Jimmy Ellingham writes in the Manawatu Standard:

Student Christine Te Rangimarie Makaore now lives in Palmerston North, but in 2008 she was in Alexandra, working in the hospitality industry.

About 2am on November 16, 2008, Makaore returned from a night’s drinking to the backpackers hotel she was staying at.

Rather than stagger to her own bed, she entered somebody else’s room and started kissing a man that she didn’t know.

It’s not clear if the man was awake or not, or if she just jumped on top of him and started work.

Another man staying in the same room fled to the backpackers’ lounge.

As would be sensible if certain activities are happening in your room.

Makaore disengaged her tongue and followed him, hurling abuse.

She asked for a fight, but the man said no.

Undeterred, Makaore punched him in the chest repeatedly for about a minute.

The man curled up to try to protect himself and managed to get up and run off, but Makaore followed, still throwing punches.

I’m not sure why she was so offended the room-mate left the room.

At 9.30am the man went outside to get some food from his car.

Unfortunately for him, Makaore followed him and started kicking him in the legs.

She then grabbed his backpack, pulled out his iPod and threw it to the ground.

She then threw the man’s cellphone against his car and hurled other items on to a nearby garage roof.

The man under attack managed to scoop his iPod off the ground and take shelter in his car, locking Makaore out.

That didn’t please her, so she smashed the car windscreen with her fist.

The man drove off to safety but suffered from a sore wrist, a bruised head and grazes to his legs.

Ouch. Having someone punch their way through your windscreen would be somewhat alarming.

The judge noted Makaore’s lengthy list of driving offences, saying she was probably the North Island champion at notching up driving-while-disqualified convictions.

He said it was unfair for Makaore to “use her width” and “throw her weight around” against people likely to have been smaller.

On two assault charges, two of wilful damage and two sentence breach charges, Makaore was sentenced to 225 hours’ community work and six hours’ supervision.

Okay, so imagine this now. Imagine Makaore was a man and the victims were women.

If a man jumped on a sleeping woman and started kissing her, and then chased another woman, hitting her in the chest multiple times, then the next day saw her again, kicked her multile times, grabbed her gear and smashed it, and then smashed the windscreen of her car, well what sort of penalty do you think he would get? Is there anyway it would not be jail time?

Below is the letter Don Brash sent to John Key recently and has just released publicly. No great surprises in it, but it indicates to me that ACT plan to target National voters pretty aggressively.

Don Brash’s Dear John Letter to the PM

With no dis-respect to Martyn Dunne, but his decision to turn down the CERA job may have been the best thing to happen for Christchurch, as the praise for Roger Sutton’s appointment has been phenonomal.

On Twitter there have been hundreds of comments of praise. You can see a cloud of the most common terms here.

The Greens and Labour praised the appointment.

And William Mace at The Press has local reactions:

Former Christchurch mayor Garry Moore, who had called for Sutton to head the recovery effort, said the announcement was good news for the city.

“Roger Sutton is a guy who walks in ordinary people’s shoes. He understands the city, understands the people,” he said. “He’s got a good family and good networks. These are all the attributes we need to rebuild the city.”

Wigram MP and former mayoral candidate Jim Anderton said the appointment was “the best news I’ve had since the earthquake”.

“He is an incredibly good communicator. He tells it as it is. When he said the Orion cables were buggered, everyone understood it.”

Anderton praised Sutton’s management skills at “one of the best-managed corporations in the country”.

He said Sutton was a “quintessential Cantabrian”.

“We deserve someone who understands the ethos of the city – the anguish, the aspirations, the whole works,” Anderton said.

Christchurch Central Labour MP Brendon Burns said Sutton was an “excellent appointment”.

“He brings together shown leadership skills, a command of structural issues, a real capacity to engage with community leaders – I couldn’t think of a better choice,” he said.

Port Hills Labour MP Ruth Dyson gave Sutton “a 12 out of 10”, saying he had a “good strategic brain”.

“In his job as CEO of Orion he’s shown an amazing ability to keep people informed … Given what we need to do to recover strongly, he’s just perfectly positioned,” she said.

12/10 isn’t bad. I look forward to seeing Roger walk accross the Cook Strait.

And back to the world of feathers. Probably our most attractive native shag species- the Pied Shag.

Click for larger, higher res image

It has an impressive diving ability (up to 20m). Shot was taken near Goat island at the Leigh Marine Reserve.

