Gerry Brownlee loses the plot

When Gerry Brownlee (Minister of Energy and Resources) refused to answer a question from Green Party MP, Metiria Turei in Parliament today, he demonstrated that he doesn't really understand his job or why he is there.

His excuse was something like: she didn't accept his answers, so why should he give her any answers? Mr. Brownlee reveals how very personally he sees all of this....and what a petty man he must really be.

This isn't about Gerry and Metiria. It's about explaining his government's policies, decisions and actions to the people of New Zealand. Gerry Brownlee shouldn't give a flying rubber toss what Meteria Turei thinks about his answers. Instead he should be telling the people who pay his salary (we taxpayers and voters) why he is doing what he is doing.....even if he has to do it 10 times a day in response to questions.

This isn't first time Gerry Brownlee has demonstrated he doesn't really understand what his job as an MP is. Examples are many, but this one stuck out in my memory: In December last year he thought it more important to score points on Labour's Michael Cullen than table proposed legislation so that it could be available for consideration and debate. There is a recurrent theme of Mr. Brownlee losing sight of his real job and instead focusing on personal point scoring....as though this was the top priority and best use of his time.

It isn't.....but I doubt Mr. Brownlee will ever really understand that. In any case, he is a poor choice as a Minister and indicative of a lack depth in National's caucus.

Straight talking from Green Co-Leader, Russel Norman

In an almost empty parliamentary chamber, Green Co-leader, Russel Norman explains why the tax laws in New Zealand seriously disadvantage companies who actually make stuff here.

The madness is obvious. What isn't obvious is why it happening.

Haier to buy chunk of F&P?

The NZ Herald reports Chinese whiteware maker, Haier, may take a 20% stake in Fisher & Paykel.

F & P announced just over a year ago it was closing whiteware manufacturing in New Zealand and Australia and moving production to Thailand, Mexico and Italy.

That would be a different twist: A Chinese manufacturer owning production facilities in Thailand, North America and Europe. A potentially smart move for Haier if protectionist impulses rise to the fore in those markets.

Not theft. Not fraud. Not right either......

The police appear to be having some difficulty working out what charges to lay against Leo Gao and Kara Hurring, the couple who took the $10M Westpac Bank deposited in their account. It isn't theft, because they didn't steal it as the law described stealing. It isn't fraud because they didn't make any false representations. I'm sure there is a law to cover it, but the apparent confusion on the point is interesting. I'm assuming, of course, the confusion isn't just a ruse to get the pair to return to NZ.

What would you do?

A Rotorua couple appears to have taken off with $10 million belonging to the Westpac Bank. Instead of the $10,000 overdraft they were supposed to get, the bank gave them $10,000,000. The couple walked away from the BP petrol station they own and haven't been seen since.

The police say the money went "overseas". I'm sure it did.

What would you do? Would you know what to do? I wouldn't have a clue. I'd call the bank and point out their mistake and that would be that.

I'm so boring. ;-)

National. Melissa Lee. Ooops.

I'm often late to comment on these in-the-moment political stories. I do try to wait and see what happens and get a better feel for the big picture and not jump to conclusions. I don't always succeed, but I do try.

The Melissa Lee Singularity in Mt. Albert is such an event. She is obviously an intelligent woman and for the most part presents well. The video below (H/T The Standard and TV3) demonstrates this. But it also raises some questions about the judgement of the senior people in her party who put her forward.

In context, Melissa Lee's apparent brain fart at the 4:00 mark in the video below isn’t a big deal. People have that sort of thing happen all the time. I have done media interviews and I know it happens. Especially in a campaign situation where 8 hours sleep each night isn't a happening thing. One's head is often spinning with the events of the day and sleep doesn't come easy sometimes, even if you do get to bed at a reasonable hour.

What does matter is what is said in the more coherent moments. Most of what Melissa Lee says in this clip is fairly reasonable. Her language could be a little more sensitive. I’m not sure calling people “old ladies” is going to make them feel warm and happy. That’s the same sort of lack of finesse displayed in the south Auckland moment. Over time, that sort of error is usually fixable for a future campaign.

What is significant to me about Melissa Lee's record to date in her candidacy in the Mt Albert by-election is she was the choice of National Party HQ (overriding the local favourite) to front for the National Party in a high profile campaign, surrounded by some very difficult Auckland-specific - Mt Albert specific! - issues.

Ooops.

