Kiwiblog

In my Herald column, I look at what the Herald Digipoll suggests could be an alternative to a National-led Government – a Labour/Green/NZ First/Maori/Mana Government.

It is hard to imagine Hone Harawira would settle for anything less than Maori Affairs. He would not trust any Department headed up and/or staffed by Pakeha mofos.

Andrew Williams would put his hand up to be Minister of Local Government, bringing all his diplomatic skills to the job. That anguished scream you hear is Len Brown jumping out his Auckland Town Hall office window.

Who knows what bauble Winston Peters would take. He’s already had so many – Deputy PM, Treasurer, Foreign Minister. As he is a lawyer, perhaps he would become the nation’s Attorney-General?

The Greens would be very fortunate. On their current polling Phil Goff would have to make their entire current caucus Ministers of the Crown. Catherine Delahunty would be a shoo-in to be Treaty Negotiations Minister. Has any Ngati Pakeha ever been more supportive of Maori aspiration than Catherine?

This is what people may wake up to on the 27th of November. I do see the bright side though:

As a blogger and political commentator, such a Government would be wonderful. Every day would be wonderfully exciting as Phil Goff (who struggles to have discipline even over his own caucus) tries to get Winston and Hone to agree on what laws he is allowed to pass. With a one vote majority, every single MP and party would have a veto over all Government decisions. This would mean that no one can predict in advance what the Government will do. The biggest beneficiary of such an election result would be the iPredict predictions market.

It would be a blogger’s dream!

I’m pretty busy so last night was my first Meet the Candidates meeting. Aro Valley will probably be my only other one.

The forum was titled “Ladies in the House” and organised by the Wellington Young Feminists Collective. I found about it on The Hand Mirror blog.

I was interested in the likely topics, but was a bit dubious about attending, in case it was intended to be for women only. But after checking it wasn’t, and taking Jadis along as security, I attended.

The turnout was huge – well over 100 people. And I have to say the quality of the questions was 10 times higher than your typical MTC meeting which is made up of party hacks and old pensioners who are rich enough to have MySky, so they can record Coronation Street, and attend. The gender balance was probably 80/20.

As the forum was on issues, not an electorate, candidates were from Hutt South and Mana as well as Wellington Central, There was Paul Foster-Bell (N), Jordan Carter (L), Holly Walker (G), Jan Logie (G), Stephen Whittington (A) and Ben Craven (NZF).

There was a lively twitter stream for the forum – at #ladiesinthehouse. I’ll highlight a couple of exchanges, but want to say well done to the WYFC for organising the meeting. I’ve been to hundreds of these over the years, and this one was excellent as it was focused on issues.

Ben Craven from NZ First probably provided the most humour, not necessarily intentionally. Even I winced when he said the solution to domestic violence is to cut off their benefits. But I think people admired his pluck for fronting up.

There was (obviously) quite a bit of discussion on gender issues such as women in Parliament, abortion and  domestic violence. Jan Logie from the Greens said that she wanted the law changed so that all political parties are required to have gender equity in their party lists, as the Greens do (who specify the gender balance in their top 10 and top 20 etc). I think that’s a terrible idea to have the state tell political parties how they must select candidates. Not sure if Jan’s view is Green policy – I hope not.

There was a discussion about whether requiring the co-leadership of the Greens to be one male and one female actually discriminated against women, as it stops two women being co-leaders if they are the best person for the job. Incidentally that is a point I made when Rod Donald died. The lack of suitable male MPs to be co-leader meant they had to go outside caucus to Russel Norman, rather than have a female MP replace Donald.

One audience member (a male) advocated that there should be four electoral rolls – General Male, General Female, Maori Male and Maori Female. Luckily no candidate supported that idea. If you keep having separate rolls and seats to reflect your demographics then one day I guess I’d be voting on the Male Pakeha Anglican aged 40 – 50 roll. The proposal actually reinforced to me why having separate Maori seats is not a good idea. If you back seats based on race, why not based on gender?

