More on POAL: MUNZ in the gun?

The letter pages of the Herald have been full of attacks on MUNZ as the POAL dispute continues (though, to be fair to the Herald, the odd contrary view has been published, too). Michael Barnett has a go today., but the cracker was an ignoramus (a word chosen carefully) yesterday who, on the basis that his family had something to do with ports in the UK, was able to deduce that wharfies were lazy, inflexible etc etc. I'm constantly struck by the repetition of the information that wharfies are well-paid. As I've note before, it is clear that being well-paid (if, indeed they are) is  either a crime (to be subject to retribution) or a reason for humility and  quite a lot of forelock-tugging. It really does look like the capitalist class in NZ has a pathological dislike of good wages (as opposed to high salaries for managers and even higher dividends for owners).

I am, however, worried about the strategic purpose of MUNZ. Its case is not well-presented, and there is a growing concern in some quarters that this dispute is ramping up a rationale for government intervention. The argument would be national interest. The mode of intervention would be via privatisation of POAL (easily done in law, though possibly with serious political implications). The intent would be to destroy MUNZ and, also, propel a rationalisation of North Island port capacity. I don't doubt that business is in the ear of Mr Key and Mr Joyce on this front, and I sense that Mr Brown and his team have little enough sympathy with MUNZ to warrant a major defence of the holding (especially if government were to balance port privatisation against, say, the rail loop). I see no evidence that MUNZ is thinking about this longer term game; indeed, one of the union movement's concerns is that MUNZ lives in a inviolable bubble of internal organisational tensions and the narrow engagement that it has with management.

Thatcher, Streep and Funerals

I'm not sure that I want to see the Meryl Streep film about Margaret Thatcher. The extracts that I've seen suggest that she has provided an uncanny likeness, especially in terms of 'that voice', and she and the film seem to be heading for honours, but a couple of hours of Thatcher in power might be too much for my system. For, in a way that people in NZ may not really understand, Thatcher, in her rigid ideological attack on 50 years of political consensus in the UK, polarised the country utterly. We hear much about the recognition of her qualities. One cannot from here understand the deep loathing felt by many for her. It verges on hatred - a powerful and over-used word - but apt in this context.

There was a piece in yesterday's Guardian which captured this. Liverpool erupted in street violence in 1981. A city I know well, in which I lived for a decade, it had been particularly badly hit by the consequences of neo-liberal reforms (which hammered many industrial centres and privileged London and the financial sector). The community had had enough of unemployment and marginalisation, of welfare cuts and constant berating by crass individualism, and took to the streets. Because Liverpool 8 (Toxteth) was involved, it was portrayed by Thatcher's government as race riots, rather than as a consequence of neo-liberal reforms. Anyway, it appears that the Thatcher approach (as captured by the advice she was given by her hand-picked ideologues) considered wholesale evacuation of Liverpool, that is, taking large parts of the population out of the city semi-permanently, rather than an attempt to solve the problems created by restructuring. Michael Heseltine's attempts to fund economic change in the city were laughed at - he was given a paltry 15 million pounds, rather than the 100 million he requested - on the grounds that Liverpool's problems - economic, social, riots - were self-inflicted and there should be no ground given to cities that did not toe the Thatcher line. The same story can be told for other cities outside London - indeed, Scottish economists suggest that Scotland was deliberately disadvantaged in government expenditure because it was a bastion of the Labour Party and was a relic of the old-style, pre-Thatcher economy.

Hence, she is thought by many in the UK to be a nasty, vindictive and relentless enemy of much that was valued in society and community.  You will note that praise for her these days tends to focus on her personal characteristics, rather than on what she did, for, even in the Tory Party, her religious fervour for neo-liberalism now seems extremist and divisive.

The question of a state funeral therefore becomes a serious one. She was not a unifier, a symbol of a united country and community. She was quite the contrary, a defender of one privileged group against a far larger disadvantaged group. Many in that latter group believe that she did irrevocable damage to the UK. A formal celebration of her life by the country would be seen by many across the country as deeply offensive. This is why the idea that her funeral should be fully privatised and sponsored by the corporate sector has taken hold in some sections of the UK - let her go out on the back of her beloved private sector, rather than paid for by the taxpayers she in general despised.

Chavez on Cancer

Venezuela's Hugo Chavez has drawn a long bow in musing publicly on the possibility that a rash of cancers amongst Latin American leaders (including Chavez himself) is due to a US plot. On the face of it, it looks far-fetched. Yet one can understand whence comes the idea, for the US has engaged in strange and illegal behaviours in the region for many years. One has only to think about the plots against Fidel Castro over the years to realise how bizarre US behaviours can be in their 'backyard'. The Guardian ran  a piece some years ago on the 638 ways the US and its proxies - the Cuban exiles - tried to kill Castro - explosive-filled mollusc shells, poisoned cigars, fungus-impregnated diving suits, poison pills delivered by an ex-lover, for example. So, Chavez may be grandstanding, but fact can be far stranger than fiction in US actions in LA.

A baying crowd in Turangi

Why would people turn out to howl in hatred at the accused in the Turangi case? An arrest has been made. The case will have its day in court. If convicted, the young person faces a long period of incarceration, in which, in all likelihood, he will be in solitary confinement, for, despite his youth, he will be fair game for other prisoners. The horrific attack will lead to the convicted leading a marked and fraught life forever. We will make him pay permanently for his actions.

Yet the mob mentality seems to see such cases as legitimising the public display of hatred. We don't for example, turn out to shriek epithets at corporate raiders who do immense damage to people. We don't picket courtrooms where the recidivist drink-driver faces charges for killing someone on the roads. When vulnerable old people are bashed and murdered, we are as shocked as we are in the Turangi case, but the baying horde is absent. But when children are concerned, we change.

At one level, I can understand the particular vulnerability. Our own children are precious. Who knows to what extremes we would go to protect them? But, in this case, the Police appear to have acted promptly and effectively, and, according to the parents, in exemplary fashion. The arrest has been made. What is the purpose of the public demonstration, other than to challenge the legal process, which stands between our society and barbarism?  For that is what the horde is in this case - an elemental barbarism that seeks notionally to exact immediate 'popular' justice. It is the modern, sanitised version of a lynch-mob, and it reflects some our deepest and least pleasant characteristics.

Confusions in the environmental camp: on Brigitte Bardot

The Sea Shepherd movement's ship - the 'Brigitte Bardot' - has been damaged and is being escorted to port. I hope it makes it safely.

The name is interesting. Ms Bardot is an icon in France. Her face is now that of Marianne. Her acting career covered the post-war French film renaissance. In some ways - but in a more pneumatic manner - her presence in France is similar to that of the sublime Catherine Deneuve. She is a staunch environmentalist and animal rights advocate, which presumably explains the ship's name..

She is also a racist, prosecuted on multiple occasions for inciting racial hatred. She has a particular hatred of Islam and what is sometimes called the 'islamisation' of France. As such. she echoes the politics of the neo-fascist National Front, and has praised its leader in the past. Her views on gays are also highly questionable, and she's been prosecuted for anti-gay views.

She is a classic case of the problem of 'issue-based' politics, in which we isolate one set of views from another, and seize on the admirable, whilst turning our cheek to the deeply unpleasant. No responsible political movement could us Ms Bardot's name in the way Sea Shepherd does. I'm reminded of Hitler's love of animals and vegetarianism, and cannot imagine animal rights or vegetarian movements using his name positively. Ms Bardot is not a Hitler, of course, but her other political views are deeply distasteful, and the use of her name by Sea Shepherd is remarkably one-eyed.

Occupy in Auckland: a judge talks sense

Cunningham P. is a sensible person. Auckland City's attempt to have unnamed persons from the Occupy Auckland movement sent to prison has been rejected as 'draconian'. And so it is. I am one who is quite comfortable about the movement's presence in Aotea Square (and I pay a fortune in rates to back up that level of comfort). And the thought that the Police might be required to determine who is appropriate for incarceration is fraught with the potential for wrongful arrest and further embarrassment. Sensible people would come to a negotiated settlement.

Miliband's Challenges are Shearer's

This piece in the Guardian is about the dilemmas facing Ed Miliband, but it might as well have been written about Mr Shearer. Modern Social Democracy, which, in the sense I'm using it here, began in the developed economies in the 1930s, made one key claim - it could manage Capitalism for both growth and equity far better than the Right. This has to be accepted. It was never a vehicle for radical transformation from Capitalism, but it was radical in its administration. That model hit crisis in the late 1960s and early 1970s for a variety of reasons, one of which was that it ran out of effective ideas about that administration, and neo-liberalism provided a powerful alternative. We must face up to the possibility that it was not a short-term loss of ideas, but that the imperatives of accumulation simply overpowered the equity aspects of its post-1930s incarnation.

