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 Trouble at t'mill

Danyl from the Dim-Post blogs on tensions on the Left of the political spectrum:

In the hypothetical Labour/Green/New Zealand First/Mana/Internet Party coalition that voters are being asked to put in charge of the country this election year, its hard to figure out which inter-party relationship is the most poisonous, or who would like to destroy whom the most. But now that Laila Harre’s gone and started pre-releasing Green Party policy on the same day as the Greens and justified it on the basis that she worked for the Green Party for fifteen months, and therefore owns all their intellectual property, somehow, I’m gonna nominate the Green/Internet Mana relationship as, from here on in, probably the most toxic.
What’s the strategy here? The original vision for the Internet Party was that it would be a, y’know, Internet Party, focused on digital issues and changing the government by turning out young non-voters. My guess is that Dotcom’s money has paid for some market research which has found that the number of non-voters passionate about copyright restrictions is close to zero, and that the demographic most sympathetic towards the Internet Party are current Green voters. Harre doesn’t share Dotcom’s interest in digital rights, or his legal problems, so her focus – like any other political leader – is purely on maximising her party vote. Which explains why the Internet Party is now a tiny cannibalistic version of the Green Party.

This of course illustrates the dilemma that the Internet Party, or any other single-issue party for that matter faces. That's one of the reasons why we would never support a Christian political party; political parties need to represent a wide sphere of policy positions. 

And it is indeed bad form for Laila Harre to have flogged policies she developed for the Green Party, then pass them off as her own. That of course is the danger when people flit around between parties like a moth flitting between lightbulbs. Loyalty now seems to be a romantic notion from days gone by.

Readers will remember that some months ago, Russel Norman jetted to Auckland, then took a taxi all the way to Coatesville to urge Herr Dotcom not to start a political party lest he leech votes from the Greens. It would seem that Dr Norman's fears may have been well founded as that's exactly what is happening now as the Greens and MegaMana fight for the same constituency.

Danyl calls it "political biohazard watch". We must all be alert less the toxicity between the Greens and MegaMana leaks out.

0 Quote of the Day - 2 July 2014

This was sent to us overnight by an alert reader. It's Bill English's answer to a supplementary question during Question Time yesterday:

John Hayes : What reports has he seen supporting the Government’s approach to investing proceeds from the share offer programme in new public assets?

Hon BILL ENGLISH : I have seen reports from an unlikely source: an alternative budget that was issued in the last week or two. The reports indicate that this alternative approach to the Government’s finances will continue the current Government’s approach of using proceeds from the share offer programme. The Opposition budget includes the $4.7 billion proceeds from the asset sales being spent on public assets, which was rather a surprise given that they had spent 4 years vigorously opposing the policy. 

This one seems to have snuck under the radar just a tad, as answers to patsy questions from Government backbenchers often do.

But this one is particularly significant. Labour appears to have factored in the proceeds of partial asset sales into its "alternative budget". Doesn't it make all the hot air generated by the Greens and Labour as they railed against asset sales all seem a little hollow, if Labour is simply going to go an a spending spree with the loot?

We guess it answers one question though. There is clearly going to be no buy-back of the shares in Air New Zealand, Mighty River Power, Meridian and Genesis, because Labour can only spend the money once. 

And wasn't a buy-back of assets a bottom line for Winston Peters in potential coalition negotiations? Has Labour slammed the door in Mr Peters' face to go on a spending spree with the Greens?

David Cunliffe and David Parker are economic hypocrites. They should not be allowed within a bull's roar of the Treasury benches.

0 Where is the outrage?

Clayton Cosgrove has a reputation of being a bit of a brawler in the House. But there are times when he over-steps the mark.

Yesterday was one such time; check out how he began his speech in the Second Reading debate for the West Coast Wind-Blown Timber (Conservation Lands) Bill:

Not content with calling Dr Nick Smith "One flew over the cuckoo's nest" once, Cosgrove made sure he hit his target by repeating the slur.

