0 An innocent mistake, or a Freudian slip?

With speculation that David Shearer could be restored to his former role of leader of the Labour Party (although why would he want it?), we're wondering as to the cause of this Bay of Plenty Times headline:

Did someone at the BoP Times (or at APN's centralised production centre) make a cock-up, or does someone have inside information of an impending coup or even a fait accompli?

The plot thickens...

0 The headline no leader wants to see

In just 64 days, New Zealanders will go to the polls. And with the 2014 General Election looming large in their thinking, no political leader would want to wake up to a headline like this; Cunliffe a Labour liability, poll shows.

The headline tops a story written by veteran Fairfax political journalist Vernon Small. It begins thus:

Labour would get an immediate lift in the polls if it dumped leader David Cunliffe, a new poll suggests.
The stuff.co.nz/Ipsos poll reveals that Cunliffe may have become Labour's biggest liability, with a significant number of voters saying they would be more likely to vote for Labour if someone else were leader.
Click here for full poll results in graphics.
The effect is sizeable, making a 13.5 percentage point difference to Labour's vote.
Although a similar effect is seen on National when asked the same question about John Key, it is much smaller.
The finding will plunge Labour further into crisis after yesterday's poll result cementing Labour's support in the mid-20s.
Privately, Labour and the Greens now acknowledge that it would take an unprecedented swing against National to force a change of government on September 20. 

That last sentence is telling. For all the bullish talk and the relentless positivity in public, politicians are inherently realists when it comes to polls. Of seven polls in the last six weeks, only one shows Labour at greater than 30% support; the Herald DigiPoll of mid-June had Labour at a whopping 30.5%, and even that poll had National with enough support to govern alone.

Vernon Small continues, hinting at some deep concerns within Labour's caucus that make a mockery of David Cunliffe's pronouncements of unity:

Some Labour MPs were yesterday privately canvassing leadership options, even at this late stage.
But they believe Labour would be even more severely punished by such an outward sign of panic.
Labour's focus now has shifted to protecting its vote from further erosion, and preserving the seats of some of its up-and-coming stars, including Andrew Little, seen as a future leadership contender, and former teacher Kelvin Davis.
Even some of Labour's seasoned hands, including finance spokesman David Parker and frontbench MP Jacinda Ardern, could be at risk of losing their seats in Parliament if party support sank much lower.
Labour MPs are clearly convinced the party has suffered in recent weeks because of a series of headlines that took the focus away from what they saw as a successful alternative economic policy and Budget plan and a suite of popular education policies.
Those distractions included Trevor Mallard's moa resurrection, Nanaia Mahuta's musings about te reo in schools, Little's comments about the reversal of the burden of proof in relation to consent during rape trials, and being drawn into the Dotcom saga.
But they also included Cunliffe's own apology for being a man and his suggestion that opponents in the party were scabs - as well as what MPs saw as unfair treatment of his connection to property developer Donghua Liu. 

Small's revelation that Labour's focus has shifted from winning to self-preservation is telling, but not entirely unexpected; check out these photographs:

Sue Moroney has blanked out the "official" Labour Party authorisation on her billboards, and hand-written her own. As you can see in the middle photo, she has also obscured the Labour Party logo. Interestingly though, Sue Moroney is a David Cunliffe loyalist, yet she seems to want to disassociate herself from the party he leads.

And apart from the fact that Clayton Cosgrove is NOT the MP for Waimakariri as his billboard implies, his billboards are interesting to say the least. It looks as though he is distancing himself from the party under Cunliffe's leadership, as he did in 2011 when he lost Waimakariri to Kate Wilkinson. Unsurprisingly, Labour lost the party vote in Waimakariri by more than 12,000 votes, but ironically Cosgrove returned to Parliament via the Labour list, having not campaigned actively for party votes!

Labour is in crisis; so much crisis that there is even talk of David Shearer returning as leader. David Cunliffe is not going to be a happy leader when he returns from his holiday.

0 A flip-flop on the u-turn

You couldn't make stuff like this up; check out Gerry Brownlee's presser, via Scoop:

Hon Gerry Brownlee
Minister of Transport
17 July 2014 Media Statement

Another Labour U-turn on Puhoi to Wellsford – that’s a 360!

