Don't like the government? Blame the National Party

For the second time in over 20 years of MMP, the left has got, pretty much, what it wanted in a government.  This time, a Labour Party led by a complete neophyte (Jacinda has never sat in Cabinet, never been a junior Minister), with a caucus inhabited by unionists and ex.public servants, with the Greens (led by an ex. Marxist student activist - yes I remember him at university) and Winston the country's leading political whore-monger (look how he , will lead a leftwing government.

This government is already opposed to capitalism (although mind-numbingly can't work out what system means New Zealanders produces goods and services that get exported or sells services to tourists to pay their way in the world).  It is keen on identity politics and not only believes that climate change is damaging New Zealand, but that New Zealand reducing its emissions will make a difference to it.  This is pure scientific nonsense, but there's more.  This government believes that child poverty can be solved by giving people more of other peoples money for having children they can't afford to raise, and that it is not up to people to be responsible parents.  This government doesn't even realise that the biggest problems it campaigned on in the election, such as housing, healthcare, education, river pollution and welfare, are almost nothing to do with capitalism, but rather government intervention.

The problem with housing is primarily due to local government, applying the Resource Management Act, to constrain the supply of housing, in part to meet the new urbanist ideological objectives of densification that is the dominant philosophy of urban planning departments in major cities (not just in New Zealand, but also Australia and the US cities with the most expensive housing).  

The problem with healthcare is that there is little relationship between what consumers want and what they are able or willing to pay for, as politicians, not the market, drive the supply of healthcare.

The problem with education is that it is centrally driven and only recently has been opened up to additional competition, so that it can be innovative and meet the diverse needs of students and parents.  The new government is completely beholden to the producer interests of the suppliers of health and education, who in education in particular, are completely uninterested in being rewarded on performance.

The river pollution problem is a failure to apply private property rights, which could be applied to adjoining land owners including Iwi, to provide a framework to control water quality based on the self interest of multiple private owners of the rivers.  However, this government wants to kneecap one of the country's leading industries, even wanting a debate about "how many cows" there should be.  Why would anyone think they would know how many cows there should be, when they don't know how many of anything there should be, when it should be a matter of supply and demand?

The child poverty problem is a failure of the welfare state, which has never been so generous to people who want to have children, but can't afford to pay for them.  It is also the failure of policies that inflate the cost of living, primarily for housing (see above), but also the regular increases in GST, fuel tax and tinkering with the energy market (albeit not on the disastrous scale seen in Australia and the UK).  

Yet what real difference will be made?  Nine years of National saw little done in any of these areas, housing belatedly had some movement recently, charter schools were a start that was far too little too late, and National just fed the middle class welfare addiction that Helen Clark started.

This government wont do much different from National (yes you'll see uneconomic railway and tram line built instead of motorways), the difference is this lot actually believe in what they are doing.

You see the National Party has been a very poor promoter of the free market, private enterprise and individual freedom.

After leading a courageous government that started tackling welfarism and waste in government, Jim Bolger lost all sense of courage to do what is right and for no sound political reason whatsoever held a referendum on electoral reform that would obviously make it more difficult for one party government (and certainly was being backed by the left because they thought MMP would give them more power, and they were right).  He then led a chaotic government for two years with Winston Peters, before resigning and the final year limping on with Jenny Shipley.  Jim Bolger, remember, cut his teeth in being a Minister under Rob Muldoon, the most economically socialist government to date.

John Key got elected on a platform opposing the high tax, big government philosophy of Helen Clark and spent more, and how much really changed?  Was the welfare state reduced?  No.  Did the state's role in education get scaled back? Hardly.  Was the planning system liberalised?  Only for the government building roads.  Did corporate welfare get scaled back?  No, the opposite.  Yes there was some partial privatisation, but the fundamental causes of the housing crisis were barely touched.   John Key with Rodney Hide's help implemented Labour's local government policy on Auckland, creating a behemoth of a bureaucracy, with more employees than the councils it replaced, spending more.  Of course National also funded the multi-billion dollar underground rail fetish in downtown Auckland, which will never make a single dollar of operating surplus to pay for it.

What New Zealand now has is a government that believes in something, most of it is at best misguided, at worst destructive and ignorant, but it IS driven by philosophy.  A philosophy of "we know best" of "problems are best fixed by throwing money at them" of "climate change can be changed by whatever we do, and if you question it you're evil" of "a person should be judged by their identity group/s and intersectionality of them, not what they actually do, experience or think" of "you are a means to an end".

