Rehabilitating the National Party - Part I: Why 46% don't mean jack s**t!

This is part one in a multi part series where we look what is eating Bill & The B team and try and figure out how to rescue the party's political fortunes. Your welcome, no thanks needed.

However before we get into this let me explain my reasons for wanting to see National back in the game  because despite whomping the party more than once in past blog posts I understand the need for a democratic opposition, even over my own distaste for the many decrepit characters which infest the party like head lice at a sleep over.

National provide a conservative balance to the liberal values of Labour and the Greens and in doing so restrain the more wilder schemes of those parties which, if let off the leash, could do just as much damage as any right wing machinations. 

Thus Democracy in NZ needs a full spectrum of political parties to be healthy and vibrant, and as much as the Left can get all twisted up about that, the alternate is the loss of dynamic tension so vital to democratic debate and we end up with some sort of one party state where all snowflakes are equal but some snowflakes are more equal than others.

And with that out of the way lets get down to things.

So, you won’t read about it elsewhere (actually you might) but the National party has a problem, actually not just one problem but lots of problems (which we will get to in our next post) that, at the end of the day, have all rolled together into the glutinous mass that now affect the party of Blue's political fortunes.

“What!?” I hear you say, as you spit your coffee all over the monitor or tablet screen, “That’s not true, that’s impossible. National does not have a problem, what in Keith Holyoake’s name are you talking about?”

Search your feelings Sparky, you know it to be true, because when you take away that 46% in the polls, that I know you’re going to try and use as justification for the argument that all is well with Bill & Friends, what else is there to show that National is fine and dandy?

And lets pause here while you take a moment to think about it...

That's right, there is nothing else going to say that Big Blue is doing good (except perhaps the vague hope that the new coalition government will somehow implode). Politics is a zero sum game as far as getting into government is concerned and while in government people are often willing to overlook the problems that a party has: they are less inclined to do so when the same party is in opposition. 

National has had a lot of issues in the last nine years (child poverty, water issues, immigration, housing, labor laws, sucking up to multinationals, infestation by lobbyists, dodgy MP's, dodgy (but popular) PM, Bill English's face, scandals ahoy etc etc et-f**king-cetra) which are going to come back to haunt it as Labour rapidly dismantles Nationals free market house of cards, rolls back all the laws it passed and moves to start addressing (as it has already done with its 100 days plan) all the issues that national created or ignored while on its watch.

And there is no reason to be embarrassed about this as its better to fess up now than be like Labour in the wake of Helen Clark (2008 to 2017) where it spun its wheels for well over eight years while trying to figure out what it was doing, where it was going who was going to drive.

Thus there are good reasons why Nationals 46% is not sufficient to justify claiming all is well for the party: let us count them shall we.

First, National is out of office after losing the 2017 election to Labour, NZ First and the Greens; meaning that after nine years with their hands on the levers of power National is now in the political wilderness and no longer the organ grinder but now the dancing monkey. No more ministerial perks, no more fawning civil servants and no more having the power to make or change the laws as you wish. 46% looks good on paper when your'e saying you are the most popular party but it has not translated into power, which is the whole reason for playing the game.

46% was not enough to form a government in the age of MMP and National, still clinging to a FPP mentality (where getting a sheer majority of the vote was all that mattered rather than concentrating on cultivating the political alliances needed to build a stable coalition government) killed stone cold dead its coalition chances with its failed hit on Winston Peters (via leaking his Superannuation over payments to the media) in the run-up to September and thus rendering that 4 and 6 all but useless when it came time to do the coalition math*.

Second, 46% is really only useful when its election season where such numbers can be used to translate into seats via the ballot box. Outside of elections, political polling does not effect change in government unless it’s catastrophically bad polling (think Thersa May and Brexit) and with Nationals 46% being beaten by the coalitions 50% such conditions do not apply here.

Worse still is that with Bill English dropping sharply in the preferred PM stakes (down 9 to 28% to Jacinda’s rise to 37%) the one poll number that could offset being out of office is clearly against them. No one is clamoring for Bill to lead the nation and at this time and I would bet a round of drinks that Jacinda’s baby would poll higher than him as preferred PM. 

Political polling is the barometer of the public's mood but you can’t point to it and claim just because its sunny today it’s going to be sunny forever.

Which brings us to our third, and by no means least, point: 46% today does not mean 46% tomorrow. In the early 2000s National was polling in the low 20s (which coincidentally was the last time Bill English was leader of the party) and the separation between its current polling and the abysmal 22% it was scraping by on in 2002 shows exactly how much swing potential there is between the hard core of the party and those who happen to vote National this election but might just as easily vote for Labour next**.

So National (and you) can point to that 46% all you like but at the end of the day it’s not in government, has almost zero chance of seducing NZ First (its only possible coalition partner now) away from Labour, its agenda is off the political menu and its going to have to fight against the greater public image and message of the current government: none of this bodes well for Bill & Co.

If the path of NZ electoral politics retains any of its past consistency then National is likely to face three terms in opposition and spend much of that time, like Labour previously did, politically stunted (due to the political castration that occurred during the Key and Clark years respectively) and still dreaming of its halcyon days in office when it should be using the time to be an effective opposition and preparing for the next election***.

As PM, Bill English commanded a certain degree of respect from the public and media. As leader of the opposition Bill is just another voice in the mass of voices shouting for attention. Sure he gets a few perks but almost everything he (and his party) does is in response to what the government is doing; its the mental equivalent of shifting from an active, or offensive, posture to a reactive, or defensive, posture, the mindsets are different and must to change for a party to survive.

And the key to accepting that change is to listen to the hard truth that National lost the 2017 election, is out of government and that its 46% in the polls does not mean a thing when your in the political wilderness for the next three years.

