O'Sullivan on Jones

Fran O'Sullivan has asked some hard question of #Labour'sGotTalent contestant Shane Jones in her Herald column this morning. They are certainly harder questions than his ex-officio PR team of Messrs Garner, Gower and Espiner have asked to date.

And in fact Ms O'Sullivan's piece is such a compelling piece of reading that we are reproducing it in full; we will save our comments for the end, rather than interspersing them; here 'tis:

Why doesn't earthy Shane Jones just come out and say it? "I'm not just another Labour 'soft cock'."
"I'm for big, bold economic policies to grow the economy"; "I'm against hitting 'rich pricks' with new taxes (after all some of my best friends are just that);" "I want new mines in Northland and gas fields in Taranaki - Labour's communist mates in the Greens don't know how to promote jobs ..." You get the drift?
All right, I apologise for the tasteless introduction, but listening to, watching and reading Shane Jones interviews can do that to a "gelding" (as we women are in the Jones lexicon), you know.
Those who know the unvarnished Jones find the political snow job he is currently orchestrating during his extended bromance with TV3 political editor Patrick Gower and 3rd Degree's Guyon Espiner andDuncan Garner is more than simply comical.
None of these journalists have faced Jones with anything even vaguely like the third degree. It's just been roll cameras; lap up the latest smutty porn-related allusions (such as Jones' comment "doing things in a soft fashion has never been really a failing of mine" on Wednesday night's road trip with Espiner to the North) and give the Labour leadership contender the kind of free ride political journalists sometimes do when the politician in question has a reputation for being a prime source.

The public now knows the open secret in political circles that Jones skipped out on his wife and seven kids for his "beauty queen".
But there was no real third degree from Espiner on how his family might have felt at being left behind to bear the embarrassment of him being publicly exposed for using his ministerial credit card to book porn movies, while Jones wandered off into the sunset.
This was disappointing as Espiner has a hard-won journalistic reputation.
Those of us who appreciate real television current affairs tune in to his Wednesday night programme to escape the mindless dross served up by TVNZ's 7 Sharp. But this week's effort did not cut it.
Jones deserves to be strongly grilled on where he really sits on major economic issues facing New Zealand. After all the chances are he will end up with a top slot on Labour's front bench and a prime shadow portfolio as a kiss-off if he doesn't win the leadership race against David Cunliffe and Grant Robertson.
Before politics, he held senior public sector roles in the Ministry for the Environment and the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. But he was best known for his chairmanship of the Waitangi Fisheries Commission (Te Ohu Kaimoana).
Yesterday's media carried reports on Jones' graphic allusions to what he plans to do to the Prime Minister: "I'm going to tie a bungy cord around a sensitive spot and then I'm going to get those callipers and cut them and then the mercenary of capitalism can suffer what he deserves - a dead cat bounce."
All said with nary a blush that Jones himself could have been described as just such a mercenary back in the day when Labour Prime Minister Helen Clark turned a blind eye while he collected $70,000 a year as chairman of Te Ohu Kaimoana, on top of the $130,000 he earned as a Labour MP and chairman of Parliament's finance and expenditure select committee.
Get under his skin and dig deep enough and the journalists might just expose Jones as a politician of contradictions and considerable subterfuge.
But right now he is simply "too good in the copy stakes" for that to happen.
I was intrigued at how some journalists bought the story that he was the hapless David Shearer's friend and loyal to the previous leader's bitter end. But anyone who had heard Jones morosely talk of his real feelings towards Shearer after the Labour leader stood him down during the Auditor-General investigation which touched on his previous ministerial dealings would have an entirely opposite perspective.
One area where Jones has considerable political utility for Labour is his relationship with NZ First's Winston Peters. Both politicians are social animals.
But New Zealand women? Like former Labour Cabinet minister John Tamihere with his slags against the "front-bums", he could do with exhibiting some respect.
This week he said that he had always found that was very popular with women.
"I've never been at the top of the hit parade with feminists. But the women I want to appeal to are the women that read the Woman's Weekly, not Germaine Greer."
A straw vote of New Zealand women would say different.

There are some fascinating insights in this piece. Despite the fact that David Shearer has endorsed Jones, the MP seems to he holding a grudge against his former leader for his treatment over the Bill Liu saga, from which Jones was lucky to emerge at all.

