Kiwiblog

After his display of head slapping, Len Brown should perhaps be known as Loosehead Len – and this is one of the kinder things being said. I’ll start with Kerre Woodham:

Just when I didn’t think things could get any worse for Len Brown, he goes and does it again.

And before his fans leap up and down and say I’m part of some spooky right-wing conspiracy, I’m not.

He had my vote before the events of the last couple of weeks. Not for any particularly compelling reason. I just thought that if we had a centre-right government, it balanced things up a bit to have a centre-left mayor. …

Then came the claims of persecution and the protestations of being victimised. That was unattractive, but what really turned me off was the performance Brown gave to the Manukau City Council on Tuesday night.

When I say performance, I don’t for a minute think he was acting. Far from it. I think he believed every word when he cried out passionately that he’d risen from his hospital bed after a near-fatal heart attack for the love of the people.

That when he walked in the door, looking like a bloody skeleton, it was because he cared, not because he could put a few more cups of coffee on the mayoral credit card. I’m sure that’s true.

But emotional blackmail is hardly a rational response to requests for financial accountability. Nor is beating yourself about the head and face.

That was weird. In his soliloquy, Brown repeatedly hit himself in the face and chest, saying if people had a problem, they should come and see him.

That was enough for me.

You need somebody a little less … overwrought … as mayor of New Zealand’s first super city.

And that is from a Grey Lynn liberal who was planning to vote for Len Brown.

Next Matt McCarten. Matt is as left as you can get:

This brings me to the parallel universe of local government politics in which Labour Party-backed mayoral hopeful Len Brown has credit card problems of his own.

His use was careless at best and, as many Aucklanders don’t know much about him, his misuse will worry them. But it was his response, like Carter’s, which is more revealing.

The cutting up of his credit card on television was a cheap stunt. Was he saying he can’t be trusted with a credit card to do his job?

Well perhaps he was, as he seemed incapable of keeping proper receipts and he outright refuses to comply with his Council’s own policy to identify who was at a dinner.

His explanation on why he used his card to buy personal items was because his wife had their joint card raises more concerns. Everyone knows couples can get a card each on joint accounts.

And as they are signature cards, you can’t borrow each other’s card. That one had porkie all over it.

It’s good he apologised but his emotional presentation to his council was disturbing. His opponents can’t believe their luck and are predictably using it as evidence Brown is unstable and loose with ratepayers’ money.

But Len explained away his actions as being the Maori way to do things. Fortunately the SST has talked to some actual Maori on this claim:

But broadcaster Willie Jackson rejected that. “The spin about it being a Maori gesture is rubbish. I’ve never heard anything like it.”

Jackson said Brown’s team had made a poor decision in claiming a cultural element to the antics.

“I don’t know what the hell they were talking about, having been a Maori every day of my life,” Jackson said. “Len needs to harden up or he’s going to gift this campaign to John Banks.

“This campaign was his to lose and he’s doing a good job of that.”

Willie is also of the left. This is hardly the vast right wing conspiracy. Willie was also backing Brown over the credit card before his display at Council.

Once Were Warriors star Temuera Morrison said what Brown did was “more like caveman stuff”.

He said haka participants slapped their chests and thighs “to get unison with everyone and feel the rhythm”. The gesture to invite people to “come and get me” usually involved poking out the tongue.

“I don’t know what this guy was doing,” Morrison said. “This guy is on another planet.”

Ouch.

Auckland University Maori studies expert Dr Ranginui Walker was also unconvinced. “In the old days widows used to cut their breasts and chests when their husbands died or when warriors were slain.

“But I’ve never heard of men doing any such thing.”

Well we can at least be relieved Loosehead Len didn’t start cutting himself on live television.

Phil Goff sent Chris Carter home, hoping he would come back to Parliament contrite for his spending. But as the SST reports, he is anything but:

Goff said Carter, MP for Te Atatu, had failed to express contrition and forced him to apologise unreservedly. …

Carter said: “We could argue the rights and wrongs of whether I’ve done anything wrong. The only personal items were two bunches of flowers that a staff member sent on their card, and all ministerial travel was signed off.”

Once again, he is arguing he did nothing wrong. Also overlooks the flowers were to his own partner.

He said the apology was given “because you have to think about what is good for the Labour Party”.

In other words, he didn’t mean it. He did it to help Labour, not because he accepts any errors of judgement.

Carter was embarrassed again last week when it was revealed he promised exclusive interviews to both TV3 and TV One. “I guess I just wanted to be nice. It’s called PR, that’s what politicians do.”

No, there is another word for that, one you can’t use in the House.

So last week Carter was at least pretending to be contrite. Now he has emerged to talk to the media and once again declare he has done nothing wrong and only apologised to help Labour. So who is advising him?

Chris Carter last night broke his silence, saying he was returning to parliament, having taken advice from the party’s former head, Helen Clark.

This really makes Goff look a man not in charge of his own party.

Matt McCarten writes in the HoS:

But Carter’s meltdown this week surely finishes him. It’s not the card misuse that will kill him, it’s his clear inability to admit he’s done anything wrong.

As we see above.

His tiresome claim that he was being targeted because he was gay was absurd when of the four Labour MPs Phil Goff promoted, three were gay.

They were promoted on merit – their sexuality had nothing to do with it.

Yep.

Carter’s actions this week was politically unforgivable. Goff had his perfect story.

The errant credit card behaviour was under Helen Clark’s watch, not his. It was a golden opportunity for Goff to act tough; discipline the three transgressors and stamp his authority on his caucus. …

But Carter’s actions completely destroyed Goff’s strategy. Understandably Goff hit the roof and banished Carter to home detention to reflect on his indulgence. But the damage was done.

Instead of Goff looking like a leader in charge and his party being able to move on from the scandal we have a party still being rocked by their own indiscipline.

Will Goff now demote Carter to the backbenches? Surely after the SST story, he has no choice? Or is Clark still protecting Carter from afar?

The HoS reports Chris Carter is close to quitting Parliament:

New Zealand’s first openly gay Cabinet minister is close to quitting Parliament because he is sick of being attacked as a “luxury-loving gay boy”.

Chris will quite Parliament at the next election – because his colleagues are so pissed off at him.

“Do you want to live your life with this stuff going on all the time? You know, I love being an MP. But there might well be a point soon where I think this is just not worth it.”

Yes, how dare one have to endure scrutiny of spending.

But he said the public perception of him as living the high-life at the taxpayer’s expense was grossly inaccurate – and he still drives a 1996 Suzuki Swift.

The only thing grossly inaccurate is Chris’ perception. It is a shame – he used to have a well developed political instinct, but it has deserted him.

“I have lots of faults … but arrogance, pride and love of luxury are not among them.”‘

So why the $6,000 of limo hire?

No other Minister has been “forced” into hiring them, as you claim you were by the Australian Government.

Matt McCarten writes:

This week the credit card expenses came out on Thursday and none of it was good for Labour.

A number of former Labour ministers clearly didn’t know where the line between their public responsibilities and personal luxury needs started and finished. …

But what these ministers didn’t get is there are rightly different standards for them. They are in the privileged positions of being leaders, where their personal ethics and integrity are important no matter what their political stripes. Carelessly using a ministerial card for personal luxuries is thoughtless at best and corrupt at worst.

