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 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 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 A tale of three leaders

Here's what the three "double-figure" party leaders had to say about yesterday's Budget. First up was David Cunliffe:

Mr Cunliffe's speech was predictable, but his delivery remains wooden and stilted. After watching the Campbell Live "At home with.." piece on Monday night, we've noticed that the Labour leader's voice when speaking in public in considerably deeper than his normal tone, and yesterday he seemed to be overdoing that. And his lines were unoriginal; "fudge-it Budget" was used by Mr Cunliffe to describe Budget 2010, and even then it had been pinched from Rodney Hide in 2002!

Next up was Prime Minister John Key:

The PM's speech was far more relaxed than that of the Leader of the Opposition, and John Key took a few moments to  gently chide his nemesis suggesting that Mr Cunliffe was as effective as Benji Marshall had been at the Blues, and had as many supporters in the Labour caucus as Brendan Horan had in his caucus. He used the rest of his time to extol the virtues of the Budget and the return to surplus, and was lavish in his praise for Bill English's stewardship over six demanding years.

Finally, there was Russel Norman:

We can only conclude that Dr Norman's speech was written prior to the Budget being presented. His constantly referred to it as the "Cabinet Club Budget", the the point where had viewers been playing a drinking game, they would have been legless after two minutes! Far from being a Budget for the PM's "rich mates" as Dr Norman alleged, the most commen criticism we have seen of the Budget is that it leans too far to the Left!

If the far Left and the far Right are critical of the Budget handed down by Bill English yesterday, then he probably got the mix about right. The surplus is somewhat larger than forecast, and with growth of 4% being forecast in the out years, New Zealand is in good economic shape, especially when compared to our trans-Tasman neighbours.

0 A tale of two polls

The Left was cock-a-hoop at the end of last week when the notoriously variant Roy Morgan poll showed Labour/Green ahead of the National Party. But this morning, the bubbly can go back on ice.

Stuff has released the latest Fairfax-Ipsos poll, and it makes grim reading; that's if your name is Cunliffe, Norman or Turei. And if your name is Peters, or any other NZ First MP, you'll be dusting off your CV ready for a return to the job market in October. Tracy Watkins has the grim details (for those mentioned above, and their supporters):

National has shrugged off weeks of scandal and is riding high in today's Stuff.co.nz/Ipsos Political Poll.
With Finance Minister Bill English poised to unveil tomorrow what he hopes will be an election-winning Budget, the poll suggests there is no need to pull any rabbits out of the hat.
It puts National on 47.6 per cent support, down 1.8 percentage points on our last poll, but still enough to govern alone if the results were mirrored on election night.
Labour has slipped to 29.50 per cent, taking it below the morale-busting 30 per cent threshold for the first time. 

The Fairfax-Ipsos poll has tended to flatter Labour. Whereas other polls have had David Cunliffe's team fluctuated above and below the 30% line since the 2011 General Election, Labour has held its ground in this particular poll. Until this morning, that is.

And Tracy Watkins predicts a new round of naval-gazing in the War Room:

Today's result is likely to cause soul searching within Labour, however, over leader David Cunliffe's failure to get traction against Key despite the succession of ministerial scandals.
The poll shows Cunliffe sliding in the preferred prime minister stakes to 13.4 per cent, down 3.9 points from our last poll in February and well behind Key, who is on 48.6 per cent. Labour also suffered a blow during the polling period with the news that former leadership hopeful Shane Jones is quitting Parliament. But Labour's biggest enemy may be the improving economy, with the poll showing 63.6 per cent of voters believe the country is on the right track. 

Indeed. Bill English is set to announce the economy is back in surplus for 2014-15 when he delivers tomorrow's Budget, more people in New Zealand are in work than at any time in the country's history, manufacturing and exporting is humming, and tourists continue to visit New Zealand in record numbers. Bill English and John Key have a strong platform from which to campaign for re-election.

