Vernon Small also provides advice for Labour:

Phil Goff’s leadership may not be on the line today at the shadow cabinet meeting in Dunedin, but no change is no longer an option.

That’s also a big call.

Looking again at the wider leadership team including Annette King and David Cunliffe and making a change there may be the answer.

Helen Clark did it in 1996 to shore up her leadership.

At the time her rivals did not have the numbers to roll her, but she recognised the concern in the party at its poor poll rating and knew she needed to act.

The result was her deputy and finance spokesman David Caygill hit the cutting room floor in favour of Michael Cullen, creating the leadership team that was so effective for Labour during nine years in office.

Politically that might work, even though it would be quite unfair. Goff is the one who has ballsed up so badly, and I don’t think King has done anything much wrong – we don’t know what she advised Goff. And the fact the incident happened at her house is not a reflection on her. There’s nothing wrong with having a colleague stay with you – in fact probably saves the taxpayer money.

But Annette is very loyal to Labour, and it is possible she could walk, to save Goff.

There is clearly a split between Goff and the party or at least president Andrew Little over the handling of the issue and the lack of communication. It goes deeper than the papering over of the cracks that occurred late on Sunday when the two finally talked about the issue.

Labour is in full fund-raising mode, made difficult by the current controversy. Its activists on websites and blogs are openly questioning the party’s direction and Mr Goff’s judgment. Its union backers and foot soldiers need to be motivated but are in danger of being demoralised.

Business as usual is simply not an option.

Meanwhile in a seperate galaxy, located well beyond the Andromeda Galaxy, Stuff reports that “Phil Goff has said the Darren Hughes affair has ‘strengthened’ his leadership”

You can’t make shit this good up.

Image courtesy of Iidiot/Savant.

Well no one say they’ll die wondering what Duncan Garner thinks. He blogs:

Labour’s decision to hang on to Leader Phil Goff after his woeful management of the Darren Hughes affair shows the caucus is clueless, gutless and talentless. And most of all, they have no collective balls.

You do have to wonder how much worse things would have to be, to have something happen.

The Labour caucus has opted to go down in 2011 without a fight. If this was the Australian Labour Party Goff would have lasted just 6 weeks two years ago. They’d be on their third opposition leader by now.

And someone like Mallard could do to Labour, what Tony Abbott did to the Australian Libs – get them competitive. Might not win, but will provide a positive point of difference.

I have spoken to most of the senior MPs, they say – while disappointed with the management of the Hughes scandal – no one is of a mind to roll Goff. Why not? Not one MP is defending him. Goff is now Labour’s biggest liability.

The only MP insisting that Goff handled it well, is umm Goff.

Goff has so many questions he can’t answer. He looks like he’s stumbling around in a pitch black bedroom trying to put on his pyjamas. He’s got more positions than a King’s Cross hooker.

I like the colourful metaphors. Also wasn’t half this problem the lack of pyjamas 🙂

The Hughes scandal was always going to be a train wreck – 18 year old teenager, senior whip, alleged sexual encounter, Annette King’s house, police investigation, naked man etc.

Come on – what leader in their right and sane mind could think for one second that in Wellington that would stay secret?

I just can’t believe someone didn’t say “You’re mad if you think this will stay secret”. But the problem of course is Goff did not seek advice from anyone.

I know this is written in hindsight, but the obvious thing to do was to front foot it, stand Hughes down, send him away, strip him of his duties and wait for the cops to rule.

That way Hughes may have been able to keep his job in the short term and do some kind of mea culpa around what happened if the police were not to lay charges.

This is the sad thing. If Goff had handled this competently, it is possible Darren Hughes would be able to remain an MP, if no charges were laid. Sure there may be a period of penance, but resignation might have been avoided.

And who let Darren Hughes appear in the Press Gallery debate, ‘politics is a grubby business’? Surely Hughes, Goff and King who appeared in the debate would have thought, ‘hey we better lie low over the next few weeks eh?’

As much as I enjoyed the debate, it was in hindsight a very insensitive decision to allow an MP facing a sexual assault complaint, take part.

So Labour needs to choose a runner to take Goff out. They need to get organised and stop pretending they’re in Government. They’re not. They’re in a parlous and paralysed state in opposition and Phil Goff is now to blame for that. For the sake of all their grassroots members and other Labour voters – they need to go into the election with a new leader.

