Archive for the 'election 2008' Category

Kids set back children’s franchise 100 years

Published
by
Tane
on November 26, 2008
in election 2008 and polls
. 23 Comments

The results are in from the NZ Post-sponsored Kids Voting project, and while it’s a worthy project it nonetheless shows why we don’t allow children the franchise.

More than 13,000 school students nationwide took part in the project aimed at encouraging kids to take an interest in our democracy. The resulting Parliament had Labour and National hold their places as the major parties, but the stand-out winners were the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party with 10.5% and 13 seats, and the joke Bill & Ben Party with 11.7% and 15 seats.

However, due to Bill & Ben only having two candidates on their party list they would lose 13 seats, giving Parliament an ‘underhang’ of only 107 seats. On these numbers Labour, the Greens and the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party could easily form a government.

Hmm… come to think of it, why don’t we give kids the franchise?

Labour’s lessons

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on November 23, 2008
in election 2008 and labour
. 54 Comments

54,982 votes, 2.3% of the total. That was difference in the election. If Labour had lost 55,000 fewer votes to National (it lost 142.966 in total, while voter numbers grew 69,000) then a Labour (47), Green (9), Progressive (1), Maori (5) government would have been possible, a more natural and stable government than one that combines ACT and the Maori Party.

While Labour’s vote went down 138,000, the Greens gained 37,000 votes. Combined they lost 100,000 votes, whereas they would have gained 32,000 votes had the vote increased in line with the growing number of voters. Let’s look at where the votes were lost.

So, it’s a pretty consistent pattern across the country - Labour lost 500-2500 party votes in the vast majority of seats (the Left gained votes in only 7 seats). In general, the loss as heavier in the urban seats (but remember, Labour had more votes to lose in those seats). Labour lost 20-30% of its votes in the Auckland seats and Hamilton. The loss in Wellington, Christchurch, and Dunedin was smaller and more went to the Greens.

Votes for Labour in its South Auckland heartland fell more than average. The 14,000 votes lost there account for 10% of Labour’s lost votes in an area that accounts for only 7.5% of its nationwide vote. Turnout in South Auckland (by which I mean the four Ms) was down 10,000 from 2005 and 5000 more votes were lost to the Pacific Party. That’s not a vote for National or right-wing politics but it does seem to confirm that some South Auckland voters disaffected by Labour’s focus on liberal issues. (btw, this rubbish about an extra 100,000 votes being turned out in South Auckland in 2005 doesn’t add up - the increase in Labour votes in South Auckland from 2002 to 2005 was only 12,000, and total vote up only 20,000).

Auckland Central, another seat with previously strong support also experienced a big loss to National. Perhaps next time, Labour will put up a decent candidate who is willing to put the effort in to win. We can see the same pattern in other electorates where poor performing Labour MPs have seen what were once large majorities continue to erode or disappear altogether.

So, what does this tell us? Well, the success of the vacuous ‘time for a change’ slogan appears to have been widespread. The situation, particularly, in South Auckland ought to improve as feelings over the s59 issue will, especially if Labour moves back to its roots in work rights and public services. The importance of committed, strong candidates cannot be over-estimated. One bright side of the losses and change of leadership will be that a new crop will get a look in - as with National in 2002, the deadwood has been stripped.

This election was not lost by a huge amount. Labour’s base remains strong and the reasons for the loss of votes are pretty clear. It amounts to simple message to Labour: re-connect with your core policies, re-connect with your core supporters, and put up energetic candidates who stand for those values.

Final results in

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on November 22, 2008
in election 2008
. 69 Comments

The official count, including specials has been released.

The Greens have picked up another seat on specials at National’s cost. Kennedy Graham will be the Greens’ ninth MP. Along with Kevin Hague, Graham brings both intellectual heft and a more ‘mainstream’ face to the Greens. Great news.

Labour was just 39 votes short of picking up another seat, also at National’s expense. Maybe if they had bothered to call up those 40 Servos volunteers for the get out the vote effort in South Auckland on election day. Or if some Labour supporters hadn’t had the bright idea of trying to help Winston over 5%. Or if the Workers’ Party, Alliance, ALC and RAM hadn’t wasted 13,000 left-wing votes. Hell, the Greens could have spared 1850 votes and still got 9 seats - maybe if Tane, Irish, and myself had endorsed Labour instead of them :) Oh, well.

