That speech...

I was struck by the sense that John Key’s much awaited speech was a really odd attempt to sit on at least two fences. For a start, he has chosen a theme which is really quite uncertain factually, and which has few obvious or feasible policy solutions. It was a little off-putting that apparently the best he could do in terms of a strategy was deputizing to a back-bencher, and promising that she would come up with some ideas. Where was the integration with the rest of his team? Will it really be just the two of them?

I don’t doubt that the underclass in this country is a problem. It’s not nearly as big as Key makes out though. His assertion on the radio this morning that we weren’t far from street rioting was frankly hilarious. Also, the policy approaches which seem likely to work are likely to be long-term, expensive interventions, which don’t make good sound bites, and which are unlikely to excite the public. This is actually quite difficult stuff, and even if it works, the pay-offs won’t really come through for a decade or more. Hardly the kind of stuff to excite a passionate reaction!

To gain traction on this issue also requires the National Party to frame itself as the party of compassion for the poor. Do they really think they can do this convincingly? It seems to me to be evidence of John Key’s ongoing attempt to be all things to all people. He doesn’t really have a strong policy “rudder”, so he tries to say something, anything that he thinks people want to hear.

It also seems odd that he has chosen to make this speech at a time when both crime and unemployment are actually quite low, and without having any clear to solve the problem. It’s hard to see Key getting much traction on this issue. Not only has he failed to show a major, systemic problem, he’s failed to give us any indication as to how he might actually solve it. At least Don Brash’s Orewa speeches chose issues the public was actually concerned about, and actually generated some passion, support and press for the party.

He also seemed to vacillate between a number of approaches to the problem. On one hand he claims to want the government out of people’s lives. On the other, he wants more government spending and programmes. He is talking about more spending, more government involvement, and more civil servants. I particularly noted the talk about working with the “aunties and uncles” of under-privileged kids. What he is talking about is quite large scale intervention in the community. How will he ensure people’s buy-in, and then devise programmes that actually work.

Another idea he talked about in general terms was private sector involvement. This is really just shifting the expenditure though, not reducing it. Private sector organizations will only get involved in these programmes for profit, and there is no easy way to ensure effectiveness (how does one tie a company’s payment to education or employment outcomes, which might not show for 15 or 20 years?). Even if charities rather than companies are involved, their activities would still have to be paid for. Essentially it would be government expenditure under another name.

He also spoke of plans to ensure every unemployed person is in training or looking for work. WINZ already case manages unemployed people. The fact that his “plan” to do this is already government policy sets him up for an ambush that I would have expected him to avoid.

If I was a right-winger, I would actually be quite worried about this speech. If Key’s best move at this stage is to focus on an issue framed in left-wing terms, and which is not really fed by any great public feeling, it may be a sign of a worrying lightness in policy and political thinking.

Shocking Developments!

Trade Unionists present in Labour Party Caucus!

I don’t know if you have noticed, but there is an odd little argument which seems to frequently pop up in the blogosphere. It goes something like this. The Labour Caucus has a lot of former Trade Unionists in it. Therefore, the Labour party is a Bad Thing, and ought not to be in government. Span has already blogged on this, and it got me to thinking. I think this is a very, very weird argument. The point of this post is not so much to say that unions are a Good Thing, (although I think they are, despite their problems) as to say that criticizing Labour for recruiting a large number of former union employees is just a bizarre and pointless thing to do, and doesn’t seem to show much analytical or political acumen.

First, it seems to ignore a really basic point about political parties. Political parties are actually coalitions of people with broadly similar views on how things ought to be. Of course parties are going to have large clumps of people with similar views and backgrounds, that’s the entire point of a party, to allow people to form a broadly consistent political programme, based on shared values. Can anyone imagine what a party that was totally representative of New Zealand would look like? Frankly it would be unable to agree any meaningful value framework, or political programme. So, of course people with broadly similar views are going to form parties. And it stands to reason that those parties are going to have clumps of people with similar backgrounds. That’s why the National party has clumps of businessmen and farmers, and lots of old white men, Labour has a lot of trade unionists and academics, and United Future has lots of middle aged white fundies!

