Author Archive for Steve Pierson

Do we want to be a world-leader or a global joke?

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on November 21, 2008
in climate change, international and national/act government
. 56 Comments

According to a leading financier, carbon credit broker Nigel Brunel, of OMF Financial, New Zealand has become “a bit of a joke” in Europe as National/ACT looks set to delay, even abolish, our Emissions Trading Scheme.

If you’ll forgive me an anecdote, I’m reminded of the introduction seminar when I was at uni in Finland. We were being told what a great country Finland is, sophisticated, egalitarian compassionate. The speaker told us ‘in 1906, Finland was the first country to give women the vote’. Well, my hand shot up - ‘no, it was New Zealand in 1893′ (turns out, it’s more complicated than that). The point is, every country likes to be able to tell itself that it leads the world, especially a wee, easily-overlooked settler-state at the bottom of the world. We love to claim to have led the world on women’s suffrage, the 40-hour week, the welfare state, going nuclear-free. We see ourselves as a society that others should seek to emulate: fair to its members and protective of its environment.

How embarrassing, then, that we have given up our leadership role on climate change and, instead, become a joke. Even as the rest of the world, with the US finally on board, redoubles its efforts to deal with this threat we are moving in the opposite direction.

How backward are we becoming? Well, 17 years after the world’s governments signed the Framework Convention on Climate Change - after years of negotiations the world’s nations agreed there was a real problem. No serious country denies the reality of climate change. Yet, National/ACT is set to have a committee of politicians re-examine the science. While the US and Australia rush to catch up with emissions reduction schemes like our world-leading ETS, National/ACT is going to look at ‘adaption’ instead. That is, rather than reduce the problem now, National/ACT wants to talk about how our descendants can make do in a hotter, stormier, more flooded world that we leave them.

It’s not just our pride, or even just our environment, at stake. Our economy loses out too, Brunel says:

“We are the antipodes of Europe. Their time zone is the exact opposite of ours, and there’s a real opportunity to have a 24-hour carbon market that starts in Europe and when they go into their night we take over. “There is real interest in that because carbon is such an important market over there. Some very big players were very keen to establish a market down here because of the ability to then create a 24-hour market. “This was New Zealand’s opportunity to reinvent its financial markets by being the Asian centre of the carbon trade.”

But this week’s announcement that the incoming government will put the ETS on hold pending a review that will go as far as considering a carbon tax instead of an ETS and will re-examine the validity of the science behind climate change, has jeopardised everything

“We have just fallen off the radar in Europe,” he said. “They are saying ‘all you do is talk. You’ve been talking since 1992. You are all talk and no action. You maintain that you are so clean and green and try to be leaders and all you do is nothing. You make a decision and then you change your minds. How can we do business with people like that? We can’t take your seriously’.”

In praise of the welfare state

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on November 21, 2008
in national/act government and welfare
. 30 Comments

It’s very easy in our individualist, consumerist, capitalist society to say ‘if you’re poor, it’s your fault, don’t come looking to the rest of us for help’ - ‘it’s your fault for marrying an alcoholic, don’t expect us to pay to house your family’, ‘it’s your fault you got pregnant when you couldn’t afford to support the kid’. It’s a sentiment that we hear expressed all too often by the Right, who seem to think that if you’re in a tough situation that’s your problem and that anyone claiming a benefit is just a bludger. Hopefully, we will see a sea-change in that attitude over the coming years.

We now have two National ministers, one of them prime minister, who make a big deal over the fact they relied on the State to house and support them for significant periods of their lives*. Most of the rest have also benefited from the welfare state, if not from housing and benefits then from free education and health-care for themselves and their families. It would be hypocritical and callous in the extreme for these people who did so well thanks to our social safety-net to now start taking that net apart.

Is the welfare state perfect? No, of course there are always examples of abuse and things that could be improved. But that’s not an argument for throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Because some beneficiaries go on to great things, is that grounds to punish those who don’t with work-for-the-dole type policies? No, the welfare state is about ensuring that what our society believes is a minimum acceptable standard of living is available to all. If it can be a springboard for some to go on to great things, fantastic, but we can’t expect all beneficiaries to become ministers or even get into work. It is sufficient that most people are on benefits for short periods and very few try to abuse the system (as if living on $200 a week with nothing to do is a great life).

