Posts Tagged ‘National’

1. Three countries, three voting systems, same end result

   Published on Wednesday, September 22nd, 2010
   Prime Minister John Key has voiced concerns that the Act Party’s ‘debacle’ is likely to turn the public off MMP.

   He is quoted as saying “I think it will increase the likelihood that people will vote MMP out”.

   What he doesn’t make clear is whether he thinks that in voting out MMP the electorate will turn back to first past the post or to some other form of proportional representation

   Based on the recent elections in Britain, Australia and in New Zealand, perhaps the answer doesn’t matter.

   In Britain the voting system is ‘first past the post’, and in their most recent election the British ended up with a coalition government.

   In Australia they have AV (alternative vote) where preference voting is used until a candidate emerges as the winner, and in their recent election they too ended up with a coalition government.

   So in three different administrations, three different systems produced the same result – no one party having sufficient votes to govern by themselves.

   One positive is that in all three countries the party that had the highest number of votes attracted enough support from smaller parties to become the leader of the government, so there is some legitimacy to the claim they govern ‘by the will of the people’.

   The challenges facing parliamentary democracy go far deeper than the voting system employed.

   Society has changed. Less of us are prepared to give unequivocal, life-long allegiance to any cause or institution, whether its politics, religion, sport or brands. We are more questioning, privately and publicly, and we have greater access to a variety of opinions and information from global sources.

   When we do get the chance to vote for a method of electing our MPs let’s hope we end up with a clear winner – a close result would really cause consternation.

2. Inclusive politics … your local Tui billboard has the answer

   Published on Thursday, August 26th, 2010
   

   Australia's version of the psychic "Paul" the World Cup Octopus

   As Australia inches forward to deciding who won last Saturday’s election, for diversion media commentators across the ditch are pouring over the tea leaves trying to analyse why the electorate voted the way it did.

   One recurring theme is ‘the electorate is sick and tired of the adversarial politics served up by the two main parties’. The claim is voters either deliberately spoilt their compulsory vote (put at some 6 percent) or voted for anyone but the Labour or Coalition candidate.

   Given Australia’s complex voting system (our perception) this results in laborious recounts before a winner is eventually declared.

   Another intriguing outcome is that regardless of the outcome in Australia, it will almost certainly mean three of the world’s leading proponents of Westminster style government (Britain, Australia and New Zealand) being governed by coalitions, even though all three countries use different voting systems.

   In railing against adversarial politics, what we shouldn’t lose sight of is Westminster style government (and each of our legal systems) is designed to be adversarial.

   If you ever want an example of it at its ‘best’, listen to the exchanges between Annette King and Stephen Joyce on Mike Hosking’s breakfast radio show on a Wednesday morning. It’s a brawl from start to finish, with the rules being: never concede, score points, undermine, talk over the top and always have the last word.

   Each country has always practiced this form of brutal politics (and law), even if each side keeps quiet while the other has a go. The difference between now and yesteryear is that modern communications – electronic and social media – makes us more aware of what takes place.

   At the same time society has become more cosmopolitan, better educated, more opinionated, and we too through social media have the ability to share our views with a wide audience.

   Immediately after the elections in Australia and Britain the politicians promised a more inclusive form of government. I seem to remember similar promises being made when National came to power in New Zealand.

   Will it happen? For an answer refer to a Tui billboard near you.

3. Government showing deft communication touch

   Published on Friday, February 12th, 2010
   The Government’s handling of the tax changes to be announced in the May budget show a masterly understanding of managing long term communications.

   Delegate the task of putting forward ideas to a third party (a commission) and then immediately reject the most controversial (phew, it’s not going to be as bad as it could be!); talk up some of the remaining unpalatable ideas, and then in the first formal statement of the year reject them too (saved again!).

   Now we have a pretty clear understanding of what will be in the budget some three months in advance, even if we don’t have the detail. By the time the announcements are made in May all the best emotional and rational condemnations from opponents will be out in the public domain, and Government can fine tune its final decisions to ease back on those that will upset us most.

