Kiwiblog

Duncan Garner, Fran O’Sullivan and John Amrstrong all write on Labour this weekend.

First Duncan:

Dissent. Uprisings. Rebellion. Scraps. Blood.

It was something Helen Clark kept a careful lid on. 

Not even on her weakest day or in a moment of madness would Clark have given up control of who picks the leader of the proud Labour Party – never, ever.

Caucus must control its own destiny.

What happened last Saturday would never have happened under Clark’s strong leadership. Now the Labour leader can get rolled and rolled easily.

If a minority of 13 other MPs out of 34 decide to support Grant Robertson or David Cunliffe next February, then that triggers a party wide vote.

Actually I think it is even worse than that. I have not seen the final rule, but I don’t think a contender even needs to challenge. The vote is basically just a confidence vote in the Leader. Someone could just quietly encourage 14 MPs to vote no, and bang there is a leadership ballot – and only then do contenders have t step forward.

During that vote, party members get a 40 percent say and unions get a 20 percent say. You reckon they’ll hang on to David Shearer in that scenario? Doubt it. And it’s like that every three years.

If Shearer lost the Feb caucus vote, I don’t think he would even contest the party wide ballot. He’d be impotent in Parliament while he has to fight a rearguard action to stay on as Leader. I think he would bow out.

The February following each election, Labour will be able to boot out their sitting leader – that leader may have just months earlier been crowned Prime Minister.

So when you vote for Labour, you don’t know who you will end up with as PM.

It’s a recipe for instability. Quite frankly it’s a disaster, a train-wreck waiting to happen. …

If the 40 percent caucus vote and 40 percent party member vote cancels each other out – i.e the caucus wants a change but the party members don’t, then guess who has the casting vote?

The unions. They get 20 percent.

Could the unions select the next Prime Minister? Yes. Could they dump a sitting Prime Minister just two or three months after they took office?Yes.

By this move, Labour have become even more subservient to the unions.

And now Fran O’Sullivan:

Four days on from Cunliffe’s execution, there is little sign that Shearer is on top of his game.

His post-caucus press conference was a bumbling, mumbling mess which at times bordered on total incoherency.

It was a shocker.

It does not bode well for Labour to have its own leader so frightened of his own shadow that he has to banish one of his few competent colleagues to the back bench.

Unfortunately, Shearer was also simply not politically tough enough, nor sufficiently competent and astute, to have pulled off the accommodation that Australian Liberal Leader Tony Abbott made with potential rival Malcolm Turnbull this week to position his party to win the next Australian federal election.

I blogged on this yesterday. A much smarter way to handle a more popular rival.

In Shearer’s case he does not have the skill to bring off an accommodation with Cunliffe. (Though in months to come he may wish he had gone down that path instead of listening to the caucus players who want the New Lynn MP buried at all costs).

The old guard remain in charge.

And John Armstrong pulls no punches:

Barmy, loopy, stupid, crazy. Last weekend’s Labour Party conference had so much political madness on and off the conference floor that the proceedings could well have been deemed certifiable.

The handful of MPs who tried to talk sense into delegates may agree – particularly on the vexed question of how high to set the bar before a leadership ballot involving the whole party membership is triggered.

The MPs’ advice was not only ignored, they were shouted down. The rank-and-file saw things very differently. The rewrite of the party’s constitution was giving them a rare whiff of grass-roots democracy. They were not about to say “no thanks” even if their votes were being manipulated for nefarious reasons.

All I’ll say is I can’t see National rushing off to make similar changes.

I guess in Labour the desire for more of a say is understandable, as members have traditionally only a very weak say in even electorate selections.

From now on, the leader will be subject to a post-election endorsement vote by the caucus which must take place no later than three months after polling day.

Failure by a leader to secure more than 60 per cent backing from his or her colleagues will trigger a leadership vote involving the whole party.

The upshot is National will spend the election campaign delightedly claiming the Labour leader cannot guarantee he or she will still be in charge three months after the election.

Moreover, the new method of electing the leader gives a slice of the action to affiliated trade unions. You can imagine how National will exploit that.

Oh, yes.

I actually the the principle of giving members a say is laudable. But giving unions 20% of the vote is not far off organised corruption (just look at the Australian unions for examples of what they do with the extra power) and having a threshold below 50% for a challenge is silly.

When they were not naively setting things up to the advantage of the old enemy, delegates occupied themselves with such pressing matters as lowering the voting age to 16 – something for which there is absolutely no demand – and ordering school boards of trustees to let same-sex couples attend school balls.

Then there was the remit requiring 50 per cent gender equality among officials on the party’s electorate committees.

When it was pointed out that most committees had three officials, the conference determined that an extra position such as an assistant treasurer could be created.

Staggering. Their solution is to create an extra unneeded role, just so there is prefect gender equality on a committee. They have effectively outlawed a committee having an add number of members!

This kind of nonsense shows that political correctness is alive and well in Labour.

It speaks of a party that is out of touch with mainstream New Zealand. And it speaks of a leader who has no control over his party.

Where was the strategy for the conference?

The other casualty of what John Key describes as the now very “public war” within Labour is the party’s ability to project unity and stability.

That is a serious handicap for Labour, which may well have to patch together some kind of governing arrangement which accommodates the reforming zeal of the Greens and the reactionary predilections of New Zealand First.

Think if they were to form a Government. They’d first have to get agreement between the internal factions in Labour, and then with the Greens, and then with NZ First and maybe then with Mana also. If another financial crisis struck, it would probably take a month to even make a decision!

Had a fun night Wed night at farewell drinks for 3 News Political Editor Duncan Garner. Somewhat unfortunately I had an early flight to Dunedin Thu morning!

Duncan started in Parliament around a year before I did, in 1995. He was an intern for One News, and Linda Clark was his boss. Linda was at the function and spoke very fondly of Duncan, and how she feels part of the Garner family, especially as Duncan’s father would call her up on a regular basis to see how he was going. In turn Duncan credits Linda for teaching him so well.

When Duncan started at Parliament, he had a large female fan club. A certain young ACT activist (who I shall not name, but she now has a popular blog) was founder and president of his fan club. Her crush on him bordered on the obsessional

Back in the 1990s, National had some legendary caucus parties twice a year . I know, as I used to organise many of them. Sadly these have almost disappeared, which is a pity. People need to unwind.

There is a very well known story (and yes I have Duncan’s permission to retell it) about Duncan at one of these parties. A number of us observed he was getting on very well with an attractive ministerial staffer whom we will call C. At some stage after midnight they disappeared. The party wound down around 4 am.

Anyway around 9 am the next morning C turned up to the Research Unit, lifted up the back of her top and proclaimed “Look what Duncan did to me”. Her back looked like it had been flayed by a Roman centurion. In fact it was carpet burns from umm activities on the floor of her Minister’s office. It seems they couldn’t even wait to get to someone’s home! Even more amusing was being told how when they left the office, they discovered the parliamentary cleaners patiently waiting outside to clean the office.

Now of course an occasion like this is too good not to hassle a mate, so I called his extension. His boss Linda Clark answered and said he wasn’t in yet. I said I’d ring back later. Linda asked if she could help (in case it was some political story I had for them). I said nah it wasn’t political, I was just ringing Duncan to hassle him. Linda without pause immediately exclaimed “What was her name David”. I laughed at Linda’s perceptiveness but refused to say or give any details. But being interrogated by Linda is like surviving the Spanish Inquisition, and on her fifth demand I relented and just said “Just tell Duncan he gave the poor girl carpet burns”. Linda shrieked with delight and hung up.

She must have done some detective work and found out C’s name. And then around 10 am Duncan staggered into the gallery. Now bear in mind he had only parted company with C a few hours earlier so you can feel for him to have Linda bellow down the corridor so the whole gallery can hear “Duncan Garner, you gave that poor girl C carpet burns over her entire back”. Duncan is stunned at how Linda could know this just hours after the event.

