Then Hone Harawira and Greens co-leader Metiria Turei were called to the platform. Turei, declaring her background to be anarchism, said her concept of life was that we all lived in a cage with wild monsters trying to tear down the walls that protected us.

These monsters were corporate capitalism, she said, and she saw her job as trying to push out the walls of the cage and increase our living space. Weird.

Yes wild monsters are trying to eat our young and destroy us. They’re called businesses and are evil.

Woolworths New Zealand’s underlying profit margins have increased much faster than the cost of food for the past three years.

Australian-owned Woolworths, which operates Countdown supermarkets locally, said the results were due to improved efficiency, but the Green Party said an investigation into supermarket pricing is overdue and the industry is in need of tighter regulation.

What a bizarre comparison. It is a good thing that profits have increased faster than the cost of food.

Are the Greens saying that if profits had stayed the same, and food prices had increased more (hence decreasing the gap), that would be good for NZers?

Are they saying that if profits had stayed the same, and food prices had dropped (hence increasing the gap), that would be bad for NZers?

The comparison is absolutely nonsensical. What the Greens are really saying is that just don’t like companies making profits.

Calculations by the Sunday Star-Times show that once unusual costs and income are stripped out of Woolworths NZ’s accounts – items such as losses on the company’s investment in The Warehouse and the impact of the Christchurch earthquakes – the business posted year-on-year increases in earnings before interest and tax of 14.3%, 19.3% and 9.6% over the period.

Recorded food inflation over the same time-frame was 7%, -0.7% and 7.5%, according to Statistics New Zealand.

Again, so what? Take the middle year – EBIT increased 19.3% and food prices dropped by 0.7%. Great.

If you want to make the case the supermarkets are making excessive profits, then you need to be looking at profits compared to capital and dividends compared to share price etc.

The supermarket operator’s latest financial statements show that it earned gross revenue of $22.33 for each $100 of sales shoppers put through its tills in the year to the end of June 2011. That was up from $21.95 in 2010 and $21.61 the year before.

That’s higher than UK chains Tesco and Sainsburys, which earned gross revenue of 8.30 and 5.50 respectively for every 100 that went through their tills.

Gross margins mean little, especially when comparing just four companies in two countries. What about economy of scale, what about underlying costs?

Green MP Mojo Mathers said the country needs to act on food prices, and promote “genuine” competition.

“We are overdue for an investigation into supermarket pricing practices,” she told the Sunday Star-Times. “We need a supermarket code of conduct and a supermarket ombudsman set up to enforce the code.”

Such measures, now established in the UK and being considered in Australia, will help create a level playing field for consumers and producers, Mathers said.

I fail to understand what is needed beyond the current provisions of the Commerce Act and Fair Trading Act. I suspect the Green call for an Ombudsman is so the Greens can achieve their long held desire to ban foods they don’t approve of, such as large easter eggs which Sue Kedgley used to campaign against.

However, Woolworths said its margin and earnings improvements are the result of investment in efficient systems that have delivered food price increases below the rate of inflation.

“We think there is a really great business story in our results over the past three years, which, in the main, is due to the significant investment Woolworths has been making in Progressive Enterprises and our brand Countdown,” said Dave Chambers, the managing director of Woolworths’ subsidiary Progressive Enterprises.

“This investment in new systems, new warehouses, and new and refurbished stores is now well in excess of $1 billion and has meant our Countdown stores are more appealing to customers, as evidenced by our sales growing ahead of the market,” he said.

As a result, the company has reduced wastage, stock losses and trimmed stock in the supply chain.

Sounds good to me.

Eugenie Sage (List), Jane Logie (List), Steffan Browning (List), Denise Roche (List), Holly Walker (List), Julie Anne Genther (List). Mojo Mathers may come in on specials.

MPs out

None

Result

7.5/10.

The Greens break the 10% barrier, which may be a first for a Green Party. They grow their caucus by four or five MPs, and just as importantly ranked their list smartly so that the new MPs are relatively youthful and talented. They have changed their brand significantly, no longer seen as the radical hippies. All very good achievements. They probably never have to worry about dropping below the 5% threshold again.

They will be slightly disappointed that as usual the vote dropped back from the polls. Getting James Shaw in would have been a coup. It also would have positioned them better to try and be seen as a “major” party not a “minor” party. But they only have five more seats than NZ First, so will be clumped together with them as a large minor party.

The only other disappointment for them, is one they had no control over. Labour did so badly that once again they are not in Government.

