Kiwiblog

The Herald reports that Russel Norman thinks he can beat Melissa Lee:

The One News Colmar Brunton poll on Sunday gave Labour’s David Shearer a 38-point lead over National’s Melissa Lee.

Dr Norman was six points behind Ms Lee in the poll of 500 residents which had a 4.4 per cent margin of error.

That is not a very helpful statement. The 4.4% margin of error is for a result of 50%. Lee got 15% and Norman got 9%. The margin of error for each (at 95% confidence) is 3.2% and 2.5%.

So what is the probability that Norman actually was ahead of Lee? I have a spreadsheet that calculates these things and it is only 0.21%.

Of course things may change from when the poll was done.

A very good NZ Herald article:

Local Government Minister Rodney Hide is looking into law changes that could divide council spending between core services, which councils could automatically spend money on, and “extras” – cultural, environmental and social spending and business investments that could require approval from ratepayers.

I like the concept. It empowers ratepayers, while allowing Councils to perform core services without the possibility of inadequate funding.

Mr Hide has not listed all the services he considers core council responsibilities. But he said it would be a wide definition encompassing running libraries, transport and water services and rubbish collection.

Yesterday he listed Hamilton City Council’s investment in the Novotel hotel, Invercargill City Council’s investment in a Lotto franchise and South Taranaki District Council buying the Hawera movie theatre as examples of councils going beyond core functions.

Absolutely. And what Rodney is saying is not that Councils would be banned from doing this, but they have to get ratepayer approval.

Mr Hide said he would like voters to be able to indicate at local body elections how much they would be willing to pay in rate increases over the next three years.

Also a good idea.

Local Government New Zealand governance manager Mike Reid said many councils would not bother with innovative projects if they had to hold a referendum first.

“Invercargill could have held a referendum [on the Lotto shop] but the people on the local community board probably felt they knew what people wanted because they saw them every day in the supermarket,” he said.

If the community board members thinks it is an innovative project based on their supermarket conversations, then they can invest their own money into it – but their role is not to forcibly take money from ratepayers to spend on commercial competitive businesses.

“Any council that exposes itself to too much [financial] risk can be expected to be removed at the next election.”

Mr Reid cited Auckland City as an example of a council that had been changed several times because ratepayers were not happy with spending.

Yes, but by then the spending has occured and is generally not reversible.

Taking decision-making powers away from councillors would stop energetic and entrepreneurial people standing for local bodies, he said.

Councils are not meant to be entreprenuers. You want entrepreneurs when it is their own money they are risking – not everyone else’s. If Council has commercial subsidiaries then entrepreneurs can be appointed to those, but it is ridicolous to think that people get elected to territorial local authorities on the basis of their entrepreneurial activities.

“If it was such a great idea [requiring ratepayer approval] central government might like to apply it to itself, because we’re talking about quite small amounts of money.”

Also not a bad idea. Central Government should not be buying or establishing businesses in competitive sectors.

Gerard Langford, of South Taranaki District Council, said his council bought the Hawera cinema building for $1 million two years ago because the private owners were about to close it.

The community supported keeping the movie theatre, which was run by a trust using money from ticket sales and advertising, he said.

And if the ratepayers gave their approval, they still could.

The Herald reports:

MPs yesterday attacked banks for not passing on interest rate cuts to customers while turning in high profits during a recession.

The rebuke came a day before the Reserve Bank reviews its official cash rate, which stands at 2.5 per cent, and days after some banks increased their long-term fixed interest rates.

Parliament’s multi-party finance and expenditure committee said in a hard-hitting report that it was “concerned that some banks have not passed on the latest … cut to the official cash rate in their interest rates for floating mortgages”.

Not surprised MPs were unanimous on this. Attacking banks is almost as popular as attacking paedophiles!

Am in a board meeting most of Wednesday so no blogging until late afternoon probably.

Labour’s result of only 15.7% in the European elections has not quite been enough to knock off Gordon Brown, but a challenge still can’t be ruled out.

A reader suggested people may be interested in how the UK Labour leadership elections work – it is far more complicated than in New Zealand where basically Caucus can change the Leader at any time by an absolute majority.

