No News ACT

ACT's candidate for Wellington Central and promising star Stephen Whittington has made news. He's greatly admired in the party, has potential as a politician, and has a large number of supporters, especially in ACT on Campus. He's done the cleverest thing by making news over comments about John Banks and the direction of the party. Apparently, Banksie is "economically ignorant and interventionist" and said this in response to talks about Banksie and the Colin Craig Conservative Party (or CCCP).

I do not know whether this is a gaffe, something malicious, or an intentional public release. But the blogosphere and the news media are already sensing something going on within the ACT Party. After a piss poor election result, the party is having discussions on what should happen next. The situation of course is that Brash has resigned, and Banks is the only ACT member in parliament. This changes  everything for the party, so the next few weeks of discussion are crucial to what will happen, deciding th future of the party and many politicians careers.

It is too early for the media to know anything about what ACT is thinking or feeling. With nothing at all certain and a ground-up review of the party underway, there is literally no telling at this point what could happen. Party president Chris Simmons has commented on the issue to dampen concerns, especially those of Epsom voters who will want to know their representative-elect will stay on message.

If you want news on the ACT party, I doubt there'll be anything coming from the yellow team for a little while yet. We'll just have to LOL at the Labour Party until then. Speaking of which, David Parker is now out (ignoring my advice), the right is calling David Cunliffe the "silent T" for self-evident reasons, and David Shearer appears to be the front runner. Post-election politics still interesting!

Greens and National?!?

I've written this post over the last two weeks, as the idea of National working with the Greens keeps coming up. While the last election showed us that they were the two favorites of the election (both receiving record party vote numbers and astonishing pre-election poll results), the calls for them to work together probably won't work.

No One Likes First Equal

Pundits have harped on about the Nats and Greens working together for the sake of both the environment and the economy, which is nice to think both are not mutually exclusive. The practicality of this is low, since both have very separate policies on both issues, and would struggle to find middle ground. If people like a combination of both, National could simply adopt aspects of the Green's environmental policies (especially the river cleanup policy, which was a cornerstone of the campaign), and avoid having to work with Catherine Delahunty.

The public perception that they were big winners is a fallacy to think they are the most popular two. National is the governing party for a reason, with the votes of coalition partners added; more than half of Kiwi voters wanted a John Key-led government. National cleaned out this election, and its people and policy was deemed the most fit to govern. People that voted Greens vehemently OPPOSED most of National's policies, they vandalized National's billboards because they disagreed with the policy so much. Being at different ends of the political spectrum, having completely different viewpoints, would not make for a very co-operative government.

What Could They Get Done?

Never mind what the collaboration of talent, experience, and resources could do; think realistically what could they achieve working together. Not much. Consider the amount of arguing and conflict between parties. Then imagine the infighting within each party, as disagreements over direction and policy takes place between colleagues. Then imagine the support each party would receive from their loyal supporters, as both National and the Greens would be perceived as betraying their values and principles, losing both a lot of funding, resources, respect, and ultimately votes later on.

Knowing that the Greens received 13 seats against National's 60 seats, every Green member would be outnumbered 5 to 1 by Nats. The imbalance of power would have the Greens comparatively powerless against the National Party, who could easily dominate the discussion over policies. Realistically, think of Steven Joyce, and how he could ruthlessly whip the Greens into line on the promise of some support years down the track. No one would be impressed.

Government or Opposition

Whale Oil today mentioned in a post about the Greens being eternally left out of government business. Would they benefit from being taken seriously in government? Naturally, they'd pair up with Labour, and together they'd waste lots of money and make lots of stuff ups. But naturally, the Greens prefer to be in opposition where they can make a strong case against policies they find destructive, such as their stance on mining and exploration. The Greens have been very successful in the recent election where they have put forward a very (comparatively) constructive case, where policies were focussed on what they would do rather than Labour and what they wouldn't do. 

Another point would be one of democracy, combining the two parties and ignoring National's usual coalition partners, would create a 73 seat government, and a force to be reckoned with. Knowing that ACT would unlikely sit with Labour, the opposition to such a government would be very weak and the usual check on government power would be ineffective.