National only offered a diluted version of this, a half hearted "it's all going well" belief that "we're entitled to rule".  It didn't offer anything different, anything new and never challenged all of the assertions on poverty and the environment spouted by the left.

So while Bill English might say he is leading a "strong opposition", what is he actually opposed to?

The new government is just National with the courage of the philosophical convictions in implementing essentially the same policies, on steroids.

Do you really think National would reverse anything Labour is about to do?

NZ election result: winners, losers

First the biggest loser:  

You, that's assuming you're not seeking to extract other people's money from the state.  

You, if you believe that freedom of speech matters, and that there shouldn't be a Harmful Digital Communications Act.

You, if you believe that you own your body and shouldn't be criminalised for what you put in it.

You, if you believe that government should stick to justice, law and order and defence, and should not be involved in the delivery of health and education, that it should not seek to be parent to everyone and should not respond to all of the calls to impose "social justice" (a euphemism for "take money from people we don't like and give it to people we do").

The news from overseas sources makes New Zealand seem like it still basks in the age of the reforms of Roger Douglas and Ruth Richardson.  However, that's only because if you look at subsidies, protectionism and regulatory rent-seeking, NZ looks better than Australia and the US.  If you look at taxation, NZ is much simpler than most economies.  Yet, that relative position doesn't make NZ a free-market haven, and certainly not on personal freedoms.  

So what about the parties?

National, optimistic but too soon to tell will think it won, and to be fair Bill English did shake off his reputation as the biggest loser as a party leader in generations.  He did it by being evasive, by focusing attention on his rival's spending plans, even though his own plans are not fundamentally different.  It is on form, as a party that doesn't really reform anything.  Riding on the back of an economy that gains from the reforms of the 80s and 90s, on high commodity food prices and the spending power of new migrants, its approach to most issues is not to change much.   At best it does seek to cut taxes, but at worst it rolls back virtually nothing Labour does.  The middle class welfare package instituted by the previous Labour Government was kept.  Yet, in an MMP environment the Nats did successfully frighten people into turning out and voting for it.  It deterred ACT supporters from voting ACT (and indeed some NZF supporters too).  Being in a position to get a fourth term is an achievement historically, but you have to ask for what?  Does National exist primarily to stop Labour et al from doing stuff?  The number of National supporters keen on governing with the Greens tells you exactly that.  Principles don't matter, the role of the state doesn't matter, nor is there interest in pushing back against a culture of dependency and statism.  National exists to stop Labour, this time we'll see if it worked.

Labour disappointed but too soon to tell  thinks it has won, because it could conceivably lead government with the Greens and Winston Peters.  Yet it did so mainly by consolidating the vote on the left.  It decimated the Maori Party strategically, it presented a leftwing manifesto and took the Greens back to its core.  Yet the widespread "Jacinda-mania" star status proved to be for little effect.  Few National voters were convinced that a young woman who has never had a job in the private sector, and has never even been a Cabinet Minister could be Prime Minister.  Labour did win the media narrative (along with the Greens) about relative child poverty and river pollution, all without much scrutiny about the statistics (or the causes or better yet, the solutions).  It has a chance at power, but has a long way to go to attract votes from groups other than public servants, beneficiaries, students,  Maori and Pacific Island voters and unionised workers.  It hasn't broken through in most regional towns and cities, nor significant parts of Auckland.  Yes Jacinda has almost done it, but if she does become PM, she'll be getting wagged by the tail of James Shaw and Winston Peters, and that is NOT a winning position to be in.  

Winston Peters won (I mean really, he runs it, it is his) lost seats, but is the master of political positioning.   Seriously, he has won, whilst Bill and Jacinda slut around him for the next few weeks.

 He puts himself in the centre, whilst being a populist who embraces the left (more money for pensioners and opposition to privatisation) and the right (sceptical about immigration, sceptical about higher taxes and opposition to identity politics by race if not nationality).   He leads the only truly fungible MMP party, in that he could support either main party and no longer would he really upset his base of supporters (like he did in 1996, but only because he broke up from the Nats to oppose them, and misjudged that his supporters cared about policy - when they are largely driven by gut emotion).  He'll get a good job and do little with it, he'll give a bunch of ne'er do wells (most of whom couldn't hope to get a job as "highly paid" as an MP) employment, and he'll one or two totemic legacies.  One might be the economically ridiculous idea of relocating the Ports of Auckland to Marsden Point, better would be a referendum on the Maori seats.   Winston won and why are you surprised?  He knows MMP better than anyone else, and no other politician is willing or able to replicate him.

