Archive for the 'national' Category

All the facts

National’s David Farrar has been running a series for some time trying to paint NZ Labour as out of step with Labour Parties around the world when it comes to their attitude on tax cuts. His intention, of course, is to portray Labour as extreme left and his mates in National as centrist and middle of the road. Problem is, he’s more interested in spruiking for the National Party than he is in getting his facts right.

Yesterday he reported excitedly that while NZ Labour was “almost alone in the world with its hostility to personal tax cuts”, in contrast the UK Labour Party is “delivering a massive package of tax cuts” to deal with the economic crisis.

We’ll forgive him for selectively ignoring the huge family tax cuts in Working For Families, the cut to the corporate tax rate, the personal tax cuts in this year’s budget and the tax credits for Kiwisaver and R&D - these are things National has to omit for its spin to make any sense.

But despite his obvious disdain for the intelligence of his readers he can’t get away with this one - under Gordon Brown’s tax plan that he endorsed so wholeheartedly the wealthy will face a hefty tax increase, while the cut is to VAT, a regressive tax similar to our GST that hits the poor the hardest.

Essentially, it’s a more progressive tax system, with tax reductions for those on lower to middle incomes paid for by tax increases on the rich, and it’s being described in the media as a rejection of Blairism and a return to traditional Labour values - values that would fit in very well with those of the Labour Party here that Farrar has tried to paint as extreme and “almost alone in the world”.

The only question is, given his enthusiasm for Gordon Brown’s plan, will Farrar now be rejecting National’s regressive tax plan - where families on less than $44k pay more tax so the rich can pay less - in favour of a system that’s fairer and more progressive? Somehow, I doubt it.

Crosby/Textor on repeat

The topic of Crosby Textor has emerged again with a story in the NZ Herald. While it is unsurprising to read that Crosby Textor is “drumming up business after last week’s election by offering insights into the new Government and its personalities” there’s another aspect I think also deserves examination.

How and why is this material entering the public domain - apparently after National’s electoral success?

Earlier this year it was reported that Crosby Textors advice to the National party was being paid for out of Parliamentary funds, and the information:

included diary-type references and dates and details of Mr Key’s meetings, prompted the party to raise concerns about security with Parliamentary Services.

I don’t think we ever had a definitive answer on how that material got into the public arena. But we do know it wasn’t Parlimantary Services who told TV3 about the visit of Lord Ashcoft. Duncan Garner said that came from within National. So will the signing of the Ministerial warrants lead to silence? Or will the leaks continue?

What will National’s cabinet look like?

Will it be the same tired old faces, the fresh noobs or a mixture of both? Will it be an all National cabinet or will Peter “marginal seat” Dunne secure himself a place at the grown-ups table? Here’s a few off the top of my head:

Bill English - Deputy leader and Finance
Obvious really but given his position on Kiwibank, Kiwisaver and his general predilection toward “window dressing” he’ll be hard for Key to keep under control. The last time he was cabinet we saw benefits, pensions and social services cut. Let’s hope he’s calmed down a bit, eh?

Tony Ryall - Health
The man who let slip that GP fee-caps would be removed and who described bowel cancer-screening as “an election bribe”. He’s likely to be the man driving increased Heceptin funding despite Pharmac advising against it. He’s an accountant.

Gerry Brownlee - Energy
Let’s hope he’s not got anymore Contact shares hiding under the rug. I have heard rumours of a scoping exercise for a nuclear power station in Northland. Seriously.

Nick Smith - Environment
I’ve got a soft spot for Nick Smith. He wasn’t happy about National’s promise to halt the $1bn insulation retrofit policy and he’s been a good electorate MP but the biggie will be the ETS. What people forget is that this scheme is designed to make polluters pay for their pollution and if it doesn’t then it’s the taxpayer that has to. I suspect he’s going to be a fall guy.

Murry McCully - Foreign Affairs
McCully is the patron saint of the Kiwiblog Right. He’s described various Labour policies as “Stalinist”, “Feminazi” and was a frequent user of the term “Helengrad”. Let’s hope for NZ’s international reputation that he doesn’t really believe this sort of nonsense or that if he does he keeps it to himself while overseas.

