Kiwiblog

Sent in by a local:

I like it. Mind you, would be more efffective in a centre-right seat but good for their brand.

The tagline is quite good – make Lee your local MP.

And Labour using the “Putting Mt Albert first” tagline.

Anyone seen a Greens one yet?

UPDATE: In the Herald this morning:

Not bad either. Plays on their ability to advocate and influence. Incidentially if I was National, I would use that theme for Melissa at some stage – play up that she will be a voice in Government and be able to have more influence.

NZPA report:

Ms Lee said she was “feeling great” about the campaign, and had already started door knocking.

“We are in the rain and cold to meet the people in Mt Albert to see what they are concerned about,” she said.

Residents were concerned about the same things the rest of New Zealand was, she said.

She believed law and order was a big issue for people in the area.

“As a victim of a home invasion myself I understand exactly how they feel. I want to feel safe in my own home and on the street.”

Few would disagree, would they?

He said the big issues for the electorate were the Waterview Connection motorway, the “super-city”, which people didn’t understand, and the economy. Mr Shearer said he did not believe crime was such a big issue, but people did want “strong, safe communities.”

So crime not such a big issue. Putting aside the unfortunate timing in such a statement, I doubt few many Aucklanders would agree.

Today’s Dom Post editorial:

For once Labour has got its selection right. By standing a candidate who is not a list MP it has averted the nightmare scenario of perennial time-server Judith Tizard returning for another 2 1/2 years on the public teat as a list MP. And, if he is successful, David Shearer a highly regarded international aid specialist who resigned as United Nations deputy chief of mission in Iraq to contest the by-election will add greatly to Labour’s talent pool. In fact, he would be part of that pool already were it not for the determination of the union movement to use its muscle to turn the Labour side of Parliament into a rest home for tired union officials.

Ouch.

In 2002, Mr Shearer was edged out of what was then the safe Labour seat of Waitakere by Engineers Union organiser Lynne Pillay and bumped out of a winnable position on the party list by another Engineers Union organiser, Dave Hereora. Neither Ms Pillay, who remains in Parliament, nor Mr Hereora, who was ousted last year, have ever done anything that suggests they are an answer to any of Labour’s problems.

No wonder Phil Goff intervened in the selection, rather than leave it to Andrew Little.

I read this exchange in the Herald:

White-haired Mt Albert pharmacist David Baird met his first living, breathing politician yesterday – and gave her an earful.

“Hi, I’m Melissa Lee, National candidate for Mt Albert,” said the politician.

“Well you won’t be getting my vote because I don’t think we need any Asians in Parliament,” the pharmacist shot back tartly.

Or Jews. We don’t need any Jews either.

Korean-born Ms Lee, a former journalist who has been in New Zealand for 21 years, asked brightly, “Why not?”

Mr Baird said he had his reasons. “They are very difficult people to deal with. They don’t spend any money. I don’t see that they bring any money into the country. Another problem is their English is very bad.

Good on Melissa for not taking offence. Not sure I would have been as reasonable.

As I read this, I thought to myself that this guy sounds like a NZ First voter. And later on we read:

Mr Baird voted NZ First last year and has not decided whom to support in the June 13 byelection, caused by Helen Clark’s departure to the United Nations.

Will NZ First stand a candidate? If so, who will they take votes off?

And a Pakeha mother who declined to be named turned out to be as “red” as Mr Baird’s wife. Her simple verdict: “I’m going to vote for him – he’s the right colour.”

So is she voting Shearer because Labour is “red” or is she voting Shearer because he is white?

The NZ Herald’ Rudman Column is titled:

Brian Rudman: Bulldoze and Nats blow byelection

This may be true but I would much rather the Government doesn’t pick up a seat off Labour (that it doesn’t need anyway) than spend $3 billion on a tunnel.

I also think the Government will pick up support nationally for not caving into pork barrel politics for the by-election and putting the national interest ahead of buying local votes.

First some stats:

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

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

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

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

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

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

So applying this to the party vote, we get

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

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

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

What does this then give us:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let the campaigns begin!

National’s selection panel of 60 members has selected Melissa Lee for the by-election. Congrats to Melissa.

The result is not a big surprise considering Melissa was ranked a very high 37 on the 2008 list, and Ravi was ranked No 65.

Tomorrow I’ll take a look at how the numbers for Mt Albert stack up.

