Kiwiblog

Labour said in January 2011:

Election Will Be A Referendum On Asset Sales – Goff

Mr Goff said Prime Minister John Key had made this year’s election a referendum on whether New Zealanders wanted to see their most important strategic assets sold.

Labour and the Greens are using taxpayer funds to try and relitigate the election result. As the Labour Party Leader said, the 2011 was to be a referendum on asset sales. It was the most debated policy of the campaign with 11 months of campaigning about.

I do look forward to seeing media asking David Shearer if he agrees with his predecessor that the 2011 election was a referendum on asset sales.

Well done Inventory2 for finding this gem at Keeping Stock.

Vernon Small at Stuff reports:

Behind them, keeping them honest, will be former leader Phil Goff and the demoted but not forgotten Trevor Mallard. They will team up as the nucleus of a new “hit-squad”, with extra research and media resources to dig and dish the dirt.

Oh, this will be fun. More H-Fee revelations anyone?

Mind you, they could be quite effective. They successfully destroyed David Cunliffe’s career through background briefings to media, so if they can manage that with one of their own colleagues they might be able to do it with other MPs!

In Parliament today Phil Goff asked:

When he appointed Peter Kiely as director of the Pacific Forum Line in July 2009 was he aware that Mr Kiely was, from November 2008, listed under the Companies Register as a shareholder in a competing shipping company, Sofrana, and that he held those shares right through until 10 August 2012?

Was it appropriate for Mr Kiely to have been a shareholder in Sofrana and not disclose that information to his Minister or to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade when Mr Kiely was involved in giving advice to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade on the sale of the Pacific Forum Line and when the preferred bidder was in fact the Sofrana shipping line?

But Kiely is not a shareholder. McCully says:

Foreign Affairs Minister Murray McCully has called allegations made by Phil Goff MP against former Pacific Forum Line director Peter Kiely “reckless, cowardly and wrong”.

“By attacking Mr Kiely without checking the facts Mr Goff has impugned the reputation of a highly professional individual without any justification.

“Central to Mr Goff’s allegation is that Mr Kiely held shares in shipping company Sofrana at the time PFL, of which he was a director, was considering an offer from Sofrana.

“Mr Kiely has never owned shares in Sofrana. The shares referred to by Mr Goff were held by Mr Kiely as a non-beneficial trustee for a Sofrana employee. Practising lawyers like Mr Kiely commonly hold shares for clients as non-beneficial trustee. If Mr Goff had asked he could have been told this.

NewstalkZB reports:

Phil Goff says newspapers’ biased coverage of last year’s election certainly didn’t help his result.

He led Labour to its worst-ever defeat, and a Massey University expert says he has grounds to feel he was unfairly treated by four of the country’s biggest newspapers.

Associate Professor Claire Robinson has assessed all the images run in those papers in the last month of the campaign, and found John Key’s picture featured 138 times while Mr Goff featured only 80 times.

“It would have substantially helped to have had favourable coverage and greater coverage, and particularly of photos,” said Mr Goff.

Yeah, you lost because there were not enough photos of you!

If Goff thinks Labour would have won if there were more photos of him – why then did his own campaign team decide not to have photos of him on their billboards and hoardings!!! Their campaign strategy was based on promoting Labour, and not promoting Goff, as they knew he was a negative for many people.

John Key launched the “Kicking the Tyres” book reviewing the 2011 election last night. He referred to the aforementioned study, and commented that he may have had more photos of him, than Phil Goff, but most of his were with John Banks and were not necessarily that helpful

I’ve purchased a copy of the book and am looking forward to reading the various chapters.

UPDATE: Poneke also analyses the study:

Dr Robinson’s research looks flawed because it treats the election campaign as a two-party race between Mr Key and Mr Goff when in fact it was a multi-party contest between National, Labour, the Greens, New Zealand First, ACT, the Maori Party, Peter Dunn and Mana, to name most of the main contenders.

I think that is  valid point. We are no longer in FPP where it is National v Labour. The analysis would be better looking at centre-right v centre-left.

It is also flawed because it examines the content of just four newspapers, whereas the election campaign was a cacophony of coverage by newspapers, television stations, radio stations and countless websites, blogs, Facebook pages and Twitter feeds.

I’m not sure that is a flaw, more a limitation.