Wayne Mapp - Labour
Despite Kate Wilkinson being the shadow for Labour, Mapp is the one with a personal dislike for unions and the strongest interest in employment law. He’ll be happy to front the removal of workers’ rights. My fear is that National will take their “fire at will” policy and extend it to all new workers (not just those in small businesses) and a six month no-rights period as both ACT and Peter Dunne have argued for this.

Tim Groser - Trade
This would be a good move. If free trade is your thing.

Rodney Hide - Minister outside of cabinet - Racing.

I don’t have time for the rest but feel free to make your picks in the comments.

Update: Stuff is reporting the Nat’s may have their cabinet decided by Sunday.

National Spinners

David Farrar wrote… “Funniest moment was talking to a few of John’s staff, and one of them asked whether their imminent transfer to the 9th floor meant they would get to take over The Standard. It was hilarious as they started fighting over who would be all-your-base and who would be Irish Bill etc”

Wow! That is really funny all right. These guys need to really learn what is spin and what is not. It looks as if they have come to believe the lies that WhaleOil tells about the site (and David spreads). I pay for the site. Our writers write on a voluntary basis outside of their work (which isn’t on the 9th floor). It is all in and always has been in our About. Either these fools are joking stupidly, or Key is employing credulous idiots. Either is a bit worrying in the staff advising the PM.

Well, I guess that we worried them as a channel that wasn’t susceptible to their charms. Guess what, they’re likely to get more worried over the next few years. I suspect that after everyone gets over their hangovers and campaigning exhaustion, that you will not like what they have to say. The Standard isn’t going away and nor are its posts and posters.

National - welcome to the era of cheap mass media. But of course you know that. Are Kiwiblog and WhaleOil now going to be run from the 9th floor after you move in, or from the National research unit as previously done?

The distances between parties

Just before the election They Work For You released some impressive work on the voting distances between parties based on:-

There are 110 final bill reading votes included in the analysis. All the votes are from the 48th New Zealand Parliament which was in term between 7 November 2005 and 3 October 2008.

The plot was created by a statistical analysis of bill votes, using a technique called principal components analysis. The two principal components plotted above explain 74.4% of the variance in the way parties voted on final bill readings.

The major variation in the chart shows with the effects of the agreements between Labour, Progressives, NZ First, and United Future. That distorted the positioning of those parties in that they tended to vote the same way. Without that distortion, it is likely that Labour would have voted a bit closer to the Greens. NZ First and United Future would have voted closer to National.

In the coalition forming period, this clearly illustrates the differences between the party groupings, and the problem faced by National. Ideally they would set up agreements that allowed them to seek support from other parties where Act was unwilling to follow. That would allow National to maintain its own policy position while still getting legislation through that Act objected to and was unable to vote for. Otherwise Act would wind up being the tail that shakes the dog, effectively driving the policy direction of National.

Act has to be able to maintain their own policy direction because otherwise they would find it difficult to maintain the independence from National, and would be likely to wither away as being perceived as being not independent or distinctive enough. There have been a number of examples of this since MMP was introduced.

The problem for National is that United Future has too few house votes to perform that function. Now that NZ First is no longer available largely because of Act’s actions, they have a very limited range of options. All of those options vote a long way from National, and would correspondingly probably require larger policy concessions in their areas.

It will make for an interesting few weeks while this is sorted out. I’d expect that there are going to be unhappy supporters of one or more parties in the eventual agreements at the end of it. I suspect that the unhappiness will be greatest amongst the National supporters.

hattip: No Right Turn

Congratulations

It’s been a hard fought campaign but it’s clear that we’ve got a firmly right wing government now. Congratulations are in order for John Key and the ACT party.

Of course I’m not happy with the outcome and I expect it will bode badly for a lot of New Zealanders but that’s the democratic result and you can’t argue with it.

Over the next three years there are going to be a lot of things we on the left will have to campaign hard to protect including, quite likely, MMP and the first hundred days of this new government will be a test for all left activists as reforms are pushed through fast during the honeymoon period.

But that’s ahead of us. Right now I’m going to spend an afternoon relaxing in the sun.

Making the decision

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.

Pigs in muck

Yesterday, John Key was telling journalists that he knew the secret agenda taper, Kees Keizer, was a Labour Party activist. In fact, he knew that wasn’t true, which is why he refused to name him.

