How does Labour hope to get back in? Easy vote for National!

Here’s the thing, this election may already be over…but, if Labour is to have any chance I think two things need to happen.

1. Winston Peters needs to be back
2. ACT needs to disappear

There is not much that Labour can do to get Winston Peters back, but for the other necessary action to happen, maybe Labour can help that along a little bit.

ACT seems to be somewhat imploding with not too many people seemingly happy with the coup d'état that Don Brash pulled on Rodney Hide and since doing so even fewer people seem to have been impressed with his performance as leader of the party. For a party, who is always ‘tough on crime’ to have a leader who wants to decriminalise marijuana seems erroneous at best, hypocritical at worst.

ACT seem to be doing a pretty good job at taking themselves out of the running however the voters of Epsom, of whom 70% voted for John Banks in the Mayoral election, will likely come to the conclusion it’s better to have a Mr. Magoo type operation and still have John Key as Prime Minister, than to risk having Phil Goff in the top job. It is likely that as it stands right now Banks will win Epsom, even with two recent polls saying otherwise.

Labour needs to double bluff.

Labour needs to get around the constituency quietly and get all their supporters to vote for National’s Paul Goldsmith.

Goldsmith in the last two polls has been leading John Banks by 17% and 14% respectively however as the election comes closer and the National supporters see their parties ratings drop somewhat, many are like in Epsom to put in this dysfunctional party ‘for the greater good.’ But what is all the Labour supporters voted for Goldsmith as well…for the greater good.

In the latest poll National’s Paul Goldsmith was on 37%, John Banks on 24% and Labour’s David Parker 17%. If that 17% went and supported Paul Goldsmith on Election Day his numbers could jump enough to nullify the difference those that pull support from him to keep ACT in. A ‘double bluff’ worthy of the ‘reality’ TV series Survivor.

In theory Labour supporters voting for a National Party candidate in Epsom, could help them bring down one of the most popular parties in recent times. In theory.

Now come Election Day, National could have a majority, they may have enough votes to get there with the Maori Party alone…or no matter what happens ACT could romp home in Epsom, but Labour is stuck in a situation where they need to have either strong coalition partners themselves, or they need to remove National’s partners if they are to have any show. 

Don Brash withdraws from Treaty debate...why?

Dr. Don Brash has pulled out of a debate on Treaty issues to be held on TV3's 'The Nation'. The ACT Party and Dr. Brash have been asking TV3 for logistical and editorial details about the debate. It would appear they have not received what they wanted so Dr. Brash was pulled.

I interviewed Dr. Brash for 40 minutes on Saturday along with Jeremy Elwood my co-host on The Slightly Correct Political Show, and on the issue of the Treaty I found Dr. Brash lacking in the depth and knowledge to be making such bold claims as those expressed in ACT's 'one law for all' policy.

I am no expert in the area of the Treaty, but one thing I think would be prudent is that if one was going to comment, legislate and rally against and area in society then they should have in depth knowledge of that area...from both sides of the debate.

Let's look at it like this, if you or I moved into a foreign culture, a culture where we didn't understand the language, customs or history, then it would be prudent for us to learn about that culture before we comment on it. To understand the nuances of the language before we speak out how we disagree with them. Surely to disagree with something you first need an understanding of it. In the case of the Treaty, Dr. Brash does not have that understanding.

When asked about the main three areas of contention between Maori and non-Maori interpretation of the treaty, Kāwanatanga , Rangatiratanga and Taonga Dr. Brash responded "I can't answer that question, I'm not an expert on the Maori language" and when asked again Dr. Brash said "I can't interpret the Maori language nor do I know what that meant at that time"

This is the area of most concern to me. We need to know what was signed at the time, what was agreed to at the time, and how we bring that into 2011 New Zealand.

Dr. Brash was a nice man, but as a politician to me he seemed out of his depth. The 'one law for all' rhetoric has not given ACT the 'bounce' it gave National in 2004 and I think that ACT are going to move it more to the background over the next 7 weeks and focus on the economy.

Are there issues around the Treaty that we need to address, "Yes!" Are the Treaty settlements running without controversy or people trying to abuse the system, "No!" But it saddens me that this kind of politics still happens in NZ, the kind of 'populist' policy to appeal to one sector of society (in this case the much mentioned 'red-necked' section) when there is no substance or depth to the conversation.