I’ve come across people who want to vote Labour because they don’t like National – but they say they won’t because of Goff.

Surely they are not isolated comments. If that attitude is widespread, and I believe it is, it is now the moral duty of Labour’s MPs to change the leadership and draw a line under this hopelessly managed scandal.

Duncan is right, but the problem for Labour supporters is it really seems that no one wants the job.

The Dom Post editorial today:

Mr Goff’s leadership should be over. The party he leads is bereft of energy and bereft of ideas. Instead of looking like a government in waiting it looks like a dysfunctional rabble. What confidence can the public have in its ability to manage the affairs of the country when it cannot manage its own?

Looking at how Goff has managed the last couple of weeks, you do have to wonder how he would have handled a global recession, finance company collapses, two earthquakes and Pike River.

However, speculation about a move to oust Mr Goff is just that – speculation. Labour has no obvious alternative. Shane Jones is still too closely linked to pornography in the public mind, David Cunliffe has had zero impact as finance spokesman, David Parker is unknown to the public, Mr Shearer is too inexperienced politically and so is another well-regarded newbie, Grant Robertson, about whom the party may have to consider another question at some point. Is New Zealand ready for its first gay prime minister?

For my money, I think Grant will become New Zealand’s first (openly) gay Prime Minister, and I don’t think his sexuality will be of relevance to most New Zealanders.

Tim Donoghue at the Dom Post reports:

A taxi driver stabbed seven times in a frenzied attack has called for all cabs to be fitted with protective screens around the drivers.

Shlemon Yako, 60, was stabbed three times in the stomach, once in his left side and three times in his arms, as he dropped off a front-seat passenger at the bottom of Shropshire Ave in the Wellington suburb of Wilton about 12.15am on Saturday.

The Kiwi Cabs driver picked the man up from the Bay Rd taxi stand in Kilbirnie and drove him across town to Wilton via Aro St.

He said the sustained attack, during which he fought with his assailant, had convinced him protective screens should be compulsory.

I feel very sorry for the driver. Sounds horrific what happened.

But I am bemused why people keep calling for certain things to be made compulsory in taxis such as video cameras and safety screens.

There’s nothing stopping taxi firms or drivers doing so themselves, if they deem it desirable. But why call for it to be compulsory?

In all the talk about whether Parker or Cunliffe would do better than Goff at the election, I wonder if people are overlooking the merits of Trevor Mallard. I’m not saying Trevor could beat John Key and become Prime Minister, but he could well get a good enough result that Labour are within closer striking distance for next time. What are the advantages of Mallard:

1. Mallard is clearly from the left and shore up their base. National in 2002 tried to got for the centre vote, had not shored up its base, and crumbled. In 2005 it moved to the right and got its base on board, and then won in 2008 by being back to the centre. You need your base first.
2. Mallard would excite the activists. I don’t think it is a stretch to say that Mallard probably personally knows 90% of Labour’s activists – the ones who do the work. Trevor as leader would make sure that the entire activist base is motivated and working. Under Goff, they are dis-spirited.
3. Mallard would please the unions. Mallard is massively pro-union. Donations and “manpower” would flow in from the unions with Mallard as Leader.
4. Trevor appeals to Chris Trotter’s “Waitakere Man”. Labour has a masisve problem with male voters, and Trevor would lift Labour’s vote amongst men.

I’m not saying Trevor is challenging – of course he is not. What I’m saying is that if Goff goes, Labour should look further than just Parker and Cunliffe.

Bob Carr was Premier of NSW from 1995 to 2005, winning three consecutive elections. He writes on Labor’s loss:

IT has taken political talent bordering on genius. The creativity of a master such as Disraeli or F. D. Roosevelt to deliver NSW Labor a defeat of this scale.

And I don’t mean Barry O’Farrell, although his political tactics are wholly vindicated and his occasional Liberal critics silenced. The genius was that of the Labor Party, in turning what could have been a swing-of-the-pendulum defeat into something far worse.

At last count Labor dropped from 50 seats to 21.

In 2007 Iemma held seats thanks to a capital works budget bigger than all the other states combined, bigger than New York’s or California’s.