The experience of nine years under Labour has been that people are keen to get off benefits, if there are jobs to be had and support to get them into work. That’s why we’ve seen benefit numbers reduce 30% (100,000) in nine years.

We can but hope that the new Government will think twice before attacking benefits. Not just so future John Keys and Paula Bennetts get the opportunities they had but so every Kiwi who falls on hard times knows that the rest of us will be there, collectively, to break their fall.

*(in fact, there were former beneficiaries in the previous govt, they just didn’t make big deal out of it)

DL Palmy next Friday

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on November 21, 2008
in drinking liberally
. 5 Comments

Labour’s bright new star and youngest MP, Jacinda Arden will be speaking at Drinking Liberally Palmerston North next Friday (I’ll do a reminder closer to the time). Jacinda was fantastic at Backbenches on Wednesday, so if you’re in the Palmerston North area, I recommend you get along to see her.

More than a chance to listen to great speakers, Drinking Liberally is a great chance to meet other lefties, get involved, and launch new ideas. DL Palmy even held a series of debates for the Rangatikei candidates before the election, while Both Eyes Open grew out of connections established at DL Wellington. Get along to one if you can.

Ok, so details.

What: Drinking Liberally Palmerston North

Where: Legends Bar (the old railway hotel, aka scarifies, aka 275 Main street Palmerston North - Over the road from TeManuwa)

When: Friday 28th November 7:30pm

Who: Jacinda Arden and a bunch of good fellas and fellesses.

Bill, tempted to drop the Acting?

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on November 21, 2008
in bill english
. 59 Comments

Psst, Bill. Hey, Bill. Sitting in the big chair is pretty cool, eh?

Bet you never thought you would get your chance after Brash rolled you.
And we all know who cast the crucial vote in that coup, which smiling assassin betrayed you.

Speaking of which, what a pity John will be back from APEC in a week and want the big chair for himself again.
He’s not half as competent or deserving as you are.

What’s that grin for Bill? What you thinking?
Ah, of course. You’re thinking you don’t have to give it back, aren’t you, Bill?

You could keep it for yourself.

You have the numbers, don’t you, Bill?

Yup, awfully comfy in the big chair.

2000th post

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on November 20, 2008
in blogs
. 28 Comments

Happy 2000th post everyone. I’ve brought you all your favourite present - statistics!

Our first 1000 posts took nine months, the latest 1000 took six.

We’ve had 67,000 comments all up, 41,000 since we hit 1000 posts, and 10,000 in the last month.

It wouldn’t happen without all of you commentators (well, most of you commentators)  and all the other readers. You and your contributions are the real lifeblood of this blog. Without youse, it would just be us screaming into the dark, unanswering ether (as it happens, Tane has a recurring nightmare a bit like that).

Big ups to all the other blogs who link to us - even those of you who don’t say very nice things about us, at least you’re showing that we matter to you.

Cheers also to the journos who know that when we criticise the media it’s nothing personal. It would be nice if you would stop calling us Labour-affiliated though.

Biggest plaudit goes to Lynn. Without his techs-pertise this thing wouldn’t have got off the ground in the first place and would have fallen apart long ago. 

As for the next 1000 posts, we’ve got plenty more ideas about how to make The Standard bigger, brighter, and betterer. So stay tuned.

PS. I left your real present under your chair, have a look-see.

[Tane: I've fixed some of your typos Steve, long may it continue.]

Musical Interlude: Forgot about Key

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on November 20, 2008
in humour, john key and youtube
. 7 Comments

Some jokers have given new lyrics to the Dr. Dre and Eminem classic. Hilarious.

My favourite part is Hide’s cameo.

Hattip: Dolla$Trada

NZ Labour supporters site launched

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on November 20, 2008
in activism, blogs and labour
. 32 Comments

NZ Labour Supporters has been launched as an unofficial online hub for Labour supporters. It looks like a good wee site. Along the lines of g.blog for Greens supporters, any registered user can write blog posts. Looks like there are forums and the ability to contribute to a multi-media library too.

