Which brings us back to the current stand-off.

    Yes, it’s about asset sales, the Treaty and the Government’s poor timing in the week leading up to Waitangi Day.

    But it is also, and mainly, about the Maori Party’s positioning.

    Goaded by Mr Harawira, and needing to deny it is National’s poodle, the party has come out swinging – and not for the first time in recent days. …

    Well, last year the Maori Party argued it needed to be at the table with National to be effective.

    But Labour, Mana, the Greens and NZ First feasted on its votes, despite its public stand over Auckland council seats and the foreshore law.

    Mr Key has shown the way forward in the current stoush; a clause that makes the Crown’s Treaty obligations clear while leaving private investors out of the mix.

    It remains to be seen whether the Maori Party will reluctantly claim that deal as a partial victory or continue to pound the table.

    However, the appearance of disunity is not necessarily instability – though it is no surprise Labour is talking that up.

    It will likely take a lot more goading from Mr Harawira before Dr Sharples and Mrs Turia finally push back their chairs and leave.

Things would be much more difficult if National had one fewer seat, and could not govern without the Maori Party. National should hope that its MPs in marginal seats are all in good health!

I am as mad as hell and I’m not going to take it any more.

Ok, that might be going a bit far.

I admit I’m not one to get especially outraged by political spin – or to be surprised that an election campaign will bring out the worst lies, half-truths and statistics.

But with just three days to go, here are the top five things I am sick of hearing from politicians, press releases or “loyal” supporters.

1) National will sell Kiwibank

No it won’t. Certainly not in the next three years – quite the reverse. in fact if it has any intention of winning in 2014 it would be nuts to even try, and frankly it is a bit soon to be fighting the 2014 campaign.

This is Labour’s latest lie. This is despite John Key saying National will never sell Kiwibank while he is Prime Minister. Labour can’t win on the truth.

The other four things Vernon is sick of hearing is:

• The after-tax wage gap with Australia has closed
  
• The number of people leaving for Australia is/was better/worse under Labour/National
• There is a $16 billion hole in Labour’s fiscal plans
• Labour will only borrow an extra $4b
• Winston Peters’ voters are dying out

I’m pleased to see that Vernon’s estimate of extra debt under Labour is close to mine. I make it $12b and Vernon says “about $10-12b”.

Of course that is just Labour’s extra debt. You have to add on the billions to appears Greens, NZ First and Mana also.

Those who think Nicky Hager is just another left-wing stirrer and dismiss his latest book accordingly should think again.

Likewise, the country’s politicians should read Other People’s Wars before condemning it.

Whatever Hager’s motive for investigating New Zealand’s contribution over the past decade to the United States-led “war on terror”, it is pretty irrelevant when placed alongside the mountain of previously confidential and very disturbing information his assiduous research and inquiries have uncovered.

With the help of well-placed informants and thousands of leaked documents, Hager exposes the cynical manner in which the Defence Force has purposely misled the public by omission of pertinent facts and public relations flannel.

This is particularly the case with regard to the “candyfloss” image the military has built around the deployment of New Zealand soldiers in the Bamiyan province of Afghanistan.

That image is of our soldiers acting more like peacekeepers armed with nothing more dangerous than a shovel.

The last couple of paragraphs do resonate with me to a degree. People forget that Helen Clark sent soliders into both Iraq and Afghanistan. With the exception of the SAS deployment (which she simply wouldn’t talk about), they were portrayed as just being engineers and builders who happen to be soldiers. Their role we were told was purely to help the locals, and nothing to do with those nasty wars.

Fair enough. But the Defence Force has sought to paint this deployment in a completely different light. Hager has cut through that pretence with the evidence to prove what has always been surmised – that the real reason for such deployments was not to help the inhabitants of Bamiyan but to impress the hawks in Washington.

Hopefully it is a mixture of both, but I’ve never doubted that Clark sending troops to both Iraq and Afghanistan was about keeping the US and to a degree the UK happy.

Vernon Small has a different take at Stuff:

A speed read of Nicky Hager’s latest book shows his usual impressive access to detailed documents and meticulous sourcing.

The insiders’ claims about ministers being kept in the dark may be true; the SAS in particular is obsessive about secrecy to the point that even a description of the ceremony farewelling Corporal Doug Grant was refused.

But the lens Hager uses gives a different view of New Zealand’s base at Bamiyan than one gleaned from a week-long visit there last month.

For instance, he claims that, despite media visits and hundreds of soldiers passing through the base, the military managed to keep secret the fact that they shared the Bamiyan camp with a United States intelligence base.

