Kiwiblog

The Dom Post reports:

Zealandia wildlife sanctuary has asked Wellington City Council for nearly $3 million so it can keep its doors open.

The council has already provided funding of about $10.7m based on projected visitor figures that have never been met, and it is hesitant about providing a bailout of $950,000 a year over three years.

No.

I like Zealandia, but it has devoured far far too much ratepayer money.

I like this photo (from Stuff) of the Ministers being sworn in. I like the fact that a third of the front bench are woman (and two are Maori women) and indisputably all there on merit – not on the basis of quota or factional appeasement.

I also likes this response from John Key to David Shearer’s call to be on the Ministerial committee on poverty:

Mr Key wished new Labour leader David Shearer all the best in what was a “thankless” job as leader of the Opposition.

Mr Shearer had been “quite quiet” as an MP so it was difficult to tell how he might perform.

However, he rejected Mr Shearer’s call to widen a ministerial group on poverty to all MPs.

“I’m more than happy for David Shearer to be a part of the ministerial committee if he’s happy to give the Government confidence and supply.”

Heh.

On the serious substantive issue, both John Key and David Shearer would sincerely like to see less poverty in New Zealand. They agree on the aim, but the reality is National and Labour disagree strongly on the solutions. This is not always a bad thing – it means NZers get to choose whose policies etc they prefer.

For example National believes a key way to reduce poverty is to reduce the numbers on welfare. Labour however believes that you reduce poverty by paying those on welfare more.

One could argue shouldn’t we do both. Well, yes you can but the policies are not that compatible. The more you pay people on welfare, the harder it generally is to reduce the numbers on welfare.

Ultimately it is of course a bit of a balancing act. Few advocate abolishing the welfare state and having a Singapore system where families must support those not in work, rather than the state. And likewise few support having a welfare state where work is voluntary and you can just go on a benefit whenever you feel like it.

Transtasman has published its annual ratings for the 92 re-elected MPs. As usual, I do some analysis.

The overall average rating is 5.0 (+0.5 from 2010)

Average Ratings per Party

1. Maori 5.8 (-1.0)
2. National 5.2 (-0.2)
3. United Future 5.0 (-0.5)
4. Mana 5.0 (+3.0)
5. Green 4.7 (+0.9)
6. Labour 4.1 (-0.4)

Labour overall rated the bottom party, based on the MPs re-elected. The Greens are most improved of the parties with more than one MP.

Top MPs

1. Gerry Brownlee 9.0 (+1.0)
2. John Key 9.0 (nc)
3. Bill English 8.5 (nc)

The next four MPs on 8.0 are Russel Norman, Tony Ryall, Lockwood Smith and Murray McCully. They say about Gerry:

As Minister in charge of directing recovery from the devastating earthquakes in Canterbury, and faced almost daily with hard decisions, Brownlee has shown his true mettle. He has stood four-square behind the Govt’s determination to rebuild Christchurch, and has given back hope to those whose homes and businesses were torn apart. The job is far from done and Brownlee is expected to remain in charge for at least a year as the process of rebuilding gathers pace. What may have exercised a strong influence on the outcome of the election, as National harvested majorities in onetime Labour fiefdoms in Christchurch, was the conviction the Govt totally supported the city, transmitted through the Brownlee personality, and built around the extraordinary generosity in the payouts to citizens whose homes had been destroyed.

Bottom MPs

1. Rajan Prasad 1.0 (-3.0)
2. David Clendon 2.0 (-1.5)
   Darien Fenton 2.0 (-2.0)
   Louisa Wall 2.0 (-2.0)
   William Sio 2.0 (-1.5)
   Parekura Horomia 2.0 (-1.0)
   Melissa Lee 2.0 (-1.5)
   Colin King 2.0 (-1.5)

And Rajen Prasad was rated higher on Labour’s List than Stuart Nash etc!

