Very good. Taken off Conrad Hackett on Twitter.

Below are a series of thoughts and reflections on the 2014 General Election.

Labour maximised the electorate vote whilst National maximised the party vote
Labour’s caucus can read polls and they acted accordingly knowing both their brand and leader were toxic and so sought re-election as good electorate MPs. Such an approach necessitated an electorate vote first campaign leaving pursuing the all-important party vote almost as an optional extra. The result was Labour led the party vote in only five General electorate seats. Had this been a FPP election (admittedly different campaign tactics would’ve been employed as well as the fact that voter tactics would change), Labour could have been reduced to only 11 MPs! National MPs campaigned only for the party vote because their sitting MPs were comfortable in the knowledge that National’s polling meant all incumbents were safe on the List. National candidates in unwinnable Labour electorates still pitched in as promoters of the party vote. MMP elections are won from the party vote – that truth is the first course in NZ Politics 101.

Voters saw Nicky Hager’s “Dirty Politics” as the biased distraction it was
The release of ”Dirty Politics” led to an unprecedented commandeering of media oxygen to the detriment of Labour and Opposition parties. Whilst National copped some temporary flak over revelations of Slater’s and Collins’ correspondence and influence, Key’s sacking of Collins over the Adam Fealy SFO interference allegations lanced that boil and drained off the political poison. Hager’s one-sided publishing of Slater’s emails only with National party connections so close to the election smacked of deliberate bias and, when added to the fact that the emails were illegally hacked, it lent an air of shabby partisan opportunism to Hager’s work.

Kim Dotcom proved to be lousy at politics
Dotcom singlehandedly gifted National an absolute majority. His farcical ‘Moment of Truth’ gave National an almost immediate 2% poll bounce that only the last public poll (the Herald Digipoll) picked up. Dotcom sub-contracted his political hit job on John Key to a rag tag group of ageing angry lefties (Laila Hare, John Minto and Hone Harawira) and assumed throwing millions at the ‘youth’ vote would do the job. Young voters are only moved by inspirational aspirational charismatic visionaries and none involved with Internet Mana fit that bill including Dotcom himself. By paying Hare and Harawira a salary, both had to contort themselves through huge rhetorical hoops to ward off constant accusations of selling out their working class roots to a rich German capitalist who had a track record of abusing his workers and not paying them enough or on time. Bringing a left wing journalist to NZ and linking to two hackers on the run for leaking top level classified material five days before an election in an attempt to oust NZ’s most popular Prime Minister in a generation went down like a cup of cold sick with voters.

Spy issues are beltway issues
Labour, the Greens and NZ First used up hundreds of Parliamentary Questions in the last Parliamentary term trying to nail John Key on the Dotcom raid, the employment of GCSB head Ian Fletcher and on the reforms to the GCSB. None of these issues resonate with floating voters and middle NZ. Most are convinced of the need to have some targeted surveillance and that the government has put in motion adequate protections.

The power of the mainstream media has been diminished by their conduct in the campaign
The mainstream media are excited by beltway issues and mostly lack the ability to understand how centre right and floating voters respond. They chased the Hager book revelations like lemmings over a cliff when voters wanted policy analysis and proper debate. Likewise Kim Dotcom’s sideshow. The left wing bias of key media players was laid bare even more blatantly and their breathless reporting of anything remotely damaging to Key made it easier for voters to see through it. The wide reach of bloggers like Whaleoil and Kiwiblog gave the right the ability to get their message out and make rebuttals to the Hager claims independent of the media filter.

New taxes are vote killers
If you are going to persuade the country to accept a new, complex and controversial tax, you’d better be on top of every minute detail and be able to explain its complexity in short digestible sound bites. Cunliffe had four years to get the Capital Gains Tax right and to be on top of every detail but also for his party to work out the maddening complexities especially after Key foot tripped Goff in the 2011 election Press debate over the same issue. His failure to do so spoke volumes for his inability to match Key as a Prime Minister in waiting and also how fiendishly difficult CGTs are.

Unity of your caucus is vital
National looked like a unified team while Labour’s barely concealed factional rivalry has been on display for the last six years. Labour’s relationship with its erstwhile coalition partners was also fraught vacillating between embracing the Greens (thus scaring centrist voters) and eschewing them as competitors for the left wing vote. Voters can add and could see that Labour could only govern with the Greens and that a substantial minority Green presence in Cabinet was likely. Likewise with Internet Mana – Cunliffe knew he needed them had Hone Harawira won TTT but he knew the Dotcom connection was becoming electorally poisonous. The result was NZ being offered a rag tag bunch of disunited lefties vying for power inside an uncertain coalition versus National’s minor and innocuous accommodations it made to keep its partners onside. National’s rowing TV ad magnificently encapsulated this problem.

