Monthly Archive for August, 2008

New Facebook groups

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on August 31, 2008
in activism
. 42 Comments

After I was part of the ‘Great NZ Sell-off’ skit protest outside the National Party conference at the start of the month, I did a wee interview with a journo from NewstalkZB and he, knowing I’ve got something to do with this interweb thing, asked ‘what do you think of the fact that John Key’s Facebook page has twice as many supporters as Helen Clark’s?’ I responded that, apart from the fact the Key’s page is official and Clark’s isn’t, it seemed to indicate to me that most people had better things to do.

But I’ve had a slight change of heart after talking to the guy behind two new Facebook groups: I bet I can find 500 people who don’t trust John Key and I bet I can find 1000 people who don’t trust the National Party. It only took a few days to reach that 500 mark for the first group (now, they’re aiming for 2000 members) and the second group is approaching its target too. All organic growth, starting with a guy messaging his friends. Compare that to just over 5000 members of Key’s Facebook group, which is used for official releases, communication with members, and is heavily advertised by National. It strikes me that by joining these groups, people are signalling that they could interested in doing something substantial, something more than just joining Facebook groups, to help defeat National. These groups are self-selected groups of activists or potential activists. The pace at which these groups have grown tells me there’s a lot of mistrust of Key and National out there waiting to be utilised (more on that later).

So, if you haven’t already, why not go sign up for those groups and register your mistrust of National too?

[Update: a reader just sent this in. Sage advice. Nice work!]

Throw-away

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on August 31, 2008
in media
. 18 Comments

Sometimes, the throw-away comments a person makes are the most revealing - for example, Bill English’s attitude towards the “punters” and towards John Key, both made as side comments in the secret agenda tapes, are in some ways more revealing than his substantive comments on Working for Families and Kiwibank. And it was a throw-away comment by Rawdon Christie on today’s Agenda that gave an insight into the way the media views politics.

Having just interviewed Commerce Minister Lianne Daziel on the finance company collapses (which he said affected $5.6 billion in investments and 175,000 investors), Christie then turned to the panellists and said ‘now, back to the more serious issue of Winston Peters’. Says it all really. On one hand, we’ve got a commercial sector suffering a major confidence crisis that is dragging under good companies with the bad, we’ve got about 5% of Kiwis who have lost or stand to lose substantial amounts of money, and we’ve got three bills before Parliament designed to fix an important part of our financial markets. On the other, we’ve got a Minister suspended from his portfolios, and he and his party under investigation, and could see them face charges for fraud but, more likely, for failing to properly declare donations. This event in no way affects the actual lives of ordinary people. The Government is stable, legislation like the ETS will still pass, the ministries will continue functioning and delivering their services to New Zealand as if nothing has happened. It may all lead to NZF not returning to Parliament after the election but, unless it changes which party lead the Government, even that will have a negiligible effect on people’s lives.

It’s a bizarre world view that finds the suspension of a minister more important than the state of the financial sector and related government policy. It’s a world view that sees politics as about personalities, not how government should be used to improve the lives of people. It’s a ‘big-man’, as opposed to ‘materialist’, view of society. A view that comes from having a press gallery that is detached from the concerns of everyday people. Unfortunately, it seems to be the worldview through which the mainstream media analyses politics most of the time.

Labour’s 2008 list

Published
by
all_your_base
on August 31, 2008
in labour
. 40 Comments

Comment soon but for now here’s their full list (PDF link).

Scoop’s got their presser up.

[lprent:
Handmirror: A Woman's Place: The Labour Party List.
No Right Turn: Labour's list: looks like New Zealand.
Granny Herald: Surprise picks in Labour party list.
Salient: The Labour list has been announced.
Grant Robertson: Wellington central candidate
]

Aussie Invasion - a video with an agenda

Published
by
Dancer
on August 31, 2008
in humour and international
. 4 Comments

We’re used to hearing opposition parties talk about people rushing to Australia. But let’s remember we’re attractive to Australia too - where could that lead? Here’s an alternative view!

In case you are wondering there’s a series of these on different topics from the Gruen Transfer….

