Thursday, 2 October 2014

Media malice

There has been a lot of talk, over on the Standard and elsewhere, about media bias.  The election was lost because of it.  Cunliffe's leadership ruined because of it.  The Scottish independence referendum lost because of it.  The media are to blame for climate change.  And so on.

The last two may actually have some slight merit.  I commented a few times on the hysterical reaction of the Mail to the possibility of Scotland leaving the union.  If anything though, that showed how powerless the media actually are as opinion shapers.  Inspite of their relentless pro-union coverage, polls narrowed, and unionist panic increased.  In the end, I doubt the Mail's hysteria made a difference.  The final result was what had been predicted in almost every poll - a win for the union camp.

That's an example of genuine, palpable media bias.  But what about the claims of media bias distorting politics in New Zealand?  Are our media really just opinion trumpeters for National and Act?

Yes, ultimately, the mainstream media is in the hands of the capitalist class - of course it is, as it is a means of making money - you wouldn't expect them just to leave something like that just lying around for the proles to get their hands on, do you - but that does not mean that tere is a strong or persistent bias against Labour or in favour of National or Act.  Bluntly, there isn't really enough difference between the National and Labour for it to be worth while running a deliberate campaign to undermine Labour.

There's something similar and more visceral going on here.

The media likes one thing - winners and losers.

Yeah, I know, that's two things.  No-one expects the Spanish Inquisition!

The media love to celebrate a winner, but even more, they love to put the boot into a loser.  Labour, unfortunately, has been looking like a loser for almost a decade, now.  It's hard not to, when you've churned through a grab back of leaders and the party is polling 30% and National is on 50% (remember those heady days when 30% seemed low!?).  That's why I've always eschewed talk of grant multi-party coalitions.  We live in an MMP environment, but most people don't think MMP.

IF Labour managed to drag the party to the right side of 30% ... (Dare I say the right side of 35%?) and managed to stop the continual factionalism and squabbling, and had a leader with the sort of vim and energy of Norman Kirk, or the grim technocratic authority of Clark, the media would be much more positive towards Labour.  National, of course, has had someone who has looked like a winner since 2006, which is a bit of an advantage for them

Consider how the Greens were treated in the election.  They had a fairly easy time of it.  This wasn't because of Norman's comment about working with National, but because the Greens were seen as a party on the upswing ... so the media - being little more than nasty bullies - didn't put the boot in.  Or contrast the treatment of Don Brash - the media had a field day with him, once they decided he was a rightwing zealot (worse) and a fumbling loser, not the plain speaking champion of middle New Zealand.

Ultimately, the mainstream media exist to sell advertising to people.  As long as they perceive people as being more inclined towards the right, they will pander towards that.  Labour needs to makes itself important and interesting again.  Then the media will be ready to make nice.

Wednesday, 1 October 2014

Carpetbaggers

So, those wishing to participate in the Labour leadership election (2014 edition) have until 11.59pm on Wednesday the 1st of October to join.

I won't be joining, but I've noticed an alarming number of people on The Standard announcing that they will join, because they want to vote in the election.  Fair enough.  But then they add that if David Cunliffe doesn't win they will resign their membership.

This is a particularly worrying aspect of the Cunliffe cult-of-personality that seems to have deranged too many on the left.  The really seem to think Cunliffe is something different to the other options.  Much talk is made about factions and positions and ABCs and the need for a shift to the left (as if the million voters who have studiously say out the last three elections while National assailed their quality of life will be motivated to vote if Labour just nudges a bit further left ...)

This over looks the fundamental reality.  Cunliffe, Robertson, Shearer and whoever else you care to name are just politicians.  They are all politicians. Cunliffe comes across as no different to Robertson or Shearer – he’s a professional politician, just like them, and part of the monied, highly educated elite, just like them. He doesn’t speak to the ‘missing million’ – you may have noticed they didn’t show up last week.

One is good at waving his hands about and shouting at John Key.  The other is liked by his colleagues but no-one else.  The third one has an amazing backstory and isn't shouty but possibly isn't even very talky.

