Stu Rothenberg lists ten things losing US candidates say – which apply somewhat here also:

1. “I’m running a grass-roots campaign.”
2. “The only poll that matters is the poll on Election Day.”
3. “I’m the next [insert big name politician here].”
4. “I’m not going to run any negative ads.”
5. “I’m not going to accept PAC money.”
6. “My son is running my campaign.”
7. “Money doesn’t win elections, ideas do.”
8. “I’m going to win this race the same way I did when I got elected to the state House.”
9. “People know me.”
10. “My district is different.”

What would be your list for NZ candidates?

The NZ Festival has announced:

Wellington will be invaded by Daleks, Cybermen and a host of other Doctor Who monsters in February next year, as the BBC’s smash hit Doctor Who Symphonic Spectacular takes the stage at the 2014 New Zealand Festival.

Touring with a new show based on the recent Doctor Who 50^th Anniversary Proms in the UK, Doctor Who Symphonic Spectacular will play three performances at Wellington’s TSB Bank Arena on 21 and 22 February 2014. This is the first time the show has come to New Zealand, following sell-out seasons in Melbourne and Sydney last year.

A musical celebration of the iconic TV series, aisles will be overrun with Doctor Who characters as the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra performs composer Murray Gold’s captivating music from the Doctor Who series. Overhead specially edited sequences of Matt Smith’s performance as the Eleventh Doctor will appear on the big screen.

New Zealand Festival Artistic Director, Shelagh Magadza, is expecting the Doctor Who Symphonic Spectacular to be one of the hottest tickets at next year’s Festival, which marks her first as Artistic Director. …

The Doctor Who Symphonic Spectacular will appear as part of the New Zealand Festival at the TSB Bank Arena, Wellington on 21 and 22 February. Tickets go on sale to the General Public on 30 August 2013 with pre-sales available from 26 August 2013 from Ticketek. 

The 50th anniversary of Dr Who is celebrated on 23 November 2013 with a special episode featuring Matt Smith, Jenna Coleman, David Tennant, John Hurt and Billie Piper.

Kiwiblog readers who want to attend the Doctor Who Symphonic Spectacular can pre-register at Ticketek with the password “CYBERMAN”. The pre-sale lasts this week only.

I am very excited and can’t wait!

Phelim McAleer, the producer of FrackNation, details his list of the top 10 lies told about fracking:

1. Anti-fracking activists are nice people who love debate
2. Everyone hates fracking
3. Fracking is brand new and untested (started in 1947)
4. Fracking makes your water flammable
5. Fracking contaminates drinking water – one million fracked wells, zero cases
6. Fracking uses a lot of dangerous chemicals – actually 0.5% only
7. Fracking causes breast cancer
8. Fracking uses a ton of water – 5% of that used to water lawns
9. Fracking should be banned because it causes earthquakes – so do hydro dams and geothermal
10. Fracking destroys the landscape and disturbs bucolic rural America – generally only for a few days

d

Watch this cute six year old girl sing. Priceless.

Tracy Watkins at Stuff reports:

The three contenders for the Labour leadership have confirmed taxpayers are stumping up for the cost of them flying around the country to pitch for votes.

Labour MPs are also likely to charge their flights to the taxpayer for attending any of the 12 candidates meetings planned around the country over the next two weeks.

The three contenders – Grant Robertson, David Cunliffe and Shane Jones – confirmed they would use the travel perk to campaign over the next twarging their o weeks.

But they will pay for all their other expenses, such as accommodation, out of their own pockets.

Annette King has tried to justify this by saying MPs flights to party conferences get paid by Parliament also.

But I think there is a difference. MPs get invited to or are expected to attend many conferences and engagements around New Zealand. They attend business conferences, union conferences, party conferences, rotary club meetings and the like.

But this is different. This is three MPs choosing to stand for the leadership of a party, and attending meetings explicitly to persuade people to vote for them to become leader.

I think that is closer to a campaign expense, than a parliamentary expense, even though it is within the rules.

Just as the party leaders don’t charge their campaign travel to the taxpayer in a general election, prospective party leaders should not do so in a leadership election. They’re in line for a huge pay rise if they win, so surely paying for a few flights is a good investment?

From DPF: If you watch question time today, I’d love you to comment below and score the three leadership contenders out of 10 for how you think they did, as they have a question each.

Questions for Oral Answer.

Questions to Ministers 2.00-3.00PM.

1. JAMI-LEE ROSS to the Minister of Finance: What progress is the Government making in building a more competitive and productive economy and how is this helping New Zealand families?
2. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements relating to Government policy?
3. GRANT ROBERTSON to the Prime Minister: Is he satisfied with the performance of his Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment, and are there any areas of his performance that need to improve?
4. COLIN KING to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made about investment in education?
5. Hon SHANE JONES to the Minister for Economic Development: Does he stand by his statement “The New Zealand economy is, of course, the sum of its regional economies and that is why the Government is placing huge emphasis on assisting each region”?
6. BRENDAN HORAN to the Minister for Primary Industries: What is the best estimate he or his Ministry have, if any, of the economic value of recreational fishing including direct and indirect employment?
7. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers?
8. JAN LOGIE to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?
9. SCOTT SIMPSON to the Minister of Justice: What recent reports has she received on progress with the Drivers of Crime programme?
10. Hon DAVID PARKER to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that “first-home buyers are a priority for the Government”, if so, why are houses more unaffordable for young New Zealanders now than six months ago?
11. CLAUDETTE HAUITI to the Minister of Health: What reports has he received on the latest national health target results?
12. Hon RUTH DYSON to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?

Today the Labour Party are asking five questions. Grant Robertson is asking the Prime Minister about the performance of Steven Joyce in the Tertiary Education portfolio. Shane Jones is asking about Economic Development.  David Cunliffe is asking the Prime Minister whether he has confidence in all his Ministers. David Parker is asking the Minister of Finance about first home buyers. Ruth Dyson is asking whether the Prime Minister stands by all his statements.  The Greens are asking two questions. Russel Norman is asking whether the Prime Minister stands by all his statements relating to government policy, Jan Logie is asking whether the Prime Minister stands by all his statements. Independent MP Brendan Horan is asking about Snapper quotas ( I would also note that the three Labour Leadership contenders are being given a chance to ask an important question each today).

Patsy of the day goes to Claudette Hauiti for Question 11 to the Minister of Health, Tony Ryall: What reports has he received on the latest national health target results?

Government Bills 3.00PM-6.00PM and 7.30PM- 10.ooPM

1. Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Amendment Bill – Committee Stage

2. Resource Management Reform Bill -Committee Stage

3. Bail Amendment Bill -Committee Stage

4. Public Finance (Fiscal Responsibility) Amendment Bill – Committee Stage

5. Patents Bill -Committee Stage

The Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Amendment Bill is being guided through the house by the Minister of Finance, Bill English. The bill seeks to amend the Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Act 2010, which established a licensing and prudential supervision regime for insurers operating in New Zealand. It would also make a consequential amendment to the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act 1989.

The Resource Management Bill is being guided through the house by the Minister for the Environment, Amy Adams. his is an omnibus bill that proposes amendments to the Resource Management Act 1991, the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010, and to the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987. The bill aims to make improvements to the consenting regime, provide for the delivery of the first combined plan for Auckland, provide further powers to make regulations, and to make technical and operational changes.

The Bail Amendment Bill is being guided through the house by the Minister of Justice, Judith Collins. This bill seeks to amend the Bail Act 2000, the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989, the Sentencing Act 2002, the Bail Amendment Act 2011, the District Courts Act 1947, the District Courts Amendment Act 2011, and the Summary Proceedings Act 1957, in order to improve public safety and enhance the integrity of New Zealand’s bail system. The bill seeks to introduce a reverse burden of proof for offenders charged with serious violent offences and class A drug dealing offences, and provides for district court judges to deal with bail matters of defendants charged with drug dealing offences.

The Public Finance (Fiscal Responsibility) is being guided through the house by the Minister of Finance, Bill English. This bill would add a number of new principles of responsible fiscal management and associated requirements to the fiscal responsibility provisions of the Public Finance Act 1989.

The Patents Bill is being guided through the house by the Minister of Commerce, Craig Foss. This Bill is designed to replace the Patents Act 1953 and update the New Zealand patent regime to ensure that it continues to provide an appropriate balance between providing adequate incentives for innovation and technology transfer while ensuring that the interests of the public and the interests of Maori in their traditional knowledge are protected.

So who are the winners and losers to date.

Winners

• David Shearer, can now remove all the knifes from his back
• Andrew Little, gets kudos of being talked about as potential leader, and could end up Deputy
• Shane Jones, his endorsement for second preferences may be crucial guaranteeing him a promotion
• David Cunliffe, may get to become leader or at a minimum return to front bench
• Unions, their votes may decide the winner, so will have the leader indebted to them
• Helen Kelly, now the most powerful woman in politics?
• Maryan Street, successfully knifed the leader
• Moira Coatesworth, strongly campaigned against caucus working out a deal with no membership vote
• The 45 powerful EPMU delegates who may all end up with future Government board appointments, list rankings, or electorate selections

Losers

• David Parker, as his finance portfolio may go to Cunliffe or even Jones
• Grant Robertson, as if he does not win may lose Deputy
• Chris Hipkins, a goner as chief whip if Cunliffe wins
• Fran Mold, loses her job as Chief of Staff around a week after starting it. May be rehired by next leader but depends on who wins
• Clayton Cosgrove, a goner if Cunliffe wins
• Old Guard, their strangle-hold on power may be wrenched off them
• Rajen Prasad, Shearer’s resignation interfered with his planned coup for 2017
• Russel Norman, may soon no longer be the de facto Leader of the Opposition

News.com.au reports:

An organiser at Queensland Young Labor also urged Brisbane woman Gabreille Ward to ask a soft question at the Sky News People’s Forum last Wednesday Night

The controversy emerged yesterday after Ms Ward boasted on QYL’s locked Facebook page about scoring $50 for being one of 100 “undecided voters” quizzing the Prime Minister and Opposition Leader.

This happened in NZ last election also with several left-wing activists getting themselves included in the “worm” panel of undecided voters, which I exposed.

Talia Shadwell at Stuff reports:

By the time Yvonne Maine saw a surgeon about the yawning wound on her head, it had become so big her brain was exposed.

The cancerous lesion had grown from 2 centimetres to 20cm during 16 months of treatment by an unqualified iridologist, who discouraged the Feilding grandmother from visiting a doctor, a Human Rights Tribunal hearing was told yesterday. …

Te Horo iridologist Ruth Nelson is appearing before the tribunal in a case brought by the Human Rights Commission. It says Mrs Nelson, in her 70s, breached the code of human rights in failing, as a healthcare provider, to give Mrs Maine proper care.

Mrs Maine, a retired early childhood worker, had long styled her hair to cover up a lump that had been diagnosed by a GP about 40 years ago as a harmless cyst.

Growing irritation from the lump led her to seek out Mrs Nelson.

Over 16 months, the iridologist, who is not a registered natural health practitioner and has no qualifications, “scraped and picked” at the wound, but discouraged her patient from visiting a doctor, Mrs Maine’s daughter, Carla Taylor, who was present at most of the treatments, claimed.

Mrs Nelson applied herbal poultices, oils and colloidal silver to the growing lesion. She also tried “emotional freedom tapping” – patting the patient’s forehead and repeating positive affirmations, the court heard.

By the time her family persuaded Mrs Maine to visit hospital in 2009, the lesion was an infected wound so deep her brain could be seen pulsating, Prof Tan said.

How much did the iridologist get paid to apply what is basically witch doctorery? An earlier hearing heard:

A pharmacist questioned the amount of painkillers she was taking and suggested she see a doctor.

But she was warned against this by Mrs Nelson, who told her “it wasn’t cancer and they probably wouldn’t treat it now” and that she would  “get a bug or swine flu” if she went to hospital.

Pleased to see the Human Rights Commission take this case. It’s atrocious and there should be consequences for pressuring someone to not seek medical help, ripping them off, and lying with the end result being a preventable death.

Some people say we should have corporate manslaughter. Well what about manslaughter in this case, as the behaviour appears to be completely negligent and lacking in good faith.

UnitedFuture Leader Peter Dunne has announced:

UnitedFuture leader Peter Dunne has released a Government Discussion Paper on UnitedFuture’s flagship “Flexi Super” plan.

“Flexi Super gives New Zealanders the option of choosing to take a reduced rate of New Zealand superannuation from the age of 60, or an increased rate if they defer taking up superannuation until they reach 70.

“A Fairfax Ipsos Mori poll earlier this year showed almost 50% supported the idea – almost more than twice the level of support for shifting the age of entitlement for superannuation to 67, or keeping it at 65.

“Flexi Super lets people choose for themselves when they want to take up superannuation – without being told by the government when they should or should not retire,” Mr Dunne says.

Mr Dunne says Māori, Pasifika and other demographic groups with shorter life spans would benefit most from Flexi Super.

“The Discussion Paper is open for public submissions open until Friday 11 October, after which time the Government will consider these and determine what action it will take,” he says.

The Flexi Super Discussion Paper was a provision of the National/UnitedFuture Confidence and Supply Agreement.

Stuff reports:

Exactly how much more or less than the current rate of NZ Super they would get has not been calculated.

Examples given yesterday suggested a 6 per cent discount for every year the pension was drawn early, or 10 per cent extra for every year it was delayed.

The Treasury discussion document warned the final figures could be “much different” and would depend on detailed analysis which has not taken place.

The treatment of SuperGold cards would be unchanged, no matter when the pension was drawn.

I’m supportive of the principle. The challenge is how to do this is a cost neutral way. Individuals will know reasonably well their likely life expectancy based on their health. So those with bad health will take a reduced Super at 60 and those with good health a higher Super at 70 and the overall cost may end up higher for the taxpayer.

Labour finance spokesman David Parker said the party would consider the policy.

But he warned it had “fishhooks”.

Because many of those with shorter life expectancies would take the money early, Treasury would have to pay a much lower rate at age 60 if the scheme was not to add extra cost.

But Mr Parker warned that some workers would be tempted to take the money early because of difficult financial circumstances – even if that meant they ended up with less money for much longer.

“Some people, because of their economic circumstances might be pressured to take their pension early, despite the fact that doing so could mean they live in poverty as they age.”

I’m not sure you protect people from their own choices. And I would presume that the level of NZ Super, even if taken early at 60, would still remain higher than being on another form of welfare benefit.

The discussion document is here. The example given is that if you took NZ Super at 61 you would get $279.06 a week but if you held off until 69 it would be $523.30 a week. I’d be holding off!

The document also lists other countries that have similar policies such as Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Ireland, Japan, Netherlands, Sweden, UK and USA.

A reader sent this image in. The post doesn’t appear to still be there, but I assume was genuine.

Now compare it to the speech from Grant Robertson which is at this link.

Every word in the post on Facebook is identical to paragraphs in the speech from Grant Robertson.

UPDATE: Is being explained away as a “technical glitch“. That’s some technical glitch to take someone else’s speech, edit it down, and post it to your own site.

UPDATE2: Another interesting issue from Cunliffe’s campaign speech as reported at TV3 on why he lives in Herne Bay, not New Lynn:

When we were approaching having a young family and my wife was a Queen Street environmental lawyer we moved in closer so she could breast feed the children. That’s the answer.

I don’t care too much where someone lives, but I do find the rationale interesting. It would be interesting to check when they moved to Herne Bay, and the ages of the children. I’ve had someone suggest there is a considerable gap between the two events – but have no first hand knowledge myself.

UPDATE3: Bryce Edwards has some tweets about the campaign launch. They include:

Toby Manhire ‏@toby_etc

Cunliffe warns media not to get ahead of themselves, immediately after delivering speech fit for a third consecutive term victory.

Tim Murphy ‏@tmurphyNZH

Why does David Cunliffe’s picture on the wall dominate Savage and all the Labour PMs so grandly?

Giovanni Tiso ‏@gtiso

Do you enjoy seeing the spark of hope die in the eyes of the young? Then vote for someone else. Glad that is settled.

Jordan McCluskey ‏@JordanMcCluskey

The Cat hasn’t got the cream yet, Cunners. Easy Cunners. Easy.

Dan Satherley / ROM ‏@radioovermoscow

Did Cunliffe win already?

Toby Manhire ‏@toby_etc

Crowd at David Cunliffe’s electorate office expected to stand on desks any moment. “Captain, my Captain”.

Tova O’Brien ‏@TovaOBrien

Did anyone tell Cunliffe this is his leadership bid not the win?

Claire Trevett ‏@CTrevettNZH

Cunliffe’s announcement so far is more like a victory speech than the launch of a bid.

James Macbeth Dann ‏@edmuzik

Cunliffe says he’s been “very humbled”, but I think scientists have proven that that is not medically possible

For those interested, this is the route we drove during our US road trip holiday. Was over 4,000 miles or 7,000 kms. We also traveled to New York, but took the train up to there.

Texas is a very big state!

I think we drove through 20 of the 48 mainland states.  My next trip will probably be more up North, around the Great Lakes and Yellowstone etc.

The Labour electoral college for the leadership has three components to it. Two of them are simple and one is complex. Also a complicating factor is that with three candidates, it is a preferential ballot.

Let’s take the three sections one by one.

Caucus Vote

The caucus gets 40% of the vote. They used to get 100%. They are the ones who actually get led by the Leader, and have to work with the leader on a day by day basis.

There are 34 MPs, so effectively each MPs vote is worth 1.18% of the total vote. If the vote is after Lianne Dalziel resigns then there are 33 votes worth 1.21% each.

Members Vote

They get 40% of the vote. Labour have not revealed how many members they have, but let’s say it is 10,000. If they all vote they get 0.004% each. So an individual vote counts for little, but the overall vote of the members does count for the same as the caucus.

Union vote

The affiliated unions gets 20% of the vote. This is proportional to the number of affiliated members each union has. Again this is not publicly known but we can estimate it. Basically the number of affiliated members is their total number of members multiplied by what percentage voted to affiliate with Labour when they voted to do so. This by definition is a proportion between 50% and 100%.

If we assume all the unions had a similar proportion in favour, then we can estimate their relative voting strength based on their latest returns of members to the Registrar of Unions. The six unions in order of size are:

1. EPMU (Engineering etc) 36,987 members, 41.5% of union vote, 8.3% of total vote
2. SWFU (Service Food etc) 22,351 members, 25.1% of union vote, 5.0% of total vote
3. MWU (Meat) 15,313 members, 17.2% of union vote, 3.4% of total vote
4. DWU (Dairy) 7,000 members, 7.9% of union vote, 1.6% of total vote
5. RMTU (Rail) 4,747 members 5.3% of union vote, 1.1% of total vote
6. MUNZ (Maritime) 2,635 members, 3.0% of union vote, 0.6% of total vote

As one can see the power of unions such as the EPMU and SWFU is considerable and they could well decide who the winner is. This is what happened in the UK Labour Party 2010 election. Ed Miliband won only 46% of the members vote and 47% of the caucus vote but got 60% of the union vote and beat his brother David Miliband. So the elected leader had minority support from both members and caucus, but got there thanks to the unions. The unions actually broke Labour’s rules by including promotion material for their preferred candidate in the same envelope as the voting paper!

But the situation is even worse in NZ Labour, than UK Labour. In UK Labour the unions allow all their members to have a vote. Ballot papers went out to around 2.7 million union members. This diluted the power of the union hierarchy to affect the ballot. They certainly endorsed candidates, and their endorsement won the day for Ed Miliband, but it was still a 60:40 split.

NZ Labour has decided that it is up to each union as to whether all their members will vote, or just their national conference delegates. Only one union, the SWFU, is allowing all members to vote. Good on them for doing so.

The other five unions are having their conference delegates vote only. So how many people is this? Well I’ve gone through the rules for each union to try and estimate this.

1. EPMU – 1 delegate per 1000 members, 45 delegates
2. SWFU – full membership vote
3. MWU  – 1 delegate per 350 members, 54 delegates
4. DWU – 1 delegate per site with more than 30 members, estimate 70 delegates
5. RMTU – determined by previous conference so unknown
6. MUNZ – 1 – 4 delegate per branch (13 branches), estimate 30 delegates

The power of those 45 EMPU delegates is considerable. That is a small enough number for them to meet collectively and decide who to support. Of course it is a secret ballot and they can vote however they like, but as loyal delegates they will vote for what is best for the EPMU. Those 45 EPMU delegates will be worth 8.3% of the total vote. I doubt they will be splitting 50/50 or even 60/40. I predict 80/20 or 90/10 or more.

Each EMPU delegate will get approximately 46 times as much of a say as a normal Labour Party member (if they are a member, they get an additional vote in that section also). A MWU delegate will get 16 times the say of a normal Labour Party member.

The 170 or so delegates from the EPMU, MWU and DWU are worth 13.3% of the total vote.  It is hard to see any leadership candidate winning without them. Those lucky 170 delegates will be getting lots of phone calls as they play a major part in picking the person who could be the next Prime Minister.

UPDATE: Very happy for any union to provide the exact number of voting delegates they have, so I can update the post.

Tim Colebatch at the Sydney Morning Herald reports:

If you believe the opinion polls, there must be two elections going on. One is the Federal election, where the established pollsters agree that the Coalition has established a small but growing lead, averaging 52-48 on their latest polls. That’s a swing of 2 per cent.

The second election seems to be taking place in individual seats. It’s brought to us by the new kids on the block, the robo-pollsters, who use automated phone calls to bombard us with surveys that report huge swings to the Coalition.

On Thursday, a Guardian Lonergan poll reported that Prime Minister Kevin Rudd stands to lose his own seat of Griffith in a 10.5 per cent swing against Labor. If you haven’t heard of Lonergan, it’s because they are brand new; their accuracy is untested.

But Lonergan is on a roll. Last week it stunned us by reporting that Labor’s other big name in Queensland, Peter Beattie, would lose Forde in a swing of 8.5 per cent to the Coalition. And it told us Assistant Treasurer David Bradbury stands to lose his western Sydney seat of Lindsay in a swing of 11 per cent.

Uh-huh. Lonergan’s own national poll reports only a 2 per cent swing against Labor. Yet in the three seats it polled individually, it found an average swing of 10 per cent. That’s huge, far bigger than we have seen in any Federal election since 1943.

Its Rudd poll came out as The Australian’s Newspoll reported a swing of 2 per cent to Labor in Queensland. Is there a swing to Labor in the other 28 seats in Queensland, but a landslide against it where Rudd and Beattie are standing? Maybe not.

It’s not just Lonergan. Another of the new kids using robo-polling, ReachTEL. shocked us last week with polls in four Sydney seats reporting an average swing against Labor of 10 per cent, with Treasurer Chris Bowen another big name heading for defeat.

Last month ReachTEL went polling in Tasmania, and reported swings against Labor of 11 per cent in Bass and Franklin, 14 per cent in Braddon and 17 per cent in Lyons. There’s a bit of a pattern here.

Last Saturday JWS Research polling in eight seats found an average 6 per cent against Labor, relatively modest by robopollster standards.

Yet the established polls with a strong track record such as Nielsen, Morgan, Newspoll and Galaxy on average report a swing of 2 per cent. All of them came within 2 per cent of the actual result last time.

Well, they and the robopollsters can’t both be right. Someone will be left looking pretty silly on election night.

I don’t think any pollster in NZ uses robopolls. Their advantage is they are cheap (no staff to pay!) and data is entered directly by the respondents (pushing buttons on phones) so analysis can be instant.

However the concern is that they become self-selecting, and hence not representative.

Traditional phone polling relies on the fact that because there is an actual human on the phone nicely asking you for a couple of minutes of your time, you will agree – even if not greatly interested in the topic.

I suspect with robopolls (and to a degree some Internet panel polls) that those with a higher degree of interest in an issue will stay on the line, and those less motivated will hang up as you are hanging up on a machine, not a person.

Hence it is not surprising that robo polls may be showing bigger swings against the Labor Government, as people are often more passionate about booting a Government out than keeping it in.

We’ll see of course come the election, but like the author I am sceptical of the massive swings being shown in some Labor held seats.

David Shearer’s resignation speech sung as an opera. Very well done.

The Government Administration Committee has reported back the Lobbying Disclosure Bill written by former Green MP Sue Kedgley and introduced by Holly Walker.

It is no surprise that the Committee unanimously recommended the Bill not proceed. The bill was well-intentioned but to be blunt it was drafted so atrociously that it was beyond unworkable. A more sensible bill would have had a reasonable chance of progressing.

I previously covered the intense criticism of the bill by submitters and the Attorney-General said it was inconsistent with the Bill fo Rights:

This Bill significantly limits core democratic expression. In going well beyond what would be required to regulate the activities of lobbyists, it risks creating a chilling effect for average New Zealanders who may fear criminal sanctions for merely communicating with a Member of Parliament on behalf of their business in relation to government policy.  This would be an unacceptable limit on a core element of freedom of expression.

It’s a good lesson that you can harm your own cause by putting up such a badly drafted bill. It’s effectively killed off any possibility of there being any legislative reform around lobbying (not that I was convinced one needed legislation).

The Government Administration Committee has made three non-legislative recommendations which seem worthwhile:

1. That the House develop guidelines for members of Parliament about handling communications relating to
   parliamentary business, and review the relevant Standing Orders to ensure consistency
2. That the Government require the regulatory impact statements and explanatory notes of parliamentary bills to include details of the non-departmental organisations consulted during the development of related policy and legislation
3. That the Government encourage the proactive release of policy papers to make the policy-making process more transparent

At least I won’t now have to worry about ending up in court because I engaged with an MP on Twitter and forgot to tell the Auditor-General about it!

Stuff reports:

National Party nominations for the Christchurch East by-election open today.

 

The party’s Canterbury Westland regional chairman, Roger Bridge, said the seat, to be vacated by mayoral hopeful Lianne Dalziel, had been held by Labour since 1922.

 

A sitting government had never won a by-election in a seat it did not hold, but National had a good story to tell about the rebuild, a strong economy and improving public services, he said.

I’ve been amused by how Labour and some in the media have been talking up National’s chances in Christchurch East, suggesting the seat is marginal. Here’s three facts:

• No Government has won a seat off an Opposition in a by-election since the advent of political parties
• National has never ever held the seat.
• Lianne Dalziel won the seat in 2011 with a 19% margin over Aaron Gilmore

Yes National got 46% of the party vote, but that doesn’t change the political reality that no Government has ever won a seat off an opposition in a by-election. There is no real incentive for voters to do so.

News.com.au reports:

Francis has charmed the masses with his informal style, simplicity and sense of humour – and a handful of strangers have gotten the treatment up close, receiving papal phone calls out of the blue after writing him or suffering some personal tragedy.

After another random phone call from the pope this week, Italy’s leading Corriere della Sera daily offered etiquette tips for the lucky recipients, proposing conversation starters and no-go areas on its front page Friday.

Topping the list: Be ready, especially if the land line rings.

The 76-year-old Francis has a fondness for making calls the old-fashioned way, using land lines and placing the calls himself, often surprising recipients by simply announcing “It’s the pope.”

After his election in March, Francis reportedly called his newspaper stand in Buenos Aires to cancel his daily delivery and his shoemaker to tell him not to bother with papal red leather loafers but to keep making his regular black orthotics. The receptionist at the Jesuit headquarters in Rome thought he got a crank call when Francis phoned two days after being chosen pope looking for the Jesuit superior.

Francis has since called an Italian man whose brother was killed and a Colombian woman who works in Rome to thank her for a book.

If you were cynical you might think he does this to build a good public image. But I don’t think that is the motivation. I think you have a Pope just determined not to get out of touch with ordinary people, and he makes it a priority to talk to people outside the Curia.

It’s too early to say, but I think Pope Francis is already making a real impact on how the Church is viewed globally.

Grant Robertson has confirmed he is standing for the leadership, and made a very strong case on TV last night about being part of the future, not the past, and able to unify Labour.

Shane Jones has said he is standing and it is almost unthinkable David Cunliffe won’t stand. At this stage I am comparing just Cunliffe and Robertson as they are by far the most likely to win. Hard to see how Jones can win a majority of caucus, members or unions – however he could pick up enough support to stop the others getting 50% – meaning second preferences will be crucial.

I’ve done a quick comparison of the relative strengths of the two main candidates, in the table below. And then I give my pick as to who would give Labour the best chance of winning in 2014.

So both candidates are well qualified, and will (at least initially) give Labour a boost in the polls. But which one should Labour choose?

Well if I was a Labour member, I’d vote for David Cunliffe. He is a bigger risk for Labour, but he also has the bigger potential to gain votes.

The risk with Cunliffe is Labour will remain divided, and that New Zealand won’t warm to him – on the basis his own colleagues haven’t.

But the reason I think he is worth the risk is his economic credentials. The major issue for the last election and the next one will be economic management.  One of the reasons National has done so well is John Key resonates economic credibility with his strong business background.

Labour needs a leader that can be equally credible, or at least reasonably credible. While Grant is a skilled politician, his background is basically entirely within Government. He was a student politician, then a parliamentary staffer and then an MP, with a couple of brief spells with MFAT and Otago University.  That makes it hard for him to convince New Zealanders that he can run the economy better than John Key and Bill English.

Cunliffe has studied at Harvard Business School, and worked at Boston Consulting Group. He was also a very competent Communications and ICT Minister. That gives him a greater opportunity (but not a guarantee) to convince New Zealanders that Labour can manage the economy. They don’t need to convince people that they will spend more on welfare and families and the like. They need to convince on economic management.

So as I said David Cunliffe is a bigger risk for Labour. Grant Robertson is a very solid performer and is certainly a more than safe option. If their ambition is to just gain 4% and govern with the support of the Greens, Winston and Hone, then Grant could well achieve that. But if they want to get a result in the high 30s or even higher, they need to take a risk on David Cunliffe.

Strathmore Park blogs:

Nicola Young yesterday hosted what is, as far as I know, the first face to face between Wellington’s homegrown ICT companies and … the Prime Minister. In what has to be the coup of the local body elections to date, Nicola Young managed to get John Key to come and spend some face time with over forty of Wellington’s local geek powerhouses at Prefab in Jessie Street.

The messages were clear. Nicola Young understands the value of the ICT community in Wellington, and given she is also running for the Lambton Ward as well as mayor, that’s important for that community as they live, breathe, work, and do business in that ward. We know that she has an inner geek, she’s admitted that she codes her own website manually.

I went along to the meeting and it was excellent. The range of people there ranged from some of the more well known ones locally such as Catalyst and Powershop to ones which are doing great stuff globally such as the firm which has sold more than 3 million educational devices globally.

Let’s look at some of the messages out of this event.

Firstly, Nicola is serious. To organise an event like this takes a lot of effort and long days. 

Secondly, Nicola is serious about ICT as an industry in Wellington. She could have organised any number of industry groups, but she singled out ICT as a sector and did something for them. It shows a passion for the industry (you can’t hide that inner geek).

Third, John Key turned up and spent a good deal of time talking with the various geeks face to face about what they were doing, challenges, and so on. I want to stress something else here. This was an event with no mainstream media, I suspect that David Farrar and I will be the only ones to write about it. It wasn’t a PR stunt on John Key’s part, and that’s interesting, because that means that Nicola Young has the ear of central government all the way up to the Prime Minister.

In other words, the Prime Minister didn’t turn up because he was going to score media points, he turned up because Nicola asked him to come.

This definitely wasn’t a media opportunity. In fact Nicola and the PM spoke for less than five minutes. After that the PM talked one on with one with each person there over the next hour and a half or so. So it was a great opportunity for each local firm to let the PM know about what they were doing.

I was also very heartened that when the PM did speak, he talked about how the Government is very focused on not having big projects such as the new IRD computer system become something that only global multi-nationals can realistically tender for and that the path they are heading down is to do it in a series of smaller developments rather than one big project. This is exactly what people like Rod Drury had been advocating.

Also was interested to talk to Ari from Powershop and find that they now have around 19% of residential customers. That’s a great success story for a company just a few years old that operates almost entirely over the Internet. It also shows how competitive the retail electricity market is if they can go from 0% to 19% in five years.

Well done to Nicola for organising the event. I think it would be a great template for other centres to use also – instead of masses of speeches, or a cocktail function, you actually give 20 to 30 entrepreneurs face time with the PM.

WCC Watch covers this also.

Duncan Garner has tweeted that Shane Jones will also stand for the Labour Party leadership. Robertson declared today and inevitable Cunliffe will declare, so it looks to be a three horse race.

I suspect Jones is not in it to win, but to gain enough support that the other candidates need his support to win, and to give him maybe Deputy or Finance.

Certainly livens the race up, and will be good to have a more economically moderate candidate in the mix.

Sonny Tau has put out a personal statement in support of Shane Jones:

With the Labour leadership contest now underway, many Māori have thrown their support behind Shane Jones, proud son of Ngāpuhi, who has what it takes to lead Labour, and is the sharpest knife in party’s drawer.

Shane has a formidable intellect, great political instincts and is a brilliant orator in both Te Reo Māori and English. No one can touch Shane – not even John Key or any other politician – when he is in full-flight addressing Parliament.

Shane brings critical constituencies that Labour needs if it is to be in a position to form a Government.

He brings the Māori vote, which Labour knows it can no longer take for granted. Listening to Māori political pundits over the past few days, all have said it is imperative for Māoridom that Shane either leads Labour or is appointed deputy.

No other Labour MP has the understanding, authority or mana to drive through the Māori agenda as Shane can.

Another important constituency he brings is the business world. Shane has chaired a major fishing company and has acquired business acumen within the corporate world. There are precious few within Labour ranks who have this string to their bow. …

I urge Māori to be in touch with their Labour associates over the following days, to express their support for Shane Jones. I will be doing this myself.

That reinforces my belief that Shane is really standing for Deputy.

If Cunliffe beats Robertson, he could well make Jones Deputy. Where does that leave Grant? He can’t be Finance Spokesperson.

If Grant wins, he needs someone from Auckland as his Deputy. Either Cunliffe or possibly Jacinda. Does Jones get Finance?

The loser in all this may be David Parker. Hard to see him holding Finance regardless of who wins.

The (UK) Sunday Times reports:

Nude portraits of the Prime Minister’s daughter are creating a stir in the art world.

Stephanie Key, 20, studies at the prestigious Paris College of Art in France.

Her photographs, in which she poses naked with food positioned in strategic places, are being used to promote this year’s Paris Design Week.

One of the images shows Ms Key naked with sushi on her breasts and an octopus over her groin.

In another she poses with burger buns covering her breasts.

Art experts have called the work “visually arresting”.

They’re not nude portraits of course, but that sounds more sensational. They’re pretty typical modern art. The story has been picked up by TVNZ and I guess will be on both channels tonight and all the newspapers tomorrow.

NewstalkZB reports:

What would dad think? PM’s daughter poses nude

I’m sure he is incredibly proud of her as a talented young woman. The fact her father is PM shouldn’t interfere with her work at an art school in Paris. It is the Paris College of Art that choose to use her art to promote Paris Design Week, which suggests she is doing very well there.

I can understand the public interest, but this isn’t an issue where people should be asking the PM for comment. His only role here is as a father, not as PM.

This is the other image. Again it is a long long way from being “nude” (not that there would be any problems if it was anyway). You see more revealing photos on Facebook all the time.

Not that I am an artist, but the McDonalds one appeals to me much more. The buns and fries are cheekily done, and the red and yellow is visually appealing – with the red wig matching in well.

The sushi one is pretty cool, but the thought of an octopus on the skin just isn’t for me!

If you choose to comment, be aware I will delete anything I consider inappropriate or even borderline.