Pay for our pensions, but don't expect to afford your own

That's the fundamental cry of the public sector unions which are going on strike today in the UK.  Around 2 million are going on strike, which most attention given to border control staff who by going on industrial action will see massive queues at airports as people arrive from international flights.  

The people going on strike are opposing having the age at which they receive their employer (read state, read taxpayer funded) pension increased to match the actual age at which people get the state pension, they are opposing having to contribute more and opposing a shift from final salary pensions (you know, the type you could only dream of in the private sector) to average wage pensions.

I like Old Holborn's proposed message to the strikers seen below:

People whose incomes and employment are dependent on the private sector generating wealth, hiring employees and paying taxes to pay for them, are wanting these same people to continue to carry the burden of paying the ungrateful sods pensions that none of the rest of us could ever dream of.   Yes, some are upset that they perform useful jobs (in schools and hospitals) and were "promised" final salary pensions when given them by previous governments.  Well here's the news, government promises are worthless - they are promising to spend money that isn't theirs, that they don't have and to pass on the bill to someone else and blame them when they can't deliver (let's call that the Labour Party).   Make your own plans for retirement, don't trust politicians to make them for you.

Sadly it was the unions' lackeys in power - the Labour Party - that sold their members this unaffordable, unfunded pup, that they relied upon for their careers, and now face losing because it can't be afforded.  

So the anger from the strikers shouldn't be directed at the government, it should be directed at their unions and the Labour Party - they were promised something that couldn't be delivered or afforded, and which demanded taxpayers pay for something they themselves could never get.  

The enormous lie perpetuated by the unions is to pretend the UK didn't have a budget deficit or substantial public debt before the financial crisis - it did.  The unions pretend the spending cuts are to "pay for the banks".  They are not, they are to get current spending balanced, and the banks haven't been funded by the state since Gordon Brown bailed out three of them only, two years ago.  Bank bailouts aren't happening every year.

The public finances in the UK are dire.  The UK's public debt is set to reach 94% of GDP in 2014-15, worse than Germany, France or the Eurozone average, only being better than Italy and Greece - no great achievement.  Public debt is set to increase by a total of £520 billion in the life of this government.   Debt isn't being cut, the growth of it is being slowed.  The total extent of government spending cuts in the life of the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition will only be 3.4% in real terms (after inflation) between 2010 and 2015.  Another 1.9% of cuts are forecast for the two subsequent years.  Hardly brutal, hardly radical.  Only then will be UK budget actually be in balance.  

Those striking are following the propaganda of those who want government to borrow more and more, and hope they aren't around when Britain has a sovereign debt crisis ala Greece or Italy, either that or they want to tax the "rich", which presumes they'll hang around for the privilege.   I doubt most would, and they would take their businesses and the jobs with them.

If the private sector said "sod it" and went on strike, and stopped working, stopped running businesses and stopped paying taxes, then this lot would truly be stuffed.  That's why the government should sit quietly, make sure people know that to give them what they want, there would have to be more borrowing (raising interest rates), more taxes or less spending elsewhere.  The unions don't say what option they want - let's call them out on this, and say no. 

Piggies in the trough

Stuff reports "Goodie bags containing iPads and smartphones and instructions on how to maximise your free air travel and accommodation perks – it must be induction day for Parliament's new MPs. Goodie bags containing iPads and smartphones and instructions on how to maximise your free air travel and accommodation perks – it must be induction day for Parliament's new MPs... Posters hanging in booths outlined their new perks – "unlimited domestic travel", exclaimed one".

All of the new MPs, National, Labour, Greens, NZ First, to a man and woman, soaked it up, took what they were "entitled to", at your expense.   I bet John Banks will too.

None of those talked to expressed disgust and remorse, including those who claim to speak on behalf of the poor. None showed interest in limiting their domestic air travel to trips to and from their constituency. 

Yet most of you voted for them, so really you only have yourselves to blame right?

Where to from here for those of us who believe in freedom?

ACT, Libertarianz, Freedom Party, Liberal Party, whatever name there is for the future of those at the libertarian/freedom oriented end of the political spectrum is not important right now. What is important is that those of us who share some fairly core values and principles agree to sit down and talk. The options that have been taken up till now have been somewhat spent. ACT has long been the pragmatic option, but until 2008 was never part of government. In government, many (including myself) believe it under-delivered, and certainly the strategy taken by the leadership the past few months has been an abject failure. I wont repeat my previous views on this, but needless to say ACT as a liberal force for more freedom and less government cannot limp along simply led by John Banks to the next election.  I suspect even he realises that the status quo isn't sustainable.