Greens never really lose and were hit fairly hard, not least because it showed itself to be the party of welfare cheats.  Jacinda-mania attracted the airheads back to Labour, but it showed itself to still be a ginger-group of hard-left finger-waggers whose main instincts are to tell people off, tax what they don't like, subsidise what they like and virtue signal.  The good news for the Greens is that they still get an easy ride on most of their policy positions, particularly the constant false claims that "action on climate change" will save lives, the war on fossil fuels and their obsession with identity politics.  The media still loves them, even given the Metiria scandal (which actually exposed their fundamental belief that everyone owes everyone else a living).  Yes the Green Party has never actually been in a coalition, but it is very very influential and relies on new cohorts of optimistic state worshippers being recruited year on year.  

ACT lost badly in part due to the Nats successfully scaring voters on the right to voting National, but also because David Seymour moved too far away from having a coherent position on issues.  He was seen as backing National, but whether it was too hard for him to get traction on multiple issues or he lacked ground support to campaign, the only policy that got a lot of publicity was in increasing teacher pay.  ACT once had a coherent less government, lower tax position that promoted more competition in public services, was tough on law and order and rejected identity politics.  Yet Seymour couldn't break through with such a message.  The brand is mixed, he made statements about abortion which would alienate some, but he tried hard.  ACT needs to work out who it is targeting and what message it is giving.   There is a gap on the right, one that will open up large when a certain Maori ex. National MP finally retires.  ACT can't fill much of that gap, but it sure can grab some of it.

Maori Party is nearly finished as Labour branded it as National's patsies, which was unfair.  Maori are smarter than identity politics warriors fighting "colonialism" as Marama Fox implied. It will probably remain for some time, but looks like it is slipping back to be another Mana Motuhake.  It would have a chance if Labour gets power,  with the Greens, as it could position itself as the Opposition for Maori again.  However,  its real future is threatened by a referendum on the Maori seats, which if it includes Maori who choose to be on the general roll, could completely render the Maori Party obsolete.  

TOP did well for being led by a vulgarian.  For all of the rhetoric, TOP had policies based on a philosophical position, not simply "evidence led".  The philosophy was to penalise asset ownership as a solution to a market failure, rather than address the supply side element.  Everything else it stood for was a redistributionist/environmentalist agenda that competed with the Greens and Labour.  Gareth Morgan got the party attention, but also turned off many.  He topped it off by blaming voters for being selfish and stupid.  What more is there to say?

United Future has no future

The youth didn't turn out in the magical numbers to vote for the left, and if they did turn out they were not a single bloc (who is?).  After all the left is the mainstream.  Besides housing (which has become a problem because of the enviro-left approach to planning, through the RMA and the application of new urbanism to city boundaries in Auckland and Wellington), the narrative about child poverty was from the left (Beth Houlbrooke from ACT was hounded down when she suggested people on low incomes should not have children they expect taxpayers to pay for), the narrative around the environment was partially a banal question around "should there be fewer dairy cows" (the sort of nonsense seen in adolescent level policy debate).

What now?

Winston will make his choice, either Bill English will get to have three years of do little, conservative (literally) government.  Otherwise Jacinda Ardern will suddenly find she has gone from MP to PM without even having sat in on a Cabinet meeting, with Winston wagging her dog and the Greens on the sidelines providing confidence and supply.  I am uncomfortable with the latter, primarily because culturally the bent of Jacinda will be to support more identity politics based on race and sex, less freedom of speech and fewer private property rights.  Not that the Nats are practically better, but Labour and the Greens actually believe in state power and collectivising people over individual rights and individual responsibility.

ACT needs to refocus

For those who think government does too much, who think individuals alone or with others should have more power and responsibility to find solutions to the problems of today, there is little to offer.   The best hope might be for ACT to be in Opposition, regardless.  To campaign more clearly on principles, which should be around private property rights, everyone being equal under the law (including the abolition of Maori-only political representation), opening up education to choice and diversity, tackling the culture of welfare dependency, opposing state subsidies for business, more taxation and more state ownership.  ACT should firmly come down on limiting the scope and powers   of local government, on ridding central government of wasteful politically-correct bureaucracies and taking on identity politics.   Yes it should support other parties when it comes to victimless crimes, but there should not be a unified view on abortion.  It should be tough on real crime, tough on parental responsibility, but also take on measures that governments have done that increase the cost of living.  This includes the constraining of housing supply, and immigration policies that mean new migrants utilise the capital of taxpayer funded infrastructure, without actually paying for it.

