Ratana revolt

Ratana Minister Kereama Pene has called for the church’s followers to abandon the Labour party. Only three Labour candidates have connections to the church - Soraya Peke-Mason, Rino Tirikatene and Louis Te Kani. None will be elected to Parliament on Labour’s current polling unless they win an electorate seat.

The Ratana church has always been politically active and Ratana members always vote. Labour’s historical monopoly on the Maori seats and the Maori party vote was in no small part due to Ratana support. The church is currently comprised of around 60,000 members. The Labour Party cannot afford to play fast and loose with such a significant electoral bloc. If Labour continues to ignore the church, i.e. take their support for granted, then the party will open the door for Hone Harawira. Hone is already poised to savage the Maori Party vote and if Labour continues to treat the Maori vote with casual disregard they can expect the same. Maori have genuine political alternatives in the Greens, Hone Harawira, the Maori Party and to a lesser extent New Zealand First. Labour cannot act like they still enjoy a monopoly over the Maori vote – the party has to work for it now.

Having said that, Ratana is not as strong as it once was. The church claims some 60,000 members. I tend to think this is an inflated claim. Ratana is certainly a significant electoral force, but only when they vote as a cohort. I do not believe the church votes as one anymore. The faith is no longer as strong and Maori, as a people, are generally more questioning of their leaders. The Ratana faithful will not take the words of their leaders as law and vote accordingly. They will, in most cases, vote as free thinking individuals.

To be honest Pene appears to be having a sook. And an unjustified one at that. Pene ignores the fact that Louisa Wall is currently a sitting MP and will almost certainly return next year. Rino Tirikatene will probably snatch Te Tai Tonga and Louis Te Kani has a chance in Waiariki. So that is one certain (Wall), one probable (Tirikatene) and one possible (Te Kani). Not bad if you ask me.  

h/t Imperator Fish

O'Connor on Labour

I am not particularly impressed with Damien O’Connor’s comments, but I do see where he is coming from. This from Stuff.co.nz:

O'Connor said he stood aside because he did not trust the list ranking process. ''Frankly, I didn't trust the system to give a straight-shooter a fair deal ... It is dominated by self-serving unionists and a gaggle of gays.'' 

He would not name individuals, but said he was disappointed the system did not deliver better results for rural and provincial candidates, such as himself, who were outside the party's power blocs. 

''It does not truly represent the rank-and-file members and delivers a list that is not truly representative of those who vote Labour.'' 

The list selection process is largely predetermined. Each delegate goes into the process with clear instructions from their region, union or branch, for example the women’s branch. The party ensures each delegate is aware of the hierarchy’s expectations and each delegate is encouraged to vote accordingly. Simply put, the process is a sham. Each delegate backs their own man/woman without considering what is good for the party. Wider political considerations are secondary to personal political agendas.

The process rewards insiders, for example Deborah Mahuta-Coyle, who can gather support within the upper echelons of the party. The process penalises grassroots members who cannot court the support of the parliamentary leadership or the party establishment. It is a recipe for elitism.

The list is, without a shadow of a doubt, unrepresentative of those who vote Labour. The homosexual community and the urban liberal bloc are overrepresented, the Indian and Pacific communities are underrepresented and the so called “straight shooters” are near non-existent. The number of Maori on the list is satisfactory.

I grew up in provincial New Zealand where jokers like Damien O’Connor win votes by the booth. A New Zealand where city folk like Grant Robertson and David Cunliffe lose votes. Labour values are respected in the provinces, but Labour faces are derided. That is an oversimplification, but it holds true nonetheless. If Labour wants any show in heartland New Zealand the unions and the rainbow bloc need to need to move beyond their own personal agendas. The list selection process needs to be put in the hands of ordinary members.

Admittedly, O’Connor’s comments were “a bit redneck” and poorly timed. Labour does not need this sort of controversy. The government is quite possibly at its most vulnerable, but once again Labour mucks it up.