Armstrong on referenda, the Greens and hypocrisy

John Armstrong rips into the Greens this morning, accusing them of hypocrisy over the asset sales referendum. Under the heading Referendums past their sell-by date, Armstrong opines (with our emphasis added):

The time has surely arrived to dump New Zealand's failed two-decade-old experiment with American-style citizens-initiated referendums.
Anyone questioning that recommendation should look no further than some of the self-serving behaviour following last Monday's official authorisation of such a plebiscite on National's partial privatisation programme.
The will of the people - David Lange once observed - was a fickle beast. It could be an awful tyrant; it could be a terrible slave.
Someone should have told the Greens. They are happy to accept the will of the people when it comes to the results of the forthcoming referendum on asset sales. But not so when it came to the 2009 referendum on smacking. That is hypocrisy, pure and simple. If you accept the will of the people once, you have to accept it for good. And that is not a recipe for good government.

Ouch! But Armstrong is dead right; the Greens' hypocrisy is there for all to see, and he is dead right to have called them on it.

He's not done though; read on:

If you do accept it, you accept your Cabinet decisions are going to be proscribed by referendum. The Greens would not like that happening to them. So why impose such restraints on National.

There has been a lot of talk this week about the will of the people. The Greens and Labour argued that had been ignored by John Key following the referendum announcement.
The Prime Minister was accused of being anti-democratic in refusing to halt the upcoming floats of shares in Meridian Energy and Genesis Energy, plus the sale of shares in Air New Zealand, until the referendum has taken place. He was castigated for saying National would ignore the result of the referendum because it had a mandate for the sale of up to 49 per cent of those state-owned electricity generators courtesy of its stunning result at the 2011 election.
To top things off, Key then dismissed the referendum as an "utter waste of money".
That line got wide pick-up with editorial writers across the country asking why $9 million in taxpayers' money was being spent on a postal referendum solely so Labour and the Greens could make a political point that everybody already knew - that a lot more people oppose asset sales than support them.
Sensing they were on the wrong side of the argument regarding cost, the two major Opposition parties the next day offered to help pass legislation which would enable the referendum to be held at the same time as next year's general election - a move that would be cheaper than a postal ballot. That remained conditional, however, on National putting asset sales on hold until then.
That drew a scathing response from Acting Prime Minister Bill English, who said it was typical of Labour to offer something that was not within its power.
Suddenly it was apparent the referendum horse had bolted in the four months since the petition seeking a referendum initially failed for lack of sufficient valid signatures. The public's desire for a referendum has cooled substantially. Once again, John Key had outmanoeuvred his opponents and captured the high ground when they thought they held it.

John Armstrong is dead right; the asset sales horse has bolted. Mighty River Power shares were sold some months ago, and the sky hasn't fallen, unless people foolishly bought the shares hoping to make a fast buck. That was certainly not our intent when we bought MRP shares, and nor will it be when we buy Meridian shares; they are a long-term investment in New Zealand's future.

And Armstrong gives us a bit of a political history lesson:

The country's politicians should daily give thanks to Sir Douglas Graham, National's astute Justice Minister for much of the 1990s, for making the referendums non-binding.
He was obliged to implement a promise inserted in National's 1990 election manifesto following demands from the more reactionary elements in the National Party
When the law allowing voters recourse to these devices was passed by Parliament 20 years ago, Labour's Michael Cullen described the measure as "an ill-thought-out piece of political flummery" and predicted correctly that it would end up satisfying no one. He was too kind. Making it mandatory for governments to implement the results of referendums risks making good government nigh on impossible.
Making such referendums non-binding on governments, however, renders those referendums as next to useless.

Both John Armstrong, and (dare we say it?) Michael Cullen are/were dead right. There is nothing to be gained from this referendum. It is solely an exercise in political posturing and positioning with the 2014 General Election in mind. If the public dislikes asset sales sufficiently, it will vote National out next year. And if partial asset sales are not seen as particularly offensive or significant, National may well be re-elected.

National campaigned on its Mixed Ownership Model policy, and formed a government under the conditions of the MMP system of democracy. That gave them a mandate to implement EVERY policy they had campaigned on. By contrast Labour, the Greens, NZ First and Mana all campaigned against asset sales, but did not win enough public support to form an MMP government.

It's called democracy folks. It may not be perfect, but it sure beats the alternatives.

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.

