Wellington Central Results
They have just announced the results of the first ballot and Stephen Franks has won on the first ballot. He gave an exceptionally good speech.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: National, Stephen Franks, Wellington Central
March 19th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
I hope Stephen gets back into parliament. I was always impressed by his intelligence and clear thinking. On his blog articles I still am.
March 19th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Does this mean he is the candidate?
March 19th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Pretty rare occurance by my understanding. Makes Wellington Central a very interesting race. I wonder how being a former ACT MP will affect his campaign?
March 19th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Again, I’d point out that this decision is effectively handing Wellington Central to Labour’s Grant Robertson. Stephen Franks may well be an excellent lawyer, a good speaker, a proven parliamentarian, but he has two major political faults:
[1] He’s strongly associated with the neoliberal programme. He’s seen as being an extreme and purist ally of discredited and unpopular Act party, and will thus be painted (rightly or wrongly) as the new Don Brash infiltrating the National Party. So the Labour Party are going to love the chance to use Franks as an example of National being still stuck in the 1990s. Even Wellington’s public servants won’t be too fond of another “bureaucracy-cutting maniac” trying to represent them (and they’ve already given Prebble a chance and then turfed him out!)
[2] He’s a social conservative. Wellington Central is well known as a socially progressive and liberal electorate. They’re going to hate Franks!
Stephen Franks is not part of the “New Look National” which is trying to be economically moderate and socially progressive, so this is obviously a set back for National’s shift to the comfortable centre and the signal of defeat in the flagship seat of Wellington Central.
I’m sure to be awarded much “negative karma” for this comment, but hey I’m only “the messenger” of this bad news for the right!
Bryce
http://www.liberation.org.nz
March 19th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
This is an excellent choice.
Parliament needs intelligent people representing us. Stephen Franks would raise the average IQ of parliament significantly, and would subject any potential new laws to a level of scrutiny that has been sorely lacking, particularly at the select committee stage.
He will make the head-to-head debates with candidates from other parties very interesting.
March 19th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Well done Stephen.
That just about makes my votes set for this year-
Candidate Vote – National
Party Vote – ACT
A win-win for the centre-right.
March 19th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
Groan.
As a liberal contemplating a move back to National I’d hate to see Steven Franks running.
I think there are much better choices.
March 19th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Cauld,
I had a chat to Stephen once and actually found him quite liberal (this is when he was still firmly in ACT).
But if he comes out with too many hard-line conservative views, I think I will be pushing my candidate vote to the very liberal Heather Roy.
March 19th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
“That just about makes my votes set for this year-
Candidate Vote – National
Party Vote – ACT”
Same here.
In conversations with Stephen and following his speeches and proposed amendments he is, in my opinion, genuinely classical liberal. For example he was willing to support prostitution legalisation as long as noone was forced to agree with it. He wanted to protect the right of landlords to refuse a brothel/prostitute as a tenant. His proposed amendment was not voted for. Accordingly he voted against the legislation but his position was the true liberal one.
March 19th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
I think Bryce has a point (might as well share the negative karma around!). While not agreeing with every position he’s ever taken I am a huge admirer of Stephen Franks’ intellect and integrity. But I just can’t see him being well accepted by a very socially liberal Wellington Central seat. Having said that, I hope I’m wrong… it would be good to see him returned to Parliament.
March 19th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Bryce, I hope your not any relation of that other ranting frothing pommie socialist
March 19th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Radvad’s story about Stephen Frank’s position on prostitution law reform is a classic! Very amusing. So if I’ve got the story correct, Franks voted in favour of retaining criminal laws to be used against sex workers on account of his concern for the private property rights of their landlords?! This doesn’t sound very socially liberal to me. It makes him sound like an extreme neoliberal with no concern for the rights of prostitutes’ freedom.
I can only guess how Franks would deal with other social issues. Would he vote against the right of women to obtain abortions if it meant that private GP clinic didn’t “the right” not to refer women for abortions? It sounds like he would.
I might be being a bit unfair to Franks. But I’d be interested to know what other positions he has on social issues.
Bryce (no relation to that ‘pommie socialist’ Dr Brian Edwards)
http://www.liberation.org.nz
March 19th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
Bryce – a true Liberal in the proper sense believes in three unalienable rights:
The right to life.
