an afternoon doorknocking in the Ennis Ave area).

It's all so clear

2005-08-18T18:44:00.000+12:00

Today's announcement that Labour will extend the Working for Families package to cover 60 000 more Nw Zealand families makes the choices at this election chrystal clear.

Whereas National will enact expensive tax cuts that will primarily benefit the wealthy, Labour will invest in ordinary New Zealand families - the backbone of our economy and society. The Greens have done a comparison of what a probable tax cut package vs. the Working for Families package would mean for working New Zealand families, and it is a stark picture.

Across the board tax cuts would give Don Brash a $380/week tax cut were he (god forbid) to be Prime Minister, and just $28/week more to the average kiwi family on $50 000. Contrarily, Labour will provide $113/week assistance to that average family.

It's simple really, do we want policies that benefit the wealthy few, or average hard working families?

Shock Horror, Detailed Analysis!

2005-08-17T21:34:00.000+12:00

After months of hyping their tax cut plans, National has over the last week or so furiously tried to downplay public expectations ahead of their announcement on Monday.

Here is a link to a very good interview between blogger Keith Ng and Michael Cullen, in which Cullen explains the fiscal realities that government has to deal with, and the impossibility of large tax cuts without equally large tax cuts or overseas borrowing.

In the middle of a sloganeering election campaign, it's nice to actually read a reasoned, detailed analysis from one of the major players. Not exactly a light read, but a good overview of Labour's fiscal strategy.

Lange Transcript

2005-08-15T13:41:00.000+12:00

Well, I can't find an audio clip, but Russell Brown has a transcript of the speech (not quite the same without the big booming voice, but brilliant nonetheless):

http://publicaddress.net/default,1578.sm#post

Goodbye Mr Lange

2005-08-15T13:13:00.000+12:00

The outpouring of national feeling following the death of David Lange has been extraordinary.

Despite leading New Zealand through a tumultuous, controversial period, Lange's abilities to distill and communicate a message, to make us laugh, and to make us feel proud to be New Zealanders, seem to have earned a measure of affection and respect from New Zealanders across the political spectrum.

There will be plenty of time in the coming years to analysis the impact of the fourth Labour government that he led, but at the moment I think that it is appropriate to focus on the qualities of Lange the man.

Last night on National Radio I heard for the first time, his whole address to the Oxford Union in which he makes a moral case against nuclear weapons. While we often hear that famous quip in which he admonishes his American opponent by saying "I can smell the uranium on (your breath)", the full address shows that Lange was so much more than a funny fat man with endless one liners. The full address is a masterful critique of the peverse philosphy of nuclear weapons which led at that time to the Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) standoff. Lange presents the case with passion, conviction, and a command of the language that only the truly gifted possess. If I find an audio clip of it I will post it here.

It was obvious that David Lange suffered a great deal in his later years, yet never did he use his postition to garner public sympathy or profile. Such was his modesty and aversion to privileged treatment that we have heard so much about since his passing.

May he rest in peace.

Comments

2005-08-15T12:57:00.000+12:00

Someone trying to comment on a posting has just e-mailed me to say that they were unable to do so and wondering why I do not allow comments. This isn't the case and I'm guessing that there is just some technical glitch, which I will look into.

If anyone else has this problem, please e-mail me on michael@semrits.co.nz

The arguments on the comments threads are half the fun on a blog and I'm keen to hear your views. All comments (apart from the slanderous, violent, grossly offensive etc!!!) are welcome
:-)

0800-DON-BRASH

2005-08-12T18:53:00.000+12:00

This is definitely worth a dial!

Particularly pertinent in the light of Brash's muddling performance over the privatisation of state assets on last nights debate....

A Man of Principle

2005-08-08T20:38:00.000+12:00

I was extremely saddened by the death of British Labour MP Robin Cook over the weekend.

There are some very good obituaries on the Guardian site here and here.

Cook was someone I have always admired, and never more so than during his principled opposition to Britain's invovlement in the Iraq war. While many in British Labour were prepared to vocally voice their opposition to that illegal war, Cook was willing to make a moral stand on the issue and resigned his cabinet position when the decision was made by the government to participate.

For a man who had build a formidable career over a quarter of a century in the House of Commons, that was a sacrifice of considerable proportions.

More broadly, Cook advocated for a morals based foreign policy which would see Labour's historical mission to uplift the poor and downtrodden domestically, applied to Britain's international dealings. A Gordon Brown-led Labour government may have seen him re-elevated to high office in government again to put these principles into action, but sadly that cannot happen.

The British Labour Party is far the poorer for this loss.

Blog light(er)

2005-08-08T20:36:00.000+12:00

Work and campaigning activities are really chewing into my time at the moment, so I'm likely to be blogging a little less frequently over the coming weeks.

Damned real world!

Striking a balance

2005-08-04T21:18:00.000+12:00

I was present in Mangere today at the launch of Labour's 4th pledge card commitment.

The pledge is to complete the Treaty claims settlement process by 2020, and to set a cut off date of September 2008 for the lodgement of claims.

I think that this policy strikes a good balance. The whole area is a tricky one, becuase on one side, there are a range of legitimate and outstanding grievances that need to be settled. On the other, there is a strong public feeling that while we want to "put things right", there does need to be a point at which things move on.

The policy strikes a reasonable balance because while it brings some finality to the process, there is a very reasonable amount of time for claims to be lodged, researched, and discussed. Having too short a time frame would simply give rise to a new set of grievances and we would be back we started. The evidence is that when claims have been settled fairly, that iwi groups have been able to move on and make some real progress for local Maori (ie; Ngai Tahu).

This will no doubt be a contenscious area for debate, but I think that on the whole, most fair minded New Zealanders support the settlement process, and the time limit policy will unltimately strengthen that support by showing that we are actually moving towards a final goal.

Today's Howick & Pakuranga Times

2005-08-02T20:56:00.000+12:00

Pity about the headline!

http://www.times.co.nz/story_0006616.shtml

Give interest-free money to everyone, not just students, scoffs Williamson
By CHRIS SUGRUE

LABOUR candidate Michael Wood is ‘stoked’ by his party’s proposed student loans policy.

“Along with many other young New Zealanders, I am absolutely stoked by the pledge card announcement that Labour will scrap the interest on student loans for graduates living in New Zealand,” said the Pakuranga candidate.

“This policy will make a real difference to 400,000 young New Zealanders with loans. A friend of mine with post-graduate qualifications has a $50,000 loan and a $55,000 salary.

Under Labour’s policy he’ll pay off his loan eight years quicker, saving $47,000. This policy will encourage New Zealand’s best and brightest to keep their skills and talents here in New Zealand.

That’s good for young New Zealanders and good for our economy.”

But Mr Woods’ views predictably don’t sit well with Pakuranga National MP Maurice Williamson.

“I think it’s an appallingly reckless thing to do,” said Mr Williamson, who attributes the move to “desperation”.

“What if you’ve gone and done something else in life, like a bricklayer or electrician - why don’t you get free money for your business to get yourself set up?”

He quipped: “[under Labour’s policy] you’d be mad not to enrol in a tertiary institution and borrow to the maximum, then stick the money into some form of government bonds where it’s safe, make the interest off it, and never have to pay interest on the money you’re owing.

