Kiwiblog

The Taranaki Daily News reports:

Labour Party top-dog Andrew Little could step forward for a tilt at the New Plymouth electorate seat in next year’s national elections.

Mr Little, the party’s president and touted by many as a future Labour leader and prime minister, has refused to rule out the possibility.

“It’s certainly no secret I want to get into Parliament next year,” he told the Taranaki Daily News yesterday.

“As to how I do that, or where, I’ve made no decisions.”

He said he hopes to have made a decision within the next two or three months and wouldn’t rule out running in New Plymouth.

This is no surprise. The fact that Labour did not open nominations for New Plymouth at the same time as the other seats they lost, was obviously to keep options open for their President.

Andrew can of course just place himself at No 3 on the list, and be assured of entering Parliament that way. However a seat is almost a pre-requisite to becoming leader.

The city electorate is often viewed as a swing seat come election time and in 2008 National candidate Jonathan Young squeaked in past Labour’s 15-year encumbent MP Harry Duynhoven, with the tightest margin in the country – just 105 votes.

Mr Little has strong personal and family links to New Plymouth, having grown up here.

It was a very tight contest between Young and Duynhoven, but that is not the same thing as being a marginal seat between National and Labour.

While the electorate vote margin was only 0.2%, the party vote margin was a whopping 19.1%. Now nationwide the party vote margin was 11%, so 19% is a huge amount.

Harry Duynhoven had 13% of National voters, voting for him as the candidate. Will Andrew Little attract 13% of National voters?

It is a difficult decision for Andrew. His four main options are:

1. Stand for Rongotai, with Annette King going list only, allowing Annette to retire easily if Labour lose in 2011.
2. Stand for Hutt South if Trevor decides to retire in 2011 to become a full time blogger
3. Stand for New Plymouth.
4. Stand list only

No 1 is what I would go for if I was Andrew. There are rumours that Darren Hughes may seek that nomination though, and Annette is very good mates with Darren and would probably support him. It is also possible Annette will want to keep her seat, as many would see her going lost only as an indication she is not confident they will win the election.

No 2 depends on whether and when Trevor makes a judgement call that Labour are unlikely to win in 2011. He has said he doesn’t want another term of opposition. But I think Trevor still thinks the Government is on the verge of collapsing and is looking pretty comfortable where he is.

No 3 is Andrew’s for the taking. But the big negative is that he may lose, and lose big – which would not help him with his leadership aspirations.

No 4 is the default fall back option. As President, he would receive a massively high rating. But no one has yet become Prime Minister without not just a seat, but in fact a safe seat,

Labour yesterday announced a formal position on mobile termination rates:

The Government should put consumers first and regulate mobile termination rates to keep call costs down, Labour spokesperson for communications and IT Clare Curran said today.

“High mobile termination rates are a barrier to entry for new players in the market, which leads to less competition and higher prices,” Clare Curran said.

“While Vodafone and Telecom have now offered to lower termination rates by around 80 per cent, it still does not go far enough to reduce the major issues for new entrants.

I think it is a good thing that Labour have learnt from their mistakes, when they did a deal with the two telcos in 2007, rather than accept the advice to regulate.

Slightly amused that their formal policy stance comes just days after Clare had a whack at Matthew Hooton for implying Labour support the Drop the Rate, Mate campaign.

The Drop the Rate, Mate campaign also yesterday released their submission to the Minister, including some research done by Curia of 400 mobile phone users. Key findings were:

• Only 18% of respondents wanted the Government to accept the binding promises of Telecom and Vodafone, while 78% wanted the Government to regulate
• 79% agreed that Telecom and Vodafone are overcharging New Zealanders
• 85% agreed with the proposition that it should cost the same to call someone on a different network, as to call someone on your own network

The full results are here – EXCELTIUM MOBILE PHONE RESULTS MARCH 2010 PUBLIC.

Chris Barton in the Herald is not shy with his opinion of what the Government should do:

So far, you have to say, Joyce has played with an exceedingly straight bat. But it won’t be easy negotiating the quagmire of a split recommendation by Commerce Commissioners on mobile termination rates. Two argue for putting heads in the sand while one voice of reason says enough is enough – Vodafone and Telecom have had more than enough time to sort this out and have, time and again, shown they can’t be trusted.

Joyce will be familiar with the sordid last-minute deal stitched together between new mobile entrant 2degrees and Vodafone last year. While the public isn’t allowed to know about this venality, anyone who cares to can find it online (search under “NZ Cellphone racket”). It shows that Vodafone will move if it has a gun to its head. Joyce will also be familiar with www.droptherate.org.nz and www.fibretothedoor.co.nz – two campaigning websites where the public is helping the minister make up his mind.

Go there at once.

What fed-up consumers want minister, is Clint Eastwood’s Dirty Harry. For some of us, it’s so bad, we don’t just want Clint to pull out his .44 Magnum and ask whether the punk feels lucky. With Telecom and Vodafone, we want him to pull the trigger.

The challenge for the Minister, is how quickly can a regulated price be established, if he chooses to regulate. The undertakings would take place more quickly. However the likely regulated price would see prices by 2011 drop further, and remain lower.

The Dom Post reports:

A productivity commission that will run the ruler over government departments has been given a cautious welcome by the public servants’ union.

Details of how the commission will work have yet to be thrashed out, but Finance Minister Bill English’s office said it would be based on the Australian commission that has operated since 1998.

That body covers the whole economy, but has a specific role in preparing regular reports on efficiency, effectiveness and service delivery in government agencies.

