Social Conservatives

“The last thing a foster child needs is to be brought up in a home where he has two dads or two mums.” – 26 August 2008.

 

“It is empirically evident that two homosexual adults are less able unable to provide children with the stability and security that is essential for every child as he or she grows up.” – Monday, 4 May 2009

 

“I am very sad to hear of Gottlieb’s death, however I find it strange that Helen Clark should attempt to resuscitate this man – and yet have no problem with the fact that 50 young New Zealanders died from abortion today.”- 14 August 2008.

 

 

 The above quotes are taken from Pro-Life UC member Andy Moore’s blog “Starstuddedsuperstep.com”. It’s one of the blogs I read regularly, as Andy is a strong and active example of the Christian Right in New Zealand. Andy’s politics are (as the above quote’s should emphasise) a VERY long way away from mine. Andy is strongly anti-abortion, strongly against any gay marriage, and strongly against the idea of same sex couples being able to adopt. I’ve picked on Andy here because I know he’s active enough in politics to stand up to any criticism I have of his politics. He’s actively involved in Pro-Life UC, is a vital part in one of the best performing youth politics groups in New Zealand in ACT on Campus and runs a blog. He’s dedicated to what he believes in.

 

Unfortunately, for Andy, and others like him, they are in the unenviable position of holding very strong minority views in a country that is for the large part, extremely socially liberal. In today’s column we’re going to examine the ways in which Andy’s position is about to get even worse, and the way in which the Christian Right in New Zealand has to react to the coming changes, if they are to stay (some would argue become) a viable political force in New Zealand.

 

On a number of key legislative issues, gay rights and abortions, Andy and The Christian Right are simply on the wrong side of public opinion. Andy’s article in last weeks Canta about the recent high court activates around New Zealand’s abortion law (if you haven’t read it, go do so now) illustrated the current situation very well. Basically, the law that currently governs Abortion in New Zealand was written by the Muldoon Government, aiming to limit abortions. However due to what is essentially a loophole in the law, thousands of abortions each year are preformed on “mental health” grounds. The current situation is a weird sort of unintended compromise, Abortion is technically illegal in most cases, were the law to be strictly applied, but since it isn’t, we have legalised abortion. For the majority of New Zealanders who believe in abortion on demand, this isn’t really an issue. However if like Andy you believe that legalised Abortion is murdering thousands of New Zealander’s a year, it’s understandably an issue. It’s becoming clear that new legislation is needed the clarify the legal quagmire surrounding abortion, and set out exactly what this countries stance on abortion is.

 

When that law is passed, I can damn near guarantee Andy is going to be pissed off. The social consensus in New Zealand is massively in favour of providing abortions to women that make the difficult choice of having an abortion. We believe it is the women’s choice, and if she does choose to have an abortion, there should be as few barriers in the way as possible. Both National and Labour agree on this, yet neither party wants to push through any new legislation because the current mess is easier politically, as it achieves the goals of pro-choice politics while avoiding the uproar from the Christian Right that any new law would cause.

 

As another excellent article in Canta last week argued, serious reform to allow same sex couples to adopt children as a couple should be on the way, and fast. There is zero reason to think that if New Zealand is happy with letting same sex couples get married via a civil union, we would then want to deny them the chance to raise a family, one of the most fundamental joys in life. There is also, despite what those n the right say, any evidence to suggest that being gay intrinsically makes you “unable to provide children with the stability and security that is essential for every child as he or she grows up”.

 

Changes to abortion and gay adoption laws need to happen soon so that the laws of our country can reflect the socially liberal views of the majority of our citizens.

 

The Christian Right’s first reaction is going to be to oppose such moves, and forcefully. The uproar and protests of the Civil Union legislation should come to mind whenever we think about what will happen if anybody tries to pass such greatly needed reform.

 

 

However much these reforms may grate against the beliefs of some, they are going to be inevitable. Political strategy for people like Andy needs to reflect this.

 

Because once we all accept that these laws are coming, we can set to work finding ways to make sure they please as many New Zealanders as possible. Abortion law reform is coming, and because the majority of New Zealanders favour abortion on demand, that’s the way the law is going to look. That doesn’t mean however that the Christian right can’t negotiate in good faith to make sure that mandated ultrasounds are required before any abortion, a powerful tool for making women face the reality of their decision. Just because Same Sex Adoption laws are going to be passed, doesn’t mean the Christian Right can’t push for tighter rules in the adoption process to make sure that only parents that can prove they can take care of a child can adopt. The aim here HAS to be to create laws that as many New Zealanders as possible can be happy with. That’s the whole point of Democracy.

 

The quotes at the top of the article were cherry picked from Andy’s blog to show how even intelligent, dedicated activist’s like Andy can slip into really rabid rhetoric. Insinuating that Helen Clark shouldn’t try to save a dieing friend, since she believes in abortion, is not going to win you any friends amongst moderates. The challenge Andy and people like him face is to present their views in constructive ways that don’t loose them moderate support, and with it their only chance to make serious political gains despite their minority position.

 

The trick with minority politics is to remember that just because you can’t get EVERYTHING you want, doesn’t mean you can’t get some. If the Christian Right chooses the same sort of aggressive rhetoric they are used to using, the next few years are going to see some painful legislative losses for them.

 

Ps

 

I’m plugging Andy’s blog now. http://www.starstuddedsuperstep.com/ It’s actually a pretty interesting read if you want well thought out explanations of political positions you might not agree with. Unless your really Christian and Libertarian. In which case, it’ll be a really well thought out explanation of political positions you do agree with. Neato!

Life in opposition.

In the first column we looked at the similarities between the situations that John Key and Barack Obama find themselves in. This week we look at the people who came out on the wrong end of last year’s elections: The Labour Party in New Zealand and the Republicans in America.

Both parties found themselves thrown out of office and into opposition after long periods in power. The Republicans, already hurting from major losses in the 2006 midterm elections, lost control of the white house and for the first time since 1994 hold neither the Senate, The House or the White House. Here in New Zealand, Labour lost 7 seats in Parliament and found itself out of power for the first time since 1999.

