Emmerson on Labour Fashion Week

Regular readers will know that we are fans of Rod Emmerson's cartoons in the NZ Herald. And as we have noted before, he has a great ability to segue together two entirely unrelated but topical issues.

He's done just that this morning:

Whether or not the Shane Jones g-string is taking things a little beyond the bounds of good taste is in the eye of the beholder. We do presume however that Rod Emmerson drew this 'toon BEFORE Shane Jones made his unfortunate comments in Hamilton last night about John Key's nether regions, bungy cords and dead cat bounces. If that is the case, his foresight is as brilliant as his cartoons!

Whichever, we have no desire to watch Shane Jones model his undergarments (or any garments at all for that matter) at Fashion Week!

Watkins (T) on Norman and democracy

It wouldn't be stretching the truth to say that Tim Watkins from Pundit leans just a little to the political Left. In addition to his blogging Watkins is regularly on the radio on Newstalk ZB, where he almost always defends left-wing positions and causes.

So that makes his condemnation of Russel Norman much more noteworthy; Watkins opines (with our emphasis added):

I'm no great fan of referenda, but when phrases such as "elected dictatorship" start getting bandied around we all need to draw breath and remember how this 'running the country' thing really works

Well, it's been less than 24 hours since the Keep Our Assets groups nailed their petition, metaphorically, to the door of parliament, and there's already been a fair bit of tosh spoken about it. Some of the worst has come from Greens co-leader Russel Norman, but he's not alone.
On its second crack, 327,224 valid signatures - 18,500 more than required to initiate the referendum - were collected by the Keep Our Assets coalition and yesterday delivered to the Speaker. The referendum question will be: "Do you support the Government selling up to 49% of Meridian Energy, Mighty River Power, Genesis Power, Solid Energy and Air New Zealand?"
Driving home last night I heard Norman on Checkpoint, rejecting questions that National had won the election and therefore had the right, y'know, to govern. Norman said that people vote for an against numerous issues in an election, so it didn't mean National had a mandate for partial asset sales.
"That's not how democracy works," he told Mary Wilson.
Except that's exactly how democracy works. Elections are never single issue referendums and a party like National, which for two elections has been clear as a newly polished pane of glass on a summer's day (with not too much light, but not much cloud either) about its intentions, has every right to, y'know, govern. To argue otherwise makes no sense.
Why?
Because by Norman's logic a governing party has no right to implement policies in its manifesto that don't get a majority in separate polls. Well, that's not how democracy works. If it was, you could look at this random measure from 2003 and say Labour had no right to cut us off from the Privy Council.
Indeed, republicans have never won support for New Zealand to cut ties with the monarchy in any poll ever, so by Norman's logic it would be anti-democratic for any future Labour-Greens government to even consider such a move until it had won at least a few polls.
But we don't want government by polls. Y'know, the sort of polls that urged the US and Britain to go to war in Iraq, for example.
Norman went on to say that we're not "an elected dictatorship" and that Key must listen to the voice of the people. So let me go on with another couple of examples. Because by Norman's rhetoric it's surely more oppressive for National to have started implementing the Greens' insulation scheme in its first term – at least asset sales were a clear part of National's manifesto!

If there's anyone in Parliament who rivals David Cunliffe for being an ungracious winner, it's Dr Norman. It would be easy to excuse him by suggesting that it's the Australian way, although Australians have had precious little to celebrate in recent months, especially on the sporting field. But there's something more to it than that.

Perhaps Dr Norman is peeved that David Shearer's departure and the start of the #Labour'sGotTalent taxpayer-funded tour has pushed him out of the limelight. He has certainly hammed it up in the media over the last couple of days, but as Tim Watkins note, he has been big on rhetoric, and small on substance.

And unfortunately for Dr Norman, the words of Phil Goff have come back to bite LabourGreen on the bum; check this out from 25 January 2011:

Mr Goff said Prime Minister John Key had made this year's election a referendum on whether New Zealanders wanted to see their most important strategic assets sold.

National's Mixed Ownership Model policy was one of the very central issues of the 2011 General Election campaign. Labour in particular devoted huge resources to campaigning against "asset sales", which was an untruth in itself. We all know the outcome; National recorded its largest-ever percentage of the vote under MMP, and Labour crashed to its worst result in 70 years.

The moment that John Key was able to inform the Governor-General that he was able to form a government was the moment that the 2011 referendum on "asset sales" ended. Labour and the Greens should accept the outcome that MMP, which they of course support, threw up and move on.

And here's one other point to ponder. Late in its third term of government, Labour passed. with the support of the Greens the Electoral Finance Act and the Emissions Trading Scheme. Labour was a minority government, and neither of these policies received anything like the amount of scrutiny at the 2005 General Election as the Mixed Ownership Model did in 2005. Indeed, the EFA, later repealed by National, with Labour's support was a direct response to allegations of dodgy campaigning in 2005.

Russel Norman may support MMP and democracy, but only when tthe outcome it produces suits him. Kudos to Tim Watkins for not swallowing Dr Norman's deceit, and for calling him on it.

Tweet of the Day - 3 September 2013

Someone in Labour has been whispering in RadioLive political editor Jessica Williams' ear; check this out:

But wait, as they say in the infomercials; there's more. We even get the numbers:

There's a real irony in this. Barry Soper noted after Saturday's meeting in Levin:

The audience who'll all get a vote for the leadership were urged not to spill the beans to the media but the couple who couldn't contain themselves ended up cancelling each other out. One said he was never going to vote for a gay leader, his ballot would be for Cunliffe the other said he'd come to cast his for Cunliffe, but having heard Robertson he was now firmly in his corner. 

However much the party tries to shut the rank and file up, the Labour caucus continues to leak like a sieve. Anyone who believes that the leadership election is going to produce a united Labour caucus has, as John Key told David Shearer in THAT secret meeting about the GCSB Bill, rocks in their head.

Our busiest ever week

We installed Sitemeter as a hit counter on Keeping Stock about four months after we started blogging. Each week, Sitemeter sends us a report of blog activity for the week from Tuesday to Monday. Quite why the week is configured that way is beyond us, but over a period of time, it all equals out.

