In my column at the NZ Herald I write on how National’s second term looks to have plenty of reform:

Many National supporters were frustrated at the lack of reform in National’s first term.

They saw National cancels its planned income tax cuts for 2010 and 2011, rather than cut interest free student loans and Working for Families. They saw a soaring deficit, and the Government’s response was to slow the rate of spending increase only. They saw a ban on asset sales, despite this being common amongst centre-right and centre-left Governments around the world.

National’s second term is looking to be far more pleasing to those who want to see a reform agenda. This doesn’t just mean a more right wing agenda. The Hawke/Keating Governments in Australia were good reformers, as was Tony Blair in the UK and Bill Clinton in the US. Even Julia Gillard is undertaking some quite good reforms.

So what are the areas of reform for John Key’s second term?

Industrial Relations

The current industrial action at Ports of Auckland is a good reminder that we still lose too much money through strikes and lockouts. Many people are staggered that an unskilled job can pay an average of over $90,000 a year and still have people on strike over it.

I also cover asset part-sales, welfare reform, education and spending.

An excellent editorial in the NZ Herald:

Sir Roger Douglas has departed the political stage again but he may have left another enduring monument in Act’s agreement with National this week. A law to cap increases in government spending could prove to be as effective as one of his great legacies of the 1980s, the Reserve Bank’s inflation target.

Like the monetary target, the spending cap will sometimes be honoured in the breach but the target is no less effective for that. When it is breached, there needs to be a good reason, and a credible path set to bring inflation back into line. So it will be for the fiscal cap.

I think many have under-estimated the political power the cap will have.

It is too easy, as the previous government proved, to take on ever larger commitments when business is booming, the workforce is fully employed and tax revenue is providing budget surpluses. The country hardly noticed that state spending was steadily becoming a greater proportion of the economy in the years that surpluses also enabled continuing reductions of public debt.

More generous medical subsidies, paid maternity leave, early education, interest-free student loans, higher public service pay rates, a “super goldcard” are not the kind of expenses that can be wound back when the business cycle turns down and revenue drops. They instantly become entitlements that a future government fears to threaten.

Exactly. And the sad reality may be that the days of debt fuelled 3%+ growth could be in the past for-ever. In a new debt-averse world, with Europe taking a decade or more to get its debt under control, we may never get growth again like we have had in the 1990s and 2000s.  We may need to get used to 2% growth being the norm. This is why we need to stop Governments from imposing costs on New Zealand we can’t pay for.

Ultimately, of course, a parliamentary majority can do whatever it wants in this country and no Parliament can bind the next. A statutory spending restriction can be breached and even repealed as readily as the Bill of Rights Act. That act requires the Attorney-General to alert Parliament to proposed legislation that would breach the rights enshrined. The public takes note, the government needs a convincing case to proceed in political safety.

Laws of such limited power should not be under-rated. The lack of any stronger sanction is a strength, it makes it harder for a future government to repeal a statute that can do more than keep governments honest.

And hopefully it will increase the financial literacy of the public. We will know how much more a Government is planning to spend over the baseline amount per capita.

National has been not much keener than Labour on a legislated spending limit but it is already living within the limit agreed with Act. The cap is a credit not only to Sir Roger who has long argued for it, but to the recently deceased director of the Business Roundtable, Roger Kerr, who maintained a lonely watch against rising public expenditure, and Don Brash whose brief leadership of Act restored its focus on economic fundamentals.

Fiscal responsibility is a prosaic, thankless contribution to public welfare but if government spending rises no faster than population growth and low inflation from here on, we should all be better off.

Absolutely. If you look at all OECD countries over the last fifty years, those who manage to have the state consume a lower proportion of GDP have on average much much higher economic growth than those with a higher proportion.

Now it is a balancing act of course. If the state only consumed 5% of GDP, then we’d probably have no publicly funded schools or hospitals. But the current level of state spending is the highest in our history, so I don’t think drawing a line at today’s spending level and saying real spending per capita should not increase beyond today’s level is if anything a little on the generous side.

Patrick Leyland blogs at The Progress Report:

In a pretty bold break with tradition the caucus have decided to do things slightly differently this time. While the vote will still rest with the MPs, the candidates have been engaging in a more open campaign than we’ve ever seen. They have been on TV debates, spoken about their merits, blogged, and they have also begun a series of meetings with party members around the country. In my opinion this is the biggest step forward. The idea being that the candidates speak, the members are then afforded an opportunity to ask questions, and then the members are welcome to provide other caucus members with feedback.

Some have quietly complained that they do not get a direct vote in the leadership. This is a valid criticism and one that must be taken seriously by the new leadership team, and the party, during its upcoming review. …

They’ve attracted large crowds of members, many of whom have renewed their memberships just to gain entry and others who haven’t been to a party meeting in many years. It goes to show that an open process can really inspire people to get involved.

Imagine how many more members we would have at the door if they were allowed a vote on the leadership?

I congratulate the caucus and the party for the way they have conducted this process, but I hope they see it as a stepping-stone on the way to something bigger and better.

First of all I agree the public leadership contest has been very good for Labour. I’m pleased they took my advice which I blogged prior to their caucus after the election:

If Labour were really smart they would have the vote in February 2012 just before Parliament resumes and have a two month campaign for the leadership. Have the three contenders talk up and down the country to members and supporters about their vision for the future. It will boost the profiles of all three men, and start to get people to tune into Labour again.

Some have asked whether National will do the same, when it next has a leadership vacancy. It depends. If the vacancy is while they are in Government, then it could be difficult to have Ministers campaigning up and down New Zealand building support to become Prime Minister. Ministers are less able to offer policy alternatives than when you are in opposition.

But if the vacancy occurs when National is in opposition, then yes I hope National does do the same and gives members an opportunity to hear the contenders and question them. In fact members should demand it.

In terms of whether the membership should actually be given a vote on the leadership, I do actually favour that. I think the UK Conservative battle between Cameron and Davis did wonders for that party in terms of increasing membership and relevance.

It is important a leader has the confidence of their caucus, and you would want caucus to be able to veto a leader with minimal support. This could be done by requiring an MP to gain say at least 25% of caucus as nominees (MPs could nominate more than one MP).

I can’t see Labour or National signing up to membership elections of leaders, as the Greens do, anytime soon. But change often comes quickly. Labour’s semi-primary has been a step never done before, and will I suspect become the norm. And that step will lead to demands that mebers one day get more than just a voice, but also a vote. Not necessarily a vote equal to MPs, but some say.

Maybe Labour could take some notice of what is happening with Australia Labor, as they try to make their party more democratic:

Labor stalwarts have warned of a dying party unless major reform is embraced and more power given to the rank-and-file membership. …

She won support for the rank-and-file to directly elect a ”component” of delegates for the party’s future policy-setting national conferences.

The conferences are currently dominated by union and state branch chosen delegates.

Hilarious – the unions get to decide whether or not to let rank and file members directly elect delegates to national conferences, and how much power to allow the rank and file.

The conference also endorsed Ms Gillard’s push for a membership increase target of 8000 for next year, a trial of US-style primaries for some pre-selections – where non-members can vote on selecting candidates – and online membership participation in parties.

Also a good idea.

Matthew Hooton writes in the NBR:

Charter schools have received most attention.

 So obviously will this idea benefit the most disadvantaged children that it is shameful it wasn’t implemented years ago, especially as it can be done under existing legislation.

 The concept is almost left-wing – that all children are different and require a school environment tailored to their needs, not the ideologies of bureaucrats or unionists – and New Zealand already has charter schools of sorts.

Indeed the schools are not new, but the extra flexibility they may have could be.

The Muldoon government first supported Te Kohanga Reo in 1982.  Lockwood Smith followed in 1993, providing the first funding for Kura Kaupapa Maori, Wharekura and Wananga.

Catholic integrated schools and those based on particular pedagogies such as Montessori or Steiner are also effectively charter schools.  Dr Smith’s tenure saw the first state-funded Hare Krishna school.

The idea is to give poor families the same educational choices as rich families, and bring new ideas into the system.

But there will be opposition!

The teacher unions, of course, oppose the idea with extraordinary ferocity.  They know that, if the charter school trial is successful, their vision of a single system, controlled by them, with no ability to compare either students or schools, and therefore no possibility of accountability, will be dashed.  They also know that, without their intervention, the trial is likely to succeed.

Vicious campaigns will be launched against the new schools and the teachers who work in them.

Pickets will try to prevent students from attending them.  The atmosphere the unions engender will encourage attacks on students planning to attend the schools …

Now Matthew may be resorting to a bit of hyperbole here, but if he is correct could we see scenes like the below in New Zealand?

From today’s Herald

The Brian Rudman column he refers to is this one. The column is pretty obviously an implicit endorsement of Cunliffe, so this suggests that Davis, like his wife, is a Cunliffe supporter.

Chris Trotter writes:

Now Mr Shearer was a serious contender, but his new front-runner status came at a price. Like David Lange before him, he was no longer his own man. Labour’s spent forces, the MPs epitomised by the politically exhausted figure of Trevor Mallard, were now wrapped around Mr Shearer like supplejack around a totara. And they were clinging to him for only one reason: survival. Their arch-enemy, Mr Cunliffe, had long ago read their use-by dates. That’s why the ABCs couldn’t allow him to win.

But, if Mr Cunliffe cannot defeat Mr Shearer, he can, at least, defeat Mr Shearer’s backers. A rejuvenated, restructured, or, to borrow Labour stalwart Jordan Carter’s term, “refounded” Labour Party cannot be created by a glove-puppet.

Glove-puppet is too harsh a term, but Trotter is right that there is concern that Shearer with his relative inexperience and less alpha male personality could become the front guy for basically the same old group of MPs who entered Parliament under the 4th Labour Government and should have no part in the 6th Labour Government.

If Mr Cunliffe cannot beat Mr Shearer, then he should, over the next 72 hours, think very seriously about joining him. It’s not too late for the best qualified candidate to contact the most popular candidate; set up a meeting; and make a deal. Mr Key and Mr English did it – why not Mr Shearer and Mr Cunliffe?

Together, they’ve more than enough strength to tear off and make a bonfire of all that parasitic caucus supplejack. Together, they could bend the arc of history towards a Labour victory. Together, a new power curve could hurl their fighters skywards heading for the National fleet.

Cunliffe has gone out of his way to say that Shearer would be on his front bench, but Shearer won’t make the same commitment (on the basis he won’t commit to anyone). However media reports have made it pretty clear that the intention is if he wins, that Parker is Finance Spokesperson and Robertson Deputy, hence demoting Cunliffe. I think this would be a mistake.

I’m not saying that if Shearer wins that Cunliffe should be his Deputy. But I am saying he should at a minimum keep him on as Finance Spokesperson and have him part of the inner team. They would be a good combination.

The NZ Herald reports:

Cabinet minister Paula Bennett is on the verge of losing her Waitakere electorate seat.

Sources report that Labour’s Carmel Sepuloni is ahead by fewer than 10 votes after the counting of special votes.

Paula will be gutted to lose, if the speculation is correct, as she does love to be the MP for Waitakere. However that is the nature of politics.

If Carmel does win the seat, that will be a morale boost for Labour. She remains in the caucus and they lose either Raymond Huo or Rajan Prasad. Losing Huo will hurt them a bit as he is a major source of revenue for them. I can’t think of any downside to them losing Prasad.

Such a close result would almost inevitably result in a judicial recount, which could take until Christmas.

A judicial recount is absolutely sensible when so close. I doubt it would take until Christmas. They are not like electoral petitions.

A recount is also likely to be sought in Christchurch Central, where Labour’s Brendon Burns and National’s Nicky Wagner were in a dead heat on election night and are understood to be within 100 votes of each other after the coutnting of 3717 special votes.

It was not known last night who was leading.

May also go to a recount. It will be a huge morale blow to Labour to lose Christchurch Central, if they do. Labour have held this seat continuously since 1946. To have National hold both Auckland Central and Christchurch Central would be remarkable.

Maybe DC just wants to be Opposition Leader 🙂

I blog at Stuff:

There are not a lot of glass ceilings left in New Zealand for women to break through. Two of the last three prime ministers were women. Two of the last five governors-general were women. The Speaker of the House before the current one was a woman. The chief justice role has been held by a woman since 1999 and Dame Sian is not due to retire until 2021. Also the then largest company in New Zealand (Telecom) was headed by a woman just a few years ago. …

Though in 2011 there are not many glass ceilings to break, there is still a serious under-representation of women in Parliament. Sadly the proportion of women in Parliament dropped this year for the first time since 1996.

Now I’m not one of those who advocates that Parliament must or should exactly match the population in gender, age, ethnicity, sexual orientation, left-handedness and so on. I think competence and quality is the most important qualification. However, so long as the MPs are high quality and competent, I think it is desirable that Parliament is indeed a House of Representatives, and our Representatives do reflect the diversity of New Zealand.

So I would like to see more quality, competent women elected into Parliament. But working out what the major barriers are is not so easy. …

d

The Dom Post editorial:

Among those most depressed on election night were probably many teachers, their trade unions, and school principals.

I’m not so sure about “many” teachers. Most teachers don’t give a stuff about politics and just want to get on with teaching. It is the teacher politicians who devote most of their energy to educational politics that would have been depressed, but they are a minority of teachers.

The first John Key-led government made a priority of ensuring children can read and write – the foundation for all later learning – and parents getting school reports in plain English.

Known by its shorthand name, national standards, the policy was steadfastly adhered to by Mr Key, who consulted educational experts before the 2008 election on what would make the most difference to the one in five children who leave school illiterate and innumerate.

The policy was equally steadfastly opposed by the primary teachers’ union and the Principals’ Federation, chiefly on ideological grounds.

Their biggest fear is that once data on how schools are doing under national standards is reported to the Education Ministry, it will be available to the whole community, which will learn which of the schools they fund from their taxes perform best.

Outraegous. I’m waiting for Labour to announce a policy that they will ban league tables not only for schools, but also for hospitals. It is appalling that Tony Ryall publishes which DHBs have the quickest times for A&E waiting times and cancer radiation treatment. Not all DHBs have the same sort of patients, and Ryall’s hospital league tables should be banned as they are unfair to the hospitals not at the top.

But it is criminal that up to 20 per cent of students leave school unable to read, write and do arithmetic.

Former Labour Party president and new Howard League for Penal Reform chief executive Mike Williams gets it: he is desperate to find literacy teachers willing to help prison inmates. Why would that be necessary if current education policy works as well as teachers claim? After all, those jailbirds went to school somewhere.

The NZ educational system works very well for the average student. However it works very badly for the bottom 20% and not that great for the top 10%.

If children who are failing can be helped to succeed by a different prescription – think kura kaupapa or Rudolf Steiner, for example – the trial is worth conducting to see what can be learned from it.

Absolutely. A great win for ACT and for New Zealand.

NZ Herald reports:

Chinese New Zealand businesses, including one formerly owned by the businessman spearheading Shanghai Pengxin’s bid for the Crafar dairy farms, have boosted the National Party’s coffers by more than $100,000 in recent days.

Recent filings to the Electoral Commission show National received $50,000 on November 22 from Citi Financial Group, a Queen St foreign exchange and financial planning firm owned by Yan Yang and Qiang Wei.

The same day, the party got a $1600 donation from Oravida NZ, which also gave $55,000 on November 30.

Oravida’s directors are Jing Huang, Julia Jiyan Xu and wealthy but reclusive businessman Deyi Shi.

In September last year when it was called Kiwi Dairy, Oravida was bought from Terry Lee, a businessman associated with Shanghai Pengxin, which has applied for Overseas Investment Office approval to buy the Crafar farms.

It is good the disclosure regime is working. Transparency is important and media should report large donations

Turning to the Oravida donation, the key word is former owner. Terry Lee has not owned the company for 14 months, and the new owners have nothing to do with the Crafar farms bid as far as I know. Some people get very excited about former owners, assuming it means they are still in a position of influence with their former company, and/or wanting to advantage them. The prime example of this is how some go on about Steven Joyce being a former owner of the radio stations now owned by Mediaworks. What many do not realise is it was a hostile takeover, and shall we say no love lost there between the former and current owner.

So as far as I know there is no actual link to the Crafar farm bid. Ironically if someone associated with the bid for the Crafar farms did donate a large amount to National, my belief is that it would actually harm their chances as even if the OIO recommended approval, Ministers would be very wary of making a decision that could be perceived as influenced by the donation.

Incidentally what is a Chinese New Zealand business? Both businesses are New Zealand businesses. Oravida has three directors – two of whom live in NZ and one in New York. The ultimate shareholders all appear to be based in New Zealand also. CFG director and shareholders all appear to be New Zealanders also.

There is a difference between a business owned by Chinese living in China and Chinese living in New Zealand. Chinese living in China are foreigners. Chinese living (permanently) in New Zealand are Kiwis.

• Sat 10 Dec – Publication of final results
• Sun 11 Dec – confidence and supply agreement with Maori Party, confirmation of majority
• Mon 12 Dec – PM announces Ministers and portfolios
• Tue 13 Dec – Labour elects Leader and Deputy (and maybe Whips)
• Wed 14 Dec – PM and Ministers sworn in and warranted by Governor-General and 1st Cabinet meeting
• Tue 20 Dec – 50th Parliament convenes for swearing in of MPs and election of Speaker
• Wed 21 Dec – Speech from the Throne

Stuff reports:

A heavily intoxicated Blenheim man slept between railway tracks as a train rumbled over him in Blenheim early on Saturday, police say.

The train driver telephoned police and told them he might have run over somebody on the railway tracks at the Dillons Pt Rd crossing in Blenheim about 5am.

“The driver wasn’t sure if it was clothing he had gone over or not,” Constable Michelle Stagg of Blenheim police said.

“When police arrived, sure enough there he was, asleep between the tracks.”

Police woke the man, who they said was very drunk, and found his only injuries were some minor cuts to his forehead. He had been lying on his back between the tracks as the southbound freight train passed over him.

“He was very lucky to have only a few minor cuts on him. It’s amazing really,” Stagg said.

Very very lucky to be alive. At first I wondered how drunk do you have to be, to fall asleep on a railway track?

But perhaps the more incredible aspect is that even after a train passed over him by a few inches, he still remained asleep!!

I’m guessing an alarm clock would be wasted on this guy.

Most of the focus has been on the leadership contest for Labour, but the battle for Deputy Leader is also interesting with Grant Robertson and Nanaia Mahuta both standing for it.

Effectively they are both standing on tickets with Shearer and Cunliffe respectively except that in the former’s case they are pretending it is not a ticket by not calling it that. I tend to subscribe to the theory that if it looks like a duck ……

The caucus though will have two separate votes for the positions, and will only vote for Deputy Leader when they know whom the leader is. It is possible at that point, one of the contenders would pull pull out, so there is no risk of the Leader ending up with a Deputy who was not backing them.

The conventional wisdom is that Shearer is ahead of Cunliffe at the moment, so Robertson one can assume is also more likely to become Labour Deputy Leader. If this eventuates this overall could be very powerful for Labour. But first the negative.

I’ve blogged before that the ideal deputy leader is one that doesn’t want to be leader, and I stand by this. Now this does not mean that I think Grant personally is a disloyal person who would be sitting there from day one plotting to undermine the leader and become leader. I don’t think that is Grant’s style or record. Also Grant is a relatively young guy with a pretty safe seat, and knows his best route to the leadership is to be part of a winning team, where his support for the leader is unquestionable.

However events can mean things are not that easy. If for some reason (assuming Shearer is Leader), Shearer fails to fire and after 18 months is struggling in the polls, then media will focus on the deputy leader and ask whether or not he should be leader. They will every week ask the deputy if he rules out a challenge, and of course no person can ever totally rule out a change, so a response with wriggle room will be given, and the media will note the wriggle room and the speculation becomes destabilising. I saw this first hand when Jenny Shipley was National Leader and Bill English her Deputy. I even recall the press secretary who had to go between the two of them negotiating a wording for his denial of plans to become Leader, but one that does not make you a liar should a change become necessary – which it eventually did. Very rarely will a Shermanesque denial be given which includes the statement “If nominated I will not accept”.

So the risk if Grant is Deputy is not that Grant will be disloyal. He is a team player. It is that if the leader does not perform as expected, that he will be promoted as a viable alternative – especially is as Deputy Leader he is seen to be performing better than the Leader.

Goff survived as Leader to contest the 2011 election because no one else in Labour wanted the job before the election. They were prepared to lose this election. However the caucus will be more hard headed going into 2014. The thought of a third term for National and nine years in Opposition for Labour will be deeply horrific to them. So if a Leader is not performing, then a change before 2014 would be more likely to occur. However I should state that it is not my expectation that either Shearer or Cunliffe would not perform well, so this scenario is a possibility not a probability.

Somewhat unfairly to Grant I’ve written more than I intended on the possible downside of his deputy leadership. The upside is not so long, but it is more powerful. It all relates to what the role of a deputy leader can and should be in a successful leadership team.

I think the best combinations of leader and deputy are like those in a great school. The school principal provides the leadership to the staff and students, while the deputy principal effectively manages the day to day running of the school.

A good deputy will, on behalf of the leader, help manage the caucus and the leader’s office. They will provide political management and sort out all but the biggest issues, freeing up the leader to lead and focus on convincing 400,000 more New Zealanders to vote for the party.

Robertson should be incredibly effective as this type of political deputy leader. His background in NZUSA, working for Hobbs and then as H3 to Clark gives him a wealth of experience in political management. Every day a parliamentary team has to decide what questions to be asking in Parliament, what press releases to put out on what issues etc.

So overall Robertson should be a very effective Deputy Leader for Labour if he gets elected.I would take one issue with his statement at Red Alert:

I know that I can hold my own and best any of the National frontbench in Parliament and on the hustings.

I’ve often blogged in the past about my respect for Grant’s skills and certain higher ups in National tease me relentlessly about a statement I once made that Robertson will give Ryall a much much tougher time in health. I’d even go so far to say they mock me for that statement, as the reality is that Ryall hasn’t even been mildly nuzzled by Robertson in the House, let alone savaged.

So I think it is a wee bit premature to be claiming you can best any of the National frontbench in Parliament. The evidence to date hasn’t shown that. However I think in National’s second term it will be easier for Labour MPs like Grant to land some blows.

Stuff reports:

SFO boss Adam Feeley confirmed the total estimated value of the allegedly fraudulent transactions was about $1.7 billion, which includes an esimated $1.59 billion from entering the Crown Retail Deposits Guarantee Scheme. …

“The collapse of SCF was one the most significant of all the failed finance companies. The value of the fraud alleged to have been committed exceeds anything in the history of white-collar crime in New Zealand, and the time we have taken to complete this matter is a reflection of that scale,” Feeley said.

The SFO spent 14 months investigating the company and the charges it has laid cover a variety of offences, including theft by a person in a special relationship; obtaining by deception; false statements by the promoter of a company; and false accounting. The offences carry maximum penalties of between seven and ten years imprisonment.

“It is not appropriate at this point to comment on details of the allegations, but the investigation itself has been one of the most resource-intensive and time-consuming in recent history,” Feeley said.

SCF founder and chairman and Allan Hubbard, was facing 50 fraud charges relating to his private investment vehicles Aorangi Securities and Hubbard Management Funds, but was killed in a car accident in September.

This won’t restore the money to those who lost it, principally taxpayers, but it is important there is accountability over SCF’s management and alleged mismanagement.

Of course it is up to the trial process to determine if any laws were broken, and by whom.

The person behind the David Cunliffe support site has revealed their identity, which is a good thing.

He is David Hawkins. Not the former Mayor of Papakura, but as I understand it, the former Executive Assistant to Te Atatu MP Chris Carter.

This doesn’t mean of course that Chris Carter himself is backing Cunliffe, but it would be ironic if it turns out that David Cunliffe is backed by both Kabul and New York, rather than the former UN manager David Shearer. Is this a schism in the UN vote? 🙂

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.

Brian Edwards blogs:

Praising Shearer’s freshness and dismissing his lack of experience in the bear pit of the Debating Chamber as irrelevant has almost become the norm in comparing him with Cunliffe. I was on that side of the argument myself when Shearer first threw his hat in the ring. But I’ve changed my mind.  

Shearer has had nearly three years to demonstrate his skill as a debater and about a fortnight to provide some evidence of competence in handling the media. He has done neither. His television appearances have bordered on the embarrassing. He lacks fluency and fails to project confidence or authority. Watching him makes you feel nervous and uncomfortable – a fatal flaw.

My problem is that I just can’t imagine him on his feet in the House footing it with the Prime Minister or any of his hugely experienced lieutenants. And a Leader of the Opposition must have a mastery not just of his own portfolios but of every portfolio. Clark had just such a mastery, but it was the product of 18 years experience in the Debating Chamber before she became Prime Minister.

I think Brian makes some good points, but I would point out the next election is in three years times, not three months time. Shearer’s decision to stand for the leadership is a recent one, so he hasn’t done the stuff aspiring leaders normally do such as media training and debating. He will never be a Michael Cullen in the House, but Michael would have never been elected PM.

And then there’s Cunliffe. We’re told there’s a group in the Labour caucus whose ABC mantra is ‘anyone but Cunliffe’. It’s hard to imagine a more childish or stupid approach. Your job, ladies and gentlemen,  is to choose someone who can win the next election, not someone who makes you feel warm and fuzzy. And when you’re making that choice you might like to consider this fact: above almost everything else, Kiwis like leaders who project strength. Kirk, Muldoon, Clark are prime examples. None of them was particularly ‘nice’. Rowling, Lange and Goff were ‘nice’. QED.

Cunliffe may or may not be nice, but he is hugely experienced, has an in-depth understanding of policy, conveys confidence and authority, handles the media superbly and can make mincemeat of anyone on the other side of the House. His ambition should be seen as an advantage not a disadvantage.

My instinct is that the Labour Party is about to make a huge mistake. Their logic, I suspect, is that they must replace an unpopular leader with a popular leader. But it is shallow thinking. What the next Leader of the Opposition must be able to do is best and bring down John Key. That really isn’t a job for ‘a nice guy’.

I am definitely not an ABC person, but of course I am not a member of the Labour caucus. I have considerable respect for David Cunliffe, having worked with him on some of the telco reforms. And on a personal level I’ve never seen the stuff that some people go on about. Yes David has ambition, but what MP doesn’t? Ambition is not a bad thing, if there is talent to back it up, and Cunliffe has that.

On balance I think Shearer has a greater chance of leading Labour to victory, for reasons I have written about previously. But I will say that Shearer is a somewhat risker option. There is greater potential to wins over the hearts and minds of New Zealanders and get Labour’s party vote back into the mid 30s or highers. But there is also a greater risk that Shearer just can’t hack it, and Labour stays weak or gets weaker.

However Labour has dire problems being in the mid 20s. If Labour had got say 30%+, then you might go for the safer option of Cunliffe to lift you that few per cent more. But to win enough party vote to form Government in 2014 from 27% in 2011, you need to take some risks. Otherwise the best you can hope for is a Labour/Green/Maori/Mana Government propped up by NZ First. Sure that will get you into Government, but it won’t be a very good one.

As I have said previously, both contenders should do better for Labour than Phil Goff. Labour are fortunate to have a healthy and competitive choice between two good options rather than choosing the least worst candidate.

I love it how much more reasonable we all get (including me) after an election. Yesterday John Pagani was saying some of what ACT asked for in welfare reform is okay stuff, and today Rob Salmond blogs on charter schools:

We should be asking what makes successful charter schools successful, not declaring all charter schools a failure on the basis that some charter schools failed. More on that later. …

People who are about progressive educational outcomes should ask hard questions about the government’s proposal. Where will the schools be placed? How will the schools select their students? How many will there be? The answers to those kinds of questions will determine how supportive I am.

What we should not be doing is writing off charter schools en masse. There is evidence that charter schools, done right, are progressive institutions. Our challenge is to make sure the government does them right.

Worth reading Rob’s entire post on the issue.

All the groups which campaigned against national standards are against charter schools which would be exempt from national standards.

I’d forgotten that Mickey Savage  doesn’t just comment here and his own own blog. But someone pointed out this post on Monday 28th Nov where he says:

A third mooted candidate, David Shearer, is extremely unlikely to even stand, despite media speculation to the contrary.

Hmmn. And further.

David Shearer has also been mentioned as a possible leader.  He is a decent talented person who will contribute significantly to the party in the future but he is not leadership material at this stage.

The rumours about Shearer and Little were originally started by David Farrar and have been continuously mentioned by Cameron Slater.  The media should discount anything Farrar or Slater says about the Labour Party.

Of course the following day David Shearer announced his candidacy for leader, and is now considered the front runner.

But here is what is hilarious. Mickey Savage is in fact the Auckland Regional Chairman for the Labour Party. So myself and Whale were far more accurate, perceptive and informed on the issue of the Labour Party leadership than Labour’s own regional chairman where the two leadership candidates come from!!

That has to hurt.