Top Labour MPs

1. Annette King 6.0 (-0.5)
   David Parker 6.0 (-0.5)
   Phil Goff 6.0 (nc)
   David Cunliffe 6.0 (+0.5)
   Lianne Dalziel 6.0 (+0.5)
   Jacinda Ardern 6.0 (+1.0)
   Grant Robertson 6.0 (+1.0)

Top Third Party MPs

1. Russel Norman 8.0 (+3.0)
2. Tariana Turia – 6.5 (-.10)
3. Metiria Turei 6.0 (+1.5)
   Pita Sharples 6.0 (-1.0)
4. Peter Dunne – 5.0 (-0.5)
   Hone Harawira – 5.0 (+3.0)
   Te Ururoa Flavell 6.0 (-1.0)
   Gareth Hughes – 5.0 (+2.0)

Biggest Increases

1. Hone Harawira +3.0
   Russel Norman +3.0
2. Michael Woodhouse +2.0
   David Shearer +2.0
   Gareth Hughes +2.0

Biggest Decreases

1. Rajan Prasad -3.0
2. Paul Hutchison -.2.0
   Sue Moroney -2.0
   Darien Fenton -2.0
   Louisa Wall -2.0

Group Ratings

1. Ministers 6.3 (-0.3)
2. Cabinet 6.4 (-0.7)
3. National frontbench 7.2 (-0.7)
4. Labour frontbench 4.8 (-0.2)

I blogged a while back on the Supreme Court blog that has been started up. Two of the posts were quite critical of the Court’s decision on the Urerewa case, including former Judge Ted Thomas who noted:

The Chief Justice’s unnecessarily wide statement that the police cannot do anything that is not authorized by statute is based on a misunderstanding as to the way police powers developed.

and

The Chief Justice also held that an unlawful search is necessarily an unreasonable search. I believe that the view of the majority in Jefferies to the opposite effect is correct. Tipping J was not amiss in describing the contrary view as “absolutist” (at [226]).

Now it is not unusual for lawyers to disagree or even Judges to disagree. However when a number of lawyers state the Chief Justice was plainly wrong in comments she made, you do take notice. And I have heard lots of criticism over that judgement from others in the legal community.

But it was just once case, so i thought. Until I watched The Court Report last week, and they had no less a person than top QC Jim Farmer on, voicing his concerns (most diplomatically and respectfully) about the performance of the Supreme Court. dr Farmer’s comments come from a blog post he made back in August.

My criticisms, if I can express them with respect, are limited to 2 recent cases.  
The first relates to the superficial way in which the Court dealt with the important competition law issues that were rightly brought to it in Commerce Commission v. Telecom (the 0867 case).  As (losing) counsel in the case, I do not comment here on the outcome – indeed from the point of view of the Commerce Commission wanting to establish a precedent that clarified the law that may not have been that important – but I think I am entitled to endorse the views of many others practising in this important area of law and policy that we were entitled to much better principled guidance than we received in the short Judgment that was delivered.

Dr Farmer said on TV that the top court should be perhaps hearing fewer cases, and giving them more consideration as befits their role as the final arbiter of the law. Their judgements should clarify, not confuse the law.

We see this again in the NZSC blog on the above case:

Interestingly, the Chief Justice preferred the view that error of law is reached “whenever a body entrusted with a determination of fact has reached a conclusion that is clearly wrong or is unreasonable.” This wording, and in particular the emphasis on the fact-finding nature of the decision-maker, is surprising.

And NZ Lawyer Online reports:

I can’t recall a time when our most senior local court – the Court of Appeal before 2004 and the Supreme Court since then – has been the subject of so much criticism.

This suggests to me that the dis-satisfaction is not just the normal disgruntlement, but that there are real issues with the quality of the decisions of the Supreme Court. That is not to say the decisions are wrong, but that they are not providing the clarity of the law which is so vital in a country of laws. The criticisms are also that basic errors of fact are being made also:

Tax barrister Geoff Harley spoke a couple of weeks ago to a large gathering of accountants and lawyers. His topic was the Supreme Court’s decision in Penny and Hooper v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2011] NZSC 95. He said the Court had got the facts wrong (in [3], [11], [14], [35], and footnote 7 of the judgment), and he proceeded from that platform to criticise various aspects of the Court’s reasoning.

Writing in the latest part of the New Zealand Business Law Quarterly, Paul Scott, a senior lecturer at Victoria University of Wellington, was highly critical of the Supreme Court’s decision in Commerce Commission v Telecom Corporation of New Zealand Ltd & Anor [2010] 1 NZLR 577. Justice Blanchard has said extrajudicially that the decision in that case has aligned New Zealand law with that of Australia and has widened section 36 of the Commerce Act 1986. Scott says bluntly, “The decision has done nothing of the sort. The Supreme Court has missed the point, misread Australian law, and taken a wrong turn…” He adds that the decision “is also internally inconsistent”.

