Kiwiblog

They’ve now tried to cover up their endorsement of Winston, but the fact is they did endorse him and it is just too good not to mock.

Some Labour supporters have been saying they may tactically vote for Winston to bring him in, as that is their only chance of forming a Government. If they do, I hope they enjoy this reminder of their fellow voters.

Here’s how I saw them all:

• 1st One News debate – advantage Goff
• The Press debate – win to Key
• 3 News debate – win to Goff
• 2nd One News debate – advantage Key

With the minor party debates, I’d say the best performer was Hone Harawira. Not that I agree with his policies, but he articulates the “anti-capitalist” view better than any of the other leaders on the left.

Policies have not had a huge amount of coverage during the campaign, so here’s my list of good policies from National. I’ll do separate posts on the good and bad policies of Labour later today or tomorrow.

1. After having an unprecedented no extra spending budget in an election year, will maintain fiscal discipline to get NZ back into surplus by 2014/15 – four years earlier than projected in the 2008 PREFU under Labour.
2. Welfare reform. 52% of those on the DPB went onto it as teenagers and have stayed there ever since. Work testing will stop the DPB being an income source for life
3. Health. Tony Ryall has done such a great job in health that it hasn’t even featured in any of the debates. Elective surgery waiting lists to be reduced from six months to four months
4. Education. $1b to double the capital budget for schools, and retention of national standards so parents know in plain English how their kids are doing, but as importantly so the Government can identify the schools that are less effective and deliver more resource to them.
5. Science. As massive increase in investment in Science, including transforming IRL into an Advanced Technology Institute.
6. RMA Reform. A six month deadline for consenting medium sized developments
7. Ultra-fast Broadband. National will continue rolling this out without delay. 100 MB/s will be available to 75% of NZ.
8. Law & Order. Tighter bail laws and increased penalties for breaches of protection orders
9. Industrial Relations. New employees will no longer be initially forced to join a union if there is a collective, and can decide for themselves on day one whether to join a union or not.
10. Youth Unemployment. National’s Starter Wage will mean not so many young people are priced out of the labour market.

I blogged yesterday how the neo-nazis of the Right Wing Resistance had blogged urging people to vote for NZ First.

They seem to have had a fall off in support, as they have now edited their blog post, Pete George pointed out in a comment:

“In this country we must vote for the smaller parties…” replaces “If you want traditional Kiwi life vote NZ First.”

Hat Tip: Keeping Stock

Phil Goff claimed in the debate that a “reliable source” told him

Radio NZ reveals the true story:

Labour Party leader Phil Goff says senior police have been told recruitment for next year has been deferred and the January intake of recruits has been cancelled.

Mr Goff made the claim in TVNZ’s leaders’ debate on Wednesday night and told Morning Report on Thursday that the reason given for the deferral was the need to make savings in the police budget.

He says his source is reliable and well informed.

However, National’s law and order spokesperson Judith Collins says there are so few people leaving the police at the moment that the January intake of recruits is not needed.

She says the first intake next year will be in March instead.

Ms Collins says there will be no reduction in frontline police numbers under a National Government.

If Goff thought there really was a freeze, he would have done a press release stating so, rather than alleging something in a debate where he knows the PM would not know if it was correct or not (as an operational matter).

Here’s what Goff actually said:

Just been advised that you’re deferring all recruiting next year, but that this announcement must not be made until after the election”

Goff lied. There will be recruiting in March 2012. Labour’s campaign has been based on a series of lies and half-truths – on asset sales, on state houses, on welfare and now on the Police.

The attrition rate for the Police under National has been just 3.2% and under Labour was over 6%. So this is in fact a very good thing, as it is far better to retain experienced police officers than recruit as many new ones.

I wonder what other lies Labour will try in the final two days?

Karl du Fresne blogs on TV3:

In a post on this blog site yesterday I mentioned my reluctance to accuse media organisations of political bias. I have seen those allegations hurled about far too often and far too loosely, invariably by politically aligned people frustrated that their side wasn’t the only one getting newspaper space or air time. But in the past couple of weeks I have begun to wonder seriously whether TV3 is running some sort of political agenda.

