Kiwiblog

Tracy Watkins writes:

Remember the American bag man? The H-bomb? Labour has so far tried shock jock policy (raising the retirement age); taking the moral high ground in the policy debate (a capital gains tax), and gone back to tried and true policies with sweeteners in the form of generous welfare payments, union-friendly law changes and a rise in the minimum wage. But with the polls still showing Labour adrift at below 30 per cent, expect the campaign to turn personal in the final two weeks. Phil Goff has already signalled that is the direction Labour is headed by labelling Mr Key a liar over GST, attacking him over his Hawaiian holiday home, capitalising on his perceived weakness – which is to appear smug – and attacking his credibility.

Since Mr Key became National leader, Labour has also sought to get up various stories, including that Mr Key’s blind trust was a sham; questioning whether he made a false declaration in relation to his electoral address; seeking to link the Government’s BMW contract to National Party donations and a Parnell neighbour of Mr Key’s; and accusing him of mis-stating the number of TranzRail shares he owned.

Last, but not least, was the H-bomb in the 2008 campaign – Labour’s attempt to link Mr Key to a 1980s financial scandal, which exploded in its face after it emerged that it had mistaken someone else’s signature for Mr Key’s. So far this campaign, Mr Goff has tried to avoid a full-frontal personal attack, but the closer to the election we get, the more direct we can expect the attacks to be.

The burning question is whether Labour will follow past form and try to drop a bomb in the final week of the campaign. The advantage of doing it that close to the election date, of course, is you don’t have to prove it till after the polls have closed. The disadvantage is that voters punish negative campaigns.

And of course such proof will never eventuate.

Some interesting details in Tracy Watkins column last week:

There is even deeper fury about promises that were supposedly made and not kept. When the Cabinet hauled Auckland transport officials before them to go over the plans one last time they were apparently assured there would be a person on every carriage to avoid delays when emergency buttons were pushed, but that apparently never happened. They were promised 100 extra buses, but got only 31 – many of which had to be diverted to the North Shore when the ferries become overcrowded. And they were told there would be more security on the platforms than eventuated.

If this is correct, it does sounds like some of the problems were very avoidable.

But all that is largely by the by and a direct result of the biggest failure of all – which was the inability to look past the “peer reviewed” guesstimates by consultants that a party on the waterfront on the night of the opening ceremony would probably attract only 30,000 to 50,000 people. Ministers – particularly the Auckland-based ones who regularly see crowds bigger than that for far more mundane events – can’t escape blame for not treating those figures with scepticism and caution.

I agree both Council and Government should have known better and demanded something better than a guesstimate.

It seems that on the Tuesday before the big game, government officials might have got a whiff of the behemoth- in-waiting and approached Auckland authorities about opening up the Bledisloe and Captain Cook wharfs, but were rebuffed. Auckland – the city that loves to tell Wellington to butt out of its affairs – is reaping the resulting ministerial firestorm as a result.

Again, if this is correct it is very significant.

Tracy Watkins at Stuff writes:

The decision earlier this year to leave the door open a crack to National post- November 26 was a difficult bridge for the minor party to cross, and there has been collateral damage – but it also looks to have been a shrewd move, even if the Greens are picking up votes from Labour, rather than catching the soft National vote, which was the intention.

What the Greens have actually said is that they “could” work with a National- led government, even if on the basis of current National Party policies it is “extremely unlikely”.

It is extremely unlikely, but possibly preferable to a further 6+ years of opposition.

With National’s only reliable allies, ACT, looking decidedly pasty, and the Maori Party under pressure to distance themselves from National, a cuddlier Green Party would, on the surface, look decidedly attractive to National should its vote fall much below 46 per cent on election night.

Here I disagree. If National’s vote is low enough that Labour could form a Government, then the Greens will go with Labour.

However if a Labour-led Government is not a possibility, then you could have some sort of deal between National and the Greens. It will only work if National does not need the Greens to govern, but like with the Maori Party offers a deal anyway.

A formal coalition deal may be a bridge too far for both parties but as MMP has shown, there is more than one way to skin a cat. The Greens are unlikely to bring themselves to support National on confidence and supply, but abstaining, as they did after 2002 with Labour, could give them sufficient clout to extract significant policy concessions.

This I agree with, and maybe one could even include a portfolio or two in such an agreement. You might have it that the two Ministers have to vote for confidence and supply (as they are in Government) and the rest of the caucus abstains.

The latest story on the Labour leadership makes it quite clear someone is telling lies.

Now I think most would agree that a blog post from Matthew Hooton on the Labour leadership should not be taken as automatically accurate. Of course neither does it mean it is automatically wrong either.

But Trans-tasman reported on Thursday :

Meanwhile Goff questioned his front bench colleagues last week as to whether he should resign as leader. The questioning took place at a pre-caucus meeting of the front bench group. It followed publication of at least three opinion polls showing Labour slipping heavily in electoral popularity.

Caucus sources says the response to the question was muted, with one senior MP saying

“it’s up to you Phil.” There was no disagreement. The catalyst for a leadership discussion is the realisation if Labour slips further respected list MPs like Kelvin Davis and Stuart Nash may lose their places.

This has greater credibility. It references to a specific meeting on a specific date, involving a specific group of people. It refers to multiple sources and uses a quote from one of the sources, who by definition must be a frontbench MP or a senior Labour staffer.

Then we have today’s Dom Post:

An increasingly angry Labour leader Phil Goff is again facing leadership speculation after conflicting accounts over a meeting with some of his closest and most senior colleagues.

He furiously denied reports in political newsletter Trans-Tasman that he asked his frontbench MPs whether he should quit.

Several frontbench MPs backed Mr Goff, either describing the report as “bollocks” or insisting the discussion never took place. Others refused to comment.

But one senior Labour MP said the conversation did happen. “[Phil] did consult the front bench over whether he should go.”

Now I don’t think anyone really thinks that both Trans-tasman and Tracy Watkins are simply inventing stories and specific quotes.

This leaves two possibilities:

1. Goff did consult the front-bench on whether he should go, and is now lying about it
2. A member of the Labour front-bench has invented this story and fed it to the media in order to destabilise Goff

It goes without saying that neither scenario is particularly good for Goff and Labour.

I suspect the conversation did happen. I don’t judge Goff harshly for lying and denying it, because it is a reality of politics that you have to deny stuff like this, otherwise you are fatally wounded. Goff probably never imagined that one of his front bench colleagues would leak that he asked his senior colleagues if he should quit.

One Labour source has described the polls as “OK Corral” territory for Mr Goff, with a number of well-respected MPs set to lose their seats should Labour’s support drop any further.

But another MP said Mr Goff’s leadership should be safe – even though there were probably the numbers to roll him should any of the contenders put their hands up.No one wanted the leadership because it was such a “a poisoned chalice” this close to the election.

This sounds like at a minimum three different Labour MPs are talking to the media about Goff’s leadership, so I don’t think one can blame all of this on Matthew Hooton. What is interesting is the assertion that if someone stood, they would have the numbers to roll Goff.