In fact, I, and other reporters before me, were introduced to US intelligence and communications staff at Bamiyan and at other Kiwi forward bases and ate and chatted with them. The stars and stripes flies alongside the New Zealand flag at Bamiyan to advertise the US contingent.

I’ve said before that Hager has good research skills, but his failing is he sees (or portrays) everything as a conspiracy or deep dark secret.

It was not a surprise that New Zealand is plugged in to the US-Nato intelligence and communication system across the war-torn country. It is something this reporter was specifically briefed on, although with a request not to publish details for operational security reasons.

Suffice to say that, from my observations, the information Kiwi troops glean is far more extensive than anything that flows the other way. Was the CIA there? I don’t know, and Hager only surmises.

The links tell New Zealand forces where other coalition forces are operating and let them call in US air support, both key factors in a multi-national force. Problems getting air support were highlighted in the report on the attack that killed Lieutenant Timothy O’Donnell.

Sounds reasonable to me.

Hager also points to a lack of understanding among the public about the Kiwis’ role in Bamiyan; that coverage was all airbrushed PR spin showing “friendly New Zealand soldiers handing out gifts to smiling children, building schools and wells”.

He may have had a case in the early years.

But for almost three years now, after the 2009 attack on the base at Do Abe and the first Kiwi casualties caused the military to upgrade its armoured vehicles from Hiluxes to LAVs, there has been no shortage of coverage highlighting the risks and the dangers.

Far from trying to cover that up, the soldiers on the ground I talked to were eager for the New Zealand public to know they were fighting in a dangerous war zone.

I think this is right. Early on things were somewhat sugar-coated, but I think in recent years we’ve come to understand better how the Bamiyan mission is not some safe engineering operation.

I come to defend Steven Joyce, not to bury him. In the fracas over the Government’s decision to let radio companies pay for their licences over five years, rather than pay $96 million up front, he has taken more than his fair share of unfair criticism.

Oh dear. I expect Vernon will now be pilloried on certain left wing blogs.

Suggestions that Mr Joyce, the communications and information technology minister, had some sort of conflict of interest in helping out the Brent Impey-led company (that Mr Joyce established) survives only till you know that Mr Joyce and Mr Impey are . . . errr . . . not close.

Mr Impey, with Canwest, led a successful “unfriendly takeover” of MediaWorks in 2001- that is, one bitterly opposed by Mr Joyce.

I was unaware of this, and not seen this in any other media. It is a good story that adds new facts to an issue.

The minister initially opposed any deal with the commercial radio sector. To protect himself further, he also sought advice from the Cabinet Office and was told he did not have a conflict of interest. It might have been wiser politically for him to step aside anyway, but that is miles away from any wrongdoing.

Those who have never actually worked in business (like most Labour MPs) have no real idea of what does and does not constitute a conflict of interest. They think that any affiliation or association what-so-ever means you must recuse yourself. This is not so. This would see the Minister of Finance unable to own a home, or the Minister of Agriculture unable to be a farmer.

Of course, it fits Labour’s narrative of a Government pandering to the few not the many, feathering the nest of its rich mates and acting as lobby-fodder for business.

But is Labour saying it wants a hands-off approach to business, whether or not that involves job losses?

WE SHALL never know what would have happened had MediaWorks been denied the payment relief and asked to stump up the full $42m at the end of 2009 – as advertising rates were falling, the economic outlook was bleak and banks were ultra-cautious about lending.

If one or more major media companies had failed, more than 1000 jobs could have been on the line. …

Mr Joyce is also blunt about the political fallout if the Government had said “get stuffed” and one of the big companies had collapsed. Once it was known the Government had rejected a deal at commercial interest rates with all the frequencies held as collateral, ministers would have been pilloried as hard-hearted, far-right, hands-off ideologues.

Is there a single person who doesn’t think Labour wouldn’t have done exactly what Vernon writes above, and lashed the Government for destroying jobs if it had refused the deferred payment scheme, and a major broadcaster collapsed?

Phil Goff’s leadership may not be on the line today at the shadow cabinet meeting in Dunedin, but no change is no longer an option.

That’s also a big call.

Looking again at the wider leadership team including Annette King and David Cunliffe and making a change there may be the answer.

Helen Clark did it in 1996 to shore up her leadership.

At the time her rivals did not have the numbers to roll her, but she recognised the concern in the party at its poor poll rating and knew she needed to act.

The result was her deputy and finance spokesman David Caygill hit the cutting room floor in favour of Michael Cullen, creating the leadership team that was so effective for Labour during nine years in office.