Public Service Association national secretary Brenda Pilott said a similar body in New Zealand would help monitor performance, but would need a clear definition of how state sector productivity should be measured.

Very pleased to see the PSA supportive. The Australian Productivity Commission has played a useful and significant role in growing the Australian economy and has bipartisan support.

The Government is poised to announce the creation of the commission – part of a confidence and supply agreement with ACT – this month.

Mr English’s office said it would support “the goals of higher productivity growth across the economy and improvements in the quality of regulation”.

It would “work closely with and be closely modelled on” the Australian commission, which is a research, advisory and performance monitoring agency that covers economic, social and environmental issues.

Prime Minister John Key said on Monday the commission in New Zealand would be mostly focused on the public sector, suggesting it will play a role in looming reforms. …

Ms Pilott said the commission could fill a gap in how public sector productivity was measured, something the PSA had been lobbying for.

Labour finance spokesman David Cunliffe said there was merit in having a commission, but Labour would want to carefully scrutinise what it was measuring and how.

The commission will not be hugely effective if it is seen as partisan. This does not mean both major parties have to agree with everything the commission does, but it means respect for its work.

Claire Browning at Pundit pulls no punches:

Shame on Labour spokesperson Chris Carter and partisan blog The Standard for using anti-whaling diplomacy for short-term political gain

Never has the right-wing sobriquet “The Stranded” seemed more appropriate.

I am truly loathe to diss a friendly fellow blog, and I apologise for it already. But they asked for it. It stems from this hysterical politicisation of New Zealand’s IWC negotiating stance, here and here, by The Standard blogger Eddie, which even one of their own readers characterised as “partisan hackery”. “I’m not sure what I think of this [wrote Neil] but using it as an excuse for more partisan hackery is tedious”. That didn’t stop Labour spokesperson Chris Carter wading in:

And then:

Even more offensive than Eddie’s posts was colleague Marty G’s comments, excoriating anyone who might disagree on the comments thread, evidently mistaking ad hominem for wit: “I don’t give a crap about Palmer … have you suffered a head injury? … follow the link in the post, genius” … and so on.

Claire concludes:

Using dead whales as pawns in a political game is no less sickening than their original butchery. Carter says the Labour Party stands for their conservation. What I take from the past two day’s performance is that it stands for ill advised unnuanced politicking, over substantive hard policy choices.

John Armstrong also looks at the diplomatic proposal:

Has New Zealand sold out to Japan by backing a compromise proposal before the International Whaling Commission which would reopen the door to commercial slaughter of whales, albeit in limited numbers?

The answer is an emphatic “no”. If John Key and his Foreign Minister, Murray McCully, should plead guilty to any charge, it is to one of being realistic.

The one-dimensional “you are either with us or against us” nature of the debate between the pro- and anti-whaling brigades leaves little room for the subtlety and nuance of diplomacy which – despite the hairy chest-beating of Australia’s Rudd Government – is the only viable means of reducing the ever-increasing number of whales being harpooned in the southern oceans.

Even the merest hint of concession to the Japanese had the Government this week labelled as “pro-whaling” by Labour. That is absurd. It is equally absurd to paint the Government’s caution compared with Australia’s bellicosity as evidence National does not give a toss about the environment.

Were that true then Sir Geoffrey Palmer – someone with a passion for preserving the environment and the expertise in international law to make it happen in this case – would by now have presumably resigned as New Zealand’s Commissioner to the International Whaling Commission.

And what has happened under the present stand off:

The status quo on whaling is no longer tenable. Japan’s ships continue to steam through the huge loophole which permits whales to be killed for “scientific” purposes. The number of whales slaughtered each year for science has risen steadily from 300 in 1990 to an expected 3000 this year.

Australia’s threat to take Japan to the International Court of Justice might make people feel a lot better about those figures. It will not save one whale. It could in fact endanger many more.

It would be years before the court made a judgment. If Australia were to lose its case on the legality of whaling, it could be open slather on the species.

The only thing Australia is likely to achieve is wrecking any consensus on the plan to allow commercial whaling for a 10-year period, but with big cuts in the numbers killed each year,

This plan would buy time for the commission while restoring some control over the numbers killed – something it is powerless to do with regard to scientific whaling . …

With an election later this year, narrowing opinion polls plus a manifesto commitment to go to the international court, Kevin Rudd is having severe problems with digestion. His tough talk should be seen for what it really is – utter expedience, making New Zealand’s stance look principled in comparison.

d

I see Labour’s AXE the Tax bus is visiting you today.

You may consider the visit a waste of time, as Labour in fact are not promising to axe the tax or even the GST rise, but there is some good that can come from their visit.

You can inform them that Nelson is not part of Marlborough, and for that matter neither is Motueka.

John Armstrong writes:

Axe the tax? Labour would if it could. But it can’t. So maybe the tax will stay. Maybe it won’t. Who knows.

Labour isn’t saying. And it won’t be saying for quite a while yet. …

National’s overall tax package will leave Labour nursing a big political headache – how to make up the $2 billion shortfall in revenue if Labour pledges to restore the rate of GST back to 12.5 per cent.

Labour won’t say how. But it can hardly talk of raising income tax rates which National will have just lowered.

No party – not least one coming from such a long way behind its rival – can afford to saddle itself with that kind of platform.

I would welcome Labour giving New Zealanders a clear choice, and campaigning on increasing personal income tax rates.

But that is one thing Labour will definitely not be doing. It is not going to be trapped into declaring a position which it might later regret.

