Political Business

Gillard loves Gillard

Thu, 13 Jun 2013 20:01:12 +1200

Aussie PM Julia Gillard launched a campaign this week under her own name, linking her political survival with the survival of pro-women policies.

At the launch she said that without her at the helm, Australia’s women would be at the mercy of male politicians.

She took flack for the attempt to categorise policy as a female versus male battle, but kudos to her bold and aggressive gamble.

Then, as if to prove Gillard’s point, from ‘nowhere’ was revealed a menu from a Liberal Party fundraising dinner. It featured a description of a meal using crude references to Gillard’s body parts.

It was a beautiful set up and strike. It turns out the Gillard has vicious political cunning worthy of any male adversary.

But her alignment with ‘women’ is an intriguing strategy.

I’m not aware of any previous attempt to run a re-election campaign based on sitting Prime Minister’s gender or other defining physical characteristic. I’m hard-placed to think of a way in which a PM’s re-election campaign has even been chain-linked to a particular voting group.

What disappoints me is that, despite being a professional politician, it was Gillard who organised and launched this campaign for herself. She lacks the sophistication to allow these things to be once or twice removed - to let them appear genuine and organic.

It is yet another example of how a politician sees themselves as embodying a group or ideology, rather than simply wanting to represent members of the public that hold that ideology.

Taking credit too far

Wed, 12 Jun 2013 20:01:13 +1200

Hekia Parata’s trumpeting of National Standards data was old style politics, despite qualifications.

The release of the second year of results of student performance against “National Standards” was marred by its politicisation.

The Education Minister decided to note the 1.7% “improvement” in performance, although she was at pains to note the qualifications.

It’s a nice psychological trick: give the headline, then give the qualifications. We know that most people will only take-away the headline number, but it is all the more believable because the source appeared open and reasonable in offering the headline number.

The qualifications on that data are immense: it represents 85% of students, it’s only been two years (one really, in terms of teaching to the standard), and the data is not national at all, as grading of students has not been moderated across the country (ie. the marking just represents what each school interprets as meeting the Standard).

So delivery of the number was probably a success if you consider the general public to be the audience.

But I’m going to moot that there’s a better way - a way to a longer term and deeper credibility.

Really successful politicians would not release the data themselves - they would leave it to the Ministry. When asked for comment, they would say, “it’s too early to tell” and “I’m listening to what principles, teachers and parents have to say about the results and experience so far”.

They would do this because it empowers them; they appear confident, reasonable, open minded, and connected to people.

My point is that a moderate, self-effacing approach now, would position Hekia Parata for much more credible claims in the future.

While I’m on this topic, I want to note two massive issues with National Standards:

1) People ‘lie’. Anyone in or close to the teaching fraternity has heard how teachers and schools are deliberately re-categorising the performance of students for the formal reporting; to avoid things like student identification in small schools, or out of a kind of group think where everyone excuses generous marking because they don’t want they and their school to be targeted. It’s the irony of measurements learned painfully by the Soviet Union, when reported output went through the roof while the economy went through the floor.

2) Narrow teaching results in narrow improvements. Although I don’t believe for a moment that there could be any improvement in maths and english in just one year of a programme of measurement, over time, there should be. Concentration on those topics should improve performance. But other learning, especially the more valuable and holistic things like values and citizenship, won’t be taught. And because we’re not measuring them, we won’t know we’re failing at a very deep level.

Bit late now

Tue, 11 Jun 2013 20:00:52 +1200

John Key has correctly, but out of self-interest, complained that the hounding of Peter Dunne has gone too far.

“In my view we’re getting to a point where we’re trying to hound everybody out of Parliament”

Well, yes, we are. Pathetic isn’t it? But then, Key was complicit in the hounding of Aaron Gilmore from Parliament for nothing more than a tipsy display of arrogance. So it’s a bit late to start arguing now.

This time opposition forces are chasing Peter Dunne for not giving some emails to the person Key had asked to look into a leak of a report into the GCSB that was going to be released in full a few days later anyway.

Key is belatedly realising the problem of playing along with witch hunts; there’s a chance you’re the next witch.