Kiwi hostility to democracy

Matt McCarten, in his column in the Herald looks at how events surrounding the demolition of Melissa Lee's National party candidacy in Mt. Albert highlights serious problem with democracy in New Zealand. In particular, McCarten looks at the lack of active engagement by all but a very small proportion of the population in the party political process.

My own experience of political involvement in NZ over the past 25 years suggests many Kiwis are only happy with “democracy” provided everyone agrees with them and things are done the way they want them done. If things don't go the way they want them to, then they don't like democracy itself.
Allowing anyone but them to have an effective say is undesirable in their view. Most often they also see no reason why they would ever get involved and actually do something to get things moving in their preferred direction. Even if they do decide to get involved, to them the answers are obvious and they don't want to waste a minute persuading anyone of the merits of their views. Just do it and democracy just gets in the way.

Real life isn’t like that, so this sort of person will turn up at meetings, find that they are just one of the many there and everyone ISN’T hanging on their every word.

Discussion, debate and negotiation take time and require people to do their homework. Meeting(s) will sometimes, or often, arrive at a decision not everyone agrees with, in part or whole. The un/anti-democratic Kiwi tend to de-commit fairly quickly and may even spit the dummy completely and thereafter go around telling everyone "camels are horses designed by committees". That is the sure sign of someone who doesn't know how to work well with others (and may never have even tried).

All the 'wise' heads nod in agreement. This sort of person prefers to dictate rather than listen and engage in a positive and constructive way. Any outcome but the one they want is proof (to them) democracy sucks.

In my experience, Kiwi politics (like politics anywhere) is, at times, greatly hindered by these immature people who want it all their own way while at the same time not listening to anyone else. The irony is that too many of them in the same room can produce exactly the outcome they all object to: gridlock and confusion.

Sometimes, they rise to high office in the absence of any local competition within their party. With few democratic checks in place, they can go far on very little indeed. Once there, they avoid any real consultation as a waste of their time. They practice the art of fait accompli and very much prefer situations that allow them to dictate rather than negotiate.

Of the two major parties, National is the worse for lacking internal democracy, though Labour is very far from perfect and not much better.

National's members have very little say at all about what happens in the party. Their members (including many MPs) have no effective say in policy formulation. Local members elect only their local candidate and have no say about any other or about the party list or its ranking or the Parliamentary leadership of their party.

This is no accident. National is actively hostile to democracy. They want to reduce democracy in Auckland to make it more effective. National wants to get rid of MMP so they can dictate more effectively to everyone, not just Auckland. National is - in effect - the vehicle for the immature, negative, un/anti-democratic tendency that runs strongly in the veins of the Kiwi body politic. These are the people who have no idea how a city council works or what an MP does all day. They will have strongly negative views of politicians despite having no direct experience of any of them. They won't have ever read a Bill or made a submission on anything.

One perverse aspect of this anti-democratic attitude, in my view, was National warning voters in 1993 of the prospect of undemocratically selected party list candidates being elected under MMP. National then set about proving themselves right by demonstrating no commitment to internal party democracy. It was all empty talk about wanting democracy. Gioven the chance,  they didn't do it and actively seek to undermine democracy for others who do do it.

Are people outraged by National's anti-democratic policies? Not really. Perhaps they don't actually understand what it all means. Perhaps it's because they don't understand very much about politics at all in any case.

Most Kiwis today are actually quite happy with this anti-democratic position. Again, my own experience suggests aren’t well informed politically (or about anything, really). They certainly aren't engaged or active in the political process. Few have any real experience of working positively and constructively for a solution that everyone can live with, though to their credit, Maori culture is often more democratic than the mainstream culture with frequent hui and consultation in many iwi. But most Kiwis prefer to dictate. Discussion is a waste of time, debate is seen as squabbling and negotiation is seen as weakness. Never mind that these are the most effective ways for groups of people to get things done together without conflict and disruption.

What is noticeable about many who do persist in politics over many years is they are more measured and mature in their approach and do tend (not always!) to be positive and constructive in approaching most issues.

Sadly though, Melissa Lee is just one more indicator of the consequences of most Kiwis’ disinterest or active hostility to the daily grind of actual practice of grassroots democracy. The party bosses in National were able to pick someone who clearly wasn't up to the job and no one questioned them. No one could.

