0 Quote of the Day - 18 July 2014

Toby Manhire isn't buying Kim Dotcom's latest conspiracy theory; he opines:

But while many will struggle to believe the Prime Minister didn't know about Kim Dotcom, it is not at all implausible. The case against him is built on inference and circumstance. Moreover, he has repeatedly given his word that he didn't know. He has staked his reputation on it. If Dotcom has evidence that he did know, it will automatically become a resignation matter.
And that is why, for all the theatrical appeal, it is unreasonable and wrong for Dotcom to withhold this supposed evidence for a climactic campaign spectacular. A big reveal in the final week of the campaign doesn't only lend weight to perceptions the internet-Mana hydra is a Dotcom plaything, that the political party and the Dotcom defence are two sides of the same bitcoin. It also denies New Zealanders information they deserve to know.
If Dotcom can prove that the Prime Minister has bare-faced lied, over and over, the democratic imperative is that he do so now. If Key is not fit for office on September 15, then he is not fit for office today. Dotcom should cut to the chase. Otherwise, the assumption has to be that the great Dotcom bombshell is an enormous political bluff.

Let's not forget that it was only a matter of just over a month ago that Dotcom was offering a $5m reward for anyone who could concoct come up with evidence against John Key. He didn't have the evidence then, despite having claimed to for two years, and we don't reckon he has it now.

But if he DOES have the evidence, he should reveal it up immediately, not wait until a large number of early votes have been cast in the General Election. Voters deserve to have any information BEFORE they cast their votes.

So our message to Dotcom is simple; put up, or shut up.

0 Another blow for Labour

Labour's "War Room" will not be a happy place this morning. And breakfast this morning will be hard to digest as Labour's strategists take in a second disastrous poll result in less than 24 hours.

As if the Roy Morgan poll wasn't bad enough, the latest Fairfax-Ipsos poll is out. David Cunliffe described the last Ipsos poll as "rogue", but it isn't; check out the carnage here:

National appears to be tightening its grip on the election, with our latest poll cementing its massive lead.
Today's stuff.co.nz/Ipsos Political poll has National on 54.8 per cent support - a staggering 30-point lead over Labour, but down 1.7 points from our last poll.
John Key is also preferred prime minister among most voters, at 53.7 per cent support to David Cunliffe's 12.8. 

Here's what that looks like in graphical form:

And like the Roy Morgan Confidence Rating, those surveyed by Ipsos are optimistic for the future:

Today's poll, which follows Labour's recent election-year congress and a series of targeted announcements on education policy, shows more decided voters, with Labour clearly benefiting from the change.
But 15.3 per cent of voters still don't know who they will vote for.
That will bring little cheer to Labour, however, as it prepares for its election campaign launch, now just weeks away.
Booming confidence in the economy appears to be buoying National's support, with 64 per cent of those surveyed believing the country was on the right track, the highest in our survey since 2012. Satisfaction with the Government's performance has also held up, suggesting Labour is running out of time to articulate a convincing argument for change.

As we noted in our post last night on the Morgan poll, governments lose elections rather than oppositions winning them. With similar numbers of people expressing confidence in New Zealand's direction over two polls, there is clearly little mood for change. 

We used to joke about Labour's number at the next poll having a 2 in front of it. Now Labour seems to be embedded in the mid-to-low-20's, and even though there has been a very minor correction in this poll compared to the last Fairfax-Ipsos poll, this poll will be a huge dent to Labour's optimism.

The faces in the War Room will be grim. It's hard to remain positive under the pressure of these kinds of numbers, and at least one high-profile Labour staffer was engaging in abusive social media comment last night; a sure sign of pressure. Labour has not only run out of rabbits to pull from hats; it's run out of hats as well!

Conversely John Key will return from his Hawaiian holiday tanned, rested and refreshed, and ready to hit the campaign trail. The 50th Parliament has just two weeks to go, and the election is just over nine weeks away.

The clock is ticking, but for Labour and David Cunliffe, it must sound like a time bomb ticking down. They'll be hunkering down in the War Room today.


 

0 This is news?

It must be a slow news day; the Herald reports:

With only 71 days to the election, Prime Minister John Key is taking an extended overseas holiday, thought to be at his bolt-hole on the Hawaiian island of Maui.
When the Herald contacted his office yesterday for comment on renewed calls for Foreign Minister Murray McCully to resign, it was told he was on holiday and would not be back at work until July 21.
Assuming he plans to spend Sunday July 20 reading Cabinet papers for the next day's meeting, that's a 10-day break.
Campaign manager and Cabinet minister Steven Joyce did not believe Mr Key's break would cause National to lose momentum. "We've got a lot of things going on. He works very, very hard and we want to make sure he is in good physical shape. He's a pretty healthy individual but everyone needs a chance to recharge."
He hinted that Mr Key had been reluctant to take the time off but his colleagues had insisted, as they had last election.

"It's like forcing him out the door to take a few days to freshen up and recharge before he has to get into the last 10 weeks or so of the campaign."
He said a few MPs from both sides of the House would be taking time off during the two-week recess which coincides with school holidays.
Deputy Prime Minister Bill English is acting Prime Minister.
A spokesman for David Cunliffe said the Labour leader, after launching an Information and Communications Technology policy in Auckland this morning, would be taking a break.

We fail to see what the big story is here. Perhaps it was an opportunity to remind Herald readers that John Key has a holiday property in Hawaii.

We don't begrudge any politician a holiday. Two week recesses are normally timed around school holidays, so those MPs with school-aged children can actually spend some time with them. Families give up a lot for their MPs' ambitions.

We're glad David Cunliffe is taking a break too. He's had a turbulent last few months, and with a demanding election campaign beckoning he will benefit from a spell. Democracy is strengthened when a good government has strong opposition, and that hasn't been the case this year.

