Now, the notion that people are unemployed because they're on drugs is not a new concept to the national political lexicon. We've heard it before, quite a number of times. In fact, it even became such a serious concern that then-Social Development Minister Paula Bennett instituted mandatory drug-testing for beneficiaries thought to be out of work for this reason.
In order to find out what, we need to ask ourselves two questions.
First up, why do some employers seem to have a preference for immigrant labour; and second, why the Government is continually content to airbrush reality and attempt to present the ongoing importation of tens of thousands of people a year as something of an economic necessity.
The answer to the first question is, regrettably, quite simple. Less scrupulous employers want to take on migrant labour rather than employ Kiwis, in the main, because the former are far more readily exploitable than the latter.
Now obviously, this will not be the case in all instances. The Skilled Migrant category of immigration exists precisely because we've long recognized that on occasion it is more desirable to bring in somebody with a needed skill, rather than waiting the potential months or years for a Kiwi to either upskill or otherwise become available for the position.
But it has become painfully apparent of late that under this Government, the immigration system is not being used just to plug vital gaps in our workforce - but instead, as part of a calculated and cynical effort to keep pay and conditions down in a number of workplaces and industries.
Are we really to be expected to believe that amongst the tens of thousands of New Zealanders unemployed and looking for work on any given day ... that there weren't a few dozen people already here who could have performed the enormously complex task of operating a supermarket checkout?
I think not.
So what makes a migrant worker on a (temporary) visa more valuable to an employer than an equivalent Kiwi?
Simple. The New Zealander doesn't have the threat of fairly immediate deportation hanging over them if they should happen to do anything to incur their employer's displeasure. So if you're after a workforce you can pay less, feasibly expect to be less likely to unionize, and who won't get 'uppity' about little things like unpaid over-time or being denied their breaks ... why WOULDN'T you hire from offshore.
The evidence is pretty clear. It isn't just a matter of employers hiring migrant workers rather than Kiwis - the Damoclean sword of being able to insta-deport large chunks of your workforce is also being used by some businesses to mercilessly drive down pay and conditions in some sectors of our economy.
Which leads us on to the next question. Why is the Government seemingly OK with this?
First part of the answer's easy. Lower wages help to keep a lid on inflation; and National has not for some decades been anything like a friend to Unions or the average worker. Some big corporates being able to rake in higher profits thanks to their lower-cost workforces certainly won't hurt, either - particularly if they later 'return the favour' by making donations to the National Party's coffers.
But I also think there's more going on here than initially meets the eye. It's no secret that New Zealand's economic growth rates have been comparatively sluggish. Despite all of the hype and spin about National being "the party of business", and the occasional high-profile success story; for the most part, the only seriously growing sector of the New Zealand economy is the property market. A market which, incidentally, can only benefit by rapidly adding more people whilst only veeerrrryyyy sloooooowwwwllllyyyy increasing the number of houses to domicile them in. Which is certainly good for upper-middle-class National voters who are on the property-ladder already (and thus able to borrow ever more against the increased value of their portfolios in order to fund a lavish lifestyle, or net incredible returns by rapidly flipping property for huge capital gains), and never mind about anyone else.
And there's also the matter of the cash which several classes of migrant are required to bring in with them representing a paper gain for the New Zealand economy.
So why is the Government really allowing unprecedented numbers of foreign-born workers to come to New Zealand? It seems to be because doing so serves their long-term economic objectives. An easy form of delusory "growth" (which never seems to take into account the additional costs of a rapidly expanding population requiring greater service expenditure), and a few favours to their corporate mates.
But this doesn't exactly sound great in a press conference. So instead of being truthful about their priorities, our Government instead insists upon laying down a fulminating barrage of falsehood designed to appeal to the prejudices of the middle classes. After all, who's an easier and more "legitimate" target for moral outrage than drug users. How better to make the moral fault for being unemployed that of the beneficiary rather than that of the economic system and its neoliberal presiding overlords. And how else to effectively silence the qualms of Middle New Zealanders worried about the potential futures of our young people ... than by blatantly projecting into the public political consciousness the idea that drug addiction, rather than migratory flows and other policy-settings are why our kids can't get jobs in a supermarket.