The audience was, I thought, a very good one. Not just some good questions (and not the usual ones planted by party hacks), but when candidates said things they didn’t agree with, they didn’t shout them down. At most there would be a fit of giggles or a murmur of disbelief.

Again well done to the WYFC for organising the forum. I hope it becomes a regular election event.

Whale provides video of “The moment”.

Winston Peters has said:

New Zealand First is not going with National.

New Zealand First is not going with Labour either. We are making that clear here today.

New Zealand First is not going with the Greens or the Maori Party. …

MMP is criticized by those who believe they have been born to rule but since this system was introduced, the party with the most votes has always formed the government.

We believe that the party that gets the most votes should try to form the next government.

But there’s one condition – the one safeguard that voters have – the one get out of jail card.

And that is do not let any political party in New Zealand govern alone under any circumstances. It is too dangerous!

Before we analyse what Winston actually means with this, it is first important to note one thing. Winston lies. Not just generally, but specifically on issues such as these. In 2005 he said NZ First would not take up the baubles of office. That was universally interpreted as meaning they would not take up a Ministerial role. Yet, as we all know Winston became Foreign Affairs and Racing Minister, allowing him to reward his secret backers.

Stuff have interpreted this as:

NZ First leader Winston Peters says the party will remain on the Opposition benches and refuse to support either of the two main parties if it is reelected to Parliament.

In a speech to be delivered to party faithful in Auckland today, Mr Peters all but killed any hope of Labour stitching up a minority government with his support if NZ First passed the 5 per cent threshold, saying he believed that the party that got the most votes should try to form the next government.

“New Zealand First is not going with National. New Zealand First is not going with Labour either. We are making that clear here today.

NZ First would not countenance a deal that involved the Greens or the Maori Party.

No Right Turn has blogged this this has killed off Labour’s dream:

Winston Peters has announced that he will not back either main party on confidence and supply, and will refuse to support any arrangement involving the Greens or Maori Party. So, that’s it then. Labour’s dream of cobbling together a coalition government if it does well enough (already a forlorn hope) is now dead. The issue now is not whether John Key or Phil Goff is Prime Minister, but whether Key gets to rule with an absolute majority.

But Winston has not in fact said definitely what he will do. At best he seems to be saying he will oppose both National and Labour. That could mean if NZ First did make 5% and hold the balance of power, he would force a new election by voting against supply and confidence.

A Government can only govern if it has supply and confidence. All Winston has said that the party with the most votes should try to form the next Government. Nowhere has he said he will allow them to.

Winston has left massive wriggle room, so he can do in 2011 what he did in 2005. The question that media should ask him is “Will he vote for confidence and supply for the largest party, against confidence and supply, or abstain?”. A related question is “What conditions will be attached to that”.

He has said NZ first is not going with the Greens or the Maori Party. That doesn’t answer the question of what if National needs (unlikely but possible) both NZ First and Maori Party to govern. Is he saying he will vote against if there are Maori Part Ministers but vote for if they are not Ministers?

Overall the only conclusion I can draw is that a Winston saying he will oppose whomever forms the Govt, and his apparent conditions on which other parties can be involved just makes new elections likely if they make 5%. Political instability is the last thing we need as Europe totters on the brink of economic disaster.

One interesting thing is that Winston and No Right Turn have both said National should not govern alone. NRT said:

This isn’t something we should allow to happen. As we saw back in the FPP-era, absolute majority government is constitutionally dangerous. It turns our country into an elected dictatorship, allowing a single party to run roughshod over everyone else and abuse the Parliamentary process to impose policies for which it has no mandate. MMP’s (thus far) enforcement of coalition and minority government prevents that from happening. It means the government has to negotiate for policies, convince other parties (and by extension the public) that its policies are acceptable. In other words, it keeps us safe. And that’s something we need to preserve.

Presumably this means Idiot/Savant is calling on voters to vote ACT. Because that is the best way to have a National-led minority Government. I/S has said that the Government will be National-led. That means that extra votes for Labour, Greens, NZ First or Mana will just be wasted as none of them would support a National-led Government.

A vote for the Maori Party will not work, as they are highly likely to have an overhang.

