- I’ve been meaning to read this for years.
- The opening line is one of the most famous in New Zealand literature: ‘The same week our fowls were stolen, Daphne Moran had her throat cut.’
- But it is a bit of a bait-and-switch. The book is mostly a tragi-comic, rather earthy coming-of-age story, mixed with domestic farce and comic sketches of provincial New Zealand life during the depression (Morrieson spent his life in Hawera). The gothic/thriller elements are minimal.
- Which is a shame because those are the best things about the book. Some of the comic writing has dated well but most of it hasn’t, and Morrieson has a very limited repertoire. The Scarecrow is a short book but by the six-or-seventh lengthy dialogue between drunken halfwits – all written in dialect – it is no longer even slightly funny.
- The book is weirdly similar to It by Stephen King: the small town setting; the heroes who are outcasts and misfits; the dual antagonists are a gang of young bullies and a shadowy killer; even the themes and narrative style are comparable. And the head bully’s name – Victor Lynch – is a very Stephen King name. Probably just a coincidence – King is a well-read guy but I still kind-of doubt he read The Scarecrow.
- Morrieson’s writing was unrecognised during his life but celebrated – in New Zealand at least – after his death, a fate he anticipated and dreaded. Both judgments feel right to me. He has all the skills and talent of a great writer and that’s worth acknowledging, but he never managed to produce a great book.
June 16, 2015
June 15, 2015
Via a Matt Nippert story (based on OIAs from Phil Twyford), which got a bit overlooked when it came out a week ago:
Housing New Zealand paid an investment banker $1.6 million to help it sell state houses, official documents show.
Low-profile Auckland banker Andrew Body gave advice to the Minister of Housing and secured lucrative contracts to implement the policy while also advising potential buyers of state housing stock – a dual role attacked by the Labour Party as a conflict of interest.
Housing New Zealand (HNZ) and Mr Body say correct procedures were followed, and conflicts were declared where required.
Mr Body was appointed in 2010 by then-Minister of Housing Phil Heatley to the housing shareholders advisory group, then later to an advisory panel to help form government policy on social housing.
And today we’ve learned:
Figures compiled by Labour showed that 443 state houses were sold in 2014, at an average of 13.3 per cent below the Government Valuation.
Labour claims Housing NZ has “lost” at least $13 million on the sales, with the total proceeds from sales where valuations were available raising $71.8m, compared to the $84.9m the houses were valued at.
Five state houses sold in 2014 raised more than $1m, including a $1.36m sale of a property in Devonport, about 5 per cent less than the property’s GV.
So Housing New Zealand is paying consultants millions of dollars to help it sell houses for less than the government valuation in the middle of a property boom to buyers advised by the same consultants. Meanwhile the quality of the homes still under care by the state are so poor their occupants are literally dying. This is just about the worst thing I’ve ever heard.
It’s no secret the Labour Party has problems. The factions. The leaks. The bitter internal rivalries. Happily a group of centrist Labour members have decided to rescue the party from these woes by forming a think-tank called ‘Progress’, and if you want to learn more you can read this account leaked to Matthew Hooton of Progress’s founders having an argument with Labour Deputy Annette King (paid).
On one hand: every other demographic within Labour has its own voice in the form of a formal advocacy group, so why shouldn’t the centrists get one? On the other hand: because they’d almost certainly use that voice to conduct a sustained PR campaign against their own party membership, releasing populist policies designed to wedge the members and the public.
More broadly, I have two basic problems with the idea that Labour should be a centrist Blairite ‘third-way’ party. First: the left’s great intellectual struggle over the past eight years has been about how to reposition ourselves after the catastrophic failure of Blairist third-way centrism. The deregulated free markets that were supposed to fund generous social welfare states worsened inequality, even when functioning, and then they crashed and needed to be bailed out. The centrist argument boils down to ‘Let’s go back to that system that failed!’ It is not intellectually serious.
Secondly, we already have a Blairite centrist third way party in New Zealand. It’s the National Party. If you take Labour and nudge it slightly along the political spectrum while taking away the identity politics and token environmentalism you have a smaller less popular version of John Key’s National.
‘But that’s the point!’ Progress would probably say. ‘National is popular! If Labour wants to be in government it should be more like National. Then it will be popular too.’ But popularity in politics doesn’t work like that. It’s complementary. The trick is to make National unpopular. People just aren’t going to switch their vote to a less credible version of the thing they already like.
I do wonder why more of these people don’t forget about their quixotic mission to change Labour, and just support National? I don’t mean that in a glib way. National are pro-business and ‘aspirational’ but they’re doing loads of social democratic stuff like free doctor’s visits for kids and increasing benefits to poor families, plus they really hate identity politics and the environment. That is basically the centrist manifesto. Shane Jones is the patron saint of these folk and he’s crossed the aisle. Why not follow him?
