Further thoughts on the Setchell Affair

Last week I posted about David Benson Pope, Madeliene Setchell and conflicts of interest. I've now had the unique experience of having Kiwiblog commenters praise me for my principled approach* and being castigated in my own comments section by some people I respect (yes, including you Craig R) for not being principled about DBP, not being a feminist unionist about Setchell, and generally not supporting the political neutrality of the public service.

All of this has given me pause. I've already added my additional thoughts about DBP to the comment thread on my original post, but suffice to say the revelations of the last week have reinforced my opinion that he had to go, and I'm very relieved he has.

My thinking about Setchell's employment has evolved a bit since I posted last week. I've been pondering whether there would have been a perceived or actual conflict of interest if the employment issues had been the other way around; if Setchell already had the MfE job and Taylor was applying to be John Key's chief presser. Resoundingly the answer has to be no, but I'm not sure it's entirely because of gender. It would be to National's advantage to have a press sec with a connection high up in the MfE and so they wouldn't want to veto Taylor's appointment from that point of view. If the MfE had concerns about Setchell at that point it would be interesting to see how they would raise them in a legally appropriate way. All of this is of course totally hypothetical.

But something Craig wrote struck a particular nerve within me. I had commented that I was often judged on the political activity of my partner, and that I had hated it, and Craig thought this made my view of the Setchell Affair even worse. This has got me thinking - how has that judgement I sometimes face manifested, and does it make Setchell a fellow traveller to me?

I've been political since long before I met my partner - we were in different parties when we met and we've managed to negotiate the collapse of the coalition between our two parties in 2002 without much stress between us. We share things and we trust each other, and although there have been times each of us could have used something shared between us to the political advantage of our own party that hasn't happened once. Perhaps the example of own parents has stood us in good sted - in both cases our fathers are right-wing and our mothers from longtime Labour families, and yet both marriages are still strong after over twenty-five years together.

The main problems for me have been that people assume I am in the same party as my partner, and that I hold the same views as them (oddly by "them" I mean the person doing the assuming usually, not necessarily my partner). This is mainly an irritant because it means that people ring Nickname Pending up to ask about various things and when he's not here they are disappointed (and occassionally angry) that I a) don't know the answer and b) am not instantly enthusiastic about whatever they want to talk about.

The times that the assumption goes above the level of irritation are mainly to do with blogging. Accusations that I am writing something here for spin purposes, or because my partner told me to, or that I am arguing with someone else on another blog for those same reasons, rather than thinking (and writing) for myself drive me batty. Even when I was on the Alliance National Council and wrote about Alliance things here it was never been at the behest of someone else or to put out the party line. When my partner had a blog** I did comment on it, but not to be sycophantic - at times I disagreed with him. I did stand up to bullying I saw happening on his blog, as I have on Jordan's, and Tony's, and the blogs of others. I do this because I don't like bullying (aka trolling), and I find it at times amusing to take the piss out of those who bully, not because I am particularly passionately wounded on the target's behalf but more because I like to think I can be witty from time to time.

But I do tend to hide my partner's name and political affiliation under a bushel when it comes to my work, and this is where Setchell and I may have more in common than I had first imagined.

My colleagues all know Nickname Pending, but I won't be sharing his political activities with the union members I represent anytime soon. Not because I think it will get me in trouble with them, I hasten to add. I don't tell them about my affiliations either, and although my real identity is reasonably widely known amongst blogging circles I use a pseudonym here and I've stopped writing letters to the editor, because I would hate to think that a member felt they couldn't seek help because they found my political views, or that of my partner, distasteful.

When it's a matter of politics at work then my official view, to members and others, will be that of my employer, not mine. I've walked that fine line before, when I was on the AUSA Exec and opposed the lowering of the drinking age - it was AUSA policy to support it***, and it was my portfolio which had to do the talking, and I did it, no problem at all. I guess ultimately I prefer the delegate model, rather than the trustee approach, to political representation.

So was it unreasonable, given my personal experience, to think Setchell shouldn't have got the MfE job in the first place? I'm less decided than I was. When I reflect on how my partner and I manage to share political gossip and information without too many problems I can't help thinking that it isn't so hard because we are broadly on the same side. In 2002, when our shared computer was full of emails with strategy information from one party, and I was on the Campaign Committee of the other, I was pressured, once, to provide some inside info to my party. I demurred and that was respected.

But that was over a short period of time, and neither of us was employed by our opposing organisations. Could we do that, could anyone do that - balance along that tight-rope, particularly if they were political people, for months or years, and potentially act against the interests of their employer by not sharing what they knew? I hope so, for the sake of our public service and for the sake of those many people who have a political partner, whether they are political themselves or not. In the Setchell case the jobs are particularly sensitive - chief press sec for the Opposition Leader and communications officer for a key Ministry.****

Where have I meandered to with all this? On the one hand I still think it is politically naive to not see that there is a genuine potential for conflict of interest in the Setchell case*****. The perception is almost as bad as the reality, from my point of view - I don't think I would even apply for a job that would mean muttering behind hands everytime I walked past, or workmates withholding information from me for fear of who I might share it with.

On the other hand I do think our public service should be neutral, and thus the political affiliations of public servants, or their families, should be irrelevant to most appointments. And I certainly know what it is like to have your partner's politics thrust in your face, and unfair assumptions made. I also know that it is something women are more likely to face than men - to the best of my knowledge Nickname Pending has never had anyone even consider that my political affiliations or activities would have any bearing on him. Each man is an island, it seems.

On balance I think I may have changed my mind. Ultimately I know it is possible to operate a relationship across political lines, albeit difficult at times. Sadly the fact that many other people don't know that seems to be the main barrier to success.


*Assumedly only on DBP, as I disagreed with DPF on the issue of Setchell's conflict of interest.
** Which he started well after Spanblather began, but that didn't stop many people from assuming that my blog's purpose was to back him up. Little woman indeed.
*** I now support the current age too, by the way.
**** In the past MfE wouldn't have been all that important really, but with the competition over policy on climate change that is no longer the case.
***** I didn't get a chance to read all of Matt McCarten's column on this in the HoS, but the fact that he thinks Setchell shouldn't have got the job has made me wonder what McCarten really thought when I was on the Alliance Council and Executive, let alone the Campaign Committee.

Now this is partisan blogging

The Alliance Party of New Zealand, of which I am a lazy member, has rejuvenated their website and it now operates like a blog, with comments allowed (and indeed encouraged) on most pages.

You may wish to check it out, or indeed add it to your feeds.

Some proper lefties to froth at, for those who feel Labour bloggers are merely providing empty calories for their nasty gnashers. My word, how many more metaphors could I possibly mix in that sentence!

Field of Dreams

So Taito Field's days on the Red Team are over. Surely this must be the beginning of the end game regarding the Mangere electorate?

Others (see below) have already written good stuff, but I wanted to add a little bit more to the blog debate about his options from here.

