Kiwiblog

Vernon Small at Stuff reports:

Labour MP Ruth Dyson is to pay back $16,000 of taxpayers’ money used for a recent private trip to Ethiopia for herself and her husband.

She said in a statement it was no longer appropriate for taxpayers to subsidise such trips “when so many Kiwis are struggling to make ends meet”.

She said when she applied for the trip last July it was before the rules had changed and the subsidy was perfectly within the rules.

“However, I felt uncomfortable about the subsidy all the while I was overseas, and when I got back yesterday I informed Labour Leader Phil Goff I would be repaying the subsidy of just under $16,000, and making a statement about it.

So Ruth never ever felt uncomfortable about it after the rules changed. Never felt uncomfortable it as they were preparing to go. Only felt uncomfortable “all the while” she was overseas.

Stuff had tried to contact Dyson about the trip and her recent loss of the health portofio and her demotion one place to five on Labour’s front bench. But her office said she could not be contacted in Ethiopia.

This points us to what really happened. Ruth was absolutely happy to have the taxpayer gve her a $16,000 trip for two to Africa, so long as no one knew about it. But once the media started asking questions about it, she decided it was “wrong”. What transparent insulting spin.

What is also innteresting is the timing of the holiday. Now I don’t begrudge MPs lengthy holidays, because most of them bloody hard during the year. But usualy the holidays are taken during the summer break, or at least during a recess.

Why was Ruth Dyson taking a 2+ week holiday during the first two weeks of the parliamentary term? The reshuffle was on 2 February and it sounds like she was already overseas then, and only got back yesterday. Goff must have approved this trip – why would you approve a 2 – 3 week holiday during the parliamentary term?

As I blogged yesterday, the chances of there being a Labour-led Government after the 2011 election is very remote. Not just because of the gap in the polls, but also because of their failure to rejuvenate, but more importantly their failure to mend bridges with the Maori Party who might hold the balance of power after the election.

So unless there is some big event such as a second recession, or a major scandal, Phil Goff is unlikely to become Prime Minister. So who will replace him, when and why?

When?

Turning to the when, and I still maintain that Goff is safe until the election – even if Labour stay below 30%. There are three reasons for this:

1. Lack of enthusiasm for the alternatives
2. The shared delusion that the public will wake up to its mistake and restore them to power once they prove that John Key really is a nasty nasty man
3. The impact of MMP, sheltering Caucus more than FPP did

The last point is quite important. Under FPP MPs got more panicked by the polls. If the polls showed they were in trouble in their seat, then they were facing the end of their political career, so they would desperately vote to change leaders to try and hold on to their seats – as Labour did in 1990.l

But under MMP, MPs can be protected on the list, so they do not fear bad polling so much. And even though the polls may show Labour losing as many as seven List MPs, the fact is no one knows which seven MPs may be toast until Labour ranks its list, and by then it is too late.

So I am quite confident that Phil Goff will remain Leader until after the 2011 election. But if they lose, I would expect he will retire from the leadership and politics within 6 – 12 months of the 2011 election.

Who?

I believe the next leader of the Labour Party will be David Cunliffe. And yes, of course I have my money where my mouth is and am backing that stock on iPredict.

Why?

It isn’t exactly a closely guarded secret that David Cunliffe isn’t the most popular MP with his colleagues. He probably isn’t the first choice for Leader of more than a handful of MPs. But he will become Leader, because he is basically everyone’s acceptable second choice.

Being the acceptable second choice can be a better position than a faction’s first choice. Similiar politics happened in the Waitakere selection – one faction was backing Twyford strongly and one faction (union) backing McCracken. Carmel Sepuloni came through the middle as the choice acceptable to all sides who could unify the electorate – either Twyford or McCracken would have left a significant minority disgruntled.

It is also worth remembering that Helen was positioning Cunliffe as a future leader, if she got a fourth term. She wanted to keep Goff out, and after Maharey retired and Mallard imploded, Cunliffe was her favoured candidate to succeed her. The 2008 loss, meant that Cunliffe did not have enough experience to be viable at that stage, so she let the leadership temporarily transfer to the man she she had worked so hard to keep away from it.

Why Not?

