Kiwiblog

Labour’s selection meeting for Waitakere started at 10.30 am, and is still going.

It started with a contested election for the meeting’s rep on the selection panel. The panel effectively has seven members.

• Three members appointed by Head Office
• Two members appointed by the Waitakere electorate committee
• One member appointed by and at the beginning of the selection meeting
• One vote reflecting the secret ballot after the speeches

The secret ballot vote, as I understand it, is a simple first past the post vote and counts as a vote on the panel for the candidate who gets a plurality. If that candidate falls out of contention (ie it is between two other candidates), then the vote doesn’t count.

The order of speaking was Phil Twyford, Hamish McCracken, Carmel Sepuloni and Ann Pala.

Voting after the speeches concluded around three hours ago, so there is obviously some sort of deadlock on the panel, which is taking a while to resolve.

As I understand it McCracken has EPMU support, as he works for them or did work for them. So some of the head office vote may be with him. Pillay, the retiring MP, was EMPU so they probably see the seat as theirs.

Sepuloni is probably the candidate with the best chance to take the fight to Paula Bennett. I don’t think she’ll beat Paula, but she’ll do better than a white middle aged guy would, to be blunt.

Twyford was proclaimed as one of the new high flyers. However if he loses tonight, it will shoot his credibility to shreds, considering it will be his third effective rejection in a row, having been scared off Mt Albert and Auckland Central. Some in Labour will not want to embarrass Twyford like that, even if they think Sepuloni has a better chance.

Eventually the panel will need to eliminate one of the three favourites and then it is a simple two way race, where one candidate needs four out of seven votes.

I’ll blog the result once I hear it.

UPDATE: And it is Carmel Sepuloni. Congratulations to her. As I said above, this is hugely embarassing to Phil Twyford whose nickname already was “Opposition Spokesperson for the Homeless”. He may have to end up Labour candidate in Helensville, or some other unwinnable seat. Or he could move to Mt Roskill and wait until after the next election!

Labour has announced four selections, reports the Herald:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meanwhile the Dominion Post reports:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Herald reports:

Labour’s nominations for Auckland Central and four other seats it views as winnable opened on Friday as part of a strategy to get recognisable candidates on the ground early.

I may be wrong, but I can not recall any other time when a party has gone to candidate selection (for a seat not held) within a year of the election. Normally selections are late in the second year of a three year term. Sometimes earlier in the second year, but never heard of selection starting in the first year.

I’m speculating that Labour had a few nervous List MPs, and they didn’t want them fighting each other all year for seats, so they decided to minimise any in-fighting.

Ms Ardern has confirmed she is putting her name forward to be Labour’s candidate in 2011, meaning the high-profile race will start almost two years before the election.

Ms Kaye won the seat for National for the first time at the last election, and Labour is desperate to get it back. …

Ms Ardern, who is originally from Morrinsville, has recently moved to Auckland and said she was passionate about the city and enjoying life as an “apartment dweller”.

Jacinda was highly ranked by Labour in 2005, and is one of their more able MPs. As she said, she has just moved to Auckland, and in fact she is still officially the shadow MP for Waikato and the Bay of Plenty. I think her office is actually in Tauranga.

Ms Ardern has been able to avoid an internal party struggle for the nomination, with fellow list MP Phil Twyford deciding to go for Waitakere, currently held by National minister Paula Bennett and another of the seats Labour is holding early selection for.

You almost have to feel sorry for Twyford. He’s basically been shafted again (after the Tizard factor had him withdraw from Mt Albert). Jacinda had the numbers on the ground to win the looming selection battle, so Phil has (wisely) decided to concede. However as his office is in Auckland Central (in fact he set it up just two doors away from Nikki Kaye, the National Electorate MP) it is all going to be somewhat strange.

The Waitakere candidate has his office in St Marys Bays, and the Auckland Central candidate has her office in Tauranga. Aucklanders are less parochial than provincial seats, but may still find the carpet-bagging a factor.

Mr Twyford, the party’s Auckland Issues spokesman, said he believed Waitakere should be a Labour seat and its loss was a “temporary blip”.

I think Phil will do better if he doesn’t say things like that. It comes across as somewhat arrogant and a sense of entitlement to the seat. What I would have said is:

I believe that Labour’s values are the values of most Waitakere residents, and I am looking forward for the opportunity to contest and win the seat.

Talking of a temporary blip, suggests you think the voters made a horrible mistake, and that it will right itself given time.

Normally in Opposition, you hope to win seats back, and don’t expect to lose any more. But on current polling, Labour needs to worry about some of the 21 seats it still retains, as well as try and claw some back.

NZPA reports:

Auckland Mayor John Banks says the city’s new local government structure is “an inspired piece of work” while the Labour Party is committed to opposing it and the boundaries that go with it.

Mr Banks, who is going to stand for mayor of the new super city, said the proposition was coming together well and people would not lose their representation.

Manukau Mayor Len Brown, who is going to stand against Mr Banks, said he was pleased the commission had taken account of concerns about Auckland’s assets.

So Banks and Brown both say they are good boundaries, but why is Phil Twyford complaining:

“The proposed boundaries favour rural and the conservative northern and southern areas of Auckland while disadvantaging the isthmus and West Auckland,” he said.

“For example, the changes would give Rodney residents a third more voting power than a central Auckland resident, which is clearly unjust.”

The irony is that the Government actually planned to leave much of Rodney outside the boundaries, despite the fact it would mean more “conservative” voters. Rodney only had it all go back in after an outcry from locals.

But it is interesting that Twyford’s real concern are that Labour may not be able to gain control of the new Council.

Interesting the Chairwoman of the Local Government Commissioner has an active Labour Party backgrounds. Sue Piper was a Labour Wellington City Councillor. It is good to see she has done a professional job, rather than help Mr Twyford with his aim to have Labour control the Council.