But that's beside the point.  The issue is the carpetbaggers - people signing up just to vote for one candidate and intending to flounce off in a huff if he doesn't win.

For people contemplating joining and planning on leaving if their preferred candidate doesn't win ... please don't. What you are doing is profoundly undemocratic. It's tantamount to stuffing the ballot box.

Beofre you join, ask your self it you would still be willing to maintain your membership if Cunliffe (or whoever) is not elected leader? If not, don’t join. It’s a democratic process electing the leader of the party and if you aren’t willing to accept the decision of the party, you have no business joining it. People doing that are simply trying to fix the result.

(I suspect they might often be the same people signing the ludicrous ‘recount’ petition and who are claiming the election was fixed …)

If you are not willing to stick with the result of a democratically agreed decision, you have no business joining a party just to try to force the decision one way or another. If you want to join a party, fine, but it is a commitment, and you shouldn’t be resigning just because your favoured candidate didn’t win. If your loyalty is that precarious, you shouldn’t be joining that party in the first place.

What if a horde of Nats joined up with the explicit intention of voting for Robertson? Would you be happy with that?

Don’t lie and say you would be.

Saturday, 27 September 2014

What now?

By the time I post this, I suspect David Cunliffe will no longer be the leader of the Labour Party.  He's on his way into a conference with the party's governing council, and he's called a press conference for afterwards.  Those are not great omens.

As I said on election night, I'm indifferent to whether Cunliffe, or Robertson, or Shearer, or Old Uncle Tom Cobbleigh is the leader.  I don't particularly like Cunliffe and I think he comes over as arrogant and (unlike most people) I think he did badly in the debates, waving his hands about and trying to shout over Key and being poorly prepared for blindly obvious attacks.

But when the talent pool is as small as Labour's is, you can't really go about changing your leader every five minutes.  It's  a measure of how few options Labour have that some people are seriously talking about bringing back David Shearer for another shot.  One wonders, what are thinking?  One wonders, what dead animal will he present to parliament this time?

People seem to be fixated on the importance of the leader.  Cunliffe's advocates seemed to think - I remember the conversations on The Standard - that his elevation to the top job would see the party surge to above 40%.  Quite seriously.

I don't blame Cunliffe for the debacle on Saturday night.  It would be beyond the ability of even the most profoundly useless leader - and Cunliffe is/was not profoundly useless - to accomplish that feat, and in just eleven months.

Labour were up against a dreadful political perfect storm - incumbency, a growing economy (though watch this space), the miasma of Dirty Politics which prevented the party getting their own campaign underway, and the profoundly difficult issue that they were massively behind in the polls.  Floating voters obey the laws of gravity.  They will tend to be drawn towards the greater mass.  I'm no mathematician, but I think 45% is bigger than 25%.  And their own overwhelming, systematic incompetence.  Let that never be forgotten.  Like who thought it was a good idea to announce the New Zealand Inc policy - which was interesting and important - on the same day as Dotcom's Big Reveal?

If there is one issue that should always be front and centre of every single Labour campaign it is education.  I'm trying to think of times when it was mentioned in the campaign.  I'm struggling.  I'm sure it was but ... Not exactly with feeling.  It is one issue that the left own and on which National is eternally vulnerable - charter schools!  Novopay!  Classes of over 40!  Branding children losers at 6!  And it is the Great Issue that unites left and centre - because everyone, pretty much, sends their kids to school, or employs people that have been through school.

Now we have an ACT associate minister of education, who will likely be used to front for every hideous policy National want to inflict on New Zealand.  He won't mind the opprobrium heaped on him - he's safe in Epsom, where people are hardly likely to oppose charter schools or bulk funding or support teachers' unions.  It's looking grim for the rest of us, however.  While mouthing sweet nothings over child poverty, Key's government will push through changes that will gut the education system and reinforce the pattern of inter-generational poverty, failure and despair that has blighted New Zealand since the 80s.

I don't care if David Cunliffe is still Labour leader in half an hour's time.  Because it doesn't matter who is.  Until the party sorts out it's prodigious crap mountain, whoever leads it is never going to be Prime Minster.

