Sam Sachdeva in The Press reports:

Defeated Christchurch mayoral candidate and Wigram MP Jim Anderton will retire from Parliament next year.

Anderton lost to Bob Parker, who retained the mayoralty by a margin of more than 16,000 votes after the Canterbury earthquake. …

He acknowledged his retirement would mean the end of his Progressive Party “in an informal sense”.

There is no Progressive Party. Candidates Josie Pagan and Megan Woods have sought Labour nominations. The members have been encouraged to go to Labour, and there will be no Progressive candidates in 2011.

But Anderton maintains the myth that he is a party leader. Why? Well it means his salary goes from $131,000 to $144,500, and his parliamentary budget gets an extra $100,000.

I was delighted to see Liu Xiaobo win the Nobel Peace Prize. A much better pick than 2009, and what was especially pleasing is that it was granted despite the threats from China.

We need a bit more of this fortitude back home, as reported by NZPA:

New Zealand’s opposition MPs have congratulated the jailed Chinese winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, but Prime Minister John Key will not yet comment.

The Prime Minister should comment, should congratulate Liu Xiaobo, and should use the opportunity to politely state that our desire is for China to continue its path towards more freedom. Yes it will annoy the Chinese Government, and it may even lead to some sort of temporary sanction against NZ, but we must not let that prevent us from sticking up for what is right.

Opposition MPs can of course say what they want, without fear of adverse consequences for the country. I say this not to defend the lack of comment from the PM, but to point out a different PM could well do the same thing.

Mr Key said yesterday he would not comment about Mr Liu until he received more advice.

“I’m not aware of why he’s in jail and it’s not appropriate for me to comment on what is appropriate in terms of other countries putting people in those facilities.”

With all respect MFAT should have immediately given Ministers a briefing, once the winner was known. And it is entirely appropriate for the Prime Minister to comment on the jailing of political dissidents in other countries.

[DPF: The PM has now congratulated Mr Liu, and in fact did so before this post apppeared. It was time delayed from this morning, and Key congratulated him on the way into Caucus. Of course Liu won’t know this as he is in jail.]

Len Brown campaigned on three major rail projects and has a mandate to get them implemented. That is why we have elections.

However there is no mandate for taxpayers, rather than ratepayers, to be the major source of funds.

The Herald reports here on the likely costs of the three rail projects:

1. Central City Tunnel – $1.5b
2. Rail to Airport – $1.45b
3. Rail to Albany – $1.8b

That is a total of $4.75b and there are around 1 million adults in Auckland. So just send each resident a bill for $4,750.

Amelia Wade at the Herald reports:

A clash of cultures over a rule forbidding pregnant or menstruating women to attend a Te Papa exhibit has been criticised by feminists.

An invitation for regional museums to go on a behind-the-scenes tour of some of Te Papa’s collections included the condition that “wahine who are either hapu [pregnant] or mate wahine [menstruating]” were unable to attend.

Jane Keig, Te Papa spokeswoman, said the policy was in place because of Maori beliefs surrounding the Taonga Maori collection included in the tour.

She said the rule was one of the terms Te Papa agreed to when they took the collection.

“If a woman is pregnant or menstruating, they are tapu. Some of these taonga have been used in battle and to kill people.

“Pregnant women are sacred and the policy is in place to protect women from these objects.”

What? Are Te Papa concerned that one of these ancient weapons is going to levitate itself over to any pregnant women, and bludgeon her to death unassisted?

And how does Te Papa intend to check if women are menstruating? Will there be compulsory checks? I mean you can’t rely on trust – the ghosts may get offended.

Deborah Russel, prominent feminist blogger on The Hand Mirror blog, does not think the policy should be enforced in modern society.

“I don’t understand why a secular institution, funded by public money in a secular state, is imposing religious and cultural values on people.

“It’s fair enough for people to engage in their own cultural practices where those practices don’t harm others, but the state shouldn’t be imposing those practices on other people.”

Absolutely. If they are the terms under which a collection will only be granted, then they should be refused.

Would one accept a collection with a condition that no blacks are d

lowed to view the collection?