Quote of the Day - 2 September 2013

We're still catching up on news, opinion etc on this side of the ditch. But we had to laugh when we read Paul Little's take on #Labour'sGotTalent in the Herald on Sunday:

Which brings us to the Labour leadership selection and the figures - in strict alphabetical order - of David Cunliffe, Shane Jones and Grant Robertson.

Never have three bald men fought more fiercely over possession of a comb than this trio is doing over a prize no one in their right mind could want.
As soon-to-be-redundant jobs go, leader of the Labour Party is up there with sales manager at the electric typewriter factory and cinema projectionist.
But when another friend asked breathlessly: "What about David Shearer resigning?" I was reminded that there are still some liberals out there who take Labour seriously as a political force.
The media have been trying very hard to add some oomph to the Labour leadership campaign and good on them because you'd be waiting a long time for any of the colourless candidates to set the electorate's pulse racing.
They will march forward to September 15, humming the old refrain about restoring a fair go for the average Kiwi - just as the other side does - without a clue as to how to bring that about.
But imagine a world in which you looked forward to hearing what a politician had to say on an issue because it would be practical, sensible and inspiring, a world in which leaders actually led.
Not easy, is it?

Three bald men fighting over possession of a comb; if ever there was a metaphor to describe the Three Amigos' quest for the leadership of the Labour Party, that is it.

Well said Paul Little.

What does Hamish think?

Labour and the Greens have made a big deal about the integration this year of Wanganui Collegiate School. You'll often see it here when regular commenter, teacher and union delegate bsprout brings it up.

Chris Hipkins asked about Wanganui Collegiate again at Question Time yesterday. Labour isn't happy because there hasn't yet been a large uptake on the opportunity for integration. That will happen, but it won't happen overnight.

But whilst Labour and the Greens have turned Collegiate into a political football, we wonder if anyone has asked Labour's Whanganui candidate Hamish McDouall what he thinks. Well, as a matter of fact, the Wanganui Chronicle did just that late last year; check this out:

Wanganui Labour candidate and Collegiate old boy Hamish McDouall said the beauty of the school was that it attracted important international attention,
"It was very important for this district that integration was granted ... I am very pleased that it has been."
Mr McDouall said that as well as Collegiate being granted state integration, he hoped the other four state secondary schools in Wanganui were also looked after: "There are top local secondary schools here."

Oh dear; not only is Hamish McDouall an old boy of Wanganui Collegiate; he's also a strong supporter of the decision to integrate the school.

And so he should be. Collegiate is a big employer in Wanganui, and a local icon. It has produced many fine New Zealanders in politics, sport, farming and business. It is unthinkable that the school may have been forced to close.

Playing politics with these sorts of things is all very well. But sometimes, as Labour discovered yesterday, it blows up in your face.

Is Shane Jones Labour's saviour?

One commodity that Shane Jones has never lacked is faith in his own ability. But now he sees himself as the Labour Party's last chance of salvation; the Northland Age reports:

Awanui's Labour list MP Shane Jones sees David Cunliffe as the front runner for the Labour Party leadership following David Shearer's resignation, but if the party wanted to win the next election, he said yesterday, he was the only chance it had.
"We need someone who can resonate with New Zealanders, and I'm the only one who can do that," he said.

And let's just say that the "lightbulb moment" when the self-annointing came upon Mr Jones was "interesting"; read on:

Mr Jones said he had come to his decision to seek the job on Friday, while he was mowing his lawns. Touted by commentators from the outset as a potential candidate, albeit a long shot, he said he had no doubt that, unlike is opponents, he could attract blue-collar workers back to the Labour fold and take on "the $50 million gorilla," Prime Minister John Key.
His style of "smoko room" politics and debating ability were the best way to beat National and get working-class voters to turn to Labour, which he said had lost its relevance.
His skill as an orator, his Maori heritage and his common touch are also regarded by his supporters as strengths that would serve him well in the election process, and as party leader.

Mr Jones acknowledged that one or two missteps in the past could reduce his chances, but he had done his penance and had a clear conscience.
"I'm not running to be the Pope. I'm running to be the leader of the Labour Party," he said, adding that he had years of experience of debating on marae and in politics, and had no fears about facing Mr Key in Parliament and election debates.

One thing is for sure. Shane Jones is the only one of the three Labour leadership candidates to whom Chris Trotter's mythical Waitakere Man could relate. And he knows it:

He also believed that his ability to focus on basic issues that mattered to voters would attract support.
"The Labour brand is a proud and true brand. Unfortunately we have allowed that brand to become irrelevant in how a whole bunch of New Zealanders see their personal circumstances," he said.
"The 800,000 who didn't vote last time need to see Labour as relevant to what they need to help bring their kids up. It's simple stuff: jobs, income, security, sport, life."

It's hard not to accept the truth in Shane Jones' words about Labour Party voters having been alienated by Labour's social engineering/political correctness agenda in the Clark years and since. This is fertile ground for Matua Shane (as he calls himself on Twitter) to mine.

Of course it's unlikely that Shane Jones will win the Labour leadership. His candidacy however has exposed a real weakness in the campaigns of Grant Robertson and David Cunliffe who, despite their best intentions, do not speak the language of the type of person who used to vote Labour. Labour ought not ignore that fact.

Bring it on!

David Shearer is gone, and will soon be forgotten, inasmuch as his time as the Labour Party leader goes. And his decisions are quickly being rolled back, including one rather contentious one; Stuff reports (with our emphasis added):

Labour's leadership contenders have begun shedding some light on the direction they would take the party and the country if successful at next year's election.
Grant Robertson has said he expects the three candidates will start rolling out individual policy preferences at the public meetings over the next two weeks.
In the meantime, they have largely adhered to the party line though they outlined some of their thoughts this morning.
Under David Cunliffe and Robertson, the "man-ban" – which would allow some electorates to have women-only candidates – could be back on the table if the party wants to revive the idea at the annual conference in November. 

Oh dear. It looks as though the Labour Party is going to have to man up, swallow deeply and elect Shane Jones as leader unless it is again to become the laughing stock.

Labour took an absolute shellacking over the proposed Man-Ban, and for good cause too. Not only is it sexist, but the policy is actually patronising and demeaning to women by implying that they need a quota system or some other such artificial means to get ahead.

The determination of two of the Labour Party leadership candidates to push through such a daft policy does not bode well for Labour's chances of convincing the electorate that it deserves another chance. If Labour MP's were hoping for less sideshows and more cut-through with Mr Shearer gone, they are going to have to get behind Mr Jones, and help him win the hearts and the minds of the party faithful.

And above all Waitakere Man, the mythical voter who Labour is trying to win back is going to be singularly unimpressed by what Grant Robertson and David Cunliffe are proposing. But who are we to try and stop them? 

"Bring it on!" we say!

Where has Matt McCarten been hiding?

Matt McCarten's weekly Herald advertisement for left-wing causes is devoted to Labour's leadership battle. Feel free to go and have a read; it's normal McCarten fare.

But you have to wonder where McCarten has been hiding when he writes something like this (the emphasis is ours):

Common sense suggests neither contender will have a deputy running mate.
Robertson has been a loyal deputy and has done nothing to undermine Shearer. That has earned him points. Cunliffe has the opposite reputation, not just with Shearer but with Phil Goff when he was leader.

Sorry Matt, but that cannot go unchallenged. Grant Robertson has undermined David Shearer from the day that Mr Shearer misguidedly appointed him as his deputy leader. Robertson stacked the leader's office with his people. Robertson has stood idly by while Shearer made gaffe after gaffe after gaffe.

And where was the "loyal deputy" at 1.30pm on Thursday when David Shearer fronted the media to announce his resignation? If Grant Robertson had truly been a "loyal deputy", he would have been standing at Shearer's shoulder. Whether his absence from the media conference was his own decision or because David Shearer made a belated defiant stand and told him to stay away is irrelevant; it was a lasting indictment on Mr Robertson.

David Shearer broke the golden rule by appointing a deputy leader who had ambitions for the top job. He should have looked at successful Prime Ministers past such as Jim Bolger, Helen Clark and even John Key who had as their deputies Don McKinnon, Michael Cullen and Bill English; solid, experienced and dependable politicians, without any future ambition to lead.

Matt McCarten used to be a shrewd political operative. That he is reduced to trying to talk up Grant Robertson in this manner suggests that he has passed his use-by date. Then again, perhaps the Mana Party doesn't want David Cunliffe leading Labour.

The Dave 'n' Julia Caption Contest

As we've said before, some photographs just cry out for a Caption Contest; and this is one of those:

You know the rules; keep 'em short, humourous and pithy, and don't get unnecessarily personal. Beyond that, you're limited only by your own imagination.

We'll get things started:

Well Julia; now I know what it's like to be Rudded. But it's been a Helen of an experience...

We can't help but wonder...