June 9, 2015
The executive summary of the Dirty Politics scandal goes something like ‘A cabal of some of the most awful people in the country engaged in unethical and borderline illegal activity for political and financial reasons, and the mainstream media helped them do it in exchange for exclusive content.’ There was some contrition from a few individuals in the media after it all came out, but no real soul-searching, and most of the activity just continued on, same as before.
Today it got a bit weirder, and more awful. Over the weekend TV3’s The Nation – which is produced by Mediaworks – screened a story containing yet more allegations of criminal activity by Cameron Slater. Slater promised Lisa Owen that there would be ‘consequences’, and today a sort of vassal blog site which I will not link to, run by a pair of Slater’s lickspittles published private photographs of a senior MediaWorks journalist.
Which was horrible but, frankly, wouldn’t have mattered that much because, as I’ve said before, no one reads any of this idiocy. But the New Zealand Herald ran a story about the publication of the photos amplifying the malice behind the original publication a hundred-thousand-fold.
The story has been on-and-off the site all afternoon, and right now its off, or at least not searchable. I hope there was some soul-searching at the Herald and a decision to take it down and keep it that way, because the judgement here seems suicidally dumb. Do media organisations not see how helping this little coven of seat-sniffers attack other journalists might work out really badly for them one day? Slater et al do hate, and want to destroy all journalists not totally loyal to their masters, so helping them do that and facilitate their ‘punishment’ of journalists for publishing stories they don’t approve of is not in your interest no matter how many clicks it buys you. Even now they’re probably calling up MediaWorks and offering them dirt so they can ‘get payback’. Maybe ethics are too much to ask for in this day and age, but can’t we get some basic survival instincts?
Update: The Herald has been in touch to advise that they didn’t publish any of the images in their story so I’ve changed the post to reflect that.
June 5, 2015
From the Guardian account of UK Labour’s election defeat:
Labour believed they could dominate two full days of the campaign with the non-dom proposal, but the Conservative campaign director, Lynton Crosby, countered with a trademark “dead cat” strategy – a tactic best summarised by Boris Johnson as follows: “There is one thing that is absolutely certain about throwing a dead cat on the dining room table – and I don’t mean that people will be outraged, alarmed, disgusted. That is true, but irrelevant. The key point, says my Australian friend, is that everyone will shout, ‘Jeez, mate, there’s a dead cat on the table!’ In other words, they will be talking about the dead cat – the thing you want them to talk about – and they will not be talking about the issue that has been causing you so much grief.”
This time, the dead cat was supplied by the defence secretary Michael Fallon. The day after Labour’s non-dom announcement, Fallon launched a deliberately excessive attack on Miliband, suggesting he would betray the country by surrendering the Trident nuclear deterrent in order to reach a deal with the Scottish National party: “Miliband stabbed his own brother in the back to become Labour leader. Now he is willing to stab the United Kingdom in the back to become prime minister.” Miliband’s team seethed at the tactic, though several confessed a lingering admiration for its effectiveness.
June 4, 2015
This was given to Labour’s caucus yesterday and leaked to Paddy Gower today:
- Who leaked it and why? It’s a ‘bad look’ for the party, which has been plagued by leaks and the perception of disunity. It could have been pretty much anyone, but I have a theory . . .
- The review seems to be a draft. There are review comments in the margins.
- The draft states – in a diplomatic way – that the affiliates, ie the unions, have an awful lot of power within Labour, but that they don’t do much during elections or give the party much money.
- Which I find interesting. Ever since the UK election I’ve been wondering about the role that unions play in left-wing politics there, in Australia, and here. Having these powerful external organisations running around stacking selections, picking MPs and playing kingmaker within the party, which then gets slaughtered when the public don’t like the candidates they picked doesn’t seem to be working out that well for anyone.
- But I doubt former EMPU boss Andrew Little would agree with that, or the implied criticism of the unions in the review. So my theory is that Little demanded that point be removed from the final draft and someone who felt strongly about the point – and, perhaps, the role the unions played putting Little into power – leaked the draft.
The late start under a changed leadership team left too little time to allow Labour to prepare and implement an effective campaign. In general, Labour’s campaign preparation was inadequate.