Karl gives several examples of what he sees as a political agenda:

• Scare-mongering over the PM meeting the boss of a global oil company
• Making a meeting with Lord Ashcroft sound sinister
• Coverage of Labour’s welfare policy
• General commentary on the election
• The TV3 debate where every issue chosen was a negative one for National
• The Inside Child Poverty Documentary, being the last straw

For my 2c I don’t think TV3, or its political staff, are deliberately biased against National.

The criticism I would make is more the tendency to sensationalise stuff such as the Ashcroft meeting. The impact of the tendency to sensationalism tends to end up as more anti-Government stories because most events are about the Government. This applies no matter which party is in Government.

I agree with Karl on the so called documentary that had no balance at all and was propaganda. Showing this in election week was an appalling decision.

On the topics for the TV3 debate, I think that is also a valid point. In fact the TV3 commentators even acknowledged that after the debate. Why was there no topic on the health system? National has a great story to tell there, so naturally not chosen. Why now law & order? Labour is pledging to repeal the three strikes law. Let’s hear Phil Goff explain why someone who rapes for a third time should be eligible for parole after just a few years? But no that wasn’t chosen either. Last night’s TVNZ debate was far better balanced with topics.

Now again this may not be bias. It is probably more that they don’t see any ratings in having the Government able to talk about areas where it has been a real success story. But in terms of balanced coverage and a balanced debate, I don’t think it qualifies.

Stuff reports:

A Hamilton sex expo was given a limp reception by Hamilton City councillors who yesterday voted nine-10 against the adult-only event being held in the financially-struggling Claudelands Events Centre next year.

Councillor Maria Westphal chaired the strategy and policy meeting yesterday when a “full discussion” resulted in most councillors voting against allowing the Erotica Lifestyle Expo to come to Hamilton next March.

“It was a balance between losing the money and not upsetting a large portion of the community,” Mrs Westphal said.

She said the expo did not match Hamilton’s “family friendly values”.

Oh what nonsense. The expo isn’t compulsory for people to attend you know. This is the worst kind of moral censorship.

I can understand people not wanting a boobs on bikes parade, as that is in a public place, and “in your face” but the Erotica expos are held in contained venues where you have to pay money to get in. Who the hell appointed the City Council the moral police?

Their decision means those who want to attend Erotica are unable to do so because of moral wowsers imposing their views on them. Even worse, Hamilton ratepayers will end up paying for the views of the moral wowsers due to the lost revenue.

The only question for the Council should have been, will he or she pay the venue hire charge? If there is a doubt over their financial security, then have them pay in advance. Beyond that it is not their role to decide what events consenting adults can go along and attend.

No I am not making this up.

The white supremacist Right Wing Resistance urge their members to vote for MMP and Winston:

Don’t make the mistake to vote for anything but MMP, the tricky slimy government have tried to confuse people by chucking in other options, MMP ain’t perfect but its better then the one party system these anti democratic people want to go back to.

I will say it here and now, if you vote National or Labour your just voting in the same bunch of liars and hypocrites, who blame each other for things they do themselves, their MPs have been ripping off the system, neither of them can stick to their promises, and they both are happy to sell us down the river, Labour started asset sales, don’t forget that. They also sold out our work force with the free trade deals that make companies send their factories into other countries. They are immoral and will continue to bring in anti family policies.

National and Labour serve foreign interests not New Zealand. They will both swamp us with immigration, they will both serve the wealthy on the backs of the poor, don’t be fooled by them again, vote for the other parties. get blue and red out. If you want traditional Kiwi life vote NZ First.

Now you can’t choose who endorses you, but for NZ First it must be no surprise that their anti-immigration and anti-Asian rhetoric attracts support from white supremacists.

I blogged on Monday how if there is a Labour-led Government, it will be unlike any previous MMP Government as the major party will be only 50% to 55% of the Government, not 80% to 90%.

This means that the parties they need to negotiate with to form a Government will have massive power, much more power than any other minority partner under MMP. Because the larger your proportion of the votes the Government needs, the more say you get. This is an issue that as far as I know, no media has seriously looked at – what would be the policy mix of a Government that had Labour on 25%, Greens on 15%, NZ First on 5% and the Maori and Mana parties on say 5% between them.