UPDATE: For those who are stupid enough to believe the media story that a National Party conference had already listed Melissa as the candidate, Homepaddock has the actual facts:

But it’s the paper that’s got it wrong. I’ve got a copy of the official programme and it says:

Address by Mt Albert’s List MP Melissa Lee.

There is a big difference between being a candidate for an electorate and a List MP for an area.

I announced last week the blogmobile is back. Well it is bigger and better, as you can see below.

Yes we now have dual donors – Barrons and VnC Cocktails. And even better VnC are suppling copious amounts of product – so there will be Blogmobile party nights!

Hat Tip: Whale Oil

National selects its candidate for the Mt Albert by-election tonight. On Friday the Herald had a useful article on it.

The National Party is embroiled in a backroom power struggle over its Mt Albert candidate, with the hierarchy’s favourite, Melissa Lee, trying to tip out grassroots toiler Ravi Musuku.

Ms Lee is a list MP and one of National’s new stars. Mr Musuku stood unsuccessfully against Helen Clark in the last two elections.

It’s a contested selection – not really a power struggle.

The hierarchy/grassroots divide is deepened by the selection process, with the 60-strong panel of party delegates made up of appointments from both sides. The panel will vote on Monday night.

A number of new local members have been ruled ineligible after they were signed up in a recent “recruitment drive”.

This is a deliberate feature of the rules, to stop selections being stacked. To vote at a selection meeting you have to have been a member for at least six months (off memory). So it is for those who have demonstrated some long-term commitment to the party.

The local electorate organisation’s proportion of the panel is based on the number of party members it has. National Party northern region chairman Alastair Bell decides the rest.

Also a design feature. If an electorate has 900 members (as many do) they select all 60 delegates at a ratio of 1 for 15 members. If they have less than that, then the Regional Chair (elected annually at the local regional conference) tops them up to 60. It is designed to stop very weak electorates being taken over by an individual and encourages electorates to increase membership.

Mr Bell would say only that he would be appointing a “fair number” of delegates to the panel. He had used his discretion to appoint some from outside Mt Albert, but most would be from within the electorate.

I understand over 80% are from within the electorate. It is common to have a few experienced members from neighbouring electorates get appointed. I’ve been a top up for various Wellington electorates from time to time.

I would be amazed if Melissa does not win. Her maiden speech to Parliament was superb, and she is a star for the future.

Heh after a year or two of National being called Labour-lite, the Greens are calling David Shearer National-lite.

Dr Norman played up the link, saying it meant he himself was the only “progressive” candidate on offer.

“The right of the party – the Goff faction – have got their man. Labour have chosen the grey machine man. I’m sure he’s a very nice guy, but it means we’ve got National versus National-lite versus the Greens.”

Actually in terms of privatisation, he could be called ACT-lite or even Libertarianz-lite

Congratulations to David Shearer who won Labour’s nomination, and commiserations to those who missed out. So who are the winners and losers:

Winners

1. David Shearer – likely MP for Mt Albert
2. Phil Goff – he got his hand picked candidate through, despite local resistance
3. Russel Norman – Shearer’s selection allows him to campaign more aggressively for left wing votes
4. John Key – having Shearer in the Labour Caucus will reduce the impact of any cries of privatisation from Labour – not a get out of jail card, but will be useful.

Losers

1. The National candidate – Shearer will be tougher to beat than some of the other candidates Labour could have gone with. His overseas work is appealing
2. Helen Clark – I doubt someone who advocates replacing UN peacekeepers with mercenary armies would have been her first choice of candidate
3. Phil Twyford – won’t find a seat as good as Mt Albert
4. The other candidates for Labour – the flying in of Shearer was a signal that the hierarchy was concerned none of them would win

Now of course six weeks is a long time in politics, and by-elections are fickle creatures. I know at least two media organisations are planning to poll the seat, so it will be interesting to see how it looks in a fortnight.

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.

Phil Goff, making a virtue out of necessity, has adopted the bloggers line of warning that as the other parties are putting up List MPs, someone on their list will enter Parliament if they win. And with the story that ACT will probably put up John Boscawen, this is very true.

So who will enter Parliament, if various List MPs contest and win the seat?

If National’s Melissa Lee is the candidate, then Cam Calder, No 58 on National’s list, becomes an MP. How it works is Melissa resigns as a List MP once she is the MT for Mt Albert, and this creates a list vacancy for National. Cam was an MP for a few days after the 2008 election but lost his seat when specials changed the final allocation. Calder stood for Manurewa and was a dental surgeon, but now is the clinicial director of a medical and sporting equipment company. Also Cam is a mad keen petanque player and actually sit on the executive committee of its global governing body.

