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 Cash for access

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

0 Labour backs a loser

There has been a lot of xenophobic fighting talk this year from Labour over immigration. David Cunliffe promised to slash immigration numbers, then progressively backed away from that, as he is wont to do.

But if Labour was hoping to out-Winston Winston Peters in its attacks on immigration, it is going to fail; Stuff reports:

Scaremongering by opposition parties on immigration seems to be misplaced, with the issue barely registering as a concern among voters, a new poll reveals.
Labour and NZ First are raising the impact of migration on housing and interest rates as September's general election approaches.
But in the latest Stuff.co.nz/Ipsos poll, just 4 per cent of respondents cite immigration as the most important issue the country faces.
The economy (20.6 per cent), education (21.6), health (19.2) and unemployment (14.3) are the top four issues important to voters. A little over 12 per cent were worried about housing affordability.
In the past year, around 71,000 immigrants arrived in New Zealand - the highest number in 11 years. The poll asked if migration levels should change; 44.5 per cent said they should not.
However, most respondents believe a policy that would restrict non-residents buying property would be "somewhat effective". Among Aucklanders, in the midst of a housing shortage, the top response was "very effective".
Last month Labour leader David Cunliffe blamed immigrants for rising house prices.
"It would take 80 per cent of our housing supply just to accommodate this year's migrants - and National is doing nothing," he said.
Among Asians (15 per cent) and those not in paid employment (7.4), immigration was of most concern.
Labour has signalled it will look at controlling inward migration and work permits as a way to dampen housing demand and general price inflation. 

Under Helen Clark's leadership, Labour regarded itself as the natural home for those who have chosen New Zealand as a destination to migrate to. A lot has changed in six years however, and Labour is now openly hostile towards immigration, in the worst traditions of Peters. 

But it would appear that there is only room for one anti-immigration party, and Peters already has the market cornered:

Immigration has long been a touch-stone for NZ First leader Winston Peters, who claims it drives up property prices and inflation and will make NZ Super unaffordable. Concern is highest - at 8 per cent - among those who intend to vote NZ First.
The poll also shows Kiwis have an accurate perception of the levels of migration. It asked respondents to estimate what percentage of the population was born overseas. The average response was 25.92 per cent - very close to Statistics NZ figures, which recorded 25.2 per cent for 2013. 
Immigration minister Michael Woodhouse said the results were not surprising. "It suggests to me that Messrs Cunliffe and co are missing the point. I would interpret it as saying there is a minority of people who think it should decrease but actually it's not that important to them."
Labour's immigration spokesman, Trevor Mallard, said the debate around economic tools should not be stifled because some people took a racist approach. "You can't ignore migration because a small proportion of New Zealanders are racist." The question was whether more could be done around "peaks and troughs" of migration. 
"Where you can see a net spike then it is worth looking at ways you can level that off . . . I think it is important the tools work both ways - that it is pro-migration in a negative cycle and knowing the peak of migration when the economy is overheated."
Peters said the result was wrong and he did not listen to polls. 

The last sentence there is illuminating. Of course Winston Peters listens to the polls; they tell him when it is time to intensify the anti-immigration rhetoric in an election year.

This year however, David Cunliffe has already cut Peters off at the pass. His attacks on immigration though have been far less successful than those of Peters, partly because Labour's immigration policy has been so confused.

But the damage has been done. Labour has tried to steal a political march by going feral on immigrants, when immigration is low down on the list of thinks that matter to voters, except the dwindling number of voters who support Mr Peters. And to give him a rare bit of credit, at least Peters has been consistent in his xenophobia for 20 years, whereas David Cunliffe is a latter-day convert.

But once again, Labour has backed a loser. This is becoming too much of a trend.

0 Another SMOG from guess who?

A certain aspiring MP in a provincial seat in the central North Island can't take a trick at the moment; a reader has just sent us this:

Here's the Herald story showing the word that Tamati Coffey left out:

New Zealand could soon have its first female Muslim MP.
The Herald on Sunday understands Hamilton chartered accountant Anjum Rahman performed well at a recent Labour Party conference, and is expected to be ranked inside the party's top 30 candidates for the September 20 general election.
In 2011, Raymond Huo was number 21 — the lowest ranked Labour candidate to win a list seat.
Labour Party president Moira Coatsworth and general-secretary Tim Barnett did not respond to calls from the Herald on Sunday. However, Rahman, 47, this week said: "Who told you that?
"I don't have expectations but I'm working to get as high as I can. The list is decided by a whole lot of people in a couple of weeks."

