An alternate view on social lending

Grendel at Kiwiblog has commented in response to Jacinda Ardern’s comments as posted in Ardern clarifies on Social Lending.

Pete, i can tell you a couple of truths as someone who regularly advises people with budgeting and debt issues. i have experience of over 10 years of doing this, not some handwringing politician out to make a name for herself.

1. the people she is targetting do not care about interest rates etc, what they care about is, will you give me the money and do i think i can make the payments.

2. The loan sharks she is referring to are her way of bitchily talking about payday loans, pawn shops etc. they are not loan sharks (whatever the hell one actually is), they are legal businesses who have disclosure requirements, have to ensure the clients can pay back the money, and take a lot of risk in their business which is mostly unsecured lending, which is why they have high interest rates. these companies never seek out the client, the borrower always calls them begging for money. these companies are also covered by a stack of existing regulation. Do i like the idea of this kind of finance? no, but they are useful for some people and would not be used otherwise.

3. you can legislate all manner of disclosure of fees, payments etc and most of these people will not read it, they are looking for the bit to sign so they can get the cash. if they want $3000 and you say it will be $40 a week to pay back, thats all they care about. interest rates, terms, fees etc, which will all be overly well highlighted, will be ignored.

4. budgeting only works when people want to do it, and you have skilled people providing the advice. if you make it a mandatory part of getting tax payer secured finance (which is what she is on about), then these people will do the bare minimum to get the money and then bugger off. in the end it will end up another pointless part of winz where we pay people to pretend to do work that benefits noone.

5. budgeting and clearing debt is hard work, most people want a miracle that does not change their lifestyle one bit. sadly the majority of the people i have advised give up once they realise they will need to can sky, cut back on smoking, lotto, takeaways etc.

jacinda has never lived in the real world, has no idea how most people live and think, and will have had less contact with people in the scenarios she thinks she is an expert on than me, yet she thinks she has the skills and knowledge to talk about finance and borrowing habits? she earns $160K a year for this waste of time.

Harsh but some good points, I hope Jacinda takes them on board. Good social programmes are difficult to put together. Different points of view should aid the development of policy.

There is more discussion on this amongst other general debate at Kiwiblog from here.

Ardern clarifies on Social Lending

I may have been unfair to Jacinda Ardern yesterday when I posted on a Radio NZ news report on her proposal for social lending – see Ardern proposes interest free loans – to those who can’t afford repayments?

On reflection this didn’t add up, so I asked Ardern for clarification on what she intended. She has replied:

These are low and sometimes no interest loans for families who otherwise cannot access mainstream lending products and are likely candidates for loan sharks, which as you know, have very high interest rates.

The loans are usually in the vicinity of $1500-$3000 and are accompanied by budget advice support to ensure there is a capacity to pay back the loan. The proof that it works well is in the Australian model, where default rates are well under the international tolerance for mainstream lending products.

This is not an answer to low incomes- that too must be addressed, but it is a way we can ensure that families avoid debt that exacerbates their issues.

That makes more sense. If it is done well with adequate assessment of ability to repay plus budget advice it would obviously be far better than people who can ill afford it getting encumbered with the exorbitant interest rates of loan sharks.

This is actually something that may be able to be started at least without legislation if banks can be encouraged to partner with existing budget services. That would be a worthwhile project for an opposition party MP, working on something positive instead of the more usual opposing of Government.

Ardern proposes interest free loans – to those who can’t afford repayments?

Jacinda Ardern announced a “social lending” proposal on Twitter.

Social lending- one of the many things we need to introduce as part of child poverty battle..and that we will!

Radio NZ reports:

Labour floats social lending proposal

The Labour Party wants retail banks to begin offering low- or no-interest loans to beneficiaries and those on low incomes so they don’t have to use loan sharks.

Government legislation has been introduced to Parliament aimed at clamping down on unscrupulous lenders.

