The Labour Party can be just as inclined to descend into populist dog whistle politics as National. And if National has welfare bludgers, boy racers and theoretical boat people to blow their dog whistle about, then Labour's high-pitched equivalents are typically foreign investors and foreign workers (and lately welfare bludgers too). It's the foreign worker that Labour currently has in its nationalist sights. The recent release of Labour's jobs policy, which included proposals to limit the number of migrant workers, has provoked criticism both of the politics and the effectiveness of such moves. Chris Trotter has put forward a stinging criticism today in his column Without immigrants economy would stall. Trotter says that although Labour leader David Shearer correctly identifies the problem - the loss of skilled labour to Australia that has to be replaced by migrants - Shearer has not addressed the actual cause of the problem: 'A careful reading of his speech reveals that increased incomes have been relegated to mere aspirations: something Labour would like to see; expects to see; but will do nothing beyond a modest increase in the minimum wage to achieve'.
Xenophobia is the basis of Labour's anti-immigrant policy according to the Herald editorial Patriot drum rolls up dire work policy, and it will cost the economy dearly. Political journalist Andrea Vance makes the same points, but as a recent migrant herself (originally of Ireland), she takes the issue more personally: 'Under a Labour government you'd be made to feel as welcome as that other infamous interloper Kim Dotcom' - see: Migrants worthy of New Zealand. In defence of Labour's policy, blogger Robert Winter argues that it is legitimate in any nation to debate the level of immigration. He thinks the attacks are more about de-stabilising Shearer's leadership, something Shearer himself may be contributing to: 'He's taken to making these speeches with little regard for Labour's internal debate, creating not a little friction' - see: More dog-whistle.
David Shearer's other major attack of late - about the alleged existence of a GCSB videotape - has been widely panned for lacking substance, but Danyl Mclauchlan thinks the substance was there for a successful attack: 'It worked out badly for Shearer because he's a bad politician, but it was tactically sound' - see: GCSB tape revisionism. Shearer would have done better to move onto the WINZ security scandal last week advises Claire Trevett in Lesson for Sheriff Shearer: make sure gun loaded. She says that at the parliamentary showdown 'When he pulled the trigger, all that came out was a little cartoon-style flag with "bang" on it'. Trevett thinks that the slogan of 'show me the tape' might become as damaging for this Labour leader as 'show me the money' was for his predecessor.
Other recent important or interesting political items include:
* National might have found its best defender of its approach towards iwi claims over water: Ngai Tahu and its chairman Mark Solomon, who appeared on TVNZ's Q+A in the weekend to say that his tribe couldn't support the Maori Council's attempt to win rights and interests 'by advocating the taking away of rights and interests of other people'. Solomon seems to be advocating that National's approach will lead to a 'win-win' model for all - see TVNZ's Tribe's investment in assets depends on returns - Solomon. And certainly Ngai Tahu are being very careful not to rule out any options when it comes to share offers or other solutions. Tahu Potiki put their approach succinctly in his Press column, Maori want fair discussion over asset sale. In contrast, the Dominion Post editorial thinks some iwi have been unwilling to genuinely engage with the Government to find a solution outside of a courtroom - see: Negotiation a two-way street.
* Iwi should be wary of the latest shares proposal from the Government says Maori politics blogger Morgan Godfery: 'Shares-on-credit are an attempt to co-opt pre-settlement iwi and mitigate the government's legal risk' - see: Missing the point on water rights. The pitfalls are dealt with in more detail by Tim Selwyn in Maori aren't New Zealanders: the Government's "shares minus" scheme explained. But the assumption that SOE shares will be money trees for qualifying iwi is challenged by Stephen Franks in Who will Maori blame for taking dud SOE shares?.