I See Red

A disclaimer about this blog: note to Paula Bennett etc

On this blog it is likely that, from time to time, the authors and commenters will criticise government policy, speeches, and political tactics.

We would like to reassert that this is neither explicit nor implicit consent to release any private information about the authors or commenters that is held by any government agency, minister’s office, local government organisation, political party, or any other person, organisation or agency.

For the purposes of clarification this non-consent includes, but is not limited to, the following information:

• benefit status or history;
• family status or history;
• ACC status or history;
• health status or history – including information held by DHBs, PHOs, central government agencies and private providers whether directly or indirectly contracted by the state;
• interactions with justice or law enforcement – including complaints, interviews, interactions, documents supplied;
• employment status or history;
• any grants applied for or received; and
• tax payments, status or history.

In addition we would like to restate that posting or commenting here does not give implicit or explicit consent for any private information held about any author or commenter to be used for a purpose other than the purpose for which is was supplied. This non-consent includes, but is not limited to, the reuse of personal information for political purposes.

Hat Tip:  Kiwipolitico

"gross dishonesty, or an abject failure in reading"

Keith Ng has done a simple but highly effective critique of Nick Smith's claims that the Greenpeace campaign for a 40% emissions reduction is unaffordable.  Nick Smith cited a report showing it would cost about $15 billion per year at 2020, or $60 per person per week.

With some basis fact checking Keith Ng demonstrates that the report Nick Smith was quoting from actually says the exact opposite; that doing nothing (using Nick Smith's own estimate) will cost about $15 billion per year at 2021, or $60 per person per week. 

When the report said that "40%" would cost $15b, it meant that if our carbon credit allocations were reduced by 40%, and our emissions level was unchanged, then it could cost New Zealand the equivalent of $15b.

So the cost that Smith talks about is categorically NOTthe cost of cutting New Zealand's emissions.

It is the opposite.It is the cost that New Zealand could face if we DON'T cut our emissions. Every unit of emission that we reduce now is a unit that come off this "$15 billion" price tag that Smith talks about.

Of course, the "$15 billion" was the worst-case-scenario. It's not outlandish, but it's definitely on the high end. But since Smith thought it was a reasonable enough scenario to use for his own ends, I'm happy to hold him to it:

According to the analysis that Nick Smith has been waving around, if we keep to the current emissions trends, it will cost us $15b per year – or $60 per person per week – by 2020.

I wonder if Nick Smith will apologise for getting it wrong and now support the Greenpeace 40% emissions reduction given his own example demands change. 

How is the opposition performing?

Earlier this week I did a blog post on opposition politics and some of the lessons from National as an opposition.  I would like to look at each of the seven lessons in terms of how the opposition is currently performing.

Firstly, you must unite behind a leader.  There was a remarkably smooth transition of leadership from Helen Clark to Phil Goff.  Goff's leadership is secure, he will lead Labour into the next election and any attempts to undermine that leadership (if that happens - which I doubt) won't be tolerated.  That puts the Labour opposition in the best possible position.  The Greens have also united behind their new young leaders who will take the Greens into the next election. 5/5

Secondly, opposition is most successful when it is united.  There have been a few issues that have united Labour and the Greens (and to some extent the Maori Party) such as the Auckland Super-city.  But the opposition is going to have to be much stronger on New Zealand wide issues of concern if it is to start to dent the popularity of the National-led Government.  Jobs, taxes, a "Green new deal", health and education seem like the most obvious choices.  Speaking in opposition with one voice on these issues will be crucial to building up an alternative Government.  We're far from there yet. 1/5

Thirdly, you can't just be negative and run New Zealand down.  I think Labour is getting the mix right on this one.  Labour is attacking the Government, but suggesting alternatives and not talking New Zealand down in general terms.  But eventually positive concrete policies will have to be part of the mix.  4/5

Fourthly, the public has to be open to listening.  As I have said before no'one wants to hear from Labour at the moment.  People want to give National a fair go so there is no point shouting from the rooftops lambasting the Government.  Which is why Labour has taken a much more grassroots approach.  Rather than expect the public to listen, Labour is going out to the community and listening.  Phil Goff is quietly touring the country in his "touching base" campaign, and there is an expectation that our MPs and party activists create opportunities for listening to the public and community.  That approach is being criticised by the media as Labour and Phil Goff being too low-profile.  But I think it demonstrates that Labour knows that for the public to be open to listening, Labour has to listen first. 4/5

