Things That Make You Go Hmmmmmmm

Every so often in politics, a public figure comes out with something so absurd and so outlandish ... that it really does just make you go "Hmmmmmmmmmm".

We're accustomed to this from certain quarters - by mid point through the last Campaign, for instance, virtually nobody in the country was going to bat an eyelid if Colin Craig declared he's suddenly sighted Elvis; while making a habit of believing in six impossible things before breakfast is almost a requirement for membership of the ACT Party. (Although this usually restricts itself to mad economic sentiment like "Privatize EVERYTHING!" rather than curious philosophical defences of legalized incest) There's also Richard Prosser.

But the one that really, seriously took the cake for me this past twenty four hours (other than certain MANA supporters) was Green MP Steffan Browning's bizarre series of comments in relation to homeopathy as part of the possible response to Ebola. I appreciate that signing an online petition is hardly tantamount to a declaration of lunacy; but it's his response to journalists outside the House this afternoon which really caught my eye.

When asked whether he thought that the World Health Organization should be looking into homeopathy as part of its response to Ebola, he asked "Why not?" before going on to assert that "while I am not an expert" - clearly - "I assume they will look at [homeopathy] as much as a number of other options." 

Or, in other words, he's worked out signing the petition wasn't a good look (probably after a fun conversation with his Leader) ... but he somehow missed the bit where telling the country he's perplexed as to why you *wouldn't* consider homeopathy for inclusion in the response to Ebola ... really doesn't help ditch the spacey vibe.

The Greens' leadership team will be rather annoyed by this for exactly the same reason I tend to get rather annoyed every time Winston makes a risque joke. Just as NZF grapples with a legacy of being perceived as holding extreme and unpopular views on immigration (thanks in no small part to incidents like former Deputy Leader and immigrant to our fine shores from the UK Peter Brown stating in his plummy English accent various things about other migrant groups), the Greens are struggling to ditch the appearance of being a party of, by and for weed-smoking organic-fabric-wearing vegan-cooking Age-of-Aquarius-singing alternative lifestylers called Galadriel.

This involves shifting public perceptions and the stereotype of what Green people believe in from things like the anti-vaccination movement, anti-fluoridation or a zero growth economic agenda to more mainstream palatable concepts like broad population and public health, and some sort of "smart" green sustainable capitalism. (although I note their health policy still maintains the line about supporting an independent study into fluoridation's effects, support for an opt-out from fluoridation option, and absolutely no mention of the word "vaccine".)

Having an MP publicly running around stating as much tacit and tantamount support for alternative medicine (which, as I believe Tim Minchin originally put it, would be simply called "medicine" if it worked as explained) as he's now allowed to ... does not help the Greens to do this. On the other hand, as proven by Peter Dunne over the years, there is potentially an electoral payoff to being able to connect with small but passionate groups like homeopathy-adherents or the anti-fluoridation lobby.

Still, Browning's gaffe is mostly harmless. He's not really in a substantive position to influence the actual fight against Ebola; and for this, the planet should possibly be grateful. However, there are obvious population and public health implications inherent in a Parliamentarian - or, for that matter, I suppose *any* sufficiently positioned public figure - choosing to endorse such an *ahem* placebo-dependent form of "medicine"; potentially, in the minds of constituents, at the expense or in alternative to more conventional remedies and responses.

Of potentially greater concern, however, is when people who actually *can* influence outcomes do this sort of thing.

My generation, of course, grew up with our teenage years backdropped by the phenomenon of the Bushism; and the idea that somewhere in Texas a village was missing its idiot ... who'd then somehow made it into the White House ... certainly made for an eloquent - if overly simplistic - explanation for the geopolitics of the day.

This pales, of course, in comparison to Bush Snr's Vice President, Dan Quayle ... but apart from mentioning he reputedly made H.W Bush "impeachment-proof" by, inter alia, insistently correcting a student spelling of the word "potato" to "potatoe" while judging a primary school spelling bee, postulating a breathable atmosphere for humans on Mars thanks to the "canals" he believed existed thereon, declaring the US to be part of Europe, and displaying a surprising degree of candor in describing American success in the First Gulf War as "a stirring victory for the forces of aggression" ... we'll just gloss over him by noting he was no Jack Kennedy.

To bring it back to the New Zealand context, and remind why it's occasionally quite scary when our MPs and decision-makers start giving us tangible evident of how daft they can be ... look no further than Energy Minister Simon Bridges describing environmental preserve regulations and protections as "emotional clap-trap". Then opening up the protected space to mining.

Another (now former) MP who's served as a Minister in Key's government with a history of problematic statements in an area of policy they may be able to influence is Tariana Turia. Here she is in 2004 describing high Maori teen pregnancy rates as something that's entirely non-problematic and preferable to "an excessive focus on controlling our fertility", while also suggesting that a woman's fertility is "not meant to be the responsibility of one person, alone". She's then subsequently tried to influence the exercise of the nation's laws in an overtly pro-life direction by attempting to have a rigidly anti-abortion doctor appointed to the Abortion Supervisory Committee.

See how MPs with curious beliefs can produce sketch outcomes?

Publishing Journalists' Home Addresses Is A Tactic Of The Right, Not The Left.

I think I'm starting to get rather annoyed with the conduct of some pro-MANA people over this ongoing Parliamentary Services crew complement issue.

Yes, we get that there are legitimate issues to be raised with how some political reporters in this country operate. InternetMANA Press Secretary and Caller-Out of "Puffed Up Little Shits" Pam Corkery eloquently and factually spelled out some of these in her excellent piece a few weeks back.

*THAT'S* how you raise issue with these sorts of things. In an appropriate context, and buttressed with appropriate content. As their own issue, rather than as an attempted deflection from the gravity and seriousness of the episode presently engulfing MANA.

You *don't* decide to give the errant press a taste of its own medicine by taking it upon yourself to publish the address of the reporter in question online. 

What the hell kinda person does that.

Now I will note that there's a certain sadistic glee to be had whenever a politico manages to "turn the tables" on the media and put *them* under the hard glare. This is, assumedly, why we enjoy watching Winston rip into and counter-interrogate a particularly obstinate journalist every now and again.

But has the MANA supporter behind the address posting thought about the likely results of this? If this actually turns out to be Tova O'Brien's *actual* place of residence, then I imagine there'll be more than just one fake camera crew turning up on her doorstep to demand an "interview".

The way some Hone-fans are whipping themselves up into a frenzy, I'd half expect a whole baying mob!

Now if it *isn't* Tova O'Brien's actual address ... then I imagine that some poor confused Wellington residents are about to be inundated with unwanted and unwarranted knocks at the door - and I don't mean from Jehovah's Witnesses.

Either way, this is profoundly uncool conduct from what I hope's just a few excessively-irate MANA supporters.

I appreciate that emotions are running high right now in some camps, but casually putting up what you're claiming is somebody's home address and telling people to make sure "she'll get the message" ... isn't an example of "[playing] her at her own game" ... it's an example of you sinking to the level of Cameron Slater or Cactus Kate.

Now let's all take a deep breath ... quit trying to make this about ethics in political-game journalism ... and hurry up and wait for Hone to front on this issue.

Oh, and I'm assuming that, for various reasons, the alleged O'Brien household won't be handing out candy to strangers who come a'knocking at their door this Halloween. Particularly if they come dressed as camera crews or political reporters.

"...But *actually* this is about ethics in political-game journalism"

Yesterday, a piece of mine on the recent revelations about Hone Harawira employing several gentlemen either accused or convicted of sex offences was published on The Daily Blog. Predictably, given the fierce loyalty which Hone inspires in his party faithful and supporters, this has been somewhat controversial (as demonstrated by the comments section). Some of this response, due to being blog-length and thus more easily disseminable, deserves engagement; although I'm rather disappointed that the general feeling I get from reading a number of pro-MANA perspectives on this issue which go something along the lines of "never mind the criminal charges or the victims ...  this is *actually* about ethics in political-game journalism".

If that phrase sounds familiar to you, given what's happening in some of the nerdier corners of the internet right about now ... there's a reason for its invocation here. Spoiler Alert: it's because despite quite vociferous protests to the contrary, this issue *isn't* about ethics in political journalism.

Enter local MANA Movement Chairman Joe Trinder.

Now I'll start by stating I fully acknowledge Mr Joe Trinder's efforts in penning the blog I'm here responding to. It's not always easy to commit pen to paper or finger to keyboard, particularly when you're writing under a time pressure and in defence of something you hold dear which you feel is under assault. I also genuinely believe that the more our polis actively engages with what our commentariat is saying - which definitely includes writing responses calling errant bloggers to account for perceived inaccuracies - the better it is for our politisphere.

Mr Trinder therefore deserves full marks for stumping up with a contribution and response; and good on him for having a go.

However, I *do* nonetheless feel that Mr Trinder has gotten somewhat the wrong end of the stick when it comes to both my piece and the broader context of this sad imbroglio.

Let's take a sample:

Trinder: "You have asked that Hone Harawira deserves to explain what happened, how would he explain when his next door neighbour is an alleged sex offender. What explanation can Hone offer he wasn’t involved, Hone had no idea this offending was taking place. Why should Hone offer explanations for another man’s crime."

It appears that Mr Trinder is suggesting that I was demanding Hone Harawira explain the alleged historic offending of Mr Awaru. This is not the case. Explanations for *that* belong in a court-room, not the court of public opinion. I'm *instead* suggesting it would be a relatively good idea for Hone to clear up some factual gaps in this narrative by fronting up to his party faithful and/or the public who paid this man's wages and explaining when he became aware of the charges against Mr Awaru and why, if he was aware of said charges, Mr Awaru was allowed to represent the MANA Party on Election Night.