The right to liberty.
The right to property.
These rights trump any other rights that the woolly-woofter version liberals espouse. With that in mind Stephen’s position on prostiution law reform was not illiberal at all. In the example you gave above what right does a woman have to demand that you as a GP perform an abortion on your premises? Your property your decision on how to use it.
March 19th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Bryce
Stephen showed concern for the freedom of conscience for individuals and their ability to act on it without harming others.
Same with abortion. I know he does not oppose it (unlike myself) but I also know he would zealously guard the freedom of others to think and act differently to himself, as I would do. A true classical liberal.
Trendy, wishy washy liberalism promotes freedom with impunity and forces others to go along with it regardless of their beliefs. Classical liberalism promotes freedom with responsibility and leaves individuals free to make their own choices.
March 19th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
Mike – that’s very interesting.
I don’t want to deviate this thread too much from celebrating/commiserating/protesting the selection of Stephen Franks for National in Wgtn Central, but here’s another question to help me understand your position on liberalism:
Would a classic liberal vote against legislation such as the Homosexual Law Reform Act (or whatever Fran Wilde’s private members bill was titled) if it meant that landlords could no longer discriminate gay tenants?
Bryce
http://www.liberation.org.nz
[DPF: The 1986 Act would not have stopped discrimination – it merely removed criminality. It was the 1993 Act which stopped discrimination (well legally anyway)
March 19th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
“Would a classic liberal vote against legislation such as the Homosexual Law Reform Act (or whatever Fran Wilde’s private members bill was titled) if it meant that landlords could no longer discriminate gay tenants?”
This one would. And a landlord could also discriminate against hetero tenants, or religious tenants or anyone else they wanted to. Its called freedom of the individual which is why I fully support the right of a Melbourne bar to admit homosexuals only. Of course social pressure could find them out, or market pressure as they may have a limited pool of potential tenants|clients. State pressure should not feature in determining how individuals arrange their lives as long as they are not physically or materially harming others.
March 19th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Is it just me, or is Mr. Franks one of the few people on the wireless who, when he talks, can be understood and what he says usually makes sense?
His comments on the criminal justice system, welfarism and the ballooning bureucracy all seem to me to be spot on.
My only qualm about Mr. Franks arises from an item (I think) on his blog site reporting on a recent visit he made to the UAE in which he expressed fears about the future of NZ’s economy and society. He said our economy compares not very favourably with the UAE’s. He was particularly concerned about labour productivity and real wage rates.
During his stay, I assume in one of the more comfortable parts of Dubai or Abu Dhabi, Mr Frank’s appeared not to have noticed the poor conditions and subsistence wages paid to many workers. I wonder if he thinks this is the way forward for NZ.
March 19th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
I am very pleased with this choice. Do not assume this country is embracing socialism. So far we are moving into recession, the Government books are finally bust by the Labour Party, interest rates have doubled and waste and fraud and cronyism is everywhere in the Government. Whether he can win this seat I do not know. The seat has supported Act in the Past as well as National. It is a traditional National seat and Stephen Franks is not unlike Jack Marshall in many ways. We shall see.
March 19th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
“Would a classic liberal vote against legislation such as the Homosexual Law Reform Act (or whatever Fran Wilde’s private members bill was titled) if it meant that landlords could no longer discriminate gay tenants?”
Radvad has pretty much said it already. Landlords should be able to discriminate on whatever basis they want – even if they wish to be bigoted and deny gays.
The difference between classical liberals and bleeding-heart liberals is that classical liberals may not like your viewpoint but they won’t demand you adopt theirs. Left wing liberals like to tell people that they need to fit into a mould of society that they want. Hope that helps Bryce.
March 19th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Do the Nats want Muriel Newman too? Please?
March 19th, 2008 at 11:50 pm
I like what I’ve heard from Frank. His cool temperament & ability to explain issues are his best traits (although a cool temperament doesn’t get you far in politics as Dr Brash found out).
According to his blog, Frank used to be a leftie before he saw the light. So judging by that he’s probably not a hardcore conservative on social issues. And to that point the Act party aren’t exactly known for their conservative social views. In fact the only hardcore conservative social party is Destiny et al. & they’re not in parliament.