It’s easier to give in to the controversy, and act as the mob wants, when it doesn’t appear to matter much. But keeping perspective in politics, especially when in Government, is a full time job.

Politicians they lose their own ethical center in response to pressures from other politicians and media. But those sources have in turn lost their own ethical center in the hunt for political favour, power or content.

Witness the ferocity of attack by Winston Peters on this matter - totally disproportionate to the situation.

Under that sort of pressure, it’s hard for people to keep their reason. John Key has done an excellent job to date, which is why he is so widely liked by the public.

Those chasing down what might be a peccadillo, should consider that the biggest benefit of democracy is the perspective brought to politics by the weight of voter apathy.

The Kids are all right

Mon, 10 Jun 2013 20:00:45 +1200

It turns out that 18-24 year olds are more libertarian than you’d think.

An Economist review of the long running BSA (British Social Attitudes) attitudinal study has found that 18-24 year olds think “people have a right to express themselves by what they consume and how they choose to live”.

This matters greatly to politicians, most of whom cling to the assumption that the youth are liberal socialist ne’er do wells. The Left assume the young follow in their footsteps. The Right assume they will when they grow older.

According to the survey, the young are less likely than their elders to be part of, or want to join, a religion, a political party, a trade union or the armed forces.

The Left will thrill to hear that the young are more relaxed about drugs, sex, alcohol, euthanasia, homosexuality, and non-traditional family structures. They dislike immigration (that’s primal), but not as strongly as their elders.

The Left, and the Right will both be baffled to learn that the young value social freedom, low taxes, limited welfare and personal responsibility.

This attitude harks back to the true origins of Whig liberalism and even the 1960s ‘counter-culture’. The young embrace social and cultural difference so much that they reject the desire by all mainstream political wings to enforce social conformity.

The Economist says:

All age groups are becoming more socially and economically liberal. But the young are ahead of the general trend. They have a more sceptical view of state transfers, even allowing for the general shift in attitudes

The Economist reports that YouGov polling shows the 18-24 group are more likely than older people to consider social problems the responsibility of individuals rather than government.

They care about the environment, but are also keen on commerce: more supportive of the privatisation of utilities, more likely to reject government attempts to ban branding on cigarette packets and more likely to agree that Tesco, Britain’s supermarket giant, “has only become so large by offering customers what they want”.

This trend might not be international though.

Britons between 15 and 35 are more relaxed about the consumption of alcohol, tobacco and cannabis than are young people in the EU as a whole.

This is fascinating stuff, as it is offside with the socialist and social determinist accord of centrist Political Parties.

The young are learning the value of power of doing things for themselves. The Internet generation is learning the power of unconstrained ideas; with phenomenons that don’t require centrist management; like crowd-sourcing ideas and funding, and concepts like Bitcoin (an internet currency).

I, like the Economist, think politicians should consider ditching their old ideologies and pick up the new ones emerging from the next generation of voters.

To do that politicians need to listen, not talk - something they’ve found hard at any time in history.

Did Gilmore do the right thing?

Sun, 09 Jun 2013 20:00:55 +1200

Aaron Gilmore should have stayed on in Parliament, to reinstate his reputation.

Remember Aaron Gilmore? The MP vilified, bullied and hounded out of Parliament by the political elite, cheered by the public, about a month ago. The guy whose political career, reputation, and livelihood was ended because he was rude to a waiter when tipsy.

When he resigned from Parliament he completed the circle of public humiliation. It was a tidy ending. We got our pound of flesh. We could start looking for another to vilify for mistakes we’ve all made, and will make again (because they’re fun).

It was tidier for Gilmore. He got the bully off his back. He got the chance to return to normal life and purge himself of the toxin of politics.

Sometimes, when faced with the might of the political mob, the best option is to flee for the hills. Remove the subject and you remove the object, forcing the political elite, and the public, to look for another.

Here’s five reasons why Aaron should have squared his shoulders and stuck it out in Parliament:

1) The issue had a half life of two weeks maximum. The controversy was so trivial it would have collapsed under its own weight. Sure, it would have remained as a meme of some sort for occasional jokes, but largely not in the public sphere. Aaron just needed to get through this period.