“It’s a bad signal. If giving people interest-free money is a good idea, why don’t they give it to businesses, why don’t they give it to homeowners for their mortgages – interest-free money for everyone, it would be great.”

Holmes last night

2005-07-30T13:31:00.000+12:00

I had the opportunity to debate Young National President Jamie Simpson on Holmes last night.

We mainly covered the student loans announcement and Brash's flip-flopping over Iraq. It was a quick, ram your points in as forcefully as possible five minute discussion, so we didn't get into anything too indepth! Anyway I felt it went reasonably well, and Jamie resorted to mumbling something about Labour sending SAS troops to Iraq at the close, which is completely untrue of course!

The crew were very friendly, as was Paul who had some interesting views on the state of the National Party campaign. He was baffled for instance that Gerry Brownlee is so invisible given that he is one of the very few genuine heavy hitters that National have on their front bench. I suppose the strategy has been to put Brash and Key up front as a "leadership team", but I suspect that with things unravelling a bit now, we may see some of the more experienced hands come to the fore some more.

Poll Surge

2005-07-29T07:56:00.000+12:00

Three recent polls show a significant swing in support to Labour. These polls are the first released since the announcement of the election, and don't on the whole take into account the full effect of any changes in support due to the student loans announcement earlier this week.

Importantly, the combined National/NZ First vote (in my view the only possible alignment of Parties that can see National reach the treasury benches) has fallen by around 8%

I suspect that these results have a lot to do with the renewed focus on international issues such as the Iraq war, and increasing irritation with Brash's flip-flopping on when he will release National's centre-piece tax policy, and what it will contain.

In contrast to this Labour has now released three of our key pledge card commitments, and they have all met with public approval. Ultimately the election will be won or lost on leadership, and good policies.

Although these results are a good sign that people are contrasting the leadership and policies of the two Parties, three polls don't make an election and I'm still of the view that this will be an extremely tight election. We will have to campaign hard for every vote right up until polling day.

GE Maize

2005-07-27T20:25:00.000+12:00

What is it with Maize crops, do they just get grown in election years or something?

Todays story that a large consignment of maize in the upper North Island has tested positively for GE contamination is a concern, but shows that the system is working.

The "corngate" story in 2002 was a major factor in the general election of that year, but I think it unlikely that this new episode will effect the political climate in any discernable way. Importantly, the absolute public hysteria about the issue at that time is simply not there now. Why? Because three years on the apocolytic scenarios painted by some campaigners in 2002 have not eventuated.

Our regulations mean that for any GE organism to be released into the environment, it must be shown to be safe. These strict controls have meant that GE organisms have been kept in the lab, and our strict testing procedures have picked up glitches like this one.

All in all, I think that the public and political mood on this issue has settled down, and people are now far more willing to engage in a rational, scientific discussion about the risks of GE.

Historic movement on student debt

2005-07-26T16:47:00.000+12:00

"If implemented, Labour's tertiary student support policy, including the introduction of no interest on loans while borrowers are in New Zealand, would be the most significant blow to the $7 billion debt monster since the student loan scheme was introduced in 1992." NZUSA Press Release.

Wow. Praise for Labour's tertiary education policies from NZUSA has been as rare as lesbian unionists at John Tamihere campaign fundraisers. Todays policy announcement will see all interest on student loans scrapped for graduates who remain in New Zealand. Access to student allowances will also continue to rise, meaning that people will need to take on less debt in the first place. This is a huge step in the right direction.

You can use the debt calculator on the Labour site to work out how much you might save under the policy. I entered in the figures for a friend of mine with post-graduate qualifications who has a $50 000 loan, and is on a $55 000 salary. Under the policy he will pay off his loan 7 years quicker, saving $47 000.

I like the policy because it cleverly ties together a solution to the problem of growing student debt with a positive step to encourage young people to keep their skills and talents here in New Zealand.

This policy will form part of Labour's pledge card along with the already announced rates rebate policy. I'm extremely pleased that the campaign is now moving on to positively outlining Labour's vision for the future.

It's September 17

2005-07-25T20:05:00.000+12:00

Well, no surprises there. September 17 is in line with the PM's earlier statements that the government will go full term, and gives voters a good long run in to polling day.

Funnily enough, given all the carping about the date, I think that with 8 weeks notice, more advance warning has been given for this election than any in recent memory.

Anyway, I think that it's good for the date to be announced so that the phoney war can be brought to an end. With a formal campaign period commencing, all parties are going to have to start laying down exactly where they want to take the country, and voters will have adequate time to scrutinise the options.

Hoardings up

2005-07-25T19:35:00.000+12:00

The dangers of hoardings erection should not be underestimated

This horrific wound is evidence of a busy weekend of hoardings erection around the electorate.

A team of willing blokes braved the elements to begin putting up or network of signs this weekend, and we were all suitably rusty for the first one or two, resulting in the utterance of many loud expletives as hammers met flesh. This blood blister swelled up to quite appalling proportions.

Hoardings are one of those funny aspects of a campaign that are very important, but only to a point. It's veryessential to have a good network, but once you have that it is questionable how much advantage is to be gained from each extra site you find.

In spite of this, you find yourself scrutinising every corner site in the electorate for its suitability as you drive around!

Bad Boy Baron

2005-07-21T21:20:00.000+12:00

This is quite funny.

Local independent Steve Baron has been plastering his billboards all over Pakuranga this week, and has gotten in some trouble for placing them on public land, which Manukau City Council bylaws forbid.

There are a couple of pearlers in here:

“The only reason the older parties haven’t put their signs up yet is they are not capable of thinking outside of the square,” he said. "I guess they will be waiting until next weekend which is technically two months before any election could happen.”
- Yes, we fuddy duddy "older parties" truly are so hide bound that we are obeying the law by not putting our billboards up in a "technically" illegal period.

“My signs are on private property. Everybody has been really happy with them,” he said. "There were a few issues to begin with because it was hard to tell the boundaries on some properties, but we sorted those out.”
- That's right, private property like attached to the Pakuranga/Panmure bridge, and on Stockade Hill, the biggest public reserve in Howick containing the local war memorial. Tough boundary issues obviously.

Hmmm....

Tertiary Tango

2005-07-21T20:56:00.000+12:00

The recent changes announced to tertiary education funding are a good move.

By shifting funding from the low quality bums on seats courses that have proliferated in the tertiary sector over the past ten years, to high quality practical qualifications, the government has taken a decisive step away from the failed competitive model of the 1990s towards creating a system that is truly geared towards the needs of students and the community.

Given the systemically low funding that was doled out during the 1990s, and the imposition of a market model, it is in some respects difficult to blame many tertiary institutions for focussing on quantity over quality. For a number, that was the only way to survive the funding squeeze.

The government has been wanting to address this issue for a long time and has taken a number of steps such as placing a cap on the number of EFTS enrolments that institutions may take, reducing funding for "free" courses, and most significantly by setting up the Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) to oversee the sector and ensure that funding is producing quality outcomes. It would have to be said that the recent changes are something of a recognition that TEC has not necessarily had the administrative teeth to really re-shape the sector along the lines that the government envisages.