Would Te Papa kowtow to the Roman Catholic Church if it insisted that a collection of church art work only be viewable by men?

However, Margaret Mutu, head of Maori Studies at Auckland University, said the policy was common in Maori culture.

Women cannot go into the garden, on to the beach or in the kitchen when they are menstruating.

“It’s a very serious violation of tapu for women to do those things while menstruating. Women cannot have anything to do with the preparation of food while they are menstruating.”

I would be very interested in any research that measures how prevalent this “policy” is amongst Maori women. It may have been common in the past, but how many modern Maori families ban women from going into the garden or the beach while they are menstruating?

Yesterday’s papers were fascinating – especially the session on neuroscience and human nature.

Not sure when I will get the time to blog a summary. Today’s sessions are:

• Externalities: Beyond Coase, Williamson and Ostrom
  • The Problem of Social Cost: What Problem – Professor Harold Demsetz
  • Coase Rules OK – Professor Jeff Bennett
  • If Hayek and Coase were Environmentalists – Professor Terry Anderson
• GFC: What have we learnt from the 2008-09 event? A Stocktake
  • Been There Done That – Professor Peter Boettke
  • After the Fall – Professor Deepak Lal
  • The Global Financial Crisis and the Efficient Market Hypothesis – Professor Ray Ball
• Australia – A Generation of Economic Reform
  • A Generation of Reform – Professor Wolfgang Kasper
    A Generation of Reform – Paul Kelly

In discussing the French Enlightenment yesterday, a pertinent quote from the presentation was:

One of the dramatic ironies of the Persian Letters was that Montesquieu‟s fictional Persian traveler, Uzbek, could see despotism everywhere it occurred in Europe, but he was wholly blind to his own despotism with regard to his harem. Montesquieu saw painfully that it was a part of human nature itself to be aware of all abuses of power but their own.

Professor Kors went on to note that is why we limit power itself. Worth reflecting on in the light of the Canterbury earthquake legislation, but even beyond that on the fact we have a unicameral Parliament with no written constitution.

And on the Scottish Enlightenment, Professor Otteson looked at society today:

Western society faces similar declines and decay, though the proposed explanations differ.

American conservatives may point to the decline of the “nuclear family” and of the role fathers play in families, to an increasing disrespect of justified authority in people’s lives, and to the selfish egotism that contemporary American “liberal” culture espouses. Libertarians may point to the increasing role the state plays in our lives, in removing the necessity for us to take care of ourselves or others or to face the consequences that bad behaviors naturally have. Liberals, for their part, may point to the greed and materialism that they believe capitalist corporatism
encourages in turning our attention away from things that truly matter in life.

There may be truth in all these claims. Yet each is possible only because of the growing wealth that commercial society has enabled. Take the conservatives’ concern. In many ways, wealth has rendered fathers obsolete: they are no longer needed to provide for their women or their children, because the women can do it themselves or the state can do it. To the libertarians: the state is able to take such a large role in our lives (for good or ill) because we have the money to pay for it. To the liberals: our wealth has systematically satisfied all our most pressing, fundamental needs and so, naturally, we increasingly turn our attention to less pressing, more superficial, even crass desires.

The Scots foresaw these potential risks of commercial society over two centuries ago. Ferguson knew that markets and commercial society were coming, whether he or anyone else liked it or not, because everyone would want to enjoy their benefits. On the other hand, like Smith he also imagined the degrading and disgracing effects it would eventually have on humanity’s virtue: he believed we would become in time a race of wealthy but ignoble creatures, unable to appreciate or even recognize virtue, incapable of rousing ourselves to vigorous action because our faculties had atrophied, and, finally, unable even to contemplate, let alone achieve, true human happiness.

Wise folks those Scots.

The Labour Party NZ Council has expelled Chris Carter as a member. I am surprised as I thought some pressure had gone on to just suspend him for a couple of years. I guess his recent comments ruled that out as a compromise option.

Derek Cheng at the Herald reports:

Party president Andrew Little said Mr Carter’s actions on July 29, when he sent anonymous letters to journalists in Parliament’s Press Gallery undermining leader Phil Goff, were likely to foment internal discontent and encourage external ridicule.