Transport Minister Gerry Brownlee says Labour’s Northland list MP and candidate for Te Tai Tokerau, Kelvin Davis, must be alarmed at what a pernicious viper’s nest his party has become.
“Three days ago it seemed Labour had seen sense on the $1.38 billion Puhoi to Wellsford State Highway 1 upgrade, one of the Government’s seven Roads of National Significance,” Mr Brownlee says.
“Their transport spokesman Phil Twyford clearly told The New Zealand Herald Labour would no longer axe the road, merely postpone its construction.
“This was a huge change of heart from Labour, but a sensible one, as the road is supported wholeheartedly by every regional authority from Auckland to Cape Reinga, and the vast majority of the people who live in the far north.
“It was also a big boost for Mr Davis, who had bravely spoken out in favour of investing in greater resilience for Northland’s infrastructure following this week’s damaging storms.
“But 72 hours later Labour’s Auckland-centric powerbrokers have told their plucky upstart from the sticks to get back in his box.
“In an interview with Duncan Garner on Radio Live this afternoon Phil Twyford made it clear that when he says postponed, he means never – under Labour the roading lifeline to the north is a goner.
“The message for the people of Northland is clear: with $1.66 billion worth of roading projects already committed to the far north, the only major political party offering the sort of first-world infrastructure that will see you deliver on your abundant potential is the National Party,” Mr Brownlee says.

Apart from the good folk of points north of Puhoi, the big loser here is Kelvin Davis. Labour has just pulled the rug out from underneath Davis, almost guaranteeing that Hone Harawira will retain Te Tai Tokerau, and almost guaranteeing that MegaMana will be in the 51st Parliament. But the way that Labour is polling at the moment, Mr Davis may struggle to get in off Labour's list.

This flip-flop followed by a u-turn is a slap in the face for the people of Northland. The latte-drinking academics in Labour don't care about them, regardless of their platitudes about regional development. Instead, they will continue to make snide comments about the "holiday highway", forgetting that this is a vital link for Northland to Auckland and points south. 

Is it any wonder that Labour holds no electorates whatsoever north of the Auckland Harbour Bridge? When push comes to shove, Labour doesn't care about the roading needs of the people of Northland.

This is Labour's reaction to two dreadful poll results; a complete 360* two-step turnaround in the space of just four days. Can you imagine what a disaster it would be if they somehow won the Treasury Benches in two months time?

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 Labour's holiday blues

David Cunliffe's pre-election holiday got ruined tonight. The latest Roy Morgan poll is out, and it's grim reading both for the Labour Party and its leader. Here's the news Mr Cunliffe won't want to hear:

Today’s New Zealand Roy Morgan Poll shows a strong rise in support for National (51%, up 3%) and a substantial lead over a potential Labour/Greens alliance (38.5%, down 1.5%) just more than two months before the New Zealand Election on September 20.
Support for Key’s Coalition partners has changed little overall with the Maori Party 1% (down 0.5%), Act NZ (0.5%, down 0.5%) and United Future 0.5% (up 0.5%).
Support for the Labour Party is 23.5% (down 4.5% - the lowest since November 22-24, 2011 – just before the 2011 New Zealand Election), the Greens are 15% (up 3% – the highest since August 26-September 8, 2013), New Zealand First is 6% (up 0.5%) and the Internet-Mana Party alliance is at 1.5% (down 1%). Support for the Conservative Party of NZ is 1% (unchanged) and support for Independent/ Others is 0% (down 0.5%).
If a National Election were held now the latest New Zealand Roy Morgan Poll shows that the result would be an easy victory for the National Party and a third term for Prime Minister John Key.

Polling was conducted during the period 30 June to 13 July, so this poll covers the Labour Party conference, Trevor Mallard's Moa de-extinction plan, and Labour's education announcements. Set against that background, a loss of 4.5 percentage points (a drop of around 16% in the space of two weeks) is significant. The phone is off the hook when the Labour Party goes calling.

And far from this being a rogue poll, check out the recent trends:

National are the winners here, but so are the Greens. We've joked over the last few years that the Greens may end up being the leading opposition party, but now they are only 8.5 percentage points behind Labour, and it's no longer a joking matter; it could happen.