If Russel Norman wins the seat for the Greens, then David Clendon, No 10 on the Greens list, becomes an MP. He actually lives in Mt Albert.

If John Boscawen wins the seat for ACT, then Hilary Calvert, No 6 on the ACT List, becomes an MP. Hilary lives in Dunedin and is a lawyer.

I had a superb time at the P J O’Rourke dinner last night, and associated after match entertainment.

The night got off to a good start, when I ran into the Director of the CIS, as I was looking for my name at the table list. I only registered a couple of days ago and wasnt part of a formal group or table, so was not sure who I would be with. I was hoping it wouldn’t be a bunch of boring auditors so had requested on the form to be with some interesting people. I asked Greg if there were any interesting people at my Table – Table 8. He said “Well you’re with me and P J O Rourke, so is that interesting enough”. I managed to restrain myself from hugging Greg – but how seriously cool is that.

The dinner at Sky City was excellent and great conversation at the table. PJ’s speech and then Q&A session was simply stunning. Not only is he the funniest political speaker I have ever heard – he also delivered such a powerful strong message in favour of limited Government. I will blog some quotes from his speech, once I have a copy. It really was superb.

I could not resist in the Q&A asking him if he supported private mercenary armies, as written about by David Shearer, and O’Rourke said that is just about the only area he doesn’t support a private sector role. So I was amused that Labour’s Mt Albert candidate may be to the right of P J O’Rourke when it comes to the role of the private sector. PJ was amused over dinner to find out that one of the chapter headings of Shearer’s paper was “Give War a Chance” – the tile of one of O’Rourke’s best known books.

As I have said before, I think it is excellent Shearer has been willing to advocate that decisions on private sector involvement should be made on the basis of pragmatism, not ideology. Shearer basically says “If they can provide a better outcome, then don’t be put off by the fact they will make a profit from it”. All centrists and rightists should welcome such an outbreak of common sense in Labour, and support him. Matthew Hooton covers this theme in NBR:

What Mr Shearer advocated was that a controlling legal authority – the UN – retain ultimate responsibility for initiating, funding and regulating peace-keeping, but have flexibility in going about it.

If a company like Blackwater, Pathfinder or Executive Outcomes was better placed than soldiers from national armies to undertake a particular operation, then the UN could contract them.

This is a classic funder/provider split model. Admittedly, Mr Shearer went one step further in proposing it be applied to military operations, but his idea is no different in principle to the New Zealand Ministry of Education funding Kura Kaupapa Maori or other private schools, the Department of Corrections contracting out prison services or rehabilitation programmes, or employers choosing approved alternative insurers within the framework of a national ACC.

In each case, the state would remain responsible, being the initiator, funder and regulator, but its agencies would be able to choose the best provider of the service.

Instead of crying “privatisation”, our leaders should be expected to debate such ideas more intelligently than was evident this week.

Absolutely. Privatisation has been a hysterical catchcry from Labour for too often. We need a sensible rational debate on increased utilisation of the private sector, without the kneejerk backlash. Hooton continues:

His selection will mean Labour will never again be able to cry “privatisation” when contestability of service delivery is suggested, and will open the possibility of a more sensible debate about the current structure of the SOE portfolio. New Zealanders can only gain, both as consumers of public services and investors in state assets.

Indeed National would welcome David Shearer into the Labour Caucus. It will largely nullify the privatisation issue for National. If Shearer is confirmed as the candidate (which is highly likely as Head Office control 3/7 votes) I will not be surprised if some National Party members vote for him tactically – knowing the huge boost it will be to have in the Labour Caucus one of the world’s leading proponents (his articles have been cited in scores of other research in this area) of legitimising private sector involvement in military operations.

Anyway once again big thanks to CIS for organising the P J O’Rourke dinner and to all those who went out on the town afterwards. It did mean I was late filing my NBR column, but 3 am is a very bad time to try and start writing it.

Courtesy of Whale Oil.

Incidentally question time in Parliament yesterday revealed that Shearer has actually written four articles advocating for private military forces. They are:

1. Dial an Army
2. Outsourcing War
3. Private Armies and Military Intervention
4. Privatising Protection

Don’t you just love the titles? Also by coincidence one of the chapter titles in Outsourcing War was “Give War a Chance”, which is also the title of the famous P J O’Rourke book. I am off to hear the great man speak tonight.