Don Brash was found wanting yesterday in The Slightly Correct Political Show and he didn't want to be seen to be foolish in front of a bigger audience, so he withdrew from The Nation.

Do our minor parties have the membership to be eligible for the 2011 election?

I wonder if any of our minor parties are ineligible for the 2011 election.

A fact that I just found out from the Electoral Office is that not only does a group need to attain 500 members to become a party, it also needs to keep 500 on its books to remain a legal entity.

The Electoral Finance Act (1993) states in Section 67, Clause 3 that

“It shall be the duty of the secretary of any political party registered under this Act—

(Part d) to notify the Electoral Commission if the number of current financial members of the party who are eligible to enrol as electors falls below 500”

The Act goes on to explain in section 70, clause 2 of the ramifications of not keeping membership above 500, “The Electoral Commission shall cancel the registration of any political party on being satisfied that the number of current financial members of the party who are eligible to enrol as electors has fallen below 500.”

Political parties are duty bound to provide a declaration every year that their membership is above 500 and the Electoral Office pretty much takes that as gospel. Officially they can challenge the declaration if they are not satisfied, in doing this the Electoral Office can request the members list, and for evidence on how the information on the list was gathered. I am reliably informed this ‘challenge’ has never happened to any party.

To be a member on a political party list you must be an eligible voter which means you must be living, over 18, a NZ Citizen who has been in the country sometime in the past three years or a Permanent Resident who has been in the country sometime in the past 12 months. Finally you must not be incarcerated at the time of the election.

So of our minor parties, are there any that don’t fulfil that membership criteria?

I have just spoken with ‘Margaret’ at ACT’s head office and asked her about how many members ACT has, and how they check if their members are eligible voters. Margaret let me know that they had about 1,000 members and when they send out renewal forms they had to sign the bottom declaring they were over 18. ACT does not check any of the other criteria to ensure their members are eligible voters. Margaret tells me that she would know if any of the members were not in the country during the previous 3 years as ‘the membership is so small’ that she knows them all. When I questioned her on ‘knowing’ 1,000 people I was informed that the board members check to see if anyone was off shore making them ineligible.

‘Michael’ at The Greens tells me that they check to make sure their members are eligible by comparing names of members to the electoral role. The Greens say if they are eligible to vote, they are eligible members…not strictly true when you think that this process must happen every year as a declaration to the Electoral Office which means in theory members could vote in an election, then move offshore for a period of time (or end up in prison) and no longer be eligible.

The Maori Party openly accept members who are not eligible, they have some members as young as 13 years of age, and their checks on the criteria around location is based around someone’s address. However they have 15,000 active members according to Te Orohi Paul, which would mean even if there are some members who would breach the criteria they would still have more than enough to breach the 500 threshold.

The Revenue Minister and Honourable Peter Dunne spoke to me personally when I phoned United Future, and whilst first stating UF won’t disclose numbers of memberships stating the membership was ‘substantially in excess of [500]’, by the end of our cordial chat, and upon hearing that other parties had disclosed their numbers, Mr. Dunne estimated the membership to be around the 800 mark. When pressed about how UF confirms that his membership is eligible I was told that there was a revamp of how they do it this year, including conversations with the Electoral Office and a new form was in place. On the new form there was now a place to make sure the members are eligible. The form asks if the member is over 18, and eligible to vote. Nowhere on the form does it explain actually what criteria are needed to be fulfilled to be eligible.

Although they are not in parliament presently, and most don’t seem to think they’ll be there after November 26^th, I thought it might be interesting to find out how NZ First has gone with its membership since 2008. Membership Secretary Tracey Martin explained that it was party policy that they would not release how many members they have, explaining that it was no use to anyone but her to know that number. She made it clear that she had to sign the declaration with the Electoral Office each year and that was all the information that I should require. They do check their memberships against the electoral role and they must have a valid NZ address which once again puts them in the same camp as The Greens where NZ First is putting the onus of truth onto their members that the information they are giving is true on whether they are eligible.

