Kiwiblog

During the week we caught up with one of Dad’s old school mates. He went on from Wellington College to become the inaugural JRR Tolkien Professor of English at Oxford University. Normally I skip lunches with my parents’ friends, but I wasn’t going to pass up the opportunity to chat to him about Oxford, and Tolkien (whom he met).

We asked for the apartment manager to recommend a nice place for lunch, and ended up at one of those very fancy Kensington cafes, where the food and the service are top class. As you can see above, they even tie bows through the potato chips!

The food looked so ood I had to keep taking photos of it. Tasted great also.

If you are in London, and have not done so, check out the Hyde Park Tube. Lots of these great sketches there.

There are permanent protesters opposite Parliament, and they are often colourful, or just nuts – like this one. For the record I do not think the Royal Family or freemasons killed Mark Quinsey, but the Real IRA.

I’m a bit surprised that they have a statue of Oliver Cromwell up outside Parliament, considering his corpse was dug up, hung in chains and beheaded. Plus the Irish basically hate him as he killed lots of them, and sold 50,000 more into slavery.

Got invited to the Marquis of Granby for leaving drinks for a staffer from Conservative Central Office and had a fun time catching up with some old friends, and meeting some more staffers from CCO.

I love how in London the licenses allow people to drink outside on the street – you get more people drinking outside, than inside.

Also had a good catchup with various blog people at the Southerner – my only regret was I could not stay long as I had a bqq to attend also.

On Sunday, we flew out from Heathrow to Vienna.

Have been too busy to manage to blog every day on the trip, so here is the rest of the week in London in one condensed post.

The problem hasn’t just been the daytime activities, but also work has been very busy. When I scheduled the trip I thought July/August would be quite quiet, but have ended up having heaps of extra polls scheduled since the trip started. This has meant that most mornings I am having to analyse poll results and most evenings am having to prepare questions and databases.

Now don’t get me wrong, it is very useful to be able to still earn money, while out of the country. Helps cover the costs of the trip in fact!  But it does mean the holiday is not a total holiday.

Barclays have sponsored them, but they are universally known as Boris’ Bikes, and got launched this week. It’s a great idea, stolen from the French in fact. You register for a key, and the can grab a bike from any stand and use it, dropping it off at any other stand. If you use it for less than half an hour there is no charge.

This is the “green” at Parsons Green, where my Mum lived when she was a nurse in London. It’s a very nice place- less busy than most of London.

And this is St Dionis, where my olds got married around 49 years ago. Sadly the church wasn’t open (once upon a time churches were open all the time), so only saw the outside.

This is the apartment we stayed at in London. Around 500 metres from Gloucester Road or Earls Court Tube. A very nice area. The apartment wasn’t huge and they are expensive, but it was preferable to a hotel.

Foyles is one of the huge bookshops in London. I managed to restrict myself to just buying three books there. One of them is “Third Man” by Peter Mandelson which is a fascinating insight into New Labour, and the Blair/Brown relationship.

I also got three books at Heathrow, so adding those to the ten I started with, I am now travelling with 16 books. Have finished six of them so far.

This is the rear side of Buckingham Palace, seen from their gardens. It is the end point of the tour of the state rooms.

The state rooms tour is only available eight weeks a year, and by chance opened the week we were there. I’ve previously seen the Mews and the Gallery. This is a tour well worth doing if you visit from late July to late September.

There is an outdoor cafe at the back of the Palace. I declined to enrich the Windsors further.

The birds enjoy Her Majesty’s back lawn.

To exit the grounds, you walk for around 800 metres through the Palace garden, which is almost worth doing for itself.

A short walk away, by Hyde Park is this statue of the man our capital city is named after – Arthur Wellesley, the 1st Duke of Wellington.

Most people know he defeated the French under Napolean at the Battle of Waterloo (which globally was very significant), but not so many know he also served as Prime Minister of the UK (twice) and also was elected to the Irish House of Commons earlier on. His major achievement as PM was giving Catholics full suffrage!

Wellington, ranks along Nelson and Churchill as one of the three great British war leaders.

As I have to be over at Docklands around 7 pm, an earlier start time for drinks seems prudent. So I’ll be at the Southerner at 5 pm now.

It’s at 46 Essex Street, WC2R 1AP and is also its penultimate day as it closes at the weekend.

On Monday night I popped along to a pub meeting with new UK Conservative MP Steve Baker. Baker was addressing a gathering of the “Progressive Conservatives”, which is the classical liberal group within the Conservatives.

The group was co-founded by my mate Shane Frith, whom I was in Young Nats with. I co-founded the equivalent group in NZ, the Blue Libs. So sort of amusing that we’ve both managed to set up classical liberal groups in two separate countries.

At the function, had a nice ego boost when one of the women there asked if I was David Farrar, and said how much she enjoys reading Kiwiblog. I thought I had finally gone global, until she mentioned she used to work in NZ.

The IYDU Chairman, Tim Dier, also turned up and I got him hooked onto Four square. So blame me for his location updates!

The following night I went to see Les Mis at the West End. I can only describe it as magnificent. No wonder it has been playing for 25 years. The songs are so good I am still singing them to myself a day later, and the cast were real stars.

Javert is the real figure of pity, unable to comprehend why his enemy saved his life.  I loved Gavroche, and his death is one of the few sombre parts of the production.