2) He could propel himself into a career. The issue provided opportunity to be propelled, Winston-style, into the public eye; to carve out an identity which could keep him in politics for a length of time and at a level, that was unlikely to happen otherwise. The situation was ripe with possibilities: go independent, go rogue, go populist… but he’d need help and imagination to do that.

3) He could fix his reputation. Staying would give him time, and a platform, to show that he did not deserve the opprobrium. He could knuckle down and work as a solidly contributing backbencher. It’s unlikely National was going to let him have a career if he stayed, but it’s just as unlikely, despite what he was probably told, that he’s going to get a political career by leaving.

4) He could remain employed. I don’t know what his income options were or what he is doing now. But frankly, it’s not right to get hounded out of a job, and risk the viability of your family, for such petty reasons. Staying would allow him to earn an income and build a post-politics platform. It’s on the taxpayers’ dime, but given what happened, that’s not necessarily his concern.

5) He could condemn those who showed him no loyalty. He was wronged by people he should have been able to trust, and by people who just saw the whole thing as entertainment. It would eat most of us up to seek revenge (and it’s not worth it), but if he was determined, the only way he could do that was from the platform of an MP.

I suspect his reasons for resigning were not good ones, and that the above options were not readily apparent in the tumult of the times.

As distance grows between those terrible days, I would imagine that the best reason for leaving is becoming apparent to him: that the triviality and shallowness that drives public humiliation is not something that a sane or sober person wants part of.

Who's in charge here?

Sat, 08 Jun 2013 20:00:52 +1200

I’m up for a fight, and politics ought to be passionate, so I take no exception to Michelle Obama’s physical intimidation of hecklers at a speech she was giving.

If you’re going to heckle, you need to expect people to be upset. There’s few things as hypocritical than people who challenge the establishment, then get upset when the establishment reacts.

I like that Obama didn’t use her podium to bully the heckler but seems to have been prepared to face off at the same level.

I don’t like that Obama was not happy at the challenge. She gave her audience an ultimatum; it’s her or me. Well, this is politics in a democracy. When politicians front up to the public, they should not expect to get a free ride. They never got one when they were fighting their way to the top. The moment you expect not to be challenged is the moment you’re starting to lose.

Obama's underdog mistake

Fri, 07 Jun 2013 20:00:50 +1200

Obama fell for the oldest of self-deceiving narratives; support the little guy.

David against Goliath is an expression of one of the core narratives generated by our brains: we love the underdog. We have an instinct to see an individual or minority as good, and the established order as bad.

I reckon we love the narrative so much because it helps alleviate our guilt that we regularly comply with the establishment and majority.

It appears that even the US President is susceptible to the naive simplicity of that narrative.

He assumed that the Syrian rebels were good and the Government was bad. He assumed therefore that use of nerve gases was by the bad Government, not the rebels.

But Syria, and rebellion in general, is not an episode in the Star Wars saga. If you’re the rebel forces you need to win. Lose and you lose your life. Thus, you see your enemy as very bad. So, you do what it takes to win. If you’ve got access to nerve gas, you’ll use it.

Gas was used in the first World War. It was an option in the second. Even then, the Allied forces used all manner of other nasty weapons. How different is gas to carpet bombing of residential suburbs? How different is it to being burnt alive by incendiaries, or flame throwers?

It looks like nerve gas is being used by both sides in Syria. Welcome back to ugly reality Mr President.

Going too far

Fri, 07 Jun 2013 10:22:00 +1200

Desperation turned Labour rabid yesterday in its pursuit of Peter Dunne.

Peter Dunne is clearly no longer leader of a political party. If the truth were known, it might turn out that he hasn’t been leader of a fully-fledged party for quite some time.

But the Speaker is right to let United Future speedily resubmit for Party status. It’s the fair thing to do, and most of us take pride in the reasonableness and fairness of our culture.

We’re not litigious, nit-picking, drama queens. Let’s leave that to America - and maybe now, to the Labour Party.

Labour looked rabid yesterday in its pursuit of the Speaker and its attempt to get Dunne’s entitlements cut during the period in which his Party resubmits for registration.

