Parliamentary years

As we’ve noted earlier, the National spin (a la Mr Farrar) is that the Cabinet reshuffle is tired. Old. Recycled.

But it got me thinking, the National team must be really, really fresh compared with Labour. I mean, Clark and Cullen, Mallard, King and Goff came in the eighties, for crying out loud! But not one to base my opinions on hearsay and speculation, I thought I would actually work out what the relative differences in average time spent in Parliament was between National and Labour’s top twenty MPs.

According to my back-of-the-envelope calculations National’s top twenty have spent, on average, 11.75 years in Parliament. For Labour’s top twenty, the average is 13.85. So the difference between the two teams’ averages is less than a parliamentary term.

Oh, and just for DPF, I should mention the medians are 11 and 14 years respectively. So, the cumulative experience of the two top twenty members is pretty comparable.

If National’s average was like its Leader - 6 years - then I think it might be justified in boasting about its ‘freshness’ compared with Labour. But the differences between the two teams is simply not as dramatic as National is trying to have you believe.

So, forget about this argument about freshness. Just think about the match-ups: Goff and King v Power (no contest), Mallard v Smith (non-stop brawls), Carter v Rich (TKOs).

Key has to do something pretty dramatic, doesn’t he?

Out of the mouths of (brown) babes

Oh, dear. DPF is quoting Duncan Garner’s interview with a truckee from Wainui.

DPF (selectively) quotes a bit of the piece:

Wainui Truck Driver: Well bro, everytime I’ve lifted a hand at somebody and whacked them, I’ve been arrested and handcuffed and taken in. Don’t know why he hasn’t been done.
Duncan Garner: Would you like to see him sacked from Cabinet, resign from Parliament?
Wainui Truck Driver: I’d like to see him arrested just like us old nigger boys

Oh how we all laughed!

Does anyway else get, as Robyn might say it, the “serious hinks” about this post? Talk about Wat’s classic dog whistle politics.

What’s DPF saying?  That even dumb maaari boys take a dim view of Mallard’s actions? You note DPF’s chosen quote colourfully epitomises the received view of a Bro’.  God Almighty, it’s crying out for a Billy T giggle at the end of it.  Just to reinforce this is a comedic interlude in the otherwise serious business of debating whether Mallard should be hung or simply shot for getting physical with Tau and to show how even the lowest of the low “get it”.  Fuck me.

This reminds me of that show, “Kids say the darndest things” - you know where Cosby lines up an array of very young kids and primes them with questions to get the kids to spout all manner of  hilarious shit.  Because, you know, kids have nothing important to say - they’re just there for entertainment, right?
DPF digs himself and even deeper hole by using a subtle variant on the old “some of my best friends” routine by suggesting that “friends of his in Wainui” tell him this dude is a classic case of the redeeming value of capitalism.  Sam Dixon and rogernome quickly point out that, if there is a story to be learned here, it’s the value of having a safety net - a net that’s probably gone by lunchtime under any National led government (yeah, we’re looking at you, Collins).

Views on the reshuffle

I see DPF is using his new fave reporters to represent the reshuffle as being underwhelming.  Of course, what DPF is a little more coy about is how this is a straight take from the talking points and that the ruse of using the journo comments is to mask the blatant partisan nature of his commentary.  But, we’re not so coy, here’s the exact words of Key’s official press release:

Helen Clark has failed to show leadership by rewarding Trevor Mallard instead of punishing him for his behaviour in Parliament, says National Party Leader John Key.

“Instead of demoting him, she has effectively given him a portfolio promotion by handing him three influential new responsibilities - in addition to retaining his SOEs and Associate Finance roles.

“No fair minded Kiwi would view Trevor Mallard’s portfolio promotion as an exercise in caucus discipline.

“It also makes a mockery of Helen Clark’s claim that Mr Mallard is suffering from stress.  Surely giving him more responsibilities and workload adds to his stress, especially in an area like Environment which is supposedly central to Labour’s re-election plans.

“The reshuffle is a lame exercise in recycling, not renewal.

“The same people are still in charge – Helen Clark and Michael Cullen. They are the same tired old faces singing the same tired old songs.

“I note that Labour’s master strategist, Pete Hodgson, has lost Health, which is an admission of failure in a portfolio that has had billions thrown at it over the past nine years for seemingly little result.”

There is, of course, huge irony in having Key talk about Lame recycling.  He no doubt took soundings about releasing this press release from his long-term parliamentary colleagues: Bill English, Nick Smith, Lockwood Smith, Murray McCully (National’s master strategist), Gerry Brownlee, Tony Ryall, David Carter, Wayne Mapp, Maurice Williamson.