Goff has been around long enough to remember National’s very own GST-induced political disaster.

When Labour introduced GST in 1986, National felt obliged to come up with an alternative – the long-forgotten “Extax”.

With Labour determining no items would be exempted from GST, National saw a gap in the political market. Extax allowed exemptions for basic foods, doctors’ fees, local authority rates and some charities. The tax was universally panned as an administrative nightmare.

The ridicule prompted senior National MPs to lose faith in the policy, resulting in mixed messages as to where National really stood on a broad-based consumption tax.

Not just National MPs. I was an office holder in National in 1987 and I actually voted for the Labour Party, partly because of National’s ridicolous Extax policy.

Meanwhile Bryce Edwards looks at the Axe the Tax campaign. He looks at whether or not is is electioneering regardless of the rules devised by MPs on what is legal:

The Labour Party obviously hasn’t learned much from the severe public ignomany suffered when it was revealed that the party had been paying for its electioneering Pledge Card with public funds while in government. Their latest rort – running a heavily branded bus campaign around the country – is no less electioneering, yet Labour has once again used taxpayer funds to pay for this political advertising. This blog post looks at whether such electioneering can really be called ‘legitimate’, even if the exercise is made to fit into the dodgy Parliamentary Service rules. Regardless of the expenditure’s legal status, few voters will appreciate having to pay for such overt political advertising.

Bryce goes on to distinguish between whether something is “legal” and “legitimate”

The Herald reports:

Labour’s “Axe the Tax” bus trip protesting GST increases is costing the taxpayer about $30,000 – but Labour leader Phil Goff has defended it as the cheapest way to get around the country on an issue that affects everybody. …

The bus features a red “skin” with Axe the Tax signage and Labour logos.

A spokesman for Mr Goff said the costs were expected to be about $30,000, including for the bus charter, the signage and other material such as signs and balloons.

It was funded out of Mr Goff’s parliamentary leader’s office fund.

He said it was a fraction of the $200,000 bill to the taxpayer for brochures Prime Minister John Key sent out to households last month to defend his party’s new national standards policy for schools.

Now Goff is quite correct that the bus is within the rules for spending from the leader’s fund. Just as the $200,000 on national standards brochures was within the rules.

But there is a danger that the public don’t care much about whether or not it is within the rules, and will judge the spending on the basis of whether it is providing information, or a series of photo ops.

I suspect most voters don’t mind parliamentary budgets being spent on a pamphlet which is sent to individual households, setting out a policy area, and why they are doing it. They may see that as useful communications.

With a bus tour, it is open to a very different perception. Voters know that it is not about communicating with voters – because if it was, it is hugely inefficient. It is about a series of photo ops, and desire to get media coverage.

Now again, this is all within the rules. But as I said, don’t be surprised if the public take a different view of parliamentary funds being spent on a bus tour, compared to direct mailing of pamphlets.

It would cost significantly more for him to use Crown cars to travel around in and for other MPs to use individual forms of transport. The signage was attention-grabbing and ensured people knew exactly what the MPs were there to talk about.

In my experience with bus tours, they cost massively more than the cost fo the bus. You see what they do not tell you is the fact that MPs normally fly in and off the bus to meet up with it.

As for the signage ensuring people know exactly what the MPs were there o talk about, this is not quite the case. Labour are not promising to axe the tax, and in fact they are not even promising to axe any increase in GST. As far as I know their policy is simply we will promise to do something different to whatever National announces, even though we do not know what National will announce.

It would be hilarious, if not rather tragic.

Labour’s current campaign for “ordinary New Zealanders” is “Axe the Tax”.

Now 95% of New Zealanders will take this as meaning that Labour want to axe GST. After all it is not called “Stop the hike” but “Axe the tax”.

So Labour are trying to make people believe that they stand for axeing GST. Sure not in the small print, but if you see that big bus go by with “Axe the tax” on there, that is the impression you will get.

So how much would Labour have to put up personal tax rates, to compensate for an axed GST. Well GST brings is around $9.6 billion from the private sector.

Now assuming Labour would not want to increase the two lower tax rates or the company tax rate, it means that Labour would be able to align the 33% tax rates and the 39% tax rate. They would both have to increase to 86%, so that any money you earn over $48,000 you only keep one seventh of it.

Maybe Labour may want to reconsider having such a misleading campaign slogan?

UPDATE: Some sharp eyed readers have noted that the campaign, its bus, etc are all funded by the taxpayer from the Leader’s fund. Now it is a legitimate expense within the rules, but it would be ironic that if Labour do axe the tax, then the current level of taxpayer funding to parliamentary parties may have to be axed also

Labour are campaigning against the GST increase (yet being careful not to promise to reverse it), saying it will hit households hard. Well Stats NZ have calculated that the impact of GST going to 15% will be a one off increase of 2.0% in the CPI.

Now let’s see how that compares to the CPI increases under the last two Government’s.

In December 1990 the CPI was 731 and in December 1999 it hit 837. That was an increase of 14.5% over nine years – an average of 1.5% a year,

From December 1999 to December 2008 the CPI went from 837 to 1072 – an increase of 28.1%, and an average of 2.8% a year.

The difference between inflation under Labour and under National is around 14% – or seven times greater than the one off 2% increase caused by a GST increase.

Now if one takes just food prices, it is even worse. The food price index increased only 9.9% under nine years of National. Under nine years of Labour it shot up a massive 37.1%.

So if you hear a Labour MP talking about the impact increased prices will have on families, remind them of the 37% increase in food prices and the 28% increase in all prices that occurred under Labour.

Trevor Mallard blogged last week:

Quick post coz doing electorate stuff but couldn’t resist sharing the Spotless results. These people are currently offering parliamentary cleaners a 25c wage increase that would take them to $12.80/hour despite employing cleaners (sometimes the same people) at $14.62/hour in hospitals and schools.

Their net profit after tax has increased by 40.8% to over $24 million.  Their earnings per share is up 25%.

Message to CEO Farnik – stop screwing our cleaners. Maybe you should pay $15 not $14.62/ hour. But $12.80/hour for parliamentary cleaners is just not enough.

I’ll fisk this post in more detail in a second, but first want to comment that I think it once again shows that most Labour MPs have no idea about how private businesses work. Profit is always treated as a bad thing, and basically as a margin there to be soaked up by increased wages. The concept of a return on capital seems foreign.

Now we are supplied two figures – a NPAT of $24 million and an hourly rate of $12.80, with a conclusion that one can afford to increase wages to $15 an hour. But business is not so simple.

Now let us take Trevor’s figure of NPAT increasing 40% to $24 million. This is correct, and not surprising as a company comes out of a recession. But Spotless have many divisions to their work, and each one has to be profitable (or you stop doing that type of work). The relevant information is the revenues and expenses for the cleaning division.

Now the earnings before interest and tax for the cleaning division actually fell 9.2% from $7.6 million to $6.9 million. So the 40% NPAT figure is irrelevant when it comes to what one can afford to pay cleaners.

Now the cleaning division had revenues of $133.1 million and implied expenses of $126.2 million. This means expenses are 94.8% of revenue and profit is 5.2% of turnover – hardly massive. We don’t know what proportion of expenses are staff wages, but let us assume it is 50%, or $63 million.

Now Trevor is calling for wages to go up by at least 16%, maybe 20%. Now if that was to happen across the board, then that would be additional costs of $12.6 million, which would send their cleaning division into making a loss of $5.7 million.

Now one can dispute the assumptions, and my motivation is not to defend Spotless per se. It is to highlight that the figures Trevor are using to make his case are meaningless. A net profit means nothing unless one is talking about it as a proportion of revenue or capital or both. A company with a $1 million NPAT may be in a far better position to afford pay increases than a company with a $20 million NPAT, as the second company may have $1 billion of equity and the former company $5 million of equity.

This week’s Dispatch from St Johnnysburg for NBR 24/7 is on Labour. A couple of extracts:

Labour have had a good couple of weeks.

First of all, something has happened to Phil Goff over the break. He has come back a far more relaxed and engaging politician. Yes, his party’s supporters may still pine for Helen, but over time they may appreciate a less polarizing leader.

And on the tax issue:

Labour has been making waves on the GST issue. As the Government has yet to detail its tax package, Labour is doing it for them. They assume that the top tax rate will be dropped to 30c, and a pliant media report their scenarios that Telecom CEO Jack Paul Reynolds will get a tax cut of $150,000 a year and Joe Average will get a few dollars a week.

National needs the debate on tax to be about the macroeconomic effects – the desire to increase the incentives to work, to invest and to save and to reduce the incentive to borrow and consume. If the debate becomes one of simply who gets how much, they will have problems.

I conclude by saying the next set of public polls will give some idea as to whether the public have started to tune into what Labour are saying.

Brian Rudman writes:

The Labour Party’s announcement on Monday that it had received only one nomination to be its candidate in each of four former Labour seats is a reminder of how different politics has become under MMP.

Auckland Central, Maungakiekie, Ohariu and West Coast-Tasman are seats with strong and historic Labour roots that have, in the past, seen fiercely contested nomination battles.

None are presently held by Labour.

Before MMP, that would have been an added incentive for young hopefuls and dumped MPs alike to battle to the death to carry the party banner.

The problem is that the Head Office has such a dominant say, that if they make it clear they want no contest as they have hand picked a List MP, there is little chance of a grass roots member going up against them.

Auckland Central certainly was a battleground seat in the past.

A traditional Labour seat, it became the battlefield when Labour split asunder during the battles of Rogernomics, In 1993, after a six-year tussle, sitting MP Richard Prebble was voted out of office by the city’s richest per capita electorate in favour of leftwing Alliance candidate Sandra Lee. At the height of the contest, both candidates had about 800 active campaigners apiece. This was local participation, pre-MMP, in all its glory.

That Labour can now only come up with one contender for nomination shows how much things have changed. …

For local party organisations, regardless of party, the one real power they have – or had – was to dig their toes in regarding candidate selection. Head office organisations could bully and cajole and in the end, by fair means or foul, usually get their way. Determined locals could make the going very sticky. But these days they’ve lost their power.

And Rudman quotes the famous Jordan Carter blog:

A recent entry on a Labour Party blog by party activist and 2008 Hunua candidate Jordan Carter headed “What must Labour do?” canvasses the issue every defeated party must face up to. Labour, he says, stopped listening to the people.

To turn this around, Labour has “to invite people in to join with us and help shape what we are doing next … We need to be the party that people see as grassroots-based, and where they know that if they want to raise an issue or a concern, it will filter through to what our policy is and what our politicians are saying and thinking”. …

But if Mr Carter is correct, then it’s hard to see the rubber-stamping of candidates in four “battleground seats” as a good step towards recapturing either the public imagination or the enthusiasm of party workers expected to fight to get the candidates elected.

