I’ve blogged previously at Stuff, on the talent the Greens have on their list. Adam Bennett in the Herald profiles some of them.

I’d be quite happy if the Greens got up to say 15 MPs into Parliament. I’ll disagree with many of their policies but I’d rather have intelligent articulate bright MPs, than ones that are not.

Now naturally I don’t want the Green vote to expand, at the cost of a centre-right Government. But I do suggest left voters look at who may come in on the Green list and who may come in on the Labour list, and decide accordingly.

And I’m not just saying that to do Labour over. In 2008 I was very complimentary of Labour’s list, and in fact my praise even made their internal members newsletter.

A remarkable comment in a story by Simon Collins and others in the Herald:

Almost half (47 per cent) of 522 people interviewed on the streets and at public events from Auckland to Dunedin in the week after the Rugby World Cup final rated the state of the country as “good” or better, a big increase from 34 per cent in a similar survey before the 2008 election. …

Labour leader Phil Goff was not mentioned at all by most people, and not one of those who did mention him had anything positive to say.

They talked to 522 people, and not a single one of them had a positive word to say about Phil Goff. That is quite remarkable. And a contrast:

The survey found that Prime Minister John Key is not blamed for the recession – or, of course, for the earthquakes. But he is credited with steering the country through both crises.

“I think we’re in good hands with John Key,” said Albany doctor Teresa Cattin, 54. “It needed a businessman to navigate us through this global financial crisis.”

Thames floor sander Daniel Marshall, 31, said: “I was usually a Labour supporter but I’m quite happy with how John Key has been doing things. He’s not in it for the money, he’s in there to help people, seems like a pretty genuine guy.”

Just 20 days to go.

The moment John Key revealed yes he had been punched, and named his school era attacker, I knew there would be a media manhunt for the other party, and so behold the Herald reports:

A man who punched John Key in a schoolyard spat almost 40 years ago says he was “done over” by the Prime Minister in a game of padder tennis.

Mr Key yesterday outed Greg Buzzard in a light-hearted interview for hitting him at Christchurch’s Cobham Intermediate and said he still hadn’t forgiven him.

Mr Buzzard said he didn’t remember throwing a punch, but still recalls a dodgy umpiring decision by Mr Key which cost him his place on the court.

“It wouldn’t surprise me if I did [punch him],” Mr Buzzard, 49, told the Weekend Herald.

“We were really competitive at school. While we might have respected each other I wouldn’t have necessarily said we got on that well.”

Mr Buzzard, a competitive table tennis player, recalls the future prime minister making the wrong call against him when Mr Key was next in line to take the court.

“He definitely called it out when it wasn’t. I’ll never forgive him for scamming me at padder tennis. I got done over by him.”

I expect Red Alert to seize on this story as proof that Key can’t be trusted, and that someone who scammed at padder tennis could well do the H-Fee.

A lengthy article in Stuff on bloggers. A good read. They profile Whale Oil, myself, Public Address, Dim Post and Robyn Gallagher.

John Roughan at the NZ Herald writes:

When Phil Goff called John Key a liar on television the election was over for me. Goff has no class. The more difficult decision on election day could be the referendum. Should we keep MMP?

Goff thinks calling the PM a liar is a good strategy because that what his most fervent activists think and believe. But it does not go down well with swinging voters. You think they would know that from 2008.

Key could have responded and said Goff lied over the SIS briefing. He could have said Goff lied when he ruled out raising the super age just three months ago. He could have easily lowered himself to Goff’s level.

I wish I could see the election result first. There is only one question to ask about any electoral system: will it give a result everyone can respect?

A number of people are saying that. If the election produces an outcome where Winston or the Maori Party decide the Government, then MMP’s popularity will plunge I predict. A vote for change will mean a second referendum in 2014.

Stuff reports:

National has announced it will double the penalties for breaching protection orders and fund security improvements for the homes of family violence victims, Prime Minister and National Party Leader John Key  announced on the campaign trail today.

The policy is here.

In 2010, 976 people were convicted of breaching a protection order and, of these, 185 received a prison sentence.
National will double the maximum penalty for a single breach of a protection order to two years in prison or a fine of $10,000.

Any subsequent breaches, regardless of the period in which they occur, will be punishable by up to three years imprisonment, rather than by the current maximum of two years in prison for two or more breaches in the space of three years.