Causes and effects

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on August 30, 2008
in crime, economy, election 2008 and social issues
. 47 Comments

A series of graphs from the Social Report. First off, the unemployment rate

When the unemployment goes up or down, the practical effect is a decrease or increase in household incomes

as the country got poorer under National, unemployment rose, incomes fell, and and the poverty rate rose, compounded by National’s cut benefits and its choice to let inflation eat up the minimum wage

unemployment, poverty, and growing social inequalities place a society under stress. That increases the likelihood that people will behave in tragic ways.

These things do not just happen and they are not just the actions of ‘evil’ people who deserve punishment; they are social phenomena linked to the health of a society. Full employment and raising incomes for the poor are the best ways to keep our society healthy and reduce such tragic events. Worth keeping in mind when we come to vote.

Peters stands down

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on August 29, 2008
in election 2008, election funding, helen clark and nz first
. 145 Comments

Peters has stood down. Clark has taken over his portfolios.

It’s good that Peters appears to have accepted that this is a necessity and hasn’t turned on the Government. Clever of Clark to take the portfolios herself too.

[we nearly had the scoop on this too but it took too long for me to get an internet connection, damn Herald got in ten minutes earlier]

Guest Post: Herald like a blow-hard blogger on Tan

Published
by
Guest post
on August 29, 2008
in act and media
. 32 Comments

After a fair summary of the facts as they stand, the Herald enters the realm of the right-wing blogger, always ready to paint its opponent with the worst possible spin, and then build on that as if on fact:

“That version of events avoids, as it must, any hint of the suspension being politically motivated. It falls a long way short of traversing this whole episode, however. It is reasonable to ask how the EPMU would have responded to a staff member who had agreed to stand for the Labour Party but had not told the union of his candidacy. Certainly, there would be no talk of suspension. Any breach of the collective agreement would be quickly and conveniently overlooked.”

It is a reasonable question to ask, and the Herald may indeed be correct in its suspicion that things might have been different had a Labour supporter breached the collective employment agreement in this way.

But it cannot say, “Certainly, there would be no talk of suspension.” (Emphasis added.) Especially if, as the EPMU alleges, Tan was reminded of this contractual obligation, the EPMU would be foolish to ignore it, regardless of the political affinity of the offender. Sets a precedent, you see.

Classic stuff. Make some unfounded assumptions for which you have no proof, and then you’re away. Later, more unfounded assertions:

“Mr Tan’s case suggests, in fact, that any fostering of candidacy is extremely selective. Indeed, the contractual condition requiring permission to stand in elections could be seen as enabling a scrutiny of candidate suitability as much as it allows the union to juggle workloads while a person is campaigning.”

Actually, it does not “in fact” suggest anything of the sort. The Herald seems to have missed the original report that states, “Earlier this year an employee’s request to stand for the Labour Party in local government was turned down.” That’s what is widely regarded as a “fact”, Mr/Ms Herald editorial writer, not your easy assumption made for the purpose of a cheap slur.

Jafapete

Right to strike

Published
by
Eddie
on August 29, 2008
in labour and workers' rights
. 9 Comments

Hundreds of Australian journalists walked off the job yesterday in protest at Fairfax’s 550 planned job cuts.

Here in NZ journos employed by Fairfax and facing 160 job losses joined their Aussie counterparts in a wild cat strike.

Nah. They didn’t.

However, they did issue a press release via their union the EPMU. That must of got the bosses worried.

But it’s not their fault, it’s Labour’s.  Despite the Employment Relations Act being a huge step up from National’s Employment Contracts Act, Labour’s law still fails to provide the right to strike over redundancies and outsourcing.

So the question is whether Labour will pick up its game and include the right to strike in its election manifesto or will National?  Well, they’re always banging on about raising New Zealanders up to Australian standards…..

Franks: “grumpy Christians and whining gays”

Published
by
all_your_base
on August 29, 2008
in national and youtube
. 57 Comments

Here’s National’s Wellington Central candidate Stephen Franks giving his view on Civil Unions.

