Linky Love - Volume 18

Some of these are pretty old, but worth it! Hopefully this is the return of regular Friday Linky Loves.

Standard intro - Linky Love is basically a cobbling together of posts I've noticed around the traps that have set off little tiny sparkles inside my head, and which I would possibly write about or comment on if I didn't need to sleep, eat, work, that kind of stuff. I usually put Linky Love volumes up weekly, on Friday mornings, although sometimes I sneak them in on Thursday for various reasons. I hope you like it.

As always if you have a post of your own, or some else's, that you'd like to highlight please feel free to add it in comments, or to discuss the above posts, or indeed most anything else.

Alas a Blog - What Kinds of Help do Abused Men Need? - Ampersand brings together a variety of comments on the very topic mens' rights activists often accuse feminists of ignoring and shows that patriarchy hurts men too.

Anonymous Lefty - That's not an argument, it's just contradiction - Jeremy has a worrying post about the Australian WorkChoices legislation and how it is being interpreted.

Capitalism Bad - Review: Rosita - Maia contributes an interesting run-down on an intriguing film about an 8 (eight) year old trying to get an abortion in Latin America.

Ethical Martini - Three cheers for Hone Harawira - Marty adds his views to the debate about Hone calling Howard a racist over his treatment of aboriginal communities.

Feministe - Morans - I just really like the pic that accompanies this brief post by Jill.

House of Ghetsuhm - Once upon a time... - Ghet wrote a great post a while back about Labyrinth, which I totally heart (the post and the film) but have only just got around to linky loving.

LeftAlign - The Vocabulary of Protest - LA writes about the way protests are reported in the media and how this can skew perception.

Maramatanga - Objection - The best damn round up of the objections to the proposed electorate boundary changes. Much more interesting than I am making it sound.

No Right Turn - It's the jobs, stupid - Idiot/Savant writes about careers and studies in the Sciences.

The Reading Room - On Fairy Tales - litlove looks at the adult themes in the children's stories we tell.

Sparkle*Matrix - porn and the cathartic relationship - s*m examines the idea that access to porn reduces the amount of sexual abuse and rape as it allows a less harmful outlet (for want of a better way to put that).

Well Urban - Toytown - Tom does some digging about what is happening to the houses affected by the Wellington City Bypass.

Previous volumes of Linky Love (1 - 17) can be found over here.

(Pic Via)

All thrashed out - an end to debating s59?

Well, what an interesting day in NZ politics! Idiot/Savant has great coverage of the Parliamentary debate on the committee stage of the Bill repealing s59 of the Crimes Act and thus removing from our statue books an archaic defence for assaulting children.

Cross-party consensus on a highly controversial issue that had mobilised a large amount of public support and opposition. That's a sentence I never thought I would type. NZ First is still to make up their mind*, and Act are still vehemently opposed, but both major parties are on the one side, along with the Greens, Maori Party and United Future.

Of course as a supporter of repeal, I'm pretty stoked right now. I see no problem with the new amendment, I'm happy that a political consensus has been forged that takes the heat out of the issue, and the core of the legal change remains as I had hoped; a clear message has been sent that hitting children is not ok and there will no longer be a defence in law that allows people to get away with beating their kids. Let the social change start now!

The coverage that child abuse has received throughout this process, in particular the slippery slope of physical discipline, has been a Good Thing. Hopefully we've all learnt a lot about other forms of correction, about the rights of children, and about questioning practices that seem to have continued for years for arcane reasons that no longer apply**. I know I've certainly learnt a great deal about the impact physical discipline can have on people, and I know for sure now that it's a path I don't want to go down with my own kids.

So this seems to be an end to the public debate and all that's left is the inevitable scrap over who actually won.

I'll readily admit I was surprised John Key agreed to the new amendment. TV3 News said tonight that Helen Clark initiated the discussions by passing a note to Key in the chamber yesterday afternoon, suggesting talks.*** Clark, Key and Bill English**** then met last night and thrashed the deal out. Today Labour and National came out with an amendment Key said publicly his 48 votes could back. Original sponsor of the bill Sue Bradford is happy - like me, she feels it doesn't really change the legislation. Peter Dunne gets to put the amendment and re-establish his claim to the Mr Commonsense crown. Fun for (almost) all the family!