As the Guardian piece suggests, if we continue to work within Capitalism (which I will take as a given for the purposes of this piece) then the Left has to develop an approach to sustainable growth and/or distribution that is politically viable. It is for this reason that I have argued before that the debate between the Left and the Greens in NZ needs to be raised a gear or two. Sustainability is crucial, especially given food and water security issues and the prospect of energy adjustments in the post-oil period. There is currently little energy in Labour for this radical re-think of a sustainable Social Democracy economic policy. The terror of the 2008 crisis remains front and centre, but it is a conjuncture, rather than the epochal nature of sustainability. If Labour could work towards a model of sustainability and equity, it would, I think, be able to shake off the view that Social Democracy is neo-liberalism with a little heart. That view looks increasingly vapid and unelectable.

Garth George

I will admit to thinking that, on the whole, Mr George's views are of the curmudgeonly and conservative tradition that leads me to permit my nearest and dearest to put me down should I ever become as he.

Yet, in his final Herald column, he talks of two things, which strike a chord in me. The first is the decline of journalistic standards, about which i will blog one day. The second is his concern about inequality in NZ, in which he comments positively on 'The Spirit Level', and negatively about the circumstances that give rise to NZ's growing inequality. I only wish that he had said this long ago, and then been consistent in his understanding of whence comes this inequality, especially in policy terms. Still, good notes upon which to sign off.

Sacha Jones becomes an Australian

Part of me thinks that the news that NZ No 2 tennis player, Sacha Jones, is to take up Australian citizenship is a metaphor for NZ's dilemma. We are a small, low productivity economy that cannot compete in terms of resources with our bigger neighbour, and the lure of better support for a professional tennis player is little different from the wider lure of a better-performing economy offering greater opportunity to most NZ workers. Maybe if I were a player with world-class aspirations, struggling to stay in the game on the basis of NZ's support, I would make the same decision.

However, the decision also says a lot about sport. This is a professional player, who wants also to make money. She is looking for the bigger tax-payer handout in order to make more money. I'm not at all opposed to government support for sport, especially when it encourages mass participation. And professional success can help to produce that outcome - I imagine, for example, that rugby clubs will benefit from the RWC in terms of player participation. But somewhere, there is a line where the social good of support for professional high performance in sport becomes support for privatised returns of an unacceptable order. It's a difficult line to define, but it makes me ponder on whether Ms Jones move to Oz is their loss.

Events in Turangi: a thought on the arrest of a 16 year old.

The terrible attack in Turangi on a small child struck many of us over the Christmas period. Sufficient details were released to make it clear that the child would face a long road to recovery, both physically and psychology. The grace of the parents was a striking feature of the aftermath. It was a case in which any decent person would hope for rapid success for the Police.

We now hear that an arrest has been made - of a 16 year old. If the allegations against this young person are finally proved in Court, so be it. But I find the possibility that a 16 year old - another child in my book - could have committed such an attack equally terrible. What circumstance could lead someone to believe that such an attack was justifiable? The word 'evil' has been used to describe the attack. I have, in my life, met a very small number of people whom I would describe as evil. It is just possible that this young man is truly one of that rare breed. More likely, there is a more prosaic explanation - drugs, background and intellectual disability spring to mind as factors that may emerge as relevant. Such factors do not 'excuse' anyone from responsibility in such cases, yet the nature of the attack cries out for explanation, for, whether we like it or not, the accused is of us and our society, and we are, in a sense, also responsible for what happened. I know that this view will not be popular, yet I believe firmly that to deny such responsibility is to refuse to understand why such things happen, and averting such events depends on understanding.

Facebook's incursions into our lives

Here is another article about various ways in which Facebook is, or will be, using its members for commercial gain, without permissions given by the affected Facebook users. I have blogged on this before, but this time I will act and remove myself from Facebook. To be honest, it has been of little real interest anyway - the advantages offered in terms of contacts with friends have been outweighed by the accompanying garbage generated by Facebook

Front-footing a problem in the making: Charter Schools

Ms Parata is doing the best she can with the hand she's been dealt by ACT. She has to sell Charter Schools, which she is reported to describe in the following terms:

Criticism of the idea was mainly focused on the mixed results of charter and free schools in the US and Britain, she said. 

Yep, reports are very mixed indeed, but she has to persevere, so she's front-footing the issue - principals are demanding to be allowed to run Charter Schools, she claims. I imagine it's rather like claiming that the Poles that were ardently in favour of a German invasion in 1939. I can see a lot of hype like this over the coming months, and no doubt some compliant principals and boards will be found, but such 'success' says nothing about the 'mixed reports' that Ms Parata accepts to be frequent.

Herald produces more nonsense on Mr Key

John Key may be the leader of the country but when it comes to Christmas, he's just like the rest of us.

The idea is that he spends Christmas here like the average punter. The average punter's home isn't a multimillion mansion in Parnell, with the second million-plus bach in Hawaii (the first being in Omaha). The media lead a bi-polar life when they come to Mr Key - either he is a self-made multi-millionaire, good as a PM because of that 'back story'. or he is a good bloke, an average punter. He is not the latter. He is a man deeply and successfully established in the financial order that gave us the 2008 crisis. He made his money in the financial manipulations found at the heart of that crisis, amid some of the least productive aspects of contemporary Capitalism. To be honest, if he'd made his fortune in F&P, or something involving productive Capital, I might be more sympathetic, but our PM comes from that parasitic sector of Capitalism that increasingly holds sway over the global economy. We should remember that.

Best Current Comedy Show

The Romney-Gingrich-Paul-Cain fiasco that is the Republican Party presidential candidate selection process in the US. One could not write satire of this quality. It looks like they actively want Obama to win a second term.

Mr Key's Government's $14.000

The bully boy government is still having a go at the Press. It wants $14000 from the free-lancer at the heart of the taping fiasco. This is unconscionable in the context and is simply an attempt to bully the Press into behaving as the government wants. This is banana republic stuff, as Ms O'Sullivan pointed out before Christmas. Still, it will focus the Press' attention - they don't like being bullied by Governments.

Katherine Rich and POAL: Pity about the lack of balance

Ms Rich, now of the Food and Grocery Council, opines on the side of management in relation to the current Ports dispute. As an ex-National MP, this is par for the course, but she has a reputation for fairness.She is either wilfully or accidentally ignorant of the history of POAL employment relations, in which there are two parties, both of which require a bit of a talking to. HR management in POAL has been reactionary and poor for years - tentative when change is possible, and impossibly suspicious of much management thinking about employment relations. She might also ask about the quality of the POAL board and its decision-making It is a pity that she has chosen to present the rote management line, rather than offering real insight

I don't have an iPhone

Or an iPad. I don't because of Foxconn. But yesterday, watching the endless texting and networking that electronics now requires in normal living, and the amount of technical hardware apparently now deemed to be necessary for a young person to survive, I worried about the simple art of conversation in coming years. Some time ago,  at a dinner table with a group of 'progressives', I was startled by their regression into childhood as they all realised that they had iPhones, and began to play with them over the food and wine. I thought it was strange then, but watching people yesterday brought home to me how widespread is the thrall of modern technology. My battered Dell and decrepit Nokia cuts no ice at all - I should be iPod,iPhone and iPad interconnective, it seems. I am, I am told, a Luddite, but I reply that at least I can survive a Christmas dinner without texting someone.

One of my sons received Madeline Miller's 'The Song of Achilles' as a present. Delightfully, the reviewer in the Women's Bookshop described it as 'Brokeback Mountain comes to Troy' - it made me laugh.

Happy Christmas

The turkey is on, Phase One of presents is complete, the familial rush approaches.

Have a good one.

Galbraiths and a Merry Christmas

For those of you who are of a 'real ale' bent, may I suggest that Galbraiths quaffing bitter - the 'Bob Hudson' - is on fine form at the moment, as is its 'Antipodean' Pale Ale? And the special 'Old Burton' India Pale Ale (at 6.3%) is a delight. I didn't try the Best ('Bellringers') but, if the others tell us anything, it will be excellent!

Governing for National Unity?

Ms O'Sullivan's comments today, and some by Mr Shearer, reflect conversations I've been party to in recent months. The combination of Christchurch, the international financial crisis and our domestic performance on many fronts is giving rise to centrist notions of national unity governance - the idea that we are in, or facing, a crisis of such magnitude that traditional political adversarialism must be shelved. I note that National formally doesn't seem to want a bar of it, but in labour and the Greens, and perhaps elsewhere, such notes are being sounded. The dangers in such thinking are obvious as we see, for example, in Greece and Italy, where such measures are predicated on single, unbalanced economic approach. Yet, in cases where there remains a pluralism in such thinking, a pre-emptive approach to political unity may become more attractive to some. It's a political space worth watching over the next months.