Now out in the political wilderness, both parties have found themselves struggling. The Republicans have failed to find someone with the National Profile to serve as the popular face of the party, as Newt Gringrich did for the party during their years spent in opposition to the Clinton Administration. In the very profile focused world of American politics, the lack of strong national leadership is hurting the party, which has seen the approval ratings of its congressional leaders drop in the last few months.

Even worse for the Republicans have been the disastrous national debuts of several “rising stars” within the party. New Republican National Chairman Michael Steele, who initially won positive coverage for being the GOP’s first ever African-American chairman, received widespread derision for his comments that what Republicans needed to turn things around was “a hip-hop makeover.” The idea that the Republicans were thrown out of office simply because they weren’t listening to the right kind of music was insulting to millions of voters who had rejected the Republicans policies, and further reinforced perceptions that Republicans were horribly out of touch with the electorate.

However, Steele himself doesn’t really need to be hugely popular, what makes a good party chairmen is their organisational skill and foresight for electoral strategy rather than their skills as a candidate. For example Democratic Chairman Howard Dean is credited with being a major part of the parties 2006 and 2008 election wins despite relatively low personal approval ratings. However the last few weeks also saw the national debut of Bobby Jindal, the 37 year old Governor of Louisiana who has been hyped as “The Republican Obama” and “The Next Ronald Reagan.” At the start of February Jindal was the odds on favourite to win the 2012 Republican Nomination for President, as he combined a strong populist moderate appeal with social and fiscal conservatism sure to energise the Republican base.

Jindal’s big debut was the Republican Response to President Obama’s February 24th Address to Congress, a major speech equivalent to the State of the Union Address. Jindal’s response was aired on prime time TV, and was hyped as a chance for the young star to provide a strong counter argument to Obama’s big spending Budget, which would bring America’s budget deficit to a staggering 1.3 trillion.

Far from the eloquent counter that conservatives were hoping for, Jindal’s speech was hokey, poorly written, offered stale ideas and the Governors delivery sounded like a kindergarten teacher trying to convince his students that it was naptime. Jindal’s speech was widely panned by both liberal and conservative viewers, and it seems for now at least the GOP will have to look elsewhere for its fresh new leader.

Leadership worries have also plagued the opposition here in New Zealand. With National currently sitting at around 48% in most polls, Labour needs a strong leader to counter John Key’s high personal approval ratings (currently amongst the highest ever recorded for a New Zealand Prime Minister.) However in a recent poll Labour Leader Phil Goff was chosen as preferred Prime Minister by just 6% of respondents, compared to a staggering 51% for John Key. While Goff was seen as a stable leader for Labour following the departure of Helen Clark, it seems he simply doesn’t have a high enough profile to compete with John Key.

As well as leadership problems Labour has a real need for some fresh ideas, as a recent Roy Morgan poll showed that 60% of people think the country is currently going in the right direction, showing huge satisfaction amongst the electorate with the agenda set by National. Labour, just like the Republicans in America, are under pressure from grass roots supporters to make changes to their policy platform and usher in some new ideas. Despite Goff’s competence as a minister, and high morale amongst Labour activists, Goff will feel some pressure to up his approval ratings a lot to ward off potential leadership challenges, especially from the slightly more liberal David Cunliffe.

Being in opposition is never easy, especially when a party has been in power for a long time. However in 2008 both the Republicans and Labour were clearly tired, out of touch with voters and found themselves on the wrong side of a couple of important issues. The challenge for both parties now is to elevate new blood, find fresh ideas and lay the ground work for electoral comebacks.

I’d hate to be Phil Goff right now…

For Labour, things have not got off to a strong start since the election. Helen Clark’s decision to resign on election night, while perhaps the right move for her personally, meant that Phil Goff taking over the party leadership happened when the attention of the nation was focuses on John Key and his new Government. As such Goff missed out on the sort of positive media coverage that new leaders often get, a fact that may be partly responsible for his staggeringly low ratings in recent preferred prime minister polls.

Since then things have been made even harder by how well…..good Key’s Government has been. Key’s first 100 days in office were marked by popular moves such as tightening bail laws, choosing to fund Herceptin (an expensive breast cancer drug) bringing forward infrastructure spending to stimulate the economy, and the much publicised job summit. Despite Labour’s attacks on Key for not doing enough to combat the recession, the Government seems to have the confidence of most New Zealanders, and no piece of legislation has proved deeply controversial in the way that things like the Electoral Finance Act or the repeal of Section 59 did under Labour.

Of course to expect a major stuff up within the first few months of a new Government might have been a stretch, but the tight ship Key seems to be running has sent a clear message that if Labour wants to make any headway in regaining the support of the electorate, its going to take a lot of hard work.

There are however, a number of opportunities on the horizon for Labour to make some real progress

Most of these chances are the result of the recession. Key’s Government is ultimately going to be judged on the way it handles the economic crisis, and the degree to which it can turn it around and keep voters from feeling the worst of its effects.

The National Government is taking an interesting approach to handling the crisis. Despite the publicity around the “rolling maul” of initiatives to save jobs, and Key’s infrastructure plans, National hasn’t increased Government spending by nearly the same level as most other western countries. Most of the infrastructure spending National has announced, for example, is actually just stimulatory spending already planned by Helen Clark’s Labour Government, but brought forward by a couple of months. As a percentage of GDP, the amount of money Key is spending to fight the recession and protect middle and lower income voters from the damage it will do is very small compared to Australia, America or Britain.

Key says that such money would be better spent on tax cuts, where by individual citizens will keep more of their own money, increasing demand and fuelling growth. However, Labour points out that under their proposed tax cuts which Key changed, almost a quarter of a billion dollars more would go to low and middle income families, rather than to those making more money as they do under Key’s plan. The rationale behind Key’s cuts is very standard right wing-post Regan thinking. Those with more money are more likely to invest it, thus creating jobs and growth, where as those on lower incomes will spend their tax cuts on things that have a less stimulatory effect on the overall economy.