Younger readers may wonder what the fuss is about. This might help:

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1962) is a novel written by Ken Kesey. Set in an Oregon psychiatric hospital, the narrative serves as a study of the institutional processes and the human mind as well as a critique of behaviorism and a celebration of humanistic principles. Published in 1962, the novel was adapted into a Broadway play by Dale Wasserman in 1963. Bo Goldman adapted the novel for the 1975 film directed by Miloš Forman, which won five Academy Awards.
Time Magazine included the novel in its "100 Best English-language Novels from 1923 to 2005" list.^[2]

It's no secret that in the past, Dr Smith has had mental health and stress issues. It's also no secret that in the past, he has been the target of personal attacks from a number of MP's who should know better. Claire Trevett from the Herald reported this in 2007:

Ongoing attacks about MP Nick Smith's mental health - including Winston Peters calling him a "loony tune" and to "take your pills before you come down to the House" - have been criticised by mental health advocates, but Dr Smith's opponents say he gets what he asks for.
The Mental Health Foundation says it is disappointed at the attacks over Dr Smith's mental health in Parliament this week - attacks which have been an ongoing theme since he went on stress leave in 2004 after being deposed as newly appointed deputy leader of the National Party following Don Brash's election as leader.
During the exchanges, Mr Peters described Dr Smith as looking "slightly zany and slightly nutty", and, the next day, saying: "Listen, loony tune, take control of yourself. Take your pills before you come down to the House, not halfway through question time."
The exchanges were initially prompted by Dr Smith telling Mr Peters to "stop living in the past, old man" and later asking if NZ First had paid back the money it overspent at the last election.
Such calls have been a repeated refrain since 2004 - but both parties reined in their members' comments after personal comments went overboard in 2005.
However, lately the comments and snipes from Labour MPs have increased again.

Hansard records reveal references since 2005 include Annette King referring to Dr Smith as "cracked", both Ms King and Trevor Mallard telling him to "take his pills", Phil Goff suggesting he take his "medication", Clayton Cosgrove referring to him as "troppo" and Michael Cullen making references such as "long before Dr Smith needed his pills", and "big, brave Dr Smith will take his pills".
Dr Smith did not rise to Mr Peters' bait in Parliament, but when the Herald approached him yesterday said the statements were "personally derogatory and untrue".

Unsurprisingly, there has been no condemnation of Clayton Cosgrove from anyone within Labour. Nor have the Greens bothered to say anything, which IS a surprise; you'd think that someone from the Greens would have risen to Dr Smith's defence.

Of course Mr Cosgrove is no novice in the art of personal abuse. He was one of those Labour members who referred to Christopher Finlayson as "Tinkerbell". On that occasion, Green MP Kevin Hague did publicly condemn Cosgrove:

Labour's Trevor Mallard says he shouldn't have called Attorney-General Chris Finlayson "Tinkerbell'' but denies there is problem with homophobia in the party.
ACT's Wellington central candidate Stephen Whittington yesterday accused openly gay Labour MPs Grant Robertson and Charles Chauvel of covering up prejudice among their caucus.
Hutt South MP Mr Mallard likened Mr Finlayson to the Peter Pan fairy during a parliamentary debate in October 2009. Waimakariri MP Clayton Cosgrove twice called Mr Finlayson Tinkerbell in the House in July 2009.
Mr Mallard said last night: ``I certainly don't think I'm homophobic. It's a comment that was probably unfortunate and if I'd thought carefully I wouldn't have made it.''
But he wouldn't apologise. ``It was part of a series of two way offensive comments and I got quite a lot more than I received.''
It was "ridiculous'' to suggest Mr Cosgrove was anti-gay, he said. Mr Cosgrove did not respond to a request for comment.
The allegations flew after a Rainbow meeting in Wellington on Wednesday night. Mr Whittington believes both Labour MPs were denying the Tinkerbell remarks were ever made.
"I felt that they had questioned my credibility in a public forum and denied there were aspects of their party who criticised and abused MPs for being homosexual,'' he said. "I didn't think that was acceptable.''
Both Mr Robertson and Mr Mallard believe Mr Whittington was trying to divert attention from homophobic comments made by ACT's Epsom candidate John Banks a number of years ago.
"He was asked a question about John Banks. In his response, he said there are homophobic Labour MPs,'' Mr Robertson said. ``I don't believe there are.''
He added: "Of course I don't think it's a good thing for Labour MPs to call Chris Finlayson Tinkerbell. It's silly statement...With all due respect, [to] Stephen, I suspect I know more about homophobia than he does.''
Green MP Kevin Hague, who was also at the meeting, backed Mr Whittington's version of events. "My sense was that Charles and Grant were denying that Mallard and Cosgrove had abused Chris Finlayson in a homophobic way.
"The impression I had was that they were denying that he said it.''