Anyway, that just goes to show that every vote does matter.

I’ll do some analysis on where the Left lost ground later on.

[Update: in comments, we're told the servo volunteers were used on election day, great if that was the case but my understanding is still that the get out the vote effort in South Auckland this year was weaker than 2005]

Minnows

Published
by
lprent
on November 22, 2008
in election 2008
. 21 Comments
I always love reading the 100 Word Blog. So few words and such a high degree of clarity. Richard has surpassed himself with this post. All I can say is ouch!, ask to reproduce it, and extend its readership. It is quoted below in full as per usual.

Minnow Party post election round up
While the Christian parties had 1996 to give them hope, most knew they had no chance.  While the Libertarianz and the Workers’ Party would be happy just to stand by their ideals, you have to wonder why the Alliance doesn’t just join Labour or the Greens or why the Marxists of RAM are so coy about their politics.

And then there’s the sheer embarrassment of the results. Having poured their efforts into Mangere, the Family Party gained only 856 votes.  RAM claims 3,000 members but the overwhelming majority didn’t vote for them, they only received 405 votes.

Wellington party vote breakdown

Published
by
Tane
on November 19, 2008
in election 2008
. 29 Comments

The Wellingtonista has a cool post up with a breakdown of Left vs Right voting patterns in Wellington this election.

The map above shows party vote on a booth by booth level. The blue bloc represents National, Act and United Future, and the red bloc is Labour, Green and Progressive. NZ First and the Maori Party have been excluded. As for the breakdown:

It certainly seems that the Wellington CBD, Aro Valley and inner suburbs voted left, but it’s not all about hippies and the trendy urban liberal elite. The traditional Labour heartland of working class, Maori and immigrant neighbourhoods also stayed staunch, with several booths in Cannons Creek voting for the left by over 90%. The affluent neighbourhoods (Oriental Bay, Khandallah and Seatoun) kept to their blue-blood roots, but there’s also plenty of blue in the Hutt Valley and parts of Tawa: is that the “Joe the Plumber” vote? The only booth to vote more than 75% for the right was in Whitby.

It’s also interesting to see that while National is bragging about winning the party vote in Wellington Central, when you add the Greens’ 20% to Labour’s tally it’s solid red.

You can click on the image to see the full Google Map including Porirua.

He’ll make us ruch as well as thuck

Published
by
John A
on November 11, 2008
in election 2008 and media
. 77 Comments

One Aussie view of our election.

What will happen with the specials?

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on November 9, 2008
in election 2008
. 25 Comments

There are about 240,000 special votes still be be counted. That’s about 11% of the vote in total. Special voters include large numbers of students and late-enrollees, which tends to favour the Left. Last election, Labour and the Greens together took 45.8% of the first count and 51.4% of the specials, ending up with 46.4% in total. National took 39.63% of the first count, 34.6% of the specials, equalling 39.1% of the total.

If the parties get roughly the same ratio of their prelimary vote to their special vote as last time, Labour and the Greens will end up getting about 46% of the special votes, National 40%. I’ve run the official St Laguë calculations for this scenario: both the Greens and Labour would take a seat from National.

That’s not enough to change the result, of course. National/ACT would be a majority of 62 seats (63 with Dunne) in the 122 seat Parliament.

Election Night Live Blogging: The Explanatory Post

Published
by
Julie Fairey
on November 8, 2008
in election 2008 and uncategorized
. 31 Comments

Thanks to the Standardistas for giving me a method of distraction for the evening.  I’m usually to be found at The Hand Mirror, with a group of feminist left-of-centre women blogging about various things.  Tonight though I’ll be live-blogging here at the heart of the leftwing portion of the blogosphere, and I hope I can do it justice.

My intentions are three-fold:

1.  Chronicle the ups and down of the party vote. Most important vote and all that.

2.  Squeeze in some mention of anything that happens in the coverage that particularly strikes me as worth the finger exercise. Last election there was that whole plane flying into the Sky Tower saga, and of course Peter Dunne losing his rag at the media.  Who knows what might happen tonight? I’ll be flicking around the telly channels (although we don’t have Freeview, so that means no TVNZ7 or Sky), as well as a few websites from time to time.

3.  Keep an eye on a (mammoth) list of 18 electorates (the Pivotals) which may change hands, or play an important role for some reason. These are based on my own assessment of the key spots, and may of course differ from your list.  Your electorate may not even be on it;  not everyone gets to be special, all the time.  Obviously this list may change as the night progresses.  Hopefully it will get shorter!

