Well the first week of parliament is all but over and as expected the new government is showing its colours. What are some of the highlights?
Some teething problems. Gerry Brownlee who I gather prepares the order paper didn’t do his homework very well including on the order paper bills from the previous government which national had opposed in opposition, has shown no sign of wanting to proceed on and did not need to include – what’s the point!
Lockwood Smith, It is traditional for the speaker to be lead to the chair (Dragged even) unwillingly, but Mr W3 can’t be desmiled. Oh and he needs to learn how to pronounce some of our MPs names it was shame that he could pronounce Nanaia Mahuta’s names they’ve only been in parliament together for the last 12 years so I s’pose we should give him a chance.
But that is just the silly stuff – others things are far more concerning.
Pushing through significant legislation through under urgency, while there is a time and a place for this with some of the stuff being rushed through this week it really does seem undemocratic.
Take the ninety day sacking bill (Hey they rhymes with smacking bill –aint it fun to be in opposition and have naming rights). The fundament rights of workers are being corroded by this bill – in the name of helping people get into jobs Yeah Right! This should be open to public consultation.
Removing the quota for biofuels I bet Mr Rodney Hyde was pleased with that one – he doesn’t believe in climate change so why take action? Is this the thin edge of the wedge, the start of the slippery slope? What next to further degrade our international reputation?
Kiwisaver, slash and burn. 2% +2% doesn’t equal enough either to build up an adequate nest egg to retire on or to allow compatibility with Australian schemes and encourage East bound trans-Tasman migration
Tax cuts – Yep here’s the Ngats true colours the poorest poor are worse off than they would have been under a Labour tax cut and the wealthy well you know the rest.
And how about the truancy policy instead of an fence at the top of the cliff that put the paddy wagon at the bottom of the cliff and fine ‘bad’ parents $3,000 if their kids play hookey.
All this is depressing me I’ll post it now to get it off my chest and come back soon to attack it some more
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
The least of these
I went to meeting with Sue Bradford last week, where she rehearsed the events leading up to the repeal of section 59. She began by saying she had never anticipated that she'd still be talking about it now. One very brave man from the kiwi party was there and spoke up. I must say it was very dispassionate and intelligent discussion all credit to both sides.
However I I still want to hang my head in shame that a 'Christian Party' has as it flag ship policy the overturning of the repeal. I've been corresponding with Gordon Copeland on this. This is what I wrote to him today
Why a Christian party would want to have as one its main policies the right to commit acts of violence against children astounds me. Let me offer an analogy. I may be the best driver in the world with a faultless record superb reactions 100% guaranteed to never have a crash even if I consistently drove at 120km/h. Yet I know that other people are not as good as me at driving so I will support the 100kmh open road law so as to reduce the carnage on our roads. As a good parent I may be able to smack my kids in a consistently loving way, 100% confident that I will never cause them any harm. However in acknowledgement of other people's lesser ability to control the rod that spares the child I will forgo my 'right' so that there may be less carnage in our living rooms.
I don't think the Kiwi Party stands much chance of getting a seat in Parliament (sorry Gordon) so their political position is of no major consequence. However their theological position is of concern. Is the God of love revealed in Jesus one who condones violence or does God stand opposed to all violence and oppression. Their message certainly resonates within sections of the church and it gives the whole church a bad name.
I must add that a number of Christians were at Sue's meeting including South Dunedin Alliance Candidate Kay Murray along with some Anglicans, Quakers, Focal members and yours truly a Baptist.
How do we take the heat out of this debate so that we can share some light and move things forward for the sake of our children.
However I I still want to hang my head in shame that a 'Christian Party' has as it flag ship policy the overturning of the repeal. I've been corresponding with Gordon Copeland on this. This is what I wrote to him today
Why a Christian party would want to have as one its main policies the right to commit acts of violence against children astounds me. Let me offer an analogy. I may be the best driver in the world with a faultless record superb reactions 100% guaranteed to never have a crash even if I consistently drove at 120km/h. Yet I know that other people are not as good as me at driving so I will support the 100kmh open road law so as to reduce the carnage on our roads. As a good parent I may be able to smack my kids in a consistently loving way, 100% confident that I will never cause them any harm. However in acknowledgement of other people's lesser ability to control the rod that spares the child I will forgo my 'right' so that there may be less carnage in our living rooms.
I don't think the Kiwi Party stands much chance of getting a seat in Parliament (sorry Gordon) so their political position is of no major consequence. However their theological position is of concern. Is the God of love revealed in Jesus one who condones violence or does God stand opposed to all violence and oppression. Their message certainly resonates within sections of the church and it gives the whole church a bad name.
I must add that a number of Christians were at Sue's meeting including South Dunedin Alliance Candidate Kay Murray along with some Anglicans, Quakers, Focal members and yours truly a Baptist.
How do we take the heat out of this debate so that we can share some light and move things forward for the sake of our children.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
ACC and AIG
The Wall Street financial crisis is another indicator of a very good reason we should not let Mr Key and Mr English near the nation's purse strings and especially why we should not let them touch ACC. They want to throw ACC open to competition effectively letting the insurance industry in to give cover to our workers. But what happens when the insurance company goes belly-up? Recent history has shown that insurance comapnies are not fail-proof. The biggest insurance company in the world is in serious trouble. If a significant section of our workforce were covered by a private insurance company that was not able to meet its obligations who would care for our injured workers and their families. Would a Key lead government bail out the insurance company (corporate welfare) would it reinstate ACC (yeah right!) The tax payer would be left with the bill and following the next election a Labour-led government would left to clean up the mess. let's short cut that possibility by keeping the labour government in.
The Council of Trade Unions is challenging National leader John Key to state whether he is still in favour of privatising accident compensation, following the US government bailout of insurance giant AIG.
National leader John Key said all of ACC could eventually be opened to competition
Mr Key said National would "investigate" whether to let private providers compete in ACC's workplace and self-employed accounts, and other areas, such as cover for motorists, could also be opened up. (Dom Post, 17 Jul 2008)
Helen Kelly (CTU president): "The last time National let the private insurance industry loose on our accident compensation one of the providers, a subsidiary of HIH Insurance which had up to 40 percent of workplace cover, went bust with losses of around $1 billion. Fortunately by the time of their collapse the government had renationalised the scheme."