Anyway, these changes are positive and should over time really encourage the development of a sector that is responsive to sommunity and industry needs. Rather than punish institutions as Bill English seems to be suggesting, the government is putting real investment in place to ensure that institutions focus on relevant, high quality (more expensive) courses as opposed to the infamous twilght golf example. In particular I was pleased to see that the new fund will be used to encourage an expansion of the Modern Apprenticeship scheme.

These are complex policy issues, and there is still a long way to go, but this in my view is good progress.

* I guess I should note by way of disclaimer that I am a Council member of Manukau Institute of Technology.

Head to head with Maurice #1

2005-07-18T18:59:00.000+12:00

Maurice and I had our first one to one clash of the campaign at a meeting of the Howick Residents and Ratepayers over the weekend.

The meeting was the R&Rs AGM, and we were both asked to speak on transport policy once the formailities were over. I turned up at the very beginning of the meeting and was extremely impressed by the work of the group. Led by a bloke called Russ Wylie who is well into his 80s, Howick R&R have been incredibly active lobbying on a wide range of issues around transport, rates, urban planning, and much else besides.

The debate itself went well. I was first up and put a fairly simple case - that Labour has a proven record of investment in transport, and that National's rhetoric does not live up to their miserable record during the 1990s, or square with what they are promising in a whole host of other areas.

Maurice in response was brilliantly off the planet, claiming for instance, that the 80% increase in transport funding over 6 years under Labour was indicative only of inflation, and stating that work on State Highway 20 was not going to begin for years. This was in spite of the fact that in my speech I had specifically referred to a press release issued the previous day confirming that the bulldozers are moving in in September!

All in all I was pleased with the response, and impressed by the questions that were asked by the audience. It should be the first of many such encounters.

2005-07-18T18:58:00.000+12:00

It's all on the line

Civil Society in Pakuranga

2005-07-14T22:26:00.000+12:00

It's been a busy week both at work, and on the campaign trail - hence the scarcity of blog entries.

The campaign is moving up a notch this month, and we are moving on from strictly "on the ground" campaigning, and we're now beginning to get out and about meeting the people and groups that make up Pakuranga's civil society.

On Tuesday night I spoke at the Howick Rotary, and this went very well. It was an extremely pleasant evening and I couldn't have asked for better hosts. On arrival I was immediately led to the bar by my guide for the evening and shouted a beer, and this was followed up by a hearty roast dinner - a fellah couldn't really ask for much more on a cold Tuesday night. Around 50 people were in attendance from a wide variety of backgrounds.

Anyway, we then proceeded to my speech, which focussed on the differences between running a purisst free-market economic policy, and an economic policy that emphasises the need for co-operation, collaboration, and planning. It wasn't a party-political speech, and some interesting discussion followed. A big thanks to Howick Rotary for the opportunity to speak.

This Saturday it is Howick Residents and Ratepayers where I will be speaking on Labour's transport policy up against Maurice - the first head to head clash of the campaign!

Broken bloody bells

2005-07-11T20:40:00.000+12:00

Lots of doorknocking over the weekend, and a pretty good response...

But, and I know this is a minor detail, there were an enormous number of broken doorbells. Seriously, it would have been about a 50:50 working to broken ratio.

Plainly there is a serious skills shortage in the doorbell repair industry.

Sad backlash

2005-07-11T20:31:00.000+12:00

I have been saddened by the attacks on a number of Mosque's in apparent retaliation to the London bombings.

While I understand people's anger at the perpetrators of the attack (we like many kiwis have a number of friends in London), it is patently wrong to round on people in our own community who have nothing to do with international terrorism. In my experience, New Zealands Moslem community is peaceful and law abiding, and in fact its leadership works closely with other faiths to foster understanding and tolerance.

New Zealand is a relative haven of tolerance in an increasingly polarised world, and I sinerely hope that this kind of reaction doesn't become more widespread.

Infrastructure Investment

2005-07-04T21:50:00.000+12:00

This speaks for itself really.

A record $21 billion in capital spending on transport over the next ten years. This is exactly the sort of money that would be gobbled up by the tax cuts that the right are irresponsibly touting at the moment.

The great American economist J.Galbraith talked about this kind of situation in the late 1950s when, in spite of a great deal of "private prosperity", he observed great "public squalor" as essential economic and social infrastructure became increasingly run down.

Our hard won surpluses can be frittered away on the electoral bribe of tax cuts, which probably won't even add up to all that much for your average working family, or we can invest in the economic infrastructure that is the basis of future prosperity. In business it's called investing in "plant", and any firm that doesn't adequately invest in plant over the long-term is setting itself up to fail.

National's record in the 1990s was to do just that, and in Auckland we are now suffering because of the "public squalor" that resulted. This government is now spending 10 times more on transport in Auckland that National was in 1999.

Labour is the only Party fighting this election that is actually prepared to invest in New Zealands long term economic prosperity.

Cheaper Healthcare for Young NZers

2005-07-01T22:43:00.000+12:00

Improvements to primary healthcare have been one of the governments biggest achievements IMHO.

Todays rollout of cheaper healthcare for 18-24 year olds enrolled in a Primary Health Organisation (PHO) is another step towards delivering affordable, accessible, and integrated healthcare for all New Zealanders.

Already, all people in low socio economic areas as well as under 18s and over 65s (anywhere)enrolled in a PHO, benefit from increased funding which has reduced doctors fees and prescription charges. The next step will be to deliver increased funding to 45-64 year olds, and then finally to 25-44 year olds (apparently we're the healthiest of the lot).

The figures in the above link show that 12636 18-24 year olds will benefit in the Counties Manukau DHB which covers Pakuranga. Given that most other parts of Counties Manukau will already be covered by increased funding due to their lowere socio-economic status, my guess is that a very large portion of that 12636 probably reside in Pakuranga. That's good news for locals.

What is National's commitment to maintaining PHO's and cheaper primary healthcare? Seriously, does anyone know - their Health spokesperson is basically invisible.

Polls give parties whiff of a battle

2005-06-30T18:03:00.000+12:00

Unlike some folk in the blogosphere who are confidently predicting a National victory on the basis of one poll, MP's and candidates from both major Parties in East Auckland are taking nothing for granted this election...

Todays H & P Times:

By KAINE HENDERSON

“POLLS are like perfume – they’re delicious to smell, dangerous to swallow”.

Manukau East Labour MP Ross Robertson’s comment follows National leading the polls with 40.1 per cent support this week.

“Only one poll counts and that is election day,” Mr Robertson said. “However there is a trend there and that is of concern. We will work hard and I’m confident we can pull it back.”

Mr Robertson said people are judging performance.

“I still believe Helen Clark is a more commanding leader than others on offer. She’s articulate, smart and savvy.”

Pakuranga National MP Maurice Williamson is excited by recent polls, but cautious.

“It is a slight lead [Labour on 36.2 per cent] and our biggest enemies are arrogance and complacency. We have to keep up the momentum and put our case to the public.”

He said it’s a vast improvement to three years ago when National plummeted to 21 per cent.

“Last time we weren’t even on the same paddock. We didn’t even know when the game was on.”

Colleague, Clevedon MP Judith Collins shared the same view.“Polls look good but you can’t get too cocky.”

Pakuranga Labour candidate Michael Wood suggested this year’s election will be close.

“This returns New Zealand to a more normal state of affairs after the historic weakness of National in recent years. It also reminds political parties that no voter should be taken for granted.”