Challenges

To some degree their biggest challenge is NZ First. The left could do well in 2014, but it is hard to see that Labour and Greens alone could win a majority. This means that NZ First may hold the balance of power. As in 2005, this could see Peters insist to Labour that the Greens do not get to be Ministers as the price of their votes for confidence and supply. There may be no way for the Greens to ever get into Government unless they can reach some common ground with NZ First.

Another challenge is the relationship with National. The decision to do a policy co-operation agreement with them in 2008 paid off, as did their decision to not rule them out in 2011. It is part of the reason their vote increased. What areas can they get a policy co-operation agreement in, and how do they walk that line between not being too close to National but also not being seen as just a greener shade of Labour?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s go with my figure of $12b for now (which is in fact only $2b different from Labour’s $4b as they acknowledge that excludes borrowing for the Super Fund). Now that is what the extra debt would be for a Labour majority Government. If Labour got 50%, then they could implement their policies without compromise.

But if Labour does manage to put together a government, they will comprise (based on current polls) only around 55% of the Government. On the Roy Morgan poll they would in fact be just 50%.

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

That $12b of debt would be just a start. Let us look at the policies NZ First will want included in a budget:

• universal student allowances
• match student loan repayments $1 for $1
• Cut tax rate for new exporters to 20%
• lower company tax rate to 27%
• lower GST to 12.5%
• tax free threshold of $100/week
• turn TV One non-commercial
• Increase Govt R&D spending from 0.3% of GDP to 2% – a 600% increase
• Accelerated depreciation for specified industries
• 10% off power prices for pensioners
• Increased funding to decile 3- 10 schools
• reduce class sizes for lower decile schools
• increase health expenditure to 10% of GDP
• Increase defence spending to 2% of GDP
• abolish GST on rates
• abolish income tax on secondary jobs
• abolish tax on savings
• cap tuition fees, eventually reducing them to zero

There’s probably even more than this but I can spend only so long reading their manifesto. I can’t even begin to add them up but I’d say we are talking ten billions dollars a year in lost revenue and extra spending. Now let’s say he even gets 20% of his wishlist, and that is probably an extra $8 of borrowing over four years.

And bear in mind also that Winston is saying he would refuse any agreement in advance for how much extra spending will be needed to have him vote for the Government for three years. So every year Labour would have to feed him as much money as he can get, to keep their Government in office. This is not scare-mongering – this is exactly what Winston is promising to do, and there is no way Labour could govern without him.

But Winston is only the entree. Let us look at what the Greens want. At 15% they would have over half of Labour’s support, and be around one third of the Government. So they may get up to one third of their wishlist. That includes:

• tax-free income threshold of $10,000/year
• Write off all student debt, even for those not in paid employment
• tax-deductible study costs for those with no allowance
• A full universal student allowance for those aged 16+
• Increased accommodation allowance for students
• Reduce then abolish tertiary fees
• Increase school operations grant by 10%
• Maximum class size of 20 for schools
• Increase benefit levels to “sufficient for all basic needs”
• Increase public health spending to 10% of total health budget

There are again many more beyond that. And again the bill will run into the billions, and even the Greens can only come up with so many extra eco-taxes to plug the hole.

The two major parties are normally the ones who get the most intense scrutiny over the costings of their policies, and that is because they form the bulk of the Government. For example even if National reaches out again to ACT, United Future and Maori parties, National will be probably 90% of the Government. Hence, highly likely their debt track will hold up (especially as ACT ask for less spending not more).

But Labour is looking to be 50% to 55% of a Labour-led Government. This is vastly different to when they were last in power and they were over 80% of the Government. At 50% to 55% they will be comparatively weak, and the parties they will need to vote for their budget will have much more power and say than in the past – hence why it is important to also scrutinise their tax and spending plans.

I haven’t even looked at what spending one might have to agree to for the Mana and Maori parties, but it will not be nothing, and a Labour-led Government is only possible if Labour, Greens, Maori NZ First and Mana parties all vote for their budget.

So forget about $12b of extra debt. That is just the starting position. It is inevitable it would be significantly more than that.

This is the annual trade deficit with China over the last decade. Both the Greens and Winston rail against imports and say we need to export more and reduce the trade deficit.

They also both voted against the China-NZ Free Trade Agreement in 2008. They both still maintain it was a mistake, and a bad thing to do.

The results speak for themselves. After the trade deficit rose from $1b to almost $4b, it has reduced to $1.5b in just three years.

