The Dim-Post

October 6, 2014

Thoughts on the special votes and the Greens

Filed under: Politics — danylmc @ 9:16 am
  • The special votes really are special, in the sense that there were an awful lot of them (~13% of the total vote) and they’re weighted quite differently to the rest. So people (like me) who called Key’s victory two weeks ago ‘historic’ on the grounds that he defied gravity and increased his percentage of the vote going into his third term and won an outright majority now look rather silly given that he did not actually do either of those things.
  • Likewise, those people talking about how the Greens were ‘gutted’ or that their loss was as great as Labour’s in proportional terms also look pretty silly given that the Greens haven’t actually lost a seat and their final result is 0.36% lower than their best result ever.
  • They did under-perform relative to their expectations – they wanted 15% of the vote – and the polls which had them at around 12.5%.
  • More ominously, they failed to grow their vote even though Labour declined. If they can’t take votes off Labour during their worst election ever, how will the Green Party grow as a party?
  • From the far left? The missing million mostly young voters who yearn for an alternative to the neo-liberal consensus?
  • Probably not. I suspect the failure of Mana and then Internet/Mana to attract meaningful support – even though in the last election they had resources that the Greens could only dream about – signals the death of the activist far-left in mainstream New Zealand politics. Left-wing political parties can’t keep chasing after people who don’t vote at the expense of the support of people who do, and they can’t keep listening to online activists who claim to speak for the poor, disenfranchised non-voters etc, but whose values and rhetoric don’t actually attract any votes from those demographics.
  • Can the Greens win votes from the center right? Abandon their left-wing social policies, focus on their environmental policies and re-position themselves as a potential coalition partner for National?
  • Again, probably not. The Greens are an environmental party but they’re also a left-wing party. I know, I know – Twitter is flooded with know-it-alls braying that the Greens are neo-liberal middle-class sell-outs, but the actual Green Party as it exists in the real world is a left-wing party with left-wing policies. Even if the leaders could convince the caucus, party officials and members into supporting a National government, it is impossible to imagine this National government agreeing to the kind of environmental concessions the Greens would want. Are Joyce, Brownlee and Bridges ever going to sign off on, say, a moratorium on deep sea drilling and mining in national parks, cleaning up the rivers, scrapping the roads of national significance and investing in public transport, and a carbon tax? That would probably be the bare minimum of the Greens demands, and National would never agree to it. There’s no common ground there the way there is with, say, Winston Peters, whose coalition demands would have consisted of knighthoods and portfolios and other concessions that would have been (mostly) painless for the National Party.
  • I suspect that new Green votes will come from (a) the center left. Labour moved to the left under Cunliffe, both rhetorically and in policy terms (again, I know, the conventional wisdom of twitter is that Labour are far-right neo–liberal whatevers, but this was probably the most left-wing policy platform Labour ran on since the 1970s). I think we’ll see a more conservative Labour after the leadership contest and there will be opportunities for the Green Party there. I also think they can (b) pick up ‘center voters’ who care about environmental issues but didn’t vote Green in 2014 because they were afraid a left-wing vote was a vote for a Cunliffe/ABC/Green/Peters/Harawira/Harre/Dotcom fiasco. And (c) I think the Maori electorates are a huge opportunity for the Green Party. They saw percentage increases in most of those electorates (pre specials) and, intriguingly Jack McDonald and Marama Davidson both got significantly higher electorate votes than the Greens received party votes even though they campaigned as list candidates. I hope they can recruit high quality candidates for the three Maori electorates that didn’t have Green candidates and that there’s a resignation in the caucus before 2017, so that Davidson can come in on the list and campaign as an MP in those Maori seats.

October 3, 2014

Just shut up

Filed under: Uncategorized — danylmc @ 6:27 am

So in the past couple days of Labour’s leadership contest we’ve had @TarnBabe67, James Dann’s open letter to David Cunliffe threatening to resign from the party if Cunliffe is re-elected, and now Phil Quinn publishing Labour President Moira Coatsworth’s email urging Labour members not to act like jerks during the contest, which Quinn describes as ‘a sinister Orwellian gambit designed to restrict speech.’

