Bill English

On the surface Labour’s lowest ever result since 1928 is bad but manageable.

However if you look beyond the headline numbers and into the electorates you can see the terrible legacy Phil Goff has gifted the Labour party.

The recent result in Waitakere has only compounded the issue.

In a number of seats Labour have lost their local list MP for good. Take Rotorua, for instance, Todd McClay saw off Steve Chadwick for the second and last time. Labour’s poor showing in the party vote means Steve Chadwick is now handing in her gear and looking for a job. She won’t have an office and neither will labour in Rotorua for three years. In the local press they won;t have to go and seek comment on issues from the local Labour person because they simply don’t exist. For the next three years the only MP commenting on local issues in Rotorua will be Todd McClay.

Napier is the same. Stuart Nash ran a robust campaign and really pushed Chris Tremain. However Tremain prevailed and Labour’s poor party vote now sees Stuart Nash seeking a job as Chief of Staff in Wellington to David Shearer. He won’t be back. Labour loses a spokesperson in the Bay and an office and Chris Tremain will now enjoy unfettered press coverage for three years straight. His majority will bounce back like Craig Foss who enjoyed a similar holiday from a Labour list stalker. Julia Haydon-Carr faced an insurmountable challenge of overcoming the man with the gay ute, Craig Foss, who did not have Julia stalking him for three years like Nash stalked Tremain.

Paula Bennett has now seen off Carmel Sepuloni in Waitakere. Labour loses an office and a list MP who can dog her every move in Waitakere. Labour again through its poor party vote loses exposure, resources and personnel and cedes the argument to National in a key electorate.

In Christchurch Central, Nicky Wagner will likewise enjoy having no Labour list MP dogging her as Brendan Burns at number 29 on Labour’s list was left stranded high and dry. Nicky will now be able to cement her position as National’s voice in Christchurch, an island of blue in a sea of red. Labour loses their office and their voice which will have to be picked up and shared by others. Perhaps Clayton Cosgrove, after his defeat in Waimakiriri might establish a presence, but it will never be a full time one.

Sam Lotu Iiga in Maungakiekie also will enjoy not having Carol Beaumont stalk his every move. He will be hoping that no labour list MPs quit and that David Shearer will tell Beaumont that the face doesn’t fit but until then he too can enjoy an electorate without a Labour office ruining the view.

Losing those resources in key areas makes it very difficult to turn things around in 2014. Labour has less presence, less resources and they must spread thinly to ensure coverage. They don’t realise the significance yet of their decision to keep Goff at the helm so that he could do to Labour what Bill English did to national in 2002. Even the leaders office will suffer cutbacks due to the reduced vote. Some in the Goffice will be very nervous, not just because they were wedded to the disaster that was Phil Goff but because there simply isn’t enough cash now to retain them all.

This is the mess that Labour has inherited, but worse this is the mess they have charged a political novice with fixing. Does David Shearer have an Orewa speech in him? I don’t think so.

I see that the usual stooges and shills for Labour are already preparing the ground for David Shearer’s shellacking at Question Time by suggesting that it is not that important to perform well in the house. But if question time doesn’t matter – why did Labour make such a song and dance about it when Brash was the National Leader? This is one of many examples.

from Lianne Dalziel:

The bottom line is that Dr Brash does not like asking questions in Parliament, because he finds it demeaning. He thinks it is a bit beneath him to come to Parliament and ask questions. Here he was today in Parliament, large as life, and there was not one single question on the Order Paper from the Leader of the Opposition.

I think there is a reason for that, too. When he gets up to ask a question, he is not very good at it. Own goals are his particular forte.

They even lined up former Clark staffers to write opinion pieces in the Herald:

Dr Brash, it seemed, had everything on his side – a rallying cry over racial issues that resonated with voters, the promise of more barn-burning speeches to come, and a Government threatening to haemorrhage over the foreshore and seabed issue.

Yet in the most public face of our democracy, he was conspicuously absent.

In March, Parliament held 10 question times. During that month, and at the height of his post-Orewa prominence, Dr Brash contributed less to question time than Winston Peters, Peter Dunne, Rodney Hide or Jeanette Fitzsimmons.