March 19th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
I’m not sure that Franks is a conservative, but he definitely has views that tie back to some quite obscure technicalities, and then takes principled stands on those points that from the outside look suspiciously like conservatism. It depends to some extent how the media choose to portray him – the average voter doesn’t really spend the time to actually listen to their candidates.
I like Stephen, he is as others have said, an asset to parliament. I’m not sure that means he’ll be an asset to National.
March 20th, 2008 at 12:10 am
The National Party has lots of room for people like Franks – and for people like Rich. We need more of both.
March 20th, 2008 at 1:45 am
# radvad Add karma Subtract karma +2 Says:
March 19th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
“Would a classic liberal vote against legislation such as the Homosexual Law Reform Act (or whatever Fran Wilde’s private members bill was titled) if it meant that landlords could no longer discriminate gay tenants?”
This one would. And a landlord could also discriminate against hetero tenants, or religious tenants or anyone else they wanted to. Its called freedom of the individual which is why I fully support the right of a Melbourne bar to admit homosexuals only. Of course social pressure could find them out, or market pressure as they may have a limited pool of potential tenants|clients. State pressure should not feature in determining how individuals arrange their lives as long as they are not physically or materially harming others.
So what you’re saying is that the US should not have passed laws saying that bus companies weren’t allowed to make niggers sit at the back of the bus, or that private schools could not have the choice to enrol only white students. Damn government setting back classical liberalism and forcing social morals on bigoted individuals.
March 20th, 2008 at 5:21 am
Some interesting points.
First of all I would make the observation that Stephen did not win because he is a former ACT MP. He won despite that. And he won on the first ballot in an electorate where the party membership is relatively liberal.
Secondly (and this is a personal view) I think Grant Robertson is likely to win the seat, regardless of who the candidate is. The party vote for parties of the left is very high in Wellington Central. Of course things can change in a campaign, but regardless the party vote is the key target.
Thirdly I (personally again) would accept that Stephen as a candidate might arguably not be as successful in attracting centrist voters as some others might be. I am sure Grant R has a long long list of quotes from Stephen as an ACT MP, which he will have fun using in debates etc. Against that Stephen has experience and profile and an in depth knowledge of the Electoral Finance Act which is a nightmare for candidates who are not MPs.
Fourthly – the reason I believe that so many delegates voted for Stephen is that they believe he will be an excellent MP, who will add considerable strength to National’s team. He is one of the top commercial lawyers in NZ (and a former member of the Securities Commission). He has a great track record at exposing the weakness in legislation (something useful in Govt as well as Opposition) and in areas such as law & order he has a wealth of knowledge. Not everyone will agree with him, but he knows the reality behind the spin in terms of how probation and parole work and do not work.
March 20th, 2008 at 7:13 am
Not quite Wellington Central, but I understand that Todd McLay, son of Roger, was selected as candidate for Rotorua last night. Congratulations, he will have a great show at knocking off an increasingly sour looking Steve Chadwick. And increasing the Party vote for National as well!
March 20th, 2008 at 7:47 am
David I don’t fully understand the logic here. If Stephen Franks “might arguably not be as successful in attracting centrist voters as some others might be”, and National’s potential target voters in Wgtn Central are more centrist than hard right (a commonly held belief), then wouldn’t Franks be just as locally unsuccessful at attracting party votes as electorate votes?
Put another way, if National really wanted to run up the party vote in a centre-left leaning electorate, wouldn’t it have made more sense to nominate a candidate whose views better mirror those of the electorate (i.e. a centrist)?
[DPF: First of all I don't think anyone can say with certainty that Candidate X will affect party votes greatly. Party Leaders and policies and media coverage of Parliament have by far the largest effect. Even if a candidate in one seat may move the party vote 3% or so, then that is just 0.05% of the total party vote. Secondly a strong candidate can attract votes even if people disagree with some of their policies. We see this in many electorates, so I think people are overplaying how influential someone's perceived political position is as a factor. Finally the point I was making is that even *if* one accepts your arguments, people also make judgements on how good an MP someone will be. And so they should. Selecting candidates purely on the basis of electability rather than ability is best left to fans of Winston politics. Now that is not to say all three candidates would not make very good MPs. But Stephen in my opinion impressed as someone who was and will be an excellent MP]
March 20th, 2008 at 8:33 am
Having conceded publicly the seat to the Labour candidate I presume you will not be involved in Stephen’s campaign. I wish you had not done that for it makes it difficult for Stephen to use your considerable skills on his campaign.
[DPF: I have no time or desire to be involved with any campaign. I know quite a few candidates who may bounce ideas and advice off me from time to time, and that is about as far as it would go. And Tim I value my credibility far more than being one of those drones who insists a seat is marginal when it isn't. That is not to say I have ruled out or conceded the seat - you are twisting my words. And finally it is the party vote that matters much more under MMP so frankly whether or not someone thinks an electorate seat is marginal has little bearing on whether or not they should be involved in a campaign.]
March 20th, 2008 at 8:40 am
I think that Mike and Radvad have clearly shown that there is a difference between being “socially liberal” and “classical liberal”, and that presumably Stephen Franks is the latter.
I’m not really trying to get an argument going about which of the two types of liberalism is best (although obviously I’m a “social liberal”) but just to point out that Franks “classical liberal” politics are probably repellent to a lot of the Wellington Central electorate, which I would define as being much more “socially liberal” than “classically liberal”.
The examples that have applied here are prostitution, abortion and homosexuality. In these three cases it *appears* that Stephen Franks is quite likely to oppose legislation that liberalises these areas *if* the same legislation has *any* negative impact on the rights of property owners (even if those impacts are relatively insignificant). My feeling is that most Wellington Central voters would find such a stance abhorrent. Many would presume from all of this that Franks simply sides with the rich over fundamental human rights.
For what it’s worth, my experience is that Stephen Franks is a fairly nice guy and extremely talented. But my basic point is that he’s a “social conservative” (albeit also a “classical liberal”) and Wellington Central ain’t.
Bryce
http://www.liberation.org.nz
March 20th, 2008 at 8:52 am
Tim – it’s about winning the election, not just one seat.
March 20th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Franks’ selection is irrelevant. It’s where he is placed on the list that will show the country just what the Nats really think of him. I think his selection is a bad thing: he has little chance of winning the seat yet the Nats might think he has a chance so place him lower on the list.
I don’t think I would be too happy if I were Franks as much as I think he is very talented and would be an excellent MP, again!
March 20th, 2008 at 9:05 am
Good point Gooner. Franks’ position on the National Party list will essentially be litmus test for the political positioning of New National. So although the Wellington Central Nats might have made a big mistake in selecting Franks, somehow I doubt that the central leadership of National will allow Franks to be in the Top 20. Key and English aren’t that stupid. What’s more, they probably be hoping that he doesn’t actually win the electorate, as the maverick Stephen Franks in Parliament is likely to be more trouble for Key and English than he’s worth. The new National Government will be governing in a centrist manner, and Franks will be constantly sticking his head up to say “But what about property rights?!!”
Bryce
http://www.liberation.org.nz
[DPF: One could advocate that it is no bad thing having someone say what about property rights, and if they did then maybe National's position on Foreshore & Seabed Bill may have been different]
March 20th, 2008 at 9:08 am
Some of the comments made would suggest that the posters have still to come to grips with MMP. Like David I too think it would be a big call to suggest that National will regain Wellington Central .. they may, but at best its a longshot. But I hope that both the NP Regional and National List Ranking Committees recognise that Franks has much to offer Parliament and rank him accordingly.
And the way to ensure that he does indeed return is to give our Party vote to National rather than a Party currently polling in the 0-1% margin of error.
March 20th, 2008 at 9:16 am
Did Paul Quinn blame the ref for his defeat?
March 20th, 2008 at 9:30 am
[2] He’s a social conservative. Wellington Central is well known as a socially progressive and liberal electorate. They’re going to hate Franks!
I’d say hes more of a social regressive myself…
March 20th, 2008 at 10:06 am
Bryce your 9:05 comment,
I thought one of the flaws is the H1,H2,Cullen administration was the refusal to allow dissent in their ranks.
It seems to me that good decisions automatically follow the balanced consideration of differing points of view at the table, even though that may not always be comfortable.