They’ve started off with an interesting story about one of our new ministers. Seems Paula Bennett was strongly anti-National when she was Massey Student Association President in 1996. Now, she’s a minister for the party she once described using some pretty choice words and seems set to implement the same policies she once vehemently opposed.

A chance to make his mark

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on November 19, 2008
in international and john key
. 53 Comments

John Key’s off on his first trip as PM tomorrow - APEC in Peru. When I saw him interviewed about this he seemed to think it would be ‘a good chance to meet other world leaders’ which, as former member of the dip corp, made me groan. You’re not a world leader just because you won an election in some wee country, John, you have to prove your worth on the international stage, as Clark did. More importantly, APEC is not just about meeting people  - it’s not a gentleman’s club, it’s not an opportunity to get some names in your autograph book - it’s about serious business.

The world is facing a triple crunch - credit, food, and oil. They’re all inter-related and global. Dealing with them effectively requires global reform of our economies. Part of this is a major re-work of the finance sector. IT is these issues that leaders will be discussing at APEC.

Now, John Key’s the ‘money-man with a heart’, it would be nice to think that he could offer some ideas to contribute to the solution. Perhaps he could take a leaf from the New Economics Foundation’s ‘From the ashes of the crash‘, which lays out 20 first step reforms, many of them concerning the organisation of the finance markets, to get us past the ‘triple crunch’ and create a Green New Deal. As a finance insider, Key could suggest how the industry needs to be reformed to prevent greedy, unaccountable gamblers putting us all at risk in return for a quick buck. You never know, his counterparts might even listen.

If he were to go to APEC and do that, actually make a difference rather than just notch up ‘pull asides’ and ‘one-on-ones’, it would really be something. He could then, deservedly, call himself a world leader.

Farewell

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on November 19, 2008
in helen clark and labour
. 96 Comments

A crowd several hundred strong turned out this morning to farewell Helen Clark as she left Parliament as Prime Minister for the last time to present her Government’s official resignation to the Governor-General.

Even though I’m a Greenie, I always find Labour events amazingly heart-warming - such a huge variety of people young and old from all walks of life. And whether they’re officials, members, or supporters, they’re all just ordinary warm, good-hearted Kiwis who believe in a fairer, better New Zealand. It’s always a wonderful atmosphere amongst them. Although this was a sad occasion, there was still a strong sense of camaraderie, and of pride in a job well done.

After Clark’s car pulled away, the out-going ministers were surrounded by supporters. I was standing just beside the cameraman as this pic of Michael Cullen was taken. The woman must have asked him if he was feeling OK and, with that quick good-humoured wit that I’ve always found him to have in person, he smiled ‘well, I’ve had better months’ before bounding up the steps back to work.

So, we farewell the best government of my lifetime and one of our best ever. They and every one of their supporters can be enormously proud that their hard work has made New Zealand a better place for all.

Credit where it’s due

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on November 19, 2008
in economy, media, national/act government and wages
. 29 Comments

It’s exam season for high school students. So, for 10 points explain how the following statement (in the ACT-National agreement and repeated uncritically by the media) can be true,

closing the income gap with Australia by 2025… will require a sustained lift in New Zealand’s productivity growth to 3 per cent a year.

given:
- productivity is just one factor in GDP (production = inputs x productivity, basically the amount produced depends on how much you put in times how much you get out per unit of what you put in)

-productivity growth tends to move in the opposite direction to the amount of labour and capital input growth - ie. productivity actually usually increases faster when GDP growth is slack or after a recession and productivity growth slows when GDP goes through a sustained period of rapid growth

- incomes (ie. wages and salaries, the price of labour) is a result of supply and demand for labour, not the productivity of labour. Indeed, wages usually increase fastest when there is a shortage of labour and rising demand while productivity increases fastest when there is an abundance of labour and falling demand (because only the ‘highest quality’ labour is used).

For extra credit: why is it that the supposedly economy-focused political parties and the business/political media seem to lack a fundamental understanding of economics?

