Home »
Posts filed under Dominion-Post
The Mark "Hammer" Hammett era at the Hurricanes is over. The 'Canes failed by a single competition point to make the play-offs this year, giving Hammett the perfect record that no coach would want; four years, and four times missing the post-season.
Toby Robson from the Dom-Post takes a look at the Hammer Era. Under the headline Hammer failed to nail it at Hurricanes Robson opines:Mark Hammett slipped at the start line and never fully recovered.
A pity because the man known as Hammer showed himself to be a good bloke, a hard worker who genuinely cared for his players and his team.
His coaching ability during his four years in charge was less certain.
Hammett will probably become a very good head coach if he isn't one already, but Hurricanes fans shouldn't have had to watch him perform his apprenticeship.
He will likely acknowledge in hindsight that he wasn't quite ready to leap from Crusaders assistant to Hurricanes head honcho in 2011.
A more experienced head coach may have handled the departures of then captain Andrew Hore and 100-game Hurricane Ma'a Nonu with a little more tact.
Hammett's principles and intentions might have been admirable, but the execution of such a big change was poor from all involved and it hung over his efforts for the next three years.
Fairly or not, those early events will be the historical reference point for a period that saw the Hurricanes finish ninth, eighth, 11th and seventh with a winning percentage of just 46 per cent.
The appointment of veteran coaches Chris Boyd and John Plumtree as Hammett's successors suggest lessons have been learned.
Mark Hammett clearly felt under pressure to "sort out" perceived discipline issues in the Hurricanes in his first season. To a degree, that was one of his biggest successes, as the team was far more disciplined in the three seasons that followed. But the Hurricanes were simply not consistent enough, even if on their best days they were unbeatable.Robson does have some kind things to say about Hammett though; read on: Results aside, Hammett deserves credit for having the guts to take a punt and shift north to Wellington from Christchurch.
He had the fortitude to make some tough calls at a franchise that had slipped into bad habits.
Technically, his players have praised his abilities there is healthy buzz around the Newtown training base where hard work has never been hard to find.
But consistency of performance has not matched the talk or the talent.
Selections often frustrated and confused. Last season it was the promotion of Tusi Pisi ahead of Beauden Barrett at first five-eighth against the Blues, a year earlier the resting of key players during a home loss to the lowly Cheetahs.
This year it was the early season preference of the work-man-like Adam Hill over Faifili Levave and Ardie Savea at loose forward, the non-selection of Andre Taylor at fullback, then the use of Cardiff Vaega at second five-eighth against the Brumbies when Alapati Leiua was the obvious midfield choice.
Leiua's move to the midfield was a major success, but probably a season too late.
Late season injuries to Victor Vito, Levave, Taylor, Leiua and Conrad Smith hurt the Hurricanes as they lost to the Chiefs to come up one bonus point short of their first playoff berth since 2009.
Mark Hammett's tenure as Hurricanes head coach may not have produced the on-field results that he, his players and the franchise's management wanted. But he leaves the Hurricanes in good hear, with a core of young players such as Julian and Ardie Savea, Beauden Barrett, TJ Perenara, Dane Coles, Blade Thompson and Jeffrey Toomaga-Allen. They will form the nucleus of Chris Boyd's first Hurricanes squad in 2015.Hammett brought change to the Hurricanes, especially in the franchise's culture. For that, at least, he should be thanked. But professional sport is all about results on the field, and by any measure, Hammett's tenure has been a failure. We live in hope that Chris Boyd and John Plumtree can achieve success on the field, and that the Hurricanes may in fact break their Super Rugby duck in our lifetime, but we won't hold our breath. Nor however will we stop supporting them; after all, we've supported the New Zealand cricket team for more than 50 years!
Whilst this entire Dominion-Post column from Duncan Garner is well worth a read, the opening in particular stood out. The piece is headed Don't follow the leader: Cunliffe's demise will be Granted and Garner opines:
Labour ditched former leader David Shearer because he struggled to string two sentences together on a good day. So surely it couldn't have got any worse, right? Wrong.
It's a train wreck under David Cunliffe and Labour's MPs are grumpy, nervous and wondering what they may be doing for a crust after September 20. The prospect of losing your job and the $150,000 salary always focuses the mind.
This week Labour slumped to 23 per cent in Fairfax's stuff/Ipsos poll - under Shearer it was in the low 30s when he was dumped.
Cunliffe has taken the party backwards when he promised to take it forward. Could Labour be on track to record its worst-ever election defeat? Yes.
