Shock Horror, Detailed Analysis!

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

"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

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

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

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

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

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.

It's all on the line 

Civil Society in Pakuranga

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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..

... 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

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?

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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...

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

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

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

Helen Hits Pakuranga

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

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

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

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!

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

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

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!

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

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

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

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!

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

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

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

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!

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!

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.

Interesting Race #1

Keith Ng has written an amusing account of Mark Blumsky's campaign launch in Wellington Central. This electorate promises to be one a number of hard fought, interesting constituency seat battles this year.

A good friend of mine, Jordan Carter is the incumbent Marian Hobbs' campaign manager, while the man to whom blogging is oxygen, David Farrar is managing Blumsky's challenge. I'm sure that the campaign will be fought as hard in cyber space as it will be on the ground. From my observations of previous camapigns in Welly Central, politics gets taken more seriously in this electorate than anywhere else in the country. I guess the compact, focussed nature of the city lends itself to this, not to mention the obvious fact that a large population of parliamentary workers and assorted politicos call the electorate home.

On the raw political facts I find it difficult to see Blumsky winning. The electorate last voted a right-wing candidate in in 1996 (Prebble for ACT), and that happened in an election in which Labour polled 28%. The electorate is cosmopolitan, liberal, and filled with public service workers who are probably less than thrilled by John Keys master plan to gut the state sector. Additionally, Marian is from my observations well respected within the electorate - she's a hard working, likeable person who is also pretty good on the campaign stump.

Undoubtedly Blumsky is also a good campaigner, and he'll know the nooks and crannies of the electorate from his time as Mayor. I suspect however that it will take more than that and a campaign logo consisting of his stylised eye-brows (truly bizarre) to win the race.

National - slow learners

Today's Herald shows that after four consecutive elections of decline for National, they still haven't quite grasped the fact that the NZ public don't buy their populist garbage about tax-cuts being some kind of economic panacea.

The Herald polling shows a significant majority of New Zealanders saying that they would prefer investment in Health and Education over tax cuts, with a small but notable minority saying the surplus should be invested in the Super Fund (which already happens). Overall, the "pro-tax cutters" only came in at 35%.

It is clear to me that the shallow arguments in favour of sweeping tax cuts have had their day. People want to see investment in social and economic infrastructure, and understand that none of that comes for free. Good schools, housing, hospitals and transport add far more to the average working family's quality of life than the pathetically small amounts of money that National's 1990s tax cuts provided.

Whatsmore, people are smarter than National gives them credit for. Michael Cullen recently called for National to produce a fully costed alternative budget showing how it would afford:

- tax cuts
- the 'matched' or increased spending on health and education that they vaguely talk about
- massively increased spending on prisons, the military, and police as per various National Party policy pronouncements.
- maintenance of Super fund contributions
- maintenance or increased investment in infrastructure development.

They haven't, and I suspect they won't because it simply doesn't stack up. National fails in the task of being a credible opposition, let alone an alternative government.

Labour gets ready

I haven't blogged over the past few days as I have been at the Labour Party congress in Wellington. The congress only occurs in election years, and differs from non-election year conferences in that the focus is almost exclusively on getting ready for the campaign.

The congress this year was extremely well organised, had a good attendance, and an overwhelmingly positive feeling. Candidates went away well resourced and upbeat having spent the weekend soaking up a lot of information and sharing information with each other.

The PM's keynote speech was really good, and she again made reference to moves to assist families save for the costs of housing and retirement - this is a real interest of mine and I look forward to the full policy which I guess will be announced in the Budget. Cullen's speech was as usual hilarious, particularly the description of the leader of the Opposition as a "crosss between Mr Magoo and Dr Strangelove".

Those sorts of comments aside, the good thing about the weeekend was the overwhelmingly positive tone of the congress. Candidates were told that our main job is to communicate the positive achievements of the government and to focus on the optimism and pride that currently pervades the country. With all the economic and social indicators in such good shape that's something that is understandable. This pride in the achievements of New Zealanders was nicely underscored by a really good line up of live New Zealand music including Nathan Haine's jazz band.

All in all a very good weekend with a couple of late nights at various night spots thrown in for good measure.

MMP Matures

In a piece of Parliamentary theatre today, Peter Dunne presented the PM with a plum patsy question, asking her to comment on the fact that today marks the longest period of continuous stable government in NZ under MMP.