Labour’s desperation to make the Key Government look messy, led it to precisely the type of behaviour that voters dislike. In fact, precisely the opposite behaviour to the tempered jovial and easy-going demeanor that has had John Key so high in the polls for so long.

The dilemma facing Oppositions is that you need to be passionate to expose the Government, but too much passion turns people off because it’s shrill, self-serving and disproportionate.

Labour crossed that line yesterday. It allegations of corruption were an outrageous slur on the Kiwi culture of fairness.

If United Future fails to re-register, then the Speaker’s course must be clear. Until then, let’s give them a chance. It’s the Kiwi thing to do.

No risk Government

Thu, 06 Jun 2013 20:00:00 +1200

Recriminations over the ‘failed’ Novopay teacher payment system will further entrench no-risk bureaucracy. We should instead wonder whether Government should be doing some of these jobs at all.

One of the heaviest political ironies is politicians urging bureaucrats to be more enterprising in the way they service the public. These are the same politicians who insist on “no surprises” and wave a stick around when their Ministries and agencies screw up.

Trying to make things better - being more innovative and enterprising - means taking risks. Risks means things might not work. Things not working makes politicians fear they won’t be elected. The fear of not being elected means politicians don’t take risks.

The problematic introduction of Novopay has led to a deep search for the culprits, and discussions about how it should have been implemented.

Similarly, a review of Government IT system security vulnerabilities has stimulated hand-wringing about ways bureaucracy install ICT projects.

Modern politicians hate risk. They hate mistakes. They play the archetypal “percentage” game… doing just enough to warrant a vote.

Politicians and bureaucrats take the wrong conclusions from mistakes. Inevitably they tighten up the systems for approving and managing projects. This installs greater layers of box ticking, slowing down and thwarting initiative without adding any new responsibility or project knowledge.

The ‘business’ response to mistakes is to learn lessons about what works operationally, rather than what doesn’t work in project management. The bureaucratic response is to concentrate on what might not have worked in the project management process. The business approach is better because what works operationally is tangible, whereas the managerial stuff is very difficult to pin down in the emotive maelstrom of a failure.

It’s testament to the current supremacy of big government ideology that the response to failure of government projects is to do more government. My lesson is that the Government should attempt to do less. We should be asking; do we really need to be doing this at all?

Should central Government be paying teachers directly? If it was up to each school, or groups of schools, to manage payments, they’d use something like the gorgeous homegrown Xero. If there were problems they’d be sorted by someone you knew. As if to prove the point, the schools themselves have had to take the bulk of the processing work during the problematic introduction. I understand that some early childhood centres pay their teachers themselves using money “bulk” allocated by the Government.

This is a vicious circle. Politicians want to impress voters and citizens, so they dream up central government projects. Bureaucrats are hamstrung in carrying them out because politicians fear voter reprisals if something goes wrong.

Politicians should therefore consider the ultimate risk avoidance strategy - reduction of Government responsibility for so many parts of our lives.

Abandoned by media

Thu, 06 Jun 2013 13:37:00 +1200

Here’s two thoughts about this funny scene where journalists run from a media conference to catch another MP, then kinda sheepishly return to the media conference.

1) The MP holding the media conference handled himself very well. He waited patiently, then continued.

2) I prefer outside media conferences because they make candidates look more ‘real’, but choose attractive places which are not thoroughfares, nor just outside your damn offices.

Is politics a game?

Wed, 05 Jun 2013 20:00:51 +1200

Parliament is not like NZ’s X-Factor; the marketing and bitchiness do not make up for an absence of talent.

Politics can seem like a light entertainment to insiders. Apart from the incredible expense, in these benign times, its a show that is relatively harmless.

Despite their skepticism, voters like the idea that politics is a serious field conducted for their benefit, and at their discretion.That’s why they get uppity when politicians are found rorting or cavorting.

So it’s a serious mistake for politicians to outwardly express their sense of the business being akin to a game.

Labour Leader David Shearer has made two such misjudgements recently.

Yesterday he said about an up coming by-election:

“Labour will campaign relentlessly to once again earn the trust of the people of Ikaroa-Rawhiti. We will organise, mobilise and terrorise our political opponents. …

“Let the games begin,” says David Shearer.

