Kiwiblog

I blogged on Saturday on Alan Gibbs address to the ACT Conference, which I enjoyed.

I missed the speeches by Emma Gibbs and David Seymour – which many said were the conference highlights.

I wasn’t impressed with parts of Muriel Newman’s speech. I can’t remember the exact words Muriel used but to describe the National/Maori Party confidence and supply agreement along the lines of the biggest disaster for race relations in all of history was excessively hyperbolic. One can legitimately criticise the agreement, without going so over the top. Also in response to a question on customary rights, I couldn’t believe the answer was that the Treaty of Waitangi extinguished any customary rights. Apart from being totally wrong, it also contradicted an earlier assertion that the Treaty had no legal effect.

John Armstrong has analysed Heather Roy’s speech, and I agree references to black swans and the like were less than wise.

The conference over all did not feel like the conference of a party in Government after 12 years of opposition. Most people were too focused on how the Government was not implementing all of their policies, rather than talking about the areas they were making a difference.

Rodney’s speech was positive and upbeat, but the real outstanding performance from Rodney was on the Sunday on Q+A. I recommend people watch it to see Rodney be frank about his mistakes, but also talk about the wins ACT has had, and what they will keep pushing for. The only negative mark I give him is talking about Key and English keeping on the policies of Clark and Cullen, rather than the more correct “some of the policies”.

Colin James covers that ACT has managed to have significant influence, beyond their five seats.

I thought Don Brash’s speech on closing the gap with Australia was good, as he made a great case for bolder policies needed – especially over spending. He should have chosen better language than “venal and ignorant” in talking about *some* voters, as it has diverted attention from the point he was making about the failing of the education system and the media on basic economic issues.

Of course for many the real highlight of conference was the after-match party hosted by Cactus Kate for the younger members. Had around 40 people in the penthouse suite at the Bolton, so was a very comfortable feel. Was great to catch up with old friends and make some new ones. An amusing aspect was seeing Chris from Dunedin wind various people up so well, I was sure he was going to get slapped.

Cactus, Jadis and I did some of the shopping for the party. Not sure New World has ever sold so much champagne in one go before!

The party ended a bit after 3 am and as we started a bit before 5 pm, it was a solid ten hour affair. Remarkably, there was almost no damage to the room – even after a couple of people from Young Labour snuck in!

I’m attending the ACT conference as media. First speaker this morning is Alan Gibbs.

Gibbs, like many on the right, started life as a dedicated socialist, and was active in Wolfgang Rosenberg’s New Left Club. He saw the light after visits to Yugoslavia and East Germany.

Gibbs talked about how the liberal market solution is often counter-intuitive. That instinctively people want to block Chinese imports to protect New Zealand manufacturers, even though almost everyone knows logically free trade is better.

He whacked at National for refusing to sell Kiwirail, and indeed refusing to sell any state assets at all. That got more resonance than his next statement about how the assets that most need to be sold are the public hospitals.

Overall a very interesting, if some what disjointed, speech about liberalism, markets and democracy. Gibbs also made a plus for more direct rather than representative democracy, through Internet voting on bills proposed by MPs.

In an aside Gibbs also said he thinks countries should go back to the gold standard. Hopefully someone will ask Don Brash what he thinks of that.

I blogged on the 27th of January about how comments on a blog referring to the PM as “John the Jew” were made by someone seeking the Vice-Presidency of ACT. I said:

Now ACT can not control which of its members stand for office and the comments of one member is no reflection on them. But this may help their members with their voting decisions …

But a reader has emailed me to say that Mr Campbell has resigned his membership of ACT, which automatically means he has withdrawn from the contest for the Vice-Presidency.

I don’t think he needed to resign from the party, but I do think it is a good outcome that he has withdrawn from the Vice-Presidential contest. If you seek senior office within a political party, you need to be aware that what you say can reflect on your party, and not just you.

UPDATE: Murray has more details on this.

I note over at John Ansell’s blog that a Kevin Campbell commented:

Brilliant design John & Ken, now you just have to convince John the Jew. You get my vote.

He defended his comment:

Basil, relax, its a fact he’s a Jew. If it was Helen Clark I would have said Helen the dirty filthy communist.

So presumably Kevin sees both things as very bad.

I find the reference very distasteful and derogatory. It is like if he had Pakistani ancestry, calling him John the Paki.

Now normally I would not highlight comments like the above, unless the person is of some significance.

But a Kevin Campbell is currently standing for the Vice-Presidency of ACT.

