Key pushes the minor party vote at the expense of National candidates

Last week there was a rumour that Phil Goff asked his front bench if he should resign as leader. Goff has denied this and said today ”I think you`ll find that that spin has its origins in the National Party”.

Earlier today John Key emphatically denied that this came from the National Party, saying that National has “no interest in the Labour leadership”.

However, while Key is interested in speaking at conferences of minor parties – fronting to Maori Party and Act conferences, and, today, the United Future conference, he has no interest in debating their leaders on TV, but wants at least two of them to win their seats - in Ohariu-Belmont and Epsom - and is therefore encouraging supporters to list vote National – but split their vote.

While some New Zealanders what to be informed on minor party policies, Key thinks that this should not happen while he shares the TV screen, saying today “it wouldn’t do a lot about informing New Zealanders”.

So informing New Zealanders about minor parties is somewhat pointless to Key. Does he expect National to govern alone? The TV3 poll came out today showing the Greens on their highest ever polling of 9.3 percent - in fact their polling is way higher than NZ First, United Future, Act, Mana and Maori parties combined. The Greens would have nearly a third of the number of seats that Labour would have, and Labour just under half what National would have. Labour would likely lose six seats if the election were held today. Mana would get two seats if they win an electorate seat. National could govern alone – but may choose to include Peter Dunne as part of the government, if he wins his seat, as is likely.

Key's speech to the National Party conference

At today’s National Party conference, John Key flagged some changes (some of which weren't changes) he hopes will prevent 16-17 year old's going onto the unemployment benefit. Instead they will have jobs, education or training – and receive a copy of “Playground Battle” from the feelers, as it has the song “Stand Up”, the theme song from the conference.

Actually, they`ll miss out on the feelers – and the training incentive allowance. Some will miss out on most of their benefit too, as it will be put on payment cards that can't be used on cigarettes and alcohol( which they can't legally buy anyway). If they study part time, perhaps if they get accepted in a tertiary institute in a few years, they won’t get $1000 course-related costs, like I did when I was studying.

The Government is going to amend the Privacy Act and the Education Act to require schools to reveal when 16- and 17-year-olds leave during the year, and share this information between the Ministries of Education and Social Development. That is because it has no idea where 16-17 year olds have come from – mind you the MSD has no idea when people leave the country either and are paying thousands each week to ex-pats who they think are in NZ, but have never checked.

The government will also fund community and other organisations to provide comprehensive and concentrated support.

In fact the Government has been doing this for years through programmes like Training Opportunites – but while funded for training, it is measured on employment outcomes, so the policy design wasn’t the best as if they were fully trained and didn’t get work the outcome was less positive. But it is very similar to what Key announced today. Government funding would go to organisations to 'transition' in to work or training, perhaps by building skills or training, but assessed on employment outcomes.

The implication is that these teens do not have a competent adult in their lives to manage their money and to assist them to get ahead in life. So these support providers in community groups will be these competent adults, and in some cases will pay their bills from their benefits and help them get into education, training and work – or the Ministry of Social Development will do it.

Actually, the MSD can pay money for bills for young people directly out of benefits - So why isn’t it?

Further, young people who are receiving these payments will have clear obligations, for example; to attend budgeting or parenting programmes.

WINZ offers budgeting advice. Why aren’t these young people being referred to it? Why is National announcing policy that, in part, it can implement now, but isn’t to a significant degree?

Key says “you measure a society by how it looks after its most vulnerable. You also measure a society by how many vulnerable people it creates”.

Obviously, the more vulnerable people a society creates, the harder that society has to work to look after its most vulnerable. But if “competent adults” are to be place alongside vulnerable teens, God help us if these people are WINZ case managers or similar.

Key said we can’t continue to give young beneficiaries money and trust they will do the right things with it. That approach has not worked.

So can we trust WINZ case managers to do the right thing for all vulnerable teens on benefits, and offer budgeting advice, training opportunities, and bill payments out of benefits?

No policy or legislative change is necessary – just the ability to implement and evaluate it - and tweak it further. It appears they are doing the latter only.

Ohariu – why Peter Dunne will increase his majority

I have consistently said since I have moved into the Ohariu electorate that Peter Dunne will retain his seat at elections. I'm not about to change now, in fact I think he'll increase his majority in 2011.

National, as it did in 2008, will be telling its voters in Ohariu to vote for Peter Dunne instead of Katrina Shanks for the candidate vote in this year’s election. For the second time, Shanks will be concentrating on the party vote with a half-hearted attempt at campaigning for the electorate vote. Some National supporters will vote for Dunne, others won’t, but Dunne will win Ohariu in 2011 and the National vote won’t split between Dunne and Shanks in the way some are predicting.