Jones' position on mining and drilling is at odds with Labour's official stance. A few weeks ago he and Andrew Little met with oil and gas people in Taranaki, and the reported messages coming out of that meeting were very different to what Labour and the Greens regularly recite in the House. Jones is pragmatic enough to see the wealth and jobs that have been created in Taranaki, and want that for elsewhere in New Zealand. That immediately sets him apart from Messrs Robertson and Cunliffe.

Mediaworks has certainly given Jones a soft run so far, and we suspect that they see it as a ratings winner for TV3 and RadioLive. They have certainly aligned themselves with the bloke from the far North than with either Cunliffe or Robertson. It was no surprise therefore that Jones did surprisingly well in last night's 3News poll.

Shane Jones would be a theatrical opponent for John Key, but we wonder how deep he goes beneath the surface. And that creates a dilemma for those voting on the Labour leadership. Jones may have the potential to draw people back to Labour, including Waitakere Man and his mates. But is he in it for the long haul, and do the rumours that he has a pretty cavalier approach to detail and long hours of work have any substance?

Fran O'Sullivan has done the right thing by asking the hard questions that others have not. And those "others" might want to reveal what their motives are in promoting Jones so unashamedly.

Tweet of the Day - 2 September 2013

Duncan Garner takes a swipe at the pork-barrel politics emerging from the Labour Party leadership contest:

He's left out something else; the double garage, complete with two state-funded cars!

Jones shows his hand

Shane Jones has declared himself a contestant for Labour's leadership, and once again Duncan Garner has the scoop:

We don't regard Jones as a serious contender, and we reckon that his decision to stand is probably more a matter of post-contest positioning; perhaps a bid to be Labour's deputy leader.

But Jones has at least ensured that there will be a contest, and if David Cunliffe confirms his candidacy today as expected, a three-way contest.

What will count against Shane Jones is his inability to ever win an electorate seat. He failed in Northland against John Carter in 2008, and failed again in 2011 when he took on Pita Sharples in Tamaki Makarau. But he will certainly bring a different dynamic to the contest, and it is unlikely to be dull!


FOOTNOTE: It has been interesting to see the various apologies to Duncan Garner over the last few days. He was right; there was a letter circulating that night a few weeks ago; we have been told that personally by someone from deep within the Labour Party. It wasn't supposed to get out but it did, and the coup was aborted temporarily.

Quote of the Day - 23 August 2013

David Cunliffe won't be especially pleased with this. 

Duncan Garner has written an opinion-piece on the Labour Party's leadership woes, and identifies Cunliffe and Grant Robertson as the only realistic candidates, especially now that Jacinda Ardern has announced that she will not stand . But in looking at Cunliffe's attributes, Garner notes (with our emphasis added):

The other contender is Cunliffe.
A smart bloke, a bright man, an intellectual man – an odd man - who is seriously disliked by some. Is he the Kevin Rudd of NZ politics? Sometimes I think he is.
I cannot repeat the words in this column that some Labour MPs use to describe him. But this is his time. It’s now or never for Cunliffe.

By "some Labour MP's", we believe that Garner is referring to former Waimakariri MP Clayton Cosgrove, founder president of ABC; Anyone But Cunliffe.

But comparing David Cunliffe to Kevin Rudd? That's - ummmm - "interesting"...

Photo of the Day - 12 August 2013

We've just had the image below sent to us by a Facebook friend:

Whoever has written this letter on behalf of Waterstone Insolvency has done a masterful job. The first paragraph is just gold; so good that it begs repeating:

"Like David Shearer, those of us in the insolvency community look glumly at the rosy economic picture"

And as an aside, might David Shearer have another reason to feel glum today? John Tamihere certainly seemed to think so just after midday when he suggested that the coup reported to Duncan Garner a few weeks ago coup had merely been postponed. We will watch with interest.

Espiner (C) on coups

Colin Espiner has written an interesting piece on Stuff on coups; under the byline The anatomy of a coup he opines:

