Jim Anderton for Chch mayor??

David over at Kiwiblog raises the spectre of Jim Anderton running for mayor of Christchurch.

Christchurch City has, for some considerable time, been a Labour hotbed. We’ve had a consistent range of good Labour candidates (Brendon Burns being the possible exception riding in on the coat tails of his predecessor) along with an inner city population that is either apathetic of strongly idealistic.
This seems to translate to local government as well. The “on the ground” party machine kicks into gear as well for local body politics as for central. Their campaigning is superb. The grass roots organisation of 2021 (read local union and Labour party) is effective. The only aberration in recent times has been the election of Bob Parker.

Whilst Jim is a living breathing anachronism, it is this campaigning machine to be feared. And rightly so.
Whether or not one agrees with his politics (and I, for one, don’t), it doesn’t take away the fact that the campaigners and strategists can use Jim as a talisman. He has a long record of public service – especially for his electorate which is swayed by sympathy and a “he’s always been there” attitude election after election (being and electorate MP also gives credence to any claim). He is consistent in attitude and approach – an excellent quality in any dictator and has extremely high visibility and integrity (well, the socialist version of integrity perhaps).

The smooth, debonair ex – TV star? Or the grizzled, hardbitten man of the earth who speaks his mind (and others too, if you get offside with him) and has had 40 years of service to his people and his country?

A publicist’s dream.

Not good.

Having met Jim I can testify he engages well. So he should after 40-odd years of meet and greets. Don’t write this bloke off. I think he would be a terrible mayor that would see Christchurch regress to the 1960’s rather than looking forward to the 2060’s. However, his claim is strong and it will need a mighty effort from other quarters to unseat him should he get a toe hold.

Racist Labour?

Liberty Scott blogs here about Ruth Dyson's latest press release in her capacity as Labour's Health Spokesperson.

He laments the fact that Labour seem to believe that people simply cannot think for themselves. That without government there to enforce some dietary regime through whatever programs might be necessary, people simply couldn't grasp the idea that a better diet and exercise might help them lose weight.

I'm astonished. Changing your diet is impossible without the government. The carefully hidden knowledge that eating mostly vegetables, fruit, lean meat, fish and cereals, and avoiding high fat and high sugar foods helps you lose weight is something that almost nobody knows surely. In addition, without the government how COULD people go to the gym, or go for a walk or swim?

However, I'm interested in the fact that in the full press release Ms Dyson singles out Counties Manakau as her example. Is it these particular people that can't think for themselves, Ruth? And why would that be? Is it because Counties Manakau has a very high proportion of Maori and Pacific Island residents?

Ms Dyson says in her press release that it is because oh the propensity for the population towards Type Two Diabetes? Could be. Diabetes is slightly more prevalent in Counties Manakau than other places in New Zealand (116 hospitalizations per 100,000 people versus the 92 per 100,000 average across the country) but then again - no where near the record 246 per 100,000. So why Counties Manakau? According to the Counties Manakau District Health Board, there are at least 13 different, if not equal or greater health challenges to it's populace.

Before going too much further, I don't think that Ruth Dyson is a bad person. I believe that she is doing the best she can with what shes got in the Labour framework that she has chosen to inhabit.

And there lies the rub. Labour's condescension towards people - and Maori and Pacific Islanders in particular - is evident in their thinking, as Ruth has demonstrated. Labour seems to believe that they need to talk to Maori and Pacific Islanders as if they were children - sometimes wayward children - as demonstrated by their boorish and rude approach to morehu at this years Ratana service described by this article on Young Labour's website.

Labour clearly believe that this population segment cannot think for themselves. They obviously have no aspiration or intelligence and what they so firmly need is a clear and fatherly guiding hand. A Micky Savage-like figure to dispense justice, wisdom and to be told what to do. Why else would Ruth nominate Counties Manakau as her example? Why else would Shane Jones castigate Maori so for daring to rise up with their own representative voice? After all, says Phil Goff, they are only ordinary people, not intelligent freethinking individuals in their own right who have goals and desires and who, given the opportunity, would work tooth and nail to achieve them.

Labour just don't get it. They still can't work out why they were thrown out at the last election and this is a reason why. Their evident racism and condescension towards these "ordinary people" was wearing thin and people wanted someone who believes that we can all do well - no matter what race, colour or creed.

I keep on saying it: we need a coherent and responsible opposition in parliament for our democracy to work. At the moment, the Labour Party is neither of those two things.



Hat Tip: Kiwiblog, Liberty Scott

Statistics: CMDHB Website, CMDHB Health Profile, May 2001

Goff gets something right!!!

For the life of me but I can't think as to why this guy has not been Prime Minister before? And then this timely reminder.

Goff says "You'll just have to put up with me".

Ha! You know it, Phil! In fact Phil, please refer here to see why there is an extremely small chance you will be. Relevant, that is.

Where is Annette?

I just commented over at Chris Trotter's blog Bowalley Road about a post on Grant Robertson when the question rose: Where is Annette King?

Granted that they probably want to keep the focus on Phil at the moment however Robertson taking Goff to task over the Nationhood speech lead me to ask where  is the communication between Goff and his caucus. I would have thought Annette, being the capable communicator (the EFB aside) would be busy doing the deputy's job and calling the indians around the fire for a pow wow.

Yet we haven't seen Annette at all over the past fiew months.

What is Labour's deputy doing?

A bad job, some might surmise, after the Robertson affair.

Labour's Leadership Crisis

The Labour caucus is still having trouble with deciding how to deal with this new government.