Christchurch

Terrible news again, and particularly the cause of increased doubts about the long-term location of Christchurch in zones where liquefaction so easily occurs. Rebuilding confidence in the city and its economy has taken another hit, and one wonders how much more people can take down there. The poignancy of further disruption at Christmas is deep.

Trashing Clark and Cullen?

I've had reason to comment before about how the Right, in supporting Mr Shearer, has used him as a stick to beat Ms Clark and Mr Cullen by means of the comparison between 'old' and 'new'. I see that, in the distancing that is going on between the current labour leadership and 'the past', a similar element of criticism is implicit. If one were exceptionally generous of spirit, one might accept a degree of 'distancing' as a natural sign of change. But the LP needs to understand that many of its members remain loyal to that previous leadership - one of the most powerful political teams ever to grace NZ politics - and vicarious criticism, especially by those still wet behind the ears (and also those who gained preference under that leadership), will be unwelcome.

CMP Lockout

It is over. The locked-out workers have won something of a victory (if such a word may be used when pay-cuts are involved), with the support of many people over the last weeks, and a real effort by the CTU. The management's position was disgraceful, yet I worry that it is a precursor to new managerial assaults on workers' condition in the next few years. The likelihood is high.

Mr Key's Christmas Present to NZ

A record net 35,800 people have migrated to Australia in the year to November, surpassing the previous high of 35,400 nearly three years ago. Stuff.

 Someone out there voted for a man and his government that are intent on driving skill and talent off-shore. We'll see more of this over the next three years. And we knew this before the election.

On changing the Labour Party's Constitution

Over an Emerson's "1812" or two last night, it became clear to me how difficult it will be to promote constitutional change in the Labour Party on the lines I've discussed before. A group of local party members, most highly experienced and tribal, simply felt that it was too hard, and that the caucus would have none of it. The focus in their minds was on whether Mr Shearer would scrub up sufficiently (which they think will be the case). They were particularly unconvinced by Mr Trotter's argument, as I expounded it, on a somewhat traditional basis that the LP should go in the opposite way to any suggestions made by him. Putting that to one side, it is striking that a group of thinking people should be so far away from my own thinking about the need for constitutional reform. It's the sort of conversation that makes one wonder if one is on the right track. Nonetheless, I remain convinced it is the case.

The other striking admission by the group was the feeling that the 'peaceful transition' model - from Ms Clark to Mr Goff - was in hindsight a bad idea, and that the failure to move against Mr Goff maybe two years ago has been shown to be damaging. In Emersons, veritas, perhaps.

Caitlin Moran "How to be a Woman"

Woman, man, indeterminate, protozoa, whatever. Read it. Very funny with a hard and challenging edge.

NZ Business Roundtable and NZ Institute Merger

Like others, I was a little surprised by this news. Its interpretation is difficult. Certainly, they come, in part, from different traditions. The BRT, whilst the fiefdom of Roger Kerr, was a bastion of neo-liberalism (though many companies pretended to disagree - I remember one senior manager explaining quietly how he was sent to BRT meetings for his company so that the CEO could 'pretend' to be distanced from Mr Kerr). The NZI came out of the Knowledge Wave fiasco- that attempt to bully Labour and Ms Clark into a business-model-driven approach to governance in NZ, a plot that Ms Clark understood very well. The NZI strove, to some extent at least, to be a more centrist organisation, if still a business-derived organisation. The telling point is that the discussions about a merger began on Roger Kerr's watch. NZI's Rick Boven is elusive ideologically (his environmental carapace hides a strongly pro-business agenda), and one wonders if he wasn't supping with the devil using a very short spoon, possibly quite willingly. Certainly, funding issues will have been a factor, too.

Nice to see business and the Right putting its ideological eggs into one basket. It makes the target clearer.

Housing Affordability: the missing link

Nothing at all novel will come out of the current housing affordability debate. This issue has been hammered for nearly a decade, and is now going around in circles, primarily driven by free-market liberals who want an end to urban limits. So much is obvious.

What is missing is the income dimension. If we were a better-performing economy, and, as a result of good bargaining traditions, we had higher incomes across the board, whilst some of that effect might be translated into higher prices, some would address the affordability question (and, also, the household debt issue). The inexorable direction of this government's low-wage policy has the opposite effect, as most of us understand. I bet with certainty that Mr Sherwin will not address the low income question at all. This government's idea of productivity is very specific and limited.

Abandoning the Oligarchy: reform in the Labour Party

Over the last few weeks, I have been blogging occasionally about my frustration with oligarchic control over the Labour Party. Mr Trotter takes a similar view.

My own thinking has arrived at a version of the electoral college, that is, something of a half-way house between the current oligarchic control and one-member, one vote. My preference is a 50-50 split between members and caucus. I do not favour 'interest group' representation in the college. It is, in my view, too easy to 'manage'. I suggest that a proportional model be used in each group, such that, in elections for leaders and deputy leaders, proportional systems are used to reduce fields to two, with the aggregate across the two groups for each of the remaining two candidates being calculated, thus providing the leader and deputy-leader. Moreover, we should discuss whether,in such a model, the membership electorate should be the whole membership, or a sub-set made up of, say, four elected representatives from each constituency party. Both approaches give rise to potential problems; I favour the latter.

The Next Three Years: it's the economy, stupid

Politics in NZ over the next three years will be, I think, marked by National trying to draw attention away from a declining economy and a lack of effective policy, and Labour and the wider opposition harrying National for its lack of economic direction. The entrails are to be read in terms of the global economy facing an extended downturn, with the prospect of a serious depression deriving from Europe and/or China. Liquidity will be a particular problem internationally, affecting investment and borrowing for things like housing. Trade may be disrupted. Unemployment is unlikely to improve, and probably in many cases, worsen. Australia may fall back, with particular consequences for NZ trade. We will still lose skilled labour to international opportunities. Our industrial barons will maintain their low-skill, high labour usage, low productivity approach, encouraged by the government and its employment relations measures. And much more.

This scenario gives Labour and the opposition ample scope to hammer the government- from the stupidity of privatisation (including ACC) in such circumstances to its lack of a 'high road' strategy. The savings and superannuation debate will be another opportunity.The potential for a 'green' critique of these lacunae, especially post-Durban, is a welcome option, which should allow Mr Shearer to build a stronger relationship with the Greens. If Mr Shearer can place the economy front and centre, he will make ground.

Ports of Auckland: management diktat or negotiation?

Mr Gibson was telling in his 'Morning Report' commentary this morning. His repetition of 'nine offers made' is meaningless without the detail of those offers, which he was careful to avoid. He was also careful not to engage in MUNZ's suggestion that there were only a couple of areas of disagreement still to be resolved, a position which is again telling. The sending of redundancy-threatening letter to individuals during negotiation is nothing less tan an attempt to scare workers and families into submission (which looks like something less than Good Faith).

MUNZ are by no means squeaky clean in the quality of their employment relations thinking, but this is management attempting to impose outcomes regardless of joint regulation, and leaves a bad taste.

Labour's Front Bench

Pretty much as expected and as the rumour mill suggested. I'm very pleased that Mr Cunliffe took the MED portfolio and I hope that his expertise is not lost to Mr Parker via the Associate role. Mr Robertson and Ms Ardern now have to shape up and really perform. Mr Shearer has given them the chance to shine. and shine they must. Shane Jones is articulate and bright, but traditionally unpredictable. He's carried significant responsibility in previous phases of his life - I dearly hope that he steps up to the disciplines of his new role. Personally, I would have liked to see Mr Twyford higher.

The art now will be to look forward whilst also cutting backward links. Any suggestion that the 'old guard' remains in the background pulling the strings will be unhelpful. The Right will use this line anyway, but many in the older tradition are now looking at their final term in office - a graceful departure will be desired by all.

I wish the new team well, and, like the faithful old retainer, will swing in behind.

Asset Sales at a time of Global Crisis

One wonders how markets will react to asset sales in what is a deepening global crisis. My sense is that things are going to become considerably worse before they get better (the European crisis is still brewing nicely, as are difficulties in China), and selling off the family silver in a depression looks like panic. I see that Mr Key, unsurprisingly, no longer sees the merit in tax cuts (pity he didn't understand this earlier). Maybe, just maybe, he'll see sense in the short-sighted stupidity of his proposed privatisation policy.

