Ask Arthur 2020, Part 2: Same as it never was

Over the years, I’ve been asked a lot of questions about all sorts of things—politics, religion, even my own philosophies, among many other things. Today’s question is no different.

Today’s question is from Roger Green:

This is actually a question that came up in a Bible study this morning. The assumption is that people want to get back to the way they were before COVID (and George Floyd and 2020 generally).

What processes are most likely NOT to go back to what had been the norm? And related, how do you think people have changed by 2020? Kinder, greedier, more or less tolerant?

I think the answer to that is really, “depends on where you’re talking about,” because, as with fighting the pandemic itself, everything depends on where one lives. For that matter, the problems of the year that seemed the biggest also depended on where one lives.

First, the pandemic. I think there will be some lasting changes in all developed countries. Chief among them, there will be more people working from home, at least part of the time, but probably more than that. It will mean more corporations downsizing their real estate, which, in turn, could mean large vacant office buildings in major cities. Because of that, the hospitality trade in business areas will suffer dramatically, which will mean going out for lunch or after-work drinks workmates may become less common.

People will desperately want to get back to what they had, so I expect there will be problems with compliance with things like physical distancing and wearing masks. I say that in part because I’ve seen a notable drop in people using New Zealand’s Covid Tracer App. Obviously my personal observations aren’t evidence, but they at least suggests that some people in New Zealand have already become complacent—the very reason the government launched its “Make Summer Unstoppable” campaign.

While everyone want to get back to “normal”, we have no way of knowing if that will even be possible. We don’t know if people are infectious after getting the vaccine, or how long their protection lasts, so we can’t be sure it’ll ever be safe to go back to what we had before. The only way to make that more likely is for people to get vaccinated and to continue wearing masks and physically distance until we have better answers about immunity for, and transmission by, vaccinated people.

A huge amount of kindness shown during the worst of the pandemic, most of it unheralded. In New Zealand, kindness was a cornerstone of the government’s response because they needed us to do our part, not just to get through lockdown, but also to help ensure that others did, too. It worked. However, I’m not convinced that kindness is a natural state for humans in normal times, so I think that most of us will probably go back to being cantankerous and unforgiving when the crisis does eventually end. I hope I’m wrong about that.

In the USA, much of the turmoil and stress was stuff caused—usually directly, sometimes indirectly—by the soon to be ex-occupant of the White House and his disastrous mishandling of the pandemic. Having a real president and vice president in office, pursuing perfectly rational policies and upholding the rule of law will go a long way toward turning down the flame under the societal pot. I certainly don’t expect any of the issues—like Black Lives Matter, for example—to be solved in the next four years, however, we at least know that none of them will get worse like they did in the previous four. That alone should allow a bit of a return to “normal” for society generally—the caveat being that patience is not infinite, and the new administration will need to take action to make things better because simply not making them worse is no progress at all, not really.

Similarly, the new US administration will need to act on climate change, which even with action will continue to disrupt societies with more (and more frequent) severe storms and wider, more destructive events like wildfires. But there can be other natural events, like the eruption of New Zealand’s Whakaari/White Island, something that happened only a year ago, in December 2019, mere weeks before Covid emerged. All of those sorts of things—weather related and non weather related events—are by definition unpredictable. We can only hope that things will be better in 2021 than they were this year, and if they are, that, too, will help restore a sense of normality.

People throughout the developed world have been changed by 2020, and some of that may be permanent or, at least, long-lived. The deep and bitter political division in the USA, for example, won’t vanish any time soon (it built up over decades, after all), but it might get better if nature doesn’t get too dramatic and political progress is made.

As a sign of hope, I offer New Zealand: Faced with many of the same challenges as the USA—the global pandemic, systemic racism, a large income divide and poverty, etc., New Zealand voters saw they had a strong, capable, competent government that was trying to unite, not divide, the country and they re-elected their government in an historic landslide. That’s what good government can result in. So, if the new administration gets the pandemic under control, if it makes progress on finally dealing with simmering unresolved social and political issues, there is hope for a return to more normal times.

All of which puts aside questions about “what ‘normal’ are people expecting to return to”. What people perceive as “normal” isn’t necessarily desirable, and it may not even be real. I’m thinking especially of the folks who are convinced that there were no racial problems until “troublemakers” started rioting. And there are still people who believe the fantasy version of 1950s America is something to aspire to. None of those viewpoints are based on reality, and if that’s what the “normal” people want, they will be hugely disappointed.

Thanks to Roger for today’s question, my rather in adequate answer notwithstanding.

It’s not too late to ask a question: Simply leave a comment on this post (anonymous comments are allowed). Or, you can email me your question (and you can even tell me to keep your name secret, although, why not pick a nom de question?). You can also ask questions on the AmeriNZ Facebook page, though keep in mind that all Facebook Pages are public, just like this blog. You can also send me a private message through the AmeriNZ Facebook Page.

All posts in this series are tagged “AAA-20”. All previous posts from every “Ask Arthur” series are tagged, appropriately enough, ”Ask Arthur”.

Previously:

Sure, why not ask again? – The first post in this year’s series.
Ask Arthur 2020, Part 1: An untold story

Political Notebook – Two big elections

Try as I might, I just couldn’t be bothered blogging about the two big elections I recently went through. Naturally, I had stuff to say, but nothing I cared about enough to actually write about. Part of that was was caused by the effects of my prescriptions, but I think I was also just plain worn down, especially by the past 13+ months, but also the three years-ish before that. Still, I noticed stuff, and a Political Notebook post is the simplest way to share some of that.

I really only published one expressly partisan political post just before the US election, and also one about voting in the US election. Apart from that, I haven’t really said anything since before Nigel died. All together, prior to today I published 53 posts about the US elections.

Up until today, I’d published 19 posts about the NZ election, and a large number of them were general in nature. Only a few posts were partisan in focus. I also had one about voting in the New Zealand election.

I think that I’d have had a lot more to say about both countries’ elections if Nigel hadn’t died. I can’t be sure, of course, but at the very least, I’d have been more motivated. Fortunately plenty of other people have written about stuff so I didn’t have to.

The USA’s elections

We all knew that the US election was going to be a mess, no matter what happened. What happened was all that and so much worse. The graphic above demonstrates how wide Joe Biden’s victory margin really was, though, of course, that’s irrelevant: The only thing that matters is getting enough votes in just the right states. Of course, Joe Biden did that, too.

As the result of again losing one single Electoral College Vote in Nebraska to the Democratic Candidate, the state’s Republicans are again determined to make the state “winner takes all” to ensure they all go to the Republican candidate. Of course.

Hypocritical electoral antics are one of the many reasons “The crisis isn’t Trump. It’s the Republican Party.” As Vox's Ezra Klein’s interview of Anne Applebaum points out. Which makes Marco Rubio’s opinion that his party “must rebrand as party of 'multiethnic, multiracial, working-class' voters” all the more laughable. Now, if Rubio had pledged to end his party’s reliance on disinformation, that would be a start (See: “Americans Were Primed To Believe” in FiveThirtyEight).