I estimated NZ First’s spending and tax manifesto would add up to around $40b over four years. If you doubt that go and look at their list of spending policies which is massive.

Trying to cost the Greens almost as massively long list was beyond me, but thankfully the good Mr Joyce has done it for me. he has it at $25b over four years. The Greens claim they have fiscal costings, but the link they publish comes up as page not found. Probably a reason for that.

Now the Greens would be 30% of a Labour-Led Government and NZ First (if they make it) 10%, so assume they respectively get 30% and 10% of their policies.

Take the $12b extra borrowing I make it under Labour and add on 10% of $40b and 30% of $25b and that is conservatively a total of $24 billion extra borrowing.

At 6% interest, the increase in interest on the debt would be around $1.44b a year by year four. And that doesn’t even include working out the compounding  nature of debt.

The one thing which would be very clear is that there is no way a Labour-led Government could actually get the books back into surplus. You simply can not add on around $6b a year of extra spending, and get back into surplus. You will have a permanent structural deficit where debt only increases – the exact situation National inherited in 2008 (PREFU had a decade of deficits, DEFU had a permament structural deficit). All the gains and hard work of the last three years to restraing spending growth (including nil growth in an election year) will be wasted.

And imagine if Europe does plunge, and our revenue forecasts plunge also. Can you imagine Winston, Hone and the Greens agreeing to spending cuts to match? It would never ever happen. Don’t take my word for it – ask them.

Bradley Ambrose has had his application to have the Key-Banks meeting declared as “not private” declined.This does not mean the Judge has decided they are private or public, just that she is not going to rule in view of the Police investigation.

Now can we focus on real issues.

Labour has just said:

Why no answer on Crafar farms before election?

National is concealing its intention to sell off our farmland to foreign buyers well under the radar before the election, says Labour’s Economic Development and Associate Finance spokesperson David Parker.

“National is not just about selling our power companies, inevitably into foreign ownership,” David Parker said.

“It’s about selling productive farmland overseas as well.”

More hypocrisy in the hope that the media will not do any fact checking. Some facts:

1. Labour approved sales of more than 650,000 hectares of land to foreign owners when in Government. Yes 650,000 hectares – that is the equivalent of 75 Crafar farms. That work out to the Crafar farms every month. Yes, every month.
2. For the first 20 months of National (seeking latest data), the total amount of land sales to foreigners was 31,000 hectares. That is 1/4 the rate Labour approved sales at. Under 25%.
3. The National-led Government has already turned down one offer from foreign interests for the farms
4. The OIO office is independent from the Executive and Ministers can not direct them to delay a recommendation.

So just remember these facts. The last Labour Government (and every member of the current Labour front bench was a Minister in it) approved the sale of the equivalent of the Crafar Farms every single month for nine years. Under National the rate of approvals has fallen to under 25% that of Labour.

I’m one of four panelists on Backbenches tonight. Joining me are:

• Morgan Godfrey, the NZ blogger with the most Mana
• Professor Ana Gilling from Victoria University
• Mark Unsworth, supremely evil lobbyist

Tonight’s show is not the normal one with politicians arguing their parties are great and good, but the four of us analysing the campaign and the election.

We will be talking about the highs and lows of the campaign, who has been most effective at getting their message across, what have been the big issues. We’ll rate each party’s campaign, and also talk about some of the scandals from the Tea Party to damaged hoardings to tactical voting.

If you are in Wellington, pop along to the Backbencher pub if interested. On air from 9.10 pm to 10 pm live on TVNZ7.

Oh my God. How can this not be a caption contest. Remember they should be funny, not nasty. And try to not make them too dirty.

Photo from Heather du Plessis-Allan on Twitter.

Vernon Small writes:

I am as mad as hell and I’m not going to take it any more.

Ok, that might be going a bit far.

I admit I’m not one to get especially outraged by political spin – or to be surprised that an election campaign will bring out the worst lies, half-truths and statistics.

But with just three days to go, here are the top five things I am sick of hearing from politicians, press releases or “loyal” supporters.