There are two types of politicians – those that think it’s a privilege to be a representative of the people and those who think it’s a privilege for us to have them. You can guess which category the ministerial card abusers fall under.

As we saw in the previous story.

And Kerre Woodham writes:

Phil Goff thundered sanctimoniously that Heatley’s position went to his head.

He’d barely been minister for a year, Phil Goff expostulated, and his sense of entitlement was such that he ordered two bottles of wine with dinner. Heads should roll, Phil finished.

Well, as sure as the karma bus will make a stop at your door, Labour has found itself having to explain away thousands of dollars worth of credit card bills run up by its former ministers.

Karma indeed.

Chris Carter, the serial trougher, was at it again. Despite being advised repeatedly as to what was appropriate use for his ministerial credit card, and despite being sent the entire parliamentary policy on credit card use, just as a reminder, Chris Carter continually bent the rules.

Movies, flowers, fruit and massages – whether the massages had happy endings isn’t specified on the bill – all popped up on Carter’s credit card.

Oh Kerre. Too much detail.

And the HoS editorial:

The most extraordinary aspect of the scandal over spending irregularities that has destroyed Shane Jones’ leadership aspirations – and possibly his entire political career – is that he ever imagined he might get away with it.

In numerical terms, Jones is not in fact the worst offender in the latest round of revelations: his one-time colleague in Cabinet, Education Minister Chris Carter, actually ran up 33 per cent more than Jones – on flowers, designer clothing and spa treatments.

Most gallingly, he used his ministerial card to buy flowers for Lianne Dalziel after she was sacked as Immigration Minister for lying about having leaked documents to a television channel.

The logic by which he could regard it as a ministerial duty to console a colleague who had sought to deceive the public remains obscure to everybody but him, it appears.

The thought of personally paying for the flowers did not occur I suspect.

… principal among them is the requirement that no personal expenditure be incurred on a ministerial card. That means precisely what it says: it does not mean that it is all right to run up private expenses with the intention of later reimbursing them.

Many of us run two or more plastic cards and make daily decisions about which to use, for reasons of our own personal accounting. It is no great burden to do so, and it is the least we might expect of someone carrying a card for which the taxpayer picks up the tab.

No great burden and very common.

The events of the week have surely irretrievably damaged the mana of a man who was widely tipped to succeed Phil Goff as Labour leader and, in the eyes of many, potentially the country’s first Maori Prime Minister.

Sad though that is, there is a sense here of history repeating itself. Winston Peters and John Tamihere were in their turn cloaked with the mantle of future premiership.

Hmmn, it does seem to be a sort of curse.

And finally the SST reports:

Jones is being urged not to resign as Goff looks set to use the scandal to shake up his front bench.

Jones and Te Atatu MP Chris Carter face demotion tomorrow after Goff’s return to a party in disarray over revelations going back seven years.

The release of credit card receipts last week show Carter notched up bills for limousines, flowers and massages, while Jones watched dozens of pornographic movies. He repaid the money before he handed in his credit card, but Carter is still paying money back.

Jones, who has been tipped as a potential leader, is considering his future, but has ruled out resigning.

Samuels said Jones shouldn’t quit. “He has got leadership qualities I don’t think anybody else in the party has. Many in Maoridom would be very disappointed if he resigned.”

And besides if Jones goes, who else will be there to grant citizenship for Dover’s mates?

Finally John Tamihere writes in Sunday News:

THIS week the Department of Internal Affairs disclosed detailed lists identifying expenditure of ministers in the Labour Government from 2003-2008. I was a minister from 2002-2004.

I had no idea I could order massages, flowers, porn movies and booze galore. The biggest scalp achieved by the clever release of this information was Shane Jones.

While others erred and were arguably worse, particularly Chris Carter, Jones is the big story.

He entered Parliament as the Labour Party attack weapon on the Maori Party and as a person who had huge cross-over appeal into non-Maori communities.

He has Dalmatian ancestry and was gaining significant support for a tilt at the Labour leadership once they lose the 2011 election.

I am not sure Jones was going to wait until 2011.  Phil Goff’s leadership has been made much safer by this.

The question is, can he survive as a politician? He is a list MP and does not have a constituency to fall back on. He is at the whim of the back-room Labour Party machinery.

That machinery is driven predominantly by a group of women who stretch across the gay, union and the woman’s divisions of the party. They control the moderation committee that decides where you sit on the party list. I sat on that committee for the 1999 and 2002 elections.

All of Shane’s colleagues are going to tell him he has a future in politics and not to quit. And then come the 2011 list ranking, he’ll be given an unwinnable place.

Matt McCarten in the HoS:

The arguments for Whanau Ora are compelling. A one-stop shop to help struggling families from an array of social services is hard to argue against.

Having a family advocate to liaise between all the players is a creative idea.

The Act Party came up with a similar idea several years ago but it was widely attacked by those of us on the left as a Trojan horse for privatisation. Which it was.

Turia’s version is softer and gentler, but the intention to contract out the management of social services to private providers will ring alarm bells for the left.

The right knows that once the precedent is set, it could be extended to education, justice and other services that private contractors can make a good living from.

Although it’s a Maori programme for Maori families, potentially it will be a help to every family, whatever their ethnicity.

It is difficult for Labour to argue against a Maori initiative given that, after 75 years of a welfare state, Maori still rank at the bottom of nearly every single social statistic. Whoever’s fault it is, something new must be tried.

That last paragraph is a strong one.

Never thought one would see McCarten argue for greater private sector involvement!

Matt McCarten writes in the HoS:

One hundred thousand workers on the legal minimum wage of $12.50 an hour get 25 cents added to their hourly wage this week. Thousands of others between the minimum and $12.75 an hour will get a top-up.

Given that we have a recession, many people may think those workers should be grateful to John Key for giving them anything. As Key said, at least the 25 cents would cover inflation, making them no worse off, and a group of low-paid workers told me this week that “it’s better than nothing”.

But as with many stories about workers and their relationship with the employment system, all is not as it seems. The fact is that, from today, low-paid workers will be worse off than they were this time last year even after the supposed largesse from our Prime Minister, because their Accident Compensation levies go up this week, too.

The Government hopes workers won’t notice, but those on the minimum wage will have an extra 3.75 cents an hour automatically deducted from this week’s pay packet.

It’s a tax increase, although National pretends it’s not. What is galling is that the levy increase is being imposed to ensure ACC can show a big profit and then be flicked off as a cash cow to some multinational after the next election.

Matt is right that ACC premiums are going up, from 1.7% to 2.0%.

However what he overlooks is that National’s pruning of ACC has prevented the premiums from going up even further. The massive unfunded liabilities left by Labour would have pushed the employee ACC levies up to over 3.0% of income.

Matt was one of those protesting the pruning of ACC’s costs, so for him to them protest about the levy increase is rather hypocritical.

This is not Disneyland, where you can have the costs of ACC increase, but not have levies increase.

And frankly the idea that anyone would buy ACC is as nonsensical as the notion that anyone would buy Kiwirail.

Matt McCarten writes:

It seems we can’t get over the myth we’ve created of the little plucky nation of Israel defending itself against the Islamic hordes intent on destroying them.

The fact is Israel has the fourth largest military machine in the world and is the only nuclear power in the region.

Is Israel a little nation? Well it is around 20,000 square kilometres in size. That’s a bit smaller than Vermont – one of the smallest states in the US.