Parliament is a robust place, but there is no excuse for abusive comments such as the one Cosgrove made yesterday. Picking on someone because they have had mental health issues is a form of workplace bullying, and there is no place for it in the Parliament.

This is a personal issue for us. As regular readers are probably aware, we have had our own mental health issues over the years. Everything is good at the moment, but we know from experience that things can change very quickly.

Clayton Cosgrove is a senior Labour MP who, if Labour became the Government, would doubtless become a senior Minister. But he is also a serial offender in the abuse stakes, and we are disappointed (but not surprised) that none of his colleagues told him to pull his head in last evening. His abuse did him and his party little credit.

0 More poll misery for Labour and Mr Cunliffe

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

 

0 Protecting our most vulnerable (Part 2)

We blogged earlier yesterday about the passage of the Vulnerable Children Bill. The Bill had its third and final reading in Parliament yesterday, and passed by 105 votes to ten.

Only the Greens and Hone Harawira voted against the Bill. For some reason, the Greens only recorded nine votes; we guess their other five MP's (more than a third of the party's caucus) must have been otherwise engaged outside Parliament. Either that, or there was a schism within the Greens, and five Green MP's wanted to support the legislation, but were not allowed to break ranks. To the best of our knowledge Hone Harawira did not even attend the Third Reading debate. He certainly did not speak in the debate, and his vote was cast as a proxy by Green MP Kevin Hague.

We were terribly disappointed that the Greens and Harawira could not see past their political noses to support this piece of legislation. The intent of the Vulnerable Children Bill was such that it ought to have enjoyed the unanimous support of the Parliament. After all, what issue, if not protecting our most vulnerable children, could one reasonably expect the Parliament to unite on?

Jan Logie and Kevin Hague spoke on behalf of the Greens. Check out this extract from Ms Logie's speech:

The Green Party wants to ensure all of our children have their basic needs met. We want to address the causes of vulnerability so that all of our children can thrive. That is why we put child poverty on the political agenda last term and we have been continuing that through this term. That is also why we have been working so hard to put domestic and sexual violence back on the political agenda. 

Poverty is created and can be eliminated by Government policy. Child poverty and deprivation escalated in the 1990s due to Government policy. It is not out of our control. We continue to unashamedly call for action every single chance we get on this issue, because it is at the heart of the welfare of our children. Although violence is not quite so easily amenable to Government intervention, and no one thing is going to solve it, we can still significantly reduce it. This bill is not going to do that.

Kevin Hague's speech (and Mr Hague is one Green MP for whom we have considerable respect) was more like an election campaign speech:

KEVIN HAGUE (Green): I guess I agree with a lot of what my colleague Andrew Little has just said, but we disagree on one point. He said that something is better than nothing, and I do not think that is always true. In this case, we do not agree and we are opposing the bills divided from the Vulnerable Children Bill.
My colleague Jan Logie has explained our reasoning behind that. I want to talk a little bit about what the Green Party would do about this situation. If the country gives us a chance later this year we will be looking to address the basic needs of children in New Zealand—those unmet needs that are currently causing the environments that are driving this vulnerability and the problem that we are seeking to address.

Sadly, Kevin Hague's speech was little more than a series of feel-good sound-bites for the child poverty industry. Simply throwing money at societal problems is not going to solve them. Complex problems require changes in mindset and attitude, not a bottomless bucket of money.

National MP Alfred Ngaro nailed that argument in his speech. He quoted Flaxmere resident Henare O'Keefe; the man who could have replaced Ikaroa-Rawhiti MP Parekura Horomia. We have previously blogged about Mr O'Keefe here.

So here's what Alfred Ngaro had to say:

This legislation is about protecting and providing that which is needed. There has been talk about poverty. We know that there are a number of children and families who are in hardship. We do not disagree with that. But can I remind members of this. Henare O’Keefe, who was one of the candidates for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, following the death of the late Hon Parekura Horomia, tells the story at the Whānau Ora conference that when growing up in Ruatōria there were dirt floors, they had very little. They had to boil their water, they had to go outside, they had to hunt for things—they had very little and a large family. But here is the powerful thing that he said at that Whanau Ora conference: poverty is no excuse for abuse, poverty is no excuse for failure. What he was saying is this: you may have hard times, you may have difficulty, but you do have an opportunity to be able to do the best for your family and for the people who are around you.  