Kate Chapman at Stuff reports:

Te Tai Tokerau MP Hone Harawira may have to return to Parliament as an independent if he wins the by-election in his electorate, because his new Mana Party has only just applied to be registered.

He announced his resignation on Wednesday, to be effective from May 20, and is walking a fine line to get his party registered in time to qualify for extra parliamentary funding and to be recognised as a party leader in the House. Registration takes six to eight weeks and Mana lodged its application at 5pm yesterday. The by-election is set for June 25.

The more important date is actually Tues 31 May, when nominations close.

However things could get murky. If the Mana Party is not registered by 31 May, he can not be a candidate for it. But he arguably could still list Mana Party on the ballot paper as an unregisterd party or affiliations, just like a candidate can label themselves “Communist League” even though that is not a registered party.

Now if Harawira is allowed to list Mana Party on the ballot paper as an unregistered affiliation, then I doubt that will qualify as being elected as an MP for that party – even if the Mana Party does get registered between 31 May and 25 June.

Vernon Small reports in Stuff:

MPs’ generous superannuation schemes will not be cut, despite Government plans to slash the subsidies paid to KiwiSaver accounts. …

Since 1992, MPs have been entitled to a subsidy of up to 20 per cent of their salary, receiving $2.50 for every dollar they put in. Those elected before 1992 receive a subsidy equal to 23 per cent of their gross salary.

Asked why taxpayers should subsidise MPs up to 20 per cent when he was winding back KiwiSaver subsidies, Mr English said they were different schemes.

“The MPs’ scheme has been wound down over the last 20 years to something that is pretty similar to what everyone has available to them. In fact, I think a number of MPs are probably members of KiwiSaver.”

There is a vital fact missing from this article. The Remuneration Authority operates on a “total remuneration” basis and the value of that 20% superannuation subsidy is effectively deducted from their salary. If the subsidy increases 5%, then their salary drops around 5%. If the subsidy is decreased, then the salary increases.

Personally I would just pay MPs the full remuneration for their jobs (which would see their pay increase 20%) and leave it up to them to decide whether they put some of it into a savings scheme or not.

Hat Tip: Not PC

I think this could be a very interesting interview.

Marika Hill at Stuff reports:

Hone Harawira says “redneck” racism is to blame for the last-minute cancellation of a lecture he was to give in Auckland today.

The Mana Party leader was due to speak about the foreshore and seabed at  Auckland University Law School.

“All of the rednecks at the university decided to create such a ruckus that the Law School cancelled it. In 2011 we’re still being pushed around,” Harawira said. …

Asked why this was an example of racism, Harawira said there were only Pakeha involved in the protest planned at Auckland University.

“A lot of people think that racism is dead and buried but clearly it’s not. I’m a Maori MP and I should have the right to talk to Maori law students.” …

Law student Charlotte Summers said the Faculty of Law cancelled the lecture on the basis of “there may be a breach of the peace”.  

She said the Young Nationals organisation  was behind the protest.

“How is it fair that the Young Nats decide to be disruptive, threaten to be disruptive, and then an entire event is cancelled because of their choices and what they threaten to do?”

“There is a time and a place for protest – an academic lecture is not that time nor place.”

However, the Young Nationals denied any involvement in the protest.

President Daniel Fielding said although some Young National members were planning to attend the protest, it was a cross section of students involved.

Oh poor little Hone. Who knew he had such a thin skin. The man who had led dozens of protests, whose family have often assaulted people at protests, can’t handle a few students protesting against him.

And of course it is racism, if one protests against Hone. What else could it be. Couldn’t possible be related to him comparing people to Hitler, and highlighting how Osma’a family saw him as a freedom fighter.

But don’t you love the reaction of the law school, and the quoted law student. They cancelled the lecture because people may have protested.

This is in the same week that the Supreme Court upheld the right of someone to burn the NZ flag on ANZAC Day (a decision which I actually agree with). So it is okay to burn the NZ flag on ANZAC day, but it is wrong and racist to protest against Hone Harawira.

The Facebook page about the protest is here. Having had a brief look I don’t see any suggestion they were going to go into the lecture and shout Hone down. They were going to protest outside, and they specifically said that if any go inside, “we will give Hone a chance to speak, we will listen and we will ask constructive questions while expressing our displeaure in his racial hatred and gutter politics”.

