Network Politics

The results of the US mid-term election witnessed yesterday must have been a wake-up call for many political parties around the world, particularly those in government. The continued fall of the great saviour Barak Obama and his cabinet colleagues has been nothing short of catastrophic. The man that only two years ago promised so much has arguably delivered so little and the people that put him into power yesterday effectively made him a ‘lame duck’ President.

The sharp decline in popularity of the United States first black President, albeit spectacular, is hardly surprising as the Obama administration has failed to implement the two most basic principles of public affairs – keep the communication lines open with your constituents and make sure that you manage their expectations. All fairly basic stuff but inexcusably slipping through the strategies of the White House.

Most are aware of the dire economic situation that the United States is currently in and most freely admit that it is not of Obama’s making. The picture however isn’t good – total debt of around $15 trillion USD, unemployment of just under 10% (up from 7.6% when Obama took office), and from an outsiders perspective a largely unchanged foreign policy.

The Obama campaign was built around his ‘Mr Fix-It” image – sleeves rolled up, getting his hands dirty and promising so much reform. Expectations were high and promises were even higher. The Obama team did plenty to build the expectations of struggling America and these expectations continued to grow when he was elected to the highest office.

It is either a case of exceptionally poor advice from his strategy team or a fundamental arrogance from the administration, however once in the Oval Office the Obama team quickly turned their backs on the very people that put them where they fought so hard to be.

This has played out as a classic failure of Public Relations 101. The Democrats got a spanking yesterday because their central leadership has failed to engage with their grass roots supporters. The ‘skyscraper’ expectations of what this team promised and realistically what they could achieve over the first term of the administration were poles apart and Obama did nothing to subdue the myth that he could turn things around as quickly as he had once promised. Strategies were devised, however they were not effectively communicated to their key stakeholders (the voting public) and as such voters felt removed and non-connected with the decision makers

Mental note for our political leaders here at home heading into 2011 – the President has been embarrassed by his nation this week and an approval rating of 37% is a reflection that he has a huge amount of ground to recapture if he wishes to see out another term in Washington.

Best he and his advisors recall their PR 101 notes extremely quickly – or maybe it is just going to be a lesson for the next President.

This week government announced changes to the jury system which are designed to make jury attendance easier and thus reduce the excessive number of excusals granted. Included in the changes introduced, jurors can now apply to defer their jury service to a more convenient time within 12 months of the original summons date.

A quick review of the statistics shows that the strike rate for getting people to even show up for jury attendance in New Zealand is extremely low. In 2009 for example, which compared to previous years was actually quite a good year, 321,832 people were summoned for jury service. Of those a staggering 199,760 were excused from attending after providing a satisfactory excuse and a further 67,938 just failed to show up without being formally excused. That only leaves 53,000 people or 17% of the original sample!

To date I have not found any reliable statistical break down in terms of the reasons people summoned don’t show up, but I have a very strong suspicion based on anecdotal discussions that I have had that the most compelling reason is one of pure economics rather than social obligation.

Employers in New Zealand are not required by law to pay the wages of their employees serving as jurors and nor should they be. These are trials of the Crown and as such any discussions around income compensation should be the responsibility of central government.

With all of the tinkering in the world around flexibility of attendance and extending the geographic spread of jury catchments the government isn’t going to improve jury representation until they sort out the loss of income issue.

Admittedly I am not a lawyer but surely the whole purpose of a jury in a civil or criminal trial is to have as close to a representative cross-section of society as possible to make unemotional decisions on the facts presented to them.

With only a 17% strike rate in summons even before the opposing lawyer’s right of legal challenge, the government needs to go further than they have and address loss of income issues. If they don’t juries will continue to be a skewed collection of those that can afford it and those that have nothing else to do.

As at today there are 10 days left until the postal ballots close for local body elections throughout the country.

As with previous years the percentage of eligible voters actually casting a vote is expected to be embarrassingly low. In 2007, when we last went to the ballot to elect our local leaders, only around 40% percent of eligible voters bothered to undertake the task of ticking selected candidates from an alphabetical list, putting their selection in a freepost envelop and posting it off before the closing date.

Hardly an arduous task – so why the great disconnect?

One reason might be the sheer number of positions that are required to be filled and the numbers of people that we are required to choose from. It is all a bit overwhelming. In most regions elections are open for at least a mayor, council (usually around 10 councillors) and a district health board. Some regions also have the added responsibilities of electing Community Boards and a Licensing Trust. That can mean upwards of 30 names on one ballot paper!

Trend analysis of local body elections show that historically turnover in councils and local boards are very low. Once name recognition has been established with local constituents it is likely that voters will return a familiar name and/or face rather than elect someone that they haven’t heard of. This is of course if they decide to vote at all.

Voting becomes much more of a ‘comfort’ thing – better the devil you know (or at least know slightly more about).

Another reason for the voter disconnect could be that we just don’t care. There is a perception that policies don’t seem to matter as much in local government. Nothing however could be further from the truth.

The policies set by District/City Councils, for example, determine the provision of local infrastructure – such as roading, water, sewerage and stormwater; buildings and land use; recreational facilities; environmental safety – district emergency management, civil defence preparedness and public health inspections. Regional Councils’ responsibilities include – management of freshwater, land, air and coastal waters; mitigating soil erosion and flood control; regional land transport planning and passenger services and harbour navigation.