And we'll leave the final word to Rod Emmerson, who sends the leaders off with this wee message:

 

0 Photo of the Day - 10 July 2014

John Key got a unique gift from the First Golfer on his recent visit to the USA; the Herald reports:

He's used to receiving innocuous pottery vases and decorative ornaments from international leaders while on foreign visits, but the engraved Ping golf putter - a gift from US President Barack Obama to Prime Minister John Key when he visited the White House last month - arrived on Monday via diplomatic pouch to the sheer delight of its recipient.
"We sent it back in the diplomatic bag from Washington which is why it's taken so long to get here. But I used it immediately," a chuffed Key told The Diary.
Luckily a mug was on hand to collect the accompanying presidential golf balls.
Honolulu golfing buddies Obama and Key share a love for the game. The putter came engraved with Obama's signature and the presidential seal and Key's initials, JPK, for John Phillip Key.

Here's the implement in question:

The Prime Minister has no excuse for missed putts any more! 

0 Sea-change in South Auckland

John Key addressed an audience of more than 500 in Auckland yesterday, and was given a rousing and enthusiastic welcome.

Now there's nothing especially noteworthy about that; you'd expect an audience of his rich mates to turn out in force and give the Prime Minister a rousing reception. Except for one thing, as 3News reports:

The Pacific vote is traditionally Labour's, but socially liberal policies like same-sex marriage, driven by Labour, have created a drift.

The Prime Minister is pouncing and believes National is set to secure more Pacific and south Auckland votes in this election than in the past.

Many turned out to see John Key in Mangere, offering hugs, kisses and photos. They even managed to roll out a gold carpet, but there was no red there.

"I can't think of a time where I have been a leader of the National Party where we would have so many people in Mangere turn up for a National Party meeting," says Mr Key. "If you close your eyes you'd be forgiven for thinking you were at a Labour Party meeting, over 500 people in there."

The traditionally Labour Pacific vote is changing, as staunch red voters are now turning blue.

"The vote is turning in south Auckland from Labour to National, that is what is happening," says Mangere community leader Teleiai Edwin Puni. "I can tell you that; I am voting National."

Not since the late Sir Robert Muldoon addressed a crowd of thousands in a Wiri wool store in October 1975 has there been a meeting with this significance. Labour has long seen the Pasifika vote as its by right, but there are signs that is changing as you can see in the image below:

In Peseta Sam Lotu I'iga (Samoan) and Alfred Ngaro (Cook Islands Maori) National already has two MP's of Pasifika heritage. Both men have back-stories of immigrant parents who worked hard, insisted their children got educated, and set high standards for them. Sam Lotu-I'iga and Alfred Ngaro have proved that there is no bar to getting ahead, and are fantastic role models for young Pasifika people to emulate.

And in Mangere itself, National has chosen an excellent candidate with strong community links. Misa Fia Turner was born and raised in Samoa, and has lived in Mangere for nearly twenty years. She is the co-founder and Clinical Manager of ‘Malu I Uo Faatuatua Family Relationship Services, providing counselling, family therapy, clinical and cultural supervision, facilitation and mediation, training and mentoring. She is also Clinical Practice Manager for Genesis Youth Trust, a Police Youth Development Programme working with youth at risk and families with a focus on reducing youth crime and re-offending.
And significantly, she has not always been a National Party supporter. She told 3News she and her family had always been Labour supporters, but this year she is standing for National.

Misa Fia Turner may not unseat Su'a William Sio in Mangere. But we are sure that she will take a sizeable chunk out of his majority, and will ensure that National's share of the party vote increases significantly. In a close election, even a small shift away from Labour to National in electorates with a high concentration of Pasifika voters could be crucial, especially if there is continued unease about Labour's commitment to Pacific migration.

The days of National being pale, male and stale are a thing of the past. There growing reach into Pasifika New Zealand is evidence of that.

0 More good news, this time on jobs

David Cunliffe wants a positive election campaign, and has ordered his MP's to stop their attacks on their National opposites. Time will tell how well that goes.

But when it comes to positivity, it doesn't get much more positive than news of significant job growth; Scoop Business reports:

Monday, 7 July 2014, 10:27 am
Press Release: Trademe
7 July 2013
Kiwi job market shows growth from Northland to Southland
All regions across the country recorded growth in the number of jobs advertised on Trade Me Jobs according to an analysis of listings onsite in the April-June quarter.
Head of Trade Me Jobs, Peter Osborne, said the number of job listings nationwide was up 19% on the same period in 2013, continuing the healthy job market trend evident since the September quarter. “Growth in listings has been very strong, despite the potential handbrake effect of the unusual combination of Easter and Anzac Day holidays in March, and a Budget that had a cooling effect on the number of jobs advertised in May.”
Mr Osborne said most advertisers were upbeat. “We’re hearing plenty of optimistic reports from recruiters and employers, and the majority are planning to keep on hiring too.”
He said improved economic and employment opportunities in New Zealand also contributed to the lowest ever level of migration to Australia in May. “Kiwis are increasingly likely to stay in New Zealand which is good news for NZ Inc, and is also complemented by returning expats who have noticed things on the improve back here in New Zealand.”
The national picture
Mr Osborne said the lift in advertised roles in all regions was a “pretty unusual but very welcome” result. Auckland still shines brightly (up 21%), while Canterbury and Wellington maintained their considerable growth trajectories (up 21% and 15% respectively). 
Waikato was another standout performer with job ad growth of 24%, and Otago comfortably reached double digits with a 16% lift.

This is fantastic news, and confirms anecdotal evidence of significant job growth right across the country. Here's the regional breakdown, lifted from the presser:

That there is job growth right across the country, and not just in Canterbury and Auckland as claimed by opposition parties is fantastic for New Zealand. The Government has put a lot of effort into getting people into employment, and as the economy continues to grow at a faster rate than most of our trading partners, significant decreases in the unemployment rate will follow. The Household Labour Force Survey to the end of March showed that more New Zealanders were in work than ever before.

And whilst the construction sector leads the job growth, it's not the sole area of growth. Here are the jobs by category:

 

It's heartening to see a 33% increase in the number of manufacturing jobs being advertised. Twelve of the 22 job categories reported by TradeMe reported double-digit growth from 2013 to 2014. That is suggestive of a very broad-based economic recover.

 And look at the highlighted category. LabourGreenNZFirstMana continues to insist that New Zealand manufacturing is in crisis when in fact the Performance of Manufacturing Index has been in positive territory for eighteen consecutive months, and job growth in almost 34% up over a twelve-month period. Crisis? What crisis?