The Greens, like all of us, care deeply about the environment. But on economic policy, they and Winston are consistently wrong. They are skilled at talking about problems, but their solutions are toxic.

Exports to China in the three years prior to the FTA were $5.7b. In the three years since, they have been $13.1b. Those exports have helped keep kiwis in jobs, have grown the economy and provided billions more in tax revenue to help pay for schools, hospitals and welfare. And if the Greens and Winston had their way, it would not have happened (unless you wish to argue the massive unprecedented growth in exports was a coincidence).

But how curious is it, that a man and a woman riding the motorcycle registered to him were seen vandalising billboards in Christchurch with the stickers?

The most likely explanation is that this Anglican Church employee is lying. And if he is lying about this, why would he be telling the truth about how he arranged the nationwide campaign.

The Greens have not said how many of their parliamentary staff knew about the campaign. We know at least one did. They have said they will not investigate until after the election. This leaves open the possibility that several of their staff knew, or were involved, in the campaign.

On a bus in Wellington yesterday, the Green Party announced it would scrap Transmission Gully, the Kapiti Expressway and the Basin Reserve flyover roading programmes and reprioritise the $2.4billion spending.

I don’t know why the Greens just don’t come out and ban cars, rather than mess around with half measures. Their strategy is for roads to become so dangerous and congested through lack of spending, that people will abandon their cars, which will of course save the planet.

Road Transport Forum spokesman Ken Shirley disputed the Greens’ figures and said that over the next three years National had proposed spending $10b on roads and $7b on rail, despite roads taking 75 per cent of freight while 15 per cent of freight was moved on rail. The Greens were politicising the national highway process because of their love of other transport modes, he said.

This is what I call a balanced approach. You needs both roads and rail.

Porirua Mayor Nick Leggett called the Greens’ policy “madness” and said Transmission Gully and the Kapiti Expressway were essential to help develop the economic capabilities of the region.

A sensible chap that Leggett.

The Greens have revealed a party member and the partner of one of its staff members were behind the vandalism of 700 National Party billboards.

Co-leader Russel Norman said Jolyon White, who is the partner of his executive assistant, co-ordinated the defacing of the billboards.

First some history, about this. Whale first blogged about the plan for the stickers on 14 October, when he heard about the call for quotes for the stickers. Despite this publicity, the arrogant Greens involved decided to proceed.

Then Whale got sent photos of two motorcycles used in the stickering. From this point it was just a matter of time until those involved were exposed. I should point out that Whale is getting more page views than me at the moment – deservedly so.

So the co-ordinator is Jolyon White, who is the Social Justice Enabler for Anglican Church. Surely the church can not condone one of its staff doing this vandalism?

He is such an arrogant idiot, that he even went on radio boasting about what he did, and it seems some recognised his voice.

But it is the Greens who have the most questions to answer, based on this report:

Norman said his executive assistant had known about her partner’s plans for about two months and he was disappointed with her for not mentioning it.

It was an employment issue but the party had not spoken to Parliamentary services about the matter.

Okay imagine that say Labour party billboards were vandalised all around New Zealand. And it turned out the person who co-ordinated it was the husband of the Prime Minister’s executive assistant, and that the PM’s executive assistant had known about it for two months. Would Labour (or any political party) accept that the Prime Minister knew nothing at all about it? There would be calls for resignations, and for an official inquiry.

If the executive assistant knew about it for two months, and did not tell Dr Norman then it must be a sackable offence. She has failed in her most basic duty of care to her employer. How can the Greens possibly say they are disappointed over this, if they take no action?

I have worked for four parliamentary leaders. If my partner who is a party member did something like that, and I knew about it for two months and didn’t tell anyone in my office, I would absolutely expect to leave the office the day it came out, and not return.

But what the Greens have avoided saying, is who did know. Dr Norman says he did not know, and I take him at his word unless there is evidence to contradict that. But did other staff members in the Greens parliamentary office know? Did any Green MPs know?

And also, who were the 50 activists involved, and how many of then are Green party members or activists? My guess is the vast majority.

A related question is who paid for the commercial printing, and who paid for the distribution of them?

The Greens complained bitterly about the Exclusive Brethren pamphlets in 2005. But at least the Execlusive Brethren complied with the law, and put a name and address on the pamphlets as required.

Green party member Jolyon White has broken at least two laws I would say. The stickers are a form of election advertisement designed to discourage people from voting National. Not only were they not authorised, they were put up in the middle of the night. It is as flagrant a breach of the Electoral Act rules around transparency as you can get. I have no doubt the Electoral Commission will refer the matter to the Police, and hopefully the Police will ascertain how many other people were involved and what roles they hold in the Greens.

