Kiwiblog

Is it just me or is the PM doing a good imitation of Sgt Schultz?

She claims to know nothing about the multiple Labour attacks on John Key.

Is her hearing so bad she can’t hear Trevor Mallard going on about H-Fees?  Did she never wonder what that was about?

Does she not read the newspapers where her party president writes letters about where John Key lived in 2002?

Is she not listening when her Building Issues Minister is trying to link John Key to leaky homes on the basis of a Truth article?

Most of all is she unaware her own chief press secretary is going around the press gallery pushing the spin on these issues?

And does she think the public are so stupid that she denies any knowledge on the one hand, yet in the same article encourages the media to follow these issues up?

She also denies any knowledge of Labour Party involvement in the Auckland Mayoralty race.

She’s almost as bad a liar as Dick Hubbard who claims “he had received no strategic or campaign advice in any “shape or form” from members of the Labour Party or Labour MP” yet admits that he has met three times with Mike Williams to discuss polling and focus groups.  On what universe is that not campaign advice?

On the 6.50 am flight to Christchurch, and as I was up all night working (business is just far too busy at the moment) I happily fell asleep before we even took off.

Some time later I wake up and am admiring the glorious Southern Alps in the window.  After a minute or so  I realize that as I am on the left hand side of the plane, I should not be able to see them. I think about this for a while and look at possibilities such as whether for some reason we have decided to fly south down the West Coast.  But no, it is clear we are now flying North up the East Coast.

I then ask a stewardess and discover that we have been in the air for over an hour, Christchurch Airport is fogged in and we are heading North indeed.

I ask how long will it be until we are back in Wellington, and learn that unfortunately Wellington is now fogged in also and as we are running short of fuel we can only circle Wellington for 15 minutes or so before heading to Auckland. That would not be good.

Luckily the fog clears at Wellington and we get to land.  I quickly call the 15 people I was meant to meet at 9 am (well I call one of them to call the others) and head up to the Koru Club where I am now camped out.

I really really wish they would introduce those systems that allow planes to land in fog.  This happens all the time.

A reader e-mailed me about a North Shore poll which is on the Shore Can website.

Now the poll doesn’t say who conducted it, so I presume it was done internally.  Now generally I am very sceptical of any publicly released poll conducted by the organisation it is done for (as its publication may be designed to become a sell fulfilling prophecy) but in this case none of the questions are about the Shore Can ticket, so I wil put aside my scepticism to note some interesting results:

• 43% say they will re-elect George Wood as Mayor with the next contender being down at 7%
• 54% support one super Council for Auckland, with a gender splt of 45% amongst women and 63% amongst men
• 67% think rate increases have been excessive
• 68% would support a toll on another harbour crossing
• Only 27% think Council debt is under control
• 75% support a inflation and population adjusted cap on rates
• 86% support there being a referendum on any significant rates increase

Personally I like the idea of ratepayers having to approve any increase in rates above inflation and population.

Mystery Pollster in the US blogs about how the order of questions has a significant effect on how people in the US view civil unions:

Public views on giving legal rights to gay and lesbian couples depend a good deal on the context in which the question is asked.  On the survey, half of respondents were asked their views on civil unions after being asked about gay marriage, and half were asked the questions in the reverse order.  When respondents have already had the opportunity to express their opposition to gay marriage on the survey, more feel comfortable with allowing some legal rights as an alternative.  But when respondents are asked about legal rights without this context, they draw a firmer line.

Opponents of gay marriage are much more willing to accept the idea of some legal rights after they have had the opportunity to express their opposition to gay marriage. The percent favoring legal rights rises to 45% in this context, while just 37% favor the idea alone.  Put in other words, opponents of gay marriage are much more likely to accept allowing some legal rights when they have already had the opportunity to express their opposition to gay marriage itself.

This is a great example of the importance of order when it comes to setting a poll question.  One of the areas where a polling expert can add value is not just in helping frame the questions, but in working out the logical order to ask them, so that you get the most accurate data.

For example in political polls, I always recommend asking questions on how people will vote, before asking questions about issues.  The reason for that is because generally questions on issues will remind people of the things they don’t like that the incumbent is doing. So asking someone to spell out what they think is the biggest issue facing the country and then asking them who they will vote for, may disadvantage the incumbent Government.