And when we receive that report tomorrow, it's going to show a record number; check this out:

The numbers are small compared to the likes of Kiwiblog and Whaleoil, but as  "hobby bloggers", we're pretty happy to have hit 10,000 page-views in a week for the first time ever. And our average figure for unique visitors for a week has never before passed 900 per day. So we are treading new ground.

The reasons for the explosion in numbers this week and likely highest ever monthly figures are pretty obvious. There was David Shearer's fishy stunt and the admission of a secret meeting with John Key last Tuesday, Mr Shearer's resignation on Thursday, and the dreadful Kim Dotcom tweet yesterday. 

Each of those events produced a spike in traffic, but the cumulative effect of them all taking place within a seven-day period has had a very positive spin-off for visitor numbers. We are expecting that this month will trump our previous busiest month ever, which was November 2011: the lead-up to the 2011 General Election and reflecting on the result.

And we are well on the way to welcoming our millionth visitor. With an increase in blog traffic in recent months, we are likely to hit that milestone this side of Christmas.

As we've said in the past, we blog because we enjoy blogging. When it becomes an chore, and when the enjoyment factor ceases will be the time when we step away. For now however, we ARE enjoying blogging, and the numbers suggest that there are a few people out there who enjoy what we do.That makes it all worthwhile.

Tweet of the Day; Dotcom special - 26 August 2013

Kim Dotcom is at it again on Twitter.

The Large German Gentleman seems to have a bizarre sense of humour. Not only does he share his fantasies over the PM's daughter, but last year he showed a very injudicious side to his character making jokes about rape on social media, and an anti-semetic reference to John Key.

The media fawns over Kim Dotcom, but there is a dark side to the Large German Gentleman's character. Smart-arse references to the children of MP's in an attempt to score political points will do nothing for his public image.

"They face a Herculian task"

Andrea Vance, front and centre of a story or two in recent months has written David Shearer's epitaph. And she leaves no doubt as to the difficulty of the job ahead for whoever emerges from last week's carnage; Vance opines:

Well, that's that. So long and thanks for all the fish, David.
Not since National leader Don Brash walked the plank in 2005 has there ever been such defining imagery of a political leader's demise. David Shearer punctuated the end of his 20-month leadership poignantly with two sweating, flaccid snapper.
Tuesday's Question Time - in which he was completely owned by a triumphant John Key -  was the last gasp in a Labour experiment that went horribly wrong.
In many ways, Shearer and Brash shared a common downward trajectory. There was an initial wave of optimism centred around the anti-politician. But it soon gave way to shambling television appearances, a lack of PR nous, poor judgement and memory lapses.
Neither left office of their own volition. Brash was driven out by The Hollow Men book, Shearer by a restless caucus.
What followed was John Key - National's Antaeus, thus far invincible and undefeated in the political arena.
Whoever, the next Labour leader is, they face a Herculean task. 

We concur with Ms Vance. And we concur with her reasoning too; that it's going to be less about those opposite in the House than those behind and to the side of the new leader; read on:

Even buoyed with the direction and fresh vision of a new leader, it will be a long hard slog to get the party and caucus soothed, unified and campaign-ready.
And if they do get there in the next year, they will have to match  - and better - the remarkable energy shown by Key in election campaigns.
There is no stand-out contender that could win an election tomorrow. The best Labour can hope for is a capable leader-deputy combination.
Should David Cunliffe win, he will have to unpick the nasty in-house PR campaign that has lead much of the country to believe he is a villainous pariah. 

We really do wonder about the ability of either Grant Robertson or David Cunliffe to unite the bitterly divided Labour Party. With each having been less than loyal to David Shearer over a period of time, what has gone around is likely to come around, and it's going to be fun.

As Andrea Vance notes, the new Labour leader will "face a Herculean task"; and that's just with the Labour Party!

A voice of sanity on the GCSB Bill

The Listener tends to lean to the left of matters political. That makes its editorial on the GCSB Bill passed this week even more worthy of comment; check this out:

The Government was right to ignore the more hysterical opposition to its new spying legislation, but it may yet pay a price for the pace at which the bill was passed through the House.
There are times when a patiently plodding belts-and-braces approach is the best one in politics, and never more so than when a law concerns the rights of a private citizen against the mighty institution that is the state.
The problem for the Government was that the Kim Dotcom fiasco eliminated any potential for plodding. If Dotcom was nastily surprised by the raid on his rented mansion, so too were security agencies and the Government itself when it transpired that the law under which the raid took place was ambiguous.
The Government insists it has done no more than correct irregularities in the existing legislation, passed in 2003 under a Labour-led government to govern the GCSB, which at all times believed it was acting legally, as did the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security and successive Prime Ministers, including Helen Clark. However, the fact that the Government was only able to pass the tidy-up with a two-vote majority in Parliament shows it did not make that case convincingly to Opposition parties relishing a rare opportunity to pressure Key.
There is no doubt the Government mishandled the debate. It may have misread the campaign of activism against the bill as being a continuation of general anti-National activism, rather than a groundswell of concern from New Zealanders. If so, it underestimated community concerns in an era when, after the recent revelations by Edward Snowden, individual privacy has never felt more vulnerable. It underestimated, too, the inherent mistrust the community has in government agencies, and therefore the public’s willingness to believe that their rights were probably being eroded.

We're not so sure that the Government mishandled the debate itself, although John Key could have articulated the Government's position earlier than the now-infamous Campbell Live interview of 10 days ago. It did however allow opponents to dictate the agenda. However amongst that opposition was a copious quantity of fearmongering and misinformation; of that there is little doubt.

The Listener editorial then turns to the GCSB Bill itself:

In fact, the measures in the new GCSB legislation are not as sweeping as critics allege. Although the new law does clarify the GCSB’s powers to spy on New Zealand individuals and organisations, there are substantially more robust checks and balances to prevent abuse or overuse. The provisions make the process for the GCSB to get a warrant more rigorous than those established under Labour, not less.
Primarily, the GCSB has three functions. One is protecting government organisations and others from cyber-attack. This is a growing threat, and a growing vulnerability. We are told that already this year, the number of incidents logged with the National Cyber Security Centre is more than for all of last year. Second, the GCSB collects foreign intelligence – the traditional spying role. Third is the GCSB’s role in assisting other state agencies when they need the specialist skills of the GCSB.
Although the old legislation said the GCSB could assist other agencies, exactly who or how many were not specified. The new legislation makes it clear the GCSB may assist only the SIS, Police and Defence Force, and only in circumstances where those agencies themselves have already obtained a warrant for surveillance. In its own right the GCSB cannot access private communications or obtain metadata – information generated as people used phones, computers and the like – without first obtaining warrants.
The public is mature enough to understand that the nature of spy agencies’ work means it is mostly conducted covertly in the shadows. But that makes it even more important that there are adequate checks and balances.
Although the gravity of the threats we face mean new powers may well be necessary weapons in the battles against terrorism, child pornography, people smuggling and economic sabotage, New Zealanders are entitled to the reassurance that there will never be political or other opportunistic abuse of the powers and information obtained under them.
The new Act allows for a review of the intelligence agencies in 2015, and every five to seven years thereafter. It also provides for open hearings for the financial reviews of the intelligence agencies. All this gives some public reassurance. But John Key’s complaint that opponents have so muddied the waters that the law has been widely misunderstood can also be seen as an admission that the Government has failed in its duty to instill public confidence. Key belatedly acknowledged that misinformation and conspiracy “alarmed and agitated” some citizens. That he regrets, and indeed he should. In a free and open democracy we all have the right to be confident that someone is watching the watchers.

This is a sensible and politically dispassionate analysis of the legislation, and the motivation behind its passage through the House. To us, the clincher came when Helen Clark spoke out on the 2003 legislation, believing that every warrant she signed was lawful. If such a consummate politician as Miss Clark was undone by ambiguity in a law which she herself had passed through the House, then there was a problem that needed fixing.

Of course subsequent events in Wellington have usurped any political advantage that Labour and the Greens gained from the GCSB debate. Labour is in internal turmoil, with the lack of loyalty shown by senior MP's towards David Shearer now a matter of public record. And amidst Labour's woes, the voice of the Greens has been silenced. That will continue should David Cunliffe emerge as the new Labour leader.

We commend The Listener's editorial staff for an excellent, balanced editorial.

Watkins on Shearer

Tracy Watkins reflects on the potential implications of yesterday's Fairfax-Ipsos poll for David Shearer. Under the headline Shearer can't get any political traction Watkins opines:

The only relief for Labour leader David Shearer in today's Fairfax Media-Ipsos poll is that things haven't got worse. But that is small solace when the terrible 20s are just a couple of percentage points around the corner.
It is not entirely fair to assess the results solely on Labour's performance, of course.
As has so often happened over the last five years, the polling period was dominated by crisis headlines - this time over the Fonterra milk contamination scare. That meant two things: Opposition parties were starved of oxygen, and voters were probably more focused on the Government's performance during the crisis.
But even soMr Shearer has fired some big policy shots to grab attention, including a blatantly populist pitch to first-home buyers with a plan to ban foreign speculators from the housing market, and build tens of thousands of cheap new homes.
He has moved to arrest the inertia in his back office by bringing back former chief press secretary, Fran Mold, and installing her as his chief of staff.
And he has been quick to latch on to the right side of issues like the row over snapper bag limits.
But his leadership still seems to be at half throttle. 

Mr Shearer's leadership may indeed have been at "half throttle" until Question Time on Tuesday. During Q3, he went to full throttle, and later when he did the dead fish stunt he was in overdrive. The only trouble is that he was in reverse gear!

And Ms Watkins notes that any gains he has made this year have evapourated; read on:

Even voters who flirted briefly with him at the start of the year have either switched off, or been turned off, by hapless episodes like the man ban, or the debacle yesterday over his request for a not-so-secret meeting with Prime Minister John Key to find a way through the impasse over legislation extending the powers of the Government Communications Security Bureau.
The intention behind him seeking the meeting was good - the execution was not. And it was just another reminder to Labour that their leader will have to think a lot faster on his feet on the campaign trail if he wants to get one up on Mr Key. 

David Shearer's performance on Tuesday was cringeworthy. He was absent for Question Time yesterday, only returning to the House in time to lead Labour's opposition to the GCSB Bill, but even then his speech was laboured (pardon the political pun) and lacking the kind of authority one would expect from a leader.

Can Mr Shearer improve his communication enough to go head-to-head with John Key in an election debate? Or will Labour even take that risk? Spring is just a matter of days away. 


UPDATE:  Just us we posted this, we saw this tweet:

Has spring sprung?

Clifton on Shearer's gutting

Jane Clifton doesn't usually pull any punches. It is common knowledge that she has had relationships with MP's from both sides of the political divide, but that has never blunted her political objectivity.

And she's holding nothing back today either; under the headline Key guts Shearer, makes a meal of him she opines:

Ever since Don Brash, visiting a boatyard during an election campaign, was filmed "walking the plank", politicians have been extra careful about avoiding unfortunate symbolism.
Unaccountably, the Opposition leader's office forgot this wise precaution yesterday.
Either that, or no-one could manage to dissuade David Shearer, seeking to illustrate a point about snapper quota, from producing two of the fish in Parliament yesterday.
The Government did not know which piscine wisecrack to go with first. They were, of course, dead fish. Necessarily, they were fish out of water - though at the same time, they were as good for target practice as fish in a barrel. Depending on how long they had now been out of water, they could also end up as cat food.
Mr Shearer's senior benchmates reinforced this point by indicating playfully, but rather unhelpfully, that the fish were getting a bit whiffy.
Poignantly, though Mr Shearer's staff had failed to protect him from the inevitable fish-related farce, he had come equipped with a paper towel roll to wipe his hands - though journalists at a subsequent press conference reported he still smelt fishy. 

Fishy is as fishy does, we suppose. Whoever advised David Shearer to take two dead fish into Parliament's Debating Chamber needs their head read; it was the height of stupidity. It immediately opened Mr Shearer to a relentless mocking from both Government MP's, and even Green MP's Jan Logie and Holly Walker who joined in via social media. 

Ms Logie tweeted that "Politics inches closer to surrealism. What was he hoping to get out of that?", whilst Ms Walker who is of a younger generation to most of us said "An already weird #nzqt just entered the bizarro realm with David Shearer waving around actual dead fish to illustrate a question on snapper.".

What makes this even more incredible is that Mr Shearer had already had one slapping yesterday afternoon; Jane Clifton continues:

Prime Minister John Key sought leave for Mr Shearer to table the fish so he could get them cooked for his dinner. He had already made a meal of Mr Shearer. In an earlier own-goal, Mr Key had been gifted the opportunity to portray National-Labour discussions about a consensus on the new spying legislation as being akin to Monty Python's fish-slapping dance.
Mr Shearer had asked Mr Key to confirm whether he or his office had held any meetings with Labour in the run-up to the bill. "I can't believe he is asking that question," Mr Key boggled, indicating that he would answer it, but it would not be fun for Mr Shearer if he did.
Mr Shearer said to bring it on - so falling into another question time heffalump pit. For one thing, cross-party talks are supposed to be high-trust affairs, used sparingly and with the utmost discretion. For another, question time is the clumsiest of forums in which to break that trust.
Mr Shearer clearly had a version of events unflattering to the Government, which he wanted to get across - but all he was allowed to do was ask questions. Mr Key had an alternative version unflattering to Labour, and was able to give a full account.
Mr Key described a clandestine tryst, in which he and Mr Shearer took the back steps up to the prime minister's suite so as not to be observed. He said he had asked Mr Shearer, after a select committee hearing, if he wanted to come up to his office to discuss the legislation. "We actually waited for the other members, in particular Dr Norman, to leave so that he did not see the member coming up to my office." 
Mr Shearer protested that it had been his idea. Mr Key countered: "If the member really wants to get down and dirty, members of the Labour Party said they did not understand the law."
Mr Shearer said Mr Key had said he "didn't care" whether Labour came on board or not because he already had Peter Dunne's vote. Mr Key didn't quite deny this, but said Mr Shearer had "rocks in his head" to pass up the chance to put security law beyond the Greens' intransigence. 

Some people around the blogosphere today are wondering out loud whether David Shearer is in real life a National Party plant in the Labour Party. We don't buy that for a moment, but he is most certainly the gift that keeps on giving to John Key, whilst the Greens will now be viewing him with great suspicion.

Jane Clifton got it dead right; John Key gutted David Shearer yesterday in a political sense. Mr Key came out of Question Time smelling of roses, whilst Mr Shearer was left with that unpleasant fishy afterscent, and a potential coalition party that now thinks that the Labour leader stinks.

Quote of the Day - 21 August 2013 (Part I)

It's a two-parter today, and the first bit comes from Hansard. Parliament's official record will preserve the details of David Shearer's secret meeting with John Key for posterity, and here's how it panned out in black and white (with our emphasis added):

David Shearer : Did he or anyone in his office ever contact the Labour Party to obtain broader support for the bill?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY : I cannot believe the member is asking that question. If he wants me to answer it, I will get on my feet and do so.

David Shearer : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think that was a question. Did he or anyone in his office ever contact the Labour Party to obtain broader support for the bill—did you contact me?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY : OK—[Interruption ]

Mr SPEAKER : Order! I want to hear the answer.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY : OK. Yes, Mr Speaker. After one of the Intelligence and Security Committee meetings, I asked Mr Shearer whether he would like to come to my office to have a discussion. We sat down and had about a 30-minute discussion where Mr Shearer said: “Keep this confidential. If you come out and say we’ve done it, that won’t look good and I don’t want you shouting it out about the House.” My deputy chief of staff went to see Mr Goff and also went to see Mr Robertson. On numerous occasions we reached out and at one point—

Grant Robertson : No, no, no. Don’t make stuff up.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY : If the member really wants to get down and dirty, members of the Labour Party said they did not understand the law.

Mr SPEAKER : Order! The Bledisloe Cup was on Saturday.

David Shearer : So he is saying that he initiated contact with me after the—[Interruption ]

Mr SPEAKER : Order! The member has every right to have his supplementary question heard.

David Shearer : Is he saying that he made contact with me after the Intelligence and Security Committee meeting and that it was my request that he should remember that?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY : I am afraid the member is wrong. I went up to the member after the Intelligence and Security Committee meeting and said “Do you want to come to my office?”, to which the member said yes, and I said that we would probably take the stairs to avoid the other guys. We actually waited for the other members, in particular, Dr Norman, to leave so that he did not see the member coming up to my office.

Mr SPEAKER : Order! If members on the right-hand side wish to see the balance of question time, they should respect the position I take when I stand and call for order.

David Shearer : In the course of that discussion, did he say to me that he did not really care whether we supported it or not because he already had Peter Dunne over the line?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY : I did not say exactly that I did not care. What I—[Interruption ] No. I will paraphrase the words roughly. What I said was that we had the numbers to pass the legislation and I knew that if for political reasons he was just going to carry on the way he was going because Grant Robertson was calling the shots, fair enough—we would just get on and do it. The member also said he wanted a sunset clause, and I said you have got to have rocks in your head if you want to have that, because if you ever want to be the Prime Minister, you will never get the Greens over the line.

That David Shearer asked the question in the first place was astounding enough, given that he had asked the PM for it to be kept confidential. That he ignored John Key's suggestion that he think hard about whether he really wanted the question answered and went ahead and asked the question anyway was just absolute stupidity.

But it does suggest one thing. Labour's next leader is sitting among the group described by Trevor Mallard yesterday as the "Labour B team"; one of Grant Robertson, David Cunliffe (the people's choice) or Andrew Little. The symbolism of Mallard's photograph has just become crystal clear.