So, where to for Republicans? A better question might be what can Democrats do for disaffected Republicans? Before the election, long-time Republican strategist Stuart Stevens wrote “A Message to Democrats from Your New Ally: Victory is near”. At the same time, it’s often been pointed out that Democrats need to learn to speak to non-Trumpian Republicans. Published in NZ’s Stuff, Lana Hart suggests “Midwestern oddities help explain voting patterns”. She has a point, even if some of how she got there is arguable. This of course puts aside the question of whether it might be viable for Democrats to move Left, but that’s too big a topic for a links post. Maybe another day.

On the positive side, there were more women elected to Congress. Writing for FiveThirtyEight, Meredith Conroy talks about “How A Record Number Of Republican Women Will — And Won’t — Change Congress”. The short version: It’s not enough to really change things, either for the Republican Party or the politics of Congress.

New Zealand’s Election

By anyone’s reckoning, New Zealand’s election was huge and decisive. 82.2% of enrolled voters cast ballots (and 94.1% of eligible voters were enrolled by the day before the election; voter enrollment is compulsory). Of those votes, 68% were cast in advance (before Election Day).

The New Zealand Labour Party (full disclosure: I’m a member of the party) received 50% of the Party Vote, entitling it to 65 seats in the new Parliament (out of 120). This is the first time since MMP elections began in 1996 that a party has received enough votes to govern alone, and it was the largest intake of new MPs the party has seen since the First Labour Government was elected in 1935. The new Labour Party Caucus is also its first to be majority female. Overall, the new Parliament is the most diverse New Zealand has had. Among other things, thanks to the election, "NZ Parliament most rainbow in world".

Naturally, it wasn’t all clear sailing. Rightwingers were up to mischief, as they so often are. Some Australian lobbyists for the energy industry slandered NZ Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, in part because she pledged to take action on climate change (an example they’re clearly afraid Australia will follow).

There was also a nonsense theory that the election wasn’t really an overwhelming vote of approval for Jacinda Ardern’s Labour Government; instead, it was conservative “National Party voters voting for Labour as a way to keep the Green Party out of government. There’s no evidence of that, and a far more likely explanation is that it was just an overwhelming vote of approval for Jacinda Ardern’s Labour Government. Personally, I think any National voters who voted Labour—or, more likely, for the libertarian-ish far right Act Party, which got its highest vote in many, many years—did so because of how extremely unpopular National’s leader Judith Collins is. I know I’m not the only one who thinks that, either. We’ll eventually have more data about that later on.

A newly elected Green Party MP, Ricardo Menéndez March, who is the first Mexican immigrant to be elected to Parliament, was the target of abuse because of a sarcastic Tweet he made about having to take an oath of allegiance to the Queen. Now, full disclosure, I’ve always liked him, even when I’ve disagreed with him, because of his endearing politics nerdiness (takes one to know one), and it’s nice that he’s also openly gay. However, the main reason I back him on this is because there’s nothing wrong with sarcasm, even about a stupid oath. Besides, I’ve long been critical of the oath used precisely because it requires an oath of affirmation of allegiance to the Queen, not the people of New Zealand. The oath needs to change, no matter what the mouth-breathers choose to think.

Finally, there was one weird thing about the New Zealand Election, delivered courtesy of Facebook. When I shared the NZ Labour graphic above celebrating the new government being sworn in, Facebook inserted one of its standard links to election information—about the US election results. This is a company that has no problem serving up ads for things I’ve searched for online or mentioned in a FB comment (or even spoken about out loud…), yet it can’t tell the difference between something about the US election and that of another country. No wonder they have so much trouble stopping disinformation and hate speech. Maybe I’ll talk about politics more now. Maybe not. But at least I now have these things off my list.

That, and the NZ election shows how well a democracy's elections can be.

Vote like a boss

The New Zealand Electoral Commission has always advertised to promote the NZ elections, from registration through to actual voting. This year is no different, but this year they’re trying to motivate younger voters to turn out to vote.

The ad above, “Vote Like A Boss”, is part of that effort to reach younger voters. It features Kiwi humour, and the attempt to help young people see that they can determine who is elected—they can be the boss. The ad is in reasonably heavy rotation on New Zealand TV at the moment.

The most common ads during election season ar the more general, and once voting opens, the ads encourage voting. Right now, there are two such ads in heavy rotation.

First up: “Vote now in the General Election and referendums”:



I’ve seen this ad on TV the most of the two in the series. The voice track in the ad was also recorded in Te Reo Māori and in Mandarin This ads can be seen on the Electoral Commission’s YouTube Channel.

Next is “Vote now in the referendums on End of Life Choice and cannabis”:



Like the ad above, this ad is also recorded in Te Reo. This ad originally started running at the start of the Advance Voting period.

There may be more, different ads before the NZ General Election on Saturday, October 17, but these are likely to continue running right up until then. While these particular ads are new for this year’s election, they run such ads every year.

We politics nerds look forward to the ads every election season—of course. But the important thing is that such ads are run at all: We need to encourage people to vote so the results have full legitimacy. It’s important—and a lot of work for some TV ads.

More NZ Labour ads

The New Zealand Labour Party has started running a new ad on TV, but at the moment the only version online—and, therefore, shareable—is on Facebook (above). Those can be a problem sometimes, so if it doesn’t work, follow the Facebook link instead.

However, when I went to YouTube to try and find the video of the new ad, I realised there are two more ads I hadn’t shared yet. Both were released about a week after the first one that I shared. They’re still on TV, along with the new one.

The first ad is “Our plan creates jobs, backs business, and grows trade”:



The other ad is “We're rolling out a plan that keeps people safe & builds the economy”:



All the ads repeat similar themes, and each are good at quickly presenting their case. In general terms, I think the newest one is the most effective mainly because it’s more like the ads people are watching for pretty much everything else, and because it’s different from the ads other parties are running, nearly all of which, like Labour's previous ads, have the party leader talking to the camera. I like that Labour has mixed it up a bit. Also, the stop sign changing from "stop" to "go" is a particularly effective visual device. 

The New Zealand General Election will be held on Saturday, October 17, but voting began this past Saturday, October 3. Voter turnout so far is trending ahead of last year (though it’s only been two days; that link goes to stats that will be updated daily). Tonight I heard that Elections NZ is expecting 60% of the vote to be cast before Election Day. I think they may be right.

Disclosures: I’m a supporter of the New Zealand Labour Party, but have no position of any kind with them, nor am I in contact with party leaders. All opinions expressed are entirely my own, based on more than 40 years closely following election campaigns, as well as my personal values.

Pōti ahau – I voted (2020)

View this post on Instagram

Pōti ahau - I voted, 2020 edition. That’s my New Zealand civic duty done for another three years. 🙂🗳🇳🇿

A post shared by arthur_amerinz (@arthur_amerinz) on Oct 3, 2020 at 6:07pm PDT

Today I voted in New Zealand’s General Election, which closes on Saturday, October 17. Each year an increasing number of voters choose to vote early, and for me there was no reason for me not to do it today. It was a bright, sunny, warm Spring day, so what could be a better way to spend it than to vote?