Wellington has great cultural events, but my God if I lived in London I would be going to shows every few weeks.

If you have never seen Les Misérables, then go do so the next time you are in London. If you don’t enjoy it, you need to seek medical help

For those I haven’t managed to catch up with in London, I’ll be at the Speights Bar, the Southerner (46 Essex Street, WC2R 1AP) from around 5.30 pm to 6.30 pm on Friday.

We are staying in the Kensington area, which means the Kensington museums are all within walking distance, which is great. I’ve previously visited many other museums in London, but not the Kensington ones.

The Natural History Museum had massive queues, so we headed to the Victoria & Albert Museum. They claim to be the world’s great museum of art and design, and I reckon they well could be.

The museum is huge. We barely did half a floor in two and a half hours – and there are six floors. They have a collection of 4.5 million items and 145 galleries!! And no admission charges!

Samson slaying a Philistine

The Ascension of Mary

St Peter

That little dog like creature that St Michael is standing on, is actually Satan in dragon form.

I love this tapestry from around 1425. The bears look so happy despite it being a bear and boar hunt.

Moses

A plaster cast of the famous “David’ by Michelangelo.

A plaster cast of the tomb of Richard I, or Richard the Lionheart, at the Abbey of Fontevrault.

In the centre of the museum, is this lovely park and pond with a cafe.

I rate this museum as a must do. The only problem is you need a week just to get around it.

We arrived at around 9 am and knew room would not be available until the afternoon, so we had pre-booked tickets to do a cruise on the Thames and then the London Eye. Been here a few times before but never got around to doing the eye.

The Palace of Westminster, from the Thames. I love how high they manage to fly the Union Jack.

Salient obviously gets too much funding from VUWSA if they can afford their own boat.

The world famous Globe Theatre.

The HMS Belfast.

My favourite bridge – Tower Bridge.

This is the office for London Mayor Boris Johnson. Very cool. Beats the Wellington Town Hall.

I like the contrast with the ancient Tower of London in the foreground and that giant dildo shaped building in the background, commonly known as the gherkin.

Then after the cruise it was up the eye. Each pod is pretty spacious.

Buckingham Palace in the distance, taken with 12x zoom.

London stretching off into the distance.

The queues for the Eye were pretty long, but they are actually quite fast moving and in the end spent less than 20 minutes waiting to load. Definitely worth doing once.

The Independent reports:

The British government faces a second Tory backbench revolt over plans to change the rules to delay a general election if the Liberal-Conservative coalition collapses.

Senior Conservative MPs oppose a plan to give David Cameron or another senior politician 14 days to form a new administration if the Government is defeated in a Commons vote of confidence.

They say the proposed breathing space would weaken the powers of the Queen and they want her to retain the right to decide when to call an election.

Those so called senior Tories are talking nonsense about the Queen’s powers. She does not decide when elections are called, except in the rarest of scenarios.

What is proposed is quite standard, if you have a fixed term Parliament. If a Government loses a confidence vote in the House, you see if an alternate Government can be formed. If not, then you dissolve Parliament.

14 days is a reasonable amount of time to wait to see, and rather than be a hindrance for the Queen, it actually will be a protection. She is less able to be attacked, because the law will have less discretion for her.

If we ever move to a fixed term Parliament here, then we may need to debate how to deal with successful no confidence motions.

The Telegraph reports:

A Tory MP was so drunk during a late night debate about the Budget in the Commons that he was unable to vote, it has emerged.

Mark Reckless was one of a number of MPs accused of being “well-refreshed” and “convivial” during the late night sitting which finished at 2.48am on Wednesday.

The 39-year-old new MP for Rochester and Strood had been drinking alongside scores of MPs on the Commons Terrace and was not the only one said to be worse for wear.

Mr Reckless, who became an MP at the general election in May, was understood to have had difficulty standing and has scant recollection of the night.

“I feel very embarrassed,” he said. “I’m terribly, terribly embarrassed. I apologise unreservedly and I don’t plan to drink again at Westminster. It was a mistake I will not be repeating. I have learned my lesson.

“I don’t know what came over me. It was a long day and I’d had a very early breakfast meeting.

“I normally have just one or two and know when to stop. I don’t know what happened. I don’t remember falling over.”

Mr Reckless said he decided not to take part in the vote because of the amount he had had to drink.

He must be a new MP if he can’t come up with a better excuse than he had a very early breakfast meeting!

Labour and the unions in NZ keep decrying the Government for freezing the budgets of most state agencies. They think borrowing $250 million a week is not enough, and it should be more.

What they do not understand is that if you do not get debt and spending under control, then you end up with the type of deficits in the UK (and US) which require more dramatic surgery, as reported here:

The only departments not included in the Treasury trawl will be health and international development, which have been “ring-fenced” for the current Parliament. Education and defence will also escape lightly.

Alexander has told the Education Secretary, Michael Gove, and the Defence Secretary, Liam Fox, to plan for two scenarios – cuts to budgets of 10 per cent at best and 20 per cent at worst over four years.

All other departments – including the Home Office, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Transport – have been ordered to produce plans showing the impact of cuts of 25 per cent, and at worst 40 per cent.

So the best case scenario is a 25% funding cut and the worst case is a 40% cut.

Makes a freeze look rather benign, doesn’t it.

