Kiwiblog

I blogged previously that when Trevor Rogers joined Ross Meurant in the Right of Centre Party, it was referred to as the “Dim and Dimmer” party.

Rogers seems to be doing his best to prove that label right, reports Stuff:

Former National MP Trevor Rogers and his wife Glenda were this afternoon sentenced to a month in jail over their continuing refusal to obey a court order.

Court orders are not optional Trevor. You can appeal them, but not ignore them.

The consensus in National is that in 1990, they won a couple of seats too many. That’s one things that makes me nervous about this election – there is a possibility National will win so many seats, that some of the new MPs may not be of great calibre.

I blogged yesterday how both Scoop and NBR have reports that Parker is planning a coup against Phil Goff.

Both media outlets quote Labour insiders, which means they have spoken to at least two separate people. It doesn’t mean that it is 100% certain a coup is on, but means that some people within Labour are saying there is one. Either Parker is planning a coup against Goff, or the rumour has been put out there by supporters of another leadership aspirant, to damage Parker (and Goff).

David Parker has claimed he doesn’t aspire to the leadership, but I’ve never heard an MP admit they do. Remember Winston saying he was happy to be the MP for Tauranga. I’ve seen three coups in my time in National, and they were all denied up to them occurring. If an MP truly wishes to make it clear they are not seeking the leadership, then their denial would take the form of a Shermanesque statement.

I have no special knowledge of whether a coup is on, beyond what Scoop and NBR have reported. I do have to say though that if Goff’s handling of the Hughes affair is not enough to get him rolled, I really don’t know what would be.

But there is one aspect to this that makes me very curious. Up until recently the only names seriously speculated about as leadership contenders were David Cunliffe and Shane Jones. Grant Robertson and Andrew Little are mooted as future leaders, but not current ones. So how did David Parker’s name come to the fore? And remember both Scoop and NBR say their Labour sources say that Parker will be the candidate, if there is a coup.

Well on the 11th of March, Matthew Hooton wrote in NBR (paywall):

Attention is turning within Labour to the question of Phil Goff’s successor. …

The overlooked candidate is David Parker, who has emerged as Labour’s genuine backroom intellectual and whose ambitions are now being made clear to selected media. …

As far as I can tell, this is the first time Parker’s name has been raised as a serious contender for the leadership. And the date is fascinating. It was two weeks ago. The Hughes incident was only known to Goff, King and Hughes at that stage.

Hooton makes it quite clear in his column, that he has been briefed by either Parker or someone close to Parker. And while you might wonder whether Hooton would have any relationship with Parker, the answer is he does. Off memory Hooton represented the interests of several major sectors or companies who wanted the ETS drafted a certain way, and Parker was the Minister in charge of the ETS.

So when Parker, or someone close to Parker, tipped Hooton off as a leadership contender, the Hughes affair was not a factor. In other words if there is a coup against Goff, the planning for it started before the Hughes affair – Goff’s handling of it will be a catalyst, rather than a cause.

Again I have no direct knowledge of if Parker is planning a coup. But when you consider someone obviously briefed Hooton several weeks ago, and that in the last 24 hours at least two Labour insiders have been putting Parker’s name out to Scoop and NBR, it does make you suspicious.

Adding to this is this article in the Dom Post by Tracy Watkins and Vernon Small:

The Labour Party is in turmoil, with senior figures questioning leader Phil Goff’s judgment over the Darren Hughes affair and a crucial frontbench meeting on Monday and Tuesday likely to discuss the issue. …

Yesterday he dismissed talk of a move on his leadership as “bullshit” and said he had received no criticism of his handling of the affair and expected none.

If Goff has received no criticism of his handling of the affair, then things are dire for him, as it means no one is telling him the truth. Worse, he comes across as arrogant in saying he expects none. By his own admission, his actions has been totally inconsistent with his previous statements and he has had to do a mea culpa.

But one of the party’s rising stars, who asked not to be named, said next week’s meeting was likely to crystallise how angry MPs were over Mr Goff’s handling of the issue and whether there was the will for a leadership challenge.

“It depends if people like Charles Chauvel, Shane Jones, David Parker and Trevor Mallard have the balls to say something.”

A rising star, is a term that can only apply to an MP or a very high profile candidate.

Sources said the appointment of Mt Albert MP David Shearer to the plum education job, after Mr Hughes was stood down, had only made the matter worse.