That's all.

As for the next bit ... "You have decided that these accusations are justified by the media and they aren’t Maori bashing or a smear campaign, then please explain why Tova Obrien a very good friend of MP Judith Collins broke the story and then attempted to link Hone to this crime."

Yes, Mr Trinder ... that's because I went away and googled each of the three staff in question. Being from NZF, I'm *fully cognisant* that the media can play dirty tricks. Having spent a brief period existing at the center of a mini-scandal which saw me damn near demand somebody's Press Council accreditation for inaccuracies and improprieties in their reporting, trust me when I say I'm sympathetic - even empathetic - in cases wherein this happens to other people or parties.

So the FIRST thing I did when I became aware of this situation, is I plugged the names and aliases of all three men into google to see what came up. I checked my facts, in other words. To avoid speculation.

I found multiple sources for the nature of the charges or sentence each man was facing, and pretty much all from sources other than TV3, thus confirming their (broad) accuracy. It's therefore rather weird that Mr Trinder is entertaining the idea that this entire scenario may be an instance of "Maori-bashing or a smear campaign". Or, as he and other MANA affiliates have labelled this, "speculation". The legal processes each man has had to undergo, or are presently undergoing are factual [and, because I *just know* I'm going to be called up on this ... yes, Mr Awaru is presumed innocent until proven guilty, so no, no I'm *not* stating that the allegations against him are factual (that's a job for the court) - merely that the allegations factually *exist*]. The only bits in question or which are at issue relate to their employment by MANA/Hone, the conditions associated with same, and when said employment terms ceased.

So can I just point out that the *only* way we'd be able to find out if this was, in fact, some sort of anti-Hone media smear campaign that's totally inflated and trumped up ... is if Hone actually comes out and sets the facts straight about when these guys were employed and when he became aware of the charges facing the gentleman MANA is now apparently referring to as "his neighbour".

Oh, and I'm not *entirely* sure that a single tweet from Judith Collins is *really* enough to establish there's a close and personal BFF thing going on Key-Slater style between Judith Collins and Tova O'Brien ... but since we're all apparently in the business of hacking at the messenger rather than seriously debating the message, I guess I shouldn't be surprised this is the strength of evidence being deployed?

It goes on: "MANA members are correct that they are the target of dirty politics the only reason why your precious Winston doesn’t get attacked is because Judith Collins and Cam Slater admire him."

Yes, Mr Trinder, #DirtyPolitics was a pretty abominable affair for all parties on the Left - and MANA (or, rather, InternetMANA) definitely found itself targeted. Nobody on the Left (and particularly not my good self) is quibbling with this.

However, it's wildly inaccurate to state that MANA was attacked during #DirtyPolitics but somehow Winston and NZF weren't. If Mr Trinder had actually *read* Dirty Politics, then he'd see we were in Slater/National's sights the whole time - and probably, if anything, more than MANA (rather than DotCom) was. I note that Dirty Politics' index lists 7 entries for "Peters, Winston" in contrast to two for "Harawira, Hone"; while just from memory we found ourselves subject to Slater offering a bounty for particular materials associated with Andrew Williams, Brendan Horan, and Winston ... senior NZF figures including yours truly found themselves under apparent state surveillance because we looked like we might represent a threat to National's security ... Slater started blatantly *making up* the allegations that NZF was having our campaign funded by Kim DotCom because he knew that looked damaging (kinda ironic given who funded InternetMANA's) ... the really really turgid series of allegations about our people which Slater ran in his Truth newspaper ... and a *literal litany* of further dirty tricks emanating in our direction from the far-right blue-blood set of New Zealand Politics.

If Mr Joe Trinder *genuinely* believes that Cameron Slater and Judith Collins "admire" Winston, then I would respectfully suggest that Mr Joe Trinder needs to read more FailOil (I can genuinely state I never thought I'd suggest someone needed to read *more* FailOil ... but if he's going to engage in low-brow politicized slander, then I suppose he may wish to learn from the industry leader) . Considering Winston is pretty much Public Enemy #1 for Slater; while Collins' career basically ended when Winston outed her coup intentions as applied John Key ... I really do have to ask why Trinder is trying to make it look like there's some sort of strategic accord between some of the people who appear to hate NZF the most and Winston. Is it because breathless "reporting" and falsified allegations are evidently so effective a tool for the Right Wing that the MANA Movement feels it's justified in busting them out to attack other parties on the Left as a sort of smokescreen? 

Could this possibly explain Mr Trinder's frankly bizarre "criticism" that I'm at issue in what I've written because I didn't devote space in my piece on MANA's present woes to demanding John Key explain #DirtyPolitics? For the record, I hold Hone in *considerably* higher respect, esteem and regard than I do John Key. That's why I'm prepared to actually hear him out if he's got a decent explanation for what's gone on here. Having said that, I'm not *quite* sure how Hone intends to exonerate himself in this affair - but that's why I'm asking the question for him to answer rather than attempting to put words in anybody's mouth. 

As applies John Key, however ... in him, I have *zero* trust, faith or confidence. I'm therefore not saying things like "Let's give John a chance to explain what's happened" as I am Hone, because there's frankly no point. I expect lies, slander and evasion from Key's quarter. I'm *hopeful* for a rational, straightforward, and truthful answer from Hone's. 

This is, incidentally, why New Zealand First was initially demanding a full-blown Royal Commission of Inquiry into the #DirtyPolitics revelations. Because we don't trust Key or his cronies to tell the truth about #DirtyPolitics, therefore when they're spinning madly like a Sufi anyway ... why not come straight to the crux of the matter and deploy the highest investigative tool of state to try and get to the bottom of the affair. I feel that NZF demanding a proper investigation and inquiry into #DirtyPolitics rather suborns and supersedes both in efficacy and appropriateness any personal call I could have made for an explanation from the Prime Minister during the course of a blog article on another subject entirely. I also feel that I've placed various combinations of words to the effect of "Let's have a Royal Commission of Inquiry into #DirtyPolitics" in a sufficiently expansive quantity of my previous blogging to feel I've done my duty on that score, to boot.  

As for the charge that I've somehow "put the boot into Hone Harawira in [my] article" ... if Mr Trinder genuinely feels that a piece whose core themes included the idea that "As-is, and acutely conscious of the necessity of balancing both the needs and the deservedly protected status of the survivors with what appears to be the desire of about a third of the political spectrum to make this look as bad as possible for Harawira and MANA … Hone deserves the chance to explain what, exactly, has happened" counts as "Maori-bashing" or "putting the boot in" ... then I would respectfully contend it says an *awful* lot more about him and his mindset than it does me and mine.

When it comes to the bit about Winston endorsing Kelvin Davis for Te Tai Tokerau (seriously ... *how* is this relevant to anything I've written about Harawira over the past three days?) I've always found it rather perplexing in the extreme that people in MANA and on the Left generally find it more rhetorically convenient to "blame" Winston for securing Kelvin Davis' electoral victory than they do, say, Kelvin Davis for campaigning hard and winning the seat. There's also the small matter of querying which of Kim DotCom or Winston did more to dissuade TTT voters from re-electing MANA.

In any case, I'm not my Chief (although I'll take any comparisons to him on apparent ability to kick up a ruckus and drop rhetorical bombs, as being high compliments indeed) ... and as it happens, I've stated in a variety of forae my personal qualms with his strategic decision to back Kelvin Davis in that seat at InternetMANA's expense. I believe I phrased it in terms of being highly annoyed that NZF had put more effort into ending InternetMANA than we did ACT at the last election. I also stated my sadness that the party I'd known as the one behind Feed The Kids, and the only other party in Parliament to back NZF's call for full #Renationalization of power companies was now no longer with us.

I do, however, find the concluding paragraphs of Mr Trinder's piece quite telling. "Why would a Maori MP want to push another Maori MP out of Parliament?" is one of the questions I've been called upon by Trinder to answer.

Answer's quite simple, really: over here in New Zealand First, we don't see people's ethnicity first and foremost ... we see their contribution. The idea that Mr Trinder is advancing of Maori MPs refusing on point of ethnonationalist principle to attack other Maori MPs is highly, highly problematic - and not just from a civic nationalist perspective, but also from a left-wing one. Would Mr Trinder have us in NZF hold our fire whenever Paula Bennett or Hekia Parata screws up purely on the basis of their ethnicity? Hell, would he be dismayed and demanding blood-spattered electoral vengeance if NZF had somehow managed to unseat Bennett or some other equally arbitrary National Party affiliated Maori MP - or even if Annette Sykes had been successful in unseating Te Ururoa Flavell in Waiariki and destroying the Maori Party?

If he wouldn't be, then his confusion and annoyance about "a Maori MP [pushing] another Maori MP out of Parliament" is cosmetic at best and the actions of a charlatan otherwise. If he *would* be dismayed at the thought of Bennett, Parata and Bridges losing their Ministries due to ejection from the House purely because these MPs happen to be Maori ... then Mr Trinder's political weltanshauung is even *more* superficial and problematic than it already appears.

One facet of Winston's reasoning for coming down on Davis' side in Te Tai Tokerau was his opposition to the idea that the Maori Seats should be used to elect and empower a Pakeha party. I've already stated here and elsewhere that my own hatred for the National-led government means I didn't entirely share Winston's scruples in this regard. But any way you care to slice it, between this and the charge of "Maori-bashing" earlier in Mr Trinder's piece, it's reasonably self-evident that some within MANA have little interest in engaging with the actual issues on the table; and would *much* rather play the race card or attempt to make this about ethics in political journalism in pursuit of a potentially false victimhood instead.

