Scoop Election 08: edited by Gordon Campbell

Labour’s problems with the young

June 19th, 2008

Gordon Campbell

The wrangle between the government and insurance industry over third party motor vehicle insurance reflects a wider problem for the Clark government – namely, its punitive stance towards young people, and first time voters.

According to to Labour Party president Mike Williams, there will 190,000 eligible first time voters in this election, and they’re supposed to be a Labour priority. Yet the array of policies that the Labour government has promoted over the last year or so have targeted young people and their leisure habits, mainly to score brownie points on law and order issues.

Add them up. There has been have the attack on youth drugs of leisure ( the party pills ban) and on forms of protest and expression ( the anti-tagging Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti vandalism) Amendment Bill.) Labour has vowed to keep young people compulsorily inside learning institutions until they’re 18, via the Schools Plus initiative, which is already in some trouble.

Now, we have this 3rd party insurance move against their driving habits and related risks. Transport Safety Minister Harry Duynhoeven has been quite upfront that the compulsory 3rd party insurance idea was ‘brought into focus’ as a mechanism to get boy racers off the streets. Unfortunately, the measure will further offload the cost onto all motorists, and onto young drivers in particular, and the insurance industry is already contesting Duynhoeven’s cost estimates. Compulsory third party motor vehicle insurance was considered before and rejected by Labour ( in 1988) and by National in 1994.

This punitive stance towards the young is not an election year tactic, since it has been evident throughout this term of government. Late in 2006, Labour MP Martin Gallagher sponsored an attempt to raise the drinking age, which would have forced young people out of clubs and bars, and denied them the chance to listen to bands on licensed premises. [ Disclosure of self interest : I co-promote tours by indie bands, and raising the drinking age would have killed such tours stone dead ]

You get the pattern, and that’s only on the punitive side. In the Budget, when Finance Minister was handing out the sweets to everyone else, he conspicuously failed to address student debt and student allowances. His token best effort was to drop the age that students will be regarded as dependent on their parents from 25 to an insulting 24 – apparently, according to Cullen, because United Future wanted it that way.

There’s a word for it : ephebiphobia. It means fear of the young and Labour needs policy treatment for it. So, of course, does National – always a haven for young fogies – who have shown themselves more than willing to pack young offenders off to boot camp, even if the armed forces supposed to be running them don’t want a bar of it. For the Maori Party and the Greens, those 190,000 voters really are theirs for the taking.

Footnote : tagging, as Martin Gallagher has explained, used to be punishable under the law on ‘ defacing’ with a maximum $200 fine. Under the proposed Bill, that fine can increase ten-fold to a maximum of $2,000, with judges having the option of community sentences, amid a total ban on people under 18 being able to buy spray cans.

The rationale : “Tagging is a destructive crime and represents an invasion of private and public property,” Gallagher says on his website.

“ It makes our public spaces look distasteful.” Right. Well, if making public spaces distasteful is to be criminalized to this extent, how about extending the provisions of the Bill to fast food outlets as well ? A 1% levy on annual turnover as compensation for the waste they generate, and which renders a lot of public space extremely ‘ distasteful’ would not only encourage fast food outlets to be better corporate citizens. It would be such a salutary lesson – polluters should pay ! – for our impressionable young people.

Obama’s Choice as Veep

A few weeks ago and far earlier than most, Scoop picked Virginia senator Jim Webb as Barack Obama’s likely vice –presidential running mate for Election 08, the US version. An avalanche of media coverage – a New Republic magazine cover story
saying yes, a Slate magazine story less convincingly saying no – has since put the spotlight on Webb.

Well, Obama’s campaign manager David Axelrod has now confirmed Virginia as a central state in a strategy that doesn’t treat Ohio and Florida – the crucial swing states in the last two elections – as being essential to victory. Which must be good news for Webb. This morning’s polls though, are even better news for Obama, He is ahead of McCain in those very states ( Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania ) that he struggled with during those never-ending primary struggles with Hillary Clinton. Obama has, by the way, just hired Patti Solis Doyle, the campaign manager that Hillary fired in February.

More and more when one looks at the swing state polling and the gender vote divisions – Obama is ahead by 19 points among women voters, and by seven points among white women – that this election may not even be close. It could well end up like the Johnson vs Goldwater contest in 1964, when the crusty, cranky Republican candidate went down in a landslide.