While such thinking definitely makes economic sense it’s dangerous politically at a time when most voters will be feeling a pinch in their pocket, and see National choosing to give tax relief to those that clearly don’t need it.

Key is taking a big gamble. If his tax cuts do not have the desired stimulatory effect (as has happened overseas with the Bush tax cuts early in his first term) Key will have left himself open to major attacks for not doing enough to help the majority of voters at the next election. On the flipside if Key does manage to turn things around, don’t expect Phil Goff to be Prime Minister anytime soon.

The other major area for Labour to do some damage is National’s relationship with ACT. There are two major bills in the pipelines, ACT’s “Three Strikes” law and the proposed “Tax Payers Bill of Rights” which would cap Government expenditure to the rate of inflation. Both of these are expected to be supported by National.

If not seriously altered both bills could prove dangerous to Key’s image as a common sense moderate. Next week I’ll go into more detail on what is wrong with both of these bills, but Key faces significant pressure from a very important coalition partner to implement some seriously right wing policies, something that if Labour can properly exploit could do real damage to Key’s brand of centrism.

Labour, despite their weak current position, clearly has some areas where it can make progress. It just remains to be seen if they can do so.

The Trouble With ACT

Being a member of minor party isn’t exactly fun, you have a much smaller budget than the major parties, far less media exposure and the majority of New Zealand probably thinks of you as a raving loon. However if there are any benefits to being a minor party, it’s the electoral advantages that can come from successful branding. Minor party’s platforms tend to resolve loosely around a single principle or issue, for example the Greens focus on environmental issues, ACT focuses on responsible Government Spending, New Zealand First focuses on Winston Peters, etc. However, factions within both ACT and The Greens are changing the focus of the parties, and the results are interesting.

Though I don’t always agree with ACT’s politics, and consider their 08 regional conference one of the most depressingly amateurish things I’ve seen in politics, the major advantage ACT has is in the huge levels of commitment that its base gives it. ACT on Campus is one of the most active and committed student groups on campus, with its members blogging, helping organise campaigns, lobbying the party leaders and generally being shining examples of democratic citizenry. ACT voters are the indie music fans of the political world, always trying to corner you and talk your ear off about why ACT is so much better than all the other parties, the last bastion of freedom in New Zealand, and the only way to protect your rights from the evils of Government. ACT’s strong following is in large part due to the clarity of its ideals, it stands for small government, responsible spending and property rights. There regional conference was almost entirely composed of rich white guys. They are a party of ideologues, but damn it they are proud of it.

However, ACT currently finds itself in a bit of a policy dilemma. As part of a general shift to embrace a more popular message, ACT has aligned itself with those on the far-far-right of the debate over the New Zealand justice system. Groups like the Sensible Sentencing Trust now make up a significant portion of ACT’s financial and public backers, to the point where the coveted fifth spot on the ACT Party List, as well as a seat in Parliament, went to Sensible Sentencing Trust Member David Garret.

The problem for ACT is that the parties small Government, anti-authorities ideals clash heavily with the reactionary nature of groups like the Sensible Sentencing Trust.

Cards on the table time, groups like the Sensible Sentencing Trust repulse me, they use cheap and empty populist rhetoric to advance policies that evidence repeatedly shows not only don’t help keep crime rates down, but in fact make them worse. They are ideologues in the worst sense of the word, inflexible, unwilling to listen to reason and always quick to reach for the “soft on crime” label of anyone who disagrees. They dumb down the public discourse, cheapen debates over justice policy and the result is bad laws that can’t protect New Zealanders.

So what happens when a rabidly pro-freedom, pro rights party gets into bed with an authoritarian lobby group?

Embarrassingly Public Party Infighting. Sigh.

The most recent fissure amongst ACT’s base has been about the so-called “Gang-patch” bill; a hard right anti-gang law that seeks to outlaw the wearing of gang patches. From a legal perspective, the law is worrying, as it raises serious issues around guilt by association and has been attacked by civil liberties groups as a violation of the right to freedom of association. Many ACTivists (see what I did there?) have been up in arms over the “last bastion of freedom in New Zealand” supporting something they see as so ignorant of peoples rights. ACT Leader Rodney Hide himself once previously decried the bill as “rubbish”. ACT blogs sport headlines such as “ACTually authoritarian?”

ACT, like a lot of minor parties does a lot of good in that it brings attention to important issues that are often overlooked. During last year’s election for example when both National and Labour were coming up with increasingly unrealistic spending plans, it was ACT who was pushing for fiscal responsibility. However by aligning themselves with the far right on social issues, they risk loosing their credibility on issues of rights and freedom, something so central to the party’s success. How is it acceptable that an MP for a libertarian party to be saying things in public such as “Alter the Bill of Rights Act. We’ve got too hung up on people’s rights”?

If ACT can’t find a way to reconcile the two sides of the party, things could get very messy, and for a part facing stiff battles over getting things like its Three Strikes Law and Taxpayers Bill of Rights passed, unity and the support of the grassroots is something they cannot afford to loose.

I’m posting again :)

“It’s been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this day, in this election, at this defining moment, change has come to America.”

 On November 4th, Barrack Obama stood in front of a jubilant crowd at Grant Park, in Chicago, Illinois and celebrated his victory in the US presidential election. His victory speech promised a new dawn for America, a renewal of the fundamental promise of the nation, a new style of politics, and the reconstruction of the countries ailing economy. Four days later, half a world away and in front of a much smaller but no less enthusiastic crowd, John Key delivered his own victory speech after finally toppling Helen Clark’s Labour Government. Key’s rhetoric was somewhat less eloquent than Obama’s, but his message was very similar. Under Key, New Zealander’s could look forward to the recovery of our economy, a government that worked for all New Zealanders.