I’m not even really sure what to say about it. It might just be best to let Stephen Franks speak for himself…

The Standard Week: August 22-29

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on August 29, 2008
in standard week
. 0 Comments

It’s all been on this week. Maurice Williamson promising $50 tolls and more before being forced to retract, a poll showing more Kiwis believe National has a secret agenda than don’t, a report showing incomes continue to rise and living conditions are improving, especially for the poor, the ETS upgraded by the Greens set to pass, and what looks like the end-game for Winston Peters. Here are our favourite posts of the week:

Whom to believe?
National’s Transport spokesperson, Maurice Williamson, said National would impose tolls on major new road projects - Transmission Gully, Waterview etc - and on the Harbour Bridge if a tolled second crossing of the harbour is built…[more]

Kiwis waking up to Nats’ secret agenda
National can see it’s chances of winning the election shrinking by the day as a result of their duplicity. But when they lose, which lesson will they learn? That they must be open and honest with the public in future? or that they have to work harder at keeping their secret agenda secret?…[more]

Social Report shows Kiwis better off
For the first time since the Social Report started in 2001, the  figures show a reduction in income equality from a decade ago. The gap between rich and poor grew in the 1990s under National and has decreased under the Left-wing governments. Now, we have finally made up the ground lost under National….[more]

Greens win better ETS
The Greens have played a bit of brinkmanship with Labour over the ETS and it has paid off. They have led the debate towards a greater focus on sustainability; delivering a more environmentally effective ETS than would otherwise have been the case….[more]

Clark cuts the thread
It looks like Peters and NZF have reached the end of the road. But the question will linger, why did Peters behave the way he has?… [more]

If you want to receive this weekly post by email, just flick us an email at thestandardnz@gmail.com to go on the Standardista list. On becoming a Standardista, you will receive your Standardista cloth cap, ‘how-to’ guide for living a PC life, class consciousness, and Notional Party yo-yo that swings from the right to the centre and back again every three years.*

*you won’t actually get these things, except the class consciousness

Connell departs and praises PM

Published
by
Dancer
on August 29, 2008
in national
. 3 Comments

Who would have expected to read this from Brian Connell upon his departure from Parliament?

In a backhander against his own party, he praised Prime Minister Helen Clark, her deputy Michael Cullen, and front-bench Labour MPs Phil Goff and Annette King. Cullen was “a pretty good treasurer” and Clark had been “a very fine prime minister for New Zealand”, he said.

Connell…decided not to make a valedictory speech to Parliament - a right of all MPs who retire undefeated. “I wasn’t prepared to stand up and articulate views that I found hypocritical,” Connell said. “If you haven’t got anything good to say about people, it’s best to leave it alone. I’ll shake hands and walk away.”

I would have liked to hear his observations about his caucus colleagues, and what sort of job they would do on the government benches. Perhaps he has his doubts….?

Nats, Farrar fail again in attempt to muzzle Kiwis

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on August 29, 2008
in activism, dpf and election 2008
. 26 Comments

For the third time, National’s attempt to get a legal decision to block the EPMU and its sister unions from participating in the election campaign as registered third parties as failed. So pathetic were National’s arguments that they lost their last case even though the EMPU submitted no arguments of its own to the Court. The Court rejected National’s arguments for the rubbish they were without needing to hear any counter-arguments.

National’s behaviour has been disgusting. They, directly or through their pollster, David Farrar, have spent 7 months trying to keep democratic organisations comprising over 100,000 New Zealanders from having a voice during the election campaign. With pathetic legal arguments, they have attempted to tie up the EPMU and waste its resources on the legal fight. Unions are not rich organisations and the $23,000 the EPMU had to spend on these legal cases comes out of its campaign pool.

They can’t win on number of supporters, so the Tories try to use their money instead. And the losers justly lose.

But why?

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on August 29, 2008
in election funding and nz first
. 62 Comments

I’m not going to spend a lot of time on Peters because its not the kind of issue that affects Kiwis lives (its messy but its not like secretly planning to sell public assets). I’d rather use my post-writing time taking a deeper look at the findings of the Social Report. But…

It seems likely, one way or another, that Peters will lose his portfolios today. That’s been the standard practice when a investigation by Police or other authority is underway. Peters has said this wouldn’t derail the passage of the ETS. Let’s hope not. It would be a crying shame if the implementation of a policy to confront the most serious threat facing our country and species was blocked by a politician who wasn’t upfront.

The SFO’s powers mean its investigation should be able to get to the bottom of the alleged missing donations but a few questions will remain:

Why tell the public what increasingly looks like a tissue of lies? Unless there is some real fraud underlying all this, there was nothing illegal about the truth, except possibly failure to declare some donations on the party return - not a hanging offence. Was it merely hubris and his underdog attitude that made Peters absolutely deny any donation from Glenn when he was at least on notice, via the PM, that Glenn claimed such a donation had occurred?

