Kiwiblog

Stuff reports:

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters says John Key should also be referred to police over his hosting of a radio show, not just RadioLive. …

I’m staggered that Stuff have not reported on the hypocrisy of that statement by Peters.

You see in 2008, the Electoral Commission referred NewstalkZB to the Police, for a prohibited election programme. And what was that election programme? It was an talkback programme hosted by Winston Peters (and another one by Shane Jones).

So Winston in 2008, did exactly what the PM did in 2011.

Unless Winston is being a total hypocrite (which of course he is), one can only conclude that he thinks he should have been referred to the Police in 2008, not just NewstalkZB.

Unlike Key, who did not talk about politics, Peters said during his talkback hosting:

We don’t mind who you vote for in your first vote, but buy yourself some insurance and give New Zealand First your party vote, your second vote

The Electoral Commission concluded in 2008:

the talkback programmes hosted by Winston Peters MP and Shane Jones MP, and broadcast on NewsTalk ZB, were broadcast in circumstances amounting to the commission of offences for the purposes of section 80 of the Broadcasting Act 1989

So let’s not hold our breath waiting for Winston to demand that he also be referred to the Police. Hopefully though the media will at least mention the gross hypocrisy.

Danya Levy at Stuff reports:

Opposition parties are outraged National is using the members’ bill ballot to advance laws updating old statutes which could be put through Parliament as government legislation.

Oh what a beat up by Labour and NZ First. Almost every members’ bill ever put up by a Government MP could be put through as government legislation in theory. But it is good for backbench MPs to gain experience of being in charge of a bill, and more importantly often law reform can occur quicker through the members ballot.

Labour and NZ First say their democratic right to progress their own legislation is being hampered by frivolous legislation.

The irony, after Labour fucked over the Greens and all other opposition MPs in 2008 2011 by fillibustering the VSM bill all year blocking all other members legislation. The hypocrisy as always is immense.

I mean Labour even fucked over their own private bill on behalf of the Royal Society of NZ, with their filibustering. Again, what effing hypocrites.

And Labour and NZ First are effectively arguing that National backbench MPs should not have the democratic right to enter bills into the members ballot. They are just sour because a National MP won one of the two spots.

Let us look at how many members (not Ministers) had bills in the last ballot from each party.

• National just 9 bills from 35 backbench MPs
• Labour had 15 bills from 34 MPs – so not even half their MPs bothered to submit a bill and they complain they are not winning the ballot
• Greens had 14 bills from 14 MPs – excellent
• NZ First had 1 bill from 8 MPs – again what hypocrisy complaining when someone else wins
• Maori Party – 1 bill from 1 backbench MP
• Mana Party – no bills from 1 MP

So maybe Labour and NZ First would be better spent submitting more bills to the ballot, rather than whining that National MPs are entering in bills they don’t like.

A member’s bill by National’s new MP for Tamaki Simon O’Connor was one of two to be drawn from the ballot yesterday.

The Joint Family Homes Repeal Bill seeks to abolish a 1964 law protecting the family home.

O’Connor said the Law Commission recommended scrapping the old law which “afforded the family home protection against the winds of financial adversity” because it was unused as the same protections were afforded in more recent legislation.

Asked why he had taken up the cause, O’Connor said there was a number of bills the Government had suggested its MPs look at adopting in their names.

“This one was suggested to me and I was happy to put my name to it.”

This has been the practice for Government MPs for as long as I can recall. Not all members bills are like this, but many are. In this particular case, this bill has been on the ballot for around two years – previously under the name of Jo Goodhew.

The Law Commission actually recommended in 2001 (off memory) that this law be repealed. The reality is that it is highly unlikely to ever be deemed a high enough priority by Cabinet to be given legislative priority. Hence a members bill means the law actually gets repealed.

Note again – the law was recommended for repeal in 2001.

Labour’s shadow leader of the House, Trevor Mallard, said it was “outrageous”.

“That sort of bill can be progressed through a statutes amendment bill or omnibus bill, where there is no argument about it.”

It was an unnecessary use of parliamentary time to do something that would have happened anyway, he said.

A simple question then. Why did Labour not repeal the law in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 or 2008?

“Someone who just signs on the dotted line to introduce legislation is effectively saying ‘at the moment there’s nothing more important in my electorate that this’.

“I feel quite sad for him.”