“They were deceptive, they were clearly calculated to cause damage to the caucus and foment discontent and disharmony in the caucus and cause damage to the party’s reputation,” Mr Little said.

“At no time has there been an acceptance of the gravity of [the actions] or a display of contrition.”

The lack of contrition I suspect was a key factor. Recall Carter gleefully going on TV and repeating his key message time after time after time – that Labour can not win under Phil Goff.

Mr Little said: “Had the author of his letter to the gallery not been revealed, it would have caused considerable harm to that caucus and the way it operates, and there’s no question that the publicity in the days that followed caused damage to the party.”

He said that in other leadership challenges, there had been direct contact with the leader, not a “furtive, sneaky letter”.

And that is a key difference. Richard Prebble called David Lange unbalanced to his face – he did not write anonymous letters to the media about him.

This is a victory for Phil Goff. Now Carter is truly an Independent MP, his comments and doings are of far less media value.

The impending loss of Kerry Prendergast has some saying that it was due to a bad campaign. But in fact my analysis suggests it was more tactical voting on the left. Kerry in fact got a significantly higher proportion of first preferences in 2010 than 2007.

In 2007 Kerry got 17,910 first preferences, which was 34.9%. She lifted that significantly in 2010 to 21,597 first preferences or 41.0%.

So Kerry’s vote went up by 3,687 or 20.6% relative to her 2007 vote, an absolute lift of 6.1 percentage points.

So I’d say Kerry (probably) lost for three reasons:

1. The STV system was better used by the left, with their preferences staying with other left candidates
2. There was only one really viable alternative – not three as in 2007
3. Celia Wade-Brown did run a good campaign (and other Council candidates campaigned on her behalf)

UPDATE:

I now have fuller details of the preliminary results. As each candidate was eliminated, this is how his votes went:

1. Mansell dropped out first with 535 votes which went 10% Kerry, 21% Celia, 54% Others and 15% wasted
2. Bernard dropped out second with 1161 votes which went 13% Kerry, 28% Celia, 45% Others and 14% wasted
3. Brian dropped out third with 5891 votes which went 15% Kerry, 41% Celia, 21% Yan and 23% wasted
4. Jack Yan dropped out fourth with 7,341 votes which went 24% Kerry, 46% Celia and 29% wasted

There were 2,140 people who voted for Jack Yan but did not give either Kerry or Celia a preference.

Sally Rae at the ODT reports:

From Mackenzie District Council receptionist to the district’s new mayor – Claire Barlow is finding her new position “very exciting and quite surreal”.

Mrs Barlow (47), who is Mackenzie’s first female mayor, beat two sitting councillors, Graeme Page and Dave Pullen, for the top job after John O’Neill decided not to seek re-election. …

In her job, she had been meeting the public for the past seven years and had an indication of their frustrations.

As a council staff member, she saw things she wanted to achieve but could not do it from the receptionist’s position.

She could not stand for council and also continue as receptionist so “I thought I’ll go for the top”.

She decided she had nothing to lose and was “stoked” with the result.

Congratulations to Mrs Barlow. Some people look down at receptionists (NB I spent several years part-time as a receptionist), and it’s a nice sign that people judge someone on their merits – not on a stereotype about the sort of jib they hold.

Michael Field at Stuff reports:

Sir Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit is set to be the most expensive film made, Hollywood sources reported this weekend.

The Daily Telegraph in London said The Hobbit will cost US$500 million (NZ$663m) to produce.

This would make it about $200m more expensive than the third part of the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise.

It would also mean The Hobbit’s final price-tag would be approaching twice that of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, which cost $281 million, the Telegraph reported.

Almost two thirds of a billion dollars – much of which would be spent in New Zealand. That would provide a lot of jobs for a lot of people.

But hey why not let a tiny group with just 87 members drive it off shore. Solidarity is more important than jobs – right. $5,000 a week is just slave labour and can not be tolerated.

The Press reports:

New Ashburton Mayor Angus McKay and Hurunui District councillor Ross Little may be laughing, but the other sacked Environment Canterbury (ECan) councillors who sought new mandates have missed out.