Of course people won’t see themselves as hostile to democracy, but what they actually DO gives the game away. Most Kiwis wanted MMP because they didn't like the way things were going. I was certainly one of them. But once we got more and better democracy, many of those same people were almost immediately disenchanted because real democracy allows people you disagree with to take part and have an equal say.

For most Kiwis, this just won't do. In their heart of hearts most Kiwis don't actually like democracy very much at all.  This is very frustrating and disheartening for the very large minority of Kiwis who do value democracy and that portion of those who actually take part in it.

NZ boycotts UN conference on racism

Rather than front up and take part in the debate at the UN-sponsored World Conference on Racism, the US, Australia, Canada, Netherlands, Germany, Italy and Israel are not going to turn up. Canada's conservative government was first to bail out early last year.

The apparent reason is conflict around Israel's policies in Palestine. The response from much of the West is the usual one: turn a deaf ear. To be fair, the Arab states are just as deaf in response to criticism of their behaviour and policies.

Israel is easily the most contentious issue on the global agenda for the past 60 years. Failure to deal with this issue has lead to many wars and atrocities, directly and indirectly, including 9/11.

Why on Earth would we (NZ or anyone) allow a single issue to break up a major international conference? Yet this appears to be exactly what is happening. The wrongs of racism are exactly what the conference is about.

Instead, the listed countries are adopting a "talk to the hand" stance, plugged their ears and boycotted the conference in an attempt to block the airing of criticism about Israeli behaviour in Palestine. Are we seeing criticism of Israel - again - being portrayed as "anti-semitism"? It would appear to be the case.

Why not turn up and make the opposing case?

I note the Herald article, sourced from AP, includes the (2005) claim that Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, called for "Israel to be wiped off the map" but neglects to mention that Israel has been threatening to unilaterally nuke Iran since at least 2002.

Reporting the Iranian president's comments out of context appears to be required journalistic practice in the English-speaking world, at least.

NZ Herald misleads on climate change - again

A glance at the front page of this morning's NZ Herald drew my eyes to this headline:

Survey: NZ cooler on global warming

The headline implies that Kiwis are losing interest in the subject of climate change. The content of the story demonstrates this is very much not the case:

• 87% want action on climate "very soon" or "in coming years"
• 42% (down 21- want to lead the world in taking action and 39% (up 12 - want to keep up with the rest of the world)
  
• Sustainable Business Council chief executive Peter Neilson ... said other nations had "lapped" New Zealand when it came to policies, such as the Emissions Trading Scheme, that were being discussed here in 2007. That had made it easier to follow and harder to lead. "There's a lot more competition now."
• Sixty-five per cent believed the effects of global warming had already begun and 44 per cent believed it would threaten lifestyles within their lifetime.
• Asked if they agreed with a statement by the UN Secretary General that the case for human-driven  climate change was proven and the time for action was past, 65% agreed and 14% disagreed.   
  

Clearly, Kiwis are convinced that climate change is real and something needs to be done. The shift from "leading the world" to merely keeping up is most likely caused by people recognising the present government doesn't actually want to do anything at all about climate change. Meanwhile the United States now has leadership committed to action while New Zealand hasmoved from a leadership position to becoming a backwater of denial. People may simply be being realistic about what they may expect from a willfully ignorant government that has done worse than nothing and cut funding for programs that would have begun to address the problem of climate change. At this point, just keeping up would be a big step forward. 

The Herald's headline  is deliberately misrepresenting the findings of a survey showing people are concerned about climate change and want action to be taken. Given their representations of climate change almost always tend to the denialist side, the use of the word "deliberate" is appropriate. 

The real story here is just how far out of touch the present government is with the public on the issue of climate change. Good on the Herald for recognising this is a front page story. Boos and jeers for trying to make it look like something other than what it is. 

Shifty energy games - not in my name, thanks.

Wednesday, the business section of the NZ Herald reported "Energy Minister Gerry Brownlee has said that improved productivity, rather than continual price rises, was expected from the generators". Today, the Herald informs us "The Government has summoned the heads of State-owned enterprises to an April 9 meeting, where they will be told to improve their performance."

The "E" word from the 90's - efficiency - re-emerged, too. Back then it was by-word for a governmental process that essentially crippled public enterprises in order to run them down and thus justify eventually sell them off.

"We are keen to talk to them to make sure they are contributing to the economy in an efficient way," State-Owned Enterprises Minister Simon Power told NZPA.

"In the six months to the end of December 2008 we have seen the net profit after tax across those portfolios reduce by 50 per cent.