There's one final indignity for Labour; read on:

The latest NZ Roy Morgan Government Confidence Rating is up slightly to 142.5pts (up 1pt) with 65.5% (up 0.5%) of New Zealanders saying New Zealand is ‘heading in the right direction’ compared to 23% (down 0.5%) that say New Zealand is ‘heading in the wrong direction’. The New Zealand Government Confidence Rating is substantially higher than in Australia – Australian Government Confidence this week fell to 90pts (down 5.5pts).

Oppositions generally don't win elections; governments get voted out. When almost two thirds of those polled are optimistic, and less than a quarter say New Zealand is ‘heading in the wrong direction’, there seems to be little mood for change.  

We suspect that things will be very, very subdued in Labour Party circles tonight and tomorrow. Now that the election is less than three months away, the leadership can be changed without going to the party and the unions. But is there someone who is prepared to take one for the team, and put their personal ambitions to one side to stem the bleeding?

This really is a dreadful result for Labour, and especially for David Cunliffe. Bill English's 2002 record of 20.9% is truly under threat now.

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 Holiday Highway, Holiday Highway, Holiday Highway, Great Idea!

Is the no policy that Labour will not flip-flop over? It would seem not.

And the latest flip-flop is over the Puhoi to Wellsford upgrade to State Highway One north of Auckland; that piece of road known by opposition parties as the Holiday Highway. Here's a potted summary of Labour's opposition:

• 2011 - Phil Goff wants it scrapped
• 2012 - Phil Twyford calls for the Government to "take a hard look" at the road, because it doesn't stack up.
• 2013 - Labour continues to oppose the road, and Holiday Highway bashing continues unabated

Since before the 2011 election Labour's opposition to Puhoi to Wellsford has been constant. What you see above is only a small sample of "anti" stories.

But now, led by renegade List MP Kelvin Davis, Labour has done a back-flip, prompting this presser from Gerry Brownlee:

Gerry Brownlee

15 July, 2014

Labour’s panicked U-turn on the road from Puhoi to Wellsford

Backed into a corner and on the wrong side of public opinion, Labour is making up major policy on the hoof with its announcement it now supports the Puhoi to Wellsford Road of National Significance, Transport Minister Gerry Brownlee says.
“The brave but sensible stance of Northland list MP Kelvin Davis to stand up to the Labour leadership and state the obvious – that most people in the north support the Puhoi to Wellsford upgrade of State Highway 1 – has led to an immediate U-turn by his party today with the statement by Labour Transport Spokesman Phil Twyford that Labour would no longer cancel the road, but postpone its construction,” Mr Brownlee says.
“This is a spectacular U-turn for Labour, and as with all such maneuverers there is significant risk, and the potential for unintended consequences.
“For Labour it now raises the huge question of where the money is coming from for its commitment to immediately begin building Auckland’s City Rail Link.
“National is committed to co-funding construction of the rail link on a schedule that will see it delivered ahead of when Auckland City’s own research says it’s required.
“Labour was going to fund construction of the link from next year with money the Government has committed to building the Puhoi to Wellsford highway.
“Now it has to tell the people of Northland how long they’ll have to wait for their much-need highway upgrade, and where the $1.38 billion will come from to build it.
“That’s assuming Labour is still committed to beginning construction of the City Rail Link next year.
“Or does Mr Twyford have as big a surprise for Aucklanders today as he just delivered to the people of Northland this morning?
“Labour’s policy processes are woefully inadequate and clearly reliant on knee-jerk reactions,” Mr Brownlee says.

 

Gerry Brownlee is right; this is knee-jerk politics from Labour and especially from Phil Twyford. Alfred Ngaro will be looking forward to Mr Twyford telling the good folk of Te Atatu they won't be getting better train services any time soon.

 

Whilst we welcome this particular u-turn by Labour, it is a u-turn nonetheless. But with Labour v2014, that's par for the course. Why would we expect anything else?

0 The Herald; playing games again

The Herald's Dotcom correspondent David Fisher joined a few dots this morning and decided there was "political pressure" to approve Kim Dotcom's New Zealand residence application.

The Herald has published a number of documents, and one of them completely contradicts that line of attack. It is a statement from Immigration New Zealand dated 8 July 2014, just one week ago. Here it is, snipped from the Herald story, and with the addition of highlighting to key passages.

We presume David Fisher has read all the documents his story this morning relied on. Unfortunately for him, the INZ statement blows his, Dotcom's and Labour's argument clean out of the water. Immigration New Zealand is emphatic the decision was made by senior INZ staff, and the Minister was only informed (on a no surprises basis) AFTER the decision was made. Equally, INZ is adamant there was NO political pressure brought to bear by the Government.