The idea around looking at minor party membership began when I heard ‘whispers’ that ACT and United Future didn’t have the 500 members required to be eligible party to compete in the election…pure rumour no evidence given, however an interesting observation began to take shape when I told the various minor parties about what I was writing about without mentioning what rumours I had heard, they almost all mentioned ACT and United Future not having 500 members. Was this true...or  had I become a patsy in a smear campaign against two of the minor parties supporting the National Government?

So are ACT and United Future viable? Was their claim to me that that had 1,000 and 800 members respectively accurate?

I told ACT of the whispers and asked if there were prepared to release their list of members, or provide other evidence of their numbers to dispel the rumour and was told by Party Secretary Gary Mallet that he ‘was not interested in dispelling the myth’ and ‘why would [he] do that…what was in it for [him]?’ and then he promptly hung up. Likewise United Future, upon hearing of the rumour said they had more members than required to ‘satisfy the 500.’

I don’t necessarily think there is a smoking gun here, it’s not my place to accuse party members that their telling ‘porkies’ about their numbers, but the reason I started this wee investigation is that it seems fair that if a new party starting out needs 500 members ala Mana and the Conservative Party then it would seem appropriate that incumbent parties are held to the same standard.

Let me make one thing clear, I am not accusing ACT or United Future of misleading the Electoral Office the idea that a political party would make a false declaration to the Electoral Office is very serious, but what I can say unequivocally is that no party is fulfilling the criteria to ensure that their members are eligible voters. All parties are asking their members to signify that they are eligible, however they are not expecting proof and/or they are not providing the information for their members to know whether they are eligible or not.

Again I don’t suspect that there is a smoking gun here, but this is the highest court in the land, surely we have a duty of care to do things properly.

Election Predictions

So Michael emailed me today and challenged all of us to predict the results for the election. Okay lets do it here...

So this is the idea. You will have a chance to list your guesses now, then come 30 August you will have a chance to revise your picks. I will organise two prizes, one for who is closest from the first pick, then one who is closest from the revised picks. We will say there are 122 seats.

Clear as mud?

Here I go with my first guess.
National 53
Labour 47
Greens 11
ACT 6
Maori Party 2
Mana 2
United Future 1

Left/centre left with 60 seats
Right/centre right with 60 seats
Maori Party with the balance of power

My boggle here is NZ First, I acknowledge you should never could Winston out, but right now I don't think they are goers. However if they were I think it would be at the expense of mostly ACT with people looking for a genuine third party and make the win easier for the left.

Put your predictions in the comments below, feel free to make any 'fence sitting' comments as I have done ;o) as well

Don Brash, defender of the poor and downtrodden

It is fantastic to see that Don Brash is trying to get back into politics with today’s coup of the ACT Party leadership.

Don Brash said in his brief press conference his objectives were to “raise the income levels of all New Zealanders” while making sure that “all New Zealanders are treated equally under the law”. Finally a man in politics who is going to fight for the lower class, to stand up for the marginalised, to speak out for the lower socio-economic groups in NZ. Don Brash is the defender of the poor and downtrodden, a friend to the beneficiary, a campaigner for those in need.

Don Brash is correct, New Zealanders are treated unequally under the law. One 21 year study that looked into this found that Maori offenders were between 2.1 and 2.6 times more likely to get a conviction than a non-Maori offender where there socio-economic standing and repeat offending were similar. Dr. Brash will make sure that Maori offenders are treated the same as non-Maori.

If you have a look at convictions in NZ, 66% of apprehensions of European New Zealanders are resolved by prosecution, whereas 76% of apprehensions of Pacific People end the same way. Pacific People are being treated unfairly under NZ law, Don Brash will be the champion of the Pacific People to make sure they are treated the same under the law.

If you look at the lowest socio-economic groups in NZ, statistics show that they are much more likely to plead guilty to a crime. It is believed that largely this is because they do not have access to the resources to fund a defence campaign as someone in the highest socio-economic group. Don Brash will be a spokesperson for the poor, helping them get equal treatment in NZ courts to the richest people in the country.

If you look at any part of our judicial system, where the wealthy and famous have an advantage then Don Brash will make sure the poorest, least educated and unknown get the same advantages as he wants to ensure that “all New Zealanders are treated equally under the law”. The wealthy get more diversion, more name suppression and more home detention than the rest…not on Dr. Brash’s watch!