Student leaders have vowed to crucify those responsible for the Dunedin rioting.

I’m pretty sure that isn’t a punishment under the Sentencing Act.

However I am pretty sure that if the student associations did a Crassus and lined SH1 between Christchurch and Otago with a crucified student every 100 metres or so, then it would be a very effective deterrent for next year’s Undie 500.

I’ve been debating on this blog with Paul Williams whether Murray McCully’s statement on Agenda that National is extremely unlikely to to re-instate the RNZAF strike wing abolished in 2000 by Labour, is a major shift in policy.

I don’t think such a statement is a major revelation, but to be fair to Paul, Press Political Editor Colin Espiner has blogged that this is:

“a major U-turn from National’s previous position and a ringing endorsement for Helen Clark’s defence policies from her political enemies.”

Now when I read this I still wasn’t convinced this is a major u-turn, as it had been my impression that National had given up on restoring the strike wing since it lost the 2002 election. Mainly because the longer you go without one, the much much harder it is to reinstate one – especially as all the pilots have got jobs overseas.

But one of the hazards of being a former “insider” is that what you think is common knowledge, is not.  When you work in Parliament you often have discussions on policy and soon work out what way the wind is blowing.  Hence I don’t think I have heard anyone seriously advocate it should be reinstated since 2003 or so, but that doesn’t mean that was the public perception.

But did National still publicly hold out in 2005 that such a reinstatement is likely?  Well I went to National’s 2005 Defence Policy. And you know there is not a single word in that policy about the Air Force Strike Wing.  Nope, not even a word.

So bearing in mind the 2005 election policy was silent on the strike wing, I still have to disagree with both Colin and Paul that this is a major change.

And if we go back into the Herald archives (bless them for keeping them all searchable), we find an August 2005 story which says “Mr Carter confirmed that any prospect of re-establishing the Air Force strike wing was remote”.

I rest my case.

I also disagree that this is a vindication for the decision.  It isn’t vindication, except for Father Time.  It’s just a reality that the longer time goes on, the harder it is to reverse something.

If you asked all 48 National MPs, do they think the decision to get rid of the F16s was a bad decision, I’d guess 40 – 45 of them would say yes. But if you also asked them do they think National in 2009 should try and reinstate the strike wing, then I’d predict 47 out of 48 would say no.

The same goes for Labour.  Ask the 50 Labour MPs if they agree with National’s 1991 benefit cuts and all 50 of them will say no.  And again ask all 50 if they think Labour should reverse those benefit cuts, and 40 or so will say no.

A friend in SAFE tells me that TV3 will show on 60 Minutes tonight details of a New Zealand animal breeding facility that is one of the largest animal-testing facilities in the Southern Hemisphere.

The facility is thought to have up to 200 beagles being used for research.

SAFE have set up a an online petition, a public forum and a website at www.banbeagleexperiments.org.nz, available immediately after the screening of 60 Minutes. The site is partially available now and looks very slick.

I’m not opposed to all animal use in research, but I think it is a very valid debate about what the extents should be, and how necessary each individual research case is.

After the great response to the help us pick a name post, we’ve now got ten finalists for the official name, and unlike the parties behind the Electoral Finance Bill we believe in democracy, so you can get to vote on the best name for us all to use in referring to this bill.

Many thanks to Survey.Net.NZ for the facilities.

UPDATE: Previous poll had a coding error so vote again if you have already voted.

Today’s Press editorial is unimpressed with Labour

Labour’s efforts to demonise National leader John Key are a measure of its own desperation and panic

These shrill attacks have thus far failed to dent Key’s credibility and each time the National leader bats away an allegation it is the Government which looks ridiculous and rattled.

The political acumen Labour exhibited on taking office eight years ago has been replaced by the tired misjudgments of a third-term administration, including its Key-bashing.

Bereft of fresh faces and ideas to address the real issues of concern to New Zealanders, Labour has instead rounded on Key personally. There is a strong sense of political reversal in this, as an attack strategy is normally the weapon of an Opposition, not a Government. Most members of the public will see through and disdain this negative brand of politics. They will regard it as an admission by Labour that it can not handle Key and is desperate to destroy him by any means before the next election campaign. Far from doing this, all the attacks have achieved is to give Key even more publicity and possibly public sympathy.