Cunliffe is basically the only acceptable alternative to the caucus. One can ascertain this by going through the others known to want the job.

Shane Jones – even before the hotel porn saga, Jones was not going to become leader. The women in Labour would rather slit their wrists than elect Jones, and while they are not a majority in caucus, they are a minority too powerful to ignore. Also Jones hasn’t shown the required hard work to become leader – he overly relies on his (quite considerable) natural talent. He is also too right wing economically to become Leader.

Andrew Little – Andrew has made a tactical mistake by combining the three roles of party president, union leader and aspiring MP. There is considerable resentment of this in the caucus, and he is blamed for the lacklustre fundraising to date. One Labour person commented to me that how can you expect the President one week to be getting donations from CEOs, when the next week he is delivering strike notices to them. Add onto that the resentment from List MPs that Andrew will be automatically given a high list ranking, knocking them down the order.

So Andrew will enter caucus with a degree of pre-existing hostility. While he may one day become Leader if he proves himself, he will not be given a Bob Hawke type coronation after just a year in Parliament.

Ruth Dyson – John Key would start going to church (to thank God)  if Labour elected Ruth Dyson as Leader. Nothing against Ruth’s skills, but she is a polarising figure strongly associated with the former Government.

Maryan Street – I rate Street as one of the smartest MPs, and she has the ability to be a strong Minister and maybe even Deputy Leader.  But I don’t see at all the charisma to become leader or prime minister. Maryan being elected as Leader would also see John Key, if not start attending church, at least sending his kids to Sunday School!

Grant Robertson – Grant is a very smart political operator. Too smart to try and become leader after just one term in Parliament. He has what I expect will become a fairly safe seat for him, and time is on his side. I think the bastard might even be younger than me! If Grant stood in 2012, he might do surprisingly well, but I think he knows he is better to wait his time and get more experience before he tries to ascend.

Ashraf Choudhary – just kidding

Then what?

It is dangerous to look too far ahead, but my best pick at this stage is David Cunliffe become Leader in 2012, and he contests the 2014 election.

Labour will have a challenge in replacing him as Finance Spokesperson, with a so few MPs having the necessary skills or background. To my mind, the only credible option would be David Parker. So the leadership team could be Cunliffe as Leader, Street as Deputy and Parker as Finance.

Like Goff, Cunliffe will probably be a one shot leader unless he wins the election. They call this the Mike Moore slot. He doesn’t have (at this stage anyway) the loyalty of enough MPs to keep him in the job if he loses.

If National wins the 2014 election (and no predictions this far out), then Labour will have another leadership change. I believe their post 2014 leader will be their long-term leader – like Clark they will be in the job for 10 – 15 years or so, and they will become Prime Minister.

This could see a Grant Robertson vs Andrew Little battle. That would be very interesting. I’ve been pretty impressed with David Shearer also, and wouldn’t rule him out as a contender also. Kelvin Davis has potential also – but I see him more as a future Education Minister.

Of course a John Key or Don Brash type candidate may enter Parliament for Labour in 2011, and also by 2014 become a potential leader. However the fact almost all their Caucus is standing again, makes it harder for them to parachute any stars in.

Time will tell if my predictions come true.

Tomorrow, I will blog on how I would “sell” David Cunliffe once he is Leader.

The birthplace of Labour, West Coast-Tasman went to National on the party vote by 11%. In 2005 the had a 3% margin. Damien O’Connor had a 1,500 majority and lost to Chris Auchinvole by 1,000 votes. Auchinvole (who once famously told Parliament you pronounce his name like it was Dock in Cole or a rude version that is easy to work out) wan a strong campaign with 160 hoardings and a large campaign team. O’Connor is first in on the Labour List, so if Michael Cullen retires he will be back as a List MP.

National finally won the party vote in Nelson. Labour won it by 6% in 2005 but National has a 5% lead in 2008. And no one was surprised that Nick retained his seat, although his majority did shrink from 9,500 to 7,900.

Kaikoura was marginal in 2002 and today the party vote was won by 23%, up from 9% in 2005. Colin King doubled his 4,700 mJority to 10,100.

Clayton Cosgrove did well to hold on in Waimakariri with 500 votes against the competent and hard working Kate Wilkinson. National won the party vote by 15%, up from a 0.3% margin in 2005. Cosgrove’s 2005 majority on new boundaries was 5,000.

