Disgruntled customer

Dear Lush,

I wish to advise you of the sub-optimal performance of your "Wash That Man Right Out Of My Hair" shower gel, purchased from your online shop in the last month.  

While frequent applications have reduced the size of Winston Peters the smell has increased, and stubborn Bill English has hardly budged at all.  David Seymour persists, defying all logic.  I appreciate that Gareth Morgan has largely washed away, but that was always going to be an easy one given the recency and diminutive standing of that particular stain.

Even though it is a shower gel, I used it as a shampoo as well, to increase its potency.

I'm prepared to give your product two more weeks to prove useful.  If it has not had a meaningful impact on National's party vote by October 7th then I will be making use of your money-back guarantee, and I am prepared to pursue my rights under the Consumer Guarantees Act if necessary.

Yours sincerely
etc

Leading the National Party

"Do you really think it's ok for us to get here so early, John?  Doesn't strike you as a little, well, unfair to hold the leadership vote without anyone here but us?"

"Actually Bill, I'm relaxed about it.  At the end of the day, you're the best man for the job, I've already been straight about that with the New Zealand public.  We need to work on you being relaxed now.  Apparently that might be a bit of a problem."

"Oh John," Bill says with admiring awe in his voice, "no one is as relaxed as you."

"Well, the five houses help.  And the nice little nest eggs I have in my offshore bank accounts.  And of course the Labour Party hasn't exactly been the stuff of nightmares for me, have they?"

The two men, best of friends, chuckle together over their last few years. Relaxing together, again.

Their peace is rudely interrupted by the crash of doors flung open.

"J-j-judith!  How l-l-lovely to see you.  And what's that you've done to your hair?"

"Hello Bill.  It's a new look I'm trying."  Minister Collins approaches the outgoing Prime Minister, swishing her shimmering locks, bound into a tight ponytail.  "What do you think, John?"

"Smashing Judith.  It's a great look for you.  Why don't you come and sit over here?"

"So when do we vote on the leadership?  You should all know, Cammy will be running some rather interesting stories over the next few days.  Investigative stuff.  Hard hitting."  Minister Collins turns her attention to the other man in the room.  "How are you, Bill?"

"I-i-investigative stuff?  W-w-what do you mean, Judith?  I am a clean slate."

John pats his deputy with his right hand.  "Relax, Bill.  The public won't care about that silly little housing thing.  It's hardly like stealing, is it?  At the end of the day, you paid us back.  And no one cares about abortion.  Besides, we tidied that up ages ago, remember?"  Turns to Minister Collins.  "Judith, what's that on the table?"

"Oh nothing John, just my Ipod.  I'll turn it off now.  When are the others getting here?"

"Actually, Judith, we might just hold the vote now, everyone else is late. Oh, who's that?"

Paula Bennett strides into the room, wearing gold leopardskin and sporting a stunning new hairstyle.

"We need to pick someone kiwis want to have a beer with, a few sausages.  We all know that's me," she says, flicking her ponytail high.  "Bless you Bill, you're looking old, are you feeling ok?  I guess those memories from the worst election result ever must feel close now?  Poor darling."

"H-h-hello P-p-paula," says Bill, looking from side to side, checking with the Prime Minister how to behave.  "Great hairstyle."

John is distracted, looking at Paula, eyes clouded over, his hand reaching towards her.  Minister Collins slaps it down.  "Good grief man, be serious."

Minister Bennett says sweetly "are you worrying about people thinking you're a dreadful old Tory, Bill?  I guess I can see that, too."

"Girls, girls, girls," says John, appearing to have recovered his relaxed poise.  "Remember what I always say: the media and public are idiots.  They don't even care when our children behave like they hate the gays, remember Bill?  And we're the party of family values!!!"

"I do hate the gays, John.  All the gays.  I mean, think of the children....."  For the first time, Bill starts to become animated, puffing out his chest and growing a couple of inches in height.

Minister Bennett pours herself a beer, knocks it back in one.  "You've got a problem there, Bill.  Might want to deal with that."

"Hello everyone.  Prime Minister, so good to see you.  Now, shall we get this vote underway?"  Steven Joyce enters the room.  "I have the proxy votes of everyone else, been carrying them for a while."

Minister Collins looks up from her Ipod with a sneer.  "What on earth is going on with your hair, Steven?"

"Transplants, Judith.  I'm getting it cut tomorrow, but I've had to tie it up today because they were so successful."  Minister Joyce fixes his eyes on the deputy Prime Minister.  "Bill, my friend.  How on earth are we going to deal with the fact the public sees you as a loser?  If you're my deputy, that won't be as much of a problem, of course.  Who wants to open all the proxy votes?"

"H-h-hello S-s-steven, I'm n-n-not a loser.  John said so.  He said no one will remember.  And I believe him.  Right, John?  John?"

"Steven, I've never seen you looking so good.  Let's take a look at those proxies shall we?  I'm feeling relaxed about this, very, very relaxed.  Looking forward to my new job and at the end of the day, that's all that matters."

An Idiosyncratic Guide for Abortion Law Reform: Part 2 Electorates

So yesterday I looked at the party vote at this election.  Today some thoughts on the electorate vote.

It's fairly easy to vote on principal when it comes to the electorate vote.  All you need to do is find out where your various candidates stand and then decide how you're going to vote accordingly.  Which obviously isn't that easier because many candidates are not particularly willing to tell you where they stand on abortion.  But if you can get information (and do share in the comments anything you have) voting on principal isn't complex.  If you live in Rotorua choosing between Steve Chadwick and Todd McClay is clear - McClay has only voted on abortion once and voted reactionary.  Although choosing what to do in Invercargill where Lesley Soper - known SPUCer, runs against Eric Roy would require careful inquisition of the minor candidates.

What I'm going to concentrate in this post is how to vote tactically pro-choice in this election.  For example, even if you know that Andrew Little has better politics on abortion law reform than Jonathan Young (which seems likely) - the reality is they're both probably going to be in parliament anyway.  So you can vote on a principal basis on that occasion - but it's going to have very little tactical effect.

This post is going to focus on marginal electorates where the local vote may have an impact on the make-up of parliament.  A basic assumption is that the make-up of parliament is more important than whether a paticular MP has a label as the local MP.  I know this is an assumption many in parliament don't share (see the ridiculous focus on New Plymouth or Auckland Central).  But I think the make-up of parliament is what matters when it comes to abortion law reform.   So what are the marginals seats where voting can make a difference to the make up of parliamentary support for Abortion Law Reform?

Ōhariu
This is the simplest and most obvious - if you support abortion law reform vote Charles Chavel (I believe Katrina Shanks is also liberal for a National MP on abortion law, but she has a lesser chance of getting in).  Peter Dunne is not as bad on the issue as he once was (the rumour is that in 2002 no move on abortion law was an unwritten part of United Future and Labour's coalition deal - this is ) and amusingly right to life are mad at him.  However, he is not a reliable on the issue, and likely to vote conservatively on incrementalist legislation.  Charles Chavel is an advocate.  Getting rid of Peter Dunne would be a victory for abortion law reform - and supporters of abortion law reform can vote for Charles Chavel with a clear conscious.

I would vote for Charles Chavel and I can't bring myself to vote for the Greens because they're too right wing  (and because of Russel Norman).

Epsom
The same principle applies in Epsom as John Banks is a known reactionary and Don Brash is completely incoherent on the matter.  This applies even though Paul Goldsmith's position is less clear than Charles Chavel's.

Te Tai Tokerau
My understanding is that Hone is broadly supportive of abortion rights.  He would bring in other candidates who are more likely to support abortion law reform than the rest of parliament.  Kelvin Davis will be in anyway.  From an abortion politics point of view, this is the reverse of Epsom.

Rimutaka
This one is also simple for another reason: Jonathon Fletcher is incredibly reactionary on abortion (see the smiley faces on Value your vote).  He is number 67 on the National party list - and so won't get in unless he wins the seat.

Chris Hipkins' ability to enter parliament is also looking shaky - Labour need to do better than the polls say for him to be in on the list (but not by much).  I don't know where he stands on abortion (and would like to know), but he's not going to be as conservative as Jonathon Fletcher.

West-Coast Tasman
Here is where things start to get nice and complex.  Both Damien O'Connor and Chris Auchinvole are conservative on abortion.  However, Chris Auchivole is 43 on National's list and looking pretty safe, whereas Damien O'Connor is not on Labour's list.  Therefore, in terms of abortion law reform there is definitely a reason to not vote for Damien O'Connor and a reason to vote for Chris Auchinvole to keep Damien O'Connor out.

On top of that there is another way of looking at the make-up of parliament.  As well as looking at who we're bringing in on electorate seats, we also need to consider which list seat candidate they're replacing.  Now this gets super complicated - but I think from the point of view of abortion law reform the people who are looking tantalising close but not close enough are Steve Chadwick and Kate Sutton - at number 34 and 35.  Every electorate seat that Labour wins from someone who is further down the list than they are makes it harder for Steve Chadwick and Kate Sutton to get in.  If you're voting in marginal electorates consider where the Labour candidate is on the list before voting for them (note that Chris Hipkins is further up the list than Steve Chadwick and Kate Sutton, otherwise I wouldn't be as supportive of voting for him in Rimutaka).

Voting against Damien O'Connor doesn't just keep an anti-abortion voice out of parliament - it also makes it more likely that abortion law reform advocates will get in.

Mana
I think there is both a principled and a practical reason for voting for Hekia Parata in Mana.  The first is that my understanding is that she is more liberal than Kris Faafoi on the issue (who was both incoherent and reactionary when he talked about parental notification in May- does anyone have the link - I ranted about it on facebook but didn't keep a link).  The principled issue needs more research and I think it's important to hear what they say when asked specific questions.

But the practical choice is clear.  Hekia Parata will be in parliament anyway, and Kris Faafoi is higher on the list than Steve Chadwick and Kate Sutton.  Voting for Hekia Parata also makes it more likely that abortion law reform advocates will get in.

Palmerston North  Ōtaki & Christchurch East

So how far do you take this approach?  In Palmerston North, two people whose position on abortion is unkinown are running, in Otaki the National candidate is Nathan Guy, an arch-reactionary (who will get in anyway) and in Christchurch East the Labour candidate is Lianne Dalziel who is a known supporter of abortion law reform.

I think it's counter-productive to vote against supporters of abortion law reform to try and get better supporters of abortion law reform in.  There are too many variables, and I think MPs are such cowards on abortion those who are prepared to say their position should be rewarded in a pavlovian kind of way.  I also wouldn't vote for Nathan Guy myself - partly because it's not necessarily - there's no way Labour is picking up that seat.  But I would  probably avoid voting for the Labour candidate.  And I would seriously think about voting for the Nat in Palmerston North.

Te Tai Tonga
The same argument about Labour applies when it comes to Te Tai Tonga as Rino Tirikatene is higher up the list than Steve Chadwick and Kate Sutton.  However, there the effect is more complicated because Rahui Katene won't get in on the list anyway. I don't know about Rahui Katene.  Without knowledge that she supports abortion law reform I think it's risky to vote for her on the basis that she might bring in advocates on the labour list.

Tamaki Makaura
Here the key piece of information is Pita Sharples position on abortion - which I don't think we can judge on his very limited voting record.  Pita Sharples won't get in unless he wins Tamaki Makaura (whereas Shane Jones is in no matter what), so if enough information could be found about his position it would be a relatively simple decision.


There are many other arguments you could make.  For example, there is probably a case for voting Paul Foster-Bell in Wellington Central, since he is not guaranteed a place and a support of abortion law reform in National's caucus would be useful.  However, given that Grant Robertson is demonstrably better on the issue than Foster-Bell, and Foster-Bell isn't really borderline because National are polling at a gajillion, and Wellington Central isn't actually marginal - I don't think the argument is very convincing. But I think talking and thinking about electorate seats in this way is useful.  I'd be really interested in hearing where people's analysis, judgement and information differs from mine.

Of course the line is somewhat subjective.  Could I get up in the morning and look myself in the mirror knowing I'd voted for a Nat - even for the best reasons?  I'm not sure, but I do know that I'd vote for Paul Goldsmith if I lived in Epsom.  And abortion law reform is more important to me than keeping ACT out of parliament.

Updated: I got Kelvin Davis's place on the list wrong so I've edited that.  On top of that I've realized that on current polling (things have changed a bit since I started writing this post) more pro-choice women are in hazardous positions further down the list - on what Curia says today Carmel Sepoluni and Carol Beaumont are only just in if no marginals change hand.  The bottom line is that in the labour party the people who most vocally support abortion law reform tend to be on the list rather than in winnable seats.  Therefore, supporting Labour electorate candidates does not necessarily support the abortion law reform voices within the party.


Note In case the repeated use of the first person singular in this piece passed you by this is a piece by Maia, and does not represent the views of other Hand Mirror writers or anyone else.

MODERATION: Please note this thread is for the discussion of how to vote to support abortion law reform - not whether that's a good idea.

In solidarity with Russel Norman's EA*

Russel Norman's decision to stand down his EA because of the actions of her partner is a feminist issue. I'm going to leave alone why the Greens thought it appropriate to condemn putting stickers on National party billboards (although it doesn't look good for principled left-wing green voters).** But why is his EA even part of the discussion?

Russel Norman decided to go public with the fact that his EA was in a relationship with Jolyon White. He then decided to use the power he has because she works for him to stand her down (I know that he is not her direct employer but Parliamentary Services are pretty responsive to MPs wishes).

From an employment perspective this is creepy enough - she is being stood down because she didn't tell her boss something her partner said months ago and instead made it clear to her partner that she didn't want anything to do with his actions. This is a pretty horrific view of employment and the right bosses have over their employees lives. A view Russel Norman endorsed.

But there is an important gendered to this. Russel Norman's action reinforces a world-view that defines women in relationships with men through their partners' beliefs and actions and therefore denies their autonomy and even existence. People have condemned Julie's writing on the hand mirror and tried to silence her, because of who her partner is. This discriminatory way of treating of women in relationships with men is systemic. Men are not treated this way, and are not defined by the actions of their partners. Russel Norman has endorsed this double standard by the way he has treated his EA.

Although this is far from the only feminist reason not to vote for any party which has Russell Norman at number 2 on its list. This was, after all, his assessment of Clint Rickards:

I don’t see that being involved in consenting group sex is any reason for him not to go back to work. And people use sex aids so using a police baton in a consenting situation doesn’t seem grounds for refusing him his job back.

Something to think about in the polling booth.

* Obviously this construction of her identity is problematic. However, I decided since I didn't think her identity should be public in this way I didn't feel comfortable putting yet another hit into google about who she was.
** I find the idea that political parties should be able to put up their truly inane hoardings in publicly owned space, but it is morally wrong to talk back to those hoardings, no matter what you are saying, a really depressing view of political dialogue.

Wellington Central: Abortion and other matters

In general, I don't think Meet the Candidates forums are particularly useful. It's fun to say to James Shaw (Wgtn Central Green Candidate) "I won't vote for the Greens because Russell Norman said that Louise Nicholas had consensual sex with Clint Rickards", but not an hour and a half of my life fun. Anyone who cares enough to go to a Meet the Candidate forum probably already knows where the parties stand. However, there is one thing you can learn at a meet the candidates meeting that it is very hard to learn anywhere else - and that's candidates' position on 'conscience' issues.

Like abortion.

So when Victoria University had a meet the candidates forum, this seemed like an excellent opportunity to figure out where Wellington Central candidates (many of whom end up deciding things for the rest of us) stand on abortion.

I thought a bit about how to phrase it. Give them an inch wiggle room and they'll not answer your question at all - one person asked about child poverty and whether they would commit to raising benefit rates - and Grant Robertson waxed very lyrical about the evils of child poverty and didn't mention benefits at all. So I made it very focused on law change.

Grant Robertson emphasised that he was pro-choice and that he thought the law should be changed.

James Shaw just said ditto.

Then the New Zealand First candidate and the United Future candidate agreed as well. The United Future candidate said that UF was pro-choice - which may surprise Peter Dunne, although at this point who knows.

Then came Paul Foster-Bell, the National party candidate. He began with a long spiel about how every abortion is a failure, and then said that he supported a woman's right to choose.

It was neat that he got shit for this response on twitter. Although I was more interested in the second part of his response than the first. Obviously ideas like that are ridiculous and should be challenged. But when it comes to MPs, I'm much more focused. They can believe that abortion angers the Wombles, but pleases the Fraggles if they like. I care how they're going to vote.

Although I was interested in why he thought we cared that he thought abortion was a failure. I had asked for his position on the law, not I understand why the Nats run liberal candidates in Wellington Central - but of all the places to

*******

The debate as a whole was one of the most male dominated events I've been to for a while. All the candidates were men, and James Shaw introduced two other local Green candidates who were also men. The chair was a man, and I'm pretty sure that only one woman asked a question. This did not reflect the audience. No-one appeared to notice.

It feels almost cruel, in events like this, to pick on the candidates from the smaller parties. For some reasons candidates from smaller parties which are trying to portray themselves as middle of the road are always much, much, weirder than anyone else.

So I'm not going to say anything about the United Future candidate, although he was hilarious - because he was just some guy who said yes when asked. Is that any reason that he should be mocked on feminist blogs for going along to a student focused election forum and talking about hunting and fishing?

But I am going to say that Ben the NZFirst candidate who said that there never used to be child poverty in New Zealand and blamed current poverty on poor parenting is as ignorant as his politics are terrible.

Apart from that I hate them all (although Grant Robertson almost got me appreciating him when he argued with Ben's ideas about child poverty - which just made me hate him more).

******

Here at The Hand Mirror we've got a plan to encourage people to use election meetings to agitate about abortion and make potential MPs say what they think - more next week.

The re-criminalising poor sex workers bill

It has another, more euphamistic name (Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill), but what it is actually doing is re-criminalising poor sex workers.

This bill will make it an arrestable crime, punishable with a $2,000 fine, to buy or sell sex outside of a brothel in areas decided by the Manakau City Council (if it goes through it'll be the Auckland super city council).

It is specifically targeting street sex workers. Street sex workers do not generally have $2,000 to pay a fine. The fines, when they're awarded, won't have the magic power to stop someone being poor and working as a sex worker, it'll just make them poorer. It won't make street sex work disappear, it'll just make it harder, more dangerous, and more marginalised.

It'll give police officers, like Peter Govers and Nathan Connolly more power over some women. And whatever else your politics, that is reason enough to oppose this bill.

I would like to take a brief moment to draw your attention to a new reactionary tendancy on this issue within the Greens (who block voted for prostitution law reform). Two of the Green MPs voted for the bill and Russell Norman abstained (because he thought I needed another reason to hate him).

Three parties block voted (Act and National supported the attacks, the Maori party opposed them), Labour and the Greens split their votes. Nanaia Mahuta was the only woman from either of these parties to vote for criminalising poor women who work as sex workers. Now it physically pains me to say nice things about Labour and Green MPs, but I want to give credit to the feminist analysis and solidarity that those who opposed these bill showed. It shouldn't be noteworthy that women MPs voted the way they did. But the extent to which their male colleagues accepted criminalising women who were already marginalised as an acceptable side effect of protecting small businesses (as the rhetoric in defence of hte bill is all the poor shop owners whose lives are made harder by the fact that sex work happens near them), means that it is noteworthy in the context in which they're operating.

The contempt that those who voted for this bill have for sex workers comes through in the parliamentary debate. George Hawkins uses the language of 'plague' to describe street sex work - which is about as dehumanising as you can get. Others demonstrate their contempt through sneering and patronising - and claim that this bill is necessary to stop underage sex work.*

A few months ago I read this article about American criminal approaches to sex work, and I was horrified. How can anyone who stands in solidarity with women say that being criminalised in this way helps anyone?

I understand that there are nuanced feminist positions on sex work. But I don't think good feminist analysis of any kind, can possibly endorse life being made harder for poor sex workers.

* No I don't get it either. How driving street sex work underground magically stops kids from being sex workers wasn't explained.

A short response

I've been meaning to write a bit about Phil Goff's 'nationhood' and the response on the left (as usual most of what people are saying is infuriating me). Bryce over at liberation is writing a very long series of posts, and I disagree with most of his premises and conclusions, so I was planning to respond to that, when he finished it.

I don't know when he's going to finish it, but there are parts of the latest section that I want to respond to while the series is still going. I am particularly interested in the latest section where he argues that during the fourth labour government a socially liberal concensus was built alongside the neo-liberal concensus. More than that he's arguing that this happened because there was a trade off where people.

I think this is problematic on many levels. For example, he argues there was a feminist trade-off he lists the Ministry of Women's Affairs and Pay Equity as what the feminists gained. But these gains were paltry compared to what feminists were demanding. Even those who supported the Ministry of Women's Affairs were disillusioned within a short time of it being set up.* Pay Equity legislation wasn't introduced until everyone knew it was too late to do any good.** The repeal of the appalling 1977 abortion laws didn't even get off the ground (and still hasn't - despite there being a supposed social liberal concensus).

Edwards really isn't clear on who he sees as making this trade-off. If he is talking entirely about those in positions of power within the labour party, which he appears to be in the feminist section, then he may be right, I don't know a lot about that. However, if he is trying to describe the response of the movements that had grown up over the 1970s, then his analysis is very very limited, and does not acknowledge the resistance to the fourth labour government's economic policies. That opposition may not have been effective, but it existed.

But my point in this post is even simpler. Edwards quotes Bruce Jesson:

They couldn't affect economic policy, but they could gain a trade-off – the anti-nuclear position for economics, in many cases. In the case of the unions, the trade-off was compulsory unionism.

I haven't done enough study of the New Zealand left in the 1980s to provide detail information about how the many strands of orgnaised opposition that had been present in the Muldoon day responded. However, here Edwards demonstrates the limited usefulness of his own argument. Whether trade-offs were made, whether people pushed where they thought they were most likely to win, whether people fought on more than one front, winning some battles, but losing the big ones - 'identity politics' or 'social liberalism' is not a useful explanatory framework, particular if set as an alternative to class politics. Unions took exactly the same trade-offs that Bryce Edwards was talking about (actually from what I've heard they were far, far worse, because they were more powerful within the labour party, and hte trade-off process was more explicit).

The New Zealand left was ineffectual in responding to the fourth labour government that is a fact. But to lay blame on that ineffectualness at the feet of 'identity politics' is only possible if you are selective with your evidence. Bryce Edwards talks about the feminist trade-off within the party, but ignores the feminist organising against the reforms. But more importantly, he ignores the role of the labour movement in propping up and supporting the fourth labour government. As I said in my response to John Minto" "It wasn't the lack of class analysis which stopped people fighting back, it was a really bad class analysis."

I will try to respond to the arguments Bryce Edwards makes more fully at some point.

* I can't give you the exact time line sorry - although I can visualise the article in broadsheet.

** Although the importance of pay equity to feminists does undermine another part of Bryce's argument - that what he calls identity politics comes at the expense of a focus on economic inequality.