Feeding the kids

Yeehah! The Labour Party has thrown out some policy bites and they're getting a reaction.

The last two days have all been about Labour's Education policy. Feeding our starving students at school is a winner.

When National come out opposing it they'll look like child haters. When they come out and say they're already doing it, then Labour can say, they ain't doing enough. When National say that it's a parents job to feed their own children, Labour will say, "That's true, but it ain't happening, because National has let 270,000 children slide under the poverty line, and we're not prepared to let our children starve."

TVNZ Breakfast had David Shearer on the front foot and National were merely reactionary. The tables turned just like that, simply because Labour threw out a juicy morsel and waited for the hounds to pounce.

They weren't disappointed. They've received some praise, some reaction has been rabid, but most importantly Labour haven't been ignored.

Michael Laws on RadioLive got former ACT MP Debra Coddington to 'fess up that her local Decile 7 school provides breakfast for students.

Gawd, if wealthy families are starving, then it must be a famine for the low decile families this policy is going to help. John Key was meant to help our children, not starve them. How could he let this happen?

Good on you Labour, keep throwing these policy bites out and revel in the attention. I just hope there's more to come, not just in education, but hit the government where they are vulnerable - housing, health, poverty and unemployment. While National are floundering in the negativity and distraction of the water rights and state assets mess, Labour have the perfect opportunity to score more positive hits.


Kelvin Davis

Getting it right: Why Labour's failed to fire

Labour has a great message, great people, great vision for New Zealand, but who would know?

The problem I believe is quite straight forward.

Labour has failed to stir peoples' emotions. They are too quiet, too cautious, too invisible. From the top down. They haven't sparked emotional reactions in anyone, about anything.

They haven't stimulated, aggravated, agitated, provoked, annoyed or amused. They are just there.

It's like they're more comfortable being ignored than criticised.

So they are being ignored.

Except Louisa Wall. She's promoted the Marriage Equality Bill that has inspired some, elated some, made some uncomfortable and some are just plain pissed off. People are emotional about Louisa's Bill one way or the other.

She's been interviewed on TV, radio, newspapers. She's been seen, heard, read about, talked about, praised, condemned and just plain criticised.

Good on her. She has been noticed.

And in every interview I've seen or heard, she is calm, eloquent and on message. Her critics come across as irrational rabid nutcases.

Now her colleagues need to do the same. They need to skirt with controversy, to wear their hearts on their sleeves, go out on a limb. They need to be positively controversial. Cause right-wing outrage. Make people talk, make people think, make people argue, get people emotional, piss people off - at home, at work, at the pub, at school, on talkback, where ever two people meet - provoke a reaction.

Just throw some outrageous lefty ideas out there and sit back and watch the reaction, gauge the feedback, stir the pot and revel in the attention.

They won't win over staunch conservatives, but so what? Those conservatives will moan and bitch about them out in their communities. Free publicity.

They'll win back some of the swing voters and lefties looking for Labour to show some mongrel.

Labour has a great message, but they're pretty damn dull in promoting it. It's too much to expect Joe Public to tune in to that message when its not in their faces.

They could do worse than look at Louisa Wall's example of how to do things.

Kelvin Davis

Kelvin Davis on the best and worst Maori Politicians

Morgan's comment: We should keep in mind that this post is pretty tongue-in-cheek. I think that is obvious. So when leaving comments, please keep that in mind. 

Who have been the best and worst Maori MPs for the month? No one Maori MP has set the world on fire, in fact if I can be a little critical, it seems as a group they're going through the motions. Yep, sure there's the obligatory condemnation of the Government's position on Maori water rights, but it's easy to moan and bitch about what's wrong, but no one seems to be creating anything that's particularly pro-Maori or pro-anything to be perfectly honest.


Louisa Wall

The exception being Louisa Wall, who has fronted the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill debate with dignity and eloquence, and at the same time showing those conservative bigots out to be, well, conservative bigots.


Tariana Turia

A quick and highly unscientific scan of the internet shows Hon Tariana Turia has been most prolific in terms of press releases and speeches - covering issues from deaths in Police custody, growing NZ's future doctors, a graduation somewhere, the Maori Council water claims and criticism of the Prime Minister on that same issue, ETS decisions, Trade Training investment and also plain packaging of tobacco. Brownie points to Tariana for sticking it to the Tobacco Industry.

Pita and Te Ururoa haven't set the world on fire having announced a bit of this and supporting a bit of that.


Paula Bennett and Simon Bridges

Paula Bennett and Simon Bridges, as Ministers, have churned out a few press releases, but nothing that does a lot for Maori, although I'm sure they'll argue otherwise. I know they have Maori whakapapa, but when I think of them as Maori the word plastic springs to mind.


Hekia Parata

Hekia Parata has been keeping her head down for the last few weeks, waiting for the remaining debris of her cock up last month to drift from the consciousness of the nation, and has announced a few low key initiatives such as a review of the Teacher's Council and issued a press release to tell us, "The Ministerial Cross-Sector Forum on Raising Achievement today discussed the importance of quality data in raising achievement, and improving teaching practice with a focus on priority learners." Ho bloody hum. Hell, schools have been talking about that for most of the last decade.


Brendan Horan

Brendan Horan has churned out a few releases regarding Kiwirail and something rather bizarre about wanting Treaty Settlements to be a bit more controversial so that the general public talk about them a bit more. Hmm, don't know what that's all about. I personally would have thought getting the Settlements out of the way so that Maori can get on with being successful would be in the country's best interests.

Winston has been Winston. Tau has been Tau


Labour's Maori Caucus

Shane Jones has had a Bill drawn from the ballot "Ombudsmen (Cost Recovery) Amendment Bill," buggered if I know what that's about, but I have every faith in Shane's ability to turn the most tedious of kaupapa into an epic yarn worthy of a Pulitzer.

Nanaia Mahuta has had a few Questions in the House and has been on Hekia's case about her attitude towards the education sector and the pointlessness of League tables. Rino Tirikatene and Moana Mackey have been low key. Parekura Horomia has had a crack at the Maori Party on Water Rights. Sadly my Labour mates have been too quiet.