Trevor shows how he is a dinosaur of the past, who should stay there. First of all List MPs get to submit members bills also. Secondly, Very few members bills relate to an MPs electorate.

NZ First leader Winston Peters said it was an inappropriate use of the members’ bill process.

“This is just a device where (National) has used private members’ facilities to prosecute government policy.”

It blocked up the ballot, which limits MPs to one bill each, by increasing the number of National bills.

This comes from the leader of the party who submitted only one bill out of 8 MPs. Stop being a whining loser and go submit more bills into the next ballot if you want to improve your chances of winning.

Think if National adopted Labour’s tactics? They could filibuster a members’ bill all year long, so there are no more members ballots in 2012. That would really give them something to complain about. Yet, it would be exactly what Labour did in 2008 2011.

At Stuff I blog on Winston’s dilemma:

The sale of the Crafar farms must pose an awful dilemma for Winston Peters.

The leading bid for the 8000 hectares of farmland is $210 million from Shanghai Pengxin, a Chinese company.

Winston has spent most of the last 20 years railing against the Chinese. He has railed against Chinese immigration to New Zealand, he has railed against Chinese investment in New Zealand and despite being the foreign minister, railed against the 2008 free trade agreement with China (despite its having increased our exports to China by $3 billion and reducing our current account and trade deficits). …

But look at who else is lined up to buy them. Sir Michael Fay leads a group which is offering $170 million for the farms – $40 million less than Pengxin. If Pengxin is turned down, then Fay will pick the farms up for $40 million less than the market price.

Now if there is one person that Winston Peters hates and rails against even more than the Chinese, it is surely Fay. Peters alleged all sorts of wrongdoings by Fay and Richwhite in the late 80s and early 90s, and this led to the Winebox inquiry.

It gives me a certain pleasure to reflect that whatever the outcome, Winston will be unhappy

Stuff reports:

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters has warned that planned Foreign Affairs job losses and the closure of overseas posts will cost more in the long run than they save.

A State Services Commission report last year said the ministry was looking at slashing 200 jobs out of almost 1000.

An announcement on the details is expected soon.

Peters, a former minister of foreign affairs who negotiated a big increase in funding for the portfolio, said a “slash and burn exercise” would seriously affect this country’s overseas trade.

He said the move was a “serious, retrograde step” at a time New Zealand was desperately trying to increase its export trade.

Phil Goff has also joined in the bleating, arguing that more bureaucrats in MFAT will increase exports. If only, it was so simple.

As it happens exports have been growing quite nicely. In the last three years, they have increased 15.1% to $46.1b. That’s pretty good considering the wobbly global economy. Why have they increased?

Well exports to China have increased 169.5% to $5.6b. The dollar increase of $3.5b makes up 59% of the overall increase in exports.

It was three years ago we signed a Free Trade Agreement with China. An agreement that Peters as Foreign Minister not only refused to vote for, but actively campaigned against with a newspaper ad campaign urging people to sign up in opposition to the FTA.

So Peters’ record is having opposed the China FTA which saw exports to China increase 170%, and instead his solution is more bureaucrats in MFAT.  I doubt I have seen a more moronic economic prescription in recent times.

The Canterbury Star reports:

One of Canterbury’s newest MPs wants to ban the burqa and arm bank tellers, dairy owners and taxi drivers.  

NZ First list MP Richard Prosser garnered just 538 votes in the Waimakariri electorate, but swept into Parliament on the strength of party leader Winston Peters’ rise from the grave.  

He makes no apology for the strength of the controversial Rightist ideas he has been pushing for almost 10 years. 

Oh armed taxi drivers would be hilarious fun. You know how the taxi drivers honks and curses when someone cuts them off in traffic? Well now they’ll be able to mow them down.

And think if two drivers get into a dispute over a cab rank. They can sort it out with a duel.

On compulsory military training: “There will be the pacifists, the weaklings, the other cowards and bludgers … who will conscientiously object … they can spend a couple of years picking up rubbish off the beaches and digging out long-drops for DOC instead.”

At least with CMT, people will be better equipped to handle being shot at by bank tellers or taxi drivers.

“As recently as 1973 every bank in New Zealand had a pistol under the counter and tellers undertook regular revolver training.

Really? Can someone confirm this?

He suggests “dairy owners and householders alike” should be allowed to have a “shotgun within reach, and taxi drivers as well as cops should almost be required to have at least a Walther PPK clipped to the sun visor”.