Early in July, Cameron Slater broke the story of Labour's Man-Ban. On this occasion, the NZ Herald was sufficiently gracious to give him credit for a significant political scoop; check this out:

The Labour Party is set to introduce a new rule under which electorates will be able to prevent men from seeking selection as a candidate by restricting it to women only.
A copy of the draft rules were leaked to blogger Whaleoil and include a provision: "An LEC [Labour Electorate Committee] may request that NZ Council determine that only women may nominate for the position of Labour candidate for their electorate."
Labour's secretary Tim Barnett confirmed the rule change was included in the changes the NZ Council hoped to get approved at the party's annual conference in November. The proposal was from a working party set up after last year's conference, at which the party had set a target of 50 per cent female representation.

Labour copped an absolute shellacking in the media, on social media and in the blogosphere, and rightly so. And because it took David Shearer five days before he flip-flopped and declared the Man-Ban to be off the agenda, the party was damaged in the polls. It is ultimately poor poll ratings that has cost David Shearer his job.

Someone else will be the Labour Party leader come the party's annual conference in November. So we can't help but wonder; given the roles of Maryan Street and Ruth Dyson in harnessing caucus discontent with Mr Shearer, might the Man-Ban be back on the agenda now?

Whatever would Waitakere Man make of that? We guess now that all those who stick their hands up for Mr Shearer's job are going to face significant scrutiny on issues such as the Man-Ban

The strange case of the missing deputy

Four Labour MP's accompanied David Shearer to the media conference where he announced his resignation yesterday. From left to right they are Kris Faafoi, Chris Hipkins, Shane Jones and Annette King.

Grant Robertson was a noticeable absentee. We commented on that yesterday, but we have pondered it since, and the more we ponder, the worse it looks.

You see, we reckon that leadership teams are just that; teams. The leader and the deputy leader should stick together through thick and thin, and even in the worst case scenario such as yesterday, the deputy leader should be there to show his support for his boss.

And our ponderings got even deeper when we read this in the Herald:

A group of Labour MPs were planning a motion of no confidence against party leader David Shearer at the caucus meeting on Tuesday - a step pre-empted by his resignation from the leadership yesterday.
Mr Shearer said he was stepping down because he had not achieved the desired results.
After taking "soundings" from some of his colleagues, he believed he had lost the confidence of many Labour MPs, and it was time for a change before next year's election.
He said there was no challenge against him.
But the Herald has learned MP Maryan Street was preparing a motion of no confidence in Mr Shearer for Tuesday's meeting.
Plans were also being made to send a delegation to him before that to ask him to stand down rather than force the confidence vote.
The MPs involved were certain the motion would have succeeded if it had been required.
Ms Street would not comment yesterday, but it is understood she decided to front the motion because of growing concerns among MPs over Mr Shearer's inability to fire as leader and his poor poll ratings.
A source said there had been discussions for months, but nobody was willing to force the issue until Ms Street stepped up.
One Labour source also said former Prime Minister Helen Clark had been "active" on the issue while in New Zealand over the past fortnight, speaking to some MPs about it.
It is not known if Mr Shearer knew the no-confidence motion was coming, although some MPs close to him had heard rumours of it.

Grant Robertson worked extensively for Helen Clark prior to becoming an MP in 2008. He was such a member of Clark's inner circle that he has often been referred to as H3; just lower in the oecking order than Miss Clark's fearsome Chief of Staff Heather Simpson (H2).

So we reckon that explains Mr Robertson's absence yesterday; he has been donkey-deep in the undermining of David Shearer, and has been flagrantly disloyal to his gaffer. Either he chose to stay away, in a final, public show of disloyalty, or David Shearer told him to sling his hook. If it is the latter, our respect for Mr Shearer has just gone up a notch.

So we reckon that Grant Robertson should follow Mr Shearer's lead and put his own job on the line; after all he can't be both leader and deputy leader. And we doubt that David Cunliffe would have him as his deputy; not after the way that Mr Robertson has behaved towards the man who began yesterday as Leader of the Opposition and ended it with the weight of the world off his shoulders.

What role has Helen Clark played in this?