“How much consultation was there on that? There are already those in the 2008 intake who were brooding about being overlooked,” one source said.

Now that is definitely an unhappy MP being quoted.

Party president Andrew Little, who steps down on April 2 and is running for Parliament, is thought to be furious at not being told about the accusations against Mr Hughes, which he heard from reporters.

So he should be.

Selwyn Manning at Scoop writes:

Scoop has also learnt that indeed a cabal representing a group within caucus is counting numbers against Goff.

Maryan Street and Ruth Dyson are representing a cabal that is seeking support for David Parker to replace Goff. And rumours that Helen Clark and her strong-arm strategist Heather Simpson have been consulted appear to have some substance.

Today, Scoop understands Parker has the numbers to roll Goff. He does have the support of the majority of the Labour caucus. But Scoop also understands the cabal will not make its move to roll the leader until Goff absorbs full responsibility for his handling of the Hughes affair.

Also, Labour’s caucus will not be meeting this coming week, leaving little opportunity for a formal leadership vote to be put.

While Parker has Street and Dyson counting the numbers, Goff is left undefended. Hughes was his chief whip, he would normally go bidding for the leader. But with him out of the picture it is left to Stevie Chadwick who does not have the clout to stave off a leadership coup.

The earliest this situation can be put to bed is when caucus meets in over one week’s time. That is unless a crisis meeting is called with all Labour Mps returning to Wellington to vote.

Scoop understands that when the Parker cabal finally decides to make its move, Annette King will also be rolled from her deputy leadership position.

This is a very detailed story, so one can only assume there is significant substance to it.

Also NBR reported today:

Word from inside the party is that the New York branch (aka former leader Helen Clark) has been involved in secret talks over the future of current leader Phil Goff. …

“I am reliably informed that Labour rank and file are planning a challenge to Goff,” a well-placed insider told NBR.

“David Parker, Maryan Street and Ruth Dyson – with the approval of the New York office – are gathering numbers to see what can be done,” the source said.

Mr Goff’s handling of the Hughes event was the final straw.

If the plotters have the numbers, they don’t actually have to wait until the next Caccus meeting. If a majority of MPs are willing to sign a letter saying they want Goff to go, then they can just present it to him in Auckland – and he will probably resign rather than test a vote.

Phil Goff has just announces that Darren Hughes has or will resign as a Member of Parliament.

No details yet, such as whether Judith Tizard is going to replace him, or if she has said she will decline the spot.

Like most people, I have always regarded Darren as a really nice and genuine guy, and it is very sad to see him leave Parliament like this. I say that recognising that there is a criminal complaint to resolve.  I also regarded him as one of the better MPs in Parliament and think given the opportunity he would have been a very competent senior Minister.

At best his judgement was seriously lacking on the night in question, and at worst he will face charges. Either way, it is a very sad way for someone who had a life-long dream of being an MP, to end their parliamentaary career.

I hope the Police reach a conclusion as quickly as possible, to their investigation.

A reader sent in this photo, taken by a tourist, of Christchurch as the quake hit. Amazing.

I meant to cover this story on Wednesday, but there has been so much on. NewstalkZB reported:

Meanwhile the Labour leader is also maintaining there has been no misleading of media over the allegations.

Mr Goff confirms he’s known about the matter for two weeks. However when Newstalk ZB approached the Labour Party about allegations on Monday, Mr Goff’s staff denied a Labour MP was involved and claimed Mr Goff knew nothing about it.

Phil Goff says his staff hadn’t checked with him.

“I think the person that told you that told you it in good faith, she was not aware of it,” he told Newstalk ZB today

Okay so you have a situation where the media were told something false by one of Phil Goff’s press secretaries. There are broadly three possible scenarios to explain this.

1. The press secretary knew the information was false and deliberately lied to the media
2. The press secretary didn’t bother to check if the allegation was correct, and gave a response withotu checking
3. The press secretary did check and the press secretary was lied to, so they would give out false information unwittingly to the media

All three scenarios are bad, but to different degrees.

I personally think scenario 1 is highly unlkely. Press secretaries know it is fatal to lie to the media, especially if they have been media themselves. You can be obtuse, even a bit deceptive. You can omit relevant stuff. You can give a non helpful response. You can refuse to comment. But it is a cardinal rule that you can not and do not say something that you know to be untrue – it means the media will never trust you again. And personally I don’t think the press secretary in question would – I think they are an honest person.