Reuters reports:

Britain will hold a referendum in May on its biggest electoral reform in decades in a vote that will test its coalition administration, a government source said.

Voting reform was one of the biggest stumbling blocks in creating Britain’s first coalition government in 65 years after an inconclusive election in May ended 13 years of Labour rule.

Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron had long opposed any reform, but said after the election he would compromise to form a stable government, despite opposition within his party.

The concession was one of the key factors behind the formation of a coalition with the Liberal Democrats that saw its leader Nick Clegg named Deputy Prime Minister.

In the referendum, voters will have their say on switching from the current “first-past-the-post” system to an “alternative vote” (AV) model, similar to that used in Australia.

I think the UK will vote for AV, and it is a better system than FPP. It will be interesting to see what effect it has on the Lib Dems.

In theory the Lib Dems should pick up more seats under AV. In a seat where Labour or the Conservatives comes third, their votes will be redistributed and I expect most of those votes will go to the Lib Dems as second preference rather than the traditional opponent party. So that may help them win an extra 20 seats or so.

The more common scenario is that the Lib Dems will come third, and whomever their voters name as next preference will determine who wins the seat (if no one gets over 50%). While each Lib Dem voter will decide for themself, the experience of Australia is that most tend to follow the advice of their parties in terms of ranking the candidates. The “how to rank” cards given out by party activists are very important.

Broadly speaking whichever party gets endorsed by the Lib Dems as being their second preference could do very well under AV. Now normally I would expect this to be Labour, but if the Conservative/LD Government stays together and is successful, a preferences deal could shut Labour out of office for some time.

The Herald wants a decisive budget:

Seldom has a Budget been as crucial to the economy as the one that Finance Minister Bill English will deliver this week. It is immediately crucial to the housing market, where activity has been practically frozen while prospective buyers and sellers wait to see what tax will do to property investment.

And it is crucial to the country’s productivity that something is done to divert investment from housing and consumption to industry and exports.

After years and years of complaints about the property boom, and the impact that has had on inflation and interest rates let alone the banking crisis, finally a Government is taking some steps towards fixing this. They don’t go as far as Bernard Hickey would want, but they should be a good start.

The minister has made no secret of this objective. For many months he has been travelling and speaking with charts to illustrate his concern that New Zealand was in an export recession long before the domestic sector’s housing bubble burst in 2007 and it was struck by the recession of 2008.

While household and Government spending had been happily rising year by year, export activity had slumped in 2005 and has not recovered.

Quite incredible that the tradeables sector had in fact been in recession for Labour’s entire last term of office.

The Press looks at how the UK Government may learn from us:

The spectacle of the United Kingdom looking to New Zealand for constitutional guidance, during the formation of its coalition Government, is rare and perhaps unprecedented. …

The recent general election there may well have inaugurated a long-term weakening of the political parties. The increasing social mobility of the population and disenchantment with the behaviour of MPs is lessening the tribal affiliations to Labour and the Conservatives. The result is an increasing willingness among the electorate to switch from party to party according to the prevailing political climate.

This could well be the case. In the past conventional wisdom was National had core support of 35%, Labour had 35% and 30% were swinging.

But we have seen National’s support drop to 21% in an election and Labour drop to 14% in polls in 1996. There are very few core supporters left now.

Whatever the scenario, New Zealand has lessons for the British. We wrote the rule book for coalitions in a Westminster system of government, and it was that which helped the British through their recent experience of putting together a Government from competing parties. That the process was so smooth and rapid can be significantly attributed to the processes formulated in Wellington.

Of course with Winston we learnt the hard way!

The Dominion Post asks Phil Goff to explain:

Labour leader Phil Goff would like the Reserve Bank to aim at more targets. The almost certain result of this is that it will miss them all.

Absolutely. Goff is trying to retreat from every good policy that his party has previously supported.

New Zealand has, by and large, been well served by the Reserve Bank Act, with its single-minded focus on the inflation rate. The tools available to the governor to achieve that may be blunt, and his task made more difficult by New Zealanders’ determination to pump every spare dollar – and every dollar that can possibly be borrowed – into property, but at least he or she has only one goal to chase, and it has been relatively successful in keeping the lid on inflation.

You can achieve one target well, or you can not achieve multiple targets. Plus it is also an attempt for a future Labour Government to blame the Reserve Bank Governor when unemployment is high, rather than the elected Government.

There is also a need for caution on democratic grounds. Economic changes that can drastically affect people’s lives should be made by those whom the people can hold to account at the ballot box, not appointed officials. An expanded role for the bank makes it all too easy to muddy the lines of responsibility, and to use the bank as a scapegoat for economic failure – the same trick has been used to duck responsibility for health, where failures become the property of area health boards while successes are claimed by the minister.

The same point I made above before I carried on reading.

It is still a good while until the next election, but Mr Goff is still a good way away from delivering a coherent economic policy that offers alternatives rather than a parcel of vagaries.

So far the policies are not at all future looking, but attempts to revisit debates from 20 years ago.

