Kiwiblog

The Herald reports:

Labour MP Charles Chauvel is thought to be one of the three members of Parliament Chris Carter claims he plotted with about a leadership change on the night before he sent an anonymous letter to media.

Mr Chauvel denied plotting against Labour leader Phil Goff but said he could have been in Mr Carter’s office on July 28 – the night on which Mr Carter claimed he met with three other Labour MPs to discuss the best time for a leadership change. …

His submission to the disciplinary meeting in defence of his actions was leaked to media and included the July 28 meeting as well as a further claim that there were 17 Labour MPs with whom he had discussed a change of leadership.

I think on this occasion, Chris Carter is telling the truth. And the Labour MPs all denying that have ever had any such descussion about the leadership are probably relying on Clintonian definitions.

I have some experience of being in an Opposition (as staff, not MP) which is struggling in the polls. Let me tell you that the leadership is discussed constantly, and by most MPs. The notion that Labour has spent two years in Opposition, are constantly 20%+ behind in the polls, has a Leader who fails to make 10% as Preferred PM, yet they have never discussed leadership options is insane. I would even wager on any given night there are MPs talking leadership options. This is how MPs socialise – discussing who will be the next Leader, and when. Most of us discuss the rugby – MPs discuss the leadership!

So Carter I am pretty sure is telling the truth that he would have discussed leadership changes with at least 17 MPs.

Now Labour MPs in their denials use terms such as “plot”, saying “I have not plotted against Phil Goff”. This is different to have you ever discussed the leadership and under what situation would you want to change it (such as Labour staying below 30% for more than three months). An MP will not regard their frequent conversations as plotting, until it reaches the stage that there is a definite challenger and you are commiting yourself to that challenger.

As far as I know there is no challenger (mind you Shane Jones looked like he would before his hotel porn episode put paid to that), and hence Labour MPs can deny formal plotting. But as sure as hell, a very common topic of conversation will be the leadership and whether they would do better under another leader.

Carter suggests that in at least one discussion, they had discussed the best time for a leadership change. Again, this is quite plausible, but it does not mean there was in fact someone willing to challenge. The conventional wisdom is you don’t change leaders in election year, so any change would have to occur in the second half of 2010. It would be quite natural for MPs to be talking in terms of “If there is a challenge, then it has to be in November”.

So if Carter does name any names, the questions that should be put to them is not “Were you plotting to roll Phil Goff?” to which they can honestly answer “No” but “Did you have discussions with Chris Carter about the leadership of Labour?” which they will find it harder to deny.

UPDATE: A reader writes in:

Both Chris Carter and Charles Chauvel were on the Select committee hearing submissions on the Local Government Amendment Bill over the period that Carter drafted and dropped off his letter.  Indeed they sat next to each other.

Carter was really edgy and kept on getting up and leaving and at one point he asked Chauvel to leave the room with him.  They had a 5 minute chat and then they both came back into the room.  Chauvel was then looking just as worried as Carter.  At the time I thought it all very strange and was wondering what was going on.  I then heard the news on the radio as I was driving and everything fell into place……

Very interesting information.

The 2009/10 annual report is here. One extract:

In 2009/10 we received 164 delay complaints against Ministers and central government agencies. This is down 23 per cent on 2008/09 numbers, and 43 per cent on 2007/08 numbers, and is the lowest number of delay complaints received since 1993/94

That’s great – suggest there has perhaps been a significant culture change.

The report provides a good breakdown of which agencies had the most complaints. However it does not report which agencies had the most complaints upheld against them – which could be the more relevant stat. One persistent complainer could warp the stats for an agency.

New Zealand has again been judged to have the 5th smallest gender gap in the world, for at least the third year running. The only countries higher are Iceland, Norway, Finland and Sweden.

The UK is 15th, US 19th, Canada 20th and Australia 23rd.

Down the bottom we have Yemen, Chad, Pakistan, Mali and Côte d’Ivoire.

Labour MP Sue Moroney has said:

Today’s Global Gender Gap report, written by the World Economic Forum, shows NZ sliding towards a lower ranking says Labour Spokesperson for Women’s Affairs, Sue Moroney.

“For the first time in five years, New Zealand’s score has dropped and while it retained its fifth-placed ranking, it is now at risk of being overtaken by Ireland in next year’s report unless the Government stops going backwards on wage equality for similar work, enrolment of women in tertiary education, literacy rates for females, female to male wage ratios, and women in Ministerial positions.