Then he made the silly mistake of wanting to make that huge infrastructure spend even bigger by selling the state’s electricity assets.

In 2007 this was surely not too big a request of a Labor Party which had seen the benefits to living standards of the reforms of the Hawke-Keating years.

A reasonable response of a union-based party might have been, “Yeah, mate, well, can’t really hold out against this one. Let’s allow a Labor government a great chunk of capital so it can push even harder with public sector expansion. Nurses and teachers will be the winners. And we’ll get guarantees for our members in the electricity sector.”

There were precedents – and, happily, they also point to policy success during Labor’s rule – the privatisation of Freightcorp in 2002 and of state-owned coal mines in 2001. Both benefited the budget and taxpayer. Both were supported by the unions because the private capital modernised the enterprises and shored up jobs.

Yet in a display of wilfulness and obstinacy, the opponents of electricity privatisation staged a public brawl at the 2008 ALP conference. It presented a hideous visage to the electorate. It was a symbolic repudiation of the McKell model, the style of NSW Labor since William McKell (premier 1941-47). McKell’s moderate ethos was based on middle course policies which gave the party support in the bush as well as the city. It was possible because the machine supported the parliamentary leadership, the premier of the day. This pattern prevailed under Joe Cahill, Neville Wran and me.

On this occasion, the party tore up the script that had given Labor these years of ascendancy and ritually humiliated Iemma and then replaced him, the first time in NSW Labor history a premier had been executed. Contemplating this turbulence, the electorate started deserting the party.

This moderate leadership meant Labor were in power from 1941 to 1965, 1976 to 1988 and 1995 to 2011. That was 52 out of 70 years.

What is interesting is one of the contenders for the NSW leadership is John Robertson – the former trade union leader who played a prominent role in causing the civil war in the party. I’m pretty sure new Premier Barry O’Farrell will be hoping they select him.

A v Fairfax NZ Ltd Judgment 280311

The complainant in the Hughes case has gained an injunction prohibiting publication of his name. I have to confess I thought his name was suppressed anyway as the complainant is alleging a sexual crime, but it seems this only applies once the Police lay charges.

Regardless I wouldn’t name him anyway (I have been aware of his identity since before this matter went public) as it would be a scummy thing to do.

The injunction names six defendents, being Fairfax, APN, TVNZ, Mediaworks, Danyl McLauchlan and myself. This isn’t because any of us have named him, but that they were specifically worried we may do so – or that a commenter on our site will.

The suppression applies to everyone who becomes aware of the order though – not just those named. So anyone who names him, or supplies information which can identify him, will be in breach of the order.

One interesting thing in the injunction is that it confirms the complaint is “sexual assault” rather than “indecent assault”. That is a more serious matter. of course it doesn’t mean that charge will be laid, if any are laid at all.

Claire Trevett in the Herald reports:

Labour leader Phil Goff told Darren Hughes he would be stripped of his portfolios regardless of the outcome of a police investigation as soon as he became aware of the complaint against Mr Hughes. …

Mr Goff denied there was any attempt to protect Mr Hughes by keeping it secret, saying as soon as he was told of the nature of the complaint “I made it clear to Darren that I thought given the circumstances there had been a lapse of judgment and that would result in his losing his positions.”

I’m sorry, but I simply do not believe this – and it is very rare for me to actually claim an MP is deliberately not being truthful. Here’s why:

1. On Wed 22 Hughes put out a PR saying “I have done nothing wrong”. His PR would have been approved by the Leader’s Office. So Goff is saying he had already told Darren he would lose his portfolios over his lapse injudgement, let allows him to put out a statement claiming “I have done nothing wrong” rather than “I have broken no laws”
2. The previous week, Darren took part in a celebrity debate affirming “That politics is a grubby business”. Would he have been allowed to do this, if Goff really had formed an opinion that he should have been stripped of his portfolios?
3. Goff’s initial statement on Wed 22 says he holds Hughes in high regard – not any suggestion that he thought there had been a lapse of judgement
4. Goff also said that day “he accepts the MP’s word that he did nothing wrong” – yet now claims he had already told Hughes he would sakc him from his portfolios
5. Goff also said that day “he had felt the complaint was ‘not relevant’ to his ability to do his job” as a specific reason why he did not strip Hughes of his portfolios
6. Goff on Wed 22 of course did not announce he was being stripped of his portfolios, despite the matter now being public. In fact he said that only if the Police investigation lasted a couple more weeks, would he consider appointing acting spokespersons
7. Then on Thu 23 Goff announces Hughes will temporarily stand down from his portfolios, and appoints Acting Spokepersons. So again we are meant to believe that Goff had already decided to permamently sack Hughes from his portfolios, yet rather than announce this, he announces a stand down only
8. In fact it was reported that “Any decision on whether Mr Hughes would get his positions back would made after the police inquiry was finished”, yet Goff claims he had already decided and told Hughes three weeks earlier.
9. On Fri 25 Hughes resigns from Parliament and again states “I have done nothing wrong”

