David Winter at The Atavism blogs on how different pollsters vary from the average of all the polls, to see which ones have a polling bias. I wouldn’t use the term bias, as that is a loaded word, but it is useful to see the variation. The better comparison will be after the election, against the actual results. However it is still interesting to see this graph:

David’s conclusion is:

It seems TV3 tends to get National a little higher and Labour a little lower than the rest of the pollsters, and perhaps the Herald goes the other way. I think trying to gain anything more meaningful than that from these results is probably the statistical equivalent of reading tea leaves, but feel free to stare at the graph and confirm your own political biases!

As I said, am looking forward to comparing after the election.

Heh. By Adrian Maidment at Scoop.

There was a cyberspace conference in London recently, organised by the UK Government. The British High Commission organised a panel in NZ to discuss some of the issues for the conference, and I was one of the three panelists.

Another panelist, Stephen Bell, has written an article about the panel. A couple of quotes:

Legislative co-operation across countries is productive in tightly defined categories of offence, said Farrar; he gave the example of child pornography or spam, where there is a common understanding of an online activity that does harm.

But an attempt to combine legislative systems designed within different cultures poses the danger of an unduly restrictive “lowest common denominator” system of regulation and of simplistic “remedies” such as UK prime minister David Cameron’s airing the idea of shutting down Twitter to avert riots of the kind that recently hit British cities. Cameron quickly thought better of that suggestion in the face of public protest.

I quite enjoyed having a little dig at the UK PM, as it was hosted by the UK High Commission 🙂

“In theory, it’s illegal for anyone under 14 to be on Facebook,” said Farrar; “but there are whole classes of six-year-olds on it; they just add ten years to their age. Do you educate them on how to use Facebook, or just say ‘they shouldn’t be on there; let’s pretend they’re not’?”

A pragmatic approach is best; perhaps a “Facebook lite for kids” should be set up, he suggested.

It is best to cater for demand, than try to pretend it does not exist.

There is huge opportunity for digitally assisted processes to make citizen interaction with government easier and to further democracy by easing interaction on the formation of laws, said Farrar. “As a small business owner, I love interacting with Inland Revenue – I never thought I’d say that. If there’s a problem nowadays, I don’t spend two days on the phone any more; I use their secure email service.”

Note I’m less enthusiastic over the size of my payments to them 🙂

Claire Trevett at the Herald writes:

Act’s Epsom candidate, John Banks, and party leader Don Brash are campaigning separately, but Mr Banks denies he is promoting himself at the expense of his party to try to win the Epsom seat.

Asked on Campbell Live what brand he was presenting to Epsom voters, Mr Banks said, “Brand Key”, and talked about the popularity of Prime Minister John Key and ensuring National remained in power.

It’s certainly true that John Banks is downplaying the ACT brand, as he needs National voters to tactically vote for him.

But Banks is not the only candidate debranding himself from his party. Whale sent me this photo.

He is the 6th highest ranked Labour MP, and he won’t even put the party logo on his advertisements.

The Herald reports:

Nikki Kaye and Jacinda Ardern are leading a “sexiest politician” poll – but poor old Bill English has no admirers.

But the popularity of the online survey by a Whitireia New Zealand journalism class has some asking if anyone has been stuffing the ballot box.

At 9pm yesterday the “babes” of Parliament led the survey titled “Which politician would you go to bed with?”, with Paula Bennett and Melissa Lee following close behind. …

Sigh, I’m to blame for this story. The poll at Newswire had a total of five responses until I tweeted and facebooked the question “Hmmn, should a journalism school be running a poll on which MP you would like to fuck?”

I do think the poll is inappropriate for two reasons.

The first is there is a difference between a poll asking someone to rate hotness, and explicitly asking “Which politician would you go to bed with”. A fine line maybe, but one that got crossed.

The second is that the annual hotness survey of MPs is done by Durex. I can totally understand why they run such a survey, as it fits their products and brand.

But this poll is run by the Whitireia School of Journalism. I think that is a bad look.

Jim Tucker, who runs the journalism course, wrote on Facebook: “Some people are actually taking it seriously – especially a lot of politicians who appear to have ordered their staff and friends to vote for them.”

He then told the Herald the poll started as a “p*ss take”.

“We had a long discussion in class about putting up some sort of poll, our first of the election.

“The usual discussions were – will you vote, who are you going to vote for and so on. But the class decided to do something different, and see what people would actually vote about.

“It actually grew from ‘which politician would you spend time on a desert island with’.”

Interesting there is a different version of how the poll came about on Facebook, from one of the students:

Haha. I would like to go on the record as opposing, vehemently, this idea when it was pitched to the class by Jim. He wants us to be ‘different’. …

Yeah. I have no idea what he was … thinking. Trying to sex it up perhaps? I don’t find it funny or compelling at all. Yes. Jim’s idea entirely. Most of the class told him it was lame.

I tried to redirect it but failed. There is little point fighting these things

Again, I think it is a bad look. Is this going to raise confidence in the values being taught to aspiring journalists?

AP report:

Under rising pressure from fellow Republicans, United States presidential hopeful Herman Cain sought to muddy the reputation of one accuser, forcefully denied any and all allegations of sexual impropriety and vowed the growing controversy would not drive him from the race for the White House.

“Ain’t gonna happen,” he declared.

Cain flashed defiance one day after a woman publicly accused the candidate of groping her more than a decade ago, adding her voice to three other accusers with allegations that presidential rival Mitt Romney called “particularly disturbing.”

Speaking at a news conference, Cain vowed, “we’ll get through this,” as he sought to steady a campaign that has made him the leader in an unofficial race to emerge as Romney’s principal conservative rival.

At one point he said he would be willing to take a lie detector test, but then appeared to hedge his answer seconds later.

I bet he did.

I think one can survive one or two allegators (as John Key refers to them), but four and growing is a real problem even Bill Clinton would have trouble sliding out of.

This leaves Mitt Romney at 69% on Intrade to be the GOP nominee, and no one else over 10%. If Romney is the nominee, then I suspect there will be a third party candidate from the right, which will mean Obama comes through the middle and gets re-elected.

Katie Chapman at Stuff reports:

Concern that people may think new give-way rules were an April Fool’s Day joke led to an eleventh-hour date change – despite plans for a $1.2 million education campaign.

Just hours before Transport Minister Steven Joyce was due to lodge a Cabinet paper outlining the changes to the give-way rule, he questioned the planned April 1 start date, saying people may think it was a joke.

Despite advice that April 1 would be more memorable, the date was changed to March 25.

The rule change includes dropping the give-way-to-the-right rule in favour of giving way to the left.

I have to say I think the Minister called this one right. telling people the give way rules will be changing on April Fools Day would be a risk best avoided.

For us Kiwis, giving way to the right is so ingrained, it will take a while to get used to it. Now all we need is a law change that also allows you to turn left on a red light if it is safe.

Brilliant video. Story at Dom Post.

Labour MP Phil Twyford doesn’t know the difference between a trend series and a seasonally adjusted series. So what did he do when a data series from Stats NZ showed a positive trend in the trend series? He attacks Stats NZ and accuses them of political bias.

Stats NZ is probably the most neutral agency in the public service after the Auditor-General. Attacking their integrity is very stupid and desperate.

Stuff reports:

Labour’s candidate for the Auckland electorate of Te Atatu yesterday suggested Statistics New Zealand had “massaged” the latest figures on building consents to paint a rosier picture than was correct.

Statistics New Zealand had released building consents for September which found a 17 per cent seasonally-adjusted fall and a 14 per cent fall when apartments were excluded.

“But the headline on the Statistics New Zealand press release read: Trends for new home approvals continue to rise,” Tywford said.

“Talk about spin!”

Statistics New Zealand’s “enthusiasm” could be excused in less partisan times, he said.

“But during an election period when National is patting itself on the back for doing as good a job as anyone could in terms of keeping the economy ticking over, it is impossible not to see a lack of neutrality in the department’s media release.”

Trying to make a 17 per cent decline look like an increase was the “sort of behaviour” expected of Prime Minister John Key or National’s campaign manager Steven Joyce, Twyford said.

“It’s not what you expect of an organisation that has always – until now – prided itself on being fiercely independent of political bias.

“It is inexcusable for Statistics New Zealand to give even the appearance of bias during an election campaign.”

However, Statistics New Zealand chief executive Geoff Bascand said the government agency took seriously its responsibility to explain and present statistics in a meaningful and accurate way.