Both men face find themselves in very similar situations. Both are comparatively young leaders, both tasked with turning around their nations failing economy while dealing with dangerously high levels of Government debt. From a political perspective, both have just been elected to replace long time leaders, and have publics expecting a major change. Through out the rest of the year, this column is going to look at New Zealand and American Politics, and specifically how these two leaders face the challenges of their first year in office. For both men, the single most important issue at the moment is taking steps to limit the damage done by the recession, and if possible turn it around.

Obama, who came into office with a laundry list of big issues to tackle, including ending the war in Iraq and providing Universal Health Care, made economic stimulus his first major initiative. Obama’s stimulus plan was certainly an ambitious bill, calling for over 700 Billion Dollars to be spent both on infrastructure investment to stimulate further growth, and tax cuts for the middle and working class to boost consumer spending. The bill had to pass through Congress first, requiring 60 votes in the Senate before ti could be approved. Unfortunately for Obama, Democrat’s control only 58 seats, meaning that a number of moderate Republican senators had to vote for it if it was to pass.

For Obama, who made bipartisan co-operation and “changing the tone of Washington” major parts of his campaign, getting Republicans to vote in large numbers for the first major piece of his Agenda would have been a huge PR win. However getting the Republicans on board seemed to be a problem, especially when the Stimulus Bill was revealed to contain a number of big spending items that made fiscally conservative Republicans nervous.

Eventually however Obama was able to get the bill passed, but not before taking some public relations knocks. Obama has been criticised heavily by congressional Democrats, as well as his own liberal base, for allowing the debate around the stimulus bill to get out of his control. The White House was strangly silent, as Republicans filled the media with salient quotes about the spending “mortgaging our children’s future” and being to heavily focussed on low return infrastructure projects.

While the bill did eventually pass, Obama saw his approval ratings drop from the high seventies to the mid 60’s between his inauguration and the passing of the stimulus bill. Interestingly enough however, in a number of respected polls such as Gallup and Rasmussen, Obama’s lower approval ratings came from a drop in support amongst Republican voters. His election winning coalition of Independent and Democrat voters still supports him heavily, meaning that despite the hits Obama took on the stimulus, he was still able to pass one of the most expensive bills in American History while still being one of the most popular presidents in decades. One of the reason’s this might have happened is that all over the western world, voters seem to be warming to the idea of government spending.

It was only the mid 1990’s when Democratic President Bill Clinton declared “the era of big government is over”, yet it seems that in the response to the global economic crisis, voters definitely do want a big government response. This as much as anything explains why in a recent Rasmussen poll, approval ratings amongst Congressional Republicans, who opposed the stimulus, have fallen while ratings for Democrats who supported it have increased.

Here at home, John Key’s response to the economic crisis is still unfolding, with an announced job summit soon to be held to investigate ways to stem the rising rates of unemployment during the recession. However Key’s recent announced spending plan’s have been criticised for not matching the standards set by Obama and other world leaders, as a recent raft of “new” spending projects on roads and infrastructure was revealed to be spending already planned by the previous Labour Government.

 It’s early days yet, and Key has said there is more spending to come, but politically the till now relatively ineffectual Labour opposition might soon smell blood in the water if they can characterise Key as lacking in his response to the economic crisis.

It’s going to be a fun year in politics…….again.

 

 Plus, no Winston, woooooooo.

Article on Democratic Convention

An attempt at writing an election coverage piece. Enjoy.

____________

All eyes are on Denver, Colorado this week, as the city prepares to host the 2008 Democratic Party Convention. Over 65,000 people are expected to attend the convention which will see Sen. Barack Obama become the first ever African American to be elected as the party’s Presidential Nominee. The convention will set the tone for the rest of the election campaign as Obama seeks to unite the his party, divided by his long and bitter primary battle with Sen. Hillary Clinton.

The convention comes at a critical time for the Obama campaign, as political polls show the race between Obama and his rival, Republican Senator John McCain, tightening to within the margin of error. A CNN poll from the 24th of August shows the candidates tied, each winning 47% of the vote. One area in which Obama is weak is his appeal to those Democrat voters who favoured Sen. Clinton in the primaries. Recent polling shows Sen. Obama winning just 79% of Democrat voters, with many of Clinton’s supporters now choosing to vote for McCain rather than the man who unseated Clinton as the Democratic Nominee. By comparison 2004 Democrat Nominee John Kerry was able to win 89% of his party’s voters. Obama’s failure to galvanise Democrat voters has meant he has been unable to capitalise on his party’s identification advantage over the Republicans, with 7% more voters identifying themselves as Democrats than Republicans.

If Obama is able to convince another 10 to 15 percent of Democrat voters to support him, he could open up a substantial lead in the polls.

In order to do this, the Democrats must present a united face at this weeks convention, where Hillary Clinton will publically ask her supporters to vote for Obama. Clinton, who won 17 million votes over the course of the primary contest, is scheduled to headline the first night of the convention, with a speech on the subject of “Renewing America”. Her husband, former president Bill Clinton is scheduled to give a speech on the conventions second night on the topic of “Securing America’s future.”

The Clintons will also attempt to help Obama increase his support amongst white working class voters, a group he struggled to appeal too in the primary contest, and is still lacking support from.

Winning votes amongst this key voting bloc was an important factor in Obama’s decision to pick long serving Democrat Senator Joe Biden as his Vice Presidential Candidate. Biden, who has over 25 years of experience in the Senate, has a strong appeal to the working class with Obama introducing Biden as a “a scrappy kid from Scranton”, a working class city in Pennsylvania. Obama also described Biden as “a statesman with sound judgment who doesn’t have to hide behind bluster to keep America strong.”

Biden is scheduled to address the Democratic Convention on the same night as former President Clinton, giving a speech on the subject of National Security, seeking to offer a counter to Vietnam War veteran John McCain’s’ perceived advantage when it comes to experience in foreign policy.

Column on Secret Recordings

So I had my appendix out last week, hence the lack of column. I spent a couple of days in hospital, cut off from internet and news access. One of the first things I did when I got out was to check the news and see what I’d missed.

So what had our nation’s politicians been up to in my absence?

Secret tapes, secret agendas, secret donations and secret trusts. Is there any political news at the moment that doesn’t involve some kind of cloak and dagger deception?