We’ve seen an interesting comparison of two parliamentary leaders who have both not recalled a mention of an issue in a briefing or presentation.

In July 2011, then Opposition Leader Phil Goff said that he was “not aware of the allegations” around the Israeli hitchhikers.

More recently John Key said he was unaware of the GCSB involvement in the Kim Dotcom case until a couple of weeks ago.

It turned out in the case of Phil Goff he was briefed personally by the Director of the SIS in March 2011. A contemporaneous file note states that it was on the agenda, that Goff asked a question about it, that it was “discussed at length” and notes that Goff was shown the investigation paper and that Goff read it.

In the case of John Key, the GCSB has said that the PM was not briefed on the case until September 2012, but that at a visit to the GCSB offices in Feb 2012, he was given a powerpoint presentation where the Dotcom issues was briefly mentioned, and an image of Dotcom was one of 11 in a montage. The Director says he does not recall the reference, but his staff say it was mentioned briefly.

Now I have to say I believe both Phil Goff and John Key, in that they didn’t recall their respective issues. I would point out that SIS meeting with Goff was a one on one meeting specially to brief on intelligence issues – not a general “this is what we are up to” type presentation. But regardless both men have hundreds of meetings a month.

Where there is a stark difference, is when documents came to light that highlighted there was a briefing or mention.

Even though there is no written record of the matter being mentioned to him,, and even though the GCSB Director says he doesn’t recall it, John Key has said he accepts the recollection of the other GCSB staff – and at the first opportunity has made public that fact, and has said he will correct the record.

Now compare that to what Phil Goff did.  Phil Goff accused the SIS of lying, and inventing things, and said he would refuse to meet them in the future without witnesses. Even to this day, he refuses to admit his memory may have been faulty.

I think that speaks volume about character.

Good to see the media are backpedalling on the Waitangi Pub crawl in London story and giving more balance such as the Police actually praising the event and its organisers.

In the latest story at Stuff, they have comments from both John Key and Phil Goff. And if I was a lecturer in political communications, I would get my students to analyse this story. I think it is a good insight into how the way you say things can impact how you are perceived.

First what Goff said:

Labour’s foreign affairs spokesman Phil Goff said nobody minded people having a good time but vomiting and defecating in public didn’t do much for New Zealand’s reputation in Europe.

“I’ve no problem if they’re crazy enough to take their shirts off and do a haka in the middle of the snow in London in February, fine.

“But I know that when I was living in London and you saw people on the tube that were vomiting and urinating you took offence at that.”

People at home wouldn’t like it is a group of English people behaved similarly here, he said. 

“By all means go have a good time but when it comes to behaving offensively in a public place, it’s not on for people to be damaging our reputation by behaving in our way.”

Goff comes across as automatically accepting there was really bad behaviour, twice goes on about vomiting, defecating and urinating and says we wouldn’t like people doing it here. Overall comes over as a bit of a killjoy.

Prime Minister John Key said he was not surprised New Zealanders in London took part in a rowdy Waitangi Day pub crawl, saying “celebrating is part of what they do” in the British capital.

“On one level it’s great people all over the world are celebrating Waitangi Day. We would hope they would not get out of control.”

Reports of bad behaviour should not be “over-egged”, he said.

“New Zealanders are well known for having a pretty good time when they are out in London. I’d encourage them to have good behaviour where they can.

Key admitted he too celebrated Waitangi Day when he lived in London by “having a couple of beers”.

“I kept my shirt on though.”

While in one sense Key and Goff are saying the same thing (have fun but do not go overboard), Key comes over far more positive (and dare I say it relaxed) and less killjoyish.

Now you might say who cares. But how the public perceive politicians does impact how they vote. They like politicians whom they can relate to, and whom they are “normal”.

The most powerful political image of last year, was (ironically) shown the day after the election, of John Key in bare feet outside his front door picking up the pizzas, as they wait for results. It was on the front page of one of the Sunday papers, and was an incredibly powerful image. It said four things to people:

• The Prime Minister relaxes in shorts and bare feet at home – just like most Kiwis do. Not in a suit.
• The Prime Minister orders pizza, just like many families do
• The PM actually goes out and pays/signs for it himself rather than sending someone else out
• Despite it being the day which might evict him from office, he is relaxing at home with his kids, eating pizza

Of course such stuff is not the only thing that impacts politics. Policies and performance do also. But the contrast between how Goff and Key came across, despite trying to say the same thing I thought was a good lesson in communications – how to do it, and how not to do it.