Tracy Watkins in the SST reports:

On the night when John Key pushed his way through a horde of backslapping supporters celebrating his election victory, no one had an inkling that a series of disasters lay in wait.

Ahead lurked a financial crisis, a $1.7 billion corporate bailout, a $4 billion natural disaster, the first combat casualty in a decade, and, finally, Pike River, a tragedy that dwarfed even Cave Creek in terms of loss of life.

As the good ship New Zealand steams from one crisis to the next, Key has become noticeably grey at the temples, and his staff have become increasingly protective of his private family time – a few hours on a Sunday, and the occasional overseas holiday.

Staggeringly, the optimism that charmed voters in 2008 and swept Key to power seems to have survived the battering of two years in office despite little respite from a grim economy and a string of bad news.

Maybe that is why Key and his government are more popular now than on election night. Leaders are judged on how they handle a crisis and Key’s instincts have remained unerringly in touch with what the man or woman on the street expect of him in bad times.

A crisis only looks easy to respond to with hindsight. They often trip leaders up. The Bolger Govt’s response to Cave Creek was poor, and Bush 43 with Hurricane Katrina is an example of how a lack of apparent concern can be damaging. And Obama’s response to the financial crisis led to the birth of the tea party, as a backlash against his fiscal stimulus.

The most important thing is voters knowing that you can step up, says Key.

“People want to know if the government’s in touch with the issues that are real, or are they just people who fight in the debating chamber on inane subjects and call each other names?”

Exactly.

Tracy Watkins writes:

Parliament should treat the drinking age as a conscience vote and here is the reason. MPs deserve to have the best brought out in them occasionally and conscience votes do that. They even have the power to remind us why it matters who we send to Parliament.

I agree. By far the best debates I have witnessed in Parliament, have been those as conscience votes. When an MP is free to speak their mind on an issue, without having to worry about whether this is the party line, is when you get the best debate.

So conscience votes are not unique in producing ad hocery, botched law-making and poor compromises (three strikes anyone?). It’s just that in the normal course of events, governments can dress it all up as something else by throwing the weight of their spin machine behind it.

Conscience votes, on the other hand, are policy-making stripped bare.

It comes down to what the MP believes. Some will take the easy option of voting according to the wishes of their electorate. But even that tells us something about them.

It tells us they are not fans of Edmund Burke who said in 1774:

Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

If there is to be a vote on the purchase age for alcohol, then it should be one of MPs voting as they see best, not whipped by their parties.

The EU had a reception at the Backbencher last night, so lots of MPs and journalists there to chat to.  The typical opening line from a National MP was “So about that B grade” while from Labour MPs it was “Unlike Annette we won’t use Farrar and respect in the same sentence unless there are some other words in between”

Phil Goff was there also, so I said I looked forward to him quoting me more often in future . Actually had an interesting chat generally on economic stuff, such as land tax. If Labour are bold they could consider proposing a land tax (tied to income tax reductions) for 2011. That could attract some support from economic reformers.

General consensus I got from pundits there was that there was definitely some good stuff in the Government’s work plan – in fact more detailed plans that most Governments announce in the PMs statement.

But what may trip the Government up is they misplayed the expectations game. Building the statement up as the “most important” one ever was a mistake, as was talking about it being a “step change”. Again, there is some good stuff there that certainly will help lift economic growth. But will the announcements alone close the gap with Australia? Of course not. But the rhetoric leading up to it, got expectations artificially high.

With the benefit of hindsight, it would have been better to have positioned the statement as a typical PMs statement – a general overview of the Government’s achievements and workplan, and then surprise the media and opposition when it turns out to have close to 30 specific initiatives in it.

As I said yesterday, I welcome the focus on growing the economic cake, not just how to split it up, and look forward to more details in the budget.

Reaction from others:

• John Armstrong – 4/10 for economic boldness
• Fran O’Sullivan – John Key deserves an A- for intent. But a mere D for the dreadful prime ministerial statement that buried a coherent economic agenda in a mass of confusion.
• Tax Working Group members seem happy
• NZ Herald editorial calls it a stutter not a step-change
• Bernard Hickey hits new levels of hyperbole
• Canterbury Employers call the package welcome but light
• Solid Energy is excited
• Colin Espiner gives it a pass, but with much more to do
• Tracy Watkins looks at the risks
• The Press editorial says it was lacking boldness
• The Dom Post editorial says it was a welcome focus on growth, not slogans

Tracy Watkins and Vernon Small rate the front benches. Their scores:

• John Key 9.0
• Bill English 6.5
• Gerry Brownlee 6.5
• Simon Power 8.5
• Tony Ryall 8.0
• Nick Smith 5.5
• Judith Collins 7.5
• Anne Tolley 3.5
• Chris Finlayson 7.0
• David Carter 4.0

• Tariana Turia 7.0
• Pita Sharples 6.0

• Rodney Hide 2.0

• Phil Goff 7.5
• Annette King 6.5
• David Cunliffe 6.0
• Ruth Dyson 5.5
• Parekura Horomia 4.0
• Clayton Cosgrove 6.5
• Chris Carter 2.0
• Maryan Street 5.0
• Darren Hughes 6.0
• David Parker 8.0

• Russel Norman 6.0
• Metiria Turei 4.5

While most of the ratings are common sense, I actually would disagree with a few. I can’t imagine how you can say the Shadow Attorney-General (David Parker) is a point higher than the actual Attorney-General (Chris Finlayson). I agree Parker has been one of the better Labour MPs.

Likewise the Dom Post seem to be reflecting Trevor Mallard’s view of Anne Tolley, than the real world. They have rated Parekura Horomia higher than Tolley. Yes, Anne Tolley was a bit unsteady in the House in her early days, but doesn’t look as bothered now. And frankly blaming Tolley for not getting the teacher unions to support national standards as absurd. That is like giving Michael Cullen bad marks as the former Finance Minister for not getting the Roundtable to endorse his policies.

I also can’t see where you rate Carter a 4.0 for Agriculture – just because he is low profile. The feedback I get is that Carter is very respected by the industry.

And on the Labour side, a totally lack of mention of Goff’s biggest fuck up during the year – the Richard Worth scandal. His championing of Neelam Choudary as some shy and retiring person who could not handle Worth blew up massively in his face and damaged his brand. He dropped significantly in the polls after that. A 7.5 is well rather generous for the man whose party is 25 points behind in the polls.

But hey it gets boring if everyone agrees on every rating.

Tracy Watkins and Martin Kay hand out their awards:

• Politician of the Year – John Key
• Wally of the Year – Rodney Hide
• The Merit Award for Prime Ministers with English as a second language – John Key
• Koru Club Award For Services to the Airline Industry – Chris Carter with Roger Douglas runner-up
  
• Oliver Twist “Please, Sir, I Want Some More” Award – Bill English
• Interpol Award for Undercover Operations – Rick Barker
• James Bond Medal for Services to National Security – Keith Locke, Sue Bradford & Catherine Delahunty
• Nelson Mandela Award for Services to Race Relations – Hone Harawira with Phil Goff runner-up
• Lazarus Award – Lockwood Smith
• Gone by Lunchtime Award – Richard Worth
• Crimestoppers award – Melissa Lee
• Dr Doolittle Award – Nick Smith
• Stop Digging Award – David Garrett
• Pigs Ear, Silk Purse Award – John Key

The rationale for the Dr Doolittle Award is amusing.

