Kiwiblog

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.