Just Left

Public Meetings

In the Hunua campaign, there were a number of public meetings: Pukekohe, Waiuku, Beachlands and most recently Clevedon.

These are great forums in principle but tend to be let down in practice. My main criticism of them as a candidate is twofold:

• Organisers usually give you three minutes to intro yourself and your party with a political statement. You can't make any sensible case for anything in three minutes: you can either try and run out of time, or just spout silly slogans.
• It is not a forum where you can easily critique or interrupt silly things other candidates say: you're meant to hold your tongue.

All the meetings in Hunua were invariably polite affairs, and whether questions came from the floor or in writing, they were about the issues that matter and they give candidates a chance to explain where they come from.

What's struck me is how similar people's concerns are across bigger and smaller towns, and across elections actually. In this election and this electorate, the ETS has been the major issue. That's fair enough given the agricultural base of the seat and the dismal attitude of some of the farming lobbies to the whole issue of climate change.

The others are the old standby's that come up in every election all around New Zealand. We talked about crime, and economic growth, and improving public services. Economic growth. Some foreign policy but not as much as one might like. Often issues of direct economic concern to those in the audience. The security of pensions. The need for more teachers in public schools. And so on.

On many issues Paul Hutchison and I were in agreement: the need for more police and better early intervention to stem crime, for example. On others we were far apart: Paul bashes public servants every chance he gets and goes right to the wire with dismissive comments about the ETS which don't quite fit his leader's policies. Roger provided his own amusements, too often reeling into figures at a rate that just left audiences confused, interspersed with the odd brilliant soundbite, and clearly uncomfortable with his party's "tough on crime" line.

As far as I'm concerned, the more public meetings in a campaign, the better. They make you think. They give you unvarnished feedback. The more you have the less likely you are to get party activists in the majority, and the more impressive the questions that flow.

Most frightening question? "Why do you believe that the climate is changing and that people have anything to do with it - you must be mad to think that."

Most amusing moment: Paul Hutchison attacking ACT's anti-ETS position and Roger firing right back, at Clevedon last night.

Most dismal moment: actually, there weren't any, and that's a damn good thing.

If you attended any good public meetings in your electorate, how did they go?

Responding to the economic crisis II: Job Seekers' Allowance

We are in a lucky spot in New Zealand. Economic growth the past nine years has been well ahead of the previous nine (3.5 versus 2.6%), unemployment has been very low (still only 3.9%, far too low for those who work for the interests of capital to stomach) and the shares of income have become slightly more equal.

There is no doubt though that as the effects of the financial crisis wash over into the real economy, people will lose their jobs. They will do so in a situation of great global uncertainty. They will do so with credit markets tight and house prices falling, which may mean situations where negative equity becomes a problem.

Today as part of its response, Labour announced a new Job Seekers' Allowance.

This will provide up to thirteen weeks' transitional assistance to people who are made redundant (and have been in the workforce for five years or more).

It'll be paid at the same rate as the unemployment benefit, and with the usual one- or two-week standown period.

What makes it different is that it isn't income tested or asset tested - including against your partner's income. So unlike the dole, you have it as of right if you're laid off.

To me that's a nice move: it provides a guaranteed, modest level of support to people who get made redundant, it isn't too expensive (probably around $50m a year), and it's a good idea anyway crisis or none.

I would not want to see anyone proposing a large lump of lard for middle class households who have over-extended themselves, so any cushion should not be income-related or uncapped. This is a modest but reasonable step.

Further details are in PDF format here.

Ratings!

I am in a bind. Even if I thought Labour hadn't handily won a given day in the campaign, I would have to say we had. Being a candidate, if I said otherwise, mainstream media comment might follow, which would not do me or my party any good.

That makes the ratings utterly pointless and without merit.  So there are none from now on.

I'll just much more safely write a post campaign review.

(Responding to DPF and Clint on this. Oh, and Clint, how come you think I lisp? Is that your never-far-from-the-surface homophobia making an appearance?)

days 14 to 15 - Sat 24 to Sun 25 Oct: LABOUR BY A NOSE

I almost declared nobody the winner over the weekend. It seemed to me other than Diwali festivities and all the local campaign work going on, there was nothing particularly substantial. Peter Dunne crawled home to the Nats but that is hardly news; and that's probably the most interesting thing that happened. The RadioNZ debate on foreign affairs issues was pretty good, though it was odd that Winston Peters didn't show up.

The one thing that was substantive and why I give the weekend to Labour was Helen Clark's release of Labour's policy on Maori issues on Sunday, and in particular the commitment she made that Labour will honour the existence of the Maori Seats and never work to remove them without the consent of Maori.

We accept, as a party, that guaranteed representation for the indigenous people is important. So we are relaxed about the seats. They don't need constitutionalising, but they certainly should not be abolished in high handed fashion by the rich and the white, as Mr Key's party would so dearly like to do.

National's starting to panic.

I listented on Friday night to a very rattled John Key being pushed fairly hard by Mary Wilson on Checkpoint.

As the dawning realisation suffuses the right that National isn't going to be able to form a government by itself after the election, Mr Key and his colleagues have decided that a scare campagin is required.