I like how he specifies the brand of the gun. I hope us bloggers will be allowed them also to cope with the stalkers.

I love how so many lefties tactically voted to get NZ First into Parliament. They have made life so much more enjoyable for us bloggers.

Danya Levy at SST reports:

New MP Richard Prosser dreams of a New Zealand where compulsory military training has returned and the burqa is banned.

The Canterbury-based NZ First list MP has some controversial ideas, many of which he has voiced in his column in Investigate magazine.

The 44-year-old is one of eight NZ First MPs elected to parliament last week. …

Compulsory military training had many social, economic and military benefits, Prosser has written. He stands by that, saying it would be good for New Zealand.

He also stands by his call that New Zealand should follow France’s lead and ban the burqa – a move which had, he wrote, outraged “Muslims, leftists, commies, pinkos, the entire anti-white western civilisation brigade, along with their media toadies”.

You know a Labour/Green/NZ First Government could be quite enjoyable, from a spectator point of view.

Prosser acknowledged he was not a “lone wolf” and his ideas would have to go through the party framework.

“But I’ve got a mark to make. I don’t come in here thinking I know everything, but I’m not going to breathe through my nose.

Absolutely. I encourage all new NZ First MPs to speak their minds.

MPs in

Winston Peters, Tracey Martin, Andrew Williams, Richard Prosser, Barbara Stewart Brendan Horan, Denis O’Rourke, Asenati Taylor. Their No 9 candidate Helen Jane Mulford holds the 121st quotient and could come in, but traditionally NZ First does not do so well on specials

MPs out

None

Result

7.5/10.An excellent result for Peters. He capitalised on his opportunities and not only made 5%, but made it easily. He has proven himself the great survivor and NZ First is only the second political party to be elected to an MMP Parliament that did not already have a sitting MP (ACT in 1996 was the first).

The score would match National’s if they had ended up holding the balance of power.

Challenges

The short-term challenge is the caucus. Few of them have significant parliamentary or even political experience. Peters need to put in a place a strong experienced Chief of Staff to help managed them. My pick would be former MP and Party President Doug Woolerton. Rumour has it that Michael Laws is also a contender. Michael’s cunning is second to none, but his relationship with Winston goes through ups and downs.

The longer-term challenges depend on what Winston wants. If his major motivation is revenge on John Key, then he could well be placed to achieve that in 2014 by denying National a third term. If his motivation is to become a Minister again, then his challenge is to convince National and Labour that he can be a stable player.

Peters is 66. I can see him standing again in 2014 when he will be 69, but in 2017 he will be 72 and would be commiting to still be an MP at age 75 if he contested that election. There are two paths ahead for NZ First. One is that Peters remains Leader and an MP indefinitely, and when he goes, NZ First goes.

The second path is that Peters uses the next two terms to build up leadership sucessors such as Andrew Williams and Brendan Horan, with a managed transition heading into maybe 2017. Then Peters gets the ultimate legacy – a party that survives him.

Winston has said:

Rt Hon Winston Peters says the National Party’s paid blogger David Farrar is spreading confusion about New Zealand First on the last day of the election campaign at the behest of politicians who should know better.

Winston normally starts with a lie, and he rarely disappoints. I’m not paid by anyone to blog. The blog does gain some revenue though through advertising, and the major advertisers this election have been Labour, Greens and Forest & Bird.

And the blog post was not at the behest of any politician. Not a single person knew I was going to blog on this, until it appeared. The issue only came to my attention this morning.

Farrar has written a blog about New Zealand First claiming it is an incorporated society when in fact it is a registered political party. An incorporated society simply holds and protects the name “New Zealand First”, which has been the case since 1993.

Winston is claiming there are really two New Zealand Firsts. I quote in rebuttal from an article by David Fisher, then of the Listener on 16 August 2008:

Contacted by the Listener, Catchpole, treasurer from 2005 until the party’s convention earlier this month, says: “They are one and the same really, the incorporated society and the party, because the party constitution and rules are all registered with the incorporated society. That basically makes it one entity.”

Winston is again relying on deception. If they were different entities, why would other rules changes been filed with the Registrar.

I also quote his party president:

Asked about the incorporated society, Groombridge says: “That’s the party itself.”

No one but Winston thinks they are separate entities. remember this is the man who said on dozens of occasions that he knew nothing of the $100,000 donation from Owen Glenn.