In light of polls, Mr Wood said his campaign team is working harder.

“Our door knocking team has already covered as many houses as we reached during the entire 2002 campaign and we are escalating a programme of stalls, community group contact and cottage meetings.”

Taking people seriously

2005-06-29T18:26:00.000+12:00

Something I have been thinking about over the last week is the unfortunate way in which modern methods of political communication, particularly during campaigns, bring political discussions down to the lowest common denominator.

In part it's simply the nature of modern media such as television advertising, in part it's because of more developed theories about how you "sell" messages to people, and in part I think it has been laziness on the part of various political parties. I think all of the parties have been guilty to some extent of treating voters like dopes in this way, although I do believe that National's recent Iwi/Kiwi billboard hit a new low as it was not only trite, but horribly divisive.

Anyway I'd be keen to hear other people's thoughts on the phenomona, that is the practice and effect of trying to hook voters with snazzy billboards, clever catch phrases, cutesy gimmicks, and all of that clap-trap, without actually genuinely engaging people on the fundamentally different ideas that really drive the various political parties.

We're trying to take voters more seriously in our Pakuranga campaign by actually talking to them like thinking human beings at stalls, shopping centres, and on the doorstep. In a bold move I am also planning on talking to one of the local Rotary Clubs about the differing policy implications of free market and social democratic political philosophy as opposed to the standard "here are our key achievements colour coded for your convenience" spiel.

We'll see how it goes!

Who is mainstream?

2005-06-28T23:30:00.000+12:00

Russell Brown has written a good article about Brash's "clever, creepy" attempt to catergorise New Zealanders into "mainstream" and well, non mainstream.

I find it extraordinary that MP's who have in recent years supported the extension of rights to more New Zealanders have been accused of "social engineering", yet when the Leader of the Opposition in accordance with his own personal views, presumes to define who fits into the mainstream and who doesn't, this is somehow not.

These comments signal the start of what looks to be a pretty ugly, divisive election campaign in which National uses psychological hooks like the "mainstream" line to drive a wedge between New Zealanders for political gain. That's no better than Winston's trienial attack on immigants.

It's tough to counter this kind of garbage, but Labour's message will be to respond positively. We will be campaigning on a positive vision for the future of New Zealand in which everyone is treated with respect, and has a fair go.

Wait for it..

2005-06-28T00:08:00.000+12:00

... behind National's slick slogans and clever billboards there lies an absolute dislocation from reality.

Cathy Odgers, recently introduced to the New Zealand blogosphere by National Party bigwig and Wellington Central campaign manager David Farrar, has taken a swing in this direction.

After a couple of hundred words of personal abuse in her June 20th posting, Ms Odgers comes out with this pearler, which to me speaks volumes about the people in the National and ACT parties and their (lack of) connection with the real world: "NZ does not and never will have poverty".

Easy to say from an office tower in Hong Kong I suppose.

That sort of attitude explains why it was that during the mad rush of reforms during the 1980s and 1990s, New Zealand went from being one of the most equal, to one of the least equal countries in the world - the people leading the process simply didn't care. That's why people like my Mother who is a Plunket Nurse in Otara, deals with third world diseases and babies who have lost arms and legs to Menengitis owing to poor living conditions. Twenty years ago this would have been unthinkable in New Zealand, and we are only now beginning to address some of these appalling problems.

Ms Ogden and her ilk can remain in their ivory towers and ignore the problems of the real world, but I care, and I think that most "mainstream" New Zealanders also care.

No Free Lunch

2005-06-25T17:42:00.000+12:00

David Slack has put together an interesting interactive website:

http://optimisticpredictions.com/Tax/index.aspx

You go to the site, punch in a variety of potential tax cuts, and then have to work out how you will cut spending to make up for the lost revenue. Given that National is talking about tax cuts for everyone, that's quite a challenge. Indeed, the Christchurch Press has recently tallied up National's spending and tax promises and found that they now total some $7 billion!

There are now 2-3 months for Labour to expose the lack of credibility in National's plans. There is no such thing as a free lunch and I think that this will become increasingly apparent to voters.

Who says the internet wastes time?

2005-06-25T17:36:00.000+12:00

Another time wasting quiz doing the rounds in the blogosphere...

Your IQ Is 125

Your Logical Intelligence is Exceptional
Your Verbal Intelligence is Genius
Your Mathematical Intelligence is Genius
Your General Knowledge is Above Average

A Quick and Dirty IQ Test

Zimbabwe

2005-06-24T21:18:00.000+12:00

New Zealand Cricket team should in my view immediately call of it's planned tour of Zimbabwe.

Foreign Minister Phil Goff today did the right thing by stating that the Zimbabwe cricket team would not be welcome to tour New Zealand over the summer. While the government can do this by simply refusing visa's to the visitng team, there is of course no way that the government can stop our team from visiting Zimbabwe.

That decision needs to be made by New Zealand Cricket. While it is a difficult matter owing to the fine that the International Cricket Council (ICC) may impose for a refusal to tour, there comes a time when you just have to do the right thing. Robert Mugabe's regime has descended to new lows with it's recent clearance of urban areas housing people likely to support the opposition, and it is up to those in prominent positions to protest.

Mugabe is the patron of Zimbabwe cricket, and a refusal to tour on ethical grounds would be a very strong international signal that his behaviour is unacceptable. New Zealand has led the way in condemning Mugabe's government within the Commonwealth, and it would be wrong for one of our leading national sports teams to now turn a blind eye to his abuses.

From a cricket lover this is hard, but some things are far more important than sport.

New Blogs

2005-06-22T20:38:00.000+12:00

That's right, we need more blogs in our lives...

First up is cheezy, a friend of a friend currently residing in the UK. While he isn't exactly a fawning sycophant when it comes to Labour, he has just posted a very good article on why a National government would be a very, very bad idea.

He makes the very good point in his rather lengthy post about the fact that a Don Brash led National government would in all likelyhood have participated in the illegal, and strategically disastrous Iraq war. When it comes down to it, questions about war and morality are the true litmus test of political leadership, and a National government would have shown it's true colours by cravenly sending our troops to follow the USA into that quamire.

Labour MP Tim Barnett has also decided to risk life and limb by entering the blogosphere. Tim has attracted some of the most vicious personal attacks you will ever see in the political world for holding a range of progressive views, but he continues to coherently argue for what he believes is right. For that he has my uptmost admiration.

On the ground campaigning continues

2005-06-21T18:42:00.000+12:00

Campaigning doesn't stop for the rain!

Rain or shine, our campaign team is out every weekend pushing the 'two ticks for Labour' message. Pictured here are a slightly wet, but very dedicated team of Arna, Conor, Patrick, myself, Sam, and his daughter after a very soggy afternoon on Tiraumea Drive. Thanks to the local dairy owner for the space by his shop and efforts with the camera.

The more the campaign advances, the more I am certain that face to face contact with voters is the best way to communicate our messages and convince people of the importance of re-electing a Labour government. While the opposition campaign seems to be relying on short, populist messages, we have the harder job of explaining 6 years of achievements and describing a vision for the future.

In any case, I enjoy the chance to actually speak one on one with residents, and so far the response has been really positive. Most people are just happy to see a candidate front up. We'll be continuing to make our way through the electorate so look out for us at a dairy near you!