And Israel’s four neighbours have a land area of 1,290,000 square kilometres. That is around 60 to 65 times the size.

Are there Islamic hordes intent on destroying them? Yes. Not all Islamic countries and definitely not all Islamic people, but a fair few of each. It is probably the only cpuntry on Earth that

Does Israel have the 4th largest military machine in the world? No. For number of active personnel they are ranked 34th. And even if you include reserves they are still only the 20th largest.

They are the only nuclear power, but sadly not for long I suspect.

Matt McCarten has some amusing, and generally sensible, NY resolutions for the various political parties:

National

1. Thank God each morning for John Key. He’s unassailable.

4. Admit the party’s economic policy of borrowing a billion dollars a month to pay the bills is socialist.

When McCarten calls you a socialist, you know it is bad!

Act

2. Someone tell Roger Douglas that Key really meant it when he said he won’t put him in Cabinet – ever.

Heh, even if he becomes co-leader.

Maori Party

3. Select two candidates this year who can win Tainui and Ikaora-Rawhiti. If they take these two electorates off Labour, the party will be in Cabinet forever, no matter who leads a government.

And this is why Labour’s strategy has been so short-sighted.

Labour

5. Have a talk to a few more of the backbenchers about retiring. The caucus still has a long tail in the batting order. Does the party need so many student politicians and others who’ve never had a real job?

6. Hope like hell Winston Peters makes a comeback. If NZ First gets enough polling this year to be credible, people might believe Labour can win a majority with him and the Greens. Anyway, Winston does populism far better than Goff.

Labour did pretty well with its new intake, but the front bench especially needs a shake up.

Interesting that McCarten admits that Labour probably can’t win without Winston. Can you imagine the havoc he would play with Goff as PM. Not even Clark could control him.

Greens

1. Brand the party as cutting edge and trendy again so that supporters don’t notice that the caucus is, like, really old and boring. Get the youth back.

I think the Greens have an average age older than National?

Matt McCarten writes:

I attended the Council of Trade Unions biennial conference in Wellington this week. It was the first time in a decade that trade union barons turned up when Labour wasn’t in power. …

Key finished his speech, bravely took questions from the floor and good-humouredly responded to all attacks.

I can’t recall how often PMs Bolger or Shipley addressed the CTU Conference, but it wasn’t that regular and I’m not sure they ever agreed to have an open mike at the end of the speech. And it has become quite a hallmark of Key that he will take questions, even from the most hostile audience. Long may it last.

When one union, aligned strongly with the Labour Party, blamed him for its current pay problems he reminded them he’d been the Prime Minister for a year during a recession whereas Labour had governed for the past nine years when there were surpluses.

Key cheerfully suggested that maybe the blame for their low wages was best directed to the Labour Party. That shut them up.

Heh.

It was my first opportunity to assess both Key and Goff as presenters and leaders. Key was at the top of his game – warm, respectful, self-assured.

He exuded confidence and sometimes even bordered on belligerence. When union boss Andrew Little queried the Government’s intention over ACC Key dodged the question.

Instead, he jabbed a cheap shot at Little, who is also the Labour Party president, referring to him as the next leader of that party.

Probably was a cheap shot, but some shots are too tempting to pass up!

But his flippant dismissiveness aside, his support for low-paid workers seems heartfelt and genuine. Key isn’t a great political orator but came across as decent and likable. Only a fool would believe Key can be taken out by Goff any time soon.

And this is from the leader of NZ’s most militant union!

Goff is a polished performer and his speech the following day pushed all the right buttons for his audience. He is a man under pressure but he’s a pro from way back.

However, I couldn’t help feeling Goff’s delivery was a campaign stump speech written by one of his staff. Unlike Key, it felt that he was talking at the audience rather than to it.

It is an interesting observation from Matt, as I had much the same reaction when they both spoke at the Family First organised Forum on the Family. Goff was very good, very professional and performed well. But Key, especially in the Q&A, can connect with the audience in a way Goff can’t.

Trevor Mallard was a distraction sitting behind Goff all through his speech, visibly chewing gum like some sort of goon from central casting.

Maybe Labour’s image consultants could have a word with their in-house gangster next time he accompanies his new leader.

Sounds like a bit of bad blood there, which is interesting as if Labour wins, Trevor will probably be Minister of Labour.

I was interviewed for TV3 News on Saturday about what Bradford’s departure may mean politically, along with Andrew Little, Chris Trotter and Matt McCarten.

I took the view that it was potentially beneficial to the Greens as replacing Bradford with Clendon strengthens their environmental brand and if they are smart they could get as much as 10% of the vote if they position themselves as “greening” the Government no matter if it is National or Labour.

I stressed that the Greens will always support a Labour-led Government over a National-Led Government if one is possible. But if only National can form a Government, the Greens might be able to go beyond their current co-operation agreement to an abstain on supply and confidence agreement.

I understand Matt McCarten saw the move as potentially beneficial to the Greens also, and their ability to work on both sides of the aisle so to speak.

Andrew Little saw it as good for Labour, as Labour could pick up social justice voters from the Greens. I responded that this doesn’t actually help Labour win office, just as National picking up ACT voters doesn’t. And it can actually backfire if the Greens drop below 5% (as they have done in last night’s TVNZ poll). Also I have some doubts that Goff-led Labour will be more convincing to social justice voters than the Greens.

The real benefit to Labour would be if the Greens pick up some centrist voters who were previously put off by Bradford. For that will grow the left’s vote.

Chris Trotter sees the departure of Bradford as being the death of the left as the Greens go middle class.

He’s done a follow-up post today, which has some interesting observations:

The dangers inherent in the Greens’ educative model are demonstrated in their policy on the Treaty of Waitangi. Though the signing of the Treaty, like all historical events, is the subject of multiple, and often sharply contradictory, interpretations, the Greens have adopted an unequivocal and quite inflexible interpretation of the Treaty’s meaning. So much so that when some of their own members, unconvinced by the official party line, openly questioned it’s accuracy, they were deemed ineligible to stand as Green candidates by the Party leadership.

That the dissidents’ views on the Treaty of Waitangi were actually more in tune with those of the majority of Pakeha New Zealanders was an “inconvenient truth” to be overcome by – yes, you guessed it – a taxpayer-funded traveling road-show which would take the “true” meaning of the Treaty directly to the ignorant Pakeha masses and educate them into full conformity with the Greens’ historical interpretation.

This authoritarian aspect of the Greens’ political style is nowhere more apparent than in their so-called “consensus-based decision-making” constitution. Described as a means of “seeking positions that the maximum number of people can support, rather than a simple majority”, what these rules actually make possible is the ability of a tiny minority to over-rule and/or subvert the will of the majority.

In practical terms, it allows the leadership of the party, either directly or through their surrogates, to prevent the membership from directly challenging the Green Party caucus’s political strategy and tactics. Rather than promoting the open contest of conflicting political options, it fosters the cobbling together of compromises. Also, by imposing enormous emotional pressure on dissenters, it drives opposition below the surface of party affairs – a situation which, once again, privileges those in senior positions, and makes rank-and-file challenges to official party policy extremely difficult.

That is an interesting analysis of how the much vaunted consensus system actually can favour the hierarchy.

Matt McCarten looks at Mt Albert again:

Goff’s photo opportunity last Sunday with the accepted nominees was to showcase their line-up. Goff obviously wanted to be seen as stamping his leadership on the party when he announced he had interviewed all the nominees. But selections are for the party organisation, not the caucus.