An investigation by Kiwiblog has found that the candidacy of Winston Peters for New Zealand First is illegal under the Incorporated Societies Act 1908.

Unlike other political parties, New Zealand First is an incorporated society. That means it has to obey the rules laid down under the Incorporated Societies Act 1908.

Section 21(2) of the Act states:

Every alteration of the rules must be—

• (a) in writing; and

• (b) signed by at least 3 members of the society; and

• (c) delivered to the Registrar accompanied by a certificate by an officer of the society or a solicitor certifying that the alteration has been made in accordance with the rules.

And Section 21(3) states:

The Registrar, if satisfied that the alteration has been duly made, and that the rules as so altered conform in all respects to this Act, shall register the alteration in like manner as in the case of the original rules, and the said alteration shall thereupon take effect according to the tenor thereof.

In plain English this means that any rule change for an incorporated society does not take effect until the Register has approved them. This is well known to lawyers.

NZ First says they changed the rules of NZ First back in July to allow the Leader to be a list candidate, without being an electorate candidate. However they have not filed this rule change with the Registrar of Incorporated Societies and hence, the old rules still apply. They have filed them with the Electoral Commission *but only after I blogged pointing out they have not) but not with the Registrar as the website shows. There have been no rules changes registered since 2008.

This means the version of their constitution which is still legally in force states:

Rule 46(b):

A List candidate must first be selected as an Electorate candidate

Winston Peters did not get selected as an electorate candidate, so his nomination as a list candidate is illegal under the rules of the NZ First Party, as governed by the Incorporated Societies Act.

If he is not a legal candidate for the New Zealand First Party, then any election of him to Parliament can be challenged. This has happened before when a nomination has been accepted (Kelly Chal for united Future in 2002) but after the election it was found she was ineligible and she was removed from the United Future party list.

The case is more complicated here as it is the Incorporated Societies Act, not the Electoral Act, that makes Peters an illegal candidate for New Zealand First. I can almost guarantee you though that if he is elected, lawyers will be looking to take legal action. Incorporated Societies can be forced to obey their own rules, as we saw in the legal action against the NZ Rugby Football Union over a proposed tour of South Africa.

If Peters is removed from their party list, then presumably No 2 Tracey Martin would become the Leader of NZ First.

They’ve now tried to cover up their endorsement of Winston, but the fact is they did endorse him and it is just too good not to mock.

Some Labour supporters have been saying they may tactically vote for Winston to bring him in, as that is their only chance of forming a Government. If they do, I hope they enjoy this reminder of their fellow voters.

I blogged yesterday how the neo-nazis of the Right Wing Resistance had blogged urging people to vote for NZ First.

They seem to have had a fall off in support, as they have now edited their blog post, Pete George pointed out in a comment:

“In this country we must vote for the smaller parties…” replaces “If you want traditional Kiwi life vote NZ First.”

Hat Tip: Keeping Stock

No I am not making this up.

The white supremacist Right Wing Resistance urge their members to vote for MMP and Winston:

Don’t make the mistake to vote for anything but MMP, the tricky slimy government have tried to confuse people by chucking in other options, MMP ain’t perfect but its better then the one party system these anti democratic people want to go back to.

I will say it here and now, if you vote National or Labour your just voting in the same bunch of liars and hypocrites, who blame each other for things they do themselves, their MPs have been ripping off the system, neither of them can stick to their promises, and they both are happy to sell us down the river, Labour started asset sales, don’t forget that. They also sold out our work force with the free trade deals that make companies send their factories into other countries. They are immoral and will continue to bring in anti family policies.

National and Labour serve foreign interests not New Zealand. They will both swamp us with immigration, they will both serve the wealthy on the backs of the poor, don’t be fooled by them again, vote for the other parties. get blue and red out. If you want traditional Kiwi life vote NZ First.

Now you can’t choose who endorses you, but for NZ First it must be no surprise that their anti-immigration and anti-Asian rhetoric attracts support from white supremacists.

Guyon Espiner on Q+A asked Winston Peters three times whether his party will refuse to give confidence and supply to either of the main parties. Three times, Winston said that was correct. Now again, Winston could wriggle out of the most iron clad guarantee, but let’s for now take him at his word (yeah, stop laughing now).

If Peters is to be taken at his word, then a vote for NZ First is a vote for a new election, if NZ First makes it and holds the balance of power.