There is also the secondary issue of damage and vandalism.

Some will try and claim this was not the Greens, just an isolated party member. But the fact remains that the co-leader’s own executive assistant knew about these plans (and presumably endorsed them), and did nothing to stop them, despite the fact it was obvious if the co-ordinator was identified it would reflect on the Greens. I find it very hard to believe that no one else in the Greens office knew about this.

Remember there is form here. The secret taping of National MPs last election was done by a green (lower g) activist who was living with a Green Party staffer, and Green staff knew he had done it before his identity was made public.

UPDATE: While it is good Russel Norman has said the Greens do not condone vandalism, this press release from 1999 reminds us that they do condone “direct action”, saying it is a right and responsibility.

If there is a Labour-led Government, the Greens will have massive influence as their vote is around 1/2 that of Labour’s. Will the death of Transmission Gully be one of the conditions in a coalition agreement?

Let’s assume for instance, that once the election dust settles Prime Minister John Key will offer – in the name of broad church, representative politics and a desire to split the centre left vote in order to ensure his thirdterm – a couple of ministerial posts outside Cabinet to the Greens.

No strings attached. Something ministerial for Russel Norman say, in the Conservation/Environment era, and an associate Health post for his colleague Metiria Turei, where she could work alongside Tariana Turia. What would the Greens do if such an offer is made? What should they do?

I think there would be some strings attached. At a minimum it would be that those who are Ministers abstain on supply and confidence. A Minister can not vote against confidence in an Executive they are part of.

The Greens have been out of real power for 12 years. Helen Clark spurned the Greens after the 2005 election, and chose to go with Peters instead. As a junior player on the centre left, the Greens traditional role is to wait in the parlour until Labour brings home the election bacon. Yet Labour can only govern when Labour is in the ascendancy on the centre left, which usually means the Greens will have been reduced to hovering just above the 5% threshold. Perversely, in years (such as 2011) when the centre left vote goes to the Greens in large numbers, it is in a context where the Greens can’t be in government, not in any significant way.

That’s the Greens dilemma, in a nutshell. It may say that it is centrist – and it has been saying so for some time – but relatively few voters see it as such. And thus it remains in its current bind – strong when there is little chance of it governing, and able to join a centre left government only when it is in a position of relative weakness vis-a-vis Labour. And regrettably, Labour tends to treat the Greens like an abused spouse in those circumstances.

This is exactly the problem. The Greens get their votes from Labour when Labour are weak, hence a Labour-led Government will not generally occur when the Greens are strong.  And then when the Greens are weaker, Labour pisses all over them, and chooses Winston Peters and Peter Dunne over them.

That’s the basic argument for making a dramatic break away from the centre left and heading into unknown territory. Arguably, it is only by reaching some meaningful form of co-existence with National (beyond home insulation) that the Greens can break the mould, and put itself in a position where it could hope to poach votes from National in large numbers ( and not just from despondent Labour voters) to add to its core support.

If the Greens want to be able to grab significant numbers from National, they need to show they can work with National, beyond the current arrangement.

If the Greens did try to break out of their current ghetto would that pose a substantial risk to the brand? Absolutely. Political virginity is a valuable commodity, and one reason for the Greens’ longevity is that it has stayed away – or has been kept away – from the boiler room of executive power. The party strategists have also noticed the fate of others before them. Notably, the Maori Party has tried to make gains for a far more defined constituency than the one served by the Greens. If it is that hard for the Maori Party, how hard could it be for the Greens? Very hard indeed.

It is definitely a risk. One way to mitigate the risk (and I recommend this to all minor parties) is do not have your leader or all your leaders become Ministers. You need a leader to remain outside the Ministry so they can provide the political leadership to their party. If they are spending all their time signing off departmental papers, they are not making the constant case for support.

So if I was the Greens I’d push for an economic role for Norman and a health role for Hague, and keep Turei to fly the flag outside the Ministry.

So… even as Labour flounders and the Greens pick up the flotsam and jetsam from the good ship SS Goff, a lot of hard decisions lie in wait further down the track. The Greens’ current place on the political spectrum simply doesn’t allow them to harvest a big enough vote on the centre left to enable an escape from their current dependency on Labour which – on past performance – will treat them like deckhands once Labour is back on the quarterdeck again. Whatever the risks, it strikes me as unlikely that Russel Norman will be willing to tolerate subservience, in perpetuity.