First we had Winston Peters and the seemingly endless list of complaints over his use of secret trust and murky “expense funds”. Then we had Bill English being caught on tape at the National Party Convention promising to sell Kiwibank, followed by Lockwood Smith making worrying reference to National’s popular policy concessions being just a way to fool the public in order to avoid “scaring the horses”. Both of these conversations were caught on tape and leaked to the media, followed by Helen Clark and Michael Cullen hailing them as proof that National has a secret agenda, and is trying to bluff its way into Government so it can sell off all the state’s assets and privatise the whole country. The Nats responded by alleging that Labour was behind the recordings, and that they may even have been doctored. According to John Key Labour is running an orchestrated smear campaign, desperately attempting to scare voters away from National.

Things have gotten nasty in parliament recently too, with Winston Peters insinuating (behind the protection of parliamentary privilege of course) that Rodney Hide is gay, Hide referring to Peters as a “tired old drunk”, Key and Clark at each others throats at every opportunity and Michael Cullen tearing Gerry Brownlee to shreds whenever he gets the chance.

It’s definitely election year alright. Some level of dirty campaigning is to be expected.

What’s disappointed me is just how dirty Labour has gotten.

Chris Trotter, leftist writer and historian wrote an excellent (though painfully biased) history of New Zealand last year called No Left Turn. The book basically told the story of New Zealand history as a struggle between the forces of greed, bigotry and hate (National) and selflessness, equality and egalitarianism (Labour). History of course isn’t anything like that, but the reason Trotter’s book worked on a story telling level (if not an objectivity level) was that the New Zealand left has a relatively clean history when it comes to campaigning. Michael Joseph Savage, Labours depression era leader, for example allowed the New Zealand people to vote directly on his ground breaking welfare policies, and fatally refused to take time out of campaigning to receive medical treatment, for fear that his people would be denied the option to make a proper choice on so important an issue. Such a bravely democratic move has become the ideal to which the New Zealand left is meant to aspire too.

At the moment they are falling far short of it, and even Trotter can’t make them look good.

Labour’s campaign, while having some very positive aspects (“getting on with the business of governing” is a very admirable campaign slogan) is becoming mired by dirty tactics and unnecessary nastiness. Be in Michael Cullen calling Key a “rich prick”, Clark calling him “diddums” or that god-awful anti-Key singalong at the party conference, Labour comes off looking bitter, resentful and cruel. Labour aligned blog The Standard is so virulent in its attacks on John Key and his “hollow” campaign that at times it borders on self parody (a recent article turned the Tony Veitch scandal into an attack on Key). The left is convinced that National is being vague on policy in an attempt to hide its right-wing plan for New Zealand. According to Labour and its supporters, as soon as Key gets into power it’s open season on state assets, beneficiaries, working for families, kiwibank, kiwisaver and any other policy that aims to help the poor.

So incensed is the left at the tactics National is using (and the success they are having with them) that it’s looking more and more like they’ve resorted to some really questionable stuff. The secret recordings made of Bill English and Lockwood smith, reportedly by Labour party activists, are a long way from the democratic and open campaigns they promised us the Electoral Finance Act would bring about. Can you imagine the ruckus the left would be kicking up if National had made secret recordings of Labour party candidate’s private conversations? It wasn’t ok when Richard Nixon did it, it’s not ok now. The English tape in particular seems to feature someone goading English into saying what he did about Kiwisaver, which raises even more ethical questions than simply making a secret recording.

The left loves to claim the moral high ground in debates. Often as in the case of the American Civil Rights movement, or our own anti-nuclear or anti-apartheid protest movements, they have a right to do so. Now however, the left has nothing to complain about except that their loosing in the polls to a guy who to put it bluntly, is really bloody good at campaigning.

The way to fight Key and National is to turn the debate to policy, to issues. In terms of their policy preferences New Zealanders have traditionally been a relatively left wing country, economically if not socially. Labour can go out and win votes on it’s track record. For example a public currently straining under the pressures of a recession will be thrilled to know that under Labour  the average hourly wage has increased 9.6 percent in the last 2 years.

In 2002 Labour ran a group of successful TV ads, with rising music playing over clips of their ministers in action, meeting foreign dignitaries, getting out in the community. The ads promised leadership, inspiration and the will to lead the nation. The tagline told voters that when New Zealand needed leadership, Labour led. The message was upbeat, positive and enthusiastic. It’s the Labour of those ads that they want the public to be seeing this time round.

If Labour can’t convince the public they have more to offer than scandal mongering and smear campaigns, the happy days of 2002 and their record breaking election victory are going to seem a very long time ago indeed.

Previous Post

One of the quirks of MMP is that it lessens the importance of winning individual electorate seats. In American Elections, owing to different Electoral College votes assigned to each state, the outcome of entire elections can rest on a single state. It’s because of this that Barack Obama and John McCain each have over 20 field offices in Florida, while neither one has opened a single office in South Dakota. In New Zealand however, it is rare that the result of a single electorate seat will have too large an impact on the results of the wider election. In 2008 however the dynamics of the race suggest that local results in a number of key electorates will play a vital part in deciding who forms our next Government.

The first of these important seats is Tauranga, home of Winston Peters and possibly New Zealand First’s only way back into Parliament at the end of the year. A party either needs 5% of the vote or to win one or more electorate seat to be able to receive a proportional share of the 120 nominal seats in the house. The polls at the moment suggest that New Zealand First could have a hard time making it over the 5% threshold. A New Zealand Herald Poll from 26th July gives New Zealand First just 4.1 percent of the vote. A Colmar-Brunton poll from 18th July gives them just 2.4 percent. The best result in any recent poll for NZF has them on exactly 5% from a Roy Morgan poll in late July.

It’s important to note that all of these polls were conducted before the various scandals around Winston Peter’s use of secret trusts and secret donations broke. What impact these will have on the parties’ poll numbers remains to be seen. It could be a negative one as the party’s hypocrisy on the issuer of accountability drives away voters or the scandals could cause a rallying of the New Zealand First vote to defend Peters from a media beat up on “our Winnie”.