Secondly, it’s an ad hominem argument. It always seems to me that when someone is unable to critique a policy or action itself, they just default to attacking the C.V of the person responsible for it. I guess it saves some time spent actually thinking about things, but it hardly makes for good or convincing argument. In any case, if the number of trade unionists really put Labour so far out of touch with the electorate, why does that electorate keep voting for them?

It also ignores something quite critical about the nature of trade unions, and to a lesser extent, teaching and academia. These professions do not simply attract a random sample of people, who then form a disproportionately large part of the Labour caucus. Rather, they attract people who already have an attraction to left-wing politics, and a desire to get involved in it. If one did not have fairly strong political beliefs, there is certainly much more money to be made elsewhere, so union work, teaching and academia are obviously going to attract a lot of people who are motivated by principle rather than cash money. Obviously there will be people who go into teaching or academia for other reasons, but the point is still valid. There will be more people who choose teaching or academia for reasons of left-wing principle, than other professions like accounting or tax law.

The people who go into union work especially do so because they want to put their left-wing principles into practice, and the unions are the main means by which one can do this, while still earning some money for essentials, like Laphroaig. It seems to me that anyone who has a commitment to left-wing politics probably has a pretty high chance of working for a union at some stage.

So Labour’s tendency to select from the unions is largely a reflection of the kinds of people who go into the union movement, and is not comparable to simply choosing any other profession to recruit from. Frankly the anti union argument seems to me to be a whinge that can be used as a fall-back when an actual argument based on principle or practicality would just be too hard.

It's just not cricket...

Remember the good ole’ days when NZ always seemed to be fairly good at either tests or one dayers, but never both at the same time? At the time, it was a bit frustrating, but now those days seem positively halcyon!

Frankly, the recent drawn series with Sri Lanka was flattering. Our bowling was ok, but our batting really was quite outstandingly lame. Really, what are the odds of the entire top and middle order being out of from at the same time? It seemed often that James Franklin was our most reliable batsman. No disrespect to the big fulla, he is a handy lower order player, but things have come to a pretty sad pass when our best batting hope is a bowler.

I know plenty of others have already taken a swing at the rotation “system”, but really, couldn’t we focus on trying to find 11 good players, before we worry about the second 11? Rotation is all very well for the All Blacks or the Australian Cricket teams. Both of these sides could field second-string teams which would have a good chance of dominating their respective sports. The Black Craps simply aren’t in that league. We can’t even field one decent, in-form team, let alone a second!

The only real sign of hope to emerge from the tri-series thus far is the return of Oram, who adds a bit of starch to the batting, and provides another bowling option. Without him, Tuesday’s match against England could have been quite embarrassing. Unfortunately, barring a fairly spectacular reversal of form from our batsmen, it seems likely that the rest of the tri-series will be a lame contest to see whether New Zealand or England is the slightly less woeful side, thus earning themselves the right to a 2-0 shellacking by the Australians. The saddest thing is, events thus far have made Australia’s traditional arrogant boasting actually seem quite restrained, compared to the one-sided contests on offer.

The Moonwalk Superstar

This really is super.

2008 Crystal ball gazing

It seems to be widely expected that National will win the next election. To be honest, I used to agree with that received wisdom. But the closer we get to the election, the less sure I feel.

Poll after poll seems to suggest that while a National led government is certainly possible, a Labour led government still seems the most likely outcome. And these polls came after a real stinker of a year for the government. They bungled both the Phillip Field saga, and of course the pledge card farrago. The point is, that despite having a dreadful year, Labour are still within striking distance, and indeed still seem the most likely to be able to form a government. Of course there is still a long time to go, and the odds are probably only 60/40, but on balance, as long as the economy doesn’t nosedive too badly, I think Labour are still in a fairly strong position.

So why do I think the Nats will be warming the opposition benches for a fourth term?