I'll say that again: the continual efforts on social media and elsewhere of some within MANA to try and make this primarily an issue of ethics in political journalism, rather than allow for a focus on questions of fact about what Hone knew, when he knew it, and what he did about it ... is pretty much the equivalent of all the "It's actually about ethics in video-game journalism" claptrap presently emanating from #GamerGate and affiliates.

Also, for the record ... "speculation" might mean something different to Mr Trinder than it does to myself or much of the rest of the English-speaking world ... but when we look back at the three pieces I've written on this affair over the past few days, I think you'll be hard-pressed to find me "speculating". As earlier stated, the fact that Arthur Harawira was facing a number of charges including indecent assault and was subsequently incarcerated is not speculation. It's right there in the media from 5 years ago. The fact that Daniel Taylor has been imprisoned since 2013 for half a decade's child grooming (with the period of offending apparently overlapping with his employment with MANA, which started in 2010) is, again, right there all through the media from a year back. The fact that Mangu Awaru is facing charges presently is not in dispute by anyone, it would appear. I doubt that the fact of his being out on bail while representing the party on election night is disagreed with, either.

So if *none of these things* are "speculation", and all of them are facts ... then I must confess myself a little confused at how, exactly, Mr Trinder is alleging impropriety on my behalf.

In any case, if Mr Trinder wishes to make an issue out of the recent conduct, agenda-driven distortion, or fact-free spinfotainment of commentators on political events ... he would do well to start with a critical examination of his own blog output these past 24 hours.

That Hella-Weird Feeling When You Defend Tova O'Brien

Oh dear. Yesterday morning I blogged that Hone deserved a chance to explain what exactly had happened as applies his office's Parliamentary Services crew complement - and, importantly, that we deserve to be able to judge him on the strength of his (non-) response. I wrote that, because I genuinely believe both the public and MANA's party members deserve a proper accounting of what's been going on; while the gravity and seriousness of this matter renders it too important to just leave to the media to probe. We need *actual* facts, and if there is another side to this story that even somewhat exonerates Hone, then this needs to come out sooner rather than later.

Unfortunately, instead of Hone Harawira fronting and setting out the facts (such as when a period of employment ended relative to the law becoming involved for one staffer; and why another one wasn't stood down but instead was allowed to speak on behalf of the party on election night while out on bail before a pending court date), we have Hilda Halkyard-Harawira laying an inaccuracy-laden official complaint with TV3 about the manner, nature and conduct of Tova O'Brien. (I must confess that I was singularly unaware up until reading this complaint that Tova's "wages are paid by taxpayer money". When did we #Nationalize TV3?)

All I can say about this is, while I and New Zealand First have had issues with Tova in the past (we are roundly renowned for enjoying a relationship with the media that's less "rocky" than it is "an extensive combination of sedimentary formation and igneous basolithic intrusion"), this approach from MANA's hierarchy of attempting to fudge the issue by attacking the messenger and trying to claim victim status, rather than responding to the grave nature of the allegations slash facts (because seriously - despite what Hilda Harawira's complaint states to the contrary, some of these things are *facts* rather than allegations) ... is *really* not cool. It's also strategically ill-advised from a political perspective - it can look bad to try and claim victim status, and getting into a *direct* scrap with the media by attempting to trade punches will most likely only serve to inflame and prolong the issue further.  

I fully get some of MANA's frustration here. Tova has an approach to political journalism that frequently appears to be less about digging up dark truths than it is aiming a camera at somebody and waiting for them to muck up. Pam Corkery wrote an excellent piece a few weeks back about how it is dealing with some of New Zealand's political reporters (and Tova in particular) that really highlights the frustrations many of us over here on *this* side of the political trenches (i.e. party-hacks and operatives rather than whambulance-chasers and fourth estaters) feel when dealing with the media. My own personal first encounter with Tova (which basically consisted of us playing a very grown-up game of Hide N Seek around a convention center at the height of my mini-scandal in late 2013 due to Tova not *quite* getting that "No Means No", particularly when it's an order from somebody further up the totem-pole than I am) certainly sprang instantly to mind when I cast my eye over the part of Hilda Harawira's complaint that deals with Tova's conduct in pursuit of Hone Harawira through Kaitaia Airport some weeks prior to the last election.

Then I stopped, rubbed my eyes, and took stock of the fact that one of the things in the complaint letter about TV3's coverage of the "employs sex offenders" story is actually a questionably relevant incident that took place many, many weeks before last week's expose.

As it happens, I don't agree with politicians being pursued through airports so that breathless reporters can play "gotcha" with their hurried responses. (Hell, due to the way the press occasionally abuses the close confines and ubiquity of use associated with terminals and flying , I'm almost tempted to push for airports and other mass transit services being declared camera-crew free Politician Reservations.)

But check out the way in which that episode is deployed in Hilda Harawira's complaint to TV3. It's used as a sort of propensity evidence to try and sketch out a pattern of previous conduct to substantiate a "fixation" on the part of Tova in the direction of Hone. The idea is plainly to cast MANA in general and Hone in specia as the victims in this narrative - a passive prey-thing, hounded, persecuted and savaged at at every turn; rather than a serious political party capable of giving serious answers to serious questions.

Again, I get that some in the upper echelons of MANA will be feeling like their man's been singled out by Tova for an unfair, malicious and vindictive degree of additional scrutiny ... but given Tova's probably spent more time chasing me around Addington Raceway than she did pursuing Hone through an airport, unless we're going to start claiming that one of the country's leading political reporters has a "fixation" with a certain dashingly charismatic 24 year old black-and-silver-clad political enfant terrible, this idea that Tova has a "fixation" with Hone and is therefore somehow unfairly 'victimizing' MANA by reporting that Hone Harawira is failing to answer questions on a matter of pressing public interest is a really, really weird one. This is *actually* how she operates with *every* political party; and given the nature of this situation, it's pretty easy to argue that there's a strong degree of public interest and deserved public scrutiny that she's channeling by covering this story. Further, as I've said elsewhere, the gravity and nature of this situation - and its pernicious unknowns - *demands* answers itself. It's not enough to just keep hanging up on the media.

To be fair though, Tova being on to something and fulfilling a public watchdog role with this story in no way shape or form detracts from the fact that we can pretty much *all* agree that there are some clear and manifest issues with how we do political reporting here in New Zealand. While these go at least right the way back to Sir Bob Jones having to resort to the gentlemanly art of fisticuffs to dissuade an errant and overly ardent reporter who was disrupting his post-election fly-fishing in 1985, Hilda Harawira's complaint letter definitely points out some problematic areas in the conduct of our 4th Estaters which, if this weren't arguably a somewhat inopportune place, time, and manner to raise same for fear of looking like a deflection, do deserve some examination and reflection by our press.

I do however also note that there is some considerable irony inherent in Hilda Harawira suggesting Tova is "obliged to present the facts" and is more accountable for her actions and editorial slant because "her wages are paid by taxpayer's money" [apparently - I'll bet this comes as news to TV3] ... while defending Hone Harawira's thus-far refusal to meet his own *moral* obligation to present the facts pertaining to his *own* taxpayer-funded employees. But let us not dwell on that.

I like taking an optimistic view of political circumstance (half a decade's enlistment with New Zealand First will do that to you), and was therefore quite hopeful at the suggestion toward the end of Harawira's letter which pledges that "Hone will front. It may not be what you want to hear, but he will front up."

On the contrary. This is EXACTLY what I want to hear - my only question is why I'm reading that promise in somebody else's complaint letter, rather than in Hone's own words and preferably accompanied by exactly the facts that we've been waiting the best part of a week to take in.

The time is now for MANA and Hone to *front* the issue, rather than persist with cap-handed attempts to *front-foot* said issue. (or, less optimistically, foot-in-mouth it) It may seem to the Harawiras like they're being hounded for answers here ... but given the lack of answers thus far as well as the demonstrable public interest in this situation both senses of the term, it would almost be irresponsible for reporters *not* to keep probing the issue. The fact reporters are still asking the questions therefore arguably may be ascribed in greater measure to the paucity of answers on show from Hone; rather than a more overtly malicious agenda than usual on the part of the media.

Still, as an associate of mine pointed out this afternoon, "Tova O'Brien shouldn't NEED to be hounding Hone [over this issue]. That she stands accused of doing so alone demonstrates that Hone has been actively evading answering these questions."

Man's got a point.

Only question is, how long's a reasonable length of time to prepare a statement.

The Questions Have Been Asked - They Deserve An Answer

A few days ago, allegations that had been percolating for some time about Hone Harawira employing three either accused or convicted sex offenders on his Parliamentary pay-roll came to light. (one imprisoned before working for MANA; one who found himself convicted and imprisoned after being hired to work for MANA; and one who was charged just before the last Election).

Understandably, there have been some very, very pronounced reactions to this news. We take a dim view of sex-crimes in our society - particularly when they involve minors or children - so I can well understand the baying for blood that is presently emanating in ululating fashion from some quarters and commentators.

I can also very vaguely see why (but disagree utterly with the sentiment) some pro-MANA people are doggedly insisting that this is a beat-up by an aggressive media playing "Gotcha" with breathless reporting. It isn't, but given that allegations InternetMANA was being funded by meth-money thanks to some of DotCom's connections seemed to pretty much be the order of the day for right-wing shadow campaigning a few weeks prior to the election, and especially considering what we've now had confirmed for us in #DirtyPolitics about right-wing commentators literally *making things up* to try and smear opponents, this misguided mindset on the part of some war-weary MANAites is not totally inexplicable. There's also assumedly a whole helluvalot of cognitive dissonance for some of the good people who joined up and campaigned for MANA on the assumption that it was the party of child poverty ... only to find out that child pederasty is what's potentially been lurking on the payroll thereof.