He spoke less than his deputy, Gerry Brownlee, his predecessor, Bill English, or the person many pick as his successor, Simon Power.

March was a tumultuous time for the Government, but Dr Brash asked the Prime Minister only two primary questions and five supplementary questions. In total, she answered 75.

Further, since the Budget speech in May, Dr Brash has been responsible for only four of the 156 primary questions to be asked and a mere 14 of about 780 supplementary questions.

Nobody could accuse him of hogging the limelight, though some would wonder why he hasn’t.

Dr Brash’s “where’s Waldo” act is certainly not typical of other Opposition leaders in New Zealand – remember the commanding performances of Jim Bolger, David Lange and Mike Moore – or overseas.

…Dr Brash can reduce (though not eliminate) the risk of looking bad in next year’s leaders’ debates. Practice makes perfect, and he has a ready-made practice ground waiting for him in Wellington most Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays.

He may have to swallow some pride and take some hits from the Prime Minister, but that is the price of taking responsibility for his party’s fortunes, especially in the rough and tumble world of New Zealand’s increasingly presidential election campaigns.

If Don Brash doesn’t get used to the cut and thrust of Parliament’s question hour now, he runs a significant risk of consigning his party to three more years in opposition during the next election campaign.

And Peters used to rib Don Brash for his house performances describing him as ‘fearless’ and ‘the great debater’.

Back-story

A word political wankers and beltway felchers like to use to talk about someone’s past without actually talking about their past.

Usage: “David Shearer has a great back-story.”

The back-story Labour wants us to hear won’t include that he was number 63 on Labour’s list in 1999, he stood in Whangarei in 2002 and got spanked by Phil Heatley even though Bill English was “Goffing” National at the time, then he trotted off overseas scoring the big bucks, tax free, from the UN. The only Labour MP in parliament currently who has lost more than Shearer is Sue Moroney. Don’t forget that he had the third worst party vote result (-5.5%) in Auckland this election, only Jacinda Ardern and the nobody in Rodney were worse. Bet they miss out all that from his back-story.

But since we all have to look at Shearer’s backstory let’s, what about the back-story of the other Helengnomes Grant Robertson, Chris Hipkins and Jacinda Ardern. These people are all touted as future leaders and front bench contenders for next week.

Let’s hear about their backstories shall we?

Since Labour is wanting to fill in the back-story then let’s do it properly

The last weeks polls have shown what I have been saying all along. National will lose all its coalition partners in 2014 and will face a Labour/Green coalition that will be near impossible to break.

John Key has tentatively said he supports Supplementary Member and Vote for Change but the strategic genius’ behind National’s campaign can’t see the obvious. National need to go all out to get people to vote for change in the referendum this election or they will be ruined in the future.

With polls consistently above 50% it means they have the luxury of changing their message and sacrificing a few votes now for a system that isnt totally rigged agains them in the future. Phil Goff gifted them the opportunity to do this with his shameless promise to gerrymander MMP for the good of the Labour party.

There are times that I despair of National’s strategic stupidity. Bolger could have stopped MMP. Anyone with half a brain knew Bill English was tits and would lead National to its nadir. Now National’s inaction looks like embedding MMP.

When you are 27 points ahead in the polls it is easy to get complacent.

But there is always something to aim for and professionals look for small improvements in the pursuit of excellence.

With Labour polling at around 25% this is the list of sitting MPs and “stars” that won’t be going to caucus on November 29:

But there is still something to aim for for National. At 24% they lose Darien Fenton. Perhaps Peter Goodfellow could ring the Mad Butcher for a donation for some extra ads.

With a little more sustained effort and dropping Labour to 23% then Shane Jones disappears, at 22% Andrew Little and at 21% Jacinda Ardern.

If it rains on election day then Labour are looking set to beat Bill English which would be a shame because Phil Goff is nowhere as big a tool as Bill English is.

Yesterday I posted about why the Swallow Men has been put on indefinite hold. The replacement book that I am working on now is an in-depth political analysis of what Labour needs to do after the election to rebuild.

Readers are probably questioning why a long time National supporter would want to rebuild Labour. What may surprise readers is rebuilding Labour is a real passion, and their current state of uselessness causes me to lose sleep at night.