To be fair to Libertarianz, every election since the 2002 administrative debacle has been an improvement, both in campaigning style and result. Yet without getting virtually any media attention or having enough money to buy advertising, it struggles to get heard. Even when it had its peak in 1999, it was due to Lindsay Perigo’s leadership and presence on a nationwide radio station. Yet this end of the political spectrum has been sadly filled with the sorts of chasms and arguments that are not entirely dissimilar from that of the far left. It occasionally has been a little like the Trotskyites vs. the Stalinists vs. the Maoists. ACT has blamed Libertarianz for being too purist, Libertarianz has blamed ACT for being soft sellouts and others have said that Christians have felt excluded, along with non-objectivists, or even those who are conservatives in their personal life and have conservative values, but don't believe the state should impose them.  Bear in mind I’m an objectivist libertarian and Libertarianz member who has voted Libertarianz four times and ACT twice since MMP came along.

The bare faced truth that needs to be admitted is that there is a difference between seeking to win Parliamentary representation and influence, and to be a lobby group that seeks to influence more widely than that. Those on the left, including the environmentalists are expert in doing this, having set up a number of moderate to high profile lobby groups that focus on specific issues. Those of us who want less government, need to do more organising, less in-fighting and recognise the difference between running a successful political party, lobbying on issues and being movements of populism or philosophy. 

I agree with Peter Cresswell that those of us who are freedom lovers need to start talking. So I suggest there be a conference of some sort in that light.

The default invitees being senior members of ACT and Libertarianz, and others specifically invited by people from both parties (who may come from National or elsewhere inside or outside politics). It should be a session to think, not necessarily to decide what to do, but to spend time to chew the fat and provide the catalyst to do more thinking, before acting.  It shouldn't be a session to grandstand or for publicity seekers, but a serious closed conference.   It wont be to make final decisions, but to make substantive progress on what to do next.  It should form the basis to produce proposals for discussions with existing party members, and to reach a conclusion within a year.

The agenda should be as follows:

- Introductions ;

- What sort of objectives should exist for a political party of freedom;

o Principles and values; 

o Political goals 

- Understanding philosophy (where do our principles and values come from ((intention to understand, not debate, how different people came to the freedom/liberal/libertarian end of the spectrum));

- Key policies and issues (identifying policies that unite us, and those that divide us. Not looking for detailed discussion about tax rates, but to establish common ground and to understand clearly the issues that cause some of us problems and finding a way to address, discuss them);

- What’s right about ACT and Libertarianz, and what is wrong;

- What a successful party of freedom would look like, campaign like, and focus on;

- What to avoid (Open, frank and honest discussion about what a future party should avoid);

- Options (revitalising ACT, strengthening Libertarianz, starting from scratch, rebranding and merging) with the objective of narrowing down preferences to two;and

- Next steps (widening discussion with respective parties, another meeting to create concrete proposals). 

This should happen next year, around mid-year (so people will want to stay inside). It should be good willed, good natured and well disciplined. It shouldn’t just be a meeting of suits, or a meeting of loud mouthed angry ranters, but a meeting of good people, with good intentions, who have by and large, shared values, but haven’t been talking from first principles and objectives with each other.  Bear in mind also that what may finally come could be a two pronged strategy - one involving a political party, another involving a think tank/lobby group (or two?).

The most important thing of all, for everyone, will be to listen. 

In advance of that, those of us in ACT, Libertarianz, and indeed freedom oriented members of National, ALCP (and others if they find themselves in a less conventional political home) should sit down and talk amongst ourselves, and with each other.  It is time to rise above the morass of noise, detail and personality clashes.  Nothing should be in or out, but it should be obvious that unless there is a consistent belief in there being less government and more freedom, then we will get nowhere. 