When Cunliffe utters a word or two these days the collective intake of breath among his MPs is simply frightening.
He's had a host of gaffes this year - and the best he's looked was when he shut up and stood in the background while his wife, Karen Price, talked about the birds (chickens) and the bees in an interview at their home.
Cunliffe was parachuted into the job of leader, not because his MPs really wanted him - most dislike him - but because Labour Party members and union affiliates were desperate for someone to articulate their values.
To say he's been a disappointment is an understatement. After this week's horrors he looks unelectable as the next prime minister. He's genuinely gone from bad to worse.
Garner certainly hasn't pulled any punches in his op-ed this morning. And we don't imagine that David Cunliffe will have felt any particular fondness towards the RadioLive host and former 3News political editor as he read the piece this morning over his bircher meusli with honey (freshly gathered) and trim latte at his Herne Bay "mid-range do-up".We do suggest that you read the whole piece, which ends by suggesting that Grant Robertson could roll David Cunliffe right now, but that he and Jacinda Ardern will wait until after the election. Whilst Robertson's lack of action now very likely condemns Labour to a third term in opposition, you can hardly blame him.
The Dominion-Post took a deep breath and waited for an extra day before penning an editorial on David Cunliffe. But the delay makes it no less condemnatory; under the headline Scratch that itch while you can David the editorial opines:
David Cunliffe itched to be Labour Party leader for years. After losing power in 2008, the party lumbered along under two failing leaders. He barely hid his ambitions to replace them.
Now, 10 months into his tenure, he should take a moment to enjoy the role. Barring a miraculous campaign performance, he'll be finished soon.
Two events this week have pinned Cunliffe to the wall. One is a 23 per cent poll rating - apocalyptic territory for a major party. The other is an 11-year-old letter that contradicted his flat denial that he had ever helped controversial businessman Donghua Liu.
Never mind that the poll may be an outlier. Never mind that the letter is a fairly bland document, the type that MPs send out in droves over the course of a political career. Never mind that dodgy memories are congenital in politicians, as Prime Minister John Key will confirm.
The heart of the problem is Cunliffe's judgment and temperament, which have been found lacking yet again. Under direct questions on a specific matter, about a public figure involved in repeated scandals, the Labour leader got it completely, insistently wrong.
The Donghua Liu situation has certainly harmed David Cunliffe's reputation. But it is the continuing flow of negative polling that is hurting the most. Even yesterday afternoon, the Roy Morgan poll had a yawning gap between National and any Labour/Green alliance. Those MP's towards the bottom end of Labour's list are going to be very nervous at the moment.The editorial continues, noting an odd decision by the Labour leader to lambast potentially two thirds of his caucus: He followed up the blunder by issuing veiled threats at caucus colleagues considering disloyalty - all but calling them "scabs".
If Cunliffe was ahead in the polls, or if this was an isolated misstep, he could shrug it off quickly. But his support is so low, and his gaffes so familiar, the impression will linger longer than the incident itself: that he is not up to running the country.
From his secret trust for donations to his leadership bid, to his laughable description of his $2.5 million Herne Bay home as a "doer-upper", Cunliffe has repeatedly made a fool of himself in awkward, revealing ways.
Combine those mistakes with a haughty, serious style, a tendency to preach instead of persuade, a fondness for vague rallying cries (with liberal talk of "Kiwis") instead of insights that speak to people's concerns, and Cunliffe's predicament is not surprising.
Of course, the self-fulfilling nature of bad polling plays a part, too. Watching a party go into freefall is something like a bank run; no-one wants to be the last supporter standing. But Cunliffe has failed to stop the panic.
The point about the self-fulfilling nature of polling is very valid here. There have been three polls this week. Labour's best result was in the Herald-DigiPoll, which showed the party up marginally to 30.5%. But a party supported by less than a third of voters is not going to be able to lead a coalition government. Roy Morgan had Labour at 28.5%, and of course the nadir was the Stuff-Ipsos poll where Labour garnered just 23.2% support; less than one in four.After either today or tomorrow, depending on how one interprets the words "the 3 months prior to the announced date of a general election" in Labour's constitution, a no-confidence vote in the leader can be triggered within the Labour caucus, and a new leader can be elected without having to go to the party and the unions. Replacing David Cunliffe in this manner would be extreme, and would risk alienating supporters and unions (and their dollars). We think it is an unlikely outcome, but it is one that cannot be ruled out if the next round of TV polls confirms this week's polling.