Stephen Franks has noted:

The skids are under our Supreme Court in its current form.

Last night’s Court Report on TVNZ 7 would look innocuous to non-lawyers, but Dr Jim Farmer QC’s open public criticism of the Court’s quality is highly significant. Dr Rodney Harrison QC was there for balance, but his defence of the Court was lame.  That three QCs were discussing the problem on TV at all is extraordinary in NZ. Our legal establishment has discreetly enforced the conventions against lawyer public comment that might undermine respect for the courts in which they practice. Concerns about judicial quality have been inhouse whispers only.

Dr Farmer’s anxiety was made public in a post on his website in August. There too he was careful, to the  point of parody, to emphasize his respect for the Court. But what he says is a mild version of the worries widely expressed among eminent barristers.

Judges too are deeply frustrated. Court of Appeal judgments are commonly more useful than the superior court  judgments that supersede them. Instead of simplifying and clarifying, too many Supreme Court decisions add complexity.

It was very unusual to have such an eminent QC raise his concerns about the court in such a public way. The concerns should not be brushed aside.

Of course only the Court itself can take note of the criticisms. Appointments are until age 72, unless there is very serious misconduct.

But there is also an avenue open to the Government, if they wish to take heed of the concerns. Section 17(1)(b) of the Supreme Court allows the Attorney-General to appoint a sixth member of the court. Perhaps it is time to do just that.

In my By the numbers blog at Stuff, I suggest a rejuvenated front bench for Labour, which would reduce the average time since they entered Parliament from 15 years to just 6.5 years. My picks are:

• David Shearer
• Grant Robertson
• David Cunliffe
• David Parker
• Andrew Little
• Phil Twyford
• Carmel Sepuloni
• Damien O’Connor
• Shane Jones

Radio NZ reports:

Mr Goff has restated his commitment to seeing out this term in Parliament and says he intends to stand again in 2014.

Oh good God. That will help the rejuvenation – not.

Who on earth would he want to stay on as a backbencher? Does he intend to outlast Ross Robertson?

John Armstrong writes:

Shearer will bring change by making the party less hostage to the political correctness that still plagues its image. He is interested in things that work, rather than whether they fit the party’s doctrine. Shearer will not fight old battles merely to make the party feel good about itself.

He will make the party’s various groups – union affiliates, Labour women, Labour youth, Maori, Pasifika, gays and so on – start working for the party rather than feeding off it.

He will promote on merit, not quotas. He intends to transform a seriously flabby political institution into a slick political machine.

It sounds great if he can achieve it. Less politically correct, less doctrinaire, and less identity politics with a focus on merit.

Stuff reports:

Her parliamentary ambitions are over, but Annette King may now turn her thoughts to the Wellington mayoralty.

Mrs King scotched suggestions last year that she would run for mayor, when Celia Wade-Brown narrowly defeated Kerry Prendergast, but is not ruling out standing in 2013.

If Annette runs, I can’t imagine she would lose. Would be fascinating to have a Labour MP challenge an incumbent Green Mayor.

Bad enough this story, which has been around for a while:

An Afghan woman who was jailed for “forced adultery” after a relative raped her, and then officially pardoned after an international outcry over the case, is still in prison nearly two weeks after a judicial panel announced she could go free.

At least she no longer has to marry her rapist. But still, so incredibly fucked up.

Now we have the Saudis:

Rights group Amnesty International has described as “deeply shocking” Saudi Arabia’s beheading of a woman convicted on charges of “sorcery and witchcraft” saying it underlined the urgent need to end executions in the kingdom.

Saudi national Amina bint Abdul Halim bin Salem Nasser was executed on Monday (locall time) in the northern province of al-Jawf after being tried and convicted for practicing sorcery, the interior ministry said, without giving details of the charges.

“The citizen… practiced acts of witchcraft and sorcery,” Saudi newspaper al-Watan cited the interior ministry as saying. “The death sentence was carried out on the accused yesterday (Monday) in the Qurayyat district in al-Jawf region.”