So I simply do not believe that Goff told Hughes he would lose his portfolios. It is inconsistent with every previous statement and action made by Hughes and Goff.

Phil Goff is still maintaining that not only did he handle the Hughes situation correctly, not a single one of his colleagues have criticised him. Well, they are not technically colleagues, but lets have a look at what the left are saying.

1. Tim Watkin says that Goff’s line about not intereing with a Police investigation is “spin” and that Goff had no plan for how to respond
2. Russell Brown flays Goff and says they are a “shambles”
3. Bomber at Tumeke says that if Labour are not questioning the leadership of Phil Goff, then they “are officially the most stoned Caucus in the history of the Westminster system”
4. Chris Trotter blogged that it is the moral duty of the Labour caucus to remove Goff if they don’t think he can lead them to victory
5. Matt McCarten says Goff’s performancee has been appalling
6. Lew at Kiwipolitico says that anyone who failed to understand the politics (like Goff did) of what happened “has no business running strategy for a Sunday book club, much less a political party which aspires to government”
7. Danyl at the Dim Post also rubbishes Goff’s claims of natural justice coming first, citing numerous examples to the contrary, and in another post says “in the UK they have a competent opposition party, while [Labour] are Really. Fucking. Terrible.”
8. Idiot/Savant at No Right Turns blogs that Goff has “established a consistent pattern of poor decision-making”
9. Robert Winter says “The onus is on our parliamentary caucus to provide us with that national leadership that we deserve.”
10. Psycho Milt (who is left) at No Minister says ” there should be wholesale ritual suicide in the Labour ranks”

This is essentially what Labour’s friends are saying about Labour’s leader, not Labour’s opponents.

MPs

• David Shearer, Labour
• Katrina Shanks, National
• Heather Roy, ACT
• Keith Locke, Greens

Topics

• The cost of a University education
• The increasing specialisation of Universities
• Doctors flying to Aus for 8 grand weekends

9.10 pm Wednesday on TVNZ7 or live at the Backbencher

Bob McCoskrie blogs:

The majority of New Zealanders think women considering abortion have the right to be fully informed of the medical risks of abortion – and the alternatives. 

In the poll of 1,000 people undertaken by Curia Market Research this month, respondents were asked “Would you support a law that would require a woman considering an abortion to first see a doctor, who is not an abortion provider, to be informed of the medical risks and alternatives to abortion?” 

64% supported this proposed law, 29% disagreed, and the remainder (8%) were either unsure or refused to answer. Interestingly, women were slightly more in favour of informed consent than men.

Now my company did this poll for Family First. I was very surprised by the result, especially the fact more women (65%) than men (62%) were in favour of the proposed law.

I should make clear that my personal position is that the law should allow abortion on demand, during the period a feotus would not be viable. I would have answered “no” to the poll question.

When the result came out, I asked a couple of female friends what they thought, as I was puzzled that more women said they supported a law effectively making it more difficult to have an abortion. Their answer was that women want safety and quality in their healthcare, and many would interpret that question as leading to more rigorous process. I’m not sure if their view is why that result was obtained, but it is plausible.

One salient question I would pose on this issue is whether such a procedure would actually lead to some women not having an abortion due to “better” information, who do currently have an abortion – or would it just be an extra hassle and cost for every woman seeking an abortion, and not actually change anything.

Now this is cifty thinking. Claire Rogers reports:

Homes and businesses could have ultrafast broadband on tap if trials by British firm i3 Group to deploy fibre cable through water pipes are successful.