The New Zealand economy is recovering strongly from the Global Financial Crisis and the associated recession. Bill English has got the books back in surplus four years ahead of what Treasury was forecasting in the 2008 Prefu. Unemployment is falling, and more New Zealanders are in work than ever before.

John Key has a very positive message to take to the electorate. David Cunliffe can promise all things to all people, but the numbers that matter are the ones being generated by the party who holds the purse-strings.

As New Zealanders prepare to go to the polls on 20th September, we are sure that they will indeed "vote positive", although we wonder if that should actually be "vote positively", to be strictly correct.
They will vote for the party which has proven to be a prudent manager of the economy through the toughest economic conditions since the Great Depression. And the "vote positive" sentiment will give John Key and Bill English third terms in their respective roles.

0 Behind closed doors

The National Party holds its election-year conference in Wellington this weekend. On the back of a number of positive polls National Party MP's and members will hit conference in a bouyant mood. The media will doubtless note the mood of conference, as they will be there in good numbers.

It's a different story next week when Labour holds its own election-year congress, as opposed to a conference. Changing the name has given Labour an excuse to keep the media away, as Andrea Vance reports on Stuff:

The Labour Party will close most of its election-year conference to the media.
The three-day meeting is due to take place in Wellington on July 4 to 6.
Speeches by Labour leader David Cunliffe, president Moira Coatsworth, and Australian Labor leader Bill Shorten will be open for reporting. Cunliffe is expected to unveil new policy.
But a programme, circulated to media last night, shows meetings on Friday and a training day are closed to all but members.
Previously, most of the event has been open. However, rank and file remits - such as a quota for female MPs and on the Trans-Pacific Partnership - have brought internal divisions into the public arena.
Tensions over former leader David Shearer boiled over in 2012, with Cunliffe demoted for failing to demonstrate his loyalty.
Nationals' conference begins in Wellington today, with a major policy announcement from Prime Minister John Key expected on Sunday.
Much of the Green Party conference, held in the Hutt Valley this month, was also members only. 

Andrea Vance refers to tensions at past Labour Party conferences. We have had a couple of conversations with people closely linked to the Labour Party who have told us that things are not well. Tensions are spilling over as the party's many factions battle one another for the inevitable post-election blood-letting.

We reckon that's the reason that Labour is keeping the media away next weekend, from everything except what will be carefully stage-managed appearances by David Cunliffe and his Australian Labor counterpart. And from David Cunliffe's point-of-view, there's a rich irony in holding congress/conference behind closed doors.

...beaming like a cat who'd found a litre of cream...

Two years ago, as he chipped away at David Shearer whilst beaming like a cat who'd found a litre of cream, David Cunliffe lapped up the media attention. Now of course, the boot is on the other foot, and Mr Cunliffe himself is being white-anted by those who see their personal ambitions as more important than the party's performance twelve weeks from today. 

Unfortunately, excluding the media won't stop the negative reporting. If anything, the media pack is likely to give Labour a tougher run because it perceives that the party is trying to control what is written. Labour has so few friends at the moment, that running the risk of alienating the media is a very dangerous strategy.

But that's next weekend. This weekend is about the National Party, and John Key and his team. And the media will be there in force. What a stark contrast to Fortress Labour.

0 More poll misery for Labour and Mr Cunliffe

After the difficulties David Cunliffe had last week, a number of pundits suggested that pressure might come on him if the next round of TV polls hurt Labour.

It has. The 3News/Reid Research poll has just come out, and it shows both Labour's and Mr Cunliffe's popularity slipping. Labour is down 2 points to 27.3%, and National (down 0.6% to 49.7%) has a commanding lead. The Greens have gained where Labour lost, and NZ First is still some distance from the 5% thresh-hold. The Internet Mana alliance will need to win an electorate if it is to figure, polling a mere 1.8%.

And in the Preferred Prime Minister stakes, the news is no better for Mr Cunliffe. John Key is up 3.1 points to 46.7%, whereas David Cunliffe remains stranded in single figures, down 0.2 points to 9.6% support.

National's polling is remarkably, given that they are a party nearing the end of their second term in government, whereas Labour's support is basically where it was at the 2011 General Election. And that, of course, was Labour's worst election result in some 70 years.  But in 2011, Labour was still almost in a position to form a government; it wouldn't have taken much of a swing to enable that to happen.

In the meantime, National heads into its election-year conference in Wellington tomorrow in bouyant mood, and why wouldn't they? We're sure that the party faithful will get plenty of warnings not to be complacent, and it is imperative that the party faithful take those warnings on board. 

Labour's upcoming conference, on the other hand, will be a little more subdued, after a series of dreadful poll results. Patrick Gower said on 3News tonight that "This poll is all about Labour wounded, and scared".  Given the current dysfunctional state of the Labour Party, a new record low on 20th September is a distinct possibility.


UPDATE: Here are the poll graphics from the 3News website:

 

0 Cash for access

A new name has emerged in the Donghua Liu saga; the Herald introduces Steven Ching:

The man who hoped to be the first Chinese MP for the Labour Party has emerged as a central figure in the donation claims of Donghua Liu.
Steven Ching was a successful fundraiser for Labour and was No42 on the party list ahead of the 2005 election, but withdrew.

Mr Ching seems to have an interesting history. The Herald reported in 2005 why he was stood down from being a candidate, and amazingly, another man named Liu is involved! Here's the story, from May 2005:

The man on track to become Labour’s first Chinese MP was yesterday forced to stand down while police investigate serious allegations he misused Government connections.
In the latest in a string of embarrassments for the Labour Party, list candidate Steven Ching was asked to stand down over claims that he offered to get a man appointed as a justice of the peace in exchange for a $50,000 loan.
The Herald on Sunday yesterday claimed that Mr Ching told Auckland broadcaster Paul Liu he would get two senior Labour MPs to sign his application form to become a JP.
In exchange, Mr Liu was asked to give a $50,000 loan to Mr Ching.
Mr Ching denied the claims.
Yesterday morning Mr Ching - number 42 on the Labour list - was out on the campaign trail with MPs Dover Samuels and John Tamihere, but by mid-morning he had been asked to stand down as the Labour Party handed the matter over to the police to investigate.
Party president Mike Williams has written to the Herald on Sunday asking that all its affidavits be sent to the police and the Labour Party.
Mr Ching, 63, denied the allegations and said he was confident police would clear his name in time for him to stand in the election.