Saturday, 20 September 2014

Election 2014!! The live, rolling, increasingly intoxicated Post From Hell

7.00 - Drinking red (naturally) wine.  A 2011 Mt hector Pinot Noir.  Very nice it is too - likely the last nice thing I may experience for the next couple of hours.  We're doomed, I tell you, doomed!  And if we're not doomed, we may be in even bigger trouble.  Imagine if the person who scheduled the NZ Inc. announcement for the same day as Dotcom's Big Disappointment gets a hand on the levers of power ...

So I am NOT anticipating a good night.  I expect John Key's corrupt, incompetent government to be returned for another three years.  This prospect is, of course, terrible.  The only thing worse might be if it includes ACT.

Still, every cloud has a silver lining.  The next few months should see the slow motion destruction of John Key's reputation and his government's exposure as a bunch of miserable, self-serving conniving liars as Dirty Politics continues to corrode.  By 2017, even the most vindictive lefties and stalwart Tories will be desperate to see National put out of its misery.

So let's get on with it ..

7.01 - Nothing too bad so far.  Other than Mike Hosking.  Which is quite bad enough, really.

7.04 - Will this be a 2005 election, where Labour start miles behind and slowly fights its way back, or like 2008 and and 2011, where Labour starts behind and stays behind?

If it is like the last two, we can put the myth of the mighty Labour vote in South Auckland to bed once and for all - whatever happened in 2005 must have been a once-off.

7.05 - Mike Hosking officially says something stupid, wondering if Labour 'might' increase their share of the vote from 19% of early votes.  took him just five minutes.  Which is probably an improvement.

7.10  Early numbers show the Nats on 50.9% with 3.5% counted ... Are they about to dip under 50%? that's a pretty quick falling away.  A percent off for every percent counted.  Long may it continue!

7.13 - Nats on 50%, falling fast.  Dare I say they will end up on 40%?

7.16 - A majority of the 7.2% of votes counted reject John Key!  There is hope for the nation!

7.19 - The conservatives are hovering about 4.6%.  In the interests of democracy, I'd rather the they got 5.1% rather than 4.9%.  I hate to see votes wasted, even when they are for ridiculous parties.  I'd much prefer to see then get no votes at all, of course.

7.23 - If this is going to be a 2005 election, then National could be in trouble.  In 2005, Labour started very far behind (just like tonight) and dragged it back at 1% per 10% counted.  If that happens tonight, then Labour will be comfortably above 30%.  Of course, that didn't happen in 2008 and 2011, so the odds are it won't happen ...

7.24 - Mike Hosking must have almost choked on that grudging praise for Cunliffe - "A better opponent" than anticipated!  Piss off, Mike!

7.29 - National on 48.6, so falling away nicely.  But where is it going?  Labour seem stuck on 23.5%.

19.31 - 431 people in Epsom have voted for Christine Ranking (thus far)?  Oh dear.

19.37 - Mike Hosking is a national embarrassment.

19.42 - Has everyone stopped counting?  We've been stuck about 15% for yonks.

19.50 - Just piss off, Mike Hosking, with your inane right-wing, biased unprofessional bleating.

19.56 - Ahahahahahaha.  One of Hosking's studio commentators just tried to mention Nick Hager.  Hosking immediately tried to cut him off and then terminated the conversation.  What a dick.

20.04 - Count, New Zealand!

20.08 - Percentage counted is starting to move again.  18.2% in.  Unfortunately, National are still stubbornly above 48%.  Have they not read the script?

20.10Greens are in ‘Desperate trouble’ according to Hosking. I think I might be complaining, tomorrow, when the hangover clears.  They've actually just topped 10%, so building nicely.

20.17 - Insanely, National's vote is going UP as more votes are counted.  Only very marginally, from about 48.4% to 48.5% - but it is still abhorrent and wrong and entirely at odds with the Laws of Electoral Physics.

20.20 - Labour might FINALLY be about to trip over 24%.  EDIT - That was based on TV1 figures.  But the official Election Results website still has them stuck below what TV1 is showing.