My God, the Rugby World Cup free to air rights issue is a mess, to put it kindly. A fiasco maybe.

I’m someone who actually is supportive of the ambition of Maori TV to be the free to air broadcaster. But the sticking point is the only 90% coverage. Having 10% of New Zealanders not able to get free to air coverage of the Rugby World Cup we are hosting was never going to be acceptable.

If Pita Sharples had talked to other Ministers on the (laudable) ambition for Maori TV, they may have been able to actually help with the bid, by asking the right questions. Instead, we now have two different parties in Government appearing to back competing bids by taxpayer funded stations.

So what do the media say. The Herald reports:

Maori TV chief executive Jim Mather says the channel will continue to fight the Government for the rights to screen the Rugby World Cup, and will use money from wealthy iwi and corporate groups to outbid it.

Well that I approve of!

IRB spokesman Ross Young said the board would be open to increased bids.

I bet they are. They must be laughing all the way to the bank.

The Herald understands the Government’s concern about Maori TV’s coverage relates to fears about small crowds at the tournament, already expected to make a $40 million loss.

The Government and Rugby Union can make money only from ticket sales, and are worried about how these would be affected without the hype TVNZ can generate.

Well then TVNZ should have put in a bigger bid initially – possibly with support from the Rugby Union.

But Mr Mather said this was “throwing Maori TV the crumbs” and there was little chance of it being involved. The value to Maori TV was in having the exclusive rights, requiring viewers to switch over, rather than staying behind the major networks.

And this is the big pay off for Maori TV. It can take years for people to get used to checking a channel out. A month of people swapping to Maori TV for the RWC would probably leave them with a lot more viewers after the cup.

So what is the so called Govt plan:

- TVNZ leads bid to show the 16 most important games live and free-to-air, backed by Government money.

- TVNZ will show six games – two of the All Blacks’ pool games, the semi-finals, final, and third/fourth play-off.

- TV3, which has put up some of its own money, will show six games – the two other All Blacks pool games, the semi-finals, final and third/fourth play-off.

If it wants, Maori TV can put up money and simulcast the games TVNZ and TV3 are showing. It can also show the balance of the 16 games that the networks do not want.

The challenge for Maori TV is how they can do a bid that covers more than 90% of NZ.

Patrick Gower writes:

Remember the utter shambles as the All Blacks bombed out of the last Rugby World Cup because they could not organise a simple drop-goal in Cardiff?

If the failure to do the strikingly obvious that day left you horrified, then best to cover your eyes before watching the Government’s bungling of the free-to-air television rights for the next Rugby World Cup. …

TVNZ’s involvement is necessary because it has the reach and numbers to hype up the tournament over the next two years and get people through the gates, with ticketing the only way the Government and Rugby Union can make money and stem losses.

Maori TV can offer unique cultural and language elements as well as the flexibility of scheduling to be able to show wall-to-wall coverage without having to break for regular programming like the nightly news.

Surely getting the two together as co-broadcasters months ago and bargaining with the IRB was the obvious solution?

That would have been nice.

Audrey Young chips in:

The political debacle over the Maori Television Service bid for Rugby World Cup coverage rights has soured relations between National and the Maori Party more than anything else in their one-year partnership.

Yep, and it was al avoidable if Ministers talked to each other earlier on.

The Herald editorial proclaims:

The saga of Maori Television’s bid for the Rugby World Cup’s free-to-air broadcasts has taken a bizarre turn with the Government’s decision to fund a higher bid by TVNZ. The International Rugby Board, seller of the broadcasting rights, must be wide-eyed in wonder and glee that it stands to gain from a contest between two bids financed by New Zealand taxpayers. …

But it has taken a quite disturbing degree of fright at the prospect of Maori Television winning the free-to-air rights. Certainly, the Government had a right to be aggrieved that its coalition partner, Maori Affairs Minister Pita Sharples, did not consult National ministers before approving $3 million from his department, Te Puni Kokiri, to finance the bid.

The general rule of thumb is you should consult your colleagues on anything you would expect to be consulted over.

But if the taxpayer must contribute, why not through Maori Television? It is building a strong presence as a public channel for ceremonial events such as Waitangi Day and Anzac Day. Its coverage of the funeral for Sir Howard Morrison was deeply admired by all who caught it. TVNZ seems no longer interested in this sort of occasion either.

Maori Television was offering World Cup commentaries in English and Maori, from familiar faces and new. It aimed to popularise some Maori phrases through the English telecast, meeting its state-funded mission. On recent evidence it would do a conscientious and fine job. Surely a free-to-air partnership can be forged that would meet all concerns and save the taxpayer this ridiculous double bid.

I agree.

And Tracy Watkins:

In effect, we’ve got government ministers bidding against each other – and ratcheting up the cost for taxpayers as a consequence – to suit their own political purposes.

On the one side is Maori Affairs Minister Pita Sharples who gave Maori TV the green light for a $3 million-plus bid in a nod to his Maori constituency.

On the other are senior ministers Bill English, Jonathan Coleman and Murray McCully, who’ve given TVNZ and TV3 a nod and a wink that the Government will step in with whatever it takes to win the bid over Maori TV – presumably after concluding that their own constituency won’t take kindly to having to tune into Maori TV to watch world cup games.

I don’t think that is the issue. If done in the right way, I think one could have got the Government quite supportive of the bid. The bigger issue is achieving greater than 90% coverage, and also using TV to boost ticket sales.

The script writers for Yes Minister couldn’t have come up with a more absurd plot.

It would be a great script!

Tracy Watkins writes in the Dom Post:

If they could bottle what John Key’s got and sell it, National would make a killing.

It might be a seemingly innocuous brew of good humour and affability, rather than the traditionally more coveted mix of charisma and skilled oratory, but it clearly works.

I’m going to return back to what Tracy wrote, but want to cut over to another story that I think is a superb example of what Tracy is on about. It is this one about firefighters protesting outside the opening of a new fire station by the Prime Minister, over their pay claim.

Now this is the sort of issue that would normally prompt a discussion in the PMs Office and the PM. You will be worried about the negative message getting in the way of the positive message about funding a new fire station.

Now I can say with some certainty that the way previous National PMs would have handled the situation is to have the Minister of Internal Affairs do a press release and briefing the day before the briefing setting out how the Firefighters Union is misleading over their pay claims, and that with their various allowance they rake in $70,000 and spend so much of their time sleeping on standby, most can easily do a second job, and that their total pay per hour actually spent working is well over $50 an hour. This would then put the pressure on the union and protesters to respond, and take the heat off the PM.

Again with some confidence I can say former Labour PMs would handle it very similarly. The key difference would be that they wouldn’t have the Internal Affairs Minister release the information publicly, as they don’t like to be seen crapping on the unions that fund them. Instead a press secretary would give the relevant information to a journalist, and they would rely on the rest of the media picking up the story.