Big bucks buy elections?

2005-06-20T20:20:00.000+12:00

I am extremely concerned by a report stating that a "forestry lobby group" are planning a $2 million anti-government election year advertising campaign.

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with groups from whatever side of the political fence coming out to either advocate for or against the policies of particular political parties. But this is different.

In a small country like New Zealand, $2million dollars during an election campaign is huge money. The article I link to above points out that during the 2002 election campaign, the National Party itself only spent around $1 million on their campaign. If memory serves me correctly, Labour spent about $2 million, and ACT a bit more.

Given that scale, a consortium of private interests throwing such huge interests into a campaign to push a very specific policy gripe (they want to own the carbon credits referred to in my previous post), is a real concern. Presumably, this group of very rich blokes hope that their campaign will help unseat the government so that they will receive the potentially very profitable carbon credits.

That sounds like a self-interested group wanting to buy votes to line their own pockets to me. Further, it is a concern to anyone interested in a genuine, representative democracy. How many groups representing the interests of, say, the intellectually handicapped, beneficiaries, or the elderly, can afford that much influence???

Kyoto

2005-06-19T20:19:00.000+12:00

ACT come National cheerleader (funny how the wind changes) Aaron Bhatnagar has taken a swing at a few Labour bloggers, including yours truly, for not jumping on to our computers in a flash to talk about the fact that that New Zealand may need to purchase aroud $500 million in carbon credits over 2008-12 because we will not meet our commitments to reduce carbon emissions.

I consider myself suitably remonstrated for thinking that things like work, family, and on the ground election campaigning are more important!

Anyway, this is an issue worth commenting on. It's simple really. If you accept the reality that carbon emissions are resulting in serious climate change (as all of the serious players and nearly every single national government do), then you have two choices:

1) Do nothing and leave future generations to clean up the mess.
2) Work collectively to begin addressing the problem now.

New Zealand, along with around 150 other countries has chosen to take action. We would be absolutely crazy not to as with an agriculturally-based economy such as ours, we have an enormous amount to lose. Remember the drought suffered in many parts of New Zealand during the late 1990s that wiped billions of dollars off our economic output? Well recently published research suggests that climate change could lead to such events occurring 2-4 times more frequently. Make no mistake, our standard of living is at serious risk if the problem of climate change is not addressed.

Importantly, the nature of the problem requires an international effort. It isn't a case of each individual state being able to take measures and then say "I'm OK Jack". This is a global problem that can only be tackled on a global scale. That's what Kyoto is about. It's not a perfect mechanism, but what it does is pull together around 150 countries and actually requires them to modify their behaviour by reducing the carbon emissions that cause climate change.

Even in countries that haven't ratified like the US and Australia, the Kyoto consensus is having an effect. In Oz, while the conservative federal government has refused to ratify, most of the state Labor governments are moving to restrict carbon emissions to Kyoto levels, while in the US, California Governor Arnold Schwarzanegger has just announced carbon emission targets for his state that go beyond the reductions envisioned by Kyoto.

Kyoto works in quite a simple way. Countries commit to reducing carbon emissions, and if they don't, they either have to show that they are doing enough "good things" (like planting forests) to make up for this, or they have to pay for their pollution by buying carbon credits. Because it looks like we may be over our targets for 2008-12, we are in the position that we either need to quickly reduce emissions, or we will have to buy carbon credits.

It is essentially a market approach - we pay for the mess we create. Do the right-wing opponents of Kyoto who so freely propose user pays for every thing else seriously think that we should not have to pay for the economic and social damage of climate change?

One thing's for sure - someone will pay. If we don't use mechanisms like Kyoto to address the issue now, it will be our children and our granchildren who suffer. I believe it is our duty to take responsibility.

Further interesting commentary on frogblog

The 'P' Word

2005-06-15T19:43:00.000+12:00

I'm extremely pleased by recent comments made by Steve Maharey on the issue of poverty in New Zealand.

The 'P' word was almost unutterable in the 1990s as the National government of the day persisted with the myth that there was no poverty in New Zealand. In fact, when Labour came to government in 1999, this sand in the head approach had become so entrenched that the incoming administration could not even ask the Ministry for qualitative information about poverty in New Zealand, because the research capacity of the Ministry in this area had been removed.

It's obviously a key test of any Labour government to address the needs of those at the bottom of the socio-economic heap, and the data referred to in Maharey's statement shows that a succession of policy initiatives since 1999 are successfully moving people out of poverty. We went from being one of the most equal, to one of the least equal societies in the developed world during the 1990s, and I am proud that due to measures like income related rents, and an active employment policy, this government is doing something to restore basic living standards for all New Zealanders.

A vote for a National government is a vote for a return to increasing levels of poverty in our communities.

Of particular note is the fact that the Working for Families package is projected to reduce child poverty by 30% within two years. I find it sickening that those on the political right who attack working for families would happily see those kids re-consigned to a life of desperate want.

Me and my potatoes

2005-06-11T20:20:00.000+12:00

spuds - all good

More people should definitely grow ther own vegetables - very satisfying and tasty.

We've got a big crop of spuds at the moment, and they're very easy to grow. Simply bung them in some loose, rich soil, give an occassional feed of liquid fertiliser, and wait.

I recommend 'Rua' seed potatoes.

Back to the politics tomorrow.

New Local Site - Eastlife

2005-06-10T21:16:00.000+12:00

Pakuranga has a new forum for political and community news and discussion:

www.eastlife.co.nz

The editor of the site is a guy called Peter Barclay He is a former Howick & Pakuranga editor, and as such seems to have a pretty good grasp on local issues. The site is very new, but is nicely set out and will I am sure do very well.

In combination with the H&P Times website, this will mean that local voters are very well served in terms of online political information.

Eastlife is also leading with a good story at the moment ;-)

H&P Times Today

2005-06-09T20:09:00.000+12:00

http://www.times.co.nz/news/story_0005561.shtml

Online attack on Labour dubbed an ‘embarrassing flop’

ATTEMPTS by National/ACT supporters to attack the government’s road building record have flopped embarrassingly, says Pakuranga Labour candidate Michael Wood.

His comment follows the leaking of the Employers and Manufacturers Association’s plan to post a website criticising Labour. The government responded by putting the facts about transport spending on the proposed site, Mr Wood said.

“Anyone interested in comparing the records of Labour and National on infrastructure investment can now go to www.revupthegovt.co.nz.

“This site shows that in 1999, the last year of the National government, there were $130.6 million of major state highway construction projects in Auckland.

This year, under Labour, it is up more than tenfold to $1.348 billion.

“Investment in transport infrastructure is an important issue for Pakuranga residents.

“I am proud to represent a government that is investing properly in this long neglected area.

“Labour is investing in New Zealand’s long-term social and economic infrastructure whereas National would fritter the money away on the electoral bribe of tax cuts.”

Fear and Loathing in Pakuranga

2005-06-07T21:14:00.000+12:00

Recent accusations by Winston Peters about several former Iraqi citizens living in Pakuranga make me feel distinctly queasy.

The sheer predictability of Mr Peters' attacks against immigrant groups several months out from a general election is truly nauseating. Like clockwork the loaded language, conspiritorial innuendo, and appeal to our fear of difference get trotted out at the same point every electoral cycle.