"That is a matter that a shareholder of any commercial enterprise would be concerned to discuss."

What does he mean by "contribute to the economy in an efficient way"? Lower prices? How then can they earn higher returns? Lower costs? They are already under fire for old and / or inadequate infrastructure. Given Energy Minister Brownlee has said they shouldn't increase prices, it looks very much like National is setting the SOE boards an impossible set of conditions: increase profits - presumably by the 50% referred to - without increasing price.

The Herald reports Minister Power summoned the SOE heads to a meeting to discuss measures to improve their financial performance.

Labour's Charles Chauvel says, "This is code for SOEs charging higher prices to the public. ... There is fundamentally one way that energy SOEs can contribute higher dividends to the Government - by charging higher prices."

History says he is right. Power's reference to taxpayers having a $24 billion dollar investment in the power companies makes it clear he expects a commercial rate of return - no matter what the economic circumstances at the time may be. That rate of return could be - say - 10%. That would be annual profits on the order of $2.4 billion dollars. Maybe more. Maybe less.

In my opinion, National's setting up a Kangaroo Court for the SOE boards. If they do make the money he demands from them, he'll call them robbers and sack them for putting prices up. If they don't make the money, he'll sack them for non-performance. There's no way these organisations can meet these conflicting requirements and any one of these pretexts can be used to sack the boards. It would seem the Minister doesn't want them to succeed. No other conclusion fits the situation National is creating.

Once again National confirms for me they aren't a party I could ever vote for. Ideology aside, they way they operate is simply shifty. That makes them bad employees. Our employees.

Not in my name, thanks.

The nine day fortnight vs interest rates

The government is prepared to put up $60 each fortnight for each employee in a company with over 100 employees or more in a bid to save jobs. That would amount to a subsidy to a business taking it up of at least $3,000 / week. This is projected to cost up to NZ$20million.

Let's do some math - at risk of embarrasing myself. Give me credit for trying here.

The RBNZ says there is over NZ$90 billion ("BB1" in RBNZ-speak) in term deposits as of January '09. The terms will vary in length. If I've read the numbers right, there is another $84billion or so (BB2.4 and BB4.4) made up of deposits that aren't term deposits. Presumably they attract some interest. I think the latter pair exclude household chequing and transaction accounts.

Assuming just $100 billion in deposits attracting interest (very conservative, given the number appears to actually be $170 Billion), how much money goes up in smoke for every drop in interest rates of 1%?

$1,000,000,000 per annum.

Every 0.1% drop in interest rates is like losing $100 million / annum from the pockets of savers / people with capital.

If that number is remotely accurate (probably too low), the savers and people with 'capital' (money in the bank in huge gobs) are paying a high price, as a group, to provide cheaper credit to everyone else. It makes the $20 million the government is putting up look like.....well....very little.

The cost of the nine-day fortnight offer is further limited by the required size of the company - at least 100 employees. It would also make the number of applications easier to handle. After all, if you made it so every company with more then two employees eligible, the crash would be over before all the applications were cleared and 10,000 civil servants would need to be hired to ensure compliance.

Where I work, the $60 amount to 2 or 3 hours pay - at the very most and usually less, making this offer a 9 day, 6 hour fortnight. That would translate into maybe two long lunches each fortnight.

It looks like more of a gesture than a move of real substance.

The RBNZ's OCR cuts in recent months will have seen at least several billion dollars in interest income removed from savers over the coming two years. On the face of it, these rates cuts look contractionary.....not stimulatory.

The $20 million for the nine-day fortnight is less than 2% of the money that would be put into the hands of savers by NOT reducing interest rates by just 1%. The tax money the government would earn in tax (even if just 20%, more likely 30%) on the lost $1 billion or so in interest income would dwarf this amount.

I'm new to these stats. If I've mis-understood BB1, BB2.4 and BB4.4, I hope someone will put me right.

Judith Collins and Barry Matthews

Not surprised Barry Matthews (CEO of the Corrections Department) is still in his job. He has had a long and successful career in a profession (policing) with a tough-minded culture.

By comparison, Minister responsible for Corrections, Judith Collins, is a lightweight.....AND she fluffed the whole thing by grandstanding. Attitude is no substitute for competence.

It's now obvious National wanted to get rid of Barry Matthews so they could appoint someone who would oversee the dismembering of the prison service and bring in private operators to suck at the public teat for profits doing what is now done at cost.