“The international report shows NZ has gone backwards in five key areas for women in 2010 after having made steady progress in the previous four years,” said Sue Moroney.

Now the overall score has slightly declined, but let us look at these “five key areas” where Moroney claims NZ is going backwards. She cites one as enrolment of women in tertiary education.

Now in fact women massively outnumber men in tertiary education. In 2009 the ratio was 1.49 to 1 and in 2010 it was 1.48 to 1. So Moroney is actually complaining that men are slighlt less disadvantaged in an area where they are massively disadvantaged. Moroney has taken an idiotic stance that the higher the ratio is for women, the better for NZ. So in her world a 5:1 ration of women over men in tertiary education would be better than 4:1.

And on the issue of gender pay gap, the Herald reported:

Last week Women’s Affairs Minister Pansy Wong praised the latest New Zealand Income Survey results, saying they showed the gender pay gap was closing, down from 11.3 per cent last year to 10.6 per cent.

But Pay and Employment Equity Coalition spokeswoman Angela McLeod said at the time that the apparent drop was a result of a poor economy.

“Incomes are dropping and more households are dependent on women’s lower paid work.

“This is not a real closing of the gender pay gap, but an outcome of the recession and higher unemployment,” Ms McLeod said.

Now I actually agree with McLeod. One doesn’t celebrate a lower gender gap on the basis that both men’s and women’s wages have fallen, but men have fallen slightly more closing the gap.

But this is what many on the left effectively advocate with their insistence of reducing income inequality. They regard it as horrendous that the top 10% income earners wages by go up 5% if the bottom 10% only go up 4%. But they celebrate NZ is a more equal society if the top 10% have their wages drop 5%, so long as the bottom 10% only have their wages drop 4%.

Porirua also elects their Mayor with STV, so I figured I would also look at how their election went. There were five main candidates (and four others) – Cr Nick forLeggett, Deputy Mayor Litea Ah Hoa, former Race Relations Conciliator Gregory Fortuin, Cr Liz Kelly, former Cabinet Minister Russell Marshall and Mike Duncan.

On 1st preferences the results were:

1. Leggett 37%
2. Ah Hoy 18%
3. Fortuin 13%
4. Kelly 10%
5. Marshall 8%

After eliminating the four minor candidates, it was:

1. Leggett 42%
2. Ah Hoy 20%
3. Fortuin 16%
4. Kelly 12%
5. Marshall 10%

So Leggett picked up the plurality of the vote from the minors.  Then Marshall dropped out:

1. Leggett 45%
2. Ah Hoy 22%
3. Fortuin 18%
4. Kelly 14%

Kelly went next:

1. Leggett 52%
2. Ah Hoy 26%
3. Fortuin 22%

So Leggett won quite easily – and with an iteration to spare.  What helped him is that he picked up a plurality of the preferences from each defeated candidate as they dropped out (except for the first two minor ones).

Leggett started off with fewer first preferences that Kerry Prendergast. But as he was not the incumbent Mayor, he was able to pick up many of the second preferences from candidates as they dropped out. This is harder for an incumbent to do, as people often rate you first or last.

Jared Savage in the Herald reports:

The only child of Harvey and Jeannette Crewe has broken her silence to ask the police to re-investigate the unsolved murders of her parents 40 years ago.

Rochelle Crewe – just 18 months old when found crying in her cot five days after the Crewes were last seen alive – has written to Police Commissioner Howard Broad to request that the case be reopened.

It would be nice to know for sure, but most of the suspects are now dead. So who are the suspects:

1. Harvey Crewe – a murder suicide?
2. Arthur Allan Thomas – he was framed, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t him does it?
3. Len Demler – the most frequent suspect?
4. Detective Len Johnston – the Wishart theory?

I tend towards (3).

UPDATE: Just had a call from someone who was in Parliament when the pardon was debated in Parliament. They report that on three occasions an MP referred to Thomas as having been found innocent, and PM Muldoon correctly interjected each time “He was not found innocent”.

John Key announced on Tuesday:

New Zealand has designated a further seven international terrorist groups under the Terrorism Suppression Act, Prime Minister John Key announced today.

The entities are: Indian Mujahideen, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the military wing of Hamas (Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades), the Real Irish Republican Army, the Continuity Irish Republican Army, the New Peoples Army/Communist Party of the Philippines, and Hizbollah’s military wing (The Islamic Resistance).

“These designations help implement our international obligations under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373, which is aimed at preventing the activities of terrorists,” says Mr Key.

“All seven of the entities have carried out various terrorist acts, including the indiscriminate killing of civilians.

Sounds entirely sensible. I mean who could object to that? No-one right?

I spoke too soon.

Enter the Green Party:

One of my aims, as a Green MP, has been to get New Zealand to specialise in international peacemaking, using Norway as a model.

Norway has used its good offices, and specialist advisers, to sponsor peace talks in Sri Lanka, Sudan, the Middle East, and the Philippines.

It has been able to play this mediating role because it has not declared any of the parties to the talks as terrorist organisations. …

Yesterday John Key followed suit, putting these two organisations on New Zealand’s terrorist list.

He also put six other organisations on the list, including the military wings of Hamas and Hizbollah. This is plain silly, when surely the main task of countries like New Zealand is to encourage peace negotiations between Israel and the governments in Gaza (Hamas) and Lebanon (where the government includes Hizbollah ministers).

Official statement from the Green Party. They are against sanctions (which is what happens when you designate an organisation as a terrorist activity) against terrorists, because calling them terrorists hurts their feelings.

Yep, don’t block access to their bank accounts, don’t try and stop weapons being sold to them. Because you may offend them, by calling them terrorists.

According to Wikipedia the Indian Mujahideen in seven bombings have killed 203 people and injured a further 703. Palestinian Islamic Jihad has killed 211 and injured 605 in around 20 attacks. The Real IRA and Continuity IRA are the lunatics still planting bombs in Ireland and England. Keith commie friends in the Philippines want to replace a democratic state with a Maoist one party state.

It may have escaped Keith’s notice that these organisations are not that keen on peace.

Some bloke has done a video attacking John Ansell for his campaign against the repeal of the Foreshore & Seabed Act. The only problem is he’s used a photo of me, instead of John!

It would have been very amusing to see Paul Henry on Breakfast TV, discussing the Te Papa “ban” on pregnant and menstruating women. I suspect he would have exploded with indignation, and with Pippa being pregnant also, could have been superb viewing.

Amazing viewing of the rescue of the Chilean miners. The emotions are so strong you can feel them half a world away. It’s a nice reminder of our shared humanity.

Celia Wade-Brown has won the Wellington mayoralty by 176 votes. She is nominating Andy Foster as Deputy Mayor.

Celia ran a good campaign and congrats to her. Commisserations to Kerry Prendergast who I think has served Wellington well over many years.

Out at a sheep station today, so play amongst yourselves!

Tracy Watkins at the Dom Post reports:

Labour Party president Andrew Little revealed today that Mr Carter had threatened to disclose the private information of other Labour MPs if expelled from the party.

Mr Carter, the MP for Te Atatu, was expelled by Labour’s national council after a lengthy hearing last night.

During the meeting Mr Carter threatened to disclose private information about unnamed Labour MPs if he was expelled, Mr Little said.

”He just said he had a lot of information on a lot of individuals in the caucus and that he wouldn’t hesitate to disclose that if it suited him to do so,” Mr Little said.

So was Carter bluffing, or is he going to start planting stories with the media?

Mr Little revealed this morning the vote to expel Mr Carter was not unanimous but overwhelmingly in favour.

Hmmn, I wonder who voted against?

UPDATE: Talking of revelations, Phil Quinn, a former parliamentary staffer for Labour, has made his own about Chris Carter:

Chris Carter had a secret poll taken in ’96 to ascertain whether he could hold Te Atatu with Clark at the helm.  I know this because I conducted the poll.  The results were unequivocal: Carter would lose big time, which he went on to do.  Chris was not keen on backing Mike Moore — a figure of derision on his side of the Party — but his clear preference was for Goff to run.  The numbers, however, forced Mike Moore’s name into the race.

Based on conversations he and I had at the time, I have every reason to believe that Carter was supportive of a Goff ‘coup’ in 1996.  Plenty of people know this, including Goff himself, and it is to their credit that they keep quiet.   For my part, I am tired of the sanctimony of people — Carter being the latest–  who try and misrepresent those events as treachery.  Leaderships spills happen, some for good reason, some for ill.  Some succeed, like Clark in 1993; some fail, like 1996.  Such is politics.  The tendency within NZ Labour to vilify the vanquished in these internal party disputes is not entirely non-Stalinist.

Carter shouldn’t be allowed to get away with such shameless hypocrisy. Surely?

Fascinating revelations. Does Helen know this?

Sam Sachdeva in The Press reports:

Defeated Christchurch mayoral candidate and Wigram MP Jim Anderton will retire from Parliament next year.

Anderton lost to Bob Parker, who retained the mayoralty by a margin of more than 16,000 votes after the Canterbury earthquake. …

He acknowledged his retirement would mean the end of his Progressive Party “in an informal sense”.

There is no Progressive Party. Candidates Josie Pagan and Megan Woods have sought Labour nominations. The members have been encouraged to go to Labour, and there will be no Progressive candidates in 2011.

But Anderton maintains the myth that he is a party leader. Why? Well it means his salary goes from $131,000 to $144,500, and his parliamentary budget gets an extra $100,000.

I was delighted to see Liu Xiaobo win the Nobel Peace Prize. A much better pick than 2009, and what was especially pleasing is that it was granted despite the threats from China.

We need a bit more of this fortitude back home, as reported by NZPA:

New Zealand’s opposition MPs have congratulated the jailed Chinese winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, but Prime Minister John Key will not yet comment.

The Prime Minister should comment, should congratulate Liu Xiaobo, and should use the opportunity to politely state that our desire is for China to continue its path towards more freedom. Yes it will annoy the Chinese Government, and it may even lead to some sort of temporary sanction against NZ, but we must not let that prevent us from sticking up for what is right.

Opposition MPs can of course say what they want, without fear of adverse consequences for the country. I say this not to defend the lack of comment from the PM, but to point out a different PM could well do the same thing.

Mr Key said yesterday he would not comment about Mr Liu until he received more advice.

“I’m not aware of why he’s in jail and it’s not appropriate for me to comment on what is appropriate in terms of other countries putting people in those facilities.”

With all respect MFAT should have immediately given Ministers a briefing, once the winner was known. And it is entirely appropriate for the Prime Minister to comment on the jailing of political dissidents in other countries.

[DPF: The PM has now congratulated Mr Liu, and in fact did so before this post apppeared. It was time delayed from this morning, and Key congratulated him on the way into Caucus. Of course Liu won't know this as he is in jail.]

Len Brown campaigned on three major rail projects and has a mandate to get them implemented. That is why we have elections.

However there is no mandate for taxpayers, rather than ratepayers, to be the major source of funds.

The Herald reports here on the likely costs of the three rail projects:

1. Central City Tunnel – $1.5b
2. Rail to Airport – $1.45b
3. Rail to Albany – $1.8b

That is a total of $4.75b and there are around 1 million adults in Auckland. So just send each resident a bill for $4,750.

Amelia Wade at the Herald reports:

A clash of cultures over a rule forbidding pregnant or menstruating women to attend a Te Papa exhibit has been criticised by feminists.

An invitation for regional museums to go on a behind-the-scenes tour of some of Te Papa’s collections included the condition that “wahine who are either hapu [pregnant] or mate wahine [menstruating]” were unable to attend.

Jane Keig, Te Papa spokeswoman, said the policy was in place because of Maori beliefs surrounding the Taonga Maori collection included in the tour.

She said the rule was one of the terms Te Papa agreed to when they took the collection.

“If a woman is pregnant or menstruating, they are tapu. Some of these taonga have been used in battle and to kill people.

“Pregnant women are sacred and the policy is in place to protect women from these objects.”

What? Are Te Papa concerned that one of these ancient weapons is going to levitate itself over to any pregnant women, and bludgeon her to death unassisted?

And how does Te Papa intend to check if women are menstruating? Will there be compulsory checks? I mean you can’t rely on trust – the ghosts may get offended.

Deborah Russel, prominent feminist blogger on The Hand Mirror blog, does not think the policy should be enforced in modern society.

“I don’t understand why a secular institution, funded by public money in a secular state, is imposing religious and cultural values on people.

“It’s fair enough for people to engage in their own cultural practices where those practices don’t harm others, but the state shouldn’t be imposing those practices on other people.”