"The bailout of AIG sends a strong warning to voters - National wants our accident compensation and rehabilitation managed by firms just like these ones."
"No one wants this ACC privatisation policy - health professionals, workers and the business community have said there is no appetite for change."
"National has ignored the evidence from PricewaterhouseCoopers which noted ACC was a world leader, and they are continuing with their plans to privatise it. We don't think workers' health and safety is worth the risk," (CTU, 18 Sep 2008)
Mr Key and Mr English are demonstrating that they are not capable of leading the country. They are idealogues trapped in the 1990's user pays, and 19th century free market philosophy. They put workers rights at risk, they put the best ACC scheme in the world at risk. They intend to raise our vulnerability to the international market by increasing our government foreign debt to pay for tax cuts - hey but they sounds like the topic for another post....
The Council of Trade Unions is challenging National leader John Key to state whether he is still in favour of privatising accident compensation, following the US government bailout of insurance giant AIG.
National leader John Key said all of ACC could eventually be opened to competition
Mr Key said National would "investigate" whether to let private providers compete in ACC's workplace and self-employed accounts, and other areas, such as cover for motorists, could also be opened up. (Dom Post, 17 Jul 2008)
Helen Kelly (CTU president): "The last time National let the private insurance industry loose on our accident compensation one of the providers, a subsidiary of HIH Insurance which had up to 40 percent of workplace cover, went bust with losses of around $1 billion. Fortunately by the time of their collapse the government had renationalised the scheme."
"The bailout of AIG sends a strong warning to voters - National wants our accident compensation and rehabilitation managed by firms just like these ones."
"No one wants this ACC privatisation policy - health professionals, workers and the business community have said there is no appetite for change."
"National has ignored the evidence from PricewaterhouseCoopers which noted ACC was a world leader, and they are continuing with their plans to privatise it. We don't think workers' health and safety is worth the risk," (CTU, 18 Sep 2008)
Mr Key and Mr English are demonstrating that they are not capable of leading the country. They are idealogues trapped in the 1990's user pays, and 19th century free market philosophy. They put workers rights at risk, they put the best ACC scheme in the world at risk. They intend to raise our vulnerability to the international market by increasing our government foreign debt to pay for tax cuts - hey but they sounds like the topic for another post....
Merrill Lynch Credentials
National leader John Key recently cited his work experience at investment bank Merrill Lynch as a the kind of experience that suited him to be PM.
Key was a top money trader at the bank before he entered politics. While to some extent that is history and he can't be blamed for that company's difficulties neither should we accept that this experience is good for the country. It is the high risk, short term, make-money-at-whatever-cost mentality of such banks that got them into trouble and will get NZ in trouble if we follow the same strategy. The only credentials that Merrill Lynch offers John Key is the fact that he has the same DNA as investment bankers, he is wired in the same way, he has the same primary motivation and if allowed to lead the country will head us on the same precarious path. And if i may add another metaphor to my colourful mix "a leopard can't change its spots".
As Micheal Cullen said just last week
"He [Key] has got a short-term profit-maximising mentality, and that is what has brought Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers . . . to their knees. Do you want someone like that running the New Zealand economy when we are going to be going through a difficult period?" (Press, 17 Sep 2008)
Key was a top money trader at the bank before he entered politics. While to some extent that is history and he can't be blamed for that company's difficulties neither should we accept that this experience is good for the country. It is the high risk, short term, make-money-at-whatever-cost mentality of such banks that got them into trouble and will get NZ in trouble if we follow the same strategy. The only credentials that Merrill Lynch offers John Key is the fact that he has the same DNA as investment bankers, he is wired in the same way, he has the same primary motivation and if allowed to lead the country will head us on the same precarious path. And if i may add another metaphor to my colourful mix "a leopard can't change its spots".
As Micheal Cullen said just last week
"He [Key] has got a short-term profit-maximising mentality, and that is what has brought Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers . . . to their knees. Do you want someone like that running the New Zealand economy when we are going to be going through a difficult period?" (Press, 17 Sep 2008)
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Another bank bites the dust!
Another American bank falls over and Alan Greenspan of the Federal reserve says it is a 'correction in the market' the like of which happens about every 50 or 100 years. It is the worst correction since the 1929 stock market crash which lead to the Great Depression. In NZ finance companies are toppling over at record rates. Investors have lost millions and house prices have slumped. Is this just what you have to put up with in a free market economy or is it a sign that the free market actually needs some regulation and intervention?
There is a common factor in all of this and its the old deadly sin of greed. It is greed that causes banks to make ridiculous loans to people who can not afford them. Its greed that drives consumer demand for high interest rate returns and high risk investments. Its greed that causes people to speculate on the property market pushing house prices to extraordinary levels. No doubt greed will be a factor as people now seek to take advantage of other peoples misfortunes, in lawyers fees for extended legal battles, mortgagee sales, and further speculation in the property market. Its a high risk game with few winners and lots of losers. Free market capitalism is a natural ally of human greed and for this reason alone we need a third way in the economy that allows for enterpise and industry to be rewarded but greed to be kept in check.
There is a common factor in all of this and its the old deadly sin of greed. It is greed that causes banks to make ridiculous loans to people who can not afford them. Its greed that drives consumer demand for high interest rate returns and high risk investments. Its greed that causes people to speculate on the property market pushing house prices to extraordinary levels. No doubt greed will be a factor as people now seek to take advantage of other peoples misfortunes, in lawyers fees for extended legal battles, mortgagee sales, and further speculation in the property market. Its a high risk game with few winners and lots of losers. Free market capitalism is a natural ally of human greed and for this reason alone we need a third way in the economy that allows for enterpise and industry to be rewarded but greed to be kept in check.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
ACC the Tail
I submitted the following to the ODT on 7/9 in reply to a letter in which VE Lamb welcomed the move to privatise ACC, supposing that it would benefit small business who were currently paying for the tail.
