No policy please, we're National

So let me get this straight, John Key's policy announcements since his ascension are:

• A (privately-donated) muesli bar in every school lunch box
• Back To The Workhouses Work For The Dole (maybe, not sure yet; I don't know, what do you think; I'm sure it worked last time!)
• National hearts John Howard (oh wait, that's not a policy, that's a Tory love-fest)
• The Maori seats gone at some point in the foreseeable future (possibly put off if National needs the Maori Party to get those Beehive offices)
• A slight increase to donation tax rebates for the rich (which Labour are going to do anyway*)

Is that it? Have I missed any?

My word, I just don't know how Helen Clark is going to counter these astonishing new policy ideas. Key is certainly setting a cracking pace!

Perhaps his Education spokesperson, Katherine Rich, might even have an early childhood education policy some time before the end of the decade, so that she can refer to it when being interviewed about how pants she thinks the Government's is. Because sooner or later some journalist is going to ask the question - What would National do - and not let her off the hook with a "we'll have a policy by the end of the year" as Sean Plunkett did on RNZ National earlier this week.**

What happened to all those policies they had at the last election? Did they just forget about them? Now that's not very sustainable. My recollection of party policy processes is that the policy remains until it is replaced by something new. If it is really embarassing you might say that it is currently X but under review. Certainly the major Opposition party should have current policy on current issues.

After all, if 10 Labour MPs defected to United Future tomorrow then Key could be Prime Minister by lunchtime, and then what would his Government be doing if they have already shown all the old policies the door and robustly asserted that those ideas shall never darken their threshold again?

I suspect National's new policy will be remarkably similar to what Don Brash's leadership produced, it just hasn't been re-branded yet. After all, it takes a lot of scrubbing to get that Exclusive Bretheren smell out.***

* The current Government has also foreshadowed that they are likely to allow those who do voluntary work to claim some of it back under the donation rebate scheme too.

** Ok so it's only Tuesday which means it must have been yesterday. But I'm not a hundy sure. Sorry about that. And at least Plunkett asked the frakking question.

*** Yes this is an unusually grumpy post. Blame it on the lack of sleep and chalk it up to experience. Either that or a subconscious desire to inflame my readers into an orgy of commenting that will result in the spontaneous combustion of many of my most reviled foes. Who can tell?

A few surprises in the Labour caucus

Both Jordan Carter and DPF have posted on the Fran O'Sullivan column about Labour renewal on their list, and what kind of people O'Sullivan wants to see Labour select and/or promote.

This has provoked some contest in comments about the current make-up of the Labour list, and the National list for that matter, and whether either meet O'Sullivan's call for:

... Business people, successful entrepreneurs, military men, scientists, accountants, farmers, diplomats and even a few lawyers, a Tim Finn or a Sam Neill to revitalise my [Helen Clark's] Government.

O'Sullivan herself notes a few people who actually do fit her list who are already in the Labour caucus or likely to enter it, including Shane Jones and Stuart Nash, and says that the party currently has amongst its MPs:

More than half of the caucus have been either trade union secretaries or union
activists at some stage of their careers. Or they were teachers, lecturers, community workers and nurses.

The caucus boasts a couple of lawyers, a farmer and some with business experience but they are in a clear minority.

First up, what is actually wrong with being a teacher, lecturer, community worker or nurse? Or a union activist*? Many NZers are, and in public votes on the most respected professions teachers and nurses are generally right up there. Certainly they would have more contact with a broader range of us everyday Kiwis than your average merchant banker.

