Polity by Rob Salmond

Last week I did a post about Jeremy Corbyn, and the possible worldwide implications of his rise. There’s been plenty of reaction. At the risk of prolonging a PFJ / JPF situation, I’d like to pick up on some points people have made.

Strategy

Around a third of New Zealand’s population are leftists. Same for right-wingers. But you need 50% of the vote to govern. Guess where the rest comes from? The middle.

There’s certainly a legitimate debate about how best to approach winning over the political centre. But any suggestions that elections can be won without doing well in the centre aren’t grounded in reality.

Rule 1 in politics is “learn to count.” 33 < 50.

Some think this idea – of appealing to the middle – is somehow new or untested. Stephanie Rodgers, for example, talks about it being Labour’s plan “since 2008.”

Starting narrowly, anyone who looks at Labour’s successful 2005 platform and sees anything other than an appeal to the centre is dreaming.

More broadly, this theory – the median voter theorem – has been one of the most dominant global ideas in political science and politics since at least 1948. While it applies at the party-level most directly in FPP electoral systems, its logic applies just as well at the coalition level in most PR environments, too.

There’s actually plenty of revisionism in this debate, I’m sure myself included. Some PA commenters were sure John Smith won UK Labour the 1997 election despite dying in 1994. And Mike Smith is certain NZ Labour’s supposedly sharp tack left won it the 1999 election, rather than, say, comically self-destructive opponents.

Belief

Chris Trotter made two points in his posts on this debate: first that centrists believe in nothing; and second that centrists are Nazis. Yes, seriously. I’m surprised at Chris. Everyone knows you can’t be a nihilist and a Nazi at the same time.

Chris is welcome to his self-parodies about Orwell and Hitler. It sure it a long way from his earlier suggestion that Labour chase “Waitakere Man”. It’s almost like 2015 Chris is calling 2010 Chris a sympathizer…

His one argument worthy of response was that centrists lack any political beliefs. Others made similar arguments, too. They’re wrong.

Chris and others suggests centrists aren’t actually in the middle, they just say they’re in the middle because of their confused psychology. But rule 2 in politics is “perception is reality.” That includes the perceptions of people you might not agree with. If they think they’re in the middle, then they are.

While centrists often do not have strongly held ideological views, they do have beliefs and values. They don’t wake up each morning waiting for ideologues to fill their empty heads with things to think. Centrists aren’t goldfish.

The Table gives some responses from the 2011 NZES, by ideological group. It suggests:

-  Centrists think more like lefties on economic protections and public investment

-  But they think more like right-wingers on new taxes and welfare

That’s helpful to know. You’re more likely to win centrists’ votes if you emphasize the issues where you agree with them, and downplay the issues where you don’t.

It’s the old story of flies, honey, and vinegar.

“Being relevant,” however, doesn’t prevent “standing for something.” None of this is necessarily about changing policy. Labour needs proper social democratic policy in order to stay Labour. Instead it’s about – for want of a better word – “narrative.” And issue emphasis.

From the 2011 data above, if Labour had convinced the population that the most important problem facing New Zealand was lack of public investment, the left could have won. If the right convinces the public that the most important issue is avoiding new taxes, they do very well.

Tomorrow

Danyl McLaughlin helpfully mused:

I think [Labour would] look for something new. And I don’t think it would be movement along the values spectrum. It would look, probably, like the data-driven grass-roots campaigning of Obama.

Good news! Data-driven, grass roots campaigning is exactly what Labour – and everybody else – is pursuing right now.

We’re learning more about every voter before we make contact, and talking with more voters ever before. Labour has made good progress in parts of this work, as I discuss elsewhere. In some areas, we lag behind National. In others, we’re in front.

But, as 2014 shows, you can have all the whizz-bang data and volunteers with phones you like – if people don’t like what you’re saying, it doesn’t matter.

Make your message relevant to those voters who’ll decide the outcome, and you’re a chance. Don’t, and you’re toast.

The leadership election in UK Labour has crystalised into everyone else vs Jeremy Corbyn’s fearless jump to the left. This has led some commentators to ask whether the old political orthodoxy of “move to the middle” is, long term, a death-knell for left-leaning parties. Here’s George Monbiot in the Guardian:

Across three decades New Labour strategists have overlooked a crucial reality: politicians reinforce the values they espouse. The harder you try to win by adopting your opponents’ values, the more you legitimise and promote them, making your task – and that of your successors – more difficult.

Monbiot says Tony Blair’s three election victories, won with a strategy of pursuing the centre, were actually harbingers of a long period in the wilderness, as the Blair-era hardened centre-right attitudes across the UK. There is at least a little recent academic research supporting this conclusion, too:

Voter surveys from Germany, Sweden, and Britain show us that although uncommitted centrists initially respond favorably to Social Democratic moderation, these voters don’t stay with centrist Social Democratic parties for long and the moves to the middle also increase abstentions and defections from formerly core Social Democratic voters.

This idea is taking hold most strongly in UK Labour, with Corybn’s impending landslide, but it also has some following in the US, with hard left alternative Benrie Sanders of Vermont packing stadiums to provide a further left alternative to Hilary Clinton.

However, I’ve got three problems with this thesis. (For the record, these are my personal views only, not Labour’s views.)

First, they don’t consider the alternative. How have centre-left parties gone when they’ve tacked away from the centre? It doesn’t happen often, but when it does, it goes badly.

Michael Foot and Neil Kinnock lead the UK Labour party through seventeen years of Tory rule. It was bleak. Why did they keep losing for so long? Because under Foot the hard left got to run Labour’s policy, alienating Labour from the middle ground. And under Kinnock the hard left continued to battle prominently for policy influence, allowing Labours’ opponents to scaremonger successfully about what a vote for Labour really means.

How did UK Labour break out of this funk? Tony Blair.

And if you think that lesson, of declining centre-left fortunes when its narrative swings left, doesn’t apply for in modern New Zealand, here are two phrases you may find familiar: “Man ban.” “Sorry for being a man.”

Second, peoples’ votes are more malleable than their values. Monbiot says:

The task is to rebuild the party’s values, reclaim the democratic debate, pull the centre back towards the left and change – as Clement Attlee and Thatcher did in different ways – the soul of the nation.

The part where Monbiot is right is that the centre ground really is where elections are won and lost. (That statement is more controversial in New Zealand than it should be.) There are a ton of people there, and those peoples’ own identities are of being open to voting left or right. Below is a chart showing how New Zealanders perceive themselves, Labour, and National. Over a third see themselves as right of where they see Labour, and left of where they see National. That’s huge.

But “pulling the centre back towards the left” is massively, massively hard. You win those people over by being relevant to them as they are, not by telling them they’re worldview needs a rethink. It is just basic psychology. Tell people they were right all along; they like you. Tell people they were wrong all along; they don’t.

And if you win a majority of centrists, you win. The New Zealand Election Study series records six MMP elections in New Zealand – the three where Labour did best among centrists were the three Labour won.

That’s another message from the adacemic study I quoted above – in Germany, Sweden, and the UK, the elections where the left did best among centrists were the elections where they took power. As their popularity among centrists declined, so did their seat share.

Third, Monbiot conflates policy with competence:

Labour’s inability to provide a loud and proud alternative to Conservative policies explains why so much of its base switched to Ukip at the last election. Corbyn’s political clarity explains why the same people are flocking back to him.

Clarity is always a good quality in a politician. Saying what they’re for, and saying why they’re for it in simple, accessible language, are cornerstones of good political communication. But you can have clarity, and be competent, no matter where you stand on the ideological spectrum. “Clear” does not mean “extreme.”

Here are some of the best, clearest centre-left communicators in modern political history. Clinton and Obama in the US, Lange in New Zealand, Hawke and Keating in Australia, Blair in the UK. Clear communicators, all. Politically competent, all. Hard left? None.

When I started working with Matt McCarten, he told me the most important question in any negotiation, on any topic, is: “or you’ll do what?” It’s the answer to that question that determines if you’ve got any leverage; it determines if you’ll ever get what you want.

Having the right answer to “or you’ll do what?” is how McCarten’s Johnny-come-lately Unite union achieved the seemingly impossible, such as getting strip clubs and brothels to let their staff join a union. From A history of the Unite Union:

… a strip club and brothel owner sacked six staff who asked for Unite’s help. We shut down his three premises with a picket and a video camera to take footage of any customers going in – needless to say, none did.

That, in an odd but oddly satisfying segue, brings me to the TPP.

New Zealand’s position on trade, where we unilaterally take down almost all our own tariffs then act completely surprised when nobody listens to our pleas later, has been likened to showing up naked to a strip poker game. Before the game begins, you’ve already lost.

The big problem for Tim Groser right now is that je has no credible answer to “or you’ll do what?” Here’s part of a TPP play I’m writing as of just now:

Groser

I demand more dairy access for New Zealand to Canada, Japan, and the US!

Canada / US / Japan

Or you’ll do what?

Groser

I’m not finished! As a result, I also demand more dairy access for the US to Canada, and as a result I also demand more beef access for Canada to the US, and as a result I also demand…”

Canada / US / Japan

Or you’ll do what?