The company said it was talking to all the bidders for the Government’s $1.5 billion ultrafast broadband scheme as well as Crown Fibre Holdings and expected to begin trials of its Atlantis fibre cabling system soon.

Chief technology officer Alasdair Rettie said it was working with those bidders to identify locations for the trials but some would probably take place in Auckland.

The Atlantis system deploys fibre encased in a tube through cold water pipes and is designed to be used in the final stage of a fibre rollout, connecting premises to fibre in the street.

The biggest cost of fibre is digging up the ground to lay it. If it can be pushed through existing pipes, without degrading the quality of longevity, then tha could be a real cost saver.

Claire Rogers at BusinessDay reports:

Telcos are noncommittal on whether they will follow Canadian provider Rogers Communications in letting customers buy one wireless data plan for all their mobile broadband devices.

That would mean customers would no longer have to buy separate mobile broadband data packs for their smartphones, tablet computers and other gadgets, avoiding having to manage separate plans and potentially saving them money.

Paul Brislen, chief executive of the Telecommunications Users’ Association, said the demand for such a service was gathering momentum.

“We’d be delighted if a provider would offer that. I’d probably switch to it. People are moving on to smartphones and multiple devices and this is one of the things they’re all asking for – one pack to rule them all.”

Yes please. I’m not that unusual in that I have mobile data for my laptop, Blackberry and iPad. A data plan which grouped them all together would be superb. In fact I’d probably even swap providers for it.

David Williams reports in The Press:

The Government has moved into damage control after it emerged senior civil servant Martyn Dunne will not be Christchurch’s first earthquake recovery tsar.

Earthquake Recovery Minister Gerry Brownlee confirmed in a press release yesterday that Dunne would not be involved in the new government department.

The department will manage Canterbury’s recovery from the devastating February 22 earthquake.

Brownlee refused to be interviewed yesterday by The Press, including about suggestions Dunne had turned down the role because he would not work with Brownlee.

In his press release, Brownlee said Dunne had been contracted to the State Services Commission to help set up the new department and that media speculation about his role had been “premature”.

It may have been premature but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t correct. When Trans-Tasman published the name of whom they thought was taking the job, the Government said it wasn’t him within minutes.

With Dunne, his name was kept out there for several days. Hence I think one can conclude he was the preferred candidate and had been offered the job. And it is a shame he will not be doing it, as he really does have a good reputation.

However, Paul Holmes, the presenter of television current affairs show Q+A, said yesterday Dunne had “turned down the job, not wanting to work with Mr Brownlee, we understand”.

I’m not sure why Paul said that was the reason. It’s hard to judge how credible that is, without any details. Personally, I’m a bit sceptical because Gerry being the Minister in charge has been known throughout. If that was the problem, I’d expect Dunne to have said he was not interested at the first opportunity.

What might be the cause (and i am just speculating) was the proposed division of powers between the Minister and the CEO.

Regardless of the cause, it is a setback. Hopefully an appointment can still be made quickly.

Phil Goff said on Q+A:

PAUL  Party support’s just above 30 at the moment, isn’t it?

MR GOFF       No, that’s wrong.

PAUL  If it were to drop, say, I don’t know, below 30 – say, 28 – and members of the caucus started to worry about losing their jobs in November, would you expect to go?

MR GOFF       No, let’s have a look at the situation. The party support is in the mid-30s. That’s higher than we had at the election, and it’s a lot higher than Bill English had in 2002, when it was about 20%.

Mr Goff seems to be wrong. The last three polls were:

• Roy Morgan 13 Mar – Labour 32.5%
• TVNZ 17 Feb – Labour 33%
• TV3 16 Feb – Labour 30.9%

If one simply averages them, then that is an average poll rating of 32.1%. Labour got 34.0% in the 2008 election, so Goff is clearly wrong with his claim – none of the individual polls is above this level.

He’s also wrong in his comparison with Bill English in 2002, as he is comparing an election result with a poll rating. The correct comparison is with what National was polling in Feb/March 2002. There were four polls in this period showing National at 35%, 30%, 31% and 33.4% which is an average of 32.4% – slightly higher than what Labour is currently averaging.

The consensus in the print media seems to be that Goff is safe for now, but that may change with the next polls. The next Roy Morgan poll will be 75% before the Hughes affair, so the focus will be on the next TV polls.