At times Phil Twyford reminds me of Chicken Little. He runs about a lot claiming the sky is falling in over the Auckland Super City. Absolutely everything is to do with privatisation. I think he’d call more money for Libraries as privatisation, as Libraries buy books from the private sector!

Anyway Brian Rudman has an interesting column today, which waters down some of the hysteria from Twyford. Rudman is from the left also, but isn’t a politician. Rudman writes:

Also dumped was a proposal to amend the Local Government Act to permit “divestment of council [water and wastewater] supplies to the private sector”. The Cabinet decided instead on a minor change, extending the time limit on any contract a council made with a private water supplier or operator, from the present maximum of 15 years to 35 years.

Mr Hide received another bloodied nose over his proposals on the expansion of Watercare Services into the sole provider of all drinking and wastewater services to the new Auckland Super City.

He wanted to scrap legislative requirements that Watercare pay no dividend and that it “manage its business efficiently with a view to maintaining prices for water and wastewater services at the minimum levels.”

He argued to the Cabinet that “the Auckland Council, as the sole shareholder, will be best placed to direct Watercare, through its constitution and statement of intent, in how water and wastewater services are to be priced to achieve its broader objectives.”

His “sleepy” Cabinet colleagues managed to stay awake long enough to vote both of these proposals down.

Now some of you, like me, might actually have wished Rodney got more of his proposals through.

The point of the post though is to highlight the gay between Twyford’s hysteria and the reality. Rudman continues:

The Government’s attempt to keep the money we pay in our water bills going on water services is commendable.

People more savvy on these matters than me also say the prohibition on dividends and profit-taking will be a dampener on any foreigner contemplating a bid on this $5 billion asset. That’s if it ever gets to that, and only extremists on the edges of the Act Party and water campaigners who enjoy scaring themselves to sleep each night, seem to think this is a possibility.

Scaring themselves to sleep and boring everyone else to sleep I think.

Sure, the Cabinet has endorsed Mr Hides’ proposal that come 2015, the Auckland Council should be allowed “to determine … the governance arrangements and asset ownership for the delivery of water services.” I’m relaxed about this. While I see no reason to even bring the issue up in 2015, if the UMR poll, Labour’s Auckland issues spokesman, Phil Twyford is waving about is accurate, it’s a non-issue. The poll shows 85 per cent of Aucklander oppose privatisation of their water assets.

Mr Hide’s argument is that once the new Auckland council is bedded in, it should be allowed to decide on issues such as the governance of asset holdings in Watercare.

At least Wellington is letting us have a say for once. We should treat that as a breakthrough and a precedent, not a threat.

Phil constantly advocates that Wellington should be running Auckland more.

The Herald reports claims and lies re Auckland:

Labour MP Phil Twyford and the Greens’ Sue Kedgley yesterday claimed the agency designing the Super City was going to place control of most of Auckland’s assets into eight companies.

Mr Twyford said up to eight council-controlled organisations (CCOs) with their own boards and chief executives would run the services of transport, water, stadiums, land development and economic development.

“They are even planning to corporatise libraries and community houses. The mayor and council will be left like beached whales,” he said.

So is this true?

Mr Ford said there was no way that libraries and community services, “which lie at the heart of local government”, would be run by anything but the council.

Seems not. Any other lies?

He also disputed a claim by Mr Twyford that the CCOs would be overseen by a separate council-owned holding company with its own chief executive and board.

“CCOs will be controlled under the Auckland Council and it will be the council that is responsible for the governance and monitoring of performance,” Mr Ford said.

Yep.

Phil Twyford blogs on trade:

Green co-leader Metiria Turei struggled to articulate her party’s position on trade in a tough interview with Guyon Espiner on Q&A this morning. She didn’t answer Espiner’s questions on whether or not the Greens supported CER or the China trade agreement.

Labour’s approach to the China agreement is unequivocal:

1. New Zealand’s long term prosperity relies on our firms successfully selling into international markets, particularly in the dynamic East and South Asian economies. We owe it to future generations.

2. China is becoming a super power. Trade (and political, diplomatic, cultural and people-to-people) engagement by NZ and other countries is a necessary part of bringing China into the international community, and fostering its commitment to international law and mulitilateralism.

I’m really pleased to see an unequivocal position on this – especially as it comes from Twyford, who is on the left of the Labour caucus.

Personally I’ve always been of the view that boycotting trade with China because they don’t share our views on labour, human rights and the environment is not tenable. Chinese workers deserve jobs just as much as workers anywhere else.

Yeah, and I have always wondered how anti-trade people who complain about Chinese workers getting $2.50/hour, think that it is better they get $0/hour by being unemployed.

Trade liberalisation can harm (for example by reducing the policy space to protect infant industries, or forcing countries to open up sensitive sectors to foreign competition) but it can also help (for instance by getting rid of rich-country protectionism that damage the livelihoods of farmers in poor countries and New Zealand).

Overall trade liberalisation has been hugely beneficial. Some FTAs are better than others. The US-Australia one was very disappointing and did little. The NZ-China one on the other hand was very good, in my opinion.

Not only is trade the only way that a small isolated country like New Zealand can prosper, it is also one of the most important ways the world’s poorest nations can work their way out of poverty. Trade is not inherently good or bad. It depends how the rules are written, who the winners and losers are, and how trade-offs are managed.

Trade has the potential to list far more people out of poverty than aid.

I don’t quite agree that trade is not inherently good or bad. Trade is inherently good. That is not to say all rules around trade are good, but trade is good and natural and in fact we all trade many times a day.

I also would not frame trade rules as having winners and losers. In most cases you get winners and winners. Lowering tariffs is generally beneficial to a country, regardless of whether other countries do the same. Sure there may be political losers, but in the medium to long term reducing barriers produces economic winners on both sides.