Here's how the parties stack up:

Ms Watkins notes that the Greens seem to have picked up some "soft" Labour support, whilst NZ First is going nowhere. Winston Peters is going to need more than a luke-warm spud gun to gain any traction, as Labour threatens to trump him with anti-Chinese rhetoric.

John Key and Bill English will be feeling positive ahead of tomorrow's Budget, and they have every right to be. Bill English has steered the economy through the worst recession since the Great Depression, and the waters ahead are calm, especially compared to the heavy seas facing Australia. Why would any sensible voter put that at risk?

0 No. Bloody. Way.

Please excuse our little rant in the title line. But this story, to which we alluded earlier, is causing our blood to boil; Newstalk ZB reports:

David Cunliffe believes it's time to consider publicly-funded elections.
It comes in the wake of revelations about National's Cabinet Club and fundraising practices by all parties.
The Labour leader says it's time to have a conversation.
"There's a trade off to be made between investing more taxpayers funding in the political process to guarantee fairness and democracy on the one hand and making sure that every dollar is well and prudently spent." 

Now it's official. The Labour Party is broke, and they want the taxpayer to bail them and their Green Party mates out.

We are hot under the collar on this. We already pay our fair share of tax (and probably more than most, by the time our contribution is added to SWMBO's), and we simply do not want any more of our tax dollars being spent on political parties of any hue. We are completely and utterly opposed to the idea.

So is DPF; he blogs:

I’m 100% opposed. For a start taxpayer funding political parties does not reduce private donations - look at Australia where they have state funding – and you have unions donate tens of millions of dollars to Labour.

It is healthy for political parties to need members and supporters to raise funds. It’s a good thing that if a party loses say 75% of its members, it loses a lot of its funding.

Most of all it is wrong to force taxpayers to fund political parties whose policies and candidates they may detest.

But you have been warned. If the opposition get into power, beyond doubt they’ll try to legislate for taxpayer funding of political parties.

We could not agree more with DPF. This will be the thin end of the wedge, and you can be sure that any left-leaning government will extort as much as they can from taxpayers, whilst ramping up taxes on those who dare to earn more than average. Those at the top of the tree will end up funding political parties whose ideology they are fundamentally opposed to. That simply isn't right.

So good luck Mr Cunliffe and Mr Norman; go ahead and make this election about taxpayer funding of political parties, then tell us in advance about your plans to increase the top tax rate.

As for Mr Cunliffe, we're happy to have the "conversation" with him. He wants to squeeze our after-tax income down to pay for political parties, and our response is both simple and emphatic. 

No. Bloody. Way.

 

0 Be careful what you wish for Paddy

There was a minor party leaders' debate this morning on The Nation. And 3News political editor Patrick Gower knows what buttons to push with regard to two particular minor party leaders:

We love Paddy Gower's little show of defiance to Russel Norman and Winston Peters with his "So sue me" comment. We just wonder however if given the frequency with which one of the two minor party leaders referred to been in the courts over his long parliamentary career, Paddy Gower should be careful what he wishes for!

0 Are the Greens media now?

The Green Party seems to have abandoned being a political party now, and taken up journalism. Maybe it was the excitement on Twitter last night as Canon Media Awards were handed out, but that's the only explanation for this tweet from Russel Norman:

And right on cue, the Dom-Post has a story this morning with Dr Norman quoted prominently:

Some of Wellington's most recognisable names paid $3500 each to meet Prime Minister John Key at a National Party fundraising dinner also attended by his taxpayer-funded chief of staff, Wayne Eagleson.
As Opposition allegations continue to swirl around National's so-called "Cabinet clubs" for wealthy donors, it has emerged about 15 people, including former Wellington mayor Kerry Prendergast and Weta Digital co-founder Jamie Selkirk, attended the dinner at the Museum Hotel, which raised $45,000 for National.
The Cabinet club fundraising events, attended by leading National MPs, have been in the spotlight this week after the resignation of Maurice Williamson, who intervened with police on behalf of a wealthy National Party donor.
Justice Minister Judith Collins has also been under attack over her dinner with representatives of milk exporter Oravida - a company her husband governs, and which has also donated to National.
The fundraisers have been criticised for providing donors with access to ministers in return for cash. National has responded that Labour has done the same kind of fundraising.
The Museum Hotel event was held in 2011, and organised by hotel owner and National Party fundraiser Chris Parkin.
He said yesterday the event was nothing to do with the Cabinet clubs but was his way of helping to support National.
He joked that at least $2000 worth of each donation was for the food and wine. He did not believe anyone attending fundraising dinners expected to be able to "influence" the prime minister. "They are more there to ask questions."
Developer Richard Burrell, who was one of those present, said he was "chuffed" to attend after the asking price dropped from $5000 to $3500, and because Parkin always put on entertaining events that were good fun.
Key and Eagleson chatted to those attending, and it was "a good fun evening".
Payment for the event went to Parkin, he said. Official party donation records show Parkin correctly declared a $45,000 donation to National about two months later.
Prendergast said yesterday that she did not pay to attend, as she was there as a guest of Parkin. Selkirk did not want to comment.
Green Party leader Russel Norman said the fundraiser showed wealthy people could get access to the prime minister when poorer people could not.
Such fundraisers "may be technically legal, they're not right", he said. "If you have a lot of money, you can buy exclusive access to the prime minister." 

Dr Norman seems to miss a fundamental point here. Whilst he concedes that the dinner was "technically legal" he's actually wrong; the dinner was absolutely positively legal. It was promoted as a fundraiser for the party, and the donation from Chris Parkin was legally declared. 

But the point Norman misses is that people in New Zealand have a choice, and if they want to support the National Party (as many business people do, because National is far more business-friendly than the Greens, Labour or Mana) they have an absolute right to do that, provided it is done legally.

The Green Party's complaints here are petty, and motivated by a combination of the politics of envy, the fact that few people would shell out $3500 for dinner with Dr Norman or Ms Turei (or even David Cunliffe for that matter) but above all a desire to see taxpayer funding of political parties. If a Labour-Green government is ever elected, you can guarantee that will be on the agenda.

We suggest that the Greens stick to politics. It's not the job of political parties to boast about breaking stories, and in any event, 3News actually broke the story, although obviously they'd been fed plenty of inside information from the Green Party comms team. If the Greens want to break stories, let them give up the offices and support staff that you and we pay for, let them give up their MP salaries and taxpayer-funded travel, and let them join the Press Gallery and scratch out a living.

0 Thought of the Day - 9 May 2014

A kindly reader sent us this by e-mail.

Pete Hodgson was, of course, a senior Labour Party MP, and Labour's strategic genius in the run-up to Labour's loss at the polls in 2008. But the man who succeeded him as Labour's strategic genius for 2011, Trevor Mallard, would do well to take note.

On this occasion Pete Hodgson was dead right. It does not matter how many times Trevor Mallard, Grant Robertson, David Cunliffe, Chris Hipkins and even Russel Norman and Winston Peters tell porkies. The lies don't become any less porcine by being endlessly repeated.

0 Curly Sue's "High Horse" special

One of the more esoteric songs to come out of the 1970's was America's hit A Horse with no Name. Go online, and you'll find all sorts of explanations for the meaning of the song, from a journey for self-discovery to tripping on heroin. Have a listen, and make your own call:

We've concluded that Curly Sue is a child of that era as well. That's because we've received this re-write of A Horse with no Name in the wake of yesterday's Question Time, where John Key came up with one of the sledges of the year with regard to Russel Norman and high horses.