Fundraising is important
National did a good job and Labour didn’t. Moira Coatsworth (Labour Party President) and Tim Barnett (General Secretary) thought that knocking on doors was beneath them. It helps that National is a winning team and donors prefer winners and that they are more business friendly and businesses tend to have more funds to donate than individuals. That said, Labour have the advantage of the substantial in-kind donations from the grassroots support the unions give to their cause.

Yelling and talking over your opponent is not debating
Key’s calm demeanor in the debates was in marked contrast to Cunliffe’s at times desperate aggression. When you are so far behind in the polls, you have to deliver knockout blow after knockout blow. Debates rarely shift polls in western democracies unless a killer one liner emerges like “show me the money” in 2011. Key’s CGT question that flummoxed Cunliffe came close and rebounded negatively on Cunliffe despite the fact that he proved himself to be an able debater in the strict definition of the word.

Frustrated voters in Christchurch didn’t blame earthquake insurance issues on the government
The messy and time consuming insurance settlements did not result in voters blaming National. National won the party vote in all the Christchurch Labour seats sometimes by big margins. A majority of voters see progress both in the CBD and residential red zone and, even though the infrastructure improvements are inconveniencing, people know the government is spending big in Christchurch. Slowly but surely more and more claims are being settled and, whilst it is supremely annoying and frustrating for some in Christchurch, few saw Labour as offering an alternative that could ease their plight.

If you are going to form an Internet Party then make sure your leaders are internet savvy
Dotcom’s model was the German Pirate Party that secured over the 5% threshold in four German state Parliaments and the European Parliament. By installing passed over political hacks from the left like Hare and Corkery and paying them a salary (something unprecedented in NZ politics), it completely negated any appeal the IP might have had for the internet focused youth vote. The fact that no one at the top of IMP had a clue about the internet became glaringly obvious from the outset confirming the impression with voters of NZ’s most awkward political alliance.

The Herald reports:

Labour will tighten the rules around donations for its leadership contest to ensure there is no repeat of the use of trusts, such as that used by David Cunliffe in the first run-off, and any donations of more than $500 will still have to be publicly revealed.

Labour’s new leader will be announced on November 18 after members and union delegates vote following a three-week campaign during which the contestants will travel the country to woo party members. Nominations to compete for the job close in 12 days.

The party is redrafting its rules of conduct for the contest – including donation and spending rules. General secretary Tim Barnett said those rules would be tightened – including banning the use of trusts to hide donors’ identities such as that used by Mr Cunliffe last time.

Not often a party has to change its rules, to stop the (former) leader from using a secret trust to hide donors!

The Guardian reports:

David Cameron launched an audacious bid to woo voters in next year’s general election by pledging to raise the personal income tax threshold by £2,000 a year as well as lifting the 40% tax band to £50,000.

Casting the Conservatives as the “trade union for hardworking” people, the prime minister reached out to aspirational voters in Middle Britain by unveiling a £7.2bn double tax cutting promise, which prompted a rapturous reception at the Tory conference.

Increasing the tax-free personal allowance from £10,500 to £12,000 would, Cameron said, ensure that full-time workers on the minimum wage were exempt from paying income tax.

Excellent. We shouldn’t tax low income workers, just so we can then top their incomes up with welfare. We should have lower taxes and less welfare.

Pledged to deal with “fiscal drag”, the process by which lower income earners are dragged into paying higher tax rates, by announcing the threshold at which the 40% tax rate is paid would be raised from £41,900 to £50,000 by the end of the next parliament in 2020.

Also good.

Would be good to have the NZ Government firm up its commitment to tax cuts.

Stuff reports:

The race to be Labour’s leader may no longer be a two-way contest, with Stuart Nash said to be seriously considering a tilt at the top job.

The newly elected Napier MP is biding his time to see if former union boss Andrew Little will throw his hat in the ring. Little’s political future hangs in the balance until tomorrow, when the official election results are declared.

If Little, a former EPMU president, did make it back to Parliament on the list, and decided to enter the primary contest to choose the leader, Nash would not run, a source said.

Nash had earlier ruled it out, saying it was too soon for him.

An insider said he backed away as the caucus waited to see if David Cunliffe would resign and leave Grant Robertson to run unchallenged.

“[He] didn’t want to be the one to trigger a leadership battle that the party had no appetite for.”