So what did John Key do:

The firefighters, in their yellow protective clothing, waved placards, chanted and pressed themselves against the station’s glass roller doors as Mr Key spoke.

After the opening, he went outside and addressed them through a megaphone.

He insisted he had not yet received a recommendation on wage rises from the Fire Service.

“All we’re saying to you guys is we’re living in a backdrop where a hell of a lot of people are losing their job, where the Government is running big deficits and where we’ve all got to be reasonable.”

Mr Key said that if insurance levies, which pay the Fire Service’s wages, went up then more pressure would be placed on taxpayers, already struggling with the recession.

“At the end of the day what we’re trying to do is make sure there isn’t huge pressure on a lot of people that are losing their jobs,” he said.

Union spokesman Boyd Raines said Mr Key’s response was “fairly predictable in terms of the Nats’ party line”.

However, Mr Raines added: “It was good to see that he actually had the balls to come out and actually front up to the crowd.”

And quite a few of the protesters would have said the same thing. Don’t get me wrong – they are not going to suddenly convert to National because of what Key did. But they will say, “Hey at least he did us the decency of listening to us, and talking to us- rather than just attack us”.

And this is what is a strength of Key’s. He comes across as so reasonable. Apart from some of the authors of The Standard (and some of the commenters on this blog!), most people can see that and respond to that. They think he’s a nice talented guy, who tries to reasonably engage with everyone – even those who are there to protest against him.

So back to what Tracy said:

This is what has Labour strategists scratching their heads. As the party heads into its annual conference in Rotorua this weekend, it faces the same dilemma National once faced: when your opponent’s most potent weapon is its leader, is an old-fashioned contest of ideas going to be enough?

Maybe it’s that “what you see is what you get” quality to Mr Key’s leadership that strikes a chord with voters. It is hard to find artifice in a man who makes verbal gaffes, has a nice line in self-deprecating humour, talks about his kids a lot and has never worried too much about looking statesmanlike.

Again, one could imagine it easy to have someone advising the PM that whatever you do don’t pick up a megaphone and talk to the protesters. The arguments would be that it is undignified, it puts you on their level, it might look bad on the news etc etc. But he doesn’t worry about that very much.

Politicians have never underestimated the power of a friendly smile and an open and engaging face. Helen Clark crawled out from under the ignominy of dismal poll ratings as Opposition leader by smiling more and softening her voice under the tutelage of Brian Edwards and Judy Callingham. The remarkable thing is that she even had to be taught; in a more relaxed setting, Miss Clark loves nothing more than a good laugh, and does so boisterously and often. But she almost had to unlearn years of political training to unlock the person within and even then never managed to drop the shield completely.

Of course, spin doctoring can only go so far and, in the wrong hands, a politician’s smile can be an unmitigated disaster. Take British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. He cemented his unpopularity only after an attempt to connect with voters by smiling scarily and at random through an infamous YouTube clip.

Simon Hoggart, in The Guardian, likened it to “the smile a 50-year-old man might use on the parents of the 23-year-old woman he is dating, in a doomed attempt to reassure them”. Even Mr Brown’s own colleagues could not hold back from poking fun at him.

Ha that is a great analogy.

Tracy Watkins blogs:

I like David and he’s definitely one of the sharper knives in the drawer around Wellington, but sadly he seems to have lost his mojo. Back when Labour was in power, he did a sterling job of running issues and was the outlet for the voice of opposition. But nowadays he seems to be floundering over his purpose. Cheerleading is okay but it’s not why people started reading Kiwiblog.

Funnily enough, just a couple of days ago, Audrey Young blogged:

Key’s nervousness is aided no doubt by continued critical commentary on the right including from David Farrar’s Kiwiblog most recently on the Boscawen bill

So one political editor says I’m cheerleading and another says my continued critical commentary is making the PM nervous

It should be no surprise to anyone that Kiwiblog is less “edgy” with National in Government. Of course I am going to be happier with more of what the Government does.

But I do reject the label of cheerleader. Hell, I ignore most of the announcements from Government as boring. And I thought I had been pretty vigorous in opposing the Government’s moves to ban handheld cellphone use in cars. I’ve said many times I don’t support at large Council seats for Auckland. I have called for the anti-smacking law to be changed numerous times. I’ve continued to advocate Nancy Wake getting honoured (despite the change of Government) and have also said several times that the immigration allegations around a National MP should have gone to an independent inquiry.

But I hold centre-right beliefs. I enjoy pointing out lunacy and hypocrisy from the left, and while they keep providing me material, I’ll enjoy keeping that up.

This probably appears somewhat defensive. I think Tracy is probably quite right that Kiwiblog is not the same as in the last years of Labour – I agree. But I don’t like or accept the term “cheer leader”. My purpose in blogging is much the same as when I started – to have my say on anything I am interested in.

Anyway back to Tracy:

Whale Oil: I’ll admit it… once I got over my squeamishness, I quite enjoyed his blog. Utterly nihilistic and entertaining

Nihilistic – that’s a good term for it!

The Standard: They have picked up where Kiwiblog left off and do a good job of running issues as the voice of opposition. It’s a Labour blog in the same way Kiwiblog is a National blog, I guess, so it makes sense that they would fit more comfortably within the blogosphere now Labour is in Opposition. But The Standard is not yet required reading in the same way that Kiwiblog was during Labour’s final few years in government.

I said both before and after the election that I thought The Standard would do better in Opposition, and I agree with Tracy that they are. They seemed to more an anti John Key blog, even when he was in Opposition, than anything else, so having Key as PM gives them much more material.

Luckily we have an interview with Tracy Watkins to remind us:

Eight months on from Labour’s election loss, former prime minister Helen Clark has no regrets and she rejects suggestions that Labour alienated voters by pushing through measures such as the child discipline bill.

Clark is still unable to accept she ever did anything wrong. Her valedictory speech to Parliament sounded like a triumph speech, where her getting thrown out of office was just some sort of mistake by the voters.

Now in New York as head of the United Nations Development Programme, Miss Clark has also revealed unease at the National Government’s direction on climate change and says its scrapping of her flagship sustainability agenda was motivated by sheer vindictiveness.

As I said, I’d forgotten how nasty Clark could be. My God – she thinks it is all about her. And yes this nasty vindictive Government that fully supported her campaign for the UN job, and appointed Michael Cullen to an SOE.

Tracy Watkins writes:

As the reality of John Key’s prolonged honeymoon sinks in, two things are happening within the Labour caucus.

I do wish media would stop explaining high poll ratings by claiming Key is still enjoying his honeymoon. Not only does this ignore all the potential problems such as a Budget that cancelled tax cuts, a Ministerial sacking, the Rankin appointment and a massive by-election thrashing – it goes against all the numerous tome media and thers have already proclaimed the honeymoon is over.

Duncan Garner called the honeymoon dead on 9 June for example. The Herald on Sunday on 17 May. Even Labour called it over on 13 May.

A honeymoon period is when you have no real problems. It is not a term meant to apply whenever the Government remains high in the polls.

The first is that they have become gripped by a sense of grievance that Mr Key’s honeymoon is only down to the media giving him an easy ride.