I suspect few things are more terrifying than having someone who is the subject of a protection order breach it, and turn up on your doorstep etc. Far far too many people are killed or seriously wounded in domestic violence attacks. Hopefully this policy will prevent some offenders from so blithely ignoring a protection order – or if they do, then lock them up for longer.

Stuff reports:

Eh, by gum, Coronation Street is returning to primetime, after an about face by TVNZ.

After suffering a serious backlash by outraged fans, TVNZ is moving the British soap back to its primetime slot.

After being diced and sauteed by angry oldies, TVNZ has put it in the place of MasterChef Australia, to screen at 7.30pm on consecutive Thursdays and Fridays, starting next week.

It has been only a few weeks since TVNZ moved Coronation Street to the earlier time of 5.25pm.

And yes I am taking the piss.

I don’t know if David Cunliffe has apologised yet for his comment on Judith Collins, but no doubt he will be forced to do so at some stage.

But is an insincere apology enough?

Take an analogy. Think if Bill English had a brain explosion and while being interviewed on radio about fiscal costings offered his opinion that if (say Annette King or Helen Clark) was the last woman on earth, the species would probably die from extinction.

It would be the lead item on TV news that night. Feminist groups up and down the country would condemn him, and Labour MPs would be battling for who could condemn him in the most strident terms.At an absolute minimum he would be censured by his party leader, if not demoted/sacked.

For this is not some anon troll on a blog saying nasty things about an MP. It’s not even a blog author. It’s the top ranked Labour MP after the Leader and Deputy.

And the comments were not in a pub to a mate. They were not even in the cut and thrust of debate in Parliament. They were offered up unsolicited on live radio.

So will Goff censure Cunliffe? Will a single female (or male) Labour MP or candidate say the comments were unacceptable? Or will they just pretend it didn’t happen, like they tried to with the Tinkerbell comments?

Whale has uploaded the audio of senior Labour MP David Cunliffe saying:

I have thought that if Judith Collins was the last woman on earth, the species would probably become extinct.

That has to be the most disgusting personal attack by an MP on another MP in recent times. There is just simply no excuse for an MP to say that on radio. He’s insulted not just Judith, but also her husband, and in fact her children. Can you imagine having to hear the man aspiring to be our Minister of Finance say that about your mother?

1. Sean Plunket and State Services Minister Tony Ryall on the Government’s plans to freeze spending on core state services.
2. Natasha Smith on the road with Phil Goff — what Labour’s heartland think of their leader.
3. David Cunliffe, Steven Joyce and Duncan Garner on Labour’s tax and spend plans.
4. Sunday Edition: Brian Edwards and Bill Ralston look back at the week’s media coverage of the campaign.

Saturday 5/11/11 – Sunday Edition 6/11/11 0830 – TV3

I can’t embed it, but go to Stuff and look at the video of Key and Goff doing the bloke test. Parts are very amusing. A summary of parts of it:

Running late and out of clean underwear

Key – don’t wear any, who can tell under the suit
Goff – on occasion has washed his own in a basin

Thrown a punch or been hit

Key – yes and names the kid at intermediate school who punched him and says still not forgiven him.
Goff – at a punching bag but admits yes in younger days

Who drives and navigates – you or wife

Key – I drive, Bronagh navigates and is always too late telling me to change lanes
Goff – A Navman has kept his marriage going

Ever done a yardglass

Key – yes, and offers the extra info that he spewed
Goff – no, protested strongly at son’s 21st when he did one.Not in favour of drinking to get drunk

Song you sing in the bath

Key – opponents claim “Oh lord, it’s hard to be humble” but actually Singing in the Rain
Goff – no song at all if anyone is at home

Ever shot a living creature

Key – yes as a youngster shot some rabbits on a farm
Goff – yes as a small farmer. Shoots rabbits to stop them over-running

Best SAS wilderness survival tip

Key – If caught in snow, you have to clear a bit out and get down to the grass as it is warmer there
Goff – Never try to keep up with the SAS!

BBQ secret

Key – don’t turn the steak until the juices of the blood move up and only turn once
Goff – enjoy steak on bbq, marinating it

Can you change a tyre

Key – yes
Goff – Not done in last couple of decades as easier for shop, but done in past

Do you tell wife if she cuts her hair short and you hate it

Key – no
Goff – no

Tui or Otago Pinot Noir

Key – Tuis (a claim met with some scepticism by the journos)
Goff – Tuis when hay making, Otago PN when at social functions

Very amusing. Good on them for taking part. Some will get sniffy but it is only five minutes out of a day.

Incidentally my answers would be:

Running late and out of clean underwear – turn them inside out

Thrown a punch or been hit – thrown a punch at university and been in a fight when I got mugged

Who drives and navigates – I drive, Noelle (my TomTom) navigates

Ever done a yardglass – yes, at university. No spew.

Song you sing in the bath – In the Navy

Ever shot a living creature – no

Best SAS wilderness survival tip – dribble if caught in snow avalanche, to work out what way is up and down

BBQ secret – pipis are great to bbq

Can you change a tyre – yes, but easier to call AA

Do you tell girlfriend if she cuts her hair short and you hate it – I am not suicidal

Tui or Otago Pinot Noir – definitely the Pinot

Keith Ng blogs:

Here’s the simple truth about asset sales and the Super Fund: In the short-term, it’s just moving money around. It doesn’t spend it, it doesn’t earn it. It’s effect on our net position in the short-term is bugger-all. Anyone who’s telling you that it’ll significantly change our position in the next few years is, at best, pulling some kind of accounting trick.

The real difference is in the long-term, and it depends entirely on interest rates, SOE performance, Super Fund management, etc. Labour’s making a pretty modest argument for restarting contributions to the Super Fund, saying that it’ll earn 0.5% above the cost of capital. It’s such a mundane claim, I don’t see how it can be reasonably challenged. And on the SOE front, National’s argument has always been about the wider economic impact – on the sharemarket, etc. – not that the government will see a fiscal gain.

Keith is basically right here. He does miss one aspect though – it is also about risk. Borrowing to invest in the Super Fund is a risk. Is an extra 0.5% above risk free bonds worth it? Since May, the Super Fund has lost $2.6 billion dollars. If the Super Fund has been used to pay off debt, then it would have reduced interest payments by $1b or so.

Now of course over time the Fund may do better than the risk free rate of return. But hell in eight years it has only managed 0.5% better. And with world financial markets still gloomy, is this the time to start borrowing billions more to invest on international sharemarkets? The days of the massive growth in equities may be over.

Keith is right that on the fiscal side of the mixed ownership model, there won’t be a lot of difference either way. The reduced dividends will approximately equal the reduced interest on debt.Labour’s projections for dividends and capital look hugely optimistic according to one commentator. I’ll check them out over the weekend.

There’s also some strange spin going on. David Parker said that KiwiSaver changes is the biggest item of new “spending”. Which is technically true, since tax cuts are cutting revenue, rather than increasing spending. But Labour’s tax cuts (tax-free threshold, GST changes, R&D tax credits) are actually bigger than the KiwiSaver changes. In fact, it’s bigger than all of Labour’s new spending combined, including the ones which haven’t been announced yet.

It’s like they are petrified of talking about it because fiscally responsible is the new black. Unfortunately for them, it’s also the biggest, most expensive goddamn thing in their policy.

Keith correctly identifies Labour’s tax cuts for all as their largest commitment. ACT are not promising tax cuts until we get back to surplus (which they would do quicker by spending cuts(. National are not promising tax cuts at this election. Labour however is promising income tax cuts for everyone earning up to $150,000. 40 of the 43 Labour MPs will get a tax cut.

Their tax cuts for all is their fiscal albatross.

Labour’s released three documents:

• Fiscal Strategy
• Fiscal Plan
• Fiscal Supplement

A fair chunk to wade. through. I’ll blog some analysis once I’m done. Feel free to read it yourselves, and comment below.

In my Herald column I look at why Labour did not rise in the weekly Herald Digipoll:

I think the reason is because the public are not convinced Phil Goff and Labour believe in them (their policies) themselves. This is hugely important to voters. They will vote for a party if they believe the party is sincere and believes in its policies – even if they themselves do not agree with them all. …

So if you change you policies and your position, especially from just three months earlier, you need to make the case for why you have changed your stance.

The same applies to Labour’s stance on the Government’s books. Labour spent two and a half year attacking every single decision the Government took to reduce spending to get New Zealand out of the projected permanent deficit that Treasury projected at the end of 2008. They not only opposed every spending cut that the Government made, they actually argued that the Government should be spending massively more like Obama did. Right up until 2011 they were arguing that it was more important to borrow and spend to (temporarily) boost the domestic economy than to keep a lid on spending.