In the meantime, here's a history lesson for Mr Coffey. New Zealand's first female MP was Elizabeth McComb, elected in 1933. New Zealand's first female Cabinet Minister was Mabel Howard, and New Zealand has had two female Prime Ministers, Dame Jenny Shipley and Helen Clark.

We'll apologise to Rex/Edward/Judge now for being the hall monitor again, but clearly Mr Coffey didn't take heed of the advice we gave him yesterday; type, read, read again then tweet. 

If Tamati Coffey is going to continue making gaffes on social media, we will continue to declare them SMOG's (Social Media Own Goals). And at the moment, Tamati is in the running for the Golden Boot award for most goals (into his own net) for the 2014 General Election!

0 Beware the Ides of June

Claire Trevett had an interesting column in the Herald yesterday. She made lots of comparisons to the TV programme Game of Thrones. Not having watched the programme, most of her references were over our head.

But then DPF drew our attention to the closing paragraphs of Ms Trevett's piece, namely this bit:

There is some suspicion about the influence of Cunliffe's chief of staff, Matt McCarten, who has past allegiances to the Alliance Party, now reborn through Laila Harre under the Internet Party banner, and Hone Harawira's Mana Party. He could well believe a deal in Te Tai Tokerau was a good idea. The MPs in question did get some return fire on David Cunliffe's Facebook page from Labour supporters.
But Cunliffe can't afford to ignore such strongly-held views in his caucus. He is about to head into his own danger zone. From June 20, Labour's caucus has a three-month window to change the leader without having to go through the party's new primary-style process giving its membership a vote.
If Cunliffe was thriving in the polls, he'd be on much safer ground to make such calls about the Te Tai Tokerau seat and the Internet Mana Party. There might be some grumbling but little else because there would be too much to lose by changing the leader. As things stand, it might not take much to spark a revolt whether a rival contender is ready and willing or not.

We weren't aware that Labour's amended leadership rules had a Get Out of Jail Free card. Is it possible that, should the next round of polls be as bad for Labour as the last one was, they might do a Mike Moore and kick David Cunliffe to touch to stem the bleeding?

There is of course one significant difference this time around. In 1990, Labour was in government, but the tide had gone out after David Lange's cup of tea, and Geoffrey Palmer's year of anonymous leadership. The SS Labour was already on course to crash into the Opposition benches, and Mike Moore's job was nothing more than to soften the impact a little.

Is there anyone in today's Labour Party who would be willing to be the sacrificial lamb? Grant Robertson is generally regarded as being next in the pecking order, but he may prefer to bide his time until October, when the dust has settled on the General Election. He would then be well poised to challenge David Cunliffe for the leadership, should Labour not be able to form a government, and should Cunliffe not fall on his sword as Helen Clark and Phil Goff did after their defeats.

We doubt that Labour would change horses so close to an election, but it is fascinating to know that they can, should polling go from bad to worse. That in itself will make any polls after 20th June much more interesting.

David Cunliffe needs to beware the Ides of June! 

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 Cunliffe tries to out-Winston Winston

David Cunliffe will slash immigrant numbers if Labour is elected in September; 3News reports:

Labour leader David Cunliffe has taken his hardest line yet against immigrants, blaming them for rising house prices.

It follows a 3 News-Reid Research poll which shows almost two-thirds of voters say immigration should be restricted.

"It would take 80 percent of our housing supply just to accommodate this year's migrants - and National is doing nothing," says Mr Cunliffe.

Mr Cunliffe is already copping a backlash from within Labour. DPF blogs about that here, including a tweet from a Labour Party activist who sought the Christchurch East nomination last year. And Twitter is full of disparaging comments today about Cunliffe's xenophobia. There are plenty of comparisons to Winston Peters, and none of them flatters David Cunliffe.