  • Auckland Central
  • Botany
  • Christchurch Central
  • Hamilton West
  • Hauraki-Waikato
  • Ikaroa-Rawhiti
  • Mangere
  • Maungakiekie
  • Otaki
  • Palmerston North
  • Rimutaka
  • Rotorua
  • Taupo
  • Tauranga
  • Te Tai Tonga
  • Waitakere
  • Wellington Central
  • West Coast-Tasman

What I won’t be doing is moderating the comment threads.  But don’t worry, lprent will, as always, be keeping a beady eye on us all.

Other Standardistas may also pop in over the course of the evening.  Apparently they all have actual lives though, so I’ll be handling the main live-blogging post, which I anticpate will be one (long) post that I update throughout the night.  I’m having a few friends over (who are going to find out shortly that they are helping me keep track of the Pivotals above) and if I stop updating it’ll either be technological (probably my fault) or biological (most likely baby-related).

Alright, let’s see how this goes, I’ll kick off the actual live-blogging post in a mo.

Contrast the ways of ‘democracy’

Published
by
lprent
on November 8, 2008
in election 2008
. 6 Comments
How not to vote (BBC)

How not to vote (BBC)

How not to vote (Economist)

How not to vote (Economist)

I’m happy to say that when I crawled out of my sickbed and voted this morning, it was nothing like the photos on the top and left.

I gather that we had queues at some of the major booths later in the day - Edendale primary (my old school) in Mt Albert for instance. However the contrast between the “democracy” displayed in these photo’s of the US and what we had today in NZ was immense. As No Right Turn pointed out the underfunded electoral system in the USA seems to be designed to disenfranchise voters.

So what’s wrong with this picture? Simply that it shouldn’t exist. The idea that people would have to queue for more than five minutes to vote in any advanced western democracy is absurd. The idea that they would be queuing out the door, for hours to do so is positively third-world. It speaks of an election apparatus so hideously underresourced that is simply not fit for purpose - unless the purpose is to stop people from voting rather than enable it.

Compared to the couple of minutes to do my vote today, the system in the self-professed democratic USA is strange. I’m just glad that we have a better funded and capable electoral commission out there. Thanks for your efforts leading up to this election.

Oh and the comments are now enabled.

Making the decision

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on November 7, 2008
in act, election 2008, greens, helen clark, john key, labour, maori party, national, progressives and united future
. 55 Comments

Have you still not decided who you’ll vote for? The final poll shows the race between a National/ACT/United Future or a Labour/Green/Progressive/Maori government is neck and neck, so your choice matters. Here is some advice and tools that may help:

When choosing who to vote for there are three things you should consider:
policy - what does the party plan to do? Is that in the best interests of you, your family, your community, and the wider world?
trust - do you believe that the party will do what it says it will?
competence - do you think the people who would govern if that party is in power are up to the job?

Change for its own sake is not a reason to vote for a party. The Government has a very important job, you want the best parties to make up that government. Vote on the issues that matter to you, not trivial things that parties often concentrate on. The biggest issues for most people are having a job, getting enough money to afford a decent standard of living, health and education. Real freedom is not light-bulbs, it is having the income security to afford the life you want for you and your family.

Since Labour came to power, unemployment has fallen to record lows, wages have risen strongly, crime is down, health and education have improved, Working for Families and tax cuts have reduced tax to nearly zero for many families, government debt has been reduced, and private saving has been encouraged with Kiwisaver. A Labour-Green government will continue to build on this record. This article describes NZ under a Labour-led government

National’s record is wages dropping and high unemployment, this time their policies are to weaken work rights. National will not be putting more money into health and education, it would increase government debt and cut Kiwisaver in half. National’s tax cuts would increase tax for many families and would only give others 1-2% more in after-tax income. This article describes NZ under a National-led government

- This test calculates how well your personal views line up with the policies of each party
- This tax cut calculator is the only one that includes money you would lose from Kiwisaver contributions under National.
- The Standard Line series of posts addresses a number of the issues that have arisen during this campaign.

What a National/ACT Govt would mean

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on November 7, 2008
in election 2008
. 44 Comments

National/ACT would would implement several major policies:

- it would weaken work rights. You could be fired without justification in the first 90 days of a new job if your employer employs fewer than 20 people.