I don't blame nor begrudge foreign folk wanting to come here, make their contribution and in exchange receive the benefits of a better life here in New Zealand. But it seems hard to overlook the fact that some employers - seemingly actively supported in this by the Government - are obviously intent upon using them in a way that's detrimental to both foreign and domestic-sourced labour.
It cannot be allowed to continue. And while it's certainly an interesting change of pace for "drug addiction" rather than "racism"to be the officially designated Nat red-herring on this issue, about the only positive from this shift is that at least the recent claim is more easily statistically refutable.
Disclaimer: I can't actually vote for Joe on Saturday, because I don't live in the relevant electorate.
But if I did, I'd have pretty much no hesitation in casting my ballot in his direction, rather than for one of the more 'major' parties presently showboating for your attention in that there seat.
The reasoning is simple.
I want Labour to run 'to the left' of where they were in 2014 - both because I'm sick of quasi-center-right warmed-over neoliberalism masquerading as progressive economic policy ... but also because I genuinely believe that moving to the left will help Labour's prospects later this year in September.
This might seem somewhat counterintuitive. After all, a pretty strong swathe of New Zealanders - and, for that matter, much of Labour's own support-base - self-identify as being "centrist". The 'received wisdom' thus suggests that in order to win elections, parties must basically push themselves as "National-lite", and eschew anything which might possibly look like a proper progressive economic agenda.
Except this doesn't work. Partially because it's really surprisingly difficult to 'out-National' National (not least because National is literally the most popular party the MMP era has ever seen), but also because attempts to hedge in on 'their' territory almost inevitably seem to wind up alienating those same crucial 'swing' voters in the self-described political 'center'.
We saw this at the last Election. For some inexplicable reason, Labour's headline policies were things like raising the retirement age in the name of fiscal sustainability, and slapping on the Capital Gains Tax which Bill English earlier wanted to do. All in some sort of quixotic pursuit of surplus - an enthusiasm so overweaning that the party wound up ditching other policies like its eminently sensible (because it was NZF-inspired) free doctor's visits for over-65s in order to bring said Surplus forward by a few months.
The Young Nats were cheering! And not just because they had front-row seats to Labour's electoral collapse. Instead, it was at least partially because they were FINALLY getting to see a major party advance the more extreme elements of their neoliberal agenda.
What was the net effect of all of this?
24.9%, if I recall.
Worst Labour electoral result in a century, thanks to working class voters deserting the party for the far more overtly left-wing (economically) New Zealand First, and activists and middle-class voters heading away in the direction of the Greens.
So having identified the problem ... how do we get them to change course?
Simple. Convince them there's actual votes in it.
One way by which we can do this is by putting our support behind more left-wing candidates, causes and political parties.
Jacinda Ardern or Julie-Anne Genter winning strong shares of the Mt Albert vote won't send a message. The electorate's been regarded as a 'safe' Labour seat for something like 70 years (i.e. since its inception in 1946), so Labour doing well there in this by-election doesn't change a thing. The Greens, meanwhile, came only a little more than two thousand votes behind Labour for Party Vote at the last Election - so as I said, a Greens result of strongness would also be expected - and thus not make much impact upon Labour's strategic decision-making.
But one thing that WOULD dent their confidence on the 'centrist' course, would be if an appreciable percentage of turnout in this week's by-election were for a demonstrably 'left of center' candidate.
The further left, the better.
Enter Joe Carolan.