I know of no previous example in which the parliamentary leader gets this involved. It’s the party president’s job to manage selections. So it speaks volumes that the Labour Party president, Andrew Little, wasn’t even in the picture.

I’ve never heard of the party leader interviewing candidates. Poor Mt Albert electorate seem to be getting little say – which makes the slogan of “Put Mt Albert first” rather ironic.

Even Goff’s rather public recruitment of getting an outside high-profile candidate seems to be backfiring. The extraordinary opinion of Goff’s favourite, David Shearer, that we should use mercenaries in international hotspots is a real clanger.

The Labour Party is opposed to the privatisation of prisons, but I’m not sure how Goff spins his way out of his candidate supporting the privatisation of war.

Labour should be very grateful that McCarten is not going to be involved in the Mt Albert campaign. Why? Well on Thursday night a high profile left winger told me that if Shearer is the candidate, someone should arrange a dozen teenagers dressed as mercenaries to follow him about everywhere he goes – not saying anything or doing anything – just silently standing there as guards.

I thought this was a brillant idea for a party of the left to do (Nats can’t do it as they agree with Shearer on privatisation). The Greens get sniffy about such stunts. But, think of the fun if McCarten was involved. I still remember his chicken suit from the 1998 TKC by-election – it probably cost National 2,000 votes. McCarten would probably not just have a dozen mercenaries on the campaign trail, but have them wheeling a coffin about too.

With Shearer now causing serious concerns among the locals there is a real potential that any successful nominee will have minority support in the electorate and that Labour’s head office will effectively make the decision for them.

The Greens will be silently praying that Labour picks Shearer.

The Greens have always resented the way that Labour has taken them for granted and constantly sniggered about their MPs behind their backs. The Green candidate and party co-leader, Russel Norman, knows he has a golden opportunity to brand his party’s message and differentiation from Labour.

Byelections are unpredictable. At present, no one would pick Norman to win. But as someone who has managed a few close-call byelections, I know that a third party candidate can pull it off, given the right circumstances.

I agree. And they can have a powerful message about tactical voting to get a Green electorate MP to help Labour have a guaranteed coalition partner in future.

If the polls during the campaign start to show a trend toward the Greens, then anything is possible.

A lot will come down to Labour’s selection today.

Matt McCarten examines the challenges for Andrew Little managing two roles:

But it seems a bit churlish for the party to not give Williams the deference he deserves and wait until the party’s conference until they replaced him. Just because Clark and her deputy, Michael Cullen, resigned their leadership positions it shouldn’t necessarily follow that the party president should have to fall on his sword immediately.

After all, Clark and Cullen are still collecting their parliamentary salaries until some better job comes up, while Williams is out of paid work.

If I’m not mistaken, Mike Williams did not get paid one cent by Labour Party members for his rull-time job as Party President.Instead he was appointed to six different Government Boards, which resulted in fees of close to $200,000.

Labour was in power then so there were certain advantages for his union, such as having access to Cabinet ministers. But it’s hard to see what the benefit is to the EPMU members when their leader takes up the presidency of the Labour Party when it’s the National Party that is running the country.

Imagine Little trekking up to the Beehive to lobby government ministers on behalf of his union members and expecting a sympathetic hearing. These National Party politicians know his other job is to kill them at the next general election. But it’s even stranger than that.

Little also says he will run for Parliament at the next election. Does Little or his union think his political opponents in the Government will give him anything that helps him?

What McCarten overlooks, is how much influence the EPMU will have when Andrew is the Leader of the Labour Party – or at a minimum, a very senior front bencher.

Trade unions face a hell of job over the next few years, given the global economy. It’s an even bigger challenge for the EPMU, given its central role in the export and manufacturing industries. I find it hard to believe that Little can do both his union job and the Labour Party role well. Either job is enormous on its own.

Little will obviously have a succession plan and delegate the day-to-day management of major challenges to others.

But anyone who has worked for a senior boss who has announced that they will leave soon, yet stays in their role while working part-time in a new job as part of a transition process, knows it doesn’t work. Frankly it’s bizarre.

What I will find interesting, is the fund-raising role of the presidency. Mike Williams met several business CEOs and owners a week, soliciting donations (as does National’s President). Will Andrew be meeting CEOs wearing one hat asking for donations, and maybe the next day meeting them with another hat, negotiating wage increases for staff employed by that business?

The potential for a clash of interests, seems large. I am sure Andrew will do what he can to minimise such clashes, but it will be a challenge.  Maybe one solution is that Andrew doesn’t do the corporate fundraising from businesses that have EPMU members?

Matt McCarten writes:

Unless the left gets itself together, it’s pretty evident the National-Act aligned Citizens and Ratepayers Now (C&RN) party will take control of Auckland’s new super city next year.

That would be excellent. Lower rates.

C&RN strategists have been plotting the takeover of regional governance for years and are well advanced in their planning for October’s local body elections. The super city idea has been around for a long time, but local parochialism and fears in Wellington of a powerful Auckland state-let kept it off the agenda.

The scale of our region’s problems has finally forced everyone to accept it’s the only logical solution.

Good that Matt supports one Auckland. Almost everyone south of the North Shore does it seems.

When the previous government set up a three-person committee to produce a proposal, I assumed they’d come back with mere tinkering of our regional structures. But it seems they plan to go the whole hog and merge the region into a single super city.

Great – a Royal Commission that leads to real change.

Predictably, the centre-right is coalescing around Auckland City Mayor, John Banks, as their standard bearer. It seems the new mayoral role will be a powerful executive role with wide-sweeping authority. Insiders are already saying it will be the most powerful elected role in the country, next to the Prime Minister.

It’s clearly a prize worth having, and Banks will be hard to beat. He isn’t the Banks of old who was intolerant, bigoted and a right-wing street brawler. Since he won back his mayoralty in 2007 he’s a changed man. Even ardent detractors say Banks goes out of his way to be inclusive and non-sectarian. That’s because he knows that to win a majority of votes across the region he needs to appeal to unaligned voters as well as carve off a chunk of centre-left voters.

Indeed Banks 2.0 is a much harder target for the left to attack.

I’ve no doubt the real agenda by the pro-business lobby in Auckland is the privatisation of our public assets if they get control.

The old privatisation bogey. We don’t even have parties and policies yet, so Matt is ahead of himself. I would point out that the current climate isn’t exactly a good time to be selling companies.

I was dismayed when the best the Labour Party could come up with to stop this juggernaut was to run Judith Tizard for mayor and form a joint ticket with the Greens. They obviously didn’t look at the recent general election in which Tizard lost her safe seat and only one in three Aucklanders voted for that combo.

No, no ignore Matt. Tizard vs Banks would be a great competition.

A centre-left coalition would need to include the Labour, Green and Maori Parties and pull in NZ First as well as other leftist organisations, trade unions and social movement groups.

I assume there will be fewer than 20 super city council positions, so managing the egos of potential candidates will be challenging. But this is where we can take a leaf out of the American elections. If, as expected, the new councillors will be elected from parliamentary boundaries, then we could run a series of “primary” candidate selections. All members and supporters of the coalition groups should attend pre-selection meetings to vote on a candidate. The winner of this primary would be officially endorsed by all these groups for the contest against the C&RN candidate.