If their current level of support continues however, New Zealand First is in a dangerous position and Winston Peters needs a win in Tauranga to ensure his parties political survival.

When it comes to winning Tauranga, Peters has a lot of experience. He first won the seat in 1984 and was able to hold onto it until he was eventually beaten by National’s Bob Clarkson in 2005. Clarkson went on to be one of Parliaments most colourful and eccentric MP’s, earning himself the derisive nickname “Burqa Bob” from opponents, after he told reporters that any women wearing burqas should “go back to Islam or Iraq”.
In 2008 however Clarkson is not running, instead Peters will be running against former National Party Tauranga Chairman Simon Bridges.  Bridges is in many ways a far tougher opponent for Peters than Clarkson is. At just 31 Bridges is less than half Peters’ age and is a relatively fresh face in the New Zealand political scene.

As a former crown prosecutor he has a good record of service to the community and speaks with weight on law and order issues. More importantly Bridges has been running on a theme of change. His campaign website proclaims that “A vote for Simon Bridges this election is a vote for the future”. Such sentiment will ring true with voters in Tauranga who have had 9 years of the same Government, and years of Winston Peters as their MP. It is easy to understand why Tauranga voters, suffering through the slowing of the economy and a jump in violent crime rates would be attracted to a candidate promising fresh ideas and a good record on law and order.

Bridge’s appeal as a candidate was confirmed in a recent Colmar Brunton Poll of the Tauranga race.

According to the Poll, Bridges has a 20 point lead over Peters, winning 48% of respondents compared to Peters 28%. When interviewed about the poll, Helen Clark said she did not think it would give Peters much cause for concern, after all he has been down before and always finds a way to fight back. While the unflappable Peters may not panic when he sees these numbers, it is a definite indicator that he is in for a fight if he wants to win back Tauranga.

If Bridges wins Tauranga and New Zealand First doesn’t make it over 5%, the effect on the overall Election would be dramatic. Peters and his party would be a valuable coalition partner for either National or Labour. Despite tensions between his party and National, Peters has promised to negotiate first with the party that receives the most votes, which is almost certainly going to be National. If National can’t get enough votes to govern alone, it will need to turn to people like ACT and New Zealand First to make up the numbers, as their task of making it into Government will be a lot harder if they don’t have the option of going with New Zealand First.

For Labour, who would probably have a much smoother relationship if they did go into Government with Peters, losing New Zealand First would be a significant problem as it further cuts down their options for recreating a 2005 like deal to get back into power.

New Zealand First is not the only minor party important for any potential coalition deal to be involved in an all important electorate seat battle this year. Just as in 2005, ACT needs to win the seat of Epsom if it is going to have any presence in parliament after the election.

Earlier in the year when Sir Roger Douglas announced his return to the party, ACT faithful were filled with optimism. Sir Roger himself in an interview with me predicted ACT could get as high as 6 or 7 percent.

Current polls however suggest such success is a pipedream. Despite the zeal of the party’s followers, ACT’s poll numbers are disastrous. The latest Roy Morgan poll has them on an awe-inspiring 2.5 percent, the poll before that had then at 0.5%. By comparison, The legalise cannabis party got 0.4% in a Colmar Brunton poll recently. So with ACT polling about as well as the dope-heads, they need an electorate seat or they can kiss goodbye to parliament.

The best chance ACT has of winning this is in Epsom, a notoriously right wing (think Fendalton) electorate where party leader Rodney Hide was able to score an upset win in 2005. This year Hide looks to be on track to take the seat again, facing the man he beat for the seat, National’s Richard Worth. Worth finds himself in a tricky position, as winning the seat could potentially cost National a coalition partner it needs to win the election.
ACT and New Zealand First have been at each other’s throats in Parliament this year, they differ on almost all aspects of policy and political philosophy. Yet both parties find themselves in a similar position this election, both facing oblivion if they prove unable to hold their electorate seats. If either party disappears, it could prove a deciding factor in the election.

Labour and the polls

“The Labour Comeback Begins”

“The Elections turning point?”

“Labour closes the Gap”

The above are just a couple of headlines and comments I’ve seen around various left wing blogs since the release of A Fairfax Media-Nielsen poll on July 19th showing that National’s lead over Labour had dropped from 24% to 16% in the latest poll. Fairfax Media themselves referred to the poll as “throwing a life line” to the struggling Government. Adding to National’s woe was the fact that John Key had slipped in the Preferred Prime Minister category to just 39%, the lowest rating he has received all year.

According to the narrative being set by the mainstream media and the various blogs, the reason for this turn around in Labours support is the success of various attacks they have been launching on John Key. In recent weeks Labour has hammered Key on Crosby Textor, Tranzrail, and National’s decision to open up ACC to private competition, a move which Labour claims will damage the system leading to higher premiums and endless law suits. The combined effect of these attacks has been to portray Key as a man reliant on his foreign spin doctors, unable to think for himself, and firmly in the pocket of big business. Such an image is a far cry from the kiwi boy made good, nice guy image National wants for their leader.

The second reason cited for National’s tumble in the poll is growing voter dissatisfaction with National’s unwillingness to roll out policy with any real meet behind it. The much hyped tax cuts, the backbone of National’s election strategy, are still being kept under wraps, with National unwilling to elaborate on how big they will be or how exactly the nation can afford them. Recent policy announcements by the Nats have bordered on self parody, with their policy statement for the multimillion outdoor recreation industry being released on a single A4 sheet of paper. National’s biggest policy announcement, of their much criticised ACC plans, was made by Dominion Post Journalist Vernon Small, who revealed that people in big foreign banking firms like Merryl0Lynch (who used to employ John Key) were being told of the plans to introduce competition (something that would net the insurance industry hundreds of millions of dollars worth of profit each year) while the New Zealand voter was being kept in the dark. Having a journo break the news of your buddy buddy relationship with foreign banks as a way to announce major economic policy is a terrible look.