But sources say he is reconsidering as the rivalry between Cunliffe and Robertson has turned increasingly bitter. “This is the last thing our party needs, two people going hammer and tongs at each other. It will just turn off New Zealand,” one source said.

Nash is being lobbied hard by Maori and Pasifika members of the party, who believe neither of the two declared contenders can unite the divided factions.

A wildcard option, Nash, 47, represents a break from the rivalries that have torn the party apart in the last three years.

A Cunliffe vs Robertson contest risks being a who is to blame for the loss referendum – the leader or the caucus. Having more than two contenders may focus it more on the future than the past.

It’s not known if the possible nomination of his old boss David Shearer would change his decision. Shearer is still undecided and did not return calls yesterday.

In his Napier electorate yesterday, Nash said his status had not changed. “At this point, I won’t be seeking the leadership of the party.”

The new leader will be installed by November, with the party’s council setting the timetable for the runoff. Nominations will close on October 14, followed by 14 hustings meetings around the country.

Party members, the 32 MPs and affiliated unions all get a say and the result of the vote will be announced on November 18.

I’m picking up a lot of disillusionment among Labour members. I would predict that the number of members who vote will be well down on their last leadership election. This will make the relative power of union votes even more powerful.

Stuff reports:

Kiwis are mourning “Westie” comedian Ewen Gilmour, who died at his home unexpectedly. He was 51.

Gilmour’s agent, ​Hillary Coe,​ confirmed he passed away last night.

“He passed away at home. It was very unexpected as he had not been unwell but it was natural, he passed away in his sleep.”

How sad and unexpected. Condolences to his family and friends.

I saw him do his comedy show around two years ago in Wellington. He was side splitting funny and I may never turn on a hotel light again! The review of his show is here. A huge loss to the NZ comedy scene.

The Herald reported:

Pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong have been cleaning up after themselves after a night of battles with police who used tear gas and pepper spray in a crackdown condemned around the world.

Thousands of people are occupying the Admiralty district of the city in continued opposition to the Chinese Government’s refusal to let them select their own candidates for leadership elections in 2017, allowing only Beijing-backed politicians to stand.

As protests continue, people have been seen distributing food and water as well as cleaning up after themselves in the famously orderly city.

At the main protest site at the city’s Government headquarters, students sorted plastic bottles for recycling even as they wore goggles and plastic sheets to protect against pepper spray.

A polite note was also seen left on a vandalised police van, apologising for the damage.

I approve. The fact the protesters are acting so nicely makes the crack down on them by authorities look even worse.

Transtasman notes:

Labour provided a continuation of a bizarre election year this week, while National made itself as small a target as possible. Former leader David Cunliffe went on Campbell Live and told its genial host he thought having the Wellington Central MP and leadership aspirant Grant Robertson as his deputy was kind of a neat idea

He might want to check with David Shearer about just how good a deputy Robertson can be. But of course it would not be just Robertson as deputy: an hour after telling John Campbell’s adoring viewers of this, Cunliffe told Native Affairs’ Mihirangi Forbeshe also kind of liked the idea of having a Maori deputy leader. If the Cunliffe Family visits Kelly Tarlton’s Underwater World this weekend, don’t rule out an announcement next week Cunliffe’s running mates are a brace of stingray and a handful of krill.

Heh, very good.

The Herald editorial:

Visitors to the splendid Treaty grounds at Waitangi probably assume the taxpayers of New Zealand happily pay for the facilities there. What could be a more worthy or natural public expense than the preservation of that place? In fact, it is run by a private trust with income from the estate of a former Governor-General, Lord Bledisloe, supplemented by a charge to visitors.

Fortunately the grounds are not completely fenced and it is possible to reach the historic site for no charge, but the convenient entrance has always carried a fee. The entrance has been made attractive and informational, taking visitors through a building containing displays. The $12 door charge caused no audible outrage from the public, but in 2008 Helen Clark’s Government argued, quite rightly, that New Zealanders should not have to pay. The Waitangi National Trust agreed and made entry free for everyone except overseas tourists who would be charged $25 to cover the lost income.

In recent years the trust has struggled to cover its costs, blaming a decline in tourism following the Global Financial Crisis.

It would be useful to check the facts before accepting an assertion.

Their 2013 accounts show a surplus of $306,000 and equity of $13.7 million. The previous surpluses were $80,000, $443,000, $428,000. The last deficit was in 2009.

So over the last four years the accumulated surpluses have been over $1.2 million.

In 2009 staff hours per week were 693 and in 2013 they were 1060 hours per week. Despite the increase they are still profitable but have they considered whether they needed a 50% increase in staff hours over four years, and would trimming the costs not be preferable to imposing a fee?