But wait, as they say on the infomercials, there's more. Check out this tweet from Patrick Gower:

Yes Dear Readers. One one hand and to one audience, David Cunliffe wants to slash the numbers of immigrants coming to New Zealand. But on the other hand, he's quite prepared to do a deal with a party formed by a convicted criminal, a immigrant facing extradition the the United States to face serious criminal charges, and a immigrant who has been shown to have some very unsavoury personal characteristics.

The writing should have been on the wall however. There has been no denial that Kim Dotcom helped to write Labour's ICT policy, and it is common knowledge that Labour's now-ICT Spokeswoman Clare Curran visited Dotcom's rental house in Coatesville at least twice.

We wonder how Helen Clark is feeling today. Under her leadership of Labour, the immigrant community was seem as Labour's, almost by right. A lot has changed in six years, and we look forward to hearing David Cunliffe take his "Sorry, you're not welcome" message to the Chinese, Taiwanese, Korean, Indian and other immigrant communities.

Perhaps David Cunliffe is angling for Winston Peters' job leading NZ First. But David First doesn't have quite the same ring to it, does it?

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

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

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

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

Garner continues:

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

But then comes the really scary bit:

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

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

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

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

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

0 Quote of the Day - 17 May 2014

We won't copy vast tracts of Fran O'Sullivan's excellent column in this morning's Herald. We simply suggest that you go here and have a read for yourself.

But this portion stuck out, and is our Quote of the Day (with our emphasis added):

These post-Budget lunches are a marquee event on the business calendar. They are where Key not only explains the Budget but also charts the future in a compelling way designed to engender confidence so business people keep on investing, venturing out into the world to tackle tough markets - and employing staff.
The protesters outside the Sky City Convention Centre didn't get this.
The people who slagged off the guests (for instance - the business organisation leader accused of being a "bloated capitalist") don't seem to get it that business success ultimately underwrites jobs.
The protesters disregard the fact that many New Zealand businesses were put through the wringer by the Global Financial Crisis. People have worked hard to get their firms on to a sufficiently sound footing that they are now confident enough to take a few risks and grow their businesses.
It's a good space for New Zealand to be in.
The protesters were so dumb that they hadn't worked out that the business guests who openly walked past them to take another route into the centre were doing so for a purpose.
Instead they charged a door that was never going to be opened to them or anyone else.
This misjudgment is not confined to protesters.

Fran O'Sullivan is spot on. The protestors yesterday seem to have forgotten that the Budget invests $500m into families via  a range of measure. There wasn't much in it for the "bloated capitalists" who do most of the employing in New Zealand. As one wag put it yesterday, that's what happens when you organise the post-Budget protest pre-Budget!

And Labour has misjudged John Key ever since he entered Parliament almost twelve years ago. The underestimated him as he became National's Finance spokesman where he frequently got the better of Michael Cullen, and when he became Leader of the Opposition. 

Helen Clark thought that the Leaders' Debates against Key in 2008 would be a doddle. Instead it was she who lost the plot, famously accusing the PM-in-waiting of having to shout down his family at home. Key saw of Ms Clark, followed in quick succession by Phil Goff and David Shearer, whilst David Cunliffe shows no signs of having learned anything.

Long may the Labour Party continue to misjudge and underestimate John Key.

0 Soper on Cunliffe and fudge

Barry Soper's Soapbix editorial piece on Newstalk ZB is a nice mix of fact and satire. And he's certainly seen through David Cunliffe's fudging yesterday. Under the heading Cunliffe fudged his budget reaction Soper opines:

Politics in this country is a funny old business. If you're on one side of the fence you'll always complain about those on the other side, regardless of what they're doing or saying.
'The Dipton Drawler' Bill English could have delivered election year winners like free healthcare for all, free education - including university, free rest home care for the elderly, an increase in the minimum living wage to $20 an hour and the immediate settling of all Treaty claims and still his opponents would complain and probably claim he was being irresponsible.
As it is, he wandered into Labour's patch by spending half of the $1 billion he'd earmarked for splashing out for his sixth Budget on families. Paid parental leave is being increased by four weeks, kids under 13 will be able to go to the doctor for nothing and even registering your car's going to become more than $100 cheaper. They're just a few of the election sweeteners on offer.
Labour's bitterly complaining though. The complaint that The Tories are looking after their rich mates is a little difficult to fathom and so is their chant that it's a 'Cabinet Club annual report'. 
It's doubtful the donors to the Tories will be popping the champagne corks over this one considering the top 12 percent of wage earners are paying more than half the tax.