So that's it for Part I: next up we scrape away the pancake makeup and take a warts and all look at the National party to assess its political health. bend over and cough!


*-political math 101: 46% for National < 50% for the Coalition government
**-Or the Greens, NZ First and even [shudder] ACT.
***-Which we will get to later in this series of posts

And now, a few words from the new spokesperson for the Chinese Embassy and McDonalds: Bill English

Daily Blah- 26th Jan 2018

At a moderately attended press conference yesterday, leader of the opposition and former prime minister of New Zealand, Bill English, announced his new role as spokesperson for the Chinese embassy and fast food giant Mcdonalds.

Speaking from the steps of 6 Glenmore Street in the upmarket Wellington suburb of Kelburn Mr English outlined his new duties as embassy and corporate spokesperson which would consist of promoting the views and opinions of the Chinese government and the fast food conglomerate to the public of New Zealand.

“This is a great opportunity and I am proud to have accepted these roles” Mr English gushed “I have looked to both Xi Jinping [the president of China] and Ronald McDonald for years, their leadership styles have been models for my own and the similarities between Dipton, Beijing and the Ball Pool at happy land are amazingly close so I think that has helped me get in tune with my inner Chinese and inner Clown.”

When questioned if his work for the Chinese Embassy or McDonalds might conflict with his role as leader of the opposition and member of Parliament Mr English looked confused before responding that it had “not been a problem in the past” when he was the Prime Minister “so it should not be a problem now”.

Fingering his Mao Tse Tung lapel pin, while dressed in a clown suit and flanked by members of the Blue Dragons Mr English pledged to “return New Zealand to its Marxist roots” and emphasised the need “to build New Zealand with franchise characteristics” before being escorted back into the embassy while 2 for 1 vouchers for happy meals were handed out to the crowd.

The above situation has not played out exactly as in our mock media release but for all intents and purposes the above happened this week when Bill English went into bat for his constituents (the Chinese government) by arguing that the ban on foreign home buyers would not be compatible with Chinese interests  and New Zealand’s trade agreement with China AND avidly defending McDonalds when referring to Labour's repeal of the 90 day contract law.

And it’s nice to see Bill being consistent in his undermining of New Zealand’s sovereignty, as both Prime Minister and leader of the opposition, while continuing to shill for the Chinese and corporate interests over average Kiwis.

But then again what’s new in this situation; National might as well move their party headquarters to Beijing or Oak Brook, Illinois and just be done with it given how connected the party is with Chinese and foreign interests.

If it’s not the JinYang spy scandal, still bubbling away, it’s just the fact that China wields a lot of influence in NZ and is not shy about it OR its NZ labor laws set up with no real reason but for exploitation of workers; and the conclusion that most would draw from watching these antics is that Bill and National are clearly puppets for parties other than the NZ public.

I suppose that in some ways it must be hard as leader of the opposition in the first term of a new government. Clearly all the wind has been sucked out of Nationals sails as Bill has been uttering all manner of statements to any reporter willing to listen for weeks now in increasingly desperate attempts to get oxygen for the party and its cause*. However, as he is no longer in the position to make deals for access he has ended up being reduced to desperately shilling his services like some demented Suzanne Paul via ongoing petty point scoring in the media.

Of course, some might argue that is what the Opposition does, and has to do, when out of power but its helps when the political alignment of statements are for the country you happen to be a member of. So unless Bill has Chinese passport in his back pocket (and at this time I would not put it past him or at least 50% of National to have one) then these kind of statements ring petty treasonous.

It also helps when your shilling for "the Man" aligns with what "the Man' is thinking and his other comments recently about the repeal of the odious 90 days contract law and how it will affect McDonalds ability to employ staff was immediately refuted by McDonalds itself; who obviously did not want to hitch their wagon to the struggling engine of National and the B team**.

And it’s the blatant language and angle of Bills utterances that has motivated me to write this post as its becoming clear that Bill is desperately doing what he can to prop up his flagging popularity in the preferred PM stakes. In one case it’s sucking up to China like there is no tomorrow (and no shortage of chapstik) or cuddling up to McDonalds (possibly in the hope of free hamburgers) only to have his clingy advances brutally rebuffed.

Lobbying for your constituents is one thing but when your constituents are foreign powers or multi national corporations that's another.

But as I have said before, Bills days are numbered and he knows this. He has failed to lead the party to victory in two elections now and I severely doubt that the National brain trust is willing to gamble a third time on the Dip from Dipton when the rise of Jacinda has shown what a fresh face can do for a party’s fortunes.

And in that frame of mind I am suggesting the same thing to National for Bill that I did for Labour last year in regards to Andrew Little; put the aged hack out to pasture while there is still time and get to work on re-building the party with someone younger, smarter and more resonant with the public***.

I was right about Andrew and I am right about Bill.

*-which may be characterized as riches for the rich and death to the poor while corralling the middle class through manipulating things like the property market to hide the fact that wealth disparity and inequality in this country are rising

**-Although I do find it amusing to imagine McDonalds choosing to employ recently stomach stapled Paula Bennett as some sort of Jarrod Foggle like spokes person for the slimming benefits of their healthy choice menu
***-Like Jin Yang for instance

Iceberg ahead: Labour and the new TPPA agreement

I got a funny feeling this morning when I read that the TPPA, now renamed the CPTPPA (with the C & P meaning “Comprehensive and Progressive”, was soon to be signed by NZ and 10 other nations in the wake of the US pulling out and previous problems to make it work without them.

However the “funny feeling” had a lot less to do with the TPPA itself and more to do with the fact that the Greens still oppose this agreement, the opinion of NZ First was currently unknown and National supported it.

