Stuff reports:

A voting booth that apparently bucked the region’s National leanings had the local farming community scratching their heads.

One farmer said he couldn’t believe the figures. Another said there must have been a mistake.

Turns out they were right.

The Electoral Commission confirmed on Friday that Linkwater, near the Marlborough Sounds, was true blue all along.

The commission’s preliminary results for the rural township showed of the 215 votes, a whopping 123 were for the Māori Party, compared to just 32 for National and 30 for Labour.

But on Friday the commission confirmed there had been a “data entry error” and those 123 votes actually belonged to National.

This is a pretty shocking error. Sure it would have been picked up in the final official count, but that isn’t the point. The Electoral Commission should have built in checks to its system so that data entry errors are picked up before they are published. For example you could require a second independent person to verify a result before it is accepted.

Also to have a party that got 1% of the votes nationwide to score 50% at a polling place should have rung alarm bells. Again, where were the checks?

“Errors like this happen infrequently and processes are in place to pick them up during the official count.”

There should be processes in place to pick them up during the preliminary count.

Stuff reports:

As coalition talks gear up there are fears Winston Peters may favour a more independent option, supporting neither party, that would leave National’s programme up in the air.

The NZ First leader has never ruled out “sitting on the cross benches”, and his comment that there are nine scenarios open to him suggest that is still a live option.

But he has also emphasised stability, which argues against him abstaining and in favour of a support deal.

He struck a support deal with Labour in 2005 that included ministerial posts, with foreign affairs for himself, despite eschewing the “baubles of office” on the campaign trail. 

As the parties wait for special votes to be returned on October 7 from the September 23 election, after which Peters has pledged to reveal his intentions by writ day on October 12, a “cross benches” arrangement by Peters would likely have only one outcome.

That would be a National minority government, since it has 58 seats to the Labour-Greens 52 in the 120 seat Parliament. While the 380,000 special votes may narrow the gap they are seen as unlikely to close it entirely.

The appeal of sitting on the cross benches is it is all power and no responsibility. You have the swing vote on every piece of legislation and you might bring the Government down at any stage, so they will come grovelling to you to ensure the Budget passes etc. But you have no formal agreement for policies or ministerial positions.

You see this in Canada where there is a convention the largest party is allowed to govern, even without a majority formally committed to it.

So in one sense this is a safe option for NZ First. They are not part of the Government, they are not responsible for anything the Government does, and hence won;t be blamed if the Government is unpopular.

The downside is none of the NZ First MPs get to be Ministers, and they don’t get a specific set of policy wins (but they will get to decide which laws get passed). Also the government is seen as unstable as the pin can be pulled at any time.

If NZ First decided to abstain then it would be a National minority Government. They would win votes in the House by 59 to 52 or 58 to 53. Even after specials the worst case would be 56 to 55 (if ACT was against).

But NZ First could sit on the cross benches but give provisional confidence and supply to a Labour-Greens Government. It could be done without abstaining.

The Herald reports:

The man suspected of opening fire at concertgoers attending a country music festival in Las Vegas last night was a local resident with no prior criminal convictions in the state of Nevada.

Stephen Paddock, 64, lived just 90 minutes outside Las Vegas in the city of Mesquite, where he purchased a home in a retirement community for just over $369,000 in 2015 according to public records.

Paddock had both hunting and fishing licenses according to public records, as well as his pilot’s license, but no criminal record in the state of Nevada.

 

He was retired but had worked for as an internal auditor at Lockheed Martin for three years in the late 1980s, and managed an apartment building complex in Mesquite, Texas.

Paddock was also the son of Benjamin Hoskins Paddock, a serial bank robber who ended up on the FBI Most Wanted list back in 1969 when he escaped from federal prison in Texas while serving a 20 years sentence.

The FBI kept him on the list for the next eight years, and he was eventually found one year after he was removed from the list in 1978 while outside an Oregon Bingo hall.

The agency said that the fugitive had been “diagnosed as psychopathic” and also had possible “suicidal tendencies”.

Paddock had committed suicide by the time police breached the door to the room from which the gunman had opened fire at the Mandalay Bay Resort just after 10pm on Sunday night.

It marked the end of what has now become the deadliest mass shooting in modern US history, which left at least 58 dead and 515 injured.

What a horrific attack. One madman can shoot almost 600 people, killing 58 of them.

Eric Paddock said his brother was a normal guy who must have “snapped” before carrying out the worst mass shooting in American history.

Eric Paddock said that “something happened” to make his brother Stephen kill 58 and injure 515.

Eric said that there was “absolutely no indication he could do something like this” and said that Stephen had no political or religious affiliation.

He said: “He was just a guy. Something happened, he snapped or something”.

So unusual to have no known motive or reason.

