Andrew Geddis

Tears of impotent rage over union backed win of Andrew Little

There are plenty on the left who are crying tears of impotent rage at the union backed win of Andrew Little.

None more so that poor wee Andrew Geddis, the man who can’t bear to speak my name.

Labour just made the wrong choice, in the worst possible way.

Obviously, I think that the decision to choose Andrew Little over Grant Robertson was the wrong one however it came about 
 that’s because Grant is a good friend whom I think will one day make a fantastic Prime Minister of New Zealand. So Andrew Little could be the reincarnation of Jack Kennedy mixed with Bob Hawke by way of Michael Joseph Savage (which he most certainly isn’t) and I’d still be lamenting the Labour Party’s decision to appoint him leader ahead of Grant.

So let’s put aside my personal disappointment at the actual decision that Labour has made and instead look at how it has done so. Because it looks to me like it’s created an almighty cluster&*k.

Nah let’s not…Andrew should cry some more his tears are delicious.

First, Little beat Grant by just over 1% of the weighted votes cast. That’s about as close a margin of victory as you can get, achieved on the third round. So the overall mandate for Little’s leadership is 
 fragile, at best.

Second, Little lost heavily to Grant in both the Caucus and the Membership vote in every successive round of voting. Little was the first choice to be leader of only four of his colleagues (assuming he voted for himself, that is). Only 14 of 32 backed him as leader over Grant by their third choice – meaning 18 of 32 think Grant is a better person to lead them. And in respect of the membership vote, Little was consistently 10% behind Grant at each stage of the vote.

The thing that gave Little the edge, of course, was his support amongst “affiliates” – which means those unions that still retain membership ties with Labour.    Read more »

Why BCIR is a dumb idea

Andrew Geddis can’t type my name, but I can not only type his and use it in a post but also link to his very good explanation of the ill-conceived idiocy of the cult of Colin Craig regarding binding citizen initiated referenda.

Colin Craig has just one thing he wants from National in any post-election deal. Unfortunately, it’s something that National isn’t able to give him.

[…]

the Conservative Party’s announcement of their “bottom line” policy demand before supporting National post-election strikes me as a major disincentive to National ushering them into the House. As the NZ Herald reports Craig:

“The thing that we want, that will be required if a party wants our support, is that they are going to need to agree to a change whereby that the people of this country have the right on those rare occasions … to tell the government where to go and what to do.”

He later told reporters it may not be enough for National to step aside and give him an uncontested race in the East Coast Bays seat, where he is a candidate.

“We’d want to see referendum get across the line, that’s the one thing that matters for us.”

Conservatives would not go into coalition or enter a confidence and supply agreement unless this condition was met.

Mr Craig said: “We’re not going to be unconstructive, but in terms of getting our full support, that is our bottom line. That is what we want to achieve.”

Let’s pay Craig and his party the courtesy of accepting that they really, really mean what they say on this matter. Unless National give them this policy outcome, they won’t give any guarantee of support for it in office. The problem they face is that there is no way that National on its own (or even in conjunction with the Conservatives) can deliver what they are demanding.

Why can’t BCIR be delivered as the Cult of Colin Craig demands?

there is no doubting that adopting such a measure would represent a fundamental change to the entire constitutional order of New Zealand. And fundamental constitutional changes shouldn’t be made by bare-majority governments on a straight party line vote. It’s constitutionally improper to even suggest that this happen – it would be like the Maori Party saying that their price for supporting a Government would be for that Government to legislate via a bare parliamentary majority to make the Treaty of Waitangi a “higher law” constitutional document that could be used to strike down other laws. I don’t care whether you think that would be a good outcome; it would be a bad way to bring it about.

Now, maybe Craig doesn’t mean that he wants National (with his Party’s help) to bring in binding referendums directly. Maybe he wants the issue itself to be put to a referendum, so that the people of New Zealand can decide for themselves whether or not to make the change. If that is what he means, then he really should say so. Because what he’s calling for at the moment – a fundamental constitutional change carried out by a bare majority in Parliament – is improper, and I just don’t think National should for one minute think about agreeing to do it.

Read more »

Anonymous Labour donors are getting nervous

A lonely David Cunliffe waitsAndrew Geddis writes

… if you go back to the financial returns from political parties for 2007, there is listed a donation to Labour of $150,000 from “Palmer Theron, Solicitors, on behalf of an undisclosed client” (as well as two other donations of $50,000 and $30,000 from other law firms on behalf of similarly “undisclosed clients”). For balance, you might also note that in that year National reported $40,000 in anonymous donations, as well as $513,000 from three trusts that it had been using to launder donations previously. Read more »

Why won’t the Police act with complaints from the Electoral Commission?

Back when I was editor of Truth I OIAd the Electoral Commission about outstanding complaints they had sent to the Police for prosecution.

To date nothing has happened with those complaints.

Here is what I wrote back then. The sentiments and facts remain the same:

In our January 3rd issue we reported the following story. This has since been picked up by other media agencies, so we thought we would refresh your memories on how you heard it first at Truth.

Police are sitting on more than twenty open investigations referred to them for prosecution under the Electoral Act by the Electoral Commission.

Truth has obtained details under the Official Information Act that reveal Police seem to have no interest in prosecuting offences and breaches of the Electoral Act.

Of the 32 cases referred, 6 have lapsed because the prosecution time limit has expired.

62 dual vote referrals remain open and un-prosecuted.