Now, it's no secret that in some of his previous incarnations, Joe's been about as far left as it's possible to be within our political spectrum before you start building barricades and re-enacting select scenes from Les Miserables. (And, in fact, that's pretty much where I first met him about a decade ago when we were both vaguely connected to the ill-fated NZ iteration of the Socialist Worker Party)
But many of the core policies he's running on in Mt Albert aren't particularly extreme. Instead, they're "we can see it from here" extensions of directions that parties like NZ First and The Greens - and yes, even Labour - have already begun moving down. More importantly, they've got core kernels of a vital political commodity I like to call "Common Sense".
There is nothing controversial about advocating for a Living Wage; or a substantial State Housing building program. Who could argue against ending the ongoing rort of so-called "Council Controlled Organizations", opposing the TPPA - or making rents, public transport and tertiary education more affordable. I'm also fairly certain that just about everyone agrees that our present unemployment regime isn't working, and that far more could be productively done to make use of - and give a leg up to - workers presently out of a job. [As it happens, this was flagship NZF policy announced two years ago]
Indeed, the only thing remarkable about some of these policies (apart from the extent to which Joe's willing to push both them and the [Overton] envelope) is the way in which some parties still steadfastly refuse to see the light and do something about them.
A strong showing for Carolan in Mt Albert would certainly help to encourage Labour to become more strident about serious solutions to these - and other - issues that might help to connect them with the winnable voters they so desperately need if they are to form Government after the next Election.
So that's pretty much the 'strategic' case for voting for Joe.
But there are also some pretty good, strong and entirely free-standing reasons to consider giving him your support.
If you've been following the reprehensible saga of the suffering Indian students whom New Zealand so cruelly wants to deport ... well ... you might have noted the bearded chap who's been at pretty much every one of that campaign's events. Indeed, who's done a helluvalot of organizing to try and help out these people in need. Because that's what Joe does. He isn't some sort of "online armchair revolutionaries" we've heard so much about of late. In both his day-job as a committed Union organizer, and his personal and political lives outside of that, he puts his principles into practice and does his best to help others.
You could certainly do far worse than entrusting Joe with your vote if you wanted to take the 'principled' rather than merely 'strategic' route of reasoning.
Yet in this by-election, given the near-certainty of Labour sleepwalking to victory anyway ... there doesn't have to be a dissonance between "principle" and "pragmatism". You're free to both vote how you want, and in a way that will hopefully have a positive effect on the overarching strategy and positioning of the later General Election.
Now obviously, I don't necessarily agree with everything which Joe's advocating. But I've seen enough of both him and what he's advocating to know that his candidacy is an ideal place to make a stand on principle.
And perhaps, just maybe, forcibly reinject some actual POLITICS (and, for that matter, proper principle) into this otherwise boring (and arguably technocratic) "by-election" process.
What if I told you that Labour has walked into a trap in Mt Albert?
Specifically, a most excellent trap of National's own devising.
You'd probably shoot me a somewhat incredulous look. Mt Albert, as the received wisdom goes, is a safe Labour seat - so safe, in fact, that National's not even standing a candidate there. Apart from a minimum modicum of expended campaign-funds, what possible detriment could Labour incur by winning in the Mt Albert by-election to be held later this month?
Well, the answer doesn't exactly lie inside Mt Albert.
Consider the way this by-election's caused Labour to re-arrange its battle-lines and formation going into 2017.
Are there any 'key' battleground electorates which are now presently bereft of a Labourite candidate-champion as the directly attributable result of what's happening in Mt Albert?
If you answered "Auckland Central", then you're bang on the money. (Or, should I say - "the McCully")
National has always known that its hold over Auckland Central has been a pretty flimsy one. Nikki Kaye has worked tremendously hard to first take the seat off Labour in 2008 - and then to hold it via a series of razor-thin majorities.