I guess that if you’re really invested in what’s happening inside Labour then it’s very satisfying to put this stuff out there attacking your opponents and see it amplified by the mainstream media. But I really doubt that the general public are so engaged that they’re won over by these tweets, or blogposts or whatever. I’m pretty sure they’re thinking what I’m thinking: that Labour looks like a party filled with hysterical, squabbling egotists who all despise each other and can’t keep their damn fool mouths shut. And that’s a perception that’s going to endure long after this contest is over – especially if it goes on like this for two more months.

Just shut up

Filed under: Uncategorized — danylmc @ 6:26 am

So in the past couple days of Labour’s leadership contest we’ve had @TarnBabe67, James Dann’s open letter to David Cunliffe threatening to resign from the party if Cunliffe is re-elected, and now Phil Quinn publishing Labour President Moira Coatsworth’s email urging Labour members not to act like jerks during the contest, which Quinn describes as ‘a sinister Orwellian gambit designed to restrict speech.’

I guess that if you’re really invested in what’s happening inside Labour then it’s very satisfying to put this stuff out there attacking your opponents and see it amplified by the mainstream media. But I really doubt that the general public are so engaged that they’re won over by these tweets, or blogposts or whatever. I’m pretty sure they’re thinking what I’m thinking: that Labour looks like a party filled with hysterical, squabbling egotists who all despise each other and can’t keep their damn fool mouths shut. And that’s a perception that’s going to endure long after this contest is over – especially if it goes on like this for two more months.

October 1, 2014

Is New Zealand ready for an openly inane Prime Minister?

Filed under: Uncategorized — danylmc @ 6:18 am

In the current leadership race for the Labour Party there are two candidates: Grant Robertson and David Cunliffe. There has been much discussion of their strengths and weaknesses, but one subject has been delicately avoided; perhaps because of political correctness, or fear of reprisal, the unorthodox lifestyle of one of these candidates has been self-censored out of the public dialog. It is the issue that dare not speak its name.

David Cunliffe is openly, unashamedly inane.

Now let me begin by saying that I, personally, have no problem with inanity. There is inanity in my family. I have silly friends. I myself was absurd myself during a brief experimental period as a teenager and I fully support the inane community. But the Labour Party must ask itself hard questions about whether mainstream New Zealanders will elect a preposterous Labour leader as Prime Minister.

David Cunliffe has made no secret of his inanity. He has openly celebrated his inane lifestyle. Just recently he gave a rousing victory speech on the night of his historic election defeat and only yesterday he told John Campbell that he lost the election because voters prefer stability and prosperity. David Cunliffe deserves our support and praise for having the courage to be open about his daftness.

But is New Zealand ready to be government by someone who constantly says and does stupid, stupid things? Are we mature enough as a people to have a guy who criticised secret trusts while operating a secret trust, and who attacked Key for living in a large mansion while he himself lived in a large mansion representing us on the world stage? Are we wise and sophisticated enough to elect someone rash and silly? I would like to think we are, but realistically I fear the answer is no.

True, the inane have made great strides during the last few decades. People with terrible judgement were once shunned and mocked but now New Zealand’s business, entertainment and media communities are proudly led by gibbering, empty-headed morons. However, prejudice remains: not in wealthy, urban electorates where unconsciousness buffoonery is regarded as normal, part of our vibrant multicultural society. No, sadly it is lower-income Maori and Pacific Island communities where witless dolts still suffer terrible discrimination. Can Labour, in this moment of crisis, pretend that this bigotry against idiocy does not exist? Would it be foolish to force foolishness down their throats?

I do not pretend to know the answer to these questions, but Labour members must think deeply on these issues. In the grand tradition of the Labour Party, they must examine their own values, discuss them with their communities, reach intelligent considered decisions and then do the exact opposite. Labour can make New Zealand inane.