To start with, I don't think he's going to join the Maori Party. It's pretty clear to me that the visit from Pita Sharples and Tariana Turia was about being nice, not being teammates. Sharples made it pretty clear on Nat Rad that he'd done the same thing for (Labour MP) David Parker when he was in the schizen, and there was certainly no suggestion of Parker being invited into the wharenui. Sharples made the point that if Field was to join the Maori Party the invite would have to come from the Party itself, not the co-leaders. That seems pretty unlikely I would think.

Another option that has been thrown around is the Family Rights Protection Party (or whatever it is called, sorry I can't remember exactly). What little I know about this party is based on the fact that they turned up to a City Vision meeting a few years back. I recognised at least one of the key people speaking for the FRPP that night - I knew her from a distance when she was one of the leaders of the Alliance's Pasifika wing back before the 2002 split. They were very loyal to Matt Robson and left with Jim Anderton, but the one thing I remember very strongly about this woman was that she was supposed to have been on a 20/20 documentary (or was it 60 Minutes? nevermind). The doco was about violence towards children, and there was allegedly some pretty damning footage of her engaging in said activity. Could well be she's changed, could well be it was made out to be something it wasn't, could well be that they aren't really extant anymore and Field wouldn't go there anyway. I'm just sayin' is all.

Now that Field is an independent I think that makes it a bit more likely that he will seek re-election (assuming he isn't convicted of course). Mangere could become a bitter place in 2008, as we have seen in the past when MPs have split from their parties and still run in the same seat. Having been rather up close and personal during the Alliance split in 2002, I know that there may already be a lot of fractured friendships within Mangere's LEC*. Just wait until the heat of an actual election campaign to see things really meltdown, if Field runs again.

What will Field need to succeed in Mangere as an independent?

1. No charges by the police (or no conviction plus a certain amount of vindication), and;
2. Money to mount a campaign, and;
3. Volunteers to run that campaign, and;
4. Something he can promise the locals, something that could compete with the promises of a Labour candidate who would potentially be part of the Government, and;
5. A weak Labour candidate, particularly someone lacking vital links to the local community.

I don't see Labour making the mistake necessary to deliver 5. Su'a William Sio has already been mentioned by many bloggers and journos. He's not that far off being an MP in this term (two more List MP resignations and he is in) and he's currently on the Manukau City Council. He's an obvious pick, but I'm sure there are others waiting in the wings as well. For a start there are several List MPs who could run there with a certain amount of cred, possibly Shane Jones or Dave Hereora.

It would be an uphill battle for Field to win again, and Labour will fight hard to avoid relinquishing a previously safe seat. But at the same time this is the last thing the Labour party machine needs to win another term on the Treasury benches - a desperate fight in South Auckland, sucking up media, effort and money.

And so to the last option that I don't think anyone else has canvassed (?). Field could resign (soon or next year) and not seek re-election. He could simply say "flag this for a game of soldiers I'm going back to Samoa (after all, the tiling on my house is exceptional), why bother with this malarky?"

From what we know of him to date this doesn't seem the logical outcome. But you never know, politics isn't like war - in politics you can get killed more than once.**

Related links:

Maramatanga has a good post on Field, looking at his options (he has now picked to go it alone as an independent.)

Carl at SMSD expresses the sentiment shared by many on the Left (including within Labour).

Idiot/Savant covers Field's decision to go his own way, and is scathing about the Maori Party co-leaders' visit.

(Feel free to add a link to your own post on this in comments)

Update, 19th Feb 1.35pm: Maramatanga has written a further post on the Field situation, including the (outside) possibility of Destiny joining the fray...

* Labour Electorate Committee for those not in on the lingo.

** Bonus points to anyone who can name the telly series I've cannibalised this from.

Looking back in langour

It's the time of year for navel-gazing and introspection. And using redundant words to pad out posts in the hope of looking like there's something new to read.

I quite like the meme Maia has picked up, of posting the first sentence of the first post you wrote each month, to give a summary of your year's blogging. Here's her 2006 effort, and here's mine, all run together to see if they make some kind of decent paragraphs:

I never used to make New Year's Resolutions, but in the last few years I've found them a useful way to give myself a bit of a kick in the arse. For work, for a few days. There's a song by this woman called Jill Sobule, titled "Bitter."

Yes this blog is still in hibernation. I've recently had the good fortune
to be in Europe, specifically Spain, for two major events on the European
competitive calendar - the European Cup* and the Eurovision Song Contest. Yes
I'm still on my travels, currently in Salisbury wrestling with a foreign
computer and blogger doing strange things.

Over at Alas, Rachel S has posted eloquently about how young feminist bloggers need to be more aware of issues for older women. This post has been about eighteen months in the making.

As no doubt every person who has ever read this blog (except ferringers of
course) already knows, the MP for Mangere has been stood down on full pay* while the police investigate various allegations and complaints. Any spare online time I have at the moment is dedicated to a) clearing the spam backlog on my Xtra account(gee I love their spam filter - after only 4 days away for work I had 12MB of spam waiting for me); and, b) afixing labels to the over 600 posts on this blog.

Well the problem is that I'm not really. I've been thinking a great deal of
late about the culture of martyrdom in political movements and organisations,
particularly on the Left.

Well that didn't make much sense. Still, serves its purpose as padding quite admirably methinks.

If Spanblather had a theme this year it seemed to be rape. Bit heavy, I know. But that's where my thinking was at and there were quite a few additional posts about rape that I started but never published. It was all a weird bit of synchronicity that now makes sense to me, although of course it won't to you (nor should it).

However the post I consider my best of 2006 was in fact about pregnancy (despite it's Queen/Bowie-esque title), Under Pressure. It also received the most comments from readers (53), with second place in the comment-stakes going to Is the Young Nats a sexist 0rganisation? (38), just nudging out No vision (Happy 90th to Labour Part II) by 2.

2006 was also the year I discovered (somewhat belatedly) the wonder that is Firefly, and also blogged rather indulgently on the matter of the new Doctor Who. Posts about both of these subjects, and others, can be found in the Sci-fi category. Gosh I love those new labels.

There have been a few periods of breaks, hiatuses, and general states of feeling totally over blogging. More recently though, I decided to make this blog a bit more positive, for myself as the writer, by peppering it with snaps that I rather like. Hopefully this new approach will help me to make it through to the third anniversary of Spanblather in June 2007.

Elsewhere various political bloggers have made their political reviews of 2006 (if I've missed yours feel free to add it in comments), as have many many newspaper columnists and editors. The general consensus seems to be that young English has done better than many expected. Me, I'm still gleefully singing the Toast song. I know I should move on, and really I have, but it's just so damn catchy! Who would have thought, at the beginning of 2006, that Brash* would have been through so much, and ended up with so little. Certainly not me.

I've been frustrated with Labour this year.** They haven't front-footed enough, they've let National make too much of the running. It occurred to me recently that although Hager acted independently of Labour, some people on the red team must have known what was coming, in general if not in specific. So why the big strategic mistake over the election spending issue? If I could make a New Year's resolution for Clark and Cullen it would be "more humility please."