Don’t get me wrong I am still not sold on the TPPA (nor are others in the blogsphere) but many of the changes, post US exit, seem to have softened the worst aspects like the intellectual property, pharmaceutical and the odious Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) clauses, that have been amended to take out the sections which seemed hell bent overriding state sovereignty at corporate behest (driven it appears by the heavily infiltrated US trade delegation) and have made it a lot more palatable to the public: as trade agreements go.

No, whats giving me this strange sensation is the thought that if the Greens and NZ First oppose the TPPA and then Labour goes with National and gets it passed we may be faced with the first real rift in the relationship between the three coalition partners.

Of course, if Labour has been smart, all of this will have been thrashed out in the various parties’ coalition agreements, where somewhere in the depths of those documents there are certain clauses setting out how this situation will be handled and who will bow to whom.

So far so good but as the Greens are already opposed and it would be hard to imagine NZ First getting behind it given their previous comments we come to the crux of this potential issue because the TPPA being good or bad will pale into insignificance if this becomes a bone of contention between the three parties currently making up our government.

But wait, according to former Trade Minister Todd McLay Winston will “toe the line” and dance to Jacinda’s tune when it comes time to vote, perhaps as a price for getting to be deputy PM as the article seems to insinuate.

And maybe that’s why the NZ First/Labour coalition agreement document is secret as while Winston might be willing to stand behind Jacinda will the remainder of the party and its supporters be behind the CPTPPA?

In sports I think this is what they call “the moment of truth” where the star quarterback is under pressure, about to be sacked by some thuggish looking linesmen and has to get the game winning throw off in time, and with accuracy, to the receiver, to make the touch down, win the game and get back his childhood sweetheart.

Meanwhile over in National, now wallowing in opposition, you can almost smell the grins emanating as this has win/win written all over it for the party.

Think about it: National always wanted the TPPA to go through, even in its most evil form, but will obviously settle for getting it through in a diluted state, so it can please its foreign and domestic backers, BUT if this does not go through it’s a rather convenient stick, for them,with which to beat Labour and Jacinda around the head with for the rest of the term.

So here is the situation and what needs to be watched: is the mood of Winston, NZ First and its supporters, amenable to being bent over and made to think of Aotearoa while the TPPA gets signed and then deal with the potential fallout in a political climate where the mood is increasingly become anti-free trade*, anti-foreign ownership and where economic nationalism has been part of Winston’s stock in trade for as long as we can remember?

And while we are speculating, has Labour read the mood of its voter base well enough when a big part of what got them elected was the fact that “they were not National”? It’s been all honeymoon period and baby showers for Labour since October last year but with parliament set to convene on February 13 and the business of government kicking back off after the summer hols this is a potential first test of how resilient our three headed government actually is.

It’s also worth remembering, as has been pointed out, that Labour was for the TPPA in 2008, opposed it for the majority of the National government, flip flopped on it while under Andrew Little before now swinging back to being in support of it; albeit with amendments to its worst clauses, and with the housing hernia starting to go bad (but no bust as of yet) and business confidence slumping while inequality in NZ rises, a thing like the TPPA is not a done and dusted matter just because someone says its so.

The potential for backlash here is real and, as noted above; National would like nothing more than to see Labour get knocked back on this matter, even as they give them a helping hand by agreeing to support them in passing it.


*-Or what passes for free trade but is really anything but free

Who's your daddy?

First up, congratulation to Jacinda and Clark as babies are cool, you cant beat having kids.

That said, its interesting that the conception of said baby came in the wake of the 2017 election but supposedly before the coalition negotiations had completed in what I can only assume was a conscious decision to have a child*.

And if you cant see the potential symbolism of that decision then take a moment to consider the following:

• The PM of NZ will have a child while in Office
• The PM will carry out her duties while obviously pregnant
• After the birth Jacinda will return to her duties
• Clark will be a stay home dad
• The child will likely be born out of wedlock 
• Winston will get to be be temporary PM 

Our PM, will be a working mum while Clark will be a stay home dad and for all intents and purposes our First Family** will be a rather modern take on what family is in NZ when you compare it to our previous PM (Bill English).

Bill English and his wife, long married Catholics with children, reflected the kind of traditional family values that were less common in NZ than might have been 50, 30 or even a decade ago and their appearances in women's magazines always seemed to drive that home.

But now we have a different take on what a family might be and I cant believe that this decision was not made with some consideration of the above points and the message they might send.

So am I taking issue with the potential politicization of Jacinda and Clark having a child in this manner and situation?

No I am not!

Just as Bill English and his family life was a reflection of a particular set of values and ideas, and don't say it wasn't because all those pictorials in those magazines were all set with a clear tone and style, so too is the soon to be expanded Clark/Gayford family will be a reflection of a set of values to which I fully agree.

I have been a stay home dad, my kids were born out of wedlock and I am down with both of those things but I am also not a high profile politician and no one is looking at my lifestyle/work-life choices while many will be with Jacinda and Clark and taking notes.

So where am I going with this post?

To be honest I am not so sure as while not disparaging of deciding to get knocked up post election (as there is no right time to start a family) I cant ignore the fact that its the PM getting knocked up and I wonder if at any point in the "lets have a child" discussion that inevitably took place there was any thought given to the potential political aspects of the situation.

Still kids are always a good thing and in the end you cant beat them so I wish the couple all the best and look forward to seeing our PM carry out her duties while heavily pregnant.

 
*-the alternate being some sort of post election celebration where things got carried away
**-not the best term but I cant think of a better one at this time but i will take suggestions

To deport, or not to deport: Is that the Question?

Question: when is a citizen of a country not a citizen of said country?

Answer: When you’re a criminal deportee.

It seems that New Zealand’s immigration and citizenship policies are coming back to bite it in the behind, or are they?