A Prime Minister needs to demonstrate to the Governor-General that they have the confidence of the House. Peters has said he will not give confidence to either National nor Labour. This means that neither John Key nor Phil Goff will be able to be sworn in as Prime Minister. The result will be that Key as caretaker Prime Minister would have to advise the Governor-General to call another election, as no Government can remain in office without the confidence of the House.

Some people think that a lack of confidence and supply would only become an issue once a Budget needs to be passed, but this is not the case. The Government needs to always have the confidence of the House – the formal votes on confidence and supply are just an expression of that. And there would be a confidence vote during the address in reply debate which occurs at the beginning of a new Parliament.

This would mean another election in ealy 2012, at a cost of $38m or so, and a caretaker Government that would have no authority to respond to any events in Europe.

The video is here.

Incredible. For the third time Goff is unable to answer the CGT question about in what year does it first bring in revenue.

You can see it in the video above, by Whale. After muffing it in The Press debate, and then muffing it on The Nation on yesterday, how on God’s earth did he not look up the policy. We all make mistakes, but to not be able to answer the question after two previous maulings is just idiotic.

Goff was also very unimpressive on other details. Couldn’t say how the Capital Gains tax would work, had no numbers around jobs, and in the finale refused (three times) to say whether or not he trusts Winston Peters – whom is his only lifeline to power.

Can you imagine a Labour-led Government with Phil Goff needing to get the Greens, Maori Party, NZ First and Mana to agree to every budget, and every law? It would have no stability and definitely no direction.

UPDATE: Transcript below:

GUYON Okay, the capital gains tax is part of a major tax switch, isn’t it, which includes the increase in the top tax rate, the GST off fruit and vegetables, etc. Under your plan, what is the first year you gain any additional revenue from your tax switch and how much do you get?

PHIL Well, from 2015, 16, we’re back into surplus, and by 2021, we’ve paid off the debt a year faster than National.

GUYON What is the first year that you gain any additional revenue from your tax switch and how much is it?

PHIL I think it’s about 2016, 17. Again, I don’t carry all those figures in my head.

GUYON Well, it’s 2018, 19. It’s a long way off.

As Guyon points out, that means it is two full terms of Parliament before their “tax switch” actually brings in additional revenue.

My Herald column looks at what happens if Winston decides again.

This means that Winston Peters will decide who gets to be Prime Minister of New Zealand for the third time out of six MMP elections. In 1996 he chose Jim Bolger over Helen Clark, in 2005 he chose Helen Clark over Don Brash and if he holds the balance of power in 2011, make no mistake he will choose Phil Goff over John Key, and there will be a Government that can only pass a law if it can get the Greens, Winston, Hone, and the Maori Party to all agree to it.

And imagine the blowout in spending and debt!

Again polls have shown a certain reluctance for National voters to tactically vote for ACT. I speak often to many National supporters in Epsom. To a person, they all want National to have a coalition partner to the right (economically) of National. The debate is whether ACT in its crippled state is worth saving, or whether you do the humane thing and put it to sleep with some electoral euthanasia, allowing a new party to arise phoenix like from the ashes.

The prospect of Winston Peters installing Phil Goff as Prime Minister should be sufficient to resolve that debate. If they do not vote for John Banks, then a change of Government becomes significantly more likely.

Epsom voters now have a clear choice.

MMP is perfect for demagogues such as Peters. He selects who will be on his party list, and they become MPs based on his personal popularity, despite the fact 99% of New Zealanders could not tell you who the top six candidates on his list are. Their loyalty is purely to him, not to the New Zealand public.

STV will still deliver broadly proportional results, but candidates will have to actually be someone whom voters rank high enough with their ballots, to elect to Parliament. This should result in a significant improvement of the quality of candidates, if there is no backdoor through a party list.

I will blog more fully next week on the merits of STV.

Winston Peters on the tea tape by whaleoil

Whale has this audio of a party leader on Monday condemning the secret taping.

In response to whether the media should publish the tapes, he called the behaviour in taping the conversation illegal, said it was “News of the World” stuff.

Who was this party leader? It was Winston Peters. The man who since he has discovered a favourable angle for himself in this, has spent the week expressing mock outrage. Do the media spend all day demanding Peters reconcile his position on Monday with his reading out transcripts of what Peters himself says is an illegal recording? Of course they do not.

Winston Peters has said:

New Zealand First is not going with National.

New Zealand First is not going with Labour either. We are making that clear here today.