Then there's the second bit I've quoted, the current makeup of the Labour caucus. Now I've had a quick gander at the Labour bios on the Parliamentary website and actually the MPs can tick more of O'Sullivan boxes than I thought, from a perusal of their former careers. A lot of the bios are clearly incomplete, but still I came up with the below:

Poultry farmer - Chris Carter
Partner in one of the big law firms - Charles Chauvel
Business management experience - Clayton Cosgrove
Diplomat, management consultant (latter is according to Stef, in comments, added 25th Jan) - David Cunliffe
Another lawyer - Lianne Dalziel
Soldier AND lawyer - Russell Fairbrother
Possible accountant ("Computer accounts, Treasury") - Phillip Field (oh the irony)
Company director - Martin Gallagher
Retailer ("Fruit and vegetable shop") - Pete Hodgson
Shearer and farm overseer - Parekura Horomia
CEO of a local Enterprise Board - Annette King
Business person AND dairy farmer - Damien O'Connor
Lawyer, manager and director, "worked in agri-biotechnology field" - David Parker
Finance Officer in the banking sector - Jill Pettis
Business management experience, including being a Fellow of the NZIM - Ross Robertson
Air Force service, tourism operator - Dover Samuels
Restaurant owner and manager - Judith Tizard
Another lawyer and legal academic (clarified in response to comments, 25th Jan) - Margaret Wilson

So I make that**:

• 10 business people (hard to define what counts and what doesn't, of course)
• 2 "military men"
• 1 possible scientist (Parker)
• 2 possible accountants (Field and Pettis)
• 2 farmers and 1 farm overseer (O'Sullivan said Labour's caucus had "a farmer")
• 1 diplomat
• 5 lawyers (O'Sullivan said there are "a couple" now and that the party needed "a few")

It seems to me that O'Sullivan's point is that Labour doesn't have enough owners. It doesn't have enough people who represent capital, rather than labour (note small l). I believe Labour does need serious renewal, but imho Labour is too favourable to the owners already.

I challenge O'Sullivan to have a butcher's at the diversity in National's caucus with a similarly critical eye, and see just how representative John Key's party is.



* Many who were union activists did it concurrently with work in other areas, which is the reality for most uniony people.
** Clearly some of the Labour caucus have done more than one of the things on O'Sullivan's list, so the bullet points would add up funny. Successful entrepreneurs I have no idea about, as I can't get that kind of information from the bios. Oh, and Jim Anderton, leader of the Progressives, but secretly a Labour MP in disguise, was a business person (managing director of 2 businesses according to his bio) - I'm sure someone told me once that he used to own a factory that made shopping trolleys, amongst other things.

An Nouncements

Well it's been a few days since I last posted, but I just don't feel like there's much political to write about, and I can only go so far with memes and self-indulgent photo posts.

Jordan's indicated that he too feels there is Not Much going on*, but that "there'll be an announcement, soon."

So I've decided to make up some political news upon which to blog. Some announcements I'd like to hear, no less:

A Veritable Tsunami of Funding For Public Services - Clark and Cullen announce (in dubious taste) the Labour-led Government's grand plans to pump meaningful injections into the budgets of schools, universities, polytechnics, hospitals, and other public institutions.

Bush: "We Will Fight Them On The Beaches" - George W finally admits that climate change is a) real and b) not so good, and decides to launch a comprehensive War on Carbon Emissions, starting with fuel efficiency standards in line with China.

Real Issues About National's Conduct - The Herald's editorial reversing their naive dismissal of the concerns raised in The Hollow Men, and signalling the beginning of their own media campaign to root out and expose corrupt behaviour in all political parties.

International Year of Being Nice To Each Other Begins Well - Headline of article covering the launch of 2007 as International YoBNtEO, for politicians, bloggers, and all the people of the world. Blogs across the nation suddenly seem bereft of trollish comments and senseless barbs, while politicians agree that actually there's quite a bit they can develop across party lines without compromising their principles, so let's stop slagging each other in public.

Ok, that's enough to be going on with then.

* Although I'd note that Jordan has managed to write several posts since his Not Much, which suggests that there is more going on than perhaps he initially thought! I however am not motivated enough to write about climate change or Fiji (especially when No Right Turn has been doing such a sterling job).**
**Can I still call it a digression when it's at the end of the post?

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.

We won't get fooled again?

A funny thing happened on the way to being in Government (or not). It seems that National have forgotten that their party has internal policy processes.