A region-wide primary contest to select a single candidate to run against John Banks would bring a lot of strong nominees and drum up publicity to enthuse and invigorate voters before the October election. You only have to look at the US Democratic Party primary process to see how successful that was in mobilising support for the eventual winner, Barack Obama.

The centre-left cannot allow itself to be marginalised and hand over governance to C&R Now. They can only avoid this if they form a unity ticket now. Tick tock. Time’s awasting.

That’s quite a smart suggestion.

Okay, not quite loves John, but falls over himself with praise for his relationship with Maori:

Key’s behaviour at the Te Tii Marae on Thursday has shown New Zealand and its relationship with Maori has changed forever. The rush at him by a couple of individuals was also an opportunity for him. The embarrassment of his hosts was expected, as I’m sure they were when Clark and Brash were attacked.

But it seems Key really is different. He brushed off the incident, which you have to give him points for.

But he also promised Nga Puhi that the attack hadn’t put him off and that he’ll be back next year and the next and the next. It was brave, but very smart, too.

That one statement must have Labour freaking out. Maybe, just maybe, Key really is genuine when he says he wants to build a new relationship with Maori.

His inclusion of the Maori Party in his government when he didn’t have to, was clever politics.

But he genuinely seems to want to make it work. There seems to be a friendship between him and Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples.

Even Key’s public statement that he supports having a Maori flag flown on Waitangi Day, not just on the Auckland Harbour Bridge, but on Government buildings, too, was astonishing. A Labour leader wouldn’t have ever dared to say that. Key has promised to fly a Maori flag next year.

Our Waitangi Day has always been marred by protest for good reason. Our national holiday has become an embarrassment to most New Zealanders.

It’s taken a white boy from Christchurch who has spent most of his adult life overseas to finally give us hope that just maybe we can finally be proud of our national day.

For our sake I hope he can. He’s made a great start.

High praise from McCarten.

Matt McCarten in the HoS:

Helen Clark – It would have been a miracle if she had won a fourth term and she was always going to have to carry the can if Labour lost. To her credit, she managed a clean transition to her rival, Phil Goff. Not many political leaders exit with such class.

Michael Cullen – He and Clark were a dream team and had a dream run. But all political careers ultimately end in defeat and when she went he also rolled himself. Bill English has big shoes to fill.

Winston Peters – If he had made the 5 per cent threshold, Clark would still be prime minister. But he has had a great run and survived the past two elections by a whisker. New Zealand First, of course, dies with him.

Roger Douglas – He’s like some old war veteran who won’t fade away. It’s clear he’s spent the past decade of his forced retirement wondering where he went wrong. Then, like any old ideologue, he realised he just didn’t go far enough.

Rodney Hide – I’m not so sure Hide is as right wing as he was. At least I hope he’s not.

Jeanette Fitzsimons – The Greens have been lucky to have her. Rod Donald’s death left a huge hole. Her plans to step down this election were put on hold for obvious reasons but she will go next time. Her party, however, is spending yet another term on the opposition backbenches. It is starting to look like the Greens will always be bridesmaid. Their brand was new and sexy but they are starting to look old and tired.

Maori Party – Supporting a National government without too much risk or responsibility may prove to be a boon. Everyone knows they had to do what they did.

Phil Goff – If anyone can pull off a victory for Labour next time, Goff can. Excluding the Maori Party, he has to regain four seats to get the top job. He’s waited a decade for the chance.

John Key – National’s win has more to do with him than anything else. Clark wasn’t as widely opposed as other defeated prime ministers. And the election wasn’t decided on policy, as voters could count the major differences on one hand. Unless Key has a secret agenda, it’s starting to appear that this National Government could be the most moderate administration since Keith Holyoake. Assuming he can control the Act caucus and not do anything to alienate the Maori Party, he should sneak through the next election. Clearly he’s the political winner of the year.

A fair bit there I don’t agree with, but I do think he has it right with the Maori Party and the Greens.

Matt McCarten is impressed with John Key’s actions to date. Im not sure if this is a good or a bad thing

I have to admit John Key made a superb job putting a Government together. It was a seamless operation.

Wisdom suggests business types don’t make good politicians because they’re used to getting their own way. If an employee doesn’t do what they want, sacking ends the problem.

MPs can’t be removed that way. Any constituent MP who builds a strong local power base can never be sacked, no matter what grief they cause the party leader.

Conversely, a leader holds the job only by keeping a majority of the caucus on side. If the leader steps on enough of his or her MPs, they conspire to sack the boss.

Indeed. But having said that, a leader who is doing well in the polls can afford to get offside with a few colleagues. The one thing MPs hate more than a risk to their ministerial ambitions, is a risk to them staying in Parliament.

Key’s predecessors were all rolled in coups by disgruntled underlings. This fear among incumbent National leaders bred a culture of promoting allies and potential troublemakers ahead of talent and ability.

Key, whose Cabinet has thrown this expediency out the window, often refers to himself as a change agent. Opposition leaders will say this during a campaign but Key’s action indicates he intends matching his rhetoric. Bringing Act and United Future on board was predictable. But adding the Maori Party was a stroke of genius.

But long foreshadowed. Key made it clear many months ago he would make offers to the Maori Party and maybe even the Greens, even if he did not need them to govern. The Greens stupidly ruled themselves out of even achieving some policy gains in return for an abstention on supply and confidence.

It serves several strategic goals: Key neutralises Act’s influence; he significantly expands his governing authority in Parliament: and, if he can keep the Maori Party on side, he will probably win the next election, even if the centre-right vote diminishes.

Neutralise is the wrong word. ACT still has very significant influence. But it means both ACT and the Maori Party can not unilaterally veto legislation, as National can pass laws with either of them.

There is a general acceptance Key has promoted talent into Cabinet over internal politics, or personal feelings. …

Unlike previous government formations, we haven’t heard a squeak from the losers. This shows the enormous authority Key commands.

Helped by the fact there is a bunch of ambitious wee critters in the 2005 and now the 2008 intakes, who give Key many options.

Key has never pretended to put personal feelings above political management decisions. When ousting former leader Don Brash, he wouldn’t consent to Brash’s request to remain with the financial portfolio.

Brash doubled the number of National MPs and came within a seat of becoming Prime Minister at the previous election and would have expected the request to be accepted. Any other new leader would have let him hang around. Instead, Key got Brash to resign from parliament without a whimper. How ruthless was that?

But it doesn’t seem personal with Key. It appears his decisions are based on objective criteria, so it follows he will also take this general approach with policy, which is reassuring.

I was one of those who wanted Brash to be given a major portfolio, after he stepped down as Leader. In hindsight I was wrong and letting my personal liking of Don, over-ride a clear view about what was right for National. Key does have that clarity and gets it right far more often than he gets it wrong.

Matt McCarten provides advice to left voters on tactical voting. Much of what he says is sensible, but his advocacy of a deliberate overhang strategy is dangerous and will destroy MMP and the Maori seats if he succeeds. His advice:

Centre-left voters

Staunch Labour voters will give their electorate and party vote to Labour. But the softer centre-left voters should give their party vote to the Greens.

Agree this is sensible. Also softer centre-left voters can vote for the best candidate in their electorate while still voting centre-left on the party vote. You don’t have to put up with a bad or lazy MP just because of their party – this is why we have MMP.

Staunch left voters

… If these left-wingers instead gave their party vote to the Greens it would give them another two MPs they wouldn’t otherwise get.