Fifth, brand the Government and repeat those phrases.  I'm still waiting.  0/5

Sixth, talk about the issues that matter.  I think there is a strong sense developing about what those key issues are (or will be).  I mentioned some above.  Phil Goff, in his latest video, talks about job security and youth unemployment, providing for families, training/education and R&D, and well targeted tax cuts.  The Greens have started talking about a "Green New Deal".  Add health into the mix, and I think that is the makings of a platform for the 2011 General Election.  The problem to date is how to talk about and frame those issues (see above) and how to turn them into campaigns.  3/5

Seventh, build an army of volunteers, supporters and cheerleaders.  The Labour Party is rebuilding but needs to be much stronger.  It relies on too few activists and too few members at present.  The opposition also lacks cheerleaders in the media and community willing to speak out against the Government, or in favour of alternative ideas.  The same is true for the Green Party.  1/5

A good solid start, but a lot of work to do.

Next post - how opposition politics is different under MMP, in particular looking at the Greens, Maori and Act parties.

Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince review

Contains spoilers.

There was a long wait between Order of the Phoenix and Half Blood Prince but it finally arrived this week.  I was at the first public screening at 9am (but rest assured I didn't dress up!).  I re-read the book last week and was worried that the film would disappoint by leaving out several parts of the book.  I was also worried that some of the scenes would be sanitized (including the part when Malfoy stamps on Harry breaking his nose and covering him in his invisibility cloak, and the Sectumsempra curse which leaves deep gashes in Malfoy).

But I also went into the film knowing that it is a genre all of its own and not to get too caught up in whether it follows the book.

In my view this movie was the best of the six so far.  The film captured the mood and spirit of the book, the actors had matured, the effects were better, and there were some magic moments including the death of Dumbledore, the casting of Ron's love interest, the cave scene, the casting of Tom Riddle junior (times 2) and the way the pensieve scenes were filmed.  I also love Helena Bonham Carter and Alan Rickman in their respective roles.  They did include the scenes of Malfoy stamping on Harry and Sectumsempra (although not as graphically as in the book).  I also thought they started the film well, reminding the audience of what has just happened at the end of the fifth movie (the death of Sirius Black and the confirmed return of Voldemort).

But there were of course a few disappointments too.  The pensieve memories (these were some of the most significant parts of the book) were missing.

• How Tom's mother used a love potion on Tom Riddle senior (which compliments in the book the Hogwarts students learning about love potions and the themes around love and lust in the book), and the Riddles being the last of the pure-blood Slytherin line. 
• The role of the "special items" which later become Horcruxes (and the context around that). 
• Tom killing his father, grandparents, and framing his uncle for their murder. 

And I was disappointed that Harry simply went down stairs and watched Dumbledore being murdered (not in the nature of Harry filmmakers!) rather than Dumbledore casting a spell to immobilize Harry and putting the invisibility cloak around him - thereby forcing Harry not to interfere, but also giving Malfoy time to disarm Dumbledore.

But the film would probably need to be an extra hour or more in order to fit all of that in, and that was never going to happen!

So while there were some disappointments in comparing the book and the movie it was a good movie in its own right, and the best of the six so far.  Now we just have to wait another year and a half for the next installment!

Baby seals in Kaikoura

Some video I took when I was staying with my in-laws in Kaikoura recently. A few years ago baby seals starting making the journey 200 metres or so up a fresh water creek in Kaikoura to frolic in the waterfall. Around 50 or so baby seals have been doing this each year. My husband, Nic, is throwing the ball.

Opposition politics

My first formal involvement in the Labour Party was election day 1999 where I volunteered for Mark Peck in my home town Invercargill.  A few months earlier I had attended Labour's campaign launch for my school newspaper and put my name down to volunteer.  I was blown away by Helen Clark - she spoke for over 40 minutes and answered the questions superbly (including mine on youth suicide).  It wasn't until 3 months later that I found out political parties had membership (no'one bothered to tell me or ask me to join!).

Which is a long way of saying that my entire involvement with the Labour Party (apart from one day) was while Labour was in Government.  So my main lesson in what to do (and what not to do) in opposition are from my experience of National as an opposition.

