Best Play of the Fortnight

The memorandum of understanding between the Greens and National is far more significant than people realise. Not only does it deliver some wins to both parties, it represents a step change in the body politic.

By signing this co-operation agreement, the two parties are sending out a message to the public which essentially is “Hey, this other party is not all bad, we just disagree on a lot of things”. This is a very different tone to the politics of the last few decades where parties have gone out of their way to vilify their opponents, and paint them as totally untrustworthy. By signing this agreement, National and the Greens are signaling they will reign in the rhetoric. They will still be disagreeing strongly on many issues, but don’t expect National Ministers to harp on about Keith Locke’s former support of certain unsavory regimes, as various Ministers have done in the past when he is asking questions in the House.

So why did the Greens and National sign the MOU, and what are the benefits and costs for each of them?

The answer is simple – it positions them both to gain more votes – at the expense of Labour.

The Greens are probably the biggest winner. Up until now, they have generally only been able to shop for votes to the left of Labour. But if in 2011 a National-led Government looks likely to be re-elected, the Greens are well positioned to appeal to centrist and undecided voters and say “If there is to be a National led Government, do you want it with more of a green tinge – we have demonstrated we can work with National to deliver and improve various environmental programmes”. This could easily gain them an extra 2% to 3%.

The Greens remain a party of the left, and no one should doubt that given a choice they will almost always install a Labour-led Government, over a National-led Government. However they are learning that loyalty to the left is not the same as being Labour’s lapdog. This deal has the Greens potentially taking votes from Labour, but more importantly makes it harder for Labour to portray National as mad right wing privatisers. So are the Greens being selfish or stupid, as accused by The Standard?

Nope, just pragmatic. I believe they have made two calculations. The first is that the Key led Government is unlikely to be a one term Government, and they want to gain some achievements, rather than merely rage in opposition. The second is that they risked dropping below 5% if in opposition they behave the same way as Labour and do not distinguish themselves adequately.

Finally, it is worth noting that the Greens have not actually made any concessions – it is almost all wins for them. They make no guarantees on any votes at all, and in return they get access to Ministers, officials, and budget bids for some pet projects. All they really give National in return is respectability.

Respectability is National’s big win. In a country with a strong environmental streak, being able to demonstrate you can work with the Greens on some environmental issues can only help attract and retain some swinging voter. It also makes it a lot harder for Labour to gain traction with its campaign that Key really is a nasty extreme right winger, when he has done voluntary agreements with both the Maori Party and the Greens.

Even worse for Labour, the National/Greens MOU includes the area of home insulation – the subject of Labour’s first major campaign. So just as Labour is gearing up to damage the Government for not doing more in this area, the Greens come along and do a deal with them to get budget funding for home insulation, which makes the Greens look like a party actually able to achieve things, and Labour a party simply of opposition.

Both National and the Greens get an A for the MOU. Something to watch out for, is the possible addition of extra projects or issues over time, as this co-operation catches on.

Worst Play of the Fortnight

Labour are playing a risky game with Maori issues. This week Clayton Cosgrove sounding like Don Brash on NZPA:

Labour law and order spokesperson Clayton Cosgrove accused Dr Sharples of promoting a separate Maori prison system and said victims needed to know perpetrators would be punished according to their crimes, not their race.

"A separate prison system may create second class victims. Is it the case that if you are attacked by a Pakeha the offender goes to prison, but if you are attacked by a Maori, your offender could end up flatting with their mates? How is that fair for victims?"

Dr Sharples responded that Cosgrove was being “stupid” and that what he was promoting was a small 60 bed unit that would be for inmates towards the end of their sentence to help their rehabilitation.Nothing to do with Maori offenders getting off lightly.

It was the first example we have seen of Labour trying to portray the National-led Government as “soft on Maori”. I suspect Cosgrove’s attack will have attracted disquiet within Labour – they still hold two of the Maori seats, and would like to win some of the others back.

Labour doesn’t know what to do about Maori issues. Does it portray the Maori Party as having sold Maori out to National or National having sold out to Maori radicals? It can’t do both, even though it is trying to. One example of its indecision, is that no one in Labour will give a clear answer as to whether or not they support the Royal Commission’s proposed three Maori seats on the Auckland Council.

Clayton Cosgrove gets a D for his blatant misrepresentation of an initiative to reduce Maori reoffending.

Scandal of the Fortnight

The Richard Worth issue just won’t go away. Last week there was the news that he used his Ministerial diplomatic passport to travel to India, rather than his private one – a breach of the Ministerial office handbook. And then this week, there are reports of him visiting the victim of an assault, where he knows the father of the assailant.

There is nothing wrong per se with an MP visiting a victim of crime. In fact many would say it is an excellent thing to do. But it gets murky when it is not one of your constituents, and when you have a link to the assailant. People start to wonder about motives. And once again there is a dispute over whether you were there as a Minister or as an MP.

This latter case is unrelated to the travel to India, and it is hard to see that the Prime Minister would or could sack someone for visiting a victim of crime. But this episode allows Labour to keep the spotlight on Worth, and they are confident there will be more stuff to come. After a while the details of the various alleged infringements will fade into a general perception of ill judgment.

Labour get a B+ for keeping this issue alive. Interestingly their main allies appear not to be the left wing blogs, but some of the right wing blogs (not Kiwiblog) who have been pushing the taxi driver story along, and calling for Worth to go.