Politically that might work, even though it would be quite unfair. Goff is the one who has ballsed up so badly, and I don’t think King has done anything much wrong – we don’t know what she advised Goff. And the fact the incident happened at her house is not a reflection on her. There’s nothing wrong with having a colleague stay with you – in fact probably saves the taxpayer money.

But Annette is very loyal to Labour, and it is possible she could walk, to save Goff.

There is clearly a split between Goff and the party or at least president Andrew Little over the handling of the issue and the lack of communication. It goes deeper than the papering over of the cracks that occurred late on Sunday when the two finally talked about the issue.

Labour is in full fund-raising mode, made difficult by the current controversy. Its activists on websites and blogs are openly questioning the party’s direction and Mr Goff’s judgment. Its union backers and foot soldiers need to be motivated but are in danger of being demoralised.

Business as usual is simply not an option.

Meanwhile in a seperate galaxy, located well beyond the Andromeda Galaxy, Stuff reports that “Phil Goff has said the Darren Hughes affair has ‘strengthened’ his leadership”

You can’t make shit this good up.

Image courtesy of Iidiot/Savant.

The meteoric rise of Wellington Central MP Grant Robertson to Labour’s front bench will further fuel speculation that he could be a future leader of the party.

I’ve long said that I think Grant will become Labour Leader, and indeed probably even a Labour Prime Minister.

I don’t think he will be the next leader, but the one after that. He is young enough to be able to wait his time.

However, asked about his leadership ambitions before yesterday’s reshuffle, he said: “Every politician has got ambitions. Every politician … wants to be a minister but it is also really important to take one step at a time and not get too beyond yourself.”

Which is saying of course he wants to be Leader/PM, but one step at a time. Quite nice to have an MP not deny he has ambitions – after all most of them would like to be PM.

Only the God of politics could have delivered Don Brash walking a plank when his party was preparing to dump him. It took the same divine intervention to make John Key say he was going to lead “a Labour Government” when some hardliners in his party were worrying his compromising style would create a “Labour-lite” administration.

The same evil deity had his sport with Labour leader Phil Goff this week. First it made him refer to his finance spokesman David Cunliffe as David Caygill – reminding anyone who can remember that far back that he was part of the 1980s Labour Government and the legacy that Labour has been so keen to distance itself from.

Then he shot himself squarely in the foot by saying at least he had not said he would be the leader of a Labour government.

Well, if you say so, Phil.

And that quote also made Page 2 of yesterday’s Dom Post. It has not been a good week with a no confidence letter from Te Atatu, a speech that flopped, two gaffes and now Manurewa at civil war and a possible by-election.

If Mr Goff wants to increase his extremely slim chances of an upset at the next election, the process is all too slow and too late.

Of course, the received wisdom is that oppositions should keep their policy powder dry till close to the election when voters are focused, the media are more even- handed between the government and the opposition and your best ideas cannot be stolen by your rivals.

But these are not normal times.

Mr Goff is a decent and able politician.

But he is up against perhaps the most popular prime minister in his lifetime. If he and Labour seriously think that in a presidential-style campaign he can shade Mr Key they are dreaming.

If they think he can be sold as the experienced solid alternative – when Miss Clark failed on that score – they have not been watching the crises Mr Key had to negotiate in his first two years as prime minister.

It amazes me how badly Labour under-estimate John Key. You think they will have learnt by now. National never liked Helen Clark, but they always had a healthy respect for her political abilities. Labour seems to believe their own (plagiarised from right wing blogs) slogans.

Labour’s slim hope is that National will lose the election through a series of unforeseen errors or disasters or a severe downturn in the economy.

And that is not impossible. Unlikely, but can’t be ruled out.

Goff needs to do a re-shuffle to have a better chance of victory. The entire front-bench are Ministers thrown out at the last election. Goff needs to promote to the front bench and second row new MPs such as Robertson, Hipkins, Nash, Curran, Twyford and Shearer etc.