In the final pre-election polls the Greens were polling at between 11% and 14.4%. The average was 12.7%. However they got just 10.0% (on provisionals) and actually lost an MP from 2011. It was a hugely disappointing result for a party that hadn’t had any major screw ups (apart from Russel’s mad idea to print more money), and should have got a big boost from left voters who turned off Labour.

They could pick up their lost seat on specials but their 14th seat has a quotient of 7806, a fair way behind Labour on 8240.

They did well in Wellington and Christchurch, getting 17% and 13% of the vote respectively. However in Auckland they managed only 9%. Their vote fell in all regions from 0.4% to 1.8%. They did improve by 0.5% in the Maori seats.

They got over 20% in five seats – Wellington Central 28%, Rongotai 25%, Dunedin North 22%, Auckland Central 21% and Mt Albert 21%. They only got between 15% and 20% in another three seats – Port Hills, Te Tai Tonga and Christchurch Central. In 42 seats they got below 10%, and below 5% in just five seats (all in Auckland).

Their best provincial seat was Nelson on 13%, and best rural seats WCT on 12%.

So why such a poor result. A few factors I’d speculate on:

• Their voters did not vote as the thought of a Labour-led Government was unappealing, but could not bring themselves to vote National so did not vote
• Younger supporters did not vote
• Their campaign was not as good in 2011. The tagline was confusing and did not resonate. The images did not support their tagline.
• Centrist voters who value the environment voted National, as the did not want to risk Dotcom being part of Government
• Like Labour they suffered from four of the five weeks of the campaign not being about policy

So what are their challenges going ahead:

Renewal

They only got one new MP in. Last time they got several, so renewal is not an issue this term, but will be next election.

Leadership

Both Norman and Turei are now seasoned politicians, who have avoided the gaffes of their Labour counterparts. Partly that is because of less scrutiny, but still solid performances.

Norman has now been co-leader for eight years, and by 2017 will be 11 years. Turei for five and a half years.

There are two capable successors to Norman – Kevin Hague and in time James Shaw.

It is more difficult on the female side. If they had got Marama Davidson in, she would be a potential future co-leader. Eugenie Sage would probably be the most likely successor, but too early to say.

Perpetual Opposition

How do the Greens break out of opposition? If National gets a fourth term, then that is 21 years in opposition. And because Labour knows they can’t ever not support Labour, Labour might lock them out in future again, if a party like NZ First demands it.

Positioning

The Greens need to find a way to credibly say under some circumstances they could abstain on a National-led Government, so that Labour can’t take them for granted. The challenge is to do it in a way which won’t send their own supporters fleeing.

They could do a Winston and say they will negotiate with the largest party first, but would only agree to abstain or support of they get the right policy commitments on climate change, child poverty etc.

The new Internet Party?

There is a potential opportunity for the Greens to pick up former Internet Party supporters and declare themselves the true Internet Party. Gareth Hughes is widely respected for his work on Internet issues.

Labour

As Labour gets into more turmoil, do they try to supplant it? Is their ambition to be third, second or first?

Eric Crampton writes at Interest:

Prime Minister John Key signalled last week that child poverty is to be one of his priorities for the coming term. Too many children in New Zealand grow up in families with very little disposable income. Poverty has traditionally been an issue captured by the political left, with demands for more redistribution to solve the problem. Inequality too has captured a fair bit of attention, despite strong evidence that income inequality has not really changed much since a rise in the late 1980s and early 1990s: the trend has been flat for two decades.

Even more surprisingly, data from the Ministry of Social Development shows that real household income growth in the lowest deciles has been very strong, both from 1994 to 2013, and from 2004 to 2013. The poorest decile in 2013 has real household income 40% higher than the poorest decile in 1994. And from 2004 through 2013, real household income growth was strongest for the lowest four deciles than for the richest six deciles.

Inconvenient data!

So why has poverty, and especially child poverty, seemed so much more pressing?

The Ministry of Social Development data, cited above, measures real household incomes before housing costs. And housing costs have been rising. MSD reports that 23% of children aged 0-17 live in the poorest quintile of households (the bottom 20%): they’re slightly over-represented, when disposable household income is counted before housing costs. But when we take incomes after housing costs, 27% of children live in the poorest quintile: high housing costs disproportionately affect poorer children. Forty-two percent of households in the poorest quintile spend more than 30% of their income on housing; only 9% of the richest quintile do.

While child poverty is lower than it was in the early 1990s (even after housing costs) and child poverty rates are now back to levels comparable to those prior to the Great Financial Crisis, they remain substantially higher than they were in the 1980s. Housing costs substantially affect disposable incomes at the bottom of the distribution.