Matt is correct here. A vote for RAM, Alliance etc is wasted and helps National more than it does Labour or the left. They should vote Greens. The same goes on the right – a vote for Family Party, Kiwi Party etc is a wasted vote and they should vote for one of National, ACT or United Future.

New Zealand First supporters

It will take a miracle now for NZ First to get over the 5 per cent threshold given what’s happened to Winston Peters. Any of NZ First’s soft supporters should now probably throw their party vote to Labour.

That would be sensible. Having NZ First get 4% and wasted vote will help push National over the line. But of course not all NZ First voters are centre-left.

The only glimmer of hope for NZ First would be if all the non-National party supporters in Tauranga threw their electorate votes behind him. If he won Tauranga the party votes for NZ First would not be wasted and any list MPs he was able to drag through on his coat tails would be added to a Labour-led government. But don’t hold your breath on this.

I suggest people watch TV tonight before deciding on that strategy.

Progressive Party supporters

Their sole MP, Jim Anderton, is a reliable Labour ally. He won’t win enough votes to bring in an extra MP, so his supporters should give their party vote to Labour to help them win an extra seat that may make the difference in Clark keeping her job.

Here Matt gets dangerous. He is implicitly suggesting a deliberate overhang strategy which means he is trying to engineer a non-proportional result to allow the left to govern despite getting less party vote than the right.

Maori Party supporters

These are the crucial voters. If you are enrolled on the Maori electoral roll, it’s a no-brainer. You give your electorate vote to the Maori Party candidate so it wins all seven seats. Ironically, Clark’s only hope of being returned to power is if her Labour candidates are defeated by the Maori Party.

Even if Labour lost all their Maori seats, it has no effect on the total number of MPs that Labour gets. The total number of MPs a party gets is determined by the number of party votes they get – not the number of electorate seats they win.

If the Maori Party wins all the seven electorates it will still need 6 per cent of the party vote to get an eighth MP from its party list. That won’t happen and in those circumstances their list votes are wasted.

Therefore it’s better for the centre-left if the Maori Party gets a smaller party vote total provided it wins more electorate MPs than it would be entitled to from their party list vote. This would create a “parliamentary overhang”.

Therefore, if the Maori Party won all seven seats but only won 2 per cent of the party vote, it would have five more MPs than its list allocation. This would result in 125 MPs in a new parliament, rather than the usual 120. Clark or Key would then need 63 MPs rather than 61 to have a majority.

It is one thing to have an accidential overhang as happens from time to time. But to try and deliberately engineer an overhang is quite simply wrong. It will result in a crisis of confidence in the Government, destory MMP and provoke a nasty backlash against the Maori Seats. Matt should think about the long-term game. Here is why he supports it short-term:

If National got 48 per cent of the party vote it would get 58 MPs. Assuming its allies Act and United Future got four MPs between them, that would give the centre-right combo 62 MPs, making a majority in a 120-seat parliament.

But if there was an overhang parliament of 125, Key would be one seat short. That would mean if the Maori Party supported Labour, Clark would win a fourth term.

So Matt is saying that even if National/ACT United get 51% to 52% of the vote, a deliberate overhang strategy could allow a Government of the left to be formed.

Now under FPP sometimes a Government did get elected with fewer votes than the main Opposition party. But FPP was not a proportional system, put in place primarily to stop such a situation happening. If the public has chosen to have a non-proportional system (such as FPP or SM) then it is quite in order that there will be non-proportional results. But if the public have chosen to have a proportional voting system, then a deliberate strategy to produce a non-proportional result should be condemned.

It isn’t smart politics – it is desperate politics. Years ago people advocated National should do the same – have a rural party that contests rural electorates only and wins say 15 overhang seats, and a National Party that contest the party vote. People calculated this would give National a permament majority. And it would have. Until Labour did the same. Eventually you’d end up with both major parties splitting into list and electorate parties and a Parliament of 190 with 70 overhang seats!

Matt McCarten writes:

The trillion-dollar, taxpayer-funded handout to criminal and irresponsible corporations in the United States surely puts an end to the nonsense that there is any such thing as a “free” market.

Actually it does no such thing, but we will hear more of this sort of nonsense.

First of all no one has ever claimed markets are perfect, just that they tend to be better than the alternatives.

Secondly what actual market are we talking about? There are dozens – the market in labour?, in trade?, in goods? in services? in currency? in financial services?

Beware anyone who rails against free markets generically. Ask them what markets they mean.

The free marketeers’ ideology goes something like this: there should be no regulation and the market is always self-correcting. If managers of enterprises make mistakes, their businesses would fold and new ones would take their place.

Now Matt takes an extreme view. Very very few fans of free markets are against any regulation at all. For example most peopel accept the central bank having a role in banking supervision, and most people accept a role for a Commerce Commission to stop fraudulant promotions etc.

The intelligent debate is about what level of regulation is needed. And there is no one answer fits all. When it comes to trade I would argue almost no regulations except for safety and labeling. In the labour market I would say you do need a wee bit more regulation such as minimum employment rights.

Our politicians and business leaders need to come clean and admit that free market capitalism doesn’t work and never has.

This is nonsense. Free market capitalism is not the total absence of any regulation at all, just as socialism is not the total absence of any markets at all.

The benefits to the world from a moving towards a more market approach have been massive however. No not perfect, but still massive. Living standards has increased massively. Socialism has been abandoned in all but the odd dictatorships or authoritarian regime. China and India have pulled hundreds of millions out of poverty by introducing more markets.

Matt McCarten suggests this will be the Cabinet, if Clark wins a fourth term:

1. Helen Clark, PM
2. Michael Cullen, Finance
3. Jeanette Fitzsimons, Environment, Energy
4. Phil Goff, Foreign, Defence
5. Jim Anderton, Agriculture
6. Parekura Horomia,
7. David Cunliffe, Health
8. Trevor Mallard, Labour
9. Ruth Dyson, Employment
10. Chris Carter, Education
11. Sue Bradford, Social Development
12. Pete Hodgson, Economic Development
13. Lianne Dalziel, Justice or Attorney-General
14. Maryan Street, Housing
15. Shane Jones, Maori Affairs
16. Sue Kedgley

McCarten makes a number of contentions that are highly arguable:

1. That Clark won’t have Peters back as a Minister. I totally disagree. She has explicitly said she will if NZ First makes it back.
2. Claims Goff, Cunliffe and Jones will all become Leader at some stage. Unless they change leaders as often as National has been, they won’t all make it.
3. That this would be more of a fresh face than National. Well four of the top five entered Parliament when Muldoon was PM.

UPDATE: A reader points out that I am pushing the case to claim Anderton entered Parliament when Muldoon was PM. I was techically correct in that Anderton entered Parliament at the 1984 election on 14 July, and Muldoon was PM until 26 July 1984, but he wasn’t really there for the Muldoon era.