I’d planned on voting sometime this coming week, when there are a lot of voting places open. I changed my mind when my niece posted on Facebook that she’d voted this morning, and I thought, “Why not?” I used to always wait to go with Nigel to vote, but that’s obviously no longer relevant. But I did wear Nigel’s bracelet today so that, in a way, I could bring him with me.

I checked the vote.nz website to find one open today, because not many are open on Sunday. The site lists the times and day as well as date voting places are open. There was one “just up the road”—a couple kilometres away, maybe. I drove over there only to find it was closed.

I can’t begin to describe how disappointed I was—“crushed” may be too strong a word, but not by much. I really did have my heart set on voting today.

So, as I closer to home, I pulled over and picked up my phone to find another possible voting place. Instead of using the site to find me a place, I instead looked at the map (which begins with all of NZ that I needed to enlarge). There was nothing near me, so I looked a bit further afield, looking for one in my Electorate (Hamilton has two) because I knew it would be easier for everyone, and because I wasn’t sure where the Electorate boundaries actually are. I remembered only later that there are a few voting places that serve both Electorates.

I set off with my GPS telling me where to go (though I actually knew most of the way there), and as I got near I saw the “Voting” sign on the road, and turned in. Siri was not happy with me and kept telling me to “return to the route”. I’m sure it was only my imagination that each instruction sounded a bit more annoyed than the one before. I should add that the address I entered (also from the Vote.NZ website) may not have been wrong because the voting place was in a park building, and the park may have had two entrances, for all I know (there’s a lot of Hamilton I don’t know).

I went in after scanning the QR code for the Covid-19 contact tracing App, and a friendly lady directed me on where to go to vote. I saw tape marks on the floor to tell people where to stand if there was a queue.

I entered the door to the actual room, which was empty except for the workers. There was another QR code, which, the helpful guy told me, was the same as the one I’d already scanned. They invited me to sanitise my hands, and if I didn’t bring my own pen. I could take one to use and then take home afterward. So, I did.

I went to the lady checking people in and chatted with her and the woman next to her (who was dealing with more complicated votes). I stood on the tape mark on the floor, and there were several behind me. The lady dealing with the more complicated votes had six chairs in a line in front of her (because it can be very time consuming), each chair meeting physical distancing requirements.

I asked the ladies how busy they’d been and they told me it had been steady today, but yesterday—the first day of voting—was more hectic. I was given my two voting papers (one for Party Vote and Electorate Vote, and the other for the two referenda). She also pointed to the ballot boxes and to the freestanding voting booths (they had two for people standing, and one lower one for people in wheelchairs).

I did my General Election paper first—two ticks Labour, of course), and then the referenda: I voted “Yes” on both. I triple-checked to make sure I hadn’t made any mistakes, then folded the voting papers back in half again, walked over to the ballot boxes, put my referendum paper in its box and my General Election voting paper in its ballot box.

I paused at that point because a woman had just entered the door, wearing a mask, and I waited until she moved toward the table with the lady before I moved to leave. I was again invited to sanitise my hands, and I did. I thanked everyone and left.

Once outside, I waited until some park visitors got into their car to leave so I could take my selfie (for my Instagram post, included above). As I walked back to my car, another one pulled into the parking area, and a couple got out, neither one was wearing a mask. Then, another car pulled in and three people got out, all of them wearing masks.

I didn’t wear a mask because we’re at Level One (the lowest level) and there’s currently no community transmission. More importantly, there hasn’t been any official advice to wear masks, and none of the staff working there were wearing masks, either. If the government advised us to wear a mask, I probably would have. However, the chance of getting infected there under our current reality is next to none, and, in any case, since I scanned the QR code, the government will be able to let me know in the infinitesimally small chance that someone with Covid-19 had been there.

Once I found a voting place, everything went very well. Everyone was really nice, and it was kind of cool having the place to myself for awhile. The lady who came in just before I left didn’t look very friendly, so I wondered if maybe she was frightened. I’ll never know, of course, but I do know that for some reason some people find the process stressful, and that’s probably even more true this year.

Going to vote is like Christmas and my birthday all rolled into one—I absolutely love it. That’s why I was so disappointed when it looked like I’d have to wait after I’d already decided I wanted to vote today and had my heart set on it. I’m glad everything worked out.

We’ll get preliminary results of the General Election the evening of October 17, but the referenda votes will be counted after that, so we won’t hear the preliminary results for them until late in the month. Many years ago, probably the first one I could vote in, there were two referenda, too, but they chose to tally those and the referenda that night, which meant we didn’t know how the General Election turned out until very late that night. Clearly the elections people learned from that experience.

And that’s it for my NZ voting this year. I wish I could go do it again, but the next time will be three years from now. I’m sure I’ll get excited about that, too.

The nearer election

While the USA is (understandably) focused on the election there in November (as much of the world is, too), it’s not the only place elections are happening. Voting for the New Zealand General Election begins this coming Saturday, October 13. Election Day itself is on Saturday, October 17. This is much nearer for me, and it’s getting more of my attention at the moment.

I received my “Easy Vote” pack (photo above), which is designed to make it faster and easier to vote. I had some trouble getting my voter registration changed after I shifted to Hamilton, mainly because of the postal disruptions caused by the Covid-19 global pandemic. But, I got it finalised, and that’s what matters.

As always, we’ll have two votes: One is for the candidate in our Electorate (similar to a Congressional District in the USA). The other is for the party we want to lead government (known as “the party vote”). When we vote for the candidate of the party we also give our party vote to, it’s called “two ticks” (a “tick” in this context is the same thing that most Americans would call a “checkmark”). In my case, I’ll be voting “Two Ticks Labour”, as I have ever since I became eligible to vote in New Zealand.

This year, though, there are also two referenda on the ballot, one to allow the End of Life Choice Act 2019 to become law, the other asks if we’re in favour the proposed legalising of the recreational use of cannabis (I’ll try to talk more about the referenda another time). I’ll be voting YES on both referenda.

I love voting, and Election Day was always like Christmas and my birthday all rolled into one. But it just won’t be as fun and exciting without Nigel here to share it with me. I can imagine all the awesome discussions we’d be having about the election campaign and the players within it (and we’d have many conversations about the US’s election campaign, too). Our politics were very closely aligned, which is what added to the fun of it all.

Still, Nigel’s not here, and it’s up to me to carry on and do my democratic duty, this time for both of us. I will.

But I sure wish Nigel was here to share it with me.

Predictable responses

Last week was Te Wiki O Te Reo Māori (Māori Language Week), and there were the usual grumbles. This year, one thing that happened after the week made some people unhappy. That’s not new, but the context certainly was.

Every year New Zealand observes Māori Language Week as a way of building awareness of, and familiarity with, the Māori language. Typically this includes TV presenters using more of the language, and TV commercials are often subtitled with the language, or have a new spoken track entirely. There are often grizzles about it being mere tokenism because everything reverts back to English the following week, and, of course, there are grumpy cranks who complain about the language being used at all.