But hard work isn't an iron-clad guarantee of continued success in politics, and the risk was that through a combination of a slight swing against the Government (as the late-2016 poll trends appeared to suggest, alongside concerns that Bill English's more socially conservative style might be less popular with Auckland Central voters) and the net effect of an incumbent candidate who's recently suffered a rather scary health complication ... well ... a six hundred vote margin of victory appears to have been perceived as too tight to be a sure thing. Particularly in this new environment wherein Labour-Greens strategic co-operation might actually have resulted in something half-way intelligent like the Greens candidate standing aside in order to give Jacinda Ardern a clear run at Kaye. (A notion which, had it come to fruition, could possibly have counterbalanced the detrimental effect on Labour's vote of its Grey Lynn supporters being rezoned into Mt Albert with the change of electorate boundaries)
Now, as it happens, some of these concerns have since been nullified. National's polling appears to have rallied, and Bill English's elevation to the Prime Ministerial heights doesn't appear to have dented the Government's credibility nor popularity with just about anyone (in fact, it's starting to appear quite the contrary). Alongside this, the Greens and Labour are once again set to compete against one another in the seat (with Denise Roche having just recently won her selection battle against newcomer Chloe Swarbrick; and Labour having closed off nominations for the seat but not yet announced a candidate) - although I would be inordinately surprised if Ardern's successor in Auckland Central comes anywhere close to her vote-tally.
But at the time that this 'trap' was being constructed and set, these things were not known. Indeed, many signs seemed to point towards the 'uphill battle' scenario for National which I outlined above - in which a focused Ardern, supported by non-vote-splitting Greens, and up against a debilitated Kaye, would carry the seat. Given the knife-edge majority which the Government looked set to be on ... but a single electorate seat could have made all the difference.
Oh, and lest you think I am facetiously playing up the idea of Kaye not being able to put in the same level of campaign effort which just barely won her the seat last time around due to her illness ... I'm not. In her first major interview of the year, she states exactly that - candidly noting that she "won't be able to" replicate her previous on-the-ground effort. And there's no shame in that (indeed, quite the opposite for being open, up-front and honest about it) - but given this is her several months on (in terms of healing and reinvigoration) from the point at which these plans were made, you can well understand why National's backroom strategists were feeling quite nervous about her seat at the time. Particularly if she were to be up again against her old adversary, Ardern.
So with all of that in mind, if Auckland Central's status as a (tenuously) blue seat was to be protected, then something would have to be done. Specifically, something to excise Ardern from her long-standing candidacy there - on the assumption that a fresh (and presumably novitiate) Labour candidate wouldn't come nearly as close to beating Kaye as Jacinda had done previously, even with potential Green Party non-standing help. (I have my own private thoughts as to whether Denise Roche would have been likely to stand aside if asked, but that's another matter entirely)
Enter Murray McCully.
Now, at the moment he's known to most as our Foreign Minister - but inside beltway circles, he's long been given a different descriptor. In specia, National's "Minister of Dirty Tricks". This is because, when it comes to coming up with *ahem* "alternative" means for securing desired political/psephological outcomes ... McCully's something of an evil genius.
But he's also the Foreign Minister, and has presided over New Zealand gaining a fairly strong degree of prestige and renown at the U.N. over the last few years. Admittedly, we don't have the world's first female General Secretary - but, as you cannot help but have noticed, we DO suddenly have a New Zealander gearing up to receive his appointment as the head of the UN's mission in South Sudan.
I wonder how that could have happened...
Most explanations hinge around McCully leveraging the influence of his position (and therefore New Zealand's position on the world stage) in order to have David Shearer given a reasonable shot at the aforementioned top UN job. What a stroke of luck that New Zealand just happens to be on the Security Council when one of its own favoured sons is being put forward for a Security Council-appointed position. And, to be fair, it's not a role for which Shearer is entirely unqualified - he's got an impressive backstory, long-standing ties to the UN, and (going on the strength of the previous two points) may well have made for a better 'in-the-field' type than he did a politician. (We can also make the usual jokes about how dealing with fratricidal factions in pretty much open warfare is an apt summation of the state of the modern Labour Party - so even notwithstanding his experiences in Iraq, it would appear he's got some potentially directly relevant experience. Another instance of a formerly bright MP deciding that 'Saving The World' is likely to be far easier than 'Saving The Modern Labour Party', either way)
Encouraging Shearer to take an early retirement from his 'safe' electorate seat created a vacancy - and, as in the rest of nature, politics abhors a vacuum. Somebody would have to fill the void created by a departing Shearer.