Thinking more about it, another reason there was no internal contest is because Labour held the selection so early. Very few people, except existing MPs, can afford to be campaigning for two full years.

One of the best policies the Government has implemented went into force on Friday. A Hastings couple got to purchase their state house from the Government. You can see how happy they are at TV3.

Now these are sold at market rates, and the money from them goes into buying more housing stock, so it is good for everyone. The former tenants become home owners, and more houses are made available for those on the waiting list for a state home.

But of course Labour is against people removing themselves from being reliant on the state, and want to ban such sales. And worse Phil Goff insulted those tenants who aspire to be home owners – this is what he said:

“The only people who benefit from this are the developers, who will no doubt stand behind a number of tenants to fund the purchase so that it can be onsold.”

Isn’t that appalling. Apart from the fact that the houses are sold at market rates, he impugns dozens of Kiwi families who simply aspire to own the home they have lived in for many years (or decades) and accuses them of just being in it to make a quick buck.

Labour don’t seem to like those who aspire to get off welfare and get ahead.

The Dom Post editorial:

In Government, Labour presided over a 48 per cent increase in the average salaries of public service chief executives, pushing the earnings of more than a dozen past the prime minister’s salary of $393,000. In Opposition, Labour is calling for new state chief executives to be paid no more than the prime minister.

In government, it took nine years to increase the minimum wage by $5 a hour during an economic boom. In Opposition it wants the Government to increase it by $2.50 to $15 an hour in just 12 months, despite the fact unemployment is rising.

Do Labour’s strategists think voters are stupid? Or do they just think they have short memories? This is populist, lowest common denominator politics that will do Labour no good in the long run.

Spot on. Only a moron could actually think Labour is serious about either of those promises.

… the salaries of senior public servants should be determined by their responsibilities and performance, not by slogans. And scrutiny should occur on an ongoing basis, not just when Labour needs a headline. The benchmarks for most of the salaries Labour is complaining about were set when it was in office. It did little to constrain salary increases then and is in no position now to criticise a Government that has stopped further increases in the total amount paid to public service bosses.

To me it just shows that Labour is so desperate to get back into power, that they’ll say anything.

Similarly, there are reasons to constantly review the minimum wage, as Labour did when it was last in office. It provides vulnerable workers with a measure of protection from unscrupulous employers. But, if there is a time to dramatically increase the minimum wage, it is not when the world is tentatively emerging from the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Doing so would benefit some workers but cost others, in marginal enterprises, their jobs and deny yet others a chance to enter the workforce.

Can you imagine a worse time to increase the minimum wage by 20% over 12 months? I reckon deep down Phil Goff knows the policy is economic lunacy that would destroy jobs. So the only conclusion is that Labour wants more jobs destroyed, or they are calling for something they know is daft.

Its MPs did the right thing when they reconfirmed Mr Goff and Annette King as leader and deputy. They had few alternatives, and change for change’s sake would only have made the party look more desperate. But Labour will not make up lost ground until it reconnects with the voters it lost touch with in office. Promising things no party can deliver is not the way to do that.

What worries me is that they are talking about spending binges, while the crown accounts still have huge deficits and increasing debt.

Labour has announced four selections, reports the Herald:

Labour has already chosen its 2011 election candidates for Auckland Central, West Coast-Tasman, Ohariu and Maungakiekie.

First-term list MP Jacinda Ardhern will contest Auckland Central and Carol Beaumont, also a list MP, will contest Maungakiekie. Both are held by National.

List MP Damien O’Connor will try to take back West Coast-Tasman, the seat he lost to National in the last election.

Senior MP Charles Chauvel, another list MP, will contest Ohariu, which is held by United Future leader Peter Dunne.

I wonder why Labour did not open nominations for NZ’s most marginal seat of New Plymouth? Is it because Andrew Little plans to parachute in there later, as that is his home town?

There were four nominations for Waitakere, the seat held by Social Development Minister Paula Bennett, and a selection meeting will be held on March 20. The nominations were Ann Pala, Carmel Sepuloni, Hamish McCracken and Phil Twyford.

It will be pretty devastating to Twyford’s career if he fails to win the nomination, after having been scared out of both Mt Albert and Auckland Central.

He is a more polished politician than Sepuloni, but Labourites may not be keen to put up a “white middle aged male” against the young at heart fiesty Paula Bennett.

McCracken is a perennial candidate – his list ratings have been in 1999 he was no 60, in 2002 no 52, in 2005 no 49 and in 2005 no 50. I can’t see him beating one, let alone two, MPs to the nominaton.

Ann Pala is a Fijian immigrant who was President of the Waitakere Ethnic Board, a director of Winmac Computer Solutions, member of the Islamic Women’s Council. To her great credit she has criticised her party’s association with Winston Peters.

Less agreeably, Pala called for an “ethnic ward” for the Auckland Council, which would elect two or three Councillors. Pala seems to be the only actual West Auckland standing for the Waitakere nomination.

Meanwhile the Dominion Post reports:

United Future leader Peter Dunne faces a tough battle for his Ohariu seat after Labour kicked off its campaign and National vowed it would not stand aside to give him a free ride.

List MP Charles Chauvel will begin door knocking and leaflet drops within weeks after he was the only nomination as Labour’s candidate.

The seat is the eighth most marginal in the country. It was held by Mr Dunne by just 1006 votes at the last election – well down on his 7702 majority in 2005 and the 12,000-plus margin he racked up in 2002. …

Mr Dunne won 12,303 votes in 2008, compared to 11,297 for Mr Chauvel and 10,009 for Ms Shanks.