Isn’t there anything more hypocritical that a veteran protester who whines about how awful it is when people protest against him.

I was going to blog on what a good appointment this is, but I can’t do better than what John Pagani has said:

Lincoln Tan at the Herald reports:

A far-right Christchurch group is planning a “massive anti-Asian rally” in Queen St after its recruiting drive in Auckland, its leader, Kyle Chapman, told the Herald yesterday.

The Right Wing Resistance is handing out flyers in areas with high Asian population, such as Pakuranga, Howick and Northcote, claiming an Asian invasion is taking place.

Mr Chapman, a former National Front leader, said the drive was to recruit “like-minded Kiwis” to organise the rally, which the group plans to stage before the general election on November 26.

I’d rather not have neo-nazis in New Zealand, but if we are to have them I’m glad they are constantly led by imbeciles who couldn’t organise a piss up in a brewery. If they actually ever had a leader who could tie his shoelaces up, then they might actually be something to worry about.

He said the Resistance was against mass Asian immigration, because Asian migrants “stole jobs” and “destroyed white New Zealand culture and heritage”.

When asked by this reporter, an Asian originally from Singapore, if he was one of those the group would like to keep out of the country, Mr Chapman said: “You’re not the kind of Asian we’re against.

Good question Lincoln. You must be relieved to know you are not one of the job-stealing culture-destorying Asians.

“The tactic we’re taking at the moment is the anti-communist tag, and too many Chinese are coming in with communist affiliation,” he said.

“We don’t want to be taken over by communists.”

The commies are coming! Man the bunkers.

John Key has announced the following dates for the by-election:

• Writ Day Wed 25 May
• Nominations close Tues 31 May
• By-Election Sat 25 June
• Return of Writs Thu 14 July

This would suggest that the winner will be sworn in on Tuesday 2 August (the next House sitting day). He’ll be there for a mere 21 sitting days.

Matthew Dearnaley in the Herald reports:

Speedsters snapped by police cameras face demerit points on their licences under road safety proposals being investigated by the Government. …

Under present law, motorists caught by speed cameras are only fined, but Transport Minister Steven Joyce has raised the prospect of demerit points as a tougher penalty.

Mr Joyce thought that would have a greater impact on high-risk drivers such as boy racers, with whom there was a problem with fines accumulating to a point where they could not be paid.

“If we can get to a position where the two things they covet most, which is their licence and their vehicles, are at risk, then I think that will improve behaviour of a group of high-risk drivers that are causing a lot of the carnage on our roads.”

I think one is better to target their vehicles than their licenses, as they will probably simply then just drive without a licence. If someone has significant unpaid fines, then impound and sell their car to help cover them.

Demerits do provide an incentive not to speed. If you get pulled over by the Police and get demerits, you do tend to take greater care that you are not exceeding the speed limit until the demerits expire.

But the problem I have with extending these to speed cameras is that you may not even know that you have been “snapped” and it is quite possible that you could be snapped three times in one day, and lose your licence without even realising it.

But there is a possible solution to that problem. You could have a rule that says if you get snapped by a speed camera within say 7 – 14 days (enough time for you to have been sent the ticket) of a previous speed camera infringement, then you only have demerits apply for the first infringement. You still get fined for both, but only demerited once.

The principle is similiar to the new regime for copyright infringement. You can only get a second strike after you have clearly been warned about your first strike.

The Dom Post editorial:

The $10 billion deficit for the first nine months of this year confirms, if confirmation was needed, that the last government made bad choices. At a time of plenty it chose to buy popularity rather than to save and invest for the future. Worse still, it created an expectation that the bounty would continue to flow in bad times as well as good.

Yep. Labour thought that the economy would never go into recession, ignoring that the tradeable sector had in fact been in recession since 2004/5.

It cannot – a point Prime Minister John Key and his ministers have been trying to get across in advance of next week’s Budget. New Zealand has to get back to living within its means. There are a number of obvious targets for a government looking for what Finance Minister Bill English has quaintly termed the “nice-to-haves”. They include the extension of welfare to families with incomes far in excess of the average wage, interest free student loans and the 65-year age of entitlement for superannuation.

I support increasing the age of eligibility for superannuation. It will happen one day also. But any increase would have to be signalled a good decade or so in advance, so don’t think any change to the age will help get the books back into surplus in this decade. Lifting the future age of retirement is important for the long-term sustainability of superannuation, but again that is a different issue to the shorter-term fiscal challenge.