Henare O'Keefe (and Alfred Ngaro, quoting his words) are both dead right; poverty (however one defines it) is not an excuse for abuse, be it physical, psychological or sexual. There is no excuse whatsoever for child abuse.

Rather than trying to politicise the issue of child poverty, we reckon the Greens and Hone Harawira ought to have thrown their weight behind a Bill which already enjoyed broad support across the Parliament from both Government and Opposition MP's.

To say that we are disappointed with the stance adopted by the Greens and Harawira is an understatement. We have waited almost 24 hours to commit these words to a blog-post because to have done it in anger last night would probably have been counter-productive.

DPF mirrors our thoughts in a post he put up this morning:

The Herald reports:

A law change aimed at improving the protection of children at risk of abuse or neglect, including stronger vetting of adults who work with children, has passed into law with broad support in Parliament.
The Vulnerable Children Bill passed its final stage by 105 – 10 votes in Parliament on Wednesday afternoon after only the Green Party and Mana Party’s Hone Harawira voted against it.

They voted against???

The bill is the centrepiece of the Government’s ‘Children’s Action Plan’ – developed after Social Development Minister Paula Bennett’s White Paper on Vulnerable Children.
Its measures include changes to the law so that abusive or neglectful parents will have to prove they are safe if they wish to keep any further children they have. In the past, social agencies have had to to prove they were not fit parents to take a child from them.
It also introduces greater screening of those who work with children for government and community agencies, and ban those with serious convictions from working closely with children.

They voted against this? Against screening of those who work with children, against banning convicted offenders working with children?

Green Party MP Jan Logie said Ms Bennett had failed to deal to the main problem of child poverty.

Some on the left think that the solution to every single issue is to tax hard working New Zealanders more, to give to those on welfare. That is their solution to everything. So sad.

The proposals put forward by Paula Bennett and supported by National, Labour, NZ First, the Maori Party, United Future and Brendan Horan were practical in nature, rather than financial. Throwing money at problems simply doesn't work if there is not a change in underlying behaviours and attitudes.

Sometimes you have to step outside your party's ideological bubble in order to make meaningful, lasting change. It is unfortunate and regrettable that the Greens and Mr Harawira were unable to do that yesterday. 

But Hansard will forever record that yesterday, it was more important for them to make a political statement than to support legislation to improve the safety of the children they purport to represent. That alone speaks volumes. 


Footnote: Speech extracts are from the uncorrected Hansard for 19 June 2014.

0 Protecting our most vulnerable (Part One)

Parliament yesterday passed the Third Reading of the Vulnerable Children Bill. Sadly (and inexplicably), Parliament was not in unison on this legislation; the final vote was 105-10, with the Greens and Hone Harawira voting against; more on that later.

Paula Bennett has hailed the passage of this legislation:

Social Development Minister Paula Bennett has welcomed the passing of the Vulnerable Children Bill into law ensuring that New Zealand’s most at risk children get priority in accessing services and support.
“With more than 30 specific initiatives contained within the Children’s Action Plan, this new legislation provides a solid platform of accountability and monitoring never before seen in child protection to underpin the plan,” says Mrs Bennett.
The Vulnerable Children Act confers responsibility on the heads of five government departments, holding them directly accountable for improving the lives of vulnerable children.
The Ministries of Health, Education, Social Development, Justice and Police frontline staff must now ensure that children identified as vulnerable get the services and support they need to thrive.
“Every child in this country deserves good health, education and welfare.  Most parents provide that but for those who can’t or won’t, government agencies must step in and be advocates for those children.  I expect these children to now go to the front of the queue,” says Mrs Bennett. 
The 10 new Children’s Teams, two of which are up and running now, will provide a coordinated group of professionals to plan and wrap services around at risk children early to keep them safe from harm so they can thrive, achieve and belong.
The new law introduces new vetting and screening checks for government and community agency staff working with children including banning people with serious convictions from working in core children workforce roles.
The legislation switches the onus on parents who have killed or severely abused or neglected a child.  They will now have to prove they are safe to parent subsequent children.
Other changes include greater clarity in Family Group Conference plans that specify exactly what parents will need to do to meet their children’s needs.  Children in care will also be enrolled in the Kiwisaver scheme, allowing better planning for their future.
“While no law can stop children being abused, neglected or killed, this new legislation transforms our child protection system.  It means there will more eyes on vulnerable children, services and support will be prioritised and there will be greater vigilance on known abusers,” says Mrs Bennett.