God, where do you start.

1. There is no such thing as sorcery
2. Hence sorcery should not be a crime. It’s like making astrology a crime.
3. Executing someone for a fictious offence is barbaric

For those who missed it, the post before this one was by Jadis, one of my guest editors. As it happens I disagree with Jadis on this, and think Shearer will lead Labour into the 2014 election. Hell if Labour didn’t roll Phil Goff for non-performance, then Shearer has nothing to worry about.

I actually think he has a very decent chance of becoming Prime Minister.

I’m on holiday until early January so Jadis will be doing the odd guest post, as well as possibly other guest editors.

I’ll still do a bit of blogging, but will be less regular.

Bryce Edwards has an interesting piece on the Herald online.   Bryce suggests it is a bold move to elect Shearer in the hopes he can go head-to-head with Key.  Bold to the degree that Bryce suggests Shearer needs to perform within the next two years or he is gone; rolled by Robertson. I give Shearer eighteen months.

My learned Labour contacts suggested to me before the vote even took place that it didn’t really matter all that much who was elected Leader of Labour.  Their view was that the victor would never be the next Labour Prime Minister.  We are seeing Labour lurch from Phil ‘fill-in’ Goff to another fill-in guy.  Shearer’s going to find it tough.  He’s backed more by Labour’s old guard but without the real depth of relationships (or indeed institutional knowledge of the Party) while needing to reach out to the more progressive members of the Party.  Shearer has a timeline worse than English ever had.  Shearer may not even see an election.

And, despite the lauding of his CV and comparisons to Key, Shearer is no Key.  Key had the opportunity to develop from the more helpful part of the electoral cycle, and proved himself head-to-head with Cullen first.  Shearer has been rather clumsy in his debates to date, and that was against Cunliffe.

Let’s also take a look at Grant’s stellar record.  Well, does he really have one?  This is a guy that everyone likes.  I do too.  BUT has he really performed.  He’s held two very substantial portfolios in the last term, Tertiary Education and also Health.  He didn’t make any real public inroads into either portfolio area and certainly didn’t execute any great hits on Ministers, particularly Ryall in Health.  Indeed, Health is usually relished by opposition parties because constituents come to opposition MPs with stories of hardship and difficulty within the health system.  Usually, opposition MPs can pummel the Government with these stories of poor performance, waiting lists and more.  Where was Grant on those stories?  Biding his time, flying below the radar awaiting that moment where the “nice guy” can take over.

I suspect Grant will be a competent Deputy.  He is good at organising people, taking on a role very much like a deputy Principal while Shearer shines in the public sphere.  But why choose a guy like Grant to be your Deputy?  He’s a likely contender to your own leadership who as the Deputy can stoke the fires at home (in the Leader’s corridor and in the House) while you take a nice road trip around the countryside letting the voting public get to know you.

And then there is Cunliffe.  He can wait, watch and receive.  Wait for it to turn to custard.  Watch the Shearer lack of political experience while Robertson undermines. And, receive the “we should have chosen you” and “come to my office for a chat” conversations that will inevitably occur.

And news just broken that the 34 Labour MPs have elected David Shearer as the 13th Leader of the New Zealand Labour Party. Grant Robertson is his Deputy Leader.

Commiserations go out to David Cunliffe, who ran a strong campaign. I hope Shearer retains him in Finance (or better).

I think this is a good decision for Labour. Shearer gives them an opportunity to make a clean break from their past. The challenge will be for that break to be substantive, not just symbolic, so I await his announcement of shadow cabinet and portfolios with interest.

If I was advising Shearer, I would have him read up on the leadership style of Michael Joseph Savage when Opposition Leader. Savage did not spend all his time attacking the Government and blaming them for everything from the weather to global crises, but went up and down NZ speaking of his vision for a better New Zealand.

I think David Shearer is a very decent man. I probably won’t agree with most of his policies (but possibly more than I have with Labour in the past), but I think and hope he will run a clean campaign to be Prime Minister and give New Zealanders a good choice.

UPDATE: Chris Hipkins has been elected Senior Whip, which I suggested was likely a few days ago. Darien Fenton is the Junior Whip. I presume Ross Robertson will be their nominee for Assistant Speaker.