The Greens have been holding up well, poll-wise, despite a lower profile since the loss of Rod Donald. While part of this will be down to climate change becoming the issue of the moment, I think it also highlights two trends a) Labour not doing the left-thing enough, and b) the Greens are seen as a legitimate part of our political establishment now and no longer an unsafe vote. Winston has been away so much it seems unlikely NZ First can re-establish itself in Tauranga (and indeed they haven't been showing any intention to). Act has had a weird year - while Rodney has a high profile the party itself doesn't - and both United Future and the Progressives have continued to appear to be defined wholly and solely (or should that be soully?) by Dunne and Anderton. The Maori Party continues to be politically odd, but Pita Sharples has definitely been awarded his media wrangling badge (although I'm in two minds about the merit of that). And the Alliance got a new President, lost an old one, and seems to have something of a new lease of life if the spandangly website is anything to go by.

One of the coming tests in 2007 will surely be the Maori Party's Foreshore and Seabed Bill, if drawn. While we all know what Labour will do, the intentions of other parties, in particular National, are somewhat opaque at this time. Will Key et al decide to back repeal, although it could mean many legitimate iwi court cases, with outcomes National's heartland supporters are bound to dislike? If I were Key I'd be flooding that Private Members' Ballot with National MP bills to lower the chances I have to make that call any time soon.

Overall I hope that 2007 does not continue the negative politics that came to dominate this year. Quite simply I don't think it's good for democracy, and it certainly isn't good for the Left, because it switches people off - from voting, from participating in democracy, from using and protecting the power they have in our society. At the end of every year I hope the next 52.14 weeks will see more people realise how important our democracy is, and how crucial their personal involvement is for this system to succeed. 2006 has definitely been a step backwards on that long journey.

*Does anyone else remember when Simon Power was the new-MP-most-likely-to-be-National-Leader, before John Key was the new-MP-most-likely-to-be-National-Leader? Or was that all a figment of my imagination? ** Okay, I'm frustrated with Labour every year.

Can Labour be left again?

Recently I wrote about the current political vehicles for those of the Left persuasion as part of my eagerness to work out some kind of political future for myself and others with similar political concerns and predilections. Today I want to address Jordan's post responding from a Labour activist's point of view.*

Jordan outlines what he sees as Labour's Third Way solution to the problem, and asks three specific questions of people like myself:

• What campaigning methods and communication styles do you think would develop public support for more progressive politics?
• What key policy planks would you propose to distinguish yourselves from the moderate left?
• How would you interact with the moderate left? A conciliatory or a hostile approach?

As the comments on his post are (unfortunately and typically) dominated by those not of the left-wing persuasion**, I'm responding here.

Campaign methods - a wide range of methods could be employed, to reflect the different ways that people engage in politics. Some are happy to go to a public meeting, others to sign a petition, many just want some information and to read the various arguments; there are of course many more techniques, tactics and strategies too. But what frustrates me about the current approach is that it seems Labour only properly campaigns, in a way that involves the public and doesn't just deliver the Good News from on high, when it isn't in government. This attitude needs to change. I know that when the Alliance was in government the grassroots activists were often pushing to campaign on this or that piece of legislation to put across the arguments and vitalise public support, but the leadership wasn't keen, they had Other Ways of delivering (which tended to fail). The Civil Unions Act is the one piece of legislation I can think of that Labour has treated in a campaign way, and of course that was a conscience vote and Labour itself maintained some distance.

One key part of successful campaigns is timing. You can't just strike up a campaign a month before the vote is on in the House and expect the public to fall in behind. A media statement is not going to create a groundswell. It's necessary to genuinely engage with actual people over a length of time - polling can only deliver so much, as countless election results have shown.

Another vital component is people - I have to say I'd find the Labour party a damn sight more attractive option for my active involvement if I knew that I'd be able to really campaign on issues I care about.

As for key policy planks, I'd see a commitment to a number of things as crucial.

• Publicly provided, funded and controlled education - from early childhood to tertiary
• Publicly provided, funded and controlled health - including primary healthcare and preventative strategies (eg Quitline, Plunket).
• A social welfare system based on justice and fairness, and recognising the genuine levels of need of different people. Not just seeing those reliant on a benefit as worthless non-worker ants who are grudgingly given a subsistence level income. I think Working For Families has been a valuable step here, but so much more needs to be done.
• Recognition of the Treaty commitments our nation is bound by and a meaningful ongoing education programme for all New Zealanders to overcome the misunderstandings and ignorance of the past.
• Brave, forward-thinking, stances in the areas of gender, sexuality and racial equality - the PaEE audits are a good start and the Civil Union Act was a triumph.
• A fair taxation system which is truly progressive, not truncated as our current structure is. We should turn our thinking on its head - raise the tax we need to fund the vision we have for our country, not limit our policies in an inevitable race to the bottom on the tax issue.

I'm not saying all of these things would have to happen overnight (and in fact I suspect I could come up with a longer list if I thought about it for a bit longer) - but a commitment, and the framework of a plan (a vision even!) to progress towards these stated end-goals would seem a minimum to me (even if the fruition of these plans is a decade or more away). It's also part of being honest with the electorate. By stating these things clearly and openly then voters can make an informed choice, can weigh up how long things might take with the possible plan for the meantime, and also parties can't rely on voters crediting them with a vision they don't actually hold because they never go into detail.

I think Jordan knows me well enough to know that for the most part I am personally reasonably concilliatory towards the moderate left. Actually I consider myself to be just to the left of moderate left, although of course that's all a matter of subjective judgement. However I acknowledge that there is a level of hostility, including at times from me. For me, and possibly others, it rises out of frustration over the vision thing, which I've written about before (probably more than once).

There is also, I feel, a certain arrogance around some in Labour, that they are the One True Left of Centre Party and the rest of us should just Grow Up, Get Mortgages and Get Real. I've received a fair bit of nastiness from people who have assumed for various reasons that I am in Labour and are then Very Very Disappointed to find out I'm not. It's the sin of hubris, and it pushes people away and makes them wary of working together. I think some of it comes out of a deep defensiveness many Labour activists feel about the Fourth Labour Government (particularly the older ones). Perhaps there needs to be some process of reconciliation before we can get past these barriers?

I don't know if acknowledging all that history counts as hostility. Maybe it does. But I think it's fair to say that the hostility isn't necessarily just from my corner of the playground...

So how do we move forward from here? I called this post "Can Labour be left again?" because I was thinking about how welcome these ideas and thoughts would genuinely be in Labour. Perhaps some of the Labour bloggers and commenters out there (many of whom I consider friends in all of this) would care to share their thoughts?


* I'd also like to post in the near future responding to Sanctuary's thought-provoking comment on my Whither the (parliamentary) Left post, but that will have to wait until I have more time I'm afraid.
** My perception is that rather than debating the issues on Jordan's blog, these commenters are instead looking for an opportunity to rip Jordan limb from limb as the local representative of Labour who they can take their hate out on without risking repurcussions for themselves.

Whither the (parliamentary) Left?

