The diagnosis isn't good, Judith

Watching National's Health spokesman, Dr Shane Reti, on TVNZ yesterday morning was instructive:

In four minutes, he managed to undermine both his leader and deputy leader - refusing to twist th knife Collins had attempted to plant in Labour, by acknowledging the government was doing "the best they can" and they were confronted with a "hard problem" and referencing a "productive" meeting with Health Minister Chris Hipkins.

This moderate - dare I say commendably mature attitude? - distances him from Collins' complaint about the government withholding information from National and Brownlee's conspiratioral mutterings and indicates a fissure between three of the four most important people in the putative National government just weeks out from the election.

If the chap you've got lined up to be Health minister is quietly signalling he doesn't agree with the leader - in the middle of a pandemic - it doesn't give voters many reasons to be enthusiastic for you.

Covid is kinda of a big deal in 2020 and National have blown their chance to actually make the government look shakey on it by being even shakier themselves.

With the polls suggesting National will struggle to reach the 35% threshold Collins has indicated represents 'victory' in her curiously inverted world, perhaps Reti is looking beyond the election, aware that he has a future – either in in politics, academe or medicine – and Collins and Brownlee do not?

He seems to represent a less dangerous future for National and - given there will occasionally have to be National governments - that needs to be encouraged.  All the more reason for centrists inclined to (sometimes) support National to vote AGAINST the party this year - to crush the Collins leadership and drive her faction (promoted by Cameron Slater and his allies through dirty tricks and blackmail, as outlined in Dirty Politics) out of the party.

The Divine Right of Kings

I think it is important that who has the power to invoke Article 50 is given due consideration.

It is a concern that the Royal Perogative is being suggested as a means to avoid having to put a bill into parliament. This isn't the 15th century. Our elected parliament should be making these decisions.

The more we use administrative conveniences like the Royal Perogative, the more likely they are to be abused. The limits of the RP need to be clearly defined and in ALL OTHER CASES, parliament should be consulted.

As usual, people are seeing their own short term advantage in abusing the system, and not worrying about the consequences of the abuse. What if, in the future, an unscrupulous PM decided to take us back into the EU, or implemented some other massive change, invoking the Royal Perogative and without reference to parliament? As long as they could point to an opinion poll favouring their position ...

I think the Conservatives are playing a dangerous tactical game here. Their manifesto commitment was to 'honour' the referendum result. Before the 2015 election, they were not anticipating a majority, so 'honouring' the referendum result could mean putting up a 'Trigger Article 50' bill into parliament, anticipating it being shot down by the opposed majority.

They now have the majority, so can pass the trigger bill.

Damned by their own success - or by Labour and the Lib Dems' unspeakable failure.

As it is, their majority is small and if they did put a bill before the house, it could dangerously split the party. They haven't got the luxury of being able to tolerate a few rebels. And the rebels won't tolerate being whipped. Schism beckons.

I suspect they don't want to do it, and are treading water, hoping for something to happen. Perhaps they are waiting for their small majority to erode naturally (i.e. for MPs t die off and for seats to be lost in by-elections) or for some realignment on the centre left and a split int heir own party ... or for the consequences of imminent exit to sink in and people to change their minds ... But by not simply putting a bill before the house and invoking the Royal Perogative immediately slows everything down, as endless constitutional quibbling and argument seems inevitable.

Or, of course, I might be wrong and the Tories might not care about the potential dangers of using the Divine Right Of Kings to deal with issues.

Dunno what to say about this, really

Donald Trump and Russell Brand are having a spat on twitter.  It puts me in mind of Oscar Wilde's quip about fox hunting - "The unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable."  Though in this case, more a matter of the despicable in affray with the punchable.  You can choose who is which.  I recommend alternating them as the mood takes you.

The digital fight started when Trump tweeted that the Forgetting Sarah Marshall star is a 'major loser.' Brand, however, hit back - and eventually suggested that Trump is not the entrepreneur he has claimed to be, by linking to an an article that mentioned his multi-million dollar inheritance and financial aid from the US government. 

'I watched Russell Brand @rustyrockets on the @jimmyfallon show the other night—what the hell do people see in Russell—a major loser!' Trump first wrote. 

Trump's comments came three days after Brand appeared on 'Late Show with David Letterman' on Monday. Brand is not scheduled as a guest this week on 'The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon'. 

Trump then published another tweet, which read '.@katyperry must have been drunk when she married Russell Brand @rustyrockets – but he did send me a really nice letter of apology!' 

It was not immediately clear what 'letter of apology' Trump was referring to.

Perry and Brand were married in 2010 and divorced two years later, with Perry telling Vogue in June 2013 that Brand announced his intention to divorce in a 2011 New Year's Eve text message. 

Brand soon retaliated and responded to Trump's second message with jokes about Trump's sobriety and his much-lampooned hairline.

Smells like two sad publicity whores staging a phoney fight for attention.

Meanwhile, John Lydon, of Sex Pistols, PiL and buttermongering fame, sums up Brand pretty well in a typically bracing Q&A session in The Guardian:

The youth of today have every possibility as being as smart or a stupid as the youth of past. So long as you remove Russell Brand from the agenda. I think he's absolutely clarified himself as arsehole number one. It's not funny to talk nonsense. I think his words are the words of somebody else. Misconstrued.