20.27 - According to the Election results website, National's share of the vote is climbing.  It's now at 48.57.  This is MADNESS!!

20.28 - 48.71%.

20.29 - 48.75%

20.32 - 48.81% ... Then 48.79% ... THE TIDE HAS TURNED!!

20.33 - Unfortunately, Labour are also going backwards.  23.70%.

20.34 - National 48.83.  Damn it, I said THE TIDE HAS TURNED!!  Listen to me, New Zealand.

20.35 - National collapse to 48.75%.  Mwahahahahaha!  The rout commences!  I'm going to stop doing this now ...

20.40 - So, a quarter of the votes have been counted.  National are sitting on 48%.  Labour are mired on 23.5%.  The Greens and NZ First are both about 9-10%.  Mana will get 2 MPs on current figures.  Ditto Maori.  Obviously, that's good news for one party but not for the other.  Singletons for ACT and UF.

I'm prediciting the Labour and the Greens may get another 3%.  But hopes (or fears) of a grand coalition of the left are looking very faint.

20.43 - And no sooner do I post that than National's share of the vote goes up and Labour's goes down ... 48.84% versus 23.75%.  The horror!  The horror!

20.49  - National hit 49% of the party vote. (And then immediately drop back to 48.96% .. I feel like I'm being toyed with!)

20.51 - Michelle Boag sounds sane compared to Mike Hosking.

20.52 - National plummet to 48.90%!!  They are being driven from the field in total disorder!!

21.00 - We have a third of the vote in now.  National are still riding very high at 48.9% of the vote.  Labour are sinking, slowly.  And everything else is as it was 20 minutes ago, when we had a fifth in.  Once we get up to half way, I think we may see a bit of movement in the left vote.  Upwards movement, I mean.  But by that point, the amount of vote left to effect a change with will be very, very small.

21.04 - Colin Craig doesn't like "the system" - presumably he means MMP.  Does he actually believe he would be doing better under First Past The Post?

21.06 - Internet Mana have just vanished from the Election Results website 'Sets' column.  Davis must be sneaking ahead.  I think Harawira will get there in the end, but it is carnage out there.  Carnage.

21.10 - National only getting 62 seats, down from 62 a moment ago.  Unfortunately, that's at least 10 too many.  Labour finally creep up to 31 seats.  31.

21.12 - Election Results website has half the results in.  Nothing has changed.  National still just under 49%.  Labour just under 24%.  Yes, you read that right.  Twenty four per cent.  Greens and NZ First both under 10%.  Conservatives and IMP heading to the dustbin of history.

21.16 - It's 2011 all over again.  Only with (thus far) less voting for the left.

21.18 - 55.9% counted and Labour mustering up some courage and edging up to the big bad 24% mark ...

21.22 - Whatever the final result in Te Tai Tokerau, I did say that linking up with Kim Dotcom was a very bad idea.  I'm rather sad that I'm being proven right.

21.24 - National currently able to govern alone, assuming the Conservatives don't enjoy a late surge.

21.25 - Labour teeters on the edge at 23.96% of the vote!  Come on!  You can do it!

21.26 - 24%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Next goal!  Matching Phil Goff's 27.48%!!

21.27 - 24.02%!  The Long March has started!  Onwards to victory!

21.30  - Labour negatively surge to 23.95%  A cunning flanking move that will leave National nonplussed!

21.36 - On a more serious note, Labour seem to have moved decisively across the 24% boundary.  Yay!!  Almost 1 in 4 voting New Zealanders was not totally repelled by Labour!!  And National are sinking like a very light, floaty stone, all the way down to 48.67%!  This is massive and John Key really must resign.  Right now.

21.36 - Some (comparatively) serious movement with the Labour numbers now.  24.19%.  Cunliffe might just get enough to hang on.

21.42 - National now definitely trending downwards.  Labour moving upwards.  Too little, too late, with 75% counted.  How could the left have screwed this up so badly?

21.54 - greens building, slowly.  They need to get to 12%, or 13% for respectabilty.  I think they will make it, because once the conservative wasted vote is taken out, they'll have a bigger share of the leftovers, and specials and so on.