Now ACT can not control which of its members stand for office and the comments of one member is no reflection on them. But this may help their members with their voting decisions, assuming it is the same Kevin Campbell.

ACT on Campus had a great idea – they surveyed the candidates for the ACT Board on various issues.

The full responses from the candidates is here as a 39 page pdf.

They have also done a summary of the responses here. They asked questions on:

1. Role of the Board
2. What ACT is most lacking
3. Should Board or members determine final list
4. Who from history you would most want to meet
5. Which two laws you most want to repeal
6. MMP vs FPP
7. Should NZ become a republic
8. Views on Wanganui gang patch laws
9. What is your conception of equality
10. Penal policy
11. Death penalty support
12. Alcohol purchase age and sale restrictions
13. Drugs policy
14. Internet censorship views
15. Prostitution legalisation
16. Student loans policy
17. Main three policies ACT should campaign on

If I was an ACT member, I would find the survey results invaluable in helping me decide who I want to run my party.

Maybe the Young Nationals could do the same for the next National Board elections?

The Press editorial:

The compromise reached between National and the ACT Party on the so-called three-strikes regime for dealing with repeat violent offenders is a sensible one.

It eliminates flaws in the original bill and will produce a law that deals effectively with the worst of our violent criminals in a way that voters have shown they want. It reflects a policy on which both the ACT Party and National campaigned during the last election, but the substance of it is from ACT and thus represents another considerable political achievement for the party’s leader, Rodney Hide.

Credit goes to Rodney and David Garrett for securing an agreement. And while it will take a few years to take effect, it’s going to be great knowing everytime someone gets convicted in court for a serious violent or sexual offence, that on their third strike they will be spending a long time in prison.

Under the proposed regime, a person who commits one of the 36 qualifying offences will be sentenced in the same way as they are now. That means that if the sentence is one of imprisonment, then only a part of this must be served in prison. But offenders will be warned that if they commit a second of the qualifying offences, they will receive the same sentence as they would now but will serve, in prison, the whole of any term of imprisonment they are given. On a third offence, the sentence will be the maximum for the crime and all of it will have to be served in prison. The only exception would be if it were “manifestly unjust” for such a sentence to be imposed.

And those who get to their second strike will know that if they seriously offend again, there is no real chance of just a short prison sentence, with early release on parole. If they rape they will do 20 years in jail.

But, more importantly, evidence from other jurisdictions clearly shows that similar laws elsewhere have deterred serious crime. The most commonly cited example is the three-strikes law in California. The California law was not well constructed and has flaws that the bill proposed here has eliminated. But, for all those flaws, academic studies have shown that the law, which has been in effect for more than a decade, has measurably deterred the crimes it covers, despite a rise in other offending.

Incentives work. But even putting aside that debate, if a serious violent or sexual offender is in jail for longer, then they are not able to menace the public as often.

John Key, Rodney Hide and Judith Collins have just announced an agreement to implement a version of ACT’s three strikes policy.

They key difference is that the third strike is not life without parole (unless the strike is for a homicide), but for the maximum sentence (without parole) for that offence. So if the third strike is an indecent assault, they get seven years (the maximum), not life.

This compromise is very sensible, and in fact near identical to what I proposed back in March 2009. Great minds think alike

The three strikes regime will only apply to serious offences, which generally are violent or sexual offences carrying a maximum sentence of at least seven years. The three strikes will be:

1. Judge decides term of imprisonment, and Parole Board can let out early on parole (near automatic at two thirds of a sentence)
2. Judge decides term of imprisonment, but no eligibility for parole
3. Judge has to sentence for maximum term for that offence, with no parole, unless doing so would be manifestly unjust

This will not affect a huge number of criminals, but it will mean the repeat serious violent and sexual offenders will not get released so quickly.

Also the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill (currently before the Law & Order Select Committee) allows a Judge (regardless of which strike) to impose a sentence of life without parole on the worst killers – so a Clayton Weatherston (for example) would never be eligible for parole until he was old and infirm. This won’t apply to all murderers – just the very worst ones – the Bells, the Burtons, the Weatherstons.

On a process matter, I’m pleased to see the Government is recommending to the Select Committee that they reopen submissions to allow submitters who previously submitted, to submit on these proposed additions to the Bill. All too often the Government introduces major changes after select committee hearings, and then the public have a limited opportunity to have their say.

As I said, I’m very pleased with the agreement. It is a good win for ACT, and a good policy for the Government. Apart from the fact it will be very popular with the public, it is also the right thing to do – repeat serious offenders should be locked away for longer.

