Tracy Watkins writes:

David Cunliffe’s resignation from the Labour leadership is certain. It is only the matter of his going that is yet to be decided.

In the old days he would have been gone already.

Tuesday’s brutalising caucus was a coup in all but name. It showed Cunliffe no longer has any authority over his caucus, who can outvote him at will. They already have, over his choice of Whip.  

A leader who can’t control his caucus or win a vote cannot credibly front National as the Leader of the Opposition.  But under Labour’s rules a coup is no longer a simple numbers game in the caucus.

If it were, Cunliffe’s rival Grant Robertson would already be leader.

He has had the numbers to roll Cunliffe for more than a year.

Yep. But even if there was not the issue of a membership vote, Robertson is wary of having a non unified party behind him.

Robertson’s supporters could force a vote of no confidence in Cunliffe, but that effectively puts the decision in the hands of the wider party and Labour’s union affiliates. In a vote, they could decide to re-install Cunliffe over a hostile caucus. They did so the last time the leadership was put to the vote, a year ago.

Whether they would do so again after the chaotic scenes of recent days remains to be seen.  Camp Cunliffe are convinced they would.

It appears Camp Robertson are not sure enough of their ground yet to put it to the test. Otherwise they would have forced the confidence vote on Tuesday and got the leadership ball rolling.  

That suggests Cunliffe may have sufficient leverage still to negotiate a dignified exit  – one that would give him a senior role in Robertson’s caucus, with no loss of face for him or his supporters.  Neither side was talking up that option yesterday.

But wise heads are surely counselling both sides that the last thing Labour wants on top of its humiliating election loss and this week’s damaging fallout is a divisive and draining leadership race.

I think it would be silly for Cunliffe to contest the leadership, as he clearly has lost the confidence of his caucus.

However I think it would be better for Grant to have a party wide leadership contest, between himself and David Shearer.

Grant would win, but it would allow the party to unify behind him, as they will have had their say. He may face sniping from activists and left bloggers if he is put in by caucus with no say from members.

Also Grant is well to the left of Shearer. It would be help unify the party to have a clear centrist and a clear left candidate, as once their choice is made, people can respect the direction the party will then take.

Salient reports:

VUWSA has unanimously voted to withdraw from NZUSA, citing the union’s failure to reform and general poor performance.

The withdrawal could be the death knell for NZUSA, which has narrowly clung on to disillusioned students’ associations for the past few years.

NZUSA is the New Zealand Union of Students’ Associations, with 14 students’-association members. Each students’ association pays an annual fee to NZUSA which is based on the size and financial viability of the association. This year, VUWSA’s contribution was $45,000.

“Students gave us the mandate to stay if there were significant reforms. There haven’t been. Now what’s important is having the conversation to make sure there’s a strong national voice on student issues, in a more effective use of $45,000 student dollars. We take our fiduciary responsibility with students’ money seriously.”

I think it is important students have strong voices. Of course there is no one universal view among students. I suspect more students voted National than any other party, yet NZUSA has never been a voice for those students. They are almost part of the Labour-Greens machine.

So how to have effective representation for students at the national level?

What I would do if I was VUWSA, is get together with the saner student associations such as OUSA, UCSA and the like and put say $15,000 in each to a Wellington based professional company such as Education Directions, Saunders Unsworth, Ideas Shop, Senate SHL etc and hire them to advocate for the interests of tertiary students. They won’t organise petitions against asset sales, but they would do high quality submissions to Ministers, departments and select committees – and would be able to advise and implement effective strategy.

The Herald reports:

An anti-fluoridation website ad has been removed after it was found to have “unjustifiably played on fear”.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has upheld a complaint about an advertisement on the Fluoride Free New Zealand website that stated doctors and dentists believed fluoride caused harm.

But in its written decision, released today, the ASA found the Fluoride Free New Zealand advertisement was likely to be misleading.

It said the claims were presented as facts but were not substantiated, and the advertisement “unjustifiably played on fear”.

The ASA ordered the ad to removed from the website.

The decision is here.

I’ve analysed the demographics of the caucuses of the four larger parties. Some interesting observations.