Mr Gibson, the POAL Board and MUNZ

I hear on the grapevine that the board may be at least as responsible for the impasse in employment relations at POAL as Mr Gibson (and let's be honest, the intransigence of elements of MUNZ). If this is the case, it needs to be looked at by Mr Brown closely, for it is at his door, eventually, that the buck stops. His approach to the ports is, I am told, pretty much efficiency and returns driven (in which case, he needs to understand that the sea-change needed in the ports requires a 'modern' management approach, rather than the current  'four by two' approach. The same must be said of MUNZ.

Note to Labour Caucus: Stop Leaking

Would it be possible that the the Labour caucus stops leaking stories about the Shearer Coup, and how it was jacked up, and when it was first mooted, and who did the numbers, and who leaked what to whom? Not only is it destructive in the caucus (in which the "in" group, rightly or wrongly, appears to be gloating about the outcome), but it also irritates members like me who do not like to be taken for granted by oligarchic decision-making in the consistory that is caucus. The more the story is told that Mr Shearer was parachuted in to Mt Albert and then groomed by Mr Goff, the more it will hamper him (the Left in the party will view such stories with interest) and the more that he will appear externally as a ringer with no base, brought in simply to counteract the Key Effect (and therefore seen as 'disposable'). That's how it is beginning to look - a long game with Mr Robertson ready to step in if it implodes.

In passing, when in Wellington earlier this week, the gossip mill was in overdrive, being fed substantially by caucus members and some of the LP apparatus. Maybe I'm naive, but it wasn't a good look.

Shearer's Team: MS O'Sullivan comments

I am not going to discuss Ms O'Sullivan's assertions about the Shearer coup. Let it be clear that there are other interpretations around, and there may be just a little disingenuousness (if such a word exists)in her comments. But she is spot on about the need for Mr Cunliffe to be kept in the team (as I have argued). Labour cannot afford to dispense with such talent. Anyone in the new leadership (and its advisers) who thinks so is running a personal agenda rather than one that meets the immediate needs of the party.

I suggest that some in the Shearer camp might end their micturation on the press.

Mr Shearer's Team

Mr Shearer has an initial and obvious problem staring right at him. He pretty much has to give Messrs Robertson and Parker high positions. He also needs to balance the team in terms of gender and ethnicity, and achieve some of the renewal that is required, whilst creating the minimum amount of disaffection possible, for Mr Shearer has no natural base in the party and caucus and has a lot of ground to make to feel secure in his position. This is to be expected in the circumstances. But it means that finding a position of sufficient status and influence for Mr Cunliffe is a challenge. My hope is that Mr Cunliffe accepts a position that allows him to take on Mr Joyce and Mr English across the Finance and MED portfolios. These are areas in which Labour needs to make palpable hits, and in which Mr Cunliffe has established skills.

News reports that he is considering his future are to be expected, and, in his position, it is not surprising if he is taking a moment to reflect. He is someone who could do very well outside Parliament (and also, probably, be a better family person, something a parliamentary life fails to take into account) but I hope that his reflection leads him to stay and take on Mr Joyce.

Government's Poverty Group: cutting the cost of petrol for the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff

It would be funny if it weren't so serious. Mr English has decreed that the government's Poverty Group will look at the welfare spend in terms of "bang for the buck", not the reality of poverty in NZ. It is this government all over - ignore the real problem and worry about the financials (which is a metaphor for NZ business, when I think about it). So the problem of poverty is not that it exists (causes), but the costs of doing something about it (effects). Prevention is, for Mr English, not a preferred option. He reckons that making the mitigation more cost-effective is the way to go.Why doesn't he call it, simply, the Welfare Cost Reduction Group and be done with it. Calling it the Poverty Group is a gross misnomer.

Productivity Commission on Housing: stating the obvious and a developer's dream

If I were a betting man, I would have put large money on the Productivity Commission's report on housing stating what we've known for years about availability and pricing (DPMC did exactly the same about four years ago, for example) and then moving on to attack cities for trying to contain urban sprawl. Auckland is in the gun in this, which is again entirely predictable, for Auckland has long recognised that housing intensification in the price to pay if we don't want sprawl from Hamilton to Warkworth and beyond. Developers hate the idea, for it constrains their capacity too make profits (they say it's about affordability and availability, but they would, wouldn't they). MULs may in time have to be shifted, if Auckland's population grows as predicted, but that must be in conjunction with intensification, and that is a debate that this government seems to want to avoid. This report, which I've just waded through, get a C+ for substance and originality.

Also, the data provided in the Herald on construction costs for houses needs to be deconstructed between land and infrastructure-related costs, cost of materials and labour, consumer preferences and profit margins. It's far more complex than simply stating NZ's higher construction costs compared with, for example, Australia.

Things one misses in the news: Training budgets

I wondered, a couple of day ago, why the ITF had funded a large BERL study on the value of training. Because of travel commitments, I had missed the government's attack on training - the pressure on ITO mergers, the changed funding system (saving, I understand $18 million) and the review of training provision that promises further cuts. I think that Mr Joyce probably really believes that the private sector will pay for its own training as a result of ever-decreased public funding. The Third World beckons.

Peter Dunne: in the gun

I blogged the other day about the need for Peter Dunne to step up to United Future's principles on privatisation. The mealy-mouthed one has now argued Nationals case for it - the majority holding will rest in public hands, so it's all OK.

Well, it's not all OK and Mr Dunne is going to face a rocky road on this. He's breaking UF's principles, he's wallowing in the baubles, and is, for all that, a lonely figure, now despised by Labour, Greens and NZ First, and nor particularly loved by National. He's not long for Politics, and I wonder if someone can suggest to him that this is, if ever there was such a thing, the time to do the right thing. Surely there is just a little integrity left in the man.

Business on the scrounge (again)

The EMA wants from government (and pretty much from we the taxpayer):

• privatisation of SOEs
• more incentives for innovation (we pay them to develop new peoducts and techniques, from which they privatise the profits)
• lower government spending (except on business)
• more expenditure on training (for business needs)
• less taxation on business
• less environmental protection (which gets in the way of business doing what it wants)
• weaker civil voice at the local government level (which gets in the way of business doing what it wants)
• weaker labour market protections

Never let it be said that NZ business stands on its own two feet, fearless and unbound by subsidy and taxpayer support. And as they demand better and better treatment, and more and more taxpayer transfers, they also call for lower wages, lower benefits and poorer treatment for working people in and out of employment. It is all a bit sick, really.

Key Government to slash training budget?

A new study suggests the country could lose up to $15 billion dollars annually if the Government withdraws its investment in industry training. (Stuff).

Of course, if government walked away from industry training, things would be very dire indeed. No advanced successful country survives without a strong articulation between compulsory education and  what is now generally known as "lifelong learning".

What is shocking, and really worrying, is that the ITF has felt the need to pay for BERL to do this study. Pretty much all research in this area points in one direction only. Of course, there will be ways of improving training delivery, but the essential role of state funding is universally recognised. Could it be, though, that the ITF believes that the Key Government is thinking of walking away from this provision? It's the only explanation that I can think of for the study. It won't be used to access higher levels of funding in the current climate, but I can see the Key government imitating the Cameron government and trying to take an axe to the training budget, in the ideological context of the private sector picking up the slack (which, of course, it won't).

This is a space to be watched.

David Shearer: the decision's made, time to move on

I've been proved wrong, and admit it. I did not think that caucus would go for the tyro Mr Shearer. That have done precisely that, and, it is reported, by a fair margin. I now fervently hope that I was wrong about the better choice.

Mr Shearer has a lot to achieve in the next couple of years before the knives come out. He'll get my support wholeheartedly, even if I preferred David Cunliffe for leader. Mr Shearer is a decent person with sound principles and a likable manner. It remains to be seen if this will, over time, cut the ice in Parliament against a feral National leadership and a voting population that remains to be convinced about Labour and its policies. But there is nothing to be gained at all by white-anting him, and I think that most Cunliffe supporters agree. I am particularly pleased to see Mr Cunliffe swing in behind despite what must be real disappointment at the response of his colleagues. We cannot afford to lose his capacities from the front bench. And caucus now has to scrub up, too. They've taken this risk, for risk it is, and it is incumbent on them to perform to the level that they expect of Mr Shearer. The "young things" have their chance now; they will be watched as closely as Mr Shearer.

I remain unimpressed by the oligarchic decision-making process in Labour. This experience highlights the "above and below the salt" aspects of my (and I write "my" deliberately) party, and the distance that sits between the caucus and its penumbra,. and the rest of the membership (despite the views of Sanctuary). It strikes me that there is some constitutional work to think through about Labour, and that will have repercussions beyond leadership election matters. There are some key playmakers (or people who believe themselves to be key playmakers) in Labour that may have to be disabused of that notion.

Shearer wins

Caucus has not listened to the membership, as I feared. They will have some explaining to do to the membership.