Housing unaffordability is consequently a substantial part of New Zealand’s child poverty problem. When poor households have to spend 30%, 40%, or even 50% of their incomes on housing, there simply is not much left to pay for anything else. And so spots of bad luck, like a car breakdown or an unexpected expense, can quickly become major issues.

As of 1 pm Tuesday, you can register a domain name directly under .nz

You can check the status of any desired name at anyname.nz

The Guardian has a fascinating graphic showing abortion rights around the world.

I’ve summarised the data by region below.

4% of countries do not allow an abortion in any circumstance, even to save the mother’s life. They are Malta, the Holy See (which to be fair has few pregnant women), Chile, the Dominican Republic and Nicaragua.

96% allow abortion to save the mother’s life.

Only 67% of countries allow abortion to prevent physical harm to the mother and 64% to prevent mental harm.

If the mother was raped, or it was incest, then that is lawful reason for an abortion in only 52% of countries. Foetal impairment is also a legal ground in only 52% of cases.

36% of countries allow abortion for economic or social reasons and 30% have abortion legally available on demand or request. The region with the most liberal abortion laws is Europe and Africa has the least. Oceania is low also, but in NZ we effectively have abortion on request – but not as a legal right.

Duncan Garner writes:

I’m going to keep this short and sweet: Labour has fallen apart and it ain’t over yet.

The party is proving to voters why they got just 24.6 percent; it proves they would never have been able to govern. They are tearing themselves apart. They look like narcissists. This is civilian war. This is a fight for control of the party.

Annette King once told me there were no factions in the Labour Party – they were just social groupings, she said. I’m sorry that’s bull-dust. These factions are alive and well and have been since the 1980s. It’s publicly tearing Labour apart and I imagine voters are completely turned off.

It would be very interesting if a media outlet did a poll in the next few weeks.

The ABC club never died when Cunliffe became leader – they just retired to the corner and got more bitter and twisted. It’s no secret who they are: Trevor Mallard is the life president, Clayton Cosgrove, chief plotter, David Shearer, general-secretary, Stuart Nash, head of communications, Annette King, camp mother, Grant Robertson the uncle, Phil Goff, kaumatua, and the errant ABC kids are Jacinda Ardern, Chris Hipkins and Kris Faafoi.

I think you could add the two Dunedin MPs to it as new recruits.

Labour has been heading this way for some time. The powder keg has blown. Cunliffe does not have the support of his caucus. They do not want him; neither do Kiwi voters.

He should have seen all this last week and gone quietly for the good of the party, and the cause, but he has chosen to hit the nuclear option. It is his own personal revenge at the ABCers. It’s breathtakingly arrogant. Which part of election spanking does he not understand?

Labour talks about renewal, but it’s stuck with 1980s politicians pulling the strings. They don’t even look like a viable opposition, let alone a party ready to govern.

Just imagine if National had got 2% less and Hone kept his seat, and we had a Labour-Greens-NZ First-Mana Government. It would be chaotic beyond belief.

Patrick Gower writes:

Camp Cunliffe is really hitting the beltway nerve – that Team Robertson can’t be trusted, portraying Mr Robertson as a disloyal deputy who rolled David Shearer.

Although Mr Cunliffe is not prepared to put his name to it.

But that’s not what his press secretary and cousin Simon Cunliffe told 3 News.

In an email he said: “Shearer’s decision to quit followed a caucus numbers push – led by a Robertson follower.”

So Cunliffe’s office actually e-mailed a journalist blaming Shearer’s fall on Robertson.

There is some truth to it though. My understand is that Shearer blames Cunliffe for undermining him, but Robertson for rolling him – hence why he might still stand.

Liam Hehir writes:

You’ve probably heard about this year’s election being Labour’s worst showing in 92 years. In fact, the result was even worse.

In 1922, Labour received 23.7 per cent of all votes cast. This year it received 24.69 per cent of the party vote. However, the latter is not the better of the two.

Ninety-two years ago, New Zealanders voted using first past the post. There was no “party vote” to give a neat measurement of relative party support. The overall voting percentages simply reflect the number of candidate votes counted over all of the then 80 electorates.

In 1922, Labour fielded just 41 candidates, meaning only about half of New Zealanders could vote for a Labour candidate that year.

The seats Labour did not stand in were probably those least favourable to it. Nevertheless, had the party contested every electorate (or were MMP in place back then) we can be fairly sure it would have outperformed its 2014 result.

