spinofflive
“You seem to be on the wrong side of me, Victoria.” (Photo by Fiona Goodall/Getty Images)
“You seem to be on the wrong side of me, Victoria.” (Photo by Fiona Goodall/Getty Images)

PoliticsJune 20, 2016

Mayoral race on! Victoria Crone just outflanked Phil Goff to the left on housing

“You seem to be on the wrong side of me, Victoria.” (Photo by Fiona Goodall/Getty Images)
“You seem to be on the wrong side of me, Victoria.” (Photo by Fiona Goodall/Getty Images)

This morning ex-Xero MD Victoria Crone announced a strong response to the housing crisis, one which squarely targeted the land-bankers and ‘property investors’ holding Auckland to ransom. This is a big deal, writes Duncan Greive.

Auckland is, as everyone but the National cabinet acknowledges, in the grips of a diabolical housing crisis, with effects running from the tragic (people sleeping in cars) to the somewhat less tragic (boomers out east potentially getting some garden shade). Until this morning we’ve been stuck in an unfortunate feedback loop, wherein local government says Central Government are the only ones with power to fix it and Central Government says there’s nothing to fix. And so on.

This morning, as well as dawning crisp and clear in our largest city, also brought with it bold statements from a seemingly unlikely source: Victoria Crone, the ex-Xero MD running for mayor and thus the default candidate of business and the right. She appeared in that coveted 7-7.30am agenda-setting interview spot on Morning Report to announce her intention to deploy a range of measures including “targeted rates, rezoning, a time limit on developments and improving the council’s consenting process,” as host Guyon Espiner characterised it.

“We’re 20,000 homes short of where we need to be and that figure is growing every year,” she said. “We need to use every single lever.”

Listen to the full interview:

While delivered in a pleasantly calm and matter-of-fact tone, this was a fairly shocking deviation from at least two narratives. Firstly, as Crone is the candidate of the right, it would make sense for her to be operating within the confines of the government’s narrative: that a few tweaks and it’ll be Lambourghinis and helicopters for all. Secondly, and more intriguingly, this represents a fairly abrupt deviation from the right’s long-treasured idea that property rights are the most sacred and unassailable of all human rights.

This argument, which admittedly has an attractive simplicity, suggests that the land we own is ours to do with as we see fit. And that any attempt by government to interfere with that right demands a response somewhere on a spectrum between “hand-writing a letter to editor of the New Zealand Herald” and “attempting to secede through peaceful or violent means”.

"You seem to be on the wrong side of me, Victoria." (Photo by Fiona Goodall/Getty Images)
“You seem to be on the wrong side of me, Victoria.” (Photo by Fiona Goodall/Getty Images)

Crone’s contention, then – that the needs of the community outweigh those of the individual – is somewhat radical. Particularly given that this isn’t a gentle caress of a policy, like our sort-of Capital Gains-ish tax. It’s a hammer:

“The biggest area of concern for me is land-banking,” said Crone, to loud applause in my suburban bathroom. And how would she put a stop to it? “That would be working out what is the total value of the land once it’s developed and putting something like 50% of the rating value on.”

“It has to be significant – we have to provide a stick.” That is a very big stick. The decades’ vacant lot running between 27 Fort Street and 20 Shortland Street in downtown Auckland has been a Wilson’s carpark as long as I can remember. Were it to attract rates like the Vero Centre up the road, that situation would be fiscally untenable for all but the most wealthy and obtuse owners.

Crone went on to say that empty dwellings might receive a similar treatment. She plans to target houses which don’t show habitation via their water bills within a six month period. But, spluttered Espiner – doing a reasonable job of pretending he gave a shit about people wealthy enough to own long-term unoccupied beach houses – what about bach owners? “If it’s empty for seven months,” she replied “…and it’s a bach, would you get slapped with a tax.” Clean, simple, no outs (beyond a neighbour willing to turn your tap on for you periodically).

What’s so fascinating about this change in outlook is that Crone is not some rogue agent like John Palino or Donald Trump, freestyling policy on a whim. She’s connected and coached – she’s mentored by Paula Bennett, the Minister most under fire for the crisis – and it’s literally impossible to countence the idea that she wouldn’t have consulted widely with business and political leaders before announcing such a policy. This is why it is so meaningful.

In some ways it perversely helps the government, in implying that solutions to what she tellingly characterised as a “serious situation” – not a crisis, of course – could be found locally. Which is another way of saying that what we’re seeing at Te Puea Marae and all across the isthmus is, in fact, Auckland’s problem and fault, not the government’s.