I expect National will vigorously contest the seat. The reality is that if both National and Dunne stand, then it is possible Chauvel could win the seat due to vote splitting. However if Peter retires from Parliament, then it would be a safe seat for National. Take a look at recent election results.

In 2008 National’s party vote was 17,670 to 12,728 for Labour. In a clear two way contest National should win the seat by 3,000 to 5,000 votes (depending on if many Greens tactically vote).

The split voting statistics tell a story in Ohariu. This is where Dunne has picked up votes in the last three elections:

• 2002 – Dunne got 47% of Labour voters and 57% of National voters
• 2005 – Dunne got 34% of Labour voters and 52% of National voters
• 2008 – Dunne got 16% of Labour voters and 44% of National voters

Peter used to pick up strong support from Labour and National voters. However from 2002 to 2008, he support from Labour voters declined by two thirds. Ironically it was during this period he supported them with confidence and supply, so there is no gratitude in politics!

Now that Dunne can’t attract large number of Labour voters, the main impact is to split the electorate vote of centre-right voters between him and the National candidate. Hence why Chauvel would have a reasonable chance of winning, if Dunne stands in 2011.

But if Dunne retires, then Ohariu should become the only National held seat in Wellington.

Metiria Turia blogs:

Trevor Mallard defriended me on Facebook last night and I have to tell you the story. He also defriended another person for asking the same questions I did. Not terribly sporting, I would have thought.

Metiria’s sin was to point out the gap between Labour’s rhetoric on the minimum wage and their record.

And Trevor got so annoyed he unfriended her!! Seriously – just like a teenager does when they are in a huff.

I love Labour’s strategy for making friends and influencing people.

First Shane Jones insults a priest at Ratana, and them declares war against the Maori Party.

And now Trevor Mallard defriends on Facebook the co-leader of the Green Party.

What next? Will Annette King call Jim Anderton a authoritarian tyrant, to get rid of their one remaining friend?

Kaine Thompson is a former Ministerial press secretary and Labour activist. He blogs some thoughts on the challenge for Labour under the title “I want my party back”:

Labour lost the 2008 General Election. No revelation there really is there? We are not in government and on it’s current track, I don’t believe Labour can win the next General Election. In fact, I’m not sure we could work to from a government at this stage even if things got close. It pains me to say that, but I believe this is true and I believe we are ignoring the writing on the wall saying that if we continue to work the way we are working, we won’t have a shot at returning to the Beehive in 2011. I believe we could, but not right now.

If things do get close, then the Maori Party come into play. And having Shane Jones insult people at Ratana is going to be so helpful.

Virtually the entire front bench has an “Hon” in front of their names. So, what does that mean? It means they were a Minister in the last government. Some may argue this is a good thing, it means there are people who know how to hold the reins and there are people who know how to operate.

To some extend with some, it is true. Though, I think, on the other side of that coin, is a chance to say that we could see new people on the front bench. It’s not for me to judge the performance of any Member of this Caucus, but I can say that the principle did not work and will not work going forward. Of course, I say at this point, it would be the best thing in the world to be wrong, but I don’t think I am. In any case, Labour in opposition, is merely Labour out of government.

I think Goff realises he needs a front bench reshuffle to increase his chances of winning. My pick is the second half of this year.

What I am asking for is a clear public message about what we, as Labour, are FOR, not just what we are against. It is a poor assumption to say that if you’re not for it, you’re aginnit, but it seems we are making such assumptions. Maybe I’m not picking up the messages, maybe I should watch the House more, maybe I should read more of the press releases? I don’t know, but my frustration is that I don’t believe I have heard a clear message yet from the party about who we are and what we stand for now.

The party’s brand tends to be the leader’s brand, and I have to say I don’t know what Phil Goff stands for. I knew what Clark did, but Goff voted for a 25% flat tax and voted for increasing the top rate to 39%. What does he truly believe in?

In opposition you can propose all sorts of things, without having to worry about the consequences. We see this today with Trevor Mallard’s private members bill to have the minimum wage go from $12.50 to $15.00 in just two years.

Increases in the minimum wage can destroy jobs. Not automatically in every situation, but certainly in many situations. If this was not the case the minimum wage would be $50 an hour.

With the abolishment of the youth minimum wage, I have no doubt that the record high youth unemployment is partially because some young workers have already been priced out of the market.

On the other hand the economy had strong enough economic growth for most of the 2000s that the minimum wage was increased without a significant impact on employment.

So let us look at Labour’s record vs their rhetoric.

In Labour’s first term, they had a booming economy (inherited from the previous Government). How much did they increase the minimum wage by? Their annual increase were 55c, 15c and 30c.

So Labour are demanding that just as we come out of a major recession with high unemployment, the Government should increase the minimum wage by $1.25 a year, when in their first term the increases averaged 33c a year. National’s increases have been 50c and 25c, around the same as Labour in their first term, but not quite as high as a percentage. Of course a key difference is the inherited recession.

Is anyone stupid enough to think that if Labour was in Government they would be increasing the minimum wage to $15?

In fact we know this from their own election policy. All their policy said was that they would increase it to keep pace with (the greater of) inflation or average wage increases. Now as neither inflation or the average wage is at 10%, it shows how hypocritical Labour is being – now promising something they know would be bad for jobs, purely because they know they don’t have to deliver on it. If they really thought it was a good idea they would have promised it at the last election.