Enter Jacinda Ardern.
Ardern is, quite clearly, ambitious (which, as I've previously remarked, is not necessarily a sin in a politician - indeed, its absence would seem to constitute a most marked character flaw); and as somebody talked about as a potential future leader for the Labour Party, there is an obvious symbolic importance to both being able to win one's seat ... and, for that matter, perhaps to holding *that* seat in particular (i.e. Mt Albert specifically). It was, after all, 'Aunty Helen's old seat - as well as providing the springboard for another Labour MP to take the Party Leadership (specifically, the one presently departing for the Sudan).
To add impetus to her decision, National made sure Ardern knew she'd have a fight on her hands if she remained in Auckland Central by having Nikki Kaye make a well-publicized return to Parliament late last year (about two days before news of Shearer's impending departure was picked up by the media). They deliberately made sure she looked "fighting-fit" and enthusiastically energized for the task ahead - also signalling that she'd be taking over the high-workload Education portfolio in the very near future in order to help complete the impression of strength. (After all - you wouldn't give such a crucial portfolio in an Election Year to somebody who's anything less than brimming with capacity, now would you)
It has also been suggested that the news of Shearer's 'move sideways' by about fifteen thousand kilometers was then deliberately leaked into the media two days later on McCully's orders. The idea with that was to carry out a conventional 'carrot and stick' approach on Ardern. First, the 'stick' of facing a strong foe was deployed (in concert with the likelihood of Ardern's vote anyway being under threat due to the boundary change) - then the 'carrot' of an easily obtainable (and 'storied') Safe Seat was dangled.
And, as we have seen, Ardern straight-up went for it. Eschewing the notion of in-depth trench-warfare in one of the country's lead battleground electorates for her own (arguable) long term ambitions. And, in the process helping National to most likely outright win a seat that had previously been under threat - all without the proverbial shot being fired. They don't even have to stand a candidate in Mt Albert in the by-election to try and fight Ardern there. And why would they - they want this 'transition' of Ardern into Albert to be as easy and painless as possible.
What National have cleverly done here, is they've made use of the ancient military principle of - where possible - getting the terrain (and the nature of your opponent for that matter) to do the fighting for you.
Labour has gained - and will gain - nothing from re-arranging their forces in the aforementioned way. National gains something of quite considerable importance - the pressure off in a much-watched battleground seat, and of an MP of theirs whose reputation they rather want kept in tact.
All things considered, the best summation of this that I've yet heard comes from an associate:
Waitangi Weekend featured, as predicted, a controversial candidate announcement as part of a political resurrection. Fortunately for my hopes, it was Willie Jackson's spot in the limelight rather than a ... certain other figure. Although it did strike me as somewhat surprising that there was so much opprobium and opposition to the gentleman in question returning to politics with the Labour Party.
Well, for starters he'll help to counter Labour's "profile problem". Few people could probably name anyone outside of Labour's front bench. Fewer still would have actually seen or heard them through popular media in recent weeks. Leaving aside the level of media attention which Jackson's announcement has attracted this weekend, for most of hte last decade and a half he's been a familiar voice for hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders via his broadcasting ventures. And while this also evidently provides a potential supply of ammunition for his detractors (both within and outside his own party), one could argue that in the desperate situation Labour now finds itself - such a strong public profile for a candidate is not something to be sneezed at.