In less than six months McKay has gone from dismissal at the hands of the Government to the top job in mid-Canterbury and ironically replaces one of the architects of the move against the ECan council, former mayor Bede O’Malley.

Further north, Little will now represent his local community in the Amberley ward on the district council.

There was no political resurrection, however, for other ECan councillors who lost their jobs when Environment Minister Nick Smith and Local Government Minister Rodney Hide stepped in earlier this year.

Sir Kerry Burke, Jane Demeter, Pat Harrow, Jo Kane, David Sutherland and Rik Tindall all stood for council, community board or district health board positions, with Tindall also having a shot at the Christchurch mayoralty.

It is interesting that Christchurch voters have rejected the people that helped made Ecan so incompetent (ranked 86/86).

Angus McKay was not one of those, and pleased to see him become Mayor Ashburton. Angus is a former National candidate standing against Jim Anderton in Wigram.

Trevor Mallard blogged that Cabinet won’t be a happy place due to:

1. Labour Party Mayor of the Supercity with a clear centre left majority. Key’s nightmare.
2. National Mayor of Hamilton given the boot. Martin Gallagher top polling for council.
3. Harry Duynhoven Mayor of New Plymouth
4. Laws team routed in Whanganui with a left leaning Mayor.
5. Act Mayor of Hutt City given the boot.
6. Prendergast National Mayor of Wellington ahead by 40 with 1,000 specials to count. Her Wellington supermayorlty dreams in tatters.
7. Tony Ryall’s bette noir Richard Thompson tops the poll for Dunedin City.
8. One of Wellington’s best analysts David Choat got elected to the DHB.

Now Trevor is right that overall those on the left had far more to cheer about, and overall it was good for them. However I think he pushes things too far to suggest that this is some massive rejection of National. I thought I would do a more nuanced analysis of the results than Trevor’s shotgun blast.

Labour Party Mayor of the Supercity with a clear centre left majority. Key’s nightmare

The result in Auckland is a very good win for the left. It will eneregise their activist base, and also provide profile for some of their office holders. And the get out the vote machine in South Auckland should concern National, if they can repeat it for 2011.

However this does not mean Auckland has turned on National. Many National supporters did not vote for Banks or C&R for various reasons. This was primarily about local perthe sonalities and tickets.

And there may be a silver lining for National. A Banks and C&R controlled Super City may have kept the opposition to a super city high. If they made unpopular decisions, then people might blame the Govt in 2011 for them.

But having Brown and the left in charge, may mean that any backlash from unpopular decisions is likely to hit the incumbent Mayor and Councillors rather than the Government. Remember they have to put in place a single rating system that will produce significant winners and losers – and the losers can howl loudly.

National Mayor of Hamilton given the boot. Martin Gallagher top polling for council

Bob Simcock is a former National MP, but the person who beat him was supported by a few Nats also. Bob’s lack of campaigning is cited by most as why he lost. And the election of Gallagher to Council in top spot is no surprise – former MPs have massive name recognition, and you have to be exceptionally unpopular to be a former MP and not get elected to Council. I note Di Yates did manage it though.

Harry Duynhoven Mayor of New Plymouth

Harry has always been greatly popular in New Plymouth – far more so than the party he represented. His election is little surprise, and it is primarily about him. It does assist Labour to have one of their own as Mayor though, so the inclusion is not without some merit.

Laws team routed in Whanganui with a left leaning Mayor

Anyone who thinks Whanganui politics is about right/left rather than love or hate Laws obviously does not live there. A huge number on the right wanted the Laws team gone also.

Act Mayor of Hutt City given the boot

David Odgen was involved with ACT. But the guy who beat him was not someone from Labour, but Ray Wallace who if memory is correct was involved with National.

Prendergast National Mayor of Wellington ahead by 40 with 1,000 specials to count. Her Wellington supermayorlty dreams in tatters.

A big win for the left – especially the Greens. Agreed.

Tony Ryall’s bette noir Richard Thompson tops the poll for Dunedin City

Shock horror – a Labour Party activist does well in Dunedin. Next Trevor will be surprised that they drink Speights there also.