Yes I recall how easy the media went on him over Richard Worth, the by-election and Christine Rankin. As in, not at all.

Even defeat was seen as nothing more than an interruption to normal transmission. Labour MPs who wore the mantle of martyrdom about as well as could be expected for those who have taken a massive cut in salary and been forced out of their ministerial homes concluded that the temporary mood of boredom and recklessness that gripped voters on election day would be overtaken eventually by the realisation they had squandered a capable and much-loved government.

The culture of entitlement, as they call it in Canada.

Mr Goff’s blunders this week were twofold; he tried to dress up a reheated election policy as a new one, but was left scrambling to fill in the gaps when pressed to flesh it out. It was intended to put the Government on the back foot by painting it as devoid of ideas in the face of a looming unemployment crisis.

But the consequence of the rush was a badly thought out policy that pledged welfare for the rich, when the intended recipients had always been the battling middle classes.

Money for millionaires!

To compound the problem, Mr Goff championed the cause of a “Kiwi battler” who claimed to be on the brink of losing his home of 20 years because he could not get an unemployment benefit after losing his job, even though his wife earned only $21,000 a year.

The man’s story, which featured in an Auckland newspaper, rang alarm bells among many who read it on the Wednesday morning. It did not ring true that with 20 years of mortgage payments under their belt and a lifetime of frugality, the couple were a step away from the poorhouse.

And it was exactly that scenario which was the emotional string-puller. The Goff painted fantasy that you can have owned your home for 20 years, paid all your taxes, yet lose your home within months of unemployment because of the nasty Key Government.

The argument that taxpayers should pick up the tab for a couple with property worth well over $1 million is one that most would find preposterous. Worse, it transpired that Mr Goff and his team knew about the man’s other properties. But where warning lights should have flashed up after the newspaper’s failure to dig up the pertinent facts, Mr Goff and his team saw a green light instead.

Hopefully the media learn a lesson from this also. Ask for all the relevant facts when presented with a sob story. Mind you a Herald staffer said on radio that they had asked Labour if this couple had any other sources of income and were not told about the properties.

It is interesting to look at analysis of why National is on 60%. Of course there is a honeymoon factor in there, but let me tell you National in Feb 1991 was not on 60%!

Steve Pierson at The Standard thinks it is because John Key smiles a lot, and it is all because National has such a super smart PR team, that National is at 60%. I mean, hey they even turned his broken arm into a plus.

I think it is because John Key is Labour’s worst nightmare. He is a genuine unpredictable centrist. Now he is a centre-right centrist, but they can’t pigeonhole him as the typical “new right neo-liberal”.

Labour spent over a million dollars on ads last year telling NZers they can not trust John Key. It was the most personally targeted negative campaign we had seen. Why were they so desperate to have people think Key was not a centrist? Because they knew deep down he was, and that that is where elections are won.

Look at what the Gallery are saying. Tracy Watkins blogs:

It’s a new world order. But some people don’t seem to get it yet.

Trying to interpret comments by John Key about Fisher & Paykel in the context of the old arguments about Left and Right is about as useful as comparing a Toyota Camry with an ocean-going liner.

And Colin Espiner also blogs:

John Key just continues to surprise – and I imagine he’s surprising his own party and its backers as much as the public.

Generally when Roger Kerr from the dry-Right Business Roundtable starts writing articles criticising you just a few months into your first term in government, it’s because you’re a centre-Left government.

But in National’s case, it’s because they’ve got a leader and a Prime Minister who has pretty much torn up the rule book governing the political spectrum.

If Helen Clark shifted the paradigm of New Zealand politics during her nine years in power, Key seems to be intent on exploding it altogether.

Espiner also looks at how hands on Key is:

When Key caught wind that banks might be being a little stingy with their credit to businesses, he got on the blower to their chief executives and had a little chat. Imagine Helen Clark or Michael Cullen doing that?

And after Fisher and Paykel Appliances saw its share price plummet 40 percent in a single day yesterday, Key again reached for the telephone and called up chief executive John Bongard.

This is why I semi-jokingly refer to John’s Muldoonist tendencies!

Colin also notes:

Just one other example of Key’s newfound interventionist streak – the impending cricket tour of Zimbabwe by the Black Caps. Remember 2005, when the Labour government refused to intervene to stop NZ Cricket touring? It did stop the return series by declining visas for the Zimbabwe players, and I accept there were few stronger critics of the Mugabwe regime than Clark.

But Labour’s view was that to prevent the cricketers heading to Africa it would have had to revoke their passports, and that was a bridge too far.

Key doesn’t seem to have any such qualms. He pretty much said yesterday, and again on his way into caucus this morning, that the tour wouldn’t be proceeding. Asked if that meant revoking passports, he shrugged and said he was looking at all the options.

There’s a gutsy determination about him at the moment that reminds me very much of Clark in her earlier years, before she became worn down by the endless decision-making and sheer plethora of issues and controversies that enveloped her government.

I think it’s refreshing, as long as it lasts.

And this is why National is at 60%. Not because everyone loves National, but because they do love John Key. Only 4% of NZers thought he was doing a poor or weak job. That is incredibly low.

Labour and its allies need to realise they are dealing with a very different politician with John Key. He is an instinctive rather than ideological politician. Now his instincts are centre-right, but he operates by trusting his instincts and his skills to get good outcomes.

If people think National is at 60% just because John Key smiles a lot, then they are dramatically under-estimating him. Just as they did last year when they all said he would get whipped by Helen in the debates.

Now sure market purists like myself are wincing from time to time, as John does one of his interventions. But the battle for most of the public lies in the centre.

The challenge for Labour is how do they respond?

Dom Post Political Editor Tracy Watkin blogs:

It takes a lot to shock the hardened hacks around the press gallery – but news of the pay rates awarded to the new intake of press secretaries has caused quite a stir.

Heh guaranteed to do so. What I found interesting was the range:

Eight media staff were employed under Labour on salaries of $100,000-or-more, seven in the $10,000 band below. And that was in November 2008; as a general rule, the closer to an election, the higher the pay rates – salary demands tend to be ratcheted up when an election is looming, particularly when it looks like a government is on its last legs and the vacancies come thick and fast as longer-serving press secs desert for positions with more job security. …

Meanwhile, you have to feel sorry for the three unnamed National press secretaries who signed up for less than $60,000.

I don’t think it is a problem that some press secretaries are on under $60,000 and some over $100,000.

The most senior Ministers need highly experienced people as press secretaries. They will have people with sometimes decades of experience, and need to pay to recognise that. These are the officers where almost every day is a crisis day – as in there is some sensitive issue they have to deal with.

Some of the more junior Ministers have an easier ride. For example Consumer Affairs doesn’t normally create too many issues, so that Minister may only need someone who has been a journalist for a few years – with their skills being more on good written communication skills, rather than on devising “key lines” etc.

So the salary range isn’t that unusual to my eyes. I will say I was a bit surprised that 18 press secretaries are on over $100,000 as my gut reaction is probably only the front bench (10 or so) need someone that experienced. But I’m no expert on what the market rates are.