The rules and process for UK Labour is this:

1. Nominations – Labour Members of the House of Commons are the only people who can nominate someone to be Leader (or Deputy Leader) and only a Member of the Commons can be nominated.
2. If there is a vacancy (such as a death as with John Smith or retirement with Tony Blair) then you need at least 12.5% of current MPs nominating you to be validly nominated.
3. If there is no vacancy (ie you wish to challenge the sitting Leader) you need at least 20% of current MPs nominating you to be validly nominated,
4. Labour currently has 350 MPs in the Commons. This means you need 70 MPs to nominate you to challenge Brown, or 44 MPs if he resigns.
5. Supporting nominations can be made by any of the 646 Constituency Labour Parties (CLPs), any affiliate (unions generally) or any of the 13 Labour Members of the European Parliament (MEPs)
6. Then the voting starts. Three different groups get to vote, and they all have equal strength – 1/3 each.
7. The first group is members of the Parliamentary Labour Party – this is the 350MPs plus the 13 MEPs.
8. The second group is all members of the Constituency Labour Party (CLPS) – several hundred thousand people. So an MP’s vote counts for a lot more.
9. The third group is the affiliates – not the union bosses, but the individual members of any affiliates (so long as not members of another party).
10. The percentage vote for a candidate in each group is totalled up to get a total vote. For example in 1994 Tony Blair got 60.5% of the PLP, 58.2% of the CLPs, and 52.3% of the affiliates.  This gave him a total 57.0% of the vote.
11. The ballots are preferential, where candidates are ranked from 1 downwards. If no candidates gets 50% combined, then the lowest candidate drops out, and their first preferences reallocated to the next preferences.
12. For example in the 2007 Deputy Leadership election there were six candidates and no one got over 20% on the first count, so it went through to five rounds until Harriet Harman beat Alan Johnson by 50.4% to 49.6%
13. Johnson beat Harman due to the membership at large. The PLP backed Johnson by 8% over Harman and the unions by 3%. But members at large favoured Harman by 13%.
14. The results of the election get announced at the annual or a special conference.

I suspect Brown may survive until the election now, because his supporters are warning MPs that if they force a leadership change, the new leader will be morally obliged to call an immediate general election. But sooner or later the process will kick into play.

Stuff tells how and why TVNZ is trying to supress it. Silly people.

They may have taken it off You Tube, but Whale has put it on another site.

NZPA reports:

Immigration Minister Jonathan Coleman has criticised his department’s initial decision to decline a heavily pregnant Lithuanian tourist’s permit to stay in the country.

Jurga Skiauteris, 29, her husband Robertas, 34, and their six-year-old son, Leonardo, arrived in New Zealand in January on three-month visitor permits.

The family became overstayers when their permits expired on April 2.

Immigration New Zealand rejected two appeals for an extended permit, despite doctors advising that any travel could harm Mrs Skiauteris and her child.

Immigration NZ has since reviewed the decision and the woman has been offered a visitor’s permit allowing her to remain in the country beyond the birth of her child.

“I believe that declining the permit was a poor decision by the department,” Dr Coleman said.

“I am pleased that common sense has prevailed and that the woman has now been issued a permit allowing her to stay in New Zealand.”

While diplomatically worded, that is a Ministerial arse kicking of a Department,

Audrey Young blogs:

One politician was bound to be deeply embarrassed today, Phil Goff or John Key. One would be right and one would be wrong. And the answer is that John Key is wrong.

The Prime Minister and Opposition Leader have been publicly disputing what was said in their private conversation on May 6 about text and phone messages from Richard Worth to a Labour woman activist (that stopped on February 23).

Goff insisted his version was more accurate because immediately after the call he had written a file note from the scribbles he had taken during the conversation.

The file note was headed 9.45 – 9.55 pm. Key dismissed that at his post cabinet press conference yesterday saying “that can’t be right because I got off the plane at 10 pm.” Phil Goff has just retrieved his own phone records of the call made from his desk at Parliament to Key’s cellphone. The call started at 21.49 (11 minutes to 10 pm) and lasted 8 minutes and 30s. That means that Goff is substantially correct.

Yep. I assumed Key’s insistence was based on checking records. He shouldn’t shoot from the hip on details like this – especially considering it wasn’t a cruical detail, but it now becomes a credibility issue. Definitely an own goal.