One of Wellington’s best analysts David Choat got elected to the DHB

And congrats to David. But with respect I don’t think the PM will be losing sleep over his election to the DHB.

Also former Labour Ministers also lost out in Taupo, Christchurch and Porirua so not all one way. And several of the victories in places like Dunedin were wins for “fiscal conservatives”.

As I said overall they were certainly happier tidings for the left, and they do provide some opportunities for Labour to capitalise on them. But it isn’t as dramatic as Trevor portrayed.

The Dom Post reports:

High-profile civil liberties lawyer Michael Bott will contest the Wairarapa electorate next year for Labour, having resigned as chairman of the Council for Civil Liberties. …

Despite National winning the seat in 2008 with a majority of 6758, Mr Bott, 45, said the seat was winnable.

He would not move from Upper Hutt to Wairarapa but would look to buy property there. Having grown up in Hawke’s Bay, he said he was familiar with issues in rural areas and towns.

Wairarapa is quite a parochial place, so I am not sure they will rush to vote for someone who won’t move there. equally I am not sure they will be impressed that you claim to know their issues on the basis you once lived in the Hawke’s Bay.

But Bott will be a more formidable candidate than the previous Labour candidate, a teacher whom I recall even failed to get elected to a local community board.

Jonathan Marshall at the SST reports:

The Auckland Council may have been elected with Len Brown up top but North Shore mayor Andrew Williams is to don his mayoral chains one final time.

Williams has surprised councillors by calling a final meeting which will happen two weeks after the election.

Today North Shore City Council officials confirmed Williams has called an “extraordinary meeting” for October 27. An agenda was expected three days before the meeting. …

Deputy mayor Julia Parfitt said it would not be appropriate for her to comment on Williams’ decision to call a post-election meeting.

“I don’t call the meetings, you would have to speak to the mayor. It certainly wasn’t my choice,” Parfitt said.

She was surprised to learn Williams would be wearing his mayoral regalia.

“I wouldn’t expect him to wear his gown and chain, we have Len Brown as mayor now.”

Maybe he is going to loop the mayoral chains around his waist, and weld them to the Council Chamber so he can’t be evicted?

Should the Councillors wear their rain coats in case he mistakes them for trees?

The Dom Post reports:

Kerry Prendergast’s tenuous hold on the Wellington mayoralty is likely to be undone by a wave of Green special votes, analysts predict.

Her political future hangs on a knife edge, with 40 votes separating her from rival Celia Wade-Brown and more than 900 special votes still to be counted.

Special votes, which have historically favoured left-wing challengers, could lead to victory for Green Party member Ms Wade-Brown. ….

Ms Wade-Brown said she had reviewed figures from the last election, which showed that, of the 800 valid special votes, 265 went to Ms Prendergast while 409 went to the second and third-placed candidates.

I’m glad I managed to squeak my vote in at 11.53 am on Saturday, as if Kerry lost by one vote I’d be very upset.

I agree that Celia is favoured to win on the specials. Graeme Edgeler pointed out that in 2007 Kerry got 12% fewer first preferences in the specials, than amongst ordinary votes.

Celia needs to win 52% of the specials to become Mayor. In this context “win” means be ranked higher than Kerry.

Wellington has not had a National MP elected since 1993. Despite that it has had centre-right Mayors for the last 15 years. But STV has made it even harder as all the votes against you tend to accumulate. I will be interested to see the vote iterations when they are published.

The Herald reports:

An alphabetical listing of candidates appears to have helped drive a clean-out of the Auckland District Health Board.

Five of the seven elected members of the new board have surnames that start with A, B or C – and consequently were listed near the top of voting forms.

This is in line with formal studies of DHB results previously. The reality is that as almost no media attention is given to DHB meetings, there is no information available for people to make intelligent informed choices for DHB elections. It is a lottery – where your surname can be the most important factor.

Combine that with the fact that DHBs have little power – the central Government provides the funding, the priorities and the policies, and it really is a cruel farce.

The Herald reports:

The council is a balance of experience, youth and gender. It has eight women councillors, five sitting or former council leaders, and two Pacific Island and two Maori councillors – but no representatives from any other ethnic groups.