Gender

The Greens have the highest proportion of women, and NZ First the lowest. Labour has a higher proportion than National, however Labour’s is lower than in 2011 and National’s is higher.

Labour implemented a rule that 45% of their caucus must be women, and they went backwards – from 42% to 37%. National improved, despite having no rule. Reinforces my view that gender quotas are silly.

Ethnicity

National’s caucus is the most ethnically diverse with European, Maori, Asian and Pasifika MPs. National is slightly over-represented with Maori MPs (it has nine) and European MPs and under-represented with Asian MPs and Pasifika MPs. However doing better than most other parties there.

Labour is over-represented with Maori and Pasifika MPs, and under-represented with European and Asian MPs. They have no Asian MPs at all, which won’t help them with 12% of the adult population.

The Greens are over-represented with Maori MPs, and have no Asian or Pasifika MPs.

NZ First are over-represented with Maori MPs, have their first Asian MP and no Pasifika MPs.

Note that I do not advocate that a caucus should have the exact same proportions of MPs by ethnicity as the NZ adult population. But neither do I think it is a good thing if a caucus consists of MPs from one gender and ethnicity only. A diverse caucus that is more representative of NZ is a stronger caucus – but it doesn’t have to match exact proportions with some sort of quota.

Age

Labour has the largest proportion of under 40s. NZ First the largest proportion of over 60s.

Area

All parties, except National, are under-represented in Auckland.

Labour and Greens are massively over-represented in Wellington.

Greens are massively under-represented in provincial NZ. NZ First has highest provincial representation.

Labour and Greens under-represented in rural NZ and National and NZ First over-represented.

Island

National and Labour spot on for North and South Island. Greens are over-represented in South Island and NZ First over-represented in North Island.

Decade entered

Only NZ First had an MP enter in the 1970s.

3% of National MPs and 9% of Labour MPs entered in the 1980s.

In total 25% of the Labour caucus entered Parliament before 2000 compared to 13% of National.

UPDATE: Tracey Martin informs me that NZF MP Darroch Ball is of Tongan and Kiribati descent, so NZ First also have a Pasifika MP.

The Stratford Press reports:

New Plymouth District Council has voted in favour of establishing a Maori ward for the 2016 local body elections.

The decision yesterday afternoon makes it the first district council in New Zealand to have a Maori ward.

Moments after the historic decision was made, councillor John McLeod handed in his resignation, effective immediately.

“I cannot work in any environment that has a belief in separatist values, based on race, creed or religion,” the letter stated.

A principled stand by Horse.

The Herald reports:

The demolition worker who choked a Dunedin man to death in a bar toilet was a “parasite” who showed no remorse in court yesterday, a grieving uncle says.

Stephen Anthony Fernyhough, 26, snapped at the victim’s supporters as he was sentenced in the High Court at Dunedin to five years in prison for the manslaughter of Ryan Court, 35, in the Craft Bar on April 27.

Details of Mr Court’s death prompted gasps and several outbursts from a packed and tense public gallery, with Fernyhough, flanked by two guards, responding “f…wits”.

“Shut up, you weren’t there.”

Earlier, the court heard how Fernyhough, who had 76 previous convictions over a nine-year period, used a choker hold on Mr Court for between 20 and 40 seconds, following a disagreement in the men’s toilet.

“Don’t mess with the wee man,” Fernyhough said as he left the unconscious man and fled the scene with his associates.

If three strikes was in earlier, and two of his 76 previous convictions were strike offences, he’d be in for 20 years, not potentially out in two years

The ODT editorial:

While the focus in the aftermath of the election rout has been on the woes of the Labour Party, the Greens should also be soul-searching and contemplating where to from here.

Despite brave words from co-leader Metiria Turei about the Greens doing well and holding their vote, the results must have been disappointing.

First, there is bewilderment that left-leaning parties were thrashed.

If you add the 4.1% of the Conservatives to National’s 48.1% (the Act and United Future party votes were only just worth counting), the ”right” trounced Labour’s 24.7%, the Greens’ 10% and Internet Mana’s 1.3%.