Blogging is a lot more fun when you have a worthy opponent, a formidable, competitive organisation that gives a blogger few opportunities to bash them. Labour in the last three years has been too weak to take seriously. Asymmetrical wars may be fun, but when they are against political pygmies they are too easy.

I wake up every morning knowing Labour will give me plenty “Nasty Party” posts, a few “Policy not Personality” posts, and many “Focussing on the things that matter” posts. They have made so many dumb mistakes I often feel like going straight back to bed hoping to wake up when they are competent again.

Blogging was a lot more fun when Clark, Cullen, Simpson and Williams were running Labour. I woke up wondering how I would put a hit on, because Labour were competent and didn’t make dumb mistakes. Giving Labour a helping hand to get them competent again means blogging will be come a lot more fun, because fighting a cripple is never as much fun as fighting an equal opponent will beat you if you aren’t at your best.

Rebuilding Labour lets me show my political knowledge is not just about how to bait Winston or Trevor, or how to define a party. Detailed, considered analysis doesn’t happen much on blogs where the drive for an instant post takes away from considered thought.

This is why I admire John Armstrong who writes infrequently but credibly, because he has considered his topic carefully. Hopefully there will remain a place for a writer like John in the blog driven future where frequency of posts brings more traffic and drowns out the occasional thoughtful opinion piece.

As a long time National supporter I have been through two disastrous National collapses, in the mid eighties and in the early years of this century. This will happen again to National. John Key’s popularity will fade, and the party could end up with the politically tone deaf like Bill English or Steven Joyce running the party.

It doesn’t take much imagination to realise that giving Steven a more prominent public position will mean more vote losing “Volunteers should take a deep breath” type statements. This kind of arrogant, off putting message, matched by English’s peerless ineptness means National runs the risk of falling back into hopelessness when Key’s time is up.

There are lessons from the current Labour Party that the current members of the National caucus will need to learn. Unfortunately if these lessons are not spoon feed to caucus they will fall into the same traps, and I don’t want this to happen because having an useless National Party makes politics as boring as having a hopeless Labour Party.

In the coming days I will blog on the contents of “Rebuilding Labour” and post a sample chapter.

I was emailed this post via the tipline, I know who sent it but they have requested their details withheld but they are someone in the industry that knows the ins and outs of housing policy.

Labour on the Earthquake Commission – via the tipline

Struggling homeowners – those middle income families who are walking a tightrope in order to manage household expenses – are on notice thanks to Labour’s policy for the Earthquake Commission (EQC).  The policy announced by Labour’s Clayton Cosgrove will mean significantly higher rate bills, particularly for those residential property owners in the outer suburban neighbourhoods of Auckland and Wellington who are already feeling the financial squeeze from the compounding cost of local government.

Labour’s policy is unequivocal:  universal insurance paid through local government rates, increasing EQC coverage (which means even higher rate bills to cover more generous insurance pay-outs), and the apportionment of liability based on the rateable value of property.

Let’s put things in perspective.  EQC was established in 1945 to provide earthquake and war damage cover for the purchasers of fire insurance.  The scheme was later amended to include other natural disasters, but excluded war damage.  New Zealand’s insurance policy holders have been paying premiums since Peter Fraser first conceived of the scheme, thus allowing for a contingency fund to accrue for the day it was needed.

Those days have arrived.  And the National Disaster Fund, the ultimate expression of political consensus has worked well.  Yes, EQC’s reserves have been depleted.  But New Zealand has performed remarkably well under unprecedented circumstances.  Canterbury is moving from a relief to a recovery phase, which is the forerunner to an enormous rebuild that will generate construction and jobs in New Zealand’s second largest city for generations to come.

It would be unfair to accuse the National Government of imprudent stewardship during this harrowing past 12 months.  EQC needs a boost, which is precisely the reason why Finance Minister Bill English announced in October that levies would rise.  Insured homeowners currently pay 5c per $100 of insurance cover, up to a maximum of $69 a year (including GST), as part of their insurance premiums. Under the proposed changes, homeowners will pay 15c per $100 of insurance cover, with an annual cap of $207 (including GST).