The Greens

Metiria Turei, as Green Party Leader has to be more prolific, and has spoken out on everything from whaling, John Banks, the minimum wage, paid parental leave, child poverty, the Kahui twins coroner's report and mining, but to be honest the Greens aren't doing that much better on Maori specific issues. Catherine Delahunty, who has been included in previous lists because of her advocacy on Maori issues, has had a Bill drawn from the ballot Resource Management (Restricted Duration of Certain Discharge and Coastal Permits) Amendment Bill - a bit of a mouthful, but an attempt to prevent discharge into rivers and around the coast. Maori will probably get in behind this Bill. She's also been hot on 'debt collection' in schools and mining in Northland. She may be a born again Maori convert, but her heart is in the right place. David Clendon has been quiet.


Hone Harawira

Hone Harawira through gritted teeth has come out and said homosexuals should be able to marry just like everyone else, and that "strong and healthy relationships were the foundation of loving whanau and a positive and vibrant society", while he continues to put the boot into Auntie Tari, Uncle Pete and the bro Te Ururoa. Oh, yeah, John Key as well. But aside from putting the boot into others and the apparent revelation that discrimination against a sector of society is wrong - bugger all.


Mike Sabin

I have a suspicion that Northland MP Mike Sabin may have some whakapapa (but could be wrong). He deserves acknowledgement for putting together a couple of economic summits in Te Tai Tokerau. As we know Te Tai Tokerau/ Northland is one of the most economically broken arsed areas in the country. The hope is the economic summits aren't just blatant self promotion and talk-fests and that they actually create opportunities for our people up north. So good on him, if he can pull it off before his mob get kicked out of government, he'll have achieved more than the rest of us who have been MPs from the north. So I'll be watching that space with interest. He scores well below because I'm into politicians who are proactive rather than reactive.


The Maori Council

The biggest bouquet goes to the New Zealand Maori Council who have been driving the Water Claims. They have demonstrated real political nous, courage, integrity and leadership.


The Scores

So here is a scoring system - ranging from -2 through to +2.

+2 = significant positive effect in politics and/ or on Maori in the last month

+1 = some positive effect in politics and/ or on Maori in the last month

0 = no effect whatsoever

-1 = some negative effect on politics and/ or on Maori in the last month

-2 = significant negative effect on politics and/ or on Maori in the last month.


Entirely subjective, extremely loaded with my own biases and prejudices, but suck it up. Here's my scores for July 2012.

Paula Bennett and

Simon Bridges               -1 (point deducted for having Tory DNA more dominant than Maori DNA)

David Clendon              0

Te Ururoa Flavell         +1

Hone Harawira            +1

Tau Henare                   0

Brendon Horan             0

Parekura Horomia         0

Shane Jones                  0

Rino Tirikatene              0

Moana Mackey             0

Nanaia Mahuta              +1

Hekia Parata                  0

Winston Peters               0

Denise Roche                who?

Jamie-Lee Ross            gawd, he's a Maori?

Pita Sharples                +1

Metiria Turei                +1

Tariana Turia                +2

Louisa Wall                  +2

Catherine Delahunty      +1

Mike Sabin                   +2

NZ Maori Council        +2

Kelvin Davis

Kelvin Davis on improving education

When the government says that national standards, charter schools, league tables, performance pay, quality vs quantity of teachers will all raise achievement, they might be right.

That's because there are very few strategies that teachers (or governments) can implement that actually make students dumber. Teachers can rightly put their hands on their hearts and swear that what they do in class lifts achievement. Just about everything has some positive effect, but some have a large positive effect while others barely register. It would make sense to develop policy based on those strategies that have the greatest positive effect.

The much quoted Professor John Hattie's research lists, from most effective to least ffective, 138 different 'things' that may be implemented in education, and all but five have a positive effect on learning. The five strategies with a negative effect are: Summer vacation (-0.09), Welfare Policies (-0.12) Retention (Holding kids back a year, -0.16), Television (-0.18) and Mobility (-0.34). So unless we prescribe longer Christmas holidays, keep kids back a year or two, or force students to watch an extra 8 hours of TV a day, almost everything else will have SOME positive effect on learning.

The same goes for government policy - practically any educational policy will have some positive effect for some students.

In order to get the best achievement outcomes from any policy, the policy itself needs to be supported by research.

What does Hattie's research say?

Any 'strategy' with an effect size of 0.40 or less is practically pointless. Which makes sense.

In Hattie's list the strategy with an effect size of 0.40 (Reducing Anxiety) is exactly halfway through the list of possible strategies. Hattie is saying if any particular strategy is to be used it should at least be in the top 50% of strategies.

What does the research say about Charter Schools?

Charter Schools have an effect size of 0.20, or the 107th out of the 133 strategies that have some positive effect. Charter Schools are therefore an extremely pointless and expensive strategy.

There are still 40 strategies that are deemed pointless, but, are still more effective than Charter Schools.

What does the research say about League Tables and Performance Pay?

Nothing. They don't rate or feature in any way in Hattie's research.

What then is the basis for League Tables and Performance Pay if there is no research evidence to show these two 'things' will make a difference? How does the government know these two 'strategies' won't have to be included alongside the five already proven to make students dumber?

There are 106 'things' more effective than Charter Schools at improving learning, of which 66 are deemed to be very effective. 

It would make sense for the government to stick to what is proven by their guru's research to make a difference and really create the conditions where quality teachers can weave their magic.Only when the proven strategies are all implemented, should they pull out their ideological ideas. However, I suspect by then there would be no need.

By Kelvin Davis

Welcoming Kelvin Davis and Jack McDonald

I'm getting tired of reading my own opinion here, and I suspect some of you might be too. So, with that in mind, I'm pleased to tell you former MP Kelvin Davis and former Green Party candidate Jack Tautokai McDonald will be contributing around here.