I drew several lessons from that:

Firstly, you must unite behind a leader.  I believe Bill English had more chance of winning the 2005 election than Don Brash:  English's downfall was the lack of support from within the caucus and constantly being undermined.

Secondly, opposition is most successful when it is united.  When National, New Zealand First, Act, and United Future were all hammering the same issue (for example tax cuts, or "one law for all") they shaped the public debate, public mood, and political agenda.

Thirdly, you can't just be negative and run New Zealand down.  National was most successful when it stopped bagging New Zealand and starting using positive language.  One of the skills of opposition is walking the fine line between being critical, while also supporting New Zealand and New Zealanders and projecting a positive vision for the future.  Obama did this brilliantly in the US.

Fourthly, the public has to be open to listening.  No'one wanted to hear from National from 2000-2003.  The public liked the direction and style of the new Labour government and were willing to give it a fair go.  National didn't learn that lesson.  Instead of listening to the public and the new political consensus that was emerging around some of Labour's policies and positions, it closed its ears and started shouting.  But no'one was listening.

Fifth, brand the Government and repeat those phrases.  Helen Clark's strong leadership at the start of her term became "arrogance" because of the opposition branding.  The Government playing an active role in the economy and society became "nanny state" and "political correctness" because of the oppositionbranding.  Those phrases were emotionally loaded and became arguments in themselves for why the Government was failing.

Sixth, talk about the issues that matter.  Government's get bogged down with the detail of running the country and dealing with fires as they ignite.  Opposition must  keep the bigger picture in mind and constantly talk about the issues that are at the forefront of people's minds and concerns. 

Seventh, build an army of volunteers, supporters and cheerleaders.  Oppositions can't change the country on their own.  To win elections and shape public opinion you must have an army of people supporting you.  Those friends who became silent in the last years of your Government may emerge when they see the cuts to certain programmes or policies that  hurt certain people.

That's all I can think of at the moment.  Please let me know if you can think of more.

My next post will be about how Labour rates against each of those factors as an opposition and how things are also much more complicated under an MMP system with multiple political parties. 

National and Labour 8 months on

It is now 8 months since the 2008 General Election and worth reflecting on the political landscape.  I can only reflect back what I see and hear in the media and my observations from within the Labour Party and my work sphere (the NGO/Health sector). 

While John Key and National's honeymoon has gone through a rough patch over the past couple of months, they continue to poll in the low to mid 50% range.  Most Kiwis are fair minded and want to see them given a chance to be a successful Government.  It's also too early for the public to blame National for where the country is or is heading.  Several times I've heard people attack a specific National policy (eg the cuts to community education) but defend National on the basis that the economy is in recession and they have a difficult task to balance the books. 

But there is also a growing uneasiness.  One colleague in the health sector who voted National for a tax cut in 2008 found that he received his tax cut in April only to lose his job in June when National cut funding to health promotion (which to my colleagues surprise is apparently no longer a front-line service). 

This is not a Labour-lite Government.  This is a traditional National Government cutting spending and programmes on an ideological basis and using the recession as an excuse to undermine popular Labour policies and programmes.  While that may not be showing in the polls now, before too long the New Zealand public will realise they have been hoodwinked and demand a real economic recovery package, and restored investment in health, education and jobs.

No'one wants to hear from Labour.  The public had 9 years to hear from Labour and Labour is well aware of that.  But that doesn't mean that Labour isn't rebuilding.  Labour is quietly rebuilding membership and organisation.  Labour MPs are quietly reconnecting with the community, listening, debating, engaging.  The online presence is a good example.  Over 800 activists have joined the new Grassroots Labour site - a site for Labour members to chat, debate, and organise in an open forum.  Red Alert (the Labour MP blog) has quickly become one of the most popular political blogs.  And the left-leaning Standard is going from strength to strength.  The Mount Albert by-election was a real show of force and demonstrates what Labour can do when it goes back to basics and runs a grassroots on-the-ground campaign that talks about the issues of concern to local people.  But such rebuilding takes time to filter through into public support and political polls.  Opposition also takes a major readjustment in mindset that some havn't managed yet.   

I don't expect to see much movement in Labour's polling for at least another 12 months.  The question is, can Labour do enough in the next 28 months to increase its support by the 6% or so needed to form a coalition Government with other partners?  And will there be any partners?  That's a topic for another post.