That the Herald went ahead and ran the "political pressure" line anyway, despite a categorical denial from those accused of bending to political pressure suggests there is an agenda at play here. Kim Dotcom has made no secret of his desire to bring down the New Zealand Government. He has a willing media plant in the form of David Fisher, and Labour Party politicians who, despite a pledge to campaign cleanly, are happy to participate in spreading serious but incorrect allegations. 

However the Herald does itself no credit by publishing as fact allegations which have already been unequivocally denied. Granny Herald was once New Zealand's foremost newspaper. Those who made it that must turn in their graves on days like this.

0 Another Whale of a scoop

Cameron Slater has developed a bit of a reputation for breaking significant stories over the last couple of years. That saw him win the Canon Media Award for Best Blog earlier in the year, to the chagrin of a number of mainstream media figures.

And he's broken another story this morning which, if it is true, casts Labour leader David Cunliffe in a very poor light.

It's Slater's scoop, so we're not going to steal any of his thunder here. We simply suggest that you go and read this story, and judge it for yourself. But it certainly casts Mr Cunliffe's apology for being a man in a very different and unflattering light.

0 "A bad but wealthy man"

There's yet another revelation about Kim Dotcom in the Herald this morning. And former Immigration Minister Jonathon Coleman must be wishing he'd never heard of the Large German Gentleman.

With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight (what a wonderful gift that would be for politicians!), we reckon Dr Coleman now wishes that he had instructed his Immigration New Zealand officials to treat Dotcom's residence application strictly according to Hoyle. But he cannot turn back the clock, and New Zealand is stuck with Dotcom until the US application to extradite him is heard.

Probably the most interesting aspect of the Herald story however is Laila Harre's reaction to her boss. The Herald reports:

Last night the leader of the Dotcom-funded Internet Party, Laila Harre, said she "wouldn't have been comfortable" granting the tycoon residency if she had been the Minister of Immigration.

We wonder if Ms Harre is also uncomfortable receiving her weekly pay-cheque from Dotcom, now that she has been made aware of all the background information. Will she reconsider leading the Internet Party, given what she now knows about her boss?

Neither National nor Labour has a good record with regard to rich immigrants. Labour is dogged by two men named Liu, and National has Dotcom to not boast about. Whilst the investment that wealthy immigrants bring is welcome, perhaps it's time for cross-party consensus that it is not so welcome that essential elements of immigration policy can be waived.

0 A lecture from Bradbury

Martyn Bradbury is in lecturing mode in his Herald on Sunday column today. With reference to David Cunliffe's astounding apology for being a man, Bradbury opines:

Pundits and talkback radio callers couldn't trip over invisible privilege fast enough this week as a knee-jerk backlash against David Cunliffe's heartfelt apology at a domestic violence symposium was turned into a "not-all-men-are-rapists" argument or a "men-get-sexually-abused-too" debate.
"I don't often say it - I'm sorry for being a man, because family and sexual violence is overwhelmingly perpetrated by men." This genuine statement of remorse for New Zealand's staggeringly high domestic violence rate was decried by some commentators as disingenuous. Those of us comfortable in our masculinity can look beyond the personal offence semantics and respect Cunliffe's political courage. Every man should feel sorry for the tens of thousands of women who never see justice in our courts for rapes and sexual assaults against them. Every man should feel sorry that 35 Kiwis are killed in domestic violence-related crime annually.

Every man should feel sorry that 20,000 women and children sought refuge last year. Because 84 per cent of convicted domestic violence is male on female. That isn't to diminish the men assaulted by women, but it is important to accept we have a problem of violence against women and paying lip service to that culture of violence isn't enough.
Labour's attempt to challenge that lip service via a real desire for gender equality has seen a sexist counter-narrative . "Manban" and "female dominated" have been headlines used to rob women of their platform to have their say. Who women vote for will be essential to who wins in September and Labour's strong stand on women's rights coupled with their baby bonus, extra maternity leave, donation-free schools, iPads for every student, $16 minimum wage and smaller class sizes can rally that female vote and gain Labour the 32 per cent needed to make a Parliamentary majority, if Greens gain 15 per cent and Internet Mana 3.5 per cent.