This video will send you into fits of laughter or apolexy as the PM stars in a video skit to promote Napier.

The Dom Post reports:

The prime minister laughs, jokes and pokes fun at himself during a session with Australian comedian Peter Flaherty, whose character Shaun Wayne bears a certain resemblance to celebrity cricketer Shane Warne, in a video clip going online today.

The unscripted seven-minute video was shot during Napier’s Art Deco Weekend last month as part of a $100,000 campaign to market the city to tourists from the east coast of Australia.

“I work for the Government,” Mr Key tells “Shaunie”, during their chat in the back of an art deco car. The Australian does not realise he is talking to the country’s leader.

The subject of the Government’s new BMWs crops up. “They’re nice. They’re good value,” Mr Key says. “I heard that nice prime minister talking and he didn’t have a clue what was going on. He bought 34 of them and he didn’t have a clue what was happening.

“Honestly, the things they try and whip through, sometimes it’s beyond me.

“It would probably be better if they were Holdens. I’ve had Holdens all my life. The Calais.”

Napier Mayor Barbara Arnott and her staff were delighted with the video but worried that, after Mr Key saw it, he would not approve its release.

After he gave the go-ahead, Mrs Arnott said: “It was wonderful that the prime minister understood very well what we were trying to do. He entered the spirit of things wholeheartedly.

I loved it. I am sure some sour pusses will say he should not be doing such things, but really it is 10 minutes out of his schedule, and I love having a PM who can take the piss out of himself.

Two interesting profiles in the SST. The first is of aspiring National MP Mark Mitchell:

HE’S HAD violent confrontations with gangs and criminals during 14 years in the New Zealand police force. He’s spent eight years as a top international hostage negotiator, at one point fighting for his life in a five-day siege in Iraq, a story which is set to feature in a movie made by Brad Pitt. He’s built a multimillion-dollar business from scratch.

As he is not a teacher, academic or a unionist I guess he is standing for National 🙂

So the company set up subsidiary Threat Management Group to take security in-house. As CEO and shareholder, Mitchell grew the company from eight staff to about 500 in the first year.

The quality of their work soon won them top-level contracts, including protecting crucial infrastructures like ports, and keeping supply chains open.

Mitchell also became adept at kidnap and ransom negotiations, dealing with more than 100 hostage negotiations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia and Darfur.

If Mitchell does become an MP and eventually a Minister, then I’d say make him Associate Finance Minister in charge of bilateral vote negotiations. His background in ransom negotiations should serve well!

Also a profile on current Green MP Kevin Hague:

Then in 1980 he was arrested during an anti-sexism protest at a Miss New Zealand beauty pageant; a moment he states is his “most embarrassing political moment”.

“I ended up in a police paddy wagon with a group of women who wouldn’t speak to me,” he laughs. “They were all lesbian separatists.”

Heh that is very funny.

In the late 1980s he headed the Aids Foundation, before moving to Greymouth with his partner, Ian, and his son, Thomas, to take on a role as the general manager of planning and funding for the West Coast District Health board, before becoming the board’s chief executive.

This is one thing that makes me respect Hague – he does actually have significant management experience. Becoming a DHB CEO is no small thing.

Hague said he had never been the target of taunting over his sexual orientation since entering the halls of parliament in 2008.

The same, he said, couldn’t be said for other gay MPs, citing “prejudice” directed at Attorney-General and Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Chris Finlayson.

“Trevor Mallard, and also Clayton Cosgrove, refer to Chris Finlayson as `tinkerbell’. And I f—ing hate it,” Hague said. “That sort of overt taunting as a `fairy’, it is nothing other than prejudice. I don’t like that culture of abuse.”

Good on Hague for calling them out for it.

Phil Goff keeps repeating that he didn’t take any action against Hughes, as it would prejudice the Police investigation. This is frankly a bullshit argument (and also against what he has argued himself in the past). I’m amazed the media do not challenge him more on this point.

John Key sacked Richard Worth, while he was under investigation by the Police over a sexual offence complaint. This did not interfere with the Police investigation. And in fact Richard Worth was not charged by the Police.

Likewise it is entirely common for an employer to take disciplinary action against an employee in regard to alleged criminal offending, without waiting for charges to be laid.