But the area where he will most prominently have featured in Labour's electoral machinations is Maori politics. It's no secret that Labour is presently on-edge and cold-sweating about its prospects in the Maori seats and with Maori voters. On paper, it looks to be in a strong position - holding six out of seven Maori seats, some of them by comparatively wide margins. But in reality, the looming tidal wave of a MANA-Maori electoral compact to 'take back the Maori Seats' has them seriously worried. In Te Tai Tokerau especially, there will be no Kim Dot Com to weigh down Harawira this time. And in a number of other seats, the combined total of MANA and Maori Party votes well exceed Labour's majorities - certainly, well enough that the chance cannot be taken that some MANA voters might instead choose to back Labour if their own party's candidates are pulled. (The Greens, incidentally, are probably not going to be helping on this score; seeing as they're already announcing candidates for a number of the Maori Seats, which will only serve to split the Labour vote further)
Before the weekend's announcement, it was widely rumoured that he'd put his name forward for Tamaki Makaurau with the Maori Party. No disrespect to Labour's Peeni Henare, but most projections had Jackson doing seriously well and quite probably taking the seat. By bringing Jackson onboard with its own waka, Labour have effectively neutralized a pretty big threat to one of their precious electorate seats. What was that Sun Tzu quote about the best way to defeat an enemy being to make him a friend instead?
He may also help Labour to bolster its support amongst Maori via attracting party votes, as well.
But there are also other considerations to be made.
One element to Jackson's political persona which I don't think I've seen anybody comment on just yet, is how close he is with Winston Peters. I mean seriously close.
This is vitally important. If Labour and the Greens want to form a non-National government after this year's Election, they are going to have to work out some way to reach an accommodation with New Zealand First. Linkages with Winston which he'll hopefully listen to are absolutely imperative if this is to happen.
In addition to this, Jackson's background as an Alliance MP may indicate that he could play a role in helping to keep the modern Labour Party 'to the left'. In an age of public embarrassment due to its representatives doing bone-headedly "principled" things like choosing to vote for the TPPA .. that could be no small thing.
So with all this in mind, why are such a number of 'lefty' people across social media and elsewhere so blatantly unexcited about his candidacy?
Well, a good number of them will have seen and taken their lead from fellow Labourite Poto Williams' bringing back up of Jackson's comments during the Roastbusters travesty. While it's generally agreed upon that John Tamihere was by far the worse offender in that sad incident, critics can also point to words of Willie's which have also caused offence. And, in any case, due to both a perception that "where Willie goes, J.T. goes too" and the fact that it was a joint show ... it's not hard to see why even Jackson's apologies over the matter for what he personally said have failed to sway some opponents.
We demand high standards of both sensitivity and empathy from our elected representatives. I can well see why hard questions have been asked from various quarters of Jackson over this.
But as it happens, I also think there are other drivers for 'lefty' opposition to Jackson.
Foremost among these, from what I've seen, are concerns from Greens supporters that some of Jackson's previous rhetoric in their direction might cause problems for a harmonious Labour-Greens relationship. Personally, I think that a Red-Green Prospective Coalition has far bigger issues facing it this year than what one of the Red party's newly-minted candidates might have said about the Green partner in his past life as a broadcaster ... but the perception is nonetheless there that Jackson's candidacy is a bit of a flick in the ear for the Green Party.
Alongside this are the customary jibes about being a "party-hopper" or an "opportunist" which emit from other quarters of the electorate. And yes, it's certainly true that a decade and a half ago Jackson was part of another party. One which is truly dead and buried, and which has seen a not insignificant number of its former glittering diamonds saddle up for Labour - whether motivated by shining idealism or a less lustrous personal ambition.
But I suspect that objections based around Jackson's previous pedigree may have less to do with any idea that his political principles are 'fungible' enough to see him fit into a number of parties (the Maori Party which he was snatched from, as an obvious example).
Instead, some folks out there have looked at what's been going on in Labour for the last wee while. Things like Matt McCarten running strategy for Labour as Andrew Little's Chief of Staff (a function which he appears to have at least partially kept even if he no longer holds the official role). Or Laila Harre rejoining Labour and potentially considering contesting a seat. Or, as we've seen this weekend, Willie Jackson turning up on the Labour Party's List.