We agree with Soper about the "Cabinet Club" Budget. As we blogged earlier this morning, the speech that Russel Norman delivered yesterday bore little relativity to the Budget delivered by the Dipton Drawler, Bill English. There certainly wasn't much in the Budget for John Key's Rich Prick mates. It hasn't stopped a sell-out crowd from paying to hear the PM at Sky City this afternoon, even if they had to get past rent-a-mob first.

But it is David Cunliffe for whom Soper has saved his best:

'Martin Luther' Cunliffe was thumping the tub and came up with what sounded like a good line describing the offering as a 'Fudge-It Budget'. The trouble is that it's the same line used back in 2002 by Rodney 'Thick' Hide to describe 'Savage Mickey' Cullen's Budget, although Hide was a little more inventive when he said it was sickly sweet with no substance.
Clearly Cunliffe thought he could get away with it but hadn't counted on the man sitting beside the fulminating John Kiwi. Bill English was the Tory leader back then and Cullen's 'Fudge It Budget' didn't seem to do Labour any harm. They trashed National to it's biggest ever defeat.
So if that's the success of 'Fudge-It Budgets', then The Drawler will be laughing all the way to the ballot box! 

Quite so. David Cunliffe's speech yesterday was big on the theatricals, but lacking in substance. Nor was it a Phil Goff vein-popping special, or a clinical Helen Clark performance.

Instead David Cunliffe, as Soper notes, fudged his opportunity, recycling his description of the Budget in the same way that Labour is recycling the policies that were strongly rejected in 2011. Perhaps Mr Cunliffe needs to give up on the recycled fudge, and go and get some honey from his Herne Bay beehive, because on the basis of yesterday's performance, that's the only beehive in his immediate future.

0 Hold the phone!

Hold the phone! TVNZ's 7am Breakfast news bulletin casts a different light. The Labour Party has not excluded Shane Taurima for selection in Tamaki Makaurau because he was found to have misused TVNZ resources in his activism for the Labour Party.

No Dear Readers; the reason that Mr Taurima has not been granted a waiver to throw his hat into the ring for selection in Tamaki Makaurau is because he hasn't been a member of the party for the required year!

This is a bit like Taito Phillip Field revisited. Helen Clark and her MP's defended Mr Field to the hilt whilst the allegations which later saw him jailed swirled around him. She convened a sham report, with a predetermined finding, then declared that the only thing Mr Field was guilty of was "trying to be helpful". A High Court jury disagreed. But Field was only suspended from the Labour caucus when plans emerged that he was involved in the formation of a new political party; that was the unforgivable sin.

Now we are certainly not suggesting that Mr Taurima was in any way like the corrupt Phillip Field. The Labour Party however seems to have wimped out regarding Mr Taurima, only excluding him from selection in Tamaki Makaurau on a technicality rather than on the findings of the TVNZ report. 

So it begs the question; how long has Julian Wilcox been a member of the Labour Party, and if the answer if "less than a year", will he be granted a waiver when Shane Taurima was not?

0 Compare and contrast

John Key has set National apart from other political parties; the Herald reports:

Prime Minister John Key laid out the welcome mat for foreigners yesterday and said it was a point of contrast between National and other parties.
"We don't put up the fear factor you see from other political parties about the multicultural society that is emerging in New Zealand," he told more than 300 delegates to National's northern conference at Waipuna Hotel yesterday.
"We welcome tourists that come from overseas; we welcome people that are going to come and study at our schools and universities; we welcome people who want to invest in New Zealand and we welcome people who want to make their home in New Zealand," he said. "And yes, we welcome people who want to buy a home here and raise a family. That's what a multicultural, confident society is about."
New Zealand's future lay in selling things to the rest of the world and the future of the world was about being more connected, he said.
"Do any of us think we are really going to get rich selling things to four and a half million New Zealanders?" Mr Key said.