Young however notes:

Key had the moral high ground on this issue last week. His willingness to meet the woman complainant only after she has show the texts and phone logs to his chief of staff is entirely reasonable.Labour’s stalling tactics have looked as though they know they don’t have a solid case but want to spin it out for as long as possible.

Absolutely. Labour are not interested in actually helping the complainant – just using her not for political point scoring.

That accords with his own file note which says the contact from Worth to the woman was “verging on sexual harassment.” And he acknowledged to me this morning that he has not even seen the woman’s responses at any time let alone asked to see them.

I would have thought one would have asked to see all text messages in and out.

But whatever holes there are in Goff’s case at present, Key has just given him a leg up to seize the moral high ground.

Yep. As I said – it was an own goal.

However let us not lose focus on the text messages. Richard Worth’s future may hang on them. It is time to stop messing about, and pass them onto the PM’s Chief of Staff. There is really no excuse for not doing so after all the complaining and publicity.

Heh.

Former National MP Katherine Rich is now Chief Executive of the Food and Grocery Council. She writes:

If any government decides to mass-medicate every bread-buying New Zealander with a certain additive, it has to be very sure that the costs to the community don’t outweigh any health benefits, and that there are no long-term ill-effects on the population.

Minister for Food Safety Kate Wilkinson faces an interesting test as she decides whether to review or delay a controversial new food standard, which will force all bakers to add folic acid to every single loaf of bread.

The question is, will this centre-right politician – who campaigned vigorously on ridding New Zealand of the “nanny state” – endorse such a major intervention?

An excellent question.

Political ideology and the centre-right principle of freedom of choice aside, however, the big issue is the growing concern that too much folic acid might create long-term health problems for bread-loving Kiwis.

Folic acid has been seen as a miracle vitamin since the 1980s, when increasing pregnant women’s folic acid intake was linked to reductions in birth defects.

No one, and in particular bakers, disputes the beneficial effects on pregnant women. Pregnant women can benefit hugely from taking supplements and eating a healthy diet.

Where some part company is when regulators turn from targeted health programmes for small numbers of women at risk, to a programme of effective mass medication – dosing every man, woman, and child.

I prefer targeting.

Official reports written by the New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA) have been made publicly available. Parts of the reports make disturbing reading to any sandwich-making Kiwi parent.

While it’s been estimated that a pregnant woman will have to eat 11 slices of bread a day to receive the amount of folic acid required, the NZFSA reports confirm in black and white that some New Zealand children will, as a result of mandatory fortification, eat more than their recommended daily intake of folate/folic acid.

In rather alarming advice, the minister at the time was told by NZFSA: “There are unknown risks that may not become apparent for one or two generations. Children will be exposed to much higher levels of folic acid than in previous generations. It may not be until this generation of children have their own children that adverse effects become apparent.”

Does not sound reassuring.

“We continue to have concerns that 13.8 per cent of males aged 5 to 8 years and 8.2 per cent of New Zealand females are going to exceed the upper level intake for folic acid …”

These are the “concerns” that will need to be explained in the event the Government endorses the food standard. It may not be a task the minister will relish.

Katherine is not going soft on her former colleagues!

It’s potentially a very unpopular move.

New Zealanders simply don’t like the idea of governments tampering with their bread. The New Zealand Food Safety Authority’s own research concluded “84 per cent of consumers interviewed, even after providing information on the reasons for fortification, did not support mandatory fortification”.

So listen to them, and don’t do it.

First Audrey Young reveals that the deleted texts are being sought:

The Auckland Indian woman who has accused MP Richard Worth of sending vulgar messages to her is trying to retrieve some deleted messages from Vodafone. …

One of the deleted text messages is alleged to be advising the woman where to buy a particular see-through garment in Hyderabad in India, where she was visiting last December.

Mr Goff said last night the woman yesterday requested the texts from Vodafone and had been told that after three months, only the police could request them. Vodafone did not return calls to verify what a customer’s rights are.

This sounds like an admission that there is no evidence amongst the non deleted texts, and may explain why they are refusing to hand them over.

Mr Key disputed Mr Goff’s claim that in their May 6 conversation, that Mr Key had said he had heard rumours before about Dr Worth and that was why he had not been made Speaker.