22.07 - Well, at least we can discard the comforting myth of the 'big urban centres coming in late.'  Guess what?  Whoever swung it for Labour late in the day in 2005 isn't there any more.  If they were, they'd have shown up tonight.  They've managed to do worse than in 2011 and they had almost everything going in their favour.  And.  They.  Blew.  It.

22.14 - If ... IF ... Hone survives in Te Tai Tokerau ... Perhaps he'll realise the link up with the Internet Party was utterly stupid.  He could have done it by himself.  Perhaps - just perhaps - he might have brought another MP with him.  He could have looked to being the main party of the Maori seats.  But.  He.  Also.  Blew.  It.

22.26 - So, should David Cunliffe resign?  I don't care.  This isn't about Cunliffe.  If every single vote that was lost between 2011 and 2014 was lost because of Cunliffe, it was hardly important.  There is a deeper issue here than who fronts at PMQs.  Cunliffe is perfectly adequate (as Shearer was perfectly adequate, and Goff was perfectly adequate)  but he is leading a party that is intent on self destruction.

Arguing with the leftier left for the last three years over on the Standard, I've become unhappily convinced there is a curious self destructive urge on the left.  They are so possessed by hatred of the middleclasses that they have lost sight of the real enemy.

Please, just accept, that middle classes are people too, and Social Democrats are as viable members of the Labour party as Socialists. Stop fighting them. Look where it has got you. 24%. Outstanding.

YOU CAN NOT WIN WITH OUT THE CENTRE.

There are enough sane, decent, middle class, who can be united with the working class to win every election. They are not the enem.

Remember the 99% vs the 1%?

22.35 - Laila Harre gets to oversee the destruction of another party.  Three hours ago I had respect for her.  Now she's successfully destroyed two leftwing parties.

22.38 - On a more positive note, ACT have only 0.68% of the vote.  Over 99% of New Zealanders are not insane.

22.42 - Labour make a late surge to 24.5%!!!  It ain't over until the fat lady sings!

22.46 - OMG!! I'd completely forgotten about the contest in Palmerston North, between Iain Lees Galloway and Jono Naylor.  It turns out that - against the odds - I've managed to be on the winning side in at least one election in 2014.  Normal service will be resumed shortly, I'm sure ... Lees-Galloway won, comfortably, and given the current state of theparty must be wondering if he might be in charge in 2017.  It isn't a ery broad, or deep, talent pool.

22.49 - Cunliffe stayed put for ages.  He must have been watching the percentages to see if he could survive.  What was his 'hang on' figure??????????????????????  Surely not 24.5%??

23.03 Obviously, it was 24.5%.

23.10 - National currently on 61 seats, but that's including (I think) the conservatives in the equation and not including special votes.  They might still get pushed down below 50% ... It is a measure of how disappointing this night has been that the idea of National being denied the chance to govern alone feels like a victory.

23.19 - Judith Collins retuned with a majority of almost 5000.  The icing on tonight's cake of shit.

23.37 - Bloody Hell.  Keys forcing me to crack open the scotch.

23.44 - Actually, with more time to consider the strategic situation, the return of Collins to the front bench is the best outcome we can hope for … Should make 2017 a walk in the (red) park.

23.47 - As if the night could not get any worse, I've jsut realised Mike Hosking has been proven right all down the line.  Disaster for Labour.  Disaster for Mana.  Disaster for the Greens.  Triumph for Hosking.

23.50 - Mana polled 5 times as much as United Future.  The Conservatives polled EIGHTEEN times more than United Future.  guess which party gets an MP?

The Big Man

So, Alex Salmond has announced he will step down as First Minister of Scotland.  This is, of course, being presented as throwing his toys and peevish behaviour following the independence referendum and the defeat of the 'Yes' campaign.

Which is an odd reaction, given the blind panic that has been the defining feature of the 'No' campaign for the last fortnight or so, ever since the polls started to narrow and it became to look like 'Yes' might just make it.