ISIS meanwhile claimed responsibility for the attack early Monday, saying the gunman was a recent convert to Islam.

That claims was quickly discredited by multiple officials, who stated that there is no evidence to support that allegation.

A 64 year old retired accountant and gambler seems an unlikely convert.

Such a tragedy. So many dead and injured for no reason. Scores of families in mourning and hundreds traumatized.

The final list of major (over $30,000) donors is:

From the Electoral Commission:

1. Gareth Morgan to TOP $1,700,000
2. Inner Mongolia Rider Horse Industry (NZ) Ltd to National $150,000
3. E Tu Union to Labour $120,000
4. Hon Robert Smellie to Labour $115,000
5. Alpha Laboratories to National $112,000
6. Dame Jenny Gibbs to ACT $106,200
7. Alan Gibbs to ACT $100,000
8. Bruce Plested to Maori Party $100,000
9. NZ Dairy Workers Union to Labour $100,000
10. Susan Cullen to Maori Party $82,512
11. Tom Pan to Labour $65,000
12. Karl Maughan to Labour $60,000
13. Lianna Hagaman to National $57,616
14. Heartland Bank to National $57,400
15. Barry Colman to National $56,000
16. HWM (NZ) Holdings to National 55,000
17. Philip Hong to National $51,720
18. Phillip Mills to Labour $50,000
19. De Yi Shi to National $50,000
20. Carrus Ltd to National $50,000
21. Rorohara Farms Ltd (Bruce Plested) to Maori Party $50,000
22. Lane Capital Group to National $50,000
23. Christopher Reeve to ACT $45,000
24. Tuku Morgan to Maori Party $43,000
25. Maritime Union to Labour $40,500
26. Stanley Palner to Labour $39,100
27. Murray Chandler to ACT $35,000
28. MF Management Ltd to National $32,000
29. Tamati Cairns to Maori Party $30,000

So by party:

1. TOP $1,700,000
2. National $721,736
3. Labour $589,600
4. Maori Party $305,512
5. ACT $286,200

A great article by Katherine Rich:

It surrounds the blurred lines between objective academia, legitimate advocacy, and what is, in essence, just academic activism.

On behalf of Alwyn Poole:

A Properly Held Growth Mindset is THE key to Effective Teaching for Improvement and Excellence

 

(join us for an event in Auckland Nov 11 a great time for PD and planning for change/improvement in 2018)

 

Having been in teaching since 1991 (Tauranga Boys, Hamilton Boys, St Cuthbert’s College, Villa Education Trust) and having been the parent of three children, to me, the key progression in education and human development has been the improved understanding in how the human brain works. When you place this alongside the work of Carol Dweck (and subsequently others) on a “growth mindset” you have a huge hint on how to make a difference to both young people and adults.

 

As Carol Dweck makes clear in her work – this is not a platitude. It needs to be carefully understood and applied.

 

John Hattie explains after spending time with Carol Dweck:

 

“[a] growth mindset” – it is not an attribute of a person, it is a way of thinking in a particular circumstance. “

The key question is, “WHEN is the appropriate situation for thinking in a growth manner over a fixed manner?” In these situations, having access to growth thinking helps resolve the situation, move the person forward, and not lead to resistance, over reaction and fear of flight into a fixed mindset.

 

Most recently, Dweck (2017) noted her research relates directly to how students perceive their abilities – which has a long history in self-attribution, locus of control, calibration, and many other related notions. She brought a sharpness to two of the core ideas.

• The belief that one’s intelligence or abilities can be changed
• or
• It is fixed and immutable

 

the lowest achieving students found a message of possible change compelling, and while they did not change their beliefs about intelligence, they did feel a boost of optimism that drove them forward” 

 

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/finding_common_ground/2017/06/misinterpreting_the_growth_mindset_why_were_doing_students_a_disservice.html

 

And as Hattie’s associate Peter DeWitt writes:

 

[Hattie] said the reason why growth vs. fixed mindset has a low effect size is due to the fact that adults have a fixed mindset and keep treating students accordingly, so right now the effect size is low, and will continue to stay low unless we change our practices in the classroom. We put students in ability groups, they get scores on high stakes tests that help label them … once students enter into Special Education, very few leave.

 

First and foremost, we have to get away from having a fixed mindset [ourselves] because it has terrible implications for how we treat students. We do not have a crystal ball, and we shouldn’t treat students who struggle like they will struggle for the rest of their lives. It’s like a self-fulfilling prophecy. If we treat students like they will always struggle…they may always struggle.

 

We talk a lot about the growth mindset but our actions may be counterproductive to putting it into action. A growth mindset is so vitally important for adults and students. Adults need to have that mindset for their own growth but more importantly for the growth of their students.

Talking about the growth mindset is not good enough. Our actions are where the rubber hits the road. If we believe the growth mindset is important, and believe that it should have a higher effect size, then we need to follow up with the actions to make it happen.