What Winston does as his possible swan song is of minor interest, what matters is there being a party that stands up for something different.  For now, only ACT can do that.

New Zealand electoral system referendum 2011

I have to admit I have had some difficulties deciding what to do about this one. This will be my second electoral referendum this year, having voted for the UK electoral referendum, which was a straight choice between FPP and a form of PV (FPP won overwhelmingly).

In the 1992 referendum I voted for no change, but also voted for the Preferential Voting system for change. Why? Well having experienced eight solid years of reformist free market governments, I was pretty happy with first past the post. I also saw the minor parties that were heaving in the polls being what they were. A xenophobic personality cult called NZ First and a lying mass of Marxist reality evaders called the Alliance. I also saw the Christian Heritage Party as the only other one sitting on the sidelines and wanted to avoid Graham Capill like (well you fill the gap). FPP looked like it delivered strong stable government, and MMP was backed by everyone who opposed less government, by those who opposed reforms largely now taken for granted. Preferential Voting was the “least worse” option, and after all it could be argued that a representative electoral system ought to have every MP gaining at least 50% of the vote. 

Much has happened since then, but I am hoping that simply writing this post will clarify my own thinking, as I have not yet decided how to vote. Given I studied electoral systems as part of one of my degrees, I think I have a fair background on all of the options, so here goes. 

The first point to remember is that electoral systems are about counting heads, not what is in them. Some people, across the political spectrum, laud democracy as something rather special, when it is, as Winston Churchill once said, the worst form of government ever devised – except for all of the others ever tried over history. The reason for that should be obvious. There is nothing inherently good, right, whether pragmatically or morally, about what the “majority think”. After all, if you accept that the bulk of the population has average intelligence and abilities, then the majority involves pandering to average people. Indeed, it also means that the most successful, able and intelligent (not always the same) are valued as much as the least successful, able and most dim-witted. It doesn’t take too much to figure out that untrammelled democracy can mean the majority vote to oppress the minority and take from them. 

A simple view is it is like three wolves and a sheep voting for what they’ll have for dinner, but if you look at most politicians, most of what they promise during elections is to take from someone to give to another, although they are usually astute enough to focus on the giving, and ignore the taking. If governments can just spent and borrow and pass the bill to the next lot, then inevitably someone will have to make tough decisions. Greece and Italy are examples today of democracy failing, because people voted for politicians who gave them what was unaffordable. Now they don’t want to vote for politicians to make them face reality. Democracy isn’t good at getting politicians to make difficult decisions, or rather decisions that involve not giving people bribes. Mencken said elections are an advance auction of stolen goods. He was right. Imagine if Churchill had asked the British public if they were willing to go to war against Germany. 

So I take a dim view of democracy anyway, in part because I know my opinion has a higher value than anyone else’s. If you don’t think the same way about yours, then you’re probably right as well. I simply don’t accept that my opinion can be reduced to it being counted the same as some half-brain dead nitwit who votes for John Key because “he’s pretty cool”, or who votes for Winston Peters because “she doesn’t like the Asianisation of the country”.

However, democracy DOES have a useful role – which is to remove governments. It is a limit on government because ultimately it offers one control on what governments do, by giving voters the chance to boot them out. In fact, if you look at recent elections, it is clear that 1999, 1990 and 1984 elections were exactly about that. Politicians and activists about electoral systems are almost always driven by their partisan views. The left love MMP because of the success of the Greens and the various Maori parties, the right don’t because it has seen the likes of NZ First emerge, and because ACT has done badly (and the conservative right has failed miserably too). So ignore them all, they are self interested wanting whatever system helps them gain power or blackmail power or whatever.

I have a different approach. To be honest, it is not something I get enthused about, beyond the basics of how the systems deliver different outcomes for the same votes, but also encourage different behaviour. Yet it is a chance to shake things up a little, so what is it I want from an electoral system?