Mr Goff’s file note of the conversation states: “Key indicated he had heard rumours before the election – reason why Worth had not been made Speaker. Had raised it directly with Worth who had denied it …”‘

The file note is headed 6 May 2009, 9.45 – 9.55pm. Mr Key said “That can’t be right because I got off the plane at 10pm.”

Goff has been shaky on many of the details – such as the e-mails that never were etc, and looks like he even has the time wrong.

And as to the probability that the PM would tell the Leader of the Opposition that he did not make someone Speaker because of rumours about women – well it isn’t high.

John Armstrong writes:

There, surely, could be a way found for Key to have a squiz at the texts without him or Goff imposing conditions the other will not accept.

Key has imposed no conditions except that they be shown to his COS first. Goff is advising the woman very badly by insisting that she not hand them over until the PM meets with both her and him. This is akin to a Police complainant going to a Police station, saying they have a complaint, but refusing to provide details until they meet with the Police Commissioner personally.

Labour has no reason to compromise. It suits Goff to drag things out. He will be delighted that questions on Worth’s past and future consumed most of the Prime Minster’s weekly press conference yesterday.

Why would Labour be in a hurry to hand over the text messages and phone logs allegedly showing Worth’s calls when they are of assistance only to Key?

Labour is playing a bigger game here – one that is really all about pulling a popular prime minister off his perch and making him look and behave like just another politician.

Armstrong has it right. This is now totally about politics – not about helping the woman complainant.

You have to say that as a sexual harrassment advocate or advisor, Goff is not going to be your first choice in future. Look at the record:

1. You approach him days after the alleged harrasment starts. He doesn’t even advise you to keep the messages, or make notes at the time of the phone calls.
2. He doesn’t give you any advice on how to get the harassment to stop, Amazingly he lets you endure 100 unwelcome phone calls and text messages over three months, without telling you how to get them to stop.
3. He waits three months until after the last message to then raise the issue.
4. In raising the issue, he doesn’t ask for copies of any of the messages, does nothing to compile a bullet proof case. He just makes a phone call.
5. When the other party”s boss comes back in a week saying no action can be taken as it is denied, you accept this and do nothing.
6. When it then goes public, he mixes up key details.
7. He then labels the complainant as “strikingly attractive”
8. He advises the complainant that she should bring him along as a support person to a meeting – so it is all about him, not her.
9. He advises the complainant not to hand over the text messages, despite having complained previously they were not asked for

Whatever job Goff will be doing after politics, it won’t be as a sexual harrassment counsellor or advisor!

Michael Littlewood writes:

From the post-Budget rhetoric, it appeared the National-led Government’s first Budget had struck at the heart of future retirees’ security. Here is what Phil Goff said:

“And the biggest dishonesty is to talk about a commitment to superannuation because there won’t be any money to pay for it – they’ve taken away the certainty New Zealanders rely on.”

According to Mr Goff, “[T]he net result will be that future entitlements to super are put at risk.”

After a week of headlines, let’s look at Labour’s claim. Was Mr Goff right? No, he wasn’t even a bit right.

Not even a bit right.

Now is the time to be putting money into share markets, he suggested, when markets were at their bottom.

Really? There is in fact no guarantee that markets haven’t further to fall. The super fund will be doing really well if, in the next few years, it recovers the losses it has already suffered. All fund managers are in a similar situation so that is no criticism of the fund’s guardians (they were doing what they were asked to do). But the question is, do we really want to borrow $2 billion a year for the next 10 years and put it all into sharemarkets in uncertain times?

If the US economy has another crash in five years time, and agains billions of dollars gets wiped out of funds, will Goff then insist we borrow even more money to invest into the US economy?

It’s scaremongering to suggest that the incomes of future retirees are put at risk by last week’s decision. Task forces of the 1990s concluded that New Zealand is relatively well placed to afford all the costs of an ageing population, including pensions and health costs.

Taxes will increase because the number of retired people will about double but even then, in 50 years, New Zealand will probably be paying quite a bit less than some countries are paying today for their retired populations.

The talk of a crisis, is just talk.

New Zealand can afford New Zealand Superannuation with or without the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, so we don’t have to change superannuation just on account of the Budget’s decision to suspend payments.

To suggest otherwise is to ignore the major independent reviews of 1992, 1997, 2003 and 2007.