As David Farrar says , if the National vote splits between Dunne and Shanks, Chauvel may come through the middle. Dunne voters may vote Shanks, or Shanks voters vote Dunne for the same reasons – to keep Chauvel out. What Chauvel will want is for Shanks and Dunne to almost tie, and he comes through the middle.

It won’t happen.

Many are comparing this battle to Epsom, where, John Key is happy or National voters to vote Hide to keep Act in Parliament. However the Ohariu electorate is different as Dunne is an effective constituent MP. Even some who party vote Green in Ohariu vote Dunne and may do so again in 2011 in increasing numbers. In 2008 Dunne’s vote dropped as many former Dunne voters voted for Shanks and Chauvel. Some voted Shanks because of Dunne’s support for the anti-smacking legislation, and also because they didn’t like Dunne being part of a Labour Government. Some did not like his position on the Electoral Finance Act, supporting it right up to the final vote, when he then abruptly switched sides. Those who voted Chauvel did so because of his increasingly senior role in Labour, because they got sick of Dunne,and they thought Shanks wasn't worth voting for.

This year, Dunne hasn't given Ohariu voters too much reason to be sick of him, and Shanks hasn't given voters too much reason to vote for her. Chauvel has done neither as he is too busy criticising Dunne and Shanks instead of working in the electorate and promoting Labour's plan for economic recovery.

I’m predicting that Dunne’s majority of 1200 will increase in 2011. Many of those who voted for Shanks in 2008 due to Dunne’s role in the Labour Government will return to Dunne, whereas not so many Dunne voters will vote for Shanks because she hasn’t given then much reason to – and she is now less likely to be a Dunne protest vote.

That’s why more 2008 Shanks voters will vote Dunne in 2011 compared with Dunne voters who will now vote for Shanks. The focus will not only be keeping Chauvel out; the only way to keep Chauvel out will be to retain Dunne so that Chauvel does not come up through the middle due to a split Dunne/Shanks vote.

Scott Robinson inconsolable after death of sons, his mother says

THE mother of two boys found dead in their bedroom remains under police guard in hospital as a small town in northern Victoria mourns their deaths.

The mother of the grieving dad says he will never recover from the loss of his two sons, the Herald Sun reports.

"I don't know how my son is going to cope," his mother said.

"They're my grandsons. They're my grandsons," she cried as she entered Goulburn Valley Base Hospital.

Her son, Scott Robinson, was being treated for shock and his estranged wife, Vanessa, 29, was being assessed under police guard.

for more news details : Scott Robinson

The Rise of the Maori Party?

Marae has published the results of a poll done by Digipoll between 18 October and 3 November 2009. It is of 1,002 voters of Maori descent – 700 on the Maori roll, and 302 on the General roll. It is an endorsement of the Maori Party arrangement with National, although Maori voters would have preferred Cabinet posts for Maori Party ministers.

The poll reveals some pretty interesting stuff. I asked for and received a breakdown of the roll split,as this was not published, although I haven't got an electorate split in the Maori electorates. I was sure there would be an increase in support for the Maori Party in the Maori electorate at the expense of Labour. I was right; 62% of those on the Maori roll would vote the Maori Party, up from 27.4% at the election. That's a huge increase.

Furthermore, of Maori in the general electorates, 10.8% will vote National, up from 7.6% at the election - but take that with a grain of salt as there are only 23 votes in it, due to the 302 sample.

But look at Labour - it is way behind on 23.3%. On election night Labour got more than 50% of the vote in the Maori electorates. Labour's vote in the Maori electorates has reduced by more than half since the election. That's a staggering drop. For the first time in living memory Labour is not topping one question in a poll in the Maori electorates.

On election night nearly 55,980 voted the Maori Party, nearly 33,000 of those were in the Maori electorate. Now it looks more like 74,500 in the Maori electorate support the Maori Party. It is possible that the Maori Party could get more than 85,000 votes in an election - but they`ll still only have 5 MPs in Parliament, as all it will do is wipe the overhang by lowering the number of Labour MPs, while giving at least one extra list seat to National.

But while the deck chairs would not have changed in the Maori Party, this poll is also encouraging for the Maori Party. Why would National ditch the Maori seats on these figures?

In the general electorate, 42% of Maori indicated they'd vote National; just 33% would vote Labour, with 15% voting the Maori Party. Low numbers were polled, but it certainly shows a trend.

No wonder Hone Harawira's constituents want him to be within the Maori Party as a current MP.