Aside from Power, Collins and Rich - Key’s core executive team is the very epitome of “recycled” and, judging on recent policy announcement gaffes, you’d have to describe them as pretty lame too.

The most exciting thing about the recasting of Cabinet is how it will put tremendous pressure on National.  Key’s front bench is tired and worn and stopped making dents on the government months ago.  A reinvigorated Cabinet lineup will only add to the  pressure on Key to get his own house in order.

Talking about the reshuffle, I was heartened to see Phil Goff, a considerable talent, get Corrections.  National love talking up Goff as a rival to Clark and no doubt they will attempt to represent Corrections as being Clark’s poison chalice.  But hang on, there is a simpler and politically more savvy explanation.  Goff previously managed the Justice/Corrections portfolio when in Opposition to devastating effect.  He was, perhaps, one of the most successful Opposition spokespeople ever on the topic.  He was also a highly successful Justice Minister - overhauling major pieces of legislation like sentencing, parole and bail - all items that had languished under previous National governments fearful of making such sweeping changes. So, as we move into an election phase who else would you get comprehensively on top of the Corrections portfolio safely?

Corrections has been, rightly or wrongly, the only real punches National managed to land earlier this year (putting aside gimmes like Field).  This is due in large part to a combination of the public’s fascination with prisons and the efforts of a very ambitious and hardworking Opposition spokesperson - Simon Power.  But Power’s initial successes have dimmed and he’s looking increasingly like a one-trick pony: scandal chaser.  And while the “if it bleeds it leads” tends to push law and order to the forefront of the media and public’s attention, there’s only so many times you can play that tune without it getting a tad boring.

If Simon Power failed to comprehensively best O’Connor in the Corrections portfolio how do you think he will do with a real heavyweight like Goff?  Simon Power is, as they eloquently say in The Terrace’s cafes,  “fucked”.  No more lazy, half-arsed point scoring or simple minded rumour mongering.  Goff’s  appointment to Corrections when taken with the savvy move to put the powerhouse Annette King into Justice (while retaining Police) effectively nullifies National’s ability to mount a convincing Law and Order line in the lead up to the Election.  Very, very smart politics.

It’s the same with Mallard’s move to Labour.   OK, it’s meant to be a bit of censure (moving down the ranks and losing Education) -  but putting someone like Mallard in Labour has real strategic significance for National.   National is, after the party supposed to be closest to the business community (although I would contest that).   National’s unidimensional economic policy of tax cuts is going to look extremely lame in comparison to the government’s broad strategy for economic transformation.  National is going to really struggle to mount any successful attacks on the government’s economic vision - not only because it is a bloody impressive one - but also because it now has to contend with one of the strongest defenders in Mallard.  You could call it an overkill having Mallard defending the Labour - but I forsee he will use the economic transformation message as a platform for a more devastating attack on National’s obvious policy vacuum.

I think the MSM are missing the real story of the reshuffle and that’s it’s significance on National. There’s a lot of rumination and speculation about whether or not this reinvigorates Labour - but it clearly has major implications for National.

Cold Reading: DPF’s prognostications

Well, it’s interesting to look back at DPF’s “insider” take on the Labour reshuffle gleaned, as he says from his conversations with MPs and journos. Well, as far as prognostication goes, it was fairly unremarkable.

DPF’s guesswork was shown to be just that; guesswork. He made a few educated guesses such as Maryan Street and Shane Jones - but this was not a remarkable insight. Virtually every wannabe political hack in Wellington was chatting about these possibilities.

There’s a trick done by spiritualists to give the impression they are receiving messages from “the other side” - it’s called cold reading. Basically, the trick relies heavily on people’s willingness to ascribe significance to some things (hits) while ignoring gaps.

In cold reading the spiritualist will make vague inquiries such as, “I am picking up someone whose name starts with an ‘M’ or it could be a ‘N’” The spiritualist then waits for someone to leap in a fill in the gaps. “Oh, yes,” says the hapless victim, “I had an Aunty Margaret - she passed on recently”. The spiritualist will then feel around with similarly vague guesses allowing the person to fill in the gaps - you know like “I get the sensation of a tightness in the chest…does that make sense”. Usually this would work because a lot of people die of heart failure or pneumonia - hell most of your major organs are in your chest region. So, while the mark might think it a remarkable guess - it’s fairly friggin’ obvious. But imagine the person says, that the chest things doesn’t make sense because Aunty Margaret died of a head tumour. At this point the spiritualist will make up something like “yes, that’s right. I see there was referred pain. ” or even more hokey, “oh, I see the pain is a breaking heart…was there sadness in her life?”. You get the point- the art of the spiritualist is to be vague enough to drive a bus through the holes but also glide over the misses without someone noticing.