The Herald report:

Foreign Affairs Minister Murray McCully has been accused of acting vindictively towards overseas aid agencies which criticised his changes to the direction of the aid programme earlier this year.

Labour’s associate foreign affairs spokesman, Phil Twyford, said funding had been cut to the Council for International Development (CID), an umbrella organisation of aid groups, by $650,000 over the next two years.

However, Mr McCully’s spokesman said Mr Twyford was not correct. No final decisions about the funding had been taken and the figures quoted were indicative at this stage.

I’d ask why the Government is funding the CID at all? Shouldn’t it be funded by its 94 members?

One would think that Labour would support spending overseas aid money on well overseas aid, rather than lobby groups in Wellington.

Mr Twyford said he expected the minister to say that he wanted to spend the money overseas instead of in New Zealand.

“The funding of CID is a tiny fraction of the $32 million NZAID spends each year on aid delivered by NGOs.

“It builds the professional and administrative capacity of the NGOs so they can be more accountable for taxpayer funds.”

The cuts threatened to undermine the NGOs’ efforts to be more effective and accountable, Mr Twyford said.

Don’t you love the double speak here. Twyford (the parliamentary spokesperson for aid NGOs) claims that the taxpayer has to pour money into the CID so that NGOs are more effective. In my experience the removal of taxpayer subsidies is what causes NGOs to be more efficient.

The New Zealand Republic Handbook is being launched at Parliament tonight.

The Handbook is a guide to creating a New Zealand republic and covers the issues of New Zealand becoming a republic plus the arguments for and against republicanism in New Zealand.

The launch is in the Grand Hall at Parliament. Drinks and nibbles start at 5.30 pm and speechs are from 6 pm to 6.30 pm. Speakers are Hon Peter Dunne from United Future, Phil Twyford from Labour, Hauraki-Waikato MP Nanaia Mahuta and Green MP Keith Locke plus Republican Movement Chair Lewis Holden. And so long as my dentist appointment at 10 am today doesn’t end up involving anaesthetics, I am the MC for the function.

MPs, parliamentary staff and press gallery are all welcome to attend. Around 30 MPs, from pretty much every party, have already RSVP’d but there is no need to do so if you work in Parliament. If you do not work at Parliament and would like to attend e-mail events@republic.org.nz so your name can be given to security.

After that Parliament should be debating the 1st reading of the VSM Bill which will restore to tertiary students the right to decide if they want to join a student association or not. Not that many laws result in more freedom, not less, so worth supporting.

And later that evening, we have Backbenches at the Backbencher, with live filming from 9.10 pm. MPs are:

• John Boscawen, ACT
• Keith Locke, Greens
• Damien O’Connor, Labour
• Pesata Sam Lotu-Iiga

Topics include how to spell Wanganui and what should be on Letterman’s Top Ten for John Key.

Labour proposed amendments requiring the new Auckland Council to have a Pacific Advisory Board and an Asian Advisory Board.

Personally I think it is weird that Labour wants to dictate to the Auckland Council how it consults with ethnic communities, as if it doesn’t trust Aucklanders to be able to work this stuff out for themselves.

But my question is why they have only sought to legislate for a Pacific advisory board and an Asian advisory board? Why have they not championed a South African advisory board? New Zealand has 42,000 residents born in South Africa, and it is well known many of them live in Auckland. More New Zealanders were born in South Africa than in Tonga, Fiji, Korea, and the Cook Islands.

So why is Labour not fighting for South Africans in Auckland to have an advisory board? Is it just they have not reached a certain population threshold? Will they try and introduce a law to create such a board when their population does reach a certain threshold?

Or maybe they could just trust the new Auckland Council to work out how it liaises and consults with the many ethnic communities of Auckland. You see without Phil Twyford telling them how to do their job, they might decide to do things differently. They might realise Indians and Japanese don’t always like being lumped in together, and create separate boards for each. Or they might decide you don’t needs boards at all, and just need regular meetings between Councillors and ethnic community groups. Or they may organise a couple of forums a year open to all such groups.

The Herald reports:

Labour MP Phil Twyford fears the new Super City will abandon leaky-house victims and escape claims worth millions of dollars.

Good to know Labour not accepts there is a problem. I recall first of all Goerge Hawkins doing nothing for months and years on end despite explicit letters telling him of the problem and urging action.

But most famously we had Helen Clark on radio declaring that it is not a big issue at all, and it was just the NZ Herald “banging on” about things. Yep she attacked the NZ Herald for covering the issue. Weren’t they the good old days?

The new Super City law says all assets and liabilities of the old councils will pass to the new structure, he said.

“But what about claims where liability has not yet been established but where, in the case of leaky homes, the construction and certification took place pre-Super City and under the old councils?” Mr Twyford asked. …

Mr Hide said the Super City law made it clear that the new council would assume responsibility for the rights and obligations of all the old councils.

On November 1 next year, when the councils are dissolved, all the rights, liabilities, contracts, entitlements and engagements of each existing local authority would become those of the new Auckland Council, Mr Hide said.

I think Phil should stick to promoting the rights of parents to vote on behalf of their children, instead of silly scare-mongering. Of course the new Council will have the same liabilities and responsibilities of the old Councils with regard to leaky homes. Did he think of talking to a lawyer before he talked to his press secretary?

The NZ Herald is scathing of Phil Twyford’s proposal to give children the vote through their parents:

The idea of giving children the right to vote – through their parents – is not new. Five or so years ago, a leftist British think-tank suggested it, along with lowering the voting age to 14. Now, the concept has popped up here in similar surroundings, through Labour MP Phil Twyford on his party’s Red Alert blog site. Not surprisingly, it has been roundly scorned.

I find it amusing that some MPs support a voting age of 14 but a drinking age of 20.