Even though National and the Greens appear to be the most popular and relevant parties today, they are usually opposing each other, and both stand for quite different things. This makes it difficult to co-operate as a coalition and would prove an ineffective partnership. The thought of Steven Joyce and Catherine Delahunty working together would make both parties cringe. This parliamentary term, with the Greens largest caucus ever, will be a test to see whether they can be effective and stable in parliament, proving themselves as a competent governing party by being a very competent opposition. 

The Battle for Labour Leadership

What's funny about Labour - a party of unionists and organized socialists, is struggling to figure out who should be leader. 

The battle for the loser party after it's biggest loss in nearly a century is amazingly fascinating. It's bizarre that people are so desperate to claim leadership where there is no cleanup from the last election campaign, nor is there a strategy to rebuild the party coming from the contenders. This is a crucial moment for Labour to rebuild and rebrand itself properly, in order to make a competent opposition until 2014 and give National a real run for it's money at the next election. They need a vision, a plan,and a leader.

The Outgoing - Phil Goff (with Annette King)

A real soldier in the party, he's been there through thick and thin for over 27 years, and now it seems his time is up. Despite his best efforts and strong qualities, he's gracious enough to pass on the leadership to the next man for the good of the party. This will allow the party to move on from past mistakes and bring a fresh new brand to the voters. 

Phil Goff isn't an inherently bad guy, nor did he make a lot of stuff ups. The problem with presidential-style elections (which we've had in the country for a while, admit it) is that the general public does not VOTE IN a new leader on policy or reputation, it generally VOTES OUT a leader it is fed up with and opts for the lesser of two possible evils. Goff went up against John Key, a dangerously popular leader who had less popular policies, but still got in. The next leader will need to be what John Key won't be in 2014, they'll need a leader that won't have any of the aspects of John Key that people will be sick of by then. They need to offer a refreshing change for the next election, while proving good opposition in the mean time.

The Contenders

David Cunliffe

One of the three Davids, this one has spent the last three years and the run-up to the election as the finance spokesperson and the party's number three. His claim to fame this election is being the front man on Labour's economic plans, being the arrogant presenter explaining Capital Gains Tax (CGT) on the Labour website. His big whoopsie in the last election was saying that if Judith 'Crusher' Collins was the last woman on Earth, he'd refuse to procreate with her and allow the human race to go extinct, getting a great deal of backlash from women and National supporters across the country.

In another presidential style election in 2014, he wouldn't be the best choice against John Key. Remembering people VOTE OUT leaders when they get tired of their quirks, John Key will likely get voted out because of his perceived smugness and arrogance; Labour fronting a candidate that offers the same annoying traits will just turn potential voters off.  

David Parker

The number four man on the Labour list, and biggest carpet bagger of the 2011 election for running in Epsom when his home is in Dunedin.  David Parker stayed relatively competent and well behaved over the election, though those of us who watched the Epsom race very closely will know that he can get flustered relatively easy, and can will appear hysterical and insane when debating issues. His performance as candidate for Epsom almost made him look weak and immature as he ripped on Banks and Brash with total lunacy, and at times, more smugness.  

Mr Parker would make a better leader than Cunliffe in my opinion, as long as he can learn to control his emotions and stay in character. At the beginning of the Epsom race, he did appear very claim, collected, and competent. He impressed people by saying that he is a capitalist at heart, and is purporting Labour's economic policies as a measure to alleviate the financial crisis and have an end goal of a competitive market economy. I do appreciate people who advocate social democracy as a means to a market economy, and at a time when economic stability is a key issue, he wil garner support for his realistic thinking. He also appears more youthful and promising, but has plenty of experience on his side, including a high degree of competency working in both government and opposition. His soundbite on TV One news "make Labour relevant to New Zealand for 2014" says he is ready to take on the job and follows my advice!