[Update: I should add that I am not, of course, against productivity growth. I am just against people buying the idea it is some kind of panacea. There are very good reasons why the Right has chosen to focus on productivity: every other metric of economic performance has been too good. We have outgrown our trade partners, unemployment has ben at record lows, and wages risen have risen at record rates. Productivity growth is counter-cyclical, slow when the economy is at full tilt, so it has been a useful stick to hit a government in good times. It is also useful because it can be claimed, usually without evidence, that government regulation -ie work rights - is impeding productivity; if you wnat to remove work rights, first argue we need faster productivity growth]

What should Clark do?

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on November 18, 2008
in activism, helen clark and labour
. 28 Comments

There’s a lot of talk about Helen Clark leaving Parliament in a year or so to head for an international role. While Clark would obviously be more than capable of performing well at that level, I would prefer to see her do something completely different.

Labour needs to build its membership and its connections with the communities of South and West Auckland in particular. It is a disgrace that they are losing seats and party vote support in the heart of working class New Zealand. Labour needs to rebuild itself as the people’s party and build the popular demand for an improved social democracy. I would like to see Clark, MP for Mount Albert, lead that effort.

Now, some will say that if Labour has lost some connection with the working class it is the fault of Clark and her top-down leadership style. And I think there’s some truth to that. Certainly the Fifth Labour Government failed to take its opportunity to build political consciousness, public demand for improved social democracy. But she is still the person for the job of fixing that. She has the mana, she has the leadership and organisational skills. We also saw in the final days of the campaign that underneath the tough exterior, underneath the ’strong leader’ image, that Clark needed to win and keep her positions as Labour leader and PM there is still an idealist very much connected to her social democratic principles.

Such a role might not have the profile of a senior UN position but it is just as important. If Labour can build and extend its base, raise the political consciousness of the working class, our social democracy will be protected against whatever populist rubbish the Right can throw at it. Now, that would be a truly great legacy for Clark.

Right plans give away to rich at your expense

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on November 18, 2008
in national/act government and tax
. 69 Comments

Part of the National/ACT government’s agreement is that a top tax rate of 30% will be the target for the ‘medium term’. Such a cut would cost about $2 billion a year.

Now, I have nothing in principle against reducing tax (and nothing in principle against increasing it, for that matter). It’s a question of trade-offs, which is greater benefit: the services the tax could pay for or the tax cuts, and who gets those benefits? $2 billion a year, that’s a lot of hip operations, so it’s worth asking who would benefit from replacing Labour’s legislated tax cuts with National’s current programme and a 30% top rate added to it (ie. 30% top rate kicks in at $50,000).

Hmm, maybe it will look less like pillaging ordinary Kiwis’ social wage to give the rich a bonanza if we do it in graphical form.

Maybe not.

Now, I can already hear our righties with better ideology than maths saying ‘yeah but when you cut taxes you have to give more to the rich’. That’s not true, of course, the current tax cuts cap out at $55 a week for anyone earning $80K or more. Anyway, the Right’s tax cuts don’t just give more to the rich, they give more to the rich as a percentage of their incomes.

$2 billion a year either coming out of public services or paid for by more debt to pay for massive tax cuts to the already very well-off. It would be ordinary Kiwis who would ultimately pay for this extravagant gift to the rich. Doesn’t seem to me that Mr Moderate has the mandate for that.

Undefeated

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on November 17, 2008
in activism, greens, labour, maori party, media and national/act government
. 41 Comments

Paul Holmes wrote yesterday: “While Labour moves to the Opposition benches, it does so weirdly unmolested by the election defeat, weirdly undefeated”

Damn right, the Left seems undefeated, and so it should. The Right has only won power by masquerading as the Left; Key’s mandate is only to maintain the legacy of the Fifth Labour Government (and, somehow, solve every problem going at the same time).

The Left was not rejected in a landslide - the Labour/Progressive/Green vote was 41.1% (will be 42% once specials are counted) compared to 47.2% in 2005. Those few percent who moved from Left to Right want a continuation of the policies of the last nine years, they just wanted a change of leadership for change’s sake.

It was a close race, a 2.5% shift from National to Labour (about what Labour lost in the closing two weeks of the campaign) would have been enough for a LPG+Maori government to be formed*. Despite nine years of government wearing away at support, despite a constant negative campaign for four years straight from National, despite a year-long campaign from the media, particularly the Herald, that recalls the vitriolic anti-Labour press of the 1930s, they only just got enough, the people did not abandon the Left in droves and they want to see the policies of the Left continued.

