0 Garner on the deserting Labour MP's

Duncan Garner does a daily editorial piece on his afternoon show on RadioLive. The text is then posted on the RadioLive website.

Yesterday's piece was very interesting indeed. Under the headline Three Labour MP's say "Stuff the party - I want to win my seat" Garner opines:

Three Labour MPs have broken ranks in recent weeks – quite loudly and very publicly.
They are interested in one thing: self-preservation. They want to win their seats and they’ve given up relying on their party. They are clearly concerned Labour will poll poorly on election night, so they’ve decided to run their own campaigns – away from head office and away from the leader.
These MPs have either chosen not to be on the list or they have a low-list spot. They are vulnerable. It’s all or nothing for them.
They must win their seats to return to Parliament; this sort of pressure usually focuses an MP’s mind. They want to be back in Parliament and they want the $150k salary.
I’m talking about West Coast-Tasman MP, Damien O’Connor, Hutt South MP, Trevor Mallard and list MP and Te Tai Tokerau candidate, Kelvin Davis.
Take Davis: yesterday he engaged Labour in its biggest u-turn in years. He told me he supported the Puhoi-Wellsford road project that his party has openly mocked and criticised.
Labour MPs call it the holiday highway; David Cunliffe has campaigned against it. Labour, until yesterday, was going to can the project upon taking office. Who knows where they stand now!
Davis told me people in the north tell him they want the controversial project and so does he.

There's a very good reason why Labour doesn't hold a single electorate seat north of the Auckland Harbour Bridge; its patronising attitude to the people of Northland. And every time a Labour or Green MP utters the phrase "holiday highway", the parties leech still more votes.

The road between Puhoi and Wellsford is well below State Highway One standard, and its upgrade is long overdue. The events of the last week have shown how vital a roading lifeline in for the people of Northland.

Kelvin Davis knows that. Even though there is no guarantee that Labour will let him campaign to win in Te Tai Tokerau, Davis is going hard out to topple Hone Harawira, and all power to him.

But it's not just Davis rebelling against the party; Garner continues:

Further south in Wellington, Trevor Mallard is openly campaigning for the return of the moa – against the wishes of his party and the leadership. It’s a desperate cry for attention: Mallard needs visibility and the moa got him the headlines.
And further south again, Damien O’Connor voted with the Government 10 days ago to allow storm-damaged native trees to be harvested in protected forests.

You can probably add Te Tai Tonga MP Rino Tirakatene to the mix as well, although his tenure is less tenuous than either Trevor Mallard's or Damien O'Connor's. Mallard has gone electorate-only, and if he doesn't hold on to Hutt South on 20 September he will be looking for a job. And at #22 on Labour's list, there's no guarantee that Damien O'Connor will survive, hence his renewed efforts for his West Coast-Tasman constituents.

Garner closes, with a suggestion that those Labour MP's mentioned above are an endangered species within the "modern" Labour Party:

These three blokes are the outliers in the Labour Caucus. And they are blokes too; they need to make some noise to be heard. They clearly have issues with the tame approach within their caucus.
They want to stand out and stand for something that their electorates want (not sure that Hutt South really wants the moa back, though!).
O’Connor and Davis certainly look in touch with middle New Zealand, their electorates and their issues. They have given the one-fingered salute to their struggling party and put self-preservation first.
Who can blame them?

Indeed; who CAN blame Messrs Mallard, Davis and O'Connor for fighting for survival against a Labour Party which long ago abandoned any semblance of its origins.

We've already heard stories of Clayton Cosgrove having used billboards at the last election which excluded any mention of Phil Goff, and apparently he's doing the same again this time around. It will be interesting to see if other MP's follow a similar strategy, given that David Cunliffe was not the preferred choice as leader of around two thirds of Labour's caucus.

Garner's column does nothing to fend off rumours that the Labour Party is bitterly divided, and at war with itself. It will be interesting to see how the Mallard/Davis/O'Connor strategy plays out on 20 September.  

0 Quote of the Day - 21 June 2014

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.

0 Wally of the Week - 13 June 2014

It's Friday the 13th. There's also a full moon tonight, so if you're in one of those jobs that is affected by people's moods, be careful out there.

There was an obvious contender for Wally of the Week this week; Trevor Mallard. We had to drive down to Wellington on Monday afternoon, and driving home, we heard Mallard and Paula Bennett together on Duncan Garner's RadioLive programme.

Trevor Mallard last week accused Hekia Parata of assaulting a staff member. Have a listen to this piece, as Mallard dances on the head of a pin, trying his damnedest NOT to make the accusation outside Parliament, without withdrawing the allegation; it's classic Mallard smear tactics:

Towards the end of the segment, Paula Bennett and Duncan Garner were double-teaming Trevor Mallard, accusing him of being "gutless". Perhaps Mr Mallard's reluctance is due in some way to the mysterious "American bagman" who was allegedly collecting donations for Don Brash. Nine years on, the "American bagman" continues to prove elusive.