Labour in their second term increased the minimum wage by just 50c a year.

The one period where it did increase much faster was 2005 – 2008, but that was not because of Labour – that was forced on them by NZ First and the Greens. But even then, they never did an annual increase of $1.25.

So again, when the economy is booming and unemployment is low, Labour implements relatively modest minimum wage increases. Once they are in Opposition and unemployment is high and we have just come out of recession, they advocate the highest ever increase.

Do you really want them running the country again?

Liberty Scott notes this release from Ruth Dyson:

“The Government apparently thinks people will simply be able to change their diet and exercise without any assistance or form of nutrition education”

He comments:

I’m astonished. Changing your diet is impossible without the government. The carefully hidden knowledge that eating mostly vegetables, fruit, lean meat, fish and cereals, and avoiding high fat and high sugar foods helps you lose weight is something that almost nobody knows surely. In addition, without the government how COULD people go to the gym, or go for a walk or swim?

Indeed. It is all the Government’s fault.

Does anything more clearly show the patronising and condescending attitude the Labour Party, and indeed many statists have for the general public than that? The idea that without the government, people can’t look after themselves, don’t know any better and wont change.

Ms. Dyson might wonder if one of the reasons Labour became far less popular is that people are sick of being treated as imbeciles, and sick of being forced to pay for bureaucrats to hand hold people.

I am sure it was one of the reasons.

The Herald reports:

Labour received a battering at Ratana township yesterday as National and the Maori Party continue to bask in popularity after more than a year in office together.

Labour was challenged to reciprocate the loyalty shown to it from Ratana for decades by accepting four Ratana candidates for winnable positions in Parliament – on the list.

To rub his nose in it, Labour leader Phil Goff had to endure a speech praising Prime Minister John Key for being “a brilliant speaker” and “a person who should be admired”.

Heh. Now one has to understand the significance of this. Ratana is not just a meeting of Maori. It is not like Waitangi. Ratana has been an ally for Labour for many many decades. As a Labour leader, having Ratana praise National is somewhat akin to a Green Leader having to listen to Greenpeace praise National.

And Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples was welcomed in the morning, with him telling Ratana that the Maori Party was their party – it holds five of the seven Maori electorateseats.

The recent Marae Digipoll showed the Maori Party massively ahead of Labour amongst Maori voters on the Maori roll. It also showed National ahead of Labour amongst Maori voters on the general roll.

Mr Goff rejected the suggestion of greater Ratana representation in the Labour caucus, other than on merit.

I have a two word response to that – Ashraf Choudary!

Ratana minister Kereama Pene, who delivered the critical speech, was told by Labour MP Shane Jones he should stick to ministering.

How to win friends and influence people.

In The Press report I note Goff is using their new slogan – the ordinary person:

“Sure, you need to update it to be a 21st-century relationship, but it shows the coincidence between Ratana and Labour working for the ordinary person.”

We should start a competition to count up how often the phrase “ordinary person” appears in Labour press releases, blog postings and speeches.

First Audrey:

At Tuesday’s caucus meeting in Manukau, Goff will be confirmed resolutely as leader. Under the party’s rules the leadership must be addressed in the first caucus of the year before election year.

Before inviting the caucus back to his Clevedon farm for dinner, he will deliver a short message to his MPs – do better than you did last year.

The implication must be that if they don’t shape up, they will be shipped out.

That is a fair message, as some in Labour have not performed and are missing in action, such as Parekura. Goff should seriously consider a front bench reshuffle and sticking up some of the 2008 intake. He also needs to think about signals to former Ministers – ie does he see a place for them as a Minister, if Labour should win. Then they can make decisions about retiring, and allow further new blood in next election.

Foreign Affairs spokesman Chris Carter had a shocking year, due in no small part to his reaction to media stories about about high travel costs. He will miss the first caucus meeting because he is in the Caribbean monitoring elections for the Commonwealth.

Parekura Horomia made no impact against the Maori Party but is seen as untouchable because he held his seat against it, and is the senior Maori.

Shane Jones, whose leadership ambitions are a frequent source of teasing by National, made no impact in his areas of environment and economic development, but was de facto Maori Affairs spokesman.

And David Cunliffe, whose leadership ambitions are a regular source of teasing within Labour, will be expected to do better against Finance Minister Bill English.

One could suggest Shane and DC need to concentrate on their portfolios, and not Phil Goff’s

Goff is expected to lead a concerted effort this year to make Cunliffe and other MPs put ordinary working people uppermost in their minds as they develop their portfolios and policies.

Is it just me, or the way many Labour MPs talk about “ordinary working people”, they sound like a curator at a museum who is enthused about studying them!

Vernon Small writes:

Labour leader Phil Goff’s job will be on the line at the party’s first caucus meeting of the year on Tuesday, but he is confident no challenger will emerge.

The party’s leadership is always on the agenda at the first caucus meeting of the middle year of each parliamentary term, but despite’s National’s jibes that he is “fill-in Phil” – an interim leader while Labour regroups – Mr Goff is so confident he has invited his team to a barbecue at his Clevedon home … bringing with it the inevitable jokes.

I agree that Goff will not face a challenge this January, and I doubt he will next January either. The odds are that he will remain Leader until the 2011 election (and I have money on iPredict that his job is safe this year).

There will be a bit of a danger period for him – it is the second half of 2010. If National is still 20 points ahead in the polls a couple of months after the 2010 budget (which is the most likely game changer between now and the election), then some in Labour may start to get nervous.

