The latest prices on iPredict for the Labour leadership and the next PM continue to intrigue.

David Shearer is at 70.4% to become the Labour leader. The stock on whether the PM after the 2014 election will be Labour is 52%, so if you multiply them together the chance Shearer will become PM should be 36.6%. However the price for Shearer to become PM is 29.6c or 29.6% which suggests that the market thinks Shearer becoming leader is a negative for Labour winning in 2014 by 7.0%.

But Cunliffe has the same issue. His leader stock is 28.2% suggesting his PM stock should be 14.7%. But in fact it is 7.4%, which suggests that Cunliffe as leader damages Labour chances by 7.3% – much the same as for Shearer.

So how is this possible? Well the answer is that despite not being a candidate for this leadership ballot, Grant Robertson is at 5.7% to be PM after the election. As the price for a Labour victory is 52% this suggests that the market thinks there is an 11% chance Grant will roll whomever gets elected Leader before the 2014 election.

The teacher unions insisted national standards should be trialled before implementation, yet are furiously against charter schools being trialled.

Are they worried the trial might be a raging success?

THIS WEEK ON BACK BENCHES: Watch Wallace Chapman, Damian Christie, the Back Benches Panel and special guests discuss the week’s hottest topics!

THE SELL-OFF DEBATE CONTINUES: The election may be over but the debate over asset sales continues. Does National have a mandate for asset sales? Will their coalition partners United Future, ACT and possibly the Maori parties be a great influence on what is sold? Will the opposition hold much sway? What protections will be in place to make sure the majority stake in the assets stay in Kiwi hands?

A TIME FOR GIVING: Tis’ the season for giving. But are we only opening our wallets for more crap we don’t need or are we helping our fellow man? Are we a charitable nation? Are our corporations giving? What about the common man? Are we generous? Should we be encouraging one another to give either with time or money? Is it time to offer tax credits to encourage us to give?

Join us for a night of LIVE pub politics from the Backbencher Pub: Wednesday, 7th of December. Our Panel: Green Party MP Catherine Delahunty, Labour MP Andrew Little, National MP David Bennett.

Back Benches screens on TVNZ 7 every Wednesday at 9.05pm with encore screenings on Thursdays at 9.05am and 1.05pm, Saturdays at 10.05pm, Sundays at 10.05am and 2.05pm.

If all the lefties had not tactically voted NZ First to get them over 5%, then National would have 63 seats and not need ACT and United Future to govern, and hence it is far less likely that ACT would have got agreement to have a trial of charter schools. When the main party *needs* you, you will get far more wins than when they simply *want* you.

I love own goals. It is almost as good an own goal as Labour winning Te Tai Tonga, which has allowed asset sales to proceed.

Stuff reports:

The possibility of further strikes at Ports of Auckland has forced major shipping line Maersk to shift one of its services to the Port of Tauranga, leaving the Auckland port company $20 million out of pocket.

And:

”Maersk have explained to us that the possibility of further industrial unrest has been central to their decision to shift the service to Tauranga.”

The port company will lose 52 ship calls, 82,500 containers, and nearly $20m in revenue annually.

I guess that may mean fewer jobs. Funny how the real world operates.

A group of supporters have set up a “We want David Cunliffe” website, giving reasons why Labour should make Cunliffe leader, and allowing people to e-mail their support to all 34 Labour MPs.

The site is a good concept in principle. I think it is good to see supporters of one of the contenders set up a support site. The more engaged supporters and activists get the better.

I was amused that they concluded by saying:

Don’t let the right-wing bloggers hijack your party’s Leadership election. Submit the form now!

So many people have got worked up that some of us have offered an opinion. I also had an opinion on the Green co-leadership contest between Bradford and Turei and it wasn’t such a big thing. I’ll probably offer my opinion on all leadership contests in all parties, except probably National where diplomacy would win out. Anyway back to this site.

While the site is a good thing in principle, three criticisms:

1. The design is awful. Looks like an excited eight year old did it.
2. The supporters are anonymous. This is a major fail. Who the hell sets up a support site and is not prepared to stick their name to it? It turns the site into an issue about who is really behind it – it could be Trevor Mallard for all we know 🙂
3. They have provided incorrect registration details to the .nz registry. They have done this to hide their identity, but the rules for .nz require a registrant to be named and contactable. Their domain name registration could be found to be invalid.

The substance of the site is pretty good though – it pushes his strong points well. Maybe we will see a site for Shearer also?

UPDATE: A reader points out a reason why the authors may be anonymous. They stated:

David Cunliffe wins elections. On Saturday David was almost the only Labour MP to increase his local majority. Labour will only be relevant when it can win enough votes to form the government. Cunliffe comes from a new progressive generation. We think he¹s the best candidate to beat John Key.

But DC was not the only Labour MP to increase his majority. Based on results to date the Labour MPs who increased majorities are:

1. Su’a William Sio +6,230
2. Nanaia Mahuta +4,485
3. Parekura Horomia +3,258
4. Grant Robertson +3,207
5. Chris Hipkins +2,373
6. Iain Lees-Galloway +1,884
7. Ross Robertson +1,405
8. David Cunliffe +450
9. Trevor Mallard +107

Such a basic mistake makes me wonder about who is behind it. Maybe it is actually the Young Nats having fun?

In my blog at Stuff, I make the case for David – in fact for both Davids, weighing up their respective strengths.

Danya Levy at Stuff reports:

Prime Minister John Key is defending the introduction of charter schools under a deal with ACT despite National never campaigning on it, saying “that’s MMP for you, isn’t it?”.

It is. And I see one of the registered promoters for the referendum was the NZEI arguing we should retain MMP.

Under the deal with ACT, community, religious or ethnic groups, or private companies, will be allowed to operate state-funded charter schools.

School boards will be able to set class hours and introduce performance-related teacher’s pay.

A trial will be held in South Auckland which, along with Christchurch East, will be the first areas to have the state-funded private schools within the next three years.

I’m pleased to see the trial will be in South Auckland, where young kids are not doing that well under the current system.

The prime minister rejected suggestions National had blindsided voters with changes to the education system.

“Are you really telling me that because we might trial in parts of the country, one or two schools, to see whether they can deliver better results, that somehow it’s undermining the education system in New Zealand?

“Sorry but it sounds a bit far-fetched to me.”

Oh it could well undermine the current education system – by succeeding. This is the worse nightmare of the opponents. Think if a charter school that has flexibility over staff, property and operational budgets (including ability to do performance pay) actually delivers better results than the existing schools? Think if instead of white flight, we get brown flight – Maori and PI families enrolling in the charter school because their kids get a better educational outcome there.

One prediction I will make. Regardless of how successful a charter school may prove to be, Labour will promise to close it down, or force it to become like all the other schools when the Ministry of Education and the NZEI/PPTA decides how much teachers get paid rather than the school and the teacher decide.

“I don’t think the New Zealand voters are going to be up and arms because in a couple of communities in New Zealand we give some new model a go.

“If those students don’t want to go there, they’ll be free to go to the existing schools they are at.”

Exactly. Of course some people think choice is an evil word.

UPDATE: Danyl at Dim Post thinks that charter schools are a scam and only do better because they can pick their students. However Eric Crampton at Offsetting Behaviour quotes from a study where students were selected by lottery:

Charter schools are publicly funded but operate outside the regulatory framework and collective bargaining agreements characteristic of traditional public schools. In return for this freedom, charter schools are subject to heightened accountability. This paper estimates the impact of charter school attendance on student achievement using data from Boston, where charter schools enroll a growing share of students. We also evaluate an alternative to the charter model, Boston’s pilot schools. These schools have some of the independence of charter schools, but operate within the school district, face little risk of closure, and are covered by many of same collective bargaining provisions as traditional public schools. Estimates using student assignment lotteries show large and significant test score gains for charter lottery winners in middle and high school.

This is highly exciting.

No one big item, such as ACT had, but lots of assorted issues in their agreement.

• Pass the Game Animal Council legislation (this is for the outdoor recreation lobby)
• Investigate a free annual health check for over 65s, as fiscal conditions allow
• Introduce a law restricting any asset sold to a maximum 49% sale
• Maintain current budget funding tracks for TVNZ and Radio NZ
• Reform Families Commission so it has only one Commissioner and redirect savings to parenting programmes etc
• A Govt discussion document to be developed on UF’s superannuation policy which allows people to choose any age from 60 to 70 to start receiving superannuation, but the longer you leave it the more you get
• Greater use of private hospitals to reduce elective surgery waiting lists

Based on the National/ACT confidence and supply agreement, John Banks is a more effective ACT Caucus than all the caucuses before him.

• A Regulatory Standards Bill to be enacted into law within 12 months, based on Option 5 in this paper.
• A spending limit law to be introduced within 24 months so that expenditure (excluding benefits, disasters, interest) can not increase by more than the annual rate of population growth and inflation. This is a huge win.
• RMA reform so there is only one unitary plan per district
• Trial charter schools in South Auckland so private and community groups (including Iwi) can establish schools that compete with existing schools, and receive funding on a per child basis

These are very significant policy wins for ACT. The spending limit and trialing of charter schools have the potential to have a major impact into the future – and for the better.

If these can be successfully implemented in the next three years, then I could see ACT gaining many of its former supporters back.

National’s second term is looking to have a lot of really positive and significant reform.

The Test Pattern is a new website devoted to debating public policy in New Zealand. It’s contributors are some well known debating names, including:

• Polly Higbee
• Jordan Ward
• Rebecca Mcintosh
• Marcelo Rodriguez Ferrere
• Josh Cameron

Their views on an issue are presented in vertical columns, so you can compare and contrast.

A reader has sent in this guest post about their experiences of being on the dole and with WINZ:

I became unemployed in 2009. It was my choice, and it was a bad choice. I was hoping to move jobs and thanks to the recession, both my plan a and backup plan fell over. After 6 months of living off savings and some Working for Families money, I applied for the dole.

I generally found WINZ to be really helpful and some people I worked with really bent over backwards for me, even when I wasn’t worried about things. Pretty much every case worker sympathized at the lack of jobs, and acknowledged that there really wasn’t much that I could do.

However when I had to renew my dole after the 1 year mark I ran into some issues. I had taken myself off the dole over the summer while I tried to build up a small business I had started. I actually was told I should not be trying to create a business but should be looking for work. As a result of my initiative and in spite of having 3 interviews in the previous few weeks as well as me delaying my reapplication and actually going without income for several days on the hope that I would not have to reapply*, the Case worker decided I was a proud, lazy bludger and cast around for suitable torture. Having discovered that I was ineligible for one course due to actually having been a productive member of society(!), I was enrolled in a “course” for work seekers that turned out afterwards to be a weekly, early-morning commitment.

Well, I turned up every week. Typically, about 6 people who were supposed to did not. They started the process of being kicked off the benefit. Many who did show up didn’t have a CV, including one fellow who had been “looking for work” for over a year. We were told one week that the WINZ staff at that office had been calling people up, and almost no one had been answering their cell phones. The point was well made – would you get a job if an employer rang?

As for the course, it consisted of

A warning about what would happen if we didn’t show up for the course.
Looking through the WINZ web site for jobs that might possibly be suitable

As an experienced professional who’d found several jobs without any help from WINZ, and had a WINZ work broker wonder in amazement that I hadn’t found employment, it was humiliating. There were of course no jobs on offer for my skill set. But I did apply for several more basic jobs and got one interview. It did make me think about what I had to do to get a job, and made it clear that sitting on my bum was unacceptable.

Because, see that’s the thing. When there’s no sales being made on trademe, and there’s no interviews in sight, and the business that’s looking for a hundred non-skilled workers doesn’t even bother to reply to your application, you start to get depressed. And yet the dole payments, the working for families tax credits keep rolling in. That combination of discouragements and easy money is corrosive. I was actually better off unemployed financially than I had ever been for many years employed – and with hours of free time to boot. I would have been a fool if I hadn’t seriously considered making it a long term lifestyle.

In the end, I got a job by looking in other places. We moved city. It was a massive upheaval and traumatic for my family, but I am now a productive member of society.

One thing that helped the transition was the IWTC. Because of that extra income our Working for Families doesn’t drop and helps fund my travel to work and other extra costs. I can’t believe anyone would want to give that bonus money to people who don’t work – if you’re not leaving the house your costs are much, much lower.

I was out of work for almost 2 years. Yes, there are few jobs. But forcing people to get out and look is a good thing. Making them re-apply for the dole is a good thing. Forcing them to regular courses is a good thing (how on earth will someone who can’t get out of bed once a week get out of bed every day for a job?). Giving people a  financial incentive to work is a good thing.

As Labour says, there are people on the benefit who want to get out and work. No one doubts that. But there are also a large number who find it easier to sit at home and collect free money from the government. Society pays people the dole on the condition that they are looking for work, and I find it extraordinary that the measly token gestures such as the National party have made are so vigorously decryed by those who “support” people like me – long term unemployed. Instead of supporting them, they merely make the issue worse.

What would I do?

• I would reduce (yes, reduce) the amount of working for families paid to beneficiaries and increase accommodation payments. It was my observation that payments are actually quite generous for people with no accommodation costs, but in places like Auckland those costs are crippling.
• I would have people required to behave much more like they are in work. Many people are simply not employable because they have habits that are simply not compatible with being employable. Having them turning up *every* day for courses or sign-ins at normal work hours would be a minimum. Actually getting together people with complementary skills and seeing what they can produce. Encouraging out-of-the-box solutions.
• At worst, I would like to see WINZ have work available that pays that anyone can just walk into off the street if they’re prepared to do it. Frankly there were times when I’d have quite happily shoveled manure all day and back again if I’d earned a dollar for it, just so I could be counted as working. I’m not talking work-for-the-dole here, I’m talking work for a little more pay than the dole, as a morale booster.

* My wife was castigated by another staff member for my recklessness when she visited the office for another matter. She was almost reduced to tears in fact. Which makes what happened even all the more bizarre.

Always great to have a first hand perspective.

A reader e-mails me:

I’ve been enjoying your herald columns – noticed that you almost always attract comments from “kat” who I always imagine is a kind of desperate and slightly unhinged cat-lady type of person (probably totally inaccurate and certainly unfair of me, but her breathless, vitriolic, and wildly optimistic writing style somehow seems to lend that kind of impression….)

Anyways, I went through her 240-odd comments over the last year or so and pulled out some of her best work, so here for your enjoyment, is “Kat: Redux”….

PS – no comments since her last one on Nov 25 – funny that…

A brave man to go back and read all of Kat’s comments. She seems to sit all day on the newspaper sites waiting for a new post, so she can be first to denounce you and pronounce victory for the left.

I’ll post below his amusing summary of Kat’s utterings, but thought it could be amusing to have a wee challenge for readers. How about going to certain blog sites and extracting the most hilarious quotes – you know the ones – that insisted the Horizon poll was right, insisted Labour would win etc etc. Post them in comments below and I’ll try and blog the best of them. The more arrogant and confident the prediction, the better.

Kat (New Zealand)

Tuesday, February 1, 2011 at 1:13 PM

Goff will be PM after the election.

Equality will be the main game. The way NZ used to be before the Vandals arrived will slowly return. Roll on election day.

Kat (New Zealand)

Friday, February 4, 2011 at 11:14 AM

Lets do a bit of ‘someone else’s money gambling’ now eh Garth?

Key is dog tucker come December. Goff will be PM. Care to gamble? go on, bet against me, be like wee keyboy, or are you just full of hot air, as usual.

Kat (New Zealand)

Sunday, February 6, 2011 at 11:51 AM

Playing devils advocate Kerre?

. Key is certainly coming across as the petulant child by exhibiting his naive arrogance with regards Winston. The people will decide who is the govt. Key will be licking his wounds in Hawaii come next Christmas.

Kat (New Zealand)

Tuesday, March 22, 2011 at 12:59 PM

Money is made round to go around.

All this talk of ‘middle class’ getting something they shouldn’t is a nonsense. National are reverting to type, they have no plan and never did other than slash and burn if the going gets tough. How bad do things really have to get before this inept govt led by its Alice in Wonderland PM is finally consigned to the political wilderness? The election in November will be about substance over style. Good riddance to the rat swallower’s and their Act thug mate.

Kat (New Zealand)

Sunday, April 3, 2011 at 9:50 AM

What will really blow all this nonsense out of the water is when Goff becomes PM in November.

History repeats itself on many occasions and I sniff a repeat of the Muldoon/Rowling rise & fall in the mid 1970’s.

Only this time MMP is going to end it for National rather than the phoney cossacks that rolled Labour at the time. The constant attempts to destabilise Goff will ultimately backfire but in a round about way. The electorate in November will be voting for anyone other than the current merchants of despair; Act, National and the Maori Party.

Roll on November.

Kat (New Zealand)

Wednesday, April 20, 2011 at 10:00 AM

Same old, same old.

Goff as opposition leader does not have to win the election, Key will lose it. Govts are voted out. Wasn’t that the most publicised story with Clark? Stay tuned Audrey and you may get a surprise lesson in political science come November.

Kat (New Zealand)

Sunday, April 17, 2011 at 12:53 PM

Roll on November.

Kat (New Zealand)

Sunday, May 22, 2011 at 11:42 AM

Key is a one trick pony, always has been, with no plan other than self adulation.

He and his bunch of tricksters will be thrown out in November. I for one don’t care that he has no clothes, the weather is warm in Hawaii.

Kat (New Zealand)

Friday, May 27, 2011 at 3:32 PM

Your a well know right wing supporter Mr Farrar so why is it not surprising your comments are so pro National to the extent you use bogus poll results as the benchmark for your opinions.
November the 26 is the real poll and get ready to be surprised, very surprised.

Kat (New Zealand)

Sunday, August 21, 2011 at 8:36 AM

Quite simply Fran we won’t have acceptable youth employment until we next get a Labour govt.

Nationals tinkering and blatant election grabbing media bites is never going to solve the problem. Its up to the people of this country and how they vote on November 26 that will determine the foreseeable future. God defend NZ will certainly be an appropriate anthem if we are delivered another term of National.

Kat (New Zealand)

Sunday, August 28, 2011 at 8:35 AM

What is bizarre is articles like this that continue to tell everyone that Goff and Labour are history.

National and in particular Key has had and continues to have the near full adoration from the media and that has an effect. Throw enough mud and some will stick.

This election is about Asset sales and the selling of NZ. Its about a poor performing economy. Its about the ever widening gap between the haves and the have-nots. Its about a govt that has no plan. Its also about substance vs style.

The media just love the celebrity style of Key and that is where Goff is given a raw deal. Goff will make an excellent PM, he is well qualified for the position from experience. Goff has a genuine heart for the people. Goff is the real deal.

Kat (New Zealand)

Friday, September 2, 2011 at 12:47 PM

More push polling Mr Farrar.

We are not stupid. The assets that National intend selling are strategic. Also your ‘insert’ mentioning Phil Goff and asset sales from the 1980’s is a cheap shot to further slur his name. Your articles are becoming more and more biased and only serve as feel good fodder for dyed in the wool National/Act supporters.

Kat (New Zealand)

Wednesday, October 26, 2011 at 10:47 AM

Woodham can’t be taken seriously when she cutely refers to the Prime Ministers lie and misleading parliament with ‘dropping the ball’ and then on one hand chastising Labour for ‘throwing money at desperate people from an ever-diminishing number of taxpayers’ yet not mentioning Nationals tax cuts which was clearly throwing money at wealthy people from an ever-diminishing number of taxpayers.

Kat (New Zealand)

Sunday, November 6, 2011 at 2:06 PM

Well its never too late Matt, better get on your bike and have all those 250,000 voters that didn’t vote for Labour in 2008 vote in 2011.

Thats what will win it for Labour, turnout!

And what about the current Horizon polling?

Kat (New Zealand)

Friday, November 18, 2011 at 12:09 PM

Mr Farrar, if your beloved ‘Brand Key’ is able to cobble together a right wing coalition following the election how long do you give that administration before it implodes?

The media, after stroking the ‘Brand Key’ dog for 3 years, will ultimately punish the dog that has now bit it. Although disastrous for the country if ‘Brand Key’ returns it would be poetic justice, in a way to see the sycophantic media devour its own pet and suffer the obvious digestive rejection.

Roll on November 26.

Kat (New Zealand)

Sunday, November 20, 2011 at 3:53 PM

‘Ultimately, National’s lead in the polls is such that this will be a minor bump in its campaign.

Not according to recent polls that you the media live. And the latest Horizon poll in particular sees Brand Key booted out.

Oh that was fun.

VUWSA is voluntary from next year. The idea is that they focus less on being a branch of the Labour Party, and more on actually doing good stuff for students.

However they have struck a dirty deal with the university, where VUW will fund them using taxpayer and student money so they can function even if no students wish to join them. This is obviously a sign that VUW is awash in surplus funds and doesn’t need any further taxpayer contributions.

For let’s have a look at how the 2012 VUWSA President plans to use VUWSA assets funded by taxpayers and students:

Now you can’t blame the VUWSA flunkies entirely for this. They have had years of a culture of entitlement where they see VUWSA assets as being available for their personal political activites.

Whom I blame is the Council and Vice-Chancellor of Victoria University. The whole idea behind VSM is to give bodies like VUWSA an incentive to provide better representation and services to students. Handing over a large cheque every year with next to no accountability, means they are unlikely to change.

If I was the new Minister of Tertiary Education, I’d be thanking the Council and VC of VUW for making their job much much easier. If at anytime in the next four years before the Govt gets the books back into surplus VUW asks for more money, then it is an easy “No” as they obviously have lots to spare. Of course some of the academic staff may get upset that they’ll go four years without a payrise, just so VUWSA gets to keep its van for trips to Young Labour conferences.

UPDATE: VUWSA President-Elect Bridie Hood has e-mailed to clarify:

I just wanted to clarify a few of the issues mentioned in your blog post this morning entitled ‘VUWSA Not Learning’.

As has been mentioned in the comments section, all VUWSA Affiliated Clubs are able to access the VUWSA Van for use. Most of the youth political groups are affiliated VUWSA clubs (including VicLabour, VicNats, Greens@Vic, Act on Campus etc), and those which are not have the opportunity to become so. The process is transparent and fair. VUWSA does not privilege any particular groups simply by dint of their political affiliation. 

 As stated on the VUWSA website (http://www.vuwsa.org.nz/other-services/van-and-trailer-hire/) there is a $90 per day fee to use the Van and clubs must also pay for petrol.This is not a service fully funded by the University and/or VUWSA. It is, however, offered at a cheaper rate than other companies such as Hertz and Rent-a-Dent to allow clubs to participate in events.

Regarding my comment on the Young Labour Summer School event page, I was suggesting that VicLabour could hire out the VUWSA van (if it was available) so they could travel to the event at a lower cost than flying.

I’m disappointed to see that a personal facebook post has been interpreted in such a way.Anyone who knows me and knows my work at VUWSA knows that I would never use a VUWSA resource, such as the van, for my own personal gain.

Please let me know if you have any questions on this issue and I am happy to discuss VUWSA policy with you if the need arises. I hope you find the time next year to come and visit us, I think you will be pleasantly surprised with the changes that have been made over the last few years.

A fair response by Bridie, and I accept there was no intention of private gain. I do think there is a wider issue about using income gained through compulsory means to benefit the small minority who are involved in clubs and socs. I’d have no problem with that, if there was a voluntary membership fee and that was one of the “perks” of joining. But the whole idea with VSM is that compulsory sources of income should be used only for essential student services such as a class rep system, a union building.

But full marks to Bridie for the tone of her response.

The Herald reports:

The Act and United Future parties have settled their confidence and supply agreements with the National Party.

The National Party leader John Key is to sign the agreements this afternoon. …

Mr Key would not reveal what ministerial positions would be handed out but all but confirmed Act’s John Banks and United Future’s Peter Dunne would be ministers.

“I could not see why that would not be the case,” he said.

It will be interesting to see the policy details, and also what portfolios (if specified) Banks and Dunne get.

I presume the full Ministerial line-up will not be released until special votes have been counted and there is an agreement with the Maori Party.

Tom Pullar-Strecker reports at Stuff:

Bloggers are nervously waiting for the publication of the Law Commission’s report on “new media” next Monday.

Former Commerce Minister Simon Power raised their blood pressure when he ordered the review in October last year, commenting that there was a “wild west out there in cyberspace”.

InternetNZ chief executive Vikram Kumar said at the time that if that was what Power really believed, “we’ve got reasons to be very, very worried”.

Power was concerned about breaches of suppression orders, libel on the internet, and whether bloggers and online publications should be subject to oversight by the Press Council or Broadcasting Standards Authority.

Blogger David Farrar, of Kiwiblog, expects a high-brow report but believes it is unlikely the Law Commission will advocate an “uber regulator” for new media.

I wouldn’t say I was nervous about it, but I certainly am interested and looking forward to blogging on the report next Monday. As with most areas of law reform there are likely to be opportunities and risks for those who are online publishers (which is anyone with a Facebook or Twitter account).

A very nicely done video by Whale of a duck counting numbers in caucus. If the numbers are accurate then Shearer would win 19 votes to 16. I presume there are 35 votes as it is not yet known whether Burns or Huo are in caucus.

Whale also has a conspiracy theory that almost all of Shearer’s endorsements have come from those who were at Matthew Hooton’s bbq last Sunday. Of course I wasn’t at the bbq (I was celebrating with friends down at the Viaduct), and have said I think Shearer represents a better chance for Labour to win in 2014.

Matt McCarten writes in the HoS of his support for Shearer and mentions others also supporting Shearer. Off hand I count the following endorsements:

• Matt McCarten
• Matthew Hooton
• John Tamihere
• Willie Jackson
• Michelle Boag
• Deborah Coddington
• John Pagani
• Jon Johansson
• Chris Trotter
• Cameron Slater
• Phil Quin
• Lew Stoddart

Now that’s just members of the VRWNLLWC who have endorsed Shearer. Add to that the apparent support of Phil Goff, Annette King, David Parker, Grant Robertson and Trevor Mallard. Has any leadership candidaate ever had such a wide variety of people endorsing them?

However for Shearer to win, he will need more than endorsements. He will need to pick up his game substantially from his performance on Q+A today. Being unable to even name your Climate Change spokesman is embarrassing.

Danya Levy at SST reports:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jordan Carter has a thoughtful piece on Labour and the Labour leadership. An extract:

In the wake of Labour’s most serious election defeat since the 1920s, a comprehensive and critical re-examination of almost all of what Labour’s politics is about is an absolute necessity for our party.

On the table must be our policy, our campaigning, our organisation from branch to national level, our candidate selection, our structure, our communications, our tone, the way the parliamentary party works, what the staff do in the party and in parliament, and on it goes.

I think Jordan is right in that the leadership is only one aspect that needs reviewing. I’ve written before about what National did in 2002 with an independent review.

We have to start with acknowledging what happened to us on 26 November.

We got hammered. 

There are no two ways about it. 

The result is worse than in 1996, which should have been impossible given that that result followed the three-way split of the 1980s Labour Party.

It is a comprehensive rejection of Labour as a party fit to lead the government. 

I know it as a candidate.  There was none of the anger of 2008 directed at us. Instead there was simply indifference. People were sure we weren’t ready for the job.  Second time in a row.

We must face that defeat, own it as an organisation, acknowledge it, and be ready to take some hard choices about how to refound our party and our movement to win.

It’s that big a deal.  A positive and upbeat four week campaign does not erase the fact of failure, and nor must it be allowed to disguise how far we have fallen and how much work we have to do.

First and most profoundly, Labour has to work out again what electorate it wishes to appeal to.  Who are the 50-60% of New Zealanders we want to have open to voting for us, from which we can draw 40-50% of the vote at general elections?

Secondly, we need with hard data and through open and engaged listening, to work out why it is that so many of those groups who used to be open to us are not now listening, and just don’t care what we stand for or say.

Labour could do worse than put Jordan on the review team. Having said that, the review team should ideally have some external people on it. An internal review can only do so much.

Every week the Wellingtonian interviews a Wellingtonian for their weekly profile. They finally ran out of interesting people to talk to, so interviewed me. Note that the interview is not verbatim, but extracts from what I said.