0 National targets Mallard

We were tempted to make some reference to duck hunting as the title for this post, but resisted. But Trevor Mallard is definitely in National's sights, as Tracy Watkins reports in the Dom-Post:

John Key is turning into a familiar sight on the streets of Petone. Twice in the last week, the prime minister has been out pressing the flesh in the Hutt satellite suburb alongside National’s candidate, Chris Bishop. 
Locals are used to being off National’s beaten track in what has long been considered a safe Labour seat. But boundary changes and gentrification have given National the whiff of an upset.
‘‘Hutt South is definitely in play, no question about that,’’ Key said yesterday after visiting the local Weltec campus.
Some of the bravado may be justified. Labour’s Trevor Mallard may have won the seat with a comfortable majority in 2011 but National won the party vote. 
In his favour, Mallard has the benefit of incumbency – and Key acknowledges that makes it ‘‘challenging’’.
‘‘But there have been some boundary changes that make the seat more vulnerable.’’ 
A string of ministers are pencilled in for visits to the electorate over coming weeks, bolstering the impression that National thinks the seat is winnable.
But National may also be playing electoral mind games. Winning the seat might be a moral victory, but won’t change the outcome of the election as it might have once under First Past The Post – a point acknowledged by Key. And while boundary changes could slash 3000 votes off Mallard’s 4800 majority, there would still have to be a big swing against the incumbent to unseat him. 

Trevor Mallard announced on Monday that he was not seeking a place on Labour's list. He rattled off some convoluted story about wanting to ensure Kelvin Davis got a good list position, but we don't buy that for a moment. We believe it's far more likely that Mr Mallard wasn't happy with the draft ranking given to him by Labour's moderators.

And even Mallard himself concedes that Hutt South is by no means a given for him:

But National may also be playing electoral mind games. Winning the seat might be a moral victory, but won’t change the outcome of the election as it might have once under First Past The Post – a point acknowledged by Key. And while boundary changes could slash 3000 votes off Mallard’s 4800 majority, there would still have to be a big swing against the incumbent to unseat him.
But Labour MPs have been rattled by their party’s low polls. The lower party support sinks, the more their survival hinges on holding on to their seats. And the instinct to maximise their electorate vote runs counter to MMP, under which the party vote is the major decider of which party will govern. National plunged to its worst defeat in 2002 for precisely that reason, after MPs retreated to their electorates and scrapped to hold on to their seats in Parliament.
Mallard does not dispute Key’s assessment, however, that the seat is in play for National.
‘‘There’s no doubt that [my] majority is significantly lower than it was ... .I accept that the seat is not a safe seat, not that I’ve ever treated it that way.’’  

Trevor Mallard has no MMP lifeline, so he must win Hutt South to stay keep his job; just the way MP's had to in those days before the first MMP election in 1996. But National and Chris Bishop are going to make Mr Mallard fight his damndest.

And Chris Bishop had some high-level support yesterday; check out these tweets:

 

 
Taking Hutt South off Trevor Mallard would be a hugely significant achievement both for Chris Bishop and for National. With National having won the party vote in 2011 by a significant margin, and with boundary changes that are helpful to National, this will be a contest to watch on the night of 20th September, and in the twelve weeks until the election.

0 Is it time for the Maori seat debate?

The National Party has selected its candidate to take on Ruth Dyson in Port Hills. This is a winner-take-all electorate, after Ms Dyson has announced her intention not to seek a place on Labour's list.

The National Party's website profiles the party's newest candidate:

The National Party has selected local businessman and iwi leader Nuk Korako as its Port Hills candidate for the 2014 General Election.
Mr Korako was selected by a meeting of local party members this evening.
“The Port Hills electorate changed significantly in the recent boundary changes. Nuk has the genuine links to communities across Christchurch and the electorate to be a strong voice for Port Hills," said Regional Chair Roger Bridge.
“We’re excited to have a candidate of Nuk’s calibre in Port Hills and will be running a strong campaign for the seat."
Mr Korako said he was proud to earn National’s nomination and is looking forward to the campaign.
“Christchurch communities and whanau have been through a lot since 2010, but National has stood by Canterbury at every stage of the rebuild," said Mr Korako.
“Southern Christchurch is experiencing strong growth and many unique challenges. I want to give communities across the seat a strong voice in John Key’s National Party as we rebuild our city."Mr Korako is of Ngai Tahu descent. He is married to Chris and is a father of four sons.