That leaves United Future and ACT. Now those parties need 1.2% to get an second MP and 0.45 to avoid overhang. United Future is looking like it will be an over-hang seat. So the best way for people to have a minority National-led Government is hence to give ACT the party vote.

Now personally I do not endorse ACT, as Idiot/Savant has done. If the voters vote to give John Key a majority, he has already said he will offer to share Government with the Maori Party, United Future and ACT – and at a minimum a policy co-operation agreement with the Greens.

UPDATE: Danyl at Dim-Post nails it:

Peters’ strategy is pretty simple. By ruling out the possibility of going into coalition with Labour, he attracts back right-wing voters who like his policies on immigration etc, but don’t want to cast a vote for his party if it means he’ll go into coalition with Labour. Then, after the election, Peters can go into coalition with Labour and throw a temper tantrum about media conspiracies every time someone suggests he promised not to go into coalition with Labour.

Labour told us how they kicked arse in the first two weeks of the campaign. Their opening broadcast was better, they won the debates, their policies were better, and people now hated John Key as much as they did.  National would be hammered for its unpopular policies.

So why did Labour drop to its lowest ever poll rating in the Herald Digipoll? A poll taken up until yesterday so doesn’t even include Goff in The Press debate.

And in the One News Colmar Brunton poll, National retains a 26% lead. This poll also taken in the last week.

What happened?

I didn’t watch it, but saw John Pagani tweet:

Huge win for Goff tonight at the Press debate. One sided – he absolutely smashed it.

Sadly for John, he seems to be a minority of one. Fairfax’s Vernon Small who actually attended the debate wrote:

Who won?

On first and final impressions from someone typing madly in the front row?

Key had the audience eating out of his hand – a showman in top form.

A clear victory for the PM.

I presume Trevor Mallard won’t attack Vernon as a tool of the vast right wing conspiracy.

John Hartevelt tweeted:

A clear win to Key tonight. Proud that The Press hosted such a great debate.

Many people said the format was much better.

ZB’s Felix Marwick:

Calling tonight’s debate for Key. Goff undercut himself by not definitively answering the $ question

And the Herald’s Claire Trevett:

What a jolly Press debate that was. Both entertaining – Goff stood ground till Key Jerry McGuired him, good and hard.

I am deeply disturbed by Claire’s choice of metaphor.

Vernon Small goes further today:

If the first TVNZ debate was a narrow-points victory to Phil Goff, last night’s Press debate was not far short of a rout by John Key.

The next time John Pagani calls something a huge crushing win for Goff or Labour, I’m going to buy National win shares on iPredict!

Funnily enough when judging a debate, I tend to be harder on those whose arguments I agree with. The reason why is because I know thee arguments so well for “the right”, that I’m always thinking (or yelling at the screen) “You should have said this …..”

UPDATE: Danyl at Dim-Post notes:

Goff couldn’t respond. He couldn’t account for the $14 billion shortfall. Instead he prevaricated. He talked about asset sales. He talked about tax evasion. Key continued to press him, and Goff insisted we’d get a spreadsheet ‘soon’, which explained everything. Then he spent the final quarter of the debate insisting that he’d already explained where the money was coming from, while Key and the audience simply laughed at him.

It was a humiliating defeat. And totally unnecessary. Three-and-a-half weeks from the election and Labour’s leader can’t produce a credible budget.

I suspect we will see Labour’s costed budget later today or tomorrow. I also predict it will miraculously balance and show no extra borrowing needed. What will matter is whether Labour’s figures hold up to scrutny. Anyone can make a budget balance by just fiddling with assumptions, such as saying “Our policies are good for the economy, so we predict economic growth will be 05% higher which means this much more tax revenue”.

The Electoral Commission has them here.

Party Names and List Sizes are:

• ACT 55
• Alliance 14
• ALCP 28
• Conservative 30
• Democrats 24
• Greens 61
• Labour 65
• Libertarianz 27
• Mana 20
• Maori 17
• National 65 (in fact is 74 or 75 I think, but only top 65 get listed)
• NZ First (33)
• United Future 17

The Herald notes:

Thirteen political parties and 544 individual candidates will contest the November 26 election. …

While there were 19 parties in 2008, only thirteen have registered this year. …

The nominations also showed a drop in the number of individual candidates, with 544 this year compared with 682 in 2008.