So here's Curly Sue's contribution, for your entertainment and edification:

My High Horse Has Gone Lame

For the first part of session
I was upbeat and full of zing
Attacking funds and conflicts and Key and things
Couldn’t wait for the bell to ring
The first thing I said was a sound bite with buzz
John Campbell would be proud
Debate was hot and my mouth was dry
And the air was full of sound

I’m the Green Party leader, my high horse has gone lame
Arguments have failed again
When a vote comes along I can always abstain
Cause there ain't no point making positions plain
Oh la, la etc

After one hour in the debating chamber
My hair began to turn more red
After more hours we let the debate run
I was wishing for my bed
And the story was told as our bullshit flowed
Made me sad our argument’s dead

I’m the Green Party leader, my high horse has gone lame
Arguments have failed again
When a vote comes I can always abstain
Cause there ain't no point making positions plain
Oh la, la etc

Learning Kim’s ways, that no one rides for free
And John Key shooting me down
My rants and pointing of the finger

Make me look like the party’s Clown

Green policy’s a desert with the truth underground
And a perfect disguise above
Under the surface lies a communist hound
Rich pricks will get no love

You see I’m the Green Party leader, my high horse has gone lame
Arguments have failed again
When a vote comes I can always abstain
Cause there ain't no point making positions plain
Oh la, la etc

Curly Sue is turning out to be quite a prolific song rearranger. Is it time to escalate these little ditties to the next level, and hand them over to a more competent musician that ourselves to get them recorded and on YouTube? Hmm; that's food for thought...

0 How would you feel...?

Labour and the Greens (and their friends at 3News) are outraged that the National Party raises money. 3News ran a story for them last night, which you can access here. But the final paragraph began thus:

But raising money this way isn't against the rules.

3News' main disappointment seems to be that National DIDN'T break any rules with its Cabinet Club promotions, which according to DPF have been going in in one form or another for 20-plus years.  But we are suspicious that 3News is aiding and abetting the Greens' push for taxpayer funding of political parties, and suspect that is the real story here.

Of course National isn't the only party to fundraise off the profile of its MP's. DPF's post tells how Labour sold promotional booths at its Conference in Christchurch last year. Among the benefits was this:

Sue Moroney challenged us when we mentioned this on Twitter this morning, saying "You are completely and utterly wrong". Naturally, we took issue with that; here's the conversation, which soon became one-sided. We're sure though that her apology to us isn't far away!

Now some will say that there's a difference between access to MP's and access to Ministers, and they'd have a point. So we did a Google search for "Labour Party fundraising ministers", and here's what we found on the third page:

 

 

Yes Dear Readers. In August 2005, Trevor Mallard substituted for Michael Cullen at a Labour Party fundraising dinner in Nelson. At the time, Dr Cullen was the Minister of Finance, and Mr Mallard was, among other things, the Minister of Education; a high-ranking appointment in any Cabinet.

 

So finally we get to our title; how WOULD you feel if you'd shelled out a reasonable sum to hear the rapier-sharp wit of Michael Cullen, and Trevor Mallard turned up? We know how we'd feel; disappointed. Dr Cullen was an excellent, articulate speaker with a ready wit, and Mr Mallard is not. Trevor Mallard would have been reading the speech prepared by Dr Cullen's staff during work time, and on the taxpayer's dime.

 

3News is right; raising money this way isn't illegal, as long as the Cabinet Manual is adhered to. Nor is it new, and nor is it the sole preserve of the National Party. 3News staff did themselves no favours last night with its attempt to taint the National Party. 

 

And both David Cunliffe and Russel Norman have had little success in attacking John Key on the issue at Question Time this afternoon. In fact Dr Norman gave the PM the chance to utter what must be the sledge of the day:

 

"I think that member's high horse went lame the day he parked it at the Dotcom mansion" 

 

0 Unfortunate Statement of the Year

Labour Party finance spokesman David Parker doubtless had the best of intentions when he appeared on The Nation at the weekend. 