Top of the Class

1. John Key 8.5/10
2. Simon Power 8.0/10 – they suggest he moves to Education
3. Steven Joyce 7.5/10 – possible Finance Minister in the future
4. Gerry Brownlee – has risen from defeat to become one of Govt’s best assets – they say he may be in line for deputy PM
5. Tim Groser – 6.5/10 – a good example of why you have List MPs, doing an excellent job in trade

Casualties

• Richard Worth
• Bill English over his housing allowance
• Melissa Lee over Mt Albert
• Aaron Gilmore over his CV
• Pansy Wong over her travel

Struggling

• Anne Tolley 4.5/10 – valiantly trying against the powerful education unions
• Rodney Hide – 4.0/10 – his imploding caucus
• Georgina te Hehheu – 2.5/10 – what does she do?
• Pansy Wong – 2.0/10 – even before she quit, they say she had sunk without trace

Rising Backbenchers

• Craig Foss – favoured to narrowly beat his Hawke’s Bay colleague into Cabinet
• Hekia Parata – a strong showing in Mana, and in her previous career
• Chester Borrows – a solid Chairman of Justice & Electoral Committee
• Amy Adams – has shone in the House

The Success Stories

• The tax switch
• A stable Government
• Law & Order

Disasters and Pressure Points

• The economy
• The environment
• Natural disasters

Feel free to comment on whether you agree or disagree, any additions you would make, and where?

The most obvious omission to me is Tony Ryall in the top of the class. I doubt a single MP would say he is not up there.

It is hard to know whether to laugh, cry – or maybe cross your legs – when the prime minister is prepared to reveal off the cuff at a press conference that he has had a vasectomy.

Like his “joke” about being on the menu at a Tuhoe dinner, it has gone around the world, but this time he hit the right note.

It is testament to his extraordinary confidence and openness – unless you are so cynical as to think it was planned – that he is prepared to take such risks in the interest of a self-described “self- deprecating” joke.

His skill and wit may not be as sharp as David Lange’s, but he has the same ability to beguile his listeners. Unlike Lange, he rarely if ever turns his wit on others in a cruel way.

Which is one of the reasons he is very popular. I’ve never detected in Key the contempt and hatred for his opponents, that often exists amongst Prime Ministers.

It must be the cruellest cut of all for Labour that, at a time when the Government is on the back foot over so many issues – from the impact of the Budget on middle-income families to mining on conservation land to the seemingly transparent “blind trust” Mr Key’s lawyers have constructed for him – he can still ooze such easy ordinariness.

His approach – apparently instinctive – is not, as many would have it, simply a willingness to take calculated risks. It has now become an integral part of “brand Key”: ability mixed with the everyday; a man who can run the country and – that most valuable of attributes for many Kiwis – not be up himself.

I recall a few months after the election a couple of gallery journos saying how Key hasn’t changed at all since becoming Prime Minister. They were expecting him to do so, but he hadn’t.

If the normal rules of politics apply, Mr Key’s greatest asset will in time, as voters tire, become his greatest weakness. What is charming will become glib, what is light-hearted will become clownish and a light touch will become lightweight.

There is a risk there, but Key can also do serious. At business meetings especially I’ve seen him talk about business and economic issues with a level of detail I doubt any other PM could ever meet.

Labour’s Phil Goff and his inner circle had settled on attacking over the forecast spike in inflation, figuring there was a ready market for suggestions the tax cuts would be swallowed by rising prices.

But the case Labour has tried to make risks backfiring, because frankly, the evidence looks a bit fishy.

I had planned to write along these lines, but glad Vernon has done it for me.

The Treasury forecasts that inflation will surge to 5.9 per cent next year before falling back and staying at 2.4 per cent for three years; well within the Reserve Bank’s 1 per cent to 3 per cent band. It also notes that “underlying” inflation would remain relatively subdued and have a limited impact on interest rates

Next year’s spike includes 2 per cent from the rise in GST, which is compensated for by tax cuts and increases in superannuation, benefits and support for others on state-supported incomes.

More than compensated for.

It also includes a contribution of 0.5 per cent from the rise in tobacco excise (that Labour enthusiastically supported in Parliament)

Which will only affect smokers, and for those whom quit smoking will save them money.

and another 0.4 per cent from the fuel and power prices associated with the Emissions Trading Scheme, which Labour would implement with bells on, pushing inflation much higher. (In any case, the inflationary impact of the ETS was already included in the December half-yearly update.)

Now this is crucial. Quite a few people are unhappy at the impact of the modified ETS scheme, which adds 0.4% on 1 July to overall costs through higher petrol and power charges, but what Labour have not mentioned is their unmodified ETS would add 0.8% to inflation. They had passed a law which would have doubled the price increase due to the ETS.

Take those and the impact of GST away, and underlying inflation next year would be about 3 per cent, close to the top of the Reserve Bank’s 1 to 3 per cent band, but not so unusual.

The other thing Labour has not mentioned is they have constantly called for more government spending. This would mean a higher deficit and more borrowing, which would be inflationary. So their crocodile tears over inflation are less than convincing – their stated policy is to spend more, and to have an ETS which doubles the impact on power and fuel prices at 1 July.