The recent attempt by the media to manufacture some outrage over “those bloody Australians” and their “evil” immigration policy regarding their plans to deport NZ passport holders Alex Viane or Jacob Symonds to New Zealand misses the real issues around how Kiwis are treated in Ozzie and how we hand out kiwi citizenship on rather loose grounds.

Firstly, yes Australia is treating some Kiwis living in Oz like crap by cancelling/changing their visa conditions and attempting to raise university fees in what should been seen as a blatant attempt to abuse the reciprocal relationship that we currently have.

And yes, Australia’s treatment of refugees in places like Manus Island and their policy or turning back the boats of people trying to cross over to Australia from Indonesia is draconian and cruel.

And yes, the deportation of some Kiwis from OZ for very minor matters is pretty rank stuff.

However, both Symonds and Viane are not your average deportees and are, in fact being deported due to their criminal records, to the country that they have citizenship in: namely New Zealand, and criminal deportation is not the same as normal deportation. If you are a criminal deportee (in either NZ or OZ) the means by which you can be removed are much shorter and sharper.

The fact that New Zealand has had to resort to diplomatic measures to try and stop this indicates how weak our position is because at the end of the day, regardless of why they are actually being deported, they hold citizenship in NZ and that makes them citizens of NZ and thus are fit to be deported back here.

And we can’t refuse to take them because in doing so we would be behaving like places such as Zimbabwe or one of those other fun countries which don’t accept people being deported back there and that would make just as bad as them or worse, as we would be seen as hypocrites.

We might not like Australia deporting Kiwis with criminal convictions but NZ has similar legislation in place to do just the same thing and can and has done such things in the past and that what things like sovereignty and citizenship are all about.

Also statements by PM Jacinda Ardern that Australia should only be deporting those who have “roots” in New Zealand is just her flapping her rather considerable gums, and she knows this, because once you give someone citizenship it does not lapse simply because you haven't lived in New Zealand since or don’t have any “roots” here, it remains until the day you die.

The real issue here is that getting a New Zealand passport has become a matter of convenience for many people and we give them away like candy so the potential for abuse or unintended consequences exists.

We gave one to creepy billionaire Peter Theil with no questions asked when he had barely spent any time here and was essentially in the same boat as Viane: an individual who gained an NZ passport (and therefore citizenship) with no real “roots” here nor any clear motive other than wanting to have one.

In Viane’s case it may have been because his parents wanted to live in Australia and therefore made use of the reciprocal relationship agreements in place between us and them (as NZ passports are historically easier to get), he got his papers and went off to live in Oz and there is nothing particularly wrong with that unless we want to radically reshape how we grant citizenship. 

And for Symonds his parents may have just left NZ when he was very young (such as my daughter who was born in NZ but lived in Singapore from the age of six months to eight years old) and lived in OZ ever since, nothing there takes away his right to be a Kiwi.

But in Theil’s case he got to become a Kiwi by being immensely rich and then ripping off the NZ government for even more money and probably laughed all the way back to his platinum plated private jet before zooming back to the US; and at the end of the day that is far worse than Viane or Symonds as we can only assume that Viane had to meet some actual criteria while Theil was well below the requirements and got in anyway because he* had “friends” in the right place.

None of these men have clear roots in NZ and none of them have contributed anything positive to NZ yet we gave all of them the go ahead because?

In many ways this is the chickens coming home to roost for our immigration and citizenship policy’s while average Kiwis in Oz still get short shirt from the Australian govt and a little support from their own.

In reality the only defense is to be a lot more careful when granting citizenship and (my personal preference) not giving out dual citizenship (ie if you want to be a Kiwi you have to renounce any other citizenship you hold). It would not solve all the issues but it would put the kibosh on people backdooring Australia and then getting deported back to NZ when they become criminals there and make us less attractive to those who want to use NZ as some sort of bolthole for the ultra-rich.

And then there is the issue of these people being criminals: is that why the media is making such a stink about this? What has their being a criminal got to do with NZ wanting to use diplomatic means to prevent their return or Jacinda saying that they don't have "roots" here? Obviously it does or it would not be mentioned so prominently and especially when the media is usually on the side of people who are fighting deportation from NZ.

I would love to see Jacinda Ardern going on TV and denouncing Peter Theil as having no “roots’ in NZ and saying that NZ will be using "all diplomatic means" to get his creepy ass out of NZ but I am not holding my breath.

There is a lot more in the NZ/OZ immigration and citizenship debate than just a few crims being sent back to where their passport says they are from but you would not know that form the way the media has spun this out.

Kiwis love to talk about how great being a Kiwi is but we often undervalue it when we make citizenship such any easy deal and the cases of Theil, Viane and (possibly) Symonds demonstrate that. 

*-Or in reality, his money because if some other gay libertarian German with a taste for human blood (but a whole lot less money) rocked up and asked for citizenship his welcome would have been far less accommodating methinks.

Oprah for president? I laughed and laughed and laughed.

Ok, so I did not watch the golden globes but then again I didn't have to see the internet* light up with the idea of Oprah for President.

I thought it was a joke of some sorts but no its out there and I can only assume that a lot of drugs were being taken that night to allow such a bat-brained idea escape the hollowed out, cocaine crevice that is obviously passing for some peoples minds.

Perhaps its the Democrat reaction to the idea that if the Republican party can get Reality TV star and Billionaire, Donald Trump, as president then the only way to compete is to get their own and Oprah fits that bill. The ultimate expression of the (often moronic) idea that if you cant beat them, join them.

Of course if you stop to think about it for even a nano second you realize how insane and dangerously retarded that idea is for all the exact same reasons that have been made about the Don being in office. Trump is monstrously unqualified** for the role (just as a starter for 10) BUT so is Oprah and apart from a less offensive twitter feed I fail to see the difference between electing him and electing her.