I am surprised at the number of parallels there are between the UK 2010 formation of Government, and what happened in 1996. Here’s a few of them:

1. The third largest party gets to decide who forms the Government.
2. It is a party that professes to be centrist but overall is distinctly centre-left
3. They had a choice of a majority Government with the CR party or a minority Government with the CL party. This was a key factor in 1996 and 2010.
4. They went with the centre-right party, despite great policy similarity with Labour
5. In both cases the arrogance of the Labour negotiators was a significant factor in pushing the third party to go the other way.
6. The agreement between the two parties is a full coalition, with the minor party leader becoming Deputy Prime Minister
7. Rather than confront issues when they come up and agree up front on just a few policies (as has happened from 1999 onwards in NZ), they have negotiated a very detailed policy programme.

The question is, will it end up the same way as National/NZ First – in divorce.

The agreement to set a five year term of Parliament (proposed that one needs a 55% vote in Parliament to have an early election) will encourage them to work out differences.

However the policy differences are huge in areas like Europe, and with fiscal policy. Sure they have reached agreement for now, but in two or three years Conservatives will want to push harder one way, and Lib Dems activists harder the other way. It is hard to see enough common ground to last for five years.

Three factors in favour of them lasting the distance are the three leaders:

1. Nick Clegg is not Winston. He can be trusted and is rational.
2. Cameron is a centrist and should be able to work with Clegg. The challenge is keeping his Caucus happy.
3. Will Labour be a credible alternative. It will depend on who becomes Leader, and how well they do.

Overall I would not put money on them lasting the full five years. I think they will last at least a couple of years, but after that the differences in policy direction may get to be too great.

David Cameron is now the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Congrats to Prime Minister Cameron and my many friends in the UK who were fighting for this outcome.

The Telegraph has a great timeline of the last few hours, as the Labour and Lib Dems negotiation fell apart.

Nick Clegg is to be Deputy Prime Minister in a full coalition. That should give stability. They have also agreed on the desirability for a fixed election term, which means the next election which can be held any time up to May 2015, may be set in law for May 2014 and every four years there after.

The Lib Dems have five Cabinet posts.

David Cameron is the 19th PM from Eton, out of 53 in total. He is the youngest for 200 years, aged only 43. I can safely say no one will ever beat Pitt the Younger’s record of becoming PM at age 24. Pitt was PM for a total of 20 years.

I’m very pleased by the result.  Apart from the obvious political leanings, I had a lot of money on iPredict for Cameron to become Prime Minister.

The Herald looks at the Tuhoe negotiations:

At the best of times, reaching a comprehensive settlement over Waitangi claims is a delicate and tricky matter. But for a number of reasons the Tuhoe negotiations are proving especially difficult, and not just because some people in the National Government are becoming increasingly worried that their party is earning a reputation among voters for conceding too much to the Maori Party. …

But what makes the Tuhoe claim especially difficult is that the tribe is seeking a major concession that departs radically from precedents set in other Waitangi settlements. After two years of negotiations, Tuhoe remains adamant that ownership of Te Urewera National Park is at the top of its agenda.

If the Government were to concede, the resulting settlement would go far beyond any similar previous arrangements in which iwi have obtained significant areas of Department of Conservation land only to return them immediately as part of the deal. For instance, Ngai Tahu gave Aoraki/Mt Cook back to the nation after its settlement.

At a practical level, the Tuhoe claim seems to envisage something similar inasmuch as it promises that public access to some of the country’s most beautiful land would not be compromised in any way. But, importantly, it goes much further in aiming to take over the ownership and financial management of the land from the department after a 10-year transition period.

Given the justice of its claim, there is no question that Tuhoe is in line for major concessions and a payment that will be close to the Tainui and Ngai Tahu settlements of $170 million each. All the most recent historical research suggests the Tuhoe people were treated exceptionally harshly and that they are owed a full apology and generous compensation.

Tuhoe was always going to be the most challenging negotiation.

The Dom Post says Jim Anderton must choose between Mayor and MP:

Progressive Party leader Jim Anderton is a man untrammelled by self-doubt.

In a political career that stretches back 45 years to his days on Manukau City Council, he has been a member of four political parties and fallen out with virtually every high-profile figure he has worked with. Never does it appear to have occurred to him that he could be in the wrong.

So true.

Hence it comes as no surprise that Mr Anderton believes he can perform the roles of MP for Wigram and Christchurch mayor at the same time. He is mistaken.

They are both fulltime positions. One is based in Christchurch; the other is split between Christchurch and Wellington. Both carry fulltime salaries.

Anderton will earn a total of just over $400,000 (including super and allowance) or over $7,500 a week doing both jobs.

Christchurch ratepayers are paying good money to be represented by a mayor who devotes his energies to advancing the city’s interests. He cannot perform that role if he is spending several days a week in Wellington.

Taxpayers are paying good money to Mr Anderton to represent the interests of his electorate in Parliament. He cannot perform that role from the mayoral chambers.

One could clone Saint Jim.

However, it is not Parliament’s role to serve as a safety net for politicians who would like new jobs but are not sure whether they are going to get them.

If Mr Anderton wins the Christchurch mayoralty in the October local body elections, he should resign from Parliament. In fact, he should give thought to resigning ahead of those elections, or at least take unpaid leave for the duration of the campaign, as many other candidates for public office are obliged to do.

Just as he will not be able to represent Wigram’s interests in Parliament if he becomes mayor, so he will not be able to do so on the campaign trail.

Saint Jim has a private members bill that requires an MP to resign from Parliament if they contest a by-election. Yet he thinks he should be able to contest a Mayoral election as an MP.