New Zealand First is not going with the Greens or the Maori Party. …

MMP is criticized by those who believe they have been born to rule but since this system was introduced, the party with the most votes has always formed the government.

We believe that the party that gets the most votes should try to form the next government.

But there’s one condition – the one safeguard that voters have – the one get out of jail card.

And that is do not let any political party in New Zealand govern alone under any circumstances. It is too dangerous!

Before we analyse what Winston actually means with this, it is first important to note one thing. Winston lies. Not just generally, but specifically on issues such as these. In 2005 he said NZ First would not take up the baubles of office. That was universally interpreted as meaning they would not take up a Ministerial role. Yet, as we all know Winston became Foreign Affairs and Racing Minister, allowing him to reward his secret backers.

Stuff have interpreted this as:

NZ First leader Winston Peters says the party will remain on the Opposition benches and refuse to support either of the two main parties if it is reelected to Parliament.

In a speech to be delivered to party faithful in Auckland today, Mr Peters all but killed any hope of Labour stitching up a minority government with his support if NZ First passed the 5 per cent threshold, saying he believed that the party that got the most votes should try to form the next government.

“New Zealand First is not going with National. New Zealand First is not going with Labour either. We are making that clear here today.

NZ First would not countenance a deal that involved the Greens or the Maori Party.

No Right Turn has blogged this this has killed off Labour’s dream:

Winston Peters has announced that he will not back either main party on confidence and supply, and will refuse to support any arrangement involving the Greens or Maori Party. So, that’s it then. Labour’s dream of cobbling together a coalition government if it does well enough (already a forlorn hope) is now dead. The issue now is not whether John Key or Phil Goff is Prime Minister, but whether Key gets to rule with an absolute majority.

But Winston has not in fact said definitely what he will do. At best he seems to be saying he will oppose both National and Labour. That could mean if NZ First did make 5% and hold the balance of power, he would force a new election by voting against supply and confidence.

A Government can only govern if it has supply and confidence. All Winston has said that the party with the most votes should try to form the next Government. Nowhere has he said he will allow them to.

Winston has left massive wriggle room, so he can do in 2011 what he did in 2005. The question that media should ask him is “Will he vote for confidence and supply for the largest party, against confidence and supply, or abstain?”. A related question is “What conditions will be attached to that”.

He has said NZ first is not going with the Greens or the Maori Party. That doesn’t answer the question of what if National needs (unlikely but possible) both NZ First and Maori Party to govern. Is he saying he will vote against if there are Maori Part Ministers but vote for if they are not Ministers?

Overall the only conclusion I can draw is that a Winston saying he will oppose whomever forms the Govt, and his apparent conditions on which other parties can be involved just makes new elections likely if they make 5%. Political instability is the last thing we need as Europe totters on the brink of economic disaster.

One interesting thing is that Winston and No Right Turn have both said National should not govern alone. NRT said:

This isn’t something we should allow to happen. As we saw back in the FPP-era, absolute majority government is constitutionally dangerous. It turns our country into an elected dictatorship, allowing a single party to run roughshod over everyone else and abuse the Parliamentary process to impose policies for which it has no mandate. MMP’s (thus far) enforcement of coalition and minority government prevents that from happening. It means the government has to negotiate for policies, convince other parties (and by extension the public) that its policies are acceptable. In other words, it keeps us safe. And that’s something we need to preserve.

Presumably this means Idiot/Savant is calling on voters to vote ACT. Because that is the best way to have a National-led minority Government. I/S has said that the Government will be National-led. That means that extra votes for Labour, Greens, NZ First or Mana will just be wasted as none of them would support a National-led Government.

A vote for the Maori Party will not work, as they are highly likely to have an overhang.

That leaves United Future and ACT. Now those parties need 1.2% to get an second MP and 0.45 to avoid overhang. United Future is looking like it will be an over-hang seat. So the best way for people to have a minority National-led Government is hence to give ACT the party vote.

Now personally I do not endorse ACT, as Idiot/Savant has done. If the voters vote to give John Key a majority, he has already said he will offer to share Government with the Maori Party, United Future and ACT – and at a minimum a policy co-operation agreement with the Greens.

UPDATE: Danyl at Dim-Post nails it:

Peters’ strategy is pretty simple. By ruling out the possibility of going into coalition with Labour, he attracts back right-wing voters who like his policies on immigration etc, but don’t want to cast a vote for his party if it means he’ll go into coalition with Labour. Then, after the election, Peters can go into coalition with Labour and throw a temper tantrum about media conspiracies every time someone suggests he promised not to go into coalition with Labour.