It stipulates that they can only lend money to people who can afford to make the repayments.

No one in their right mind would expect anyone to lend to people who can’t afford the repayments! Maybe only someone in their left mind.

However, Labour said on Monday the bill does not go far enough.

Social development spokesperson Jacinda Ardern says small loans of up to $3000 could be offered to those previously denied a bank loan.

Better to avoid the need for loans in the first place.

People who are denied bank loans are a higher risk category – they normally pay higher interest to cover the higher risk and higher level of defaults.

“We’re proposing a partnership between government and the private sector, predominantly our mainstream banks for instance, bringing in community organisations and collectively ensuring that those lines are available.

“Ultimately, this is asking mainstream lenders to take on corporate social responsibility really.”

If banks give interest free loans they are likely to make that up by recouping that loss in revenue from people who pay interest. In effect people with normal loans will subsidise those who are given “social” loans.

Perhaps there’s a way Labour can explain this that makes some sense. But giving low or no cost loans to higher risk borrowers will be a difficult sell.

“Every capitalist out there is scum”

There are many extreme political views expressed on blogs. A regular hard leftie at The Standard, in  response to kiwi_prometheus

Great, if people save instead of consume and try to invest that capital to keep themselves out of poverty in old age they are according to Leftists like you “EVIL CAPITALIST SCUM WHO DESERVE TO GET FUCKED!!!”.

Sigh.

…commented today:

Um, that’s the whole basis of capitalism. What you’re actually demanding is that people don’t have to pay the costs of the risks that they take.

And, yes, every capitalist out there is scum who wants money for nothing. That too is part and parcel of capitalism.

That’s fairly standard comment from Draco T Bastard. Another Standard regular (who also has his own blog) is Jackal

I wouldn’t say Draco T Bastard is hard left for thinking every capitalist is a scumbag! Most capitalists have attained their wealth from the suffering of the poor after all. If you recognize or have been a victim of a corrupted system, then viewing those who have benefited from that corruption as being scum is entirely justified.

It might not be strictly correct in terms of all rich people aren’t capitalist scum, but it is entirely justified to have formed such beliefs because of the failures inherent within capitalism, namely that it increases inequality.

Such a view as Draco has expressed is therefore not extreme at all, unless you’re arguing that inequality is somehow justified?

Jackal is a strong supporter of David Shearer and the Labour Party.

I don’t think Jackal’s view is representative of all Labour supporters, but there are certainly some who have strong socialist and very strong anti-capitalist views.

This makes Labour’s alliance with the Greens possi

Labour “died from the inside out”

Goldie’: paints a bleak picture of the Labour Party in a recent comment.

In the past two years Labours only new “policy” has been a last minute grabbing of the Green monopoly electricity idea, which is a political stunt you’d expect to see from students rather than a serious policy from adults.

It has been many years since I worked in the “belly of the beast”, but my impression is that internally Labour is in a really bad way. It is not just the paucity of talent amongst their MPs. Apart from ex-Alliance zealots and trade unionists, Labour seems to have died from the inside out.

I’ve heard similar elsewhere in the blogosphere from people who have worked within the Labour Party in the past. There seems to be a lack of purpose and direction within the Labour Party. They currently seem to be getting offside with more demographics than they are appealing to.

Labour seem to have abandoned trying to appeal to the floating centre voters who many people consider often decide elections.

They seem to think they can win the votes of those who don’t vote. That’s very ambitious. They have to convince the apathetic and disinterested  to vote, and to vote Labour. Both will be very difficult.

Time will tell whether this new vote winning strategy will be successful or not, but it’s a huge gamble. It is gambling with the future of the Labour Party.

Speech for Dave’s mates – slickly sickly

David Shearer has given a speech “on the economy”. I’ve only read some of the transcript, but about all I’ll say is that I mustn’t be the target demographic (I’m not one of Dave’s mates).