The Press looks at the UK:

For the Lib Dems, electoral reform is at the top of their wishlist in any deal, whether it be a formal coalition or the sort of support arrangements common in New Zealand, with either Cameron’s party or Labour’s Gordon Brown.

This stance is not surprising given last week’s disproportionate election result. While the Lib Dems got 23 per cent of the votes cast, which was a disappointment following polls showing them at abound 30 per cent at one point, they won about 200 fewer seats than Labour, which gained 29 per cent of the vote. At the other end of the scale, the Tories gained 36 per cent of the vote, but won about 47 per cent of the seats.

These sorts of outcomes are as palpably unfair and undemocratic as was the unreformed voting system in New Zealand, and Nick Clegg should hold firm to his party’s proportional representation policy as he talks to Cameron and Brown.

And the ODT:

The election result has presented Mr Clegg with choices: going into government with the old Conservative foe, risking alienating many in his own party ranks; or throwing in his lot with Mr Brown and a governing coalition otherwise comprising a number of smaller independents, the chief danger of this being the perception of Labour, a distant second in the poll, as tarnished.

This could work against any subsequent referendum on electoral reform, thus defeating the chief purpose of such an alliance.

The markets, already spooked by Greece, have shown their impatience.

Mr Clegg’s role as “king-maker” – one he might have formerly anticipated with some eagerness – has been served up by the voting public along with a generously sized poisoned chalice.

We await the outcome with fascination.

The Telegraph reports:

On a day of high political drama, Mr Brown seized on David Cameron’s failure to secure a pact with Nick Clegg by opening formal talks to agree a so-called “coalition of losers”.

In a surprise announcement, the Prime Minister offered to oversee talks between the two parties before stepping down by the time of the Labour conference in September, when a new leader would be chosen by party members. …

If accepted, the proposal would mean Mr Brown remaining in Downing Street for another five months and voters being presented with a second unelected prime minister in a row.

It would be quite remarkable if the Prime Minister turns out to be someone who wasn’t even a party leader at the election. It rather undermines the notion of informed consent by voters.

Of course it is not unusual for leaders and PMs to change mid-term. This is how Geoffrey Palmer and Jenny Shipley became PM. But I can’t recall an occasion when a person becomes PM pretty much straight after the election, despite not being the party leader who contested it.

This puts some pressure on the Conservatives. Either they make a better deal to the Lib Dems, or they remain in Opposition, and hope they can bring the Government down quickly.

The Lib Dems have a risky decision to make also. If they go with Labour, because of a better deal on electoral reform, they will be desperately hoping the Government lasts long enough to allow for an electoral reform proposal to be agreed on, drawn up in detail, and put to the public in a referendum. This could well take 18 months or longer.

If they shut the Conservatives out, then they will do everything they can to bring the Government down early, and in a second election could well win a majority which means the Lib Dems lose the chance of any electoral reform at all.

To some degree it is a bit like the old saying about a bird in the hand vs two in the bush. The Conservatives and Lib Dems combined can definitely remain in Govt and implement any deal on electoral reform – even if it is only preferential voting (which will help the Lib Dems in many seats). However Labour is obviously willing to offer “two birds” electoral reform which may be something in between SM and MMP. But it is less likely they can pass it into law, as they will not have a majority.

It will be fascinating to see what happens. My money is still (literally) on David Cameron becoming PM, but I note the share price for this has dropped from 92c to 86c.

The Herald approves of the electoral finance bill:

The Government’s long-awaited bill reforming electoral finance law solves many of the problems created by its contentious, discredited and repealed 2007 predecessor and the dated 1993 Electoral Act. …

It is better than both the EFA and the status quo. Personally I wanted to see considerably more reform, but accept the Government made a decision not to push through changes, which did not have wide parliamentary support. Effectively Labour were given a veto over the changes.

Several new measures have been raised since details of the reforms were announced in February.

The most welcome is news that a separate bill will finally be introduced to tighten the use by parties and MPs of parliamentary funds to campaign to voters. …

A bill later this year will align the parliamentary and electoral law definitions in the “regulated period” or three months before an election. Parties will no longer be able to spend parliamentary money for communications other than those that “explicitly” seek people’s support or party vote or donations or membership of their party.

News I exclusively broke here, using papers I obtained under the OIA.

The Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill sets a three-month regulated period, down from the entire calendar year of an election in the 2007 law, and limits it still further if an election is called fewer than three months from polling day.

The regulated period is shorter if the election date is announced less than three months before the last possible election date, not just the actual election date. Expect to see this change at select committee.

The Dominion Post has advice for Nick Clegg:

Welcome to our world. Britain is about to face the realities of coalition government. The voters have delivered an MMP result under a first-past-the-post system, effectively leaving the Liberal Democrats to decide who gets to form the next government. It is small wonder that the New Zealand Cabinet Manual is being avidly read in Whitehall offices. …

However, Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg will have to be careful not to overplay his hand. His party’s tally of 57 seats is fewer than he and others expected, and he needs to be conscious that how he behaves now will play a huge role in how Britons view proportional representation.

Mr Clegg is unlikely to have a better chance to push the cause of electoral reform with the other parties than he does now while still in the role of kingmaker – at the time of writing no deals had been struck – but if he is seen as putting his party’s interests ahead of those of the country, or of seeking to be the tail that wags the dog, there will be a backlash.