Why am I boring you with a description of cold reading? Because it’s amazing how powerful it seems. Spiritualists can seem like they are truly receiving meaningful and private information - and they can sometimes get real lucky.  Skilled spiritualists know how to drive a fine line between generalities and specifics. Amazingly, spirtualists are often completely wrong - but the audience will not realise this and will only note the hits.

DPF’s noises about the reshuffle yesterday remind me of cold reading. Looking carefully at yesterday’s guesses you realise he was wrong as often as he was right. Like a spiritualist, though, he was careful not to be too specific. He couldn’t come right out and say such and such was out and such and such would get in because that would be too specific.  Instead he some sort of vague odds. This way he can always claim to be right. Tane was right to challenge the method.

OK, it’s actually not surprising DPF knew three fifths of fuck all about the Cabinet reshuffle…he’s a National Party stooge, not a Labour party stooge after all. But his prognostications were phrased as if he were somehow “in the know”. This is all part of David’s attempts to position himself as some sort of political expert. In truth, DPF is a type of political expert - as long as you’re interested in National party political expertise - otherwise his opinion is not worth much, to be honest.

Blog or clipping service?

Davey’s latest contribution on the Labour reshuffle is a cut and paste comments from various newspapers. Wow! What a contribution to public discourse. These are, of course, all online and freely available to anyone who might otherwise head towards bileblog. Colin James or Molesworth won’t be feeling threatened by Davey’s input. Yawn.

I can’t help thinking Davey’s lost his way a little; innovations like the General Debate have hardly elevated the tone of conversation and the moderators have served only to drive off Redbaiter - not a bad thing itself but not nearly enough to make the blog any more relevant. It is not surprising that threads over at publicaddress regularly attract hundreds of comments, most of which are of very high quality, and  new blogs like the theStandard have emerged.

Almost all markets conform to the same development principles where what was once unique is quickly copied and improved as the market matures and consumers become more sophisticated. Davey’s going to have to do something else he’ll quickly be redundant.

Farrar - Machiavelli or Mickey Mouse?

I’d like to start my first post by thanking the others for inviting me aboard.  I think KBB is great fun, insightful, and it clearly gets up Farrar’s nose .

This isn’t my first foray into politics but, hopefully, this one won’t end with me being stabbed by the Mayor of London like last time.

What’s DPF’s game?  It’s a subject of some debate. 

Some would have it that he’s a naive nerd who likes computers, politics, and perving at girls half his age.  If you’ve ever seen him waddling around Wellington, this impression seems justified.  If Farrar is just a bumbling fool then it’s just an accident when he dog-whistles racists and bigots and it’s not really his fault when he posts misleading statistics.  It also lends credence to the notion that he is an independent political blogger who just happens to be a National supporter.

Others see Mr Farrar as a Machiavellian figure, plotting in smokeless rooms with Bill English, Fran O’Sullivan and David Skilling the latest line of Tory attack.  Certainly, there seems to be a high level of consistency of message across Tory political outlets, including Kiwiblog.  The ultimate example of this must be the introduction of ‘overtaxation’ to the New Zealand political discourse earlier this month: it appeared on Kiwiblog the day before the half-yearly Treasury figures came out, next day it was in O’Sullivan’s article and English was using it in Parliament, the day after that it was in the mainstream media.  Anyone who’s worked in communications will tell you it looks like a manufactured line that the actors have agreed they will all use to change the discourse.  In this view, Farrar is the National party’s semi-professional blogger; his blogging work being subsidised by National employing him as their pollster and as a contractor in their HQ.

I think the truth is somewhere in between.  Farrar is not stupid: he runs a polling company so he knows when he is posting misleading numbers and he has been around politics long enough to know that when he posts in a way that invites the bigots to feel their prejudices are OK, but he is no genius (he’s a right-winger for starters and his angles are very transparent).  I don’t think he has formal meetings with other important people in the Tory movement and plans strategy with them but the National Party would be more stupid than I can believe (and I can believe they’re very stupid) if they are not trying to use the most popular blog in the country to further their message.  Farrar, the likes of O’Sullivan, and National do play off each other and probably discuss the state of the game at times.  National sees Farrar as an asset for furthering their aims and it will be important to them that he stays on message and remains respectable enough to be noticed by opinion-leaders (hence his attempt at ‘cleaning up the sewer’ recently). 

All this means that Farrar is part of the Tory political establishment, that he knows perfectly well what he is doing when he dog-whistles on a topic or doesn’t post on another, and that his blog is a general reflection of the Tories’ strategy for regaining power.  

Those are the two areas I plan to focus on my future posts.  I think dog-whistling is a particularly detestable form of politicking that no respectable political movement should use and I plan to take Farrar to task whenever he does it.  And what Farrar doesn’t cover reflects on where the Tories see their weaknesses heading into the next election. 