Now while you would have to say that this is not the most significant anniversary on our national calendar, it is worth commenting on.

What I think is noteworthy about the operation of government under the Labour/United Future Confidence and Supply Agreement is not simply the fact that it has provided stability over several years, but that within this framework, there has been considerable scope for the Parties to differ on matters of political principle.

Wheras our first two MMP governments where characterised by coalition agreements which bound two parties together, and ultimately inhibited the independence of the smaller parties concerned (NZF and the Alliance) to their detriment, the current arrangement has given United Future the ability to quite regularly assert it's independence by disagreeing with Labour. They have also supported key government measures such as Working for Families.

Of course, the arrangement has worked only because Labour has other allies in the House to work with when UF doesn't support government legislation. To me, it is that political willingness to pragmatically work with others that marks this administration out as our first mature MMP government.

Courting the Grey Vote??

DPF has written on the recent pledge by New Zealand First (NZF) to increase the superannuation rate from 65% of the average wage to 72.5%. It isn't often that I find myslf sharing an opinion with DPF, but on this case I also believe that the promise is irresponsible.

After decades of partisan wrangling over NZ Superannuation, we at last seemed to have arrived at a reasonably broad political and public consensus around it's future. After the mess of the 90s during which National cut Super to 60% of the average wage , and the National/NZF coalition blew the accord out of the water with the 1997 referendum, it has taken another half decade to rebuild the foundations of a Super consensus which are:

- 65% at 65 years of age
- universal coverage
- pre-funding through the Cullen fund.

Peters' proposal threatens to blow the consensus out of the water and re-politicise this crucial policy area. The costs of 72.5% will be astronomical, particularly given the impending bulge of baby-boomers, and he has failed to state just where the money will come from - cuts to other baseline expenditure, reduced funding for essential capital projects (roads etc...), or higher taxes??? There's an old saying about money and trees.

Whatsmore, I actually rate elderly voters more than Mr Peters apparently does. They know a bribe when they see it and I believe most will think of more than just their own hip pockets on polling day.

Govt v. Juduciary

The NZ Herald has an extensive feature on the supposed fight to the death between the government and the judiciary. I for one think the issue is something of a beatup.

While there have undoubtedly been moments where Dame Sian Elias has expressed points of view which the government has undoubtedly found challenging, it seems to me to be an absolute exaggeration to suggest that this amounts to some kind of constitutional warfare.

While many of the public discussions that have taken place between Dame Sian and senior government ministers have robustly focussed on key issues around the relationship between the executive and the judiciary, I don't actually see where the problem is. There is in New Zealand sometimes a strange fear or dislike of meaningful public discourse on constitutional issues. It is only by having such discussions that we actually begin to clarify the nature of our slightly amorphous constitution - in other words, I actually consider the discussions that Dame Sian has led to be quite healthy.

Terri Schiavo

This is such a sad case. It's not only that that the poor woman has suffered for so long, and that the family faces a difficult dilemma, but just as much the fact that the case is now being played out as a public spectical.

The interference of Bush, and the Republican dominated House is shameful. What should have been a family matter, and at very worst a legal issue to be worked through in a measured fashion, has now been escalated to a national-level political football. So much for right-wingers believeing that the state should keep out of people's lives.

You can never answer these kinds of questions on behalf of others, but I know that if my wife or I were ever in a persistent vegetative state, with serious brain deterioration, were reliant on artificial mechanisms to stay alive, and the weight of credible medical evidence was that recovery was not on the cards, we would want the other to let us go - or at least be the one to make the decision.

Yawn

Don Brash's call today for an overhaul of youth offending provisons was a predictable mish-mash of 'get-tough' rhetoric and poor research. Three major points stand out:

1) Many of the measures suggested in his speech are are already in place. Phil Goff comprehensively outlines this showing that things like parenting orders, increased resources to tackle truancy, and intensive programmes for repeat youth offenders are already happening.

2) The difference is that at the moment, the person (case manager, judge...) dealing with the specific situation at hand has the scope to tailor an approach most suitable to getting the young person at hand back on track. Brash's proposals would see things like mandatory counselling for parents kick in given certain circumstances, even though this may be totally pointless if there is a high degree of estrangement between the young person and his/her parents. It's a blunt, one size fits all prescription.