Helen Clark took action against several of her MPs, who were under Police investigation. And again this did not interfere with the Police investigation (her staff buring forged paintings did, but that is another matter).

The panel on Q+A is flailing Goff for his inaction. It’s almost brutal.

For the sake of any future party leaders, here’s the general guide to how a party leader should handle allegations against an MP of this nature.

1. When the MP first tells you, immediately bring in a witness to your conversation – probably your chief of staff
2. Do not make any commitments to the MP. Tell them that you need to gather pertinent information before you make a decision.
3. Tell the MP that you want them to tell the Chief of Staff everything that happened. Warn them that they must be 100% truthful, no matter how embarrassing, and that if they omit any pertinent details, then they will have lost your confidence and will be sacked.
4. The CoS interviews the MP. The MP should firstly be asked to detail what happened from their perspective, and also what the complainant is alleging. If they have been interviewed by the Police (as Hughes was), then they will be fully aware of what the allegations are.
5. The MP should also be asked what witnesses, if any, there are to some or all of the incident.
6. If possible the CoS should talk to some of the witnessees if they are friendly to your party – ie other MPs, staff, activists.
7. The CoS then reports back to the Leader with two scenarios – the “best case” scenario of everything the MP has told you is true, and the “worst case” scenario being that everything alleged is true.
8. The CoS should also report on how many people probably know of the incident, which will give you an idea of how likely it is the incident will become public – or more realisticaly simply how long it will take.
9. The Leader then looks at the best case scenario. Assume the MP’s version of events is 100% correct. Ask yourself whether even their version of events is survivable. In the Hughes case, it would be “Regardless of consent, can you politically endure an incident where a naked 18 year old, less than three months out of school, ran naked out of the house of your deputy leader at 5 am after going home with your chief whip after ten hours of drinking”
10. If it is clear it is not survivable, then you discuss exit strategies wiht the MP.
11. If the MPs version of events is survivable, then you look at the worst case scenario – are the allegations against your MP so bad, that they couldn’t do their job until the Police decide whether to charge or not. If the MP is accussed of murder, rape or other extremely serious crimes, then you have them step down until the Police make a decision.
12. If the allegations against the MP are not the worst type of criminal offending, but more “minor” offences such as assault, then it may not be necessary to have them step down. However you would probably urge the MP to front-foot the issue, rather than keep it quiet until the media find out.
13. Once the Leader has the report from their Chief of Staff, they should also brief appropriate people on what has happened and the leader’s proposed course of action. This would normally be the Deputy Leader, Chief Whip and Party President.

As far as I can tell Goff did none of this. They just sat on it for three weeks and hoped it would go away.

Note that nothing in the above involves the Leader having to make a judgement on who is correct – the MP or the complainant. It is all about just considering the best and worst case outcomes.

Something political geeks do when there are talks of leadership changes, is immediately try and work out which MP might vote which way. I did this several times during my eight years in Parliament, when National had leadership changes.

Even when leadership is stable, people speculate on future numbers. If Key retired in 2016, then how would people vote in a (for example) Power v Collins contest gets speculated on. So number counting is a regular sport.

Now a political insider (not from Labour) has sent me their musings on how the numbers might fall in Labour. I stress again I do not know if there is a coup on or not. My view is that no one in Labour *wants* to roll Goff, but the question they are asking is whether it is *necessary* to do so.

So if it does come to a vote, how might the Labour MPs coalesce. I stress again these are not my projections, but those of a (non Labour) political insider.

Probably for Goff

1. Goff
2. King – duty bound to support at least inititally
3. Cosgrove – longstanding ties, on the right
4. O’Connor – longstanding ties, on the right
5. Shearer – his mate, owes him after Mt Albert
6. Barker – on the right
7. Ross Robertson – on the right
8. Faafoi – owes Goff for bringing him in
9. Hawkins – on the right

Probably for change

1. Dyson – seriously pissed with him after demotion
2. Parker – running economic policy to left of Goff
3. Street – Clark acolyte
4. Horomia – hard word put on him to move on; criticised him over Harawira decision
5. Chauvel – leftie
6. Robertson – Clark acolyte, own ambitions, has challenged him in caucus over policy/direction
7. Moroney – Clark acolyte
8. Dalziel – going nowhere under Goff
9. Twyford – Goff knobbled him in Mt Albert; on the left
10. Mackey – Clark acolyte, women’s faction.
11. Mahuta – criticised him over Harawira decision
12. Chadwick – Clark acolyte, women’s faction.
13. Fenton – leftie, women’s faction.
14. Burns – Clark acolyte
15. Beaumont – women’s faction; leftie
16. Curran – leftie
17. Prasad – brought in by Clark
18. Sepuloni – on the left
19. Ririnui – Goff demoted him following credit card scandal
20. Hodgson – member of Clark’s inner circle
21. Pillay – on the left; women’s faction.