Instead, Mr Key’s Government is taking aim at the KiwiSaver scheme introduced by its predecessor to tackle New Zealand’s chronically low savings rate.

Under the scheme, people who agree to set aside a percentage of their income for their retirement receive a one-off Government grant of $1000 and tax credits worth up to $1040 a year. The scheme has proved remarkably attractive. It now has almost 1.7 million members. However, Mr Key has classified it among the “nice-to-haves” and is signalling that the annual Government contribution will be reduced, probably halved.

He and his finance minister appear to believe the public will not be deterred by the change. If so, they are graduates of the same University of Spin and Hope as their Labour predecessors, who believed that scrapping interest on student loans would not increase the take-up rate. New Zealanders are not stupid. The year before loans were made interest free, 53 per cent of eligible students borrowed from the Government. By 2009 – the last year for which figures are available – that figure had increased to 71 per cent.

KiwiSaver membership involves sacrifices. Contributing the amount required to secure the maximum Government contribution means many members have to make choices between other “nice-to-haves” and even some essentials. However, they calculate that, together with employer contributions, the Government top-up makes the sacrifice worthwhile. Reduce the top-up and many will review their participation.

For most employees, they will still be getting a massive subsidy. Someone on $28,000 will still get around $2.50 into their KiwiSaver account for every $1 they put in. That’s a 150% return on investment compared to 10% most funds deliver. I doubt too many people will dump KiwiSaver becuase their return on investment is 150% instead of 200%.

Those who get most hard done by the Government’s changes are self-employed like me. As I pay both my employer and employee contribution, then I’ll personally be quite a bit worse off by the Government’s proposed changes. But I had been saving plenty anyway, prior to KiwiSaver, so to some degree the KiwiSaver subsidies were just a way to maximise my return. And the Government should be focusing its scarce tax dollars on those who most need it, not people like me.

The Government has a choice. It can encourage the current generation of workers to save more, or it can pander to the “grey” vote by maintaining the pretence that superannuation for all at age 65 is affordable when it is patently not. It cannot do both.

It has made the easy choice, not the right one.

The reality is the age does need to increase, but not until around 2025 by my calculations.

Stuff reports:

Hugh Grant has been weighing a big move: replacing the fired Charlie Sheen on CBS’ Two and a Half Men.

A person familiar with the situation said the British actor was in negotiations to join the sitcom as its new leading man.

Sheen is near impossible to replace, but you know I think Hugh Grant could do it.

Sigh, they just have not learnt from the H-Fee. This latest smear is, in my opinion, actually worse than the H-Fee smear. You see with the H-Fee I do credit that Mike Williams did at least have an honest belief that John Key was the evil mastermind of the H-Fee transaction as he got Key’s signature confused with someone else. So it was a clumsy incompetent smear – but at least one they thought was true.

The BMW smear is worse than that, Because Mallard and Hipkins know it is not true. The most simple of checks would establish the two companies named are totally seperate companies with no common share-holding.

Labour have basically alleged that a $50,000 donation to National from Team McMillan Limited was linked to the Government taking up the option (in the contract Labour negotiated) to upgrade the VIP fleet of BMW cars from BMW New Zealand.

I am amazed some media have focused on who signed off on what, rather than the far more important point that the two companies are totally seperate.

The company that did a deal with DIA is BMW New Zealand Ltd. Their sole shareholder is BMWHoldings B V in The Netherlands. The two directors are Guenther Seeman of Germany and Mark Gilbert of Auckland – the mananging director.

 The company that donated to National is Team McMillan BMW. Their two shareholders are MacFam  Ltd and Collins Asset Management Investments Ltd. MacFam Ltd is owned by Bob McMillan, Kerry McMillan, Ronald Jamieson and James Syme. Collins is owned by Cottisloe Holdings which is owned by Timothy Cook and Beverly Collins.

Team McMillan BMW did not benefit by one cent from the DIA decision. In fact they say they were unaware of it.

So the story is an absolute nonsense. But I suspect we will see lots more of these to come – Labour seem determined to run the same style campaign as they did in 2008.

Yawn. Just woken up. Need longer days.

Congratulations to Maggie Barry, who won National’s nomination for North Shore tonight – it was a first ballot victory.