It’s slickly sickly, attacking the budget that is not yet announced, and attacking National in advance.

Shearer has a new media manager (I presume by now) – this is the same old but worse than previous speeches, or that’s how it seems. Here are Labour’s highlights.

Budget For John’s Mates Not Your Mates

Wednesday, 8 May 2013, 11:00 am
Press Release: New Zealand Labour Party

Labour Leader David SHEARER

Media Statement/Speech

Budget For John’s Mates Not Your Mates

John Key is spending more time looking after vested interests than the interests of hard-working New Zealanders who aren’t able to get ahead under National, says Labour Leader David Shearer.

“There will be something missing from next week’s Budget – people. You’ll hear lots about glossy business growth agendas and progress reports. But there’ll be nothing in it to help people find decent jobs, buy a house, pay their bills or to stop them moving to Australia.

“This will be a Budget for the boardroom, not the smoko room. It won’t change people’s lives because John Key is more interested in looking after his mates than your mates.

“This Government has made promise after promise in Budget after Budget. But it hasn’t delivered. It has let New Zealanders down.

“It promised 170,000 more jobs. But in the last year there were 30,000 fewer. It promised to help the ‘growing underclass’ but there are now almost 24,000 more people on benefits and 21% of our kids are living in poverty. There are 163,000 New Zealanders who are unemployed. Where is the brighter future?

 “The differences between John Key’s National Government and the Labour Government that I will lead are now crystal clear.

“Labour will put people at the heart of everything it does. National has forgotten the hardworking people who are the backbone of this country.

“Labour is prepared to use the power only a Government has to make a real difference to people’s lives – like bringing down power bills and building affordable homes.

“John Key won’t. He’s too focused on share floats to care about the Kiwis working their guts out to make ends meet.

“Labour has the courage to make the big changes that National is afraid to make – changes that will transform the economy for everyone.

“Labour will create a fairer and more equal society. Under National, income inequality is the highest since records began. 

“As Prime Minister, I want to create and build – not just trade and sell. I will back New Zealanders who are doing their bit so that we can build a country we can all be proud of,” said David Shearer.

As I said, I’m not a target mate of Shearer. Vernon Small posted a picture of Shearer’s mates:

Small: “Shearer talks – to big turnout of young Labour says party. Hmm more grey heads among young than there used to be”

I guess a work/school/Uni day won’t be convenient for a lot of younger people.

There might be some mates commenting  on the speech at The Standard: Shearer’s pre budget speech

This morning David Shearer gave Labour’s “pre budget” speech. No new policy, but plenty of good one-liners and a strong statement of Labour’s position.

No new policy but some good one-liners – not sure that will wow the disaffected and disillusioned ex Labour voters (which I’m one off).

If you are one of Dave’s mates you might like to read his whole speech:

David Shearer’s Speech:

Putting People First

A few weeks ago a woman contacted me asking for help.

She and her partner both have jobs. They pay their bills. They keep up with the mortgage and are raising four children.

But they’re struggling to get by from week to week.

She told me their situation is desperate. Her partner even went to Christchurch to try and earn a bit more.

Just the other week their car needed four new tyres to pass the warrant.

That used up the little savings they had and they had to borrow from a friend.

She said “we feel like bad role models for our children because we are constantly struggling”.

But from what she told me, they’re as good a role model as anyone.

They have my utmost respect.

But it’s not right and it’s not fair that it’s so hard to raise a family here.

She’s been let down and left behind by this Government.

John Key isn’t interested in the problems faced by hardworking families like hers.

He’s too focused on share-floats to care about the Kiwis working their guts out to make ends meet.

He’s more focused on his mates than your mates.

So it’ll be no surprise to you that when Bill English delivers his fifth Budget next week, there will be something missing.

People.

You’ll hear a lot about glossy business growth agendas and progress reports.

But there won’t be anything to help you find a job – or get a better job. To help you buy a house, to help you pay your bills or to stop your family moving to Australia.