Since John Key's elevation to the leadership he's made a number of announcements and references indicating a significant policy shift. This creates some confusion for back-room boffins like myself, when Key makes speeches indicating a move away from Don Brash-era policies like a timeframe for abolishing the Maori seats, focusing on the issue of climate change (which Key and other leading figures considered questionable not that long ago), not to mention endorsing a nuclear-free New Zealand. Did National squeeze in some remit voting between Brash stepping down and Key opening his mouth?

Now please don't think I don't want National to talk policy. I definitely do - not only so that voters can see what National would do in power, but also because I think it's an important part of democracy that the Opposition not only criticise but also put forward alternatives.

But in the wake of The Hollow Men and the insight that gave into National's policy processes prior to the 2005 election, you'd think Key would be trying to distance himself from the perception that National are more Decepticonz than neocons. By changing policy himself, by media statement and speech-making, he is signalling that National is still a party which will change policy not via it's own, long-standing democratic processes, but to suit political whims.

I'm also a little perturbed by National's approach to industrial relations, which Jordan has already blogged about, as has the gossip. Key has said that they wouldn't shift away from the ERA as the key piece of legislation, however continuing to endorse Wayne Mapp's 90 day probation legislation suggests that National would still want to make some radical changes to employment law. Simply saying that they'd keep the ERA isn't honest enough if they intend to gut it or pass other legislation that nullifies much of it.

So is it a case of meet the new boss, same as the old boss?

Those pesky unionists

Recently I heard Don Brash defending the sources of his (former) party's political funding by saying that Labour had funding from (shock, horror) unionists!*

I know, this is pretty stunning news, and we all await the best-selling expose book with glee. (Suggestions for the title welcome in comments.)

But there is rather a big difference between the kind of secretive business funding that Idiot/Savant has summed up well today, and the donations unions give to Labour (and other centre-left political parties).

1. Unions are run by their membership through democratic structures, meaning the people who fund unions (members) say how those funds are spent. This extends to donations to political parties for election spending. Union's financial statements are published and easily accessed.

2. Everyone knows unions give money to Labour. In fact many people assume that all unions give a great deal more to Labour than they actually do.** In particular Kiwiblog commenters.

3. Unions do not publicly distance themselves from their donations through anonymity or trusts. The donations are instead publicly declared.

None of these three points apply to all businesses who give donations. I'm sure there are many who do it above board, but Hager's book is purported to show evidence that there are some notable exceptions. And that is Not Good for our democracy.

I'd also note that the kind of returns for investment that Idiot/Savant is talking about in his post, for business donations, aren't really available to unions. A union could not make hundreds of millions of dollars from a change in Government policy, unless that policy remained unchanged for a considerable period of time. And that extra money wouldn't come directly from tax-payer funds, unlike the sort of business advantages I/S details.

Right, now that I've nipped that one in the bud I'm off to bash a tennis ball repeatedly against a wall. Yay!



* In the interview I heard, which I think was on Nat Rad, and definitely pre-dated his resignation, Brash actually said "unionists and communists" fund Labour. I find the communist accusation so funny - I hear that God loves a trier.
** And in fact, to the best of my knowledge public sector unions (who have the most dosh) don't give money to political parties at all.

National-related natterings

Regretfully I was away from keys for several days recently. Luckily Danyl Mclaughlan wasn't. He's read The Hollow Men already and has his initial impressions up on Public Address.

While who will be the new National leader is of some interest to me, it seems Key is almost inevitable. I've long wanted to see the return of English, not because I think he'd be bad for National (if that was my motivation then I'd say bring it on, Judith Collins), but because I think he's one of the few National MPs who could actually do the job. Key, like Brash, has a lack of experience. As time goes on fewer and fewer National MPs have ever been in Cabinet. I think it's important, for our democratic process, that the other candidate in the Prime Ministerial stakes has a range of political experience, beyond being a relatively new MP. Brash didn't and it showed. In this regard, Key is in the same category as the man he wishes to succeed.