It’s time to not be too solipsistic and realise that this election less than 1.5% of the public voted for parties that expressly espouse less government. Many of us have been doing this for some years, but we also have eager, hard working and enthusiastic young people who reject the mainstream view that the answer to any problem is automatically that the government should do more. Let’s do it for them, do it for us, do it for the country we want New Zealand to be - I believe that at the very least it means free, prosperous, optimistic, where people are judged not by their ancestry, sex or background, but by their deeds and words. A country where being a tall poppy is not something to sneer at, but something to celebrate and aspire to. 

The conservative right has got its act together, and has built a highly credible platform that could cross the 5% threshold in 2014. 

We must do the same, but better.

Who’s with me?

P.S.  The reports that John Banks is talking to the Conservative Party to consider some sort of relationship, simply exemplifies the fact that ACT is finished.  LET Banks take whatever is left of ACT with him, let him go.  He'll never win Epsom under that banner.   I'd don't need to say the three word phrase that starts with "told", but I am SO glad I did not vote ACT to be represented by Banks.   It isn't schadenfreude at all, it's just frustration when this whole debacle is res ipsa loquitur.

New Zealand election 2011 - Verdict 2 - how I'd advise the parties

My pre-election review of the parties set out what I thought of them and where they are placed, now I have reviewed them one by one according to what I'd advised them strictly politically, rather than philosophically.  After all, I'd be telling all but one of them to pack it in if I was being true to myself.   So I'll give them a score for result.

ACT:  Game virtually over.  Epic fail.  Loss of three quarters of your vote, which would have looked worse had turnout been better. You couldn't even get Don Brash to outpoll the Green candidate in North Shore, not that you tried.  Some will blame Don Brash for this, even Lindsay Perigo, others will blame John Banks and all those who resisted that strategy.   You know what I think, but bickering wont be helpful, digging deep into why a party that once got 7% now has 1% of the vote will be critical.  The campaign was abysmal, you couldn't control the fallout from the "cup of tea" meeting which the left were feral on (yes it has become more occupied by conspiracy theory baiting hate mongerers) and John Banks stopped you being liberal.  You now have two issues.  The first one is what John Banks extracts for his support of National.  Even Peter Dunne extracted maintaining his Families Commission and building Transmission Gully, what will ACT get?  If John Banks is just going to be another National MP then you have to wonder why you bothered?  There needs to be a new strategy, one that is consistently about less government, lower taxes, private property rights, choice in public services and rejecting Nanny State solutions to every problem.  John Banks is not the man to lead this.   I'll write more about my ideas later, but for now you need to be open, honest and discover what went wrong, and be aware how you can't rebuild based on John Banks, unless he can, chameleon like, be quite different from his past.  Time for some honest self-reflection to determine a new strategy for the libertarian/free market right.  Score 1/10 Future prospects bleak

Alliance:  For a brand that once commanded nearly 20% of the vote, you must now consider packing it in. From 1909 votes in 2008 to 1069 this time, the future is not bright. Unless you want to be a Dunedin based Marxist ginger group, you know your policies and philosophy are represented much more clearly and successfully in the Greens and Mana Party.  Hard left supporters know they can vote for either of those and make a difference.  I know far leftwing organisations struggle to acknowledge they are little more than a social club for people wishing people thought like them, if that's ok to you, then fine.   However, with the exception of Wigram and Dunedin (the former because some probably still think Jim Anderton leads you, the latter being family and friends), you have virtually no support and its been in free fall decline since 1993 without exception.  Consider this, what are you an Alliance of?  The Greens are gone, Mana Motuhake has been usurped by the Maori and Mana parties, the Social Creditors are gone, the Liberals were never really there and Labour is closer now to New Labour than at any time since New Labour was formed.  Yet its quaint that you bother, so keep the red flag flying, especially if you think the Greens going centrist mean they are revisionist capitalist roaders.  Although I am convinced your lives could be better spent in other ways.  Score 1/10 Future prospects irrelevance

Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party:  Once a party that gained well over 1% of the vote, it was a place people who wouldn't usually vote could cast a vote for something they cared about.   However, you seem to have reached your base, which remarkably is 9516 votes, one vote more than 2008 (although you will get a few on specials).   Yet whilst you have once hoped to get 5% you have to realise by now that most people don't vote on one issue.  I wondered if the departure of Nandor Tanczos from the Greens would have driven more your way, but it appears to have had little effect.  I expect many of those who support your issue vote Green, but there are more than a few who are on the liberal right, voting National, ACT and Libertarianz. You are more likely to be effective as a lobby group, with NORML, but that has been less than stunning in its success.  Unless you can highlight how grossly unfair the law is and get media attention for that, you're unlikely to provoke enough outrage to get enough votes on this issue.  So I think you need another strategy.  I think you need to seek the views of candidates of all parties on this issue and promote people supporting candidates (and parties) that share your view.  All Libertarianz and a few ACT candidates agree with you, but you need to shift the image of this issue from being bucolic stoners wanting to light up, to being about failed policies, reducing demands on the taxpayer and shifting police effort from cannabis to real crime.  There is no majority who will support endorsing cannabis, but you may be able to get support for those who say the status quo has failed, that it hands the product to the criminal gangs and has failed to reduce usage.   Many of you are not libertarians, have no time for free market liberals, but we actually are your greatest allies - for whilst you can convince Green party supporters, only people on the right can convince conservatives or sceptics that there is a better way to deal with drugs issues than throwing users in prison.  Reach out to those you might otherwise disagree with, and you may get more results. Score 4/10 Future prospects treading water

Conservative Party:  This has been a great start for those on the conservative right.  Colin Craig's effort has been well rewarded with a platform to build upon for next time.  The history of conservative minor parties has been poor, with the failure of the Christian Coalition to cross the threshold (I am sure many of its supporters, in retrospect, will say thankfully given the entity who led it), United Future's dabble with it, the Kiwi Party and the Family Party.  Your biggest competition is NZ First, but you do have several prospects for growth.   Peter Dunne took the Outdoor Recreation Party under his wing, which could do well to take back, since United Future's vote is ever shrinking.  NZ First is an obvious target, since it represents 21st century Muldoonism, but you have a fresher look, less personality cult and should, naturally, be able to fight on immigration, crime and one law for all.  Your hardest battle is a media keen to paint you as Graham Capill Mk. II or Brian Tamaki Mk. II.  The less you say about religion the better, the more you say about values, principles and policies, and have people who have good CVs standing for you, the better as well.  Bear in mind the media is looking for bigotry about homosexuality and hypocrisy about sex and money, if only because Capill's hypocrisy was breathtaking, and Brian Tamaki's predation of the poor and ignorant is repulsive.  Your medium term goal must to be National's next coalition partner, but you must also seek to court Pasifika and Maori votes.  Many of them are naturally conservative, and NZ First supporters.   To get further, you need to work hard,  everywhere, and find more platforms for your views and call out National whenever you can where it matters, and call out NZ First and Winston Peters.  By the way, you also need to ask that opinion polls include you too. You haven't come close to reaching your ceiling yet, but be aware of the mistakes of those before you, New Zealand is not as socially conservative as you may hope and indeed it is that matter that is perhaps the biggest impediment to the Republican Party winning office in the US.  Score 7/10 Future prospects promising

Democrats for Social Credit:  No doubt some of you think there has been a media conspiracy organised by banks, sharemarkets, multinational corporations and the like in cahoots with John Key to deny the truth of Major Douglas's amazing discovery, and if only the public knew what you knew, they'd never look back. You're probably hoping that there is global financial meltdown and the fiat fractional reserve currencies you despise go with it. While the Alliance may be a social club, I don't doubt you are.  Any of you, any at all, need to get out and have some open, listening focused conversations with economists on your own (not with other believers who will tell you that they don't understand or they do and they wont admit it because they are part of the conspiracy) and find out why not even the Occupy movement, Anti-Capitalist movements or others embrace Social Credit.  Don't be embarrassed when you find out, just move on. Yet I know many of you will be celebrating how you got over 200 more votes this time, no doubt fuelled by campaigning in a few spots, but no.   There is no future in this movement.   If you want to focus on monetary policy then look elsewhere, read Detlev Schlichter's book "Paper Money Collapse".  His answer is not social credit, but commodity backed money.  Throw away Major Douglas's work, start again, but if you want to build a political party on it then think hard.  Score 4/10  Future prospects fading away