As some NZ parties have found.

And the ODT looks at local government:

The pros and cons of what exactly are local government’s “core activities” continue to be debated by the public in a somewhat desultory fashion, while it is obvious central government has long embarked on providing the statutory means by which local councils can shed what might once have been regarded as essential services in favour of the private sector. …

Mr Hide’s Local Government Amendment Act 2002 Amendment Bill, which has received its first reading in Parliament and will now be further considered in select committee, enables local councils to offer tenders to private companies to provide water services for up to 35 years, essentially a technical change since councils can already take that action, but only for a 15-year period.

He has argued that the change is necessary because 15 years is not sufficient to enable an adequate return on the economic life of water assets.

In other words, his Bill is designed to make the possibility of privately contracting water services more attractive.

But even if the Bill survives without radical change, it does not necessarily mean water services will be privatised.

Indeed, councils will retain control of services should they opt to have components contracted to private providers; the restrictions on the sale of council water services in the Local Government Act 2002 remain.

d

People may be interested in what the British Parliament would look like if they had used proportional representation for the 2010 election, with a 1% threshold.

1. Conservatives 248 seats
2. Labour 199 seats
3. Lib Dems 158 seats
4. UK Independence Party 21 seats
5. British National Party 13 seats
6. Scottish National Party 12 seats

I suspect the thought of 13 British National Party MPs would be off-putting to many.

No one does headlines like The Sun. The story starts:

A MAN aged 59 was squatting in a luxury home near the Houses of Parliament last night.

The squatter, named as a Mr Gordon Brown from Scotland, was refusing to budge from the Georgian townhouse in Downing Street, central London – denying entry to its rightful tenant.

Hat Tip: Whale Oil

Meanwhile the Telegraph reports Gordon Brown ranted and threatened Nick Clegg during a phone conversation.

While the Guardian reports a Conservative memo on Europe may be a barrier to them doing a deal with the Lib Dems.

For my 2c, I am convinced David Cameron will be the next Prime Minister.

1720: I have to drive to the Wairarapa so last update from me for a couple of hours at least.

1716: 100 seats to go. Cons 268. Lab 212. LD 42. Cons need to win 56/100 seats for a majority – this will not happen. If they get 46 though then they can govern with Irish support.

1708: BBC now predicts Conservatives 308 seats. Add in Unionists 8, Alliance 1 and the seat not being contested due to a death which is safe, and they have 318 seats in their corner, out of 446 (excluding Sinn Fein)

1658: BNP Leader Nick Griffin got 6,500 votes in Barking. Far too many, but well off even second place. Labour’s majority has gone up as many Conservatives and Lib Dems voted tactically against Griffin.

1652: Conservatives have 262 of 528 – almost half. But of remaining 121 seats, a fair few are strong Labour. Labour on 199 and Lib Dems 40. Not LD share of vote just 6% less than Labour.

1651: Greens win their first ever seat in Commons with Leader Caroline Lucas elected in Brighton Pavilion

1640: BBC has done formal projection that Conservatives get 306 seats. By coincidence that was exit poll projection also, and my one. If Conservatives get over 300, I think Cameron will be Prime Minister fairly quickly.

1630: Cons 241 and Lab and Lib Dems combined 228. Chance of majority all but gone. Now the focus is on Cons vs Lab/Lib Dem.

1601: Lord Ashcroft now speaking on BBC. I have fond memories of being entertained in Sydney on his super yacht. He is a very smart operator, and very funny guy.

1557: Sinn Fein do not take their seats up so in reality 324 seats will be a majority. If Conservatives do not get a majority (which I think is the case) what will be key is if Labour and Lib Dems combined can form a majority. If so, then Gordon Brown will offer anything. But if Lab/Lib Dems would also need support from a third or forth party, then I think inevitable Cameron will be PM. At this stage Cons has 223 and Lab/Lib Dem 203.

1554: Cons 220 out of 441 seats declared. But some strong Labour areas to come.

1545: Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has lost her seat of Redditch by a massive 6,000 votes. In her concession speech it was noticeable that amongst the people she thanked, she did not mention her husband. He infamously charged the taxpayer for porn films he ordered.

1525: Louise Bagshawe has won Bagley off Labour. She was in NZ recently promoting a recent book.

1519: Yay. A mate of mine, Chris Kelly, has won Dudley South with a huge 9.5% to win the seat off Labour with a 4,000 majority. Well done Chris.

1503: Over half the seats have declared (325/650) and seats are Cons 157, Lab 123, Lib Dems 23, Others 25. Vote share is Cons 36%, Lab 27%, Lib Dems 22%. I can not see a Conservative absolute majority but Conservatives should pick up more seats in second half as mainly English seats to go.

1439: Cons 122 to Lab 108 and Lib Dems 19. Cameron says Labour has lost mandate to govern. I do wish the BBC would do what US networks do and do projections based on safe seats not declared.

1404: Conservatives and Labour now tied on 76 seats each

1357: The Witney count has one person dressed as Boss Hogg and another as Jesus. Hilarious. This is Cameron’s seat and he has won it by a huge 22,000 majority.

1325: One seat just had 13% swing to Conservatives. Huge.

1315: Conservatives now picking up a few seats from Labour. Count is Lab 43, Cons 24, Lib Dem 4.