Obama’s choice as veep will still be important. I’ve come round to thinking that Scoop got the right state, but the wrong politician. I’m now going with Virginia governor Tim Kaine as the likely vice-presidential choice.

The reasons why Virginia has become a swing state are outlined here,

So, what does Kaine bring nationally, besides a probable home state advantage in Virginia? One, he is a white Roman Catholic, a demographic Obama struggled with during the Ohio and Pennsylvania primaries. Kaine may help there – though one has to remember that Ted Kennedy’s endorsement failed to bring white Catholics in behind Obama during the Massachusetts primary. Second, Kaine speaks Spanish pretty fluently, which should firm up another Obama soft area.

Is Kaine tougher, and more experienced ? Yes and no. He has walked a tight rope on law and order issues. Prior to being elected as governor, Kaine had opposed the death penalty, but he agreed to respect state law and carry it out. In late May, Kaine authorised the execution of Kevin Green, a murderer with an IQ of 65, five points below the level generally considered as the borderline measure for mental retardation.

Those with long memories will recall that one of Bill Clinton’s most unsavoury credentials for the presidency was his signing off ( while he was Arkansas governor ) the execution of Rickey Rector, a killer so retarded that he told guards he’d be back to finish the pie he’d ordered for his last meal, once this execution thing was over.

Despite the Green decision, Kaine is not as bad as Clinton on that score. Just last week, Kaine controversially commuted ( on the night of the supposed execution) the death sentence on a triple murderer called Percy Walton, on grounds of mental incompetence.

Why did he do so? A 1986 Supreme Court case called Ford vs Wainwright has set certain conditions on the US ability to execute the mentally ill – and one of the very general Ford tests is whether the prisoner can adequately grasp the consequences of the sentence, and the link between the crime and the punishment. Recter, plainly didn’t – and should have been spared. Similarly, the deeply psychotic Walton said that he was planning on riding his motorcyle to Burger King after the execution – which became oine of the factors that eventually convinced Kaine to exercise his legal right to commute Walton’s sentence, to one of life imprisonment.

Plainly, this was the right thing to do. It may not help Kaine’s chances of winning the vice –presidential slot, or to swing his state in behind Obama if he does. Yet increasingly, Virginia looks as though it contains the prime contenders for the job.


Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Scoopit
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • NewsVine
  • Print this post Print this post
    1. 10 Responses to “Labour’s problems with the young”

    2. By Rita Lowe, Youth Vice President of the NZ Labour Party on Jun 19, 2008 | Reply

      Just exactly when did the news media last report a story about good things young people do in their communities? I hate to break it to everyone but the reality is most young people do NOT go around tagging and haranguing people. The measures the Labour-led government is taking is in response to popular perceptions and minority problems (that are still problems, but the media blow them way out of proportion).
      John Key referred to youth as “rather than being the hope for our future, these young people represent our future fears” in his opening address this year. This reaffirms the public’s perception of youth as perpetuated in the popular media. It does not challenge the way in which the general population perceive young people. The Labour-led government has built young apprenticeships, supported the arts scene, relieved students from paying interest on their crippling loans introduced under a National Government (resign, Lockwood Smith, you promised), invested right from the early stages by providing 20 free hours of early childhood education, and have taken a completely rounded long-term approach to supporting young people through many other wide social policies such as the emissions trading scheme which secures the future of young people by taking steps to keep this planet sustainable. And one more thing. I’m proud to be a member of Young Labour, one of the most active youth organisations in NZ.

    3. By Steve Withers on Jun 19, 2008 | Reply

      In Canada, third-party car insurance is commonly required to renew one’s drivers license or renew the reistration on a vehicle. No insurance and you are driving illegally. You definietloy do NOT lend your car to anyone lest they incur a million dollars of liability while driving your vehicle.

      Last year, for 3rd-party only insurance, I would have had to pay C$330 a MONTH to drive my own car legally. With no previous insurance history in Canada, despite having driven for 35 years, I was effectively a “young driver”.

      It’s important to also remember how much money we save on insurance thanks to ACC. If the ACC regime we operate today was to be diluted or dismantled by a government enamoured of helping insurnace companies make big profits, we might also find that all of our personal injury insurnace costs would go up….and not just by a little bit. They would likely treble and treble again…and then again….if we returned to regime where we could sue for damages.