"I intend to sue the Sunday Herald [sic] because they are reporting rubbish things."
He issued a written statement, signed by Mr Liu, which said the allegations were not true.
"Mr Ching did ask to borrow money from me for a revolving fund," the statement said, "but his request was absolutely no connection with the JP’s application he proposed to me.
"There were totally two different issues, and obviously, the writer had put them together."
It is not Mr Ching’s first brush with controversy. In the past month he was forced to resign as a justice of the peace after Herald on Sunday investigations found he had two undisclosed convictions under the Fisheries Act.
Mr Ching had also pleaded guilty to obstructing a fisheries officer in 2001 and was discharged without conviction.
Despite the revelations, Labour initially stood by Mr Ching, who is highly regarded for his ability to draw donations from Auckland’s Asian community and attract their votes.
Mr Williams said the convictions were minor and the party had accepted that Mr Ching did not know about them because they were handled by his lawyer.

We don't know if Mr Ching ever made good of his threat to sue the Herald on Sunday. But we would suggest that because the story was the very first item on the list when we did a Google search of "steven ching labour party", there was never any requirement for the Herald on Sunday or the weekday Herald to spike the story.

But then today's story about Mr Ching mentions something which Labour has banged on at John Key and his National colleagues for months; cash for access. Have a read of this:

 

The Herald can now reveal that the Auckland businessman, who organised dinners where guests donated $1000 to sit beside former Prime Minister Helen Clark, approached the office of David Cunliffe about Liu's residency bid.
Mr Ching was not home and did not return messages, but Labour sources confirmed he was the "conduit" between Liu and the party.
When the Herald broke the news that Mr Cunliffe wrote a 2003 letter on behalf of Liu's residency bid, the Labour leader said he did not recall having ever met the businessman.
"To the best of my knowledge that letter came through my office and an immigration agent on his behalf."
Mr Cunliffe this week said "to the best of my knowledge" Mr Ching was not that agent. "However he appears to have had some contact at staff level with the New Lynn Electorate Office over the matter."
Labour sources said Mr Ching had links to Liu and became the "conduit" between the party and the millionaire businessman. "Ching was the 'money man' responsible for organising the fundraising dinners and established a good relationship with Liu," said one.

So diners paid a grand a time to sit next to Helen Clark at dinners. If that's not cash for access, we don't know what is. Perhaps Mr Cunliffe will now seek to revise this presser he put out on 8th June:

"There has been more than a whiff of opportunism around Mr Banks since Mr Key infamously sat down with him over a cup of tea and gifted the seat of Epsom to him.
“While Mr Banks has finally stepped down, the spectre of special deals - whether over National's coat-tailing arrangements, their 'cash for access' fundraising activities, Judith Collins' promotion of a company owned by a National donor, and Maurice Williamson's attempt to influence police actions on another wealthy National donor - will follow National. 

Putting aside that there are NO coat-tailing MP's in the current Parliament, a statement that no one seems to want to challenge Mr Cunliffe on, it's clear that Labour made money out of Helen Clark, just as National does out of John Key and other Ministers. We don't have a problem with that, as long as any money earned by the parties is declared in the proper manner, as required by law. 

If people are prepared to part with their hard-earned cash to hob-nob with a senior politician to benefit their party of choice, that's their decision. It's certainly preferable to the long-suffering taxpayer having to pay for every excess of any political party.

We don't have a problem with people paying to meet MP's, Ministers and the Prime Minister socially. What we DO have a problem with is the hypocrisy of the Labour Party in bleating for months about "cash for access" when they do it themselves.

0 Common sense from the Southland Times

They're generally very common-sense folk in the deep south of New Zealand, although there are a few exceptions. But we don't believe that editor of the Southland Times is one of those exceptions.

The newspaper published an excellent editorial on Saturday. Under the headline A mess of his own making the editorial opines:

There's a Watergate-era poster of Richard Nixon as a wee boy, looking back over his own shoulder and complaining: Somebody poohed my pants.
David Cunliffe is scarcely more plausible as he tries to represent himself as the victim of a Government smear campaign.
He is conspicuously besmirched, all right, but however much the Government may have benefited from the process, enjoyed it, and perhaps even at prime ministerial level taken Bonaparte's advice not to interrupt an opponent when he's making a mistake, none of this changes the fact the Government's role was, at very worst, peripheral to the self-inflicted damage.
Cunliffe was guilty of the same offences he had loftily criticised. His accusations against Maurice Williamson for meddling with a police investigation into Donghua Liu, a party donor, turned rancid when it emerged that he had himself written in support of Liu on a residency matter, which he initially denied. And Liu had donated to Labour as well as National. 

The Southland Times leader writer is dead right; these wounds to David Cunliffe's credibility are entirely self-inflicted. Having ridden in on his high horse over the links that National MP's had with Mr Liu, he has to suck up the ignominy of Labour being donkey-deep with the Chinese businessman as well.

The editorial continues, dismissing Mr Cunliffe's deflections:

Now he talks darkly of the Government managing the release of this - less face it, entirely accurate - information about his own follies.
This was a case of "playing politics" he said, and people were starting to realise he was the victim of a "political beat-up".
So here we have a politician complaining that rival politicians have been playing politics in response to his own political recriminations. Does he mean to astonish us?
Cunliffe has tried to persuade people about distinction between advocating for Liu's residency and simply doing the MP thing of drumming his fingers to prevent any unnecessarily delays in the way it was processed.
It's debateable whether the public would see the distinction as especially compelling - quite apart from the similarities with the Williamson case. And Williamson lost his Cabinet position over that one. 

David Cunliffe is grasping at straws. Instead of lashing out at National, he should be looking far closer to home as the source of all his woes. Those declarations of undying loyalty he received last week may well have been delivered with forked tongues. That's the difficulty a leader who was picked by less than a third of his caucus has.

Labour has attacked the Government relentlessly over donations from the business community; John Key's rich mates. That Labour has been undone by a businessman around whom their attacks were centred is rich in irony.

The Karma Bus has rolled into town. Even the eminently sensible folk of the deep south (with a few exceptions) can see that. 