The last paragraph there is an important one, hence we have highlighted it. National has selected another candidate of Maori descent to stand in a general electorate. 

For many years, National was criticised as "pale, male and stale". But we live in changing times, and under John Key's leadership, the party has not just diversified, it has transformed. Maori women hold to of Cabinet's major portfolios; Education and Social Development. National has at least nine MP's who claim Maori descent; Paula Bennett, Hekia Parata, Simon Bridges, Jami-Lee Ross, Tau Henare, Mike Sabin, Paul Foster-Bell, Claudette Hauiti and Joanne Hayes. Four of those nine hold electorate seats in general electorates.

And there are at least 25 MP's claiming Maori descent in a Parliament of 121, according to this post from DPF in December last year; that's 21% Maori representation. In other words, 18 Maori MP's have made their way to Parliament either via party lists, or by winning general electorates, plus the seven MP's who hold the Maori seats. And taking the Maori Party and Mana out of the equation, two of the remaining six parties in the Parliament are led or co-led by Maori MP's.

We have supported the Government's desire to resolve Treaty of Waitangi grievances in an expeditious manner. As grievances are resolved and as the Crown formally apologises for the manner in which Maori were treated in the 19th century, there is an opportunity for as all to move forward as one people.

We reckon that it is time to have the debate over the future of the Maori seats in Parliament. The advent of MMP at the 1996 General Election changed the political landscape, and has led to a far more diverse Parliament. The Debating Chamber is now a melting pot with Maori, Pakeha, Pasifika and Asian MP's, a profoundly deaf MP, and a number of gay MP's. MP's come from a wide variety of occupations now, and are far more representative of the community as a whole than they were even ten years ago.

Any suggestion of abolishing the Maori seats will be met with considerable opposition. But as a country, it is an issue that must be debated at some point, even if the status quo prevails as a result of the debate. It will be a test of our maturity as a nation as to how the debate is conducted, but we believe that it is an issue that must be addressed in the not-too-distant future.

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 Quote of the Day - 10 June 2014

Scrubone blogs at Something Should Go Here, Maybe Later. And in a post entitled Reminder: all politicians play games he makes this very important point about coat-tailing and strategic voting:

But the silliest thing is that parties do not own votes. Voters do – and they’ll vote for whoever they want to.

Scrubone is quite right. A majority of New Zealanders voted at the last election to retain MMP. We were not amongst that number. The will of what was a significant majority prevailed.

By all means, let Labour campaign on removing the coat-tailing provisions of MMP. But David Cunliffe would be very unwise to presume that he knows better than the voters whose support he seeks.

Well said Scrubone.

 

 

0 The Herald on coat-tailing

There's an interesting editorial in this morning's NZ Herald. Under the headline National should rise to challenge on coat-tailing the editorial begins thus:

Labour has made a worthy, and now selfless, proposal to abolish the provision in the Electoral Act that can give parties two or more MPs for the price of one electorate. It is a worthy intention because the "coat-tailing" rule can give those MPs influence out of all proportion to their tiny fraction of public support. And it is selfless because if Labour is in a position to carry out its policy after the coming election, it could owe its power to the electoral provision it wants to abolish.
The merger of Kim Dotcom's money with Hone Harawira's lone seat gives Labour a possible ally with two or three seats, which could change the Government. If that happens, it is hard to see Internet-Mana supporting legislation to abolish the very mechanism that has given it pivotal power.
By that time, Internet and Mana have said, they will be separate entities. They plan to dissolve their marriage of convenience six weeks after the election.

That would make their arrangement the most cynical use of the coat-tailing rule to date. Having entered Parliament on the basis of Hone Harawira's electorate, Laila Harre would become an independent. In that event she would have less moral right to be in Parliament than MPs who fall out with their party after entering on its list. They at least enter in good faith.

We disagree with the leader writer that Labour's position is "selfless". If anything, it smacks of self-interest. Labour will have polled internally over the weekend, and just as last night's Roy Morgan poll was an indictment on MegaMana, Labour's War Room boffins will have read the tea leaves, hence the policy being released on the hoof.

The irony here of course is that for Labour to be able to make good its promise, it will almost certainly need anyone elected under the MegaMana banner in order to be able to form a coalition and pass its promised anti-coat-tailing legislation. The voting public will see that, even if the Herald's editorial writer cannot.