On the other side of the ledger, as the economy improves, the Treasury expects wages to increase by 2.6 per cent next year (the year Labour chooses, because of the unflattering comparison with the 5.9 per cent inflation spike) and then rise by 3.5 per cent, 3.7 per cent and 3.9 per cent in subsequent years, while inflation is tipped to stay at 2.4 per cent.

These are just forecasts, and should be taken with the usual shaker of salt. But if you take one year into account you should be prepared to take them all.

On that basis, wages could well outstrip inflation in the next four years, and beat underlying inflation by even more.

As is generally the case.

Does Labour really want to argue that, as well as compensating for any GST rise, the Government should offset all the effects of inflation? That was above 3 per cent in 2001, 2006 and 2008 – when Labour was in power – and there was no similar call then.

Personally I would be delighted if Labour adopted a policy of giving people tax cuts every year to compensate for inflation. But somehow I don’t think they intend to.

The Labour Party is opening the door to policy change, including taking GST off food and clamping down on foreigners buying farms.

Phil Goff is trying to go to the left of Helen Clark. Taking GST off food is a daft idea. Mind you McDonalds will think it is a great policy.

And it is vital we must stop farmers from being able to sell their farms. Imagine if a foreigner buys a farm. One minute it is sitting there in the Waikato, and suddenly the foreigner has packed the farm up and moved it overseas. The dirt, the grass, the cows, the sheds – all gone. Just a big chasm left in the earth.

I wonder if Winston will sue Phil for stealing his policies? I mean they already share major funders, so sharing policies is next logical step. Maybe their shared name can be Labour First.

Halting contributions to the Cullen superannuation fund has cost the taxpayer more than $30 million.

If full contributions had been maintained, it would have earned almost $50m more, calculations based on the fund’s returns to the end of January show.

Even accounting for the extra borrowing costs the Government would have faced to keep up contributions, that would still have netted taxpayers about $1m a week during the past eight months.

First of all, it has not “cost” the taxpayer anything. The taxpayer may have been able to make a gain of $30 million if it had borrowed more money, for the fund to invest. That is certainly true, but it is a potential gain only.

You can not automatically assume that any additional investments would have achieved the same return as the existing investments. An extra $2 billion may have been invested in a stock that did not do so well, or may have meant a higher average price for buying such stock.

It is fair enough to talk about a potential gain or that was missed, but that is not the same thing as stating that potential gain as a loss let alone a cost. That is a sloppy short cut.

Also it is worth reminding people that reward is always linked to risk. One could borrow $10 billion a year to invest in stocks, and probably get a good return on them. But it would also be risky.

What we don’t know if whether or not we would have got a credit downgrade, if the Government decided to continue to borrow money to invest. And if we had, then that would have had a very real cost on every New Zealander.

It is also worth noting that over the entire life of the fund, the rate of return is still below the risk free rate of return. The NZ economy would be hundreds of millions of dollars better off if the fund had never been set up, and the money used to repay debt.

At Tuesday’s caucus meeting in Manukau, Goff will be confirmed resolutely as leader. Under the party’s rules the leadership must be addressed in the first caucus of the year before election year.

Before inviting the caucus back to his Clevedon farm for dinner, he will deliver a short message to his MPs – do better than you did last year.

The implication must be that if they don’t shape up, they will be shipped out.

That is a fair message, as some in Labour have not performed and are missing in action, such as Parekura. Goff should seriously consider a front bench reshuffle and sticking up some of the 2008 intake. He also needs to think about signals to former Ministers – ie does he see a place for them as a Minister, if Labour should win. Then they can make decisions about retiring, and allow further new blood in next election.

Foreign Affairs spokesman Chris Carter had a shocking year, due in no small part to his reaction to media stories about about high travel costs. He will miss the first caucus meeting because he is in the Caribbean monitoring elections for the Commonwealth.

Parekura Horomia made no impact against the Maori Party but is seen as untouchable because he held his seat against it, and is the senior Maori.

Shane Jones, whose leadership ambitions are a frequent source of teasing by National, made no impact in his areas of environment and economic development, but was de facto Maori Affairs spokesman.

And David Cunliffe, whose leadership ambitions are a regular source of teasing within Labour, will be expected to do better against Finance Minister Bill English.

One could suggest Shane and DC need to concentrate on their portfolios, and not Phil Goff’s

Goff is expected to lead a concerted effort this year to make Cunliffe and other MPs put ordinary working people uppermost in their minds as they develop their portfolios and policies.