A pretty diverse Council, and one would think showed there is no need for race based seats.

On TVNZ’s Q & A yesterday, Mr Brown said a referendum on creating Maori seats on the council “may well” be possible in the next three years.

“I want us to have a full debate across the community, and I want to find out the best way of including the whole community in that,” he said.

“But I want to see Maori representation, particularly mana whenua [local tribal] representation on that council.”

Len Brown’s policy was to support Maori seats, so this is no surprise.

But I would be very cautious about mana whenua representation, because that implies that rather than have an election amongst electors on the Maori roll, instead the three local iwi would directly appoint a Councillor. So a dozen people in a room get the same voting rights as the entire Rodney District.

The current laws allows for Maori seats in the traditional sense, but a law change would be needed to have mana whenua direct representation as proposed by the Royal Commission and supported by Len. So this is highly unlikely unless people vote for a Labour/Green Government in 2011.

Why did he go and what does it mean for TVNZ and Henry?

Why did he go?

What changed, so that it went from a suspension offence to resignation. I think there were four factors.

1. The Dikshit name mockery by itself would have been no big thing. Other NZ broadcasters have done exactly the same thing as Paul Henry did, and it was reported that in India her name has been made fun of for many years by some. But the problem for Henry was it occuring just before his awful comments on Sir Anand not being a real NZers. This made it look like Henry was prejudiced against Indians, rather than just making fun of her name.
2. The official complaint from the Indian Government. While it is preposterous that they turned it official, the reality is they did. Suddenly this makes the comments a major liability.
3. A growing realisation that Henry’s brand has been so damaged by this, that he would never be able to restore his reputation with many NZers.
4. Perhaps most importantly the “scandal” effectively destroyed his chances of ever grabbing the coveted Close Up hosting spot. It is no secret he had wanted this for many years. With that now ruled out, he had no future in TVNZ except to stay where he is.

So what does it mean for TVNZ:

1. In the short term they get out of the political bonfire that was threatening to burn them
2. But also in the short term they face a backlash from the many Paul Henry supporters (up to 70,000 now on Facebook). And do not under estimate how many people watched Breakfast only because of him. I was certainly one of them. Don’t get me wrong – other presenters do a competent job, but Paul makes you laugh and is so entertaining that you really enjoyed tuning in.
3. As I understand it Breakfast has never been highly profitable. It is possible Breakfast could become a loss leader, and in these tight times may be an expense TVNZ can not afford.

And where now for Paul Henry:

1. If I was TV3 I’d be picking up the phone to Paul. However I wouldn’t necessarily stick him on at Breakfast – that time slot is never highly profitable. Maybe give him the 5.30 pm slot that TVNZ were looking to develop for him.
2. A return to radio is possible. That was where he started. However I have to say that I think seeing Paul’s antics is a big part of his appeal, and radio may lessen that.
3. Paul could always become a blogger 🙂

Dear Commissioner Broad,

This is a complaint alleging that Television New Zealand Ltd broke S140 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985 with their 6 pm One News bulletin on Tuesday 5 October 2010.

A video of the particular item can be found at http://tvnz.co.nz/local-elections-2010/court-appearances-over-alleged-voting-scam-3818752/video

The item showed the arrest of a man in relation to alleged enrolment fraud in Papatoetoe.

At around 50 seconds into the item, the reporter speaks to the camera with a Labour Party billboard in the background, showing photos and names of three candidates for the local elections. Slowly the shot zoomed in until the only two things visible were the reporter and the photo of the candidate on the right. At this stage his billboard photo is almost as large as the reporter. It is not an obscure background image.

The candidate prominently focused on was Daljit Singh, who was one of the two men arrested. At the time of the broadcast his name and identity was subject to an interim suppression order from the Auckland District Court.

The inclusion of the billboard featuring Mr Singh, and the extended close up zoom onto his image was obviously a deliberate decision by TVNZ to indicate or hint that Mr Singh was the person arrested. They did also show some images of other candidates and billboards but they were extremely rapid fire.