Yep, 53% to around 36%. To get a left Government not reliant on the whims of Winston needs around an 11% gain.

Both the Greens and Labour, often competing for the same voters, would have been expecting losses from one to flow to the other.

But they didn’t. Well Labour did lose some to the Greens, but the Greens lost some to non voters.

Although the Greens are ”red-green”, with most policies well left of centre, they continue to fail in the poorest electorates.

In South Auckland’s Mangere, Manukau East and Manurewa they could not even muster 900 votes per electorate.

Go to highly educated Wellington Central, and they won 8627.

Next highest was Rongotai (Wellington) with 8230 and then Dunedin North 6718 and Mt Albert (Auckland) 6205.

The dominant appeal is to the liberal middle class with, one suspects, a large number of socially and environmentally concerned middle-aged among those who ticked Green.

Yep. The challenge is how to expand beyond those.

This shows the current balance of trade, or value of exports over imports. It has just hit a new high.

Stats NZ reports:

Goods exports rose $227 million in August 2014 compared with August 2013, to $3.5 billion, Statistics New Zealand said today.

Live animals led the rise in exports, due to live cattle. Milk powder, butter, and cheese exports also contributed to the increase, led by higher quantities. The 16-percent rise in milk powder, butter, and cheese was led by milk fat and cheese.

“Cattle, milk fat, and cheese contributed to the rise in exports,” international statistics manager Jason Attewell said. “It is the first time in three years that a rise in dairy was not led by milk powder.”

The value of imported goods fell $536 million to $4.0 billion, compared with August 2013. The fall was influenced by the one-off import of a drilling platform in August last year. The monthly trade balance for August was a deficit of $472 million (13 percent of exports) – the smallest for an August month since 2010.

Seasonally adjusted exports rose 15 percent, led by increases in crude oil, dairy, and meat exports. Seasonally adjusted imports fell 2.8 percent.

There is going to be volatility withe the diary price, but overall our trade position is still strong. If we want to make it stronger we need to keep pushing for free trade agreements.

The headline:

Students starve to pay their bills

The story continues:

The number of hardship grant applications were increasing as more students were finding themselves in “dire situations”, Association of Students at UCOL (AS@U) president Miranda Orpin said.

It is the least surprising thing in the world that every year more and more students say yes to free cash. Students are not stupid.

Massey linguistics student Lauren Gennills and agri-commerce student Karn Dhaliwal, both 21, said sacrifices had to be made, including cutting back in things like fresh fruit and veges, to cover other costs, like rent and bills.

“You have days where you’ve got maybe $2 to feed yourself for that day and you learn to live off that, but at the end of it you’ve still got this massive student loan to pay off, and you’re stuck in that cycle for ages,” Gennills said.

On the general issue I wish media would never run stories on cost of living without asking for a detailed break down of income and expenditure, so readers can judge for themselves the situation.

On the specific issue, Lauren herself has noted on her Facebook:

hahaha oh dear, a lot of what we said was more about most students in general, not actually about ourselves, but they really made it seem like i was referring to my own financial situation! have had family members all day texting me horrified that i am now the new face of hunger in palmy!

So Lauren herself says the article is misleading.

I’ve had a look through the Facebook pages of Lauren and Karn. They both seem very cool friendly people, and in no way are they political activists for a cause. They seem very typical students. I would note however that contrary to the perception in the article of starving students (and I am not blaming them, but the story) they seem to have pretty good social lives judging by the photos, and references to Big Day Out etc.

I have no doubt that it is as tough today living on a student allowance or loan, as it was in my day. But it is not starvation.

Eli Dourado at Cato writes:

Libertarians intuitively understand the case for patents: just as other property rights internalize the social benefits of improvements to land, automobile maintenance, or business investment, patents incentivize the creation of new inventions, which might otherwise be undersupplied.

So far, so good. But it is important to recognize that the laws that govern property, intellectual or otherwise, do not arise out of thin air. Rather, our political institutions, with all their virtues and foibles, determine the contours of property—the exact bundle of rights that property holders possess, their extent, and their limitations.

Intellectual property rights are very important, but they are a balance between rewarding innovation and allowing further innovation.