Bullshit. Or at least a long way from accurate. But ultimately, who cares? The fact we now have a candidate talking about doing something about landbanking and targeted rates from the right is cause for celebration everywhere in this fine city.

Well everywhere except the opposition.

“I think we need to be a lot more scientific and creative than that,” Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse said earlier. “I don’t think we need to be punitive… I’d like to see if we can work with community agencies…” I fell asleep at that point, so cannot tell you what she said afterwards. The man who would be her boss, Phil Goff, was similarly gazumped: “I’d need to be persuaded that you wouldn’t need a mass bureaucracy in order to make that work.” The Labour candidate raising the spectre of a “mass bureacracy” is the surest sign you’d need that this was not in the original script.

The announcement alone won’t change the outcome of the election, of course. But in both policy and its delivery Crone took a step forward this morning – and as a result we may have a Mayoral race worth watching after all. More importantly, some long-held assumptions just got jettisoned, and assuming the talk becomes action, our city should be much the better for it.

A boat from the ‘Fishing for Leave’ campaign group sprays boats from the ‘In’ campaign with water during a flotilla along the Thames River on June 15, 2016 in London, England. The flotilla organised by members of the Fishing for Leave group, who are campaigning to leave the European Union ahead of the referendum on the 23rd of June, was countered by boats representing the ‘In’ campaign. (Photo by Jack Taylor/Getty Images)
A boat from the ‘Fishing for Leave’ campaign group sprays boats from the ‘In’ campaign with water during a flotilla along the Thames River on June 15, 2016 in London, England. The flotilla organised by members of the Fishing for Leave group, who are campaigning to leave the European Union ahead of the referendum on the 23rd of June, was countered by boats representing the ‘In’ campaign. (Photo by Jack Taylor/Getty Images)

OPINIONOpinionJune 17, 2016

The UK is heading towards the EU escape chute. And it deserves everything it gets

A boat from the ‘Fishing for Leave’ campaign group sprays boats from the ‘In’ campaign with water during a flotilla along the Thames River on June 15, 2016 in London, England. The flotilla organised by members of the Fishing for Leave group, who are campaigning to leave the European Union ahead of the referendum on the 23rd of June, was countered by boats representing the ‘In’ campaign. (Photo by Jack Taylor/Getty Images)
A boat from the ‘Fishing for Leave’ campaign group sprays boats from the ‘In’ campaign with water during a flotilla along the Thames River on June 15, 2016 in London, England. The flotilla organised by members of the Fishing for Leave group, who are campaigning to leave the European Union ahead of the referendum on the 23rd of June, was countered by boats representing the ‘In’ campaign. (Photo by Jack Taylor/Getty Images)

Less than a week out from the Brexit vote, the ‘leave’ side is in the ascendant. But it’s hard to find much to admire in either camp, writes David Hall. Plus: a word on Jo Cox

If the United Kingdom leaves the European Union, it deserves everything that comes to it.

Perhaps what comes will be positive: business-as-usual plus more muscular national sovereignty, freedom from meddling Eurocrats, and control over the contested effects of immigration.

Or perhaps it won’t be so. Multiple scenarios are plausible, and it’s in the nature of politics that there’s no certainty how things would play out.

The most dramatic possibility is the complete collapse of the European Union. Some warn that Brexit – the referendum is June 23 – will be a catalyst for resurgent nationalism across the continent.

My hunch is this is overly alarmist. As I’ve written elsewhere, modern Europe is a multi-layered beast, which member states – and even non-members – are complicatedly aligned to. Just like you can remove a gherkin from a burger without it ceasing to be a burger, you can remove the UK from the EU while leaving the other ingredients intact. For example, the UK’s departure from the EU doesn’t necessarily mean a departure from Europe’s “common market”, the European Economic Area (EEA). The UK could join other EU-shirkers in the EEA like Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. Or it could rely on bilateral agreements instead, like Switzerland.

But you never know. The EU could be in a vengeful mood after losing its second largest economy. The case of Greece and its aborted Grexit shows that when EU leaders take a hard line, it’s a very hard line indeed.