Excellent.  Elsewhere in the Q&A he advocates voting, no matter how dire the options, as "everybody should try to make the best of a bad situation, and for me I despise the entire shitstem because it is corrupt, but that corruption has only come about because of the indolence of us as a population." Which is about the polar opposite of Brand's recent (well, recent-ish) whiney call for mass apathy in the face of drab, uninspiring or actively corrupt or malevolent politics.  Brand justified - nay, bragged - about his disengagement from politics:

I have never voted. Like most people I am utterly disenchanted by politics. Like most people I regard politicians as frauds and liars and the current political system as nothing more than a bureaucratic means for furthering the augmentation and advantages of economic elites.

Well, that's nice, Russell.  You really showed those nasty corrupt venal self-serving troughers, didn't you!

Incidentally, Brand was born in 1975, the year after I was.  That would mean the first election he would have been able to vote in was in 1997 (probably).  That was a big one, and anyone who couldn't see a difference between John Major's corrupt, exhausted Tories and Labour (even with Tony Blair in charge) was being wilfully blind.

It is staggering how willing people are to discount the impact of democracy on their lives. Born in an NHS hospital? Had NHS treatment? Enjoyed a free schooling? Voted out the Tories in 1997? Worked in a safe environment, with the right to join a union (which you probably ignored) and with recourse to the courts and law when you needed them? These are not rights but privileges, and they need to be defended as there are powerful people who want to destroy them. I'm going to hazard a guess that someone who can't be bothered to vote would make a fairly piss-poor revolutionary. Brandism, a political creed of shrugging ones shoulders and doing nothing, would help people who want to attack the privileges he - and you - are taking for granted.

Someone who can't be bothered to vote isn't going to accomplish much as a revolutionary, no matter how much he styles himself on vaguely remembered 60s icons.

And authoritarian governments fear an active citizenry. They aren't scared of passive refuseniks who bleat about how "nothing works," how "they are all the same" and how they are "giving up on political parties." That's the sort of thing Thatcherites love to hear. It gives them free rein and forces the opposition to appeal more an more to the pool of active voters.

So if "They are all the same" as Brand calims, it is because people are passively enabling that evolution.

Brand qualifies his stance slightly by saying it is "current" politics and political parties he is disillusioned with.  But political parties can be reformed. We saw this, negatively, in the 90s when Blairism subverted the Labour Party, or in New Zealand in the 80s when the neo-liberals infiltrated Labour.  Or in the 2004 when ACT tried to take over the National Party.  Just because the obvious examples are negative, showing parties going the wrong way, it doesn't have to be that way.  And sitting on your hands saying, "But I don't like this, give me some parties I want to vote for," isn't going to work either.  Because if you're not in the game, why should they care what you think?

And no matter how dire, there's always ther stark reality of choosing between 'bad' and 'worse.'  Standing aside and letting others decide for you might be a superficially noble act, but it's a bit shitty, really, for all the people who aren't Russell Brand and have to live with the consequences of 'worse.

The fact is, politics and political parties can make people's lives better (or worse).  Comedians, with an amplified idea of their own importance, don't.  From the 1940s to the late 70s things were moving in the right direction.  Leftwing political parties made the country better.  Comedians told some funny jokes.  Then the crises of the 70s gave the ruling class a chance to reverse the progress made over that time, almost back to pre-WW2 days.  Comedians told some funny jokes.  Some of them were even political.  But they didn't change anything.

(As an aside, the reversals suffered in the 70 illustrate something too many on the left have failed to grasp. Progress is not made in times of crisis. The assumption that 1927, or 1977, or 2008 (love those Kondratiev long waves!) would lead to the final demise of capitalism is naive. A crisis gives the ruling class the chance to re-establish control. Progress is only made during times of plenty and relative ease, when people are able to worry about more than what they are eating for dinner tonight and whether they will have somewhere to sleep next week.  That is why the French and Russian revolutions ended so badly - they were a desperate convulsion that played into the hands of the bandits and psychopaths who wanted power for themselves, not for the powerless.)

Brand's message is a naive bit of posturing, couching basic ideas in preposterous language (He really should read Orwell, particularly 'Politics and the English Language,' or at least look at the five rules of good writing at the beginning of The King's English by the Fowler brothers.)

It appeals because it justifies people's indifference - getting involved in politics and actually making the Labour party (or, if you are That Sort Of Person, the Conservative Party) into a properly functioning, distinct political force, is hard, tiresome and not very well rewarded. We'd much rather watch TV.

Or follow him on twitter, because berating someone about his hair is so revolutionary and daring.  Well done, Russell!  That showed that unspeakable oligarch!  He'll think twice before he garners even more wealth!

Bloody Hell!

Ouch.  Turns out the Mail was right and I was wrong.  Labour were indeed 'clinging on,' holding Heywood and Middleton by only 617 votes.

But it's not all bad, as that shows how wildly inaccurate Ashcroft's polling in, and he's a Tory, so I can jeer and scoff at him a bit.

Obviously, that result looks like a massive blow for Labour.  It's actually more important in lots of ways that the far more predictable Clacton result.  Yeah, UKIP have ot an MP - but that was a given, once Carswell announced he was defecting and triggered a by election.  A UKIP win, for a popular local MP, in that part of the country, was pretty much a given.

But Labour getting bearded in their heartlands is very much against the form book.

Up until now the evidence has shown they are holding their vote and the UKIP are leeching Tory support.  But getting (almost) taken to the cleaners in Manchester is a bit of a bad look.  Especially when the preliminary polls (not just Ashcroft's to be scrupulously fair) were predicting a comfortable win for Labour.

It might not be as bad as it looks, as Labour's SHARE of the vote stayed stable - they still polled as as big a share of the vote much as they did at the general election.  The UKIP share was made up of the collapse in the Tory and Lib Dem vote.  The Conservative vote fell by almost 15 and the Liberal Democrat vote fell by almost 18% (The Liberal Democrat candidate appears to have retained his deposit, which is something of a novelty for the party, these days.)  The BNP also got 7% in 2010 - with no official racist bigot to vote for, a lot of that would likely have gone the UKIP's way.

The interesting thing is the massive tactical vote here - previously, anti-Labour support had been harmlessly divided between the Tories and Lib Democrats.  And the two parties hated each other sufficiently to ensure they would never sort out a tactical arrangement.  Power seems to have shaken loose the adherents of both parties, however, and fate has gifted them a third option in the form of the UKIP.  And having almost tasted victory tonight, they may be inclined to give it another go next year.

So Labour IS still holding onto its support.  They can be relieved about that.  But the other parties are losing theirs in such absurd numbers, and the previously fragmented Conservative / Lib Dem voters are uniting.  It could be very interesting in 2015.

The state that we're in

First, a nice song:

Listen while reading what follows.  It will help, one way or another.

One of the basic tenets of most strains of socialism is that people are the product of their environment.

This can be abstracted to the nth degree, with the materialist view of the world; or targeted specifically, where we try to tease out the socio-psychology of the individual.  The concept is the same, and fundamental to most socialists.  Circumstances create people before people create circumstances.  Otherwise, why bother about the material and economic relations of society?  If they aren't fundamental to the shaping of people, why worry?

But there's an uncomfortable shadow to that, the fact that we live in a society that has been openly, aggressively encouraging selfishness, individualism and consumerism for over three decades, in most countries of the developed world.

If we accept that people are formed by their environment, then we probably have to accept that people have been changed by the relentless narcissism and consumerism which has been the (hem) predominant discourse in western societies for the last 30 years. This is why I’m not convinced by the loud voices wailing that Labour's current woes can be alleviated by a sharp turn to the left.

People voting National are not going to suddenly vote Labour when they are offered a more left wing alternative. They’re going to be even more repelled. The most we can do, in the short term, is pry off the centre vote, and then when people realise the Sky Has Not Fallen, persuade them it will still not fall if we move a little bit further, then a little bit further.

The neo-liberals had the advantage of circumstance when they moved the country the other way in the 80s. But I think a crisis generally favours the right (and they deceived as to how far they were going to go) as witnessed by the right wing retrenchment after 2008.

Unless there is some system busting crisis (which we’ve been waiting for for over 150 years now!) Fabianism is probably the only way for the left to return to power. Bolsheviks might dream of seizing control and imposing (their version of) the dictatorship of the proletariat, and then persuading people they were right all along, but most historical examples warn against that route.

(By Bolsheviks, I meant (nearly) literally that – a small group of extremists seizing power by non-democratic means. This happened in the 80s, when the neo-liberal Bolsheviks won power through deception. Do we want to go down that road? Democracy requires winning the argument before taking power.  If we can not win compliance, coercion or deception are our only options.  I don't think they are good ones.)

It’s an argument born of practicality.  Yes, we're facing a catastrophe in the form of climate change and environmental destruction.  But the Greens get about 10% of the vote. They need another 40% before they can do anything. The planet, unfortunately, is a big place and it is hard to take in the impact of human activity.  And people – weaned on consumerism and selfishness for three decades – are more receptive to iphones than egalitarianism or environmentalism.

Hence the needs for small steps.

The missing million have sat out three elections now. It is unlikely they will be tempted back in significant numbers. They are the flip side of the neo-liberal-narcissistic-consumerists; the permanently disenfranchised and alienated.

If they couldn’t be bothered voting AGAINST John Key, what sort of inducements can we offer them that will get them to vote FOR the left? It’s a pleasant fantasy that they will roll up to the polling station in 2017, if only we offer a sufficiently leftwing program … And even if we entertain that fantasy for a few moments, what do you think will happen to centrist voters if Labour lurches left? They’ll leave, probably in greater numbers than the ‘missing million’ are being won back.

(The great thing about the ‘missing million’ delusion is that it can be recycled, of course. It’ll work just as well prior to the 2020, 2023, 2026 and 2029 elections as it does now.)

They won't vote because they don't care. It's alienation.  It's not a pleasant thing to contemplate, but it seems to me to be the reality.  If you don't like reality, you can dream about them all you like. You can devise a fabulous platform of policies. They won't listen in significant numbers. And for every one you win, you'll lose two at the other end. You might not care, too much, but you won't win. Savour your ideological purity because it is all you'll have to enjoy until 2026.

And in the mean time, another generation will have had their lives blighted by the right.

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.

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.

If we win we win, if we lose we win

Though I am Scottish, I haven't posted much (anything?) on the Scottish independence referendum because it is a) profoundly not important unless you are British, and b) the whole exercise was effectively rigged from the start, when the option of increased devolution was not included in the referendum options.

I'm possibly more inclined towards independence than the current arrangements.  But like most Scots (I suspect) I'd have preferred the option of maintaining the union but with more powers devolved to the Scottish parliament.

(It cost so much to build the damn thing, after all, that we might as well make the most of it.)

So this story, from the Guardian, is is a bit exciting:

Amid signs of panic and recrimination among unionist ranks about the prospects of a yes vote on 18 September, the Observer has learned that a devolution announcement designed to halt the nationalist bandwagon is due to be made within days by the anti-independence camp.

The plan, in the event of a no vote, is that people from all parts of Scottish society – rather than just politicians – would be invited to take part in a Scottish conference or convention that would decide on further large-scale transfers of power from London to Holyrood.

A poll by YouGov for the Sunday Times sent shockwaves through the political establishment north and south of the border as it showed the yes camp had 51% to 49% for no, excluding the don't knows. Better Together leader Alistair Darling said: "These polls can and must now serve as a wake-up call to anyone who thought the referendum was a foregone conclusion."

Obviously, it is one poll, and it is excluding a substantial number of undecided voters and only shows a knife-edge result which could go either way.  But it is still a landmark, and as the story suggests, even a defeat for the independence camp might deliver a significant victory for Alex Salmond.

I'm impressed by the democratic impact this is having.  Politicians, for the first time in recorded history, may actually be listening and accepting that opposing viewpoints can't simply be ignored forever.

The Unionists originally tried to rig the referendum by excluding the 'Enhanced devolution' option from the referendum, because they knew that would almost inevitably be the preferred choice.

Now they're so frightened by the possibility of losing - or winning marginally - the may be willing to give it away.

Michelle Boag is clueless and wrong SHOCK!

She's on my radio right now (National Radio's The Panel with Jim Mora), bemoaning our habit of getting involved in foreign problems because (I paraphrase) these people do not want democracy.  This is apropos of Libya.

What she clearly doesn't get is that most Libyans voted for the current Libyan government and the militants are the anti-democratic faction are trying - as happened in Egypt - the will of the people:

The victory, which secures Islamist control over Tripoli, was a culmination of weeks of fighting triggered by elections in July, lost by Islamist parties.  

 Rather than accept the elections result Islamist leaders in Libya accused the new parliament of being dominated by supporters of the former dictator Muammar Gaddafi, and have sought to restore the old national congress.

Here

Clear?  The majority voted for sanity.  The losers resisted and went for the gun.  A little bit more bloodily and nastily than the Egyptian coupists, but essentially the same process.

So we aren't talking about countries wich are not ready for democracy but countries where democracy is dearly wanted, and - because it is craved by so many - ferociously resisted by those who see their power and privilege threatened by it.

Boag should keep her witless thoughts inside her head where they can do no harm to others.  But given her links to the anti-democratic National Party - where gross violations of democratic norms are blandly ignored by the smirking public face of rampant capitalism - we shouldn't be too surprised by her disparaging attitude to democracy.  As far as her ilk are concerned, the people of New Zealand aren't ready for it either.  The should be lied to, bullied and harangued into making the 'correct' decision, and whatever happens in pursuit of that end is okay.

Labour Green coalition: more venting + general spleen aimed at the Labour caucus

Another round of atrocious polling for Labour, and another round of desperate, "If we add Labour, the Greens, Mana and NZ First together, we only need a swing of about 4% to FORM THE NEXT GOVERNMENT!!"

It used to be just,  "If we add Labour, the Greens, Mana and NZ First together, we can FORM THE NEXT GOVERNMENT!!"  Indeed, I can recall the days when it seemed possible that it might just be Labour and the Greens needed.

And there were times before that when Labour used to be the largest party in Parliament, I tell you!!

But the drift away from the left has been going on for so long it can not be ignored.  And the more coalitions and esoteric combinations get talked up, the more the support for the left bloc declines, and the more wildly fanciful the proposed ways the left can win power get.

(The idea of actually getting out there with  whole bunch of sane, practical policies that people like, expressed clearly by people who really seem to care and who want to make the country better, seems to elude many.)

This has been going on so long now that it takes a few moments to remember that Labour And The Greens is not actually a political party, but to radically different political parties and there is no certainty the the will form a coalition, even if it is just  monogamous couple, and even less certainty if what is proposed is a polygamous monstrosity featuring Labour, the Greens, IMP and NZ First.  And Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all.  I'm sure t some stage, the Maori Party will be included, and people will suddenly remember that Peter Dunne worked well with Helen Clarke ... It seems there is no limit to the optimism of the left when faced with the direness of the polling numbers.