Good luck with that.

National all set to make a mess of prisons

Prison is one of those things many people have strong opinions about while knowing very little (or nothing) about it really.

The National Party and ACT would have us believe people in prisons are living the high life. Coddled. Plasma TVs and underfloor heating. The sub-text is they are better off in prison than hard working, law-abiding people. Being pampered instead of punished.

That picture isn't even remotely accurate, but the broader public don't know that and the public servants who work in prisons aren't allowed to talk about their work. As is often the case, the people who do know can't say and those who don't know fill the void.

Anyone who has spent much time in a New Zealand prison knows just how ugly, barren, dangerous and deeply boring they really are.

The prison I worked in had two prisoners in many cells. Staff are well aware of the risks this presents to other prisoners and to staff. I've had a few "moments" myself on several occasions with a pair of prisoners with a "view" on how things should be. With single prisoner cells, the staff have the upper hand (2 to 1) when they unlock a door. With 2 prisoner cells, it's even money.....unless change the rules and require 3 or 4 staff to open the doors...and then you better be prepared to pay for more staff.

Good luck, as prisons have been made so ugly and barren by the short-sighted hang'em high crowd that few want to work in them anyway. I don't think paying more is what National has in mind. The main pool of workers appeared to be ex-military people who, I supposed, were used to ugly, barren, cold-concrete surroundings. Where else can you risk injury or death for $22/hour on a 10-day shift run at any time of the day or night?

National wants to make sure prison staff are paid a lot less than the present rates and that there are a lot fewer staff per prisoner. That's the ONLY way you save money running a prison. They can't cut costs on food. They barely spend $4 / day per person as it is. They tried to cut heating costs by using the most efficient means available that is also resistant to prisoners wrecking it - under-floor heating buried in concrete.....but the National Party portrayed that as a "luxury".

Another angle is having two prisoners in a cell will help the gangs tighten their grip on prisons. The gangs already use NZ's prisons as a major recruiting ground and training camp for prospects. Gangs build their esprit de corps in prisons. It's their version of right of passage by trial.

If you want people to be violent criminals, just lock them up and allow them to be stood over and brutalised and you'll get what you wished for. If you want people to come out of prison and make a change for the better, then you MUST start treating them like the people they need to be on the day you let them out....or you have wasted all your time and money. Sure, some people are just rotten to the core - a form of permanent mental dysfunction - and can't be reformed or rehabilitated. Some prisoners are like that. But the vast majority aren't like that...or needn't be.

I've talked about this before, most fully on May 15th last year, just after the escape attempt from Mt. Eden. For a more detailed idea of what working in a prison is like, have a read. Walk the halls with me.

Otago DHB: Did Tony Ryall get it right?

Heath Minister, Tony Ryall, today sacked the Chair (Stuff) of the Otago District Health Board, Richard Thomson. Thomson isn't going quietly. An online report from NewstalkZB reports:

"Mr Thomson says he has expected to be fired ever since he offered to give Mr Ryall a private briefing on the fraud. "He turned that into a three-ring political circus that he was intent on removing me from my position, and so certainly none of this has come as a surprise."

Mr Thomson says the fraud was set up well before he took on the position and the board acted on the first piece of information available.

Thomson then goes on to make a very good point about the message Mr. Ryall's action is sending to senior executives in public organisations:

"My real concern here is that the message is that if you are unfortunate enough to inherit something illegal going on, and you subsequently discover that, then you'd be better to sweep it under the carpet - because otherwise you'll be held as guilty as the criminals."

The Stuff report quotes Thomson as saying Ryall sacked him because Thomson is a member of the Labour Party:

"He thought he could get rid of someone who batted for the other side and make some political capital out of it," he told NZPA.

This sounds more like the Tony Ryall I've been watching for almost 20 years. In my humble opinion, he's been on the wrong side of many issues and appears to be able to remain there comfortably by taking little heed of any evidence he may be wrong about anything. Ryall's a True Believer.

Does Mr. Ryall really intend to provide incentive for senior public servants to hide such things as this fraud lest their own careers be destroyed by the malfeasance of others? Based on his record to date, I'm sure he didn't give it a moment's thought, so keen was he, as Thomson says, to score political points. That's the Tony Ryall I've come to know since first hearing of him in 1990.

