New Labour Party leadership

It's official - Labour's leadership team was voted in as expected.

Is this the team I was expecting? Yes, it was. Is it the team I wanted? Surprisingly, yes.

I know that people will see this as a 'move to the right' and so on, but I don't know how much of this talk is true. Sure, Goff voted in favour of selling off assets and so on in the 80s, but that was a long time ago. Since then, he has vehemently opposed the right wing rubbish espoused in the house by the Nats over the past nine years. Cunliffe is, without doubt, a social democrat, and Annette King has implimented left-wing policies in health and justice.

So I don't really see the new team as being too right. It's true that I'm not a hardline leftist, but even for a liberal-left person like myself, the new team is more than just acceptable. Shane Jones isn't ready for leadership, Cunliffe is also a few years off this task - both men just don't have the public trust and recognition that Goff has.

Do I think that this team will be attractive for voters in 2011? Yes. But only if they stay left of center. Trying to sweeten the center in compeition with the National Party lost Labour this election. It was the stong line on Health, Welfare and Workers Rights that won the '99 election, and it will be the same approach that will win the next one.

Election Hangover

What a disappointment.
That's all I can really say about the election outcome, although we were all expecting it.

New Zealanders have decided to opt for "change". Not like the change in the US, though, where the republican administration was overturned after a string of failed policies and wars. Our change was mindless and idiotic. We voted for a man desperately trying to appear left-ish A man with the same re-hashed, redneck, neo-lib caucus that aims to put in place the same disproven 1990s policies: the policies to blame for the global economic collapse.

But no matter, there is plenty to be done. We need not to sit around despairing about our dismal new government, but instead to reorganise. MMP will no doubt come onto the firing range, as National realises that FPP gives them an unfair advantage - this needs to be saved. Labour is yet to announce new leadership - this will refresh the appearence of the party. We need to increase left party membership - thereby increasing the base for policy influence and support. But most importantly, we need to reaffirm and reestablish the organisations that ensure that the new government is under intense and intelligent scrutiny - that's where the Hardworking Kiwi can help.

KiwiRail gets the Hardworking Kiwi's seal of approval

The transcript of today's Agenda show shows the Government's determination for much needed reinvestment in a neglected rail service.

Despite National's assertion that Labour "haven't put any time at all into working out how they're going to get an effective return on this very large investment" (Bill English, Agenda 6/7/08), it is clear that the current government has well thought through the policy. It aims not only to obtain return on the policy but also addresses NZ's contribution to Kyoto - a convention which we will soon begin to pay for.

Mallard made clear today that both timber and dairy would be able to use rail as an alternative to truck-based freight, saying "Fonterra are looking to use rail more and more to ship things around the country", and "Our timber in the Bay of Plenty has been transported on the road when it doesn’t need to be." Clearly, although there will be a loss to begin with, there are greater benefits in owning rail that go beyond an initial financial profit or a loss.

By far, the most important thing that Mallard pointed out was that roading gets a massive subsidy by the taxpayer. We all pay for road maintenance in our taxes, so in a way every time a truck uses the road, we pay. Toll used to pay for use of the rail, but as Mallard points out, this cost was "uneven" in comparison with roading. How can we expect greater use of rail in comparison with roading when we allow trucking to get a free ride on our roads, and fail to subsidise rail heavily enough? Look at the trucking industry today which doesn't pay for its proportional use of roading, demands that the taxpayer prop the industry up and has a fit when it is forced to pay its share.

Clearly, KiwiRail will not make an immediate profit, but as Mallard again points out, it will make more of a profit in the long run than Toll did. Moreover, with petrol costs rising and the cost of Kyoto imminent, the KiwiRail scheme promises a better use of resources at lower costs to our environment and businesses if maintained efficiently.

KiwiRail will provide an alternative to trucking; an alternative to the high-polluting roading option. When we start to feel the full burden of Kyoto, and when an effective cap-and-trade system is put in place, rail will slowly become more and more competitive and popular. What on earth will the National Party say when KiwiRial becomes the freight option of choice for NZ business?

Facts about Owen Glenn?

Having read David Farrar's "Some facts about Owen Glenn", it is clear that not all of his facts are relevant to anything, and not all are about Owen Glenn.

Take for example:

He was not born in New Zealand.
He has not lived in New Zealand for over 40 years.
He is not eligible to vote in New Zealand

All of these are as true as they are irrelevant. It is questionable as to why Farrar would even include these "facts". Perhaps another implication of Xenophobia? Why would it matter if Glenn is or is not able to vote in this country?

Farrar here appeals to the Nationalists among his readers, but does not stop at taking shots at Glenn based on his place of birth:

This is the largest known donor ever in New Zealand politics.

Very, very good point. Glenn is the largest KNOWN donor, despite there having been larger donors. Here it is clear that there have been much greater donations to the National Party under the "Waitemata Trust" in 2005, but it is unknown as to who actually donated this money. Thank you Kiwiblog for pointing out the very reason why we needed stronger election laws. New Zealand has had far shadier donors than Glenn, and perhaps they were immigrants too, in case David is worried, it's just that previously we didn't know who they were.

The Labour Party amended the Electoral Finance Bill to specifically allow him to keep donating money, while restricting other foreign donations to $1,000 (by defining a foreign donation as being okay from overseas residents who are NZ citizens even though they are ineligible to enrol or vote)

What I want to know is how exactly David Farrar knows that the Labour Party made a law that specifically makes provisions for "him". It seems far more likely that the reason for this part of the law is that not all people living in New Zealand are eligible to vote. Consider, for example, people living here on temporary visas or work permits. These people cannot vote, but just like companies, should have the right to donate money to NZ political parties. The restrictions on foreign donations just ensure that only people domestically effected by NZ politics can donate, rather than overseas business interests. And why shouldn't a New Zealand citizen be able to influence New Zealand politics from abroad? Sure, they are not able to vote for now, but they still may have party ties/membership and still should have the right to influence party politics from afar. Labour has made the right call here in allowing this to happen.

Labour and NZ First forced through the Electoral Finance Act whose purpose is “to strengthen the law governing electoral financing and broadcasting, in order to … prevent the undue influence of wealth on electoral outcomes and … provide greater transparency and accountability on the part of candidates, parties, and other persons engaged in election activities in order to minimise the perception of corruption”

Farrar here abandons the usual convention of actually continuing on one path of diologue, and rather decides to provide a largely irrelevant attack on Labour and NZ First. Glenn is not influencing electoral outcomes through the shady means of National; it is true that he initially would not confirm/deny claims to funding NZ First but the point is that the made donations himself and not through some third paty trust. His donations were greatly more moral and were declared in a way which clearly indicated him as the donator, unlike National's donors. This law does exactly what it sets out to do; it provides transparency by forcing the National donors to do exactly what Glenn has does done - declaring a donation.

It is clear that Farrar's facts about Glenn are not actually facts about Glenn, but rather a cheap and ineffectual political point.