Key does have question marks over his leadership strength. He is still politically inexperienced, as shown by his occasional gaffes and hints of flip-flops, and he has yet to show that he has the policy substance to go with his undoubted personal style. Ministers can legitimately scrutinise Key on these grounds, but its smear campaign belongs in the rubbish bin, not in the political arena.

Exactly.  The attacks on him over the lack of clarity on the Complementary Medicines Bill were valid and what one expects.  Likewise contrasting his views on Iraq five years ago and today is valid (if overdone and not the killer blow Labour thinks it is).  But trying to smear him not on the basis of what he has done, but what some people he knows did four years before he went into business with them is not valid.  Likewise in the House suggesting he is of bad or malign character because he helped the SFO with an inquiry into a business he once worked at, is also not valid.

But the smears will not stop.  Helen Clark, who is normally the first to whine loudly whenever anything negative is said about her, says on NZPA this morning that “personal scrutiny is part of politics and National’s leader John Key should stop “bleating” about Labour’s attacks on him”.

Now one could say the PM is being a hypocrite, but really her position is consistent and clear.  Do as she says, not as she does.

Some of the old RSS feeds do not work anymore.  The only working feed for posts is:

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/feed

One can also do an RSS feed for comments from:

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/comments/feed

It is worth remembering as one considers the Electoral Finance Bill that while Labour drafted it, the Greens have bene unashamed cheerleaders for it.  Like Labour, at most they’ll just concede some minor tweaking may be needed.

Now in the latest post from Russel Norman he attacks National for attacking the Bill and calls on them to be constructive and help make this a beter bill.

Now this would almost be laughable if it were not so sad.  Labour, Winston and the Greens negotiate in secret this incredibly flawed bill.  They refuse to take up the many months of requests from National to be consulted on the bill.  They refuse to allow multi-party discussions on the bill, and then in a tone of pious indignation they complain that National is not being constructive.

National was in fact planning to vote for the bill if it had been a workable bill that did what it promised it would do.  But as it became apparent what a travesty the bill is, they did the principled thing and refused to support it.

The Greens should be ashamed for their role to date.  Labour could not have introduced this bill without their support.  They could have insisted on a multi-party approach to the legislation.  More importantly they could have  insisted on a public policy process instead of a secret one.  But they sold their votes out for almost nothing.

Perhaps the Greens should listen to one of their Youth MPs, Jaz Morris.  Here is his take on the Electoral Finance Bill:

 The Labour party, the so-called workers’ party, has really become a power hungry club for sold-out Fabian socialists – instead of leading on the basis of democracy and freedom. The status quo surrounding election spending clearly has problems. But to go from this to a law of minimal public involvement and red tape seems a bit of a leap. If Labour really wanted the most democratic elections possible, firstly it would throw out the EFB and secondly it might deal with the exact problems it seeks to ‘solve.’

The EFB needs to be destroyed, not just because it is dangerously anti-democratic but because doing so sends Labour a clear message – back to the drawing board on policy, ethos and political aim.

Jaz is right.  Labour should not be helped out and saved for having introduced such a draconian bill.  They should have every party in Parliament turn around, whack them around the head a couple of times, and told to come back and do it properly.

The effective deadline of Christmas 2007 for changes to the Electoral Act should not be used by the Greens and others as an excuse to pass unto law a bill which is not only so badly flawed, but has also not been part of any public policy process in terms of its underlying principles.

If the Greens continue to push the Electoral Finance Bill down such a flawed path, simply because of their desire to have law changes done before Christmas, then they are doing the classic case of the ends justify the means.

Worst of all they are doing it to one of the cornerstones of our constitution.

The Dom Post reports on National saying it is unlikely to reinstate the air combat wing of the RNZAF if it wins office.

This has been a near certainty since National failed to win office in 2002.  The longer one is from a decision, the harder it is to over-turn it.  In the case of the air combat wing you have real personnel problems as many have gone off to work overseas, and are most unlikely want to come back to NZ if their job tenure may only be six or nine years until Labour gains office again.