Stephen Joyce: "Jobs Tsar"?

One has to laugh. Putting the "high performing" (in what sense?) Mr Joyce in MED and making him Jobs Tsar is the flimsiest of window-dressing imaginable, even more fragile than that other great initiative - the Jobs Summit. Mr Key must think we are stupid. Remember that he came into his first term all mouth-and-trousers about jobs, and they fell away. Instead, he went along a policy path designed to create low-quality, cheap jobs, just what a low-quality, cheap management approach to productivity required. He has entrenched poor performance in the economy further.

Now, Mr Joyce, friend of Mediaworks, has been given the flummery of the Jobs Tsar title (note, not the poor-performing Ms Wilkinson who, beyond reason, has retained the Labour portfolio). What will he do? I guarantee that it will be whatever business wants and, when you think of the performance of our business sector, more of the same spells doom and gloom for working people.

Well, someone out there voted for this - as you sow, so you shall reap.

Doug Bracewell

Man of the Match - he was, despite Warner's excellent century.

The hyperbole in the Australian press in response to the Black Caps' victory is a sight to behold.

If Mr Shearer wins today......

.......it will be because caucus want him, and it will probably not reflect the rank-and-file party feeling (at least, as I fathom it). I've spoken to a lot of Auckland and Wellington members over the last few days, as you do, and there is a consensus amongst that highly-unscientific sample that Mr Cunliffe should get the job. I haven't seen a single commentary on the meetings round the country that suggests Mr Shearer has shown himself to be ready for the position. Indeed, the commentaries appear to favour Mr Cunliffe.

The hope is that, if Mr Shearer does win, we will all swing in behind. That's probably going to be the case (at least it is for me). But the party has let the genie out of the bottle. If Mr Shearer takes the position, it will be in the face of considerable rank-and-file disillusionment with the Caucus decision. Not only will he have to make up that ground, but there will also be a debate about the positions taken by MPs in the face of rank-and-file questions. There are a lot of ambiguous comments being made by MPs to members at the moment, as members try to get their views This type of oligarchic control of the leadership is no longer acceptable in a political party that depends on grassroots support.

This decision is contested, and there will be fall-out if it goes the way people are calling.

Labour's Front Bench?: it has to be Cunliffe.

Jacinda Ardern
Charles Chauvel
David Cunliffe (right)
Lianne Dalziel
Shane Jones
Nanaia Mahuta
David Parker
Grant Robertson
David Shearer (left)

This is the Herald's pick. It tells me even more clearly why Mr Cunliffe should be leader.
Of the list (which is there or thereabouts), only three (Cunliffe, Dalziel and Parker) have the experience and background to give real confidence. Chauvel, Shearer, Jones, Ardern and Robertson have question-marks hanging over them in terms of sustained performance at the top table. Mahuta is a low-key performer, better than many understand, but I doubt if ever to set the world on fire. The list tells me that it has to be Cunliffe

Peter Dunne: "in principle we were not in favour of the sale of assets".

Thus spake Mr Dunne about the United Future position on asset sales. So the question must be asked: will he act on principle, or will he be a poodle? This is a chance for Mr Dunne to act for New Zealand in a way that justifies his claim to be a 'player' on the political scene. It might even provide a basis for increased support for United Future. Let's see where his 'bump of principle' takes him. If he simply falls into line with National, history's judgement of him and his principles will be savage.

Dear Jacinda

You are the closest thing to a Labour MP that I have. I supported you in the election as I have supported Labour for 45 years. I am writing to you to ask that you listen to the broad bulk of the rank-and file in the Party, which in my estimation, believes that Mr Cunliffe, warts and all, is the better candidate for leader of the Party. Mr Shearer is estimable and talented, but is neither ready nor appropriate for the leadership role now. Mr Cunliffe is, and should receive your vote.

Best wishes and good luck in 2014.

Britain: Pariah of Europe

The UK's unwillingness to support the Eurozone 'solution' means that its role in Europe will be diminished to the point that it will be marginalised from Europe's councils and may even leave the EU. Whilst this will please Eurosceptics and the extreme Right, it is a bleak prospect for the UK. It could, for example, stir deeper separatist movements in Wales and Scotland, both of which have nationalist parties wedded to independence in Europe.Above all, the UK is no longer a world power. It is a declining industrial nation, which seems to be choosing to isolate itself from its natural regional allies, allies with which it negotiated hard to join the EU in the '60s and '70s. Future difficulties faced by the UK will find no succour in Europe, and the US is a weak friend these days. A toothless lion looks to be snubbing its few remaining friends.

Maori Party choose baubles: a simple disgrace

A party led by two retiring and clueless leaders, which has betrayed Maori interests as a whole in favour of a Maori elite, and has supported a government, the policies of which stand pretty much against most Maori interests, has once again decided to prop up that government. Shame on the Maori Party and its craven compliance with its master's wishes. It is a disgrace.

58% for MMP

So it's confirmed. We want MMP. And now we need a sensible, informed debate about how it might be amended. The 5% threshold is one area I'd like to see reviewed and perhaps amended. There is a host of others, but the key here is to have provide plenty of opportunity for public debate (perhaps as part of a campaign to encourage people to 'own' the democratic process.

Reviving Project Mercury: Auckland and Tauranga ports

Back in the 1990s, POAL had a plan to take over the Port of Tauranga. It was  based on a big Auckland taking over a little Tauranga. It cam to nothing for reasons that might usefully be explored one day. I've blogged before on the reversal of fortunes between the ports, and once again the call for a merger is sounding across the land.

There is lots to think about here. One aspect is the role of Auckland's COO in charge of investments. It and its advice needs to be watched like a hawk. The ease with which privatisation agendas can be sneaked in under a nat6ional-led government is obvious. The second is the politicking of the Right on the Council round POAL holdings. The third is the logic of greater collaboration round a single hub operation, in the context of a much-needed strategic view of port operations in NZ. If I were Mr Joyce in MED, I would make such a review a priority, and I'll be watching that space.

If I were MUNZ, I would be having some very quiet discussions with advisers about a long-term strategic approach to POAL, rather than the traditional short-termism. Neither the POAL management nor MUNZ want to see a significant downgrading of Auckland's operation, but management might take kindly to a privatisation, which then lends itself to such an outcome. If ever there was a case where 'joint regulation' should be promoted, this is it.

By the way, a commentator asked why I don't see Whangarei-Marsden Point in the list for the North Island main hub. The answer is location, the cost of the railway upgrading, and politics.

Mandate yes; extremism, no: National's angst

I don't have much time for the 'no mandate' argument that some raise against National. Things like Charter Schools - not mentioned then parachuted in on the flimsiest (and wrong) excuse that it's MMP - will rebound, but where full knowledge is there - eg ACC, SOEs - we were pretty clear what was coming.

I don't think, however, that National feel too comfortable about a 1984-Ruth Richardson process. NZ doesn't want it, as Mr Key is fully aware. A root-and-branch neo-liberal reform model stands to damage National's brand for a generation, and the Right's crowing about a second term of reform simply highlights the dilemma. I think National will do more than enough damage anyway without adopting wholesale the Chicago handbook.

The brake will be applied somewhat, in my view, once Parliament re-assembles. The self-preservation of National will kick in as the prospect of losing in 2014 becomes ever clearer. I expect Labour, the Green and NZ First to launch a concerted attack in Parliament against what are ideological policy choices which are often unsupported by analysis or advice. The media will take this up (despite the nonsensical support from the Herald for the spending cap model, which is a disaster).

Overlaying this is a view in National that those wanting a long-term political career in Parliament will not accept eroded prospects caused by people like Mr Key who will go sooner rather than later. A florid neo-liberal agenda which condemns National to oblivion won't serve such interests.

60-6 and still in the first session

Oh dear.

More thoughts on the Labour Leadership: more democracy needed.

People I respect tell me that, on the performances so far in meetings around the election. David Cunliffe. Nanaia Mahuta and Grant Robertson are all performing well. Doubts remain about Mr Shearer. People who I know traditionally to be anti-Cunliffe are, perhaps reluctantly, saying this to me, too. Mr Shearer's performance is leaving a little to be desired. My preferences are clear, but I report these views from a cross-section of people.
The process is worth thinking about. My own modest experience of the election gossip is instructive. Three people have now spoken to me, all with legitimate grounds to claim an 'inside' knowledge. One has damned Mr Robertson (as have others outside the loop). Another has taken me to task about this view, causing me to adjust a previous post. A third has consequently given me a hard time for being taken in by a Shearer-Robertson-Mallard ploy.