The common denominator for these three figures, of course, is that they're all Ex-Alliance.
And there are a number of people amidst Labour who have never really forgiven The Alliance for existing. Let alone breaking away from Labour, pointing out Labour's troublesome neoliberal legacy for much of the 1990s, attempting to replace them as the leading 'left-wing' party, reducing Helen Clark to tears during the Taranaki-King Country by-election, and all the rest of it.
If I were a slightly paranoid and seriously pretentious Labourite member, I'd presently be jabbering about an impending "Alliance-party" takeover of my beloved quasi-neoliberal vehicle, with a purported view to setting up a sequel to their now-mummified party. And I'd be throwing up mad shade in an attempt to act as a circuit-breaker.
But that's just a theory - albeit one based upon previous conversations.
In any case, while there are good and solid reasons for Labour to put Jackson forward as a candidate, many of these seem to have been lost recently amidst the rush-to-recondemn from some on the left.
Regardless of the rightness or otherwise of such an impulse, there are other factors to be taken into consideration as applies Jackson's candidacies. Factors which the Labour Party, sorely hard-pressed as it is, may be in dire need of being the beneficiary.
Foxholes under artillery bombardment are perhaps not the right place for overwrought moral purists.
This has not been an easy piece for me to write. Watching in mounting horror as somebody - or something - you love and care deeply about gears up to do something self-destructive is never easy. And yet, that's the apparent position which quite a few of us dedicated New Zealand Firsters appear to be in right now.
Unless you've been living on the dark side of the Moon for the past few years, you'll most likely be aware of the swirling rumours that Shane Jones intends to mount a Parliamentary comeback at this year's Election with New Zealand First. The media have consistently been reporting this notion for much of the last two years, in line with tips disseminated by a certain figure in NZ First's Leader's Office. And, for that matter, supported by things seen with their own eyes - Jones appearing with Winston at the latter's Northland victory party, for instance; or Jones' now-wife acting as Winston's campaign manager for the same race.
But up until relatively recently, I was mostly content to dismiss speculation of Jones' political necromancy as being empty media stirmongering. A sensationalist impulse looking for a story's spine to shiver up. And not least because it appeared so self-evidently stupid for NZ First to even think about running Jones as a candidate.
That all changed late last month when I received independent confirmation from a number of different directions of Jones gearing up to announce his (NZF) candidacy. This was initially pegged to take place in somewhere around two months' time - i.e. at or after the contract-period of his South Pacific Ambassadorship ran out (due to its strictures on political neutrality).
However, possibly in reaction to a growing chorus of disquiet within NZ First over Jones (which, I confess, I've played a certain role in stoking), it was then stated that the date had been moved forward. Most probably to the annual Waitangi Day BBQ which Jones holds every year at his property in Northland. Now, at this point I must reiterate that this date for the announcement - February the 4th - is not certain. It's based on good information from highly placed sources who are usually solidly reliable. But as with everything concerning the upper echelons of NZ First, secrecy and subterfuge are draped like a fine double-breasted suit. In any case, even if we don't see fireworks this weekend (either on the 4th or the 6th) - April (the other and perhaps more conservative date mooted) is not far away.
That's why this week has seen a fulminating flurry of frenetic activity from quite a number of people within NZ First. We feel that the clock is counting down on this matter, and we're anxious to ensure our voices are heard by Party decision makers. To that end, many of us have been writing letters to the Party's Board of Directors requesting that they either i) clarify that Jones' candidacy is not happening; or, ii) take into consideration our rather negative perspectives on him when making the determination under s44(a) of the Party Constitution as to whether not he'll be allowed to stand as a candidate. [Jones, for what it's worth, is not - as far as anybody seems to be aware - an actual Party member, and would require special Board dispensation in order to put his name forward for candidacy under the aforementioned section]
We can but hope that Democracy in New Zealand First wins out.