Headline cases referred by the Electoral Commission that remain open with little or no progress are the Green party worker Jolyon White’s alleged vandalism of National’s signs at the 2011 election, several of Labour’s flyers including their ‘Stop Asset Sales’, ‘Prices are Rising faster than wages’ and ‘Ohariu Census’ pamphlets.

Only 3 cases have been closed, with no action or prosecution resulting.

The Electoral Act is the governing act to keep checks on political parties and candidates. The Police do not appear to be interested in prosecuting these cases.

The new electoral cycle begins again this year with local body elections held in November and 2014 will see the next general election held

So far it appears that those referred by the Electoral Commission to the Police for prosecution have gotten away scot-free.    Read more »

Geddis on donations and why Cunliffe’s trust is tricky

Even though Andrew Geddis, like a petulant child, can’t bring himself to say my name, he does make good points in his latest post at Pundit.

The left wing blogosphere has been cock-a-hoop (wrongly it turns out) that Patrick Gower ‘got’ John Key on The Nation. Geddis doesn’t agree and schools them on the law.

There’s been a bit of lefty gloating going on around the traps aboutPatrick Gower’s interview with John Key on The Nation, in which he sought to draw an equivalence between David Cunliffe’s use of a trust to receive donations for his Labour leadership campaign and donations that National received back in 2010 and 2011 through a dinner held at “Auckland’s pricey Parnell restaurant Antoine’s”.

(On that last point, check out Antoine’s menu and the attached prices. This, remember, apparently is one of John Key’s “favourite places to eat”. That this fact does not at all seem to undermine the popular view of him as being “just like us” is a source of unending mystery!)

But much as I would love to grab a pitchfork and torch and follow in behind the crowd all the way to the door of Key’s castle on a bleak mountain top (which is what he lives in, right?), my goddam conscience just won’t let me do it. So I’m going to have to break ranks and say, “nice try, but not quite.”

If the lefty bloggers take just 5 minutes to read why they will find out why no other media except TV3 is pushing this story.  Read more »

Andrew Geddis on a couple of electoral matters

Andrew Geddis joins the chorus of experts certain that Kim Dotcom is full of the proverbial over his claims he can stand for parliament.

Quite how a convicted fraudster and German national is going to get over the citizenship line is beyond almost everyone except the Fat German.

Now, others already have expressed a degree of (shall we say) complete and utter disbelief regarding this claim. So let me just add my voice to theirs and say that Kim Dotcom ain’t going to be a candidate at the 2014 election. I’ve taken the liberty of putting the reason why in bold italics:

47 Registered electors may be members, unless disqualified

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, every person who is registered as an elector of an electoral district, but no other person, is qualified to be a candidate and to be elected a member of Parliament, whether for that electoral district, any other electoral district or as a consequence of the inclusion of that person’s name in a party list … .

(3) Regardless of anything in subsection (1), a person is not qualified to be a candidate or to be elected unless he or she is a New Zealand citizen.  Read more »

Andrew Geddis on the Privileges Committee

Winston Peters ran off tot he Police, Russel Norman too thinks the Police should troll through MPs emails and David Shearer stuttered off to lay a complaint with the Privileges Committee.

Andrew Geddis thinks this might be a big gamble with little reward. After all Winston escaped with a slap ont he hand with a wet bus ticket the last time he ventured to the Privileges Committee.

Firstly, though, Geddis pours scorn on the grandstanding with Police.

For reasons more fully covered here and here, there simply is no way the leaking of the Kitteridge Report itself meets this offence provision – the fact the PM himself was due to release it a few days later testifies to that. And there is as yet no evidence whatsoever that any other material that really is “likely to prejudice the security or defence of New Zealand” has been leaked to anyone – even if Peter Dunne had access to such material, the fact that he is a prime suspect in leaking one sort of information isn’t any reason to suspect he’s leaked another sort. So, absent some as yet unrevealed June surprise, I’m calling this a dead end.

Good, because did anyone really want Winston and Russel’s police goons demanding emails of MPs?  Read more »

Blogger issues fatwa against another blogger, I’m joining in

After burying the hatchet with real estate blogger Martyn Bradbury it was only a matter of time until Imperator Fish blogger Scott Yorke found another blogger to torment to an eating disorder.

He has issued a fatwa against Andrew Geddis…one I am tempted to join…since Andrew cannot and will not mention my name or the name of my blog.

It is all very Wogistani but extremely entertaining:

Blogger Scott Yorke today issued a “fatwa” against Otago University academic Professor Andrew Geddis.

Mr Yorke said he had issued the edict to “take my revenge on that dirty thief.”

Yorke said he had been forced to act after Geddis stole one of his blogpost ideas.  Read more »

Geddis on Bain Compo Grab, Fisher was right in his review

Andrew Geddis comments at NBR in an article by Rod Vaughan (paid content) about the compo grab of David Cullen Bain:

“The cynic in me thinks they thought that the case against Bain was so clear that anyone who came in to look at it was going to give them an answer and they could make it go away.

“I genuinely think that [former Justice Minister] Simon Power thought Binnie was going to come back and say ‘he’s guilty, you don’t have to pay him’.

“And when Binnie didn’t do that, that’s when the fur started to fly.”  Read more »

Comment of the Day

ᔄ Imperator Fish

Andrew Geddis summarises Labour’s and Clare Curran’s social media strategy:

You can’t see the bigger strategy here. By obsessively focusing on John Key’s social media usage, Claire is revealing to real New Zealanders how obsessively focussed John Key is on his social media usage. And once real New Zealanders realise how obsessive John Key is with regards his social media usage, then they will realise they don’t really like him and instead like a party that isn’t obsessed with social media.

For The Win!