Why Labour thinks it can win again

TVNZ website Jul 28, 2008

By Therese Arseneau

Despite languishing behind National in the polls, Prime Minister Helen Clark still believes Labour can win a fourth term. Her strategy is to get to within 10 percentage points of National by the start of the campaign, and then out-perform National during the campaign.
Is this just political posturing? Perhaps, but here are a few reasons why Labour thinks it can be done.

1) MMPLabour has been more successful under MMP than National. They know how to win an MMP election and how to operate effectively in an MMP-elected Parliament; by moving closer to the centre; and by nurturing alliances with parties on either side of it. This has been crucial to Labour's successful election and governing strategy.
Some commentators have suggested Labour's success is due to a bias for the left built into MMP. This is incorrect. MMP has most helped Labour by being bias-free, especially in terms of geography. MMP provides an almost exact translation of votes into seats nationwide, and Labour is no longer penalised for having an excess of votes in urban electorates. Every party vote counts.
The bottom line is this - in the last three elections Labour and its allies have received more votes than National and its allies. MMP is merely the vehicle of Labour's recent success. The driver is the growth in votes due to changed demographics and the backlash against unpopular National policies of the 1990s.

2) Labour's core voteNew Zealand has experienced a seachange in party identification. Victoria University political scientists Stephen Levine and Nigel Roberts have conducted pre-election surveys for over 30 years. In 1999, for the first time ever, they found more New Zealanders identified themselves as Labour supporters than National supporters. Labour has maintained this advantage over National in subsequent pre-election surveys.
Party identification is an attachment or loyalty to a political party. It can range from a simple affinity for a party, to a tendency to vote for a party, or even to being a card-carrying party member. Labour often refers to this as its "core vote".
Having a larger core vote does not guarantee Labour election success. This is partly because the number of New Zealanders identifying with a party has declined. Moreover, identifiers do not always vote for 'their' party.
But core supporters could keep Labour in contention. Party identification remains one of the strongest predictors of voting behaviour, a majority of New Zealanders still acknowledge a party identification, and their default position is to remain loyal to their party.3) The infrequent voterMore than 20% of New Zealand's voting age public does not vote. Roughly half are serial non-voters; the other half intermittent non-voters. The bad news for Labour is that non-voters are mostly Labourites. The 2005 New Zealand Election Study (NZES) found non-voters favoured Labour over National by a margin of 2-1.
But Labour demonstrated in 2005 that pockets of these non-voters can be mobilised. The promise of interest free student loans, National's plans to abolish the Maori seats and fears about the future of state housing provided the motivation. Labour Party President Mike Williams credits the increased turnout for Labour's victory.
People intent on not voting are excluded from polls. Getting some of this vote out could move Labour closer to National than indicated in current polls.

4) National's policiesThe 2005 NZES found a majority of New Zealanders surveyed supported a fairly expansive role for government and most preferred increased social spending to tax cuts. More New Zealanders feared the power of 'big business' than trade unions. And most were supportive of owning - either fully or partially - Kiwibank, Landcorp, and the electricity industry. These views seem more in line with Labour's vision of government than National's.
This might explain National's many policy reversals and its promise to leave several key Labour programmes, such as Kiwisaver, interest-free student loans and working for families, intact under a National government. It also explains National's promise not to sell state owned assets in its first term.
National is currently operating in a policy vacuum. Key's decision to abandon the more hard-line policies championed by Don Brash and to move the party towards the centre makes sense in the MMP environment. But it has led to some confusion about what National stands for. At the moment the public has a better idea of what a National government won't do than what it will do.
Eventually though National is expected to announce a more fulsome policy platform, and to more clearly differentiate itself from the current Labour government. Labour is hoping this will give voters cause to pause and question whether they really want a National government.5) Helen ClarkThe Prime Minister is backing herself to outperform John Key in the election campaign. Her leadership has been important in past elections, particularly late in the campaign when she mobilised and reinforced support. She provided the Labour-inclined and undecided voters with a reason to vote Labour.
It is difficult to measure and quantify the impact of leadership on voting choice. Despite the heavy media focus, most election studies find the effect to be small - from 1-4 percentage points - but important if the election is close (as it was in 2005).