Linda’s protection of sources doesn’t extend to dishing dirt on Duncan, so later that day Duncan was very grumpy with me, and right up until the farewell was referring to me being to blame! My defence was Linda forced it out of me (plus no way it was going to stay a secret as a dozen people had seen the carpet burns).

Duncan was also well known for his suits, to the extent that even the President of the United States complimented him on them. His drinking ability has also been described by Michelle Hewitson.

But it is unfair to Duncan to portray him as a party boy. Over his 15 years in Parliament, he became an incredibly talented journalist and political editor.  He broke major stories on John Tamihere’s golden handshake, the Kees Keizer secret tapes and many more, picking up awards on the way.

Duncan, and his padawan Paddy Gower, both are hard hitters. They go hard on National and they go hard with Labour. I recall people in National slating Duncan over the Kees Keizer tapes, and then people in Labour doing the same over his revelations about the ABC faction. Duncan is one of those journalists for which I have absolutely no idea how he would vote in an election – if he votes at all. That is a good thing.

He understands Parliament very well – that it is a place of both policy and politics. He showed on The Nation that he can do policy well also.  The gallery will be the worse for losing him, but not bad to get out after 17 years and not yet be 40!

A number of people spoke at his farewell, including Gerry Brownlee. We heard a very funny story of how Duncan and Gerry were once out in town together, and someone came up to Gerry and called him Jonathan Hunt

Duncan has always enjoyed the blogs. He’s resisted the urge to jump into the comments himself, but would often call me and say “Wow, so and so is not a fan of me are they”. He knew his style had fans and critics, but never let it get to him.

So thanks for the good times Duncan. You’re a good bloke, and hopefully you can get Radio Live listeners into double figures!

3 News Political Editor Duncan Garner blogs:

Labour promised an exciting back story that would impress and a new front man to rival the Prime Minister.

Sadly for Labour – they’re still looking for that person. David Shearer has failed. Labour’s lucky it’s not getting done under the law for false advertising.

Let’s be honest, Labour leader David Shearer doesn’t have it. He’s a nice, mild mannered, likeable, warm but a stuttering, incoherent mess that is the opposite of what an alternative Prime Minister should look like.

And before you say ‘give him some time’, he’s had a year and I think he’s gone backwards – not forwards.

He has no presence and his television performances are a disaster. That’s where voters make up their minds.

However Labour is up in the polls from the election.

The reason Shearer remains safe is disingenuous and it’s time to call it.

Labour MPs believe Grant Robertson is perhaps the next leader, but they don’t believe he’s quite ready – nor do they want to install a gay leader just yet. It shouldn’t be an issue – but it always is.

That’s why he remains the deputy. He knows politics is all about timing. Shearer has become the fall guy. Like Phil Goff was. It’s dishonest.

I think that is basically correct in that Robertson will be the next Leader, beating out Cunliffe and possibly Little. It could be messy though as Auckland Labour people are not that keen on their local guy being passed over in favour.

Duncan then tells a story about how strong the paranoia is about Cunliffe in Labour:

I tried to get a Labour face on TV this week to talk about capital gains taxes. I approached Shearer who was in Hokitika and too far away, David Parker in Dunedin and Cunliffe in Auckland.

Cunliffe was the easiest to get hold of. But, without naming names, the hoopla I was put through before he was ‘allowed’ on TV was fascinating. Even Cunliffe was nervous – but keen.

It took six hours of negotiating to get him on. It was quite simply, outrageous. It took me one text to get Russel Norman on the telly. It took two phone calls to get the Prime Minister to agree to a one-on-one interview.

So just two phone calls to get the Prime Minister of the country on, and six hours of negotiations to get the Opposition Economic Development Spokesperson?

Shearer has been promoted above what he’s capable of in my view.

I’m sure he’s entirely capable behind the scenes – you don’t do what he’s done by being stupid – but I’m just saying he’s not cut out for the hurly-burly, think-on-your-feet world of opposition politics. Robertson and Cunliffe are.

Shearer was handed the benefit of the doubt as pointed out by Gordon Campbell in a column this week and he’s failed to deliver on any of it.

For my 2c I think Shearer’s problem is more than he hasn’t been able to stamp a policy direction on the party. Even his own spokespersons contradict him.

Put simply, Shearer does not look, act or sound like a man ready to take over the Treasury benches and drive New Zealand out of this recession. The voters see it.

They see a Labour Party unconvinced and confused by their own choice. Until that changes, Labour will stay in opposition.

Possibly, but the current Government only has a one seat majority, without the Maori Party. Labour could well end up in Government, even if they are unconvinced and confused.

I’ve embedded below a column by 3 News Political Editor Duncan Garner on David Shearer and the Labour leadership. He concludes that Shearer is not up to the job, and that David Cunliffe should be made leader. Some quotes:

Shearer is a hell of a nice guy…Labour picked him to be like John Key. But he can’t out-Key Key…The public doesn’t know what he stands for or against. He struggles to articulate himself….and in my opinion he’s largely botched his honeymoon….It’s become clear too that Shearer divides not only Labour’s caucus, but its membership too. He’s neither steeped inLabour Party knowldge or history.

Labour needs to take it to Key in 2013 and 2014, and Shearer hasn’t really kicked in. How would Cunliffe be any different? Substantially I think. He’s enormously articulate and can present an alternative vision. But there’s an element of fear within the caucus. A number of the more mature MPs fear Cunliffe will demote them and it will be the end of their careers. That’s why he is bad-mouthed so often. Some of those MPs need to go. Their time is up.

None of this should stop the caucus. .. The leadership of the party if too important for personal agenda to get in the way right now.

The other leadership options are either not ready or aren’t up to it: Grant Robertson: Ambitious? Yes. Ready? No. He’s best to bide his time. To be brutal, Key will wipe the floor with the Wellington Central MP. His time will come. But his immeditate elevation will not bring back the provinces. Jacinda Ardern: Way too early. Out of her depth as it is. David Parker: Get real. Andrew Little: Should put his name forward.

The quotes are from Twisted Hive.

Garner on Shearer

His call for some of Labour’s senior MPs to go for the good of the party is correct, but I suspect unlikely to occur.

The column appeared in Wellington Magazine Fishhead.

3 News political editor Duncan Garner blogs:

The majority of Labour politicians clearly dislike David Cunliffe. With a passion. And with a serious degree of what now looks like hatred and mistrust.

That’s become so very clear to me this year – but even clearer since I released our 3 News poll on Sunday night.

I suggested David Shearer might be rolled before the next election if he couldn’t get his numbers up. And while not many in Labour denied that – they all said Cunliffe won’t replace him. Over their dead bodies.

This reflects that the anyone but Cunliffe faction in Labour is very real, and in fact a majority of the caucus.

In fact, Labour MPs have openly joked with me that Cunliffe, who is away on a lengthy family holiday overseas, should stay there.

Two very senior MPs have told me they would like an internal travel fund set up to keep Cunliffe out of the country for as long as possible. How nasty is this caucus? He is clearly not missed.

But Cunliffe is not only disliked by his caucus – he is not trusted. So many have told me he never delivers on his promises and is sneaky and lazy.

This is from his own colleagues. I don’t think Cunliffe is lazy incidentially.

Sources have told me Shearer was advised to demote him when he became Labour’s leader, but Shearer resisted and said he wanted to work with Cunliffe.

That hasn’t worked apparently – my sources tell me Shearer is deeply disappointed with Cunliffe and he feels let down. This relationship cannot last.

According to Shearer’s sources, the Labour leader no longer trusts Cunliffe. That view is shared by the majority of the caucus.

I suspect doing speeches on what Labour needs to do, and urging activists to lobby their leader doesn’t help.

I have no problem personally with Cunliffe. We have always got on. I couldn’t really understand why they didn’t opt for him. I do now.

He is not just disliked – he is actively campaigned against. He’s probably hanging around to see if Shearer fails – and he’ll have another go.

But perhaps he doesn’t realise just how many of his colleagues are blocking his progress.