As I said, Gordon Campbell has done a very nice job looking at the pros and cons.

Five thousand tonnes of radioactive uranium is being transported through New Zealand waters and docked at Kiwi ports every year. …

“Radioactive yellowcake uranium is on between six and 30 containers on these fortnightly shipments and it is deeply concerning that the government has allowed these shipments to occur. I think many Kiwis will be shocked.”

Last night a spokesman for Prime Minister John Key described yellowcake as “Australian dirt, which is essentially harmless”.

“The occasional transport of yellow cake through New Zealand ports has been taking place for many years. The shipments meet strict international regulations, and are described by the National Radiation Laboratory as posing little risk to the general public,” the spokesman said.But Hughes said that stance was far too carefree.

If we are going to ban uranium from our ports, are we going to ban it from our soil also?

If you have a 10 by 20 metre lawn, then the top metre of soil will have around 1 kg of uranium in it. Quick let’s ban soil also.

Of course we can’t stop there. Uranium exists in water also. We better ban water to be safe.

And then oh shit uranium particles are also in the air we breathe, Not sure how the Greens will ban air, but am sure they will try.

But of course uranium is not the only substance that is radioactive. So is potassium. And guess who is chock full of potassium giving off radiation? Bloody human beings.

So just to be safe, we better ban human beings also, along with the air, the water and the soil.

Here’s my scores on the following attributes

• Style
• Policy Focus
• Creativity
• Team Focus
• Relevance

National

• Style – 1/10 – the technical quality was appalling, both in terms of sound and lighting. May have been a deliberate decision to go for substance over style, in which case they wildly succeeded. There is a difference between no style and not overly flashy though!
• Policy Focus – 8/10. Key talked on the major issues. He talked both about what the Government had done and what it will do if re-elected.
• Creativity – 0/10. Did not inspire.
• Team Focus – 2/10. In that environment had to be Key only, but could have mentioned other Ministers more.
• Relevance – 9/10. It wasn’t about trivial stuff, but stuff that people are interested in and want to hear about. Stayed current
• Positivity – 8/10. Talked about themselves, didn’t knock opponents. Focused on a brighter future.

Labour

• Style – 8/10. Was well done and engaging. Used the visual medium well. You actually wanted to hear the next few minutes of the story.
• Policy Focus – 3/10. Did not hardly mention any of their current policies at all. Solely Basically attacked National’s policies and records – not just the current National either, but those of the last 80 years!
• Creativity – 7/10. Not the usual format. Was a good focus on why their MPs are Labour.
• Team Focus – 6/10. Sensible to use attractive and personable MPs such as O’Connor, Nash, Ardern, Robertson etc. However no mention of Deputy Leader, David Parker. And use of O’Connor was cynical as he is not even on the party list and probably won’t even be an MP.
• Relevance – 2/10. Not only failed to mention a single policy they were promoting, also spent far too long campaigning against Sid Holland and Rob Muldoon.
• Positivity – 3/10. Spent most of the time knocking National, and revisiting past grievances. However balanced that a bit by positive statements from some MPs.

Greens

• Style – 7/10. Good use of outdoors scenery. The odd technical hitch with lighting and camera shaking. Nice start talking about richer NZ, then having co-leaders talk.
• Policy Focus – 9/10. Talked relentlessly about their policies, and how they planed to achieve them.
• Creativity – 6/10. A basic concept executed well
• Team Focus – 5/10. Brief mention and profile of rest of the team.
• Relevance – 7/10. They talked well about the issues around their brand. However not necessarily the issues for all NZers. Nice linking of environment and economy.
• Positivity – 9/10. Relentlessly positive about what could be achieved if you voted for them. Highlighted their achievements with National. Even when negative such as state of rivers, talked on turning it around.

How did you find them?

I might rate the other party ones tonight, but not sure I can be bothered watching them all

Well the Herald reports the Greens are also keen on the idea:

The Green Party wants to make independent media watchdog the Press Council answerable to the Government.

So if there is a centre-left Government of Labour, Greens and Winston, the Government looks likely to bring in Government censorship of print media. I mean can anyone imagine Winston thinking it is a bad idea?

If print media lose their independence by a Labour/Greens Government, then the possible penalties they could face from a Government appointed BSA regulator include:

• Compulsory publication of a statement from the BSA
• an order to refrain from publishing for a set period of time
• an order to refuse any advertisements for a set period of time
• $100,000 fines for non-compliance
• Pay costs (which can be huge)

The Minister of Broadcasting appoints all four members of the BSA. I have no criticism of the current BSA members and their decision to date. But extending their reach to include all media would be a huge step backwards for press freedom, and would inevitably lead to more politicised appointments.