Cactus blogs:

The political strategical stupidity in a coup is astounding in a party of 5 MP’s, 80% of whom are reliant for their place in Parliament solely on the electoral seat of the guy they plotted against as the party didn’t reach the 5% threshold. For that, the coup plotters deserve a slight fail. It would certainly have made a Constitutional sensation if there was a lost by-election and a Party was left with 4 MP’s having neither breached the 5% threshold or won an electorate seat. I can’t find out through internet resources as to what the outcome of that would actually be. A snap election with National polling on 60% the most likely outcome in hindsight.

For those who wonder, the ACT List MPs would remain in Parliament even if there was a by-election and ACT lost Epsom to National.

While Sir Roger is around he is a constant nuisance for anyone leading the Party. Heather Roy needed Sir Roger Douglas as co-leader or supporter as much as a hooker needs genital herpes to perform her job.

Heh Cactus has such a lovely turn of phrase.

All I have to say on the conclusion of the matter is that the coup plotters must now all fall on their swords, resign as MP’s and let the next candidates on the list: Hilary Calvert, Peter Tashkoff and John Ormond have a turn. I have no idea how any of those three would run as MP’s versus Boscawen, Douglas and Roy but anything must be better than a trio of turkeys who voted for an early Christmas. No idea what happened with David Garrett but one gives him the benefit of the doubt that he may very well have been at the pub at the time of the plotting.

Heh. I suspect Cactus is not the only ACT member upset with those Caucus members who thought a coup which would result in ACT ending up out of Parliament next election was a good idea.

Whale chips in:

Cactus is right when she says that the only thing worse than a leadership coup in a small party is a failed leadership coup. Especially so when you only need to get three out of five. …

Well traitors are traitors and there is only one solution. Death. I don’t mean physical death, I mean political death. The three of them are List MPs and the party could quite easily give them all the boot. …

I won’t repeat Whale’s suggested punishment for the person who leaked the putsch to the media!

The Herald has a stunning story:

Act founder Sir Roger Douglas, with deputy leader and Consumer Affairs Minister Heather Roy, is understood to have led moves in the party against Mr Hide during the controversy over the international travel costs of his partner.

The Act board was told the caucus had issues over the leadership, and a special caucus meeting was called for November 22.

Some people in ACT must have a suicide wish. While Rodney did make an error of judgement with his trip (which he apologised for), ACT only survive in Parliament because he holds Epsom. If Rodney goes, then in all probability ACT will be booted out of Parliament at the next election.

Mr Key is understood to have learned about the moves against Mr Hide shortly before that – between his return from Apec in Singapore and his trip to Trinidad for the Commonwealth summit.

He told Mrs Roy that if Mr Hide were removed from the leadership, her own ministerial position would be in jeopardy.

It was naive to think a leadership change would have no impact. When National changed leaders in 1997, Winston approached Helen Clark and asked if she would be interested in forming a Government.

And it is believed that at the height of controversies in the two support parties – the Act leadership and the Maori Party’s turmoil over MP Hone Harawira – Mr Key briefly considered a snap election to gain National an outright majority.

Hell, that will send the 2010 election stock on iPredict upwards!

No Right Turn has his normal useful summary of new proposed private member bills:

KiwiSaver (Contribution Flexibility) Amendment Bill (John Boscawen): amends the KiwiSaver Act 2006 to add 6% and 10% contribution rates to the existing 2%, 4%, and 8% rates, improving flexibility for older earners close to retirement and young, high-income earners.

Can’t see anyone objecting to that except the computer programmers at IRD!

Tariff Act Repeal Bill (Roger Douglas): does exactly what it says on the label: repeals the Tariff Act 1988. In the 90’s National legislated to phase out all tariffs by 2006, but this was reversed by Labour in 2000 in the name of protecting local industry. Tariffs have remained fixed at their 2000 rates ever since. And so we pay an extra 26.5% for imported footwear, 18% for imported cane baskets, and 12.5% for imported skateboards (the full list is here), either as some sort of “luxury tax” or to protect businesses which can’t compete in a global marketplace.

ACT is putting its money where its mouth is on free trade here, and challenging the government (which supports the status quo) to move further to the right.

Good God it almost sounds like NRT approves. Well I certainly do. National recently froze tariffs in place until 2015. I’d love it if this bill was drawn out, as I think quite a few National MPs would want to vote for it.