Why not just hide large donations like National did with secret trusts?

Will all this finally create a political consensus that we need to rid politics of the messy business of large private donations and replace them with partial public funding, which is fair, transparent, and impartial?

Clark cuts the thread

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on August 28, 2008
in election 2008, election funding and nz first
. 192 Comments

Winston Peters’ stories around the Owen Glenn donation to his legal fund are dangerously convoluted and have stretched everyone’s credulity but without real evidence either way it has been impossible to fairly condemn him. Glenn’s letter yesterday provided strong evidence and left Peters ’hanging by a thread’, as every hack in the country wrote. Now, Helen Clark has effectively chosen to cut that thread.

Clark has chosen to drop Peters in it by telling reporters that Glenn informed her of his donation to the legal fund in February and she asked Peters about it (he denied it) days before Peters held the up the famous ‘no’ sign. Logically, it doesn’t change anything - if Glenn’s account is true, Peters knew without talking to Clark that Glenn had made a donation; if Peters’ account is true,  then he wouldn’t have known Glenn made the donation to the trust fund because his lawyer refused to give him any information on it. But it does mean that Peters was at least on notice that a donation may have been made and, given that, he shouldn’t have flatly denied a donation had been made. However, it also shifts the weight of evidence to a conclusion that Peters has been misleading us.

Why has Clark waited until now to release this info? The same reason National waited until now to (kind of maybe) rule out working with Peters (unless he is cleared of wrongdoing). Both major parties have been unwilling to finally cut any chance of working with Peters after the election for fear he would return to Parliament as Kingmaker and go with the other side. After the Glenn letter, both parties judge that the tipping point has been reached where odds are Peters won’t be returning to Parliament because the public’s trust in him is blown and, so, they can get political gain from distancing themselves from him and undermining him. Of course, that’s a little tougher for Labour to do than National - because Labour wants to pass the ETS and has been relying on NZF coming on board. Sacking Peters will probably mean no NZF support for the ETS (it still could conceivably pass if NZF and the Maori Party abstain).

We must remember that this is still all very confused and Peters does have the right to due process. That process is the Privileges Committee hearing but Clark may choose to stand him down from his ministerial portfolios before that if it won’t stop the passage of the ETS.

No matter whether the Privileges Committee finds enough evidence to condemn Peters or not, it’s likely NZF will go into this election with both major parties stating an aversion to governing with them. On top of the stench around the donations, the inability to play Kingmaker should see NZF’s support bleed away. It looks like Peters and NZF have reached the end of the road. But the question will linger, why did Peters behave the way he has? There was nothing illegal or wrong in the Glenn donation, so why did he deny it so firmly when he should have at least suspected there had been a donation?

Social Report shows Kiwis better off

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on August 28, 2008
in crime, culture, economy, education, election 2008, families, health, housing, human rights, social issues, wages and welfare
. 31 Comments

MSD released its Social Report today, an annual publication that collates a wide variety of standard of living measures, and produces this awesome graph. The circle represents the status quo in 1995-97 each spoke represents a different measure (income, crimes per capita etc). If the spoke is longer than the circle than the measure has improved between 1995-97 and 2005-07; if it is shorter that measure has become worse.

[large version, p138] Nearly every metric shows signficant improvement over living standards a decade ago (obesity is a notable exception).

As you can see the ‘Population with low incomes’ metric has improved dramatically. This metric measures the portion of households with ‘low incomes’ (defined as 60% of the median household income, after housing costs); essentially, it’s the poverty rate. In the mid-90s, 23% of households were in this situation; today the number is 12%. For the first time since the Social Report started in 2001, the  figures show a reduction in income equality from a decade ago. The gap between rich and poor grew in the 1990s under National and has decreased under the Left-wing governments. Now, we have finally made up the ground lost under National.

There will be more posts once I’ve had time to read the report in detail. I recommend having a look; it’s an educating read. Nothing in it will stop the Kiwiblog Right claiming living standards in New Zealand are plummeting but then when did they ever let the facts get in the way of a good rant?