The campaign was undoubtedly hindered by a shortage of financial resources. The finance available was less than in earlier campaigns, though only a little less bycomparison with 2011. Labour must do better in this respect in 2017.Labour must build greater confidence in its ability to win and to form a successful government, and – in addition to building its database of online donors – it must use high-level business and other contacts, supported by a strengthened group of professional fundraisers on the staff team, in approaching the corporate sector and other potential sources of funding for donations
Action should arise from a review of the voter targeting and other work undertaken during the election to engage the “missing million”. Integrated with this, high quality research must be undertaken on patterns of non-voting and the best way to target those people. Labour’s input to the Parliamentary select committee review of the GeneralElection and Labour’s Justice spokesperson should focus on why 1 million people didn’tvote, and what could be done to address that
Labour must emphasise its values (fairness, social cohesion, freedom of choice and action) as it differentiates its values from those of its opponents, as values earn trust from voters
There is an urgent need to clarify the Party’s legal status, required not only for ethical reasons of increasing transparency, but also to enable the Party to more effectively use resources available to it, in particular funding. It could also clarifythe responsibilities and accountabilities of entities and individuals within the organisation. Labour needs to be proactive and agree a legal model that is realistic about the competitive nature of politics but also increases the effectiveness of the Party organisation.
The Party’s organisational structure should reflect the dual role of the Party – the maintenance of a viable disciplined political organisation and the need to develop a sustainable effective campaigning capacity to win elections. It requires clarity as to where the authority lies for what function.
The real question appears to be how the Party identifies candidates and then prepares and supports its candidates before, during and after the election. There needs to be greater central coordination of candidates . They are the advocates and the public face of the Party so much of the success of the election campaign depends on them. One of the tasks of the Executive should be to address this issue.
June 2, 2015
Private investors will soon be given the opportunity to invest in mental health services, Government confirmed this morning.
Finance Minister Bill English and Health Minister Jonathan Coleman have announced plans for New Zealand’s first social bond, which will focus on the mental health sector.
The Labour Party described the new policy as an untested experiment which used New Zealand’s most vulnerable people as “guinea pigs”.
Social bonds allow Government to contract out services and funding to non-government or private organisations, with agreed targets and timeframes.
If the targets are met, Government pays back the investors, and also pays a return on their investment. The return depended on the level of results, up to an agreed maximum.“The Government is focused on achieving better results for individuals and families in highest need,” Finance Minister Bill English said in a statement.
“Where we succeed, there are opportunities to help people fulfil their potential, a chance to break inter-generational cycles of dependency and, in the long term, potential savings for taxpayers.
“So social bonds are a consistent fit with our wider social investment approach which aims to better understand both the drivers and risks of social dysfunction and where we can have the greatest impact in improving people’s lives.”
The thinking behind this policy comes from a branch of economics called public choice theory; it’s still influential on the right and the logic goes like this: What if all those social workers and doctors and carers and psychiatric nurses in the state-funded mental health sector are all rational, selfish individuals? They have no incentive to actually help their patients recover from their illnesses and re-enter the workforce, because their income is reliant on the mentally ill remaining ill and requiring ongoing care! If they cure all their patients then they’re out of a job! Why not then, turn to the limitless ingenuity of the market and instead of leaving the care of the mentally ill to a bunch of corrupt, fat-cat doctors and social workers, incentivise our wealth-creating business leaders and executives to simply cure severe schizophrenics and manic-depressives, somehow, so they can re-enter the workforce as happy productive citizens!
The flaw, as usual, is the assumption that everyone thinks like economists and that people become mental health workers for the enormous profits, rather than motives of, say, compassion or humanity. And again, as usual, there’s magical thinking around the role of the market and our business class. Sure, businesses that win tenders for these services could work hard and find a way to cure all their clients, but what they’re more likely to do is hire lobbyists and lawyers, find a way to game the system and make a lot of money while inflicting misery on a bunch of very vulnerable people.
May 31, 2015
- James Shaw won. I think/hope he’ll be very good. Although, being a political leader is an odd, demanding job. It changes people. You never know how new leaders will do until they’ve done it for a while.
- But beating Kevin Hague is a promising sign. Hague was a very tough, smart, well organised, experienced opponent. We didn’t realise just how formidable he was until the three-month long campaign was well under-way. James was seen as a risky newcomer, and the only way he stood a chance against Hague was to take some risks but never make a mistake. And it’s very easy for candidates to make mistakes when they’re giving daily speeches, engaging on social media and trying to get their name out in the mainstream media. James did everything right. I really hope he keeps doing that.
- There was also an element of luck. Part of Kevin Hague’s pitch was that he had parliamentary experience but James didn’t. Kevin was ‘ready to go on day one’. Then, in the crucial final weeks the Saudi sheep story broke. It was James’s portfolio. He was ‘strong in the House’ and got good media coverage so the key attack line against him disintegrated.
- Although, the ability to identify opportunities and seize them is also a useful quality in a leader. So, again, promising.