Once Māori Language Week was over, mobile phone (etc) company Vodafone NZ changed its carrier identifier to “VF Aotearoa”. In the past it was “Voda NZ”, and during Covid Vodafone changed it to say “Voda NZ – Stay Safe” and then when we moved down levels, it changed to “Voda NZ – Stay Kind”.

Then this week it changed to “VF Aotearoa”. I noticed it right away (let’s just say I check my phone a few times during the day and leave it at that), but I didn’t think much about it, actually. They’d already changed it several times, after all.

Naturally, someone didn’t like it (but one competitor's response was awesome). Interestingly, it seems as if the objection was mostly on a technicality, and not, as one might assume, about open racism (that’s usually reserved for those who oppose any use of the language by public institutions). However, the issue of what the country and the places within it are named is an ongoing topic of discussion, debate, and, of course, arguments.

Recently, the Māori Party used Māori Language Week to announce it would change the country’s name to Aotearoa by 2026. Right now, that’s a non-starter, not the least because the Māori Party is unlikely to be in Parliament, let alone in a position to influence public policy. Even so, the general idea is unlikely to go away.

Last June, as part of a global phenomenon following the murder of George Floyd, the Hamilton City Council took down the statue of the English soldier the town was named after, a man who is accused of participating in atrocities, and who also never set foot in the city that would be named after him. That rekindled discussion on whether the city’s name should revert to its original name, Kirikiriroa (which apparently means “long stretch of gravel”). A poll taken at the time said that only 27.4% wanted to see the name changed, 14.9% didn’t know/wouldn’t say, and a whopping—though unsurprising—57.6% opposed a name change.

Hamilton is a conservative place, but there’s also a large influence from Māori. The removal of the statue was pushed by local Māori, for example, but there are already many names of streets and suburbs that are Māori (including the street and area where I live). I think it’s inevitable that Hamilton’s name will change—some day—as will the names of other places. Personally, I think it’s more likely that the country’s name will one day become “Aotearoa New Zealand”, something that an increasing number of people—young people in particular—already call it. This would be a way to honour the country’s origins and the European influence in shaping it, too.

In the meantime, there will be occasional flashes of anger from the grumpy brigade, racists, and assorted complainers. This also means that folks with an impish side may deliberately stir the pot: People like, oh, me, for example.

Online, and on Facebook in particular, I sometimes refer to “Kirikiriroa-Hamilton”, and sometimes just “Kirikiriroa”, mostly because I think the name should change. However, if I’m truly honest, it’s also because I know it pisses off “certain people”. I'm well aware that this particular impishness sometimes veers close to being ordinary trolling, but it also serves a useful purpose: Over time, the use of names like Kirikiriroa and Aotearoa desensitises opponents to their use. It won’t change anyone’s view overnight, and possibly not at all for some people, but making the names more commonly seen and heard will also make adopting them more likely to happen, and sooner rather than later.

There is, however, also a danger that we could go too quickly. Only a small percentage of New Zealanders can speak Māori, and only a minority of Māori are fluent. Pushing the adoption of Te Reo Māori too hard, too fast, and/or too aggressively could cause a backlash from non-Māori in particular. That’s not a reason to not push for change, just an acknowledgement that we need to bring everyone along. Fortunately, most advocates for the language, Māori and Pākehā alike, are doing exactly that.

Right now, though, there will be times when people will get way too bent out of shape over tiny things like a cellphone company’s network identifiers. In other words, people will have predictable responses when they feel threatened in some way by even the smallest use of the Māori language. We just need to work to make such reactions less common. And even tiny changes, like the one to “VF Aotearoa”, are good examples of ways we can do that.

See also: "New Zealand firms switch to using nation's Māori name, Aotearoa" – The Guardian

Two Ticks

Like most people, I get notifications of new videos posted to the YouTube Channels I subscribe to, and one of them, the video “Two Ticks” (above), was posted to the NZ Electoral Commission’s YouTube Channel. I instantly thought, "hang on, I’ve seen that guy somewhere…” I worked out where, but then realised I’d forgotten to post it on this blog at the time. Oops.

I recognised the guy and his singing from an earlier video of his, “Family Lockdown Boogie” (below), and I was sure I’d shared it when he released it, during our lockdown. On April 6, I shared the video to my personal Facebook and said:

This is a real Wellington family. The song was written by Jack Buchanan (the son), who talked about the video on TVNZ's "Breakfast" programme this morning. He said that his parents and sister didn't need any persuasion to take part. He also said there was a LOT of rehearsal but that wasn't a problem because everyone has a lot of time on their hands at the moment. He also said that the choreography is by his friend Anna Robinson, who videoed herself making the moves, and then they all watched that to learn the moves—lockdown was not violated nor bubbles burst.

There are a lot of videos (of varying quality…) being made to entertain/amuse during this difficult time, but this one made me smile, so I'm sharing it.

Yeah, well, “sharing it” turned out to mean on Facebook only. I may have skipped it on the blog because on April 6 I published a post with the Queen’s broadcast to the UK and the Commonwealth. Maybe I thought the Queen’s broadcast was too “serious” to be posted the same day as a lighthearted humour video?

As it happens, I posted that video to Facebook after I’d started a blog post with some lockdown videos from around the world, and “Family Lockdown Boogie” was to be at the top of that post, which is probably why I thought I’d shared it. I put the draft post aside, intending to return to it at some point. Unfortunately, I kept forgetting, and then it eventually seemed kind of pointless.

In any event, we’re here now, eh? I think the video up top really does help explain New Zealand’s MMP electoral system, though I realise it’s not for everyone. Still, I saw a comment on the YouTube post (yeah, I ignored my own advice and read the comments) that said, “As an American in New Zealand, I genuinely learned a lot about a system I previously knew nothing about! Not that I can vote here anyway…” Clearly not a Permanent Resident or Citizen, then.

I don’t think there are absolute “right” or “wrong” ways to talk about or explain MMP, but some are more effective for some people than for others who, in turn, will find other methods better. It’s how we humans work for pretty much everything. Nevertheless, I like the video, though I wish it was in higher resolution, but maybe that would’ve been contrary to the homemade aesthetic he seemed to be going for. I do like the video down below better, though (Arthur's Law, of course).

In any event, kudos to the Electoral Commission for posting “unconventional” videos to their channel. It’s a good thing to do, and it will hopefully increase interest in voting. We hope.

Don’t be a vote ghost

New Zealand, like all Western democracies, has a major problem: Younger voters don’t vote. That means that as a share of the population older people are way overrepresented, and younger people are way underrepresented, in elected bodies. Over the years, there have been many attempts to change this, to get younger people to vote, but those efforts have had limited—sometimes no—success. Even so, we must continue to try to get younger people to vote so that the governments we elect better represent us all.

The New Zealand Electoral Commission is attempting to do that through its “Don’t be a vote ghost” campaign. The video above is their 30 second ad, and it, and their shorter versions (below), are currently in heavy rotation on NZ television. The first goal is to get younger people registered to vote, and then to also get them to show up.