Absolutely. If they are the terms under which a collection will only be granted, then they should be refused.

Would one accept a collection with a condition that no blacks are d

lowed to view the collection?

Would Te Papa kowtow to the Roman Catholic Church if it insisted that a collection of church art work only be viewable by men?

However, Margaret Mutu, head of Maori Studies at Auckland University, said the policy was common in Maori culture.

Women cannot go into the garden, on to the beach or in the kitchen when they are menstruating.

“It’s a very serious violation of tapu for women to do those things while menstruating. Women cannot have anything to do with the preparation of food while they are menstruating.”

I would be very interested in any research that measures how prevalent this “policy” is amongst Maori women. It may have been common in the past, but how many modern Maori families ban women from going into the garden or the beach while they are menstruating?

Yesterday’s papers were fascinating – especially the session on neuroscience and human nature.

Not sure when I will get the time to blog a summary. Today’s sessions are:

• Externalities: Beyond Coase, Williamson and Ostrom
  • The Problem of Social Cost: What Problem – Professor Harold Demsetz
  • Coase Rules OK – Professor Jeff Bennett
  • If Hayek and Coase were Environmentalists – Professor Terry Anderson
• GFC: What have we learnt from the 2008-09 event? A Stocktake
  • Been There Done That – Professor Peter Boettke
  • After the Fall – Professor Deepak Lal
  • The Global Financial Crisis and the Efficient Market Hypothesis – Professor Ray Ball
• Australia – A Generation of Economic Reform
  • A Generation of Reform – Professor Wolfgang Kasper
    A Generation of Reform – Paul Kelly

In discussing the French Enlightenment yesterday, a pertinent quote from the presentation was:

One of the dramatic ironies of the Persian Letters was that Montesquieu‟s fictional Persian traveler, Uzbek, could see despotism everywhere it occurred in Europe, but he was wholly blind to his own despotism with regard to his harem. Montesquieu saw painfully that it was a part of human nature itself to be aware of all abuses of power but their own.

Professor Kors went on to note that is why we limit power itself. Worth reflecting on in the light of the Canterbury earthquake legislation, but even beyond that on the fact we have a unicameral Parliament with no written constitution.

And on the Scottish Enlightenment, Professor Otteson looked at society today:

Western society faces similar declines and decay, though the proposed explanations differ.

American conservatives may point to the decline of the “nuclear family” and of the role fathers play in families, to an increasing disrespect of justified authority in people’s lives, and to the selfish egotism that contemporary American “liberal” culture espouses. Libertarians may point to the increasing role the state plays in our lives, in removing the necessity for us to take care of ourselves or others or to face the consequences that bad behaviors naturally have. Liberals, for their part, may point to the greed and materialism that they believe capitalist corporatism
encourages in turning our attention away from things that truly matter in life.

There may be truth in all these claims. Yet each is possible only because of the growing wealth that commercial society has enabled. Take the conservatives’ concern. In many ways, wealth has rendered fathers obsolete: they are no longer needed to provide for their women or their children, because the women can do it themselves or the state can do it. To the libertarians: the state is able to take such a large role in our lives (for good or ill) because we have the money to pay for it. To the liberals: our wealth has systematically satisfied all our most pressing, fundamental needs and so, naturally, we increasingly turn our attention to less pressing, more superficial, even crass desires.

The Scots foresaw these potential risks of commercial society over two centuries ago. Ferguson knew that markets and commercial society were coming, whether he or anyone else liked it or not, because everyone would want to enjoy their benefits. On the other hand, like Smith he also imagined the degrading and disgracing effects it would eventually have on humanity’s virtue: he believed we would become in time a race of wealthy but ignoble creatures, unable to appreciate or even recognize virtue, incapable of rousing ourselves to vigorous action because our faculties had atrophied, and, finally, unable even to contemplate, let alone achieve, true human happiness.

Wise folks those Scots.

The Labour Party NZ Council has expelled Chris Carter as a member. I am surprised as I thought some pressure had gone on to just suspend him for a couple of years. I guess his recent comments ruled that out as a compromise option.

Derek Cheng at the Herald reports:

Party president Andrew Little said Mr Carter’s actions on July 29, when he sent anonymous letters to journalists in Parliament’s Press Gallery undermining leader Phil Goff, were likely to foment internal discontent and encourage external ridicule.