Because that is this Government’s record.

This government makes promise after promise in Budget after Budget.

But it hasn’t delivered.

So why would you believe them this year?

Let’s take a look at their scorecard.

John Key promised he’d give Kiwis a reason to stay.

But as of last week, 200,000 people have left for Australia since he came to power.

At the last election, he promised 170,000 jobs. But in the last year there were 30,000 fewer.

There are now more than 163,000 New Zealanders unemployed.

In Budget 2010, they promised higher incomes. But since John Key’s been in office rising prices have outstripped pay packets.

In 2007, he promised to help our “growing underclass”. But income inequality in New Zealand is now the highest since records began.

There are now almost 24,000 more people on benefits and 21% of our kids live in poverty.

Under his watch, the gap between the top 10% and the rest of New Zealand is widening faster.

He promised to close the wage gap with Australia too, but New Zealanders are now earning an average of $58 a week less than their neighbours across the Tasman.

In the 2010 Budget, he promised a step-change in the economy. Instead, he has delivered a step-back for many.

John Key once said he was ambitious for New Zealand. I haven’t heard that for a while. The only thing he’s ambitious about now is his excuses.

You’ll have heard yesterday that he’s certainly not ambitious for Wellington – in fact he’s already signed its death warrant.

Talk about absolutely negatively John Key!

This Budget won’t change your life.

It’s a Budget for the boardroom, not the smoko room.

This National Government spends more time looking after vested interests than your interests.

It’s too busy doing back-room deals with gambling houses and movie giants to make sure hard-working New Zealanders have the wages they need to live on.

Too busy protecting the super-profits of power companies to worry about bringing your power bills down.

Too busy selling our assets to find innovative ways to grow our economy.

So who is this Government working for?

Investment bankers, casino operators, property speculators.

And, if you’re lucky enough to be a director of a power company, you’ll have just got a 73% pay increase on top of a $1200 a day special expenses allowance.

But not you and your family.

Times have been tough. We know that. But our main trading partners have turned the corner. Why haven’t we?

The reason is that this Government has got its priorities wrong.

I believe New Zealand can do better.

But we need to change.

We can’t continue as we are, stagnating and sliding down the global rankings.

We need to change New Zealand for the better.

So that it works in the interests of all people.

My vision for New Zealand is a place where people know they can get ahead, a place where the world wants to live and a place we can all be proud of.

A place that rewards talent and hard work, that puts a premium on innovation.

We’ve got to be forward looking. And find ways to create a country of drive and opportunity.

That’s why I will lead a government focused on what works for you and your family.

A government that’s prepared to change things that aren’t working.

I believe in New Zealand.

But we must do better. And we can.

By unlocking opportunities for everyone through better education.

By creating a stronger economy built on skills, creativity, science, hard graft and our natural advantages.

By building a strong, export-led economy.

I say, if you’re doing your bit, we should do ours as a government for the people.

Because you should be rewarded for your talent and hard work – not because you’re someone’s mate.

That’s the guts of the difference between John Key and me.

My Government will put people at the heart of everything we do.

National has forgotten the people who are the backbone of this country.

I recently met the Nobel Prize winning economist, Joseph Stiglitz, in New York.

He has shown that growing inequality is the number one factor holding countries like New Zealand back.

New Zealand was once one of the most equal societies in the world.  And we were proud of that.

But that’s no longer the case.

Now the gap between the top 10% and the rest is widening faster here than in most other Western countries.

National’s tax switch in 2010 made it worse, with the top 10% of earners taking home 40% of the money.

That’s a bonus of $2.25 billion in their pockets.

That flies in the face of what we know – that an equal society is a fairer society.

But just as importantly, closing that gap helps everyone get ahead – and stay ahead.

Because as Stiglitz shows, inequality is bad for business.

My mechanic earns a decent income but he hasn’t been able to give himself a pay rise for the past four or five years.