In this case, he has taken a slightly different approach. A small number of local residents have been named in the House as having had involvement in Saddam Hussein's government, a claim that the men deny. The tactic seems to be do pin awful crimes upon a few individuals in the hope that this will stir up resentment against entire immigrant communities, and from this garner political capital.

Judging from recent reports the men are vigorously defending themselves against the allegations, and will not take the matter lying down. They flatly deny the vague allegations made, and suggest that Mr Peters' source may be someone with a personal grudge.

My view is that until such a time as Mr Peters has some specific and credible information to prove the unsuitability of the men concerned to settle here, he ought to shut up. If he does have this infomation then there are proper channels to direct it through - running a trial by media to cast suspicion upon whole immigrant communities in this fashion is a disgrace.

The truth, the whole truth and...

2005-06-06T22:41:00.000+12:00

http://www.revupthegovt.co.nz/

Have a look at this site.

It was going to be used by the pro National/ACT Employers and Manufacturers Association to propogate the idea that Labour is not committed to building important roading infrastructure. This has been a constant cry from those on the political right, not least the incumbent local MP who is a former National Minister of Transport.

Unfortunately for the EMA, they forgot to register their site name before talking about it publicly, so Labour has now purchased the site and put up the facts, which speak for themselves.

Where National ran down our public services and infrastructure, Labour has invested. National's irresponsible plans to cut taxes and increase public debt would remove government capacity to continue investing in crucial economic and social infrastructure. This kind of investment is exactly the long-term kind of capital expenditure that tax cuts will eat into.

Simple Choices

2005-05-30T21:26:00.000+12:00

Some delayed Budget commentary...

Do you support a budget that:

a) Tackles the economic and social problem of our low savings rate by helping ordinary families to begin putting money away for the future, with a little government assistance. Will provide a modest income couple with up to $10 000 to help them into a first family home. Gives targetted tax relief to businesses meaning that they are encouraged to invest in wealth producing plant and machinery. Puts over $1 billion extra into our public health system. Provides our older folk with 7500 more cataract operations a year. Provides more tertiary students with full allowances while studying.

b) Provides across the board tax cuts, ala the earlier Australian budget under which a low income working family received around $6 per week more, and a politician on a six figure salary received over $100 per week more. To pay for this public servants are layed off, and health and education spending is cut.

You have 3 months to think about your answer.

Busy

2005-05-23T23:01:00.000+12:00

Not much blogging at the moment. Work is hectic!! Normal service should resume soon.

Helen Hits Pakuranga

2005-05-15T23:05:00.000+12:00

The PM attended the Grey Power AGM in Pakuranga on Friday, and went down very well with the crowd of around 400 people.

She spoke at length about some of the more general issues facing voters at this election, and then more specifically about some recent policies of interest to older voters, notably:

- An increase in funding to allow 50% more cataract operations in public hospitals
- Changes to drivers licensing requirements for older drivers
- Reform of the rates rebate system.

The last point in particular was well received. As it stands, people are only eligible for a rebate if their income is below (something like) $8000, meaning that only around 8000 people receive the rebate. Under the new scheme, anyone earning under $20 000, who has a rates bill of $1000 or more will be eligible for the full rebate of $500. Hopefully this should a real help to the many local seniors who receive only national Superannuation, and have been saddled with big rate increases in recent years.

Chatting to Grey Power members after the meeting, even those who weren't naturally inclined to Labour were impressed with the PM's speech and her willingness to engage honestly with the audience on tough issues.

British Election Results

2005-05-08T22:52:00.000+12:00

The final result gives Blair a majority of 64 seats, down from over 160 in the previous parliament. For those Labour supporters in Britain who are hoping for a leadership change, this is probably the ideal result - Labour back in with a reasonable majority, but enough of a set back to destabilise Blair's leadership.

A slightly bigger swing to the Tories across a number of electorates could have made the result even more problematic for Blair. A friend of mine has closely analysed the result, and discovered that 17 Labour electorates were won by 1.5% or less. Had these seats moved to the Tories just a little more, Labour would have been faced with a majority of only around 30. Given internal dissension over several major issues, this would have left Blair struggling to build majorities in the House.

Anyway, that didn't happen, and instead Britain has, for the first time, elected a Labour government over three consecutive elections. Congratulations to Labour colleagues in Britain.

On checking the full resuls on the excellent BBC election website it would seem that the south-western seat of Totnes, where a Lib-Dem correspondent to this site is based, was very narrowly held by the Tory incumbent. Better luck next time :-)

Defence Announcement

2005-05-04T21:36:00.000+12:00

The government's $4.6 billion boost to the defence forces is a welcome move.

Over the past decade or so, the scope of defence force activities has increased significantly, stretching personnel and equipment to the limit. At the same time, real funding decreases under National during the 1990s contributed to a running down of capability.

The government has done the right thing by commissioning a thorough cross-departmental report on the state of the forces to ascertain where the gaps are, and how much it will cost to re-build capacity. Instead of cutting corners, throwing away money on pointless but flashy hardware such as F16s, or making vague future commitments as Brash has, the government has then stumped up with a clear plan to rebuild defence capability, and the necessary dosh.

It's also wothwhile noting that the government has the ability to make significant funding announcements like this because of the good state of the books. National's tax cuts would remove the capacity of government to make these sort of big long-term spending commitments.

Campaign Progress

2005-05-02T06:35:00.000+12:00

We've had a good couple of weeks of face to face campaigning, culminating yesterday with a blitz on the Cascades Rd area of the electorate. We leafleted, doorknocked, displayed signage, and held a stall - hopefully meaning that even the most docile local caught a glimpseof us at some stage!

The booths around Cascades have been pretty good for us in recent years, with Labour winning the Party vote by a small margin in the 2002 election.

The reception was very good, and even those who weren't naturally inclined to Labour were very friendly on the doorstep, and seemed to appreciate the effort we had made. With lots of young families in the area, we had a good chance to talk about education policy with people, and alert them to the consequences of the National policy for middle income areas. There were also some genuinely held concerns about drugs getting into local schools, an issue that I hadn't picked up on before.

Our door knocking campaign will be continuing on in this vein from now until election day. We're also about to start trying to set up 'cottage metings' across the electorate at which a group of people will come together at someones house for tea, bikkies, and a chat with the candidate. Not sure how the response to this will be, but one can only try!

Better check with the boss, Judith!

2005-04-28T18:18:00.000+12:00

Frequent Howick and Pakuranga Times contributor, and New Zealands own Margaret Thatcher of the South Seas, Judith Collins is becoming a law unto herself.

After she recently made some fairly extreme comments about docking money going to sole-parent familes, she had to be pulled into line by Don Brash, who forced her to publicly tone down her sloganeering rhetoric.

I wonder what he will make about the statement she has released today about the Working for Families Pacakge. In it, she makes a number of nonsense claims about the package being the cause of "high" interest rates (funny how they were often higher while Brash was RB Govenor and National was in government huh?).

Presumably then, she would right this monstrous injustice by repealing Working for Families? Her bold comments further on in the statement would certainly suggest so. The only problem with that implication from National's Welfare spokesperson, is of course that Brash has publicly vacilated on the issue, suggested that a National government may well keep the current programme in place.