I can’t see him being the leader of this party. Ever. You need friends in the Labour Party caucus to survive. Cunliffe can count his on one hand with ease – he may even have fingers left dangling.

If I was him I’d look for a new career. It’s clear there is an impenetrable roadblock between him and his aim of being party leader.

And they all sit in the same room as he does. This hatred has largely stayed out of the mass media to date. But this is a story worth telling. This is not a collision course for Cunliffe. He and the caucus have already collided – and it’s a big pile up.

The real question is – does he know how bad it is? And what will he do next?

I actually rate Cunliffe’s ability. He did some very good things as a Minister, and is seriously smart. But his relationship with his collegaues has always been tense. They gave him the silent T nickname within a year of him becoming an MP, and things have obviously got worse.

He has a staunch following in the party. Any move to demote or push him out would get resistance. A decision by him not to stand in 2014 would also be a vote of no confidence in Labour. It is difficult to see a way forward for Labour on this issue.

I suspect Cunliffe hopes that if Shearer fails, he will become leader. However my understanding is the unions are committed to keeping in place Shearer for now, so their preferred candidate of Little can become the leader after Shearer. Little would pick up almost all of the 20% union vote under Labour’s proposed new rules. That means Robertson would need to win the caucus and members votes by a 3:1 majority to compensate and that is a hard call.

Despite that I still favour Robertson as the likely next leader.

Duncan Garner blogs:

Who really thinks National’s welfare reforms are that scary?

They’re not.

Forcing people to be work-tested should be a basic contractual agreement between the Government and its “clients” when money changes hands.

Indeed much of that happens already – and has been occurring for years.

Paying the rent and power bills of teenagers directly before they spend their benefit money on booze and cigarettes is hardly radical.

No one will lose their benefits if they can’t find a job. All the Government is asking is that they get work tested sooner and that they become more aggressive in their search for work. They will lose the right to turn down work – they must take a job if it’s offered. If they continue to thumb their nose at work, they will start to lose their benefits.

And Duncan addresses the issue of the job snobs who say you should be able to choose what job you take up:

People need meaningful sustainable jobs. Flipping burgers is a job; it’s a start, we’ve all done this sort of work.

But it’s true for those entering the workforce for the first time in a long time that they need to start somewhere but they also need a pathway to show them the way out of those jobs too.

I often get accused by some who say I’m a media hack and what would I know about low-paid work?

Well I know something. I know I cleaned the Whitcoulls Queen Street store at 16 in my school holidays for youth rates – about $4.50 an hour at the time. I powder-coated curtain rails for $6.00 an hour in a Glenfield factory a year later. I put lids on toothpaste at the Avondale Redseal factory at the same time to help me pay for my first year at university.

My first job at TVNZ in 1995 was as an intern and I was paid $15,400 a year – about $250 a week from memory. A year later they put me on $21,000. By year three it was $30,000.

I worked like a slave for $250 a week. Try living on that in Auckland – it was impossible.

They were part-time crappy jobs (not the TVNZ one) – and they sure as hell encouraged me to take my studies seriously by year three!

Like Duncan I cleaned a store while at school. But I was 14 and got $1.99 an hour for cleaning at Woolworths. I was so proud to be in regular employment, working every day after school plus Friday nights and Saturday mornings. And my first job after university was $22,000 a year only and at one point I was working part-time for $18,000 a year.

But back to Bennett and her handling of these changes so far.

She’s tough. She’s been there. She’s been a solo mum. She’s had it hard. She’s come out the other end. Labour hates her. And she hates them more. It’s a perfect rematch of the Rumble in the Jungle – except these guys might be tougher. Labour regards her as a traitor in my opinion – and they’re going after her. Problem is – nothing is sticking yet. …

But Bennett has started the year with a spring in her step. She looks determined to front foot these welfare changes that she believes in.

Yesterday in response to questioning by Hone Harawira, I thought she nailed him by telling him to sort out his patch and his voters – who she claimed would rather smoke drugs than get jobs. Not every minister would try that one – but it silenced Harawira, which isn’t easy.

The Hansard records the exchange:

Hone Harawira: When the Minister talks about young mums going out to look for jobs, does she think young mums should be allowed to go to the front of the queue of the 150,000 people who are already unemployed, or does she think that the young mums should be made to wait until the 150,000 get jobs first, and can she please tell us where the jobs are for the 150,000 who are already unemployed, so that young mums can then get in line for the next jobs?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The member could look in his own patch, actually. I have a newspaper article here about the forestry industry that is saying they cannot get enough workers because of the drug taking that is going on, and some of those workers are not stepping up and do not actually want the jobs. I was in Kawakawa just a few weeks ago, when I heard about someone who had 19 jobs and could not fill them. Two young women had gone into a job in hospitality in his own patch. Within 3 days their boyfriends came along and told them they did not want to see them working, because they did not want to see them getting ahead of themselves. We are going to back those young women. We are going to back them into work and try to get them off benefits. That member may not think that they are worth it, but we do.

Bang.

Andrea Vance at Stuff blogs:

The parliamentary press gallery have not long traipsed back from our regular Monday “stand-up” with Phil Goff. It was a good chance for us to drill down on some of the finer points of Labour’s new proposals.

Here’s what we know: Labour is proposing to re-instate research and development tax credits, bring farmers into the ETS scheme earlier than expected and lift the minimum wage to $15.

But after our little question and answer session with Goff, there are more questions than answers.

Here’s what we don’t know: Will the tax credits extend to foreign companies? And how is Labour planning to cap them? What will the carbon price will be for the ETS proposals?

We didn’t get an adequate response to criticism that lifting the minimum wage will cost 6000 jobs.

When asked about policy details, Goff repeatedly – and testily – told us to ask Labour researchers. ”Look, I’m not going into the details on that.”

Hmmn, “Ask my staff, not me” is not generally regarded as a good line for leaders to use, even if it is true.

Goff reckons business can afford the wage rise – he told us previous rises under Labour had created jobs, ignoring the fact they were very different economic times.

That is the key point. In a booming economy where jobs are scarce, you can increase the minimum wage with well minimal impact on employment. But pledging to do so at a time of relatively high unemployment and incredibly high youth unemployment is irresponsible as it will price young workers out of the job market.

As at every stand-up, TV political editors Duncan Garner and Guyon Espiner toyed with Goff like cats playing with a wounded mouse. They wanted to know how it is possible to impose a cap on the credits. (Business NZ chief executive Phil O’Reilly likes the idea but says it will be impossible to limit insterest. Key says you can’t – and Labour has got their numbers wrong on the cost.)

Goff, sensibly giving Labour’s reputation on spending, stressed there was $800 million in the pot and that was it. But he couldn’t explain how they could impose that limit.

Mainly because you can’t, unless you make the scheme entirely arbitrary and first in first served. This is one of the reasons the scheme was scraped – it has the potential to blow out massively as firms classify expenditure as research to gain the tax credit.

There the matter should have rested – but Goff’s political skills deserted him. Flustered, he fell into a catty exchange, mixing up the two veteran hacks and sniping “It’s sometimes hard to tell the two of you apart.”

Really?

This is Guyon Espiner. He is the One News Political Editor.

And this is Duncan Garner, Political Editor for 3 News.

If Phil is having trouble telling them apart, he may need glasses. But to help him, I’ll provide descriptions as if they were super models.

Guyon is the Size 0 editor while Duncan is the plus sized editor.

What a shame. It was all going quite well. The congress generated some positive headlines and, more important, some good debate about the economy. Business NZ liked the tax credits idea, and Goff made a good stab at smacking down Key’s claims that the ETS proposals would drive up the price of milk.

Now the wheels have come off a bit. If Goff can’t answer basic questions about his brand new economic  policies, do Labour’s ideas have your confidence?

Even worse they are not brand new economic policies. They are the policies Labour went into the last election on. So all the detail work was done years ago and would be available in papers and the like.