Further evidence that National’s feet dragging on major policy was behind the shrinking gap between them and Labour came when 55% of respondents to the Fairfax Poll said they “wanted to see policy from National now” as opposed to the mere 35% who wanted to wait. This is worrying for National as that 35% is likely to be their “bed rock support”, those voters who would vote National no matter what. The type of people who still voted for National in 2002, its worst election defeat in decades. That means the 55% of people is bound to include many of those voters National has recently taken off of Labour. Key has cause to be worried that if his party is unable to provide any substantial reasons for those swing voters to stick around, they could swing back to Labour. The fact that a large proportion of undecided swing voters still exists is evidenced by the 28% of respondents to the poll who say they have not yet made up their mind about their preferred prime minister.

So yes, it’s a worrying poll for National that might give them cause to rethink a couple of things.

But it is the beginning of a stunning Labour comeback?

Far from it.

There are a couple of important things to keep in mind when looking at the poll results. First of all, as with all polls, this is just one snapshot of the population, taken at a specific time. Individual polls can be misleading, and we will have to wait for the next month’s worth of polls to be able to get a clear and accurate view of wither Labour really has closed the gap to the extent this poll suggests.

Even if this poll is accurate, the results aren’t as encouraging for Labour as they would appear at first. While it is true that Labour gained five points, National only lost 3 points. That means there are 2 points that are coming from a loss of support from another party. And what party is that?

Labours traditional preferred coalition partner, The Greens.

With poll ratings as high as they are, it is almost unthinkable that National will not get the most votes at this election. That doesn’t mean they will win however, it just means that as often happens under MMP they might get more votes than any single other party, but not have the parliamentary majority needed to govern. If National is unable to govern alone and ACT’s abysmal poll ratings (1 percent, ouch, so much for the party getting 6 or 7 percent huh?) continue then National could find itself being beaten by a broad left wing coalition of Labour, the Greens, The Maori Party, New Zealand first etc.

Labour will HAVE to form a coalition government to win the elections. What that means is we should be paying more attention to the combined ratings of the left wing voting bloc who could form a government (The Greens, Labour, Progressives, Maori Party and sometimes New Zealand First) and comparing it with the right wing voting bloc (National, ACT, United Future) since it is likely to be these voting blocs, rather than single parties that govern. When viewed this way, Labour taking 2 percent off the Greens doesn’t really help them at all, as the left wing voting bloc doesn’t really gain any support, its members just pass voters around between themselves. Had Labour been able to cannibalise 2 percent of ACT or United Futures vote, it would be a different story.

As it stands, National is the biggest party, and if they are unable to govern alone they will simply govern as a coalition with the other right wing parties.

Canta Feature on US Elections

So far the 2008 American Presidential election campaign has been one of the most dramatic in history. Be it Barack Obama’s stunning rise from eloquent underdog to bonafide front runner, or John McCain’s stunning comeback after his campaign imploded in 2007, the campaign has been full of dramatic moments. With mere months to go now until the polls open, national polls from America show the race at an almost dead heat, with just 3 percent separating the two candidates according to a recent Gallup Poll, one of America’s most reliable polling services.
Despite the closeness of the race, the two candidates offer vastly different visions for America’s future, and vastly different solutions to the problems the nation faces. Senator John McCain, the 71 year old presidential nominee of the Republican Party, the party of incumbent president George W. Bush, is a classic compassionate conservative.

He mixes a strong commitment to free trade and tax cuts, the bread and butter of conservative economic policies, with liberal social and foreign policies that have won him great support from independent voters. Sen. McCain has earned himself a reputation as a political maverick, someone who will go against his party line and transcend the normal ideological squabbles, with his support of liberal issues like battling climate change. He has also been vocal in his opposition to the use of controversial “interrogation” techniques such as water boarding, and has promised one of his first acts as President would be to close Guantanamo Bay and ensure “America never tortures another person.”

McCain speaks with great credibility on these matters due to his years as a victim of torture in a Prisoner of War camp during the Vietnam War. His military experience also gives him strong credibility on matters of foreign policy, 72% of American’s telling a recent Washington Post poll that McCain would make a good commander in chief, as opposed to just 48% who say the same of his opponent.

McCain will need all the credibility on matters of economics and the military that he can get, as he faces the daunting task of convincing an American Public who do not seem to agree with him on these major issues. The Arizona Senator, whose economic policies bear a marked similarity to those of President Bush, will be worried by recent polls that show Americans are dissatisfied with the state of their economy and their nation. A Gallup poll from July 21st showed that 80% of American’s have a negative view of the current state of the economy, with just 7 percent holding a positive one. Even more worrying for the McCain campaign is a much cited poll CBS/New York Times on April 3rd, which says more than 80% of respondents said they were “dissatisfied with the direction of the country”, while 81% thought that “things have pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track”.

Combine this with President Bush’s abysmal approval ratings, with a realclearpolitics.com averaging of national polls on July 21st finding him to have the support of just 28 percent of the population, and McCain’s task of convincing Americans to vote for four more years of republican rule is a difficult one.

It is made even more difficult by the immense hype surrounding his opponent. Barack Obama, a 46 year old Senator from Illinois, is being hyped by many as a transformational figure in American politics. The first ever African American presidential nominee from either of the major parties, he rode a tidal wave of grass roots support to a stunning victory over the seemingly unbeatable Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Primary Contest.

Obama promotes himself as a reformer, someone who will change the American political system, bringing an end to the gutter politics and vested interests of the Bush Years. His campaign slogan “Change We Can Believe In” has struck a chord with those millions of American voters who do think their country is on the wrong track. Obama himself is an impressive figure, despite being relatively new to the national political scene (few had even heard of him before 2004) his eloquent and uplifting speechmaking has won him comparisons to both John F Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. Obama is immensely popular amongst younger voters, and has driven hundreds of thousands of first time voters to turn out and support him.