Scenario 2 is also pretty unlikely, because it means you’re totally incompetent. I just can not imagine a scenario where a press secretary is asked about whether an MP is under a criminal investigation, and you do not check with someone before responding. When the truth comes out you look like an idiot. Note Goff only said that the staff did not check with him - it does not mean they did not check with someone else.

That leaves scenario 3, where the press secretary did check, and someone lied to them and told them there was no Labour MP under investigation and that Goff knew nothing about any such allegation. It may not be an MP who lied to the press secretary – it may be a more senior staffer who did know and lied to them.

If scenario 3 is what happened, this is very very unfair to the press secretary, because they end up having misled the media, and it still undermines them in their effectiveness. Sure they may not have knowingly lied (which is worse), but the media will then wonder next time they ask a question, can they rely on the press secretary to know the truth? How do they know her boss and/or colleagues won’t lie to him or her again in order to get a denial out to the media?

I don’t know which scenario is correct, but scenario 3 is most likely, and if so then the press secretary in question is owed a huge apology by whomever lied to them, so they gave out false information.

The way the issue was dealt with by the Goffice, reminds me of a quote from a book by Harvey McQueen who worked for both David Lange and Phil Goff as Education Ministers:

“With Phil it was always the department’s or its officers’ or another Minister’s or the PM’s or someone else’s fault when things went wrong…” (p.212)

Finally in terms, of who did know, NewstalkZB also said:

Phil Goff says he had been keeping the information to himself and hadn’t shared it with his caucus.

Not telling Caucus is one thing, but what staggers me is that Goff did not tell Party President Andrew Little. I’d be very pissed off if I was Andrew, at being kept in the dark for two weeks.

Mydeology has done a comparison of how four blogs covered the Worth scandal in 2009 and the Highes scandal of 2011, by counting up the number of posts they made over the first two days on the scandal. Their findings:

• The Standard – 11 posts on Worth, 1 on Hughes
• Tumeke – 6 posts on Worth, 1 on Hughes
• Kiwiblog – 5 posts on Worth, 5 on Hughes
• Whale Oil – 6 posts on Worth, 11 on Hughes

Their conclusions:

• Pro-Labour blogs will comment heavily (5 or more articles) when a scandal is anti-National, but very lightly (less than two articles) in comparison when it is an anti-Labour scandal.
• Right-wing blogs will comment heavily when a scandal is anti-National, and heavily when it is anti-Labour.
• Pro-Labour blogs produce around 10 anti-National scandal articles to every one anti-Labour scandal article.
• Right-wing blogs produce between 1-2 anti-Labour scandal articles to every one anti-National scandal article.

 Their post made me wonder what was my first reaction to the Worth scandal. It was:

Now this is just ridicolous. You can’t have a secret resignation – or a resignation for undisclosed reasons. The Government is bonkers if they think the reasons won’t come out, let alone that they do not have a duty to disclose them. And refusing to state the reasons will keep it as a story for days and weeks, instead of a three day wonder.

If you resign as a Minister, you need to say why you are resigning. Not the full details, but at least some reason.

So I was actually pretty harsh on the Government’s initial response.  I followed up saying:

The more I think about this, the more stupid it is not to state why he has resigned. As in majorly stupid. The public will wonder what the Government is hiding, the Opposition will assume the worst, the media will dig up dirt until they find the reason, and the Governments looks shifty. Before it is too late, the Government should arrange for either Key or Worth to explain why Worth resigned – the public have a right to know.

The next two candidares on Labour’s list are Judith Tizard and Mark Burton. If a Labour List MP resigns before the election, then they will be offered their place in Parliament.

Judith Tizard is Auckland based and Mark Burton lives in Taupo.

So is it just a coincidence that Judith Tizard was seen on a flight to Wellington yesterday afternoon, and Mark Burton was seen on Lambton Quay late this morning?

Graeme Edgeler has an excellent blog post on the Criminal Procedure Bill, highlighting some of the comments from the Judiciary on it. Chief Justice Elias has oppossed parts of it very strongly, on behalf of the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court Justices.

One of the key issues is the proposed requirement for the Defence to signify in advance what actual issues are in dispute. This is of course standard in non-criminal trials. Some say it removes the right to silence.