This is why parties are so keen to avoid being one term Governments.  Most of your policies can be over-turned if you have only been in for three years.  It is much much harder once they have been in for six or nine years.

For example Labour removed choice and competition for accident compensation insurance in 2000 after National introduced it in 1998/99.  Now if National had done it in 1995, then there is no way in hell Labour would have been able to remove the choice that people had got used to.

In an NZ Herald article where Pete Hodgson defends his obsession with John Key instead of minor stuff like waiting lists, A&E Departments etc, Pete says:

“there was no orchestrated rollout of attacks”

Oh wait I have heard this line before I think.  Around 20 years ago maybe.  Back then it was:

“there was no orchestrated litany of lies”

Both statements are about as believable as each other.

NZPA Political Editor Peter Wilson has done his weekly column (not online) on how the lessons of the past are lost on Labour.  Some extracts:

Day after day, cabinet ministers have been standing up in Parliament and making fools of themselves.

They should cut their losses and give it up, because it isn’t working.

None of the vague allegations have been substantiated and Key, for a relatively inexperienced politician, is showing a remarkable survival instinct.

Labour is giving National the opportunity to say the Government should pay some attention to running the country.

It has taken its eye off the ball, English told Parliament last week. People are worried about mortgage rates, not about where John Key lived in 2002, he said.

English is probably right too. Ministers have allowed real issues to appear to be eclipsed by their obsession with Key.

They are also looking desperate, even though that is the last thing they want people to think.

Labour has reason to be worried but they need to go to plan B, if there is one, to get out of the plight they are in.

I’m not sure there is much of a Plan A.

TVNZ reports Labour Party MPs and former MPs are pressuring Labour Party member John Hinchcliffe to pull out of the Auckland Mayoralty race as he may take support away from defacto Labour candidate Dick Hubbard.

Hinchcliffe has revealed that not only have current MPs been pressuring him, but that a former Labour MP e-mailed Hinchliffe to warn him not to stand as it “might be more pleasant for you if you discontinued with your Mayoralty campaign”.

Hinchcliffe should be careful.  When Labour gets desperate they can get very nasty.  The fact he is a long standing party member will not help him at all as he finds out what “less pleasant” means.

Captions below.  As it’s a Sunday keep them below R18.

Photo taken from Tumeke

The Herald on Sunday has the info the Auckland City Council has been trying to keep covered up.  Their liability for leaky homes may be as high as $500 million dollars.  Ratepayers I am sure will appreciate knowing this.

Hubbard still won’t confirm the amount, but will say he is seeking a taxpayer bailout for the Council from Helen Clark.

The Government’s accounts, thanks to the Fiscal Responsibility Act, publish an extremely detailed listing of contingent liabilities. Even so detailed as to reveal there are $37 million of old $1 and $2 notes not accounted for.

Aaron Bhatnagar makes the suggestion that an equivalent of the Fiscal Responsibility Act should apply to Councils.  That’s a fine idea and one National should look at.  Just as the central Govt has to do a special pre-election set of accounts, so should local authorities.

Good God this is the third or fourth time they have done this.

For a few days the NZ Herald has had a poll on who benefits more from Labour’s attacks on John Key.   Now I never checked the poll out myself but several people over a couple of days mentioned that it was consistently running at 87% saying National.

Then I got an e-mail alerting me to a huge number of votes for Labour being added on, obviously through some automated process. Previously activity of this sort has been linked back to Parliament.

So the Herald has now closed the poll, which within a couple of hours had Labour go from 13% to 53%.

I really wish the newspapers wouldn’t run these unscientific polls, or if they insist on doing so, restrict it to one vote per poll per IP address.

Andrew Falloon has a useful list of websites for mayoral and council candidates around the country.

Few were surprised that Michael Laws has decided to stand again for the Wanganui Mayoralty.  Michael has never been one to give power up willingly.  I have no doubt he will get elected again – I suspect with a huge majority.

Michael writes in the SST about other elections:

Auckland is shaping, as ever, as a professional mud wrestling contest. The often peptic John Banks is back, declaring himself a changed man. And unlike Rodney Hide, he did not need to dance to be so. He will beat Dick Hubbard for one simple reason: Dick hasn’t done anything.