- wages for low wage workers would fall. National would not increase the minimum wage and it would weaken the ability of these workers to strengthen their bargaining position by organising as unions.

- it would privatise ACC. Your accident compensation would depend on a private company paying out. Hope it doesn’t collapse, as insurance companies regularly do.

- it would cut Kiwisaver in half. Rather than getting matching contributions of 4% from your employer you would only get 2%.

- it would cut taxes for the wealthy. If your income is below $24,000, or $44,000 if you have a family, your tax cut would be smaller under National than Labour. If your income is below $80,000 National would give you at most $14 a week more in tax cuts than Labour. If your income is $300,000 you would get $90 a week more from National, on $500,000 you would get $165 more, and so on.

- it would weaken environmental protections in the Resource Management Act and the Emissions Trading Act.

- There would be toll roads charging up to $50 a week, paying for private owners’ profits. Schools and prisons would also be privately owned.

- A National/ACT Government’s instinct would be to cut public services, privatise, sell assets, and join in US-led wars.

The fundamental question

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on November 7, 2008
in Deep stuff, election 2008 and workers' rights
. 44 Comments

The fundamental question of politics is how the wealth of society should be divided among the members of society. We live in a capitalist society. That means it is the people who own the capital (businesses, factories, farms) who own the things that are made and get to choose how to divide the wealth between themselves and the people who work in their businesses and factories, and on the farms. Governments can change this balance by giving workers more rights or fewer rights, rising or lowering the minimum wage, taking wealth off those who get most and using it to provide public service free for everyone.

These graphs show the economy, the annual amount of wealth produced by our society. It is divided into the amount that is paid to workers in wages and salaries (in red) and the part kept by the owners of capital (in blue). Notice how the portion going to workers fell when National from when National started governing in 1991 to 2000 when Labour came to power and how the workers’ share has grown since then.

Fundamentally, that’s the choice between Labour and National.

National was founded by and continues to be run and backed by the owners of capital - businessmen and farmers. In their natural self-interest, they have a political party that makes sure they get a bigger share of the wealth by not placing restrictions on the use of capital for the individual gain of the owners, lowering taxes and cutting public services, and weakening the power of workers to demand a larger share.

Labour was established by and continues to be run and backed by people from the workers’ rights movement. In their natural self-interest, they have a political party that makes sure they get a bigger share of the wealth by restricting capital so that it acts in the broader interest of society, redistribution of wealth to poorer workers through taxation and public services, and strengthening the power of workers to demand a larger share.

When National says it wants ‘change’ it is actually saying it wants to restore a time when the balance was more in favour of the owners of capital. When Labour says it offers ’stability’ it is actually saying it offers to continue a gradual evolution of the balance in favour of those who do the work.

The size of the circle grows over the years as the economy grows. One fundamental of National-type parties is to promise to make the economy grow faster to make up for the fact that those who do the work, most people, get a smaller share of the economy when they govern. However, Labour also wants to grow the economy as the easiest way to increase workers’ wealth without facing resistance from the capitalist class. When you compare their records, it has been Labour that has grown the economy faster while also growing the share that goes to workers.

The Greens argue (and Labour agrees to an extent) that, while giving a fairer share to workers is important, we must also make sure that in growing our wealth we don’t destroy the foundations of that wealth, our environment. If we abuse our natural resources, the amount of wealth we have will start to decrease. Moreover, they argue we shouldn’t be so obsessed with creating more ’stuff’ in the first place.

The Maori Party argues that, while giving a fairer share to workers is important, the capitalist/worker divide is not he only one in society. They argue that as well as not getting a fair share as workers, Maori don’t get a fair share because they are Maori and deserve a fairer share.

ACT argues the market is the only fair way. The Progressives basically agree with Labour. United Future does what’s best for Peter Dunne’s pay packet.

Final Roy Morgan poll

Published
by
Tane
on November 7, 2008
in election 2008 and polls
. 41 Comments

The final Roy Morgan poll is out and the Left (LPG+M) has it by a nose with 62 seats out of a 122 seat Parliament. The Greens will be happy with 10% - that puts them in a strong negotiating position after the election and gives a 17 seat voting bloc in conjunction with the Maori Party.

A bit of a worry to see NZ First on 4.5% - I’d like to see them out of Parliament, or failing that blocking a hard-right National/ACT government. Having NZ First on 4.5% is the worst possible scenario.