Green Party: Around 54,000 more votes and 4 (maybe 5) new MPs, you'll be pretty stoked with that result.  However, bear in mind that it is in part due to Labour's lack of inspiration and the value of your brand that you did well.  Think yourself lucky too that you're not in government where you can easily get tainted by having to prove your policies in action and sell out others in coalition.  Still you can't be unhappy with a focus on simple messages and being positive.  You are going to have National talk to you, because it wants to lure you to the centre.  This is where you have to choose.  Do you aim to be a bigger centrist party that straddles the two major ones, or do you want to remain with your hard left roots?  Hard left roots will mean you scorn the Nats, have agreements to discuss on legislation case by case and that is it.  Centrist means you form an agreement on one or more policy areas to work on.  Big wins for you could be energy or transport, the Nats will be more likely to offer you conservation or to help on poverty issues, if you can give up asking for more welfare money.   Being seen to please your supporters with National will be valuable, but you can't offer confidence and supply to the Nats without risking Labour saying a vote for Green is a vote for National.  If you can keep your identity clear and find an area to work with the Nats, then you can play being centrist on that policy area while remaining left elsewhere.  Bear in mind your biggest electoral competition is Labour.  Score 9/10  Future prospects growing influence with National, Labour's inevitable future partner

Labour Party:  Quarter of a million voters abandoned you this time, less than half of them went to the Greens and NZ First, the majority stayed home.  The focus on asset sales wasn't inspirational enough to anyone but the faithful, the simple point is you don't yet look like a government in waiting.  You have lost the party vote in most electorates and have little presence in Auckland or the provinces, and your rump in Wellington and Dunedin is not enough.  Capital Gains Tax was a loser as was your policy detail overall.  Not enough clear simple messages on things people care about.  The Greens got an easy ride from the media, but also exploited their brand and were optimistic and issue focused.   You needed to argue party vote Labour was the only way to change the government, and chip away at a few of the Green policies that would scare the mainstream, like attitudes to the Treaty of Waitangi and the hectoring desire to tell people what to do.   However, you're probably confused moreso about NZ First.  Wakeup.  New Zealand is not seen by unionists and academics, but lots of hard working ordinary people who eschew the politically correct measured language used by you.  Winston plays them easily and you need to bring them home, by having them not feel alienated by you.   Have a leadership battle, make it a time for self-reflection and be careful to pick people who your provincial hard working core might relate to.  Meanwhile, bear in mind the next three years could be very hard for any government, be grateful it isn't you and be ready to be there if it gets so bad, you're a shoo in by default.   You also need to work on Maori voters.  You might be winning the party vote, but you need to combat the Mana Party's radicalism and the Maori Party supporting National in consecutive elections.  Score 2/10  Future prospects the only way is up, but it depends on the new leader and the economy for now

Libertarianz:  Nearly 300 more votes than last time is proportionately not a bad result, but Libertarianz still faces a series of very difficult barriers.  The wasted vote syndrome (especially with ACT's presence offering a watered down alternative), almost complete absence of media exposure and the inherent fear of radicalism by so many.   A party with good people that was once beset with infighting and being its own worst enemy by its lack of willingness to be more measured in its use of language and more focused and optimistic.  This campaign was actually quite good for what it was worth and the demons of the past are largely behind it, but with 1400 party votes it is still the "members plus family, friends and a handful" club.  Noticeably, in electorates the candidates typically do far far better than the party vote.   I will write about this later, but I believe Libertarianz and the liberal wing of ACT need to sit down and talk, and determine how to move forward.  There is a bigger constituency for having less government and to pull the Nats towards their principles.  However, those who think that way have been unwilling to throw away their votes on a party that rarely appears in the polls, and have gone elsewhere with their votes.  Spend a weekend talking about objectives and options, and look to rebuild, merge, create something new or dissolve.  The Conservative Party shows how a clear philosophy, consistent team (and some money) can achieve results.  We can do so as well. However, it is not a time to gloat, point score or be closed minded or to reject those who are less ambitious.  Think Gramsci.   The left didn't succeed by insisting on a communist party as the source of all its efforts. Score 5/10  Future prospects if it can bring on board some of ACT, be open minded and inclusive, a chance for a step change rather than a step forward.