0 Jones on Dotcom's "pretend party"

Bob Jones is in fine form this morning in his weekly NZ Herald column. Under the headline Dotcom, your no-hopers won't save you Jones opines:

My urging John Minto to shut up and acquire a hobby induced his response claiming he once thrashed me in a Victoria University debate (I've never debated him or indeed anyone at Vic) and challenging me to debate with him publicly on any of a wide range of subjects.
As I, like everyone else, want him to shut up, I'd hardly provide him more oxygen by doing that. Minto repeated this in a letter to me. I replied by helpfully suggesting he could satisfy his pathetic craving for attention by putting on a one-man black and white minstrel show and suggested he start practising singing Swanee River.
And given his life-long socialist belief in spending others' money, I offered to buy him his banjo and face-paint. He would have gone down a treat in old folk's homes, but acting altruistically in a meaningful way is alien to him, aside from which there's the awkward need to smile, so instead he's shamelessly joined Dotcom's pretend party.

Dangle money before hardened lefties and they'll sit up and purr every time.

Bob Jones hits the nail on the head here (sorry Rex). The political Left loves money, especially when it belongs to the long-suffering Someone Else. That is the only reason why the Mana Party has agreed to the MegaMana rort deal; Dotcom's money.

Of course, it matters not to Hone, Laila, Annette and John where the money came from; Jones continues:

Kim Dotcom was granted residency in November 2010 under the "investor plus" category, despite his past offending in Germany, his persona-non-grata status in Thailand and his minor securities conviction in Hong Kong, the Immigration Service making a marginal judgment call given his expressed investing commitment.
This decision was thereafter supported by his generosity to a range of causes, and he quickly became a larger-than-life, jolly-jumbo figure who brightened our lives. But today, three years later, his world has collapsed and, flailing in desperation, he's become politically involved, something I'm sure he never anticipated given his background of frivolous excess. He's now best described as the Milan Brych of New Zealand politics.
So what went wrong? That's simple: specifically the revelation of his wealth source, namely the large-scale copyright theft of Hollywood movies, which has led to the extradition order by the FBI. Due to preposterously idiotic behaviour of the police, who, instead of knocking on his door and handing Dotcom a summons, mounted a scandalously infantile raid by 76 armed police and two helicopters, then wrongly threw him into prison, the public reaction became hugely sympathetic, more so when it was revealed he had been illegally spied on by the GCSB clowns.
Dotcom's loveable maverick reputation collapsed, despite his vigorous legal efforts to prevent it, once details of the FBI's claim became public. Hitherto he had presented his business as that of an innocent bystander, akin to a taxi driver delivering a passenger to a bank, then subsequently being charged with aiding and abetting a crime after it was found his fare had robbed the bank.
But the FBI claims he had the means to control his Megaupload site's content, but far from doing so, actively incentivised the placement of movies on his site.
In rebuttal, Dotcom points to the terms service users were obliged to agree to, which included an undertaking not to post copyrighted material. He further argues that the sheer volume of material was such as to prevent practical policing.
The user copyright undertaking won't wash in any court and he knows it. It was his primary income source, arising from many tens of thousands of downloading users exploiting his site's stolen movies, but Dotcom, the site owner, implausibly claims this was all unknown to him.
Anyone wrongly charged with a serious crime should be ultra-eager to get into a court and argue their innocence. Instead, Dotcom has wasted millions trying to avoid doing so.
So he has resorted to a final desperation measure, namely to spend millions attempting to buy a change of government, which he hopes will override a court-backed extradition order, an inevitable outcome once he's used up all of his legal ploys.

Dotcom's money is not "clean" money, despite one of the serious criminal charges he is facing in the USA being Conspiracy to commit money laundering. But that won't stop Hone Harawira and his whanau. Their loathing of "rich prick" John Key means that the end justifies the means in getting rid of him, in their eyes. 

Of course that ignores the obvious hypocrisy of taking money from another rich prick, but Dotcom gets a free pass because he despises John Key too. Principles disappear out the window when the cheque book comes out.

Jones closes, with final digs at Dotcom, Harre and Minto:

He's wasting his money as no government will do that, regardless of any undertakings from the soul-selling abysmal no-hopers he has garnered together to fund as a political party. If anything, his efforts will hugely harm the Opposition cause in Balkanising and confusing its message, thus presenting an electoral option with, on one side, a rabble of dissimilar, mutually antagonistic parties, all with unpopular leaders and wildly different messages, set against a stable governing party with the most popular leader in our history.
This is the fifth party Dotcom's new leader, Laila Harre, has belonged to, which speaks volumes. Laila will always be remembered for the funniest political gaffe in our history when she explained her 2002 defeat by lamenting on television that voters had voted with their heads rather than their hearts.
If she wants hearts, then far better she assists Minto with a one-man black and white minstrel act which will pull the punters in droves, but when it comes to heads, like Dotcom, she's history.

Jones is once again quite right. The Herald-DiigiPoll released this morning shows a small rise in support for MegaMana at the Green Party's expense. A congested hard-Left is hardly going to filch votes from the centre, or the centre-right. All that will happen is that the same volume of votes on the Left will be distributed among more parties.

Of course, we're not going to complain about that outcome. It'll be a nice farewell gift to New Zealand from Dotcom as he is jetted off the the USA to face the trial he has tried so hard to avoid. 

0 More poll agony and ecstacy

In three months and three days, New Zealand goes to the polls to elect its 51st Parliament. And if the Labour Party wasn't already worried enough about poll trends, the Herald has heaped more misery on this morning.

The latest Herald-DigiPoll is out, and like other polls in the last couple of months, it's pretty emphatic. Herald deputy political editor Claire Trevett has the details:

The Internet-Mana Party would get two seats in Parliament based on the first major poll since the two parties cut a deal to stand together.
But, three months shy of the election, Labour is still struggling and the left bloc is well adrift from National, which could easily govern alone based on the Herald-DigiPoll survey.
The results for the Mana Party, Internet Party and Internet-Mana Party totalled 1.4 per cent in the survey - a modest start for the newly launched party which was the centre of attention in the lead-up to the polling period.
That is enough to get new Internet Party leader Laila Harre into Parliament if Mana leader Hone Harawira holds his Te Tai Tokerau electorate.
But the votes appear to have been at the expense of the Green Party which dropped to 11 per cent, down 2.5 points since the last Herald-DigiPoll survey in March.