The Herald reports:

The SAS is to be withdrawn from Afghanistan on schedule in March, the Government announced yesterday – but the move was met with Opposition calls to ensure they are never deployed again.

Never ever ever ever ever again.

Prime Minister John Key confirmed the Special Air Service troops would be returning to New Zealand after two and a half years working alongside the Afghan Crisis Response Unit in the capital, Kabul.

And they have made a difference.

Mr Goff said he welcomed the decision on the SAS, but it had to be long term – not simply a break between deployments.

“That does not mean he won’t redeploy them in six months or a year’s time. That’s a question Mr Key won’t answer. What is important is to seek a commitment that they won’t be sent back there.

Of course Key won’t give guarantees for years into the future. It’s called the responsibility of being in office, as opposed to stupid opposition.

Mr Goff said the Labour Government deployed the SAS to combat al-Qaeda and international terrorism. The Afghan conflict was now more in the nature of civil war and President Hamid Karzai’s regime did not have the support of the people.

Asked what circumstances might warrant a redeployment, Mr Goff said there would have to be clear evidence Afghanistan was being used to host international terrorism.

“I don’t think there are likely to be circumstances that would warrant a redeployment of our troops there.”

Except of course Labour do support NZ troops being in Afghanistan. They support the PRT continuing its work there.

This is just like the hypocrisy Labour had over Iraq – attacking National for potentially sending troops there, while ignoring Labour did send troops to Iraq.

Radio NZ reports:

Mr Goff has restated his commitment to seeing out this term in Parliament and says he intends to stand again in 2014.

Oh good God. That will help the rejuvenation – not.

Who on earth would he want to stay on as a backbencher? Does he intend to outlast Ross Robertson?

As expected, Phil Goff resigned yesterday, effective in mid December.

Despite the result, Goff ran a reasonably strong campaign and more than one person commented to me that they are unsure that any of his likely replacements will be a better campaigner. However it is the right decision that he goes, because at the end of the day I don’t think someone who entered Parliament in 1981 would ever be able to convince New Zealanders they are the future. His longevity was the one thing he could not reinvent.

Being Leader of the Opposition is the worst job in politics. Goff struggled at it, as most MPs have. The only MP I can recall who excelled at it was Muldoon. McClay, Bolger and Clark  all struggled in the role. Bolger and Clark went on to be competent Prime Ministers, and Goff would also have been competent if he had been elected. However he achieves the unwanted record of being the only Labour Party Leader in the last 46 years, not to have made Prime Minister.

Goff’s legacy is that of a high achieving Minister. He made some good changes to the tertiary education system in the 1980s, and performed extremely well as Foreign and Trade Minister under Clark. The Free Trade Agreement with China is his greatest achievement, not made easier by the opposition of the then Foreign Minister to it.

In the fullness of time, I think it would be appropriate for the Government to offer him some sort of role. Possibilities are:

• Ambassador to the US (once Moore term ends)
• Ambassador to China (to build on FTA)
• Deputy Administrator of the UNDP (okay, just kidding)
• Ambassador to the WTO

Phil Goff spent 30 years trying to make New Zealand a better place. I disagreed with many of his policies, but respect his intentions and contribution. I hope he has a successful career outside Parliament, whether that commences in 2014, or before.

Andrea Vance blogs:

Goff hasn’t been seen in the city. Nor has he been in Palmerston North – the last provincial seat his party holds – in the past four weeks. You can’t help but wonder if the candidates are keen to keep him away – just as his mug is missing from the billboards.

After losing Napier, Otaki, Hamilton and the East and West Coast electorates, letting Palmerston North slip from the party’s grasp will be a serious psychological blow to the party.

Has Goff become the Marginal Labour candidates know the only way to hold their seats is to get National voters to vote for them. That’s why they are hiding Goff.

Listen to Goff being savaged on NewstalkZB over his false claims over the Police, where he claimed “all recruitment” for 2012 was canceled due to budget cuts, and in fact the truth is that the January intake has been delayed two months because the attrition rate of Police leaving the force has halved under National (which is great as experienced cops are better than rookies) so they do not need to recruit as quickly.