What I find of interest, and has been reported by Derek Cheng also, is that the District Court Judges (who actually do the vast bulk of criminal trials) are not oppossed to the requirement to signify in advance what issues are in dispute. They do criticise the provisions about drawing adverse inferences from what may be a failure of counsel, but on the main issue is reported as saying:

But Judge Johnson told the committee he supported cost-orders for non-compliance, and the regime that would require the defence to disclose matters in dispute.

“It makes sense for the efficiency of the trial, and it’s not unjust,” he said.

This is in contrast to the view of Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias, who criticised the pre-trial regime as contrary to the defendants’ right not to volunteer information that may help the case against them.

It is unusual enough to have Judges commenting on laws, but very unusual to have different levels of the judiciary putting in oppossing submissions.

A bit belated this morning, but Autumn can deliver clear mornings where the sunrise is appealing.

Click for larger, higher res image

To get that sun-burst effect, the trick is to close the aperture down a lot.  I picked this site so the vegetation would produce a natural frame for the image (and give more ‘depth’ to the photo)

I blogged yesterday on the huge inconsistencies between the statements of Phil Goff, Leader of the Opposition (PGLOTO) on Richard Worth and Phil Goff, Labour Party Leader (PGLPL) on Darren Hughes.

Reconciling the two stances seems to have proved impossible, so yesterday afternoon PGLPL came out and said that PGLOTO was wrong. In fact PGLPL said that PGLOTO didn’t understand how complicated these things are!

Andrea Vance at Stuff reports:

Yesterday, as criticism of his management of the latest scandal grew, he admitted he had mishandled the Worth affair: “I think I’ve learnt one or two things about the complexity of these situations. I am going to be the first to admit that I was wrong in the judgment that I made at that time.”

That’s quite the mea culpa.

I’m somewhat staggered that neither Goff, nor anyone else in Labour, thought to check back about what Goff said in 2009 on Worth. Instead he went on radio saying:

Earlier, talking to Newstalk ZB’s Sean Plunkett, Mr Goff said: “When a complaint was laid with the police against Richard Worth, I made no comment. No comment at all.”

Either Goff is not getting advice, or he is not taking it.

The Herald editorial is very critical:

Darren Hughes, one of Labour’s most promising MPs, has been ill-served by his party’s leadership. When he stood down yesterday as Labour’s education spokesman and chief whip, it served only to underline the folly of Phil Goff’s mishandling of the incident.

Indeed.

Reuters reports:

Helen Staudinger, 92, wanted a kiss.

But authorities say after her 53-year-old neighbour refused, the central Florida woman aimed a semi-automatic pistol at his house and fired four times. …

Bettner, a former law enforcement officer and boilermaker, said his elderly neighbour has seemed attracted to him since he moved in six months ago. He’s not sure why.

Motto for the future – never turn down a horny 92 year old with a gun!

The Herald reports:

Labour leader Phil Goff has announced that his MP Darren Hughes has been stood down from his portfolios while a police investigation into him is completed.

Mr Goff said Mr Hughes would remain in Parliament but he now expected the police inquiry to take longer than initially expected.

Mr Hughes’ jobs as education spokesman and senior whip will go to David Shearer and Steve Chadwick respectively.

This doesn’t mean Darren is finished as an MP. I don’t think enough information is available to jump to conclusions.

However losing these two roles was pretty inevitable. The senior whip is the maintainer of discipline in the caucus, and enough infomation has come out that would have made it very difficult to remain whip credibly.

The same goes for Education. This might be seen as unfair, but there is just no way you can go into an election with your proposed education minister being someone who picks up 18 year old first year students in bars (regardless of the issue of consent).

As I said, I don’t think one can conclude at this point about the wider career.  I actually still have money in iPredict against Judith Tizard returning as an MP.

Of course it is possible that Hughes will resign, yet Tizard will not return as an MP. How? Two main possibilities.

1. The House can resolve by 75% majority not to fill the vacancy, if it occurs within six months of the election – so after 26 May. You have to wonder though why National would decide to vote to keep Tizard from returning, and also is Labour really prepared to have one less MP in the House, than have Judith return?
2. Judith could refuse to take up her seat.

The problem with no (2) is the next in lines. Tizard is ranked No 38. Next at 39 is Mark Burton, 40 is Mahara Okeroa, 41 is Martin Gallagher and 42 Dave Heroera. At 43 you have Louisa Wall who has been selected as candidate for Manurea so is going to become an MP anyway. But to get Louisa in, you’d need to convince five seperate former Labour MPs to turn down six months salary and perks.