We frankly don't need lecturing and/or hectoring from Comrade Bradbury. As we have noted many times we abhor domestic violence; it is NEVER OK. And whilst we may feel sorry for those who are victims of domestic violence, we most certainly do NOT feel sorry that we were born male, and we are not sorry that we are a husband and a father.

Domestic violence needs to be stopped, but politicians making grandiose apologies for their gender will have no impact whatsoever. Nor will the hand-wringing and lecturing of the likes of Martyn Bradbury. What does need to happen is for those men who beat or psychologically abuse their partners and children to stop, and to seek help. And what also needs to happen is for those close to those people to stop making excuses for them.

As for the so-called "sexist counter-narrative" Bradbury refers to, we have been consistent in our criticism of Labour's attempts to engineer gender equality in its caucus because it is patronising and demeaning to the very women Bradbury tries to defend. Helen Clark didn't need quotas or list manipulation to become leader of the Labour Party and Prime Minister. Nor did Annette King need a quota to become Phil Goff's deputy leader. Nor for that matter did Jenny Shipley, to become New Zealand's first female Prime Minister. All three women got their own their merits, and all power to them.

Like David Cunliffe a week ago, Martyn Bradbury doesn't speak for us, or for the vast numbers of men who totally reject domestic violence. Nor should he pretend to. We're glad Martyn Bradbury is comfortable is his masculinity. So are we, and for that we make no apology whatsoever. 

0 Here comes the back-down

Labour appears to be backing away from its proposal to reverse the burden of proof on consent in rape cases; Newstalk ZB reports:

A case of Andrew Little thinking out loud.
Labour's downplaying its justice spokesman's proposal to shift the burden of proof in rape cases.
The party wants the Law Commission to consider a shift to an inquisitorial system - to make courtrooms less combative for alleged victims of sexual assault.
Mr Little's suggested the defence should have to show there was consent, to prove the accused's innocence.
But leader David Cunliffe says Labour will await expert advice on the idea.
"I think he was saying what I've been saying which is that it is a matter for the Law Commission.
"There's a range of options on the table.
"One possibility could be - dot, dot, dot." 

David Cunliffe has obviously been holding his finger up to the winds of public opinion on this important issue. He's know starting to back away from what Andrew Little was proposing with no ambiguity whatsoever up until Tuesday.

This is vintage Labour Party policy-making on the hoof. Announce something, then back away from it when you get an adverse reaction. That is no way for Labour to be demonstrating that the party is a credible alternative government-in-waiting.

It reminds us of the infamous Groucho Marx quote:

Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.

We're pleased that David Cunliffe has seen sense, and will not be going ahead with this proposal, for now, anyway. But the mere fact that it was raised at all suggests an absence of good judgment on the part of Labour's MPs.

0 Where's the leader gone?

Labour has launched a new website design, with the emphasis on the message it launched at the weekend to "Vote Positive".

But an alert Keeping Stock reader has alerted us to the fact that someone seems to be largely missing from the banner header; check this out:

In urging New Zealanders to Vote Positive, it would appear that Labour has decided, as it did in 2011 with then-leader Phil Goff, people are more likely to vote for them if they don't see David Cunliffe.

And who knows; it might just work!


Footnote: No; the image hasn't been cropped or digitally altered to exclude David Cunliffe (at our end, anyway). Here's exactly how it appears online.

0 Tweet of the Day - 9 July 2014

Here's a turn-up for the books. Either Grant Robertson has stood aside ( and we have no reason to suspect he has), or Labour is planning to stand two candidates against each other in Wellington Central:

The lower image comes directly from the Labour Party website - the one with the Vote Positive branding. But how do you Vote Positive when you have to choose between two candidates in the same electorate. People may just as well vote for National's Paul Foster-Bell!

Labour is making so many cock-ups with its digital and social media proclamations that keeping up with them all is becoming very time-consuming. We might have to start charging for our proof-reading time, and as a nod to our Scottish heritage, Labour should be warned that we charge like a wounded bull.

But it really is a worry that a party that wants to govern New Zealand in just over a couple of months time is making so many basic errors and displaying such ineptitude. It certainly doesn't fill the floating voter with confidence.

0 Idiot/Savant on the presumption of innocence

Every now and again the planets align in such a way that we agree with something Idiot/Savant at No Right Turn has written.