And, while many great policies are now on hold or under threat, we have a lot to look forward to. Being in opposition is a poor substitute for being in power, rather than racking up achievements the goal is to protect those that have been made form destruction, but at least now it will be Key and his mates having to answer the hard questions. Labour will be chomping at the bit, waiting for the first question time. For the activist too, having the Right in power is invigorating. In reality, we are always in opposition to the ruling capitalist class. Now that the capitalists’ parties are in power again, the heat comes back into the conflict. We can build and extend our networks as the Right’s policies increase consciousness and militancy in the Left.

Key has over-promised and simply has no policy plan which can deliver. Even though the media will continue to give him a free ride, the Left knows there will be plenty of opportunities to hammer his failures as time goes on.

Sure, the Left has lost the Treasury benches but they are just one tool with which we fight for what we believe in; we keep going without them. Yes we are undefeated, and we will soon start clocking up the victories again.

*(I know the Maori Party just went with National but the clear first preference of Maori Party voters and its membership was Labour - that’s the deal that would have been done if the Moari Party were kingmaker. Indeed, I’m hearing reports that many Maori Party supporters are fuming at Turia over the ‘consultation’ that took place before the deal with National was signed).

Some questions

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on November 17, 2008
in maori party and national/act government
. 35 Comments

The Maori Party voted against the ETS because they thought it doesn’t go far enough; they want a stronger ETS. Will they be supporting National/ACT’s amendments to first delay then weaken or even scrap it?

ACT opposes the existence of the Maori seats, while paradoxically supporting their entrenchment. Which will win out on this issue? Dr Jerkyl or Mr Hide?

The Maori Party voted against the 90 Day No Work Rights Bill when National put it forward in 2006, will they flip-flop now? Will the Maori Party continue to give their confidence to a government that strips Maori workers of their rights?

Will the Maori Party support National/ACT’s plans to weaken consultation provisions in the RMA?

Is the Maori Party happy for a bunch of rich Pakeha appointed by National and ACT to decide which government programmes are ‘value for money’? Do they think Maori-immersion teaching and poverty relief will be seen as valuable?

The Maori Party wants more rehabilitaion, ACT wants three strikes you’re out. Who will National side with against whom?

The Maori Party supports a $15 minimum wage, ACT opposes the existence of the minimum wage, which way will National go?

Nats step to the right with ACT

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on November 16, 2008
in national/act government
. 103 Comments

As we predicted, National has used a confidence and supply agreement with ACT as a vehicle for its true right-wing agenda.

National has given a wide range of concessions to ACT, far more than is necessary to gain ACT’s already pledged support. Together, they amount to a far more rightwing policy program than National promised.

Here’s a summary (full version here):

Hide to be Minister of Local Government and Regulatory Control (= fewer controls on business, less public input). Roy to be Minister of Consumer Affairs (like appointing Paris Hilton to teach at a finishing school).

Life sentences for people with three serious convictions (what ’serious’ is we don’t know). In California, this law has seen the prison population explode while crime rate reduction has been in line with falling rates in states without such laws.
The Emissions Trading Scheme will be suspended until ACT gets to have a review under its terms of reference, which are designed to have the ETS scrapped and preferably not replaced or replaced with a carbon tax. National and ACT opposed a carbon tax in 2004, it is just a delaying tactic.
“Task Forces that include private sector representatives and private sector chairs to undertake fundamental reviews of all base government spending. A focus of this work should be on elimination programmes* that do not deliver value for money”. Value for money being decided by the rich ‘advisors’ National/ACT appoints to carry out the review. I wonder how much value for money they will see in poverty relief.
Cap expenditure on government services by law. Which would prevent the Government responding to new policy challenges without cutting existing programmes. That will be a problem for National, it has already promised programs requiring thousands more public servants. It will mean the new prisons National/ACT will build will need to take money from other areas, like health.
Flatter tax. That means any future tax cuts will go exclusively to the wealthy. Most people will get nothing.
Further weakening of the RMA.
More money for private education = less for public education because expenditure is capped.