1) National will sell Kiwibank

No it won’t. Certainly not in the next three years – quite the reverse. in fact if it has any intention of winning in 2014 it would be nuts to even try, and frankly it is a bit soon to be fighting the 2014 campaign.

This is Labour’s latest lie. This is despite John Key saying National will never sell Kiwibank while he is Prime Minister. Labour can’t win on the truth.

The other four things Vernon is sick of hearing is:

• The after-tax wage gap with Australia has closed
  
• The number of people leaving for Australia is/was better/worse under Labour/National
• There is a $16 billion hole in Labour’s fiscal plans
• Labour will only borrow an extra $4b
• Winston Peters’ voters are dying out

I’m pleased to see that Vernon’s estimate of extra debt under Labour is close to mine. I make it $12b and Vernon says “about $10-12b”.

Of course that is just Labour’s extra debt. You have to add on the billions to appears Greens, NZ First and Mana also.

The Press reports (photo from same source):

A right-wing supremacist group that marched into a Christchurch election meeting last night have threatened to disrupt nationwide polling booths on Saturday.

Kyle Chapman, who fronts the group Right Wing Resistance, led a dozen balaclava-clad men in military uniforms into a candidate meeting on Worcester St and hectored political candidates with a megaphone.

The publicity stunt was to raise awareness about how the Government had been “running the country into the ground”, Chapman said.

Excellent. A Government can not choose who its supporters might be, but having Kyle Chapman denounce you can only be a good thing.

Has anyone worked out the medical reason why people with small dicks wear military uniforms and balaclavas (exempting actual soldiers of course)?

I saw the headline:

Shock jock on threat to kill charge

and thought the Police have arrested Michael Laws for his public musings that he thought certain journalists should be shot as they were rabid and might infect others.

But no it is not Michael, rather:

Controversial former radio host Iain Stables was late for an important date yesterday afternoon. …

Appearing for him, lawyer Mike Antunovic said it was a first call-over and he had been told Stables would be there to face charges of threatening to kill, assault on a female, intentional damage and two counts of common assault.

I liked Stables when he was on air, but he really does seem to have gone off the deep end recently.

Mike Hosking writes at NewstalkZB:

If the Labour Party has reached just that bit too far this campaign, it’s with their leaflet targeted at solo mums who have babies while on a benefit. …

But what it implicitly implies, and where it shows Labour to be so badly out of touch with the bulk of middle New Zealand, is that it presents a view of work as negative.

The message is, if you work, you don’t spend enough time with your kids, that being a parent of a one-year-old means you shouldn’t have a job because that somehow is bad.

Yep, the Labour Party thinks mothers who work are bad parents. That is why presumably they are going to give an extra $70/week to a sole parent on the DPB and only $10/week to a working parent.

The children of parents who work, are shown that the world is an exciting place where all things are possible if you put your mind to it – where good work ethic is rewarded.

What does a child of a parent who is happy to collect Labour’s lifetime solo parent money make of their Mum or Dad?

And why would it then be unsurprising to see them recreate that attitude for the next generation.

Exactly, welfare dependency is generational in many cases, and welfare dependent households are highest in all the negative stats. Welfare should be there to support those who need it temporarily (unless permanently unable to work), but should not be a reason for able bodied adults not to seek work.

There’s a nice story on Stuff about the dilemma facing Andrew Little’s mother as she has been a National Party member for 30 years:

Andrew Little has his work cut out when it comes to winning his mum’s vote on Saturday.

By day Mr Little battles to win New Zealand’s most marginal seat off MP Jonathan Young; by night he lives under the same roof as his mother, Cicely, a National Party member of 30 years.

When Mr Little announced he would contest New Plymouth’s seat as the Labour Party candidate, Mrs Little said she wrote a letter to Mr Young saying her political beliefs would fall on neutral ground this election.

But with only four days until New Zealanders head to the polling booths, Mrs Little said she still hasn’t decided whether she will vote.

“What am I to do? Obviously my loyalties lie with my son but my husband and I were always National Party supporters,” she said.

This advice is for Mrs and Little only, but I reckon blood is thicker than water, and they should vote for Andrew. Everyone else should vote for Jonathan though!

He and his four siblings were never pressured by their parents to support the National Party, he said.