Credit where it is due. His goal was to give the people of Scotland a chance to decide if they wanted to be independent or not. He achieved his goal. He could have continued to lord it over the Scottish parliament for years to come, but has decided to step aside. He's shown himself to be what, in Scotland, we'd call a big man.  Not just a tough guy or a hard man, but someone who can take knocks as well as giving them out.  William McIlvaney wrote a book with that title, exploring the strange permutations of Scottish macho.

Salmond's dignity in defeat an example David Cameron might consider following in victory.  Only, it is unlikely Cameron has half an iota of Salmond's principle.

But Cameron, of course, has shown he has neither principle or backbone.  He used to glory in a 'Flashman' reputation.  He tried to play the big man, as a Tory would imagine a big man - acting like a strutting peacock, a loud-mouth bully at PMQs, scoffing at anyone who dared to, you know, ask him a question that wasn't about how fabulous David Cameron and his shabby government was.  it was a disgaceful display of arrogance but it allowed the clueless Cameron to bluster his way out of tight corners the uselessness of the his ministers and his own blinkered inadequacy got himself into, week after week.

(Aided, it must be acknowledged, but the profound uselessness that is commonly referred to as Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.)

Cameron's Flashman alter-ego dominated the early stages of the referendum debate, trying to rig it by insisting on a Yes / No option because he was feart (good Scots word) of the likely widespread support for enhanced devolution.  But when that seemed to be about to blow up in Flashie's face, the swaggering toff revealed his true colours, magnificently soiled himself, blubbed (while muttering threats) and ignominiously rushed into offering the things he had tried to keep off the negotiating table in the first place, promising at all sorts of new powers for the Scottish parliament and ponies for everyone.

Such unstatesmanlike behaviour might have been worth it - just - if it had bought time for Cameron to lick some wounds and rebuild his shattered reputation and credibility.  But Cameron, having been humiliated in the North, has another arduous electoral ordeal to endure.

He must now face the UKIP in the south, where Douglas Carsewell's defection and resignation (another man of principle, Mr Carsewell) means the UKIP will likely gain their first MP and Cameron will have to deal with a devastating defeat.

Like King Harold of Hastings fame (only less noble and impressive and without that man's legitimate claim to power) Cameron must charge from one end of the kingdom to the other to fight swarming enemies intent on his destruction. Like Harold, he has been fatally weakened by the battle in the North and will meet nemesis in the south.

Unlike Harold, he won't be remembered in history as a bold man brought down by overwhelming odds, but as a fool who engineered his own destruction.

Salmond - a bit of a joke for as long as I can remember - proved himself to be a big man in the end, both in delivering on his promises, fighting a brave campaign, and accepting the dashing of his life's hopes with dignity.  Cameron has been revealed to be very, very small, and the process of reduction of Flashman to Flash-in-the-Pan is not even over.

Friday, 19 September 2014

Prediction

Following my discovery that other people are allowed to vote in this election thing that is going on - and here I was thinking all the fuss was about me and my vote and nothing else - I have decided the rest of you should vote in the following way:

  • Nat 43%
  • Labour 27.5%
  • Greens 13%
  • NZF 7% 
  • Con 4%
  • IMP 2% and holding Te Tai Tokerau
  • Maori 1.5% but holding two Maori seats 
  • ACT, UF <1 but="" each="" electorates="" holding="" li="">

Which, if it comes to pass, will give us:

  • National 54
  • Labour 34
  • Greens 16
  • NZ First 9
  • Mana 3
  • Maori 2
  • ACT 1
  • UF 1

Which gives the Labour Green bloc 50 MPs, and the National-ACT bloc 55.

So it comes down, preditably, to Which way NZ First will jump.  I would assume he would go with National as the largest party - but Winston has been making sufficient noises to make me wonder if he would sooner play the role of constructive opposition, allowing him to make a lot of noise and exert influence while not being embroiled in what I suspect will be a massively unpopular government.