In one sense, it doesn't matter - gossip is gossip and should be taken with a largish pinch of salt. In another it does. This is, in a sense, my party. I belong to it and have done for years. I pay a large sum of money annually to it. I've walked many miles over many years on its behalf. I've diligently sat through meetings that would age Methuselah on its behalf. And this is true for thousands of other rank-and-file members.

And it's running a leadership process no too far distant from the medieval process of papal elections. We plebeian members of the party may hear the candidates speak, but the decision will be taken by a consistory of anointed elders, each and every one of them running at least two agendas - party and personal - and not all necessarily thinking wholeheartedly of the long-term interests of the  party. If people don't like that last thought, they better sharpen up, for the unavoidable professionalisation of politics means that pensions and careers are at stake, and even the most whole some of politicians might have occasionally mixed drivers.

I don't know what the best alternative might be. I can think of a range of alternatives, from mass electoral participation to a tiered process involving complementary processes at rank-and-file and parliamentary levels. That should be the subject of technical debate. What seems to me to be undeniable is that the current system is designed precisely to create gossip, irritate the rank-and-file with a 'tea towels and toilets' approach to participation, and allow rank-and-file views to be disregarded with impunity. It has to change.

If Peter Davis and Helen Clark support Mr Cunliffe...

... they would be right. Ms Clark has, to my knowledge, maintained a thoroughly diplomatic silence on this issue. Who knows what she thinks? And to assume that she and her husband agree on everything stretches my experience of relationships too far.

Mind you, it does go to show how the weight of Ms Clark's competence and analytical acumen stills bears down on NZ.

Concurring with the CTU on Decent Work and Wages, and the wasted space that is Business New Zealand....

Peter Conway asks the questions: why do NZ employers so dislike decent work and good wages? And isn't it time that a responsible employers' organisation, that believes in such qualities, came out of the woodwork?

A Decent Job – Right or Privilege

The Council of Trade Unions is asking employer organisations if they support decent jobs in New Zealand.
Peter Conway, CTU Secretary, said today, “there seems to be a mentality that if someone has a decent job, then it is a privilege that must be withdrawn.”

“Despite a commitment to decent work by employers, alongside government and unions in the International Labour Organisation, it looks like the very concept of decent work is being abandoned in this country.”

“For instance, there has been a conspiracy of silence by employer organisations in New Zealand over the 7 week lockout of meatworkers in Rangitikei. Those workers will accept a pay cut, but just not the massive one the employer is demanding. Yet not one employer group has called on the company to be more reasonable.”

Peter Conway said it is little wonder nearly 50,000 people left New Zealand permanently for Australia last year.

“Employer groups keep pushing for labour law changes to weaken bargaining rights”.

“It seems the approach of these employer organisations is that their role is to hunt down every decent job in New Zealand and get rid of it in the name of competitiveness”.

Peter Conway said that unions stand unequivocally for decent jobs – where people are treated with respect, where there is training, reasonable pay and conditions and engagement with workers on productivity issues.

“We need a new employer organisation in New Zealand that will promote decent jobs.”

Before we ban the burqa.....

....can we have a concerted attack on the wearing of business suits with silly pointy or chisel-toed shoes and with open-necked business shirts (or, worse, casual shirts not tucked in)?  When combined with the fashionable 'shaved head' look, our knights of business look as bedraggled as their commercial performance. Compared to the untidy crew that enters the Air New Zealand cabin on every flight, the burqa is a mere fashion bagatelle.

Sepuloni marginally ahead? Bennett to lose? Whither National?

We hear that Ms Sepuloni may be a handful of votes to the good against Ms Bennett. Not the time for champagne corks just yet, but it would be one of those little destabilising outcomes that would reinforce National's internal angst about the election's outcome. The Christchurch result, when confirmed, could have the same effect.

The psychology of this is important. National expected a crushing victory. They won, but have been pulled back into an untidy and unbalanced coalition that leaves many people uncomfortable, after an electoral politics round coalitions which was badly managed. National are like the 18 year-old who expected a Porsche but received a Nissan - bound to be grateful but really disappointed. And people are writing off their chances in 2014 already.

National are going to have to think about the post-Key strategy. He's a dilettante, will be off, and there is no Plan B in sight yet (either for leadership or alliance building). The idea, for example, that they move to the centre to court the Greens makes no sense to me, and smacks of the concerns about the future that must permeate National. Without Key, National would have floundered.

I'm half-expecting National to try the same trick again. Find a non-politician with street appeal and boost them, Just watch that space. I hear that my expectation that Mr Joyce is the obvious successor has lost a great deal of ground in National circles (no charisma, too arrogant, no public charm) and the newer generation has lots to learn before they are ready to contest the leadership.  I suppose Richie McCaw may need a job.........

A bad feeling about the Productivity Commission and Housing

The housing bubble, about which I blogged yesterday, is about to be one of the first issues reported on by the Productivity Commission. The lobbyists are out big-time to pressure authorities like Auckland to condone massive urban sprawl by opening up more land for housing development (even though Auckland is already very extensive indeed against its population size). Ending the MULs is a developer's dream, and they hope that a developer-friendly government like Mr Key's will 'do the right thing'. Auckland's proposed plan is already out, and so government would have to intervene over the Supercity to make significant changes to land available for new development. It will,be interesting to see if Wellington simply tries to pressurise Auckland on this, or moves to a more draconian intervention.

Property prices rising, manufacturing declining, but, hey, we won the World Cup.

News reported on the same day that property prices are swinging upwards, whilst manufacturing has declined for a second successive quarter, pretty much captures the direction that Mr Key and his government are taking us. There is no industry or manufacturing strategy, apart from aspects of NZTE. There is nothing in National's tool-kit to reverse the property bubble - indeed, property remains one of then few areas that people expect to be a rewarding investment. National will do nothing much, other than wait in hope that some exogenous factor will jolt the economy in a new direction. There is in National a 'leave it to the market' default setting that is almost more neo-liberal than the Neo-Liberals.

Never mind, we have the economic insights of Mr Banks to lead us forward.

The World Water Crisis

Two articles in today's Herald - on the threats to fresh water supplies from the Himalayas and associated ranges (as an effect of climate change), and in the Middle East (as an effect of climate change and usage) brings to the fore a crisis that is looming, yet only just being understood in popular circles.

We are told that in the C20, as the global population has tripled, water usage has increased six-fold, one in six of that population (1.1 billion) does not have access to safe drinking water, and one third of that population lack adequate sanitation facilities. For these people,. the crisis does not loom; it is a clear and present danger. Then you start looking at places like China, already moving vast amounts of water around to provide for both economic growth and potable supplies, and admitting quietly that there is a significant long-term mismatch between supply and demand. And then you look at the global corporates which are already actively seeking to privatise water holdings and supply systems. I remember reading years ago about US strategic plans that include an invasion of Canada to guarantee water access, especially for the parched West Coast. It doesn't seem so far-fetched now.

We take water for granted in NZ in many ways, but the current debates about irrigation and water supplies, especially in the South island, show that we are not immune from water-related challenges. Ans we Aucklanders can remember the droughts that have afflicted us in some years.

Water and food security are issues that are now front-and-centre. If we tackle them as well as we are tackling climate change, we are really stuffed.

Heads for Cunliffe, Hearts and Punters for Shearer

I'm hearing that Mr Shearer is close to the numbers and that his team is confident. Media coverage says much the same. I'm struck by the difference in the style of discussion that's emerging. The Shearer discourse is about hope and heart - the 'take a punt on freshness' position, based also on Mr Shearer being a quick study. The Cunliffe discourse is about competence and experience, with the sub-text of antipathy towards the man.

It is increasingly likely that the caucus will make what I think is the more dangerous decision. If it does, it may turn out OK, but we will be on tenterhooks for several years as the decision plays out. The argument that we can switch leaders if it doesn't work is, for me at least, profoundly indicative of the 'taking a punt' argument, with which I'm uncomfortable.

Coda: my position on Mr Robertson, originally taken in this blog, is questioned in the comments below. I have responded to that questioning. I have now been told two quite separate things. both by people with claims of access to the caucus. Fairness is important in this issue. On current evidence, I cannot tell either way, but it seems better to erase the comment.

And again: I have (elsewhere) now also been accused of kow-towing to a Robertson-Shearer-Mallard conspiracy by removing the disputed reference to Mr Robertson. The removal was the responsible and fair thing to do, yet the friction that is emerging bears out two things - the fact that Labour could not have subjected itself to a longer period of leadership debate without serious public image damage; and that Mr Cunliffe is seen as a greater challenge to the existing order in the Party than many understand. I remain a Mr Cunliffe supporter if the decision is between he and Mr Shearer.

SFC Charges: Mr English will be watching carefully.

