I have decided to withdraw from the contest …

Greetings

I have just released a press release indicating that I am withdrawing my nomination for the Labour nomination for the Te Atatu electorate.

I have reviewed my commitments.  I have recently been elected to the Waitakere Ranges Local Board.  This is a new organisation and the work is both tremendously important and fascinating.  It involves the reconstruction of the West’s local democracy.

I also chair the Auckland Northland Regional Council of the Labour Party and the next 12 months are vital.  The Council intends to provide assistance to a number of electorates during election year and I want to continue to be involved in this.

I do not feel that I could do the Te Atatu candidacy and these jobs justice if I was selected.

I intend to continue to work hard in the west to ensure that at the next General Election, whoever is selected as the Labour candidate will be the next MP for Te Atatu, that David Cunliffe continues the outstanding work he is doing as the current MP for New Lynn and that Carmel Sepuloni becomes the MP for Waitakere.

Thanks to everyone for their kind comments.  I intend to continue blogging perhaps using an alter ego …

The Mana by-election result and lessons for Te Atatu

The result is in.  Kris Faafoi is the newest Labour member of Parliament.  Congratulations to Kris who I am sure will be an effective and passionate Labour MP.

At 1080 the margin is closer than expected and no doubt this will attract some attention.  In my experience you should not read too much into this.  By elections are funny things.  Turnout tends to be lower and local communities take the opportunity to make statements about all sorts of things.

Another consideration is that most Kiwis understand MMP and want to have their say in who the ruling party is as well as who their local representative is and they are not afraid to make different decisions concerning each.

I have witnessed this phenomenon many times.  I have spoken to many National voters in New Lynn who nevertheless vote for David Cunliffe because of his abilities and I met many voters in Mt Albert while canvassing who said that they were normally National voters but were going to vote for David Shearer because they had met with him and were impressed with him.

This is not a criticism of Kris, it is apparent that National put a huge amount of effort into this campaign and giving Hekia Parata so much of John Key’s time was an indication of this.  She did appear superficially as someone who would be a competent electorate MP.

Parata was a capable candidate.  She suffered none of the problems that Melissa Lee had during the Mt Albert campaign.  She also had the benefit of fairly intense media exposure of the good sort.

Turnout went down from 82% at the 2008 election to 55%.

I did some number crunching on the election night results.  I separated the booths into four approximately equal groups depending on the Labour party proportion of the vote at the last election.  The groups equated to Safe National, marginal National and Labour, somewhat safe Labour and bedrock Labour.

The proportion of those who voted at the general election in the by election was Safe National 82%, marginal National and Labour 72%, somewhat safe Labour 66% and bedrock Labour 75%.  No doubt the bedrock vote reflected the extraordinary effort put into the get the vote out exercise that the Labour Party including maestro organiser Andrew Beyer put on.  But clearly National voters were more inclined to vote than Labour voters.  There is nothing unusual about this, large turnouts almost invariably favour Labour.

And Matt McCarten’s decision to stand did not help.  His 816 votes were votes that Labour otherwise could expect to receive.

The lessons for Labour are that we need to understand the desire of many Kiwis to select their own representative no matter what party they belong to.  And the work of local activists is absolutely vital and should never be underestimated.   The next Labour MP for Te Atatu is going to need the help of activists if he or she wants to win.

Labour and the Law and Order debate

Emma Woods hugs Ashley Austin - Pic The Press

 

The Law and order debate has been one marked by a great deal of heat and not too much light.  Some groups such as the Sensible Sentencing Trust have grabbed the initiative and are widely reported when any issue regarding Criminal Justice arises.  And the debate never gets past first base.  It essentially goes Criminal bad, Victim good and the punishment should have been more severe.

There is this perception that Labour is soft on crime.  The reality however is that the 5th Labour Government was anything but.  Changes made to the law by the Sentencing Act and the Bail Act meant that the prison population increased from 5,900 in 2002 to 7,000 in 2008.  And the trend is for this increase to continue.

I was heartened recently to read the article written by Emma Woods in the Sunday Star Times.  Emma is the mother of Nayan who died as a result of the driving of Ashley Austin, an 18 year old male.  Her column was the best written and most compassionate column concerning criminal justice I have read in a long time.

She spoke about how she needed to understand what had happened.  She, rightfully in my view, assessed culpability rather than measured the result in trying to work out what should happen to Ashley Austin.

It appears that his culpability was not large, a young driver of otherwise good character not properly managing a skid on a wet road while driving a car with design defects.  The result was terrible but the degree of culpability was not high.

And Emma was able to comprehend and understand this and able to put things into perspective.  She also showed an extraordinary amount of compassion and forgiveness in being able to instil in the sentencing Judge her family’s agreement that Ashley should not be jailed.

Her display of compassion and mercy given what she has suffered was exemplary. Our continuing debate about the criminal justice system needs more voices like Emma’s.

And we need to have a debate about the futility of imprisonment.  A study published by the Department of Corrections in 2008 found that half of those who had served a sentence of imprisonment in 2003 had reoffended and been reimprisoned within the next 4 years.  If we were not talking about criminal justice there would be justifiable outrage at a system that fails half of the time.

Finland has had this debate and decided many years ago to reduce the length of sentences, to use restorative justice and to address the causes of crime.  Finland has a slightly larger population but less than half the number incarcerated per head of population.  America’s incarceration rates are higher than New Zealands, and many of the US States are struggling with the added expense of retaining so many people in cells.

In our pursuit of the ideal world we should aim to be like Finland, rather than America.

My fellow candidate Nick Bakulich

It may surprise some but amongst the candidates for the seat are many people that I like and admire.  I have always thought that Phil Twyford has performed really well as a list MP, Kate Sutton is a hard working and valuable activist, Hamish McCracken is someone whose intellect and grasp of economic issues I admire and Ann Pala is someone I have worked to get elected twice in the past.

Nick Bakulich is a person I have met recently, he was a very hardworking and effective Future West candidate and he is someone with a good future in the Party.  He is bright, personable, dedicated, and has a good heart.

He has set up a meet the candidates meeting this Wednesday evening and has done something unusual, he has invited all of the other candidates.  The meeting is upstairs at 22 Te Pai Place, Henderson and starts at 6:30 pm.

Nick’s decision for me says something about the Labour Party.  We each have personal aims and desires but we each realise that we need to stand together to succeed and the party is more important than any of us.

I will be at Nick’s gathering.  If asked I intend to say that no matter what happens on selection day I will continue to work for the party and that our goal should be to build the Te Atatu organisation so that the area’s next MP is a Labour MP.  And I intend to keep supporting Nick in his endeavours.

Why Labour can win the 2011 election

If you read or watch most MSM commentators it seems that many have written off Labour’s chances in the next election.  The common themes are that that nice Mr Key is unbeatable and the polls suggest that National’s lead is bullet proof.

I sense however a deep unease within the community and that good will for the Government is ebbing.  The basic reason is that people’s frustration that things have not changed is increasing.

We were promised last election that everything would be better.  New Zealand was apparently engulfed in a sea of trouble.  Political correctness was running amuck, our economy was apparently in terrible shape and our youngest and brightest were heading overseas because wages were that bad.  If we just elected Key and National everything would improve.

Two years on and there has been change, but for the worse.

Political correctness, which I have always equated with civility and sense, has been replaced by a dogged belligerence, an example of which is Paula Bennett’s attack on beneficiaries who dared to question one of National’s more insane policies.

The economy has worsened, our dollar remains stubbornly high and our export sector is hurting.  Crown debt is increasing rapidly while investment by the Crown in necessary infrastructure dwindles.  Michael Cullen had net Crown debt at zero.

And rather than the wage gap with Australia narrowing, it is getting larger.  This last fact will hurt National.  In a sound bite they defined what was wrong with New Zealand, but their cure, rather than making things better has worsened the economy’s health.

The biggest difference for me between New Zealand under Labour and under National is that principled, competent and compassionate leadership has been replaced by a leadership intent on retaining power for powers sake but without any idea of what to do to address our problems.

The growing impression is that this government has no plan.  Instead of developing detailed policies during their time in opposition they thought that a dose of free market economics and tax cuts for the rich would miraculously cure all the problems.  And there is a sense of panic as they realise that the plan, as much as there was one, is not working.

They rely heavily on the creation of an impression of action by the use of urgency in Parliament.  The recent legislation concerning film and game workers is an example.  The actual effect appears to be miniscule at best but when you are after the impression of action the actual details are irrelevant.

The supercity election results show what the left can achieve with a good on the ground campaign and hard work.  Despite polls suggesting that the result was neck and neck Len Brown won in what has been dubbed a “Lenslide”.  And the makeup of the Auckland Council is progressive.  The National linked Citizens and Ratepayers Group has been trounced.  You really get the impression that Aucklanders have wholeheartedly rejected the Hide inspired super city model.

The Mt Albert by-election result also shows what hard work, good on the ground organisation and a good candidate can achieve.  If the opinion polls at the time were applied locally it should have been close.  On the day it was very one sided.

One of the biggest advantages that Labour has is the determination of its members and their skill in on the ground campaigning.  They are worth their weight in gold.  If replaced by professionals a great deal of money would be required.

The reason that I believe Labour can win the next election is that we operate under MMP.  The prospects of any party achieving a vote of over 50% in my view are tiny and like it or not the minor parties will continue to have a role to play in who forms Government.  National’s options are dwindling, Act looks terminal as does Peter Dunne.  The Maori party are not natural allies with National, and with the right approach some sort of understanding with them is eminently possible.

And the gradual trend of Labour’s support is up.  Recent polls have Labour’s support hovering around the 35% mark.  It is buffeted by individual events but overall it is improving.

National’s lead will narrow and their support is looking shakier and shakier.  With committed work and a good campaign Labour can turn this around.  This makes the job of rebuilding and reorganising the Te Atatu electorate absolutely vital because with MMP every vote counts.

Annette King – dealing with Child Poverty

I blogged previously about the new economic direction the Party is moving in and the presentations made at last week’s Annual Conference.  Just as important as this change was the speech given by Annette King and the implications this has for the party’s social policy.

She started off by posing a question about the part of the electorate that is perhaps the most important but which does not have a vote, our children.  Her justification for change was expressed as follows:

We believe there is a compelling case to ensure that New Zealand is the best place in the world to bring up all children.  The case is compelling because the reality for many children their families and whānau does not match the view we have of ourselves as kiwis.

The phrase all children is I believe significant.

The 5th Labour Government did a tremendous job for most of our population.  They achieved the lowest unemployment rate in the western world and instituted the Working For Families programme to ensure that all working families had a reasonable standard of living.  There were also improvements to Housing, Health and Education that benefitted all children.

There were two primary shortcomings with WFF however.  Firstly it did not address and instead hid the problem with New Zealand not having a sufficient number of well paying jobs.  The tax system was used to hide the fact that we have a low wage economy.

Secondly the children at the bottom of the pile, the children of beneficiaries, did not receive any benefit from it.

This aspect of the policy attracted some criticism from amongst others the Child Poverty Action Group and in particular Dr Susan St John.  I am aware of a number of Labour members who were also concerned with this gap in the policy, because in effect the children of the poorest households were being trapped in poverty.

So what is Labour proposing?

We are proposing a 6 year Agenda for Change because too often policies are dominated by a 3 year election cycle or a raft of pilot programmes, put in place to test yet another idea before it’s discarded.  Good policy often fails to flourish through lack of political commitment and continuity.

What is being proposed is an “overall strategic plan which requires a whole-of-government approach and well integrated service delivery.”

Annette advocated for the reduction of “duplication of services, the silo-provision of services and huge gaps in services through which too many children fall.  Labour also wants to support programmes built upon cultural strengths, accountable to their communities and achieving strong outcomes.”

Interestingly support for Whānau Ora was left open as a possibility.

What is also proposed are legislated targets to eradicate child poverty in New Zealand and access to Parenting Programmes for all New Zealand families. As stated by Dr Johan Morreau, Chair of the College of Paediatricians, “Let’s spend our money on parenting not prisons”.

The aspect that may attract the most attention is the promise to review benefit levels.  As noted by Annette,

Current benefit arrangements (in particular the DPB) doesn’t (sic) do what is needed, it doesn’t provide adequately for the children affected, their needs and development, especially in long term benefit families.  It doesn’t provide either an adequate income or a pathway through the transition back to stability, education and good paid work.  The costs of this are clear …

As with economic policy Labour will present a clear alternative to this Government’s policies.  ”There will be a clear choice – tinker and talk or bold action that will finally put our children first and make New Zealand the best place in the world to bring up children.”

Labour’s new economic direction – there are real alternatives

This year’s Labour Annual Conference was a very enjoyable occasion.  It is clear that the Parliamentary Labour Party has been busy over the past 2 years reviewing policy and working on a new direction.  The global financial crisis has obviously caused a massive rethink and a decision has been made that the status quo cannot be an option.

David Cunliffe hosted two discussion sessions on economic policy.

At the first session were Selwyn Pellett, John Walley, and Ganesh Nana (a real New Zealander!).  Their views are obviously informed from considerable economics and business experience.

Their conclusions were compelling, we have an economy which keeps our currency high to the detriment of our export sector.  Smart economies are those that protect their export sector by managing the change in their exchange rates.  Our preoccupation with controlling inflation at the expense of all other areas is the problem.  And a capital gains tax is vital to get investment moved into more productive areas.

If we do not do better then the outlook for the export sector, jobs, our balance of payments and our society is stark.

Bernard Hickey‘s discussion was even more troubling.  He has obviously had a major change in his beliefs.  He previously considered the free market to be king, now he realises that the free market model is failing.

He deserves to be quoted:

“It’s time for me to recant and to say what I’ve been thinking for months: the economic god of completely free markets and capital flows is not worth believing in anymore and we must look for other things to believe in and do.”

On Saturday he criticised financiers and bankers and wondered why some bankers “heads were not on a spike”.  He is bitter at the greed of some which has seriously affected the free market.  He also identified debt as New Zealand’s major problem.

All commentators thought that NZ desperately needs to manage its currency and to support and help the productive sector.  A capital gains tax was considered to be a vital part of the mix.  Too many are doing business for a capital gain rather than development of technology.  And change has to occur.

The “free” market has transformed from a device to efficiently distribute resources into a device designed to enrich the already wealthy at the expense of the rest of us.

These guys are not left wing revolutionaries!  They are not cloth cap trade unionists, they are some of the elite of business.

It was all summed up by the perfect counter to Thatchers TINA (there is no alternative). The left wing rallying cry is TARA, there are real alternatives.