“They were deceptive, they were clearly calculated to cause damage to the caucus and foment discontent and disharmony in the caucus and cause damage to the party’s reputation,” Mr Little said.

“At no time has there been an acceptance of the gravity of [the actions] or a display of contrition.”

The lack of contrition I suspect was a key factor. Recall Carter gleefully going on TV and repeating his key message time after time after time – that Labour can not win under Phil Goff.

Mr Little said: “Had the author of his letter to the gallery not been revealed, it would have caused considerable harm to that caucus and the way it operates, and there’s no question that the publicity in the days that followed caused damage to the party.”

He said that in other leadership challenges, there had been direct contact with the leader, not a “furtive, sneaky letter”.

And that is a key difference. Richard Prebble called David Lange unbalanced to his face – he did not write anonymous letters to the media about him.

This is a victory for Phil Goff. Now Carter is truly an Independent MP, his comments and doings are of far less media value.

The impending loss of Kerry Prendergast has some saying that it was due to a bad campaign. But in fact my analysis suggests it was more tactical voting on the left. Kerry in fact got a significantly higher proportion of first preferences in 2010 than 2007.

In 2007 Kerry got 17,910 first preferences, which was 34.9%. She lifted that significantly in 2010 to 21,597 first preferences or 41.0%.

So Kerry’s vote went up by 3,687 or 20.6% relative to her 2007 vote, an absolute lift of 6.1 percentage points.

So I’d say Kerry (probably) lost for three reasons:

1. The STV system was better used by the left, with their preferences staying with other left candidates
2. There was only one really viable alternative – not three as in 2007
3. Celia Wade-Brown did run a good campaign (and other Council candidates campaigned on her behalf)

UPDATE:

I now have fuller details of the preliminary results. As each candidate was eliminated, this is how his votes went:

1. Mansell dropped out first with 535 votes which went 10% Kerry, 21% Celia, 54% Others and 15% wasted
2. Bernard dropped out second with 1161 votes which went 13% Kerry, 28% Celia, 45% Others and 14% wasted
3. Brian dropped out third with 5891 votes which went 15% Kerry, 41% Celia, 21% Yan and 23% wasted
4. Jack Yan dropped out fourth with 7,341 votes which went 24% Kerry, 46% Celia and 29% wasted

There were 2,140 people who voted for Jack Yan but did not give either Kerry or Celia a preference.

Sally Rae at the ODT reports:

From Mackenzie District Council receptionist to the district’s new mayor – Claire Barlow is finding her new position “very exciting and quite surreal”.

Mrs Barlow (47), who is Mackenzie’s first female mayor, beat two sitting councillors, Graeme Page and Dave Pullen, for the top job after John O’Neill decided not to seek re-election. …

In her job, she had been meeting the public for the past seven years and had an indication of their frustrations.

As a council staff member, she saw things she wanted to achieve but could not do it from the receptionist’s position.

She could not stand for council and also continue as receptionist so “I thought I’ll go for the top”.

She decided she had nothing to lose and was “stoked” with the result.

Congratulations to Mrs Barlow. Some people look down at receptionists (NB I spent several years part-time as a receptionist), and it’s a nice sign that people judge someone on their merits – not on a stereotype about the sort of jib they hold.

Michael Field at Stuff reports:

Sir Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit is set to be the most expensive film made, Hollywood sources reported this weekend.

The Daily Telegraph in London said The Hobbit will cost US$500 million (NZ$663m) to produce.

This would make it about $200m more expensive than the third part of the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise.

It would also mean The Hobbit’s final price-tag would be approaching twice that of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, which cost $281 million, the Telegraph reported.

Almost two thirds of a billion dollars – much of which would be spent in New Zealand. That would provide a lot of jobs for a lot of people.

But hey why not let a tiny group with just 87 members drive it off shore. Solidarity is more important than jobs – right. $5,000 a week is just slave labour and can not be tolerated.

The Press reports:

New Ashburton Mayor Angus McKay and Hurunui District councillor Ross Little may be laughing, but the other sacked Environment Canterbury (ECan) councillors who sought new mandates have missed out.

In less than six months McKay has gone from dismissal at the hands of the Government to the top job in mid-Canterbury and ironically replaces one of the architects of the move against the ECan council, former mayor Bede O’Malley.

Further north, Little will now represent his local community in the Amberley ward on the district council.