There is a second irony to this. The 50th Parliament does not have any coat-tailers, when you consider:

• The Maori Party won three electorates, but not a big enough share of the party vote to bring in additional MP's
• Act (John Banks) won Epsom, but not a big enough share of the party vote to bring in additional MP's
• United Future (Peter Dunne) won Ohariu, but not a big enough share of the party vote to bring in additional MP's
• Mana (Hone Harawira) won Te Tai Tokerau, but not a big enough share of the party vote to bring in additional MP's

On that basis, David Cunliffe is using a sledgehammer to smash a problem that doesn't currently exist. And even worse, he is likely to form some kind of post-election deal with MP's who enter Parliament by a means he so opposes that he will introduce legislation to outlaw within 100 days of being elected. 

That is anything but selfless in our ever-humble opinion.

0 Emmerson on MMP and dogs

Herald cartoonist Rod Emmerson is at his best this morning:

If we have one criticism of Emmerson's cartoon, there could perhaps have been a flea on the tail that's wagging the dog. 

But otherwise, this is an excellent and simple critique of the deeply flawed and flea-infested electoral system that New Zealanders voted to retain in 2011.

0 Idiot/Savant on Labour's Electoral Act flip-flop

Idiot/Savant from No Right Turn has ripped into the Labour Party over its plans to outlaw coat-tailing:

On Firstline this morning, Labour's David Cunliffe promised to introduce legislation to scrap the "electorate lifeboat" provision of MMP within his first hundred days in office:

“The incoming Labour-led government under my leadership would, within our first 100 days in office, initiate moves to repeal this part of the Electoral Act.
“National has supported a widely discredited electoral rule which skews the democratic process to its own political ends. The New Zealand public can see through that,’’ said David Cunliffe.

I think this is a terrible change. The one MP rule is a vital safeguard which ensures representation of smaller parties. Without it, our Parliament would be much less representative than it is at present (unless it was balanced by a removal of the 5% threshold) - and therefore much less democratic.
It doesn't help that there's the usual enormous helping of hypocrisy from Labour on this.Despite their claims to have been "principled and consistent" on the issue, they quietly gifted Coromandel to the Greens in 1999; their opposition is more recent, and based entirely on a desire to rob National of potential coalition partners. And in order to do that, they're willing to make our Parliament less representative and rob their fellow citizens of a democratic voice. It is immoral and undemocratic - but its what happens when you get professional politicians who view the electoral system as a game to be rigged to their advantage, rather than a framework to maximise democratic representation and responsiveness.

I/S is dead right about Labour's hypocrisy on this issue, even though he downplays it by only mentioning Coromandel. Labour of course gave Jim Anderton a leg-up in Wigram election after election after election by standing a series of Neville Nobodies against the former Labour Party president. Here's a potted summary of how that dirty deal worked:

By the late 1990s, Labour under Helen Clark had largely purged itself of the influence of Roger Douglas. Realising that the cost of a split in the left-wing vote was a continued National government, the two parties agreed to form a coalition for the 1999 elections. Anderton became Deputy Prime Minister after National lost the election. He was also given the newly created post of Minister of Economic Development, which had an emphasis on job creation and regional development initiatives.
Towards the end of the parliamentary term Anderton came into conflict with the Alliance's administrative wing. Party president Matt McCarten and his allies claimed that the Alliance had become too close to Labour, and that it should take a less moderate path; Anderton replied that some moderation was required for the Alliance to accomplish any of its goals. There were complaints that Anderton was too dominant in the party's decision-making and over the fact that he supported the government's stance on the bombing of Afghanistan, while the executive and wider membership opposed it. Eventually, Anderton and three other MPs left the Alliance, establishing the Progressive Coalition, later renamed the Progressive Party. In order to get around the Electoral Integrity Act, which had been passed largely because of Anderton's complaints about waka jumping, Anderton technically remained the Alliance's parliamentary leader until the writ was dropped for the 2002 election.
In the election, Anderton was returned to Parliament, and the Progressives took the Alliance's place as Labour's coalition partner. Although Anderton won his electorate, the small amount of support the Progressives received (1.4% of the party vote) was enough for only one other Progressive – deputy leader Matt Robson – to enter Parliament. Anderton gave up the deputy prime minister's post to Minister of Finance and Labour deputy leader Michael Cullen. He remained Minister of Economic Development, and also held other ministerial portfolios. He ranked third in Cabinet, behind Clark and Cullen.
In the runup to the 2005 election Anderton renamed his party "Jim Anderton's Progressive Party". However, he was the only Progressive returned to Parliament by a narrow margin after many left-wing voters voted for Labour to prevent a National government from being elected due to a split on the left. He became Minister of Agriculture, Minister for Biosecurity, Minister of Fisheries, Minister of Forestry, Minister Responsible for the Public Trust, Associate Minister of Health, and Associate Minister for Tertiary Education.
The 2008 election saw a swing to the right, with National winning approximately 45% of the party vote to Labour's 34%. Anderton retained his seat but the Progressives' share of the party vote remained low, at less than one percent.^[3] In a move described as "unorthodox" by the New Zealand Herald, Anderton announced that he would remain in coalition with Labour in opposition. He said that a priority for the Progressives would be to support better access to dental care.^[4]