That doesn’t mean we have to preserve New Zealand Superannuation in all its respects for the next 50 years. In fact, the country needs a proper, research-led debate on whether the scheme that was set up, essentially, in 1938 is the one we should still have in 2050.

A research led debate would be nice.

There are still cash deficits to finance, so why not sell the fund’s assets to finance these?

This is a risk issue for the Government’s balance sheet – we know the cost of debt but we don’t know what the super fund’s assets will be worth in one or 10 years’ time. In theory, they should be worth more than the accumulated cost of debt, but that hasn’t worked over the last seven years.

Here Michael and I differ on our views. I agreed the Super Fund could be wound up. Higher economic growth will do more to make future superannuation affodable, than the Super Fund.

But I would split the Super Fund into individual KiwiSaver accounts – so it gives people a boost in their private retirement savings.

City Vision Councillors have been pinged in Auckland, according to the Herald:

Independent auditor John Walton says the existing local contractor, Clean Stream Waiheke, has been “canvassing” City Vision councillors – forbidden under the tender rules.

Mr Walton has recommended the company be disqualified.

I’m not sure what is worse – lobbying Councillors to give you the tender, or the Councillors who respond positively to the lobbying. Tenders should be based on the best fit against agreed criteria – not personal whims of Councillors.

Mr Walton said Clean Stream’s executive director, John Stansfield, had sent emails to City Vision’s councillors and one of those councillors, Cathy Casey, had responded and appeared to be advising Waiheke groups favouring the local company.

Mr Walton has recommended Dr Casey be forbidden to take any further part in the tender process. He believes other City Vision councillors should also be excluded to remove any perceived conflict of interest.

Ouch – that is a big slap down. It is saying we can’t trust you to do the right thing as you have shown bias.

Last night, Dr Casey said she had hired a lawyer after she discovered her emails had been searched by a council officer without her permission in an attempt to discredit Clean Stream.

They are not Dr Casey’s e-mails. They are the Councils. She sent them from her official Council e-mail address. That in itself is a staggeringly stupid thing to do.

Mr Bhatnagar said Dr Casey had tried to unethically influence the tender outcome in Clean Stream’s favour and sought to organise media stunts, such as getting islanders to block part of Queen St with wheelie bins.

Another email from City Vision councillor Glenda Fryer agreeing to raise a matter from Mr Stansfield at a City Vision caucus was “outrageous”, Mr Bhatnagar said.

And here is where it gets very murky. The partner of Mr Stansfield is a City Councillor – Denise Roche, who often votes with City Vision. She is a Green Party member, and represents the Hauraki Gulf Islands. Now there is no suggestion here Denise has done anything wrong, but it is a bad look that City Vision Councillors are inappropriately involved, when they have such strong political links.

The Herald writes:

The Cabinet has signed off on Mr Hide’s request for the Department of Internal Affairs to review local government law, including the removal of the requirement for councils to deliver on “community outcomes” such as social, environmental and cultural “wellbeing” which Mr Hide said pushed councils into providing services well beyond their core roles.

In the Cabinet paper Mr Hide said there was a need for a clearer delineation of central and local government roles. He proposed making councils more financially transparent to force them to focus on core activities.

I know many think Councils should be involved in provision of social services, but I disagree. The reason is it removes accountability from the central Government to fund the public health, education and welfare systems. It leds to duplication and less transparency.

Although the Cabinet signed off on the review, yesterday Prime Minister John Key said he did not agree with Mr Hide’s definition of “core services”.

He said social policies were an important role for councils.

Mr Key said the review was “an engagement in debate” and Act’s policies did not necessarily reflect Government’s view.

My views are more with Act’s on this.

Mr Hide’s paper also suggests more use of polls and referenda as a way of getting “ratepayer authorisation” for major projects, such as building stadiums or high rates increases.

I think this is a good idea.

Well the latest poll on David Bain set a record – 1,173 votes.

49% of people said they disagreed with the verdict and 46% said they agreed with the verdict. 6% supported the theory that Robin killed the kids, and then David killed Robin.

However the 46% who supported the verdict were divided on why – 24% said David probably did it, but there was reasonable doubt. 13% said they had no idea who did it, and only 9% said Robin did it.