Saner minds*** may prevail and even those famous for bashing Trump are wondering how smart this idea is.

However in some ways I actually like the idea of Oprah for president because given how skeezy the institution of President of the US is, and that didn't start with Trump but has pretty much been the status quo for that office, such a situation would once and for all confirm that America is going to turn out like the movie Idiocracy and that would be worth the price of admission to watch.

In essence, if she was to become president, and don't say it cant happen because that's what all those people who said that Trump would never happen were confidently saying once upon a time, it would nullify any credibility that the US political system (and by extension the US) has left and all those reasons why Donald Trump should not be in office.

It would be the ultimate expression that anyone with the money can buy their way into the office of what what once the most powerful position in the world by dint of their wealth and nothing more and watching those two battle it out on the campaign trail and presidential debates would be a joy/nightmare to behold.

So if you were not already blown away by the sureality of Donald Trump then take a moment to watch this for a taste of what President Oprah would be like because I fail to see any difference between that and what the Oprah Show is like.

And we worry about North Korea, sheesh!


*-Or at least the liberal section
**-His election, along with recent NZ versions of the same behavior, show that just because you are a successful businessman does not mean Jack in regards to running a country, nation or a city.
***- I have a soft spot for the Washington Post I admit

Our predictions for politics in 2018 (using occult methods)

I was not impressed to read the article titled Our experts wild predictions for politics in 2018 in the NZ Herald this weekend for several reasons.

The first was because the Herald had outsourced the whole bloody thing to the Spinoff, which either means that the Heralds own political reporters (Audrey Young, Clare Trevett and sorta/kinda Bryce Edwards (who at least for most of his work that I have read in the Herald seems to be phoning it in with trad articles espousing the same dull things everyone else is saying or just doing lists of internet links because why the hell not)) were not contributing or could not be bothered.

Another reason was that the "wild" in the title, which I had taken to mean "crazy, far out and gone baby gone!" instead turned out to mean wild as in "we have no bloody idea so we will just go with something "shrewd but dull", to quote Zaphod Beeblebrox.

For Christs sake people, no predictions that the reptilod conspiracy in the Beehive will be exposed, or that Jin Yang was not in fact a spy for China but instead for North Korea or that Jacinda Ardern is a bought and paid for hologram used by the Labour party until they can find a way to clone David Lange. Not a single thing which had me excited to see if it would actually come true: thanks for nothing guys!

But the main issue was the sheer pedestrian nature of most of the predictions. Brexit will bring down Teresa May's government: nice one Andrea, Peace in the Middle East: I can only assume that Wayne has his tongue firmly in Lorde's cheek, Helen Clark turns down a position on the board of a NGO: really Emma, really?

A few did have some merit to them like Leonie Hayden's prediction that Lance O'Sullivan will found the handsome Doctors Party (HDP), Joshua Hitchcok's prediction that Winston will spit the dummy and swap sides, and Guy Williams that Simon Bridges will become leader of the National party before melting down live on TV were at least attempts at something worth reading. The rest were terrible and seemed to indicate that the predictive powers at work was sorely lacking or they simply could not be bothered.

So much for "wild" or "experts" as its this kind of shoddy journalism that has turned both the NZ Herald and Stuff into the turd-like morasses of click-bait, infotainment and bald faced PR masquerading as news that they have mostly become with actual news as secondary product.

And while I support the Commerce Commission's (and the High Court's) decision to prevent these two jaundiced and feculent mouth-pieces from merging (because in doing so NZ would about the same level of media concentration as China - which has to be a good thing right...right?) that has not stopped them from devolving into something more akin to Buzzfeed or The Weekly World News than actual reliable or real news sources.

So with two weeks of my three week vacation down, the garden looking decent (at least the front half), the beard fleshing out quite nicely thank you and my summer holiday reading list smashed (had to go to the library to supplement) the time seems right to take my own crack at predicting what will happen to politics in 2018.

Problems with political prediction

Of course the political prediction business has devolved into two rather squalid camps these days, neither of which has much validity in the hard core and well paid "political analysis" game that sterling minds like yours truly play. I don't get the big bucks nor the endless acclaim and plaudits that are showered on me for making lame-ass predictions like those listed in the Herald, no sir.

The first camp for wanna be predictors is the statistical camp. "But E.A" I hear you cry, "you are a self confessed stat freak how could you not like being part of the statistical camp?" Well Sparkie, the answer is simple, stats are great for tracking what happened and identifying trends etc but just because something happened before does not make it so that it will happen again (Science at work folks) so stats can help form a picture but with things like elections and the stock market they should not be the basis for any Cassandra like utterance.

And if you can pardon my French for a moment; this is why I was always infuriated when so many people got down on Nate Silver's d**k for the 2016 US presidential election when Silver called it for Clinton by stating that Trump did not have a snowballs chance in hell of winning the Republican nomination, let alone the election, and then had to resort to word-salad for the rest of the campaign when his statistical model melted down and proved him, and it, hopelessly wrong.

So no on the stat based predictions but how about the other main camp, that of the political pundits, how well can they do?

Again, like the stat geeks, no, just no (most of the time) when it comes to pundits. Often because, at least in the US, but increasingly in NZ as well, they are just too partisan to take off the blinkers to the wholesale situation rather than whatever manufactured reality tunnel they are inhabiting.

The other reasons are that most "pundits" are journalists so they either have to get their work sent through the political/advertising-dollar thresher that is their editor/editorial policy, and so cant really say they want to or, I suspect like Bryce Edwards, just don't really have a clue of whats coming and so stick to something safe, clean and neat rather than go with what their gut is saying for fear of looking like a tool because hanging around and reporting on politicians does not make you an expert in politics, it makes you a reporter.