Yes; even in Opposition, Labour and Anderton were joined at the hip and were one in everything but name. We remember well the farce in 2002 when the Alliance split (to be led by none other than Laila Harre), and Helen Clark used every excuse in the book plus a few more to justify Anderton's position, and to avoid an early election. It was a farcical time.

But wait; there's more. There was also a time when Peter Dunne was useful to Labour, so Labour's candidates in Ohariu didn't try too hard. Dunne was rewarded with Ministerial roles when he supported Helen Clark and Labour in the post-election wranglings after the 2005 General Election, even though his supporters were expecting him to support National, and have nothing to do with Winston First.

So Labour has been more than happy to deal with coat-tailing MP's in the past, and based on present polling, it will need coat-tailing MP's this year if David Cunliffe is going to form a government. Then, of course, he's going to use the majority accorded to him by the dirty deal with coat-tailing MP's to change the Electoral Act to outlaw coat-tailing.

Idiot/Savant is dead right. This is indeed an "enormous helping of hypocrisy" from Labour and its leader. But why would we expect anything else?

0 Dirty deals

Just in case Labour and the Greens are trying to claim the moral high ground over coat-tailing and dirty deals, here's a reminder that both parties have form:

Probably the worst aspect of this video, sent to us by e-mail today, is Green MP Denise Roche's porkie when asked if she had advised people to vote strategically. The camera and the audio, which came from 3News' The Nation does not lie.

Let's also not forget that when a referendum was held alongside the 2011 General Election, both parties fought hard for the retention of MMP. Now you know why.

0 Has Labour learned nothing from the Electoral Finance Bill debacle?

Those who have been hanging around Keeping Stock for a long time will know our history. The blog was started due to our anger at Labour's insidious Electoral Finance Bill, rammed through Parliament in the last sitting days of 2007. It was bad legislation, and the process was even worse.

After its defeat in 2008, many in Labour acknowledged their mistake, and their Act was repealed and replaced. The new law is not perfect, but it sure beats the legislation rammed through by Labour, with the support of the Greens and Winston Peters.

Today, it would appear that Labour has learned nothing from the 2007 fiasco, and two subsequent defeats at the polls; Stuff reports:

Labour leader David Cunliffe has committed to legislation that will remove the "coat-tailing" provisions that allow small parties to get more MPs into Parliament.
The party already has a member's bill before the House, but Cunliffe said legislation would be introduced within the first 100 days of a government he led.
Coat-tailing allows for smaller parties that have not reached the 5 per cent threshold, to bring more MPs into Parliament on the back of one MP who may have won an electorate seat.
It also can allow larger parties to do deals that would help smaller parties into Parliament, which happened with ACT and National in the Epsom seat in Auckland.
The Internet Party and Mana have also merged their list, in the hopes of bringing more MPs into Parliament on the coat-tails of Mana leader Hone Harawira, if he retains his Te Tai Tokerau seat.
Cunliffe said he challenged prime minister John Key to sign up to Labour's bill, but the party would move to change the Electoral Act within its first 100 days in government, regardless.
"We're saying a very principled and consistent thing," he told Firstline this morning.
"We think it's wrong, no matter who does it. 

It's good that Labour is now admitting it was wrong to put up low-profile candidates against Peter Dunne in Ohariu, against Jeanette Fitzsimons in Coromandel and against Jim Anderton in Wigram for all those elections. Even in 2008, when the tide was going out on Labour, they still gave Anderton an armchair ride into Parliament by standing a candidate who got almost 10,000 more party votes than electorate votes.