But enough about me, lets talk about you, what do you think about me?

Davey’s taking some heat for once again gratuitously inserting himself into a story. This time its the 3 news item last night about local Wainui residents’ views on the appropriate punishment for Mallard (Garner’s brilliant journalistic instincts to the fore) which included a chat with a local truckie. Davey can’t help but tell us that he knows the bloke in question… well, not as such, but he knows someone who knows him… apparently. When challenged, Davey comes off all heavy with threats to ban anyone who challenges his integrity (a bit late for that we think). He brings this on himself of course (we’ll, we like to claim some credit too).

This reminds me of a great story about Jim and Joan Bolger who, of on one of their first trips abroad after Jim became PM, kept pulling out the family instamatic to take snaps of Jimbo with the various international leaders. Nice. Classy. Ah, can’t be too hard on Jim, he’s turned into quite the statesman.

What price for experience?

Davey’s speculating on the Labour reshuffle, a matter about which he has bugger all insight, but it got me thinking what I’d do to reinvigorate the National front bench.

Aside from installing English as leader, which won’t happen unless/until Key fails at the next election, I think National’s been too timid in promoting younger members of the caucus in preference for deadwood. McCully, Smith(s), Ryall and Williamson are all entirely expendable. They’ve not performed since losing the Treasury benches and, in the case of McCully, Lockwood and Williamson, are all too closely aligned with the hard-right. Likewise Tisch, David Carter and Dear old Clem (WTF was the message he was going to deliver - I hear David Kirk no longer cares…) have contributed nothing notable and should be put out to pasture.

On the plus side, Brownlee’s improved significantly since his Captain Oates routine and Power and Rich improve the less they say. Groser should prove handy and there’s a good grouping of competent if not dynamic young women who neatly represent a shift in the brand. However, there’s also the likes of Collins and Mapp who’re just frankly on-the-nose with their constant dissonant yapping and have got to be moved away from any public appearances. Oh and someone should tell John Hayes ONZM that Brash is no longer leading the party.

Election year-eve: National’s front bench is light on experience and the experience it has, is not well aligned to the Key-brand such as it is. They’ve got the North/South combination right (you know, if John and Bill were a same sex couple, I’m guessing John would be the himbo), but lack the punch and point of difference to be effective. Key’s policy deficiencies need to be offset but English alone can’t compensate. Power’s too green and slow but then McCully’s to much of an arsehole. What to do?

Davey, next time you’re down at HQ and after you get your script and give your blood but before you take the chocolate biscuit and leave, let them know you’ve got a brilliant plan… exit Murray, Lockie, Nick, Tony, Maurice and Wayne and promote Pansy, Georgina, humm, and, humm, perhaps Arden and maybe hummm…. oh shit, I see the problem now… sorry, as you were!

Exactly, ex-fucking-actly

The Standard quotes Pol Science lecturer, Jon Johansson’s insightful address to New Zealand First on the decline of Key.  Johansson is making many of the points we have been making over the past few weeks only far more focused and eloquent.  I share Johansson’s observation about Key’s leaden performances and his team of hasbeens. The lack of a coherent strategy is also a killer.  There’s only so many times you can say the word “tax cut” and derive some sort of electoral benefit.  Key’s honeymoon is over.  He’s increasingly looking pretty one dimensional.   And you know what, I think they know it in National. Kiwiblog’s posting has begun to smell defensive and worried.  It’s hard to put your finger on - but it’s there - this malodorous presence.  It’s the stink of fear and gangrene.

I am happy to concede that people maybe were looking for an alternative to the current government.  It’s a big ask to go in for a fourth term.  But the current government is not fundamentally flawed and it is generally pretty damned competent.  So, while the public of New Zealand might have been willing to entertain the idea of a change I don’t think change for its own sake was warranted.  Key’s not promising anything meaningful.  His vision is, at best, blurry.  He’s not particularly prime ministerial and his team of hackneyed misfits is looking increasingly vulnerable.

A collective series of statements to establish a definite proposition

Kiwiblogblog has been called many things some, like endlessly referential simulacra, I didn’t understand, but the point has been to critique kiwiblog and National party spin (and occasionally to poke a stick at Davey himself - we’ll stop this when he stops slagging off people who he knows can’t or won’t reply).

Kiwiblog is like that Python skit where Palin’s character pays for an argument and gets only endless repetitive contradiction from Cleese’s - funny enough but hardly satisfying. Whereas blogs like norightturn, publicaddress and thestandard attempt to foster discussion, kiwiblog posts contain little original or independent thought and any discussion quickly descends into a slagging match.

With the addition Wat Tyler, we might be able to seed a few more meaningful debates for the regulars to get into however in the meantime content yourself with classic Python: