Kiwiblog

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.

NewstalkZB reports:

There’s a pledge from New Zealand First ahead of its annual conference that it will follow the rules on disclosing political donations.

The party was forced to correct its donation returns before the last election, revealing gifts which should have been declared.

Returns filed to the Electoral Commission show New Zealand First has lodged nil donations over the past two years.

Party Leader Winston Peters says next year’s contributions will be reported appropriately.

“We will be abiding by the law, as we have always done,” says Mr Peters.

As we have always done? What a blatant lie.

NZ First were never charged or prosecuted – that is correct. But that is because there was a six month (off memory) time limit for charges.

They did not abide by the law. Here is what the Electoral Commission said:

Although the 2007 return was materially false, no offence committed under section 214G(3) or 214G(4) of the Electoral Act 1993 as the Party Secretary had no intention to mis-state or conceal the facts

So the return was false, but no prosecution because only the party secretary can be held liable.

In respect of the 2005 and 2006 returns, the statutory time limit for any prosecution has expired.

And these were not trivial donations unreported. From 2005 to 2007, NZ First declared there had been zero donations over $10,000 when in fact there had been around $235,000 of donations.

And no that doesn’t include the $100,000 Owen Glenn gave to pay Winston’s legal bills. Likewise it does not include the revelation by the SFO that the Velas had also paid Winston’s electoral petition expenses to Bob Clarkson.

Yet Winston still insists they have always abided by the law.

The debate and auction were great fun. I’ll do a seperate post on the debate.

We managed to get a total of $10,000 pledged by 5 pm yesterday to buy Winston’s no sign. The bidding started at $1,000 and there were three bidders, and then two bidders and then it hit the $10,000 we had pledged. I kept bidding unti $10,500 but then folded.

The great thing is that by bidding we got the winning amount up to $10,500, which all goes to families of earthquake victims who worked for The Press And CTV.

Congrats to businessman Ted Thomas who won the auction with a very generous donation/pledge.

For me this was mainly about raising money for a good cause. We can always create our own NO sign for 5c, and have it appear during the campaign (and we will). So I would encourage those who pledged money to consider still donating to the relief fund for families of earthquake victims who worked for The Press And CTV. I will be.

If you wish to make a donation, the details are:

‘Press Gallery Quake Fundraiser’
03-1537-0013148-009

And once again thanks to the scores of readers who pledged their support for the auction. You helped make the auction a success.

Winston’s original NO sign is up for auction by the press gallery tonight, with the proceeds going to the families of CTV and Press employees killed in the earthquake.

Thanks to the 58 people who have already pledged a contribution towards our bid to win the NO sign. I’m pleased to report we have now raised enough money to outbid the Prime Minister who said he would bid $5,000. Superb.

However there may be other bidders. Winston has said he will not bid for the sign, but as we know with Winston “NO” means “YES”. I’ve heard a rumour that the Spencer Trust may bid for the sign, and if they win the auction, then the sign will be burnt to ashes quicker than Helen Clark’s forged painting was!

So please keep those contributions coming. The more we get, the more likely it is we will win – plus the more money gets raised for families of those who died in Christchurch. It’s a win-win.

As I originally said, if the framed sign is won by Whale and me, we will ensure it turns up to as many of Winston’s meetings as possible. It will be wonderful. We’ll just have someone silently holding it up at the wave back of the room – no need to heckle or interject – it will be a silent reminder to people about how he lied to the media and the public repeatedly.

After the election, our intention is to then permanently loan it to the Backbencher pub opposite Parliament, where it can be displayed permanently – along with a statement providing context for it.

Pledges can be e-mailed to me. We’ll supply payment details tomorrow, if we actually win it.

We have $2,810 pledged so far to bid for Winston’s NO sign. Thanks to all those who have pledged money – you will get individual responses also.

As I blogged yesterday, we want to outbid the Prime Minister’s $5,000 bid. We are over half way there. Please, e-mail me if you are willing to contribute towards our bid. Remember all funds go via the Red Cross* to earthquake victims in Christchurch – plus you help enable the infamous NO sign to hit the campaign trail later this year.

The auction is Thursday evening, so we are after a further $2,200 in 36 hours.

UPDATE: Now at $3,670 at midday.

* The proceeds from the debate go to the Red Cross, but the proceeds from the auction go to the families of victims who worked for CTV or The Press.

UPDATE2: Now at $4,020 at 3.30 pm. Thanks to all those pledged to date. I think we will make it. Remember $5,000 is the minimum we are aiming for to be competitive.

UPDATE3: Now at $4,650. We’re getting closeer. Again $5,000 is the minimum we need – not a target. Again thanks so much to those pledging.

The Dom Post editorial calls on Phil Goff to choose principle over Peters:

As Winston Peters ponders the expense and bother of another tilt at Parliament, he will take heart from Labour leader Phil Goff’s equivocation on the subject of a post-election deal with the NZ First leader. Many voters will take a different view.

Mr Goff said yesterday that he had made no decision about a possible coalition with NZ First, but his other remarks were the verbal equivalent of throwing open the front door, handing Mr Peters the key to his liquor cabinet and inviting him to help himself to the whisky.

Heh, so true. And his line about how he won’t make a call until he knows if Winston makes it back is feeble – he made a call on Hone without knowing if Hone will be re-elected.

While Mr Goff has no doubts about Mr Peters’ reliability or trustworthiness, voters with longer memories do.

Mr Peters is, after all, the politician who railed against secretive big money donations to political parties then arranged for donations from wealthy backers to be funnelled to his party through a shadowy trust without the knowledge of fellow NZ First MPs or party officials.

He is also the politician who waved a sign saying “NO” in large letters when asked whether his party had received money from expatriate billionaire Owen Glenn, and who was subsequently found by the privileges committee to have “knowingly misled” Parliament over Mr Glenn’s $100,000 contribution towards his legal bills.

A verdict Labour to their shame voted against, despite evidence so strong it was well beyond reasonable doubt. Phone records shows Winston and Glenn on the phone, And around two minuites later Winston’s lawyer e-mailing Glenn asking him for money as discussed with his client a few minutes ago.

Mr Goff is desperate. He can feel the hot breath of ambitious colleagues on the back of his neck. However, it never pays to exhibit one’s desperation.

He would be better advised to put principle ahead of self-interest. Mr Peters’ unsavoury attacks on new immigrants and the politics of envy and fear he practises, are not compatible with Labour’s traditions.

This is what amazes me – Winston has spent his political career attacking Asians and immigrants, yet he is a hero to many on the left purely because he is also anti-National.

Prime Minister John Key has done the right thing by ruling out a deal with Mr Peters. Mr Goff should follow suit. It is not just parliamentary seats that are at stake but his credibility and judgment. There are times when leaders should forget political strategising and do the right thing. This is one of those times.

It won’t happen.

The hopes of those calling for a “New Left” party entering Parliament via Hone Harawira took another tumble today, as ccording to Alex Tarrant from interest.co.nz, Phil Goff ruled out working with Hone Harawira.

Of course this position may change. A month ago Goff also ruled out working with Hone Harawira, but backed down a few days later. So this is I think his third position on working with Hone. I asked the rhetorical question in February whether Goff will manage as many positions on Hone (now up to three) as they did on foreshore & seabed (now up to five)

He still won’t rule Winston in or out though. That one should be simpler – you can at least trust Hone. Policy differences can be negotiated in good faith. Trust can not be. Winston lied blatantly to Helen Clark about the Owen Glenn donation, yet Labour are still clinging to Winston in the hope he will hold the balance of power and make Goff Prime Minister.

Hat Tip: Whale

iPredict has a range of stocks on who will be the Justice Minister after the election. The prices and hence probabilities are:

1. Judith Collins 45%
2. Chris Finlayson 20.95
3. Simon Bridges 8.3%
4. Other Labour MP 5.7%
5. Chester Borrows 5.4%
6. Kate Wilkinson 2.7%
7. Amy Adams 2.7%
8. Charles Chauvel 2.7%
9. Other Nat MP 1.7%
10. Other MP 0.1%
11. Winston Peters 0.0%

The Minister of Justice is normally a lawyer, but not always – Tony Ryall was Justice Minister and is not a lawyer. It is unusual to have one Minister as both Justice and Attorney-General also.

I think the market is right in saying it is not likely Winston Peters will be Justice Minister. The reason for this is that portfolio is far far too much hard work.

Winston prefers portfolios with glamour, but where officials do all the work. He’s already done Treasurer and Foreign Minister. So what, I ponder, could Phil Goff offer him in a Labour-Greens-Winston-Hone Government if they get the numbers for it?

There is really only one portfolio left that fits Winston’s criteria. Attorney-General!! Winston will be in charge of the judiciary and the SFO.

Jono Milne at the HoS reports:

Winston Peters says the Government has pestered him to accept an overseas ambassadorship – to get him out of politics and out of the country.

This claim should be treated the same as his claim he didn’t know about Owen Glenn’s $100k donation. I don’t know why the media give him any credibility considering his record – Winston is to politics what Scientology is to religion.

Speaking to the Herald on Sunday, he said the first mention of a diplomatic posting was a phone-call from Richard Griffin, the political insider who was previously a top adviser to Prime Minister Jim Bolger.

Oh dear. Dick Griffin is one of Winston’s closest mates. There is a huge difference between Dick telling Winston he should seek an appointment, and this being encouraged by the Govvernment.

The Government denied the claim. McCully said yesterday that it was “fiction”.

“First point, if anyone is being offered an ambassadorship, my practice is to make the approach to the appointee myself. I never make approaches through third parties,” he said.

“And I have never approached Mr Peters offering him an ambassadorship, nor do I ever intend to.”

You have to be a moron to think the Government could credibly appoint Winston as an Ambassador despite having ruled him out of a role in Government because he is a serial liar. You can appoint political rivals whom you disagree with on issues of policy, but not those whom you have publicly condemned as so untrusthworty you’d rather go into Opposition over, than rely on.

Yesterday, Griffin refused to discuss what conversations he’d had with McCully about sounding out Peters, saying he didn’t want to get involved in any “conspiracy theories”.

“He’s a friend of mine and I was having a discussion with him about what he might look to do in the future. I thought I was having a discussion with a man looking to a new future, not a man looking to get back into politics,” Griffin said.

Dick Griffin is a good man who would not lie. The fact he has not backed up Winston’s statement that his coversation was on behalf of McCully soeaks volumes.

The reality is that Winston wants to con the people that a vote for him is not a vote for Phil Goff to become Prime Minister. Yet it is.

Radio NZ reports:

Phil Goff says no one in caucus asked him to rule out working with the New Zealand First leader Winston Peters, should he be returned to Parliament.

Not even one Labour MP had the courage to say they had got it wrong in 2008, when they voted against the Privileges Committee report. Labour’s position continues to be that the following sequence of events is a coincidence:

1. Phone call between Owen Glenn and Winston Peters from 1.26 pm to 1.32 pm
2. A couple of minutes later Peters phones Brian Henry
3. At 1.40 pm Brian Henry e-mails Owen Glenn with his bank account number stating “further to your discussion with my client at 1.30 NZ time I provide my bank details”

This is a level of proof that Peters knew of the donation that would meet beyond reasonable doubt in a murder trial. Yet Labour continue to embrace Peters ridiculous denials that he did not know anything at all about the donation. They are unconcerned he lied to their own Prime Minister, to Parliament, to the Privileges Committee, to the media and to the public – dozens and dozens of times.

Labour’s unanimious embracing of Peters also means that they have absolutely no concerns about large undisclosed donations from companies or individuals whom benefit from policies that Winston forced Labour into agreeing to, in Government. So their credibility on electoral finance issues remains zero.

The Herald on Sunday editorial:

Key’s announcement has not necessarily spiked Peters’ guns, but it has given voters a stark choice. “If Winston Peters holds the balance of power,” he said this week, “it will be a Phil Goff-led Labour government.”

In fact, voters already had a stark choice: do they want to return to the style of politics that Peters represents? For a return it would be, in the sense of being a seriously retrograde step. …

He is a skilled practitioner of divisive demagoguery, using alarmist and inflammatory language, in particular to cynically foment feeling against immigrants.

A 2005 NZPA article reminds us of some of them:

“There is a significant percentage of Asians in Auckland. That’s my view. If you don’t like it, vote for another party and let race relations go into chaos.” – Peters, in 2005.

“We have now reached the point where you can wander down Queen Street in Auckland and wonder if you are still in New Zealand or some other country.” – Peters announcing “flying squads” to search for potentially risky immigrants.

“The government’s lax immigration laws are changing the face of our country forever. At this rate, it won’t take long for New Zealand to be unrecognisable.” – In a statement headlined “New Zealand — The Last Asian Colony”.

“We are being dragged into the status of an Asian colony and it is time that New Zealanders were placed first in their own country.” – In July 2004, following a government decision to increase the number of new migrants in the coming year.

It bemuses me that so many activists on the left are putting all their hopes on Winston – they should be the ones demanding that Labour also rules out dealing with him. Power before principles though.