A tale of two polls

The Left was cock-a-hoop yesterday when the Roy Morgan poll reverted to its usual trend of swinging in the wind back in their favour. But they will be less enthusiastic about the Fairfax-Ipsos poll released today; Tracy Watkins reports on Stuff:

David Shearer's big punt on bold new policy has failed to fire, with the latest Fairfax Media-Ipsos political poll suggesting he is having no impact on voters.
The poll shows Labour continues to wallow in the doldrums on just 31.6 per cent, a five-point slide from the start of the year. In contrast, National has emerged all but unscathed from a difficult few months to poll at 48.3 per cent - down about one point from May, but up more than four on the start of the year.
The Greens are on 12.3 per cent support, NZ First 2.8 per cent and the Conservatives 1.4 per cent, outpolling the other minor parties including ACT and United Future, despite being outside Parliament.
The result will plunge Mr Shearer's leadership further into question, and suggests the divisions laid bare over Labour's so-called "man ban" may have cancelled out any potential gains from bold new policy promises, including a ban on foreign speculators in an overheated housing market.
And he is not out of the woods yet - those divisions could resurface at the party's annual conference later this year, when party rank and file are likely to debate female quotas again. A loss in the long-held Christchurch East seat in a by-election later this year could put Mr Shearer under further pressure.
The poll was conducted during the period when a milk contamination crisis erupted, and when National was in the news over a housing package announced at its annual conference.
It also came on the back of a difficult few months for National, after its handling of the Henry inquiry was in the headlines.
Prime Minister John Key has also been under fire over his handling of legislation extending the powers of the Government Communications Security Bureau. 

Roy Morgan polls far more frequently than any of the other pollsters. Before LabourGreen gets its hopes up, they will need to see yesterday's result repeated over several consecutive polls. Recent Roy Morgan polls suggest that is unlikely; for some reason that poll is as volatile as Trevor Mallard when he is on a collision course with the Speaker.

The GCSB Bill will pass into law today, the sun will rise tomorrow, and the scaremongering of the Left will be exposed when there is no mass surveillance of New Zealanders. LabourGreen will need to find another stick with which to beat John Key and National, and two dead snapper just ain't gonna cut it!  

In the meantime the economy is growing faster that economists had predicted, winter seems to have ended, and the Government is getting on with the job of running the country. The days are getting longer, and with it the mood for political change will ease. That is bad news for David Shearer, especially given the revelations from Question Time yesterday.

David Shearer and the Secret Meeting

Oh dear. David Shearer, before he pulled his silly snapper stunt this afternoon, shot himself in the foot for point blank range; Stuff reports:

Prime Minister John Key has accused Labour leader David Shearer of sneaking up to his office for secret talks about new spying laws.
The extraordinary exchange occurred during Parliament's Question Time this afternoon as debate continues over the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) bill.
Shearer asked Key if he or any of his staff had contacted Labour as the Government worked to gain cross-party support for the proposed legislation.
An incredulous Key responded: "I cannot believe the member is asking that question."
He then went on to describe an encounter after an Intelligence and Security Committee meeting.
"I asked Mr Shearer if he would like to come to my office to have a discussion," Key said. 
"We sat down and had about a 30 minute discussion where Mr Shearer said 'keep this confidential. If you come out and say we've done it that won't look good and I don't want you shouting it about the house'."
Key added: "On numerous occasions we reached out and at one point - and if the member really wants to get down and dirty, members of the Labour party said they didn't understand the law."
Shearer did not deny the meeting - but asked if Key was claiming that he initiated contact.
"It was my request, he should remember that," Shearer insisted.
Key blasted back: "I'm afraid the member is wrong. I went up to the member after the ISC and said quote unquote 'do you want to come to my office.' To which the member said 'yes'. I said we'd probably take the stairs to avoid the other guys.
"And we actually waited 'til the other members, and in particular Dr Norman to leave so that... he didn't see you coming up to my office."
The exchange was greeted with uproar from fellow MPs. Shearer accused Key of telling him "that he didn't really care" about securing Labour party support, because he already "had Peter Dunne over the line".
Dunne withdrew his support for the bill, before performing a u-turn after winning some concessions.
Key said he didn't "exactly" say that.
"What I said was we had the numbers to pass the legislation and I knew that if, for political reasons, he [Shearer] was just going to carry on the way he was going because [deputy] Grant Robertson was calling the shots, fair enough." 

This is a stunning development in the GCSB saga. David Shearer has never to this point admitted to having met with the Prime Minister to discuss Labour's stance on the Bill. Now he has admitted to having met with John Key at least once, and without the knowledge of his senior Labour colleagues and the co-leader of the Greens.

The look of bewilderment on Labour deputy leader Grant Robertson's face as the PM made this revelation was telling. He has clearly been blind-sided by his leader. Unfortunately though, the cameras did not show Dr Russel Norman's reaction. We doubt though that he would be well pleased that Shearer colluded with John Key to deceive him.

Right about now, we reckon that there will be all sorts of little chats going on between Labour MP's, and between Labour MP's and Green MP's. And om our Twitter feed, the political Left is going ballistic. David Shearer's secret tete-a-tete with John Key will have serious consequences for the Labour Party leader.

Quote of the Day - 18 August 2013

Fran O'Sullivan adds her 10 cents worth to the various opinions expressed in the wake of Wednesday night's Campbell Live John-off:

These days we have Seven Sharp where journalists are often reduced to bimbo status and are too wrapped up making fillers to give sustained focus on the big issues of the day, such as the Fonterra food scare or, for that matter, the GCSB legislation.
Campbell Live certainly can't be accused of that.
But John Campbell has become so involved in the thrust of his crusades that when he was finally presented with the opportunity this week to interview the Prime Minister on the GCSB bill, he was blindsided by John Key's fluency and not sufficiently prepared to sustain 20 minutes of primetime television without coming very close indeed to throwing his toys out of the cot.
I don't for one moment believe that Key is the product of his press minders or media training, as left-wing commentators claim.
I've watched him make many apparent off-the-cuff speeches at countless business conferences and dinners where he exhibits a fine ability to combine humour (at times demonstrating a larrikin nature) with firm messages about the Government's policy framework, keen insights into New Zealanders' responses to domestic issues and the ability to flatter his audiences by sharing top-level communications on international matters.
People who believe he is slumped in some brain-fade fog have not studied the politician.
But overpreparation does not suit him. He is better at making what appears to be an impromptu speech rather than reading a statesman-like speech where he can take oxygen from his audience.
When he does prepare too much he comes up with dreadfully overwrought phrases (the Norton Anti-Virus analogy for the GCSB this week; Fonterra being New Zealand's poster-child for safe food last week).
What Key does do is study leadership.
He has spent many hours watching tapes of the way other leaders have dealt with opponents in major political debates.
Would that Campbell had done the same.
But the TV3 host's disorganisation was immediately apparent from the shuffled papers displayed in front of him rather than a laptop, clipboard (or preferably no notes at all).
But while Key may have come to the interview with no notes, he would certainly have worked out a gameplan in his head on how he would control Campbell and get across the story he wished to tell.
One little verbal joust said it all.
Key: "You've done so many stories which are absolute nonsense, and you know they are and I've actually answered those in the past ..."
Campbell: "Prime Minister, feel free to sue us, go to the BSA, make a formal complaint."
Key: "I don't bother complaining because when you weave your web and do all those little things ..."
You only had to look at Campbell's face to see he realised he had effectively been told to go and sit on the naughty stool.