In defining the limits of patent rights, our political institutions have gotten an analogous question badly wrong. A single, politically captured circuit court with exclusive jurisdiction over patent appeals has consistently expanded the scope of patentable subject matter. This expansion has resulted in an explosion of both patents and patent litigation, with destructive consequences. …

In patent politics, the romance has been gone for at least three decades. Here’s why. In most areas of law, the loser in a federal trial appeals to the circuit court corresponding to the federal judicial district in which the trial was held. But in 1982, at the urging of the patent bar, Congress consolidated appellate review of all patent cases in a newly created Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

And get this – the Federal Circuit Court basically is a law to itself, and ignores the Supreme Court.

Observers on all sides widely recognize that the Federal Circuit routinely undermines Supreme Court precedent. …

Supreme Court justices also recognize the Federal Circuit’s insubordination. In oral arguments inCarlsbad Technology v. HIF Bio (2009), Chief Justice John Roberts joked openly about it:

Mr. Rhodes: I can’t suggest what the Court might finally decide other than to say that—that, again, the circuit courts of appeal have uniformly applied this. They seem to be—

Chief Justice Roberts: Well, they don’t have a choice, right? They can’t say, I don’t like the Supreme Court rule so I’m not going to apply it, other than the Federal Circuit.

So what can be done?

Another helpful reform would be for Congress to limit the scope of patentable subject matter via statute. New Zealand has done just that, declaring that software is “not an invention” to get around WTO obligations to respect intellectual property. Congress should do the same with respect to both software and business methods.

Nice to see our law held up as a model.

Rosemary McLeod writes:

The big guy’s not wrong when he admits he was toxic for the Internet-Mana Party. Actually he’s toxic for New Zealand. We don’t admire personal feuds and personalised attacks on this scale in our part of the world, and to tag it on to a general election was too much.

Dotcom’s squeals of pleasure, as his tame speakers attacked John Key, would have turned many stomachs, not just mine. They knew nothing about Key that could justify their attack on his character, and the only good thing about their display of viciousness ended up being that it perversely gave a landslide victory to Key at the end of the most bizarre campaign I can remember.

Who would have thought Harre and that martyr of all Left-wing causes, John Minto, would be enticed by big bucks? Was that how truly principled paragons of the Left should behave? Dotcom has looked and behaved like the epitome of the kind of fat cat they would normally deplore, throwing his money around, but that very money had them mesmerised.

They threw away their credibility, and it can hardly have been worth it.

A sadder case is Hone Harawira, who threw away his ability to advocate in Parliament for issues he genuinely believes in. Did he think Maori voters would follow him blindly?

They were too intelligent for that.

Hone and Laila were genuine principled advocates for their beliefs. And then they sold out. They took the money, and aligned themselves with a rich criminal’s jihad against John Key, as they thought it would get them into power. The former staunch unionists had not a word to say about the allegations of his former staff who claimed Dotcom paid them $5 an hour only.

Even the sainted Nicky Hager, who the overseas speakers lauded for his series of indignant publications, is tainted by the campaign waged against Key. It was a cynical and calculated gesture to publish his book so close to an election, hoping to derail National’s predicted chances. He managed to knock Judith Collins out of the running, and WhaleOil will never look so beguiling again, but he doesn’t look any cleaner for it. When you’re praised by the kind of crowd that whooped and hollered in the Auckland Town Hall you’re not in classy company. At least he had the good sense not to be present.

Both Hager and Dotcom made the same mistake – doing their attacks during the election campaign. New Zealanders don’t like gotcha politics like that. Any serious issues they had would have been far more effectively considered if they had released them three to six months before the election.

And for those who are about to attack McLeod as being a cheerleader for National:

I voted Labour – out of nostalgia, though I knew it would fare badly. …

And for the record, I’ve never voted National in my life.

And I suspect never will.

A story from last week worth highlighting:

The Government Communications Security Bureau has tightened its defence over claims of mass surveillance by confirming the term “Project Speargun” was used to describe an abandoned element of a proposed cyber defence system.