But why did Key agree? He must have known that this was an issue that could run and run - this s59 kerfuffle looked like it had the legs to create all sorts of havoc in marginal seats and the party vote to the next election and even beyond. Labour recently neutralised the over-spending issue by paying back the money they owed Parliamentary Services, and the cheque was presented two months before the deadline they had set themselves (if still nine months later than National managed to pay their more meagre bill of $10,000). Key must have a lot of confidence that there will be other issues on which National can embarass Labour in the near future, because he's just traded a major one away for a joint media conference with the Prime Minister and some sound-bites.

Or maybe Clark snatched victory from the jaws of defeat on this? Maybe she told Key (and English) last night that Labour would put up this amendment, which is so close to the compromise Key (falsely, imho) said he wanted last week, regardless of whether National came in on it or not. Clark may have sold it to Key by saying that National would look like fools if they persisted in voting against, given that this amendment was what they claimed to desire only a few days ago. And Key bought it.

On the other hand, this could be part of a broader plan by the new-ish National leadership to show that their party can engage in MMP-style politics, in coalition-building. Notably their main coalition possibility, Act, have been left well and truly outside the tent on this one, but perhaps Key will point back to today, on the hustings next year, and say "See, I know how to work together, I can do this whole multi-party jizzle."

Of course he'll need more than one example to have any cred in his claim - I look forward to National agreeing to engage in pragmatic discussions around monetary policy and election funding proposals in the near future. After a few more fancy steps with multiple dance partners Key might be able to put himself up as a credible alternate Prime Minister - a doer of deeds and a maker of deals.

But the flaw in that plan is the stark fact that it was Clark who actually pulled this deal together. Clearly there is political life, and political management, in our Prime Minister yet. After all, you don't stay Labour leader for 14 years without knowing how to neutralise your enemies, and understanding how to win a vote.

It's been a funny strange day, and here's a little funny hah hah to end it.

Previous posts about s59's repeal and the accompanying debate:
- The Appeal of Repeal - 18th March
- A little more on s59's repeal - 19th March
- Supporting repeal - 27th March
- So explain to me again - why is hitting a child ok again? - 29th March
- Debating s59 - striking a blow for positive social change - 2nd April
- Another question on s59 - what is smacking? - 5th April
- Compromised - 29th April

(Pic Via)

* I took the "s" off that word. We all know there is only one mind to be decided in NZ First most of the time.
** If they ever did.
*** I think we can presume the note didn't say "trev sez gerry tol him yous r ok 2 talk l8r wanna get 2gethr?"
**** Telling that English and Key went to that meeting together imho. Is Key not confident enough with the Prime Minister, or with his own caucus, to do this kind of stuff without someone holding his hand?

The Appeal of Repeal

It's my fervent hope that in the next few weeks Sue Bradford's bill to remove parental discipline as a defence under the Crimes Act will pass into law. I haven't written about this earlier because I haven't really had time, but I'm about to rectify that omission, oh yes indeedy.

For me the debate about repealing s59 actually began in 2000, when I was first involved in Staunch Alliance and was made aware that repeal was on Laila Harre's agenda as Minister of Youth Affairs. It was something on the edges of my political perception - I didn't fully understand it and it didn't seem likely to pop up on the public agenda anytime soon. Certainly it didn't apply to my life right then - it was a long time since I had been smacked, and the likelihood of me in the possible role of smacker seemed an equal infinity away.

Now Sue Bradford (my favourite Green MP by a long way) has a Private Member's Bill that looks likely to pass in the next fortnight, removing an archaic defence from our books. I've long found it anathema that many see their children (particularly their daughters) as personal property. It just seems bizarre to me that we purport to care so much for our children, and yet we hit them.

I don't recall being smacked often myself. In fact I can only explicitly remember one time - the last time. I think it was the third time I was ever smacked, I was a pretty tame child.

I remember this occasion quite vividly. I must have been about 7 or 8 and I remember Mum sitting down on the edge of her bed, facing the wall, and pulling me over her knee. It was the old bedspread, the blue paisley one, but it was new then. I recall that she was very very angry, and I can remember thinking that she wasn't really angry with me and that what I had done wrong (lost in the mists of time) wasn't sufficient for a smack. As the hits came I felt a righteous anger that I hadn't deserved it, that, bloody-minded little bugger that I was, it wasn't going to stop me from doing whatever I'd done again. Serve her right I thought, she's punished me and I will punish her. Eye for an eye and all that. Being much littler than her I intended to store my vengeance away, stoke it mightily, and one day wreak my revenge. I can't recall if I ever did or not.