September 29, 2014

Nash equilibrium

Filed under: Politics — danylmc @ 1:50 pm
  • Labour seem to have gotten themselves into this weird position where they have (a) a leadership contest and (b) a long, extensive review of the party and its poor performance, meaning that they’ll either have to wait for the outcome of the review and have no leader for a good while, or decide on their leader before the review is done. So that’s pretty stupid.
  • Also, what if they surge to 35% while David Parker is their caretaker leader? It might happen – they were on about 37% when Cunliffe took over. But Cunliffe also might win the leadership contest, meaning the guy on 35% would have to hand over power to the guy who scored 24%. That’d be pretty funny.
  • Also, too, Stuart Nash – who won Napier after his opponent resigned and a Conservative Party candidate split the right-wing vote – is offering to tour the country teaching other Labour candidates how to win electorates.
  • Although Nash has leadership ambitions it looks like this leadership run-off will be between Cunliffe, Grant Robertson and possibly David Shearer.
  • Cunliffe announced he was running for leader and then went on holiday.
  • Related: I think Robertson will probably win.
  • I don’t know if it is a big deal that he’s openly gay, but I think that the combination of gay urban liberal career politician is problematic for Labour right now.
  • Robertson is running on a unity platform. ‘He can unite the Labour caucus.’
  • The problem is, the Labour Party’s caucus is filled with rivals who want to be the next Labour Prime Minister, or want their patron/faction leader to be the next Labour Prime Minister. There’s no incentive for Cunliffe or Shearer or Nash or any of Robertson’s other rivals in the caucus to unite behind him in the event of a victory.  Nothing bad happens to them if they plot against him, leak against him and campaign for the electorate vote during the next election while minimising the party vote. On the contrary, if they do unite behind the leader and ‘show unity’ and help boost the party vote then they lose, because then their rival gets to be Prime Minister instead of them!
  • Behavioral economists and game-theorists call this state-of-affairs a Nash Equilibrium (yeah, it’s named after the Beautiful Mind guy). None of the players has anything to gain by changing their strategy, given what they know about the strategy of all of their rivals, which means that Labour is deadlocked.


Updated poll of polls, now with dubious new ‘election’ datapoint

Filed under: polls — danylmc @ 9:18 am


September 25, 2014

Oh yeah. My other post-Dirty Politics, clean-up democracy idea

Filed under: Politics — danylmc @ 2:50 pm

Is that the government fund an independent audit process for the oversight of OIA requests, and that this (department? office? I dunno) undertakes regular inspections of the OIA process in different government departments and Ministerial Offices, with anomalies (like instant turnaround for party apparatchiks, years of Ombudsmen requests for everyone else) made public, and repeated failure to meet benchmarks – as set out by the legislation – be made grounds for dismissal of the public servants responsible.

Making things slightly better

Filed under: media — danylmc @ 8:41 am

Keith Ng has a post up about what he feels was poor media coverage of the Dirty Politics saga. I thought the reporting of Hager’s book was mostly pretty great. National didn’t get re-elected because ‘the media failed’. It got re-elected because the wider public didn’t think that the revelations in Dirty Politics were important enough to get rid of a Prime Minister that they feel is performing well and replace him with a bunch of maniacs.

What isn’t great is that the book exposed problems with the media and how adept the right is at manipulating it which don’t seem like they’re being addressed or even being acknowledged. So here are a couple of quick, off-the-top-of-my-head proposals into how I think political media can redeem themselves in the aftermath of Dirty Politics: 