When I got back from my travels and back to blogging I said that one of the things I wanted to focus on more was the future of the NZ left, in particular in regard to the parliamentary path.

Since then I've written twice about my doubts about Labour, in particular about the lack of vision the party seems to have. No Right Turn and Just Left have also contributed to this debate, along of course with many valuable commenters. But recently we've all been a bit more focused on other matters. I'd like to get back to this subject because I really want to find a way forward for myself and possibly for others.

There are many non-parliamentary, non-party outlets (& inlets) for those interested in changing NZ for the lefter. But few hold the attractions that a political party does, as I am searching for a vehicle that not only covers a spectrum of issues but also has a structure that invites real member involvement in decision-making.

Let's look at the current options, party-wise. Since I last looked at them things have changed significantly, in terms of Rod Donald's death, the growth of the Maori Party, the election result and all the fall-out from that, the continued decline of the Alliance, etc.

In Parliament:

• Labour - Pros: the biggest cab on the rank, with the most resources, highest profile, and the biggest political impact. The core of all future left-of-centre governments of the foreseeable future. Cons: quite simply, not left enough now and difficult to shift to the left in the medium term. No clear successor to Helen Clark who is on the left of the party, suspicion abounds after the 4th Labour Govt, plus hasn't treated other left parties well in the past.
• Greens - Pros: politically the most left in Parliament in many areas, both in policy and in action. Some key left activists already members, eg Sue Bradford, Keith Locke. Structure-wise probably easier to get involved in than Labour. Has 5% plus following so likely to be safely in Parliament in medium term. Cons: environmental issues are priority and significant proportion of membership more Blue-Green than Red-Green (although National's shifts in this area might change that) or just Green-green.
• Progressives - Pros: Small and possibly easy to get involved in. Cons: Jim Anderton, ambitions to be the party for small business, socially conservative in some areas eg marijuana, abortion, reliant on Anderton's seat so medium term future gloomy, policy-wise and media-wise not seen as separate from Labour. Quite old-fashioned left.
• Maori Party - Pros: Tariana Turia hates Labour and thus maintains distance, new growing party with different approach to politics in some ways. Cons: Turia hates Labour and thus often motivated by this in a destructive way (eg how she cast her votes in the last Parliament). Focused on Maori, so appropriateness of tau iwi left being involved is questionable? Not clear whether they are left-of-centre as have little policy and seem to decide voting pattern bill by bill and even MP by MP(eg 90 Day Bill).

Outside Parliament:

• Alliance - Pros: existing brand, mostly good left policies, some key activists with track record amongst left and valuable experience. Cons: Spent force? History. Profile members have left and media ignore those who remain. Few resources and possible struggle to maintain registration.
• Workers Party - Pros: novelty factor, should have good left policy. Cons: likely to be seen as revolutionary and thus too fringe, some activists are not known as good at playing with others, no resources, no registration yet.
• Socialist Workers et al - all small groups that have not succeeded in the past, and many don't actively seek votes.

Is there a possibility for a new vehicle, a new parliamentary party? There are many old players who I suspect it will be necessary to get back in the same tent again, eg Laila Harre, Jill Ovens. Many of the personal rifts that grew amongst some of those activists in the 1990s and early 2000s seem to be healing, but the deeper rift between those that left Labour in the late 1980s and those who stayed seems unresolvable for a large number.

I'm not sure that the Alliance can be the party to bring everyone back together and to enthuse and attract new people. I doubt that any of the existing parliamentary parties will work either, or it would have already happened. The only way I can see that changing is a major personnel change in Parliament, for example if Laila Harre got the vacant co-leader spot in the Greens when Jeanette Fitzsimmons goes (possibly for the 2008 election).*

Then there's the money problem. As the current funding system works there is effectively nothing for those outside parliament. Labour has signalled they may look at state funding of some sort, but the public would be highly cynical about such a move given events in recent months, and it would be a very unpopular move. Even if there was a system it would be highly skewed towards the major parties, which I think is unfair (but I've ranted about that before). Finding big pocket backers is not so hard for those on the right, but on the left it's all pensioners sparing you $1 a week off their pension and the odd union giving you $10,000 at election time if they haven't spent it all on Labour already.

But the biggest hurdle of all to a new party is really the 5% threshold. It effectively holds new left parties out, meaning the only possibilities are:

• Capture a seat - best done by seducing an existing MP away from another party (Labour probably), or building around someone who leaves of their own accord (as the Maori Party did). But then you become beholden to them and many with a past in the Alliance would be wary of going down that road again.
• Plug away for years and years on the outside pouring in resources (no taxpayer funding except for a small amount of broadcasting money every three years) and asking people to commit to possibly wasting their votes for several elections before success. Risky in the extreme, and likely to churn through a remarkable number of activists. Parties outside Parliament end up playing electoral catch 22 at the business end of the cycle, particulary with the media and thus with the public. It's a frustrating game to play and activists and members will only do it for so long before they look elsewhere.

All in all, it's not looking all that hot for some magical new left party to fall out of the sky and fulfill all my dreams. Or even give me something to get excited about and work tirelessly for.

Comments and thoughts please.**

* The rumour does NOT start here. I'm just speculating and have no inside info whatsoever.
**Obviously those on topic will be more appreciated than comments that merely seek to attack the left, lefties or left wing parties.

union myths - #2 all unionists want to be Rick Barker

The second in an irregular series; another step forward on my ongoing quest to bust some union myths that the Right seem to like to wallow in from time to time.

Union Myth #2 - All unionists want to grow up to be Labour MPs

Look, we just don't.

I know oodles of trade unionists, from all sorts of unions, and I know very very few who actually want to be Labour MPs. (Seriously, I can think of about four, which includes people I don't know personally, and one person who is extremely unlikely to become an MP but desperately wants to. Oh, and there's this guy).

Having said that, being a unionist is probably quite a lot like being an MP - long hours, (some)people think you're a lazy arse even though you're not, fleeting gratitude when you achieve a good result for someone, abuse from the unsaveable (even when you miraculously save them), people hearing you say what they wanted you to say rather than what you actually said, others who tell you that your sick child is less important than listening to them whine, working really hard for a long time to succeed and feeling great about it when it happens but then having to move on to the next battle almost immediately, having people occasionally look up to you and give you some respect, etc etc ad nauseum.

All up being a unionist, paid or unpaid, is an iceberg job - the bit that's visible to the outside world is but a teeny tiny part of the whole.

Of course there are many unionists who would be heinously insulted to know that most of the Right blogosphere, from my experience, thinks they are Labour hacks (to be fair I've heard people on the Left say this too). Yes we are labour, but with a small l please.

Take for example those on the Alliance party list, which was saturated with unionists, both paid and unpaid. And Luci Highfield, who might have been a Green MP this week with a whole heap of good luck. Not to mention all those other radicals who do their day (and night) jobs and fit union work into their spare time, all the while realising the inadequacies of capitalism and hoping for a revolution.