 

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/finding_common_ground/2015/07/why_a_growth_mindset_wont_work.html

 

One of the people who have made these concepts accessible is Matthew Syed – best-selling author of Bounce and Black Box Thinking.

 

At the Villa Education Trust we have taken this seriously in our day-to-day practices in our three schools. More than that – we are bringing one of Matthew’s authorised Mindset in Education speakers (Rob Carpenter) from the UK to New Zealand in November of this year.

 

http://www.matthewsyed.co.uk/mindset-programmes/

 

We would love for you to be there:

 

November 9 in Wellington: https://www.eventfinda.co.nz/2017/black-box-thinking-in-education/wellington

 

November 11 in Auckland: https://www.eventfinda.co.nz/2017/black-box-thinking-in-education/auckland

A guest post by John Wren:

The Truth about Auckland Hospital

A patients perspective: New Zealand’s largest hospital

The quality of healthcare provided by New Zealand’s largest hospital has been fervently analysed and commented upon by both the media and politicians  – yet it is misses a vital viewpoint. Amidst the noise from hospital management, staff, professionals and politicians lies the almost silent perspective of those that should be the centre of our healthcare system. The patient.

It was a Wednesday evening late May. I had finished my dinner and was preparing for an evening in front of the television when I experienced intermittent sharp pains in my chest. A couple of paracetamol didn’t quell the pain and before you know it St John staff are standing at my door, unpacking their equipment and unbuttoning my shirt. I was carted to the ambulance and within thirty minutes was being admitted to the Auckland Hospital  emergency department.

Within minutes of arriving I was interviewed by staff and seen by a doctor. Hooked to a ECG, blood test taken, ultrasound booked and chest x-rayed. The speed with which this happened was impressive, the staff in the A&E department were all extremely pleasant, they all greeted me by name and apologised for a having to ask some of the same questions. They were confident, happy to explain what was happening, professional and competent.

By 1am, I had been moved to a medical ward. The staff were still uncertain about the pain but confident it was not heart-related and instead to a previous medical conditions. They explained that next morning I would be visited by a specialist who would review my condition but in the meantime they would keep me comfortable, monitor my condition and provide pain relief…

My journey through the system then commenced. At this point the medical issues are not important, I was examined by many competent staff and an extensive range of tests were conducted. I was made to feel important every staff member whether they were a senior specialist or the ladies who mopped the floor greeted me with a smile and friendly comment .

Eventually it was decided that I needed surgery. But by this time the weekend had arrived and scheduling my surgery into a busy weekend schedule was a challenge. Every staff member whether they were a nurse, a student registrar or ward doctor went out of their way to ensure that I was comfortable and my needs were being attended too.

For example, I was sent to radiology for another chest X-ray. After the first procedure they required a second X-ray but in the interim period I had to sit up in my bed for 15 minutes to allow my lung to drain. I was left in a waiting area outside radiology. A staff member walking past smiled and said, “You look cold, I will get you a blanket.” He was back within two minutes with a hot blanket,

Every afternoon my meal order was taken for the next 24 hours. I was offered a colourful printed menu with descriptions of each of the choices. The days before and following my surgery food was of little interest, however as I recovered I began to appreciate the flavour and texture of the food that was served. I really enjoyed the meals.

My room, of four beds, was close to the staff area and it was a pleasure to hear chatter and laughter. I had the feeling that staff was happy and working in an atmosphere where they were appreciated and therefore came to work with a commitment and dedication, this was further reflected in the way in which they cared for my needs.

Visits by medical specialists and other staff were pleasant. There was no sense of urgency. Staff took time to explain to me the results of monitoring my vital signs, reasons for further tests and the next steps in my rehabilitation.

On the day I left hospital I had visits from occupational therapists and physiotherapists arranging for my move home. As I left the hospital, I was given a showering stool an extensive set of advice and instructions and medications.

About an hour after I arrived home I received a phone call from the department responsible for after-care to arrange a visit. Within 60 minutes a manager arrived to check out our home. He arranged  for someone to visit each morning for the coming few weeks to assist me with showering and getting dressed This service started the next day and continued for about three weeks until I was able to safely shower and get dressed on my own.

The following week I had a call from a physiotherapist who has continued to visit every week supervising exercises, which are helping me to regain my balance and walking skills. The services and the support provided both within and outside Auckland Hospital with seamless and could not be faulted.

From a patient’s perspective and that of someone who has contributed over many years of taxation the system is working delivering a quality of care that goes well beyond the expectations of a state funded systems.

So those who continue, to be critical of the hospital system – listen to those who really have experience of what happens then you may be competent to make objective comment about Hospital care. All those in the delivery chain, from the Minister through the Ministry of Health, to the management and staff of Auckland Hospital, are doing an exclamatory job delivering an excellent service to me, a taxpayer.