Then a few months ago, they realised that the voters were becoming very worried about debt, in light of the on-going troubles in Europe, and suddenly Labour stopped arguing that the Government should spend more, and said that they would spend and borrow pretty much the same as National was.

Labour’s problem again, is whether voters will believe them. It doesn’t really matter that much what numbers they announce today as their fiscal plan. The bigger issue is whether voters actually believe that the current Labour caucus really believes in spending restraint, when they have spent two and a half years arguing against it at every opportunity.

The full column is at the NZ Herald.

The Herald reports:

New Zealand is the fifth most developed nation in the world, according to a global report that ranks countries on their achievements in health, education and income.

In the 21st annual Human Development Index, released this week by the UN Development Programme, New Zealand was said to have “very high human development” and was ranked fifth out of 187 countries, though it was placed 23rd on gender equality.

5th is pretty good. We are very fortunate in NZ.

The gender equality issue has got me thinking. I blogged last week on how we were ranked 6th in another gender index.

I had a look at the scoring on that index, and I noted how you can get a maximum score when women are equal to me at something such as No of MPs or educational achievement.

But what struck me is that if women are actually performing better than men, it doesn’t take that into account. It just looks for the gap.

Taking NZ as an example, women live longer and do far far better in education. They tend to earn less though. These studies measure the areas women do worse, but not those where they do better.

So what would be interesting to me is if these indexes measured not just the gender gap for women, but also the gender gap for men, and perhaps compared the two of them.

Stuff reports:

The secondary teachers’ union has rejected National’s $1 billion school improvement plan, saying it is an “irresponsible bribe”.

This reinforces my views that most unions are more focused on helping Labour and fighting National, than actually doing what is best for their members or sector.

It would be quite legitimate if the PPTA had said “We don’t believe that there is any need to tie the funding to the mixed ownership model which we oppose, but we welcome the pledge of an extra one billion dollars for modernising schools”.

But instead the PPTA says:

New Zealand needed politicians who were prepared to follow their own advice and manage the schools in a “rational and fiscally responsible way,” he said.

I suspect if Labour had announced one billion dollars (an effective 50% increase) in capital spending on schools, the PPTA would have all but fellated them.

We saw the same in 2009 with NZUSA. National implemented a policy that students who repay their loans early would get a 10% rebate. NZUSA incredibly came out and opposed it, saying it was unfair to those who could not make early repayments! Again I can guarantee you the same announcement from a Labour Government would have been treated as the best thing since sliced bread.

It really comes down to does an organisation operate in good faith or bad faith? I’ll give some credit to the CTU here – they will sometimes give praise to National, for those (rare) policies they agree with.

But the PPTA leadership confirms its position as far more focused on politics than education.

Stuff reports:

A group of regional councillors is promoting the establishment of a Wellington super-city, sparking accusations of underhandedness among mayors.

The group says a “super-council” could be up and running in two years and consist of just 11 members.

The plans for a new Wellington council are revealed in a discussion paper being circulated by Greater Wellington regional council chairwoman Fran Wilde and other regional councillors.

So what is proposed:

The regional council, Wellington City Council and seven district and city councils would be abolished and replaced by the super-council and local community councils. Wellington City Council currently has neither the political nor legal mandate to consider regional interests or issues beyond its boundaries, the document says.

There are currently 87 councillors, eight mayors and 13 regional councillors across the region. Under the new proposal, the 11-member council would be made up of a representative each from Wairarapa, Porirua and Kapiti. Hutt Valley would have three and Wellington four, and a leader would be elected separately.

I’m all in favour. We don’t need 100 councillors for our region.

Answers tomorrow at 7 am

1. The costings are in the mail
2. Cunliffe is too busy counting votes in Caucus
3. The dog ate my costings
4. Muldoon told us the public wouldn’t know a deficit if they tripped over one
5. A computer virus destroyed the file
6. Shane Jones accidentally returned it with his videos
7. My printer ran out of ink
8. We’re still arguing over the costs of Darien’s Fenton’s policy to nationalise the Mad Butcher stores
9. It was on our website until Whale Oil hacked it
10. Winston never bothered with costings, so why should we

Feel free to add your own excuses below.