If you are ever of a mind to stage a coup against your party leader - or your boss, or even your mother - there are two golden rules you must follow. 
1: Deny you're planning a coup
2: See rule one
The reason for this is "bleedingly obvious", as former Labour leader Helen Clark used to say. Since coups are usually plotted in private, and since you really need to make sure you've done your numbers before you pick up the knife, you can't admit to it beforehand.
The ultimate bloodless coup is swift and deadly. The leader doesn't see it coming until it's too late to do anything but clear out the desk and start penning the memoir.
The only recent example I can think of where this plan wasn't followed was the guileless Don Brash, who staggered everyone by freely admitting he wanted to roll former National leader Bill English, who promptly called a leadership vote he expected to win - and lost.
English expected to win because his colleagues had assured him to his face that they'd vote for him. And then voted the other way in the ballot. In other words, they lied like flatfish. Amazing, huh. Politicians lying. Who'd have thought?
I mention all of this as a prelude to commenting on Radio Live presenter Duncan Garner's announcement on Twitter this week that a coup against David Shearer was under way and that a letter of no confidence in his leadership was being circulated among the caucus.
I've been staggered not by the comments themselves - I'd be amazed if Labour's MPs weren't planning a coup against Shearer - but by the reaction the story generated. Following swift denials by all involved, Garner was somehow expected to apologise for "getting it wrong''.
No coup here, said Shearer's loyal MPs. Nothing to see, move along please. Labour's supporters on social media quickly picked up the chant, mocking Garner and any other journalist who gave credence to the story for the fact that, as at the time of writing, Shearer was still the leader of the Labour Party (you may wish to check this is still the case). 
So I thought it might be useful for readers who have had less experience with covering coups than Garner - or myself - to set out again a few basic rules of coup plotting. 
The idea is to destablise the leader first, to soften him or her up for the bloodletting to follow. This is normally done by having a word in the ear of a journalist you can trust not to dob you in. 
You do this for a number of reasons. Going public makes the leader's job more difficult. It probably leads to a further decline in the leader's popularity with the public. And it sends a signal to your colleagues that a plot to roll the leader is under way.

Tuesday night's "entertainment" was simply a prelude to the main event. All the elements that Espiner describes above were there. We've been amazed that the name of Garner's source from within caucus hasn't become public knowledge, because we've had a significant number of communications from a whole range of people right across the political spectrum, and all have given the same name. It's clearly no secret outside the beltway. But it's not up to us to name names.

Espiner continues:

These things, as the great sage Rachel Hunter once said, don't happen overnight. But they do happen. Take events across the Ditch for instance. It took Kevin Rudd three goes to regain the leadership of the ALP. He and his henchmen conducted a destabilisation campaign against Julia Gillard for months, and went through several false starts before they finally got the numbers they needed. 
Another point for those less versed in the art of coup plotting is that these things are not an exact science. Because plausible deniability is needed at all times, those doing the plotting can't be sure how many supporters they have, and therefore when the execution may take place. 
The third point is, as I emphasised above, that those involved will absolutely lie about it. Indeed, their dishonesty is expected and accepted by press gallery journalists. One of the first things I was told when I started in the gallery was that coup plots were the one time when MPs were expected to lie to journalists - and when it was considered acceptable for them to do so. 
The counterfactual - anti-politician Don Brash notwithstanding - is laughable. "Yes Mr Journalist, you've got me bang to rights. You've rumbled me. I am planning to overthrow my leader. I admit it. Righto, I'll just go and give the party my resignation.''
Finally, ask yourself this simple question: why do you think there are rumours about Labour's leadership? Do you honestly believe it's some VRWC (vast right-wing conspiracy) dreamed up by Whaleoil and the conservative press? Or could it, just perhaps, be because where there's smoke there's usually fire?
And if you don't believe that, here's another question: if it's so easy to get a leadership coup rumour going in the media, where's the story about John Key's leadership being under threat?
The Left will claim it's media bias. Yeah, right. That's why National was dogged by leadership spills throughout Clark's iron-fisted rein as Labour leader.   
So if Garner made any error in his declaration a coup was under way this week it was that he put a timeframe on it - i.e. that it was under way that evening.
I am absolutely sure Labour MPs are plotting against Shearer. Why wouldn't they be? It's sheer self-preservation. Shearer's personal popularity with the public is woeful. Most people have no idea who he is, and those who do know think he's a shambolic, equivocal, spineless ditherer with the political nous of a first-term MP. 
Shearer is a lovely man. I'd let him babysit my kids without hesitation. But to date he has revealed neither the fortitude nor the authority to lead a political party - let alone be a prime minister. 
He is not only unable to articulate Labour vision and policy, he also does not seem to possess the political radar required to see trouble coming - whether it be the hypocrisy of his MPs dining with Sky City or the public impact of the party's proposed "man ban". 
What sealed it for me was when Shearer was asked why he didn't put a stop to the "man ban" proposal when he first heard about it. He replied Labour was a democratic party, "and I can't just bang my fist and get what I want''. 
Excuse me? Why ever not? Does Shearer honestly believe Clark ran Labour as a democracy? Flat hierarchies may work fine in NGOs like the UN but party politics is feral. The leader of the pack needs to be, at best, a benevolent dictator. 
Labour's MPs know this. They are wringing their hands in despair. The window for rolling Shearer is open, but not for much longer. But when to leap, and into whose arms? 
Those are the only questions keeping Shearer in his job. 

Espiner is dead right; one only has to look over to the West Island where Kevin Rudd made it third time lucky, having completely undermined Julia Gillard and made her position untenable. He's even got the normal post-coup bounce in the polls, with Labor having a fighting chance, if not of governing then at least of not being wiped out.

In the meantime, the Labour caucus is not a happy camp. It is bitterly divided between a few Shearer loyalists, around ten supporters of David Cunliffe and a significant bloc of MP's that do not see much future with either of those as leader. The biggest impediment to rolling David Shearer at the moment is the lack of one single leadership aspirant who can unite all the factions and stop them warring with one another.

It is patently obvious that David Shearer is being undermined from within; the SNAFU over the Marcus Lush interview no-show yesterday was clear evidence of that. Labour should be all over National at this time in the electoral cycle, but the Opposition parties are the Greens and NZ First. All the while, Labour opposes no-one but itself.

Garner explains his position

Duncan Garner has been copping it from Labour MP's last night and this morning after his tweets last night. Annette King has called him a liar, and Grant Robertson and Chris Hipkins have also had very unparliamentary things to say about Garner.

But Duncan Garner isn't going anywhere, and has in fact defended his position this afternoon; you can listen here.

Garner is emphatic; he has a source inside the Labour Party caucus, and another source outside but very close to caucus. He received a text message last night from his caucus source telling him what he subsequently tweeted. Garner says "I did not make this up. I am careful about my sources. I stand by my internal source, and my external source."

Duncan Garner has nothing to gain by lying about this. On the other hand, if David Cunliffe became leader of the Labour Party, a number of Labour MP's would have a whole lot to lose, including ultimately their jobs.

So who's telling the truth, and who isn't? Listen to the full seven minutes or so of Duncan Garner, and make your own mind up.

Is David dazed and confused?

David Shearer gave an interview with Sean Plunket on RadioLive just before the 11am news this morning in which he dismissed rumours of a coup within Labour. Fair enough, although Duncan Garner has since said that he is still getting leaks from within the Labour caucus, which is clearly not a happy place at the moment. 

But Mr Shearer also said something which we found astounding. When asked by Plunket about the stories that his colleagues had given him two months to improve his performance, the Labour leader said that he had only heard those stories last night.

We beg to differ. On Sunday 30th June, 3News reported thus:

Despite the win for Labour last night, leader David Shearer has admitted that the party is in a "flat patch" with its popularity nationwide.

The admission came during an interview about a threat to his leadership if there's no improvement in the next two months.

A win makes Mr Shearer happy, but still angry at 3 News for revealing a Labour MP says Mr Shearer is on two months' notice to improve or face the axe.

"If this person's not willing to come forward or you're not willing to talk about them, why should I talk about them?" asks Mr Shearer.

The MP said "spring time is when people will get really nervous…we don't want to get into the "Goff-zone", where it's too late to change the leader".

"I don't know," says Mr Shearer. "I haven't heard any of this sort of thing before, so I can't really comment any further than that."

And on the same day, the Otago Daily Times reported:

Labour leader David Shearer has been forced to deny allegations of division amongst his party caucus. Mr Shearer, who appeared TVNZ's Q+A this morning following Labour's successful Ikaroa-Rawhiti by-election result, was quizzed about the allegations and reports of a possible party leadership challenge.
"I'd like to know who the MP is," Mr Shearer said in reference to reports some MPs had told media their could be a challenge to his leadership within two months due to poor polling results. 

We know that a week is a long time in politics, but Mr Shearer's reported statements of 30th June completely contradict what he told Sean Plunket today, 10 days later.

And whilst Mr Shearer reckons that he doesn't read blogs (though perhaps he should) we would not that our Whodunnit? series, designed to help him to ferret out the Labour leaker also started on the 30th of June, in response to Mr Shearer's desire to find out who the guilty party was.