Nice to have a story from a patient who had great quality of care.

The Sun reports:

A POLICE officer was stabbed and terrified pedestrians mowed down during a terror attack in Canada.

The 30-year-old rammed a van into a police car sending the officer flying 15ft into the air.

He then jumped out the car and knifed the cop “several times” and fled on foot as a dramatic manhunt was launched.

Police chased down the attacker as he drove through the packed out streets in downtown Edmonton.

He then ploughed into four pedestrians leaving them with multiple injuries before he was arrested after flipping the van on to its side.

Edmonton Police Chief Rod Knecht said the incidents are being investigated “as an act of terror” and that the attacker acted alone.

The rented van had an ISIS flag in the front seat, he confirmed.

These attacks are increasingly common.

In 2017 there has been:

• 1,589 Islamic terror attacks in 56 countries
• 10,872 killed
• 11,190 injured

In just the last month there were 132 attacks in 21 countries including Canada, France, England, India and Thailand.

I blogged last week on 10 major policy wins that I reckon the Greens could get, simply by abstaining on supply and confidence. That generated a lot of debate.

But the problem with a deal just on policy in exchange for confidence and supply is that once the policy concessions are made, then the smaller party feels there are no further gains for them. It is a one off set of policy wins, rather than something ongoing.

So this post is about what could National offer in terms of a full coalition with the Greens, yes a National-Greens Government (which is what is about to be formed in Germany).

First of all it would have to be an amazing deal for the Greens. 75% of their members would have to approve it. It would have to be dramatically better than anything they could get from NZ First. Of course they may only get offered something like Government spokesperson for recycling schemes so that isn’t a huge barrier.

The Greens campaigned on changing the Government so a National-Green Government would have to look dramatically different from the National Governments of the last three years.

So here’s what would work in my opinion.

James Shaw as Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance

The coalition could only work if Shaw is Minister of Finance. If a National MP is Minister of Finance then the Greens would constantly be blaming him or her for not giving them enough money for their projects. The Government would not last.

But make Shaw Minister of Finance and he has to deal with all the spending priorities of Government – how much on health, on education, on transport, on housing etc etc.

Now you might worry that Shaw would just say yes to everything. But he can’t. The Greens campaigned on keeping spending to under 30% of GDP. Now I’d go a bit lower than that but I can live with 30% of GDP. So National and Greens agree to the spending cap of 30% of GDP (and the independent Fiscal Council to assess it is being met) and Shaw as Finance Minister delivers the Budgets in line with that. Huge investments in “green infrastructure” etc.

Julie-Anne Genter as Minister of Public Transport

Now JAG loves trains and National loves roads, so how could they possibly work together. It’s easy. You simply agree on a percentage split of the land transport fund (say 50/50) between road and rail. The National Minister of Transport spends his or her 50% on roading projects and JAG gets to spend her 50% on the rail projects the Greens thinks are most worthwhile. The Greens get to write the public transport blueprint for New Zealand!

Gareth Hughes as Minister of Communications

Gareth is well liked and respected in the Internet world and would be a popular choice.

Eugenie Sage as Minister of Conservation

She get’s DOC’s budget doubled and decides where to spend it. Also a veto over any commercial use of DOC estate. No more mining on conservation land. Can set up new national parks etc etc.

Marama Davidson as Minister of Maori Development

There’s a vacancy there with the departure of the Maori Party. Davidson gets to manage Whanau Ora and gives the Greens the ability to pick up more votes from Maori voters.

Golriz Ghahraman as the Chairperson of the Parliament Select Committee on Human Rights

Greens have long advocated for such a committee, and Ghahraman is ideal candidate to chair it with her background as a top human rights lawyer.

Now you might say giving five Ministerial portfolios (all within Cabinet) to a party that got just 6% of the vote is ridiculous and over the top. Yes it is an incredibly generous package, far far far more than they would ever get from NZ First or Labour.  But it has to be in order for the Greens to vote for it. It has to be so attractive, that they would look bonkers turning it down.

This would be on top of policy wins such as:

1. $1 billion over ten years for cycleways
2. A levy on nitrate pollution
3. A South Taranaki Whale Sanctuary
4. A levy on plastic bags
5. Accelerated timetable for rail to Auckland Airport
6. Doubling the funding for DOC
7. $65 million a year more for predator-free NZ
8. Stricter water quality standards to increase the number of water bodies rated excellent from 42% to 70%.
9. A commitment to double the reduction of children in poverty from 50,000 to 100,000
10. Double the reduction target for greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 from 11% to 22%

Shaw as Minister of Finance would be writing the Budgets for the Government and having the major say on all Government spending. It would be a golden opportunity for the Greens to show they can be trusted with the economy, and enhance a brand that is currently massively tarnished by their implicit endorsement of welfare fraud.