The Herald has. And what it’s also reveled is a close relationship between Cameron Slater and the National Party research unit:

Mr Slater said he worked with the taxpayer-funded National Party research unit at identifying the spy by going through the Facebook sites of Young Labour members.

This is the same Cameron Slater who has:

Stalked John Minto and published a photo of his house

Alleged a Labour party candidate was a sexual pervert

Photoshopped the face of a 15 year old labour activist onto gay porn

There have been rumours that Slater has been feeding smears onto the internet on behalf of the National Party and has worked with their research unit to seed other information on their behalf. Now it looks increasingly likely this is true.

When John Key was asked about the tapes on last night’s news he talked about pigs in muck. It seems his team has been working with one of the biggest pigs of all.

Shock revelation: Taper is Wellington Leftie

The secret taper has revealed himself as Kees Keizer, a leftie from Wellington. I spent quite a bit of time yesterday encouraging Keizer to tell his story, preferably to The Standard or the Herald (more credible), and he steadfastly refused. So imagine my surprise when I see a three page article of him talking to the Herald’s Patrick Gower.

It’s a facsinating read. Keizer says he just walked in, went up to people and started talking. He gave his real name and said he was interested in joining the Young Nats. And they talked back. Kees says he was ‘appalled’ by how readily the Nats talked about their secret plans when among what they assumed were friends. He says that all it took for English to start spouting off about Obama and the EU was for him to mention his interest in European politics. And we can hear on the first tape that English is basically just talking freely when he unfolds National’s view of the ‘punters’, ‘Labour plus voters’, his view of Key, and National’s plans for Working for Families and Kiwibank.

Now, I know Kees. Which is hardly surprising. We both studied international relations in similar areas (myself democratisation, he conflict resolution), we are both into environmental politics, we both went on cycle trips last year (myself through Europe and he through Europe and North Africa) and we exchanged comments on each others travel blogs. We get along well. I wouldn’t say we’re best buddies though. Frankly, as the face of The Standard, I’ve met just about every leftie in town. If National had identified someone else in leftwing activist circles from Wellington as the taper, then they probably could have found some link between me and that person as well. It would be more surprising if I’d never heard of Kees. Unfortunately, for the conspiracy theorists on the Right, I knew nothing of the fact that he’s the taper.

I have no trouble in believing Keizer acted alone. My impression of him is he’s that kind of character: a self-starter and one for coming up with unusual ideas. This is a man, after all, who cycled North Africa, up through Israel, Palestine, and Lebanon by himself introducing himself to various government ministers, militants, and ordinary people along the way. I don’t know who he talked to about the tapes, he says he ‘took advice’ from some people but I seriously doubt it was the Labour Party. His interest is international relations and he’s well to the Left of Labour on that. Times I’ve spoken to him he has been critical of Labour sending troops to Afghanistan and when I’ve taken slightly realist positions on conflicts he has accused me of being too like Labour.

It’s interesting to see Cameron Slater admitting that he and David Farrar work closely with the tax-payer funded National Party research unit to dig dirt on people. It’s also interesting to learn that National has known Keizer is the taper for some time, probably a couple of months since the Electoral Commission finding on Keizer’s EFA regarding the Employer and Manufacturers’ Association ads. That would fit with Key repeatedly saying they knew the identity of the taper but not revealing the name. Why didn’t they? Because they knew Keizer has nothing to do with Labour. Yet, despite that knowledge, they continued to claim Labour was behind the affair. That is disgraceful. Key has repeatedly lied to the media on this issue.

Matthew Hooton has constructed a bizarro world where a grab-bag of people who have been to Drinking Liberally is somehow behind the tapes. Maybe, Hooton should come along to a Drinking Liberally event to get a firmer grasp on reality. Drinking Liberally is not some secretive set, it’s just an organisation that gets speakers along to have a talk and gives lefties a chance to meet each other. Anyone can come along and everyone does. A typical Drinking Liberally Wellington event draws a hundred people. So it’s not surprising that Hooton can look at the pics of the events and the hundreds of members of the DL Facebook group and identify a dozen people (here’s a tip, secret groups don’t have Facebook groups); just about every left-wing activist in Wellington has been along to at least one event. It’s as if I took a whole bunch of pics from St John’s bar, identified the names of a few people in a few of the pics, and concluded there was a great conspiracy between young Tory wannabes in ill-fitting suits and stockmarket wankers.