It is absolutely brutal. You see Goff at his absolute worse – unable to admit he is wrong on anything at all. He would argue black is white. It is just like when he argued the SIS never briefed him despite documented proof they did.

John Key does make mistakes. But when he does, he generally will concede he stuffed up. A great example is over the Israeli backpackers where his initial refuse to comment gave the story massive legs. He conceded to media that in hindsight he should have started with the position he ended up with.

But this is Goff’s awful weakness. He never ever admits he is wrong on anything (except the entire 1980s). To this day he maintains his handling of the Darren Hughes saga was first class, when everyone knows it was an absolute disaster.

A few weeks ago in relation to the S&P comments, Phil Goff said:

Goff said the Prime Minister has “lied to Kiwis” and if the source is credible then he should name them.

“John Key should stop trying to squirm out of it, front up, admit he got it wrong, and say sorry,” Goff said today.

So will Phil Goff take his own advice? Will he name his highly reliable source (my pick is its Trevor Mallard)? Will he “front up, admit he got it wrong, and say he is sorry?”

I suspect this is not the ending that Labour wanted to their campaign.

Phil Goff tried his lie about how it costs a family $500 a year more to be with Contact. Leighton reads out the figures from Consumer, and slays him.

Goff-Asset-Sales-Flaying by whaleoil

Goff should front up with this so called data from Fairfax which shows Contact currently costs more than $500 a year. I trust the Consumer NZ data. All I can find on the Stuff website is this story:

Marybank resident John Stark said Contact needed to try harder to retain customers.

“I emailed Contact Energy on June 3 after determining on the Power Switch website that I could save over $500 a year by changing from Contact Energy to Just Energy.

So unless there is some other story I can’t find on Stuff, the basis for Goff claiming the average family of four pays $500 a year more with Contact, is a story about one individual family in Nelson.

But Goff’s spin gets even worse. The $500 quoted in that story for that one family was comparing Contact Energy to Just Energy. Just Energy is owned by Pulse Utilities NZ Ltd, which is shock horror listed on the NZX!!! Fail!

Now some may argue that Contact used to charge more in the past, and they have lowered prices to keep customers. Well yes they have, and isn’t that a good thing.

As I posted earlier today power prices increased massively under Labour and they raked in $3b in dividends from the power SOEs.Goff is spreading desperate lies when he repeats his claim Contact costs an average family $500 more a year. They are the cheaper than the three SOEs in Auckland.

Incredible. For the third time Goff is unable to answer the CGT question about in what year does it first bring in revenue.

You can see it in the video above, by Whale. After muffing it in The Press debate, and then muffing it on The Nation on yesterday, how on God’s earth did he not look up the policy. We all make mistakes, but to not be able to answer the question after two previous maulings is just idiotic.

Goff was also very unimpressive on other details. Couldn’t say how the Capital Gains tax would work, had no numbers around jobs, and in the finale refused (three times) to say whether or not he trusts Winston Peters – whom is his only lifeline to power.

Can you imagine a Labour-led Government with Phil Goff needing to get the Greens, Maori Party, NZ First and Mana to agree to every budget, and every law? It would have no stability and definitely no direction.

UPDATE: Transcript below:

GUYON Okay, the capital gains tax is part of a major tax switch, isn’t it, which includes the increase in the top tax rate, the GST off fruit and vegetables, etc. Under your plan, what is the first year you gain any additional revenue from your tax switch and how much do you get?

PHIL Well, from 2015, 16, we’re back into surplus, and by 2021, we’ve paid off the debt a year faster than National.

GUYON What is the first year that you gain any additional revenue from your tax switch and how much is it?

PHIL I think it’s about 2016, 17. Again, I don’t carry all those figures in my head.

GUYON Well, it’s 2018, 19. It’s a long way off.

As Guyon points out, that means it is two full terms of Parliament before their “tax switch” actually brings in additional revenue.

Almost everyone is aware of The Press debate two weeks ago when Phil Goff couldn’t answer John Key’s question about how much revenue their proposed CGT will bring in the first year it starts, and what year that is. The result was a week of bad headlines for Goff, and serious damage to Labour’s economic credibility.