But when you're talking about equipping yourself to tinker with the Reserve Bank Act, you leave yourself open to innuendo and ridicule; check this out, courtesy of the NBR:

But it begs the question; could the "one big new tool" that Mr Parker refers to be Green Party co-leader Dr Russel Norman? And it that were the case, do you fear the likely outcome as much as we do?

0 We can't help but wonder...

Rajan Prasad, one of Labour's hidden talents got himself noticed yesterday. Questioning the decision to give a special work visa to Nigella Lawson, despite her admited drug use, he expressed thoughts on drug use that might be better kept to himself; check this out:

Mr Prasad said as a general rule he did not believe people who abused drugs should be allowed in to New Zealand but there should be discretion to allow it in special circumstances.

So we can't help but wonder; given that Green Party co-leader Russel Norman admitted (very freely) on The Nation the other week that he had used cannabis at some past time, is Dr Prasad saying that the man David Cunliffe might need in order to form a government ought never have been allowed to immigrate to New Zealand?

We're not big on people who use illegal drugs either. But we would suggest that Dr Prasad talk to his colleague Darien Fenton, a self-confessed recovered heroin addict about the power of second chances.


Right; see you later. We have a plane to catch!

0 Easter good news #2

Well; this one is a mixed news story. For those who want the current Government re-elected on 20 September, it's fantastic news. For David Cunliffe, Russel Norman and Metiria Turei and their MP's and supporters, it make make Easter a little less palatable.

The latest Roy Morgan poll is out. And as Morgan polls tend to do, it has lurched again; here's the commentary:

Today’s New Zealand Roy Morgan Poll shows a large jump in support for National (48.5%, up 5.5%) now with its largest lead over a potential Labour/Greens alliance (40%, down 5%) since July 2013 as New Zealanders celebrated the visit of Prince William and the Duchess of Cambridge.
Support for Key’s Coalition partners is little changed with the Maori Party 1% (down 0.5%), ACT NZ (0.5%, unchanged) and United Future 0% (down 0.5%).
Support for the Labour Party has fallen to 28.5% (down 3.5%) – clearly the lowest support under new Labour Leader David Cunliffe, and the lowest Labour support since April 2012, the Greens have fallen to 11.5% (down 1.5%), New Zealand First 5.5% (unchanged), Mana Party 1% (up 0.5%), Conservative Party of NZ 2% (down 0.5%) and Internet Party (1%, up 0.5%) while support for Others is 0.5% (unchanged).
If a National Election were held now the latest New Zealand Roy Morgan Poll shows that the National party would regain Government for a third term.

And it's not just the party figures; New Zealanders are feeling very, very optimistic just at the moment; read on:

The latest NZ Roy Morgan Government Confidence Rating has jumped to 143pts (up 10pts) with 65% (up 4%) of New Zealanders saying New Zealand is ‘heading in the right direction’ compared to 22% (down 6%) that say New Zealand is ‘heading in the wrong direction’.

It's the confidence rating that is Labour's biggest hurdle now. When three times as many people think New Zealand is heading in the right direction than think it's not, where is the mandate for change? 

So as David Cunliffe, Russel Norman and Metiria Turei eat their hot cross buns and Easter eggs they will doubtless ponder this poll which came out as Parliament went into a school holiday recess. Sure, Roy Morgan polls tend to be all over the place, but after a string of poll disasters, it was the one skerrick of hope they had. Where do they turn now?

0 A taste of things to come?

Just imagine it. It's Easter 2021, and Prime Minister David Cunliffe watches the traffic on the Auckland Harbour Bridge from his Herne Bay "mid-range do-up".

PM Cunliffe is still basking in the glory of his election win. Written off after Labour's annihilation in 2014, David Cunliffe reassumed the Labour leadership after the 2017 election when the Grant Robertson/Jacinda Ardern combination was unable to stop John Key winning a fourth term as Prime Minister. Together with his young and enthusiastic deputy leader Phil Goff, Cunliffe was able to cobble together a coalition with the Greens and 75-year-old Winston Peters' Winston First, Second and Third Party, enjoying the slimmest of majorities. But already the cracks are appearing, and there have been calls for a new election due to allegations of vote-buying.