This isn’t really Hubbard’s fault. His naivete led him to believe that being mayor would be like being chairman of a board of directors managing a cereal company. Which, of course, it should be. Unfortunately, a team of liberals and left-wingers had won the majority of council seats and Dick thus had two choices. He could willingly become their puppet, or he could fight them all the way through until now and then throw himself on the electorate and demand they give him a team that he could work with.

He chose neither option. Splat. Run down by the traffic coming both ways.

The SST has a story about how Telecom’s new IP based next generation network will require power to the gateway in each house, with fears that in a power cut one can’t call 111.

It is an issue, but not at all a show stopper.  For a start the number of households without at least one cellphone must be miniscule.  In fact I suspect there are more households without landlines than there are without cellphones.

Matt McCarten predicts “politics in New Zealand is going to be personal, vicious and negative over the next 12 months”.

I am tempted to joke and that will just be the internal leadership battle within Labour

Matthew Hooton writes in the SST that John Key once told him that Phil Goff was the Labour politician he feared was most capable of stopping him becoming prime minister.

Goff is obviously starting to position himself with his antics on the Air New Zealand fiasco being clearly directed at shoring up support from the left of the party.

He would never ever challenge Clark for the leadership, but as with 1990 if a victory looks impossible, he might be promoted to help minimise the losses.  Nothing focuses MPs more than a risk to their personal seat.

Hooton looks at the past week:

On Tuesday, Clark was still defending her government’s attempt to stifle democracy with its Electoral Finance Bill. On Wednesday, she indicated she might be prepared to establish multi-party talks to develop a more sensible proposal, but only if Key would first agree not to criticise the original. On Thursday, Labour used its majority on a select committee over the objections of the opposition to appoint Sir Geoffrey Palmer to rewrite the bill.

Only people who are completely out of touch with reality could believe that a former Labour prime minister, a major party donor and the prime minister’s personal legal adviser is the right person for that particular job.

Elsewhere, Labour looked vindictive and mad, with Clark’s election strategist, Pete Hodgson, taking a week out from running the health system to dig around the Companies Office and Truth looking for dirt on Key. His allegations were all comical, but how long will it be before Clark, Cullen and Hodgson justify a search of Key’s rubbish bins or his emails and faxes, in their hunt for a decent smear?

My personal highlight this week was Cullen falsely accusing me in parliament of being the owner of Truth. Keep this up, and it’ll be time for the men in white coats.

I can’t wait for the Logan’s Run movie to be produced.  It was a classic TV series when first released and was cut short far too early.

Mind you, I’m not quite so keen on the show’s central premise, as I used to be.

AUT Associate Professor Martin Hirst is going to be an adviser to the EPMU’s inquiry into the state of journalism in NZ.

Hirst writes in The Press that as a marxist he regards the USSR, Eastern Europe, China and Cuba not as communist states but as “totalitarian forms of state-capitalism”. This is a common view it seems from Marxists and Maoists.

My goodness, isn’t this a wonderful twisting of words. Even the nasty communist states are capitalists so hence capitalism is evil and communism is pure light and goodness.

And in the free market West we merely have a “charade of democracy”.

Funny how so many millions of people always want to escape the communist countries for the so called charade of democracy.

Associate Professor Hirst is in charge of the journalism curriculum at AUT incidentially.

So of course a man who can debate issues on the facts. He would never of course call someone a neo Nazi just because he disagrees with their political views.

An interesting range of candidates for Christchurch City Council.

I don’t follow CCC as closely as Wellington and Auckland, but I’ll do a bit of speculation:

The three main candidates for Mayor are Bob Parker (centre), Megan Woods (left) and Jo Giles (right). Almost everyone is picking Parker to win. Hopefully Kyle Chapman will come last.

In Banks Peninsula probably Steve Lowndes to prevail

Burwood/Pegasus – Independent Gail Sheriff to be joined by 2021′s Chrissie Williams.

Fendalton/Waimairi – Mike Wall to join Sally Buck

Hagley/Ferrymead – 2021′s Linda Rutland to join David Cox

Riccarton/Wigram – Bob Shearing and Helen Broughton to keep their seats

Shirley/Papanui – no contest with Norm WIthers and Graham Condomn safe as

Spreydon/Heathcote – Sue Wells and Barry Corbett to also retain their seats