He’s being squeezed like many other hard-working New Zealanders.

If people like him have nothing left at the end of the week, they have nothing to spend, nothing to invest and nothing to save.

That’s not good for workers, businesses or our economy as a whole.

We need to change. We need to shift to an economy that works for us all.

As Prime Minister, I want to create and build – not just trade and sell.

I want to an economy that grows businesses and creates high-value jobs that keep our talented people here.

It’s time for new, bold ideas that improve lives without pushing the country further into debt.

It’s time for a Government that’s smart, hands on and uses the power it has to make a difference.

We will be prudent, responsible managers of the country’s finances. We will balance our budgets.

I grew up in a Presbyterian household where we didn’t put things on tick. You saved up and lived within your means.

I understand how important that is.

Labour understands that.

The last Labour Government produced Budget surpluses nine years in a row. It left us with amongst the lowest government debt in the world.

When this Government took over, the books were in surplus. Since then every year, year after year, the Government has been in deficit.

This year we will be almost $8 billion dollars short. That means our Government debt today is $58 billion dollars.

As a country, we must live within our means. We can’t go on spending what we don’t have.

That’s why we need a smart, active government to make changes that will benefit people and boost the economy.

That’s what the next Labour Government will do.

Let me take two examples.

NZ Power. It’s a plan that will reduce household power bills by between $230 and $330 a year and limit future power increases.

That makes a big difference because power prices have gone through the roof in New Zealand. You’re being ripped off.

One woman wrote to me this week to say she and her husband have just had their first child.

She wants to do the best by her new family.

But she feels “physically sick” with worry each time she checks the mailbox for her power bill.

As she says: “Parents in NZ shouldn’t feel worried about the basic necessities for their children such as electricity. It makes you feel hopeless.”

NZ Power will change that. It’ll put money back into the hands of people struggling to make ends meet.

And that’s good for the economy too.

Cutting power bills will put cash into the pockets of Kiwis and businesses. Money they will spend and invest.

Independent economists Berl say that extra spending will stimulate our economy, boost GDP by about $450 million and create at least 5,000 jobs.

John Key says power prices aren’t too high. No wonder he’s not prepared to act.

He’s out of touch and not listening to Kiwis.

He’s listening to the power companies and the share-brokers who are protecting their patch.

I say to them: you can choose to buy shares. You can’t choose to buy power.

You should earn a fair return, but not a super profit.

It’s that simple.

So if those big vested interests want to stop consumers getting a better deal and stop our economy getting a boost, well then bring it on.

Because I’m not about to sit around and let that happen.

Let me give you another example.

KiwiBuild

House prices are rocketing up and the rate of home ownership is sliding.

That’s why we’ve come up with an innovative way to help 100,000 Kiwi families into affordable homes.

It means building houses – bricks and mortar – not fiddling with the RMA or pushing the blame onto councils.

Operating on such a scale means our construction companies can make huge savings. And over time the programme funds itself.

And again, it’s good for our economy and creates thousands of jobs and apprenticeships.

It’s another example of how my Government will be smart and hands-on.

Labour policies will help all New Zealanders, not just the rich and well connected.

Our policies are practical and they put people first.

We need to create opportunities because that’s the only way to tackle inequality.

We’ll start with giving our kids a world-class education. We’ll extend reading recovery and put food in schools so children are ready and able to learn.

We’ll help them discover what they want to do with their lives and make sure they know how to get there.

We’ll make sure people get a decent wage – lift the minimum wage to $15 an hour.

We’ll champion a living wage so that people can provide for their family.

Our future is a high-wage economy not a low wage one.

Right across the economy we will make fundamental changes that will transform the economy to grow export businesses and create high wage jobs.

Monetary policy will change.

We’ll broaden the objectives of the Reserve Bank to wider than just inflation because the high dollar is killing our exporters.

The research and development policy will change.