That's actually one of the things that renders this situation so tragic. Given that the offending (alleged or otherwise) of two of the staff involved was carried out against children (Mr Awaru is charged with raping a girl younger than twelve, while Mr Taylor was imprisoned for sexually grooming young boys), the fact that so very much of MANA's appeal and key policy is child-based makes this situation all the graver. The duality between a party whose kaupapa is so driven toward caring for our younger and more vulnerable citizens yet whose Parliamentary Services crew-complement features individuals who either have preyed upon, or are alleged to be in the business of preying upon, exactly those same kids definitely makes this all the more wrenching.

My heart really does go out to the hundreds of MANA members around the country who've had to suffer a string of body-blows over the last month or so. First there was the election loss, then the recount added votes for Davis, and now allegations of the tacit non-condemnation of sex offenders are being added to the tally. It's certainly getting more difficult to see how MANA will be able to recover from all of this and seek successful re-election in three years' time considering all that has happened - and, importantly, the fact that we're stilll yet to get the full picture about what's occurred.

Through my years advancing in these political trenches ever closer to the Front Lines down in Wellington, I've become increasingly enamoured of the idea that political parties' Parliamentary operations (i.e. their Bowen House offices and use of Parliamentary Services resources) should not always enjoy the rigorous protection from OIA that they presently do. I say this not only because I've occasionally found myself reduced to having to call up reception and ask to be put through to such-and-such in order to divine  whether a particular of my political enemies is still acting as a waste of taxpayer money by being employed by a political party ... but also because with the way things are set up at the moment, it's *very* possible for the leaders of parties to use their operational budgets to do some pretty *ahem* interesting things without a skerrick of scrutiny for how they're spending *our* money. I won't go into detail, but the difficulty concerned citizens are going to have working out what's transpired here thanks to these protections ought to be evidence enough that perverse outcomes can ensue from this cone of silence.

Further, despite the legal protections afforded to MANA and other parties when it comes to revealing to us down here in the cheap seats how they're using our coin, I would respectfully contend Harawira has something of a moral duty to front up and explain - not just to us taxpayers, but to his own long-suffering party members - exactly what's been going on here with his staffing allocations.

Until then, we're left asking "what didn't he know, and when didn't he know it?" of Harawira, and I'd also be inclined to ask why Awarau was not stood down as soon as Harawira and MANA became aware of the charges laid against him.

As-is, and acutely conscious of the necessity of balancing both the needs and the deservedly protected status of the survivors with what appears to be the desire of about a third of the political spectrum to make this look as bad as possible for Harawira and MANA ... Hone deserves the chance to explain what, exactly, has happened.

As his staffers' paymasters and the people whom he helped to govern and represent for the best part of a decade ... we deserve to be able to judge him on the strength of that (non-)explanation.

An Un-Civil War in Labour, eh? Wait till you see how WE fight from the shadows.

Earlier today, my attention was directed to an entry that's just recently appeared on the Slightly Left of Centre blog.

It purports to contain the 'inside word' from a highly placed NZF source - which is funny, because I'm pretty sure the person in question found themselves wheeled out of our Parliamentary Office many months ago after a kerfuffle featuring a decidedly non-Lenninist style of "Vanguard" party that put his lone star into freefall.

The same individual has been observed madly flitting about the politisphere for much of the previous two years, attempting to play some thrice-interminable game of god-chess with New Zealand First's future prospects for his own ends, and the ends of those connected to him.

I'd previously witnessed the gent in question attempt to breathlessly convince an array of commentators and players that Shane Jones as Winston's designated successor was an iron-clad stroke of genius sure to shortly transpire. Then, through catspaws, they attempted to propel John Tamihere for NZF into the minds of many. Bomber even reported on it, and I believe one of our more recent social media spats was driven by exactly that issue.

The common theme here should be obvious to the more than casual observer: ex-Labour kiddie attempts to muscle in on the future of NZF by deploying his connections in a mad-cap bid to seize command of the still-being-written chapters of NZF's future narrative. Then bolt yourself surgically to the coat-tail once it takes off, and try to steer/capitalize upon the presumptive self-fulfilling prophecy for the sake of your own career and to support your new chosen champion as he angles for our top job. Our friend's evidently run out of Labour contacts now, after an embarrassing series of events that started with a job offer from David Cunliffe ... so it would appear he's changed tac when it comes to the idea of an ex-Labourite takeover of NZF accordingly, and is now trying to pour cold water on the idea.

I guess I'm also laughing because he's evidently retreated a little in stature from talking to the NBR to "word in your ear"'ing a relatively more minor beltway blogger. Perhaps it's because the mainstream media and Parliamentary Press Gallery no longer takes his breathless allegations seriously after that incident with the backfiring allegations about Brendan Horan's CV.

Anyway. It's not my job, and considerably above my pay-grade, to try and sketch out in any sort of detail the factional intricacies of life behind the curtain in NZ First. Besides, the whole damn thing's such a sargasso shoal sea that it's near-constantly shifting in orientation and connectivity to the point that even *I'm* never quite sure who my friends are going to be and who's going to be screaming at me down a phone-line from one week to the next.

But as cannot have escaped the notice of just about *anyone* who even pays *vague* attention to the Beltway and its contrivances ... there is a bit of a moment of strategic potentiality going on inside NZF at present - a gap in the momentum wherein a new rhythm has a chance to develop.

I am, of course, referring to the growing whispers about some sort of "leadership transition" in our camp that began to get seriously out of hand pretty much the moment we got back into Parliament in late 2011.

Back then, the narrative for exterior purposes went that Winston would be around for the forseeable future; but had a vision for an NZF post-him that manifested as Winston being able to sit down to watch the 6 pm news and see the next Leader of NZF giving a speech. Behind the scenes, however, a few back-room boys with buggerall empathy or depth of feeling for the Party (because they're from the Parliamentary side of things rather than the Party, and view this all as a meal-ticket and an opportunity for personal advancement rather than something to pour your passion and the fabric of your very being into, I'm guessing) were pressing for a different trajectory: Winston not putting any effort in to developing an organic and in-house succession plan, and instead pouring his energy into securing a Ministerial bauble off the National-led government so as to execute one last hurrah before being ferried by a Crown limousine off into the sunset and leaving our Party to die.

Needless to say, this is not the Winston I know; and to be frank, there's assumedly something interesting in the fact that the chief proponent of this "strategy" (such as it was) has since left us for purple-er and more pixellated pastures while heeding an altogether different Call of Duty. On the Internet.

Developments in the narrative subsequent to this basically manifested as Tracey Martin and Andrew Williams going head to head for the Deputy Leadership. There's some very interesting stories circulating about how the vote for Deputy Leader went down, but suffice to say Tracey won; and less than a year later Andrew Williams found himself unceremoniously dumped down the list to a nigh unwinnable position. Meanwhile, a mysterious source conveniently made a number of list rankings (including that of new leadership rival Ron Mark) appear in the media many days before the final list was actually announced, with the apparent goal of provoking a journalistic feeding frenzy that would finish one or both of Mark and Williams.

Now, alongside this, the whispers from various subtle sources *before* the election were stating a potential plan of Winston resigning from Leadership of the Party about 18 months into this term, then allowing a putative future leader (whom everyone had been assuming would be Tracey) to take over while Winston stayed on as a Singaporean style "Minister Mentor" (or, if you prefer, Queen Mother).

A number of things have since happened that appear to make this plan rather less likely than it already was to be implemented. I won't go into what these are (although some of them are amusing); but suffice to say Winston now appears to be giving very, very real consideration to staying on through 2017, and possibly even beyond.

Which, of course, presents a bit of a problem if you're somebody who has tethered their wagon to a leadership contender who's not Tracey ... but who doesn't stand to gain very much, either, if Winston continues in the top job.

This explains what was said to Slightly Left Of Centre these past 24 hours. The gentleman (to use a term loosely) providing the "exclusive" (hope any quotes were provided pre-transcriped to two-ply for re-use as nature intended) is trying to *further drive* the same line of thought that we squashed internally a year ago: that i) Winston IS the Party; and ii) that neither prospect this person deems threatening (a Tracey-lead NZF or a disaffected Labourite takeover) for an *actual* post-Winston future for NZF is in reality viable.

Now personally, I don't hugely rate the chances of a band of errant Labour MPs upping sticks and walking on over to New Zealand First at some point in the next year and a half as being especially likely. We'd be viewed as far too fraught a prospect for Labour list MPs desirous of a less up-in-the-air seat-ticket; while any successful Labour electorate MP would be more likely to try and extract substantial concessions from Labour rather than attempting to bring their seat and majority with them to pastures blacker.

But that ain't the point. What IS, is the fact that there's some shadowy self-appointed operative running around Wellington trying to hobble NZF's future by making it look like we lack one. Whether they're doing this because they want to clear the decks for their own chosen champion to have a free run at the Leadership of NZF; or because they're still acting on orders from inside Labour to try and bring us down from within (funny story, that) ... it's kinda telling that this particular person's favourite saying was, reportedly, "You've got to be close to the King to stab him".

I would respectfully contend that this is *exactly* what's been attempted here.

I'm rather more fond of a different quotation, however ... it's from The Wire, and it goes along the lines of "You come at the King - you best not miss".