Roy Morgan was the most accurate poll at predicting the last election result. We’ll have to wait until tomorrow night to see if they’ve done it again but one thing’s for sure - this election is still anyone’s game.

Key the opposite of Obama

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on November 7, 2008
in election 2008 and john key
. 23 Comments

Supports a Woman’s Right to Choose
This is abortion rights. John Key was asked about abortion rights in the debate and he lied as usual. From I/S’s post:

Last year in Parliament two failed amendments were attempted trying to replace the government’s status quo nominees with anti-abortion ones. One attempted replacement was a doctor who has worked for an anti-abortion counselling service. The amendment was put forward by Peter Brown (NZ First) and supported by all the NZ First MPs who voted and 21 of the 36 National MPs who voted. His supporters included John Key, Bill English, Tony Ryall and Judith Collins — the four hoping to be Prime Minister, Deputy PM, and Ministers for Health and Social Development. The second attempted replacement put forward by Gordon Copeland gained similar levels of support.

Make the U.S. a Leader on Climate Change
Whereas here the National party gets worried that we’re ahead of the world when we’re behind.

Increase Fuel Economy Standards
Aren’t car dealers and those who complain about the so-called nanny state on the right here complaining about Labour’s new emmisions standards on imported used cars?

Strengthening Domestic Violence Laws
What has Labour being doing a lot of lately trying to bring attention to a certain issue…

Here is Obama’s page on woman’s issues. National doesn’t have any policy on women’s issues whatsoever on their website.

Expanding Early Childhood Education
Labour party policy, not National’s

Ending the War in Iraq
The National party wanted us in the Iraq war whereas Labour kept us out of it.

[hattip: Guv]

Key used Nat research unit to search for smear on Clark’s husband

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on November 7, 2008
in election 2008, helen clark and john key
. 47 Comments

After weeks of griping about dirty tactics, it has been revealed in the NBR that Key ordered the tax-payer funded National Party research unit to rake over the records of Prime Minister Clark’s husband Peter Davis’s academic grants looking for a smear. Clark revealed the attempted smear in an interview on AltTV.

“In June this year when the health research council grants grants were announced my husband got a grant,” Miss Clark said, “because he’s a researcher at a university, goes back 40 years. When those grants were announced National put in an Official Information Act request demanding to see all the reviewers’ reports, really trying to get at some kind of smear that my husband got grants not because of his academic reputation but because of me.”

Suffice to say, National’s attack on Clark’s family was a fizzer

Is it appropriate for Key to order taxpayer funds to be spent trolling through the affairs of the family of another politician, especially as he has demanded that no-one look into his past?

You can watch the AltTV interview on Sky or streaming on the internet at www.alttv.co.nz at 8pm.

Endorsements

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on November 7, 2008
in election 2008
. 41 Comments

Steve Pierson: Greens - I want a more left-wing Labour-led government. The Greens’ work rights and environment policies are better than Labour’s and these are the two issues that matter most to me. The Greens will keep Labour moving in the right direction.

Tane: Greens - because we need a strong Green influence in the next government. While Labour has made some great progress over the last nine years they are at times held back by their timidness and their continued adherence to neoliberalism. On every major policy area the Greens’ policies are fairer and more socially and environmentally sustainable than any other party’s.

In Wellington Central I’m backing Labour’s Grant Robertson. It’s nothing against Sue K, but even she knows she’s not going to win. In a two-horse race between Robertson and that bigot Franks there’s really no contest.

all_your_base: Labour - their record and instincts mean they will continue to look after workers. Only Labour puts jobs and wages first.

Dancer: Labour - because while I don’t like everything they do I like most of it, most of the time. And I believe they can handle the bumpy economic situation, that they are a strong, cohesive team, and that they will look out for the people who need the help the most - and that matters to me.

Irishbill: Greens - for much the same reason as Tane. I’m probably going to give my electorate vote to the Alliance or the Workers Party because I live in a safe seat with no tactical voting opportunity and I’d like to see both parties get 5% and get their deposit back. I just haven’t made up my mind which I’ll vote for yet. I guess that makes me a swing voter!

lprent: Labour - For me it is largely a question of observation about relative competence in government. Over the last 35 years, I’ve seen National screwup over and over again through a hopeless sense of what works in government. In the same time, Labour has managed to screwup as well, but a order of magnitude less. Usually the changes that Labour introduces work, persist and make things better and more productive for the whole society, including business.