1248: Turnout in Tooting up 10%. That is good.

1247: Tooting had a big swing to Conservatives but Labour held it as Lib Dems voters went to Labour. Tactical voting like this may mean Conservatives do not do as well as exit polls project

1244: Best seat name so far has been “The Wrekin”. That would be great to say you are the “MP for The Wrekin”. Also amusing that the Conservatives held Christchurch.

1235: Gordon Brown has won his seat but the star was Derek Jackson on the Land is Power party who sent the entire time on stage with a raised clenched fist and wearing sunnies. He got 57 votes.

1204: The seat was a gain from Labour with a 9% swing.

1203: Tories finally win a seat.

Conservatives still yet to win a seat. I do wish they would stop treating the exit poll as holy writ.

Peter Robinson has lost his Belfast seat. He was the First Minister for Northern Ireland with the ad wife who was sleeping with a 19 year old. A huge 22% swing against him.

Sinn Fein has now won a seat and are currently the second largest party in the UK Parliament, according to Phil Lyth.

UPDATE: I’m going to blog in reverse order to normal and up do updates at the top of the post, not the bottom, so easy to see them. Now at Malthouse watching the results. Malthouse have provided free wireless which is great of them.

Am amused that the Conservatives are trying to talk Labour out of power on the basis of the exit polls with claims it is impossible Gordon Brown could continue on. As the Conservatives are yet to win a single seat, I think they are being rather premature.

I’m going to head down to the Malthouse for live viewing of results at 11 am. Use this thread for discussion etc as they come in.

So far just one seat has declared – for Labour.

The BBC exit poll predicts Conservatives will get 307 seats – 19 short of a majority. By coincidence a month or so ago I thought they might fall 20 short. I hope they make it, but 20 short is still a good guess.

The exit poll says Conservatives 38%, Labour 28% and Lib Dems 23%. 38% is the minimum I regard the Conservatives need to get an absolute majority. It could be close.

But it is all guessing. One of the fun things about FPP is that elections are far more unpredictable. Predictions based on uniform swings are rarely right as swings are not uniform.

We have a new venue in Wellington for watching the UK election results.

The Malthouse has said they can run BBC World Service on their TV, and very kindly have agreed to open an hour early at 11 am for us. So come along to 48 Courtenay Place between 11 am and 3 pm tomorrow (Friday) to enjoy and analyse the results over drink and food. 11 am is two hours after polls close so we should at that time be starting to see what the final result may look like.

I’ll still have my laptop along, so I can blog from the venue. Others should feel free to do the same, as they can be great for getting detailed results in some areas. Goes without saying that it is open to everyone – Labour supporters, Conservative supporters and even Lib Dem supporters.

For Wellingtonians, the Backbencher has put aside a table for us at the back of the bar from 11 am (opening time) until 4 pm on Friday. Polls close at 9 am so results should start to be flowing by then.

We won’t be using the TV screens as the Backbencher doesn’t have BBC. In fact it seems no bar in Wellington does. But we’ll have laptops there so we can stream coverage and check out the latest results as they come in. There will be a power supply to the table, so feel free to BYO laptop.

I’ll be there from 11, and enjoying a few beers during the day.

For those in Auckland, an offer has been made to host interested people at the Harlequin Bar in Point Chevalier at 1130 Great North Road. If you are keen to go along, let Tony know by e-mail.

The UK Polling Report has the average of the polls being Conservatives 35%, Labour 28% and Lib Dems 27%. They project this to be Conservatives the biggest party but 52 short of a majority.

Their projection has Conservatives at 274 and Labour at 264, so not impossible Labour could remain largest party, and govern again.

However 538.com are projecting Conservatives 308,Labour 198 and Lib Dems 113. You need 326 seats to govern.

Pollster.com is projecting 297 Conservative, 225 Labour and 96 Lib Dems.

So really it could be anything from a narrow Labour plurality of seats, to a narrow Conservative majority. That’s what will make the actual results so exciting.

A candidate in the UK elections this week has declared Gordon Brown the worst Prime Minister ever.

Now this by itself may not be surprising. Candidates say many harsh things about their opponents.

However in this case, Manish Sood was not speaking about his opponents, but his own party leader. He is the Labour candidate for north-west Norfolk.

Mr Sood, 38, said: “I believe Gordon Brown has been the worst Prime Minister we have had in this country.

“It is a disgrace and he owes an apology to the people and the Queen.”

I guess he won’t be making Cabinet if the Lib Dems put Gordon back in.

Personally I thought the Viscount Goderich (Frederick Robinson) might be the worst.

The polls in the UK close at 10 pm Thursday local time, which is 9 am in NZ on Friday. Results should start coming through from 10 am onwards.

I was thinking that if enough people were keen to watch them on a big screen, over a few drinks, I could approach a local bar to see if they could tune into the BBC for the day, in exchange for some thirsty daytime customers.

If you are in Wellington, and interested, let me know – either by comment here or e-mail. If enough are keen, I’ll make inquiries.

The Herald is on judicial transparency:

The legal profession, at least in its upper echelons, is so small that there are bound to be close and long-standing relationships between senior lawyers and judges which may create the appearance of conflicts of interest.