The same reasoning applies to Labour’s first election three years earlier in 1919. Then it received 24.2 per cent of votes cast despite not standing candidates in a significant number of electorates. Taking this into account, it seems the Labour Party has never had weaker voter appeal than it does today.

A useful analysis. This is a record low.

In 2011, Canada’s Liberals – long the country’s dominant political party – received just 18.91 per cent of the popular vote. Beaten into third place, the party had to relinquish its position as the official opposition. Nevertheless, under the leadership of Justin Trudeau, the party has moved back into first place in the polls.

If only Helen Clark had a daughter!

Or what is Roy Lange up to?

And, of course, there was National’s 2002 catastrophe. It is hard to believe that the party now straddling the political centre like the Colossus of Rhodes received just 20.93 per cent of the vote that year. How has it managed to claw back its status as the natural party of government?

First, National eliminated its competition on the Right. Under Don Brash, National gobbled up almost the whole conservative vote, reducing ACT and UnitedFuture to the lifeless husks they are today. NZ First also barely survived this process as about half of its traditionalist voters defected back to National.

While that restored National’s formidability, the 2005 election proved that it wasn’t quite enough to carve out a workable majority. It then fell to the pragmatic and non-ideological John Key to seize back the centre ground. His ability to do this – bringing both conservative and centrist voters with him – has proved essential to his success as a popular leader.

National needed Brash and Key in that order. Brash to consolidate the right vote and then Key to win the centre vote.

John Armstrong also writes:

It is a suggestion likely made in vain. But the time has surely arrived for those with standing and influence in the Labour Party to break their silence and somehow persuade David Cunliffe that his gambit for winning back the party’s leadership is simply not a starter.

I suggested some time ago that the only person who could save Labour from itself is Helen Clark, if she told Cunliffe to withdraw.

The crux of the matter is that if Cunliffe were to win the party-wide ballot, he would not have the confidence of the caucus members ranked second and third, David Parker and Grant Robertson, never mind the remainder of the parliamentary wing.

He has at most 20% to 30% support in caucus.

The Labour Party has become a laughing stock. But the party’s current circumstances are no joke.

The only viable way forward is that whoever becomes leader has to purge the caucus of the other faction. Otherwise it won’t be credible to the public that they can be a unified party which can govern a country.

Earlier this week Kiwiblog joined the Online Media Standards Authority. That puts the same responsibility on Kiwiblog as the mainstream media, but without the resources, Kiwiblog has no paid staff. It has myself, and a couple of existing volunteers.

I’m making a call for anyone who enjoys Kiwiblog, and can make an ongoing regular time commitment to consider volunteering to help both maintain Kiwiblog, but also expand it.

I don’t have any set roles in mind, but I do have a number of things I would like to be able to do.

• Have someone go through the comments each day and select a particularly insightful or funny comment as Comment of the Day, to be given its own blog post
• Have someone go through the comments each day and select a comment that argues in opposition to a post I have done as Dissent of the Day (as Andrew Sullivan does)
• Have someone do a quarterly analysis of MP and Ministerial questions, press releases and news stories (take around 8 – 10 hours a quarter)
• Have someone monitor the decisions of the BSA, ASA and Press Council, pointing out the more insane complaints which get rejected
• Have someone read other blogs and do a daily or weekly “Best of the Blogs”
• Have a person or persons as additional moderators to do warnings over abusive comments
• Have people read various online columns and editorials, broadly classifying them as pro or anti a particular party, so that we can do a regular analysis of which columnists and newspapers are most often in agreement with, or opposition to, each party. This would be an incredibly interesting exercise. With half a dozen people it would probably be just an hour a week.
• Have people listen to Seven Sharp, Campbell Live and other current affairs shows and if a segment is political, classify it as pro or anti a particular party .

I’m also open for suggestions as to what other regular features would be welcome, if we had the resource to do it.

If you are interesting in volunteering, then e-mail me and say what areas might be of interest to you – or suggest a new one.

There are those who basically want to silence voices on the right. I want to build them up to be even stronger, and provide even better analysis of politics and the media.

All Day has 11 pictures showing the fall of the USSR. It was the most significant geopolitical event since WWII. Worth checking out.

The Herald editorial:

If ground forces can rid Iraq of the murderers known as Isis, New Zealand should be there. This country ought to be counted among the nations that are willing to act when the cause is just and military force can be effective.

They key word is “If”.

I don’t think ISIS can be got rid of by force. I do think you can weaken them, but can you eliminate them? If there is an invasion then they just disband for a year, then regroup.