Mr Little’s parents had always been fully supportive of his achievements and political stance.

“Both my parents always expressed pride and support in my life and the direction I’ve taken.”

This is why I actually blogged on this story. I think this reflects on what excellent parents the Littles were and are. It is in stark contrast to the highlighting yesterday of the seven year old girl who had been so indoctrinated she was drawing pictures imploring John Key not to sell off her fish, treasures and toys.

I have strong political views, but if I ever have children I would make sure I always explain both sides of a political issue to them, as the critical thing is for them to develop skills of reasoning for themselves. And if they grow up voting Greens or Labour, I’d be absolutely fine with that. Thankfully NZ First will (statistically) be long dead, by the time any future kids of mine vote, so I don’t have to consider that nightmare scenario

I will be voting to change New Zealand’s electoral system from MMP to STV. Having spent many months considering the pros and cons of the five systems, I believe STV is the best system for New Zealand. It retains proportional representation, does away with List MPs, weakens the powers of party hierarchies, and effectively turns every electorate into a marginal seat.

Before I go into the full list of reasons why I think STV is the best system for New Zealand, let’s start with the pros and cons of MMP. As always I stress no system is universally good or bad. It is a trade off.

Good aspects of MMP

• Almost all votes count
• Votes are equal
• Proportional
• Fair to minor parties
• Increased diversity

MMP is definitely an improvement over FPP. But there are aspects of it I don’t like.

• List MPs are indirectly elected through party lists, rather than receiving a direct mandate from voters
• Party leaders and hierarchies have become far more powerful through their ability to rank the list
• MPs who get rejected by voters, can remain in Parliament
• Two classes of MPs – electorate and list, which receive different funding, status and treatment
• Stability of Government. In all five terms we’ve seen a Government minor party implode under the strain. NZ First 96 – 99, Alliance 99 – 02, United Future 02 – 05, NZ First 05 – 08, Maori Party and ACT 08 – 11.
• Minor parties are encouraged to be extreme to attract votes as there is no downside to alienating most voters
• The vast amount of time and energy spent on tactical voting, and coverage of it

So why am I backing STV? First a summary of how STV will work.

• 24 – 30 electorates with 3 – 7 MPs per electorate
• Just one vote for candidates
• You rank candidates in order of preference, or accept the recommended preference order of a political party
• Surplus votes from candidates get transferred to the next preference, as do votes from candidates who are eliminated as lowest polling

Here’s what I like about STV

• It is still a proportional system where basically all votes count, and treats votes equally. It is not as pure a proportional system as MMP, but it is definitely still proportional, not semi-proportional such as SM.
• All MPs get elected directly by the voters. No List MPs whose main accountability is to their party.
• While a party can list its preferred order, voters can ignore them and rank candidates as they see fit. Voters can over-turn a party ranking.
• Better access to electorate MPs. While electorates are larger, there are multiple MPs in each. 120 rather than 70 electorate MPs makes them more accessible.
• Every seat will have a National and Labour MP. Almost inevitably every (general) seat will have at least one National and one Labour MP. That means people can choose to go to the electorate MP they are most comfortable with.
• There will effectively be a cross-party caucus in each seat of MPs from National, Labour and sometimes a minor part. On common issues affecting their area, they will be able to work together to advance change as all of equal status.
• All seats are marginal! Well, not quite. But what I mean is that in every seat there is the potential for National or Labour (or a minor party) to gain an additional MP. This means every seat will be contested vigorously. Even in a safe Labour area like South Auckland, you will have say one definite National MP, five definite Labour MPs and a battle for the 7^th seat.
• The quality of candidates should be greatly improved. Under FPP you can put up a donkey in a safe seat and they get elected. Under MMP a baboon can be a highly ranked List MP and they are impossible to dislodge. However with almost every seat under STV being competitive, parties will be incentivised to select candidates who actually appeal to their local communities, rather than reward unelectable unionists and the like.
• Under MMP minor parties make it on 5% of the vote, which encourages parties like NZ First to appeal to a narrow segment, without concern for how much they offend the rest of the country (such as their attacks on Asian immigrants). Under STV a minor party will generally only get elected if people who are not first preference voters for them, are willing to still give them a reasonable ranking, so it should encourage less extreme policies.