- I’m also happy to see that one of the key platforms of James’s campaign – that he performed well in the general election and got loads of people to vote for his party – was successful. I think one of the reasons that the left is struggling, both here and in other anglo-countries is that there isn’t enough emphasis on campaign skills and public popularity. Power within left-wing political parties is too often won by appealing to factions or affiliates – like unions – instead of the ability to connect with the public. A lot of senior Labour and Green MPs do very poorly in electoral terms but continue to rise through the ranks. So I’m very happy that – in the Green Party at least – the members have sent a signal that if they ever want to be leader, MPs need to go out and win votes.
- I’ll try not to write about Green Party issues too much from now on. I don’t want to be re-posting their press releases, or become one of those guys who helps write a speech and then jumps on their blog to lavish praise on it.
May 27, 2015
This is a weird little story slowly evolving into a major scandal. It’s complicated, but worth it. Most of the reporting has come from Heather du Plessis-Allan and Matthew Hooton:
- Back in 2003 New Zealand stopping exporting live sheep to Saudi Arabia
- According to Hooton (his stories are paywalled at the NBR), a very wealthy and influential Saudi businessman named Hmood Al Khalaf, who had a business importing sheep contacted National when they were in opposition, and John Key and David Carter privately assured him that exports would resume when National came to power.
- When National won the election in 2008, Al Khalaf supposedly invested tens of millions of dollars in New Zealand farmland and a ship that could transport sheep to Saudi Arabia. But National didn’t change the law.
- So Al Khalaf hired Mai Chen to prepare a lawsuit against the government, claiming for ‘between $20 million and $30 million. He also, allegedly, used his influence in Saudi Arabia to block a free trade deal between New Zealand and the Gulf States.
- Here’s where it gets good.
- McCully has just admitted that he didn’t take any legal advice on the strength of Al Khalaf’s claim. Instead he arranged for MFAT and New Zealand Trade and Enterprise to ‘invest’ $11.5 million dollars in a ‘bold and courageous’ Agrihub in the middle of the Arabian desert on property owned by Al Khalaf. You can view recent satellite photos of the ‘Agrihub’ on google maps, here.
- We also bought a number of Suffolk Ewes – bred for cold conditions – off a company part owned by Al Khalaf and flew them to Saudi Arabia in an air-conditioned Singapore Air plane. They now allegedly reside at the Agrihub, where daytime temperatures average 50 degrees Celsius.
- The Agrihub is (a) designed to be a regional showcase for New Zealand farming techniques and technologies and (b) is not accessible because it is on private property in the middle of the desert.
- It sounds a lot like we just gave this guy $11 million dollars, doesn’t it?
May 26, 2015
Here’s the non-bias corrected aggregate of the polls:
Here’s what National were talking about this time eight years ago, when they were in opposition:
The state of Lake Hawea reported in weekend media shows the country is still facing a serious hydro-power shortage this winter, says National Party Energy spokesman Gerry Brownlee.
“Contact says it is very likely that Lake Hawea will have to be drawn down to its lowest level in 26 years just to maintain power supplies.
“The Electricity Commission – which has the say in determining if the lake can be drawn down below its 338m minimum operating level – now has to state if that is in fact its determination.
“If so, that would be confirmation that New Zealand is currently in a crisis situation.
“Overall, New Zealand’s hydro-lake levels are at just 56% of capacity. The Labour Government’s attitude seems to be that with the recent rains the risk of blackouts this winter has receded.
Figures obtained by the National Party show the number of times hospitals are being forced into ‘Code Red’ because they can’t cope with patient demand is on the increase.
“Despite the billions of extra funding and the thousands of extra bureaucrats – our health services continue to lurch from one crisis to the next. Now the public is discovering that our hospitals are having troubling coping even before the winter flu season starts,” says National’s Health spokesman, Tony Ryall.
National has received information under the Official Information Act which shows that Capital and Coast Health in Wellington has had more ‘Code Reds’ more frequently this year than last.
“And that’s before the winter crop of illness strikes.”
The figures show there were 10 ‘Code Reds’ at Wellington Hospital in February this year and six in March. Last year, numbers peaked at six in the months of September and November.
The Labour Government’s admission that it is losing the war against methamphetamine can in a large part be sheeted home to the fact that Labour has failed to do anything substantial to tackle gangs, says National’s Justice & Corrections spokesman, Simon Power.
Police Minister Annette King admitted today that strategies to combat the billion-dollar trade in ‘P’ are not working.
“This should come as no surprise to anyone, considering their failure to act on gangs for the past nine years. And even now they are still backing off a number of proposals to tackle gangs.”
Labour’s recent press releases are here. The difference is stark. National attacked the competency of the government to govern. Overflowing hospitals! Gangs running the streets! Power crisis! While Labour constantly attacks the morality and character of the government. Broken promises! Key is blaming his new tax on a fruit-fly! National is kicking hard-working whanau!
Voters get that the opposition parties don’t like the government. But they also don’t give a shit because as far as they can tell the government are governing things pretty well. Why would they change?