Is it just me, or the way many Labour MPs talk about “ordinary working people”, they sound like a curator at a museum who is enthused about studying them!

Vernon Small writes:

Labour leader Phil Goff’s job will be on the line at the party’s first caucus meeting of the year on Tuesday, but he is confident no challenger will emerge.

The party’s leadership is always on the agenda at the first caucus meeting of the middle year of each parliamentary term, but despite’s National’s jibes that he is “fill-in Phil” – an interim leader while Labour regroups – Mr Goff is so confident he has invited his team to a barbecue at his Clevedon home … bringing with it the inevitable jokes.

I agree that Goff will not face a challenge this January, and I doubt he will next January either. The odds are that he will remain Leader until the 2011 election (and I have money on iPredict that his job is safe this year).

There will be a bit of a danger period for him – it is the second half of 2010. If National is still 20 points ahead in the polls a couple of months after the 2010 budget (which is the most likely game changer between now and the election), then some in Labour may start to get nervous.

However two things should keep Goff in the job even if Labour remain 20 points behind. The first is the lack of confidence in the alternatives. The second is MMP. Under FPP, MPs would panic at bad poll ratings as them losing their seat meant the end of their political career. But with MMP those on good list positions are insulated from all but the most disastrous election results. So the propensity to panic for self survival is lessened.

• 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.

The Labour Party in conference assembled meets in Rotorua tomorrow (9/11 for anyone who can think of a tasteful metaphor) facing a suite of unique challenges.

The first is how to send a message loud and clear to an electorate barely listening that the opposition has drawn a line under the Clark-Cullen years. The second – and equally difficult one – is how to turn the career politician known for 28 years as Phil Goff into a real human being.

Their problem is nothing can change the fact Goff has been a career politician, who entered Parliament when John Key was a 20 year old student dating Bronagh.

He joined Labour at 16, did the usual stint as a student, a unionist and a lecturer and other than that has been an MP for almost all of his adult life.

Expect a significant and symbolic announcement in Mr Goff’s keynote speech on Sunday that will distance his leadership from the former government’s agenda in areas that got up the electorate’s collective nose.

Excellent. That would be sensible.

If Labour was to follow the mirror route on the Left it would need first to attack the non-vote, the grumpies who no longer have Winston Peters representing them in the House and perhaps some Greens to shore up Labour’s numbers. That – rather than a move to emulate National too soon – would give the party the numbers to present a threat and offer itself as a credible alternative government. Only then would it move back towards the centre.

If that is the right way forward, then the question remains whether Mr Goff, who is on the conservative end of the party, is the ideal leader.

He is their only viable leader at the moment and, if he succeeds in reconnecting with more conservative blue-collar (and brown) voters who left Labour for National (or swelled the ranks of the non- voters in 2008) then he may yet find an alternative road to the same end.

But on the other side are a popular prime minister, an economy showing signs of life and a seemingly Teflon Government. The odds are stacked heavily against him.

Labour’s biggest problem is still how out of touch they are with ordinary New Zealanders.

At Backbenchers last night, I was seated next to a prominent gentleman from the Far North. Wallace Chapman was talking about the cuts to adult community education, and giving examples such as cake decorating and Moroccan cooking. The young Labour supporters in the room were screaming out “shame” to the news that that taxpayers no longer fund cake decorating courses. The Far North gentleman observed how people in Wellington live in such a different world to the rest of the country.

I could guarantee you the vast majority of New Zealanders are not upset or shamed that they no longer fund cake decorating courses and Moroccan cooking classes, but are probably aghast we used to fund them. The only ones upset are those who used to do the courses or provide them.

If it does not move, tax it. If it can move, try to tax it less. If Treasury used single syllable words, that is how it might define its view of revenue raising.

That’s a great summary. And if we want to have decent economic growth in future we do want a tax system that drives people and investment offshore.

Put simply, since people can leave or  go elsewhere – and so can investment  dollars – they should be taxed the least.

On the other hand, local consumption – which attracts GST – can by definition only happen here.

Similarly, stuff that is nailed to the ground is relatively immobile, though the investment dollars that build and develop it are slippery.

GST is also a lot harder to avoid than income tax.

Much has been made of ministers “leaving the door open” to a capital gains tax, but that has long been a poisoned chalice. More pertinent is the group’s request for officials to also look at land or property tax.