The other thing I remember very strongly was the tears. Not just mine, but Mum's too. She was angry yes, but when she was done she was sad. She apologised to me and hugged me, we were both crying. I still felt unfairly treated, but I recall being grateful that she had recognised the injustice in her action.

Not to malign my mother at all, who has been and remains a really wonderful parent and grandparent, but I always had the sense that she did it at a desperate time, not because she thought it would be the most effective parenting tool but because she needed to lash out. Certainly I could see afterwards that we both felt bad about it; me because I felt it was uncalled for, and she perhaps because she knew that. We've never discussed it, so I don't actually know what her motivation was or how she felt, beyond what I could see for myself and interpret with my child's mind, and what I remember of that now.

Smacking from the parental perspective is not something I've experienced yet, so I have to go on my recollection of being on the receiving end. I acknowledge that experience changes your views on things. Just as in the past I have changed my mind about abortion, there is a possibility I might change my view on smacking, or anything else for that matter. But I can't really write about how I might feel in an unknown future. Certainly my intention now is not to use violence against my own children.*

But I can see the argument about slapping a child's hand away from a hot element, carefully carrying a child to a time-out place, pushing a toddler out of the way of harm. I do not believe that any of these sensible precautions, motivated not by anger but by protection, will be prosecuted after s59 is repealed.

In fact Bradford's Bill (amended and subsequently backed by the majority of the Select Committee who considered it) very specifically allows this kind of action, thusly:

1. Every parent of a child... is justified in using force if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances and is for the purpose of:
preventing or minimising harm to the child or another person; or preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in conduct that amounts to a criminal offence;
or preventing the child from engaging or continuing to engage in offensive or disruptive behaviour;
or performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.

2. Nothing in subsection (1) or in any rule of common law justifies the use of force for the purpose of correction.

3. Subsection (2) prevails over subsection (1).

The Select Committee report is an interesting read, in particular the summary of the points made by submitters for and against, and the statement that Child, Youth and Family indicated they did not expect their thresholds for removal of children would change if s59 was repealed. The report states in it's conclusion:

We consider that there is widespread misunderstanding about the purpose and
possible results of the bill as introduced. We do not consider that the repeal of section 59 will lead to the prosecution of large numbers of parents ... in New Zealand. (my emphasis)

I've been thinking about how we eradicated corporal punishment** in our schools. It was a similar situation, where many teachers had to dig deep and find new tools to control and discipline their students now that violence was no longer an option. And they did. It is now rare that a child is hit by their teacher, and when it does happen there is outrage from everyone involved, and rightly so. Why should parents magically have a right to strike their child when no one else does, and it is acknowledged that no one else should?

While I don't want to give too much kudos to the Maori Party (given that the Greens and Labour have backed repeal all along and deserve more of the credit) I did like what Pita Sharples said when he announced their four votes in favour (mp3):

We are asking NZ to be brave, to look at the possibility of a culture where we
don't hit our children, and that we can actually find an alternative way of
bringing up our children.

I'm an idealist, there is no denying that, and a piece of legislation like this, one that imagines a hopeful future, is one that I can joyously back with my whole heart.

* Yes, I think smacking is violence. It's hitting isn't it? I haven't got room in this post to go into the particular issue of the way this debate has been hijacked to be about just smacking, when it is actually about violence, of which smacking is a sub-section. I accept that the debate now is about smacking, as much as that was never Bradford's intention, and so that's what I've written about here.
** Which I note often took forms similar to current child discipline methods used by some parents.

Linky Love - Volume 6

Standard intro - if you have a post of your own, or some else's, that you'd like to highlight please feel free to add it in comments, or to discuss the above posts, or indeed most anything else.

Alas (a blog) - The Long Beach Beating Case and Race - Ampersand writes about a number of assault cases in the USA where race has been an issue and looks at the impact skin colour may have had on the outcomes (and the conservative reaction).