For the sake of showing unity and stability, National really needs the leadership to be uncontested. For this reason English may decide to forgo an attempt, unless he knows he has the numbers. For every National leader since Bolger it has felt like there was a clear successor always waiting in the wings - someone we all knew by name and face long before the knife went in. You can hardly say the same of Labour in the last decade, and it has been a definite strength for the centre-left, long accused of division.

The Deputy Leadership will possibly be more interesting though. I've heard media commentary that Brownlee has done a deal to sew it up for himself, and Russell Brown has blogged that, but since then there has been speculation that English may win the spot. Collins has also indicated she'll be in, and there are rumours about Katherine Rich too. Again, lack of contest would be a good sign to the public that National can provide a viable and secure alternative Cabinet, but it seems unlikely.**

But perhaps the aspect of this that fascinates me the most is what will happen to Brash now, an element STC has also been musing on. Given his age, and the damage that politics so far has wrecked on both his personal and professional lives, Brash may be set to stand down, bringing Katrina Shanks in on the list (the one advantage I guess of having a leader without an electorate). How will a new leader reshuffle portfolios to show some change to the public, assert their authority, reward their friends, safe-guard against their enemies, and also deal with Brash in a way seen as fair (from many different angles)? Speculation in the Herald yesterday (offline) was that English might be brought back into Finance and Brash thus given education (shudder) or economic development.

Whatever happens it will be interesting to watch how it unfolds, when it unfolds, and whether National's poll ratings hold up. I suspect that poll-wise any damage to National will mean voters either switch off in disgust or attach to United, Act or NZ First instead, rather than heading to Labour. If Labour's percentage stays stable, or improves slightly, it could well still end up ahead of National if the Tories shed enough.

We're still a long way from the ballot box anyway, but if Labour could end the year ahead that will be a psychological advantage.***

* Not least because I'd like to know what to name the new category I'll now need

** In general I think contested elections, in any environment, are A Good Thing, as they show the health (or otherwise) of democracy within an organisation. But in terms of The Game, electoral contests can be more wounding than winning.

*** And put the new National leader on the back foot. Key/English must be a bit miffed at the timing - I'm sure any leadership hopefuls would have wanted Brash to carry the poll drop that was likely to come out of The Hollow Men and other recent troubles (and a slightly resurgent Labour), rather than presiding over it themselves.

Brash's short memory

Campbell Live tonight showed media questioning of Don Brash as part of today's frenzy (which I've already blogged about) and included Brash denying that National had done anything unlawful before the 2005 election.

Instead the National Leader claimed that we all knew Labour was the only party who did anything unlawful.

This is despite the fact that actually all parties in Parliament, except the Progressives, were tarred in the Auditor General's report on unlawful election spending. Yes Labour was the worst, but hardly the "only".

It also flies in the face of National's admission that they didn't pay the GST on their broadcasting spending.

Not to mention Brash's misleading statements over his relationship with the Exclusive Brethren. I note that he further repeated tonight on telly that he didn't know about the Exclusive Brethren's pamphlets ahead of time, which contradicts his statements prior to the last election on bfm.

This reinvention of history is frustrating. Somehow Brash, and by extension his party, seem to think that if they just repeat something enough we will believe them.

Regrettably I suspect they may be right.

Toast

So who else was riveted to the spot, listening to Mary Wilson on Checkpoint this arvo interviewing first Nicky Hager and second Don Brash, about Hager's injucted new book, modestly titled The Hollow Men: A Study in the Politics of Deception.

Ye gads.

I even began to warble my special Toast song, usually reserved for the walk to the staff room from my office every morning to turn my Vogels bread into toast with jam for breakfast. Somehow melodically singing "toasty toasty toasty, toast toasty toast toast toast" seemed appropriate to the occasion, not just for Brash but also for John Key.* Oh I do so like toast.

Hager's claims seem to be, from what I've read and heard so far:

- Brash, Key and Steven Joyce (National's campaign manager for the 2005 election) had medium-term associations with the Exclusive Brethren, with regular contact from at least May of 2005, not August as Brash has previously claimed (and indeed continued to claim tonight on Checkpoint). All three were "explictly and totally" aware of the EB's pamphlet campaign, is what Hager said on the wireless tonight.