I forgive the first paragraph, although it makes the cardinal sin of seeing politicians as the instigators, rather than the listeners. I believe the sentiment is aimed at what will motivate its grass-roots support.

But the notion that campaigning is “games” treats the voters, and the role of politics in our cultural life, with disdain.

Shearer did it again in the middle of the ridiculous furor over Aaron Gilmore.

He said Labour would bring “popcorn and coke” to Gilmore’s valedictory speech in Parliament.

The idea that the leaving speech of a harassed and bullied MP was light entertainment, is abhorrent.

There’s no doubt that politics has a great amount of theatre within it. But it’s theatre with a dramatic purpose; establishing society’s values, and its willingness to share and help.

Seeing just the stage lights and make-up seriously underestimates why the political script is written in the first place, and why people watch the drama.

Snookering yourself

Wed, 29 May 2013 10:01:04 +1200

When politicians are scared to say what they think, they lose.

Most of us watch what we say. We avoid saying things that are hurtful or might meet disapproval, because we want to be liked.

Politicians watch what they say for the same reasons. The task is harder for them because they are usually strongly tribal, adhering to a narrow set of expressed beliefs. Yet there’s also a wider set of constantly shifting social beliefs of the elite (‘political correctness’) which they must be conscious of.

If you’ve ever wondered why politicians seem to say so much of nothing, consider their challenge; watching them closely are opposition tribes, and media, waiting to beat them for expressions which conform too closely to their ideology, don’t conform to things they’ve said or done before, don’t conform to the reigning set of in-things to believe, or don’t conform to the opposition tribes’ ideology.

It’s most often a no-win situation. What-ever you say or do, someone won’t like it.

The most obvious way out of the dilemma is to say nothing meaningful - which is the preferred route of most politicians and public relations practitioners.

The only winning route out of the dilemma is to say what you think, and say it persuasively, but choose your moments wisely.

That’s easier said than done. Consider this radio interview with New Zealand’s social welfare Minister Paula Bennett, on a project that puts on breakfast for students in poor schools. She handles herself beautifully, but gets caught on her refusal to admit that the project exists because there is “poverty”.

She “knows” that if she admits there is poverty her opponents will claim she is admitting her Government has failed. She tries arguing that there is no “extreme poverty”. She tries arguing that there will always be parents who fail to look after their kids, for reasons other than income. But the interviewer hounds her, seeking an admission that there is poverty. Bennett isn’t suckered into admitting there is poverty, but the word game sounds silly and evasive. It’s particularly silly because she’s refusing to admit something that is the very reason she has launched the food project.

Bennett’s fear of admitting poverty is unnecessary. Politician opposition might try to use it against her, but they won’t get far. The public know the poverty is there. Some might hold her Government responsible, but others won’t. And most will be at least a little impressed with the school food project.

When politicians scare themselves into refusing to discuss things they, and we, can plainly see - they lose, because they look silly.

Another example in the public affairs space was the controversy stirred up on the same day by the retiring head of Fonterra, Henry van der Heyden, who admitted he had told a business conference not to trust the Chinese.

Hearing him dancing on the head of a semantic pin about what he said, what he meant, and his apology, was painful. He claimed he just meant that doing business with the Chinese was very different. I felt embarrassed for him. Interviewers asked him to be explicit about what was different. He said people needed to learn the lessons themselves from working with the Chinese.

Again, van der Heyden most probably meant what he said. It’s a common comment among exporters. Coming from New Zealand, one of the least corrupt societies in world, it’s a good rule of thumb to, initially at least, not trust anyone when doing business in one of the more corrupt societies in the world.

His fear of being on the wrong side of the “right thing to say” prevented him from speaking plainly. He could not even find words to describe what doing business with China is practically like. Yet, even the Chinese Government has acknowledge the problem and is trying to deal with widespread corruption.

What happens in these situations is politicians or public figures let their fears of perceptions of others confuse expression of what they think.

The first task is to work out what you think, the second is to work out what others will think, and the third task is to work out how to express your thought so others that are important to you will agree (sooner or later).

That’s why public figures need the help of astute public relations consultants.