By John Stringer

As the result was obvious since election night, I’ve left posting until now. First the results of Part A:

• Keep MMP 57.8%
• Change 42.2%

A very clear decision, and as far as I am concerned MMP is here to stay and any future referendum on our basic electoral system should not occur for several decades. The focus should now go on how to improve MMP, and other electoral and constitutional issues.

Part B saw:

• Informal 33.1%
• FPP 31.2%
• SM 16.1%
• STV 11.2%
• PV 8.3%

The fact that so few were able to vote in Part B suggest strongly that the educational campaign and associated debate was inadequate. This is not a criticism of the Electoral Commission who had a limited budget, but more the media who failed to broadcast any serious debates on the competing systems. The best debate was on Sky News ironically.

There were other factors such as the RWC and the general election also. Plus the general satisfaction with the Government meant MMP was less of an issue as say in 1999 or 2008. I just think it is a pity we never had a decent debate about the merits of MMP vs STV.

Voters in the Maori seats were the biggest supporters of MMP (which is slightly ironic as under FPP there would be 12, not seven, Maori seats) followed by South Auckland. While not a perfect match, the pattern I see is the more left the electorate the more it supported MMP. Wellington was the next strongest area of support for MMP. Overall only 14 out of 70 electorates voted to change from MMP.

Of the four options, the highest and lowest support for each was:

• FPP – 58.1% in Clutha-Southland and Invercargill, 24.5% Wellington Central
• PV – 23.4% Waiariki, 8.4% Selwyn
• STV – 37.9% Wellington Central, 10.25 Clutha-Southland
• SM – 35.9% Epsom, 12.6% Ikaroa-Rawhiti

As a keen student of electoral and constitutional law, there are three major opportunities coming up to engage:

• The review of the 2011 election by the Justice & Electoral Select Committee
• The review of MMP by the Electoral Commission
• The constitutional review by the independent panel established as part of the National and Maori Party agreement in 2008

I’ll blog more on my thoughts re the MMP review next year.

Stuff reports:

Lucasfilm, owner of the Star Wars movies, has prevailed upon online electricity retailer Powershop to drop an advertisement featuring evil movie character Darth Vader.

In the online advert, Vader is pictured as a kind of Maria von Trapp figure from The Sound of Music. He is dancing across a field with mountains in the background and carrying a guitar case.

Lucasfilm’s lawyers said they had been instructed to write to Powershop asking it to cease use immediately of the advert, and undertake not to make further use of the Darth Vader character without the prior consent of Lucasfilm. …

Its chief executive, Ari Sargent, said he responded immediately to the request from Lucasfilm by withdrawing the advert, but was also surprised at having attracted the attention of Lucasfilm “Empire”.

“Powershop is not a member of any rebel alliance. I’m surprised the Empire considers small companies like Powershop to be a threat; perhaps our force is stronger than we thought,” Sargent said.

The advert is part of Powershop’s “Same Power, Different Attitude” campaign which shows dictators and tyrants engaging in unlikely acts of charity and goodwill. 

It can be amazing how thorough those law firms can be in tracking down infringements and sending out nastygrams.

In 2000, when I worked for the National Leaders Office, we set up a website to fight Labour’s proposed employment law changes. We called it Walking with Dinosaurs, and a logo from Jurassic Park was used.

Around two months later the nastygram letter turned up. But instead of sending it to the Leader’s Office, they sent to the then National Party President, who was rather alarmed to be having Universal Studios threaten him with legal action over a site he actually had nothing to do with.

A VERY SPECIAL BACK BENCHES:Watch Wallace Chapman, Damian Christie, the Back Benches Panel and special guests discuss the issues surrounding 2011 and they Rate the MPs!

YEAR IN REVIEW: We take a look back at 2011. What were the highs and lows of the year? How did the Government and the Opposition handle the big issues? Any real stand-outs? We will look back at the election. Any big surprises? Who were you sorry to see go? And the new Parliament will be set—new parties, new leaders, new ministers, etc?

NEWBIES:We take a look at the new intake of MPs. Who has the most promise? Which party has the most interesting new MPs? What about the new Ministers? Who will make the biggest difference?