Enrol to vote and be in the draw to win cool prizes, including a custom-fitted bike, in our Mobilising Aotearoa Competition!

I think it is very much a thin end of the wedge to have political parties offering money or prizes to people to enrol. Even worse, there appears to be no checking that said person actually enrols, or was not already enrolled.

Think if you had MPs or candidates knocking on people’s doors handing out cash if residents there promised to go off and enrol?

Green Party corrections spokesman David Clendon said the changes were unacceptable.

“A private manager can be fined if they allow escapes. In that context they are going to be very risk averse and use the high classification rather than the lower one.”

Oh dear because there will be incentives to have fewer escapes, then we may have fewer escapes because the prison managers will be more risk averse.

How awful!

As might have been expected, the Green Party has jumped on this incident to advance its campaign against exploration for oil in deep waters off New Zealand. This is just political opportunism. There can be no comparison between a properly run deep-sea drilling operation, far offshore and subject to rigorous environmental safeguards, and an accident in which a ship has hit a well-charted reef a few hundred metres off the coast. As the Prime Minister said, the only connection is that both are at sea.

How it hit such a well charted reef is yet to be determined. Hopefully there will be some accountability for what has happened.

Green Party MP Catherine Delahunty has said she will resign if her party entered a coalition deal with the National Party – a call that undermines the credibility of the Green Party’s bid for more mainstream political appeal by leaving open the possibility of such a deal.

Ms Delahunty did not return calls, but Otago University politics lecturer Bryce Edwards confirmed she made the comment when responding to his questions during an interview on Friday.

“I clearly asked her: ‘If there was a Green Party MP that was a minister in a National-led Government, would you resign from parliament?’ She said, ‘Yes I would’.”

This undermines the Greens positioning considerably.

As I have said many times, let there be no doubt – if the Greens hold the balance of power they will always choose a Labour-led Government over a National-led Government. A vote for the Greens is a vote for Phil Goff to be Prime Minister.

But what Delahunty is saying goes beyond that. There could well be a scenario where National is the only viable Government, such as if National has over 61 seats. Both National and the Greens have not ruled out that in such a situation, they could possibly do a deal which sees the Greens taking up a portfolio or two. It could perhaps involve the Greens abstaining on supply and confidence.

However this is now effectively off the table, as Delahunty has said she would resign as an MP if this happens. I suspect her statement has pissed off her colleagues because what she has done is impose her unilateral view on the rest of the party – the exact opposite of things are meant to work in the Greens.

Of course you could argue they could just let her resign, but no party lightly does something which they know will lead to an MP resigning.

The chance of there being Green ministers in a National-led Government was always low, but Delahunty has now made it effectively zero, meaning her colleagues will have to wait until Labour gains office, which may be some elections away. Delahunty has also gone against the majority of Green voters, as a recent poll showed 60% of Green voters said the Greens should accept Ministerial positions in a National-led Government if John Key offered them.

It has now come back to bite them, with their astro-turfing on Reddit being slammed by a moderator. Reddit is one of the most popular sites on the Internet.

A Reddit reader has posted screen shots of the Greens “alerts” mechanism, where you can see which posts they are being alerted to and encouraged to interfere with. They are here, here and here.

The moderator posted:

This is not cool. In fact, it’s utterly disingenuous and really sucks.

I (and the other mods) are happy for (any and all) political parties to have a presence on reddit – particularly as we lead up to an election. We’re very happy that people want to chat about politics and things they care about. We’re very very happy that we’ve had politicians do AMA’s on the site. This is great, and part of what makes /r/nz great.

HOWEVER, these drive-by posts pimping the Green Party are one very small step above spamming. These will be removed and the people doing it will be banned when we find them. I’ve already banned 3 accounts that I’ve spotted doing this. Note that we will not be banning anyone who expresses a political opinion – as long as you’re an active member of the reddit community. If you’re here to gain “stars” on the Green Party website, then you’re not welcome.

Everyone else, if you spot any astro-turfing asshats, then report the comment or send one of the mods a message. Please don’t report people who just disagree with you, or are fans of a political party you disagree with, but those who are just here to promote a viewpoint (e.g. they signed up today to post one comment that says “political party A is great!”).

Some of the comments are interesting also, coming from their own supporters. LordDavethe7th: