Key pushes the minor party vote at the expense of National candidates

Last week there was a rumour that Phil Goff asked his front bench if he should resign as leader. Goff has denied this and said today ”I think you`ll find that that spin has its origins in the National Party”.

Earlier today John Key emphatically denied that this came from the National Party, saying that National has “no interest in the Labour leadership”.

However, while Key is interested in speaking at conferences of minor parties – fronting to Maori Party and Act conferences, and, today, the United Future conference, he has no interest in debating their leaders on TV, but wants at least two of them to win their seats - in Ohariu-Belmont and Epsom - and is therefore encouraging supporters to list vote National – but split their vote.

While some New Zealanders what to be informed on minor party policies, Key thinks that this should not happen while he shares the TV screen, saying today “it wouldn’t do a lot about informing New Zealanders”.

So informing New Zealanders about minor parties is somewhat pointless to Key. Does he expect National to govern alone? The TV3 poll came out today showing the Greens on their highest ever polling of 9.3 percent - in fact their polling is way higher than NZ First, United Future, Act, Mana and Maori parties combined. The Greens would have nearly a third of the number of seats that Labour would have, and Labour just under half what National would have. Labour would likely lose six seats if the election were held today. Mana would get two seats if they win an electorate seat. National could govern alone – but may choose to include Peter Dunne as part of the government, if he wins his seat, as is likely.

Read more...

Key's speech to the National Party conference

At today’s National Party conference, John Key flagged some changes (some of which weren't changes) he hopes will prevent 16-17 year old's going onto the unemployment benefit. Instead they will have jobs, education or training – and receive a copy of “Playground Battle” from the feelers, as it has the song “Stand Up”, the theme song from the conference.

Actually, they`ll miss out on the feelers – and the training incentive allowance. Some will miss out on most of their benefit too, as it will be put on payment cards that can't be used on cigarettes and alcohol( which they can't legally buy anyway). If they study part time, perhaps if they get accepted in a tertiary institute in a few years, they won’t get $1000 course-related costs, like I did when I was studying.

The Government is going to amend the Privacy Act and the Education Act to require schools to reveal when 16- and 17-year-olds leave during the year, and share this information between the Ministries of Education and Social Development. That is because it has no idea where 16-17 year olds have come from – mind you the MSD has no idea when people leave the country either and are paying thousands each week to ex-pats who they think are in NZ, but have never checked.

The government will also fund community and other organisations to provide comprehensive and concentrated support.

In fact the Government has been doing this for years through programmes like Training Opportunites – but while funded for training, it is measured on employment outcomes, so the policy design wasn’t the best as if they were fully trained and didn’t get work the outcome was less positive. But it is very similar to what Key announced today. Government funding would go to organisations to 'transition' in to work or training, perhaps by building skills or training, but assessed on employment outcomes.

The implication is that these teens do not have a competent adult in their lives to manage their money and to assist them to get ahead in life. So these support providers in community groups will be these competent adults, and in some cases will pay their bills from their benefits and help them get into education, training and work – or the Ministry of Social Development will do it.

Actually, the MSD can pay money for bills for young people directly out of benefits - So why isn’t it?

Further, young people who are receiving these payments will have clear obligations, for example; to attend budgeting or parenting programmes.

WINZ offers budgeting advice. Why aren’t these young people being referred to it? Why is National announcing policy that, in part, it can implement now, but isn’t to a significant degree?

Key says “you measure a society by how it looks after its most vulnerable. You also measure a society by how many vulnerable people it creates”.

Obviously, the more vulnerable people a society creates, the harder that society has to work to look after its most vulnerable. But if “competent adults” are to be place alongside vulnerable teens, God help us if these people are WINZ case managers or similar.

Key said we can’t continue to give young beneficiaries money and trust they will do the right things with it. That approach has not worked.

So can we trust WINZ case managers to do the right thing for all vulnerable teens on benefits, and offer budgeting advice, training opportunities, and bill payments out of benefits?

No policy or legislative change is necessary – just the ability to implement and evaluate it - and tweak it further. It appears they are doing the latter only.

Read more...

Ohariu – why Peter Dunne will increase his majority

I have consistently said since I have moved into the Ohariu electorate that Peter Dunne will retain his seat at elections. I'm not about to change now, in fact I think he'll increase his majority in 2011.

National, as it did in 2008, will be telling its voters in Ohariu to vote for Peter Dunne instead of Katrina Shanks for the candidate vote in this year’s election. For the second time, Shanks will be concentrating on the party vote with a half-hearted attempt at campaigning for the electorate vote. Some National supporters will vote for Dunne, others won’t, but Dunne will win Ohariu in 2011 and the National vote won’t split between Dunne and Shanks in the way some are predicting.

As David Farrar says , if the National vote splits between Dunne and Shanks, Chauvel may come through the middle. Dunne voters may vote Shanks, or Shanks voters vote Dunne for the same reasons – to keep Chauvel out. What Chauvel will want is for Shanks and Dunne to almost tie, and he comes through the middle.

It won’t happen.

Many are comparing this battle to Epsom, where, John Key is happy or National voters to vote Hide to keep Act in Parliament. However the Ohariu electorate is different as Dunne is an effective constituent MP. Even some who party vote Green in Ohariu vote Dunne and may do so again in 2011 in increasing numbers. In 2008 Dunne’s vote dropped as many former Dunne voters voted for Shanks and Chauvel. Some voted Shanks because of Dunne’s support for the anti-smacking legislation, and also because they didn’t like Dunne being part of a Labour Government. Some did not like his position on the Electoral Finance Act, supporting it right up to the final vote, when he then abruptly switched sides. Those who voted Chauvel did so because of his increasingly senior role in Labour, because they got sick of Dunne,and they thought Shanks wasn't worth voting for.