Kelvin is a former Labour MP and has been appearing in the media recently as a political commentator. Jack was the young gun candidate for the Greens in Te Tai Hauauru last election. They'll be bringing a valuable perspective to Maui St.  

Native Affairs Kowhiri 11: Tai Tokerau review

I don’t have too much to say about the Tai Tokerau debate on Native Affairs. The three candidates, Hone, Kelvin and Waihoroi Shortland, were pretty even. If forced to pick a winner I’d go with Kelvin. Yes, Kelvin not Hone. Hone was certainly the most authorative, but Kelvin was the most articulate. He focussed firmly on Labour policy without peppering his answers with useless rhetoric. Yes, Hone and Waihoroi were guilty of providing meaningless, read useless, answers. However, I think the criticism that Kelvin is too “wooden” is well placed. This may have something to do with Kelvin remembering his lines too well and he comes across as scripted. I tend to think, or I know from personal experience, that that’s just how Kelvin is. To me it makes no difference.

Having said the above, on a strict points decision the night probably belongs to Hone. Hone speaks well off the cuff and he knows better than anyone how to connect with Maori on a personal level. One thing Hone does well is use colloquialism without taking away from the authority of his message. Maori, well New Zealanders actually, like their politicians to speak like them. That’s part of the appeal of John Key. Where Americans appreciate soaring rhetoric New Zealanders enjoy understated and familiar language. Hone understands this. Many New Zealand politicians are guilty of trying to be like Obama.

Waihoroi was strong in parts and weak in others. He did well to highlight the Maori Party’s role in securing funding for treating rheumatic fever in the north. Waihoroi is much better in te reo than English. He suffers from the problem many fluent Maori speakers suffer from – they speak English like they speak te reo. English is not meant to be spoken in the same manner as te reo. I’m nitpicking here, but one of the problems fluent Maori speakers have is that they can be too verbose. English is about simplicity whereas Maori is often about heavy metaphors, animation and so on. When someone speaks English like they speak te reo the message can be bogged down and lost. This isn’t an attack on Waihoroi, he did well, this is just a general observation.

In fairness, the night was probably too close to call. But I’ll give it Kelvin for focussing on policy. Kelvin provided a template for how political discourse in this country should be run.

Initial thoughts on the byelection result

I wonder if Guyon Espiner, Duncan Garner, Barry Soper and all of the other mainstream pundits who called the byelection for Kelvin are willing to eat their words - or at least sink their teeth into a slice of humble pie. Once again the mainstream commentariat has proven that they misunderstand Māori politics and cannot be relied upon to read the situation in the Māori electorates. I mean not to brag, but I called the result correctly. For the past few months I have stated that Hone would win by 5% at worst and 10% at best (he won by 7%). Other Māori political commentators picked the right result as well including Rawiri Taonui, Willie Jackson, Veronica Tawhai, Ann Sullivan, Tim Selwyn and Marty Mars. In fact Rawiri Taonui called it fairly close when he stated on Marae that Hone would win by between five and ten percent. 

You cannot really blame the mainstream pundits for calling the incorrect result though. (before I continue I should probably mention that not all mainstream commentators backed Kelvin – Bryce Edwards and Martyn Bradbury been the most notable exceptions). Common wisdom held that the conditions favoured Kelvin Davis. For example Labour had the opportunity to concentrate their resources, mobilise a nationwide net of activists, piggyback off of general electorate branches and offices, utilise Parliamentary staff and resources and focus the party’s experience and energy on one cause. Kelvin would have also had priority access to the Labour party communications team and advisers, he had the support of an army of sitting MP’s and access to their supporters. Given that this was a byelection the voting conditions also favoured Kelvin. By this I mean Hone’s supporters are, in general, more apathetic, couple this with Labour’s ability to run a better GOTV campaign and it becomes clear that low turnout will favour Kelvin rather than the incumbent (Hone) which is usually the case. Finally, Kelvin was running in a byelection that, according to the polls, no one in the North wanted. With the above in mind you would be forgiven for thinking the byelecion was a gift Kelvin failed to grasp hold of? Well, I can assure you, Kelvin was up against it from the beginning. 

Hone Harawira enjoys a deep, deep well of support, maintains functioning branches across TTT, he was the incumbent, he benefits from networks he has spent years building, he is perhaps the most effective backbench MP, he enjoys access to and support from hundreds of volunteers including some of the most prominent and respected Māori figures like Moana Jackson, he is more experienced than Kelvin as a politician and as a performer, he had the more powerful narrative and he carried the hopes of progressive Māori across the country. Ultimately though, what it came down to, in my opinion at least, is the powerful line that a vote for Hone is a vote for Hone and Kelvin whereas a vote for Kelvin is a vote for Kelvin. Māori are strategic voters and this sort of reasoning would have featured prominently in the minds of the politically savvy, read those most likely to vote. Another deciding factor was the Mana party’s performance on the ground. Hone tapped hundreds of activists who door knocked across the entire electorate, ferried families to the polls, erected signs, billboards and manned stalls. The Mana Party effort was equivalent to, or perhaps surpassed, Labour’s effort on the ground. The last factor that would have played in the mind of voters was Hone dominance in debates, town hall meetings and question and answer sessions. Hone won, quite convincingly too, every televised debate. Although Kelvin performed well in terms of delivering his lines and Solomon Tipene held himself with dignity – Hone was always one step ahead and one foot above.

If we examine the numbers we find that Hone Harawira won this byelection because he managed to hold off Labour in Auckland. The Labour party correctly identified Auckland as marginal ground. However, the party machine and Kelvin Davis failed to win Auckland in sufficient numbers. Kelvin won West Auckland by a mere 30 votes and the rest of Auckland by 158. This was not good enough. Considering that Auckland, especially West Auckland, is something of a Labour heartland you would expect to see Kelvin gallop ahead. What it came down to was Mana’s ability to neutralise the Labour Party machine in West Auckland. Mana Waitakere was, to the best of my knowledge, the first Māori Party branch to defect and then establish as a Mana Party branch. There was a transfer of personnel and – as you would expect - a transfer of knowledge, infrastructure and experience. When you examine Hone’s numbers it becomes clear why he won. Hone won the far north by almost 600 votes and Whangarei by 222. If Kelvin wanted a chance at snatching the seat he needed to win Auckland in those sorts of numbers. 