Groser

Or, or, or I’ll bring the whole TPP down around me in a fit of self-important pique!

Canada / US / Japan

Hahahahahahahaha!

Canada

Eh?

US

Even with your galactic levels of self-important pique, you can’t pull that off.

Japan

You, Tim, need this deal more than it needs you. Here are your choices: cave quietly, or show yourself out.

[Groser caves quietly]

That’s what is going to happen. Groser’s going to cave on our behalf, and New Zealand’s going to suffer as a result. His supremely arrogant idea that New Zealand can defy the will of Canada, Japan, and the US on this is about as laughable as his pathetic bid to become top dog at the WTO.

And, thanks to Groser’s “emotional space” at the moment, we’re going to end up saddled with a bad TPP deal anyway.

We’ll give way on healthcare costs. We’ll give way on our right to legislate in our own public interest. We’ll give way on our ability to restrict foreign land ownership. And, in return, we won’t get any new meaningful dairy access. Heckuva job, Timmy.

Anything else we do get will be scraps, falling off the plates of countries blessed with proper negotiators.

All that is because Tim Groser spent the last 20 years getting naked before stepping out to play strip poker, and had nothing credible to say when the global A team said “or you’ll do what?”

Last week, the government dumped 900 pages of Saudi sheep documents on the media and opposition. The record shows a Minister looking to mislead absolutely everyone in order to make an illegal $4 million payment to a foreign farmer. David Parker is calling for the Auditor-General to investigate; I can see why.

The reason we should care about this actually has nothing much to do with Mr Al-Khalaf, or sheep, or Saudi Arabia. New Zealanders deserve to be able to trust their government is spending their money within the law. We should have no tolerance for breaches of that trust.

Here’s what the issue boils down to: 

First, Murray McCully wanted to pay compensation to Hamood Al Ali Al Khalaf, who used to import live sheep from New Zealand before the practice was banned, and now objects to a New Zealand / Saudi FTA. McCully hoped that compensating Mr Al Khalaf would mean he stops objecting to the FTA.

From the documents, a February 2013 Cabinet paper recommends a payment of $4 million to Mr Al Khalaf partly for “the settlement of the long-running dispute.” That sounds a lot like compensation, even though McCully is at pains to ensure the payment should not appear to be compensation. Here’s an MFAT note of McCully’s comments in 2012 [with my emphasis]:

he would not want any (financial) contributions to be treated as compensation as this would involve a plethora of lawyers and bureaucrats.

The fact that proper authorities might scrutinise a multi-million dollar government payment isn’t a proper reason to hide the payment from them. That’s simply astonishing.

Second, there’s no legitimate reason to compensate Mr Al Khalaf. New Zealand didn’t break any law by changing the rules around sheep exports, meaning there’s no legal reason to pay compensation.

From the documents, the only “legal advice” about whether Mr Al Khalaf had a legal case came from Mr Al Khalaf’s lawyers. Not exactly an independent party! This is a far cry from John Key’s inferences in Parliament that New Zealand’s legal advice was that we were exposed.

Also, Mr Al Khalaf made it clear to McCully that he had basically no intention of going to court anyway, telling McCully in February 2012: “Under our culture when someone opens a door to you for many years, you do not take them to court at the end of your stay.”

Third, and not surprisingly, the government has no legal authority or money to pay  this kind of compensation, that is compensation to people they don’t actually have to compensate. That kind of pot is usually called a “slush fund,” and we try not to have those in New Zealand.

Fourth, that’s why Murray McCully dressed up Mr Al-Khalaf’s compensation payment as something else, over the objections of top government officials.

Working together, Al Khalaf, McCully, and MFAT concocted a scheme where Al Khalaf would provide ill-defined intellectual property and networking services to New Zealand – otherwise known as “being you” – which were magically valued at exactly the $4 million elsewhere suggested as the right amount for compensation. This, McCully thought, would allow the money to come from a part of the foreign affairs budget (Vote: Policy Advice and Representation – Other Countries) that has no authority for use as a way to settle legal disputes.

The Auditor-General took a different view, saying the business case for the joint New Zealand / Al Khalaf venture was “weak,” and raised concerns about the procurement process.

In fact, the MFAT Chief Executive even met the Auditor-General to plead that this isn’t a normal commercial deal, but rather a “diplomatic settlement” of a “unique nature,” and therefore should get special treatment.

This last part is really crucial. It both exposes the lie that this is a purely commercial solution, and also shows that MFAT – and by extension their Minister – were well aware that there were non-commercial (i.e. compensation) payments hidden among the accounts here. It indicates an intent to be deceptive with this payment, and to spend taxpayer money outside of its lawful appropriation.