That will worry the Greens, especially if Internet-Mana, bankrolled with $3 million from Kim Dotcom, starts to pick up more momentum.
Polling began on June 6, soon after Mana and Internet agreed to stand as a joint force to try to maximise the number of MPs Mr Harawira could take into Parliament under the "coat-tailing" provisions of MMP.
Although the deal was criticised by many commentators and rival political parties, 39 per cent of those polled said the Internet-Mana arrangement was a legitimate use of MMP while 43 per cent said it was an unprincipled rort.

That MegaMana is starting to cut into the Green vote is no surprise. Readers will remember that when Russel Norman visited Dotcom's rental property at Coatesville last year, he urged the Large German Gentleman to consider not starting a party for that very reason.

But the Greens' worries are small compared to those of Labour; Trevett continues:

With a party vote based on the poll of 50.4 per cent, National maintains a strong lead and is 20 points ahead of Labour which is up one to 30.5 per cent. National would have 64 seats, enough to govern without any support partners and 10 more seats than the left bloc of Labour, the Greens and Internet-Mana.
Labour leader David Cunliffe has rallied slightly, although Labour's efforts to beat the anti-immigration drum just before the poll began do not appear to have had much traction. Labour inched back over the 30 per cent mark and Mr Cunliffe's personal ratings as preferred Prime Minister have nudged up from 11 to 13 per cent since March.
He is still adrift of his high of 17 per cent immediately after his election last September and continues to poll lower than former leader David Shearer did. NZ First was steady on 3.6 per cent - not enough to return to Parliament though its support tends to lift during the campaign.
The poll indicates Prime Minister John Key has escaped the fallout from the trial and resignation of former Act MP John Banks, which broke the day before the poll began. Mr Key held steady at 66 per cent as preferred Prime Minister. Those who believed the Government was heading in the right direction lifted to 56 per cent - the highest since just before the 2011 election.
The poll of 750 eligible voters was taken from June 6 to June 15 and has a margin of error of +/- 3.6 per cent. There were 12.2 per cent undecided voters on the party vote.

This must be terribly discouraging for Mr Cunliffe and his Labour colleagues. They've thrown everything but the kitchen sink at National and Judith Collins in particular, and it's barely made a blind bit of difference. John Key remains the preferred Prime Minister for two thirds of those surveyed, whilst David Cunliffe is the preferred choice of less than one in seven New Zealanders.

And when Parliament resumes this afternoon after a two-week recess, sans John Banks, Labour will be on the defensive again. Instead of being able to attack the Government, Labour has its own donation woes, and if what we were hearing yesterday from a variety of unrelated people is true, yesterday's story is only the tip of the iceberg.

The clock is ticking on Labour. After Friday (i.e. three months out from the election), Labour can change leaders without going to the membership for another Labour's Got Talent tour. Have the polls yet reached the point where they might do a Mike Moore (1990), or will they stick with Mr Cunliffe then cut him adrift after what is looking likely to be a third successive defeat at the polls?

These are interesting times indeed, and the Herald-DigiPoll has just made them a whole lot more interesting!

0 No by-election for Epsom

There will be no Epsom by-election to replace the departed John Banks; Stuff reports:

Labour has confirmed it will not force a by-election in the Epsom electorate brought about by John Banks' resignation.
That gives the Government the required 75 per cent of votes in Parliament to leave the seat vacant until the general election on September 20.
Leader David Cunliffe said today it was not in the public interest to hold a by-election in the seat, made vacant by ACT MP John Bank's resignation, which takes effect today.
"A by-election so close to the general election would also be a waste of taxpayers' money," he said.
"I have written to the prime minister to inform him that Labour will support any motion to ensure there is no by-election in the electorate." 

John Banks announced his intention to resign as at 5pm yesterday last Sunday. The Prime Minister immediately announced that National would seek Labour's support for there not to be an expensive and futile by-election.

What took David Cunliffe almost a week to decide to support the PM's request. Did he, like a child who pulls the wings off flies, want to twist the knife a little bit more on Mr Banks? Was he trying to show the Prime Minister that he is no push-over? Did he have to travel up and down the country asking Labour Party members for their opinions? Or is he simply incapable of making decisions.

That there should be no Epsom by-election was a no-brainer. There would barely be time to hold the by-election before Parliament rises for the Big Show. It would be a waste of taxpayer funds, and a waste of party resources; and from what we've been told, the Labour Party is already worried about its resources for fighting a General Election.

David Cunliffe ought to have been able to ring the PM immediately and agree to support his motion not to hold a by-election. If he can't make simple and obvious decisions such as this one on the hoof (although he can make up policy as he goes), how is Mr Cunliffe ever going to cope with the demands of being Prime Minister, and the decisions required there?

 

0 More Cunliffe hypocrisy

David Cunliffe has declared war on coat-tailing and the Conservative Party; simultaneously. But he's also dug a deep hole for himself; Stuff reports:

Labour leader David Cunliffe has launched an attack on Conservative Party leader Colin Craig amid growing speculation of an electoral deal with National.
Prime Minister John Key told media this week he would be looking to make three deals to give minor-party candidates a chance at winning seats, and would announce them before the September 20 election.
It is widely understood one of those deals would be with Craig, who is set to announce this month the electorate he will be standing in.
Craig has already indicated his preference to stand in one of the northern Auckland electorates - East Coast Bays, which is held by Foreign Affairs Minister Murray McCully; Upper Harbour, in which National is standing Social Development Minister Paula Bennett; and Rodney, which is held by National back-bench MP Mark Mitchell.
If National gave way for Craig to win a seat and the Conservative's gained more than 1.2 per cent of the vote, an extra two MPs could be brought into Parliament to form a coalition with National.
Cunliffe today said the situation with Craig was a "strange turn of events".
"I wonder whether the people of East Coast Bays like the fact that their choices are being taken away from them, that MMP is being manipulated and they're being told they have to vote for somebody who basically thinks the earth is flat," he said on Firstline.
"That is a very, very strange turn of events and I think it underwhelms public confidence in the MMP system.
"I also think the prime minister should be aware that something like 75 per cent of New Zealanders object to coat-tailing.
"Labour is opposed to coat-tailing, we've got a bill in the House to end it, we've invited the Government to support the bill and so far they've declined. Now we see why - because they want to use coat-tailing to get fringe parties up into Parliament by gifting them a seat, most likely East Coast Bays."