Because R&D tax credits will help our smart businesses grow and sell their products to the world.

The tax system will change.

We want to shift investment from speculation on housing to our productive businesses. That’s why we’ll introduce a capital gains tax.

The savings policy will change.

We will enrol everyone into KiwiSaver to secure Kiwis’ future retirement and build an investment pool to power our businesses.

We’ll give Kiwi companies the first crack at big Government contracts. But in return, we’ll expect those companies to hire trainees.

And we’ll pay employers the equivalent of the dole to take on an unemployed person as an apprentice.

And there’s more to come.

We have the courage to make the big changes this Government is afraid to make.

Changes that will transform the economy for everyone.

We have two very different paths before us.

One path – under National leads to disappointment, decline and constant struggle where Kiwis fall behind the rest of the world.

Led by a Government that’s consumed by scandal, broken promises and one that sides with its own mates and vested interests.

Or a Labour Government that puts you first.

That has the courage to make the big changes to improve your life.

That will back New Zealanders who are doing their bit.

My first Budget will be about hope.

It will be about giving hardworking families a reason to believe things will get better.

It will give young Kiwis opportunities and a reason to stay.

It will give families a decent life where their kids can reach their full potential.

It will give businesses the backing they need to flourish.

People are my priority.

At the end of the day, it comes down to a simple question – who do you have faith in?

I put my faith in New Zealanders.

In their ‘can do’ attitude, gutsy approach to life and willingness to do the hard graft.

As Prime Minister, I’ll back you.

I will make the change to a prosperous society.

A fairer society.

And a country that we can all be proud of.

Time to end asset petition farce

As a supposed Citizen Initiated Referendum the asset sales petition was always a politicised farce. It was known from the start that if a referendum was held it would be ignored by Government, as past Governments have done with past referenda.

But the Greens poured considerable resources into using the referendum as a between elections campaign tool. And as seems to be common practice these days Labour followed along.

As far as political PR stunts go Greens and Labour have been majorly embarrassed by failing to get the required number of signatures.

They are initially putting on brave faces, albeit considerably egg covered. Russel Norman and David Shearer are vowing to get back to gathering signatures again to get the additional signatures required.

I wonder how many of the Green and Labour troops are groaning with trepidation. A year long signature gathering campaign was a major slog. Now they are being asked to psych themselves again for another burst of pleading to the public.

For what?

If they get the signatures a referendum will be held, perhaps later this year – well after Mighty River Power shares go on NZX (this Friday), and quite possibly after Meridian as well some time in the next few months. Too toothless, too late.

A referendum would be a multi million dollar exercise in futility.

Greens thought they were onto a winning strategy where they could use taxpayer money to fund a long running party campaign leading in to the next election.

They have now lost face, big time.

And if they continue on with the petition they stand to gain little if anything more, and could lose more egg covered face.

If Greens and Labour can’t organise a successful petition together, how would the look organising a government coalition?

A referendum will have zero effect on the asset share sale programme. It will keep reminding voters of the ongoing CIR farce.

If Greens and Labour had any sense they would cut their losses and move on to something more positive.

But by the sound of Russel Norman’s response to the news yesterday the Green petition machine is likely to continue.

And Labour sound like they will continue – Anti-asset sales campaign not over yet – Labour

Talk about flogging long dead horses. I think it’s time to end the farce.

Did David Farrar sabotage the asset petition?

Russel Norman’s last tweet yesterday:

So if the National Party activist David Farrar signed the asset sale petition 13 times, did Nats organise this nationally?

Funny to see Norman referring to Farrar as a “National Party activist”.

Farrar has responded on Facebook:

Seeing the response to today’s joke tweet, I am thinking of becoming a professional troll. The waves of outrage are quite addictive!

Farra’s “joke tweet” was amongst an exchange on the number of disallowed signatures on the asset sale petition. On a Kiwiblog post Massive fail for Labour and Greens Farrar claims:

This is incredible. They spent around $400,000 gathering signatures for their asset sales petition, and they failed to get enough valid signatures.