But Garner is right; making allegations under parliamentary privilege that you aren't prepared to repeat outside the House is a bit gutless, and Trevor Mallard was right ridiculed this week.

Congratulations Trevor; you are Keeping Stock's Wally of the Week.

0 First Gower, now Garner

We blogged last night about Patrick Gower's rant about the MegaMana rort.

If you think that was bad, wait until you see what Duncan Garner thinks; Gower's piece was but an entree. In his op-ed this afternoon he has absolutely ripped in to Dotcom, Harawira et al. Under the headline Party for sale - Internet-Mana is a sham and a rort Garner opines:

This Internet-Mana party alliance is a sham and a rort, but MMP allows for it - which is the worst bit. 
I’ve seen nothing like it in the history of NZ politics. It is far less transparent than the dodgy electorate seat deals National has done over the years. New Zealanders have every right to be outraged.

This is about an already convicted criminal - a rich internet tycoon wanted on piracy charges, no less – on the run from the United States and sheltering in New Zealand. He’s a had a run in with the NZ Government and the US authorities, so he’s doing all he can to buy his way out of trouble.
It now includes pulling out his cheque-book and paying for a political party and buying people off – so he can keep his sorry backside out of the clink.
It’s as simple as that: he’s paying big money so he doesn’t turn into some sort of dribbling mess behind bars – some reports suggest he’s pumped $4m into setting up this party. So how much is he paying his people?
I asked new leader Laila Harré yesterday, she said she wasn’t sure yet. But money between the two will change hands at some stands, she’s clear on that.
She will be paid for this role. Is this the New Zealand way? I would argue no way. It’s grubby isn’t it? You only get paid once you get elected don’t you?
I have had a bit to do with Harré over the years. She has been a tireless and effective campaigner for those on the left. However, her former allies think she has sold out; Jim Anderton is far from impressed.
Harré is ambitious. Before all this she had integrity and credibility, but many of us are questioning that now. What does she really have in common with Kim Dotcom? Bugger all. He’s found she has a price after all.

Duncan Garner absolutely nails all the key issues in this sordid rort. Kim Dotcom clearly thinks he can buy people off. New Zealand needs to send him a clear message that that's not how we do things here.

Every man, they say, has his price. We know now that Hone Harawira will dispense with democracy for half a million big ones. We don't know what Laila Harre's price is, but we're guessing it's a darned sight more than the base salary for a back-bench MP.

Garner closes, and rolls out the dreaded "C" word:

Most of all this deal lacks transparency; she will, and should be, hounded by the press about how much she is personally being paid by Kim Dotcom to be the leader. Plus, what sort of deal has been done on Kim Dotcom’s possible extradition?
If there is a change of Government, and a future Minister overturns any extradition, isn’t that corruption? Wouldn’t he have bought his way out of an American jail?
New Zealanders have every right to feel dirty over this deal. It brings our political process into disrepute. Dotcom has contempt for our system, our democracy and our country. To him, everything is for sale and everyone has their price.
I don’t see it lasting. This will, and should, end in tears.

Garner is right; this stinks, far worse than the snapper that got David Shearer's number. The stench of corruption hovers over this dirty, dirty deal. 

And it is especially ironic to consider Hone Harawira's contribution to the Third Reading debate on the Electoral Finance Bill in December 2007, when speaking as a Maori Party MP he said:

HONE HARAWIRA: I want to make the point that if I wish to speak in Māori at any time, I will do so.

We are the Māori Party, with not a bean to our name, but we still turned down $250,000 rather than compromise our independence, and for the same reasons we are opposed to this bill. We are the Māori Party, and we were angry with both the divisive “Iwi/Kiwi” campaign run by National and the nasty “a vote for the Māori Party is a vote for National” campaign run by Labour, because we did not have the wherewithal to counteract either. Yet still we are opposed to this bill. We are the Māori Party, with not a bean to our name, but we stand free in this House, answerable to no one but our own people, uncompromised by shady deals with either of the major parties, and we are proud to say that we are opposed to this electoral finance legislation.

We know Harawira's price now; a price Kim Dotcom willingly paid, with his tainted money. We hope he can live with himself.

0 A movie for David, Matt and Clint

Rumour has it that things have been tense today, both in the War Room and at Fraser House, the Labour Party HQ. It probably hasn't helped that Patrick Gower has re-named the War Room as the "Panic Station"!

So here's a moment of comic relief to help David Cunliffe, Grant Robertson, Matt McCarten, Hey Clint and all the rest of Labour's Dad's Army into perspective:

Duncan Garner has suggested that David Cunliffe should offer his resignation, but given Labour's cumbersome method of selecting a leader, it's probably too late from that. We reckon they just have to follow Lance Corporal Jack Jones' advice - Don't Panic!