Today is one of those days. Under the heading Time to defend the presumption of innocence Idiot/Savant blogs:

I accept that rape cases are difficult to prove. This change will make them remarkably easier. If Labour gets its way, there will be a lot more convictions for rape. And a lot more of them will be of innocent people. We presume innocence because we believe it is far better for the guilty to go free than for the innocent to be punished. Labour clearly does not believe that any more.

A party which does not believe in and will not defend the presumption of innocence does not deserve your vote. All they deserve is your contempt. If they retain this policy, you should not vote Labour.

In its haste to appeal to female voters, Labour has overreacted. The policy proposed by Andrew Little will create far more legal problems than it will solve, and it highly likely to result in innocent people being jailed. 

In the meantime, it will be interesting to hear what other parties, and especially the Green Party think of Andrew Little and Labour's proposal. There may yet be other parties to add to Idiot/Savant's "do not vote for" list.

0 Quote of the Day - 9 June 2014

We somehow don't think Sir Robert Jones has a very high opinion of Labour leader David Cunliffe; he opines:

No Labour leader has ever been so unpopular as David Cunliffe, evidenced by the disastrous polls and also the Reader's Digest trustworthy survey bracketing him humiliatingly in bottom place with Dotcom and Harawira.
Cunliffe was installed against the strong wishes of those who knew him best, namely Labour's caucus. Now the public know him as well, resulting in a wider disdain. Two decades ago, employees voted with their feet, leaving the once powerful union movement a mere rump as a representative body. It's therefore no surprise that the rump's outlook is alien to the majority of voters. What's astonishing about this is the ignoring of Labour's history, not just here but also in Britain and Australia. National reigned here from 1949 to 1984, broken only by two single term Labour administrations. In Britain the Conservatives ruled the roost from 1979 to 1987 and in Australia, the Liberal coalition from 1949 to 1983, excepting the Whitlam government.
What changed was the advent of realistic Labour leaders, namely Lange and Douglas, Hawke and Keating, and Tony Blair. They threw off their party's debilitating union influence, acknowledged the failure of their socialist ideology and embraced the market economy, substituting the meaningless term of "social democrats" rather than socialists to henceforth describe themselves. The British and Australian labour governments then ruled for 13 years but Lange's subsequent change of heart created an irreparable schism which cut short a well deserved longer stint.
There's no popular support in all three countries for a return to a high taxes, big government socialist order, other than from the no-hoper entitlement to live off others sector, which is why it's extraordinary that Cunliffe should expound these propositions and have the gall to label them progressive. Perhaps he was influenced by the election of a nondescript individual as French President, who exploiting the politics of envy, promised punitive taxes on higher incomes. "You're welcome here," London mayor Boris Johnson told them and they came, and also went elsewhere. The President, now polling the lowest of any in French history, intends reversing the policy with a low tax regime to attract the job creators back in an endeavour to fix the moribund economy.
I know someone who, through much hard work, became wealthy in the last few years. He has a sentimental historic attachment to the Labour Party, as do many affluent individuals and he was planning a six-figure donation this year, chuffed at his new-found capability to do so. But he was outraged after hearing a Cunliffe interview following the leadership race. "Will you raise taxes on higher incomes?" Cunliffe was asked. "You betcha," the new leader exclaimed with gusto. My acquaintance was angry, for as he said, "I've worked my butt off and the tone of Cunliffe's enthusiasm to punish me for this was sickening."
"Will you now vote National?" I teased, knowing he'd never hitherto done so. "You betcha," he exclaimed.
We're now threatened with a disheartened wreckage of a Labour opposition, reflected by the head office-imposed, mostly tokenist no-names in their mediocre new candidates list.

Sir Robert makes a very interesting point here. We've heard rumours for months that the Labour Party is broke. Promising to tax businesses and high earners more is hardly the recipe to encourage those business owners and high income earners to pull out the chequebooks and donate with an attitude of gratitude. In a sense, Labour has cut off its nose to spite its face.

In the meantime, Labour's main backers will be trade unions, and we have already blogged about that particular link this week. In promising an election campaign free of "dirty tricks or dodgy deals; smear campaigns and a personality cult", Mr Cunliffe is obviously not planning to make any further cash for policy allegations against National, lest the hypocrisy of Labour's own cash for policy history catch up with it.