Another reason Hone retained the seat was because the Māori Party vote did not collapse and transfer to Kelvin. In fact it held steady. Solomon Tipene came in with 9% of the vote. A drop on 1% from what I and others were predicting. If The Māori Party vote dropped below 5% Kelvin Davis would be celebrating today as the MP for Te Tai Tokerau. Credit must go to Solomon for holding Māori Party support.    

I guess the big question today is where to from here. I said last week of Native Affairs that TTT is not the indicative Māori seat, but it is the seat that will determine who goes into the election with momentum. At this point it will be the Mana Party and Labour that share the momentum going forward. The Māori Party has stalled, but Solomon Tipene did a good enough job to keep them from going backwards. Mana will now go into the election with the energy, belief, and prominence to take Waiariki and have a decent crack at the other Māori seats, bar Te Tai Tonga which now belongs to Labour. Labour goes forward with the ability to take Tāmaki Makaurau as well. 

A Hone Harawira win will also change the political landscape. The Māori Party has declined Hone’s olive branch and this has opened the door for Mana to run candidates in the Māori seats. This will weaken the Māori Party and consequently weaken the right wing bloc in the House. The Mana Party will also target the working poor and beneficiaries. Two groups that are, arguably, underrepresented. If the Mana party can attract a sufficient number of party votes we will see a stronger left wing bloc post-election. Rather than split and weaken the left vote I think the Mana Party will increase the strength of the left vote. Mana has no interest in cannibalising the Greens or sucking off of the same base as Labour – Mana is concerned with attracting the politically apathetic.

The last point I want to make is that polls attempting to gauge Māori electorates should be taken at face value only. The Baseline/Native Affairs poll confidently put the result at 41% Hone and 40% Kelvin. This was, as I expected, way off. Beyond the margin of error even.             

Full credit must go to Kelvin and Solomon. Solomon Tipene handled himself well, especially following his leaders derogatory comments, while Kelvin proved that he is a rising star in the Labour Party. Full credit must also go to the Labour Party activist base as well. Although Labour is performing poorly at a national level the party can always fall back on their die-hard supporters when the need occurs. Kelvin is worthy of a promotion. My suggestion is that he be elevated to education spokesperson. 

Lastly, the best man won – in my opinion at least. The big challenge for Hone is to surround himself with intelligent and experienced advisors as well as people with experience in building successful organisations. Hone needs to take himself in a new direction and he needs to build a party of talented, committed and energetic individuals. And not just a party for Māori, but a party for all New Zealanders.   

Turia has a mare (updated)

Last night on Native Affairs I was alerted to some extraordinary comments from Tariana Turia. At first I thought she had been misquoted, but it appears her words can bear no other meaning. From 3 News:

Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia has effectively thrown in the towel in the Te Tai Tokerau by-election with five days still to go.


She says her candidate Solomon Tipene is a lovely kind kaumatua but he does not understand politics and that has hurt him.


“I think he has shown he doesn't understand politics and that is fair I think and that's been a real issue for him,” she says. 

You can’t help but feel for old Tipene. He was chucked in the deep end without a hope in hell of doing well. He appeared to receive little to no practical and political support from his colleagues. Now his own leader is publicly slagging him. Outrageous: 

3 News asked Ms Turia who she thinks will win.

“I mean ideally, and I suppose if he's done the work on the ground, it should be Hone - it will be interesting to see if he comes through,” she says. 


So that could be interpreted as Ms Turia saying she thinks Mr Harawira will win.


3 News asked Ms Turia would she urge Maori Party voters to now back Mr Davis to get rid of Mr Harawira.


“No,” she replied. 

In my opinion these statements represent a casual endorsement of Hone Harawira. Whatever personal animosity lingers between the two, Tariana’s hate for the Labour Party and continued desire to extract utu clearly outweighs any ill-will she harbours for Hone Harawira. Having said that, Duncan Garner reaches the opposite conclusion:

Ms Turia has not gone as far as saying ‘vote for Labour today’ but the message is still clear - the Maori Party is out of the race and if you want rid of Mr Harawira only Mr Davis can now achieve that.

I don’t think this is accurate. Nor do I think many Māori Party voters will lean towards Kelvin Davis. I’ve said before the tino rangatiratanga vote is incompatible with Labour, but comfortable with Hone Harawira. The anti-Hone vote, which really only exists in the minds of Pākehā political journalists, is small as well. I think it is logical to assume that if the Māori Party vote collapses then Hone will be the main beneficiary. Ideologically speaking, there is little to separate Hone and the Māori Party. It would also be a cynical and almost ruthless move to vote Kelvin in an attempt to keep Hone out. I doubt whether that many, if any, Māori Party supporters resent Hone that much. Remember it was Labour’s populism, or betrayal as many Māori Party supporters would portray it, that spawned the Māori Party. I tend to doubt that Māori will ever forget this. Hone is certainly the lesser of two evils. 

This move from Tariana may determine the outcome of the byelection. It is only Tuesday, but as the horrid cliché goes, a week is a long time in politics. I am still calling it for Hone. However, there are now so many factors at play. Can Labour mobilise the vote outside of West Auckland? Has Hone enrolled enough supporters? Will the Māori Party issue directives to their supporters? With so many variables can Hone still win? Definitely, and I am 90% sure he will.      


UPDATE: From TW.com:

Staff at TangataWhenua.com hardly think that the conspiracy theories hold any water, if you know Tariana Turia, although she has and had issues with Hone, she simply HATES Labour and we’d find it hard to believe that she would want to see Labour take the seat.

Agreed. 

Marae Investigates review

Marae Investigates ran a good debate/Q&A show with Kelvin Davis, Solomon Tipene and Hone Harawira this morning. The show also featured political commentators Rawiri Taonui and Ann Sullivan.