  • If political commentators have a commercial relationship with a political party then they should be described as a ‘National Party Operative’, or a ‘Labour Party Operative’. David Farrar isn’t a ‘blogger’, or ‘political commentator’, or even ‘right-wing blogger’ or ‘right-wing commentator’ who can then turn around and grin and say ‘Shucks! I don’t make any secret of the fact that I support National!’ when someone challenges him about his links with the party. He’s a National Party Operative, and so are the rest of National’s eager little helpers who do ‘media training’ or ‘communications consultancy’ for National and then run around the radio stations and political shows advocating for the National Party. Same goes for Labour, obviously, and the Greens and every other party out there. And if someone can’t comment on their political clients because their work is ‘commercial in confidence’ then they shouldn’t be a public commentator
  • Anonymous sources for stories should be described as accurately as possible without compromising the anonymity of the source. No more ‘insiders’ or ‘party sources’. Tell us if something came from an MP or the leader’s office. That gets to the heart of the ‘two tier’ technique described in Dirty Politics. If the National Party wants to smear Labour or some other enemy then by all means, let em – but the story needs to be attributed. If the New Zealand Herald’s story on Donghua Liu came from the Prime Minister’s Office then the New Zealand public should know that. No more completely anonymous sources attacking their political enemies without attribution. And if an anonymous source lies to the media then that source’s identity should be revealed. Journalists should protect the identity of their sources but they don’t owe anything to a source that deliberately tricks them into publishing a false story smearing their enemies. Again, looking at you New Zealand Herald and Donghua Liu reporters.
  • Journalists will balk at that. ‘If they don’t let parties smear each other anonymously then they’ll lose the story to another media outlet who will!’ The problem with that is that it means that the ethics of the entire industry are held to the standard of the least ethical people in it. I think political parties will still leak to you under these conditions – especially if there’s a consensus on this issue – it’ll just mean that our politics is a little bit less scummy and awful than it was during Slater’s reign.

September 23, 2014

Inevitable Labour pontification post

Filed under: Politics — danylmc @ 9:22 am

Labour are having their caucus meeting today: step one in the post-mortem of what went wrong in the election. There’s already the inevitable talk about Labour’s values, and Labour needing to reconnect with the voters so here’s my take, which is, admittedly, pretty much what I’ve been saying for about six years, only this time compressed into graphic form. I hereby present ‘Mclauchlan’s Hierarchy of Political Needs’, a summary of what I believe the majority of non-tribal voters look for when they’re choosing which party to vote for. As with Maslow, the base of the pyramid are the fundamentals: only when these are satisfied does the apex become significant.


Almost all the left-wingers in my twitter feed are bewildered as to how the country could endorse the Key government with its dirty politics and child-poverty and pollution economy, but the non-left-wing activists I’ve talked to about the election were also utterly bewildered as to why anyone would have voted for the inevitable anarchy of the Cunliffe-led Labour/Greens/New Zealand First/Internet-Mana alternative. The left were comparing National and Labour and only seeing the top of the pyramid. Everyone else was looking at Labour’s bottom and judging it pretty hard.

Labour isn’t the only party wanting in the basic unity stakes. The Greens called for an independent audit of Labour’s fiscals and sent out confusing messages about their relationship with National during the final weeks of the campaign (My wife insists these messages were misreported.) And Internet/Mana is the worst thing to happen to left-wing politics for decades. Every time Labour or the Greens launched a policy they’d get back to the office, turn on the news and see Kim Dotcom or the ‘Fuck John Key’ video, or Pam Corkery screaming at the media, all followed by Laila Harre grinning away and explaining that the left couldn’t form a government without her. That’s not Labour’s fault but they should have seen the disaster coming and ruled Internet/Mana out before the campaign even started.

Here’s something else I think Labour got wrong. They don’t understand the fucking electoral system. For the second election in a row they’ve run an FPP election focused on winning electoral seats and seen their party vote decline. They don’t seem to get that this is a problem. Josie Pagani, Mike Williams and Rob Salmond, who are the current official unofficial voices of the Labour Party have all heaped praise on Stuart Nash for winning Napier and Jacinda Ardern for coming close to winning Auckland Central. But Nash won Napier because the Conservative Party candidate split the right-wing vote, and in terms of party votes which is the only vote that matters Labour’s Napier vote fell by almost 1500 votes while Labour’s party vote in Auckland Central declined by over 3800 votes, one of the worst falls in the entire country. Poto Williams is the only Labour MP in the country who actually increased Labour’s Party vote in her electorate but for some reason Nash and Ardern are the ones getting talked up as future leaders. That’s bullshit.

In terms of the party’s direction, if I was them I’d be looking at the seventy or eighty thousand voters they lost to New Zealand First during the last nine months and trying to win them back. That means a more socially conservative Labour Party. It means swallowing dead rats, presumably in the form of public statements distancing Labour from Cunliffe’s apology for being a man and the ‘man ban’ and gender equity policies. This will generate howls of protest and outrage from the activist left, but I think one message left-wing parties will draw from Saturday’s result is that the activist left is loud but microscopically tiny and it doesn’t speak for anyone other than themselves. I’d also be looking to go into 2017 having reached an arrangement with the Greens to campaign as a coalition.