- That the policy intentions of the National leadership differed significantly from the published and promoted policy of party

- Widespread Exclusive Brethren donations directly to individual MPs, as part of the association with the EB that National leadership were aware of

- National's strong links to neo-conservatives in the USA, including input to their 2005 campaign from both American and Australian soucres

- Dodgy dealings in terms of industry lobby groups and National's big donors

Now some of this stuff is by no means illegal (and nor should it be). But the bigger issue will be how National portrayed themselves publicly and how they responded to specific questions about these issues. Brash has already been caught over the Exclusive Brethren once before. How he can possibly continue to say to the media, and I heard him say it to Mary Wilson today, that he has never misled the NZ public is completely beyond me. (And I'm a little frustrated he doesn't get called on it more often by journalists, but anyway.)

It's important to note that Hager didn't seem to be saying that this book is based solely, or even wholly on the stolen emails. What I understood from listening to the interview was that some of the research involved emails, given to Hager by National sources, and for this reason he is concerned that the book breaches the injunction. Hager made it clear that he's been researching this book since after Brash's first Orewa speech, which significantly predates the stolen email saga, and that he has done a great deal of research apart from reading and analysing emails, such as looking at other internal correspondence and conducting interviews with National party sources. Hager's clear message was that it had come from National insiders, and that all source material had been returned to the person providing it already.

This is all fitting rather too well with Jordan's past point about Brash believing in a "moral obligation to lie." Idiot/Savant has pointed out umpteen examples of this and has written about this new development twice already today, on both the hypocrisy of Brash's action in seeking the injuction when National uses leaks frequently (lots of great links in the comments), and Brash's defence that publishing the emails will invade the privacy of others. Bomber over at Tumeke has Marilyn Waring's forward to The Hollow Men, as well as linking to the Herald article covering Hager's situation which clearly states "the majority of the book was based on documents other than Dr Brash's emails."

DPF has already posted once with the announcement that Hagar has a book "based primarily on the Brash emails" (which doesn't seem to be the case) and posted again using Russell Brown quotes about Hagar, in relation to Corngate, to try to discredit him.** Spin spin spin. Jeremy, who describes Hagar as "a low-grade sensationalist writer" speculates a little on what may be in these emails that is so damaging.

Well it will be interesting to see what happens next. As Brash got his interim injunction in a John and Jane Doe order the judge was not able to consider arguments against the injunction. But now that Hagar is on the case, it will be interesting to see how the interim injunction holds up, especially as Hagar claims the book doesn't cover Brash's private life.

Update, 8.02am 22nd Nov: David Slack has some other books possibly caught by the injunction. My favourite is Tze Ming's.


* Rumour within the Beltway has said for some time that Key was strongly implicated in the EB scandal last year, and that there was email proof in the stolen emails. I bet Bill English is smiling on the inside right about now.
** Good luck with that - Corngate reminds us all that Hager is hardly a Labour hack, and RB has commented on No Right Turn already as follows:
"I was critical of the way Nicky Hager sprang his Corngate documents. I didn't think the possibility of an injunction was real enough to justify the way he acted. I think Don Brash has now vindicated that action, and I'll be saying so in the blog tomorrow."

Is Brash out on his own?

I'm starting to wonder if Don Brash is operating without safety nets at the moment - according to Matthew Hooton on Nat Rad (and I saw him make similar comments on Breakfast last week) Brash has isolated himself from traditional advisors, including other National MPs. The Herald's business gossip column on Monday this week indicated that Bryan Sinclair was no longer giving Brash the benefit of his wisdom either.