So I am voting for change in Part A and voting for STV in Part B. I am firmly convinced that STV will be a superior electoral system for New Zealand, retaining many of the good aspects of MMP such as proportional representation, but getting rid of many of the bad aspects of MMP.

Incidentally STV does not advantage National, and in fact on the modelling done of 2008 and 2005 elections probably mildly disadvantages it. My preference is based on what is good for New Zealand, not what is good for National.

The final Fairfax Research International poll is at Stuff. I’ve done full results at curiablog.

National is up 1.5% from their last poll, Labour effectively unchanged, Greens down a bit and NZ First at 4.0%. Obviously a very positive result. A caution thought. The level of undecided voters is relatively high at 15.6%, so where they end up can change things significantly. The poll covers the period from Thursday to Monday. I would not take this poll as any reason for complacency over the outcome. Turnout is crucial.

What would a Parliament look like on this poll result, assuming no electorates change hands except Wigram going to Labour.

National

69 seats would have National with 41 electorate MPs and 28 list MPs. All 63 electorate candidates would get elected via the electorate or the list. On top of the 63 electorate candidates, list only candidates Lockwood Smith, Steven Joyce, Jian Yang, Alfred Ngaro, Heather Tanner and Denise Krum would also make it.

Labour

Labour would get reduced to 33 seats from 43. With 22 electorates, this gives them 11 list MPs which would be David Parker, Maryan Street, Sue Moroney, Charles Chauvel, Jacinda Ardern, Andrew Little, Shane Jones, Darien Fenton, Moana Mackey, Rajen Prasad, and Raymond Huo.

Andrew Little would be the only new List MP. Current MPs who would be gone are Carol Beaumont, Kelvin Davis, Carmel Sepuloni, Rick Barker, Stuart Nash and Steve Chadwick

If Labour pick up electorates such as Te Tai Tonga and WCT, then Prasad and Huo would miss out on the list. Likeiwse if Labour lose Rimutaka and Palmie, then Hipkins and Lees-Galloway are gone and Beaumont and Davis would make it in.

Greens

Their caucus would go from nine to 15, with eight new MPs.

They would get in all current MPs plus Eugenie Sage, Jan Logie, Steffan Browning, Denise Roche, Holly Walker, Julie-Anne Genther, Moho Mathers and James Shaw.

Maori Party

On this poll their party vote would only entitle them to one seat, so if they retain all four electorates, an overhang of three seats.

ACT

On this poll (and it is only one poll), John Banks would be the only MP if he wins Epsom.

Mana

On this poll Hone Harawira would be the sole MP.

United Future

Their party vote is too low to be “entitled” to a List MP, so if Peter Dunne wins he would be an overhang MP (which actually helps National)

Parliament would have 124 seats, so 63 would be needed for a Government to have confidence and supply.

A friend e-mailed me this link n Wikipedia.

Eisenia fetida (older spelling: foetida), known under various common names such as redworm, brandling worm, tiger worm and red wiggler worm, red californian earth worm, is a species of earthworm adapted to decaying organic material. These worms thrive in rotting vegetation, compost, and manure; they are epigeal. They are rarely found in soil, instead preferring conditions that are inimical to some other worms. In this trait they resemble the Lumbricus rubellus.

When roughly handled, an eisenia fetida exudes a pungent liquid, thus the specific name foetida meaning foul-smelling. This is presumably an antipredator adaptation.

Seems appropriate – a red wiggler worm.

From the old nzoom website:

Air New Zealand and Qantas have announced an alliance which will give Qantas up to 22.5% of its smaller transtasman rival. …

Engineering Union national secretary, Andrew Little, says Air New Zealand needs a larger partner, such as Qantas, if it is to be financially secure in the long-term. He says his members will not have job security while Air New Zealand remains a small South Pacific airline, but they will not want to be swamped by the Qantas brand.

So that is both Phil Goff and Andrew Little on the record as having supported Labour’s plans to sell 25% of Air NZ to Qantas in 2002.

Whale is running a live chat tonight where you can ask him anything. Guaranteed to be fun and no censorship. Starts at 8.30 pm.