Join us for a night of pub politics from the Backbencher Pub: Tuesday, 13th of December. Our Panel: One News Political JournalistJessica Mutch, Maui Street Blogger Morgan Godfery, Political Science Lecturer Ana Gilling, and Jordan Williams of Franks & Ogilvie and Vote for Change Campaigner.

Come watch the action on Tuesday, 13th of December from 8-9pm. The show airs on December 21st between 9-10pm on TVNZ 7.

Kudos to the NZEI for a classy release:

The education sector union NZEI Te Riu Roa is hoping there will be opportunities to forge a strong and constructive working relationship with the new Education Minister. …

“Charter schools, fundamental problems with National Standards, raising Māori student achievement, the government’s failure to commit to 100% qualified early childhood teachers, the future of education in Christchurch, more support for special needs students and recognising the professional work and value of school support staff are all issues which deserve full and open discussion,” says Mr Leckie.

NZEI hopes the new minister will take on these challenges with an inclusive and constructive approach which values the voice of teachers, principals and communities.

It also wishes Anne Tolley well in her newly-appointed roles.

Nice. Now compare that to the PPTA release:

Shakespeare warns John key against duplicity and ambition

“We’ve gifted the prime minister a copy of Shakespeare’s Macbeth, trusting he will reflect on this tale of a popular and respected general’s ambition for power leading to ruin for his country and his own downfall,” says PPTA president Robin Duff. …

“The Bard’s cautionary tale of political morality is the third in our series of literary gifts to Mr Key,” he said.

“The first was a New Zealand Oxford Dictionary as we were concerned that the prime minister was using some words ambiguously. The second book was Niccolo Machiavelli’s influential 16th century treatise on power and politics, The Prince, that serves as a useful resource for discussions about principle and probity in political life.”

Robin Duff said the fourth book will look at what lessons literature provides about the growing gap between rich and poor.

How patronising can you get? The PPTA have obviously decided that constructive engagement is for others.

The Southland Times reports:

A Milton teenager with a habit of spinning his car’s wheels is believed to have made New Zealand legal history in the Balclutha District Court today.

Under legislation aimed at boy racers that came into effect two years ago Karn Clarrie Forrest will have his car crushed after notching up his third conviction in four years for causing a car to undergo sustained loss of traction.

Judge Stephen O’Driscoll said he believed the 18-year-old was the first person in New Zealand to be subject to the legislation which gives power to seize and destroy a vehicle for a third offence in a four year period.

Perfect timing – on the day Judith stands down as Police and Corrections Minister. It’s like a goodbye present

Martyn Bradbury blogs at Tumeke:

No matter who the Labour Party Coven selects to fight Key in 2014 – Mr Likable or Mr Ready Now, the first act of leadership would be for the new Labour Party leader to turn down the convention that see’s the Opposition stand down an MP to allow the Government to elect it’s Speaker.

They could argue that the controversial legislation that National wish to ram through should be scrutinized to the highest level and only an Opposition Speaker could ensure that level of scrutiny.

If Labour refused to pull out an MP, National would be forced to lose their majority if they selected Lockwood meaning the Maori Party would be kingmaker in any legislation meaning Asset Sales couldn’t pass.

Good God, Martyn is 15 years or so out of date. He’s still operating in an FPP world.

Since at least 1996, Parliament has operated without “pairs” and the Speaker has his or her vote cast by their party through a party vote.

Next Martyn will advise Labour to fight this new fangled decimal currency.

Since 1996 I’ve done an analysis of the election results after each general election. They have a number of aspects to them. The 2011 analysis is embedded below for those interested. It is 46 pages long. It includes:

1. Overall results for NZ for each party and for each “bloc”.
2. The change from 2008 to 2011 for each party and bloc.
3. Results for each party and bloc by region and area.
4. The change from 2008 to 2011 for each party and bloc by region and area.
5. National’s Party Vote, Party Vote %, Electorate Vote, Electorate Vote %, Party Vote Change, Party Vote Relative Change, Electorate Vote Change, Electorate Vote Relative Change, and Electorate Vote compared to Party Vote – for each electorate from best to worst.
6. Electorate Margins (from Nat point of view) and Electorate Majorities for all electorates.
7. Labour’s Party Vote %, Electorate Vote %, Electorate Vote compared to Party Vote, Electorate Vote compared to Party Vote for Lab & Greens, Party Vote Change, Electorate Vote Change.
8. Greens’ Party Vote % and Party Vote Change
9. NZ First Party Vote % and Party Vote Change
10. Conservative Party Vote %
11. Maori Party Vote % and Party Vote Change
12. Mana Party Vote %
13. ACT Party Vote % and Party Vote Change
14. United Party Vote % and Party Vote Change
15. Right, Centre and Left Blocs Party Vote % and Party Vote Change
16. Right vs Left Vote % and Party Vote Change
17. Total Number of Voters per electorate
18. Party Placings for Party and Electorate Vote