And for the record, let me note that for 12 months prior to his election to the presidency, I was calling it for Trump because to my eyes it was clear that Hilary (cooked or not) was having trouble, even with her 1.4 Billion dollar campaign budget, of convincing the voters to vote for her; I also called the 2017 NZ election a month in advance and repeatedly called out Andrew Little for the gormless fool he was when most others were still singing his praises and stating the oft repeated mantra of not getting rid of leaders before elections (even when it was clear that Little was as electable as a $2 sack of horse manure) rather than take a chance on the obviously more popular candidate of Jacinda Ardern.

However to be fair to all parties there are really only three things in politics which can be predicted, given how boring politics is once you strip out the personal politics and party feuding, and they are elections, bills and policy and personal changes but still there is room for making hay if someone actually puts their brain to it.

There has to be a better way

So which of these two camps will I be in? What methods will I be using to divine the future?

The answer is neither as I will be using far more reliable methods of scrying the entrails than those two which is, of course, turning to occult means and methods to predict the future.

And while I didn't happen to have a goat nearby, nor could I find a willing virgin, and the last time I danced naked around a bonfire in my backyard shrieking eldritch phrases* into the night during a full moon my neighbors called the cops, I did have on hand my trusty deck of tarot cards and the book of the I Ching.

At this point, some readers will be surely wondering if I am taking the piss or if I am actually serious?

The answer is that I am being both serious and piss-take, as while I am using occult (although I prefer the term arcane to occult) as a means to mock the weak ass attempts at political prediction in the NZ Herald I am genuinely going to marry what the cards and coins give with my own knowledge of the political situation in NZ and abroad to flesh out and make firm these predictions.

However before we get to good stuff let me assure you lovely folks that have used both the Tarot** and the I-Ching for over 20 years*** and they have both served me well with nary a time where their advice was not helpful or heeded. And for those who don't know how these two methods work I have included links here and here to help the uninitiated get up to speed before we start.

Also worth noting is that I used the I-Ching for the predictions about the four main political parties and the Tarot for the more general predictions about NZ politics, Trump and the fate of the world.

Labour Party for 2018: Rot within

Main Hexagram: Humbling
Transforming:  Corruption
Hidden:Loosening

Well, well, well, what do we have here. Labour being humbled by corruption in 2018. Who would ever have guessed. The nature of the scandal itself remains unclear (but if there is enough interest I can follow that up with the Tarot cards) but its hardly important as scandals come and go and all first time governments get their hand smacked when the honeymoon period is over.

The interesting part is that being humble is the key to success for this hexagram so this seems to indicate that it will be possible Labour arrogance which will lead to issues for Labour rather than an actual scandal itself and the transforming figure (corruption could not be clearer) talks about decay within the roots which for me indicates that there may be some lingering resentment inside Labour towards  Jacinda (ie those being the roots of the party) from the established party itself rather than some sort of bad behavior by the party.

Finally the hidden hexigram which is loosening whch relates to solving problems by untying knots and indicates that for Labour to fix its issues it will need to untie itself from its problem.

Overall I think the I-Ching is referring to Labour backpedaling on its promises from the election to make a better NZ and to atone for the Great Betrayal by the older hard core party faction which does not care for fixing anything (the same faction that was willing to back Andrew Little and all those that preceded him right into a lost election) and only want power for its own sake.

National Party for 2018: Slowly rebuilding

Main Hexagram:Clustering
Transforming: Gradual advancing
Hidden: Not yet fording

These hexagrams could not be more clearer as it is painting a picture of National having to come together to bring great rewards but its also clear that this process will take time and that even with all this done National will remain on the cusp of change rather than change itself.

The I-Ching talks about the fox crossing the river and making sure not to get her tail wet and I think this refers to National needing to deal with its dead-wood problem and its internal divisions (think the Todd Barclay scandal splitting the party base) before it can get to the other side of the river.

Dead-wood MPs like Bill English, Gerry Brownlee and Nick Smith, to start, need to be removed for the party to rebuild, to come together as its their insistence on remaining in prominent positions within the party that keep it fractious. It also warns about any crazy plans for the party to clone itself (see last a few posts back) as that is certainly not coming together.

Then there is the obvious split between the country and business sections of the party, which have come to a head, again, with the Todd Barclay saga and will continue to fester until someone can figure out how to bring both sides together (perhaps not sending a tobacco industry lobbyist into rural Clutha could be a start).

NZ First in 2018:Quiet contemplation

Main Hexagram:Grouping
Transforming: Viewing
Hidden:Stripping

For NZ First 2018 will be all about its alliances, mutual support from spiritual kin but it will also be about getting rid of old ideas and eliminating what is unusable, outmoded or worn out.

The transforming figure (viewing) is all about looking at things from a distance and contemplating their meaning rather than acting.

For me this indicates that NZ First will spend much of this year maintaining its allaince with Labour based on the bigger picture and removing away all the bad stuff that screw up the party in the past.

Maybe some old MPs will get put out to pasture or in NZ First case, removing Shane Jones, but I think this year will be less about people and more about Winston focusing on his legacy and building towards that end via his alliance with Labour and the Greens.

Of course this means that Winston will remain in charge and able to keep people like Shane Jones in check and the issue who who is boss will not be an issue. Winston knows this is his last chance at a legacy and will keep on trying to build and maintain that by working with like minded people and parties so I don't think the Heralds prediction that NZ First will split from the coalition will be occurring this year.

Greens:Small steps

Main Hexagram:Small Accumulation
Transforming: Great Exceeding
Hidden:Diverging

For the Greens, 2018 will be the year that they rebuild and they will have to hold onto their ideals to do so in the face of crisis.

Its not hard to see that what will bring the Greens into a conflict of the faith will be either the environment or its opposition to things like the TPPA,although I think that it will be the environment this year.