Mana:  Given you'll see me as part of the Pakeha colonial conspiracy of capitalists, you will think I'm out to get you with this.  However, you've done ok to get 1%, but you must have hoped you'd pick up Annette Sykes's seat and some more votes. You've bruised the Maori Party and created solidly leftwing credentials beyond the Maori vote.  You can point at the Maori Party doing deals with National and be comfortable on your patch, and you can blame Labour for not embracing the poor as much as you want.  Obviously you have a core now and you can build on it, but it need to be more than Hone and needs to woo Maori Party members and supporters more and more.  You know you'll only have real effects when Labour needs you to govern, but you know Labour has some sympathisers within.  At a time of global economic crisis you can always play the anti-capitalist card louder than any others and grab the hard-left vote consistently, bearing in mind if the Greens move further to the centre, you'll pick up some of them too.  Your cleverest move is to look wider than a Maori party, but to avoid some of the more outrageous comments of some of your leading candidates being held against you, and to avoid being seen as a one man band.  Score 6/10 Future prospects Disturbingly bright if it can nurture the Maori nationalist ideology that has been getting pushed through some educational institutions.  Labour's possible coalition partner that might push the Maori Party into oblivion.

Maori Party:  Lost more than half of your vote, two thirds seem to have gone to Mana, the rest to Labour or didn't turn out.  Hone has taken your radical wing, which is a positive for you in terms of future relations with the major parties, but you need to keep focusing on policy and seeking to be different.  Supporting National again is pragmatic and may get you some wins, but they must be sold to your voters many of whom wont want the idea that it is you keeping National in power.  National didn't need you last time, but this time is almost certainly will.  Unlike most minor parties, you can be presented as being focused on serving the interests of your voters rather than a philosophy.  Bear in mind you need to convince voters you'll support Labour if it will deliver for Maori, or National if it will.  Take on Hone when he preaches separatism and expresses outrageous and divisive views, and always be optimistic and forward looking.   Yet remember your core is the Maori seats and you need to have candidates who will inspire against strong challenges from Labour and Mana.   You need Tu Tangata candidates in their own right that can position you against being part of the larger Labour party and against the divisive Mana Party.  Score 3/10 Future prospects Hard work not being seen as National's patsy, and also fighting radical attacks from Mana.

National:  You'll all be gloating, but don't be too smug.  You have 50,000 less votes than before and was only really saved by mass defection of ACT voters to National.  You now need not only ACT and United Future but also the Maori Party.  Imagine if you needed NZ First.   Now you need to focus on message and communicating to more ordinary people.   Labour is in disarray for now, but will be back. You lost 1-2 seats to the Conservative Party, so you might think about how to appeal to some of the issues of that party.  However, in an MMP world you need coalition partners, you may prefer to leave some room for them to flourish.   Prove the part-privatisation is no big deal.  Do a deal with the Greens on conservation and energy efficiency, but be ready to attack the Greens when they are so obviously hysterical or quite separatist on Maori matters.  It's up to you, if you don't attack the Greens, nobody will.  The left attacked you through attacking ACT.  You doing the same hurts Labour, don't expect you can woo the Greens to the centre, because you wont - it is fundamentally a leftwing party, not an environmentalist party.  Winston will make a lot of noise, but you have little choice but to ignore him as he scrambles for issues, but bear in mind it is your voters he is after.  You can't cover all his conspiracies and stories, but you can say a vote for him is a vote for the Labour party.  Finally, your success is in part due to being seen to be competent with the economy.  The more waste and failure that can be found, the more you play into the hands of your opponents.  Score 8/10 Future prospects Reasonably good if the economy holds up, but a third term will depend even more on coalition partners and wooing back voters from NZ First.

NZ First:  Yes yes, bugger the pollsters.  Don't be too smug, there is the issue of your constitution and the rules.  I'd worry about that first if I was you. You might not have your Dear Leader anymore.  Otherwise, do you really think there is a future in this personality cult?  I know for some of you this is the best job ever, but it wont last.  You'll be widely laughed at for three years.  Have you figured out what life is like after Winston? No? It's called oblivion.  Your success depends on Labour remaining incapable of winning an election, but since you don't want to go with National ever again, you're rather trapped in no man's land, which is where Winston likes it I think.  However, surely you have something better to do than remain an Opposition minor MP for three years don't you? Yes you can grow by playing the one law for all card, the bash an immigrant card and reintroduction of capital punishment as well, but is that really you?  Score 9/10 Future prospects  Up to the Dear Leader baiting people's prejudices and the media going on about him.