There is no need for Labour to rush through this legislation under urgency and with either an abbreviated or no select committee process however. The "100 days" target sounds snappy, but the reality is that if Labour was able to form a government, they have to start on the assumption that the coalition will be robust enough to last a full three-year term. That leaves plenty of time for a full select  committee process and a proper parliamentary debate, without the need for urgency.

To trample on the Electoral Act in the cavalier manner which Labour is proposing sets a very dangerous precedent. That alone makes us very suspicious that today's announcement by David Cunliffe is an act of political posturing, possibly influenced by Labour's internal polling showing distaste for the MegaMana dirty deal.

And of course the ultimate irony would be this; Labour forms a coalition with the GIMPs, of whom MegaMana have coat-tailed into Parliament, then outlaws coat-tailing. Hypocrisy much?

0 Quote of the Day - 2 June 2014

Karl du Fresne is one of a dwindling band of old-school journalists; the kind who don't simply recycle the many press releases that cross their desks each day. And his comments on MegaMana are interesting; under the headline Mana ties knot with eye on cash du Fresne opines:

Whatever else you might think of Sue Bradford, she sticks to her principles. You have to respect her for walking away in disgust from the Internet-Mana pantomime.
Who, other than the most gullible, is going to believe these two parties have genuine shared concerns? They are united only by rank opportunism.
Hone Harawira needs access to Kim Dotcom's bank account, while Dotcom seems driven by a personal grudge against Prime Minister John Key and a need for political friends who might help him avoid extradition. These are hardly a sound basis for a credible political party.
In his desperation to make the merger look honourable, Harawira argues that internet access is a pressing issue for young Maori.
This is a convenient but very recent conversion. When I last looked, digital access wasn't even mentioned on the Mana website.
The $200,000 that Dotcom reportedly put into the Internet Party is a far more likely explanation for Harawira's enthusiasm. But at least he had the decency to grin cheekily when he admitting coveting his new ally's resources. Like Winston Peters, he often gives the game away by grinning when he knows no-one is fooled.
Unfortunately, a mischievous grin can't disguise the notion that this alliance is a cynical exploitation of a flawed electoral system. Theoretically at least, there is a possibility that Internet-Mana will end up in a position of power that bears no relationship to its voter support.
What's more, the two parties have undertaken to review their relationship six weeks after the election. So if they get into Parliament, all bets will be off. Take that, suckers.
The best we can hope for is some entertainment as the inherent tensions boil to the surface and Internet-Mana blows up like Krakatoa. How long, for example, before Mana office-holder John Minto – a conviction politician in the Bradford mould – spits the dummy? He can only fool himself for so long that the merger is in the best interests of the proletariat.
Even on their own, Far-Left parties such as Mana have a glorious history of disembowelling themselves. Who knows what bloody mayhem could result when the hard-core Left hitches itself to a wholly incompatible ally like the Dotcom party? 

Of course, since du Fresne penned his column we have discovered that Herr Dotcom has put a lot more than $200k into the Internet Party. The generally accepted figure now is $4 million, with $500,000 of that being paid to Hone Harawira's cult party as a dowry.

Karl du Fresne is dead right (sorry Rex/Edward/Judge); this is indeed a "cynical exploitation" of MMP. And if Labour overtly or covertly instructs Kelvin Davis to not try too hard in Te Tai Tokerau, it too will be a party to this dirtiest of dirty deals.

 The Left has lost the right now to criticise electorate deals done by any other parties. Having so staunchly defended MMP when New Zealand last voted on its system of democracy, who would have ever expected it would have been the parties of the political Left who exposed just how flawed MMP is, and gave us convincing reasons to demand change?

In the meantime, let's just stand back and wait for the ritual disembowelling to begin!

0 Hide on the "Cunliffe experiement"

Rodney Hide could have got away with just one sentence in his Herald on Sunday column this morning; the very first one. Under the headline Lonely Cunliffe must soldier on Hide opines:

The David Cunliffe experiment has failed. Eight months into his leadership Labour is polling below what it was under Phil Goff and David Shearer.
The election is less than four months away.
The danger for Labour is that its poor polling will collapse its vote, as happened to National in 2002. Its low polling became a self-fulfilling and accelerating prophecy. Polls matter.
Labour's unimpressive showing may well cause even more votes to drain across to the Greens and New Zealand First.
That prospect will now be occupying the minds of Labour MPs and activists.
Cunliffe will soldier on. He has no choice. I know what it's like.
You can't give up.