Well no one say they’ll die wondering what Duncan Garner thinks. He blogs:

Labour’s decision to hang on to Leader Phil Goff after his woeful management of the Darren Hughes affair shows the caucus is clueless, gutless and talentless. And most of all, they have no collective balls.

You do have to wonder how much worse things would have to be, to have something happen.

The Labour caucus has opted to go down in 2011 without a fight. If this was the Australian Labour Party Goff would have lasted just 6 weeks two years ago. They’d be on their third opposition leader by now.

And someone like Mallard could do to Labour, what Tony Abbott did to the Australian Libs – get them competitive. Might not win, but will provide a positive point of difference.

I have spoken to most of the senior MPs, they say – while disappointed with the management of the Hughes scandal – no one is of a mind to roll Goff. Why not? Not one MP is defending him. Goff is now Labour’s biggest liability.

The only MP insisting that Goff handled it well, is umm Goff.

Goff has so many questions he can’t answer. He looks like he’s stumbling around in a pitch black bedroom trying to put on his pyjamas. He’s got more positions than a King’s Cross hooker.

I like the colourful metaphors. Also wasn’t half this problem the lack of pyjamas

The Hughes scandal was always going to be a train wreck – 18 year old teenager, senior whip, alleged sexual encounter, Annette King’s house, police investigation, naked man etc.

Come on – what leader in their right and sane mind could think for one second that in Wellington that would stay secret?

I just can’t believe someone didn’t say “You’re mad if you think this will stay secret”. But the problem of course is Goff did not seek advice from anyone.

I know this is written in hindsight, but the obvious thing to do was to front foot it, stand Hughes down, send him away, strip him of his duties and wait for the cops to rule.

That way Hughes may have been able to keep his job in the short term and do some kind of mea culpa around what happened if the police were not to lay charges.

This is the sad thing. If Goff had handled this competently, it is possible Darren Hughes would be able to remain an MP, if no charges were laid. Sure there may be a period of penance, but resignation might have been avoided.

And who let Darren Hughes appear in the Press Gallery debate, ‘politics is a grubby business’? Surely Hughes, Goff and King who appeared in the debate would have thought, ‘hey we better lie low over the next few weeks eh?’

As much as I enjoyed the debate, it was in hindsight a very insensitive decision to allow an MP facing a sexual assault complaint, take part.

So Labour needs to choose a runner to take Goff out. They need to get organised and stop pretending they’re in Government. They’re not. They’re in a parlous and paralysed state in opposition and Phil Goff is now to blame for that. For the sake of all their grassroots members and other Labour voters – they need to go into the election with a new leader.

I’ve come across people who want to vote Labour because they don’t like National – but they say they won’t because of Goff.

Surely they are not isolated comments. If that attitude is widespread, and I believe it is, it is now the moral duty of Labour’s MPs to change the leadership and draw a line under this hopelessly managed scandal.

Duncan is right, but the problem for Labour supporters is it really seems that no one wants the job.

No transcript yet but a really fascinating interview with Hone Harawira on The Nation on Tv3. Hone sometimes often gives an impression that he mouths off without thinking, but the interview showed that a lot of what he does is more calculated. He talks about his role being to push the limits, and how the MP needs to differentiate itself from National rather than abandon them.

He also showed some political deftness at not giving straight answers (at one point Duncan had to remind him that it is his role to ask the questions), but he did make one thing very clear. He said that if Pita Sharples retires as co-leader, then he has recommended that Te Ururoa Flavell become the new co-leader. Flavell is gaining a growing reputation as an effective MP, and I agree he is the natural successor to Sharples.

Harawira also showed some quite good insight into how a leader needs to be diplomatic and able to compromise, and that those are not his skills.

This was shown by him talking about his comments on how he would be uncomfortable with his daughters dating Pakeha, and he went on to say that one of them is dating a Maori boy at the moment, and how he doesn’t approve of that. I don’t recall the exact words but Duncan asked him if he thought his daughter’s boyfriend was no good, and Hone replied “Yeah that’s right”. Can’t imagine his daughter will be thrilled to have Dad diss the boyfriend on TV!

For  those who missed it today, would be worth watching it tomorrow.

The transcript is interesting:

DUNCAN My guest this morning is former Labour MP Chris Carter, now Independent.  Chris thanks for joining us this morning.

CHRIS CARTER – Fmr Labour MP

Duncan it’s been a pleasure.  We’ve had our differences but I’m pleased to be here.

DUNCAN And I’m glad we’re shaking hands, so the country can see that.

Had almost forgotten their little run in.

DUNCAN Who should be leading the party?

CHRIS So when people see a party stuck, making no traction, log jammed if you like, they start to ask what can change it.  Now policies maybe, but in the end it comes down to the leader, cos the leader’s the public face.

DUNCAN Who should be leading the party?

CHRIS Now there are three reasons why people are unhappy with Phil.  Can I go through those?

DUNCAN I’d like you to answer the question.  Who do you think should be leading that party if Phil Goff shouldn’t be?

CHRIS I’d like to respond to that Duncan by first of all saying that’s for the caucus to decide, and I’m no longer a member of that caucus.  I’d like to say secondly that there are at least four or five people in there that have got the qualities, the experience, the energy and the determination that could do a good job as leader.

DUNCAN Name them, name them.

CHRIS I’m not going to name any of them, but what I’m saying is that I’m confident that that Labour caucus could provide a number of people who could do a different job to Phil.

At this point various Labour MPs sighed in relief that Chris did not name them, as doing so would be a kiss of death to them.

The fact is that as unlikely as it is that Phil Goff will become Prime Minister in 2011, it is even more unlikely that another Labour MP will do any better. And any future leader is better to not become Leader now, so their brand is fresh for the 2014 election.

Now why are people unhappy with Phil?  You know I’ve said he’s a decent guy, he is a  good guy, he’s a hard worker and he wants Labour to win, but there’s three reasons why he’s not going to.  First of all there’s the perception that he’s from the 80s and that it’s just not working.  So we’ve had 18 months it’s not working, people are saying if it’s not working we need to change the leader.  Secondly he fudges on issues.  He fudged on the GST issue, he fudged on the four weeks holiday, and he fudged on tackling Paul Henry actually, and all of that really annoyed people.

Here Carter’s analysis is basically correct. It is very unlikely that NZ will elect someone who entered Parliament under Muldoon, as the new future focused Prime Minister.

And absolutely there is disquiet amongst the left MPs over what Goff has said and done on stuff like four weeks leave and Paul Henry. They feel he can not be relied on. That is why he will not survive long after 2011, but he will survive until then.

CHRIS I’m going to appear before the Council, I’m going to make a strong case about yes I stuffed up, yes I did an inappropriate thing, but hey Richard Prebble called David Lange mentally unbalanced, you know Phil Goff and Annette King tried to roll Helen Clark, none of them were kicked out, so …

A fair point, but the difference is how they went about it. You do not get expelled for trying to roll your leader. You do get expelled for sending anonymous letters to the press gallery. Mind you I think they will suspend not expel him.

DUNCAN And when did you last speak to Helen Clark and what did she say to you about this departure?

CHRIS I spoke with her yesterday on the phone, actually she rang me up from New York and she’d heard about the book.  I hadn’t spoken to her for some weeks, and she sent me this text saying what’s this about a book?  And so she rang me up to discuss about the book and we talked about resources and the way I’d do the book.

DUNCAN She’s going to help you write it?

CHRIS No she’s not gonna help me write it, but she’ll no doubt be a critic of it, but I’d expect no less from her.

I suspect Chris Carter’s book, when it comes to Helen Clark, will make the Brian Edwards biography look like a savage character assassination

So what am I gonna do, well I’m thinking I’m really interested in journalism, I might become a journalist.

I am sure he could get a job at Radio New Zealand. Or maybe TVNZ need a new Breakfast host.

DR BRIAN EDWARDS – Media Consultant and Commentator

Well I want to ask you a couple of things.  I wonder first of all whether you think you deserved all the odium and contempt that was heaped on you about the travel business? That’s the first thing.

CHRIS Absolutely not.