North Shore has a 14,574 majority, so it is almost inevitable that Maggie Barry will be an MP after the election.

John Armstrong writes in the NZ Herald:

Labour was truly firing in Parliament yesterday – with the accuracy of an antique blunderbuss.

The major Opposition party is aiming all its barrels in John Key’s direction in the hope something hits. But the target has suffered only the occasional flesh wound and otherwise seems to be functioning normally.

Labour’s current parliamentary tactic is to turn ministers’ question-time into New Zealand’s equivalent of Prime Minister’s question-time in the British House of Commons.

The party devoted its allocation of five questions solely to going after Key.

But be it the cost of repainting Premier House or money for promoting the Maori tourist industry, Key was sufficiently well briefed yesterday to make mincemeat of his interrogators from Labour’s more junior ranks.

The only thing better than watching the House, is also viewing Twitter at the same time. A gaggle of Labour MPs complain in chorus about how dare the PM say this or that.

Stuff reports:

Greenpeace New Zealand’s political activities mean it cannot register as a charity, the High Court has decided.

Greenpeace appealed against a 2010 ruling by the Charities Commission which found its promotion of “disarmament and peace” was political rather than educational and while it did not directly advocate illegal acts, Greenpeace members had acted illegally.

In his judgment Justice Paul Heath found the commission was correct in its judgment and turned down the Greenpeace appeal.

“Non-violent, but potentially illegal activities (such as trespass), designed to put (in the eyes of Greenpeace) objectionable activities into the public spotlight were an independent object disqualifying it from registration as a charitable entity,” the judge said.

I cam’y say this is a big surprise. Greenpeace acts in a very political way. The actual court judgement is worth a read – located here. I thought the sections on how there is a difference between promoting peace and pacifism. This is a quote from Southwood v Attorney-General:

The point, as it seems to me, is this. There is no objection – on public benefit grounds – to an educational programme which begins from the premise that peace is generally preferable to war. For my part, I would find it difficult to believe that any court would refuse to accept, as a general proposition, that it promotes public benefit for the public to be educated to an acceptance of that premise. That does not lead to the conclusion that the promotion of pacifism is necessarily charitable. The premise that peace is generally preferable to war is not to be equated with the premise that peace at any price is always preferable to any war. The latter plainly is controversial. But that is not this case. I would have no difficulty in accepting the proposition that it promotes public benefit for the public to be educated in the differing means of securing a state of peace and avoiding a state of war. The difficulty comes at the next stage. There are differing views as to how best to secure peace and avoid war. To give two obvious examples: on the one hand it can be contended that war is best avoided by “bargaining through strength”; on the other hand it can be argued, with equal passion, that peace is best secured by disarmament – if necessary, by unilateral disarmament. The court is in no position to determine that promotion of the one view rather than the other is for the public benefit. Not only does the court have no material on which to make that choice; to attempt to do so would be to usurp the role of government. So the court cannot recognise as charitable a trust to educate the public to an acceptance that peace is best secured by ―demilitarisation‖ . . . Nor, conversely, could the court recognise as charitable a trust to educate the public to an acceptance that war is best avoided by collective security through the membership of a military alliance – say, NATO.

Justice Health notes in this case:

Irrespective of whether ―peace, in itself, can constitute a charitable purpose, it is more difficult to argue for that position with respect of disarmament. So far as disarmament is concerned, Mr Salmon makes a good point in referring to the non-contentious nature of nuclear disarmament in New Zealand, as a result of the nuclear free policy first given effect by statute over 20 years ago. But Greenpeace‘s objects refer only to ―disarmament‖, not to ―nuclear disarmament‖. In doing so they fall foul of the admonition against political lobbying about the way in which disarmament should occur, as expressed (for example) in Southwood.

This is key. Greenpeace promotes pacifism, which is not the same as peace. The former is highly political, the latter is non-controversial. I am sure many of their activists think the two things are the same, but that is more a reflection of the narrowness of their views.

John key’s speech is here. Key points:

• WFF, interest free loans and KiwiSaver costing $5b a year, and why we now have a structural deficit, and all has to be borrowed from overseas
• All changes will take place after election, so there is a mandate for them
• KiwiSaver will be changed so that over time employees and employers contribute more, and the Government less
• KS changes will lead to an improvement in the rate of national savings and reduce foreign debt by 2% of GDP over the decade
• Will reduce amount spent on WFF, but target a greater proportion at the most vulnerable families
• For every $100 of student loans, taxpayers get only $55 back
• Half of the overdue student debt is students living overseas – will make sure they live up to their responsibilities

The exact details will be in the budget. To me it looks like a good step in the right direction.