There are 91 list-only candidates, 73 electorate-only, and 380 standing for both. Thirty candidates are standing as independents or representing unregistered parties.

The most sought after seat is Wellington Central, currently held by Labour’s Grant Robertson, which 12 candidates, including Mr Robertson, will compete for.

The number of men competing for a place in Parliament is more than double the number of women, with 397 compared with 147 women registered.

Local Government Online had a nifty portal last year for the local body elections. Well they have used that template to do the same for the general election – at vote.co.nz.

They list the candidates for every electorate, plus all the parties and their lists. Parties and candidates can upload material to it, and you can ask questions to the candidates.

I found their sister site for local body elections really useful, and this one should be a great resource also.

Over at Stuff, I note party lists are due in today at midday, and look at all the minor parties I think will be contesting. They are:

• ACT
• Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party
• Conservative Party of New Zealand
• Libertarianz
• Mana
• Maori Party
• New Zealand First Party
• The Alliance
• The Greens
• The New Zealand Democratic Party for Social Credit
• United Future New Zealand

I give a paragraph on each and what I think would be a good and a poor result for them

Well at the risk of self-promotion, I have to say it turned out pretty much as I predicted.

Goff did well and scored a couple of hits, but Key held his own and came across relaxed. One can argue about who “won” but for me the score was like the RWC final – an 8-7 affair.

I did say before the debate:

Where Goff can struggle is with empathy, coming across as a “normal bloke” rather than a professional politician who is always negative. But he and his staff have spent the last two and a bit years making him less robotic, and I have no doubt he will get that balance right tonight of criticising the Government’s record, and promoting their own policies. so that he is seen more positively by New Zealanders than previously.

This is the one part where I might mark myself down. I’m not sure Goff did quite get the balance right. He certainly came across as an effective Opposition Leader last night (which is an improvement in his public perception), but he didn’t quite come across as the alternative Prime Minister. The public do not always respond well to aggressiveness. Your supporters love it and it inspires them, but they are not Joe/Jane Public. I suspect he will be less aggressive in the next debate.

A reminder that “Campaign 11″ starts tonight at 8.30 pm on Sky News. It will also replay on Prime TV.

Barry Soper moderates a minor party leader’s debate with:

• ACT Leader Don Brash
• United Future Leader Peter Dunne
• Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia
• Mana Party Leader Hone Harawira
• Green co-leader Russel Norman

The panel asking questions is Chris Trotter, myself and television reporter Ngahuia Wade.

There will be four sections to the debate, focusing on:

1. Economy
2. Environment
3. Maori
4. Coalitions

The programme will run for an hour.

Claire Trevett at the Herald reports:

The Labour Party has broken from tradition by deciding not to have an official campaign launch this year.

It will instead mark the start of its campaign in a low-key way – with a policy announcement on savings to media tomorrow in its own caucus room.

The decision not to have a launch event is unusual – the events are considered to provide valuable media and television coverage of a leader speaking to an audience of supporters in the lead up to the election.

This is almost unheard of. A campaign launch generally gets you a couple of minutes on the TV news that night promoting your message, and guaranteed coverage in all the dailies the next day.

For Labour not to do a campaign launch, suggests things are dire.

I suspect they were worried so few supporters would turn up, that it would draw unfavourable comparisons to National’s campaign launch, or even Labour’s 2008 campaign launch.

Or they are broke and can’t afford one, as the parliamentary funding tap has been turned off for them.

A third possibility is they thought two minutes of Phil Goff in prime time would actually lose them votes. But I doubt that is the reason, as they have him taking part in the debates.

Can people think of any other reason that Labour are not having a campaign launch? Apart from the official spin line that they are concentrating on policy!