Your correspondent V E Lamb (5/9) raises the issue of what is commonly called 'the tail' in the ACC scheme. During the nineties levies were set too low and the scheme ran at a loss. Now this deficit is being made up in part by employer contributions. The tail is one of the ways that we are still paying for the follies of the last National government when they privatised ACC. The tail has to be paid for one way or another. V E Lamb seems to think that privatisation under National is the way ahead. All that will do is shift the cost of the tail to the tax payer (say good bye to your tax cuts) and shift $200 million dollars off shore to benefit Australian insurance companies. Under the current system employers pay their share. Workplace accident insurance is a reasonable cost that is passed on to the consumer anyway. A temporary reduction in ACC fees is possible under a National scheme but at the cost of reduced worker entitlements, more time off work to recover from accidents and less safe work places.
Your correspondent V E Lamb (5/9) raises the issue of what is commonly called 'the tail' in the ACC scheme. During the nineties levies were set too low and the scheme ran at a loss. Now this deficit is being made up in part by employer contributions. The tail is one of the ways that we are still paying for the follies of the last National government when they privatised ACC. The tail has to be paid for one way or another. V E Lamb seems to think that privatisation under National is the way ahead. All that will do is shift the cost of the tail to the tax payer (say good bye to your tax cuts) and shift $200 million dollars off shore to benefit Australian insurance companies. Under the current system employers pay their share. Workplace accident insurance is a reasonable cost that is passed on to the consumer anyway. A temporary reduction in ACC fees is possible under a National scheme but at the cost of reduced worker entitlements, more time off work to recover from accidents and less safe work places.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Maxim's Neo-liberal tax policy
Maxim have posted it tax policy on its webiste www.maxim.org.nz here is my initail response
I’ve only had time to read the executive summary so far but that is enough to raise serious concerns. This is classic neo-liberal propaganda. It is also terribly idealistic and I wonder if they can point to any society in the world where this hands-off approach to government has lead to genuine compassionate outcomes for the common good.
There is a fundamental flaw in the logic of right wing Christian politics which I think is evident here. RW politics in general believe that the market determines the best possible outcomes for the maximum number of people. Basically individual self-interest (a.k.a greed) is the driving force of the whole system. We are supposed to believe that individual self-interest will somehow ‘trickle up’ to form compassionate and caring communities. Now conservative theology is in agreement insomuch as it asserts that human-beings are by nature (or by the fall) basically self-interested, so it seems to make sense to build an economic system on this fundamental principle. But really how can self-interested fallen human beings work for the common good. It has to be by recognizing that self-interest is in fact an evil to be combated not an ally to be worked with.
Institutions based on attempts to harness this basic evil need to be challenged and kept in check.
We need to recognize the bias to sin within each of us and to draw on much deeper and higher principles of self-sacrifice and service in imaginative ways to ‘promote’ (not just protect) the common good.
Steve Thomas talks about the principle of subsidiarity and in so doing hallows local community and civic institutions over and above centralised forms of government. I see no reason to make a clear demarcation between these two forms of social organisation and institutions for delivering social outcomes. Good government will always be the government of the people for the people. By our involvement in the political process we give shape to the government and we demand of it that it promotes the common good. In this way the government is not different from the church board or the school board – it is accountable to the people and the people have the right and responsibility to hold the institutional expression of its common vision to account.
My deep concern however is that this neo-liberal rhetoric is a dangerous ideology that has a proven bad track record we tried it for 15 years from 1984 -1999 under the blitzkrieg reform of Rogernomics and the Ruthenasia of the Bolger/Shipley government.
We now have a government that is working hard to deliver good social outcomes for all kiwis and play a leadership role in the international scene. From my experience on community boards the government does not overly interfere with local expressions of caring and support, schools and social service providers are given a great deal of freedom and resource to provide the needs of their community in ways that are appropriate to them.
I had heard some indication that Maxim was softening its stance but it seems to me that their motto “toward a more just, free and compassionate New Zealand” has yet to be backed up by social policy that is more than just ideology.
I’ve only had time to read the executive summary so far but that is enough to raise serious concerns. This is classic neo-liberal propaganda. It is also terribly idealistic and I wonder if they can point to any society in the world where this hands-off approach to government has lead to genuine compassionate outcomes for the common good.
There is a fundamental flaw in the logic of right wing Christian politics which I think is evident here. RW politics in general believe that the market determines the best possible outcomes for the maximum number of people. Basically individual self-interest (a.k.a greed) is the driving force of the whole system. We are supposed to believe that individual self-interest will somehow ‘trickle up’ to form compassionate and caring communities. Now conservative theology is in agreement insomuch as it asserts that human-beings are by nature (or by the fall) basically self-interested, so it seems to make sense to build an economic system on this fundamental principle. But really how can self-interested fallen human beings work for the common good. It has to be by recognizing that self-interest is in fact an evil to be combated not an ally to be worked with.
Institutions based on attempts to harness this basic evil need to be challenged and kept in check.
We need to recognize the bias to sin within each of us and to draw on much deeper and higher principles of self-sacrifice and service in imaginative ways to ‘promote’ (not just protect) the common good.
Steve Thomas talks about the principle of subsidiarity and in so doing hallows local community and civic institutions over and above centralised forms of government. I see no reason to make a clear demarcation between these two forms of social organisation and institutions for delivering social outcomes. Good government will always be the government of the people for the people. By our involvement in the political process we give shape to the government and we demand of it that it promotes the common good. In this way the government is not different from the church board or the school board – it is accountable to the people and the people have the right and responsibility to hold the institutional expression of its common vision to account.
My deep concern however is that this neo-liberal rhetoric is a dangerous ideology that has a proven bad track record we tried it for 15 years from 1984 -1999 under the blitzkrieg reform of Rogernomics and the Ruthenasia of the Bolger/Shipley government.
We now have a government that is working hard to deliver good social outcomes for all kiwis and play a leadership role in the international scene. From my experience on community boards the government does not overly interfere with local expressions of caring and support, schools and social service providers are given a great deal of freedom and resource to provide the needs of their community in ways that are appropriate to them.
I had heard some indication that Maxim was softening its stance but it seems to me that their motto “toward a more just, free and compassionate New Zealand” has yet to be backed up by social policy that is more than just ideology.