I remember my own pay negotiation when I was in the PM’s Office in the late 90s. I got screwed over and settled for far too low a salary. The problem was the bastards knew I’d probably work there for almost free, and exploited that

The Dom Post have replaced their former group blog for their gallery team, with a dedicated one for their political editor Tracy Watkins, called Tracy Watkins on Politics.

Tracy Watkins does a useful profile of Foreign Minister Murray McCully:

Mr McCully admits his new job was probably cause for a few quiet toasts within National’s ranks. “The prospect of me travelling overseas a great deal is very reassuring for many of my colleagues.”

Heh.

But the foreign affairs portfolio also represents a deliberate decision to step away. “I make no secret about the fact that I’m keen to play a role in a major portfolio and to provide less room for media speculation of a negative character about my involvement in political management issues.

“I’ve attracted a rather ordinary press on that front from time to time and the opportunity to do something substantial and stand on my own feet is something I’m really looking forward to . . . I think if you’re fortunate to have some time in Parliament, the final phases of your role should see you usefully employed and using your experience.”

Is that a hint that this could be Mr McCully’s last hurrah – and a desire to leave on a high note?

For my 2c this is largely correct. Murray has been an MP for 21 years, and I think is very keen to be known as more than just the Dark Prince. Ironically enough Winston Peters wanted the same thing – I’m confident Murray will be more sucessful!

In no particular order.

The Herald Editorial compares the parties:

There has been a striking contrast in the response of the two main parties to the disturbing news that after 14 years of budget surpluses the Treasury now calculates the public accounts are set for a decade of deficits. …

Finance Minister Michael Cullen merely congratulated himself again on having saved previous surpluses for a “rainy day” and looked forward to the problems it would cause for National’s intended tax cuts.

There was evidently nothing he thought necessary to change, either in his own programme of reluctant tax cuts that started this month or in the Government’s spending programmes that might have seemed affordable in better times. If Labour’s “rainy day” could last 10 years, as the Treasury forecasts, Dr Cullen and his colleagues seemed strangely relaxed about it.

In other words Labour has no plan at all.

The fiscal crisis is indeed the first real test of the mettle of leader John Key and his team and it is rare that voters get such a measure before an election.

National could have taken the easy option of confirming its previously indicated tax cuts, offering no specific savings in public expenditure and pretending that tax cuts would actually cure the deficit in quick time. Conservative parties are prone to that belief.

Instead, National has faced the need to balance its tax cuts with specified savings, notably the removal of business tax breaks on research and development and employer contributions to KiwiSaver. The wisdom of reducing the incentives to save is questionable but the courage is not.

And National is willing to take the hard decisions, and not pretend that the decade of deficits is acceptable.

Paula Oliver in NZ Herald:

National has risked alienating people who have embraced KiwiSaver, as the party goes into the election with a tax-cut package that would leave more money in the pockets of most earners – but takes away two business tax breaks to pay for it.

Mary Holm says the changes improve KiwiSaver:

The National Party’s proposed changes to KiwiSaver would considerably reduce two of the biggest gripes about the scheme – that some people can’t afford it and that it ties up savings. …

The contributions of anyone earning less than $52,150 would be tripled by employer and government input. And that means three times bigger retirement savings. …

The reduction of the minimum employee contribution from 4 per cent to 2 per cent of pay means it would be easier to afford KiwiSaver, especially after taking tax cuts into account.

John Armstrong says it is a bit of a fizzer:

The door banged shut in Labour’s face following Monday’s mind-numbingly pessimistic economic forecasts. Labour can thank National’s underwhelming tax package for reopening it at least slightly.

Colin Espiner reports on a snap poll:

A snap poll for The Press yesterday showed National may have pitched the package about right.

The poll of 212 people by Futurescape Global found 43% felt the tax cuts matched their expectations, with 34% feeling it fell short. A slim majority of those polled felt the country could afford National’s package, but people were split over whether they were confident in National’s ability to manage the economic crisis, while 55% said the tax package had not altered their vote. The poll has a margin of error of 6.7%.

Brian Fallow sees a shortage of growth:

National claims its tax package will stimulate the economy in the short term and improve incentives and drive growth in the longer term.

The first claim is plausible, the second not so much.

Reducing the top tax rate faster will be better for growth long term, but quite simply the money was no longer there.

James Weir in the Dom Post surveys business opinion:

Business New Zealand also disagreed “pretty seriously” with the decision to drop R&D tax credits but said the planned tax cuts and target to cut personal tax rates to 33 per cent over time rated a “seven out of 10″ score overall.

The Press editorial is positive:

Even if tax cuts were not on the agenda, there is a case to argue that the levels set for KiwiSaver were too ambitious from the start. As it stands, some young people entering the scheme and earning the average wage throughout their working lives could end up earning more in retirement, when their National Super entitlements were added to their KiwiSaver earnings, than they did in their lifetime.

Yep, and that is daft. The 4%/4% KiwiSaver forced people on the average wage to save too much, taking money they need during their working life.

Clark has said this election will be one of trust. If this is so, then the question for voters will be who do you trust in the turbulent world we now face? With these tax cuts, and with some detail of its longer-term economic plans, National has placed its cards on the table. It has produced figures to show that its plans are fiscally responsible. Voters must decide whether Key and his colleagues can be trusted to deliver on them, or whether Labour can be trusted to manage difficult times as well as good ones.

Will Labour produce a plan? Or is Labour saying it will run a decade of deficits and not make any changes to tax rates or spending?

Tracy Watkins blogs:

A year ago, Key might have risked over promising and under delivering on those amounts.

But that was a vastly different world..

The failure to deliver more may peel off some soft support among those who were leaning toward National but, because of Working for Families, will not be a whole lot better off.

But the rest will probably agree with Key that it’s a package that’s right for the times.

So is it enough? You’d have to say yes.

And finally NZPA reports that least surprising news of all – that unions and political rivals don’t like it. Some get their facts wrong:

United Future leader Peter Dunne, who is minister of revenue, said it was complicated and would be difficult to administer.

“Superannuitants and low income earners are the big losers,” he said.

Bzzt. Wrong. By 2011 superannuitant couples will get $15 a fortnight more.

Last week I set up an online survey for MPs, asking them to rate various media organisations and senior gallery journalists on a scale of 0 to 10. Just under one quarter of MPs responded, and the results are shown below.

As the media often rate how well MPs are doing, I thought it appropriate to reverse this and ask the questions in reverse. The media are a hugely powerful filter, and it is appropriate (in my opinion) to have some focus on how well they are perceived to be performing.

The questions were:

1. For each media organisation please give them a rating from 0 to 10 for how well you think they do in their parliamentary reporting. This should take account of all relevant factors – accuracy, fairness, thoroughness, relevance, substance etc.
2. Now for some individual senior members of the press gallery, please rate from 0 to 10 how well you think they perform at proving fair, accurate, unbiased and informative reporting on Parliament. You can skip any that you do not feel able to rate.
3. Finally can you indicate your party grouping as National, Labour or Other. Your individual identity is not sought by us, and we have no way or interest in identifying individual respondents. However we would like to summarise results for all MPs and by the three groupings to see if they vary by party grouping.

It is important that these be read in context, so make the following points:

1. This is the opinion of MPs only. It does not set out to be an objective rating, and should not be seen as such.
2. MPs get reported on by the gallery. While this makes them the group of NZers potentially best able to have an informed opinion on the media (which is why I surveyed them), it also gives them a conflict of interest. MPs may score journalists lowly due to personal run ins with them, or the fact they are too good at their job! This should be borne in mind.
3. I only e-mailed the survey to the 121 MPs, but it is possible that one or more responses was filled in by a staff member who has access to the MPs mailbox. I think this is unlikely, as most staff are very professional. However MPs were not required to prove their identity to vote, as confidentiality of individual responses was important. You need to know the Survey URL to be able to vote.
4. National MPs made up 43% of responses, slightly above their numbers in Parliament. Minor Party MPs were also slightly over-represented, Labour MPs under-represented and some MPs did not give a party identification.

NZ Press Association tops the rankings with a mean or average 6.1 rating – and received no very low ratings from anyone. The two Internet agencies were in the top five, indicating MPs like the fact their releases are carried in full. Trans-Tasman also does well.

Television generally gets ranked lowly with all four stations in the bottom half. Sky News actually ranks highest.

Radio is middle of the field with NewstalkZB being the highest ranked radio broadcaster.

The newspapers range the spectrum. The NZ Herald is up at 5.3, Press at 4.2 and Dom Post at 4.1. I would have them all higher, but this is a survey of MPs, not of my views.

Now the sample sizes are of course very small (but of a limited population) but let us look at how National MPs ranked media compared to all the other MPs:

National MPs ranked the four TV channels much higher than other MPs did. Maybe this is minor parties upset that they do not get on TV much?

Despite the generally accepted lean to the left of Radio NZ, National MPs ranked Radio NZ higher than other MPs did. And while some on the left attack the NZ Herald at favouring National, National MPs actually ranked them lower than other MPs did. The Listener and NBR also get accused of leaning right, but again get ranked lower by National MPs.

The Nat MPs also rated the online media very lowly.

Now the journalists. I decided not to list all members of the press gallery, but only those who are relatively senior, and are more likely to have a reasonable number of MPs have formed opinions about them. Looking back I could have included more.

If any journalist is unhappy about being missed out, happy to include you next year. Now again it is worth remembering these are only the opinions of those MPs who responded to my survey – it is not an objective rating.

John Armstrong tops the ratings, followed by the NZPA Political Editor Peter Wilson. Generally MPs ranked journalists slightly higher than media organisations. As can be seen by the minimum ratings showing, some MPs were very harsh handing out zeroes. Did WInston multiple vote? (Note I have no idea if Winston did vote)

And once again we compare responses between National MPs and other MPs.

Again very interesting. The SST is generally seen as hostile to National, but Ruth Laugeson is ranked much higher by National MPs, than by other MPs. Likewise the Gordon Campbell and Brent Edwards (both left leaning) are ranked higher by National MPs than other MPs.

Also for some reasons National MPs ranked Ian Templeton very lowly. Maybe they don’t like his weekly chats with Clark and Key, ignoring the lesser MPs?

The gallery seem united in their view that Helen Clark will suspend or stand down Winston Peters today. She would be silly not to. In fact the SFO investigation has been fortunate timing for her – it lessened some of the focus on her personal lnowledge of the Owen Glenn donation.

Paula Oliver in the Herald says:

The Serious Fraud Office probe into New Zealand First’s finances announced late yesterday makes Winston Peters’ suspension as a minister unavoidable.

Claire Trevett reports that most of the party leaders are calling for Peters to be stood down.

John Armstrong writes:

Facing mounting pressure to deal with Peters to stop his multiplying crises tainting Labour by association, Helen Clark now has the perfect excuse to stand him down from his ministerial portfolios without his having any valid reason to complain.

Tracy Watkins in the Dom Post:

Phone calls between the Clark and Peters camps late yesterday ahead of a meeting today point to mounting pressure on Miss Clark to stand her foreign affairs minister down.

NZ First insiders insisted yesterday there was no prospect of him standing aside voluntarily.

Colin Espiner in the Press:

His position appears virtually untenable after the SFO yesterday started an investigation into claims that donations allegedly solicited by Peters from Sir Robert Jones and Vela family interests did not reach New Zealand First.

I expect it will be announced before midday.

The papers this morning look at Goff’s positioning. Tracy Watkins at the Dom Post reports:

Helen Clark’s heir apparent, Phil Goff, appears to be positioning himself for a leadership tilt if Labour loses the election, dropping his previous denials that he had ambitions for the job.

Mr Goff, Labour’s third-ranked minister, has also conceded Labour could lose the election as it battles a mood for change. …

Though he is widely accepted as Miss Clark’s successor should she step down after a Labour loss, his opening the door to that possibility now is likely to spark damaging leadership speculation. …

In response to further questions, he said being prime minister was “not an overwhelming ambition”.

That contrasts with a comment in February when, asked if he had ambitions to be prime minister, he said: “I have absolutely none.”

Goff claiming to have no ambitions to be Prime Minister could almost be called perjury. Even his statement about no “overwhelming” ambition probably rests on a Clintonian type definition of “overwhelming”.

The Herald also looks at his answers:

Mr Goff did little yesterday to make amends for his public admission that he wants Helen Clark’s job if Labour loses the election.

“There is no question about leadership at the moment,” he said yesterday when questioned about his pre-recorded television interview.

A seasoned politician who wanted to end discussion about leadership would usually give such an answer unconditionally, without qualifications such as “at the moment”.

It is no secret that Mr Goff wants to be Labour leader, but it is the first time he has acknowledged it publicly and it is the first time a senior Labour MP has openly contemplated defeat.

The qualification is unnecessary because people always know that the statement doesn’t imply forever. So by stating the obvious “at the moment” tends to be for a reason.

There is of course no chance Goff will challenge. But what he may be signalling is in the event of a loss, he wants a quick change. He doesn’t want Clark to stay on for 18 months, giving other contenders the time to build up support and get the job ahead of him.

John Armstrong also reads the tea leaves:

The body is still breathing – just. But some of the family already seem to be fighting over the corpse.

It is a sure sign that a Government is on its last legs when its members admit they might lose the coming election and discuss – even in passing – what might happen to their party afterwards. …

He may have stated the obvious in saying “there’s a prospect we might lose”. However, no matter how dire things might be looking – and they do look pretty dire for Labour right now – no politician worth his salt admits the possibility of defeat. Never. Full-stop. Period. And certainly not a politician as smart, seasoned, politically wired, competent and ultra-careful as Goff.

Goff is known as ultra-careful. He has been in Parliament since before most university students were born. He has especially been careful on issues of leadership as for the last 12 years he has been the focus of attention. Not once in 12 years has he said what he said last night.

This is the first time Goff has ever opened up on the possibility of his leading the Labour Party. Even if he did not say that much, it was in marked contrast to his line back in February. When he was asked then if he had leadership aspirations, he replied “absolutely none” and instead heaped praise on Helen Clark.