BRIAN Oh okay.  And the second thing I want to know is if Phil Goff hadn’t forced you into what was in the end quite a humiliating performance in front of all the journalists, your second apology if you like, would any of this happened?

CHRIS Probably not Brian because I would not have felt used as a scapegoat.

What a smart question from Brian Edwards. He got Chris Carter to admit that none of this would have happened if Goff had not demoted him for his excessive travel.

No that is not a typo. From Brian’s latest blog:

Garner is extremely good ‘to camera’. He looks comfortable and relaxed and conveys a natural authority. He ‘comes through the lens’. These are rare enough qualities among television presenters and both TV1 and TV3 currently have newsreaders less professional  in their delivery than Garner.

*That when he is not trying to make his mark as the Stephen Sackur of Godzone, or trawling for headlines for the network news, he is a very good interviewer indeed. In his lengthy interview with Anne Tolley, he adopted a friendly but persistent approach which probably revealed more about the Education Minister and her policy on National Standards than the aggressive haranguing she is more often subjected to.

I regularly observe in these posts that the heckling style of interview almost invariably produces more heat than light, frequently degenerating into little more than a ‘did/didn’t’ exchange. By the end of Garner’s interview I had changed my opinion both of the Minister and of the value of National Standards. And that (Trust me!) is remarkable.

High praise indeed.

At the moment The Nation is being taken to the cleaners by TV One’s Q & A.  Paul Holmes’ strong and often entertaining performance as host/interviewer on the TVNZ programme against the lacklustre Steven Parker on Three  will certainly have been a factor. The Nation would be wise to hold on to Garner, perhaps even to give him his head a little [God, am I really writing this?] if they want to make inroads into Q & A’s audience.

Almost a love fest.

Oh, and before you ask, I have not altered my view of Mr Garner’s previous conduct. But credit must be given where credit is due.

One of the reasons why I always read the Edwards and Callaghan blog.

The Herald reports on the Edwards v Garner exchanges, and usefully gives us Garner’s version of events. Edwards had claimed:

The blog says that soon after, as Garner boarded the plane in which Mr Carter was already seated, he told the MP: “I am going to f****** get you, Carter. If it takes me to Christmas I am going to f****** destroy you” – a comment allegedly overheard by Dame Margaret Bazley.

That is somewhat different from:

The Herald understands Garner’s version of events is that Mr Carter provoked the exchange by calling Garner a “c***” in the Koru Club and when he boarded the plane and asked Mr Carter “what was that about?”, Mr Carter told him to “f*** off”.

Garner is understood to have replied: “If you want a f****** war, you’ll get one.”

Now there were witnesses:

Garner invited Labour chief whip Darren Hughes, who was travelling with Mr Carter, to give his version of events. But Mr Hughes said yesterday he would not comment.

Dame Margaret did not return a Herald phone call yesterday.

Personally I am looking forward to the battle for Te Atatu next year.

One of the amusing blog fights of recent times has been between Brian Edwards and Duncan Garner regarding an alleged incident between Garner and Chris Carter. Some extracts – first Brian:

But first a little history. It is no secret around Parliament  that, roughly 11 months ago,  Garner and Carter had a verbal stoush in the Auckland Koru Club.  Following the release of the report detailing the 2008 travel expenses of Labour Ministers, Garner had run a TV3 story alleging that Carter was a big-spending Minister whose travel could not be justified in what was essentially a domestic portfolio – Education. The story also referred to Carter’s long-time partner and travelling companion, Peter Kaiser, and included the name of the primary school of which Kaiser is principal.

Not surprisingly, there was bad blood between the two men. Carter and Darren Hughes were in the Koru Club waiting for their flight to Wellington to be called when Garner approached them. He is reported as having said, ‘Travelling on the fucking taxpayer again, Chris.’ Carter told him to ‘fuck off!’

Carter had already taken his seat on the plane when Garner, who had boarded later, stopped next to him, jabbed his finger into Carter’s chest and said loudly, ‘I am going to fucking get you, Carter. If it takes me to Christmas I am going to fucking destroy you.’ Sitting directly behind Carter was Dame Margaret Bazley. Appalled by what she had heard, she commented loudly, ‘What a disgraceful man. You don’t have to put up with rubbish like that on a plane, Mr Carter.’ Garner moved on down the plane. …

‘If I am wrong, I invite Duncan Garner to respond to this blog and,  providing nothing in it is defamatory, I undertake to publish that response unedited.

‘If I’m right, TV3 should be considering whether their Political Editor is fit to hold the job.’

Duncan responded on the blog:

I have never denied there was an incident between myself and Chris, indeed I told everyone about it at the time because I was shocked that Chris would call me by a four letter word – that your version of this story doesn’t reflect.

So Carter called Garner a c**t first? Might be some other four letter word.

Unfortunately your version of it is very, very wrong and you do yourself no favours.

You have relied on the word of Chris Carter and even Phil Goff can’t rely on that.

Yes Darren Hughes was there and he will confirm what happened if people wish to approach him.

Darren may even wish to write on this site?

But why rely on my word? Surely the Chief Whip, Mr Hughes will launch a defence of the incident for Mr Carter. Or will he?

I bet he doesn’t. Because Carter behaved disgracefully in the Koru Club that evening and provoked the incident.

So far Darren has (wisely) not said anything.

I will consider posting the full version on the 3News website tomorrow. I certainly won’t do it here to satisfy former broadcaster and Labour Party raffle ticket seller Brian Edwards.

Oh I hope he does.

Brian then responded:

Duncan, the post you complain of, was headed ‘Incident on an Air New Zealand Flight’. What the post was about is your allegedly having said to Carter, ‘‘I am going to fucking get you, Carter. If it takes me to Christmas I am going to fucking destroy you.’ If I were in your shoes, I would consider this the more damaging allegation made about you. Yet not only is there no denial of this event in your reply to me, it is not even mentioned. I would consider that admission by omission. If in fact Carter ‘behaved disgracefully’ to you in the Koru Club before the flight, then you may well feel that what you are alleged to have said to him on the plane was understandable. But it is no less unacceptable from the political editor of a major television network.

To which Duncan responds:

I ’swear’ I did not say to Chris; “I am going to fucking get you, if it takes me to Christmas I am going to destroy you.”

And I certainly did not touch Carter – that’s not my style. If I touched Carter why doesn’t he lay an assault charge? Because it simply did not happen.

Brian you have taken the Carter version and you have taken it hook line and sinker. It is wrong. Simple.

As I have always said there was an exchange. I was first to talk about it. Carter never said anything about it for months.

It’s Carter who is now running to you almost a year later still trying to make excuses for his behaviour.

As I have said Darren Hughes was there – he saw it – he may wish to put his version on the website. But I totally refute and reject your version.

Then Richard Harman joins the fray:

I have the privelege of producing Duncan on “the Nation”. I have questioned him about your allegations. I am satisfied they are substantially wrong. I thought his reportage of Chris Carter’s indulgent travel was excellent. I can testify that both Duncan and “The Nation” continue to have excellent relations with the Labour caucus. I think Duncan did journalism proud with his journalistic pursuit of Mr Carter.

However I would not expect Duncan to get any credit on this blog which seems to have a vendetta against him — and any programme he is associated with.

Brian responds to Duncan:

We now have a ‘conflict of evidence’. You claim you did not use these words to Carter; I have approached Carter and asked him whether he stands by his version of events on the plane. He says that he does. I wasn’t there, but I do know for certain that what you said to Carter on the plane was overheard and that it was extremely unpleasant.

Brian also responds to Harman:

Absolute rubbish. Your defence of a colleague is admirable, but I suggest you read all the posts on Garner. If, having done so, you decide that he was not engaging in a personal campaign againt Carter, your judgement is less than I would have expected from you. In my review of your first edition of The Nation, where I thought Garner did a particularly poor interview with Steven Joyce, you will also find this sentence: ‘I have grown to respect Duncan Garner’s down-to-earth, no-nonsense analysis of politics. His interviewing improved significantly in later programmes. Judy thought he was very good. I don’t think this amounts to a vendetta.