Friday, August 22, 2008
Emissions Trading Scheme
22 August 2008
To Members of Parliament of the Green Party,
cc – Hon David Parker, Hon Trevor Mallard
I’m glad to see that you are calling for submissions on the Emissions Trading Scheme. This is such an important issue that it needs to be considered carefully. I fully appreciate your advocacy for the environment and your passion to make New Zealanders fully aware of the urgency of the crises that we face.
As far as the current bill I urge you to compromise your ideals in the time being fully realizing that the current proposal may not be ideal. We need to get this scheme started. It will require some adjustments along the way and I’m sure that you will continue to work for such improvements as may be required.
I’m deeply concerned that if National were to form a government that the momentum gained on this issue will be halted. We need to get something going before the election. I am also concerned that if the left fail to work something out on this issue that credibility will be lost and election chance diminished.
We had a very useful discussion on the environment at our recent Focal conference. Meteria Turie and David Parker both gave insightful and encouraging talks. We urge The Greens and Labour to compromise on this issue. Then let us see what type of government the election produces and commit to work for the best outcome in the political climate that emerges.
Hope and peace
Steve O “Connor
To Members of Parliament of the Green Party,
cc – Hon David Parker, Hon Trevor Mallard
I’m glad to see that you are calling for submissions on the Emissions Trading Scheme. This is such an important issue that it needs to be considered carefully. I fully appreciate your advocacy for the environment and your passion to make New Zealanders fully aware of the urgency of the crises that we face.
As far as the current bill I urge you to compromise your ideals in the time being fully realizing that the current proposal may not be ideal. We need to get this scheme started. It will require some adjustments along the way and I’m sure that you will continue to work for such improvements as may be required.
I’m deeply concerned that if National were to form a government that the momentum gained on this issue will be halted. We need to get something going before the election. I am also concerned that if the left fail to work something out on this issue that credibility will be lost and election chance diminished.
We had a very useful discussion on the environment at our recent Focal conference. Meteria Turie and David Parker both gave insightful and encouraging talks. We urge The Greens and Labour to compromise on this issue. Then let us see what type of government the election produces and commit to work for the best outcome in the political climate that emerges.
Hope and peace
Steve O “Connor
Thursday, August 21, 2008
ACC privatisation good for Aussie Insurance Companies
National's ACC policy is another example of putting big business interests over workers rights only this time around its worse for the profits from a privatised scheme are likely to go off shore. Australian insurance companies will be rubbing their hands together at this gold rush from across the ditch. Nicky Hager in his book “”The Hollow Men" reports that Australian insurance companies have made huge financial donations to the National Party. You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. Once the Australians have creamed the most profitable bits off our scheme we will be left with a second rate system. Injured workers will not get the help they need to return safely and speedily to productive work. High risk workers may become too expensive to insure and therefore to employ. Trying to make political gain while putting such a strategic asset at risk is disgraceful. Why fix what aint broke?.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Sole parent slaves
Forcing sole parents to work is a back to the nineties policy that is doomed to fail.
Incentives are a better means to encourage parents back to work (or I should say to change the focus of their work for parenting especially sole parenting is a full time vocation)
John Key is threatening to cut the DPB for those who won't comply so what does this mean?
Incentives are a better means to encourage parents back to work (or I should say to change the focus of their work for parenting especially sole parenting is a full time vocation)
John Key is threatening to cut the DPB for those who won't comply so what does this mean?
- Sole parents will feel marginalised and victimised, they will be regarded as an imposition on the state - when we should be giving every thing we can to help these parents raise there kids well. The work that parents do is the most important work in society.
- Some mothers will do as John Key says and "breed for business" when faced with the option of having to work 15 hours for little reward some mothers will opt to fall pregnant again once their youngest approaches 6. Not ideal for mum, kids or the state.
- Let's do the maths as well. Say a sole parents works 15 hours at $15 an hour (Most will be on or near minimum wage) They will gross $225 extra a week. That will be taxed at say 19% leaving $182.25. Now the Ngats generously allow $100 to be earned before DPB is affected, depending on the adjustment rate after the $100 threshold the sole parent will not pocket much for their endeavours. It is likley that the $225 earned will be give a net gain of $81 for the parents (under $6/hr while the government will gained $144. (Does that sound fair?)
- I note employers and manufacturers are happy. A fresh supply of slaves to work in retail outlets and sweatshops. Thus keeping wages low for all unskilled workers.
- The stick approach will breed resentment and a culture of defiance - with people forced to work the system just to survive
- Part time work is seldom well paid, sole parents will have to take jobs that allow them time off for school holidays and sick kids.
- By making sole parents work, we will loose a significant source of voluntary sector work. Within schools, sole parents often help out with school trips, school road patrols, assist with in class activities, coach sport, work for the PTA or BOT. Sole parents are also contributing to other groups within the community. Sole parents contribute significantly not only to the well being of their own children but to the wider community. We risk loosing this if we force them to take up paid work or training.
- There is a more basic inequity here as well. Wealthy parent couples have the option of one being a full time parent. (which I understand is Ms Keys role at present) This is recognised by those parents and a good many people besides to be a good thing for the children - yet the Ngats policy will make this impossible for sole parents.
- This policy will lead to more children being left unsupervised after-school as childcare provision and work hours and transport options do not fit neatly within school hours.
- Sole parents will experience stress and stress related illness as they have pressure put on them to return to work.
Friday, August 8, 2008
ODT 1 8 8
Dear Sir
I see Key has done another flip-flop this time on working for families. Where is he going to find the money to keep all the good stuff that Labour has done and implement 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 overseas 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!
I see Key has done another flip-flop this time on working for families. Where is he going to find the money to keep all the good stuff that Labour has done and implement 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 overseas 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!
ODT 8 8 8
Dear Sir,
I thought the [would be] Emperor had no clothes; until I looked a little closer and discovered quite an ensemble of recycled rather faded gear and a borrowed suit which while well tailored, look as ill-fitting and uncomfortable to the wearer as damp horse hair. The borrowed suit originally red had recently been dyed blue to give it a more conservative air. The working for family trousers were well used but showing no stretch marks. The Kiwibank shoes were comfortable and very sturdy a good reliable work-shoe. The jacket with a definite purple hue was emblazoned with lapel badges for Kiwisaver, 20 hours early childcare (although the word 'free' appears to have been scratched off), and 4 week annual leave. The [would be] emperor was desperately trying to concealed the borrowed and dyed clothes with a much older camel coloured gabardine coat. It was obviously made for a much shorter man. This coat also sported two badges in barely legible script, the one reading "Rob's Mob" and the other "Think Big" I guess when you promise so much in tax cuts you have to cut government expenditure somehow and good on the [would be] emperor for leading the way with recycling.