Bill English just confirmed in the House that any changes the Government may make to Working for Families, will not take effect unti 1 April 2012 – after the election. This means that once again National is behaving entirely correctly – as with SOE sales.

They gave a pledge for their first term, and have kept their word. They will go into the 2011 election with a different policy for their 2nd term. This is exactly as it should be. If people do not want changes to WFF, then they will be able to stop them by voting Labour, Greens etc.

Promises are generally for one electoral term only. That is why we have elections – to decide on policies for the next term. Only when a party or politican explicitly states a policy is for longer than one term, do you expect it to never change. The most well known example of that is John Key’s pledge on superannuation, which he said was for as long as he is Prime Minister.

The ipredict share for Goff to depart before the election has spiked up to 47c. Does someone know something?

I do not know who is buying the shares and putting the price up. In fact I have existing money on Goff staying in the job, so I hope he is not rolled.

The price has been at 10c, or 10%, for a couple of weeks, and just shot up recently.

If you think Goff is safe, it’s a great chance to make some money and sell the stock. I’m tempted to sell, and make some money. But I don’t know if the person or persons buying know something.

Sigh. Goff just digs deeper. Here is Phil Goff, Labour Party Leader (PGLPL) on NewstalkZB this morning:

SEAN PLUNKET: When Richard Worth was under investigation, you were constantly calling for the Prime Minister and other politicians to come clean and tell us what they knew and when they knew it.

 PHIL GOFF:  Let me remind you of this. That when a police… when a complaint was laid with the police against Richard Worth, I made no comment. No comment at all. And you go back and you check your records, and you’ll find out that that was true. I was asked for comment – this is when a woman I think in Bolton Street had made an allegation – I said, I don’t know. I’ve got no information, I won’t speculate. It’s up to the police, and I’m making the same comment now.

So PGLPL says he made no comment at all around Richard Worth. Luckily we can check this out.

Let’s see what Phil Goff, Leader of the Opposition (PGLOTO) said in 2009. First on Radio NZ on 3 June:

This was obviously much more than a personal matter, if it involved a, a complaint to the police, and a police investigation, I, I think, ah, Mr Key should have come clean first thing this morning, and ah, that’s what I told him on.

And om TVNZ on 4 June:

Well I, I think that when you’re talking about the resignation of a minister of the Crown, that’s a public position, therefore you’ve got to be open and transparent about it, the reasons, ah, the allegations, not the details, that’s the subject of a police ah, inquiry and, and no politician should interfere in a police inquiry, but he should’ve been upfront, I’ve received an allegation, it’s related to a police contay [sic] complaint, it is about sexual behaviour, until such time as that takes place ah, Dr Worth is henceforth suspended.

This is especially damning. He is explictly saying that one should have been upfront, announce there has been a police complaint about sexual behaviour and that the MP is suspended. It is a total contradiction of his stance today which was to say or do nothing and hope it doesn’t become public.

And also on RadioLive in 4 June:

I think in normal circumstances if an allegation is made regarding a police complaint, you would suspend the Minister, ah, pending the, ah, the police investigation on the basis that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, but if a serious allegation is made, ah, then it’s appropriate for the Minister to step aside.

So does PGLPL agree with PGLOTO? If so, then can we only conclude that PGLPL thinks the allegation is not serious? Or does PGLPL says that only Ministers should step aside when a serious police compaint is made against them, but not senior frontbench opposition MPs?

If anyone can reconcile the stances and words of PGLPL and PGLOTO, please send your CV to jobs@labour.org.nz

You really have to wonder about the security of Goff’s position. A second of his MPs has contradicted him on his stance with regards to Hone. Radio Waatea reports:

Mr Goff says while he made the decision himself, it was unanimously backed by the Labour caucus.

But Mr Horomia says it’s still a long time before the election.

“You know that’s the line at the moment. What’s interesting is Hone hasn’t got a party so the issue was about working with Hone’s numbers. It’s about the numbers on the day of the election. It’s no point (saying) who is going to be the last cab off the rank and then get to the end of an election and you’re scrambling, but at this stage that’s our line,” Mr Horomia says.

Hone Harawira worked under him for six years in the Labour Department, and he has no problems working with the Tai Tokerau MP.

What is staggering about these comments is they are so easily dismissing what their Leader has said as just a temporary stance.

John Hartevelt reports:

Respected former military man and senior civil servant Martyn Dunne will be Christchurch’s first earthquake recovery tsar.