American journalist Glenn Greenwald had accused the New Zealand Government of conflating Project Speargun, which he believed was evidence of mass surveillance, with Project Cortex, a project to defend New Zealand institutions from cyber attack.

A GCSB spokesman told Fairfax that Speargun was a code that referred to “a core component of the cyber defence project in its earlier iterations” and which comprised part of an option set out in a Cabinet paper released by Prime Minister John Key on Monday.

“The prime minister decided the Speargun component specifically would not be taken forward,” he said.

Confirmation that Speargun was a term used by the bureau to describe an abandoned element of its cyber defence system is important for two reasons.

On the one hand, it confirms the authenticity of slides presented by Greenwald at the Internet Party’s “moment of truth” event on Monday, which were the first public reference to Project Speargun.

But it provides a relatively innocuous explanation for the seemingly explosive statements those slides contained.

The most intriguing statement in the slides read: “GCSB’s cable access programme SPEARGUN phase 1; awaiting new GCSB Act expected July 2013; first meta data probe mid 2013.”

The terms “cable access” and “probe” suggest mass surveillance, but the slides could be describing the progress of a cyber defence system.

Detecting malware would necessitate inspecting the metadata of incoming packets of internet traffic. In other words, Greenwald’s smoking gun could be a cigarette lighter that looked quite like a gun.

So the moment of truth was a forged e-mail and a cyber-security initiative that was never implemented.

I was fascinated by the efforts of some people to game iPredict, presumably to make certain seats look marginal. A person or persons must have put thousands of dollars into Hamilton East to try and make it look like Labour would win the seat. I put several hundred in to counter it (as I knew of no reason it would be marginal) and know quite a few others who did. Someone must have wasted a few thousand dollars in trying to make the seat appear marginal.

iPredict got the electorates pretty right – 70 out of 71 is quite good – only Christchurch Central was wrong (and in a big way).

In terms of the party vote, they did less well. Their final newsletter was out by the following margins for the party vote:

• National 4.1% too low
• Labour 0.7% too high
• Greens 4.9% too high
• NZ First 2.1% too low
• Conservatives 0.2% too low
• Internet Mana 0.9% too high
• Maori 0.5% too low
• ACT 0.6% too high
• United 0.3% too high

The National, Greens and NZ First results were significantly out. The others not so bad.

Anyway what is iPredict predicting for leaders at the moment:

• 62% chance John Key departs by end of 2017
• 75% chance David Cunliffe departs in 2014 and 95% chance by end of 2015
• 52% chance National wins 2017 election
• 55% chance Grant Robertson is next Labour leader
• 40% chance Steven Joyce is next National leader, and 32% chance Paula Bennett
• 73% chance Jonathan Coleman becomes Health Minister

Time will tell how accurate these ones are!

Even assuming David Cunliffe got the same level of support from activists and unions as last time, the numbers look challenging for him in a wider vote.

Last time he get 11/34 votes in caucus. But four of those MPs have gone. He is now at 7/32. The seven are himself, Lees-Galloway, Mahuta, Moroney, Sio, Wall and Whaitiri. Doubtful any of the new MPs will vote for him. So he gets just 22% in the caucus vote, which is worth 40% overall, hence 8.8%.

Last time he got 60% of the members vote. I can’t imagine he would do as well this time, but even if he does that is 24% overall as members are worth 40%.

The unions loved him and voted for him 71%. Of their 20% that is 14.2%.

Add those up and Cunliffe gets 47%. He is 3% short.

Caucus may only be 40% of the vote but if they vote 4:1 in favour of someone else, then it makes it hard for the activists and unions to counter that. The key is the other contenders need to have a very clear agreement that they want their supporters to preference each challenger ahead of Cunliffe. I think that will be the case. Shearer supporters will put Robertson ahead of Cunliffe and Robertson supporters the same.

It is possible that Cunliffe could pick up support from some of the new MPs, but I suspect that is less likely after the mega-caucus he forced on them on Tuesday.

Even if he can lift the union vote to say 90% (which would give him 50.8% overall), then Cunliffe wins but it will be on the record that 80% of his caucus voted against him. Hard to get the public to back you when they know that.