To the "anonymous" guttersnipe attempted saboteur of our future: You've missed ... and YOU won't be ;)

Leadership Transitions In Other Parties: A Short Guide

As cannot have escaped anyone's attention by now, the country is presently in the grips of an election and campaign that will help determine the fate of the nation for years to come.

It's gripping stuff - with clear divides on policy and personality; as well as an active and engaged set of voters, and the rare glimmerings of conscience and vision amidst senior MPs. The right wingers might even lose this one!

Too bad I'm talking about Labour's leadership contest rather than the general election some three weeks before it :P

With all the excitement over Labour (a sentence-fragment I am unlikely to re-type for much of the next three years), it's easy to forget that other parties occasionally have their *own* leadership transitions ... some of which can be even more entertaining/infuriating than the one we're all presently transfixed and/or annoyed by.

I mean, while Labour's is relatively simple - check out some of the others.

The Maori Party: Convene with two co-leaders. Find yourself with a Caucus composed of two co-leaders and a third wheel. Have a protracted months-long internal debate convened through the media about how to get *three* co-leaders and ignore snarks about numbers of chiefs relative to number of Indians; before finally having your reform proposal squashed by John Key, who points out he's only got two ministerial spots in government for the Maori Party - so that's how many leaders they'll have.

Realize eventually and once it's far, far too late to change course that you've replaced two co-leaders with one leader ... of the National Party.

ACT: Everyone knows that monopolies are bad! (Except when it comes to Epsom electorate representation, apparently) Implement efficiencies derived from the free market value of competition right here in your own party by constantly changing the leader! Declare the last guy to lead ACT to an election result of more than a single MP to be an unelectable failure and bring in hired guns like Simon Lusk to roll him in a National Party backed coup that's so cap-handed Rodney Hide winds up having to co-ordinate some of it himself. Install the man who lost "the unloseable election" for National back in 2005 while claiming this is somehow an improvement. Reconvene as a slightly more extreme franchise of the National Party. Watch in horror as Brash does the most anyone's ever likely to do to make ACT electable by pushing for cannabis decriminalization ... only for John Banks to angrily claim such a move will be happening "over my dead body". Banks' political corpse turns up later (with what turns out to be many a self-inflicted wound), giving way to an extremist libertarian philosophy professor so in touch with the electorate that he didn't initially realize the campaign trail isn't the best place to preach an academic argument in favour of legalized incest. Shrug halfheartedly as David Seymour becomes surely the youngest leader ever of a Parliamentary party slash tinpot National Party satrapy.

Survive on government handouts for the rest of your days. Nobody really cares that in reality you replaced your leader with the National Party one a long time ago...

The Greens: Constantly and emphatically insist that your hippy values mean you and your party comrades are above the "petty", "vindictive", "internecine", and "fratricidal" "squabbles" that other parties are prone to. When David Hay comes up, suggest he doesn't count. When other examples are cited of leadership aspirants who've swiftly found themselves out of Parliament after contesting leadership elections, claim this isn't a pattern and that functioning on a consensus-basis doesn't have to axiomatically equate to groupthink. Somehow wind up providing stable, unified, and well-regarded leadership that miraculously manages to hit the demographic tickboxes while also being demonstrably competent.

Continue to be thought of as radical, weed-whacking eccentrics by large swathes of Middle New Zealand regardless.

The MANA Party: Attempt to play in the Maori Party's leadership contest. Fail. Set up own party. Fight perception you've lost control of that to alleged Pirate King and spend rest of campaign angrily correcting journalists about another party's cannabis stance while watching elements of your support base go rogue and/or up in smoke.

Consider a comeback as a solo-act.

Peter Dunne: Bewilderingly manage to maintain enough theoretical relevance and respectability to remain electable in Ohariu. Once upon a time this also entailed keeping an occasionally somewhat fractious caucus and party together through ongoing agglomeration ... but these days, not so much. Another party whose leader can genuinely say he enjoys the full support of his parliamentary caucus (thanks largely to being the last man standing while various more extreme MPs and factions have sloughed off only to wind up in the Conservative Party); however, it is rumoured that the United Future constitution contains provisions for a peacock-like duel by plumage in the unlikely event that Peter Dunne turns on Peter Dunne for the leadership. Continually reinvent yourself in an ongoing quest for relevance/salience/enough new members to keep the Electoral Commission from once again designating you're no longer a party/leader of one.

The Conservative Party: Attempt to join just about every other political party that's going. (Yes, Colin even apparently sounded out The Greens). Hit up Winston and offer to be his Deputy Leader. Wonder why nobody's taking you seriously. Set up own political party. Fail to enter Parliament twice, at a cost of somewhere in the region of four and a half million dollars. Rewrite Conservative Party constitution to make it clear you're just seat-warming for the eventual return of the Messiah at some point after the star Wormwood falls into the sea (or, as applies the bits about leading a parliamentary caucus ... once Hell requires an emissions trading scheme).

The National Party: Head-hunt some guy with an impressive-sounding resume from the private sector, corporate-style. Carefully shepherd his pathway to power by, among other things, arranging for the comprehensive leaking of his predecessor's most embarrassing email correspondence - thus forcing the old guy to step down. Watch in frank, and abject amazement as the new guy succeeds beyond anyone's wildest dreams at delivering the goods - power and power companies - that National and its supporters crave. Start to get a bit edgy about the plausibility of the options to succeed him. Hope the *real* leaders of the National Party - Sky City - don't mind taking a bit of a gamble...

Labour: Choose a guy named David. Roll him. We're not quite sure what comes next.

NZF: Bring forth the ancient black and silver scrolls from the sacred Winebox; light a few Dunhill Blues for incense; and sprinkle some Powdered Ministerial Scalp for flavouring. Tan the rhinoceros hide, heat to a molten temperature the steel for his spine; and mix in the pituitary gland of the Tarrasque. Dryclean and press the pinstripe suit. Let the populist discontent smoulder; and bring his outrage to the boil. Finally, complete the ritual by uttering the phrase "Muldoon volvitur in Sepulchro. They're selling the assets off again. Time to Keep the Bastards Honest!" into the construct's ear.

And that's how, just after every election, we ensure Lich-Lord Peters stays animated and casting bolts of dark energy about the House for the next three years.

Why David Parker *isn't* a credible choice for the Labour Leadership

The one electoral contest this year that a Labour leader is sure to win heated up over the weekend with the late entry of Finance Spokesman (and interim caretaker leader) David Parker into Labour's leadership race.

I'd blogged late last week about how Andrew Little's candidacy is likely to become an underrated but popular effort, thanks to his three core easy to understand and implicitly resonant policies.

These include axing Labour's proposal to raise the retirement age for workers to 65; taking out Labour's Capital Gains Tax on the middle class's retirement savings (because seriously - who raises the retirement age at the same time as promoting a policy to take more of the retirement savings you'll assumedly need to keep above water between 65 and 67); and removing the confusing and ultimately problematic in the efficiency stakes Labour/Greens joint policy of a single electricity buyer called NZ Power.

These are awesome points to reform Labour with, and they resonate well with tens of thousands of voters who decided not to back Labour last time around. The fact they're lifted direct from the New Zealand First policy manual is only further proof they're common sense :P

Now given how eminently *reasonable* (and, dare I say it, /electable/ if his policy agenda goes through) Andrew Little's platform was, I started counting down the seconds until somebody from inside Labour rocked up to remind me why they lost the last three elections.

Enter David Parker.

It's no secret that I'm rather leery about David Parker. He's quite clearly  frightfully intelligent and well versed, and I genuinely thrilled to hear him verbally slap down David Seymour at the Auckland Central BackBenches just before the election - Seymour had made a point in favour of reducing planning and zoning restrictions ... Parker lightning-riposted by asking Seymour how his Epsomite constituents would feel when planning/zoning restrictions were a thing of the past, resulting in things like five-story prisons in residential areas ruining the views and the property values. Top stuff. Regrettably, however, he partners what's obviously a pretty sharp mind with a somewhat hesitant speaking style (not that this stopped David Shearer exceeding David Cunliffe's Preferred Prime Ministership polling for months..) and a penchant for REALLY REALLY REPREHENSIBLY NEOLIBERAL SOUNDING policy outlook and orientation.

I mean, let's start with two of those policies that Andrew Little wants put out to pasture: the capital gains tax and raising the retirement age to 67.

Both of these are David Parker authored policies, apparently. And, as Finance Spokesperson, he's directly and personally responsible for their ongoing presence in Labour's policy manifesto.

Don't get me wrong, I'm really glad that Parker has *finally*, after two elections, realized that the only thing Labour was accomplishing by banging on about raising the pension age was losing votes and causing Young Nats to demand the Old Nats did likewise (because Young Nats *know* a hard-right policy when they see it, and are dearly annoyed when their parent party comes out *to the left* of Labour on an issue) ... but considering it's taken *two elections* for Labour to realize that the most obviously unpopular policies in its manifesto weren't exactly helping to win votes, I'm not entirely sure how legit it is to celebrate a sudden outbreak of political nous in the upper echelons of the Labour Party. This is particularly the case given Parker has not actually backed down from raising the retirement age ... but instead appears to be seeking to put the question of raising the age of superannuation to a referendum so as to avoid the stigma of Labour itself putting the age up.

He's also demonstrated how he operates by saying he'll put Labour's Capital Gains Tax policy (aka the thing David Lange said you SHUT UP ABOUT AND STOP PUSHING if you are a Labour Party seeking a term in government) up for "review". Not sure quite why you need a "review" of the policy when Andrew Little's already cottoned on to the obvious and electorally viable solution of removing the policy entirely ... but I suppose the review process is basically there to assuage party rank and file who've been banging on about the policy's unpopularity for some time - while finding eminently surplus-serving reasons to keep the CGT regardless.