Victims’ Rights (Victim Impact Statements) Amendment Bill (David Garrett): would amend the Victim’s Rights Act 2002 to prevent the courts from “censoring” victim impact statements. At present, such statements are limited to the actual impact upon the victim; Garrett’s bill – driven by the recent Weatherston case – would give victims free rein to vent their spleen against the offender and the justice system. Such material has no place in sentencing, and no place in our justice system; if they want to say it, then there is no reason why they should be given a privileged platform in a court to do so.

Simon Power has said he will be proposing a law change in this area, so it will be interesting to see how that compares to the status quo, and what Garrett proposes.

There’s an old saying – when it rains, it pours. Rodney Hide will will it has poured all week. The SST sums up the week:

Hide is under assault on all fronts – voters, the media and now his government colleagues – after one of his worst weeks in politics.

Hide’s horror seven days has been entirely self-inflicted. First he was publicly exposed as a hypocrite for taking advantage of a perk he once campaigned strongly to abolish: taking his girlfriend, Louise Crome, on a round-the-world trip, visiting London, Toronto, Portland and Los Angeles. He defended it on the grounds that he did not spend as much time as he would like with Crome and that he had to work with the system, even though he disagreed with it.

They cover the jibe about Key, the Hawaii trip etc etc.

Rodney will be kicking himself. There can be little doubt there has been damage to both Rodney’s brand and ACT’s brand.

But when you fuck up, there’s only one response. Learn from the fuck up, buckle down, and get back to work.

I think the National-led Government is all the stronger for the inclusion of both ACT and the Maori Party, despite the tensions that arise from varied personalities, policies and priorities.

Bryce Edwards reviews ACT’s 2008 election campaign.

Why do so many people who complain that ACT got five seats in Parliament on only 3.65% of the vote, never complain that the Maori Party got five seats in Parliament on 2.39% of the vote?

People often advocate that a party should not be eligible to gain List MPs if they get under 5%, due to winning an electorate seat. But I would say the overhang issue is a more serious problem.

John Armstrong touches on a number of issues:

No matter what spin the anti-smacking brigade puts on last week’s referendum, the result is still mind-boggling. …

The assumption of voter ignorance is the typical sort of patronising claptrap used by the liberal elites to conveniently explain away something that disturbs their comfort zones. …

Ditto with the smacking referendum. Voters understood exactly what they were doing. Politicians ignore the outcome at their peril.

There is a huge disconnect between the so called liberal elite and the rest of NZ on this issue. Armstrong is right – people knew exactly what they were voting for. This is an issue that has had two years plus of public debate.

Those in National’s senior ranks are most definitely taking note. The highest “no” votes were registered in provincial and rural seats held by that party.

Once it was clear that the turnout was going to be much higher than predicted, the Prime Minister ensured he had a response prepared. This amounted to more monitoring of the existing law to ensure it is working as intended.

That was obviously not going to satisfy the referendum’s organisers, who were seeking the repeal of the relevant section of the Crimes Act.

While Sue Bradford’s amended initiative remains the law, National has taken on board the message from the referendum that voters are drawing a line in the sand against any more measures which might be termed liberal, socially progressive or nanny state-ish.

I remain unconvinced that this will be enough. I think it will remain an issue until the law is amended.

And I don’t think one should include “socially progressive” in the same sentence as “nanny state”. Certainly some people are against both, but I see de-criminalising prostitution (or more correctly solicitation) as the exact opposite of nanny state.

In marked contrast, National’s reform agenda for the economy and social service delivery is meeting little resistance. For example, Bill English has now mentioned on several occasions three dreaded words that usually spell political death – “capital gains tax” – without his world caving in.

That is not to say the Finance Minister is about to bring in such a tax.

But the lack of opposition is emboldening the Government to move faster on the economic front than it might otherwise have done, another example being National’s willingness to allow mining of minerals on parts of the Department of Conservation estate.

I am pleased that National is showing signs that the status quo will not deliver the economy we need.

If nothing else, the politics surrounding the latter is proof there is a God – and that he or she has a wicked sense of humour.

How else to explain the private member’s bill promoted by Act’s John Boscawen, which allows parents to give their child a “light” smack for corrective purposes, making it onto Parliament’s order paper for debate.

The odds on the measure securing the sole spot available were a staggering 28-1 against. Beating those odds in the ballot of private member’s bills – plus the timing just days after the referendum result – suggested divine intervention.

I joked to a Christian lobbyist after the bill was drawn, that perhaps this does show that God is indeed on their side

National is relaxed about Act getting a pay-off in the polls from Hide appearing principled by saying he would resign his Local Government portfolio rather than steer legislation through Parliament with which he could not agree.