Your work rights will be attacked too. National/ACT releases this is sensitive so they’ve disguised their plan with coded language.

National/Act agree to close the ‘income gap’ between Australia and NZ by 2025, requiring ‘3% productivity growth per year’. Which is just economic techno-babble. What ‘income gap’ are they talking about? GDP per capita or wages or what? And how would a faster rate of productivity growth close this gap? Anyone who knows what productivity is (the amount of wealth produced in a unit of work) knows that merely increasing productivity doesn’t necessarily boost GDP or wages. GDP = productivity x work done. So, GDP not only depends on productivity it also depends on how many people are in work. And boosting productivity doesn’t lead automatically to higher wages - wages are determined by supply and demand in the labour market, nothing to do with productivity. In fact, productivity grows faster when employment drops because it’s the low quality workers that lose their jobs first and lower quality capital that sits idle first, but wages don’t go up because there is more slack in the labour market.

So, why this rubbish statement? The following paragraph gives the answer. National/ACT will establish “a high quality advisory group to investigate the reasons for the recent decline in New Zealand’s productivity performance”. New Zealand has grown faster than Australia and other countries in recent years. Overall, our productivity growth has been slower in recent years at about 1.5% than in past years (2.5%) but for a very good reason. Our economy has grown so fast that it has sucked in lower quality labour and capital, which brings down the average (if you look at just workers who have been in the labour force continuously for the past seven years their productivity has continued to increase at about 2.5%). Any first year economics student should understand this. So, what do National/ACT expect their ‘high quality’ (ie private sector) advisors to recommend? They’ll say work rights are the problem - that weakening workers’ rights is the way to boost productivity and, thereby, wages. It’s all rubbish of course. Just like ‘trickle down’ in the 1990s, the effect will be lower wages and lower GDP growth.

Is this the change that you felt it was time for? 

*(yeah, that’s right, National and ACT’s grammar problems have continued from their campaign ads to their official agreements. There are more grammar mistakes in the education section)

Time for a Green New Deal

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on November 15, 2008
in climate change, economy, environment, international and workers' rights
. 34 Comments

With a masterful awareness of the import of his actions, President Roosevelt termed his economic program to lift the US out of the Great Depression ‘the New Deal’. Laissez-faire capitalism, whereby the ‘invisible hand of the market’ ruled, had failed to fulfil the conditions of the social contract (a fair distribution of wealth between capital and workers). A new deal was needed to restore the living conditions of workers and, ultimately, to protect capital from revolution. The New Deal replaced hands-off government with active state capitalism - the Government increased participation in the economy by investing in new sectors and job-intensive infrastructure, created better unemployment benefits, and improved regulation of financial markets. It also increased the legal powers of organised labour to put unions on a more equal footing with capital. Corporatism - active, cooperative economic management by capital, labour, and the State -was introduced. New Zealand’s First Labour Government followed the Democrat’s lead with their own program of infrastructure investment, work rights, and improved social security.

Now, we face a crisis on a similar scale to the Great Depression. Neoliberal capitalism has failed. Not only have gamblers masquerading as financiers crippled the world’s credit markets but we are hitting up against the reality that the natural resources on which we build our economy are limited and in decline. The credit meltdown, peak oil, the food crunch, and climate change all look like very different things but the problem arises from the same failed model(s) of economy management. Luckily, we can solve all these problems with the same set of solutions.

The idea of a Green New Deal is gaining momentum in political circles around the world. The United Nations Environment Program has released a template for this Green New Deal, focused on getting us off unsustainable economic practices, creating jobs, and building natural capital. It highlights five areas that we need to make centre-pieces of our economies in the 21st century:

- Clean energy and clean technologies including recycling
- Rural energy, including renewables and sustainable biomass
- Sustainable agriculture, including organic agriculture
- Ecosystem Infrastructure
- Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD)
- Sustainable cities including planning, transportation and green building

Add to that stronger workers’ rights and greater restrictions on the concentration of wealth and control of resources in a few private hands.

Luckily too, we have a leader for the times. Obama is the person with the power and vision to lead such a program, and the leadership and oratory to bring the world with him. If he fulfils his promise. We can look forward to the emergence of exciting and forward looking innovations in the coming years.