The scare, obviously enough, was about a "five headed monster of the Left". That is to say a Labour, Progressive, Green, NZ First and Maori Party prospective government. Key sought to portray that combination (which, one might note, has the same number of parties as the current government does) as being somehow problematic, and contrasted it with National being able to govern alone.

He also tried to argue, ridiculously, that the National Party, were it to have more votes than Labour but a substantive minority in the new Parliament, would have some kind of "moral mandate" to form a government.

Let's kill both arguments stone dead right here.

On the first point, National won't get enough votes to form anything on its own. The only way National will be able to form a government post-election is if its picks up enough votes and if it is able to form agreements bringing United Future's Peter Dunne, ACT's Rodney Hide and Roger Douglas, and the Maori Party on side to form an administration. Yes, that's four parties folks. A four headed monster of the Right, one might say, if one was after cheap and silly soundbites.

Of course, Key doesn't want you to think about that, because he wants to portray himself as pure as the driven snow. Or something.

On the second and more important point. We live in a democracy where, thanks to MMP, every vote counts. A government is formed when a party or combination of parties have a majority in the House, or arrangements in the House which allow it to advance its programme.

We no longer live in a country where the right wing minority can force its views on a liberal/progressive majority. That of course is why National hates MMP so much and craves with every single sinew to see it destroyed, and a less proportional electoral system implemented to replace it.

So let's be clear. A government led by Labour would have a moral and political mandate after this year's election if Labour had fewer votes than National. It would do so because it had the support of parties which received 50%+ of the vote at the general election.

I don't mind saying this either: it would be immoral for parties of a smaller sort to cave into pressure from "the biggest party" on some spurious claim to a divine right to power dressed up as moral mandate. Please, give me a break.

What the argument tells you most clearly of all, and most interestingly of all, is just how terrified the right are of losing this election. For of course if they do, they will face an uncertain future. They'll have tried lots of money and not enough; they'll have tried men and women; they'll have tried old and young; they'll have tried moderate and radical. All will have been broken on the rock of New Zealand social democracy.

That is a record of failure the conservative forces in this country will be most unwilling to countenance. And that is why I will not be surprised if the election campaign, which so far has been clean and proper to my eyes, takes a turn for the worse as the tide ebbs from the high point of National Party dominance we've seen in the polls over the past year or so. The elites and powerbrokers of the right, who have been assuming that polls equal election results for a long time now, cannot conceive how the labour movement could possibly win again.

Which goes to show you really, just how little they understand ordinary New Zealanders, the labour movement, the Labour Party, or the governments that Helen Clark has led these past nine years.

Long may they remain ignorant.

day 13 - Fri 24 Oct: LABOUR

Why? Simple answer: the polls that came out from TV3 and Roy Morgan both show the election's very tight with Labour having more options for coalition formation post-election. And secondly, John Key introduced the five-headed monster of the Left - hah! 

Does he not know the current government already has five parties engaged? Does he not realise that giving us the chance to link National to Roger Douglas is pure poison to middle-of-the-roaders who might have been thinking of voting National? Does he not realise that it's 2008 and not 1999, and that the comments are curiously dated, as well as relying on scaring people about the Greens (who are no longer scary) or the Maori Party (who are National's only possible route to forming a government)?

Of course he doesn't realise these things, because he doesn't know what's happened in Kiwi politics in the decades to 2002. Which is why at some point in this campaign, he is going to come undone.

day 12 - Thu 23 Oct: LABOUR

See previous day. The fallout continued. National's campaign had nowhere to go, had no message, and was still covering for the mistakes Lockwood and Maurice had made.

What did Labour have to talk about instead? The fact that 827,000 Kiwis have joined KiwiSaver, and that National is keen to take the knife to the savings scheme if it wins the election. That message, I can tell you from on the ground, is beginning to resonate.

day 11 - Wed 22 Oct: LABOUR

Maurice Williamson and Lockwood Smith. No more need be said.

Interesting Tim Watkin post

If you haven't gone to have a look at Pundit (www.pundit.co.nz) yet, then you should - there is some seriously interesting writing going on at that site.

Tim Watkin has an interesting piece:

What might have been, might be better

by Tim Watkin

Labour says it's being "prudent" by reining in its spending plans, but it may come to regret not giving the economy more of a boost from the public purse

What might have been? It's a question we all ask ourselves at some stage in life, but it's especially pertinent now that Labour has announced it's reining in its strategy–some may say instincts–to make significant increases to social spending in the lead up to the election.

I am not in agreement with some of his substantive points: after all, there are a good two weeks until polling day, and I hope we will see more detail of Labour's plans before then. But the main point seems to be that now is the time to spend.

For those of you that think we do have a debt problem, I might remind you that in the USA, the total government debt owed by the United States (that is federal debt, not state and federal) is around $9 trillion, with about $5.8trillion owed outside govt (ie not borrowed from the Social Security system). That's 40% of GDP or so.

On *worst* predictions, with *no* upswing in the recovery from this slowdown, NZ public debt would be 30% of GDP in ten years.

Very manageable, and it'll be smaller than that anyway - so even more manageable.

Beware the siren calls of those who would wish to slice into the state, using the deficit as an excuse (here's looking at you, Bill&Roger...).

Multimedia - 08wire

If you liked Team America: World Police, then you should find this one funny. Good job Wire!