An amusing and at times apt speech by Peter Dunne to his electorate AGM. Some extracts:

One reason I am very confident National will lead the next government is that Labour, at this point in the political cycle, is not a viable, functioning alternative.

 Actually, I am being polite here.

 Events of recent times bring the term ‘cot case’ to mind.

 With no new faces on their front bench, they are essentially going into this election with the re-heated caucus that New Zealanders threw out three years ago, and as one would expect, they seem bereft of new ideas.

 It is not really possible to generate new ideas when you have yet to accept that your old ideas have been rejected.

All too true.

When I first turned my head to this speech, Rodney Hide was still leader of ACT and Osama bin Laden was still in ensconced in his Pakistani fortress.

 They have both since met merciless fates, one at the hands of the US Navy Seals, and the other at the hands of a force considerably more scary.

 One is now a bloodied corpse; the other at the bottom of the sea.

Heh.

There is another thing that Middle New Zealand does not want.

 And I am going to speak his name: Winston Peters.

 His obfuscations, half-truths, dancing on the head of a pin and, ultimately, his destructiveness, finally caught up with him in 2008.

 My only concern about Winston Peters in 2011 is a very simple one: that people will have short memories.

 Actually, he relies on that.

 He counts on it.

 One can only hope that his recently auctioned ‘No’ sign goes on a national tour later this year, stopping in every town hall and Grey Power meeting five minutes after Winston Peters darkens its doorstep.

It may not be the original, but you can bet NO signs will be appearing most places Winston does.

People need reminding in one simple word of the destructiveness and duplicity that Winston brought to New Zealand politics.

 There is no more apt reminder of why New Zealanders should not have Winston Peters back – ever – than that sign.

 That sign said it all, but in a way that he never intended. It should be his political epitaph. ‘No.’

 I salute John Key for ruling him out yet again as a potential coalition partner.

 It was bold and it was principled, just as it was in 2008.

 Running a country is hard enough; you need to do it with people whose word today means what it meant yesterday, and will mean the same tomorrow.

 The wink, the grin and a good deal of opportunistic fact-free scare-mongering should never again be enough for Winston Peters to re-enter a House that has been more honourable for his absence.

Absolutely.

Bob McCoskrie blogs:

We’ve been contacted by a number of supporters asking about the voting record of new ACT party leader Dr Don Brash, who may be a key player in forming the next government. …

On the positive side, he voted 
AGAINST Civil Unions and Relationships Bills, 
FOR Parental Notification for teenagers seeking an abortion, 
AGAINST the Care of Children Bill,
and FOR the Marriage Amendment Bill which defined marriage as one man and one woman. 

Most importantly, while in Parliament, he voted AGAINST the Anti-smacking bill …

On the negative side, he voted
FOR the decriminalisation of Euthanasia, 
FOR the decriminalisation of Prostitution, 
AGAINST Raising the Drinking Age back to 20,
and AGAINST the ability for Manukau City to ban the problem of Street Prostitution.

It should come as no surprise that what FF lists as negatives, I regard as positives. While Don was not entirely consistent, he generally has been a social liberal on “moral” issues. He did flip on civil unions, having voted for at first reading and then against at second reading. It would be interesting to know what his stance is today on issues such as civil unions, the drinking age etc.

Grant Robertson blogs:

One of the great joys of being interested in politics is the debate over strategy and tactics.  Everyone has an opinion.   All parties, and people within parties have these debates.   Personally I don’t always agree with every tactical decision made by my own party, as I am sure that is the case for most politicians.

But one thing that fascinates me is when people decide that a party can only focus on one thing at a time.  Case in point.  In the last few days Labour has been raising issues to do with spending by National on the Diplomatic Protection Squad and on painting Premier House. The pretty simple idea here is to show a party that tells New Zealanders to tighten their belts, but is happily overspending, and has its priorities wrong.

Now I expect our political opponents to adopt some kind of diversionary response.  On these issues it has taken National a while to get something, but it has arrived, complete with NZ Herald editorial to back it up.  Labour is focusing on the small issues, they should be focused on the big policy issues.