And that we don't find ourselves in a situation arguably similar to that of the Democratic Party over in the U.S. - wherein the 'rules' were bent by decision-makers in order to turn the selection of a questionable candidate about whom serious concerns were percolating ... into something of a fait accompli. That candidate's name was, of course, Hillary Clinton. And, in no small part, this is how we got President Trump.
With New Zealand First about to have an absolute watershed year at the Election in September, it would be a damn shame if the Shane Jones sideshow were to imperil our chances. We've already had a number of people write in to tell us that they'll be seriously reconsidering their support if Jones is put forward on our List.
And to be honest, who can blame them. A cursory examination of Jones' political record would appear to suggest that he's anything but a good fit for New Zealand First.
New Zealand First has long stood against cosy backroom deals - which, in this instance, bordered on corruption; and is eponymously associated with demands to clean up immigration. Jones' actions while holding a Ministerial Warrant fairly directly tied to one of NZF's hot-button issues were straight-up inimical to what we as a Party stand for.
Toward the end of his Labour career, he broke with his Caucus-mates (and, for that matter, the rest of the Opposition) to take a cautious stand in favour of Asset Sales. But only, you understand, provided that it benefited Maori corporate entities.
Again, a diametrically opposed stance to that which New Zealand First so resolutely believes in, on all fronts.
On top of this, the way Jones exited his previous party may prove sadly instructive for his likely relationship with a new one. Shortly after his surprisingly successful attempt at securing political rehabilitation following the damaging "Minister for Porn" scandal [which, for the record, I haven't elsewhere mentioned both because I accept that it was an honest mistake - and, perhaps more importantly, because there are other far more serious grounds to skewer Shane on], he found himself 'headhunted' by National to take up a bespoke diplomatic posting. National's reasoning here was quite simple - Jones represented one of the few prominent MPs within Labour to be perceived as able to 'reach out' to the working class/Waitakere Man voter; and thus, in National's view, had to be neutralized in order to keep Labour at a reeling electoral disadvantage.
This, they did by luring Jones out of Parliament with the promise of what amounted to an all-expenses-paid three year holiday in the South Pacific. Jones took National up on their offer - abandoning the party which had made him first an MP and then a Minister in what some might argue was their hour of direst need. Certainly, his actions directly contributed to Labour reaping its worst electoral result in a century later that year.
Can New Zealand First really trust him to remain loyal when Labour could not? What about his relationship with National? Will he be an 'enemy agent' within our camp due to his close ties in that direction?
Now as applies that aforementioned relationship with National - it is not merely an idle nor 'on paper' thing. The National Party was quite happy to deploy him in its bid to sell the TPPA to the New Zealand People early last year. Jones, for his part (and, presumably, his thirty pieces of silver) appeared to have no issue getting up in front of Maori and other New Zealanders to extol the virtues of the sovereignty-stripping "trade agreement" which New Zealand First has fought so absolutely /bitterly/ in Parliament to try to prevent.
Not only does this suggest, as I have implied, a deep working relationship with National ... it also rather luridly illustrates that Jones exists upon what we might frankly term the"neoliberal right" of New Zealand's politico-economic spectrum. And ought be looked upon in suspicion as a result. Particularly as applies NZ First.
So there you have it.
I apologize for both the length and the vitriol of this piece; but it's on a subject that's simultaneously near to my heart and of great potential importance to the future of New Zealand politics.
In amidst the emotion, I hope that I have manged to set out some of the reasons why many of us here in NZ First are all up in arms about the potential for Shane Jones to turn up on our 2017 List; and, for that matter, outlined some elements of the strategy by which he may hopefully be blocked from candidacy.
When I signed up to this Party way back in 2009 - I did so out of a genuine desire to put New Zealand first. Given what Jones represents, it feels frankly uncontroversial to assert that advancing his political career is not a part of that. Maybe he's changed? I'll believe it when I see it.
But in any case, I'm pretty glad I'm not fighting this particular battle alone.