Every day you have to find your smiley, positive face. It's tough. Lonely. Hard.

Hide is right; he knows what it's like. He's even been in the same position as David Cunliffe, as he describes:

Cunliffe has an added burden. His caucus didn't want him. He was thrust on it by party members and the unions. That wouldn't matter if he were succeeding. But he isn't. There will be a lot of "I told you so" going on. The lack of caucus support makes a lonely job even lonelier.

It was always going to be tough going for David Cunliffe when barely a third of the Labour caucus voted for him after the Labour's Got Talent tour last year. For every Labour MP who supported him, there were two who did not. The cards were stacked against him.

Labour is stuck with Mr Cunliffe now, even though he is, as Hide notes, polling worse than his two predecessors. With the election just three months and 20 days away, it's too late to change horses.

And that's not going to make the post-election wrangling any easier, should Labour be in a position to form a coalition. Hide reminds us of the options:

 

And yet it remains a tight race. Labour could poll badly but still put a government together, with considerable concessions.
The Green's Metiria Turei and Russel Norman would be deputy prime ministers and would dominate policy-making.
Winston Peters would be kingmaker and would demand his pound of flesh.
Hone Harawira would be Minister of Maori Affairs. The Internet Party would be in government being dictated to by Kim Dotcom.
It's not a pretty prospect. And that's Labour's other problem. Its polling puts other parties into the box seat, a prospect that turns off middle voters.
And then there's policy. Cunliffe will be asked about every nutty policy put up by the Greens, New Zealand First, Mana and the Internet Party. Does he support it?
Cunliffe can't dodge the policy bullet. That would add to the uncertainty of voting Labour. If he accepts the policy, he's not in charge. If he dismisses it, he risks a spat with a potential partner.
John Key escapes these problems. National is polling high. Plus he has incumbency. People know what they are getting with National. They can't be so sure with Labour.
It comes back to the polls. They put Cunliffe on the back foot and Key on the front. Cunliffe is now desperate. He needs a lift.
"I just need to push the polls up a bit. I need to change the story ... hmmm. Immigration. That always works for Winston. I'll give that a shot. I will dress it up as housing policy. The party's woolly woofters will be upset. But what the hell? I've got nothing to lose." It's called dog-whistle politics. Sadly for Cunliffe, the only ones who heard it were Labour activists.

Actually, it's good that Rodney Hide wrote his whole piece, and not just the opening sentence. That last paragraph should serve as a huge warning to the Labour Party.

Traditionally the friends of immigrants, Cunliffe's Labour Party risks alienating those who have chosen to make New Zealand home. However you can guarantee that if he has to, David Cunliffe will snuggle up warmly to an immigrant who is wanted by the FBI for alleged copyright offending, racketeering and money-laundering on a Mega scale.

 David and the GIMPs; can you imagine what a recipe for disaster that would be? But sadly, thanks to MMP, that's what we could wake up to on September 21st. That's a scary thought, and we thank Rodney Hide for the reminder.


 

0 Paddy Gower gets angry

3 News political editor Patrick Gower is angry, and he's telling the word about it. It's not John Key who has made him angry. Nor is it David Cunliffe, or the Greens, or even John Archibald Banks.

No; it's none of the above. So we'll let Gower himself tell you who he's angry with, and why:

The Hone-Dotcom-Laila political triangle is one of the dirtiest deals in New Zealand political history.

It is as dirty as National-Act in Epsom.

It is as dirty as the Key-Dunne deal in Ohariu.

Frankly, Lalia Harré made me feel sick today when she said "it's time for New Zealanders to take back MMP".

That's because Laila Harré is wrecking MMP.

Hone Harawira is wrecking MMP.

And Kim Dotcom is wrecking MMP.

They are using Harawira's seat and MMP's "coat-tail" rule to get a back-door entry into Parliament.

It is a rort.

It is a grubby deal, made all the worse by the fact Harawira holds the Te Tai Tokerau seat - a Maori seat.

The Maori seats are special. They have a unique constitutional role which is to give the Tangata Whenua a place of their own in the New Zealand Parliament.

The Maori seats have been hard fought for.

Never, ever was it envisaged they would be used as a back-door entry for a German millionaire to get his proxy into Parliament.

This will give those opposed to Maori seats ammunition to get rid of them.