They needed 308,753 valid signatures but fell short by 16,500.

That is a massive fail and gross political incompetence. They didn’t have to submit the petition when they did. They could have carried on getting more signatures to make sure.

I’m still staggered for now that despite spending $400,000 and having the entire memberships of the Labour and Green parties, and most unions, they proved unable to get enough valid signatures.  You could understand it if they were close to the deadline to submit – but they were not. They made a tactical decision to submit early for political posturing, and have ended up with egg on their face.

UPDATE: They claimed to have 400,000 signatures but got 292,250 valid ones. That means 107,750 were invalid which is a massive 26.9%. Maybe they should have put their paid petition gatherers on performance pay!

Here’s the offending tweet:

 ‏@dpfdpf
So was it wrong of me to sign the #assetsales petition 13 times? I used a different name each time, so figured that was fine :-)

I saw that tweet at the time, 8.37 pm last night. I can only see minor response to that tweet, Farrar then went out fot the evening (according to another tweet) and Norman was not very active, a few tweets defending the petition and then the one accusing Farrar.

Farrar was obviously joking. Norman must know this but is trying to score some political mileage by trying to portray it as an organised National sabotage of the petition.

Over the last year when the petition was gathering signatures I saw many quips and claims in social media that people had signed the petition using fake names – eg Mickey Mouse. It’s impossible to know if these commenters were saying what they had actually done or were trying to encourage others to do it.

I don’t agree with deliberately spoiling a petition but I’m not surprised, the Greens used what is supposed to be a Citizen Initiated Referendum into a party campaign tool, using it to promote themselves and to harvest contact email addresses, phone numbers and postal addresses (as did Labour).

So it shouldn’t be surprising that political game playing may have occurred with the petition. Norman played down a country wide 2011 campaign stunt by Green activists defacing National election hoardings.

Defacing petition forms is probably a degree worse but as a Citizen’s referendum it was farcical and futile, so making it more farcical doesn’t seem to be a big deal.

Not that I think Farrar signed 13 times, I highly doubt that he did, he was joking on Twitter. Some will have deliberately the spoiled petition, but there will be many reasons for invalid signatures.

Someone I know told me that a signature gatherer was so pushy they found it easier to just sign (again) than say no.

And a couple of examples from a petition supporting blog, The Standard, in Asset sales petition has more work to do.

tamati 9

I remember seeing a petition at an op shop on Dominion road. Was just sitting on the counter, with nobody actually supervising. Saw a bunch of girls in school uniform sign up, and nobody seemed to know this was wrong!

shorts 13

I wonder how many are disallowed due to them not being on the electoral role – given over a million eligible voters didn’t vote last election, one could surmise there’s a lot of young people whom may have signed simply not on the roll?

Yep as someone who spent a lot of time collecting signatures the number of people who had changed addresses were significant. And without a date of birth date the chances of identifying them on the roll would have been very poor.

I am actually not surprised at this problem. It is just what happens when you have volunteers talking to ordinary people and collecting signatures without the benefit of electoral rolls being on hand.

The Al1en 16

I signed the petition in the Labour party Hamilton office in Te Rapa.
I was told to only sign my name and date of birth.
And they want to run the country when they can’t even get a form filled out properly.
Good work, front desk nobody.

With consideration, I remember I queried it at the time and did put my name down, but I do recall seeing a lot of just names and birth dates. Hope that page wan’t pulled out for a scan by the clerk.

karol 23.3

I’m still concerned about the fact that I moved since I signed the petition – wonder if that makes my signature invalid.

So obviously it’s very difficult ensuring that only valid signatures are collected, and a high failure rate isn’t surprising.

Greens and Labour will have known there was a high error rate, as they were harvesting data off the petition forms, Duplicates and obvious bogus names would have been known about.