Charges have been laid and 2012 will see court cases on the SFC. The charges are one thing. The politics surrounding the bail-out are another, and it will be difficult to keep the latter out of the news. The fact that we taxpayers had to pay out $1.8 billion, in circumstances in which SFC's participation in the guarantee scheme is being questioned, means that Mr Cunliffe's attack on government will be given a great deal more air. Mr English and Treasury will come under scrutiny once more over an extended period.

POAL withdraws lock-out notice

For Mr Gibson, this now makes things worse. He went to the wire in macho style, has been roundly condemned by the voice of the market and the community, and now looks weak. It is the reality of the bargaining process - escalation without a face-saving Plan B is always dangerous.

There is, also, no doubt that the union side needs to look to its own strategy long-term. It is quite true that there will come a tipping point at some stage where POAL will face such competition from Tauranga that down-sizing in Auckland will follow. I have blogged before about the logic of Tauranga as the sole hub port on the North Island.

Bargaining is sometimes known as "joint regulation". It means give-and-take as well as full-scale war,  something that both sides should consider.

Inequality in New Zealand: OECD gives us a "fail" mark

It is fascinating to hear the discussion about the OECD concerns about growing wealth disparity in NZ. The OECD is the 'club of the rich'. It is the favourite source of analysis and data for Wellington. Its commentaries are usually taken as tablets of stone. Not this time.And that is in itself interesting, for the OECD dose little else but take NZ figures, given by the NZ government, analyse them rather cleverly and then feed them back to NZ. Mr English knows this, and his flummery on Morning Report was good politics, in that he sought to muddy water that is, in fact, very clear.

The OECD's argument for higher taxes at the top end is an analytical kick-in-the-teeth for this government. When the very orthodox OECD says this, and echoes similar thinking in the IMF and World Bank, one begins to understand how out-of-touch NZ is with current macro-economic policy thinking. All grist to Labour's mill.

Mr Banks was simply funny to hear as he ploughs down the road in the wrong direction.

Wealth disparity grows in NZ

We've just re-elected a government that believes in wealth disparity, so they must be pleased with the latest data on the issue.

Figures from the "Divided We Stand" think-tank show the income of the richest 10 per cent of Kiwis is now more than 10 times that of the poorest 10 per cent.

This is up from a ratio of around six-to-one in the 1980s and higher than the average income gap in developed nations of nine-to-one.

I wait the screams of 'wrong data' from the Right. They should, in fact, be honest, and applaud these data, for they are what their government seeks to achieve.

Tony Gibson: Will the POAL board review his performance?

Clearly, the POAL board needs to look closely at its appointment of Mr Gibson as CEO. He has taken an organisation which, under his two predecessors, was moving forward reasonably well, and was, in particular, beginning to address long-standing ER problems, on both sides of the relationship. In a few short months, he's managed to reduce ER in the organisation to strikes and lock-outs and to lose one of the major Maersk contracts, and to Tauranga. He seems to be saying that he can't manage the operation without making it a battleground and irritating key clients.

Management is always the first mover in these matters. They are in law and in organisational practice the originators of what happens in a firm. Indeed, they tell us this in their endless commentaries on leadership. Well. if this is leadership by Mr Gibson, the ports can do without it.

Inequality and poverty: it's the Poor's fault

You have to love the Right and their current concerted attempts to downplay the issue of poverty in NZ. They must, for their government is promoting policies designed to create greater inequality, because they believe inequality is, simply, the natural and proper state of affairs. That view is. however, not too hot electorally so Plan B has to be used publicly. It goes like this:

• poverty may exist, but isn't anything like the levels proposed by the Left (this is the muddying-the-water challenge-the-data argument).
• if it does exist, IT IS NOT OUR FAULT. It is the fault of, variously:
• the poor themselves (lazy feckless, breeding, brown - insert any other adverse quality you like),
• the Left (for promoting the interests of the lazy, brown feckless etc etc),
• the Welfare State (that cossets the lazy, brown, feckless etc etc).
• as it is not our fault, we don't need to do much about it, other than harry the lazy, brown and feckless, especially bu hammering welfare provision.

It's all very simple really. The Victorians understood this - I'm waiting for Poor Law reform to be introduced - the 'bring back workhouses' idea, but maybe National's love of incarceration is one step in that direction already.

Israel stuffs up (again)

The rebounding of this campaign on the Israeli state and Mr Netanyahu is in part a sign that the intransigence of that state on a Middle East solution is taking its toll on its vital support in the US. Israel has been able to show two finger to the world for decades because it is able to influence US politics directly. Few candidates in the US, who want to win, can ignore the funding power and political reach of the pro-Israel lobby. Insults of this order weaken that power base.

The idea that all Jews should live in Israel is also a strange one. Having strategically-placed communities internationally is good politics and, also, good for extended networks in all sorts of areas, such as R&D and finance. The logic of the campaign appears to reflect growing uncertainty about the future of the Israeli state, already experiencing internal fractioning between the ultra-orthodox and more liberal traditions.

Charter Schools: no mandate, and playing with our kids' futures

So the moribund ACT has foisted "Charter Schools" on National? Did anyone hear a peep during the election about the prospect of the gradual privatisation of the state school sector ? Did anyone hear a word about the idea before it's been dumped on us? Of course not, for this is a government which deeply disrespects the average voter.

Here we have a man who's kids went to Kings and St Cuthberts (and, remind me, where did John Banks' kids go?) quite happy to experiment (in South Auckland, of course - let's use the 'brown people' as our guinea pigs - Mr Banks has views on them, we remember) with an idea that has not proven track record, that has professionals in the field deeply concerned, and looks like being foisted on parents. It is telling that Mr Key won't tell us if parents will have the chance to reject the idea.

The one positive is that Mr Key has been shown to be slippery once again. And the relationship between ACT and National is shown again to be a poor deal for NZ.

Cunliffe and Shearer: the crucial question?

I asked four fundamental questions of the potential leaders here.

I now realise that there is a fifth, over-riding question:

How do we convince the Black Cap top order that one must be at the crease to score any runs?

Of course, the real culprit is Mr Key, who has consistently failed to take this question seriously.

Europe: Germany's Economic Blitzkrieg

The idea of a 'balanced' Europe, in which economic matters are balanced by social dialogue (the Maastricht approach) faces destruction. The French-German (well, let's say German) ideas around a stronger 'fiscal union' are about the 17 countries in the Eurozone co--ordinating taxation and spending policies far more rigorously. At the moment, that looks like a coup by Germany to impose its will over Europe (and support its own economic success. What the Kaiser and Hitler could not achieve by force of arms. Ms Merkel might achieve as a result of the 2008 crisis and the Greek and Italian meltdowns. The process is giving strength to the euro-sceptics in the UK, and is also irritating many across the Eurozone, who are thoroughly fed up with the bullying they are receiving from the ECB and the German Chancellor. The problem is that there are few enough alternatives on the table. And the finance sector is right behind their agenda being given priority in the Eurozone crisis.

It's also a grim prospect for working people, for the agenda is, inevitably, about social welfare cuts, higher unemployment and reduced democratic voice.

The Labour Leadership: the membership is engaged.

News that larger numbers of party members want to hear the two main candidates for the Labour Party leadership is good news. I have always opposed a long leadership process, and some of the nonsense already spouted shows why (John Tamihere leading the pack). But a process over a couple of weeks is allowing regional meetings to which people like me will go, and there is an attempt to promote a feedback process. We'll have to see how that works, but people like me will be lobbying our MPs to make sure that they understand where we sit on the issue.

The process will also allow a degree of balance to be asserted in the broader discussion about the party. Of course it needs to change, yet that change should be driven by analysis and dicussion by party mambers, not by a motley crew of external interests, often with no background or understanding of the party and and its rank-and-file.

Just hear this, Wellington!

Wellingtonians go on about their earthquake.

We Aucklanders know how to hold a true disaster:

An Auckland volcano would create a probable 6km ring of death as the "base surge" of superheated gases and ash exploded outward at ground level, a newly published study says

Collateral damage: the white-anting of Helen Clark

One of the distasteful aspects of the Pro-Shearer process is the generation of anti-Helen Clark (and anti Cullen) rhetoric. Mr Shearer is not responsible for this at all, but there is a sad irony that the ambitions of the inheritor of Mt Albert should be giving rise to this rhetoric. The 'break from Clark' approach being promoted by the Right, and also elements of the Left, is a sad and nasty backhander, by those who often hated her success and capacities. It is post-hoc tall poppy stuff, which is depressing in what it says about NZ attitudes to success and competence.

Team Shearer on message.

When you get Matt McCarten, Chris Trotter, Fran O'Sullivan and David Farrar all agreeing, isn't there something odd going on? And when I find myself agreeing with Ms Odgers, things become very strange indeed.