“As Government Statistician, I am fiercely protective of my statutory independence in the production and release of statistics.”

Volatility in building consents over past months had caused Statistics New Zealand to judge its trend series of figures as the most useful indicator of movement in building activity, he said.

It had also reported the seasonally-adjusted figures within the first paragraph of its statement and more detailed information had been included.

Maybe someone with a stats degree could explain to Twyford what a trend series is.

When I saw that the Electoral Commission had referred Jim Anderton to the Police, I remarked to a couple of people that I was sure he would have a fit and attack the Electoral Commission. I was right. The Herald reports:

Progressive leader Jim Anderton has launched an extraordinary attack on the Electoral Commission for referring him to police for a possible breach of the Electoral Act. …

But Mr Anderton, who was referred to police over election advertising before the 2008 election, said he had done nothing wrong.

Jim thinks he has never done anything wrong in his life. His valedictory was full of how he was right and everyone else had been wrong. If you ask him hig biggest mistake, he will be stumped for an answer.

“I’m authorised to send my constituents any message I damn well like. This is my electorate.

First of all don’t you like how he refers to them as possessions.

Secondly he was not writing to them in his capacity as an MP for parliamentary purposes. He was writing to them to tell them to vote for Megan Woods. Even the thickest of MPs should have learnt by now that telling people who to vote for is not a parliamentary purpose.

Thirdly, MPs are not above the law. He is not a King or a God. He is merely an MP. That doesn’t mean he can do anything he damn well likes.

His arrogance is the same as that which destroyed the Alliance. He demanded the party members surrender total control of the organisation to him, and effectively make him dictator. They refused, so he left.

“And if the Commission wants to start stopping electorate MPs from communicating with their electorate, they’d better get prepared for a breach of privilege complaint, because that’s what it amounts to.

Oh I so hope he tries that – it would be most amusing. In reality all he is trying to do is bully neutral public servants and have them exempt him from the law.

They are interfering with the regular work of an MP.”

It is not the regular work of an MP to write to voters and tell them who to vote for. That is the role of parties and candidates.

“They have a few things like rape and pillage going on around the country, and this is simply ridiculous to tie up senior members of the police force with this kind of garbage.”

In Jim’s world, electoral law breaches are not an offence. I suspect Labour agrees with him.

Mr Anderton said the letter was sent outside the regulated period under the Electoral Act, but the commission referred it to police on the basis that the letter was not properly authorised.

The regulated period has nothing to do with this. In fact, the law for around 20 years has been the same in terms of requiring authorisation.

Idiot/Savant at No Right Turn comments:

Yesterday, I was willing to attribute Anderton’s crime to (unforgivable) ignorance. Today, its clear that its one of arrogance. And he needs to be held to account for it.

Dead right.

National has released its policy on climate change and the environment. The policy has a long list of achievements, but I want to focus on the ETS changes:

The 2011 ETS Review Panel recommended moving to full obligation in three equal steps between I January 2013 and 1 January 2015. It is National’s intention to implement this recommendation.

This is nothing major, and seems sensible to phase in the full obligations.

National believes it is important to maintain land-use flexibility for pre-1990 forest land. We will introduce offsetting on 1 January 2013 regardless of the lack of international agreement.

This is very sensible. It basically says you can offset new forests against cutting down existing ones. Allows a landowner to use the land most suited to forestry for forestry and the land most suited to (say) dairy for dairy.

The agriculture sector is liable to surrender units for agricultural greenhouse gas emissions from 1 January 2015.
National will review this in 2014. We will not impose a liability unless there are practical technologies to reduce emissions, and our trading partners have made further progress with their climate change policies to reduce emissions.

I actually disagree with National on this one. The ETS review panel chaired by David Caygill did a very good job I thought, and made the case that the industry has shown the ability to reduce emissions. Sure, there is no silver bullet, but I don’t think delaying the start date endlessly is a good idea. The industry moves into the ETS at a very slow rate, and a preferable strategy would have been to have it come in, and maybe then cap the level it moves to if technology has not found ways to reduce emissions.

Advocate for an international agreement that requires all major emitters to reduce their emission levels over time.

National sees no point in any future international agreement that does not include a commitment from major emitting countries to reduce their business-as-usual emissions levels. We’ve made our 2020 target conditional on this.

This is vital. If China is not part of any agreement to at a minimum hold, if not reduce, emissions then the efforts of the rest of the world will count for nothing.

The graph below was not done by me, but e-mailed to me by a friend, so I can’t vouch 100% for it, but I took a quick look at the data and it looks right to me.

The graph compares the average of the polls published just prior to a general election with the actual result. It shows that the polls on average have been consistently close to the actual result for the last three elections. Not perfect, but generally within 1.5%.

Past performance is no guarantee of future results, but it is a fairly good indicator.

Got sent the t-shirt over the break by e-mail. Language may offend so only click if you won’t be offended.

Continue reading »

Labour have released:

Labour’s Finance spokesperson David Cunliffe has released 15 quotes from John Key and Bill English that show they have consistently talked up an economic recovery …

Now it is true that the economic recovery has not been as strong as was projected. There are of course some strong external factors at play again like Europe and the Canterbury earthquakes, but putting that aside, whom else can we find talking up the recovery? Perhaps we can even find some politicians who claimed the Government was too cautious about the recovery, and they should start spending up large? Let’s see what Mr Google finds:

1. First we have Phil Goff saying there was a global crisis in 2008, but that it was all over by 2009. http://www.3news.co.nz/Sub-zero-Budget-worst-in-27-years—Goff/tabid/419/articleID/211868/Default.aspx#ixzz1d9dDbU5O. Someone tell Silvio.
2. Then we have David Parker demanding that “All New Zealanders must get their fair share in recovery”. A refrain repeated often.
   The better than expected GDP figures released today serve as a reminder to the National led Government that all Kiwis must share in the recovery, Labour’s Associate Finance spokesperson David Parker said.
   “With growth tracking faster than expected Kiwis should look forward to some relief from the Government’s 2010. The stronger than expected recovery gives the Government more room to move as it prepares for the May 2010 Budget.
   “Now the economy is showing strong signs of growth National must work to ensure all Kiwis share in it.”
   http://labour.org.nz/news/all-new-zealanders-must-get-their-fair-share-recovery
3. This one is my favourite – David Cunliffe actually accuses the Government of “trying to play down the extent of the recovery”
   Kiwis deserve to share in stronger recovery
   Better-than-expected economic forecasts should be reflected in a Budget in 2010 that allows all New Zealanders to share as much as possible in the recovery, says Labour Finance spokesperson David Cunliffe.
   David Cunliffe says today’s Budget Policy Statement is significantly more pessimistic than the latest Reserve Bank’s prediction.
   “The Government is still trying to play down the extent of the recovery, but whether you use Reserve Bank or Treasury forecasts, it is clear that hard-working Kiwis, who have been struggling to make ends meet throughout the recession, must be to the fore of the Government’s priorities in next year’s Budget.
   “The fact that Finance Minister Bill English is trying to play down the level of recovery is a worrying sign, but Kiwis want positive reinforcement that the country is on the mend.
   http://labour.org.nz/news/kiwis-deserve-share-stronger-recovery
4. The fact that the number of full-time equivalent jobs and total paid hours declined in the December quarter shows that thousands of hard-working Kiwis are not sharing in the economic recovery, says Labour Finance spokesperson David Cunliffe.
   http://labour.org.nz/news/declining-opportunities-grim-news-struggling-kiwis
5. Goff – Fortunately, the rest of the world’s largest economies are already on the road to recovery from the global financial crisis too.
   Because our trading partners are growing stronger, today, the outlook for New Zealand is much better.
   New Zealand will benefit from international economic recovery come this year, with the IMF projecting world economic growth of 3.9 per cent.
   At the start of the Government’s term in office, we announced our driving goal was to grow the New Zealand economy.
   Today it’s clear we need to widen our goal. As the recovery unfolds, it is essential that the gains are enjoyed by the people who were called upon to make the greatest sacrifice in the tough times.
   http://labour.org.nz/news/higher-incomes-prime-minister%E2%80%99s-statement-parliament-proposed-new-zealand-labour-party
6. Goff – So with the international economy starting to recover, what is being done to ensure New Zealand will gain fully from the benefits of the recovery, and that ordinary hard-working but hard-pressed New Zealander families will share those benefits?
   http://labour.org.nz/news/speech-labour-not-relaxed-about-government%E2%80%99s-deals-reward-privilege
7. Mallard – “Raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, either in one step if it is prepared to be bold, or over two years, would show it is serious about wanting to close the wage gap as well as sending a strong signal that it wants all New Zealanders, not just those at the top, to share in the fruits of the economic recovery.
   http://labour.org.nz/news/kiwis-national-let%E2%80%99s-have-decent-minimum-wage-rise
8. “Now that an economic recovery is starting to take hold, National must ensure that all New Zealanders, not just a privileged few, share in the benefits of changes to the tax system, but Mr Key is trying to soften up the genuine expectations of lowest-paid Kiwis that their sacrifices will not have been in vain,” Stuart Nash said.
   http://labour.org.nz/news/astounding-40-percent-tax-claim-arrogant-and-wrong
9. Lianne Dalziel says the second Forum, organised by the New Zealand International Business Forum, is being held at an opportune time as signs of economic recovery in both countries allow a focus on developing new economic opportunities and other forms of co-operation.
   http://labour.org.nz/news/japan-new-zealand-forum-will-seek-build-stronger-partnership-between-two-countries
10. A chance to share the benefits of international economic recovery across all New Zealanders.
    http://labour.org.nz/news/phil-goffs-reply-prime-ministers-statement-parliament
11. “The Crown Accounts released today confirm that ACC’s assets are benefiting from signs of international economic recovery as anticipated,” says David Parker.
    http://labour.org.nz/news/crown-accounts-further-proof-government-scaremongering-over-acc