Anarchia - Anarchism in Te Whanganui a Tara/Wellington - Asher blogs about anarchy groups in our fair capital.

Auckland's Burning - Activists assaulted while CEO lies - John covers a protest against climate change at Don Elder's speech as CEO of Solid Energy. Includes snaps!

Blogging it Real - Things that hack you off - dc_red asks what would you dispose of if you were Supreme Commander of the Universe, even providing a handy starter list if you are stuck for inspiration.

Capitalism Bad; Tree Pretty - It's not anti-feminist to go on a diet, it is anti-feminist to write a diet book - Maia looks at two recent Guardian pieces and writes about dieting as a survival mechanism.

Contradiction - Fashion tips for liberals - George explains why he supports Chester Burrows on banning gang patches.

Feministe - More proof of the Housework Gap - zuzu looks at new research on the housework-gender labour division, and examines her own motivations for cleaning.

Frogblog - Public transport, how do you spell that? - Russel covers and comments on a recent debate in the House about public transport, involving Jeanette Fitzsimmons (first questioner), Michael Cullen (the questioned), Shane Jones (asks a patsy) and Peter Brown (puts in another plug for the roading lobby).

The Fundy Post - Hollaback Man - Paul reports on Matthew Hooton's spirited defence of the Exclusive Brethren on RNZ National recently. Paul reckons Laila Harre made "mincemeat" of him. What a shame.

Island Life - Browned to perfection - David Slack constructs a new New Zealand, loosely based on Tariana Turia's pronouncement that we could be a little browner (and she doesn't mean more tanned).

Long Ago And Not True Anyway - Panel Beaten (Oh for a higher calibre of right wing nut) - Terence muses on the woefulness of Michael Basset's recent performance on RNZ National's afternoon panel.

No Right Turn - Climate change: no policy - Idiot/Savant responds to a Herald on Sunday comment about the lack of policy (which he agrees with) and examines the reasons for this. He also has a related post on the emission statistics the HoS has used and scratches his head over where they got them from.

No Right Turn - Trickle down fails again - And Idsy gets a second nod in this Linky Love volume for his examination of how trickle down economics have failed to deliver not only in NZ but also in the USA under George W.

Pandagon - Salaries and housework and the whine of entitlement oh my! - Further to the housework post at Feministe listed above, Amanda Marcotte looks at the impact of women earning more than their male partners on the division of labour in the home.

stanselen - Playcentre is Anarchism in our area - jo succintly reveals how her local playcentre works.

Walking with Ghosts - Another Modest Proposal - the STFU scale - Phoenician in a time of Romans outlines a brilliant scheme to stop complaints about various things by establishing a Statistics Towards a Fairer Universe scale.

Past Linky Loves are now in their own shiny category.

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.

National's "new" policy agenda

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 immediately 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?

Most recently, in his Jan. 30th "State of the Nation" speech, Key announced school breakfasts (yep, that's right, really BIG policy stuff) and this month there has been a policy announcement about putting Corrections back into Justice. Those with longer memories may recall that a) many low decile schools started breakfast programmes years ago, and b) National took Corrections out of Justice in the first place when it was last in power.

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. 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 law suggests that National would still want to make some radical changes to employment law.

So perhaps a reader who is in National would care to comment - do Key's announcements reflect recent internal policy debates (and of course their outcomes)? Please note, anonymous comments have never been banned on this blog.


* I first started writing this post in early Dec 2006. Now Key has actually gone back to almost Brash's policy, but he has still delayed the possible implementation of the abolition by three to six years on what Brash promised, to 2014. I smell the whiff of a bargaining chip for negotiations with the Maori Party myself, but Sharples and Turia don't appear to appreciate the game playing.

What They Said

I was going to write something both witty and pointed about Pita Sharples' advocacy of that ol' favourite of the Right, Work for the Dole, but Tze Ming, and Russel Norman, and Jordan, and no doubt heaps of other people have already done it better than I.

All that remains for me to do is register my a) disgust and b) contempt, and then go on to quote the best graffiti I have ever seen:

Unemployment is Not Working

And hands up all those surprised to hear John Key talking the same walk today? Maybe there's something in those recent Herald profiles of National MPs - almost all of them so far have said the non-National MPs they respect are in the Maori Party...

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.