So here's our question to David Cunliffe. If Labour is in a position to form a coalition after the General Election, and if the MegaMana party brought additional MP's into Parliament legally under the current provisions of MMP, would Labour refuse to go into coalition with them?

You see, David Cunliffe has a problem. If coat-tailing is such an urgent problem that legislation must be introduced in the first 100 days of a Labour-led government to outlaw it, surely he cannot accept the votes and support of a party that coat-tails MP's into the House. Or does Mr Cunliffe seriously believe that coat-tailing is only bad when the parties of the Right do it?

So the ball's in your court Mr Cunliffe; you need to categorically rule out any deal or accommodation with the Internet Mana Party including coalition arrangements,  abstaining, and confidence and supply deals. Will you do it?

We reckon the answer to that is self-evident. Labour is all about power at any cost. John Key might be prepared to cut deals, but at least he cuts them out in the open, not in the War Room or the union halls. 

Coat-tailing is either good, or it's bad. But David Cunliffe is being a hypocrite if he thinks he can have a dollar each way.

0 Cash for credibility

Having purchased himself a political party, Kim Dotcom is now looking to buy his way out of extradition; Stuff reports:

Kim Dotcom is offering $5 million to anyone who can help him with his extradition case.
The US is seeking to extradite Dotcom to face charges of copyright conspiracy, racketeering and money-laundering allegedly carried out by his file-sharing company, Megaupload.
Earlier this year Dotcom lost his final bid in the Supreme Court, to gain access to evidence the US government had against him in his case.
The matter of disclosure had already been ruled on in three courts. Two judges - one each in the District Court and one in the High Court - ruled that Dotcom should be allowed to see all the information, but this year the Court of Appeal ruled against him.
The German internet mogul and founder of the Internet Party is now offering $5 million to anyone who can prove government corruption over the handling of his case. 
"We are asking for information that proves unlawful or corrupt conduct by the US government, the New Zealand government, spy agencies, law enforcement and Hollywood", Dotcom told website Torrentfreak.com.
"It is the opinion of my legal team that disclosure of such information would be lawful. I would also guarantee that any whistleblower coming forward would have the best legal representation at zero cost."
Dotcom said he was talking with his lawyers about the logistics of such a payment. It would most likely be paid to a trust, with terms and conditions to anyone who submitted information. 

For the last two years there have been plenty of bullish tweets from Dotcom saying that he will prove his innocence, and prove that governments conspired against him. He claims to have evidence that will bring down John Key and his government.

It would seem that Dotcom has been talking up the "evidence" he has, and that it simply doesn't stack up. Why else would he be prepared to shell out a small fortune to save himself a US government-funded trip to the Land of the Free?

And even if said evidence can be found (or concocted), will he or can he pay the ransom? 3News suggests not:

Music and movie giants have joined forces to freeze Kim Dotcom's assets, but they'll have to negotiate conditions first.

Lawyers appeared at the High Court in Auckland on Monday on behalf of four music industry companies and six Hollywood film studios seeking to have Dotcom's assets frozen ahead of their claim against him.

The record labels are understood to be Warner Music, UMG Recordings, Sony Music and Capitol Records, while the film companies are 20th Century Fox, Disney, Paramount, Universal, Columbia Pictures and Warner Brothers.

The companies say the now defunct file sharing website Megaupload and its key operators, including Dotcom, facilitated, encouraged and profited from massive copyright infringement and want Dotcom's New Zealand assets to remain frozen while their case is under way.

Lawyers appearing for Dotcom and his wife Mona said the estranged pair were prepared to maintain the current freeze, but the companies needed to offer security first.

Dotcom's lawyer Robert Gapes said the companies should put up NZ$250,000 (AU$232,742) for Dotcom, and a further NZ$250,000 for Ms Dotcom.

If Dotcom's assets are frozen, but he is having to demand cash security from those who are suing him, where is all the cash coming from? He has already shelled out up to $4 million on his political game-show, his legal bills both here and in the US are mounting, he still has staff owed wages, but suddenly he has $5 million for someone who saves his not-insignifcant posterior.

 

Dotcom's date with destiny in the form of his extradition hearing is now less than four weeks ago. As the reality kicks in, it seems that he is falling back to his default setting; splashing cash around. But no amount of money can buy evidence that doesn't exist, and you can't buy credibility.

0 Parata on the IES programme

Cabinet Ministers writing opinion-pieces in the metropolitan dailies is not a particularly regular event. Perhaps communication between the Executive and the general public would be better if it happened more often.

But on this occasion Hekia Parata has written a thoughtful piece in this morning's Dom-Post about her Government's Investing in Educational Success initiative, and it's well worth a read; she begins thus:

Teacher unions and others in the profession are helping design the details of a major new government education initiative.
Investing in Educational Success is not about paying large allowances to selected people, or creating a bigger corporate management structure. 
Recently NZEI past-president Ian Leckie incorrectly stated that the education profession has not been consulted on the Government's major new $359 million initiative, Investing in Educational Success Why teachers are wary about a multimillion-dollar pay rise, June 5).
In fact, teacher unions and others in the profession have been working closely with the Government on the detail of the new initiative since very soon after it was announced in January.
A working group was formed of representatives from the NZEI, the PPTA, the New Zealand School Trustees Association, Te Tari Puna Ora o Aotearoa, the New Zealand Principals' Federation, the Secondary Principals' Association of New Zealand, the New Zealand Area Schools Association, the New Zealand Association of Intermediate and Middle Schooling, Nga Kura a Iwi o Aotearoa, Te Rūnanganui o Nga Kura Kaupapa Maori, and the Pasifika Principals' Association. It is chaired by Secretary for Education Peter Hughes.
This significant investment is designed to raise student achievement by building the quality and consistency of teaching and leadership across our education system.
We want to keep the best teachers in classrooms, share excellent practice so it becomes universal practice, and ensure that every student gets a better education. We want to get the best principals to the schools that need them most. We want better career pathways to attract the best and keep them in the profession. We want to reward their excellence with salaries that reflect their skills. 