The most interesting aspect here is Fran O'Sullivan's dismissal of the Left's oft-repeated allegation that John Key is "the product of his press minders or media training". She has probably seen enough of the PM in action both in New Zealand and offshore to make that call.

We've heard the PM in person several times, and on each occasion he has spoken without notes, and largely off-the-cuff. His command on details, especially in regard to economic issues though is impressive.

John Key is nobody's fool, despite what you might read at The Standard or the Daily Blog (which we generally choose not to). Those who underestimate him do so at their own risk; just ask John Campbell.

So much for the fishy protest

Even the normal rent-a-mob seems to have tired of protests against the GCSB Bill; TVNZ reports:

Around 20 protesters rallied outside John Key's Parnell residence, waving a giant paper mache fish made in the Prime Minister's likeness.
One protester tried to throw a box of rotten snapper at Mr Key's house, but was intercepted by police.
The proposed changes to snapper quotas would lower the number of snapper recreational fishers would be allowed to catch from nine to three.
The he GCSB bill would extend the powers of the Government Communications Security Bureau to allow for it to provide support for the Police, Defence Force and the Security Intelligence Service.
Earlier in the week John Key said he thought most Kiwis care more about the proposed changes to fishing quotas than to the controversial spying legislation.

Here's the screen-shot from the TVNZ story:

Is that Auckland mayoral candidate John Minto on the extreme right of the photograph? And TVNZ's "Around 20 protesters" seems a bit over-optimistic; we counted thirteen in the TVNZ image.

In any event, this protest seems to have a bit of a wet fish. We reiterate our position of this morning though; targeting the homes of MP's is a step too far. 


Footnote: We haven't corrected the error in the TVNZ story, but we reckon that we could do a better job than the current web editor!

A fishy protest

Rent-a-mob will be out in small force in Auckland today, but only after they've visited the fish market; Scoop reports:

Anti-GCSB protesters will show their opposition to the GCSB Bill this Saturday at 2pm by staging a demonstration outside John Key’s Parnell mansion.
In response to John Key’s statement that New Zealanders care more about the Snapper quota than the GCSB Bill, protesters will be rallying at the Holy Trinity Church in Parnell before delivering a six foot Snapper shaped like the Prime Minister to the gates of Key’s home.
Protesters will be bringing scores of dead fish to leave on Key's driveway as a symbol of their opposition to the GCSB Bill.

This is a daft protest on so many fronts that it is difficult to know where to start in rebuttal. But firstly, we strongly oppose targeting MPs' homes; even the Prime Minister's. The families of MP's are not part of political arguments; nor are MPs' neighbours. Involving them in this kind of protest, or the one outside Peter Dunne's Kandallah home a couple of weeks ago crosses the boundary between legitimate protest and intimidation.

Secondly, there's the fish issue. Any protesters who throw rubbish (in this case dead fish) onto private or even public property should expect to be arrested, and we are sure that there will be plenty of police on hand to do just that.

But what about the waste? We reckon that most of today's protesters will have been in some way connected to the Occupy protests of 2011, where they claimed to be the "99%". They oppose poverty, and they oppose oppression, and yet they are going to wilfully waste quantities of perfectly edible food. Surely, rather than symbolically flinging fish at the PM's house (which of course they describe as a "Parnell mansion", it would be better if every protester brought fresh fish with them which was then donated to the Auckland City Mission, or some other organisation which feeds the hungry.

Lastly, stunts like this do nothing to advance the cause. The most likely result of a misguided protest such as this will be a shift in public opinion AWAY FROM the cause being protested. New Zealanders aren't stupid, and they can small a rotten fish protest from some distance away.

John Key took all the heat out of the GCSB debate on Wednesday night. That probably explains why the protesters are getting personal, and targeting his home. By all means let them protest, but they should rethink their strategy because quite frankly, it stinks. 

Plunket on the "John-off"

RadioLive talkback host Sean Plunket also writes a weekly column for the Dominion-Post. And his column today is devoted to what he calls the "John-off"; Key vs Campbell, on Wednesday night. Under the heading PM gives Campbell a masterclass Plunket opines:

I wasn't even a working journalist when Sir Robert Muldoon uttered the famous line, "I love you, Mr Lange".
It was July 1984 and Ian Johnstone was moderating the final televised leaders' debate of the snap election between just two party leaders, incumbent prime minister Sir Robert and ebullient Labour leader David Lange.
Thanks to the wonders of the internet 30 years on I could watch the whole thing again this week. Not so I could get all dewy eyed about my lost youth but rather because this week I saw for the first time in three decades a television encounter which matched that debate in terms of utter dominance for one participant and defeat for another.
I'm talking, of course, about the mighty John-off on TV3 last Wednesday night, Campbell v Key on the GCSB.
Having decided that the GCSB bill is the most important piece of legislation this Parliament will ever pass (it actually isn't), the team at Campbell Live jumped in their sponsors' cars and hit the highway to ask New Zealanders if they like being spied on and were happy to give up their personal freedoms to a secretive government.
Of course they are not, they are outraged and so is John Campbell, especially when the prime minister thinks recreational snapper quota is probably worrying people far more than the GCSB bill and won't come on Campbell Live to defend himself.
It took a couple of days of the self-generated sanctimonious road trip before Mr Key finally snappered and agreed to join Campbell in the studio to explain himself.
The rest will one day be broadcasting history. Never has an interviewer who has almost gleefully proclaimed his right to practise advocacy journalism been so comprehensively and obviously "owned" by his intended victim. 