As we blogged yesterday, it's only a matter of six years since Helen Clark regarded the Labour Party as the natural home for immigrants to Aotearoa. How much things have changed since Miss Clark departed for the greener pastures of the United Nations. Labour is now openly hostile towards immigrants, especially those from China.

New Zealand has always been a country of immigrants; it is part of our heritage. It is sad to see Labour so desperate to stay onside with Winston Peters that immigrants have become their whipping boys.

Labour's continued anti-foreigner rhetoric will cost it votes. There's only room for one redneck party, and Peters has that market cornered.

0 Tweet of the Day - 4 May 2014

Graeme Edgeler is the legal counsel for the Internet Party. Some of those who have dealt with Herr Dotcom have suffered selective amnesia as a result, but Graeme's rapier-like wit has not been dimmed at all. Here he gives Labour MP Nanaia Mahuta a right good social media slap-down:

There's a more serious undertone to this exchange however. Under Helen Clark's leadership, immigrants were seen as the sole preserve of the Labour Party; Ms Clark considered Labour to be their natural home.

What a difference six years has made. David Cunliffe's Labour Party considers immigrants (and especially Chinese immigrants) to be the cause of many of New Zealand's woes, from house prices to corruption. Hidden in the fine print of Labour's Big Tool is a plan to stem the flow of immigrants. Helen Clark must look back in disdain.

When David Cunliffe and his lackey MP's like Nanaia Mahuta start playing the Winston Peters xenophobia card, as Cunliffe has done today, Labour has lost its heart.

0 Small on the Jones "cluster failure"

Vernon Small is one of the more senior members of Parliament's Press Gallery. He has seen more MP's come and more MP's go than most of us have had hot dinners. So he's not given to going overboard.

That makes his column in yesterday's Dominion-Post even more noteworthy. Under the heading Church collapsed? Buy a house Small opines:

Helen Clark would have lowered her voice and with a hint of authority - and a side order of menace - drawled "it's time to move on".
Labour leader David Cunliffe must be hoping he can move the party, and the political agenda, on after what is surely the heart of darkness of his political year.
If things could get any worse than the cluster failure around Shane Jones' sudden departure to work for a government he was supposed to want out of office, it is hard to see what they could be.

When Mr Small says "cluster failure", we're pretty sure that he means a variant of that phrase, which also starts with "cluster", followed by the letter "f". But the Dom-Post is a polite newspaper, and such a turn of phrase might be frowned upon by Small's editor. However, we all get the picture.

And it has been a shocker of a week for David Cunliffe and his party. Shane Jones quite literally lobbed the electoral equivalent of a hand grenade into Labour's War Room, and the party's handling of the issue is deserving of the "clusterf#ck" label.

Small continues:

The danger for Cunliffe, in the wake of Jones' departure, is that with some in the party wading knee deep in vitriol it will spill over into civil war, revisiting the divisions of the 2012 annual conference. (That's the one where according to some Cunliffites the media fabricated Cunliffe's challenge to David Shearer's leadership.)
Already the same divisions are surfacing. On one side there are the "good riddance to Jones" merchants who seem to believe the broad church party would have a wider appeal if its MPs came from a smaller chapel. It sometimes seems they would rather people - voters - changed their ways rather than the party appealed to a broader array of views.
On the other side are those who lament the loss of Jones' appeal to Maori, soft centrist or conservative National voters but use his supposed straight talking - too many "geldings" in the party etc - to attack identity politics.
At times it becomes indistinguishable from prejudice and downplays the strong strand of liberal egalitarianism and concern for human rights at the party's core. Both axes seem to think tolerance is essential, as long as you agree with me.
Cunliffe's task is to heal those wounds yet again - as Clark mostly did after her messy coup against Mike Moore in 1993 - and get the party back to its core messages. There are, after all, only 20 weeks till polling day.

If a week is a long time in politics, the 20 weeks until the election must seem like an eternity to David Cunliffe. His party is in disarray, his policy launches have been botched, his party's social media efforts (including his own) have been ridiculed, and now his best-performing MP can see that there is not going to be much chance of a seat at the Cabinet table after 20th September.

The wounds within Labour are deep, and mere Band Aids will not suffice. Helen Clark, Phil Goff and David Shearer all resisted major surgey, but now that may be the only option Mr Cunliffe has left.