So what would be a better deal for the Greens – something like what I have outlined above, or whatever Winston agrees to allow Labour to give them?

The other question is why would National think a deal like the above is preferable to an agreement with New Zealand First? Well quite simply the last three times Winston has been in Government has ended badly, so why would this time be any different? This option as least has the potential of working.

WInston has said he will refuse to negotiate with anyone at all until next week. That gives the Greens a clear week to negotiate and strike a deal. While Winston goes out fishing, they can remove him as kingmaker and crown themselves.

Mike Hosking writes:

The small parties have been decimated in the 20 years of MMP.

Not a single small player who has had anything to do with government has prospered.

Act had a disastrous night, they won’t be in government, their vote shrank, they are only in the house because of a sweetheart deal.

The Mana party are finished, the Maori party are gone, United are over, it’s a tale of carnage, poor old TOP never got off the ground, not unlike poor old Colin Craig.

Even New Zealand First when they last dabbled with Government exploded in chaos.

So the suggestion was, given we don’t seem to want to vote for small parties, to lower the threshold. The idea that five per cent is too high.

Of all the theories and ideas floating around at the moment, ranging from grand coalitions, to the Greens doing a deal with National – as far fetched as they may be – can we at least all agree and take the lowering of the threshold idea and bury it right here and right now?

Five per cent is a perfect threshold, because it has proven to be a hurdle for many, which it should be.

It has been softened with the electorate concession, the one the Maori Party used this previous parliament.

Even at 5 per cent we still seem to have had ourselves a fair old selection of odd balls.

Lower the 5 per cent – you’re merely inviting more madness into the place.

Look at the countries who operate lower thresholds. Italy has 3per cent. That’s a stable democracy – not. Greece is another with 3 per cent surely another example of sensible fiscally responsible and longstanding stability – not.

If we had no threshold, the provisional Parliament would be:

• National 56
• Labour 43
• NZ First 9
• Greens 7
• TOP 3
• Maori 1
• ACT 1

So you could have a National/ACT/Maori/TOP Government with 61 seats. No balance of power for NZ First.

On the other side Labour would still need both Greens and NZ First to govern.

Stats NZ announced:

• About 97 percent of dwelling consents lead to a home being finished, though it dropped to about 93 percent during the 2008 global financial crisis.
• It currently takes about 10 months for a new home to be built after a dwelling consent is issued. The lag was about six months in 1998, and 12 months in 2008.
• About 28,000 new dwellings were completed in the year ended March 2017. Just under 31,000 dwellings were consented during the same period.

So Labour often goes on how consents don’t mean anything as you can’t live in a consent etc and many don’t become houses. Well actually 97% of them do.

And of interest the gap between a consent and a completed home is only 10 months now, down from 12 months in 2008.

Fran O’Sullivan writes:

I’m joining the “forces of treachery” and arguing it is time Bill English stepped up and said he is willing to open negotiations with any of the other political parties to form a Government.

That’s patriotism not treachery.

But Peters’ television appearances are not engendering confidence. How hard is it for English to say he would like to meet with James Shaw, to see if the Greens – not just NZ First – can be included in an electoral accommodation?

Sure, it would be a risky move. Shaw could spurn English’s overture. Peters could get in a huff and march straight into Labour’s arms.

But there is probably more than a 50 per cent chance of that happening anyway.

The point is, if MMP is to work in the way that Peters has promoted this week, all the parties should be talking with each other now and making best endeavours to see if a governing arrangement can be put together in the best interests of the nation.

I agree. All parties should be talking to each other, not just leave it all to Winston. NZ First got 7% of the vote, which means 93% did not vote for them.

Stuff reports:

Wellington Mayor Justin Lester’s relatively smooth ride as capital chief has hit some tremors over the appointment of his deputy.

It is understood that his decision to appoint a first-time councillor has “gone down like a lead balloon”.

Feedback this week from various councillors – who did not wish to be identified – point to a more difficult tenure for Lester, after an initially smooth and unified run of his council.

This week Jill Day, 38, who has been on Wellington City Council only since last October’s elections, took over the deputy-mayor mantle from Paul Eagle, who was elected as an MP.

Very unusual to appoint as Deputy Mayor someone who has been on the Council for only a year. Obvious that the only criteria was total loyalty to Lester.

Until now the once “toxic” council, as it was commonly known under former mayor Celia Wade-Brown’s leadership, had been putting on a united front – and it was genuine belief in the new mayor that held them together.

Now, however, it appears Lester and Day will face more opposition from their colleagues, and may find it harder to get votes to go their way.

Some councillors say they believe the appointment of the deputy mayor highlights Lester’s profile while overshadowing the city’s profile.