First, I think Key’s leadership abilities are unproven. Of course, he has made it as a successful investment banker, but that does not necessarily provide him with all the skill needed to win an election, manage a caucus, or form a stable government. Frankly, I have been unimpressed with his handling of a number of fairly straightforward questions, especially about his religious beliefs and his views on the Springbok tour. The actual importance of these issues is beside the point. The point is that he seemed unsure as to how to answer questions in a clear, honest manner. This apparent uncertainty may constitute a huge weakness in debates against the PM.

I also wonder whether he has the breadth of knowledge to foot it in areas other than finance. What exactly does he know about health, education, or any of the other areas that matter to New Zealanders? It might be very difficult indeed for an economy focused opposition leader to defeat an incumbent with a good economic record.

Whether or not one agrees with Labour’s policies, I think it is bizarre to suggest that Helen Clark is not an astute political operator. I think Key’s ability to out-maneuvre and outperform Clark over the next eighteen months is unproven at best. If National party insiders simply assume that he will lead them to an easy victory over Clark, they are setting themselves up for a rude shock. After all, Clark has already seen off Shipley, English and Brash, each of whom was touted as a certainty to lead the Nats to victory. Maybe it really will be a case of fourth time lucky, but I honestly doubt it.

I do think English and Key will prove an able leadership combination, probably more able than Brash. However, given the broader situation, both within the National Party, and in the country as a whole, Clark and Cullen can still lead Labour to victory.

I see two major problems for National arising from their parliamentary position.

The first of these is that Key may have serious problems reconciling the centre-right and neo-liberal factions of his party. Essentially, in order to increase National’s vote by the few percent he needs to form a stable government, Key needs to persuade centrist Labour voters that a National government will actually be centrist, and not neo-liberal in nature. I think it will actually be quite hard to do this while placating the neo-liberal MPs and their supporters. I also think there is a very real risk that as the Nats drift towards the centre, Act will increase their support at National’s expense, and grow increasingly militant. I doubt that a rejuvenated and vocal Act party will help to convince centrist voters that a National/Act ministry will be moderate. This may reduce National’s chances of gaining the votes they need to form a government.

I also think the Nats are suffering from a lack of possible coalition partners. If the Nats cannot take enough of Labour’s support base, they will have to form some sort of arrangement with the Greens or the Maori Party. While anything is possible, I just can’t see either of these parties entering into coalition with National. Even if they did support a National government, the result would have to be so centrist as to prove a huge frustration to National core supporters, as well as their corporate donors.

I also suspect the government’s tax cut plans will take a fair bit of steam out of the National party’s campaign. Given that tax cuts are one of National’s key points of difference, a well-targeted package of tax cuts will help to shore up Labour’s support, and possibly take a few percent off National. Personally, I do not agree with tax cuts from a policy standpoint, but they may well be tactically necessary.

At the moment, I would say Labour have a 60 percent chance of forming the next government. I think the election relies on three factors: Key’s performance compared with Clark’s, the Labour Party’s fundraising ability and most importantly, the economy. If these three factors develop in a way that is moderately favourable to Labour, I think Labour will win the next election.

My Grand Entrance, so to speak

You might well ask what a single malt social democrat is. Well, I used to think of myself as a Chardonnay Socialist, until one day I realised that I actually prefer a good single malt to a chardonnay, and I'm not actually all that keen on that whole "socialisation of the means of production and distribution" thing. Don't get me wrong, i like a bit of nationalisation as much as the next fellow, but I'm not so much intent on destorying capitalism, as installing a nice new bit of decking, and maybe a jacuzzi.

My Blog is going to be mainly a forum for me to write about politics, other interesting ideas, and the odd bit of popular culture.

My politics are left-liberal. I tend to vote for the party I view as the Labour party's potential left-wing coalition partner. I am a semi-regular commenter, and regular lurker on a variety of political blogs, especially Spanblather , Red in Roskill , Just Left , and of course No Right Turn .

I am hoping to write some stuff which might provoke a bit of thinking, both mine and yours. I very much welcome correspondence/comments, especially if they are constructive, and not just witless personal attacks.

I am planning my first proper post tomorrow night. Hopefully I will see you then.

Carl