Ok, that is a political response, but let’s not give it too much credit. Just because Labour is raising these issues does not mean that we are not raising other issues. I am sure it will not have escaped readers of Red Alert that we have a major campaign on stopping asset sales. The New Zealand Herald who are criticising Labour’s approach today attended the launch of the asset sales billboards put up by Labour last  weekend, but chose not to cover it.  So much for the focus on the big issues.

Grant says that parties can do more than one thing at a time. Of course they can. They can do, and often are doing, dozens of things at a time. But that is not the issue. The issue is that the media will not run dozens of different political stories. If you put out lots of stories, then don’t complain when they don’t choose the one you want. Labour’s chances of getting publicity over say asset sales is diminished everytime they decide to complain about the cost of painting Premier House. TVNZ and TV3 are not going to run two stories that day about what Labour has said.

Parliamentary parties tend to have a media office – the press secretaries. An outsider might assume the role of the media office to to help MPs to do press releases. In fact, often their role is to stop MPs doing press releases. When you are an Opposition MP you want to be getting your name out there so you try and do as many releases as possible. The problem is that if you allow every MP to be firing off press releases on their pet issues, you get no co-ordinated message. When I worked for National in opposition, I’d say MPs would have happily fired off 25 press releases a day if the media team didn’t stop them. Normally they could slow the flow to 5 or so.

Labour are lacking internal discipline. Even putting aside the truly bizarre rants now appearing on Red Alert, they get distracted by what they see as “easy hits” and don’t stay focused on a consistent message. One message they have been trying to push is about the cost of living. Now if you really want the public to focus on this as an issue, you need to bang on about it ad nauseaum. It takes sometimes a dozen stories for things to register with those not overly politically interested.

So what Labour should have done on cost of living is collect enough stories about increased costs, and for at least four weeks in the House ask questions on it every day – doctors fees, grocery prices, school fees etc etc. And do press releases every day on it. And have all the MPs do their weekly local columns on it. And most of all not to run off after some other issue such as the PM has bodyguards after a couple of weeks. You need to be relentlessly on message – even if the press gallery complain you are boring them. If you give the media two stories to report on, they’ll not choose the one you have been hammering away on. So you need to be disciplined. A campaign should run for months, not days or even weeks.

Now Grant and others might feel I am giving them bad advice, because I don’t support them. Now I don’t actually do that – I have enough of an ego that I never would give advice which is obviously bad, because that makes me look stupid. But regardless of that, maybe they will take heed of Rob Salmond, who is a former staffer for Labour. Rob at Pundit says:

But Labour could have kept on talking about policy anyway. If it had released its proposals on how to fix our schools or bring down the cost of living or protect the environment, they would have been covered. Labour made no such large-scale announcements. Since March. In an election year. When down 15 to 20 points.

They should have. During this later period, the National-Labour gap in our poll of polls has grown by almost 2.5%.

To be sure, there is a steady stream of criticism of the government’s policies coming from Labour MPs, and it is good that they are doing that. But that kind of empty rhetoric is never going to attract much attention. It is just what the opposition does.

And the increasing tendency to target small amounts of expenditure specific to John Key and other Ministers is altogether unhelpful. Maybe Labour could attract some fleeting interest out of an extravagant helicopter ride or two. But painting the Prime Minister’s house? Providing him bodyguards? Please.

Rob continues:

Moreover, this kind of muckraking against popular Prime Ministers does not work. Take, for example, the most high profile equivalent attack against Helen Clark – the speedgate scandal from July 2004. This one at least involved public safety and not just relatively minor sums of money. The three firms polling at the time collectively had National leading Labour by around one point just before the scandal broke, and a few weeks later had Labour leading by around four points. Not exactly a practical vindication of this kind of tactic.

My advice to Labour is to lift your sights and start to talk positively. Quit calling John Key a dick. New Zealanders collectively do not think he is a dick, and the last three years of polls suggest they are pretty firm in that view.

Rob is absolutely correct here. Labour are using tactics which might work against a tired third term Government, but don’t work against a fresh first term Government with a PM who polls as the most popular New Zealand has had.

Instead, tell us what specifically you are going to do for New Zealanders after November. And no, “more than that dick John Key” is not a good answer.

Labour have an opportunity with the budget next week. The Government borrowing is now at $380 million a week. One can finger point over blame as politicians will do. But will Labour lay out their path to reducing the deficit and debt?