How politicians sleep

Mon, 27 May 2013 20:00:00 +1200

Politicians don’t get enough sleep. The result is poor decision-making.

A politician once fell asleep at their desk while listening to my client explain their position on an issue. I was grateful, rather than annoyed, because I was finally able to convince the client to speak more evocatively.

Politicians caught asleep in public are targets for barbs about slacking on the job, but there’s many things not funny about the regularity with which this happens.

Sleeping on the job shows that politics is about long hours and is at times boring enough to send you to sleep. It also shows that politicians are likely to be living with poor health and be working at a sub-optimum mental performance.

According to the UK Sleep Council, politicians are among the most sleep-deprived. It found the average politician got a little over 5 hours of sleep each night. Only hospital doctors on call had less, averaging 4.5 hours.

Lack of sleep causes mental health issues such as fatigue and anxiety. Many studies show that lack of sleep reduces cognitive performance. It also causes physical health issues such as high blood pressure and weight-gain, leading to early death.

None of this can be good for the quality of national decision-making. Bill Clinton thinks Congress would perform better if its members got more sleep.

There’s a thing about the political culture which believes time spent on the job equals ‘doing the job’. Almost 99% of politics comprises of contact with people. The longer you are awake, the more of that you can do.

The irony is that politics is a job where you can go to sleep during the day and nothing at all happens as a result. Try doing that in the factory or hospital.

Politicians need to realise that a job which is boring enough to put you to sleep is a job in which you don’t need to be there 24/7.

Enjoy the following classic sleeping politicians:

Politicians' wives: Hazel Hawke

Fri, 24 May 2013 20:00:57 +1200

A lovely tribute here upon the death of Hazel Hawke, wife of former Australian Prime Minister Bob Hawke.

The public response to spouses of leaders is intriguing. What-ever happens, the reaction is almost always driven by the public attitude to their partner, the nation’s leader.

Sometimes we feel sorry for them, because of the human frailties that national leadership exposes in their spouse. Sometimes we’re embarrassed or impressed by their performance alongside their spouse or representing them.

For example, people are impressed by the way in which Michelle Obama has risen to the first-lady role. In contrast, the public were embarrassed for Naomi, the ‘pink-cardigan’ wife of New Zealand Prime Minister David Lange. In further contrast, ex-model Carla Bruni, wife of French President Sarkozy, has an intriguing pre-politics life, but her fame is now closely tied to her marriage.

This was equally true of Hazel Hawke, who loyally stood in the shadow of her husband. Public sympathy and support followed her divorce from Bob when he fell for his biographer.

She subsequently, and almost consequently, usurped Bob’s fame, becoming a national public figure for her ‘good public works’.

Yet, this work wasn’t about her personal talents; it was about her post-marriage life. She didn’t try to stop it. Advertisements and public appearances often featured her family, with Bob Hawke conspicuous in his absence.

I can’t help thinking that even when she was a national figure in her own right, it was still very dependent on the public’s knowledge of who she had been; the spouse of a Prime Minister.

Women won't do politics

Wed, 15 May 2013 20:01:13 +1200

Out of the mouths of babes, and women, is a truth about politics: it’s too ugly to get involved.

The School of Public Affairs in Washington has run a survey (pdf) that finds why there’s so few women in politics: they don’t want to do it.

The study of over 2100 college students found that young women are less likely than young men ever to have considered running for office, to express interest in a candidacy at some point in the future, or to consider elective office a desirable profession.

Men were twice as likely as women to have thought about running for office “many times,” whereas women were 20 percentage points more likely than men never to have considered it.

It’s revealing that this 20 point gap is similar to the gender gap found in an earlier study of adult professionals (in their 40s and 50s).

The survey, by a school of women’s studies, says the difference is due to women not playing competitive sport, and not being encouraged by anyone to consider political issues or candidacy.

It didn’t consider whether women had seen clearly through the political glass ceiling and decided that they didn’t want a bar of it.

The report authors assume that Parliamentary representation is best when it mirrors the exact make-up of the population - and thus that more women in politics is necessary.

But if women don’t want to go into politics, society ought to be considering how best to reflect female interests without them having to actually be in Parliament. It may be an argument for more direct democracy?