Obviously, the exclusion of the Conservative Party will be significant.  If they do manage to scrape in at 5%, that changes everything, utterly.  Even though I dislike everything about them, from Colin Craig' silly alliterative name to their policies, I would actually prefer them to do that - I don't like wasted votes.  Ideally, the 5% threshold should go.  If New Zealanders want to vote for silly parties, then they can have a silly parliament.  In the meantime, I don't like the idea of people's views being excluded, even if I disagree with them, because of a stupid rule.

UF and Maori Party are also up for grabs, I think - they might tend to National but I think they could support a Labour lead goverment.  And if Mana can't be partof a Labour lead government - a very short sighted decision by Cunliffe - they can perhaps still play a positive role through confidence and supply arrangements - a position they might enjoy as much as Peters would.

You notice I don't mention the Internet Party.  If Harre makes it into parliament, I wouldn't be surprised if the Internet Party simple dissolves itself into Mana.  Dotcom will not find it useful for his continued efforts to avoid justice.

So, sadly, it looks like tomorrow will result in a period of anarchy, possibly leading to the Zombie Apocalypse.

Decision

I am pleased to announce that, after much consideration, I will be casting my electorate vote in Palmerston North for Mr Iain Lees-Galloway.

Deciding on my party vote proved much harder.

In 2002 and 2005, I voted for the Alliance - the first time in the hope of putting a couple of left wing MPs into parliament if Harre won Waitakere electorate (she didn't), and the second time out of sheer perversity, as I abhorred the direction the Labour Party was taking.

In 2008, I refused to cast a meaningful vote at all, defacing my ballot paper.  At the time, Labour's Free trade Agreement with China was enraging me; and no party that would support a government that endorsed it would receive my vote.

In 2011, I voted Mana, as I agreed with Harawira's relentless focus on child poverty.  I hope the new party might muster enough support to put two MPs into parliament and I wanted to signal my dis-satisfaction with the continued vacillations of the main leftwing parties.

This year, the situation was complicated by the Mana-Internet Party link up.  Put bluntly, Kim Dotcom is not one of us.  He is not on our side.  Everything about him - the flamboyant lifestyle, the massive mansion, the transparent attempts to buy influence, jars hideously with the core Mana message of eradicating child poverty.  This man has no interest in that.  He is interested only in himself, and everything he touches is tainted by the contact.  I tried to ignore all this and focus on the positives - Harawira, Sykes, Minto, Harre ... but it wasn't enough.  Sorry guys.  I told you at the time it was a bad idea.

Labour appealed, largely out of a sense of pity and a defiant urge to do the opposite of whatever Key, Ede, Slater and the rest of the corrupt Dirty Politics scum-bags wanted me to do.  They didn't want me to vote Labour, so it seemed like a good idea to do that.  Also, I felt that they deserved every iota of support going after the Dirty Politics revelations.  What better way to signal opposition for everything John Key has come to represent, the corruption, the venality, the gross indecency masquerading as honest comment, the glib, superficial and deeply cynical and nasty attitude, than by voting for the party most likely to replace him?  But Labour proved impossible to love.  They are far better at mutilating their chances of victory than National.  From Cunliffe's performances in the debates, which consisted of waving his hands about weirdly and trying to talk over Key (when the sensible strategy would have been to stand back, shake his head and look prime ministerial) to the hopelessly clueless decision to announce the promising New Zealand Inc policy on the same fucking day as Dotcom's big reveal, everything they have done has been clueless.  Hell, given three years notice of how Key would attack the (sane and sensible) Capital gains Tax policy, they were still flat-footed.  So a vote for Labour would be endorsing that inebriated stumbling performance.  ANd I couldn't do that.

Which left me with the Greens.  Who I have never voted for before, here or in Britain - largely because I do prioritise social issues over environmental ones (thought they are all social issues in the end).  But this year they offered the sanest policy I have ever heard in New Zealand politics - a new top rate of tax targeting income over $140,000.  And they wanted to use the money from it to tackle child poverty.  And on top of that, they have run the most sure-footed campaign of any of the left-wing parties.

So in 2014 I'll be giving my party vote to the Greens.

So that's that.  Russel and Meteria for joint PMs.  You can all calm down, I have decided ... What, you mean the rest of you lot get a vote as well?  What sort of fool system is this?