Previous blog poll results, since the last update are:

1. The 2009 budget had 51% rate it good or very good, 33% poor or very poor and 16% neutral.
2. On the possibility of tax cuts going, 37% said they would only be slightly upset as the recession has forced it, 20% said they would be very pissed, 18% totally furious, 17% only reasonably pissed if postponed only and 8% hate tax cuts so glad they were cancelled.
3. 58% approved of Christine Rankin’s appointment and 42% did not
4. 76% disapproved of the appointment of Michael Cullen to the NZ Post Board
5. 47% said National should postpone future tax cuts
6. 60% think possession of cannabis for personal use should be a criminal offence
7. 90% backed the restoration of titular honours
8. 57% supported sinking the Sea Shepherd over the Japanese Whalers
9. Least desired city to be forced to live in was Wanganui at 44%, Palm Nth 32%, Hamilton 16%, New Plymouth 9%
10. 54% have downloaded a TV show not yet available in NZ
11. 76% blamed Hamas for the deaths in Gaza
12. 38% said 2009 will be better than 2008, 28% said it will not be and 34% said it will be only if we get the chance to boot Winston out again.
13. 51% said they would rather go without the Internet for a fortnight and 49% would rather go without sex.
14. 71% supported the use of urgency to pass laws before Xmas.
15. 11% are missing Winston
16. Only 46% think Goff will lead Labour into the 2011 election
17. 75% had a favourable impression of the new Ministry
18. 38% said the best part of election night was a clear National/Act majority, 27% Winston losing, 23% Helen resigning, 11% did not enjoy it and 3% the electorates National won
19. 57% said they were voting National, 26% ACT, 7% Labour, 5% Greens
20. 48% have voted for Labour at a previous election
21. 47% supported extending the retail bank guarantee to wholesale borrowing, 30% did not and 23% said follow the experts.

This Telegraph article was headlined about the Obama’s marriage issues in 2000, but what was of most interest is this:

Despite the candidate’s promise of transparency there was plenty of sleight of hand from the Obama camp during the campaign. The greatest fiction was the myth that the campaign’s vast war chest was raised online in $5 and $10 donations from hundreds of thousands of people.

“It wasn’t the Internet,” admitted Penny Pritzker, who headed Mr Obama’s national finance committee. It was in fact, classic old fashioned high dollar contributions from wealthy Americans.

Not a revelation I have seen reported widely.

The European elections are not better for UK Labour. At this stage it looks like Conservatives will get 27% (not great for them either), UKIP 17%, Labour 16%, Lib Dems 14%, Greens 9% and BNP 6%,

The British National Party has won at least one seat in the European Parliament, dismaying many. There is a (understandable IMO) backlash against Islamic immigration. A lot of people are saying we don’t care about your race, but we do care about your religion – if the religion means you reject our basic outlook on human rights and won’t integrate.

The BNP is a racist party. Their new MEP is a former neo-Nazi. It is a shame they got elected, but proportional representation makes it easy for miority parties to gain representation – the good and the bad.

But other parties in the European Union which are anti-Islamic immigration are not in the same league as the BNP. Classifying them all as “far right” is very simplistic.

Any It will be interesting if Brown survives until the election. It is very hard to remove a UK Labour Leader – it is not just a vote of Caucus.

Nandor Tanczos has blogged on how the Bain case highlights the need for a Criminal Review Office. Now despite my personal view on Bain’s culpability, I do agree that generally there should be some sort of body that can investigate miscarriages of justice – outside the formal court appeal system. The Peter Ellis case is a clear example of why it is needed.

Such projects in other countries like the US, has found many people who were later proven innocent, yet convicted.

Simon Power has yet to respond to the request for a Royal Commission into the Ellis case. An Ellis Commission followed by establishing such a body to review other possible miscarriages of justice would be an excellent step towards increasing faith in the justice system.

Audrey Young blogs on the National Party conference:

After a few Billy T James – style Maori fella jokes, Sharples spoke seriously about the relationship with National. He talked in general terms about the personal and political hurt the Orewa speech (former leader Don Brash did not arrive until today) on separatism caused and about the new leadership “showing us a better way.”