Worse still, it is obvious why the concept of a parent with eight children having nine votes has sprung from left-of-centre sources. Parties of that inclination tend to garner support from large families, if only because of the welfare packages. One person, nine votes would redraw the political landscape. Childless people would feel like second-class citizens. As proposals go, this is one of the more palpably absurd.

I mentioned in one of my blogs from DC that the aim of the “Takers” coalition was to get over 50% of voting NZers dependent on the state, so they would be incentivised to vote for parties promising to take more and more money from other people and give it to them. Twyford’s proposal, as the Herald concludes, is part of that aim.

Leftie Brian Rudman does not seem too happy with Labour on the Auckland Council:

Every time I hear someone advocating a referendum I cringe. Surely the $9 million anti-smacking charade is evidence enough that asking the great unwashed to say yes or no to a complex, many-faceted conundrum is a dumb way to go.

In recent weeks we’ve had Labour leader Phil Goff demanding a referendum on the Auckland Super City, and now Labour’s Auckland issues spokesman, Phil Twyford, is introducing legislation requiring a referendum before any publicly owned community assets are sold. But, oddly, only when Auckland assets are at risk.

Yes Labour should have the courage of their convictions and try and implement that policy for all of New Zealand. They would have an uprising from local bodies telling them to naff off.

“Aucklanders are worried,” explains Mr Twyford, “that assets such as water, transport and many others, which ratepayers have built up over generations, are now under threat from the Government’s changes to Auckland governance.”

Perhaps I’ve been snoozing of late, but the only Aucklanders I’m aware of who worry themselves to sleep about such things are professionals hand-wringers like intrepid water rights campaigner Penny Bright and a few old-style lefties who keep Roger Douglas voodoo dolls on their mantelpieces to remind them of the bad old days.

Indeed. But let us follow Labour’s logic here. They say a decision to sell an asset is so monumental there must be a public referendum on that. Well if we accept that logic, then you should also demand that the purchase of any major asset be illegal unless the public get to vote on it through a referendum. It is illogical to require public consent only for sales, and not for purchases.

I’d almost be tempted to vote for a bill that required consent both ways. The public I am sure would shoot down some of the more daft spending proposals by Council. I suspect Mr Twyford is less keen though on letting the public have a say in purchase or construction of assets.

Referendums are expensive, and easily manipulated. In his Super City poll, what question is Mr Goff proposing? How do you decide such crucial details as the powers of the local boards by referendum? The issue of asset sales is slightly more complicated than a simple yes or no.

Back in 2007, I saw nothing wrong with selling Auckland City’s 12.75 per cent of airport shares, as long as the cash was spent on new infrastructure, something like the restoration of the St James Theatre, or repairs to the Aotea underground carpark. But I backed full public ownership of the port because I saw that as a way of ensuring future waterfront developments would be done for the good of all Aucklanders.

It’s impossible to reflect these kinds of nuances in a referendum. What we need to concentrate on is creating a truly democratic, ward-based model of governance, in which every Aucklander feels represented. That way the perception that referendums were a good thing would fade away.

The referendum bill is basically scare mongering. Labour are deeply disappointed that the Government isn’t selling lots of assets (as am I but for different reasons), so they are trying to make people think it is just around the corner.

The Herald reports:

Labour MP Phil Twyford will not seek nomination for the Mt Albert by-election, resolving the party’s Tizard dilemma. …

This “Vote Twyford, get Tizard” scenario was portrayed as a problem for Labour, particularly by right-wing blogs.

Labour leader Phil Goff was initially reticent when asked if he wanted Ms Tizard back and the party used a polling company to test voter feelings on her re-entering Parliament.

Mr Twyford has lived in Kingsland for 20 years, and was favoured to take over the seat from Helen Clark until the Tizard dilemma was raised.

There is a view that Labour’s party hierarchy placed too much emphasis on the effect of Mrs Tizard’s return, to the detriment of Mr Twyford.

Labour leader Phil Goff said the party had not panicked, but rather was unsure how the electorate would react to voting for someone who was already in Parliament and getting someone else.

I first blogged on their “Tizard problem” on 16 December 2008. I said:

So you see the problem for Labour. Either Helen has to stay on for the full term, or someone other than Twyford is the candidate, or they risk the public working out voting for Labour will bring a plonker back in on the list and losing your predecessor’s seat in a byelection would see Goff rolled.

Goff could not risk that possibility.

The Dominion Post predicted on 1 January that Clark would go off overseas in 2009, and that Twyford would be her replacement. It took a few months for thr media to start to pick up the issue.

The Herald on 11 February stated Twyford was the likely sucessor.

On 14 February in the Dom Post was the first mention of Tizard after Clark’s candidacy for the UND job went public (also first covered on Kiwiblog). It was more factual than stating it was an “issue”. On 25 February the Dom Post still reported Twyford as the favourite.

On 25 March Newstalk ZB was also picking Twyford.

That night on TV, was the first real mention in the media of the Tizard dilemma, following leaks from Labour that they were working on keeping her out.

So you read it here first three months early! And of course repeated a few times since to remind people. I never really thought Labour would blink, but they did! T be fair to Labour, it may not just have been fear of losing the seat (it is their safest seat after all), but equally fear of how having Judith return would lead to merciless teasing in the House.

Over on Whale Oil, he has a screenshot of a Facebook discussion where Peter Dunne comments to Mark Unsworth (who was exressing sorrow that Twyford misses out because of someone else’s face not fitting) that the problem was not just Tizard but also Burton, Okeroa, Gallagher, Hereora, Wall and Soper being next on the list!

Now Tizard may still end up an MP. It just needs a Labour List MP to die or resign. Let us hope they all get their flu injections!

Phil Twyford has just announced he will not stand for Mt Albert for Labour.