So really a massive own goal by Labour. They spent two years demanding the Government spend more money because they kept themselves proclaiming how strong the recovery was, and in fact their finance spokesperson even accused the Government of talking the recovery down.

It is becoming obvious that the last two weeks of the campaign are going to be non stop attacks on John Key. 3 News reports:

Labour leader Phil Goff says United States President Barack Obama is a great leader whereas Prime Minister John Key is a poor leader despite both nations having high unemployment and receiving credit downgrades since both leaders took office.

Unemployment in New Zealand has doubled and our credit rating has been downgraded twice by Standard and Poors since 2008.  

The United States’ unemployment has also doubled since before the global financial crisis and they have received a credit downgrade too.

Mr Goff told Firstline this morning that President Obama and Mr Key are incomparable because they inherited different fiscal situations.

I’m pretty busy so last night was my first Meet the Candidates meeting. Aro Valley will probably be my only other one.

The forum was titled “Ladies in the House” and organised by the Wellington Young Feminists Collective. I found about it on The Hand Mirror blog.

I was interested in the likely topics, but was a bit dubious about attending, in case it was intended to be for women only. But after checking it wasn’t, and taking Jadis along as security, I attended.

The turnout was huge – well over 100 people. And I have to say the quality of the questions was 10 times higher than your typical MTC meeting which is made up of party hacks and old pensioners who are rich enough to have MySky, so they can record Coronation Street, and attend. The gender balance was probably 80/20.

As the forum was on issues, not an electorate, candidates were from Hutt South and Mana as well as Wellington Central, There was Paul Foster-Bell (N), Jordan Carter (L), Holly Walker (G), Jan Logie (G), Stephen Whittington (A) and Ben Craven (NZF).

There was a lively twitter stream for the forum – at #ladiesinthehouse. I’ll highlight a couple of exchanges, but want to say well done to the WYFC for organising the meeting. I’ve been to hundreds of these over the years, and this one was excellent as it was focused on issues.

Ben Craven from NZ First probably provided the most humour, not necessarily intentionally. Even I winced when he said the solution to domestic violence is to cut off their benefits. But I think people admired his pluck for fronting up.

There was (obviously) quite a bit of discussion on gender issues such as women in Parliament, abortion and  domestic violence. Jan Logie from the Greens said that she wanted the law changed so that all political parties are required to have gender equity in their party lists, as the Greens do (who specify the gender balance in their top 10 and top 20 etc). I think that’s a terrible idea to have the state tell political parties how they must select candidates. Not sure if Jan’s view is Green policy – I hope not.

There was a discussion about whether requiring the co-leadership of the Greens to be one male and one female actually discriminated against women, as it stops two women being co-leaders if they are the best person for the job. Incidentally that is a point I made when Rod Donald died. The lack of suitable male MPs to be co-leader meant they had to go outside caucus to Russel Norman, rather than have a female MP replace Donald.

One audience member (a male) advocated that there should be four electoral rolls – General Male, General Female, Maori Male and Maori Female. Luckily no candidate supported that idea. If you keep having separate rolls and seats to reflect your demographics then one day I guess I’d be voting on the Male Pakeha Anglican aged 40 – 50 roll. The proposal actually reinforced to me why having separate Maori seats is not a good idea. If you back seats based on race, why not based on gender?

The audience was, I thought, a very good one. Not just some good questions (and not the usual ones planted by party hacks), but when candidates said things they didn’t agree with, they didn’t shout them down. At most there would be a fit of giggles or a murmur of disbelief.

Again well done to the WYFC for organising the forum. I hope it becomes a regular election event.

Today’s Dom Post editorial:

Labour has abandoned all hope of taking votes from National.

It is now targeting the Green Party’s support instead. That is the only explanation for its bizarre proposal to extend the in-work tax credit to families who are not working. …

Any policy that reduces the incentives for individuals to become self-sufficient should be treated with great caution. It is neither in the interests of beneficiaries nor their children for beneficiaries to become permanently disconnected from the workforce. Adults benefit from feeling useful. Children benefit from the example of seeing their parents take responsibility for themselves.

The in-work tax credit was created for a specific purpose. It should not be used to increase benefits by stealth.

It is worth remembering. If you have kids and are in work, Labour say they will give you an extra $10/week only. But if you are on a benefit with kids, then Labour will give you an extra $70/week.

Stuff reports:

National is looking unstoppable on its way to a historic outright election win as Labour plunges in a Fairfax Media-Research International Poll.

The poll has National on 52.5 per cent, and Labour sliding to 25.9 per cent, 17 days from the election.

Labour would lose 10 seats if those results were repeated on election night, while National would get nine extra seats, and bring in a slew of new faces.

The Green Party has profited most from Labour’s slump, rising to 12.6 per cent in today’s poll – which would give it seven more seats in Parliament and nine new faces because of retirements.

Labour have dropped 5.4% since their last poll, taking them halfway to the 21% National got in 2002. The poll covers the disaster of a debate for Goff last week, but would not cover Labour’s pledge to give beneficiaries with a dependent child an extra $70/week.

What is interesting is that Labour are now at only twice the support of the Greens. In 2008 they got five times as many votes.

On this poll Labour gets 33 seats. They could well win 24 electorates, which if so means only nine list MPs. This means they would lose Rajen Prasad, Raymond Huo, Carol Beaumont, Kelvin Davis, Carmel Sepuloni, Rick Barker, Stuart Nash and Steve Chadwick.

At that level of party vote, Labour would also have to worry about some of its marginal seats. If Phil Twyford does not win Te Atatu, or Chris Hipkins loses Rimutaka, or Iain Lees-Galloway loses Palmerston North, then they would not come back in on the list as they are ranked too low. Instead Rajen Prasad would get back in.

A result on this poll would be bad enough, but if Labour loses another 3%, then Shane Jones and Andrew Little miss out, as well as Darien Fenton and Moana Mackey.

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

IT’S THE ECONOMY, STUPID!: At the heart of the election is the issue of the economy and which party we most trust to balance the books? Who do you trust? And what about job losses? The public sector is facing cuts-how will be effected by job losses? And kiwisaver—will changes improve the people’s pockets?

WELFARE REFORM: The Government has pledged to reform welfare after the election. Up for reform: solo parents with kids over 14 will have to return to full-time work, part-time once their child is of school age, and those on the sickness benefit will be encouraged to return to work as their health improves. Are these changes fair or another form of benefit bashing? Are there even jobs for them to go to? Will there be job training?

Join us for a night of LIVE pub politics from the Backbencher Pub: Wednesday, 9th of November. Our Panel: ACT Party Candidate Stephen Whittington, Green Party Candidate James Shaw, Labour Candidate Grant Robertson, and National Candidate Paul Foster-Bell.