So after that fiasco, you would have thought that the first thing a semi-competent party leader would do is to make sure they can answer that question without hesitation. But amazingly Phil Goff couldn’t answer it for a second time!

On The Nation yesterday:

Duncan        One of the crucial questions that John Key asked you that night was around capital gains, and he asked you in your first year what sort of money do you raise in the first year, and you didn’t know.

Phil              Well the figures are out there, the figures are it’ll raise 26 billion in 16 years.  And what I said, let me finish this, it starts slowly, it starts with you know 20 – 50 million or whatever, it gets up to half a billion very quickly, gets up to a billion in about eight years, and then it hits about three billion.

Duncan        But do you know in the first year what it raises.

Phil              Yeah I’ve got it right here…

Duncan        No – do you know without looking?   It’s 68 billion (DPF: meant to be million)

So even after a week of ridicule over not knowing his numbers, Phil Goff still couldn’t answer, without looking it up, that Labour’s CGT will only bring in $68m in its first year.

Now of course no party leader will know every number, but again after what happened last week, this is one number that should have been tattooed.

But the problems for Goff don’t stop there. In a fit of loyalty Trevor Mallard in an online chat said that as campaign manager he takes full responsibility for Goff not being prepared for The Press debate. But the two Davids have told quite a different story to The Nation:

Here’s what David Cunliffe said:

N: Should he not have known those numbers for a debate like that?

DC: Well I’m sure he does, and did, but you never know the bounce of the ball on the day and what comes to mind but that’s really a question you should address to him

N: So , did he know the numbers did you know the numbers then?

DC: Well some of those questions were numbers that had been previously released by our tax package… but it’s sometimes it depends about how the question is framed at the time but I’m not going to second guess – Phil’s done a great job on this campaign….

So Cunliffe is saying that Goff did know and that basically he just stuffed up.

And Parker:

N: When was the fiscal strategy ready? When did you know it?

DP: Well it had been prepared in advance of our savings forum. Phil had determined we would release the strategy two days after debate.

N: Had he seen the numbers

N: Yes he was of course aware of the numbers, he was aware of the numbers when we made decision to increase kiwisaver compulsory — our fiscal numbers were worked out at that stage. The exact date of release was the Friday, the press debate was the prior Wednesday, the two day gap between that I don’t know there’s a lot in that.

Parker basically confirms that the numbers didn’t change in those two days, that Goff could have answered the question on the Wednesday if he had been on top of it.

On The Nation today:

Duncan        So looking at the asset sales, if you were to get into government and not sell those assets, how would you control power prices?  Because that has been a major issue over the last ten years, and National one of their big attacks in office has been that under your leadership, when I say leadership I talk about the Labour government, power prices went up 70-80% over ten years.  What will you do?  What reassurance can you give to voters that you’ll control power prices.

Phil              Oh the power prices are gonna fluctuate depending on how much extra you build in terms of generation.  No but what you can assure them is this.  That you don’t have an outside foreign investor coming in, wanting a really big return on their investment, because you know, and you know from Contact Energy that this happened, that your power prices will go up if you privatise.  Contact Energy was charging 500 bucks a year more for an average family of four, than any of the SOEs.

As Garner pointed out power prices went up massively under Labour, and the increases under National have been much lower. But the big fib is on Contact Energy charging an average family $500 a year more.

First of all, even if true it would not be a big issue, as people can swap providers and hundreds of thousands have and do. But it is not true.

Consumer has price info for various areas. I picked Auckland to start, as our most populous area. The current prices:

• Genesis $2,096
• Mercury $2,083
• Meridian $1,971
• Contact $1,918

So in Auckland Contact is cheaper than the three SOEs. The total opposite to what Goff claimed. They are in fact $178 cheaper than the most expensive SOE, not $500 more expensive.

Why is no one in the media fact checking these claims?

I decided to check all four major cities. Christchurch is

• Meridian $2,055
• Mercury $1,893
• Contact $1,833
• Genesis $1,763

Contact is cheaper than two of the SOEs.

Wellington is

• Contact $2,093
• Mercury $2,080
• Genesis $2,042
• Meridian $1,945

In Wellington they are more expensive, but by only $13 to $148.

Dunedin is

• Meridian $1,929
• Mercury $1,967
• Contact $1,908
• Genesis $1,756

Again Contact is cheaper than two of the SOEs.