Seeing the documents, it is clear Murray McCully personally directed his officials in such a way that they broke the law. He ignored advice, misappropriated funds, and misled his Cabinet colleagues and the public in order to illegally sent $4 million of taxpayer funds overseas. He should be gone.

McCully, and Simon Bridges and Judith Collins before him, have run roughshod. They ignored both the rules of government and their officials’ advice, and did exactly what they pleased with the taxpayers' money, regardless of whether their actions were appropriate, in the taxpayer’s interest, or legal. This, apparently, is what John Key meant by “higher standards of government.”

–––

The documents I rely on in this post are currently available in hard copy only. Hopefully some enterprising soul will put them all up online soon, so the public can see exactly what Murray McCully has been up to.

Last Thursday, Labour and National presented their thoughts on the 2014 election to Parliament.

On Labour’s side, there was an inevitable and welcome move away from linking enrolment and benefit eligibility. Good, and phew.

On National’s side, the disturbing suggestions coming from Greg Hamilton are quietly dangerous for freedom of political expression in New Zealand.

First, on the supposed problem of people enrolling shortly before they vote:

National recommended that only people who were enrolled before the advance voting window should be able to vote ahead of election day.

Anyone who enrolled during the advance voting period should have to cast their vote in the polling booth on election day, Mr Hamilton said. 

This, National says, is to prevent the problem of political parties not having sufficient time to do “proper scrutiny” of the roll. That’s a pretty icky sounding phrase.

What it actually does is place extra, purely administrative barriers between citizens and their right to vote. Democracies should not do that. The citizens’ rights are more important than the administrative wants of the State or of political parties. If a person is eligible to vote and goes to a proper polling place, they should be able to cast their vote. No ifs, buts, or maybes.

In the US, the Republican Party has been using these same administrative procedures to try and put a chill on voter participation, especially among people on low incomes who are also either young or from an ethnic minority. (Horror example 1. Horror example 2. Horror example 3.)

It’s no great surprise that those targeted by the Republicans tend not to vote for right-leaning parties. It’s deeply anti-democratic, and it’s a real shock to see National copying from their playbook.

If there were any doubt about what National is trying to achieve, have a look at what National suggests to combat the rise in electoral fraud rate from 0.002% to 0.004%:

National wanted voters to be required to present official identification or sign a statutory declaration at polling stations to cut down on electoral fraud.

That’s right, more pointless administrative hurdles! For the other 99.996% of us, there will be new barriers standing between us and the voting booth.

For most Kiwis, presenting a driver’s license or signing a form isn’t a big deal. But it becomes a big deal for people with low levels of formal education, or recent migrants, or those concerned about what else the State might do with their statutory declaration.

People in those groups (surprise, surprise) don’t tend to vote National. So National wants to make it harder for them to exercise their democratic rights.

Yes, the barrier is the same for everyone. But it appears higher for the people on the lower rungs of the ladder. And National knows it. It’s disgraceful.

What positive impact on the supposedly burgeoning electoral fraud rate would we see if we went with National’s suggestions?

[National’s] deputy manager Cam Cotter conceded that he could not cite instances of electoral fraud in relation to their concerns ...

Get that – no positive benefit at all. None.

But, conveniently, a side effect of the new requirements would be to make it disproportionately harder for poor folk, young folk, and recent immigrants to exercise their legitimate democratic rights.

How about freedom of political speech during an election campaign? Surely that’s sacrosanct, right?

Hamilton also proposed a shorter advance voting period of 10-14 days and tougher restrictions on campaigning where early voting is taking place.

Oh, I guess not. National wants less flexibility in how people vote, and less freedom of political speech during the final few weeks of an election campaign.

The health of our democracy depends on freedom to talk about politics. Anything that limits that freedom threatens the quality of our democracy.

I’m genuinely shocked that the National hierarchy would propose these chilling, Republican-style affronts to our democratic engagement at election time.

And I’m confident people of conscience in National - including David Farrar who laudably proposed the antithesis of Hamilton’s ideas, asking to liberalise some rules about campaigning on election day – will be quietly aghast as well.

Making suggestions for improving elections does not have to be hyper-partisan. I support David Farrar’s proposals around election day online activity, and I was grateful to have his support at the Select Committee for my suggestions to give full electoral roll access to registered third parties as well as political parties.

But if National is going to try bringing the thuggish Republican-style intimidation of left-leaning voters to our shores, they’re buying a fight against everyone who values our democracy, and the easy exercise of our rights to choose our leaders.