The Greens only just survived 2017 and will have to be brave in the face of 2018 and what challenges it brings and will have to be true to do so. The hidden figure here is Diverging which is all about gathering small things to achieve a goal so it will be bay steps all the way through 2018 with the party watching each and every move it makes carefully to make sure that they don't screw up and/or diverge from the true path but with each small things/step they do/take the end result will be greater than the sum of its parts and worth the while.

NZ Politics as a whole in 2018:Keep the fire burning

Past: Oppression
Present:Safe goals/consolidation
Future: making goals real
Answer: Strife
Surrounding Energy: Cruelty
Hopes/Fears: Priestess
Outcome: Valor

This reading was full of wands which relate to fire, energy and enthusiasm. Its clear that the coalition has a lot of work on its plate and that coming form the past (the oppression of the neo-liberal era under National) there will need to be some concrete steps (the safe goals) before the greater society can be imagined.

By aiming for safe and achievable outcomes Labour can make those goals real and while their will be strife and cruelty it will be Valor (risking tings single handedly) which will see it through.

The surrounding energy of Cruelty and Strife means that National will not just let the neo-liberal project be dismantled and will create issues for the alliance but the card of the Priestess is so clearly a nod to Jacinda Ardern that its clear that a lot of people will be looking to her to see things through and she will have to use her own personal courage when others within her party will want to hold things back.

But all that fire for change, burning in the Greens, NZ First and Labour, will be more than enough to keep the progression towards those goals in 2018 but it wont be easy and courage will be needed.

Donald Trump in 2018?

Past: Victory
Present:The Hierophant
Future: Virtue
Answer: Prince of Disks
Surrounding Energy: Sorrow
Hopes/Fears: Science
Outcome: Love

I will admit that this reading baffled me quite a bit and perhaps its all that chaos that surrounds and is generated by Trump himself that so scrambled this reading to start.

The two key cards are the Hierophant (which symbolizes strength of faith, organized religion and surrendering power to the group) and the Prince of Disks (which is an earth card and symbolizes commerce, money, reality (ie being "grounded") and persistence, endurance, concentration and initiative).

Both of these cards are male, one is old while the other is youthful; one is the structured gateway to mysteries while the other is practical earthly energy that is near unstoppable.

Surrounding this is sorrow (bad news and loss) and the hope that science/rationality will prevail and a future where virtue (plans into action and success after struggle) exist.

But success for who? Who is the Prince of Disks and why will we end up loving him?

I think the cards are saying that the structure imposed by the Hierophant will give way to the energy of youth and harmony will prevail but that still does not answer the question: who will be our Prince come to rescue us or will that Prince be a more metaphorical prince of the inevitable energy of youth over the established order of the old.

Or is does this reading show that trump is unstoppable, no matter how much liberals piss and moan about him, and we will all have to just surrender to his "love" in 2017?

Whatever you take from this this will be the prediction to watch in 2018.

World War Three in 2018?

For this I did a one card reading and I swear I am not making this up, I drew the Death Card.

Of course the Death card does not always means death it can also mean change and the acceptance of, but I am going to put my cryptic reading aside for the moment and go out and dig a fallout shelter in my back yard because as much as you like to sugar coat things its a card with a skeleton holding a scythe on it and its called Death*4.

Sometimes its best not to take the Tarot too literally but perhaps in this case some warning may be worth taking.
   
So that's it for my political predictions for 2018. Lets see if they come true



*-"Ia Ia Cthulhu fatang fatang". Try it some time, you will be surprised
**-for those interested I am using the Crowley: Thoth deck due in large part to its amazing art by Lady Fredia Harris which appeals to my artistic sensitivity more than the more common Waite deck
***-One of the few things I have always had with me when I traveled through Asia for that long decade was my Tarot deck and my I-Ching book.
*-I possibly would have panicked more if I had got the Tower but only in a full reading.

New Zealand Politics 2017: A change is as good as a revolution

Happy New Year munchkins, I hope your holidays have been as good as mine so far.

I spent the first week of my Christmas holidays in my old hometown; the septuagenarian seaside ghetto of Timaru, more commonly known to the locals as Uramit*: catching up with family and friends or reading Dark History of the American Presidents by Michael Kerrigan**.

Timaru is one of Nationals true-blue heart lands, with Nationals first time candidate, Andrew Faloon, inheriting Jo Goodhew's comfortable electoral majority; even if that majority was cut back from 14,000 in 2014 to six thousand in 2017 in an electorate where the actual number of voters increased by several thousand, due to a clear surge towards Labour via candidate  Jo Luxton.

And like any time I am out and about, I took the time to sample the mood of the public in regards to politics in our fair nation but this time with a clear slant towards life under our new Labour overlords.

I was expecting a rather negative response regarding the regions voting habits but was somewhat surprised when most people I talked to seemed to be rather meh about the whole "communist takeover" thing and happy with what had transpired, except for one small area: house prices.

You can get a three bedroom house in Timaru for under $500,000, and even down to $300,000 if lucky, with a range of options and locations so unlike the major centers there is still a rather buoyant mood for the market.

And I know this for a fact after I spoke to several people in the real-estate business*** who were positively upbeat about the housing market there and who were rather concerned that Jacinda (and given how they phrased things it sounded like Mrs Ardern was coming for them personally) was intending to take away their livelihood and ruin the good thing they have got going in one fell swoop.

And this tone sums up much of this year (and every recent year) in NZ politics but it definitely sums up the outcome of the recent 2017 election as it does not take a rocket scientist to see that anyone who did well out of the housing hernia in the last nine years under National was going to keep on backing that party (and its policies) rather than take a gamble on Jacinda and Labour but that everyone and anyone else was braying for a real change to how things were in our fair isles.