I thought the [would be] Emperor had no clothes; until I looked a little closer and discovered quite an ensemble of recycled rather faded gear and a borrowed suit which while well tailored, look as ill-fitting and uncomfortable to the wearer as damp horse hair. The borrowed suit originally red had recently been dyed blue to give it a more conservative air. The working for family trousers were well used but showing no stretch marks. The Kiwibank shoes were comfortable and very sturdy a good reliable work-shoe. The jacket with a definite purple hue was emblazoned with lapel badges for Kiwisaver, 20 hours early childcare (although the word 'free' appears to have been scratched off), and 4 week annual leave. The [would be] emperor was desperately trying to concealed the borrowed and dyed clothes with a much older camel coloured gabardine coat. It was obviously made for a much shorter man. This coat also sported two badges in barely legible script, the one reading "Rob's Mob" and the other "Think Big" I guess when you promise so much in tax cuts you have to cut government expenditure somehow and good on the [would be] emperor for leading the way with recycling.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Hidden agenda or revealed DNA
I wonder about all this fuss over taped interviews at the Ngat's conference whether we are worried about the wrong thing. Key and English maybe right in that they don't have a secret agenda. They may not have a file with top secret National Party plans hidden within. I fear it is not that simple!
What was revealed at the conference was not secret plans but DNA. English and Smith have been guilty of no more than telling the truth; not about any secret plans but about their long held motivations and ideology. Any policy that comes out of a Key English, Smith, McCully led government will be driven by their DNA and while their DNA leaked out in a couple of Freudian slips over the weekend it is no secret.
It is no secret that McCulley was the minister of housing that introduce market rentals sold of housing stock and created extreme poverty and deprivation for many of our most vulnerable.
It is no secret that Mr English has an ideological disposition to selling state owned assets.
It is no secret that Mr Smith broke election promise while he was minister of education. For those with short memories here's how wikipedia record his career.
It is no secret that a national government would implement policies that would be harmful to the environment ( changes to RMA) damaging to the vulnerable, (housing policy already announced) - users pays health (past record) privatised ACC, damaging to the economy increased government borrowing.
Voters should not fear a hidden agenda there is enough in the public domain to be worried about.
What was revealed at the conference was not secret plans but DNA. English and Smith have been guilty of no more than telling the truth; not about any secret plans but about their long held motivations and ideology. Any policy that comes out of a Key English, Smith, McCully led government will be driven by their DNA and while their DNA leaked out in a couple of Freudian slips over the weekend it is no secret.
It is no secret that McCulley was the minister of housing that introduce market rentals sold of housing stock and created extreme poverty and deprivation for many of our most vulnerable.
It is no secret that Mr English has an ideological disposition to selling state owned assets.
It is no secret that Mr Smith broke election promise while he was minister of education. For those with short memories here's how wikipedia record his career.
Dr Smith served as Minister of Education from 1990 until 1996. During this period he implemented a number of changes to the tertiary education sector (universities and technical
institutions). One high-profile change involved a radical increase in student
fees, as recommended by the Todd Report, which the government had
commissioned to address issues of funding.
As opposition education spokesman in 1990, Smith had campaigned for the removal of the Labour Government's tertiary tuition fee of $1250, promising to get rid of the fee
if elected. In office, he kept this promise on a technicality: he shifted the burden of charging fees for courses from the government to the institutions, who then had to charge even higher tuition fees due to decreased government funding. Smith's term as Education Minister also saw the introduction of means-testing for student allowances, with the effect that students of middle-class parents became ineligible for allowances until they reached 25 years of age.
These activities inevitably resulted in considerable antipathy toward Smith from tertiary students, and he became the subject of a considerable amount of protest activity. On one occasion in 1994 Smith had to escape from a mob through a window at the University of Canterbury. Another protestor produced an unflattering bust of Smith, sculpted out of horse manure.
It is no secret that a national government would implement policies that would be harmful to the environment ( changes to RMA) damaging to the vulnerable, (housing policy already announced) - users pays health (past record) privatised ACC, damaging to the economy increased government borrowing.
Voters should not fear a hidden agenda there is enough in the public domain to be worried about.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
From Focal Conference Final Address
This has been a very stimulating day. It’s been a real pleasure to meet with all of you and share this part of the journey. I am encouraged that you would take this time out to meet together and reflect on our role as Faithful Global Citizens.
I offer my thanks to Roland who kicked the day off for us encouraging us to “Reclaim Faithful global citizenship” as a moral imperative that the political and religious left share in common.
I want to use what time is left to draw our thoughts together and focus them forward to the tasks that lie in front of us.
First of all an observation perhaps a truism but a reality that we need to take a hold of with determination and courage, that is the Christian left at its best is a prophetic movement.
Like almost all prophetic movements we should not expect to be a populist movement. The prophets of the Hebrew bible for example were often lonely, persecuted, misunderstood by the popular culture of their era.
Jesus knew moments of popularity, but at the times when his message became most challenging the crowds departed his friends abandoned him – and he taught his disciples to expect similar treatment.
So if we are true to the message and example of Jesus we should not expect to be popular. Now there are exceptions to the rule and I’d like to be one but I won’t count on it.
One of the most significant exceptions was the civil rights movement headed by Martin Luther King . This was a prophetic movement, routed in liberal Christian theology and praxis. Many factors culminated to make this a mass popular movement that impacted far and wide. As much as I’d love to be a part of such a movement, I have no expectation of it, for I think it truly was the exception rather than the rule.
It more common for conservative movements to gain a rapid rise in popularity – but fortunately it is often short lived. So in NZ the opposition to the Homosexual law reform legislation rose rapidly gaining a large number of signatories to its petition, as did the opposition to Prostitution law reform, opposition to Civil Unions and opposition to the repeal of Section 59.
Progressive legislation often faces strident opposition but in time actually comes to be accepted and may even become the new bastion for conservatives.