The Vulnerable Children Bill is not perfect, and there is no guarantee that it will protect every child in New Zealand. But it is definitely a step in the right direction, and we especially applaud the added responsibility given to heads of government departments instructing them to work closely with other departments, and holding them accountable for that.

In her Third Reading speech yesterday Paula Bennett had this to say:

This Bill is a critical step in giving effect to changes in the Children’s Action Plan.
These include ensuring joint accountability across Justice, Health, Education, Police and Social Development, for the wellbeing of vulnerable children.
They also include the new requirements for the screening and vetting of Government workers and contractors who work with children.
All up these new requirements will cover around 182,000 New Zealanders.
There are also new workforce restrictions to prevent those with serious convictions, who pose a danger to children, from coming into contact with them. 
The legislation will also switch the onus on parents who have killed, or severely abused or neglected a child, and they will now have to prove they are safe to parent subsequent children.   
But let me be very clear, the legislation contained in this Bill is a small part of work already underway.
We can pass laws to improve screening and vetting.
We can pass laws that place restrictions on dangerous people where there currently are none.
But we cannot pass laws that stop children being beaten, neglected, or sexually and emotionally abused.
We cannot pass laws that stop children being killed, by those who should love and protect them.
We cannot expect that throwing more money at this problem - without changing how we work - will actually fix anything.
Accepting that this is as good as it gets will not cut it.

This is a pretty emphatic statement from the Minister of Social Development. She and her Ministry have been working on these proposals for several years. Mrs Bennett launched the White Paper on Vulnerable Children in 2012, which received more that 10,000 submissions. She told Parliament that the legislation passed yesterday "would be nothing" without those submissions.

Labour supported the passage of the Bill. Sue Moroney began her Third Reading speech with these words:

It is a pleasure to rise to speak at the third reading of the legislation formerly part of the Vulnerable Children Bill. I congratulate the Minister for Social Development on bringing the legislation forward and bringing it all the way through to its third reading in a timely fashion. I also want to commend the work that was done at the Social Services Committee on the Vulnerable Children Bill, because I think that it did improve the bill, and we were able to ensure, I guess, that some of the more problematic parts of that bill were taken out, actually. That was what happened; quite a significant part of that bill was taken out. I also want to acknowledge Anthea Simcock from the Child Matters organisation in Hamilton, because I understand that quite a lot of what has ended up in this legislation has been as result of her advocacy around the issues for children who are vulnerable, and vulnerable to child abuse. I think we should just call it what it is, quite frankly. So I congratulate Anthea on her involvement in this.

Parliament is by its very nature an adversarial place. But the two main parties were able to find common ground yesterday. 

New Zealand First too found general agreement with the Bill; here's what Asenati Lole-Taylor had to say in her introductory remarks:

Talofa lava, kia ora, and thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to talk about this legislation, arising from the Vulnerable Children Bill, in its third and final reading. The legislation sets out to achieve some goals. It proposes solutions that are much needed for problems, given the epidemic that has been in existence for quite a while in New Zealand. We are all aware that problems associated with vulnerable children are complex, and so the solutions identified in this legislation may only go so far. The member who has just spoken, Alfred Ngaro, is absolutely right: it is not perfect legislation; not yet. Obviously, we need to look at this legislation carefully because there are underlying issues that must be clarified.

There will undoubtably still be challenges ahead, and the Government freely concedes that the legislation is not yet perfect. But it has passed into law, despite the Greens and Hone Harawira not being able to bring themselves to support it, for wholly political reasons.

We will examine those reasons in Part Two later today.

0 Eat your Greens Kim!

Rod Emmerson's been reading the Herald. In particular, he's read the bit in the Herald-DigiPoll about MegaMana eating into the Green Party vote:

This is great stuff from our favourite cartoonist. But before eating too many Greens, Dotcom ought to make sure that there's no organic "residue" on the leaves.

0 More poll agony and ecstacy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

0 Another crisis averted

You may remember a couple of months ago Labour and the Greens declared the forestry and wood processing industries to be in crisis. They called for tax breaks for the wood industry, which got a reaction from the cement and steel industries who were naturally enough felling left out. We blogged about it at the time.

Well Dear Readers, it looks as though another crisis has been averted, simply by opposition parties declaring a crisis; Rotorua's Daily Post reports:

Employment is on the rise in the region as one of Rotorua's biggest industries enjoys what could be its best period in 20 years.
Rotorua's booming forestry industry is experiencing its strongest growth since 1994, which is helping fuel a jump in regional employment, a local forestry leader says.
Bay of Plenty joblessness is down as national employment hits its highest rate since before the global financial crisis.