Key Points:

* Growth and current account forecasts slip
* Epsom now marginal, making a Phil Goff-led government more plausible, even without Hone Harawira
* National’s Simon O’Connor tipped for Tamaki
* Greens still riding the crest of Rena’s waves while National and Labour sink
* Alan Bollard now expected to increase OCR in March 2012
* Fonterra’s forecast 2011/12 payout increases slightly

Commentary:

Act’s chances in Epsom have dropped to marginal levels, making it just possible that Phil Goff could be our next Prime Minister, according to this week’s snapshot by New Zealand’s online prediction market, iPredict. With John Banks hovering at just over 50% chance of winning Epsom, and New Zealand First nearing MMP’s 5% threshold, a Phil Goff-led government isn’t out of the question. The stocks on National’s Tamaki selection suggest that Simon O’Connor is most likely to be the party’s candidate, while the Greens are still predicted to get a record 14 MPs. In economics, Reserve Bank Governor Alan Bollard is now expected to raise the OCR in March 2012, GDP and Current Account forecasts have worsened, while Fonterra’s forecast 2011/12 payout has increased slightly.

(more…)

In my Herald column I note the final sitting day of the 49th Parliament and look forward to the elections for the 50th Parliament, in 50 days time. I make some early predictions as to which parties will and will not be back.

Over at Stuff in my By the numbers blog, I look at some of the questions on the election and rugby, including the fascinating fact that 30% of New Zealanders said that the outcome of the Rugby World Cup matters to them more than the outcome of the general election. Amongst under 25s this rises to 55%!

NZPA report:

Prime Minister John Key and Labour leader Phil Goff won’t be sharing the stage with smaller party leaders in the lead up to this year’s general election.

In 2008 then Prime Minister Helen Clark and Mr Key refused to participate in debates alongside minor party leaders, despite doing so in previous years.

And that was, in my opinion, undoubtedly the right decision. Having separate one on one debates between the two people vying to be Prime Minister worked really well. Having only the two participants meant they actually had time to explain themselves, and respond to assertion each other made. Plus there was time for several topics. The one on one debates were high quality and useful activities.

The all comers debates are, at best, a circus. If you have eight participants then it means in a commercial hour, each gets five minutes at most. So responses tend to be 30 second soundbites.

And look at who will be lining up for the all comers debate – Hone, Winston, Don, Peter, Metiria/Russell and Tariana/Pita. I think it is safe to say it will be more heat than light. And that is putting it kindly.

Labour List MP Sue Moroney has been tweeting excitedly about the crowd who attended a public meeting today with Hon Phil Goff:

The Electoral Commission has just announced the broadcasting allocations for the 2011 elections. I show below the monetary allocation for each party, and the comparison to the original 2008 allocation.

The Commission has given National and Labour the same amounts, as they did in 2008. The argument for this is that they are the two parties competing to become the major party in Government, so should get the same funding regardless of any disparity in seats and poll ratings.

I tend to agree with the Commission that the two major parties should get the same, but I note in 2005 they gave Labour $200,000 more than National. In 1999 and 2002 they got the same though. So the 2005 decision is probably an anomaly based on National receiving so few seats in 2002. However with hindsight it was arguably wrong as National was equal polling with Labour and almost won the 2005 election.

The allocations are:

• National $1,150,000 ($1,000,000)
• Labour $1,150,000 ($1,000,000)
• Greens $300,000 ($240,000)
• ACT $160,000 ($100,000)
• Maori $160,000 ($240,000)
• NZ First $100,000 ($240,000)
• United $100,000 ($100,000)
• Others $20,000 each ($17,000)

The two parties that get less than in 2008 are Maori Party and NZ First parties. Mana will have no allocation at all, and sadly the law has not been changed to allow parties to purchase their own broadcasting time. I am no fan of the Mana Party, but it is outraegous that they have been shut out of radio and television due to the law. I remain annoyed National failed to chaange the law.

In terms of opening and closing times, the allocations are:

• National 20 + 16 (12 + 6)
• Labour 20 + 16 (12 + 6)
• Greens 8 + 7 (8 + 3)
• ACT 5 + 4 (3+ 3)
• Maori 5 + 4 (8 + 3)
• NZ First 3 + 2.5 (8 + 3)
• United 3 + 2.5 (4 + 3)
• Others 1 + 1 each (1 + 0)

That is significantly more time for the two major parties, but really a reflection that in the past they have not been allocated enough time. The two major parties are polling at around 85%, yet are getting just 55% of the time. They are getting 70% of the money.

I think the allocations look pretty reasonable. I would make the point that personally I would change the law so that a greater allocation goes to parties outside Parliament, recognising they do not have the resources that parties already in Parliament have. I stick by that view, even though it would in this case benefit NZ First.

One of the reasons often cited as part of Labour’s loss in 2008 was that they ran such a relentlessly nasty and negative campaign against John Key, with everything from the H Fee up.

Whale Oils blogs that Labour have appointed Trevor Mallard as their campaign manager for 2011.

One can only assume that they are determined to run an even dirtier, nastier and defamatory campaign than last time.

I can’t imagine who they will get for their 2014 campaign – maybe Clay Davis?

The potential line up for the leaders’ debates amongst the minor parties verges on the hilarious. It may include:

• Russel Norman or Metiria Turei
• Rodney Hide
• Don Brash
• Winston Peters
• Hone Harawira
• Pita Sharples or Tariana Turia
• Peter Dunne

They should make it pay per view entertainment.

Key and Goff will stick with the Prime Ministerial debates unless they are bonkers.

David Cunliffe called yesterday for Bill English to resign, so to trump that Phil Goff called on the entire Government to resign. I’m not sure why – I think he blames the Government for the earthquakes.

Anyway, it would have been hilarious if John key called their bluff, and had got up and said “Okay, we’ll go to the polls on the 7th of May”.

And best of all, we’d have the election all over befiore the Rugby World Cup – which i suspect many more people are interested in.

I’ve re-activated the election candidates page I created for the 2008 election, and update it for the 2011 election. It is a permanent page, linked on the left hand sidebar.

The list is copied below and shows the two or three major candidates in each seat. A third party candidate is shown below only if they have a realistic chance of winning the seat and/or are a current MP.

If a candidate/MP has a personal website, I’ve linked it to their name.

If for any electorate you know the name of a missing candidate, and/or a website address for a candidate, you can e-mail that info to me for updating.

Please note that if a National MP is not listed, it is because to the best of my knowledge they have not been officially re-selected as a candidate yet. I’m only adding names on once they are officially selected.

The Dom Post reports:

He also said he would rule out a coalition with Winston Peters and NZ First. He said there was no place for Peters in a National-led government.

Yay, yay, yay. It is indeed preferable to go into Opposition than try to run a Government with Winston in it. Key has explicitly said that if Winston holds the balance of power, then Phil Goff will be Prime Minister.

Labour sacrificed their integrity defending Peters in 2008. It was obvious Peters lied time and time again over his knowledge of the Glenn donation. The phone records leave no reasonable doubt. But Labour defended his lies, and both in 2008 and again in 2011 will give him anything he asks for, in a grasp for power.

I was incredibly proud of John Key when he ruled Peters out in 2008, and again today I’m thrilled he has done so.

A key message for this year will be that a vote for Winston is a vote for Labour and Goff, and that a vote for Labour is a vote for Peters to be back in Government (if they make 5%).

The Prime Minister has announced the general election will be held on Saturday 26 November 2011.

I must point out that last March I blogged on the election date and said that 26 November was the most likely date. I was never one who thought the PM would go early for a possible tactical advantage.

In fact Key has again shown how different he is to his predecessors. Previous PMs have treated the election date as being more precious, than – well the Ring to Gollum. They’ve kept it secret for as long as possible, to gain maximum tactical advantage from it.

Hopefully this move by Key, may be a first step towards having a fixed election date. Unless the Government has collapsed or lost confidence, Parliament should continue full-term. Previous PMs Muldoon and Clark called snap election on flimsy excuses (Clark’s was there were too many points of order during question time).

Under the new electoral legislation s3B(2)((a)(ii) the regulated period starts three months before the election day, on the 26th of August 2011.