If you are willing to have massive collateral damage, you could destroy them. You surround the area, broadcast that everyone within a certain geographic area should leave the area unarmed, and then destroy every building and person in that area. But the civilian toll would be horrendous as many would not leave their homes, and you would create millions of refugees.

The lessons from the last Iraq war is that you can topple a Government, but it is harder to eliminate armed resistance.

The next likely step will be to dispatch armed “advisers” to train and support Iraq’s troops but on previous experience they would soon be fighting alongside the hosts, as New Zealand’s SAS did in Afghanistan. The way Iraqi forces fell away from the initial Isis advance suggests the foreigners would need to do a lot of fighting.

Yep.

The New Zealand Government should probably call the new Parliament into session sooner than scheduled once a request is received to join the action against Isis.

It’s scheduled to convene on the 20th, in 19 days. I’d be very surprised if the Government made a decision to send troops in before then – in fact surprised if they made a decision to send troops at all.

The Press editorial:

EnSoc’s critics, and people generally, need to learn not to be too hasty to take offence. Prejudice and stereotyping are seldom effective humour, but howls of outrage can be a sign that a palpable hit has been made against some sacred cow or other. Even if there is no particular point being made, some leeway should be allowable for youthful exuberance.

Thin-lipped disapproval and the po-faced taking of offence are too often used to shut down others’ freedom of expression.

The claim that something has caused offence can be a veil for censorship and an attempt to create a culture in which a bland homogeneity of thought and opinion prevails.

To put it at its loftiest, one of the rights protected by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is the right to freedom of expression. That must include the right to express thoughts and opinions others may find offensive, even odious.

It is unlikely any such high-toned notions were in the minds of the student EnSoc members when they thought up their tasteless defamations of women and Muslims and they should certainly act with greater regard for the sensitivities of others, but the principle applies all the same.

Well said. I recall Otago University capping magazines that were stuffed full of absolutely offensive humour. There is no right in NZ law not to be offended,

Duncan Garner writes:

The Green Party needs a serious rethink. For as long as they have been in Parliament, they have been a left wing party – linked to the fortunes of the Labour Party. The Greens have constantly ruled out voting confidence and supply in a National Government. It means they can only ever be in Government if Labour is in Government. And the truth is – even when the tide was in for the Labour Party – Helen Clark and co shafted them.

Clark chose to officially work with Peter Dunne and Winston Peters to form a Government and she left the Greens out in the cold, knowing their votes came for free. She knew how to keep her enemies close and her friends voted for Labour anyway.

History shows the Greens have missed out on power in New Zealand. If that is to change, the Greens need to evolve and be open to formally supporting a National Government.

I can’t see ever them doing this, but if they did it would guarantee Labour would never take them for granted again. Cunliffe was all set to lock them out of Government (if Labour did better) as the price to get Winston on board.

The Greens talk poverty and social justice, but the poor aren’t listening – and they’re certainly not voting for them. Look at these telling statistics from the poorest electorates in the country:

In Manurewa, in the crucial party vote, just 868 people voted for the Greens; in Manukau, East it was just 744; in Mangere, it was just 865.

Now look at the two most wealthy suburbs in NZ:

In Epsom, the Greens got 3415 votes; in Wellington Central, they got 8627 party votes, more than Labour’s 7351; in Auckland Central the Greens got 4584 votes, compared to Labour’s 4758.

The Greens get votes from wealthy liberals.

The Greens have been in power in Germany and Finland. Of course, they will always oppose National’s intention to mine, and of course they will oppose the numerous free-trade agreements, and of course they will disagree with farming practices and carbon emissions. But Labour supports mining and free-trade too – they aren’t that different to National. And what difference has Labour made to dairy farming in NZ? Zilch. Not forgetting, Labour negotiated and signed the China free-trade deal – not National.

In short, it’s time for the Greens to grow up, modernise and to be a party that can genuinely make a difference. They could be the 10 percent balance-of-power party every election – no matter who leads the Government.

Surely, if you’re a Greenie, that’s worth thinking about?

Again, will never happen I say.

The Herald reported:

The University of Otago’s ban on pornography in residential colleges is being slammed as an attack on student freedom.

Genetics student and former Toroa College resident Anton Hovius, 19, yesterday attacked what he called “draconian” alcohol and internet usage policies at Dunedin’s residential colleges.

Internet access at the colleges — most are university owned — runs through the university’s network.Certain websites, including file sharing and pornography sites, are blocked.

University student accommodation director James Lindsay rejected Mr Hovius’ concerns, saying the primary aim of colleges was to provide an environment where students could focus on their studies.

Mr Hovius, who recently unsuccessfully stood for OUSA’s colleges officer position, said he was not the only one who felt this was an unfair restriction on student freedom.