Gordon McBride joins in:

Brian ….. I work with Duncan. I can tell you he isn’t a homophobe (the sauna shot was to illustrate Carter’s use of his credit card to pay for a sauna in Berlin). He doesn’t play favourites in his coverage; nor does he use his position in the “Get Carter” way you perceive. He’s certainly a robust character though and I can believe he’d give as good as got in any exchange.

For my 2c, Duncan is not at all partisan. He went after National with the “secret tapes”in 2008 with as much glee as he went after Carter with his excessive travel.

A very amusing interview of Duncan Garner by Michele Hewitson. An extract:

So, I’ll tell you what he had to drink: the best part of a bottle of wine and five beers, plus two more after I left. Northing would give me greater pleasure than to be able to tell you he was rolling, and indiscreet.

Alas, the only discernable effect was that his cheeks turned a fetching shade of pink (which exactly matched his shirt) and he swore more, but no great surprise there, now, is there?

Duncan can hold his piss.

He’d sent an email suggesting we book the table under Mark Sainsbury’s name, so as to get star treatment.

Now that is a good idea.

He is relentlessly competitive. He talks about going head-to-head with his great mate and competitor, Guyon Espiner, at TVNZ, like the sports journo he used to be: “We’re here to knock each other out.” I asked about a rumour that he and Espiner collude on story angles which earned me one of his eruptions: “Complete crap. It’s bullshit. I’ve heard this rumour. It comes from print hacks.”

Both TV and print bosses hate it when one of their competitors runs an exclusive, which they didn’t have.

I had to laugh at Labour List MP Carmel Sepuloni trying to insist on Breakfast TV that it had been a great week for Phil Goff.  It was like a finance company spokesperson trying to insist they were sound.

Where do I start. First the Herald reveals that Phil Goff did not tell them the sob story he fed to them, owned a total of three properties, and it was not the case of someone with no assets being forced out of their family home. It was just a case of someone being unwilling to sell their property investments for a loss. I hope this story appears in as prominent place in the print edition as yesterday’s story.

Now even before this episode was exposed, Guyon Espiner blogged:

Labour’s ill-judged foray into the benefit policy debate – offering the dole to anyone who losses their job regardless of their spouse’s income – is a strategic blunder which ignores these basic facts of political life….

Labour now claims it isn’t going to allow the dole to be paid to anyone, regardless of income. But that’s a back down because that is exactly what they were saying on Monday.

You could sense the desperation on Monday after the story was broken in the Herald. Goff had clearly blurted out the story too early because Labour party officials and MPs were scrambling to fill in the details as other media worked to follow up the story.

On Tuesday Goff was desperately trying to claim that he was talking about the principle of middle income people not missing out on welfare and not the details. All the more reason then for not announcing the plan until the details are worked through.

Guyon makes it fairly clear Goff personally blundered by making policy up on the hoof. Guyon also covers their banking inquiry:

I see Labour is having another go. Having failed to win a proper select committee inquiry into whether the banks’ interest rates are too high, they are teaming up with the Greens and Jim Anderton to hold their own “inquiry” – one with no standing, no authority and no power.

Essentially they’ll be sitting in a room, preaching to the converted. Looks like a gimmick to me. Looks like Labour hasn’t fully realised it was turfed out of power.

Indeed.Hat Tip: Keeping Stock

John Armstrong writes this morning:

This has been an especially awful week for Phil Goff. It is not just that the Labour leader has made two blunders – the first being a policy mishap and the second being caught out by failing to reveal pertinent information. It is that a pattern of bad judgment calls is starting to emerge. That will be causing his colleagues some serious concern.

The problem for his colleagues is the lack of options. After 2011 there will be options, but there are not yet.

Twice within the past two months, Goff has sought to cause National discomfort only to end up pinging himself by failing to disclose facts which ended up being revealed by his opponents to his embarrassment.

The first example was Neelam Choudary, the Indian woman who alleged former minister Richard Worth sexually harassed her. She turned out to be a Labour Party activist.

The latest example is a Helensville man, Bruce Burgess, who seemed the perfect example of the kind of middle-class distress Goff had been talking about when he floated a shift in Labour policy so the dole would be paid to redundant workers for up to a year regardless of the income of their partners.

There is a warning in Armstrong’s writing. Having twice sat on highly relevant information, the gallery is going to be far more suspicious of any information from Goff in future. His effectiveness will be reduced due to this.

Goff is kidding only himself if he thinks this new information would not change people’s perceptions of Mr Burgess’s predicament.

Labour knew Mr Burgess owned the properties. It should have dropped his case immediately it knew that. However, presumably Goff was blinded by Mr Burgess being one of John Key’s constituents. The Prime Minister had done nothing to help him. Goff could see the headlines before they appeared. Through his own fault, they have ended up being the wrong ones.

The information totally changed people’s perceptions. Just as Choudary’s identity did also. I actually felt a bit guilty, at the time, for blogging yesterday on the Burgesses as I felt sorry for them being on the verge of losing their only home. While still sympathetic they are in tough times, the fact they have two other properties means they do have options – far better options than most families.

If he fails to win in 2011, Goff knows his party will look for someone else to lead them into the next election. If he keeps performing in the fashion displayed this week his colleagues might start asking themselves whether they should not look elsewhere before then.

I think Goff is safe until 2011, again due to the lack of alternatives.

Duncan Garner also blogs:

Labour sat on the fact he owned three homes. To Labour it was irrelevant to its case – that hardworking Kiwis are missing out under National.

How many Kiwis can cry poor with three homes? It’s a bad look Labour – and I suspect you know it.

Can you imagine how Helen Clark, as Prime Minister, presented with this sort of information – would have acted?

She, and/or Michael Cullen would have not only crucified Burgess – but she or he would have damn well made sure John Key was cut into three pieces,

So Labour needs to go away and look at what it’s doing.

It needs to take a breather. Goff has been too damn keen this week. He’s cocked up. He’s acted like a cut snake.

And finally we have Colin Espiner:

Labour’s also attacking the appointment of former National leader Don Brash to the new productivity taskforce, calling him a stalking horse for privatisation. Goff says it will lead to a renewal of ideas soundly rejected at the 2005 election.

Actually, as Key pointed out in the House yesterday, National wasn’t “soundly rejected” at the 05 election – it only lost by the narrowest of margins. And it was probably the Exclusive Brethren that spooked voters more than National’s privatisation agenda.

Indeed. Mps who call Don “Lord Voldemort” may want to reflect on the fact he got only 2% less than Helen Clark in 2005, and that their references to him as such actually alienate a large segment of the population. Anyway back to Goff:

Goff had another terrible day in Parliament today after the case of poor old Bruce Burgess, a constituent in John Key’s electorate no less, who having worked hard all his life now couldn’t get any assistance from the state after losing his job.

Labour shopped the story to the Herald this morning, which ran it without question. Trouble was, poor old Bruce owns two rental properties besides his lifestyle block in a leafy part of Helensville – in other words, he has assets of at least a million dollars. Now, that doesn’t mean he isn’t suffering, but that wasn’t the picture presented to the public by Goff or the Herald this morning.

Also, according to the Government, Bruce is eligible for $92 a week state assistance – something that wasn’t pointed out earlier either.

Once again, an issue that should have run in Labour’s favour ended up backfiring badly.

So this is what Carmel Sepuloni calls a great week for Phil Goff. I’d love to see what she calls a bad week.

Duncan Garner blogs:

So the Maori Party offer Key the seats he needs to get over the line. Without Sharples and co, Key could struggle to get a second term.

He wants a second term – he doesn’t want the t-shirt saying: ‘I was a one term PM.’ And he’s being helped by Labour and particularly tough old Trevor Mallard. Mallard appears to be alienating the Maori Party MPs as each day passes.