Brash has had his several of his own senior MPs publicly exhibit the miles between him and them over the Exclusive Brethren issue (before Brash took the rather belated step of announcing actually he didn't want anything more to do with them). He also doesn't seem to have had a lot of backing over blood quantum argument (and there's a good opinion piece in the Herald this morning refuting Don's point about Maori health outcomes and choice*). Now he's launched into the police in a way that has many squirming at the thought that Brash is putting political pressure on the operational decisions of the police, which is generally considered rather unwise. And he refuses to retire that inaccurate line that Labour "stole the election".

I'm starting to think that there are some within National who don't particularly want Don to step back from the brink, to start talking policy (what happened to Brash's plan to do this?) and start looking like a possible Prime Minister rather than a grumpy old man.**

How long until Key (or English, or even Brownlee who has actually been looking remarkably statesman-like lately) makes a move?


* Unfortunately behind the Premium Content wall, or there would be a link here.
** Perhaps Brash should have put his recent polemic about Maori into Gizgoole as Russell Brown suggests? Nah, even that wouldn't have made it ok.

Is the Young Nats a sexist organisation?

Well this post was inspired by Maria Von Trapp's classy rant over on her own blog about the fight she was having on the Young Nats blog (now sadly defunct) about women's representation and specifically Women's (Rights) Officers.

Having been alerted to the somewhat retrograde attitudes Ms Von Trapp was battling, I had a look at the Young Nats website. And what do you know, almost everyone is a young white man.

Actually some aren't young, that would be those on the history page showing famous ex-YNers, they are somewhat older, and to be fair there is one woman on that page too. That bastion of the pro-woman line, the person who was part of the team that made one of the most vicious and long-lasting attacks on women (and their children) on benefits, yes that's right folks, Ruth Richardson. In the 70 year history of the Young Nats (est. 1936) there is one woman they can lay claim to. Humph. So it seems, from their own website, that women haven't seen (or found) the Young Nationals as a useful stepping stone to greater political positions.

Now MVT referred in her post to the single female on their Exec. She's in the Women's Officer role, apparently. But I couldn't find reference to her on the website. Just an Exec filled with chaps (who look somewhat disturbingly like they are all distantly related, judging by the haircuts).

Of course there will be women in the Young Nats, but when the evidence on their own website is restricted to a shot of some nameless young females on the membership page, and one other picture I noticed that features a young woman (mercifully deemed to be worthy of a name this time, but don't worry the pose rather makes it appear that she is under the control of a male member) then it's a worry. This is potentially the future core of the Opposition after all.

The current National leader has been happy to deal with organisations that severely restrict their own female members*, and claimed he lost a political debate before the election because he was going easy on his female opponent. Perhaps Brash's 1950s attitude to women in public life has trickled down even to the youth wing?


* Is anyone else suddenly thinking about Don Brash's flip-flop on Civil Unions in a new light?

spending ceiling

Some funny things happened in the last week of the National campaign. Candidates put out candidate focused material that didn't mention the Party Vote, lots of Oggi red (paid) billboards were up while the number of National (Iwi/Kiwi etc) ones seemed to fall, and the Nats generally didn't seem as responsive to Labour's attacks.

My theory is that National ran up against the Party Vote spending ceiling ($2M I think) and had to back up quite quickly - thus candidates were told to put out material focused on them if they had anything left in their $20,000 electorate budgets, and planned advertising was cancelled. Graham Watson has noted that when he asked Don Brash why they hadn't done more to counter Labour in the last week he was told they had responded through the media. Which is of course a free method that doesn't count towards the spending limit.

It was important for National to have momentum early on, to look like a credible alternative to Labour. But it's probably more important to leave something in the kitty for later on. We all know that Labour are strong finishers, and National needed to be able to go foot to foot in the last week.

Ah well, I'm sure they'll learn for next time. Unfortunately.

newsflash! Boag on P?

A colleague tells me that Michelle Boag has just said on Nat Rad's new afternoon panel the following (paraphrased):

The deal is done. We will have a minority Labour/Prog/Green Govt, with UF and NZF support on confidence and supply and it will be signed by the end of the day.

When asked if she was flying a kite she said no.

...

an out there idea - is this the new high tide mark for National?