Overall, the show was well run. Scotty Morrison is not the best interviewer, but he put forward a number of good questions and shied away from the disruptive style that other Maori interviewers like Willie Jackson and Julian Wilcox favour. Each candidate was given a fair go so credit to Scotty and the producers.

The debate started with a thirty second blurb from the main candidates. In my opinion none of them impressed. Same old, same old really. Kelvin stuck firmly to his successful Maori futures line, Solomon Tipene was better prepared but still underwhelming while Hone seemed to be winging it. The show then cut to a good piece by Jodi Ihaka outlining the problems facing Te Tai Tokerau including unemployment, underachievement in education and looming treaty settlements.

Each candidate was strong on treaty settlements. However, Solomon Tipene put his foot in it when he spouted the “out of grievance mode and into development mode” line. This is a political catchphrase – not a solution or, indeed, a statement with any meaning beyond the emotional.

Both Hone and Kelvin performed well on jobs. Kelvin put forward a number of tangible initiatives that will create jobs tomorrow while Hone was strong on getting people “work ready”. Kelvin was, in my opinion, stronger on jobs – as the Labour candidate should be.

Hone was easily the strongest on rangatahi. He pointed to his strong record creating initiatives like rangatahi radio. Kelvin made the pertinent point that society needs to create hope for rangatahi and belief in their abilities and potential.  

Hone was also strong on the 90 employment law illustrating his new found commitment to working class politics. Hone made the point that no worker, whether Maori or Pakeha, should have to work under such grossly unfair conditions. Hone was strong when he illustrated how unfair the law could be in practise.

I thought Kelvin dealt superbly with whether he is beholden to his party. He pointed out that Labour respects and listens too the Maori caucus. Hone finished the strongest when he said the first phone call he will be making on the day is to Tariana Turia and Pita Sharples. He explained that what is good for Maori is more important than personality politics. Solomon Tipene has also improved exponentially over the past few weeks. He is obviously a quick learner. 

They then cut to the panel with Rawiri Taonui and Ann Sullivan. Both commentators picked Hone as the winner with Taonui saying “Hone’s given a masterful performance” and Sullivan commending Hone as “the consummate performer”. Both praised the other candidates as well. Rawiri Taonui is picking Hone to win by 5% to 10% and also made the interesting comment that whoever wins Tai Tokerau will win Auckland. Rawiri also picked up and endorsed Hone’s line that a vote for Kelvin is a vote for Kelvin, but a vote for Hone is a vote for Hone and Kelvin.

Ultimately, I would give the debate/Q&A to Hone. He knew the issues, he had solutions and he spoke well off the cuff. Hone is a performer and he never fails to give the people a show. For a bit of laugh you can watch Hone here on 7 Days and here on the Jono Show. I guess this is part of a drive to soften Hone’s image. A very effective way to do so - genius almost - comedy is reliable way to endear yourself to others. I wonder if it’s enough though.   

Hone's still the favourite

I guess the big story this week was the Baseline/Native Affairs poll. The poll has thrown a spanner in the works and smashed previous perceptions of how close the byelection will be. Common wisdom held that Hone would cruise past Kelvin and make easy work of Solomon Tipene, however this may not hold true. Assuming the poll has any validity Hone may, in fact, lose. But therein lays the crux of the issue – does this poll have any validity? In my opinion, no.

It is notoriously difficult to poll Maori electorates. Maori, especially low-income Maori renters, are transient and do not and never have had access to a landline telephone. Often times when a polling company does manage to reach a Maori household the eligible voters are not interested in talking. Many of Hone’s supporters, read low income voters, would have been overlooked by this poll. Another significant bloc of Hone Harawira voters would have also passed unseen by this poll – young people. Horizon research finds that three times as many young people are without landlines compared to the general population. I think it is safe to assume this is even higher when you examine the rate for Maori young people. Another potential problem is if the polling company relied on directory listings only when gathering data. I know of a number of whanau who do not bother with the expense of listing their number in the white pages (when a white pages listing does not come with the connection). Apparently the poll only adjusted for age and sex sampling error, but not income level. The Tai Tokerau byelection will be an election voted along class lines. Therefore, it is crucial to correct any income level bias. A poll that does not account for differences in income is then, in my opinion, unreliable at best and invalid at worst. I tend to think I-predict, where Hone is listed as having a 60% chance of winning, is more accurate at the moment.

Considering the poll had such a prominent flaw, i.e. no adjustment for income level, it was interesting to see the Mana Party was on 21% support, the Maori Party on 25% and Labour on 36%. Solomon Tipene claimed during the debate that those results are an indictment against Labour. This is partially true, Labour continues to bleed support. Remember at the last election Labour gained around 50% of the Maori vote. However, most polls, for example the Te Karere Digi-Poll, place Labour at around 35% support and the Maori Party at around 35% support. If anything the Native Affairs poll is an indictment against the Maori Party who appear to have shed more than a few percentage points to the Mana Party.  

Overall, I do not think the poll is worthless, just unreliable. I think it provides a good indication of how the voters in TTT are leaning. Kelvin’s work on the ground appears to be paying dividends, albeit overstated dividends in my opinion. Support for the Maori Party is higher than expected – even in a flawed poll – and Hone may not enjoy the depth of support that I and others thought he enjoyed.

But enough about the polls, how are things going to turn out on the day?

Many commentators are making the odd claim that Labour can out campaign Hone on the ground. This is, frankly, outrageous. It is a safe assumption to make, but it ignores the fact that a bunch of fresh faced Labour activists from Wellington are not going to go down well in the North. These guys may have experience running Grant Robertson’s Wellington Central campaign and handing out flyers for Trevor Mallard in Wainuiomata, but they do not have experience with Maori people and Maori electorates. Hone Harawira can tap nothing short of several hundred activists in the North and even a few here in Wellington. Hone knows TTT better than anyone, he knows every Marae, every whanau and every pohara corner of his electorate. In other words he knows everyone. He knows how to communicate with these people and what they will respond to. He can put more people on the ground, he can out door knock Kelvin and he knows how to grab a headline – that is something Kelvin cannot do. Mana can deploy more people than Labour, that I can almost guarantee. What Mana cannot do is piggy back off general electorate branches, make phone calls on election day, utilise parliamentary staff and resources and generally spend as much as Labour. But this counts for nothing when you have hundreds of vehicles on the road ferrying whanau to election booths, it counts for nothing when you have as many billboards, flyers and other adverts as Kelvin Davis and it counts for nothing when you are the incumbent with a strong narrative and strong base to work from.