I couldn’t help but witness the tension between Mallard and Hone Harawira and Te Ururoa Flavell in Parliament this week. The more Trevor needles them about their relationship with the Nats, the longer the marriage will last.

If Labour wants a shot in 2011, I suggest Goff grab Trevor by the neck and give him a smack in the chops – if he won’t then at least get Tau Henare to throw in the peoples elbow.

Mallard is seriously affecting Labour’s future chances of having any decent relationship with the Maori Party. One Maori Party MP this told me this week, “Trevor can get f….. and so can Labour in 2011.”

Assuming Anderton retires in 2011, this leaves Labour with only the Greens. Labour have an opportunity to have a better relationship with the Maori Party now that the author of “haters and wreckers” and “last cab off the rank” has been exiled overseas.  But to date they seem to be doing their best to push the Maori Party towards National – and that may be a decision they bitterly regret.

Hat Tip: Blaise Drinkwater

Matthew Hooton has a long post on why he thinks Duncan Garner was right to run the tape, but to put it in context. But he also gives an example of how the media may be relaying a lit, by not insisting on the full tape. His example is:

Labour Spy: Do you reckon Obama can win?

Key: Oh, I hope so, he’ll be a great president.  I’m actually looking forward to meeting him if I become Prime Minister.

Labour Spy: But you don’t think Americans will elect a black president?

Key: Sure they will.  There have been black mayors, black governors, black Secretaries of State, this is just the next step.  Sure there is still a lot of racism in the US – I saw it when I lived in New York, even way up in the North-East, and it is worse in the South - I still think Obama can win and it will be good for the world.

Labour Spy: Oh come on, New Zealand wouldn’t elect a bloody Maori boy PM ….

Key: Just wait a second.  I suppose you’re one of these racists who says ‘the American people aren’t going to elect some nigger boy their president, let alone have that black wife and those black kids in the White House.  He’s not even really an American’  … but if you think that you’re in the wrong party pal.

Labour Spy: Maybe, thanks for your time Mr Key.  I’ll go and talk to Bill English now.

And of course all that would be handed to TV3 is:

the American people aren’t going to elect some nigger boy their president, let alone have that black wife and those black kids in the White House.  He’s not even really an American’

Now that is a made up example by Matthew but a useful example of why it is important for media to treat extracts with caution. And remember this Keystone Kop who did the taping was deliberatly trying to entrap people by saying things he did not believe in.

Duncan Garner blogs:

The H-fee fiasco hasn’t blown up. Well it has – but it’s a minor smoke bomb and it’s exploded in Labour’s face.

Labour had hoped that Key signed off on the $66m Elders – Equiticorp foreign exchange scam in 1988. It would ha ve been gold wouldn’t it?

The signature looks the same – but it’s not Key.

Labour’s President Mike Williams spent a few days in Melbourne last week pouring over the 24 kilograms of papers. But he couldn’t access to the court documents easily.

He had to use the Australian Labour Party’s top lawyer to get a court order – through a judge – to get to the documents.

So who paid for the top lawyer and who paid the court filing fees? Was it the Labour Party?

For professional Winston watchers, the Campaign 08 discussion on Peters is worth a watch – just click play on the main page. Peters refused to appear but Phil Kitchin, Duncan Garner, Vernon Small, Bill Ralston and Barry Soper discuss his highs and lows.

Voting is now open in the 2008 Kiwiblog Awards. They close at 3 pm Friday 3 October. You can vote in the sidebar.

The most popular nominations in each category are:

MP of the Year

• Rodney Hide – not even a finalist last year but a popular nominee for his campaign to expose Peters, amongst other things
• Bill English – a repeat nominee – his year of picking apart the EFA was often cited
• Pita Sharples – has become the Maori MP, Pakeha love to love, and helped position the Maori Party as Kingmakers.
• Phil Goff – a China FTA plus a possible United States FTA endears Goff to many readers

Labour MP of the Year

• Phil Goff was nominated by many but disqualified as the 2007 winner
• Michael Cullen cited by many for his mastery of the House
• David Cunliffe also impressed several with his determination to improve the Health sector
• Winston Peters was nominated multiple times in this category, so who are we to stand in the way of the public!

National MP of the Year

• Simon Power had the most nominations, having impressed with his constant highlighting of law & order problems, and also superb Chairmanship of the Privileges Committee.
• John Key is still the country’s Preferred PM
• Bill English was disqualified having won this category last year
• Gerry Brownlee also often nominated for his take no prisoners methods in the House

Minor Party MP of the Year

• Rodney Hide a popular nominee for many
• Pita Sharples had 12 nominations in this category – will it be Minister Sharples in a few weeks?
• Sue Bradford has had a quieter year than 2007 when she was runner up, but still gained some nominations
• Hone Harawira also gained multiple nominations – the once reviled radical has been impressing a few people

Press Gallery of the Journalist

• Audrey Young – Winston still has not apologised to her, but she was a favourite nominee amongst Kiwiblog readers
• Duncan Garner – his “straight talking” doesn’t always win friends in Parliament, but has proven popular with some readers
• Guyon Espiner – cool, clam and collected – the most viewed gallery reporter has some fans
• Colin Espiner – the blogging journalist has many online fans

Public Servant of the Year

• Grant Liddell – the SFO Director was a multiple nominee for doing what was right, regardless of what the Government wanted.
• Owen Glenn – okay not technically a public servant, but many nominated him for having performed a public service.
• Helena Catt – the Electoral Commission CEO wins the sympathy and nominations of many for having to try and work out what the Electoral Finance Act actually means, and for her willingness to criticise the law she has to enforce.

Enjoy voting.

Last week I set up an online survey for MPs, asking them to rate various media organisations and senior gallery journalists on a scale of 0 to 10. Just under one quarter of MPs responded, and the results are shown below.

As the media often rate how well MPs are doing, I thought it appropriate to reverse this and ask the questions in reverse. The media are a hugely powerful filter, and it is appropriate (in my opinion) to have some focus on how well they are perceived to be performing.

The questions were:

1. For each media organisation please give them a rating from 0 to 10 for how well you think they do in their parliamentary reporting. This should take account of all relevant factors – accuracy, fairness, thoroughness, relevance, substance etc.
2. Now for some individual senior members of the press gallery, please rate from 0 to 10 how well you think they perform at proving fair, accurate, unbiased and informative reporting on Parliament. You can skip any that you do not feel able to rate.
3. Finally can you indicate your party grouping as National, Labour or Other. Your individual identity is not sought by us, and we have no way or interest in identifying individual respondents. However we would like to summarise results for all MPs and by the three groupings to see if they vary by party grouping.

It is important that these be read in context, so make the following points:

1. This is the opinion of MPs only. It does not set out to be an objective rating, and should not be seen as such.
2. MPs get reported on by the gallery. While this makes them the group of NZers potentially best able to have an informed opinion on the media (which is why I surveyed them), it also gives them a conflict of interest. MPs may score journalists lowly due to personal run ins with them, or the fact they are too good at their job! This should be borne in mind.
3. I only e-mailed the survey to the 121 MPs, but it is possible that one or more responses was filled in by a staff member who has access to the MPs mailbox. I think this is unlikely, as most staff are very professional. However MPs were not required to prove their identity to vote, as confidentiality of individual responses was important. You need to know the Survey URL to be able to vote.
4. National MPs made up 43% of responses, slightly above their numbers in Parliament. Minor Party MPs were also slightly over-represented, Labour MPs under-represented and some MPs did not give a party identification.

NZ Press Association tops the rankings with a mean or average 6.1 rating – and received no very low ratings from anyone. The two Internet agencies were in the top five, indicating MPs like the fact their releases are carried in full. Trans-Tasman also does well.

Television generally gets ranked lowly with all four stations in the bottom half. Sky News actually ranks highest.

Radio is middle of the field with NewstalkZB being the highest ranked radio broadcaster.

The newspapers range the spectrum. The NZ Herald is up at 5.3, Press at 4.2 and Dom Post at 4.1. I would have them all higher, but this is a survey of MPs, not of my views.