Looking at the 2002 results, last election was definitely low tide for National, but was it really an exceptionally high tide for Labour, given these party vote stats?

Labour Party Vote percentages:
1996* - 28.2% (37 seats, first MMP election, big chunks of vote to the minors)
1999* - 38.74% (49 seats, Labour first into Govt)
2002 - 41.26 % (52 seats, went down to 51 when they lost Turia mid-term)
2005 - 40.74 % (50 seats, pre-specials)

Labour's vote has only changed within a 2.52% bracket over three elections, which is pretty damn solid.

In contrast, National went up hugely in this election, but as Labour didn't go down much, it's mostly come from other parties - lots from Act and United, a fair chunk from NZ First. The Greens and Progs have gone down a little too, probably votes that went to Labour, shoring their percentage up, or those people didn't vote this time.

National Party Vote percentages:
1996* - 33.8% (44 seats, first MMP election, big chunks of party vote to the minors)
1999* - 30.50% (39 seats, National first out of Govt)
2002 - 20.93% (27 seats, worst result ever)
2005 - 39.63% (49 seats, huge increase on previous election, but still slightly less than Labour)

I remember after 2002 many Labour people talking about the fact that National was so weak and they were so strong that they felt that the paradigm had shifted for the foreseeable future, i.e. that Labour was now entrenched as the biggest party for years to come. I'm not saying that this is a certainty, but it is a possibility that they were partly right - Labour has not slid much, and the centre-right vote has not grown.

It's hard to know though what would have happened in a less two-horse campaign. If the media had spent more time on the minor parties they may have taken more votes from the Big Two, in particular a few percent going from Labour to the Greens, and up to 10% more to Act, United and NZ First that went to National instead.

National had all the big guns out for this election (well one anyway, tax cuts) and was able to avoid a lot of policy scrutiny (I wonder what would have happened without the Brethren scandal - it did take a lot of attention off policy for about a week, as Anne Else points out on Scoop). They also had a very good advertising campaign (from the point of view of style not content) and clearly much better on the ground mechanics than in 2002. But what more could they do in 2008?

(Yes this is a highly optimistic post!)

Update: Just noticed a number of comments to this effect over on DPF's post about National's new MPs.

*1996 and 1999 results here.

a little loose conversation - span's election night blogging - index

In time order, earliest at the top.

Thanks to Ms Cheesecake, Shaggy Karl, Mr the Red and Apathy Jack for making it a fun night and for cleaning up at the end too. I didn't actually intend to live blog, but it appeared no one was doing it from the left, and my guests were saying some funny stuff, so before I knew it I was posting almost constantly. Thanks also to the hardy souls commenting on the night, your feedback was much appreciated even if I didn't reply quickly :-)

A Little Loose Conversation
8.17pm - Part I (the mascara post)
8.44pm - Part II (the depressing TV3 post)
8.53pm - Part III (the trend is your friend post)
9.04pm - Labour closing (I ditched the Part's thing)
9.18pm - calling Epsom for Hide
9.22pm - Blumsky definitely down
9.34pm - United looking important
9.49pm - dead heat!!
9.54pm - sheesh this is close!
9.59pm - Worth not yet conceding
10.01pm - oh dear, consequences
10.03pm - Labour in front!!!
10.04pm - Progs need to pull up
10.06pm - party vote changes since 2002
10.08pm - Winston speaks
10.15pm - party vote seems stabilised
10.19pm - the minors
10.31pm - gap still close, but growing to Labour
10.34pm - what now for National?
10.40pm - Hartley for mayor in 2007?
10.42pm - tv graphics
10.45pm - changing hands
10.55pm - JPA reveals his inner pimpster
11.01pm - one seat gap between Lab and Nat
11.08pm - special votes
11.08pm - Brash arrives at HQ
11.14pm - not over until the specials sing
11.41pm - Lab MPs
12.12am - Clark at her HQ now
12.21am - it's not all over, red rover

And all done on dial-up - looking forward to going back to broadband in the morning!

a little loose conversation - it's not all over, red rover

Here is the Electoral Commission official count, pre-specials.