David Shearer

The lesser known of the three Davids; Shearer has been MP for Mount Albert in Auckland since 2009 after two unsuccessful electorate campaigns, though beating Melissa Lee for his current seat is a feat worth a mention. He has the least political experience in New Zealand, though he has done extensive work in the United Nations before returning to New Zealand. This experience may be a blessing and a curse of him, as it shows that he has a high degree of competency in many areas, but leadership of a party, an opposition, or a government may not be for him. He could certainly gain a cabinet position in a Labour government, but it's unlikely that he would ever lead Labour into government and would likely suffer the same fate as Phil Goff. 

As for his pitch against John Key, Shearer would likely appear boring and out of touch with many New Zealanders. Labour needs to swing voters from the center and wealthier demographics to gain a victory, Shearer would be unlikely to gain this from his experience, much of it due to his time spent outside of New Zealand, and his lack of experience in the private sector.

Grant Robertson

Labour's openly gay MP, his story is similar to Shearer's in that they share experience in the UN before joining Labour comparitively recently. He is currently Wellington Central MP and has risen through the party list from 46 to 14 in a few years. He appeals the urban liberal lefty hipster crowd that congregates in Wellington, but would have a hard time convincing swing voters in the heartland or the business tycoons in Auckland that he would be competent for the job. His youthfulness and defense of the public sector gives people the impression he's a young socialist, which is not vote-winning material in contemporary New Zealand. 

His mention in this post is because he may not be Labour leader in 2014 and have a shot at being prime minister, but he may be deputy leader and would need to complement and support the next leader. He may end up making Cunliffe look more abrasive and further turn off centrist voters, would risk contradicting Parker and give the impression of a factionalized Labour, and complement Shearer by adding youthfulness but would not add any economic credibility to Labour and risk looking socialist.

    

Nanaia Mahuta 

She may be a name most don't know, but her presence in parliament goes back to 1996 where she has been wining electorates and gaining support right through her parliamentary career. She is a strong advocate of Māori rights and development, and principled where she stuck with the Labour Party when her colleague Tariana Turia split to lead the Māori Party. Her reputation may be little known, but her record shows competency and a team player within the party. She has been quietly promoted to the front bench of the Labour Party and has gained support from within the party.

Her role may also be to support one of the contestants for leader and become a deputy. Her role would fill in Annette King's position as the alpha female of the party, and would do well to earn back Māori and Pacific Islander votes from Mana and Māori parties. It has been said that Labour needs to reconnect to their Māori support base, and her position would do just the trick. She would also be useful in softening the image of any of the Davids, so long as she can maintain a high public profile too. Her position on Māori development could create balance to Parker as long as they do not contradict, and a very high public profile would prevent leadership from going to Cunliffe's head. 

The "door is closing on [Phil Goff's] political career"

Soon, the torch will be passed on to the next generation. Goff's 27 years as an Auckland MP could make him a career politician, especially as we've watched his political views change from being a vocal Rogernome to the "Stop Asset Sales Guy" over that time. The next generation needs to be a team that can front up to National's powerful front bench and popular leader; someone that has had real experience living and working alongside all sorts of New Zealanders, with some private sector experience to show that they can represent the average worker and still have respect for the businesses that employ them.

To counter John Key's government, they need to prove themselves as a worthy opposition, and really highlight flaws in the National government where they can show that Labour is working for the people better as an opposition than National is as a government. They will need to stay principled, and a major party must be a broad church, uniting factions and ensure they are all consistent in working towards a common goal. 

Thier leader will need to be charismatic and command a great deal of media interest, for all the right reasons, of course. The run up to the 2014 election will have to prove this leader is a refreshing and interesting change from John Key, firstly by exhibiting none of the negative aspects Key has (such as his perceived smugness, which is already starting to turn voters off him), and then by providing an exciting point of difference that appeals to a large majority of New Zealanders.

Labour needs a big shake up to get voters back on their side. If they don't take drastic action now, they could end up losing the left vote to the Greens, or give National many more terms and run unopposed. An ACT supporter just gave them a recovery blueprint, they'd be wise to use it. 

News links

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10769597

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6060236/Labours-three-Davids-to-hit-the-road

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10769840

Another Election Over

Well, that was weird.