Turkeys don't vote for Christmas

Wed, 15 May 2013 18:00:39 +1200

Every political party in Parliament is responsible for the travesty of ignoring the Electoral Commission’s recommendations on MMP.

As National has revealed, each of them had an opinion on the major recommendations. The result was a patchwork of competing ideas.

The problem was not the differences, but that any of them thought they were entitled to views in the first place.

The views are in themselves a perfect illustration why politicians should have no role in electoral or constitutional matters. The mix of principle, ideological and self-survival is ugly. I feel sorry for the politicians - that they were even obliged to face such a conflict.

It’s ironic, because the political sector is obsessed with conflicts. David Shearer went to town on John Key’s conflicts over appointment of a head of GSCB.

Yet here they were, conflicted to all hell over whether to vote for changes to MMP that could affect their chance to govern, or even be in Parliament at all. Thus, Shearer could not commit to more than a “discussion” on the recommendations, because his Party was against, or at least ambivalent, toward some of the changes.

These are matters are for the people to decide. We decide who gets into Parliament to represent us on day to day national decisions, and we should be deciding how we do the voting.

We can’t let National off the hook by blaming the whole of Parliament for not accepting the Commission’s changes, or not putting the changes before us all to vote on in another referendum.

Judith Collins’ easy dismissal of the recommendations because it was too hard to get “consensus” (her newly invented requirement) makes a mockery of the apparent enthusiasm with which she had earlier urged the public to get involved with the review. John Key himself said the review was a chance for the public to “finally… kick the tyres on MMP”.

John Key’s ‘end of the matter’ attempt to shut down the recommendations was unedifying for a man previously so wedded to principled management to Government and treatment of public attitudes.

We did have some clues that National was not going to like the electoral commission recommendations. For example, in 2011, John Key said he did not think it was necessary to eliminate the “one seat rule”.

I would imagine that Key, in particular, preferred the embarrassment of shutting down the whole thing, to the embarrassment of picking up some of the recommendations and not others.

It’s easier for a turkey to ban all holidays, than ban just Christmas. That’s why politicians shouldn’t be forced into the ignominy of voting on electoral stuff at all.

Left for poor / Right for rich

Tue, 14 May 2013 20:00:58 +1200

US study shows the poor are well represented in politics.

A sadly common and easy narrative in politics is that money influences legislative outcomes. It’s often peddled that the poor fare badly from legislation, and that the rich do well, because most politicians hang out with, or are, wealthy.

A Yale study of US voting patterns shows this is not true.

The study shows something far more disturbing: that politicians are very predictable in their voting.

What actually happens is that politicians of the ‘left’ vote for the poor, and right-wing politicians vote for the wealthy.

There’s also a result of far deeper importance than destroying the rich beat poor narrative. The study also helps destroy the idea that there’s actually strong differences in the political opinions of low and high income voters!

The researches compared legislative and constituent votes to show that

1) The opinions of high and low incomevoters are highly correlated; the legislator’s vote often reflects the desire of both.

2) What differences in representation by income exist, vary by legislator party. Republicans more often vote the will of their higher income over their lower income constituents; Democratic legislators do the reverse.

3) Differences in representation by income are largely explained by the correlation between constituent income and party affiliation

Fascinating… and yet I know that no politicians, particularly not those from the left, will drop the story that the poor think differently from the rich, and are not well represented in Parliament.

They won’t drop it because the story is essential to explaining the differences between the way of thinking of the political parties, and thus, they think, critical to them being elected.

Politicians aren't psychopaths

Mon, 13 May 2013 20:01:14 +1200

Politicians aren’t psychopaths, but their staff are.

In his book in the book The Wisdom of Psychopaths Kevin Dutton lists the professions attracting the most psychopaths.

Politicians don’t feature - but civil servants do, at 10th on the list.

A psychopath displays amoral or antisocial behaviour, and egocentricity. They lack empathy and cannot establish meaningful personal relationships.

It appears from the list that ‘psychopathic professions’ tend to reward egocentric behaviour. They’re mainly about the person in the job, or about positions of power and decision-making.

In contrast, the least psychopathic professions are those focused on helping other people, like nursing. They also appear to include jobs involving concentrated skills, like arts and crafts, where contact with others is not a prerequisite.