And finally, Dr. Brash will be a friend to pensioners and beneficiaries as well as those on the minimum wage. His statement that he intends to “raise the income levels of all New Zealanders” leaves us with only one logical conclusion. That Don Brash will be raising the pension, raising benefits and increasing the minimum wage.

Welcome back to politics Dr. Brash, a man who will passionately work for the marginalised of our beautiful country.

TVNZ Stitch up Hone Harawira

I read about the ‘lone’ protestor at Waitangi today on stuff.co.nz this afternoon. He is Wikitana Popata, nephew of MP Hone Harawira. I read that he took to a megaphone and claimed that John Key is the author of all that is wrong in Maoridom, here is what he said of John Key in a post protest interview…

“Many of my people still live off our rivers in Aotearoa, he is the one responsible for murdering and killing a lot of our people.”

“He is the one responsible for mining throughout Aotearoa.”

“He is the one responsible for stealing our foreshore, for stealing our land.”

“He is the one responsible for the injustice to my people.”

For video you can visit stuff.co.nz

Of course NZ knows that this is not the case, however we live in a free and democratic society where we have the right to air and voice our opinions even if most of us would disagree with them. In fact we probably should be encouraged to voice our opinions more often. Most of us would be more comfortable with a more ‘sanitary’ version perhaps than what we saw today…however I think that is the point of today’s protest.

I then read that Hone Harawira has told reporters that he was proud of his nephew for standing up for what they believe in and voicing their beliefs in the only way young people know how to do.

Fair enough, I thought, he hasn’t gone as far as to back the content of the protest in full, he has just said that he was proud that his nephew was passionate enough about a topic to make his views known.

Then I was watching OneNews tonight and I saw that they spun this story to imply that Hone Harawira is fully in support of what was said.

Jessica Mutch on voiceover “Hone Harawira’s chances of uniting with Labour or National are slim when he says things like this about Wikitana Popata protesting against the Prime Minister, “I was quite proud of the protest actually”

I think TVNZ has stitched up Hone Harawira, but is it an innocent mistake, or is there some malice here? Either way they portrayed Hone Harawira’s statement without the context that I read on stuff.co.nz this afternoon.

Now the truth is that Hone Harawira may agree entirely with what his nephew was saying, but that’s not how it has been reported (except by TVNZ). He picked his words carefully, even to the point of not wanting to comment on what was said because he wasn’t there and, according to numerous media sources including the ODT, didn’t hear everything that was said.

So why did TVNZ imply that he supported what his nephew had said?

Was it poor journalism? Was it a genuine mistake? Was it context that wasn’t shown in the Stuff article?

Or is it that we are wanting a villain in this election year? Winston Peters turned out to be the villain last time around with the debacle around Owen Glen, and you have to admit, Hone fits that mould pretty easily.

For me I think that Hone Harawira is not playing a smart hand right now, I don’t mean to offend or incite by that comment, I just think when you’re on the inside you can make a difference without losing your mana or compromising your principles. The people of Te Tai Tokerau love Hone, and if he chooses to run in the upcoming election he will be there next term. I just wonder how he will forward the cause of his constituents by standing on the outside throwing stones at those on the inside.

Do we really want a Center governement?

I wonder sometimes if what we say we want...is actually what we want in politics.

It seems that what we hear over and over again is the viable third party...a party for all New Zealand, a party that represents the majority of us, a Centrist Party!

John Key is a very centrist politician...in some areas he is more left that Labour and in other areas he is very right. I interviewed him last year and he described himself as socially liberal and fiscally conservative. He is somewhat left, somewhat right...he is in fact as close as we've seen to a centrist politician in quite a while.

Here's the problem, when you position yourself in the centre, it means you please a lot of people, but annoy many at the same time.

Ratifying the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, seen by many as a very left position to take. This has the possibility of alienating his traditional right supporter base. Also the rise of GST and changes to income tax, seen by many as a typical right government move but will this just confirm to the middle-left support base John Key may be gaining that nothing has changed?

When you are in the middle you are in danger of being a jack of all trade, but master of none.

If National annoys more people than it pleases they may be a one term government, if they please more than they annoy then they could be here for a while. And by looking at the polls right now you'd have to say that NZ is basically happy with a Center-Right Government with a Centrist Prime Minister