But it must be remembered that the poll has lit a fire under the arses of Mana supporters and activists as well as their Labour Party counterparts. Both sides will be going at it hard over the next week. The Mana camp will now be scared, after weeks of cruising. While Labour will sniff the scent of victory and throw every MP, staffer and activists they can at it – and rightly so. The byelection will be won on the ground and it is a competition between Matt McCarten, Unite and Hone’s diehard supporters and Labour’s Shane Phillips/Te Pou (Kelvin’s campaign manager I think) and the Labour Party machine.

Another factor at play is whether or not the Maori Party vote holds. If it does, Hone will win. If it does not, then it depends on what direction it transfers. The conservative vote will flow towards Kelvin, however the residual tino rangatiratanga vote will flow towards Hone. In terms of the Labour Party, tino rangatiratanga is subsumed and relegated within a broader agenda. However, in terms of Mana, tino rangatiratanga is overt and central to a larger agenda. Obviously, the conservative vote will favour Kelvin – Hone is the antithesis of conservatism. Remember to that the Tory in chief, John Key, in the most overt manner possible has endorsed Kelvin Davis. Not that I think his words will affect the outcome to a significant degree, rather it is an interesting directive to the few National Party voters in the North. I wonder if Kelvin really wants the Prime Ministers endorsement?  

A number of people have asked why the Maori Party put forward a candidate in the first place, and a weak one at that. I do not think I have commented on this before so I will hypothesise now. The Maori Party needed to perform a test run before the general election. They needed to determine how a three way race would play out. They needed to know whether it would really benefit Labour. Under the surface they will be hoping that it does. Hone Harawira is a greater threat to the Maori Party than Labour ever will be. Hone plays to the same base as the Maori Party and he is, quite successfully, sucking them dry. If Hone is eliminated the Maori Party can go back to acting as the de-facto voice for Maori and the de-facto Maori opposition. At the moment the Maori Party has to share that job with Hone and in some cases concede that the job belongs to Hone. Furthermore, if Hone is no longer an MP it is conceivable that he will not have a platform to work from and launch an attack on the other Maori seats – especially Waiariki and Tamaki Makaurau. I tend to think the Maori Party are quietly hoping that they scum enough of Hone’s vote to gift the seat to Kelvin.

I stand by my prediction that Hone will win. This is consistent with what the other leading Maori political commentators are saying as well. For example Rawiri Taonui, Tim Selwyn and Willie Jackson. Hone is attracting more support, even significant support from part of the Ratana church with the church offering to campaign for Hone. Ultimately, a vote for anyone but Hone is a wasted vote and a dumb vote. The voters are always right, no doubt about it, but the voters can be dumb. Vote Hone and you get Kelvin on the list as well. Vote Hone and you get a new political party and an energised movement that serves the interests of the marginalised. Vote Kelvin and you get Kelvin – no new movement serving the interest of Maori and non-Maori who are not served. You just get Kelvin. Which in itself is not a bad thing. Kelvin is a great guy and the new face of Maori in Labour. But you only get Kelvin. Voting Hone gives the voters of TTT the best of both worlds. You get Hone, Kelvin and a new political force. Maori are strategic voters, but they are easily led and manipulated by external forces as well. You can make a Maori believe a Maori stereotype if you reinforced it. I hope the people of Tai Tokerau don’t let the bullshit get in the way of voting for change, voting for someone genuine.

As an aside, just a small spiel on who won the debate. Hone did – hands down. He knew his lines and he spoke better ad lib. Kelvin stuck firmly to Labour’s line but did not perform so well when not. Hone was clearly more experienced in the situation and less reliant on soundbites. Solomon Tipene performed better than I expected, but clearly had no experience and was not prepared. Someone should have told him to avoid mentioning National too. It was hardly a debate I should add. More a Q and A session. Julian handled the situation well and managed to control some of the more enthusiastic supporters too. You can watch it here.  

Labour and the byelection

Labour is running a good attack line against Hone Harawira at the moment. From Waatea News:

Labour MP Shane Jones says voters in Te Tai Tokerau could be set to punish Hone Harawira for jumping out of the Maori Party waka.

Mr Jones says Labour's Kelvin Davis is starting to pick up momentum, even though Mr Harawira's is clearly the most well-known name in the race.

“I do think quite a few people on the ground, those we have spoken to over the telephone or bumped into n the street, keep reminding us that the north don’t like waka jumpers. They made Tau Henare suffer. They made Matiu Rata suffer. I think that Hone and his supporters are now starting to realise that he could end up copping most of the blame for jumping out of the Maori Party waka,” he says.

Prima facie, Shane is correct. However, the circumstances with Rata and Henare were quite different. Neither of them enjoyed the same depth of support that Hone enjoys. Hone Harawira can tap a deep well of support. He has a huge number of volunteers on the ground, including experienced activists, and he retains a significant personal following. The political circumstances were different as well. From what I know Rata did not have an experienced team behind him and he was up against a powerful political machine, meaning the Labour Party, in an FPP environment. Maori voters and Maori political operators were, at the time, politically naïve as well. Rata was a part of the first wave of Maori political consciousness. They lacked the experience and the knowledge to succeed electorally. Now Tau Henare's situation is straightforward. He basically disgraced himself. He was never going to win, partly because of disloyalty and partly because he is just an idiot. Hone’s move from the Maori Party was more a result of well founded dissatisfaction with the direction the Maori Party was, or is, taking. Many Maori accept this. On the other hand, Henare defected from New Zealand First for personal and internal political reasons – not because he felt Maori were heading in the wrong direction.