Unclear

1. Cunliffe – depends on who challenges – maybe himself
2. Ardern – ties to Goff; but generally in left faction; ties with Robertson
3. Jones – depends on who challenges – maybe himself
4. Mallard – depends on who challenges, will fancy himself as kingmaker
5. William Sio – not enough known
6. Stuart Nash – image of vaguely right-wing, Goff has promoted, but unclear
7. Hipkins – promoted by Goff but generally leftie, may follow where Ardern goes?
8. Kelvin Davis – not enough known
9. Choudhary – going nowhere under Goff but not likely to either if there’s a change
10. Huo – criticised by Goff for Tibet comments; but unclear
11. Lees Galloway – unclear. May go with Chippie and Ardern?

Again, these are not my projections, and we do not know if there will be a spill. This is just a view of where MPs may go, if there is a spill.

So many stories, I’ll try and cover them in the one post.

In one story, David Fisher in the HoS writes of how Andrew Little and Phil Goff have still not discussed the Hughes affair. Amazing.

David Fisher in Herald on Sunday writes in a second story on previous allegations (one of which was blogged on Whale Oil around a year ago), and on the fact that Goff knew for longer than he initially said (again a point Whale has made). Fisher also reports that Tizard says it would be nice to be an MP again so she can say “stick it up you” to those who didn’t want her back (which is most of the Labour Caucus and none of the National Caucus).

Matt McCarten writes in the HoS:

Why is the Labour opposition so hopeless? I had assumed that leader Phil Goff was competent enough, albeit lacking in charisma, to survive until the November election.

Now I don’t. His performance this week has been appalling.

Ouch. And more:

The handling of the Darren Hughes incident exposes Goff’s hypocrisy, his lack of judgment and, more importantly, his political smarts. You couldn’t get a more inept management of a crisis.

It was always a long shot for Labour to win November’s election, given the dismal polling of the party and their leader.

Goff’s mismanagement this week has taken any chance now.

McCarten concludes by saying Goff has to go. Ironically this will probably make Goff safer as Labour MPs won’t like being seen to do what McCarten says!

Jonathan Marshall in the SST has an interview with the 18 year old’s mother in this story. And in another story, Georgina Beyer and Chris Carter both say Goff should go. Again, this may help Goff 🙂

TV3 reports Phil Goff saying:

“I’ve heard of no leadership concerns, nor any difference of opinion on the decisons that I’ve taken,” he says.

No difference of opinion? Well if Phil hasn’t heard of his colleagues concerns, it means they are talking to the media instead of him.

“You’re free to talk to any parliamentarians on the Labour side and get their own opinion they’ll tell you for themselves,” says Goff.

So we did – privately.

And they said:

“I wouldn’t say I’m on Phil’s side but there’s no one else.”

“A few of the guys are rattled but not enough for a spill.”

“Come on Bro – who would want that job?”

My God, not exactly stunning endorsements, are they. In fact lets translate what these three senior colleagues effectively said:

1. Phil’s a hopeless leader, but the alternatuves are worse
2. Some of the Caucus want to roll Phil, but not enough of them
3. We’re doomed and can’t win the next election, so no one wants the job

And then we have these words from the past and future Labour MP Judith Tizard:

The question is whether Phil Goff is the person to lead and he’s got to capture New Zealand’s imagination, and for New Zealand to see him as an alternative.

Patrick Gower then said:

It sounds like to me you don’t think Phil Goff is the right alternative Judith

And Judith’s response was:

I’ve said what I intend to say

Not exactly an endorsement of a loyal MP in waiting. She casts doubt on Phil Goff’s leadership, and then refuses to deny that she doesn’t think he is the right leader.

The New York branch will be happy.