People that know me on Facebook already know I was a mess on election night at the ACT Party Party in Parnell, and my media appearances have been awful. My interview on Close Up on Monday 28th was like a Muldoon moment. That aside, elections are bizarre times where all sorts of crazy shit happens in the name of democracy. So how did everyone do?

1st - National

Good:

- Didn't get into much trouble

- Good policies

- Last 3 years have been good, stable incumbents 

Bad:

- Tea pot tapes

- John Key refused to debate Phil Goff all the time

- Asset sales aren't popular, but it's OK, John Key is

As the winners of the last election, they've gained a few extra seats to strengthen their caucus (with the need of an additional whip) and continue the good progress they've made so far. They appear as the cool, calm, and confident leaders that can get through a financial mess and ensure the peace of mind of New Zealanders - brilliant. The 'Tea Pot Tapes' were a slight bit of damage,with Key storming out of a press conference and continuing to refuse to comment on them. The lesson John Key teaches us is that sometimes the less that is said, the better; leaving no room for questioning and uncertainty, delivering a strong message and a positive image. Yeah, he basically walked into parliament this time.

2nd - Labour

Good:

- Powerful advertising and branding

- Thirst for debate and discussion on policy

- Kept Trevor Mallard on a leash

Bad:

- They lost, BADLY

- Goff appeared bland and incompetent, clear loser in a presidential-style election

- No clear leaders or any future in current caucus

- They lost seats!!

- Announcing raising the retirement age to 67 was a gamble that was probably responsible for bring Winston back from the dead

- Trevor Mallard

- All their economic plans seemed to come out wrong, as if they couldn't count or something

- Appeared comparatively outdated and irrelevant against the Greens

Their worst result in a long time, mirroring National's 2002 campaign under Bill English. They lost seats, lost support, had their votes split by other parties, and appeared to be outdated and irrelevant against their coalition partner, the Greens. Their economic boldness backfired over bad costings and analysis, and they were torn apart over the extra borrowing, despite few good suggestions such as the $5k tax free threshold. Phil Goff just lacked the media coverage and interest that John Key had, and appears to be on the way out, the problem is, there doesn't seem to be a competent leader in the current caucus. In fact, there doesn't seem to be any future talent or potential in the party. They'll need a big overhaul before 2014.

3rd - Greens

Good:

- More powerful advertising, following last election's memorable branding

- Appeared very relevant, conscious, and competent (at least in comparison to what they were before)

- Appealed to a bigger audience, and won more votes and seats than ever before

- Split the left vote, took many votes from the more intelligent left and center and weakened Labour significantly

Bad:

- Some of their economic plans were shot down for being inaccurate, ACT found huge flaws in it

- People scoffed at 'Green Jobs' and 'Green Economy' as not practical enough to get out of the economic mess

- Their stupid cringe-worthy mass vandalization of National's billboards!!!! Political suicide much!!

- Denise Roche and Catherine Delahunty

- Robyn Malcolm, like WTF?!?!

Their best ever result, thanks largely to Meitiria Turei and Russell Norman's tinkering of the Green brand to downplay the hippy-feminazi-treehugging-communist-dropkick image and create a more middle class and mainstream brand. The growth in votes and seats was huge, playing mostly on three policies; improving living standards for 100000 children, green economic policies, and cleaning up rivers. They sound a bit wishy-washy, but they did strike a chord with many Kiwis who do care about children and the environment. The rumors of a partnership with National excited and disgusted many simultaneously, with each party's most faithful warning against it. Many people would like to see it happen, but I personally don't see much good coming from such an agreement.

4th - New Zealand First

Bad:

- Winston First

- Tea Pot Tapes exploitation

- Tracey Martin

- The Clown of Campbell's Bay

- Brendan 'Failed Weatherman' Horan (who sets "feminine hearts aflutter" apparently...)