3) Lowering the age of criminal consent to 12 is nasty knee-jerk stuff, and it won't work as a deterrant. Most of the available evidence shows that if you put young people into the adult criminal justice system, quite aside from the harm you expose them to, you actually increase the odds that they will re-offend.

All very predictable and desperate.

Credibility

The latest Colmar Brunton poll shows Labour still well ahead:

Labour - 46
National - 35
Greens - 5
NZF - 5
Act - 3
Maori - 1
UF - 1

This was despite a pretty tumultuous month for the government as issues such as NCEA, and the flu vaccine stole the headlines.

What this poll seems to confirm is a pretty settled mood across the electorate, with nearly all of the major pollsters now showing an entrenched gap of around 10% between the two major parties. Based on these figures, National simply cannot construct a centre-right government.

What seems to be emerging pretty early in this election year is a consensus view that Labour, rightly or wrongly, is the only Party around which a stable government will be able to be credibly built after polling day. Certainly the moronic Banks/Act episode will confirm in the minds of many that the right lack even the basic organisation, nous, and cohesion to be a serious prospect.

Keep Manukau's Pools Free

You know you want to:

http://www.petitiononline.com/freepool/petition.html

User Charges strike

18 year old Howick Councillor and would-be 2008 National Party candidate Jami-lee Ross is leading a charge to introduce user charges at Manukau City's public swimming pools.

With the support of a group or right wing councillors he has won a vote (9-6) at the council's annual plan meeting to introduce charges of $1 to $2 for entry to public pools.

I unequivically oppose this move. Not only is it an attack on a cherished local tradition of free pools that Manukau City residents have enjoyed for many years, but it is the thin end of a user charges agenda that no residents I know of want.

If charges for pools are to be introduced, then why not libraries, parks, rubbish, and any other council service under the sun? Of course we also know that it is the poor and middle income earners who suffer the most under a user pays regime, which makes it particularly appalling that MCC with it's high proportion of people on lower incomes is considering the proposal.

Some ironies:

- Councillor Ross campaigned that he would "give the youth of this city a voice". I somehow doubt that young people in Manukau who now face a curtailment of one of their few remaining free leisure activities feel that this is their voice.

- Councillor Ross is currently running a petition protesting the impact of a recent rates rise on residents, yet now wants to sock it to them when they send their kids for a weekend swim!

I will be campaigning against pool charges and am confident that the proposal can be reversed.

Knock, knock, knockin'

Our campaign moved up a gear today with the start of door to door canvassing.

This is one of my favourite parts of being a candidate as to me it really is the raw coal face of political campaigning. It's just you and the voter. Modern campaigning focusses to much on targetting, market research, and carefully crafted political messages for my liking, and increasingly I think that voters are wise to these techniques.

A lot of research shows that while media blitzing tends to 'confirm' people's voting intentions, it is actually only personal face to face contact that has much of an ability to change people's opinions. My experience is that people are ususally so pleased to see a candidate fronting up on their doorstep that whatever their political opinion, they tend to be very polite and welcoming.

Today's canvassing around central Howick (one of our strong areas in 2002) got a really good response. Many of the residents were elderly, and by and large were pretty pleased with Labour's record in the areas effecting them.

Back on deck

Honeymooning in Vietnam over the last few weeks has kept me away from blogging duties. An extrapolation on our fascinating trip can be found on Mrs Bargolias' blog. Suffice to say that the country was beautiful, the history mindblowing, the food exquisite, and the people enchanting. Go there!

Some quick observations after catching up on the news of the last month:

- Although many of his comments about NCEA are misleading and hollow, Bill English is the only opposition spokesperson capable of delivering a competent attack against the government - maybe they should try him as leader... oh wait...

- my earlier predictions about National's internal disunity becoming increasingly evident have been borne out. This is a direct result of Brash's political naivety.

- The push for a 5% wage rise, led by the EPMU, has gained some real political and popular momentum. The parties of the right expose their real agenda by opposing this modest increase for ordinary working families.

- The cricketers!!!! Thought we were going to be beaten, but didn't see that coming.

Our campaign in Pakuranga changes up a gear this month, with door-knocking starting this weekend.

The Shakedown

Well, people have now had some time to assess Brash's Orewa speech, National's incompetent follow-up bungling, and the government's subsequent announcements.