Privatising Protection is the name of the second article written by David Shearer about the use of mercenaries. I’ve uploaded a copy of it – privatising-protection.

This one was written three years after the 1998 “Outsourcing War” article – in 2001.

What is really interesting is that in 2001 he was an Adviser to the New Zealand Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. And who was that? Phil Goff of course.

Now I have worked in a Ministerial office. I find it hard to believe you could be an advisor to the Foreign Minister, and submit an article to Chatham House on private military forces without the Minister giving it an okay. The article is summarised by Chatham House as:

When people in the world’s conflict zones need protecting, it is the United Nations which is most frequently charged with ‘doing something’. Often short of soldiers, it should be given another option, to call on professional military companies to provide human security – for a fee.

Pretty clear – advocates the UN hiring private mercenary armies. But as the NZ Herald reports, Phil Goff said just two years later:

Mr Goff conversely referred to mercenary work as “paid murder” in 2003, when introducing legislation banning mercenaries.

So did Goff know of the article before publication? If so, how does he reconcile it with his statement in 2003?

I give full kudos to David Shearer who is not resiling from his views:

He said he was still supportive of using private security forces for peacekeeping as a last resort.

“If you have got a situation where thousands of people are being mutilated and it’s your only option, then your first priority is the protection of women and children.”

I agree with Shearer. But Shearer has also advocated that they may have a useful role in countries with civil wars. He said:

As a result states’ monopoly on dealing with civil violence has persisted unchallenged.

So Labour argue the state has to be a monopoly in corrections and workplace accident insurance, but their likely Mt Albert candidate says there should be no state monopoly in dealing with civil violence or the military.

Now I agree with Shearer, but I can imagine it is going to be very uncomfortable for Labour when he is an MP.  Everytime Goff or King gets up to accuse the Government of having a privatisation agenda, the Nats will laugh and remind them that they have an MP who supports privatising the army. And when you consider Labour’s entire strategy is to basically label everything National does is as privatisation, well Naional can’t wait until Shearer is an MP. Hell, they are probably tempted to endorse him themselves.

I mean look at his free market logic here:

Many factions are increasingly motivated by economic gain through the control of diamonds, gold or minerals. Why not award the concession to a company that will mine and protect the resource, thereby keeping diamonds out of the hands of rebels who will sell them to finance their war?

I love it – profit sharing with the mercenaries. This guy understands free markets and incentives and best of all has no ideological opposition to them. He sure is no Helen Clark.

Of course not being a woman may harm him. The Herald reported:

The Service and Food Workers Union’s northern region secretary, Jill Ovens, said the affiliated unions would not be endorsing any particular Labour candidate.

She said her personal view was that it should be a woman, as Labour no longer had a female electorate MP in Auckland with the departure of Helen Clark.

That is true – they don’t. Cunliffe, Carter, Hawkins, Robertson Goff and Su’a hold the other seats.

Good God, I never realised that Labour’s regard for the truth was so remote that they literally just sit around and invent things. Labour has put out the press release quoted below:

National begins dirty tricks campaign in Mt Albert

Press Release by New Zealand Labour at 5:37 pm, 28 Apr 2009

National’s dirty tricks have started even before Labour has selected a candidate for the Mt Albert by-election, Deputy Leader of the Opposition Annette King said today.

First of all don’t you enjoy the hypocrisy of the party that was behind the attempted H-Fee smear, to talk about dirty tricks. Did Annette never notice Mike Williams over in Melbourne?

National and John Key’s dishonest attempt to discredit one of eight potential Labour candidates shows the Government’s eyes are off the ball when they should be focusing on peoples jobs and the upcoming budget.

“National has trawled through research papers written by David Shearer dating back to 1998. The papers looked at the use of private security in war torn nations where innocent civilians, mostly women and children, were dying and there were no better alternatives.

“They’ve fed this information to their right wing blogging friends.

Amazing – she just invents this from thin air. Let there be no mistake, I got the material from no one in National, in Parliament or the Government. I would be very happy to swear an affidavit before a JP to this, or undertake a polygraph. No one in National even pointed me towards this, and the first John Key would have known about this I suspect is when the media asked him for comment.

It amazes me that Labour is so embarrassed by these revelations, that they feel the need to just invent whoppers.

“Instead of this, John Key should be getting his staff to tackle real problems like job losses and the struggling economy.