More "chilling" than the Electoral Finance Act

Sweeping powers to spy, bug conversations and hack into private computers could be given to a web of state agencies as diverse as Inland Revenue and the Meat Board

The Human Rights Commission yesterday warned Parliament of the "chilling" implications of a proposed law that would see the intrusive powers usually only available to the police extended to all agencies with enforcement responsibilities.It said that under the law, council dog control officers would be able to enter homes to install a surveillance device and the Commerce Commission would be able to detain people.

Righto. What's going on, here? Someone give me one good reason why the Inland Revenue, Meat Board, local councils, Overseas Investment Office, Accident Compensation Corporation, Environment Risk Management Authority, the COmmerce Commission, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, and the Pork Industry Board should either get enforcement powers, be able to install surveillance devices in your home, and detain people without a warrant.

If the Pork Industry Board comes anywhere near my house I`ll be ringing the pigs.

Horrors!!!!

From today, consider Big News a blog on the left of the political spectrum. Left of centre at least but sliding leftwards fast. Change your blogrolls, people. Take me off the list of the VRWC.

The governments referendum on MMP will be binding with 51% of the vote. It wants to have it at the election to secure a higher vote, so as to get the mandate.It looks like the two stage referendum is done in such a way that we won't even know what the options for the second stage are before we have completed the first vote. I might have to have to vote Labour at the next election, as a protest vote to National.

This electoral system referendum is the main reason I did not vote National (not that I would have voted for them anyway).

If Labour is supportive of MMP, I`m backing Labour. For the first time ever [although I may reconsider if they do silly things like this ]. National's John Key's preference for the electoral system is Supplementary Member (SM) which most have never heard of and probably won't get the opportunity to understand should it be an option in the second referendum. If we ever get First Past the Post, I`ll have to vote for a Labour candidate for the first time in my life to make my vote count - and even then it will only count if Peter Dunne retires or if I move out of the electorate.

If anyone wants to campaign for a fair and representative electoral system, this blog will gladly promote that campaign. I'm sick and tired of National acting like we have a First Past the Post electoral system - but wanting to govern with primarily middle class older white men under that unrepresentative electoral system.

Is he a jolly Goodfellow?

Stuff reports that National Party president Peter Goodfellow will not be resigning. Does that mean that National considers their president a jolly Goodfellow?

For he's a jolly Goodfellow

Auckland businessman Peter Goodfellow has been elected the 18th president of the National Party. The New Zealand Herald has the story. Have a read of both the first and last paragraphs. Could the Herald actually read their stories when they update them?

Classic quote

National's Pansy Wong had this to say about Labour's front bench.

The front bench of the Labour Party is like a political rest home where members go to see out their twilight years

Classic!
Hattip Keeping Stock.

The Maori seats are positive for the Right

If talk of getting rid of the Maori seats had eventuated into action in removing these seats, Labour may have won the election and there would have been no "mana -enhancing" for Maori at all.

Thanks to the Maori Party siding with National, which unofficially for many months before the election, they were anyway, Maori have gained political mana. Labour would never have given Maori any mana, because Labour sidelines their support and confidence and supply partners.

So the Herald's heading Big steps from the sideline to the frontline is apt.

Tariana Turia has taken on responsibility for Maori and Pacific employment as well as the Government's overall strategy on family violence.

In health, her focus includes provider development. But wider responsibilities include sexual health, diabetes, tobacco, communicable diseases and breast and cervical screening.

Pita Sharples is expected to find ways to address Maori over-representation in crime, as well as more effective rehabilitation of Maori offenders. In an area dear to his heart, he gets responsibilities for Maori education such as kohanga reo and kura kaupapa.

In some ways these areas are more significant than their main ministerial portfolios of Maori Affairs for Pita Sharples and the Community and Voluntary sector for Tariana Turia.

This is a big deal. But I didn't notice anyone from Labour congratulating the two leaders on this deal. Nor have any of the blogs on the left of the political spectrum commented on this yet. This arrangement means that Turia and Sharples can address "whanau ora" [family wellbeing] social policy areas, such as health and education. It also means that it can concentrate on such things that really matter in the back pocket for Maori. Sure the Foreshore and Seabed is important, but isn't Maori development and good health, education and employment more important in terms of whanau ora?

This arrangement also means Tariana Turia and Pita Sharples need to deliver, or they will remembered for not doing so. That's the challenge. Yet they are only Associate Ministers in these portfolios. National need to ensure that they do deliver as responsibility that does not lead to results is pointless.

Read the whole column.

Reforming bail laws

National wants to reform bail laws under urgency so that people would not be given bail if they posed any risk to the community, not just "real or substantial risk" as at present. This will increase the numbers of those remanded in prison, because it is likely that more will be denied bail. National tried to introduce the laws in the last parliament but Labour blocked it.