6) The dream scenarioLabour's dream scenario depends on a mixture of good management and good luck. Labour must keep its core vote intact and mobilised, and give intermittent voters a reason to show up on election day. National's policies must scare away some of its current soft support, and Clark's leadership must capture these swinging, undecided voters for Labour. Labour would need some help from its friends in the form of post-election backing from the Progressives and Greens. It would also need help from the Maori Party. Even then, it may still require either help from New Zealand First and United Future, and/or some other "luck" - perhaps a major and unexpected issue or two that plays out better for Labour than for National.
Is this scenario realistic? That is the topic of my next column... so stay tuned. ONE News Political commentator Dr. Therese Arseneau is a Senior Fellow in the School of Political Science and Communications at the University of Canterbury. In the lead-up to this year's election, she will be writing a regular column for onenews.co.nz, examining New Zealand's political landscape.

Source: ONE News

Sex change for John Key?

The ultimate flip flop or a very taxing cut?

John Key has announced the adoption of yet another flagship Labour policy – having a female leader. In a one-page policy briefing released today he stated that under a National government he would undergo gender realignment to have what it takes to lead the Country. read more

What to do with Winston?

What to do with Winston?

Both Labour and National are struggling to know what to do with Winston. National are trying to use the Owen Glenn and Bob Jones gift saga to get at Helen Clark - but its a bit hard to use a double edged and double ended sword as a weapon. National have just as many issues around secret donations and trust lurking in their closets they don't want exposed. And while bagging Winston might be fun - they'll be kicking themselves if they need his support to make the next government.

I wonder if National's real ploy is to get Winston fired, and force an early election. National looks unbeatable at the moment (so say the polls) - however they lost an unlosable election in 2005 so we live in hope.

I expect National has peaked in the polls and that they know it. The later the election the better for the left. So forcing an early election would be good for the Ngats - it would have the added bonus for them that the public would have less time to analyse their policies (should they release some soon.)

Winston will be safe until the end of this week anyway as the government need his vote for confidence and supply. I would not be surprised however that should any wrong doing be exposed beyond the speculation at present that the government will consider washing their hands of Winston and limping home to an election on November 8th.

Perhaps the best ploy in relation to Winston would have been to ignore him altogether. For he was flagging in the polls and he thrives on all publicity good or bad. His golden card brigade can see no wrong in the man and they will only assume that their saint has been persecuted for righteousness sake. By giving him undue attention the Ngats may have prolonged the problem and made a rod for their own backs.

Time will tell

It is working - for families!

I couldn't bear to put flip-flop in my title again, but sure enough today Key does another about turn. This time saying that they won't throw out The Working for Families package.

Has he finally realised that this tax cut is actually working for families? Its hardly middle class welfare. Its about investing in our children by making sure that our families are not over burdened by high taxes.

They voted against it Key calling it 'communism by stealth'. So is John Key a communist - I think not. (Hansard 13 Dec 05)

Why would they hang on to it?

Political expediency one must presume - it seems as though they's sell their soul to get into power.

What I am concerned about though is that there was a "we will not get rid of it immediately", type feel about what he was saying. (Just like State owned assets)

At heart the Ngats want low tax rate and minium redistribution of wealth, minimum governent and minimum government services.

And the figures just don't add up. They want to keep all the good stuff Labour has done invest, in public infrastructure, $1billion broadband for example, and give generous tax cuts.

And Oh no, they won't borrow to give tax cuts - they may borrow to invest in infrastructure. Tell me what is the effective difference PLEASE!

I won't borrow any money for my oversea holiday instead I'll use the money I saved for the new kitchen and then I'll borrow some money for the kitchen oh yes much better why didn't I think of that sooner!