That’s all in the future though. The current priorities are leadership change followed by a period of sustained competence and unity. Voters are suckers for competence and unity.

September 21, 2014

Brief thoughts on National’s historic victory

Filed under: Politics — danylmc @ 7:21 am
  • The National Party is an incredibly well resourced, well managed, professional political party and it turns out that these things counted for a lot last night.
  • The phone was not off the hook for Labour. Twelve months ago, just after Cunliffe won the leadership of his party Labour were on 37% with the Greens on 12%. There’s a cliche that oppositions don’t win elections, government’s lose them, but Labour lost this election. Cunliffe is probably the worst campaigner in New Zealand political history.
  • Based on the preliminary figures I think turnout will end up being slightly higher than last time but still very low. I was a strong advocate for a strategy of having left-wing parties try and improve their vote by targeting and mobilising younger voters, but it turns that that strategy is electoral suicide! Sorry guys!
  • So the lesson from last night’s right-wing landslide seems to be that older New Zealanders are very engaged with the political process and younger New Zealanders are not. That’s a shame but it’s a message politicians cannot ignore. No one’s going to waste time and energy chasing ‘the youth vote’ again for a very long time.
  • I think that the best way forward for Labour is for Cunliffe and ‘the old guard’ – Goff, Mallard and King – to resign. They’ve been at war for six years now and they’re tearing their party apart. I doubt this will happen though. The civil war will drag on for another parliamentary term. That party is dying.
  • The Greens will be despondent. I’m despondent for them. But – I can finally say this now – their billboards were really fucking weird. Their problem of having their final vote underperform relative to their polling is growing more acute, and their great challenge for 2017 is to determine why this happens and focus their party on addressing that problem.
  • If New Zealand First goes into coalition with National then that’s a win for Labour who can concentrate on winning back those left-leaning socially conservative older voters. (Er, Grant Robertson might not be the best choice for this job). If they don’t then that is an (additional) nightmare scenario for Labour.
  • I’m ambivalent about the failure of the Conservative Party. Yes, Craig was basically just buying his way into Parliament, but that’s what ACT does, and a huge component of National’s success is that it is a fundraising vehicle first and a governing political party second. Almost 90,000 people wanted Colin Craig’s Conservative’s in Parliament, and their votes should have been respected. Still, it turns out that Key and Collins were right about keeping the threshold at 5%. The redistributed seats caused by the Conservative’s wasted vote gave National the numbers to govern alone.
  • The Internet Party will go down as one of the most disastrous failures in modern political history. Their final party list result is only slightly higher than Mana’s was in 2011. $4.5 million dollars and it only bought them a couple of thousand votes. They didn’t even cannibalise support from other left-wing parties.
  • What they did do is scare the crap out of middle-New Zealand and frighten them into voting National so that the party filled with screaming, chanting, scary lunatics backed by a malevolent German criminal didn’t get a say in running the country
  • I’m sad to see Harawira leave Parliament. I think he’s an important voice. But I’m thrilled that I won’t ever again have to listen to Laila Harre on Morning Report braying about how much integrity she has and how wonderful everything she does is.
  • ACT continues its horrible zombie existence as a fake party preventing any real liberal party from emerging and poaching National’s votes. Although, I think the rise of the Conservative Party at the expense of ACT shows that it was never a real classical liberal party but rather a conservative red-neck party that happened to be funded and staffed by so-called classical liberals. Jamie Whyte will be a Herald columnist before the end of the year.

I’m disappointed by the scale of National’s victory and the poor result for the Greens, but I also think we dodged a bullet last night. I think that Cunliffe would have been a very poor Prime Minister, that his party is unfit to govern, and that any Labour/Greens/NZFirst/Internet/Mana coalition would have been an anarchic, unmanageable disaster for the country.


« Previous PageNext Page »

Create a free website or blog at


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 507 other followers