Now the sample sizes are of course very small (but of a limited population) but let us look at how National MPs ranked media compared to all the other MPs:

National MPs ranked the four TV channels much higher than other MPs did. Maybe this is minor parties upset that they do not get on TV much?

Despite the generally accepted lean to the left of Radio NZ, National MPs ranked Radio NZ higher than other MPs did. And while some on the left attack the NZ Herald at favouring National, National MPs actually ranked them lower than other MPs did. The Listener and NBR also get accused of leaning right, but again get ranked lower by National MPs.

The Nat MPs also rated the online media very lowly.

Now the journalists. I decided not to list all members of the press gallery, but only those who are relatively senior, and are more likely to have a reasonable number of MPs have formed opinions about them. Looking back I could have included more.

If any journalist is unhappy about being missed out, happy to include you next year. Now again it is worth remembering these are only the opinions of those MPs who responded to my survey – it is not an objective rating.

John Armstrong tops the ratings, followed by the NZPA Political Editor Peter Wilson. Generally MPs ranked journalists slightly higher than media organisations. As can be seen by the minimum ratings showing, some MPs were very harsh handing out zeroes. Did WInston multiple vote? (Note I have no idea if Winston did vote)

And once again we compare responses between National MPs and other MPs.

Again very interesting. The SST is generally seen as hostile to National, but Ruth Laugeson is ranked much higher by National MPs, than by other MPs. Likewise the Gordon Campbell and Brent Edwards (both left leaning) are ranked higher by National MPs than other MPs.

Also for some reasons National MPs ranked Ian Templeton very lowly. Maybe they don’t like his weekly chats with Clark and Key, ignoring the lesser MPs?

David Cohen at NBR has done a new and improved test of whether you are a journalist, and it even tells you what sort of journalist you are. Extracts:

1) You are walking down the road and you come across the scene of a recent mass shooting.  The dead and dying are scattered all over the place.  You:
a.     Give first aid to the injured yourself
b.     Call an ambulance
c.     Call Jim Tucker to figure out the most culturally appropriate course of action
d.     Take photos on your mobile phone and post them on Scoop

4) A “death knock” is:
a.  When an undertaker comes to your house
b.  The noise your car makes when it is 100,000km overdue for its service
c.  An unfortunate practice whereby journalists inflict themselves in an intrusive and callous manner upon the relatives of people who have recently died in tragic and/or brutal circumstances
d.  The noise inside our head the morning after drinking far too many flaming maitais

And the scoring system:

Mostly As:  you are Barbara Dreaver.
Mostly Bs:  you are so overwhelmingly boring people could actually be killed by the dreariness of your writing and it would be a major public health hazard if you ever became a journalist.
Mostly Cs:  You are Keith Ng.
Mostly Ds:  You are Duncan Garner.

Heh heh heh.

I’m sure all the media will be reading Cactus Kate’s comments on what she calls the Soper Syndrome – hot aging male journalists.

Kate proclaims the following as hot:

• “Baron” Barry Soper
• “Gorgeous” Sean Plunkett
• “Pitt-Clooney” Stephen Parker
• “Chess Champion” Vernon Small
• Richard Long
• Richard Griffin

The only one she marks down is Duncan Garner who gets “not hot yet”.

I think Kate is protesting too loudly here. Those of us who knew Kate before she was a blogger recall a small period of time when she had a small crush on Mr Garner. And when I say small crush, I mean raging stalker like obsession. Luckily Duncan got married, and Kate got distracted!

Duncan Garner blogs the questions he wants answered:

1. Who set up the Spencer Trust?
2. Who donates to it?
3. What is the money spent on?
4. Does New Zealand First receive money from the Trust?
5. How much?
   
6. Why isn’t it declared? (Donations to parties over 10k must be declared)
7. What else does the Trust spend its money on?

And none of them answered.

But Winston will not answer these questions. He can’t. Answering them will only confirm what he and his party are up to. His MPs are in the dark – they know nothing. They trudge to Parliament each day – grasping some pre-written patsy question to ask their leader.

Like, why did Condi Rice come to New Zealand and would it have happened under any other Foreign Minister? How embarrassing for them. What sycophants.

They owe their jobs to Peters. None would make it under their own steam. Barbara Stewart. Ever heard of her? Now Peters is making his MPs look like the hopeless docile poodles that they are. And these people call us meercats!

I understand several gallery offices now have pictures of meerkats up on their walls. One journalist told me of an e-mail they got complaining on behalf of the meerkats with the comparisons to the media!

A member of the press gallery, taken from Wikipedia.

Peters now has no credibility. He does not believe in being accountable. His only defence is attack. He has promised on three occasions this week to ‘clear things up’. He hasn’t. What are you so embarrassed about Winston?

Journalists are asking legitimate questions. Peters hopes his loyal 5% still agree with him. And unlike Helen Clark, Winston doesn’t need to appeal to the masses. He needs 5% percent. This will be hurting him in Tauranga. I don’t think he can win the seat. Can he get 5% – perhaps not, though it’s too early to write him off.

I think Peters is now toast in Tauranga. Their chance of survival is making 5%. It is possible that there are enough stupid people to get a boost in the polls from his antics. But will he retain that support (if he even gains it) through until the election?

And Duncan concludes on trusts:

Trusts by their very nature are set up to hide things – established to protect people, their money and assets. National has the Ruahine and Waitemata Trust. The Labour Party also declares a legal trust fund for those who want to give to the party on the quiet.

But all these trusts are declared. They have been for years. Peters has kept his quiet. Even from his own people. Only a select few knew about it.

The point here is 25K was solicited from Sir Bob Jones by Winston Peters and his party hacks. Jones has a right to know if it ever went to the party. And so does the NZ public.

The Spencer Trust looks like a secret slush fund. And the Right Honourable Winston Peters doesn’t deserve the title.

I do not think the media will stop asking questions on this, even though there is no chance Winston will ever usefully answer them.

Yay at long last TV3 Political Editor Duncan Garner is blogging, and he says what he thinks on it:

To believe Winston requires you to believe the unbelievable.

Like;

When Winston Peters held up the big NO sign in February in response to questions about whether Glenn had donated money, Winston’s lawyer Brian Henry didn’t pick up the phone either before and after – and say arrrrhhhh, Winston, he flicked us 100k 18 months ago.

And remember this so called policy of Henry’s is not required by any outside force. It is in fact just a decision made between him and Peters that allegedly he would not tell Peters who donated. Now the reason you would do this is to protect Peters, but when it becomes clear that more damage is being done by not telling him, it is almost unthinkable he would not have told him earlier.

Peters credibility has been damaged. He’s turning defence into attack. It’s all he’s got left. Helen Clark’s silence is remarkable but not surprising. She needs him if her Government is to make it through to the election.

Remember when Phillip Field’s discretions were only “judgement issues” according to Helen Clark. Lets see what the judge says about those “judgement issues.”

Yes Clark has a fine track record here.

Auditor General Kevin Brady should investigate Peters. He’s nailed Labour before. He’s got the guts to nail Peters. The IRD should look at the tax status of the donation. The Privileges Committee should start its kangaroo court – at least it would provide some theatre.

Agreed.

Peters may have used up his nine lives. He voted to end secret and covert funding – yet took it on the side. Indeed, it was so secret, we’re meant to believe he didn’t even know.

He should resign. The saga is a disgrace. And on his way out he should apologise to the NZ Herald Political Editor Audrey Young who broke the story.

That is a big call, but a correct one. If after the revelation he had admitted the public has (as John Key puts it) been misled by him, then maybe it is survivable. But his outrageous continuing attacks on the NZ Herald for exposing his secret donation are the worse form of bully boy politics.

Imagine if the Exclusive Brethren loving Nats had denied getting 100k then coughed up under pressure.

Would Peters go easy on John Key? Would Helen Clark stay silent, muttering, “it’s a party matter”? You know the answer.

And imagine Phil Goff? I think his head would actually explode as he shouted himself hoarse on it!