In my Stuff column on Tuesday I labelled the secret tape saga a distraction Labour doesn’t need. A few people scoffed at me but as both the TV polls have shown Labour dropping by over 2%, I think it reinforces my point. Sure it has been messy for National, but it has also knocked Labour out of the media all week.

Today the Herald reports:

Labour leader Phil Goff says he is “sick to death” the teapot tapes are diverting attention away from key issues including asset sales, the cost of living and young New Zealanders’ job prospects, as the country heads into the last and “most important” week of the election campaign. …

“In seven days time our assets go on the block, that’s something we need to be debating.”

My advice to Goff was:

So when Phil Goff was asked for comment yesterday on the tape, his response should have been “I don’t care at all what John Key said to John Banks over coffee, what I care about is why National and ACT plan to sell our assets. This issue is a distraction from the real issues that matter to New Zealanders such as the increased power prices that will eventuate from selling shares in our power companies.”

Where do I send the bill?

Goff should have taken the advice earlier in the week though.

Ali Ikram just tweeted:

will someone deface Labour’s billboards by putting their leader on them?

Think if someone went and made up some huge stickers of Phil Goff and stuck them on all the Labour billboards. They wouldn’t know whether to complain or not!

Mike Hosking asked Phil Goff when was the last time he used public transport, not as a photo opportunity.

Whale has the audio of his response, which is:

I use public transport every day, it’s called the VIP service at the moment

That’s a new definition of public transport – a chauffeur driver limo.

It is becoming obvious that the last two weeks of the campaign are going to be non stop attacks on John Key. 3 News reports:

Labour leader Phil Goff says United States President Barack Obama is a great leader whereas Prime Minister John Key is a poor leader despite both nations having high unemployment and receiving credit downgrades since both leaders took office.

Unemployment in New Zealand has doubled and our credit rating has been downgraded twice by Standard and Poors since 2008.  

The United States’ unemployment has also doubled since before the global financial crisis and they have received a credit downgrade too.

Mr Goff told Firstline this morning that President Obama and Mr Key are incomparable because they inherited different fiscal situations.

Whale provides video of “The moment”.

John Roughan at the NZ Herald writes:

When Phil Goff called John Key a liar on television the election was over for me. Goff has no class. The more difficult decision on election day could be the referendum. Should we keep MMP?

Goff thinks calling the PM a liar is a good strategy because that what his most fervent activists think and believe. But it does not go down well with swinging voters. You think they would know that from 2008.

Key could have responded and said Goff lied over the SIS briefing. He could have said Goff lied when he ruled out raising the super age just three months ago. He could have easily lowered himself to Goff’s level.

I wish I could see the election result first. There is only one question to ask about any electoral system: will it give a result everyone can respect?

A number of people are saying that. If the election produces an outcome where Winston or the Maori Party decide the Government, then MMP’s popularity will plunge I predict. A vote for change will mean a second referendum in 2014.

I can’t embed it, but go to Stuff and look at the video of Key and Goff doing the bloke test. Parts are very amusing. A summary of parts of it:

Running late and out of clean underwear

Key – don’t wear any, who can tell under the suit
Goff – on occasion has washed his own in a basin

Thrown a punch or been hit

Key – yes and names the kid at intermediate school who punched him and says still not forgiven him.
Goff – at a punching bag but admits yes in younger days

Who drives and navigates – you or wife

Key – I drive, Bronagh navigates and is always too late telling me to change lanes
Goff – A Navman has kept his marriage going

Ever done a yardglass

Key – yes, and offers the extra info that he spewed
Goff – no, protested strongly at son’s 21st when he did one.Not in favour of drinking to get drunk

Song you sing in the bath

Key – opponents claim “Oh lord, it’s hard to be humble” but actually Singing in the Rain
Goff – no song at all if anyone is at home

Ever shot a living creature

Key – yes as a youngster shot some rabbits on a farm
Goff – yes as a small farmer. Shoots rabbits to stop them over-running

Best SAS wilderness survival tip

Key – If caught in snow, you have to clear a bit out and get down to the grass as it is warmer there
Goff – Never try to keep up with the SAS!