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 Labour IS planning on reversing the burden of proof

We asked on Saturday if it was true the Labour Party was planning to reverse the burden of proof of consent in cases of alleged rape. 

This morning we have discovered that it is indeed true as Derek Cheng reports in the Herald:

The Labour Party's plan to reform the criminal justice system would mean that the accused in a rape case would have to prove consent to be found innocent -- a change it acknowledges as a monumental shift.
But Labour's justice spokesman Andrew Little said the current system is broken and in need of a major shake-up. The party favours an inquisitorial system, where a judge interviewed the alleged victim after conferring with prosecution and defence lawyers.
The policy would mean that in a rape case, if the Crown proved a sexual encounter and the identity of the defendant, it would be rape unless the defendant could prove it was consensual.
"The Crown has to prove more than just sex; the issue of consent has to be raised by the Crown, they have to prove the identity of the offender. They would have to bear that burden of proof before a switch to the defence to prove consent," Mr Little said.

He said the issue of proof would only apply where allegations of rape had been raised.
"It is pretty radical thing to say that 'all sex is rape' unless you prove consent. The reality is that in 99.9 per cent of cases, no one is being asked to prove consent."

Firstly we will make this statement; rape is abhorrent. As we have blogged previously, a close family member was a victim of rape a number of years ago, and without doubt, that reinforces our view on the horror of the crime of rape.

And whilst we agree with Andrew Little up to a point that the current system with regard to rape victims needs work, we are completely opposed to Labour's proposed solution. 

Requiring those accused of rape to prove consent will be a legal minefield, and it is no surprise the Law Society is opposed; read on:

The Law Society has a strong stance on traditional principles of the legal system, including a presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. It has argued strongly against inquisitorial systems in the past.
Mr Little said the inquisitorial system still preserved those principles because the Crown would still have to prove a number of aspects of a case before consent was explored.
"I don't accept that that is creating an offence under which the defendant is guilty until proven innocent."
He acknowledged the change would be a "huge leap".
"But when you look at the volume of sexual violence cases and the 1 per cent of cases that result in a conviction, there is something wrong with the way we are handling sexual violation cases. The circumstances may well justify doing something radically different."
In such a system, a victim would not be cross-examined by a defence lawyer.

Andrew Little is right about one thing. What he is proposing as Labour Party policy is indeed "something radically different", and it is something that is simply too radical. The presumption of innocence is a fundamental aspect of the criminal justice system, and it ought not be tampered with.

We know a number of our readers are from the legal fraternity, and we would be very interested in their views. If there is a lawyer who would be prepared to contribute a guest post, written from a legal perspective, we would be hugely grateful - feel free to e-mail us.

We commend Andrew Little for proposing something new, but his proposal goes far, far too far in dismantling a legal principle that has its origins over 1700 years ago. The prosecution must prove all aspects of a case beyond a reasonable doubt, and we can think of no good reason why this should change.

0 Cash for policy (part two)

We blogged yesterday about the important and growing influence of trade unions on the Labour Party. Affiliated trade unions support the Labour Party with cash, promotion and labour, and the Labour Party responds with union-friendly policies.

3News reports a development which, whilst it will be welcomed by the unions, will be less favourably received by employers:

3 News has learned Labour is planning to lift the minimum wage from $14.25 to $16 an hour in its first year.

Unions have been lobbying Labour on the issue, but the pressure is still on; they want much more.

Labour leader David Cunliffe is comfortably nestled between Labour's union affiliates.

"Colleagues, comrades – we are part of a broad labour movement," says Mr Cunliffe.

The unions are strong within that movement. They are pushing hard for a jump in the minimum wage.

Labour has already indicated two increases in its first year – one before Christmas from $14.25 to $15 an hour, and today came the details of the second.

"Even that's starting to look a bit stingy, so we're looking at a further increase within the first year," says Labour's labour spokesperson Andrew Little. "I expect it will be up around $16 an hour."

So $16 an hour by April next year – for the unions leaning on Labour, it's a pay-off, but just a start.

Increasing the minimum wage from $14.25 per hour to $16 per hour represents a 12.3% increase, by April next year. But that's just the start; read on:

"It needs to be more, above $18, but it certainly would be a big boost," says president of the Auckland Service and Food Workers Union (SFWU) Jill Ovens.