Again nothing to do with the PM or his staff. Annoys me when people always credit them for our work! I know Labour is anti private sector, but maybe they can not comprehend the idea of people doing stuff on their own initiative.

“Why are they trying to dig dirt on one of the nominees, I predict that by the weekend they would have gone through the whole eight. Unlike National, we don’t yet know who our candidate will be. We are having a competitive selection process which will not be completed until this weekend.

And I urge all Labour delegates to vote Shearer. Far from this being dirt on him, I think it is great he supports a role for the private sector in wars and the military. The problem of course is that his sensible views stand in stark opposition to Labour who are against the private sector being involved in most things.

And I am also bemused how it is considered “dirt” to re-publish an article Mr Shearer wrote in a publicly available journal. Does Labour think there is something wrong with people knowing the views of its candidates on important policy issues? This is not some personal private issue which is embarrassing to Shearer – it is not digging up share transactions – it is a public article on a matter of public policy.

“I hope it’s not a sign of the tactics National plans to adopt for the campaign. Labour is committed to fight a strong, clean and fair by-election

Insert Tui billboard – just like their general election campaign no doubt.

“John Key should stop spending his time on negative politicking and concentrate his efforts on how the budget can address the real problems facing New Zealand,” Annette King said.

Annette – nothing to do with John. Honest. Ask him. Ask me. Give us a polygraph test. Drug me with sodium pentothal. You’ll get the same answer.

The articles by Shearer were found almost by luck in fact. Someone mentioned something to Whale about something Shearer had once written. He mentioned something to me. I asked a couple of friends with access to academic databases to try and fnd something, and one of them found it on an academic database and sent it to me.  Total time on it was around ten minutes.

Phil Goff has been shifting Labour more towards the centre, with the departure of Helen Clark and Michael Cullen. He is attacking National for not sticking with tax cuts, he let Clayton Cosgrove attack over Maori prison units and he is refusing to back Maori seats on the Auckland Council. Plus Labour are backing most of the RMA changes and voted to repeal the EFA.

But the extent to which Goff wants to pull Labour away from the left astonishes even me. As we all know, David Shearer is his hand picked candidate for Mt Albert – his former school friend and Ministerial advisor.

Now David shares none of the antipathy most of his Labour colleagues do towards the private sector. Most of them don’t want the private sector involved in corrections, work accident insurance, health or education. They say it has no role in core state functions. Us on the right are more relaxed and support private sector involvement if it is efficient and delivers good outcomes.

Anyway, while searching for Shearer’s Lincoln university thesis on Maori values and environmental decision-making (as had heard it was interesting) we came across a couple of articles David Shearer had written for foreign policy journals. And what are they on?

“Outsourcing War” and “Privatising Protection”

Let us first look at what he says in “Outsourcing War” published by “Foreign Policy” in 1998:

The principal obstacle to regulating private military companies has been the tendency to brand them as “mercenaries” of the kind witnessed in Africa 30 years ago,rather than to recognize them as multinational entrepreneurs eager to solidify their legitimacy

Legitimate multinational entreprenurs instead of mercenaries. Now that is music to my ears. Not quite so sure how aligned that is to current Labour Party activists and MPs.

Shearer goes on to recommend:

Consequently, regulation can be best achieved through constructive engagement.

I agree – far better than banning them. But Shearer has an even better idea:

The prospect that private military companies might gain some degree of legitimacy within the international community begs the question as to whether these firms could take on UN peacekeeping functions and improve on UN effort.

An excellent idea. I am sure the new UNDP Administator would whole heartedly agree that UN peace keeping forces should be replaced by Executive Outcomes and Sandline. I do hope someone asks her her view.

There is no denying that they are cheaper than UN operations. EO cost Sierra Leone’s governmen$t35 million for the 22 months it was there, versus a planned UN operation budgeted at $47 million for eight months.

And is it any more moral for the UN to be using Fijian peacekeepers than private mercenary armies?

Military companies may in fact offer new possibilities for building peace that, while not universal in applicability, can hasten the end to a war and limit loss of life. Moreover there is no evidence that private-sector intervention will erode the state.

Despite the commercial motives of military companies, their interventions, if anything, have strengthened the ability of governments to control their territory.

I think Rodney should grab David Shearer for ACT. I want this man to be our Defence Minister.

The full article is here – shearer-outsourcing-war. I’ll blog the second article tomorrow.