On the face of it, few would argue that what Mrs Parata is proposing is both ground-breaking and innovative. It has certainly been greeted with cautious optimism by much of the education sector.

There is however one notable exception to the cautious optimists; Mrs Parata continues:

Leckie's comments are unfortunate and a disappointing contrast to others in the education profession.
On the other hand, PPTA president Angela Roberts last week described the Government's collaboration with the education profession as "a positive example of sector collaboration".
She described the consultation process as "comprehensive, robust and genuine". She said the sector had "worked hard together to find pragmatic answers" and that "We feel Cabinet has heard us".
Secondary Principals Association chairman Tom Parsons has described the package as potentially a game-changer for education. 

That NZEI is so out-of-step with other major teacher unions or organisations is no great surprise. NZEI has long been the most militant of the teacher unions. But on this occasion, it could take a lead from its big brother union, the PPTA. We blogged last week our compliments to Angela Roberts and her team for engaging with the Government, even though the two are long-standing foes.

Over the weekend we chatted to a family member who is a primary school principal with significant experience. They described their disappointment with the NZEI's adversarial approach to IES, suggesting that in their opinion, it had more to do with the looming General Election than with genuine concerns about the policy initiative.

And whilst Mrs Parata has often been criticised (and in some cases rightly so) for being less than transparent in her role, she notes that the Government has offered the education sector an open book with regard to the IES programme:

I have released the report of the working group so that those who wish to comment can actually see for themselves what the working group had to say
And for further transparency, I have also released the Cabinet paper in response. There is much more work ahead, and we are keen to continue to work together with the profession to get this right.
Investing in Educational Success is not about paying large allowances to selected people, or creating a "bigger corporate management structure" as Leckie asserts.
It is about setting achievement challenges specific to a community of schools and then using these additional resources of very skilled teachers and principals to work within and across that community to meet the challenges.
These challenges might be about mathematics, or science, or digital literacy. They will be a shared learning concern of the schools involved and they will be based on information about the specific needs of students in those schools. The professional collaboration that this initiative is based upon will target those needs together.
This initiative is exciting, it picks some of the best elements out of some of the most successful systems around the world, and is anchored in our knowledge of what works in New Zealand, and what our challenges are.
We are investing in educational success for every New Zealand child, and we are doing so with the profession. 

When John Key launched the Investing in Educational Success initiative in January we noted this:

It is pleasing to see that the Government is keen to engage with unions and other sector groups to implement this plan. Whilst we're not a fan of unions, we believe that members of the teacher unions do have a genuine desire to improve the lives of the children entrusted into their care, and we hope that the unions are prepared to enter into collaboration with the Government and  Minister Hekia Parata to achieve this.

Our view on that has not changed. We hope that NZEI will come to the table in the spirit in which the Government via Hekia Parata has put forward a proposal to upskill a large number of teachers, who will ultimately have an even more positive benefit on the children in their care.
 

0 Comment of the Day - 9 June 2014

It's early in the day to be featuring a Comment of the Day. But when we saw this one at Kiwiblog last night, our day was almost done, so it was filed away for use this morning; here 'tis:

Nostradamus (2,842 comments) says: June 8th, 2014 at 8:36 pm

The man who describes himself as the Leader of the Opposition, David Cunliffe, has issued a media release:

John Banks’ resignation was inevitable but should have come a lot sooner, Labour Leader David Cunliffe says.
“The only reason Mr Banks has remained in Parliament for so long is because John Key and National needed his vote.
…
“This government’s mandate has rested on a man found guilty of a serious electoral offence; on Peter Dunne, stripped of his ministerial warrants after he lost the trust of the Prime Minister having allegedly leaked a classified GCSB report; and on a Maori Party cravenly propping up the government.
“The Banks saga has underlined how desperate National is to stay in power. New Zealanders are now asking serious questions about the integrity of this government,” David Cunliffe said.

That media release makes an interesting contrast from this one back in 2009:

Labour acknowledges the jury’s decision today on charges brought against Taito Phillip Field after a long and difficult trial, Labour Chief Whip Darren Hughes said.
“Mr Field was expelled from the Labour Party in 2007. Labour has acted in good faith throughout this process.
“The jury has decided that Mr Field acted illegally.
“The judge is yet to sentence Mr Field. Labour will make no further comment.”

As DPF blogged at the time, Labour could only bring themselves to “acknowledge” the decision. This, as we all know, followed Labour’s prolonged defence of Field between 12 September 2005 and 31 August 2006 – see DPF’s detailed timeline here. And, for good measure, Field was actually expelled from Labour for the cardinal sin of not ruling out standing for another party at the election – nothing to do with his other shady activities.
So, once again, Labour expose themselves as complete hypocrites.

Many commentators have drawn a parallel between Field's conviction and imprisonment and Banks' offending. Apart from the fact that they both involved MPs, the two cases have little in common.

Phillip Field used his position as an MP to offer favours to vulnerable potential immigrants, implying that he could offer them favours in return for free work. That was indeed blatantly corrupt. John Banks however was a private citizen when he filed his campaign return, having lost the Auckland mayoral election to Len Brown. He would not become an MP for another 12 months.

Labour's refusal to denounce Phillip Field, even after he had been found guilty by a jury is telling. As Nostradamus notes above, Field was not expelled from Labour because of the offences he was (at the time) alleged to have committed. He was expelled because he rained on Helen Clark's parade, refusing on the day she was giving her State of the Nation speech to Parliament to rule out that he might be setting up a new political party.

So David Cunliffe's statement about Banks needs to be seen for what it is; political opportunism. Where was his righteous indignation, when day after day Lockwood Smith was grilling Labour over Field's indiscretions and the shonky Ingram Report, which of course reached exactly the conclusion that its Terms of Reference had intended?

Mr Cunliffe is in no position to lecture John Key. If however he was to reveal who the anonymous donors to his Labour's Got Talent campaign were, and admit his hypocrisy in using a secret trust to hide those anonymous donations, he might, like John Banks, be taking the first steps towards redemption.