He gave his perspective on the mana whenua seats proposed by the royal commission in the supercity plan and his take on the foreshore and seabed act which he actually got right – saying it was a theft of the right of Maori to go to court. (Makes a change from the nonsense often whipped up by the Maori Party that the law stole the foreshore and seabed from Maori).

He said the Maori Party was show “respect” by the National party – despite the Maori party voting against National on many measures.

“Our voice is listened to. People listen when we debate….that’s why I am here. I want you to know how authentic our relationship is.”

I missed the speech, but heard from many people it was great.

It was the first time in anyone’s memory that another party leader has spoken to a National Party conference. There is a more ethnic diversity here and a large number of young people than I recall in recent years. But of course a party is never in greater heart than the year after an election win.

It was younger and more diverse than I have seen.

Auckland Mayor John Banks – or Super Mayor as Key called him – has been here .

His quip has of course sent certain other Mayors sky high. They should be less precious. No one thought Helen Clark was backing John Banks, but she worked with him professionally.

There are also rumours afoot that Winston Peters might have a go at the super-mayoralty contest next year. Imagine Key having to work with “Sir Winston” as would surely become as Lord Mayor of Auckland after ruling out working with him in Government! That

Heh that would be a nightmare for John. But Auckland has never been a stronghold for NZ First, and Peters would not make double digits.

The conference is being held at the Trusts stadium in West Auckland. Among the apologies tendered last night was Richard Worth’s. A fun debate between politicians and personalities was cancelled by regional chair Alistair Bell because of the Worth issue. It seemed an appropriate decision in the circumstances not to be having a jolly old time when many delegates were feeling shell-shocked at recent events.

I remember the last time an MPs vs Young Nats fun debate was cancelled – it was at the conference held the day after Sir Robert Muldoon died.

The Herald on Sunday notes (after we blogged it):

The public pays $164,000 a year to Jim Anderton’s Progressive Party – which sits with Labour, speaks with Labour, votes with Labour, and now campaigns for Labour.

Yep.

Dr Joe Atkinson, a politics lecturer at Auckland University, said the Progressive Party funding was “an anomaly of MMP” as Anderton operated as a Labour MP. Anderton, the sole Progressive MP, sits on the front bench of the debating chamber among Labour MPs, and is the Labour opposition’s spokesman on agriculture.

Associate Professor Andrew Geddis, a constitutional law expert at Otago University, called the Progressive Party as “a convenient fiction”.

That is a great term – a “convenient fiction”. Superb. Anderton is good at these – in 2002 he remained in the House as an Alliance MP even though he had left the party months earlier.

The Progressive Party is allocated $100,000 a year plus $64,320 for electorate funding. And, as an MP and party leader, Anderton receives a salary of $144,500 a year. Anderton was defiant: “What’s the big deal?” he asked.

What is the big deal says Jim? Well Whale responds by quoting Jim:

NZ Herald, May 27 1999, by Vernon Small

News of the extra funding for the list MP and Mana Wahine Party leader provoked outrage yesterday among Opposition MPs, who alleged it was a jackup.

“In my view this action suggests someone who has no chance of being elected as dog-catcher … has been granted over $77,000 on an annual basis for helping to keep the Government of the day in power,” said Alliance leader Jim Anderton, from whose party Mrs Kopu defected.

Mr Anderton said he would seek a review of the funding decision, which follows official parliamentary recognition of Mana Wahine and grants the one-MP party $77,186 for research and office expenses.

…..But Mr Anderton said the funding brought the political process further into disrepute, and he would investigate ways, including a judicial review, to overturn it.

My goodness – back then it was a big deal when it was another MP in a convenient fiction party. Arguably Kopu’s party was more legitimate as it actually contested the ensuing elections.

And further:

The Press, 27 May 1999, Edition 1, on Page 1

Alliance leader Jim Anderton said the payment of extra money to Mrs Kopu was an outrage. He will write to the Parliamentary Services Commission seeking an urgent review of its decision.

He said the action of giving Mrs Kopu the money, and the way the rules had been changed to allow it to happen, “comes as close to being fairly described as corruption” as anything he had seen in his 35-year political career.

So when Jim does it, it is no big deal. When Mrs Kopu did it, it was close to corruption.

Matt McCarten wrote in the HoS on the seamless transfer of power within the Greens, and it got me thinking. Jeanette may be the first parliamentary party leader to resign voluntarily in recent times?