Campbell Live's promos at the beginning of the year set the programme on a collision course with the Government. John Campbell and his team chose some highly political and emotional subjects which they were going to hone in on. Read this Whaleoil post from 16 January, and watch the video on it; it was a very accurate prophesy of things to come.

So Campbell Live eventually settled on supporting those who oppose the GCSB Bill. That's fine; once colours were nailed to the mast, no-one expected objective, balanced coverage. But John Campbell  may now be regretting inviting the PM along; Plunket continues:

In 17 minutes of compelling viewing Mr Key either answered every question put to him or explained why he couldn't. He maintained his dignity and focus throughout in what anyone who knows anything about the art of the interview has described as a masterclass.
Campbell was left shuffling his papers, defending his lack of friendship with Kim Dotcom and finally, in the style of Sir Robert 30 years ago, ruefully admitting, "Mr Key, you are a brilliant politician".
Next night in a petulant self-serving tone he defended all the hard work he had done to get Mr Key to front up on the programme and lo and behold the magical mystery misinformation tour continued as if the exhaustive and reasoned statements of the prime minister the night before had simply never happened. 

Quite so; the opening minutes of Campbell Live on Thursday night were simply bizarre. John Campbell has obviously never read Whaleoil's Rules of Politics, and specifically rule #1 which reads thus:

If you are explaining, you are losing

To be fair to Campbell though, he wasn't really losing on Thursday night; he had already been comprehensively thrashed, and was simply trying to stem the bleeding. But it was clear that his encounter with the Prime Minister on Wednesday night had knocked the stuffing out of him, despite his bravado.

Plunket concludes, suggesting that this interview will be mandatory viewing for journalism students in years to come, but with a particular twist:

Thirty years ago you couldn't miss the symbolic significance of the Lange/Muldoon debate. "I love you, Mr Lange" was Sir Robert writing his own political epitaph and days later he was out of office, never to return. Looking back at that debate was remarkable. Unemployment was 100,000 but 40,000 of them were on government make-work schemes, Mr Lange and Sir Robert sparred over a $660 million loan from Britain, Sir Robert committed to spend $10m on promoting tourism and Mr Lange made much of the shocking fact that every man, woman and child in the country was paying $10 a week to service our national debt.  
Perhaps the most marked difference between that encounter and what occurred this week was that it was two politicians going toe to toe, not a politician and a journalist. Johnstone moderated that 1984 debate like the utter professional he is, soothing an increasingly agitated Sir Robert and controlling an ever more dominant Mr Lange.
There were no fancy graphics, just three chairs, a table, two pitchers of water, some carpet on the wall and three or maybe four cameras. It is still the best piece of political television I've ever seen.
For 18-year-old journalism hopefuls watching on Wednesday, John vs John may one day occupy the same high mantle in their professional memory but I'd suggest for quite different reasons.
One represents the success of the media providing a forum for the important business of political debate, the other represents an abject failure to do so.  

We could not agree more. Wednesday night was a huge own goal for Campbell Live, and its campaign against the GCSB Bill was left in tatters. 

Perhaps John Campbell should sit down with Sean Plunket, Dr Brian Edwards and the video of Lange vs Muldoon from 1984 for a spot of media training.

Quote of the Day - 16 August 2013

Toby Manhire does internet stuff for The Listener, and is also a columnist at the Herald. It's safe to say that he doesn't lean to the right. So his comments on the John versus John interview on Wednesday night are quite revealing; check this out:

And so it came as something of a surprise that John Key had decided to appear on Campbell Live on Wednesday night, despite his sullen "probably not" response to the programme's repeated invitations.
Maybe his advisers felt the spy bill issue was starting to get some traction in Middle New Zealand. Maybe they sensed that dismissing the bill's opponents as peddlers of "misinformation" rung hollow as long as there was so little informing. Probably they detected that he had begun to look dangerously derisive, sneering and unleaderly in the earlier exchange with Campbell Live reporter Rebecca Wright, in which he deployed the dead-eye stare along with the snapper gambit, dismissing a series of questions on the spy bill with the advice that "more people will watch" if the programme would "switch to snapper". The calculation, it seems, was that it could do him damage among those who might actually vote for him.
So the Prime Minister braved the Campbell Live studio. And he was formidable. There were some evasions, some elisions, and too many soothing assurances that have not in fact been inked into the legislation. But as far as the chess was concerned, Key was masterful, pushing John Campbell on to the defensive, grabbing the initiative, dwelling on issues that suited him because, after all, wasn't this about explaining things properly?
It was a striking reminder of John Key's ability as a political performer. He understands his audience - no, his audiences - as well as any politician in recent times. For a prime minister halfway through the second term, his command is astonishing. Even Campbell, who's seen a few, said it: "You're a brilliant politician."
The great strength of his media performances is the way that every pronouncement has a sort of silent prefix: "Oh, come on, be reasonable". And when his adversaries attack him as a buffoon or a devil - or a "psychopath" in the words of one prominent left-wing blogger reviewing the encounter yesterday - he grows stronger, more reasonable still. If opponents want to go for him personally, they'd be much wiser to cast him as shapeshifter, whatever the mood requires: one day a jovial dork, the next a forgetful bureaucrat, the next a ruthless political operator.
In the meantime, the Labour party has good reason to worry about how they can match him in campaign mode come 2014. Under the old electoral system another landslide would be just about guaranteed. And National's cousins in the Australian Liberal Party must be torn up with envy. I bet they'd swap him for their own daggy leader, Tony "Suppository" Abbott, in a heartbeat.

We wonder which "one prominent left-wing blogger" described Key as a "psychopath." We haven't visited The Standard for a while, and we never bother with The Daily Blog. But we suspect that the answer to our question almost certainly lies at one of the above.

In the meantime, the Left continues to dismiss John Key, to its peril. If the Left wants a third consecutive term in opposition, they should continue with that tactic, because it's working a treat for the PM!

Emmerson on John versus John

Herald cartoonist Rod Emmerson is at his brilliant best this morning as he reflects on the Campbell Live interview from Wednesday night:

Great stuff Mr Emmerson!

So much for the Campbell Live campaign

TV3's John Campbell and his fellow travelers have been trying to get John Key to come on the show for a few weeks to ambush him over the GCSB Bill. Yesterday they took to social media to advise that the Prime Minister had agreed to come on the show.

John Campbell may now be wishing that they hadn't tried so hard. Here's a link to the video of the interview, followed by TV3's overview of it:

Campbell Live has devoted much of this week to the GCSB bill. We're on a nationwide road trip, finding out whether you support or oppose the bill or even if you feel informed.

We've asked Prime Minister John Key to appear on a number of occasions to discuss the bill. He's always declined, until tonight.

"We got 124 submissions on the GCSB bill, and 30,000 on snapper," he says.

Mr Key says he spends a lot of time touring the country, but the GCSB bill is not a topic that comes up in his discussions.

"People do not raise GCSB. I have public meetings, I have question sessions at everything I do. I probably have half a dozen meetings a day with public engaging with people…People don't raise this issue," he tells Campbell Live.

The Prime Minister says under the changes, the GCSB will need to obtain a warrant from the Commissioner of High Security Warrants – a retired court judge appointed by Mr Key.

"[The surveillance of] Kim Dotcom was illegal under the old law, which is why I apologised, and it's illegal under the new law," Mr Key says.

Mr Key says some discussion around the bill has been misrepresented, and the organisation will not be able to spy on New Zealanders.

"The point here is that you're going into a shop, or you're going down the main street of New Zealand, and you are saying, 'Do you want to be spied on?' If you come and ask me that question the answer is no. But you cannot do that under Section Eight," he says.

Mr Key says the GCSB stopped surveillance of 88 New Zealanders last year under advice from lawyers.

"I'm a bit busy running the country…so I don't need to go in there and read out a pro-former second reading speech," he said when asked why he did not show up to the committee stages or second reading of the bill, before accusing Campbell Live of creating stories around the Dotcom saga.

"You've done so many stories which are absolute nonsense and you know they are, and I've actually answered those in the past," he says.

Mr Key says the original problems with the GCSB stem from a section passed by the Labour Government in 2003.

We didn't see the interview the first time around. But when we checked our Twitter feed around 7.30pm, there were all sorts of comments going on from some very unlikely sources about how John Key had schooled John Campbell, so we made sure that we watched the TV3 plus one channel at 8pm when Campbell Live replayed.

We know that we are biased, but John Key was absolutely masterful last night. Those who dismiss him as a lightweight could not be more wrong. He was factual, he refused to let John Campbell cut him off and/or speak over him, and he answered Campbell's questions at length and with detail.

And he made a very valid point; watch the video from around the 2 minute mark where Key talks about some of the misinformation in the public arena about the GCSB Bill. Key confirms that the Kitteridge Report identified 88 occasions between 2003 and 2012 where the GCSB may have acted unlawfully by providing support to external agencies; on average each year ONE for every HALF-MILLION New Zealanders.

The Left is trying to paint the GCSB Bill as giving the GCSB the power to undertake mass surveillance of New Zealanders. Patently that is fiction, and John Key exposed that fiction last night in a very powerful manner. The fact is that the GCSB's powers will be little different to what they were under Helen Clark, but they will be more clearly defined and less ambiguous, and they will be subject to considerably more scrutiny.

If John Campbell was hoping to ambush the Prime Minister last night, he will be awfully disappointed. We would go as far as to say that last night's interview was as good as any that John Key has given in his five years as Prime Minister.

And the Labour Party must be desperately worried. John Key regularly took on Sir Michael Cullen's rapier-sharp wit when he was Opposition finance spokesman and later Leader of the Opposition. In 2008 he went head-to-head with the formidable Helen Clark, forcing Miss Clark to resort to a jibe about Key shouting his family down. And in 2011 Key was all over the experienced Phil Goff in the televised leaders' debates. How could they even consider putting the gaffe-prone David Shearer up against him?

In 17 minutes last night, John Key went a long way towards answering criticisms of the GCSB legislation. Sure, the extreme activist element will continue to beat this up, but John Key is dead right; far, far more people care about how many snapper they can legally catch than whether the state will spy on them. No amount of beating up of the GCSB issue by John Campbell, David Fisher, Kim Dotcom et al will change that.

Quote of the Day - 12 August 2013

This comes from John Key's speech to the National Party faithful in Nelson yesterday, and sounds a word of caution about what New Zealand's future COULD look like:

Under MMP, all elections are close elections. And they are not just about National versus Labour, but about the centre-right versus the left. And it's clear for everyone to see that Labour has hitched their wagon to the Greens, lurching the opposition to the far left.
Make no mistake, our opposition comes from the far left of politics. The Greens are leading Labour by the nose. It's important that New Zealanders understand what a Green-dominated government would look like. They want to tax you more, rack up more debt and make you work two more years before you can retire. They want a government department to run the entire electricity system, just like it did in the old days when we had blackouts. They want to stop oil, gas and mineral exploration that would create jobs and growth. They blame foreigners for all the ills of the country when our future prosperity lies in being open and connected to the rest of the world.
They even characterize businesses relocating jobs from Australia to New Zealand as 'deeply worrying'. And they take petty, opportunistic political positions on national security in the face of the obvious need to clarify the GCSB law - a law they passed in the first place!

The thought of a LabourGreen government after the next election is bad enough. But the prospect of a LabourGreenNZFirstMana government fills us with a sense of dread.

And it's a double-banger Quote of the Day today; here's John Key's message to David Shearer, Russel Norman and Metiria Turei:

The fundamental difference between us and the opposition is that we are about doing things, and they are about stopping things. As we prepare ourselves for the election next year, I can tell you that I'm as fired up to win now, as I first was in 2008.
My message to David Shearer and Russel Norman is this - get used to another three years in opposition.

Amen to that!

Footnote: The full speech, including the first home buyers announcement can be viewed here.