“I know a couple of friends who have been given warning notices from [Information Technology Services] down at the university, informing of their inappropriate use of university resources.”

As adults, students in halls should not be limited from using the internet as they saw fit, which included accessing pornography and file sharing sites.

“It doesn’t make sense when you are paying $340 bucks a week [which covers full board and food], to have the university interfering with what you are doing in your private time.”

The Government should not restrict what sites you can access, but Otago University has every right to say they will not provide access to porn and file sharing sites. They are not greatly different to an employer providing Internet. They do have a duty to not block sites which students need for research, and hopefully their blocking is done in a way which has minimal false positives.

As a helpful resource for new MPs, I’ve gone around a number of former MPs, former parliamentary staff and journalists and have compiled the collective wisdom into a set of tips or advice for new MPs. There will be companion posts detailing additional advice for new Opposition MPs and also a post with advice for new Ministers.

In no particular order, the tips are:

1. If marginal, make seat safe. This should be your first, second and third priority in your first term. If you are a List MP and in with a chance to take the seat next time, then same advice – focus massively on the electorate. MPs who hold electorates do better generally than those on the List – at least in the major parties.
2. As Keith Holyoake said to new MPs, “Breathe through the nose”.  Look, listen and learn before you talk too much.
3. Choose a route early on for promotion and work on it. The three main routes are through the House, through Select Committees, or through the Whips Office. The good debaters should go House, the policy wonks select committees, and the well organised ones the Whips Office. Play to your strength. All three routes can lead to promotion and eventually being a Minister.
4. Don’t do too many press releases. The media have the capacity to do two political issues a day generally. MPs who fire off a press release every two days on their pet topic just become jokes. Wait for a good issue you can jump onto, and listen to your media team.
5. Do visit the gallery occasionally. Don’t drop in every week with your releases, but it is good to sometimes pop your own release around. You can pick up a lot chatting to the journos. Of course they will try and pump you for info also. Information is a currency to be traded.
6. Develop a relationship with a couple of journos.  Ones you can trust to have a coffee or drink with, and develop a mutually beneficial relationship with. You should never be friends, but you can be friendly.
7. The senior leadership team do not want your views on every issue, but don’t be mute if an issue around your electorate or which you have extensive background in
8. The Leaders Office can be your best friend and resource. Be nice to them. Use them. They can make a significant difference to whether you succeed or not.
9. Use the Parliamentary Library. You can ask them almost anything.
10. Have your partner come down during the week sometimes. It can be miserable going home to an barren apartment at 11 pm by yourself. Nice to have someone to go home to during the week sometimes.
11. Your classmates are the closest you’ll have to friends. Have weekly drinks with them, and turn up. But do not over indulge.
12. DO NOT attempt points of order unless the Whips ask you to. It almost always ends badly.
13. Learn at least the basic Standing Orders over time.
14. Never ever sneak out of Parliament if you don’t have leave and always obey the Whips.
15. Volunteering for house rosters and select committee substitutions can earn you brownie points. Like in any workplace, a helpful good attitude will take you far.
16. Don’t screw the crew. No, not even the really hot ones. For the avoidance of doubt, crew includes staff, colleagues and media.
17. Get to know the lobbyists and govt relations firms. They are massively well connected and can help stop you screwing up. However remember they do work for their clients, not you.
18. If a blog gets something wrong on you, let them know and they’ll probably correct it. Most bloggers are reasonable.
19. Do a members bill, once you get approval of caucus. if a Government MP, can be a good way to earn brownie points with a Minister by doing a minor reform for them. If an Opposition MP, then look for a wedge issue the Government won’t want to vote against.
20. Don’t hassle Ministers directly on all issues – talk to their staff first, and then to the Minister.
21. Never accept a journalist’s summary of what someone else said, to comment on. It is fine to tell media you’ll give them a call back after checking.
22. You will not be a Minister in first term unless you are Steven Joyce
23. Select Committees are important. Read the papers before the meeting
24. Remember the old saying that you find your opponents on the other side of the House and your enemies on your own side. It is all too true.
25. Do not hire friends – you may have to sack them one day. But do hire people who are professionally, politically and personally loyal to you if possible. You want staff who will work almost as long hours as you will.
26. Hiring an existing experienced parliamentary executive assistant is a very very wise thing to do. Experience counts for a lot.
27. Do not game expenses. If any doubt, pay for it yourself. Think of the Dominion Post front page test. Do you want the Taxpayers Union after you?
28. Keep a record of all gifts – you’ll need them for the the Register of Pecuniary Interests.