But that's all in the back of the PM's mind as he watches the caravans roll over the bridge. Every New Zealander now owns a caravan, thanks to the Government's extravagant election bribe on the back of a $25 billion surplus delivered by outgoing Finance Minister Sir William English. Cunliffe has tasked Executive Finance Minister and Co-Deputy PM Russel Norman with the task of spending the entire surplus within twelve months, and Norman has approached his role with relish. Better still, they don't have to register them.

And then it happens; is this a taste of things to come in David Cunliffe's New Zealand, the Caravan Capital of the World?

0 Armstrong on Labour's dilemma

John Armstrong paints a difficult picture as he sums up Labour's current electoral dilemma. Under the headline Labour steps over Greens to pick Peters he opines:

Having turned its caucus room in Parliament Buildings into a war room staffed almost around the clock by policy wonks, political strategists, experts in social media, plus assorted press secretaries - all in readiness for the coming general election - the Labour Party may find itself with another war on its hands before then. Or something close to it.
The "enemy" on this occasion will not be National. Neither will it be Act. Nor United Future. Nor Colin Craig's Conservatives. Nor even Kim Dotcom and his Internet Party.
No, this war will be of the internecine variety where the combatants all come from the same neck of the (political) woods.
It will have been sparked by the seemingly endless positioning and posturing ahead of September's election which will count for little in the aftermath. But this week it all turned ugly for the Greens. And things may yet get uglier still.

It may be that fate has decreed that the power struggle between Labour and the Greens takes centre stage at the worst possible time for the centre-left.
It may not come to open warfare. But the dismissive, almost contemptuous attitude displayed by David Cunliffe with regard to a supposed ally is bound to rankle deeply wherever Green Party members gather.
You can be assured there will be a response; that there will no longer be any scruples about upstaging Labour on the hustings.

Readers with good memories will remember how outraged Clare Curran was in 2011 that the Greens would DARE muscle in on Labour's vote. Yet that is exactly what Labour is now doing in reverse. To give the Greens credit, they campaign well, so any moves by Labour to steal votes from the Greens will not be met with silence and indifference.

Armstrong continues, noting that it is Labour which has caused this situation to develop and fester; something that the Greens have, up until now, been relatively patient about. But with an election just over five months away, time is short:

The Greens may put the stress on peace, love and understanding in the resolution of disputes. Their image may be more flower power than firepower.
But the closer the party gets to seats around the Cabinet table - and thus the exercising of real power and influence - the more the Greens are toughening up to cope with the pressures of being a coalition partner. They simply have to do so. And this week showed why.
Russel Norman, in particular, has shifted into a higher gear in terms of tenacity in both promoting and defending his party. He is now de facto leader rather than just co-leader. He grabs people's attention. And they listen. The same cannot be said for Labour's leader.
The Greens have been exceptionally patient with Labour in expectation that a centre-left victory in September will finally bring long-delayed reward.
They are acutely conscious, however, that time is running out and Labour has done precious little to fill the empty canvas on the centre-left which is Labour's failure to paint a picture in voters' minds as to how a Labour-Greens government would function and what its priorities would be.

When push comes to shove, and Labour needs the Greens in order to govern, you can bet that David Cunliffe will go to Russel and Metiria on bended knee, sincerely apologising for having ostracised them. But how will such an approach be met?

And then there's Winston Peters, not that a Labour/NZF grouping could even get close to governing on the current polling numbers. How does the Labour rank and file feel about Cunliffe climbing into bed with Winston Peters? Will they hold their noses, and pretend it isn't so?

The Left is divided at the moment, and there are no signs of division healing any time soon. Will voters risk a centre-Left coalition, knowing that at any moment it could all turn to custard? We think not.

David Cunliffe has some serious decisions to make; far more serious than his Royal tour pettiness.