In terms of policy Obama is markedly different from McCain. Obama is in many ways a classic liberal politician. He favours universal health care, energy independence, increased spending on infrastructure and investment, and removing the multibillion dollar tax cuts George bush granted to the rich. For many however the defining point of difference between the two candidates is Obama’s opposition to the War in Iraq, a war McCain supports. Obama promises to withdraw American troops from Iraq, to be redeployed in Afghanistan to fight the Taliban and pursue Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Obama says the Iraq war was a costly distraction from the War on Terror, and thinks that within 16 months of becoming president he will have been able to complete what he calls his “measured withdrawal” of American combat troops in Iraq.

McCain on the other hand believes that pulling out of Iraq will leave the country in chaos, something America will be responsible for. The two candidates have engaged in a bitter and heated debate on the issue, the most recent development being that the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has voiced preference for Obama’s withdrawal plans.

Despite their differences, the two candidates do share some similarities. Both tout themselves as able to work across party lines, to move beyond the partisan squabbles that have been the hallmark of the Bush years. It is a claim where McCain has more credibility, having a strong track record of bipartisan co-operation, including on campaign finance laws that many within in his own party saw as a betrayal. Obama is no hostage to partisan concerns however, cosponsoring a bill in congress with Republican Senator Tom Coburn aimed at cutting Government Waste and increasing transparency in spending, something that ruffled the feathers of many big spending Democrats. With both men promising to deliver change in Washington, and the race so close, who is likely to win?

At this stage, it’s pretty hard to call, but Sen. Obama does appear to be in a slightly better position.

Rather than a direct voting system like we have in New Zealand, where whoever gets the most votes forms a government, the American system is more splintered, reflecting the belief in separation of powers that is the great strength of American Government. Each state is assigned a set number of what are called Electoral College votes, based on population. For example California, the most populace state, gets 55 electoral votes, while Alaska a far less populated state gets just 3. On polling day, whoever gets the most votes in a state wins its electoral votes. So winning California gets you 55 votes, Alaska nets 3 votes etc. There are a total of 538 electoral votes up for grabs in the election. Of these, who ever can get to 270 votes becomes the president.

This voting system means that it is whoever wins the most states that is important, rather than whoever wins the most votes.

So who is in the better position to win the 270 electoral votes needed?

As it stands, Barack Obama.

The easiest way for John McCain to win in this election is simply to win all the states George Bush won in 2004. Bush won himself 286 electoral votes, and if McCain can stop Obama from turning enough of those states Democrat in 2008, he will win the white house. So McCain would in theory have the easiest road to the presidency, simply needing to convince voters in those states to vote as they did in the last election.

Obama has the much harder task of winning all the states John Kerry won in 2004, while adding an extra 19 Electoral College votes to his haul. If McCain can flip even one of the Kerry states, Obama’s task becomes even harder. If he can flip one that yields a large number of electoral votes, such as Pennsylvania which went to Kerry by a slim margin in 2004, and would yield him 21 extra electoral votes, then the Obama campaign is effectively sunk.

However, current polling from the various states suggest that not only is McCain going to have an almost impossible time flipping Kerry States, he may not even be able to hold onto the Bush states. Of the Bush states that McCain needs to hold, current polling has Obama within striking distance of taking Montana (3 electoral college votes), Colorado (9) New Mexico (10), Florida (27), Ohio (20) as well as closing the gap in traditionally strong Republican states like Texas and Alaska. If Obama were to win Ohio for instance, and a poll from July 21st had Obama up 8 percent in the state, it would be almost impossible for McCain to win. If Obama took Ohio and say, New Mexico then McCain is done. At current polling levels, he is expected to take both.

To offset these possible losses, McCain needs to be able to flip some big Kerry states. Of the Kerry states however only New Mexico and Pennsylvania seem even close to being up for grabs and Obama still has a clear lead in both.

That’s not to say all is lost for McCain however. The Republican Party is known for death defying comebacks, often driven by attacking the weaknesses of their opponents. As a candidate Obama has many weaknesses ripe for attack by the Republicans. With his childhood in Indonesia, his foreign sounding name, controversial statements about guns and religion, as well as a myriad of controversial associates in his past like 60’s wannabe revolutionary William Ayers, Obama lacks appeal to the notoriously patriotic American middle classes. In the primary battle with Hillary Clinton, Obama polled poorly with the so called “Reagan Democrats”, those uneducated middle class whites who traditionally voted Democrat but in recent years have voted Republican due their social conservatism. Obama’s big spending plans will also be a turn off to economically conservative voters, at a time when the American Government faces huge deficits. Obama has the hard task of convincing voters that the government can afford billions of dollars in new spending at a time when it is trillions of dollars in debt.

Most importantly however has been the damage he has done to himself through so called “Flip flops”. In 2004 the Republican Attack machine was able to destroy John Kerry’s image by successfully attacking Kerry over repeated changes in position. The image of Kerry in the mind of voters was of an indecisive weak man unable to lead the world’s only superpower. Obama has run the risk of exposing himself to similar attacks with a number of high profile policy reversals. In 2007 he promised he would opt into America’s public financing campaign, and thus limit himself to an 85 million dollar spending limit, just as John McCain has done. However Obama recently broke his promise, meaning he will have no spending limits in the campaign, but did so at the expense of damaging the voters trust in him.

On top of this Obama voted in favour of a bill granting legal amnesty to any phone company found to have taken part in illegal wire tapping on behalf of the bush administration. This decision was seen as a betrayal by Obama’s liberal supporters, and was seized upon by Republicans as proof that despite his promises of change, Obama is just another politician. A man ready and willing to break promises, lie, and distort the truth to win votes. It remains to be seen if these attacks will damage Obama enough to stop him from winning vital states like Ohio, but they offer hope to Republican supporters that while Obama may be leading, he is not unbeatable.

At this stage however, Obama is the clear front runner. As long as he can avoid disastrous mistakes, or damaging scandals, he looks to be a safe pick to win the elections. However American History is full of Democratic nominees who should win the election, but don’t. Obama just has to hope he can avoid that fate. If he can he will be in a position to make good on the promise so many see in him.