Must remember to ask John Key to help me balance my cheque book!

Flip Flop traditonal National Ploy?

Check out this link to this Don Brash's Flip-flop-amatic site, John Key really is a continuation of Don Brashes policy

Flip Flop Flap

John Key is working him self into a flap a Flip Flop Flap. This slippery politician either doesn't know what he or his party believes in or he is being deliberately evasive.
Take some of these important issues that New Zealander have come to value dearly.


Nuclear Free New Zealand
John Key believed that Labour’s anti-nuclear legislation was bad for New Zealand, he supported Don Brash's comments "gone by lunch time" and I suspect that is his true colours yet he flopped for political expediency. What will he do if in power?

(Oct 03) The anti-nuke legislation is “bad news for economic growth and for our job market”
(Sep 07) “we're going to stick with the anti-nuclear legislation”

Affordable housing
John Key was against plans to bring affordable housing to his electorate, It might spoil the neighbourhood I suppose, once again he flopped and said he was for it.

(Jun 06) Hobsonville is “economic vandalism” and “National are committed to cancelling it”
(Feb 08) “I'm in favour of the, of the affordable housing they might build there [Hobsonville]”

KiwiSaver
John Key was against it, saying KiwiSaver was “fundamentally flawed”, he said the Michael Cullen was dreaming that it would never work. Now that 750000 kiwis have signed up he seems to have had a memory lapse.

(Feb 06) KiwiSaver is “fundamentally flawed” and “a glorified Christmas Club.”
(Aug 07) KiwiSaver “was probably gonna be successful and not too bad.”

Sale of Public Assets
John Key was keen to sell off state assets, before he did a partial flop and said he was against it “in the first term”.

(Mar 05) Landcorp and Solid Energy will be “sold down” and there’s “no reason to own Air NZ”
(Apr 08) “in the first term of the National government there will be no state assets that will be sold” yet it does look like he is preparing to package some state assets for sale.

For Sale: TVNZ & Radio NZ under National National’s privatisation plan for broadcasting means scrapping the charter and preparing our public broadcasters for sale.
For Sale: One perfectly good ACC scheme going cheap to Australia?

Will he flip or flop on ACC?

ACC: “…24 hour no fault blah, blah, blah” That’s how John Key described ACC after releasing their policy to privatise our world leading accident insurance scheme. Key was sloppy as well as slippery with the details of what National would do, however we know that Australian insurance companies will be the winners and kiwi workers will be the losers. The CTU did a handy analysis of what National's changes could mean to workers.

Early Childhood Education
John Key said Labour’s early childhood education was a fraud, then he flopped and said he supports early childhood education. But take careful note of the way they have dropped the word 'free'

(Jul 07): “We won’t keep [ECE]…it’s simply not working and it’s frankly a fraud”
(Apr 08) “we support early childhood education”

20 Hours FREE Early Childhood Education, but not under Key 85,000 3 and 4 year olds are now enjoying 20 hours of free early childhood education each week, but under National’s newly released policy they have conveniently removed the word ‘free’ revealing their true intentions.

Flip Flop goes John Key

I watched question time in Parliament yesterday and was encouraged to see how pathetic Mr Key appears. Labours best hope is Mr Key, he offers no substance, no policy, no clear direction and he is getting tripped up on any policy hints that he is letting slip or 'announcing'.

I hope the country learns to see through this hollow man in time, for a man who flip flops on critical policy areas can't be trusted. He has flip flopped several times already in the last few years so even if he produced a party manifesto we've no guaranty that he want flop again. What are his true colours you see if you can figure it out. If you can let me know and if you can't DON'T PUT YOUR TRUST IN HIM!

Flip flop 1

(Sep 03) Flip: The Ngats are dead keen to send troops to Iraq! Key said NZ was “missing in action” during the invasion of Iraq
(Jul 07) Flop: Key backs away “We wouldn’t have sent troops to Iraq.”