Christchurch East remains red with 45% party vote Labour to 36% for National. However that 9% gap is a lot less than 24% in 2005. Dalziel’s 11,000 majority halved to 5,500 – still very safe. However National now has a List MP in the seat and will have hopes for when Lianne retires.

Christchurch Central was a great battle. Labour won the party vote by 1.4% and held the seat by 900 votes only. Nicky Wagner ran a very strong campaign but seats ending in Central are very hard to win for National. In 2005 the party vote margin was 22% and the majority for Barnett was 7,800.

Ilam has National 53% to 27% on the party vote. Gerry Brownlee also drives his majority from 5,500 to 10,800. This may finally stop Gerry from referring to his seat as marginal

Wigram saw Labour win the party vote by just 2%. In 2005 it was 12%. And Jim Anderton scored a fairly safe 4,500 majority despite new boundaries.

Finally we have Port Hills. National won the party vote by 16%, yet Ruth Dyson held the seat by 3,100. In 2005 Labour won the party vote by 12% so there was a massive swing there, yet Dyson’s majority shrank from just 3,600 to 3,100.

Colin Espiner reports that Social Development Minister Rith Dyson is denying any secret polygamy agenda, despite a speech on the Beehive website saying the Government was moving to recognise triples.

Dyson says she never even delivered the speech, and doesn’t even know what triples refers to.

To assist Minister Ruth, we provuide the following from Wikipedia:

1. polygamy: the practice of multiple marriage (a Greek word)
2. polygyny: a man who has more than one wife (poor bastard
3. polyandry: a woman who has more than one husband
4. polyamory: having more than one intimate relationship at a time with the consent of all involved
5. polyfidelity: multiple romantic relationships with sexual contact restricted to specific partners in a group

Of course with same sex relationships, it gets even more complicated. What is the term for a trio of lesbians all joined in a civil union? No it isn’t pay per view

Asked what the Government’s policy on polygamous relationships was, Dyson said: “The social security legislation is very clear about what a relationship is you’re either single or a couple. A couple is in the nature of marriage, which includes civil union and de facto.

“It’s been the same for years. It’s been tested in court. There’s no interest in changing it.”

An interesting response. The first part is stating what the law is, and the second part is merely saying there is no interest in changing it. That avoids the question of whether the Minister thinks polygamy should be legal? I mean did this speech just appear out of a vacuum?

Finally they ask Judith Collins for comment:

Collins said she was “intrigued” that the Government’s new social development model “now includes something called triples, and my mind just boggles”.

Asked for her view on Government recognition of polygamy, Collins said: “I don’t worry about what consenting adults get up to. I just don’t expect the taxpayer to pay for it.”

Absolutely.

Ian Wishart has released the first edition of his new weekly e-newspaper – TGIF. The first edition is available for free. As web designer Dennis Smith has noted, it is quite large (8.5 MB), but probably hard to have it much smaller and retain the quality.

The lead story focuses on this quote from Ruth Dyson:

“Shifting the focus from social welfare to social development is about considering the wellbeing of the whole population, and communities within that population, rather than solely focusing on the traditional family group. We must cater for the diversity, we know exists. By this I mean the range of relationships from single, couples, triples, blended, de facto, and so on. That’s where we’re going with social policy.”

Now this is not just something Dyson blurted out, or was secretly taped saying in a sting operation. This was in her speech notes on the Beehive website. They have since taken it down, which suggests the Government knows it is embarrassing. That is in itself worthy of questions as the Beehive website is meant to be a record of all Ministerial speeches, and not just selected ones.

Now I’m a fan of the TV series Big Love, but really I don’t think the Government needs to be catering for the polygamists. In fact in most countries they actually tend to discourage polygamy, while Ruth seems to want the NZ Government to cater for it.

Colin Espiner blogs on how Ruth Dyson is always seeing the bright side:

Everyone loves an optimist, so Labour’s Ruth Dyson must be amongst the most-loved MPs.

Her press statements on rising unemployment are always full of good cheer, and Dyson somehow seems blithely unaware of the gloomy economic conditions.