0 Tweet of the Day - 26 May 2014

Duncan Garner raises an interesting hypothetical question:

In our ever-humble opinion, not; it's not OK. By and large, MP's and Ministers work hard, and we wouldn't have their job for any money. Their homes are the one place where they should be able to go and spend time with their families, leaving the world of politics for a few hours. We oppose the notion of protests at ANY MPs' homes.

FOOTNOTE: We've just been alerted to another tweet by Duncan Garner, and you won't believe this one:

Oh dear; the Mana Party doesn't like Chinese immigrants, but it's happy for the Chinese to manufacture its promotional material; such irony...

0 Tracy was tough, but Duncan's even tougher!

If Winston Peters thought Tracy Watkins was tough on him and Winston First yesterday, we hope he didn't read Duncan Garner's Dom-Post column. Headed Is this all you have, Winston? Garner is absolutely brutal on Peters; he begins thus:

Poor Winston, what's going on? It looks like you're really struggling to land any decent hits in Parliament these days. It all looks a bit limp and sad.
You've been there since 1978, save for three years in the wilderness before this term. If you ever had the answers then you've had ample time to share them.
Instead, what did we see this week? You abusing your privilege of free speech by spewing vicious bile at an MP who is in Parliament only because you wanted him there. Brendan Horan is hardly the first NZ First MP selected for loyalty rather than ability.
Calling Horan the "Jimmy Savile of New Zealand politics" was evil and cowardly – and you know it. If anyone makes any sort of claim against you, you're quick to threaten legal action and demand retractions and apologies. But when you're the one dishing it out those rules don't apply: you can waltz into Parliament and get all the protection you need. 

"Evil and cowardly"; that's as trenchant a statement as we've seen a New Zealand journalist make against an MP for many years. And Duncan Garner doesn't do it under parliamentary privilege either!

Garner continues:

I can't help but point out the irony of it all to you. I remember covering a speech you made in Kawerau in 2008 and you had Horan along as your little sycophantic sidekick.
Horan was in awe of you, banging on to the journos about how you were an honest and loyal man who only wanted what was right for New Zealand. He told us you never took money from Owen Glenn and everyone was wrong to be questioning your integrity and honesty. Horan was really fired up that afternoon.
So how does it feel now he's firing a few at you? Suddenly the spending from your parliamentary leader's fund looks questionable – despite your denials.
And Horan's allegations might just be sticking too. Did you spend $20,000 on a computer system to aid your NZ First Party? That money you and all the other parties have in those slush funds has never been transparent.
Last week, before all this chaos, you were promising to take out Judith Collins. But when you pulled out your gun it merely went pop. 

But then comes the really scary bit:

Yet, despite your miserable week, I still can't write you off.
I was there in 1996 when you promised to get rid of Jim Bolger, Bill Birch and Jenny Shipley. I remember chasing you down Lambton Quay for weeks during the coalition negotiations. You loved the attention and you're at it again.
Here we are 18 years later and not much has really changed. You're still the potential king-maker and you like it like that.
David Cunliffe has flung the door open to you by shunning the Greens' offer to campaign as a Labour-Greens government.
That suits you – we know you don't like the Greens. It's why you couldn't go with Labour in 1996 – you didn't want to share power with the Alliance in a three-party coalition. 
Now we're back to square one. You've started talking about "bottom lines" again. Yet on really simple, straightforward questions you refuse to give a straightforward answer.
Yes, you've had some victories over the years, free healthcare for the under 6s and the Gold Card – but is there anything else after 36 years?
Now immigration is bubbling away as an issue again – just like 1996 all over again.
Yes, 98,000 people arrived in New Zealand last year and 65,000 left – but the fact is most of those coming here were Kiwis returning home. A small fraction of them were actually immigrants from another land. But let's not let the facts get in the way during the election campaign.
Really, Winston, I reckon the public is tired of all these silly games. It feels like you've become entertainment for the stupid and sycophantic, who don't take the state of the nation too seriously at all.
But still I think you'll scrape together the 5 per cent support to make it back to Parliament (which, of course, means that 95 per cent of voters don't want you). But 5 per cent is all you need and that will be enough to make John Key's life hell.
After 36 years, is the nuisance factor really all you have to offer? 

Yes Dear Readers; it's 36 years since Winston Peters first entered Parliament in 1978. And what does he have to show for it. He's been a Minister three times, without ever having served a full three-year term. Jim Bolger and Jenny Shipley fired him, and Helen Clark stood him down over the Owen Glenn donation and all the lies he told about that. He's brought such characters as Tuku "Underpants" Morgan, Ron "Fingers" Mark, Richard "Wogistan" Prosser, Andrew "Leaky" Williams and Asenati Lole-Taylor into Parliament. He has attacked immigrants, especially Chinese immigrants.

What will be Winston's legacy? A career of unfulfilled potential? New Zealand's pre-eminent conspiracy theorist? A lifetime achievement award for his contribution to the whisky industry? Or will a seat be saved in his honour at the Green Parrot Cafe in Wellington?

Winston Peters was once one of the most formidable politicians in New Zealand. In 2014 however, he is a far cry from that. The elderly and the rednecks may get him back for one more term, but it will be tight.  We really hope that come election night, Winston First falls slightly below the 5% mark.

There should be no place in our Parliament for a man who, under parliamentary privilege, likens another MP to an alleged serial child abuser and paedophile. Kudos to Duncan Garner for his denouncement of Peters' actions this week.

0 Armstrong on Collins and truth

John Armstrong takes a close look at the Judith Collins/Oravida allegations. Under the heading Peters faces wait to complete Oravida jigsaw Armstrong opines:

Winston Peters has gotten to the very heart of the vital matter of whether Judith Collins is guilty of such a serious conflict of interest that she would have to be sacked from the Cabinet forthwith.
In tandem with Labour's Grant Robertson, the New Zealand First leader has pieced together a jigsaw of separate events and happenings involving Collins, the milk-exporting company Oravida, and the Chinese border agency which blocked dairy imports after the Fonterra botulism scare last year.
It goes beyond Collins creating the "perception" of a conflict of interest — something the Cabinet Manual stresses Cabinet ministers must avoid and which Collins acknowledges her actions created.
The two Opposition parties claim enough information has now seeped into the public domain to suggest Collins had a real conflict of interest — one from which she stood to benefit from financially.

Unfortunately for Peters and Robertson, a rather vital piece of the jigsaw is missing.

Well colour us surprised; Winston Peters had made an allegation that he cannot substantiate! Just like the impending sale of Huka Lodge to the Chinese; just like any number of Peters beat-up over the years, he cannot deliver the coup de grace. There's a good reason for that; in the Oravida case, there IS no coup-de-grace.

Armstrong continues, getting to the heart of the issue:

That piece, which would join all the dots, is proof that Collins lobbied a Chinese official to exempt Oravida from China's freeze on dairy imports.
Without that proof — and Collins strenuously denies that she engaged in any such behaviour — the evidence remains circumstantial and any conclusions are therefore only conjecture.
The latter commodity is not sufficient reason for John Key to relieve Collins of her ministerial warrants; he has to take his minister at her word. If that word is found to be in conflict with the truth, however, then he will have to dump her from his ministry.
Given she has issued repeated denials in the House, she would probably have to leave Parliament altogether if she is found to have been economical with the truth. That Collins is risking such a tough sanction suggests she has been truthful.

John Armstrong does a far better job than the likes of Patrick Gower, Duncan Garner and Corin Dann have done. Instead of being duped by Peters' promises to bring down a Minister and with her John Key, Armstrong understands that all that Robertson and Peters have is rhetoric and speculation. They have no evidence that Ms Collins discussed Oravida at that infamous dinner. On the other hand, Judith Collins has steadfastly maintained her position.

And Armstrong closes with a reference to Winston Peters' time-honoured modus operandi:

Peters says he has more to come on this matter. But he needs the protection of parliamentary privilege to use it to maximum effect. After today's sitting, Parliament goes into recess for two weeks. And if a week is a long time in politics, then two weeks is a very, very long time in politics, especially in an election year.

Winston Peters is always promising that there is more to come. He uses it to keep himself and his personality cult party in the headlines. But all too often the issue fades from the public consciousness, without Peters ever delivering the promised "evidence".

We reckon that's what'll happen here. Winston Peters talks a good game, but if he had the evidence he claims to have, he would have tabled it in Parliament yesterday. He didn't, because there isn't any evidence, beyond Winston Peters and Grant Robertson putting two and two together and coming up with 22.

0 Winston the Borrower

Winston Peters makes lots of "interesting" claims. But he made an especially interesting one yesterday on air with Duncan Garner on RadioLive; check this out:

Does Winston Peters realise where most of the money that New Zealand borrows comes from? Is he so fearful of New Zealand shareholders of SOE's selling their shareholding to some mysterious foreigner that he's prepared to borrow from foreigners to save them from themselves? Has Winston Peters thought this one through?

The answer to the final question is, of course "Probably not"; that's not how Winston rolls. And if he makes an asset buy-back a bottom line for future coalition negotiations, which of his multiple bottom lines will be the absolute bottom line? Will he see the irony in banning foreigners from owning houses in New Zealand, but having them effectively own our power stations by way of the money they lend?

Winston the Borrower is indeed a complicated beast.