"I think the second increase needs to be more than $16; it needs to start moving to two-thirds of the average wage over the term of the Government," says CTU president Helen Kelly.

Two-thirds the average wage is $18.80. It's also the ideal minimum for Labour's man in charge of wages.

"It's a good target to have, yes," says Mr Little.

But it's a high target, even more than Australia's minimum wage of $18.10.

We've blogged in the past about rises to the minimum wage and the proposed Living Wage. Rises of the magnitude suggested by Labour and its union affiliates are quite simply unaffordable for many employers.

Let's say for example a business here employs an office junior on $15.00 per hour, administration and customer services staff at $17.50 per hour and an office manager on $20.00 per hour. The immediate decision is the pay rate of the office junior; does the employer then pay her just the new minimum wage of $16.00 per hour, or continue to pay her around 5% above the minimum wage? If the employer decides to preserve the margin, the office junior's pay is immediately going to go up to $16.80 per hour.

The employer now has a dilemma. The admin. and customer services team (let's say for argument's sake there are five in the team, working 35 hours a week) are paid $2.50 per hour more for a reason; the value they add to the business, and the greater complexity of their work. So the boss has the choice; increase their hourly rate to $19.30, or have an unhappy staff.

Then there's the admin manager; (s)he too is paid $2.50 an hour more than the staff (s)he manages because of the added responsibilities that go with the role. So the admin manager's hourly rate is increased to $21.80.

Just like that, the weekly wage bill has increased markedly. The cost of the office junior has increased by $54 per week (30 hours at $1.80 per hour), the cost of the administration and customer services team has increased by $437.50 (35 hours at $2.50 per hour times five), and the cost for the admin manager has gone up by $100 per week (40 hours @$2.50 per hour). In the office alone, the wage bill has just gone up by almost $600 per week, without a thought give to wage rises for the technical and sales staff!

The business owner has two choices. He either puts his prices up by 12% which in a competitive, price-sensitive market risks loss of market share, or he cuts his staff costs by either reducing hours, or deciding that four staff can do the work currently being done by five staff in the administration and customer services team. Who wins then?

The unions may see Labour promising them a 12% rise in the minimum wage in return for their cash and kind support as a very good return on their investment. But the unions will also be the first to complain when our hypothetical business owner decides he has to let one of his staff go because wage costs have become prohibitive and he simply does not have the cash to pay his staff.

Increasing the minimum wage by this kind of margin is a simplistic solution to a complex problem. Given that more New Zealanders are employed by small and medium businesses than by the super-rich corporates and John Key's Rich Mates the solutions proposed by Labour and its union affiliates will impose a disproportionate burden on businesses which cannot afford that burden. There will be job losses, and some businesses will fail. Again we ask; who wins then?

The unions may be demanding a higher minimum wage as quid pro quo for their cash support. But Labour needs to take a far wider view of the economy as a whole, and not make promises to its affiliates which will damage the wider economy. 

0 A game-changing policy? Maybe not...

David Cunliffe was especially chipper as he announced Labour's 2000 new teachers policy on Sunday. But by yesterday morning he had admitted to Newstalk ZB that they wouldn't actually all be "new" teachers in the first instance, as immigrants and teachers brought out of retirement would be used to plug the gaps until the "new" teachers emerged from training ready to start teaching in 2018.

Add to the mix Steven Joyce having challenged Labour's numeracy yesterday, and the public will again be suspicious of a new Labour policy. It's not the first time, and it won't be the last, and one has to wonder why Labour let its secondee from Treasury go.

Stuff has run a poll over the new teachers/smaller class sizes policy. And it's unlikely to have David Cunliffe grinning Cheshire cat-like as he was on Sunday; check this out:

This will be very disappointing for Labour. The class sizes policy was the centrepiece of its congress at the weekend. Less than a third of respondents believe that the Labour policy will have anything more than a minimal impact on student achievement. Given the policy has also been welcomed by the Greens, far fewer people think the policy will have a major or moderate impact than an average of polls has supporting the Left bloc. 

And on the other hand, the 67.4% who believe the policy will have a minimal impact or no impact at all is far larger than National and its allies are polling at present. That suggests that even Left-leaning voters have doubts about Mr Cunliffe's game-changing policy.

When he can't even take his core support with him, how can David Cunliffe expect to win the support of floating voters?