- Curwen Fuckin' Rolinson

- Still hasn't paid back that $158k, still waiting Winnie…

Probably at the expense of Labour, a strange and unexpected resurgence of New Zealand First, who just got over the 5% threshold and stole 8 seats in Parliament. The catalyst was probably the proposal of raising the retirement age by Labour that got them attention, then stirring shit over the Tea Pot Tapes which created the controversy and the popularity. The problem is, he's been vindicated by winning, where the media have dismissed and outcast him completely, and he's complained about being left out. The media should have let him join in debates and discussions, so that people could see how much of a fool he is before they got for him, and not after.

5th - Māori Party

Good:

-

Bad:

-

The party that had the least say, the least advertising, the least input, and some of the fewest party votes. The Māori Party held onto their Māori electorate seats again, with the exception of course, being Te Tai Tokerau. Dr Pita Sharples comfortably held onto Tāmaki Makaurau despite the opposition from Shane Jones. National wants their support, as they got it in the last parliament, and all the Māori Party seem to want is for iwi to have a say in asset sales. Exciting…

6th - ACT

Good:

- Dr Brash had fantastic economic policies with recommendations from top economists, if only anyone else could understand these policies…

- Plenty of talent and potential down the party list, David Seymour and Stephen Whittington making a great start

- John Banks won Epsom, despite the polls

Bad:

- Total turnover of MPs

- Brash rolled Rodney, promised us 15% of party votes but only got 1%

- Lowest presence in parliament ever

- Tea Pot Tapes

- Brash4Hash

Don Brash and John Banks have accused the media and the pollsters for deterring people away from ACT with what proved to be inaccurate polls and news about gaffes and not policy. People back winners, and ACT was pitched to be losers from day one. Having said that, the ongoing hiccups that seemed to occur in the party didn't help one bit, with Don Brash announcing a cannabis reform as an unofficial policy without telling Banks who is vehemently opposed to such. Dr Brash has already resigned from the party and takes responsibility, the tricky part is working out which direction the party will take for 2014, with the media still interested in the divisions and setbacks in the party, even after the election.

7th - Mana

Good:

- ?

- ?

- ?

Bad:

- Hone Heke tax

- "Feed the kids"

- Sue Bradford, John Minto, Pat O'Dea

Apart from in Māori communities, electorates, and in poor neighborhoods; Hone Harawira's presence was almost non existent. In the Epsom electorate on the streets of Newmarket, his name was only a rumor from far away. His policies grabbed some support from the lowest income earners, as he positioned the party away from being concerned exclusively with Māori, to being a champion of the poor. Scrapping GST and creating a tax-free threshold was one thing, but it was supported by a 'Hone Heke' tax, which was a financial tax on all transactions. Lovely. Pat O'Dea made a dick of himself in Epsom by having a campaign concerned exclusively with trashing the ACT party and maintaing a conspiracy theory behind bankers and speculators. Crazy talk, mostly.

8th - United Future

Good:

- ????

Bad:

- Again, one seat

- Again, Peter Dunne

- Again, Peter Dunne's hair

Nothing happened. With Peter Dunne in charge of United Future, all that will ever happen is nothing. They need a huge makeover, starting with Peter Dunne's hair.

Conclusions and reactions to all of this are more complicated, and will require another post. But campaigning for 2014 should be starting now if parties should seek re-election. The result so far is the guarantee of a good night's sleep with a strong, stable, center-right, John Key led National government. Winston First and his cronies will provide plenty of entertainment at the expense of the taxpayer's money and patience. Every party except the Greens and National will need severe rebranding, hopefully the conference calls and strategy plans are being worked out now.

MMP or Vote for Change: Who Gives A Shit?

After being asked a few times about whether I prefer MMP or FPP or the alternative systems. To be succinct and direct about it, I don't really care. I do like systems that encourage smaller parties and independents, but my cynicism tells me that all systems can be manipulated, abused, and criticized.

While Labour actively supports MMP, they get awfully upset when it works to the benefit of the right-wing parties. John Key prefers SM but also doesn't really give a shit.

It's up to New Zealanders to decide. Being such a small issue and one with little interest, the referendum would be best voluntary. That way, only tubthumping people who do give a shit, will have their say.

For the record: My vote will be to change the system (knowing MMP will win), and choose STV as the alternative.