This is a huge call, and shows how worried Labour were by the thought of the by-election turning into a referendum on Judith Tizard returning to Parliament.

I suspect Phil Goff will be pleased with the outcome. Goff’s leadership would have been fatally undermined if Labour lost Mt Albert due to voters not liking who would enter Parliament for Labour.

It is a tough break for Twyford. He is well regarded and respected, and in different circumstances would have won the nomination and very probably the seat.

He may need to wait a while to get a safe seat in Auckland. Mt Roskill may come up in 2014. I suspect Manurewa and Manukau East will come up in 2011 also. Te Atatu could also come up in 2011 or 2014 arguably.

So who will be the candidate? Nominations close tomorrow. At this stage I would say it is between Helen White and Meg Bates.

The Dom Post reports:

Business studies lecturer Hamish McCracken, Auckland city councillor Glenda Fryer, Auckland University politics head tutor Meg Bates and employment lawyer Helen White have all confirmed their candidacies.

I would be surprised if McCracken has much of a chance. Not based on any specific knowledge, but the reality he has stood many times before for Labour and never been ranked highly. In 1999 he was no 60, in 2002 no 52, in 2005 no 49 and in 2005 no 50. I can’t see a fifth time lucky.

Bates is well regarded and well connected as a former electorate agent. Her age will be a factor though. Helen White could do very well too – she has a professional career established, and has union support.

Fryer is more unlikely, but not as unlikely as McCracken. She doesn’t particularly represent rejuvenation, and her Auckland City Council junket draconian attempt to ban sign billboards will be fresh in some minds.

But the potential candidate cited as Miss Clark’s favoured successor, list MP Phil Twyford, is still deciding whether to put his name forward a week before nominations close. Mr Twyford said he had discussed the matter with senior party members, but declined to comment further.

Twyford is a popular and respected MP for Labour. Definitely one of the stars of the future, and no doubt wants a safe seat as security. But by pure bad luck the Tizard issue is a real factor, and no one knows how much. So his choice is does he go for Mt Albert in 2009, or wait for another safe seat to come up, such as Mt Roskill in probably 2014?

At Backbenchers last night they discussed the Tizard issue, and it is fair to say no one was wamly welcoming the possible return. In fact there was a hilarious moment as Wallace Chapman went up to the loudest noisiest most partisan pro-Labour table, and asked them if they wanted Judith Tizard back in Parliament. One of them fell mute, while another could only repeat the official script that the issue is about the best candidate, not about who comes in on the list. You know there are problems, when not even your most partisan crowd supporters will say on camera they want Judith back.

And over on Labour Grassroots, members and supporters are not keen. Some quotes:

Suzanne says:

Headlines that say “Goff: Happy to have Judith Tizard back” says nothing to me about a party that wants to revitalise, bring in some new faces, get behind some issues that central Aucklanders care about.Like the Supercity, the environment. If Labour is behind Tizard it makes a mockery of the party recreating getting more in touch with its grassroots.

And Tanya:

Still, the voters are pretty MMP savvy these days, and I believe will be annoyed at Goff for backing Tizard back into parliament, after the voters said no.

And Darren:

Well said, Suzanne. I could not agree more. Labour needs ‘new blood’ everywhere, and to be SEEN to be bringing new faces in at every opportunity. Ms. Tizard did not strike me as a particularly effective MP. Certainly her hand on the on the intellectual property tiller steered it way off course and into the sea of stupidity…. witness the mess of s92a!?!

Her electorate obviously didn’t think she did a good job either, so why the hell would Phil want her back? Regardless of his motivation, which was obviously to keep Tizards’ supporters happy in touchy electoral times, it just makes our Parliamentary leader look horrendously out of touch.

And finally Caitlin:

This whole hullaballoo about Judith Tizard was started by media rumours (probably started by political opposition) and while some Labour activists and supporters may have qualms, we have to continue to pull together as a party to make sure we win this seat. We can’t be complacent – an assumption of victory was one of the problems with the Auckland Central campaign.

Caitlin is right that a party needs to be unified to win, but how motivated will supporters be to bring Judith back into Parliament?

There is also an associated danger with all this. The media will cover the by-election, and the media always have to have some big issues for the by-election. In TKC it was Stratford Hospital. In Tamaki it was send Wellington a message. Now with Mt Albert there may be no big issues on policy – National has just won an election and has gone so centrist it is probably going to even cancel the future tax cuts a couple of weeks before the by-election. So it is hard to see that there will be major policy issues at play in the by-election (unless the Govt decides to knock down 400 local homes for a motorway). But if there are no major policy issues, then issues such as the Tizard dilemma will become a major issue, because the media will make it an issue. They’ll do vox pops on the street asking people about it. They’ll do electorate polls and publish them. People will ask questions at meet the candidate meetings.

Now maybe Mt Albert voters won’t give a damn, even if the media do. They might only care about who will be their local MP, not who will enter Parliament as a result of their vote. But this is the fun thing with by-elections – they are notoriously unpredictable – and with the Greens planning a vigorous campaign, it really will be interesting.

UPDATE: Today’s Dom Post editorial talks about the Tizard issue, noting:

Though the parliamentary party is in capable hands leader Phil Goff and deputy Annette King are respected for their knowledge Labour must nonetheless now find a new generation of leaders to carry the party forward.

How ironic, then, that the departure of Miss Clark and Dr Cullen might reopen the door for two has-beens, Damien O’Connor and Judith Tizard. …

A party that is poised to welcome back Mr O’Connor and Ms Tizard is far from positioned to resume the Treasury benches.

The NZ Herald reports:

The Labour Party is sounding out Mt Albert voters on the byelection – including asking whether they want a “celebrity” MP and testing feelings on Judith Tizard re-entering Parliament.