I have to say, I think Keizer has done very well. He pulled off an audacious piece of work exposing National’s secret agenda (that audacity alone was enough to convince me there was no Labour Party involvement - you’ve never met a group of people more paralysed by fear of something going wrong). Thanks to him, there can be no doubt that National is telling the pubic one thing, while planning something else in private. On that score, isn’t Key’s response when asked whether he is worried there is a tape of him enlightening? Clark would just say ‘I’m not worried because what I say in private is what I say in public’. Whereas Key, dissembles, ums and ahs, and says ‘you would have to look at the context’. What has Key been saying behind closed doors? Perhaps we’ll find out shortly. What we do know is that whatever Keizer recorded can only be the tip of the iceberg. He was one guy at one National cocktail event. Who knows what else, what worse things, they talk about when there’s no-one to expose them?

Keizer has also explained his actions very well in the Herald piece, keeping the focus where it belongs, on the politicans and their secret agendas. If I were to give him one piece of advice it would be to release the full conversations to Duncan Garner so he can be confident that they haven’t been doctored (Keizer insists he just removed his own voice from the recordings). If I have one criticism of the Herald article it is that Gower calls The Standard ‘Labour-affiliated’ when just yesterday I was having a moan to him about how, as a Green Party member, I get sick of my work being constantly attributed to the Red Tories.

Basically, good on you Kees, you’ve done this country an invaluable service. No political party should be allowed to hide a secret agenda. I suspect that I’m not alone in saying I’ll buy you a beer next time I see you.

Context

Yesterday morning on Sunrise, John Key was moaning that there is no context to the latest secret agenda tape, where Bill English praises the war in Iraq and criticises Bill English’s ‘moralistic’ approach to international relations. Key is right, context helps us undestand information better. Luckily, Scoop’s library keeps every media release, so we can see what English was saying as leader of the Nats as the time of the invasion:

“The National Party strongly supports New Zealand’s traditional friends and allies, and like them it’s committed to regime change in Baghdad”

Luckily too, Labour08 has audio of Key speaking on Iraq in the House, from which Greeenwoman has produced a youtube video that put Key’s rant into its proper context:

For a final piece of context, here is Phil Goff, an experienced minister of foreign, defence, and trade, presenting a more, um, measured view of international relations

Democracy under attack

From Both Eyes Open:

National Party candidate Stephen Franks’ campaign team has been systematically tearing down political posters put up by his opponents – despite Franks recently describing people defacing his election hoardings as “political thugs who don’t like free speech or opinions different from their own”.

The group Both Eyes Open – which has been distributing posters, banners and stickers around the country reminding the public of the National Party’s record – discovered that its posters were being removed every night throughout central Wellington. “Our members went out last night and this morning and discovered it was Stephen Franks’ campaign people tearing them down,” spokesperson Fergus Wheeler said. Photos of these people match photos of the campaign people who have been out holding banners and leafletting with Stephen Franks around the city.

“It seems a little hypocritical of Mr Franks to grandstand about freedom of speech for his own campaign advertisements and then let his team destroy other people’s ones,” Mr Wheeler said.

The posters they have been removing include one about Stephen Franks’ anti-human rights actions three years ago when he was an ACT MP. The “Don’t vote for prejudice” poster quotes his amendment to human rights legislation where he tried to make it lawful for employers and landlords to discriminate against people for being in an unmarried couple, for being gay, for “extra-marital child bearing” and for breaching “promises made in marriage”.

Just this morning we watched his campaign team removing these posters, and two others saying “Do you really want a SUB-PRIME MINISTER?” and “Privatised health, School fees up, Benefit Cuts, Toll roads — National, not the change we need.” In other words, we have been having a legitimate say about the issues that we believe are important in this election. This is exactly the freedom of speech that two weeks ago Stephen Franks was self-righteously defending.”

Our members spoke to Stephen Franks in the street this morning and he confirmed that his crew had been removing posters. He claimed that the “Don’t vote for prejudice” posters were defamatory but did not explain why this gave his a right to remove them. “As a lawyer, he knows the defamation is decided in court, not by removing other people’s freedom of speech,” Mr Wheeler said. “They’re not defamatory, we’re just reminding people of Mr Franks’ past actions which he would prefer liberal Wellington Central voters to forget.”