Just heard that Winston Peters has chickened out of standing in an electorate, and will be List only.

Now political parties are obliged to follow their own rules, and file the most recent copy with the Electoral Commission. So let’s look at those rules at the Electoral Commission.

Rule 46(b) is explicit:

A List candidate must first be selected as an Electorate candidate

So NZ First seems to have the same regard for their constitution, as Winston does for the truth.

UPDATE: Winston told Q+A in July that the party had changed the rules to exempt the Leader and Deputy. The trouble is they have not filed those new rules with the Electoral Commission, if they have changed.

UPDATE2: Oh my God Andrew Williams is No 3 on their party list. Need I comment.

Amelia Romanos at NZ Herald reports:

New Zealand First has defended dumping an election candidate who drank his own urine on a TV show.

Joe Glenn, a 69-year-old former SAS soldier, had been standing for the party in the Rimutaka electorate, but was asked to withdraw his candidacy following his appearance last month on a 20/20 item about extreme diets.

On the programme, Mr Glenn spoke about how drinking his urine each day had helped to cure his arthritis, and then downed a glass for the cameras.

This is very unfair on Mr Glenn. I think the symbolism is perfect. Voting for NZ First is akin to drinking urine.

UPDATE: Also with Andrew Williams as a candidate, they would be the perfect match. One could keep the other well quenched. Why ban a candidate for drinking piss, but welcome the one who pisses in public?

Driving to Palmerston North yesterday, I saw my first NZ First billboard. It was hilarious. On the left it says “We win” and on the right it says “You win”.

It reminded me of the sort of sign you see outside a disreputable casino. And as we know with casinos, the house always wins!

At Stuff I ask the question Will Winston be back? I note:

Voters tend to fall into three camps when it comes to Winston Peters.

The first camp is the loyal supporters. They think Winston is the only honest politician. They hang on his every word, and will never hear a bad word about him. They believe that the media and the other politicians are jealous of Winston and conspire against him.

The second camp are those who see Winston as a slightly disreputable but charming rogue. This is probably the majority of the population. They don’t entirely trust him, but they don’t see him as different from most politicians, except that Winston at least is fun and livens things up. They’re not opposed to Winston being in Parliament, and could even vote for him if no other options appeal.

The third camp (of which I happily disclose I am a founding member) regard Winston as the most dishonest politician of the last few decades. If Winston said there’s a thunderstorm outside, we’d change into our shorts and T-shirt and head to the beach.

In the blog post I lay out the five reasons why he shouldn’t make it back, but then also some reasons why he might make 5% after all.

I am a fan of iPredict. I trust it because I think the fact that people have to put money up to back their beliefs, means that the wisdom of the crowds often wins out. If you think a market is wrongly priced, then you can make some money buying or selling some stock.

However there is a flaw in the way a few stocks operate. Not the binary stocks (x will happen by z date) but the party vote stocks. These are used to predict the a party’s vote percentage at the election.

VOTE.2011.NAT is currently at 47.5c. It will pay out 1c per 1% party vote, so it is predicting a party vote of 47.5%. Now let us say I genuinely think National will get 50% and I have $100 to spend. I buy $100 of shares at 47.5c, or 210 shares. And if I am right and National gets 50% I get 50c per share so get $105 back. Now as an investor a 5% return on capital doesn’t get me very excited, so you may have few investors in that market.

Now let’s say I am the National Party Campaign Chairman, Steven Joyce. Let’s say I don’t want National’s share price to be 47.5c as that may not be enough. Let’s say Steven decide to buy up VOTE.2011.NAT shares to 55c so there is a story about how the market thinks National will get 55%. Steven has a bit of money so spends $1,000 buying 1818 shares at 55c. Whenever the price drops below 55c he buys shares until he has spent his $1,000. Now if National really only gets 47.5% then Steven loses 7.5c a share or $136. So a 14% drop on his money.

Now if other investors out there think National is over-priced then they can move the price below 55c by selling the share, which is equivalent to buying the reverse. What it means is they pay 45c for their “reverse” share and when the stock closes they get $1 less the party vote share or $1 – 47.5c or 52.5c. So they could sell to Steven his 1818 shares for $818 and if National gets 47.5% will make $954.  That is $136 profit (made off Steven) and is a return on capital of 17%.