(The other response is t proclaim the polls are incorrect, not just wrong, but deliberately so and are being produced in order to make National's victory more likely.  I kid you not.)

But let us, for the moment, focus just on the idea of a Green / Labour tie up, as it seems to be the most likely least unlikely way of Labour achieving some sort of victory in September.

It is a possibility, but by no means a certainty.

Lumping the two parties together as if they were one is to make the classic mistake of assuming that the Greens have to go with Labour. They don't. Labour haven’t exactly made it easy for them. Their policies aren’t exactly going to set green hearts racing, and they will not be too willing to make concessions, as they don’t want to be portrayed as ‘beholden to the radical eco-Nazis.’

The Greens might well decide against a coalition with Labour. The voters clearly don’t like it – he more it gets talked about, the smaller both parties’ support gets! Faced with putting an unwieldy coalition of three or four antagonistic parties into government (and getting the opprobrium that would go with it) and ‘constructive opposition’ to a minority National government, they might be better off going with the latter.

Labour have treated the Greens badly over the course of several elections. they might think it is time for a bit of utu.

The Greens want to preserve the Green party.  A short term alliance with a deeply unpopular Labour party and two or three other antagonistic parties is likely to produce a dreadful government that will struggle to achieve anything and will be deeply loathed.  The Lib Dems in Britain have suffered dreadfully for putting in the Conservatives; the Greens would become even more loathed than that if they put in a Labour Party that was polling 25%.

Bear in mind that both parties have seen declining support in recent polls.  The more the Lab-Green coalition gets talked up, the less inclined people are to vote for them.  Labour supporters who want a strong government, left or right, and who reject the flakey kooky enviro-whacky Greens (and there are som of those out there) looking to National, on the (dubious and short sighted) reasoning that they've been in charge for six years, the country hasn't fallen to pieces and at least they are getting things done without having to be beholden to crackpot fringe groups; and Green voters are perhaps feeling disappointed that their party is being treated as a de facto extension of Labour, rather than a distinct entity representing their interests.  After all, there must be reasons why they are voting Green rather than Labour in the first place, and if they feel these needs are not being met an more ...

With all this in mind, the Greens might prefer to hang back and wait until the situation changes and they can form a less demented, two party coalition; or until they actually replace Labour as the main opposition party.  Which no longer seems as fanciful as it once did.

Given that Labour's policies are not massively more pro-environment that National's, the Greens might feel they were not worth supporting -  a harsh lesson to Labour on the reality of the disparate nature of the left these days, and the need to be more accommodating to left wing partners.

After all, Labour have consistently treated the Greens shabbily, and there is no reason for the Greens to think that will change now.  Not just utu, but survival instinct may prompt the Greens to frown, purse their lips and say, "Thanks ... but no thanks" when Labour offers them a chance of a quick grope and snog.

Bottom line is, Labour can not and should not be counting on the Greens to get them across the line.  It's a measure of how shamefully useless they are that this is the case.  A substantial portion of National's vote is soft, made up of centrists who might instinctively vote for Labour, but who have been come inured to National because, bluntly, Labour are not offering them anything worth voting for -  a tired, scheming caucus, out of touch leadership, a vague and muddled policy program.  And this at a time when National have been blessed with the most formidable political operator in New Zealand's recent history, and a caucus scarily intent on winning and holding power.

It's almost as if Labour have decided to sit this one out.  Not Cunliffe - he knows he's only got one shot - but too many of the old crew are sitting back and happy enough to draw their salaries.  And too many of the 'new blood' are reluctant to be associated with what looks like a doomed campaign.  Might be  career limiting move, you know.

Idiots and scum the lot of them.

But, really, why would you?

There is a post over on The Standard by 'Blue,' calling on people to get out and vote National out on the 20th of September.  Though not explicitly couched as a call for people to vote for Labour, it effectively is.  I doubt Blue would be too cheered by the idea of the missing million showing up and casting their vote for John Key.  So it is calling for people to vote for a Labour lead government.  I massively support the goal, but find the substance of the message dis-spiriting.

The poster blames pretty much everything for Labour's malaise and voter's lack on interest, from the police to "a triple whammy of dodgy polls, Government-manufactured ‘scandal’ and hysterical opinion pieces."

But I think that is all missing the point. Part of the problem is (unintentionally) summarised in the title of the post - people might be inclined to vote National out, but they sure as Hell can't think why they might want to vote Labour in.

They might not trust John Key any more, but they sure as Hell don't trust Cunliffe. They might not like where New Zealand is going, but Labours alternative is not winning much support. It isn't registering. It isn't making people's ears prick up and think, "Yeah, we need some of that!"

As for the 'dodgy polls,' spare us the excuses. If Labour are tanking in the polls it is because the electorate Just Don't Want To Vote For Them. It might not be as dire as 23%, but it certainly isn't much better. Labour have managed to move backwards from the glory days of David Shearer. No policy, no unity, no leadership, no vision, no message, just a weak bunch of time serving vacillators who are thinking they'll be back no matter what, so why bother trying?