Frankly I don't ever want to be a Labour MP (or even an MP for another party, really). I like union work. It's hard but it's rewarding, and you can actually see yourself making a difference to someone - because you listened to them and helped them at a bad time in their life, because you helped them to learn how to organise their workmates to make a positive change, because you pulled up a boss who bullied and thought nothing of breaking the law to get what they wanted; for a million other reasons too.

Why on earth would anyone want to give that up to move to the toxic environment of Parliament and twiddle their thumbs on the Labour backbench?

Link:
- union myths #1 - compulsory membership

money meet mouth

Just a quick post as I'm off to Welly for a week in the morn (yep, I'm secretly one of the new National MPs ;-) ).

I'm after suggestions, so put on your thinking caps. I've been frequently told by those who mean the Left well that what the Alliance (or any similar party of the Left) really needs is to win an electorate seat. But whenever I ask which seat they think would be a Goodie there is puzzled silence followed quickly by a neat segue into another topic.

So here we go, so that no one can ignore it:

Which electorate seat(s) should a Left party (the Alliance or another) target to win in 2008?

I'd be particularly keen for suggestions, anonymous or not, from Labour people, as they are the ones who most commonly tell me this and yet I don't see them rushing to turn over any of their electorates.

Thanks dearies - I'll try to post from Wellywood, or at least respond to comments.

reflections on the Alliance vote

Yep it's tiny. Calling for a magnifying glass, a la Helen Clark when confronted with a g-stringed David Cassidy, would not be out of the question ;-)

I'm perversely glad that we only got 1500-odd votes. Despite the fact that I voted Alliance*, I have no problem with other Alliance supporters voting Green or Labour in such a tight race. It's nice to be able to hold my head up when meeting those people who had a go at me about the Alliance running, claiming that it would bring about a National Govt. If Labour can't work out a loose coalition (small c) I'd be surprised, and while that may not mean a lot of improvements over the next three years it will at least mean that things don't get a whole heap worse.

The Alliance has a lot to be proud of in this campaign - a year ago I did not think we would be in a state in 2005 to be able to produce and put up hoardings nationwide, produce and deliver over 100,000 tabloids, and have enough candidates to put up a decent sized list. The feedback we have had from ordinary people has been heartening - although it's quite understandable that the positive comments weren't backed up by votes. I'm particularly impressed by the reception of Victor Billot in Dunedin North, and Jill Ovens in working class areas of Auckland.

Ultimately, I'm not disappointed and I'm not surprised. We were outside Parliament on Sept 16th and we're still outside Parliament on Sept 19th, and I'm quite comfortable about that.

Obviously we'll be making some decisions over the next couple of months about the future of the party - we come out of this election knowing that we can still run a low-level national campaign, with next to no money and despite basically all of the bad things that can possibly happen to a political party happening to the Alliance in the last four years (with the possible exception of a Capill or Huata moment). I'm not sure where that discussion will go, and I'm going in to it undecided. I'll be thinking about a lot of the useful conversations had on here, and elsewhere, about (re)building a Left party in NZ, and I'm sure I'll be posting more about it in the next week or so too.

Thanks to those who did vote for the Alliance, and thanks to those who support us but didn't. Here's hoping we can put in a better showing in 2008, for whatever Left party grows from this result!


*with my Party Vote - i ended up voting for the Progressive candidate with the electorate tick, as there was no Green or Alliance candidate and i couldn't bring myself to vote for Phil Goff.

a little loose conversation - calling Epsom for Hide

I'm probably making a big call, but a 1,500 majority with over 40% counted, I'm calling if for Hide. I'd really really like to be wrong. Remember Worth had a 6000 majority in 2002.

But it's still looking like Hide will only be able to bring in 2 max MPs. Down from 7% to 1.8% in three years, is a big fall. It's Alliance 2002 all over again, except on the Right, and winning the electorate seat.

where was i?

Election Day Delay Post. Originally finished at 1.19pm.

The election days I recall properly:

1993 - too young to vote, but very very interested. Had a crush on a boy who was going to vote National for reasons which escape me. He was also a punk (complete with mohawk), a vegetarian, and verging on violently opposed to vivisection. But he did have nice eyes.

1996 - my first year of full-on political activism. Fresh from a 9 day occupation of the UOA Registry, I proudly cast my first election votes leftward at my old Primary School, then went to a party with fellow student activists in Grey Lynn. I remember that we had at some point in the campaign stolen several boxes of Act propaganda (copies of Prebble's first book, left behind after an Act stall in the quad). We burnt these out the back with great gusto. It was very exciting for me, to have worked so hard on the student campaign and then watch the results with my comrades. Of course we didn't know on the night that Winston would go with National, and we were all thrilled, except for one Deborah Manning (Pollard as she was then) whose enjoyment was dented by the fact that close family friend Chris Carter lots his seat and thus her mum lost her job as his electorate secretary.

1999 - by now I felt like an old hand, with four years of campaigning under my belt. Besides the student campaign I'd also helped out the Epsom Alliance candidate, Mark O'Brien, who I knew from AUSA. On the night a small group of AUSAers flitted between the Alliance do at Tradeshall and a friend's 21st out in Glen Innes - she was mightily pissed when Shipley announced the election date, as most of her milestone birthdays had been marred by coinciding with election night. Although she was a leftie much of her family wasn't. There were screens at the 21st with the results, off to the side, but no sound. Incredibly frustrating.

2002 - my first time as a candidate, and of course a crucial election for the Alliance. I was quite ill at the time and had exacerbated this by having a car crash the day before the election date was announced. This meant I was stuck in Howick for most of the campaign, a long way from my friends and family, feeling crap and in pain from the accident. I tried to do what I could in Waitakere and on the Alliance's party vote campaign, mostly electronically. On election night I feared I wouldn't be able to stand the emotional rollercoaster of the Alliance event out in Waitakere, so I spent it with my family on the North Shore. This turned out to be a mistake - as the night went on I discovered that EVERY SINGLE MEMBER of my immediate family had cast at least one of their votes for United. I valiantly managed not to say "I told you so" in the following weeks as they found out what they had voted for.

2005 - Well today I'm pottering around the house, cleaning up the inevitable mess from having both members of the household up to their ears in election stuff. There is literally a mountain of laundry, and papers scattered all over the four rooms we use the most. I've been unwell again throughout this campaign, so tonight I am staying in and having a few friends around to watch the results. I'll distract myself for the rest of the day with tidying and cooking nibbles for them all to consume, and if I get time I'll try to work out how to hook the laptop up to Jetstream in the lounge so we don't have to go back and forth to the spare room for the PC. I'm off to vote as soon as I've finished this, but to be honest this is the most surreal election day I've ever experienced. I feel like either the last nine months hasn't happened, or they happened years ago. I'm looking forward to having proper spare time again, and an end to the rows in the staffroom at work, not to mention quality time with The Man In The Comfy Chair. But I feel oddly removed from the whole event, like it is happening to someone else's country. Perhaps it's best I feel that way for a while yet.