The reason that this is necessary can be seen in a chart from FigureNZ (the original version, at the link, is interactive), using data from voter turnout for the 2017 General Election:

I’m well aware that other countries would envy New Zealand’s relatively high turnout among enrolled voters (putting aside the percentages of unenrolled people), however, it’s clear to see that people under 35 vote at significantly lower rates than do those who are older. According to the NZ Electoral Commission, in 2017 nearly a third of enrolled voters under 35 didn’t vote.

There are many reasons why younger people don’t vote, and even more theories. Back in March, John Holbein looked at what we know about young people’s voting in the USA for the American Political Science Association’s Political Science Now. It’s worth a read.

Whatever the country, there are a number of issues that young people care about that could be dramatically affected if they actually voted, but this is about far more than mere issues: Young people’s issues seldom receive much priority from older politicians precisely because politicians don’t need to rely on the votes of younger people, so they feel they can largely ignore them. This also means that younger people have very little representation in government, including having younger politicians, but also older politicians who agree with the priorities of younger voters. If government is to truly represent the people, then it must truly represent the people. Young voters can help ensure it does.

The TV ad campaign includes several short versions of the ad above. Both of them use a netball seen that’s not in the longer version, the shortest of them focusing on that.

First, the 15 second ad:



Finally, the 6 second version:



I think the longer two ads are effective at conveying the campaign’s message. In my opinion, though, the 6 second version is the weakest of the three. However, that one’s obviously intended to reinforce the message of the longer ads, meaning it usually runs in the same ad bloc as one of the longer ads (based on what I’ve personally seen so far). That’s a common practice among many advertisers.

This campaign won’t, by itself, increase the turnout of younger voters. Like most countries—though nearly as much as the USA—New Zealand needs systemic reform. Because there are a lot of reasons that younger people don’t vote, though, it’s obvious that no single ad campaign can ever address all the obstacles. But even if it only helps just a little, it’ll be well worth the effort.

And, yeah: Don’t be a vote ghost. Boo.

Voting in a pandemic

The New Zealand General Election will be held on Saturday, October 17, and the voting period begins on Saturday, October 3, which will give people plenty of time to vote. This year, the system is being adjusted to deal with the global pandemic. Voting by mail in the General Election isn’t a "thing" in New Zealand (it's only used in Local Government elections and the occasional referendum), so some prudent precautions are necessary.

The video above, with two well-known New Zealand TV presenters, is an ad from the Electoral Commission that’s currently running on NZ television. It lays out the general parts of how the election will be run. There are also a series of shorter ads on several aspects touched on in the general add, but those haven’t been on TV yet.

Up first is physical distancing:



The next ad is for hand sanitiser:



The next ad is about pens. NZ voters are being urdged to bring their own pen, but pens will also be provided and people will take those pens home with them (New Zealand’s ballots are paper—we don’t use voting machines).



All of these ads were also made in Te Reo Māori. Both of the Morrisons are advocates and teachers/coaches for the language. It’s part of a larger trend to present such messages in Te Reo.

I don’t know for certain that the short ads will also be on TV, but in past elections they’ve run similarly short ads several times during prime time, which may be more effective than running one longer ad. (If I remember, I’ll add an update to this post of the shorter ads do start airing.)

The underlying theme of this is that we all—voters and those running the election alike—should take prudent precautions during this pandemic. In general, though, voting isn’t any more dangerous than going to the supermarket: Both require physical distancing, hand hygiene, and similar methods for people to keep themselves safe. New Zealand will almost certainly be at Level 1 by Election Day, so face masks probably won’t be suggested (right now, they’re only required for public transport users at Level 2 and above), but that doesn’t mean people can’t wear them, of course.

There’s every reason to have total faith that we have a high degree of safety for our elections, despite the pandemic. Confidence in the integrity of our elections themselves is always there, of course, so the issue is just that we don’t want anyone to be afraid to vote. Right now, I doubt anyone will.

First NZ Labour ad for 2020

.
The video above is the first 2020 campaign ad for the New Zealand Labour Party. It was released and promoted online this past Friday, and today I saw it on TV for the first time. To me, this looks like a sort of introductory ad, one introducing the themes that will be talked about in the campaign, and possibly in future ads, if any.

I’m sure that at least a couple other parties will have TV ads at some point, and, if so, I may share them, too. I’m no longer making any promises of what or when I’ll blog about something. Still, it’s early days in this election campaign, and I’m sure I’ll have more to day about it.

The New Zealand General Election will be held on Saturday, October 17, but voting begins on October 3.

NZ Labour proposes Matariki Holiday

Yesterday, the New Zealand Labour Party announced that if it wins the General Election next month it will create the country’s 12th public holiday, a winter holiday observing Matariki, the Māori New Year. This is an awesome idea, and well past time.

The holiday would begin in 2022 to allow businesses more time to recover from the economic effects of the Covid-19 pandemic. In the meantime, a panel of experts will determine the best time for the holiday, since Matariki itself can fall between late May and into June.

The Matariki Public Holiday will be a NZ-specific holidays, celebrating Māori culture, something that is unique in the world, and unlike many of the other public holidays. Being a winter holiday, it could encourage New Zealanders to visit places in New Zealand, generating money for travel, tourism, and hospitality businesses at what is normally a slow time of year.

This also creates the opportunity to create a winter festival around the public holiday, and that, combined with the Māori cultural aspects, also creates the opportunity to draw international tourists—once that’s possible again. Our winter is in the Northern Hemisphere’s summer, and that may be an additional draw for some tourists sick of hot summer weather.

Naturally, conservatives oppose the idea. They bleat on, as they always do, about the cost to business without ever considering the benefits, both from increased income for many businesses, and also from having happier employees. To far to many on the Right, workers are a nothing but a cost, and never a resource to be nurtured and cared for.

The Opposition, the NZ National Party, has dismissed the idea, though some of them have suggested trading another holiday for a new Matariki one, but somehow I doubt they’d suggest dropping the other winter public holiday, Queen’s Birthday, which isn't celebrated or observed, except fo the annual Honours List and retail sales.

The leader of the far-right self-styled libertarian-ish party got in trouble this week when remarks he made in 2018 resurfaced. Back then, he said that all public holidays were a sign of a “fascist state” (oh, the irony…) because “I don't think the Government needs to tell people when to have a holiday and when to celebrate things." He’s often derisively called “National’s 55th MP” because even though he technically “leads” a different “party”, he’s only in Parliament at all because the National Party gifts him one of their safe electorate seats. He and his mates in the National Party are in lockstep when it comes to promoting the myth that ordinary workers can “negotiate” with their employer over time off.

In fact, National recently proposed eliminating the requirement that businesses provide meal breaks to workers. Why would they do that? "National supports an approach where employees and employers are trusted to work employment matters out themselves in good faith." That’s one of the most hilarious things they’ve said in this campaign, because it’s seldom true when few workers are in unions and by without them or the support of the law, they’re at the mercy of employers who, they have to hope, really are people of “good faith”.

Meanwhile, Labour has moved to protect workers, repealing the anti-worker rules that the previous National Government put in place, in addition to reversing that government’s deep cuts to education and job training programmes. Labour has a strong record to run on, while the opposition parties are promising to make things worse for ordinary workers. Not a hard choice for ordinary working people, really.

It’s hard to see how promising another public holiday could fail to be a winner with ordinary people, and Stuff’s Luke Malpass noted that “most people don't own businesses and so are probably happy to have a new holiday.” He went on to note, though, that “in the current climate, ironically created by the Government, both debt and sacrifice are uppermost in people’s minds. How a holiday will fit into that remains to be seen.” He concludes: “It is however a bold and confident statement in what may otherwise prove to be a long and dour election campaign dominated by a disease.”

As popular as a new holiday may be, I don’t personally see it becoming a major issue in this campaign: The people who back it probably already back Labour or the Labour-led Government, while those dead set against it don’t. But with the opposition parties staking out unpopular positions when they don’t have to, effectively scoring political own-goals, there’s no way this proposal will hurt Labour. In fact, if anything the Right’s many own-goals suggest that Labour doesn’t even need it to help win the election.

Still, a week is a long time in politics, and our election isn’t until next month. I just don’t expect the opposition parties will suddenly start running positive campaigns, and that may turn out to make all the difference.

American election interference in NZ

An American rightwing political group is trying to interfere in the upcoming New Zealand elections, specifically the referendum on cannabis law reform. MPs across the political spectrum have condemned the foreign meddling, which isn’t a surprise. The video above, from TVNZ’s One News, tells the story and features some of the reactions.

The thing is, it’s slick and slimy for any foreigner to interfere with the sovereignty of another country. The US government has done that in the past, and the Russians' interference in the 2016 US elections became notorious, as did their interference in the UK’s Brexit vote and several other European elections.

It’s not clear what the specific ideology of the group is, although they seem to be a far-right pseudo-Christian political organisation, based on the clip featured in the news story. If that's the case, they may very well deny the Russians interfered in 2016, but even if they admit the truth, they wouldn’t be able to grasp why the Russians doing it would be bad—and just as bad for them to do it. It’s wrong in both cases, and their religion doesn’t give them a free pass.

New Zealand doesn’t totally outlaw such foreign meddling—yet—but if the Americans spend money on the referendum, or give it to their “New Zealand” group to spend, it will have to be reported to the New Zealand Electoral Commission. If such money is paid, it would seem that a case could be made that the NZ-based operatives should be required to register as lobbyists, too. None of which is good enough.

In my view, it ought to be illegal under American law to try to interfere in another country’s elections, but that isn’t possible in the current deeply and bitterly divided politics in the USA. So, countries will have to look after themselves.

I believe it ought to be illegal for non-NZ citizens/permanent residents to donate any money whatsoever, directly or indirectly, to any New Zealand election, including referenda. It should be a crime—with a prison sentence and heavy fine—for any New Zealand citizen to accept foreign money to influence a New Zealand election or referendum (money laundering charges might be appropriate in such cases).

New Zealand has already started taking steps to protect New Zealand elections from foreign interference. Late last year, the Government introduced a bill to drastically cut the amount of money that foreigners can donate from the previous $1500 to $50. I think it should be zero, and can’t see any good reason why any contribution from anyone other than NZ citizens or permanent residents should be allowed, no matter how small the amount. However, the Government said it was to avoid trouble with small donations, like when people collect donations on the street or at an event. Maybe that makes the small amount okay?

The bill also banned anonymous online election ads, treating them the same as print and television/radio ads, printed campaign materials, and election signs, all of which must contain the name and address of the person who authorised the ad (which is easy for official ads from parties and real New Zealand political organisations).

“We’ve seen in other countries an avalanche of fake news social media ads that contain no information about who is behind them. That’s not fair and we don’t want to see it repeated here,” Justice Minister Andrew Little said. Indeed.

The law, which came into effect on January 1 of this year, is a very good first step. “We need to protect the integrity of our elections,” the Justice Minister said. “We don’t want our elections to go the way of recent overseas examples where foreign interference appears to have been at play.”

If the law can do something to keep those American meddlers out of our politics, we’ll know the law really works. If not, we’ll need to go farther. New Zealand’s elections ought to be for New Zealanders alone to decide, without foreign interference.

There are actually two referenda on the ballot this year. In addition to the one on cannabis law reform, there's also the End of Life Choice Referendum, I will vote YES on both, and foreign meddlers only make me more determined to vote.

It’s all about balance

The video above is the 30-second version of an ad currently running on TV to raise awareness of the fact that the New Zealand Electoral Commission is in the process of open review of proposed adjustments to the country’s Electorate boundaries to ensure they have roughly equal population. Other countries do this, too, of course, but New Zealand’s work is completely non-partisan and independent of all elected politicians. It’s a good system.

Generally speaking, there’s not much opposition to boundary changes because most people simply don’t care that much about it. Sometimes people will grizzle about losing an MP they like for a different one they may not like as much, but that’s about it. Because Electorates are geographic entities, they reflect the populations of those areas. So, areas that strongly align with one party or the other are likely to remain so even after the boundaries are shifted. That’s not a concern of the Electoral Commission, however, so sometimes party balance does shift.

The Electorate we moved from isn’t changing, the Electorate we moved to is changing, and the one I plan on moving to sometime next year isn’t changing. Of those three, the only grumbles I’ve heard so far have been about the electorate I live in now because, complainers say, the proposed new boundaries “split communities”. Trouble is, very often most of those supposed “communities”, if they existed at all, were hardly unitary entities in the first place, so no “splitting” could actually happen. Still, when boundary changes really do threaten to “split” communities, genuine appeals unusually resolve the issue.

The video below is the 15-second version of the ad, which I think works well: It retains the important parts of the longer ad without sacrificing meaning. This is the version I’ve seen on TV the most often, and I think its brevity makes it the best one.



Finally, the 7-second version. I’ve never seen this one on TV, and I think that’s a good thing: While it reinforces their message that “it’s all about balance”, in my opinion it doesn’t provide enough information to explain what they’re talking about, or why, exactly, “it’s all about balance”, or what that even means.



Objections the proposed boundaries are open until December 20, 2019.

A danger for democracy

Last night, TVNZ’s Q+A programme posted the above report on how the New Zealand National Party has suddenly changed its online advertising to something much more aggressive, and highly targeted. Much of it is also very misleading. This same problem is happening in democracies throughout the developed world, and it poses a serious threat to democracy itself.

We all know how the Russian government used propaganda and deliberately deceptive messaging to help elected their chosen candidate, who went on to become the current occupant of the White House. While the 2018 Midterm Elections saw less of that, we can expect to see it return in force in 2020, especially if it looks like the Republican candidate is heading for defeat.

As it happens, the next New Zealand general election is also in later 2020, most likely a few days after the US election. Because New Zealand elections are every three years, this will be the first time the two countries’ elections have happened in the same month/week since 2008 (the US election was November 4, and the NZ election was held the following Saturday, November 8). Both countries' fair and free elections are at risk.

The problem is that ordinary people will have a hard time telling if some political messaging that they see on social media is true or not, especially if the message is steered to them because the person has been targeted. In a fast-paced campaign, deliberate disinformation can take hold—and sway elections.

We’ve seen in the past how this worked in New Zealand, because the NZ National Party has used deceptive techniques before. Investigative journalist Nicky Hager detailed the party’s deeds in the 2005 NZ elections in his book Hollow Men, and he wrote about the secret tactics (allegedly coordinated with the party) used as far back as the 2011 election. That book, Dirty Politics was released on August 13, 2014, about five weeks before that year’s general election. National won re-election in 2014 despite the book, though then Prime Minister John Key’s integrity was called into question, and he never really recovered from that. [Full disclosure: I bought and read both books when they were released.]

This time, it looks like National intends to be more open about its deception. Its ads so far have copied successful ads used by Australia’s rightwing Liberal Party, among others, which wouldn’t be of much interest if so much of their messaging wasn’t deliberately deceptive.

And that’s the bottom line: The issue isn’t that rightwing political parties (or leftwing ones, for that matter) might copy ads used by counterparts in other parts of the world. Instead, the issue is that they’re cynically using messaging—propaganda—to deceive and mislead voters without them having much hope of knowing it’s happening. Just like the USA in 2016.

It seems that much of electoral politics in Western Democracies, especially the marketing tactics used by the Right, has now become about deception and manipulation. That can’t be a good thing for a healthy, functioning democracy, but is there anything we can do about it? With the public having so much distrust of the newsmedia, deliberately curated by those who stand to gain the most from that distrust, who will be able to expose deceptive messaging and tactics? And if there is no one, what hope do we have of countering it?

Right now, we have only one option: To learn to recognise attempts at manipulation. The video above is part of that effort here in New Zealand. We need more of that everywhere, and often. It may be our only hope.

Letting the people vote

Today the New Zealand Government announced important changes for the 2020 General Election, changes that will make it easier for people to both register and to vote. They are very good changes.

The changes are:

• Election-day enrolment (“same day enrolment”);
• More voting places where people live, work and play, such as supermarkets;
• Making it easier for New Zealanders to vote from overseas;
• Strengthening measures to protect the electoral process in the event of a significant emergency or national disaster.

Justice Minister Andrew Little said:

“New Zealanders deserve to have their votes counted. Nearly half of voters are now exercising their right to vote prior to election day. Those early voters are able to both enrol and vote at the ballot box. It’s only fair that people who vote on election day have the same right to enrol as those casting an early vote.”

This change will treat early voting and election day the same way, which will make it easier for people to vote. In the past, younger voters often missed the registration deadline and were unable to vote. While I don’t expect that to be a problem this election, and we could see a record turnout for younger voters, it’s nevertheless important to make the registration process consistent and easy.

Andrew Little added:

“Putting ballot boxes in supermarkets and malls will make it easier for people to vote. It’s important that ballot boxes are placed where people are going about their normal business and can therefore accommodate voting more easily into their busy lives.”

This is a very big deal. In past election, early voting places were usually in places where people wouldn’t necessarily otherwise go. By putting them in shooping malls and grocery stores, which people may go to several times during the early voting period, it will make it easier than ever for people to actually vote. This is a fantastic change.

One of the best ways to change the way things are done is to make sure that voter turnout is as large as possible. To do that, it’s important to make it as easy and efficient as possible to both register and vote.

The most important thing that politicians can do is simple: Let the people vote. These changes go a long way toward making that easier.

Polls apart

Recent opinion polls in New Zealand offered up wildly different results and presented completely different trends. There are many possible explanations for that, including timing, polling methods, sampling errors, question construction—or even pure chance. Whatever’s going on, there’s one thing that’s certain: They can’t both be right. Let the buyer beware—and be very sceptical.

The polls (graphic above) were conducted at roughly the same time, but the results are clearly very different. The Newshub Reid Research Poll was taken May 29-June 7 (sometimes they’ve reported May 30 as the start date), and the One News Colmar Brunton Poll was taken June 4-8. This is one of the first possible explanations for the differences: The timing.

The New Zealand Budget was introduced in Parliament on May 30, and the Newshub poll was begun before Budget Day (or on the day…), and finished a week after. The One News poll began several days after Budget Day and ended about the same time as Newshub’s, after four days. In reporting the story, both news shows said their poll indicated what happened as a result of the Budget’s announcement. One News said there was no “Budget Bounce”, meaning the government didn’t go up in the polls and, in fact, they claimed Labour went down in the poll. Newshub, on the other hand, claimed that Labour did get a “Budget Bounce” and said they went up in the poll. Which claim is true depends, obviously, on which poll is more accurate.

The similarity of polling period suggests that the timing of the polls is probably not relevant, though the longer polling period for the Newhubs poll might matter. Overall, this means other factors are probably be at play. Another obvious source of the divergence would be how the polls were conducted.

In the past, Colmar Brunton rang only landlines, which has been a source of complaints for years. This poll was conducted by randomly dialling people on both NZ landlines and NZ cellphones using probability sampling. Their sample was of 1002 people, which is a typical amount. They describe their margin of error this way (read their PDF report on the poll for full details):

The maximum sampling error is approximately ±3.1%-points at the 95% confidence level. This is the sampling error for a result around 50%. Results higher and lower than 50% have a smaller sampling error. For example, results around 10% and 5% have sampling errors of approximately ±1.9%-points and ±1.4%-points, respectively, at the 95% confidence level.

These sampling errors assume a simple random sample of 1,000 eligible voters.

Reid Research hasn’t yet posted the current poll results on their website, so we don’t know for sure if their methodology has changed from previous polls. However, in their older polls, they sampled 1,000 people, 750 of whom were telephoned (they don’t disclose whether they were landline or mobile, but in the past they were landline only). The other 250 were from online polling.

Over the years, there have been many debates on whether the phone method matters and whether Reid’s use of online polling is valid. The fact that Colmar Brunton now rings mobile phones suggests, at the very least, that they listened to critics. But that doesn’t by itself make their results more accurate no less accurate, and Reid’s use of online polling doesn’t by itself make theirs less accurate or more accurate. On the other hand, we could tell if the sampling is problematic if we knew the extent of the correction they applied to their raw survey results.

The things we can’t know, and no one will tell us, is how they correct sampling errors, so we can’t judge if their methods appear to be sound or not. However, they both use industry-standard methods, and, in any case, that, too, doesn’t necessarily mean that one poll or the other might be less accurate than the other.

We also can’t rely on history to help us work this out. In the companies’ final election polls before the 2017 General Election, both polls were remarkably similar—and off. Both polls overstated support for National and the Greens, but of the two, Reid was closest to the result that New Zealand First had, where Comar Brunton greatly understated the party’s support (“greatly” because it was about 50% below the actual result). Both were pretty accurate on Labour’s eventual result. This suggests that their correction for sampling errors may not be fine-tuned enough, that they skewed conservative, toward national in particular.

So, history is no guide, and, at first glance, it looks like we can’t use the differences in these polls' methods or analysis to tell us much, either. This is reinforced by the fact that both polls had remarkably similar results on the possible legalisation of marijuana, which frankly seems odd: Why are they so hugely different on political polling, but so similar on the referendum? The answer could well be the question asked.

We don’t (yet?) know what, specifically, but the question reported on Newshub was simply, “Should we legalise cannabis?”, which is a very broad question. On the other hand Colmar Brunton asked:

“A referendum on the legalisation of cannabis will be held at the 2020 General Election. Possible new laws would allow people aged 20 and over to purchase cannabis for recreational use. The laws would also control the sale and supply of cannabis. At this stage, do you think you will vote for cannabis to be legalised, or for cannabis to remain illegal?”

That question is reasonably fair, given that the exact wording of the referendum hasn’t been released yet, but the general structure of the proposal in the question aligns with how the media has described it. The poll results showed that people under 34 were more likely to support legalisation, and those over 55 were least likely. It also found that National Party supporters were more likely to oppose legalisation.

The Newsbub Poll result produced a closer result than One News’, but found similar ideological variation. By itself, this doesn’t seem to support the claim that the One News sample skewed older and more conservative than it should have. But another question may reveal a bias.

The worst-worded question in the One News poll was this: “Would you consider voting for a party with Christian or conservative values at the 2020 General Election?” This should have been bloody obvious to everyone involved, but those two are not automatically the same thing or even symbiotic. National is a conservative party with conservative values. New Zealand First is a more moderate party with conservative values. Hell, even the Centre-Left Labour Party has some conservative values. But all of those parties are also firmly secular.

So far, only one rightwing “party” (technically, it is only announced, and doesn’t exist yet) is positioning itself a “Christian” party, but the only one claiming “conservative values” is a “Christian” party in all but name. The question should have been two questions.

We know this question was deeply flawed because of the results: Those most likely to support such a party parties were: Pacific Island peoples (who are often very Christian, but not necessarily Christian), Asians (who are often conservative, but not usually Christian)—and people 18-49? SERIOUSLY?! Every poll conducted, and all the social science data we have, shows that people in that age group are less religious and less conservative than older generations, but the poll says they’re among those most receptive to “a party with Christian or conservative values”? At the same time, voters 60-69 were reported as less likely to vote for either kind of party, and that, too, is at odds with research that indicates religious affiliation and conservatism goes up with age. Are we really supposed to believe that young voters are suddenly more religious and more conservative than their parents/grandparents? That seems highly improbable.

Further polling with properly constructed questions might explain why this question’s poll results are so wildly divergent form everything we know about people’s religious and ideological compartmentalisation, but, on the face of it, it appears that the One News poll may, indeed, have skewed conservative, as it did to some extent in 2017. As it is, the results for that one question cast a shadow over the entire poll.

The bottom line is that we cannot yet explain why the two polls are so divergent on political questions, yet similar on the marijuana referendum. It seems unlikely that timing accounts for the difference. Polling methods, sampling errors, and the correction of them, could account for the divergence—were it not for the similar results on the referendum. That leaves question construction, and that was certainly a problem with one question at least. That means that, at the moment, pure chance alone is as good an explanation as any.

These polls, as with most polls, must be taken with an entire mine of salt. The reliability of the entire polling industry has been questioned since so many companies seemed to get it so very wrong in the USA’s 2016 presidential election. However, most US polls actually did far better than the popular belief holds, something most people don’t know. Because of that doubt, though, polling companies must redouble their efforts to make their polls as accurate as humanly possible. One or both of these two polls haven’t done that—we just can’t tell for sure which it is or if it's both.

Let the buyer beware—and be very sceptical.

One pipe dream fantasy remains

That didn’t take long: Within a couple weeks of first being suggested, one idea for a possible Rightwing “Christian” party is officially dead, and unlikely to be resurrected. This is a good development for all sorts of reasons, especially because New Zealand doesn’t need a bunch of self-righteous extremists trying to divide us into “good” and “bad” as they try to advance an agenda of religiously-based control of our lives by government. One pipe dream fantasy gone, one to go.

When National Party List MP Alfred Ngaro announced yesterday that his Rightwing “Christian” party wasn’t going to happen after all, and that he’d stay in the National Party, he claimed it was “always something I was considering and nothing more than that". Well, obviously: If he’d really put in the hard work, there’s be a party in the process of formation.

The reaction of those on the Right in New Zealand have been fascinating—and silly. Current National Party Leader Simon Bridges said when he discussed Ngaro’s exploration, that forming a Rightwing “Christian” party was an "alluring idea". How so? Well, Simon, among others thinks there’s a “gap in the marketplace”. What they really mean is that at the moment there’s a gap in coalition partners for the National Party, which has no other parties on the Right to form a government with. It has nothing whatsoever to do with whether they really think a Rightwing “Christian” party has a place or meets an actual need or not: National just needs some friends.

Hard-right radio blowhard Mike Hosking (who, in my sincerely held opinion based on years of his “commentary” and other media performances, is a strident supporter of the National Party) said some incredibly daft things in his latest NZ Herald “column” [to read it, copy and paste this link: https://bit.ly/2YYoNrh], such as this:

“The one option that hasn't been tested for years (and you could argue never really got a proper chance to shine) is a Christian party. The idea is as tantalising and full of potential as it ever has been. It just needs the right ingredients. And one of those ingredients is a leader and, under this system, potentially, a leg up.”

This was not the first time I read something he wrote and then rolled my eyes so far I could see the inside of my head. What, precisely, is so “tantalising” about an extremist religious party? Presumably hard-right folks like Mike would have a problem with an extremist Muslim religious party, so why is a Christian one “tantalising”? Apparently it’s just because it would give National a coalition partner: “A successful Christian party would have been good news for National, given they're desperate for help.” That doesn’t make a Rightwing “Christian” party either “tantalising” or “full of potential”, just convenient.

A Rightwing “Christian” party is no more “tantalising” or “full of potential” now than it was when the idea was first tried 23 years ago. I fact, it is less relevant now than ever, as I explained in detail last Sunday.

This leaves only the possible new party formed (maybe) by the same church whose party failed spectacularly in 2005. While it’s extremely unlikely they could do any better than they did in 2005, their one chance is if they can find someone that New Zealanders don’t dislike as much as the leaders of the supposed new Rightwing “Christian” party to win an Electorate somewhere. Hitching their wagon to one possible candidate in one Māori electorate doesn’t sound particularly promising for them, as I also discussed on Sunday. But even if they were successful in that single Electorate, it’s highly improbable that the very unpopular leaders of that party could possibly attract enough votes to bring in any extra Members of Parliament.

The time for a Rightwing “Christian” party is long gone—in fact, as I discussed on Sunday, it never existed in the first place. Conservative Christians—as opposed to hard-right religious extremists who want to form some sort of Rightwing “Christian” party—still have the same home they’ve always had, the NZ National Party. Even Ngaro knows that: “I will continue to play a strong role in the National Party and be a voice to the concerns around values that people have raised with me," he said.

New Zealand doesn’t need a bunch of self-righteous extremists trying to divide us into “good” and “bad” as they try to advance an agenda of religiously-based control of our lives by government. One possible Rightwing “Christian” party is now officially gone—one pipe dream fantasy remains.

The 2020 elections now look even brighter than they did before this announcement. That’s very good news, indeed.