New Zealanders are still voting for John Key because they think he is better than the alternative. That's a bitter truth but one the Labour party will need to face up to.

Until Labour can actually put together a coherent series of arresting, exciting policies that stand up to scrutiny and don't sound intimidating or confusing ("They're going to force me into Kiwisaver? Then put up the rate?") they haven't a hope. And they won't d that until about half the MPs in caucus have been ejected and replaced by real people, not political professionals and nonentities. And that's only the first step.

It's pathetic that two defeats and another in the offing have not percolated through to the senile brain of Labour. It isn't working, to borrow from Saatchi & Saatchi. It might be unfixable. We might be looking at a new, post-Labour left. Which is a shame, as it will take a couple of electoral cycles at least for that to work itself out. And that means another couple of years of Key and then a term and a bit of Bill, at least.

Maybe Labour really needs to be hammered in September. National experienced that in 2002. Maybe Cunliffe will be Labour's Bill English, who failed because he couldn't win the support and trust of the radical right fringe of his party. It was brutal, and it nearly ushered in the now unthinkable idea of Don Brash as Prime Minister. But it lead to the formation of a new, disciplined, focused and united party, Hell bent on winning power. Unfortunately.

Perhaps Labour needs that sort of near-death experience, so it finds the will to re-invent itself. Or maybe it just needs to be put out of our misery.

Even if Labour manages some sort of victory in September, it will be nothing to celebrate about. The party of the working class, the party that is supposed to champion the 99% of New Zealanders who aren't stinking rich and who don't own gold speedboats, polling 30% and jobbed into power by the Greens and Winston Peters?

It's an indictment of the uselessness of the Labour Party that it has come to this.

Euro elections

I predict:

CON 22%
LAB 30%
LDEM 10%,
UKIP 30%
GRN 5%
BNP 3%

... or something like that.

The UKIP will hail the result - whatever it is - as a 'massive break through,' a 'transformational' moment in British politics and so on.  They will, briefly, enjoy an increase in support for Westminster, topping 20% consistently until support starts to fade away again as people become tired of Farage and the media obsession with him.  They will poll about 12% in the 2015 election and get one vanity seat with Farage if they are lucky.

Labour will claim victory as they thoroughly beat the Tories, heroically ignoring the fact a solid 50% of the population voted for insane right-wing parties, not for them.  Even if the people voting Tory and UKIP aren't baked in mad-people, that makes it worse in some ways - they are so unenthused by Labour they vote for the Tories and UKIP regardless of how they know it is an insane, disgusting thing to do.

The Lib Dems will claim they have 'steadied the ship' and 'turned the tide' in a revolting display of metaphor mixing.  They may well have done; but the ship is no longer the sleek Destroyer they had in the last election; it is a leaky little life boat, and the huddled survivors on board are eyeing each other up, wondering when they'll have to resort to cannibalism.

The Tories will bleat about how they are doing really well, all things considered, and it is quite normal for a governing party to be deeply unpopular in mid term, trying to hide the fact it isn't really mid term any more and even if it was, any party taking over from the PR disaster of Brown's Labour government should have enjoyed a gold plated honeymoon lasting until about 2050.

On the left

The strength of the left has been its ability to tear itself to pieces more effectively than the right could ever do.  This is seen all across the world, not just in New Zealand.  I think acceptance of sometimes quite divergent opinion within a unified party is what we need to sort out before we can hope to take the fight to the right.  In Britain in the 80s, Thatcherism triumphed because the left was split between Labour and the SDP.  Because it was a FPTP system, Thatcher was able to win massive majorities on a declining share of the vote.

Obviously, things are a bit better under MMP, but I disagree with the suggestion that the fragmented nature of the left is not really a problem.  If nothing else, it makes welding a coalition together more fraught; it also creates the problem of ideological dilution - there are some elements (and voters) of NZ First that are natural left territory, but the party itself is tainted with right wing madness and special interest pleading as to make it toxic; and there is the issue of perception - even if the dog is not being wagged by multiple tails - that the minor parties are getting undue influence and issue of stability will always be a factor for some voters; and the risk of unwise connections, as exampled by the recent dalliance of Mana and the Internet Party.

So I feel very disappointed when I see people continuing to rave about the supposed malign influence of Mallard-Goff-King, because a) I don't actually believe it, b) these are some of our most effective and recognisable performers, and c) it shows we still haven't learned the lesson and learned to accept the idea that people will have somewhat different ideas of what it means to be Labour, or the best ways to achieve leftwing goals.

This isn't to say the fault is the minor parties on the left; Mana is looking to Dotcom because it has been systematically excluded by Labour. and the Greens were blocked from coalition throughout the Clark years.  To win, Labour needs to accept all strains of reasonable and sane leftism, and all strains of reasonable and sane leftism should be looking to form links with the larger party.  Perhaps formal unification is impossible - but more co-operation and development of joint policy is essential.  This means Middle New Zealand has to accept that Mana and the Greens are not swivel eyed eco-warriors and racial agitators; and the left needs to accept that Middle New Zealand is also part of Labour.

False flag?