Guess who was speaking in Nelson last night; Stuff reports:

Did Helen Clark know David Shearer was about to walk?
Last night the former prime minister seemed to take a swipe at Shearer as she recalled her own tough baptism in the 1990s and listed the qualities she thought a successful leader needed.
She didn't directly discuss Shearer's plight during an interview with the Nelson Mail, but her comments could be read as implicit criticism of his performance.
Clark, who was in Nelson to deliver last night's 70th Cawthron lecture, said: "I went through unhappy times. I remember Easter of the first year I was leader of the Opposition. The political editor of TVNZ went on the screen and said I wouldn't last the year. I eventually hit 2 per cent and the Labour Party polling went as low as 14 per cent. It's hard-hat time when this happens."
She said to survive that, "I had to have nerves of steel and believe that I was the right person for the job, and have a strategy to build back from there".
Self-belief and attractive, clear policy positions consistent with the party's position were required.
"It's hard work - very hard work. It's always the case that you can't work harder - you have to work smarter."
Clark also said it was a pity that the relationship between the Government and Labour had broken down over the GCSB bill, because in the past the major parties had been able to work together on the security services.
She had been both GCSB and SIS minister, and had also sat alongside then prime minister, National's Jenny Shipley, when the SIS legislation was reviewed.
"A lot of the things that I suggested got picked up. Traditionally there has been a lot of co-operation between the Government and the main opposition - but it requires both to walk some steps."
She said from her experience as a minister she could say "without equivocation" that the people in both agencies were very loyal and professional public servants.
"Secondly, we need them, because the world is not an innocent and happy place."
Third, when it was decided that the law needed to be changed, "I think things always go better if there's an ability to have an open dialogue across the parties". 

We've heard a few interesting stories this afternoon. One of those is that serious change is afoot at the Labour Party HQ, Fraser House in Wellington. We've had it suggested to us that the jobs of Labour Party president Moira Coatsworth and general secretary Tim Barnett are on the line, and that Labour has been told that wholesale change is required.

Now whether Helen Clark has had anything at all to do with all this is at this point just speculation. But it is well known that she was not happy with the adversarial stance that Labour took over the rewrite of her GCSB legislation. That is borne out in the comments above.

Helen Clark may no longer be active in the Labour Party. But given that the party is stacked with people who she personally promoted, it would be naive to suggest that she no longer has any influence. 

We don't like Helen Clark's politics, but she is a formidable politician. It would not surprise us one iota if Miss Clark's cellphone had been working overtime over the last few days.

Breaking news; David Shearer resigns

UPDATE: David Shearer has just announced his resignation as leader of the Labour Party and Leader of the Opposition. 

He does not believe that he is the right person to lead the party to the next election, and has offered his successor his full support. The NZLP will now formally begin the process of electing a new leader under the party's revised rules, which were changed at the last Labour Party conference.

Neither Mr Shearer nor Labour's senior whip Chris Hipkins would answer questions from the media. No-one will say whether Mr Shearer fell on his sword, or was pushed.

We have however just heard on 3News that Phil Goff and Shane Jones were seen earlier today leaving Mr Shearer's office, with Goff patting Jones on the back. It would seem that our Whodunnit? rating for Mr Jones of 8.5/10, the highest score we awarded may have been right on the money.

And can you spot a noticeable absentee while David Shearer was announcing his resignation this afternoon?

Where was Grant Robertson? Surely, you'd expect the deputy leader to be there to support the outgoing leader at a time like this. Has Mr Robertson's campaign for the leadership begun already?

Meanwhile, here's the Herald's take on it:

David Shearer will stand down as Labour leader, saying he no longer believed he had the full confidence of his caucus.
He said Labour had not had the lift in the polls needed under his leadership and his soundings of caucus had indicated he should step aside to allow a fresh start.
"My sense is I no longer have the full confidence of many of my caucus colleagues,"
Mr Shearer called the press conference at short notice this afternoon following a Labour caucus meeting this morning.
Mr Shearer told the press conference it was better he step down so there could be a "clean change to a new leader who can take Labour through to victory in 2014''.
He said he looked forward to continuing as a member of the Labour Party and as the MP for Mt Albert.
"Whoever becomes the new leader can rely on my full support,'' he said.
There was no explanation at Mr Shearer's hastily called press conference about why he stood down and no word on who may take over.

And Stuff reports thus:

Labour leader David Shearer has stepped aside, saying he didn't think he had support of his full caucus.
Shearer said his resignation would be effective once a new leader was elected.
Whip Chris Hipkins said a replacement would be decided in three to four weeks. He said he had informed the party president Moira Coatsworth and secretary Tim Barnett this morning.
Heading into the House with list MP Jacinda Ardern, Wellington Central MP Grant Robertson said he was the acting leader but he could not say who was acting deputy.
Shearer's seat was empty when the House sat at 2pm.
Asked about the Government's programme for next week, Leader of the House Gerry Brownlee joked there was plenty to keep Labour occupied next week - and in coming weeks.
Shearer told reporters it had been a privilege to lead the party for the past 20 months.
''But we do need to do more. So the time has come for me to hand over to a new leader who can take Labour through to 2014."