The Dominion Post understands that Mr Dunne will be formally named on Tuesday as temporary leader of a new Canterbury earthquake recovery authority.

He was in Christchurch yesterday and did not respond to a request for comment, but many sources have confirmed his appointment.

Dunne is very well regarded, and is seen as having done a excellent job os Head of Customs.

Jonathan Marshall at Stuff reports:

The television star who performed a drunken sex act on a four-year-old continues to be employed by at least two big New Zealand companies.

The comedian, whose name is suppressed to protect his victim’s identity, entered a surprise guilty plea in Auckland District Court yesterday.

He admitted performing an indecent act on a child, after originally being charged with the more serious offence of unlawful sexual connection with a person aged under 12. …

If the case had gone to trial, the man’s lawyer, Marie Dyhrberg, intended to tell a jury her client was so intoxicated that he was not aware his victim was a child.

Really? You thought a four year old was an adult because you were drunk????

It is wrong the comedian will have permament name suppression. With respect, the wrong details are being suppressed. What should be suppressed is any details of the crime which would identify the victim. Suppress the fact that it occcured at his partner’s house, rather than his name.

John Armstrong writes in the NZ Herald:

The Labour Party will not be judged by what Darren Hughes has or has not done in his private life.

It will be judged according to how Phil Goff handles the crisis which has enveloped one of Labour’s bright young rising stars and consequently the party as well.

Goff’s management of the crisis has already begged a major question. Why did the Labour leader not immediately stand Hughes down from his roles as Labour’s chief whip and education spokesman two weeks ago when the MP told him he was the subject of a police investigation?

It is a surprise that Phil Goff, Labour Party Leader, did not take the advice of Phil Goff, Leader of the Opposition. Here’s a quote from PGLOTO in 2009:

Opposition leader Phil Goff said today Mr Key should have sacked Dr Worth last week.

“The matter could have been dealt with rather more promptly,” Mr Goff said.

So let us compare the cases of Dr Worth and Mr Hughes.

1. Dr Worth’s leader is informed of a Police complaint. He briefly investigates, and then sacks Dr Worth. All of this occurs before the Police complaint is even made public. PGLOTO claims the matter should have been dealt with more promptly.
2. Mr Hughes’ leader is informed of a Police complaint. PGLPL does nothing at all until the matter becomes public.

John Armstrong notes:

Had he gone on the front foot then – rather than being forced to fess up yesterday in the face of rapidly snowballing media inquiries – Goff would have got some plaudits for being upfront.

He would also have got marks for consistency. Back in 2009, Goff launched into John Key for not immediately stripping Richard Worth of his ministerial warrant after the Prime Minister had been apprised of allegations of a sexual nature made against the then National MP.

Goff now risks being marked down for double standards.

Rather large double standards.

Goff’s political management accordingly starts to look misguided at best and downright stupid at worst.

I’ll be generous and say they are thinking with their hearts, not their heads.

UPDATE: Phil Goff just interviewed by Sean Plunket on NewstalkZB. Goff said it is up to the Police to decide if Hughes’ behaviour was appropriate. Plunket pointed out that no their job is to decide if his behaviour was criminal. Goff does not seem to understand the difference.

John Stringer sent me this photo. A reminder of how powerful the quake was.

Adam Gifford of Waatea News reports:

Another of Labour’s Maori MPs has broken ranks with leader Phil Goff over working with former Maori Party MP Hone harawira.

Mr Goff ruled out including the Tai Tokerau MP in his post-election planning because he says he was extreme and unreliable.

But Waikato-Hauraki MP Nanaia Mahuta says Mr Harawira has taken similar positions to Labour on issues such as the 90-day bill, raising the minimum wage, and greater protection for employee rights.

“But the real proof is what happens after election 2011 and I’ve been in politics long enough to know that the wind blows both ways and you can’t rule anyone in and out before that day. That’s the day that matters,” she says.

This is an absolute shot over Goff’s bows. One of his own MPs is saying that you can’t rule anyone out before the election, and makes it quite clear she wants to work with Hone.

When John Key ruled Winston out, his caucus broke into celebration and sacrificed a few goats to various deities, so pleased they were at being spared the horror of trying to govern with Winston.

Goff ruling out Hone has not sone as well. MPs have leaked to the media that Goff made the decision unilaterally, and even broke his own caucus’ policy. And now one of his Maori MPs has openly defied him and said Hone should not be ruled out.