This is great news, both for Rotorua and for the country as a whole; the more people who are in work, the better. The March Household Labour Force Survey showed that the Labour Participation Rate had hit a record 69.3%. Here are the numbers from Statistics NZ:

Despite an increase in the population due largely to people returning from Australia, there are more people in work than at any other time in the country's history.

We have just one question for Labour and the Greens. Given that everything they declare to be in crisis turns to gold, could they please declare our personal finances a "crisis"? Much obliged! 

0 Roy Morgan poll - 5 June 2014

The Roy Morgan poll certainly has a degree of volatility. But no one expected this today:

Today’s New Zealand Roy Morgan Poll shows a strong gain in support for National (52.5%, up 7%) now at their highest since before the last New Zealand Election and well ahead of a potential Labour/Greens alliance (38%, down 6%) – almost matching their performance at the 2011 New Zealand Election at which the two parties polled a combined 38.5%.

Support for Key’s Coalition partners has also improved with the Maori Party 1.5% (up 0.5%), ACT NZ (1%, up 0.5%) and United Future 0% (unchanged).

Support has fallen significantly for all Opposition parties with the Labour Party down 1.5% to 29%, the Greens down 4.5% to 9% (the lowest support for the Greens since September 2011), New Zealand First 4.5% (down 1.5%) and Mana Party 0.5% (down 0.5%). Support for the Conservative Party of NZ is 1% (unchanged) and the Internet Party is 0.5% (unchanged).

If a National Election were held now the latest New Zealand Roy Morgan Poll shows that the result would be a landslide victory for the National Party and a third term for Prime Minister John Key.

As much as we would be delighted if this poll was accurate, we suggest that it is as rogue as the one four weeks ago that had the Labour/Green bloc at a combined 45.5%, three points ahead of National. 

Take a look at the trend lines in the graph below, and you will see a certain level of fluctuation that is not reflected in other polls:

There is one other noteworthy aspect of this poll however:

The latest NZ Roy Morgan Government Confidence Rating has also improved considerably – up 8.5pts to 140.5pts with 64.5% (up 4.5%) of New Zealanders saying New Zealand is ‘heading in the right direction’ compared to 24% (down 4%) that say New Zealand is ‘heading in the wrong direction’.

The Morgan confidence rating has improved steadily, with some fortnightly variation, over the past year. At the concurrent poll last year, 55.5% said New Zealand is ‘heading in the right direction’ compared to 32.5% who said New Zealand is ‘heading in the wrong direction’. The nett rating at the end of May last year was 123, so positive sentiment has certainly firmed in the past twelve months as the economic recovery has kicked in.

We're not betting types, but if we were, we certainly wouldn't bet the house on the basis of the Morgan poll. But right at the moment, Labour must be deeply worried that there isn't a single poll showing it with a realistic chance of forming a coalition government. And the Greens will be wondering how they could have lost a third of their support in the last four weeks.

On the plus side, there's no Preferred Prime Minister poll with the Roy Morgan organisation.  David Cunliffe will be eternally grateful for that this evening!
 

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 A tax by any other name...

It was the Bard, William Shakespeare who wrote in Romeo and Juliet:

What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;

Now it's not often that you'll catch us quoting Shakespeare, but those verses seem apt today as we reflect on the Green Party's measures announced yesterday; a Carbon Tax. Stuff reports:

The Greens have launched a controversial new climate change policy - a carbon tax.
In the audience for the announcement was Hollywood actress and environmental activist Lucy Lawless.
Co-leader Russel Norman wants to scrap the current carbon pricing system - the Emissions Trading Scheme.
In its place would be a tax of $25 per tonne of carbon on industry polluters.
Norman told around 200 delegates at the party's Upper Hutt conference that in Government, the Greens would aim for carbon neutrality by 2050.
The Greens are also proposing a Climate Change Commissioner, costing about $2 million. This will be funded by administration savings from scrapping the ETS.
New Zealand, once a world leader in climate change reduction, is now on track to be ''the worst performing developing country,'' he said.
''The Government's current response is indistinguishable from business as usual... as lines go it is flawed and dangerous.''
Critics of the tax claim the tax is a burden on households, who pay higher electricity and fuel costs.
However, the Greens say their levy would be offset by a ''climate tax cut'' on the first $2000 of income. 
''We can reduce our emissions without hurting household budgets,'' he said. ''Households will be on average $319 better off every year under the Green party policy.'' 