They delayed presentation of the petition. This was probably due to known error rates. But they miscalculated – and were under pressure to present the petition before Mighty River Power shares were floated.

Russel Norman could look at any number of reasons why the operation failed to make the required threshold.

Blaming David Farrar and a National spoiling campaign looks a bit desperate.

But I guess a highly party politicised “citizen’s” petition/referendum campaign is going to remain highly politicised.

“National struggles to fill list”

Tracey Watkins has written about Aaron Gilmore and the quality of MPs in National struggles to fill list despite healthy pay.

The money’s good, the hours are flexible and the job comes with influence and power. But apparently it’s a struggle finding decent applicants for a job as an MP, even on a hefty pay packet of $142,000 a year, plus expenses.

National also runs an “integrated list” – which means candidates prepared to put their hand up in unwinnable seats are rewarded with a list placing as well.

That was how Mr Gilmore got a place on the party list, because he stood for Christchurch East, where National had no chance of winning.

In safe seats like Tamaki, however, four or five high-quality candidates would jostle for selection – but only one would make the cut.

Many high-fliers, meanwhile, were not prepared to give up their other lives for an uncertain political future.

Watkins quotes David Farrar who had blogged on this in List Ranking:

“Unless you really rate yourself to become a minister and, more importantly, you can see yourself becoming a minister in three or four years, the salary doesn’t attract some of the high-fliers”.

“The reality is … you go in at the bottom of the pile and if you’re lucky, or like Nikki Kaye work really hard, you get to become a minister. But if National had lost the last election, she also could have spent the next six or seven years in Opposition.”

There are major time and financial commitments in standing for Parliament. Farrar has previously said that a candidate needs to dedicate at least six months leading up to an election. And many people having their first attempt will be low on the list and/or will be standing in an unwinnable seat, so the chances of success are limited.

People wanting to maintain business activity or employment simply can’t afford the time off that campaigning requires, especially if standing for one of the major parties.

Watkins also says former Labour Party president Mike Williams…

…says Labour doesn’t have the same problem because for most of its candidates $142,000 is a lot of money.

But Labour candidates also have the time commitment problem – and they are not guaranteed to get the $142,000 salary at the end of the campaign. Over half their candidates in 2011 failed to make it into Parliament.

Labour may have less of a problem getting candidates – but they have at least as much of a problem getting quality candidates. Even though they have not much more than half the MPs that National has the depth of quality is hardly stellar. There are calls from within Labour ranks to revitalise their line up of MPs.

Another aspect regarding quality of lists is that how a successful candidate will measure up as an MP is a lottery.It is a totally different job for all new MPs. Some rise to the task, some don’t – like Aaron Gilmore up until now.

Greens have weaknesses in their list of MPs.

And all the small parties have real difficulty in getting quality candidates.

I don’t know if there’s anything that can be done to improve the quality of MPs. Maybe we just have to accept the system as it is and take our chances with who we get to represent us in Parliament.

 

Key’s poll reaction

A curious headline in Stuffs’s Today in Politics:

KEY CHOOSES NOT TO REACT TO NEW ROY MORGAN POLL

Prime Minister John Key is not counting his chickens too soon after a Roy Morgan poll on Thursday had the Nats up 6 points to 46.5 at the expense of Labour, which had slipped down.

Mr Key said the Roy Morgan poll tended to ‘‘move around a hell of a lot’’ and he would wait and see what other polls said.

However,  he was not surprised that people had seen through the Labour and Greens’ power policy.

That sounds like a political reaction to me.

The poll had National Party on 46.5%, Labour on 31.5% (down 4%) and Greens 11% (down 2.5%).

One bouncy poll – see Roy Morgan poll bounce – doesn’t tell a whole story but it does look likely that National up and Labour and Greens down by significant amounts can be at least party attributed to the NZ Power announcement and subsequent publicity.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 76 other followers