Act has struggled to register above 1.5 per cent support since the election, while backing for National is up to 10 percentage points higher than the party got at the ballot box last year.

While Act appears to have decided to be less supine in its four-way relationship with National, the Maori Party and United Future, it has to ensure it does not overreach itself and become the docked tail wagging a very large National dog.

Most in National would like ACT to be close to 5% than 1%. And again to be fair to Rodney he did not publicise his stance on resigning over the Maori Seats. Whomever leaked the Tau Henare e-mail did that.

National ultimately holds the whip hand. Act’s survival as a parliamentary party rests on Hide holding his Epsom seat. National has no qualms about reminding him that it retains the right to select a quality candidate and make a proper fight of it in the electorate.

Hide’s threat to resign his portfolios is akin to the Black Knight’s sword fight with King Arthur in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. As Arthur hacks off the Black Knight’s limbs one-by-one, the latter insists his wounds are nothing more than a scratch and suggests the pair call it a draw.

Again I think it is fair to stress Rodney did not want this made public. But having been made public, is is true that there is limited room to take such a firm stance again without a degree of backlash.

If there is a lesson to be drawn from the Byzantine nature of MMP politics, it is not to view an argument over something like the non-establishment of Maori seats in isolation. The Maori Party has been the loser in that instance, it should be the winner elsewhere, thereby reinforcing its current inclination to stick with National.

The review of the foreshore and seabed law will see it emerge the winner when it comes to concessions.

I have blogged previously that by 2011 the Maori Party will probably have a fairly impressive list of achievements or wins. And what will be more remarkable is all of them were gained voluntarily – National could have governed without them.

How nice to see disagreeing parties acting maturely on the issue of Maori seats on the proposed Auckland Council.

ACT are firmly against Maori seats and Rodney Hide has said:

Mr Hide said he told Mr Key: “Just to be absolutely clear, you have got our support for supply and confidence but as a minister, as the Act leader, I couldn’t be responsible for introducing to the House a bill that would have reserve seats in it.”

And that is fair enough that you can’t expect a Minister to introduce a bill if they are opposed to a major section of it. But there is no NZ First type talk of walking away from Government if they do not get their way.

And the Maori Party are being equally mature:

Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia said last night that she was disappointed at Mr Hide’s position but her party’s support for the Government would not change. “We always knew when we went into this arrangement with National that there would be issues that would take us right to the wire and this is one of them.

“But we have no intentions of withdrawing support for the Government and we have no intention of withdrawing our ministerial roles. That’s not what we went into the relationship for.”

It is inevitable that the Maori Party and ACT are not going to agree on everything, and that whatever National decides will disappoint one of them on this issue.

I believe the solution is easy, and has always been there. Parliament should not decide for Aucklanders whether or not to have Maori seats on the Auckland Council. The Local Government and Electoral Acts allows local voters to decide this by way of referendum. If Aucklanders wants Maori seats on the Auckland Council, they should petition for them (only needs 5%) and gain a majority in the referendum. Having Wellington impose Maori seats on Auckland is a very different issues to having Auckland decide for itself whether or not it wants Maori seats.

Heather Roy publishes a list of all bills up for a vote this week, a summary of the bill, its pros and cons, and how ACT will vote on it.

This is great transparency and I would encourage all parties to do this.

I do have one question though. Heather describes the Road User Amendment Bill as:

This Bill will exempt light electric motor vehicles from road user chargers. The hope is that an exemption will encourage the uptake of such vehicles to slowly improve the efficiency of the motor vehicle fleet, decrease reliance on fossil fuels, improve energy security, and reduce vehicle emissions to improve air quality and greenhouse gas levels. If we accept that electric cars provide a net environmental “good”, this is a commonsense (and relatively low-cost) measure to increase uptake. The other positive aspect is that the Bill will provide for 42 days notice of an increase in road user charges.

I was amused to then see ACT is voting against the bill, after describing it so positively.

So are some “cons” missing from the summary, or has ACT described how it will vote incorrectly?

UPDATE: ACT are voting for it. It was a typo

While there are plenty of areas of disagreement, I find it interesting how cordial relations are between not just the Maori Party and National, but also with ACT.

Look at this speech from Tariana Turia:

Winston Churchill and Rodney Hide have something in common, apart from looks, (although Rodney is actually in better shape).

It was Churchill who famously said, “If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law.”

Almost eighty years later, Mr Hide has introduced a Bill to do something for once and for all to address the duplication, gaps, errors and inconsistencies that make a mockery of our law.

Tariana also reminds us of their policies:

It is great to see the Act Party going to such steps to implement Maori Party policy.

We campaigned last election on a commitment to supporting the growth and sustainability of small businesses.

We committed to reducing the tax of businesses with a net income of $100,000 or less, from 33% to 25%.

You agree to disagree in the areas you disagree, and make progress in the areas you do agree.

ACT have put up six of these billboards, playing on the Labour ones.

The law passed last night by 62 votes to 59. If Helen Clark was still an MP it would have been 62 – 60. ACT had three MPs (Hide, Boscawen and Garrett) vte in favour and two (Roy and Douglas) vote against.

I’m not convinced the new law will be effective, and I also think criminalising people for what they wear, rather than what they do, is the start of a potentially slippery slope.

However this has been a law strongly sought by the Wanganui District Council, and most of the people who live there. Parliament has a tradition of agreeing to most local bills.

It will be interesting to see how the law works in practice.

First some stats:

• National’s party vote in Mt Albert was only 35.7% – 4.4% lower than any seat National did win.
• Clark’s majority of 10,351 is the third largest of seats not held by National – only Epsom and Manukau East are higher
• The combined party vote for the left (L/G/P) was 54.3%, for the centre (NZF/M/U) 4.1% and for the right (N/A) was 39.2%
• The combined party vote for the right is the 9th lowest out of 63 general seats. For the left their party vote is the 9th highest out of 63 general seats.
• Seats with a smaller gap between right and left are Mana, Wigram, Hutt South and New Lynn

Mt Albert is fundamentally a leftwing seat. This does not mean it is impossible for National to win it, but the focus purely on National vs Labour party vote is misleading.

Also at the end of the day, while the party vote is the best primary indicator of support, this is a winner take all electorate vote contest and we will see tactical voting on the right and left. So how might we calculate how thinsg look. Let us start with 2008 party vote:

1. Labour 14,894 or 42.6%
2. National 12,468 or 35.7%
3. Green 3,846 or 11.0%
4. ACT 1,227 or 3.5%

Now let us adjust these for movement since the election, taking the Curia public poll average:

1. Labour has gone from 34.0% to 30.8% – a relative decrease of 9.4%
2. National has gone from 44.9% to 53.1% – increase 18.2%
3. Green has gone from 6.7% to 7.5% – increase of 11.6%
4. ACT has gone from 3.6% to 2.5% – decrease of 31.4%

So applying this to the party vote, we get

1. Labour 13,497
2. National 14,735
3. Green 4,291
4. ACT 841

So does this mean National is in the lead? Well hold off. Because this is an FPP electorate contest and minor party voters vote tactically. How did votes split their votes in 2008? We can’t use Mt Albert as an example, as that was influenced by the Clark factor. So let us use the overall vote splitting for general seats. This tells us:

1. Green party voters voted 33.9% Green candidate and 47.9% Labour candidate and 10.9% National candidate
2. ACT party voters voted 16.4% ACT candidate, 4.8% Labour candidate and 73.1% National.

What does this then give us:

1. Labour 15,593
2. National 15,818

So on these calculations, it is within 250 votes. But then you look at more qualative factors:

1. Shearer is the only non List MP who can say I will not be in Parliament if you do not vote for me. I think this is easily worth 2,000 votes.
2. Despite high honeymoon polls, there is little reason for people to give the Government an additional seat – no Government has won a by-election for at least 70 years. It is hard to excite pro-Govt supporters to get out and vote as they no this won’t change anything – worth around 1,000 votes
3. Greens and ACT will be mounting vigorous campaigns. As the Greens have more voters to appeal to, I would say this could knock 1,000 votes off Labour and 500 votes off National, so a net loss to Labour of 500
4. Labour’s on the ground organisation in Mt Albert should be worth at least 500 votes
5. Shearer will appeal to some centre-right voters with his backgroudn and views – again maybe 500 votes.

So add all these factors up and I’d say they give Labour an extra 3,500 votes or so, which if nothing else happens would have them win the seat by around 3,250 votes.

Now it is never this simple. Events will occur that change this. But at this stage what I think it shows is that yes it is possible National could win the seat with a very narrow 250 vote majority, but more likely Labour holds on with 3,000 or so votes.

What will be the events that can change this? Well polls and tactical voting. If a poll shows National and Labour neck and neck, and Greens well back, then the Green vote may collapse to Shearer. But likewise if a poll shows the Greens at over 15%, maybe even 20% – then they could make a strong play for Labour voters to vote Greens to give Labour a guaranteed future coalition partner (Labour can probably never govern again without the Greens).

Let the campaigns begin!

Heather Roy (ACT’s Whip) has a useful feature on her website called “In the House“.

Heather lists every bill due to be voted on that week, a short summary of it, what reading it is and how ACT are voting.

Every party should be doing this!

The Herald reports:

The Act MP who designed the proposed three strikes law says National has expanded it to include offences like bestiality in a “Machiavellian” attempt to make it look unworkable.

National has toughened the law by adding 20 crimes like bestiality, incest and acid throwing to the list of “strike offences” that could see a repeat offender sentenced to life imprisonment with a 25-year non-parole period.

But hardline Act MP David Garrett said many of the new offences arguably did not justify a life sentence and were possibly an attempt to undermine three strikes.

“It may be a Machiavellian move by National designed to sink the three strikes provision. Many will say incest, for example, while a deeply unpleasant offence, should not be a reason to send someone to jail for 25 years.”

Good to see there is agreement on that. But I don’t think it is so much designed to undermine three strikes, as that National is focused on the second strike – what offences should mean you do not get parole if you get a second conviction of over five years.

Justice Minister Simon Power said Act had actually agreed to the expanded list of offences.

Mr Power said the list was designed to fulfil National’s own parole policy, which would deny parole to those convicted of a violent offence punishable by five years or more if they had committed a similar offence before.

Mr Power said when three strikes was merged into the bill, “as part of that process Act offered to adopt our list of offences, and we accepted.”

The problem faced here is that you want the second strike (no parole) to cover a much wider range of offences than the third strike (life with no parole for 25 years at least) because the third strike is so severe.

I think there is a workable solution to this, that also overcomes some of the Bill of Rights issues around someone given a 25+ year sentence for an offence that normally has a maximum sentence of say 10 years.

I would change the third strike from life (with no parole for at least 25 years) to being the maximum penalty set down for that offence (with no parole if a finite term).

So what you would have at each stage

1. Normal sentencing and normal parole
2. Normal sentencing and no parole
3. Maximum sentence and no parole

What are the maximum sentences for the various crimes that National wants included:

• Sexual violation – 20 years
• murder – life (so non parole of at least 25 years on 3rd strike)
• attempted murder – 14 years
• manslaughter – life (so non parole of at least 25 years on 3rd strike)
• wounding/injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm
• aggravated wounding/injury – 14 years
• aggravated assault – 3 years
• assault on a child – 2 years
• cruelty to a child – 5 years
• using a firearm against a law enforcement officer – 14 years
• committing a crime with a firearm – 10 years
• Compelling indecent act with animal – 14 years
• incest – 10 years
• acid throwing – 14 years
• robbery – 10 years
• aggravated burglary – 14 years
• kidnapping – 14 years
• indecent assault  – 7 years
• attempted sexual connection with a family member who is under 18 – 7 years
• abduction for purposes of marriage or sexual connection – 14 years

This would still provide for very harsh penalties for the third strike, but would not treat murder the same as wounding. Take rape as an example.

The starting point for rape (off memory) set by the Court of Appeal is seven years. So a rape with no aggravating factors would get seven years and with parole the rapist would be out in four years and eight months.

Now if he raped again, the court might give him ten years for the second strike. And no parole means he would serve ten years – double the first strike.

And if he raped a third time, when it is an automatic maximun penalty of 20 years with no parole.

Of course he might get preventative detention also, but that is not guaranteed.

I think this would be a win win. ACT still gets a three strikes law and a major win. The Bill of Rights issues over getting 25 years for an offence set down in statute as having a maximum sentence of say 10 years are dealt with, and most importantly hardcore repeat offenders stay behind bars for much much longer.

John Armstrong looks at ACT:

As one longstanding party insider attending Act’s weekend conference put it, the party is no longer in need of life support. It is no longer even in intensive care. It is somewhere short of full recovery, however.

Though the two-day conference justifiably celebrated the party’s resurrection from near oblivion in 2005 to holding ministerial portfolios in 2009, there was no smugness.

Instead, the conference exhibited a healthy realism, knowing Act’s condition could easily slip backwards again just as quickly.

Sadly the track record of support parties is not good.

The sternest warning came from the party’s deputy leader, Heather Roy, who said as gratifying as it was to have made such progress, the party’s biggest challenges had just begun.

“We must re-establish our political relevance every single day,” she told Saturday’s session, referring to the party’s need to constantly lift its profile and maintain its separate identity and not be suffocated by National in the present governing arrangement.

Indeed. And John Key’s tilts to the centre give ACT lots of room on the right. Rodney’s portfolios also give ACT a real opportunity to score some wins.

Act’s entry into what Hide describes as the “death zone” consequently saw the conference focus heavily on political marketing and branding, with an analysis of post-election candidate interviews and voter focus-group research presented by Auckland University academic Jennifer Lees-Marshment.

Hmmn I’d like to see that presentation.

She emphasised the party needed to switch to “permanent campaign mode” now rather than waiting until election year.

Act needed a strategy that included effective communication of what it was delivering policy-wise and emphasising those achievements had been gained only because Act was part of the governing arrangement.

She said the party should revisit its pre-election 20-point plan and possibly launch an updated version. The party needed to be open and honest when it was unable to deliver on expectations.

Sensible.

There was talk of Act softening its image to broaden its appeal to women and younger voters, and appealing to voters’ hearts as much as their heads.

In short, Act needed to display “emotional appeal”, rather than just cold hard logic, to win over voters.

In essence, it was suggested Act should be somewhat akin to the Greens, such that people could empathise with the sentiment expressed through the party’s brand even if they did not agree with all of its policies.

Yeah the Greens do this well – most support is for their brand, not their policies. I mean after all surely 7% of NZers don’t really want to ban 86 different things on the Greens ban list.

The Herald reports:

Act’s MPs will be allowed to vote according to their consciences on all pieces of legislation rather than being obliged to stick to the agreed position of their five-member caucus.

The only parliamentary votes where an Act MP will be obliged to follow the party line is on confidence and supply measures where National is guaranteed Act’s total backing by virtue of the support agreement between the two parties.

Less party whipping is a good thing in my opinion.

The decision to allow a free vote could potentially block some pieces of Government legislation if the Act caucus is split.

National has 58 seats in the 122-seat Parliament and needs four votes from other parties to pass measures.

Assuming a “no” vote from Opposition parties, Government legislation would fail if two Act MPs were opposed, along with the Government’s other support partners, the Maori Party and United Future MP Peter Dunne.

It may pose some problems, but it can also work the other way. There could be issues where most ACT MPs are oppossed, but this will allow some ACT MPs to vote in favour.

In a reference to Winston Peters and NZ First, and Jim Anderton and the Alliance, he said: “We do it that way because we have seen what happens to third parties with leaders who just dictate their party’s vote. Those leaders end up thinking they are the party, and those parties don’t last.”

Indeed they don’t. Some people probably don’t recall that outraegous day when Jim Anderton declared the Alliance must hand him absolute power or he will leave. And well in NZ First, they don’t even get to know abotu the bank accounts.

John Armstrong covers the divisions within ACT over their u-turn to support the gang patch ban bill:

All such talk of free expression seemed to have been conveniently put to one side last week, however, as Act executed a 180 degree about turn and voted for a private member’s bill banning gang members from wearing their patches in public areas within the boundaries of Wanganui city – a bill Hide had previously described as “rubbish”.

The concession was made in the hope of securing a far bigger gain – passage of Act’s “three strikes and you’re out” bill. However, this pragmatic decision to back the gang patches bill promoted by the National MP Chester Borrows has been greeted with dismay by some party members.

Angry responses have been posted on blog sites from activists saying they did not stuff envelopes or knock on doors during the election campaign to see the party backing laws curbing individual rights – be they those of ordinary citizens, gang members or whomever.

And some of those activists have bene involved since the beginning.

Act is hoping that its voting for Borrows’ bill will make National – and particularly the more liberal-inclined Justice Minister Simon Power – look more kindly at the part of the new Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill which is Act policy.

In its current state, the bill is an amalgam of both parties’ positions. They are reasonably compatible when it comes to sentencing someone convicted of a first or second violent offence. Where Act and National differ markedly is in the case of someone committing a third such offence.

Under Act’s provisions, a violent offender would go to jail for 25 years minimum without parole full stop. National’s position is less severe in allowing judges to exercise discretion.

Armstrong is one of the few to catch on that the difference between National and ACT is only at the third strike.

Armstrong concludes:

A high-profile measure of that added-value will be the wording in the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill when it emerges from Parliament’s select committee.

If the bill shows National has heeded the wishes of its support partner to some degree, then trampling over the rights of gang members in Wanganui will be seen by most, though not all, of those in Act to have been fully justified.

There will be pressure for there to be some sort of compromise between National and ACT on what happens with a third strike.