Which brings us back to Labour’s announcement.  Moving from an insurance scheme to a universal rating scheme proportionate to rateable values poses more questions than answers:

1. If Labour desires a universal rating scheme, will this therefore require non-residential property owners (the people who own the factories, the workshops, the office blocks and the retail shops that provide the jobs for hundreds of thousands of New Zealand workers) to pay higher rates in order to fund a scheme that only benefits residential property owners?
2. If non-residential property owners are be to liable for a National Disaster Fund, will those same ratepayers (who already pay a disproportionate amount of local government rates) benefit from that Fund?  If not, why not?
3. What is the rating system that Labour expects to apply?  Historically smaller rural councils rate on land.  Larger urban councils rate on capital.  Why has Labour not clarified its rating methodology?  Who are the ratepayers that will be hit hardest?  Why won’t Phil Goff tell us who will pay the most?

Rating property generates many moral dilemmas.  The widow who owns a family home in Bucklands Beach or the young family struggling to pay the mortgage for the 4-bedroom home in Whitby is assumed to have asset wealth because of the rateable value of their respective property.  Yet the value of the family home does not mean the widow is any better off, or that the young family is flush with disposable cash in order to afford year-on-year rate increases.

Labour’s policy is a recipe for shifting the burden of cost to those ratepayers in New Zealand who already pay the most, and who are poorly placed to deal with the compounding cost of local government.  Auckland Mayor Len Brown’s proposed Long Term Plan budget includes rate increases of up to 50 per cent for hardworking business owners in Pukekohe.  Why should those hardworking New Zealanders – people who have never benefitted from the National Insurance Fund in their lives – now be singled out to pay Labour’s new wealth tax?

Labour has made a calculated decision to impress the voters in New Brighton and Shirley with a funding scheme that will ultimately hit every New Zealand ratepayer in the pocket.  And Labour intends to shift the burden of responsibility to every city and provincial mayor in New Zealand to act as the tax collector.  There is nothing courageous about that.

In 1945 Peter Fraser displayed a sense of vision.  New Zealand today is better off for his foresight.  Phil Goff’s craven calculation is mean-spirited and steeped in envy by comparison.

Worse than a pinko, a filthy fifth columnist:

Finance Minister Bill English yesterday expressed empathy with some of the ideals of the Occupy Wall Street movement, but says New Zealand has already moved to stop some of the financial excesses driving the protests.

Speaking at Otago University Vote Chat, hosted by Bryce Edwards, Mr English said the Occupy Movement, particularly in New Zealand had a wide range of objectives including the end of capitalism.

Continuing on my series about Labour’s No Campaign Campaign. One small article in the NZ Herald yielded so much information about Labour that I have decided to split it up into several posts.

If you could map the actions of Bill English’s 2002 campaign against the 2011 Labour party campaign you will see the exact same follies and delusions. Multiple policy releases that are mostly tl;dr, poor caucus discipline, rogue candidates, and an invisible leader.

Labour have failed not only Campaigning 101 but also Sales 101. Brian Tracy says in his sales training courses that a salesman (politician) has two ears and one mouth, and you should use them in that ratio. Labour has yapped, and whined, and talked and they have not listened.

If they had listened they wouldn’t be releasing stupid policies like their Back to the Future labour policy, their gay marriage (shhhh don’t say gay marriage out loud) policy, and an Interfaith policy that is long on weasel words and short on meaning.

All Labour wants to do is talk and hector and lecture, using their mouths and ears in the exact opposite ratio to what is needed.

No wonder they have a No Campaign Campaign.

Labour continues to follow the 2002 Bill English playbook, releasing policy after policy to a deaf electorate. Today was their Agriculture policy.

One of the things Phil Goff said was:

Mr Goff said the New Zealand dollar was too high and too volatile and Labour would move quickly to change that.

Really? Is Labour now suggesting that the government led by him would intervene in the market and attempt to sell down our dollar? Is he really suggesting that?

If he is then it shows that Labour really will do just about anything to get attention, including gambling billions on money markets. This is pure recklessness and shows Labour can’t be trusted with the treasury benches.