But the mere fact that this discussion is even taking place suggests Labour is not a happy place at the moment. Momentum plays a big role in politics, and right at the moment Labour has none. There will be a number of Labour MP's looking nervously at their prospects of employment beyond 20 September, and that cannot be good news for David Cunliffe.
The Dom-Post manages to send a strong message to David Cunliffe and Labour whilst barely naming them. Under the headline Immigrants aren't scapegoats the Dom-Post opines:
Immigrants are easy prey for political vultures. Demagogues can win votes by using foreigners as scapegoats, as has happened repeatedly in New Zealand's history. So the argument about the effect of immigration on housing could easily turn poisonous. It's important not to let that happen.
The Budget's big surprise was the revelation of a turn in the usual tide of migration. The outward flow has turned into a net inward movement, mainly because fewer Kiwis are moving to Australia. Now there is concern that the inflow will push up house prices.
Panic measures will not help with this problem, as Labour seemed to realise soon after pledging a cut in net immigration. Asked exactly how big the cut would be, Labour faltered and fudged.
Immigration flows cannot be turned off and on like a tap. The present trans-Tasman inflow could quite quickly reverse as the rebuilding of Christchurch reduces, our growth rate falls, and Australia's economy rebounds. Big cuts in immigrant numbers would then exacerbate the renewed outward flow.
The country is entitled to control immigration and there might be room for some temporary reduction in immigrants. This would have to be done carefully, together with other measures to control house prices, such as interest rate rises. The danger is that immigration will become a hot topic and governments will over-react.
The effects of a moral panic about immigration go much wider than the immediate issue of house prices. National's scapegoating of Pacific immigrants in the 1975 election caused great harm to race relations. It led directly to the dawn raids and an outpouring of repressed prejudice.
Winston Peters' anti-Asian campaigns in the 1996 and 2002 elections also caused unnecessary alarm. There is always a receptive audience for this kind of trouble-making, especially among the older, the frightened, and the bewildered.
All the loose talk about the "Asian invasion" and the predictions of racial trouble turned out to be hollow. Auckland now has a large Asian population, but there has been no bloodshed, no ethnic violence, no outbreaks of hatred. New Zealand has shown that it is on the whole a tolerant and welcoming society which copes well with change.
Immigration has, in fact, made the nation a more interesting and vibrant place, and this is probably a more cogent reason for liberal immigration policies than any strictly economic one. A major report last year by the OECD on immigration concluded that the effect on public finances of immigration is "small, generally not exceeding 0.5 per cent of GDP in either positive or negative terms".
It's hard to disagree with the sentiments expressed here. Winston Peters' past xenophobic scaremongering has no place, and the signs that David Cunliffe is trying to out-Winston Winston are alarming. Helen Clark in particular would be disgusted at Cunliffe's recent anti-immigrant rhetoric.
If Labour loses significant support in places like South Auckland this election, it only has itself to blame. Leave the xenophobia to Mr Peters, who if nothing else has at least been consistently xenophobic, not a latter-day convert like Mr Cunliffe.
The Dominion-Post editorial this morning predictably touches on the "marriage of convenience" between Kim Dotcom and Hone Harawira and their parties. And it's not a positive editorial; under the headline Marriage unlikely to last the editorial begins:
So the Maori radical and the German squillionaire have spawned their odd little party. No surprise there. The deal suits both partners. The Internet Party now has a chance of getting into Parliament whereas before it had none. And Mana wins a chance of finding more supporters among the geeks and the worshippers of Kim Dotcom.
Radicals like Mana's John Minto reject Sue Bradford's charge that they have sold out to the wealthy German. Bradford, staunch and true to her ideals as usual, has predictably stormed out. But, in a sense, Minto is right. He has not abandoned his support for progressive taxes and soaking the rich. He has not had to swallow a dead rat.
The real objection to this political marriage is that it is unlikely to last or breed many successes. The two sides will be able to agree on a few things. They will want to spread more of the benefits of the internet to the poor. They will want to hobble the GCSB and put it under much tougher scrutiny. They will band together in an attempt to defeat John Key and his party.
But even these agreed goals will be very hard to reach. Perhaps the pair will score minor victories over internet speeds and cellphone fees. They will get nowhere with the GCSB unless they can persuade Labour to join them, which is doubtful. The GCSB needs much tougher accountability but Labour has traditionally been weak on this. It is a status quo party when it comes to intelligence. And National is still riding high.