Obviously, I do not think Hone’s “waka jumping” is going to have a tangible effect on the outcome of the byelection. Hone speaks well to his electorate. Kelvin does as well, for sure, but he speaks better to Pakeha liberals I have always thought. I have outlined before why I think Hone will win and, for the most part, I still stand by it. If the Maori Party was still in favour among Maori, especially Maori in the North, then Hone’s waka jumping may have come into play. But this is not the case. The Maori Party is, to be polite, disliked. Hone has won the debate too – the Maori Party are thoroughly framed as sell outs. If anything Hone is respected for leaving the Maori Party on a matter, or matters, of principle.

Having said the above, Hone has admitted he has had to explain to some voters why he left the Maori Party. Perhaps Hone’s motives and the situation itself is not as well understood as I think. But I think by and large most voters have a faint idea or at least are familiar with the narrative that the Maori Party sold Maori out with the MCA Act, the GST increase and so on.

From what I have gleaned Kelvin Davis is on something of a roll. The Labour Party is behind him and he is a great candidate. However, the fact remains that the North is Hone’s fortress. In the comments thread of this post at The Dim-Post Graeme Edgeler notes that:

At the 2008 election, there were 299 polling booths in Te Tai Tokerau. Kelvin Davis beat Hone Harawira in 19 of them, 15 of those by three votes or less. His biggest win over Hone was at Karetu School in Kawakawa by 14 votes. Hone won 89 booths by more than 20 votes, including a few by more than 100 votes.

                                                                                         

The chances of Kelvin overturning this are slim at best. Another common argument that comes up re Kelvin’ ability to win is Labour’s ability to run get out the vote (GOTV) campaigns. Get out the vote campaigns are less effective in Maori electorates. Maori are disengaged and many Maori, especially in the far North and western side of the Tai Tokerau (not including West Auckland) do not have landlines. The spread of Maori electorates also makes it harder to out people on the streets. Unlike in general electorates it is impossible to have activists on every corner. Ultimately, getting Maori to the ballot booth will take far more than a few phone calls and pamphlets. Maori in the North will vote for the person they believe in. Not the party that called them on election day. Sure, Labour can focus on mobilising Labour voters only, but I tend to think the staunch Labour vote is shallow and Hone’s is deep, but, admittedly, apathetic.  

I also wrote in the thread at the time:

Labour resources are not extensive. They may have a few more activists willing to make phone calls etc on the day, a few senior campaigners may be willing to make the trip up and hand out flyers and direct strategy and one or two local Labour branches may help with resourcing e.g. deliveries, man-power etc. I do not think it will make much of difference. Harawira can leverage off of Unite and utilise an army of foot soldiers. His biggest weakness, in my opinion, is having no access to software where he can break down the electorate. Having said that he probably already knows the breakdown.

I stand by this. But I must note that the Party is pouring far, far more resources and time into the byelection than I would have thought. Certainly Labour realises that a win may give them the momentum they need in an election year. The momentum to reclaim the other Maori seats in fact. If Hone is out of the picture then Maori politics becomes a debate between the Maori Party and Labour. Although both parties lack credibility among Maori at the moment, Labour has stronger candidates in my opinion.

All credit to Kelvin though. He is focussing on the issues. However, my understanding is that Kelvin lacks the broad knowledge that Hone has on Maori issues. Kelvin tends to focus on education, his strong point, while neglecting issues like the foreshore and seabed where Labour is weak. From what I understand Hone has pounced on this issue and, given the way the Maori Party and Labour stuffed it up, is winning the issue hands down. Both Labour and the Maori Party have no credibility on the issue, but Hone does. The F&S is also one of the big issues among Maori at the moment. I cannot stress how much of a benefit it is to Hone to win the issue by default.  

I’m looking forward to the Te Tai Tokerau debate on Native Affairs this coming Monday. The debate is on Maori TV and runs from 8.30pm to 9.30pm. Hopefully good things come from the candidates and Maori TV offer some quality analysis.

So I guess I stand by my prediction that Hone will win, but Labour are making a good case. I’m looking forward to it.

Maori Party Tai Tokerau Candidates

This Wednesday the Maori Party will select a candidate to stand against Hone Harawira in Te Tai Tokerau (TTT). The following candidates have announced their intention to seek the Maori Party nomination:

• Mere Mangu
• Waihoroi Shortland
• Solomon Tipene

On paper, all three are strong candidates. All three whakapapa to Ngati Hine and Mangu and Shortland both link to Matawaia Marae. Perhaps the most interesting candidate is Mangu, a lawyer and retired army captain. Mangu ran as an independent in 2002 and 2005 polling second and third respectively. In 2002 Mangu outpolled Naida Glavish, a prominent Maori leader, while in 2005 Mangu managed to pull almost seven per cent of the vote. This is quite an achievement considering Mangu ran as an independent in both elections.

Shortland is best known as the host of Te Tepu on Maori TV and as “Weirdo” from the movie Boy. I think it is safe to assume that Shortland, as host of Te Tepu which is a Maori language current affairs show, has some understanding of politics and Maori politics in particular.

Solomon Tipene is the co-chair of the Maori Party’s Whangarei branch. Tipene is also involved with Ngati Hine’s treaty claim. As a Maori Party member and treaty negotiator Tipene is not a political newcomer.

Although I do not know how much support each candidate enjoys on the ground, I would tentatively select Mangu as the strongest candidate. Mangu is the only candidate with electoral experience. Although Shortland and Tipene have broader political experience, for example in political commentary, neither candidate possesses campaign experience. Mangu did well as an independent. Remember independent candidates do not have access to party resources, including activists and admin support, independents also lack association with an established brand, struggle to attract media attention and find it difficult to tap donors and volunteers. With this in mind Mangu’s achievements, especially in 2002, are respectable. Having said that, a certain amount of baggage comes with losing two times. But that aside, Mangu has campaign experience and, according to Maori Party vice-president Ken Mair, a “strong profile” on the ground.

