Which Way Will They Jump?

Winston Peter's has promised Labour the support of New Zealand First on matters of confidence and supply. That means they need the support other 54 MP's incuding their own to form a government? The question is: which parties should help Labour form a government?

A principle of social democracy is to be inclusive. Political comentator Colin James said on Election Night that Labour would probably try and have a coalition consisting of themselves, Jim Anderton's Progressive Party and United Future. The reason is that Labour does not want to look to have pandered to "radical" interests so that it can win the next election.

Is this a good long-term move? Why does Labour exist if all it wants to do is retain power?

What about the problem of energy? The Greens certainly (and possibly Jim Anderton's Progressive Party) have a handle on what to do about peak oil. Another issue that the Greens wish to pursue is child poverty. If Labour let the Greens into Government they would have their 54 seats.

But what about the Maori Party? Labour could exclude them and appear not to be "pandering to Maori".

The events in the Tamaki Makarau electorate on Friday 16 September are an example of an alternative justice system in action. It shows that there is more than one culture or group of people who do things a certain way. New Zealand society is not Dr Brash's mainstream but a cacophany of babbling brooks. Labour can take the Brash approach and impose a British colonial model on the people of New Zealand or it can cater for people of different backgrounds.

It will be in the interest of society at large if Labour, having opened up the can of worms that is the foreshore and seabed issue, works with the Maori Party on the foreshore and seabed issue so that everyone is satisfied. To leave the matter lie will just leave a festering sore. There are also other issues that are important to Maori (as well as many other people) that Labout needs to work on - child poverty, housing, unemployment and low wages to name a few. To do this the Maori Party should form part of the Government.

Finally, if Labour wants to be really inclusive they should invite United Future to join the Government. Sure United Future is led by a leading Rogernome (Peter Dunne helped to implement GST) but the Party does seem to have some social conscience. If United Future doesn't want to be part of a government that includes the Greens that is not Labour's fault.

Labour has tried to distance itself from Rogernomics. It has turned back many of the reforms of Ruthanasia. If Labour wants to show that it is a social democratic party, it should be inclusive of other parties ideas and get on with achieving what it wants to achieve over the next three years
rather than take a cautious line just to stay power at the next election.

I'm Glad to Be Wrong

I'm so relieved that my prediction of a National win was wrong - so far anyway. We are not yet out of the woods. National could forge a coalition yet.

Forming a Government with 61 seats and support from New Zealand First should be a cake-walk for Labour. On Election Night figures Labour could go with Jim Anderton's Progressive Party, the Greens and the Maori Party, giving a coalition with 61 seats. But there are two things in the way.

1. Helen Clark stated that the Maori Party would be "the last cab off the rank", so obviously Labour would prefer United Future (whose leader was instrumental in introducing GST) to the Maori Party.

2. Labout may not want a so-called "left-leaning" Government so may not wish to do a deal with the Greens. This was a suggestion by commentator Colin James on TV1. More comment on this next time.

Why the Alliance?

As a socialist I realise that all the registered political parties just want to run capitalism so I usually write "socialism" across my ballot paper. This time it's different.

I don't want to see National get in because under Dr Brash there will be more than the nuclear ships policy "gone by lunchtime", including: mandatory time-and-a-half for working on public holidays, income-related rents for low-income State house tenants, investment in rail and possibly better public transport, rights for trade unions, and possibly further substantial investment in hospitals. Although he denies it, I think that a National-led Government will sell State assets to pay for the tax cuts.

I can't bring myself to vote Labour (they sent SAS troops to Afghanistan a couple of months ago), Progressive (for the same reason) nor even Greens (they're not too good on water policy) so I'm voting Alliance.

Will Labour Win?

I have a sense of deja vu. In 1975 New Zealand had relatively low unemployment (about 4000 and climbing by official figures), the economy was on a downturn and energy had been a big issue (both electricity and oil). The 1975 General Election saw Labour swept out of power by Robert Muldoon leading National.

Reasons for this included a number of little scandals arising from "dirty tricks", and the inability of Labour to explain what it was trying to achieve. It was almost as if they were out of touch with the people.

Labour has not run a good campaign. Firstly, they have been on the back foot ever since the foreshore and seabed became an issue. They should have been leading debates, not doing things in response to Dr Brah's wishes. Secondly, they haven't communicated the good things they have done (building new hospitals in Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch and Clyde for example) and seem to be out of touch with the people. Finally, this presidential style of campaigning, comparing personalities of leaders is negative. They should have concentrated on policy.

Take Helen Clark's speech a couple of months ago in Invercargill. Instead of talking about what Don Brash will do about Iraq (and she's probably right) she should have explained school closures and what Labour has done for education She should have pointed out that Dr Brash suggested a voucher system for education in 1980. I have no doubt that he would implement if he could get away with it.

What about State houses for Queenstown? Otago MP David Parker doesn't want State houses in Queenstown. How come they're alright in Porirua but not in a tourist town where many workers can hardly afford to live? Well he says that is the job of the private sector. What if the private sector can't or won't provide? Surely any self-respecting Social Democrat would call for State housing so that there can be an inclusive society.

Labour could make more capital out of the crumbs that have been given to the workers such as the Parental Leave Act and time and a half for those “decent hard-working New Zealanders” who work on public holidays.

Ever since Don Brash's Orewa speech about Maori getting so-called special privileges, Labour seems to have been reacting by giving Don pretty much what he asks for. Not long after the Orewa speech Trevor Mallard was appointed to manage race relations and to review government services to eliminate “special treatment” Maori.

Labour has given some very specific promises but given people no grand vision, no inspiration. How many people know, for example, that Labour intends to do away with the Community Services Card by 2013 because by then everyone should be able to visit a GP very cheaply?

They've lost touch with the real issues. Take the Wellington Central campaign. People fall down stairs every day and hurt themselves. Who cares what caused a certain candidate to do so? The real issues are the struggles of the little people. Who sold Capital Power and which government sold Contact energy (which has just made a bumper profit)? How can Mark Blumsky promise lower taxes when under his Council many residents faced increasing tax (rates) bills?

Another example of losing touch is the slogan. "You're better off under Labour" was dropped and now it is "Forward Together". Doesn't that sound like management speak? How many workers are sick of hearing that sort of stuff from their bosses?

The last thing that reminds me of 1975 is the presidential style of campaigning. This was Labour's idea, not National's. The sort of personal attacks that are going on remind me of Robert Muldoon. I believe that people are sick of them. Remind people of Dr Brash's ideas and possible hidden agenda, not accuse him of being a liar.

Labour has not done a good job of telling people what is at stake. They love talking about nuclear ships but forget to talk about workers' rights (what few they have), an increase in the minimum wage and the official "lowering of poverty" to name a few.

So Labour, I believe has miscalculated. I can smell it. Despite MMP I believe they will be turfed out - after all the conventional wisdom is that people vote governments out - they don't vote them in.