Herald poll shows Nats’ lead collapsing

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on August 28, 2008
in election 2008, greens, labour, national, nz first and polls
. 36 Comments

Today’s Herald-Digi poll is the first to be released that was taken after the secret agenda tape scandal had fully emerged and had some time to sit in voters’ minds. Which makes it worrying reading for National. They have lost 5.4% support (54.4% to 50%) and Labour has benefited from that loss picking up 5.5% (30.8% to 36.3%). As with the other polls this month, the gap between the two parties is closing but this is by far the biggest narrowing; National’s lead has dropped from 24.6% to 13.7%.

To be fair, the last Herald Digipoll was out of step with the rest of the polls, showing Labour falling in July, while the other had it’s support bouncing back from the low 30s to mid 30s. So, in part, this poll is probably correcting that divergence. Nonetheless, 5% shifts and an 11% closing of the gap are highly unlikely to result from statistical variance. It seems likely we are seeing voters’ mistrust of National and their secret agenda starting to flow through into voting intentions. If National’s support keeps falling, even at a slower rate, they will rapidly find themselves in a position where they don’t have options to form a government despite being the largest party - if National doesn’t poll over 46% it will struggle for want of allies to form a government.

New Zealand First ought to worry too. Their support has dropped significantly, from 4.1% to 2.1%. Remember, these numbers are from before any impact from the Privileges Committee hearings and the Owen Glenn letter could be felt. (it is now in National’s interest to see NZF not return to Parliament and create a large wasted vote; the larger the wasted vote, the less close to 50% National needs to poll to govern. Hence, Key’s change of stance on Peters).

The other minor parties have bounced around a little but it’s probably more statistical noise than anything significant. The Greens are the only minor party to poll over 5%.

The next poll up is the Roy Morgan, due out today or tomorrow, it will be interesting to see how its trend moves.

Workers demand decent work rights policies

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on August 28, 2008
in activism, wages and workers' rights
. 24 Comments

6000 workers turned out in Manukau yesterday for the EPMU’s Wages Drive rally. With 25 events nation-wide over this month, which have attracted crowds from several hundred in little old Blenhiem to thousands in each of the cities, this is the largest series of political rallies in New Zealand this parliamentary term.

The EPMU reports Manukau’sTelstraClear Pacific Stadium was full to overflowing. Members voted unanimously to endorse the Work Rights Checklist, which sets out provisions workers expect in a party’s work rights policy including:

• The right to organise as a union and to bargain collectively for decent pay and conditions, including at an industry level.
• Enforceable rules for bargaining which mean management can’t just refuse to negotiate or can’t bypass the union.
• Annual and real increases in the minimum wage.
• The right of workers employed through labour hire agencies who work alongside workers under a collective agreement to be paid the same rates for the same work.
• An active labour market policy with a goal of full employment.
• Protection against arbitrary and unfair dismissal and other unfair treatment
• Strong health and safety laws setting high standards and providing real protection for workers.
• A fair and efficient system of accident compensation for injury at work regardless of who you work for.
• Decent holidays, including at least four weeks annual leave.
• Minimum redundancy protections.
• Decent paid parental leave to give new parents and their babies a proper start.
• Government and employers investing in on-going learning around work.

So far, 14,000 union members have endorsed the checklist at the rallies. The final rally is today at North Harbour Stadium.

More photos at Scoop.

Interviewing 101

Published
by
Sam Cash
on August 28, 2008
in uncategorized
. 23 Comments

Exam question 65
If you were a highly-paid media interviewer and John Key said to you that he was absolutely certain that Helen Clark knew of Owen Glenn’s claims, would you:
a) accept it without any challenge or questioning?
b) ask for proof, some sort of proof, some remote shred of evidence, even the slightest skerrick of evidence outside fevered suppositions?

Answer: a) of course.

The more things change…

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on August 28, 2008
in election 2008 and history
. 18 Comments

70 years ago (more or less) and The Standard was correctly predicting a Labour victory as the ‘Nationalists’ ramped up a hollow election campaign. In true Standard-style, there’s even some stats. Click on the image for the full article.

Cullen on Nat apologies

Published
by
all_your_base
on August 27, 2008
in humour, john key, national and spin
. 41 Comments

Say what you will about his politics, you can’t beat Cullen for wit. Here he is on the similarities between Labour and National following Williamson’s enthusiastic statements of National policy: 

The full clip is here. Listen to Key plead to his caucus, and listen what he’s pleading for them to do - “If National wants to win an election it needs to be disciplined and it needs to be on message.”

‘Stay on message’; not ‘tell the truth’.