The possibilities have been amply demonstrated by the case of Supreme Court Justice Bill Wilson, who finds himself facing the Judicial Complaints Commissioner because, when he was a Court of Appeal judge, he failed to fully disclose the extent of his indebtedness to a lawyer appearing before him.

And that is the problem – the lack of disclosure. The debt, by itself, does not mean the Judge could not sit on the case, and be impartial. In fact Justice Wilson ruled against the lawyer’s clients in a number of cases.

But the matter does not end there because now the Judicial Complaints Commissioner must decide whether the judge’s conduct in failing to promptly and fully disclose the nature of the relationship needs to be referred to either the Chief Justice or the Attorney-General. Unfortunately, either course of action may also raise questions of the kind mentioned by the Supreme Court because Justice Wilson has had close associations with both office holders.

He and Mr Galbraith have been in a racehorse-owning partnership with Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias. On the other side of the equation, Justice Wilson and Attorney-General Chris Finlayson were partners at the law firm Bell Gully and Mr Finlayson is on record as calling him a friend. So whichever way this case may turn, it gives rise to the very kinds of doubts that the courts, quite rightly, are at pains to avoid.

The Attorney-General is friends, I am sure, with a large number of Judges. I think we have to be careful about not having unrealistic expectations that Judges and lawyers have no dealings with each other at all, except in court.

But whatever the outcome of this particular case, the courts should reconsider the old policy of secrecy and remoteness as a means of preserving confidence in the system generally. More openness in the form of a public register of judges’ pecuniary interests – much like that which applies to MPs – would be much more effective.

Compulsory listing of such things as business interests, partnerships, trusts and, importantly, debts would make any possible appearance of conflicts of interest immediately apparent and therefore defuse any controversy such as the one engulfing Justice Wilson before it had a chance to arise.

The idea of a register is worth considering.

The Press suggests the winner of the UK elections will inherit a poisoned chalice:

When the British deliver their electoral verdict on Thursday, the winning party will be presented with a poisoned chalice. The huge cuts the new government will have to make to spending ensure it will be hounded into deep unpopularity and be long branded as the Scrooge that ended a decade of prosperity.

The reality that the golden economy has been dead for two years and has been sustained by massive borrowing will not ease the predicament of the incoming administration. In the cause of weathering the economic storm, spending and borrowing was maintained; only now do the bills have to be paid.

Yet the Lib Dems and Labour keep insisting one should go on borrowing and spending more for a wee bit longer.

The Dominion Post marks World Press Freedom Day:

For most New Zealanders, today is just another working day to be endured before the next long weekend heaves into view. To journalists, however, it means more than that. May 3 is the annual date that Unesco has set aside as World Press Freedom Day, an occasion to celebrate the value of a free media.

It is a prize worth winning, but comes at a price. New Zealand journalists don’t get killed for doing their jobs in this country, but that is not true elsewhere. In 1975, Kiwi Gary Cunningham was one of five journalists murdered by Indonesian forces in East Timor wanting to prevent the world knowing of their invasion. And already this year, at least 12 journalists have been slain for following a vocation with attendant dangers.

Here, the risk normally involves being called a “little creep” by an angry prime minister, being ejected from the team bus by an irate sports coach, or being sued for defamation for – perhaps – wrongly criticising someone with a reputation to defend.

True.

Thus it is harder in a modern democracy to persuade a cynical populace that to do away with a free press is to do enormous damage to the body politic and civic discourse. In the West, it is more common for the public to dismiss the work of reporters as sensationalism, trivia, and “lies”. Sometimes, they are right.

More usually, they are wrong. People often forget that everyone errs and that their errors are rarely exposed for others to judge. Chefs’ mistakes are buried in the rubbish; doctors’ mistakes are in a graveyard.

In the media business, mistakes can be of fact, emphasis or omission – and are usually inadvertent. Unlike the mistakes of others, however, journalists’ errors are published or broadcast for everyone to see, and – in the best of the breed – corrected publicly.

Alas the public correction is all too rare.

The ODT calls for no delay to the ETS:

Having once claimed to be a “follower” of our trading partners in such legislation, New Zealand, the critics claim, now looks likely to be an international leader – out on a limb with a feigned carbon tax that may in time come to be regarded as either innovative or foolish.

Businesses, for one, have not been slow to remind the Government of this risk, arguing that the policy will make it even more difficult to trade successfully with other countries which have yet to implement climate-change responses, or plan to defer them.

They have asked for New Zealand’s policies to be “aligned” with those of our major trading partners – a request that on the surface appears reasonable but is realistically impracticable. …

Yet, if the world has so much to lose from climate change, then it behoves countries to take whatever steps they can to minimise the effects – as a matter of urgency.

A global solution is obviously required and Western nations, including New Zealand, must lead it, since they are in the best possible position to afford the costs and provide the technology and innovation to achieve it.

Here the ODT is wrong. If China is not part of a deal to reduce emissions, then the efforts of the rest of the world will be futile. China by 2020, will be producing more greenhouse gas emissions than the rest of the world does today – even if they live up to their Copenhagen pledge.

For New Zealand to now delay further what has already been a slow, step-by-step procedure, would deny pragmatism in favour of the changing winds of political fortune.

I don’t support a change to the ETS legislation being done under urgency. If however there is no post Kyoto agreement, which includes commitments from China, then the rationale for an ETS is greatly reduced.