Of arguably greater concern, however, is the man's record of really, really, obviously neoliberal quotes.

Checkit:

During the 2011-2014 Parliamentary term, David Parker made a speech setting out Labour's stance when it came to asset ownership and privatization.

See if you can spot the blindingly obvious problem with what he had to say: "Labour published a closed list of assets that we believe ought to be run in the New Zealand interest [...] That list excludes telecommunications and electricity generation."

So David Parker isn't actually concerned about whether electricity generation assets like those privatized by National are state owned ... or even whether they're "run in the New Zealand interest". I appreciate there is some difference of opinion as to the extent to which formerly SOE power companies being 49% privately owned is a bad thing ... but SURELY Labour and Parker ought to be, in reality, regardless of what he said in the highly publicized and much quoted speech, advocates for these power generation assets being run in the New Zealand interest (and, one would hope, by the state) rather than, say, a foreign shareholder's interests?

Well, given Parker stated in the New Zealand Herald as recently as last year his belief that "competitive markets don't need regulation", I suppose I really shouldn't find his hostility toward electricity generation or telecommunications assets being "run in the New Zealand interest" - or even state-owned - in any way surprising.

Just to recap, David Parker appears to be running for the Labour Party leadership on the old trick pony of sidestepping personal responsibility and avoiding ditching what surely must have been two of Labour's least popular policies for two elections running. Instead of listening to the broad swathe of New Zealanders who've comprehensively rejected both measures at the ballot box every time they've come up - and axing the policies as a result ... Parker is apparently calling for a "referendum" on raising the pension age, and a "review" of Labour's CGT policy. What's the bet the "review" process roundly ignores voter concerns with the CGT and instead attempts to blame Cunliffe's debate gaffe for the CGT's singular and enduring unpopularity.

The reason why I rate Andrew Little, by contrast, is because he's done exactly the opposite of what Parker's done. It's always difficult to edit, cut, or outright abolish policy you, yourself have worked on. I'm no major party finance spokesperson (yet), but I definitely get very attached and protective of some of the policy I've written (for example, elements of the NZ First Tertiary Education Policy) and find myself frantically attempting to mentally justify why it's the electorate rather than the policy/party that's wrong so that I don't have to cut something I've worked hard on and believe in.

This appears to be what's going on with Parker. Rather than take heed of the electorate's screaming demands for the pension age to be kept at 65 and a CGT avoided if at all possible, he's digging his heels in on the CGT (hence "review" rather than "remove") and has sought out an alternative implementation mechanism for his pension age reform that either leaves the blood on the collective voters of New Zealand's hands if we vote to raise the age - or doesn't really do anything whatsoever and hopefully puts this political football firmly back into touch if we all vote NO. This affords Parker the interesting position of being able to push for a particular policy-outcome without ultimately wielding the knife, and keeping his hands a little cleaner for when the electorate comes baying for blood.

Little, by contrast, did the smart thing. He's evidently been out talking to Labour's volunteers, supporters, affiliates and voters. Arguably more importantly, he's also been looking at the lie of the political land; and has taken the obvious lesson that those parties which were opposed to raising the pension age or the implementation of a domestic CGT appear to have reaped considerable dividends at the polls.

This reveals a fundamental difference of approach, and potentially priorities between Little and Parker.

Where Parker has embraced a narrow and technocratic mindset when it comes to the CGT and pension age, that emphasizes fiscal considerations at the expense of democratic-viability ones; Little has actually demonstrated an ability to engage with the electorate and respond to its perceived misgivings about some of Labour's more unpopular policy.

Dependent upon which style of leader you feel is best to combat John Key with - fiscally restrained but obviously intelligent technocratic economic manager for the direct rival; or man who actually engages with what a neglected part of the electorate that Labour's needed to reconnect with for two elections now ... your faith in either candidate's ability to do the job will vary.

However, taking a slightly longer-term perspective, it's worthwhile noting what each candidate's difference of approach to these issues tells us about their likely leadership style if and when they actually ascend to lead the nation. I'd be lying if I didn't own up to being a bit trepidatious about the idea of a somewhat neoliberally inflected technocrat whose policy priorities and philosophic penchants seem occasionally far more at home in the centre or centre-right than they do in the left-hand corner of the social democratic milieu where New Zealand's political epicenter *should* be situated at.

It's also worthy of note that, in stark contrast to Parker's complete lack of care about whether our formerly state-owned energy companies are run by the New Zealand government - or even in the New Zealand national interest - New Zealand First has had some measured success with pushing a power company #Renationalization bottom line.

The reason why I mention this, of course, is because one part of our rationale over here in NZF for advocating for full-blown #Renationalization and amalgamation of the nation's electricity generation capacity ... was, in point of fact, penned by David Parker. According to 2006 David Parker, a single buyer model as encapsulated in 2014 Labour's NZ Power scheme was likely to be less efficient and desirable than the fully #Nationalized and amalgamated generation entity that NZF advocates for.

So who knows. He might be amenable to reason after all.

In any case, I'm not here to back or support any particular Labour leadership candidate. I know how incredibly annoying it can be when pontificating and prognosticating figures from other parties grandstand and pick over your internal politics - not least because outsiders can very easily wind up producing breathless and decontextualized observations that are frequently fraught with inaccuracies if not outright laughably wrong.

But considering the manifest importance of the outcome of the Labour leadership contest for the electoral hopes of the less-terrible end of politics in 2017, I do definitely feel that the candidates - as well as their policies and style of politics - deserve close scrutiny from all quarters. After all, as incredibly unlikely as it might seem right now ... one of these gentlemen may in the not too distant future be Prime Minister.

Why Andrew Little's a credible contender for the Labour leadership

Not so long ago, 3News managed the unprecedented feat of broadcasting a political piece that made me sit bolt upright in my chair, my ears and eyes straining to take in every detail.

What was it, you ask? Andrew Little putting his hat in the ring for Labour's leadership contest.

And why, exactly, would a failed electoral candidate from the bottom of Labour's list going for the top job excite the hell out of me?

Simple. When he stated his policy priorities, in marked contrast to David Cunliffe and other leadership contenders the last time around grandstanding about a Pasifika TV channel and the like (not a bad idea, but hardly headline policy for wider New Zealand) ... Little went straight in and proposed Labour dropping its Capital Gains Tax; abolishing its callous policy of raising the retirement age to 67 for workers; and striking out the NZ Power policy it shared with The Greens.

I'm a fan of axing every one of these ideas (as is New Zealand First) ... and so is the average Kiwi voter!

At last, somebody heading for Labour's top job who's *actually committed* to fixing the ruinous policy dysjunction between what Kiwis want and what Labour's policy hackitariat wants!

Predictably, the reaction from some on the left was not exactly rosy.

I'll address arguments against a Capital Gains Tax in a future blog (because this requires some depth); but for now it's enough to point out that i) pushing a Capital Gains Tax makes your party /unelectable/ for many voters. David Lange grasped this wisdom when he correctly characterized a CGT policy his future-ACToid mates were pushing for back in the 80s as a neoliberal bridge too far for voters and electoral death for Labour (in no small measure because you're taxing the middle class's hard-won retirement savings) ii) a CGT doesn't necessarily deflate a property speculation bubble, as proven by each of Portugal, Ireland, Greece and Spain having both CGTs and property bubbles. This is particularly the case in New Zealand where widespread property speculation exists in large part because people are averse to playing the stock market and being burnt *again* like they were in '87. Merely making property a less attractive investment destination won't necessarily help without corresponding measures to create or secure other investment opportunities. This is actually one of the government's stated reasons for asset sales (blech!) iii) There are other, better solutions to both the housing affordability issue and the increasingly regressive taxation structure we have here in NZ. The state massively increasing the supply of housing by building more of them itself; and political parties finally getting serious about cleaning up billions of dollars in tax evasion/avoidance while adding a few more tax brackets up top in the several hundred K-zone are just the beginning of the alternatives.

So yeah. Little getting Labour to FINALLY ditch the Capital Gains Tax policy that Labour's been shackled to for two elections will most likely be pretty positive for them in electoral terms. The tens of thousands of middle-class Kiwi voters who've deserted Labour for parties which *aren't* queuing up to tax their retirement savings might have one less reason to stay away on polling day.

The second thing Little suggested was that Labour ditch its ruinous policy of raising the retirement age. This is AWESOME. I think I was cheering at the TV when this was announced.

I make no secret of the fact that I have *never understood* why Labour thought it could outfox National by being hard-hearted neoliberal-inclined "competent" fiscal managers. Yes, they can point to a very positive history of being able to deliver surplus after surplus during their last term in government ... but the points they gain with one part of the electorate by being able to demonstrate that just because of their party colours they ain't going to have the nation's books perpetually *also* in the red are eclipsed and countermanded by all the points and votes they LOSE with many other parts of the electorate by being seen as prepared to sacrifice the living standards and historic right to retire at 65 of older New Zealanders in order to deliver same.