Take the green movement in New Zealand this was a very radical and fringe movement in the 1970s campaigning as the Values party. Nearly 30 years ago I attended the last Nambassa festival near Waihi in the Bay of Plenty. It was a strange and wonderful place. I’d not heard of or seen organic food. I got my first taste of natural yoghurt and muesli. I saw many examples of alternative sustainable living. But it never occurred to me that this was anything but an individual choice for a simple back to basics lifestyle choice.
Many of the values that were fringe then and remained fringe up until just a few years ago are now becoming mainstream, so that even the national party talks about sustainable living.
Left wing politics has this progressive prophetic edge, where it is out in front of where most people are - pushing the boundaries, challenging the status quo, looking for and modelling a new and better way.
Because much of the programme of left wings politics becomes mainstream the left wing needs to constantly renew its vision. Look at the difference between national and labour at the moment, (I don’t mean the polls, that difference is substantial) but look at the policy difference, - there is not a great deal of difference in many areas as John Key echioes his refrain “Me too!” to many of Labour’s policies. The Left have to reposition itself constantly and that is not a problem because the vision for a sustainable and equitable future for all people is far from realised there are new challenges to move on to.
The pattern of left wing progressive movements becoming mainstream is paralleled in the church. Many of the greatest social reformers within the church have been adopted as heroes of the conservative church.
Take Wilberforce for example - a real visionary, a social reformer, political activist and committed Christian. He was progressive, prophetic, and fought long and hard against the conservatives and moderates of his day. Yet recently he has been adopted by the evangelical church as their hero. The conservative church I’m sure is not opposed to the abolition of slavery and many evangelical are now working to end child slavery, sexual slavery and so on in the world today – fantastic all strength to them. But this new norm wouldn’t have come about without Wilberforce’s liberal vision, his challenging of political and church authority and his revisionist interpretation of the bible. All of these modus operandi make the modern conservative nervous still.
Martin Luther King is another example of a progressive Christian who challenged the governing authorities, who interpreted the bible in a liberal fashion and yet has been claimed by the right wing of the church. Margaret Mayman, Spokesperson for Christians for Civil Unions made this point when addressing a rally in Wellington.
“On its website Destiny Church has a quotation from Rev Dr Martin Luther King, Jr which says "our lives begin to end the day we are silent about the things that matter."
We now know that Destiny Church wrote to the King Center in Atlanta, Georgia, asking for an endorsement for their march on parliament.
I have the text of the letter the King Center sent back to Destiny.
"Greetings. Unfortunately we cannot issue a statement regarding this (event). On top of that, one of Dr. King's closest advisor (Bayard Rustin) was gay and Dr. King did not believe in what was done to him and how he was treated here in the US at the time. For these reasons and many more--we cannot issue any sort of statement that would condone putting someone else's spirit and dignity down in favor of another. "
Coretta Scott King, Dr King's widow, is a strong supporter of equal rights for gay and lesbian people. She added her words: "I appeal to everyone who believes in Marin Luther King's dream to make room at the table of brother and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people."
Still Bernice King, (Daughter of Martin Luther King) came out to NZ and spoke on behalf of destiny church. We live in interesting times.
Martin Luther the German reformer kicked off the reformation in support of a socialist movement, while his later life was somewhat more conservative in nature; many modern conservatives rally behind Lutheran doctrine and forget his radical social agenda not to mention the bloodshed he caused.
We may not share the same dogma and worldview as Martin Luther or Wilberforce or even MLK, but we do share a commitment to move in the same direction, following similar paths.
This conference has been about identifying the common values and commitments of the political and Christian left. These commonalities are not about doctrine or dogma or destination they are about direction. We both want to move in the direction of greater, equality, community, Stewardship and Freedom.
We can spell out in some detail what we mean by these commitments these values. We want to see:
Equality: Equal opportunity to resources, such as education, land, power, energy, food, medicine, self determination and so on. We want all people to be equal under the law, and we want equality to apply to all people of all ethnic groups, nations, abilities, ages, religions genders, sexual orientation ...
Community: We share a common commitment to realising human potential and recognise that this can only be done as we learn to deeply respect and care for each other. Human beings are social beings and none of us is fully alive if some of us are suffering. We are part of one another made for one another and so we work for peace, we work to break down barriers and fight the conditions that lead to disharmony.
Stewardship: Progressive share a commitment to a sustainable future, although I must acknowledge that the church has been behind the 8ball on this one for too long.
Freedom: We share a commitment to freedom. And if I can make a bald distinction between left and right here we emphasise freedom to rather than freedom from. So while the right want less government we recognise that sometimes more government is needed to ensure the freedoms that are required for human dignity. We want people to be free to achieve, free to realise their potential, free to express themselves, free to contribute to the common good, free to play their part in building a new world. This takes a collective commitment to the common good and requires government action.
As well as the values and commitments that we have in common Christian progressive see those commitments with Christian eyes. Our commitments are informed and inspired by the gospel. So we believe that Jesus came to give life in all its fullness to all people. We believe in good news to the poor, release to the captives, sight to the blind, freedom for the oppressed, economic justice. We believe that God requires justice and mercy and humility. We follow a God who is compassionate and seek to live compassionately.
These gospel values incarnated in the story of Jesus, feed our souls, put fire in our bellies and lead us to action. And we act in faith, knowing that while we may not see immediate results for our work that in time the radical and progressive vision, which we inspire, if it is good and right, will one day become the norm.
So our gospel imperatives inform and inspire our values and commitments and these lead to our actions. We’ve talked a lot around four key areas of NZs relationship to the rest of the world and our role individually and collectively as faithful global citizens. What does this mean for progressive Christians?
Fair Trade vs free trade.
· Fair trade started as a radical idea – ten years ago I’d not even heard of Fair Trade coffee now even McDonalds is selling it. Another example of the progressive vision becoming mainstream, and a reason for us to celebrate and encouragement as we press on to other areas
· Free Trade, is bring new awareness of 3rd World working conditions. When we talk about equality, community, sustainability and Freedom, we have to think of workers in Chinese sweatshops.
Immigration and Asylum
· Is it to be NZ First and to hell with the rest of the world. Is to be an open border and to hell with NZ? Is there another way through, that treats all people of the planet on equal footing and recognises that nationalism is not a gospel value.