Powerful Fellas

Jeremy has the Listener's latest Power List over at Aucklander at Large.

Jeremy's struck by the absence of unionists, as am I. Particularly as unionists have become more prominent in recent times, even outside of specific disputes, eg Laila Harre's current stint on National Radio up against Matthew Hooton.
Also of note is the influx of Maori figures new to the list. Perhaps the Maori Queen's funeral and the media frenzy around the Kahui twins has brought them more to mainstream media prominence.

There's rather a lack of Cabinet Ministers, or indeed politicians in general, reflecting the shift in power from democratically elected people to private individuals that privatisation inevitably seems to bring. It would be interesting to do some kind of analysis comparing the Power List and the Rich List methinks.

But the one thing that really stood out for me, and I'm sure this will come as no surprise to regular readers, is the lack of women.

Sure the top spot is a woman, but I agree with Jeremy; you would expect the Prime Minister to be in or close to number one in any year.

You have to go down to 14 for the next woman - Paula Rebstock, who is apparently the Commerce Commission Chair and is new to the list. Then at 21 and 28 are Dame Sian Elias (Chief Justice) and Heather Simpson (H2 as she's known) respectively. Neither are new and neither are suprising. Julie Christie in 30th place rounds out the five women, and twenty-five men, in the top 30.

In total there are 8 women on the list, 16%. Out of 50 people altogether. It's almost as bad as the National Party front bench before the last election!

Mind you, it is an increase of 1 on 2005's list.

Here's a few ideas, of some other powerful women who perhaps should have made it:

• Carol Beaumont - Secretary of the Council of Trade Unions


• Margaret Wilson - Speaker of the House


• Ann Sherry - CEO of Westpac


• Laila Harre - already mentioned for her media role, also National Secretary of the National Distribution Union


• Theresa Gattung - CEO of Telecom (who has featured in the last two years, in 2005 at 8)


• Jeanette Fitzsimmons - Co-leader of the Greens


• Kim Hill - or another of the large number of prominent women journalists

I may not like all of these women, or agree with them, but they are powerful in our country. A Power List is always going to be a subjective thing, but surely more than eight women would show up on anyone's list of their top 50? After all, isn't this Socialist government we suffer under supposed to be run by a lesbian sisterhood?

If you consider the list reasonably accurate then it's depressing - so few women, so few people outside business, so few who aren't Pakeha.

And if you don't think the list is on the mark, then that's depressing too - that the people who are perceived to be powerful in our society, by a supposedly liberal magazine, are still largely so like the be-suited, clubbable, older men that would have dominated a list of this nature twenty, fifty, a hundred years ago.

Update, 2.38pm 20th Nov: DPF has also posted on this topic, with similar points about the lack of representation from the public sector.

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.

balance of paua

Tariana Turia talked about models of power-broking on Checkpoint tonight, specifically the arrangements they are considering for the shape of the next Government.

She rattled off a list of options for the Maori Party, roughly:
- in formal coalition
- crossbenches
- confidence and supply
- opposition (not sure if she mentioned this actually, but it is an option)
- a mysterious "alternative" that is apparently quite unique to NZ but has been used overseas

Not much of a hint to what this last option might be, but I have been musing on something Keith Locke (he of the naked Epsom dash) said to me at a candidates' forum before the election.

He speculated that the Maori Party MPs may have a much looser voting arrangement than other parties. At first I thought he meant that they would vote here on one issue and there on another, but when I questioned him further he explained that he meant each individual Maori Party MP might vote separately, ie effectively act as independents.

Keith felt that those likely to be elected represented the range of political leanings within Maoridom, and thus each could vote as suited their particular ideology. I wondered if they might add in some way of checking in with their electorate, although Locke felt this was unnecessary (not surprising given he's an MP).

This would certainly be a radical way of managing things, but it does fit with the Maori Party approach to date. One of the reasons they didn't have a lot of policy going in to the election, according to their Auckland Central candidate Bronwyn Yates, is that they have their founding principles and feel that there are many different ways. In other words, they are acknowledging that there is more than one solution to every problem, and that each Maori Party MP may hold a different view that is still in-keeping with the overall kaupapa and tikanga of the party itself.

Which would mean that the party that holds the balance of power in some Parliamentary equations effectively acts as a party of independents, bound by a common set of principles but entitled to vote according to their own conscience on each piece of legislation as it comes up.