In the recent case of Police v Slater, the judgement of Judge Harvey made it clear that it is not necessary to actually name the person with name suppression, to be in breach of an order. Judge Harvey states:

The information can be decoded in the same way that an aggregation of information may lead to the identification of a person by way of a process of elimination – another form of interpreting a particular code or solving a puzzle.

The focusing on his name and photo allowed people to “solve the puzzle” of who had appeared in court. Presumably, this must have been the intention of TVNZ, otherwise they had no need to film their item in front on Mr Singh’s billboard.

I should note that personally I strongly disapproved of the situation where Mr Singh was able to get interim name suppression. I would even go so far as to say that I thought TVNZ provided a public service by implicitly identifying him before the deadline for posting in votes.

But I do not believe one can expect other “publishers” to obey the laws around name suppression, if they are not applied equally.

Therefore I reluctantly file this complaint.

Faithfully,

David Farrar

(complaint was sent by e-mail on Saturday 9 October 20110)

I’m one of around a dozen Kiwis who are amongst the 200+ attendees at the annual conference of the Mont Pelerin Society.

The Mont Pelerin Society has as its membership, the leading classical liberal academics (and others) from around the world. It was founded in 1947 by Professor Friedrich von Hayek at a time where western values of classical liberalism were imperilled. Named after the place of its first meeting:

The group described itself as the Mont Pelerin Society, after the place of the first meeting. It emphasised that it did not intend to create an orthodoxy, to form or align itself with any political party or parties, or to conduct propaganda. Its sole objective was to facilitate an exchange of ideas between like-minded scholars in the hope of strengthening the principles and practice of a free society and to study the workings, virtues, and defects of market-oriented economic systems.

The first meeting was comprised of high government officials, Nobel prize recipients, journalists, economic and financial experts, and legal scholars, including Milton Friedman. Only one survivor is alive today – his message being read out last night at the opening dinner. You need to be invited to join. As the Centre for Independent Studies is effectively hosting the meetings, its members (such as me) can attend as guests. Also a number of young researchers or academics can win fellowships to attend.

So MPS is not a think tank – it does not publish research (apart from that done by members for the conferences), and it definitely does not lobby. It is purely for the exchange and critique of the ideas of market and political freedom.

Today’s sessions include:

• Ideas of the Enlightenment: Their Contemporary Relevance
  • The French Enlightenment & its Implications for Liberty
  • Lessons from the Scottish Enlightenment
  • Jurisprudential Legacy of the Enlightenment
• Towards a New Enlightenment: Understanding Human Nature
  • Building Political Structures with the Crooked Timber of Humanity
  • After Freud: What do Neuroscience Advances Tell Us About Human Nature?
• Reconciling the Traditional with the Modern in a Liberal Society
  • Noel Pearson, a leading Aboriginal rights activist
  • Reconciling Modernity with Tradition in a Liberal Society
  • Reconciling the Traditional with the Modern

The conference lasts until Friday. I am unsure if there is Internet access in the conference room, so blogging may be limited.

One of the nine seeking Labour’s nomination for Te Atatu is Michael Kidd. I presume he is a Labour Party member in order to be able to stand.

Is he the same Michael Kidd who was ranked at No 7 on the Family Party list in 2008? The Family Party being Destiny in drag of course.

A strange political journey. Imagine the replacement for Chris Carter being a former Destiny candidate 🙂

Paul Henry has offered his resignation from TVNZ and the CEO has accepted it.

Will he move to 3? Or radio? And who will replace him?

UPDATE: 75 comments in the hour from when I blogged this (which was while waiting for my luggage at the airport) and making it into my hotel room. I think that must be a record.

UPDATE2: You can vote in my blog poll in the left hand sidebar as to whether or not you think TVNZ did the right thing by accepting Paul Henry’s resignation

The transcript is interesting:

DUNCAN My guest this morning is former Labour MP Chris Carter, now Independent.  Chris thanks for joining us this morning.

CHRIS CARTER – Fmr Labour MP

Duncan it’s been a pleasure.  We’ve had our differences but I’m pleased to be here.

DUNCAN And I’m glad we’re shaking hands, so the country can see that.