Labour commissioned UMR Research group to hold several two-hour, focus group meetings of Mt Albert voters in the lead-up to the byelection, following the resignation of former Prime Minister Helen Clark.

Now focus groups are part and parcel of politics. However this is the first time I can recall a party commissioning one (or several) for a by-election. Polls are relatively common, but focus groups less so.

And when you consider that Mt Albert is Labour’s safest seat, that gives some indication as to the degree of nervousness within Labour’s ranks. You see focus groups are not cheap. I do not know UMR’s fees, but for four or five focus groups, the cost I suspect is a five figure sum.

So why would you spend so much money on such a safe seat? Because you are worried you may lose it to a Vote Twyford, Get Tizard campaign. There is no doubt that Twyford is the preferred candidate – but they are nervous over the power of such a campaign. They failed to get Tizard to relinquish her list place, so they are testing the waters.

Interestingly the Electoral Finance Act is no longer in force. So there is no $1,000 limit on an individual or organisation running its own education campaign in the by-election. A group could use direct mail to send a personalised letter to every voter (costs around $20,000) explaining how a vote for that nice Mr Twyford will result in that nice Miss Tizard becoming an MP again. And it could quote from various newspaper articles about the desirability of this. Maybe it could also remind people of s92A, what people say about it, and how Judith says it is a good law that should not be changed. Will Mt Albert residents want their Internet access at risk, if they vote for that nice Mr Twyford? Well, okay – that is probably stretching things too far – but you can see how much fun a third party campaign could have.

Anyway back to the article:

One participant said they were asked about Ms Tizard as part of a wider question about “celebrity” or well-known people standing for politics. Examples included Michael Jones, television presenter Paul Henry, comedian Mike King, actor Oscar Kightley and NZX boss Mark Weldon.

The focus group indicated concern about the possibility of a “Vote Twyford, get Tizard” campaign impacting on Labour’s chances.

That is an interesting sentence. Presumably the Herald has been in contact with one or more of the persons who took part in the focus groups. And they “indicated concern”.

Ms Tizard lost the Auckland Central seat to Nikki Kaye but would re-enter Parliament to fill list MP Phil Twyford’s list spot if he was the party’s Mt Albert candidate and won. The participant said the group members were asked what they knew about Mr Twyford – who lives in Kingsland and is favoured by Helen Clark.

There is another risk to having Tizard come back in to replace Twyford. No less than losing MMP. You see the Government has pledged to have a referendum on MMP. Now personally I don’t think people will vote for change (partly thanks to John Key). but if I was running an anti-MMP campaign, then I would use the Mt Albert by-election as a reason to dump MMP – the fact defeated electorate candidates can come back on the list.

Labour’s intensive polling of Mt Albert voters indicates the party is nervous about holding on to the electorate, which has always been viewed as a safe Labour seat, and where Helen Clark was MP for 27 years.

Just 2000 votes separated National and Labour in the party vote last election – and National’s popularity has soared since then.

Yes but the correct comparison is CR to CL on the party vote and that is 55% CL to 40% CR.

Labour Party president Andrew Little confirmed that the party had commissioned the focus groups and was polling in the electorate. He said it was common to test for important local issues.

Polling is more traditional. In Labour’s case it is going to be combining the polling and focus group results. The difficult scenario for them is if the poll shows that say Twyford can win the seat by 5% or so, but the focus groups show up to 10% of voters could change their votes if exposed to a Vote Twyford, get Tizard campaign. The question for Labour then is – do they risk it? Or in the words of Dirty Harry – do you feel lucky today punk?

If the polling shows Labour/Twyford way way ahead, then they can select him without worrying about a Twyford/Tizard campaign. But if things are closer, the head office may plump for another candidate such as Meg Bates.

Does anyone know the date of the selection meeting for Mt Albert for Labour? I understand media are allowed to attend and report on them, so I might pop along for the fun!

Ten people have lined up so far for the Mt Albert by-election – seven for Labour and three for National. The Labour seven are:

1. Phil Twyford
2. Louisa Wall
3. Hamish McCracken
4. Helen White
5. Glenda Fryer
6. Conor Roberts
7. Meg Bates

Twyford has to be the favourite, so long as he can deal with what the Herald calls the “Tizard dilemma”.

Louisa Wall impressed me as an MP. Labour has a pretty bad record of selecting Maori candidates for winnable general seats, so this would be a chance to change that. However Wall did not go out of her way to curry favour with various party factions and they may not want to give her a seat for life.

Hamish McCracken has stood three or four times before and never been ranked above the 50s, which suggests he is not seen as being of the quality needed to have a safe seat. His EPMU background will help with the head offices votes though.

Helen White also has an EPMU background, and is politically quite experienced. Could do well.

Glenda Fryer. Has some profile from Auckland local body politics but I doubt a front runner for the seat.

Conor Roberts. Conor is one of those annoying people – annoying because absolutely everyone likes him! He may be seen as a bit too young for the seat, but on the other hand it has only had two MPs since 1947. Conor would do well on the campaign trail.

Meg Bates. Meg is the only Young Labour President I have not met, so can’t really comment in detail. She used to work for Helen, and Helen generally employed pretty smart people, so she could be another Jacinda Ardern potentially.

The Nats list is:

1. Melissa Lee
2. Ravi Musuku
3. Mike Loftus

As membership is over 200 in their Mt Albert electorate, the selection will get decided by a selection panel of 60 delegates.

Labour’s selection is a panel of seven, made up of:

• Three people appointed by the NZ Council, one of whom must be a woman
• Two people elected by the LEC, one of whom must be a woman
• One person elected at the selection meeting
• One vote by ballot from those at the selection meeting

Brian Rudman looks at Mt Albert:

For an aspiring career politician, especially one tipped for greater things, an electorate seat is a necessary accessory. It gives you a certain freedom that being a mere list MP doesn’t.