I usually update it once the E9 is published with further statistics such as Turnout percentage for each electorate.

What most struck me in compiling the results is the huge change in party vote in Christchurch. National’s vote went up 7.3% there and Labour’s dropped a massive 10.3%. This is much larger than the +2.4% National went up nationally and the 6.5% Labour dropped nationally. It is a huge endorsement of the work done by the Government, especially Gerry Brownlee. Labour MPs spent months complaining about various issues, setting others up to complain, and even came out with a super-bribe of offering affected home owners more. The fact their vote dropped 10.3% in Christchurch should lead them to reconsider their tactics if there is a future situation like this.

Christchurch used to be called “The People’s Republic of Christchurch” but in 2011 it voted more strongly for National than Auckland did. There is a reason for that.

2011 Final Election Results

Okay, so what are the different bloggers saying on the Labour leadership.

My view was expressed last week where I basically said Cunliffe is the safer option, while Shearer has the greater potential to grow Labour’s vote more. If Labour had got a result in the low 30s, then Cunliffe would make more sense, but with a result in the mid to high 20s only, then Shearer seems the better course.

• Keith Ng backs David Shearer
• Russell Brown appears to lean towards Shearer
• Imperator Fish is undecided after the Auckland meeting
• Chris Trotter endorsed David Shearer
• Brian Edwards now backs David Cunliffe
• Cactus Kate says it should be David Cunliffe. She also reports that some Auckland members are unhappy their MPs are not consulting them on their decision.
• Homepaddock is not giving a preference, but notes that at the Auckland meeting Grant Robertson refused to give an assurance he would not challenge for the leadership before 2014.
• Most of the commenters at The Standard appear to be backing Cunliffe
• Dim-Post is tepidly in the Shearer camp
• Hard to tell Whale Oil’s position – I think he is like Brian Edward’s – was Shearer, and now Cunliffe
• John Pagani backs Shearer
• Mickey Savage is a Cunliffe supporter
• Lew Stoddart supports Shearer
• Phil Quin is in the Shearer camp
• Morgan at Maui Street defends Nanaia Mahuta, saying she was the standout in the Native Affairs debates

Of course only 34 Labour MPs get a vote. Not sure what happens if it is a tie!

Stuff reports:

President Dmitry Medvedev has ordered an investigation into allegations of fraud in Russia’s parliamentary election, one day after tens of thousands of protesters demanded it be annulled and rerun.

Medvedev responded on his Facebook site to the protesters’ complaints that the December 4 election was slanted to favour of his and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s United Russia party, but did not mention their calls for an end to Putin’s rule.

“I do not agree with any slogans or statements made at the rallies. Nevertheless, instructions have been given by me to check all information from polling stations regarding compliance with the legislation on elections,” Medvedev said in a post on the social media site.

“Citizens of Russia have freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. People have a right to express the position that they did yesterday. It all took place within the framework of the law,” he added.

His statement was a sign that the Russian leadership feels under pressure after the biggest opposition protests since Putin rose to power in 1999. The protesters themselves used social media to organise their rallies.

In a further sign of recognition that the people’s mood has changed after years of tight political control by Putin, city authorities across Russia allowed Saturday’s protests to go ahead and riot police hardly intervened.

State television and other Russian channels also broadcast footage of a huge protest in Moscow, breaking a policy of showing almost no negative coverage of the authorities.

I do not think the protests will stop Putin becoming President again, and the investigation will probably be a whitewash. However the significance of the protests is that they are occurring, and are being reported on. This is healthy.

These protests, plus the Arab spring, shows how vital it is that the Internet remain out of Government control.