Ultimately, I do not think it matters who the Maori Party selects. Hone Harawira will win and Kelvin Davis will poll second - assuming ceteris paribus. For my take on the byelection see this post.   

           

Will Parekura Horomia retire?

I think it is certainly plausible. Parekura has yet to confirm whether he will stand for re-election, either in Ikaroa-Rawhiti or on the list.

At the moment Parekura may feel somewhat undervalued and excluded. Parekura is the leader of the Maori caucus, the kaumatua of the Labour Party and, formerly, a successful cabinet minister and senior public servant. This demands a degree of respect. However, from what I have seen, Phil Goff is not treating Parekura with any respect.

Phil Goff is running Maori policy unilaterally. The Maori caucus is excluded, for example when Goff ruled out Hone Harawira, and undervalued, for example when Parekura was demoted. To top it all off Goff offended, in a deep way, the Maori caucus with his “Nationhood” speech. It is entirely conceivable that Parekura is feeling rather disillusioned.

We can probably take in wider factors as well. Parekura is, or is approaching, 60. Time is not on his side. After another electoral cycle he will be too old to explore life beyond politics, or at least it fair to assume so. And why tie yourself to a sinking ship? Labour is heading towards oblivion - is it worth staying to pick up the pieces?

Perhaps the strongest evidence that Parekura is contemplating retirement is his non-denial as to whether he will stand again. If you are standing – you’re standing – and there is little reason to have people suspect otherwise. However, if you are not standing, and you occupy a sensitive seat and sensitive position within the party, you make an announcement when the situation is favourable.

If Parekura does step down, it will be a bad look for Labour. It doesn’t look flash when a recently demoted MP decides to call it quits. But more importantly Labour will also struggle to retain Ikaroa Rawhiti. Parekura is, by all accounts, an excellent electorate MP and a personable guy. In 2005 and 2008 the Maori Party candidate did well, but did not come within striking distance. This, in my opinion, comes down to Parekura’s personal following in the electorate and, to a lesser extent, his tribal connections. However, if you deduct the personal following and whakapapa factor, Labour’s hold appears very tenuous. A strong Maori Party candidate could swing the vote.

Should Parekura retire, Shane Jones is ready to fill the void with Kelvin Davis at his side. Nanaia is stepping back, in the interests of her whanau, and good on her for doing so. Labour needs to rebuild and Parekura must decide whether he wants be a part of that. My opinion is, Parekura has done enough for Labour, better to step back on your own terms. But above all, It’s a new generations turn.  


UPDATE NOVEMBER 2011: Yes, I am a former staffer for Parekura. When I wrote this post I was not working for Parekura so this post isn't a piece of inside knowledge. As we know Parekura is standing for reelection and will probably win again.  

Breaking News: Hone's out

So Hone has just gone quietly. This is good. The last thing anyone wants to see at the moment is petty political bickering.

It appears that Hone and The Maori Party have come to a sort of mutual compromise. And I say sort of because I think the deal primarily benefits The Maori Party. Hone quits without fuss and rules out standing in any other Maori electorates, stressing that it is best for the party and him as an individual, while The Maori Party agrees not to stand a candidate against him. A pretty one sided agreement if you ask me.

This will have serious repercussions for The Maori Party. Firstly, they lose their principled voice. The only remaining sign of integrity and connection to ordinary Maori, especially rangatahi. The Maori Party is now a wholly complete corporate vehicle with a single ideological purpose. The Maori Party is unique in its ability to move between the left and right, the party’s ideological fluidity means they can form a government with either the left or right. However, with Hone gone it becomes very difficult for the party to move left and as result they lose their greatest strength. The party becomes rooted to the Nats.

Secondly, as Gordon Campbell puts it, Hone can now denounce the party as the “sell outs in Cabinet”. Its not like this theme needs to be cultivated either, it is already firmly rooted and Hone can now refine it by the day. If Hone does choose to do this the Maori Party will suffer enormous damage. The evidence is right there, Harawira just needs to highlight it. Easy.

Thirdly, The Maori Party has alienated their base. Te Tai Tokerau is fiercely loyal and they will not accept this result as fair (because it wasn’t). In the eyes of Te Tai Tokerau the way the party handled the entire process was nothing short of insubordinate. As a consequence membership will bleed heavily between now and ultimate defeat at the ballot box in November.

Shane Jones will now rate his chances, and rightly so. As I have said previously I think Pita enjoys a personal following rather than a political one. However, his affable persona has taken a huge hit. He has displayed a fair bit of rhetorical aggression towards Hone and at Waitangi he was exposed as double dealer by actively seeking a replacement for Hone. Not a good look.

Tariana is probably safe. Then again I do not know much about her seat.

Te Ururoa is probably safe, for now. At the moment blame is directed towards the leadership and to certain degree Pem Bird. Te Ururoa has managed to stay under the radar but that may change. I do not think he will lose his seat. Labour is standing Louis Te Kani, a local barrister, although I do not want to write him off I am yet to see or hear anything from him which is a bad sign. The election is coming and he cannot afford to begin his campaign late in the piece. Te Ururoa is vulnerable and he should be formulating a plan of attack.

Rahui will probably lose her seat as a mere reflex action. What has she done? Nothing. About the only thing I can remember is her stomach stapling operation and a quote she gave in a story about the GST rise. The people of Te Tai Tonga expect better. They deserve better.

Hone will romp home in Te Tai Tokerau. Kelvin Davis may as well not turn up. In the past few days Hone has been gifted two issues. The WWG report and the MCA bill. One is a bread and butter issue while the other touches everything it means to be Maori. Standing on these two issues alone Hone could probably court a few thousand Maori votes if he were to form a new party.

The Maori Party is cultivating a significant amount of distrust among their supporters and it will probably be fatal. Certainly this whole affair is turning off many non-aligned but sympathetic supporters. To be brutally honest I think the Maori Party has had it. Tino rangatiratanga is out the window and the corporates are in. There is no way the party can ride back into Parliament on the backs of one or two indigenous corporates. The party needs the people, the problem is the people just left with Hone.