This is the one thing that Helen Clark was proven for us and so the “fault” seen in Franks; (=the maverick Stephen Franks in Parliament is likely to be more trouble for Key and English than he’s worth. The new National Government will be governing in a centrist manner, and Franks will be constantly sticking his head up to say “But what about property rights?!!”) may in fact, be part of a more balanced administration.
March 20th, 2008 at 10:12 am
Good on Stephen Franks for voting against the prostitution legislation. It forced them to pay tax, made brothels OSH compliant, and placed them under the jurisdiction of the grumpy old wowsers who make up the majority of city councillors in New Zealand. Nothing liberating about that. It made things worse and forced more women out onto the street.
March 20th, 2008 at 10:47 am
Thanks David for the clarifications.
I think I understand now: local National members, having conceded – as you have – that National is unlikely to win Wellington Central, picked a hard right candidate solely because they think he would be a good MP, rather than because they thought that others would think he’d be a good MP. They selected him for Wellington Central not to try and win the electorate and not even to try and win votes in the electorate (even though your earlier comment about Franks’ selection emphasized the party vote over the electorate vote). Instead they selected him as a strategic vote of confidence in Franks directed at the National Party’s various list ranking mechanisms. After all, the list is essentially the only way now that Franks will return to Parliament.
Here’s my question: why go through the charade of nominating him for an electorate that he clearly ill-suited to campaign in? Why not just lobby aggressively for him at the regional list meeting? Surely that is just as clear of a signal to the list ranking people. [I remember at one point seeing some internal National guideline about those running in electorates getting higher priority when the list rankings are done. If that is still the rule, then my question becomes: isn’t that a silly rule, precisely because of situations like this one?]
For myself, I think that having at least some regard for the views of the constituency you’re going to try and represent is a pretty good and pretty democratic idea, and does not (as you accuse) imply a swift descent into the sinful den of Winstonian baublery. You don’t have to be purely Burkian to be partly Burkian. Evidently the Wellington Central branch of the National Party disagrees. OK.
[DPF: I think you are taking my comments to an absolutist position which is not justified. First of all I can;t and do not speak on behalf of the 60 delegates who would have had a variety of reasons for why they voted. I can only give my perspective on what I thought were dominant factors.
I also think you and others are taking the "perceived fit" to almost a stereotypical degree. Wgtn Central is not just Aro Valley. I don't think how people voted on prostitution law reform (and I was a active supporter of that law change) will be as important to most WC voters as issues such as the politicisation of the public sector (for example).
You keep applying a groupist thinking (being a leftie no surprise) to what was 60 individual decisions on how to vote, and to how 40,000 WC voters may vote and react.
Finally with just five exceptions, no one can be a list candidate unless they are also an electorate candidate for National.]
March 20th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Yikes, talk about a moral conservative http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2005/03/but-who-voted-for-it.html (Bigot????)
March 21st, 2008 at 4:16 am
David – I take your points about not speaking on behalf of people and about absolutism, but I’d like to make a couple of my own:
If you don’t want commenters reducing your views to an absolutist form, it’s probably best not to do the same thing yourself. For example: “Selecting candidates purely on the basis of electability rather than ability is best left to fans of Winston politics.” There is a middle ground, as you well know, between the Wgtn Central / Franks approach and the Winston approach. If you choose to ignore the middle ground there, don’t be surprised when your commenters do the same to your comments.
If you don’t want people making group-based generalizations from individual decisions, it’s probably best not to do that yourself either. For example: “Stephen did not win because he is a former ACT MP. He won despite that.” and “so many delegates voted for Stephen is that they believe he will be an excellent MP” or more recently “I don’t think how people voted on prostitution law reform… will be as important to most WC voters as issues such as the politicisation of the public sector.” (And if your planned response is “that isn’t ’speaking on behalf’, that is ‘my perspective on the dominant factors’”, then my reply would be “that’s all I was doing, too, so quit complaining about it.”)
Finally, if you really do believe that all lefties are “groupists” because they examine things in terms of groups and not individuals, as you imply, then aren’t you thinking of them as a group, making you by your own logic a groupist and therefore a leftie?
[DPF: Heh fair points. We all use groups to some degree. I think one of the left vs right differences is the rights prefer individual targeting when possible such as individually mean tested subsidised health cards vs targetting the subsidy based on how many poor people and Maori live in a particular area.]