I’d like an electoral system to enable individuals to be removed from Parliament, and MMP isn’t very good at that, because of party lists. Look also at what MMP does to electorate votes. In most seats, they are now considered irrelevant. However, in Epsom, Ohariu and the Maori seats, they are critical. Indeed they allow for an overhang for the Maori Party that over represents its support. Now supporters of MMP will say that these can be dealt with by tweaking it - such as removing the electorate threshold to let party votes count, or abolishing the Maori seats, but these aren't on offer. 

So I will vote to change the system, but what to?

First Past the Post is easy, but it does create constituencies where MPs win with a minority of the vote, and others where they are so dominant that it renders the voting by others to be irrelevant. Electorate boundaries are artificial constructs anyway, so FPP is far from satisfactory. Why should your vote be less valued because you are on one side of the road and not the other? It would make the National Party comfortable, but why is that a good thing?  FPP did bring Muldoon and brought decades of stagnant do nothing government.  It also brought Social Credit as the stubborn third party of weirdness.  However, FPP most of all means that a lot of people who got a minority of votes get power.  No, I'd rather not support that.

Preferential voting does away with the minority voting for a representative, and it also means every vote counts. You can choose someone who doesn’t win, but then rank your options. This has some appeal, but even at best I can’t see me ranking more than 3. Again though, it becomes a matter of electorate boundaries as to whether this works. Yet it would deal to the Epsom, Ohariu, etc problem. In Epsom, those who don’t support John Banks wouldn’t have to vote for the National candidate, but could vote for the candidate they prefer. Similarly those who would prefer the National candidate but would rank Banks second, could do so as well. Ohariu has a similar scenario. Maybe National voters would rank Peter Dunne second and keep him elected, or maybe most Ohariu voters don’t want him and would rank 1st and 2nd those who oppose him. Tauranga could have got rid of Winston Peters quicker as well. So you see, there is some appeal in this option. 

Supplementary Member is a watered down version of MMP, so on the face of it less list seats, but all this does is reduce the effect of the smaller parties. The main advantage I see is that the list seats will reflect party votes, but this wont be affected by the electorate seat wins. Electorates suddenly become important again, and it gets rid of the “win an electorate, get some party seats as well” distortion that exists now. ACT, NZ First and others would apparently need to get 3% of the party vote to get a seat, but as Parliament would be dominated by FPP seats, it would make only a small difference. 

STV gives you multiple member constituencies, but rather big ones. Some will baulk at huge constituencies, but frankly I couldn’t care less. It will make constituencies a little less partisan and parochial, but also means people can call upon multiple MPs to “help them out” (something I haven’t really understood, because I largely wouldn’t trust an MP to fix anything for anyone in a way that would appear to be neutral). It will mean that all MPs are actually accountable to voters directly. Party lists will not predetermine who gets elected, but voters will. What that really means is voters can remove them as well. STV means voters can rank candidates in preference, just like PV, or can just vote for the party’s list of candidates for a constituency. Candidates who get a majority of votes get elected, just like PV, whereas the remainder get elected based on preferences. In conclusion, I believe STV would be worth voting for. It makes all MPs people elected directly, even if from preferences, rather than MPs selected from lists developed by parties. In other words, voters can remove those they don’t like. It makes electorates important again, but greatly increases their size so that parochialism becomes less important. 

There is one test I haven’t applied. Would it get more Libertarianz candidates elected? Well actually no. I am certain FPP and PV would not help that. SM might, because the threshold for a seat would be only around 3% compared to 5% today. STV I don’t believe would make any real difference to MMP on that front. However, I believe the advantages of STV, more generically, outweigh MMP enough to make it worthwhile of some attention.

Finally, what about the concern of coalitions vs one party government? Frankly I don't care that much. One party government can achieve good or bad, coalitions can as well. What matters is who gets elected. Yes MMP and STV both give the Greens a better chance than SM, PV and FPP, but they do the same to ACT and Libertarianz. I'm not sufficiently enamoured by the two big parties to want to trust them with one party government, besides would Helen Clark have acted any differently had she not been in coalition? I doubt it. So I'm going to say vote for change and vote for STV. If you want preferences, then an honourable second choice would be PV, as it would give constituents a bigger chance to remove MPs they don't like than either MMP or FPP. I'd rank SM in third place, as a way of reducing the threshold for small parties, though it also reduces their influence. Finally, I rank FPP last. I simply don't believe returning to two party politics would help advance freedom any more.