PS: And just as I was finishing this post off, going back and bolding bits, the phone rang. It was Graham from Phil Goff's office just reminding me to vote. I think I may have falsely given him the impression I would be voting for his boss - he said seeing my occupation on the list he was sure I would be voting the right way and I replied with a cheery yes. Oops.

the post i wasn't going to write

I have been thinking long and hard about where to put my party tick tomorrow.

I have listened to a lot of arguments about why I should vote Green, but ultimately it has been
the problem i have with my electorate vote which has convinced me to vote Alliance.

I live in a very safe Labour seat - Mt Roskill, held by one Philip Goff, the man who introduced student fees. Of course I cannot vote for him (despite someone I know threatening to throw herself and a chair through a second-storey window when I told her this).

So who the hell do I tick for my candidate vote? I can't work it out, as there is no one on the ballot I believe in, even remotely.

And it would be the same if the Alliance was not there under party vote. I have in fact been bullied about this (by a "leftie" who, ironically, refuses to vote for Richard Worth in Epsom because she can't bring herself to) by being told, repeatedly, that I shouldn't get out of bed tomorrow. I reminded her that having a Labour Government is no guarantee of having a Left Government, look at 1984, and received a very icy stare for my efforts.

Why the hell shouldn't I vote for a party I believe in - this may be my last chance to do so. In fact if everyone voted for something they believed in, instead of always thinking tactically and about short-term personal gain, then I suspect the minor parties would do much much better, and the majors would have to buck up their acts.

If a Labour-led Government is not re-elected, or the Greens don't make the threshold, the blame is not actually the Alliance's. There is a long list of reasons they may fail, but the fact that 1% (or less) vote for us is not at the top of the list, not even close to it. It's also worth pointing out that it's likely there will be a great deal more wasted vote to the right than the left - probably Act, potentially NZ First, definitely Christian Heritage, Destiny and others.

I frankly can't feel much sympathy for a Labour party which has routinely made big stuff ups in this campaign, in fact going right back to Orewa I. I do feel for the Labour members on the ground, as there has been a failure at leadership level - the mechanics of their campaign have been awesome to behold, but they have been let down by the media work, in particular, of their leaders.

I talked to Keith Locke on Tuesday night, at a candidate debate. I went up to be friendly (building bridges and all that) and told him if I could bring myself to not vote Alliance I would be voting Green. He then proceeded not to accept that graciously but to insult my intelligence by trying the usual arguments about why you shouldn't vote for a party not already in Parliament. This served to tick me off rather than drive me to tick.

I know what voting Alliance means - it means that in the narrow world of Parliamentary politics my vote is deemed to be a "waste". But in the bigger world of the left, the bigger world of the movement for social justice, it is a little sign waving in the wind that says "I want a real left party in NZ and I'm prepared to work on building one."

I have genuinely been wavering on this for several weeks. I can understand that other Alliance supporters will vote Green, or even Labour, because they too have gone through their own decision-making process. I respect that and wish them the best and hope to see them at the upcoming regional conferences to decide our next move.

But ultimately I am voting with my heart and my mind - all too often in life we are given a list of choices, none of which is really what we want, and we choose the lesser of many evils, as I will be doing with my candidate vote. This election I have a chance to vote for a party I believe in and I am going to take that and hold it tight - it may be my last opportunity for many elections to come.

the law change i suspect all campaigners would agree on

There is one small aberration in NZ which annoys everyone it affects. Many Kiwis already comply with a sensible approach without the need for legislation, however those who do not require some mild corrective action, and I think that all my readers who have ever encountered this annoyance will agree wholeheartedly, from ACA to LibZ.

I have walked up hill and down dale in recent weeks delivering the excellent Alliance tabloid to many households in Auckland, and while I enjoy the exercise and the chance to just walk around listening to my walkman for hours and hours, there is one small veruca-like part of the whole experience.

Dear readers I am referring, of course, to letterboxes.

My fellow deliverers will know exactly what I am talking about - it is the letterbox with the hole that is too small, the letterbox that is up a small muddy hill above the pavement, or way down a driveway, or stuffed so full that it cannot take another piece of glorious electoral information, no matter how thin.

(I recall vividly Pauline Gardiner waxing lyrically on this very subject in the documentary about the Wellington Central campaign in 1996, Campaign. I remember nodding violently at this point of the film, and thinking what a sensible woman she could be when she really applied herself to the big issues.)

People of NZ address your letterboxes!! If this is not done voluntarily and universally I feel that I shall one day be forced to vote for a fascist party who promise to rectify this heinous irritation through harsh legislation involving whips, chains and compulsory model letterboxes which shall be placed no more than 50 cm from the intersection of driveway/path and pavement.

Please I beg you, letterbox owners of NZ, act now, before it is too late. Because every letterbox deliverer could one day grow up and become the politician who Fixed Our Letterboxes.

a tale of two debates - part I

This week I've been a good citizen by attending two Pakuranga candidate meetings, to listen to some and support others.

Monday's debate was at St Mark's, a Catholic church. The chairing and format were well done, although the set questions were a bit repetitive - I noticed that the Christian party candidates repeated themselves quite a bit in their answers. Instead of opening up questions to the floor you were able to submit written questions beforehand, which was a good way to keep the question-asking short and snappy - truly questions not statements! It was a big crowd, although not a huge room, and people were pretty well behaved.

Quite a diverse bunch of candidates - Pita Paraone (NZ First), Bronwyn Yates (Maori Party), David Jesze (Destiny), Michael Wood (Labour), Jill Ovens (Alliance), Judith Collins (National, replacing local MP Maurice Williamson), Irene Bentley (Greens), Ewen McQueen (Christian Heritage), Meng Ly (Progressive), Bronny Jacobsen (Act) and Ian McInnes (United). Apologies to any candidates whose names I have inadvertently mangled.

Interesting moments included Ewen McQueen mentioning child abuse (which made me very glad I was in the crowd, not there as a candidate, as I cracked up). Ian McInnes proclaimed that abortion was the second biggest sin in NZ after not accepting Christ into your life, and Bronny Jacobsen, from the Liberal Party, surprised me by opposing a woman's right to choose.

I was very interested to see Judith Collins' performance, as I had always had the impression that she was quite snarky. I had hoped she would be a bit less prickly in a friendly electorate, but alas she was still very abrasive. In particular she failed to talk about any policy except tax and totally refused to answer a foreign policy question about whether she supported Helen Clark on Iraq or Don Brash and the USA. She pretty much lost her rag at this query, and even after other candidates answered sat sulkily with her arms crossed.

Judith made the ah, interesting claim that she had heard from married couples who have decided to split up purely because it is financially advantageous to them. I have to suggest that your relationship may have other problems if you are actually doing the numbers on this. She really was very slick at avoiding answers but playing attack dog instead - I didn't even realise until after the debate that she didn't actually say where she stood on abortion, just talked about her defeated Care of Children Amendment Bill. Frankly I think this was an odd strategy from Collins, given that it was a pretty friendly audience for her.