Remember, those denied bail are in custody before they've even found out whether they are guilty or not. What happens if their court case takes a year to come up and they are found not guilty? They are not criminals, but have been wrongfully imprisoned for a year. Punishment without trial is unjust but it is currently happening in this country before a decision on whether to grant bail has even been considered.

An application for EM bail ( electronic monitoring of defendants on pre-trial bail) takes up to 15 working days, meaning that those accused of a crime could be in custody for three weeks before they even find out if they get bail. For many, it's they first bail application. In effect, EM bail is monitored home detention without trial. Police also oppose more than 80 percent of the granted applications last year, because they are unfamiliar with the judicial processes around EM bail and so they just oppose it. And given that a role of the Police is to prove that an accused should not get bail, they are not doing a very good job proving these cases.

You'd think the risk would be lessened if they were electronically monitored while on bail. Then if they get home detention nothing much changes. If they are not convicted they don't lose their freedom. If they are imprisoned, they do their time for their crime - but after they have been found guilty. But why should they wait in custody for up to three weeks if they are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty? Unlike parole, bail is a right until someone proves in a court that a person has committed a crime and should be sentenced to imprisonment for it. It is not a privilege and a person should not be in custody awaiting to hear if he or she has got human rights in this area purely because authorities can't keep up with the paperwork. They should be out on bail until they do. If they do reoffend, make their sentences cumulative, not concurrent.

Goff is pissed off with Maori Party

Labour Leader Phil Goff has said that the Maori Party is going against the wishes of Maori voters by going with Labour and is pissed off that the Maori Party has sided with National. I voted for the Maori Party for the very decision that it is making this weekend - to go with National and I am glad that it has. I predicted it would go with National, and also predicted the arrangement - ie a couple of ministers outside of cabinet but not a formal coalition.

But Goff is as silly to say that the Maori Party is going against the wishes of Maori voters as it is to say that Labour went against the wishes of non-Maori voters by governing in 2005 - most of whom did not vote Labour. The Maori Party is a political party. Sure some may have voted for Maori Party candidates and voted Labour, but it is also silly comparing the Maori Party decision with NZ First's decision to go with National in 1996 - as Goff also does - as the Maori Party is not going into coalition with anyone, and it was the voters of NZ First that wanted to go with Labour. Maori Party voters, on the whole, are voting for the best way forward for Maori. They are not voting en masse for Maori to go with Labour - as if Maori Party voters in the Maori electorate really wanted to go with Labour they would have voted Labour and split their vote.

Perhaps Goff would have a point if his party bothered to get his supporters in the Maori electorate to get out and vote.

Government to be finalised in days

It's hui season for the Maori Party and on Sunday it will be all over. The party has an agreement with National and is consulting members and supporters. The season started this morning at 9am at Waimanoni marae. The Wellington hui will be at the Victoria University marae on Saturday and although open to all Maori Party supporters it is closed to the media. The Maori Party has an agreement to take to the hui and no doubt it will be ratified and the Maori Party will get two ministerial positions outside cabinet as well as policy gains.

All will be revealed on Tuesday at the latest, as Key wants to have the Government sworn in on Wednesday. Looks like there will be five ministers from the minor parties: Dunne, Hide, Heather Roy (with Consumer Affairs), Turia and Sharples. Good.

Democracy

No Right Turn thinks the election is about democracy. It is. He maintains the choice on offer is a party that wants to get rid of MMP and a party that wants to keep it. He’s wrong there, at least in terms of the next parliamentary period.

National will not get rid of MMP in the next parliamentary term, that’s for certain – its not even National’s policy to do that, so a vote for National’s policies in 2008 is not a vote for scrapping MMP – but a vote for National in 2011 may well be. So its not the choice on offer in 2008 and No Right Turn is flat out wrong to claim that it is.

We need to reform our electoral system, not change it - and I don't necessarily mean changing to the Supplementary Member system of PR. No Right Turn knows that full well and he’d be better putting his energies towards promoting reform if he really cares about a democratic electoral system, rather than dissuading voters from voting National due to a policy that will not be implemented in the next parliamentary term.

There are other policies that National can be criticised for that are intended for the next parliamentary term - and that's the period that matters when you cast your vote tomorrow.

Maori Seats to be entrenched only if Maori Party goes with National

Helen Clark said on TV today that she'd support entrenchment of the Maori seats. Not just entrenchment of the Maori Electoral Option. If so that brings her position more closer to the Maori Party, but it draws her party further away from being in power later this month.