It doesn't especially matter that Labour announced its policy wasn't going to take effect for some decades (meaning *my* generation will be among the first who are expected to retire later to pick up the burden of our parents' generation). Older people heard "raise the retirement age", and saw the values calculation Labour had made of prioritizing neoliberal considerations of fiscal restraint over social democratic considerations of looking after our older people - and voted accordingly. I'm sure that NZ First's non-negotiable coalition bottom line of #KeepIt65 helped us to pick up many thousands of disgruntled and disaffected Labour voters in the same way that our opposition to Labour's Capital Gains Tax policy did :)

The third leg to Little's leadership edits is the move away from the Labour-Greens joint policy of NZ Power. This is positive from a number of angles. While it was pretty cool to see Labour and The Greens issue a shared policy, and I would speculate that if Shearer had been allowed to continue in the Labour leadership there would have been more attempts by Labour and the Greens to co-ordinate policy so as to present a viable alternative government to National ... the complexities associated with explaining to voters how NZ Power was actually going to work, along with a perception that Labour had some-how been taken for a ride by yet another slightly fringe idea from the Green Party definitely didn't help Labour's cause.

The two things that stand out for me about this policy alteration from the New Zealand First perspective, are that: i) this now leaves the door open to Labour adopting NZF's policy of a comprehensive #Renationalization of those assets privatized by National; while ii) in 2006 David Parker penned a Cabinet Paper which set out in no uncertain terms that Labour then considered an amalgamated (and #Nationalized) SOE running generation a la NZF to be a better structure for the electricity market than a "single buyer" option a la NZ Power.

So ditching NZ Power hopefully leaves Labour open to adopting better (and more NZF compatible lol) policy that's less fiddly to explain to voters while also delivering more positively charged results.

All taken together, a Little-lead Labour party (as opposed to the various iterations of a "little-lead" Labour party that we've had for several years previously) is therefore something of a threat to NZ First. It's no secret that we've benefited hugely and immeasurably from Labour's continual string of gaffes and policy that seems to be almost calculated to offend vital parts of their traditional constituency (like the middle class and people worried about being able to live with dignity in retirement); so were these things to come to pass, I would definitely expect some of NZF's 2014 vote to go from being in the black to in the red as they slide back over to Labour.

But a more sensible and electable Labour party may also be good for NZF in that it provides us with a straight-out-the-gate potentially more amenable coalition partner whom we're not going to have to browbeat with a slipper over fundamental incompatibilities like their quixotic desire to raise the retirement age and/or lose elections.

It will also be more positive for New Zealand - both because the policy's more sensible; and because, thanks to being more electable, they might FINALLY get a chance to implement some of it!

My Shortest Blog Ever

Earlier this week, FailOil penned a piece criticizing, among other things, my bowmanship. He then added insult to injury by misspelling my name (again), and inaccurately stating I'm no longer on NZ First's Board of Directors. He wishes! The final barb was his description of my TDB output as "TL;DR". (and yes, it frequently is. Working on it)

With that in mind, I've taken his editorial criticism on board, and produced my shortest blog ever.

It's subtitled "Ways FailOil has Improved New Zealand". And I could only think of one and a half:

> Inadvertently helping to expose the #DirtyPolitics imbroglio slash fiasco; and showing New Zealand exactly what sort of cretinous calumniate the National Government is prepared to work with when it comes to hacking at and smearing its opponents.

ACT: Addicted to Other People's Money

Apparently, they have a saying in ACT about the deliciousness and delectability of spending "Other People's Money". They think it's an addiction and a disease.

Well, as applies the actions and spending of their own parliamentarians, this would certainly appear to be the case!

ACT MPs have, through the years, attempted to make names for themselves as "perkbusters" and enemies of entitlement. Irrepressible scourges who champion the taxpayer's right to exert ceaseless scrutiny over how their precious dollars are being spent, in pursuit of maximum efficiency. They've also railed against "troughers" whose chief function in public life appears to be extracting maximum 'lifestyle support' out of the public purse.

But, you see, the interesting thing about politicians on moral crusades is that they're frequently exercises in projection. As Christopher Hitchens put it:

"Whenever I hear some bigmouth in Washington or the Christian heartland banging on about the evils of sodomy or whatever, I mentally enter his name in my notebook and contentedly set my watch. Sooner, rather than later, he will be discovered down on his weary and well-worn knees in some dreary motel or latrine, with an expired Visa card, having tried to pay well over the odds to be peed on by some Apache transvestite."

Now without wanting to get into the long-running political issue of the previous MP for Epsom's various historical homophobic outbursts (including, memorably, praying in Parliament against the passage of the Homosexuality Reform Act 1986), it seems like there's a fairly close correlation between the sentiment of this quote as applies the hidden activities of gaybashing elected representatives and the penny-pinching plutocratic patrician-pandering public-purse pilfering projectionist proclivities perpetrated by politicians from the ACT Party.

The best and most well-known example of this is, of course, Rodney "Perk Buster" Hide using taxpayer funding to fly his girlfriend to Honolulu. There's something a little breathtaking in the obvious and overt hypocrisy of the "perkbuster" using somewhere in the region of $25,000 of taxpayer money to cart his partner about the place; although I also seem to remember the original "anti-privilege" neolibertarian, Sir Roger Douglas, using taxpayer funding to fly half way round the world to attend his son's wedding over in London.

While both Rodney and Sir Roger are able to point toward the time-honoured defence of "but it was in the rules, therefore it's ok" ... the fact they've spent reasonable proportions of their respective careers attempting to hold public figures and public bodies to higher ethical/moral standards than the mere black-letter of the rules or law means this isn't an especially compelling defence, much less mitigation when it comes to their own usage of the public purse to fund a lifestyle.

Still less defensible (at least in my eyes), however, are the cluster of issues surrounding the latest ACT MP (what is that ... the 5th leader they've had in 4 years? I believe this is what's known as "inflation"), one David Breen Seymour.

These fall into two distinct categories: stuff associated with his previous work on Charter Schools; and stuff associated with David Seymour the Parliamentary Under-Secretary.

We'll start with his new and interesting approach to political transparency. You see, the interesting thing about the position Seymour's just been given in lieu of Associate Minister of Education (because even Key wasn't arrogant enough to appoint a first termer from the most despised party in the House to *that* lofty position) is that it renders him un-OIA'able and unquestionable in Parliament. Never mind the hundreds of thousands of dollars of expenses which this one-man "party" is going to be able to draw upon to feather his parliamentary office/nest (I wonder if the Taxpayer's Union will be covering this..?) ... the bit I'm really interested in is the obscure and arcane protection Seymour, champion of transparency with the use of taxpayer money, has just been given that renders him almost completely opaque when it comes to outsider scrutiny.

People of ACT (and I use the term loosely) ... is this REALLY the best example of an MP living your party's values you were able to dredge up? Are you going to object to a first term MP being placed ABOVE yours and my scrutiny just because there's a higher chance he'll screw up? Surely, if we're applying your mad-cap philosophy consistently, the fact your MP is *more* likely to act in error is *greater* reason to subject him to *more* scrutiny, particularly considering how much *more* you neoliberalbaterian types care about public scrutiny of public money and ensuring the greatest value is extracted from the expenditure of your taxpayer dollar.

This gets exponentially *worse* when it comes to another policy area Seymour is closely associated: Charter Schools.

Now, one verbal missile that I've repeatedly lobbed in the direction of the local ACTivists (and, being Epsom, there's quite a few of them) without ever having received satisfactory answer is why charter schools are exempt from Official Information Act requests. This is weird. I mean, not only is this an example of some taxpayer-funded expenditure being subjected to different standards of scrutiny and transparency than other classes of same (i.e. public schools can and have been OIA'd about all manner of things; 100% taxpayer-funded charter schools are exempt for some reason) ... it's an example of a novel, untested and untried new way of expending public money, and therefore surely should be subject to the very highest degree of scrutiny.

If charter schools are as awesome as ACT claim, then allowing them to be OIA'd would only serve to further strengthen the case for their widespread adoption (blech!). If, by contrast, they're actually vastly less efficient than their state school equivalents and use several times the educational funding given to a single public school student to produce one Charter student (~$7,000 for a state school, between $10,000 and $40,000 for a charter school)... then surely my ACTress friends would agree that a greater degree of scrutiny than what is presently available for charter schools would be a pretty good idea.

The fact that ACT is so incredibly scared of taxpayer scrutiny of either its single solitary MP or its flagship policy-set just indicates to me that they i) can't actually abide by what's raggedly left of their own "principles" when it's in application to themselves; while ii) they're deathly afraid of what greater taxpayer scrutiny of their MP and policy would actually turn up about whether what they're up to is an efficient, effective, or endorsable use of public money.

But I guess that's just ACT all up. Tonnes of money and damn the cost and consequences when it comes to pursuing the latest foreign-inflected neoliberal-infected policy "offering" ... hard hearts and closed palms when we want benefits that are actually enough to live on, or a caring, interventionist state that cares more about ending Child Poverty in New Zealand than it does about delivering a right-wing surplus.

And rank hypocrisy all the way down.

If, by some remote chance there's anyone from ACT reading this (and given I apparently got FailOil to read The Daily Blog earlier this week, there's always hope) ... join us here on the left in demanding better from your elected representative. They're YOUR principles of transparency and accountability we're seeking to have immanentized here! And what was that quote about "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" that your government seems to be so fond of when it comes to other people's privacy? :P

OURTEAROA - Bringing Back Civil Society and a Progressive Nationalist Youth Organization

Like just about everybody in the political prognostication and power-projection game, I make a regular habit of entrail reading. The trouble with entrail-reading, however, is that it customarily requires the beast you're looking into to be dead, its belly slashed open like a Tauntaun whose life force, along with its intestines, slowly seeps out into the snow.

So it was with the nominal Left immediately following the 2014 election. Labour's dropped into the low 20%s, there's still upwards of a million non-voters, and even that great verdant hope the Green Party managed to lose a percent and a caucus member. Looking at the preliminary results late on election night (and far too early on the following Sunday morning) ... once the incredible jubilation at New Zealand First's result had died down (which took some hours along with much music and dancing), it really DID feel like the guts had been ripped out of the relatively more left wing of our politics for guys like me to pour over for weeks to come - looking for some hidden sign about why this happened and how to prevent it ever recurring.