   By the time the changes are finally introduced in October (10 months from raising the issue to their implementation) we will have mentally adjusted, and rather than outrage we will take them in our stride.

   It is good strategy, and the Government’s media managers are demonstrating a deft implementation touch.

   Cast your mind over some of the other contentious issues – mining in conservation reserves; fundamental economic reform to ‘catch up with Australia’ and even the national standards for primary schools have been on the agenda for months.

   When the going started to get tough over national standards, Key & Co showed their ability to up the game aggressively with a ministerial realignment, Key personally entering the confrontation, and outspoken challenges to the teacher’s union and boards of trustees.

   Labour will undoubtedly have the skills to win a few skirmishes as we move into the year, but they are going to need to be at the top of their game to outmanoeuvre National.

4. Knowing the price of everything and value of nothing

   Published on Wednesday, October 7th, 2009
   The Greens fess up to “making a mistake” in the way they used the accommodation subsidy for the benefit of their communal super fund; and Labour colleagues again rush to the defense of fellow MP Chris Carter over the largesse of his and his partner’s travel costs.

   Meanwhile Finance Minister Bill English remains battered, bruised and potentially out of pocket over his Ministerial housing accommodation; and PM John Key travels business class to New York with his wife and children in “coach” on the same flight at their own expense.

   The Hon Dr Michael Cullen spat the label of “rich pricks” at National in the early days of the Clark Government. Although on retirement he tried to expunge this jibe, it seems to have found deep roots in the political psyche. 

   Not only does National not harangue the abuses of others, but by its actions, it is beginning to affirm its wealth.

   Apparently it is excusable for the sanctimonious Green’s to rort the system, and a Labour MP to travel on the most tenuous of causes, but the current Government feels it must account to different standard.  Hence English foregoes legitimate expenses to keep his family together in Wellington, and the Prime Minister’s wife travels coach to the USA on “government business.”

   There is a double standard, and it is that we are in an age when our politicians know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

5. How to look like a winner when you have lost big time

   Published on Wednesday, November 12th, 2008
   Most people are possibly a bit tired of post-election analysis and there are many more news cycles to come before we begin to look ahead to how National is actually shaping up as a new Government. 

   But despite the extensive discussion it seems that one major point has been lost on most people, and certainly none of our political commentators seem to have mentioned it. Or perhaps it is so obvious that there is no need to state it.

   Has Ms Clark not pulled the most clever segue of her career by announcing her decision to step down from Labour Party leadership on the night of her defeat? This move it seems has completely obscured the fact that Labour got trounced in the election while National, who were led by a smiling assassin (if we believe the negative campaign), had a huge win.  It seems there is very little criticism of the campaign run by Labour and the fact that we could all see the negative campaigning to be a wrong move.

   The majority of post-election comments regarding Ms Clark have been about her legacy, her leadership and the gracious, clever and magnanimous decision she has made.  Her posting to Foreign Affairs further keeps her in the spotlight and provides plenty of opportunity to show the in-roads Labour has made in foreign affairs and diplomatic relations. Could our own Ms Clark perhaps be the next head of the UN? 

   While personally not a supporter of Ms Clark I have always been a huge admirer of her communication skills.  Once again she has managed to set the public agenda herself and get her key messages across no matter what the question or the issue. 

   Yes, Labour has lost and National has had a huge win.  But watch the press in coming weeks and we are sure to see lots more glowing reports on the “legacy” that is Ms Clark. 

   One wonders if this is a good or a bad thing for the National Party.  Certainly it seems that their win is not being held up as such a major achievement after all.  There is a feeling of expectations to be met and no need to make such a big deal of it.

   On the other hand we have a brand new leader of the Labour Party who is likely to get as much, if not more, air time as possible in coming weeks than our Prime Minister in waiting.  We certainly do live in interesting times.