Labour aspiring candidate for Mt Albert Glenda Fryer put out a release yesterday:

After receiving news that francisee Chander Satija was to have the Sandringham Post Office and Kiwibank closed down, Cr Fryer wrote a letter to NZ Post and met with Auckland representatives to ask them to reconsider their decision.  NZ Post undertook to do this.  NZ Post have yet to give Mr Satija their final decision. …

Concludes Councillor Fryer “ I know the franchaisee Chander Satija   has given NZ Post over 500 letters from local people saying how much they depend on the services of the post office and bank.  Many locals feel they also want to show their faces and stand behind the only bank in Sandringham to tell NZ Post they love their local services and don’t want them closed down. “

So that evil NZ Post is closing down the Sandringham Post Office and Kiwibank. Maybe Glenda should lobby some of the Directors. Perhaps a Mr Shale Chambers? It should be fairly easy for her to lobby him, as he is her husband.

There has been quite a bit of chatter about the role of blogs in the Mt Albert by-election, so I thought it would be useful to put them in perspective as I think people are over-reaching.

Matt McCarten wrote on Sunday (and Laila Harre also said much the same on radio yesterday):

What is disheartening is that Labour’s action wasn’t from a place of principled strategy but the result of hysteria generated by their political opponents.

I salute the right-wing bloggers, who mischievously instigated a destabilising campaign against Labour by writing that National could win Mt Albert if Twyford was the Labour Party nominee. Twyford is a current list MP. Their genius was in pointing out that if Twyford won – as was widely assumed – then Judith Tizard, as the next-highest place list candidate, would be entitled to return to Parliament to replace Twyford’s vacant list spot.

The bloggers claimed that Twyford’s campaign would be overshadowed by the furore of the supposedly unpopular Tizard slipping back into Parliament.

Privately, none of the bloggers believed that their strategy would amount to much, but were incredulous when certain media players started taking it seriously.

What gobsmacked the bloggers particularly – and fatally for Twyford – was that the Labour Party panicked.

Poneke goes even further and credits me with all sorts of “machinations”.

While I think the blogs have played a role in Mt Albert to date, I think people over-state that role. I’ll start from the beginning.

When I first blogged on the Tizard timebomb in December, I didn’t invent it out of thin air. I did hear from someone in Labour that it was an issue they were looking at. Back then, to be fair, I don’t think they were overly concerned, it was more “We need to work out how to deal with this so Twyford can stand”.

I then went away did a bit of research, and blogged on this issue, also pointing out the next four on the list after Tizard were almost as problematic also. Incidentially during this time I have never attacked Judith personally – I’ve just pointed out she didn’t have a positive public appeal.

Now there is debate about whether the Tizard timebomb was real or not. Did Labour panic over nothing, or was it a real threat? Actually it as a bit of both – it is all about probabilities.

Other bloggers like Danyl M make the case that as 45% of NZers don’t even know Phil Goff is the Leader of the Labour Party, then it is ridicolous to think that many residents in Mt Albert would know who is next in line on the Labour list, let alone have it affect their vote. And he may be right.

But what Danyl can’t dismiss is there was a chance that in the absence of major policy issues, there could be a lot of media focus on the Tizard timebomb, especially with coverage from the bloggers.

Let us say there was a 90% chance that Tizard being next List MP in would not be an issue, only a 10% chance it would be. Labour may have decided that is an acceptable risk.

What bloggers did do, is increase that risk. They didn’t invent it out of thin air. It only works, because it has some credibility. But by highlighting the issue, we may have increased the risk of it becoming a major issue from say 10% to 20% – and that 20% may have exceeded Labour’s comfort level.

The other role the bloggers played, is that rather than allow Labour to work out a quiet behind the scenes compromise with Judith, we made sure it played out in public to some degree.

So yes the bloggers did have some influence over Labour’s decision regarding Mt Albert, it is considerably less than McCarten, Harre and Poneke ascribe. At the end of the day, it was a real risk.

Likewise over the selection of Norman as a candidate. Yes I did push that concept, but I dont think one should confuse correlation with causation.And the advice is generally what is best for the Greens – they do need to be less of a lapdog for Labour, they do need an electorate seat. It is not at all impossible Norman could win the seat, if they push strategic voting such as happened in Epsom in 2005 and Wellington Central in 1996.

My advice is not necessarily beneficial to National. A strong Green candidacy could push National into third place. Also National probably would have preferred that nothing be said about the Tizard issue until after Twyford was selected. They would have loved having Tizard back in the House to torment Goff over as an example of rejuvenation.