However two things should keep Goff in the job even if Labour remain 20 points behind. The first is the lack of confidence in the alternatives. The second is MMP. Under FPP, MPs would panic at bad poll ratings as them losing their seat meant the end of their political career. But with MMP those on good list positions are insulated from all but the most disastrous election results. So the propensity to panic for self survival is lessened.

Audrey Young takes a look at Labour (which I will blog on also), and as part of that identifies what she calls the “hardcore” left as:

1. Ruth Dyson
2. Chris Carter
3. Maryan Street
4. Lianne Dalziel
5. Charles Chauvel
6. Steve Chadwick
7. Sue Moroney
8. Jacinda Ardern
9. Carol Beaumont
10. Iain Lees-Galloway
11. Grant Robertson
12. Phil Twyford

I wouldn’t disagree too much with any of those 12 names, except maybe Charles Chauvel. Charles is pretty hard left on social issues, but he does show some understanding of business and economic rationality and is probably not as hardcore left as the others on economic issues.

I’d also add on to the hardcore left Moana Mackey, Lynne Pillay, Darien Fenton, Rajen Prasad and Carmel Sepuloni. You could also debate Pete Hodgson but I’ll give him benefit of the doubt!

Jordan Carter has a thoughtful post on what Labour must do to win the next election. Some extracts:

We lost in 2008 for reasons I have canvassed before – people thought we were focused on issues that weren’t important to them; we’d been in office for a long time; there was a recession; people had fallen out of love with our political style; some of our policies were not working out or were unpopular; and failures of political management added on top of this combustible pushed us over the edge.

That’s what we did wrong. The Nats also did things right: they really did move to the centre, and they selected a leader who people like. Actually, they *really* like him – for the time being anyway.

Jordan seems to be one of the few in Labour not in denial about Key.

That’s policy, in some areas, but it is also in the politics or statecraft of the party. For better or worse, the fifth Labour government was a baby boomer government. The political methods of the 70s and 80s were those which ran it: it was tightly managed and focused.

I get the sense though that people are looking now for something a little different. Some in Labour look at Key’s hands off approach and see a weakness. I see a strength. The rise of ICT, the end of “deference” towards authority, and growing generations of people who are as comfortable online as offline mean that a political party that is centralised and top down cannot really capture the public imagination.

These are wise words for National, as well as Labour.

What Labour must do is turn itself inside out. As we say “this is what we are hearing, what do you think?”, we also have to invite people in to join with us and help shape what we are doing next. We have to use the best technology there is to do it, as well as the traditional means of face to face and direct mail politics. We need to be the party that people see as grassroots based, and where they know that if they want to raise an issue or a concern, it will filter through to what our policy is and what our politicians are saying and thinking.

We have to do this if we are to be relevant, and if we want to win there is nothing more important than being relevant.

National in 2002 was not relevant. Labour in 2010 are not relevant. The challenge for Labour is can they become relevant by the end of 2011?

NZ Herald Court Reporter Andrew Koubaridis is having a look back at high profile trials from last year, including former Labour MP Taito Philip Field:

Taito Phillip Field was charged with 35 offences that were alleged to have occurred when he was a Labour MP and minister outside the Cabinet.

He was eventually found guilty of 11 bribery and corruption charges and 15 counts of wilfully perverting the course of justice and sentenced to six years’ jail.

Apart from marking a spectacular fall from grace for Field, this trial was significant because it was the first time a New Zealand politician had been convicted of bribery and corruption.

He continues to deny any wrongdoing and is appealing against his conviction and sentence. An appeal date has yet to be set.

Field is not the only one who continues to deny wrongdoing. Not only has no one from Labour apologized for their defence of his corruption, they have refused to even state that they now admit he broke the law and was corrupt. The most they could bring themselves to do was say they acknowledge the verdict – not even that they accept it.

The Dom Post has a guest column by Stephen Kirchner from the CIS:

The idea that New Zealand can ignore inflation and grow faster through easy money and a lower exchange rate is a tempting, but short-sighted view. It ignores the fact that higher domestic prices would ultimately undermine rather than promote international competitiveness. Economic growth and export success must ultimately be built on real factors such as productivity growth, not easy money and exchange rate depreciation.

It is like cheating on an exam – only works for a while

The Reserve Bank’s primary focus on inflation recognises that monetary policy needs to be based on a single instrument and policy objective. Pursuing multiple objectives with multiple instruments, as Labour now suggests, is a recipe for incoherent policy and poor economic performance such as New Zealand experienced before its path-breaking reforms of the 1980s.

TVNZ is a good example of having multiple conflicting objectives. Either none of the objectives are achieved particularly well, or some of them are just ignored.

It would also undermine the transparency and accountability that were important objectives of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act. Under the current framework, the governor of the Reserve Bank is personally accountable for realising the inflation target under a policy targets agreement with the finance minister. Sustained breaches of the inflation target can result in the non-executive members of the Reserve Bank board recommending dismissal of the governor to the minister. This is no idle threat, but it would be difficult, if not impossible, to hold the governor accountable for achieving multiple objectives instead of a clearly defined inflation target.

An excellent point. More objectives will mean less accountability. The Governor will always have a get out of jail card.

Since the first PTA was entered into in 1990, the inflation target has been progressively watered down. Most notably, the inflation target has been relaxed from 0-2 per cent to 1-3 per cent and given a medium-term focus, so there is now greater tolerance of short-term breaches.

I actually believe it should go back to a 0% to 2% range. Over time even 3% inflation is too much.