It is understood Lester has been trying to pass on some of the deputy’s duties to other councillors, who in turn are refusing to “pick up the slack”.

Can’t blame them.

The Spinoff states:

We’ve asked people who worked on the major parties’ campaigns to write about their experiences and observations after election 2017. First up: Jenna Raeburn, a PR consultant who worked on the National campaign, detailing life on the big blue bus.

A good idea. Raeburn writes:

If you live in the centre of a big city you could be forgiven for thinking the Jacinda effect was real.

In the universities, the rallies, the huge crowds, and your Facebook feed, the mood for change was palpable. Something Very Big was going on and we all knew it.  

But in the rest of the country an entirely different election was playing out. The Jacinda effect did not reach South and West Auckland, and it certainly never showed up in regional New Zealand.

I was on the National Party campaign bus from 27 August to 22 September. We travelled more than 8000 kilometres and worked dawn til dusk in every corner of the country. We visited 52 electorates. There would hardly be a stretch of SH1 or SH2 north of Christchurch that we didn’t touch.

From the front seat of the bus, and on the street in every small town, it was obvious two parallel games were being played: one in the cities and one in the regions.

A tale of two halves.

Meanwhile, Labour was also failing its traditional voter base of migrants and workers. As it turned out, they couldn’t win the election with young people, women, urban liberals and students alone. They needed middle New Zealand and middle New Zealand did not turn up for them.

Labour did far better than in 2011 and 2014 but was in fact only 2% higher than the 34% they lost on in 2008.

Make no mistake about it, Labour gave up on regional New Zealand during this campaign, with the exception of one or two standout candidates (Kiri Allen and Jo Luxton come to mind, along with Labour’s only regional stalwarts, Damien O’Connor and Stuart Nash). Their talk of water taxes, bringing farming into the ETS, and unclear positions on capital gains and land taxes went down like a bucket of warm sick in rural communities. It was only a matter of time before the provinces began to rebel.

Labour could have won if they had handled tax better.

Labour either didn’t have enough people on the ground to pick up on this before it was too late, or (worse) they deliberately cast rural New Zealand aside in the hope they could win enough votes in the big cities to make up for it.

But their disdain for the provinces affected them in the cities too. New Zealanders know where their food comes from. They also know what keeps the economy ticking along. The rural disquiet, while dismissed by Labour’s base, got swing voters questioning whether Labour really knew what they were doing with the economy at all. 

Yep an extra $6 billion or so costs on the rural sector affects everyone.

Along with the regions, South and West Auckland saved the National Party. If you don’t believe me, look at Gwynn Compton’s very good analysis of the seats where National increased its share of the party vote: Māngere, Te Atatu, Manurewa, New Lynn, Manukau East… There is no escaping it. The Labour Party, despite its resurgence, despite the Jacinda Effect, lost votes in its core territory.

Their vote was up overall in those areas, but by far less than elsewhere and did actually go backwards in a couple of seats.

The one thing these electorates have in common is their very large migrant populations.

In the regions as well, the biggest crowds who turned up to campaign were groups of new migrants and first-generation New Zealanders. I challenge anyone to go back in time 10 years and find a crowd of 100+ Sikh migrants waving signs for the National Party in Te Puke. It just wouldn’t happen. But it’s happening today.

National has painstakingly built relationships with ethnic communities. The Party is a broad church and anyone who still stereotypes National as a group of white septuagenarians hasn’t been paying attention.  

Yep. At Sky City on election night there were more non-white faces than white faces.

The biggest problem with the Jacinda effect was that it never made it past the doors.

By this I mean Labour held fewer, larger, planned events surrounded by crowds of adoring supporters. These were advertised in advance, which means it’s the people who already like you that are most likely to show up.

These events made great TV and certainly created the impression of a resurgent and popular Labour Party. But their reach into communities of undecided voters was low.

I noted previously how few events Labour did that weren’t party rallies or campuses.

Bill English’s strength is in personal interactions. He listens, cares, takes the time and wins people over. While Jacinda was speaking to crowds of four or five hundred, Bill was picking them off one by one in provincial cafes.

Neither style of campaigning is wrong. Both were suited to their respective leaders and the goals of their parties. But ultimately I’m sure it meant Bill had more authentic interactions with individual, undecided voters than Jacinda did.

I think everyone agrees Bill had a great campaign.

But by September 15, I was standing on the side of the road in Lower Hutt waving National Party signs with a group of volunteers. We must have seen 300 guys in high vis driving vans or trucks – truckies, tradies, migrants, workers. Fully 295 of them were honking and waving and calling out in support.

After that I was confident National would win. Labour still hasn’t figured out a way to win back the Waitakere Man. In fact, they have gone backwards. In addition to losing migrants, this is the reason they have lost party votes in South and West Auckland. Even in the liberal central city suburbs, I strongly suspect Labour has picked up votes from women but not from men.