Back in May she caused something of a stir by putting out a press release headed “Labour Force Survey Reflects Stability In The Face Of Economic Challenges”. You’d have thought the unemployment rate had defied the economic downturn and things remained sunny. In fact, the survey reported the biggest jump in jobless in nearly 20 years.

Likewise, today’s next quarterly report on the unemployment rate, which finds an additional 7000 people have lost their jobs in the past three months and the unemployment rate now up another 0.2% to 3.9%, is welcomed by Dyson in a release entitled “New Zealand Economy in Good Hands”.

Ruth should have been a Minister when we had the Erebus crash. She may have done a press release highlighting the decline in carbon emissions due to no return trip!

I think Dyson’s skills are being wasted as Minister of Social Development – she could do wonders in the Treasury or the Reserve Bank. Under this minister, Treasury’s report this week warning of recession could have been headed up: “More good news likely on economy” and the bank’s gloomy predictions of 5%-plus unemployment could have been rewritten as “It’s all good here, too”.

Colin does go a bit fuzzy later on with petrol prices though:

Labour will be extremely grateful to whoever bugged the National Party conference for taking bad economic news off the front page. It’s even possible that today’s whitewash from Dyson’s Christchurch colleague Lianne Dalziel on petrol prices will equally disappear with nary a trace, given the media’s perchant for a decent whodunit.

It’s hard to swallow the minister’s recommendation that nothing needs to be done about regulating an industry making $11 billion profits a quarter because it is “fundamentally competitive” and that, essentially, the idea that petrol prices are fast to rise and slow to fall is simply a myth perpetrated by the media.

A more cynical journalist than myself might suggest that the government has several interests in not forcing down the price of petrol; for one thing, the GST take is much higher when prices are high, and for another, the high petrol prices are forcing some vehicles from the road, which is helping with emissions targets.

I think Colin is being a bit hard on Dalziel here. First of all the NZ oil companies do not make $11 billion profit a quarter. The NZ Govt has no power to regulate the global oil companies, which I presume that $11 billion refers to. It is a red herring figure. And a profit figure is meaningless anyway unless one knows what the turnover or capital was. An $11 billion profit on a $1 billion equity company is a universe different to an $11 billion profit on a $100 billion equity company.

Secondly it is a “myth perpetrated by the media” that higher petrol prices leads to much higher GST. Because the money spent on petrol is not spent on other goods and services, reducing GST collected there. Hence overall GST does not rise greatly, if at all, with higher petrol prices.

Colin is right though that the higher petrol prices may help with reducing carbon emissions.

All three metro editorials today are on the employment figures. We start with the NZ Herald:

More worrying, the latest quarterly employment survey suggests the number of people in jobs has declined on a scale unseen since 1989. The drop in employment can be greater than the rise in unemployment because the latter excludes people who are not actively looking for another job.

Then the Dom Post:

Social Development Minister Ruth Dyson may want people to think it’s “a very small change, actually” but the biggest fall in employment since the 1980s should not be brushed off by politicians or by Reserve Bank Governor Alan Bollard, writes The Dominion Post. …

There is little room for the blithe optimism of Ms Dyson, who told Radio New Zealand after Statistics New Zealand data showed a fall of 29,000 or 1.3 per cent in seasonally adjusted employment during the March quarter, that people should not over-react. Those who have lost jobs or who are finding it harder to get one will be more inclined to accept the view that the figures are, as Westpac economist Brendon O’Donovan said, “an absolute shocker”. …

Dr Cullen has continually preached that he knew how to spend money better than those who earned it, and refused to deliver tax cuts. He argued that if he left more in workers’ pockets they would only spend more and fuel inflation. At the same time he indulged his ministers, and allowed a rapid growth in government spending that contributed to the Reserve Bank keeping interest rates high. That spending has too often been of low quality, or designed to serve a political purpose rather than deliver a real benefit to taxpayers. The absurdity of maintaining the district health board bureaucracy when the real decisions are still made in the Beehive is just one illustration of that.

The hope must be that as Dr Cullen has drawn up his Budget he has taken a rigorous look at spending to ensure that it is delivering maximum efficiency, and not incidentally to reduce the pressure from government spending on inflation.