Gordon Campbell (a former Green press secretary) has an extremely insightful column at Scoop on the Greens:

Let’s assume for instance, that once the election dust settles Prime Minister John Key will offer – in the name of broad church, representative politics and a desire to split the centre left vote in order to ensure his thirdterm – a couple of ministerial posts outside Cabinet to the Greens.

No strings attached. Something ministerial for Russel Norman say, in the Conservation/Environment era, and an associate Health post for his colleague Metiria Turei, where she could work alongside Tariana Turia. What would the Greens do if such an offer is made? What should they do?

I think there would be some strings attached. At a minimum it would be that those who are Ministers abstain on supply and confidence. A Minister can not vote against confidence in an Executive they are part of.

The Greens have been out of real power for 12 years. Helen Clark spurned the Greens after the 2005 election, and chose to go with Peters instead. As a junior player on the centre left, the Greens traditional role is to wait in the parlour until Labour brings home the election bacon. Yet Labour can only govern when Labour is in the ascendancy on the centre left, which usually means the Greens will have been reduced to hovering just above the 5% threshold. Perversely, in years (such as 2011) when the centre left vote goes to the Greens in large numbers, it is in a context where the Greens can’t be in government, not in any significant way.

That’s the Greens dilemma, in a nutshell. It may say that it is centrist – and it has been saying so for some time – but relatively few voters see it as such. And thus it remains in its current bind – strong when there is little chance of it governing, and able to join a centre left government only when it is in a position of relative weakness vis-a-vis Labour. And regrettably, Labour tends to treat the Greens like an abused spouse in those circumstances.

This is exactly the problem. The Greens get their votes from Labour when Labour are weak, hence a Labour-led Government will not generally occur when the Greens are strong.  And then when the Greens are weaker, Labour pisses all over them, and chooses Winston Peters and Peter Dunne over them.

That’s the basic argument for making a dramatic break away from the centre left and heading into unknown territory. Arguably, it is only by reaching some meaningful form of co-existence with National (beyond home insulation) that the Greens can break the mould, and put itself in a position where it could hope to poach votes from National in large numbers ( and not just from despondent Labour voters) to add to its core support.

If the Greens want to be able to grab significant numbers from National, they need to show they can work with National, beyond the current arrangement.

If the Greens did try to break out of their current ghetto would that pose a substantial risk to the brand? Absolutely. Political virginity is a valuable commodity, and one reason for the Greens’ longevity is that it has stayed away – or has been kept away – from the boiler room of executive power. The party strategists have also noticed the fate of others before them. Notably, the Maori Party has tried to make gains for a far more defined constituency than the one served by the Greens. If it is that hard for the Maori Party, how hard could it be for the Greens? Very hard indeed.

It is definitely a risk. One way to mitigate the risk (and I recommend this to all minor parties) is do not have your leader or all your leaders become Ministers. You need a leader to remain outside the Ministry so they can provide the political leadership to their party. If they are spending all their time signing off departmental papers, they are not making the constant case for support.

So if I was the Greens I’d push for an economic role for Norman and a health role for Hague, and keep Turei to fly the flag outside the Ministry.

So… even as Labour flounders and the Greens pick up the flotsam and jetsam from the good ship SS Goff, a lot of hard decisions lie in wait further down the track. The Greens’ current place on the political spectrum simply doesn’t allow them to harvest a big enough vote on the centre left to enable an escape from their current dependency on Labour which – on past performance – will treat them like deckhands once Labour is back on the quarterdeck again. Whatever the risks, it strikes me as unlikely that Russel Norman will be willing to tolerate subservience, in perpetuity.

As I said, Gordon Campbell has done a very nice job looking at the pros and cons.

Whale reports:

Labour are just lacking even the most basic discipline. Every MP should know that you never offer an opinion as to whom the next leader should be, let alone doing it 18 days before the general election.

And this wasn’t even an oral interview, but one where Kelvin would have typed out his answer.

Someone should have asked a follow-up of whether the vote will be in December or in February.

In my By the numbers blog at Stuff I write:

Up until yesterday I would have said the worst of their new policies was the return to 1970s-style national industry agreements, which would have the government impose terms and conditions on every single employer in an industry.

But yesterday Labour announced that every beneficiary with dependent children would become eligible for the in-work tax credit, and get an extra $60 a week.

You can read the rest at Stuff, and comment there.