      So 3rd-party insurance is just part of the picture.

      As far as alienating young people, I have few issues personally with alienating drug-taking taggers who drive like maniacs. That won’t cost anyone any votes as the majority of them very likely don’t vote at all anyway.

    4. By youf on Jun 20, 2008 | Reply

      of those 190,000 young voters, the drug crazied boy racers and taggers might go for the Greens and Maori Party, if they vote at all. The students who remember the axing of interest on student loans might prefer Labour.

      My guess is that the latter out-number the former.

      more like Gordan Campbell still has a problem with Labour.

    5. By Xorzale on Jun 20, 2008 | Reply

      In response to the possibility of compulasary 3rd party insurance: As a particularly poor student, I do not want to see this rule being brought into affect. I drive an un-warrented and un-registered vehicle. I simply cannot afford to have it registered at the moment or to have it warrented (although I believe it to be inside the warrantable critera). If it was compulsary to have 3rd party insurance, wouldn’t that just mean that a-typical “poor students”, like myself, would end up with unpayable debts AND a contemptious attitude towards the LAW in general? Eventually, the politically active teens – of which there are a good many – would recognise the goverment as the cause of such, comdemning, laws and hopefully rebel. Since so many youths are not wealthy in the area of understanding of the law, or knowledge in general, I think we’d be looking at an all out war on certain sectors of society. Never mind the current extremist, pro-active “events” which take place at current. Imagine a total disregard for the law – athiest, anti-social, ANARCHY.

    6. By peteremcc on Jun 22, 2008 | Reply

      Labour may promote all these ridiculous regulations and bans, but National have been going along with them all too.

      Only ACT has been opposed to these nanny-state laws, and only ACT will get rid of them in government for all those 190,000 young people.

    7. By Alex on Jun 22, 2008 | Reply

      As one of the 190,000 first time voters I have found it almost impossible to ignore the recent proposed law changes. To people who don’t know me, I would be considered a boy racer, meaning I drive a Japanese car and am under 25. I get quite offended at being labeled this as I am proud to have no demerits on my license and consider myself a courteous driver. I think that the proposed law that would make third party insurance compulsory would not only miss the mark completely, it would also make it very difficult to use cars for essential tasks, like getting to uni in my case. Whether someone is a boy racer or not, the costs of owning a car are increasing drastically, and another charge on top of all the taxes on fuel and the cost of ongoing registration and warranting will make things worse. All these costs will eventually make their way onto my student loan and suddenly there’s another couple of thousand dollars debt that I will have to deal with in the next few years. If people actually educated themselves about so called boy racer culture they would realise that the people making 99% of the trouble with illegal activities aren’t going to be bothered by new laws when they aren’t concerned about the consequences of breaking the current ones. Personally I think that most political parties are completely out of touch with the young people who are involved in these trouble areas, Labour being the worst offender.

    8. By peteremcc on Jun 22, 2008 | Reply

      Exactly Alex,

      same as with drug laws, dog microchipping, anti-smacking, raising the drinking age etc etc etc…

      the people they are targetted at, the ones causing the real trouble, aren’t going to change their behavious just because the law has changed. all the laws do, is make it more difficult for those who are just trying to get on with their own life.

    9. By M Juma on Jun 24, 2008 | Reply

      People who tag and use party pill are not going to vote, so the legislative changes bought my Labour are positive move towards punishing offenders!

      Labour needs not to worry as students often vote Green or Labour. Even though i dont agree that the tagging bill will make much of a difference it will raise the ante and send a message that tagging in not cool!

    10. By joejoeactionsatisfaction on Jul 2, 2008 | Reply

      The only question is: Why do students like you have to have a car? Is it only because it is still so cheap to have one in New Zealand and, therefore, just convenient? Or do you really need one, like all the other asian students who go on the buses? I don’t want to talk about environmental problems whic are not only caused by our cows.

    11. By alina on Nov 30, 2008 | Reply

      Thanks for the providing good information – this is really helpful for car accident insurance.I found another good one that helped me find an incredible rate they give you the best rates from lots of local providers
      Car Accident Insurance

    Post a Comment