The difference is intriguingly ironic; to carry out their self-obsession psychopaths need other people. My view is that psychopathic tendencies are easily discovered, so they are only tolerated in professions where skills more than compensate for the self-obsession; such as with chefs and lawyers.

So why don’t politicians appear in the most psychopathic professions? Our own research shows that politicians are more extroverted than average. But extroversion is effectively an enjoyment of people - not an approach that is inherently self-obsessed. In fact, politicians appear to have more close fiends that most people - so they might have less trouble forming meaningful relationships than most of us.

Why do bureaucrats feature as a psychopathic profession? I suggest that it’s because the sense of decision-making over the lives of others generates an illusion of high self-importance. My experience is that there are more willful individuals in bureaucracy than in everyday life. It may be that the environment created there by genuine psychopaths draws out the worst of strident individualistic expression in many of us.

The top 10 most psychopathic professions:

1. CEO
2. Lawyer
3. Media (TV/radio)
4. Salesperson
5. Surgeon
6. Journalist
7. Police officer
8. Clergyperson
9. Chef
10. Civil servant

The top 10 least psychopathic professions:

1. Care aide
2. Nurse
3. Therapist
4. Craftsperson
5. Beautician/stylist
6. Charity worker
7. Teacher
8. Creative artist
9. Doctor
10. Accountant

The duplicity of spending cuts

Sun, 12 May 2013 00:01:18 +1200

A Washington Post analysis has shown why Governments find it so hard to cut budgets: they don’t really want to.

The Post examined the detail of spending cuts claimed by the US Government in April 2011 and concluded that the cuts were “an epic kind of Washington illusion”.

It found that about $17.4 billion in cuts were made by stopping activity that had already been canceled.

In the real world, in fact, many of their “cuts” cut nothing at all. The Transportation Department got credit for “cutting” a $280 million tunnel that had been canceled six months earlier. It also “cut” a $375,000 road project that had been created by a legislative typo, on a road that did not exist.

At the Census Bureau, officials got credit for a whopping $6 billion cut, simply for obeying the calendar. They promised not to hold the expensive 2010 census again in 2011.

Today, an examination of 12 of the largest cuts shows that, thanks in part to these gimmicks, federal agencies absorbed $23 billion in reductions without losing a single employee.

“Many of the cuts we put in were smoke and mirrors,” said Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.), a hard-line conservative now in his second term. “That’s the lesson from April 2011: that when Washington says it cuts spending, it doesn’t mean the same thing that normal people mean.”

From my experience, there’s two different forces driving this outcome:

1) Governments want to appear to the public bold and decisive, so are prepared to include in their calculations things that aren’t real cuts.

2) Officials want to help the Government reach the target, so look for the easiest things to cut They don’t really want to go through real baseline reviews because they are hard work, cause pain, and hurt stuff that staff, peers and stakeholders don’t like.

These two forces effectively collude to ensure Government attempts to cut spending usually only suspend or temporarily lower, the year on year increase in the cost of government.

Big breasts and politics

Fri, 10 May 2013 20:00:53 +1200

Ex-Labour MP Paul Flynn wrote a lively, gossipy and engaging book on life inside the UK Parliament.

His Daily Mail feature gives an insight into the unique, and somewhat incestuous environment of that institution - and from my experience, of the New Zealand Parliament as well.

Flynn obviously regards the strangeness fondly - and so do I.

His only real beef appears to be with Select Committees; whose job is to interrogate matters, especially legislation, with vigor and intelligence. But with alarming regularity, they don’t.

Being a Daily Mail story, it features a photo of a well endowed Wonderbra model being embraced by Lembit Opik, an ex-MP. It’s a gorgeous expression of the saying that politics is Hollywood for ugly people. With all due respect to Lembit, the closest he was ever going to get to that model was by going into politics…

Flynn’s insights reveal the endearing ordinariness and passions of the institution that runs UK.

Righteous pundits who rail against the trivia and weaknesses of Parliaments, and want thing “better”, really just have a problem with the untidiness of people. It’s an understandable ideal, but the reality of people and politics is largely unchangeable.