By coincidence on  the Auckland-Wellington leg of the flight back from Hawaii, I was seated next to a prominent economist and the pros and cons of a land tax was part of the discussion. It is an interesting area to look at (on the proviso that any new tax be matched by reductions in other taxes).

But the economic case for a tax on the unimproved value of land are intriguing – though it would require a big sell to property owners, especially older voters, some farmers and Maori who are asset rich and income poor (with high levels of equity in their properties) and would take the biggest hit from any consequent fall in property prices.

A small land tax could take some of the heat out of the housing bubble, with less need for interest rate hokes in future.

A small tax on land alone could fund a big move in personal tax rates.

A 0.1 per cent tax – $460 million on the $460 billion of privately-held land – would offset the lost revenue from cutting the 38 cent rate to 33 cents.

Starts to get appealing.

It would genuinely broaden the tax base, taxing foreigners who own property in New Zealand, and be likely to push more investment into areas other than property while helping curb a new housing boom.

The inevitable drop in property values would be a two-edged sword. Home ownership would become more affordable, and the extra impost would give owners of bare land an incentive to develop it.

It would arguably be relatively progressive, because wealthier people tend to have more valuable property holdings. And it would provide far more predictable revenue than a capital gains tax.

There is also a ready-made framework in the local-body rating system, to help keep compliance costs down.

I look forward to some of the economist blogs discussing the pros and cons of reducing income tax and instituting a land tax in a fiscally neutral manner. So far the pros seem pretty strong.

Even so, it is hard to make the leap of logic that would see National – the natural home of the landed – slap a new tax on the land beneath their voters’ feet.

It comes back to how seriously you want to close that gap with Australia.

It is still early days and things could yet unravel over the detail.

But if politics is the art of the possible, then Finlayson’s and Sharples’ independent panel’s revisiting of the vexed question of ownership of the foreshore and seabed lays the foundations for achieving the seemingly impossible – an enduring cure for a longstanding political headache.

The panel’s review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act – required under National’s confidence and supply agreement with the Maori Party – has set solid benchmarks within which the two parties can negotiate the provisions of legislation to replace the law.

Good faith negotiations is preferable to unilateral retrospective legislation.

The NZ Herald editorial:

Six years does not seem a long time in the sweep of history yet it is time enough for a change in the political climate. The recommendation the Government received yesterday to repeal the Foreshore and Seabed Act seems unlikely to arouse the heat and fear that greeted the Court of Appeal’s 2003 ruling on Maori customary claims. Public opinion is probably no less committed now than it was then to the principle that public access to coastal attractions must not be compromised. But the constant assurances of claimants that access is not at risk appear to have become generally accepted.

And it is helpful the panel has stressed that at length.

Vernon Small writes in the Dom Post:

Politically, the report is a triumph for Tariana Turia and the Maori Party, and the involvement of National in any deal should help limit any Pakeha backlash.

(It is often easier for a party to make radical changes outside its traditional ideological envelope. Labour was able to go much further with privatisation and free-market reforms in the 1980s, before the public rebelled, than National ever could. National was able to get the Treaty settlement process steaming ahead under Sir Douglas Graham in a way that might have raised suspicion if Labour had been in the driving seat.)

Time – and other more pressing issues, such as the economic crisis – have helped put the debate into context.

It is just such a shame for us as a nation that a court ruling which found that, in some rare cases, iwi and hapu could have a set of residual customary rights amounting to freehold title could ever have been allowed to generate so much angst – and racial and political heat – as this one did. The two basic principles – that legal rights should not be unfairly seized and that access to the beaches and freedom of navigation would remain a general right – should have been indisputable.

Colin Espiner blogs:

I’ve just had a very quick read through the Ministerial Review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004, which has been released under embargo until 3pm.

It’s three volumes long and runs to hundreds of pages, but in a nutshell what is says is this: the Foreshore and Seabed Act is discriminatory to Maori and should be repealed.

Hardly a surprise, given the panel was hand-picked to provide just such a judgment by the Maori Party – indeed, Pita Sharples threatened to sack it if it didn’t come back with such a finding.

The panel is savage about the Foreshore and Seabed Act, calling it “simply wrong in principle and approach”, discriminatory, and indeed so unfair to Maori that it considers that a Crown apology is necessary.

I have a smile on my face as I think of the look on all the Labour MPs faces as John Key gets up and apologises on behalf of the Crown to Maori – not for something done 150 years ago, but for the actions of Helen Clark’s Government earlier this decade.

The panel recommends a national settlement that gives Maori customary title to the foreshore and seabed, alongside specific usage and access rights to local iwi depending on their claim. It says some form of public right to access and navigation also needs to be written in.