As a Nat, I should want Labour to prolong the infighting for as long as possible, but I don’t think it is fair on Labour members and supporters for this to occur.

It seems there is only one solution. Only one person can fix this. Helen Clark.

Helen needs to pick up the phone, ring DC, and says that while he gave it his best, it is all over, and for the good of the party he needs to step down. I don’t think he’d take that advice from anyone else. Also there would be an implicit threat that she might repeat her advice publicly if he does not. Clark is the one figure who did and can unify the party. She won’t want to comment publicly, but she might do so to save the party she led from what would be a very messy public leadership battle. It would not be polite and matesy like last time. It would be brutal.

Attended Backbenches tonight and have to say ACT’s David Seymour was very impressive. He debated charter schools with ease against Chris Hipkins and Jan Logie, he showed some humour, and he also gave some rational answers on climate change which didn’t allow people to pigeon-hole him with a label.

If he can keep that up, he’ll have no problem surviving the House’s question time as a Minister.

Worth tuning into it tonight, if you weren’t there in person.

Stuff reports:

Prime Minister John Key has asked his officials for fresh ideas on tackling child poverty.

On his first day back at Parliament since being re-elected on Saturday, Key said he had ordered Treasury and Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet officials to start presenting new ideas.

‘‘The recognition I think we all have is that there are some extremely poor children who are missing out,’’ Key said yesterday.

‘‘And so then the question is how do you resolve those issues, it’s not straightforward but there will be more you can do.’’

Key said it needed to be done without narrowing the gap between the incomes of those on benefits and those working, to ensure people were still encouraged into work.

Breakfasts in schools, free doctors’ visits for young children and tax credits for low and middle income families were examples of policies that could be used to tackle the problem, as could programmes such as Whanau Ora.

Last week, National released its welfare policy, which included a trial of financial incentives for beneficiaries who come off benefits into work as well as to help with childcare costs while they looked for work or upskilled.

Professor Innes Asher of the Child Poverty Action Group said to tackle child poverty, benefits and Working for Families tax credits needed to be tied to inflation, while the minimum wage needed to catch up to the increase in the cost of living.

Professor Asher doesn’t seem to realise this is already the case. Does this mean CPAG will come out and say they are happy?

Benefits are already inflation adjusted. In fact National passed a law to guarantee this.

WFF payments have been inflation adjusted also. Not 100% they still are, but they have been.

The minimum wage has gone up 19% since 2008 (and 27% after tax) while inflation has been just 14%, so the minimum wage has gone up more than the cost of living.

It doesn’t say much about the credibility of a lobby group, when they get such basic stuff wrong.

It would also be nice if the media fact checked claims.

The Dom Post reports:

The council’s Transport and Urban Development Committee today vested four pieces of land in Tawa to the Crown for the purpose of building the $850 million motorway north of Wellington.

Doing so was little more than a formality, given the New Zealand Transport Agency’s ability to acquire the land if the council did not willingly hand it over.

But acting committee chairman and deputy mayor of Wellington Justin Lester said, somewhat jokingly, it was the council’s last chance to stop Transmission Gully, which was first mooted in 1919.

”In my personal capacity, I wholeheartedly support it,” he said.

”We [councillors] do look forward to the project getting underway.”

But not everyone on the committee shared that view.

Councillor Iona Pannett said that even though the land transfer was a formality, she would not support it.

”I’m voting against this as a matter of principle because I’ll never never support mega road building,” she said.

”If there’s anything I can do to frustrate that, I will.”

Iona’s views are the views of most elected Greens. They are against roads, no matter what. They will never never support them. It is not about cost effectiveness, road safety or congestion. It is a near religious belief that cars are bad.
.

I’ve done an initial analysis of the demographics of the 51st New Zealand Parliament. This is based on provisional results. I apologise if I have any ages wrong – most are based on public information, but for a few I’ve had to guess.

Gender

• 82 (-1) Males, 68%
• 39 (+1) Females, 32%

There is one more female MP than was elected in 2011, but two fewer than were in Parliament at the end of the 50th Parliament.