The thoughful anonymous post here makes the point that I may be over-sensitive on this unity of pro-Shearer purpose. I may, in this view, be missing the transformative effect of Mr Shearer on the party. I'm not so sure. We have absolutely no idea where Mr Shearer would take Labour, The pro-Shearer view is content, on the whole, to support in hope. I worry greatly about this, for I was close to many who opposed Mr Blair's coup in the UK Labour Party, where any change for electoral success was promoted, with what we now see as devastating consequences.

I will reconsider my view on this only when I am clear what Mr Shearer stands for.

Iran and Britain

One should keep a wary eye on the rapidly-deteriorating diplomatic relationship between the UK and Iran, following the invasion of the UK embassy in Tehran. In the context of threatened economic and diplomatic sanctions, and of growing worries about a pre-emptive military strike on Iran's nuclear capacity, this deterioration has all the hallmarks of a justification-in-the-making for future direct action by 'Western' allies.

It strikes me that 2013 may see the diplomacy around Iran fail and turn into a combination of sanctions and direct intervention. Such an outcome would be deeply destabilising globally, with Russia partucularly strongly objecting to anti-Iran feeling in the West. Given that Russia is currently also warning the West to keep out of Russian domestic politics, forces are lining up that make for difficulty in finding a long-term diplomatic solution. The possibility that Israel will launch unilateral military measures to promote that eventuality cannot be dismissed.

The Thoughtfulness of so many on behalf of Labour

No doubt, the Labour caucus is tremendously grateful for the torrent of advice it is receiving about the next leadership of the Labour Party. The Right is particularly concerned that Labour becomes more realistic, less involved with the union movement, more radical (in a Blairite way), and somehow less political. I am particularly struck by the preponderance of pro-Shearer views on the Right, a Right that clearly believes that Labour's history should be put behind it, and instead it should become what -a paler version of National?

Commentators want a neutered, Blairite, post-Social Democratic Labour Party, one that has more in common with the Labour Party of 1984-1990, a party that competes on the basis of fluffiness and personality, that accepts the rules of politics according to Mr Key. They appear to see Mr Shearer as the best bet to achieve this outcome. The caucus should know that in that direction lies perdition and the final destruction of the Labour Party. Electoral success does not require the marginalisation of Social Democracy; but it does require a party that presents the Social Democratic ideal confidently and forcefully. It appears that the Right believes that Mr Cunliffe will do this better than Mr Shearer.

Cunliffe a wiser choice than Shearer, in the circumstances.

I never imagined writing this, but, in the intervening hours since David Parker announced his retirement from the contest, I've been thinking a lot. I have come down to the view that Mr Shearer is far too risky a choice - not only in terms of performance, but also because we have no real idea where his politics lie.

The Right is busily trying to place him in  a very Right Labour position. We'll ignore that, but, to be honest, the thought of Tony Blair keeps on cropping up in my mind. Now, Mr Cunliffe may be capable of the same deviation, but his history is more constraining in what is generally a desirable sense. We appoint Mr Shearer and we are endorsing whatever he does, for he is currently a blank sheet, and to endorse a blank sheet is precisely to give him a free hand.

I suppose that I'm arguing that electoral success on any basis is not sufficient.

Why shouldn't a stevedore earn $90,000 a year?

The Right is all steamed up about what dockers in Auckland are purported to earn. I will do some checking on these figures (they sound like a company release, which is always good for a bit of a probe), particularly because Mr Farrar endorses them, and I no longer trust Mr Farrar to be factually correct, after catching him out in a striking, uncorrected factual error during the election campaign.

But let's say it's true for now. What's wrong with that? And why shouldn't they strive for more? I ask the question, for the sub-text is that workers should not be paid well, and that $90k a year for working people (as opposed to lawyers or whatever) is somehow wrong.It's the low-wage mentality of NZ writ large. Workers should be low-paid and grateful for their pittance. I take a different view - when I see a docker paid, let's say it is $90k (but we will check....), or a Fonterra driver in the $80-90k bracket, I relish a job- and often a difficult and dangerous job -that is well-paid.

I'd like to put Mr Farrar or Ms Odgers in a straddle on a windy Sunday night shift and see how they scrub up.

Black Caps: after the hype, back to normal

Vettori is saving the batting day yet again, supported by the talented Brownlie, after the 'top order' has once more delivered their wickets, well sauced, on a plate.

I wonder if they would bat better if John Key laid hands on them - like the old cure for scrofula.

Mr Joyce and his dislike for democracy: Auckland Transport

Alex MacMillan has unearthed via the OIA process how Mr Joyce went against advice to give control over Auckland Transport issues to non-elected people, most of whom he appoints.

We knew this about the COO running Auckland's transport anyway, but when you see how single-mindedly Mr Joyce and the National government dispensed with democratic institutions, it captures the fragility of democracy in NZ. With hardly an eyebrow raised apart from the usual suspects, the Auckland COO process was driven through in a powerful agenda to give business people control of key decisions in Auckland and elsewhere. Privatisation is another extension of this. Ms Wilkinson breaking promises to Forest and Bird is another, as she delivers the mining lobby's requirements.

National regards democracy as a necessary evil, to be circumvented whenever possible.They should come with a political health warning.

When flexible with the truth, be confident: National on the gender pay gap

Hekia Parata tells us that the government is doing stuff about the gender pay gap (like setting up trade networks in the main cities to help women get into male-dominated trades and launching an online tool to help women who want to serve on boards - big deal, indeed).

This government canned pay equity studies. This government promotes labour market practices that promote wage and income disparity. This government wouldn't know a pay equity issue if it ran the Cabinet over, and then reversed just to make sure.

They are, simply, breathtaking in their ability to claim that which is not true.

Parker interruptus

It just goes to show how deep the opposition to Mr Cunliffe is in the caucus. I knew that it was strong, but I am also aware that Mr Parker wanted the job, so to withdraw is a very strong signal indeed. My views on Mr Shearer remain that he is not ready and, moreover, his politics remain too opaque for comfort, but it is difficult to see him being stopped now. I wonder who would be his deputy in this model. Is a deal in place, I wonder?

Well, I wanted a new face and a change of generation. I've got some of it!

Coda: not sure what to make of the Robertson story - some ferreting needed on this, because the 'sudden defection to Shearer' argument doesn't look good at all.

Newt bites Mitt: The US Republicans in a tizz

It's about time I lifted my eyes from the NZ election to those brewing in the US. They have far more fun there, and are capable of serious nastiness. After all, they have Fox. Perry and Romney have been busy telling lies about Obama, using the most gratuitous of outtakes from Obama statements and attributing false meanings. It makes having tea in Newmarket look tame.

Even more striking is the return of the Newt. Ex-Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, is currently, and in quite unexpected fashion, doing rather well in the race to be Republican candidate. So well is he doing that Mitt Romney (Mitt versus Newt - even the names have a certain quality) has been forced to shift his attack dogs from Obama to his own side. That Newt is rising in favour is remarkable, He was, in the late 1990s, enmeshed in multiple charges involving tax violations, became a laughing stock on Washington in relation to the Federal Shut-down of 1995 and 1996, and was thought to be important in Republican failures in the later 1990s, such that he left politics and seems to have made money in various enterprises.

One wonders if the Republicans really might renovate him as the only viable candidate against Obama. If they did, I imagine Obama would be thrilled.

On a positive note, at least, so far, Newt has not fallen into the mire in which Herman Cain is wallowing.It strikes me that US politicians lead so much more risque lives than ours, even given the odd peccadillo that emerges in Wellington.

Oh Lord, please not another Porter Report on NZ.........

There are many who will not remember the 1991 'Porter Report' on NZ (Upgrading New Zealand's Competitive Advantage). The reason is that we brought in international gurus. who wrote an analysis of the NZ economy (in the process experiencing no little internal turmoil), and who then went away, well paid. We still got the ECA, Ruth Richardson and the rest of National's neo-liberal reforms, but with an indigestible icing of verbosity and aphorisms. It probably had little positive effect, and may even have had a negative impact.

We hear that Professor Michael Enwright is 'ramping up' another similar report. Read the article and you'll get a sense of what the report will say (the approach uses a language all of its own). It will mean nothing for most of the NZ workforce, and most employers live in a different world.

I wonder what the government will think about this. On the one hand, it's the type of activity that involves simply spending money, and looking like you're doing something, without anything actually happening and without government actually having to act. It's the sort of thing National supported then, and could do again. On the other hand, enough of us remember the hype of the 1991 report, and its sorry decline into irrelevance.

I do wonder why we keep on bringing these gurus over to tell us what to do- is colonial cringe giving way to global cringe, I wonder?