he's a party person
Well I was away, from NZ and from the internet, when the news about the schism between Matt McCarten and the Maori Party broke. It's taken me a while to get up to speed with the goss on it - I've been back since Sunday arvo and it still isn't making much sense despite my numerous sources (none of whom are McCarten himself).
What I do understand:
1. McCarten was working on a second party whilst being Campaign Manager for the Maori Party. The Maori Party wouldn't put up with that. (Interesting that they were fine with him working on their party whilst still being Leader of the Alliance though, isn't it?).
2. Also there were allegations reported in the Herald about one of the nominees to stand as Maori Party candidate against Parekura Horomia having access to a party membership list when none of the other nominees did. This bit is quite confused as the nominee who seemed to have complained to McCarten later forced the Herald to retract most of their story. McCarten left his position with the Maori Party during a conference call the day after the original of the Herald story (prior to retractions) was published. (Of course the article and retraction aren't in the online Herald and as I was out of the country at the time I have only heard about them second hand).
So we have two possible reasons why McCarten left the Maori Party:
A. He preferred to work on the New Party
B. He was caught doing something dodgy in regard to internal party stuff
What I don't understand is what the New Party is. McCarten has a lot of friendly media contacts, and mentions of him in MSM are usually quite positive, and yet his absence has been conspicuous on both the issue of his leaving the Maori Party and the new party. My experience of McCarten was that he loved being a rent-a-quote guy, so the lack of talk is fascinating.
What we know about the New Party:
1. The Herald refers to it as "a new blue-collar political movement likely to contest this year's election" and "the yet-to-be-launched political party Aotearoa New Zealand" and also said that McCarten "said discussions were still being held about the formation of the party but there was a groundswell of support for a party that represented the country's 'growing poor.' " (Note that only the words "growing poor" were in quotation marks in the Herald article - McCarten didn't give any other quotes except those two words.)
2. However Stuff says "the party would represent blue collar workers but supporters had not yet decided if candidates would stand for this year's election." It seems to have had quite a lot of contact with McCarten, including quotes in response to negative comments from Tamihere and Rod Donald, although McCarten has a column with the Herald on Sunday (not the Sunday Star Times competitor that is from the same publishers as Stuff).
3. McCarten has had close links with Socialist Worker (previously known as SWO, they have recently dropped the O) through Unite Auckland City and RAM. Socialist Worker are currently revamping their organisation around their paper which they have renamed Unity (oh the irony) and are intending to turn into a nationwide weekly.
4. As the party hasn't been registered yet it is now ineligible for broadcasting funding as you had to be registered by mid February to qualify - bit of a handicap and one that McCarten will be very aware of.
5. There was an "Aotearoa New Zealand Party" registered in the mid 90s but it has since been crossed off the Electoral Commission register.
Other relevant gossip:
- I have heard that Unite Auckland City had to move offices recently due to low finances, suggesting McCarten doesn't have a steady flow of financial support for his union activities. Seems unlikely in that situation that he could get the readies from his usual backers for a new political party, especially when there are rather a large number of other electoral options for those people. (I also heard that Unite is sharing their new office with the Maori Party!?! The office is in the same building as ASTE and the PPTA)
- McCarten was observed asking old comrades in the Alliance (some current members, some ex-members, not me) about joining an unnamed new party at Bill Anderson's funeral.
- I have also heard the name the Red Party being bandied about in relation to McCarten, some months ago.
- One of my sources asked McCarten's partner Cathy Casey if he was starting a new party and her reply was allegedly "pass".
- Oh and by the way McCarten is in fact still a member of the Alliance, although membership renewals are currently happening so he may not renew. He certainly hasn't resigned to date. His comments in the Stuff article suggest he never actually joined the Maori Party.
So some questions:
Is the new party to be totally McCarten centred, as Bhatnagar suggests?
Will the Maori Party miss his skills, as DPF claims, or be relieved to not have to worry about his internal hustling and expensive tastes?
Why was he unhappy with the Maori Party as an electoral vehicle? It would have been a good chance for him to get back into the big parliamentary expense accounts I would have thought. (oh I know, I'm such a bitch) (and as an aside, why is their policy taking so long to come out? wasn't it supposed to come out in February?)
Does the New Party have anything to do with the late Bill Anderson's party SPA (Socialist Party of Aotearoa)? Allegedly they have some dosh. But they are not registered with the Electoral Commission.
Is there in fact a New Party at all? Perhaps he was pushed from the Maori Party before he was quite ready to jump? Is McCarten simply a serial party hopper, as Sagey proclaims? Except this time he missed the waka...
The Green Party is looking for an Auckland Campaign Manager - is this where McCarten will pop up next? (My sources say definitely not) Especially as Rod Donald said on Stuff:"Having been one of the main protagonists in the Alliance split with Jim
Anderton, and then going off and helping establish the Maori Party at a time
he was leader of the remnants of the Alliance Party, and now deserting the
Maori Party to form this party he's not going to engender a lot of
confidence on the part of voters that he's got stickability."
All very interesting. Comments or fresh goss much appreciated.
7 comments:
At this stage of the election year, McCarten is better to wait until the election passes, and then start working over the disaffected left to commence a new party.
Running a party now, without electoral commission funding or time to establish a brand would simply kill any infant party before it had any time to grow.
If I was McCarten (and I assure you, I'm very pleased not to be) I would wait until the day after the election, and then set about to establish a brand which could become a party. McCarten has a brand already called "UNITE" - I don't see why he doesn't foster his trade union into a wider organisation with political interests, to eventually become a party if that's what he wants.
I agree actually - that is exactly the kind of thing he would do as he has now run out of time.
The annoying thing is that actually he could have done this after the last election (in fact he said he was going to but never did) - rallied the left around the Alliance and rebuilt it for 2005.
I'm not a marketing whiz, but now that the Alliance brand has been defeated and moribund for 3 years, it's over as a political brand. I suspect that if the far left want to rebuild, they will have to do so by ditching the Alliance (and psychologically the allegiances to this brand) in order to successfully build a new one.
However, the factionlised nature of the hard left (and it's ability to publicly argue, as compared to the right's ability to patch over such difference publicly) suggests that the hard left may have some difficulty in doing so.
so all that attack stuff on National by Act recently, and vice versa, did you forget all that? not to mention the Libz...
Oh come now - our internal disputes don't destroy our parties. We have our leadership challenges, and move on. You have to admit that nothing National or ACT have had internally could even compare to how the Alliance operated as it split apart in 2001/2002.
As for the Libz, I personally don't see them as a serious political party - maybe a serious political thinktank or "movement", but not a party.
Aaron, as for splits within the right:
http://spanblather.blogspot.com/2005/05/with-flower-in-their-hair.html
Hah - I don't think you seem to realise that ACT are pleased to see the back of Paul King and his two friends from ChCh! It's not what I call a split - more like three thirtysomethings having a tantrum over list ranking or internal party results. If you think that several hundred ACT members are going to follow Paul King to the "Freedom Party" you are very much mistaken!
Post a Comment