Environment
· Here is an example of a way in which modern reality has forced us to take a fresh look at the bible and the way we interpret it. We’ve begun to recognise that the theology of “stewardship/dominion” that fuelled the industrial revolution is wrong for the world today. We need to debunk the associated myth that economic growth is the be all and end of all economic policy and we need to see how our consumerism and greed is destroying the planet. We need to put ecology and economy back in the same classroom. For one is the description of the world and its resources and the other is the management of them. We need to reclaim environmental issues as a moral issue perhaps the most significant and important moral issue of our day. We have borrowed the planet from our children and we’re given it back to them in a bad state.
International Aid
· Like many people I get upset with the sponsor child ads on TV, and it’s not the pictures of the little girl with bloated abdomen, or the near death boy with flies crawling over his eyes. It’s the pictures of kids that my sponsorship money is helping. It’s the smiling happy kids in the class room, or their parents drawing water from a well and planting crops. Don’t get me wrong these are good things and I support world vision and commend all those groups fighting the odds in such places. What upsets me is that these pictures of success are so minimal and we’ve come to accept that this all we can do. These are our brothers and sisters we can do more. NZ needs to step it up and give more in foreign aid we should be way above the UN Millenium Development Goals of 0.7% of GDP. And while our giving may be insignificant [even if we were double what we give it would be a drop in the ocean] - If we are able to give above the recommended minimum we can raise our voice with integrity on the world stage and encourage others to do so. This is our heritage to punch above our weight on international moral issues and we did so on the nuclear issue now it’s time to do it on the poverty issue.
We represent many groups today, for the most part small groups slogging away working for justice, working for peace, working for sustainability, working for a better world. At times it seems little is gained. As you take a stand and say there’s is a better way you’re often meet with apathy, misunderstanding, even abuse and attack. But know this you stand in great company, all of the prophets before you, the reformers of the past, and Jesus our Lord were all similarly misunderstood, rejected and scorned.
Know this also, that little by little your efforts do count. If a cause is just and noble and good and right its worth fighting for its worth shouting from the rooftops. In time and maybe after you have left this mortal coil your radical project will be mainstream the justice of your cause will be evident to all and those that follow in your footsteps will fight new battles inspired by your vision and determination.
I offer my thanks to Roland who kicked the day off for us encouraging us to “Reclaim Faithful global citizenship” as a moral imperative that the political and religious left share in common.
I want to use what time is left to draw our thoughts together and focus them forward to the tasks that lie in front of us.
First of all an observation perhaps a truism but a reality that we need to take a hold of with determination and courage, that is the Christian left at its best is a prophetic movement.
Like almost all prophetic movements we should not expect to be a populist movement. The prophets of the Hebrew bible for example were often lonely, persecuted, misunderstood by the popular culture of their era.
Jesus knew moments of popularity, but at the times when his message became most challenging the crowds departed his friends abandoned him – and he taught his disciples to expect similar treatment.
So if we are true to the message and example of Jesus we should not expect to be popular. Now there are exceptions to the rule and I’d like to be one but I won’t count on it.
One of the most significant exceptions was the civil rights movement headed by Martin Luther King . This was a prophetic movement, routed in liberal Christian theology and praxis. Many factors culminated to make this a mass popular movement that impacted far and wide. As much as I’d love to be a part of such a movement, I have no expectation of it, for I think it truly was the exception rather than the rule.
It more common for conservative movements to gain a rapid rise in popularity – but fortunately it is often short lived. So in NZ the opposition to the Homosexual law reform legislation rose rapidly gaining a large number of signatories to its petition, as did the opposition to Prostitution law reform, opposition to Civil Unions and opposition to the repeal of Section 59.
Progressive legislation often faces strident opposition but in time actually comes to be accepted and may even become the new bastion for conservatives.
Take the green movement in New Zealand this was a very radical and fringe movement in the 1970s campaigning as the Values party. Nearly 30 years ago I attended the last Nambassa festival near Waihi in the Bay of Plenty. It was a strange and wonderful place. I’d not heard of or seen organic food. I got my first taste of natural yoghurt and muesli. I saw many examples of alternative sustainable living. But it never occurred to me that this was anything but an individual choice for a simple back to basics lifestyle choice.
Many of the values that were fringe then and remained fringe up until just a few years ago are now becoming mainstream, so that even the national party talks about sustainable living.
Left wing politics has this progressive prophetic edge, where it is out in front of where most people are - pushing the boundaries, challenging the status quo, looking for and modelling a new and better way.
Because much of the programme of left wings politics becomes mainstream the left wing needs to constantly renew its vision. Look at the difference between national and labour at the moment, (I don’t mean the polls, that difference is substantial) but look at the policy difference, - there is not a great deal of difference in many areas as John Key echioes his refrain “Me too!” to many of Labour’s policies. The Left have to reposition itself constantly and that is not a problem because the vision for a sustainable and equitable future for all people is far from realised there are new challenges to move on to.
The pattern of left wing progressive movements becoming mainstream is paralleled in the church. Many of the greatest social reformers within the church have been adopted as heroes of the conservative church.
Take Wilberforce for example - a real visionary, a social reformer, political activist and committed Christian. He was progressive, prophetic, and fought long and hard against the conservatives and moderates of his day. Yet recently he has been adopted by the evangelical church as their hero. The conservative church I’m sure is not opposed to the abolition of slavery and many evangelical are now working to end child slavery, sexual slavery and so on in the world today – fantastic all strength to them. But this new norm wouldn’t have come about without Wilberforce’s liberal vision, his challenging of political and church authority and his revisionist interpretation of the bible. All of these modus operandi make the modern conservative nervous still.
Martin Luther King is another example of a progressive Christian who challenged the governing authorities, who interpreted the bible in a liberal fashion and yet has been claimed by the right wing of the church. Margaret Mayman, Spokesperson for Christians for Civil Unions made this point when addressing a rally in Wellington.
“On its website Destiny Church has a quotation from Rev Dr Martin Luther King, Jr which says "our lives begin to end the day we are silent about the things that matter."
We now know that Destiny Church wrote to the King Center in Atlanta, Georgia, asking for an endorsement for their march on parliament.