Talk about self-determination!

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 - one seat gap between Lab and Nat

Greens looking a bit shakey on 5.08% though they do seem to go up in specials.

Hone Harawira just charmed Ms Cheesecake, until we pointed out that Titewhai is his mother.

a little loose conversation - changing hands

Many many electorate seats going from Labour to National. I've already posted about Northcote, Invercargill and Otago. The weathervane seats of Hamilton West and East are close - Gallagher slightly ahead in West, but Yates has lost East by a margin of 5000 plus.

Sutton is gone (well lost his electorate), on final results, 6000 odd down.

Anne Tolley and Moana Mackey very close in East Coast, with Mackey 1110 down on winning her mother's old seat.

Napier is finalised and Fairbrother has lost to Tremain (National).

Craig Foss has Tukituki, from Rick Barker.

Maori Party look to have 4 seats, so up three, with Samuels and Tamihere out of Parliament. Correction - Samuels is in on the list - electorates going Maori are Te Tai Tokerau, Tamaki Makaurau, Te Tai Hauauru (Tariana Turia, MP already had), Waiariki (the only one finalised)

In the minor turn-overs, obviously Epsom has changed from National to Act (Worth has conceded), and Tauranga from NZ First to National.

a little loose conversation - the minors

As said previously, party votes seem to have stabilised.

NZ First - 5.7 - 5.9 - 7 seats - which means Winston looses his brother, Dail Jones and Craig McNair

Greens - 5.1 - 6 seats - so they will loose Mike Ward and someone else at least

United - 2.7 - 2.8 - 3 or 4 seats - big losses - Mark Alexander may be back in which makes me very unhappy indeed

Act - 1.5 I think - so only one more in with Hide, which will be Heather Roy

Progs - 1.2 - borderline whether they get Matt Robson in or not, but no overhang

Maori Party - 1.9 - but they will win 3 or 4 electorates - resulting in an overhang of 2 probably

Shaggy Karl is thanking the Lord that Paul Adams is not back in.

Jenny Shipley is on One and Mr the Red has just made Apathy Jack very unhappy by pointing out the odd similarity between Our First Woman PM and Bomber Bradbury...

a little loose conversation - Progs need to pull up

Colin James has just sort-of called a Labour Govt, but it's going to depend a lot on the Progs bringing in a second, and the Greens holding. Not to mention Maori agreeing to confidence and supply, and United Future being friendly.

Adrenalin is overwhelming!!

a little loose conversation - Worth not yet conceding

But One has called Te Tai Tokerau for Harawira, Samuels will be in on the list.

Tamihere and Sharples still close to call - however Shaggy Karl has just pointed out that if it was a real race he thinks John would probably win.

a little loose conversation - United looking important

United is likely to bring in at least 3, which could be crucial to how this falls out - with a two seat gap between Labour and National at the moment, with over 70% counted, it's looking like a 1 or 1.5% gap between the two majors.

Green has been staying solid, so there's 6 MPs for Labour, plus Jim and Matt Robson, making 56, which is a minority Govt. Maori look likely to get 4. National plus Act would only be 52 or 53. So United's 3 and Winston's 6 or 7 will be pivotal. Any conversations between Don Brash et al and Peters have got to be fraught, given Clarkson has taken Tauranga.

The more stable option for Dunne support would have to be Labour-led - but he has promised to talk to the party with the most seats first...

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.

race tightens again

The latest One News-Colmar Brunton came out tonight, pronouncing itself as the "first full poll conducted since National announced its tax cuts this week" and it shows Labour still in front, albeit by a decreasing margin.

The figures:
Labour - 43 (down 2)
National - 40 (up 3)
Greens - 7 (up 1)
NZFirst - 5 (down 1)
Act - 2 (same)
Maori Party - 1 (same)
United Future - 1 (same)

Friday's NZ Herald poll showed Labour's lead falling dramatically after the National announcement, however that sample was only 350 (thanks STC for spotting that), which must mean a margin of error of 7% or more. There are similar problems with the SST poll released today, which shows the same trend.

But all three polls have one thing in common - Labour still in front despite National firing off their big vote-winner. I've got my fingers crossed (and leaflets folded) for Sept 17th.