There is indeed a big gender split.

How can Labour retain the green, urban liberal vote in the big cities but woo back those truckies and tradies in rural New Zealand?

New caucus members like Greg O’Connor and Willie Jackson, along with their new intake of regional MPs, may have the answer. Labour sure as hell won’t be the largest party in Parliament until they figure it out.

Smart people in Labour will consider Jenna’s points. Others will just think a 10% bump was great and no need for change.

The Herald reports:

So the Greens await their fate, hinged to Labour largely because of their belief they are and will always be part of the principled left bloc. 
Where Labour goes, the Greens believe they have to follow. 

And this is a major flaw, I think. 

The Greens should be a swing party. In fact, in an ideal world James Shaw would be in coalition talks right now with Bill English, selling his party as a better coalition option then New Zealand First. Less volatile, less prickly, more predictable, more stable, younger, fresher, more reflective of the issues that are central to the concerns of the work force. 

And yet again, people have raised this question with me since the election. Why, they want to know, isn’t there a blue-green option in this country? Well, why indeed?

Once the dust settles on Election 2017, the Greens should rethink their strategy and rethink how they can best effect change. There is a very real appetite for a blue-green ideology in New Zealand – and James Shaw is the man to lead that change as the sole leader of the party.

Things look grim for the Greens with their current strategy. If Winston does pick Labour, then he’ll shut the Greens out. And then after that will be a period of National-led Governments for a while so the Greens probably won’t have a shot at being in Government until 2026 or so.

The Greens don’t have to be all things to all people. Campaign on two or three key environmental policies, and the same number of social policies too.

And that’s what you take into your coalition talks with either the left or the right. Work with either.

But just get into government and implement some change. That’s a far better option than positioning the Greens as a major party with a million bottom lines. If they maintain that approach, they’ll stay out of government forever.

Yep.

The Washington Post reports:

Tom Price, President Trump’s embattled health and human services secretary, resigned Friday amid sharp criticism of his extensive use of taxpayer-funded charter flights, the White House said.

The announcement came shortly after Trump told reporters he considered Price a “fine man” but that he “didn’t like the optics” and planned to make a decision by the end of the day.

“I’m not happy, I can tell you that. I’m not happy,” Trump said as prepared to leave the White House en route to his private golf club in Bedminster, N.J.

In a statement, the White House said Trump would designate Don J. Wright as acting secretary. Wright currently serves as the deputy assistant secretary for health and director of the Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.

Price submitted a four-paragraph resignation letter to the White House in which he said he regretted “that the recent events have created a distraction” from the administration’s objectives. “Success on these issues is more important than any one person,” he continued.

I wonder if there will be any Cabinet members or senior White House staff left by 2020?

Stuff reports:

After ripping the Hutt South seat from Labour’s grasp for the first time since the electorate was established more than 20 years ago, National’s Chris Bishop put the monumental swing down to a change of mood among Wainuiomata voters.

“A wise old head told me if you ever want to win Hutt South, you have to win Wainuiomata,” Bishop declared following his election-night victory.

Only, Bishop didn’t.

Voting booth figures show Labour’s Ginny Andersen comfortably outshone Bishop in the seven Wainuiomata locations on election day, winning six to Bishop’s one.

In total, Andersen collected 3445 votes, compared with Bishop’s 2141.

Yes Andersen won more votes in Wainuiomata, but Bishop closed the gap considerably compared to 2014.

In 2014 Bishop got 26% of Wainui votes and Mallard 61%.

In 2017 Bishop got 36% of Wainui votes and Andersen 57%.

So the gap went from 35% to 21%. Bishop picked up an extra 10% of the vote in Wainuiomata because he had an office there and campaigned there. It isn’t about winning the booths (that is nice) but about getting extra votes.

How did he do it?

Through good old-fashioned campaigning, the man known by some locals as the “Mr Everywhere Man” entrenched himself in the community, never missing an opportunity to raise, or maintain, his profile.

Bishop is also the subject of a fan-led Facebook meme page, where he is referred to by Hutt Valley teenagers who created it as “The Bish”.

The Bish is The Man!

The general feeling is that Bishop’s intensive campaigning won him the seat, and the man himself was in no doubt his relentless presence in the electorate played a large role.

“People appreciate that I’m very active and physical in the community and I put the effort in, that I work hard. And I want to keep doing that.”

It is more than just hard work thought. It is also being effective Bish made things happen. He set up awards. He lobbied the Council. He did more as a List MP than most Electorate MPs do.

Mallard vacated his electorate seat in July last year to chase his dream of being Speaker of the House, opening the way for Andersen.

He did not vacate his seat to become Speaker. There is no connection between the two. He vacated the seat because he thought he would lose to Bishop, and the result shows he would have.