Those who argue this means nothing at all, have no experience with how leadership contenders position themselves. Now trust me, one thing I know about is leadership contenders and coups. I’ve seen MPs and leader’s press secretaries negotiate words so they can express confidence in the leader, yet keep their options open. The language around confidence in the leader is very precise and deviations from it are well understood.

Again this does not mean Goff will try anything before the election. He does not want to be Mike Moore, and he would not win anyway. But it is a signal that post-election he will vigorously contest the leadership and on his timetable, not necessarily Helen’s.

Dominion Post Political Editor Tracy Watkins looks at Labour’s plight:

And, finally, the desperate knowledge that even hitting the panic button probably won’t work. That, barring the heavens answering their prayers for an election-losing blunder by John Key, the two most likely scenarios now are to lose or to lose badly.

I like that – a choice between losing and losing badly. It is at times like that you start looking forward to the next election, and start debating whether one should not spend all (or too much) of their money on the 2008 campaign, or keep some in the kitty for 2011.

There are early signs that the mood in the caucus is already swinging in that direction: resentment is now brewing over the MPs who have refused to give up their safe seats – George Hawkins and Harry Duynhoven among them – to clear the decks for the generational change that will be forced on Labour in the event of an election defeat.

Both Harry and George have been reselected and control their local electorates. But there will be immense pressure to put the party first and step down, so that some of the new talented MPs such as Lousia Wall have a chance of retaining their place in Parliament.

But the party hierarchy faces a pincer movement as pressure builds on two fronts: the first, the desperation of sitting MPs for winnable list slots; the second, the rising pressure to preserve the best and brightest in Labour’s current ranks and make room for some up-and- comers to slot into Parliament post-election should there be an exodus in the event of a defeat.

Since Miss Clark and Dr Cullen are likely to lead the pack, the subterranean- level jockeying for post- election leadership scenarios may have already begun.

There are whispers that the campaign against Maryan Street, a possible deputy leadership contender from the Left of the party, is already in full swing.

The signs of panic, then, may be in their infancy – but they may also be a sign of things to come.

Street as Deputy Leader would be very resisted by Goff and the more moderate faction. Gof would rightly suspect he would be being setup to be interim Leader, and then rolled by the same forces which rolled Moore in 1993.

So who are the contenders for the three top spots. First Leader:

1. Phil Goff
2. David Cunliffe
3. Shane Jones

Goff has to be favourite at this stage. With Maharey gone and Mallard in the sin bin, there is no credible contender from the left – Goff, Cunliffe and Jones are all from the more moderate side.

Deputy has a range of contenders:

1. Maryan Street
2. Clayton Cosgrove
3. Shane Jones
4. Chris Carter

Maybe Dyson or Dalziel also, but both would be challenging choices having both been sacked from Cabinet for indiscretions.

And then Finance Spokesperson:

1. David Cunliffe
2. Trevor Mallard
3. Shane Jones

Cunliffe is the logical choice, but logic does not always come into it.

Lots written on Auckland Airport today. I’ll divide it up into the legal, political, and economic. First of all look at this story by Audrey Young:

On Monday night, after the Australian sharemarket closed, the Government changed overseas investment rules ensuring that if even the Overseas Investment Commission approved the sale, the two ministers with the final say, Clayton Cosgrove and David Parker, would be able to say “no” and withstand judicial review.

I would not be so confident about it withstanding judicial review. Despite attempts to isolate the two decision making Ministers, it is obvious that the issue has been pre-determined for them. And as Chris Carter found out with the Whangamata marina, the Courts do not like Ministers pre-determining issues.

On the political side, Vernon Small blogs:

Labour is cock-a-hoop today over the Auckland Airport (we-won’t-let-it-be-bought-by-a-Canadian-pension-fund-but-don’t-want-to-say-it-that-blatantly) regulation change.

Just a day after Prime Minister Helen Clark predicted the ‘fun would begin’ once National started debating policy John Key has looked surprisingly leaden-footed in response to the change – a popular move with the electorate, I would imagine, but one which National would instinctively reject.

National’s response hasn’t been particularly well-targeted it seems to me. The issues I would focus on are:

• One shouldn’t change the rules at the last second – moves like that destroy investment and jobs and push up interest rates
• The rules should be clear as to what is and is not allowed, and this change means no one will be sure now what the ground rules are

Tracy Watkins has an article in the Dom Post, with the headline being “Nats will not ban airport sale”. Now please bear in mind Tracy does not write the headline even though it is her story. The headline though is a misleading one as it suggests Labour is banning the sale, and they are not. They are changing the rules, but they are not banning it.

On the economic front NZ Herald economic editor Brian Fallow looks at the dangers:

The Government is running risks with New Zealand’s reputation as an investment destination by suddenly turning Overseas Investment Office approval, long a rubber stamp, into a serious hurdle for the Canadian bid for Auckland Airport.

It has changed the rules in the closing minutes of the game.

And it does this reckless thing at the worst possible time.

The country has for 20 years enthusiastically taken advantage of the opportunities globalisation provides to access foreign capital.

Had we not, had we relied on what we ourselves are prepared to save and invest, the economy would be a lot smaller than it is.

Indeed.

Fran O’Sullivan counts the cost:

Helen Clark’s Government has wiped hundreds of millions of dollars off Auckland Airport’s value in a vainglorious move to exert “local control” over an asset that passed into majority private ownership more than a decade ago. …

The upshot is that New Zealand’s hard-won reputation as a “fair dealer” that welcomes foreign investment has now been carelessly hammered by a Government which is bent on milking the Auckland International Airport takeover for political advantage.

What Helen Clark and Finance Minister Michael Cullen forget as they blatantly ramp up the foreign investment bogey during election year is that the 50,000 retail shareholders in Auckland Airport also have votes.

The NZ Herald Editorial labels the move xenophobia:

This is populist politicking, pure and simple. An administration reeling in the polls has stooped to courting xenophobia. Only that explains the timing of the intervention. If the Government genuinely viewed this as the right policy, it could have acted when the airport first attracted overseas interest.

Andrew James in the Dom Post reports:

More than $300 million was wiped off Auckland International Airport’s market value after the Government introduced a late rule change …

$300 million wiped out.

And The Press editorial weighs things up:

… But it is doubtful if it is much more amenable to the national interest — whatever that is — under its present ownership than under Canadian ownership. Both owners would be subject to the same laws and regulations, and liable to the same pressures from governments local and national. Both owners would seek to maximise their profits and returns to shareholders. Materially, the only difference to occur under Canadian ownership would be a larger flow of profits offshore.

New Zealand does not have the capital or human resources to fuel its development, but it does not like the large foreign inflow of people and finance that development needs. The way to solve the conundrum is not to pass regulations but to upskill New Zealanders and make them more wealthy. Then they could own and manage their assets.

The Press gets it somewhat wrong with saying more profits would flow overseas. Because the domestic money freed up from any sale could well result in more money flowing to NZ from overseas.

The Visible Hand  in Economics deals with this and other economic issues. Gives a nice list of benefits and costs of foreign investment.