There has been much heat, and very little light, resulting from John Key's casual suggestion it might be time for New Zealand to get a new flag.

While most political parties nodded in agreement with key, the suggestion prompted a sadly predictable response in the leftish bloglands, with comment-mongers on The Standard decrying it as a clumsy attempt to distract people from Nationals apparent electoral woes (though it's rich for a party Labouring (pun intentional) at 33% to be pointing out anyone else's polling problems).

But I think the frothing is misplaced.  Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.  And sometimes a politician wondering about whether we should have a look at changing the flag is just that.

I honestly can't see how this could be a diversionary tactic.  I credit John Key with more intelligence than that.  After all, he's wiped the floor with us twice now.  Or are you suggesting that's so easy even an idiot who thinks the public will be completely befuddled by a ploy so obvious can do that?

I think Key has been so effective in colonising the middle ground (and some on the left so quick to abandon it in favour of a small-but-ideologically-pure corner of the debate) that he has driven many on the left quite mad.  Everything has to be part of a Grand Conspiracy (possibly featuring a Needlessly Large Weather Machine and a Secret Base inside an underwater volcano).  Which tells you a lot about how desperate he has made us.  Every action and utterance by John Key is analysed and deconstructed to find the true motive, the real dark seedy manipulative purpose because, you know, it is impossible Key might just genuinely be wondering about whether we should have a look at changing the flag.  It's got to be something else.  There has to be an ulterior motive!  And we have to be the first to spot it or at least the ones braying most loudly about it.

If Key had a motive beyond just wondering about whether we should have a look at changing the flag, I suspect it probably would be causing mischief on the left.  Because - like it or not - he's got our number.  And the paranoid ramblings and aghast wailing emanating from the blogatariat prove it.  An casual comment from Key, and the left is veritably turning itself inside out in an effort to show how caddish - and yet stupid - Key is, lobbing this debate into the middle of an election year.  An so a lot of time and energy is wasted in Exposing John Key's True Motive in wondering whether we should have a look at changing the flag.

A less demoralised and desperate left would have said, "Yeah, we've been saying that for years, welcome to the party, John."  After all, mos of us would probably support replacing the flag , or at least talking about it.  Gnashing our teeth at how duplicitous Key is just makes us look sad and hopeless.

In this case, I think he genuinely believes it is a debate worth having; and election year would be the obvious time to do it, as you'll get a better response than with a stand-alone referendum.  As most of us would largely agree with the end, and the means, I don't really see what all the fuss is about.

Peter Oborne

... is fantastic. I've always said so. Repeatedly. You all remember me saying so, don't you? Top bloke. Wonderful. Even more wonderful than Vince "Wrong Sort Of Recovery" Cable.  And writing this sort of stuff in The Telegraph, would you believe?  Don't be surprised if we are told Mr Oborne has taken 'Stress Leave,' with immediate effect.

As someone who voted Conservative at the last election, I therefore found it profoundly shaming and offensive when George Osborne lowered the top rate of tax from 50p to 45p two years ago. 

The Coalition government has devoted a great deal of effort to lowering the living standards of the poor. I support this project because I believe that Gordon Brown’s welfare state forced some people into a life of dependency, thus taking away their human dignity. 

There have been many people on welfare who need much more of an incentive to return to work. But to make the rich richer at the same time as making the poor poorer – what George Osborne has been doing – is simply squalid, immoral and disgusting. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is leading the fight inside the cabinet to strip a further £10 billion of welfare payments for the very poorest. Any decent human being must surely feel sick in the stomach that he is taking this action at the same time as cutting the amount of tax paid by people earning more than £150,000. 

... 

A Conservative Party with decent values should not reward these people. It should support hard-working, honest people. If the Chancellor understood this point, he would have taken middle earners out of the top rate of tax, not given a bonus to people who are already affluent. 

So well done Ed Balls, who has had a hard time lately. He has given ordinary, decent people a serious reason for voting Labour at the coming election.

Pistol Pete should say more of this sort of thing. If he learns the correct method of addressing Osborne - his name should always be prefaced with "that revolting, loathsome and repulsive imbecile" or similar - I may make him an honorary leftie.

Seriously, there is a difference between a Conservative, and the sort of neo-liberal Friedmanite loons who have colonised the right-wing parties since the 1980s.  People who think like Oborne - who are conservative for essentially moral reasons, rather than (how can I say this politely?) economic imperatives - need to make themselves more.  I won't agree with them on everything much but at least a conservative and a democratic socialist are approaching problems from the same direction.  If the British Conservatives could expunge the Freidmanite Supply Side Maniacs (tm) it would bring the Conservative Party back into alignment with the people that actually vote for it.

After all, Labour had to go through a similar process in the late 70s and 80s, to produce the attenuated, somewhat rightwing social-capitalist party of the 90s.  And at least the prospect of a Conservative government would fill all right thinking people with horror.