According to the pollsters, Labour still retains solid backing from around about 45% of the electorate, with National generally trailing by ten percentage points. For a government seeking a third term in office, that is an excellent result to begin the year with. Whatsmore, you have to ask - what gunpowder do the Nats have left? The attack on beneficiaries has failed to deliver more than a poll bump, and it is doubtful that this is even sustainable.

My prediction is that the internal tensions within National will become increasingly evident as MP's and Party figures realise that the election is unwinnable, and seek to distance themselves from Brash's cabal.

The government has a booming economy, record low unemployment, real gains in social services (ie: 30% more orthopedic operations in the last 6 months), and positive policies for working families to crow about. More importantly, Labour has a positive vision for the future. The PM's recent announcements about government measures to help increase workforce participation neatly tied together the key government themes of:

1) improving economic performance to drive up living standards;
2) focussing on the needs of ordinary working families; and
3) smart and active government that implements policies to drive the above two goals.

Contrast that with the negativity and free-market extremism of Brash and you can see why even right bloggers are writing off National's chances.

I am away for the next week so blogging will be few and far between.

national day should stay

While I think that Peter Dunne is someone who consistently makes constructive and useful contributions to the debate about national identity, I disagree strongly with his push to have our national day shifted from February 6th.

Waitangi Day whould remain our national day for two reasons:

1) The signing of the Treaty (whatever your views on it's interpretation) on February 6th 1840, unified New Zealand as a country under one sovereign. Prior to the Treaty, sovereignty in this country, under the doctrine of aboriginal title, rested with individual iwi and hapu. Before the Treaty there was no country called New Zealand, after it there was.

Events such as the signing of the Statute of Westminster, suggested by Dunne as an alternative, simpy do not have the same historical significance.

2) The fact that there are divided opinions about the meaning of Waitangi Day, leading at times to protest and controversy, doesn't in my view amount to a national crisis. While I would prefer a focus on the many positives in NZ on the day itself, the fact that there is a heated national debate about the meaning of Waitangi is actually a sign of maturity.

We as a country have faced up to our difficult past in a way that few others have. Plenty of other countries brush difficult topics around race relations under the carpet and engage in feel-good, but ultimately pointless flag waving on their national days. I would rather that we continue to have an open and honest discussion about our past and shared future

There's nothing wrong with a national day that as well as celebrating past events, reminds us that there is still work to be done to build a truly cohesive and just nation.

Banks in Pakuranga??

I haven't actually seen the news reports, but I've been told that John Banks is either courting or being courted by ACT as a possible candidate for Pakuranga. Presumably if such a deal was stitched up he would also demand a high list placing.

While he's high profile, it's all for the wrong reasons, so it's hard to imagine him taking the electorate by storm. What he might do though, is close the current 2000 vote differential between the ACT Party vote in Pakuranga, and the ACT candidate vote.

Anyone actually seen the reports??

The end is nigh

The letters of one Ron Pearce to the Howick & Pakuranga Times are a real treat. When you've had a tough day at the office and stories about the intricacies of local government, or a planned new shopping centre look a bit too dull, then some apopcalytic mumbo-jumbo from this bloke will always wake you up and bring a smile to your face.

Today's effort which gained top billing on the letters page is as lucid as ever.

I can never remember if we in the Labour Party are part of the conspiracy by virtue of our alliance with the freemasons or our blood oath to the illuminanti.

Making the NZ Breakers Look Amateurish

The Katherine Rich affair is astounding. While National Party cheerleaders like DPF simply comment on the whole business as "very very sad", it is far more than that.

It is in fact political ineptitude of the most amateurish kind. In a mediocre caucus of 27, you need every hand on deck, particularly in an election year in which your back is to the wall. When you are a political party who's prospective ministerial ranks are still filled with discredited figures from the 1990s, you need people like Katherine Rich who have some basic political appeal.

Given that, why would the leader of the National Party not, when making a controversial speech covering Rich's portfolio area, sort something out with her in advance? Here's one "I support all of the principles outlined by Don today, and look forward to getting down to the detailed policy work that will flesh those principles out into specific initiatives".

I would have thought that National Party strategic supremo Murray McCully who masterminded National's past two barnstorming election campaigns could have come up with something like that.

Before Brash thinks about running a country of 4 million he should have a little think about running a caucus of 27.