This is very right. When MMP came in, some people thought everyone would want to be a List MP as it would be less work.  But the security you gain from holding an electorate seat is massive. It gives you an official role in the local community and almost all List MPs would like to hold an electorate.

That’s why up-and-coming first term Labour list MP Phil Twyford is so keen to take over from departing Mt Albert MP and former Prime Minister Helen Clark. …

But jeerings from the sideline by right-wing bloggers and their mates about the downstream consequences of Mr Twyford being selected, seems to have got the Labour leadership all a-twitter.

Those bastards. How dare they point out consequences. Shoot them all!

They want him to bide his time and take on Auckland Central in 2011, or dare I suggest, Mt Roskill, perhaps, whenever Mr Goff bows out.

Is Mr Rudman suggesting there might be a vacancy in that seat for 2011 also?

The bright side for Mr Twyford if he stands aside is that he might be well out of it. With Ms Clark gone, Labour could lose, just as it lost neighbouring Auckland Central a few months before.

Last November, the incumbent Prime Minster on 20,157 vote easily beat her National Party rival, Baptist minister Ravi Musuku, on 9806.

But this included a huge personal vote, with 16.5 per cent of National list voters ticking her as their MP.

The party vote was much closer, Labour leading National by 2436.

This is true.  However to pour a bit of damp water on this gap, one should also look at what the Greens and ACT got, because in a by-election their voters will probably vote tactically. The Greens got 3,846 party votes and ACT 1,227 so if you look CL to CR that gap is actually around 5,000 votes.

The other imponderable is how long the John Key honeymoon will linger. With that in mind, Labour would be smart to delay Ms Clark’s resignation as long as possible.

That is the wildcard. What happens if the hugely popular Key actively campaigns in the seat?

As for timings, the speculation I have heard is Helen resigns in May and a by-election in June.

Claire Trevett has a good article on the pending Mt Albert by-election but makes one big error:

National’s candidate in the 2008 election was Ravi Musuku who has said he wishes to stand in a byelection. However, if he won, it would mean their bottom list MP – Aaron Gilmore – had to leave.

No, no, no no. This is not the case. To be fair to Claire many many people think this is the law, but it is not. Proportionality is not maintained if a by-election sees a seat change hands. There is no way at all a List MP can ever be forced out of Parliament because of a by-election (or an electoral petition). They are there for the whole term unless they do something stupid like become a Dutch citizen.

Helen Clark’s departure will force a byelection in the Mt Albert seat she has held for the past 28 years.

The Herald understands Labour expects to stand a newcomer in the seat, rather than a sitting list MP – as part of its efforts to refresh its ranks.

The effect of standing a newcomer would be to block Judith Tizard from returning to Parliament on the list.

The Mt Albert seat is a Labour stronghold and new list MP Phil Twyford, who lives in the electorate, was previously tipped as most likely to take over.

However, Labour has reconsidered. It would mean Damien O’Connor returning to Parliament to take up Mr Twyford’s list spot – leaving the next spot open for Judith Tizard to take up when Michael Cullen leaves, as he is expected to later this year.

Its a bit unfortunate for Twyford, but things have changed in recent weeks. I blogged in detail about the problem of how a Twyford win could bring Tizard in, as long ago as last year. I concluded:

So you see the problem for Labour. Either Helen has to stay on for the full term, or someone other than Twyford is the candidate, or they risk the public working out voting for Labour will bring a plonker back in on the list and losing your predecessor’s seat in a byelection would see Goff rolled.

Now there was a general expectation that Judith would not want to return, and maybe they could get Burton, Okerao, Gallager and Hereora to stand aside also. She has no rapport with Goff, has no chance of getting a senior role, and lost a seat that Labour has held for 95 years. But multiple sources have confirmed that she is absolutely hellbent on returning as she wants to “restore her reputation” and also defend s92A – she even lambasts her former colleagues as not understanding it.

You can imagine the panic this has caused in Labour’s ranks. It would be near impossible for Labour to lose Mt Albert, but the thought of the by-election becoming a referendum on what Aucklanders thing of Judith is the stuff of nightmares for them. So Twyford loses the chance to have a safe seat for 2011.

On the plus side, if Twyford is patient he might be able to grab Mt Roskill in 2014

Newstalk ZB reports:

Ms Clark’s departure from Parliament has been expected since Labour’s election loss. When she does go, it will mean a by-election in Mt Albert which Miss Clark has held comfortably since 1981.

New Labour MP Phil Twyford, who stood on the North Shore at the last election, is favourite to stand as the party’s candidate in the seat. However, a surprise pick could be former Auckland Central MP Judith Tizard, who has been seen several times in recent months around Parliament and is eager to get back into politics.

The irony is that even if Twyford is the candidate, him winning the seat would see Judith return to Parliament (if Damien O’Connor replaces Michael Cullen first). So no matter who the candidate, is – a vote for Labour could be a vote to return the creator and remaining sole defender of s92A to Parliament.

The Dom Post on Saturday looked at the battle for Mt Albert within Labour:

Party sources say the leading contender to replace her is newly elected list MP Phil Twyford, who unsuccessfully contested the North Shore electorate last year.

Ha I have been saying that for months.

Two women are also bidding for the job: Auckland City Eden-Albert councillor Glenda Fryer and deposed cabinet minister Judith Tizard.

I’d be amazed if either of them were selected.

Under the Electoral Act the vacant list seat would be filled by the next unelected person on Labour’s list former Corrections minister Damien O’Connor, who lost his West Coast seat. He famously submitted his resignation to Miss Clark last year in a text message from Hong Kong Airport. She did not accept it.

Mr O’Connor could not be contacted, but if he turns down the invitation the next person on the list is Miss Tizard.