So for a major party like National the relative rate of returns are not far off – 14% for the person buyign at 55c and 17% for the person selling at 55c.

But now let us try this with say NZ First. You are the NZ First Campaign Chair and you want NZ First to show at over 5%. You have $1,000. You can buy 20,000 shares at 5c.  Now if NZ First actually get 4% then you have only lost $200.

Now what say you are an investor who thinks the correct share price is 4c. In theory you can make money by selling at 5c and buying at 4c when it closes. But you have to effectively buy the reverse share at 95c and sell at 96c.

Now to buy 20,000 shares at 95c will cost you $19,000. And the payout will be $19,200. You will get a miserly 1.1% return on your money. Would you want to lock up $19,000 for a 1.1% return? No.

So what is the moral of the story? When it comes to the minor party stocks, it is possible for supporters to push the share price up at almost no cost to them, but at a great cost for others to push it down. This only applies to the party vote stocks, not to all the binary stocks.

This is why NZ First often has a stock price over 5c indicating Winston will be back, while the binary stock of “Will Winston get back into Parliament is at 22c, indicating only a 22% chance.

Likewise I suggest the stock showing United Future will get 2.6% is also the result of party activists pushing it higher. The same for ACT at 4.0%.

As we get very very close to the election, this problem may sort itself out. When there are only a few days to go, then even a 1% return may be decent enough for people to push the stock prices down to what the true level would be.

iPredict can also probably avoid this issue in future by having the cost of buying minor party stock at 10c/% point instead of 1c/% point.

A reader just reminded me by e-mail of this post made a year ago in August 2010:

An interesting speculation has reached me. Andrew Williams will of course not be elected Auckland Mayor. I doubt he’d even make 5%.  He is unlikely to even make Council – his sole chance is that 15 people are standing in his ward so one may be able to get elected off a very small percentage.

So what will he do if he is not on Council? Well he is consumed with a loathing for Rodney Hide, as is Winston Peters. So the whisper I hear is Andrew Williams will be a NZ First candidate in a top six list spot.

We don’t know his list ranking yet, but Williams has been confirmed as a candidate.

Bob McCoskrie has blogged responses from minor political parties on whether repeal of the anti-smacking law would be a bottom-line issue in coalition negotiations.

ACT have said they will push for it, but it is not a bottom line issue – in fact they sensibly have said there are no bottom line issues in advance, as it depends on your vote share.

The Kiwi and Conservative parties have both said it will be a bottom line issue, but neither rate in the polls.

What I found interesting was the response from NZ First:

NZ First policy is to repeal the anti smacking law passed by the last parliament despite overwhelming public opposition. Accordingly we will not enter any coalition or confidence and supply agreement with a party that wishes to ignore the publics clearly stated view in a referendum on that issue

Now if one assumes Winston is telling the truth (always dangerous), it is a very significant statement.

National has already ruled out Winston as a potential option. In fact Key has explicitly said he would go into Opposition than do a deal with Peters. Hence, the only party that may end up negotiating with Peters is Labour.

So if NZ First, do make 5%, and somehow a centre-left Government can be formed, a non negotiable condition of support from NZ First will be repealing the anti-smacking law. I wonder how that would go down with all the Labour and Green voters?

Winston told many lies at the weekend, but we will focus on just two of them. The first is that he is not a Klingon, and Whale has proof to the other.

Before we move onto the next lie, enjoy the fact that NZ First has selected Andrew Williams as their candidate for North Shore. They deserve each other.

What I want to focus on is this report from Stuff:

The polls were wrong by 100 per cent in 2002 and 500 per cent in 2005 and again in 2008, Peters said.

This has been widely reported. Once upon a time when a politician made a claim, someone would fact check it. So I’ve done it in this case. I’ve compared NZ First’s actual election results with the average of the polls for the five MMP elections. They are

• 1996 – 13.4% result v 15.0% poll average
• 1999 – 4.3% result v 4.0% poll average
• 2002 – 10.4% result v 9.1% poll average
• 2005 – 5.7% result v 6.0% poll average
• 2008 – 4.1% result v 3.4% poll average

What is really interesting is if you average out the five elections. NZ First on average got 7.6% and the average poll rating immediately prior to the elections was 7.5%.

Polls can be wrong and have been wrong. But not as wrong as Winston’s claims.