Had almost forgotten their little run in.

DUNCAN Who should be leading the party?

CHRIS So when people see a party stuck, making no traction, log jammed if you like, they start to ask what can change it.  Now policies maybe, but in the end it comes down to the leader, cos the leader’s the public face.

DUNCAN Who should be leading the party?

CHRIS Now there are three reasons why people are unhappy with Phil.  Can I go through those?

DUNCAN I’d like you to answer the question.  Who do you think should be leading that party if Phil Goff shouldn’t be?

CHRIS I’d like to respond to that Duncan by first of all saying that’s for the caucus to decide, and I’m no longer a member of that caucus.  I’d like to say secondly that there are at least four or five people in there that have got the qualities, the experience, the energy and the determination that could do a good job as leader.

DUNCAN Name them, name them.

CHRIS I’m not going to name any of them, but what I’m saying is that I’m confident that that Labour caucus could provide a number of people who could do a different job to Phil.

At this point various Labour MPs sighed in relief that Chris did not name them, as doing so would be a kiss of death to them.

The fact is that as unlikely as it is that Phil Goff will become Prime Minister in 2011, it is even more unlikely that another Labour MP will do any better. And any future leader is better to not become Leader now, so their brand is fresh for the 2014 election.

Now why are people unhappy with Phil?  You know I’ve said he’s a decent guy, he is a  good guy, he’s a hard worker and he wants Labour to win, but there’s three reasons why he’s not going to.  First of all there’s the perception that he’s from the 80s and that it’s just not working.  So we’ve had 18 months it’s not working, people are saying if it’s not working we need to change the leader.  Secondly he fudges on issues.  He fudged on the GST issue, he fudged on the four weeks holiday, and he fudged on tackling Paul Henry actually, and all of that really annoyed people.

Here Carter’s analysis is basically correct. It is very unlikely that NZ will elect someone who entered Parliament under Muldoon, as the new future focused Prime Minister.

And absolutely there is disquiet amongst the left MPs over what Goff has said and done on stuff like four weeks leave and Paul Henry. They feel he can not be relied on. That is why he will not survive long after 2011, but he will survive until then.

CHRIS I’m going to appear before the Council, I’m going to make a strong case about yes I stuffed up, yes I did an inappropriate thing, but hey Richard Prebble called David Lange mentally unbalanced, you know Phil Goff and Annette King tried to roll Helen Clark, none of them were kicked out, so …

A fair point, but the difference is how they went about it. You do not get expelled for trying to roll your leader. You do get expelled for sending anonymous letters to the press gallery. Mind you I think they will suspend not expel him.

DUNCAN And when did you last speak to Helen Clark and what did she say to you about this departure?

CHRIS I spoke with her yesterday on the phone, actually she rang me up from New York and she’d heard about the book.  I hadn’t spoken to her for some weeks, and she sent me this text saying what’s this about a book?  And so she rang me up to discuss about the book and we talked about resources and the way I’d do the book.

DUNCAN She’s going to help you write it?

CHRIS No she’s not gonna help me write it, but she’ll no doubt be a critic of it, but I’d expect no less from her.

I suspect Chris Carter’s book, when it comes to Helen Clark, will make the Brian Edwards biography look like a savage character assassination 🙂

So what am I gonna do, well I’m thinking I’m really interested in journalism, I might become a journalist.

I am sure he could get a job at Radio New Zealand. Or maybe TVNZ need a new Breakfast host.

DR BRIAN EDWARDS – Media Consultant and Commentator

Well I want to ask you a couple of things.  I wonder first of all whether you think you deserved all the odium and contempt that was heaped on you about the travel business? That’s the first thing.

CHRIS Absolutely not.

BRIAN Oh okay.  And the second thing I want to know is if Phil Goff hadn’t forced you into what was in the end quite a humiliating performance in front of all the journalists, your second apology if you like, would any of this happened?

CHRIS Probably not Brian because I would not have felt used as a scapegoat.

What a smart question from Brian Edwards. He got Chris Carter to admit that none of this would have happened if Goff had not demoted him for his excessive travel.