Of course, the Freidmanites would resist it, utterly, and Oborne will probably catch a lot of flack from their shills in the press.  Supply-siders are parasitic - economically and politically.  Their creed repels 99% of the population - look at ACT's polling for proof of this.  They can not survive on their own, so they have to inhabit the larger body of a moderately right-wing, conservative party.  In doing so, they sap its vitality and sicken it, or - and here the metaphor may be slightly stretched, if one is not familiar with Gonchongs - possess it and supplant its personality utterly, turning it into a hideous facsimile of a Conservative party, mouthing conservative shibboleths to please the increasingly perplexed and embittered voters, and scapegoating the weak and marginalised to redirect that frustration away from where it belongs.  This is particularly true of Britain, where First Past the Post forces fringe pursuits like neo-liberalism to inveigle itself into larger, more moderate parties.  Even in New Zealand, however, where MMP theoretically allows the rightwing economic 'purists' to survive in their own party, the truth is they have to infiltrate National, as described in The Hollow Men, if they are to get their hand decisively on the levers of power.

It is time for New Zealand's own Obornes to speak up and reject the swivel eyed advocates of Freidmanite madness, who still exert a toxic influence on the National Party.

Nefarious Machinations of the Nightbeasts claims already in

A rather cryptic title for a short thread observing that, over on The Standard, Fanatics 4 Cunliffe have already started muttering about how the leadership is going to be handed to Robertson, or Jones, or - all together now - Anyone But Cunliffe through some devious plotting by the 'old guard' in caucus.

Good grief. So if Cunliffe loses after an open contest where votes are divived between caucus, the membership and the unions, some people will STILL not be happy with the result?

I think he will win – though a bit less certain since Robertson seems to be quite hungry – and I want him to win. But I can’t believe we can already see the factionalist refusniks already starting their wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Obviously, for some, it seems the only fair 'election' would be the coronation of David Cunliffe.

Egypt

So, Egypt's short lived experiment with democracy appears to be over. Oh, I know, the army are saying they will be handling power back soon. Just like in Fiji.

I don't particularly like the Muslim Brotherhood being in power but they were democratically elected; collapsing democracy is a bigger problem than allowing some moderate Islamists the opportunity to disillusion their support base.

Revolution was necessary to get rid of Mubarak, but not so with the Muslim Brotherhood. A second revolution will probably condemn Egypt to either civil war or dictatorship - following the pattern of Russia in 1917. If you don't like the results of a democratic election, the solution is not to start a rampage to collapse the elected government.

It would have been be nice if the Egyptians had chucked out Mubarak and immediately started debates about the relative merits of Single transferable Vote as opposed to Mixed Member Proportional representation; but that was not exactly a realistic prospect. It was always going to be a bumpy road; the important thing is that the Egyptians stayed on it.

Morsi was always going to be divisive as almost as many people voted against him as voted for him. He lost the enthusiasm of some of those who supported him, but I don't think this could really be described as a 'popular' uprising.  Yeah, a lot of people are running about in the streets setting things on fire and scrapping - that's what you do when you are young and have no job and no hope of getting one.

Because the fundamental problem isn't Morsi's mildly silly Islamism.  People don't over throw their governments because they want to close all shops at 10pm.  They tell them to stop being silly.  Morsi's government fell for the same reason Mubarak fell - not enough jobs and high food prices.  And this will be the reason the next democratically elected government - if there is one in the near future - will be welcomed, become loathed and finally fall.  The example of China suggests a lot of people will put up with a lot in exchange for work, food, and a degree of security in exchange for following the rules.  Democracy is trumped by hunger.

One of two things will probably happen now, neither of them good. Either the military will keep power, while mouthing an intention to return to democracy when the 'national emergency' is over, which will always be '12-18 months from now'; or they will cede control back to an interim government, which will also rapidly become hated and unpopular, and the cycle will repeat.

And even if a stable government is established, the precedent has been set for military intervention at the whim of the generals. Not a good omen.

Yes, I know, that was one of three things. No-one expects the Spanish Inquisition, and all that.

So we've had a coup followed by mass arrests of the leaders of the democratically elected (until ver recently) governing party. Not looking too good, is it? Even if the army does cede power back to civilians, they appear to be setting things up so that the Muslim Brotherhood is too weak or intimidated to contest power again.

In Britain, the Tories are consistently behind in the polls. Will the British army heed The Will Of The People and oust these power crazed scum?

Jonathan Freedland makes a (for him surprisingly) good point in the Guardian. The impact of this coup may be more than just the stunting of Egyptian democracy, but a wider disillusionment with democracy among Muslims in the region. They tried, they won, they were run out of town:

To remove an elected president, to arrest a movement's leaders and silence its radio and TV stations, is to send a loud message to them and to Islamists everywhere. It says: you have no place in the political system. It says: there is no point trying to forge a version of political Islam compatible with democracy, because democracy will not be available to you.

Why bother trying if you are going to be overthrown when you try to actually use the power that was fairly won? I think this is important because democracy requires compromise. The Islamists just booted out in Egypt would - if they had been allowed to continue to participate - have discovered the necessity of diluting their plans, building consensus and accepting there are just some things that they can not do because the people will not wear it. Instead, they've been taught a blunt lesson on How To Do It - get the mob out, get the Men With Guns out, then you can do whatever you like. The next incarnation of Islamism in Egypt will be far harsher, and far less concerned with gaining power from the ballot box.