Now we are not for one moment suggesting that David Shearer is lying. But the last several weeks have been a difficult time for him with poor polls, the SkyCity corporate box fiasco, being put on notice by his caucus, the furore over the proposed Man-Ban and last night's apparent attempt to topple him. It would not be surprising if David Shearer was a little dazed and confused as everything unravels all around him.

But given this apparent memory loss, and of course his forgetting of his Chase Manhattan bank account when doing his Pecuniary Interests returns (although he managed to remember it when doing his tax returns), he should be very careful of accusing other MP's of memory losses.

We can't help but wonder...

Thus far, David Shearer seems to be weathering the Labour Party leadership "spull", but the jury is very much out if his survival will go beyond the onset of Spring. But if whoever from within the Labour Party caucus leaked the information about an apparent no-confidence letter to Duncan Garner from RadioLive was trying to pull the rug out from under Mr Shearer, they most certainly succeeded.

So it seems as though Mr Shearer is not going to be presented with a no-confidence letter today, although Spring is another day closer.

But it made us wonder, and what we can't help but wonder today is this; if the Act, Mana and United Future (giving Mr Dunne the benefit of the doubt of actually still having a party to represent) caucuses were to hold no-confidence votes in their parliamentary leadership, what would be the outcome?

The coup is underway...

A coup is underway in the Labour Party. Duncan Garner has made the call this evening, and reckons his source is both impeccable, and from within the Labour caucus:

More to come on this in the morning, but we doubt that Mr Shearer will be getting a lot of sleep...

Has the Christchurch City Council been misled?

It's been a busy day, and we have spent extended periods today some distance from our computer. But as we were driving to our accommodation, we listened to Duncan Garner interviewing Christchurch Earthquake Recovery Minister Gerry Brownlee. 

Unsurprisingly, the subject of the interview was the decision today by the Christchurch City Council to ask for a Crown manager to take over the council's consenting process, and the news that council CEO Tony Marryatt has gone on leave.

Duncan Garner raised with Gerry Brownlee the possibility that Mr Marryatt has misled the council over the state of the consenting process. Gerry Brownlee didn't come down in the last shower of course, and refused to either confirm or deny that allegation. Given the potential for litigation further down the track, Brownlee's stonewalling, whilst frustrating to Garner was absolutely correct.

The allegation raises an interesting point however. If Mr Marryatt HAS done what Garner alleged, then surely his position as CEO of the CCC would be absolutely untenable. 

It will be interesting to see how this plays out in coming days. We suspect however that today might be the beginning of the end of Mr Marryatt's employment with the Christchurch City Council.

In the meantime, the Government has welcomed the Christchurch City Council's decision to request a Crown manager; Gerry Brownlee responds:

The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Minister Gerry Brownlee, Local Government Minister Chris Tremain, and Building and Construction Minister Maurice Williamson, have welcomed the decision by Mayor Bob Parker to seek the appointment of a Crown Manager to address consenting issues.
“I am pleased that Christchurch City Council has recognised the gravity of the situation and that a motion will now be put to the council to invite the Government to appoint Crown Manager,” Mr Brownlee says.
“This decision will ensure they get a robust consenting system in place, and is a constructive and welcome step forward.”
Mr Tremain says this move is a positive step which will enable a Crown Manager to be appointed more quickly for the benefit of Christchurch.
“I look forward to meeting the council tomorrow following their decision, to discuss the terms of reference which will enable a Crown Manager to be appointed at the earliest opportunity,” Mr Tremain says.
“The Crown Manager will have the authority to direct the council to address issues relating to consenting.
“The Council will be required by legislation to cooperate with the Crown Manager, comply with the Manager’s directions, and comply with any reasonable request to provide relevant information.
“This process relies on the new assistance and intervention framework included in the Better Local Government legislation passed last year.
“This framework gives the Government a menu of options which enables us to work collaboratively with the Council in the first instance.
“Under the previous legislation, the only intervention options would have been to appoint Commissioners or call an election.”

Here's hoping that the disruption to the rebuild of Christchurch will be absolutely minimal. Mr Marryatt being on leave will certainly help that.

Tweet of the Day - 20 June 2013

Duncan Garner hints at some fairly major issues within the Labour Party's inner circle, and the recall of a staff member who left a while back:

Garner is just about to go on air in his RadioLive programme. It could be interesting listening this afternoon. 

The suggestion that Shearer may have been economical with the truth over the SkyCity corporate junket by his MP's could be especially damaging to his credibility.