There’s no reason why the National/Act government can’t follow the same path but, unfortunately, ideology isn’t always subject to reason. With a money-man heading a government of climate change deniers, free-market radicals, and head-in-the-sand conservatives we are unlikely to see the change we need in New Zealand in the next three years.

So, the Left needs to start building its own Green New Deal plan with which to contest, and win, the 2011 election. We will be starting from behind other countries and we’ll need to hit the ground running. In the meantime, the Left parties can get elements of the program on the agenda with private members’ bills. Thought also needs to be given as to how the Left will win control of the councils in the 2010 elections - councils have a lot of control over infrastructure and urban planning, central aspect of the Green New Deal. Right now, the Left is too fractured at local level, the Left vote is split between too many disorganised candidates, allowing rightwing candidates to prevail with minority support.

The neoliberal system has failed. To protect our standards of living with we need to rebuild the foundations of the economy and ecology that underpin it. The Green New Deal is coming.

Chainmail

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on November 14, 2008
in activism
. 43 Comments

Thanks to the two people have mailed election leaflets authorised in my name back to me.

And such lovely messages you’ve attached to them. Glad to see you’re so in favour of free speech.

Of course, sending intimidating or threatening messages through the mail is an offense, which could explain why, despite me putting my name to my work, you didn’t have the courage to put your own names on your missives.

I’m glad we’ve got that nice Mr Key to be the smiling face because he helps me forget that some of the people behind him aren’t so pleasant.

Playing clever but playing with fire

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on November 14, 2008
in maori party, national/act government and workers' rights
. 56 Comments

On one level, the Maori Party’s dealing with National is smart work. Key needs to look inclusive even though he doesn’t need the Maori Party’s support to govern. In return, the Maori Party can cement its future by getting the Maori seats entrenched through a government bill, rather than hoping a private members’ bill gets drawn from the ballot, and show its constituents that it can deliver by getting the Foreshore and Seabed Act reviewed. In other words, the Maori Party succeeds in getting National to do things it wouldn’t otherwise do in return for support it doesn’t need.

On the other hand, if the Maori Party votes for National’s anti-worker, anti-public service legislation or continues to support it on confidence and supply once these measures have been passed its supporters will punish it. And rightly so. What really matters to most Maori is what really matters to other workers - employment, decent wages, health and education for the kids. It’s nice to get the Foreshore and Seabed Act reviewed but it is worthless if the Maori Party then helps National/Act take away Maori workers’ rights, pay, and social wage.

If the Maori Party does support a government that attacks workers rights, it will confirm that it is the party of the Maori elite, not ordinary Maori. From Turia’s statements so far, it seems she thinks that it doesn’t matter what they do, the Maori people will continue to support the party. She refuses to even acknowledge that the Maori elite has different interests to Maori workers.

The Maori Party should be careful not to take the people’s support for granted. Maori showed in the 1990s that they are willing to take a punt on a Maori party - they elected Tau Henare from New Zealand First to the Northern Maori seat in 1993 and all four Maori seats went to NZF in 1996. But they also showed that if that party supports a rightwing government in its anti-worker polices shared ethnicity is not enough to maintain their support. In 1999, after NZF had supported National against Maori voters’ expectations, all the Maori seats returned to Labour. If the Maori Party wants to avoid a similar fate, it needs to abandon the fantasy that the class interests inherent in capitalism don’t apply to Maori, and it will have to be very careful that the blame for National’s anti-worker polcies is not placed at its door.

Supporting a government that will hurt Maori workers in exchange for largely symbolic gains is playing with fire. If they don’t oppose those policies, they are liable to get burned.

Unions offer better option for Kiwisaver changes

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on November 14, 2008
in kiwisaver, national/act government and workers' rights
. 26 Comments

The unions have proposed an alternative to National’s plan to slash Kiwisaver in half. If Kiwisaver has to be cut, and with National/Act in power it will happen one way or the other, then I prefer the union plan.

As it stands now, you contribute 4% of your gross earnings, your employer matches that 4% (once the scheme is fully implemented in 2011), and the Government matches you dollar for dollar up to $20 a week (ie everyone earning over $26,000 a year gets $20 a week). The Government also refunds your employer up to $20 a week on their contribution to your Kiwisaver and anything above that is tax deductible for your employer (so each dollar over $20 a week costs your employer 70 cents and the Government 30 cents).