But this time 12 months ago the country was still getting over the shock of John Key's recent departure from the PM role and trying to adjust to the idea of Bill English as a less than adequate stand in for the man who had been the ever-smiling face of the selling of NZ; the housing market was still boiling along in Auckland and Andrew Little was still grimly clinging to the tiler of the then doom struck Labour party and we were prepping for dull election followed by more of the same under National.

So between now and then what happened?

How did we go from the near inevitable certainty that it would be National for another three years to a center-Left coalition trying to give capitalism a friendly face and right some of the wrong in this country?

The answer to that question lies in the past with Labours great betrayal of 1984 and the effects of that betrayal over the 33 years that followed.

In 1984, with the election of the Fourth Labour government, the party embarked on an insane program of radical change to both the economy and the welfare state. There is no room to go into the details here butsuffice it to say that unlike the right wing free-market zealots in the US and UK who were enacting similar changes in those countries the ideological propaganda of trickle down and "letting the market take care of things" were first propagated by a supposedly left wing Labour government which literally sold the soul and spirit of New Zealand to anyone and everyone with the money to buy.

The result is the New Zealand we know today, desperately addicted to dairy farming, paying obscene prices for houses and peddling our asses for the tourist dollar. A New Zealand where the rich have gotten richer and everyone else has stagnated or gone backwards, an Aotearoa where market speak and management science infected government operations to all levels and where politicians are either actively industry lobbyists (like ex-tobacco shill Todd Barclay) or simply so connected to the parasite banking sector (like the John Key) or related concerns so prolifically that the public either does not trust them or care because the market is the new religion and we all have to kneel down and supplicate before the all mighty dollar.

In short the state of NZ today is the direct result of the Great Betrayal and its spreading stain has marked Labour ever since with an air of untrustworthiness and two-faced double talk from Labour MPs and the party mouthpieces in such a way that the real free market, "NZ for the rich only", radicals in National could simply walk into government and continue to enact Labour's "reforms" and no one could tell the difference.

Sooner or later something had to give. Sooner or later NZ had to change its course or become like Thailand or some other semi-failed state where corruption, nepotism and "connections" prevailed over democracy, equal rights and giving people and fair go. There had been attempts in the past but they had failed, mostly because the time was not right, but also because many of those trying to convince us to jump ship had blood on their hands, blood from 1984.

Thus for NZ (and 33 years counts as later rather than sooner) the 2017 election and the year that preceded it were the beginning of the end for Labours foul creation from 1984 (that later become Nationals monstrous step-child) and the dynamic of that year hinged on Labour not only removing that stain (ie talking about the people for once and not peddling its ass to big-business) but also presenting a credible alternate (via something other than letting the market take charge) to the electorate to whatever tired old (but infinitely better than Labors) story that National was peddling.

In neither of these two areas did Labour fully succeed but neither did they fail and it was not without the help of two other opposition parties (NZ First and the Greens) but also with the removal of the face of past (Andrew Little), which Labour had worn ever since the days of David Lange*4, that was promptly replaced by the face of future (via Jacinda Ardern).

And if we imagine NZ politics as a microcosm of NZ society (a sad and demented microcosm but still a sample of what NZ is) it was only a matter of time before the stunted and bitter children of 1984 would come forth in sufficient number to sweep much of the old and sleazy order away and makes their voices herd.

Of course there were a few grizzled veterans, like Winston Peters, helping things along by acting as spiritual mentors to the younger MPs but in the end the youth and energy prevailed BUT only after the stunted dwarf roadblock of Andrew Little had his greedy hands pried from the wheel of the party AND the dire realization that Labour could be in opposition forever if something radical was not done, truly sank in, as parties like the Greens started to take up the social justice and left-wing slack that Labour and lost when it sold its soul in 1984.

In summary NZ got back a true opposition party to the right wing antics of National (which then balances out the previously skewed dynamic of NZ politics) and previously failed hopes like Winston redeemed themselves by using their populist power for change rather than propping up the status quo and furthering their own greedy ends. The stain caused by the great betrayal has been washed out and a new course has been charted for Godzone.

The fact that the mood around the world echoes this is not coincidental but a change is a good as a revolution in my book and if things had not changed that was what was next via FukYoo politics enacted en-mass with increasing dissent and more physical opposition.

And that all there is to it really, scandals aside, as Labour by its words, and so far its actions also, has provided a counterweight to the right wing razzle-dazzle of National and stared to try and undone some of what it started 33 years ago. It might not get it all right but any loosening of the screws is better than none.

However, this change could not have happened without NZ First and the Greens and that's what is the one major difference between this election and all previous MMP elections, given tat MP was supposed to deliver us from the tyranny of one party-politics and the attended rabid, one sided, ideologies.

This time round was the first real MMP election in NZ history, one where the plurality of the political situation was accurately reflected in the final outcome and where enough of the FPP dinosaurs had been put out to pasture to allow MMP politics to deliver the best result.

But lets get back to those house prices for a moment before I end this because the Housing Hernia is still a thing, along with FukYoo politics.

Neither of those two dynamics have been turned off and both remain dominant forces for 2018 and its how our Left of Center government deals with both that will be the true test of how well the stain of the Great Betrayal is washed away; as inequality and dirty politics remain in NZ and if our hero's cant deliver on their promises then they will surely become villains.

My next post will be a look forward into politics in 2018  but until then I intend to get back into the garden, grow this beard some more and finish off Mr Kerrigans book.



*-Think about it?
**-does my family know me or what
***-I wont say exactly how but lets just say we are related etc
*4-Yes I know Helen Clark and the Firth Labour government existed but it was business as usual under her and Finance Minister Michael Cullen so much so that National was able to survive the near death of the party under Bill English and Don Brash and come romping back to office in 2008 under John Key