United Future:  Oh dear Peter it is down to you more and more.  Come on, you know it's going to be like Jim Anderton's Progressive Party, it will go when you retire.  Unless you get leverage on any wider issue than Transmission Gully or the Families Commission, you'll be stuck in the middle with nothing interesting to offer.  Pray you get a chance at another worm and get seen as moderate and sensible again, otherwise sit tight and focus on Ohariu,  Score  4/10  Future prospects Comfortable retirement, but oblivion for the party

New Zealand election 2011 - Verdict 1

Whilst National is savouring victory and Labour nursing its wounds, far too many commentators still think in First Past the Post terms.   It looks like a landslide, yet it is not.  National is barely able to pull together a government, and if special votes go to the Greens (as overseas Kiwis disproportionately like voting for an image that they don't need to pay for), the Nats could face needing the Maori Party.  

National gained two seats, but ACT lost four.  This isn't a great victory, it is in fact a bleeding of support to the left, with the winners being the Greens and New Zealand First.   National's gain is mostly due to ACT supporters abandoning what they perceived as a sinking ship that may not make it.  National gained precious little from Labour, and lost more to the Conservative Party, easily costing it 3-4 seats (and the Conservative Party ate in a little to United Future, much more and Peter Dunne would be an overhang MP).   

So the truth is not that plain.  It is quite likely National faces government needing the Maori Party on confidence and supply, and that is a party that also has not had a good election.   It lost two seats, with Labour picking them up, but with the votes going to the Mana Party.  That is in part because Hone Harawira has taken the radical Maori nationalist/socialist vote, but also because of perceptions that the Maori Party is too close to National.   Let's be clear, there is no prospect for a credible government that is not National-led at this point.  It is difficult to envisage the mess that Labour-Greens-NZ First-Mana-Maori would look like as it too would also need Peter Dunne.  

So expect the Maori Party to demand more, even though by numbers, it ought to be able to demand less.  However, that is what MMP brings up, the leading party by miles is now more than ever needing support by a party that had its support halve.  

So those hoping for "steady as she goes" may find it isn't quite so steady, and that Pita Sharples and Tariana Turia will be seeking a bigger pound of flesh for their constituents.  Yet don't think National isn't aware of what it must do in the next three years.  A key long term strategy of National is (or logically should be) to woo Maori voters.  The demographics of the country are such that this is critical and the Maori Party is one vehicle that the National Party hopes to do this through.   No longer are Maori votes balkanised in four seats, but are nationwide in every electorate through the party vote - although it is notable that the Maori Party still gets more support concentrated in Maori seats than in the party vote overall.   

National will also look to do a deal with the Greens.   The obvious areas for this could be energy, conservation or transport.  So expect that you might have higher power prices, that mining on conservation land stops or suddenly a motorway is stopped for an underground rail loop.  Pulling the Greens away from Labour has to be a core strategy for National, but the Greens will be wary about that going too far, given that it will instantly scare off many of their supporters.

The Labour Party will feel hurt, but it need not be too concerned.  It is 6% higher than National was in 2002, and it is obvious where its support went.   Its loss of support roughly matches the gains of the Greens and NZ First, in short Labour needs to improve its marketing and focus, but also cater for its base of "working class" voters.  NZ First's support comes from those who see National as a party of suits, but Labour a party of academics, teachers and politically correct liberals.  These are the people that want a hardline on crime and have little time for singling out initiatives for Maori or other groups.

MMP was strongly supported by left wing political activists and supporters because they knew it would deliver for them, at least in stopping any further liberalisation of the economy.  It has done so, in spades.  In 1996 it meant National had to embrace Winston Peters and his agenda of halting asset sales, which gave Labour time to reconcile its differences with the left embodied by Jim Anderton, so that in 1999 a thoroughly tired and discredited National and NZ First gave way to a Labour-Alliance coalition, with the Greens scraping through.   This led to three terms of leftwing Labour government, with the Alliance replaced with the Greens to the left of Labour, although Labour preferred to embrace the floating centre which went to NZ First and United Future at different times to fully embracing the Greens and spooking floating voters to National.   In 2008 National could have had a term of free market reformist government with ACT, but knew it needed a wider base over time so embraced the Maori Party.   Now it needs the Maori Party, and is to court the Greens.   National's true home as the natural party of government and being inherently conservative (as in do not much) is where it is.   Labour need only wait until enough voters are seeking change, and have a leader who can sell it, for NZ First and Green voters to "return home", and quite possible wipe out the Maori Party.