Even if National somehow win the by-election (something I regard as very unlikely – it is Labour’s safest seat, we are in a recession, and a Government has not won a by-election off an Opposition in at least 70 years) then it would finish Goff off before the 2011 election, and if you did a poll of National MPs they would prefer Goff remain Leader.

So yes blogs are having a bit of influence, but it is over-stated generally. And no it is not some sort of master campaign plan – more livign true to the motto of Fomenting Happy Mischief.

In line with that, I have this banner from a reader:

Thanks to Auckland Trains for the photo of Labour’s campaign billboard.

I’m stll amused by Labour launching their campaign before they have a candidate. Do they not realise that there is no party vote in a by-election – only a candidate vote?

Also not sure stealing Winston’s campaign slogan is a smart idea. People may ask then why they stopped the MP who lives in Mt Albert from standing, and instead are parachuting in a UN guy?

Now that Shearer is guaranteed to win. Head Office is highly dominant with 3/7 votes, but the local electorate committee will not necessarily roll over and play dead for Goff’s old school friend. The Herald has a photo of all the candidates here.

Brian Edwards blogs:

Meanwhile the media, and seemingly the party hierarchy, appear to have anointed UN diplomat David Shearer as Labour’s candidate for the seat. It’s a strategy that may well backfire. Shearer’s abilities are not in question; he might well make a first class MP. But local electorate organisations don’t like being presented with a fait accompli where candidate selection is concerned and may well rebel.

Edwards continues:

Seven votes will decide who wins the Labour nomination for Mount Albert – four from the electorate and three from Head Office. If I were one of those four, I might well be starting to feel somewhat disgruntled around now. Whether it is reality or not, the perception is that that the old boy network is at play here. A close friend and former advisor to Phil Goff, who has been out of the country for three years and does not in any real sense live in the electorate, has jetted home to be dubbed ‘frontrunner’ in the race before even getting off the plane. There are veiled suggestions of carpetbagging. None of this may actually be the case, but it is certainly how it looks. And in politics how things look is everything.

Perception trumps reality in politics.

At another level, what Labour now needs more than anything is rejuvenation. Shearer will be new to Parliament certainly, but his age and close association with the Labour establishment do not really suggest an infusion of fresh ideas. And with the announcement that Russel Norman will stand for the Greens, rejuvenation and new ideas have become an urgent priority.

I should declare that Judy and I have both offered 24-year-old Meg Bates our support in her attempt to win the nomination. Meg has been one of Judy’s tutors in Political Studies at Auckland and we have got to know her very well.  If she doesn’t win the nomination, we’ll be delighted to support whoever does.

Dame Cath Tizard has also endorsed the young Bates.

This is not Shearer’s first attempt at Parliament. In 1999 he was a list only candidate for Labour – was ranked No 62. In 2002 he was ranked No 45, and stood in Whangarei where he did not do so well. Labour beat National in the party vote by almost 4,000 votes but Phil Heatley won the electorate vote by over 3,000 votes.

Looking at the vote splitting, Shearer got only 74% of the Labour vote, and 1% of National voters, Heatley got 92% of the National vote and 14% of the Labour vote.

I understand Shearer also stood for the Waitakere nomination at one stage, but lost it to Lynne Pillay.

Shearer may also struggle with how well he fits the rejuvenation that Labour claims it is about, as he is in his 50s.

NZPA reports:

LABOUR STARTS MT ALBERT CAMPAIGN WITHOUT CANDIDATE

Wellington, April 26 NZPA – Labour leader Phil Goff kick-started his party’s campaign for the Mt Albert by-election this afternoon, despite the party not yet having chosen a candidate for the seat.

A campaign launch with no candidate. That’s a first for me.

Audrey Young writes:

There were good reasons for Key to downplay the byelection.

First is the historic improbability that National can win it.

Not only has it never held the seat since the electorate was formed in 1946, but in the 40 byelections in New Zealand since then, the party of Government has never taken a seat from an opposition party.

Indeed. And it is Labour’s safest seat. Yes the Clark factor may be gone, but nevertheless it is far from marginal.

In the aftermath of the English speech, we saw a hint of the debate Goff will mount through May and into the byelection: National’s reneging on the centrepiece of its election campaign, tax cuts.

Goff’s problem is that Labour campaigned so hard against National’s tax cuts that opposing their cancellation looks confusing.

Very confusing. And I look forward to hearing how high Goff would increases taxes in his alternative budget.