The marriage of convenience is likely to become hollow even if a couple of MPs make it into the House. On the hard issues of economics – tax rates on the wealthy, for instance – it is difficult to believe Mana and the Internet Party will agree. They will have to have a big "agree to disagree" policy clause. So they will make little difference.
The Dom-Post's leader writer is dead right. Issues like the GCSB and internet speeds/access are not the issues that change governments. On economic issues, how can a party with a billionaire who flaunts his wealth possibly combine credibly with a party that purports to resent rich people like Kim Dotcom?
The editorial continues, with a condemnation of the rules that make this ill-fated union possible: The merger of the two shows up, once again, a bad flaw in the MMP system. The system gives far too much power to single constituency-seat parties, because they can avoid the 5 per cent parliamentary threshold. This has allowed self-serving deals that have given non-entity parties such as ACT and UnitedFuture too much power in coalition governments.
And nobody knows why this silly provision ever became part of MMP. The members of the royal commission that recommended the system now say the "Epsom clause" was a mistake.
The only question now is: will this political oddity, bred on the wrong side of the bed, have any appeal to the voters? Its best hope is to win about 2 per cent of the party vote – double what Mana got last time – and bring the still-unnamed leader of the Internet Party in on the list. If Annette Sykes won Waiariki, that would be a big dollop of cream on the cake.
Maybe the geeks and the radical Maori and Pakeha can persuade enough voters to back their odd little band. It's also perfectly possible that Harawira will lose his seat to Labour and Sykes will fail in Waiariki. That would sink the Internet Party, which will certainly not pass the 5 per cent barrier by itself. The whole strange experiment could easily collapse.
We'll certainly be cheering for Kelvin Davis to win the seat of Te Tai Tokerau, and for Te Ururoa Flavell to retain Waiariki, because we strongly doubt MegaMana's ability to get to 5% of the vote. Wouldn't it be funny if Harawira was unseated, and all Dotcom's money went down the river?
The Dominion-Post has an "interesting" editorial this morning. We use the inverted commas, because there are plenty of other words that could be used to describe it. Here's a brief sample:
The job of being a tobacco lobbyist is not a respectable one. Big Tobacco kills 5000 New Zealanders a year.
Half its customers die as a result of using the product. Tobacco is an addictive substance that causes untold misery and death throughout the world. Those promoting the interests of Big Tobacco know all this, and yet choose to work for a genuinely evil force.
Astonishingly, the National Party has chosen a 23-year-old tobacco lobbyist as its candidate for the super- safe National seat of Southland. Todd Barclay seems rather conflicted about his eight months as corporate affairs PR for Philip Morris. On the one hand, he says, it was "just a job" and it "doesn't define him".
On the other, he doesn't "condone" smoking and even seems to think he should acknowledge some of its ill- effects. "Everyone has been affected by someone with a long-term illness, so my greatest sympathies go out to them," says the young politician.
Firstly, let's point out the obvious error. There is no Southland electorate, and there hasn't been since the first MMP election in 1996. The electorate in question is Clutha-Southland.
Some would argue that the job of a journalist is "not a respectable one" either. The revelations of phone-tapping in the UK certainly don't do that particular industry a lot of good. But it is the Dom-Post's selective morality that is our prime concern.
Throughout the term of this Parliament, Labour has railed against problem gambling. It opposed the Sky City Convention Centre deal and the subsequent legislation, although that did not stop Labour MP's enjoying corporate hospitality from Sky City at the 2011 Rugby World Cup, or again in June last year.
We do not dispute that gambling is an addiction, and that in extreme cases it causes significant harm, especially to the families of the problem gambler. So where was the Dom-Post's moral hubris and outrage when the Labour Party appointed TAB bookie Kieran McAnulty as its Wairarapa candidate in this year's General Election.
Todd Barclay resigned from his role with Phillip Morris immediately upon his selection as a National Party candidate. Kieran McAnulty was selected as Labour's Wairarapa candidate in December 2013, but as recently as the end of February, was still taking bets.
And here's the rub. Two months ago we blogged about a story, in the Dom-Post no less, on betting on Masterton's iconic Golden Shears competition. Mr McAnulty was featured, with no mention of his Labour Party affiliation, or his candidacy for Parliament.
So not only has the Dom-Post decreed that working for Big Tobacco is a crime far worse than working in the gambling industry, but it has made the editorial decision that one must be condemned, and the other ignored. That is selective morality of the worst kind, with undertones of overt political bias. The Dominion-Post should be better than that.