[Because I'm acutely aware that I'm writing two weeks after E-Day, and that it's entirely possible that you've already trawled to death any number of political postmortems which arrange various combinations of percentages and absolute figures in pursuit of closure ... if another round of that's going to bore you, feel free to skip to the conclusion. It's something ENTIRELY different.]

The lessons I took from polling day were as follows:

National dropped nearly 50,000 votes. This is good. It indicates people in their "core" support base are FINALLY starting to grow weary of endless unfulfilled promises and ongoing dodgy-looking policies and politicians.

Despite the fact it's still a huge number of non-voters, turnout improved slightly from 74% to 77%. Considering the ABSOLUTELY HUGE EFFORT put in by organizations like NZUSA in getting out the vote, and the eased restrictions on advanced voting ... this is just absolutely mind-boggling, and hardly something to celebrate. I'll consider this gall-ing bladder in more detail a bit later on, but for the moment it's enough to state that there's a feeling out there in the electorate that neoliberal (or centrist-moving) parties and their policy-menus don't tempt still much less represent many voters; while the fact NZ's political civil society has become all but vestigial means it's more difficult than ever to actually reach out and energize voters without having to rely upon a clown-car full of partisan uber-hacks to have the wherewithal to do it.

Now as applies the conventional (somewhat softer) Left bloc ... Labour dropped from 27.5% and about 615,000 votes down to 24.7% and somewhere in the region of 519,000. That's incredible. The main opposition party is handed a spying scandal, actual evidence that the Prime Minister lied numerous times in an area he said he'd resign if falsehood was proved, a horrifically unpopular and damaging neoliberal governmental economic agenda ... somebody event puts out a novel-length hard-copy best-sellling proof of a Watergate slash Stalinist Salami Tactics style dirty tricks campaign on behalf of the Government ... and yet the main Opposition party STILL somehow manage to LOSE somewhere in the region of a hundred thousand votes.

And apparently, some people still think changing just Labour's leader is going to be sufficient to save the New Zealand left :P

Meanwhile, over in Lothlorien ... the Green Party somehow managed to shed 40,000 votes; going from 11% and 247,000 to 10% and 211,000. I'm sure there is some capacious and considerable headscratching going on inside The Greens about how, exactly, they managed to turn an agenda full of reasonably pleasant-sounding centrist-appealing fully costed policies and a weakening Labour party into a worse result than they enjoyed last time.

Russel Norman blames InternetMANA. I like to blame the sort of milquetoast rhetoric that sees Norman setting the Greens up as being less inclined toward state intervention in the economy than National. We're probably *both* right to a certain extent, but the fact that I'm blaming Norman moving the Greens into the center, while Norman's blaming things on the further left ... ought to tell you something about how we each view the New Zealand electorate.

I would also like to take this opportunity to state that not all New Zealand First faithful were pleased to see MANA go from the House; and I mark the passing of the party that gave us FEED THE KIDS with great sadness. Still, the fact they only managed to add 2,500 votes (taking them from 24,000 to 26,500 and from one seat to none) despite having four and a half million dollars as well as clearly and singularly awesome policy may evince that personalities such as Harawira's and DotCom's are even more capable of dissuading voters than Cunliffe's. (Also, isn't it funny how nobody actually credits Labour with winning Te Tai Tokerau, but instead insists other parties won it for them)

[Made it through all the numbers? Right. Here's the important bit. Prefaced by more numbers!]

New Zealand First, however went from strength to strength - building on our impressive return in 2011 to increase our vote by nearly 40,000 and add 4 MPs to our Caucus. I like to think this evinces the growing popularity of an unapologetically economic nationalist and anti-neoliberal party and policy-set. I'll blog more about what this means for the NZ Left in the near future (hint: Awesome, awesome black-and-silver things!) but for the moment I want to talk about the incredibly long electoral "shadow" that I feel has been cast not just by NZF but also by Labour and The Greens.

We've got a situation now wherein the right-wing neoliberal no-future bloc is, for the first time in half a generation's worth of election cycles no longer gaining votes and support. I think I was in intermediate the last time this happened. Unfortunately, we've also reached a point wherein - with the exception of New Zealand First - left-wing parties aren't exactly gaining support either. Quite the converse, in fact.

What the surge of NZF support tells me is that there is a growing vibe in the electorate for uncompromisingly statist economics and an aggressive, bellicose protest voice in the House. This hasn't translated into corresponding greater support for either the Labour or the Green Party - because the literal hundreds of thousands of Kiwis out there who might have voted for these parties previously, or who would have vaguely considered the possibility of doing so this time are standing in that "shadow" of democratic engagement *behind* our parties rather than the light of actually being engaged. They're behind us, rather than off the political spectrum entirely because many of them genuinely believe in and identify with many of our values ... but feel there's barriers (whether of policy or personality or something else entirely) to their greater participation in - or even voting for - an organized political party.

We can venture any number of party-specific reasons why this is so. Some Labourites presumably don't like the guy leading the party (whomever it might be) and/or the neoliberal policies Labour keeps running with election after election like raising the retirement age and taxing the middle class's retirement savings. I'm not quite sure *how* to explain the Green Party's reduced vote in 2014, as I don't know their voter-base well enough - although it does seem interesting that NZF's vote has gone up by nearly 40k while the Greens' has deteriorated by about the same figure. There's also an argument that #DirtyPolitics actually helped rather than hindered the right wing by switching tens of thousands of voters "off" politics because they mistakenly believed that we're all as bad as the Nats and had the sense that no matter whom they voted for, they'd be electing a "politician".

So the really big question that every serious politico should be asking is this: how do we reach out to these million non-combatants and bring them out of our democratic shadow and into the light.

It seems like the main vehicles we've used to foster political engagement for the last few cycles - whether political parties, or non-partisan voter-mobilization projects like Rock Enroll or the Electoral Commission just simply aren't working; and at the same time, the growing disconnect between political parties and the non-hack portions of the electorate is only widening, with corresponding deleterious effect upon the ability of parties to actually represent the concerns, vision and aspirations of electors - much less encouraging people to join up, and play an active role in keeping those policies and parties fresh and relevant to the electorate.

As applies my own experiences with New Zealand First, and more especially NZ First Youth ... for about six months in the run-up to the election, I had a near constant stream of people hitting me up via social media, calls, and even random encounters in the street to tell me two things: first, that they genuinely and strongly supported our economic nationalist agenda; and second, when I asked if they'd be keen to translate that support to the next level by joining the party ... it kept coming back to a few core themes about why even in its present 21st century state, they couldn't ... just yet. Rest assured, I'm working on 'em :)

What this tells me is that at the same time Kiwis are getting ever more disenchanted with, and disenfranchised by the present government; they're less able than ever to express opposition in our institutional and parliamentary political process thanks to an ongoing breakdown in the way parties act as an opinion conveyor between polis and policy elite.

A number of potential remedies for this have been suggested, ranging from direct democratic measures like binding referendums through to changing the electoral system or mandating that parties reform themselves. Each have their merits, and to that list I'd love to add broadcasting standards for political journalism; but given that, to my mind, the stumbling block for democratic engagement at the moment is many of the parties themselves, I'm most interested in extra-parliamentary political vehicles for engaging with, shaping and transmitting public opinion.

Organizations like Generation Zero have already had some considerable success with this, from an environmentalist perspective and with a view to engaging youth; while Bomber and others played a role in getting tens of thousands of people informed, aware, and pissed off enough to be taken into political consideration when it came to the GCSB bill.

These two causes have now attained recognizable salience in the Kiwi electorate, along with the twin forces of economic nationalism and anti-neoliberalism as core parts of what New Zealanders want out of their politics.

I contend that this occurred in no small part because there were extra-party and extra-parliamentary organizations and organizers prepared to put in the hard yards to make events happen, interface with political parties, and otherwise co-ordinate, contribute to, marshal and immanentize public sentiment on these issues.

The effects have been palpable and obvious - even if, in the case of environmentalism, it's taken some years to go from an activist-niche cause to something so pervasive and prominent in the Kiwi political consciousness that even the neoliberal National party has to maintain a "BlueGreen" interior organization to accommodate environmentalism in its deep-blue right-wing politics.

That's the power of civil society, particularly when the already established political vehicles are being average with taking up or implementing a concern.

It's my contention that just as civil society was able to propel environmentalism along with widespread concern for privacy rights and opposition to mass surveillance into the political limelight previously; there's now a present need and vacancy for civil society to do something similar with economic nationalism. Previous efforts in this area back when neoliberalism was last seriously challenged in the mid-1990s like the Campaign Against Foreign Control of Aotearoa (CAFCA) met with some marked success; and it certainly seems like popular opposition to privatization, land and asset sales offshore, and other issues of economic nationalist salience such as the TPPA is at a twenty first century high.

With this in mind, I'd like to take this opportunity to call for the creation of a new extra-party political vehicle focused around linking up youth with economic nationalism in a similar manner to how Generation Zero's done an exemplar job with youth engagement and climate/environmentalism issues.

As I've already said, there's a huge swathe of unrepresented opinion out there in the polis on these issues; and due to the nature of economic policy, it's my generation - the youth, some of the least-listened to voices when it comes to economic policy - that will be bearing the brunt of the consequences for a failure to act in our own future.

Let's call it "OURtearoa". Watch this space for more details.

.