For those who embrace centrist politics, the next three years will be a celebration.  It wont be radical, it wont see the size of the state grow or get cut, and taxes wont change overall.  The left's hysteria about partial privatisation will be shown up for what it is when it happens, as nobody will notice much difference.  There was nothing else they could attack National for, as no other policies were much different.

Indeed, the Greens, NZ First and Labour must quietly fear that if National can "get away" with part-privatisation, that the bogey of this issue - whipped up by economic illiteracy, fact absent legends about past privatisations and old fashioned xenophobia - will have been neutered somewhat.

The future of left-wing politics may be seen in whipping up fear of the current economic uncertainty and some class warfare - which can be seen in some blogs (e.g. Tumeke, the Standard) and the rhetoric of the Greens and Mana.  The Greens barely campaigned at all on environmental issues, as the brand Green already delivered that as a presumption.  However, while left-wing activists  are always disappointed that the people they claim to speak about rarely are motivated or interested enough to vote for them, it remains that they have the upper ground when it comes to rhetoric, political discourse and media attention.  Consider the attention Winston Peters (who I consider left-wing as he is Muldoonist left-wing) and Hone Harawira got from the media compared to Colin Craig of the Conservatives, or the attention any ACT slogans or policies got.  

The Gramscian approach to political philosophy, seen in media and inculcated somewhat in the education system, has worked, for the commentators and as default position for many.  The only reason it doesn't deliver a solidly leftwing government is that the "masses" are apathetic, indeed it has almost always been that socialists are disappointed that the people who they claim to be motivated about are themselves people lacking motivation for anything more than instant gratification - which is, in one part, why they are in the circumstances they are in. 

Yet the free market libertarian "right" has little hope at the moment too.  National barely talks the talk on personal responsibility and less government interference in people's lives.  It isn't in its blood, and unless Labour takes a swing to the left, National will see little traction in talking about freedom.   ACT had so much noise around it about Epsom, John Banks and the recording, that it couldn't get off the block on it.  Moreover, the media and most commentators only have a couple of reference points for talking about less government - Rogernomics and the USA.  It is an uphill battle, but despite the hysteria of the far left, this government wont be "selling all our assets", operating for the "interests of bankers and the rich" or seeking to take money from the poor - they only wish it was, for without the legend of the right the left doesn't have a scapegoat or bogeyman to point to, so that voters can trust their vision.

Curiously, Maori voters are now split three ways.  A significant proportion of those in the Maori seats now support a radical separatist and neo-Marxist vision for New Zealand that would divide the country.  The rest support engagement in the current political system.  Mana's 1% seems insignificant, yet the question is what it bodes for the future.

Most New Zealanders wont be too upset about the election.  Those on the left will be disappointed, yet the Greens will still be partying as they will think they are pushing Labour over a bit.  The NZ First faction is small, but it will be thinking they have cocked a snook at the media - when the media delivered for them.  However, the left does have a solid bloc of support of around 45% that it can tap and the fact National plays on the turf of the left in terms of rhetoric, objectives and debate shows that things have not changed that much.

The conservative right will be happy, as Colin Craig has set aside the demons of the Kiwi Party, Family Party, Christian Heritage, Christian Democrats et.al to form a single conservative right wing party of some standing.  Indeed it did better than ACT, Maori and Mana combined in terms of party votes.  Targeting NZ First voters may be fertile ground to help cross the 5% threshold, as will aiming at a single constituency (although Rodney looks promising it may need to be somewhere else).   National may want to quietly encourage this.   

The liberal right of course are not happy.  ACT is finished and most of those who believe in less government ticked the boxes for National.  Hopefully those of a conservative persuasion in ACT will go to their logical new home (as above), and those of us who are libertarian need to sit down and figure out where to go to from here.

It isn't a significant election as it does, as I said before, look like a pattern whereby when the likely result is predictable, the vote for the second party dissipates to the minor parties.  National had this happen, with United Future and ACT doing well in 2002.  Now it is Labour's turn with the Greens and NZ First.   Yet the balance is still fairly slim between the centre-right and centre-left, so you might pardon for not getting too excited.