Compared to the end of the 50th Parliament, National has gained two female MPs, Labour lost two, Greens lost one, NZ First lost one.

Labour has only 37.5% of their caucus female – well under the 45% quota set in their constitution. They have a lower proportion of female MPs now than they did without a quota – it has dropped 3.8%.

National increased their female proportion from 25% to 28%.

Ethnicity

• 83 (-7) European, 69%
• 26 (+5) Maori, 21%
• 7 (+1) Pacific, 6%
• 5 (+1) Asian, 4%

Compared to their share of the adult population, Maori MPs are over represented by 8%, Pacific MPs are dead on, and Asian MPs under represented by 7%. It’s great to see a diverse Parliament, but hard to argue you need Maori seats to ensure Maori MPs are in Parliament.

The Maori Party have two Maori MPs, Greens three Maori MPs, Labour seven Maori MPs and National nine Maori MPs.

National have two Pacific MPs and Labour five Pacific MPs.

NZ First has one Asian MP and National has four Asian MPs. Labour have no Asian MPs.

Age

• 2 (nc) 20s, 2%
• 21 (+7) 30s, 17%
• 45 (+8)  40s, 37%
• 43 (-5) 50s, 36%
• 10 (-9) 60s, 8%
• 0 (-1) 70s, 1%

A fairly young Parliament.

Area

• 36 (-5) Auckland, 30%
• 17 (+1) Wellington, 14%
• 14 (nc) Christchurch, 12%
• 25 (+3) Provincial Cities, 21%
• 29 (+1) Rural, 24%

Islands

• 91 (+1) North Island, 75%
• 30 (-1) South Island, 25%

Sexuality

• 114 (nc) “Straight”, 94%
• 4 Gay (nc), 3%
• 3 Lesbian (nc), 2%

Year Entered

• Before 2000 18, 15%
• 2000 – 2007 16, 13%
• 2008+ 87, 72%

So 72% of MPs entered since John Key became PM.

May have some carrots to eat.

I had an exchange with Jarrod Gilbert in August about the proportion of crimes caused by gang members, in reference to his disputing a statement by Anne Tolley.

I blogged:

Is Dr Gilbert Saying the Corrections Department is lying when it says 28% of the prison population are gang members? They supplied the data, and I see no reason why they would make it up.

I’ve just been told that the Corrections Department figures do include associates and family – something they did not make clear at the time.

So Dr Gilbert was quite right that the Minister was not comparing apples and applies, as one figure included associates, and one did not.

UPDATE: of course I apologise for doubting when he says Police and Corrections were using definitions of gang members. They were!

Gareth Morgan writes:

But for me, the most frustrating aspect of the election result is the entrenched inability of the Green Party to grasp that the environmental message is something that appeals to middle-of-the-road New Zealanders, not just Lefties.

Sadly the Green Party’s policies for environmental sustainability have always come with a nasty fishhook – the out-dated edict that social justice can only be achieved by rehashed socialism. This has rendered the Green Party a real melon to mainstream New Zealand – a watermelon to be precise, far too red on the inside for middle New Zealand to stomach. …

The time is overdue for a Bluegreens political party, one that is happy to work with whoever is the senior party in government, and is focussed properly on improving our environment, society and economy together. Without this there is a large swathe of voters who are not represented adequately in Parliament. Can the Green Party assume that role? I doubt it very much, theirs is very much a socialist heritage and they exhibit an ongoing reluctance to get real on the importance of the economy. With their voter support capped at 10% (about the same as the craziest party in parliament, Winston Peter’s conspiracy theorists), the electorate continues to see no hope for the Green Party – the adverse impact on jobs and incomes is unpalatable. …

A Bluegreen party would emphatically express New Zealanders’ preference for clever and clean as the way we want our dollars earned, while leaving National and Labour to fight over how social justice is best promoted – via National’s preference for capacity building through education and training, delivering more flexible employment and wage-setting practices; or via Labour’s penchant for widening and lifting of social assistance, greater progressivity of income tax, widening the tax base on income from capital, and greater protection of labour in the workplace.