This year, Dunne hasn't given Ohariu voters too much reason to be sick of him, and Shanks hasn't given voters too much reason to vote for her. Chauvel has done neither as he is too busy criticising Dunne and Shanks instead of working in the electorate and promoting Labour's plan for economic recovery.

I’m predicting that Dunne’s majority of 1200 will increase in 2011. Many of those who voted for Shanks in 2008 due to Dunne’s role in the Labour Government will return to Dunne, whereas not so many Dunne voters will vote for Shanks because she hasn’t given then much reason to – and she is now less likely to be a Dunne protest vote.

That’s why more 2008 Shanks voters will vote Dunne in 2011 compared with Dunne voters who will now vote for Shanks. The focus will not only be keeping Chauvel out; the only way to keep Chauvel out will be to retain Dunne so that Chauvel does not come up through the middle due to a split Dunne/Shanks vote.

Read more...

The Rise of the Maori Party?

Marae has published the results of a poll done by Digipoll between 18 October and 3 November 2009. It is of 1,002 voters of Maori descent – 700 on the Maori roll, and 302 on the General roll. It is an endorsement of the Maori Party arrangement with National, although Maori voters would have preferred Cabinet posts for Maori Party ministers.

The poll reveals some pretty interesting stuff. I asked for and received a breakdown of the roll split,as this was not published, although I haven't got an electorate split in the Maori electorates. I was sure there would be an increase in support for the Maori Party in the Maori electorate at the expense of Labour. I was right; 62% of those on the Maori roll would vote the Maori Party, up from 27.4% at the election. That's a huge increase.

Furthermore, of Maori in the general electorates, 10.8% will vote National, up from 7.6% at the election - but take that with a grain of salt as there are only 23 votes in it, due to the 302 sample.

But look at Labour - it is way behind on 23.3%. On election night Labour got more than 50% of the vote in the Maori electorates. Labour's vote in the Maori electorates has reduced by more than half since the election. That's a staggering drop. For the first time in living memory Labour is not topping one question in a poll in the Maori electorates.

On election night nearly 55,980 voted the Maori Party, nearly 33,000 of those were in the Maori electorate. Now it looks more like 74,500 in the Maori electorate support the Maori Party. It is possible that the Maori Party could get more than 85,000 votes in an election - but they`ll still only have 5 MPs in Parliament, as all it will do is wipe the overhang by lowering the number of Labour MPs, while giving at least one extra list seat to National.

But while the deck chairs would not have changed in the Maori Party, this poll is also encouraging for the Maori Party. Why would National ditch the Maori seats on these figures?

In the general electorate, 42% of Maori indicated they'd vote National; just 33% would vote Labour, with 15% voting the Maori Party. Low numbers were polled, but it certainly shows a trend.

No wonder Hone Harawira's constituents want him to be within the Maori Party as a current MP.

Read more...

More "chilling" than the Electoral Finance Act

Sweeping powers to spy, bug conversations and hack into private computers could be given to a web of state agencies as diverse as Inland Revenue and the Meat Board

The Human Rights Commission yesterday warned Parliament of the "chilling" implications of a proposed law that would see the intrusive powers usually only available to the police extended to all agencies with enforcement responsibilities.It said that under the law, council dog control officers would be able to enter homes to install a surveillance device and the Commerce Commission would be able to detain people.

Righto. What's going on, here? Someone give me one good reason why the Inland Revenue, Meat Board, local councils, Overseas Investment Office, Accident Compensation Corporation, Environment Risk Management Authority, the COmmerce Commission, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, and the Pork Industry Board should either get enforcement powers, be able to install surveillance devices in your home, and detain people without a warrant.

If the Pork Industry Board comes anywhere near my house I`ll be ringing the pigs.

Read more...

Horrors!!!!

From today, consider Big News a blog on the left of the political spectrum. Left of centre at least but sliding leftwards fast. Change your blogrolls, people. Take me off the list of the VRWC.

The governments referendum on MMP will be binding with 51% of the vote. It wants to have it at the election to secure a higher vote, so as to get the mandate.It looks like the two stage referendum is done in such a way that we won't even know what the options for the second stage are before we have completed the first vote. I might have to have to vote Labour at the next election, as a protest vote to National.

This electoral system referendum is the main reason I did not vote National (not that I would have voted for them anyway).

If Labour is supportive of MMP, I`m backing Labour. For the first time ever [although I may reconsider if they do silly things like this ]. National's John Key's preference for the electoral system is Supplementary Member (SM) which most have never heard of and probably won't get the opportunity to understand should it be an option in the second referendum. If we ever get First Past the Post, I`ll have to vote for a Labour candidate for the first time in my life to make my vote count - and even then it will only count if Peter Dunne retires or if I move out of the electorate.

If anyone wants to campaign for a fair and representative electoral system, this blog will gladly promote that campaign. I'm sick and tired of National acting like we have a First Past the Post electoral system - but wanting to govern with primarily middle class older white men under that unrepresentative electoral system.

Read more...

Is he a jolly Goodfellow?

Stuff reports that National Party president Peter Goodfellow will not be resigning. Does that mean that National considers their president a jolly Goodfellow?

Read more...

For he's a jolly Goodfellow

Auckland businessman Peter Goodfellow has been elected the 18th president of the National Party. The New Zealand Herald has the story. Have a read of both the first and last paragraphs. Could the Herald actually read their stories when they update them?

Read more...