A boat from the 'Fishing for Leave' campaign group sprays boats from the 'In' campaign with water during a flotilla along the Thames River on June 15, 2016 in London, England. The flotilla organised by members of the Fishing for Leave group, who are campaigning to leave the European Union ahead of the referendum on the 23rd of June, was countered by boats representing the 'In' campaign. (Photo by Jack Taylor/Getty Images)
In a very English campaign moment, a boat from the ‘Fishing for Leave’ campaign group sprays boats from the ‘In’ campaign with water during a flotilla along the Thames. Photo by Jack Taylor/Getty Images

Meanwhile Brexit would undoubtedly boost the likelihood of Scexit, a renewed push for Scottish independence from the United Kingdom. Given Scotland’s affinity for the European project and its deep-rooted grudge against English imperialism, the schisms are likely to appear inside the UK, not only outside

And this, as I said, would be utterly deserved.

Prime Minister David Cameron’s equivocations over immigration are key to this. Anti-immigrant sentiment is the life-force of the “Leave” campaign. Yet throughout his term as leader, Cameron tried to have his cake and eat it too, pandering to populist calls for restricted borders while appeasing the pro-EU inclinations of business and finance. To appeal to the former, he proposed immigration quotas. But to satisfy industry’s demand for cheap labour, he allowed those quotas to be overshot year after year. He wanted to be seen to be doing something, while never doing enough to frustrate the interests of global capital. And when immigrants were blamed for housing shortages, unemployment, and pressure on the NHS, Cameron made only the mildest interventions, because blame being directed at immigration was blame not being directed at his government’s own policies.

As a strategy, this might prove too clever by half. But the Conservatives aren’t the only guilty party.

Ed Miliband made a similar wager. As Labour leader, he claimed to “take immigration seriously”. Yet he never convinced the blue-collar nationalists who were defecting from Labour to the UK Independence Party (UKIP), never to return. Their judgments were surely accurate too: Miliband lacked the xenophobic resolve to ever take immigration that seriously, certainly not as seriously as UKIP. It can’t have helped his case, either, that Miliband was unambiguously pro-EU.

With Miliband’s defeat and the electoral evisceration of the Liberal Democrats, the EU lost its boldest defenders in England. The “Remain” campaign fell to two politicians, David Cameron and Jeremy Corbyn, who, quite possibly, in their heart of hearts, don’t really care that much for the EU.

For Corbyn, that’s a matter of public record. He voted to leave the European Economic Community in 1975 and opposed other key treaties since. Unsurprisingly, his campaigning has been tepid, distracted, and unpersuasive. At best, he’s like some gloomy spouse who promises that he’s committed to marriage, but drags his heels with every step, willfully going through the motions, hoping that someone else will call for divorce.Little wonder that Labour has resurrected that old battleship, Gordon Brown.

For Cameron, the record is more ambivalent. After years of hedging, he plumped for “Remain” when he announced the in/out referendum in February. Yet Steve Hilton, his one-time ideas guru, recently claimed: “If [Cameron] were a member of the public or a backbench MP, or a junior minister or even a cabinet minister, I’m certain he would be for leave.” The other possibility, not at all infeasible, is that Cameron actually doesn’t believe in very much, that he plays the game as given, unencumbered by firm convictions.

The Sun says leave, but German and Dutch titles say stay
The Sun says leave, but German and Dutch titles say stay

And so, for all this, the UK will get what it deserves. Polls show the “Leave” campaign drawing ever closer to “Remain”. Caution in the voting box may yet prevail, but the “Leave” campaign marches on highways paved by years of deranged advocacy from the tabloids, whose editors profited from hysteria without responsibility for the repercussions.

And if it’s Brexit, for many Britons, there will be little to lose, because they’re already at the bottom of the heap. Economic arguments for“Remain”are moot when rewards fall in someone else’s pockets. A Brexiteer once told me that he didn’t support UKIP because he was racist, but because he opposed “the hierarchy” (or, as he said in proper Cockney, “Oy-rah-kee”).It was all about cocking a snook – by way of Brussels – at the toffs in Chipping Norton and Hampstead Heath.

A risky form of protest, to be sure. But something’s got to give – and, right now, this referendum is all that’s on offer.


Postscript: This column was written the day before the utterly abysmal murder of Jo Cox, Labour MP for Batley and Spen. As tributes attest, she was one of Parliament’s most decent voices.

Politics is always unpredictable – and the potential for violence is at the heart of this. A private tragedy for Cox’s husband and two young children will inevitably feed into public debate overcoming days. (The referendum campaign is already officially on hold.) The event could even influence the judgment of voters: perceptions of disorder are known to favour the status quo. Yet if the murder of an MP in England is shocking, the reality of violence inflicted on women by men is not, nor the influence of extremist nationalism. It is a stark reminder that not everything that England fears comes from beyond its borders.