Flip flop 2

(May 05) Flip: Key promotes climate change conspiracy theory Key said climate change “is a complete and utter hoax”
(Nov 06) Flop: “I firmly believe in climate change and always have”

Flip flop 3: Key on railways
(May 08) Flip: Key said buying back the railways was “a dumb idea”
(May 08) Flop: “we'll have no option but to keep the assets they will have acquired from Toll Holdings” I wonder if this has anything to do with the 68% support and 20% opposed to the buy back, even 56% of Ngat voters support the buy back!

Flip flop 4: Student loans
(Nov 05)Flip: Interest free loans were “an unaffordable and irresponsible cost to the country!”
(Jan 08) Flop: “We will keep interest-free student loans for tertiary students” Key is desperate to be be Labour-lite and doesn't want to loos the support of students and their parents (until after the election I suspect)

Voters should be concerned that the flip flop man is either indecisive or evasive - what are his real colours? Will we know before its too late?

Check back for more flip flops they are as regular as clockwork and I'll keep you posted

Family Values

Family Values the left and right of it
“Family Values” rhetoric is a loaded with meaning which in the media and the general public imagination has been captured by the conservative right; yet secular and religious progressives are not devoid of values when it comes to familial relations. Like many of the divides between right and left overemphasis of the difference is unfruitful and benefits neither side.
“Family values” has become a symbol and slogan for conservatives, the term carrying traditionalist connotations. The stereotype of this socially conservative ideology limits the term family to a nuclear married heterosexual child-rearing unit, to the exclusion of all others. However, in my experience conservatives do recognize that family units often include grand-parents in need of care and other sorts of non-nuclear arrangements such as foster-children and step-children.
The bible records a multitude of family models, many of which do not fit modern conservative ideals yet display qualities that are pleasing to God. One of ironies of the right’s claim to the biblical high ground in family values is that the bible does not venerate the nuclear model of family, in fact I’ve not found one example of a family in the bible that has two parents raring their own children and doing so successfully. The bible does however offer many positive and negative examples of how to treat each other and provides a good deal of didactic material about the roles and responsibilities of parents and children and more generally how we are to care for our relatives.
‘Family’ may be considered from two perspectives the first concerns ‘the who’ of the family and the second concerns ‘the how’. The first approach to defining family is one that conservatives seem to give priority to. The right legitimates biological relations so that mum, dad and their children become the central construct. The addition of other relations may also be considered valuable, however the inclusion of others outside of the biological component is seen as less than ideal and the removal of one or both parents to be avoided. Because of the right’s opposition to divorce, unmarried parenting, to same-sex relations and same sex partners raising children a good deal of their moral crusade is concerned with the who of such familial relations.
The left and the right disagree as to the impact and importance of the who in family values, but there is much common ground on the what of family values. The right may do its cause more good by concentrating more on the what so that children in particular may receive good nurture regardless of the type of family they are raised in. Progressives emphasise values relevant to ensuring successful families, regardless of the form of the family unit. The purpose of families, from giving care to dependents to providing a stimulating , nurturing and fulfilling home life are all functions progressives have an interest in advancing. Progressives recognise that families exist and operate for many varied reasons; for example to provide quality childrearing conditions and or, economic security, emotional security, spiritual nurture, fulfilment, intimacy, vocational support, collaboration.
By attacking the form of heterodox families, conservatives unnecessarily antagonise a large section of society which might otherwise be more receptive to its influence in terms of how relations within families can be strengthened. Conservative values such as respect for parental authority and parental responsibility, within the context of loving committed relationships are important within any family caring for children. The Christian virtues of: forgiveness, compassion, honesty, patience, valuing others, trust, commitment and reliability are not at odds with progressive family values. These virtues can be found in families of all types and while conservatives are keen to promote the benefits of raising children in a loving married family; they also need to avoid marginalising those who seek the same ends, but have found themselves in families which have a different form. Let us please put more energy into the values that we place on families and that families imbibe rather than on the form that families take.