BBQ secret

Key – don’t turn the steak until the juices of the blood move up and only turn once
Goff – enjoy steak on bbq, marinating it

Can you change a tyre

Key – yes
Goff – Not done in last couple of decades as easier for shop, but done in past

Do you tell wife if she cuts her hair short and you hate it

Key – no
Goff – no

Tui or Otago Pinot Noir

Key – Tuis (a claim met with some scepticism by the journos)
Goff – Tuis when hay making, Otago PN when at social functions

Very amusing. Good on them for taking part. Some will get sniffy but it is only five minutes out of a day.

Incidentally my answers would be:

Running late and out of clean underwear – turn them inside out

Thrown a punch or been hit – thrown a punch at university and been in a fight when I got mugged

Who drives and navigates – I drive, Noelle (my TomTom) navigates

Ever done a yardglass – yes, at university. No spew.

Song you sing in the bath – In the Navy

Ever shot a living creature – no

Best SAS wilderness survival tip – dribble if caught in snow avalanche, to work out what way is up and down

BBQ secret – pipis are great to bbq

Can you change a tyre – yes, but easier to call AA

Do you tell girlfriend if she cuts her hair short and you hate it – I am not suicidal

Tui or Otago Pinot Noir – definitely the Pinot

I think it is safe to say that Gordon Campbell is not a right wing commentator or a former staffer for Jenny Shipley. He may of course be a member of the VRWNLLWC, but isn’t everyone. Here’s his opening lines today:

Any points Phil Goff may have won in the television debate a few days ago went west during last night’s public debate in Christchurch – which, as Vernon Small says, had turned into something close to a rout by night’s end.

The centre-left can feel justifiably furious at Goff and his minders for going into this debate without a narrative (much less a credible defence) for Labour’s election costings. Sorry, but “We’ll have them for you by the end of the week” doesn’t really cut it.

The problem with Labour is their tax cuts for everyone policy. It will require borrowing for the next six to seven years unless they cut spending elsewhere to pay for it.

Did you know under Labour’s tax policy, 40 out of the 43 Labour MPs will get an income tax cut? Yes, seriously. They are promising to borrow money for tax cuts. And this is based on their own costings.

My prediction on how Labour will suddenly balance their books? Look for them to find a way to get businesses to pay for it. For example, with some tweaking you can make money out of the ETS, so that businesses and hence consumers will pay for Labour’s tax cuts and spending promises.

The other way they might try and make their books balance is to assign their spending promises to the “future contingency” allowances in the Budget. Now this is legitimate to do to a point. But it loses credibility if you assign too high a proportion of the contingency allowance in advance, as that is saying there will be no room for any other spending in the next x years, such as public sector payrises.

The Herald reports:

At last year’s local body elections, he promoted Manukau’s policy of a fixed charge for wastewater, saying adopting the Auckland City system of user pays would lead to increases of $1000 a year for some households.

Mr Brown has not modelled Manukau’s wastewater system of a fixed charge for households and a fixed plus metered charge for business.

Instead, he is proposing part-fixed and part-metered charges for households and businesses.

Yesterday, Mr Brown said he believed during the election campaign that the fixed charge was the fairer way to go, but now as mayor for all of Auckland it had become evident to him that a part-fixed, part-user charge was the fairest system.

To be consistent, I now expect Phil Goff to denounce Len Brown as a liar.

Brian Edwards writes that he believes Phil Goff will do very well in the televised debates, the first of which is tonight.

I agree. Key should certainly hold his own, as he did in 2008, but these debates should see Goff perform at least equally as well, if not better.

Goff has been in Parliament for close to 30 years. He can recite facts and figures about what happened to unemployment in 1989, the impact of market rents in 1995, power prices in the 2000s etc. Key only entered Parliament in 2002.

Goff was a Minister for nine years in the last Government, and he was rarely rattled in the House. His debating skills are second to none.

Where Goff can struggle is with empathy, coming across as a “normal bloke” rather than a professional politician who is always negative. But he and his staff have spent the last two and a bit years making him less robotic, and I have no doubt he will get that balance right tonight of criticising the Government’s record, and promoting their own policies. so that he is seen more positively by New Zealanders than previously. Key is already a known quantity.

Debates are huge opportunities for Opposition Leaders. For the first time they are being framed as the alternate Prime Minister. unless something goes badly wrong, my expectation is Goff will get a bounce from the debate tonight. The question is not so much whether he will get a bounce, but how big that bounce will be.