As Tumeke says

If the Maori Party go with Labour then National already have an official policy of not entrenching the seats and will oppose it. Since Parliament must pass the 75% entrenchment provision with 75% at some point in the process National can and will veto it. So no entrenchment.

But,if the Maori Party go with National - and the only reason they would is if they agree (along with all their other demands) to entrench the seats - then Labour must back entrenchment or lose all the Maori seats - perhaps for a very long time. So they will be entrenched.

I think he's right. If I was in the Maori Party this is one of the key messages I'd be promoting at the post-election hui. Furthermore, the Maori Party wouldn't have to go into coalition if it didn't want to.

Act backs entrenchment, so do the Greens. However, United Future doesn't so Peter Dunne could be in sticky situation thanks to the Maori Party should National gain power.

It takes a 75% to entrench legislation. Over at The Standard Steve Pierson says it doesn’t take a 75% majority to entrench legislation. "The section of the Electoral Act that lists the entrenched sections can be amended by simple majority".

So? Read this (from here)

Herald journalist to vote National

John Roughan has decided to vote National, but would have voted the Maori Party if he thought his vote would count in getting a Government that has Maori Party influence. But the Maori Party is likely to get more seats than the proportion of the vote allows it to so all a vote fore the Maori Party will do is assist in reducing overhang as long as others think similarly - and it's not like Roughan can vote for an electable candidate of the Maori Party.

See if anyone will respond to this: Which minor party should a centre-left person vote for if they want a change of Government and want their party vote to count in influencing a National government? Suggestions welcome.

The Maori Party may not go into coalition at all

According to Colin Espiner Pita Sharples has effectively come out and said that there is no way the Maori Party will be in coalition with National, because his people prefer Labour. But if it went into coalition with Labour it would be political suicide if Labour gets fewer seats than National. Labours support is the Maori Party's biggest problem. The biggest problem for the two main parties is entrenchment of the Maori seats is a bottom line for the Maori Party and both main parties don't buy it.

Many Maori won't exercise their right to vote, but they`ll go to the Marae to tell Tariana Turia to pick Labour even if it gets fewer seats than National, if the Maori Party agree, Labour could be the Government. That would outrage so many people.

One thing is clear: The Maori Party want to further the Maori people. But the Maori people need to get out of this "pick National or Labour" mentality because a coalition agreement is not needed to to further Maori aspirations and development. That is what Tariana Turia is trying to tell the Maori people who are fixated on coalitions. However the Maori Party needs to support the governing party to further Maori aspirations and this includes Ministerial posts. Even though Labour is more likely offer the Maori Party a Cabinet post, that does not follow that the Maori people will be better off than under National with a few ministerial posts outside Cabinet. However it is likely that if National offers Ministerial posts to the Maori Party, it will be expected to sign a confidence and supply agreement.

So what does this mean? It means a vote for National is a vote for a change of Government - with or without Maori Party support. It means a vote for the Maori Party is a vote for the future of the Maori people, but it is not clear what sort of a future it will be. If the Maori Party go into coalition with either party, it is less likely to have a long term parliamentary future because Government involves the rest of us. Unless some minds are changed, I don't think the Maori Party will go into coalition with National even if it considers that Maori will get a better deal than offered by Labour.

It won't go into formal coalition at all as neither National or Labour say it agrees to entrenchment if the Maori seats. It would be much better seeking ministerial posts outside Cabinet, which is what I have always promoted. It is up to the voters to pick a parliament that enables this to happen.

Update Danyl @ the DimPost reports that Tariana Turia announced that the removal of Tin from the periodic table of elements would be a bottom line for any coalition deal with a major party. The Greens won't be happy with that!

Another first time National voter

Which well known household name - a former Labour voter - has spent five years in periodic detention centres, served two prison sentences, has been arrested 33 times, has written two books and has been voting the minor parties recently - is going to be a first time National voter in 2008.

Answer here.

Most people lose out on Nat's tax cuts

Here's why I don't like National's tax cut package. Its a block of cheese tax cut for most workers - and the size of the block depends on how much you earn.

Someone earning $40,000 a year will get $5 a week less by April 1, 2011, a person on $30,000 will get $7 a week less and someone on $20,000 will get $9 a week less. Every family earning less than $44,000 will get less under National.

That's in 2011 just before the election after next. Most people earn less than $40,000 so although the person on the average wage gets $47k, most people get half that. Also, someone earning $52,000 can get a government subsidy of $1040 a year in KiwiSaver, someone earning $25,000 will only get $500 a year.

But there's good news, if you're retired you'll be better off with National.

Be afraid. Be very afraid. Labour's mismanagement of the economy is about to benefit the rich.