It says that in the meantime, an interim act of Parliament should be passed repealing the legislation, setting up the process for the new system, recognising both Maori title and public access issues, and allowing the Crown to hold legal title until the whole thing is settled.

It’s not a bad compromise, I have to say, and I’m actually pleasantly surprised. I’ve said before that a return to court could be a nightmare for all sides, and the whole thing would drag on for years.

The Government’s response in August will be interesting. Also interesting will be Labour’s response. Phil Goff has, to his credit, been supportive. However I hear one of his senior colleagues has been around the gallery trying to whip up reaction against the report. I wonder if Goff knows of this?

Labour leader Phil Goff said the moves were “a witch-hunt” against board members simply because they were not National Party supporters.

“National is determined to go back to the old days when you needed to be a card-carrying National member to get appointed.”

There is standard hypocrisy and then there is this. Did Phil Goff remember voting to appoint Mike Williams to six different boards? Did Phil Goff remember appointing Di Yates to three or four boards as the “price” for getting her to leave Parliament?

And we won’t even talk about the the fact that the reason Wellington got called Helengrad is that because anyone who dared to disagree with Labour was put on a blacklist. Not only would they not get board appointments – their firms would be ineligible for any government contracts. This was all common knowledge. Dozens of business leaders said they would never publicly criticise the Labour Government as they would be shut out.

And what is Goff complaining about anyway:

A spokesman confirmed yesterday that State-Owned Enterprises Minister Simon Power had written to “a number” of directors telling them that when their terms ended on April 30 they would not be reappointed.

Oh my God. How dare National not reappoint directors that Phil Goff and Helen Clark personally chose. This is not a “sacking” as with the ACC Chair. This is just a normal expiry of term. Of course that doesn’t prevent the hsyterical claim:

National has launched its night of the long knives on state boards, with a range of mostly Labour-leaning directors being told they no longer have a job.

Now most readers are educated people and know what the night of the long knives was, but for those who do not it is when Hitler had his political opponents (in his own party mainly) killed. Personally I think a reference to Nazi executions is somewhat over the top, Vernon. Again these are not sackings – just terms expiring. And who is not being reappointed:

It is understood the casualties include Meridian Energy director Polly Schaverien and former Labour staffer Tony Timms from the board of Quotable Value.

Tony Timms is the former Labour Party General Secretary and senior staffer in Helen Clark’s office. Polly Schaverien has been a staffer both in the Labour Party Research Unit and in Trevor Mallard’s office.This does not automatically disqualify them of course, but you know the outrage from Goff is just so hypocritical.

What is amazing is the sense of entitlement that Goff exhibits. How dare National not reappoint people he and Helen Clark selected.

One saw in Canada the same culture of entitlement in the Canadian Liberal Party after they were in power for many years. They had such a sense of entitlement that they handed out government advertising contracts to their mates, who agreed in turn to donate a portion back to the Liberal Party.

Incidentially NZ Labour once considered doing something similiar. Their general secretary in the late 80s floated the idea of having the Government give some contracts to Labour’s advertising agency, as Labour owed them lots of money and was having trouble paying. Luckily the idea was never taken forward but it shows the danger of having that sense or culture of entitlement.

Former finance minister Michael Cullen is expected to quit politics in the next two months. …

But party sources said Dr Cullen’s departure was imminent, and would certainly be before the May 28 Budget.

Former Tasman-West Coast MP Damien O’Connor is next on Labour’s list and would be first in line to take Dr Cullen’s seat.

Miss Clark’s resignation would trigger a by-election in Mt Albert. List MP Phil Twyford is seen as the front-runner to be Labour’s candidate. Next in line to replace him would be former Auckland Central MP Judith Tizard.

Everyone assumes Damien will accept the list spot. I certainly think he will. I do wonder if anyone has actually asked him?

There may be one small complication for Damien. The Taito Philip Field trial is in April I think. Now I don’t know if Damien will be a witness, but it is possible. And there could be some embarrassing stuff come out on two fronts. The first is why Damien approved such a massively high proportion of requests from Field. The second is his insistence he was not warned about what Field was doing, despite numerous warnings sent to his office.So Labour may want to delay Cullen going until after the trial.

Judith Tizard returning, would be of course wonderful. Every party in Parliament has edged away from her daft s92A law. But wonderfully Judith was on radio yesterday giving it her full support.

At some stage I’ll write the “eulogy” for Michael Cullen – probably when he does announce his resignation. The term “flawed genius” is what most comes to mind as the theme.