Candidates were looking quite tired. Although of course I'm biased, I felt that the better speakers (in terms of style, not content) were Jill Ovens, Michael Wood, Ewen McQueen and Judith Collins. Pita Paraone has a booming voice, but is not that good at communicating - plus one of the candidates told me afterwards that he just read from the NZ First policy book for virtually everything - disappointing from an MP. Wood had a good line on National's tax cuts - constantly referring to it as the "$92 a week for MPs tax cut" which went down well as most people, regardless of political persuasion, don't seem to like the idea of MPs getting more money.

A few other observations:
- the friend who went to the debate with me (thanks S!) found David Jesze, who is number 2 on Destiny's list, reminded him far too much of Dr Strangelove to take seriously
- most of the leftish candidates talked about actual people as examples, which was a good way to connect
- Destiny apparently want every article/tv news piece/radio broadcast to be prefaced by the political affiliations of all of those involved in its production.
- Collins made a couple of quite wacky policy corrections when queried. Firstly that the 90 day grievance free period will only be if both employer and employee agree - why would any employee agree to that if they didn't have to? Secondly that the accommodation supplement for those in state houses would be topped up to cover the market rentals - why not just have income related rents and save admin money?? Thirdly National want to abolish the Maori seats because MMP has given Maori more representation, but they still want to have a referendum on whether we should keep MMP - so what if they abolished the Maori seats (without referendum) and then changed back to FPP? I don't know if these policies are accurate, as so little detail has been released by National.

All in all I thought it was a very well organised and illuminating debate. With the exception of National and the Maori Party there was a lot of policy information given, as well as everyone talking about the vision thing a lot too, which always gives good insights into the general nature of a party IMHO.

Part II now up.

Update: Labour candidate Michael Wood's version of events is here.

Update the Second: Howick and Pakuranga Times report on this debate is there.

a bit more blog analysis

DPF has broken down the numbers of blogs by political party affiliation, but here's a bit more detail, as the list stands today:

Christian parties - 1
Destiny NZ - 1

Right parties - 25
Act - 16
National - 7
Libz - 2

Centre-Right parties - 4
NZ First - 1
United Future - 3

Centre-Left parties - 8
Labour - 7
Progs -1

Left parties - 9
Alliance - 4
CWG - 2
Greens - 3

Which leads to:
Right of centre (affiliated) - 30 blogs (64%)
Left of centre (affiliated) - 17 blogs (36%)

Of course there are no doubt many blogs I have missed out, but as I'm not omniscient you are just going to have to accept my failings or add missed blogs in comments (and many thanks to those who did on the original post listing affiliations).

Just to clarify again, the bloggers I have counted as affiliated are those who have declared for one particular party, which is why some group blogs are listed under more than one party (different bloggers within the same blog supporting different parties, which is generally an Act and National phenomenon).

And this analysis totally ignores the unaffiliated blogs, and both No Right Turn and Public Address are giants amongst the left blogosphere, so it is a bit misleading to just say that ROC blogs outnumber LOC blogs by roughly 2 to 1.

Update: Have added two more Greens affiliated blogs to the original post, thanks resistantsoy, so there are 5 Greens, making 19 LOC now. Meaning LOC affiliated blogs are up three points to 39% (as at 29th August). Another Update: After further reflection Phil U has been removed from the Green list (becoming unaffiliated), meaning LOC affiliated blogs down now to 18, which is 37%.

probably not toeing the party line, but anyway...

Following on from my post from Way Back about blogs by students' association affiliation (past or present), here is my breakdown by political party affiliation - including supporters as well as actual outted members.

Please do tell me if I have anyone wrongly pigeon-holed, or have missed anyone out. Seat and/or list ranking in brackets for those who are candidates:

Act
Andrew Falloon - (no. 34 on list)
Asian Invasion - Cathy Odgers - supporter, not sure if member
Clint Heine - member
Hidesight - Rodney Hide, Party Leader (Epsom, no. 1 on list)
KiwiPundit - Nigel Kearney (no. 50 on list)
Lawyer in Sin - Sean is a member
No Turning Left - MikeE, member
On the Right - Mike Heine (Nelson, no. 35 on list)
Rob's Mob - Scott Clune (no. 31 on list)
Silent Running - Bruce, Murray and David identify as "Act/National"
Sir Humphrey's - Gooner is a member, Zen Tiger is a supporter (and also posts on Zen State)
Stanley Climbfall - supporter, not sure if a member
Walking the Right Path - Jono Newton is an active member and also posts at NZ Paradigm and Dollars, No Sense

Alliance
Joe Hendren - (no. 15 on list)
Victor Billot - (Dunedin North, no. 8 on list)
Chris Ford - (Dunedin South, no. 12 on list)
spanblather - member and candidate

Communist Workers' Group
Reading the Maps - Scott is a member
Red Rave - CWG blog

Destiny NZ
Kea Blog - supporter

Greens
Bloggreen Aotearoa - Kakariki, member
Frogblog - official Greens blog
Last Straw - Christiaan Briggs
resistant soy - member

Jim Anderton's Progressive
Prog Blog - supporter, probably also a member
SubversNZ - Paul has a pic of his membership card in a post

Labour
About Town - Tristan, Xavier, Paul and Kate are all Labour members, not sure about the others Just Left - Jordan Carter, National Council rep and Hobbs' campaign manager in Welly Central
Bertrand Bargolias - Michael Wood (Pakuranga, no. 58 on list)
Commander in Chief - Jeremy Greenbrook, member?
Philosophically Made - Stephen and Oliver are active Young Labour members
Ranting on the ROK - Stef, member
Tim Barnett - Current MP (Christchurch Central, not on the list?!)

Libertarianz
Julian Pistorius - Deputy Leader (Northland, no. 2 on list)
Not PC - Peter Cresswell (no. 5 on list)

National
Aaron Bhatnagar - involved in Jackie Blue's Mt Roskill campaign
Adam Hamilton - not official, group blog from enthusiastic Nats
I Hate Socialism - Gary and Ashley are both members
Kiwiblog - David Farrar, Blumsky's campaign manager in Welly Central
NZ Pundit - Craig at least is an out and proud Nat
Silent Running - as for Act
Sir Humphrey's - Adolf is pure National

NZ First
First Against the Wall - jarrod reckons he's a pity supporter, but i think it's a Friends Like These situation ;-)

United Future
Fiona McKenzie - (Wellington Central, no. 19 on list)
NZ Futurist - Robin Gunston (Mana)
United for a Better Future - Terry's a supporter


Currently I'm not aware of any NZ First or Maori Party bloggers but (and you won't see me write this often) I'm eager to be proven wrong! Also anyone aware of any other party member/supporter bloggers, eg Democrats for Social Credit, please let me know in comments.

Update the First: thanks to I/S and AF for tips regarding Rob's Mob (Act) and Kea Blog (Destiny NZ). Keep them coming! Also fixed a couple of layout mistakes (oops).

Update the Second: thanks to those in comments who have provided more tips regarding Libz, UF, Act and National bloggers. Just to clarify, the list is of members who are out, and also those who have said they are supporters of a particular party.

