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.