By resigning voluntarily, I mean could have chosen to stay on and led the party into the next election if they wanted to. Was not under pressure from colleagues, was not ill etc.

Let us look at all the parties.

National – Brash pushed out, English rolled, Shipley lost he numbers, Bolger rolled, McLay rolled, Muldoon rolled, Marshall rolled, Holyoake pushed out, Holland forced out through sickness, Hamilton rolled.

Labour – Clark lost election and would not have survived to 2011, Moore rolled, Palmer pushed out, Lange forced out, Rowling rolled, Kirk died, Nordmeyer rolled, Nash forced by sickness and Nordmeyer, Fraser died, Savage died, Holland died.

ACT – Prebble given a good push by Hide

Greens – Donald died

Maori Party – still with initial leaders

Progressive – Anderton “eternal leader”

NZ First – Peters “great leader”

United Future – Sutherland Matthewson lost seat

So it is only when you look at our history do you realise that Jeanette may be unique in choosing to retire from a leadership position totally on her own timetable, and not under pressure from colleagues. A rare achievement indeed.

Is this the stupidest woman in New Zealand?

She agreed to tell her story to stop other lonely Kiwis falling victim and said her nightmare began when she created a profile on match.com on March 12.

Soon after she received a message from a man claiming to be an orphan widower with no family. He replied: “I want to develop a friendship that will hopefully turn into something meaningful and lasting.”

For two weeks he phoned her up to three times a day, chatted online and quickly told her he loved her.

The man said he was an American-born geologist who lived in New Zealand but was overseas on business.

“It was like a cloud of love, attention and affection that had engulfed me,” the woman said. “I left myself wide open, I was in love.”

So far so good. Nothing wrong with Internet dating or even falling in love.

On March 26, he told her he was bringing millions of dollars-worth of gemstones back to New Zealand but said the documents verifying them as genuine had been stolen.

He asked for $5000 to cover the cost of replacing the documents and the next day said he needed $7000 more.

At this stage warning bells should have not just been ringing, but very loudly. If someone you have never met wants $5,000 that should tell you what their motive is.

On March 30, he said he needed extra money to get home, and wanted to buy the woman a Gucci bag as a thank you. He sent a link for the bags so she could choose a colour.

Over the next two months he requested various amounts, the largest being $320,000 which he needed to get his passport back from Hong Kong Customs. He told her he had been pulled up on his way back to New Zealand and asked why he didn’t have paperwork for the gems.

I’m sorry but there is no excuse for anyone who does that. How can anyone think a passport retrieval costs $320,000 – let alone agree to send that amount of money to someone they never ever met. The scam wasn’t even a very clever one. I would expect most ten year olds to be more saavy with their money.

Her children are “devastated” and “angry” but police told her no crime had been committed “because I willingly gave the money”.

Sad, but true – it was not stolen – she gave it way. Mind you I would have thought there might be some fraud involved in his representations.

Senior Sergeant Dave Glossop said the woman is intelligent and it shows almost anyone can be sucked in. He said the amount was astounding and should be a big warning to others to be wary of cyber-predators.

I’m sorry but she is not intelligent. Or if she is, only in the most narrow academic definition. I mean she sent $680,000 to a man she hadnever met. Now sure I can understand someone being conned say $5,000 to fly their Internet lover over, but to just hand over $680,000 – mind staggering.

This isn’t actually a cyber-scam story. The cyber was incidential. It is just an old fashioned con.

As TV One ran the headline last night “Massacre in Mt Albert”, someone quipped that David Bain had moved into the electorate

Instead it was of course a poll result for the by-election, and the headline wasn’t hyperbole.

Full poll results are at Curiablog.

David Shearer is polling at the same level Helen Clark got in 2008 – 59%. He will be pleased with that. Melissa Lee is at 21% – 8% below the 2008 result. Russel Norman at 15% has improved by 95% on their 2008 result, and John Boscawen at 3% is just 1% off ACT’s 2008 candidate vote in Mt Albert.

They also asked a party vote question. Labour are up 5% from 2008, and National up 1%. I would be careful about reading too much into that, as the latest Roy Morgan has Labour down 3% and National up 7% from the election. However that poll, while partly post-budget was pre-Worth.