National pledged to change this ‘4+4′ scheme to a 2+2′ scheme. You contribute 2% and your employer matches that 2%. Obviously, you only get half the employer contributions but you also get less from the government if your income is below $52,000 (the point where weekly contributions hit $20 at 2% of gross income). Under National’s plan, you lose contributions worth 4% of your gross income if your income is below $26,000, you lose 2-4% if your income is $26K-$52K and 2% above that. From lower matching contributions and lower refunds to your employer, National projects they would cut $3 billion out of government contributions to Kiwisaver. That’s what would pay for their tax cuts for the wealthy. A typical tory policy, it hits the middle income earners* hardest to benefit the well-off.

The unions have proposed that, if Kiwisaver must be cut, then it be done by keeping it a 4+4 scheme but capping employer contributions at $20. That way people on incomes up to $26,000 would be no worse off than under the original plan. And anyone earning less than $100,000 would not loss more than 1% of their gross income compared to National’s plan. This wouldn’t save the Government as much National’s plan and would be more costly to higher income earners but would protect people on middle incomes ($20K-$40K).

Key has apparently welcomed the plan, which should be a good thing but raises two worrying questions. How much thought did the Nats put into their changes if they’re willing to ditch it for another one just like that? Or is Key just telling the unions want they want to hear, as he is wont to do? If he is just placating the unions and has no intention of altering his plans, he will get a quick lesson that the tricks you can play in opposition come back to bite you when you have a position of real responsibility.

*(the median income is $27,000, people on incomes between $20K and $40K are over-represented in Kiwisaver)

The first test

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on November 13, 2008
in economy, john key and national/act government
. 190 Comments

Michael Cullen has released the latest economic and fiscal update, the one Key commented on in today’s papers but which he refused to reveal the details of to the public. Basically, it’s pretty bad news. How Key is responding or, rather, not responding to this first test is even worse news.

Since the Pre-election economic and fiscal update less than two months ago, the Treasury’s forecasts for economic growth in our top 20 trade partners have plummented - for example, next years’ projection has gone from 2.8% to just 1.8%. Commodity prices and export demand is expected to be hit significantly, leading to lower growth and a higher current account deficit. Unemployment is now predicted to hit 5.7% not 5.1% as in the PREFU and wage increases will be lower, perhaps below inflation. Lower tax revenue will see government debt blow out by another $5 billion on top of the so-called ‘decade of deficits’ projected in the PREFU.

The global financial crisis is not National/Act’s fault, just as it wasn’t the Labour-led government’s fault. But they do have a choice as to how they respond. National/Act’s plan seems to be to carry on as if nothing has happened, pushing through the same agenda that they announced months ago without modifications for changed economic situation. It’s worth noting that the cost of National’s tax package additional to Labour’s is about the same size as the increase in projected debt over the same period. In other words, National could prevent this debt blow out by cancelling its tax cuts for the rich. It won’t do so, of course. National should make the creation of useful jobs a priority, as Labour intended to do to keep benefit numbers and crime down, and income and tax revenue up. But it won’t do that, either.

We said it before the election and bears repeating now. It is not just the declared policies of a party that matter but their underlying ideology, the set of principles which shape their response to emerging issues. National might have presented that ‘Nice Mr Key’ facade and some appropriately moderate policies but underneath he is rightwinger leading a conservative party. His response already looks like being a typical conservative response - bury your head in the sand and hope everything turns out OK in the end. That is not the response we need right now.

Key’s ‘no worries, folks’ response to this latest update also makes me wonder if Key really has bitten off more than he can chew. Does he have the strength to disappoint his supporters when it is in the longer-term interests of New Zealand as a whole to do so? Does he have the leadership skills and courage to actively steer New Zealand through these difficult straits or will he grimly stick to the pre-laid course as the storm hits us? So far, he has tried to downplay the issue, he evidently hopes it will just go away. Well, it’s not just going to go away and if Mr Key is not up to the job of confronting it that is not just a problem for him, it is a problem for all of us.