And finally The Press:

The statistics appeared to suggest that this was not the case. In the first three months of the year, the economy lost 29,000 jobs. More than 24,000 dropped out of the labour force — they were no longer counted as being in work or looking for it — and unemployment went up by 4000, or 5.5 per cent. It was all the more surprising because it came after an uninterrupted spell of rosy employment news and was the largest decline in employment in 19 years. …

Funnily enough, none of the newspapers are agreeing with Ruth Dyson that the loss of 29,000 jobs is not bad news at all actually, or that it is insignificant.

As economists are describing the fall in employment of 29,000 as “very grim” and “an absolute shocker”, Ruth Dyson plays Chicken Little and says there is nothing to worry about.

The Herald quotes her as saying:

“Compared to 12 months ago, the employment levels are 0.2 percent below that level. So this is not a dramatic change if you look at the overall picture ,” she said.

“I don’t think that this is bad news at all actually, the fact we’ve got 350,000 more jobs than we had when we were elected (1999) to lead the Government should be very good news for New Zealand.”

This is why Governments get thrown out as they stay in office too long. No Minister should ever say that losing 29,000 jobs is not bad news. It is arrogant, uncaring and out of touch.

The comparison to a year ago is somewhat misleading. The fact is the drop of 29,000 in a quarter is the biggest drop since 1989. It has wiped out all the growth from the previous three quarters, and more. It is a 1.3% drop in just one quarter.

Normally over a year one has employment growth of close to 2%, so a 0.2% decline over the year is significant.

Dyson should have talked about the challenges of global turbulence etc, rather than pretended there was no problem at all and that 29,000 less jobs is “not bad news at all actually”.

We have heard a lot from Labour about how the suggestion to use taxpayer funded Government information pamphlets while out campaigning just came from a delegate at the conference, and Mike Williams just agreed with him that it was a damn good idea (before WIlliams then denied everything).

Now as someone who has attended a lot of party conferences, I can sympathise that sometimes you get very naive and inexperienced members at these conferences who say stupid things.

So when the proposal to use the taxpayer funded advertising for campaigning is dismissed as just being from a delegate, you do wonder what sort of delegate?

Was it someone just active at branch level? Was it someone active at electorate level? Or was it someone who held office at regional level? Or was it someone even more senior than that.

Well thanks to a Kiwiblog reader, we have an answer.  A female Mainlander e-mailed in to identify the voice as Martin Ward. Mr Ward is (or at least was until recently) a member of the Labour Party’s ruling NZ Council.  So this delegate the President was responding to, was one of his colleagues on the Party’s top board.

And according to reports Mr Ward suggested the use of both KiwiSaver and Working for Families brochures. WFF is one of the Government’s key welfare benefits (by way of family tax credits). And who is the Minister of Social Welfare, sorry Social Development and Employment. Well by coincidence Mr Ward’s wife – Ruth Dyson.

So this suggestion to use taxpayer funded material for campaigning did not come from some junior lackey. It came from a member of the Labour Party’s Council and the spouse of a senior Cabinet Minister.

If you know of any swinging voters, please make sure they see this video of Labour Ministers Ruth Dyson, Maryan Street, Steve Chadwick (and MP Moana Mackey) singing their anti John Key song. I am trying to persuade National to get it made into a DVD and sent to every household!

Hat Tip: Whale Oil

The Hive has been running a series of posts suggesting Cullen will roll Clark.  I offer no opinion on that probability of that scenario, but they have asked me for my thoughts on who would be the best Deputy to a PM Cullen.

It would have to be a woman, to keep the gender balance happy.  Labour’s rules are full of gender balance requirements. If an electorate turns up to their national conference with more men than women, they get hauled before some sort of Spanish inquisition where they have to justify their lack of gender balance, and if they can’t do so thhey lose most of their voting rights.

Annette King has always been the logical choice, but recent events are damaging her star. And the rumour is that she plans to resign in late 2009 or eary 2010 to bring Andrew Little in through a by-election.

Lianne Dalziel has been a very solid performer, but Deputy would be a stretch. Maryan Street is a possibility one day, but has not been in Cabinet long enough. However if one wanted a dark horse to bet on, it would be Street. Dyson is too polarising, even though she is on top of her portfolios.