There was no political resurrection, however, for other ECan councillors who lost their jobs when Environment Minister Nick Smith and Local Government Minister Rodney Hide stepped in earlier this year.

Sir Kerry Burke, Jane Demeter, Pat Harrow, Jo Kane, David Sutherland and Rik Tindall all stood for council, community board or district health board positions, with Tindall also having a shot at the Christchurch mayoralty.

It is interesting that Christchurch voters have rejected the people that helped made Ecan so incompetent (ranked 86/86).

Angus McKay was not one of those, and pleased to see him become Mayor Ashburton. Angus is a former National candidate standing against Jim Anderton in Wigram.

Trevor Mallard blogged that Cabinet won’t be a happy place due to:

1. Labour Party Mayor of the Supercity with a clear centre left majority. Key’s nightmare.
2. National Mayor of Hamilton given the boot. Martin Gallagher top polling for council.
3. Harry Duynhoven Mayor of New Plymouth
4. Laws team routed in Whanganui with a left leaning Mayor.
5. Act Mayor of Hutt City given the boot.
6. Prendergast National Mayor of Wellington ahead by 40 with 1,000 specials to count. Her Wellington supermayorlty dreams in tatters.
7. Tony Ryall’s bette noir Richard Thompson tops the poll for Dunedin City.
8. One of Wellington’s best analysts David Choat got elected to the DHB.

Now Trevor is right that overall those on the left had far more to cheer about, and overall it was good for them. However I think he pushes things too far to suggest that this is some massive rejection of National. I thought I would do a more nuanced analysis of the results than Trevor’s shotgun blast.

Labour Party Mayor of the Supercity with a clear centre left majority. Key’s nightmare

The result in Auckland is a very good win for the left. It will eneregise their activist base, and also provide profile for some of their office holders. And the get out the vote machine in South Auckland should concern National, if they can repeat it for 2011.

However this does not mean Auckland has turned on National. Many National supporters did not vote for Banks or C&R for various reasons. This was primarily about local perthe sonalities and tickets.

And there may be a silver lining for National. A Banks and C&R controlled Super City may have kept the opposition to a super city high. If they made unpopular decisions, then people might blame the Govt in 2011 for them.

But having Brown and the left in charge, may mean that any backlash from unpopular decisions is likely to hit the incumbent Mayor and Councillors rather than the Government. Remember they have to put in place a single rating system that will produce significant winners and losers – and the losers can howl loudly.

National Mayor of Hamilton given the boot. Martin Gallagher top polling for council

Bob Simcock is a former National MP, but the person who beat him was supported by a few Nats also. Bob’s lack of campaigning is cited by most as why he lost. And the election of Gallagher to Council in top spot is no surprise – former MPs have massive name recognition, and you have to be exceptionally unpopular to be a former MP and not get elected to Council. I note Di Yates did manage it though.

Harry Duynhoven Mayor of New Plymouth

Harry has always been greatly popular in New Plymouth – far more so than the party he represented. His election is little surprise, and it is primarily about him. It does assist Labour to have one of their own as Mayor though, so the inclusion is not without some merit.

Laws team routed in Whanganui with a left leaning Mayor

Anyone who thinks Whanganui politics is about right/left rather than love or hate Laws obviously does not live there. A huge number on the right wanted the Laws team gone also.

Act Mayor of Hutt City given the boot

David Odgen was involved with ACT. But the guy who beat him was not someone from Labour, but Ray Wallace who if memory is correct was involved with National.

Prendergast National Mayor of Wellington ahead by 40 with 1,000 specials to count. Her Wellington supermayorlty dreams in tatters.

A big win for the left – especially the Greens. Agreed.

Tony Ryall’s bette noir Richard Thompson tops the poll for Dunedin City

Shock horror – a Labour Party activist does well in Dunedin. Next Trevor will be surprised that they drink Speights there also.

One of Wellington’s best analysts David Choat got elected to the DHB

And congrats to David. But with respect I don’t think the PM will be losing sleep over his election to the DHB.

Also former Labour Ministers also lost out in Taupo, Christchurch and Porirua so not all one way. And several of the victories in places like Dunedin were wins for “fiscal conservatives”.

As I said overall they were certainly happier tidings for the left, and they do provide some opportunities for Labour to capitalise on them. But it isn’t as dramatic as Trevor portrayed.