We reckon that the average New Zealander's appetite for more taxes is pretty low. And when it's on something as nebulous as carbon, that appetite is likely to be lower still. That seems to be bourne out by the first poll we've seen on the new tax.

Oddly, airlines won't have to shell out this tax, despite being amongst the biggest polluters and users of fossil fuels. We know that the Greens are very attached to their Koru Club cards and love flying up and down the country for the opening of a paper bag (recycled paper, of course!), but why cut the airlines some slack and tax the cow cockies who are producing a huge proportion of our export earnings?

We'll tell you for why, as our Dear Departed Dad used to say. Taxes only work when they are fair, and without exemptions. What the Greens are proposing is a bit like Labour's plan in 2011 to exempt fresh fruit and veges from GST. The cost of administering the nightmare that the Greens are proposing will take care of any revenue generated. And either everybody has to be taxed, or nobody does.

We weren't fans of National's Emissions Trading Scheme. But replacing the ETS with a carbon tax will cost households as businesses put up their prices to compensate. Already BusinessNZ has said that it will ultimately result in job losses, and Federated Farmers claim it will make New Zealand dairy farmers less competitive in key export markets.

New Zealand does not need to be a world leader in climate change. We are a small country at the bottom of the world, and a reduction in emissions here will have barely a ripple around the globe.

The Greens can dress this up any way they like. But a tax by any other name is still a tax, and there is nothing remotely sweet about its odour.

0 Tweet of the Day - 1 June 2014

The Greens have launched their Carbon Tax policy at their conference today. But look who showed up to make the point:

The Green Party; saying one thing but doing the opposite since, like forever!

And somehow, we doubt the the "Green Party paid for Lucy Lawless". We rather the suspect that the long-suffering taxpayer will have picked up the bill. If nothing else, the Greens have made an art-form out of spending Other People's Money.

0 Does this count as treating?

Award-winning Fairfax reporter Andrea Vance has made a significant find on the merchandising table at the Green Party conference:

The Greens have been going on lately about cash for access. But isn't nookie for votes way more serious? Wouldn't that be classified as treating?

Still; the last commenter on the cut-and-paste has the right thought:

Well at least the Greens come with warning stickers now.

Amen to that!

0 The GIMPs revisited - by Curly Sue

Our resident song-rewriter Curly Sue has been at it again, reaching back into the mid-1970's to reprise an Elton John classic. Here's a very early version or the real McCoy by a rather follically-challenged Reggie Dwight:

Curly Sue saw our post yesterday about the GIMPs (Green, Internet, Mana, Peters), and the creative juices must have flowed almost immediately, because this arrive by e-mail late yesterday afternoon:

Davy and the GIMPs

Hey kids, you all can vote together
The spotlight's hitting Dotcom
His girth is known to change the weather
We’ll write off student loans tonight
So stick around
We’re gonna dust off Laila
The lolly scramble will astound

Say, young apathetics, have you seen them yet?
But they're so hot right now, D-D-D-Davey and the GIMPs
Oh but their line up is wonderful
Oh Davey he's really keen
They got goose step boots and Winston too
And they’re gonna dig up Alamein!

D-D-D-Davey and the GIMPs

Hey kids, plug in the “inter-web-thing”
They hope you’ll be blinded
And Davy makes them tricky
Rort MMP, and hope the youth come along
But left wingers doing it all for money

Is nothing but wrong

Say, young apathetics, have you seen them yet?
But they're so hot right now, D-D-D-Davey and the GIMPs
Oh how will they co-operate?
Oh the train wreck will be out of sight!
They got some union fruits and they’re cashed up too
Unfreeze Anderton from Carbonite!

D-D-D-Davey and the GIMPs

Say, young apathetics, have you seen them yet?
But they're so hot right now, D-D-D-Davey and the GIMPs
Oh but their line up is wonderful
Oh Davey he's really keen
Oh It does not compute; who’ll be the next recruits?

Corkery’s undies must not be seen!

D-D-D-Davey and the GIMPs

This isn't the easiest song in the world to mash, but we reckon Curly Sue has done a masterful job here. She and we hope you like it. If it helps the GIMP label to stick on Labour's potential coalition partners, who are we to complain?