*************************

Stand by for a major political announcement at 1.30pm. David Shearer is holding a media conference after an urgent, hastily-convened Labour caucus meeting, and is expected to announce that he will stand down as Labour Party leader.

And Duncan Garner didn't break this story!

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.

Tweet of the Day - 20 August 2013

What is Trevor Mallard up to with this tweet?

So why would Mr Mallard be describing a group including Grant Robertson, David Cunliffe and Andrew Little as Labour's "B team"? Has David Shearer fought off the challengers?

Or is the long-serving Hutt South MP having a senior moment? So many questions...

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.

We can't help but wonder...

Phil Goff is under fire, even from within his own party; Andrea Vance from Stuff reports:

Labour MP Phil Goff is under fire for a "misogynistic" barb directed at Attorney-General Chris Finlayson.
During a parliamentary debate on new spying laws yesterday, the pair traded insults about election defeats.
Goff mocked Finlayson for being "beaten on three occasions, each time by a woman".
"I've won 11 times and I've lost once, but the member in the chair [Finlayson] has lost three times," he said.
"You would think that would be a humbling experience, but the arrogance of the minister shows no sign at all that he's learnt from being beaten on three occasion, each time by a woman member of Parliament."
Finlayson ran against Annette King in the Rongotai electorate in 2008 and 2011. In 2005, he lost to former Labour MP Winnie Laban in Mana. 

It's not the first time of course that Labour members have singled Christopher Finlayson out for abuse. As we have previously blogged, both those wonderfully liberal Labour MP's Trevor Mallard and Clayton Cosgrove are recorded for posterity in Hansard for calling Finlayson "Tinkerbell".

But Goff has even attracted attention from high up the Labour Party tree:

Kate Sutton tweeted that the Mt Roskill MP's remarks were "bad form".
"Its that kind of sexism the Labour Party doenst [sic] need," she said. 

Kate Sutton is, of course, a former Women's Vice-president of the Labour Party, and is influential within the party's hierarchy. So we can't help but wonder; when the Labour Party proposed women-only electorate contests ( the Man-Ban), was Phil Goff's Roskill electorate the kind of electorate that they had in mind?

Tweet of the Day - 9 August 2013

He takes aim; he shoots; he scores!

It's a classic SMOG (Social Media Own Goal) from Trevor Mallard as he tells New Zealand exactly what electing a Labour government would mean, and gets pwned for his efforts by Cameron Slater:

Give it up Trevor; you're the gift that just keeps on giving!

Labour leaking like a sieve

Cameron Slater is the beneficiary of another leak from within the Labour Party. And this one should be of interest to ALL taxpayers, because it's OUR money that Labour is planning to spend; Slater blogs:

The Labour party continues to leak and this morning I have received documents outlining just exactly how the Labour party plans to echo their $800,000 rort with the pledge card and fund the promotion of their NZ Power policy from taxpayers pockets.
The documents are very clear. They state:

The Leader’s [Office] will provide a targeted mail drop to support upcoming public meetings on NZ Power. We’ll provide the target list, the letter, the collateral, printing and deliver the target mail to electorate offices.

In other words the costs associated with the promotion of a Labour party policy is to be billed to parliamentary services. They go further:

Note: Larger print runs are much more cost effective. So we’ll be looking to combine the print run of as many meetings as possible. 

Nice that they are trying to get as much as possible for the taxpayers dollar. 
On top of that they are looking to utilise the resources of MPs and their offices.

MPs will organise and facilitate the public meetings. This includes building the crowd. The Leader’s Office will be able to assist with collateral and a targeted mail drop. For larger meetings we’ll get the Leader involved.

Such nice words…”assist with collateral”…that means preparation, printing and delivery all paid for with public money. Plus they are planning on using taxpayer funded electorate offices as distribution points.
Labour are broke, we know that from other leaks. Like the last time they ran out of money Labour are shamelessly planning on raiding the taxpayer’s pockets to fund their election campaigns and policy launches.
Full documents below.

LEAKED: NZ Power Public Meetings Project Plan

It shouldn't come as any surprise that the Labour Party is dipping into the public purse again to promote its discredited NZ Power policy. But David Shearer and Fran Mold should be very worried that these leaks from Labour's inner sanctum just keep coming.

Someone is trying to pull the rug out from underneath the feet of Labour leader David Shearer. Who could it be?