Kiwi Saver makes 750k

Congratulations to Kiwisaver for making the 750000 mark. The Kiwi brand is shining. With Kiwibank we can save our money with a New Zealand owned bank and not worry about the profits going off shore. With Kiwi rail we can take pride in the way we are investing in sustainable transport. And now with Kiwisaver thriving we can be sure that our retirement savings are secure and be glad that we have an increasing pool of money to invest in New Zealand's future. Go kiwi!

Not bad for a scheme that the Ngats predicted would fail!

Work for the dole!

The Ngats seem hellbent on introducing a work for the dole scheme in spite of the failures of such shemes in the past and the injustice that such schemes often engender. And to add insult to injury they want to sublet to an Austrailain organisation. I wonder if this means I could work for the dole on Bondi beach?

“Key is rumoured to be a very big fan of the Australian charity organisation Mission Australia... Mission Australia could well be directly employed to midwife the changes to New Zealand social service delivery, via its own public/private partnership with a Key-led government.” At the very least, Mission Australia will be much cited as a model to emulate.” (Election08 blog, 2 Jul 08)

A 2001 evaluation of the Ngats 1990s work for the dole scheme (scrapped by Helen Clark) found that the scheme reduced the chances of people getting a job by cutting the time they had to search for jobs. (NZ Herald, 17 Jul 2008).

Work for the dole schemes keep unemployment figure artificially low, provide slave labour while limiting unemployed persons the opportunity to retrain and or search for new employment.

More on PWC and ACC

Mr Key Claims to have read the PWC report on ACC and claims that we need a comprehensive review. he aslo says the report was 200 and something pages long ...

Maryan Street: “If Mr Key has actually read the PriceWaterhouseCoopers report as he claims - which is 472 pages long, not the 200 pages Mr Key claims - he would know there is no need for a comprehensive evaluation of ACC because that's what Price Waterhouse Coopers has already done.
"He would also know that the report finds ACC to be world-leading, that the state monopoly is the best way to run it and that privatisation would require a major increase in regulatory costs, which National claims to oppose. It's pretty simple really.” (17 Jul 2008)

ACC Ngats policy disaster

So Key has announced another policy and wow! IT HAS 83 WORDS. I didn't know they would have such detailed policy so early in the campaign. What an insult to workers of NZ that they think they can put at risk a very successful workers insurance and compensation scheme.

PricewaterhouseCoopers Sydney (PWC) wrote considerable more than 83 words in fact they undertook a substantial stock take – a 500+ page review of ACC in which they said that they had formed “a moderately strong view that a government monopoly is the best observable mechanism for implementing the ACC employers account. The Report also found that that in comparison with schemes overseas the dispute rate in New Zealand is very low. In particular for workplace claims, ACC’s dispute rate of 0.2% compares with an Australian average of around 9%. The report found ACC’s universal coverage (which removes most of the coverage boundaries) and the lack of employer experience ratings of premiums may also contribute to the lower level of disputes. (source CTU)


If competition is allowed into the system what happens to the workers who change job where is the security of cover for them? And if a worker has an accident or has a record of disputing ACC claims does this make them less employable for a company who may have to pay more his/her increased risk.

Sure ACC needs to be held to account and we need the best bang for buck that we can get out of our ACC dollar but we don't want our ACC dollar going to feather the nest of private enterprise whose sole interest is profits

Here's what a far more prolific blogger than I writes follow the link for more...

NO RIGHT TURN BY IDIOT/SAVANT: Against ACC Privatisation
“…All of this is strong empirical evidence that privatisation would be bad for New Zealanders. But it would be very good for foreign insurance companies, who stand to profit by tens of millions a year from even a part privatisation. Which shows you where National's true interests lie: not in working for kiwis, but in looting the state for the benefit of its donors and cronies.”