Admittedly none of this is particularly sexy stuff but no one can argue that the policy decisions made by local authorities are not fundamental to our public wellbeing.

Whatever the reason – 60% of us don’t feel motivated enough to vote in local elections.

Do you care?

With a date still to be set for the impending Mana by-election the 2 major political parties have chosen their respective candidates without any surprises or controversy and at this early stage things are trickling along at a very pedestrian pace. Any campaign as such is yet to resemble shape or form, and to be honest given the voting history of the Mana electorate, a result other than a Labour win would be truly remarkable.

National’s Hekia Parata is back for another go, albeit against a new foe in Kris Faafoi. Parata however has got plenty of ground to make up. Outgoing Labour MP Winnie Laban holds the seat with a majority of over 6,000 votes and although Laban has built a significant personal following Faafoi is expected to hold most of Labour’s current majority. Parata is a great fighter with plenty of talent and has a bright future in politics. Mana however is a Labour seat and with the result being a ‘lock’ already the campaign itself will be nothing more than a temporary diversion for the interested few.

What is encouraging in these side shows however is that it forces opposition parties to come out with some policy statements which in turn gives the rest of the country a feel for what the parties actually stand for. True to form the Labour Party announced this week that it will be taking a policy of removing National’s 15% GST on all fresh fruit and vegetables to the 2011 General Election.

In a speech to the good people of Mana Labour leader Phil Goff stated that “taking GST off healthy, unprocessed fruit and vegetables helps gives families some relief. It helps make them healthier. A price incentive about the size of GST is more effective than anything else researchers tested to get people to switch to healthy foods.”

Great news

Whether you personally agree with the rationale, complexity or even relevancy of this policy is beside the point. What is important is that it is policy!

One could argue fairly strongly that with a general election only 12 months away, a taxpayer funded by-election is a rather extreme mechanism to allow an impatient Ms Laban a change of career. However the upside is that it takes a catalyst such as a by-election to force non-government aligned political parties to make firm policy decisions like the Labour Party has shown this week. This in turn has got to be good for New Zealanders in general to allow them to make informed voting decisions.

The estimated cost of the Mana by-election is $500,000. Money well spent?

There’s a strong case for a detailed discussion on the morality, disclosure, and hypocrisy issues of ACT’s David Garrett stealing the identity of a dead child.  Putting all that aside for a moment, should ACT take the opportunity to rid themselves of the law and order brigade and get back to their foundational principles.

At its heart ACT is supposed to be a party for the economically dry – small state, economic liberalism, minimal and sensible regulation and legislation.

This is why Sir Roger Douglas, the founder and granddaddy of ACT was brought back on board at the last election. ACT’s law and order agenda has been nothing but a distraction for ACT’s economic agenda.

Besides, everyone in Parliament is now tough on crime – it is part of the political centre – and accordingly there is little room for differentiation on these issues. Plus I’ve always found it a little disappointing how prepared ACT has been to support law and order policies which seem to have very little evidential base. This isn’t very true to their roots.

It is these tensions, between “populism” and ACT’s roots, which have caused such division within the party. With such a small caucus any changes in personnel make a huge difference and could radically alter the balance of power. As such, Hide will hold out for as long as possible, and may eventually be forced to make a shift in portfolio responsibilities for Garrett.

But this would ultimately be too little, and just a short-term fix – ACT’s fundamental problems remain. If they’re not about a hard-right economic agenda first and foremost, what are they about? This confusion in purpose will continue. Here’s a thought, sack Garrett, get rid of his law and order brigade, and take a decisive step to clearly define ACT’s political ground.

Finance Minister Bill English announced in a speech to the New Zealand Council for Infrastructure Development yesterday that government department chief executives will soon be given the directive to consider alternative procurement options for all government projects worth more than $25 million. This could extend, he said, to ‘private, public partnerships’ (PPP’s).

In reaction to the Minister’s announcement the Public Service Association PSA) has stated that PPP’s can erode accountability and transparency. They argue that PPP’s don’t work because private companies are answerable to shareholders while public services are accountable to both the government and the taxpayer.

It is true that private companies are directly accountable to their owners however what the PSA has failed to consider is the final ‘P’ – that being “partnership”.

The government is not signalling that they should be ridding their hands of the provision of basic public services but rather allowing senior government decision-makers to consider the most efficient delivery method which might, in some circumstances, extend to partnering with a private sector provider.

What’s the big deal? Handled in the right way PPP’s allow for increased price competition, value for money and niche sector expertise in specific areas.

Undoubtedly the State has a responsibility to ensure that basic health, welfare and education provisions exist as a universal right for all. It does not however need to be the ‘doer’.

When I recently needed to get a leak in my house roof fixed I could have done it myself. I know however that the time, effort, financial and opportunity cost of me doing it wouldn’t have stacked up – let alone, if I am honest, the skill-base to get the job done. Instead I contracted an expert.

It’s the same deal here isn’t it?

Leave it to the experts

Welcome to Network Politics.  We will be adding content over the coming weeks.