Having said that, if he is aware of any evidence that proves Thomson did anything more than discover and report a fraud (as he rightly should have done), I'd like to know what it is. Yes, $17M is a lot of money, but we are talking about a DHB's IT budget over most of a decade. The Otago DHB as a whole has annual revenues approaching NZ$500 million. I've worked in IT for over 20 years. In an IT context, $17M across many years in an organisaion spending $5 billion in a decade is small beer and would not hard to conceal if it had the right words and paper wrapped around it by the executives. In this case, they were contracting out services and paying invoices....though little or no actual services were being provided.

Good on Thomson and the Board for doing the right thing and blowing the whistle immediately they knew. Shame it wasn't discovered sooner. Boo Hiss to Ryall for punishing a senior exec for coming clean and doing the right thing as soon as he was aware of the crime. Clearly, the precedent is set: Mr Ryall should resign as Minister if further such frauds are discovered on his watch. He should have known, right?

Shutting down the little people (again)

No Right Turn, continuing daily to make NZ's collective media look like lightweights where looking into the detail is concerned, writes today on the government's recommendations for amending the Resource Management Act.

NRT's summary is to the point:

"Combined, these changes will mean less democratic control and less accountability. Decisions will be made by faceless bureaucrats in Wellington rather than by people working for local communities according to local concerns. It will mean that you will have less say in what happens in your local community - less say over whether a large developer gets to destroy a local river, pollute the air, erect a building which ruins the landscape, or bury toxic waste in the ground. And when any of those things happen, we will know who to blame for it: the National-led government and Nick Smith."

The National Party has spent most of the last 27 years convincing me they don't really like democracy very much and find it all a bit of a bore. They want to dump MMP and will be making moves soon to take away your and my vote. The party vote: the only one that actually counts. Whenever they get the chance, they remove our rights and place the power to make decisions in the hands of the people they like and trust. Bill Birch ditched the elected hospital boards and replaced them with appointed bodies. That was to be a prelude to more privatisation of that public service.

National always claim they are doing this for our own good while at the same time making it very clear they aren't prepared to listen to anything to the contrary. That, for me, is the very essence of the National party approach to politics and democracy: Gut the power of the weak (for their own good, of course) and never, ever listen to anyone who objects. Looking at the evidence and admitting you've got it wrong is a sign of weakness in their book. One might think that to them, believing you are correct is much better than actually being correct. The evidence of my own experience certainly supports such a view.

It's the same ethos that gave us the failed power reforms - despite many warnings they would not work - and a badly run down education system and a health system that was at the point of collapse in 1999...and much more. They were deaf to it all and went down in a hail of bullets.

The new National government is giving every sign of being no different to any other. The sole exception in my lifetime was the government lead by Jim Bolger between 1990 and when they dumped him for Jenny Shipley. We got a treaty settlements process and MMP out of that government. Rare exceptions in a long history of undermining the democratic power of the individual while reserving real power for their cronies and sponsors. National can't see it (they never do) but the seeds of their own electoral destruction are already being sewn.

Arrogance redux

The new government appears to have forgotten all that it said about arrogance with respect to the previous government.

How else can we explain the rush of legislation, under urgency, with no opportunity for public input or expert scrutiny?

The usual hyopcrisy. I expected nothing else from National and they are living down to my low expectations of them.

"Democracy" isn't a word they understand.

The funding of Herceptin is a dubious thing, too. This is Tony Ryall screwing the process in the arse...and never mind the evidence.

We don't even know if that VERY expensive drug even works. Never mind. We'll spend millions on it anyway and disregard expert advice for political reasons.

National.....just what I thought they would be and not a bit more.

ACTing up.....

ACT Party leader, Rodney Hides' performance on TVNZ's "Sunday" last evening was informative. He claimed to represent the policies of the "real" National Party and taunted National leader John Key, also present, by describing his party as "to the left of Helen Clark". Most interesting is that he said this publicly, obviously talking over John Key's head to John Key's own voters.

Clearly Hide is signaling hardball....and appears at the same time to be positioning his party to capture more of National's vote....and maybe not in 2011, either. Hide sounds impatient....and would be more impatient if he doesn't get what he wants.

It may be ACT's game plan to have a bust-up at some stage if their policy aims are frustrated, and claim to be the "real" National Party in an election campaign. Grabbing a bigger chunk of the centre-right would certainly give them more leverage in any government....though any such government would be very unlikely.  It would have to happen sooner rather than  later in order to avoid scaring voters with policies they don't like. Go for the populist stuff first.

It has that feel about it. Maybe it is supposed to....to aid ACT's bargaining position. Roger Douglas has a history of blitzkrieg. Maybe John Key is in for more than he realises.

If there were to be an early election as a consequence of some power play by ACT, that would get around the issue of a referendum on MMP....which ACT has said it would support but would be crazy to actually follow through on (based on what Hide said in that interview).

Key needs as many allies as he can get accross the spectrum. He may find ACT to be something of a poisoned chalice if he drinks too deeply from it. The Maori Party...and even the Greens and Labour should not be afraid to marginalise ACT in policy areas where National wants to do things ACT won't support or National can't stomach ACT's terms.

For the moment, I'm putting ACT's public boorishness down to post-election jockeying for influence.

Key also have to be careful about what he does and who he does it to. many of the new voters he won over on Saturday were most likely loyal Labour voters through 3 elections who had grown tired of Helen Clark. A new Labour leader by itself may not be enough to win many of them back, but worse lower wages and conditions combined with reduced services could do it.

Also be alert for the "Shock Doctrine" approach to the global financial crisis. I am already hearing business leaders attempting to co-opt this event to justify their own pet policy changes.......

Combined, this could all quite easily make this National-lead government a one-termer....and it may not be the whole term at that.

Hide needs to keep in mind that their new government has actually won by a whisker....and it took former Labour voters to do it. They won't make that mistake twice if what they end up getting is ACT.

Delicious irony

Someone at TV3 was having a long day by the time they posted this story about a certain party leader's activities on the final day of the election campaign.

What a party vote for the Green Party stands for

• reducing New Zealand’s oil dependence and climate change emissions
• improving public transport and the rail system
• cleaning up our waterways
• increased protection of threatened species and ecosystems
• improved local food security, keeping NZ farming and environment GE free and supporting organic growing
• reducing child poverty and reducing violence against children
• forming a genuine partnership with Maori under the Treaty
• making education free and accessible
• protecting our national sovereignty from overseas ownership of land and strategic assets; and keeping us out of foreign wars
• protecting public healthcare, and investing in preventative health measures to keep us healthy and well
• protecting workers’ rights and raising the minimum wage
• open government, protecting democracy and civil rights

(h/t Frogblog)

The one party I can't vote for is the National party. They are the party who want to take my vote away. They do not resepct democracy. They deserve no one's vote. It's perverse that such an anti-democratic party enjoy the support they do from people who don't appear to understand that a vote for the National Party tomorrow may mean one day soon they no longer have a vote that counts.

A National Party voter in Porirua who votes for National is voting to have their own vote taken away one day soon. If MMP is dumped, that National voter in Porirua will once again be condemned to electing no one if they don't vote for Labour.

Dawn after the long Republican night

Barack Obama is to be the next US President. It also appears Americans have given the Democratic Party majorities in both houses of Congress.

This represents a comprehensive rolling back of the Reagan/Bush conservative agenda. Not surprising, as it has proven itself to be ultimately destructive rather than constructive.

There is a certain irony in this. Living on the North Shore, as I do, where the National Party is dominant, I'm surrounded by people who echo the views of the US Republicans while at the same time apparenly not realising much of it is nonsense and propaganda. It's the usual menu of dumbness: Invading Iraq was a good idea; unregulated, free markets will cure everything; government is always bad while private business is always good.....and so on, without actual evidence ever intruding on the minds of these faithful.

America had to suffer the disasters wrought by this nonsense. If National wins on Saturday without understanding that much it has advanced as good has been shown to be not good (PPPs too often = unaccountable crony capitalism, etc...) then that will be sad for New Zealand.

There is much in conservatism that is good.....but not much that is good in religious fundamentalism (whether the deity is the Sky Father or markets) and its partner, wilful blindness. National has been too prone to faith in things the evidence has long shown to be wrong or not the best way of doing things.

National is also New Zealand's declared anti-democracy party. They seek a return to First Past the Post and don't appear to mind at all that this will mean depriving fully half of all voters of the meaningful vote they currently enjoy under MMP.

How anyone could vote for a party who want to take their vote away is a mystery to me......but blind faith does make people do silly things.

Thankfully, today, here was a moment of reason - open-eyed, clear thinking - in the United States sufficiently widespread that Brack Obama won.

Fingers crossed those eyes remain open.