Matt McCarten looks at a possible National Cabinet. His picks are:

1. John Key – PM
2. Bill English – Deputy PM, Finance
3. Gerry Brownlee – Leader of the House, SOEs, State Services
4. Simon Power – Justice, Attorney-General
5. Judith Collins – Welfare
6. Tony Ryall – Health
7. Nick Smith – Environment, Conservation
8. Maurice Williamson – Transport
9. Peter Dunne – Revenue
10. Rodney Hide – Education
11. Murray McCully – Foreign Affairs
12. Lockwood Smith – Overseas Trade, Associate Finance
13. David Carter – Agriculture
14. Anne Tolley – Education if Hide does not get it
15. Wayne Mapp – Defence and Industrial Relations

Matt gets some things wrong. He claims Simon Power will get Justice and AG as there are no other lawyers on the front bench. As Judith Collins was President of the Auckland District Law Society we can assume she is a lawyer.

Matt also says half the people were in the previous 1996 to 1999 Cabinet. Actually only seven out of the 15 were, but more to the point he has overlooked near certs for Cabinet such as Chris Finlayson and Tim Groser. Pansy Wong has an excellent chance also.

Matt McCarten labels the last week as a great week for Labour, and is hoping for many more.

The SST tries its best to talk up the nonsense about Bill English plotting a coup against John Key, but English is 100% unequivocal:

English told the Sunday Star-Times he was happy to flag the possibility of being leader for the rest of his political career and he would never challenge Key for the job: “No ifs, no buts, no maybes.”

But the SST continues to attempt to cause problems for National, with Hager and Hubbard reporting on rumours that Don Brash could be appointed High Commissioner to London if National wins.

Key discussed giving Brash the top job in either London or Washington when he replaced him as party leader in 2006. Since then this has firmed into Key planning, if elected, to offer Brash a three-year posting as high commissioner to London, a position that costs the taxpayer about $600,000 a year.

Here is where you can tell the SST is trying to make the story as negative as possible for National. Instead of reporting on the salary for the job which is $130 to $170k they report on the total cost of having a High Commissioner in London, as $600,000 sounds better than under $130,000.

Only later on, do they report the salary. The $600,000 is a meaningless figure unless the SST thinks NZ should do away with having a High Commissioner. There is a difference between salary and work related costs.

As for the substance of the story, I refer people to my previous post on Government appointments of politically connected persons. It is all about quality and quantity.

Matt McCarten looks at the fight over the proposed law change to ban total remuneration packages from including the employer contribution to KiwiSaver:

My union, Unite, represents thousands of minimal-waged workers and few have joined despite a $1000 start-up from the Government and up to $20 a week tax credit.

That’s because someone on the minimum wage would have to contribute 48 cents an hour which they can’t afford when food and petrol prices are soaring.

And this law change will make it illegal to pay them more money if they do not go into KiwiSaver.

I think Thompson is genuinely outraged that KiwiSaver discriminates on age. Workers under 18 and over 65 don’t get the scheme’s subsidies. Mallard claims that as youth rates have been abolished and as older workers are entitled to Government superannuation that somehow makes it acceptable. Well it’s not. It’s clearly discriminatory and unfair.

So this is the head of the Unite union agreeing the the EMA Northern that the scheme dsicriminates agaianst the poor, young and old!

It is an outrage that young workers and older workers who pay their taxes are not allowed to join a scheme their colleagues can. Thompson’s view, which has some merit, is that the workers who aren’t entitled or can’t afford to join KiwiSaver don’t get the subsidy and therefore, effectively, an employer is paying some workers a higher benefit than others.

Exactly. The overall costs to the employer should be the same.

The only way the scheme would be fair was if it was compulsory for all employees so any contribution by employers would be paid to everybody.

It is becoming close to de facto compulsory and I suspect it will become compulsory at some stage.

If KiwiSaver became widespread it would inevitably lead to the weakening and abolition of universal superannuation.

KiwiSaver is privatisation of superannuation by stealth. The poor and those unable to take up employment will miss out and will end up with some state-funded pauper’s pension.

I support KiwiSaver partly because it is an effective privatisation. And McCarten is right that it will inevitably lead to a move away from the current universal publicly funded superannuation scheme. A 25 year old today will earn more money in retirement from KiwiSaver and NZ Super than they will during their working life. That is nuts, and inevitably public superannuation will be made less generous as more and more people have KiwiSaver.

I accept that the Government and trade unions don’t trust employers not to use their compulsory contribution as leverage in contract negotiations. But it seems better-off workers can receive a taxpayer subsidy as well as their employer’s subsidy while their poorer colleagues get nothing.

Indeed. Employers should be able to offer a total remuneraton package where if an employees chooses not to go into KiwiSaver, the employer can pay them extra cash.

The Press editorial looks at the Peters-Glenn affair:

The spectacle of the leader of the New Zealand First party and Foreign Minister, Winston Peters, getting angry with journalists is nothing new, says The Press in an editorial.

It is a typical tactic, one learned from his mentor, Sir Robert Muldoon. When caught in a tight spot, get your counter-attack in first, Muldoon once said with a chortle. So when Peters reacted angrily this week to reports about alleged donations to his party from an expatriate billionaire, it was pretty much business as usual.

It is classic Muldoon tactics.

The matter also poses a problem for the Prime Minister, Helen Clark. She claims that it is not her concern and she is studiously declining all substantive comment. But as Foreign Minister, Peters has one of the gaudiest baubles in her Cabinet, and a problem for him is inescapably a problem for her. In this case, of course, it also involves a donor who has been a big contributor to the Labour Party and who may be again in the future.

And also suspected of being the person who offered the Maori Party $250,000 to support Labour.

Earlier this year, it was reported that he had also given money to New Zealand First. The report was given credence when New Zealand First’s president at the time, Dail Jones, said that a five-figure donation, which he described as closer to $100,000 than $10,000, had appeared anonymously in the party’s bank account.

It is worth recalling that Owen Glenn has previously said he has donated to another political party apart from Labour. So the e-mail is not inconsistent with what Glenn has said previously.

If an Opposition party were involved in this sort of scenario offshore billionaire, large political donations, leaked emails and so on one can imagine Peters’ response. With the shoe on the other foot, though, Peters has reacted badly. Rather than addressing the issue coolly and straightforwardly, as might be expected of a senior minister, and leaving it at that, he has allowed himself, yet again, to lose his temper with the media.

Indeed, he should do as Shipley did and front up and reveal the nature of his discussions with Owen Glenn.

Under the law on electoral finance as it stood at the time, it would have been possible for Glenn to have made his political donations in complete anonymity. If any went to New Zealand First, it is possible that Peters was unaware of them. Whatever the case, it should not be too difficult now to work out what happened and to resolve the confusions and contradictions raised by the issue once and for all. Rather than pointlessly getting angry with journalists, Peters should do that.

This is the obvious solution. Get Owen Glenn to confirm if the e-mail is real or faked. And if it is real get him to give details of how much did he donate, and to whom.

If he will not do so of his own accord, the Prime Minister should quietly persuade him of the benefits of doing so. Peters is the man she chose to be her foreign minister. Any questions concerning him inevitably reflect on her and her Government. More particularly, after the last election, both she and Peters made a great to-do about greater transparency in electoral finance and passed a greatly criticised law designed to bring it about. They should live up to all the fine principles they claimed to be espousing when they promoted that law.

The hypocrisy is immense.

Matt McCarten on TV3 this morning referred to the Mike Moore’s supporters club as an example of a roup which can be affiliated to a politician but not a formal part of the party. Now Matt may well be on the right track here. I seem to recall a trust was set up many years ago to help pay Winston’s legal bills with the Winebox. Maybe this Trust still exists. And this could explain how both men are telling the truth.