Yes Judith could be back either way, as Cullen retiring and Twyford winning Mt Albert would bring two people in on the list – O’Connor and Tizard.

I understand Labour sources are fairly relaxed about O’Connor coming back in. He didn’t do great as a Minister but has rural appeal, which they need.

Labour’s nighmare is the block of five after O’Connor. They are:

1. Judith Tizard
2. Mark Burton
3. Mahara Okeroa
4. Martin Gallagher
5. Dave Hereora

So the rejuvenation caused by Cullen or Clark going would be to bring back in an MP who lose their seat, and who has no chance of ever making Cabinet agin – or to bring in (Hereora) an MP who was so invisible that he made Larry Sutherland look like a dynamic high profile MP.

The next on the list after Heroera is Louisa Wall. I rate Wall pretty highly – she’s smart, good on policy, and articulate. She did not make many friends in Labour though, hence her low list ranking. However after her is Lesley Soper, whom no one in Labour wants back, so I understand their aim is to get Wall in to replace Cullen or Clark (whomever goes second).

But to get Wall in, they have to convince not one, but five former MPs to stand aside. As the Greens found out with Mike Ward this can be easier said than done.

Helen doesn’t want to spend the next three years as a backbench Opposition MP. And Phil Goff doesn’t want her to overshadow him. So normally we would expect to see a by-election in Mt Albert next year.

But it is proving rather difficult for Labour. You see Michael Cullen, being a List MP, will probably resign from Parliament in early 2009. This will bring in No 37 on the Labour List, Damien O’Connor. Now some in Labour probably think Damien should give way to new blood, but they’ll tolerate him returning.

Then we have Helen resigning, which will trigger a by-election. Labour will need to select a candidate for this seat, and let there be no mistake – Helen will pick the candidate. And who is favoured to get her blessing – List MP Phil Twyford. Twyford is highly regarded.

But here is the problem, Twyford is already an MP. So what happens if he wins the Mt Albert by-election? Well he would then resign his seat as a List MP, and that would bring in the next person on the Labour list. And who is No 38? It’s Judith Tizard!

Now Helen has won Mt Albert with some big majorities, but a lot of that has been personal. The party vote has been much closer. And if Mt Albert voters works out that voting for Twyford means Tizard returns to Parliament, then the seat could fall to a good National candidate. I can imagine a lot of money would be spent pointing out the nightmare scenario.

Now some might say, it’s easy. Just get Judith to agree to stand aside. After all, she probably doesn’t want to be back there by herself.

But who is next on the list. Well the next four candidates are Mark Burton, Mahara Okeroa, Martin Gallagher and Dave Hereora. The four stooges without the humour. Persuading Mt Albert residents to vote for any of those to return to Parliament could be a challenge.

So who is next in place 43? Louisa Wall. Now I think Louisa was a talented MP and would be a boon to Labour’s ranks. But she is seriously unpopular with many of her colleagues who don’t want her back. So who is next at 44? Lesley Soper – she would attract more shoe throwing in a Labour Caucus meeting than George W Bush attracts in Iraq.

Spots 45 to 49 are all vacant as they won their electorate seats. Finally in spot 50 you have Hamish McCracken. Well at least he is an Aucklander. However having been given three unwinnable seats and rankings in a row, he is hardly in high favour.

So you see the problem for Labour. Either Helen has to stay on for the full term, or someone other than Twyford is the candidate, or they risk the public working out voting for Labour will bring a plonker back in on the list and losing your predecessor’s seat in a byelection would see Goff rolled.

So I am picking Helen won’t be going anywhere until they work out a way around their dilemna.

Tim Donoghue at the Dom Post has got hold of Labour’s list rankings for the Northern Region. Somewhat disappointing to see they are once again protecting all their incumbent MPs by ranking them ahead of any newcomers, no matter how talented.  But even that may see some List MPs fall away.

The average of the polls have Labour getting 42 seats. They currently have 31 electorate seats and it is not unreasonable to assume they will lose two Maori seats and five general electorate seats so assume 24 electorates and 18 List MPs. Where I note likely to win a seat, this is not a prediction or a concession. It is an assumption for this scenario.  Things can and will change in a campaign.

Now let us look at their Northern List:

1. 1. Helen Clark* -likely to win seat
2. 2. Phil Goff* – likely to win seat
3. 3. Chris Carter* – likely to win seat
4. 4. David Cunliffe* – likely to win seat
5. 5. Shane Jones* – 1st list spot
6. 6. Judith Tizard* – likely to win seat
7. 7. Mark Gosche* – 2nd list spot
8. 8. Lynne Pillay* – likely to win seat
9. 9. Ashraf Choudhary* – 3rd list spot
10. 10. Darien Fenton* – 4th list spot
11. 11. Dave Hereora* – 5th list spot
12. 12. Louisa Wall* – 6th list spot
13. 13. Sua William Sio – likely to win seat
14. 14. Raymond Huo – 7th list spot
15. 15. Phil Twyford – 8th list spot
16. 16. Hamish McCracken – 9th list spot
17. 17. Carmel Sepulone – 10th list spot
18. 18. Kelvin Davis – 11th list spot
19. 19. Michael Wood – 12th list spot
20. 20. Kate Sutton – 13th list spot

Now how many winnable list places would there be in Northern Region? Well generally their population is 1/3 to 1/4 of the total country, so if it follows population, one might expect four to six List MPs getting through from Northern.

So at this stage (and Labour has yet to combine the regional lists into a national list) Jones, Gosche, Choudary and Fenton look fairly safe, while Heroera and Wall are marginal, and the chances of a non MP making it in is remote on current numbers.

Choudary, Fenton and Heroera are not exactly high flyers. Despite Clark’s talk of more new blood needed, candidates like Phil Twyford look unlikely to make it in.