That is why today I am calling for a Bluegreen party – a party with a true environmental focus rather than a socialist party in drag. Tomorrow we will look at some of the policies such a party could pursue, policies that without a Bluegreen party are being left off the political agenda completely.

I’d love there to be a Bluegreen party that could constructively work with National to continue to improve our environment and conservation estate. It would be great.

However I should point out such a party has existed in the past. It was called the Progressive Greens and got 0.26% of the votes in 1996. While we have the socialist leaning Green Party, it would be hard to get much oxygen for a Blue Green Party. But if someone can do it, good on them.

The Green Party policy is to:

We would therefore institute a select committee enquiry into whether the SIS should be abolished and its responsibilities returned to the police. …

we will abolish the GCSB and close its two signals intelligence bases at Waihopai and Tangimoana immediately.

Meanwhile in Australia:

The injured officers, both from the Joint Counter Terrorism Team, are in hospital in a stable condition. …

Senior intelligence sources confirmed that the terrorism suspect had been among a number of people whose passports were recently cancelled.

It is believed that the man was well known to police, and had displayed Islamic State flags in the local Dandenong shopping centre.

And globally:

A 42-minute audio recording by an ISIS spokesman was released on social media Sunday, in which the group calls on Muslims to kill civilians in countries that belong to the anti-ISIS, U.S.-led coalition.

“If you can kill a disbelieving American or European, especially the spiteful and filthy French, or an Australian, or a Canadian or any other disbeliever, then rely upon Allah, and kill him in any manner or way however it may be,” an ISIS spokesman says.

Note the reference to “any other disbeliever”.

The Herald editorial notes:

What should New Zealand do? Does this country have malcontents who would embrace even ascetic religious fundamentalism for the sake of a cause? Have any been with Isis and returned? Should this country, too, offer special forces to assist Iraqi troops on the ground? That depends on whether the new Iraqi Government is better than the last, and whether US air support alone might be effective, as it was in protecting Kurdistan. The decision must not be influenced by the possibility of terrorism at home. As Australia has shown, good intelligence can keep us safe.

This is worth reflecting on.

That doesn’t mean that the GCSB should be allowed to do what it wants. Absolutely not. I am against mass surveillance of New Zealanders (which does not occur in NZ). But be aware the Greens are not just against mass surveillance – their official policy is to abolish the GCSB entirely – and look at abolishing the SIS also. They take an unbalanced view on these issues, and that view has dangers as our closest neighbour comes under attack.

Stuff reports:

Carnage. After a seven-hour crisis meeting with his caucus, Labour leader David Cunliffe emerged bloodied and weakened. The caucus is now firmly in charge after foisting its choice of Whips on the leader, including Chris Hipkins.

Whips are supposed to be the leader’s loyal lieutenants, their eyes and ears in the caucus. Hipkins is a known enemy who was demoted in one of Cunliffe’s first acts as leader.

The MPs also imposed their will on Cunliffe over the timing of the next leadership vote, outmanouvering him over his plan to steamroll the vote through before Christmas.

It was a Mexican stand off. Cunliffe wants a leadership ballot but won’t resign. Hence he effectively is demanding the caucus sack him, so the ballot is triggered. And they will sack him – but on their timetable. They have until 20 December to pass a confidence vote.

3 News reported:

By saying he wants a no confidence vote, Mr Cunliffe is getting in ahead of his own enemy MPs doing it. There are 32 Labour MPs. A no confidence motion requires 20 MPs, which is 60 percent of the caucus plus one MP, as the rules require.

The “anyone but Cunliffe” camp is made up of 19 MPs, which is 59 percent. They are almost there.

3 News has got this wrong. The caucus don’t need 60% to sack him. Cunliffe needs 60% to survive. Caucus only needs 40% to sack him. Just 12 of the 32 MPs can sack him.

Camp Cunliffe has just seven MPs, or 22 percent, and the views of five MPs are unknown. Just one needs to be anti-Cunliffe and he is gone.

The leader has only 22% support in his own caucus. Unheard of. When they do sack him, imagine if he wins the members and unions vote. He’ll them preside over a caucus where he can trust just one in five.