If a donation was made to a trust such as this, then Winston would be right in saying no donation has been made to NZ First. Yet Owen Glenn may not realise the difference between donating to a trust which supports Winston and the actual NZ First party, and hence has a honest belief he has donated to NZ First.

Whale Oil also looks at the offer of the NZ Herald looking at the audited accounts of NZ First, and quotes from the NZ Institute of Chartered Accountants submission of the Electoral Finance Bill, where they pointed out it won’t cover situations where something may have been excluded.

He also note that at least one other media organisation has tried to take up Winston’s offer of a copy of the audited accounts, and they have been turned down. So the offer seems rather hollow.

Matt McCarten looks at how Labour can win despite the polls:

The polls are disastrous for Labour, no matter how you try to spin it. National consistently wins more than 50 per cent in the polls while Labour sits in the low 30s. …

Clark’s claim that the polls aren’t accurate is dubious at best. She has some legitimacy when she points out that they tend to under-count young people and the less well off, who are more likely to be her supporters. Only people with landlines are polled, which excludes many young and poor people. Anecdotal evidence suggests that about one in three people on the electoral roll does not have a landline.

Many polling companes weigh their results to counter any under-representation of key demograpgic groups. And the numbers on the electoral roll with landlines is over 90% not 70%.

But even so, this would probably make a difference of less than 5 per cent. With polls showing up to 25 points between the two big parties, that won’t be much comfort to her parliamentary colleagues.

People may be surprised by how little weighted results often differ from raw results.

But Clark isn’t giving up and at her caucus retreat, read the riot act to her MPs: buck up and fight. As the cliché goes, a week is a long time in politics and Labour has four months to close the gap. If it can narrow the gap to 10 points or less it will win.

I said a long time back that a gap of less than 10% is a probable Labour Government. A 10% to 15% gap is pretty uncertain and over 15% is very probably National.

The election finance and anti-smacking legislation have been disasters for Labour. But I’m not sure they’re as important as people make out. The election restrictions are more of an obsession for political commentators and media owners.

They are, but a constant string of negative stories does have a background effect on the public, and it makes it difficult for the Government to get momentum.

Some of our media spin doctors have fixated on the difference between National and Labour, and ignored the other parties. Take it as read that for Labour to have any chance it will need the support of the Green, New Zealand First and the Maori parties.

There is little doubt in my mind these three parties will, between them, get more than 15 per cent of the vote. The remaining minnow parties are electorally irrelevant and can safely be ignored. But if National doesn’t maintain at least a 15-point gap over Labour, it will be in trouble.

Not necessairly in trouble per se, but I agree at less than 15% Labour starts to get options.

If you didn’t have to deal with the vanities and the complicated personal relationships between party leaders, Labour’s electoral strategy would be very simple. It would be a smart move to endorse the Maori Party candidates in the seven Maori seats for the price of counter endorsement giving Labour the party vote and a pre-election coalition agreement. This would give the Maori Party a clean sweep of all the Maori seats without a fight and would increase Labour’s party vote by at least 2 per cent, giving it at least 10 additional seats in a Labour-led, post-election government.

This is true, but it would be a highly unproportional result and MMP would inevitably die as a result. Matt needs to be careful about winning battles but losing the war. Using overhang as a delebrate strategy to win an election would generate a massive backlash. As it happens I think we saw with Shane Jones and Derek Fox that the bad blood is so massive Labour endorsing Maori Party candidates is highly unlikely.

The Green Party is a guaranteed supporter, and Labour just has to give tacit support to its more left-leaning and liberal voters giving their party vote to the Greens. This should help the Greens get over 10 per cent and adds another 13 Green MPs.

Votes from Labour to Greens don’t increase the chance of a left wing Government – they do make it more left than centre though. I agree with Matt that the Greens are guaranteed to go with Labour despite their protestations. They’re like the battered spouse always coming back for more!

New Zealand First, of course, is a little more complex, but personal support for Peters is still strong. National is running an aggressive campaign to prevent Peters from winning Tauranga. If Labour kneecapped its own candidate and openly endorsed Peters to win that seat back, Peters would no doubt bring his MPs into a Labour coalition.

Except Winston says he wants no deals to win. And at the moment is not the time to talk abour Labour endorsing Winston!

Of course, that kind of realpolitik strategy would have the political chattering classes in an uproar. But if Clark really wants a fourth term, the Maori Party wants a guarantee of all Maori seats, the Greens want to be in Cabinet, and New Zealand First wants to survive, this is the way do it.

In these desperate times, Labour had better start thinking outside the box – and fast.

One can’t rule it out. But of course the long term consequences might be New Zealand dumps MMP, the Maori seats are abolished and Winston loses Tauranga anyway even with Labour’s endorsement.

For that long Sunday afternoon:

The NZ Book Council have a very cool website to encourage reading. They’ve done it as a Windows operating system.

Scrubone does a fisking of No Right Turn’s outrage at National over citizen juries. Also on that issue, Russel Norman at Frog Blog agrees with some of my suggestions around Citizen’s Juries – specifically the need for multi-partisan agreement not narrow agreement.

Paul Walker responds to Matt McCarten’s hysteria over the Business Roundtable.

Whale Oil likes his stats comparison with Kiwiblog. Obviously girls and guns work

Craig Foss looks at how Dr Cullen is financing his tax cuts – he is borrowing $6.4 billion and also selling $6.4 billion of financial assets breaking one of his four tests. This last one is particularly cunning as it allows him to claim gross debt remains on track. This si why net debt is the better indicator.

Colin Espiner reviews the Reserve Bank MPS and the polls.

Bernard Hickey believes Alan Bollard has gone soft on inflation, as does the Westpac Chief Economist.

Matt McCarten looks at the minor parties, and concludes it may be Labour, not National, that has no friends when it comes to coalition options:

However, the ultimatum by Winston Peters and Peter Dunne – that they would not support a Labour-led government if the Greens were in it – set up the situation where Labour’s hegemony of the minor parties would ultimately fracture. …

Once Clark had dismissed the Maori Party as the “last cab off the rank”, the Greens were screwed. Labour went for the short-term, expedient deal, which, at the time, seemed a master stroke. It kept the Cabinet and, by offering Peters and Dunne ministerial portfolios outside Cabinet, had a comfortable parliamentary majority. The Greens had no choice but to take a few crumbs as a consolation prize. …

At the time, Greens co-leader Rod Donald was devastated at what he thought was a betrayal by Labour. The current leadership, after Donald’s untimely death shortly after the election, understood clearly that they would not be put in the position of Labour’s footstool again. …

So we are in an ironic position where Labour needs loyal electoral allies. The Maori and the Green parties, which Labour will need to survive, are hedging their bets.

Labour’s decision to do a deal with NZ First and United Future has come back to haunt them. Neither is politically viable and won’t survive when their leaders retire. The Green and Maori parties, which will survive long term, were alienated and are now taking their revenge.

On election night, Clark may well find herself in the same position as National three years ago. Key will have many coalition options and Clark none. The irony is that her political isolation will have been self-inflicted.

I still think when push comes to shove, the Greens will fall in behind Labour, no matter what. But the Maori Party will genuinely not make their mind up until after the election. ACT and United Future are showing a clear preference for National and NZ First has said it will negotiate first with the largest party. Now that is no guarantee of a successful outcome, but Peters would be wary of putting back into office an unpopular party rejected by the electorate.