The pics are here

As I’ve written before, I can’t understand the mentality of someone who would go to the kind of effort necessary to tear down someone else’s posters. If you believe in democracy, the competition of ideas, put up your own posters.

Pork barrelling from the Nats

One of the virtues of New Zealand government has long been that we avoid US-style pork barrel politics. The Government sets the direction of policy and priorities but doesn’t interfere with specific projects. The principle is that the experts, not the elected officials, should decide the details of specific projects. For instance, the Government might decide it wants more investment in roads or roads in a particular region, but it is the independent New Zealand Transport Agency that decides on which project to construct, in which order, and with which details in order to meet the Government’s objectives. No ‘bridge to nowhere’ for us.

Not only is is just a plain good idea to have the experts making the decisions, it also removes an avenue for political corruption.

So, it is very worrying to see National making pork-barrel promises. The Nats are going around promising specific road projects will be built, meaning they may have to override the NZTA. They are even editing the details of these projects - adding a tunnel to one. I think we can all agree that its better to have engineers, not politicians, deciding if a tunnel is needed on a road project.

The promise to fund Plunketline means overriding the transparent and independent contracting process by which Plunket and other organisations compete for funding. I always thought the Tories were against the Government choosing winners but, more seriously, when the politicians decide which charities get the limited pool of money it is an invitation to cronyism and corruption.

This disturbing willingness to over-ride independent bodies and experts for petty political gain doesn’t end at roads. National is promising to fund 52 weeks treatment of the breast cancer drug Herceptin, which is currently funded for nine weeks. In doing so, they would have to change the legislation that makes PHARMAC independent and ignore the medical experts. PHARMAC said that is they were given the $40 million it would take to fund Herceptin they would use it fund other drugs, which would be able to deliver greater health benefits to more people at the same cost. Given limited resources, PHARMAC wants to get the best bang for the public buck. National would override that decision because Herceptin is a good populist issue (as you would expect, breast cancer has a lobby group that sufferers of other conditions can’t match).

National sees votes and, so, is willing to sacrifice quality and independent decision-making in the use of public money. That would lead to bad decisions being made and more wasteful government spending. It is something people on all sides should oppose.

Another Nat secret agenda tape

The Herald campaign updates reports that Clark has just had a private interview with TV3, appearently getting her response to the latest secret agenda tape. Guess that means it will be on TV3 tonight.

According to the Herald, a reporter at the conference asked the PM if she thinks the public is sick of having National’s secret agenda revealed by these tapes. Clark, reasonably enough, responded “I have no idea but obviously it is attracting your interest.”

[update: I didn't get it word for word but the tape was of Bill English saying he was worried about Obama, didn't like his moralistic apporach to foreign relations, thought the war in Iraq was a good idea. Said Bush should have put a different window dressing on it but you have to have someone who's ready to pull the trigger. I'll do some analysis later if none of the others have, it's beer o'clock]

Wages still growing strongly

Despite the recession, wages have continued to grow at a record rate and, crucially, faster than inflation. The average hourly rate was up 5.5% over the past year. The percentage of the economy that goes to workers (rather than to the capital owners) continues to increase.

This is the outcome of running a low unemployment policy. Low unemployment is self-reinforcing because employers know it will be hard to get new staff later if they lay-off people now. That keeps people in work during tough periods; unemployment remains below 4% for now. Low unemployment also means employers have to offer better wages and conditions to attract and retain workers.

Contrast that with the history under National. The unemployment rate was kept high, benefits were cut, and the minimum wage was allowed to drop all in a successful effort to keep wages down and leave more profits for National’s business backers. Bill English said that the idea of unemployment below 6% was a “hoax“. Wages fell for most workers and the share of the nation’s wealth going to workers fell.

Side-show

I see the media are now comparing the “redundancy” packages on offer with all of the horse race vigour they applied to the tax cuts. That’s understandable as the media like quantifiable measures so they can make simple graphs and X is greater or less than Y soundbite statements. But what they have forgotten is that neither package is better than a decent redundancy clause and of the major parties only Labour is offering one of those.

I don’t expect it’ll be great but let’s have a look at what redundancy means:

A standard redundancy (at the low end) is 4+2* capped at 20 years.