I have the text of the letter the King Center sent back to Destiny.
"Greetings. Unfortunately we cannot issue a statement regarding this (event). On top of that, one of Dr. King's closest advisor (Bayard Rustin) was gay and Dr. King did not believe in what was done to him and how he was treated here in the US at the time. For these reasons and many more--we cannot issue any sort of statement that would condone putting someone else's spirit and dignity down in favor of another. "
Coretta Scott King, Dr King's widow, is a strong supporter of equal rights for gay and lesbian people. She added her words: "I appeal to everyone who believes in Marin Luther King's dream to make room at the table of brother and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people."
Still Bernice King, (Daughter of Martin Luther King) came out to NZ and spoke on behalf of destiny church. We live in interesting times.
Martin Luther the German reformer kicked off the reformation in support of a socialist movement, while his later life was somewhat more conservative in nature; many modern conservatives rally behind Lutheran doctrine and forget his radical social agenda not to mention the bloodshed he caused.
We may not share the same dogma and worldview as Martin Luther or Wilberforce or even MLK, but we do share a commitment to move in the same direction, following similar paths.
This conference has been about identifying the common values and commitments of the political and Christian left. These commonalities are not about doctrine or dogma or destination they are about direction. We both want to move in the direction of greater, equality, community, Stewardship and Freedom.
We can spell out in some detail what we mean by these commitments these values. We want to see:
Equality: Equal opportunity to resources, such as education, land, power, energy, food, medicine, self determination and so on. We want all people to be equal under the law, and we want equality to apply to all people of all ethnic groups, nations, abilities, ages, religions genders, sexual orientation ...
Community: We share a common commitment to realising human potential and recognise that this can only be done as we learn to deeply respect and care for each other. Human beings are social beings and none of us is fully alive if some of us are suffering. We are part of one another made for one another and so we work for peace, we work to break down barriers and fight the conditions that lead to disharmony.
Stewardship: Progressive share a commitment to a sustainable future, although I must acknowledge that the church has been behind the 8ball on this one for too long.
Freedom: We share a commitment to freedom. And if I can make a bald distinction between left and right here we emphasise freedom to rather than freedom from. So while the right want less government we recognise that sometimes more government is needed to ensure the freedoms that are required for human dignity. We want people to be free to achieve, free to realise their potential, free to express themselves, free to contribute to the common good, free to play their part in building a new world. This takes a collective commitment to the common good and requires government action.
As well as the values and commitments that we have in common Christian progressive see those commitments with Christian eyes. Our commitments are informed and inspired by the gospel. So we believe that Jesus came to give life in all its fullness to all people. We believe in good news to the poor, release to the captives, sight to the blind, freedom for the oppressed, economic justice. We believe that God requires justice and mercy and humility. We follow a God who is compassionate and seek to live compassionately.
These gospel values incarnated in the story of Jesus, feed our souls, put fire in our bellies and lead us to action. And we act in faith, knowing that while we may not see immediate results for our work that in time the radical and progressive vision, which we inspire, if it is good and right, will one day become the norm.
So our gospel imperatives inform and inspire our values and commitments and these lead to our actions. We’ve talked a lot around four key areas of NZs relationship to the rest of the world and our role individually and collectively as faithful global citizens. What does this mean for progressive Christians?
Fair Trade vs free trade.
· Fair trade started as a radical idea – ten years ago I’d not even heard of Fair Trade coffee now even McDonalds is selling it. Another example of the progressive vision becoming mainstream, and a reason for us to celebrate and encouragement as we press on to other areas
· Free Trade, is bring new awareness of 3rd World working conditions. When we talk about equality, community, sustainability and Freedom, we have to think of workers in Chinese sweatshops.
Immigration and Asylum
· Is it to be NZ First and to hell with the rest of the world. Is to be an open border and to hell with NZ? Is there another way through, that treats all people of the planet on equal footing and recognises that nationalism is not a gospel value.
Environment
· Here is an example of a way in which modern reality has forced us to take a fresh look at the bible and the way we interpret it. We’ve begun to recognise that the theology of “stewardship/dominion” that fuelled the industrial revolution is wrong for the world today. We need to debunk the associated myth that economic growth is the be all and end of all economic policy and we need to see how our consumerism and greed is destroying the planet. We need to put ecology and economy back in the same classroom. For one is the description of the world and its resources and the other is the management of them. We need to reclaim environmental issues as a moral issue perhaps the most significant and important moral issue of our day. We have borrowed the planet from our children and we’re given it back to them in a bad state.
International Aid
· Like many people I get upset with the sponsor child ads on TV, and it’s not the pictures of the little girl with bloated abdomen, or the near death boy with flies crawling over his eyes. It’s the pictures of kids that my sponsorship money is helping. It’s the smiling happy kids in the class room, or their parents drawing water from a well and planting crops. Don’t get me wrong these are good things and I support world vision and commend all those groups fighting the odds in such places. What upsets me is that these pictures of success are so minimal and we’ve come to accept that this all we can do. These are our brothers and sisters we can do more. NZ needs to step it up and give more in foreign aid we should be way above the UN Millenium Development Goals of 0.7% of GDP. And while our giving may be insignificant [even if we were double what we give it would be a drop in the ocean] - If we are able to give above the recommended minimum we can raise our voice with integrity on the world stage and encourage others to do so. This is our heritage to punch above our weight on international moral issues and we did so on the nuclear issue now it’s time to do it on the poverty issue.
We represent many groups today, for the most part small groups slogging away working for justice, working for peace, working for sustainability, working for a better world. At times it seems little is gained. As you take a stand and say there’s is a better way you’re often meet with apathy, misunderstanding, even abuse and attack. But know this you stand in great company, all of the prophets before you, the reformers of the past, and Jesus our Lord were all similarly misunderstood, rejected and scorned.
Know this also, that little by little your efforts do count. If a cause is just and noble and good and right its worth fighting for its worth shouting from the rooftops. In time and maybe after you have left this mortal coil your radical project will be mainstream the justice of your cause will be evident to all and those that follow in your footsteps will fight new battles inspired by your vision and determination.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
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
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
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
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
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
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
Monday, July 28, 2008
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!
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)