David Farrar over at Kiwiblog posts how inane the opposition's attacks are regarding the Governments planned fibre roll out strategy to better serve our broadband infrastructure. As was posted on Kiwiblog a wee while ago, they were having a little trouble deciding a)how to attack JK et al and b) how to be an effective opposition. This proves once again that they still have issues (aside from rampant socialism that is :-)).

In the past, all oppositions did just that: the opposite - sometimes whether they agreed with a policy or not. Now, with JK at the helm and a more open and results (rather than politics) orientated government that is bi-partisan in it's approach, the traditional rules no longer apply. As exhibited with Clare Curran's approach to s92a, there is a glimmer of hope. Unfortunately, you still have A King and P Goff at the helm who authorise these "attacks" because they know nothing else. Thats how they have been taught. In politics when you resort to blatant untruths, such as we have here, you can tell that the party is failing to get any traction. They tried this in the election campaign (remember Mike Williams' little side trip) and the strategy didn't work then and, in the face of a disciplined government, it won't work now. This is another great example of where leadership is being tested for Labour and is failing. Bring on the likes of Shane Jones who is far more credible, focused and able to adapt while bring the likes of Jacinda Adern up with him. While not being a Labour supporter, New Zealand still needs a credible opposition for things to function well. I hope Phil Goff can get past his own hubris, see this problem for what it is and act upon it or, god forbid, he may end up having to be moved involuntarily.

Make no mistake, Andrew Little, for all his conciliatory words on Q+A two weeks ago about supporting Phil and Annette, is just the bloke to enact change when needed and be prepared to step on toes if he thinks it is in the best interests of his party. He is cognizant of the fact that to achieve a result for your point of view, a conciliatory approach works a lot better than an adversarial one. You only need to look at his style of leadership in the EPMU for that. Many employers have a great respect for Andrew and give him credence where the likes of the old guard such as Ken Douglas, would never have achieved his levels of success for his people.

The whole Labour movement needs to smarten up in this new era. It's spokespeople are still living in the wrong century - or at least their politics are.

One just needs to go to Chris Trotters lament of the demise of that era to realise that they are still beholden to the past rather than to the future.

The Labour Party is in a crisis, no matter how much they deny it. The current leadership just can't get a grip on the reasons why people changed their vote in such numbers and why the National Party retains such support post election. People want results - no matter who initially thought up the idea. National is delivering this. Labour is still stuck in the mindset that if it isn't our idea then it isn't an idea at all.

Phil Goff should remember Plato's Repuplic - that in the absence of any leadership at all, a new leader will emerge - whether he wills it or not.

Hat Tip: DPF, Kiwiblog

The New Worker

I have just finished reading Chris Trotters new op-ed piece at his blog site Bowalley Rd in which he gives voice to his opinion of Andrew Little, the new Labour Party President, the Labour Party's current situation and also yearns for the old days when the Labour Party was full of passionate debate united by a common thread of a socialist path for New Zealand.

Since I started The Home Office, I've been investing a lot of time in reading more of the leftist blogs such as Bowalley Rd, The Standard (always a staple), Socialist Aoteroa and the Workers Party.

What has come to mind has been that the militisicm of old, that stereotypical waterfront worker staring the police down on the waterfront in 1951, that kind of violent say-with-my-fists-what-my-mouth-can't passion seems to have gone. Sure, there are traces of it here and there. And the "about" tabs of some of these blogs seem to be transposed directly from Marx's Communist Manifesto. But even Chris seems to lament that core stereotype of the New Zealand worker.

What defines a new Zealand worker as we grow older as as a nation?

We are in a world full of Gen - Y's (Gen Y Neos, they tell me now) where the Ipod is king, consumerism is rampant and communication is on a scale never seen before. In fact my 14 yr old niece's cellphone appears to be hardwired to her fingers, she doesn't need to look to string a text message together and she can even converse in a somewhat meaningful way while she does it! We are moving to a more knowledge based economy that means more and more people are moving from the factory floor or the waterfront to the air conditioned office and the computer keyboard. There seems little room for the old stereotype of the militant socialist - or even the vociferous one at that. Chris Trotter comments himself on the fact that the Labour Party, with it's roots deep in the workers heart, now numbers perhaps 2000-odd paid up members. Where have the old days gone? Why are there not more people struggling to rise from the grip of the imperialist fist?

Perhaps the question should be: Is the socialist movement in New Zealand keeping pace with the changes in society? Who is "The New Worker"?

There will, I hope, always be a Left and Right - two opposing opinions on how the state of affairs should be run. Democracy requires this so that consensus is reached and the will of the people is acceded to. There is no doubt, if recent polls are to be believed, that the Left is in a state of tatters while the Right is in the ascendancy. This is reasonable I guess given the fact we have had a significant shift in thinking as evidenced in the result of the last election.

However, sometimes I wonder about the relevance that the socialist side has to todays world and is that movement answering the question above: Is the socialist movement in New Zealand keeping pace with the changes in society? Who is "The New Worker"?

I think Andrew Little has an idea who that new worker is? Chris bemoans the fact that he is respected by the people he represents and the people he purports to battle. I would have thought that this was a good thing; consensus being the way forward and all that democratic type of stuff.

I apologise in advance if I malign anyone with the stereotype of "the worker" painted above or indeed their views and opinions. However I think it valid to point out that while such an able bloke as Phil Goff languishes at the bottom of the polls, perhaps some stereotypes the old left may have need to be broken and the needs of the New Worker identified.