Seat-wise, it currently falls out to:

Labour 50 (down 1)
National 49 (up 22)
NZ First 7 (down 6)
Greens 6 (down 3)
Maori 4 (up 3)
United 3 (down 5)
Act 2 (down 7)
Progs 1 (down 1)
(Overhang of 2, due to Maori Party)

2002 results here.

Special votes are 193,000-odd according to the EC website, but TV3 have been saying 218,000, not sure where they have that number from. The difference between Nat and Lab could tighten or widen, Greens could go down below the threshold or up another seat, and Matt Robson might sneak back in.

Phew, what a night! And it's not really over for some time to come, but finished enough to get some sleep and worry about it in th emorning - because Tommorow Is Another Day.

a little loose conversation - Clark at her HQ now

Very cheery crowd, but she doesn't look overly happy - Apathy Jack reckons it's cos she's thinking about the phone calls she has to make tomorrow (Winston, Tariana, Peter, and Jeanette).

Clark says she is humble that they have the opportunity to start talks to form a new Govt.

Lots of pauses for applause.

Gosh she looks tired - points out that going in they had 51 MPs and now they have 50. Shaggy Karl said hours ago (it feels like last week) that this is pretty good for a third term Govt, and he's right (or Apathy Jack is, he may have said it even earlier).

Apathy Jack suggests Clark emails everyone in her inbox first thing tomorrow morning to see if they're keen on a bit of coalition chat action.

She really does seem humbled, which I think is a good thing. She also looks exhausted. Even forgetting about the campaign, tonight's adrenalin ride must have really taken it out of her (and many others, I'm certainly feeling it!).

Clark says she will be talking to other leaders in the next two days - "in a spirit of optimisim."

They're chanting "Three More Years" again, but Shaggy reckons it should be "More Free Beers." ;-)

a little loose conversation - Lab MPs

This is very rough, but I think I've got it right.

New IN:
Shane Jones
Maryan Street
Sue Moroney
(My old boss Darien Fenton seems to have just missed out.)

Lost Seat but IN on List:
Dover Samuels
Jim Sutton
Mita Ririnui
Rick Barker
Jill Pettis
Di Yates
Ann Hartley
David Parker
Russell Fairbrother
Moana Mackey (was List last time but failed to win seat previously held by her mother for Labour)

OUT:
John Tamihere
Lesley Soper

Update: DPF has the list of 22 (!!) new National MPs, and maybe Darien is in because apparently she just gave a victory speech at the SFWU election night party, according to my sources.

Update the Second: at approx 12.45am, One reckons Fenton is in. My brain is too mushy but I hope so!

a little loose conversation - not over until the specials sing

Over 190,000 to be counted yet, which is around 7 or 8% of the total vote. Could make a big big difference...

The final official count is released on 1st October, so potentially things are going to fluctuate a bit yet, even though nearly 100% of the non-special votes are counted. Fingers not safe from nibbling yet.

a little loose conversation - Brash arrives at HQ

Many media types asking and asking if he is going to concede defeat, but he says nothing, although you can hear someone laughing very very loudly in the background.

it's a total media scrum around him, he's grinning hugely.

Obviously a very positive crowd at the HQ - lots of clapping and waving. Quite understandable really, with a roughly 19% turnaround from 2002.

Ms Cheesecake was confused by the glowing way in which Judy Kirk introduced him - "who's outstanding??" - now they are all (well lots of male voices) are chanting.

Don's listing off all the seats that have changed hands - huge cheer for Tauranga! He only list one of the Hamilton seats (East).

"We can't yet claim a victory but I am certainly not conceding defeat" he says, a big cheer goes up, with a bottle of champers blocking the camera, as you would expect from the Nats ;-)

Brash goes on to talk about putting together a coalition over the next days and weeks, and about it being a Govt that will serve "all New Zealanders" (presumably except the Labour voters, gays, Maori, etc etc).