Update the Third: added Jono, Zen Tiger, Clint, Sean and fixed Fiona. Please note that this is a list of blogs who support one particular party, either by membership or as a supporter, rather than being any kind of history of people's leanings or inclinations. Any more additions please add them to the comments - also any more mistakes that are spotted - I am at work today but will fix them when I can.

Update the Fourth: added Silent Running - thanks for the email Bruce - and made a few updates to where some people were running (electorates and list spots). Thanks also to everyone who has linked to this post, it is certainly getting the hits up, which is always shamefully gratifying ;-)

Update the Fifth: removed Mellie, added CWG blogs and FATW (although i'm not sure he's the kind of supporter Winston would want...)

Update the Sixth: added Stanley. Also see this post for a bit of analysis of the above list.

Update the Seventh: added in Last Straw and Phil U, as instructed rs ;-)

Update the Eighth: removed Phil U again

Update the Ninth: added SubversNZ (thanks to D for the tipoff)

playing electoral catch 22

The Alliance was in Parliament, in one form or another, from Jim Anderton's by-election win in 1989. It left Parliament at the last election, involuntarily, and now it is trying to get back in. Regular readers will know that I am a card-carrying member of the Alliance, and quite keen to see it back in the hallowed halls some time soon. I am realistic enough to know that a resurgence at this election is unlikely, but I would like us to rebuild seriously for 2008.

But here comes the Catch 22 in all of this - it seems if you aren't already in Parliament you cannot get (back) in.

You can't get invites to debates. If you hear about a debate and ask for an invite you are generally told, in varying degrees of politeness, "not today thanks, we're Parliamentary Only round here."

You can't get coverage in the media, except when they choose to poke the Borax at those outside Parliament. The Alliance usually gets slightly more complimentary coverage, as do other parties who once were in the House, like Social Credit and the Democrats. But no matter how many media statements you put out very few are picked up, in fact in the Herald next to none have been picked up (I understand there has been a bit more coverage in The Press and The ODT).

You certainly can't get onto the TV debates. No way, no how. You could promise to do all sorts of pleasurable things to the hosts, their producers, even their dogs, and there is no way - the Parliamentary Only sign goes up every time.

Incidentally it doesn't seem to matter how Parliamentary you are - for example, the Alliance consistently polls around the same, or above, the Progressives, but while the door is thrown wide for Mr Anderton (sometimes with some courtly assistance), Ms Ovens and Mr Piesse (our co-leaders) must stand outside in the cold.

Not only is this anti-democratic, it also favours the Right. It seems to me that the only way for a party not already in Parliament to break in is to have a lot of dosh. If you have enough money to buy yourself coverage (paid billboards, as opposed to just hoardings; full time media officers working on the campaign, as opposed to people trying to fit it into their spare time; copious print ads, you get the idea) you could stand a chance of thus creating some free media coverage too. But otherwise you are stuffed.

The Alliance is actually doing pretty well, all things considered. We have billboards up in a lot of areas, we are churning out a few media statements a week on our policies (of which we have a full range, as opposed to some parties I have previously raved on and on about), we have selected all our candidates and our list (cf NZ First who I hear do not have a Welly Central candidate selected yet), we have a strong history of involvement in the political processes of NZ, not just nationally but also in local government in several cities.

If we can't break through what chance do any of the other parties outside Parliament have?

is Rodders contesting Epsom or not?

Talk about your mixed messages - a colleague lives in Epsom and the only Act stuff she's had through the letterbox recently emphasises the party vote and says they don't want electorate votes. And then driving around the electorate, the only billboards I have seen for Act were strictly Party Vote focused.

I don't read Rodney's blog these days, having been driven off by the abusive manner of the commenters. But I have noticed on many of the hopeful Act on Campus blogs the authors are still putting Mr Hide up very strongly for Epsom. Yet the campaigning in the area to date doesn't seem to reflect that. And I don't mean reflect that he will win it, but just that he is seriously contesting the electorate itself.

Add to this the fact that Rodders has a website asking for the electorate vote but was recently in the media for paid billboard ads which had "Candidate Vote National, Party Vote Act" on them. On the TV3 Leaders' Debate on Thursday Mr Hide was Party Vote all the way. Even when Winston cracked that he could probably work with Rodney but he wasn't going to be there, Hide didn't retort with Epsom. He could have said "the voters of Epsom don't think so Winston", but he just took it.

As a veteran of Waitakere 2002, I find all this behaviour very strange. Three years ago the Alliance at times compromised our party vote campaign to try to win that crucial seat, knowing that it was really our only chance of survival. I would have expected Act to do the same, although perhaps having learnt some lessons from our failure. But if they are putting a "Vote Hide for Epsom" message out there it must be very targeted indeed, and possibly not even to the majority of Epsom voters...

the perfect gift for the blogger who has everything

This auction on Trademe (I should clarify that I am not the seller).

I cannot guarantee that Mr Anderton wrote his recipe himself - anyone remember the cricket cartoon?

But I can tell you that Kevin Campbell's Beehive Leek Soup is tremendous.

Labour ain't labour

There seems to be this view amongst some on the right that the Labour Party equals the labour movement - that unions and Labour are exactly the same and that there are union tentacles controlling the inner levers of the party (and thus the Government) at every level. Case in point, Tim Barclay's comments calling for unions to be banned over at Just Left, starting with the democratic ejection of the Labour Party from Parliament.

If you check the page of the Labour website that refers to their union affiliates, you find the following:

The New Zealand Labour Party was formed in 1916 on the basis of broad industrial
support. That support continues today and trade union interests and issues
are represented in the Party through the Affiliates Council.

Labour may have had "broad industrial support" when it was formed, but today only three unions are affiliated to it; the Service and Food Workers' Union (SFWU), the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union (EPMU), and the Dairy Workers' Union (DWU).

If you check the CTU website you will see that there are in fact a great number of unions, not to mention those who are not affiliated to the CTU, certainly many more than three.

Yes there are a lot of unionists, members and officials, who are involved in Labour. There are also many Labour MPs who have come through unions to the seats they now hold. It is quite natural I think that people who are left of centre (even if that's not very left) should be involved in their unions - I imagine any polling done that asked people whether they were union members would show most who are vote leftish.

Although the Labour hierarchy has a lot of links to the union movement, I would argue that Labour has not in fact been the best party for labour in recent decades. The Alliance in particular has had much more worker friendly policies (eg four weeks annual leave before the Progs poached it), and in fact it was the hard work of Alliance MPs that resulted in many of the union-friendly provisions in the Employment Relations Act. Laila Harre fought hard for an amendment on sub-contractors which Labour voted down, only to include a version of it later on, in the Employment Relations Amendment Act, when they could clearly take credit for it.

The reality is that union membership, at the flax roots, are not hard arsed Labour people, or their unions would be affiliated. Many are quite sceptical about Labour, and may vote for them quite grudgingly. At election time most unions who do give political donations will not restrict themselves to Labour, but share themselves around a bit to parties they like the look of. But don't be fooled, there is a great deal more money for political donations coming from corporates than from unions, even to the left parties.

Union dosh is pretty small potatoes.