Of course the last National welfare spokesperson was sacked for not being on board with Party policy - we can only hope.

Paid Parental Leave Progress

2005-04-27T19:07:00.000+12:00

I'm really pleased about the recent improvements made to the Paid Parental Leave scheme which will allow self-employed women to also receive assistance on the birth of a child.

PPL was legislated for, if memory serves me correctly, in 2000, and came into effect in 2002. It was in my view one of the most important initiatives to come out of the Labour/Alliance government of that time. The scheme was initially modest, providing 12 weeks of pay once a woman had been with an employer for 12 months. A subsequent review widened the scheme to provide 14 weeks after 6 months of employment, with the recent announcement allowing about an extra 8000 self employed women to receive assistance each year.

I think the progression of the scheme is a good example of the way this government approaches reform. While there were many understandable calls in the early days for a wider and more generous scheme, Labour's approach of putting in place a modest system, and then looking at progressively improving it as the situation allowed, has meant that PPL has been implemented pretty smoothly, with a minimum of fuss - slow and steady change is definitely the most durable. I understand that a review taking place next year will analyse the impact of PPL and consider further changes.

Incidentally, all of the employers I have talked to about PPL think that it is great - they keep good staff who would otherwise consider leaving on the birth of a child.

Anzac Day

2005-04-26T22:57:00.000+12:00

I spent a wonderful Anzac Day with my grandfather in Rotorua. We attended an excellent service at the Town Hall, followed by lunch and a mug of hot, whiskey enhanced coffee at the local RSA. There was a strong contingent of old soldiers in attendance, and as with elsewhere around the country, a mighty turnout from younger people.

There has been alot of comment about the increased numbers attending on Anzac Day, and it is my view that this reflects a real desire among young people, not just to understand what has happened in our past, but to reflect on what it is to be a New Zealander, and more simply, a human being.

The decline of traditional religion, and the accompanying rise of ephemeral consumerism has in my view left young people in a funny sort of place. All of the messages we receive in our 24/7 society tell us to live for the moment and seek instant gratification, yet from our families and human relationships we know that there are far more important things. I think that for New Zealanders, the memory of servicepeople who fought for others in the name of great principles, is a valuable antidote to the modern sense of spiritual emptiness.

And yes, I do think it was appalling for Brash to make a snide political comment at the service he attended. On Anzac day politicians should sit there quietly, or at the most perform their ceremonial duties and give a solemn tribute to those who fell. End of story, no excuses.

Battle Commences!

2005-04-26T22:52:00.000+12:00

Maurice and I have had our first real dig in the local media, on this occasion over National's Education policy.

A good clear indication of the fundamentally different choices on offer this year. Strong public institutions under Labour, or competitive business units under National. Education is always a huge issue in Pakuranga, so I am sure this will be the first of many stoushes.

Nats education policy would harm local schools

2005-04-19T21:33:00.000+12:00

18th April

“The recent release of National’s education policy should be of serious concern to parents in Howick and Pakuranga”, says Pakuranga Labour candidate Michael Wood.

“The policy would allow schools to reach individual employment contacts with their teachers. At the moment under Labour all teachers are covered by the same contract and the same employment conditions. That’s fair”, continuous Wood.

“Under National’s policy, wealthy schools would be able to raise large amounts of extra money from parents and use that money to offer teachers higher salaries than those on offer at schools in low to middle income areas”.

“I believe that teachers make the difference in education. Great teachers inspire students and they also help other teachers be the best they can be. Under National, wealthy schools would be freed to pay for the very best, and the rest of our schools would lose out.”

“Of even deeper concern to local parents should be the comments in the leaked draft of Dr Brash’s education speech in which he suggested that National would divert more public resources to fund private schools, and a change to the decile funding formula. Under this policy, middle income schools in Pakuranga would lose funding”.

“Labour is committed to ensuring a high quality, publicly owned education system that works for all people – not just the very wealthy. National’s policy shows that their focus is on turning our schools into competitive business units, not on providing a sound education for all children”, concludes Wood.

Lazy and Shallow

2005-04-18T20:04:00.000+12:00

Span has written about the failure of the Maori Party (MP) to as yet produce any proper body of policy. In fact, it's worse than that, Tariana Taria has gone on record as saying that the MP doesn't actually have any intention of producing key policy platforms to take to the electorate as Labour has with our 'credit card' promises over the past two campaigns.

She brilliantly explained this away by saying something like "well the tuis in the forest don't need to have election promises". True as that may be, I haven't come across many Tui's lately who are running for public office and want to be paud $100 000 per year to put in place policies that effect the lives of four million people.

This explanation is plainly arrant nonsense and is in my view simply a cover for the fact that the MP is having difficult job putting together a comprehensive and meaningful policy platform given the diversity of interests represented within the Party. Well unfortunately, that's politics - all parties have to contend with internal differences, and I believe that the public deserve clear indications as to what a Party they elect to government may do.

For all my recent criticisms of National's recently announced policy, they are at least being open and honest about the havoc they would wreck!

The Maori Party owes its supporters more.

UK Election Progress

2005-04-18T19:56:00.000+12:00

Recent poll results (Labour-Conservative-Lib Dems):

Sunday Telegraph-ICM 40-30-22
Independent on Sunday-Communicate Research 40-34
Sunday Times-YouGov 36-35-23, pulling back from Friady's lead of five in the Daily Telegraph. Highest score for Lib Dems so far.
Mail On Sunday-British Polling Index, in the whole sample, Labour ahead by three, in the 'certain to vote' sample Conservatives ahead 36-35.
An average Labour lead of five across the 'whole sample' range.

News of the World-ICM Marginals
Labour-Conservative marginals 42-36. Labour lead, LDs on 18, suggesting a loss of eight seats to the Conservatives. Swing to Cons 1.65
Lib Dem-Conservative marginals 40-37. Conservatives lead, Lab on 19, suggesting a loss of nine seats to the Conservatives. A high Lab figure for these seats, swing to Cons 1.45.

ICM polls - which leaders are having a good (+) campaign
Kennedy +48
Brown +40
Howard +18
Blair -14

-14??? And I thought Brash was having a rough campaign!

Blitz day!

2005-04-17T21:08:00.000+12:00

We have just completed an excellent weekend of campaigning in Pakuranga.

After blanket leafleting the Gossamer Drive area yesterday, a group of activists hit the ground today to blitz the area with doorknocking, a stall at the local shops, and our first flash of signage this campaign.

We hoed through around 200 houses, and received a very good response. The area is a good one for Labour (we won the Party vote reasonably comfortably at the local booth in 2002, and I think that Maurice and I were about even stevens), and there is a high proportion of young familes.

In particular, we drew peoples attention to the fact that their local schools (Elm Park Primary, Riverhills Primary, Pakuranga Intermediate, and Edgewater College) would be exactly the kind of schools which would suffer under National's policies. These are all good local schools which provide a sound compulsory education. Notwithstanding that, National would allow richer schools nearby to pay their teachers more, resulting in good teachers moving away from the local schools.

I maintain that face to face contact through door-knocking is one of the best methods of campaigning, and we will be conducting weekend blitzes on other parts of the electorate in the coming months (we'll be repeating the refreshing beer at the London Shed afterwards too).

Thanks to everyone who helped out!