Patrick Gower is dead right. Whether you support the Maori seats or not, they are special. They recognition that Maori are tangata whenua, although with the number of Maori now being elected either in General seats or via party lists, their days may well be numbered. As Gower notes, Harawira is making bullets for opponents of the Maori seats to fire at him.

Gower isn't done yet though; he continues, by following the money trail:

Sadly, the Internet Mana deal has diminished the mana of the Maori seats.

And even sadder too, this deal involves money.

Harawira wants Dotcom's money.

Annette Sykes wants Dotcom's money.

John Minto wants Dotcom's money.

They are all willing to pervert the MMP system for the sake of money and it is a venal deal.

Don't try and tell me Laila Harré cares deeply about the internet. She cares about getting into Parliament.

I have a lot of respect for Harawira, Sykes and Minto. They have spent their lives fighting for what they believe in - for points of principle.

But that respect has been tarnished.

They are obsessed by power, obsessed by money and will trample over the rights of New Zealand voters to get it.

This Internet Mana deal is so wrong.

We urge readers to check out Paddy Gower's whole piece. We haven't even mentioned the bit about Dotcom's motive for this whole messy sham; that would be a story on its own.

But we've saved the best quote until last:

So the list of MMP wreckers just gets longer - Key and his right-wing crew are joined by the Left.

Labour and the Greens are wreckers too. Both prepared to work with the Internet Mana Party lot because "it's within the rules".

The Labour-Greens criticism of Epsom etc was a lie - they only did it because they didn't have a deal of their own. Now they do and deals are okay.

David Cunliffe, Russel Norman and Metiria Turei are now as low as Key and Steven Joyce.

Labour and the Greens are now hypocrites.

No wonder people don't go and vote.

No wonder people get turned off politics.

Across the House, New Zealand's politicians of all colours should hang their heads in shame for sanctioning these grubby deals.

We don't necessarily blame the politicians. MMP has permitted this farce. We didn't vote for MMP in the referendum in the early 1990's, nor did we vote for its retention in 2011. MMP is a far-from-perfect system of democracy, and you can't really blame parties for exploiting the loopholes, given that we are stuck with MMP for the foreseeable future.

But let's not hear any whingeing from the Left about dirty deals from here on out. The Mana Party has sold its principles for a fistful of dollars, and Labour and the Greens have stood by and let it happened. Of course all those parties strongly supported MMP, so it can be argued they're getting hoist by their own petard.

The next round of polls will be interesting. We suspect this is going to end very badly for the political Left.

0 Labour says "no" to Taurima

Shane Taurima may claim to have been vindicated by TVNZ's inquiry into his behaviour. But the New Zealand Labour Party does not agree with him. Peter Williams has just this moment announced on Breakfast that Taurima's nomination for Tamaki Makaurau for this year's election will not be be accepted by the Labour Party.

But there may yet be a broadcaster stand for Labour in the Tamaki Makaurau seat. Maori Television's head of news Julian Wilcox has expressed an interest in being nominated if Mr Taurima's nomination did not proceed. That creates an interesting scenario.

TVNZ announced yesterday that it had instituted policy changes in the wake of the report; the Herald reports:

TVNZ chief executive Kevin Kenrick said in a statement that their activities were "completely unacceptable".
"It's an absolute necessity for our News and Current Affairs service to operate free from political influence.
"We already have a number of checks and balances in place to protect the integrity of news coverage and the review panel has identified additional steps we should take to further strengthen our management of political conflicts of interest.
"We won't be asking our staff to tell us who they vote for. But we think it's reasonable to ask anyone who reports, edits or produces political content to be upfront with us if they're a member of a political party.
"Anyone who creates news content for TVNZ should disclose any political activity beyond passive party membership.

Will Maori Television do likewise? We have nothing whatsoever against Julian Wilcox, but it seems incongruous that he would only be a "passive" Labour Party member if he is even considering seeking a nomination to stand for Labour in a seat that Labour has a good chance of winning. That is way more than "passive party membership".

Questions need to be asked of Maori Television CEO Paora Maxwell with regard to his Labour Party affiliations. Given that the Labour Party has signalled that it will target the Maori seats strongly this year, is it appropriate for Julian Wilcox to remain as head of news at Maori Television?

The ripples from the Taurima affair are spreading wider still. We will however look closely at Labour's list when it is announced to see whether the pond has gone still again, and Shane Taurima is considered to have been rehabilitated; oh, the joys of MMP!