That means someone who has worked for 5 years in the same job who is made redundant at a time they are taking home $500 a week in the hand will get fourteen weeks of pay or $7000 dollars.

If they have worked 20 years they get 44 weeks of pay or $22,000. Compared to the “assistance” the two parties are offering that’s a lot of cash to use to cover your mortgage and look after your family.

Sounds too good to be true? Well, 80% of union negotiated employment agreements have redundancy clauses and 4+2 is on the low end - many are 6+2 or 8+2.

When you consider Labour’s policy is to protect workers’ rights and introduce a minimum redundancy, while National won’t commit to such a policy and wants to make it harder for unions to negotiate, it’s pretty clear which party is really looking out for workers who lose their jobs.

The media frenzy over these assistance packages is a side-show in comparison.

[*This means a redundancy formula of four weeks' pay on signing up and two weeks for every year of service.]

Greenpeace converts John’s office

Some great political theatre from Greenpeace yesterday. A bunch of climate activists got up at the crack of dawn, plastered ready-made lawn around the outside of John Key’s electorate office, then put up some wee pine trees and stumps alongside a billboard saying “Would John solve this climate crime?” Looks like a couple of them even got inside a cow suit.

The point of the protest was to draw attention to the conversion of forests to corporate dairy farms, and in particular National’s lack of commitment to stopping this climate crime:

National have consistently failed to meet the mark over climate change and rates poorly on the issue when compared to almost every other political party. We’re calling on John Key to front up to the issue of deforestation for intensive dairy farming.

We think New Zealanders deserve to know where John Key’s commitment to tackling climate change is and how he and his party would deal with agriculture’s growing emissions.

Good luck getting that out of him in the next eight days. But in any case, a good political point and some great political theatre. It seems that despite the Herald’s best wishes our democracy is alive and well under the Electoral Finance Act.

Hat tip: Greenpeace blog

Granny Herald yearns for good old days but democracy alive and well

The Herald is once again trying to convince us that everyone is so scared of the EFA that there is no poltiical participation going on. Once again, they cite some rich right-wing organisations that don’t want to have to identify themselves when advertising, and so haven’t advertised at all. It seems the Right’s view is that democratic participation is rich organisations putting ads in the paper and trying to market to us.

It’s not. Real democracy is ordinary people, on the ground, talking, communicating, getting active. Maybe they’re helping a party or doing something off their own bat like putting up posters, making youtube vids, or pulling off clever political theatre. Here are a couple of examples that The Standard has been emailed just today:



check out more ‘John Key snake’ pics from Dunedin here

Tories’ crack at socialism a poor substitute

National’s redundancy package would effectively continue Working for Families payments for some people who would otherwise lose them after redunancy. Only people who have been in the same job for six months would get it, cutting out labourers, temps, and contract workers. For about the same cost, it would deliver more money to fewer people than Labour’s policy, and would give more money to the more well-off. Labour’s scheme is better for the working class, National’s for highly indebted mortgage holders.

It’s nice they’ve had a crack at protecting workers but the instinct to favour the better-off always wins through, eh?

[You also have to consider the wider packages. While Labour's strengthening work rights and offering a minimum redundancy entitlement, National won't dare touch redundancy out of fear of offending its business mates and is instead planning to give employers the power to fire at will during a recession.]

Whose record is better?

I found it weird that National’s attack ad is a series of newspaper headlines. Everyone knows newspaper headlines are sensationalist and everyone knows that things were much worse under National in the 1990s, as this new youtube vid illustrates:

Meanwhile, the upbeat jokers at 08wire have a positive reponse to the Nat attack ad:

Not exactly Jon Stewart

A new facebook group has started up called “I am killing a kitten for every person who votes for the Green Party” (*)

This group is to encourage New Zealander’s to join the fight against hippies and social engineering by killing a kitten for every vote they receive this election, if we run out of kittens we will start using ducklings and hedgehogs.

It’s not outrageous, its clearly an attempt at humour, but it is sad what passes for humour among some. It speaks to a nasty worldview among these people. People like Emmy Gargiulo, National Secretary of Young Nats, Michael Mabbet, ex-Young Nat President, and youth activist/41 year old National Party pollster David Farrar.

So, if you’re thinking of voting National, remember the type of people who will be ticking the same box as you.