But ultimately, it was Bishop’s extensive campaigning, which began in 2014, that got him across the line.

Andersen was confirmed as the Labour candidate in October last year, and began campaigning fulltime in April.

With Bishop having already laid a significant amount of groundwork, Andersen had some distance to make up.

“The answer is he’s been campaigning for four years,” Andersen said when asked what the difference was.

“It was always going to be a big job. We knew that and we gave it everything.

“I’m proud we did as well as we did with the time that we had.”

He wasn’t campaigning for four years. He was being a highly effective MP. There is a difference. Also he lived in the electorate.

Ken Laban, Greater Wellington regional councillor for Lower Hutt, agreed there was no great secret behind the Hutt South swing; it simply came down to Bishop “out-campaigning” Andersen.

“Chris was born and raised in Hutt South, lives in Petone, he’s been the list MP for the last three years,” Laban said.

“He’s had three years of community visits, getting in front of community issues, physically attending events, and, to be fair, he’s been absolutely outstanding in that role.

“On top of that, he had the prime minister out at Wainuiomata High School, out at the Hutt South electorate on a fortnightly to monthly basis for the last couple of years.

“He thoroughly deserves that win, because he’s worked so hard.”

Andersen, in contrast, was from outside the electorate and had only eight months to campaign, he said.

The lesson her is to work hard. Campaigning in this sense doesn’t mean writing angry press releases every day. It means getting out there and doing stuff.

Bishop’s achievements could not be understated, given he was up against a “lifetime of Labour dominance”, Laban said.

“I think his win is arguably the greatest achievement of any of the MPs that got elected.

“I can’t think of any that have overcome the adversity that he had to overcome.”

To win what was a solid Labour seat when your party has been in office for nine years is exceptional. The majorities in Hutt South over time have been:

• 1996: 2,456
• 1999: 8,885
• 2002: 7,771
• 2005: 5,740
• 2008: 4,086
• 2011: 4,825
• 2014: 709

So from 1999 to 2011 Mallard held it with majorities from 4,000 to almost 9,000. And in 2014 Bishop knocked it down to 700 and then won it in 2017. A great achievement.

Andersen, who has entered Parliament ranked 28 on the Labour party list, has vowed to be back again in 2020.

“I’ll be doing exactly what Chris did to Trevor – campaigning for the next three years.

“I’ve got the electorate office and I get resourced and I get paid. And I get to be able to compete on an even footing.”

The interesting thing is that in his three years as a List MP, Bishop never attacked Mallard. Bishop promoted himself as a good MP, but never attacked the incumbent (this was not reciprocated).

Stuff reports:

Even if ships are happily heading into Whangarei instead of Auckland, there’s still the question of how the goods get to their final destination, from there.

About 70 per cent of what goes into Auckland’s ports stays within the region.

“That stuff will have to come back to Auckland, anyway,” Young said.

“So all you’ve done is add to the cost of it by sending it to Northport.”

At the moment, it is impossible for containers to be transported by rail from Northport to Auckland. What rail line there is is constrained by the fact that its tunnels are not big enough to accommodate containers.

KiwiRail has estimated the cost of getting Northland’s rail network operating to the same standard as other regions as up to $1 billion, and improving the rail link for freight through Auckland at another $2b to $3b.

I’m in favour of moving the Port if it can be done affordably. But $4 billion just to allow freight to move by rail from Whangarei is mad.

That means, at least for the meantime, there would be a big increase in truck traffic on roads that are not among the country’s finest.

Chris Carr, of transport firm Carr and Haslam, estimated that if cars were shipped to Whangarei instead of Auckland, there would have to be a car carrier running between Auckland and Whangarei every two-and-a-half minutes, all day, every day.

So that is 576 extra massive trucks a day on that road.

Stuff reports:

Wellington’s mayor is pulling the plug on the city’s 22-year-old Guy Fawkes festival in favour of the Māori New Year festival, Matariki. 

Mayor Justin Lester said Matariki ought to be a cornerstone celebration, rather than the long-running November tradition, which marked the anniversary of an attempt to blow up British parliament more than 400 years ago.

Score one for the political correctness police. Bye bye to a wonderful 400 year old tradition.

No problem at all with celebrating Matariki, but who says it has to be either/or. Having fireworks for Guy Fawkes is a wonderful tradition that the Mayor is unilaterally killing.

Lester said he had canvassed councillors and had strong support, however councillor Iona Pannett​ said she did not agree.

The move would be risky because people may gather in public parks with their own fireworks, she said. 

She supported celebrating Matariki – but not at the expense of Guy Fawkes and would like to see fireworks at both events.

“It’s been a long part of our history and despite what it represents, we live in a multicultural environment and it’s about celebrating traditions.”

In a rare move I agree 100% with Iona.