Trends

2005-04-15T21:29:00.000+12:00

When the polls are looking good, politicians highlight them as much as possible, and when they're not, they tend to resort to the "there's only one poll that counts" cliche. Both views are nonsense. The polls do tell us a lot, but only when trends over time are analysed.

TV3's recent TNS poll is an interesting one, and spells bad news for the opposition. While nothing incredibely dramatic emerges in the Party vote figures (Labour down 1 to 45% and the Nats down 4 to 34%), this months result does confirm a medium-term trend which has seen Labour support steady over the past half year, while Nationals is inching down towards 30%.

Importantly, the TNS poll also tracks Party leader support, and this I believe is very telling. The number of people rating the PM as performing well in her role has stayed steady at around 60% right through this term (with those saying she is not performing well also stable at around 20%). Brash's figures on the otherhand are in terminal decline. His overall performance rating has declined over every poll since Orewa from 58% down to 30%, while those saying the reverse have increased from 22% to 47% over the same period.

The most recent measure of Brash's support amongst National Party voters shows a serious decline, suggesting that this general lack of confidence may be causing even the core vote to look around for 'less bad' options. It will be interesting to see if this figure becomes a trend over the next few months.

I highlight the trends that relate to leadership performance because confidence, or lack of confidence in a leader has always been essential to political success in New Zealand, and this is even more so given the Presidential-style election campaigns that are now waged. Even through tough patches for Labour, Helen Clark's credibility with the electorate has remained high and I suspect that leadership will be one of the decisive advatntages for Labour through the campaign this year.

A Big Lead Balloon

2005-04-14T20:22:00.000+12:00

National's just announced Education policy speaks volumes about that Party's inability to move on from the failed policies of the 1990s.

It is pure right-wing theoretical nonsense and will cost them any chance of gaining traction with any of the key education sector groups, or the public at large.

The central plank of the policy is a phalanx of measures designed to force a competitive model on schools that no one is asking for. On offer is compulsory bulk-funding, site agreements for teachers, and bizarrely, the proposal that elite schools could launch 'take over' bids for other schools.

The bulk funding proposal is simply amazing. The vast majority of schools rejected bulk funding during the 1990s, despite the fact that the government of the day offered the bribe of extra funding for those who accepted it. Bulk funding provides schools with a disincentive to employee experienced staff, and leaves the school budget incredibely vulnerable to subsequent cuts in government funding.

The policy is designed to smash the teachers collective agreement by allowing schools to negotiate site agreements - the result of this of course is different pay and conditions for teachers across the country. That means rich schools gain the ability to pay more than poorer schools, creating staffing difficulties for those schools where good teachers are needed the most.

Overall, teachers would suffer. Pay and conditions for the profession have only progressed in recent years because the government has recognised the right of teachers to negotiate nationally. Without the clout of national bargaining, small groups of teachers on individual sites would have little ability to establish the fair terms and conditions needed to make the profession attractive. Brash tackily criticises the teachers who have fought for a fair deal as "cloth cap unionists" - I say good on them for ensuring that their important profession is recognised.

Then there's the compulsory testing for seven year olds. Those who fail will be given vouchers which may only be spent on remedial classes in the private sector. The last time I checked, it was the job of government to ensure that public education is delivering, not to subsidise private businesses out to make a buck. New Zealand has an internationally recognised remedial reading programme which would be severaly undermined by the diversion of public funding into the private sector.

And here's the best of all - Brash promises to cut wasteful 'bureaucracy' in the Ministry of Education. My understanding is that the vast majority of non-teaching staff employed by the MoE since 1999 are working on delivering special education programmes to children with learning difficulties. That's the problem with drifting into fuzzy sounding populism, the fact that you're actually talking about real people tends to get overlooked.

It's no wonder that the School Trustee's Association, the Principals Federation, the NZEI, and the PPTA have all condemned these recent announcements. I find it interesting that it is Brash, rather than the Education spokesperson Bill English who is fronting this. I smell more internal dissension as the Leader attempts to wrest control of policy and drag it as far to the extreme right as possible. Watch this space!

Back in Blighty

2005-04-11T21:28:00.000+12:00

The British election is shaping up to be a doozy. Blair has called it for May 5th, and until a few weeks ago, the result seemed such a forgone conclusion (a Labour walkover) that most commentators were picking a new record-low turnout.

Aggressive Tory tactics, notably a vicious attack on ethnic minorities and assylum seekers, have given Michael Howards Party a timely boost, and narrowed Labours lead to only a few points in most of the major polls. Additionally, the continued good fortunes of the Liberal Democrats, who hold support in most polls of around 20%, threatens Labour in a number of middle class consituencies.

In recent elections Labour and Lib Dem supporters have voted tactically to keep out the local Tory, but that coalition of support seems to be unwinding under the pressure of Blairs unpopularity and the legacy of the Iraq war. As such, there is a real threat that strong Lib-Dem challenges will let Tory candidates in through the middle.

Still, no one seriously picks the Tories to win. The FPP system is weighted against them and they would probably need to beat Labour by 8-10 percentage points to actually win a majority in the House. More interestingly though are these possibilites:

- a reduced Labour majority increasing the possibility of a leadership change
- a hung parliament requiring Labour and the Lib Dems to work together, possibly with the Lib Dems requiring reform of the electoral system as the price of their support.

A good precursor to our own campaign!

(Thanks to PH for the constant updates on the state of play).

They got the vote in 1893 - move on!

2005-04-10T21:07:00.000+12:00

I had an excellent afternoon of canvassing in central Howick today, covering a good fifty houses, and by and large receiving very good feedback. I absolutely stand by face to face canvassing as one of the most effective campaigning techniques - you simly can't beat one to one personal contact for communicating a message.

Interestingly, I only received one oblique comment about the Tamihere affair over the course of the afternoon, and that was from a pensioner who said that she was absolutely sick and tired of personalities dominating political discussion, and simply wanted to hear about the issues that actually effect people (a definite Labour voter to boot :-) ).

Anyway, I encountered a quite unusual phenomonen not once, but twice during the afternoon. I speak of a certain kind of gruff, middle aged man who simply cannot deal with the fact that in this country we actually allow women to attain positions of power. The conversations with these people tend to be reasonably short and unpleasant, and generally devolve into ramblings about a 'takeover', interlaced with a few choice expletives.

While I respect the varied views of residents in Pakuranga, and have many pleasant conversations with National supporters, I seriously wonder how these people deal with the world when they have such deep-seated and irrational prejudices.

NZ Gypsies Look Out!

2005-04-09T14:14:00.000+12:00

Molesworth and Featherston reports that the Nats are "well advanced" with plans to being an Australian Liberal strategist out to help their campaign get off the ground.

This concerns me as all of the available evidence suggests that the Liberals have perfected the type of divide and rule tactics that see voiceless minority groups ruthlessly targetted for expedient political advantage. Former Liberal director Lynton Crosby's influence on the British Conservative campaign in recent times has been notable. The Tories have very effectively played the race card, targetting groups such as assylum seekers and Gypsies with some effect beginning to show in the polls.

Tampa anyone?

While I have great faith in New Zealand voters, and believe that most people here see through this kind gutter politics, it concerns me that the indications from National at this early stage are that they are prepared to lower themselves, and the tone of the campaign to such a degree in their pursuit of power.