The current round of National politicians looks as hopelessly incompetent about the role of government as ever, and the Labour politicians have been more competent than usual. I also like that Labour is managing to start building policies for the future, now that they have partially corrected Nationals previous round of policy screwups.

John’s walkabout itinerary

Published
by
IrishBill
on November 7, 2008
in election 2008 and john key
. 44 Comments

We’ve been emailed a copy of the itinerary for John Key’s last day of campaigning. It looks like he’s doing a last minute dash around heartland Labour seats which fits with their strategy of going into their opponent’s base.

If you are in Auckland later today you should pop along and have a chat with Key as it only seems fair that you should get the chance to question the man who wants to run our country:

7 November 20
Wellington
7am Meet commuters
Wellington Railway Station

7.30am
Depart for airport
Palmerston North

9.00am
Public Rally & Walkabout
Terrace End Shopping Centre

10.15am
Depart for airport

New Plymouth
11.45am
Public Rally
Cnr Devon & Currie Streets

12.20pm
Depart for airport
Auckland

1.40pm
Join Campaign Bus
Auckland Airport

2.15pm
Walkabout
Sylvia Park

3.00pm
Walkabout
Cnr White Swan & Richardson Roads
Mount Roskill

3.45pm
Walkabout
Chancery Lane
Auckland City

4.45pm
Walkabout
West City Mall
Waitakere City

5.30pm
Closing Rally
Settlers Lodge
81 Waimauku Station Road
Waimauku

Election day

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on November 7, 2008
in election 2008
. 26 Comments

On election day, we won’t doing any posting until the polls close. We will lock off comments, as well, until then. As the results come in, we will have live blogging from guest poster Julie Fairey and any other Standardista who feels like it.

On election day, not only vote yourself but go down to your favoured party’s local election HQ and offer to help out, they need people to help get out the vote.

I’ve taken the Campaign Hub down. As stated on the page, no materials from that site are authorised if used in contravention of electoral law. That means no distributing them on election day and that people who have postered are responsible for removing any remaining posters before election day. Help out your allies and remove any other election posters you see today. It has been amazing to see how many people have used the Hub. Well done guys.

Later today, we’ll have endorsements from the Standardistas, a post on the essential question of politics (how our wealth should be divided between those who own the stuff and those who do the work), a post on why voting for a National government is a bad idea, and a post for undecided voters.

[update: oh yeah, and I will be the commentator from the Left on the Backbenches election special from 8pm on TVNZ7. I can barely wait for the warm reviews from our resident righties]

Down to the wire

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on November 7, 2008
in election 2008 and polls
. 30 Comments

The last polls are out, except for Roy Morgan, which will presumably be out later today. Here are how the blocs sit (assuming 7 seats for the Maori Party. If they get just 4, the majority to govern will drop by 2 and the Left bloc will drop 3, giving bigger leads to the Right):

Heralddigi

Colmar

TV3

Fairfax

National’s bloc is ahead in all of them but only by a nose in most. You have to remember that the polls generally give the Right a couple of percent extra; a shift of Right -2 and Left +2 would make all the difference. There is also a big question over whether or not the damage these polls show Labour has taken over the H-fee will translate into actual lost votes. If Labour can get out the vote, Maori split their votes, and New Zealand First voters go to Labour or the Greens, the Left can still win this. It will be interesting to see what the Roy Morgan says.

Key to work rights activist: you’re an idiot

Published
by
Steve Pierson
on November 6, 2008
in election 2008, john key and workers' rights
. 97 Comments

You know, you can fly around acting all presidential if you like in a cheap attempt to wow the press gallery but that doesn’t make you the Kiwi Obama.

Obama, for one, is a big proponent of work rights and raising the minimum wage. Key is not. His party’s vague work rights policy looks like a move back to the dark old days of the Employment Contracts Act.

Obama, also, can handle the stresses of campaigning and his is civil to everyone. Key cannot and is not.

When a protester asked Key today to “tell the truth” on the changes he would make to the Employment Relations Act, Key responded “the truth is you’re an idiot”. If you’re cracking under the pressure of a few plane trips and campaign stops, you’re not up to the real job.

Way to spike your own pre-victory tour, Johnny. Very Presidential.