If finding the right issues weren’t enough, Goff has caused some internal disquiet as well by forcing Mt Albert favourite Phil Twyford out of contention for the candidacy.

And who wins the nomination will be interesting. Meg Bates has been endorsed by Dame Cath Tizard, Brian Edwards and Judy Callaghan – all people very close to Clark. And Bates worked for Clark. Then you have David Shearer who was hand picked by Goff and went to school with him. So the selection could be a clash between the Clark machine and the Goff machine!

He also faces internal disquiet over a possible shift to the right in policy _ fuelled by Clayton Cosgrove’s condemnation of a Maori rehabilitation prison on separatist grounds.

Labour’s own Pauline Hanson.

Back on 16 April I blogged:

Mt Albert is already one of the strongest seats for the Greens. So how would they get Labour voters to vote for the Green candidate? Apart from the fact it won’t bring Judith Tizard back into Parliament?

You make two cases to the voters of Mt Albert:

1. It is almost impossible for Labour to be able to form a future Government unless the Greens are in Parliament. Former partners such as the Alliance and NZ First have disappeared and United Future and Progressive and one MP parties now. The Maori Party is currently very hostile, but even with the Maori Party, Labour without the Greens would need more votes than it has ever got before. Bottom line is Labour needs the Greens in Parliament.
2. The Greens need the safety net of an electorate seat. They are the only party in Parliament without an electorate seat. In two of the last four elections, they have just scraped in above 5%. If they drop below 5% with no electorate seat they are out of Parliament, and may never return.

Voters can grasp how to be strategic in MMP. They did it in 1996 in Wellington Central and 2005 in Epsom. No reason Mt Albert can’t do it in 2009.

So the Greens should go all out to win the seat. So who do they stand? The next candidate on their list, David Clendon, lives in (or near) Mt Albert I think, but he isn’t a heavy hitter. A by-election is like a mini general election in just one seat.

Normally I would say stand a co-leader.

Now I did then say that Norman is probably too associated with Wellington, but nevertheless think I get partial credit for predicting this story in the Herald today:

The Greens are showing Labour no mercy, with co-leader Russel Norman aiming to stand in the Mt Albert byelection, a move that will increase National’s chances of dealing Labour a humiliating defeat.

I would not rule out the Greens managing to win the seat. Look at these:

1. ACT came second to National in TKC in 1998 by only 988 votes
2. Alliance came very close second to National in Tamaki in 1992
3. Alliance came second to National in Selwyn in 1994 by only 428 votes
4. Social Credit won East Coast Bays in 1980 by 951 votes

Third parties historically do very well in by-elections, as people vote tactically. It will be very interesting to see some early polls in the seat. If they show Norman at over 15%, then I would say it could be game on.

I would tend to agree that David Shearer would now be the front runner for the Mt Albert nomination. David has a massive amount of respect for his aid work over the last two decades. And not as an administrator, but actually out there on the front lines making a huge difference to the life of many people.

Unless my memory fails me, David worked for the NZ Red Cross, when I was a head office staffer. Overseas relief workers, doctors and nurses like David would often give a talk and presentation to the staff when they returned, and it was a privilege to be able to hear furst hand about what they did. These missions were often dangerous, and can do so much good. Two or three people can supply water to tens of thousands of people made homeless etc.

Having said that, David has been out of the country, and local delegates may prefer someone who has been active in the electorate. But unlike National where the decision is made by 60 local delegates, Labour’s decision is made by a panel of just six people and seven votes with Head Office having three fo those votes. So if Goff has head office support for Shearer, it would be very very hard for anyone to beat him.

If he wins the nomination, I think he would be a hard person to beat in the actual election. His record of achievement and service would be very attractive to voters.

Other candidates are:

• Simon Mitchell, leftie lawyer – purchased paintergate painting so it could be destroyed
• Chris Tremewan, Auckland Uni academic
• Meg Bates, politics tutor, former electorate agent to Clark
• Glenda Fryer, City Councillor
• Stuart Prosser – no info on him – can anyone help?
• Farida Sultana – 2008 list candidate, a “lesbian Muslim”, very active in ethnic communities
• Rhema Vaithianathan, economic lecturer
• Helen White – ex EPMU lawyer (shares chambers with Mitchell)

UPDATE: Oh forgot to mention that the best thing about Twyford’s withdrawal is that on iPredict I made $503.26 on short selling Twyford stocks